A Grey Fuzzy Approach to the Selection of Cutting Process from the Aspect of Technological Parameters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

In this manuscript, The so called grey fuzzy approach is used to the selection of cutting process. But, this manuscript is not written well.  Before reconsidering this manuscript, the authors are suggested to make the following major revisions.

 

1.     The contents of “Abstract” are too tedious and unclear, the authors should address their method and received results clearly.

2.     The grey fuzzy approach should be detailedly introudced and some closely related research results are suggested added in the part of “Introduction”.

3.     What kinds of technological parameters in the part of “Materials and method”? All the details should be given.

4.     In part of “Results and discussion”, the received results are not  clearly given and should be concretely listed.  Besides, the received results based on the grey fuzzy approach should be compared with other published results in detail.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper is correct, well organized and clearly written. Please check the English language again.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

spelling mistake kerf,(figure.3 )

Any specific reason for selection of cutting speed in PAM, LBM AND AWJM.

while PAM is recommended for thickness of 5mm from the aspect of  machining time,dimentional accuracy ,surface quality based on LBM is most suitable thickness of 5mm and 10mm . But 5mm is recommended for PAM WHICH ONE IS BEST.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The interpretation of the results is very good.

The paper will be ready for publication after major revision based on the attached pdf.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Since the manuscript has been revised carefully, I am glad to recommend it for acceptance.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Accept.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study does not contain any innovation in its entirety. The article needs to be expanded in its entirety.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Please see the attachment, the document Response reviewer 1.docx contains possible responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript "A Grey Fuzzy Approach to the Selection of Machine Tools from the Aspect of Technological Parameters". It deals with the application of fuzzy grey technique for machine tool analysis and selection. The proposed approach can be applied both in conventional and unconventional processes.

The manuscript is almost interesting, relatively new. References are complete and up to date.

I think it can be accepted for publication after the following minor revisions:

Line 112: Liu et al. [22] is wrong. Please check.

Table 1 - Chemical composition. Specify wt % or at %.

Table 5 - Specify measurement units.

Due to the high number of acronyms a nomenclature box is warmly recommended.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Please see the attachment, the document Response reviewer 2.docx contains possible responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present an interesting method of machine tool selection for processing thin sheets based on the "grey fuzzy approach".

Although the potential of the proposed method is remarkable, in my opinion it starts from some wrong initial assumptions.

The three processing processes studied (plasma cutting, laser cutting and water jet cutting) have clear areas of application and in industrial practice there is no need to choose between the three, for a type of part (material and thickness). For example, the dimensional accuracy of laser-cut parts is clearly superior to plasma-cut parts, while plasma cutting allows the processing of much thicker materials.

Also, the selection in this case is not related to the type of machine, but to the processing technology (laser, plasma or water jet).

I have not come across any papers in the specialized literature that address the issue of selecting one of the three procedures, for a specific material. Most of the works mentioned in the introductory part present methods for selecting a machine tool from the same group (eg. the best milling machine).

I think the authors should argue the above by presenting previous work in which the selection is made between the three technologies/machine types (if any) and also develop why the proposed method is superior to methods in industry practice.

In my opinion, the method has a good potential to be used to select the best machine tool in the same category.

I also consider that the topic of the paper does not fall within the scope of the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Please see the attachment, the document Response reviewer 3.docx contains possible responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The study does not contain any innovation in its entirety. The article needs to be expanded in its entirety.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did not provide convincing answers to any of the problems indicated by the reviewer. In fact, they didn't provide any answers to any of them.

The main problem pointed out by the reviewer referred to the fact that in industrial practice there is no question of using MCDM selection methods to choose one of the three technologies (plasma, laser or waterjet cutting) for a certain material and a certain thickness, because each of the three technologies has a clear field of application.

Confusion is created from the very beginning of the work, not being clear what will be subjected to the selection process, the machining process or the machine tool. Thus, between lines 137-138 it is stated that:

 "Accordingly, the basic objective of the research in this paper refers to the technological analysis of the three machining processes."

while between lines 142-144 it is stated that:

"In order to create an intelligent decision-making system, a GFA is used to select machine tools from the aspect of the previously mentioned technological parameters."

The method developed by the authors has good potential, but the proposed application is neither necessary, nor useful, nor convincing. As I indicated in the first review report, it could be applied in the selection of a machine tool, in the case of several machines using the same technology.

The statement presented by the authors, that the proposed method is related to the Industry 4.0 concept, is, in my opinion, forced and without arguments.

In addition, I consider that the paper does not fit the theme of the journal.