Multi-Level Matching Optimization Design of Thin-Walled Beam Cross-Section for Tri-Axle Unmanned Forestry Vehicle Frame
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors of the article titled Multi-Level Matching Optimization Design of Thin-Walled Beam Cross-Section for Tri-Axle Unmanned Forestry Vehicle Frame have undertaken the challenging yet important topic of optimizing the mass of an unmanned vehicle operating in forested areas. This is an extremely significant issue that contributes to minimizing pressure on the forest floor, thereby reducing its degradation.
The introduction provides an extensive literature review and includes 49 citations within 47 lines. In my opinion, with such a high number of citations, the introduction should be more detailed, or part of the literature should be shifted to the discussion of the obtained results.
The analysis of the available model has been conducted correctly. The main parameters and the structure of the unmanned vehicle, specifically the frame, are presented in the form of tables and figures.
Both the analysis and the optimization model were performed appropriately. The results are presented using figures highlighting critical areas, as well as tables. All calculations are supported by equations.
At the end of the paper, the authors briefly describe the key achievement.
All figures, tables, and equations in the paper are presented accurately and are relevant to the analyzed material. The references section includes 56 sources, most of which are from post-2020 publications.
The authors should add spaces before or after parentheses containing cited sources, e.g., in lines 28, 35, etc. Additionally, in Tables 3 and 4, there should be a space between the values and the units in the first columns.
Author Response
Comments1：The introduction provides an extensive literature review and includes 49 citations within 47 lines. In my opinion, with such a high number of citations, the introduction should be more detailed, or part of the literature should be shifted to the discussion of the obtained results.
Response1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. We have revised the introduction section with a more detailed narrative based on your suggestions, and some references have been moved to the results and discussion sections. Please refer to lines 33 to 90 for details.
Comments2：The authors should add spaces before or after parentheses containing cited sources, e.g., in lines 28, 35, etc. Additionally, in Tables 3 and 4, there should be a space between the values and the units in the first columns.
Response2: We appreciate your suggestions and have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript. Following your advice, we have added spaces before or after the parentheses containing citation sources. Additionally, we have inserted spaces between the values and units in the first column of Tables 3 and 4, which are now presented as Tables 4 and 5.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is devoted to the development and design of the body of an unmanned logging machine. A lot of work has been done, a large number of results have been presented, including a comparison with experimental data. To accept the article for further work, it is proposed to answer the following questions and make some adjustments:
1. In the abstract and introduction, it is necessary to formulate the scientific purpose and scientific novelty of this study.
2. The last paragraph of the introduction duplicates the annotation, adjustments must be made.
3. It is not entirely clear which types of finite elements do you use, volumetric, girder or shell? It is necessary to clarify this information.
4. You have chosen a size of 10 mm. What is the reason for this size and is it sufficient? It is necessary to verify the grid and evaluate the quality of the grid.
5. In the Frequency Analysis section, you specify the frequency range to avoid. Specify from which data these values are derived.
6. In the "Sensitivity Analysis Results" section, you perform an analysis of the sensitivity of the parameters. The results presented in the tables are quite difficult to read. Usually these characteristics are presented in tables with coloring by color, then you can immediately see which parameters most affect the result. I suggest adding the results.
7. You used a genetic algorithm in optimization. It is necessary to conduct an analysis-comparison with other methods, for example, topological optimization.
8. If we talk about structural strength, it is also necessary to consider cyclic strength and crack resistance. Have these questions been considered?
9. In the discussion, it is necessary to compare the results obtained by other authors.
Author Response
Comments1：In the abstract and introduction, it is necessary to formulate the scientific purpose and scientific novelty of this study.
Response1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. We have clarified the scientific objectives and novelty of this study in the abstract and introduction sections based on your suggestions. Please refer to lines 8–28 in the abstract and lines 32–90 in the introduction for details.
Comments2：2. The last paragraph of the introduction duplicates the annotation, adjustments must be made.
Response2：We also appreciate your comments regarding the repetitive content in the last paragraph of the introduction and the abstract. Following your advice, we have revised the last paragraph of the introduction. Please refer to lines 71–90 for the updated content. We are grateful for your attention to detail and hope the revisions meet your expectations.
Comments3：It is not entirely clear which types of finite elements do you use, volumetric, girder or shell? It is necessary to clarify this information.
Response3：We sincerely thank you for your professional review of our article. In this study, we used shell element meshes, which are particularly suitable for modeling thin-walled structures, such as plates and shells. These structures have dimensions in the thickness direction that are significantly smaller than those in the other two directions. Therefore, shell element meshes were adopted. Furthermore, shell elements are highly effective for finite element analysis of thin-walled structures, providing relatively accurate results while reducing computational resource consumption. We have incorporated your suggestions into the manuscript. Please see lines 110–118 for the revised content.
Comments4：You have chosen a size of 10 mm. What is the reason for this size and is it sufficient? It is necessary to verify the grid and evaluate the quality of the grid.
Response4：Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the mesh size. The 10 mm mesh size was determined based on the geometry of the thin-walled beam and the computational efficiency of our system. We tested smaller mesh sizes and found that the computational accuracy was similar to that of the 10 mm mesh. Therefore, we chose the 10 mm mesh size for this study. Following your suggestions, we have added content on mesh quality evaluation to the revised manuscript. Please refer to Table 2 for details.
Comments5：In the Frequency Analysis section, you specify the frequency range to avoid. Specify from which data these values are derived.
Response5：Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Regarding the frequency range to avoid in the frequency analysis of the forestry triaxial unmanned vehicle frame, we will add the corresponding references in the manuscript to ensure the accuracy of the data source. Please refer to line 203 and reference [44] (2022).
Comments6：In the "Sensitivity Analysis Results" section, you perform an analysis of the sensitivity of the parameters. The results presented in the tables are quite difficult to read. Usually these characteristics are presented in tables with coloring by color, then you can immediately see which parameters most affect the result. I suggest adding the results.
Response6：We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback. Regarding your proposal to add color features to the sensitivity analysis results table, we find your suggestion valuable. However, after careful consideration, we believe that the highlighted significant results should be presented in the subsequent relative sensitivity bar chart. The sensitivity analysis results table is intended to serve as a basis for the subsequent relative sensitivity analysis. The filtered sensitivity analysis results are presented in Table 8, which we hope will help readers better understand the data.
Comments7：You used a genetic algorithm in optimization. It is necessary to conduct an analysis-comparison with other methods, for example, topological optimization.
Response7：We are deeply grateful for your professional review of our article. Based on your suggestions, we have added a discussion on the optimization algorithm in the multi-objective optimization section of the manuscript. Please refer to lines 475–488 for details.
Comments8： If we talk about structural strength, it is also necessary to consider cyclic strength and crack resistance. Have these questions been considered?
Response8：Thank you for your valuable recommendations. Considering the project requirements, we have analyzed the structural strength of the frame and ensured a large safety factor of 1.8. As the project progresses, we will adopt your suggestion to conduct fatigue strength and crack resistance analyses of the frame.
Comments9： In the discussion, it is necessary to compare the results obtained by other authors.
Response9：We are very thankful for your professional review of our article. Based on your advice, we have added a comparison with results from other authors. Please refer to lines 517–519 for the updated content.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments:
This study investigates the thin-walled beams of the tri-axle unmanned forestry vehicle frame. A finite element model of the frame was developed to analyze its static and dynamic characteristics, with experimental validation confirming the model’s accuracy.
While the study presents interesting findings and employs scientifically sound methodologies, its primary focus aligns more closely with the scope of an engineering journal than Forests. Nevertheless, I defer to the editor's decision on this matter.
Overall, the manuscript is well-written, easy to follow, and applies rigorous methods. Below, I provide detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.
Specific Comments:
1. Introduction: The Introduction requires significant restructuring to meet standard expectations. It should consist of three key components:
Problem Statement: Clearly describe the problem, justify its relevance, and provide context for the study. Literature Review: Include a concise review of pertinent past research, with synthesis and evaluation, rather than merely listing studies. Identify gaps in the current state of knowledge and explain how the present study addresses these gaps.
Objectives and Roadmap: Clearly articulate the objectives of the research and provide a roadmap for the manuscript’s structure.
Currently, the Introduction includes unnecessary details about the materials and methods, which should be moved to the appropriate sections.
2. Fig. 2: This figure does not add significant value to the manuscript and should be omitted.
3. Fig. 4: The numbers on the solid model need to be explained in the figure caption for clarity.
4. Fig. 14: This figure is also unnecessary and should be removed.
Software Details:
5. Lines 96–97: Specify the version of the software tools used in the analysis.
6. Technical Specifications: Include the range and sensitivity of the strain gauges used in the experiments.
7. Photographs: The images in Fig. 12 are too small to discern important details. Consider enlarging them to improve clarity.
8. Data Presentation: Add standard deviations to the average values reported in Tables 3 and 4 to provide a more comprehensive representation of the data.
9. Figure Resolution: The resolution of all figures is too low, making it difficult to read values and interpret results. Please ensure all figures are provided in high resolution.
Author Response
Comments1: 1. Introduction: The Introduction requires significant restructuring to meet standard expectations. It should consist of three key components:
Problem Statement: Clearly describe the problem, justify its relevance, and provide context for the study. Literature Review: Include a concise review of pertinent past research, with synthesis and evaluation, rather than merely listing studies. Identify gaps in the current state of knowledge and explain how the present study addresses these gaps.
Objectives and Roadmap: Clearly articulate the objectives of the research and provide a roadmap for the manuscript’s structure.
Currently, the Introduction includes unnecessary details about the materials and methods, which should be moved to the appropriate sections.
Response1:We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. We have made significant revisions to the introduction section and, as per your recommendations, added the technical approach. Please refer to lines 32–90 and Figure 1 for details.
Comments2: Fig. 2: This figure does not add significant value to the manuscript and should be omitted.
Response2: Thank you for your suggestion, which we believe is an excellent one. We have removed the thin-walled beam structure section from Figure 2 in the manuscript.
Comments3: The numbers on the solid model need to be explained in the figure caption for clarity.
Response3: We greatly appreciate your professional review of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript and added explanations of the numbers on the models in the captions of the original Figures 4 and 7. Please refer to the current Figures 4 and 7 for details.
Comments4: This figure is also unnecessary and should be removed.Software Details:
Response4: Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed the Donghua dynamic signal acquisition instrument from Figure 14 in the manuscript.
Comments5: Lines 96–97: Specify the version of the software tools used in the analysis.
Response5: We are very grateful for your professional comments on our manuscript. We have included annotations regarding the tool version of the analysis software used in the manuscript. Please see line 112 for details.
Comments6: Technical Specifications: Include the range and sensitivity of the strain gauges used in the experiments.
Response6:Thank you for your suggestions. We have provided explanations for the gauge factor and strain limit of the strain gauges in the manuscript. Please refer to lines 232–234.
Comments7: Photographs: The images in Fig. 12 are too small to discern important details. Consider enlarging them to improve clarity.
Response7:Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have adjusted the original Figure 12 by enlarging the details and inserting the vector graphic into the manuscript. Please see the updated Figure 12.
Comments8: Data Presentation: Add standard deviations to the average values reported in Tables 3 and 4 to provide a more comprehensive representation of the data.
Response8: We deeply appreciate your professional review of our manuscript. While we agree that adding mean values and standard deviations to the table is a good suggestion, the current Tables 3 and 4 primarily aim to validate the accuracy of the finite element model and calculation method through experiments. All errors are within 10%, verifying that the finite element model and calculation method are accurate and can support subsequent optimization designs. We will incorporate your suggested data processing methods into future research.
Comments9: Figure Resolution: The resolution of all figures is too low, making it difficult to read values and interpret results. Please ensure all figures are provided in high resolution.
Response8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have converted all images in the manuscript into vector graphics to ensure high resolution.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I have carefully examined the revised version of your manuscript, reference number forests-3349361.
Thank you for addressing my previous comments with thorough and thoughtful responses. I am pleased to see that all my concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Your revisions and replies demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues raised, and the changes made have improved the overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of our revisions and responses. We are pleased to hear that the changes made have effectively addressed your concerns and improved the overall quality of the manuscript. Your valuable feedback has been crucial in optimizing our paper, and we sincerely appreciate your help and insightful suggestions once again!
