Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper introduces a method to determine the steering parameters of robot based on the surrounding obstacles and road information. The primary objective is to enhance the steering efficiency of tracked robots. It is interesting. However, some revisions should be made.

-  What is the contribution of research or study? Please add the new method in the paper.

- Could you please give more details about good or bad (poor) road surface to the paper.

- Please explain more details, How to measure the simulation results each parameter and then compares with experimental results.

- Please check that all Figures are relevant (section 5.4, Figure 16) / sequent to the contents of the manuscript (section 2).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper describes and analyzes several control strategies for the steering of a tracked robot. 

The introduction and bibliographical study can be improved by discussing some more relevant research papers in the field. 

 

Table 1 is presented, but not discussed in the paper. Also, Table 1 is taken from reference [12], but not marked as such. 

 

The contributions of the paper are unclear. A comparison with similar research is missing. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have received the manuscript entitled " Simulation and experiment of steering control strategy for tracked robot  " for review and have found it to be very interesting and very well-written.

I believe that the authors have interesting general aim, scope and results included in the manuscript. Therefore, the current state of the manuscripts is suitable for publication after some minor corrections.

I made very minor linguistic corrections, and some specific data presentation suggestions. 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.

Exact comments/queries/suggestions to enhance the work are highlighted inside the pdf file. However, the following is a list of the main concerns that I advise the authors to attend to in order to enhance the quality of the work:

1- In the introduction section and review of previous works, please add more sentences and references to shed light on the various applications of tracked robots in industry, such as component delivery, storage and retrieval, etc.

2- At the end of the introduction section, it will be great if you mentioned the names of methods/models/softwares/etc. used within the sentences of your methodology paragraph.

3- In section 2.1, I understand that refs [11] and [12] are previous works conducted by your group. It will be necessary here to state what is new in the current study (i.e. enhancements, new models, modifications, analyses, etc.). You can either show this difference inside section 2.1 or in the previous section where you talk about your methodology. You may start by saying, “The current study is a continuation of previous studies by the authors focused on …….., however, this study focuses on ……….”

4- In section 2.2, The physical meaning and visualization of speed parameters are not clear by looking at Figure 1. For example, it is not clear what is meant by "winding velocity". Therefore, I suggest the addition of a new figure specifically to describe these parameters. Moreover, you may describe each parameter using a small sentence, such as "winding velocity is the belt linear speed...." (the latter sentence is just an example, which could be wrong). I expect this new figure to come with description of how the robot moves and how maneuverability is achieved using its different components.

5- In section 2.2, Both expressions in equation (2) have the same condition! please revise this mathematical paradox and make necessary corrections on the model equation: ( vr >= vj ) is the same as ( vj =< vr). After making the necessary correction, be aware that you cannot have the equality sign (=) on both conditions.

6- In section 2, The numbering of subsections needs revision.

7- In section 3, specifically the results in Figure 5. You need to state how the results were obtained... did you use a certain simulation software to obtain these results?

8- In section 5.1,, after line 222, you need to add a few sentences to describe and show the difference between center steering and differential steering.... on the structural and control levels, how are these steering schemes performed?

9- Some of the technical details mentioned in sections 4.3 and 5.2 (control and measurement layers, softwares used) are necessary to be mentioned earlier in your methodology section, such that, the reader gets an idea of what you intend to do and how.

10- In section 5.3, Please add more description on the differences between the three strategies.. what parameters or conditions do you actually change in each strategy?

11- The lines 347 – 353 discuss some results claimed to be shown in Figure 16, however, these results are not evident from Figure 16. Try to add some details to the figure. Also add figure subset labels (a) and (b).

12- Lines 359 – 360, Does the statement refer to an achievement of the current work or a recommendation for future works? ... please clarify.

13- Figure 17, This figure is not discussed within the manuscript main text body... you need to state how the "reference" curve is obtained and what schemes produced the "test" curve... you also need to state the maximum error values and why they occurred midway of the curvature. You can make this addition at line 353 after the maximum error value quoted in that line.

14- In the conclusion section, I don't recommend numbered lists in conclusion section.. please use linguistically connected paragraphs and sentences… Also, you need to add a few sentences on the future prospects and potential developments of your research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting.  The contribution is clear and the novelty is high.  The manuscript is accepted in the current form. 

Author Response

 We appreciate the positive comments from the reviewer.  We thank the reviewer for the positive comments.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have consistently modeled the relationship between crawler speed, driving force, and crawler turning radius, created virtual prototype simulation models for the crawler robot and obstacles, and justified the feasibility of using the differential steering method, taking into account the surrounding obstacles and road surface. The utilization of the above research leads to an increase in the control efficiency of the crawler robot.

 

In doing so, the following should be explained:

1. expression (1) as claimed by the authors. follows from Fig.1

Explain in more detail how expression (1) follows from Fig. 1?

It is reasonable to show all velocities v_r , v_q , v_j in the Fig. 1

2 Explain what "I" stands for in equation (3)?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues were addressed.