Optimization of a Fuel Cost and Enrichment of Line Loadability for a Transmission System by Using Rapid Voltage Stability Index and Grey Wolf Algorithm Technique
, Ramakrishna S. S. Nuvvula 1, S. M. Muyeen 2,*, SK. A. Shezan 3,4 and Md. Fatin Ishraque 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposes to use line stability voltage index and grey wolf algorithm to solve the problem of power system overload caused by line contingencies. However, the proposed method has some defects and some important issues need to be explained.
- Equation numbers need to be right-aligned. Please check the numbering of all formulae in this manuscript.
- How did Equation (6) come from? What does 0.01 in it represent?
- Figure 1 is not clear, please replace it with a higher resolution picture.
- The multiplication of equations in the manuscript needs to be in a uniform format. Sometimes, by the symbol x, sometimes, by the blank.
- Where do the parameters in Table 1 come from? Please indicate the source of reference.
- Where does each parameter in the PSO in Table 3 come from?
- Please explain in detail how the data in Tables 4 to 7 were obtained.
- The whole manuscript needs further polishing to correct grammar errors and typos.
Author Response
Reviewer#1, Concern # 1: Equation numbers need to be right-aligned. Please check the numbering of all formulae in this manuscript
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript with the suggested modification.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 2: How did Equation (6) come from? What does 0.01 in it represent
Author response: Equation 6 was extracted from the refereance 7.
Author action:No Action required
Reviewer#1, Concern # 3: Figure 1 is not clear, please replace it with a higher resolution picture.
ing.
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript by replacing the figure 1 with better quality .
Reviewer#1, Concerns 4 : The multiplication of equations in the manuscript needs to be in a uniform format. Sometimes, by the symbol x, sometimes, by the blank
Author response: The authors thank you for the suggestion
Author action: We updated the manuscript by modification of all the equations .
Reviewer#1, Concern # 5: Where does each parameter in the Table 1 come from? Please indicate the source of reference
Author response: The Optimization parameters of the PSO is taken from the Referance 32
Author action: No action required.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 6: Where does each parameter in the PSO in Table 3 come from?
Author response: These parameters are obtained by running the PSO algorithm along with the GWO algorithm for comparison purposes. The Matlab 2015 with 4GB ram is used for the simulation purpose
Author action: No action required.
Reviewer#1, Concern # 7: Please explain in detail how the data in Tables 4 to 7 were obtained
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for identifying such details.
Author action: We updated the manuscript by explaning the table 4 to 7 .
Reviewer#1, Concern # 8: The whole manuscript needs further polishing to correct grammar errors and typos.
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for identifying such details. All the suggested modifications regarding typos and spelling mistakes are also corrected.
Author action: We updated the manuscript .
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose a power system operation strategy that minimizes power generation cost and line losses by solving the optimal power flow problem using the line stability voltage index and gray wolf algorithm. The proposed method has been verified in IEEE 30-bus test feeder and reduces fuel cost and alleviates transmission line congestion. It is thought that it can contribute to coping with the critical situation of the power system due to overload in the case of an emergency. Followings are some comments and considerations:
1. Many formulas have been used in the manuscript, but the font and format were not unified. For example, equation (1) is written in the same font as the body text, unlike other equations. Authors should use the same format for (1) as other equations. In addition, please review other equations to unify the form and correct the expression of subscripts. (ex. P_TGI in (2) is not equal to P_T_GI in (3))
Also, authors should correct inappropriate expressions such as abbreviating "number" to "no".
2. If the authors have not newly developed Equation (6) related to Carbon Emission, this reviewer would like to recommend referring to the appropriate literature.
3. Equality and inequality constraints relevant equations (7)~(12) are shown without explanations. Please include an appropriate description for each constraint.
4. The detailed description of Figure 1, which describes the algorithm flowchart, is missing. What do A and C stand for in the initialization step? Also, it seems to be inefficient behavior for the algorithm to run until the iteration ends without a termination condition. Authors are encouraged to add appropriate explanations for this.
5. In Table II compared with the existing algorithms, the proposed algorithm optimizes all costs, but other algorithms do not. Even though the multiple objective functions are used equally, why did the existing methods fail to optimize all cost functions?
6. In Table V, we can check the result of adjusting the power flow limit of the line not to exceed the power flow limit through the proposed GWO despite the outage of the line. However, because there is only a table and no proper explanation, it would seem that the optimized result cannot be easily recognized by readers. This reviewer suggests that the authors move Table X to the front for easier comparison.
7. Various abbreviations have been used, but some words have no explanation. (ex. HAGOA, PSO) Authors should explain even well-known abbreviations when they are first used in the text.
Author Response
Reviewer#2, Concern # 1: Many formulas have been used in the manuscript, but the font and format were not unified. For example, equation (1) is written in the same font as the body text, unlike other equations. Authors should use the same format for (1) as other equations. In addition, please review other equations to unify the form and correct the expression of subscripts. (ex. P_TGI in (2) is not equal to P_T_GI in (3))
Also, authors should correct inappropriate expressions such as abbreviating "number" to "no".
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript by modifying all equations using equation math editor
Reviewer#2, Concern # 2: If the authors have not newly developed Equation (6) related to Carbon Emission, this reviewer would like to recommend referring to the appropriate literature
Author response: Equation 6 was extracted from the refereance 7
Author action: No action is required
Reviewer#2, Concerns 3 : Equality and inequality constraints relevant equations (7)~(12) are shown without explanations. Please include an appropriate description for each constraint
Author response: The authors thank you for the suggestion
Author action: We updated the manuscript by mentioning the descriptionof constaint from equations 7 to 12
Reviewer#2, Concern # 4: The detailed description of Figure 1, which describes the algorithm flowchart, is missing. What do A and C stand for in the initialization step? Also, it seems to be inefficient behavior for the algorithm to run until the iteration ends without a termination condition. Authors are encouraged to add appropriate explanations for this.
Author response: the a,A,c are the parameters of the GWO which descrbed in the section 3 of algorithm flow step .
There are two possible options for termination criteria one is iteration based , next one is convergence based .
Convergence with second approach leads to large computation burden .convergence based on the iteratons mentioned in the flowchart .
Author action: No action required.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 5: In Table II compared with the existing algorithms, the proposed algorithm optimizes all costs, but other algorithms do not. Even though the multiple objective functions are used equally, why did the existing methods fail to optimize all cost functions
Author response: Table II compares the proposed method to the existing methods based on the literature. It was observed that most researchers did not consider all objective functions were considered in the proposed work.
Author action: No action required.
Reviewer#2, Concern # 6: In Table V, we can check the result of adjusting the power flow limit of the line not to exceed the power flow limit through the proposed GWO despite the outage of the line. However, because there is only a table and no proper explanation, it would seem that the optimized result cannot be easily recognized by readers. This reviewer suggests that the authors move Table X to the front for easier comparison
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for identifying such details.
Author action: We updated the manuscript by shifting the table X to front after explaning all the line outages table
Reviewer#2, Concern # 7: Various abbreviations have been used, but some words have no explanation. (ex. HAGOA, PSO) Authors should explain even well-known abbreviations when they are first used in the text
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for identifying such details.
Author action: We updated the manuscript by providing the Nomenclature
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject tackled in the manuscript submitted in my opinion, basically, is more relevant to the mission of Journals relevant to the field of Electrical Engineering and relevant topics of AI. However, I see that a lot of papers have been published in Sustainability relevant to the context of the matter tackled in the field of work done. Considering this point of view, the manuscript proposed can be of interest to pursue a forum among the readers of Sustainability. In my opinion, in principle, the content explains enough exhaustively the methodology proposed and the work done, but as it is organized, it is more addressed to specialist readers. So, in case of acceptance for publication, a whole revision should be welcome to improve clearness for the readers of Sustainability (not only for specialist Readers …).
1- Due to the huge number of acronyms used, need there is a complete list of those. Please provide nomenclature with engineering units for each variable in the manuscript.
2- The abstract and conclusion fail to explain the main target of this research. The authors are advised to rewrite the abstract considering: 1-2 lines as a description of the obtained results. 1-2 lines as a description of the significance in solving the problem and the future work
3- In the introduction section, the state-of-the-art overview on the problem is provided in the introduction, but it is more of the type "researcher X did Y" rather than an authoritative synthesis assessing the current state-of-the-art. Where do we stand today? What seems to be the best methods/models? Have they been properly designed? An updated and complete literature review should be conducted. The recently proposed experimental and algorithms should be cited.
4- An updated and complete literature review should be conducted. The recently proposed algorithms should be cited, author should cite “A smart load management system based on the grasshopper optimization algorithm using the under-frequency load shedding approach, Energy 190 (2020) 116423”, “Load Forecasting based on Grasshopper Optimization and a Multilayer Feed-forward Neural Network Using Regressive Approach, Energy 196 (2020) 117087”, “Integrated MFFNN-MVO approach for PV solar power forecasting considering thermal effects and environmental conditions, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107570”, “Hybrid-Cloud-Based Data Processing for Power System Monitoring in Smart Grids, Sustainable Cities and Society 55 (2020) 102049” and “A new approach for integrating wave energy to the grid by an efficient control system for maximum power based on different optimization techniques, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 128 (2021) 106800”, “Integration of fuel cells into an off-grid hybrid system using wave and solar energy, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 130 (2021) 106939”, “Experimental and Simulation Study Investigating the Effect of a Transparent Pyramidal Cover on PV Cell Performance, Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052599”, “FPGA control system technology for integrating the PV/wave/FC hybrid system using ANN optimized by MFO techniques, Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 103825”. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103825.
5- There are several mathematical formulas in your manuscript. If possible, I would recommend adding the explanation for the coupling scheme of physical quantities.
6- Please expand the conclusion. A conclusion is like the final chord in a song. It makes the listener/reader feel that the piece is complete and well done. You want them to feel that you supported what you stated in the manuscript. You then become a reliable author for them, and they are impressed by that and will be more likely to read/cite your work in the future.
7- English writing must be carefully revised. A complete edit by an English-speaking professional is necessary. There are extensive grammatical, structural, and write-up problems throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer#3, Concern # 1: Due to the huge number of acronyms used, need there is a complete list of those. Please provide nomenclature with engineering units for each variable in the manuscript.
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript with the Nomenclature
Reviewer#3, Concern # 2: The abstract and conclusion fail to explain the main target of this research. The authors are advised to rewrite the abstract considering: 1-2 lines as a description of the obtained results. 1-2 lines as a description of the significance in solving the problem and the future work
Author response: The authors thanks for the concern of the reviewers.
Author action: Taking the reviewer's suggestions, we updated the manuscript with the revised abstract and conclusion.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 3: In the introduction section, the state-of-the-art overview on the problem is provided in the introduction, but it is more of the type "researcher X did Y" rather than an authoritative synthesis assessing the current state-of-the-art. Where do we stand today? What seems to be the best methods/models? Have they been properly designed? An updated and complete literature review should be conducted. The recently proposed experimental and algorithms should be cited.
Author response: The authors thanks for the suggestions
Author action: We updated the literature review by including the most recent work, as well as a comparison of the existing algorithm with the proposed algorithm.
Reviewer#3, Concerns 4 : An updated and complete literature review should be conducted. The recently proposed algorithms should be cited, author should cite “A smart load management system based on the grasshopper optimization algorithm using the under-frequency load shedding approach, Energy 190 (2020) 116423”, “Load Forecasting based on Grasshopper Optimization and a Multilayer Feed-forward Neural Network Using Regressive Approach, Energy 196 (2020) 117087”, “Integrated MFFNN-MVO approach for PV solar power forecasting considering thermal effects and environmental conditions, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 135 (2022) 107570”, “Hybrid-Cloud-Based Data Processing for Power System Monitoring in Smart Grids, Sustainable Cities and Society 55 (2020) 102049” and “A new approach for integrating wave energy to the grid by an efficient control system for maximum power based on different optimization techniques, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 128 (2021) 106800”, “Integration of fuel cells into an off-grid hybrid system using wave and solar energy, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 130 (2021) 106939”, “Experimental and Simulation Study Investigating the Effect of a Transparent Pyramidal Cover on PV Cell Performance, Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052599”, “FPGA control system technology for integrating the PV/wave/FC hybrid system using ANN optimized by MFO techniques, Sustainable Cities and Society, 2022, 103825”. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103825.
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for such a thorough review .
Author action: We revised the manuscript after taking into account the few references mentioned above.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 5: There are several mathematical formulas in your manuscript. If possible, I would recommend adding the explanation for the coupling scheme of physical quantities.
Author response: The authors agree with reviewers and the same has been rectified in the revised manuscript
Author action: We explained the equations and updated the manscript as needed.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 6: Please expand the conclusion. A conclusion is like the final chord in a song. It makes the listener/reader feel that the piece is complete and well done. You want them to feel that you supported what you stated in the manuscript. You then become a reliable author for them, and they are impressed by that and will be more likely to read/cite your work in the future
Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewers
Author action: We updated the manuscrip by updating the conclusion with a futurework .
Reviewer#3, Concern # 7: English writing must be carefully revised. A complete edit by an English-speaking professional is necessary. There are extensive grammatical, structural, and write-up problems throughout the manuscript.
Author response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for identifying such details. All the suggested modifications regarding typos and spelling mistakes are also corrected.
Author action: We updated the manuscript .
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors are advised to incorporate the following modifications:
- In Section 2, Equation 1 is not presented properly. It adds some confucion to the authors. It should be arranged more clearly.
- In Introduction section, paragraphs 1 should be supported by more references. Observations from the latest references should be incorporated to identify the main motto of the research work.
- All accronyms should be defined before its first usage. Nomenclature section should be added.
- Incorporate the equation numbers in the flow chart: Figure 1.
- Futurescope of the research work is missing in the manuscript. Authors are suggested to add few points with respect to extension of the work.
- The concept of congestion managment can be explained more briefly, so that the readers can be motivated to comeup with novel ideas.
Author Response
Reviewer#4, Concern # 1: In Section 2, Equation 1 is not presented properly. It adds some confusion to the authors. It should be arranged more clearly
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript with the suggested modification.
Reviewer#4, Concern # 2: In Introduction section, paragraphs 1 should be supported by more references. Observations from the latest references should be incorporated to identify the main motto of the research work
Author response: The authors agree with the concern of the reviewers.
Author action: We updated the manuscript with latest research work.
Reviewer#4, Concern # All acronyms should be defined before its first usage. Nomenclature section should be added
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion
Author action: We updated the manuscript with the Nomenclature
Reviewer#4, Concerns 4 : The multiplication of equations in the manuscript needs to be in a uniform format. Sometimes, by the symbol x, sometimes, by the blank
Author response: The authors thank you for the suggestion
Author action: We updated the manuscript by modification of all the equations .
Reviewer#4, Concern # 5: Incorporate the equation numbers in the flow chart: Figure 1.
Author response: The authors thank you for the suggestion
Author action: The figure 1 is updated in the manuscript
Reviewer#4, Concern # 5: Future scope of the research work is missing in the manuscript. Authors are suggested to add few points with respect to extension of the work
Author response: The authors would like to thank the Reviewers
Author action: We updated the manuscript by updating the conclusion with a future work
Reviewer#4, Concern # 6: The concept of congestion management can be explained more briefly, so that the readers can be motivated to come up with novel ideas
Author response: . The authors would like to thank the Reviewers for the suggestions
Author action: We updated the manuscript by explaining the concept of congestion in a separate paragraph n section 4
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All concerns have been adequately discussed in the revised manuscript. Thank you to the authors.
Author Response
Thank you so much to the reviewer for his valuable comments. The author already responded to all the comments and addressed in the previous version.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the revised paper several improvements have been added. Previous comments and concerns have been sufficiently addressed, except the following ones, whose discussion requires to be further corroborated by references.
1-The recently proposed experimental and algorithms should be cited. I suggest adding the following study to the article; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103825
2-The paper structure must be further improved. The sequence of parts must be: introduction, methodology, system model, the proposed algorithms, case study, and conclusion.
3-The system model assumes that uncertainty is tackled through the point estimation method. Alternatively, the use of more complex methods for optimization could be applied (e.g.: stochastic multi-objective framework). The authors should comment on this point, highlighting the advantages of the chosen method.
4- I hope that the authors refer to more published papers in Sustainability.
Author Response
Reviewer#3, Concern # 1: The recently proposed experimental and algorithms should be cited. I suggest adding the following study to the article; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103825
Author response: The authors agree with the suggestion.
Author action: We updated the manuscript with the suggested modification.
Reviewer#3, Concern # 2: The paper structure must be further improved. The sequence of parts must be: introduction, methodology, system model, the proposed algorithms, case study, and conclusion.
Author response: The authors agree with the concern of the reviewers.
Author action: The manuscript was written in the same order suggested by the reviewers.
In the beginning, Problem Formulation begins with the objective function, which describes the system model, and is followed by the methodology, as represented by a flow chart, and the proposed algorithm. Results include a comparison of the proposed work to the existing literature, as well as a final conclusion with future implications.
Reviewer#3, Concern # The system model assumes that uncertainty is tackled through the point estimation method. Alternatively, the use of more complex methods for optimization could be applied (e.g.: stochastic multi-objective framework). The authors should comment on this point, highlighting the advantages of the chosen method.
Author response: we thank you the reviwer for the suggestion. We would like to expand on this work, and the multi-objective will be considered in future work. The proposed algorithm has the following advantages:
Because of the Exploration, the algorithm's capability to obtain a global optimum solution can be obtained. When compared to complex algorithms, the computational burden is very low. The convergence curves show rapid convergence. When compared to existing algorithms in the literature, the proposed algorithm outperformed them in terms of Generation fuel cost, Emissions,power loss.
Author action: Not Required .
Reviewer#3, Concerns 4 : I hope that the authors refer to more published papers in Sustainability.
Author response: The authors would like to inform you that we have selected a suitable paper from the sustainability journal as a reference.
Author action:No action required.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors had modified the paper according to the reviewer's comments and the paper can be accepted for publication in its present form
