Next Article in Journal
Attention-Based Background/Foreground Monocular Depth Prediction Model Using Image Segmentation
Previous Article in Journal
Finger Vein and Inner Knuckle Print Recognition Based on Multilevel Feature Fusion Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 21
10.3390/app122111183
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Model Predictive Control of Running Biped Robot

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(21), 11183; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122111183
by Jaeuk Cho and Jong Hyeon Park *
Reviewer 1:
Shoukun Wang
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(21), 11183; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122111183
Submission received: 7 October 2022 / Revised: 28 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 4 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Robotics and Automation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a method to control a running biped robot on an uneven terrain based on dual linear inverted pendulum model (D-LIPM) and hierarchical control which consists of model predictive control (MPC) and quadratic-problem (QP) based momentum control. The innovation points of this article are not clearly described and need major modifications.The details are as follows:

1.First of all, the main contribution of this paper is insufficient. In order to strengthen the motivation, it is better to discuss the details with contributions point by point and should be compared with the latest related works.

2.In "Introduction" section Related Works, I feel the current coverage of the state of the art (such as foot robots) is not satisfactory as the related work section does not cover many contributions that likely provide the building blocks of the proposed approach. For example,

(1)Flexible gait transition for six wheel-legged robot with unstructured terrains

(2)Towards hybrid gait obstacle avoidance for a six wheel-legged robot with payload transportation

It is suggested to cite the above articles and analyze the differences in Section Related Works.

3.There are some mistakes including grammar, words and English expression in this paper. Please check the overall paper carefully.

4. Both "Abstract" and "Introduction" sections of the manuscript are not well organized. The "Abstract" section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions.

5.Discussion section should be added and the results should be discussed in detail. The Discussion section should be edited in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analyze the reason why the tested results are achieved. The performance of the proposed method should be better analyzed, commented and visualized in the experimental section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper described the modeling and control studies of biped manipulator in running posture with environmental disturbances.  Authors nicely presented the dual linear inverted pendulum model with trajectory planning approach. The model predictive control strategy was applied along with momentum control in conjunction with PD controller. Literature review and organization of the work is good. However, few grammatical and spelling checks are required through out the paper.

1.In abstract, full form of the abbreviation COM is to be given at its first use only.

2. In introduction, page-1, line-3, paragraph-1:  it should be '.....robot should able to ...'

3. Introduction section: page-2, third paragraph first line: the sentence should be 'Many MPC-based studied have focused on bipedal walking, but there is a limited work on bipedal running'. 

4. Page-3, the model of biped robot section, needs some references if any. The abbreviations COM, IPM can be directly used as they are already defined earlier. 

5. Conclusion section needs a summary followed by important findings in bullet form and a future scope of the work. 

6. Citation for references 37 and 38 have to be checked.

1. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The simulation (on motion control of a humanoid) study is presented in detail and rather heavy on the theoretical side. However, I will not recommend to move the mathematics as appendix as it is the essence of the control performance. There are some (few) points to improve to the manuscript in general:

- The abbreviation COM is used in the abstract before it is defined. (Although it is obvious, it should follow the same rule as the others.) Also, it seems that COM & MPC are defined multiple times, in separate occasions, in the body of the manuscript.

- The coefficients B and C in Equation 10 are denoted by their own equations; therefore, they should have their own equation number.

- Similarly, between the lines 213 and 214 in page 8, additional equations need to be designated by equation numbers.

- Froude number is usually used in fluid dynamics signifying ''the inertia force on a element of fluid to the weight of the fluid element''. Authors seem to adopt the number to help characterize HYBRO. This requires a separate explanation/discussion. Why did the authors select this dimensionless number for this task?

- Legend is missing in Figure 8 (b)

- Legend is missing in Figure 10 (b)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments have been answered in the revised paper and the revised paper can be considered for publication.

Back to TopTop