Optimal Design and Dynamic Characteristic Analysis of Double-Link Trapezoidal Suspension for 3WPYZ High Gap Self-Propelled Sprayer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please, try to compare the title, aims in abstract and introduction, method, and results!

2. Please, pay attention to abbreviation (must be defined). Sometimes there are repetitions (example “CFD” means “Computational Fluid Dynamics”).

3. I suggest better clarifying the framework of the problem and the purpose of the research in the abstract, since it is a part that is always read first. In its current form, the reader is assumed to know the subject in detail.

4. Please include more discussion on problems in existing research, rather than simply writing about the work of the researchers. The references you cited in line 78 did not make such conclusions. Please explicit it, as this is the most important assumption to support the validity of your work.

5. Line 81- Kindly include the citation for the first statement.

6.  Line 194: Please give the unit of the throttle diameter. 

7. For the static analysis, did you perform any mesh sensitivity study?. I suggest the author to supply some related results and data.

8. The mesh is divided as shown in Figure 1 or Figure 5? And the same problem in Line 475. 

9. Line 266:Please briefly describe the performance indicators and manufacturers of the sensor. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

General fine.  It will be better after added editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In abstract, it should be written about reduce the stress at the connection of the end boom suspension, the maximum displacement and the maximum stress of the inner boom suspension.

2. In the Key Words, the words of “natural frequency; swing angle” should be written instead of “dynamic characteristics; modal analysis”.

3. Numerical values ​​and units of measurement given in the introduction and other parts should be written separately. For example: 20 m not 20m, 10 rad/s not 10rad/s.

4. In formula (4), sinα=a was written incorrectly, it should be written as sinα=α.

5. Formula (9) is unclear. What is L_FN here, what is the unit of measurement. What should be the unit of measurement of damping force in general. If this formula is taken from a literature, it should be cited.

6. It is not clear what is given in lines 191, 192, 193.

7. In tables 2, 3, 4, 9, and in figures 10, 11, 12, 13, units of measurement should be indicated in parentheses. For example: Section shape size (mm) should be instead of Section shape size/mm, Wall thickness (mm) should be instead of Wall thickness/mm. In Figure 7, the unit of measurement is shown correctly.

8. Part 4. The Discussion section should be removed completely. Because it only contains the same information as in the Introduction. It would be appropriate if the 3. Results section is changed to 3. Results and discussion.

9. The units of measurement in the conclusions should also be written separately. For example: 265 mm, 840 mm, 1250 mm, 4 mm, 53.02 %, 1.3143 rad/s, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

（1）Line88 "Therefore, it is also necessary to analyze the structural strength and force load of the boom suspension for the qualification of the sprayer's operating performance and its own service life." Are there any scholars who have carried out relevant work? How is the research going? 

（2）Line 201 this is not clear, did you set a range from 0 to 10rad/s? 

（3）Please check whether there is any suspicion of repetition in lines 122-127, and it is better to check the manuscript throughout after completing the revision, so as to avoid other details affecting the quality of the article.

（4） Please double-check that the character expression of throttle diameter is correct.

（5） Please add the direction of each coordinate axis in Figure 4.

（6）Please indicate the version numbers of all virtual simulation software used in this article, such as Fluent 19.0. 

（7）Modal analysis is limited to virtual simulations, please add this section if the author has analyzed the modalities in real road conditions. 

（8） Please check the image annotation on line 475, Figure 16 or Figure 17 ?.

（9）The discussion section still needs to be further explored.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper insists that a double-link trapezoidal boom suspension is devised to discern passive vibration reduction, active balance and ground profiling established on the 3WPYZ sprayer. 

That is, it can be summarized:

1) by the principle of D'Alembert and multi-body dynamics, the kinematic prototype of the boom suspension is established

2) the design factors affecting the stability of the boom are set up.

3) Through orthogonal experimental design and virtual kinematics simulation, the impact of boom length and orifice diameter of each component on the swing angle and natural frequency of the boom suspension is studied. 

Its intention is good for designing double-link trapezoidal suspension. However, this paper does look like a kind of practice because of there is no your own methodology, not typical D'Alembert and multi-body dynamics. So, it does not seem to reach the journal level. Current state is not fit for Agriculture. I recommend to resubmit the paper after significantly modifying it. My judgments come from as following:

1)              To describe your research, title and abstract should concisely & validly show your own main research. As the emphasis of the paper is on this study, more introduction, including the innovation with more references & sentences should be added.

2)              Section2 has no your own methodology, not just materials and methods. You should describe it to figure out your own method.

3)              Section3 & 4 should be changed as results and discussions with more finding. That is, you should suggest them concisely with main findings and their meaning.

4)              Conclusions also are required to distinctively & concisely show your research results (or more) with using some bullet.

5)              Additionally, English should be improved. I found some errors. Figures should be improved to read it clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English should be improved. I found some errors

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper was improved a lot. I recommend to publish it as current form.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required