Study of the Movement Dynamics of a Beet Leaves Harvester
, Volodymyr Bulgakov 2, Valerii Adamchuk 3, Ivan Holovach 2, Volodymyr Nadykto 4 and Myroslav Budzanivskyi 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper models the movement dynamics of the beet leaves harvester. The objective of the study is clearly defined. Methods are well described and provide sufficient information to reproduce the experiments. The results are well described and presented in an appropriate format. Conclusions result from the conducted research.
Minor remarks:
1. I suggest adding a word “movement” in the title. It should be: “Study the movement dynamics of a beet leaves harvester”
2. Lines 186-187. The authors assumed that the values of angle a are small and therefore sina=a. Specify the value range of angle a for which the model is valid.
3. The same remark refers to angle j.
Author Response
See the attached file.
Kind regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
An interesting problem on the Study of the Dynamics of a Beet Leaves Harvester has been investigated by the authors; in general, I’m optimistic toward the paper, however, ALL the following major comments should be addressed completely:
1. According to displacement field, the system has been considered to be fully symmetric. Why? A justification requires to present as a sub title in section 2. Materials and Methods.
2. The geometric nonlinearities have been neglected. Why? A justification requires to present.
3. The contributions of the paper should be clearly outlined in the last paragraph of the Introduction section to justify the motivation for this study. it is not very clear for a general reader.
4. The deviation between linear and nonlinear natural frequencies can be very far from each other; this to be justified.
5. This form of your result is very simple so please provide the result for other boundary condition and I suggest you to present some new results.
6. All symbols and parameters in equations should be defined (it is necessary).
7. The conclusion section should be expanded and enlarged for more elaboration and clarification.
8. The quality of figures should be improved. They are not acceptable for publication.
9. Some equations need to be supplied to appropriate References. For example, equations 1 and 3. the authors can use the following papers in the formulation. (It is not mandatory to use these refs; they are a suggestion). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115325; https://doi.org/10.1080/17455030.2021.1926572; https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2022.44.3.371; https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2022.44.1.017; https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2022.44.1.017
Author Response
See the attached file
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the respected authors that may help further improve their manuscript:
1. In line 12: please, revise the affiliation number (replace number 2 with 4).
2. The authors should write in a consistent style, whether American or British style, but do not mix between them. Please, revise that throughout the manuscript.
3. In line 58, please replace In ]11[ with Bulgakov et al. ]2017[.
4. In line 85, please replace the title with the developed front-mounted beet leaves harvester.
5. Some equations’ numbers are not cited in the manuscript’s text; please revise them and add them to the text.
6. In line 298, please revise the formula’s number (26) with the manuscript’s text (26, 27)??
7. In Figure 5, the Y-axis should be (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5) to be a consistent form.
8. The authors should mention their future perspectives for this study at the end of the conclusion section. Please add it.
9. In the references list, please revise the reference’s formatting (one by one) according to the journal style. There are many corrections in the formatting.
Author Response
See the attached file
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
(1) Actual experiments should be added to verify whether the research content in the paper is correct. Or some simulation software should be used to verify.
(2) Some references are outdated and should be upgraded.
Author Response
See the attached file.
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The title of this manuscript is “Study of the Dynamics of a Beet Leaves Harvester”. The topic is interesting, and a mathematical model was established to assess the influence of the structural and kinematic parameters on the oscillations in the longitudinal-vertical plane of the machine during its technological process. However, there are some problems in the manuscript, and major revision is needed before published.
1. Beet leaves harvester is mentioned in the title, but seen from Figure1, it is actually a sugar beet top cutting machine, after the operation of a rotary leaves cutting device, the beet leaves are loaded onto other mobile vehicles in the field by a lifting device, so a joint operation photo of beet leaves harvester and leaves transport vehicle should be added.
2. In line 12, the signature order of the fourth work unit is wrong and should be modified.
3. The quality of Figure 1 is not clear enough to see what crop is harvested in the field, so it should be modified and replaced.
4. Some units in the text do not pay attention to the use of superscript, such as 99 lines, m·s-1, which should be m·s-1. In addition, some alphabetic symbols have no uniform format, such as 181 lines z and formula (5) z, in Figure 2, O is in italics, while 160 lines Point O is not in italics. Please check the full text.
5. The title naming in 2.1 is non-standard and needs to be modified.
6. The key technical parameters of the beet leaves harvester, such as main size, supporting power, operating width, production efficiency, etc., should be given in a table.
7. The beet leaves rotary cutting device and transport device in Figure 1 are the main structures of the beet leaves harvester, and their structural schematic diagrams and main design parameters must be given in the text.
8. In line 260-263, are there any references for the values of ?, ?, ?, ???, etc.? In addition, the frequency range given in Figure 3 is 0~40s-1. Please provide the value basis?
9. Where and in which year the experiment was carried out? and how about the planting agronomy of the beet in the field when the beet leaves were harvested, please supplement.
10. How about the actual field operation performance indicators (such as top cutting qualification rate, multi cutting rate, etc.) after the dynamic study of beet leaf harvester is completed? Relevant test results need to be supplemented, please supplement the technical standards referred to.
11. What detection tools are used in the dynamics research of beet leaves harvester? Pictures should be given to explain. In addition, please add relevant caption to explain the specific detection accuracy and application range of these detection devices.
12. What does this publication ultimately off us for future application and what is its contribution to science research? These should be given in the conclusion.
Author Response
Read the attached file
Kind regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
After reading the revised manuscript carefully, I find that the quality of the revised manuscript has already been improved; the technical deficiencies of the manuscript have been corrected.
