Thermographic Measurements in Electrical Power Engineering—Open Discussion on How to Interpret the Results
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper intends to start a debate in terms of whether the current standards for Thermographic imaging require revision or improvement.
I feel that for this to be successful the authors need to put forward some proposals perhaps in the conclusions as to what the basis of the new standards should be. This would help the paper to trigger the discussions that the authors require.
I feel that the paper will not be useful review paper for other practitioners without an identification of where the existing standards are good or adequate and where they require improvement.
These issues should be addressed to allow the paper to be published.
The paper as it stands requires a thorough proof read as there are several typographical errors. I could not understand the authors meaning in the sentence on lines 275-277
=============================
The Authors intent as I understand it is to review the use of thermal imaging in power system applications to allow the start of a discussion for the development of new standards. Due to the publication constraints the review is relatively brief and as a review there is no new material presented. There is also a detailed review of the application of IR thermography already in existence (the authors reference 9 from 2021)
Some methods for determining the state of the power system and the requirements for maintenance based on thermography are introduced in the paper.
Table 1 is based on a paper/book from poland from 1978
Tables 2+ 3 comes from a conference paper from 1994
Table 4 comes from an Ansi/Neta standard from 2011 However I believe there is a more recent standard available
Table 5 is based on publications in german
There is some discussion by the authors on the differences and the weakness of the approaches in these tables and the underlying references in section 2 of the paper. But there is not a summary, perhaps as a table, that indicates the similarities or differences of the approaches identified in the review or the areas where new or additional approaches are required in the power industry. I feel that this is needed to lift the paper to the standard required for publication. This is also needed as a starting point for the debate which the authors wish to encourage/establish between practioners in this area to develop appropriate standards. A statement of what a new standard should contain in the authors opinion would be very useful to start this process and is needed to make the paper publishable in the journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is obviously not native but in general the authors meaning is clearly understandable. However as mentioned in the comments to the authors the sentence between lines 275 and 277 is not comprehensible as written. Perhaps an issue in translation?
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their constructive work. We have revised this article carefully according to their suggestions. All remarks are essential and influence the quality of the paper. Particular issues and authors' answers are provided below. We hope that this revision can meet the journal’s requirements though we were not able to address some issues reported by Reviewers. We tried to do our work the best having limited time for text improvements. Probably the Readers and Reviewers could expect the proposal of global standard but this task exceeds our competencies and, in our opinion, this is possible if many engaged actors like scientists, engineers, insurance companies, and societies start “round table discussions”. We only intended to initiate a discussion showing differences and possibilities of unification. Nevertheless, in an improved version of the manuscript, we tried to express our opinion on some selected topics though we are aware of argumentation weakness and incompleteness. More work is needed by more workers…
Related to the Review 1
Q1-1. I feel that for this to be successful the authors need to put forward some proposals perhaps in the conclusions as to what the basis of the new standards should be. This would help the paper to trigger the discussions that the authors require.
A1-1. Yes, our main goal was “to trigger discussions” and without the discussion of IR practitioners, scientists, and society boards like ASTM, ISO DIN, and national agencies it is very hard to make some conclusions or unified standard proposals. Nevertheless, some missing elements were proposed by the authors to initiate the discussion.
Q1-2. I feel that the paper will not be useful review paper for other practitioners without an identification of where the existing standards are good or adequate and where they require improvement.
A1-2. The existence of many standards points out that the issue of thermographic inspection needs further research and considering many factors influencing the robustness of results and finally recommendations for object and installation owners or operators. We tried to highlight selected aspects the most important from our point of view. Some discussion was extended in this improved version of the manuscript.
Q1-3. The Authors intent as I understand it is to review the use of thermal imaging in power system applications to allow the start of a discussion for the development of new standards. Due to the publication constraints the review is relatively brief and as a review there is no new material presented. There is also a detailed review of the application of IR thermography already in existence (the authors reference 9 from 2021)
A1-3. Our manuscript is intended as “a review” so the new material is not obligatory according to our best knowledge but welcome. The title of reference [9] includes “state-of-the-art”. Among others, it provides a classification of typical fault types of power equipment, discusses IRT limitations, and mainly focuses on machine-assisted fault detection. It seems that the main problem drawn in our paper is temperature rise levels and categories of faults and recommendations are omitted in [9]. We are convinced that this is the main open issue that needs further research, and discussion with scientists and practitioners to propose widely accepted worldwide standards.
Q1-4. Some methods for determining the state of the power system and the requirements for maintenance based on thermography are introduced in the paper.
A1-4. It sounds like a statement, not a question.
Q1-5. Table 1 is based on a paper/book from poland from 1978
A1-6. Please write Poland not poland. We do not understand what Reviewer wanted to draw attention to. Does the fact that it was published many years ago disqualify the value of the publication? On the contrary, in our opinion, it proves that despite the passage of many years, the problem remains open.
Q1-7. Tables 2+ 3 comes from a conference paper from 1994
A1-7. As above.
Q1-7. Table 4 comes from an Ansi/Neta standard from 2011 However I believe there is a more recent standard available.
A1-7. Thanks, indeed. The current version is from 2019. We updated it.
Q1-8. Table 5 is based on publications in german.
A1-9. We do not understand what is an issue?
Q1-9. There is some discussion by the authors on the differences and the weakness of the approaches in these tables and the underlying references in section 2 of the paper. But there is not a summary, perhaps as a table, that indicates the similarities or differences of the approaches identified in the review or the areas where new or additional approaches are required in the power industry. I feel that this is needed to lift the paper to the standard required for publication. This is also needed as a starting point for the debate which the authors wish to encourage/establish between practioners in this area to develop appropriate standards. A statement of what a new standard should contain in the authors opinion would be very useful to start this process and is needed to make the paper publishable in the journal.
A1-9. We added some text expressing our opinion but some questions are still open and we are aware of this weakness of the argumentation. Please follow the changes in the improved text.
Q1-10. The paper as it stands requires a thorough proof read as there are several typographical errors. I could not understand the authors meaning in the sentence on lines 275-277
A1-10. The whole text was carefully checked and extensively improved. The sentence on line 275-277 was improved too that now should be more clear. The erased text was marked with yellow color but added text with green to easily follow the changes.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Congratulations on the theme for your paper. Thermography is indeed an important technique for the monitoring of equipment in power systems and it is always interesting to find discussions of specialists like you.
A general suggestion for the text is an extensive review on the writing, both for English language and other typing errors.
Examples on grammar errors are shown on the next review topic.
Examples of typing errors can be seen in lines 10 (iss ue), 160 (oninstallation), 193 (1.6 ¸ 2.0), 219 (surprosing), 230 (pahase) among others.
Besides that, some expressions made me think if they are correct of if they were typing errors. For instance “shutting down the field” in line 252 and “immunity poles” in line 84.
Other recommendation for the writing is avoiding the utilization of first person like in “we need to consider”.
Figures in general, could be more descriptive about what they depict. Figure 3, for instance, mid-phase of what kind of equipment, what is the status of this equipment?
Considering the relevance of the discussion, although the title suggests a general review on the interpretation of thermograms, it seems that the main focus of the paper is related to the influence of winds and on the diagnostic recommendations based on the temperature differences – this last topic, obviously, the main purpose of a thermal inspection. My criticism about this is that many relevant influences on the result were not taken into account, as distance, type of equipment, characteristics of the camera, pollution levels, daytime and others. Although some of the influences are slightly mentioned there is no discussion on how they can affect the diagnostic base on temperature differences. In shorts, considering the title and the abstract, the development of the paper lacks some depth. I know the theme is extensive, but in this case I would suggest a better delimitation of the proposal or an adjustment of the discussions to make them more general.
Even for the main considered influence, the wind, there are some aspects that seems confusing, like comparing situations for high voltage and low voltage equipment. This kind of comparison could be avoided or better justified.
I hope these comments are useful for you.
Best regards.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough I am not a native English speaker, it possible to notice numerous grammar mistakes an also sentences where the comprehension is not easy due to its inadequate construction. Examples can be seen in lines 15, 94, 136, 144, 173, 211, 219, 222, 252, 260, 296. Again, as a non-native speaker, these considerations may not be correct.
Other general problems are related to the adequate use of articles an pronouns and the lack of commas.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their constructive work. We have revised this article carefully according to their suggestions. All remarks are essential and influence the quality of the paper. Particular issues and authors' answers are provided below. We hope that this revision can meet the journal’s requirements though we were not able to address some issues reported by Reviewers. We tried to do our work the best having limited time for text improvements. Probably the Readers and Reviewers could expect the proposal of global standard but this task exceeds our competencies and, in our opinion, this is possible if many engaged actors like scientists, engineers, insurance companies, and societies start “round table discussions”. We only intended to initiate a discussion showing differences and possibilities of unification. Nevertheless, in an improved version of the manuscript, we tried to express our opinion on some selected topics though we are aware of argumentation weakness and incompleteness. More work is needed by more workers…
Related to the Review 2
Q2-1. A general suggestion for the text is an extensive review on the writing, both for English language and other typing errors.
A2-1. The whole text was carefully checked and extensively improved. Many bugs were removed. The erased text was marked with yellow color but added text with green to easily follow the changes.
Q2-2. Examples on grammar errors are shown on the next review topic. Examples of typing errors can be seen in lines 10 (iss ue), 160 (oninstallation), 193 (1.6 ¸ 2.0), 219 (surprosing), 230 (pahase) among others. Besides that, some expressions made me think if they are correct of if they were typing errors. For instance “shutting down the field” in line 252 and “immunity poles” in line 84.
A2-2. Indeed, the text required extensive review. It was done and many bugs and typing errors were removed. The erased text was marked with yellow color but added text with green to easily follow the changes.
Q2-3. Other recommendation for the writing is avoiding the utilization of first person like in “we need to consider”.
A2-3. Done. The list of replacements is as follows: “ we need to consider” by “… must be considered”, “As we see…” by “You can see …”, “We will test…” by “…will be tested”, …we have to remember” to “…remembering”. “we have to continue…” by “it is necessary to continue…”.
Q2-4. Figures in general, could be more descriptive about what they depict. Figure 3, for instance, mid-phase of what kind of equipment, what is the status of this equipment?
A2-4. The content of the figures is more detailed described now.
Q2-5. Considering the relevance of the discussion, although the title suggests a general review on the interpretation of thermograms, it seems that the main focus of the paper is related to the influence of winds and on the diagnostic recommendations based on the temperature differences – this last topic, obviously, the main purpose of a thermal inspection. My criticism about this is that many relevant influences on the result were not taken into account, as distance, type of equipment, characteristics of the camera, pollution levels, daytime and others. Although some of the influences are slightly mentioned there is no discussion on how they can affect the diagnostic base on temperature differences. In shorts, considering the title and the abstract, the development of the paper lacks some depth. I know the theme is extensive, but in this case I would suggest a better delimitation of the proposal or an adjustment of the discussions to make them more general. Even for the main considered influence, the wind, there are some aspects that seems confusing, like comparing situations for high voltage and low voltage equipment. This kind of comparison could be avoided or better justified.
A2-5. Many thanks for this remark. The text was changed and some discussion was added. Please follow the text changes in the manuscript.
Q2-6. Although I am not a native English speaker, it possible to notice numerous grammar mistakes an also sentences where the comprehension is not easy due to its inadequate construction. Examples can be seen in lines 15, 94, 136, 144, 173, 211, 219, 222, 252, 260, 296. Again, as a non-native speaker, these considerations may not be correct.
A2-6. Indeed, the text required extensive review. It was done and many bugs and typing errors were removed. The erased text was marked with yellow color but added text with green to easily follow the changes.
Q2-7. Other general problems are related to the adequate use of articles an pronouns and the lack of commas.
A2-7. Missing articles, pronouns and commas were added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1,This article lacks coherent logical flow, suffers from formatting issues, and contains repetitive content. The examples provided are insufficient to support the article's conclusion.
2,You need to clarify how different standards across countries can create numerous problems and complications for the technical condition of electrical power components and systems is thermal imaging investigation.By comparing these standards, you should offer recommendations and appeal to everyone to create unified standards.
3,You can review the following articles and make improvements. Good luck to you.
DOI10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.027
DOI10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.043
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewers for their constructive work. We have revised this article carefully according to their suggestions. All remarks are essential and influence the quality of the paper. Particular issues and authors' answers are provided below. We hope that this revision can meet the journal’s requirements though we were not able to address some issues reported by Reviewers. We tried to do our work the best having limited time for text improvements. Probably the Readers and Reviewers could expect the proposal of global standard but this task exceeds our competencies and, in our opinion, this is possible if many engaged actors like scientists, engineers, insurance companies, and societies start “round table discussions”. We only intended to initiate a discussion showing differences and possibilities of unification. Nevertheless, in an improved version of the manuscript, we tried to express our opinion on some selected topics though we are aware of argumentation weakness and incompleteness. More work is needed by more workers…
Related to the Review 3
Q3-1. This article lacks coherent logical flow, suffers from formatting issues, and contains repetitive content.
A3-1. Some repetitions are removed.
Q3-2. The examples provided are insufficient to support the article's conclusion.
A3-2. One example was added to show the effect of underestimation of temperature due to too small IFOV. One figure was added.
Q3-3.You need to clarify how different standards across countries can create numerous problems and complications for the technical condition of electrical power components and systems is thermal imaging investigation. By comparing these standards, you should offer recommendations and appeal to everyone to create unified standards.
A3-3. Some discussion was added. Please follow the text changes in the manuscript.
Q3-4. You can review the following articles and make improvements.
- DOI10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.027
- DOI10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.043
A3-4. The suggested papers were reviewed and finally added to the main text supporting the discussion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly can I apologise to the authors for not capitalising their country's name in my comments.
The comments about publications in Polish or German is more in terms of access to the information contained within the references from members of the international community.
Thanks to you for addressing the issued that I raised and I hope that they are successful in starting a process that will lead to better standards in this important area
Author Response
Many thanks to the comments on the revised version and final acceptance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thank you for the corrections. The text is indeed improved now.
My best regards.
Author Response
Many thanks to the comments on the revised version and final acceptance.
