Sustainable Robotic Process for Sealing Car Radiators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is sealing car radiators through robotisation.  A different and interesting insight into the technologies is used.

The paper requires a full proof read.  Please check the research design questions and ensure there is a consistent flow of arguments which support the points made within the paper.

The authors can consider carry out an energy efficiency analysis, material selection, quality control measures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good use of English, however, please do a thorough proof read and remove grammatical errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments. We also thank you for the effort and time put into the thorough review of the manuscript. All the changes to the revised manuscript are in green. Detailed responses to the review are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with the optimization of the robotic workplace in the automotive industry, where it is necessary to solve the technological process of applying the gasket of the automotive radiator. Optimizing such a process is very important and solving this task is highly topical. The goal is to find a solution for reducing the operating time of the robot and minimizing energy consumption while maintaining the desired quality of the technological process.
The authors thoroughly describe the solved situation and further present the proposed solutions. Studies for the solution of similar projects are also presented with links to relevant references. The technological process, materials and methods used are described in detail. Various methods and tools for simulations of proposed robotic workplaces are also described.
Algorithm for designing a sustainable production process is presented in the next part of the article.
Simulations of the robotic workplace have been carried out. Work cycle time and energy consumption were monitored. The results are presented in the next part of the article.
I did not find any serious flaws in the article, but the conclusion is unsatisfactory.

Comments:
The conclusion of the paper is very brief. There is no final summary, which would indicate the scientific contribution and novelty of this research. This should be stated in scientific articles. Also, such research should continue further and the authors should define possible improvements and innovations and plans for future research in this area.
Some references do not have complete bibliographic data (8, 9, 10, 31 - 36).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments. We also thank you for the effort and time put into the thorough review of the manuscript. All the changes to the revised manuscript are in green. Detailed responses to the review are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I find the research well-conducted, with the analysis of the process of producing a car radiator, specifically applying a liquid gasket, being detailed and informative. The work on analyzing process time, energy consumption, signal operation, and movement speed contributes valuable insights to the field. However, I would like to address several concerns that I believe need clarification or correction:

 

1.     In Line 25, the abbreviation IFR is used without prior explanation. For clarity and to adhere to standard academic practice, it would be beneficial to provide the full form of IFR when it is first mentioned in the text.

2.     There appears to be a logical inconsistency in Lines 98-100 regarding pressure specifications. The phrase “not less than 100 kPa” seems to imply a pressure higher than 50 kPa. Could you please re-examine this section and clarify the intended meaning?

3.     Based on the data presented in Table 7 and Figure 8, could you suggest an optimal speed for the three variants? This would greatly aid in understanding the practical applications of your findings.

4.     In Line 281, the reference to “a speed of 50%” is unclear. Does this refer to 50 mm/s, or is it a relative measure? Clarification in the text would be beneficial for readers’ comprehension.

5.     You concluded that the conveyor belt had the shortest simulation times, presumably based on Table 7 and Figure 8. However, the times for the rotary positioner and conveyor seem quite similar. Could you confirm if the times presented in Table 7 are averaged from multiple experiments or derived from a single experiment? If they are averaged, what is the standard deviation? Also, is the time difference between the rotary positioner and the conveyor within this standard deviation?

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. The research is both valuable and important to the field, and addressing these concerns will only enhance the clarity and impact of your findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments. We also thank you for the effort and time put into the thorough review of the manuscript. Each comment has been carefully considered point by point and addressed. All the changes to the revised manuscript are in green. Detailed responses to the review are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf