The Challenges of Low Voltage Distribution System State Estimation—An Application Oriented Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper provides a comprehensive literature overview on DSSE. The authors have done a great review job.
Main comments:
The paper is well structured, I missed however a section with the key conclusions and recommendations from all the reviewed papers. Some of these findings are mentioned in the conclusion, but they would deserve an own section since this is the most important part of the paper.
Additional comments:
- Table 1: does “short circuit power estimation” really belong to the category “coordinated control”??
- Table 2: the last two columns do not really provide any added value. Please replace by a short statement below.
- Line 224-228: I would have expected more details about the combine use of micro PMUs and smart meters.
- Section 3.1.3 Pseudo data generation techniques: I would kindly ask the authors to expand this section, since this is a very important aspect (actually as explained in the conclusions).
- The potential benefits or probabilistic methods for pseudo data generation is not covered here. Did none of the the papers analyzed cover this?
- Lines 360-363: In general, I would recommend to include papers related to unbalance or phase detection in this study, since this plays an important role for DSSE…
- Conclusions and outlook: as mentioned before, I would recommend to gather all the major findings and recommendations in an own section. Moreover, I miss the outlook.
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
thank you very much for your effort on suggesting how to improve our paper. Please find our remarks on the comments below:
- Table 1: does “short circuit power estimation” really belong to the category “coordinated control”??
Thank you for the remark, the table is reorganized and this point is moved beside the faul localization applications.
- Table 2: the last two columns do not really provide any added value. Please replace by a short statement below.
The table is restructured as suggested, the explanation have been added to line 213-220.
- Line 224-228: I would have expected more details about the combine use of micro PMUs and smart meters.
Further discussion was added within line 241-261.
- Section 3.1.3 Pseudo data generation techniques: I would kindly ask the authors to expand this section, since this is a very important aspect (actually as explained in the conclusions).
- The potential benefits or probabilistic methods for pseudo data generation is not covered here. Did none of the the papers analyzed cover this?
Yes, papers using probabilistic pseudo data generation were referred to in the ~270th line (citation [48][49]). The notion "statistical dependencies" was replaced by "probability distributions" for clarification.
There is a significant overlap in the sets of the reviewed paper categories. We aimed to cite all the papers according to the research field, in which the most significant results were introduced.
As long as most of the reviewed papers use pseudo generation but a few focus on the development of new approaches. Therefore, after the introduction of the most common algorithms we discussed the new pseudo data generation techniques in Section 3.1.3.
We recognized the importance of data reliability and split the topic to pseudo data generation techniques and bad data detection (Section 3.1.2, 3.1.3). In spite of the few pseudo data generation studies the importance of the field was emphasized in the conclusion part of the paper and therefore the conclusion part was revised too.
- Lines 360-363: In general, I would recommend to include papers related to unbalance or phase detection in this study, since this plays an important role for DSSE…
References was added to this topic.
- Conclusions and outlook: as mentioned before, I would recommend to gather all the major findings and recommendations in an own section. Moreover, I miss the outlook.
The conclusion part is restructured to point out the key conclusions from the sections.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
It is obvious that the changes that power systems are going through affect, to a large extent, the distribution networks and the final consumers. These changes will become more pronounced as policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions become more and more present. The work proposed for publication comes to bring a plus in this direction.
The structure of the paper includes 5 chapters. The first, an introductory one, makes, in fact, a brief review of the concerns and indicates the subsequent progress of the work.
The second chapter, entitled Literature review of DSSE use-cases, presents the SE solutions at both industrial and academic level as well as a classification of the possible uses of DSSE.
The third chapter, entitled Process-oriented review of DSSE, is in turn divided into several subchapters, as follows: Observability criteria, Grid models in DSSE, practical limitations of model topologies and Application constraints of the algorithms. Each deals, in turn, with aspects related to classification of meter placement techniques, bad data detection, pseudo data generation techniques, with reference to the extensive literature consulted by the authors.
The fourth chapter makes an evaluation of the pilot projects, summarizing, in tabular form, their main attributes.
The last chapter is the one reserved for conclusions and outlook, showing the following: Over 20 different use cases showed that the potential values are widely identified in consideration of the DSSE. However, there is a large gap between theoretical research and constraints coming from the grid: the level of observability is the key issue, the placement objectives of several meters do not necessarily lead to different placement models, the analyzed pilot projects showed great potential in exploiting the values, even in the case of low level and / or bad data quality, DSSE seems to be a valuable tool in the expansion of LV SCADA for DSOs, as the active elements become more frequent, thus increasing the complexity and number possible states of the system.
The paper is carefully written, has a high scientific character and meets all the requirements to be published.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
thank you very much for the encouraging words.
Best regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments on “The Challenges of Low Voltage Distribution System State Estimation – an Application Oriented Review”
Dear Authors,
The paper must be significantly improved. Please consider the following remarks:
(1) Table 1. Please improve. In existing form is difficult to understand. Please add the source.
(2) Keywords. Please expand list / please improve - Authors should make better use of this section to allow the article to be found on search engines.
(3) Please add the List of Nomenclature/abbreviation. It should be given at the end of the aticle (before References, see Energies journal template). Please use alphabetical order.
(4) Line 32. Please improve the way of calling references. Please start with the name of author. The same approach I suggest applying also in the rest of the manuscript.
(5) Line 117. Please improve the way of calling references. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] -> [10 – 15]
The same approach I suggest applying also in the rest of the manuscript.
(6) Line 117, 283-284. Please avoid using lumped references. The references must be cited one by one showing what is new in the present publication with respect to the cited reference.
(7) Line 291-293. Why the sentence “(Most power quality performance indicators have to be evaluated using 10-minute averages, according to EN 50160, while the typical electricity settlement period is 15 minutes long.)“ is in the bracket?
(8) Line 355. What does “h does” mean?
(9) There are only 2 references from 2020 and 2021.
(10) Reference part. Please improve in line with Energies journal template
Author Response
Dear Respected Reviewer,
thank you very much for effort to suggest areas where our paper could be improved. Please find our remarks on the comments below.
(1) Table 1. Please improve. In existing form is difficult to understand. Please add the source.
This table is a summary of this section to classify the different applications, therefore it is created by the authors. Clarification sentences were added to line 133 and the following paragraph. The references for applications are present before the table in the section.
(2) Keywords. Please expand list / please improve - Authors should make better use of this section to allow the article to be found on search engines.
Thank you very much for the suggestion, we added further keywords.
(3) Please add the List of Nomenclature/abbreviation. It should be given at the end of the aticle (before References, see Energies journal template). Please use alphabetical order.
The abbreviation part is present now as suggested.
(4) Line 32. Please improve the way of calling references. Please start with the name of author. The same approach I suggest applying also in the rest of the manuscript.
The suggested approach was applied during the corrections.
(5) Line 117. Please improve the way of calling references. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] -> [10 – 15]
The same approach I suggest applying also in the rest of the manuscript.
The suggested approach was applied during the corrections.
(6) Line 117, 283-284. Please avoid using lumped references. The references must be cited one by one showing what is new in the present publication with respect to the cited reference.
The suggested approach was applied during the corrections and the contributions were highlighted. However at the algorithm comparison part (3.3) the reference calling only shows examples of different solutions therefore these are not discussed further.
(7) Line 291-293. Why the sentence “(Most power quality performance indicators have to be evaluated using 10-minute averages, according to EN 50160, while the typical electricity settlement period is 15 minutes long.)“ is in the bracket?
Thank you for pointing out, it was left in the bracket by mistake.
(8) Line 355. What does “h does” mean?
Thank you for pointing out, it was a typo.
(9) There are only 2 references from 2020 and 2021.
The majority of this research was conducted in 2020. The sentence in the beginning was corrected accordingly.
(10) Reference part. Please improve in line with Energies journal template
The references were improved in line with the journal template.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept.
Reference part is not in line with Energies journal template.
