Calibration and Experimental Verification of Finite Element Parameters for Alfalfa Conditioning Model
, Haiyi Wang 1,2, Xueting Ma 1, Liang Wang 1, Decheng Wang 1,* and Xianfa Fang 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Alfalfa is a perennial legume forage with rich nutritional value. On the basis of the finite element method (FEM), this study was conducted to calibrate the finite element parameters of thin-walled plant stems. The relevant research may provide support for the development of alfalfa conditioning treatment technology. However, there are many deficiencies or unclear contents in this paper.
1. The whole introduction did not reflect the scientific value of this paper. What are the problems of alfalfa conditioning in actual production? Is this study a basis for structural optimization design or a reference for improving the quality of alfalfa conditioning operations?
2. The basic properties of the experimental materials are unclear, such as varieties, growth characteristics, etc. Besides, the average moisture content of the experimental alfalfa was a fixed number, which was obviously unreasonable.
3. In this paper, many tests did not reflect the sample size for the mechanical parameter measurement. The paper also has no specific operation control scheme. It is not clear how much the loading speed is, which is difficult to judge the science of the testing method.
4. Alfalfa stem should be a multi-layer composite structure. The main mechanical fault modeling should be considered for being close to the actual structure. Alfalfa stem is considered as a unified structure, which is not scientific.
5. The self-built pressure sensor needs to be calibrated in advance, which is not done in this paper.
6. The results and discussions of the paper are just self-justification, without comparison and analysis with others. It is difficult to evaluate the scientific value.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the following revisions:
- Response to comment: The whole introduction did not reflect the scientific value of this paper. What are the problems of alfalfa conditioning in actual production? Is this study a basis for structural optimization design or a reference for improving the quality of alfalfa conditioning operations?
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have rewritten the relevant sections regarding the issue raised by the reviewer that the introduction does not reflect the scientific value of this paper. The problems in the process of alfalfa conditioning were pointed out, and the reference and parameter basis provided by this study for improving the quality of alfalfa conditioning and optimizing the structure of conditioning rollers were clarified. Please refer to the introduction for detailed modifications.
- Response to comment: The basic properties of the experimental materials are unclear, such as varieties, growth characteristics, etc. Besides, the average moisture content of the experimental alfalfa was a fixed number, which was obviously unreasonable.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have added basic information about the variety, growth characteristics, and moisture content of the experimental materials in the manuscript to address the issue of unclear information. Please refer to Section 2.1 and Table 1 for detailed modifications.
- Response to comment 3: In this paper, many tests did not reflect the sample size for the mechanical parameter measurement. The paper also has no specific operation control scheme. It is not clear how much the loading speed is, which is difficult to judge the science of the testing method.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Regarding the issue of unclear sample information and operation plan in mechanical parameter testing experiments, we have clarified the sample information and loading speed in the manuscript. Please refer to Section 2.1 and Table 1 for detailed modifications.
- Response to comment 4: Alfalfa stem should be a multi-layer composite structure. The main mechanical fault modeling should be considered for being close to the actual structure. Alfalfa stem is considered as a unified structure, which is not scientific.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Regarding the issue of differences between the alfalfa stem model and actual samples, this study referred to multiple literature during implementation. However, it is difficult to separate the different structures of alfalfa stems and measure material parameters separately. Therefore, some researchers have adopted a simplified model approach, such as Tao Chen et al. [44] studying the shear characteristics of alfalfa stems, and Yanhua Ma et al. [46] studying the compression characteristics of alfalfa stems. So this study drew on such methods to simplify the model. Meanwhile, how to model alfalfa stems more accurately and achieve multi-layer alfalfa stem models will be the focus of future research. Please refer to Sections 2.2 and 3 for specific instructions.
[Tao C, Shujuan Y I, Yifei L I, Guixiang T, Shanmin T, &Rui L. Establishment of Discrete Element Model and Parameter Calibration of Alfalfa Stem in Budding Stage[J]. Nongye Jixie Xuebao/Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Machinery, 54(5), 91-100.]
[Ma, Y. H., Song, C. D., Xuan, C. Z., Wang, H. Y., Yang, S., & Wu, P. (2020). Parameters calibration of discrete element model for alfalfa straw compression simulation. Transactions of the CSAE, 36(11), 22-30.]
- Response to comment 5: The self-built pressure sensor needs to be calibrated in advance, which is not done in this paper.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have explained the issue of calibration of compression force sensors in the manuscript and have made modifications to the relevant content. Please refer to section 2.9 for detailed modifications.
- Response to comment 6: The results and discussions of the paper are just self-justification, without comparison and analysis with others. It is difficult to evaluate the scientific value.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. Based on your suggestion, we have compared and analyzed the discussion section with other people's research. Please refer to section 3 for detailed modifications
We appreciate your feedback and promise to further improve the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Thank you again for your time and effort.
Thank you and best regards.
Name: Qiao Jin
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is better to bring the real picture of the roller conditioner and also bring the materials of rollers
The diagrams in Figures 10 and 11 are not clear
Symbols are not introduced and are not dimention in the text
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of the English language is acceptable, it is better to do a minor revision
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the following revisions:
- Response to comment: It is better to bring the real picture of the roller conditioner and also bring the materials of rollers
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have added a real picture of the roller conditioner in Figure 1. The material of the conditioning roller is thermoplastic polyurethane, which has been modified in section 2.9.1.
- Response to comment: The diagrams in Figures 10 and 11 are not clear
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised Figures 10 and 11 and made them clearer.
- Response to comment: Symbols are not introduced and are not dimention in the text.
Response: I'm very sorry, we didn't understand what symbol you were referring to. But we have indicated the dimensions of the conditioning roller specimens in section 2.9.1 and corrected the incorrect order of the images. Please refer to section 2.9.1 and images 12-19 for the modified content
We appreciate your feedback and promise to further improve the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Thank you again for your time and effort.
Thank you and best regards.
Name: Qiao Jin
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors
All remarks, questions and comments are included in the manuscript
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the following revisions:
- Response to comment: There is no space added at '500 N'.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have added spaces here to standardize the writing format. Please refer to Section 2.4 for detailed modifications.
- Response to comment: Figure 4 is not clear. Many figures are not clear
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have revised figure 4 to make it clearer.
- Response to comment: Can equation (5) be applied to bio-materials?
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. According to reference 49, equation (5) can be applied to bio-materials. Meanwhile, we have added a new reference [49] to equation (5).
[Galedar, M. N., Jafari, A., Mohtasebi, S. S., Tabatabaeefar, A., Sharifi, A., O'dogherty, M. J., ... & Richard, G. (2008). Effects of moisture content and level in the crop on the engineering properties of alfalfa stems. Biosystems engineering, 101(2), 199-208.]
- Response to comment: The name of Table 1 is incorrect.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have changed the name of Table 1 from "Mechanical parameters of alfalfa stem" to "Material parameters o of alfalfa stem"
- Response to comment: Suggest adding angles to Figure 7
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have added angles to Figure 7.
- Response to comment: How the sliding friction coefficient of biological material - metal was calculated, According to which data.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. The sliding friction coefficient can be calculated by measuring the angle φ1and using equation 7. It is the tangent value of angle φ1.
- Response to comment: The contents in tables 4, 6, and 8 are misleading.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have made modifications to the misleading content.
- Response to comment: Conclusion 1 is not accurately expressed.
Response: Thank you for you valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have made modifications to Conclusion 1. Make the expression of conclusion 1 more reasonable.
We appreciate your feedback and promise to further improve the manuscript based on your suggestions. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Thank you again for your time and effort.
Thank you and best regards.
Name: Qiao Jin
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
No comments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is suggested to change some long sentences into the short ones, and appropriately refine the language expression.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors
Thank you for answering my questions and taking my suggestions into account
