A New Multi-Heuristic Method to Optimize the Ammonia–Water Power/Cooling Cycle Combined with an HCCI Engine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

1-In abstract, no numeric results included.

2- In line 91 and 92, please reference (19) before reference (20).

3-The reference should be mentioned once in one paragraph, please check line 110 and 124 the author used same reference number (17).

3- Your work should have minimum one flowchart to describe your algorithm (proposed multi-heuristic system for optimizing the ammonia-water power/cooling cycle coupled with an HCCI engine algorithm)

3-The results have to be compared with previous works in the same field to approve your improvements, I prefer put one table have your results and other results of previous researchers to show clearly the improvement that you got it.

4- There is no table related to the parameters of the modified optimization technique, such as the number of iterations, values of the lower and upper bounds.

5-How many parameters (the dimension of solving the problem) can the discussed the proposed MHS Optimization deal with?

6-In any optimization technique like your proposed MHS Optimization, there is advantages and disadvantages for this optimization, in your transcript you didn't show the drawbacks of (GWO) , so I prefer to add some lines describe this point.

7- The research does not contain recent references, please add some new references to your work

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

First, we thank you for your consideration and helpful comments. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised. We feel that this helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for further consideration for publication. A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using blue text within the manuscript.

According to what the respected reviewer recommended, and consequently, revising the manuscript based on the recommendations, now we hope that the respected reviewer finds the paper suitable for publication in the respected Journal of Sustainability.

1-In abstract, no numeric results included.

The authors thank the respected reviewer for this useful comment. The content of the Abstract section was revised and improved completely. The results of the proposed system has been mentioned in this section numerically, and were compared to the results obtained from the literature.  

2- In line 91 and 92, please reference (19) before reference (20).

Thanks to the respected reviewer for this precise comment. The numberings of all the references in the text were rechecked and corrected following this comment.

3-The reference should be mentioned once in one paragraph, please check line 110 and 124 the author used same reference number (17).

The authors thank the respected reviewer for this precise comment. The mistake was corrected in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition, the whole text has been rechecked. Now the authors confident that there is no such a mistake in the manuscript.

3- Your work should have minimum one flowchart to describe your algorithm (proposed multi-heuristic system for optimizing the ammonia-water power/cooling cycle coupled with an HCCI engine algorithm)

To describe the proposed algorithm in this study, the related flow chart has been added to the Section 4 in the revised version of the manuscript. Please see Figure 4.

3-The results have to be compared with previous works in the same field to approve your improvements, I prefer put one table have your results and other results of previous researchers to show clearly the improvement that you got it.

The problem illustrated in the paper has been only solved by Bahlouli et al. in "Parametric investigation and thermo-economic multi-objective optimization of an ammonia–water power/cooling cycle coupled with an HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition) engine" and the aim of new paper is to improve the extracted solutions (Pareto-front) in terms of objective-functions by proposing a novel multi-heuristic framework. The comparisons to the previous work have been presented in section 5 (Evaluation results). More explanations have been added to the text.

4- There is no table related to the parameters of the modified optimization technique, such as the number of iterations, values of the lower and upper bounds.

The “number of iterations” was interpreted by the “number of generations” in the text right after Table 1, and it is 250 generations for each metaheuristic which is similar to the previous work. Therefore, our new method does not add any extra time complexity to the method compared to the previous work. However, it speeds up the convergence process and extracts better results. Meanwhile, the lower and upper bounds of parameters is represented in Table 2. More explanations have been added to the text.

5-How many parameters (the dimension of solving the problem) can the discussed the proposed MHS Optimization deal with?

All the parameters have been mentioned explained in section 3 and important ones have been listed in Table 2. Moreover, exergy efficiency and total cost are the objective functions of the problem. Therefore, the number of parameters (Objectives) is 2. The proposed MHS deals with two objectives (parameters to be optimized). The related explanations have been highlighted in section 3 of the revised version of the manuscript.

6-In any optimization technique like your proposed MHS Optimization, there is advantages and disadvantages for this optimization, in your transcript you didn't show the drawbacks of (GWO), so I prefer to add some lines describe this point.

Our new method does not add any extra time and complexity to the method in comparison with the previous study. However, it speeds up the convergence process and extracts better results. The related explanations have been highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript.

7- The research does not contain recent references, please add some new references to your work.

The authors thank the respected reviewer for these constructive comments. The whole section of the literature review has been revised completely. More recent studies, from 2018 to 2023, have been added to this section.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written, however some improvements are required like inclusion of the latest literature published in the area. The structure of the paper can be further refined to improve the flow of information. The figures and tables need to be extensively explained for the effective discussion. 

The conclusion section need to be refined so please add some discussion in the conclusion. 

Follow proper formating specially the tables and figures, which have irregularities in the text size etc. 

 

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

First, we thank you for your consideration and helpful comments. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised. We feel that this helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for further consideration for publication. A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using blue text within the manuscript.

According to what the respected reviewer recommended, and consequently, revising the manuscript based on the recommendations, now we hope that the respected reviewer finds the paper suitable for publication in the respected Journal of Sustainability.

The paper is well written, however some improvements are required like inclusion of the latest literature published in the area. The structure of the paper can be further refined to improve the flow of information. The figures and tables need to be extensively explained for the effective discussion. 

The authors thank the respected reviewer for these constructive comments. The whole manuscript has been revised completely. The structure of the manuscript has been modified. Some figures have been added to the manuscript, specially in the literature review section. In addition, more information has been added to the text about the used method in study, and more explanations have been added for the tables and figures.

The conclusion section need to be refined so please add some discussion in the conclusion. 

Thanks to the respected reviewer for this comment. The Conclusion section of the manuscript has been revised completely. This section has been extended and explanations of the main results have been added to this section.

Follow proper formating specially the tables and figures, which have irregularities in the text size etc. 

Figures and Tables have been revised and modified according to what the respected reviewer mentioned. The author confident that in the revised version of the manuscript there is no issue related the format style.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1- What is a novelty of this research?

2-The results are expressed qualitatively and no quantitative results are presented to compare different methods

3-Due to the lack of numerical results from this research, it is not possible to make a judgment about the stated results.

4-By taking into accounts, these comments, the summary and the conclusion of the article need serious corrections.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

First, we thank you for your consideration and helpful comments. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised. We feel that this helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for further consideration for publication. A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using blue text within the manuscript.

According to what the respected reviewer recommended, and consequently, revising the manuscript based on the recommendations, now we hope that the respected reviewer finds the paper suitable for publication in the respected Journal of Sustainability.

1- What is a novelty of this research?

The novelty of the proposed method is to design a collaborative framework to explore the more promising parts of the search space. Each metaheuristic has its own advantages and disadvantages. Hence, it would be better to use multiple heuristics simultaneously. The idea behind the proposed MHS is that different metaheuristics will be able to cover the inabilities of each other in terms of discovering the promising parts of search space. Likewise, the proposed method works based on a predefined novel strategy to make all the metaheuristics collaborate and cooperate. The novelty of the study has been highlighted in section 1 of the revised version of the manuscript.

2-The results are expressed qualitatively and no quantitative results are presented to compare different methods.

In the revised version of the manuscript, the presented study and the previous study have been compared to each other. The numerical comparisons have been done right after Figure 4. In Figure 5 the comparisons have been done on the graphs, since each graph has been drown by hundreds of points and values that is not possible and appropriate to mention them one-by-one in the manuscript.

3-Due to the lack of numerical results from this research, it is not possible to make a judgment about the stated results.

As mentioned for the previous question, the obtained numerical results have been represented in Table3 and plotted in Figures 4, 5 and 6. In addition, the previous work has been referenced that the potential readers simply can find the data and the results of the previous study.

4-By taking into accounts, these comments, the summary and the conclusion of the article need serious corrections.

Thanks to the respected reviewer for this comment. The Conclusion section of the manuscript has been revised completely.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presented for review, entitled Optimizing the Ammonia-water Power/Cooling Cycle Coupled with an HCCI Engine: A Novel Multi-heuristic Approach, deals with the issue of energy conversion efficiency in trigeneration systems. In recent years, due to the need to protect the environment, more and more attention has been paid to optimizing energy conversion processes. These activities are also necessary due to the rising cost of energy carriers. I believe that the topic of the article is important and timely. Its scope can have practical application and impact on sustainable development. The authors of the paper continue their research on the construction of a multi-heuristic system (MHS) whose purpose is to determine the best performance of a trigeneration system. The study proposes the use of four multi-objective metaheuristics that collaborate with each other to ensure optimal system operating conditions. Despite a well-prepared paper, I suggest a few changes before publication.
1. Expand the literature review to include reports from recent years. The most recent publication discussed is from 2016.
2. Chapter 2 (Short definitions of metaheuristics applied in the proposed MHS) brings little valuable information to the paper. Perhaps expand it to include the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Alternatively, it could show the results of research obtained using each method in other works.
3. I suggest showing the methodology in graph form. How the process works and what are the input variables to the system. What were the electricity yields of heat and cooling and their characteristic parameters.
4. How the total unit costs of the system products were estimated. Can show the cost of electricity, heat and cooling.
5. What is the quality of operation of the proposed system to be expected in practice. We may have different heating and cooling demand during the annual period. Is the system sensitive to changes in the ratio of electricity, heat and cooling?
6. The data presented in the tables should have analogous accuracy. Example from Table 3
TGen (K) 420.2 and 420.00
Xb 0.342 and 0.34

7. The research performed allows the conclusions to be greatly expanded.

Author Response

Dear respected Reviewer,

First, we thank you for your consideration and helpful comments. The paper has been carefully revised in response to the comments raised. We feel that this helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Please find enclosed a revised version of our manuscript for further consideration for publication. A full response to each comment is provided below while key changes are also highlighted using blue text within the manuscript.

According to what the respected reviewer recommended, and consequently, revising the manuscript based on the recommendations, now we hope that the respected reviewer finds the paper suitable for publication in the respected Journal of Sustainability.

The paper presented for review, entitled Optimizing the Ammonia-water Power/Cooling Cycle Coupled with an HCCI Engine: A Novel Multi-heuristic Approach, deals with the issue of energy conversion efficiency in trigeneration systems. In recent years, due to the need to protect the environment, more and more attention has been paid to optimizing energy conversion processes. These activities are also necessary due to the rising cost of energy carriers. I believe that the topic of the article is important and timely. Its scope can have practical application and impact on sustainable development. The authors of the paper continue their research on the construction of a multi-heuristic system (MHS) whose purpose is to determine the best performance of a trigeneration system. The study proposes the use of four multi-objective metaheuristics that collaborate with each other to ensure optimal system operating conditions. Despite a well-prepared paper, I suggest a few changes before publication.

1. Expand the literature review to include reports from recent years. The most recent publication discussed is from 2016.

The authors thank the respected reviewer for these constructive comments. The whole section of the literature review has been revised completely. More recent studies from the last 5 years, from 2018 to 2023, have been added to this section. In addition, more the details of the algorithms used in this study have been presented in this section.

2. Chapter 2 (Short definitions of metaheuristics applied in the proposed MHS) brings little valuable information to the paper. Perhaps expand it to include the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Alternatively, it could show the results of research obtained using each method in other works.

The flowcharts of all the mentioned algorithms with their advantages and disadvantages have been added to the revised version of the manuscript. In addition, the developed algorithm in this study has been scrutinized in the new version. Please see the modifications in section 2.

3. I suggest showing the methodology in graph form. How the process works and what are the input variables to the system. What were the electricity yields of heat and cooling and their characteristic parameters.

Thant the respected reviewer for this constructive comment. Figure 6 and its related explanations have been to the revised version of the manuscript. A flowchart for modelling of equations to give an overview upon the considered trigeneration system is presented in Section 3.

4. How the total unit costs of the system products were estimated. Can show the cost of electricity, heat and cooling.

Considering the respected reviewer’s comment, all the used formula and related explanations to calculate the total cost of the proposed system have been explained and highlighted in Section 3.

5. What is the quality of operation of the proposed system to be expected in practice. We may have different heating and cooling demand during the annual period. Is the system sensitive to changes in the ratio of electricity, heat and cooling?

The considered tri-generation system in this study is based on references 15 and 16, where it is being assumed that the tri-generation system operates in a steady-state condition. The study of different heating and cooling demand during the annual period and generally transient condition operations of the system can be considered as a future study. In addition, in reference 16 the NSGAII was used to carry out a parametric study and MOO strategy for the tri-generation system under steady operation condition. The objective of this study is to introduce a novel metaheuristic collaboration framework to further improve the overall system performance.

6. The data presented in the tables should have analogous accuracy. Example from Table 3
   TGen (K) 420.2 and 420.00 Xb 0.342 and 0.34

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment. All of the tables were modified accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript.

7. The research performed allows the conclusions to be greatly expanded.

Thanks to the respected reviewer for this comment. The Conclusion section of the manuscript has been revised and extended completely.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All comments have been answered. There is no more comments.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the respected reviewer/Editor for the his/her positive opinion on our manuscript. The final version of the manuscript is uploaded here.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf