Modelling and Allocation of Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell-Based Distributed Generation to Mitigate Electric Vehicle Charging Station Impact and Reliability Analysis on Electrical Distribution Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Moderate editing of English language required.

1. In this study, the authors adopt two optimization algorithms, that is, SHOA and BA. The author should explain why these two algorithms were chosen and conduct a comparative analysis of their advantages and disadvantages.

2. In line 84, "the integration of HFC-DG units in the RDS helps minimize the effects of EVCSs," lacks reasoning and theoretical basis.

3. In line 104, "only a few studies have addressed the real-time EVCS allocation problem." Since the author points out these deficiencies, it is necessary to highlight the superiority of this research in this aspect.

4. Figure 2 lacks essential explanations and analysis.

5. The process of optimizing the RDS in terms of HFC-DG and EVCS allocation, as stated in line 478, needs clarification.

6. The data in Table 2 has not been analyzed. The authors should validate the optimization effects of the total distribution system with HFC-DG and different optimization algorithms.

7. Parameters α, r, and m in Equation 15 should being clearly defined.

8. In line 598, "Figure 5" should be corrected to "Figure 7". The author needs to provide an explanation of the working principle depicted in Figure 7.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-chief,

Authors would like to thank, Editor-in-Chief in Energies, MDPI, who dispatched our paper to honorable reviewers. We are so proud of submitting our revised paper to your journal which is advanced in engineering topics.

The corrections and modifications carried out by considering the reviewer’s suggestions are highlighted with blue color in the updated manuscript.

Best regards.

To the Reviewers:

First we should be grateful to you, honorable reviewers for spending your valuable time on reading our paper and showing us weakness of our work. Also we should appreciate your useful suggestions which have been very helpful for us. We have tried to answer your delightful comments completely and perfectly as best as we could. Our responses to your comments are as follows:

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer Comment-1:

• In this study, the authors adopt two optimization algorithms, that is, SHOA and BA. The author should explain why these two algorithms were chosen and conduct a comparative analysis of their advantages and disadvantages.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the choice of optimization algorithms in our study. We appreciate your suggestion to provide a more comprehensive explanation for the selection of SHOA and BA along with two more algorithms and to conduct a thorough comparative analysis of their respective advantages and disadvantages.
• In this study, our investigation incorporates a selection of four different optimization algorithms: the Bat Algorithm (BA), African vulture optimization algorithm (AVOA), Bald eagle search algorithm (BESA), and the proposed spotted hyena optimizer algorithm (SHOA). The rationale for opting to utilize the proposed SHOA is now explicitly detailed in the revised manuscript. Meanwhile, the rationale for the inclusion of BA, AVOA, and BESA originates from their successful applications to EVCS allocation challenges within distribution systems. Noteworthy references that demonstrate the application of these algorithms for EVCS allocation in the literature include:

8672. Pratap, A., Tiwari, P., Maurya, R., & Singh, B. (2022). "Minimization of electric vehicle charging stations' impact on radial distribution networks by optimal allocation of DSTATCOM and DG using African vulture optimization algorithm." International Journal of Ambient Energy, 43(1), 8653-8672. (Applied AVOA)
8673. Yuvaraj, T., Devabalaji, K. R., Thanikanti, S. B., Pamshetti, V. B., & Nwulu, N. (2023). "Integration of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations and DSTATCOM in Practical Indian Distribution Systems using Bald Eagle Search Algorithm." IEEE Access. (Applied BA and BESA)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-2:

• In line 84, "the integration of HFC-DG units in the RDS helps minimize the effects of EVCSs," lacks reasoning and theoretical basis.

Author Reply:

• We appreciate your insightful feedback regarding the statement on line 84 concerning the integration of HFC-DG units in the RDS to minimize the effects of EVCSs. We understand the importance of providing a strong reasoning and theoretical basis for our assertions.
• In response to your valuable input, we have expanded upon the explanation in line 84 (Please see line no 85 in revised manuscript) to include a comprehensive rationale and theoretical foundation for the role of HFC-DG units in mitigating the effects of EVCSs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-3:

• In In line 104, "only a few studies have addressed the real-time EVCS allocation problem." Since the author points out these deficiencies, it is necessary to highlight the superiority of this research in this aspect.

Author Reply:

• We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback regarding the need to highlight the superiority of our research in addressing the real-time EVCS allocation problem, especially in light of the identified deficiencies in existing studies.
• In response to your valuable suggestion, we have revised the manuscript to emphasize the unique contributions and superiority of our research in tackling the real-time EVCS allocation problem.
• We have addresses reviewers comments with following points.
• While many earlier studies focused only constant load and single battery capacity for EVCS allocation, this research acknowledges the dynamic nature of real-world scenarios.
• It investigates various load levels (Light, Normal, and Peak) and three distinct battery capacities (20kWh, 10kWh, 16kWh) during EVCS and HFC-DG allocation, resulting in a comprehensive assessment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-4:

• Figure 2 lacks essential explanations and analysis.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Figure 2. We appreciate your observation and recognize the importance of providing essential explanations and analysis to enhance the clarity and value of the figure.
• In response to your suggestion, we have revised Figure 2 to include the necessary explanations and analysis. Additionally, we have incorporated a mathematical analysis to accompany the figure, helping readers interpret the data and insights presented.
• By addressing this concern, we aim to ensure that Figure 2 serves as a clear and informative visual aid that supports the understanding of our research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-5:

• The process of optimizing the RDS in terms of HFC-DG and EVCS allocation, as stated in line 478, needs clarification.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your feedback regarding the process of optimizing the RDS in terms of HFC-DG and EVCS allocation, as mentioned in line 478. We appreciate your diligence in seeking clarification on this aspect. In response to your query, we would like to provide a detailed explanation of the optimization process outlined in the mentioned section.

“The optimization process for the RDS concerning the allocation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell-based HFC-DG and EVCS is executed by leveraging the SHOA. This optimization procedure ensures that the allocation of HFC-DG and EVCS units adheres to the defined equality and inequality constraints without any violations. These constraints play a critical role in maintaining the stability, efficiency, and feasibility of the optimized distribution system”. The same has been updated in the revised manuscript.

 

• Thank you for highlighting this point, and we hope this clarifies the approach taken in our optimization process.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-6:

• The data in Table 2 has not been analyzed. The authors should validate the optimization effects of the total distribution system with HFC-DG and different optimization algorithms.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail and valuable feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have taken a comprehensive approach to analyzing the data provided in Table 2 (Please see updated Table-4 in the revised manuscript). Our analysis has been extended to offer a more in-depth understanding of the optimization effects on the entire distribution system. Moreover, we have responded to your suggestion by including a comparative evaluation of the proposed SHOA for the allocation of HFC-DG and EVCS. This comparison has been carried out in conjunction with three other distinct optimization algorithms (BA, AVOA & BESA).
• We believe that these additions substantially enhance the rigor and comprehensiveness of our study, thereby addressing your concern effectively. We would like to express our gratitude for your constructive input, which has significantly contributed to the refinement of our manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-7:

• Parameters α,r, and m in Equation 15 should being clearly defined.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity of parameters α, r, and m in Equation 15. We acknowledge the importance of providing clear definitions for these parameters to enhance the understanding of the equation. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated explicit definitions for parameters α, r, and m in Equation 15 (Please see updated equation number-20 in the revised manuscript). By providing concise explanations of these variables, we aim to ensure that readers can grasp their significance within the context of the equation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-8:

• In line 598, "Figure 5" should be corrected to "Figure 7". The author needs to provide an explanation of the working principle depicted in Figure 7.

Author Reply:

• We genuinely appreciate your keen eye for detail and your valuable feedback regarding the correction needed on line 598, where "Figure 5" should be appropriately changed in to new figure number in the revised manuscript. Your meticulous review has helped us identify this error, and we apologize for any confusion it may have caused.
• We believe that these enhancements will contribute to a more coherent and informative presentation of our research findings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Lack of scientific originality/novelty. Novelty/originality should be demonstrated by emphasizing that the manuscript contains a full contribution to a new body of knowledge. To determine the prospects for the development of the PV market, a SWOT analysis was used, which was based on the analysis of literature, legal acts and available historical data. but the proposed innovation is not sufficiently clear and systematic.

2. More graphics and formulas should be added besides long texts and boring theories. Better numerical results should be highlighted. And it is better to explain the results in depth.

3. For the conclusion, the main innovations should be described more clearly.

The manuscript is well organized and the quality of English language is high.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer Comment-1:

• Lack of scientific originality/novelty. Novelty/originality should be demonstrated by emphasizing that the manuscript contains a full contribution to a new body of knowledge. To determine the prospects for the development of the PV market, a SWOT analysis was used, which was based on the analysis of literature, legal acts and available historical data. but the proposed innovation is not sufficiently clear and systematic.

Author Reply-1:

• We acknowledge your observation regarding the need for scientific originality and novelty in our study. We understand the importance of clearly communicating the extent of our contribution to new knowledge. To address this concern, we have revisited our manuscript and refined the description of our innovations to more effectively emphasize their originality and distinctiveness. Specifically, we have structured the innovations as follows:
• Introduction of Hydrogen Fuel Cell based DG integration in RDS to mitigate EVCS impact through a novel approach for the first time.
• Consideration of varied load levels (Light, Normal, Peak) and battery capacities (20kWh, 10kWh, 16kWh).
• Implementation of SHOA for optimized EVCS and HFC-DG allocation, highlighting its potential for the first time.
• Prioritization of reliability analysis to enhance the system's dependability and resilience.
• Conduct of a comprehensive comparative study involving SHOA, BA, AVOA, and BESA on an IEEE 33-bus RDS.
• The above points also included in the revised manuscript. We believe that these points enhance the clarity and coherence of our innovative contributions, thereby addressing your concern about the novelty of our work. We are committed to ensuring that the innovative aspects of our study are conveyed in a more structured and evident manner.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-2:

• More graphics and formulas should be added besides long texts and boring theories. Better numerical results should be highlighted. And it is better to explain the results in depth.

Author Reply:

• We genuinely appreciate your thoughtful feedback and your insights regarding the presentation of our manuscript. Your suggestions to incorporate additional graphics, formulas, tables and numerical results, as well as to provide more in-depth explanations of the results, are invaluable in enhancing the visual appeal and clarity of our work.
• In response to your input, we have made significant revisions to the manuscript to strike a better balance between text, graphics, and formulas. We have added relevant graphics to visually represent key concepts and findings, and we have included additional formulas to enrich the technical content.
• Furthermore, we have highlighted and elaborated upon the numerical results to provide a comprehensive understanding of the outcomes (Please see updated Equations (1-9), (21-25), Figures 13 to 16 and Tables 4 & 5 in revised manuscript). We've expanded the explanations to delve deeper into the implications and significance of the results, allowing readers to gain a more thorough insight into our findings.
• Your guidance has been instrumental in transforming our manuscript into a more engaging and informative piece of work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-3:

• For the conclusion, the main innovations should be described more clearly.

Author Reply:

• We greatly appreciate your insightful feedback regarding the clarity of innovations in our conclusion. Your suggestion to provide a clearer description of the main innovations in the study is instrumental in ensuring that our contributions are effectively communicated.
• In response to your valuable input, we have revised the conclusion section to provide a more explicit and succinct description of the key innovations introduced by our research. We have highlighted the novel methodologies, algorithmic advancements, and practical applications that set our study apart and contribute to the field. The same has been given detail at the end of chapter-2 in the revised manuscript.
• We believe that by emphasizing the innovations in a more concise and focused manner, readers will better grasp the unique contributions of our research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper studies the approach to reduce the EVCS impact on the RDS by incorporating HFC-DG and applying the SHOA to determine the locations and sizes for HFC-DG and EVCS. From my point of view, this paper does not meet the quality of an academic paper. Parts of the details are as follows. 

 

1. The formulations of the paper should be corrected carefully. For instance, in Equations 7 to 9, the numbers representing the quantities of atoms should appear as subscripts. Also, in Equation 13, the parenthesis is missing.

2. There are mistakes in the abbreviations and variables throughout the article. For example, on line 241, the authors make a mistake with the name of variable "R". Besides, on line 243, the abbreviation "BIBC" is not explained when it first appears.

3. References to figure numbering throughout the paper are frequently incorrect, e.g., Lines 90 and 234.

4. The content of the article is chaotic. In section 3.1, the last paragraph is repeated in section 3.2. In Section 6, the first sentence, “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript…”, should not appear here.

5. The quality of the figures is low and exists many typos. For example, Figure 9 illustrates valuable information poorly. In Figure 5, the “ENS” should be “EENS.”

6, In Section 5.2.3, the paper declares that the failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration are collected from reference [29], but I can not find any information about it in reference [29]. 

It should be polished carefully.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer Comment-1:

• The formulations of the paper should be corrected carefully. For instance, in Equations 7 to 9, the numbers representing the quantities of atoms should appear as subscripts. Also, in Equation 13, the parenthesis is missing.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your careful review and your meticulous attention to detail. Thank you for pointing out the specific issues related to the formulations in our paper.
• Equations 7 to 9 have been omitted from the revised version of the manuscript, as they are considered fundamental theoretical content.
• Furthermore, we have addressed the concern with Equation 13 (Please see updated equation number-18 in the revised manuscript) by adding the missing parenthesis, thus enhancing the clarity and accuracy of the equation.
• Your keen observations have undoubtedly contributed to the accuracy and quality of our manuscript, and we are grateful for your efforts in helping us improve our work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-2:

• There are mistakes in the abbreviations and variables throughout the article. For example, on line 241, the authors make a mistake with the name of variable "R". Besides, on line 243, the abbreviation "BIBC" is not explained when it first appears.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our article and for bringing to our attention the mistakes in the abbreviations and variables used throughout the article. Your meticulous observation is instrumental in ensuring the accuracy and clarity of our work.
• We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and made the necessary corrections to address the issues you pointed out. Specifically, we have rectified the mistake with the variable name "R" on line 241 (Please see line no 313 in revised manuscript), and we have provided an explanation for the abbreviation "BIBC" when it first appears on line 243 (Please see line no 289 in revised manuscript).
• We are committed to maintaining consistency and precision in our use of abbreviations and variables to avoid any confusion for our readers. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping us achieve this goal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-3:

• References to figure numbering throughout the paper are frequently incorrect, e.g., Lines 90 and 234.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your careful review and for bringing to our attention the inconsistencies in figure numbering references throughout the paper.
• We have diligently reviewed the entire manuscript and have made the necessary adjustments to ensure that the references to figure numbering are accurate and consistent. Specifically, we have addressed the instances you mentioned on Lines 90 and 234 to reflect the correct figure numbers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-4:

• The content of the article is chaotic. In section 3.1, the last paragraph is repeated in section 3.2. In Section 6, the first sentence, “This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript…”, should not appear here.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our article and for pointing out the areas where the content appears chaotic and repetitive.
• In response to your feedback, we have taken the necessary steps to address the issues you mentioned. Specifically:
• We have eliminated the repetition of the last paragraph from section 3.1, which inadvertently appeared in section 3.2. This correction ensures the logical flow and coherence of the content.
• In section 6, we have removed the sentence, "This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript…", which was inappropriately placed and contributes to a smoother transition between paragraphs.
• We are committed to enhancing the structure and clarity of our article, and your meticulous review has been instrumental in achieving this goal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-5:

• The quality of the figures is low and exists many typos. For example, Figure 9 illustrates valuable information poorly. In Figure 5, the “ENS” should be “EENS.”

Author Reply:

• We deeply appreciate your thorough review and your keen observation regarding the quality of the figures and the presence of typographical errors in our article. Your attention to detail is instrumental in ensuring the overall excellence of our work.
• In response to your feedback, we have taken the necessary measures to enhance the quality of the figures and address the typographical errors. Specifically:
• We have made improvements to Figure 9 (Please see updated figure-10 in revised manuscript) to ensure that it effectively communicates the valuable information it intends to convey. This includes enhancing the visual representation and clarity of the figure.
• We have corrected the typographical error in Figure 5 (Please see updated figure-4 in revised manuscript), changing "ENS" to "EENS" to accurately reflect the intended abbreviation.
• We are dedicated to maintaining high standards of presentation and accuracy in our figures and content, and your feedback has been pivotal in achieving this objective.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-6:

• In Section 5.2.3, the paper declares that the failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration are collected from reference [29], but I cannot find any information about it in reference [29].

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your prompt response. We apologize for the error in the reference attribution in Section 5.2.3 and appreciate your understanding regarding the correction we have made. The references [37, 38] have been accurately updated to reflect the correct source of data for the failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration. We are grateful for your attention to detail and your assistance in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of our manuscript. (Please see the references 37 & 38 in revised manuscript)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper studied the modelling and optimization of HFC-DG to minimize the effect of EVCSs in a RDS. To addresses the challenges associated with integrating EVCSs into distribution systems, a novel optimization approach using HFC-DG was proposed, which utilizes two optimization methods, SHOA and BA.IEEE 33-bus test system was used to evaluate the suggested methods, which prove beneficial in terms of power loss mitigation, reliability enhancement, and improvements in bus voltage and VSI in the distribution system.

There are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

1、There is an error in the title of the third figure in Figure 8 ,in page 19 ,” “Normal Load” would be “Peak Load”.

2、In page 7,there are two duplicate paragraphs. Please check and correct them.

3、The content of the third chapter should introduce the process of how to solve the problem with algorithm SHOA in detail, and the content of algorithm SHOA itself should be reduced appropriately.

4、In page 19 and 20 ,Table 3, Figures 8 and 9, do not provide strong evidences to conclude that SHOA-based optimization yields significantly greater reductions in real power loss compared to BA-based optimization in the IEEE 33-bus RDS. Please provide more convincing chart data.

5、Figure 9 is not clear enough. Please replace it with a more suitable one.

English writing is acceptable.

Author Response

Reviewer #4:

Reviewer Comment-1:

• There is an error in the title of the third figure in Figure 8, in page 19,” “Normal Load” would be “Peak Load”.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript and for pointing out the error in the title of the third figure in Figure 8 on page 19 (Please see updated figure-9 in revised manuscript). We appreciate your attention to detail, and we have made the appropriate correction as suggested. The title has been revised to accurately reflect the content of the figure, changing "Normal Load" to "Peak Load" in the revised manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-2:

• In page 7, there are two duplicate paragraphs. Please check and correct them.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your keen observation. We apologize for the oversight regarding the duplicate paragraphs on page 7. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and rectified this issue. The duplicated content has been removed, ensuring the clarity and coherence of the document. We appreciate your diligence in reviewing our work and helping us enhance its quality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-3:

• The content of the third chapter should introduce the process of how to solve the problem with algorithm SHOA in detail, and the content of algorithm SHOA itself should be reduced appropriately.

Author Reply:

• We extend our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to refining the content and structure of our manuscript. In response to your insights, we have meticulously revised Chapter 4 as per your suggestion, aiming to provide an in-depth and comprehensive depiction of the problem-solving process utilizing the SHOA algorithm. In alignment with your feedback, we have also prudently reduced the content concerning the algorithm itself, ensuring a balanced and relevant presentation.
• We acknowledge the sequential nature of the implementation process and understand that the implementation part of SHOA naturally follows the problem formulation discussed in Chapter 3. By organizing the content in this manner, we ensure a coherent flow that aligns with the logical progression of the material.
• The revised chapter effectively conveys the practical aspects of applying the SHOA algorithm to address the given problem, all while maintaining a judicious presentation of the algorithm's fundamental components. Your review has immensely contributed to enhancing the clarity and quality of our manuscript, and we are truly appreciative of the opportunity to further enhance it based on your guidance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-4:

• In page 19 and 20, Table 3, Figures 8 and 9, do not provide strong evidences to conclude that SHOA-based optimization yields significantly greater reductions in real power loss compared to BA-based optimization in the IEEE 33-bus RDS. Please provide more convincing chart data.

Author Reply:

• Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and your commitment to strengthening the evidential support for our conclusions. We understand your point regarding the need for more convincing data to demonstrate the superiority of SHOA-based optimization over BA-based optimization in terms of real power loss reduction in the IEEE 33-bus RDS.
• In response to your suggestion, we have conducted additional simulations and analyses to provide a more comprehensive and robust comparison between the two optimization approaches. This included generating new charts (Please see updated Figures 13 to 16 and Tables 4 & 5 in revised manuscript) and tables with enhanced data that clearly illustrate the performance differences between SHOA and other optimization techniques in reducing real power loss and other parameters across various cases.
• We genuinely appreciate your dedication to improving the quality of our research, and we have ensured that the revised manuscript includes more compelling evidence to support our conclusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-5:

• Figure 9 is not clear enough. Please replace it with a more suitable one.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your feedback and your commitment to ensuring the quality of our manuscript. We understand your concern about the clarity of Figure 9 and have taken immediate action to address this issue. We have replaced the original Figure 9 (Please see updated figure-10 in revised manuscript) with a more suitable and clearer representation in the revised manuscript that effectively conveys the intended information.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made careful revisions based on the comments, and the paper meets the publication requirements. Acceptance of the paper is granted.

Author Response

Thanks for appreciating our work and for your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

1. The authors mention that statistical characteristics, like failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration are collected from references, but the authors don’t explain how to simulate these features in the simulation system which responds the RDS reliability and tests the effect of algorithms.

 

2. There still exists some mistakes in the formulas of the paper which have been pointed out. For example, the parenthesis is missing in equation (26), and some formula numbering is not aligned.

 

3. The quality of the figures is still low and does not meet the comment level of an academic paper.

 

4. Some current approaches are strongly related to the optimal placement of EVCS and DG, e.g., references [22, 38]. The authors should further point out the differences and the novelty of the proposed method.

The authors still need to improve the content.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer Comment-1:

• The authors mention that statistical characteristics, like failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration are collected from references, but the authors don’t explain how to simulate these features in the simulation system which responds the RDS reliability and tests the effect of algorithms.

Author Reply:

• We appreciate the reviewer's query and would like to provide a detailed explanation of how we simulated the statistical characteristics (failure rate, repair rate, and average outage duration) in our simulation system.
• The numerical values of these statistical characteristics, collected from references [34 & 37], were incorporated into our simulation environment using proposed Spotted Hyena Optimizer Algorithm (SHOA) within the MATLAB environment. We employed specific equations (29-31) to calculate the component values of reliability indices, namely:

                                     (29)

                                    (30)

                                                       (31)

• These values, obtained through the calculations based on the above equations, form the foundation of our reliability analysis. Subsequently, we utilized these component values in a comprehensive simulation setup to calculate the main reliability indices, including SAIFI, SAIDI, CAIDI, EENS, AENS, ASAI, and ASUI, using equations (32) to (39). This methodology was consistently applied to all considered algorithms.
• To highlight the superiority of our proposed SHOA algorithm in reliability analysis, we conducted a comparative study, as indicated in Table 6 of the revised manuscript. The remarkably lower values across critical reliability indices such as SAIFI, SAIDI, CAIDI, EENS, AENS, ASAI, and ASUI clearly establish SHOA's effectiveness in fortifying the distribution system against interruptions and outages. The findings of our study unequivocally establish the remarkable efficacy of the SHOA in enhancing the reliability of the distribution system. Through a thorough comparison with three alternative optimization algorithms (BA, AVOA, & BESA), SHOA consistently yields superior results, showcasing optimally reduced values across various reliability indices. This noteworthy achievement unequivocally positions SHOA as the preeminent choice for bolstering system dependability. The consistent outperformance of SHOA underscores its pivotal role in fortifying the resilience and robustness of the distribution network, ultimately culminating in a more reliable and stable power supply for consumers.

Table 6. Performance of system under different algorithms with various reliability indicators (Case-V).

Methods		SAIFI	SAIDI	CAIDI	EENS	AENS	ASAI	ASUI
SHOA	0.1097		0.4714	4.2971	6494.35	6.9094	0.9997	0.0003
BA	0.1099		0.4926	4.4822	6499.98	6.9096	0.9997	0.0003
AVOA	0.1114		0.4938	4.4326	6512.19	6.9099	0.9995	0.0005
BESA	0.1103		0.4933	4.4723	6502.13	6.9098	0.9996	0.0004

We hope this explanation clarifies our approach to simulating statistical characteristics and conducting the reliability analysis, addressing the reviewer's concern effectively.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-2:

• There still exists some mistakes in the formulas of the paper which have been pointed out. For example, the parenthesis is missing in equation (26), and some formula numbering is not aligned.

Author Reply:

• We sincerely appreciate your careful review and your meticulous attention to detail. Thank you for pointing out the specific issues related to the formulations in our paper. We have addressed the concern with Equation (26) by adding the missing parenthesis, thus enhancing the clarity and accuracy of the equation. Further, it appears that the formula numbering alignment may have been altered during the conversion process from Word to PDF. This has been rectified in the revised manuscript to ensure accurate and consistent formula numbering throughout. Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. Your valuable feedback has contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer Comment-3:

• The quality of the figures is still low and does not meet the comment level of an academic paper.

Author Reply:

• We deeply appreciate your thorough review and your keen observation regarding the quality of the figures in our article. Your attention to detail is instrumental in ensuring the overall excellence of our work. In response to your feedback, we have taken the necessary measures to enhance the quality of the figures in the revised manuscript to meet the comment level of an academic paper. This includes employing higher resolution images and refining any visual elements to ensure they meet the rigorous standards expected in academic publications. We believe that these improvements significantly contribute to the overall clarity and professionalism of our work. Thank you for guiding us towards this refinement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Reviewer Comment-4:

• Some current approaches are strongly related to the optimal placement of EVCS and DG, e.g., references [22, 38]. The authors should further point out the differences and the novelty of the proposed method.

Author Reply:

• We appreciate your insightful observation. Here are the key distinctions and novel aspects of our proposed method in comparison to references [22, 38]:
• Introduction of Hydrogen Fuel Cell based DG (HFC-DG): Our approach pioneers the integration of Hydrogen Fuel Cell-based DG in the RDS to mitigate the impact of EVCS. This marks a significant departure from existing methods, which predominantly employ conventional DGs powered by sources like diesel, solar, and wind. The manuscript provides a thorough discussion of the advantages of HFC-DG over other conventional DGs in addressing the EVCS allocation problem.
• Consideration of Various Load Levels and Battery Capacities: We have conducted a comprehensive analysis by factoring in different load levels (Light, Normal, and Peak) and considering varying battery capacities (20kWh, 10kWh, 16kWh). This level of granularity allows for a more nuanced understanding of system behavior under diverse operational conditions.
• Novel Implementation of SHOA: Our work introduces a novel application of the SHOA for the optimized allocation of both EVCS and HFC-DG. This highlights the algorithm's potential in a context that hasn't been explored before.
• Comprehensive Comparative Study: We conducted an extensive comparative study involving four distinct optimization algorithms: SHOA, BA, AVOA, and BESA. This comparative analysis, conducted on an IEEE 33-bus RDS, provides a robust evaluation of the performance of these algorithms in the context of EVCS and HFC-DG allocation.
• Reliability Analysis under Various Optimization Algorithms: Additionally, we included a reliability analysis that assesses the system's dependability and resilience under different optimization algorithms. This analysis is crucial in demonstrating the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed SHOA methodology.

These novel elements collectively contribute to the advancement of research in this area, offering a unique and comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges posed by EVCS in RDS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------