Measurement of the Machined Surface Diameter by a Laser Triangulation Sensor and Optimalization of Turning Conditions Based on the Diameter Deviation and Tool Wear by GRA and ANOVA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The idea of ​​measuring machining on the machine itself and relating this measurement to tool wear is interesting. However, the authors need to make a series of adjustments to the work to improve its quality:

• Many acronyms appear in the text, so it would be convenient to include a nomenclature table.
• What is the insert code used during tests and its quality?
• What is the nose radius of the insert?
• Why did you select such small depth of cut?
• What concentricity error have the machine chuck?
• Did you use new clamps?
  Did you control the contact surfaces of the jaws with the material?
•  It would be very interesting to include a graph that shows the diameter deviation depending on the wear
• Do you think it is necessary to do the Gray relational values ​​when you get the same result looking at Figure 10?
  What additional information does this analysis add?
• Including figure 14 does not seem to have any relationship with a work where it is sought to establish the deviation of the diameter as a function of the cutting parameters and the wear of the tool.
• The authors have to make an effort to reduce the total writing of the paper since an overabundance of information arises from reading it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting because it concerns the study method used to optimize of turning process. However, some important corrections are necessary.

 

1. The Introduction is too long. I realize that the topic of optical measurements is extensive, but propose to shorten the introduction to 2-3 pages. In particular, there is this same information in the introduction, e.g. lines 146-147 and lines 161-163.

 

2. Similarly, the content of section 2 should be limited to the essential information.

 

3. Section 2.1

 

The Authors defined a technological system. Is it a turning process using a CNC lathe? Please add more information.

 

4. Page 8, lines: 338-339

 

“The sample and the area were selected based on the requirements of manufacturing companies where shafts are made of different materials”

 

How many samples have been used in the experiment? It was only one samples machines using different turning parameters or more samples. Please explain it.

 

5. Page 8 line 344

 

“…linearity ± 20 mm, repeatability 4 μm and accuracy of 1 μm.”

 

What do the authors understand by 1um accuracy? Is it linear accuracy?

 

6. Page 10, lines 393-394

 

[Error! Reference source not found.]

 

7. Page 11, line 400

 

“…the holder for LTS, its production on a 3D printer”

 

Please more information about 3D printer used to produce holders (types of 3D printing technology, materials, printing parameters). Do the accuracy of holder and their stiffness affect the accuracy of the sensor mounting during its operation?

 

8. Page 13, table 3 and table 4

 

Why these values of cutting process conditions (a_p, f and _­­v_c) have been used in research?

9. Page 17, line 540

 

“non-contact measurement method and speed of acquired data: high efficiency,”

 

Did the authors take into account the influence of surface contamination (coolant, chips) on the accuracy of optical measurements? In addition, optical measurements of contaminated surfaces may give erroneous measurement results.

 

10. “Conclusions”

The information of future research should be added. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I repeat the need that the authors have to make an effort to reduce the total writing of the paper since an overabundance of information arises from reading it.

Author Response

(Reply to Reviewer 1 -  2. round)

• I repeat the need that the authors have to make an effort to reduce the total writing of the paper since an overabundance of information arises from reading it.

Thank you for the recommendation. Based on the comment, we have adjusted the content of the article so that the concept is observed in terms of presenting the research results, the content of the comments of other reviewers and at the same time with regard to the fluency and integrity of information when reading the article. We agree with the comments, because there is always space for improvement.