The Influence of Operation Platform on the Energy Consumption of Container Handling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors, thank you for sending an interesting article in which we strive to minimize energy consumption for container handling.
Unfortunately, both the abstract and the conclusions are insufficiently described. I will ask for improvement. In addition, the article contains only a calculation of electricity consumption but omits many other issues, e.g. the cost of building a new type of terminal and, for example, after how many years the funds saved for kilowatt hours will be adequate for those incurred for the construction of the terminal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a new operation platform mode in order to achieve reduction in energy consumption during handling operations of containers in the port terminal. This is an interesting research.
There is an important body of literature in the Introduction section, focusing mainly on scheduling and handling operation processes. However, the authors do not present relevant to their work literature. Have you based the concepted presented in your paper on similar published papers or works? Or is your work firstly introduced?
In the assumptions of the model, it lacks how, in what way this new concept could be implemented. I mean, is this something completely theoretical?
The main problem with Section 4, is that with all of these distances presented (hQvi, hiQv*, etc.) readers are confused. It would be useful and helpful for the readers if you could add ho, h1 and h1* or any other of the distances you refer to in the layouts of the traditional and new platform.
Although you have reached a result from the calculation procedure, the Conclusions needs improvement. It needs additions with the key points and to highlight the importance of the research. Why are your findings important? Can these be related to other works? Are there any limitations of your work? How, I mean practically, can your concept be implemented?
Also, some more remarks:
It needs a systematic editing of the English language and grammar.
Line 24, “…scheduling of container terminals， Aiming at the…” unclear meaning.
Line 123, “…corresponding energy consumption have seven parts…”, correct to “…corresponding energy consumption has seven parts…”
There are a number of error references in the paper, e.g., lines 204, 285, 286, 340, 343, 344.
Define the term g and also all the units of measurements (equations 7-14).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper is wrongly written. Introduction should present paper aim and goals, while now you are using it as a literature review.
Literature review must be new chapter, after current chapter 2. Here you need explain what is missing in energy consumption research on container terminas, together with research you are mentioned. There are also few paper published in last few months related to container stacking problem, please found them, use them and cite them using Science Direct, like this one doi:10.3390/app12125833
Did you take into account container weight as an important factor in energy savings, since all equipment needs more energy to lift container with higher weight? I couldn't found this.
Where it can be found comparance of your model with existing ones? There is no comparance only in one santance in chapter 4, which is not enought.I would also like to see your idea, in picture, and how can this be used in real-life terminal.
Conclusion is really bad written, while references needs upgrade in text and references part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors proposed a high platform design for container handling in a container terminal and claim that this platform can reduce energy consumption in container handling.
1. The paper only discussed the handling of import containers. It is clear that using such high platform can reduce the workload of equipment when handling import containers. But such reduction is achieved at the additional energy consumption when handling export containers. So, it is not sufficient to justify that the high platform design can reduce the overall energy consumption in container terminal.
2. The paper is of little academic merit. It is not rigorously written and no interesting or insightful findings can be observed. The few math equations in the paper are not properly presented and provides no meaningful results.
3. The paper is not well written. The English the below standard and language are not suitably orgabized. It is more like a casual report than a research paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please correct text in line 159 ("... a model is built in ths paper..."), line 250 ("... required to complete i complete operation...") , line 339 (an error message is appeared).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, paper is now in better shape. Still, for me, references must be updated, with the most important research in the filed (now only 15 references). If you use ScienceDirect and the papers related to your field, you can found many many papers that must be included in such a important matter like your paper. Please revise Literature review as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
