In-Depth Analysis of the Processing of Nomex Honeycomb Composites: Problems, Techniques and Perspectives
, Mohammed Nouari 2, Jamal-Eddine Salhi 3,4, Hilal Essaouini 4, Mohammed Abbadi 5, Ahmed Abbadi 5 and Mohammed Lhassane Lahlaouti 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper introduced the current research progress of Nomex honeycomb machining technology, including the progresses in the mechanism, fixture, cutting tools, defect evaluation, and process parameters. Particularly, the relatively comprehensive researches on ultrasonic assisted machining of Nomex honeycomb by using straight blade tools and disc cutters are reviewed. However, there are yet some structural and content issues within this review, thus a recommendation for publication cannot be supported based one the present version. A substantial revision should be required in prior to reconsideration, and some issues can be addressed by consideration the following comments.
1. In the section of introduction, a series of theories on tool design, motion, dynamics, and defect detection are commented after line 52 of Page 2. Why are these literatures placed in this position, rather than in the corresponding research sections? What is the relationship between these theories and the four significant problems proposed after line 95?
2. Actually, the details of related theories and mechanisms should also be reviewed by establishing a new section, where more and newer literature should be surveyed.
3. In the section of traditional machining technology, the introductions to fixture, cutting tools, defect detection, and combined tools were stated by stacking them together. In order to be clearer for the readership, subsections with subtitles should be organized in this section.
4. The advantages of UVA machining relative to conventional machining should be analyzed by using a comprehensive comparison, in order to support the in-depth in the paper title.
5. In the section of ultrasonic machining technology, the machining systems and methods of straight blade tools and disc cutters are explained. However, the definitions of various angles are yet unclear. It is necessary to supplement a machining model to illustrate the angle definitions, as well as compare the differences of straight blade tools and disc cutters.
6. There are errors in the correspondence between some of the literature in the paper, such as the research content of reference 196 being irrelevant to the citation. Please carefully review the entire text to ensure that all literature correspondence, which is essential for a review paper.
7. There are many figure whose captions did not provide the citation sources.
8. There is a lack of summary about the machining defects of NHCs, and the machining quality should be quantified based on such a summary.
9. The characteristics and performances of tool wear for UVA machining of NHCs are not provided with an in-depth manner.
10. Some abbreviations are defined for too many times, it is recommended to define them once in the main text and provide a list of symbols abbreviations at the beginning or end of the paper.
11. Nomex, Nomex®, and even nomex are all used in the paper. Please use only the same term to represent the material.
12. Some variables are not written in italic font.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
“In-Depth Analysis of the Processing of Nomex Honeycomb Composites: Problems, Techniques and Perspectives”
By T. Tarik Zarrouk, Mohammed Nouari, Jamal-Eddine Salhi, Hilal Essaouini, Mohammed Abbadi, Ahmed Abbadi, Mohammed Lhassane Lahlaouti
Manuscript Number: machines-3083684
Dear Editor,
Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.
All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript.
Yours Sincerely.
The authors of the paper
Reviewer 1:
- In the section of introduction, a series of theories on tool design, motion, dynamics, and defect detection are commented after line 52 of Page 2. Why are these literatures placed in this position, rather than in the corresponding research sections? What is the relationship between these theories and the four significant problems proposed after line 95?
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. The manuscript is well organized and structured by modifying some paragraphs.
- Actually, the details of related theories and mechanisms should also be reviewed by establishing a new section, where more and newer literature should be surveyed.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. This point is well taken into account by describing some recent works.
- In the section of traditional machining technology, the introductions to fixture, cutting tools, defect detection, and combined tools were stated by stacking them together. In order to be clearer for the readership, subsections with subtitles should be organized in this section.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. The manuscript is improved, by adding sections and subtitles.
- The advantages of UVA machining relative to conventional machining should be analyzed by using a comprehensive comparison, in order to support the in-depth in the paper title.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. A comparative study between conventional machining and ultrasonic vibration-assisted machining is well done in the new version.
- In the section of ultrasonic machining technology, the machining systems and methods of straight blade tools and disc cutters are explained. However, the definitions of various angles are yet unclear. It is necessary to supplement a machining model to illustrate the angle definitions, as well as compare the differences of straight blade tools and disc cutters.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. A comparative study between machining by the straight blade and machining by the circular milling cutter is well carried out in the new version.
- There are errors in the correspondence between some of the literature in the paper, such as the research content of reference 196 being irrelevant to the citation. Please carefully review the entire text to ensure that all literature correspondence, which is essential for a review paper.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. The manuscript is well revised.
- There are many figures whose captions did not provide the citation sources.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. All figures are cited in the new version.
- There is a lack of summary about the machining defects of NHCs, and the machining quality should be quantified based on such a summary.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. This summary point is added in the conclusion section of the new version.
- The characteristics and performances of tool wear for UVA machining of NHCs are not provided with an in-depth manner.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. We have added the necessary.
- Some abbreviations are defined for too many times, it is recommended to define them once in the main text and provide a list of symbols abbreviations at the beginning or end of the paper.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. We have added the necessary.
- Nomex, Nomex®, and even Nomex are all used in the paper. Please use only the same term to represent the material.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. We have added the necessary.
- Some variables are not written in italic font.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. We have added the necessary.
We have considered all these answers in the revised manuscript. We hope that this submitted revised version will be suitable to be accepted in the Machines.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for additional information.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of the paper
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe paper presents some advances in machining of NHC, the references are in line with the main subject.
Please take a look in pdf document at lines
314. 315. The simulation pictures from figure 10 are not topographical analysis, topographical representations for me means roughness of wear scare, you have to add in picture what are the units for scale.
line 581 see the comment in pdf
line 734 c-see the comment in pdf
line 739- see the comment in pdf
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English is okay, at line 734, the expression is in French and has to be translated and cited.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
“In-Depth Analysis of the Processing of Nomex Honeycomb Composites: Problems, Techniques and Perspectives”
By T. Tarik Zarrouk, Mohammed Nouari, Jamal-Eddine Salhi, Hilal Essaouini, Mohammed Abbadi, Ahmed Abbadi, Mohammed Lhassane Lahlaouti
Manuscript Number: machines-3083684
Dear Editor,
Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.
All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript.
Yours Sincerely.
The authors of the paper
Reviewer 2:
- 315. The simulation pictures from figure 10 are not topographical analysis, topographical representations for me means roughness of wear scare, you have to add in picture what are the units for scale.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. The title of the figure is modified, there is no scale shown on the figure.
- line 581 see the comment in pdf
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. no comments mentioned in pdf version.
- line 734 c-see the comment in pdf
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. no comments mentioned in pdf version.
- line 739- see the comment in pdf
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. no comments mentioned in pdf version.
- Comments on the Quality of English Language: English is okay, at line 734, the expression is in French and has to be translated and cited.
Answer: I thank the reviewer for this remark. The manuscript is well revised by an English expert.
We have considered all these answers in the revised manuscript. We hope that this submitted revised version will be suitable to be accepted in the Machines.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for additional information.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of the paper
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed most the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. The remaining issues should be a further modification according to two of the previous comments:
1. Some abbreviations are defined for too many times (e.g. NHC, UVA), it is recommended to define them once in the main text and provide a list of symbols abbreviations at the beginning or end of the paper.
2. Some variables are not written in italic font.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
“In-Depth Analysis of the Processing of Nomex Honeycomb Composites: Problems, Techniques and Perspectives”
By T. Tarik Zarrouk, Mohammed Nouari, Jamal-Eddine Salhi, Hilal Essaouini, Mohammed Abbadi, Ahmed Abbadi, Mohammed Lhassane Lahlaouti
Manuscript Number: machines-3083684
Dear Editor,
Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.
All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript.
Yours Sincerely.
The authors of the paper
Reviewer 1:
- Some abbreviations are defined for too many times (e.g. NHC, UVA), it is recommended to define them once in the main text and provide a list of symbols abbreviations at the beginning or end of the paper.
Answer: Thank you for this remark. The nomenclature list is well presented in the new version.
- Some variables are not written in italic font.
Answer: Thanks for the note. We have checked the writing of the rest of the variables in italic.
We have considered all these answers in the revised manuscript. We hope that this submitted revised version will be suitable to be accepted in the Machines.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for additional information.
Yours sincerely,
Authors of the paper
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
