the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Nov 2024
Geo-Informatics Data Acquisition Instrument for Assessment of Avalanche Risk and Trafficability: STMET
Abstract. Off-road soil conditions and snowpack strata data are traditionally acquired with Cone penetrometers and Ramsonde Rod to assess trafficability and snow stability. Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) has been designed and developed as a multi-utility instrument for snow and soil to acquire geo-informatics data. Load cell, moisture sensor, temperature sensor, and data transmission modules in small form factors are embedded in the rod-like instrument for easy movement and for finding penetration resistance, moisture, and temperature profile of snowpack and soil. One of the Cone angles (30°, 45° and 60°) of the cone assembly is auto-detected by the data acquisition system for ease of set-up and data storage depending on geophysical conditions. Laser-based ranging sensors continuously monitor cone penetration depth. The profiles of snow strength, moisture and temperature are displayed on the detachable display in graphical form which helps to find the weak layer responsible for avalanche occurrences. The position of the experimental site and the terrain slope are obtained with the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) built into the system. The transmission module of the system transmits the data and an alert signal to a distance in case of an emergency. The catchment area of an avalanche site is measured using an algorithm based on the data obtained with a distance-measuring sensor and Roll-Pitch-Yaw data of IMU. The enhanced capability of the instrument for trafficability assessment is feasible by comparing the soil cone index (CI) and Vehicle Cone Index (VCI). The Decision Support System (DSS) has been implemented as a tool for soil, snow stratigraphy, avalanche and victim detection to ease the decision-making process for assessing trafficability and avalanche risk. This paper highlights the concept and features of the Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) capable of acquiring geo-informatics data for scientific applications in difficult terrains.
- Preprint
(1030 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
AC1: 'Request to expedite Review Process of the Research Article MS No.: egusphere-2024-3154', Ganesh Kumar, 13 Mar 2025
Dear Sir,
Once again we would like to express our sincere appreciation for considering our research paper titled 'Geo-Informatics Data Acquisition Instrument for Assessment of Avalanche Risk and Trafficability: STMET' for publication in your esteemed journal. The article is the most suitable to your journal and it will be beneficial to research scholars in this field. The paper was submitted on October 10, 2024, and the reprint was made available on November 18, 2024. We have noticed that the review and discussion process has been extended on several occasions and again discussion has been extended to 17th April 2025. May we consider it is your last date extension for discussion because we want its publication soon. We shall manage balance APC after discount. We request you to expedite the process of discussion and its publication in your reputed journal at the earliest.Thanking you,
Great Regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3154-AC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3154', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2025
The manuscript “Geo-informatics data acquisition instrument for assessment of avalanche risk and trafficability: STMET” is an interesting read. The work presented is quite far from my own area of research, so I cannot adequately comment on the intended application or the novelty. My main issue with the manuscript is a confusing structure where background information, technical design choices, results and discussions are mixed up. The manuscript would greatly benefit from a major revision focusing on structure. One example is the start of the results section which opens with the choice of materials for the instrument and then proceeds to introduce snow properties. These bits of information should be moved to appropriate sections. Another example is the dual use of the instrument in snow and soil. A clearer distinction between the different use cases would be appreciated.
Specific comments:
Line 95: It is not clear to me how the laser range finder works. According to the text it is placed inside the box. Please clarify and potentially revise figure 1 to make this clear.
Line 113: It is claimed that the time response of the temperature sensor is fast. Unfortunately, there is no definition of “fast”, nor is any data presented to warrant this claim.
Line 128: A calibration is mentioned, but there is no discussion of the precision and reproducibility of this sensor.
Line 138 (and comment on line 160 below): I suggest adding a few details. Are data manually recorded?
Figure 6: This could be made much easier to follow if the names of parts appeared in the figure instead of being moved to the caption.
Figure 7: This figure does not contribute much to the paper and can be removed.
Line 160: The area computing algorithm is rather abruptly placed in the manuscript. I suggest adding a few sentences on the background of it. Further, the distance range finder is poorly described. Is it just a separate instrument or is it part of the new design?
Line 192: An example of a profile of moisture and temperature in soil, like figures 9 and 10 would be appropriate. Where is the comparison between CI and VCI? What does the colors in the figure 11 indicate?
Technical corrections:
Line 261: The McClung and Schaerer reference appears twice. Please remove one.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3154-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ganesh Kumar, 19 May 2025
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3154', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2025 reply
The manuscript “Geo-informatics data acquisition instrument for assessment of avalanche risk and trafficability: STMET” is an interesting read. The work presented is quite far from my own area of research, so I cannot adequately comment on the intended application or the novelty. My main issue with the manuscript is a confusing structure where background information, technical design choices, results and discussions are mixed up. The manuscript would greatly benefit from a major revision focusing on structure. One example is the start of the results section which opens with the choice of materials for the instrument and then proceeds to introduce snow properties. These bits of information should be moved to appropriate sections. Another example is the dual use of the instrument in snow and soil. A clearer distinction between the different use cases would be appreciated.
Authors’ Response:
The authors are sincerely thankful to the referee for the thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Geo-informatics data acquisition instrument for assessment of avalanche risk and trafficability: STMET”. They appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our work. They have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly to improve its technical clarity, organization, and overall presentation. They have incorporated all suggestions in the modified manuscript to meet the standard of the journal publication.
Authors’ responses are given below point-by-point to the referee’s specific comments.
Line 95: It is not clear to me how the laser range finder works. According to the text it is placed inside the box. Please clarify and potentially revise Figure 1 to make this clear.
Authors’ response:The authors agree with the referee that this section required greater clarity. The laser range finder and depth measuring sensors operate on the principle of Time of Flight (ToF). On line 95, the depth measuring system has been explained and it is mounted beneath the electronics box, pointing downward through an aperture in the base of the box. While not all sensors could be shown in Figure 1 due to visual complexity. They have illustrated the location and orientation of the depth sensor in Figure 3 for more clarity. The corresponding text has also been revised for clarity.
Line 113: It is claimed that the time response of the temperature sensor is fast. Unfortunately, there is no definition of “fast”, nor is any data presented to warrant this claim.
Authors’ response: The authors appreciate the referee’s point. The manuscript has been revised to include the quantitative response time of the temperature sensor. The response time is 0.25 s which meets the requirements for rapid surface and subsurface temperature acquisition in dynamic environments.
Line 128: A calibration is mentioned, but there is no discussion of the precision and reproducibility of this sensor.
Authors’ response: The authors are thankful to the referee for this important remark. They have described the procedure and precision in the section of the modified manuscript. The moisture sensor was calibrated using distilled water (100% moisture reference) and ambient air (0% reference). Subsequent tests involved adding measured volumes of water to known soil samples. Each calibration scenario was repeated ten times by different operators to assess reproducibility. The maximum deviation in repeated measurements was within ±2%. These details have been included in the revised manuscript.
Line 138 (and comment on line 160 below): I suggest adding a few details. Are data manually recorded?
Authors’ response:The authors agree that this needed clarification. They have now added a detailed explanation of the data acquisition process. All sensor data are recorded manually.
Figure 6: This could be made much easier to follow if the names of parts appeared in the figure instead of being moved to the caption.
Authors’ response: They appreciate the suggestion for naming of parts of the instruments. Whilethey initially attempted to label parts within the figure, the density and overlap of components made the figure visually cluttered and difficult to interpret. Therefore, theyopted to retain the original caption-based naming system, which maintains figure clarity. This format was also acceptable to other referees.
Figure 7: This figure does not contribute much to the paper and can be removed.
Authors’ response:The authors respectfully differ on this point. Figure 7 illustrates the overall methodology and data acquisition process, which complements the textual explanation and enhances understanding of the workflow. They believe this figure adds value for readers and have therefore retained it in the revised manuscript.
Line 160: The area computing algorithm is rather abruptly placed in the manuscript. I suggest adding a few sentences on the background of it. Further, the distance range finder is poorly described. Is it just a separate instrument or is it part of the new design?
Authors’ response: The authors appreciate this observation. The area computing algorithm has been mentioned inthe distance measuring section 2.2.6, now to implement the feedback. Additional context has been provided to explain the area computing algorithm, which was developed to measure terrain slope area using the laser range finder and the integrated IMU. The laser range finder is a component of the STMET instrument, not a separate instrument. These details have been clarified and the related section has been revised accordingly.
Line 192: An example of a profile of moisture and temperature in soil, like figures 9 and 10 would be appropriate. Where is the comparison between CI and VCI? What does the colors in the figure 11 indicate?
Authors’ response:The authors are thankful to the referee for these valuable suggestions. They have added a soil profile showing moisture and temperature to the manuscript. Additionally, they have clarified that the Cone Index (CI) measured by the instrument is compared with the Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) to assess terrain trafficability. The color scheme used in Figure 11 was solely for visual differentiation and does not carry any specific meaning.
Technical corrections:
Line 261: The McClung and Schaerer reference appears twice. Please remove one.
Authors’ response:The authors appreciate the referee’s observation on references. The duplicate reference has been removed.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Ganesh Kumar, 19 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3154', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 May 2025
The overall organization of the article is clear, and meets the requirements for writing scientific papers.Off-road soil conditions and snowpack strata data are traditionally acquired with Cone penetrometers and Ramsonde Rod to assess trafficability and snow stability. On this basis, the author designed a new Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) and applied it.
I believe that this article can be accepted after providing additional technical details and revisions.
1.What is the condition of the new Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) battery and how long can it be used in the field?
2. The author mentioned the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), how do they work, and what contribution do they make to the final measurement results?
3. The article discusses the measurement results of temperature and humidity, but lacks modeling based on these parameters and terrain passability. How will these measurement results be applied?
4. The article mentions The Decision Support System (DSS), which decisions can ultimately be made by the system, and the decision-making process should be supplemented and explained.
5. The references should be further supplemented.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3154-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Ganesh Kumar, 19 May 2025
RC2:'Comment on egusphere-2024-3154', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 May 2025
The overall organization of the article is clear and meets the requirements for writing scientific papers. Off-road conditions and snowpack strata data are traditionally acquired with Cone penetrometer and Ramsonde Rod to assess traditionally acquired with Cone penetrometer and Ramsonde Rod to assess trafficability and snow stability. On this basis, the author designed a new Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) and applied it. I believe that this article can be accepted after providing additional technical details and revisions.
Response to Referee 2:
The authors sincerely thank the referee for the positive and encouraging comments. The newly developed STMET instrument offers several advantages over existing tools, such as the cone penetrometer (used in soil analysis) and the Ramsonde rod (used in snowpack evaluation). In addition to the functionalities of these instruments, STMET is equipped with additional features, including the capability to measure temperature profiles and moisture content- features absent in both traditional tools.
They have carefully reviewed and revised the manuscript by incorporating all feedback and suggestions provided by the esteemed referees. The updated manuscript is submitted with the hope that it meets the standards for publication.
Point-wise responses to the referee’s comments are as follows:
1.What is the condition of the new Snow and Terrain Mobility Evaluation Tool (STMET) battery and how long can it be used in the field?
Response 1: The STMET is powered by a 6000 mAh lithium-ion cylindrical battery, which is housed within the handle of the device. Under standard operating conditions, the battery provides a backup of approximately 4 hours.
- The author mentioned the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), how do they work, and what contribution do they make to the final measurement results?
Response 2: The IMU comprises an accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer. It measures the acceleration, velocity, and orientation (pitch, roll, and yaw) of the device. This information is used to determine the penetration rate of STMET for optimal operation. Additionally, the orientation data is integrated into an algorithm that computes terrain area and slope, contributing to a better understanding of terrain features.
- The article discusses the measurement results of temperature and humidity, but lacks modeling based on these parameters and terrain passability. How will these measurement results be applied?
Response 3: The authors thank the referee for this valuable observation. The STMET includes temperature and humidity sensors mounted on the electronic enclosure to monitor ambient environmental conditions. In emergencies, this data can be transmitted to a base station upon activation of a panic button.
To evaluate terrain trafficability (passability), additional temperature and moisture sensors are embedded at the rod’s tip to measure subsurface conditions. Soil strength is influenced by its moisture content and is quantified using the cone index. This is compared with the Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) of a specific vehicle to determine the feasibility of terrain traversal. The methodology has been elaborated in the revised manuscript.
- The article mentions The Decision Support System (DSS), which decisions can ultimately be made by the system, and the decision-making process should be supplemented and explained.
Response 4: Authors appreciate the referee’s insightful suggestion. The DSS integrated with STMET aids users in decision-making across the following applications:
- Weak Layer Identification: Based on the measured strength profile, users can detect weak layers within the snowpack, which are potential triggers for snow avalanches.
- Terrain Slope Assessment: The instrument measures terrain slope, which is essential for classifying avalanche-prone zones—formation, middle, and runout.
- Trafficability Assessment: An algorithm uses measured soil strength and cone index data to determine whether a specific vehicle can traverse a given terrain and estimate the number of feasible passes.
- Victim Detection and Rescue Support: In the event of an accident, STMET can send an alert signal containing GPS coordinates and ambient temperature to facilitate timely rescue operations.
These details have been included in the revised manuscript.
- The references should be further supplemented.
Response 5: The reference list has been reviewed and updated. Duplicate entries have been removed, and additional relevant references have been included to support the discussion.
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Ganesh Kumar, 19 May 2025
-
AC4: 'Closing discussion Comment on egusphere-2024-3154', Ganesh Kumar, 16 Jun 2025
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the referees for valuable feedback and cooperation regarding our technical article. The referees' comments and suggestions have helped in improving the manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the suggestions and comments provided by the referees and have incorporated them into the revised version of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the high standards of your esteemed journal. However, we welcome any further suggestions for its improvement.
Please consider this my final closing discussion comments. We are submitting revised manuscript and responses of referees' comments soon.
Thanking you
Warm Regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3154-AC4
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 232 | 56 | 21 | 309 | 16 | 19 |
- HTML: 232
- PDF: 56
- XML: 21
- Total: 309
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1