Evaluation of Ground Pressure, Bearing Capacity, and Sinkage in Rigid-Flexible Tracked Vehicles on Characterized Terrain in Laboratory Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the interaction between tracked vehicles in different terrain conditions is studied through model tests. The research methods are fully considered, and the research results have certain practical significance. However, the following problems still need to be solved

1) The content of the article is too complicated and should be further refined.

2) Whether the material heterogeneity of the sensor bracket described in line 419 will affect the results of the measured data needs further explanation.

3) The contents of Section 3.3 on ground pressure and soil subsidence are mostly data analysis. Can some theoretical analysis of geotechnical mechanics be added?

4) The tick marks in Figures 7 and 8 are recommended to face inward.

5) The graph style and effect of the full text should be unified as far as possible.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Additional device specification descriptions can be omitted.

Bentonite soil moisture is related to soil characteristics. It seems that this research is about moisture measurement and its relationship with other soil characteristics.

What is meant by cohesive modulus?

How is the effect of scale considered in this research?

References should be updated and closer to the research topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor revision is suggested

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigated the experimental tests in a soil bin, utilizing Bentonite/Diatom sediment soil, and aimed to measure these terrain factors. The study introduced a rubber-tracked vehicle, pressure, and moisture sensors to monitor pressure sinkage and moisture, evaluating cohesive soils (Bentonite/Diatom) in combination with sand and gravel mixtures. The results showed that higher moisture content in Bentonite soil leads to increased track slippage and sinkage compared to Diatom soil. The paper is generally written. The following comments should be addressed to improve the manuscript.

1.      The abstract should be rewritten. For research articles, abstracts should give a pertinent overview of the work. The abstract should include: (1) The background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results and Conclusions: summarize the article’s main findings. The main contribution should also be shown in the abstract.

2.      In the introduction, it is essential to indicate the research gaps and explain the contributions of this manuscript. This is crucial in an academic paper. The author is suggested to add this aspect.

3.      How to measure the soil moisture and keep the soil moisture at a required value?

4.      In the testing bin, there are three different types of soil. So how did the authors change the soil and make sure that the soil parameters meet requirements, including the soil density, modulus, water moisture, and so on?

5.      Some subsections are redundant, such as subsection 2.5: Safety Protocols.

6.      Figure 7(a)-(c) should not be separated. Or you can use different Figure numbers. The same problem appears in Figure 8. Figures 8(b) and (c) are the same. So why did the authors repeat them?

7.      In Figure 10, there are no data in the range of 0-30. This range does not need to appear in the annotation.

8.      The conclusion should be rewritten. The authors could summarize three conclusions, including qualitative and quantitative ones.

9.      Personal emotions should not appear in acknowledgments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript should be carefully checked and read according to the typesetting requirements.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SUMMARY

The article submitted for review is devoted to a topical issue. Evaluation of ground pressure, bearing capacity and sinkage in rigid-flexible tracked vehicles on characterized terrain in laboratory conditions was carried out.

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that in the field of mechanical engineering, tracked vehicles play an important role when moving over difficult terrain. It is important to understand that maintaining flotation is of paramount importance, stability, traction and adaptability are important.

There is a problem with this. Traditional models are inadequate to represent the relationship between tracks and soil. An important problem is also the lack of consideration of soil moisture content and the rate of its subsidence in these models.

The authors proposed solutions to the problem and analyzed the factors affecting the mobility of tracked vehicles, in particular the sinking speed and its relationship with pressure. They also assessed cohesive soils in combination with sand and gravel mixtures and obtained a number of important results.

The research will ultimately contribute to the accuracy of natural terrain assessment, improved design of tracked vehicles, and improved understanding of terrain mechanics in off-road exploration. The reviewer believes that the authors have done a great job and obtained important results. The research is in the nature of modeling, experimental study, and the new knowledge obtained has scientific novelty. Also, this article is practically significant for real cases, in particular for mechanical engineering, understanding the mechanics of terrain and other important areas.

Therefore, the reviewer generally positively evaluates the research conducted and the presented article. The reviewer believes that it is possible to consider publishing the article in the journal Sensors, but first a number of comments should be corrected. They are listed below.

COMMENTS

1.         The abstract provided by the authors does not fully meet the requirements of the Sensors journal. There is no clear formulation of the scientific problem. The relevance of tracked vehicles is indicated by the authors. It is also noted that maintaining patency plays an important role. It is assumed that some phrases from the description of relevance can be removed, otherwise the abstract becomes oversaturated with well-known facts. For example, the proposition that terrain characteristics relate to the interactions that determine the mobility of tracked vehicles can be removed because this fact is obvious to professionals and scientists working in this industry. An important scientific problem indeed is the inadequacy of traditional models to represent the relationship between tracks and soil.

2.         Next, the authors described the methodology in great detail, and then the results. At the same time, the authors presented a number of results that are intermediate in nature. The main point regarding the presentation of results in the abstract is the lack of quantitative characteristics. They write that noticeable compaction and subsidence characteristics have been demonstrated in diatomite soil, as opposed to bentonite soil, but this is not reflected quantitatively. Also, the moisture content in different types of soils, the increase in slippage and subsidence of tracks in bentonite compared to diatomite are also not described quantitatively. This makes it impossible to assess the scientific significance of the study.

3.         Authors must remove unnecessary sentences in the abstract. It seems like they said the same thing twice. The last sentence of the abstract should be removed. “This knowledge leads to improved vehicle design and a deeper understanding of terrain mechanics.” This has already been said above and should not be repeated here.

4.         Perhaps the keyword “Sensors” should be removed from the keywords, it should be presented in a more tied to some type of object and presented as a phrase.

5.         The “Introduction” section represents a literature review conducted by the authors. However, the literature review seems somewhat superficial. Authors are encouraged to structure it by selecting some criteria. For example, comparison of soil types: experimental and modeling, and modeled based on the cross-country ability of tracked vehicles or questions of solving these problems with the help of constructive solutions to improve transport itself. In general, there is a proposal to give the “Introduction” section some structure.

6.         While the scientific novelty, goal and tasks of the research are not clearly formulated from the literature review, this needs to be formulated. Scientific novelty should be aimed at eliminating the scientific deficit. It must also be clearly stated.

7.         The “Materials and Methods” section looks quite large. It is proposed to provide it with a research flowchart, since the authors conducted a large number of experiments and studies.

8.         Unfortunately, Figure 1 needs to be improved. It looks somewhat chaotic and contains a number of other figures filling it. It is proposed to number them as a), b), c), d), e) and also add a caption below it. An example is Figure 2, which follows.

9.         There are comments on Figure 7. Firstly, it is strangely torn into two component parts with two separate captions. Methodologically this is incorrect. Authors should place them side by side and provide a single caption underneath them.

10.      The second remark regarding Figure 7 is the incomprehensibility of the display of the graphical relationship between points. Will these really be straight lines? Why did the authors choose this particular format? Maybe it would be more correct to bring a bar chart here? The same remark applies to Figures 8 and 9.

11.      The “Discussion” section needs to be placed in a separate subsection. It should provide clear, quantitative comparisons of the results presented by the authors with results previously obtained by other authors in similar studies. From this, the scientific novelty and practical significance of the research should be formulated.

12.      The “Conclusions” section looks somewhat cumbersome. It is recommended to structure it, presenting it in the following order: scientific novelty, practical significance, quantitative characteristics of the scientific result, prospects for the development of research in the future, recommendations for the real applied industry.

13.      The list of references includes 45 titles. Unfortunately, the list of references contains very outdated works. Some of them are about 30, or even 50 years old. This is incorrect because the current state of the issue should be reflected, especially in research aimed at improving the design solutions of transport and machinery. Authors should seriously work on the list of references, supplementing it with at least 15-20 fresh references over the past five years.

In general, after correcting the comments made by the reviewer and taking into account some adjustments to the presentation style and English language, the article can be submitted for publication in the Sensors journal. But first, all shortcomings must be corrected. The general conclusion is Major Revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript language needs to be checked.

Author Response

Attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don’t know why the authors gave the theoretical analysis and simulations in Subsections 2.5 and 2.6. The authors give the theoretical equations; however, they don’t show how to use these equations or what’s the applications of these equations. The authors just give a few of the simulation results, without comparing them to the theoretical results or experimental results. Too many additional contents broke the logic of the manuscript. Figures 8 and 9 are not clear. I cannot see the horizontal and vertical coordinates. The authors should carefully organize the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some writing errors. Writing style mistakes also can be found in Lines 148, 438, 445, and other places. This manuscript should be carefully checked and read according to the typesetting requirements. 

Author Response

Kindly refer to the attached file for the response to the reviewers' remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, the reviewer is satisfied with the authors’ answers.

Author Response

We are delighted to obtain favorable remarks from the reviewer in regards to our answers. We are grateful for the recognition of our endeavors to adequately respond to the remarks and recommendations. Knowing that the reviewer finds our responses to be satisfactory is highly encouraging. Our utmost dedication is to guarantee that the modifications and enhancements applied to the manuscript are in accordance with the reviewer's expectations and elevate the research as a whole. We highly regard the reviewer's feedback and will persist in our conscientious efforts to guarantee that the manuscript adheres to the journal's criteria.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had previously reviewed this article. I am satisfied with the paper. The only observation is to divide such long paragraphs. Paragraphs of 8-14 lines are ideal.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the second version of the revised manuscript submitted by Rauf et al., after receiving response file; I found that authors are thinking that I have settled any criteria for reviewing the manuscript. I want to clear to authors that I don’t have any conflict with you. My revision/comments was/were based on maintaining the quality of journal and your paper. Your last version seems to be drafted and was written careless.

In addition, in your second version, I still saw many errors and mistakes. I think, the authors are not serious enough and before submission it should be ensured that manuscript is free from the basic errors.

Current version is improved than first version but still it is very difficult to catch that what authors want to say and define. Also, there are many redundant statements.

Why reference citing style is different in line 68-74.

In the text, the reference number 2 is Reece but in reference list the second reference is Wong.

In last version my question was “On which basis you made these concentrations: “The composite comprised 17% sand, 13% gravel, and 70% Diatom/Bentonite soil”. And authors reply was ‘The decision to use a composite consisting of 17% sand, 13% gravel, and 70% Diatom/Bentonite soil was based on an extensive analysis,  encompassing a thorough literature review, experimental requirements, and the desired attributes for the application.’ Could you provide the references for this statement.

I hope that authors will provide me a revised version with track changes in next version by highlighting my previous and current comments, accordingly.

Author Response

For research article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the review of the article with the title "Evaluation of Ground Pressure, Bearing Capacity, and Sinkage in Rigid-Flexible Tracked Vehicles on Characterized Terrain", I carefully read and analyzed the content of the article, as well as the authors' explanations, from which it follows that they are mostly solved the issues initially reported, but still considering the content of the scientific approach, I propose to the authors to modify the title by adding the following terms "in laboratory conditions". Under these conditions, the work will have the following title: "Evaluation of Ground Pressure, Bearing Capacity, and Sinkage in Rigid-Flexible Tracked Vehicles on Characterized Terrain, in laboratory conditions"

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf