Power Supply Platform and Functional Safety Concept Proposals for a Powertrain Transmission Electronic Control Unit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper puts forward a novel functional safety concept which is demonstrated in a real safety critical system. The paper is interesting, particular the safety concept. But there are some suggestions.

• The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate how to apply the functional safety concept to a real safety-critical system. But I do not found the physical experiment.
• The paper has no reliability verification for the proposed method.
• The language should be more formal. In paragraph 5 page 10, ‘If things go wrong, how wrong can they go?’, questions need to be avoided in this paper. And the range maybe [4.85V – 5.15V], not [4.85V ÷15V].

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madame,

Please find below our responses to your comments in blue.

We hope that we have addressed all yours remarks which helped us to improve our work and for that we would like to thank you.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper puts forward a novel functional safety concept which is demonstrated in a real safety critical system. The paper is interesting, particular the safety concept. But there are some suggestions.

• The main contribution of this paper is to demonstrate how to apply the functional safety concept to a real safety-critical system. But I do not found the physical. Yes, there are 2 main contributions to this paper. One is related to a proposed procedure for supply design for safety-relevant applications as can be seen in the Xmind structure shown in Figure 4 from Section 3 (Design flow proposal). Another contribution for the paper is related to the proposed SWOP concept (switch off path concept). To come with the final solution, 4 redundant ways to achieve safety reactions, we considered the worst-case levels of SBC detection. Worst case levels were evaluated within Mathcad tool and we observed that the range of uC is not such permissive as expected. Therefore, a supervisor circuit was In addition, the internal power management from uC is activated via fail safe pin and an additional input-output pin is also taken into consideration. All these 4 redundant ways (FS0B from SBC, UV_OV from voltage supervisor, FSP from uC and GPIO from uC) were considered. For the proposed SWOP circuit, a simulation was performed in OrCAD PSpice tool. After all the proofs with WCC and simulation, the design was started for the schematic and layout (In Zuken design tool). The result was the TCU board. On the PCB we performed test cases to see that we have the safety activation reaction comparable with the simulation. The measurements were performed locally with the digital multimeter with stable. We plan work to see what it happens if transient faults are considered and injected into the lines.
• The paper has no reliability verification for the proposed method. Not yet, this will be further investigated during DV_PV validation tests (design and product validation into reliability qualification laboratory). The purpose of this manuscript is to deliver the procedure/guidance for a safety design and to propose a safety SWOP concept validated into simulation and hardware test-bench tests.
• The language should be more formal. In paragraph 5 page 10, ‘If things go wrong, how wrong can they go?’, questions need to be avoided in this paper. And the range maybe [4.85V – 5.15V], not [4.85V ÷15V]. -> Ok. The question was rephrased. For the range it was a typo mistake, therefore [4.85V – 5.15V] is the correct range considered.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please specify every parameters used in equations. For example, in equation 1, specification of ILmin , Lbuck _ min are missing. Please try to be more specific while you are introducing any new parameters for all equations.
2. If possible please add the arrangements of the entire manuscript in the Introduction.
3. If possible please add some details on the captions of the figures to make them more self-explanatory.
4. It is recommended to revise the entire manuscript for correcting language patterns and grammatical errors. For example, the very first line in the Introduction needs correction.
5. The quality of some of the figures need to be enhanced. For example, Figure 7, 9.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madame,

Please find below our responses to your comments in blue.

We hope that we have addressed all yours remarks which helped us to improve our work and for that we would like to thank you.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please specify every parameters used in equations. For example, in equation 1, specification of ILmin , Lbuck _ min are missing. Please try to be more specific while you are introducing any new parameters for all equations.- The missing explanation for the parameters was introduced in the manuscript. Now each formula parameters have a correspondent name.
2. 
   If possible please add the arrangements of the entire manuscript in the Introduction.-> An additional paragraph with manuscript structure was considered into Introduction. Links for section were inserted.
3. 
   If possible please add some details on the captions of the figures to make them more self-explanatory. -> Additional details considered in the captions of the figures.
4. 
   It is recommended to revise the entire manuscript for correcting language patterns and grammatical errors. For example, the very first line in the Introduction needs correction. -> The manuscript was revised for grammar, spelling and punctuation.
5. 
   The quality of some of the figures need to be enhanced. For example, Figure 7, 9.-> Figures were uploaded again for a better-quality resolution.

Reviewer 3 Report

The response to reviewers has not been provided.  The novelty of the concept is disputable. The authors couldn't show any significant contribution, rather a naive , engineering approach to solve some basic problem of safety design. This approach is valid not only for automotive design but for all safety-critical applications. The research was done of standard evaluation board of the manufacturer. In overall the novelty and added values is marginal.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has modified the article according to the requirements and met the receiving requirements.