Experimental Verification of a Highly Simplified, Preliminary Machinability Test for Wood-Based Boards in the Case of Drilling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review
Experimental verification of an extremely simplified, preliminary machinability test for wood-based boards in the case of drilling
The results of this research are original, significant, well defined, and all conclusions are justified and supported by the results.
The paper presents original research work and advances current knowledge in machinability tests for wood-based boards.
The paper is written appropriately, all the data and analyses are presented appropriately.
The main subject of the paper was to make a new, faster, simplified method of machinability test for wood-based boards. The paper proposes a highly simplified way of testing of relative machinability of wood-based boards based on the photoelectric measurement of the time needed to make a 10 mm deep hole under constant feed force.
The authors developed not only the new test method yet they engineered a new adjustment to machinery for drill testing.
The methodology was well set. Three groups of wood-based materials with substantially different internal structures (fiberboards, particleboards, and veneer boards) were tested, and the test results were statistically processed.
The results confirmed hypotheses, and the research proved that the use of a simplified procedure can be a helpful substitute for standard machinability testing procedure (based on accurate cutting forces measurements carried out in the standard industrial conditions) and can be primarily pragmatic in case of any preliminary ("internal") testing of innovative wood-based boards during the material development work.
This paper provides innovative and advances towards the current knowledge of testing of the wood-based boards.
The paper is acceptable for publishing in journal Forests after minor corrections.
Minor corrections:
- The abstract is too short, and it contains only conclusions.
- The authors have conducted pre-research, but there is a lack of newer literature in the manuscript on wood-based boards and wood-based boards testings.
Magalhães, R.; Nogueira, B.; Costa, S.; Paiva, N.; Ferra, J.M.; Magalhães, F.D.; Martins, J.; Carvalho, L.H. Effect of Panel Moisture Content on Internal Bond Strength and Thickness Swelling of Medium Density Fiberboard. Polymers 2021, 13, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13010114
Cai, Z.; Senalik, C.A.; Ross, R.J. Chapter 12: Mechanical properties of wood-based composite materials. In: Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-282. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 2021, 15 pp.
Wang, J., Cao, X.; Liu, H. A review of the long-term effects of humidity on the mechanical properties of wood and wood-based products. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2021, 79, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01623-9
Sudoł, E.; Kozikowska, E. Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane Adhesive Bonds in a Mineral Wool-Based External Thermal Insulation Composite System for Timber Frame Buildings. Materials 2021, 14, 2527. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14102527
Nazerian, M., Assadolahpoor Nanaii, H., Vatankhah, E.; Koosha, M. Performance of ANN in Predicting Internal Bonding of Cement Particleboard Manufactured from Giant Reed and Bagasse. Drvna industrija 2021, 72, 3, 255-271. https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2021.2018
Karaman, A.; Balcioglu, H.E. An Investigation of Flexural Behavior of Pure and Hybrid Wood Composite Panels Using Weibull Analyses. Drvna industrija 2021, 72, 2, 201-210. https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2021.2032
Ferrandez-García, M.T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, A.; Garcia-Ortuño, T.; Ferrandez-Garcia, C.E.; Ferrandez-Villena, M. Assessment of the Physical, Mechanical and Acoustic Properties of Arundo donax L. Biomass in Low Pressure and Temperature Particleboards. Polymers 2020, 12, 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12061361
Iždinský, J.; Vidholdová, Z.; Reinprecht, L. Particleboards from Recycled Wood. Forests 2020, 11, 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11111166
Klímek, P.; Wimmer, R.; Meinlschmidt, P. TOF-SIMS Molecular Imaging and Properties of pMDI-Bonded Particleboards Made from Cup-Plant and Wood. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041604
Zahedi, M., Najafi, S.K., Füssl, J.; Elyasi, M. Characterization of Engineering Elastic Parameters of Oriented Strand Board (OSB) Manufactured from Poplar (Populus deltoides) Strands Using Ultrasonic Contact Pulse Transmission. Drvna industrija 2020, 71, 3, 227-234. https://doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2020.1908
etc.
- The term "extremely" appears in the title, and few places in the text (extremely reliable results or extremely reliable test) seem a little excessive. Instead, consider using the term "highly" or maybe "significantly" in some cases.
- English language and style are acceptable, although minor spell check is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript looks good. It is a bold attempt at something new and there is a novelty.
The authors tested quite a lot of materials, so they verified it from several sides and results showed, it is working.
Simplifying the method of testing machinability is a meritorious act, especially, as authors write, at the time of the formation of new composites. There is no need to wait and test, but with this new method, they can already adopt the technology or composition of raw materials during the creation of the composite. It is a bold ambition.
Minor suggestions:
Please avoid using the word extremely in the title.
The abstract is too general, please be more specific with results, also Introduction is too general, please add more proper research discussion.
Line 49: There is plenty of publications about the machinability of composites, please revise your sentence.
Materials and methods: Please be more specific about the material and tools used.
Please add more discussion with other research to your results and discussion parts.
Authors do not have unified terminology (chipboard- particleboard, fiberboard, abbreviations, etc.)
Lines 21-28: This paragraph is too general, information is well known, I suggest omitting it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript deals with investigation and characterization of a simplified preliminary machinability test applied when drilling wood-based panels.
In line 2, I suggest to remove or replace “extremely” from the title of your paper, it is not really appropriate for a scientific article.
In general, the abstract (lines 9-17) and the keywords (line 18) correspond to the title, aims and objectives of the manuscript. However, the abstract starts a bit abruptly with results without clearly specifying the aim of the research. I’d recommend the authors to extend the abstract by including the aim of the paper, as well as specific results obtained. This will make it much more useful and informative for the readers.
In lines 39, please explain what do you mean by “innovative wood-based material”: produced from non-traditional wood or lignocellulosic raw materials, bonded with non-conventional adhesives, e.g. bio-based adhesives, with extended life cycle, recyclable, etc. Be more specific.
In line 39-40, the sentence “Especially when an innovative wood-based material is to be developed.” should be revised, now it seems unfinished. Please revise.
In line 49, please revise “aren’t” to “are not”. Please use academic language and style.
In line 51, please use “medium-density fiberboard” and then the common abbreviation MDF.
In lines 49-51, the statement “There are only a few papers available on the machinability of some selected wood-based materials such as MDF and/or chipboards[6,7,8].” is not true. There are many high-quality papers on the machinability of all types of wood-based panels. Please revise accordingly.
In line 62, please delete the “gold standard” statement, it is not very ethical to refer to your own published paper like that.
In line 64, please revise “often been voiced” with “has often been expressed” or similar.
In line 71, please remove or replace “return to the roots”. Please use scientific language.
In general, the Introduction part is informative and provides some information on the studied topic, but it has to be revised and more relevant references to previously published studies in the field should be included.
In the Materials and Methods section, starting in line 73, I suggest to make a clear distinction by providing a heading for Materials and another one for Methods. This will make your manuscript much more readable.
In line 76, what do you mean by “veneer boards” – plywood? Please revise.
In lines 80-81, please add a short explanation about the different particleboard types used, e.g. type P4: load-bearing boards for use in dry condition, etc.
Please provide short information and characteristics of the wood-based panels used, e.g. manufacturing companies, densities, thicknesses, etc.
In line 89, please delete again “extremely”. What makes the authors think their results are “extremely reliable”. Please explain.
Lines 90-91. “extremely reliable and “extremely simpliefied”?!?. Please revise.
In line 95, please complete the sentence “…industrial CNC router (Busellatto Jet 130 – Fig.3) was.”
Please add more information and characteristics of drilling instruments used.
In lines 120-123, the title of Figure 2 is too long, please revise.
The Materials and Methods section should be completely revised.
I’d recommend to the authors to combine sections 3 and 4 into a one section, e.g. 3. Results and Discussion. In addition, there is absolutely no discussion of the results with previous studies in the field with the exclusion of only one reference [4], which was written by the same authors. Please discuss your results with results from other authors.
In lines 207-214, the Conclusions part is too short and has to be completely revised.
The References cited are appropriate to the topic of the manuscript but their number (14) is too small. Please add more references in all parts of your manuscript. In addition, some of the references are not formatted in accordance with the journal requirements, please check the Instructions for authors.
Best regards!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have properly addressed all my previous comments/remarks, and the revised version of the manuscript has been significantly improved.
