Testing of Cutting Tools on a Pneumatic Experimental Device and Evaluation of Cutting Edge Wear Using a Non-Contact 3D Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presents an experimental study focused on the evaluation of the cutting edge of a delimbing knife. The authors recorded the damage evolution of this tool when cutting spruce wood of different diameters. A home-made experimental device was used during the experimental tests to record the evolution of the cutting force and the evolution of the wear of the cutting tool under different experimental conditions.
In the opinion of the reviewer, the paper can be recommended for publication in machine Journal after revisions listed below:
- English should be revised.
- In the abstract for example, many sentences are difficult to understand. (The research is focused on the evaluation instead of on evaluation).
- Delimbing knives were tested in experimental device designed at the Technical University in Zvolen at the Department of Environmental and Forest Technology. It is better to say that the device is designed in our laboratory and the affiliation is already written on the title.
- The sentence in lines 22-24 should be reworded; it is very difficult to understand its meaning.
- Same for the sentence 27-28 need to be formulated also difficult to understand the meaning.
- Line 32, which I find the presented research interesting. !!!! Why I? However, you are a group of researchers. The authors usually do not confirm whether their research is interesting or not.
- In the introduction references [8], [9], [11], [12], [14], [15], [17] are messing authors should review in order these references.
- The authors should add the most recent references (2021-2022) in order to see if another research group already studies the topic and to highlight the novelty of their investigation.
- At the end of the introductory section, authors should introduce their work.
- Line 102. The pneumatic control that command the cylinder is what? Authors need to specify the designation of the device (a 3/2 way valve NO manually actuated for example).
- Section 2.2 it is better that the citation of the different references be ordered
- Equation 7 how the values of the different forces is estimated ? at this place however the precise values are calculated after that.
- It seems that all the equations and calculations are like a static course exercise and it is not necessary to write these equations on the manuscript.
- What is the purpose of these calculations when the system has a device to measure the force and plot its evolution?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, This is a very important study, but please, consult the observations I put in the attached file, and please reconsider the structure of the paper, and improve the content and the English.
The remarks in the table signify more english language demanded improvements. At the end of the table, there are the remarks I consider of major importance.
Congratulationds for this huge amount of work!
Kind regards,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The use of toolholder technology in forestry is a highly topical issue today. From this point of view, it is necessary to focus on improving the efficiency and energy intensity of the machine, which is economically suitable for the operation of the machine. The study of branch knife wear has not been adequately addressed in the world and this is something I find interesting in the current research. The authors studied the evaluation of scribing knife edge wear with 18 non-contacts, which I believe has strong practical implications. The study focused on the wear of 23 knives made of STN 41 9452 material when changing the angular geometry of the tool and using a 24 constant support speed of 2.0 m. Overall, I think the authors' study is interesting, but I think there are a few points that need to be revised before acceptance.
1. The introduction part is not sufficient and more literature needs to be added. Also the authors should provide a more detailed description of the literature to be used to introduce the current state of research in the field at this order.
2. What is the author's way of defining wear and tear? I did not understand it after reading through the whole article.
3. The authors need to describe in detail the principle of the Alicona Focus Infinity device and a tutorial on its use. What is the definition of the benchmark for pre- and post-friction measurements?
4. It turns out that choosing a larger radius also causes more abrasive wear to the cutting edge. Did the authors obtain this with the Alicona Focus Infinity?
5. The authors' experiment is too simple and more experiments need to be added. The authors seem to have performed only a simple comparison and not a more in-depth study, which I think is not enough to prove the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The work present a testing of cutting tools on a pneumatic experimental device and evaluation of cutting edge wear using a non-contact 3D method,. This is an interesting proposal, however it has some points that need to be improved.
In general, it is necessary to Improve pixelated images and the text on them.
many figures appear before they are named in the text.
Table 1 could remove values that are constants and indicate them in the text. This would save space and would not be left out.
The experimental design uses a combination that has not been sufficiently explained, where a very small combination of tool angles is selected. This fact makes it difficult to reach more solid conclusions.
I think that Figure 2 on the right does not provide relevant information.
I think that Figure 2 on the right does not provide relevant information and Figure 2 and 3 could be put together.
The exact location of the cut is not described.
The text between lines 176 and 185 is not correct or correctly expressed.
Sometimes the parameters used in the formulas are not defined.
The presentation of the equations must be improved.
Equation 4 does not appear.
Between lines 204-206 it is indicated which empirical formulas have been used but it is not indicated which ones.
How can a constant compression force be achieved with a pneumatic cylinder? How can constant speed be ensured?
a picture could help to define and understand the origin of the equation Fc= FN+FD+FCH+FC
The images of the tool's cutting edge show many uncaptured points, how do you deal with this information, how do you quantify the cutting edge wear?
Is that the state of the cutting edge after 270 cuts?
Has the wear been evaluated at intermediate points to see the evolution of the wear?
The graphs are figures. They are NOT referenced and you need to adjust the font size.
Why the forces in graph 1 start with a negative value and in graph 2 they do not.
General writing needs improvement, using the impersoal and passive voice.
I think the ranges used are too wide (20-40mm). This can greatly affect all results.
The results of all tests, or at least the ranges, mean value and standard deviation, should be shown.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors did not give importance to my remarks and did not answer any of my comments.
Author Response
Thanks for the comments, we tried to remove or add all the mistakes in the post so that it is in order.
We apologize if we did not pay enough attention to your comments. We fixed most of it right in the post.
We consulted with a private agency that translated the article about the comments on the English language, some sentences were adjusted according to correctness.
In the abstract, we modified poorly understood sentences, explained them in a simpler way, so that it was clear.
Lines 22-24, corrections and additions were made to improve the meaning
Lines 27-28, corrections and additions were made to improve the meaning
The references in the introduction are considered to be placed correctly, according to the meaning of the sentence in the text, the studies that present the research are cited.
Research in the field of harvester technology and tool wear in recent years has not been presented by anyone, which we consider to be the novelty of our research and open up new possibilities in this area.
Line 102 - we added a specific type of pneumatic control of the experimental device.
We have removed some equations based on several revisions, as their application in this post was not appropriate.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulation for the significant improvement You've performed in this short time.
I consider that the paper is much better organized, a lot of precious data and results were presented which I really appreciate.
However, there exist some minor corrections that must be done, see the attached file.
Finally, I will recommend firmly the article
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the comments, we tried to remove or add all the mistakes in the post so that it is in order.
We have reviewed all recommendations and supplemented or corrected them in our post.
Thank you for the positive evaluation of our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I agree to accept.
Author Response
Thank you for the positive evaluation and recommendation to publish our article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please see the attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, allow us to respond to individual points.
Reviewer: ok
Table 1 specifically defines the angular geometry of the branching knives tested in the experiment, which are supported by the previous study cited in the text.
Reviewer:
The article is incorrectly cited or cannot be found. On the other hand, it is an article from 13 years ago, so it is not very up to date. In any case, this study deals with a different topic, so the conclusions are not well supported.
Author :We have added a professional monograph that deals with the investigated issue. Publications in this area are not available in recent years, as no one is devoted to this topic.
The cutting location of the debranching knife can be seen from pictures 6, 8, 10 where, based on the progress of the measurement, you can see where the knife penetrated the wood and the delimbing process took place.
Reviewer:
Figures 2 and 6 are named after appearing
Figures 4, 5 and 10 are not named in the text.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 appear and are cited before figure 6.
In summary review all figures.
Author : We have reviewed and corrected all images and their in-text citations.
For each debranching knife, 90 measurements were made and the wear of the cutting edge of the knife was evaluated. We determined the number of measurements by calculating the basic statistical set.
Reviewer:
If such information is available, the statistical data obtained should be presented.
Author :The table of the basic decomposition table of the experiment was supplemented. (Table 3.)
The constant speed of the train's piston rod movement is ensured and set before the start of the experiment by a single-axis acceleration sensor SAI/L/(SZ1/50) (Figure 1.) with a measuring range of +-/20g., which is placed directly on the pneumatic cylinder's ring.
Constant compression force with a reduction valve at the outlet of the air unit and at the inlet of the compressed air into the piston rod of the pneumatic cylinder.
Reviewer:
Achieving a constant feed rate in a pneumatic system where the force is not continuous is very complex. It should be better specified. Force and speed are different concepts.
Author : The beginning of the experiment was about the design of a suitable pneumatic cylinder. A working pressure of 0.6 MPa and a maximum of 1.2 MPa is sufficient to set the cutting tool in motion. After including the pneumatic cylinder in the assembly, we determined the cutting speed using the aforementioned single-axis acceleration sensor of 2.0 ms.-1. By applying the working pressure of the cylinder and the cutting speed, after converting according to equation 1, we determined the cutting force after converting to 7.359 kN. The cutting force was the quantity we observed in the experiment, due to the size of the diameter of the wood and the change in the angular geometry of the delimbing knife. The stated experimental parameters are sufficient for the process of chipless wood cutting for spruce wood and the interval of the wood sample from 0-60 mm.
Author : Individual components and a description of the experimental device are presented in the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted
