Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed the paper titled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” by Rapeepat Techarungruengsakul and Anongrit Kangrang.

 

the subject of the paper is rather important for the readers of this journal. Despite few typing errors, the manuscript the structure is appropriate. In my opinion, there are however some points to be considered improved or clarified to the paper be considered for publication. I present these issues (in a non specific order) herein.

 

The introduction, and the paper in general, is lengthy, there are some redundant topics and some superfluous information. Please revise and be concise. Also,  highlighting the research objectives at the end with their novelty is recommended.

 

There are too many figures presented in the paper.  For instance, I suggest  merge figure number 2 with 4 and also merge number 3 with number 5 to shorten in the paper length.

 

equation number one needs to be revised.  It would be better to change the left side letter to R(v,t+1) instead of  W(v,t). this would make more sense for the next step counting the reservoir storage.

 

figures number 6 and 7 can be added as an appendix to this paper with more explanation to interpret them; as they now it's hard to understand them.

 

Authors should demonstrate that the results are useful not only for this specific case study but they can be used for other regions. Some aspects may be presented in a clear and squematic way to be used in similar studies.

 

there are too many tables and figure in the results section please revise and represent only the indicative outcomes to ease the method capabilities that has been developed in this paper.

Authors are encouraged to further elaborate the new contribution of this study, to improve the description of method and model used in the study, and to have additional in depth analysis and comparison on results.

the first two paragraphs of the conclusions are superfluous,  please delete or shorten them

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much your comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. I am enclosing herewith a revised version of entitled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” for publication in “Sustainability” for possible evaluation. We have revised and improved according to the reviewer comments as shown in answer the comments file.

 

Sincerely,

Anongrit Kangrang

Prof. Dr. Anongrit Kangrang

Faculty of Engineering, Mahasakham University,

Thailand, [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a new approach about the optimization of the operation of  a reservoir network, which implements the Harris Hawks optimization technique. The implementation of this new technique is the main innovation and of this paper, which it makes it interesting, but there are many issues that must be addressed.

More specifically:

1. According to the instructions for authors "abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum". It seems that the word count of the abstract of this paper is far above 200 words. Please follow the instructions for authors and revise your abstract.

2. The "Introduction" section needs to be rewritten. More specifically, the introduction is about two pages long, the first one and half page describes the operation of reservoir networks, and the literature review is less than half a page. In my opinion, the description of the operation of the reservoir system should be shorter and the literature review should be more extensive. Also, the introduction should better justify the reason why the specific technique used is presented in the following sections.

3. The references section contains 43 references. The first 28 of them relate to the description of the operation of a reservoir network. I believe that there is no need to use so many references for this purpose. On the other hand, the literature review contains only nine references, eight of which refer to papers written by the authors of this paper. The whole literature should be reviewed and especially the literature review should include more papers.

4.  

   Harris Hawks Optimization technique is not analyzed in the document and is almost a "black box" in the manuscript. The basic principles of the method must be briefly described and analyzed in materials and methods section.
5. In figure 2 some inflows are shown as neglected, but there is no explanation about this in the document. Please explain what exactly these neglected flows are.
6. The quality of figure 4 is low and needs more details. It is difficult to understand what is described in the document. For example the names of locations referred in the manuscript should be shown here.
7. I don't see the reason to display the standard operating policy for each month in figure 6. Authors can give the same information using the appropriate notation in the figure.
8. The above comment applies to figure 7 too. Authors can give the same information about the Hedging rules using the appropriate notation in the figure 7.
9. Ιn the conclusions section, authors conclude that the proposed method achieves similar results to those obtained by the two other techniques tested. They do not adequately explain the reasons why a researcher should prefer HHO over the other more widely known and established methods.
10. In page 4 line 177, I assume that the parenthesis "(10⁶)" should be removed.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much your comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. I am enclosing herewith a revised version of entitled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” for publication in “Sustainability” for possible evaluation. We have revised and improved according to the reviewer comments as shown in answer the comments file.

 

 

Sincerely,

Anongrit Kangrang

Prof. Dr. Anongrit Kangrang

Faculty of Engineering, Mahasakham University,

Thailand, [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an HHO algorithm for the optimal use of  water reservoir.

In my opinion, the paper is in general interesting and nice to read. The manuscript deserves to be published only once the authors fix the following issues.

 

Introduction

1. For the sake of readability, at the end of Section 1 the authors should describe how the paper is structured.

 

Literature review

2. The main contributions of the paper are clearly described. The authors should better highlight the innovative aspects of their work in the manuscript

 

System design

3. The description of the proposed methodology could be improved. In addition to Fig. 1 focused on methodology, it could be better to insert at the beginning of Section II an outline about the network scheme/architecture (how many components, the aim of each components, the actors involved in each step, etc.); here, a high-level diagram/scheme could also help reader following the whole design/validation description.
4. The authors should better describe eq. (1), where a first order buffer is modeled.
5. Equation (2) and (3) show rule based constraints. Several recent scientific studies (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2022.3148856, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12071231, documents that could be cited in the text), show that generally mixed logical dynamical constraints are used to avoid simultaneous imposition of profiles (e.g., charging and discharging in the case of buffer). Authors should comment this point, clarifying how different ranges are implemented in the proposed algorithm.
6. The authors should deeply describe the HHO algorithm and highlight the advantages compared with other techniques, as for instance done here:
   2021. M. Helmi et al., "Efficient and Sustainable Reconfiguration of Distribution Networks via Metaheuristic Optimization," in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, May 2021.

(document that could be cited in the text).

 

Problem formulation

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

 

Case study

8. Is the case study based on real data? How are the data generated?
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.
10. Is the proposed method valid for radial and meshed networks?

 

Conclusions

11. Conclusions needs to be extended to present further implications for future research and many managerial insights based on the results of the study, as well as limitations.

 

Minor

12. The authors should check that all the used acronyms are defined.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much your comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. I am enclosing herewith a revised version of entitled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” for publication in “Sustainability” for possible evaluation. We have revised and improved according to the reviewer comments as shown in answer the comments file.

 

 

Sincerely,

Anongrit Kangrang

Prof. Dr. Anongrit Kangrang

Faculty of Engineering, Mahasakham University,

Thailand, [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Although authors made several changes to the text, but I am not satisfied with these changes. More specifically:

1. In my initial review I noted that the literature review only included references to papers by one of the authors. This has not been changed. The authors should cite other work relevant to their own that has been published by researchers around the world.
2. Although the quality of Figure 2 has improved significantly, it is not satisfactorily described in the text. For example, there is no mention of what exactly the word "neglected" means in the figure.
3. Also in the previous review, I found that the quality of image 4 was poor. And I suggested for example the names of locations referred to in the manuscript should be shown in the figure. Instead of improving the picture, the authors only enlarged it. To be clearer, I suggest they reduce the size of the footnote, the inset map of Thailand, and the north indicator and enlarge the main map. Also there is no reason to show the hydrographic network in so much detail, it is confusing. Instead it would be useful to show the river basins and sub-basins. I also continue to believe that the names of reservoirs should be marked on the map.
4. Harris Hawks Optimization technique is still not analyzed in the document, even after authors additions, it is still a "black box" in the manuscript.
5. Finally, authors in their revision of the text state that: "In terms of discovering solutions, it can be claimed that, while the results are comparable, the speed of search or the complexity of the system is also considered an important part, which HHO can do better than other techniques." Where does this appear from the results they presented?

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much your second comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. I am enclosing herewith the second revised version of entitled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” for publication in “Sustainability” for possible evaluation. We have revised and improved according to the reviewer comments of reviewer-2 and reviewer-3 as shown in answer the comments file.

Sincerely,

Anongrit Kangrang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the revised paper several improvements have been added.

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

 

1. Equation (2) and (3) show rule based constraints. Several recent scientific studies (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2022.3148856, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12071231, documents that could be cited in the text), show that generally mixed logical dynamical constraints are used to avoid simultaneous imposition of profiles (e.g., charging and discharging in the case of buffer). Authors should comment this point, clarifying how different ranges are implemented in the proposed algorithm.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you very much your second comments and suggestions for improving our manuscript. I am enclosing herewith the second revised version of entitled “Application of Harris Hawks Optimization with Reservoir Simulation Model Considering Hedging Rule for Network Reservoir System” for publication in “Sustainability” for possible evaluation. We have revised and improved according to the reviewer comments of reviewer-2 and reviewer-3 as shown in answer the comments file.

Sincerely,

Anongrit Kangrang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the authors have addressed my comments well, I suggest to accept the paper in its present form.

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.