An Integrated Testbed for Power System Cyber-Physical Operations Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has performed a detailed analysis of CPS using a real-time simulator, with a focus on power system applications. The work has potential. However, it requires an overhaul.

1.       The abstract is well-written. However, the abstract is lacking a clear problem statement. 

2.       What is the contribution of the paper? The author should highlight the difference between the test bed in this article and the existing work. 

3.       What motivated you to write this paper? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this element is not obvious in the introduction.

4.       The figure quality is required to be improved. The text inside figures should be visible.

5.       References literally require an overall. Most of the references are conference papers and technical reports.

This paper has performed a detailed analysis of CPS using a real-time simulator, with a focus on power system applications. The work has potential. However, it requires an overhaul.

1.       The abstract is well-written. However, the abstract is lacking a clear problem statement. 

2.       What is the contribution of the paper? The author should highlight the difference between the test bed in this article and the existing work. 

3.       What motivated you to write this paper? It must be clearly mentioned in the introduction. So far, this element is not obvious in the introduction.

4.       The figure quality is required to be improved. The text inside figures should be visible.

5.       References literally require an overall. Most of the references are conference papers and technical reports.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

·        Specifics: While the abstract generally outlines the purpose and significance of the research, it could benefit from including more specific details about the proposed testbed and the commercial tools used for its development.

·        Results: The abstract briefly mentions replicating smart grid system performance and potential cyber threats, but it would be helpful to provide a glimpse of the main findings or outcomes of the study to give readers a clearer understanding of the research's contributions.

·        Metrics: Adding some measurable metrics or evaluation criteria for assessing the testbed's reliability and effectiveness would enhance the abstract's impact and highlight the paper's novelty.

·        Language: The abstract is well-written, but some sentences could be rephrased to improve overall clarity and flow. Ensuring concise and direct language will make the abstract more effective.

 

Introduction:

Positive Comments:

·        The introduction effectively sets the context by introducing the concept of the smart grid evolving into a flexible and resilient cyber-physical system (CPS).

·        It highlights the intelligent features of the modern smart grid, such as distributed energy resources (DERs), adaptive protection, and enhanced monitoring.

·        The introduction recognizes the challenges introduced by integrating information technology into power systems, such as security threats, heterogeneity, and vulnerabilities.

·        It emphasizes the need for a dynamic and flexible testbed to test the resilience of power systems to cyber-attacks and improve their cyber defenses.

·        The introduction provides a comprehensive literature review, demonstrating previous research on testbeds and cyber-physical smart grid applications.

Areas of Improvement:

·        Clarity and Structure: The introduction could benefit from better organization and clearer section headings to improve readability and flow.

·        Objectives: While the introduction mentions the development of a complete cyber-physical testbed for training industry professionals, it could explicitly state the specific objectives and contributions of the proposed testbed.

·        Mention Research Gap: It would be valuable to explicitly mention the research gap that the proposed testbed aims to address, distinguishing it from previous work.

 

·        Clearer Link to Literature: The introduction presents a literature review on existing testbeds, but it could be more explicit in connecting how the proposed testbed builds upon or extends previous research.

·        Clear Definition: Some terms like "Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) concept" and "EXata CPS software" might require clearer definitions for readers who are not familiar with these concepts.

·        Mention of Methodology: The introduction could briefly mention the methodology or approach used to develop the testbed, which would provide more insight into the paper's focus.

·        Limitations: While the introduction highlights the advantages of a testbed, it could also mention potential limitations or challenges that may arise during its development and usage.

·        Conclusion: The introduction does not conclude with a concise summary of the paper's objectives or the main contributions of the research.

Conclusion:

Positive Comments:

·        The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings and contributions of the paper.

·        It highlights the importance of understanding cyber vulnerabilities in power systems and the significance of cyber security to ensure reliability.

·        The conclusion provides a clear description of the proposed cyber-physical testbed and its focus on teaching and training industry professionals on different aspects of CPS.

·        It emphasizes the use of Hardware-In-the-Loop (HIL) and Software-In-the-Loop (SIL) concepts to create a reliable and realistic environment for testing cyber-attacks.

·        The conclusion mentions the integration of real-time power system models, actual IEDs, and cutting-edge CPS software for communication network modeling and cyber-attack simulation.

·        It acknowledges the successful application of the testbed for training over 100 students and industry professionals, indicating the practical impact of the research.

·        The conclusion highlights the potential benefits of the testbed in supporting advancements in CPS solutions in other institutions.

Areas of Improvement:

·        Specific Outcomes: While the conclusion provides a general overview of the operational scenarios tested and the insights gained, it could benefit from mentioning specific outcomes or key findings from these scenarios.

·        Significance of Insights: It would be helpful to elaborate on the significance of the insights gained from the testbed, particularly how they contribute to addressing real-world cyber security challenges in smart grids.

·        Limitations: The conclusion does not mention any potential limitations or constraints of the proposed testbed, which would add further context to the research.

·        Future Work: Including a brief section on potential future work or areas of expansion for the proposed testbed would enhance the conclusion's completeness.

·        Broader Implications: The conclusion could discuss how the developed testbed may have broader implications for the power industry and the advancement of cyber-physical system solutions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All comments have been addressed.