Mechanical Design and a Novel Structural Optimization Approach for Hexapod Walking Robots
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to Machines. This paper presents a model-based structural optimisation approach for the efficient electromechanical development of hexapod robots. However, the way the work is presented is fragile. Firstly, the mechanical model mentioned is not formally described. Secondly, the optimisation method used should be supported by a flow chart and also say why this was used and not another one. Thirdly, although the performance results of the independent simulation scenarios are shown in table 9, it is necessary to support the obtained results in another way (graphs). A revision of the writing is recommended, as well as correcting errors such as those in lines 179 and 180.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The introduction and review of the literature are combined as one chapter. I propose to divide it into two separate chapters and, at the end of the literature review, summarise the findings of that review.
Image references (lines 179, 180) are incorrect.
Can different algorithms be used for different walking speeds? The walking algorithm is mentioned several times in the article, but I did not find it anywhere, and it was not even described. Perhaps it would be an exciting topic for further research to determine the energy consumption ratio and walking speed for different algorithms.
The future direction of research in this area is missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Electromechanical efficiency of a hexapod robot is investigated by applying a novel method-based structural optimization approach. Energy consumption is reduced by using a multi-objective optimization goal. Eventual optimization framework establishment has resulted in efficient outputs even with fewer iterations of the so claimed sophisticated strategy. Robot’s walking range is increased while the body vibration is reduced. This is made through the determination of optimal parameter set for the hexapod robot.
This research is very interesting and I recommend it for the publication in this journal. I do have some comments which I include in the following:
Minor Comments:
1. Line 179: reference error
2. Line 190: reference error
Major Comments:
1. Line 231: The specifications of the batteries and the selection procedure are discussed. I think that there should be a discussion on the selection of the batteries based on the pick power consumption of the motors. For example, in line 299, the authors discuss the extreme stress that resulted in high-frequency transients in the observed current curves. This information or other extreme possible scenarios of the algorithm can be considered for the calculation of the pick current and consequent requirement of the power supply.
2. Line 717: The results before and after optimization are presented. For sure, the difference in percentage is significant. However, I was wondering how significant this improvement is statistically (e.g. applying paired t-test for the analysis of the results before and after optimization).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is now a little tighter for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
There is just one minor correction that should be made to page 4, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. 'However, the research found
shows that ...'
