Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review of a manuscript titled " Soft gripper design and fabrication for underwater grasping" 

The manuscript was presented well. In fact, it was very nice to evaluate which was detailed really well.  These are a few suggestions that would enhance certain aspects and a few clarifications which need to be taken care of before the manuscript can be accepted.

1. One aspect that would help the reader is how did the authors conclude the use of TPU 95A for soft actutator ? did you try any other material. If the authors have tried other materials, it would be better share that experience.

2. it is very clear that the authors have used parametrized CAD model and DDM based FEA analysis for modeling. It would be better if they described what were the base geometric parameters with which they started and how did you arrive at the parameters that were presented in the paper.

3. In figure 7, what do the points represent? experimental deformation?

4. Is there any way to generalize the work like if the arm diameter changes then the end-effector displacement will change but want to keep the same force, how to modify the geometric parameters of the soft actuator? This kind of work will help designers in the future.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your kind observations

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper title: Soft gripper design and fabrication for underwater grasping

 This paper undertakes the design and fabrication of soft gripper manipulation operable underwater. It provides design and subsequent fabrication using elastomers. The paper uses modeling and simulation techniques for designing and fabrication. The design looks simple and cost-effective easily operable. The design further validated the feasibility and ability of the proposed soft gripper.

 The following points may be covered:

1)      The material selection for the actuator design needs more information to satisfy the users' requirements of accuracy, repeatability, durability, manufacturability, etc.

2)      Authors may justify the use of Thermoplastic Polyurethane  (TPU) as some of the grades of TPU possess a shorter shelf life and thus become unusable after the given timeframe. Further, TPU is not as cost-effective.

3)      Please refer to line no.204: ” If the result does not satisfy the design requirements detailed in the next section, we test a new set of parameters until the design requirements are satisfied.”Authors have indicated that the trial and error approach consumes time and tedious replications to arrive at the required design.

4)      Authors may provide assumptions and limitations of the present design.

5)      According to Jerrams, and Bowen (1970). “Mooney-Rivlin constants that accurately predict behavior in shear over a small strain range may prove utterly inadequate for other modes of deformation and greater strain ranges. “ Authors may provide more information to enhance predict accuracy.

6)      “ Author may provide citations for assuming assume n = 0, 48 for fitting the Mooney-Rivlin material constants.”

Jerram's, S.J. and Bowen, J., 1970. Modeling the behavior of rubber-like materials to obtain correlation with rigidity modulus tests. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for you kind observations

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf