Determining Health Index of Transmission Line Asset using Condition-Based Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents determining health indicator caused by transmission line asset using condition based method. Authors say that assessment of transmission lines, especially overheads, is crucial task in asset management of electric power systems. The paper presents development of health index caused by transmission line. The study corresponds to older methods of determining health index of electric devices, such as power transformers and transmission lines. Authors concluded that three general indicators need to be considered in determining the health index, such as structural, electrical and environmental aspects. The index was calculated, and determined.
Detail comments:
2 – “Determining of Health Index …”. I think, it should be “Determining Health Index …”.
33 – “… 74,417 distribution stations …”. There are really 74000 stations? Maybe it is just distribution points, not stations. Please over think.
35 – “… 0.3% to the industrial sector …”. Only 0.3% to industrial sector? Not too small.
I think, the paper is value and important to the readers. Problem of failure of distribution / transmission lines, especially in case of overhead lines, is very actual and crucial all the time in any country. It is important to say, that overhead lines will exist long time, because cable lines are still 7-10 times more expensive.
Anyway, any method which tries to estimate health index of any electrical devices, such as line, is very difficult task, and obtained results are usually very controversial.
Proposed methods consider many, almost all, factors, which can have impact on the index, such as foundation, tower, conductor, insulators, environment parameters. Means it looks correct.
General comments: I think, proposed method which estimate health index of overhead lines is correct. But authors can say that the index is correct if they will verify the index in practice, which must be very, very time consuming procedure – they have to wait for failure of the lines. So, until that, I would be very careful to call the index as health index, because it is not verified. Summarizing, I would suggest to add in the text:
1. … proposed index is just first step of the index estimation. Next one will be verification of the index …
2. … that kind of index can help operators to create a ranking list which line should be first renovated, exchange, remove, rebuild, etc.
Author Response
Point 1: 2 – “Determining of Health Index …”. I think, it should be “Determining Health Index …”
Response 1: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already updated.
Point 2: 74,417 distribution stations …”. There are really 74000 stations? Maybe it is just distribution points, not stations. Please over think.
Response 2: Yes based on the website below under the energy commission.
https://meih.st.gov.my/statistics?p_auth=bNMhwOp7&p_p_id=Eng_Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_Eng_Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet_execution=e1s1&_Eng_Statistic_WAR_STOASPublicPortlet__eventId=ViewStatisticELC2&categoryId=10&flowId=57
Point 3: 0.3% to the industrial sector …”. Only 0.3% to industrial sector? Not too small.
Response 3: Yes it is based on the E. C. Malaysia, “Performance and Statistical Information in Malaysia 2016,” 2016.
Point 4: General comments: I think, proposed method which estimate health index of overhead lines is correct. But authors can say that the index is correct if they will verify the index in practice, which must be very, very time-consuming procedure – they have to wait for failure of the lines. So, until that, I would be very careful to call the index as health index, because it is not verified. Summarizing, I would suggest to add in the text:
1. … proposed index is just first step of the index estimation. Next one will be verification of the index …
2. … that kind of index can help operators to create a ranking list which line should be first renovated, exchange, remove, rebuild, etc.
Response 4: The comment is incorporated. The result is based on the condition-based assessment. The historical data and statistic from the energy commission will be included in the verification. Any sign of the indicator distress beyond the normal condition is a sign of the problem that will induce the interruption of the service to the consumer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the Manuscript ID: resources-478551, with the title "Determining of Health Index of Transmission Line Asset using Condition-Based Method". In this paper, starting from the premises that the assessment on overhead transmission lines is a crucial task in the asset management of electric power infrastructures, the authors present the development of a health index of the transmission line using a condition-based method. I consider that the paper will benefit if the authors address within the manuscript the following aspects:
Ø General remarks about the paper. The Manuscript ID: resources-478551 is interesting, but it still remains an aspect that must be clarified by the authors, namely the fact that they must assume more clearly their own results. I consider that the authors must assume more clearly in the paper their original contribution by specifying this fact and by highlighting the fact that starting from a certain point there are presented the original and novel aspects of their research. The authors must state more clearly their original methods, their original results and conclusions, the novelty of their study. In the current form of the paper, this aspect is unclear.
Ø Lines 14-28, the Abstract of the paper. It will benefit the paper if in the abstract, in addition to the already presented elements, the authors declare and briefly justify the novelty of their work.
Ø The sections of the manuscript in its actual form are not according to the ones recommended by the Resources MDPI Journal's Template. The manuscript under review will benefit if it is restructured in accordance with the above-mentioned template that provides a more logical structure that is much more appropriate for a research article. The restructuring of the manuscript will also help the authors to better express the novelty of their work and the contribution that they have made to the current state of knowledge. Consequently, the manuscript under review should be restructured as follows: Abstract, Keywords, 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions (not mandatory), 6. Patents (not mandatory), Supplementary Materials (not mandatory), Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest, Appendices and References.
Ø Lines 41-42, the "Introduction" section. "Figure 1 shows the compilation of performance report from the Malaysia Energy Commission from 2000 to 2016 [1],[3] - [4] - [11], [12], [13]." I consider that it is not appropriate for the manuscript to cover 6 (like the authors have did) or even more scientific works in two lines just for the sake of obtaining an appropriate size of the "References" section. In the "Introduction" section, the authors must introduce a presentation of the current state of the research field by reviewing it carefully and by citing other key publications. By doing so, the problem will be put into context and it will benefit the readers as well. The purpose of the literature survey is to highlight for each of the involved referenced papers the main contribution that the authors of the referenced papers have brought to the current state of knowledge, the methods used by the authors of the referenced papers, a brief presentation of the main obtained results and some limitations of the referenced article. This is the only way to contextualize the current state of the art in which the authors of the manuscript position their paper and address aspects that have not been tackled/solved yet by the existing studies.
Ø Lines 47-54, the "Introduction" section. At the end of the Introduction section, the authors must present the structure of their paper under the form: "The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 contains…".
Ø The "Materials and Methods" section. In order to bring a benefit to the manuscript, the authors should state and justify very clear in the "Materials and Methods" section (which is currently missing from the manuscript), preferably within the first paragraph, the choices they have made when developing the final form of their proposed approach. The authors should state what has justified using this approach, what is special, unexpected, or different in their research methodology. It will benefit if the authors mention if they have tried other approaches that in the end led them to the current form of their research design.
Ø The "Materials and Methods" section. In order to help the readers better understand the methodology of the conducted study, in the "Materials and Methods" section (which is currently missing from the manuscript) the authors should devise a flowchart that depicts the steps that they have processed in developing their research and most important of all, the final target. This flowchart will facilitate the understanding of the proposed approach and in the same time it will make the article more interesting for the readers if used as a graphical abstract.
Ø The equations within the manuscript should be explained, demonstrated or cited, as there are some equations that have not been introduced in the literature for the first time by the authors and that are not cited.
Ø The "Results" section. According to the Resources MDPI Journal's Template, it is recommended that a research paper contain among other sections, a "Results" one. In the actual form of the paper, this section is missing. In this section the authors should provide a concise and precise description of their obtained results, their interpretation as well as the conclusions that can be drawn. The authors must highlight their original results as in the actual form of the paper they are insufficiently detailed and it seem to reduce to only one table, at the end of the "Discussion" section.
Ø The "Discussion" section. After having analyzed the results, the authors should move forward to the "Discussion" section within which the authors must present a comparison between their proposed approach from the manuscript and other approaches that have been developed and used in the literature for this purpose. In the actual form of the paper, a large amount of information contained by the "Discussion" section is rather suitable for the "Materials and Methods" section (as it refers to the research approach proposed by the authors), while the rest of this section contains a few results obtained by the authors in their research, being more suitable for the "Results" section (which is missing). In order to validate the usefulness of their research, in the "Discussion" section, the authors should make a comparison between their approach from the manuscript and other similar ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same or related purposes. In the actual form of the manuscript, the "Discussion" section contains only some references to other studies (but these references are not being used for comparing the results), so the comparison is missing in the manuscript's current form. There are a lot of valuable studies in the scientific literature related to the subject of the manuscript to which the authors can compare to and this comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper has brought in contrast to existing studies. This comparison is mandatory in order to highlight the clear contribution to the current state of knowledge that the authors brought. I consider that the paper will benefit if the authors make a step further, beyond their analysis and provide an insight at the end of the "Discussion" section regarding what they consider to be, based on the obtained results, the most important, appropriate and concrete actions that the decisional factors and all the involved parties should take in order to benefit from the results of the research conducted within the manuscript.
Ø The "Discussion" section. It will benefit the paper if the authors elaborate in this section a cost-benefit analysis regarding the implementation of their proposed solution in a daily operating environment, taking into account all the involved costs. This cost-benefit analysis is necessary in order to prove that the devised solution is feasible to be implemented on a large scale and used on a daily basis from the economic point of view, taking into consideration also the maintenance costs. Consequently, the cost-benefit analysis cannot be postponed in a future work and must be addressed within the current manuscript.
Ø Line 284, Table 2 is not referred anywhere in the text of the paper.
Author Response
Point 1 General remarks about the paper. The Manuscript ID: resources-478551 is interesting, but it still remains an aspect that must be clarified by the authors, namely the fact that they must assume more clearly their own results. I consider that the authors must assume more clearly in the paper their original contribution by specifying this fact and by highlighting the fact that starting from a certain point there are presented the original and novel aspects of their research. The authors must state more clearly their original methods, their original results and conclusions, the novelty of their study. In the current form of the paper, this aspect is unclear.
Response 1: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision of the manuscript already clarified the aspect in this paper.
Point 2 It will benefit the paper if in the abstract, in addition to the already presented elements, the authors declare and briefly justify the novelty of their work.
Response 2: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already included
Point 3: The sections of the manuscript in its actual form are not according to the ones recommended by the Resources MDPI Journal's Template. The manuscript under review will benefit if it is restructured in accordance with the above-mentioned template that provides a more logical structure that is much more appropriate for a research article. The restructuring of the manuscript will also help the authors to better express the novelty of their work and the contribution that they have made to the current state of knowledge. Consequently, the manuscript under review should be restructured as follows: Abstract, Keywords, 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions (not mandatory), 6. Patents (not mandatory), Supplementary Materials (not mandatory), Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflicts of Interest, Appendices and References.
Response 3: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already includes based on the journal template structure.
Point 4: Lines 41-42, the "Introduction" section. "Figure 1 shows the compilation of performance report from the Malaysia Energy Commission from 2000 to 2016 [1],[3] - [4] - [11], [12], [13]." I consider that it is not appropriate for the manuscript to cover 6 (like the authors have did) or even more scientific works in two lines just for the sake of obtaining an appropriate size of the "References" section. In the "Introduction" section, the authors must introduce a presentation of the current state of the research field by reviewing it carefully and by citing other key publications. By doing so, the problem will be put into context and it will benefit the readers as well. The purpose of the literature survey is to highlight for each of the involved referenced papers the main contribution that the authors of the referenced papers have brought to the current state of knowledge, the methods used by the authors of the referenced papers, a brief presentation of the main obtained results and some limitations of the referenced article. This is the only way to contextualize the current state of the art in which the authors of the manuscript position their paper and address aspects that have not been tackled/solved yet by the existing studies
Response 4: [1],[3] - [4] - [11], [12], [13]." This section already corrected to [1], [3-13]
Point 5: Ø Lines 47-54, the "Introduction" section. At the end of the Introduction section, the authors must present the structure of their paper under the form: "The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 contains…".
Response 4: The comment is incorporated. The rest of the papers is structured as followed: Section 2 contains on the material and methods of the health index from the previous study, the common indicator used, the proposed indicators and methods in determining the health index, Section 3 contains on the result from the case study of the overhead transmission lines, Section 4 contains of the discussion of the findings and the Section 5 contains the conclusion in this paper.
Point 5: Ø The "Materials and Methods" section. In order to bring a benefit to the manuscript, the authors should state and justify very clear in the "Materials and Methods" section (which is currently missing from the manuscript), preferably within the first paragraph, the choices they have made when developing the final form of their proposed approach. The authors should state what has justified using this approach, what is special, unexpected, or different in their research methodology. It will benefit if the authors mention if they have tried other approaches that in the end led them to the current form of their research design.
Response 5: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already includes material and methods. From previous study to proposed framework.
Point 6: Ø The "Materials and Methods" section. In order to help the readers better understand the methodology of the conducted study, in the "Materials and Methods" section (which is currently missing from the manuscript) the authors should devise a flowchart that depicts the steps that they have processed in developing their research and most important of all, the final target. This flowchart will facilitate the understanding of the proposed approach and in the same time it will make the article more interesting for the readers if used as a graphical abstract.
Response 6: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already includes material and methods. From previous study to proposed framework.
Point 7: Ø The equations within the manuscript should be explained, demonstrated or cited, as there are some equations that have not been introduced in the literature for the first time by the authors and that are not cited.
Response 7: The comment is incorporated.
Point 8:Ø The "Results" section. According to the Resources MDPI Journal's Template, it is recommended that a research paper contain among other sections, a "Results" one. In the actual form of the paper, this section is missing. In this section the authors should provide a concise and precise description of their obtained results, their interpretation as well as the conclusions that can be drawn. The authors must highlight their original results as in the actual form of the paper they are insufficiently detailed and it seem to reduce to only one table, at the end of the "Discussion" section.
Response 5: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision already includes the results.
Point 9: Ø The "Discussion" section. After having analyzed the results, the authors should move forward to the "Discussion" section within which the authors must present a comparison between their proposed approach from the manuscript and other approaches that have been developed and used in the literature for this purpose. In the actual form of the paper, a large amount of information contained by the "Discussion" section is rather suitable for the "Materials and Methods" section (as it refers to the research approach proposed by the authors), while the rest of this section contains a few results obtained by the authors in their research, being more suitable for the "Results" section (which is missing). In order to validate the usefulness of their research, in the "Discussion" section, the authors should make a comparison between their approach from the manuscript and other similar ones that have been developed and used in the literature for the same or related purposes. In the actual form of the manuscript, the "Discussion" section contains only some references to other studies (but these references are not being used for comparing the results), so the comparison is missing in the manuscript's current form. There are a lot of valuable studies in the scientific literature related to the subject of the manuscript to which the authors can compare to and this comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper has brought in contrast to existing studies. This comparison is mandatory in order to highlight the clear contribution to the current state of knowledge that the authors brought. I consider that the paper will benefit if the authors make a step further, beyond their analysis and provide an insight at the end of the "Discussion" section regarding what they consider to be, based on the obtained results, the most important, appropriate and concrete actions that the decisional factors and all the involved parties should take in order to benefit from the results of the research conducted within the manuscript.
Response 5: The comment is incorporated. The latest revision with a discussion based on the comparison from my study with other approaches. The methodology and results already taken out from the discussion section.
Point 10: Ø The "Discussion" section. It will benefit the paper if the authors elaborate in this section a cost-benefit analysis regarding the implementation of their proposed solution in a daily operating environment, taking into account all the involved costs. This cost-benefit analysis is necessary in order to prove that the devised solution is feasible to be implemented on a large scale and used on a daily basis from the economic point of view, taking into consideration also the maintenance costs. Consequently, the cost-benefit analysis cannot be postponed in a future work and must be addressed within the current manuscript.
Response 5: The comment is incorporated. The cost benefit analysis however will be explained more in other paper. It will be included together with the risk analysis.
Point 11: Ø Line 284, Table 2 is not referred anywhere in the text of the paper.
Response 5: The comment is incorporated. Already corrected in the latest revision.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After having reviewed the revised version of the paper "Determining of Health Index of Transmission Line Asset using Condition-Based Method", having the revised title "Determining Health Index of Transmission Line Asset using Condition-Based Method", Manuscript-ID: resources-478551, I can conclude that the authors have addressed the most important signaled issues, therefore improving the manuscript.
