Drifted Uncertainty Evaluation of a Compact Machine Tool Spindle Error Measurement System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a procedure to monitor the thermal drift of a measurement system dedicated to machine tool spindle measurement.

The paper is interesting and deals with a problem not solved in the state of the art, some elements must be considered prior to its publication:

- on the version submitted to the reviewer, it seems that the citation of the figures had some issues (citation using figure 3.x that does not fit the numbering of the figures), this must be corrected

-There are some minor issues with the references:
    - reference 17 is from a domain really far from the topic of the paper (accountability), therefore it use is questionable.
   - reference 23 is incorrect so it is impossible to evaluate its pertinence

   - references 12 and 17 are proposed as 'prepublished', however, they are published now (volume 174 for reference 12, volume 27 pp19-37 in 2022 for reference 17

   - normally, citation use number between brackets in the instruction for authors

Concerning the core of the paper:

- the way 'residual' is defined in the paper needs more detailled explanation. The way figure 10, 12 of last column of figure 14 are obtained for each graduation must be precised

- It is necessary to quantify the observations. For example, what do the authors mean by 'the trend of increasing drift residuals over time in various degrees of freedom of the measurement system basically aligns with the exponential envelope curve' (lines 223-224) ?

- in page 7, confidence intervals are deined using a multiple of the uncertainty following the normal table. a statistical test is needed toi ensure that these quantities really fits the normal distribution. Is it the case here ?

For example in part 4.2, three tests aare presented to deduce the staistical dispersion, a student distribution may be more appropriate for such a small number of tests

- in tables 1 and 2, units are needed and the quantities (mostly 'maximum system drift' and 'system drift difference') must be clearly defined

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has potential, but some explanation are needed in the present form of the paper

Author Response

Review Report Form Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

The paper presents a procedure to monitor the thermal drift of a measurement system dedicated to machine tool spindle measurement.

The paper is interesting and deals with a problem not solved in the state of the art, some elements must be considered prior to its publication:

Q1：- on the version submitted to the reviewer, it seems that the citation of the figures had some issues (citation using figure 3.x that does not fit the numbering of the figures), this must be corrected

A1：Thank you for noting the incorrect figure citation numbering. We have revised the manuscript to correct the issue and ensure all figure citations are accurate and consistent with the figure numbering.

Q2-There are some minor issues with the references:
    - reference 17 is from a domain really far from the topic of the paper (accountability), therefore it use is questionable.
   - reference 23 is incorrect so it is impossible to evaluate its pertinence

   - references 12 and 17 are proposed as 'prepublished', however, they are published now (volume 174 for reference 12, volume 27 pp19-37 in 2022 for reference 17

   - normally, citation use number between brackets in the instruction for authors

A2:Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for pointing out the issues related to the references. We appreciate your valuable feedback and have corrected the mistakes as follows:

1. Upon re-evaluation, we decided to select two new papers to replace references 17 and 23 in the manuscript to ensure the relevance and focus of the references.
2. We have updated the manuscript to reflect the current publication status of these references12 including the correct volume number and year of publication.
3. We have reviewed the guidelines and have revised all citations in the manuscript to use the number-in-brackets format as required.

 

Concerning the core of the paper:

Q3:- the way 'residual' is defined in the paper needs more detailed explanation. The way figure 10, 12 of last column of figure 14 are obtained for each graduation must be precised

A3:Thank you for your suggestion, detailed definition of ‘residual’ have been add into the manuscript.

Q4:- It is necessary to quantify the observations. For example, what do the authors mean by 'the trend of increasing drift residuals over time in various degrees of freedom of the measurement system basically aligns with the exponential envelope curve' (lines 223-224) ?

A4: Thank you for your suggestion, The related discussion has been revised as follows:

As shown in Figure 8, the detection results of the drift data from the validation sets of various measurement systems basically align with the drift precision distribution model presupposed in this paper in terms of probability. The specific results of the probability distribution test are presented in Table 2. It can be seen from the results that the evaluation error of the drift precision proposed in this paper does not exceed 10%, which is significantly lower than that of traditional measurement uncertainty evaluation models.

Q5:- in page 7, confidence intervals are denied using a multiple of the uncertainty following the normal table. a statistical test is needed to ensure that these quantities really fits the normal distribution. Is it the case here ?

For example in part 4.2, three tests are presented to deduce the static dispersion, a student distribution may be more appropriate for such a small number of tests

A5:Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. In our subsequent research, we will attempt to use a model based on the t-distribution and verify whether it has higher evaluation accuracy for drift precision.

Q6:- in tables 1 and 2, units are needed and the quantities (mostly 'maximum system drift' and 'system drift difference') must be clearly defined

A6: Thank you for pointing out our mistakes, we have corrected them.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language：

Q7:The paper has potential, but some explanation are needed in the present form of the paper

A7: Thank you for your suggestion, We have made our utmost efforts to improve the English writing quality of this paper, hoping that it can meet your requirements.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewed paper deals with a method for evaluating the drift uncertainty of measured system. The authors measured displacement of machine tool spindle in the xyz axes and thermal tilt around x and y axis. The authors conclude that their method is more suitable for measuring uncertainty in long-term measurements.

The article is of reasonable length. References are appropriate.

I have a few comments:

In Fig. 3 lacks explanation of abbreviations.

Line 290: What temperature had the 3-hour warp-up phase?

Line 252: Figures have wrong numbers.

Equation 8: there is small letter "P"

I think that article has quite high scientific soundness and can be published after minor revisions.

Author Response

Review Report Form Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

Reviewed paper deals with a method for evaluating the drift uncertainty of measured system. The authors measured displacement of machine tool spindle in the xyz axes and thermal tilt around x and y axis. The authors conclude that their method is more suitable for measuring uncertainty in long-term measurements.

The article is of reasonable length. References are appropriate.

I have a few comments:

Q1:In Fig. 3 lacks explanation of abbreviations.

A1: Thank you for your suggestion and we have corrected it.
Line 290: What temperature had the 3-hour warp-up phase?

A2: Sorry for our mistakes, we have modified the description method as follows:

The experimental conditions consisted of a 3-hour spindle working phase followed by a 1-hour spindle cool down phase. During the experiment, the spindle of the test machine tool was first allowed to rotate continuously at a speed of 8000 rpm for 3 hours to heat up the machine tool. After that, the spindle of the machine tool was allowed to stop rotating and the machine tool was allowed to cool naturally.

Line 252: Figures have wrong numbers.

A3: thank you for pointing out our mistake, we have corrected it.

Equation 8: there is small letter "P"

A4: Thank you for pointing out of our mistakes, we have corrected those mistakes in the revised manuscript.

I think that article has quite high scientific soundness and can be published after minor revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General: the references are not matching the journal format. Avoid listing many references in a small sentence, cite each author individually.

 

Abstract: add more details to the methodology of the work and some of the main results on the abstract.

Introduction: when citing other research, it is important to give the details of it, so the reader can comprehend the scope without the need of reading the original manuscript.

At the last paragraph of the introduction the authors mention the other items as “chapters” it is not suitable for a paper, try to find another nomenclature.

2. Measurement principle, the figures are really interesting for comprehending the work, it would be important to also add the dimensional and geometric tolerances obtained for the prototype, once it can greatly interfere on the final measurements.

Results: the results are well presented and described, however there is lacking the discussion of the work. It is necessary to compare the results with the literature.

Conclusions: some of the present text on the conclusion is part of the results discussion, it is recommended that the authors make more objective conclusions and add the discussion part to the results item.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Abstract: try to make the text more cohesive avoiding a structure similar to topics.

Introduction: on the first paragraph there is lacking a capital letter.

Avoid too big paragraphs.

Author Response

Review Report Form Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

General: the references are not matching the journal format. Avoid listing many references in a small sentence, cite each author individually.

 A1:Thank you for pointing out of the issue with the reference citations. We have revised the manuscript and ensured that each author is cited individually as per the journal's format guidelines.

Abstract: add more details to the methodology of the work and some of the main results on the abstract.

A2:Thank you for your suggestion, We have improved the writing of our abstract.

Introduction: when citing other research, it is important to give the details of it, so the reader can comprehend the scope without the need of reading the original manuscript.

A3: Thank you for your suggestion, We have improved the writing of our abstract

At the last paragraph of the introduction the authors mention the other items as “chapters” it is not suitable for a paper, try to find another nomenclature.

A4: Thank you for your suggestion, we have changed the related description.

2. Measurement principle, the figures are really interesting for comprehending the work, it would be important to also add the dimensional and geometric tolerances obtained for the prototype, once it can greatly interfere on the final measurements.

A5:Thank you for your suggestion, in our plan, the instrument proposed in this manuscript is juts a prototype, In subsequent product design, we will analyze the impact of manufacturing tolerances on accuracy and give strict tolerance design dimensions, but due to the confidentiality of productization information, it is inconvenient for us to disclose relevant information in this article.

Results: the results are well presented and described, however there is lacking the discussion of the work. It is necessary to compare the results with the literature.

A6:Thank you for you suggestion, We have added the necessary discussion.

Conclusions: some of the present text on the conclusion is part of the results discussion, it is recommended that the authors make more objective conclusions and add the discussion part to the results item.

A7:Thank you for you suggestion, We have added the necessary discussion in the conclusion part.

Comments on the Quality of English Language：

Abstract: try to make the text more cohesive avoiding a structure similar to topics.

Introduction: on the first paragraph there is lacking a capital letter.

Avoid too big paragraphs.

A8:Thank you for pointing out our mistakes, we have correct them.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article discusses in detail the proposed system for accurate measurement of spindle deviations, mainly quasi-static errors. This is a very important issue in the machining process, because without precise movement of the spindle during machining, it is impossible to achieve high quality products. At the same time, great emphasis is currently placed on the high quality of machined surfaces. That's why I evaluate the solved problem as highly topical.

2. The experimental research carried out is currently original, because only a limited group of researchers is dedicated to the design of a similar system. However, the aim of the performed experimental research is not clearly stated in the manuscript. It is necessary to add the goal of the experimental research in the introduction to the last paragraph. At the same time, remove from the last paragraph in the introduction the description of what is found in individual chapters. It is not necessary.

3. The manuscript is clearly and succinctly written from a methodological point of view. I have no fundamental comments about him.

4. The list of references given at the end of the manuscript is in order and is satisfactory for the given type of research article.

5. Even though the manuscript is very well written from the point of view of the content page, it is necessary to add a discussion chapter in which the authors evaluate the possible areas of application of the proposed solution of the research work. Also in this chapter it is necessary to evaluate the achieved own results of experimental research. Subsequently, these achieved results should be compared with the results of research by other authors, which are listed in the list of references.

6. From the graphic side, the manuscript is designed at a good level. However, it is necessary to improve the formal side of the manuscript to be in accordance with the template. This applies, for example, to the reference in the text to the references used and the conclusion of the manuscript. Also the description of partial images in figures 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15.

7. After studying the manuscript, I can conclude that it is written to a good standard, corresponding to a research article. Therefore, after making the appropriate changes and modifications in individual parts of the manuscript entitled Drifted uncertainty evaluation of a compact machine tool spindle error measurement system, it can be published in the journal Machines.

Author Response

Review Report Form Reviewer 4

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

1. The article discusses in detail the proposed system for accurate measurement of spindle deviations, mainly quasi-static errors. This is a very important issue in the machining process, because without precise movement of the spindle during machining, it is impossible to achieve high quality products. At the same time, great emphasis is currently placed on the high quality of machined surfaces. That's why I evaluate the solved problem as highly topical.
2. The experimental research carried out is currently original, because only a limited group of researchers is dedicated to the design of a similar system. However, the aim of the performed experimental research is not clearly stated in the manuscript. It is necessary to add the goal of the experimental research in the introduction to the last paragraph. At the same time, remove from the last paragraph in the introduction the description of what is found in individual chapters. It is not necessary.

A1: thank you for your suggestion, we have improved the writing quality of the manuscript.

3. The manuscript is clearly and succinctly written from a methodological point of view. I have no fundamental comments about him.
4. The list of references given at the end of the manuscript is in order and is satisfactory for the given type of research article
5. Even though the manuscript is very well written from the point of view of the content page, it is necessary to add a discussion chapter in which the authors evaluate the possible areas of application of the proposed solution of the research work. Also in this chapter it is necessary to evaluate the achieved own results of experimental research. Subsequently, these achieved results should be compared with the results of research by other authors, which are listed in the list of references.

A5: Thank you for your suggestion, the related discussion has been add into the end of performance test part and conclusion part.

6. From the graphic side, the manuscript is designed at a good level. However, it is necessary to improve the formal side of the manuscript to be in accordance with the template. This applies, for example, to the reference in the text to the references used and the conclusion of the manuscript. Also the description of partial images in figures 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15.

A6: Thank you for pointing out of our mistakes, we have corrected those mistakes in the revised manuscript.

7. After studying the manuscript, I can conclude that it is written to a good standard, corresponding to a research article. Therefore, after making the appropriate changes and modifications in individual parts of the manuscript entitled Drifted uncertainty evaluation of a compact machine tool spindle error measurement system, it can be published in the journal Machines

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments from the first round of review were properly adressed, I have no further concern. Thank you for your work