Grey-Taguchi-Based Optimization of Wire-Sawing for a Slicing Ceramic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Grey-Taguch based optimization of wire-sawing for a slicing ceramic" presents an interesting study focusing on the determination of important process parameters and optimum conditions regarding wire-sawing of ceramics. The manuscript can be considered for publication after several
modifications are performed:

In the title and abstract section, the authors need to check whether the term "Slicing ceramic" is appropriate or if they should correct it. In line 11, "materials" should be correct to "material". Furthermore the parameter "mixed grains (G)" should be rephrased to a more appropriate term e.g. mixed grains mesh size. This should be corrected in the entire manuscript. Finally, the "respective improvement" mentioned in the abstract should be better explained.

Regarding the introduction section, it is very short for a full length article. At first, the authors need to add references in order to support the statements made in lines 31-35. Moreover, they should considerably expand the introduction section in order to stress the importance of studying the wire-sawing process e.g. by presenting the wire-sawing process with more details regarding its characteristics, basic process parameters, the applications of this process, its advantages and disadvantages compared to similar processes. Finally, at least 15-20 more references should be added and briefly discussed in order to present the state of the art and convince that the subject of the paper is novel.

Regarding the second section, apart from Fig.1, the authors should present more details about the wire-sawing process, with at least one additional schematic indicating the stages of this process. The authors should also justify the selection of the range of values of each process parameter and how did they choose the number of levels for each process variable. Was this selection based on literature works or industrial practice? At least a single reference should be added for the definitions of S/N ratio. In the same section,
a subsection presenting the Grey-Taguchi method should be added.

In section 3, the authors should briefly discuss their experimental results regarding each output quantity before discussing the ANOVA results in line 95. The Table 4 is not directly presenting the ANOVA results so the sentence "The ANOVA ... Table 4." should be corrected. How was Table 4 created? Regarding the calculation of GRG in page 5, more details should be presented. In page 6, the authors compare the "optimal parameters" with "initial parameters". To which experimental case do the "initial parameters" refer? The authors should explain this with more details as it is rather obscure and it is not clear whether this analysis (presented in lines 132-147) is meaningful. Changes in this part of the text should be also reflected in the conclusions section. In line 139, "significantly" should be corrected to "significant". In line 103 the word "tensile" should be corrected to "tension". Generally, the authors should explain their
findings by discussing more details on the physics of the wire-sawing process.

In the conclusions section, line 159, "the" should be omitted from the phrase "the significant parameters" and "tensile" should be corrected to "tension".

In conclusion, the study presented in the manuscript contains interesting elements but the main concern with it is that it does not present the required amount of details regarding the necessity and novelty of this study as well as the analysis of the experimental results. If the authors perform all the necessary corrections and improve their manuscript considerably, it can be considered for publication.

Author Response

20201112-Reviewer command

Reviewer 1

1. In the title and abstract section, the authors need to check whether the term "Slicing ceramic" is appropriate or if they should correct it. In line 11, "materials" should be correct to "material". Furthermore, the parameter "mixed grains (G)" should be rephrased to a more appropriate term e.g. mixed grains mesh size. This should be corrected in the entire manuscript. Finally, the "respective improvement" mentioned in the abstract should be better explained.

Response: It is revised according to the reviewer suggest.

1. Regarding the introduction section, it is very short for a full length article. At first, the authors need to add references in order to support the statements made in lines 31-35. Moreover, they should considerably expand the introduction section in order to stress the importance of studying the wire-sawing process e.g. by presenting the wire-sawing process with more details regarding its characteristics, basic process parameters, the applications of this process, its advantages and disadvantages compared to similar processes. Finally, at least 15-20 more references should be added and briefly discussed in order to present the state of the art and convince that the subject of the paper is novel.

Response: It added some relative references according to the reviewer suggest.

1. Regarding the second section, apart from Fig.1, the authors should present more details about the wire-sawing process, with at least one additional schematic indicating the stages of this process. The authors should also justify the selection of the range of values of each process parameter and how did they choose the number of levels for each process variable. Was this selection based on literature works or industrial practice? At least a single reference should be added for the definitions of S/N ratio. In the same section, a subsection presenting the Grey-Taguchi method should be added.

Response: It is revised according to the reviewer suggest.

1. In section 3, the authors should briefly discuss their experimental results regarding each output quantity before discussing the ANOVA results in line 95. The Table 4 is not directly presenting the ANOVA results so the sentence "The ANOVA ... Table 4." should be corrected. How was Table 4 created? Regarding the calculation of GRG in page 5, more details should be presented. In page 6, the authors compare the "optimal parameters" with "initial parameters". To which experimental case do the "initial parameters" refer? The authors should explain this with more details as it is rather obscure and it is not clear whether this analysis (presented in lines 132-147) is meaningful. Changes in this part of the text should be also reflected in the conclusions section. In line 139, "significantly" should be corrected to "significant". In line 103 the word "tensile" should be corrected to "tension". Generally, the authors should explain their findings by discussing more details on the physics of the wire-sawing process.

Response: It is revised according to the reviewer suggest.

1. In the conclusions section, line 159, "the" should be omitted from the phrase "the significant parameters" and "tensile" should be corrected to "tension".

Response: It is revised according to the reviewer suggest.

1. In conclusion, the study presented in the manuscript contains interesting elements but the main concern with it is that it does not present the required amount of details regarding the necessity and novelty of this study as well as the analysis of the experimental results. If the authors perform all the necessary corrections and improve their manuscript considerably, it can be considered for publication.

Response: See command 4 please.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are minor grammatical mistakes which should be corrected.

Figure 1 should be larger in the manuscript since some of the details are not very visible.

Author Response

Due to the resolution problem, Figure 1 is not larger in the manuscript.  Figure 1 has been cited in reference 16. However, the authors thanks the reviewer to suggest for this paper.

[16] Y.Y. Tsai, M.C. Wu, Y.S. Liao, C.C. Tsao, C.Y.Hsu, Slicing ceramics on material removed by a single abrasive particle, Mater. 13 (2020) 4324-4336.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have performed a few modifications to their manuscript but they still have not provided sufficient responses to all of the reviewer's comments. The responses to the comments were too short. Thus it is required that they provide both detailed responses to the comments and perform substantial modifications to the manuscript before it can be considered for publication. The comments which were not answered are the following:

Moreover, they should considerably expand the introduction section in order to stress the importance of studying the wire-sawing process e.g. by presenting the wire-sawing process with more details regarding its characteristics, basic process parameters, the applications of this process, its advantages and disadvantages compared to similar processes. Finally, at least 10 more references should be added and briefly discussed in order to present the state of the art and convince that the subject of the paper is novel.

In section 3, the authors should briefly discuss their experimental results regarding each output quantity before discussing the ANOVA results in line 95. How was Table 4 created? Regarding the calculation of GRG in page 5, more details should be presented. In page 6, the authors compare the "optimal parameters" with "initial parameters". To which experimental case do the "initial parameters" refer? The authors should explain this with more details as it is rather obscure and it is not clear whether this analysis (presented in lines 132-147 of the original manuscript) is meaningful. Changes in this part of the text should be also reflected in the conclusions section. Generally, the authors should explain their findings by discussing more details on the physics of the wire-sawing process.

Author Response

The suggested corrections have been incorporated in the revised manuscript (Alterations incorporated in red). Regarding the comments, I wish to state the following as responses.

1. Moreover, they should considerably expand the introduction section in order to stress the importance of studying the wire-sawing process e.g. by presenting the wire-sawing process with more details regarding its characteristics, basic process parameters, the applications of this process, its advantages and disadvantages compared to similar processes. Finally, at least 10 more references should be added and briefly discussed in order to present the state of the art and convince that the subject of the paper is novel.

Response: It has been revised according to the reviewer suggested.

1. In section 3, the authors should briefly discuss their experimental results regarding each output quantity before discussing the ANOVA results in line 95. How was Table 4 created? Regarding the calculation of GRG in page 5, more details should be presented. In page 6, the authors compare the "optimal parameters" with "initial parameters". To which experimental case do the "initial parameters" refer? The authors should explain this with more details as it is rather obscure and it is not clear whether this analysis (presented in lines 132-147 of the original manuscript) is meaningful. Changes in this part of the text should be also reflected in the conclusions section. Generally, the authors should explain their findings by discussing more details on the physics of the wire-sawing process.

Response: It has been revised according to the reviewer suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf