Real-Time Optimal Scheduling of a Water Diversion System Using an Improved Wolf-Pack Algorithm and Scheme Library

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript titled "Real-time optimal scheduling of water diversion system using 2 an efficient method": The manuscript can be accepted after following minor corrections.

1.      In the abstract, the sentence "Herein, this paper demonstrated a new method to get the optimal schemes effectively" could be more precise. Consider revising to "This paper presents a new method to achieve optimal scheduling schemes effectively."

2.      In the abstract, the phrase "large energy consumption are generated" should be "large energy consumption is generated."

3.      Ensure verb tense consistency in the introduction. For example, "many scholars have researched extensively on" should be "many scholars have extensively researched."

4.      The author should address recent reports in the introduction section. Go through the following recent article and cite accordingly- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123284

5.      In Equation (1), ensure consistent formatting and spacing around the equals sign and between variables for readability.

6.      Ensure that all acronyms are defined at their first occurrence. For example, "WDS" and "CPS" are defined, but ensure this is consistently done throughout the manuscript.

7.      The Improved Wolf Pack Algorithm (IWPA) is mentioned but not sufficiently detailed. Including a subsection that explains the algorithm, its modifications, and its advantages over standard algorithms would help readers understand its significance and implementation.

8.      The manuscript references an actual project for the case study. Provide more details about the project's specifics, including the location, scale, and any unique challenges it presents. This information will help readers assess the applicability of the proposed method to other WDS projects.

9.      The concept of real-time optimization is central to the paper. Elaborate on how the pre-established scheme library facilitates real-time decision-making. Include examples or scenarios where real-time application has been tested and the results observed.

10.  Maintain consistency in units of measurement throughout the document. For example, "kg/m3" for water density should be consistently used in all relevant sections.

11.  Improve the flow between sections. For example, the transition from the introduction to the mathematical model section could be smoother, with a brief overview of what each section will cover.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved.

Author Response

1. Comments 1: In the abstract, the sentence "Herein, this paper demonstrated a new method to get the optimal schemes effectively" could be more precise. Consider revising to "This paper presents a new method to achieve optimal scheduling schemes effectively."

Response 1: The sentence is revised in the abstract based on this suggestion in Line 11.

 

2. Comments 2: In the abstract, the phrase "large energy consumption are generated" should be "large energy consumption is generated."

Response 2: The phrase "large energy consumption are generated" is revised to “large energy consumption is reported” in Line 10.

 

3. Comments 3: Ensure verb tense consistency in the introduction. For example, "many scholars have researched extensively on" should be "many scholars have extensively researched."

Response 3: The verb tense consistency in the Introduction is revised in Line 44.

 

4. Comments 4: The author should address recent reports in the introduction section. Go through the following recent article and cite accordingly- https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123284

Response 4: The above article is titled “Water Environment Policy and Climate Change: A Comparative Study of India and South Korea”, and is little related to this paper. So, it is not cited. Thank you for this suggestion.

 

5. Comments 5: In Equation (1), ensure consistent formatting and spacing around the equals sign and between variables for readability.

Response 5: The formatting of all the Equations is revised. 

 

6. Comments 6: Ensure that all acronyms are defined at their first occurrence. For example, "WDS" and "CPS" are defined, but ensure this is consistently done throughout the manuscript.

Response 6: All acronyms are defined at their first occurrence, and they are consistent throughout the manuscript. The "CPSs" is revised to "CPS".

 

7. Comments 7: The Improved Wolf Pack Algorithm (IWPA) is mentioned but not sufficiently detailed. Including a subsection that explains the algorithm, its modifications, and its advantages over standard algorithms would help readers understand its significance and implementation.

Response 7: The subtitle “3.2. Improvement Strategies” is revised to “ 3.2 Improved Wolf Pack Algorithm”. And IWPA were detailed, and the advantages over standard algorithm and other algorithms were analysed in “3.3. Performance Evaluation”.

 

8. Comments 8: The manuscript references an actual project for the case study. Provide more details about the project's specifics, including the location, scale, and any unique challenges it presents. This information will help readers assess the applicability of the proposed method to other WDS projects.

Response 8: In Line 338-342 and 348, the following statements are added: “South-to-North Water Diversion Project of China is the largest WDS in the world, consist of three routes of eastern, central and western. The eastern route diverts water from the main stream of the Yangtze River near Yangzhou in Jiangsu Province to Tianjin and Jiaodong area in the Shangdong Province through CPS with 13 stages, and connects Hongze Lake, Luoma Lake, Nansi Lake, and Dongping Lake with the Beijing–Hangzhou Grand Canal and its parallel river channels. The planned scale of pumping water to NSL is 75 m³/s.”

 

9. Comments 9: The concept of real-time optimization is central to the paper. Elaborate on how the pre-established scheme library facilitates real-time decision-making. Include examples or scenarios where real-time application has been tested and the results observed.

Response 9: In this paper, a decision obtained within 1 h is regarded as real-time optimization, and this is described in Line 78. The solutions of the inner-models are called by the outer-layer model to calculate objective function values. The process of pre-establishing scheme library is described in Line 325-333 as follows: “I In order to avoid repeat calculation, the method of setting up scheme library is put forward to instead of invoking inner program, as shown the part of dotted lines in the Figure 3. All high-quality solutions that meet the accuracy requirements are pre-calculated under allowable operating conditions. Two independent scheme libraries are set up and stored in the computer for the two inner-layer models. The solutions of single-stage pumping stations are stored in scheme library A, including flow rate, head, pump blade angles, number of running pumps, power consumption, and CPU time. Besides, the water level and flow rate of the first and end cross section of all channel segments are stored in scheme library B.”. Based on the case study, the computational complexity was analysed in Section5 Analysis and Discussion, and the CPU time was about 380 s (See Line 392), and the goal of getting solutions in real-time is achieved. (See Line 447).

  

10. Comments 10:Maintain consistency in units of measurement throughout the document. For example, "kg/m3" for water density should be consistently used in all relevant sections.

Response 10: The units of measurement throughout the paper is consistent.

 

11. Comments 11:Improve the flow between sections. For example, the transition from the introduction to the mathematical model section could be smoother, with a brief overview of what each section will cover.

Response 11: At the end of Introduction, a brief overview is described as follows:“The remainder of this study is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a double-layer mathematical model. Section 3 proposes IWPA and the solution process of the model. Section 4 shows computational application for a project case. Section 5 shows the analysis and discussion. Finally, Section 6 concludes this study with a summary”.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an improved optimization algorithm for optimizing casca pumps supplying free surface channels. Here are my comments:

1. Introduction. Something is missing about the issue of real time control in water distribution systems and its importance. I would propose the references "Real time control of water distribution networks: A state-of-the-art review", "Stability and Robustness of Real-Time Pressure Control in Water Distribution Systems" and "Service pressure regulation in water distribution networks" but the Authors can also find others.

2. Methodology. In no parts of the paper, the decision variables used for the optimization are listed. I was never able to understand this and the connection between optimization algorithm and the system modelling.

3. Conclusions. I would be very cautious in saying that one optimization algorrithm is absolutely the best. This is because a poor sensistivity analysis is performed on the parameters of the various algorithms. The only sure thing that IWPA is better than WPA. The other things are valid only for the sets of parameters chosen by the Authors

Other comments

4. line 37. How are the pumps connected, in parallel? Are they fixed or variable speed?

5. line 167. Where is the roughness coefficient. If it is "K", the unit of measurement is wrong m^(1/3)/s if it is Strickler Roughness.

6. line 294. Two "," in a row.

7. line 330. Which models are you talking about? Those described in subsection 3.3?

 

Author Response

1. Comments 1: Introduction. Something is missing about the issue of real time control in water distribution systems and its importance. I would propose the references "Real time control of water distribution networks: A state-of-the-art review", "Stability and Robustness of Real-Time Pressure Control in Water Distribution Systems" and "Service pressure regulation in water distribution networks" but the Authors can also find others.

         Response 1: Thank you for your suggestions. In terms of real-time control in water distribution systems, the focus is on data monitoring and feedback control, such as flow rate, pressure and water level. This is revised in Line 72-75:” In terms of real-time control in the WDS, the focus is on data monitoring and feedback control, such as flow rate, pressure and water level. Creaco et al. [21] reported a review on real-time control of water distribution networks; Galuppini et al. [22–23] studied stability and robustness of real-time pressure control in water distribution systems”.

 

2. Comments 2: Methodology. In no parts of the paper, the decision variables used for the optimization are listed. I was never able to understand this and the connection between optimization algorithm and the system modelling.

        Response 2: The original statement wasn't clear. The decision variables are the head of each pumping station, number of running pumps and flow rate of each pump. For blade adjustable pumps, the flow rate is controlled by the blade angles. The head of each pumping station or head allocation is decided by the outer-layer model, and is initialized and renewed using the outer-layer IWPA. The number of running pumps and flow rate of each pump in a single-stage pumping station are deter-mined by the inner-layer model, and is initialized and optimised using the inner -layer IWPA. The water level–flow rate model is solved by iterative method. The above statement is revised in the Line 12, 310-317.

 

3. Comments 3: Conclusions. I would be very cautious in saying that one optimization algorithm is absolutely the best. This is because a poor sensitivity analysis is performed on the parameters of the various algorithms. The only sure thing that IWPA is better than WPA. The other things are valid only for the sets of parameters chosen by the Authors

         Response 3: We are agree with this comment. None algorithm is absolutely the best. The parameters of the various algorithms are sensitive for different mathematical models and cases. So we try to study the proper parameter sets to get the better solutions for the case. In this paper, we proposed IWPA, and evaluated the performance of the IWPA by test functions. The results indicated that the performance of IWPA is better than that of WPA, GA, and PSO. This is described in Section 3.3.

 

4. Comments 4: line 37. How are the pumps connected, in parallel? Are they fixed or variable speed?

         Response 4: In line 37, we describe the WDS with CPS in general. The pumps are connected in parallel. And they are fixed, variable speed or blade angles, depending on the actual WDS. The decision schemes include the head allocation of CPS and flow rate of each pump. It is described in Line 38 of the revised paper. In the calculation case of Section 4, the pumps in each pumping station are in parallel and they are blade full-adjustable.

 

5. Comments 5: line 167. Where is the roughness coefficient. If it is "K", the unit of measurement is wrong m^(1/3)/s if it is Strickler Roughness.

        Response 5: The original statement wasn't clear. We describe the roughness in Line159 Like this:”K=ACR^0.5, C=R^(1/6)/ n_r,  where A is section area, m²; R is hydraulic radius, m; C is Chezy coefficient; and n_r is the roughness coefficient.”.

 

6. Comments 6: line 294. Two "," in a row.

         Response 6: The extra comma is deleted.

 

7. Comments 7:line 330. Which models are you talking about? Those described in subsection 3.3?

         Response 7: The original statement wasn't quite clear. Here, we are talking about mathematical models in Section 2. In the revised paper, it is described like this: “The mathematical models of a WDS with CPS in Section 2 are multimodal and high dimensional” in Line 309.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of the Paper: 

Real-time optimal scheduling of water diversion system using an efficient method

 

This manuscript uses a methodology which is either similar or adopted from a study previously published. However, the paper which reported the methodology previously is not cited in this paper. The citation of the paper is 

Feng, X., Qiu, B., & Wang, Y. (2020). Optimizing Parallel pumping station operations in an open-channel water transfer system using an efficient hybrid algorithm. Energies, 13(18), 4626.

 

This manuscript shows 21% similarity excluding the bibliography and the similarity percentage of the above paper is 6%. This shortcoming needs to be rectified in the paper. 

 

 

Title: “an efficient method” in the title is unspecific and ambiguous. Hence, these words can be either removed or revised to reflect the study. Just a suggestion is to replace “an efficient method” with “an improved wolf pack algorithm”.  You may consider this and improve accordingly. 

 

Abstract:

Line 10: generated or reported? May revise.

 

Lines 11-12: It will be difficult to understand this sentence as reader will not be clear what the scheme is (without going into details in the paper). Better to revise this sentence to give a better meaning.

 

Introduction, objectives: Well written.

 

Line 94: What engineering? Please specify. i.e. engineering structures, engineering systems etc. 

 

Lines 95-97: Needs English editing

 

Line 100: Language editing might be needed.

 

Line 271: Easy for what? Better to mention.

 

Line 293: Check English usage.

 

Line 309, Table 1: Give citations to the functions. Also give citations to the equations used in the manuscript wherever necessary. 

 

Line 327: Language editing needed.

 

Lines 358-359: Might need English editing.

 

Sub-section numbering and arrangement of the paper: Please look into this and consider Analysis and Discussion as a separate section rather than a sub-section under section 5. 

 

Discussion: It would be better to expand the discussion by comparing and analyzing the results with literature.  No literature is cited under discussion or analysis section.

 

Conclusion: Do you need numbering here. Better to remove the numbering and give the conclusion in a paragraph format. Anyway, authors can decide on this (depending on the journal's requirement)

 

Line 525: precise or precision?

 

Check the attached manuscript for the annotations.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing is needed 

Author Response

1. Comments 1: Title of the Paper: Real-time optimal scheduling of water diversion system using an efficient method. This manuscript uses a methodology which is either similar or adopted from a study previously published. However, the paper which reported the methodology previously is not cited in this paper. The citation of the paper is 

Feng, X., Qiu, B., & Wang, Y. (2020). Optimizing Parallel pumping station operations in an open-channel water transfer system using an efficient hybrid algorithm. Energies, 13(18), 4626.

            Response1: Thank you for your suggestions. This suggestion is approved, and it is added in Line 46, and listed in Reference 5.

  

2. Comments 2: This manuscript shows 21% similarity excluding the bibliography and the similarity percentage of the above paper is 6%. This shortcoming needs to be rectified in the paper. 

         Response2: In the revised paper, the expression of the input power of in-station electrical equipment and the loss of transmission and transformer are deleted, and the Reference 5 is cited. (see Line 121) . Moreover, the detailed statement of SA is deleted.

 

3. Comments 3: Title: “an efficient method” in the title is unspecific and ambiguous. Hence, these words can be either removed or revised to reflect the study. Just a suggestion is to replace “an efficient method” with “an improved wolf pack algorithm”.  You may consider this and improve accordingly. 

         Response 3: The title is revised to “Real-time optimal scheduling of water diversion system using an improved wolf pack algorithm and scheme library”.

 

4. Comments 4: Abstract: Line 10: generated or reported? May revise.

         Response 4: The word “generated” is revised to “reported” in Line 10.

 

5. Comments 5: Lines 11-12: It will be difficult to understand this sentence as reader will not be clear what the scheme is (without going into details in the paper). Better to revise this sentence to give a better meaning.

         Response 5: in Lines 11-12, the “scheme” is revised to “this paper presents a new method to achieve optimal scheduling schemes effectively, including the head allocation of CPS, the number of running pumps, and pump blade angles”.

 

6. Comments 6: Introduction, objectives: Well written.

         Response 6: Thank you for your positive comments to this part.

 

7. Comments 7: Line 94: What engineering? Please specify. i.e. engineering structures, engineering systems etc. 

          Response 7: The engineering is an engineering system, and it is revised in Line 98.

 

8. Comments 8: Lines 95-97: Needs English editing

         Response 8: Lines 95-97 is revised as follows: “Usually, the system is divided into two closely related subsystems for calculation of opti-mal operation, including pumping station and water transfer subsystems. The pumping station subsystem consists of several single-stage pumping stations in series or on parallel; and the water transfer subsystem consists of open water channels or pipe lines between two pumping stations or a pumping station and a lake or reservoir”. (See Line 98-103).

 

9. Comments 9: Line 100: Language editing might be needed.

         Response 9: Line 100 is revised as “The inner-layer model is used to determine the solutions of the single-stage pumping stations and water surface lines of water channels, and the outer-layer model is used to obtain the head allocation of CPS.” (See Line 104-106).

 

10. Comments 10: Line 271: Easy for what? Better to mention.

         Response 10: It is revised to “the Halton sequence is the basis and easy to be used” (See Line 257).

 

11. Comments 11: Line 293: Check English usage.

         Response 11: The extra comma was deleted in Line 272.

 

12. Comments 12: Line 309, Table 1: Give citations to the functions. Also give citations to the equations used in the manuscript wherever necessary. 

         Response 12: The functions is in the CEC2017 function sets. It is revised to “Ten benchmark functions in CEC2017 function sets [33] are used to evaluate the performance of the IWPA” in Line 271-272. The reference is listed in Reference 33.

 

13. Comments 13: Line 327: Language editing needed.

         Response 13: It is revised to “Consequently, the proposed IWPA has good search performance, and is recommended for the complex engineering problems” In Line 305.

 

14. Comments 14: Lines 358-359: Might need English editing.

         Response 14: In Lines 358-359, “Along the Bulao River, Liushan (LS), Xietai (XT) and Linjiaba (LJB) pumping station are built to lift water gradually.”is revised to “Along the Bulao River, Liushan (LS), Xietai (XT) and Linjiaba (LJB) pumping station lift water step by step”.

 

15. Comments 15: Sub-section numbering and arrangement of the paper: Please look into this and consider Analysis and Discussion as a separate section rather than a sub-section under section 5. 

         Response 15: It is revised in Line 422.

 

16. Comments 16: Discussion: It would be better to expand the discussion by comparing and analyzing the results with literature.  No literature is cited under discussion or analysis section.

        Response 16: The results are compared with Reference 5, and it is described as bellows: “Furthermore, in the results of Reference [5], dichotomy approach was employed to determine the flow rate and water level of two parallel channels, which decreased the time complexity and improve the calculation efficiency. But the limit is that it may not be able to solve the system with three or more water channels in parallel. So the application of scheme library method is more extensive” in Line 448-452.

 

17. Comments 17: Conclusion: Do you need numbering here. Better to remove the numbering and give the conclusion in a paragraph format. Anyway, authors can decide on this (depending on the journal's requirement)

         Response 17: Depending on the journal's requirement, the numbering in Conclusion is retained.

 

18. Comments 18: Line 525: precise or precision?

         Response 18: The word “precise” is revised to “precision” In Line 514,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have replied to my comments