Development and Testing of the Adaptive Control System for Profiling Grain Header

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. As the authors have discussed in the manuscript, At present, the profiling control system can only control the lift of the cutting table in the vertical direction, but not the horizontal direction and the angle of the cutter profiling. This study propose a contouring control strategy and system for grain harvesting.  It is suggested to propose the “contouring control strategy” in the title. So, the readers can catch the innovative researches of this manuscript.

2. The introduction part needs to be refined. The research works of the references should be introduced in more simple words. It is suggested to add more references to support your idea.

3. It is suggested to improve Figure 4 to make it more clear.

4. Figures 12 and Figure 13 are not clear. They should be improved.

5. Do the simulation results can be verified by the field test ? Is there any relationship between the simulation results and the field test results?

6. The conclusion part should be improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this paper is readable. It can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript highlights a critical issue in combine harvesters—adaptive profiling in both vertical and horizontal directions for consistent stubble height. This is a relevant problem for improving agricultural efficiency. The use of an adaptive control strategy with hydraulic actuation is innovative and addresses the challenge of irregular terrains effectively. Employing Amesim for simulation provides credibility to the design process.

1.      The abstract and main sections contain numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and redundant statements, which hinder readability. A professional language edit is strongly recommended.

2.      Many sentences are overly long and combine multiple ideas, making them difficult to follow. Breaking them into shorter, clearer sentences would improve comprehension.

3.      Key experimental details, such as the calibration procedures for static tests and a detailed description of the terrain used in field tests, are missing. Including these would enhance the reproducibility of the findings.

4.      The simulation setup using Amesim software requires a more detailed explanation, including the specific models employed and any assumptions made during the process.

5.      Although the results are described in detail, they lack adequate interpretation. Providing insights into the implications of these results would strengthen the manuscript.

6.      Comparing the field results to benchmarks or existing systems would provide a clearer context for evaluating the performance of the proposed system.

7.      The accuracy of the control system is highly dependent on the response times and stability of the hydraulic circuits. The manuscript should discuss how system damping was optimized and whether hysteresis in the valves had any impact on performance.

8.      While the manuscript mentions the use of angle sensors, it lacks details about their precision, range, and environmental robustness. Including information on the sensor calibration process is essential for ensuring consistent accuracy.

9.      The discussion section should link the findings to practical, real-world applications, such as the potential benefits to farmers in terms of cost, efficiency, and crop yields.

10.  The manuscript should address the performance of the system under varying soil conditions (e.g., wet, dry, uneven surfaces) and on steeper gradients (>30%). If such tests were not conducted, this limitation should be acknowledged.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The abstract and main sections contain numerous grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and redundant statements, which hinder readability. A professional language edit is strongly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your paper presents valuable insights into the development of an adaptive control system for profiling grain headers in combine harvesters. Your work addresses a significant challenge in agricultural engineering, has the potential to enhance harvesting efficiency. I have attached my comments and suggestions for improvement within the PDF of your paper. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We are extremely grateful for the valuable suggestions you have given to this paper. In accordance with your suggestions, our team has carried out in - depth discussions. We have made detailed revisions to the paper based on your precious advice, and the revised content is marked in red in the paper. Thank you for your re - review, and we are looking forward to your reply. Please enter "Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the revised version is well prepared with reviewers comments (1 rd). However, I recommend enhancing the discussion section by incorporating comparisons with other studies in the field. which provide a broader context for your findings and strengthen the overall argument of your paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf