Design and Analysis of a Robotic End-Effector for Automated Hi-Lok Nut Installation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript approaches an interesting subject.
Some remarks:
1. The "References" list should be consistently enlarged.
2. The "Introduction" section has to be enlarged.
3. Section 3: "Experimental System Integration and Test" has to be consistently enlarged and improved. The results have to be presented in a more scientific manner. For example, some movement graphs should be introduced in the manuscript. Also, the experiment has to be presented with more details. The used control strategy has to be presented in detail.
Author Response
- The "References" list should be consistently enlarged.
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have enlarged it using some references, marked it in red.(new reference 3-6, 14, 22, 23)
- The "Introduction" section has to be enlarged.
Response: We have enlarged it slightly about robotics manipulator design, marked it in red (corresponding to new reference 3-6, 14). Because we focus on the fastener jointed assembly using a robot, so the introduction has not enlarged on a large scale.
- Section 3: "Experimental System Integration and Test" has to be consistently enlarged and improved. The results have to be presented in a more scientific manner. For example, some movement graphs should be introduced in the manuscript. Also, the experiment has to be presented with more details. The used control strategy has to be presented in detail.
Response: Thank you for your advice. We have rewritten the section 5.2 of results and discussion, which have been enlarged and improved, marked in red. The experiment is used to show the rationality of the design and the installation method, there is mainly qualitative analysis, limited data is added in the results. The experimental detail and control strategy is enlarged in page 11, 12, line 312-332, marked in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Kindly please enhance the language standard
2) What is the gear ratio considered?
3) Kindly please ensure the journal format?
4) The comparison between modelling and experimental verification may be provided in tabular format
5) The conclusion section may be refined.
6) The reference section may be strengthened by including recent and related references. i.e. robotics manipulator design. T Muthuramalingam, M Mohamed Rabik, D Saravanakumar, K Jaswanth, “Sensor integration based approach for automatic fork lift trucks,” IEEE Sensors, 18(2), 736-740, 2018 ; M Mohamed Rabik, T Muthuramalingam, “Tracking and locking system for shooter with sensory noise cancellation,” IEEE Sensors, 18(2), 732-735, 2018.; Md. Hazrat Ali, Yernar Kuralbay, Aidos Aitmaganbet, M.A.S. Kamal, Design of a 6-DOF robot manipulator for 3D printed construction, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 49, Part 5, 2022, Pages 1462-1468.; Dhaval R. Vyas, Anilkumar Markana, Nitin Padhiyar, Economic 6-DOF robotic manipulator hardware design for research and education, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022,
Author Response
1) Kindly please enhance the language standard
Response: Thank you for the reminder. We have enhanced it.
2) What is the gear ratio considered?
Response: The shear-off torque of M6 hi-lok nut is 4-6 Nm, the output torque of selected stepper motor only has 0.5-1.5 Nm, so I choose the method of increasing the torque by the velocity reduction. When the gear ratio is 1:10, the torque become 5-15 Nm, which is larger than 4-6 Nm, so the tail of hi-lok nut can be sheared-off in the installation.
3) Kindly please ensure the journal format?
Response: Thank you for the reminder. I have re-examined it.
4) The comparison between modelling and experimental verification may be provided in tabular format
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have rewritten the section 5.2 of results and discussion, marked in red. Because the modelling is only used to show the rationality of the design, mainly qualitative analysis, no more quantitative analysis. Only limited comparative data is added in the results, the table with additional data could not be provided. The measurement data about the torque and motion accuracy is a part of the future work.
5) The conclusion section may be refined.
Response: The conclusion section has been refined, marked in red.
6) The reference section may be strengthened by including recent and related references. i.e. robotics manipulator design. T Muthuramalingam, M Mohamed Rabik, D Saravanakumar, K Jaswanth, “Sensor integration based approach for automatic fork lift trucks,” IEEE Sensors, 18(2), 736-740, 2018 ; M Mohamed Rabik, T Muthuramalingam, “Tracking and locking system for shooter with sensory noise cancellation,” IEEE Sensors, 18(2), 732-735, 2018.; Hazrat Ali, Yernar Kuralbay, Aidos Aitmaganbet, M.A.S. Kamal, Design of a 6-DOF robot manipulator for 3D printed construction, Materials Today: Proceedings, Volume 49, Part 5, 2022, Pages 1462-1468.; Dhaval R. Vyas, Anilkumar Markana, Nitin Padhiyar, Economic 6-DOF robotic manipulator hardware design for research and education, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022,
Response: The references you advised is fit to the paper, We have added them in the references. (new references 3-6)
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper needs the following revisions for further improvement:
The abstract and conclusions need improvement. Overall, literature from recent work is required that includes a state-of-the-art discussion and development in this work. Then the novelty of the work should be stated. Please revise the headings/subheadings of the paper (methodology, procedure, results, discussion etc.). The discussion should be expanded with justifications/reasons.
Author Response
The abstract and conclusions need improvement. Overall, literature from recent work is required that includes a state-of-the-art discussion and development in this work. Then the novelty of the work should be stated. Please revise the headings/subheadings of the paper (methodology, procedure, results, discussion etc.). The discussion should be expanded with justifications/reasons.
Response: Thank you for your advice. The abstract and conclusions have been improved. We have rewritten the section 5.2 of results and discussion, marked in red. We added the novelty and deficiency of the work in the section.5.2, line 392-403, page 14. The headings/subheadings for section 3, 4, 5 have been revised, and marked in red. Also the discussion has been expanded at the end of section 5.2.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments have been addressed
Reviewer 3 Report
Accepted.
