Steady-State Stand-Alone Power Flow Solvers for Integrated Transmission-Distribution Networks: A Comparison Study and Numerical Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main subject of the paper is timely, since transmission and distribution networks are affecting each other more significantly with the presence of distributed energy resources.
The paper presents a useful comparison of different techniques for solving integrated transmission and distribution networks in steady-state. The neutrality of the authors in assessing the comparison of known techniques is to be congratulated.
The paper is well written and well structured. Minor English problems can be easily found with another round of reading.
Minor comments/suggestions:
1) The symbols I, S, T, R in the flowchart given in Figure 2 should be defined in some part of the paper.
2) It seems that there are three plots misssing in Figure 3. If they are behind the other plots, please state so.
3) References should be given as precisely as possible.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors review and compare, with simulations, stand-alone methods using well-known standards, for solving the power-flow problem in very large networks. In the Conclusion section I would add some more specific indications or suggest future work to do in a changing scenario, as that envisaged by the authors.
The paper is useful, well organized and written. I have only some minor comments:
In Figures 3 and 4 use the same x-axis because their results should be compared.
In equation (21) avoid using "*"; use instead "x" for multiplication (for most readers "*" means "convolution).
Report in an Appendix the list of mathematical symbols and abbreviations with their meaning, for easing the reading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a simple review of existing methods and compare their computational performance. This is not ground enough for publication in a reputable journal. The contribution must be clearly stated based on advances that might result from the present study.
What about the IEEE 13-bus system? It should be included in the comparative analysis as well.
The manuscript should be thoroughly proofread considering the following aspects:
- The authors should avoid the extensive use of first-person plural at the beginning of sentences.
- Many prepositions are incorrectly used.
- All acronyms must be defined in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved the manuscript according to the reviewers' suggestions. It can be accepted as is.
