Optimization of Milling Process Parameters for Fe45 Laser-Clad Molded Parts Based on the Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented an article about “Optimization of milling process parameters for Fe45 laser-clad molded parts based on NSGA-II algorithm.” Upon evaluating the overall quality of the manuscript, it is apparent that the research presents a comprehensive and innovative approach to optimizing milling process parameters for Fe45 laser-clad molded parts, utilizing the NSGA-II algorithm. The methodology is robust, the findings are well-articulated, and the analysis contributes significantly to the existing body of knowledge. This paper is a valuable addition to the literature, offering technical depth and practical implications. It showcases strong methodological integrity, effectively communicates its results, and lays down significant insights for future research in the field.

I think the paper is well organized and appropriate for the “Coatings” journal, but the paper will be ready for publication after minor revision. After reviewing the article "Optimization of Milling Process Parameters for Fe45 Laser-Clad Molded Parts Based on NSGA-II Algorithm," here are my recommendations for improvements:

The abstract looks good. Please include all significant numerical results.

What is the problem? Why was the manuscript written? Please explain the reason in the introduction part. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the novelty of the study and the differences from the past in detail should be expressed.

Expand on the details and justification for selecting the NSGA-II algorithm over other optimization algorithms. A comparative analysis could enhance the credibility of the methodology.

Provide more explicit details about the experimental setup, including the rationale behind the choice of parameters (spindle speed, feed rate, cutting depth) and their ranges.

While the results are thoroughly analyzed, integrating a comparison with existing studies or techniques could provide a clearer perspective on the advancements or limitations of the proposed method.

Ensure all figures and graphs are clearly labeled and discussed within the text. Including a discussion on how each figure supports the findings would be beneficial.

Further elaboration on the statistical methods used to validate the empirical models would strengthen the research findings.

Elaborate on the limitations of the current study and how these limitations could guide future research directions. This section could provide a clearer path for subsequent studies.

Thorough proofreading for typographical and grammatical errors is recommended to improve readability. Also, ensure consistency in formatting throughout the document.

*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.

Thorough proofreading for typographical and grammatical errors is recommended to improve readability.  Minor editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted paper deals with the optimization of Milling Process Parameters for Fe45 Laser-Clad Molded Parts Based on NSGA-II Algorithm. It’s an interesting experimental-analytical work. My main remarks are the following

i) The authors must make clear the novelty of their work, since many works in the literature deals with developed algorithms optimizing the selection of the cutting parameters.

ii) The milling conditions have to be better described. The authors must specify if up milling or a down milling process was applied, the applied cutting speeds and undeformed chip thicknesses as well as if they change the axial or radial depth. 

iii) Τhe authors mention in the text “The experiment was carried out using the smooth milling dry cutting to reduce the cutting force, cutting heat, and the effect of coolant on the surface quality and machining performance during machining.” Τhis is difficult to be read. The authors must re-phrase it and make it clear if they used lubricant or not.

iv) The authors mention in the text that “The excessive value of the milling force can easily cause machining errors, and can also lead to a decrease in tool life and even damage to the machine tool. If the milling force is too low, the machining will not achieve the desired accuracy and will increase the wear of the tool.” The authors must explain how a low cutting force will increase the tool wear. Related publications must be provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

After a careful and thorough review, based on the data and the discussion presented, the manuscript in its present form cannot be accepted for publication. My considerations are as follows:

I noticed that the same study appears as a Preprint not Peer Reviwed in the Journal Materials Today Communications (file link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713642), with Publication Status: Under Review.

ABSTRACT

Here the abstract must be improved with more information about what the milling process is and why it is important. Highlight why Fe45 was used and comment on the positive aspects of the material for this application. Another important point is the use of the NSGA II algorithm. Why use this algorithm? What advantage does it bring to the study? This information must be made clear in the text. Also, describe what the name of the algorithm means. Currently, we see many studies that use software tools such as algorithms, but do not adequately explain their use and benefits.

1. INTRODUCTION

The introduction is very short and lacks a better presentation of studies on the use of both laser cladding to obtain more uniform coatings, with a good finish and more protective, in addition to studies dealing with the use of the NSGA II algorithm. In fact, no study is presented on the improvement of the surface finish after the use of laser cladding.

What are the applications of each material (40Cr and Fe45)? No matter how much we know about their uses, it is necessary to make the applications of each material clear. Provide this information here in the Introduction section.

2. EXPERIMENT

2.1. Materials and Equipment

Lines 85 and 86: The authors comment that "the morphology of the powders". How many powders were used in this study in addition to Fe45 powder?

Another very important question: Why is Figure 1 shown so small? This figure must be at least 3 times the size shown here in the manuscript. Regarding the scale, the authors are able to observe and say what the scale is without enlarging the figure? I request that the figure be enlarged so that the scale becomes more visible. It's even hard to see in my printed material. In line 87, the authors comment that "particle sizes ranging from 3 to 29 μm". How is it possible to know the accuracy of the particle sizes just by looking at Figure 1? Explain.

In Table 1, which shows the chemical composition, how was the chemical composition determined?

In Figure 2, it is not possible to observe the details shown. I ask the authors what they see in Figure 2 (a) and (c). Figure 2 (b) is also not clear enough for the reader to understand what is being shown. I ask that this figure also be improved.

Why was microstructural characterization not performed?

The study reports the fusion of the Fe45 alloy on the bulk of the 40Cr steel. Why was no optical micrograph taken showing the material after milling with and without the addition of Fe45 by laser cladding? It is very coherent that an adequate characterization of the material studied is performed. In this sense, and considering that the study does not provide this information, how can the reader and other researchers observe the changes that occurred before and after the application of laser fusion and the final surface finish?

Furthermore, the use of laser cladding must be very well managed so that there are no defects in the fusion of the powder on the surface of the bulk material. This is another very important point as it can lead to material failure. Knowing this, why was no scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis performed?

3. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

3.1. Experimental Results

Figure 3 shows the force applied during the milling process. Here, in order to enrich the study carried out, the authors should present the OM images together with the figure. In this way it would be possible to have a real idea of the behavior of the material in different conditions. The same for Figure 6.

In Figure 7, what is the standard deviation of the measurements? I ask that the deviations be shown.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion number 4 is not a conclusion of the study because no microstructural and mechanical characterizations were performed. I suggest that the authors rewrite this conclusion.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors replied satisfactorily to all reviewer's comments and the submitted paper can be accepted for publication. The authors should replace the term "milling length" with "undeformed chip length" and mention if they applied an up-milling or down-milling process in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

I have checked the corrections made to the manuscript point by point. I found that many corrections have been made and I thank the authors for the improvements they have made. However, I noticed that some figures still do not match and are not clearly visible. I had requested that Figures 1 and 2 be improved, but I could not see that they were indeed improved. I request that these figures be resized to a larger size. In the current format, it is not possible to see the details of the figures clearly. After the necessary corrections, this manuscript will be suitable for publication.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf