Selection of an Algorithm for Assessing the Verticality of Complex Slender Objects Using Semi-Automatic Point Cloud Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, add information about registration method. Various approaches are used for this purpose, including the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm, feature-based methods, global optimization methods, registration with known correspondences, and hierarchical methods. These methods have been extensively studied and used in the field of laser scanning data processing.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Please, add information about registration method. Various approaches are used for this purpose, including the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm, feature-based methods, global optimization methods, registration with known correspondences, and hierarchical methods. These methods have been extensively studied and used in the field of laser scanning data processing.

 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable and insightful feedback. Thank you for your positive evaluation of our article.

To create coherent point clouds representing the studied objects, we utilized terrestrial laser scanning as a method for acquiring spatial data. Point clouds from successive measurement positions were mutually registered using a hybrid registration method that employed artificial targets distributed in the area, along with cloud-to-cloud registration using the Leica Cyclone software, utilizing the ICP algorithm. The measurement targets also underwent independent angular-linear measurement using a total station. To establish reference to an external coordinate system, GPS technology measurements were performed at several ground points.

In the publication, this process is described succinctly in paragraphs 259 – 276. We do not believe it should be elaborated further, considering it is not the primary focus of the research. The technical note we have chosen should be written concisely.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewed article “Selection of an algorithm for assessing the verticality of complex slender objects using semi-automatic point cloud analysis” deals with the influence of calculation methodology on values obtained for deflections of slender engineering structures. The authors present considerations related to the methodology of analytical determination of the axes of slender symmetric and asymmetric structures, which include shaft towers (headframes). The Authors based their calculations on the results of measurements obtained using TLS technology, and they proposed calculation methodology which was extended to analyses of data obtained using other types of measurement.

In general, for a 'Technical Note' the text is not bad, but it needs additions and corrections to make it a better read.

 

Below are my detailed comments and perceived errors. I encourage the Authors to meticulously correct point-by-point all perceived faults.

 

 

1) Firsly, I'm not sure if this is the final version of the article, as some of the text is in red, there are corrections and deletions in the literature list - it all looks like a draft, unfinished version...?

 

2) The citation style also doesn't seem to follow the format that Remote Sensing magazine uses - as far as I know, ACS style (by numbers in the text) is preferred here. This is definitely something to improve.

 

3) Page 3 line 125: what it means „rheological model”?

 

4) Page 3 lines 156-188 – In my opinion, this part of the text should be moved to chapter '2. Materials and methods'.

 

5) ‘1. Introduction’ – I think that this part is too long, too detailed in places; the works cited should be treated more briefly, because now the whole chapter takes up as much as 4 pages! Secondly - the chapter is written quite chaotically - let me remind you that we cite works chronologically (from the oldest!), this should be organized, the whole thing should be rewritten - and above all, shortened. This is a 'Technical Note', not a chapter in a textbook.

 

6) Page 4 line 192 – I do not see Matlab software cited in the reference list at the end; this should be completed.

 

7) Page 5 line 212 – as I mentioned earlier - we quote from older works, to newer ones; this should be corrected.

 

8) Page 6 line 261 – The authors did not write what type of GNSS equipment they used and the horizontal and vertical accuracy; this should be completed.

 

9) Page 6 line 264 – the same situation as in point 6).

 

10) Page 7 lines 281-282 – Please decide in what units we describe resolution - meters or centimeters? This should be standardized.

 

11) Page 7 line 289 – No citation in the refernce list at the end; this should be completed.

 

12) Page 8 line 307– the same situation as in point 10).

13) Page 9 lines 346-369 – when describing the method of determining the location of the central points there is a lack of citations of sources - unless these are the author's proposals...? If not - this should be supplemented.

 

14) Page 9 line 367-368 - the same situation as in point 11).

 

15) Page 13 line 440 – rename the chapter to 'Discussion and Conclusions' or break it into two independent chapters; the current form is incorrect and ambiguous.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest send the text to the native speaker.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Reviewed article “Selection of an algorithm for assessing the verticality of complex slender objects using semi-automatic point cloud analysis” deals with the influence of calculation methodology on values obtained for deflections of slender engineering structures. The authors present considerations related to the methodology of analytical determination of the axes of slender symmetric and asymmetric structures, which include shaft towers (headframes). The Authors based their calculations on the results of measurements obtained using TLS technology, and they proposed calculation methodology which was extended to analyses of data obtained using other types of measurement.

In general, for a 'Technical Note' the text is not bad, but it needs additions and corrections to make it a better read.

Below are my detailed comments and perceived errors. I encourage the Authors to meticulously correct point-by-point all perceived faults.

1) Firsly, I'm not sure if this is the final version of the article, as some of the text is in red, there are corrections and deletions in the literature list - it all looks like a draft, unfinished version...?

2) The citation style also doesn't seem to follow the format that Remote Sensing magazine uses - as far as I know, ACS style (by numbers in the text) is preferred here. This is definitely something to improve.

3) Page 3 line 125: what it means „rheological model”?

4) Page 3 lines 156-188 – In my opinion, this part of the text should be moved to chapter '2. Materials and methods'.

5) ‘1. Introduction’ – I think that this part is too long, too detailed in places; the works cited should be treated more briefly, because now the whole chapter takes up as much as 4 pages! Secondly - the chapter is written quite chaotically - let me remind you that we cite works chronologically (from the oldest!), this should be organized, the whole thing should be rewritten - and above all, shortened. This is a 'Technical Note', not a chapter in a textbook.

6) Page 4 line 192 – I do not see Matlab software cited in the reference list at the end; this should be completed.

7) Page 5 line 212 – as I mentioned earlier - we quote from older works, to newer ones; this should be corrected.

8) Page 6 line 261 – The authors did not write what type of GNSS equipment they used and the horizontal and vertical accuracy; this should be completed.

9) Page 6 line 264 – the same situation as in point 6).

10) Page 7 lines 281-282 – Please decide in what units we describe resolution - meters or centimeters? This should be standardized.

11) Page 7 line 289 – No citation in the refernce list at the end; this should be completed.

12) Page 8 line 307– the same situation as in point 10).

13) Page 9 lines 346-369 – when describing the method of determining the location of the central points there is a lack of citations of sources - unless these are the author's proposals...? If not - this should be supplemented.

14) Page 9 line 367-368 - the same situation as in point 11).

15) Page 13 line 440 – rename the chapter to 'Discussion and Conclusions' or break it into two independent chapters; the current form is incorrect and ambiguous.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable and insightful feedback. We have tried to change and supplement the article as suggested. Below we present a detailed list of our additions and responses to the presented comments to the text.

Ad. 1

We would like to mention that the article has already been reviewed and some detailed additions have been presented in red font (in this form we have been asked to highlight them).

Ad. 2 The citation style has been corrected accordingly.

Ad. 3 To illustrate the plasticization processes, the concept of a body is introduced. Based on its properties, a mathematical model is constructed, providing a straightforward relationship between shear rate and shear stress, or shear rate and displacement gradient. Such rheological models serve as approximations of real processes, simplifying the representation of the connection between stresses and object deformations. This is especially crucial in the geomechanical analysis of soils beneath structures, where rheology describes aspects of the behavior of solid and liquid bodies, making them comparable and causing changes in the initial state through various forms of deformation.

Ad. 4 We agree with the reviewer. The paragraph has been moved to chapter 2 (lines 183-198) .

Ad. 5 We cannot agree with the remark that it is written haphazardly. It is indeed long, but in the previous version of the review we were asked to supplement it with examples of similar analyses presented in the world literature. Due to the rare descriptions of similar studies, we considered it justified and presented a broader context, which was also supposed to justify our research niche. Accordingly, the introduction consists of several consecutive modules, logically related to each other:

Paragraph 1 (line 24-41) Outlining the problem

Paragraph 2 (lines 42-50)Division into strategies for determining the deformation of objects Paragraph 3 (line 51-85) Examples of Strategy 1 (Geometric Measurement Approach to Slender Objects)

Paragraph 4 (line 86-107) Examples of Strategy 2 (Deformation Analyses from FEM Modeling) Paragraph 5 (line 108-128) Examples of how both strategies can be used at the same time Paragraph 6 (lines 129-141) Demonstration of discrepancies in results with different calculation algorithms despite the same data

Paragraphs 7 and 8 (line 142-160) Demonstration of the research niche related to the proposal of a methodology for the analytical determination of axes of slender, symmetrical, but also asymmetrical structures

Paragraphs 9 & 10 (line 161-183) Presentation of symmetrical and asymmetrical objects (shaft towers) that are evaluated in the article. As suggested, moved to chapter 2.

 Paragraph 11 (lines 184-189) Information on theoretical tests carried out to verify the results of in situ tests.

Ad. 6 . Added to references.

Ad. 7. Corrected in the text.

Ad. 8. Appropriate paragraph was added to text (lines 262-267).

Ad. 9. Corrected in the text.

Ad. 10. As suggested units are standardized to meters.

Ad. 11. Added to references.

Ad. 12. As suggested units are standardized to meters.

Ad. 13. The authors did not find any relevant publications in the literature and the proposed algorithms are their own idea.

Ad. 14. Added to references.

Ad. 15. As suggested we divided chapter for two parts.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the issue of detecting vertical axis deflection of slender objects. The authors present different calculations with using point clouds retrieved with laser-scanning while test on theoretical data were also done.

The structure of the paper is acceptable, the role of each sections is clear. The inserted figures and tables support the understanding, although some figures are not clear enough (see Figure 3). The introduction and demonstration of the related works are comprehensive. The reader receives a very thorough description about the related research and the need of the current research is defined clearly. 

I miss mentioning the reason for testing the structural axes in line 149. The steps in the research are presented in a clear way. The three calculation methods are presented in detail, I have not found mistakes in the formulae.

The graphs higlight the results well and the authours make right conclusions.

I miss discussing the possibility of generalization for other object shapes. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please enhance the English. Some typos, and issues can be found. And shorter sentences would be welcome.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript addresses the issue of detecting vertical axis deflection of slender objects. The authors present different calculations with using point clouds retrieved with laser-scanning while test on theoretical data were also done.

The structure of the paper is acceptable, the role of each sections is clear. The inserted figures and tables support the understanding, although some figures are not clear enough (see Figure 3). The introduction and demonstration of the related works are comprehensive. The reader receives a very thorough description about the related research and the need of the current research is defined clearly. 

I miss mentioning the reason for testing the structural axes in line 149. The steps in the research are presented in a clear way. The three calculation methods are presented in detail, I have not found mistakes in the formulae.

The graphs higlight the results well and the authours make right conclusions.

I miss discussing the possibility of generalization for other object shapes. 

Please enhance the English. Some typos, and issues can be found. And shorter sentences would be welcome.

 

Response:

Thank you for your valuable and insightful feedback and positive evaluation of our article. The relevant paragraph is attached in discussion (paragraphs 454-459). The English language has been reviewed by a native speaker.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewing comments: 

1. From lines 216 to 225, please elaborate on why you consider ABCD and include the reference. 

2. From lines 224 to 226, please explain why only case D stays symmetric after deformed. BCD follows the same trend, which is symmetric. If I am wrong, please convince me.

3. Please introduce which registration process you use From lines 256 to 259. ICP or any other. 

4. line 261, "registration of point clouds," does not correspond to Table 1, where the registration mean absolute error is shown. In addition, please explain how you calculate the mean absolute error. 

5. line 288, please check the equation. It should be Equation+argmin.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Can be improved

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article provides a good introduction to the problem statement and the significance of accurately selecting the points related to the cylinder. This is a crucial aspect of the analysis, considering the presence of a large number of points that may not be relevant to the object.

 

The main drawback of the article regarding the selection of points related to the cylinder or scan object, especially when dealing with point clouds that contain a large number of points unrelated to the object. This is indeed a significant challenge in point cloud analysis and can impact the accuracy and reliability of the results.

To address this concern, it would be beneficial if the authors could provide more insights into the specific methods or techniques they employed to tackle the issue of point selection. Explaining how they distinguished relevant points from irrelevant ones, or any filtering or segmentation strategies utilized, would enhance the clarity and usefulness of the article.

Additionally, discussing the potential limitations or shortcomings of the selected approach in handling point cloud noise or outliers would be valuable. Suggesting alternative approaches or mentioning ongoing research in the field that addresses this challenge could provide readers with a broader perspective.

Overall, addressing the issue of point selection in the context of complex slender objects with extensive point clouds is crucial for the practical application of the algorithm. By providing further clarification and potential solutions to overcome this drawback, the authors can strengthen the significance and impact of their research.

 

 Regards,