Investigating Collaborative Robotic Assembly: A Case Study of the FANUC CRX-10 iA/L in Industrial Automation at i-Labs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments needs to be addressed.

1. On page 2, line no. 57, there is a typo  error  'solutione' 

2. On page 3, line no. 129-136,  'Chapter' should be changed to 'Section', as the chapter is used in thesis and section is used in article.

3. Add scale bar in figure 1 and mark subcomponents in right figure of 1.

4. What is 'UML' in Figure 2 caption.

5. Add scale bar in figure 3 to know the relatives sizes of pick and places objects.

6. On page 8, line 271, proper figure needs to cited.

7. The videos to support the studies are shot in real time.

Moderate English editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, below you will find our answers to your comments.

1. On page 2, line no. 57, there is a typo  error  'solutione'  

1. • Thank you for pointing out the typo. It has been corrected to 'solution'. We appreciate your attention to detail. 

1. On page 3, line no. 129-136,  'Chapter' should be changed to 'Section', as the chapter is used in thesis and section is used in article. 

• • Changed as suggested. Thank you for the clarification. 

1. Add scale bar in figure 1 and mark subcomponents in right figure of 1. 

1. • Scale bar added and the image modified to indicate the components in both figures. Thank you for your suggestion. 

1. What is 'UML' in Figure 2 caption. 

1. • Thank you for your observation. A description of the term has been added since it is mentioned for the first time in the text. Note that figure 2 has become figure 3. 

1. Add scale bar in figure 3 to know the relatives sizes of pick and places objects. 

1. • A scale bar has been added to define the distances involved. Please note that the scale is intended to give an idea of distances with an approximate accuracy of around 10 mm. 

1. On page 8, line 271, proper figure needs to cited. 

1. • Please see the response to reviewer 2.  

1. The videos to support the studies are shot in real time. 

1. • Added the real-time video to the online repository. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please use self-check for the editor, a lot of editing mistakes may be avoided (missing of "l" in "roboisation" in line 3, misplaced comma in line 47, etc.)

please re-phrase sentence 45-48, not the humans are improving conditions, productivity, etc.

line 57: "solutione", sould be "solutions"?

lines 61-63: please use absolute values of power, because the use of % may be misleading whitout the overal consumption of the robots

line 68: it is unclear what the term "safety" means inside this sentence

line 118-119: please rephrase

Fig1: Please use anotation a)-b) for left and right depicture. Show the anotations of the parts on the rigth side also.

line 152: please rephrase

line 164: missing referency

line 179: The cone is not depicted in Figure 1, the use of it is not clarified. Please use description (from paragraph 183-186) before mentioning the cone.

titel of Firgure 2: "paralysed step-by-step automated assembly

process" ?

line 187: not the component is assembled, but the assembly from Fig1

line 194: in Fig2 there are no "CONE" nor "RING" 

line 264: "proved to be an effective solution" - evidence should be provided

line 271: missing Fig. reference

Use of commas and dots outside the quotation signs.

The robotic assembly process may be better undertand by presenting graphically the assembly process, showing step-by-step pictures of the gripper and gripped object.

In line 191 is mentioned first and last time the "YUMI" cobot, please clarify the role of it.

The role of the mentioned company should be clarified aslo.

I would like the congratulate for the parctical work, but please present it clear and in a logic manner.

please use self-check for the editor, a lot of editing mistakes may be avoided (missing of "l" in "roboisation" in line 3, misplaced comma in line 47, etc.)

Use of commas and dots outside the quotation signs.

line 57: "solutione", sould be "solutions"?

titel of Firgure 2: "paralysed step-by-step automated assembly

process" ?

Author Response

Dear Auditor 2, below you will find our answers to your comments.

1. please use self-check for the editor, a lot of editing mistakes may be avoided (missing of "l" in "roboisation" in line 3, misplaced comma in line 47, etc.) 

• • Thank you for the observations. We used the self-check, but some words 'hid' among those underlined as cobots or others.  

1. please re-phrase sentence 45-48, not the humans are improving conditions, productivity, etc. 

• • Thank you for the observations. We have rephrased. Hopefully, it is now clear that the improvement in conditions comes from the use of cobots in synergy with human operation. 
    FROM: 
    Another study in this direction is conducted by Safeea et al. in \cite{Safeea2019}, where they state that a cobot can act as an "assistant third hand" lifting and holding parts while the human performs assembly tasks, improving working conditions, productivity, and reducing safety risks. 
    TO: 
    Another study in this direction was conducted by Safeea et al. in \cite{Safeea2019}, where it is stated that a cobot can act as a 'third assistant hand' that lifts and holds parts while humans perform assembly tasks. In this way, the use of cobots can improve working conditions, productivity and reduce safety risks. 

1. line 57: "solutione", sould be "solutions"?  

• • Corrected. Thank you for pointing out this mistake. 

1. lines 61-63: please use absolute values of power, because the use of % may be misleading whitout the overal consumption of the robots 
   1. In response to your feedback, we have decided to remove references to power consumption percentages from the text. This decision was made because it is not very clear how the authors of the paper defined those consumption percentages. We believe this adjustment will avoid potential confusion and appreciate your understanding.
      FROM:
      It is highlighted that the Cobot UR3e dedicates about 50% of its energy consumption to electronic components, while the KUKA KR200 only 6% 
      TO:
      and shows that while industrial robots consume more energy, more of it is used to handle loads, in contrast to cobots which consume a large proportion of energy to power electronic components, although in absolute terms cobots generally consume less. This could be seen as a negative point for introducing cobots in indutry. 

1. line 68: it is unclear what the term "safety" means inside this sentence 

• • Thank you for highlighting this ambiguity. We've clarified the significance of both flexibility and safety in the design phase of cobots, ensuring the text now accurately reflects their importance. 
    FROM: 
    flexibility, like safety, is an indicator usually considered important in cobots' design phase. TO: 
    in designing phase of cobots, flexibility is considered a key feature, as is the importance attached to safety 

1. line 118-119: please rephrase 

• • This section has been revised to better convey the paper's commitment to the principles of open science and its application within a specific industrial context. 
    FROM: 
    The philosophy of this paper: This paper is follow the philosophy of open science, with a commitment to sharing detailed insights from a specific industrial application.  
    TO: 
    The philosophy behind this article is that of open science, with a commitment to share detailed insights related to a specific industrial application 
      

1. Fig1: Please use anotation a)-b) for left and right depicture. Show the anotations of the parts on the rigth side also. 

• • Following your recommendation, we have updated Figure 1 with the requested annotations. This enhancement should provide a clearer understanding of the components depicted. 

1. line 152: please rephrase 

• • This sentence has been rephrased to improve readability and precisely communicate the complexity involved in teaching robots autonomous task performance. 
    FROM: 
    A significant aspect of this complexity includes teaching robots how to autonomously perform tasks, a concept explored by Eicker in 1989 [31].  
    TO: 
    Within this complexity, an essential element is the development of methods for instructing robots to perform task independently, an area explored by Eicker in 1989 [31]. 

1. line 164: missing referency 

• • The missing reference has been addressed, and we have slightly rephrased the sentence to enhance clarity. 

1. line 179: The cone is not depicted in Figure 1, the use of it is not clarified. Please use description (from paragraph 183-186) before mentioning the cone. 

• • We have provided additional details regarding the cone's role and usage, including a footnote for further clarification. 

1. titel of Firgure 2: "paralysed step-by-step automated assembly process" ? 

• • The title has been corrected to 'parallelized'. 

1. line 187: not the component is assembled, but the assembly from Fig1 

• • We have made the necessary adjustments to clarify that the focus is on the assembly process depicted in Figure 1. 

1. line 194: in Fig2 there are no "CONE" nor "RING"  

• • Upon revisiting the diagram, we confirm that 'CONE' and 'RING' are indeed referenced towards the end of the UML diagram, now Figure 3. To further clarify the sequence of operations, we have introduced an additional Figure 2. This new figure is designed to provide a clearer depiction of the operational steps involved. We appreciate your patience and hope that this enhancement resolves any previous ambiguities. 

1. line 264: "proved to be an effective solution" - evidence should be provided 

• • The text has been updated to reflect the practical effectiveness of the design, as observed through empirical testing.  
    FROM:  
    To ensure a firm grip regardless of positioning, the decagonal shape proved to be an effective solution. This shape is designed to fit within the circumference of the MAG, adapting to various placements. 
    TO: 
    The adoption of a decagonal shape for the grip interface has shown practical effectiveness, as its geometry increases the contact points. This design advantage was observed through empirical testing, where the decagonal grip consistently accommodated various placements of the MAG, resulting in stable and secure handling without the need for precise positioning. 

1. line 271: missing Fig. Reference 

• • We apologize for the oversight and have corrected this error. The reference to the figure has been updated accordingly. 

1. Use of commas and dots outside the quotation signs. 

• • Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies with punctuation. We have reviewed the manuscript and corrected the punctuation according to British standards. 

1. The robotic assembly process may be better undertand by presenting graphically the assembly process, showing step-by-step pictures of the gripper and gripped object. 

• • You are absolutely right. In response to your suggestion, we have added a new figure that visually details the most important steps in the robotic assembly process. This figure is designed to avoid redundancy and focus on critical operations such as gripping, lifting, approaching, and releasing. We believe this addition significantly enhances the clarity and understanding of the assembly process described. 

1. In line 191 is mentioned first and last time the "YUMI" cobot, please clarify the role of it. 

• • In response to your feedback, we have revised the sentence mentioning the YUMI cobot to better clarify its role within the context of our research. The reference to YUMI now explicitly states that it is part of a separate, yet related, project that utilizes the same assembly application but is not the focus of this paper. We hope this modification clears up any ambiguity regarding YUMI's mention and emphasizes that while YUMI's application is relevant to our discussion, the detailed exploration of its integration and capabilities in this specific project lies beyond the scope of the current manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion and believe this clarification enhances the reader's understanding of our research framework. 

1. The role of the mentioned company should be clarified aslo. 

• • Thank you for your observation. The company did not directly fund this project, but we have extrapolated from one particular application several assimilation methodologies, one of which is reported in this paper.  
    To better clarify this aspect, we have added the following part: 
    ADDED: This sequence of steps led to two distinct outcomes: a corporate solution and a research-focused one. The solution detailed in this research diverges from the one implemented by the company. It's important to note that the company did not fund this specific project. What has been undertaken is the extraction of an innovative resolution from the corporate solution, aiming to explore new methodologies in the application of cobots. 

1. I would like the congratulate for the parctical work, but please present it clear and in a logic manner. 

• • In light of the reviewers' comments, we have undertaken a comprehensive review of our manuscript to address the concerns raised. This process involved a series of substantive edits aimed at clarifying our methodologies, results, and the implications of our work. We have made every effort to ensure that the revised manuscript now presents a clearer and more detailed account of what was done and how it was accomplished. We believe these modifications significantly enhance the manuscript's overall clarity and accessibility. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language 

1. please use self-check for the editor, a lot of editing mistakes may be avoided (missing of "l" in "roboisation" in line 3, misplaced comma in line 47, etc.) 

1. • see above 

1. Use of commas and dots outside the quotation signs. 

1. • see above 

1. line 57: "solutione", sould be "solutions"? 

1. • see above 

1. titel of Firgure 2: "paralysed step-by-step automated assembly process" ? 

1. • see above 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all comments. i recommend for publication. Best wishes.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and the positive recommendation. We appreciate your feedback and are pleased to have addressed all comments to your satisfaction. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the edit's, and please consider the following observations:

1. "and shows that while industrial robots consume more energy, more of it is used to handle loads, in contrast to cobots which consume a large proportion of energy to power electronic components, although in absolute terms cobots generally consume less. This could be seen as a negative point for introducing cobots in indutry." - It is unclear, because the low energy consumtion it has a negative point the introduction of cobots? :)  

2. the reference to the figures are inconsistent in lines 186, 187, 202, 203 as in footnote also. The paratheses is not closed in the footnote.

3. The inserted sentence (having dot at the end) in the description of the Figure 3 about the graduated scale, is  apropiate for Figure 1.

Author Response

Thank you for the edit's, and please consider the following observations: 

1. "and shows that while industrial robots consume more energy, more of it is used to handle loads, in contrast to cobots which consume a large proportion of energy to power electronic components, although in absolute terms cobots generally consume less. This could be seen as a negative point for introducing cobots in indutry." - It is unclear, because the low energy consumtion it has a negative point the introduction of cobots? :)   
   1. Thank you for your feedback. The main point is that although cobots use less energy overall, they spend a lot of it on electronic components (EC) like sensors and controls. This is different from industrial robots, which use most of their energy to do physical work, like moving heavy things. This means cobots might not be as efficient for jobs where doing a lot of physical work with less energy is important. Even though cobots use less energy, the way they use it can be less ideal for some industrial tasks. 
      FROM: This could be seen as a negative point for introducing cobots in indutry. 
      TO: This observation might point out a potential downside in integrating cobots in industrial environments. Cobots allocate a significant part of their energy to powering EC (Electronic Components), unlike industrial robots which predominantly use energy for direct task execution, like handling heavy loads. For example, a cobot might use a considerable amount of its energy just to keep its sensors and control systems running, even when not actively manipulating objects. 
2. the reference to the figures are inconsistent in lines 186, 187, 202, 203 as in footnote also. The paratheses is not closed in the footnote. 
   1. Thank you for highlighting the inconsistencies regarding figure references and the oversight in the footnote punctuation. We have addressed these issues as follows: 
      1. In line 191 (previously 186), we revised "system" to "assembled" to more accurately reflect the component showcased, rather than the sequence depicted in Figure 2 (now fig 4). This change aims to clarify the content for the reader. We appreciate your observation on this matter. 
      2. Similarly, in line 192 (previously 187), the reference has been corrected to Figure 2 (previously 4), which illustrates the setup, including a clear representation of the cone. This adjustment ensures the text accurately reflects the intended visual aid. 
      3. For line 207 (previously 202), we slightly altered the sentence to make the reference to the assembly scheme clearer (UML). 
      4. In line 215 (previously 203), the sentence has been revised with the hope of clarifying our intended meaning. We have added a figure reference at the end of the process description to assist in this clarity. 
   2. In addition to these specific amendments, we have reorganized the sequence of figures to facilitate a more coherent and understandable reading experience. We hope these changes address the concerns raised and improve the manuscript's clarity. We are grateful for your feedback and believe these revisions will make the document more accessible to readers. 
3. The inserted sentence (having dot at the end) in the description of the Figure 3 about the graduated scale, is  apropiate for Figure 1. 
   1. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy regarding the description of the graduated scale. We apologize for the oversight. The sentence in question was indeed intended for Figure 2 (previously 4) only, not Figure 1. Upon reflection, we decided against including it in Figure 1's description, believing the scale's usage to be intuitively understandable without further clarification. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf