Next Article in Journal
Driving Factors of Microbial Community Abundance and Structure in Typical Forest Soils of Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China
Previous Article in Journal
Multicriteria Approach for Supplier Selection: Evidence from a Case Study in the Fashion Industry
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Parameter Identification and Sliding Pressure Control of a Supercritical Power Plant Using Whale Optimizer

Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 8039; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138039
by Mohammad Qasem, Omar Mohamed * and Wejdan Abu Elhaija
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2022, 14(13), 8039; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138039
Submission received: 18 May 2022 / Revised: 18 June 2022 / Accepted: 28 June 2022 / Published: 30 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sliding pressure control is a well-known method of controlling supercritical power plants 9 that improves energy efficiency and reduces pressure dynamic stresses. This paper presents a novel 10 approach for developing a supercritical cleaner coal power plant's sliding pressure control stratege. This study aims to optimal several parameters in engineering cases. However, the The article is not well organized.

Aim should be placed at the end of this section in the introduction. There are too many progress reviews and no systematic summaries.

Case studies need to be described more coherently, including their context and value.

More importantly, the article lacks sufficient in-depth discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a novel approach for developing a supercritical cleaner coal power plant's sliding pressure control strategy was presented, and the parameter identification and sliding pressure control of a supercritical power plant using whale were analyzed. The manuscript has some expository and technical shortcomings, as detailed in the follows:

(1)  It would be better that the description of other researchers’ progress is briefly and add some necessary pictures in the literature review section.

(2)  There are too many introductions of concepts and principles in the third section of the article, without emphasizing your own work.

(3)  How to evaluate the accuracy of the simulation scheme?

(4)  Some figures’ quality in the paper seems poor, especially the text of the horizontal or vertical coordinates and the legend in the figure is messy.

(5)  Authors need to check the manuscript carefully for grammar and formatting errors, and the sentence structure needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided a well-understood introduction by indicating specific studies in Table 1.

The 2nd and 3rd subsections provide information on the optimization algorithms used. This information is of course crucial but should be directly connected to the problem that needs to be solved. Hence, at each optimization methodology (e.g. grey wolf, GA and so on) the authors should provide information on how the applied problem (in terms of variables and parameters) is used within the optimization methodologies. For example, at the Whale optimizer there is a set of A,D, r parameters that is not understood how they are derived from the problem to be solved. Another example are Figures 7 and 8 that do not indicate the objective function (only later is appeared). Hence, the structure of the paper in this section should follow a logical order where each variable, each methodology and so on should be directly connected to the problem to be solved.

 

Did the authors simulate the performance of the controllers under disturbance effects? If yes, please provide the results and the respective analysis. This is necessary in order to assess the controller performance.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised. I think it is acceptable now.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further changes are required.

Back to TopTop