Optimization of Rotary Blade Wear and Tillage Resistance Based on DEM-MBD Coupling Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revealed the mechanism of interaction between rotary tillage blades and sandy soil in the article, established an EDEM-MBD model of rotary tillage blades and sandy soil, and conducted simulation analysis. Finally, the local parameters of rotary tillage blades were optimized to reduce wear and tillage resistance. It has certain significance for the development of rotary tillers, but still has some shortcomings:

1. Your abstract is too lengthy. Please refer to the submission requirements in the author's instructions and reduce the abstract to no more than 250 words.

2. Your research subject is rotary tiller, but it is not reflected in your keywords. It is recommended to re select the keywords.

3. Your writing logic should be revised. Before section 2.4.4, you constructed a simulation model based on EDEM-MBD. In section 2.4.4, you directly conducted experiments and compared and analyzed the simulation data. Should you: after establishing a simulation model, conduct virtual coupling simulation to obtain coupling simulation data, analyze the data to determine if the model is correct, then conduct on-site experiments, and compare and analyze the obtained experimental data with the simulation data to verify their correctness. Writing logic should focus on revision.

 

4. Can high-definition images be replaced for Figures 14 to 17?

 

5. In Figure 18, I think each image should be numbered and classified instead of using the left and right images. The width of the lines in the picture can be increased.

Author Response

Comments 1: Your abstract is too lengthy. Please refer to the submission requirements in the author's instructions and reduce the abstract to no more than 250 words.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have kept the abstract to 250 words or less, and revised it from the original. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 11-27.

Comments 2: Your research subject is rotary tiller, but it is not reflected in your keywords. It is recommended to re select the keywords.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the keywords according to your comment, the main modification is to change the original “particle size” to “rotary blade”. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 28.

Comments 3: Your writing logic should be revised. Before section 2.4.4, you constructed a simulation model based on EDEM-MBD. In section 2.4.4, you directly conducted experiments and compared and analyzed the simulation data. Should you: after establishing a simulation model, conduct virtual coupling simulation to obtain coupling simulation data, analyze the data to determine if the model is correct, then conduct on-site experiments, and compare and analyze the obtained experimental data with the simulation data to verify their correctness. Writing logic should focus on revision.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have placed the validation tests of section 2.4.4 after the simulation tests of the original rotary blade. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 409-429.

Comments 4: Can high-definition images be replaced for Figures 14 to 17?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have increased the dpi of Figures 14 to 17, and scaled up the size of the images. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 491-506.

Comments 5: In Figure 18, I think each image should be numbered and classified instead of using the left and right images. The width of the lines in the picture can be increased.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have numbered each image in Figure 18 and increased the width of the lines in the picture. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 536.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are still some flaws that need to be corrected before the article is officially accepted. These are detailed below: 

Point1: In an article, the arrangement of images is usually in the order of top left to bottom right, as shown in Figure 1. The positions of ‘a’ and ‘b c’ should be swapped for a more reasonable arrangement. 

Point2: As shown in Figure 3 of the article, ‘θ’ represents the initial angle of the rotary tiller during operation. It is more reasonable to include the expression of ‘θ’ in Formula 1. 

Point3: Line 173, ‘approximated selection’ is more reasonable than ‘rounded up’. Is the force analysis in Figure 4 a cross-section of the rotary blade? Is the cross-section of each position shaped like this? 

Point4: Formula 5 should include ‘f₂sinα’, correspondingly, formulas 7 and 8 need to be modified accordingly, the text analysis section after Formula 8 also needs to be modified. 

Point5: Why not adjust the placement of the rotary blade in Figure 5 to a consistent direction? Line 220, who extensive research has been conducted on the wear mechanism of rotary blade? Missing subject. 

Point6: The article briefly mentions wear mechanisms but lacks in-depth analysis. It is recommended to combine simulation results and microscopic wear images to discuss the wear mechanisms in different regions in more detail. 

Point7: The article introduces that gravel is one of the main factors causing the wear of rotary tiller blades, but the gravel model was not considered in the establishment of the soil trough model. How does this correspond to the high stone content in the abstract?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still many errors in the wording, format, and other aspects of the text, which need to be carefully reviewed and revised. 

Author Response

Comments 1: In an article, the arrangement of images is usually in the order of top left to bottom right, as shown in Figure 1. The positions of ‘a’ and ‘b c’ should be swapped for a more reasonable arrangement.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the arrangement of a, b, and c in the image to top to bottom and left to right. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 119.

Comments 2: As shown in Figure 3 of the article, ‘θ’ represents the initial angle of the rotary tiller during operation. It is more reasonable to include the expression of ‘θ’ in Formula 1.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed “” to “”. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 153.

Comments 3: Line 173, ‘approximated selection’ is more reasonable than ‘rounded up’. Is the force analysis in Figure 4 a cross-section of the rotary blade? Is the cross-section of each position shaped like this?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified rounded up to approximated selection. Figure 4 shows the force analysis of the cross-section of the rotary blade. The cross-sections of the working parts of the rotary blade all shaped like this. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 183 and 193.

Comments 4: Formula 5 should include ‘f₂sinα’, correspondingly, formulas 7 and 8 need to be modified accordingly, the text analysis section after Formula 8 also needs to be modified.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we would like to explain to you that due to our negligence, we did not write the details of the force analysis clearly. Since the vertically upward component of the friction force  does not act on the surface of the rotary blade, the vertically upward component of  is ignored for ease of calculation, and the final result in Equation 8 is obtained. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 204-205.

Comments 5: Why not adjust the placement of the rotary blade in Figure 5 to a consistent direction? Line 220, who extensive research has been conducted on the wear mechanism of rotary blade? Missing subject.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have adjusted the placement of the rotary blade in Figure 5 to a consistent direction, and the subject of line 220 has been added as “Numerous scholars”. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 227 and 230.

Comments 6: The article briefly mentions wear mechanisms but lacks in-depth analysis. It is recommended to combine simulation results and microscopic wear images to discuss the wear mechanisms in different regions in more detail.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a comparison chart of the wear amount in different regions of the rotary blade and analyzed the reasons for the differences of the wear amount in different regions in the article. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 393-407.

Comments 7: The article introduces that gravel is one of the main factors causing the wear of rotary tiller blades, but the gravel model was not considered in the establishment of the soil trough model. How does this correspond to the high stone content in the abstract?

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have put a cross-section of the soil trench model in the article. This is due to our oversight in not placing the final soil trough model in the article. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 315.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research paper "Optimization of rotary blade wear and tillage resistance based  on DEM-MBD coupling model" is very structured and deals with the application of a relevant, very fast-evolving area of research. I would, however, propose these minor revisions to strengthen the manuscript further:

1.Abstract lacks emphasis on the broader significance of the work. Highlight how this study contributes to sustainable agricultural practices, enhances operational efficiency, or reduces costs. Additionally, explicitly state the novelty of using response surface methodology (RSM) for optimizing blade design.

2.A more focused attention to the research gap would improve the text. Clearly state the shortcomings of previous research, such as the combined impact of wear and resistance on blade performance, and how this study overcomes them. Clarity would be improved by concluding the introduction with a clear objective statement.

3.The recent advancements in soil-tool interaction and agricultural machinery simulation are not fully explored. For instance, include recent findings on soil disturbance modelling using particle-based methods like SPH or other hybrid approaches. This would situate the current work within a broader technological context.

4.The manuscript uses terms like "soil disturbance," "resistance," and "wear" without consistent definitions. For example, clarify whether "resistance" refers solely to torque or includes other forces acting on the blade. Add a dedicated section or table defining these terms for consistency, which will also aid readers unfamiliar with the subject.

5.Blade modelling was made using 3D scanning; however, information on the type of scanning and the details provided are not specific. Identify what scanning equipment is used (for example, which model, to what accuracy), scan resolution, and preprocessing steps in converting scanned data to CAD-compatible format. Explain how the accuracy of scanning affects the fidelity of the simulation model

6.The manuscript lists soil particle properties such as Poisson's ratio and elastic modulus but does not explain their source. Were these parameters experimentally determined, sourced from literature, or approximated based on the soil type? Discuss the implications of using generalized values for soil properties and their potential effects on simulation accuracy. For instance, how would varying moisture content or particle size distribution alter the results?

7.The verification of the results for torque and wear is conducted but insufficiently detailed. Include statistical measures like RMSE, correlation coefficients, or Bland-Altman plots to establish the agreement between simulation and experiment results. If there are disparities, discuss possible causes, such as inaccuracy of the material properties or the boundary conditions.

8.The discussion highlights improvements, such as a 22.4% reduction in wear, but lacks a comparative analysis with similar studies. Include a table summarizing the results of previous studies on blade optimization, emphasizing how the current work surpasses them in terms of efficiency, cost savings, or operational lifespan.

9.The observation that the bending angle (C) has the most substantial influence on wear and resistance is interesting but it is insufficiently explained. Examine the physical mechanisms that explain this phenomenon. Does the angle affect the depth of soil penetration, or does it decrease contact duration with abrasive particles? Incorporate citations to substantiate these elucidations.

10.Figures 21 and 22 Analysis: The differences in soil velocity and disturbance between optimized and unoptimized blades are visually apparent but require more interpretation. Explain how these differences translate to practical benefits, such as reduced fuel consumption or increased soil aeration, and discuss the potential long-term implications for agricultural productivity.

11.Figures 14–17 (response surfaces and contour plots) are critical for illustrating optimization trends, but their clarity is limited. Add annotations to highlight key features, such as optimal parameter ranges, and ensure axis labels include units and descriptive text. Also, the image resolution and size should be increase to make it readable.

12.While Table 3 provides valuable data, it lacks units in the column headings, which makes it less interpretable. Additionally, consider including statistical significance markers (e.g., p-values) to emphasize the robustness of the reported improvements.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English language is fine

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract lacks emphasis on the broader significance of the work. Highlight how this study contributes to sustainable agricultural practices, enhances operational efficiency, or reduces costs. Additionally, explicitly state the novelty of using response surface methodology (RSM) for optimizing blade design.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a broader significance to the abstract by analyzing the benefits that this study can contribute to the future development of agricultural machinery by reducing material loss and promoting sustainable development. And this study uses response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize both tillage resistance and wear of rotary blade. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 25-27.

Comments 2: A more focused attention to the research gap would improve the text. Clearly state the shortcomings of previous research, such as the combined impact of wear and resistance on blade performance, and how this study overcomes them. Clarity would be improved by concluding the introduction with a clear objective statement.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have analyzed the shortcomings of previous studies, and some conclusions of this study have surpassed previous studies. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 84-91 and 560-566.

Comments 3: The recent advancements in soil-tool interaction and agricultural machinery simulation are not fully explored. For instance, include recent findings on soil disturbance modelling using particle-based methods like SPH or other hybrid approaches. This would situate the current work within a broader technological context.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have listed several recent findings on soil disturbance modelling to understand current approaches of soil disturbance modeling and soil disturbance trends. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 51-59.

Comments 4: The manuscript uses terms like "soil disturbance," "resistance," and "wear" without consistent definitions. For example, clarify whether "resistance" refers solely to torque or includes other forces acting on the blade. Add a dedicated section or table defining these terms for consistency, which will also aid readers unfamiliar with the subject.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have listed Symbols, Greek Letters, Abbreviations and terms by adding an appendix at the end of the article. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 674.

Comments 5: Blade modelling was made using 3D scanning; however, information on the type of scanning and the details provided are not specific. Identify what scanning equipment is used (for example, which model, to what accuracy), scan resolution, and preprocessing steps in converting scanned data to CAD-compatible format. Explain how the accuracy of scanning affects the fidelity of the simulation model

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have described the specific process of 3D scanning, the machine model, and the scanning accuracy in detail in the article, and the correlation coefficients between the reverse-modeled and the scanned rotary blade are obtained by calculation to prove the feasibility of the reverse modeling. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 125-132.

Comments 6: The manuscript lists soil particle properties such as Poisson's ratio and elastic modulus but does not explain their source. Were these parameters experimentally determined, sourced from literature, or approximated based on the soil type? Discuss the implications of using generalized values for soil properties and their potential effects on simulation accuracy. For instance, how would varying moisture content or particle size distribution alter the results?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have explained the sources of each parameter, analyzed which parameters have an effect on the accuracy of the soil trough modeling, and listed how some of the parameters are measured. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 320-326.

Comments 7: The verification of the results for torque and wear is conducted but insufficiently detailed. Include statistical measures like RMSE, correlation coefficients, or Bland-Altman plots to establish the agreement between simulation and experiment results. If there are disparities, discuss possible causes, such as inaccuracy of the material properties or the boundary conditions.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a Bland-Altman plot to verify that the agreement between simulation and experiment results. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 432.

Comments 8: The discussion highlights improvements, such as a 22.4% reduction in wear, but lacks a comparative analysis with similar studies. Include a table summarizing the results of previous studies on blade optimization, emphasizing how the current work surpasses them in terms of efficiency, cost savings, or operational lifespan.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have cited several references to demonstrate that this article has surpassed previous research in reducing tillage resistance of rotary blade. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 559-565.

Comments 9: The observation that the bending angle (C) has the most substantial influence on wear and resistance is interesting but it is insufficiently explained. Examine the physical mechanisms that explain this phenomenon. Does the angle affect the depth of soil penetration, or does it decrease contact duration with abrasive particles? Incorporate citations to substantiate these elucidations.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have analyzed the effect of variations in the bending angle on the tilling effect and the forces acting on the rotary blades by citing the references. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 527-533.

Comments 10: Figures 21 and 22 Analysis: The differences in soil velocity and disturbance between optimized and unoptimized blades are visually apparent but require more interpretation. Explain how these differences translate to practical benefits, such as reduced fuel consumption or increased soil aeration, and discuss the potential long-term implications for agricultural productivity.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have analyzed the advantages of optimized rotary blades in terms of improved soil structure, increased soil porosity, and energy saving. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 621-627.

Comments 11: Figures 14–17 (response surfaces and contour plots) are critical for illustrating optimization trends, but their clarity is limited. Add annotations to highlight key features, such as optimal parameter ranges, and ensure axis labels include units and descriptive text. Also, the image resolution and size should be increase to make it readable.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added explanations for Figures 14-17, and added parameter ranges for wear and tillage resistance. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in lines 491-506.

Comments 12: While Table 3 provides valuable data, it lacks units in the column headings, which makes it less interpretable. Additionally, consider including statistical significance markers (e.g., p-values) to emphasize the robustness of the reported improvements.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added units to the column headings in Table 3 and emphasized the role of the p-value. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found in line 447 and 453.