Design and Application of the unIT-e² Project Use Case Methodology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes a method for the systematic description of use cases for smart charging of electric vehicles to enable a uniform understanding of all actors involved and to guarantee application-oriented usability. 

One comment regarding formatting is:

The picture on Page 8 has no caption and the quality is also poor. Please add a caption and improve the quality.

General comment:

In the conclusion, the paper mentions "paper describes a use case methodology oriented towards practical use ". What I feel lacking in this paper is the simulation implementation. I understand that the case methodologies are oriented toward practical use. Hence, I believe that the presented methodology should be implemented in coding considering all the scenarios, cost function (incentives), and constraints, and optimized to further prove the effectiveness of the method. Before doing the testing as mentioned in the text

"Harmon-E will also be tested in a single home and bidirectional EVs will be tested in a laboratory environment. For peak-shaving in apartment buildings/ commercial sites, an aggregator will operate the charging strategy, whereas for building management, an energy management system (EMS) will manage different flexibilities from various owners under potential grid restrictions"

The computer-based modeling of such experiments must be done and test the viability of the proposed approach. If the modeling is already done authors need to include some test cases in the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction gives a detailed background on why the unIT-e²project use case methodology is used and does not compare it with other existing methodologies.

2. There is a lack of punctuation at the end of the section 3.2 and the references [47].

3. In section 4.2, the author claims that “For all five cases, the energy provider has market access”.

However, according to the above and Figure 2, there are only four use cases.

4. Figure 2 lacks a name description.

5. The unIT-e²use case methodology is not specific enough for implementing a use case in a field trial. What does “not specific enough” mean?

6. We strongly suggest that the author could add technical use case (TUC) to the paper, which will enrich the content of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Previous comments are addressed properly. I don't have any more comments.

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Reviewer 2 Report

1.What is the full name of the unIT-e² project.

2.Abbreviations are easier to view at the beginning of the manuscript.

3.The manuscript focuses on the statement of methodology, without a clear definition of business use case and technical use case.

4.In part 2, we introduced a large experimental team covering multiple industries, which carried out experiments lasting for three years. However, we did not give a clear experimental result later in the article.

5.Part 5 does not specifically list a business use case for analysis in combination with experimental data.

6.Part 6 does not specifically list a technical use case for analysis in combination with experimental data.

7.It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

8. Whether there is logical correlation between business use cases and technical use cases.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx