A Comparison of Double-End Partial Discharge Localization Algorithms in Power Cables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper is devoted to the problem of determining partial discharge in a power transmission line. The authors propose a new algorithm for determining the location of the discharge in a cable using two sensors, mounted at the cable. The paper also presents the results of numerical simulation of the working of the proposed algorithm. The paper describes in detail the proposed algorithm, as well as two other algorithms, which are compared with the new algorithm. The results presented in the article are new and interesting. The cited literature is appropriative. The authors do not abuse self-citation.

The paper raised several significant questions.

1. In section 3.1 authors should present the model of partial discharge signal and its propagation along the line.

2. In sections 3.2-3.4, authors should describe, how the parameters of the algorithms are chosen, for example, thresholds, the number of signals used for analysis, quantiles, etc.

3. Section 4 shuld contain a description of the signals used to test the algorithms.

4. Also, the author should check the equations, for example, expressions 2 and 3.

An article may be published after including the additional information mentioned above.

The authors could expand the paper by issues that would most likely be of interest to readers. This is the probability of the algorithm falsely detecting and missing the discharges.

Author Response

A Comparison of Double-End PD Location Algorithms in Power Cable PD Localization
Updated to "A comparison of Double-End Partial Discharge Localization Algorithms in Power Cable"
1.	In section 3.1 authors should present the model of partial discharge signal and its propagation along the line.	Model of PD signal and the propagation velocity of PD Signal are included in section 3.1  (Line 101 - 114)
2.	In sections 3.2-3.4, authors should describe, how the parameters of the algorithms are chosen, for example, thresholds, the number of signals used for analysis, quantiles, etc.	Thresholds values cannot be less than 3mV as explained in section 3.2.  (Line 141 - 142) The number of signals and quantiles are explained in section 3.4. (Line 228 - 233, 238 - 244)
3.	Section 4 should contain a description of the signals used to test the algorithms.	Figure 8 (PD signals added with 4 dB SNR, -10 dB SNR, and -18 dB SNR respectively) Figure 9 (DWT de-noised PD signals with 4 dB SNR, -10 dB SNR, and -18 dB SNR respectively) are added to Section 4.  (Line 265 - 268)
4.	Also, the author should check the equations, for example, expressions 2 and 3.	Expressions 2 and 3 are updated accordingly. (Figure 1, Line 98-99)
5.	The authors could expand the paper by issues that would most likely be of interest to readers. This is the probability of the algorithm falsely detecting and missing the discharges	False detection is explained in Section 3.4 and shown in Table 3, it will be listed in the first 50 PD and last 50 PD sample locations. (Line 233- 234)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Content

----------

The goal of this paper is to propose a new multi-end PD location algorithm known as segmented cross-trimmed mean (SCTM) has recently demonstrated excellent accuracy in the localization of PD sources on power cables.The suggested method is only applicable to multi-end PD measurement methods. Moreover, the proposed method the mathematical equation of the SCTM algorithm is customized to match the double-end PD measurement method. The MATLAB simulation was conducted to assess the performance of the SCTM algorithm in the double-end PD measurement method. The maximum peak detection (MPD) algorithm, segmented cross-correlation (SC), 28 and SCTM algorithm were compared as PD location algorithms. Finally, the results show that the SCTM 31 algorithm outperforms the MPD and SCTM algorithms in terms of accuracy.

 

 

Major comments

--------------

 

1.  Unmarked abbreviation

 

Title and Line 19:   Abstract: Double-end PD measurement 

 

What is PD ?

 

All the abbreviation should be marked at first place.

 

 

2.  Table 1. PD detection and localization techniques.

 

Allows for the calculation of the apparent charge which is measured in pC associated with PD.

 

What is pC ?

 

3. The quality of the figures is low

 

Please follow the format requirment of this journal.

 

4. Conclusions

 

No future work in this section.

 

 

 

 

Evaluation

--------------

 

Given the above, I'm in a position to major revision.

 

 

Author Response

A Comparison of Double-End PD Location Algorithms in Power Cable PD Localization
Updated to "A comparison of Double-End Partial Discharge Localization Algorithms in Power Cable"
1.	Unmarked abbreviation Title and Line 19:   Abstract: Double-end PD measurement  What is PD ? All the abbreviation should be marked at first place.	"Partial Discharge (PD)" is updated. (Line 13)
2.	Table 1. PD detection and localization techniques. Allows for the calculation of the apparent charge which is measured in pC associated with PD. What is pC ?	"pico coulombs (pC)" is updated (Table 1)
3.	The quality of the figures is low Please follow the format requirement of this journal.	Figures are updated according to format journal.
4.	Conclusions No future work in this section.	Future work has been added to the conclusion. (Line 373 - 377)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper 2 176 103

1.        Brief summary of the paper:

The paper describes the problem of partial discharge (PD) measurements in power cable lines. The authors described brief information on the problem. The description of various PD location techniques is also included. The authors compared three different algorithms for PD location – MPD, SC and SCTM. They propose modified mathematical approach to algorithm connected with double-end PD measurements.     

 

2.        Strong and weak points:

The paper in literature review contains the theoretical description of the problem. The obtained results are clearly described and given in graphs, formulas, algorithms and tables. I cannot see the weak points of the paper.

 

3. Some minor/major recommendations/remarks should be taken into consideration for paper improvement, namely:

1. Paper is well organized and prepared almost in accordance with mdpi magazines template.
2. Line 20 – is “…on power cables” – shouldn’t be “…in power cables”?     
3. Line 28 – the abbreviation SC is described as “segmented cross-correlation”, but in line 125 and consecutive lines is as “segmented correlation”. Which one is correct?
4. Line 43 – is “…medium voltage…” – PD’s are investigated not only in MV but also in High Voltage (HV) and Extra High Voltage (EHV) equipment.   
5. Line 45 and Table 1 – partial discharges may also occur as visual/visible – like corona discharges that may be observed visually.
6. Table 1 – is “[9], [11-15]” – shouldn’t be “[9, 11-15]”. This same below with “[14, 16-22]”.
7. Line 65 – why there is sub-clause 2.1 if there are not consecutive clauses 2.2, 2.3 etc?
8. Line 75 – there should be dash (–) instead of equal sign (=) in explanation of symbols used in equation (1). Please correct this same in the whole text!
9. Line 75 – is “…pulse” – shouldn’t be “…pulses”?
10. Line 82 and others – “TDOA” should be written as “TDoA” – as it is in line 53.
11. Line 92 – is “…Equation (3) … (4)” – should be (2) and (3).
12. Line 135 – is “…DE-noised” – should be “…de-noised”.
13. Line 149 – is the sentence “According to…” grammatically correct? 
14. Line 194 – is the sentence “The mathematical…” grammatically correct?
15. Line 199 – is “…will be undergo…” – is this correct?
16. Line 241 – is “…de-nosing…” – should be “…de-noising..”.
17. Line 311 – the number of the Figure should be “8” NOT “9”!!!!. Please correct the numbering of figures also in the text of papers (e.g. lines 293, 295 etc.)!
18. Line 336 – please correct the word “Universiti” to “University”.
19. References – please correct the references according to mdpi template demands – position 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27

Author Response

A Comparison of Double-End PD Location Algorithms in Power Cable PD Localization
Updated to "A comparison of Double-End Partial Discharge Localization Algorithms in Power Cable"
1.	Line 20 – is “…on power cables” – shouldn’t be “…in power cables”?	It's updated (Line 14)
2.	Line 28 – the abbreviation SC is described as “segmented cross-correlation”, but in line 125 and consecutive lines is as “segmented correlation”. Which one is correct?	The term "segmented cross-correlation" has been replaced with "segmented correlation" in all cases. (Line 22-23 and others)
3.	Line 43 – is “…medium voltage…” – PD’s are investigated not only in MV but also in High Voltage (HV) and Extra High Voltage (EHV) equipment.	This is replied in introduction. (Line 37 - 39)
4.	Line 45 and Table 1 – partial discharges may also occur as visual/visible – like corona discharges that may be observed visually.	Localization techniques ultrasonics and ultraviolet are added to Table 1.
5.	Table 1 – is “[9], [11-15]” – shouldn’t be “[9, 11-15]”. This same below with “[14, 16-22]”.	The format of citations are updated accordingly in Table 1
6.	Line 65 – why there is sub-clause 2.1 if there are not consecutive clauses 2.2, 2.3 etc?	Sub clause 2.1 - Single-end PD measurement, 2.2- Double -end PD measurement, 2.3 - Multi-end PD measurement are added. (Line 62 - 99)
7.	Line 75 – there should be dash (–) instead of equal sign (=) in explanation of symbols used in equation (1). Please correct this same in the whole text!	In all explanations of equation symbols, the equal sign (=) is replaced with a dash (-). (Line 73 and others)
8.	Line 75 – is “…pulse” – shouldn’t be “…pulses”?	It's updated (Line 72)
9.	Line 82 and others – “TDOA” should be written as “TDoA” – as it is in line 53.	The terms "TDOA" are replaced with "TDoA" (Table 1, Line 91 and others)
10.	Line 92 – is “…Equation (3) … (4)” – should be (2) and (3).	Equation (3) & Equation (4) are updated accordingly. (Line 99)
11.	Line 135 – is “…DE-noised” – should be “…de-noised”.	"DE-noised" is updated with "de-noised". (Line 162)
12.	Line 149 – is the sentence “According to…” grammatically correct?	"According to" is updated to "By using" (Line 175)
13.	Line 194 – is the sentence “The mathematical…” grammatically correct?	"The mathematical equation" should be left alone. (Line 227)
14.	Line 199 – is “…will be undergo…” – is this correct?	The sentence "Then, the post-process 100 estimated PD location samples that within the IQR will be undergo the clustering process." is rephrased to "The clustering process will then be applied to 100 estimated PD location samples that fall within the IQR, as shown by the 100 unshaded estimated PD locations in Table 3. " (Line 238 - 239)
15.	Line 241 – is “…de-nosing…” – should be “…de-noising..”.	"de-nosing" is updated to "de-nosing". (Line 291)
16.	Line 311 – the number of the Figure should be “8” NOT “9”!!!!. Please correct the numbering of figures also in the text of papers (e.g. lines 293, 295 etc.)!	All figures, as well as the manuscript's text, have been updated. (Line 357)
17.	Line 336 – please correct the word “Universiti” to “University”.	Universiti Malaysia Sabah is a proper noun, should be left alone. (Line 379)
18.	References – please correct the references according to mdpi template demands – position 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, 27	Reference lists are prepared by using Zotero software.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper may be published in the present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Table 1. PD detection and localization techniques.

Allows for calculating the apparent charge measured in picocoulomb (pC) associated with PD.

picocoulomb (pC) ？ Please be careful for the uppercase.

2. Figure 4. Process flow of MPD algorithm.Figure 5. Process flow of SC algorithm. Figure 6. Process flow of SCTM algorithm 

It will be better if there is pseudo code.