Simulation of Surface Topography Considering Cut-in Impact and Tool Flank Wear

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Row 110: Move the symbols to make the shape more readability.
Also, Figure 1, particularly the right figure, is not properly described.

Row 131: In Figure 2 the VB is above the dimension line.
Also, the ΔR must be rotated and positioned to the left of the dimension line

Row 140: , Because => , because

Row 167: Define what each axis means in Figure 3 and add the units of each axis

Row 193: the expression has been repeated

Row 247: Define what each axis means in Figure 6 and add the units of each axis

Row 256: it would be better for the cutting parameters selection of Table 1 to be made in an appropriate manner,
so that conclusions could be compared for the various experiments
(not change all the parameters but one for the next simulation)

Row 260: table 3 mm2 => mm2 (2 exponent)

Row 279: The Figure 11 must be presented in one page

Row 287 and 299:  the symbol of equality is presented as an exponent in the right part of the figure

Row 326 - 332: the text is repeated in the main text of the publication, change the text.

Row 338 - 389: ,2018,38(03):429-437. => , 2018, 38(03): 429-437.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Simulation of surface topography consider-ing cut-in impact and tool flank wear” (ID: applsci-438115). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper describes something not new to the research community. It takes a steel part, and proceeds to machining with the specific tool. The experimental results are then compared to simulation ones, and a discussion about them is presented. The paper has a number of things that have to be noticed and correct before proceed to publication. It is recommended to take notice the following:    

Firstly,      it is good the novelty of this paper to be described in the introduction.

Second,      the experimental procedure paragraph is good as you show a number of      figures from the experiment. For example the milling machine and the way      you put the material. The tool and how you put it (angle, tool holder      etc.) and how the roughness was measured. Finally the tool wear was      measured and was measured. Although there is not any table for having alla      the results together and how the parameters affect them. .

Third,      the discussion of the experimental results should be more detailed, and      agreement and disagreement of this work with the work of other authors      cited in the references should be also discussed.

Furthermore      you show a number of graph and how simulation results compared to the      experiment, flank wear, roughness etc. but there is not clear description      of the equations you use in the simulation about these results.

Also      add some more resent and relevant references for this topic.

Finally,      the conclusion should be improved and describe better the outcome from the      experiments and their discussion.     

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Simulation of surface topography consider-ing cut-in impact and tool flank wear” (ID: applsci-438115). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General comment

The paper deals with the simulation of topography of a milled surface by considering the effect of impact vibrations and flank wear. The paper is well-written and presents some very interesting results; however there are some issues regarding the presentation of results and text editing which could be addressed to improve the quality of the paper.

It would be very useful, if a more direct correlation between the Sections 2-4 and the results was presented. Namely, although sections 2-4 are very detailed, it is further on not completely clear how the presented calculations are used for the simulation of surface topography (it would be useful to e.g. reference these in the description of the results). Furthermore, although simulation of surface topography is one of the most important points of the paper, it is not completely clear, how these are simulated. Namely, section 5 “The simulation arithmetic of surface topography” is very short, and it correlation with sections 2-4 is unclear. Furthermore, in the manuscript there is no Results section and all results are presented in the section 6 “Experimental set-up”. It is suggested that the results are presented in a separate section “Results” which could be introduced at line 261, where authors first describe the results.

Some other minor issues and grammar mistakes were also observed by the reviewer and are described below. It is suggested authors also address these and submit the revised manuscript.

Detailed corrections

Title

- The title could be rewritten to more clearly capture the actual content of the paper, e.g. “Simulation of surface topography considering cut-in impact vibrations and tool flank wear”

Abstract

- Line 11: Instead of “They affect”, it should be “The impact vibrations affect”

- Line 12: Sentence should begin with “In the present work”

1. Introduction

- Line 100: Instead of “time-varying”, it should be “time variation”

- Line 102: Sentence should begin with “In the present study”

2. The Kinematic Trajectory Equation of Cutting Edges

- Line 153: Between y0 and z0 there should be a comma, not a point.

4. Mathematical model of impact force

- Titles of the sections should have the same capitalizing style (now, sometimes all words capitalized and sometimes only the first one is capitalized).

- Titles of subsections 4.1. and 4.2. should begin with capital letters.

- Line 207: Please explain what italic collision is.

5. The simulation arithmetic of surface topography

- Line 222: It would be better to start the sentence with: “Afterwards, the appropriate time step is selected to ensure…”

6. Experimental set-up

- Line 236: Please write in present tense: “Experimental site is shown…”

- Line 237: It should be “The tool wear states were observed”

- Line 237: Please specify the model and the producer of the “super deep scene 3D microscope”. Furthermore, since the images in Fig. 8 do not appear as 3D images, but rather images taken with an optical microscope, it is questionable why a 3D microscope was used for this type of images. Please explain this shortly.

- Line 239: Please specify the model of the Taylor Hobson white light interferometer.

- Line 239: It should be “The experimental scheme is presented in Table 1.”

- Line 243: It would be more clear if the modal parameters were specified in brackets: “…only the first-order modal parameters of the cutting system (natural frequency, damping ratio, stiffness) are obtained in this paper…”

- Line 261: In the manuscript there is no “Results” section; however it could begin at line 261, where authors first describe the results.

- Line 266: There should be a space between “Tests” and “1-5”. The same applies to all denotations of Tests, Tables and Figures in the manuscript.

- Line 267: The sentence would be clearer this way: “The maximum cutting vibration values in X direction were changed into absolute values.”

- Line 269: The caption for Figure 10 should be rewritten for more clarity: “Simulation (Simu.1 and Simu.2) and experiment (Exe.) results of cutting vibrations: Simu.1 – cutting vibration without impact vibration; Simu.2 – cutting vibration with impact vibration. Cutting vibration: (a) X direction, (b) Y direction. Error: (c) X direction, (d) Y direction.”

- Line 272: It should be “As seen in Fig. 10, the simulation results of cutting vibration considering impact vibration (Simu.2) are more precise.”

- Line 276: What did the authors mean with “Adds cutting vibration and impact vibration”? Maybe “Summary of cutting vibration and impact vibration”? Please rephrase since currently this is not clear.

- Lines 279-280: The caption of Figure 11 is not in accordance with the description on lines 276-278. Please verify and correct accordingly.

- Line 281: Please, use uniform denotations for denotation of Figures and Tables (capitalized and shortened).

- Lines 281-282: Authors claim that in Figure 11 there is a good consistency between the simulation and experimental results; however the difference between the two is quite pronounced. Please comment on the actual differences and their causes in more detail.

- Figures 12 and 14: Please do not overlap the text and the 3D images.

- Line 294: It should be “…surface roughness at different tool wear…”

- Line 295: It should be “The simulation and experimental results of surface morphology at different tool wear…”

- Line 296: It should be “…are shown in Fig. 14.”

- Figure 13: What does “VB(mm)” on the x-axis stand for – please use the entire word or describe in the text.

- Line 297 and 300: It should be “…at different tool wear.”

- Line 302: It should be “…the tool wear is less than…” and “…increases more slowly.”

- Line 307: It should be “…cutting edge near the tool tip induces micro-chipping.”

- Line 310: It should be “Meanwhile, the texture asperities grow and the grooves deepen with tool wear in the experiments.”

- Lines 308-311: Describe in more detail the differences between simulation and experimental results.

7. Conclusions

- Line 323: It should be “Meanwhile, the texture asperities grow and the grooves deepen with tool wear in the experiments.”

- Lines 322-325: Please describe shortly, how the experimental results correlate with the simulation.

- Line 327: It should be “…increases more slowly.”

- Line 328: There is a space missing between “0.164” and “mm” – the same style should be applied to all units throughout the manuscript.

- Line 331: It should be “The reason is that in the experiments the cutting edge near the tool tip induces micro-chipping.”

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Simulation of surface topography consider-ing cut-in impact and tool flank wear” (ID: applsci-438115). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

12 Row 338 - 389: ,2018,38(03):429-437. => , 2018, 38(03): 429-437.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your quick response and taking into consideration all the coments. The manuscript is accepted as it is.