Prediction of Bucket Fill Factor of Loader Based on Three-Dimensional Information of Material Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research provides a method for predicting a loader's bucket fill factor based on three-dimensional surface information, an innovation of this study. The volume between the shoveled path and material surface profile is incorporated to estimate the bucket fill factor. Finally, regression algorithms are utilized to map the estimated and accurate bucket fill factors. But this manuscript needs some minor revisions.

The introduction and literature review sections of the article should be separate sections at the beginning. The authors should read extensively about literature review techniques before presenting their case and supporting data. The evidence gained as it relates to the study topics may have been discussed by the authors in a discussion section. However, the writers haven't developed any specific research questions.

A deeper debate and some theoretical input are needed to develop the literature review discussion further. More information regarding the conclusions and the list of next studies would be interesting. Identifying the knowledge gap is the usefulness of a literature review investigation.

 

This study suggests a method for forecasting the bucket fill factor of a loader based on the three-dimensional data of the material surface after analysis, the authors concluded. The approach that the previous authors offered could not only adequately characterize the relationship between the bucket fill factor and the shovel trajectory but also necessitates a significant number of simulations. Using the calculated gap from the literature study, how do the authors fill the gap and arrive at this 3D data analysis?

 

It wasn't specified what kind of literature review methodology was used. It was not explained why a literature review was used for the study. These holes should each be addressed by the authors.

There are no justifications for choosing the RecurDyn and EDEM for the pile model in the methods section. What serves as the foundation for the methods of data analysis choosing. The use of various regression techniques to map the relationship between the anticipated bucket fill factor and the actual bucket fill factor needs to be explained by the authors in more depth.

 

To highlight the possibility for further development of their research, I advise the authors to include a "future study" in this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Software EDEM (Write down full form).

2.      Avoid lumping references [1-3], [4-6] etc. Instead, summarize the main contribution of each referenced paper in a separate sentence. Then, please carefully go through the entire manuscript.  

3.      Previously, when the loader is manually driven, the bucket fill factor is less studied. (This line is not supported by the literature review, Justify.

4.      The problem statement can be improved by linking the previous studies and identifying the gap. Refer to the suggested for more information https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131347. Write down the problem formulation statement and the study’s objective. Define clearly research questions and objectives.

5.      Try to improve the linking between different Sections, e.g., Section 3 and Section 3.1.

6.      EDEM software name appeared several times, and it looks like the authors want to promote the EDEM name. Work on this, and try to reduce the appearance of the name of the software.

7.      Check the spellings of the Figure and also correct the Figure number.

8.      Figure 2, named Figure 1, does not look appropriate; check it.

9.      Label Figure 3, highlighting parts essential to the study.

10.  Add space before adding the unit name.

11.  What is the source of Table 1?

12.  Section 3.2: What are the reasons to select the 958N loader, Justify?

13.  Table 2, Units are not written as per standard; check them.

14.  At the start of Section 3, various steps can be written followed in the Section, which is better for the readership of the Journal.

15.  Figure 4, how it looks Schematic, explain.

16.  Section 4.1, bucket fill factor, write symbol at right place. And check the definition.

17.  Check to combine Eqs. (2) and (3), if the authors wrote correctly.

18.  Add sources of Equations.

19.  Acceleration of gravity writes in small g, not a capital letter.

20.  What message do authors want to convey from Figure 6, and what are the significance and links?

21.  Make a list of the managerial implications. Please describe the consequences of your findings in your conclusion. Conclusions must be a separate section.

22.  Discussions and observations, on the other hand, must be more in-depth. It would be more fascinating if the authors focused more on the relevance of the link between the study findings and the significance of their findings.

23.  Authors must spend some time improving all the features of th manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Discussion must come before conclusions.

Authors must spend some time on this

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx