Multi-Objective Energy Optimal Scheduling of Multiple Pulsed Loads in Isolated Power Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Authors need to improve the language (English) of work before publishing. The quality of figures is very poor and, therefore, this must be improved before publishing. On the other hand, the introduction is also very poor. Authors must analyze some papers of journal (sustainability) to check the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The article is an interesting read, however, I do have the following observations.

1. What are [1], [2], [3], [16-20] in the superscripts at lines 38, 47, 57, 154?

2. It seems that this sentence in line 42 needs revision "Further, the energy storage device discharges the pulsed load".

3. In line 80, a sentence starts directly with a reference [13] which is unusual practice.

4. Two different sentences given in lines 95-98 should be a single sentence in order to clarify the purpose.

5. In line 25, it has been mentioned that an Isolated power system would be referred to as IPS however, the acronym appears 

 

repeatedly in the text instead of its abbreviation. For example, in line 106. 

6. Supercapacitor or super capacitor? Please stick to one spelling. Refer to line 130.

7. Figures 1 and 2 are snapshots that are highly unprofessional. Please include good quality self-made graphs with proper referencing.

8. I would suggest to please include the details of all the variables instead of writing the following in line 226. "The rest meaning of the variables is the same as mentioned in [16]."

9. The constraints should be properly defined and explained after the objective function. A systematic representation of the optimization problem is not given here. A proper problem formulation should be provided for the studied optimization problem. The following articles may be referred to:

"Shahzad, M., Akram, W., Arif, M., Khan, U. and Ullah, B., 2021. Optimal siting and sizing of distributed generators by strawberry plant propagation algorithm. Energies, 14(6), p.1744."

"Shahzad, M., Shafiullah, Q., Akram, W., Arif, M. and Ullah, B., 2021. Reactive power support in radial distribution network using mine blast algorithm. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 27(4), pp.33-40."

10. Algorithm given in Figure 3 is blurred. It does not contain detailed information about all the steps. Moreover, the block "check the feasibility and update the best position q and g if feasible" has to make a decision, but there is no output referring to the "if not feasible" scenario. Therefore, this flowchart seems incorrect, or at least, incomplete. The following article can be referred to for a better understanding of the flowchart.

"Shahzad, M., Qadir, A., Ullah, N., Mahmood, Z., Saad, N.M. and Ali, S.S.A., 2022. Optimization of On-Grid Hybrid Renewable Energy System: A Case Study on Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Sustainability, 14(10), p.5757."

11. Referring to lines 262 and 271, there are, perhaps, no constraints given in section 2.2. This section only contains a table without any explanation.

12. Despite the fact that the PSO is a mature and well-studied technique, it is common practice to refer to the details and pros and cons of the method in the article. You can, for example, refer to the following article (section 3.2) in order take an idea about the fact. 

"Bilal, M., Shahzad, M., Arif, M., Ullah, B., Hisham, S.B. and Ali, S.S.A., 2021. Annual Cost and Loss Minimization in a Radial Distribution Network by Capacitor Allocation Using PSO. Applied Sciences, 11(24), p.11840."

13. It is suggested to please include the detailed set of steps (or algorithm) of your method. Above mentioned articles can be referred to for better understanding.

14. All the graphs are of poor quality. They are blurred and missing important information in some cases. Please use different line styles to distinguish among the various trends shown. 

15. The conclusion should be rewritten incorporating the quantitative improvements and contributions of your work.

Thanks

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper proposes a multi-objective energy scheduling algorithm. In general, the paper is interesting, even though several clarifications should be added.

 

All the following indicated aspects should be clarified and better explained in the manuscript.

 

Introduction

1.        The authors should better highlight the innovative aspects of their work in the manuscript.

 

System model

2.        All the used variable in all the formula and figures should report the unit.

3.        The description of the proposed methodology could be improved. First, it could be better to insert at the beginning of Section 2 an outline about the system model and the methodology flow  diagram; the use of UML or SysML could help authors describing the proposed system view in a more structured fashion.

4.        As for the applicability of the proposed method, could the proposed multi-objective method take  define the optimal strategy of battery utilization into account?  The current trend of several recent scientific studies related to energy scheduling and management (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174586, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-018-0076-2, documents that could be referenced in the text) relies on availability of degradation oriented mode of operation. The authors could analyse and discuss this point and, based on the discussion, they could worthily extent the scope/applicability of their proposed study.

 

Problem formulation and resolution

5.        Optimization model: The authors should clearly characterize the overall problem (5) that they intend to solve. What type of decision variables (i.e. integer, real, etc) and how many? How many constraints (bounding, inequality, equality)?

6.        Does the proposed formulation satisfy power flow constraints? In the formulation (1)-(4) no power flow equation are present. Several recent scientific studies on power grid, show that energy scheduling must consider power quality and power flow constraints. The Authors should comment this point.

a.        P. Scarabaggio, R. Carli and M. Dotoli, "Noncooperative Equilibrium Seeking in Distributed Energy Systems Under AC Power Flow Nonlinear Constraints," in IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TCNS.2022.3181527.

b.       M. Yao, D. K. Molzahn, and J. L. Mathieu, “An optimal power-flow approach to improve power system voltage stability using demand response,” IEEE Trans. Control of Netw. Syst., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1015–1025, 2019.

(documents that could be cited in the text)

7.        The diagram flow at page 7 should be better described.

 

Case study

8.        Where the data come from?

9.        The outcome of the proposed approach should be assessed and condensed into a suitable indicator(s) that synthetically summarizes the related overall correctness and accuracy.

 

Minor

10.     Not clear why several parts of text are red-coloured.

11.     Mainly the English is good and there are only a few typos.  However the paper should be carefully rechecked.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The article has been revised and is now in acceptable shape except for the quality of images of flowcharts and graphs. Please improve them for final version.

thanks.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition. We are sorry for these mistakes. We have checked the paper carefully. As the reviewer suggested, the quality of images of flowcharts and graphs have been improved.

thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

In the revised paper several improvements have been added.

Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed, except the following ones, whose discussion requires to be added in the paper and further corroborated by references.

 

1.        As for the applicability of the proposed method, could the proposed multi-objective method take  define the optimal strategy of battery utilization into account?  The current trend of several recent scientific studies related to energy scheduling and management (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174586, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-018-0076-2, documents that could be referenced in the text) relies on availability of degradation oriented mode of operation. The authors could analyse and discuss this point and, based on the discussion, they could worthily extent the scope/applicability of their proposed study.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition. We added two articles (https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174586, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-018-0076-2) to the citation. And as the reviewer suggested, the consideration of optimal strategy of battery utilization into proposed multi-objective method has been analyzed and discussed. 

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a multi-objective energy optimal scheduling problem in an isolated power system with multiple pulsed loads. In addition, optimal mobility and maximum multipulse load performance values are discussed. By introducing the concept of the final state ship speed, the final state ship speed is characterized, and combined with the maximum efficiency of multi-pulse loads, a multi-objective optimization model with weighted form is constructed: The general solution method is given. Algorithms that consider general cases and special solutions for typical engineering scenarios are presented. A research case considering special engineering scenarios is demonstrated, which verifies the correctness and effectiveness of the method.

1)      The novelty of this work should be reflected in the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions.

 

2)      Too much self-citation, literature review should be strengthened.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Sustainability-1982053

The manuscript Sustainability-1982053 reports the "Multi-objective Energy Optimal Scheduling of Multiple pulsed loads in Isolated Power Systems". The problem description is not clear by authors and, therefore, authors must show this clear for reader. The manuscript needs of major reviews before publishing. Thus, I am suggesting some main points.

1.    The abstract must be re-worked. Authors must provide more details of work results.

2.    The text of work shows poor English. However, I advise to authors that check the grammatical part of language (English) in paper. After reviewing, the article can be considered for a possible publication.

3.    Authors show the introduction of the article in form of sub-title as: 1.1. Motivation; 1.2. Related Works; 1.3. Main Contribution; 1.4. Paper Organization. Authors put figures in introduction. Then, the article looks a technics narrative. I advise to authors that re-written the introduction of work.

4.    The novelty of article needs to be detailed in introduction of work. Some novel points can be found in the manuscript body, and then this can be used to describe the novelty.

5.    In the problem description, authors must detail further the problem formulation regarding to title of work.

6.    The results of work are well grounded, I suggest to authors that review the text since the line 209 up to 286. In addition, comments of figures need to be improved.

7.    In the conclusion, authors need to discuss the proposed theme with its innovation proposal. In addition, the novel conclusion needs to represent further the results. Since, current conclusion does not show well the results.

8.    The review of the literature is poor and authors must improve it before publishing the article. Besides that, authors must cite some articles of journal "Sustainability ".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- The abstract needs to be improved and expanded by stating the quantitative values obtained in the results.

- Improve the selection of keywords, their number, and length.

- Increase the number of references with a more recent date, and also improve their chronological listing in the manuscript.

- Improve figure quality in every sense. Units of measurement should not be written in italics.

- Connect the equations with the references used.

- Clearly emphasize the limitations and shortcomings of the established methodology.

- The novelty of the work is not visible. It is necessary to comment more deeply and precisely on the obtained results in the manuscript.

- The manuscript is poorly written and organized.

 

- The section Conclusion needs to expand and improve in every sense.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf