Digital Twin Modelling Method of Five-Axis Machine Tool for Predicting Continuous Trajectory Contour Error

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper introduces a concept of digital twin model for calculating the 5-axes machine tool contouring errors.

Comments regarding the paper content and the presentation:

- Machine tool kinematic model is developed using the screw theory and rotations. However, the machine tool volumetric errors are measured both in translations and rotations. If the machine tool error measurement is provided (41 errors), how are the errors in linear axes used as an input into the Actual trajectory (AT) model? Please explain the inputs for the AT model, it is not clear enough.

- Description of AT, TTPT and TOT models is not clear enough, illustrations are too small and not very clear.

- No papers from the field of machine tool volumetric error modeling are referred. Please add.

- Can the AT model consider the machine tool errors as space dependent? Please explain.

- The paper uses many abreviations. Eventhough they are explained within the abstract, it is quite difficult to follow the abreviations during reading the paper. Please consider using a table of all of the abreviations, it would be very helpful.

- Measuring the S-curve is done in the middle and upper part (line 390). Which result is shown in Fig. 20?

- All of the figures need larger legend and letters. They are readable only with difficulties.

- Lines 201 – 206 are duplicit, please remove.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript provided by Lyu and colleagues, digital twin modelling method of five-axis machine tool has been used for predicting continuous trajectory contour error. In my opinion, although this article contains new aspects, the manuscript can be accepted with minor revisions at Processes.

 

- English writing needs further polish.

- The novelty is not sufficiently explained or clears in the introduction section. Also, the researches gap should be clearly described.

- The quality of the discussion section must be improved. In so doing, the authors must be organized the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then practice and avoid repetition from the introduction.

- The "literature review" section of the manuscript must be improved.

- The conclusion section must be provided.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has addressed my concerns and I agree with its publication after minor revision in Processes.

- The discussion section must be added.