An Investigation of the Adhesive Effect on the Flank Wear Properties of a WC/Co-based TiAlN-Coated Tool for Milling a Be/Cu Alloy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting, however it must be revised. First of all the language must be corrected. (e.g. by a Native speaker). Other comments are listed below.
Abstarct
„..and the results shows...”
Comment: results show
Introduction
“due to their unique mechanical and mechanical properties”
Comment: “mechanical is twice”
“Wan [31] et al proposed a blade force model (Just as Fig1a showed)...”
Comment: First of all, there is no Fig. 1a, neither Fig. 1b. Secondly, I can not see any model in Fig. 1.
Material and Method
“And the three-axis high-speed cutting machine(SXDK6050D) and test platform (Kistler, 9257B) are adopted to monitor the actual change of cutting force just as Fig 3 showed.”
Comment: There is no cutting machine in Fig. 3.
Results
Yoyo refer first to Fig. 1a, next Fig. 3 (correctly Fig. 1 ), and next to Fig. 4. Please verify it.
Conclusion
„An experiments investigation, ...”
Comment: „experimental investigation”
“...and it meat that...”
Comment: What do you mean “meat” ?
Author Response
（1） Related grammar and picture errors have been corrected in the manuscript.（2） Relevant corrections were made to the results, discussion and conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that this study can be acceptable in journal of Metals because (1) the paper is aligned with the scope of the journal, (2) the results seem to be original, novel and quite reliable and (3) The article was written well. However, the following comments should be addressed before publication.
1. There are several grammatical errors in the text. It is recommended to read carefully by authors to fix them
2. It is good to write a comprehensive abstract containing whole remarkable results and achievements, but the abstract is too long, and I suggest summarizing it.
3. The scale bar of SEM images are not clear
4. It is hard to read Fig 4, 5, 6 and 8. Increase the font
5. For Fig 4 and 8, you have to add error bar because you must run at least test for each condition that you did not describe it in the experiments
6. Revise the conclusion
Author Response
(1) Related grammar and picture errors have been corrected in the manuscript. (2) The abstract has been revised and summarized. (3) The scale bar is redrawn and labeled. (4) The dimensions of figure 4,5&6 have been adjusted. (5) I have added error bar. (6) Relevant corrections were made to the results, discussion and conclusion.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Congratulations on your work, which is within a very important field.
In order to improve your manuscript, I'm suggesting below some improvements divided into 2 parts: Technical/Scientific and Presentation. Please pay attention to the following:
TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC ISSUES:
Please describe in detail the role of the coatings in the wear behavior during the Introduction. Please refer to papers such as: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03351-8 , doi:10.3390/coatings6040051 , doi:10.3390/coatings8110402. Moreover, you are citing less papers from MDPI group.
Please present the variables and corresponding units for the equations presented in your work.
Between Lines 72 and 75, please consider to cite https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03351-8.
Please highlight the comments related to Figure 2.
Please insert the variables and units in the axis of the graphs in Figure 5.
The discussion is poor and doesn't refer other works, comparing the results. Please improve.
The Conclusion are too much poor. Please improve them, calling the best achievements you have reached.
Is your work valid regarding other coatings beyond TiAlN? In what extend?
PRESENTATIONS:
The manuscript needs a deep proof-read in order to remove a lot of grammatical and spelling errors;
Between the UNITS and the VALUES, you must include a blank space;
In the References, there are names of journals without capital letter. Please amend it;
Along the manuscript, the name of the authors referred just contain the last name (not S.C. Vettivel [14] et al., for example, but Vettivel et al. [14]).
Same names of authors don't start with capital letter (seguy et al [17], for example - Line 59).
In Line 105, after the Xiamen Golden name, I cannot understand the word.
In Table 1, please amend Gpa and Mpa to GPa and MPa.
In Line 122, please correct Fig1 to Fig. 1.
Section 2.3 is not starting with Capital letter. There are too much mistakes like this.
There are several errors in the Conclusions ("dates", "meat", etc.).
Please don't use contractions on scientific documents ("doesn't" in the Conclusions).
The References need to be revised, because they don't follow the journal standard.
Hope these comments can help improving your manuscript.
Kind regards.
Author Response
(1) An overview of coatings is added to the introduction and cite https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03351-8. (2) The representation of figure 2 has been modified. (3) Variables and units have been added in figure 5. (4) Relevant corrections were made to the results, discussion and conclusion. (5) Formatting errors in references and articles have been corrected. (6) Xiamen Golden egret special alloy co. ltd. is a tool manufacturer. (7) Related grammar and picture errors have been corrected in the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors examine the flank wear of a coated tool for milling C17200 alloys. The authors use the decomposition of the machining forces to look at the forces that the mill experiences and then link this to the experimental observations of the tool wear. I do not find this manuscript containing a sufficient amount of novel information to warrant publication in its current form. Specific comments below, if addressed, may significantly improve the manuscript such that it could be published.
1 - Figures 5 and 6 are illegible and the axes are not labeled. There are other graphs with data points that are not contained within the legends.
2 - The study has only been conducted with three values of the force. It would be more convincing if the authors could have more data points, especially when fitting lines through the data points to extract trends.
3 - I cannot read the text in the SEM figures - eg figure 2.
4 - Labels on the physical images showing the abrasion area, transition region, and coating area should be schematically shown on a figure or on the SEM images.
5 - I find that there is very little content in this paper to justify the proposed model of wear. The SEM images do not show adhesive wear, despite this mechanism being attributed to the friction mechanism. The forces predicted also show almost no trend, and do not really tell me sufficient information about the process that is occurring. It would be interesting to show a correlation with the forces and wear regimes predicted for the tool or the work piece, for example. Or a transition from one wear regime to another at a given force. Furthermore, EDS or some kind of other characterization of the cut interface or tool would be useful to see, since it could tell you if there was any material transfer or not.
Author Response
Variables and units have been added in figure 5. The data in figure 6 is calculated from figure 5 and do not have actual units. They represent the re-decomposition of forces in in the three directions of Fx, Fy and Fz based on Altintas force model. This paper focuses on the force process at three similar speeds, and analyze the influence of adhesive effect on tool wear. Each force in the figure is already the mean value after the experiments in the theoretical calculation. The data points used in the calculation in this paper are the arithmetic mean value after the 5-point mean method of multiple groups of data. The trend of this paper is shown in figure 6. Figure 5 only represents the source of data and calculation results. The six parameters shown in FIG. 6 and formula (1) are in essence the y-intercept of the fitted line in FIG. 5, representing the directions and magnitude of the tangential and radial forces break down again from Fx, Fy and Fz. Specific formula derivation reference [30] The description of figure 2 has been changed. Labels on the physical images have been added. Because each parameter represents the change of force direction, this study explains the conversion process from adhesive wear to abrasive-adhesive wear in the process of high-speed milling easily adhered materials C17200 by analyzing the change of cutting force parameters direction, cutter surface morphology and content with the change of cutting speed. And the relevant statements have been extensively revised in this paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you so much for addressing my comments and suggestions.
Kind regards,
Author Response
The literature has been revised.
Reviewer 4 Report
The revisions to this paper have made the readability significantly worse. I do not think that the revisions have provided additional content to improve the quality of the manuscript. Therefore, I do not believe it should be published.
Author Response
The literature has been modified
