Tribological Study of Chisel Knives in Sandy Soil^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Insufficient image clarity, as shown in Figures 13, 15, etc

2. There are significant issues with the full text format, such as inconsistent image sizes and unfixed insertion positions.

3. The three line table made is not standardized, and a continuation table was not used after the page change. The continuation table should have the header of the original table.

4. The article has multiple areas where the expression is not standardized and the wording is not accurate. The use of professional terms needs to be discussed. Please review and modify the format and content expression related issues throughout the article.

5.The discussion section has less content, lacks strong logical coherence before and after writing, and does not deeply reflect the issues to be explored.

6. Is the sand selected in the experiment related to the actual working soil environment? Choosing only one type of sand as a representative material for soil lacks theoretical basis. Please provide examples to explain the reason for selecting this type of sand.

7. When using the formula, there is no specific explanation for the parameters used and should be supplemented.

8. The font in the formula is not uniform, and the variables in the formula should be represented in italics.

9. Inappropriate application of the Archard wear theory, as the wear coefficient is related to the three parameters of the surface hardness, friction coefficient, and velocity of the object.

10. The abstract is not closely related to the conclusion. Although the abstract should be concise, it should include all the key points of the study. The conclusion reviews the main findings and arguments in the study, but emphasizes the summary of the findings and their impact on a broader research field.

11. Is the conclusion drawn based on the idealization of the shape of abrasives in soil into spherical shapes reasonable?

12. What is the basis for assuming that abrasive particles are completely rigid in theoretical analysis? During actual operation, will abrasive particles also deform due to friction with the cutting tool?

13. In the article, sand is used as an abrasive for testing, but the situation in actual operations can be very complex. Therefore, how to determine the degree of wear of the knife based on the conclusions of this article?

none

Author Response

Hello,

Please see the attachement.

Thank you,

Georgiana Chisiu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Point 1: Please revise the abstract. Revise it according to "what problem was solved, what methods were used, what conclusions were reached, and add applications or benefits of the research at the end".

Point 2: Add few more specific keywords.

Point 3: Please revise the introduction. Follow the idea of "identify the problem, analyze it and propose a solution". In addition, this section should refer to a wide range of relevant literature, especially in the last five years, to understand the existing research findings, identify their shortcomings and lead to the content of your own research.

Point 4: Formula (X) to be reflected in the paragraph of the text;Below the formula, the symbols in the formula should be explained;For quoted formulas, be sure to cite the source;

too many formulas, it is recommended to leave useful formulas;Please use the formula editor Mathtype to edit the formula uniformly;

Point 5: Please follow the formatting requirements. E.g. Figure 1 XXXXX (a) xxxx (b) xxxx .a is xxx......

Point 6: Avoid using you and we in the manuscript.

Point 7: The horizontal and vertical coordinates are missing units in Figure 2.

Point 8: Please reorganise the language. The section is not clearly stated.

Point 9: The symbol is not clearly expressed.

Point 10: Check that the "if" in the formula is correct?

Point 11: The horizontal and vertical coordinates are missing units in Figure 3.

Point 12: The horizontal and vertical coordinates are missing units in Figure 4.

Point 13: The horizontal and vertical coordinates are missing units in Figure 5.

Point 14: The horizontal and vertical coordinates are missing units in Figure 6.

Point 15: The picture 7 is not clear. Recommend replacing.

Point 16: W also needs explanation

Point 17: [12]Suggested deletion [12]Suggested deletion

Point 18: Table 1 needs to be reflected in article paragraphs

Point 19: Avoid using you and we in the manuscript

Point 20: The picture 13 is not clear. Recommend replacing.

Point 21: The picture 15 is not clear. Recommend replacing.

Point 22: Adopt a scientific and technical approach.

Point 23: This is a conclusion, not a discussion. The discussion requires interpretation and analysis of the issues that arose from the experiment.

Point 24: Before starting of the conclusions try to write lines about study aim and which methods were used then write conclusion in the form of points according to results

Point 25: Add some future perspective at the end of the conclusion section.

Author Response

Hello,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you,

Georgiana Chisiu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

none