A Novel Hole System Dimension Analysis Tool Based on the Combination of the Process Path and Design Path

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a method for analysing the process dimensions of a hole system. The method is based on the creation of vector equations and allows to automate the calculation process, thus reducing the risk of errors and calculation time. The proposed method was verified by implementing and performing calculations using CATIA CAA technology.

I propose the following improvements: 1.Please describe in more detail the novelty and impact of your solution on the field of science and industry. 2.Based on the analysis of Figure 1 and the text of the manuscript, it is not clear how the transition from the theory layer to the application layer occurs. How is data from the Matrix modeling and Calculating process dimension modules combined and transferred? In my opinion, there should be additional connections in Figure . 3.Various methods can be used to calculate tolerances. How is the optimal result and method selected? 4.The fonts in Figure 1-3 and 6 are larger than in the mnascript text. 5.Some elements of Figure 7 are unreadable because the fonts are too small. 6.There are no units in table 7, the font size used seems to be too large. 7.A fragment of the manuscript (lines 375-393) requires further revision. 8.I suggest extending the conclusions to include the technological aspect of the proposed solution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer #1: The paper presents a novel approach to analyzing hole system dimensions in the machining of porous parts by combining process paths with design paths, utilizing CATIA CAA for the development of an automated calculation system. This method addresses the complexities and inefficiencies associated with traditional calculation and tolerance analysis methods, which often involve cumbersome manual computations prone to errors. I recommend the current version for publication after some corrections or updates. Here are my comments:

Comment 1: In lines 245 and 246, it is mentioned that a probabilistic method is applied for large production batches or when dimensional chain rings exceed four. Could you elaborate on the rationale behind selecting the threshold of "4" for this methodological shift?

Comment 2: The visual quality and legibility of Fig. 7 need enhancement, specifically regarding the figure's resolution and the font size of the text within it, to ensure clarity for all readers.

Comment 3: Consistency in font size across Tables 1 to 3 is necessary. This uniformity will aid in readability and presentation quality.

Comment 4: The paper's dependency on CATIA CAA limits its accessibility and adaptability, as not all users have access to or are familiar with CATIA. To broaden the tool's applicability and ease of integration into diverse workflows, consider developing a standalone version using MATLAB, Python, or similar platforms. This could be listed as the future work.

Comment 5: The validation presented, while insightful, covers a narrow spectrum of scenarios. Expanding the range of geometric configurations, manufacturing settings, and tolerance levels tested would offer a fuller picture of the tool's effectiveness and adaptability across various applications. Some true experimental work can be added for validation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an analysis method of the dimensional chain. However, there appears to be a lack of verification. The reasons for this judgment are as follows.

1. In Figure 1, is the design path generated automatically or set manually? Can the design path be changed, and if so, what impact will it have?

2. In Tables 1 to 3, what is the difference between manual calculation and computer calculation? It is perplexing that the authors used manual calculation to verify the computer calculation without explaining the tolerance deviations between the two methods.

3. The authors present the tolerance deviations in Tables 1 to 3. However, the smallest tolerance is the same in parts (a) and also for part (c). In the manufacturing process, porous parts are typically processed using the same machine. Consequently, the cost will be constrained by the smallest tolerance. Therefore, I am curious about the effect of cost reduction. Please provide more substantial evidence to support the conclusions. Besides, the feasibility of the tolerances calculated by the proposed method has not been confirmed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have effectively addressed my concerns. Thank you very much for your nice work.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. Your suggestions have made my paper more academic and more holistic!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the previous questions in a detailed manner. However, the response did not clearly explain the manual calculation method. Therefore, I am still not convinced by the revised manuscript.

 

This manuscript describes a novel analysis tool for hole systems. The main concept should not focus on manual versus computer calculation but on comparing different methods. There are many existing standards or methods for tolerancing, such as ASME Y14.5. For instance, if we were to compare the "True Position" of GD&T with the proposed method, which would be more preferable?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf