Failure Trends of High-Voltage Porcelain Insulators Depending on the Constituents of the Porcelain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript investigated statistics characterization on failure trends of porcelain insulator. I think this manuscript contains many points need clarified. I cannot understand the novelty and significance of this manuscript. I’m sorry I cannot recommend this manuscript to be published in Applied Sciences. I have the following comments.
I have the following comments:
English grammar should be checked.I think English language quality of this manuscript is not enough to be published in Applied Sciences. I recommend the manuscript should be checked by a native speaker of English or by a service of proofreading, before submission.
Dependency on constituents of porcelain
As mentioned in manuscript title and end of introduction part, I think dependency of mechanical and electrical characteristics of porcelain insulator on porcelain constituents is main purpose of this manuscript. Although constituents of the samples are summarized in table 3 and Figs. 7 and 8, there is no discussion on the dependency. What is the huge impact on mechanical and electrical properties of porcelain insulators mentioned in page 9, line 196?
Samples A-C
I cannot understand what differences between samples are. Maybe one of the differences is year of installation. But there is no clear notification on the samples, such as year of installation, aging time, place of South Korea and so on.
Linear fit on plots of sample A
Plots for sample A shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are not linear against the Failure Load. Is leaner fit on the plots meaningful? Correlation coefficient values look too high.
Author Response
Failure Trends of High Voltage Porcelain Insulator Depending on Constituents of Porcelain
We are thankful to the reviewers for taking keen interest in our work and for devoting their precious time to give constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused due to us. We have carefully studied the reviewer’s comments and modified our manuscript again as per the given suggestions. We learned many things from reviewers comments while looking back again while preparing reply. We are very grateful to reviewers for providing us their valuable time for reviewing our paper. We strongly believe that the paper in revised form will be accepted for the publication in highly reputed journal “Applied Science”. Given below are the responses of authors to the reviewer’s comments presented categorically.
REVIWER’S COMMENTS
1st Reviewer’s Comment Round 1
This manuscript investigated statistics characterization on failure trends of porcelain insulator. I think this manuscript contains many points need clarified. I cannot understand the novelty and significance of this manuscript. I’m sorry I cannot recommend this manuscript to be published in Applied Sciences. I have the following comments.
Comment 1: English grammar should be checked. I think English language quality of this manuscript is not enough to be published in Applied Sciences.
Author reply 1: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. English language quality has been improved by authors.
Comment 2: Dependency on constituents of porcelain as mentioned in manuscript title and end of introduction part, I think dependency of mechanical and electrical characteristics of porcelain insulator on porcelain constituents is main purpose of this manuscript.
Author reply 2: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript.
Main focus of this paper is to study dependency of failure of porcelain insulators on weight (%) of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 present in porcelain. The weight (%) of constituents affects mechanical and electrical properties of porcelain insulators as observed in experiments. Thus, it affects chances of failure of porcelain insulators.
Comment 3: Although constituents of the samples are summarized in table 3 and Fig.7 and 8, there is no discussion on the dependency. What is the huge impact on mechanical and electrical properties of porcelain insulators mentioned in page 9, line 196?
Author reply 3: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. Load tests and hardness tests have been performed to study improvement in mechanical and electrical properties of insulators with increasing years of manufacturing. Consequently, elemental analysis XRF has been performed to study the reason for improvement in electrical and mechanical properties with increasing years of manufacture. Statistical strategy has been implemented to calculate probability of failure. Fig.7 and Fig.8 show due to change in elemental composition (SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3) of porcelain insulators with increasing years loads at which failure occurs increase and probability of failure decreases respectively. Thus, change in composition of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 of porcelain insulators with increasing years of manufacturing improve electrical and mechanical properties and decrease probability of failure. The percentage of improvement has been already introduced in manuscript in red color, 101,104. Modification has been introduced as instructed in red color line 117-123.
Comment 4: Samples A-C, I cannot understand what differences between samples are. Maybe one of the differences is year of installation. But there is no clear notification on the samples, such as year of installation, aging time, place of South Korea and so on.
Author reply 4: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. Samples A-C has been categorized based on manufacturing years of porcelain insulators. Modification has been introduced in red color line 100. This article focusses on change in weight (%) of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 with increasing years and its effect on probability of failure of insulators.
Comment 5: Linear fit on plots of sample A. Plots for sample A shown in Figs. 5 and 6 are not linear against the Failure Load. Is leaner fit on the plots meaningful? Correlation coefficient values look too high.
Author reply 5: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. The correlation factor has been re-calculated and modified. The data points lie approximately near to 95% confidence limit. Modification has been done in red color. Authors have used 10 data points for evaluating Weibull plot. More than 30 data points will work better in case correlation coefficient is low. However, authors have collected 10 samples. Thus, sample A looks nonlinear which is not the case, as it satisfies correlation coefficient limits for Weibull distribution.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes the research conducted on insulators taken from service conditions. Different methods have been appied to comapere their properties. Such results are valuable, because show how the real operation conditions influence the ageing of equipment. It allows also for verification of previously used accelerated ageing methods.
My commets to the article are as follows:
I think that mass should be given in kg, not lbs. Please check with MDPI rules (abstract, line 55, 72, 76 etc., Table 1, 2 etc). There should be added information on insulators types. Are they all the same type? There should be comment on groups A, B and C before reader gets to tables 1 and 2. It is not clear what are columns A, B and C in these tables. How insulator have been divided into these three groups? Please provide details. Year of production? Opeartion time? Give details, how many years. From that reasen the sentence: "Thus it can be deduced from above experiments that mechanical and electrical properties enhance with increasing year." (lines 108-109) is not clear. Increasing year of production means that they are younger, increasing year of operation means that they get older. Fig. 2 has too big fonts. The description of this Fig. is also incorrect. Lines 125-130: there is something wrong with reference [19]. "Dr. Robert B. Abernethy" means that: Dr - title, Robert - first name, B. - middle name, Abernethy - family name. Please clarify the text and the reference. Section 138-145 - I am not sure that "goodness" is a correct word. Fig. 5, 6, 7, 8 - too big fonts, while inner graph has them ok. Line 142: change sqrt to symbol. The same in following text. Lines 225-227 are the most important and should be commented with more impact. The whole section 3 should be modified, because it is not clear what are authors intentions, and what is the final results of the analysis. It should be clearly commented in the text. In general text needs editing, there are many typos and English language inaccuracies.Author Response
Failure Trends of High Voltage Porcelain Insulator Depending on Constituents of Porcelain
We are thankful to the reviewers for taking keen interest in our work and for devoting their precious time to give constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused due to us. We have carefully studied the reviewer’s comments and modified our manuscript again as per the given suggestions. We learned many things from reviewers comments while looking back again while preparing reply. We are very grateful to reviewers for providing us their valuable time for reviewing our paper. We strongly believe that the paper in revised form will be accepted for the publication in highly reputed journal “Applied Science”. Given below are the responses of authors to the reviewer’s comments presented categorically.
REVIWER’S COMMENTS
2nd Reviewer’s Comment Round 1
The paper describes the research conducted on insulators taken from service conditions. Different methods have been applied to compare their properties. Such results are valuable, because show how the real operation conditions influence the ageing of equipment. It allows also for verification of previously used accelerated ageing methods.
Comment 1: I think that mass should be given in kg, not lbs. Please check with MDPI rules (abstract, line 55, 72, 76 etc., Table 1, 2 etc). There should be added information on insulators types. Are they all the same type? There should be comment on groups A, B and C before reader gets to tables 1 and 2. It is not clear what are columns A, B and C in these tables. How insulator has been divided into these three groups? Please provide details. Year of production? Operation time? Give details, how many years. From that reason the sentence: "Thus it can be deduced from above experiments that mechanical and electrical properties enhance with increasing year." (lines 108-109) is not clear. Increasing year of production means that they are younger, increasing year of operation means that they get older
Author reply 1: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. M&E rating or load limit has been expressed in lbs or kN in most of the referenced paper [1][5].
Samples A-C has been categorized based on manufacturing years of porcelain insulators. Modification has been introduced in red color line 100. This article focusses on change in weight (%) of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 with increasing years and its effect on probability of failure of insulators. Modification has been done in line 118 in red color.
Comment 3 Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 have too big fonts. The description of this Fig. 2 is also incorrect. Lines 125-130: there is something wrong with reference [19]. "Dr. Robert B. Abernethy" means that: Dr - title, Robert - first name, B. - middle name, Abernethy - family name. Please clarify the text and the reference.
Author reply 3: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. Authors have modified fonts of Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7and Fig. 8 from font 36 to 20. Description has also been modified in red color. Reference [19] has been modified as instructed.
Comment 4: Section 138-145 - I am not sure that "goodness" is a correct word. Line 142: change sqrt to symbol. The same in following text. Lines 225-227 are the most important and should be commented with more impact.
Author reply 4: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. L-160-163 “goodness of fit” has been modified as instructed by reviewer. In L-162, 190,199 sqrt has been modified to symbol. Lines 225-227 have been modified.
Comment 5: The whole section 3 should be modified, because it is not clear what are authors intentions, and what is the final results of the analysis. It should be clearly commented in the text. In general text needs editing, there are many typos and English language inaccuracies.
Author reply 5: Thanks a lot for the useful suggestion to improve our manuscript. Section 3 has been modified in red color as instructed by reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the authors’ responses. Their responses to the reviewers’ comments are almost solid and explicit. I would support the publication of this manuscript.
