Wear and Damage Study of Straw Chopper Knives in Combine Harvesters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Observation and comments are given in attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review our article. We appreciate your valuable comments that helped improve the article.

We provide answers to your comments:

Introduction. We tried to improve an introduction.

281 line. SEM was used in previous research stage (article published in 2023 [18]), not for that article. So we change a bit the description.

Table 2. Yes we agree, that properties of used blades was different. But we used blades from the market and couldn‘t change something. But we tried to find out how the hardness and blade edge angle reflects on wear resistance.

Conclusions. We tried to improve the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper: machines-3201155-v1

Full Title: Wear and Damage Study of Straw Chopper Knives in Combine Harvesters

 

I - General Comments

The present paper aims to analyze the wear and mechanical damage caused by foreign bodies to the blades of a combine harvester under good harvesting conditions. In general, the results of the study have showed that blade wear rates (due to the specific design of the threshing system, with one or two blades working against each other) have a very weak correlation (R**2. = 0.0057 in 2022 and R**2. = 0.038 in 2023). There are specific comments addressed to the authors, before my final decision of acceptation of the paper for publication in the specialized literature. In general, the paper needs to be rigorously revised to make it suitable for publication in machines.

 

II - Specific Comments

(i) The “Abstract” must be written in only one paragraph. It is suggested a restructuration for the “Abstract” too. It should describe the objectives, context, and significance of the research, methods, results, and main conclusions of the paper.

(ii) The paper has cited only 16 “References”. It is necessary more citations and a better justification about how the paper will contribute in the literature.

(iii) The “Introduction” is bigger and it must be reorganized by authors. There are lots of Figures and Table. The suggested style for the “Introduction” could be such as: In “Introduction” (a) states the motivation for the present research and what it will contribute to the research field; (b) presents a brief overview of the current state for the research topic; (c) includes some more detailed information on the specific topic of the research topic; and (d) includes a description of the exact question or hypothesis that the work will be inserted in the literature.

(iv) Other parts of the original “Introduction” could be removed for a next section into the paper.

(v) All Equations appearing in the work must be referenced.

(vi) Figure 13 needs to be better introduced and discussed.

(vii) In fact, on page 16, line 575, the authors have commented the following: “Water also contains hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, which intensify the corrosion of metals [16]”. Please, include a better discussion to clarify that key point.

(viii) On page 18, remove the sections “Appendix A” and “Appendix B”, since they are not utilized.

(ix) In “Conclusions”, please comment about the limitations of the present study and include a perspective for future research. The contribution of the present paper must also be justified.

III - Recommendation for the machines’ editor

The original paper needs attend all topics above addressed to the authors. Upon consideration of all points above, I think the paper could be considered for publication in machines.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some problems with the English language and text edition have been identified. The authors must rigorously revise the whole text for grammatical and spelling errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review our article. We appreciate your valuable comments that helped improve the article.

We provide answers to your comments:

I - General Comments

Thank you very much for your note. Upon closer analysis, we saw that such a linear generalization is not applicable in our case, as it does not show the average wear of individual blade samples. In this case our presented line shows which side of the shreader drum is more loaded, or to what side harvester body is more tired. This is more related to the distribution of straw mass, which usually depends on the tilt of the harvester, for example when it is going down a hill. The purpose of the article is different. As a result, we removed these correlations.

 

II - Specific Comments

(i) The “Abstract” was corrected.

(ii) We try to include more citations. Now are 27 References”. Thank you, it helps as to find some available impacts related to harvester blades corrosion, for future analysis.

(iii) We tried to improve “Introduction” according your notes.

(iv) Some parts of the original “Introduction” we removed for a discussion section.

(v) All Equations were taken like Exell tredline formulas. We cut it of (related with I general comment).

(vi) We improve the introduction and discussion of Figure 13 (now Figure 9).

(vii) “In fact, on page 16, line 575”, (now page 15, 496-505 lines) we try improve it..

(viii) “Appendix A” and “Appendix B” removed.

(ix) “Conclusions” improved.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English quality was checked using Grammarly.

 

02 October 2024

With the best regards

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed manuscript presents interesting research on the study of damage to chopper knives. The paper is very well-prepared; however, some small mistakes were found during the revision. Below are my main remarks:

• Line 103: Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b are closely similar. Please distinguish between them and specify the differences by labeling them accordingly in the caption.
• Line 252: Please provide a more comprehensive description of the main goal of the paper. In my opinion, one sentence is not precise enough.
• Line 278: Please clarify what is meant by "The 2023 study."
• Line 458: The dates presented on the surface graph are not easy to analyze. I suggest presenting the data in a table format.
• Line 477: In Fig. 18, please indicate which blade is new and which is used.
• Line 535: Why do the blades in Fig. 20a have different lengths?

Additionally, the literature review in the first chapter should include research results from other research centers conducting similar studies. Below, I am sending links to articles that may be of interest to the author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.12.007

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to review our article. We appreciate your valuable comments that helped improve the article.

We provide answers to your comments:

 

• 4a and Fig. 4b were deleted because it was additional irrelevant information, upon closer inspection. Thank you for that note.
• Agree that one sentence for the goal is not precise enough. We improved it.
• "The 2023 study." Means 2023 year harvesting season study. We improved it a bit.
• Line 458: The dates presented on the surface graph are not easy to analyze. I suggest presenting the data in a table format. Was figure 17 (now figure 13). We improved the figure and explain it a bit more.
• In Fig. 18 (now 14) improved.
• Line 535: Why do the blades in Fig. 20a have different lengths? Described in 473 line. This is allowed by the manufacturer's standards for EU certified products.
• Additionally, We used your suggested article http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.12.007 . Thank you.

02 October 2024

With the best regards

 

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor comments are given in attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments, which helped us review the article once again.

1. We shortened the abstract.
   2. We tried to adjust the introduction taking into account the comments.

With the best regards

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considered my comments. The paper can be published in its present form now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Author Response

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for his comments and time.

Sincerely
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been corrected and I can accept the manuscript for publication  in present form.

Author Response

Once again, we sincerely thank the reviewer for his comments and time.

Sincerely
Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although you performed incredible work and significantly improved technical aspect of paper (abstract, introduction, description of experiment procedures, presentation of results, conclusions), the study still lacks a broader contribution to scientific knowledge beyond presentation of research results. In my opinion, study is of low scientific interest, and it is not suitable for publishing in the journal Machines.

There are no additional changes you can introduce to paper which would change my opinion.