Test and Optimization of Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus L.) Threshing Device Based on DEM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

 All comments and questions are included in the manuscript 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Respond to reviewer 1

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in yellow highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1. Comment 1: please standardise the physical units.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, we have revised the unit of measurement in the manuscript, please review the revised draft.

2. Comment 2: Citation error

Answer: We corrected the citation errors in the manuscript.

3. Comment 3: Wrong number

Answer: We corrected the wrong number of referenced in the manuscript.

4. Comment 4: why bold

Answer: Bold is to highlight the position of the figures and tables. If is not necessary, we have removed the bold.

5. Comment 5: Please check the numbering of the literature as there are errors, e.g. "7" is missing

Answer: We checked the numbering of the literature, and corrected errors.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper designs a 360° inclusive angle rotating threshing concave plate for the problems arising in rape combine harvesters, which can effectively reduce the indexes of rape seed breaking rate and threshing loss rate and analyses the influence of relevant structural parameters on the movement characteristics of rape seeds by DEM and optimizes the working and structural parameters of rape threshing device with the help of field tests, which is innovative. The specific comments are as follows.

（1）It is recommended to add parameters for the characteristics of rape straw growth, such as statistical length of rape growth, stubble height, branch height, outer and inner diameter of the straw, etc. Simplification is done based on the statistical results, the length, outer diameter and inner diameter of the straw after simplification.

（2）Several variables in equation (1) are unclear, e.g. Fn, Ft, Mn and Mt, and Please check the description of the formula variables in full paper.

（3）The values of the specific parameters in Table 1 are missing. Please check the specific values of the parameters in the table in full paper.

（4）Figure 3 does not marked sieves, the guide plate, a shaft, a spreading disc, a screw feeding head, and threshing parts.

（5）The simulation results were not properly analysed in section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Author Response

Respond to reviewer 2

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in yellow highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1. Comment 1: It is recommended to add parameters for the characteristics of rape straw growth, such as statistical length of rape growth, stubble height, branch height, outer and inner diameter of the straw, etc. Simplification is done based on the statistical results, the length, outer diameter and inner diameter of the straw after simplification.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, we added the physical parameters of rape samples in Section 2.1, as shown in Line 103-106.

2. Comment 2: Several variables in equation (1) are unclear, e.g. Fn, Ft, Mn and Mt, and Please check the description of the formula variables in full paper.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, we added the description of these variables.

3. Comment 3: The values of the specific parameters in Table 1 are missing. Please check the specific values of the parameters in the table in full paper.

Answer: Thank you for reminding us, it's our negligence, and we added the values of the parameters in Table 1 and Table 2.

4. Comment 4: Figure 3 does not marked sieves, the guide plate, a shaft, a spreading disc, a screw feeding head, and threshing parts.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, we added the marks in Figure 3.

5. Comment 5: The simulation results were not properly analysed in section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we added further analysis of the results in sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. as shown in Line 208-217 and Line 242-270.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find attached my comments. I have also produced 2 other documents: a PDF of document with annotations, and a revised Abstract with suggestions as to how you might improve it. I have emailed the latter 2 documents directly to the editor, because the Review Report Form will only allow me to attach one file, not all three.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in yellow highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1- Make sure you state DEM in full before you use DEM i.e. …discrete element method (DEM) ….

Quote the Latin name for oilseed rape in brackets at the start of the paper.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion. In the introduction, we added the description of discrete element method (DEM) and modified the "oilseed rape".

We have also revised some grammar and word suggestions you mentioned and marked them in yellow. Here are some answers to the key questions you mentioned.

2- 63 What does The oilseed rape threshing device   refer to? The one used in this study?

Change borrowed to the same as

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we modified as " Most of the existing oilseed rape threshing devices on the market refer to mature threshing devices for wheat, rice, and corn." It does not refer to the device mentioned in this paper but to some common threshing devices at present.

3- 81 what do you mean by spike?

82 what are pinchers?

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. spike refers to ear, "pinchers" refers to pods.

4- 83 to 89. Why did you model it this way? References 16 and 17 are not for oilseed rape. How do you know it is a good model?

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. In discrete element simulation software, although the closer the model is to the actual object, the more accurate the simulation results will be, this will cause a huge amount of calculation and even lead to the collapse of the calculation software. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a simplified model to avoid this problem. Many studies have verified the reliability of the simplified model. Please review the revised manuscript, line110-124.

5- Consider deleting lines 93 to 104

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion. These formulas and descriptions mainly explain the working principle of Hertz-Mindlin with bonding, the parameters of which must be set in the simulation software. I think it is necessary to keep these descriptions.

6- For Table 4, has anybody else modelled oilseed rape in the literature? If so, how do your values compare with theirs?

Answer: According to the literature, there is no report on rape plant modeling at present, and we are the first to do this research.

7. Comment: 125-141 Is tis system specifically designed for oilseed rape, or for rice, or for both?

Answer: The system is specifically designed for oilseed rape.

8. Comment: Figure 5. What is the function of the Miscellaneous area?

Answer: the miscellaneous area is where impurities such as hulls and broken stalks are discharged out of the device.

9. Comment: 166. Quantify “growing well”, “plant density” and the “height difference”

Answer: It was shown in revised manuscript line 110-114.

10. Comment: 186. Did you measure the actual seed-stalk breaking force? Has anybody else ie in the literature?

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion. Unfortunately, we haven't done the actual seed-stalk breaking force, and no one has done the seed-stalk breaking test on rape plants at present. This simulation value is a reference result, so we will research breaking force in the future.

11. Comment: 184 to 192 is simply repeating what is in Table 6.

Consider splitting Figure 7 into two Figures, one for the simulation i.e. currently (a), and one for the tree results graphs.

Put Table & before Figure 8 i.e. as per the order in the text.

Figure 8 = consider splitting into two Figures: see comments for Figure 7.

210 to 219 is simply the same data as in Table 7.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. We followed them and made appropriate supplementary explanations. For the first time, we conducted a simulation study of a rotatable rape threshing device. Therefore, no relevant literature supports our research results, so it is difficult to explain some of these phenomena, but we still try our best to make them clear to readers.

12. Comment: Table 8. Remember that all Figures and Tables should be able to be understood without reference to the main body text e.g. what dies the Number refer to? Did you have random plots? What is A, B, and C?.

Answer: Number refers to test number, A refers to threshing cylinder speed, B refers to concave plate speed, and C refers to guide plate angle.

13. Comment: Tables 9 and 10. Is this for the field experiments? If so, what does “Model” mean in the Table?

Answer: Tables 9 and 10 is for the field experiments, model means regression model. The analysis results in the table are calculated by Design Expert software according to references 26 and 27.

14. Comment: 239-242 = delete.

Answer: I'm sorry that we cannot accept this comment because line239-242 is a crucial range for judging the analysis results.

15. Comment: 242-257. Improve the reporting of your statistical information i.e. as per how it is done in refereed journal papers.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we have supplemented the statistical information in Table 9 and Table 10, as shown in line315-340 of revised manuscript.

16. Comment: 274. Do you mean Table 11, not 9?

Should 270-end of Table 11 be moved to section 3.2.1? Part of your filed experiment results.

Table 11. What does Number refer to? You have 1 to 5. Are these the same numbers as 1 to 17 in Table 8?

Answer: Table 9 shows the results of the orthogonal field test, and Table 11 shows the verification test results. The orthogonal field test obtains the influence law of various factors on oilseed rape combine harvester, and the verification test tests the operation effect of optimized parameter combination. There are two different test.

The verification test was repeated five times, Number refers to "the number of each test".

17. Comment: Your DISCUSSION should include references i.e. how do your results compare with what other people have found?

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We combined RESULTS with DISCUSSIONS, and we also added the comparison of references for the convenience of analyzing and discussing the results. Please review the revised manuscript.

18. Comment: Rewrite you CONCLUSIONS to make them clear and concise. Were you the first people to successfully model oilseed rape using Altair EDEM. If so, say so.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion, we rewrite CONCLUSIONS. The innovation of this study is stated, the results and conclusions are summarized, and the planning of future work is added according to the opinions of other reviewers.

19. Comment: The reference list needs widening to include applicable references from all round the world.

Answer: Rape is mainly planted in China, so most of the research results on rape harvesting machinery are published by Chinese people, we have collected as much information as possible from all over the world, and added them in revised manuscript.  Please review it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting study about the design and experimentation of a rape threshing device based on DEM

1) The authors need to mention what DEM stands for in the first part of their paper first before they start using the term DEM.

2) Under Table 1, the subject "value" is empty. Is there missing information there? If so, please fill it up. If not, please clarify why it is so in the text. If it is better to remove it, then please do so. A similar comment applies to Table 3.

3) Table 2 is mentioned in the main text, but there is no Table 2 shown. I believe this is because the table numbering is incorrect (Table 3 is shown, but it is in fact, Table 2). Please rectify this. After rectifying this, please check and modify the other table numberings, both in the captions and in the main text.

4) I was unable to find the number of samples used for the analysis. How many samples were collected? Please mention this in the methodology and results.

5) I am guessing that variables A, B, and C refer to the force of the particles, velocity of particles, and seed-stalk bonding bond braking force respectively. However, I believe the indicators A, B, and C are not defined accordingly in the paper.

6) Was the assumption of normality for the standard residuals of the regressions fulfilled? Was the equality of variance fulfilled? These are indicators to check before we claim that the regression or ANOVA is valid. You don't have to show the data or analysis of these indicators, but at least please mention them in the main text.

7) The discussion needs to contain some references to compare or at least peripherally compare the results of the study with findings from other papers. If a one-to-one comparison is not possible, then an indirect or peripheral comparison should be made, or at least a discussion that compares the outcome of this study with the outcome of other studies. If such a comparison is not done in the discussion, it will make this paper look like a technical report rather than a research article.

8) In the conclusion, I was only able to see the major findings of the paper. Did the paper fulfill its aim, which was to "improve the threshing concave plate of rape harvesters to improve the performance and efficiency of rape separation"? If so, then a statement outlining the fulfillment of this aim is needed. Also, what are the limitations of this study? And where are the "directions for future research"? These two sections are needed in the conclusion.

9) Unfortunately, throughout the paper, I was unable to detect any design process. I was only able to observe the testing and optimisation of the device. Therefore, I propose that the authors discuss with each other and modify the paper's title. My suggestion is to consider "The experimentation and optimisation of a rape threshing device based on DEM".

10) Please standardise the use of British or American English throughout the paper.

11) The level of communication, sentence structure, and grammar in this paper are below average. But the quality of research work is acceptable and suitable for this journal. I advise the authors to get this paper proofread with an official proofreading services provider.

Thank you and all the best.

Author Response

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in yellow highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1. Comment 1: The authors need to mention what DEM stands for in the first part of their paper first before they start using the term DEM.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, this is our negligence. We added the introduction of DEM in the first part of this paper. Please view the revised manuscript.

2. Comment 2: Under Table 1, the subject "value" is empty. Is there missing information there? If so, please fill it up. If not, please clarify why it is so in the text. If it is better to remove it, then please do so. A similar comment applies to Table 3.

Answer: Thank you for reminding us, this is our negligence. In the revised draft, we have supplemented the missing values in Table 1 and Table 3.

3. Comment 3: Table 2 is mentioned in the main text, but there is no Table 2 shown. I believe this is because the table numbering is incorrect (Table 3 is shown, but it is in fact, Table 2). Please rectify this. After rectifying this, please check and modify the other table numberings, both in the captions and in the main text.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we corrected this mistakes.

4. Comment 3: I was unable to find the number of samples used for the analysis. How many samples were collected? Please mention this in the methodology and results.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we measured the physical characteristics of 100 rape plants, which we added in 2.1 section, as shown in Line 103-106.

5. Comment: I am guessing that variables A, B, and C refer to the force of the particles, velocity of particles, and seed-stalk bonding bond braking force respectively. However, I believe the indicators A, B, and C are not defined accordingly in the paper.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. A, B, and C is threshing cylinder speed, B is concave plate speed, and C is guide plate angle. The meaning of these letters have been defined in Table 5, but we added comments after Table 8 to avoid misunderstanding.

6. Was the assumption of normality for the standard residuals of the regressions fulfilled? Was the equality of variance fulfilled? These are indicators to check before we claim that the regression or ANOVA is valid. You don't have to show the data or analysis of these indicators, but at least please mention them in the main text.

Answer: Thank to your suggestion. The standard residual error of the regression is analyzed by Design Expert software, which satisfies the hypothesis of normality and normal distribution, and the variance is equal, indicating that the model is stable and effective. This inspection is supplemented in Line303-305.

7) The discussion needs to contain some references to compare or at least peripherally compare the results of the study with findings from other papers. If a one-to-one comparison is not possible, then an indirect or peripheral comparison should be made, or at least a discussion that compares the outcome of this study with the outcome of other studies. If such a comparison is not done in the discussion, it will make this paper look like a technical report rather than a research article.

Answer: Thanks to sincere experts for their suggestions. We think it is also necessary to write content, so we made relevant supplements and explanations and compared them with other people's research methods and results, as shown in 4. Discussion.

8) In the conclusion, I was only able to see the major findings of the paper. Did the paper fulfill its aim, which was to "improve the threshing concave plate of rape harvesters to improve the performance and efficiency of rape separation"? If so, then a statement outlining the fulfillment of this aim is needed. Also, what are the limitations of this study? And where are the "directions for future research"? These two sections are needed in the conclusion.

Answer: Thanks to sincerely for your suggestions. We also supplemented this part, as shown in 3.1.1 section and 3.1.2 section.

9) Unfortunately, throughout the paper, I was unable to detect any design process. I was only able to observe the testing and optimisation of the device. Therefore, I propose that the authors discuss with each other and modify the paper's title. My suggestion is to consider "The experimentation and optimisation of a rape threshing device based on DEM".

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion, we decided to accept, because there is another study on the equipment design process. To avoid conflict with other achievements, this study focuses on the research of the threshing mechanism and the simulation optimization of parameters. Therefore, we changed the title of this paper to "Experiment and optimization of a rapid threshing device based on DEM".

10) Please standardise the use of British or American English throughout the paper.

Answer: Thanks to the your correction, we revised the language of the paper.

11) The level of communication, sentence structure, and grammar in this paper are below average. But the quality of research work is acceptable and suitable for this journal. I advise the authors to get this paper proofread with an official proofreading services provider.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestions, we optimized the paper's language, sentence structure and grammar.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments to the Author

The manuscript titled "Design and experiment of rape threshing device based on DEM" is well written and the results are interesting. To support for publication, the author should revise as comment below.

1- The novelty of this work is not clear; so it needs more justification.

2- There are some grammatical and spelling errors that need to address throughout the manuscript.

3- Nomenclature needs to be provided for clearing the ambiguity of short forms for the benefit of the readers.

4- Results and discussions should emphasize the contribution of the current work in the respective area of research with justifications. The result section needs more technical discussion.

5- Discussion; author should compare the finding of present study with previous study and justify for more clarity.

6- Author should add separate section regarding future outlook and specific comment point wise based on their study.

Author Response

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in yellow highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1- The novelty of this work is not clear; so it needs more justification.

Answer: Thanks to your suggestion. We have revised the introduction, emphasizing the innovation of the rotatable threshing concave plate with a 360° wrap angle and the novelty of this work.

2- There are some grammatical and spelling errors that need to address throughout the manuscript.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We corrected these errors in the revised manuscript.

3- Nomenclature needs to be provided for clearing the ambiguity of short forms for the benefit of the readers.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the introduction of short forms.

4- Results and discussions should emphasize the contribution of the current work in the respective area of research with justifications. The result section needs more technical discussion.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We added technical discussion in Results, as shown in 3.1.1 section and 3.1.2 section.

5- Discussion; author should compare the finding of present study with previous study and justify for more clarity.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We added the comparation of present study and this study, as shown in Discussion.

6- Author should add separate section regarding future outlook and specific comment point wise based on their study.

Answer: Thanks for your suggestion. We added future outlook and specific comment point wise in Conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

By editing the manuscript, the authors have introduced the error "Error. Reference Source not found".

Yes, the authors have made significant improvements, but the authors have not addressed ALL of my comments, for example, (a) the manuscript still does not include the Latin name for oilseed rape, and (b) the statistical significance of results are still not presented as per similar peer reviewed journals.

The authors still use the word "we".

The final response states that "Rape is mainly planted in China, so most of the research results on rape harvesting machinery are published by Chinese people, we have collected as much information as possible from all over the world, and added them in revised manuscript". On a weight basis, China produces about 20 % of oil seed rape production. The revised manuscript, has added a few more international references, but I am confident there will be more that could be included.

Author Response

Dear expert,

Thanks for your valuable suggestions and opinions. After consideration, we added or deleted the corresponding contents in the revised draft of the last edition.

This revision is shown in blue highlighting mark, please check it in revised manuscript.

Although I have carefully revised the paper to the greatest extent during this period, there are still some minor problems, so I ask the experts and editors to strictly review this manuscript.

1- By editing the manuscript, the authors have introduced the error "Error. Reference Source not found".

Answer: Thanks for your comment. This error has been corrected.

2- Yes, the authors have made significant improvements, but the authors have not addressed ALL of my comments, for example, (a) the manuscript still does not include the Latin name for oilseed rape, and (b) the statistical significance of results are still not presented as per similar peer reviewed journals.

Answer: (a) Latin name for oilseed rape is "Brassica napus L.", we added it in Title, ABSTRACT, and the word first appears in the text.

(b) Thank you for your suggestion. This question was forgotten when it was revised last time. This time, it was revised according to your request.

3-The authors still use the word "we".

Answer: "we" has been deleted all.

4-The final response states that "Rape is mainly planted in China, so most of the research results on rape harvesting machinery are published by Chinese people, we have collected as much information as possible from all over the world, and added them in revised manuscript". On a weight basis, China produces about 20 % of oil seed rape production. The revised manuscript, has added a few more international references, but I am confident there will be more that could be included.

Answer: Thank you very much for your suggestion. And we have collected as much research as possible about oilseed rape threshing and expanded the references.