Investigation of the Traveling Performance of the Tracked Chassis of a Potato Combine Harvester in Hilly and Mountainous Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article is very interesting,  and it seems that the authors have done a great job. However, English is not good enough, and the article is really hard to follow.

I suggest a in-depth English revision before resubmitting the article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, It is recommended a thorough revision of the English grammar and vocabulary before submitting the article again.

Author Response

Please find attached the cover letter in response to the reviewers.

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the driving performance of the caterpillar chassis of the potato harvester is studied, and the dynamics of the caterpillar chassis are analyzed and tested respectively. It has certain reference value for the research in this field, but there are also some problems that can be further optimized in order to have a better presentation form.

1. Abstract: Although the research work of the paper has been summarized to some extent, the overall summary is not in place, and the numerical results and corresponding conclusions obtained from the experiment are lacking.

2. Introduction: The introduction of the full paper of the work is not in place, it is difficult to clearly see the research problems, research methods.

3. Pictures: It was noticed that the variables of some pictures have the problem of upright letters, such as Figure 3 to Figure 9; In addition, it is noticed that the horizontal and vertical coordinates, coordinate axes, legend fonts of some pictures are too different from the text fonts, so it is difficult to clearly see the content of the pictures, such as Figure 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28. Meanwhile, the layout of these pictures is inconsistent, especially Figure 12 needs to be redrawn. It is suggested to further optimize the above problems to improve the readability of the picture.

4. Formula: It is noted that there are various non-standard problems in the formula in the paper: First, it is noted that the formula size of the formula with semicolons is abnormal. It is suggested to use a professional formula editor to rewrite all the formulas in the paper, rather than using the formula editor of word, to ensure that the formula is more standardized; At the same time, it is noted that the formula alignment format partially surrounded by braces can be further optimized, for example, formulas (2), (3), etc., should be left aligned; In addition, it is noted that the font size of each formula is not the same, such as formula (4) and formula (5); It is also noted that some formulas have non-standard problems such as bringing into the numerical calculation process and units, such as formula (11); It is also noted that some formulas in the paper show some problems. There are major problems in the formulae of the full paper, including but not limited to the problems listed above. It is suggested to further review the formulae of the full paper, and optimize the writing, layout, typesetting, and standardization of the formulae (the unit is upright letters, the variables are in italics, and the units in upper and lower case are executed according to the standard).

5. It has been noted that some descriptions are incomplete: there is a lack of chassis parameter tables such as engine and gearbox in the paper, and it is suggested to add them.

6. It is noted that some expressions are not clear: in 6.2.1, there is ambiguity in the analysis of longitudinal climb test results. It is suggested to further optimize the language of the paper to make the expression more accurate and reasonable;

7. It is suggested that the field drawings of trenches and barricades should be added during the test.

8. In addition, there are still many other problems in the article, such as the introduction of pictures, language expression, reference format, etc. It is suggested to review the whole article and optimize these problems.

Author Response

1. Summary

Dear Editor, Dear reviewer：

Thank you for your letter dated 4 September. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your recommendations have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript.

Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers.The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red),Marked in blue in the revised manuscript submission.

We would also like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit the revised manuscript. We wish you all the best.

                                                                                                             Sincerely authors.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Comments 1: [Is the research design appropriate?]    Can be improved

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, In this paper, the research design is divided into three main parts, which are theoretical calculations, simulation analysis, and field trials.Theoretical calculations are in Chapter 3 and 4 sections of the text, simulation analyses are in Chapter 5 section and field trials are in Chapter 6 section.In the resubmitted manuscript, the formulas in the theoretical calculations were refined and some parameters were added, such as gearbox speed, soil contact coefficient; In the simulation test, some unclear pictures were redrawn, such as Figures 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, deepening the width of the lines and adjusting the size of the pictures to increase the readability of the pictures.Optimise the presentation of the results in the simulation tests to make them more accurate and reasonable;In the field trials, pictures of the trials were added to make the article better and easier to understand, and the revisions are highlighted in blue font in the newly submitted manuscript.

Comments 2: [Are the methods adequately described?]   Can be improved

Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.The description of the research methodology has been modified somewhat, with the addition of an explanation of the formulae for the theoretical calculations and an explanation of the sources of the data;On the simulation tests, the linguistic presentation of the test results has been optimised to make the presentation more accurate and complete;A description of the methodology of the field trials and pictures of the trial sites have been added, as in Figs. 28 and 29, with specific modifications highlighted in blue in the resubmitted manuscript.

Comments 3: Are the results clearly presented?]   Can be improved

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I have revised the conclusions in relation to the content of the thesis, starting with a general statement of the specifics of the work of this study, the revised specifics of which can be found in lines 645-652 of the text;The first part describes the values of each driving performance derived from theoretical calculations, and the details of the modifications can be found in lines 653-663 of the text;The second part shows the individual values derived from the simulation tests after using the simulation software, and the details of the modifications can be found in lines 664-671 of the text;The third part is the field test validation, which gives the limit values of the travelling performance of the machine in three situations: cross-slope, over-barrier and across the ditch, and the details of the modifications can be found in lines 672-677 of the text.

Comments 4: [Are the conclusions supported by the results?]   Can be improved

Response 4:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.The conclusions of the article are supported by the research results, in which theoretical calculations, simulation experiments and field trials are carried out to validate and provide support for the results obtained,ensure the accuracy of the conclusions.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: Although the research work of the paper has been summarized to some extent, the overall summary is not in place, and the numerical results and corresponding conclusions obtained from the experiment are lacking.

Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, I have refined and added to the abstract section in the following two ways:1. The study was noted.(Firstly, mechanical analysis and theoretical calculation are carried out on the tracked chassis to get the relevant parameters of key components, and secondly, its driving performance is analysed to get the driving limit values of passing performance under different working conditions.)The specifics of the changes can be found on the first page of the text, lines 13-16.

2.The numerical results from the field trials are listed.(The simulation results were verified through field tests, and the results of the field tests showed that the harvester met the requirements of stable travelling on longitudinal slopes of 24°, climbed over a 450 mm straight wall and crossed a 1200 mm trench, which were similar to the simulation results, indicating that the simulation results were accurate and feasible, and met the design requirements for the travelling passage of the crawler potato harvester.）The specifics of the changes can be found on the first page of the text, lines 22-27.

Comments 2: Introduction: The introduction of the full paper of the work is not in place, it is difficult to clearly see the research problems, research methods.

Response 2:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I have rewritten the introduction part with the theme of the thesis and divided the introduction part into three paragraphs. In the first paragraph, the background of the research is introduced, as well as the research problem and the significance of this research, and the modified specific content can be found in lines 33-43 of the text; in the second paragraph, the development of the research and the existence of the problem to be solved are introduced, and the modified specific content can be found in lines 44-66 of the text; in the third paragraph, the content and purpose of the research are introduced, and the modified specific content can be found in lines 67-75 of the text. In the second paragraph, the development of the study, the problems to be solved, and so on, can be found in lines 44-66 of the text; in the third paragraph, the content and purpose of the study are introduced, and the revised specifics can be found in lines 67-75 of the text.

Comments 3: Pictures: It was noticed that the variables of some pictures have the problem of upright letters, such as Figure 3 to Figure 9; In addition, it is noticed that the horizontal and vertical coordinates, coordinate axes, legend fonts of some pictures are too different from the text fonts, so it is difficult to clearly see the content of the pictures, such as Figure 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28. Meanwhile, the layout of these pictures is inconsistent, especially Figure 12 needs to be redrawn. It is suggested to further optimize the above problems to improve the readability of the picture.

Response 3:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have optimised and corrected the image in the following ways: 1).For upright letters problems, modifications were made, such as Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9, in which some of the letters, such as H, G, etc., were adjusted, and the force analysis of the picture was redrawn, deepening the lines and improving the clarity of the picture, such as Figures 3 to 9; 2). For Figures 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, the legend font and the text font is adjusted to be consistent, and the lines of its horizontal and vertical coordinates are thickened;  3).Figure 12 has been redrawn, and the details of the modifications are shown in the figures in the text and labelled in blue.

Comments 4: Formula: It is noted that there are various non-standard problems in the formula in the paper: First, it is noted that the formula size of the formula with semicolons is abnormal. It is suggested to use a professional formula editor to rewrite all the formulas in the paper, rather than using the formula editor of word, to ensure that the formula is more standardized; At the same time, it is noted that the formula alignment format partially surrounded by braces can be further optimized, for example, formulas (2), (3), etc., should be left aligned; In addition, it is noted that the font size of each formula is not the same, such as formula (4) and formula (5); It is also noted that some formulas have non-standard problems such as bringing into the numerical calculation process and units, such as formula (11); It is also noted that some formulas in the paper show some problems. There are major problems in the formulae of the full paper, including but not limited to the problems listed above. It is suggested to further review the formulae of the full paper, and optimize the writing, layout, typesetting, and standardization of the formulae (the unit is upright letters, the variables are in italics, and the units in upper and lower case are executed according to the standard).

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,I have  made a number of changes to the formulas in the text, notably the following：1).All formulas in the thesis were rewritten using a formula editor to ensure greater standardisation of formulas; 2).For formulas (2), (3), made some adjustments to the left-aligned; 3).The inconsistency in the size of the formulas was checked and the font sizes were standardised; 4). Formula (11) was modified by removing the values and units brought in and placing the calculated results in Table 3. The overall modified formulas are in formulas (1)-(28) in the text.

Comments 5: It has been noted that some descriptions are incomplete: there is a lack of chassis parameter tables such as engine and gearbox in the paper, and it is suggested to add them.

Response 5:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,The parameters of the engine and gearbox have been added to the text, the engine power is 54KW and the gearbox speed is 720rpm, the modifications are in the text in Table 1, and lines 101-102.

Comments 6:  It is noted that some expressions are not clear: in 6.2.1, there is ambiguity in the analysis of longitudinal climb test results. It is suggested to further optimize the language of the paper to make the expression more accurate and reasonable.

Response 6:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,I have rewritten the analysis of the results in 6.2.1 in the context of the previous test to ensure a more precise and rational expression, and the changes are in lines 611-619 of the article.

Comments 7:  It is suggested that the field drawings of trenches and barricades should be added during the test.

Response 7:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,I have added field diagrams of trenches and barricades to the field test section, in Figures 27 and 29 in the text.

Comments 8: In addition, there are still many other problems in the article, such as the introduction of pictures, language expression, reference format, etc. It is suggested to review the whole article and optimize these problems. 

Response 8:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore,I have made the following changes: 1).I have introduced the images in the text by adding explanatory notes before each inserted image;  2). In terms of language expression, the abstract, introduction and conclusion have been optimised and embellished to achieve accurate and appropriate expression;  3). The reference format has been modified and adjusted according to the template, such as formula size, image size, line spacing, font size and other changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following opinions correspond to the specific content of the article. The overall structure of the paper does not conform to the norms of English writing. It is better to be written in the structure of introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The figures in the paper are intended to present your results and make it intuitive for readers to understand. However, in your entire paper, the fonts of the figures are too small, the lines are difficult to distinguish, and it is hard to understand. It is recommended to redraw some of the analysis figures.

1. Introduction

(1) The three major food crops in the world are usually: corn, wheat, and rice.

(2) The introduction part should highlight the main content of the article's research, and introduce the relevant research content of the tracked chassis specifically instead of generally listing the manufacturers of potato harvesters.

(3) The application of literature should be targeted and not directly quote large sections continuously, such as lines 33, 52, and 61.

(4) It is recommended to rewrite the introduction part in combination with the theme of the paper.

3. Structural and mechanical analysis of tracked chassis

(1) The force analysis in this part is not closely related to the following text. Make appropriate adjustments.

(2) There should be explanations for the large sections of formulas in the text, such as Formula 2 in line 147.

4. Crawler chassis drivability analysis

(1) The force markings in the figures are not clear, such as Figures 7, 8, and 9.

5. Simulation analysis of the passability of tracked chassis

(1) Please clearly express the road surface and soil parameters.

(2) There is no need to repeat writing "Figure" twice, such as lines 395, 411, and 412.

(3) You stated in the text that as the speed increases, the contact force between the track and the ground decreases, but it is difficult to reflect this in the figures, especially the words of the horizontal and vertical coordinates are not clear.

(4) The width of the trench should be marked in the figures to facilitate the readers' understanding. The same problem exists in other similar figures.

6. Field Experiment

(1) The content of the experiment and the simulation should correspond one by one.

(2) The displayed experimental photos are difficult to reflect the experimental content, line 615.

7. Conclusion

(1) and (2) in the conclusion cannot be regarded as conclusions.

Author Response

Comments 6: (2) There should be explanations for the large sections of formulas in the text, such as Formula 2 in line 147.

Response 6:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I've added an explanation of Formula 2 on line 147, and the specifics of the change are in lines 152-155 of the article.

Comments 7:  Crawler chassis drivability analysis

(1) The force markings in the figures are not clear, such as Figures 7, 8, and 9

Response 7:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I have redrawn Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9, where the force markings were unclear, improved the clarity of the pictures, thickened the depth of the lines, and labelled the different forces with a colour differentiation, and the revised Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 are in rows 266, 299-300, 344 and 361 of the text.

Comments 8:Simulation analysis of the passability of tracked chassis

(1) Please clearly express the road surface and soil parameters.

Response 8:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I added Table 5 ‘Clayey soil Contact Parameter’ . to the text. The details can be found on line 385 in the text.

Comments 9: (2) There is no need to repeat writing "Figure" twice, such as lines 395, 411, and 412.

Response 9:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.In the first submission, the author has finished the revision in the uploaded word manuscript, but forgot to update the upload in the PDF, resulting in the disturbance to your reading, I would like to sincerely apologise to you, based on this issue you raised, I have read the article carefully and checked the corrections, and deleted the repetition of the representation of the picture.

Comments 10: (3) You stated in the text that as the speed increases, the contact force between the track and the ground decreases, but it is difficult to reflect this in the figures, especially the words of the horizontal and vertical coordinates are not clear.

Response 10:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.For the issue of unclear text in the horizontal and vertical coordinates, the image was re-uploaded, the font was increased, and the image was enlarged.

Comments 11: The width of the trench should be marked in the figures to facilitate the readers' understanding. The same problem exists in other similar figures.

Response 11:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.The width of the trench, the number of degrees of slope, and the height of the barrier are indicated before the test conditions, which are described in lines 451, 490, 525 and 554 of the text.Because the simulation picture to add size marking will have a certain impact on the perception of the overall pattern, so did not make the marking in the simulation picture.Only the author's personal opinion, if you think it's better after the change, I will adjust it in time subsequently, sincerely apologise.

Comments 12:  Field Experiment

(1) The content of the experiment and the simulation should correspond one by one.

Response 12:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.Therefore, I have added some of the field test pictures, which are the climbing, barrier-crossing and trench-crossing diagrams, such as Fig. 27b and Fig. 29, and made a one-to-one correspondence with the simulation test, and the details of the modifications are in lines 607 and 631 of the text.

Comments 13: (2) The displayed experimental photos are difficult to reflect the experimental content, line 615.

Response 13:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment.I have therefore changed the picture on line 615, replacing it with a photograph that corresponds to the content of the test, and the changed picture is on line 607 in the text.

Comments 14: 7. Conclusion

(1) and (2) in the conclusion cannot be regarded as conclusions.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, Therefore, I have revised the conclusions in relation to the content of the thesis, starting with a general statement of the specifics of the work of this study, the revised specifics of which can be found in lines 645-652 of the text; The conclusions are restructured into three parts, the first of which describes the theoretically calculated values for each driving performance, the details of the modifications can be found in lines 653-663 of the text; The second part shows the individual values derived from the simulation tests after using the simulation software, and the details of the modifications can be found in lines 664-671 of the text; The third part is the field test validation, which gives the limiting values of the travelling performance of the machine in three cases: cross-slope, over-barrier, and across a trenched area, and the details of the modifications can be found in lines 672-677 of the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors,

Dear Reviewers,

The article submitted for review meets the formal requirements of the editorial office and the nature of scientific work. The problem of potato harvesters was the subject of research by many authors from many Asian and European countries, however, the idea presented by the Authors is original and very interesting. Therefore, I believe that the work should be published in your journal.

The justification is poor in foreign literature, there are many interesting items on this subject on which it would be worth basing your initial considerations. This should be refined. The purpose and scope are correct for this type of work. I miss the methodology of the work - a short summary of the works in the form of stages of theoretical and experimental incidences. The theoretical analysis (of operational calculations), simulation and field calculations conducted by the Authors is correct in terms of methodology. The conclusions are also correct and respond to the stated purpose of the work.

Comments on the work:

1. supplementation of the literature

2. is this an original design or did the Authors base it on an existing solution? (l.72)

3. why was a petrol engine installed in the machine and not a diesel engine? (l.93)

4. the assumed constant or variable indicators in the operational calculations (l.194-230) should be supported by the literature - on what basis did the Authors assume these indicators?

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf