Design and Optimization of High Ground Clearance Self-Propelled Sprayer Chassis Frame
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article: Design and optimization of high ground clearance self-propelled sprayer chassis frame
was reviewed and the following considerations were found:
Abstract: The first line (line 10) of the abstract is not well edited.
Material and methods:
Line 110. Add full stop after torques. Eliminate based on this,.
Line 111. Add full stop after Figure 2.
Line 124. Add full stop after axle and eliminate the word and.
Line 134. Add full stop after axle and eliminate the word and.
Line 180: Can you mention what is the variable Fwx.
Why if in equation 5 Fwx= 3λ - 2λ2 it is managed as Fwx= 3λ1 - 4λ12 in equation 11 (line 200).
Line 233 is not clear and should be rewritten.
Lines 243-262 have to be moved to the end of the material-method section.
Therefore, the result section should begin in line 263.
Lines 321-331 should be moved to a discussion section.
Line 358. They are figures not diagrams.; it is also figure 11b in line 362.
The paragraph from line 348 to 366 is the same as the one from line 369-386. ONE HAS TO BE DELETED.
The paragraph from lines 396-400 should be rewritten and clarified as previous lines in the paragraph express the same.
The sentence from lines 418 to 423 is no clear at all and should be rewritten.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION. (line 480) In an article the conclusions are a separate and final section of it. It encompasses the main results obtained in your article and therefore of your project. In the case of the discussion it compares your results with others found in the literature.
REFERENCES:
Reference 21, line 569. XUE is all in capital letters.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Newness is not emphasized enough. Novelty and importance should be highlighted.
In the article, the problem of design and optimization of high ground clearance self-propelled sprayer chassis frame of application deals with help of engineering software. Optimization is carried out automatically using software (Figures 11 and 12). It seems like an ordinary engineering design.
„the frame was modeled in 3D and imported into ANSYS Workbench“. I suggest to clarify what software was used for the drawn 3D model.
Is static analysis sufficient for presenting frame results? After all, the sprayer travels on the soil that is uneven. Will the recommended design really be stable enough in outdoor conditions? The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Given results should be compared with other researchers in the Discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper with title: “Design and optimization of high ground clearance self-propelled sprayer chassis frame” is an original scientific paper.
The main goal of the paper is to develop and optimize the chassis frame by using of static mechanical properties of frame under bending, torsion, emergency braking and emergency turning conditions which are analyzed by finite element method and optimized. Also, the topology optimization method is used to optimize crossbeam and the reinforcement beam position. The obtained results are significantly and showed 2,2% reduction in the overall mass of the frame, 19.4% reduction in the maximum deformation while maintaining a small change in the maximum stress in the bending condition, and a 4.1% and 15.1% reduction in the maximum deformation and maximum stress of the frame in the torsion condition, respectively. At the end, the results showed that the frame mass and maximum stress were reduced by 6.8% and 1.9%, respectively, in the bending condition at the cost of a slight increase in frame deformation.
The structure of paper is systematically presented in several parts, such as: introduction and literature review, materials and methods, presentation of a new concept solution, results, discussion, and conclusion. The introduction is presented in detail with using a lot of references and conclusion of what will be next research in the paper.
The present referee has the following some comments regarding the paper:
Authors should make better figure 4, (b) and (c), visualization of dimensions “b” can be improved with positioning above on the picture.
Figure 9, Figure 14 and Figure 18 can be improved if measurement value for stress, strain distribution and deformation are greater and visible. In this case I can’t read the value of stress, strain distribution and deformation.
Which kind of material is used for the chassis frame?
There is no doubt that the paper is a scientific one. I hope that the results of this paper will be useful for other researchers in the field of agriculture and engineering design, and it will be cited in their works. I also hope that the presented results will be a start point for bigger and more valuable future work of the authors.
The paper is clearly presented with good quality of the English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
