Research on a Rapid and Accurate Reconstruction Method for Underground Mine Borehole Trajectories Based on a Novel Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have reported work on borehole trajectory, few suggestion are expected 

• The paper mentions using static bias compensation and Butterworth filtering. What changes can be anticipated if Kalman filtering or machine learning-based bias modelling are used?
• Given the cubic spline interpolation used to align displacement and attitude data, how does interpolation error affect the final trajectory reconstruction, especially in high-dynamic scenarios?
• The experiments were conducted in simulated PVC pipes, what will be expected outcomes in real system
• What are the limitations of the robot’s mobility in terms of borehole diameter, curvature, and surface roughness? Is the system adaptable to different borehole geometries?
• what communication protocol is used for real-time data transmission in deep boreholes?
• Could the authors elaborate on how the proportional and integral gains were selected?
• Authors are requested to compare the performance with other fusion algorithms such as Extended Kalman Filters (EKF) or Unscented Kalman Filters (UKF)?
• how does interpolation error affect trajectory accuracy, especially under high-dynamic motion conditions?
• What are the limitations of the robot’s mobility in terms of borehole diameter, curvature, and surface roughness?
• Is the system adaptable to varying borehole geometries?
• Could the authors elaborate on how the fusion strategy specifically mitigates long-term drift compared to traditional methods?
• In Pipe 2, which includes steep inclines and bends, how does the system handle transitions in curvature? Is there any degradation in performance at sharp directional changes?
• Could this approach be extended to a swarm of robots for parallel surveying in large-scale mining operations?

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.“

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic sounds interesting and promising, but some improvements in writing must be highlighted:

1. This manuscript is too long for a paper, 10 - 15 pages are enough.
2. Many unnecessary parts are written in the manuscript, but some important parts, like Figure 6, still lack of explanation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figures 13, 14, 16 and 17 show a larger error in the discrete inclinometer curve. Is this comparable with the reference trajectory? A 2-m error is too large for the measurements taken.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have satisfactorily revised the paper