Dynamic Modeling of McKibben Muscle Using Empirical Model and Particle Swarm Optimization Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction is good but (if you want) you can include the following articles:
1. Daerden F (1999) Conception and realization of pleated pneumatic artificial muscles and their use as compliant actuation elements. PhD Thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
2. Daerden F, Lefeber D (2000) Pneumatic artificial muscles: actuators for robotics and automation. European Journal of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering 47: 10–21
3. Gaiser I, Wiegand R, Ivlev O et al. (2012) Compliant Robotics and Automation with Flexible Fluidic Actuators and Inflatable Structures. In: Berselli G (ed) Smart Actuation and Sensing Systems - Recent Advances and Future Challenges. InTech
4. Morin AH (1953) Elastic diaphragm. U.S. Patent No. 2642091
5. Woods JE (1957) Mechanical transducer with expansible cavity. U.S. Patent No. 2789580
6. Gaylord RH Fluid actuated motor system and stroking device. U.S. Patent 2844126
7. (1958) More Help For Polio Victims. The Buckingham Post, Originally from Newsweek
8. Hoggett R (2012) 1957 – “Artificial Muscle” – Joseph Laws McKibben (American). http://cyberneticzoo.com/?page_id=4318
9. Nazarczuk K (1969) Pneumatic muscle (in Polish). PL Patent No. 56410
10. England JS (1975) Actuator. U.S. Patent No. 3924519
11. Baldwin H (1969) Realizable models of muscle function. Proceedings of the First Rock Biomechanics Symposium: 139–148
12. Yarlott JM (1972) Fluid actuator. U.S. Patent No. 3645173
13. Kleinwachter H (1972) Device with a pressurizable variable capacity chamber for transforming a fluid pressure into a motion. U.S. Patent No. 3638536
14. Helmer JD, Hughes KE (1975) Artificial muscle. U.S. Patent No. 3882551
15. Skantar MJ (1976) Linear fluidic actuator. U.S. Patent No. 3967809
16. Hesse S (1986) Golems Enkel: Roboter Zwischen Phantasie Und Wirklichkeit. Urania-Verlag, Leipzig
17. Takagi T, Sakaguchi Y (1986) Pneumatic actuator for manipulator. U.S. Patent No. 4615260
18. Immega G, Kukolj M (1990) Axially contractable actuator. U.S. Patent No. 4939982
19. Kukolj M (1988) Axially contractable actuator. U.S. Patent No. 4733603
20. Kukolj M (1989) Axially contractable actuator. U.S. Patent No. 4819547
21. Paynter HM (1988) High pressure fluid-driven tension actuators and method for constructing them. U.S. Patent No. 4751869
22. Paynter HM (1988) Hyperboloid of revolution fluid-driven tension actuators and method of making. U.S. Patent No. 4721030
23. Beullens T (1989) Hydraulic or pneumatic drive device. U.S. Patent No. 4841845
24. Hennequin JR, Fluck P (1990) Motorized joint. U.S. Patent No. 4944755
25. Monroe JW (1994) Jointed assembly actuated by fluid pressure. U.S. Patent No. 5351602
26. Marcinčin J, Palko A (1993) Negative pressure artificial muscle—An unconventional drive of robotic and handling systems. Riecansky Science Publishing Co, Slovak Republic: 350–354
27. Bergemann D, Lorenz B, Thallemer A (2002) Actuating means. U.S. Patent No. 6349746
28. Yee N, Coghill G (2002) Modelling of a rotary pneumatic muscle. Proc. 2002 Australiasian Conference on Robotics and Automation 2002: 186–190
29. Davis DL, Carlson JA (2005) Fluidic actuator. U.S. Patent No. 6868773
30. Zhang Z, Philen M (2012) Pressurized artificial muscles. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(3): 255–268. doi: 10.1177/1045389X11420592
31. Ito A, Kiyoto K, Furuya N Motion control of parallel manipulator using pneumatic artificial actuators. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE, International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics: 460–465
32. Ranjan R, Upadhyay PK, Kumar A et al. (2012) Theoretical and experimental modeling of air muscle. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 2(4): 112–119
33. Schroder J, Erol D, Kawamura K et al. (2003) Dynamic pneumatic actuator model for a model-based torque controller. IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA 2003) 1: 342–347
34. Kothera CS, Jangid M, Sirohi J et al. (2009) Experimental characterization and static modeling of McKibben actuators. Journal of Mechanical Design 131(9): 091010-1-10. doi: 10.1115/1.3158982
35. Takosoglu JE, Dindorf RF, Laski PA (2009) Rapid prototyping of fuzzy controller pneumatic servo-system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 40(3-4): 349–361
36. Takosoglu JE, Laski PA, Blasiak S (2012) A fuzzy logic controller for the positioning control of an electro-pneumatic servo-drive. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 226(10): 1335–1343. doi: 10.1177/0959651812456498
37. Tondu B, Lopez P (2000) Modeling and control of McKibben artificial muscle robot actuators. IEEE Control Systems 20(2): 15–38
38. Chou C, Hannaford B (1996) Measurement and modeling of McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles -. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 12(1): 90–102
39. Shulte HF (1961) The characteristics of the McKibben artificial muscle. The application of external power in prosthetics and orthotics. National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council(874): 94–115
40. Klute GK, Czerniecki JM, Hannaford B (2002) Artificial muscles: Actuators for biorobotic systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research 21(4): 295–309
41. Davis S, Tsagarakis N, Canderle J et al. (2003) Enhanced modelling and performance in braided pneumatic muscle actuators. The International Journal of Robotics Research 22(3-4): 213–227. doi: 10.1177/0278364903022003006
42. Schroder J, Kawamura K, Gockel T et al. Improved control of a humanoid arm driven by pneumatic actuators. Proceedings of Third IEEE International Conference on Humanoid Robots
43. Takosoglu J, Laski P, Blasiak S et al. Determining the static characteristics of pneumatic muscles. Measurement and Control 49(2): 62-71
Figures 2 should be larger because they are unreadable.
Equations (1)-(14) you should add a description of the parameters.
Figure 5 it is superfluous. It's better to give the equations or block diagram or etc.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
Type of reviewer: Expert reviewer
1.1. Reviewer comment: The introduction is good but (if you want) you can include the following articles:
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. I have considered some of the articles in the provided list and included as references for the paper.
[3]. Z. Zhang, and M. Philen. Pressurized artificial muscles. In journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2011; vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 255-268.
[4]. C.S. Kothera, M. Jangid, J. Sirohi, and N.M. Wereley. Experimental characterization and static modeling of McKibben actuators. In Journal of Mechanical Design, 2009; vol. 131, pp. 1-10.
[5]. F. Daerden, and D. Lefeber. The concept and design of pleated pneumatic artificial muscles. In International Journal of Fluid Power, 2001; vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 41-50.
[6]. F. Daerden, and D. Lefeber. Pneumatic artificial muscles: actuators for robotics and automation. In European journal of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering; vol 47, pp. 10-21.
[11]. S. Davis, N. Tsagarakis, J. Canderle, and D.G. Caldwin. Enhanced modelling and performance in braided pneumatic muscle actuators. In The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2003; Sage publication; vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 213-227.
[28]. C.P. Chou and B. Hannaford. Measurement and modeling of McKibben pneumatic artificial muscles. In IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1996; vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 90-102.
[29]. B. Tondu and P. Lopez. Modeling and control of McKibben artificial muscle robot actuators. In IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 2000; vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 15-38.
1.2. Reviewer comment: Figures 2 should be larger because they are unreadable.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Figure 2 have been resize and the figure’s description have been improved at page (5).
1.3. Reviewer comment: Equations (1)-(14) you should add a description of the parameters.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Table 2 for the model parameters description have been added into the paper at page (9).
1.4. Reviewer comment: Figure 5 it is superfluous. It's better to give the equations or block diagram or etc.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Figure 5 have been removed from the paper and additional equation (13-16) have been included to describe the force dynamics at page (8).
Reviewer 2 Report
Please consider using an English proofreading service.
Author should explain about constants and variables in equations.
Equation 10 and 11
Author should explain additional correction function of load dependent ?(?) and rate dependent ?(?) in detail.
Parameters optimized by PSO should be listed. Although function ?(?), ?(?) and using PSO algorithm for optimization are contributions of this manuscript, there were few explanations.
Figure 4
Fnet is indistinguishable from Fstatic.
In Figure 5, Fdyn is expressed as difference in F0 and Fhys. It does not seem to be coincident with equation (13) and (14).
Figure 6
Superimposing simulation results on experiments (Figure 2) make us easy to compare.
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
Type of reviewer: Expert reviewer
2.1. Reviewer comment: Please consider using an English proofreading service.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The grammatical error have been checked and proofread.
2.2. Reviewer comment: Author should explain about constants and variables in equations.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Table 2 for the model parameters description have been added into the paper at page (9).
2.3. Reviewer comment: Equation 10 and 11. Author should explain additional correction function of load dependent (?) and rate dependent (?) in detail.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Additional description on both correction function have been included in the paper at page (8).
2.4. Reviewer comment: Parameters optimized by PSO should be listed. Although function (?), (?) and using PSO algorithm for optimization are contributions of this manuscript, there were few explanations.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Parameters optimized by PSO have been described in Table 2. Additional description on both correction function have been included in the paper at page (8).
2.5. Reviewer comment: Figure 4. (Fnet) is indistinguishable from (Fstatic).
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Figure 4 have been replaced, line indicator has been changed, and the description on the (Fnet) and (Fstatic) have been improved.
2.6. Reviewer comment: In Figure 5, (Fdyn) is expressed as difference in (Fo) and (Fhys). It does not seem to be coincident with equation (13) and (14).
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Figure 5 have been removed and additional equation (15-16) to describe (Fdyn) have been included. (Fo) is actually the (Fnet) as describe in equation (15-16) at page (8).
2.7. Reviewer comment: Figure 6 Superimposing simulation results on experiments (Figure 2) make us easy to compare.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A new figure have been added for comparison by superimposing simulation results with experiments (Figure 6) at page (11).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Author revised the manuscript according to comments.
I understand that Fdyn depend on ε like Equation 15 and 16.
So, when are Equation 13 and 14 used? Please consider to add explanation of relationship between these equations for better understanding.
Author Response
Response to reviewers’ comments
We are very grateful for the reviews provided by the editors and each of the external reviewers of this manuscript. The comments are encouraging and the reviewers appear to share our judgement that this study and its results are important. Please see below, in blue, our detailed response to comments. All page numbers refers to the manuscript file with tracked changes.
Reviewer: 1
Type of reviewer: Expert reviewer
1.1. Reviewer comment: I understand that Fdyn depend on ε like Equation 15 and 16. So, when are Equation 13 and 14 used? Please consider to add explanation or relationship between these equations for better understanding.
Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The implementation of these equations were illustrated as block diagram shown in Figure 4 (new figure added).
