Analysis of Dynamic Behavior of Spray Boom under Step Excitation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper brings results of experimental research focused on assessment of the impact of the dynamic behavior modeling and parameter optimization of the spray boom based on multi-body vibration were carried out to study the complex dynamic behavior of the spray boom under the conditions of uneven soil and changing vehicle speed.

 

My comments for improvement of the paper are as follows:

Abstract

The abstract captures the essence of the article. The abstract does not usually give the authors' references - appropriate to use in the discussion chapter.

The authors state the basis on which the complex dynamic behaviour of the spray boom was carried out.  The effect of tire loading is directly dependent on the change in sprayer speed. I would not mention this factor.

The dynamic behaviour of the spray boom in terms of liquid dispersion during field operation is not reported in the text of the paper – last factor (lines 11-12).

 

Introduction

The introduction is concise and to the point with a minimum of actual references on the subject. It would be useful to add the authors' recent results on the subject.

 

Material and methodology

The chapter describes the theoretical analysis of the problem for the simulation (modelling) of vibration when overcoming a 0.1x0.1m obstacle with references. It would have been useful if the authors had added which formulas were used to predict the values of the multibody simulation model on RecurDyn. It is not clear from the methodology how the sprayer velocity was determined in the experimental measurements. Complete the velocity measurement methodology for the experimental measurements.

Non-standard designation:

- obstacle during travel 0.1x0.1m² correct 0.1x0.1m.

- kN/m correct kN.m^-1 and other units.

 

Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion chapter is the Results chapter. Absent there is a critical comparison of results with other authors. I recommend the authors of the manuscript to supplement the discussion with the actual scientific results of the authors.

 

Conclusion

The abstract describes the research results better than the conclusion. I have one comment on the last chapter. For better clarity, the Conclusion should be written in points.

Example:

With an increase in the unilateral spray boom length above 6 m:

- the spray boom is more prone to elastic deformation upon excitation,

- the influence of excitation on the extremity of the spray boom is gradually reduced.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The results are interesting and have practical soundness. Discussion section needs improvement. Other suggestions below:

 

Line 46 – You should not use first name. Herman [5] will be enough – the same applies for Jan Antobnis, etc.

Moreover, some references are formatted in a different way – not in accordance with guidelines for authors (4, 5,8, 9, 10).

Section “Results and discussion” needs some references to similar results of other authors.

 

It will be also useful if you add one more conclusion about the best parameters of spray boom for manufacturers and about speed for farmers according to your results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments from the Review were not incorporated into the authors manuscript. I recommend that the authors incorporate all responses from the Response to Reviewer 1 Comments document into the manuscript.

Point 8 has not been adequately answered, where discussion is still lacking. It lacks a critical comparison of the results with other authors. Based on the instructions to authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions), which states "Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results." I do not consider it necessary to add point 8.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx