Next Article in Journal
Multi-Robot Trajectory Planning and Position/Force Coordination Control in Complex Welding Tasks
Next Article in Special Issue
WAMS-Based Online Disturbance Estimation in Interconnected Power Systems Using Disturbance Observer
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Wind Veer and the Coriolis Force for an Idealized Farm to Farm Interaction Case
Previous Article in Special Issue
Architectural Concept and Evaluation of a Framework for the Efficient Automation of Computational Scientific Workflows: An Energy Systems Analysis Example
Article Menu
Issue 5 (March-1) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

CPES Testing with mosaik: Co-Simulation Planning, Execution and Analysis

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(5), 923; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9050923
Received: 19 January 2019 / Revised: 24 February 2019 / Accepted: 26 February 2019 / Published: 5 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cyber Physical Energy Systems)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present in this paper an extended cyber-physical energy system (CPES) test environment based on the co-simulation framework of MOSAIK.

Minor comments:

1) In simulation planning (section 2.3), the authors mention “Co-simulation scenarios typically have to be developed in cooperation of experts from different domains and a simulation expert.” How do the authors plan to overcome this burden?

2) In section 2.4, authors mention the matter of uncertainty. They state that due to its complex nature, the uncertainty process cannot be completed by a single analyst (line 242). How this could affect the effectiveness and the immediacy of the proposed framework provided that, more than one person will most likely have to involve with this?

3) In Section 2.5 (Multi-Agent System) the authors describe first in brief the function of an agent. Provided that in multi-agent system, the scope for each agent is to optimize its own objective, minimizing the necessary flow of information shared to all agents within the system, why the authors mention that “agents can interact, i. e. exchange information, coordinate, organize or negotiate with each other in order to achieve their individual but also common goals.”?

4) Is the set of potential schedules for units’ agents to receive the flexibilities predetermined? Since these flexibilities are locally oriented, how the sets are determined considering the fact that no other piece of information (e.g., the transformer’s overload values) are individually known to the agents?

5) In Section 3.2 (Test Outcome), results demonstrate that the aggregated load of the TVPP remains within the requested boundaries, because parts of the industrial loads are shifted towards the period in which high feed-in from the wind turbines is forecasted. The question is, are these industrial loads so flexible that it is possible to be shifted without losing any value? In other words, is a VOLL (value of lost load) was taken into consideration for the shifted load? If not, to which extend the shifting was allowed?

6) What other aspects of input uncertainty (apart from the output accuracy) could play a significant role for the assessment of the results’ reliability?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and constructive criticism. Please see the attached file for our point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a co-simulation environment (MOSAIK) for the cyber-physical energy systems. It describes the key features of the framework through an example use case. Here are some comments to help the authors further strengthen this manuscript:

Most of Section 2 reads like a detailed introduction to the MOSAIK tool, which has been described in other previous publications. It's not quite clear what the novel technical contributions are in this paper. It would be helpful to highlight those original contributions upfront.

While it's generally known that simulating large-scale CPS is challenging, the Introduction should include more in-depth technical description of the specific challenges in CPES simulation that MOSAIK tackles well. This would help more clearly justify the unique advantages of MOSAIK when compared to other simulation techniques.  

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their valuable input and constructive criticism. Please see the attached file for our point-by-point response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Appl. Sci. EISSN 2076-3417 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top