The Proposition of an Automated Honing Cell with Advanced Monitoring
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Suggest 'Proposed Automated Honing Cell...'
'Radius of Curve Curvature..' seems to be a tautology!
What does 'Machining socket ..' mean?
Meanings of figures very poorly explained. Figures very poor. Text cannot be read on figures. What do figures mean?
Temperature and coordinate values are quoted to ridiculous number of significant figures. 3 or possibly 4 is the maximum possible feasible and would imply a high order of experimental or theoretical accuracy.
The control strategy proposed is completely unclear. A workpiece coordinate system should be described and controlled parameters specified correctly.
Page5. What does 'amplitudes high to circular path...' mean?
Figure 4 explain in scientific terms what the figure means and make it clear on the figure.
Figure 5 explain coordinates used for the accelerations quoted.
Figure 8 explain why sound level drops at middle of speed range. Does it mean linear speed or rotary speed.
Figures 9 and 10 explain the coordinates that apply to the results shown
Author Response
Point 1: Title: Suggest 'Proposed Automated Honing Cell...'
Response 1: implemented
Point 2: 'Radius of Curve Curvature..' seems to be a tautology!
Response 2: no problem, I very like that (as much as I have seen real errors in the articles, I don't see a problem here)
Point 3: What does 'Machining socket ..' mean?
Response 3: honing cell
Point 4: Meanings of figures very poorly explained. Figures very poor. Text cannot be read on figures. What do figures mean?
Response 4: Article v.3 probably will be better in thise subject (what is to be visible will be watery)
Point 5: Temperature and coordinate values are quoted to ridiculous number of significant figures. 3 or possibly 4 is the maximum possible feasible and would imply a high order of experimental or theoretical accuracy.
Response 5: due to copyright, I removed the drawing
Point 6: The control strategy proposed is completely unclear.
Response 6: in article v.3 it should be more readable: numerical simulation, new way of programming, etc.
Point 7: A workpiece coordinate system should be described and controlled parameters specified correctly.
What does 'amplitudes high to circular path...' mean?
Response 7: this record no longer exists.
Point 8: Figure 4 explain in scientific terms what the figure means and make it clear on the figure.
Response 8: due to copyright, I removed the drawing.
Point 9: Figure 5 explain coordinates used for the accelerations quoted.
Response 9: due to copyright, I removed the drawing.
Point 10: Figure 8 explain why sound level drops at middle of speed range. Does it mean linear speed or rotary speed.
Response 10: Described in article v.3.
Point 11: Figures 9 and 10 explain the coordinates that apply to the results shown.
Response 11: HSV method described in article.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper seems to be interesting for engineering audience, however it should be enriched with the abovementioned remarks.
First paragraph of the paper is more or less a copy of an abstract. It should be developed.
The literature is not given in the right order.
The aims of this contribution should be carefully mentioned in introduction part and it should be strictly connected to the literature review (it should be a results of literature review).
What is actually the method? Using a machine? Programming it? It is not clear.
It is not clear what the trajectories presented are actually about.
In texts in English, the decimal numbers must be separated by a full stop and not a comma.
Section 4 should be included in the methodological part of the paper.
Results of numerical analysis of honing process should be discussed in more detailed way.
Methodological part of the paper is its weakest chain - it does not present models and tools which are mentioned further in the paper. This makes this paper quite chaotic.
How about verification and validation of the presented models, especially simulation one?
The conclusion of the paper should present the main aspects of the paper and prove it was worth to work on the research.
For future research, the Authors might suggest Szajna et al. (2020) as a form o developed research on the paper’s topic. The AR glasses might be used in order to improve the process. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20174755
The paper in this form is rather a mix of technical reports that scientific paper. Therefore, now it is on the boarder line between major review and rejection.
Author Response
Point 1: First paragraph of the paper is more or less a copy of an abstract. It should be developed.
Response 1: corrected
Point 2: The literature is not given in the right order..
Response 2: made some corrections
Point 3: The aims of this contribution should be carefully mentioned in introduction part and it should be strictly connected to the literature review (it should be a results of literature review).
Response 3: yes, but I personally never agree with it that way (even though I understand the idea)
Point 4: What is actually the method? Using a machine? Programming it? It is not clear.
Response 4: Added e.g. “Honing cell principle of operation: numerical simulation of deformations, stresses and heat flow, programming of honing head movements with the selection of the appropriate shape of the abrasive grain path adjusted to the thickness of the section or sections of the honed workpieces, measuring of diameter and cylindricity of honed hole, supervising of honing during the process, correcting of actual machining parameters.
Point 5: It is not clear what the trajectories presented are actually about.
4 In texts in English, the decimal numbers must be separated by a full stop and not a comma.
Response 5: yes,
Point 6:
Section 4 should be included in the methodological part of the paper.
Results of numerical analysis of honing process should be discussed in more detailed way.
Methodological part of the paper is its weakest chain - it does not present models and tools which are mentioned further in the paper. This makes this paper quite chaotic.
How about verification and validation of the presented models, especially simulation one?
The conclusion of the paper should present the main aspects of the paper and prove it was worth to work on the research. For future research, the Authors might suggest Szajna et al. (2020) as a form o developed research on the paper’s topic. The AR glasses might be used in order to improve the process. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20174755 The paper in this form is rather a mix of technical reports that scientific paper.
Response 6: Yes, I will remember that
Reviewer 3 Report
The reading of the paper presented by the authors reveals three very clear points:
First: There is no state of the art. The paper simply includes a lot of unconnected references. It does not describe the current state of the art.
Second: Where is the materials and methods section? Also, figures 1 and 2 cannot support this section. It is necessary to fully describe the methodology used.
Third: The results section is chaotic. It should be structured in a single section.
Four: Where are the conlusions?.
The study is of great interest, but the errors made in its structure clearly disable the research.
I believe that these errors can be corrected and generate a good paper.
Author Response
Point 1: The reading of the paper presented by the authors reveals three very clear points: First: There is no state of the art.
Response 1: an overview table has been added, with a very wide look at the literature.
Point 2: The paper simply includes a lot of unconnected references. It does not describe the current state of the art.
Response 2: the article in version v.3 already describes state of the art.
Point 3: Second: Where is the materials and methods section?.
Response 3: Added e.g. “Honing cell principle of operation: numerical simulation of deformations, stresses and heat flow, programming of honing head movements with the selection of the appropriate shape of the abrasive grain path adjusted to the thickness of the section or sections of the honed workpieces, measuring of diameter and cylindricity of honed hole, supervising of honing during the process, correcting of actual machining parameters.
Point 4: Also, figures 1 and 2 cannot support this section. It is necessary to fully describe the methodology used.
Response 4: as above.
Point 5: Third: The results section is chaotic. It should be structured in a single section.
Response 5: In article v.3 section 2.6 includes description.
Point 6: Four: Where are the conclusions? The study is of great interest, but the errors made in its structure clearly disable the research..
Response 6: as above.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper proposes the control of the honing process through an automated and controlled system. Although the subject of the work may be of interest for the improvement of the machining process, the document presents aspects that should be improved. Therefore, I recommend a major revision.
Some comments that may help the authors to improve this manuscript are:
Abstract:
It does not clearly define the contributions of the work. The ideas are presented in a somewhat disorganised way.
Keyword:
I think the word thermography or temperature are important and should be included.
Introduction:
This section is underdeveloped. It contains many references but does not go into detail on the relevance of these studies. For example, it talks about the appropriate machining parameters but does not specify what they are, nor the relevance that these have with respect to the results.
It is mentioned that new honing equipment or machines have already been proposed in the literature, but the differences with respect to these works are not included.
Methodology
The methodology is not clearly defined. There is no clear indication of the
The paragraph between line 48 and 57 should be contained at the end of the introduction.
Figure 1 should be enlarged to better visualize the details, to achieve this I would recommend that the indicators are contained in it and that the size of the indicators is adjusted.
There are two sections 2.1
The paragraph between line 74 and 88 should be included in the introduction.
Results
Figure 5 is not clear. The scale is not defined, nor is it specified what the arrows indicate.
Figure 6 should be included in the methodology.
Figure 8 is not well explained. Scale, units and colour map are missing.
There are 2 figures 12.
The legend in figure 14 cannot be read.
Discussion:
Point 6 should reflect the conclusions and not the discussions. This point should include the main contributions presented in the article with respect to the rest of the existing studies.
References
Some of the references are not properly identified
This work requires a thorough review of the content
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract: It does not clearly define the contributions of the work. The ideas are presented in a somewhat disorganised way.
Response 1: Added sentences: “Honing cell principle of operation: numerical simulation of deformations, stresses and heat flow, programming of honing head movements with the selection of the appropriate shape of the abrasive grain path adjusted to the thickness of the section or sections of the honed workpieces, measuring of diameter and cylindricity of honed hole, supervising of honing during the process, correcting of actual machining parameters.” on page 9 in article v.3
Point 2: Keyword: I think the word thermography or temperature are important and should be included.
Response 2: the word thermography has been added in keywords
Point 3: Introduction: This section is underdeveloped. It contains many references but does not go into detail on the 2 relevance of these studies. For example, it talks about the appropriate machining parameters but does not specify what they are, nor the relevance that these have with respect to the results.
Response 3: several honing parameters are listed on page 2
Point 4: It is mentioned that new honing equipment or machines have already been proposed in the literature, but the differences with respect to these works are not included.
Response 4: valuable note, there was no key need for this article (but it may be added)
Point 5: Methodology The methodology is not clearly defined. There is no clear indication of the The paragraph between line 48 and 57 should be contained at the end of the introduction.
Response 5: in the article, the methodology description is clearer
Point 6: Figure 1 should be enlarged to better visualize the details, to achieve this I would recommend that the indicators are contained in it and that the size of the indicators is adjusted.
Response 6: fig. 1 enlarged
Point 7: There are two sections 2.1 The paragraph between line 74 and 88 should be included in the introduction. Results Figure 5 is not clear. The scale is not defined, nor is it specified what the arrows indicate.
Response 7: It may be a great idea, but in this article I distinguish between introduction and programming.
Point 8: Figure 6 should be included in the methodology.
Response 8: It may be a great idea, but in this article I distinguish methodology and sound signal analysis.
Point 9: Figure 8 is not well explained. Scale, units and colour map are missing. There are 2 figures 12.
Response 9: description added, numbering in new version is correct.
Point 10: The legend in figure 14 cannot be read.
Response 10: true, by definition I showed what is visible enough for the main thread of the article in my opinion.
Point 11: Discussion: Point 6 should reflect the conclusions and not the discussions.
Response 11: Added e.g. “An important conclusion is the possibility of about a 20-fold increase in the efficiency of serial production of honing thin-walled objects”.
Reviewer 5 Report
The work contains a proposal to use a milling center for the operation of honing holes in an automatic cycle. The stand is equipped with a thermographic camera, vibrometer, mobile profilometer, micrometer gauge, computer.
The ratio of the peripheral speed of the honing head to its axial velocity (axial feed), which is important in the honing process, can be programmed in this proposal. This is an interesting proposition, the paths of the whetstone movement can be complex, unconventional. This can improve the quality of oil lubrication in kinematic pairs during exploitation.The work may be published, I suggest the following additions:
1. Fig.3 – the inscriptions on the drawings should be enlarged
2. Fig.6 - the axes should be marked with specific values ​​of the sound intensity level and time. The terms longer or shorter cycle time has no scientific value
3. Fig. 9 - in the caption, need to give the meaning of H, S, V
4. Fig. 12 - in the caption, the Authors need to provide a description of the symbols used
5. Fig.15 - the text in the picture is not legible, if it is difficult in the screenshot, put it in the caption
Author Response
Point 1: Fig.3 – the inscriptions on the drawings should be enlarge
Response 1: - corrected
Point 2: Fig.6 - the axes should be marked with specific values of the sound intensity level and time. The terms longer or shorter cycle time has no scientific value
Response 2: - corrected
Point 3: Fig. 9 - in the caption, need to give the meaning of H, S, V
Response 3: - description has been added before the drawings
Point 4: Fig. 12 - in the caption, the Authors need to provide a description of the symbols used
Response 4: - description has been added at the beginning of the article
Point 5: Fig.15 - the text in the picture is not legible, if it is difficult in the screenshot, put it in the caption
Response 5: - description has been added in the caption
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is improved by the changes.
Page 5 should refer to honing 'head'
Fig 13 should correct spelling of 'continuity
Author Response
thank you for your review corrections were madeAuthor Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately, this is still work-in-progress paper. Only some reasons are mentioned below.
The introduction is merged with literature review and methodology.
Quality of several figures is very low. Some of figures seems to be prepared in less professional software.
The article is disordered and the editing guidelines are not take into consideration in correct way.
The article should be rejected. Despite so many shortcomings, it is worth giving Authors one more chance.
Author Response
Unfortunately, this is still work-in-progress paper. Only some reasons are mentioned below.
- article corrected - order of chapters and added of conclusions
The introduction is merged with literature review and methodology.
- corrected the sequence of information
Quality of several figures is very low. Some of figures seems to be prepared in less professional software.
- I don’t see any trouble with that, if I do not describe the input data for the simulation and I do not discuss the results, I do not present their statistics, everything does not have to be clearly visible, what concerns the content of the article is visible
The article is disordered and the editing guidelines are not take into consideration in correct way.
- corrected the sequence of information
The article should be rejected. Despite so many shortcomings, it is worth giving Authors one more chance.
- you can always delete an article, but it's better to correct it, don't do it because the research will be continued and it will disturb the course of my series of articles; next article is in progress and I need this publication
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you very much for making substantial improvements to your document.
But there are still serious errors in the paper:
- Section 2 (Methods) includes the results. It is necessary to separate both contents.
- The discussion of contents appears as section 6, should be section 4 and it will be after the results.
- The conclusions are still missing from the document.
- If the serious errors in the structure are not corrected, the document is not of scientific quality.
Author Response
1. Section 2 (Methods) includes the results. It is necessary to separate both contents.
corrected the sequence of information
2. The discussion of contents appears as section 6, should be section 4 and it will be after the results.
corrected the sequence of information
3. The conclusions are still missing from the document.
conclusions were added
4. If the serious errors in the structure are not corrected, the document is not of scientific quality.
and this is the best way to write a review, I really respect that approach
Reviewer 4 Report
The suggested modifications have been successfully implemented.
Author Response
thank you for your review
the latest version of the article is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
