Tool Concept for a Solid Carbide End Mill for Roughing and Finishing of the Tool Steel Toolox 44
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented an article about “Tool concept for a solid carbid end mill for roughing and finishing of the tool steel Toolox 44”. The paper presents an important and innovative study to evaluate the performance of solid carbide milling tools in machining Toolox 44 tool steel. Its focus on critical parameters such as cutting forces, chip formation and tool wear provide valuable information for industrial applications. However, a significant shortcoming is that the literature review is incomplete, and the results are not adequately compared with other studies in the literature. Additionally, experimental methods need to be explained in more detail, and results should be discussed in a broader context. Overall, although the study is well-structured and methodologically sound, more in-depth consideration and expansion of some sections would enhance the academic contribution of the article.
I think the paper is not well organized and appropriate for the “JMMP”, but the paper will be ready for publication after major revision. After reviewing the article " Tool concept for a solid carbid end mill for roughing and finishing of the tool steel Toolox 44" here are my recommendations for improvements:
· Missing from the introduction is a literature review that more clearly indicates the place of the study in the literature and its connection with other studies. A literature review should be included, and innovative aspects of the current study should be highlighted.
· The purpose of the study needs to be stated more clearly. The specific objectives of the study and research questions should be clearly stated.
· The properties and selection criteria of the materials used can be explained in more detail. It would be helpful to provide more information about cutting parameters. Cutting parameters and the reasons for choosing these parameters should be specified in more detail.
· It is not explained why the reference workpiece was chosen in this shape and size. The reason for selecting Toolox 44 and its advantages and disadvantages should be explained more clearly.
· Preliminary studies with different tool geometries or literature findings are not included. Studies on different tool geometries in the literature and the findings obtained from these studies should be included.
· More details about the testing method need to be given.
· Comparison of results with other studies in the literature is lacking. The results obtained should be compared with other studies in the literature. The impact of the results on practical applications and how these results can be integrated into industrial applications should be discussed.
· The effect of different cutting parameters on cutting forces has not been analyzed in more detail. The impact of different cutting parameters on cutting forces should be examined in more detail.
· More visuals and detailed explanations about chip formation should be added.
· The findings of the study should be discussed in a broader context, and implications for industrial applications should be drawn. Suggestions for future studies and potential research areas should be stated.
· The article also has a significant and confusing problem: The authors did not develop the concept of an innovative solid carbide milling cutter themselves. The cutting tool is supplied ready-made. And there is no information about the company and cutting tool from which it was provided. There is no reference made to this. In the article, the authors described this cutting tool as if they had developed it themselves. This can be a huge ethical problem.
*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction and the research issue are described in detail. The design of the new tool is then described. However, this and the manufacturing process could be more detailed. The final experimental investigations are also well elaborated. The evaluation could be a little more profound. A comparison with conventional tools would be desirable. Therefore, I recommend that a major revision is warranted. Following concerns have to be clarified or modified.
Major comments
- The tools used in the experimental investigations are specified in section 3.2. It would be desirable to show pictures of the tools and the different cutting edges. A sketch illustrating the different helix angles would also be conceivable. It would also be good to briefly discuss the manufacturing process
- Chapter four states that two tools were used for each of the different helix angles. Are the mean values of the individual measured variables shown in the following diagrams? If so, the error bars would be missing. Or was only one tool used for the evaluation? The question is then whether the results are meaningful.
- Figure 7 shows the width of flank wear land of the different cutting edges. With λ = 30
(roughing edge), the width of flank wear land is greater after nine and ten minutes than after eleven and 12 minutes. This is not possible.
- The aim was to reduce the thermal and mechanical loads compared to conventional tool. Was it possible to achieve this goal? Would it not be necessary to compare the process forces with those of conventional milling cutters?
- The same applies to the surface quality of the workpiece. Can similar surface qualities be achieved here as with the conventional finishing process?
Minor comments
- Fig. 1: Is it correct that polygons are shown on the peripheral cutting edge of the third cutter?
- Recommendation: Check the paper for manufacturing terms (based on the CIRP Dictionary). E.G “depth of cut” instead “infeed” or “with of flank wear land” instead “wear mark width”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English languaga required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for response
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor revision
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been considered. The quality of the article has improved.
Author Response
Based on the review report, no changes.
