Application of Generator Capacity Design Technique Considering the Operational Characteristics of Container Ships
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper focuses on the generator capacity design problem with the consideration of requirement of container ships. Some issues are listed as follows:
- Compared with existing method, what is the main contribution of the considered design method? Please emphasize this part.
- What model do you used the analyze the working principles of container ships?
- How can you obtain the simulation results in Section 4? Please give more detailed descriptions about the used simulation software or environment.
- Have you made some comparison with existing design methods?
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions.
The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
Compared with existing method, what is the main contribution of the considered design method? Please emphasize this part.
; The effectiveness of the proposed strategy was verified by adding the existing method as Case 1 of the simulation.
What model do you used the analyze the working principles of container ships?
; In order to analyze the characteristics of container ships, the characteristics of each operation mode were identified based on the data of ships that were actually operated for 397 days.
How can you obtain the simulation results in Section 4? Please give more detailed descriptions about the used simulation software or environment.
; In Section 4, I have detailed the process for deriving simulation results.
Have you made some comparison with existing design methods?
; The effectiveness of the proposed strategy was verified by comparing it with the existing design method.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions.
The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
- The literature review of this paper is very limited, more recent specially from journals may be referred.
; In the Introduction, I reviewed the literature on power source capacity optimization.
- The novelty of the paper must be discussed in the abstract and introduction parts of the paper.
; The novelty of the paper was discussed in detail in the abstract and introduction.
- The performance evaluation must be presented in tabular form.
; Table 8 in Section 4.3 presents the evaluation of the simulation performance of the paper.
- Provide the details of the conditions under which the efficiency of the generators is calculated.
; The conditions for calculating the efficiency of the generator are expressed through Equation 2.
- The paper is having some formatting mistakes which must be rectified while submitting the revised version of the paper.
; Incorrect parts of the paper have been corrected.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is the review of the manuscript entitled „Application of generator capacity design technique considering the operational characteristics of container ships”.
The authors present an interesting topic, being in line with the mission of the Journal. The writing style is acceptable, and the organization of this manuscript is reasonable.
Suggestion:
1) The abstract section is missing some quantitative main research findings. Avoid general discussions and concentrate on the aim and objectives of this paper.
2) The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings, and highlight novelty.
3) The main objective of the work must be written in the more clear and more concise way at the end of the introduction section.
4) Introduction section must be written in a more quality way, i.e. more up-to-date references addressed. Research gap should be delivered in more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.
5) Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify the main research findings.
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions.
The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
1) The abstract section is missing some quantitative main research findings. Avoid general discussions and concentrate on the aim and objectives of this paper.
; Quantitative results are presented in the abstract.
2) The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings, and highlight novelty.
; I presented novelty in the introduction of the paper.
3) The main objective of the work must be written in the more clear and more concise way at the end of the introduction section.
; At the end of the introduction, the main purpose is added clearly and concisely.
4) Introduction section must be written in a more quality way, i.e. more up-to-date references addressed. Research gap should be delivered in more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.
; The necessity of this paper was presented.
5) Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify the main research findings
; The strategy presented at the end of the conclusion is written about future work.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors partially responded to the suggestions. A scientific paper requires a broader bibliographic approach. It is still, I recommend the extension of the discussions and documentation regarding the state of the art in the subject of the present study.
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions.
The manuscript has been rechecked and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. It also expanded the discussion of the present study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded successfully to the suggestions. The manuscript is much improved.
