Vibration Response of Soil under Low-Frequency Vibration Using the Discrete Element Method
, Jinyu Song 1,2, Xiang Ma 1,2, Xiangqian Dong 1,2, Chao Zhang 3 and Jiannong Song 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a method based on DEM（Discrete Element Method) to study the vibration response and pressure transmission under low-frequency vibration. The results analyzed the relative errors between the test bench data and the simulation data. The test data were also analyzed by peak pressure, frequency domain response, effective transmission distance, and vibration pressure transfer path, to verify the validity of the DEM method. The following issues need to be addressed.
1. Is it reasonable to bury only one soil pressure sensor in the bench test? Does the location of the sensor have a direct impact on the results of the collected data?
2. What are the advantages of DEM compared with other soil pressure analysis methods? Can the experimental results in this paper verify the advantages of the DEM method?
3. Parameter “5” in formula (2) needs to be explained.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, a low-frequency vibration transfer test bench was constructed, and a single-factor bench test was conducted. The bench test results were analyzed. The influence of the test factors on the peak pressure, frequency domain response, and effective transmission distance was analyzed by simulation tests. In reviewer's view, the paper is interesting and worth for publication in the journal. However, following comments are advised to be considered before acceptance:
1. Line 91, please check the font format of 'figure 1'.
2. Line 125, "In the previous stage, we worked on the energy-saving and efficient harvesting of root rhizome crops (liquorice, cassava, and potatoes)". What does that mean? Please add the appropriate citation.
3. The selection of parameters is crucial in the process of simulation modelling. It is recommended that the authors provide further explanations on the determination of the parameters in Table 1.
4. In chapter 3.2, " the relative errors between the simulated and measured values are less than 8.64%, 10.03%, and 10.22%". It is recommended that the authors refer to the relevant literature and give a reasonable range of allowable errors.
5. Some references are formatted incorrectly, such as references [1], [4], [11], [17], [20]and [22] Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
6. The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
7. Some of the pictures are blurry and the fonts are not clear. It is recommended that the overall quality of the images in the text be improved.
In this paper, a low-frequency vibration transfer test bench was constructed, and a single-factor bench test was conducted. The bench test results were analyzed. The influence of the test factors on the peak pressure, frequency domain response, and effective transmission distance was analyzed by simulation tests. In reviewer's view, the paper is interesting and worth for publication in the journal. However, following comments are advised to be considered before acceptance:
1. Line 91, please check the font format of 'figure 1'.
2. Line 125, "In the previous stage, we worked on the energy-saving and efficient harvesting of root rhizome crops (liquorice, cassava, and potatoes)". What does that mean? Please add the appropriate citation.
3. The selection of parameters is crucial in the process of simulation modelling. It is recommended that the authors provide further explanations on the determination of the parameters in Table 1.
4. In chapter 3.2, " the relative errors between the simulated and measured values are less than 8.64%, 10.03%, and 10.22%". It is recommended that the authors refer to the relevant literature and give a reasonable range of allowable errors.
5. Some references are formatted incorrectly, such as references [1], [4], [11], [17], [20]and [22] Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
6. The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
7. Some of the pictures are blurry and the fonts are not clear. It is recommended that the overall quality of the images in the text be improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your comprehensive and specific review of the manuscript. We modified the manuscript according to your suggestion, which makes the paper reach a higher level.
Point 1: Line 91, please check the font format of 'figure 1'.
Response 1: Changed in the paper, at line 97.
Point 2: Line 125, "In the previous stage, we worked on the energy-saving and efficient harvesting of root rhizome crops (liquorice, cassava, and potatoes)". What does that mean? Please add the appropriate citation.
Response 2: It has been revised in the paper and the references have been repositioned, at line 187.
Point 3: The selection of parameters is crucial in the process of simulation modelling. It is recommended that the authors provide further explanations on the determination of the parameters in Table 1.
Response 3: DEM modelling of soils was used similar to the purpose of this study, which has been carried out by many scholars. The accuracy of the model was verified by bench tests, and the results showed that the modelling was accurate. It has been revised in the paper.
Point 4: In chapter 3.2, " the relative errors between the simulated and measured values are less than 8.64%, 10.03%, and 10.22%". It is recommended that the authors refer to the relevant literature and give a reasonable range of allowable errors.
Response 4: Relevant literature has been added. The discrete element simulation permits a maximum simulation error of about 10%, due to the fact that the Peak pressure value is small when the Vibration distance is large, and small variations lead to large error values. Therefore, the model is considered to be accurate.
Point 5: Some references are formatted incorrectly, such as references [1], [4], [11], [17], [20]and [22] Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
Response 5: References [1], [4], [11], [17], [20] and [22] have been corrected and double-checked throughout.
Point 6: The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
Response 6: Relevant statements have been revised in the second paragraph of the introduction.
Point 7: Some of the pictures are blurry and the fonts are not clear. It is recommended that the overall quality of the images in the text be improved.
Response 7: Pictures have been changed to improve clarity.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Through the application of the discrete element method, this study unveils the vibration response and pressure transfer dynamics of soil under low-frequency vibrations. Utilizing multiple exponential functions, we accurately model the decay function of peak pressure. These findings hold substantial utility in the design of vibratory soil contact components for agricultural machinery, facilitating the optimization of vibration parameters to achieve energy-efficient and reduced-resistance soil tillage.
While this paper maintains a coherent structure, logical flow, and practical experimental design, several enhancements can be implemented before publication:
In the introductory section on the first page, it is advisable to commence by defining "soil vibration response." Subsequently, introduce pertinent background information elucidating why this has evolved into a research focal point.
On line 72, the article asserts that indoor bench testing can mitigate uncertainty; however, the specific mechanisms through which this occurs remain unspecified. Further elaboration on this point would enhance clarity.
Information pertaining to the parameters of various equipment and instruments (lines 90-96) and the parameters of select materials (lines 175-185) could be presented in tabular format. This would facilitate a more reader-friendly comprehension of the data.
Some of the previous research is described in line 125, but some of the information seems to jump larger. It is recommended that more background information be provided to explain why specific vibration parameters were chosen.
Changes in the data can be seen in the figure, but it is recommended to add key information or labels so that the reader can more intuitively and quickly identify the information expressed by the author.
In lines 442-446, when referencing future research, it is worthwhile to delve further into the significance and potential ramifications of forthcoming studies. This will elucidate the enduring value of this research to the reader.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Point 1: In the introductory section on the first page, it is advisable to commence by defining "soil vibration response." Subsequently, introduce pertinent background information elucidating why this has evolved into a research focal point.
Response 1: Define "soil vibration response" to help clarify the purpose of the paper. This has been changed in the introductory section on the first page.
Point 2: On line 72, the article asserts that indoor bench testing can mitigate uncertainty; however, the specific mechanisms through which this occurs remain unspecified. Further elaboration on this point would enhance clarity.
Response 2: Bench testing avoids the interference of unknown factors during field testing and facilitates the consistency of test conditions, which is conducive to the effective conduct of the test. The relevant expressions have been revised in the paper.
Point 3: Information pertaining to the parameters of various equipment and instruments (lines 90-96) and the parameters of select materials (lines 175-185) could be presented in tabular format. This would facilitate a more reader-friendly comprehension of the data.
Response 3: Parameters of various equipment and instruments (lines 90-96) has presented in tabular format.
Point 4: Some of the previous research is described in line 125, but some of the information seems to jump larger. It is recommended that more background information be provided to explain why specific vibration parameters were chosen.
Response 4: Relevant statements have been added to the paper.
Point 5:.Changes in the data can be seen in the figure, but it is recommended to add key information or labels so that the reader can more intuitively and quickly identify the information expressed by the author.
Response 5: Adding key information or labels are more indicative of the intent of the article, and some changes can be added to the text already.
Point 6: In lines 442-446, when referencing future research, it is worthwhile to delve further into the significance and potential ramifications of forthcoming studies. This will elucidate the enduring value of this research to the reader.
Response 6: Future research can further validate the accuracy of discrete element simulations and specify the factors affecting soil vibration, which will help to support the development of vibration response mechanisms for soils. Already revised in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study presented a new method based on DEM to study the vibration response and pressure transmission under low-frequency vibration. Although the use of DEM is continuously increasing in agricultural engineering applications, there are few studies dealing with vibration response of soil. The paper is clear and well written. However, there are a few minor issues needed to work out prior to the acceptance.
(1) Line 177, the parameters of soil referred from these studies may be influenced by the generation method of simulation test model, the reliability of the parameters should be supplemented in detail.
(2) In Figure 8, What is the meaning of the vertical axis? Are the meanings expressed in Tables 3-5 and Figure 8 the same?
(3) Line 356-373, the textual descriptions in Figures 9 and 10 should be carefully organized, some numerical values are difficult to obtain from the figures.
(4) Some discussions between this study and other related studies is suggested.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It can be accepted in the current version.
It can be accepted in the current version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
