Relay Protection Using Inductive Coils: A Resource-Saving Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this research paper. However, there is a vast amount of high-quality research available, and this paper makes a minimal contribution in terms of findings and data validation

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Author Response

Response to the first Reviewer

 

To a reviewer of Electricity Journal. Good Day, Dear Reviewer. I have submitted to your attention a research article with a new title, revised according to your recommendations: «Relay Protection using inductive Coils: a resource-saving Approach».

Dear Reviewer, we would like to respond to all your comments. According to the reviewer's recommendations, this manuscript has been thoroughly revised, the design of the article has been improved, and the quality of the English language has been much improved to better express the essence and understanding of the conducted research. The description of the sections «Introduction», «Materials and Methods», «Results» and «Conclusions» has been improved.

Comments from the reviewer:

1. However, there is a vast amount of high-quality research available, and this paper makes a minimal contribution in terms of findings and data validation

Response: This research is intended to build various protections on inductance coils, which are an alternative to traditional protections. Alternative protections are built on other element bases such as: inductance coils, reed switches, magnetic current transformers, Hall sensors, Rogowski coils. I, as a supervisor and my research group are currently doing research and experiments with inductance coils and reed switches. This is also confirmed by numerous patents for inventions. Conducted researches on inductive coils in this work are confirmed by the patent for invention, for the first time presented the choice of settings for resource-saving protection on inductive coils, as well as the Act of implementation of the developed device at the industrial enterprise. Also for the first time the technical and economic comparison of the presented protection with devices of traditional protections is presented, from which it became clear that the developed and proposed resource-saving protection is much more effective than traditional ones. I believe that this work makes a significant contribution to the development of science, in its advancement, in expanding the range of considered issues related to resource conservation of materials used and energy conservation of heat and electricity. Undoubtedly, researches in these questions are available with other element bases, including in questions of heat and energy saving. For my part I consider that researches built on real experiments and on inductance coils are not so much at the present moment of time. 

 

     All the changes made in the research paper are highlighted in yellow colour.

Dear reviewer, Thank you sir for the work done and for the comments submitted for correction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses the subject of the principle of operation of full current protection for energy optimization. The research approach used is the comparison of the current protection of electrical installations with the traditional current protections realized using metal-core current measuring transformers.

The introduction section in mainly focused on the developed current protections on various element base, not highlighting the state of the art of more recent researches on the field as construction types, performances or benefits. The authors listed 12 references (15-27), only to specify that there are developed some types of current protections. These references are not analyzed in order to conclude on the current state of the art in the field. 

The presented work is based on a device patented by the authors. Despite this, 

Moreover, similar description method of the experiment is presented in the  paper published by some of the authors in "Alternative Protections on Inductance Coils" at 2024 International Ural Conference on Electrical Power Engineering (UralCon).

The description of the experiment should be improved. For example, "Preparation for the experiments was reduced to the following: the plate 17, with 172 placed and fixed on it with the help of plasticine inductance coils 14 was installed on the 173 frame 18 of the rolling cart of the switch 10 inside the cell 1. The plate 17 had three posi-174 tions of placement in height together with the inductance coils 14, relative to the frame 18: 175 first - 0 cm. (on the frame 18-zero position), the second - 6 cm. and the third - 12 cm. up-176 wards, in height from it. The measured distance and, accordingly, the points of installation 177 of the inductance coils 14 on the plate 17 are counted from the right wall of the cell 1 to its 178 left wall. The inputs L1 of the primary winding of the second measuring current trans-179 formers 19, type TOL-10-800, are connected to the second current-carrying busbars 11 of 180 the cell 1" is a description that can not easily be followed by readers. The authors should concise the information so that to be comprehensible and to deliver relevant content. This recommendation applies to the entire library which contains multiple predictions related to the design elements (Fig. 1) and which are hard to track. Considering that the device is patented a more simplified description is sufficient. 

The conclusions section does not highlights the main benefits of this study. 

Author Response

Response to the second Reviewer

 

To a reviewer of Electricity Journal. Good Day, Dear Reviewer. I have submitted to your attention a research article with a new title, revised according to your recommendations: «Relay Protection using inductive Coils: a resource-saving Approach».

Dear Reviewer, we would like to respond to all your comments. According to the reviewer's recommendations, this manuscript has been thoroughly revised, the design of the article has been improved, and the quality of the English language has been much improved to better express the essence and understanding of the conducted research. The description of the sections «Introduction», «Materials and Methods», «Results» and «Conclusions» has been improved.

Comments from the reviewer:

1. The introduction section in mainly focused on the developed current protections on various element base, not highlighting the state of the art of more recent researches on the field as construction types, performances or benefits. The authors listed 12 references (15-27), only to specify that there are developed some types of current protections. These references are not analyzed in order to conclude on the current state of the art in the field.

Response: Corrected. The ‘Introduction’ presents a thorough analysis of current protections made on various element bases, which gives an idea of the state of the art in the field of resource-saving and alternative protections.

2. The presented work is based on a device patented by the authors. Despite this, Moreover, similar description method of the experiment is presented in the paper published by some of the authors in "Alternative Protections on Inductance Coils" at 2024 International Ural Conference on Electrical Power Engineering (UralCon).

Response: Corrected. Deleted subparagraph № 4.3. «Alternative resource-saving current protection».

3. The description of the experiment should be improved. For example, "Preparation for the experiments was reduced to the following: the plate 17, with 172 placed and fixed on it with the help of plasticine inductance coils 14 was installed on the 173 frame 18 of the rolling cart of the switch 10 inside the cell 1. The plate 17 had three posi-174 tions of placement in height together with the inductance coils 14, relative to the frame 18: 175 first - 0 cm. (on the frame 18-zero position), the second - 6 cm. and the third - 12 cm. up-176 wards, in height from it. The measured distance and, accordingly, the points of installation 177 of the inductance coils 14 on the plate 17 are counted from the right wall of the cell 1 to its 178 left wall. The inputs L1 of the primary winding of the second measuring current trans-179 formers 19, type TOL-10-800, are connected to the second current-carrying busbars 11 of 180 the cell 1" is a description that can not easily be followed by readers. The authors should concise the information so that to be comprehensible and to deliver relevant content. This recommendation applies to the entire library which contains multiple predictions related to the design elements (Fig. 1) and which are hard to track. Considering that the device is patented a more simplified description is sufficient.

Response: the description is corrected throughout the manuscript.

4. The conclusions section does not highlights the main benefits of this study.

Response: The description of the ‘Conclusions’ section has been improved. The Act on introduction into production of the patent for invention is presented. The conducted research on inductance coils in this paper is confirmed by the patent for invention, for the first time presented selection of settings for resource-saving protection on inductance coils, as well as the Act of implementation of the developed device at the industrial enterprise. Also for the first time the technical and economic comparison of the presented protection with the devices of traditional protections is presented, from which it became clear that the developed and proposed resource-saving protection is much more effective than the traditional ones.

     All the changes made in the research paper are highlighted in yellow colour.

Dear reviewer, Thank you sir for the work done and for the comments submitted for correction.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript presents the development and principle of operation of a resource-saving alternative maximum current protection system for electrical installations, using inductive coils instead of traditional current transformers. This focus aligns with contemporary efforts to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness in relay protection systems.

 

The topic is relevant to the field of electrical engineering and contributes to the growing interest in resource-saving technologies. However, a more detailed analysis in the introduction about the gaps in current methodologies and how this study bridges them would enhance the manuscript's value. This article demonstrates an innovative approach by proposing inductive coils as an alternative element base, reducing dependency on metal-core transformers. 

 

While the methodology includes theoretical modeling and experimental validation, there are gaps in clarity:

The title could be more specific. Consider alternatives like "Relay Protection Using Inductive Coils: A Resource-Saving Approach" to better reflect the study's focus.

 

Line 101 - At the end of the sentence is missing a dot. 

 

Lines 110, 331, etc. - Formatting inconsistencies, such as mixing decimals with dots and commas, need standardization.

 

Line 112 - What is the Un in the sentence: "...withstand 1.1 Un for a long time"?   

 

Line 138 - I suggest to extend the sentence "The components of the setup used in our experiments are listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1."

 

Line 140 - Table 1 should explicitly include and label 2 and 3 as "walls."

 

Lines 176, 212, 221, 223, 240, 241, 249, etc. - Units of measure (cm) should not include a period.

 

Line 183 - A real experimental setup should be illustrated with photos to confirm the feasibility of practical applications. Please, clarify whether results are simulation-based or derived from a real experimental setup.

 

Lines 207, 306, 307, 308, 320, 324, 325, 360, 362, etc. - Italicize symbols for voltage, height, current, magnetic induction, flux etc., for scientific accuracy.

 

Line 244 - instead of 220 cm should be 22 cm

 

Line 320 - Eq. (1) lacks a proper derivation or reference, undermining its reliability.

 

Line 322 - instead of "Using Eq. (3)..." shoud be "Eq. (1)". Also, it should be adding an abbreviation for short circuit (SC) in this line, because the authors use that abbreviation in the following text.   

 

Line 324 and 325 - Fact and  Bact should be written with italic style for F and B, and normal style for act (written in index as subscript) i.e. F_act and B_act.   

 

Line 672 - Instead "Zp is the present cost" should be: Z_pr is the present cost...     

 

Line 714 - unit for air permeability is H/m.   Line 717 - I noticed double use of word "the"

 

Line 748 - please use corresponding symbol for Ohm. 

 

The positioning and purpose of the Appendices are unclear and should be justified in the main text. Additionally, providing currency conversions (in EUR or dollars) for Kazakhstani Tenge in Appendix A would improve accessibility for an international audience.

 

 

The reference list does not follow sequential order, as it jumps in the text from 31 to 42, disrupting readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires significant improvement in English language quality. Many sentences are overly complex, making understanding difficult (Lines 53-63, 78-83, 147-153, 199-203, etc.). Using spell-check software and engaging a native speaker would enhance readability.

Author Response

Response to the third reviewer

 

To a reviewer of Electricity Journal. Good Day, Dear Reviewer. I have submitted to your attention a research article with a new title, revised according to your recommendations: «Relay Protection using inductive Coils: a resource-saving Approach».

Dear Reviewer, we would like to respond to all your comments. According to the reviewer's recommendations, this manuscript has been thoroughly revised, the design of the article has been improved, and the quality of the English language has been much improved to better express the essence and understanding of the conducted research. The description of the sections «Introduction», «Materials and Methods», «Results» and «Conclusions» has been improved.

Comments from the reviewer:

1. The title could be more specific. Consider alternatives like "Relay Protection Using Inductive Coils: A Resource-Saving Approach" to better reflect the study's focus.

Response: corrected. New title of the research article: «Relay Protection using inductive Coils: a resource-saving Approach».

2. Line 101 - At the end of the sentence is missing a dot.

Response: corrected

3. Lines 110, 331, etc. - Formatting inconsistencies, such as mixing decimals with dots and commas, need standardization.

Response: corrected.

4. Line 112 - What is the Un in the sentence: "...withstand 1.1 Un for a long time"? Line 138 - I suggest to extend the sentence "The components of the setup used in our experiments are listed in Table 1 and shown in Fig. 1."

 Accepted. Corrected.

5. Line 140 - Table 1 should explicitly include and label 2 and 3 as "walls."

Response: corrected

6. Lines 176, 212, 221, 223, 240, 241, 249, etc. - Units of measure (cm) should not include a period.

Response: corrected

7. Line 183 - A real experimental setup should be illustrated with photos to confirm the feasibility of practical applications. Please, clarify whether results are simulation-based or derived from a real experimental setup.

Response: a photograph of a real experimental setup is shown in figure 2. The results were obtained using a real experimental setup. The experiments were carried out in the scientific laboratory of the Department ‘Electric Power Engineering’ of the non-commercial joint-stock company ‘Toraighyrov University’.

8. Lines 207, 306, 307, 308, 320, 324, 325, 360, 362, etc. - Italicize symbols for voltage, height, current, magnetic induction, flux etc., for scientific accuracy.

Response: all symbols in a scientific article are italicised

9. Line 244 - instead of 220 cm should be 22 cm

Response: corrected

10. Line 320 - Eq. (1) lacks a proper derivation or reference, undermining its reliability.

Response: When working in the Excel program, when a trend line is selected, its format is selected. In the opened window an equation pops up, which shows more accurate reliability of the constructed diagram. And the higher the value tending to “1” in this equation, the better the points of the diagram of the given dependence are built. In this equation it is the value 0.77 multiplied by the current value and summing to them the number 8.6.

11. Line 322 - instead of "Using Eq. (3)..." shoud be "Eq. (1)". Also, it should be adding an abbreviation for short circuit (SC) in this line, because the authors use that abbreviation in the following text. Line 324 and 325 - Fact and  Bact should be written with italic style for F and B, and normal style for act (written in index as subscript) i.e. Fact and Bact.   Line 672 - Instead "Zp is the present cost" should be: Zpr is the present cost... Line 714 - unit for air permeability is H/m.   Line 717 - I noticed double use of word "the". Line 748 - please use corresponding symbol for Ohm. The positioning and purpose of the Appendices are unclear and should be justified in the main text. Additionally, providing currency conversions (in EUR or dollars) for Kazakhstani Tenge in Appendix A would improve accessibility for an international audience.

Response: all corrected.

12. The reference list does not follow sequential order, as it jumps in the text from 31 to 42, disrupting readability.

Response: corrected.

13. The manuscript requires significant improvement in English language quality. Many sentences are overly complex, making understanding difficult (Lines 53-63, 78-83, 147-153, 199-203, etc.). Using spell-check software and engaging a native speaker would enhance readability.

Response: corrected throughout the text of the research paper.

 

     All the changes made in the research paper are highlighted in yellow colour.

Dear reviewer, Thank you sir for the work done and for the comments submitted for correction.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for Version 2 of the Paper. Do add the below suggestions.

1. list of abbreviations.
2. The English of this paper should be improved.
3. The abstract reads and sounds causal. Even a few incomplete sentences. Please review and revise this section with a clear problem statement and your final remarks.

4. The introduction sounds like a report, please improve the style of writing. For a scientific research paper, a detailed and critical introduction is required.

5. Interesting work but similar work is done in the same field. What is the Novelty of this paper? What is the major contribution concerning novelty?

6. The discussion Section needs to be improved. Very general comments are provided. Try to add and explain more in detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English of this paper should be improved.

Author Response

Response to the first reviewer

 

To the reviewer of the Journal «Electricity». Good Day, Dear Reviewer. We present to your attention a revised scientific article «Relay protection using inductive coils: a resource-saving approach» in accordance with your comments. We have taken into account all your comments. In accordance with your recommendations, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised, its design and the quality of the English language have been improved. The descriptions in the sections «Abstract», «Introduction», «Materials and Methods», «Results» and «Conclusions» have been improved. A section «0. List of Abbreviations» has been introduced.

Comments from the reviewer:

1. list of abbreviations.

Response: Corrected. list of abbreviations added to the text of the scientific article

2. The English of this paper should be improved.

Response: Corrected. The quality of the English language has been improved

3. The abstract reads and sounds causal. Even a few incomplete sentences. Please review and revise this section with a clear problem statement and your final remarks.

Response: Corrected. The style of writing the «Abstract» section has been improved.

4. The introduction sounds like a report, please improve the style of writing. For a scientific research paper, a detailed and critical introduction is required.

Response: Corrected. The writing style of the «Introduction» section has been improved.

5. Interesting work but similar work is done in the same field. What is the Novelty of this paper? What is the major contribution concerning novelty?

Response: Corrected.  Scientific novelty of the work consists in the developmental theory of construction of protection on inductive coils, based on the measurement of electromotive force values in different modes and points at simulation of three-phase short circuit inside the cell of the complete switchgear. The dependence of magnetic induction on the position of the inductive coil inside the cell has been found. It is shown that the simplest formula of the Bio-Savart-Laplace law can be used to calculate them.

6. The discussion Section needs to be improved. Very general comments are provided. Try to add and explain more in detail.

Response: Corrected. The description of the «Conclusion» section has been improved

    All the changes and adjustments made this time in the scientific article are highlighted in turquoise.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you, Sir, for the work you have done.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed the comments from the previous review and made appropriate revisions to the manuscript. These improvements reflect careful consideration of the suggestions provided, and the authors have demonstrated significant effort in enhancing the clarity, depth, and overall quality of their analysis.

The writing is generally clear and precise, though minor formating and grammatical/typographical refinements could further improve readability. The figures and tables are well-prepared and effectively support the manuscript's conclusions.

Below are some minor comments and corrections to address before publication:

Lines 79, 125, 128, 415, 416, 428, 436, 442, 447, 449, 456, 492, 494, 516, 522, 524, 534, 539, 661, 901: Italicize symbols for physical quantities such as voltage, height, current, resistance, magnetic induction, flux, and power to ensure scientific accuracy and consistency.

Line 145: Replace "simul-taneously" with "simultaneously."

Line 230: Replace "(14, 29, 30)" with "[14, 29, 30]" to align with citation standards.

Line 444: Specify that the unit for air permeability is "H/m."

Line 574: Remove the period following "cm" to align with standard unit formatting.

Line 800: The figure showing the exchange rate is unnecessary. Instead, replace the explanatory sentences “Exchange rate of the dollar to the tenge. One dollar is worth on average 452 Kazakhstani tenge (as of 05 March 2024). Figure A1 below shows the National Bank of Kazakhstan's official dollar-tenge exchange rate for 4 March and 5 March 2024.”

with:

“To facilitate understanding, it is noted that the average exchange rate of the dollar to the tenge was approximately 452 Kazakhstani tenge as of 5 March 2024.”

Author Response

Response to the third Reviewer

To the reviewer of the Journal «Electricity». Good Day, Dear Reviewer. We present to your attention a revised scientific article «Relay protection using inductive coils: a resource-saving approach» in accordance with your comments. We have taken into account all your comments. In accordance with your recommendations, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised, its design and the quality of the English language have been improved. The descriptions in the sections «Abstract», «Introduction», «Materials and Methods», «Results» and «Conclusions» have been improved. A section «0. List of Abbreviations» has been introduced.

Comments from the reviewer:

1. Lines 79, 125, 128, 415, 416, 428, 436, 442, 447, 449, 456, 492, 494, 516, 522, 524, 534, 539, 661, 901: Italicize symbols for physical quantities such as voltage, height, current, resistance, magnetic induction, flux, and power to ensure scientific accuracy and consistency.

Response: Corrected

2. Line 145: Replace "simul-taneously" with "simultaneously."

Response: Corrected

3. Line 230: Replace "(14, 29, 30)" with "[14, 29, 30]" to align with citation standards.

Response: Corrected

4. Line 444: Specify that the unit for air permeability is "H/m."

Response: Corrected

5. Line 574: Remove the period following "cm" to align with standard unit formatting.

     Response: Corrected

6. The English of this paper should be improved.

Response: Corrected

7. Line 800: The figure showing the exchange rate is unnecessary. Instead, replace the explanatory sentences “Exchange rate of the dollar to the tenge. One dollar is worth on average 452 Kazakhstani tenge (as of 05 March 2024). Figure A1 below shows the National Bank of Kazakhstan's official dollar-tenge exchange rate for 4 March and 5 March 2024.” with: “To facilitate understanding, it is noted that the average exchange rate of the dollar to the tenge was approximately 452 Kazakhstani tenge as of 5 March 2024.”

Response: Corrected

 

All the changes and adjustments made this time in the scientific article are highlighted in turquoise.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you, Sir, for the work you have done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf