Five-Axis Contour Error Control Based on Numerical Control Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper claimed a contour error estimation method based on NC codes combined with geometry features. It's quite interesting in terms of practical machines. But it does not investigate well the state-of-the-art and previous works like "Contour error compensation method for computer numerical controlled non-circular grinders". I think it would be some overlaps, and the idea is incremental compared to SOTA. But also, the conclusion does not support the results well.

Some notes:

1) The caption in Fig. 15 for both a) and b) are the same.

2) I could not follow well the comparison of the method with SOTA in the results and conclusion and just focus on this method individually.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes a contour error compensation algorithm for five-axis computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools based on modified numerical control (NC) codes. The manuscript is well written and well presented, but the novelty of the paper is questionable. How is this paper is different compared to the authors' other publications in IEEE(10.1109/TASE.2022.3142565)? Because both papers seem to use the same process and methods? 

1.  I recommend expending the abstract by adding one or two sentences on the background need of this method. Also abstract should highlight the novelty of the presented method/process with one or two sentences describing the results. This kind of related work section comparing their recent publications is key when there are two close papers exist. 

2. Consider providing a short study on the related works in this area? And highlight novel points of study in the introduction. 

3. Are there any improvements in CONTOUR ERROR ESTIMATION compared to the previous publication? Because both sections seem very similar, including method or error estimation, so why to reprint the same method? 

4. Suggested including more results such as orientation errors, and potions graphs, as authors did in their transaction. So readers can see the difference. And include results comparisons also. 

I think with the above modifications, this paper can be published. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work, the authors propose a contour error compensation algorithm for five-axis computer numerical control (CNC) machine tools based on modified numerical control (NC) codes. The research appears to be efficiently done and appropriately reported, however, the standard of English is acceptable but only needs a few corrections. Nevertheless, there are some questions and corrections that must be answered to improve and complete the document.

 

Abstract section: The abstract misses some information like more results and conclusions, I suggest to authors follow these rules:

A. One or two sentences on BACKGROUND

B. Two or three sentences on METHODS

C. Less than two sentences on RESULTS

D. One sentence on CONCLUSIONS

Introduction section: In this section, the authors don’t indicate the novelty of their work. what is the innovation of your work when compared with the other researchers? The "Knowledge gap to be filled"? In this introduction, the authors must describe or indicate the work that will be done to test their "hypothesis". On the other hand, the number of references is very small and little updated, therefore, authors should increase the number of references and should be more up-to-date.

Lines 84. The authors wrote, “… Marked in green is…”. However, in table 1 there isn’t any “green” market. Please verify this sentence or improve the representation of table 1.

Improve the resolution of all figures. It very hard to understand some details of these figures.

Figure 4. There is some text in Chinese, please translate it t English.

In the conclusion, the authors wrote “Compared with the existing methods, this method has higher estimation accuracy at some sharp corner trajectories.” However, they didn’t any comparison with other methods. I recommend that the authors must prove this statement by comparing their method with the others. Also in the conclusion, the authors wrote “The results show that the method proposed in this paper has wider applicability and practical significance for improving the precision of NC machining.”. Again, the authors must prove this statement by comparing it with other methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept.