Sensitivity Analysis of Reliability of Low-Mobility Parallel Mechanisms Based on a Response Surface Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors propose the sensitivity analysis of parallel mechanism. It is not a novelty research, but it is important that how to apply the theoretical model of error estimation for improving the position accuracy. Unfortunately, authors did not discuss the application and how to realize this theoretical model. In addition, there are some critical point need to explain in this manuscript.
- The literatures surveying is insufficient, and the recent years related research is lacked.
- The results is not easy to read and corresponding with conclusion.
- The nonlinear and coupling error caused by parallel linkages is one of the most typical feature in analyzing the position accuracy of the parallel mechanism. However, the sensitivity analysis is adopted the linear realization of the input variables. Authors may give more explanation about the limit or the assumption for the theoretical model of sensitivity analysis.
- The distortion between theoretical and realization model cannot be evaluated. The simulation results are corresponded to the identical mathematical model.
- The contribution is insufficient, and the feasible and correctness did not been confirmed.
Author Response
We have uploaded our response in the attached PDF.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present in this manuscript their work on the reliability sensivity analysis of a Delta robot. The method is based on the response surface method and takes advantage of statistical modeling through Monte Carlo methods.
I find the method in general poorly explained. In the first part of the second section (or -- even better -- in a new section after the first) it would be nice if the reader could find a very clearly written description of the approach. For now the paper is exceedingly hard to follow, and the matematical cumbersomeness does not help in the slightest. Authors are advised to try to use a more compact notation, possibly avoiding trivial algebric steps.
Some recurring typos: laster, gematric (twice).
Please revise: At any time, the actuator failed to drive the rotating arm AiBi to the theoretical angle, which is the devia tion between the actual rotation angle and the theoretical value.
What are "geomatic demission" errors?
Revise: All the factors of which will lead to the imprecise of the calculation.
Why do you use caps for "BOX and WILSON"? Also, please provide a reference for their work.
Variables are not "got", rather, they are "obtained". Please correct this throughout the paper.
Eq. 22, 23 and 24 are very cumbersome to show the way you did. I suggest to try to aggregate them within a same block, much in the same way you would with a Figure with sub-figures. A figure could be used as well.
Fig. 4 and following are very small and low resolution. Please make sure that figures are at least 300dpi of resolution and with a minimum text size not much smaller than the caption text size.
The added value of Eq. 41 is next to none. It would be best if numerical values were included in the appendices, rather than in the equations themselves. The authors are encouraged to use a more compact notation, if possible.
In general it is not clear what the manuscript contributes to the state of the art. Contributions should be clearly written in the introduction. On top of this, a plethora of English grammar and syntactical errors are present throughout the paper. The authors are advised to carefully revise with the aid of either a professional or native speaker.
Author Response
We have uploaded our response in the attached PDF.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revisions have done in accordance with last comments. I think this manuscript may be accepted in this journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much. We do appreciate for your help and kindness! Best wishes!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the paper sufficiently from a technical and scientific perspective.
However, I continue to have doubts that the level of English is adequate for a scientific publication. I do not have the power to mandate it, but I strongly suggest a proofread from an English native speaker. The syntax in particular is very peculiar in many places.
Author Response
Thanks for your kind advice. we have uploaded the revised paper in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
