Research on Trajectory Planning and Tracking Methods for Coal Mine Mobile Robots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a comprehensive research on trajectory planning and tracking technology for Coal Mine Mobile Robots (CMRRs). The authors propose a new trajectory class called MINCO, derived based on the properties of a differential flat system. They also introduce a trajectory planning method using MINCO trajectory with safety corridor constraints, as well as a trajectory tracking method based on model predictive control (MPC). The paper includes extensive field tests on a simulated laneway with a crawler-type CMRR platform, showing promising results.

The paper include aspects regarding: Derivation of the MINCO trajectory class and its spatio-temporal deformation, demonstrating its superior planning effects compared to the Fast-Planner algorithm in various obstacle scenarios; Establishment of a kinematic model for the tracked coal mine robot’s experimental platform and the design of the MPC trajectory tracking method, proving its adaptability to tracking different paths and the Development of a highly reliable trajectory planning and tracking system for CMRRs, suitable for autonomous navigation and remote control assisted driving, with practical application potential.

Overall, the paper offers valuable insights into improving CMRRs’ trajectory planning and tracking capabilities, providing significant technical support for their real-world application in underground coal mines.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our paper. We noticed that you did not provide any comments or suggestions for modifications. We are pleased that you recognized and accepted our research work without any further improvements. This further validates the rationale and significance of our study.

We will continue to strive for excellence in our research and delve deeper into this field in future work. Once again, we appreciate your review and valuable input.

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting paper on trajectory planning and tracking technology for CMRR. Your approach for trajectory planning based on MINCO considering a safety corridor is appropriate and plausible. Tracking based on MPC  meets the state of the art. Your field experiments carried with the help of simulation and a crawler-type CMRR platform are of high value.  and it has a certain 940 value of practical application. You rely in the MINCO trajectory class and its spatio-temporal deformation which is convincing. However the proof of optimality of the control trajectory under the constraints of the uneven downhole environment remains unclear. The complexity and the computational amount for the MINCO trajectory planning method remains unclear.  Your kinematic model of your experimental platform  follows the state of the art. Your proposed MPC trajectory tracking method is plausible

and shows good results.  Your trajectory planner and tracking system is suitable for CMRRs and shows good collision avoidance according your field tests.  You rely on applying a trajectory and a safety corridor for tracked coal mine robots in uneven underground environment. Your proposed  trajectory planner and a  tracking system  is based   on the probate differential flat system approach and is processing  MINCO trajectories and safety corridor constraints. The sensor detection and mapping of underground environment constraints remains unclear.   The prediction model of MPC relies on approximation of  kinematics model. The use of quadratic programming problem solvers computing the cost function of the trajectory tracking target is appropriate.  Your collision avoidance effects within multiple obstacle scenarios is competitive to various RRT- and vector field approaches.  Your paper considers at large the state of the art and is well written. There exists  a large  a large bibliography on related systems and methods for mining environments.   In regard to actual research your proposed method is incremental, shows impressive experimental results and confirms the state of the art. The paper should be shortened and a comparison with related approaches would enhance the quality of the paper. A video demo would be helpful.

 

The paper should be shortened.

Check spelling.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have revised our paper accordingly to address your concerns. Please refer to the attached document for a detailed response. We have shortened the paper and improved the spelling errors. We hope that these revisions will enhance the quality of our paper and make it more suitable for publication.

Once again, we appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please feel free to let us know.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

The objective presented by the authors is extremely important from the point of view of the development of autonomous operation (here movement) for mobile machines, in this case mobile robots operating in mine workings (extremely difficult working conditions in this environment!) - which corresponds to current world trends in this scientific area.

I consider it reasonable and expedient to take up the teamtte.

Comments and observations:

- in the literature review, more attention should be paid to mobile vehicle planning and tracking algorithms - (e.g. in the automotive industry, agriculture, AGM, etc. - in general), which have been developed, tested and put into practice worldwide for many years - I propose to prepare a summary of the literature analysis in the form of a summary (e.g. a table), to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of the various known planning and tracking methods and finally justify the authors' concept of using a combined MINCO and MPC technique, which should be considered an interesting concept.

- the analytical considerations presented regarding MINCO and PPC are presented in a clear manner, appear to be correct, but I would suggest additional verification by a statistical editor.

- very interesting and well-executed verification tests in real conditions - which is very valuable, for my part I suggest a division into static and dynamic tests.

- were simulation tests conducted in a virtual environment? - to tell you the truth, one would be tempted to carry out such tests before testing under real conditions! - and if such tests have not been undertaken, why not?

Generally evaluating the article, I think that the topic undertaken by the authors, the considerations presented are necessary and will find interest in the environment, however, the text of the work requires minor additions and corrections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestions. We have revised our paper accordingly to address your concerns. Please refer to the attached document for a detailed response. We have shortened the paper and improved the spelling errors. We hope that these revisions will enhance the quality of our paper and make it more suitable for publication.

Once again, we appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. If you have any further comments or suggestions, please feel free to let us know.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx