| 查看: 4120 | 回复: 30 | |||
[交流]
IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery投稿结果已有9人参与
|
|||
|
Dear Authors: We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions. Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee. I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future. You are welcomes to provide feedback on your experience of the review process. This can be done through the following website: http://sites.ieee.org/tpwrd/author-feedback-form/ We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society. Sincerely yours, Prof. Wilsun Xu Editor-in-Chief, Transactions on Power Delivery COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS: Editor-in-Chief's Comments: Editor Editor Comments for Author: (There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.) Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The interrupting ability of circuit breakers is an interesting topic. The authors are focused on "out of step fault" conditions in UHV lines. Generally, there are a lot of interesting things in this work, but the paper should be well re-organized. Firstly the language should be significantly improved and the quality of figures as well. In the abstract in line 20, it is not clear what the authors mean with "reducing severity of the CBs". This should be clearly explained maybe in the introduction. In page 1, line 9, right column, it is recommended to use "out step protection is applied" Introduction part in general is incomplete and very short. At the end, a paragraph should be added describing what the goal of this paper will be and what methodology and solutions the authors propose. The authors mention "out of phase fault analysis". It is not clear what the authors mean with this term? Is there a disconnection of the CBs during a fault in the network associated with an out of step condition, or from some reason phase angle difference of between remote line angles is kept 45, 90, 180 degrees etc? Fig.2 shows presence of high amount of ripples in the overvoltages similar to those when short line faults are disconnected. however, there is no disconnection of a fault. Is this because the transmission solution is an overhead line. In figure 5 we see this for some parameters as well but it is very difficult to indentify what is what. please comment the ripples, is that because of low capacitance or low losses and improve figure 5. how is equation (2) derived? Equation (3) may not be needed because it is Iopm/sqrt(2). There are some equations on page 3. is ls the same as Ls; and l0 is the same as L0? please be consistent with the formulaes. In eq. 9 the variable "s" occurs for the first time I gues, but it is not mention what this variable means. how do you get equation (12)? please explain either in the text or all formulaes should be explained in an appendix. figure 6. how are the simulations performed? Please explain the manuver that is made in figure 1 which possibly results in the solution in figure 6? please use "computed" instead of "calculated". Figure 4. should be imporved. it seems that lower capacitances result in higher RRRV. However, lower capacitance means shorter lines. Is it possible for shorter lines to have such a high deviation of out of step angles ? what is the MCOV of the MOA? Page 6. second column, line 42. first sentence is not clear. "the cure of max overvoltage level... ". what is the meaning? please rewrite it. figure 14 shows, "max overvoltage level vs postion of transmission line". what the position of transmission line means ? do you maybe mean, specific location along the line. in the first paragrpah of chapter iV "Fig .15" should be "Fig. 15". Please also pay attention and correct the text in the whole paper. there are here and there similar mistakes. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The paper deals with an important issue for UHV systems. It calculates and compares different conditions and tries to come to a conclusion regarding the severity for circuit breaker stress. The English language could be impoved for better readability Page 1 Line 22: I think the commonly used term is “ not permanent” instead of transient Page 2 line 8 more severe may be more appropriate than brutal Page 2 line 42 why is the generator cb standard refered here? Out of phase condition for generator circuit breaker is a different issue than for UHV. It would be more appropriate to make reference to IEC 62271-306 which gives a lot of backgroundinformation how the standard was created in relation to the network conditions Page 3:It seems that the text flow is somehow mixed after line 2 11 it continues with line 1 to 11 in the sec row follow than by line 48 in the first row Page 3 fig 4: Either some system parameters like power, length of the line etc. could be added or the result should be expressed in relative terms Page 4 figure 6: for better understanding the X axe should show the value 0 at current zero. The absolute value as shown here is not interesting. Furthermore it may be helpful to include a graphical comparison of the standard TRV waveshape and the calculated one. This may increase the understanding. Page 5 figures 8 -12 same comment as for figure 4. please add either system parameters or make the values relative. In addition it may be somehow helpful to add the correspong values from the standard Page 6 line 18: The sentence: due to the oppnening time…. is not understood. Is the intention here to say something about delayed current zero’s? This would be the first time in this doc. Page 7 Table II: Is this table talking about overvoltage leves somewhere at the line, or TRV values at the circuit breaker. I assume it is TRV values at the circuit breaker. if so it should made clear. some for table III Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author This paper discussed an important and interesting topic in UHV power system, which is how system parameters influence the out-of-phase faults interruption conditions for circuit breakers. However, the paper is ill-written. This paper’s goal, ideas or technical contents are very difficult to understand due to confusing organization of the materials and unfit use of English language. The paper is suggested a re-organization. An English polishing service is benificial. Reviewer: 4 Comments to the Author The authors apply oversimplified models with irrealistic parameters to an interesting topic. From the beginning of the paper many questions rise, like: why are shunt reactors and series capacitors in operation at the same moment, why is the single circuit OH-line that consists of two sections treated as one 650 km long line, why isn't it mentioned that at both line ends large 1000/500 kV transformers are installed, why is the surge caoacitance of the shunt reactors not taken into account but in stead the (unrealistic large) capacitance to ground of the series capacitor platforms, how are the travelling waves implemented in the model of Fig. 1, where are the negative reflections of the travelling waves coming from, both CBs do not interrupt at exactly the same moment, the initial part of the TRV for out-of-phase is covered by T30, etc. The draft paper doesn't reflect much practical experience in the field of circuit breakers and switching transients. At least reference had to be made to Prof. Jiming Lin's "A Study on Transient Recovery Voltage of UHV circuit breakers", Conference of UHV Transmission Technology, Beijing 2006. 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
试用期辞职
已经有20人回复
-
关于读博感觉自己很抓马
已经有14人回复
-
演员杨幂在核心期刊发表论文，中国广播电视学期刊
已经有8人回复
-
求助
已经有9人回复
-
b口yq上会情况
已经有3人回复
-
申请25博士，可以提前进组做科研助理
已经有3人回复
-
江苏省333人才工程 出校后被刷的概率大不大？
已经有9人回复
-
怎么带研究生？
已经有18人回复
-
工材口青年基金大概什么样能上会？
已经有21人回复
-
夏至，要不要硕博联谊
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- IEEE 投稿两个星期被拒
已经有38人回复
★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2016-07-13 11:04:44
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2016-07-13 11:04:44
|
除了第四个审稿人 都提到英语问题...英语用最简单的话不就可以了吗 我觉得使用高中英语句型就够了 这个期刊本来就很严厉 投稿之前至少让英语好的同学看下吧 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
9楼2016-07-10 12:24:37
2楼2016-07-10 11:36:40
zbking
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 46 (小学生)
- 金币: 10224.9
- 散金: 19
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 875
- 在线: 866.9小时
- 虫号: 2524034
- 注册: 2013-06-27
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 计算机网络
5楼2016-07-10 11:54:53
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
我也是刚中的pe、简单句就行 我故意把长句子写成短句。初稿写了40页·删到20页 全是短句。不过楼主的心态有点炸呀 我师兄被这个期刊被秒拒 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
13楼2016-07-10 12:53:03
黑马王子甲
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 14 (小学生)
- 金币: 2635.8
- 散金: 723
- 红花: 87
- 帖子: 1642
- 在线: 408.9小时
- 虫号: 2964147
- 注册: 2014-02-11
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 交通工程
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
|
你这个有点玻璃心了，人家是针对文章当然是有啥说啥了，你还能指望他们先夸夸你，然后再表示很惋惜拒稿？我也收到过很语气很重的评审意见，但是没法子，谁让自己确实没做好呢，还是说你做的特别牛，只是他们都不识货？ 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
21楼2016-07-10 19:13:43
3楼2016-07-10 11:38:05
ljq158
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 225 (大学生)
- 金币: 16325.9
- 散金: 2519
- 红花: 41
- 帖子: 6335
- 在线: 1988.3小时
- 虫号: 1681876
- 注册: 2012-03-11
- 专业: 化工系统工程
4楼2016-07-10 11:46:25
6楼2016-07-10 12:20:10
moqi
至尊木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 45 (小学生)
- 金币: 13383.9
- 散金: 35
- 红花: 18
- 帖子: 1961
- 在线: 198.8小时
- 虫号: 2276444
- 注册: 2013-02-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 控制理论与方法
7楼2016-07-10 12:22:08
8楼2016-07-10 12:22:44
10楼2016-07-10 12:25:06
5