Experimental Study on the Crushing Properties of Corn Stalks in Square Bales
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Commentsand Suggestions forAuthors
Presented article has been prepared in low scientific level, there were presented only some simple research and analysis results, which only partly were compared with the results of other researchers. The manuscript is prepared and structured in agreement with instructions to authors, but there are a lot places were the authors have to do significant corrections and improvements of paper.
Comments and remarks of reviewer:
- The “Abstract” have only a general character, it provides only justification of research work and no specific data from analysis and studies are provided. This error is also evident in the conclusions.
- The “Introduction” chapter is very short and vague. This chapter must be supplemented by a specific data of presented research, but in the text only briefly mentions the results of other researchers' results. This chapter must be supplemented by more information of other researchers and should be cited more sources of information. In total, only 16 sources of information were used and cited in the text of the article.
- The aim of the article is not clearly stated, it should be specified by highlighting the most important objects of work and the necessary research. The novelty of presented research results is also not clear?
- In the “Materials and Methods” chapter physical properties are given with specific meanings of the corn bales. It is not clear, is there are presented means of only one bale, or there are average means?
- The methods for determination of moisture content are described in detail, they are simple and do not need to be described in such detail.
- As mentioned earlier, the results of the experimental studies are quite simple, and it is not clear whether they could be used for practical purposes. From the scientific point of view, only analytical research of establishment of the relation model for test factors and crushing force seems more interesting and valuable.
- The Conclusions mainly are based on general statements and they lack the concrete results of research and analysis.
Finally, I recommend publishing this article only after very major revision.
Author Response
Response sheet for the reviewer’s comments
The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments. In addition, the revised manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised part has been marked in red.
Response to reviewers:
Special thanks for the editor’s and reviewer’s professional suggestions. The comments not only promote the quality of the manuscript, but will play an important role in our later research work.
The “Abstract” have only a general character, it provides only justification of research work and no specific data from analysis and studies are provided. This error is also evident in the conclusions.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We rewrote the abstract and conclusion, and clarified the research purpose of this paper, mainly to provide experimental data basis for the simulation process of corn bale crushing in the later stage. (Line 10-22, in page 1; Line 200-219, page 12 in the revised manuscript)
The “Introduction” chapter is very short and vague. This chapter must be supplemented by a specific data of presented research, but in the text only briefly mentions the results of other researchers' results. This chapter must be supplemented by more information of other researchers and should be cited more sources of information. In total, only 16 sources of information were used and cited in the text of the article.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to the opinions of experts, we have made a lot of modifications to the introduction and increased the experimental data studied by scholars, making the introduction more full. (Line 36-39, in page 1; Line 44-46, in page 1; Line 48-51, in page 2; Line 54-56, in page 2; Line 58-68, page 2 in the revised manuscript)
The aim of the article is not clearly stated, it should be specified by highlighting the most important objects of work and the necessary research. The novelty of presented research results is also not clear?
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We rewrote the abstract and the conclusion, and made it clear that the purpose of this study was to provide experimental data basis for the simulation process of corn bale crushing in the later stage. (Line 10-22, in page 1; Line 200-219, page 12 in the revised manuscript)
In the “Materials and Methods” chapter physical properties are given with specific meanings of the corn bales. It is not clear, is there are presented means of only one bale, or there are average means?
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We also realize that this part is not clearly expressed. Therefore, we have modified this part in detail, such as " Corn bales at different locations in the field were selected as research objects by five-point sampling method, and the average value of each physical characteristic of corn bales was obtained as follows: 90×45×38 cm (length × width × height), moisture content was 12.5%, weight was 14885 g, and bale density was 0.09672 g/cm3.". (Line 80-83, Page 2 in the revised manuscript)
The methods for determination of moisture content are described in detail, they are simple and do not need to be described in such detail.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We have revised the content mentioned by the expert, such as " As water content was the main research factor in this experiment, ASABE water content testing standard[15] and water content regulation method[16] were adopted in this paper to obtain different water content of corn bales, among which Formula (1) was the calculation method of water content.” (Line 94-97, page 3 in the revised manuscript)
As mentioned earlier, the results of the experimental studies are quite simple, and it is not clear whether they could be used for practical purposes. From the scientific point of view, only analytical research of establishment of the relation model for test factors and crushing force seems more interesting and valuable.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. In Line 156, we explored the influence rule of various factors on crushing force by response curve method, and fitted the regression equation between various factors and crushing force. Meanwhile, according to expert' opinions, we also fitted the single-factor regression model and marked it in Figure 4 for more intuitive analysis. (Line 163-166, page 7 in the revised manuscript)
The Conclusions mainly are based on general statements and they lack the concrete results of research and analysis.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We rewrote the conclusion, and made it clear that the purpose of this study was to provide experimental data basis for the simulation process of corn bale crushing in the later stage. (Line 200-219, page 12 in the revised manuscript)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
- The explanation of the Ingstron testing procedure is inadequate. A step by step description is required including sketches of the compression clamp, cutter, blade inclination, etc,…
- The paper mentions a shearing test, shear displacement and shear force, but then only provides experimental data of a crushing test, i.e. crushing force (pressure).
- Figure 4 has crushing force on the Y axis and shear force on the Figure caption. The x axis is confusing (displacement ) -1 to 0 to 1. Only a stroke of 75 mm is mentioned in section 2.2.
- The discussion on the different regions in Figure 4 is unconvincing. Replotting the curve with the y axis on a logarithmic scale (and the 0 0 point removed), see attached pdf file, shows a straight line with a very high correlation, what is highly likely to be a normal consolidation line, also known as a virgin compression line in soil mechanics, that is, the log of pressure plotted against void ratio or specific volume is linear. It looks like Figure 4 is a plot of the corn stalk being compressed into the open ended vessel, that is consistent with a crushing force (i.e. a compression pressure), with no external shear load, plotted against volume.
- In the discussion of results, there needs to be comparison of the results with other previous work, and references need to be provided.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response sheet for the reviewer’s comments
The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments. In addition, the revised manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised part has been marked in red.
Response to reviewers:
Special thanks for the editor’s and reviewer’s professional suggestions. The comments not only promote the quality of the manuscript, but will play an important role in our later research work.
The explanation of the Instron testing procedure is inadequate. A step by step description is required including sketches of the compression clamp, cutter, blade inclination, etc,…
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to the opinions of expert, we described in detail the control mode, range and fixture of the Strong fatigue testing machine, and at the same time showed the three-dimensional diagram of the crushing knife used in this study in Fig. 1B. (Line 91, in page 3; Line 104-108, page 3 in the revised manuscript)
The paper mentions a shearing test, shear displacement and shear force, but then only provides experimental data of a crushing test, i.e. crushing force (pressure).
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. Since the research in this paper mainly provides the data basis for the simulation of corn bale crushing process in the later stage, only the experimental data of crushing force are provided. According to the opinions of expert, the unclear parts in the paper are modified in detail. At the same time, the expert's opinion is deeply inspired, and we will conduct further research in this area. (Line 154-155, in page 6; Line 158-162, page 6 in the revised manuscript)
Figure 4 has crushing force on the Y axis and shear force on the Figure caption. The x axis is confusing (displacement ) -1 to 0 to 1. Only a stroke of 75 mm is mentioned in section 2.2.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. The method adopted in this paper is response surface method. -1, 0 and 1 in this paper are the coding values of the experimental method, which represent different levels of different factors and do not represent displacement. For example, -1 represents moisture content of 10%, 0 represents moisture content of 30%, and 1 represents moisture content of 50%.
The discussion on the different regions in Figure 4 is unconvincing. Replotting the curve with the y axis on a logarithmic scale (and the 0 0 point removed), see attached pdf file, shows a straight line with a very high correlation, what is highly likely to be a normal consolidation line, also known as a virgin compression line in soil mechanics, that is, the log of pressure plotted against void ratio or specific volume is linear. It looks like Figure 4 is a plot of the corn stalk being compressed into the open ended vessel, that is consistent with a crushing force (i.e. a compression pressure), with no external shear load, plotted against volume.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to expert advice, we fitted the single-factor regression model and marked it in Fig. 4 for more intuitive analysis. (Line 163-166, page 7 in the revised manuscript)
In the discussion of results, there needs to be comparison of the results with other previous work, and references need to be provided.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to expert' opinions, we rewrote the conclusion, compared the conclusion with other previous work, and made it clear that the research value of this paper lies in providing data basis for simulation of corn bale crushing process in the later stage. (Line 200-219, page 12in the revised manuscript)
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
- Table 2. Result of corn bale sample crushing test – put the table 2 in chapter 3. Results and analysis
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We have adjusted the order of the positions in Table 2 according to experts' opinions, which makes the article more clear. (Line 153-154, page 4 in the revised manuscript)
- Include in 2. Materials and methods, what statistical methods were used and how many repetitions the measurements were carried out.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We also realize that this part is not clearly expressed. Therefore, we have modified this part in detail, such as " Corn bales at different locations in the field were selected as research objects by five-point sampling method, five samples were taken from each point, and the measurement was re-peated three times, and the average value of each physical characteristic of corn bales was obtained as follows: 90 × 45 × 38cm (length × width × height), moisture content was 12.5%, weight was 14885 g, and bale density was 0.09672 g/cm3. ". (Line 95-99, Page 2 in the revised manuscript)
- In addition to force, authors should also determine Young's modulus and energies
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. Since the main purpose of this study is to provide data basis for the simulation process of corn bale crushing in the later stage, only the force of corn bale is considered in the simulation process, so Young's modulus and energies are not considered in this study. But this opinion also gives us a lot of inspiration, we will carry out more in-depth research in this aspect in the later stage.
- Line 132 – is Table 3, there is no such table in the text
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. In view of this problem, we have made some modifications. (Line 161, Page 5 in the revised manuscript)
Table 3. Polynomial equation and variance analysis results between the crushing force and test factors.
|
Term of a polynomial |
Crushing force |
||
|
Sum of squares |
F value |
P value |
|
|
Model |
5.95E+06 |
37.19 |
＜0.0001*** |
|
Moisture content A |
3.41E+06 |
191.68 |
＜0.0001*** |
|
Blade angle B |
2.23E+06 |
125.55 |
＜0.0001*** |
|
Loading speed C |
10788.34 |
0.6067 |
0.4616NS |
|
AB |
2.52E+05 |
14.15 |
0.0071*** |
|
AC |
513.70 |
0.0289 |
0.8698NS |
|
BC |
23955.30 |
1.35 |
0.2838NS |
|
A2 |
223.26 |
0.0126 |
0.9139NS |
|
B2 |
516.61 |
0.0291 |
0.8695NS |
|
C2 |
23283.76 |
1.31 |
0.2901NS |
|
Determination coefficient R2 |
0.9795 |
|
|
|
Signal-to-noise ratio |
23.09 |
|
|
|
C.V (%) |
9.04 |
|
|
|
Lack-of-fit |
|
0.2384 NS |
|
- Blade inclination angle: 10; 30; 50 – authors should provide the reasons for choosing such values
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We also realize that this part is not clearly expressed. Therefore, we have modified this part in detail, such as " Fixture clamping on the tensile broken knife, in the form for corn bundle of crusher use knives, in the experiment change shear knife blade angle at the same time, according to the early stage of the bundle of broken corn experiment under 10 ° blade to be destroyed, more than 50 ° for crushing the corn bundles of effect was not obvious, so choose both ends of the median and limit value as the level of the blade Angle value, Respectively 10°, 30°, 50°. The corn bale samples are placed under the lower support plate of the compression fixture. ". (Line 124-129, Page 3 in the revised manuscript)
- Line 180 – is Figure 4 should be Figure 6
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. To address this problem, we have changed Figure 4 on line 180 to Figure 6 (Line 211-212, Page 8 in the revised manuscript)
- There is no discussion. Authors should discuss the obtained measurement results with the results of other authors
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to expert' opinions, we rewrote the conclusion, compared the conclusion with other previous work, and made it clear that the research value of this paper lies in providing data basis for simulation of corn bale crushing process in the later stage. (Line 221-240, page 8 in the revised manuscript)
- The research topic undertaken, as the authors themselves mention, is widely and extensively described in the literature. Nevertheless, the authors limited themselves to only 16 references. authors should increase the number of references.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. We have added more references according to experts' opinions to make the paper more rigorous. (Line 68-83, page 2 in the revised manuscript)
- Line 156 – Figure 4: the name of the x axis is The displacement / mm, and the figure shows the variant -1,0,1.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. The method adopted in this paper is response surface method. -1, 0 and 1 in this paper are the coding values of the experimental method, which represent different levels of different factors and do not represent displacement. For example, -1 represents moisture content of 10%, 0 represents moisture content of 30%, and 1 represents moisture content of 50%. At the same time, according to expert' opinions, we modified Figure 4, marked the meaning represented by each coding value, and fitted the regression model. (Line 184-188, page 7 in the revised manuscript)
- Instead of the word crushing, it is more appropriate to use shearing (or cutting) force.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. In the process of doing experiments, we found that the crushing process of corn bales not only includes shearing but also compression, so we named the force in the whole process as crushing force.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Presented article was corrected and supplemented by some new materials and now it looks better. But there are places were the authors have to make some corrections in the supplemented text.
Additional comments of reviewer:
- I additionally emphasize, that the aim of the article is not clearly stated, it should be highlighted by the most important objects of work and the necessary research. The novelty of presented research results is also not clear?
- At the end of Introduction (in lines 81-83) should be explained, what does it means “Kohdasht“ (may be it is the name of author?). There are presented some values of angles (25°, 30° and 35°), but it is not clear, what are these angles?
- In the description below Figure 4, the angle is repeated 2 times: “angle Angle...“ (in line 187).
- Finally, at the end of the preparation of the final version of the article, I suggest the authors to read the article carefully and correct the minor inaccuracies that still occur in the text.
Decission: after correcting the article in accordance with the presented comments, I propose to accept it for publication in the MDPI journal Processes.
Author Response
Response sheet for the reviewer’s comments
The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments. In addition, the revised manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised part has been marked in red.
Response to reviewers:
Special thanks for the editor’s and reviewer’s professional suggestions. The comments not only promote the quality of the manuscript, but will play an important role in our later research work.
Additional comments of reviewer:
I additionally emphasize, that the aim of the article is not clearly stated, it should be highlighted by the most important objects of work and the necessary research. The novelty of presented research results is also not clear?
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. Based on the opinions of experts, we clarified the main purpose of this research in the abstract, and at the same time revised the conclusions, and obtained an important guiding role for actual production. (Line 10-16, in page 1; Line 221-227, 233-235, 238-242, page 9 in the revised manuscript)
At the end of Introduction (in lines 81-83) should be explained, what does it means “Kohdasht“ (may be it is the name of author?). There are presented some values of angles (25°, 30° and 35°), but it is not clear, what are these angles?
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. The Kohdasht appearing in lines 81-83 in the citation is a wheat variety. 25°, 30° and 35° are the blade inclination angles. In order to prevent readers from misunderstanding, we have revised this sentence. (Line 75-81, page 2 in the revised manuscript)
In the description below Figure 4, the angle is repeated 2 times: “angle Angle...” (in line 187).
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to the author's prompt, we have corrected this error. (Line 185-186, page 7 in the revised manuscript)
Finally, at the end of the preparation of the final version of the article, I suggest the authors to read the article carefully and correct the minor inaccuracies that still occur in the text.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to the questions raised by experts, we have read the paper in detail and corrected the errors in the article. (Line 21-24, in page 1; Line 30-31, in page 1; Line 44-46, in page 1; Line 70-72, in page 2; Line 124-127, in page 3; Line 134, in page 4; Line 163, in page 5; Line 179-180, in page 6; Line 205, page 8 in the revised manuscript)
Decission: after correcting the article in accordance with the presented comments, I propose to accept it for publication in the MDPI journal Processes.
Answer: Thanks to the recognition of experts, we will conduct more in-depth research on straw mechanics and obtain more instructive research results.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
None of the main points made in my first assessment have been addressed. The only data provided is crushing force, not shear. Most of the introduction is focussed on shear, bending, ..., not crushing (pressure). The geometry of the cutting blade has not been described, and no cutting data has been provided. The literature review is mostly not relevant, as no shearing data is provided in the paper.
Author Response
Response sheet for the reviewer’s comments
The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments. In addition, the revised manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised part has been marked in red.
Response to reviewers:
Special thanks for the editor’s and reviewer’s professional suggestions. The comments not only promote the quality of the manuscript, but will play an important role in our later research work.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
None of the main points made in my first assessment have been addressed. The only data provided is crushing force, not shear. Most of the introduction is focussed on shear, bending, ..., not crushing (pressure). The geometry of the cutting blade has not been described, and no cutting data has been provided. The literature review is mostly not relevant, as no shearing data is provided in the paper.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out this. According to the opinions of expert, we read the paper carefully. Because this research mainly studies the crushing process of corn bales, in order to obtain the law of the influence of various factors on the crushing force, and at the same time obtain the maximum crushing force that destroys the corn bales. The force in a certain process in the middle is studied, so no shearing force is provided.
Experts mentioned that many documents in the introduction are not related to the research of this paper, which is of great help to improve the rigor of the paper. We have deleted some irrelevant documents and added some documents on fragmentation research. (Line 38-43, in page 1; Line 51-55, in page 2; Line 60-67, page 2 in the revised manuscript)
According to the opinions of expert, we described the geometry, size and installation form of the cutting blade. (Line 97-105, page 2 in the revised manuscript)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved, and I recommend its acceptance for publication.
Author Response
Response sheet for the reviewer’s comments
The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewer’s comments. In addition, the revised manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer's comments, and the revised part has been marked in red.
Response to reviewers:
Special thanks for the editor’s and reviewer’s professional suggestions. The comments not only promote the quality of the manuscript, but will play an important role in our later research work.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript has been improved, and I recommend its acceptance for publication.
Answer: Thanks to the recognition of experts, we will conduct more in-depth research on straw mechanics and obtain more instructive research results.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
