Discrete Meta-Simulation of Silage Based on RSM and GA-BP-GA Optimization Parameter Calibration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the methodology to calibrate the DE model and GA algorithm parameters. The results are explained in a sound way and is recommended to be considered for publication in this Journal.

The following suggestions are given for improvement.

1) In the Section 4, The introduction about the GA-BP-GA model is not sufficient for readers to digest. It is understandable that GA-BP is successfully applied. What are the difference between Section 4.2 and 4.3? What are the logical relation between Section 4.2 and 4.3? What are the parameters of genetic Algorithm, which are needed for algorithm optimization? At least, a flowchat to describe section 4 is necessary.

2)in Page 8, a typo "adj" before " which was 0.9291.

3) in Page 9, after Eq.6, "Where" shall be "where"

4)in Page 11, "the The contours" shall be "the countours".

5) How did fitness was calculated?

The English quality is good.

Author Response

Dear reviewer ：

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. You have corrected all aspects of the structure, content, research methods and results of my paper, which will play a very important role in improving the quality of my paper.

I have carefully read the comments of the reviewer and carefully revised the paper item by item according to the suggestions，Please see the attachment.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and correcting my revised paper again. I hope we can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help. I sincerely hope that my paper can be published in your journal.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper submitted for review is dedicated to а developed a discrete element model of silage to address the lack of silage evidence parameters and contact parameters between silage and conveying equipment when using the discrete element method to simulate and analyse crucial aspects of silage conveying and feeding. Physical tests and simulation are performed and used to calibrate the significant parameters, and the silage stacking angle obtained from simulation and tests was then validated. The response value of the stacking angle (38.65°) obtained from the physical examination was used as the response value. The response surface (RSM) finding and the GA finding based on the genetic algorithm (GA) artificial neural network (BP) model were used to compare the significance parameters. The PB and steepest climb tests were used to screen the significant factors. The results demonstrated that the static friction coefficient between silage-silage, the rolling friction coefficient between silage-silage, and the static friction coefficient between silage-steel body were the factors that significantly influenced the numerical simulation of the stacking angle. 

The article is organized as follows: Section I is introduction. Section II contains the material and methods. Section III shows the RSM tests. Section 4 presents GA optimization based on the GA-BP model. The Conclusions are presented in Section V.

In accordance with the organization of the article I will make the following recommendations:

Abstract:

The abstract is too large and contains too many circumstances regarding both the introduction and the analysis of the results. I recommend shortening and adding the main contribution of the article.

I.             Introduction:

1.   At the end of the introduction there is no clearly stated the main purpose of the article.

II.           Material and methods:

2.1.      Figure 1 is too small and does not clearly show the structural features of the silage.

2.2.      I recommend enlarging Figure 4 and labeling the main components of the experimental system.

2.3.      Please define which version of MATLAB was used, as well for other software packages mentioned.

III.         RSM tests.

I have no comments or recommendations for this section.

IV.         GA optimization based on the GA-BP model.

4.1. I recommend showing a block diagram of the genetic algorithm that shows the relationship between the input-output parameters.

V.          Conclusions:

I have no comments or recommendations for this section..

Author Response

Dear reviewer ：

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. You have corrected all aspects of the structure, content, research methods and results of my paper, which will play a very important role in improving the quality of my paper.

I have carefully read the comments of the reviewer and carefully revised the paper item by item according to the suggestions，Please see the attachment.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and correcting my revised paper again. I hope we can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help. I sincerely hope that my paper can be published in your journal.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The method for determining the angle of static friction is well known, it is necessary to present in the results obtained the variation of this parameter with a change in the degree of silage grinding.

2. It is necessary to present the relevance and feasibility of conducting research on discrete silo metamodeling based on RSM and GA-BP-GA

3. It is necessary to present the results of studies with varying the thickness of the silo layer on the change in the coefficients of static friction silo-silo (D), rolling friction silo and static friction silo-steel.

4. It is necessary to reflect in the manuscript the name of the optical means used in the research, as well as their technical characteristics.

5. The manuscript must reflect the prospects for further use of the research results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer ：

First of all, thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. You have corrected all aspects of the structure, content, research methods and results of my paper, which will play a very important role in improving the quality of my paper.

I have carefully read the comments of the reviewer and carefully revised the paper item by item according to the suggestions，Please see the attachment.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and correcting my revised paper again. I hope we can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help. I sincerely hope that my paper can be published in your journal.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf