Automatic Identification of Earth Rock Embankment Piping Hazards in Small and Medium Rivers Based on UAV Thermal Infrared and Visible Images

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors developed a piping identification algorithm based on the findings in the piping field simulation experiments and demonstrated that the algorithm is effective through the field test. This study contains some interesting findings and are valuable for the detection of piping hazards and understanding of the process of the piping identification. The overall structure of the paper is reasonable, the analysis is lucid and the results are credible. Therefore, minor revision has to be done before this manuscript could be accepted for publication in the Remote Sensing. 

(1)   Lines 141: The “suspected area” should be areas. The aforementioned issue necessitate a thorough examination within the entirety of the text.

(2)   Figure 4: This picture is not clear, please replace it.

(3)   In section 3.2.2, The analysis presented should clearly distinguish between Case 1 and Case 2, or a combination of the two. Additionally, comparative analysis could be included to identify factors contributing to decreased precision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have addressed each question individually. Please refer to the attachment for further details.

Renzhi Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

1. Novelty of the study is missing in this manuscript. 

2. Abbrevation of TWMM is not presented in the manuscript (line no.: 169)

3. Presentation of the results is not clear. Figures 8 and 9, supporting visible images of thermal images need to be kept for reference.

4.  In figure 11 (A2 to E2 and A3 and E3) are appeared to be thermal images. But, the author is not presented how the algorithm is identifying the piping locations.

5. In lines no.: 299 to 301, the author states that Four of them (Figure 11ABCD) has been marked by the manual inspection, but the fifth (Figure 11E) location was discovered through the UAV inspection. But in figure 11, (A3) to (E3) are the identification results by automatic identification algorithm of piping in the field test. Here, there is some mismatch in the statements. Please clarify this.

6. In Table 3, results of the piping identification test were provided but the image classification results, classified maps of the various locations figure 11 (A to E) are not presented. 

7. In Table 4, the authors presented the GSD varies with altitude. If they considered the different altitude images, please mention the accuracy of the identification of piping.

8. Conclusions are not clear.

 

English corrections need to be performed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have addressed each question individually. Please refer to the attachment for further details.

Renzhi Li

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 

Please clearly indicate the closing and ending brackets of TWMM in line no. 171