Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

• The title, “The cloud-based system for optical monitoring of tool condition during milling through detection of chip surface size and cutting force trend identification”, should be “The Cloud-Based System for Optical Monitoring of Tool Condition During Milling Through Detection of Chip Surface Size and Cutting Force Trend Identification”;
• The sentence, “Zheng et al. [9] in his work introduced a framework of Smart Energy consumption monitoring in machining”, is wrong;
• When reviewing the related work, the sentence, “The author [16] states that 7-20 % machine stoppages occur”, is improper. You can find the similar sentence in the following website that can help you how to review your work.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020025521013438

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11831-021-09562-1

• The sentence, “Teti in his work [13] gathers the most”, is wrong;
• The sentence, “Tapoglou [22] works out the cloud-based platform for optimal machining”, is wrong;
• The authors had better not include figures or tables in Introduction.
• For “In section 9, the results of an experiment with”, change “section” to “Section”; Remove the similar problems in the paper;
• The mathematical symbols used in “Figure 2. The basic structure of the cloud based TCM system” are wrong;
• For “The most favorable trend with constant cutting forces and non-worm tool is shown in Figure 1a”, use “Figure 1(a)” instead of “Figure 1a”.
• The “Figure 1b shows the rampa trend of cutting force which is a consequence” has the same problem with before;
• The “The third reference trend (Figure 1c) shows the cutting force flow occurring” has the same problem with before;
• The “Figure 1d shows the cutting force trend in machining of corners” has the same problem with before;
• The “Figure 1e shows the cutting force jump typical of tool hitting a hard inclusion” has the same problem with before;
• The “neuron represent the force trends shown in Figures 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e” has the same problem with before;
• For “neuron represent the force trends shown in Figures 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e”, insert “,” before “and”;
• The paper lacks the running environment, including software and hardware. Please supplement them. It is convenient for other researchers to redo your experiments and this makes your work easy acceptance.
• Except the methods used in the paper, some of the most representative computational intelligence algorithms can be used to solve the problems, like monarch butterfly optimization (MBO), earthworm optimization algorithm (EWA), elephant herding optimization (EHO), moth search (MS) algorithm, Slime mould algorithm (SMA), hunger games search (HGS), Runge Kutta optimizer (RUN), colony predation algorithm (CPA), and Harris hawks optimization (HHO). These must be clearly pointed out in Section Conclusion.
• Some information in Ref. [11] is missed. Please add them.

 

Based on my above comments, I proposed that the paper is accepted with major revision.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer comments of the paper

«The cloud-based system for optical monitoring of tool condition during milling through detection of chip surface size and cutting force trend identification»

- Reviewer

The authors presented an article «The cloud-based system for optical monitoring of tool condition during milling through detection of chip surface size and cutting force trend identification». The article uses an interesting and advanced tool condition monitoring system implemented using IoT technologies and chip and cutting force control. The article may be of interest to readers but first, the article should be cardinally strengthened and supplemented. However, the question is whether the content of the article corresponds to scope Processes?! However, there are several points in the article that require further explanation.

Comment 1:

The abstract needs to be improved.

Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Add quantitative and qualitative work results to the abstract. It is also useful to add the error of the proposed method.

Comment 2:

The introduction needs to be improved.

Firstly, group quotation is unacceptable in one phrase, for example [15, 78 16], [19-22]. Break this sentence into parts or individual sentences. For example, ... [...], ... [...], etc. Or one reference - one sentence.

This proposal in its current form does not carry any useful information. These references should be described in more detail. "Many authors in their researches [15, 78 16] demonstrate that the tool condition monitoring systems (TCM), by prolonging the tool life, increase the competitivity, shorten the preparation finalization times, minimize scrap-80 ping and prevent damages."

Now the list of references needs to be supplemented with at least 4-6 more references published over the past 5 years. Here are some recent articles:

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 2018, 29(5), 1045–1061. doi:10.1007/s10845-017-1381-8

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2022, 165, 108394. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108394

Sensors 2021, 21, 108. doi:10.3390/s21010108

After analyzing the literature, show before formulating the goal of the "blank" spots. Which has not been previously done by other researchers. You must show the importance of the research being undertaken. Show what will be the new research approach in this article. You need to show a hypothesis.

What is the scientific novelty and practical significance?

Comment 3:

Sections 2 to 8 have a lot of descriptive information about the processes and technologies presented and are more focused on practical advice and explanation. However, in order for the scientific result of the article to be more justified, it is important to add a more detailed description of the experimental part.

For good, sections 2 to 9 are more suitable for the name of materials and methods.

Are all figures original? If not needed appropriate citations and permissions. Refine this for figures throughout the article.

Add the material chemistry of the stock in a separate table. What is the hardness of the workpiece and how was it measured?

Describe in table the geometry of the cutter used in the research (diameter, number of teeth, rake and clearance angle, etc.). Show these dimensions in the photo.

Show the direction of the machine axes. How does this compare to measured cutting forces? What kind of milling scheme is used? Describe in the text.

The quality and resolution of all figures needs to be improved.

Describe the measurement procedure in more detail. At what point in time? How is the measuring setup set up? How many repetitions of measurements? What statistical methods are used to process experimental results? Describe the experimental stand in more detail. What method of experiment planning is used and why?

Comment 4:

It is necessary to add a sufficiently weighty section Results and Discussions

An analysis of the accuracy of the resulting model is needed. How does the model work? What is the performance of the monitoring system? How to implement it? How does this compare with earlier work of scientists? Without this section, this work cannot be considered a full-fledged article. And can only claim to be a "short message". And even in this case, an analysis of the accuracy of the proposed model is mandatory. What is the difference from previous work in this area?

The description of all figures in the text must be supplemented. Minimum 2-3 sentences. It is also important to add a figure with output curves from cutting data. Analyze the nature of these curves in accordance with the influence of the cutting mode on these curves, feed, cutting speed, depth of cut. This needs to be explained in terms of cutting physics.

Comment 5:

Conclusions.

It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. What is the error of the obtained models? What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. Conclusions should reflect the purpose of the article.

Use the format:

• Conclusions 1
• Conclusions 2
• Etc.

 

The article is interesting, but needs to be improved. Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. After major changes can an article be considered for publication in the "Processes".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

The revised paper is resubmitted to “ processes ”. This version is significantly better than before. Few comments have been considered, however, so many serious problems exist in this revised version.

 

• I suggest the authors delete “the” in the title, “The cloud-based system for optical monitoring of tool condition during milling through detection of chip surface size and cutting force trend identification”;
• The “veloped system with an artificial neural network (ANN) for cutting force patterns recognizing” has different fonts;
• The sentence, “One way to improve the sustainability of the machining workshop is by integrating various innovative approaches related to energy, cutting tool and workpiece material consumption”, is wrong;
• The sentence, “Research [15] states that cutting tool breakage contributes around 7 % to the downtime of machine tools”, is wrong;
• The sentence, “The research [19] states that an accurate tool condition monitoring system can increase the spindle speed by 10-50%”, is wrong;
• The sentence, “In the research [20] the authors state that, typically, only 50-80 % of tool service life are utilized. While research [18] states that less than 80 % of tool life expectancy is used in modern machining systems”, is wrong;
• The sentence, “There is one research [36] on tool wear and chip formation for”, is wrong;
• The mathematical symbols used in “macro average classification accuracy (n= 102 classifications)” are wrong;
• The authors mentioned some of the most representative metaheuristic algorithms, like monarch butterfly optimization (MBO), earthworm optimization algorithm (EWA), elephant herding optimization (EHO), moth search (MS) algorithm, as future research work. However, their citations must be added.

 

After inserting the comment above, the paper can be accepted.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have done a good job of improving the article. However, before acceptance, authors must:
1. References that were recommended in the first revision were not found in the introduction. We need to return to this in revision 2. We should also consider the recently published review article:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 2022. doi:10.1007/s10845-022-01923-2
2. Give a general view of the experimental setup with the designation of the main parts. And describe in the text of the article.
3. Now the conclusions are too overloaded. Here you should leave the most significant results of the work. And you can transfer the rest to the summary of the previous section.
4. The list of references must be drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the MDPI.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The revised paper is resubmitted to “ Processes ”. This version is significantly better than before. All comments have been considered, so the paper can be accepted in this revised version.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Now the article can be accepted for publication.