Thermal Resistance Matrix Extraction from Finite-Element Analysis for High-Frequency Magnetic Components
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very well written paper on Thermal Resistance Matrix Extraction from FEAs for High-Frequency Magnetic Components and the results solidly support the claims made by the authors. Very well done. A few minor edits are warranted to complete your excellent submission.
There are a few minor errors in the document such as in Table 5, column B for the Core, I would guess this is supposed to be 1.721 and not 1,721. Units are also missing in several places within the document and tables so please check for accuracy. Make the a) and b) figure identifications in Figure 6 to be the same font size as your document.
What is the resolution of the thermal couples, thermal imaging camera, etc. of your experimental setup and test as this will aid in determining the accuracy of your models/comparisons as well as the level of deviation from FEA. Also aids in repeatability of your experiment if desired.
What impacts would the thermocouples have if they were slightly shifted up or down in the coils, would your results still be valid? The reason i ask this is you mentioned that this model you developed will accommodate many variations of the design space, how precisely do these thermocouples need to be placed before your model falls apart? Maybe explain a little more on the validity of your model and what are the true limitations if any.
What values did you use for the ANSYS model? Were these values from ANSYS provided in look-up tables or were these based off literature review or experimentally determined. As we all know, models are only as good as the material parameters we use within the simulations.
Would be nice to see a thermal image from the FEA of your device to aid in your selection of where to optimally place the thermocouples in your windings for maximum resolution. I would assume the middle is best but it would be nice to see a temperature image to verify this, especially when other device designs are considered.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please, find attached our answers to your comments.
Thank you very much for your effort.
The Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presentation is not well written and the methodology is not very clearly described. There are also problems with the English language.
More importantly, the validity of the procedure is dubious, and in general questionable.
It seems much more convenient to adopt a standard procedure used for boundary condition independent models such as e.g. [1]. In this way the nonlinearities on the boundary are removed, and a thermal resistance matrix can be determined for a linear heat conduction problem.
This manuscript is not proper for publication if all these questions are not properly answered.
[1] M.N. Sabry, "Compact Thermal Models for Electronic Systems," IEEE Trans. Comp. Pack. Tech., Vol. 26, No. 1, 179-185, 2003.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please, find attached our answers to your comments.
Thank you very much for your effort.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled: “Thermal Resistance Matrix Extraction from Finite-Element Analysis for High-Frequency Magnetic Components” proposes thermal resistance matrices for modelling power electronics magnetic components thermal management. It is well written and developed.
Authors tend to group their bibliography. It is expected that they present their citations separately to each other and compare them with their work.
Equations and figures are usually not printed at the introduction.
Subsections of section “2. Proposed model” are unnecessary short and therefore they can be merged.
The flow diagram should be corrected and expanded to improve clarity for the readers. A pseudocode can be also added.
Linearization process is not clear to the reviewer. Could you please elaborate?
Experimental results show good consistency.
Conclusions are supported by the analysis.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please, find attached our answers to your comments.
Thank you very much for your effort.
The Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is now better intelligible, and deserves to be published.
