Optimised Design and Simulation Analysis of a Double-Row Pneumatic Injection Seeding Device
, Wei Yu 1, Wenhao Yan 1, Helong Zhang 1, Lihong Wang 1,2,*, Chengsong Li 1,2 and Chunlei Wang 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a pneumatic injection seeding method is proposed for precision sowing of small-sized stem mustard seeds, which relies on the positive and negative air pressure generated by the high-speed airflow to inhale and place the seeds. The air pressure was experimentally verified by bench test, and then the airflow inside the device was simulated and analyzed by Fluent software, so as to optimize the design of the sowing device and confirm the airflow requirements. The research content of the thesis is of great significance for the application of pneumatic injection seeding to the actual sowing of stem mustard seeds. The paper still has the following problems:
1. The paper employed high-speed photography experiments and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to determine the seeding depth and the structural parameters of the device, which are appropriate methods in the research. It is recommended that the author further discusses the limitations of the experimental and simulation methods and their impact on the results.
2. The experimental data and simulation results presented in the paper are detailed and persuasive. In particular, the discussions on seed velocity, seeding depth, and optimization of device structural parameters provide clear guidance for practical applications. It is suggested that the author consider adding an analysis of the adaptability to different seed types as well as the specific impact of various structural parameters on the seeding effect.
3. How do the seeds enter the injection device, and how can single seeds be sown simply by inlet suction under negative pressure? A brief description of the seed feeding process should be added to the paper.
4. It is suggested that the author emphasize the innovative aspects of the research and the implications for future studies in the conclusion.
5. Missing "D1: accelerator pipe diameter" in Figure 2, please mark it.
6. It is recommended that the author rewrite the first conclusion.
Overall, this paper has made a valuable contribution to the field of agricultural engineering and is expected to have a positive impact on the sowing technology of specific crops. After considering the aforementioned suggestions, the paper will be further refined and suitable for publication.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: The paper employed high-speed photography experiments and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations to determine the seeding depth and the structural parameters of the device, which are appropriate methods in the research. It is recommended that the author further discusses the limitations of the experimental and simulation methods and their impact on the results.
|
|
Response 1: [Line 280-307] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an EDEM simulation section, which allows the simulation and analysis of the movement of seeds in the soil. |
|
Comments 2: The experimental data and simulation results presented in the paper are detailed and persuasive. In particular, the discussions on seed velocity, seeding depth, and optimization of device structural parameters provide clear guidance for practical applications. It is suggested that the author consider adding an analysis of the adaptability to different seed types as well as the specific impact of various structural parameters on the seeding effect.
|
|
Response 2: [Line 100-101] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a note on the suitability of other stem mustard seeds in the paper. For example, ‘Fuza 5’, whose physical properties do not differ much from the objectives of this paper, is also suitable for the proposed device. |
|
Comments 3: How do the seeds enter the injection device, and how can single seeds be sown simply by inlet suction under negative pressure? A brief description of the seed feeding process should be added to the paper.
|
|
Response 3: [Line 114-116] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have provided additional information in the introduction section of the device. |
|
Comments 4: It is suggested that the author emphasize the innovative aspects of the research and the implications for future studies in the conclusion.
|
|
Response 4: [Line 472-497] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the conclusions to add innovativeness and future research directions. |
|
Comments 5: Missing "D1: accelerator pipe diameter" in Figure 2, please mark it.
|
|
Response 5: [Line 150] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified Figure 2. |
|
Comments 6: It is recommended that the author rewrite the first conclusion.
|
|
Response 6: [Line 472-497] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised our conclusions. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled "Optimised design of a dual-row pneumatic injection seeding device" and would like to express my gratitude to the editorial department for the opportunity to review.
This paper addressed the seeding issues of stem mustard seeds in the sticky and wet soil conditions of the Chongqing area, proposing a non-contact pneumatic precision seeding method, which is a research direction of practical application value. The originality of the paper is reflected in the design of a novel dual-row pneumatic injection seeding device, and the structural parameters of the device have been optimized through experiments and simulations. The research methods include theoretical analysis, experimental testing, and numerical simulation, which verify each other and enhance the reliability of the research conclusions. The use of high-speed photography technology to determine the optimal air pressure for seeds and the use of Fluent software for fluid dynamics simulation are appropriate applications of technology.
Suggestions:
1. The title is not quite complete, for example, lack of application to which crops,” Optimised design” does not fully summarize the content of the entire text. So Suggested revisions and refinements for authors.
2. What is the current state of research on pneumatic seed sowing devices designed for small-sized seeds? What challenges are evident in the introduction?
3. In the abstract, research methods and results are described in an incomplete and unspecific manner, so he author should revise this section.
4. For the numerical simulation part, it is suggested to provide more information on the selection of computational parameters and model validation.
5. It is suggested to add a dynamic analysis of the moment when the seed comes into contact with the soil under the action of the airflow, in order to clearly describe the theoretical sowing depth that the seed can achieve.
6.Enhance the discussion on the limitations of experimental conditions and the impact of these limitations on the generalizability of the results.
7.Consider providing more data on the cost-benefit analysis of the device to assess its potential application in agricultural practice.
8. In the experiment, how do authors consider trial evaluation indexes? In conclusions, “In order to achieve precise sowing……”, according to the national standard, to evaluate the precision seeding performance of the seed-metering device, it is necessary to consider the qualification rate, reseeding rate and leakage rate. How does the author consider this issue?
9. It is recommended that the authors re-condense the conclusions and, in particular, it is recommended that the first paragraph be deleted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some improvements required in English language. For example， partial grammar ......
Author Response
|
Comments 1: The title is not quite complete, for example, lack of application to which crops,” Optimised design” does not fully summarize the content of the entire text. So Suggested revisions and refinements for authors.
|
|
Response 1: [Line 1-2] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the title to “Optimised design and simulation analysis of a double-row pneumatic injection seeding device” |
|
Comments 2: What is the current state of research on pneumatic seed sowing devices designed for small-sized seeds? What challenges are evident in the introduction?
|
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. This paper mainly analyses the seed casting process, and domestic and foreign research on the pneumatic shot seeding device for small-sized seeds is still relatively small, in the introduction part of the part about the current state of the research has been added. |
|
Comments 3: In the abstract, research methods and results are described in an incomplete and unspecific manner, so he author should revise this section.
|
|
Response 3: [Line 15-19] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we've added a description of the EDEM simulation to the summary. |
|
Comments 4: For the numerical simulation part, it is suggested to provide more information on the selection of computational parameters and model validation.
|
|
Response 4: [Line 209] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have incorporated parametric specification data for bench testing equipment. |
|
Comments 5: It is suggested to add a dynamic analysis of the moment when the seed comes into contact with the soil under the action of the airflow, in order to clearly describe the theoretical sowing depth that the seed can achieve.
|
|
Response 5: [Line 280-307] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an EDEM simulation section, which allows the simulation and analysis of the movement of seeds in the soil. |
|
Comments 6: Enhance the discussion on the limitations of experimental conditions and the impact of these limitations on the generalizability of the results.
|
|
Response 6: [Line 216-219] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a description and discussion of the limitations of the test conditions |
|
Comments 7: Consider providing more data on the cost-benefit analysis of the device to assess its potential application in agricultural practice.
|
|
Response 7: [Line 474-476] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added to our conclusions for clarification. |
|
Comments 8: In the experiment, how do authors consider trial evaluation indexes? In conclusions, “In order to achieve precise sowing……”, according to the national standard, to evaluate the precision seeding performance of the seed-metering device, it is necessary to consider the qualification rate, reseeding rate and leakage rate. How does the author consider this issue?
|
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. This paper optimises the seed casting method, with the main study focusing on the seed casting effect. The device method was found to affect the impact on the seed casting process, and thus the depth of seed shot sowing was measured and evaluated. However, for the other parts, further investigation is required to combine the actual operating effect of the seed discharger with the results of this study. |
|
Comments 9: It is recommended that the authors re-condense the conclusions and, in particular, it is recommended that the first paragraph be deleted.
|
|
Response 9: [Line 472-497] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have amended the conclusion by deleting the first paragraph |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorshis article proposed a non-contact suction precision seeding method for stem mustard cultivation under humid soil conditions in Chongqing area. A dual-row pneumatic suction injection seeding device was designed and its structural parameters were optimized through a combination of experiments and simulations.
The research method is scientific and reasonable, with a well-designed experiment, simulation analysis combined with experimental results, and sufficient argumentation. The structural design details are clearly described, and the parameter optimization process is logically strong. The paper is well-written, with clear figures and detailed data presentation.
However, the paper still has the following problems:
Literature Review: It is suggested that the authors expand the literature review section, compare the advantages and disadvantages of the current research with existing technologies, and clarify the innovation points of this study and the incremental contributions based on existing research.
Method and materials: 1. whether the installation method covered in the paper is suitable for sowing all stem mustard seeds, and whether it can have the same sowing effect for seeds other than the FuZa 2 variety.
2. For the installation of two shot seeders, how to set up the air inlet method, whether to set up two high-pressure air outlet device or only one, respectively, what effects and impacts, the text can be analysed to illustrate.
3.The seed penetration process can be studied and analyzed to verify that its penetration performance meets the sowing requirements.
Results Discussion: The results section has detailed data, but the discussion could delve deeper into the specific impact of parameter optimization on sowing efficiency and accuracy.
Conclusion Section: The conclusion should highlight the innovation and practical application value of the research more prominently, while suggesting directions for future research or potential points of improvement.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: It is suggested that the authors expand the literature review section, compare the advantages and disadvantages of the current research with existing technologies, and clarify the innovation points of this study and the incremental contributions based on existing research.
|
|
Response 1: [Line 67-91] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made changes to the introductory section. |
|
Comments 2: whether the installation method covered in the paper is suitable for sowing all stem mustard seeds, and whether it can have the same sowing effect for seeds other than the FuZa 2 variety.
|
|
Response 2: [Line 95-96] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a note on the suitability of other stem mustard seeds in the paper. |
|
Comments 3: For the installation of two shot seeders, how to set up the air inlet method, whether to set up two high-pressure air outlet device or only one, respectively, what effects and impacts, the text can be analysed to illustrate.
|
|
Response 3: [Line 123-126] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an analytical note on the use of high pressure fans. |
|
Comments 4: The seed penetration process can be studied and analyzed to verify that its penetration performance meets the sowing requirements.
|
|
Response 4: [Line 280-307] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an EDEM simulation section, which allows the simulation and analysis of the movement of seeds in the soil. |
|
Comments 5: The results section has detailed data, but the discussion could delve deeper into the specific impact of parameter optimization on sowing efficiency and accuracy.
|
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The paper adds simulations and analyses for the seed incorporation process, with additional descriptions of the experimental conditions. |
|
Comments 6: The conclusion should highlight the innovation and practical application value of the research more prominently, while suggesting directions for future research or potential points of improvement.
|
|
Response 6: [Line 472-497] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the conclusions to add innovativeness and future research directions. |
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 24: include soil properties
Line 85-90: Rewrite and split the sentence
Line 97: Add formula for sphericity and equivalent diameter
Line 138: Add marking of air intake pipe
Line 154: Fig 3 is not cited in the text
Line 172: Why you add equivalent diameter as 0.002 ? add your logic. Since your measured value is different
Line 198: wb/db?
Line 205: What is specification of high speed camera?
Line 239: Figure 6 did not cited in the text
Line 244-249: This section should go to the method section.
Line 273: Could you quantify amount of stable positive-pressure?
Line 283-284: The gas inhalation flow line is smooth.........(cite the references)
Line 288-289: Quantify the negative pressure value.
Line 381: In Table 7 give the name of the column for K1, K2, K3, k1,k2,k3
Discussion section have lacking to justify with related reference
Add future research direction in the conclusion
No information found about seed injury and seed germination
Author Response
|
Comments 1: Line 24: include soil properties |
|
Response 1: [Line 211-219] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added soil conditions. |
|
Comments 2: Line 85-90: Rewrite and split the sentence |
|
Response 21: [Line 84-91] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have rewritten the sentence |
|
Comments 3: Line 97: Add formula for sphericity and equivalent diameter |
|
Response 3: [Line 102-103] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the relevant formulas. |
|
Comments 4: Line 138: Add marking of air intake pipe |
|
Response 4: [Line 150] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the relevant labelling in Figure 2. |
|
Comments 5: Line 154: Fig 3 is not cited in the text |
|
Response 5: [Line 168] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added citations. |
|
Comments 6: Line 172: Why you add equivalent diameter as 0.002 ? add your logic. Since your measured value is different |
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. It was set to 2mm as the diameter of the seeds fluctuated and the maximum diameter of the seeds present was close to 2mm. |
|
Comments 7: Line 198: wb/db? |
|
Response 7: [Line 213-215] Thank you for pointing this out. For the water content of the soil, we are measuring according to the national standard. |
|
Comments 8: Line 205: What is specification of high speed camera? |
|
Response 8: [Line 209] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added specifications for high-speed cameras. |
|
Comments 9: Line 239: Figure 6 did not cited in the text |
|
Response 9: [Line 265] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added references to Figure 6. |
|
Comments 10: Line 244-249: This section should go to the method section. |
|
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. The content is already in the methodology section. |
|
Comments 11: Line 273: Could you quantify amount of stable positive-pressure? |
|
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. Each section has a more specific analysis of the pressure values. |
|
Comments 12: Line 283-284: The gas inhalation flow line is smooth.........(cite the references) |
|
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. Here are the conclusions drawn from looking directly at the cloud chart. |
|
Comments 13: Line 288-289: Quantify the negative pressure value. |
|
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. The pressure values are analysed later in this section of the paper |
|
Comments 14: Line 381: In Table 7 give the name of the column for K1, K2, K3, k1, k2, k3 |
|
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. These values are test factors, and the column names are standardised to test factors |
|
Comments 15: Discussion section have lacking to justify with related reference |
|
Response 15: [Line 307] Thank you for pointing this out. The discussion section focuses on analysing the simulation results and adding a literature note on the process of seed movement in the soil.. |
|
Comments 16: Add future research direction in the conclusion |
|
Response 16: [Line 491-497] Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added relevant elements to our conclusions. |
|
Comments 17: No information found about seed injury and seed germination |
|
Response 17: Thank you for pointing this out. This part of the study has not yet been addressed, and future research directions may include seeds that were not visibly damaged in appearance in the experiments, and subsequent research will continue to deepen the discussion of germination and seed damage. |
