Motion Generation for Crane Simulators Using Streamlined Motion Blending Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction part is well written with sufficient literature backup, however, It is recommended to clearly state the research gap/necessity of the proposed work in the context of the prior art.
Please provide the separate labels/captions for the two figures given under the figure.1
The symbols are not represented properly, please verify in page 5/22
Section 2.1.3 use BC as a suffix.
In figure 3, the velocity curve indicates a change of acceleration from one segment to another segment (1-2), (2-3), can be also seen from figure 9. It is moving from a constant acceleration(segment-1) to zero acceleration (segment-2) to a constant acceleration(segment-3). Is jerk recommended while the crane is working at higher velocities?
The real environment consists of several physical entities (may be static or dynamic), it is better to consider or else state it as an assumption. Please refer to the following to optimize the trajectory in such environments.
"Verification of Overhead Crane Simulator in a Training Centre." Problemy Mechatroniki: uzbrojenie, lotnictwo, inżynieria bezpieczeństwa 13 (2022).
"Advance particle swarm optimization-based navigational controller for mobile robot." Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39.8 (2014): 6477-6487.
“Challenges and opportunities in human robot collaboration context of Industry 4.0-a state of the art review." Industrial Robot: the international journal of robotics research and application (2021).
"Evaluating mobile crane lift operations using an interactive virtual reality system." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 147.11 (2021): 04021154.
References 10-15 are most relevant to Additive manufacturing, please check the relevance to the current theme of the manuscript.
Please represent the units of dimensions, and give annotations for the objects in Figure 11.
In equation 5,6, and 9 some symbols are missing
The results presented in Table 3 are interesting, Overall the work is well presented with experimental data.
All the best.
Author Response
Point 1: The introduction part is well written with sufficient literature backup, however, It is recommended to clearly state the research gap/necessity of the proposed work in the context of the prior art.
Response 1: Many thanks for the suggestion.Revisions have been made accordingly to more clearly state the research gap/necessity of the proposed work in lines 164-171.
Point 2: Please provide the separate labels/captions for the two figures given under the figure.1
Response 2: We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks. Revisions have been made accordingly to provide the separate labels/captions for the two figures given under the figure.1 in lines 182-184.
Point 3: The symbols are not represented properly, please verify in page 5/22. Section 2.1.3 use BC as a suffix.
Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and your comments. Revisions have been made accordingly to change tBC to and represent the symbols properly in lines 208-224.
Point 4: In figure 3, the velocity curve indicates a change of acceleration from one segment to another segment (1-2), (2-3), can be also seen from figure 9. It is moving from a constant acceleration(segment-1) to zero acceleration (segment-2) to a constant acceleration(segment-3). Is jerk recommended while the crane is working at higher velocities?
Response 4: Many thanks for suggestions of more comprehnsive consideration. We only select the most representative working conditions to show how the corresponding motion perception simulation is implemented. If there is a special need of dealing with unrepresentative working conditions, the approach proposed is still effective. To our knowledge, when the crane is working at a high speed, jerking is not recommended.
Point 5: References 10-15 are most relevant to Additive manufacturing, please check the relevance to the current theme of the manuscript.
Response 5: We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks. We have removed these references.
Point 6: Please represent the units of dimensions, and give annotations for the objects in Figure 11.
Response 6: Many thanks for the suggestion. Revisions have been made accordingly to represent the units of dimensions and give annotations for the objects in Figure 11.
Point 7: In equation 5,6, and 9 some symbols are missing.
Response 7: We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks. Revisions have been made accordingly to represent some symbols in line 373.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
· There are some grammatical problems in the text, and the description of this paper needs further improvement.
· In the introduction part, the logic is confused, the author should reorganize. Meanwhile, the author should give the existing problems solved by the proposed method, and what are the contributions and innovations of this paper?
· Please edit the paper carefully such that to respect the instructions for authors. A homogeneous style is desired.
· The introduction section is too long. Please focus the idea of the introduction section and not writing as an exposition of different essays.
· English grammar must be checked and corrected thorough the manuscript.
· The first thing that would come to mind by reading the article is the problem with writing, the grammar is good, however, the vocabulary is not fluent!
· in conclusion, there are no new information presented that hadn’t been investigated before, although with a good defining of the problem a well conclusion could be conducted from the same results that the authors have possessed.
· To enrich the introduction section, the following published papers can be cited:
· The results of the work should be compared with the results of other investigators and/or other methodologies, experimental results or even simulated results. This is needed to place this work in perspective with other work in the field and provide more credibility for the present results.
· Grammatical errors should be rectified before submitting the final manuscript.
· Some more latest literatures reviews should be included.
Longitudinal vibration and instabilities of carbon nanotubes conveying fluid considering size effects of nanoflow and nanostructure
Longitudinal vibration and stability analysis of carbon nanotubes conveying viscous fluid
Optimal vibration control of multi-layer micro-beams actuated by piezoelectric layer based on modified couple stress and surface stress elasticity theories
Computational fluid dynamics simulation of heat transfer and fluid flow characteristics in a vortex tube by considering the various parameters
Author Response
Point 1: There are some grammatical problems in the text, and the description of this paper needs further improvement.
Response 1: Many thanks for the suggestion. We have more carefully proofread the manuscript and improved the description in the text.
Point 2: In the introduction part, the logic is confused, the author should reorganize. Meanwhile, the author should give the existing problems solved by the proposed method, and what are the contributions and innovations of this paper?
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and your comments. We have reorganized the logic of the introduction section. Revisions have been made accordingly to more clearly state the existing problems solved by the proposed method, and what the contributions and innovations of this paper are in lines 129-171.
Point 3: The introduction section is too long. Please focus the idea of the introduction section and not writing as an exposition of different essays.
Response 3: We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks. We have streamlined the introduction section. Revisions have been made accordingly to update the presentation of the introductory section..
Point 4: English grammar must be checked and corrected thorough the manuscript.
Response 4: Many thanks for the suggestion. We have re-checked the grammar and the errors found are corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents the motion generation method based on the motion blending technology, and proposes a streamlined motion blending technology suitable for container crane simulator.
Specific comments can be found as follows:
- Abstract: it should be rewritten concisely and compact. It should include the quantitative and quality results.
- Introduction: “….A motion generation approach based on the streamlined motion blending technology, is developed in this paper especially for motion perception simulation for quayside 94 container cranes….” This paragraph should be located at near the end of introduction.
- At the end of introduction: the purpose of the present article should be provided and the outline.
- Figure 1 should be more detailed concerning the operational principle.
- Symbols t, L, h, in section 2.2.1 should be italic.
- Symbols in Eq. (1-2) should be explained.
- Why are there 9 cases in Table 1 considered?
- Why the motion simulation system is added, the comprehensive training efficiency can be improved? Look at Table 3.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract: it should be rewritten concisely and compact. It should include the quantitative and quality results.
Response 1: Many thanks for the suggestion. The “abstract” section has been rewritten and the word number declined from 315 to 264 with the suggested quantitative and quality results being added.
Point 2: Introduction: “….A motion generation approach based on the streamlined motion blending technology, is developed in this paper especially for motion perception simulation for quayside 94 container cranes….” This paragraph should be located at near the end of introduction.
At the end of introduction: the purpose of the present article should be provided and the outline.
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading of our manuscript and your comments. Revisions have been made accordingly to provide the purpose of the present article and the outline at the end of introduction.
Point 3: Figure 1 should be more detailed concerning the operational principle..
Response 3: We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks. Revisions have been made accordingly to provide the separate labels/captions for the two figures given under the figure.1.
Point 4: Symbols t, L, h, in section 2.1.1 should be italic.
Response 4: Many thanks for the suggestion. Revisions have been made accordingly to make symbols t, L, h, in section 2.1.1 be italic in lines 194-197.
Point 5: Symbols in Eq. (1-2) should be explained.
Response 5: Many thanks for the suggestion. Revisions have been made accordingly to explain symbols in Eq. (1-2) in lines 213-214.
Point 6: Why are there 9 cases in Table 1 considered?
Response 6: Many thanks for your interest in our research. These 9 conditions are one-to-one corresponding to each condition in the working cycle of Fig. 2. We selected the most representative 9 conditions, but this does not mean that all conditions have been considered. Our research in this aspect can provide new ideas for engineering developers.
Point 7: Why the motion simulation system is added, the comprehensive training efficiency can be improved? Look at Table 3.
Response 7: Many thanks for careful reading of our manuscript and pointing out a significant expression deficiency of our paper here. The term “comprehensive training efficiency “ may not be what we really intend to express. The more precise term should be “comprehensive training effectiveness index”. Revisions have been made accordingly to the corresponding paragraph where the results in Table 3 are explained. It is copied as follows.
Table 3 shows the average score of each statement in the questionnaire collected after the completion of the controlled subjective evaluation test. Figure 16 is the corresponding histogram. To evaluate the raining effectiveness of the crane simulator, define a comprehensive training effectiveness index for measurement in the condition that the comprehensive training effectiveness index is set to 100% when the trainees are trained on the real crane. It can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 16 that, according to the simple comprehensive average estimation, the comprehensive training effectiveness index of the crane simulator can reach 54 % (2.7/5) if the simulator excludes any motion simulation system and only relies on the visual system and the acoustic effect system. As comparison, once the motion simulation system is added, the comprehensive training effectiveness index can be improved to 82 % (4.1/5). Such experimental data show that the subjects also have a certain sense of motion without the motion simulation system and only depending on the visual system and acoustic effect system, but once the motion simulation system is introduced, the subjects' sense of motion has been significantly improved, resulting in a significant improvement in the comprehensive training effect.
