Optimization Algorithm for Cutting Masonry with a Robotic Saw
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSumay of the Manuscript
The present manuscript presents an algorithm to optimize the cutting of masonry blocks with a robotic saw. The algorithm is based on the principle of random search for all combinations of cutting execution concerning the maximum number of objects in one container.
Maior Issues
1. Abstract: the novel contribution should be highlighted: what is the contribution to the field of optimization and robotics? Moreover, a brief description of the main results should also be provided.
2. Introduction:
a) The novelty of the contribution regarding the optimization technique to minimize CDW should be defined based on approaches previously reported in the literature. In the present form, the contribution is not defined in terms of the proposed approach and the results presented in the literature, i.e., what is novel regarding the research studies reported in the literature?
b) The main objectives of the present research study have not been defined: what are the main objectives of the present research study (including the motivation)?
c) It is recommended that a brief resume of the manuscript organization be included at the end of the introduction section.
3. The mathematical model of section 3 (new bin packing Algorithm): in the present form, the mathematical Model for Optimal Design of Masonry Cuts is not satisfactorily illustrated. An additional block diagram of the manuscript (or pseudocode) is necessary to explain how the algorithm was implemented.
4. Results: It is not possible to evaluate how good the results are. The results of the present approach were not compared to those obtained with previous methods in terms of computational complexity and overall performance (for example, convergence criteria). It is necessary to present a more profound analysis with more case studies, results, and analysis to evaluate the proposed approach.
5. Conclusions: The author stated in the abstract that "The application of the new methodology to a robotic bricklaying process will reduce the generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) and increase the speed of the construction process. ". Nevertheless, no evidence was presented (based on the results) in this manuscript to validate this finding. The conclusions should be reformulated based on additional results and analysis.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled „Optimization Algorithm for Cutting Masonry with Robotic Saw” to Applied Sciences.
We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for insightful comments on the paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by your review. We have made some changes to the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Comment 1: Abstract: the novel contribution should be highlighted: what is the contribution to the field of optimization and robotics? Moreover, a brief description of the main results should also be provided.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added additional details about novel contributions (page 1, row 17) and a brief description of the main results (page 1, row 31)
Comment 2: The novelty of the contribution regarding the optimization technique to minimize CDW should be defined based on approaches previously reported in the literature. In the present form, the contribution is not defined in terms of the proposed approach and the results presented in the literature, i.e., what is novel regarding the research studies reported in the literature?
Response 2: We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. We have added additional research studies to the manuscript (page 2, row 57).
Comment 3: The main objectives of the present research study have not been defined: what are the main objectives of the present research study (including the motivation)?
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified manuscript to emphasize this point. We have added additional describing and additional explanations (page 2, row 76) and (page 3, row 96).
Comment 4: It is recommended that a brief resume of the manuscript organization be included at the end of the introduction section.
Response 4: We agree with this and have included additional manuscript organization (page 3, row 102).
Comment 5: The mathematical model of section 3 (new bin packing Algorithm): in the present form, the mathematical Model for Optimal Design of Masonry Cuts is not satisfactorily illustrated. An additional block diagram of the manuscript (or pseudocode) is necessary to explain how the algorithm was implemented.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with this comment. We have added pseudocode of new algorithm to Appendix A (page13)
Comment 6: It is not possible to evaluate how good the results are. The results of the present approach were not compared to those obtained with previous methods in terms of computational complexity and overall performance (for example, convergence criteria). It is necessary to present a more profound analysis with more case studies, results, and analysis to evaluate the proposed approach.
Response 6: We agree with this and have included additional analysis to our manuscript (page 11, row 331). Also, Appendix B (page 14) with simulation data and results was added.
Comment 7: The author stated in the abstract that "The application of the new methodology to a robotic bricklaying process will reduce the generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) and increase the speed of the construction process. ". Nevertheless, no evidence was presented (based on the results) in this manuscript to validate this finding. The conclusions should be reformulated based on additional results and analysis.
Response 7: We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion. We have reformulated conclusion (page 11, row 347).
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely, Research team from CTU in Prague.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents the design and validation of a new packing algorithm that can be used for optimal planning of masonry cutting with a robotic saw. The basic idea is to minimize the number of whole masonry elements (containers) and the number of cuts made by the robot saw to reduce wear on the cutting plate. Also, the algorithm uses the principle of random search for all combinations of cuts executed with respect to the maximum number of objects (cuts) located in one container (masonry element). A comparison with other existing packaging algorithms was carried out to demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed solution. The validation of the proposed algorithm was achieved through experiments applied for a case study involving an example task for robotic bricklaying in the robotic saw module.
Comments, questions and recommendations for the manuscript improvement:
- It is not clear what the parameter e represents, which appears many times in the paper (Tables 1 and 2, Figures 4 and 5). Its first reference appears in the note on line 187. According to the title Fig.4 seems to be a randomly chosen parameter. I think additional details are needed about this parameter.
- Since this is an optimization problem, could you provide more details about the criterion function used for the proposed solution?
-Table 3 compares the performance of the proposed algorithm with the performance of other algorithms. To obtain the numerical results related to the other algorithms, were they also implemented? Or are the results from other bibliographic sources? In the paper they are cited only by reference [27] (line 114).
I think additional explanations are needed regarding the origin of these results.
- In Table 1 - Time column, I believe the unit of measurement is seconds [s], not [mm] as it appears in its current form.
- Why was the PHP language used for implementation? It is dedicated to developing WEB applications and does not have special facilities for implementing mathematical algorithms.
- The sentence from line 307-308 is wrong. The code of algorithm is in reference [32], not [31] (see also the sentence from line 224). Reference [31] refers strictly to documentation related to the PHP language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript titled „Optimization Algorithm for Cutting Masonry with Robotic Saw” to Applied Sciences.
We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for insightful comments on the paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by your review. We have made some changes to the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Comment 1: It is not clear what the parameter e represents, which appears many times in the paper (Tables 1 and 2, Figures 4 and 5). Its first reference appears in the note on line 187. According to the title Fig.4 seems to be a randomly chosen parameter. I think additional details are needed about this parameter.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added additional details about parameter e (page 6, row 233).
Comment 2: Since this is an optimization problem, could you provide more details about the criterion function used for the proposed solution?
Response 2: We agree with this and have incorporated your suggestion throughout the manuscript. We have added additional step 6 in our algorithm (Decision making process) (page 7, row 270).
Comment 3: Table 3 compares the performance of the proposed algorithm with the performance of other algorithms. To obtain the numerical results related to the other algorithms, were they also implemented? Or are the results from other bibliographic sources? In the paper they are cited only by reference [27] (line 114). I think additional explanations are needed regarding the origin of these results.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified manuscript to emphasize this point. We have added additional analysis (Appendix B, page 14) and additional explanation (page 11, row 325).
Comment 4: In Table 1 - Time column, I believe the unit of measurement is seconds [s], not [mm] as it appears in its current form.
Response 4: We agree with this and apologize for this typing error. We revised manuscript (page 6, table 1).
Comment 5: Why was the PHP language used for implementation? It is dedicated to developing WEB applications and does not have special facilities for implementing mathematical algorithms.
Response 5: We acknowledge your feedback. Many programming languages (e.g., Python, C++ and others) offer more tools and packages for solving mathematical problems. Additionally, our team has extensive experience in Python programming, particularly in the domains of AI and Data Science. We sought to explore alternative approaches and the most straightforward implementation of our solution using a pre-existing web server with a PHP environment. An additional explanation was added to the manuscript. (see page 7, row 275).
Comment 6: The sentence from line 307-308 is wrong. The code of algorithm is in reference [32], not [31] (see also the sentence from line 224). Reference [31] refers strictly to documentation related to the PHP language.
Response 6: We agree with this and apologize for this typing error. We revised manuscript (page 8, row 279).
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely, Research team from CTU in Prague.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors included all the corrections and comments in this new version of the manuscript.
