Straw/Spring Teeth Interaction Analysis of Baler Picker in Smart Agriculture via an ADAMS-DEM Coupled Simulation Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Technical

The introduction contains a discussion section of arbitrarily chosen examples of coupling DEM to CFD etc. This has to be rewritten to Multi-body Dynamics (MBD) - DEM coupling of which there are numerous examples not cited in the current work. In addition, how this coupling differs need to be clearly stablished as merely coupling MDB to DEM is not publishable worthy and standard in most DEM software packages, even lesser-known packages e.g. ThreeParticle/CAE. The benefit or value add of the proposed coupling strategy needs to be clearly communicated and established. For that, the literature needs to critically review established coupling strategies and critically compare the proposed strategy. 

The paper refers to DEM and the DEM software as if it is well defined and not ambiguous. The name of the DEM package needs to be clearly stated and literature of verification studies using the software cited to establish the credibility of the code (in case it is an in-house code).

None of the presented results is reproducible - the paper in its current form fails this basic requirement of a scientific publication. Even if I were to be given the ADAMS-DEM code, I would not be able to reproduce a single result in this paper. This must be addressed in full. All model parameters on the ADAMS and DEM side must be clearly stated and their assigned values listed. All geometries of components and particles must be properly stated.

PLR is selected to verify the model. Is this sufficient to ensure all parameters have been properly identified? When has this been established to be sufficient please cite a reference or alternatively conduct a study to demonstrate it is sufficient. This is critical as later in the paper other quantities such AF from the model are investigated, if the model parameters are not properly identified then these values may be misleading. 

Velocity is a vector and speed a scalar - please correct the manuscript accordingly.

Math notation regarding matrices, vectors and scalars need to be corrected and the dimensions of each matric and vector clearly defined.

Results are presented without stating the units of the associated numbers as well as in the Figures.

Editorial

The paper should be thoroughly reviewed for English grammar, e.g. forward speeds (FS), missing articles etc. 

Figure labels with units are inconsistently presented - see Figure 10.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, which will strengthen our confidence in improving the quality of the manuscript. According to the expert’s suggestion, we have responded to each item in the attachment we uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend the article to be printed after corrections have been made.

Technological processes involving cutting and further processing of plant material in field conditions are among the most important and the most energy-consuming during harvesting. Conducting numerical analyzes and experimental studies of these processes is a great contribution to science. The article presents a new pick-up design and analyzes the path of movement by developing a mathematical model. The process was modeled in the ADAMS and DEM environment. The obtained results from simulation calculations were compared with the results of experimental tests. The reviewer suggests additional presentation of the results and their comparisons in the form of data in tables. A statistical analysis should also be carried out, as the results of statistical calculations only indicate the value of the results obtained during tests and simulations. 

I recommend re-editing and changing the abstract.  Abstract should contain clear information about the results and benefits obtained. 

It is also necessary to change the conclusions. Reading them, I did not have a clear message  what the article was about. The use of abbreviations in conclusions is not always beneficial.

Author Response

Thank the reviewer for their positive comments on the manuscript. According to the expert’s suggestion, we have responded to each item in the attachment we uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments:

Good work. A lot of English improvements needed. I just worked on abstract and rest must be looked again. I am not going to point all of them. Some of the work related comments are available as general comments. They are critical to works presentation.

Abstract

21           speed change for straw

22           explained instead of clarified

22           What is meaning of unreasonable? Use better word

23           wear on track grooves, not wear of, same life for

24           field tests are carried to gather data for inputs and verification of simulation model.

General Comments on structure of paper

Add input values for your DEM and ADAMs model. It is a must have thing, otherwise work has no credibility. Your work should be replicate able.

Is acting force the correct scientific term? Drag force? Resistive force? Tillage force?

In section 3 add a table of input parameters for your DEM model

Discuss the limitation of your DEM model

Why citing DEM work from 2015 not 2021? [21]

For parameter setting you are relying on [21, 25], present a table and explain what you used from these two and what was your work specific.

If you think [21, 25] all parameters are good for you, what is new in your coupling mechanism?

What is actual novelty in your work? You are saying you are building a coupling simulation model which is novel, but what is novel in that model? You are following what everyone do working on ADAMs or Computer simulations in general.

Conclusion section is not well written.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their positive comments on the manuscript. According to the expert’s suggestion, we have responded to each item in the attachment we uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The ADAMS-DEM computer system, which is important for operation, allows to indicate the weakest places in the collecting press. After modifying the settings, it will also be useful for modeling other technical objects. This will allow us to eliminate design errors at the design stage, and thus increase their durability and reliability, as well as improve safety and environmental conditions. For many years, similar activities have also been carried out by other research centers (e.g. Polish PIMR https://www.pimr.eu/?lang=enJednostki) based on MES.
SI units:
• revolutions per minute instead of r/min, rpm is better (line 144)
• in charts 8 and 12 there should be a distance between the unit (km) and its value, eg 4, 5 and 6
• the same applies to seconds (293), newtons (298, 301) or mm (figure 12)

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their positive comments on the manuscript. According to the expert’s suggestion, we have responded to each item in the attachment we uploaded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the paper is misleading and must be updated - A Novel Coupling Simulation Method is claimed but not established with a critical comparison to literature - this has still not been addressed from my previous comment. The contribution of the paper is in the application, not the coupling for that a much more thorough and critical literature review is required.

Straw/Spring teeth Interaction Analysis of Baler Picker in Smart Agriculture via A ADAMS-DEM Coupled Simulation Method

Math notation regarding matrices, vectors and scalars need to be corrected and the dimensions of each matric and vector clearly defined. This still has not been done nor addressed. Having time bold, is it sensible? Clearly define the dimensions of each vector.

Verification -> Validation as you compare to experiment

Spacing between text and citation is inconsistent.

Mpa -> MPa

Keywords should contain multi-body dynamics

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, we have responded one by one in the uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper can be accepted, There are still some grammatical issues. Table2 should be Table 2. Similarly, a thorough proof reading by editorial office will make it good.

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable comments, we have responded one by one in the uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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.