Next Article in Journal
Utilising Acknowledge for the Trust in Wireless Sensor Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Modeling the Life Cycle Inventory of a Centralized Composting Facility in Greece
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characterization of Deburring by Abrasive Flow Machining for AL6061

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 2048; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042048
by Kwang-Joon Kim 1, Young-Gwan Kim 1 and Kwon-Hee Kim 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 2048; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042048
Submission received: 26 January 2022 / Revised: 9 February 2022 / Accepted: 14 February 2022 / Published: 16 February 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a new objective function to measure the performance of the deburring process. The authors should improve the following aspects:

  1. Compare the values of the new objective function obtained in the validation paragraph with those due to the previous objective function and explain the differences.
  2. Explain if the proposed new objective function is important for industrial applications and how is it.
  3. Explain all the terms of the used equations.
  4. Explain why the abstract reports "In this study, abrasive flow machining (AFM) was adopted for deburring the edges of milling specimens", while the validation was carried out on drilling burr.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. What the detailed derivation process of equation (1) and (3), and he meaning of the variable needs to be given.
  2. In page 4, the test result under flow speed of 7.8 m/s is not showed in Table 1.
  3. In section 3.4 of page 6, how to estimate the flow length for 45° chamfer under different flow speed? From figure 6 and 7, the shape of deburring erosion zone is not an equilateral triangle.
  4. Why the flow speed in page 187 is 7.7 m/s, but not consistent to the flow speed in Table 4.
  5. The test specimen in Figure 14 seems to be different with the previous test.
  6. The conclusion should focuses on the main content and summary of this paper, but not the previous literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the work done by the authors, and this papar is suitable for publishing after English spell checking.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment.

Spell check has been performed with minor corrections.

 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered all my questions. The work was improved and it suitable to be published on Applied Sciences Journal.

Back to TopTop