Application of the Harmony Search Algorithm for Optimization of WDN and Assessment of Pipe Deterioration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following comments are performed for the review of the paper with titleApplication of Harmony Search algorithm for optimization of WDN and assessment of pipe deterioration.
The proposed paper follows the typical structure with introduction, the applied methodology and the conclusions. The authors present the characteristics problem with explained details including the variables and the conditions of the used equations. In addition, the obtained results are presented in tables supported by figures, which promote the impact of the used methodology in the problem.
However, minor suggestions concerning the methodology Harmony Search algorithm should be taken into account in order to improve the quality of paper. Harmony Search is well-known optimization method, which is appplied in continuous and discrete optimization problems. In the proposed paper a short literature review is absent. In section 2, the authors should add a paragraph with related and recently applications or extensions of the HS algorithm. I recommend some other papers, that authors must include in their paper:
- Vasebi, M. Fesanghary and S.M.T. Bathaee. “Combine heat and power economic dispatch by harmony serachalgorithm.”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 29 (2007):713-719
- Tsakirakis, M. Marinaki, Y. Marinakis, N. Matsatsinis. “A similarity hybrid harmony search algorithm for the Team Orienteering problem”, Applied Soft Computing 80 (2019):776-796
- O. Degertekin. “Optimum design of steel frames using harmony search algorithm”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 36(2008):393-401
- Z.Gao, P.N Suganthan, Q.K. Pan, T.J. Chua, T.X. Cai & C.S. Chong. “Discreet harmony search algorithm for flexible job shop scheduling problem with multiple objectives”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 27 (2016):363-374
- Y.Chen, D. Prayogo, Y.W. Wu, M.M. Lukito. “A Hybrid Harmony Search algorithm for discreet sizing optimization of truss structure”, Automation in Construction 69 (2016):21-33
With the upper few changes the proposed paper will be completed and qualified for publication.
.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
I would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. The proposed literature has been added in order to enrich the recent applications of the HS algorithm.
If there are additional modifications, we will try to do our best for it.
Best Regards
Reviewer 2 Report
the section results and discussion must be stronger.. bring along with more informative texts and the figures are unclear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.
We improved the our manuscript based on all reviewer's comments.
If there are addition modifications, we'll try to our best for it again.
Best Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper in general is well written and focuses on an important topic. The findings and conclusions of this paper are interesting and may be useful for future studies. I would encourage the Authors' to revise it based on the comments by this Reviewer and to resubmit.
The following comments are listed for the authors' reference:
1. The authors need to contrast their study approach, need and results with the previously published information, and then a make a strong case on how the current study is unique.
2. The research significance has not been justified, which is the critical part of Introduction. Please improve the "research significance" of the study. In any event, it is highly recommended to use a sub-section entitled "Research Significance".
Please cite the following papers while discussing the application of successful implementation HS algorithms:
- Bekdaş, G., Cakiroglu, C., Islam, K., Kim, S. and Geem, Z.W. (2022), “Optimum Design of Cylindrical Walls using Ensemble Learning Methods”, Applied Science, 12(4): 2165.
- Cakiroglu, C., Islam, K., Bekdaş, G., Kim, S. and Geem, Z.W. (2021), “CO2 Emission Optimization of Concrete-filled Steel Tubular Rectangular Stub Columns Using Metaheuristic Algorithms”, Sustainability, 13(19): 10981.
- How the convergence test was performed and which software was used and what are the criteria to select the optimized configurations. Please elaborate in the revised manuscript.
- What's the benefit of using harmony search algorithm instead of using other commonly used optimization algorithms like evolutionary algorithms, PSO, and many more reported in the literature review. You need to highlight the appropriateness of this algorithm for the stated problem discussed in the paper.
- Sensitivity analyses of optimization algorithm is missing or is there any performance measure to compare the model performance with the existing techniques commonly used for the optimal design of water distribution networks.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.
Your kind comments have been considered and the paper has been updated according to them.
We improved the our manuscript based on all reviewer's comments.
If there are addition modifications, we'll try to our best for it again.
Best Regards
Reviewer 4 Report
On page 3, lines 104-106, the Authors say that the new harmony vector is generated based on three rules: memory consideration, pitch adjustment and random selection. Since no other information is given, they should describe such operators in more detail, in order to make the manuscript more comprehensible.
The Auhors should describe the way their HS algorithm treats the constraints on head and flows, e.g: have they been added to the objective function as penalties, or what? More description must be given.
The Authors have reported in Table 3 some basic characterisitcs in terms of min/max diameters, flows and heads. It would be interesting to show also the related frequency distributions. The same holds for Table 6.
On page 7, Line 233, the lower bound constraint of 0 m/s is quite strange, and not realistic. According to the Reviewer, the Authors should adopt a minimum value of 0.05 (or, better, 0.1) m/s, and re-run their optimization algorithm.
The Authors should confirm if in the second part of the paper (optimization of roughness coefficients), they have assumed the original diameters (rather than the optimized diameters, as obtained by the first optimization).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.
About the rules of the generation of the new harmony vector, this description is referred to the cited literature.
The treatment of the constraints is described in the model description section (line 237) in which is specified that the constraints are used as penalties in the objective function, and the same holds for the second part of the study.
In the second part of the paper “Assessment of pipe deterioration” section 5.2 of the results and discussions, it is pointed out that the diameters corresponds to the original model, not the optimized.
We have considered the reviewer´s comments and would like to thank again for them.
Best Regards
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
this paper need much more explanations
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We appreciate to the reviewer for this comment. Some clarifications and explanations have been added to the results and discussion section in modified manuscript.
Thank you.
Reviewer 4 Report
The Authors should explain why the minimum velocity is 0.0 m/s in Table 6, while the constraint is specified as 0.05 m/s (on Line 236)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
We appreciate to your kind review.
Yes, it was a typo. We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing it out.
Table 6 was modified according to your comment.
Thank you.
