Evaluation of Geomagnetic Induced Current on 275 kV Power Transformer for a Reliable and Sustainable Power System Operation in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provided very interesting and meaningful work, but the reviewer had some questions:

• The related work must be included in the paper.
• The main advantages and disadvantages of present study must be added.
• The objectives need to be more clearly defined.
• The results obtained are not compared with other papers done. And the results should be discussed more extensively.
• The conclusions should include the results obtained in the tests.
• In the conclusions there is no comparison of the results with other works, what was the difference? In what is better? What is the contribution of this work?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents a simulation and analysis of geomagnetic induced current on 275 kV power transformers for sustainable and reliable power system operation in Malaysia. The research aims to investigate the impacts of Geomagnetic Induced Current (GIC) on a selected 275 kV sub-power system network in Malaysian Peninsular. Moreover, a neutral earthing resistor is used to reduce the magnitude of GIC flow in the power transformer where it is found that for the selected 275 kV Malaysian sub-power system network, the power transformer can only withstand a maximum GIC value of 7 Ampere only, if prolong, may lead the system to voltage instability. It has been concluded that when GIC exists in the power system, the power transformer will undergo half-cycle saturation and may lead to reactive power loss and power system voltage instability. The research topic presented in the article is interesting and timely  however the manuscript is lacking in some aspects. The following suggestion may be used to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript. 

• In the introduction section, the literature review is limited and not presenting the critical aspects of the  existing research on GIC. More relevant literature should be used and the shortcomings of the existing work are presented in a very general way which should be specific. 
• The Sections 2-5 suppose to discuss and present the new contributions if any.
• The contributions of the authors are not clear. It seems like an implementation guide. 
• It is suggested to clearly mention the specific contributions made by the authors. Separate sections can be created for the proposed contributions and models.
• The quality of figures is very poor, the text is small and blur thus quality should be improved. Moreover, an uniform figure quality and text should be used throughout the manuscript, the text of some figures is not readable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved, but some aspects need to be changed:

• Some figures need to be improved
• The results obtained are not compared with other papers done. And the results should be discussed more extensively.
• The conclusions should include the results obtained in the tests.
• In the conclusions there is no comparison of the results with other works, what was the difference? In what is better? What is the contribution of this work?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revision, however, the quality of the figures is still very poor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

• In the conclusions there is no comparison of the results with other works, what was the difference? In what is better? What is the contribution of this work?
• It should include the work related to the GIC, showing the contributions achieved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.