Design of Hydrostatic Chassis Drive System for Large Plant Protection Machine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General commands:
1- The paper is well written. Please recheck the paper from academic form of grammar. Some parts are unclear (line 13 ~ 15). Please define all aspects clearly. In some cases, it is better to use past form, or passive form. The capitalization of first words, using articles "The", "a", ..., and so on.
2- Please carefully recheck the template of journal and edit them (Ex. Line 86 1. Introduction).
Technical commands:
1- What is the novelty of the presented system compared to other designs. Please define it clearly.
2- I thing, some part of the paper is totally obvious (Ex. Figure. 2, Figure. 3, ...). It may be better to briefly compare the objectives, difference, advantages disadvantages, ... of each design in a section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The analyzed paper presents a low level of scientific approach, because it does not take into account the achievements in the field. For example, the spraying machines made by John Deere are much more versatile, achieving a continuous speed from 0.00 km / h to 32 km / h during the working process.
I believe that at the introduction, aspects should have been presented regarding the constructive and kinematic structure of the hydraulically operated chassis, which are used for disease and pest control machines.
1. The article is interesting because it addresses current issues regarding the modernization of the construction of machines and installations used for plant protection.
2. In order to increase the quality of the work, I propose to the authors to make the following improvements: - to complete the introductory part with other achievements in the field, especially with aspects regarding the structure of these aggregates manufactured by various companies, which have a significant quotation on the world market of agricultural machines; - to specify that the aggregate designed and made is intended for carrying out plant protection works for experimental fields, where the lots are made on small areas; - the designed aggregate can constitute the infrastructure of a future agricultural robot destined for plant protection.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript, the parameters of the main hydraulic components of the hydraulic drive system are calculated and selected. Then the hydraulic drive system is modeled and simulated by AMESim software. Finally, a test platform with anti-slip function was designed and built, and the driving stability of the plant protection machine was tested through the test platform. It is verified by experiments that the hydraulic chassis of the plant protection machine designed in the manuscript has good driving stability, which provides an effective theoretical support for the design of the driving system of the hydraulic chassis of the plant protection machine.
The manuscript is innovative, the parameter optimization method is unique, the mechanism design - analysis - test verification ideas are clear, strong logic; The research content of the manuscript has good guidance to the design and research of the actual prototype.
However, the manuscript has the following contents that need to be modified:
The Discussion and Conclusion section only addresses the summary of the optimized parameter design of this model and suggests a brief outlook on the application of this machine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article entitle “Design of Hydrostatic Chassis Drive System for Large Plant Protection Machine” was reviewed. My opinion is as follows:
1-The following contradiction can be seen in the text.
It is mentioned in the discussion section (line 411), ".... four-wheel steering system", while in line 98 " .... a rear suspension device".
2- In the discussion section, lines 422-422, are about the four-wheel steering mode that there is no such thing in the previous sections.
3- Abstract: The presentation of the results should be rewritten.
4- Introduction: At the end of the introduction, there is a description of the paper preparation that must be deleted.
5- Please, pay attention to the comments on the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The applied revision is acceptable
Reviewer 2 Report
With the changes made, I consider that the paper meets the conditions for publication.
