Research on Ditching Mechanism of Self-Excited Vibration Ditching Machine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Bench test verification platform

- it is recommended to complete the data of the soil. The energy consumption of soil loosening is mainly influenced by soil moisture, content of clay particles and content of organic matter.

Information of soil preparation before measuring of tillage energy consumption should also be added - soil consolidation treatment?

Author Response

Point 1: Bench test verification platform   

- it is recommended to complete the data of the soil. The energy consumption of soil loosening is mainly influenced by soil moisture, content of clay particles and content of organic matter.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. We supplemented the relevant data of the bench test. According to the required relevant parameter data, we completed the relevant experiments and obtained the data of the soil. (The average soil moisture is 16.8% in the 0-300 mm depth soil layer, the average soil compaction is 355 kPa, the measured wet density is 1.78x103 kg/m3, the dry density is 1.55x103 kg/m3, and the clay particle content is 60%-70%.) We supplemented the work of the platform experiment and listed the relevant parameters. After the above modifications, the content of the whole experiment is more complete. (Lines 232-235).

Point 2: Information of soil preparation before measuring of tillage energy consumption should also be added - soil consolidation treatment?

Response 2: Thanks for raising your concerns. In section 3.6 (lines 590-594), we added soil consolidation treatment before measuring tillage energy consumption. We rewrote this part to make this paragraph more concise.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The paper studies the dynamics of the vibrations generated during soil tillage by a rotary tiller equipped with a self-vibrating apparatus. The vibrations and required energy are studied using dynamic simulation models and mathematical models. Subsequently the vibratory machine was compared with a rotary tiller without a vibratory device in a laboratory test stand.

The work is too long, especially in the theoretical formalization part and often boring. It should be simplified in the first part and more in-depth in the laboratory test by including not only the study of vibrations, but also that relating to energy consumption in comparison with a tiller without a vibrating device.

Lines 30-38: why did the authors choose an equipment that does not comply with conservation agriculture standards? The action of the rotary tiller is very energetic and tends to destroy the structural aggregates, it does not work well in the presence of crop residues and creates a deep hard pan. Furthermore it require a lot of maintenance due to the construction complexity and higher costs.

Lines 35-36: Insert a bibliographic reference

Lines 147-261: Simplify this part

Table 2: why was 45 steel included? The material of the tank shouldn't affect the simulation

Figure 6: Check the direction of rotation of the rotary tiller (red line clockwise or counterclockwise?)

Line 267: The SI unit of angular velocity is expressed as radians per second with the radian having a dimensionless value of unity, thus the SI units of angular velocity are listed as “1/s” or “s−1”. Alternatively, “rpm” is also allowed. Correct throughout the paper

Line 285: It is not clear where the sensor has been mounted, Specify

Table 4: the unit of Spring damping coefficient is Ns/m and not NS/m

Line 333: Are the units of measure correct?

Figures 8, 9, 10: specify the working conditions in the caption in terms of spring stiffness, spring damping coefficient and a blade weight

Figure 12: Reviewing the graphs: it seems that there is one graph inside another

Figure 14: replace the legend on the abscissa axis from Blade quality to Blade weight

Chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 are repetitive and boring. Semplify

Line 680: What does soil firmness mean and how was it measured? the value of 210 kPa is too low for a soil that must be worked. Furthermore, no indication of soil texture is provided.

Line 711-715: Was the effect on the soil or on the cloddiness measured? it may be that the lower torque required also corresponds to a lower action of refining the soil

 

Author Response

Point 1: The paper studies the dynamics of the vibrations generated during soil tillage by a rotary tiller equipped with a self-vibrating apparatus. The vibrations and required energy are studied using dynamic simulation models and mathematical models. Subsequently the vibratory machine was compared with a rotary tiller without a vibratory device in a laboratory test stand.

The work is too long, especially in the theoretical formalization part and often boring. It should be simplified in the first part and more in-depth in the laboratory test by including not only the study of vibrations, but also that relating to energy consumption in comparison with a tiller without a vibrating device.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer’s comment and suggestion. We rewrote this part and deleted the redundant content to make this paragraph more concise, especially the theoretical analysis part(Lines 130-172). In subsection 3.6, in order to compare the energy consumption of the self-excited vibration machine and the non-self-excited vibration machine at different speeds, a comparative analysis of the average torque at different speeds of the self-excited vibration machine and the non-self-excited vibration machine was done in the test bench (lines 578-598).

Point 2: Lines 30-38: why did the authors choose an equipment that does not comply with conservation agriculture standards? The action of the rotary tiller is very energetic and tends to destroy the structural aggregates, it does not work well in the presence of crop residues and creates a deep hard pan. Furthermore it require a lot of maintenance due to the construction complexity and higher costs.

Response 2:Thanks for raising your concerns. The vibratory tillage device mentioned in this paper is mainly used for orchard ditching and fertilizing, so there is no non-compliance with conservation agriculture standards. In order to avoid ambiguity, the self-excited vibratory rotary tillage device is changed to the self-excited vibratory ditching device in this paper, and the corresponding changes are made within the original manuscript.

Point 3: Lines 35-36: Insert a bibliographic reference

Response 3: Thanks for raising your concerns. We inserted the relevant references in lines 35-36 of the original manuscript (Lines 33-35).

Point 4: Lines 147-261: Simplify this part

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. In Lines 147-261, we did not describe this section clearly. We simplified the analysis of the process of building the theoretical model of the dynamics of the self-excited vibratory ditching implement in subsection 2.2 and deleted the description of the process of building the simulation model of the Adams-Edem coupling of the self-excited vibratory ditching implement and soil interaction in subsection 2.3(Lines 130-220).

Point 5: Table 2: why was 45 steel included? The material of the tank shouldn't affect the simulation

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We set the material of the soil tank as 45 steel in the original draft to represent the material used in the ditching equipment, but yes, the material factor of the soil tank will not affect the simulation (Table 2).

Point 6: Figure 6: Check the direction of rotation of the rotary tiller (red line clockwise or counterclockwise?)

Response 6: Thanks for reminding us. We modified the rotation direction of the ditching blade to be counterclockwise in Figure 6.

Point 7: Line 267: The SI unit of angular velocity is expressed as radians per second with the radian having a dimensionless value of unity, thus the SI units of angular velocity are listed as “1/s” or “s−1”. Alternatively, “rpm” is also allowed. Correct throughout the paper

Response 7: Thanks for raising your concerns. We modified the units of angular velocity to “rad/s” (Line 226).

Point 8: Line 285: It is not clear where the sensor has been mounted, Specify

Response 8: Thanks for raising your concerns. we rewrote the description of the mounting position of the sensor (Lines 250-252) and added a picture about the mounting position of the sensor (Figure 7(c)).

Point 9: Table 4: the unit of Spring damping coefficient is Ns/m and not NS/m

Response 9: Thanks for reminding us. We have revised the content of the error in the unit of the Spring damping coefficient and checked the relevant content to ensure that the same error does not occur(Table 4).

Point 10: Line 333: Are the units of measure correct?

Response 10: Thanks for raising your concerns. We re-checked the units of measurement(Line 314).

Point 11: Figures 8, 9, 10: specify the working conditions in the caption in terms of spring stiffness, spring damping coefficient and a blade weight

Response 11: Thank you for your comments. We specified the operating conditions based on rotational speed, spring stiffness, spring damping coefficient, and blade weight in the captions of Figure 8 - Figure 15.

Point 12: Figure 12: Reviewing the graphs: it seems that there is one graph inside another

Response 12: Thanks for raising your concerns. The small graph contained in picture 12 is a detailed output graph, which is designed to clearly depict the variation of vibration displacement in the Y, Ry, and Rx directions for different spring damping coefficients. In order to understand clearly, we optimized the picture 12(Figure 12).

Point 13: Figure 14: replace the legend on the abscissa axis from Blade quality to Blade weight

Response 13: Thanks for raising your concerns.We have changed the legend on the trailing axis from Blade quality to Blade weight(Figure 14).

Point 14: Chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 are repetitive and boring. Semplify

Response 14: Thank you for your comments. We simplified the descriptive analysis of the Y-, Ry-, and Rx-directional vibration characteristics to make this paragraph more concise in Chapters 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (Lines 294-529).

Point 15: Line 680: What does soil firmness mean and how was it measured? the value of 210 kPa is too low for a soil that must be worked. Furthermore, no indication of soil texture is provided.

Response 15: Thank you for your comments. soil firmness, also known as soil compaction, refers to the ability of soil to resist compaction and crushing by external forces. soil firmness was measured by a TYD-2 Soil firmness measuring instrument. We used the soil firmness measuring instrument to measure the soil firmness and got the soil firmness size（355 kPa）. In addition information on soil texture was re-provided. We rewrote this part in the manuscript(Lines 590-593).

Point 16: Line 711-715: Was the effect on the soil or on the cloddiness measured? it may be that the lower torque required also corresponds to a lower action of refining the soil

Response 16: Thank you for your comments. Lines 711-715 in the original manuscript are: Average input torque versus speed for the test and Adams-Edem coupled simulation, this comparative analysis is measured for the effect of soil. Meanwhile, the operating effectiveness of trenching can be evaluated in terms of trenching depth, trenching width, and trenching quality, so the lower torque indicates more energy saving with the same effect of action. We modified the manuscript accordingly to make this paragraph more concise.  (Lines 626-629).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded comprehensively to the remarks posted.

The only observation concerns the change of all the units of measurement of the rotational speed expressed in r/min in rad/s. Alternatively, if you don't want to do all the conversions, replace with "rpm"

Author Response

Point 1: The authors have responded comprehensively to the remarks posted. The only observation concerns the change of all the units of measurement of the rotational speed expressed in r/min in rad/s. Alternatively, if you don't want to do all the conversions, replace with "rpm".

Response 1: Thanks for raising your concerns. We modified the units of angular velocity to "rpm" in the manuscript.