The Influence of Bit Edge Shape Parameters on Bone Drilling Force Based on Finite Element Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors.
Sincerely the quality of the work is very poor, and from my point of view there is nothing new.
For example, please, compare with the following papers:
Soriano, J., et al. “Influence of Cutting Conditions on Temperature Rise, Feed Force and Cutting Torque When Drilling Bone.” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 498, Trans Tech Publications, Ltd., Apr. 2012, pp. 145–150. Crossref, doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.498.145.
Yahui Hu , Xiannian Chen , Jin Chen , Chunqiu Zhang , Weihua Fu , The influence of crescent texture parameters on the axial force when drilling bone, Medical Engineering and Physics (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2020.12.001
What's new about this job?
Also:
- The introduction is poor.
- The paper talks about using finite elements. I ask, in what part of the paper?
- The name of vertex angle is point angle.
- Can you explain how did you to measure the radii of the flutes and fillets?
- How did you establish the cutting conditions for the tests?
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have revised it according to all the comments. The revisions are as follows.
- The introduction is poor.
Response: According to the paper format recommended by the editor and the latest research situation, we have revised the introduction, supplemented the references from [1] to [28] and summarized the current research results. Meanwhile, the problems studied in this article have been supplemented. And all the revisions are marked in red font.
- The paper talks about using finite elements. I ask, in what part of the paper?
Response: Finite element simulation has been supplemented in Section 2 and the simulated results have been explained and analyzed in detail. And the revisions are marked in red font.
- The name of vertex angle is point angle.
Response: In the revised article, the name of vertex angle has been modified as point angle.
- Can you explain how did you to measure the radii of the flutes and fillets?
Response: In the laboratory, these two radii can be measured by using microscope images; in the factory, they can be measured with a particular measuring instrument.
- How did you establish the cutting conditions for the tests?
Response: We have supplemented the relevant references [40], [42], [43] for the cutting conditions for the tests.
The above are our responses to the reviewer comments. Thank you again for your comments.
Kind regards,
Authors
corresponding author: Maohua Du Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650500, China
Reviewer 2 Report
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Dear authors,
The subject of the work is relevant, but the manuscript does not show it clearly. The effort exerted during writing this article is unclear. The manuscript needs to be restructured and many parts need to be rewritten.
1. The title is not accurate. It does not precisely reflect the contents of the manuscript.
2. The abstract should start with the need and motivation for the contribution of the present work. The abstract has only 4 lines.
3. The manuscript is neither well-written nor well-structured, but it can be improved. The introduction of the manuscript is very sort. I recommend going through the literature again and reading relevant papers (10.1007/s4043 0-020-02449-5, 10.1007/s10439-020-02565-2, 10.1177/0954405416673115, 10.1007/s40430-021-03064-8, ).
4. All the typos and grammatical errors (which are enormous) must be revised.
5. Section 2 should be divided into different sub-sections to explain the materials, methodology and experimental investigation.
6. All the captions of the figures are basic and need to be rewritten more clearly. What is “This is a figure.”?
7. The new contribution of this study to the field is weak. It is very difficult to find any novelty in the present work.
8. The picture quality is not as per the journal standards. The figure quality is poor and not readable. It is recommended to redraw the manuscript’s figures with the same font. Add clear pictures for better understandability to the readers.
9. Present a figure with an interaction plot and contribution plot of process parameters.
10. For instance, how can the results be used in practice?
11. The reviewer suggests highlighting the contributions of the manuscript, the importance of it in your manuscript, reflect on all the methodology and results.
12. Discussion is poor, which should embed the results in previous studies and demonstrate the greatest achievements of this study. It is suggested to add a table of comparison of present results of manuscript with previous research.
13. You need to improve the discussion section by referring to the latest works to justify and demonstrate your work’s novelty over the previous works.
14. As its name suggests, the conclusions section must be more concentrated. Please rewrite it.
15. Check the references, some references are missing volume number and page numbers.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. We have revised it according to all the comments. The revisions are as follows.
- The title is not accurate. It does not precisely reflect the contents of the manuscript.
Response 1. The title has been modified as “Influence of Bit Edge Shape Parameters on Drilling Force Based on Finite Element Analysis”, and it was marked in red font.
- The abstract should start with the need and motivation for the contribution of the present work. The abstract has only 4 lines.
Response 2. The abstract has been revised with the need and motivation，and it was marked in red font.
- The manuscript is neither well-written nor well-structured, but it can be improved. The introduction of the manuscript is very short. I recommend going through the literature again and reading relevant papers (10.1007/s4043 0-020-02449-5, 10.1007/s10439-020-02565-2, 10.1177/0954405416673115, 10.1007/s40430-021-03064-8, ).
Response 3. The manuscript has been rewritten and restructured. The introduction of the manuscript has also been rewritten and added relevant references from [1] to [28].
- All the typos and grammatical errors (which are enormous) must be revised.
Response 4. In the revised manuscript, all the typos and grammar errors have been corrected.
- Section 2 should be divided into different sub-sections to explain the materials, methodology and experimental investigation.
Response 5. Section 2 has been revised according to this comment,.
- All the captions of the figures are basic and need to be rewritten more clearly. What is “This is a figure.”?
Response 6. All the captions of the Figures have been rewritten. And the sentence “This is a figure.” Has been deleted.
- The new contribution of this study to the field is weak. It is very difficult to find any novelty in the present work.
Response 7. The novelty of this paper is that most of the previous studies are about drilling parameters or one or two parameters of the drill bit. This paper studies more parameters of drill bit shape, including point angle, helix angle and edge radius. These parameters have different influence order on drilling force. The novelties and its contribution have been added in discussion of section 5. And it was marked in red font.
- The picture quality is not as per the journal standards. The figure quality is poor and not readable. It is recommended to redraw the manuscript’s figures with the same font. Add clear pictures for better understandability to the readers.
Response 8. The Figures have been redrawn, and the revised pictures are clear and the picture quality has been improved.
- Present a figure with an interaction plot and contribution plot of process parameters.
Interaction and contribution diagrams are shown in Figure 8 of the paper and are analyzed in detail.
Response 9. Figure with an interaction plot and contribution plot of process parameters has been added, as shown in Figure 9, which has been analyzed in detail.
- For instance, how can the results be used in practice?
Response 10. In practice, according to the results of this study, the drills can be customized from the manufacturers of medical tools.
- The reviewer suggests highlighting the contributions of the manuscript, the importance of it in your manuscript, reflect on all the methodology and results.
Response 11. The contributions made in the revised version are summarized in section 5. The importance of the paper lies in the fact that two new issues are investigated (at the end of the introduction, marked in blue font). This paper uses finite element simulation (FEM) analysis, experimental verification methods, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to study the results in the corresponding section2, section3, section4.
- Discussion is poor, which should embed the results in previous studies and demonstrate the greatest achievements of this study. It is suggested to add a table of comparison of present results of manuscript with previous research.
Response 12. Discussion and a Table of comparison have been added in section 5 and marked in red font.
- You need to improve the discussion section by referring to the latest works to justify and demonstrate your work’s novelty over the previous works.
Response 13. Discussion has been improved by a comparison of this work with previous researches, and this work’s novelty over the previous works can be demonstrated in the revised manuscript.
- As its name suggests, the conclusions section must be more concentrated. Please rewrite it.
Response 14. The conclusions section has been rewritten and marked in red font.
- Check the references, some references are missing volume number and page numbers.
Response 15. Some references’ missing volume number and page numbers have been added.
The above are our responses to the reviewer comments. Thank you again for your comments.
Kind regards,
Authors
corresponding author: Maohua Du Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650500, China
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
Bone drilling is one of the challenging topics in the field of biomechanics and this paper can be really useful and interesting for the readers of this Journal. The author centered on calculating some effective parameters such as drilling force to find the optimum bit structure as well as bit edge shape parameter during bone drilling. The novelty of this project is acceptable. This is a standard study that includes simulation and experimental parts. The found order of the influence is: the edge radius is the largest, the point angle is the second, and the helix angle is the smallest. They also showed that the optimum combination of bit structure is that point angle, helix angle, and edge radius are 95 °, 35 °, and 0.02mm, respectively. These achievements can be useful for surgeons and bio-researchers. More detailed information about grid independence study is one of the most important concerns related to FEM simulations and it is necessary that authors described these results in detail. Taken together, there are some concerns that authors should consider before the publication of this paper.
1. The main focus of this paper is related to bone drilling. So, adding the word “bone” is necessary for the title because drilling is also common in the industry and this can be useful for future citations of this paper.
2. One of the most important concerns about simulation results is data validation. You had a comprehensive experimental section in your study and responded to this concern perfectly. So, it would be better that you add some phrases like “after data validation, the FEA results showed …” in the abstract section. You did not adequately highlight the importance of the experimental section of your work in the abstract section. It would be better if you use a sub-title or word like "Data validation" in the main manuscript. This can be really valuable for your paper. You have already this content in your paper but you did not use this phrase.
3. I think “FEM method” or “FEA” are more common phrases as compared to “FES”, but keeping FES is up to you. But somewhere in the main text, you used "FES" and in some other sections you used "finite element analysis". Please use a common phrase in the whole manuscript.
4. The Introduction section described a wide range of previous papers in this field and it can be acceptable. But there are some totally related papers specifically about force calculation using FEA during bone drilling that you did not pay attention to them. Describing the wide range of bone drilling studies is the option of the author and I respect it. But limited studies calculated “force” using FEA during bone drilling, so mentioning these totally related backgrounds and comparing their results with your results in Table 8 is necessary. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106463], [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.09.011], [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01736-0].
5. Did you present the permission for Figure 1 to the Journal? Apparently, this is not your original figure. Moreover, please move the legends of Fig. 3a and b because they overlap with the main graphs.
6. You know one of the most important parts of an FEA is grid independence study. More detail information about mesh and specifically about the results of the “grid independence study” is really necessary for each simulation study. This can ensure the correctness of your assumptions and simulation process.
7. Please report the differences between the values of some parameters like a force for the medium and fine meshes in a specific condition: a specific angle, and shape. If you want, you can add a figure to compare the values between coarse, medium, and fine meshes. But adding a figure is just a suggestion and it is up to you.
8. Your results are really valuable but your discussion is too short. Effectiveness of using some coolant similar to the references mentioned in comments 4 can be interesting for discussing optimized bone drilling conditions. You can discuss it to improve the strength of your discussion section.
Author Response
Dear Editor and referees,
Here we would like to provide a short cover letter detailing the changes of revisions made to the manuscript applsci-1810588 for your approval.
The comments and the revisions are as follows.
- The main focus of this paper is related to bone drilling. So, adding the word “bone” is necessary for the title because drilling is also common in the industry and this can be useful for future citations of this paper.
Response 1. The word “bone” is added for the title, and it is marked in red font.
- One of the most important concerns about simulation results is data validation. You had a comprehensive experimental section in your study and responded to this concern perfectly. So, it would be better that you add some phrases like “after data validation, the FEA results showed …” in the abstract section. You did not adequately highlight the importance of the experimental section of your work in the abstract section. It would be better if you use a sub-title or word like "Data validation" in the main manuscript. This can be really valuable for your paper. You have already this content in your paper but you did not use this phrase.
Response 2. In the abstract section, the sentence “and after validation the FEM analysis results show that their variation trend is the same as the experimental one.” is added. Meanwhile, a sub-title of 4.1 is modified as" Validation of simulated results " in the main manuscript. And the revisions are marked in red font.
- I think “FEM method” or “FEA” are more common phrases as compared to “FES”, but keeping FES is up to you. But somewhere in the main text, you used "FES" and in some other sections you used "finite element analysis". Please use a common phrase in the whole manuscript.
Response 3. In the whole manuscript, common phrase “FEM” is used in the main text and marked in red font.
- The Introduction section described a wide range of previous papers in this field and it can be acceptable. But there are some totally related papers specifically about force calculation using FEA during bone drilling that you did not pay attention to them. Describing the wide range of bone drilling studies is the option of the author and I respect it. But limited studies calculated “force” using FEA during bone drilling, so mentioning these totally related backgrounds and comparing their results with your results in Table 8 is necessary. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106463], [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.09.011], [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-022-01736-0].
Response 4. We have read the literature from the mentioned links. The comparison between these results and our results is added in Table 8 (references [42,43,44]). The revisions are marked in red font.
- Did you present the permission for Figure 1 to the Journal? Apparently, this is not your original figure. Moreover, please move the legends of Fig. 3a and b because they overlap with the main graphs.
Response 5. The original Figure 1 is added, and the caption of Figure 3 is modified as” Variation of the drilling force with drilling parameters”. The revisions are marked in red font.
- You know one of the most important parts of an FEA is grid independence study. More detail information about mesh and specifically about the results of the “grid independence study” is really necessary for each simulation study. This can ensure the correctness of your assumptions and simulation process.
Response 6. In this work, we adopt automatic meshing in software for FEA and the simulation results have been validated with experimental data, which can illustrate the correctness of meshing.
- Please report the differences between the values of some parameters like a force for the medium and fine meshes in a specific condition: a specific angle, and shape. If you want, you can add a figure to compare the values between coarse, medium, and fine meshes. But adding a figure is just a suggestion and it is up to you.
Response 7. Coarse, medium, and fine meshes indeed have an impact on the simulation results, that is, the finer the meshes are, the higher the precision is, but the longer the calculation time is; on the contrary, the coarser the meshes are, the lower the accuracy is, but the faster the calculation speed is. In FEA of this work, we adopt the automatic meshing method in software, in which both computational speed and accuracy are considered.
- Your results are really valuable but your discussion is too short. Effectiveness of using some coolant similar to the references mentioned in comments 4 can be interesting for discussing optimized bone drilling conditions. You can discuss it to improve the strength of your discussion section.
Response 8. Some coolant references mentioned in comments 4 are added in Table 8, and the discussion section is revised accordingly. The revisions are marked in red font.
The above are our responses to the reviewer’s comments. Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
From my point of view, the work does not offer anything new. Also its presentation and writing is very confusing.
All surgeries are performed manually, so considering an automatic feed does not make any sense.
The work must be rejected.
Author Response
首先，祝你工作顺利，身体健康。感谢您的宝贵意见。虽然我们的工作令您不满意，但我们真诚地感谢您的评论。
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have incorporated all the queries raised by me
Author Response
首先，祝你工作顺利，身体健康。感谢您的宝贵建议和认可。再次感谢您的支持和信任。
