Influence of Chrysoporthe deuterocubensis Canker Disease on the Machining Properties of Eucalyptus urograndis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research focused on revealing the influence of chrysoporthe deuterocubensis canker disease on the machining properties of eucalyptus urograndis. The ideas in the manuscript are very interesting, and the research results obtained have some potential applications in the field of solid wood cutting. This manuscript is not well structured and well written, which is need to improve. The figures and tables are neat and easy to understand. Some revision should be done before publishing.

1. In line 21, “All samples were 21 machined using different tools”. What is the meaning? For the same machining, the status of machining tools should be same.

2. Line 29, The surface roughness test showed satisfactory surfaces for furniture manufacturing for the 29 majority of the severity classes studied. What are the satisfactory surfaces for furniture manufacturing? How to evaluate it?

3. In the part of introduction, some more references about wood machining should be added to support how to “how” and “why” to research? Such as the following References.

[1] Li, R.; Yang, F.; Wang, X. Modeling and Predicting the Machined Surface Roughness and Milling Power in Scot’s Pine Helical Milling Process. Machines 2022, 10, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10050331

[2] Li, R.; Yao, Q.; Xu, W.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Study of Cutting Power and Power Efficiency during Straight-Tooth Cylindrical Milling Process of Particle Boards. Materials 2022, 15, 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15030879

[3] Li, R.; He, C.; Xu, W.; Wang, X. Modeling and optimizing the specific cutting energy of medium density fiberboard during the helical up-milling process, Wood Material Science & Engineering 2022, DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2022.2049867

 

4. How to classify the classes of infected trees? The table 1 was classified by your study or some standards?

5. In the part of surface roughness testing, I think some more detailed information of testing procedure should be listed. Such as sampling length, testing direction?

6. Line 134, feed speed at a constant 2 m/min, how to fixed the feed speed by hand feed?

7. Line 137, Each sample classes were separately cut using different circular saw blade. Why?

8. Line 148. Each sample classes were separately cut 137 using different circular saw blade. Delete.

9. What is the planing thickness? What is the relationship between surface roughness and machining grade? How to quantitatively describe machining grade?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

This research focused on revealing the influence of chrysoporthe deuterocubensis canker disease on the machining properties of eucalyptus urograndis. The ideas in the manuscript are very interesting, and the research results obtained have some potential applications in the field of solid wood cutting. This manuscript is not well structured and well written, which is need to improve. The figures and tables are neat and easy to understand. Some revision should be done before publishing.

 

1. In line 21, “All samples were machined using different tools”. What is the meaning? For the same machining, the status of machining tools should be same.

ü The sentence has been omitted and the whole abstract section has been revised.

 

2. Line 29, The surface roughness test showed satisfactory surfaces for furniture manufacturing for the majority of the severity classes studied. What are the satisfactory surfaces for furniture manufacturing? How to evaluate it?

ü Thanks for your suggestion, we found that the sentence is inappropriate and therefore it has been omitted. The whole abstract section has been revised.

 

3. In the part of introduction, some more references about wood machining should be added to support how to “how” and “why” to research? Such as the following References.

[1] Li, R.; Yang, F.; Wang, X. Modeling and Predicting the Machined Surface Roughness and Milling Power in Scot’s Pine Helical Milling Process. Machines 2022, 10, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10050331

[2] Li, R.; Yao, Q.; Xu, W.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Study of Cutting Power and Power Efficiency during Straight-Tooth Cylindrical Milling Process of Particle Boards. Materials 2022, 15, 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15030879

[3] Li, R.; He, C.; Xu, W.; Wang, X. Modeling and optimizing the specific cutting energy of medium density fiberboard during the helical up-milling process, Wood Material Science & Engineering 2022, DOI: 10.1080/17480272.2022.2049867

ü Introduction part has been improved. The abovementioned journals have been cited.

 

4. How to classify the classes of infected trees? The table 1 was classified by your study or some standards?

ü It was classified according to the intensity of the infection as shown in our previous published paper (Rasdianah et al. 2021) 

 

5. In the part of surface roughness testing, I think some more detailed information of testing procedure should be listed. Such as sampling length, testing direction?

ü A more detailed information has been added.   

 

6. Line 134, feed speed at a constant 2 m/min, how to fixed the feed speed by hand feed?

üThe cutting direction was across the grain at 4000 rpm and feeding speed was about 2.4 m/s. We tried our best to make sure the feeding speed is at the mentioned speed.

 

7. Line 137, Each sample classes were separately cut using different circular saw blade. Why?

ü Sample from each infection classes were cut using new circular saw blade. The sentence has been revised.

 

8. What is the planing thickness? What is the relationship between surface roughness and machining grade? How to quantitatively describe machining grade?

ü All samples were planed twice with a 2 mm depth of cut at a feed rate of 18m/min. Only the second planing was utilised for observation, with the first planing being excluded.

ü The relationship between surface roughness and machining grade has been discussed in section 3.4.

ü The machining grade has been quantitatively described by the Defect free area (%) as shown in Table 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 A little bit of rearranging of the abstract is needed maybe. Abstract is usually divided into four parts WHY, WHAT, HOW, and main conclusions.

WHY This section usually contains one or two lines mainly defining what is the objective of the study or this work was done.

WHAT This is the main portion of the abstract. It contains what was done. Like what simulations have been performed what kind of parametric studies are done to support the WHY section.

HOW In this section you will define how u have achieved the WHAT section points. What kind of methodologies you have utilized to achieve the goals defined in WHAT section?

Usually at the end you will include one or two lines that how it is going to benefit the scientific community or what are the readership of this paper.

Thus, the objective of this work should be modified.

Confidence interval should be further descibed.

The digital scale is recommended to be added to in Figure 6.

Surface roughness of the tested samples are conducted based on ISO 4288 standard  [17]. Based on the amount and severity of defects present (fuzzy grain, chip grain, chip  marks, and tear out) and surface roughness, consecutive grades merge gradually without  any abrupt change in quality or any sharp dividing line. It is a little bit hard to follow. Please make more explaination.

Provide the resaeason for selection of cutting parmaters you used in this work.

 

Author Response

A little bit of rearranging of the abstract is needed maybe. Abstract is usually divided into four parts WHY, WHAT, HOW, and main conclusions.

 

WHY This section usually contains one or two lines mainly defining what is the objective of the study or this work was done.

WHAT This is the main portion of the abstract. It contains what was done. Like what simulations have been performed what kind of parametric studies are done to support the WHY section.

HOW In this section you will define how u have achieved the WHAT section points. What kind of methodologies you have utilized to achieve the goals defined in WHAT section?

 

Usually at the end you will include one or two lines that how it is going to benefit the scientific community or what are the readership of this paper.

ü Thank you very much for your suggestion, the whole abstract section has been revised accordingly.

 

Thus, the objective of this work should be modified.

ü The objective of the work has been revised.

 

Confidence interval should be further described.

ü Confidence interval has been further described at the bottom of each table.  

 

The digital scale is recommended to be added to in Figure 6.

ü Digital scale has been added in Figure 6

 

Surface roughness of the tested samples are conducted based on ISO 4288 standard  [17]. Based on the amount and severity of defects present (fuzzy grain, chip grain, chip marks, and tear out) and surface roughness, consecutive grades merge gradually without any abrupt change in quality or any sharp dividing line. It is a little bit hard to follow. Please make more explanation.

ü The whole section has been revised.   

 

Provide the reason for selection of cutting parameters you used in this work.

ü The justification has been provided (Line 72-77).    

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript was revised as my suggestions. I have no more comments.