Analysis of Cutting Forces in Cross-Sawing of Wood: A Study of Sintered Carbide and High-Speed Steel Blades
, Ján Melicherčík 1, Tomáš Kuvik 1, Ján Kováč 1, Arkadiusz Gendek 2, Monika Aniszewska 2 and Jan Mareček 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript explores the analysis of cutting forces in wood sawing processes using two specific types of saw blades. It examines and compares experimental and theoretical results.
Generally, the topic is interesting and the manuscript have values in practice. Moreover, interesting results have been reported. However, there are important concerns that need to be adequately addressed:
1. The introduction section is quite brief. It lacks a proper literature review and adequate discussion about the state-of-the-art, shortcomings in the research, and the necessity for the presented work. Additionally, the contribution of the paper in comparison to existing works is not clear.
2. The full terms for SK and HSS saw blades should be properly introduced and described. Additionally, the authors should avoid using these abbreviations in the title. Instead, the full terms should be used for clarity or they should be replaced with a more general term.
3. The argument of the paper is quite limited. The authors should first clarify why these two specific models of saw blades were selected for evaluation.
4. Providing excessive detail about the characteristics of saw blades or presenting very specific numerical results is unnecessary in the abstract. It would be more beneficial to present percentages or comparisons of results, and to clarify the term 'defined factors' (which factors?)
5. There is a growing body of recent work focused on optimizing sawing processes and equipment for increased efficiency and productivity, emphasizing new technologies, automation, and optimization techniques to enhance the design and efficiency of wood manufacturing. To improve the practical relevance of your findings and align them with recent research trends, it is recommended that you consider discussing such recent relevant studies, such as https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3223053 , and https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2018.1465465
6. The majority of figures have very low resolution.
7. Some references are disorganized. For example, reference [31] in Figure 1 is placed after [11].
8. In Section 2, Figures 3 and 4 have been referred to before Figure 2.
9. Several abbreviations, such as ATB, have been used without providing proper definitions
Overall, English is fine, but minor edits are required.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer of the manuscript for valuable comments.
We have incorporated all comments of the reviewer into the manuscript.
Response 1: We have supplemented the introductory part with essential information that belongs to the introduction. An overview of the issue is known from previous research in the field of saw blades. The benefit of the work is the comparison of the tension on the teeth of the saw blade in the cut. An experimental measurement was carried out on a test device, where the processed data were evaluated and compared with theoretical data, which yielded interesting results, supported by voltage analysis.
Response 2: We added the parameters of the saw blades in the characteristics of the used blades. The abbreviations HSS and SK are explained immediately in the title of the post.
Response 3: The choice of saw blades for testing is according to our survey according to the professional articles mentioned in the introduction, which pointed out that HSS and SK blades are the most commonly used type in wood processing.
Response 4: The characteristics of the saw blades were added in the post. We consider numerical evaluation to be necessary. The results of voltage analysis and mathematical calculations are problematic to express in percentages. We have added the factors affecting the measurement - it includes cutting and feed speed.
Response 5: Thank you for the valuable information and links for the current solution to a similar issue. Some were added and used in the introduction and discussions.
Response 6: Thank you for the reminder.
Response 7: Thanks, the links have been edited.
Response 8: The numbering was wrong, it's fine now.
Response 9: The ATB abbreviation was explained under Figure 3 and in the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors chose two different SK and HSS saw blades in order to analysis the cutting force during transverse sawing of wood. In this regard, they choose cutting speed and feed speed as cutting variable. The Sweden spruce wood was chosen. The experiments and simulations were performed and compared. The authors concluded that cutting speed and feed speed do not have a significant effect on the size of the cutting forces. The simulation results show that the highest stress values for both discs are concentrated on the tops of the cutting edges.
Here are my comments:
1. Abstract: Lines 21-24: “The results of the contributions show significant differences, based on defined factors, which are supported by FEM analysis of cutting forces in the process of cutting wood - when changing the design of the saw blade.” Why there is a big difference between experimental and FEM results? Why do the authors mean by changing the design of saw blade? Did they design a new blade?
2. Introduction section: The authors should explain the cutting force and its effect on the sawing process more in detail. In addition, they should refer to some recent works (references) and their results, that have been done by the other researchers related to the papers’ topic. It is necessary for better understanding of readers.
3. Introduction section: The authors should explain about the aim of the paper and the novelty of their work. It is very important.
4. Please explain about Figure 1 in the paper. Nothing is mentioned about it in the paper.
5. In order to make it easy for readers, please replace Figure 3 and Figure 4 into the section “2 Material and Methods” before section “2.1. Measuring device and its components”.
6. Page 4, Lines 140-141: “A tool steel saw blade (Figure 6.) and a saw blade with SK blades (Figure 7.) were used for the experiment.”. I think it should be Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. Please check it.
7. Page 5, Line 160: How did the authors conduct their experiments? What was the method used for Design of Experiment?
8. Why did the authors choose cutting speed and feed speed as variable parameters? What about the influence of other cutting conditions? Although the authors concluded that cutting speed and cutting feed do not have any effect on cutting force.
9. Page 5, Lines 161-162: “Individual measurements were made at a cutting speed of 60, 70 and 80 m.s-1 and a feed speed of 6, 8, 10 and 12 m.min-1.”. Why did the authors choose these values for cutting speed and feed speed?
10. Page 6, Line 172: “Realization experimental measurements were made on both types of wood…”. However, the authors stated in the abstract that they used just one type of wood (Spruce).
11. Page 6, Lines 176-178: “In addition, the effects of geometrical parameters, such as saw blade thickness and clamp diameter, on natural frequencies are also investigated using finite element analysis. [24,25].” It is not mentioned in the introduction section as one of the aims. Additionally, these results are not discussed and not mentioned neither in the Abstract nor in the Conclusion sections.
12. Page 7, Lines 186-187: “From the performed calculations, it is clear that both saw blades have a maximum of 7 teeth in the engagement.” Based on what calculations? Please provide it in the paper.
13. Page 7, Lines 199-200: “Based on the previous values, it is possible to calculate the thickness of the chips removed by the individual teeth of the saw blade.” How did the authors calculate it? Please provide it in the paper.
14. In Equations (1) and (3), how did the authors determine the values for “Fc”, “bD" and “e”?
15. Please replace Table 2 and Table 3 near to the text, where they are explained. It is so difficult for reader to read the paper.
16. Please correct the number of Figures from page 9. It is really confusing to read and understand the paper.
17. Page 10, Lines 293-302 should be deleted. Because they are repeated in the previous lines “189-293”.
18. The results obtained in this paper should be compared with the results of other works related to the topic of the paper.
19. Conclusion section, Lines: 337-340: “In operating conditions, this would mean that if the tool had perfectly sharp cutting edges (which it does not actually have), after a few shots of the disc into the workpiece, they would be slightly blunted, which would cause considerably less stress on the individual teeth in the shot than the simulation shows.” Please prove your statement.
So, based on the above-mentioned comments, I believe that the paper should be rejected.
Author Response
- Among the main results of the presented paper is a comparison of theoretical calculations and experimental measurements. These are statistically significant differences of defined factorsInfluencing factors include cutting and feed speed. HSS blades and with SK plates were used because they are the most widely used saw blades in the field of wood processing. No, the goal was not to design a new saw blade, standard design types of saw blades were addressed.
- Thank you for your comment, The comments have been incorporated into the text.
- The idea of this work was the analysis of cutting forces on saw blades in the process of transverse sawing, based on the performed experiment and calculations. The task was to find out whether the theoretical values are close to the real ones.
- Image removed
- The arrangement of pictures 3 and 4 has a logical continuity. We see no reason to change the arrangement.
- Thanks for the reminder, checked and adjusted numbering of images throughout the article.
- Supplemented : Experimental measurements were performed on a measuring device according to our proposed methodology, the basic parameter of which was the recording of the torque. Indirect measurement of cutting force based on saw blade torque. An indirect method of measuring cutting forces was used.
- The selected parameters, cutting and sliding speed affect the process of transverse splitting of wood with saw blades, which results from previous research.
The conclusions in the submitted contribution are not formulated correctly. Based on theoretical calculations and experimental measurements, we can conclude that the selected factors have an impact on the size of the cutting force. The stated statement is supported by the comparison of theoretical calculations and experimental results of cutting forces, presented in the conclusions of the paper.
- The answer to this question is given in answer no. 8
- Thank you for the reminder. Text error - fixed.
- Thanks for the reminder - monitoring the thickness of the saw blade was not the purpose of the post.
- Determination of the number of teeth in the engagement of the saw blade was carried out according to the relationship completed in the post.
- Chip thickness was not observed in the present manuscript.
- Empirical relations 1 and 3 are taken from scientific literature (Mikleš et al., Siklienka 2017). The values in equations 1 and 3 are based on the parameters of the cutting wheel and cutting conditions.
- Tables have been moved in relation to the text.
- Corrected and supplemented
- The text has been corrected and repeated lines removed.
- The results of the experiment are compared in the chapter results and discussion - the chapter is supplemented.
- Several authors have devoted themselves to similar research in the field of stress analysis and transverse splitting of wood.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal: Forests (ISSN 1999-4907)
Manuscript ID: forests-2470904
Review Report 1#
The authors presented an article on “Analysis of cutting forces at transverse sawing of wood with SK and HSS saw blades”. The subject of the article falls within the scope of the journal "Forests". Comments are listed below.
1. The references given in the introduction are insufficient. Current and relevant references should be included.
2. What is the novelty in this study? What is the difference between this study and similar studies in the literature? In the last paragraph of the introduction, the study should be briefly mentioned and its difference from similar studies in the literature should be stated.
3. The manufacturer of the devices used in the experiments and the country in which they were produced should be given.
4. According to which standards were the cutting speed and feed speed parameters selected for individual measurements determined?
5. Figure 1 is not referenced in the text.
6. Figure 5 is not referenced in the text.
7. Table 2 and Table 3 are not referenced in the text.
8. On page 4, lines 140-141, "A tool steel saw blade (Figure 6.) and a saw blade with SK blades (Figure 7.) were used for the experiment". In this sentence, Figure 6 and Figure 7 should be checked.
9. On page 9 line 253, the given "Table 1" should be "Table 4".
10. On page 9 line 256, the given "Figure 6" should be "Figure 7".
11. All shape labels after Figure 6 are incorrect. It should be checked and corrected.
12. In the units given on the "y" axis in Figure 6 on page 9, a period should be used instead of a comma.
13. Discussion in the Results section is insufficient. Similar studies in the literature should be compared and discussed.
14. The article contains numerous typographic and language errors. It should be corrected.
15. The article should be rearranged by taking into account the journal writing rules and citation rules.
*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.
Author Response
Response 1: We have supplemented the links in the introduction according to the appropriateness of the given issue.
Response 2: The information was added in the text, in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Response 3: The equipment for testing saw blades is the property of the Technical University in Zvolen. It is protected by a utility model. Saw blades are commercially available and their characteristics are given in the post.
Response 4: The magnitude of the cutting speed and the feed rate were determined on the basis of the recommended speeds for cross-cutting in practice.
Response 5: Fixed - removed.
Response 5: Completed
Response 7: Corrected – supplemented
Response 8: Corrected – supplemented
Response 9: Corrected – supplemented
Response 10: Corrected – supplemented
Response 11: Corrected – supplemented
Response 12: Corrected
Response 13: The discussion was supplemented by similar studies from the last period, which are devoted to saw blades and optimization of the wood processing process.
Response 14: The authors tried to eliminate as many shortcomings as possible in the paper.
Response 15: Thank you for the reminder.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
While some of my comments have been taken into account, several others have not been adequately clarified or considered. Here are a few:
1. Regarding your response to comment 1, a proper description showing the rationale for the selection of two very specific saw blades is still not apparent. It is critical to provide a clear justification for this choice. Otherwise, testing only two sawing models may not constitute a substantial contribution worthy of a journal paper.
2. Regarding your response to Comment 2, the revised title should still be improved to avoid confusion. First, it's standard practice to provide the full-term first, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, rather than the other way around. Further, the mention of a series of saw blades in the title (such as SK) seems irrelevant, as it doesn't directly pertain to the core subject. Moreover, “SK” does not seem to be an abbreviation for “Sintered Carbide”. I still recommend revising the title to better represent the significance of your research. For instance, a more relevant title could be: “Analyzing Cutting Forces in Transverse Wood Sawing: A Study of Sintered Carbide and High-Speed Steel Blades".
3. I notice that there haven’t been any revisions made to the Abstract in response to Comment 4.
4. Although the authors have stated that they have addressed Comment 5, I can't find any corresponding explanation that responds to the concern raised in that comment. Additionally, the suggested references do not seem to have been considered in the manuscript.
The English language is generally fine, however, minor editing is required.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer of the manuscript for valuable comments.
We have incorporated all comments of the reviewer into the manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have added an explanation of the rationale for the contribution to the journal to the Introduction chapter. Saw blades for primary wood processing in the forest are usually larger than 500 mm in diameter. The vast majority of contributions in the field of primary wood processing discuss the research of HSS and SC saw blades, which are dominant in the field of cross-cutting wood. The saw blades used in the research are from Pilana Group a.s., which also confirms the most commercially used HSS and SC saw blades for primary wood processing.
Studies like for example: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12121803 , Kováč, J., Harvánek, P., Krilek, J., Kuvik, T. a Melicherčík, J. (2021). " The Influence of the Coating on the Saw Blade on the Energy Intensity of Cross-Cutting of Wood“, BioResources 16(1), 1029-1041.
Response 2: After careful consideration, we have decided to replace the title of the post according to your suggestion. We think it is more accurate. We redesigned and repaired the marked saw blades.
Response 3: The necessary changes were made in the abstract.
Response 4: The literature recommended by you solves a completely different problem. The first link deals with logistics and the optimization and management of forestry. The second post you recommend is dedicated to woodworking - surface quality monitoring and intelligent monitoring of woodworking. We are dedicated to the primary processing of wood. In the introduction and at the end of the discussions, literary sources were added, which enrich a specific issue in the research area. They analyze the stresses on the body of the saw blade as well as extreme stresses like in our case, which are subject to FEM analysis with a clear result.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved the quality of their paper.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer of the manuscript for his review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have completed the necessary revisions. In my opinion this article is acceptable for publication in the "Forests" journal.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer of the manuscript for his review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
