24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

liusongkai

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 193.8
散金: 50
帖子: 13
在线: 33小时
虫号: 2568434
注册: 2013-07-27
性别: GG
专业: 电力系统

[求助] IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 初审意见如下，大神们帮小弟看看！散尽金币！已有1人参与

Body: After careful review we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, after revisions, if those revisions fully and properly address the concerns of the reviewers. The comments from the reviewers appearing below may include specific revisions that are mandatory and other changes suggested. You may have to make broader changes if necessary based on general comments provided by the reviewers.

I wish to emphasize that this is not a conditional acceptance.

It is, rather, a recognition by our reviewers and editors that your paper merits some interest. The reviewers of the original draft will be approached to assess the revised manuscript; at the discretion of the editor, additional reviewers may be included.

Please submit your revised paper within 60 days of receiving this letter. After 60 days the revision will expire and you will need an extension in order to submit the revised paper.

We encourage you to include an explanation of how you responded to the comments by the reviewers to help expedite our review.

Please include this explanation in the space provided for "response to reviewers" and "response to editor" when you upload the revision.

Please note that you should submit your revised paper following the latest author's guidelines (We have had direct author upload since January 7, 2002). See the Author's Kit on:

www.ieee.org/organizations/society/power/subpages/authors.html

Also, directions are contained at the end of this email.

WE ARE AUTOMATICALLY INFORMED WHEN YOU UPLOAD YOUR REVISION AND RESPONSES SO PLEASE DO NOT SEND EMAIL TO ME THAT YOU SUBMITTED YOUR PAPER, AND PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME YOUR PAPER AS EMAIL ATTACHMENT.

Thanks,

Prof. Antonio Conejo, Editor in Chief,
Transactions on Power Systems

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:

Editor's Comments:

Editor
Comments to the Author:
The reviewers indicated several concerns related to this paper with which I agree. Reviewer # 1 (private communication) has expressed concerns about publication and makes two important points regarding the nature of the assumptions adopted in the paper and the lack of novel ideas. Reviewer # 2, on the other hand, raises additional issues and asks for clarifications to the proposed method. These are very serious issues that require a clear and unambiguous response.

Please respond in full to all of the reviewers’ concerns and revise and resubmit your paper.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
This paper proposes a data mining approach for estimating the voltage stability margins. The simulation data from a simple model and a medium size model are used to establish and validate the estimation models. The study is done reasonably well. Yet, there are some concerns from the reviewer on the approach used.
1) When a generator reaches its VAR limits, the corresponding PV bus shall be changed to a PQ bus. This is a sudden change of the power flow model and corresponding Jacobian matrix. Please discuss how the conversion of PV to PQ bus may influence the proposed method.
2) How is the number of sample cases determined? For the 1648-bus system, 17472 cases were used by the authors. For the 21-bus system, 6035 cases were used. Obviously, the larger a system is, the more cases are required. How would a user know whether there are sufficient cases for training a model? When training data are not complete and model structures are not sufficiently, the estimation model established using training data can only reflect partial features of the system. It may be helpful to discuss how a user may determine whether the model and data are sufficient.
3) Because the testing data sets are not publicly available, it is hard to verify results of the proposed data-based estimation approach.
4) Please clarify the definition of x and y axis of Fig 2 on page 2. Are they load changes in MW or not?

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
I would like to comment the authors for the clear writing style they used in this paper.

I do have concerns and questions regarding the applicability of the proposed method in this paper:
1- The most important reservation I have about this paper is the constraint on the network topology. Network topology changes according to operational requirements such as economic dispatch or optimal power flow. The network hardly stays the same. Section H. 2nd para says if 3 equipment are out of service in a a large network then the method is not accurate, this would not be acceptable.

2- The method is building a database then matches online measurements to their specific VSM in the database. An online method should do more with online measurements (e.g. building real time dynamic models) and do less with a database built around a network not matching the real time network in most cases

3- The incremental benefit the proposed method would bring vis a vis other methods should be clearer. I do not see a small increase in accuracy versus other transparent methods is enough.

4- The range of the variables data is very big (e. g. look at Fig. 10): DO the authors believe it is possible to obtain such a large range of of measurements is feasible in normal operations? The method should build its foundations on very recent measurements (quasi static measurements) and while the load is going up. The range of variables data should be limited in the study.

5- Line 55 of page 5 says R2 > 0.953 is acceptable based on experimental results, has such results been published?

6- The use of the word 'got' is confusing inside this paper; do the authors mean 'obtained' or 'good'?
08-Mar-2014

回复此楼