Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have received the manuscript entitled " Optimization of walking gait parameters and walking strategy of quadruped robot dog " for review and have found it to be quite interesting.

I made some minor linguistic corrections, and several specific data presentation suggestions, and made requests for clarification / corrections. All of these are highlighted "in YELLOW colour" inside the pdf file. By double-clicking on any highlighted text, the authors will find “inside a balloon window” a correction or a suggestion or a concern for clarification.

I believe that the authors have significant and interesting results included in the manuscript. However, the current state of the manuscripts needs significant efforts to organize its contents and enhance the readability and logical flow of information.

In general, the English language used in the manuscript is very clear, however, some minor edits/corrections are highlighted.

I have made several comments inside the pdf file on the concerns related to the missing information or corrections needed. The authors are highly advised to go through them one-by-one and make their best in re-organizing and expanding some sections in a manner that makes the manuscript a smoother reading and to guarantee that the flow of information / setups / results is more reasonable.

I am repeating some of these suggestions here (but in a more general manner):

1- I made a suggestion to change the title of the paper as it does not contain any optimization studies, the authors are advised to focus in the title on keywords such as: Analysis, modelling, development, verification, etc.

2- In several sections and locations, the authors relied in text descriptions of parameters that required graphical representations to make them evident to the reader. I have marked those places and suggested specific figures to be added.

3- In some sections, the authors made statements that sounded as scientific facts / norms / theories / etc. But there were no references for such statements, the authors are advised to adequately references these statements / facts taken from previous established works.

4- There several places were the authors made jumps in knowledge presentations, in a way that assumed that the reader is already familiar with their methods and experimental setups. I have highlighted those places and suggested specific details to be added before jumping to results or conclusions.

5- In the results sections, the authors did not make clear link between the mathematical and theoretical models and their experimental results. Some curves are indicated to be originating from theoretical calculations, but it was not clear where such curves originated from. Furthermore, the model equations presented did not seem to be used clearly in the results section. I also found that some parameters were introduced for the first time in the results section. I indicated all of these concerns within the pdf file.

6- Several typing or text conversion errors were found in the manuscript; these are highlighted and require correction.

7- In general, the authors should invest more in adding clear figures and schematics to explain their parameters and experimental setup, as it’s the nature of robotics field, such parameters are very difficult to visualize through text descriptions only. I have made specific requests for such new figure and schematics inside the pdf file.

8- The experimental results and analysis section needs a significant effort from the authors to enhance the clarity and readability of its contents. Again, the use of figure is highly recommended in places marked in this section. There is so much data and results in this section, and these are hard to visualize without the addition of figures.

9- In general, there are some places in the paper that need more elaboration/information related to how results were obtained, what values were used, how findings were calculated/measured, etc. These are adequately highlighted for the authors in the pdf file.

10- I suggest that the authors expand the conclusion section a little bit further, so that it focuses on the significance of the findings and to shed light on the future works and recommendations.

 

Conclusive opinion: The results are very interesting but the presentation of the work needs significant efforts before accepting the manuscript for publications.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have made several comments inside the pdf file on the concerns related to the missing information or corrections needed. The authors are highly advised to go through them one-by-one and make their best in re-organizing and expanding some sections in a manner that makes the manuscript a smoother reading and to guarantee that the flow of information / setups / results is more reasonable.

Reply:Thank you for your useful advice. I have reviewed and revised the manuscript.

1- I made a suggestion to change the title of the paper as it does not contain any optimization studies, the authors are advised to focus in the title on keywords such as: Analysis, modelling, development, verification, etc.

Reply:I have changed the title of my paper: Modelling of walking gait parameters and walking strategy of quadruped robots

2- In several sections and locations, the authors relied in text descriptions of parameters that required graphical representations to make them evident to the reader. I have marked those places and suggested specific figures to be added.

Reply:The relevant figures have been supplemented.

3- In some sections, the authors made statements that sounded as scientific facts / norms / theories / etc. But there were no references for such statements, the authors are advised to adequately references these statements / facts taken from previous established works.

Reply:I have added references based on the suggestions.

4- There several places were the authors made jumps in knowledge presentations, in a way that assumed that the reader is already familiar with their methods and experimental setups. I have highlighted those places and suggested specific details to be added before jumping to results or conclusions.

Reply:Specific details have been added.

5- In the results sections, the authors did not make clear link between the mathematical and theoretical models and their experimental results. Some curves are indicated to be originating from theoretical calculations, but it was not clear where such curves originated from. Furthermore, the model equations presented did not seem to be used clearly in the results section. I also found that some parameters were introduced for the first time in the results section. I indicated all of these concerns within the pdf file.

Reply:Relevant modifications have been included.

6- Several typing or text conversion errors were found in the manuscript; these are highlighted and require correction.

Reply:Typing or text conversion errors in the manuscript have been corrected.

7- In general, the authors should invest more in adding clear figures and schematics to explain their parameters and experimental setup, as it’s the nature of robotics field, such parameters are very difficult to visualize through text descriptions only. I have made specific requests for such new figure and schematics inside the pdf file.

Reply:The relevant figures have been supplemented.

8- The experimental results and analysis section needs a significant effort from the authors to enhance the clarity and readability of its contents. Again, the use of figure is highly recommended in places marked in this section. There is so much data and results in this section, and these are hard to visualize without the addition of figures.

Reply:The relevant figures have been supplemented.

9- In general, there are some places in the paper that need more elaboration/information related to how results were obtained, what values were used, how findings were calculated/measured, etc. These are adequately highlighted for the authors in the pdf file.

Reply:I have added in section 3.3 “The gait planning of the bionic robot dog”.

10- I suggest that the authors expand the conclusion section a little bit further, so that it focuses on the significance of the findings and to shed light on the future works and recommendations.

Reply:The conclusion section has clarified future work and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research object of this paper is a bionic robot dog. This paper is based on the research results of the structure and gait of biological dogs, and designs the structure of a quadruped robot. In the research during the design of the robot dog, it was assumed that imitating the shape and movement of a biological dog can improve the environmental adaptability of the robot and make its movement more reasonable.

 

My drawbacks:

1.       The introduction to the paper is too long. It contains a literature review similar to the "Materials and Methods" chapter.

2.       The scientific purpose of the paper has not been clearly and precisely defined in the introduction. Also, the research gap is not clearly defined. In the introduction also lacks the structure of the paper.

3.       There is no numbering of the individual chapters of the work.

4.       The paper also lacks a description of the research methodology.

Author Response

1.       The introduction to the paper is too long. It contains a literature review similar to the "Materials and Methods" chapter.

Reply:I have made adjustments to the introduction and placed a portion in the chapter on "Materials and Methods".

2.       The scientific purpose of the paper has not been clearly and precisely defined in the introduction. Also, the research gap is not clearly defined. In the introduction also lacks the structure of the paper.

Reply:Combining with existing bionic quadruped robots, it can be seen that in terms of the robot's body structure, its joint is limited, and there is still a significant gap compared to flexible organisms. This article designs a quadruped robot based on research results on the structure and gait of biological dogs. While ensuring stable motion of the robot, this study considers limb coordination and plans reasonable low-speed gait, high-speed gait, and transition gait. The aim is to solve the problems of insufficient bionics in single gait planning and coordination in multi gait transitions, providing some reference for the research of bionic robots.

The structure of this article is arranged as follows. Section 1 elaborates on the background and significance of the research, and determines the research content and objectives of this article. Section 2 studies the structural characteristics and motion patterns of biological dogs. In section 3, the mechanical structure of the bionic robot dog is designed, and the kinematics of the single leg and the whole machine are analyzed, and the kinematics model is established. In Section 4, based on the motion laws of the biological dog, plan three gait types for the bionic robot dog: low-speed gait, high-speed gait, and transition gait, and verify the feasibility of the gait. Section 5 summarizes the research content and achievements of this paper.

3.       There is no numbering of the individual chapters of the work.

Reply:The numbering of each chapter has been supplemented.

4.       The paper also lacks a description of the research methodology.

Reply:In this paper, a bionic robot dog is designed to reveal the kinematic characteristics of the bionic robot dog mechanism through modeling, model kinematics analysis and other methods.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf