Research on the Intelligent Planning of Mine Fire Evacuation Routes Based on a Multifactor Coupling Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the issues of lag and accuracy in the planning of mine fire evacuation routes, proposing an intelligent approach based on multifactor coupling analysis. In order to optimize evacuation route planning during mine fires, a method called multifactor coupling analysis is introduced. The authors combine a multi-layer perceptron regressor and a shortest path faster algorithm to construct the MSPFA (Multi-layer Perception Regressor-shortest path faster) algorithm, making the mine evacuation route planning more rational. In the presentation of results, the authors utilize DXF technology to visualize the evacuation routes, reducing the workload for personnel. Overall, this article provides theoretical guidance for intelligent evacuation decision-making in mine fire scenarios, playing a crucial role in reducing casualties. This is a carefully done study and the findings are of considerable interest. A few minor revisions are list below.

(1) While Figure 7 presents the final results in text, the iteration graphs of the three algorithms in the subplots are not very clear, and the subplot numbers are not annotated.

(2) There were some minor issues with references, including incomplete citations or outdated sources. Please carefully review the references and make the necessary corrections.

(3) The full name of DXF is not mentioned in the paper. It is suggested to add a description of the full name of DXF.

(4) In Figure 3, "Estimate the number of personnel" should possibly be changed to "Estimate the number of personnel in the tunnel."

 

(5) There are some grammar and formatting errors in the paper, such as a missing space between "environment" and the next sentence in line 207, and the term "nonpassable" in line 223 could be replaced with "impassable." Additionally, consider using the British English spelling "analyse" for better readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Intelligent Planning of Mine Fire Evacuation Routes Based on Multifactor Coupling Analysis”(fire-2824582). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as following:

1. Response to comment: While Figure 7 presents the final results in text, the iteration graphs of the three algorithms in the subplots are not very clear, and the subplot numbers are not annotated.

Response: We apologize for overlooking the issue of image clarity. The clarity of Figure 7 has been adjusted, and the titles of the subfigures have been modified to enhance clarity.

2. There were some minor issues with references, including incomplete citations or outdated sources. Please carefully review the references and make the necessary corrections.

Response: We apologize for the outdated references in our bibliography. We have now updated the outdated references and self-citations to ensure the appropriateness of the bibliography.

3. The full name of DXF is not mentioned in the paper. It is suggested to add a description of the full name of DXF.

Response: We overlooked the issue of the full name of DXF. We have now added the full name of DXF to ensure that readers can understand what DXF stands for.

4. In Figure 3, “Estimate the number of personnel” should possibly be changed to "Estimate the number of personnel in the tunnel."

Response: This suggestion is very helpful. We have revised the inaccurate descriptions in the figure accordingly.

5. There are some grammar and formatting errors in the paper, such as a missing space between "environment" and the next sentence in line 207, and the term "nonpassable" in line 223 could be replaced with "impassable." Additionally, consider using the British English spelling "analyse" for better readability.

Response: We have updated "nonpassable" to "impassable" and modified "analyse" for better readability.

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Intelligent Planning of Mine Fire Evacuation Routes Based on Multifactor Coupling Analysis”(fire-2824582). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in blue in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as following:

1. Response to comment: Several variables are included in the paper, but the dimension are not provided for many of them.

Response: We apologize for not explicitly stating the units of various variables. We have made the necessary modifications in the paper and provided annotations to indicate the respective units.

2. Equation(1) is for the calculation of the tunnel equivalent length. Is the unit of tunnel length here for time?

Response: We apologize for not clearly indicating the units of the variables in this section. We have corrected it to specify the units as meters (m).

3. Some factors have been coupled in your model for the calculation for the tunnel equivalent length in Equation (1) such as a1, the roadway height, a2, the roadway slop and a3, roadway obstacles. However, only the roadway slop (a2) is involved in the calculation of the allowable passage time in Equation (3). Do the roadway height and obstacles not impact the allowable passage time? Without a1 and a3, would the allowable passage time by Equation (3) be overestimated?

Response: Your question is crucial, and we have followed the regulations outlined in the "Mine Rescue Guidelines" for this aspect. Perhaps in future work and project advancements, we will certainly consider your suggestion and conduct multiple experiments to explore more suitable criteria selection. Thank you for your advice.

4. Again, what is the unit of temperature ?

Response: As before, we overlooked this point, and we have now addressed this issue with the necessary modifications.

5. How Equation(3) and Equation(4) are applied is not clear. For example, for a temperature value of 20, the maximum endurance time of the human body from Equation (4) is only 814 seconds.

Response: We overlooked this point, and we have now addressed this issue. Its unit is 814 minutes.

6. Please provide the units for the data in Table 1.

Response: We apologize for not providing this crucial point. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, and we have now made the necessary modifications.

7. Please provide the references for the data in Table 1.

Response: We apologize for not providing this crucial point. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, and we have now added the corresponding references.

8. Rate(m/s) , walking speed, velocity are all terms used in the paper that describe the same thing. I suggest using speed throughout the whole paper.

Response: Your suggestion is very helpful, and we have replaced all similar statements with "walking speed."

9. Line 85. What is the personnel rate”?

Response: This was our oversight, and we have now modified the corresponding noun to "personnel walking speeds."

10. Impassable and Nonpassable – impassable is a word, nonpassable is not.

Response: We made an error in this regard and have promptly corrected it.

11. It is not necessary to keep two decimals for a long time of evacuation, such as 3344.74 seconds in Table 13.

Response: We have addressed and corrected this unnecessary issue. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

12. What levels of fire hazards have been used in the analysis in Section 3, which determined the evacuation time 3344.74 seconds?

Response: We implemented a database for automatically adding nodes when a fire occurs. This is a general fire.

13. Are there any fatalities in the demonstrated case for the given fire hazards? Again, the fire hazard levels determined survival or death.

Response: In this experiment, we only considered the planning of evacuation routes and the evacuation time of personnel. We did not extensively consider the degree of injury to individuals. In future developments, we should focus more on this aspect.

14. The quality of graphs are too poor.

Response: We have corrected all unclear images. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

 

Thank you for your kind wishes! I'm here to help, so feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or need assistance. Have a great day!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Planning an evacuation route using science can help reduce the number of casualties during underground coal mine fires. The optimized multilayer perceptron regressor-shortest path faster algorithm (MSPFA) is incorporated into a real-time evacuation route planning method based on multifactor coupling analysis. This approach addresses the drawbacks of current underground fire evacuation route planning methods, including low accuracy, information lag, and inadequate consideration of factors. First, in order to increase algorithm efficiency, the shortest path faster algorithm (SPFA) is enhanced so that it can continuously create evacuation routes in response to shifts in the present positions of personnel during an emergency. Second, the particle swarm technique is used in conjunction with several neural network algorithms for comparison in order to mitigate the effect of fixed staff walking speed parameters on equivalent length divergence. Personnel speed confidence intervals were determined using the Bootstrap technique. The manuscript is a novel study in the field and can be published after considering some minor revisions. There are many structural errors that should be addressed.

-Abstract is not appropriate. It is vague. Rewrite it.

-In introduction, there are some old references that should be replaced with updated ones. Authors can use further references from the journal.

-All Figures are not obvious. Redraw them clearer.

-The method used should be explained more to present its significance and accuracy.

-There are some English language errors that should be addressed.

-Self-cited references should be removed.

 

Regard

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some English language errors that should be addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on Intelligent Planning of Mine Fire Evacuation Routes Based on Multifactor Coupling Analysis”(fire-2824582). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments are as following:

1. Response to comment: Abstract is not appropriate. It is vague. Rewrite it.

Response: We have revised the previous abstract and restructured it for better coherence. Please modify the following passage into English.

2. Response to comment: In introduction, there are some old references that should be replaced with updated ones. Authors can use further references from the journal.

Response: We overlooked this point, thank you for the reminder. We have now updated the crucial literature to the latest references.

3. Response to comment: All Figures are not obvious. Redraw them clearer.

Response: We overlooked this point, and we appreciate your reminder. We have now revised most of the images and added clarity to enhance their quality.

4. Response to comment: The method used should be explained more to present its significance and accuracy.

Response: Following your suggestion, we have added explanations and units to some of the formulas. This was our oversight, and we appreciate your input.

5. Response to comment: There are some English language errors that should be addressed.

Response: Following your suggestion, English errors such as "nonpassable" have been corrected to "impassable." Thank you for your careful reading and input.

6. Response to comment: Self-cited references should be removed.

Response: The first and second self-cited references have been modified, and I have adjusted some of the outdated references.

 

Thank you for your kind wishes! I'm here to help, so feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or need assistance. Have a great day!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the issues mentioned in the comments to the earlier version. I thank the authors for their work.