On the Development of a Metamodel and Design Support Excel Automation Program for Offshore Wind Farm Layout Optimization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Here are my comments for the authors:
- In abstract: Author needs to describe what is meta-model?
- Wind farms energy production also affected by air density, wind shear and turbulence intensity. Authors need to describe recent works done on these areas. Some example could be:
a) Incorporating air density into a Gaussian process wind turbine power curve model for improving fitting accuracy. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2285
b) Performance Test of a 3MW Wind Turbine – Effects of Shear and Turbulencehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.410.
c) Modelling and measurements of power losses and turbulence intensity in wind turbine wakes at Middelgrunden offshore wind farm. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.238. - When authors talked about wind energy and wind speed, there is no discussion on power curves. Power curves are key indicator and widely used for energy calculation, performance optimisation. Authors needs to do recent literature review on power curves and why it is import. Some recent works worth to start with:
a) Wind turbine power curve modeling for reliable power prediction using monotonic regression. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.060
b) Uncertainty estimation for wind energy conversion by probabilistic wind turbine power curve modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.180
c) Comparison of advanced non-parametric models for wind turbine power curves. doi: 10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5728.
d) Daily condition monitoring of grid-connected wind turbine via high-fidelity power curve and its comprehensive rating. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.043. - Figures 3 (a) and (b) are poor quality and needs to draw with a thin line and also aligned properly x-axis of figure (a).
- Convert the source code into flow chart and keep this as an appendix at the end of the paper.
- The conclusion is short. Authors need to briefly explain the conclusion with possible future works.
- It would be good to make data as well as code in repository for wider research community benefits
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
I had reviewed and corrected errors in the English sentences of this article through MDPI Author Services (English Editing Services-Specialist Edit). I submitted the final revision to MDPI, but MDPI asked reviewers to review the draft rather than the final.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
I revised the manuscript “On the Development of a Meta model & Design Support Excel Automation Program for the Offshore Wind Farm Layout Optimization ” submitted to the “Journal of Marine Science and Engineering”. The paper is very interesting. However, I have some concerns, which need to be addressed.
Line 13 – 15. This sentence is not necessary for the substantive value of the summary.
Line 20 -21. “In addition, a design support excel program was developed to quickly and easily calculate the annual energy production forecast considering the wake effect,……”
I think the phrase is inaccurate because the Program makes calculations to counteract the 'wake' effect. Please take this into account.
Line 29, 34, 39, 42, 44, 45 ….etc. …The dot position at the end of a phrase and a literature source needs to be checked.
Line 38 – 39. “……as shown in Figure 1. ……” A formulation that confirms the presence of a figure is not necessary. It is enough, at the end of the phrase, to indicate a graphic visualization for the content of the statement (figure number).
Line 36, 37. Please check the accuracy of the value record and its measurement unit. Please divide the value and its unit of measurement with a space.
Line 40. “….set point of the WTGs…..” Please expand the meaning of the name abbreviations just as in line 31.
Line 28 – 45. This presents the national situation of investments and development of wind farms. The presentation is brief, but it presents the energetic situation well.
Line 46, Figure 1. The text description on the surface of figure 1 is unreadable.
Line 47 – 61. The presentation of available modelling methods, to which the authors compare their achievements, is short but efficient. The descriptions of individual optimization criteria are visible. There is no introduction of information about the reaction of the presented examples to the "wake" phenomenon. I propose to extend the comment with an evaluation of the presented methods for comparison with own optimisation needs. The presentation can be extended by indicating the origin of the subject.
Line 65. A formulation that confirms the presence of a figure is not necessary. It is enough, at the end of the phrase, to indicate a graphic visualization for the content of the statement (figure number).
Line 63 – 70. The shortage of a quickly articulated research problem can be replaced by a presentation of the wind plant site to which the optimisation measures apply. There is, however, a lack of formulations that would explain the genesis of the subject directly.
Line 76 – 77. Figure 3 a) has a problem with the visibility of the indications. Figures 3 a) and b) should contain the unit of measurement for wind speed. One can guess but this makes it difficult to understand the content of the research work.
Line 77. You need a space in the name of the figure before the text in parentheses.
Line 79, 82. Please check the accuracy of the notation: ".... 20years....".
Line 81 – 85. „…..However, unlike typical Korean weather conditions, the average monthly wind speed of the Kori met mast over 20years was the lowest during the winter season and the average wind speed during the spring and fall seasons was observed high. Data from the nearby Kanjeolgot AWS also show similar measurement results, enabling verification of wind characteristics in the area……”
Can the author give a justification for this observation? A trial explanation at this stage of the work promotes understanding of local climate conditions. Please think about it.
Line 78. Figure 4. Please make sure that the description of the diagram is readable.
Line 90. Please make sure that the phrase is correct and comprehensible to the reader.
Line 108 -109, 109 - 111 „….Fig. 5 is an example of the deployment of the Gori offshore wind 109 110 111 farm turbine using windPRO…..” „……….The main variables affecting wind turbine layout are (a) separation from the shoreline; (b) rotation angle of the complex; (c) side angle of the complex; and (d) front and rear column distance of the turbine. ……”
The sentence is incomprehensible in terms of the result and effect of the software application. Please express more precisely the effect of optimisation work from the point of view of the approved criteria. Please describe the criteria for optimisation work in a more comprehensible way.
Line 112 – 116. The author finally gives an indication of the origin and purpose of the work. It is worth presenting the assumptions for the genesis of the analysed research problem also in the summary.
Line 119 – 122. Please develop the abbreviation AEP in the content of your work for readers (Annual Energy Production).
Xi - Please indicate again clearly in the description of formula 1 the design variables xi.
Line 123. Formula 1 has a questionable mathematical and structural form. Please clarify the form of formula 1.
Line 124 – 127. Scenarios constitute the scope of the work and should be identified as part of a detailed discussion of the aim of the work. Please take this into account.
Line 130. Please mark the design variables in Table 1 with an additional Xi heading to maintain a clear understanding of the data.
Line 131. Please explain the abbreviation CF in the table for the estimation results (capacity factor)
Line 134. Scenario 2 should be briefly explained in the context of optimisation activities after Scenario 1 to illustrate the steps to achieve the work goal. Please take this into account.
Line 142. The elements of formula 2 should be explained in an additional description to clarify the functions and relationships and to maintain the order of the mathematical notation.
Line 143. The presentation of source code and command window is graphically unreadable and should not appear as an image in this work.
Line 144. Figure 8. Evolutionary Algorithm (EA)?, Profile-guided Optimization (PGO)?. Please explain the abbreviations for better communication with the reader.
Line 135, 139, 157, 181. DOE (Design of Experiments data?) Please explain the abbreviations for better communication with the reader.
Line 187, 188. DOF? Degrees of…..? Please explain the abbreviations for better communication with the reader.
Line 178, 187, 188. p- value? (probability value)?, f – value? (Value of the F distribution)? Please explain the abbreviations for better communication with the reader.
Line 193 -203, 205 – 210. The outcomes of the results discussion and the most important conclusion should be briefly reflected in the text of the summary.
Line 145 – 210. Discussion of the results is quite limited and based on discussion of own validation results. It proposes to enrich the discussion of results based on a wide range of reference publications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
I had reviewed and corrected English errors in this article through MDPI Author I had reviewed and corrected errors in the English sentences of this article through MDPI Author Services (English Editing Services-Specialist Edit). I submitted the final revision to MDPI, but MDPI asked reviewers to review the draft rather than the final.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Though the topic of Offshore Wind fam layout Optimization is an interesting and timely issue for research, this manuscript fails to address the issue in a proper manner. The provided background information is too brief and unstructured. The way the results are presented and discussed is not clearly understandable for the readers because many of the tabulated values and figures are not well discussed. Moreover, the novelty of the work is not visible. The conclusion is also too short and not informative enough.
The manuscript has also a lot of technical errors. Some of the observed technical errors are marked (noted) in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
I had reviewed and corrected errors in the English sentences of this article through MDPI Author Services (English Editing Services-Specialist Edit). I submitted the final revision to MDPI, but MDPI asked reviewers to review the draft rather than the final.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Please refer to the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
