Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Riham Farhani 1,2,*,
  • Yassin El Hillali 1 and
  • Abdelowahed Hajjaji 2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Robert Dylewski Reviewer 2: Sheeraz Iqbal Reviewer 3: Nikolay Hinov Reviewer 4: Aymen Flah

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is consistent with the subject of the journal. The topic is interesting. Unfortunately, it is very carelessly edited. The method requires clarification.

- Please use the "%" sign everywhere, not "percent". See line 16.

- When the first occurrence, use the abbreviation "electric vehicles (EV)". (see line 23)

- "TWh" not "Twh" (line 37)

- "vehicle-grid (V2G)" not "(V2G) vehicle-grid" (line 48)

- "roadside units (RSUs)" not "RSUs" (line 56)

- "In Section 1 2" and so on (line 66)

- "B. sSmart ..." (line 104)

- "Fig.1 :System Overview" directly below the figure 1. Similarly, the other figures.

- "– The number of charging stations, – The charging power of each station and its position." repetition (see lines 154, 158 and 160-161).

- "EV" not "VE" (line 164)

- "The assignment problem is a scientific analysis method where we can express the objective and the constraints by linear equations." (lines 141-142) Please make clear in this section the mathematical model in the form of a linear programming problem, in particular the form of the objective function.

For some objectives, the square function is better, see e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145195

- "Table 1: Notation" directly above the table and so on.

- "Kjam(i, j, t)," is not defined in Table 1.

- "the assignment algorithm calculates the Socf max(see eq (4))" ?  (lines 208-209)

- It is necessary to describe the Algorithm (lines 214-226) in more detail.

- The algorithm should contain the same markings as before.

- Figures 3, 4 and 5 are completely illegible.

- The figure on lines 305-36 is Fig. 9?

- There is no reference in the discussion or conclusions to other previous results related to the topic of the article.

Author Response

Dear Sir , 

Thank you for your pertinent remarks for the correction I put it directly in the manuscript below .

cordially 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir , 

Thank you for your pertinent remarks , 

  • The efficiency of the proposed method is quantified. There is no mention of the method’s efficiency anywhere in the manuscript: 

    In the part "B. Evaluation and performance" we have shown the performance of the used method by comparing the used method with the shortest path method.

  • Before the problem formulation, you must point out the hypothesis, conditions, and boundaries :                                                                      The propositions and hypotheses are specified in lines (157-166) (181-186)
  • Author should explain SUMO simulator strategy based on the traffic conditions :                                                                                                       In “The experiments” section we have detailed the steps performed in SUMO .For the other remarks I modified them directly on the manuscript below .Thank you 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents research related to improving the efficiency of use and load of charging stations for electric vehicles integrated with smart grids based on model-based optimization. In this aspect, the work is useful and has a great impact on the development of the charging infrastructure. The results of numerical simulations obtained using specialized software are presented. The manuscript is on a very topical subject and has great potential for development. My main observations and comments are as follows:

- it would be useful, in addition to the advantages in the conclusion section, for the authors to comment on the disadvantages of the proposed optimization method. In this way, a complete picture of its qualities, capabilities and application limitations will be obtained;

- as many symbols and abbreviations are used in the text, I recommend authors to add a list of used symbols at the beginning or end of the manuscript;

- I ask the authors to review the formatting of the manuscript and the quality of the figures (many of them are of poor quality and unreadable);

- a more detailed report on the status of the research problem should be made, containing more relevant literature sources, and also a comparison of the results with those obtained by using other optimization procedures;

- I recommend to describe in detail the simulation model presented in the manuscript, and also to make a deeper analysis of the obtained results.

Author Response

Dear Sir, 

Thank you for your pertinent remarks for the correction I put it directly in the manuscript below 
cordially 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

the paper is technically good and have presents an interesting contribution to the EV management for finding the optimal position of the charging station. this is interesting for readers, but it is not well explained and it seems to be needed a best presentation method.
-the proposed algorithm must be presented as a flowchart design
-the limits of this proposal must be defined and why not tested into this simulation tool.
-i dont know if the figure one needs to have the smart gird part? are authors talk about smart grid or a smart city? this is very different.
-equation 3 must be justified or at least proved by some references
-all other figures are not clear and seems hard to be followed
-i think that the journal template must be used and not this one
-the results discussion is not satisfied for me. it need to be improved.

Author Response

Dear sir , 

Thank you for your pertinent remarks :

  • I dont know if the figure one needs to have the smart gird part? are authors talk about smart grid or a smart city? this is very different/ Smart grids are part of smart cities : In our article since we are interested in the charging station we focused on smart grids.

For the other remarks I put directly the modifications on the manuscript .

Thank You 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Not all comments have been taken into account.

- "In Section 1 2" and so on (line 66)

- "the assignment algorithm calculates the Socf max(see eq (4))" ?  (lines 225-226)  equation (4) ? - It is necessary to describe the Algorithm in more detail.

 

In addition, there is still a need to tidy up with the numbering and quality of the figures.

Author Response

Dear sir ,

The requested modifications are put on the attached manuscript .

Kind regards,

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have seen that most of the suggestions I made in the first review have not been corrected, but the authors address a few concerns. I am giving you one more chance to properly address all the concerns and send it back. Comments file is attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

  • The efficiency of the proposed method is quantified. There is no mention of the method’s efficiency anywhere in the manuscript:

Response : In the part "B. Evaluation and performance" we have shown the performance of the used method by comparing the used method with the shortest path method.From this comparison, we can see the importance of our approach which allows to include the state of the road (Reference speed, distance, traffic flow, traffic density) in the final decision. It also integrates the V2I, V2V and V2G communication protocol using ITS-G5 technology, which facilitates obtaining information in real time (free hold, final load status, etc.).

  • Before the problem formulation, you must point out the hypothesis, conditions, and boundaries.

Response : The propositions and hypotheses are specified in lines (157-166) (181-186) .

  • The authors should critically and quantitatively compare the proposed technique with other

reported techniques in this area.

Response : In this article, we have compared our method with the shortest path method, we will try in the next works to take into account your remark.

  • Please provide the flowchart based on which this study was conducted (The flowchart should contain all the steps that were followed to complete this work step by step).

Response : in the manuscript

  • Author should explain SUMO simulator strategy based on the traffic conditions.

Response : The steps performed by SUMO have been explained in the experience section IV (EXPERIMENTS)

  • Do a sensitivity analysis to determine typhoons on mooring loads and remaining cage volume

Response : We are stopped to do it in our next work

  • Has the model proposed in the article been verified with real data?

Response : Not yet we are in the stage of installing the program to test it on our track at the university.

  • The presentation quality of figures 1, 2, 3,4,5 and 7 needs to be improved

Response : We have put the figures in the Appendices (last part of the manuscript) .

Reviewer 4 Report

I can see that authors have adresses to my comments. 
so this is acceptable 

Author Response

Dear Sir ,

The suggested modifications are put in the manuscript .

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

In the current version, "Introduction" has disappeared. Instead, there is an Introduction writing guide.

Author Response

 Thank you for carefully reviewing the manuscript and for reporting this error. We carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected this error.

Reviewer 2 Report

wevj-2007211-Comments

 

I have once again seen that most of the suggestions I made in the first and second reviews have not been responded to, but the authors give a short reply. I cannot understand any response which are provided by the authors. I am sending you a sample of authors response report. I hope next time you will prepare a proper review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Wevj-2007211 -Comments

The manuscript “The manuscript “ Assignment Approach For Electric Vehicles Charging Using Traffic Data Collected By SUMO” is very interesting.” is very interesting. The authors address all the concerns regarding this manuscript one by one. 

 

There is no doubt that the authors have made an effort in improving their manuscript. The authors have adequately revised the manuscript upon my comments. This paper may be accepted for publication in the world Electric vehicle Journal.