Modelling of Surface Roughness and Change in Out-of-Roundness of Tool during Electrical Discharge Machining with Cermet Tool Tip Using Machine Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In this paper, sintered cermet tool tip is used for EDM of EN31 material. The authors stated that the change in the shape of tool during machining is very significant as the final shape of the machined cavity is dependent on the shape of the tool during EDM. The article should supplement the surface state comparison of cermet tool before and after EDM processing, electrode consumption rate, SEM image of electrode surface, etc., and describe whether the sintering process parameters affect the original OOR of cermet tool?
2. The degree of innovation is insufficient, and the innovation and research viewpoints of this paper should be strengthened.
3. The literature discussion is not detailed enough, only the description does not compare, and the relevant literature for the cermet tool EDM should be added to compare the differences in its EDM characteristics.
4. The dimensions and physical properties of the cermet tool tip are not described in the text to understand the influence of machining characteristics during electrical discharge machining.
5. The right image in Figure 4 is not clear and cannot represent its meaning.
6. Figures 8, 10, 12, 14 specifically mark a position as the recast layer. How can you tell if it is a recast layer instead of the whole surface being a recast layer?
7. Figures 17, 19, 21, 23 The scale and size of each image are slightly different, please mark the scale bar clearly. Figure 21(b) The tool surface has become elliptical.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

The paper "Modelling of Surface Roughness and change in Out Of Roundness of tool during Electrical Discharge Machining with cermet tool tip using Machine Learning" is good and logical. And also, it is significant to study the surface roughness of the finished part and profile of the tool electrode. This paper has been reviewed but it needs minor revision before accepted. The followings are the points need to modify.

1. I have seen the author`s other similar article. Please rewrite the paragraph and remove the figure which is published in other journal
2. In abstract, it should have some results of the paper.
3. In conclusion, it should have more detail of the results of the work. And there should have a paragraph explaining the process of the experiment.

Please check the English, double check with grammar and typos. For example, line 79, there should have blank after thank.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with interesting topics related to the EDM process. However, the quality of the presented results and their analysis is insufficient and general. Many Figures are of poor quality and their view needs to be improved. The presentation of the analysis of the results should be done again in order to present them in an interesting way to the reader. Also, the following suggestions and comments have to be addressed especially before publication of the paper:

1. In article the analysis is subjected to change of tool shape. In Introduction the literature research concerining used shape of tool electrode should be presented and also impact of tool geoemtry on shape machined cavities should be mentioned.
2. In the Chapter ‘Materials and Methods’ it is important to present the procesure of the predition response, which programme was used.
3. In Figure 2 the tool electrode is preseneted, but it is needed to present an accurate shape of tool electrode with dimention, technical documents.
4. In for example Figure 3, 6, 7, 16 the destricption of axses requires to imporve quality and readable. A lot of Figures require to improve their quality and presentation. In Figure 17, 19, 21, 23 the scale sguold be added.
5. The used abbreviations in Table 4 should be explained.
6. In part of article (Line 239-246) it is unclear that the analysis of surface roughnes concerning machined cavities or tool electrode. Please specify this.
7. In Chapter ‘Results and Discussion’ the results analysis requires deeper analysis and explanation of results, what cause is obtained results, maybe from the EDM process or properties of used materials. Also, the used dielectric fluid effects on the sorface roughness and  formation of some defects on machined surface and surface of tool electrode. Also, please note that in experimental test using the pulse off time is lower than the pulse on time. Maybe some defects are results this relashionship.
8. Table 8 an 9 can be presented as graphs, than difference bewteen experimental results and predicted results will be better visible.
9. In Conlusions, please add information concering furthermore experimental research, and how these results analysis effects on currently knowledge in this scientific field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has responded and corrected some of the content, but there are still issues with the recast layer that have not been clarified.
In response to the reply to item 6, the author replied how to observe the method of recast layer and the observed results, but did not add it to the article, please revise.
In addition, the method of observing the surface recast layer in general research is to use the embedding method to confirm and analyze the cross section by SEM, EDX, mapping or line scan. Therefore, the author must prove why only the lines indicated in the figure are the recast layers, and must clarify this problem. Perhaps EDX mapping can be used to illustrate the distribution of carbon precipitation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Kindly please improve some Figures by adding scale (Figures 17, 19, 21, 23). Also, please improve Figures 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 20, 22. These Figures differ between Figure a and Figure b, please change graphs to appear similar.

After above revision the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc