Research on Dynamic and Thermal Effects Based on the Calculation of the Short-Circuit Current in Low-Voltage DC Distribution Systems for Civil Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Considering a 380 V supply the output of the rectifier can not reach 750 V. The DC output is 380*1.35=513 V and (513/750)* 4345=2972 A which is very close to the IEC calculated value.

the content of the contribution is interesting but it needs major revision.

some references such as [1,2], [7,8,9], [11],[16],[20],[24] and [30] have Ieee as author.

the reference [19], miss address.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made responses to your comments point by point.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a method to evaluate dynamic and thermal effects of SC currents in LVDC networks. the method proposed by the authors is compared with IEC 61660, providing different values.

The paper is well written and understandable. Authors method is based on well know existing formulations (e.g. for capacitor discharging) and performed assumptions are correct. I suggest that the following aspects are reviewed prior to the paper publication:

1 - Authors should clarify their assumptions in terms of modelling options. How was the equivalent model parameters calculated (from figure 5)? How do they compare with real life LVDC systems?

2 - Authors method is presented against a standard from 1997. Authors should further investigate if there are any other methodologies currently in place where dynamic and thermal effects are studied. Altough authors refer that no other method is known, there are worksin the literature in which simulations or real life measurements are performed. These should also be considered.

3 - Authors present references 25-30 as "scholars studying other related issues". Either authors shortly describe these issues or I suggest that these references are removed from the paper.

4 - authors should mention (in the discussion or conclusion) the consequences of the difference verified in short circuit currents, if possible against examples using real data (which comes back to my comment number 2).

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

      Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our article. We have studied the comments carefully and have provided a point-by-point response. Please see the attachment. The revised portion are marked in red in the re-submitted files. 

      Once again, thank you deeply for your comments, and hope the corrections will meet with approval.

      Good regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is on short-circuit current calculation in LVDC distribution systems. The work presented is worthy of publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made responses to your comments point by point.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1) When first mentioned, abbreviations must be deciphered.

2) Figure 6 is best done on a white background.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made responses to your comments point by point.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Unfortunately, I cannot advise to publish it in its current form. In fact, the paper suffers a number of important weaknesses which should be addressed, and I clarify them below:

1. The word "civil" is written in the title of the paper. But there is no explanation for it in the text!!

2. The contributions of this work are simple.

3. There are a lot of formulations without using references. Therefore, it is very difficult to follow the paper and evaluate it.

4.    How can you prove the superiority of the suggested approach?

5. Where is the impact of load variations during one day in the calculations and objective functions? In total, the problem formulation is very weak, and the authors must modify it.

 

6. It is suggested that this paper can be submitted to a weak journal or conference.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have made responses to your comments point by point.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

thank you for considering my comments.

Author Response

      Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript and for your approval especially. We have made some corrections according to other reviewers’ comments. We would be glad for you to take a look again if you have time.

      Once again, thank you deeply for your approval.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Editor

In the case, overall recommendation was rejected in the first round of review. Now it seems that this paper can be suitable for publication.

 

However, the choice is ultimately up to the respected editor.

 

Best

Author Response

      Thank you very much for taking the time to review the manuscript and for your approval especially. We have made some corrections according to other reviewers’ comments. We would be glad for you to take a look again if you have time.

      Once again, thank you deeply for your approval.