Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following items are announced for review and correction.

1-      In terms of writing, long sentences are generally have been used.

 

2-      Throughout the text, different words were used for the same topic, which it is caused confusion. For example:

-          “The diameter of the spiral winch blade (vs) the diameter of auger blade”

-          “The screw shaft diameter and the screw diameter (Line 109) (vs) the winch blade diameter, winch shaft diameter, and winch pitch (Line 114)”

-          “Compactness” (Line 368) (vs) “density” (Line 366)

-          …

3-      In the abstract, Line 26, “….was greater than 1.30 g/cm³”. What does this value relate to?

4-      In section 1- Introduction of the forming device, it is not mentioned that it is connected to the tractor and moves on the farm. According to Figure 8 - the presence of an electric motor to provide power is ambiguous.

5-      In Line 190 – How is there adhesion between straw and soil? Is not moisture necessary to connect the straw with the soil?

6-      The rotational speed of the auger axis is effective in the production rate and tube density. This issue is not mentioned in the simulation model and car prototype.

7-      In section 4 – Field tests. It is recommended to change the position of the first and second paragraphs. Then make the necessary edits.

8-      In section 4 – field tests. The conditions before the optimization of the extrusion component of the device are not clear?

9-      Figure 8 shows a distant view of the device in operation. It is necessary to present a close-up view. Also, please provide pictures of samples of production pipes.

10-  How was the amount and method of mixing the input materials (straw and soil) in the field test?

11-  Considering the non-use of optimization methods, it is recommended to revise the title of the article.

12-  There are other questions and comments in the attached file. Please pay attention to them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Journal：Applied Sciences

Manuscript ID：applsci-2060425

Title: Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed revisions are listed below point by point.

-Reviewer 1
Thanks for the proposed Comments and Suggestions. The following lists how the authors can improve their manuscript.

1. In terms of writing, long sentences are generally have been used.

• Thanks for your comments.We have revised the entire manuscript carefully, the changes are highlighted in blue font in the paper.

2. 2. Throughout the text, different words were used for the same topic, which it is caused confusion. For example:

-“The diameter of the spiral winch blade (vs) the diameter of auger blade”

- “The screw shaft diameter and the screw diameter (Line 109) (vs) the winch blade diameter, winch shaft diameter, and winch pitch (Line 114)”

- “Compactness” (Line 368) (vs) “density” (Line 366)

-   …

• Thanks for your comments.We have revised the mentioned content.

1. "The diameter of the spiral winch blade (vs) the diameter of auger blade" is modified as "the diameter of winch blade"
2. "The screw shaft diameter and the screw diameter (Line 109) (vs) the winch blade diameter, winch shaft diameter, and winch pitch (Line 114)"is modified as "The shaft diameter of winch and the winch pitch(Line 105) (vs) the diameter of winch blade, shaft diameter of winch, and winch pitch (Line 114)"
3. “Compactness” (Line 368) (vs) “density” (Line 366)is modified as “density” (Line 361) (vs) “density” (Line 363)

In addition, we have revised the entire manuscript carefully, the changes are highlighted in blue font in the paper.

3. In the abstract, Line 26, “….was greater than 1.30 g/cm³”. What does this value relate to?

• Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. Straw composite pipe as a new irrigation material, in the process of application in farmland, it is necessary to meet the stable forming requirements of straw composite pipe, but also to meet the basic requirements of farmland water conservancy in the field of water transmission and distribution. Through the study of the performance indexes of straw composite pipe, it was concluded that when the forming density of straw composite pipe was greater than30g/cm³, the composite pipe has strong bending resistance and good water permeability.

4. In section 1- Introduction of the forming device, it is not mentioned that it is connected to the tractor and moves on the farm. According to Figure 8 - the presence of an electric motor to provide power is ambiguous.

• Thank you very much for your comment.The Figure 1 shows the structure of the forming unit for bench testing. The underground irrigation composite pipe forming unit was connected to the tractor and moves on the farm at a later stage, with the rear output shaft of the tractor providing power to the forming unit. As shown in Figure 8, the power from the rear output shaft of the tractor is transmitted to the forming device through gear drive and chain drive. And explained in Section 1- Introduction of the forming device, the changes are highlighted in blue font in the paper.

5. In Line 190 – How is there adhesion between straw and soil?Is not moisture necessary to connect the straw with the soil?

• Thank you very much for your comments. The Hertz-Mindlin with JKR model used in the simulation process for the adhesion between straw and soil is suitable for powder particles such as pharmaceutical powder and wet materials such as crops, ores, and soil, which are prone to obvious bonding and agglomeration between particles. In the process of realistic experiment, because the straw collected by crushing in the field and the soil collected by the trencher contains a certain amount of moisture, which facilitates the adhesion between straw and soil, if its moisture content is not enough, the adhesion effect is not good, and then add moisture to increase the adhesion between straw and soil.

6. The rotational speed of the auger axis is effective in the production rate and tube density. This issue is not mentioned in the simulation model and car prototype.

• Thanks for your thoughtful consideration. To you that the rotational speed of the auger axis is effective in the production rate and tube density, after the preliminary bench test obtained, the spiral shaft rotation speed was too low would reduce the productivity, the rotation speed was too high molding device will occur violent shaking, which is not conducive to the tube density, so comprehensive consideration of productivity and tube density, determined the spiral shaft rotation speed for the gibber shaft speed at 470r/min, both to ensure the continuity of the corn straw composite tube discharge, and the discharge speed is relatively fast. Therefore, the spiral shaft rotation speed was set to 470rpm in the simulation model, and the field test was conducted when the rotation speed of the forming device was stabilized at about 470r/min by tachometer measurement.

7. In section 4 – Field tests. It is recommended to change the position of the first and second paragraphs. Then make the necessary edits.

• Thanks for your valuable opinion.Based on your suggestions, we have changed the position of the first and second paragraphs in Section 4 and made the necessary edits, which are highlighted in blue font in Section 4.

8. In section 4 – field tests. The conditions before the optimization of the extrusion component of the device are not clear?

• Thanks for your valuable opinion.We have improved the conditions of the field trials according to your suggestions, which are highlighted in blue font in Section 4.

9. Figure 8 shows a distant view of the device in operation. It is necessary to present a close-up view. Also, please provide pictures of samples of production pipes.

• Thank you for your valuable comments, because at that time the test was taken with limited photos, to provide the three-dimensional structure of the equipment, as shown in Figure 1.

 

1. Straw picking device 2.Straw conveying device with winch 3.Secondary crushing device 4.Trenching machine 5.Stranded soil conveying device 6.Topsoil device 7.Composite pipe forming device 8.Winch power input shaft 9.Drive input shaft 10.Belt Drive

Figure 1. Underground irrigation composite pipe forming equipment overall structure

 

When working, the output shaft of the tractor is connected to the strand power input shaft of the corn straw green pipe forming equipment. Under the traction of the tractor, the power is transmitted to the composite pipe forming device through the chain drive. The power is transmitted to the drive shaft of the straw picking device through the belt pulley. The corn stalks are blown to the structure parts of the moving knife and fixed knife under the drive of wind power for secondary crushing of corn stalks, and the secondary crushed corn stalks are blown to the compound pipe forming device immediately afterwards; the trenching device crushes the soil obtained from trenching and conveys it to the gibbering soil conveying device, and the soil is transferred to the compound pipe forming device through the soil loading device; the crushed corn stalks and soil are mixed and extruded into a pipe, and in the process of moving the corn straw green pipe forming equipment forward, the extruded composite pipe is driven by its own gravity through the chute into the ditch opened by the trenching device. Device close-up view is shown in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2. Device close-up view

 

 

 

Figure 3. The samples of production pipes

Samples of production pipes is shown in Figure 3. The figure shows a physical view of the extruded composite pipe from the bench test.

10. How was the amount and method of mixing the input materials (straw and soil) in the field test?

• Thanks for your thoughtful consideration, We got the suitable mixing ratio of straw and soil through the preliminary bench test, but at the current equipment test stage, the straw and soil mixture is not uniform enough. Through adjusting the driving speed of the tractor to control the straw feeding amount and the trencher speed to control the soil feeding amount, we will later, with the help of the control system, adjust the feeding amounts of straw and soil to make them reach the suitable mixture ratio requirement.

11. Considering the non-use of optimization methods, it is recommended to revise the title of the article.

• Thanks for your valuable opinion. We changed the title of the article to "Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device," which are highlighted in blue fontin the paper.

12. There are other questions and comments in the attached file. Please pay attention to them.

• Thank you for your valuable questions and comments, and we have made appropriate changes in accordance with your suggestions, the details are listed in blue fontin the paper.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good attempt has been made to identify comprehensive utilization of corn straw. My sincere advice you to identify a good method to determine the optimization output conditions of the various input parameters.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Journal：Applied Sciences

Manuscript ID：applsci-2060425

Title: Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed revisions are listed below point by point.

-Reviewer 2
Thanks for the proposed Comments and Suggestions. The following lists how the authors can improve their manuscript.

1. Good attempt has been made to identify comprehensive utilization of corn straw. My sincere advice you to identify a good method to determine the optimization output conditions of the various input parameters.

• It is our honor to get your affirmation, and you have given us a good suggestion. We are currently adjusting the rear output shaft speed of the tractor to control the winch speed. When the corn feeding is not enough to increase the driving speed of the tractor to crush more corn per unit time, or when the soil feeding is not enough to adjust the speed of the trencher, as the trencher speed increases, the soil collected increases. Now that the test equipment is in the R&D design stage, your suggestion gives us a good research direction for further optimization and transformation of the equipment, and we intend to design the control system to monitor various input parameters in real time and optimize the output conditions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Title - reflects the subject matter.

Abstract - requires a  correction (too general)

Introduction

 

The introduction is a good description of the area of research. However, the authors provide only very general information in this section.

Material and Methods

 

The research was performed using modern and well-chosen methods which guarantee the reliability of the obtained results. 

The design of experiments is not clear. What was the goal?

Discussion in its present form is a simple listing of existing literature data. I don't see even little attempt to explain the mechanisms.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Journal：Applied Sciences

Manuscript ID：applsci-2060425

Title: Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed revisions are listed below point by point.

-Reviewer 3
Thanks for the proposed Comments and Suggestions. The following lists how the authors can improve their manuscript.

1. Title - reflects the subject matter.

• Thank you for your valuable comments, we have revised the title according to the topic of the paper to "Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device," which are highlighted in blue fontin the paper.

2. Abstract - requires a  correction (too general).

• Thank you for your suggestion, we changed the abstract to：In order to promote the comprehensive utilization of corn straw and the development of field water-saving irrigation technology, a kind of underground irrigation composite pipe forming device mixed with soil extrusion molding was designed. The key extrusion forming components affecting the forming rate of composite pipe were optimized by taking the diameter of the winch blade, the shaft diameter of the winch, and the winch pitch as variables and the discharge rate and the output power of the winch shaft as test indices. The best structural parameters of the extrusion-forming components were obtained by using the weight normalization method: the diameter of the winch blade was 430 mm, the shaft diameter of the winch was 86 mm, the winch pitch was 387 mm, and the discharge rate was 1.37 kg/s. The forming rate of the composite pipe was increased by 41%. Field tests were conducted to verify the simulation test results, and the relative error between the forming rate of composite pipe and the simulation test value was 5.88%, which verified the reliability of the simulation test. The average value of compactness of the extruded composite pipe was 1.92 g/cm³, which met the requirements for composite pipe forming. And listed in blue fontin the paper.

3. The introduction is a good description of the area of research. However, the authors provide only very general information in this section.

• Thank you for your good suggestion, we have revised the introductory section appropriately and highlighted in blue fontin the paper.

4. The research was performed using modern and well-chosen methods which guarantee the reliability of the obtained results. 

• We are very honored to receive your affirmation, and we will continue to work hard and wish you good luck in your work.

5. The design of experiments is not clear. What was the goal?

• Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we also recognize the shortcomings in the design of the experiment and made the corresponding changes and improvements, the revised content is：In order to verify the validity of the simulation optimization results of the extrusion component and to compare and analyze the forming efficiency of the extruded composite pipe of the underground irrigation composite pipe forming device before and after the optimization of the extrusion component, using the constructed corn straw return machine at the test base of Moist Agricultural Equipment Co. in Hebi City, Henan Province, China. The main working parts of the corn straw return machine include straw collection, crushing, conveying mechanisms, and trenching mechanisms, as well as an underground irrigation compound pipe-forming device. The parameters of the underground irrigation composite pipe forming device were optimized: diameter of the winch blade was 430 mm, shaft diameter of the winch was 86 mm, and winch pitch was 387 mm. The field operation of the test prototype is shown in Figure 7.The test material was corn from the local test field, and the moisture content of corn in the area was obtained at 25% by sampling the average value randomly for different areas. To ensure the effectiveness of the field test, a 2 m wide and 10 m long area was selected for the underground irrigation composite pipe forming test, and the underground irrigation composite pipe forming device was controlled at about 477 r/min by adjusting the output shaft speed of the tractor before the test. To use 1 m as a marker to measure the length of the test distance of 6 m, the tractor must reach a 6.5 km/h traction speed for work. Under the tractor's traction, the whole machine started to operate in the field. According to the preliminary test, we got a composite pipe with an outer diameter of 100 mm and an inner diameter of 30 mm, and the composite pipe's forming density is not less than 1.30 g/cm³, which is qualified [10]. When the whole machine operating distance is 1m stopwatch record operating time, and the length of 100cm composite pipe weighing process, a total of 6 groups of length of 100cm composite pipe forming weight, forming time, calculate the forming density, forming rate. Test six times to get the average value; the test results are shown in Table 4. And highlighted in blue fontin the paper.

6. Discussion in its present form is a simple listing of existing literature data. I don't see even little attempt to explain the mechanisms.

• Thank you very much for your professional comments. We have further interpreted and analyzed the data according to your proposed changes, which are highlighted in blue fontin the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the previous comments, the authors have modified the article to an acceptable extent. But a few other things need to be checked as follows.

1.        It is necessary to present a close-up view. Also, please, provide a close-up view from the machine as well as pictures of samples of production pipes.

2.        Performance indicators were the tube density and comprehensive performance index. Please, define the Comprehensive Performance Index.

3.        There is no discussion about reducing the tube density after optimization.

4.        The explanation about the value of 1.3 kg/cm³ was not convincing. I think that is related to the bulk density of the mixture of the soil and straw.

5.        There are some tips in the answer file to the questions that can be included in the text of the article.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Journal： Applied Sciences

Manuscript ID：applsci-2060425

Title: Research on the Structure of Underground Irrigation Composite Pipe Forming Device

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your useful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed revisions are listed below point by point.

-Reviewer 1
Thanks for the proposed Comments and Suggestions. The following lists how the authors can improve their manuscript.

1. It is necessary to present a close-up view. Also, please, provide a close-up view from the machine as well as pictures of samples of production pipes.

• Thanks for your comments. The timing of the machine to do the tests matched the farming time, resulting in a limited number of tests. This is a close-up view of the machine under processing and stagnation, as well as for safety considerations during the test session. A more detailed view will be shown as the development stage of the machine progresses. The following pictures are close-up views of the machine during processing, as well as sample pictures of the production pipes.

 

Figure 1. Close-up view of the machine

 

 

Figure 2. Samples of production pipes

 

2. Performance indicators were the tube density and comprehensive performance index. Please, define the Comprehensive Performance Index.

• Thank you for your valuable comments. For the comprehensive performance index in Line 300 of the paper, in order to comprehensively reflect the comprehensive performance of the test device, we weighted the composite tube forming rate and winch shaft output power for analysis.

3. There is no discussion about reducing the tube density after optimization.

• Thank you for your interesting points. Through a large number of experiments in the early stage, we got the suitable forming density of the composite tube, but the low forming rate of the composite tube affected the working efficiency. Therefore, this article focuses on the forming rate on the basis of satisfying the forming density of composite pipes.

4. The explanation about the value of 1.3 kg/cm³was not convincing. I think that is related to the bulk density of the mixture of the soil and straw.

• Thank you for suggesting meaningful research directions. Through the preliminary test, we got that the main factor affecting the density of composite pipe forming is the amount of straw blending, with the increase of straw blending, the density of composite pipe decreases. The straw blending amount was 5%, the initial moisture content was 26%, and the spiral shaft speed was 470 r/min, which was favorable for the composite pipe forming.

5. There are some tips in the answer file to the questions that can be included in the text of the article.

• Thank you for your valuable corrections. We have marked the revisions in blue in the paper.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf