Integration of a Digital Twin Framework for Trajectory Control of a 2RRR Planar Parallel Manipulator Using ROS/Gazebo and MATLAB

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented a digital twin of the 2RRR planar parallel manipulator, integrating CAD software, real-time monitoring tools, and an interactive graphical interface for trajectory generation and system control.

The digital twin solutions and applications, in general, are very original. The authors have also emphasized the digital twin issue in contemporary application of the Internet of Things. The authors should have confronted their proposal with other similar solutions.

The authors should provide more explanations on the applicability of their solutions. So far it looks like a proof of concept. The authors can explain it in the section on future research.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the paper. The main question is well addressed and authors have provided experiments. The list of references is appropriate for this study. The references are appropriate. The figures are readable. 

 

Author Response

Please, find enclosed a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article raises an interesting issue of creating and verifying digital twins using robotics as an example. The proposed digital twin allows for reflecting the physical state of an object – a closed-structure manipulator built on the basis of 2 servo drives. The software components used are ROS/Gazebo used for virtual modeling and MATLAB, which also acts as the user interface. An in-depth theoretical analysis of the kinematics of the proposed manipulator is presented.

 

In my opinion, it is worth explaining some issues and supplementing selected topics:

1. How was the data on the actual position of the manipulator obtained? It can be seen that it is equipped with a laser installed on the effector, how was the position of the laser tracked, was it some kind of system or vision sensor ("Figure 13 illustrates the trajectory traced by the prototype’s laser compared to the trajectory calculated by the virtual model.")? The word "laser" appears only once in the article, and the method of collecting data on the actual position of the mechanism deserves more explanation.
2. It is worth developing an additional block diagram showing the communication and flow of different types of data between software components (ROS/Gazebo, MATLAB, and hardware ATMEGA, laser, sensors?), as well as the method of collecting real data.
3. Were any interferences introduced during the operation of the manipulator prototype that affected the movement of the servo drives? Only such interferences could fully prove that the presented system meets the requirements of the digital twin definition, physically forcing the simulation component to react and generate control signals modified to achieve the planned trajectory despite external interferences. The current system only seems to respond to errors resulting from the inaccuracy of the mechanical design and signal processing in the servo drives.

The article is well-edited and does not require extensive linguistic corrections.

Author Response

Please, find enclosed a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf