Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Considering the important role wind energy is already playing, the title of the paper seems to be highly interesting. However, on a closer scrutiny it is very difficult to understand the new knowledge or operational experience, which might be of interest to the professional community. Some of the topics are quite basic. Case in point is the section “2. Operational principles…”.  The points enumerated there are already textbook knowledge today. Some of the sentences do not make sense. As an example, the text between lines 158 – 161 reads as follows.

“Blade is generally by the leaf root, main beam, web, skin and other components, pneumatic appearance by the axial distribution with a continuous specific wing-shaped skin composition, which glass fiber reinforced plastic composite material in the blade mass proportion of about 90%, blade commonly used composite materials as shown in Figure ..”

One would assume that “3. Cost analysis …” represents the core content of the paper. Unfortunately, it is difficult to extract any practical and meaningful information from the long text. The concluding remark to this section (between line 500 – 515) reads as follows:

“In summary, the intelligent operation and maintenance costs of the wind energy industry are mainly focused on manual maintenance and repair, and the manual maintenance and repair of wind turbines are characterized by long maintenance cycles, tedious maintenance processes and high labor costs”

The section “4. Research on key technologies..” ends also with similarly vague and non-binding statement:

“Architecture of cloud computing and big data cloud, to build a new energy intelligent operation and maintenance platform for wind energy, to achieve full data sharing and data value deep mining.”

I think, the paper should be re-written from the ground up with clear objective, tangible results and logical conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Use of multiple "and" in  Titles should be avoided. Instead, the Title must be concise and informative.

2.       Literature in its current form is highly insufficient. Kindly Add more text to the literature concerning recent advancements in the domain.

 

3. Present a robust tabular comparison of the proposed analysis/study of wind turbine equipment failure and intelligent operation cum maintenance with other state-of-the-art analyses/studies recently published in the domain (on relevant parameters of interest; not older than 2017).

4.       Based on the tabular comparison, please mention (point-wise in bullets) the previous drawback/research gap that motivated you to pursue this study.

5.       Then Highlight your contribution to addressing the research gap.

6.  Section 2.1 is highly Bookish from a research perspective

7. Figure 3. Quality is not as per journal standards; Kindly use a 300DPI image.

8. The conclusion part in the current form seems lengthy. The conclusion should be concise and informative explicitly reporting the core findings of the work.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presents a comprehensive review on the analysis of wind turbine equipment failure and research on intelligent operation and maintenance (O&M).

It is suggested to use "O&M" instead of repeating the full name "operation and maintenance" throughout the text related to it.

In Fig. 1, the blue colors in the legend are difficult to distinguish. Could you please consider using more contrasting colors to improve clarity?

In line 86, it appears to be not accurate here since in region 2 the maximization is achieved, whereas in region 3 only the rated power is attained through pitching. Could you please clarify this point for better understanding?

Line 114 seems to contain an inaccuracy since maximization is collective and applies to the wind farm, but not to the upstream wind turbines. Please provide further clarification to ensure accuracy.

In line 154, there is a mention of low power quality and high reactive power consumption. I have some doubts regarding these conclusions. Could you please support these statements with appropriate references?

In line 157, it would be helpful to know the specific bottlenecks in the system. Could you please provide more details and name these bottlenecks?

For Fig. 3, it would be preferable if the figure is aligned vertically to enhance readability and presentation. Could you please adjust the alignment accordingly?

Kindly verify the resolution of each figure as some of them appear to be quite low. Ensuring a higher resolution will improve the visual quality of the figures.

Starting from line 617, the logical connection between line 616 and the subsequent lines seems weak. To strengthen the connection, it would be beneficial to add a paragraph that bridges the gap and provides a smooth transition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

In the text and title, author used “operation and maintenanceO&M”. Since “O&M” is abbreviated version of the “operation and maintenance”, they should not be used together in the text. In the title, it is better to use the original form (“operation and maintenance”) only.

 

Author Response

请看附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I was unable to detect major substative changes. My previous comments regarding the quality of the paper stand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The Revised manuscript matches the journal standards and may be accepted in its current form.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc