Justification of the Design and Operating Parameters of the Improved Disc Grain Crusher

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

In the manuscript, the authors provided an innovative Justification of the design and operating parameters of the improved disc grain crusher. Congratulations on that. Furthermore, in order to enrich the work, I proposed the following suggestions:

Please shorten the abstract according to the instructions for authors, maximum 200 words. Please be careful not to lose the scientific thought regarding the results presented in the abstract.

After line 58, please state which grains are most commonly used in disc mills and support with a quote.

In the introduction, if there is research on the topic of the manuscript, please add more to enrich your introduction.

Please enlarge the sizes of images 1, 4 and 5 so that they are more visible and clearer to follow while reading the text.

Please enlarge Figure 7 and insert an arrow from each number towards the component to make it more visible.

Please create a table at the end of the results with a summary of the results (only the most important points of your research).

The discussion is well written, but we ask that you create a discussion in the form of a table after line 498 in which you directly compare your research with other relevant research, for a better overview.

Please, after line 538, describe the future of your research and the connection with production, specifically with mill manufacturers, what is the benefit of your research to them.

Best regards

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments. We hope we have understood your suggestions correctly and have addressed all the issues mentioned in the reviews.

 

1. The abstract has been shortened.
2. The main types of grains most commonly used in disk grinders have been added.
3. Additional information has been included in the Introduction to enrich its content.
4. The sizes of Figures 1, 4, and 5 have been increased.
5. Figure 7 has been corrected.
6. At the end of the section, Table 2 has been created to briefly summarize the main conclusions.
7. Table 3 has been added to directly compare the results of our study with other relevant works.
8. Future research directions have been included.

Respectfully,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study presents a valuable integration of DEM modeling and experimental optimization for grain crushing, with clear practical relevance. The work is well-structured and methodologically sound, but there are several points that should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. Consider professional editing or assistance from a native English speaker. Also, please standardize terminology (e.g., use “impact plates” consistently instead of alternating with “impact liners”).
2. Equations (24) and (34) are not sufficiently explained. The symbols and their physical meanings are unclear, which may hinder reader comprehension.Provide a nomenclature table or appendix listing all symbols, units, and definitions used in the equations.
3. While both DEM and experimental results are presented, the direct comparison between simulated and measured values is underdeveloped.Add a dedicated subsection or table comparing DEM-predicted parameters (e.g., disc speed, plate angle) with experimental optima, and discuss possible reasons for discrepancies.
4. Several figures (e.g., Figures 8–11) lack sufficient detail in their captions. The practice of halving values for visualization should be explicitly stated to avoid misinterpretation. Improve figure captions by clearly describing variables, units, and any scaling applied.
5. The discussion section currently summarizes results but does not sufficiently critique or contextualize them within the broader literature.Strengthen the discussion by comparing your findings with prior studies in more depth, especially regarding how grain-specific physical properties influence optimal crushing parameters.
6. The calibration process for the DEM bond model is briefly mentioned but lacks detail.Include more information on how the tensile and shear strength values were experimentally determined and how they were mapped to the DEM bond failure criteria.
7. The manuscript would be strengthened by a brief acknowledgment of the study’s limitations (e.g., model simplifications, moisture not varied).Add a short paragraph in the conclusion or discussion outlining limitations and suggesting directions for future research.

Author Response

We would like to thank the esteemed reviewers for their valuable comments. We hope we have understood your suggestions correctly and have addressed all the issues mentioned in the reviews.

1. The terminology has been revised.
2. Explanations have been provided for Equations (24) and (34).
3. Table 3 presents a comparison between simulation and experimental results; its description has been expanded.
4. Captions have been added to Figures 8–11.
5. Table 4 has been added to directly compare the results of our study with other relevant research.
6. The process of calibrating the DEM bond model has been described in more detail.
7. The conclusions now include the study’s limitations and proposed directions for further research.

Respectfully,

The Authors