A Multi-Objective Optimization Method for a Tractor Driveline Based on the Diversity Preservation Strategy of Gradient Crowding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewers’ comments on Manuscript No. agriculture-2457145

 

 

Title	:	No modification needed.
Abstract	:	Need modifications, also incorporate the statistical analysis results.
Keywords	:	Need modifications. Use keywords as short as possible like instead of the loss rate of driving power just put driving power and specific fuel consumption. In place of optimal matching Optimization will make broad sense and attract traffic. Rearranged in alphabetical order.
Introduction	:	An introduction of manuscript is written in good structure and relevant to the study.   1.         Citation of similar works done by others quoting the references in proper format of the journal.   2.           Hypothesis must be added in this section.   3.         Some Missing References are there in the manuscript. modifications needed as suggested: Line 32-35; 61-62 and 72-74
Materials and Methods	:	Found many flaws and technically unsound methodology adopted for study. Need modifications before acceptance.   1.      If is a lack of citation in the methodology, it shows that it has been invented by you.   2.      Revise this portion with minor English editing. Be precise and focused.   3.      Eq. 3 Reference citation needed.   4.      Some Missing References are there in the manuscript. modifications needed as suggested: Line 140-143; 145-149; 151-155; 183-186;207-220 and 229-233.   5.      No Statistical analysis was conducted or represented in the manuscript.
Results and Discussion		Found many flaws and technically unsupportive results were shown in this study. Need modifications before acceptance.   1.      Sub heading 4.1 must be placed in material and methods section only results to be shown in this section. 2.      Fig. 4 Explain each fig separately for better understanding. 3.      Table 3 the Numeric values must be of equal decimal places either 6 or 8. It shows an unequal comparison. 4.      Explain More About Algorithms (all Three) in Introduction or in Materials and Methods section with more details. 5.      No Justification on discussion of the outcome of the study with similar studies. 6.      Fig. 5 Graph is not clear use different shape for representation of different algorithms. 7.      Why there were Two different explanation of Table 6. Recheck.
Conclusion		1.      GC_NSGA-II  is selected Conclusion Why not SPEA-II??  Please Explain.

Quality of English was used in manuscript is good and as author acknowledged they used English language editing services for this manuscript.

Author Response

Dear editor

Dear reviewers and experts

Thank you for giving me the chance to modify the manuscript. All efforts are for our article can meet the publication criteria and be published in the journal. Based on the comments of the reviewers, we responded item by item, one-to-one and point-to-point.

To reviewer#1

1. Abstract: Need modifications, also incorporate the statistical analysis results.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten the abstract and included the results of the statistical analysis. See lines 9-26 of the revised manuscript for more details.

2. Keywords: Need modifications. Use keywords as short as possible like instead of the loss rate of driving power just put driving power and specific fuel consumption. In place of optimal matching Optimization will make broad sense and attract traffic. Rearranged in alphabetical order.

Based on your suggestions we have revised the keywords in the new manuscript, using concise keywords instead of the original ones.

3. Introduction:

(1) Citation of similar works done by others quoting the references in proper format of the journal.

       We have cited similar work done by others and cited references in the appropriate journal format.

(2) Hypothesis must be added in this section.

We have revised the introduction and added the relevant assumptions. Details are in the revised manuscript lines 81-91.

(3) Some Missing References are there in the manuscript. modifications needed as suggested: Line 32-35; 61-62 and 72-74.

We have added the necessary references where relevant. See the list of references (1)- (3), (22) and (31) for specific information.

4. Materials and Methods:

       (1) If is a lack of citation in the methodology, it shows that it has been invented by you.

We have checked the manuscript and added the necessary references to the methods used to quote others.

       (2) Revise this portion with minor English editing. Be precise and focused.

       The manuscript has been linguistically corrected and checked for accuracy of wording throughout. We hope you will be pleased with the revised manuscript.

       (3) Eq. 3 Reference citation needed.

       We have added references for Equation 3, as specified in the list of references (33)-(34).

       (4) Some Missing References are there in the manuscript. modifications needed as suggested: Line 140-143; 145-149; 151-155; 183-186;207-220 and 229-233.

       Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the necessary references for the relevant content, as shown in the list of references (35), (33)-(34), (36)-(37), (37), (38)-(39) and (40).

5. Results and Discussion:

       (1) Sub heading 4.1 must be placed in material and methods section only results to be shown in this section.

       Thanks to your suggestion, we have added the method from section 4.1 of the original manuscript to section 3.3 and changed the title of section 3.3 to “Multi-objective optimization algorithm for Gradient Crowding and evaluation metrics”.

       (2) Fig. 4 Explain each fig separately for better understanding.

       We have added the relevant explanations of Figure 4 in the revised manuscript. Figure 4 shows a visual presentation of the performance of the different methods on the standard functions (ZDT1,ZDT2,ZDT3,ZDT4 and ZDT6) for solving the problem.

       (3) Table 3 the Numeric values must be of equal decimal places either 6 or 8. It shows an unequal comparison.

       Thank you for your suggestion, we have amended the content to keep all data to 6 decimal places to ensure they have the same level of comparison.

       (4) Explain More About Algorithms (all Three) in Introduction or in Materials and Methods section with more details.

       Thanks to your suggestion, the aim of this paper is to optimise the traditional NSGA-II and SPEA-II algorithms based on gradient congestion and to address their shortcomings in terms of the spatial search capability of non-dominated solutions and the preservation of homogeneity of populations. We show the details of the original algorithm in revised manuscript lines 166-176 where appropriate.

       (5) Fig. 5 Graph is not clear use different shape for representation of different algorithms.

       We have modified Figure 5 in line with your suggestion, changing the legend of the different algorithms to make it clearer.

       (6) Why there were Two different explanation of Table 6. Recheck.

       Apologies for any misunderstandings caused by our writing errors; lines 369-380 of the original manuscript show the interpretation of Figure 6 (Figure 7 of the revised manuscript), while lines 381-388 show the interpretation of Table 6. We have corrected the relevant content.

6. Conclusion: GC_NSGA-II is selected Conclusion Why not SPEA-II?? Please Explain.

The distribution of all individuals produced during evolution is a record of the evolutionary ability, as can be seen from Figure 5 and Table 3 given by the distribution of individuals during the experiment, using the algorithms with improved gradient congestion (GC_NSGA-II and GC_SPEA-II), had better diversity and more uniform distribution at the front end compared to the traditional algorithms (NSGA-II and SPEA-II). However, the GC_NSGA-II algorithm had the best diversity performance, with individuals being produced relatively efficiently during the evolutionary process. The generation of individuals is relatively efficient, without wasting too many individuals in spaces far from the optimal front end. The high density of individuals near the front end of the optimum results in a good convergence trend. Therefore, the GC_NSGA-II algorithm was selected.

Reviewer 2 Report

what is the value of the adhesion coefficient? and it is for soil. what type of soil? 

 The maximum traction force of a tractor is calculated based on the first gear of the   primary operation during plowing working conditions. Additionally, a reserve traction   force of 10-20% is maintained to accommodate diverse working conditions and variations   in resistance due to farm implements. In Eq. 8, the number 1.2 may be also 1.1, so what is the difference in opeimation results. If the slip was higher than 10-20%, what will be happen in opeimation results.

 

What is the value of the specific soil resistance?

What is the value of the rolling resistance coefficient on the different surface? the rolling resistance coefficient of the highway is different if the surface is tilted, firm or soil soils.

The values for torque for the driving wheels are measured or acquired from tractor testing data.

 In the case of FWA tractor, what is the modifications in the equations or in optimization methods

Author Response

Dear editor

Dear reviewers and experts

Thank you for giving me the chance to modify the manuscript. All efforts are for our article can meet the publication criteria and be published in the journal. Based on the comments of the reviewers, we responded item by item, one-to-one and point-to-point.

To reviewer#2

1. what is the value of the adhesion coefficient? and it is for soil. what type of soil?

The coefficient of adhesion of the soil we consider is 0.6-0.8, a range that basically satisfies the soil for ploughing operations and transport roads.

2. The maximum traction force of a tractor is calculated based on the first gear of the primary operation during plowing working conditions. Additionally, a reserve traction force of 10-20% is maintained to accommodate diverse working conditions and variations in resistance due to farm implements. In Eq. 8, the number 1.2 may be also 1.1, so what is the difference in opeimation results. If the slip was higher than 10-20%, what will be happen in opeimation results.

The coefficient was chosen to take into account a plough with 5 ploughshares, a single ploughshare width of 30 cm, a ploughing depth of approximately 25 cm and a soil specific resistance of 8 N·cm² when 1.2 was chosen as appropriate. As the slip rate changes from 0 to 100%, the coefficient of adhesion does not always increase, but there is a peak, which is reached near 20% of the slip rate. As the coefficient of adhesion is defined as the ratio of the ground braking force to the vertical load on the tyre, this means that at the peak of the coefficient of adhesion, the ground can provide close to 90% of the vehicle's weight for braking, which is the theoretical maximum braking force, but the ground can provide up to this amount of braking force and as soon as this value is exceeded, the tyre will bind and drag. To maintain the maximum ground braking force throughout the braking process, it is necessary to maintain the slip rate at around 20%.

3. What is the value of the specific soil resistance?

The soil specific resistance we have chosen is 8 N·cm².

4. What is the value of the rolling resistance coefficient on the different surface? the rolling resistance coefficient of the highway is different if the surface is tilted, firm or soil soils.

Yes, the rolling resistance coefficient varies from surface to surface. In equation 8 the rolling resistance coefficient is 0.06 (in the case of stubble land), however the rolling resistance coefficient in equation 9 is 0.03, which is the rolling coefficient for roads.

5. The values for torque for the driving wheels are measured or acquired from tractor testing data.

The raw torque of the engine is calculated by means of basic parameters, while the output torque for each gear is obtained by means of a torque power meter (SGDN-2000 Shanghai Shigan Industrial Co., Ltd.).

6. In the case of FWA tractor, what is the modifications in the equations or in optimization methods?

Thank you for the reminder, unfortunately our current research has only started with an initial study of engine design and has not taken into account the different types of tractor usage scenarios. We will, of course, take full account of engine adaptation in our subsequent research to make it more practical.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is suggested that the authors should address the following issues to further improve their manuscript.

First, in the Introduction section, the authors should identify the research gap and clarify their main contributions. This is very important for readers to know what is new knowledge to the field.

Second, the citations for section 2 are insufficient, the authors must provide more. The authors must be careful about these formulas, especially, to explain each parameter given.

Third, gradient crowding is a known algorithm, therefore, the authors must cite relevant references.

Fourth, before presenting the experimental results, the authors should clarify the data used in this experiment, as well as introduce evaluation criteria.

Fifth, in Line 271, the algorithms for comparison lack citations.

Sixth, figure legends were missing in Tables 5 and 6, for instance, what is the meaning of the x-axis?

Seventhly, there lacks a discussion section. The authors must compare their proposal with current ones. Also, the the authors should discuss about the limitation of their work.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear editor

Dear reviewers and experts

Thank you for giving me the chance to modify the manuscript. All efforts are for our article can meet the publication criteria and be published in the journal. Based on the comments of the reviewers, we responded item by item, one-to-one and point-to-point.

To reviewer#3

1. First, in the Introduction section, the authors should identify the research gap and clarify their main contributions. This is very important for readers to know what is new knowledge to the field.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have made changes to the relevant content. See revised manuscript lines 59-54, 65-80 and 81-91 for details.

2. Second, the citations for section 2 are insufficient, the authors must provide more. The authors must be careful about these formulas, especially, to explain each parameter given.

Thanks to your suggestion, we have checked the full text and added references to the necessary citations, as shown in the list of references.

3. Third, gradient crowding is a known algorithm, therefore, the authors must cite relevant references.

Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the necessary references to the quotations, which can be found in the list of references (31).

4. Fourth, before presenting the experimental results, the authors should clarify the data used in this experiment, as well as introduce evaluation criteria.

Thanks to your suggestion, we have revised the original manuscript to include a description of the evaluation indicators for the method in section 3.3.

5. Fifth, in Line 271, the algorithms for comparison lack citations.

We have added references to the relevant content, which can be found in revised manuscript lines 220-231.

6. Sixth, figure legends were missing in Tables 5 and 6, for instance, what is the meaning of the x-axis?

Thank you for your reminder and we apologise for any misunderstanding you may have had due to our error in writing it. We have corrected this problem in our revised manuscript.

7. Seventhly, there lacks a discussion section. The authors must compare their proposal with currentones. Also, the authors should discuss about the limitation of their work.

We add a discussion of the results in each section of the algorithm validation, show the comparative results of the different algorithms in section 4.1, and add the scope and limitations of the methods in the summary section. We hope that the revised manuscript will satisfy you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all my concerns and I have no further comments.

Need minor English editing.