Distributed Fuzzy Clustering Analysis of Time-Lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Water Inrush Monitoring in Coal Mines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a novel approach to process the data of Time-lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography, which makes ALERT applied to monitor water inrush in coal mines possible. The algorithm was validated using a floor water inrush model. The paper is logical and the method is proved to be effective. The whole article is clear, and the data can well support the corresponding problems. However, there are still some flaws in the paper, and the suggestions for revision are as follows:
(1) There are some problems with grammatical and format errors such as the word “al-ways” and “geo-physical” in the introduction should be “always” and “geophysical”.
(2) Figure 1 shows how the resistivity method works, but it is necessary to add an explanation of the information in the figure to better understand it.
(3) Please check whether Figure 2 is correct, the parameters of the two figures are the same but the results are different.
(4) The black dotted lines in Figure 5 and Figure 6 should be the bedrock interface, please indicate them in the drawing name.
(5) Some references are too old and cited in a wrong way, and format is not uniform, the authors should check and pay more attention.
(6) Figs captions should be carefully checked up; readers should know all the information about the figure when they just read the captions (ex: did not explain the axis` name).
It is suggested to accept after modification. Good and valuable research has been done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A distributed fuzzy clustering algorithm based on kernel function estimation was proposed to analysis ALERT images. The huge and numerous time series data sets generated by ALERT monitoring systems can be processed automatically with the method. The algorithm was proved to be effective using a floor water inrush model. The prospect of distributed fuzzy clustering analysis of time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography for water-inrush monitoring in coal mines is viewed. If the author could revise these comments, my suggestion is to accept this paper. The main comments are as follows:
(1) Please use the formula editor to deal with the formula editing, many characters that should be expressed in the formula in the text have not been used by the formula editor, such as J, L, etc.
(2) Formula arrays, vectors, matrices should be bold appropriately.
(3) The abscissa units in Figure 2 should be orthographic.
(4) Figure 8 can refer to Figure 9 to use a double row representation, the black horizontal line in the legend in Figure 8 affects the color resolution, and the figure name is resistivity, it is best to add the unit.
(5) It is recommended to adjust the analysis sequence of the third part, first numerical simulation, then outdoor test, and finally summary analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Please refer to the text I am sending you.
Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
BRIEF SUMMARY
I present my corrections/remarks below and if authors improve/answer them, I could give the final “green light” for publication of this work in “Sustainability” journal.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Lines 10 and 80: Begin all the words that describe “TLERT” with capital letter, i.e., “Time-Lapse Electrical Resistivity Tomography”..
2. Lines 13 and 75: As there is possibility this text to be published, avoid the word “paper”. Replace it with “work” or “research”.
3. Line 38: When you refer a work with two authors, you should write both names. Also, replace “Gao et al.” with “Gao and Meng”. I also believe that it is important to write also the date of publication, f.e. “Zhang et al. (2009)”, “Gao and Meng (2011)”. Follow this for all the references
4. Line 38: Similar with previous comment, begin all the words of “ERT” with capital letters, i.e., "Electrical Resistivity Tomography”.
5. Line 39: Replace “[1,2,3,]” with “[1-3]”
6. Lines 41-43: Please write again and better the last sentence of page 1, as it doesn’t make sense…
7. Line 65: Replace “Zhao et al.” with “Wu et al.”.
8. Line 67: What is “GLADE”? Give a small explanation.
9. Line 86, Figure 1: Each Figure must be appeared immediately after its reference in the text. Therefore, transfer Figure 1 after Line 212
10. Line 98: Replace “t0” with “t0”.
11. EQUATIONS: For each equation you must give a reference, if you have not developed it. Also, you must explain all the parameters of each equation and give the unit for each one of them.
12. Figures 2,7 and 9: You must refer and explain every Figure inside the tet.
13. CONCLUSIONS: This paragraph must be extended, at least to double size.The authors here should point the original parts of their work and their contribution in the existing literature. Why is this work important? Which are the new results/conclusion?
14. REFERENCES: Please check that all the references (names of authors and journals, titles, numbers of volumes and pages) are correct. Also check if you have followed the instructions of the journal about how to write the references and ensure that all the references are part of this work.
I would like to check it one more time before the final publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I am recommending to accept your work but I am not very happy about it.
You did answer most of my questions, and this is the reason I will recommend the paper for publication. However, you answered to me. You did not answer to eventual readers. This is a point and suggestion for your future works.
Some points I wish to clarify:
- I know the same geophysical data can have multiple solutions. However you must minimize them and take into account that some noise can arise from the array geometry. Yes, any array you use can introduce false information in the data, in particular if you are dealing with strong lateral changes (Van Nostrand et al, Keller and Frischknecht for instance).
I am not convinced that 5% is enough to consider a geophysical anomaly. If you draw a line and if you try to redraw it, the measured accuracy of the overlap is 3%. So if you mention 5% you must give references.
Finally, the last statement in your reply "Limited by the lack of monitoring instruments and equipment, the author has not yet established a resistivity monitoring system in the coal mine, so there is a temporary lack of measured monitoring data" leaves me somewhat uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, I consider you have done a good job and I see your work as publishable but I am waiting for more.
Reviewer 4 Report
ACCEPT IN PRESENT FORM
