Analysis of the Surface Electric Field Distribution of a 10 kV Faulty Composite Insulator
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-written and clearly described a comprehensive model for the surface electric field distribution. I think it could be accepted in its current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled „Analysis of surface electric field distribution along the 10 kV faulty composite insulator“ is well written and adequately organized. The manuscript deals with computation results of the 10 kV composite insulator electric field intensity. Computation in this manuscript were obtained using software package COMSOL Multiphysics which is based on the finite element method (FEM). The results of the axial and radial components of the field are presented and explained. Different scenarios such as normal operating condition of insulator, damaged insulator, insulator with internal defects and fouling fault condition were considered. The obtained results of different analyzed scenarios were compared. Adequate conclusions were drawn based on the obtained results of various analyzed scenarios.
Although the manuscript is well written, in order to be considered for publication in this journal, the authors need to make the following corrections and clarifications:
· At the end of the introductory section, the authors should give an overview of the paper.
· What are the boundary conditions of use on the border of the rectangle inside which the considered insulator is located? Is it ensured, and how, that these boundaries do not affect the calculation results?
· The sentence in lines 119 - 120 is incomplete. “As shown in Figure 1.”
· Since the conclusions of the manuscript are based on the calculation results, I think that the method of problem modelling should be elaborated in more details. This especially applies to the modelling of defects and the specifics of their modelling.
· I am of the opinion that the abstract should be rewritten in a more traditional way without giving calculated values at this stage of the manuscript.
· The list of references as well as the literature review should be expanded.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is rather interesting. Many parameters that cause composite insulator sheath damage are taken into account even “birds pecking”.
The task of investigation is rather important, the method of its solution is chosen correctly.
The paper proposes methods that can be used in praxis in real electrical systems.
The paper can be published without serious revisions.
However, sometimes sentences are written in poor English. E.g., in abstract “have a more comprehensive known of the surface electric field distribution”, “For the insulator is covered with NaCl conductive fouling”
In Introduction line 3 “insulator is usually subjected to damage” and in last paragraph “the current researches are mainly focused on”.
Title of Part 2 “2. Simulation model establishment and parameter setting” – the word “establishment” is to be replaced. Maybe “development” or another word.
The same in p.2 4th line from bottom.
Besides, some symbols, e.g., “Emaxa” can be replaced with symbols with both upper and lower indices, e.g., “Emaxa” or “Emax(a)” to avoid confusion by a reader.
Some symbols are written in italic or with colored background.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
