Study of Orientation Error on Robot End Effector and Volumetric Error of Articulated Robot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors propose a standardized method to evaluate the robot's end-effector accuracy by analyzing data collected during the execution of a circular contour motion.
The novelty of the presented work comes from devising the special equipment that could be attached to an articulated robot end effector to determine the errors in calibration/usage that reduce its performance.
Improvements to this paper can be made by:
defining concepts like backlash and datuming rephrasing text for clarity describe the simulation software and the simulation environment talk about how this work can be extended in the future, what is necessary to setup this on the actual robotic arm how can the results be used to adjust the calibration parameters of the robot Results figures image quality is low (for example figures like 6, 8, etc.). I would suggest removing the bottom part where it says "CENTRE DATA PLOT" and increase the image resolution when exporting from your software. Explain the results in body of the paper as opposed to there (there are not readable regardless). For experiments presented in Figures 13, 14, 15 it is not clear how many trials were performed page 11 lime 8 sais 3 times for experiment 15 which seems low, but maybe I am reading this wrong due to how it is written.
Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thanks for your comments.
The paper is revised and supplements to reflect the reviewer comments.
Please refer to bellow
Point 1 : defining concepts like backlash and datuming rephrasing text for clarity describe the simulation software and the simulation environment talk about how this work can be extended in the future,
Response 1: Added on page 7 based on reviewer comments
Point 2 : what is necessary to setup this on the actual robotic arm how can the results be used to adjust the calibration parameters of the robot Results figures image quality is low (for example figures like 6, 8, etc.).I would suggest removing the bottom part where it says "CENTRE DATA PLOT" and increase the image resolution when exporting from your software. Explain the results in body of the paper as opposed to there (there are not readable regardless).
Response 1: All figures are changed and “CENTRE DATA PLOT” is removed in the figures.
Regards
Point 3 : For experiments presented in Figures 13, 14, 15 it is not clear how many trials were performed page 11 lime 8 sais 3 times for experiment 15 which seems low, but maybe I am reading this wrong due to how it is written.
Response 1: Figures 13 to 15 are changed with high resolution and more explain about 3 times on page 11
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a technique to identify the orientation and volumetric errors in industrial robots. However, the reviewer does not see it is applicable since
The proposed equipment is not always available; and users do not normally purchase extra tools for this purpose. In each industrial robot, sensors and methods to measure errors in actuation responses are embedded, and those feedback information is employed by controllers to efficiently control the robot, in an integration. If the paper claims the proposed method to be used in calibration robots in manufacturers, the reviewer believes there are many existing calibration methods utilized in manufacturers and literature review is inadequate. There is no comparison between the proposed approach and the existing ones.Therefore, the contributions are minor. The reviewer would recommend the authors to provide more contributions to show the work is applicable.
Moreover, the presentation is poor.
Many figures such as 3, 6, 8, … are not clear. Format of equation alignment is hard to follow. What is e in equation in page 3 and what is \theta in equation (1)? How simulations and experiments set up are not described in the manuscript?Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thanks for your comments.
The paper is revised and supplements to reflect the reviewer comments.
Please refer to bellow
Point 1: The proposed equipment is not always available; and users do not normally purchase extra tools for this purpose. In each industrial robot, sensors and methods to measure errors in actuation responses are embedded, and those feedback information is employed by controllers to efficiently control the robot, in an integration. If the paper claims the proposed method to be used in calibration robots in manufacturers, the reviewer believes there are many existing calibration methods utilized in manufacturers and literature review is inadequate. There is no comparison between the proposed approach and the existing ones. Therefore, the contributions are minor. The reviewer would recommend the authors to provide more contributions to show the work is applicable.
Response 1: The review of prior work, comparison and contribution was added on page 2
Point 2: Many figures such as 3, 6, 8, … are not clear. Format of equation alignment is hard to follow
Response 2: The figures have been modified. The important equations are expressed and the detailed solutions are omitted on the paper.
Point 3: What is e in equation in page 3 and what is \theta in equation (1)?
Response 3: Added e and theta on page 3 and,4
Point 4: How simulations and experiments set up are not described in the manuscript?
Response 4: Experiments set up is shown figure 2 & 8 and simulation processes are added on page 7
Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The English language should be improved, e.g.:
page 1: constrains => constraints"a wide variety of robot " => "a wide variety of robots" page 2: "deviate from the expect position " => "deviate from the expected positio
The paper does not contain the review of previous work. Author should present existing solutions to the presented problem and should outline the motivation and the contribution of this work in comparison with existing approaches.
The presented method and experimental results are not compared with existing methods, thus it is not possible to determine the novelity and the efficiency of the approach.
Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thanks for your comments.
The paper is revised and supplements to reflect the reviewer comments.
Please refer to bellow
Point 1: The English language should be improved, e.g.:
page 1: constrains => constraints
"a wide variety of robot " => "a wide variety of robots" page 2: "deviate from the expect position " => "deviate from the expected positio
Response 1: Corrected the wrong word on page 1.
Point 2: The paper does not contain the review of previous work. Author should present existing solutions to the presented problem and should outline the motivation and the contribution of this work in comparison with existing approaches. The presented method and experimental results are not compared with existing methods, thus it is not possible to determine the novelity and the efficiency of the approach.
Response 1: The review of prior work, motivation and contribution was added on page 2
Regards
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision does not completely respond to the reviewer's previous report.
It still does not show up the contributions. What are advantages of the proposed method as compared with the existing ones?
The quality of figures 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11 is poorly readable.
Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thanks for your comments.
The paper is revised and supplements to reflect the reviewer comments.
Please refer to bellow.
Point 1: It still does not show up the contributions. What are advantages of the proposed method as compared with the existing ones?
Response 1: The advantage and contributions were added on page 13
Point 2: The quality of figures 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11 is poorly readable.
Response 2: The figures have been modified.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was improved according to the comments. Now it may be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Sir.
Thanks for your accecptance.
Regards
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The reviewer has no more comments.
