Research on Hydraulic Support Attitude Monitoring Method Merging FBG Sensing Technology and AdaBoost Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The current version of the manuscript presents calibration curves that correlate sensor response with target parameters. The manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank the reviewers for their pertinent comments on the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
1-This design has already been published in the Measurement journal. In this paper, the Author fails to discuss and connect the current research to the published study. The author did not answer what is the main difference between them. as well as the author fails to clarify the originality of this research in the abstract and introduction and even fails to connect the main questions in the abstract to the study results.
2-The author built the idea of this research on the real design that already exists (ZY10000/13/26D), the author did not discuss the failure in this design that makes his developing idea valuable to publish.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors proposed a Hydraulic Support Attitude Monitoring Method Merging FBG Sensing Technology and AdaBoost Algorithm. Generally, the proposed monitoring method and the monitoring system is interesting. However, the following problems should be addressed.
(1) In the introduction part, please explain the advantages and disadvantages of the methods related to the hydraulic supports attitude monitoring.
(2) Please summarize the main contribution of this research.
(3) How to integrate the AdaBoost neural network algorithm into the monitoring system? The authors should give detailed explanation in the Section 4.4.
(4) The authors claim that the accuracy is more than 95%. How to prove it? It seems that there is not detailed analysis.
(5) The authors proposed two FBG sensors: the FBG tilt sensor and the FBG manometer. However, the sensing principle of the sensors is directly cited from other references. Is there any difference of the sensing principle between the sensors in this paper and the sensors from [21] and [22]?
(6) Please check the typos of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The paper is mostly corrected
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
I have no further questions to the revised paper. Please check the English grammar of this paper.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have presented an innovative methodology to monitor support pressure during mining by integrating FBG sensors and the Adaptive Boosting technique. The study is well structured, and the quality of the illustrations is up to the mark. A few points need to be addressed before going for a possible publication.
Line 210: The accuracy of 2.5 MPa for a pressure gauge having a range of 0-40 MPa is not at all up to the mark. It has an accuracy of 93.75 %, significantly lower than commercially available load cells.
Line 386: Write the reference and source of the data set mentioned in the article
Line 396: It is not wise to mention an average error. Instead, provide the maximum and minimum error achieved. It indicates the variation in the error during measurements.
The referencing seems to be somehow limited. Kindly mention the other monitoring techniques used for stress or condition monitoring of rocks, such as the Electro-mechanical impedance and acoustic emission techniques. Authors may consider the articles below to be included in the article’s introduction.
1. ‘Viability of electro-mechanical impedance technique for monitoring damage in rocks under cyclic loading’ Acta Geotechnica, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01181-1
2. Damage monitoring of dry and saturated rocks using piezo transducers.” Journal of Testing and Evaluation ASTM 45(1): 169-181. http://www.astm.org/doiLink.cgi?JTE20160158
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose an FBG sensor and an information platform for monitoring parameters in a coal mine. I have a lot of concerns about this work:
1. In the hardware equipment shown in Figure 3, conventional sensors are installed together with the FBG. However, no clear discussion is presented on how and what they are used for. In this system, the way to compensate for the thermal response is also not provided. This is repeated in the structure shown in Figure 7.
2. No sensor calibration curve was presented, nor was it mentioned that sensor calibrations were performed.
3. It was not mentioned how the data in figures 14 -16 were obtained.
4. Terms and concepts are not used correctly. For example, the effective index is associated with the propagation modes, and the authors' explanation is not precise. The description of coupling between modes is confusing and imprecise. Reference [14] is cited incorrectly.
In general, the manuscript does not clearly present the study's contribution and does not provide sufficient information about the methodology or data analysis. There is such extensive rework required that I recommend a new submission after corrections are made.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research has very few results to support the hypothesis. The author should increase the results to confirm the merging between the FBG and the algorithm. The abstract and conclusion No precise results can be found. The author should answer scientifically why the results of this manuscript are few or increase the results according to the research facts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is well written and worked on the FBG sensing system for hydraulic support attitude. The comments are given as
1. Authors clam that they developed the FBG tilt sensor and FBG manometer. Is it true because these sensors are already available.
2. Figures quality like 1, 5a, 10 should be improved.
3. What is the meaning of 3#~7#, 44#~48#, 66#~170#?
4. What is 101 working face of Longde coal mine?
5. What is maximum pressure range of the pressure sensors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors did not provide corrections for the issues raised in the revised version of the manuscript. Sensing using FBGs is well established, and all applications of this device for indirect measurements of physical parameters require a calibration step. How the fiber is installed can cause variations in sensitivities and, consequently, errors in determining target parameters. Scientific work must be carried out with rigor and precision. The issues raised in the first round of peer review were evasively answered, and I have not seen any improvements in the current version. I, therefore, maintain the position that the manuscript should be rejected.
Reviewer 3 Report
In low-quality photos, the novelty needs to be more precise in the introduction and abstract. the results overall need to be enhanced by a robust explanation and the overlaps between results should be removed especially in Fig5 and Fig 6. finally some data in the tables should be converted to curves to be clearer and more understandable.
the application and history of the novelty should be added to the introduction, more specifically about using the Fuzzy QFD and ARIZ which are both not clearer in manuscript.
