Experimental Safety Analysis for Transplanting Device of the 4-Bar Link Type Semi-Automatic Vegetable Transplanter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The static and dynamic safety of semi-automatic vegetable transplanter was evaluated with helpo of 13 uniaxial strain gauges and 2 triaxial 397 strain gauges.This study is important for improving the safety and reliability of transplanters. The specific questions are listed below.
1, the article why not through the simulation test to study, save time and effort can also make more reliable data.
2, Figure 3 is not clear on the description of the 4-bar mechanism, such as where the drive shaft is, where is the hinge point?
3. Is there any matching problem between the input speed of the 4-bar mechanism and the forward speed of the whole machine, and what is the effect of unreasonable matching on the smooth operation of the mechanism.
4. Soil conditions will affect the size of the forces on the operating parts of the transplanter, so it is recommended that the conditions of the soil treatment be completed. Include soil type, firmness and moisture content.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
To reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper is improved by your comments.
We follows all your revisions in text and our responses for other specific comments are as follows: (all the changes are expressed in red color)
Point 1: The article why not through the simulation test to study, save time and effort can also make more reliable data.
Response 1: This article is a part of research on safety analysis of 4-bar link type of vegetable transplanter. The whole research consists of experimental and simulation. in this step, we conduct experimental safety analysis, and the simulation will be carried out in the next work. We added a sentence about simulation as our future research in the manuscript. [Conclusions, line 485-487]
Response 2: We added some sentences to explain about the drive shaft and the hinge point and modified the Fig. 3 [Materials and Methods – 2.1 Vegetable transplanter used in this study; Figure 3, line 144-147, 154-155]
Point 3: Is there any matching problem between the input speed of the 4-bar mechanism and the forward speed of the whole machine, and what is the effect of unreasonable matching on the smooth operation of the mechanism.
Response 3: The planting distance can be adjusted by controlling both the number of shift stages of transplanting transmission and the moving speed of the transplanter. In addition, the engine speed and the moving speed of the transplanter are proportional. Therefore, in order to derive the proper planting distance required by the farmer, the engine speed and the number of shift stages of the transplanting transmission need to be selected. There is no matching problem occurred according to combine any input shaft speed and any forward speed of the whole machine.
We have supplemented the explanation to help understanding. [Materials and Methods – 2.1 Vegetable transplanter used in this study; Figure 3, line 119-123]
Point 4 : Soil conditions will affect the size of the forces on the operating parts of the transplanter, so it is recommended that the conditions of the soil treatment be completed. Include soil type, firmness and moisture content.
Response 4: We added the soil type and explained the condition of the soil treatment [Materials and Methods – 2.3 Work conditions, line 205-210]
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper displays the work to evaluate a kind of 4-bar mechanism transplanting device. An index-safety factor was proposed to evaluate the durability of a machine. Moreover, this paper also presented a method to test the durability of transplanters. However, there are some points listed below need to be improve. Thus, the paper deserves to a Major Revision. The detailed comments are listed as follows:
Major revisions
1．In the abstract, “The static safety factor value was more than 1.0 for all locations and all working conditions.”However, readers may not know what is the static safety factor？Therefore，please expound the static safety factor before the mentioned sentence.
2．The method proposed in this paper was tested the durability performance of the tansplanters rather than the safety performance. Thus, please modify the title and relative description.
3．Please definite the terminology “transplanting device” when the term is first used, because readers may not know which part of transplanter is the “transplanting device”?
4．Please list the reasons why the are engine speed and planting distance were selected as the factors to assess the durable performance of the trasnsplanter. Authors had better list the mathmatical equations to present the relationship between the lifespan of the transplanter with the engine speed and the transplanting distance.
5．This paper lacks of a Discussion section.
6．The data for which sensor is shown in Figure 8? The measure data of sensors should be in displayed in the Results section.
7．From the line 324 to 325, Why authors acclaim that “It means that the increased engine speed makes the stress on the transplanting device decrease so the static safety factor increases”?
8．In the conclusion section, what the transplanting device used in universal transplanter? Please explain why the difference of the fatigue lifespan of universal transplanting device and the 4-bar type one is so obvious(10 years v.s. 1928 years).
Minor revisions
1．Please show the size of the crank and link in the material and method section.
2．As for the equations, please demonstrate the meaning of the letters below the relative equation. Otherwise readers are not easy to correspond the equation with the demonstrations of mathematical signals listed in the last page.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
To reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments. The paper is improved by your comments.
We follows all your revisions in text and our responses for other specific comments are as follows: (all the changes are expressed in red color)
Point 1: In the abstract, “The static safety factor value was more than 1.0 for all locations and all working conditions.” However, readers may not know what is the static safety factor？Therefore，please expound the static safety factor before the mentioned sentence.
Response 1: we added a sentence to expound the static safety factor in the abstract. “The static safety factor was defined as the ratio between the strength of the material and the maximum stress in the transplanting device” [Abstract, line 20-21]
Response 2: This manuscript includes both static safety and durability. The safety analysis in this study means static safety and durability so the title of this manuscript already appropriate. We added a sentence to explain about the safety in the manuscript. [Introduction, line 93-95]
Point 3: Please definite the terminology “transplanting device” when the term is first used, because readers may not know which part of transplanter is the “transplanting device”?
Response 3: We have supplemented the explanation to help understanding. [Introduction, line 59-60 ]
Point 4 : Please list the reasons why the are engine speed and planting distance were selected as the factors to assess the durable performance of the transplanter. Authors had better list the mathmatical equations to present the relationship between the lifespan of the transplanter with the engine speed and the transplanting distance.
Response 4: The load acting on the transplanting device can be used to assess the durable performance of the transplanter. The load acting on the transplanting device depends on many factors, such as engine speed, planting distance, soil conditions, and planting depth. We wanted to measure the load acting on the transplanting device under all working conditions and derive the severeness of each links. However, in South Korea, vegetable seedlings are usually transplanted in the ridge that is developed immediately after ploughing and harrowing the soil. The soil of the transplanting ridge is extremely soft and the effect of soil strength can be ignored. The transplanting depth was also ignored because the variation of transplanting depth for vegetables is not too large. Therefore, we selected the engine speed and the planting distance as the parameter of the experiment. We have supplemented the explanation in Material and Methods [Materials and Methods – 2.3 Working conditions, line 198-203]
Point 5: This paper lacks of a Discussion section.
Point 6: The data for which sensor is shown in Figure 8? The measure data of sensors should be in displayed in the Results section.
Response 6: Figure 8 (a) is axial stress from sensor S_8, Figure 8 (b) is Von-Mises stress from sensor S_3, and Figure 8 (c) is maximum shear stress from sensor S_3.
We moved Figure 8 to result section and modified the figure number as Figure 10 [Results and discussion – 3.1. The stress data, line 339]
Point 7: From the line 324 to 325, Why authors acclaim that “It means that the increased engine speed makes the stress on the transplanting device decrease so the static safety factor increases”?
Response 7: From the figure 11, the static safety factor shows a tendency to increase with the engine speed. And the static safety factor is defined as the ratio between the strength of the material and the maximum stress in the transplanting device. The strength of the material is constant, so the maximum stress is inversely proportional to the static safety factor. [3. Results and discussion – 3.2 Static Safety, line 372-375]
Point 8: In the conclusion section, what the transplanting device used in universal transplanter? Please explain why the difference of the fatigue lifespan of universal transplanting device and the 4-bar type one is so obvious(10 years v.s. 1928 years).
Response 8: There are several types of the transplanting device used in universal transplanter. 10 years is the expected lifespan of the transplanting machine or vegetable tranplanter, it’s not only fatigue lifespan of transplanting device. The fatigue lifespan of vegetable transplanter depends on all of the part of that machine, not only the transplanting device part, that’s why the difference is so obvious.
Minor revisions
Point 1: Please show the size of the crank and link in the material and method section.
Response 1: we added the size of the crank and link. “The size of crank is 112 mm, while the size of link A, link B, link C, link D, sub link E and sub link F are 295 mm, 470 mm, 176 mm, 183 mm, 92 mm, and 340 mm respectively” [Materials and Methods – 2.1 Vegetable transplanter used in this study, line 147-149]
Point 2: As for the equations, please demonstrate the meaning of the letters below the relative equation. Otherwise readers are not easy to correspond the equation with the demonstrations of mathematical signals listed in the last page.
Response 2: We demonstrated the meaning of the letters below the relative equation [Materials and Methods – 2.4 Analysis of measured data, line 241-247, 272-274, 296-297, 312-316]
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After careful checking, I found that my comments were revised appropriately and completely.
1. The mentioned terminologies had been expounded when they were used firstly.
2. Disscussions were added below the relative results.
Therefore, I believe that the manuscript can be accepted in the present version.
