The Use of TOPSIS Method for Multi-Objective Optimization in Milling Ti-MMC
Yukitoshi Ihara
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment:
1. The chapter number order is wrong.
Line 27: 1. Introduction
Line 28: 1.1. Background
Line 122: 1.2. Contribution of this Work
Line 139: 2. Materials and Methods
Line 159: 3.1 Machining tests
Line 207: 3. Results
Line 208: 3.1. Cutting conditions and experimental results
Line 241: 3.2 Conversion of multi responses into a single response using the TOPSIS method
Line 326: 3.3 Determination of optimum cutting parameters using the Taguchi approach
Line 345: 4. Discussion
Line 359: 3.4 Probability Plots
Line 407: 5. Conclusions
2. I think that the feed rate of the milling process is generally given in mm/tooth, but in this paper it is given in mm/rev. What makes 1 revolution in 1/rev? Or does it mean cutting speed?
3. Mistakes of number in tables
Line 319: Table 7 -> Table 6?
Line 332: Table 6 -> Table 7?
Author Response
Dear Editors,
We would like to thank you for considering our paper entitled “The Use of TOPSIS Method for Multi-Objective optimization in Milling Ti-MMC” for possible publication in the MDPI/Metals journal. We also thank the respectful reviewers for their careful reviews and valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, all editorial comments have been fully incorporated. The following explanations are presented in these comments.
We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.
Sincerely yours,
Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D
Corresponding author
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The following comments could be addressed for improving the quality of the manuscript.
1. Most of the references used are published before 2020. In this regard authors must refer new and substantial critical review which strongly justify there is a scope to use TOSIS to perform multi-objective optimization applied to machining process.
2. Group citations need to be avoided say example [1-10]. Authors need to break up or split and elaborate the individual contribution done towards this field.
3. The authors aim at machining Ti-MMC, the significance of Titanium alloys with different composite materials (like, nickel, Nb and so on) is an added advantages to define novelty and widen those material applications. To name a few authors can consider these recent research works.
[1] Microstructure and mechanical properties of micro laser welding NiTiNb/Ti6Al4V dissimilar alloys lap joints with nickel interlayer. Materials Letters, 306. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2021.130896
[2] Effect of welding thermal treatment on the microstructure and mechanical properties of nickel-based superalloy fabricated by selective laser melting. Materials science & engineering. A, Structural materials : properties, microstructure and processing, 819, 141507. doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2021.141507
4. The authors need to explain the significant of coatings and justify why authors employed TiNAlN + TiN and PVD method. The selection of the coating material and method is clearly missing. The better results can also expect with multilayer coating with hybrid coating materials please check and justify.
[3] Effects of NbC content on microstructural evolution and mechanical properties of laser cladded Fe50Mn30Co10Cr10-xNbC composite coatings. Intermetallics, 138. doi: 10.1016/j.intermet.2021.107309
5. The authors did not give the information pertaining to coolants used during milling operation. There are significant benefits was seen while machining with the application of coolants in recent literature. Check the following references to have deeper insights.
a. Circulating purification of cutting fluid: an overview. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology doi: 10.1007/s00170-021-07854-1
b. Cryogenic minimum quantity lubrication machining: From mechanism to application.Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering.2021.in press. doi.org/10.1007/s11465-021-0654-2
6. The basis for selecting the cutting parameters and levels (Table 3) need to be justified with recent literatures.
7. Does the authors conduct uncertainty analysis, if so please explain?. I found only one values of Ra and VBmax value for each experimental condition.
8. Why the V2 parameter showed drastic changes in output value from level 2 to level 3 (Figure 6). Please explain the physics of the process.
9. The authors need to report the measurement equipment, accuracy and how the measurement of tool wear and surface roughness is carried out and justify the accuracy in measured values (Figure 8 and 9).
10. Any SEM analysis has been done on tool wear, if so the readers are more interested.
11. Authors used relative equal weights of 0.5 for both Ra and VBmax to determine weighted normalized value. It is truly not acceptable, authors can refer recent weight determining methods such as CRITIC, AHP, PCA and so on.
a. Experimental analysis and optimization of EDM parameters on HcHcr steel in context with different electrodes and dielectric fluids using hybrid taguchi-based PCA-utility and CRITIC-utility approaches. Metals, 11(3), 419.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
We would like to thank you for considering our paper entitled “The Use of TOPSIS Method for Multi-Objective optimization in Milling Ti-MMC” for possible publication in the MDPI/Metals journal. We also thank the respectful reviewers for their careful reviews and valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, all editorial comments have been fully incorporated. The following explanations are presented in these comments.
We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.
Sincerely yours,
Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to improve the manuscript are as follows:
1. TOPSIS is a multi-criteria decision analysis method or multiple-criteria decision making method. Correct it in the manuscript. TOPSIS is not a multi-objective optimization method, such as GA, PSO, etc.
2. There are a number of Multiple-criteria decision making methods. Explain in the corrected manuscript why TOPSIS is relevant for your research and not some other method (AHP, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, etc.)
3. "The first level cutting speed was used for 1 second." Why 1 second? Explain in detail in the corrected manuscript.
4. I do not think that group citation is necessary, as for example [1-8]. Many published articles could be cited in this place.
5. In the section "1.2. Contribution of this Work", emphasize the innovation of your methodology and scientific contribution.
6. Analyze measurement errors. estimate the measurement uncertainty of the measured results.
7. The authors apply the Taguchi method. In addition to advantages, this method also has disadvantages. Why is the Taguchi method relevant to your research and not some other method. Elaborate in detail.
8. The obtained results must be further discussed. It is necessary to discuss the results from the point of view of the physics of the process.
9. Also, further discuss the effect of feed and corner radius on surface roughness. Compare these results with previous research.
10. In the Conclusions section, limitations of the applied methodology and future research should be mentioned.
Author Response
Dear Editors,
We would like to thank you for considering our paper entitled “The Use of TOPSIS Method for Multi-Objective optimization in Milling Ti-MMC” for possible publication in the MDPI/Metals journal. We also thank the respectful reviewers for their careful reviews and valuable suggestions. In the revised manuscript, all editorial comments have been fully incorporated. The following explanations are presented in these comments.
We look forward to hearing your constructive comments.
Sincerely yours,
Seyed Ali Niknam Ph.D
Corresponding author
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors attempted to answer all questions and found them to be technically sound and scientifically acceptable.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been corrected and supplemented.
