Inverted Docking Station: A Conceptual Design for a Battery-Swapping Platform for Quadrotor UAVs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents a designed platform of Inverted Docking Station for quadrotor UAV to swap battery while carrying the load. This topic is interesting. However, I want to give several suggestions to improve this manuscript.
- In lines 23-24, the authors may refer to a reference.
- I want to see a research gap and contributions of this research in the Introduction section.
- In line 47, it is better to add a reference related to generator-type power supplies in the UAVs.
- The authors should summarise the works related to charging and swapping batteries.
- It is better to present the pros and cons of the “W-shaped” pushing mechanism to position the quadrotor to the specific position.
- It is so good to investigate the error of the UAVs landing on a hardboard paper fixed on the ground. However, the authors should investigate the error of the UAVs landing under the ceiling.
- The authors should consider comparing the proposed method with others and validating this proposed platform.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for spending your valuable time for reviewing the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns from the reviewers and have made all necessary changes accordingly. The revision notes and responses can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for spending your valuable time for reviewing the manuscript. We appreciated your kindness that accept the paper in its current form. We have tried our best to improve the writing quality and flow of the manuscript. The revision note can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Summary of Manuscript
In this study, “inverted docking station” is proposed to enable efficient battery swapping without manipulation on the ground. This idea is suitable for drones to deliver packages because unloading the package is not necessary by constructing the battery swapping station on a ceiling.
General Comments
The proposed idea “inverted docking station” seems to be efficient for future drone use. Although the reviewer’s opinion is “Minor Revision,” this manuscript includes relatively many typos, grammatical errors, and non-unified captions/section titles/figures. The reviewer listed some minor revisions, but not limited to. Therefore, the reviewer strongly recommends that the authors should improve the quality of the manuscript by themselves. Commercial language/format editing service may be one of the ways to improve the manuscript.
Minor Revision 1
The figure and table caption styles are not unified. Please check all figure and table captions.
For example, colon is used for Figure 3, whereas semicolon is used for Figure 7.
Figure 3. Force and air flow performance: (a)when drone fly near to the ground, (b)when drone fly near to the ceiling.
Figure 7. Drone Landing experiment; Rotation from the precise position and offset from the precise position.
Minor Revision 2
Section title style is not unified. Please check all of them.
For example, “plate” does not have a capital letter, whereas “Mechanism” has a capital letter as follows.
3.1.2. Designing the Positioning plate
3.1.3. Analyzing the Gripping Mechanism
Minor Revision 3
Line 220: landing.First -> landing. First
Add space.
Minor Revision 4
Line 225: Point p1, p2, p3,and p4
“and” is not italic.
Minor Revision 5
Table 4: Angle of Rotational error θ -> Angle of Rotational Error θ
Minor Revision 6
Line 236: 'Inverted Docking station’
Single quotation seems wrong.
Minor Revision 7
Line 246: Tello model -> TELLO model
Minor Revision 8
Line 247: The resulting swept area determine -> The resulting swept area determines
Is the subject “area” singular here?
Minor Revision 9
Line 248: Note that the in the actual scenario -> Note that in the actual scenario
“the” seems unnecessary.
Minor Revision 10
Figure X and Fig. X are not unified in this manuscript. Please unify them based on the journal rule.
Minor Revision 11
Figure 9. A quadrotor clamped by the positioning plates.
Add period.
Minor Revision 12
Shortened expressions (e.g., it’s needed) are often used in this manuscript. In formal scientific journals, such casual expressions tend to be avoided. Please consider not to use the casual expression.
Minor Revision 13
3.2. Identifying and defining the appropriate Working Sequence for the system.
Typo
Minor Revision 14
Line 301: 80g without payload and the dimensions were 98*92.5*41 mm
Pleas add space “80 g.”
Minor Revision 15
Single quotation ‘XXX’ are not unified in this manuscript. Please unify them in all parts of the manuscript.
Minor Revision 16
Line 354: 3.8V
Pleas add space “3.8 V.”
Minor Revision 17
Line 357: payload.Figure 20 -> payload. Figure 20
Add space.
Minor Revision 18
Line 365: batteries.After -> batteries. After
Add space.
Minor Revision 18
Line 365: batteries.After -> batteries. After
Add space.
Minor Revision 19
Line 401: All these steps been shown in Figures 23
This sentence seems to have grammatical errors. Revise it and add period.
Minor Revision 20
Line 424: 145MPa -> 145 MPa
Make it upright and add space.
Minor Revision 21
Line 425: FOS = 2, which is 77.5MPa. -> FOS = 2, which is 77.5 MPa.
Make it upright and add space.
Minor Revision 22
Line 427: 0.7MPa -> 0.7 MPa
Make it upright and add space.
Minor Revision 23
Line 443: Data for the NEMA17 Closed loop stepper motor are as following Table 5
Add period.
Minor Revision 23
Table 5: Step angle -> Step Angle
Minor Revision 24
Line 448: fdenotes -> f denotes
Add space.
Minor Revision 24
Line 451: Linear velocity of the motor(v) -> Linear velocity of the motor(V)
Is “v” capital?
Minor Revision 25
Please unify the reference list format.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for spending your valuable time for reviewing the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns from the reviewers and have made all necessary changes accordingly. The revision notes and responses can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript has a novel concept of Inverted Docking Station that allows 4
a quadrotor UAV to attach to the ceiling during automatic battery swapping process. Overall the manuscript is well written, yet some minor details are to be addressed.
1) The analysis of FEA was only done for 25N for a 25kg load. Please explain the discrepancy on this matter.
2) The inverted docking system with a narrow gap of propeller guard at the top of the UAV may cause problems and unwanted damage to the structure. This element needs to be addressed appropriately. The standard propeller guard only secures the side/tip of the propeller.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for spending your valuable time for reviewing the manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns from the reviewers and have made all necessary changes accordingly. The revision notes and responses can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made some improvements to the original manuscript. I think it could be published after some polish and refinement.
