A Study on the Calibration of Wheat Seed Interaction Properties Based on the Discrete Element Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.What is the type of wheat in the experiment and please provide the specific parameters of the wheat.

2.In the 2.1 drum experiment, the soil drum was prepared by gluing soil particles into a PLA drum.How to quantify the disturbance caused by glued soil and then discount to get the corrected results?

3.In the real experimental procedure of 2.2.1, why is the experimental drum filled with 50% of seeds, please indicate the source or explain the reason.

4.Why is only the repose angle when the drum is tilted at 45 degrees chosen in this paper to calibrate the particle-material static and rolling friction coefficients?

5.The decimal points of the data in Table 1 are not consistent in the text, and the same problem exists elsewhere in the text, so please correct it in full.

6.In 3.1, the static and rolling friction coefficients of wheat were calibrated with soil rotors .The target AOR was 52.13.According to the data in Table 1, it is obvious that there is something wrong with this result, please check it carefully.

7.In 3.3, ‘The simulation was carried out in the DEM. The values of the material properties used in the Hertz-Mindlin no-slip numerical model for the DEM simulations were obtained from the literature…’ is duplicated in 2.2.4, please simplify it.

8. There is an error in the subheading of lines 307 and 335 in the text, please check the whole text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to answer your suggestions! 

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

More explanations are needed to make the reader understand the procedures and how to interpret the results.

Both regarding the procedure of the experiments and the interpretation of the results, interventions are necessary during the work.

Check the comments in the work (in pdf)!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. We have tried our best to answer your comments and suggestions! All the changes were made in the manuscript!

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the changes made in the work. It is better than version 1, but I think that the values of some results and some practical recommendations should have appeared in the conclusions.

Congratulations! Success!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your comments increasing the quality of the manuscript! Your comments was helpful! We apologize that we did not understand the first time what you meant. We have made changes according to your comments and all the changes were tracked in the manuscript:

• we have written all the units ( degrees) all over the text and in the tables! (Please check!)
• we have added some experiment results and our believes related to experiment results in the conclusion.