Development of Automatic Electric Drive Drilling System for Core Drilling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

In this paper a drilling system was developed with an electric drive using programmable logic controller (PLC) technology. Overall, the manuscript is well written, and it brings good contributions to other researchers. However, the paper can be further improved after the following issues are addressed.

1)     The abstract is confusing, poorly written, consist of several illogical statements. Rewriting/rephrasing of the abstract is recommended.

2)     The introduction is also weak, lack critical review of the previous studies and is done superficially.

3)     At the end of the introduction, a brief paragraph describing the organization of paper should be added.

4)     Terminologies should be precise, consistent, and defined before introducing them to the discussion.

5)     Some of the parameters used in the equation (1) are not defined within the text. It is recommended to define all the parameters within the text at the appropriate location.

6)      Authors should justify the assumption of considering the whole length as a single linear spring system.

7)     What was the observed speed of bit?

8)     What was the main source of tick-slip?

9)     More explanation/justification is required for converting the non-linear dynamic characteristics to linear dynamic characteristics (line 169-173).

10) Control schemes and data processing algorithms should be amended. If there exist some errors, how to compensate?

11) Fig. 5 is not clear at all. It should be replaced with a more descriptive and better-quality figure.

12) Some of the figures seems redundant. In my opinion Figures 6, 9 should me removed from the article.

13) What was the accuracy of the experimental measurement?

14) There are some typos and spelling errors in this paper.

Author Response

Dear editors and referees:

We appreciate your great efforts and valuable comments on our submission.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper is of sufficient scientific interest in the concerned field and the subject of the paper is related to the aim and scope of the journal. The paper is well organized. The introduction section is informative. The manuscript is clear and concise. The references are adequate, satisfactory, and given correctly. But there are some issues missing in this paper and hence, the manuscript needs minor revision based on the following comments:

 

1)      Is it possible for the authors to evaluate the differences between a hydraulic system and an electric drive for core drilling in terms of advantages or disadvantages?

2)      It is suggested to briefly start with the need of study in the abstract.

3)      P2 line 66-68, reference is missing.

4)      P2 line 84-87, sentence should be rewritten.

5)      Discussion of results can be improved in the manuscript. It is very important to emphasize the points of agreement or disagreement between the results in the present work and the cited references in the manuscript however qualitative or quantitative may be.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear editors and referees:

We appreciate your great efforts and valuable comments on our submission.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

I am satisfied with the revision made by the authors. Therefore, I would like to recommend it for publication in its current form.

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 paper contains too many mistakes in the equations. With so many mistakes, the paper does not inspire any confidence and
cannot be read in its present form.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editors and referees:

We appreciate your great efforts and valuable comments on our submission.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents a PLC-based controller for electric drive drilling system. In general, the manuscript is well structured, experimentation is adequate to validate the proposal. However, I consider that there are some aspects to consider before a possible publication:

1.       Define the acronyms used from the first time they are mentioned (DSATS, CSRIO,…)

2.       Describe all the variables that appear in the equations or figures. I suggest moving table 1 to the beginning of section 2, it helps to understand the variables that will be used.

3.       Improve the quality of the image 5, the text is not readable.

4.       In section 3.2.2, the use of a digital filter is proposed, describing what type of filter was used and its analytical expression.

5.       The manuscript presents the information in a very textual way, the mathematical foundation of the development is not highlighted. I consider it necessary to present the most important models or equations that were used.

6.       In the sense of the previous observation, I consider it necessary to carry out an identification of the system, present the transfer function or functions involved since classical and modern control techniques require a mathematical model of the plant.

7.       The authors indicate that the PID controller gains can be set by engineering experience. This option can give good results, however it would be important to compare them with traditional tuning techniques such as Ziegler–Nichols, Astrom-Hagglund, frequency response, among others. These methodologies can help to improve the controller performance by reducing overshoot and response time.

8.       To visualize the performance of the controller, it would be desirable to add some tracking graph where the WOB reference given by the controller and the real measured signal are compared.

Author Response

Dear editors and referees:

We appreciate your great efforts and valuable comments on our submission.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author do not have understand what is the concept of "state "and "state representation". The lead to huge mistakes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editors and referees:

We appreciate your great efforts and valuable comments on our submission.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc