A Novel Approach of Voltage Sag Data Analysis Stochastically: Study, Representation, and Detection of Region of Vulnerability
, Nitai Pal 1, Harish Chandra Mohanta 2, Reynah Akwafo 3,* and Heba G. Mohamed 4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting. Please consider the following concerns of this reviewer.
page 2:
"the authors of the reference [11] created a mathematical model.". Please concretize.
page 2: references [16][17] and [18] very vague. Please concretize.
Page 2: not only here, but elsewhere in the paper the English needs to be revised. For example "There are very less research articles that pinpoint the region that is vulnerable or affected by voltage sag" or "The novel contributions of the article are the sag data are process stochastically using continuous normal distribution and correlation analysis"
page 3: "The performance of the delicate electrical device linked across the load end is better understood by industrial operators thanks to this VSM" There is no definition for "VSM". There are numerous acronyms in the text. At the beginning of the paper, a nomenclature section would be welcome.
page 4 and following:
If you intend to give importance to the SPD, you must put a figure. What type of uncertainty is being considered in references e[11], [19], [20], [21]? Please concretize.
page 5, section 3.1.
Equations (1) to (3) are for a post-fault scenario on an "m" bus. This aspect should be mentioned.
pages 6, 7, 8, ...
This section faithfully follows what is in references [29] and [30] " .... Authors should clarify the sources throughout the section. The figures themselves are adaptations of the original articles.
The way of making references is different in sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.
pages 10 and 11
The novelty of the article in relation to publications [29] and [30] is not evident.
page 12: section 3.4
The way of presenting data throughout the text does not seem to be the most appropriate. Perhaps a table or pointer from the IEEE website.
pages 12 and 13
English needs a strong overhaul. The sequence of events that illustrate the case study is not understood. It is not understood what is intended to be achieved in the case study. Please clarify.
page 15
"associated computed data for the normal distribution [30], [32].". Did the authors make the calculations or are they using data from the references? Please clarify.
page 18: it is more usual to refer to " p.u." instead of "P.U."
page 19: figure 9 shows poor quality. The explanation regarding the relevance of the results presented here should also be improved. (figure 8, 9 and 10)
page 20: section 5 is quite interesting and perhaps constitutes the biggest novelty of the article that should be highlighted in the introduction section. Would it make sense to refer to and analyze "autocorrelation" according to reference [21]?
pages 21 and 22: the tables should be improved in terms of text layout (centered). The meaning of negative correlation in the concerted case of the results in table 6 must also be explained.
page 23: in the figures there is a line relative to the correlation. In the case of figures 11a. and 11c. the approximation to a straight line does not seem adequate. Clarify this situation.
page 23: a comment on the data in table 8 is justified.
Table 10 and following:
The case study set out below Table 10 requires further explanation. A flowchart is suggested that includes the mathematical models used to arrive at the results in figure 13. Conclusions must be drawn.
Section 7 conclusions: mentioning that "A fast and efficient analytical method is used for the assessment of sag. " may be ambitious since the authors do not mention computational times in relation to other methodologies.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph and on "region of vulnerability is developed and presented.", this part requires work.
As a final note: the work is interesting but, in this reviewer's opinion, has important flaws:
- in the explanation of the methods it is very faithful to the references [29][30] and what is new in the paper is not evident
- the explanation of the ROV and the case study are very poor;~
- the text needs a strong revision of the English
- in many of the tables and figures it is not understood what is intended to be achieved.
- there are several other references from 2022 on this topic not cited.
Happy new year!
Author Response
The authors thank the esteemed reviewers for their critical review of the manuscript. The reviewers' comments are addressed carefully, and the necessary modifications suggested by them have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have improved the manuscript based on the evaluation parameters provided by the reviewers. The responses to the reviewer's comments and suggestions are addressed below point-wise, which is also highlighted with sky blue in the revised manuscript.
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The language of the paper is good and the results are good and well-presented.
There are some improvements that should be done:
The paper should be restructured: Theory should be presented first and the result should have clearly the separate section.
The text and equations of Section 4 should be formatted properly.
Author Response
The authors thank the esteemed reviewer for their critical review of the manuscript. The reviewer' comments are addressed carefully, and the necessary modifications suggested by them have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have improved the manuscript based on the evaluation parameters provided by the reviewers. The responses to the reviewer's comments and suggestions are addressed below point-wise, which is also highlighted with sky blue in the revised manuscript.
Please find the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
