Analysis of Leakage in a Sustainable Water Pipeline Based on a Magnetic Flux Leakage Technique
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer Comments Attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
The article has been carefully reviewed.
Generally, In the field of pipe leakage analysis, the study of the MLF method based on the robot is a meaningful research topic in a leakage analyzing the location and causes.
This article is a study on pipe leakage detection using the MLF method through the robot with a GMR sensors. The technical issues are a good idea for detecting location and causes of leakages in a 3D space of pipe.
In the industrial fields, the detection of the leakages location in a 3D space is performed by a pressure test with visible-gas or water, and then the decision of maintenance method the leakage-pipe is determined by the result of test such as the holes, crack and/or scratches. However, it is insufficient to detect various types of leakages.
The article presents a new technology that through the MFL technique defects were detected in the two different thickness of pipelines with the use of a flexible GMR sensor array. In addition, robot motion and pipe size variation were also analyzed with the use of the MPU6050 and ultra-sonic distance sensors.
The experiments also verified the better performance of the method in different environments. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but I think, the paper needs some improvement for good understanding of the related researchers.
The reviewing comments are as follows:
1. The distance between the two points in the second-level title is relatively large, and it is recommended to reduce the distance.
2. In the abstract, the first word of the first paragraph does not need to be bolded.
3. In Figure 2, the two waveform images of S3 and S4 have a clear spike at the beginning distance. What is the reason?
4. Addition of the articles, in Figure 5, within the initial distance, the waveform pulses of S2, S3, S4, and S5 are upward, but why is the waveform pulse of S6 downward?
5. This paper is mainly about the analysis of leakage in sustainable water pipeline based on magnetic flux leakage technique. It is suggested to supplement relevant experiments to show that this method has better performance than other detection methods.
6. The leak location is detected, and then the maintenance method of the pipeline is determined by holes, cracks, scratches, etc. This article only detects the type of leakage, which cannot meet the actual needs.
7. The overall content of the article does not match the journal and special issue section (special issue information, "Semiconducting Nanomaterials for Effective Environmental Remediation and Organic Synthesis").
8. As a technical engineering study based on robotics, I believe that apart from the introduction, the main body and conclusion are written with an emphasis on the possibility of detecting various types of pipeline defects. It is recommended to modify part of the main body of the article.
9. Personally I think this post looks like it's focused on solving technical problems. Therefore, it is inconvenient to understand the context of this article for journal purposes.
10. The reference format is incorrect and needs to be revised and written. For example, dates are in bold.
11. Please check carefully the citation style of the twenty-first reference.
The article showed that it was possible to technically detect pipe defects of various type and shapes through Figures 2 and 5 with MFL method, and it can be proof that the effectiveness of the MFL method was verified.
However, the context and content of this article are focused on the technical part of defect-detection in the pipe (steel pipe), and most of the cited materials are from the technical engineering contents.
And the main issues of the MFL method, which is the key point content of your article, is cited [ref. no. 11-28, including self-citation], and it is expressed as a summary in this article. So, I think the article looks like focused on technical problems solving. Therefore, it makes me inconvenient to understand the context of this article with the aims of journal.
The overall content of the article does not match the aims of the journal and section of special issue (Information of Special Issue, "Semiconducting Nanomaterials for Effective Environmental Remediation and Organic Synthesis").
I think that the main body and conclusion, excluding the introduction, were written with emphasis on the possibility of detecting various types of pipe defects as technical engineering research based on robot technology.
I am sure that your article will be helpful to many researchers, if it is revised as a technical or engineering based one and submitted to the journals, technical based.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, an inspection robot with two units is manufactured, and magnetic leakage technology is realized by a flexible GMR sensor array to evaluate the leakage of various internal defects in two different sizes of sustainable water pipes. At the same time, robot motion and pipe size variation were also analyzed with the use of the MPU6050 and ultrasonic distance sensors. From the waveform and motion graphs, defects and robot motion were successfully indicated. Considering that using a flexible GMR sensor array to detect defects in two different thicknesses of pipes is only a classical operation of magnetic flux leakage detection technology, the method is not innovative enough, and the research content of this paper is less.
The detailed reply is as follows：
1. The method mentioned in this paper " through the MFL technique defects were detected in the two different thickness of pipelines with the use of a flexible GMR sensor array" is only the operation of magnetic flux leakage detection technology. This paper is more of an application demonstration of the robot system based on a flexible GMR sensor array in magnetic flux leakage detection, so it needs to highlight and solve the new problems of GMR sensor array in magnetic flux leakage detection. Or focus on the robot system's experimental design and operation details based on the GMR sensor array. The author did not focus on the two aspects, and the article's research objective is unclear.
2. The author mentioned " Among the six GMR sensor signals S2, S3, S4, and S5 sensors were performed well towards the defects." in "4.2. Analysis of LMA defects in the pipes ". However, the author did not explain why the S1 sensor is insensitive to defects and why there are differences between different sensors. Similarly, the author only described the results of the response diagram of the GMR sensor to LMA defects but did not analyze the results. This paper is more like a technical report than a paper.
3. In '2. Robot configuration', the author introduced the relevant configuration of the robot system through a chapter but only gave the appearance of the robot system in “Figure 1”. The relevant configurations introduced in the text are not shown in the figure. In particular, please add how to configure the positions of S1-S6 sensors.
4. The author mentioned "The power and sensing units are connected together…, …linear acceleration graphs." in "3. Experimental study ". For the important part of the experiment and data collection, the author has only a few words to describe. The author has not verified the validity and repeatability of the experimental data.
Other problems
1) In “Fig. 2”, the artificial defect images of the holes with diameters of 2mm, 4mm and 6mm on the pipe are not obvious, please mark the defects.
2) The format of the secondary title is not uniform, please check again.
3) The author mentioned " Fig 8 (a) explains the uneven size of multi holes defects at the end of the pipeline. Fig 8(b) shows the GMR sensor " in "4.3. Analysis of uneven multi holes defects in the pipes ". However, there is no "Fig. 8 (a) (b)" in the paper, please check again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript as per comments.
Decision: Minor Revision
Comments: This paper is highlighting the analysis of leakage in water pipeline based on magnetic flux leakage technique. The aim and scope of journal and article is not satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author.
I have checked your article and comments that have been revised.
As I mentioned the previous comments on first reviewing, I think your article has no problem with technical content and I received the positive comments about the publication acceptance from the editor, so please check the final article with the document template of journal to finalize your article in final proof reading.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
From the revised manuscript and the responses, it can be seen that the authors made some additions and modifications, but the reply content and reply format are not convenient for reviewers to understand the changes made by the authors. Please make changes according to the comments. The new comments are as follows:
1. The authors should explain each comment, and also put the revised content in the response, which can help the reviewer directly find the corresponding revision. Please add and explain the relevant changes for each comment, not just in the revised manuscript.
2. For comment (1), " The method mentioned……the article's research objective is unclear". The author replied," We believe that the revised manuscript contains clear research objectives and discussions."
The author added in the introduction of pipe wall thickness and defect detection of magnetic flux leakage detection technology but did not answer the question directly. The author describes in the revised manuscript, "...Most of the cases are reported defects on different sizes of wall thickness measurements through MFL technique,... This paper analyzes the two different wall thicknesses....". The author does not summarize the current problems in magnetic flux leakage detection technology and the necessity of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
