Calibration and Testing of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters for Sandy Soils in Potato Growing Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line OBS
9 Abstract must be a single paragraph of about 200 words maximum
34 Missing space between large and [1]"large[1]" / remove extra space between [1] and , "large[1] , "
Missing space between word and [ in all document - Line 50, 58, 59, 63, 70, 73, 74, 90, 92, 96,132, 155, 185, 230, 242, 261, 296, 297, 312, 306, 335, 339 (in table 3), 513, 515, 518. 519, 528, 529, 531, 533, 536, 539, 540, 555, 556, 558, 560, 562, 565, 629.
Remove extra space between ] and , - Line 50, 132, 242
Remove extra space between ] and . - Line 58, 155, 230
Try to reconsider all references because for example you say "In the context of the national potato staple food strategy, the scale of potato cultivation in China has become increasingly large[1]" in [1] we have "WEI, Z.; LI, H., et al., Development of potato harvester with buffer type potato-impurity separation sieve. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 2019, 35 (08), 1-11." I search artice and I didn't find something about "In the context of the national potato staple food strategy, the scale of potato cultivation in China has become increasingly large"
On [3] the article are about "Calibration of contact parameters for pig manure based on EDEM" but you write about "fine granular materials"
[4] you say "Xiaojiang Q et al." but in your list 4 are "4. WEN, X.; FANG, F., et al., Research on stacking angle of coal particles and parameter calibration on EDEM. China Safety Science Journal 2020, 30 (07), 114-119. doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.07.017. 632"
In article [5] I can’t find something about "brick red loam particles"
I will not continue to verify all your reference you must correct all your list.
Also try to use and international references.
59 Wang[3] the "[3]" are superscript. correct to "Wang [3]"
94 In my pdf paper this line "2.2.1. Soil preparation with different water content" are the last line in page, try to move in next page
95,96 Why you use italic for "Soil Particle Size Analysis Test Method [10] :" /// why you use ":"
You have too many errors
Some general observation
1. Try to recorrect your paper
2. Try to use the same International System of Units (SI)
3. Why you don't use only seconds or only minutes /// only mm aro only m etc ?
4. Try to recorrect reference list and try to use also international authors
5. Try to correct all missing space before and after a caption or subception
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript titled: “Calibration and Testing of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters For sandy Soils in Potato Growing Areas”, the Authors discussed the statistical analysis of the significance of material parameters obtained from experimental tests and numerical simulation. In its current form, the manuscript can not be accepted for publication. It requires a lot of deep thinking, and maybe after rewriting it and resubmitting it will be worth publishing. Below are some of my remarks:
- The introduction is short, and the literature review on the discussed subject is not satisfactory.
- The manuscript requires language editing, as currently is hard to follow and understand in some places (e.g.: lines 180-188).
- line 49-50: “EDEM discrete element simulation technology has been widely used in the agricultural field…”
EDEM is just a software, one of many available on the market, which uses the Discrete Element Method (DEM), it is not the technology widely used in the agricultural field.
- Fig. 3 no axis labels. How lower and upper cut-offs were determined for Fig. 3d?
- 524-534. The rolling friction coefficient is significant, because sand/soil, wet bulk coal, wheat flour, and rice particles are all highly non-spherical. Rolling friction was introduced to approximate non-sphericity. If authors performed their simulations with non-spherical particles, (even a multi-sphere approach from EDEM should do) then their reasoning could change.
- I am in doubt about the novelty of performed research, as the standard experimental tests were followed by DEM simulations (with standard Hertz-Mindlin + JKR contact model) and by a standard statistical approach for calculating the significance of certain parameters without even reflecting their meaning in DEM.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors tested the parameters used in DEM for soils. The paper is on a topic of importance and will be of interest to others working in the field. I recommend publication with the changes given below.
1. The authors should double check the MS. There are a few missing symbols and repeated sentences in the paper.
2. There is no axis labels in Figure 3 (d) and (e).
3. In Figure 5, this is a compression test not a extrusion test.
4. In the compression test, I think the column may collapse in the test, especially at low moisture content. Did the DEM capture this phenomenon in section 3.6?
5. It would be good that the authors could describe how to use the findings from this paper in the real separation devices.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My peer-review-v2 of your paper have the same error for reference.
All formulas have bigger font than text. (looks too big in my pdf)
Missing space after line 314 and figure 3, try to use template indication.
Missing space before line 428, try to use template indication
Line 449 try to move in next page
Line 481 correct to table 10 not 11
Missing text for figure
Missing text for table 11
Missing space after line 497
Remove extra space before line 502
Line 512 if you explain figure 10 , you must insert figure 10 after line 528
Line 530 and 537 table 11 or table 12? destroyed.
Line 564 after "destroyed." enter and then insert figure 11
Line 568 and 571 table 12 or table 13?
Line 573 figure 10 or 11?
Line 583 why figure 17 and not figure 12?
Line 590 figure 11 or 12?
Line 591 move in next page
Author Response
Dear Reviewers and Editor,
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Calibration and Testing of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters For sandy Soils in Potato Growing Areas” (ID: applsci-1897676).
We found that the first time we responded to the reviewer, the manuscript used the 'Track Changes' function and that after 'Accepting Changes', the formatting may have been significantly different. We have therefore double-checked the formatting again of each paragraph, heading, image and table in my manuscript and, after 'Accepting Changes', are submitting a PDF version to you, which may facilitate your review.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Junru Li
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled: “Calibration and Testing of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters for Sandy Soils in Potato Growing Areas” was improved significantly as compared to previous version. However some explanation/editing still is required.
Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. And sorry for the language problem, we had checked the manuscript carefully and improved the language using an official language editing service of MDPI.
Considering amount of changes, this should be done before submitting the manuscript for the first time.
Line 11: “… were calibrated by EDEM simulation … “
should be:
“… were calibrated in DEM simulation using EDEM software …” or something similar.
Line 81, 99: Missing citation.
My previous question:
“Point 4: Fig. 3 no axis labels. How lower and upper cut-offs were determined for Fig. 3d?”
And answer:
“Response 4: We thank you the reviewer for highlighting the problem of Fig. 3. I have modified the image by adding axis labels. Previously, we determined the axes as a percentage of the height and width of the image. To better illustrate the content of the image, we modified the coordinates to show the pixel locations in both directions. The pixel size of the image is 804*804 and to make the image clearer, only the parts of the image with curves within it are shown.”
I am not satisfied with authors answer to my question. I asked how authors decided when to start and when to end drawing the curves. In other words, how authors determined where the linear part of the slope starts, and when it ends, as curve not start from 0 (vertical axis) and the rounded top is not shown as well.
eq. 14: something is missing?
Line 634: Does authors mean “rolling friction” instead of “dynamic friction”? Otherwise for quasi-static simulations static friction have obviously more meaning than dynamic, as the later one hardly occurs in such simulation. And as far as I know, not many DEM software distinguish those two (static and dynamic friction coefficient and usually defined is just static one). But I have no experience with EDEM.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract is too long, about 262 words.
Line the space between 11 5 and 116 doesn't respect template indication.
Line 167 why after this line isn’t figure 1?
Line 177 “RT + 10–300 °C.” can you explain this?
Line 338 why after this line isn’t figure 6?
Do you use asterisk for signification but you didn’t explain the signification of number of asterisk
Line 417 move the image 8 after this line. After the image 8 move the text for factors and equation.
Author Response
On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Calibration and Testing of Discrete Element Simulation Parameters For sandy Soils in Potato Growing Areas” (ID: applsci-1897676).
To address the critiques of the reviewers, we revised our manuscript according to their comments. Attached please find the revised version (All changes are marked as red color, the modification of the figure is marked on the figure title as red color), which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.
After 'Accepting Changes', are submitting a PDF version to you, which may facilitate your review.
Point 1: Abstract is too long, about 262 words.
Response 1: Thank you so much for making this point. We have reduced the word count of the abstract to 210 words to comply with the journal's requirements.
Point 2: Line 177 “RT + 10–300 °C.” can you explain this?
Response 2: Thanks for your question. It means +10°C to +300°C. In the original text, we have changed it to "RT + (10~300) °C" . (Amended at line 179)
Point 3: Do you use asterisk for signification but you didn’t explain the signification of number of asterisk
Response 3: Thank you so much for making this point. We have added the following to the legend: "** Statistically significant difference; *** Extremely statistically significant difference." (Amended at line 377).
Elsewhere, we have made the changes you requested and will accept the revised format for uploading to you, thank you for your review.
We thank you again for checking our manuscript and evaluating our responses to your comments.
Looking forward to hearing from you. Thank you and best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 320, “The rolling and static function parameters…”
function → friction ?
The “static friction” is called coefficient of sliding friction, which then divides into static and kinetic.
Line 387, what is “rolling generation at 20k particles per second”?
“However, due to technical limitations, the size of the rounded top area removed was left to our own discretion, rather than relying on a programmatic algorithm”.
In that case, could Authors show how exactly the slope angle (given in Tab. 8) was determined for DEM simulations presented at Fig. 9a,b,c and d? Appropriate lines can be drawn at Fig. 9.
For the next round, please mark only the latest changes made in the manuscript without all that language editing, so it will be easier to read.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
