Integration of Distributed Generations in Smart Distribution Networks Using Multi-Criteria Based Sustainable Planning Approach
, Abdullah Altamimi 2,3,*, Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi 1,*, Zafar A. Khan 4,5 and Dong Ryeol Shin 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This work is really interesting. However, scientific point of view there are some concerns that need to address before consideration of this manuscript for publication in this journal. My comments are as follows:
1. The author proposed MCSP and compare with other optimization techniques in table 15. However, most of the parameter for example power loss PLoss (kW), QLoss, Vmin (p.u), VSI (p.u, CELoss, SELoss. The output almost similar and sometime MPA better than the proposed method. Authors should cross-check properly.
2. The work runs Iteration number only 150. So with 150 iterations is very hard to prove this technique is suitable. Suggested to run again at least 300 iterations.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We do appreciate the reviewers’ and your insightful reviews, which provided a constructive guideline for us to improve the manuscript. We revised the manuscript carefully according to your and reviewers’ suggestions and comments. All the changes were included in the revised manuscript. The comments were responded point by point.
Thank you for allowing the revision of manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We hope that this revision has produced an acceptable manuscript. Please kindly have a check.
We are uploading:
- Our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
- An updated manuscript with changes
- Package with diagrams.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi (the co-corresponding author)
Associate Professor, Electrical Power Engineering Department
U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Nov 15, 2022
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Sir/Madam
My comments
1. In Figure 3 Proposed system layout, after applying the MCDM method, the system is stopped or back to the step of the input data.
2. Figures 4. and 5 are not clear, please add more information and details about it
3. Figures 6. And 8. , the Authors mention after displaying the results (solution) the system will end.
4. The Authors didn’t discuss the results in figure 23
Best Regards
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We do appreciate the reviewers’ and your insightful reviews, which provided a constructive guideline for us to improve the manuscript. We revised the manuscript carefully according to your and reviewers’ suggestions and comments. All the changes were included in the revised manuscript. The comments were responded point by point.
Thank you for allowing the revision of manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We hope that this revision has produced an acceptable manuscript. Please kindly have a check.
We are uploading:
- Our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
- An updated manuscript with changes
- Package with diagrams.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi (the co-corresponding author)
Associate Professor, Electrical Power Engineering Department
U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Nov 15, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the authors have proposed methods to optimize energy planning based on numerous criteria using the MCSP approach. They studied the method using the IEEE 33 and IEEE 69 bus systems for four scenarios each.
Comments:
It is strongly recommended to improve the title.
Use a uniform symbol for multiplication, you vary * and X, * is the operator for the convolution
Line 420: P_Loss = 224.5956 kW, you have to put the numerical accuracy into perspective, losses cannot be determined to milliwatt precision
The article is well structured and written properly. However, the mathematical part is hardly to verify due to the scope. The volume of results is almost impossible for the reader to resolve. I would recommend to examine only one benchmark IEEE 33 or 69. Maybe you can reduce the number of scenarios. In this form, the article is similar to a book chapter or a doctoral thesis chapter. I would recommend to clarify the scientific discourse and to focus the results targeted in order to cut the number of pages approximately in half.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We do appreciate the reviewers’ and your insightful reviews, which provided a constructive guideline for us to improve the manuscript. We revised the manuscript carefully according to your and reviewers’ suggestions and comments. All the changes were included in the revised manuscript. The comments were responded point by point.
Thank you for allowing the revision of manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We hope that this revision has produced an acceptable manuscript. Please kindly have a check.
We are uploading:
- Our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
- An updated manuscript with changes
- Package with diagrams.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi (the co-corresponding author)
Associate Professor, Electrical Power Engineering Department
U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Nov 15, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not implement any of my recommendations except for a consistent use of the multiplication sign. The title is not well chosen. I point out once again that no engineer gives losses simulated with Matlab to the nearest 1 milliwatt.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We do appreciate the reviewers’ and your insightful reviews, which provided a constructive guideline for us to improve the manuscript. We revised the manuscript carefully according to your and reviewers’ suggestions and comments. All the changes were included in the revised manuscript. The comments were responded point by point.
Thank you for allowing the revision of manuscript, with an opportunity to address the reviewers’ comments. We hope that this revision has produced an acceptable manuscript. Please kindly have a check.
We are uploading:
- Our point-by-point response to the comments (below) (response to reviewers),
- An updated manuscript with changes
- Package with diagrams.
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Syed Ali Abbas Kazmi (the co-corresponding author)
Associate Professor, Electrical Power Engineering Department
U.S.-Pakistan Center for Advanced Studies in Energy
National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Nov 18, 2022
Reviewer-3, Comment-1
- It is strongly recommended to improve the title.
Response to Reviewer-3, Comment-1
The authors are grateful for your kind comment and the title of the paper have modified the title in the updated manuscript from research manuscript No. 2012305 previous title “A Comprehensive Evaluation for Multiple Distributed Generations Deployment in Active Distribution Networks Using Multi-Criteria Based Sustainable Planning Approach” and new title as per reviewer-3 comment “Integration of Distributed Generations in Smart Distribution Networks Using Multi-Criteria Based Sustainable Planning Approach”.
Reviewer-3, Comment-2
- Line 420: P_Loss = 224.5956 kW, you have to put the numerical accuracy into perspective, losses cannot be determined to milliwatt precision.
Response to Reviewer-3, Comment-2
The authors are grateful for your kind comment and the numerical accuracy in the losses to the one decimal space in the updated manuscript as suggested by Reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
