Enhancing Sustainability in Power Systems: A High-Capacity Testing System Based on a Power System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a detailed and structured discussion on circuit breaker testing, covering active/capacitive loads, TRV parameters, and standardized test circuit. Some transitions between sections could be smoother, particularly when moving from TRV parameters to testing methodologies. Minor grammatical improvement of complex sentences can enhance clarity. A stronger emphasis on real-world implications of test results would improve the impact of the findings. The comparison between simulated and theoretical results could be more structured. The potential for future work or improvements could be more explicitly addressed in this section, particularly regarding limitations or areas for further development of the proposed methods.

1. The manuscript contains two sections labeled as 3.2. This should be corrected to maintain proper flow and avoid confusion.

2. The contributions of the paper are not distinctly highlighted. It is recommended that the authors provide a dedicated paragraph summarizing their key contributions at the end of the introduction.

3. The methodology section, particularly subsections discussing data acquisition and monitoring systems, could be better integrated to improve coherence.

4. It is recommended that the authors include a comparative table summarizing the differences between their approach and existing models to clearly highlight the novelty of the work.

5. The workflow description of the proposed system is overly text-heavy and could benefit from a structured flowchart or step-by-step explanation.

6. Some technical details, such as the parameter selection in the simulation model, require further elaboration to justify the choices made.

7. The choice of evaluation metrics should be justified with explanations of their relevance to the research objectives.

8. The authors should expand figure captions to briefly describe what the figure illustrates and why it is relevant

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the professional and insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. These comments not only helped us identify the shortcomings of the paper but also offered specific directions for improvement. Thanks to this valuable feedback, we have comprehensively optimized the structure, methodology, experimental design, and result analysis of the paper, significantly enhancing its academic quality and readability. We especially appreciate the reviewers' attention to detail and profound understanding of the research objectives, as these suggestions have provided crucial guidance and support for our study.   comments1： The manuscript contains two sections labeled as 3.2. This should be corrected to maintain proper flow and avoid confusion.
response1： Revised. The duplicate section labels have been corrected to ensure a logical flow and prevent any confusion. comments2： The contributions of the paper are not distinctly highlighted. It is recommended that the authors provide a dedicated paragraph summarizing their key contributions at the end of the introduction.
response2： Revised. A dedicated paragraph summarizing the key contributions of the paper has been added at the end of the introduction. comments3： The methodology section, particularly subsections discussing data acquisition and monitoring systems, could be better integrated to improve coherence.
response3： Revised. The methodology section has been restructured and additional content has been added, including Figure 10, to improve the integration and coherence of the data acquisition and monitoring systems subsections. comments4： It is recommended that the authors include a comparative table summarizing the differences between their approach and existing models to clearly highlight the novelty of the work.
response4： Revised. A comparative table (Table 2) has been added to summarize the differences between the traditional and standardized methods, clearly highlighting the novelty of the work. comments5： The workflow description of the proposed system is overly text-heavy and could benefit from a structured flowchart or step-by-step explanation.
response5： Revised. The workflow description in Section 4 has been simplified and structured to provide a clearer and more concise explanation of the high-capacity test process control. comments6： Some technical details, such as the parameter selection in the simulation model, require further elaboration to justify the choices made.
response6： Revised. The simulation section (2.2.1) has been expanded with detailed explanations of the parameter selections and assumptions made in the simulation model. comments7： The choice of evaluation metrics should be justified with explanations of their relevance to the research objectives.
response7： Revised. The second paragraph of Section 2.2 now includes a discussion on the relevance of the chosen evaluation metrics to the research objectives. comments8： The authors should expand figure captions to briefly describe what the figure illustrates and why it is relevant.
response8： Revised. The figure captions have been expanded to provide a brief description of the content and relevance of each figure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shows a new test system for medium and high-voltage power equipment. It uses automation to make testing faster, safer, and more accurate. The study builds a high-capacity test model and a control system. It also studies short-circuit currents and TRV waveforms. Simulations and real tests confirm the system works well. An automatic monitoring system reduces human mistakes and makes testing easier. Some things need improvement. 

1. The paper does not explain MATLAB/Simulink modeling well. It should give clear details about parameters, assumptions, and methods.    
2. The study does not compare simulated and real test data properly. It should show graphs, errors, and accuracy checks.    
3. The TRV part is not detailed enough. The paper should explain how TRV affects different circuit breakers and fault types.    
4. The paper does not explain how it reduces interference in data collection. It should mention noise filters like Kalman filtering or wavelet transform.    
5. The study does not clearly show how it follows IEC 62271-100 standards. It should compare its test conditions and results with the standard rules.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs revision. 

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the professional and insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. These comments not only helped us identify the shortcomings of the paper but also offered specific directions for improvement. Thanks to this valuable feedback, we have comprehensively optimized the structure, methodology, experimental design, and result analysis of the paper, significantly enhancing its academic quality and readability. We especially appreciate the reviewers' attention to detail and profound understanding of the research objectives, as these suggestions have provided crucial guidance and support for our study.

 

comments1： The paper does not explain MATLAB/Simulink modeling well. It should give clear details about parameters, assumptions, and methods.

response1： The MATLAB/Simulink modeling section has been rewritten with detailed explanations of the parameters, assumptions, and methods used in the simulation model.

 

comments2： The study does not compare simulated and real test data properly. It should show graphs, errors, and accuracy checks.

response2： Figures 6 and 7 now illustrate the simulation waveforms, while Figures 8, 9, and 10 present the actual test waveforms. Tables 2 and 3 compare the data from simulations and real tests, highlighting the accuracy and errors.

 

comments3： The TRV part is not detailed enough. The paper should explain how TRV affects different circuit breakers and fault types.

response3： The TRV section has been expanded to include a detailed discussion on how TRV impacts different circuit breakers and various fault types, providing a clearer understanding of its role in high-capacity testing.

 

comments4： The paper does not explain how it reduces interference in data collection. It should mention noise filters like Kalman filtering or wavelet transform.

response4： During test data acquisition, the electromagnetic environment around high-voltage electrical tests is complex (due to high voltage, large short-circuit currents, electromagnetic interference from circuit breaker operations, etc.), so anti-interference measures are essential. This study mainly involves physical and systematic anti-interference measures, such as data transmission using doubly shielded cables and optical fiber signals, and employing the highly anti-interference PROFINET network. Sensor layout and shielding also reduce electromagnetic interference, and the battery-powered front-end enhances anti-interference. Although the data acquisition software uses algorithmic filtering for anti-interference, the algorithm software of the externally procured host is a trade secret. However, we specified performance requirements during procurement (signal noise: 2 LSB @ 10MS/s; SNR: > 11 bit @ 10MS/s), ensuring reliable anti-interference performance.

comments5： The study does not clearly show how it follows IEC 62271-100 standards. It should compare its test conditions and results with the standard rules.

response5： A comparison between the study's test conditions and results with the IEC 62271-100 standard rules has been added, clearly demonstrating the study's adherence to these standards and the relevance of the findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is a contribution to the field of testing high-voltage equipment to improve efficiency, safety and standardization of processes. The scientific work is structured and contains a description of the methodology, modeling results and practical implementation. 
The authors propose a standardized test circuit design method. MATLAB/Simulink was used for modeling, and experimental work shows the scientific validity of the proposed solutions. 
The authors propose a developed automated monitoring and control system that minimizes human interference and reduces the risks associated with electromagnetic interference. Increasing the reliability and noise immunity of the system is achieved through the use of PROFINET ring topology and fiber-optic communication.
The proposed methods and system can become the basis for further research and industrial implementation.
The article is structured, written in clear and understandable language, the conclusions are logical, the literature corresponds to the stated topic.
The scientific article has scientific significance, the results of the work will be of interest to operating organizations, teachers, graduate students and undergraduates of universities.,
Conclusion: the reviewed article may be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, We sincerely thank you for your highly positive evaluation and recognition of our paper. Your comments not only affirm our efforts in improving the efficiency, safety, and standardization of high-voltage equipment testing but also provide valuable guidance and encouragement for our future research. We are particularly pleased that you noted the paper's clear structure, accurate language expression, and logical conclusions. Your acknowledgment of the scientific significance of the paper and its potential interest to operating organizations, university teachers, graduate students, and undergraduates is deeply appreciated. This recognition not only validates our research work but also affirms our research direction. We are delighted that you endorsed our proposed standardized test circuit design method and the scientific validity of our solutions, as demonstrated through MATLAB/Simulink modeling and experimental verification. This endorsement from a professional in the field is both reassuring and motivating. Furthermore, your high praise for the innovative aspects of our automated monitoring and control system, particularly in minimizing human interference and reducing electromagnetic interference risks, serves as an incentive for us to continue exploring and enhancing system performance in future research. Finally, we are extremely grateful for your recommendation that our paper may be suitable for publication. This is a significant endorsement of our research efforts and a rewarding recognition of our team's hard work. We will continue to strive for excellence and further refine our research to contribute more to the advancement of high-voltage equipment testing. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and support. Yours sincerely, Guoping Chen

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered and addressed all the previous review comments correctly.