Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper provides a state-of-the-art analysis about grounding schemes and protection of DC microgrids in ships. The reviewer comments are as follows:

-          Page 2, line 72: It is stated that “Among them, the twelve-phase rectifier generator consists of twelve synchronous generators, …”. Perhaps there is a word missing.

-          Page 3, line 103: The “Subsubsection” text seems to be unnecessary.

-          Page 3, subsection 3.1: The presentation of the grounding methods could be complemented with a schematic of each one.

-          Page 4, subsection 3.2: It is suggested to support the presented analysis with further references to the literature.

-          Page 6, lines 226 to 229: Very confusing phrasing is presenting in this lines. It is advisable to re-write this part.

-          Page 7, Figure 7: Please correct the multiple typos found in this figure.

-          Page 8, line 290: There seems to be a confusion regarding the reference to the proper figure. The authors are encouraged to check whether such reference is correct or not.

-          Page 8, subsection 4.2: When discussing the transient stage, it seems important to further discuss what parameter might impact the duration and intensity of the transient stage.

-          Page 8, Figure 9 (a): Units are missing in the two axes, as well as the legends of each curve. It is also important to note that figures shall not be copy-pasted from the original source.

-          For a complete and easier evaluation of the grounding design and fault diagnostic strategies, it would be preferable to include tables (one for the grounding design and another for the fault diagnostic strategies) where a comparative analysis is performed. Parameters like advantages, disadvantages, cost of implementation, response time, and target applications could be evaluated in such tables.

-          Discussion about future prospects is somehow dispersed over the conclusion. It would be preferable to present a section fully dedicated to such subject.

-          The list of references requires in-depth revision, as most of them were published more than five years ago.

Overall, the quality of the English language is good. Few instances require modifications - please refer to the "comments to authors" section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript reviews the typical grounding fault detection and location methods of DC power grid, and the following aspects can to be improved：

1.     The segment encompassing lines [49-49] within the context of the 139 lines appears to differ from the typical approaches employed by other scholars and may be considered somewhat repetitive.

2.     Could there be a labeling discrepancy in Section 2.2 regarding Figure [27]? According to the description, it should be referred to as Figure 2.

3.     The title 3.1.1 appears to lack practical significance, and it may be worth considering its removal, especially in the absence of 3.1.2.

4.     As indicated in Figure 4, there might be a need to clarify whether the reference should be to Figure 5, which discusses the DC midpoint of n generators.

5.     In the Transient Stage subsection of 4.2, there may be a consideration to depict a unipolar ground fault occurring in a DC grid in Figure 9 rather than Figure 8.                                     

6.     In Section 4.3 of the Active Signal Method for Fault Detection and Localization, the use of algorithms is discussed. I'm curious to know if the author has implemented multiple methods from this section.

 

7.     Which of the methods discussed in the manuscript have you already implemented, and which ones have been presented solely in a descriptive manner?

 

English language and sentence fluency need to be examined in detail.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Following this round of review, authors have corrected some typos, re-arranged some content, and introduced some additional references. However, some suggestions of improvement were not taken into account. On the one hand, the revised manuscript does not include a suggested table to compare the grounding designs and the fault diagnostic strategies. On the other hand, the conclusion has been eliminated from the revised manuscript.

Relevant improvements were introduced in the revised manuscript with regards to English quality.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the reminder. Sorry for missing this advice due to our negligence. This time, we have added a comparison table of grounding methods and fault detection to the revised draft, and we have also added a separate conclusion. Changes are highlighted in yellow.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Following this round of review, authors have introduced the most relevant modifications suggested by the reviewer. No further comments to make.

Minor to moderate English issues were found, particularly in the contents added in this latest round of revision. These issues do not compromise significantly the overall quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have re-touched and revised the English writing of the additions and highlighted them in green font in the manuscript.