Measurement and Calibration of the Parameters for Discrete Element Method Modeling of Rapeseed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a useful paper but it is not easy to follow exactly what has been done.  A lot of data is presented but it is not finally summarised as a table of values that are the used in the simulation.

In table 8 the response to working speed is distinctively non-linear and it is very impressive that the simulation matches the experimental data so closely.  It is not clear though whether the same parameters have been used in each simulation.  It would be interesting to have a discussion, or at least a comment, on the trend.  Also, there are three materials that are considered - not clear which features in this validation.   It would have been interesting to show the sensitivity of the simulation to the parameters used.

Table 7 is not useful and it is particularly unclear how you go from the data in table 7 to eq 5.  The factors need to be defined more frequently - especially in table captions.   It is not clear what is finally concluded from this.  Have the interparticle parameters been identified?  They should be tabulated.  I think that the idea is to measure coeff of restitution, sliding friction and angle of repose then determine which interpaticle properties give the best fit to angle of repose when the 1st two parameters are used.  But this is not clear.

I have added sticky note comments for typos in the uploaded pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

Sincerely,

Xiulong Cao (Ph. D).

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: In table 8 the response to working speed is distinctively non-linear and it is very impressive that the simulation matches the experimental data so closely. It is not clear though whether the same parameters have been used in each simulation. It would be interesting to have a discussion, or at least a comment, on the trend. Also, there are three materials that are considered - not clear which features in this validation. It would have been interesting to show the sensitivity of the simulation to the parameters used.

Response 1: The optimal combination of parameters is used as the simulation input parameters for each simulation. There is some ambiguity here and the statement have been modified to make the description clearer in line 404. Also, we have added a discussion in lines 406-414.

A rapeseed metering device, which was made of the three materials, was simulated at varying working speed. The experimental results can be used to prove the accuracy and reliability of the parameters between rapeseed and three common materials. And we have added a sensitivity analysis of simulation parameters in lines 387-398.

Point 2: Table 7 is not useful and it is particularly unclear how you go from the data in table 7 to eq 5. The factors need to be defined more frequently - especially in table captions.   It is not clear what is finally concluded from this.  Have the interparticle parameters been identified? They should be tabulated. I think that the idea is to measure coeff of restitution, sliding friction and angle of repose then determine which interpaticle properties give the best fit to angle of repose when the 1st two parameters are used. But this is not clear.

Response 2: Equation 5 is obtained from the simulation results in Table 6 by using Design Expert software for multiple regression analysis.

We have redefined the headings of Tables 6 and 7 as described in Tables 6 and 7.

Based on the data in Table 7, we can know the significance of the model, each factor and interaction term, as well as the degree of coincidence between the predicted value of the established regression equation and the actual value.

The inter particle parameters are identified in Section 3.3.

Problems in PDF files:

Point 1: complete the sentence.

Response 1: We have revised the sentence.

Point 2: root sign missing in denominator.

Response 2: We have added the denominator to equation (3).

Point 3: was parallax considered?

Response 3: When the high-speed camera was used to capture the bouncing height of rapeseed, the high-speed camera was positioned perpendicular to the background plate and the test platform. The bouncing height of rapeseed obtained for all tests were the heights taken vertically from the front. So this paper does not consider the bouncing height of seeds at other locations.

Point 4: dimensions different to text# should also show the coordinate axes referred to in the text

Response 4: The 300×300 mm (line 193) is written incorrectly, and we are sorry for not paying attention for this. The actual size corresponds to the size of Figure 5d, and we have revised it in the revised manuscript.

Point 5: does this mean lifted?  be clear

Response 5: The hollow cylinder was moved along the positive direction of the Z-axis with a speed of 0.01 m/s to complete the whole accumulating process. This means that the hollow cylinder was lifted along the positive direction of Z-axis at a speed of 0.01 m/s. There is some ambiguity here and the statement have been modified to make the description clearer in line 214.

Point 6: HDP?

Response 6: The HDP has been changed to HDPE throughout the text.

Point 7: Are all components manufactured from the same material?

Response 7: The rapeseed metering device includes a hopper, seed-wheel, and seed protection board. They are made of aluminum alloy, acrylic, and HDPE, respectively. Each component is made of different materials. This has been clarified in the revised manuscript (lines 253-255).

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a paper without any significance and written in eratic way with very bad English expression. This makes necessary substantial correction of the English language and expression by a native speaker before proceed in review

I provide hereafter some typical examples of bad English

LINES 30-33. This paragraph does not make any sense and the English expression is  very bad.

LINES 35-36 DEM is increasingly used in industrial and agricultural equipment [2–5].

Here is another example of bad English expression not in Agricultural equipment as is definitely not a part of them but may in the agricultural equipment design????

LINES 36-37 DEM is applied to study the dynamics of granular particles, which have become a development trend [6–8].

That is another hanging sentence with bad English expression

LINES 82-83 This study provides a basis for simulating the flow  and force studies of rapeseed in real working conditions

Once again a bad English expression  we do not simulate studies!!!

LINES 92-93 The moisture content of the samples was determined using moisture

 analyzer DHS-16(Shanghai Grows Instruments Co., Ltd.).

What was the variation of this measurement????

LINE 156 Due to the small particle size of rapeseed and is a bulk material.

Another paradigm of bad English language

Following the above results I suggest major revision and reconsideration

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. We have maked English editing services to the manuscript on the official website of the journal, taking into account the English expression of the manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.

Sincerely,

Xiulong Cao (Ph. D).

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: LINES 30-33. This paragraph does not make any sense and the English expression is very bad.

Response 1: we have revised it in the revised manuscript (lines 30-33).

Point 2: LINES 35-36. DEM is increasingly used in industrial and agricultural equipment [2–5]. Here is another example of bad English expression not in Agricultural equipment as is definitely not a part of them but may in the agricultural equipment design????

Response 2: we have revised it in the revised manuscript (lines 38-39).

Point 3: LINES 36-37. DEM is applied to study the dynamics of granular particles, which have become a development trend [6–8]. That is another hanging sentence with bad English expression

Response 3: we have revised it in the revised manuscript (lines 40-41).

Point 4: LINES 82-83. This study provides a basis for simulating the flow and force studies of rapeseed in real working conditions. Once again a bad English expression  we do not simulate studies!!!

Response 4: we have revised it in the revised manuscript (lines 86).

Point 5: LINES 92-93. The moisture content of the samples was determined using moisture. analyzer DHS-16(Shanghai Grows Instruments Co., Ltd.). What was the variation of this measurement????

Response 5: The analyzer is heated and dried by a halogen lamp. During the drying process, the analyzer continuously measures the weight of the sample and instantly displays the percentage moisture content lost by the sample. After drying is completed, the final measured moisture content value, is locked and displayed. This has been clarified in the revised manuscript (lines 98-102).

Point 6: LINE 156. Due to the small particle size of rapeseed and is a bulk material. Another paradigm of bad English language

Response 6: we have revised it in the revised manuscript (line 165).

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The English language has been improved as well as the content of the manuscript in generaL and so recommend publication