Digging Performance and Stress Characteristic of the Excavator Bucket
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Nil
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The given topic concerns modeling and simulation in the ANSYS software, which would contribute to optimizing the design of earthmoving equipment to make the excavation process as efficient as possible. The authors of the article highlight innovative elements through the use of optimization of the bucket by the coupled dynamic-discrete element-finite element method. According to the authors' knowledge, this is the first time such a simulation has been conducted. The work is interesting, but I have a few comments/questions:
1. The research goal should be clearly stated.
2. Line 65, 66: "Cleary et al.[15] simulated the excavation process of the excavator, and compared the simulation results with the actual running " What conculsion have been drawn from this research?
3. The drawings and charts should be larger, making them more legible. Especially Figure 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14.
4. Is it possible to include simulations in the form of videos in the links in paper?
What conclusions have been drawn from this research?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I find your paper *almost* sufficient to be published. The research is novel, the approach of the study is clear. The readers (bucket designers and operators) might benefit from reading that paper, however you have to improve the legibility of the enclosed figures and correct some grammar mistakes. I personally like the conducted research, however I think that the Conclusion section should be broadened. I hereby enclose the commented .pdf file with my remarks.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I have found some grammar and spelling mistakes, which I have underlined in the enclosed, commented .pdf file.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Digging performance and stress characteristic of the excavator bucket” (applsci-2614327). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully. The main corrections and responses to the comments are as follows:
Reviewer 3: Comments on applsci-2614327
Comments and Suggestions for Authors. I find your paper *almost* sufficient to be published. The research is novel, the approach of the study is clear. The readers (bucket designers and operators) might benefit from reading that paper, however you have to improve the legibility of the enclosed figures and correct some grammar mistakes. I personally like the conducted research, however I think that the Conclusion section should be broadened. I hereby enclose the commented .pdf file with my remarks. I have found some grammar and spelling mistakes, which I have underlined in the enclosed, commented .pdf file.
R: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions on our work. We have carefully modified our paper according to the comments, and modify contents are highlighted in modified version. Please review Manuscript-revision（attached）.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Nil
