Microgripper Based on Simple Compliance Configurations, Improved by Using Parameterization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

please see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors acknowledge all your suggestions and comments as they have let us notably improved the content of this article, as well as, to identify potential future work.

Point 1: In the introduction, data reported in table 1 should be avoided. Specific data and details for comparison should be reported in a dedicated new section. Also, the mechanical structure of the proposed gripper should be discussed and placed within the framework of the state-of-the-art [1, 2, 3].

Response 1:

• Table 1 was relocated to a new section with the name of Microgrippers actuated by chevron, from row 78 to 81.
• The discussion of the recommended reference 1, described from rows 159 to 162, was carried out.
• The recommended reference 2, about patents, was added in row 80 of the document.
• The recommended reference 3, a review of microgripper designs, was added in row 71, and rows from 158 up to 160 of the documents. In these rows, the proposed device is identified and described as part of one of the mentioned categories in that reference.

Point 2: The paragraphs at lines 92 and 96, as they are presented, seem to be out of context and their real meaning is not clear.

Response 2:

• From rows 82 to 104, a major revision was made, and larger description were made for items with not clear meanings, in order to clarify them. It should be noted that the revision was not carried out only in rows 82 to 104, but also in several parts of the entire document.

Point 3: Some important parameters, i.e angles Өi; i = 1 … 4, are not illustrated or clearly defined, so the reader cannot understand what is being parameterized. Ө1 =72.5°, Ө2 =72.5°.

Response 3:    

• From figure 3, changes in the notations of angles were made, assigning the subscript, i, to the elements that were parameterized (alpha, α, beta, β, chi, χ, and delta, δ), see row 188 and table 4.
• The modifications were carried out in rows 350 to 354, figure 11 and 12, rows 379 to 380 and in table 5.

Point 4: The 2-step parameterization procedure (chevron-gripper) is not clear. The Authors should better explain this concept at the basis of their work and justify it.

Response 4:

• From rows 120 to 135, a detailed description of all the steps for the general process of parameterization was made.

Point 5:

Flux diagram of figure 2 should be better elaborated.

Response 5:

• The correction of the flow diagram, identified as figure 2, was made. This correction can be verified from rows 138 to 139.

Point 6:

The mesh and further detail of the simulation are missing.

Response 6:

• Information of Table 9, Technical details about FEA, was expanded. Meshing parameters such as face sizing with element size and inflation have been added. In the document these changes are in row 414.

Point 7:

The English is poor, and sometimes it does not allow the reader to fully understand the meaning of the phrase or where the Authors want to go. For example, see line 125: "The properly microgripper section of the complete device was initially designed considering as the base two structures based on simple compliance arrangements."

Response 7:

• A writing correction has been made. The specific requested modifications can be found from row 152 to 172.

Point 8

The meaning of the subsection "Expected fabrication process" is unclear: fabrication of silicon devices etching SOI wafers is well-known in literature, and the physical device is not fabricated. Therefore, what's the goal of this subsection and of Figures 18 and 19?

Response 8:

• Because this article is focused on design and simulation, it has been preferred, to avoid confusion, not consider the future stage of fabrication, as it has been recommended. In some lines, there were provided information about specific details, that support the feasibility of the proposed device. For example, rows 160-161, 276, 284-285.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is generally very interesting. However, it needs some revisions before it can be accepted for publication.

Row 185 – Please detail what does it mean: “L_p” and „W_p” for equation (8)

Row 192 - For consequences please correct: “L_b and W_b are length and width of beams”.

Row 254 – Please put in Table 4, on the third column,  the unit measure for „Current intensity”.

Row 317 – Please put subscript for the angles on x-axis „θ₁, θ₂,  θ₃,  and θ₄,” in Figure 11. a, b and c.  

Row 407 - More details for the SOI process (Figure 18) are needed.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors addressed the issues raised by the Reviewers.

I still suggest english proofreading.