Design and Experiment of Automatic Clip-Feeding Mechanism for Vegetable-Grafting Robot
, Wenzhong Guo 1,2, Liping Chen 1,2, Wenqian Huang 1,2, Yiyuan Ge 3 and Xiaoming Wei 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Some parts in the article sounds to me quite strange. I am not native speaker but I suggest to give the article to someone with high knowledge of English to make a proofreading.
There are tables with values within. Please check if the number has same lenght. As an example the table 3, in my opinion, has number to extend (2.5936 to 2.59360) or shorten (0.518721 to 0.51872).
Compare tables 1 and 2. Even if they contains same data structure (parameters of object) they have information structured diferently. I suggest to use logical format from the table 1 to the table 2.
Take into account the posibility to divide third column in table 5 (separating N from MPa).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript. Your comments not only provide constructive suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript, but also lead us to in-depth thinking of our approaches. We will benefit from them for our future research. Based on your review comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly and highlighted the changes. In the following, we described the changes we made corresponding to each comment.
Point 1:
1）Some parts in the article sounds to me quite strange. I am not native speaker but I suggest to give the article to someone with high knowledge of English to make a proofreading.
2）There are tables with values within. Please check if the number has same lenght. As an example the table 3, in my opinion, has number to extend (2.5936 to 2.59360) or shorten (0.518721 to 0.51872).
3）Compare tables 1 and 2. Even if they contains same data structure (parameters of object) they have information structured diferently. I suggest to use logical format from the table 1 to the table 2.
4）Take into account the posibility to divide third column in table 5 (separating N from MPa).
Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.
Response 1:
1）Some parts in the article sounds to me quite strange. I am not native speaker but I suggest to give the article to someone with high knowledge of English to make a proofreading.
Authors’ Response: I appreciate your valuable comments, and I will check the grammar of the whole manuscript and do proofreading.
2）There are tables with values within. Please check if the number has same lenght. As an example the table 3, in my opinion, has number to extend (2.5936 to 2.59360) or shorten (0.518721 to 0.51872).
Authors’ Response: I have revised the values in Table 3, to keep consistency in decimal places. Please see Table 3.
3）Compare tables 1 and 2. Even if they contains same data structure (parameters of object) they have information structured diferently. I suggest to use logical format from the table 1 to the table 2.
Authors’ Response: According to your comments, I have revised the format of Table 2. Please see Table 2.
4）Take into account the posibility to divide third column in table 5 (separating N from MPa).
Authors’ Response: According to your comments, we have divided the third column in Table 5. Please see Table 5.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript addresses a new technical solution for automatic vegetable grafting using a new clip feeding mechanism. However, the differences and the advantages of the proposed system are not clearly explained.
- The grafting clip model was verified by mechanical test. The relation of the tests to the possible vegetable damage is not clear.
- In the introduction section the current clip feeding mechanisms are exposed. However, there is no explanation about the main parameters of these current systems (success, vegetal damage…)
- Lines 91-92: Why was this grafting robot selected (2TJGQ-800 type vegetable grafting robot)?
- Why were the mechanical test results presented in the M & M section?
- Lines 217-221: This paragraph and table 4 are not clear.
- Figure 8: similar commercial devices can be found. It is crucial to remark the main differences (advantages) to the already commercial systems.
- Line 372: the number of repetitions is not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
- Lines 375-376: the factors are not clear.
- Table 5: Why were these angles used? Coul it be better a higher angle? Which is the limit?
- Table 5: The success rate of clip feeding is shown, it would be interesting to know the damage produced to the vegetables.
- The success rate of clip feeding of other commercial systems should be compared and discussed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript. Your comments not only provide constructive suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript, but also lead us to in-depth thinking of our approaches. We will benefit from them for our future research. Based on your review comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly and highlighted the changes. In the following, we described the changes we made corresponding to each comment.
Point 2:
The manuscript addresses a new technical solution for automatic vegetable grafting using a new clip feeding mechanism. However, the differences and the advantages of the proposed system are not clearly explained.
1）The grafting clip model was verified by mechanical test. The relation of the tests to the possible vegetable damage is not clear.
2）In the introduction section the current clip feeding mechanisms are exposed. However, there is no explanation about the main parameters of these current systems (success, vegetal damage…)
3）Lines 91-92: Why was this grafting robot selected (2TJGQ-800 type vegetable grafting robot)?
4）Why were the mechanical test results presented in the M & M section?
5）Lines 217-221: This paragraph and table 4 are not clear.
6）Figure 8: similar commercial devices can be found. It is crucial to remark the main differences (advantages) to the already commercial systems.
7）Line 372: the number of repetitions is not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
8）Lines 375-376: the factors are not clear.
9）Table 5: Why were these angles used? Coul it be better a higher angle? Which is the limit?
10）Table 5: The success rate of clip feeding is shown, it would be interesting to know the damage produced to the vegetables.
11）The success rate of clip feeding of other commercial systems should be compared and discussed.
Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.
Response 2:
1）The grafting clip model was verified by mechanical test. The relation of the tests to the possible vegetable damage is not clear.
Authors’ Response: In generally cases, the diameter of the grafting steel ring is 0.7 mm or 0.8 mm, and we are not clear if it can safely clamp the grafted seedlings. It can be obtained after analyzing the grafting clip model that, the grafting clip with steel ring diameter of 0.8mm would pose some risks on the clamping of cucumber and watermelon grafted seedlings; while the grafting clip with steel ring diameter of 0.7 mm is safe in the same action. In order to verify the model, a mechanical test was done on the grafting clip of 0.7 mm in diameter, and the tested values of the clamping force is lower than the safe compressive resistance, but higher than the simulated value. It can be found after analysis that, some other external forces should be overcome in the test. The results of the mechanical test and the model were basically the same, showing that, this model can be applied in the mechanical property analysis of the grafting clip.
2）In the introduction section the current clip feeding mechanisms are exposed. However, there is no explanation about the main parameters of these current systems (success, vegetal damage…)
Authors’ Response: We have added the main parameters of the clip feeding mechanism in the introduction section, see line 53-55, line 61-64, line 68-71 and line 79-82.
3）Lines 91-92: Why was this grafting robot selected (2TJGQ-800 type vegetable grafting robot)?
Authors’ Response: The automatic clip feeding mechanism designed in this paper is part of the 2TJGQ-800 type vegetable grafting robot, and the research object is the special grafting clip of this kind of grafting robot.
4）Why were the mechanical test results presented in the M & M section?
Authors’ Response: We have transferred the mecanical test to section 2.4.1 and 3.1, see line 309-344 and line 373-399.
5）Lines 217-221: This paragraph and table 4 are not clear.
Authors’ Response: The compressive resistance of the grafted seedlings refers to the maximum safe pressure that borne by the grafted seedlings. The compressive resistance of grafted cucumber and watermelon seedlings is tested. Based on the seedling stem length in the direction of clamping, the opening displacement deformation of the clip in clamping seedlings was calculated, and substituted in Equaton (10) and (11), then the simulated clamping force and tested clamping force were obtained. Finally, the safety and accuracy of the model of the grafting clip was further compared and analyzed. Please see line 374-386.
6）Figure 8: similar commercial devices can be found. It is crucial to remark the main differences (advantages) to the already commercial systems.
Authors’ Response: The automatic clip feeding mechanism designed in this paper includes the row discharging unit and the clip pushing unit. Compared with the existing commercial devices, it has higher working performance and stability in the following two aspects: ① by adding the precision row discharging unit on the row discharging slideway, the device can realize precise single clip discharging and keep the grafting clip at horizontal status in pushing it to the slideway, thus the probability of clip stucking is reduced. ② There is a horizontal opening at the end of the pushing rod (no. 1 in Figure 9), and the horizontal opening contacts the upper and lower sides of the rear part of the clip mouth, the force on the grafting clip is more uniform in pushing the clip, thus reducing the possibility of clip damage. The pushing rod and clip feeding cylinder are installed on the base through cooperation between the slideway and sliding block, thus enhancing the stability of the clip pushing process.
7）Line 372: the number of repetitions is not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
Authors’ Response: There are 9 groups of tests in Table 5, each group containing 100 times of tests. The tests were repeated three times and the average clip feeding rate of each group of tests was calculated, see line 406-407.
8）Lines 375-376: the factors are not clear.
Authors’ Response: We have added the specific information of the factors, see line 401-406.
The above two factors (inclination angle of the discharging slideway and clip pushing cylinder thrust) were taken as influencing factors to study the clip feeding rate. The three levels of inclination angle of the slideway, that is, 30°, 40° and 50° were selected, and the input air pressure of the clip pushing cylinder of 0.3 PMa, 0.4 MPa and 0.5 MPa with corresponding clip pushing cylinder thrust of 6.03 N, 8.04 N and 10.05 N were selected to carry out the two-factor and three-level test.
9）Table 5: Why were these angles used? Coul it be better a higher angle? Which is the limit?
Authors’ Response: Tests show that, the sliding friction angle of the grafting clip in the clip feeding slideway was 20°. When β is higher than 20°, the grafting clip can be smoothly discharged; when β is 60°, the clip discharging speed is too fast, so that the clip would bounce up and incline to one side. In this case, clip feeding will not be smoothly operated. Therefore, the adjustable range of β was set to 30°~50°, to meet the requirements of clip discharging, see line 358-362.
10）Table 5: The success rate of clip feeding is shown, it would be interesting to know the damage produced to the vegetables.
Authors’ Response: Your suggestion is very valueale. In this paper, we studied the grafting clip model and the clip feeding mechanism, determined the size of the grafting clip and the clamping force in safely clamping cucumber and watermelon seedlings, the tests verified the success rate of clip feeding. We will further study the properties of safe clamping of vegetable grafted seedlings and optimize the structure and parameters of the grafting clip.
11）The success rate of clip feeding of other commercial systems should be compared and discussed.
Authors’ Response: We have added related contents, see line 438-464.
The clip feeding device developed by Iseki & Co., Ltd. in Japan discharges the grafting clips in a horizontal direction through the vibration disk, and the pushing rod contacts with the upper part of the clip mouth in pushing the clip. In this way, the clip may easily get damaged due to uneven force on it with a clip feeding rate of 95%. The clip feeding mechanism developed by Chinese Agricultural University realize manual clip discharging into the clip cylinder in a vertical way, and the clip pushing method is similar to that designed by the Iseki & Co., Ltd. in Japan. However, the grafting clip is poor in quality, resulting in serious clip damages and a low clip feeding rate of 92% with low working efficiency. The clip feeding mechanism developed by Helper Robotech Co., Ltd. in Korea discharges the grafting clip into an inclined slideway by using a vibration disk, however, the clip may easily get inclined in entering the slideway, and the pushing rod may contact with the steel ring of the clip, causing clip sticking and achieving a clip feeding rate of only 90%. The clip feeding mechanism developed by Shenyang Agricultural University is similar to the product of Helper Robotech Co., Ltd. in Korea in structure, and both mechanisms can realize a clip feeding rate of 92%, showing that the working performance was not significantly improved.
The automatic clip feeding mechanism designed in this paper includes clip discharging unit and clip pushing unit. Compared with existing commercialized system, its working performance and stability has been improved, mainly in the following two aspects: ① through adding a precise clip discharging unit on the clip discharging unit, it realizes single clip discharging in the slideway, and keeps the grafting clip at a horizontal status and reduces the probability of clip sticking; ② There is a horizontal opening at one end of the pushing rod (no. 1 in Figure 9), which contacts with the upper and lower parts of the rear part of the clip, so that the force on the grafting clip is more uniform, reducing the possibility of clip damage. Besides, the pushing rod and clip feeding cylinder are installed on the base through cooperation between the slideway and sliding block, thus enhancing the stability of the clip pushing process.
Reviewer 3 Report
Title and abstract clearly state the objective of this experiment.
Results presented in this manuscript are interesting and it is appreciated that the authors also obtained a patent for this automatic clip feeder presented in the paper.
Conclusions are correct and summarize the results obtained in the experiment.
There are some language mistakes (in the first sentences in the introduction) and in figure 9, in the description, number 7, presented as 'the first grafting clip' is not indicated in the figure.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
On behalf of all the authors, I would like to sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript. Your comments not only provide constructive suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript, but also lead us to in-depth thinking of our approaches. We will benefit from them for our future research. Based on your review comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly and highlighted the changes. In the following, we described the changes we made corresponding to each comment.
Point 3:
1）Title and abstract clearly state the objective of this experiment. Results presented in this manuscript are interesting and it is appreciated that the authors also obtained a patent for this automatic clip feeder presented in the paper. Conclusions are correct and summarize the results obtained in the experiment.
2）There are some language mistakes (in the first sentences in the introduction) and in figure 9, in the description, number 7, presented as 'the first grafting clip' is not indicated in the figure.
Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.
Response 3:
1）Title and abstract clearly state the objective of this experiment. Results presented in this manuscript are interesting and it is appreciated that the authors also obtained a patent for this automatic clip feeder presented in the paper. Conclusions are correct and summarize the results obtained in the experiment.
Authors’ Response: We appreciate your valueable comments on our manuscript.
2）There are some language mistakes (in the first sentences in the introduction) and in figure 9, in the description, number 7, presented as 'the first grafting clip' is not indicated in the figure.
Authors’ Response: We have revised the first sentence in the introduction section, see line 34-35. We have also revised number 7 in Figure 9, see Figure 7 and line 348.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have corrected the manuscript according to the suggestions. Some information about the current clip feeding mechanisms has been added and the main differences (advantages) of the proposed device to the already commercial systems have been explained.
Besides, the description of the new systems and the figures have been improved.
However, the damage produced to the vegetables has not been discussed and the details about the number of repetitions is still not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 2:
The authors have corrected the manuscript according to the suggestions. Some information about the current clip feeding mechanisms has been added and the main differences (advantages) of the proposed device to the already commercial systems have been explained.
Besides, the description of the new systems and the figures have been improved.
However, the damage produced to the vegetables has not been discussed and the details about the number of repetitions is still not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.
Response 2:
1) However, the damage produced to the vegetables has not been discussed and the details about the number of repetitions is still not clear (3 angles x 3 cylinder thrusts x? repetitions).
Authors’ Response: It can be known through analysis that, if the clamping force from the grafting clip on the grafted seedlings is higher than the pressure resistance force, the stem of the seedlings may be damaged, affecting graft healing and survival. Only when the clamping force of the grafting clip is lower than the pressure resistance force of the seedlings, can it ensure the safe fixation of grafted seedlings. First, the pressure resistance force of 50 cucumber and watermelon grafted seedlings was measured. At present, there are two types of grafting clip sold in the market, with diameter of 0.7 mm and 0.8 mm. Based on the measured pressure resistance force of cumcumber and watermelon seedlings, the clamping force of the two types of grafting clips on the seedlings was calculated based on the grafting clip model, to determine if the two types of clips cause damage to the seedlings or not. Test results showed that, the grafting clip with diameter of 0.7 mm is safe and reliable to fix cucumber and watermelon seedlings, but the crafting clip with diameter of 0.8 mm may cause damage to the seedlings. However, for the grafting clips with diameter below 0.7 mm (the clips with diameter of 0.3mm、0.4mm、0.5mm、0.6mm should be customized by manufacturers), subsequent tests are required to see if any of them can help the grafted seedlings better survive. In addition, variety of seedlings and seedling age may also affect the test results. The grafting clip model proposed in this paper can be used to analyze the clamping and damage results of the clip on grafted seedlings, hoping to offer reference to the optimization of grafting clip and new type design. More importantly, it can offer reference to analyzing the operation parameters of automatic clip feeding mechanism and the improving clip feeding rate. Please see line 454-474.
Without considering the interaction effect of the factors, each group of tests was carried out 100 times and repeated for 3 times. Thus, each group of test includes 300 times, and 2700 times of testsin all for 9 groups of tests. Please see line 481-483.
