Real-Time Simulation and Energy Management Attainment of Microgrids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This is a revised paper: with respect to the original submission several improvements have been added.

 

Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed, except the following ones, whose discussion has been partially included but not corroborated by related references.

 

The authors state in the answer letter that in their work consider power flow constraints. In Section 3 and 4 no power flow equation are present. Several recent scientific studies on related topics (https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2022.3181527,   https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2019.2910455), indeed show that energy management of microgrids must consider power quality and power flow constraints. The Authors should comment this point in the revised manuscript, mentioning if and how their approach could be extended to account for power quality and power flow constraints.

Author Response

please find attached the reply for the reviewer comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

This paper has been improved a lot.  I have one major comments:

1. Please form a clear technological development path with elabrating key concepts in the introduction part. In other words, briefly explain the relationship between each key concept and add some proper comments to clarify the meaning of resaerch work by slightly adjusting the Introduction part.

Author Response

please find attached the reply for the reviewer's comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

In the revised paper several improvements have been added. Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed.

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

1. Use abbreviations after the first definition of them, for example, line 11 for MG.

2. Please discuss more on the novelty of this work. As mentioned in the Introduction, the purpose of this work is the real-time simulation of MGs by OPAL-RT, which is done in many works and papers recently. 

3. The position of figures is not selected very well, and merged with some texts, for example, Figure 5. 

4. What is the purpose of Section 3? as can be found in the manuals of OPAL-RT.

5. More details on MG models are required in section 4. 

6. In Figure 4, normally the circuit breakers should be located at both sides of each segment, not in the middle of lines.

7. Why this model is selected for MG modeling?

8. It seems that in figure 7, the sampling rate is too low, and the transients cannot be seen there.

9. Figure 9 is unclear.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides a review of the Microgrid systems and some research on the real-Time Simulation and Energy Management Attainment of Microgrids. A major revise is recommended for enhancing the quality and for further consideration:

 

Major Comments

1.      It is suggested to merge 1. Introduction and 2.Related work into one part: Introduction. For the writing of Introduction part, the following order is recommended:

1.      The research objective and the importance of this research objective

2.      Classification and proper comments on previous researches (especially the important researches). The comments are suggested to be concise and point out the research method, significance and important conclusion of the previous researches. If possible, elaborate the progressive relationship of the researches.

3.      The brief summarization of this paper (especially the progress and significance of this paper).

 

2.      Section 3: Real-time simulation and Section 4: Microgrid Model understudy

The structure of Section 3 and Section 4 should be revised to become clearer. Besides, these two sections needs to be more succinct and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background.

 

3.      Section 5: Simulation and Results

This section needs to add the description of problem to be solved and provide the details of the application background.

4.  The language should be more fluency.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes a real-time simulator of microgrids.

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.        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.

What are the microgrid components that are simulated?

3.        In particular, in addition to loads and renewable generation, the system under analysis should consider also energy storage, as highlighted by several recent works on energy management of microgrids (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2022.105364, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5048446, documents that could be cited in the text).

Does the proposed method account for distributed storage?

4.        Does the proposed simulator satisfy power flow constraints? In Section 3 and 4 no power flow equation are present. Several recent scientific studies on related topics (https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2022.3181527, https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2019.2910455), show that energy management of microgrids must consider power quality and power flow constraints. The Authors should comment this point.

 

Problem formulation and resolution

5.        Optimization model: The authors should clearly characterize the overall problem (9)-(12) 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.        The procedural steps at Algorithm 1 and 2 could be effectively summarized through an overall flow diagram, for the sake of readability.

 

Case study

7.        Is the case study based on real data?

8.        The author should report the running time of simulations.

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.     The authors should check that all the used acronyms are explained.

11.     The editing of figures and tables must be improved.

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