Development of a Robotic Platform with Autonomous Navigation System for Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, a robotic platform with autonomous navigation system for agriculture is investigated based on a global navigation satellite system. Owing to open-design sensors and appropriate route planning, a robotic platform with autonomous navigation system with high accuracy and low-cost is developed. However, theoretical analysis of effectiveness of the designed controller is missing, such as robustness and precision. Moreover, the physical significance of the designed controller is about angle or displacement, rather than the moment of force, but in reality, the movement of the robotic platform is ultimately achieved via driving torques. Thus, the author should consider its dynamic model and design torque controller for the robotic platform. 

Moreover, I will recommend several clarifications before acceptance of this paper which are listed below:

 

1. Too many abbreviations in this article.

 2. Relevant studies with comments are not enough in the introduction.

 3. What is the main contribution of this paper?

4. Too many confusing expressions for vectors and scalars in this paper.

5. If the robot platform encounters an obstacle during the motion process, how to make the robot platform avoid obstacles?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work shows a way to develop and evaluate a robotic platform with autonomous navigation using low-cost components for Agriculture. The idea is straightforward and the experimental results support the prediction. I have the following comments on this work.

1 Some related works are suggested to be added in the introduction part, such as GNSS-RTK working principles, the cost survey of LIDAR navigation, vision navigation. It is generally agreed that the cost should include labor cost during assembly and debugging the navigation system, which should be added the article.

2 To improve the cross-track error, waypoints are set as every 3.0 m along the straight route. It is better to do more experiments with different waypoints distance to obtain the influence of waypoints number on cross-track error. More waypoints may increase computational workload.

3 In Figure 11, the peak value of cross-track error appears at the distance of every 40 m. What’s the main reason for this phenomenon and how is can be improved?

4 Suggest author further extract the innovative points of the paper. It is inappropriate that innovative point is focus on low cost.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Null

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work proposes the development of a robotic platform with autonomous navigation using what the authors consider low-cost components. I find the work interesting and potentially suitable for publication, and I congratulate the authors for their efforts. However, substantial improvements need to be made before the work can be considered for publication.

It is mandatory that the work includes a project requirements list, presented in tabular format, where the authors specify all project assumptions. A generic example of a requirement is provided below:

• The IMU sample rate shall be greater than 10 Hz on each axis.
• The system shall achieve an error lower than 50 cm RMS for 95% of the time.

Regarding the IMU, could you specify if you are using Linear Acceleration, Angular Velocity, and Magnetic Field data? Also, what is the update rate?

I have a question for the authors: could a Raspberry Pi not accomplish what the Jetson is currently doing in this project?

For future work, I would consider replacing the RTK with GNSS code-based positioning in a differential model. I have the impression that using differential GNSS could provide similar accuracy to what you have now but with a substantial reduction in costs. Another option could be using current smartphones to read code observables from Rinex files.

Necessary Clarifications:

• The abstract does not present the obtained results; please include them.
• The statement between lines 47-49 appears to be imprecise. Could you include a reference or at least discuss in more detail what would be your acceptable minimum error? I ask this because typically, the accuracy of RTK is in the order of centimeters.
• I agree with your statement in line 51 that smallholder farmers have limited financial resources. However, I also think that an RTK method is quite expensive for this type of user. Perhaps you should strengthen your argument here, as it seems contradictory.
• Line 61: I do not consider a Jetson Nano to be low-cost; a Raspberry Pi is.
• Line 71: I believe that the information about the work being developed in three stages should be included in the introduction after presenting the research objective.
• Line 106: What is the range covered by this WiFi system? Why not use something like LoRa?
• Figure 1(b) is missing the GNSS antenna. What type of communication is used between GNSS/Jetson, IMU/Jetson, and Arduinos/Jetson? The power system should also be included.
• Table 1: The cheapest Jetson found online was 225 USD.
• Figure 2: Why is GPS being used?
• Line 177: Present in typeset algorithms or pseudocode.
• Line 184: Present in typeset algorithms or pseudocode.
• Figure 6: Increase the font size as it is unreadable.
• Regarding Section 3, it would be interesting to present the errors if the system operated solely with RTK, without the IMU.
• In your tests, was the considered speed 28 cm/s? Did the error remain the same at slower speeds?
• The conclusion needs improvement; it is substantially below the standards of a scientific paper. The main findings need to be better highlighted.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments on this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#1,

               The authors of the manuscript “Development of a Robotic Platform with Autonomous Navigation System for Agriculture” appreciate the review and feedback provided. We are pleased to address your suggestions for changes and respond to any questions or inquiries you may have.

 

Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#2,

               The authors of the manuscript “Development of a Robotic Platform with Autonomous Navigation System for Agriculture” appreciate the review and feedback provided. We are pleased to address your suggestions for changes and respond to any questions or inquiries you may have.

 

Regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I requested that the authors revise the manuscript to include the project requirements. However, this was not done. If the authors choose to maintain this position, I recommend rejecting the paper. Below are examples of projects where the authors have appropriately included the requirements:

https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/16/5308

https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/17/5528

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer#3,

               The authors of the manuscript “Development of a Robotic Platform with Autonomous Navigation System for Agriculture” appreciate the review and feedback provided. We have incorporated your suggestion regarding the design requirements, which has been added after the first paragraph of the Material and Methods section.

 

Regards,

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the work has reached an acceptable standard for publication, congratulations to the authors