C-Legged Hexapod Robot Design Guidelines Based on Energy Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please view the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent making your constructive remarks and rigorous comments. We have carefully considered all the comments, which has helped us improving the manuscript substantially. Each suggested revision and comment brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered.  Please find attatched to this message the point by point response to your comments.

Kind regards,

Andres Vina

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the hexapod robot design guidelines based on energy analysis and suggests the kinematic model to predict the trajectory of the system in space. The paper is quite well-motivated, although the description of the methods requires significant improvements since in their current form result a little bit difficult to understand.

Comments:

1. The numerical results should be summarized in the abstract.
2. The novelty and contribution of this paper should be explicitly stated at the end of the Introduction section.
3. Figure 1: may have copyright issues. Replace with an original figure.
4. The robot gait patterns should be illustrated in a figure or sequence of images with the robot or, alternatively, from a 3D model.
5. There is no related works section. Only 14 works are cited, which is too few. Previous works on energy modelling and optimization of walking robots must be discussed, while identifying their advantages and limitations. The following works could be used as a starting point for discussion, among others: “Minimizing the energy consumption for a hexapod robot based on optimal force distribution”, “Energy-efficient walking over irregular terrain: A case of hexapod robot”, “Achieving versatile energy efficiency with the WANDERER biped robot”, “Hexapod Robot Gait Switching for Energy Consumption and Cost of Transport Management Using Heuristic Algorithms”. Following the analysis, summarize the related works in a table.
6. I miss some figures showing the joint position/speed/current measurements provided by the servos of robot legs.
7. The presentation of methods is rather poor: they are described by multiple trivial mathematical equations and any basic consideration about the consistence and the scientific basis of the algorithm itself is not present. Present the description of methods in pseudocode.
8. Table 3 is garbled.
9. Present the determination coefficient (r2) value and p-value for regression equations (26) and (27).
10. The optimality of the algorithms, in terms of minimum energy consumption, is not suitably justified from a mathematical point of view.
11. Evaluate the accuracy of the proposed model quantitatively using for example such measures as Pearson correlation and RSME. I did not four any numerical evaluation of the accuracy of the energy model in the paper.
12. Explain all abbreviations on their first use.
13. The English language of the manuscript should be improved, because several errors are present in the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent making your constructive remarks and rigorous comments. We have carefully considered all the comments, which has helped us improving the manuscript substantially. Each suggested revision and comment brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered.  Please find attatched to this message the point by point response to your comments.

Kind regards,

Andres Vina

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please view the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript was revised with a majority of comments well addressed.

Several issues still remain:

1. I still think that the number of discussed related works is too low. Discuss some more recent works to provide a comprehensive view on this domain of research.
2. Reference [1] is wrong. Check.
3. Table 3 is not clear. Present a numerical range or a formal definition of “No Impact”, ”Slight Impact”, ”Large Impact”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf