A Preventive Control Approach for Power System Vulnerability Assessment and Predictive Stability Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The revised manuscript can be accepted. 

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Accordingly, some minor revisions made in relevant sections as can be seen in the revised document. Figure qualities are improved. English language and style related corrections are made. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript " A PREVENTIVE CONTROL APPROACH FOR POWER SYSTEM VULNERABILITY ASSESMENT AND PREDICTIVE STABILITY EVALUATION" has been reviewed, and I have the following comments:

1.The review section should be supported by more references' titles recently published (2021-2023).

2.   The introduction should contain, in the end, a brief scheme of the paper sections. Please insert it before developing the arguments for each section.

3. I recommend adjusting the keywords in order to enhance the visibility and searchability of the manuscript.

4. The English need more editing for grammatical errors and style.

6. Please check the symbols adopted in the manuscript. The nomenclature list must be added or more clearly specify each of the variables used.

7. The figures in the paper are low-quality pictures. The authors should enhance the dpi of these images to a higher print quality level (Ex. Figs. 1 and 2).

8. Please try to argue better the best behavior of your technique with respect to others already present in the literature. You should add a Discussion paragraph after the Results paragraph where you put in evidence the goodness and originality of your proposal.

9. From the applied numerical method, what were the selection criteria? What is the convergence criterion for the simulations?

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Accordingly, some minor revisions made in relevant sections as can be seen in the revised document. Figure qualities are improved. English language and style related corrections are made. Further details are presented in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

As the original reviewer of the paper sustainability-2072471, I think that the manuscript submitted for re-evaluation meets the publishing requirements. With respect to the consideration of all my comments made during the review of the previous version of the article, and in view of the satisfactory answers to my questions, I request that the paper be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Accordingly, some minor revisions made in relevant sections as can be seen in the revised document. Figure qualities are improved. English language and style related corrections are made. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I consider that the manuscript can be accepted in the current version.

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

The manuscript titled 'VULNERABILITY BASED SECURITY CONSTRAINED ALGORITHM FOR POWER SYSTEM RESILIENCY ENHANCEMENT' is more likely EE-type work. It focused on algorithm optimization toward the power system. The subject of this work is not clear. Keywords are not accurate, they should be short terms. To be honest, it currently is not suitable for the scope of 'Sustainability'.  Several issues should be noted. 

i) the introduction is not clear. Please more focus on sustainability. 

ii) Abbreivations (line 105-106) in the end of this manuscript of is arranged in the Methods is suggested. 

iii) Improve the quality of Matlab screenshots (Figs. 1-5). 

iv) In fig.9, it is difficult to tell the modified part. 

v) The discussion about Figs.9-11 is missing. 

vi) Please organise your data, and keep the primary results in the manuscript, and left rests in supporting information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "VULNERABILITY BASED SECURITY CONSTRAINED ALGORITHM FOR POWER SYSTEM RESILIENCY ENHANCEMENT" has been reviewed, and I have the following comments:

 

1.     The title of the manuscript seems not clear.

 

2.     English is understandable but needs correction of grammatical errors and
style.

3.     You should add to the conclusions something about future evolution and enhancements of your approach.

 

4.     The description of C3-RLS Algorithm should be expanded. What is the convergence criterion? Was a stability analysis of the algorithm performed?

 

5.     Figure 9 does not have good image quality. The figure must be redone.

 

6.     Figures (legends) and font size should be adjusted. Example Figure 11 presented values are not displayed.

 

7.     Line 375:" The GA performance for various crossover and mutation probabilities were tested for Pc = 0.6 to 0.9 and Pm= 0.001 to 0.01 and the ideal results were obtained with the following algorithm parameters; Ngen: 50, Nsize: 50, Pc: 0.8 , Pm: 0.01.". What are the criteria for defining what are ideal results? This criterion must be justified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article describes the issue of preventive control, implementing an algorithm for selecting critical contingencies by a dynamic vulnerability analysis module, and evaluating the stability of the model. The analysis was carried out using a decision tree with a multi-parameter knowledge base. The described optimization methodology was tested using the IEEE-39 bus network and a benchmark was performed between the proposed approach and the time domain analysis software model. The described problem has great scientific potential; however, I propose to improve it to make it more readable and easier for the reader to interpret. First of all, I suggest the following.

- Emphasize the authors' contribution and indicate in what the proposed methodology differs from commonly used methods. For this purpose, it should be clearly indicated what the goal of the research is and what was contributed to science by achieving this goal.

- The standard of the text needs to be checked and corrected in detail. For example, in my opinion, the font size in Section 2.3 is too large.

- What is the source of Figure 1? Is it an individual drawing or a screen from some software.

- Some figures are unreadable, e.g. Figure 9, 10, 11.

- The validation of the proposed methodology performed is unclear. It is difficult to evaluate the data used in the tests.

- It is not clear from the paper how the proposed strategy compares with others described in the literature. It would be good to conduct a comparative analysis based, for example, on data published in other studies.

- It would be good to update the list of publications to include recent articles on similar topics.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf