Next Article in Journal
Double C-NOT Attack on a Single-State Semi-Quantum Key Distribution Protocol and Its Improvement
Next Article in Special Issue
K-mer-Based Human Gesture Recognition (KHGR) Using Curved Piezoelectric Sensor
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of COVID-19 from Deep Breathing Sounds Using Sound Spectrum with Image Augmentation and Deep Learning Techniques
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of a Grinding Tool with Contact-Force Control Capability
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Contouring Control of a Five-Axis Machine Tool with Equivalent Errors

Electronics 2022, 11(16), 2521; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11162521
by Shyh-Leh Chen *, Mun-Hooi Khong and Sheng-Min Hsieh
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Electronics 2022, 11(16), 2521; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11162521
Submission received: 15 July 2022 / Revised: 6 August 2022 / Accepted: 7 August 2022 / Published: 12 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems 2021)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution of this work is good. The title has been well formulated and it conveys the focus of the study. Research aims and objectives are well delineated in this contribution.

The authors have a high level of understanding of current research. The contribution is clearly written and the narrative is logical.

The authors used the appropriate techniques for analysis of the research objects in order to meet aims of the study. The accurate interpretation of outcomes, well substantiated by the results of the analysis has been achieved by them. The presentation of the results in terms of the research objectives has been successfully made. Appropriate methods have been used in a well-founded manner.  The results are interesting and the paper deserves publication.

Nevertheless, the following issues should be addressed.

Equation atline 251 can present singularities? Please discuss.

Could you please address some aspect of the Control?

 Actual contour error and equivalent contour error are to clarify better.
 

Minor aspects: all figure of the paper should be improved but in particular the the figures in which the results are represented should be improved in Terms of quality. The results are not really visible. 

Concerning the references, tha authors can consider the following ones which, some of them, are also published in MDPI journals. Some of these paper can inspire to address the open issues.

 

Mercorelli, P. A Theoretical Dynamical Noninteracting Model for General Manipulation Systems Using Axiomatic Geometric Structures. Axioms 2022, 11, 309. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11070309

Mercorelli, Paolo, and Prattichizzo, Domenico. "A geometric procedure for robust decoupling control of contact forces in robotic manipulation." Kybernetika 39.4 (2003): [433]-445

D. Prattichizzo et al. "Noninteracting force/motion control of defective manipulation systems," Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1996, pp. 1952-1957 vol.2, doi: 10.1109/CDC.1996.572865.

D. Prattichizzo et al. "On the geometric control of internal forces in power grasps," Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1997, pp. 1942-1947 vol.2, doi: 10.1109/CDC.1997.657879.

Mercorelli, Paolo. "Robust decoupling through algebraic output feedback in manipulation systems." Kybernetika 46.5 (2010): 850-869. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, the paper would be excellent of it would contain real, experimental results (this paper suggests to be prctical). Computer simulations are not the same what experimental results With no experiments,theis paper might be submitted to some more theoretical Journal as eg IJC.

Also there are some illogical places. As eg. on line 108 you introduce the set of matrices from nowhere, no model equations specified, no mtrices description, only the final form - misunderstanding.

English grammar, and typesetting/lack of some letters also, should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The present improved version is OK and might br accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Back to TopTop