Research on the Application of MEMS Gyroscope in Inspecting the Breakage of Urban Sewerage Pipelines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Nice idea. The authors must pursue a patent.

I recommend the publication of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and for reminding us of the importance of patenting. Your approval has given me the encouragement to research further on this topic.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a new type of equipment for drainage pipe network inspections and takes a laboratory simulation of pipe conditions to detect and locate breakage points in pipes. It’s an interesting work, but the experiment conditions may be far away from actual drainage pipe operation conditions. Some comments as following:

[1] How to overcome the impact of floating matters in drainage pipelines on MEMS

 collision?

[2] How to overcome the impact of liquid level fluctuations and sediment blockage in drainage pipelines?

[3] How about the detection accuracy of MEMS compared to existing devices such as CCTV and QV?

[4] L455:Please describe the reason why Equation 12 is adopted, the advantages and reliability of which.

[5] Figure 10~13:The abscissa of the six pictures is the same, please supplementary subgraph names and conditions.

[6] Figure 14:The box color in the legend only corresponds to C1-P,please check the legend.

Language need to be improved 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a device based on a MEMS gyroscope sensor as a core component for detecting infiltration in sewage pipes. After several experiments it has been demonstrated that the device can locate the infiltration point by the analysis of the three-axis acceleration anomalies and the sudden change in motion angle, and make a preliminary determination of the infiltration flow rate. The research idea is innovative and provides a new direction for the detection of abnormal conditions in sewage pipes. However, I have the following concerns which might require further revision before the manuscript can be accepted.

1.      My main concern about this paper is related to the experiment case. There are only two cases in the experiment, and why there are only two cases of water pressure differences of 3 and 5 cm, I think it would be necessary to explain. Since there are only two cases in the experiment, it is impossible to tell us what the detection limit of this device is. In other words, what is the minimum infiltration rate of external water that the device can detect?

2.      If sewage carries more suspended matter or flocculent, will it affect the detection of the device?

3.      Figure 14 is described in just a few sentences in the article and the box plot of R-values needs to be explained more clearly.

4.      It is recommended to add Water's article to the reference.

5.      Some English grammar mistakes need to be corrected.

L50: include --> includes

L51: and error-prone-->, and error-prone

L57: ten per cent--> ten percent

L60: simple, --> simple

L272: and yaw angle--> and the yaw angle

L275: that the --> and the

L349: Pobs --> P_obs

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf