Modelling, Analysis and Comparison of Robot Energy Consumption for Three-Dimensional Concrete Printing Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see my comments in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Please see my comments in the attached PDF file.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe overall content of this paper is substantial, the structure is clear, and there are sufficient innovations. Here are two suggestions for revision.
1、 How to estimate or optimize the energy consumption of other types of 3D printers based on the solutions provided in this paper? The solutions presented in this paper tend to focus on a specific model of printer and lack strong universality. It is suggested that the author adds a flowchart to illustrate how to establish models and estimate energy consumption step by step for different types of printers.
2、 Based on the title, the content of this paper should encompass various energy consumption reduction solutions and pathways, including optimizing printing parameters (such as printing speed, thickness, etc.), and the energy consumption of the components of the printing equipment. However, upon reading the full text, the main focus is on estimating the energy efficiency of the components of the printing equipment. Therefore, it is recommended to modify the title to concentrate on estimating the energy consumption of the components of the printing equipment.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript submitted for review is devoted to assessing the energy efficiency of robots for 3D concrete printing technology.
In the Introduction and Background and Related Work sections, the prerequisites for conducting research are considered, and the relevance of the topic under consideration is formulated. The main parts of the paper describe power losses in robot drives, kinematics and dynamics of robots. The results of experimental studies are presented. Based on the conducted research, a method for determining reduced efficiency maps of print robot drives is proposed.
As a result of reading the manuscript, I want to note that:
1. The title of the paper corresponds to the research area.
2. The Abstract corresponds to the content of the paper.
3. The number of references and their relevance seems sufficient. All references are provided appropriately.
4. The table and equations are designed in accordance with the requirements and have sufficient description in the text.
However, while studying the manuscript, I had questions and noticed the following shortcomings:
1. The paper looks too bulky. It contains a lot of text that has no scientific value. This will lead to readers losing interest in reading the article. I would recommend that authors shorten the text and leave only a description of the most important studies and results.
2. The introductory part of the paper is designed in two sections, which makes it difficult to understand.
3. The Power Analysis of 3DCP Robotic System section contains well-known material. Why is this section needed in this form?
4. I would also recommend that the authors revise the Conclusions section and more clearly present practical recommendations based on research results.
In general, I can recommend this paper for publication only after correcting the above shortcomings.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see my comments in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provided responses to my comments and made some changes that I believe improved the paper. Despite the fact that I still consider the paper to be too bulky, with a lot of text without scientific value, I can, in this form, recommend this paper for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter the second round of reviews, the Authors have improved their work, to the point that is publishable as it is on "Robotics". I have only minor suggestions, which are not essential in any case: I leave it to the Authors to decide whether to introduce them before publication.
1. On line 613, "blue boxes in the Fig. (14) is" should be "boxes [...] ARE".
2. From Eq. (13), the subscript "L" should not be bold.
3. In Tab. 1, the authors switched all expressions to normal font: I suggest changing them all to italic font, for coherence with the rest of the equations.
4. The results in Fig. 20 are quite interesting, thus the plots should be given more space. A very brief discussion could be added about why the efficiency of joint 3 is close to zero at some instants.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI have no further comments on this.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
