Determination of the Influence of the Tool Side Stress Superposition and Tool Geometry on the Cut Surface Quality during Precision Shear Cutting
, Verena Kräusel 2, Dieter Weise 2, Jana Petrů 3, Jiří Koziorek 4 and Pravishan Bhandari 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Figures 7 and 11 have either too small characters on axes (Fig. 7), or the text given in the figure (Fig. 11). These characters need to be enlarged.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
Point 1: Figures 7 and 11 have either too small characters on axes (Fig. 7), or the text given in the figure (Fig. 11). These characters need to be enlarged.
Response 1: We have enlarged the font sizes in Figures 8 and 12.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The paper presents some interesting research work on determination of the influence of the tool side stress superposition and tool geometry on the cut surface quality during precision shear cutting. The work is further supported by some analysis and experimental results. However, the paper manuscript needs to undertake the following revisions:
(1) In section 1, the paper should provide cutting tool details including the tooling geometries and the underlying tooling design rational for the shear cutting performance expected. Furthermore, it should also provide the constitutive model of the material to be form (shear) cut.
(2) In section 3, the paper should provide the further clarification and discussion on the influence of the cutting dynamics involved particularly on burrs formation and clean cut, and the tool (cutter) wear and tool life, which are essentially important for shear cut quality of the parts/components.
(3) The following very relevant book in the topic area should better be included in References section, in particular against the comments (2) and (1):
- K. Cheng (Editor), Machining Dynamics: Theory, Applications and Practices, Springer, London, November 2008.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
Point 1: In section 1, the paper should provide cutting tool details including the tooling geometries and the underlying tooling design rational for the shear cutting performance expected. Furthermore, it should also provide the constitutive model of the material to be form (shear) cut.
Response 1 The tool design can be seen in figure 2 and in addition the variation of the geometry at the shear punches is shown in figure 3. Furthermore, the mechanical parameters of the S500mc are listed in Table 1.
Point 2: In section 3, the paper should provide the further clarification and discussion on the influence of the cutting dynamics involved particularly on burrs formation and clean cut, and the tool (cutter) wear and tool life, which are essentially important for shear cut quality of the parts/components.
Response 2: The influence of the shear cutting speed on the quality of the cut surface was shown in the Introduction in lines 93 to 99. However, it is of secondary importance for the present investigation. The parameter cutting speed was chosen as constant (line 154) in order to determine the concept and the effect of the pre-tensioning, as well as the influence of the punch geometry on the quality. Nevertheless, the hint is gratefully accepted and the investigations on speed and wear are put into perspective (lines 305-306).
Point 3: The following very relevant book in the topic area should better be included in References section, in particular against the comments (2) and (1): - K. Cheng (Editor), Machining Dynamics: Theory, Applications and Practices, Springer, London, November 2008.
Response 3: The proposed book is certainly an important foundation in the field of cutting machines, but cannot add anything to the present paper. The dynamics of shearing presses depend on the design of the press and the tool and, as mentioned above, the cutting speed is not a varying parameter and the tests were not carried out in a continuous stroke. Therefore, the dynamics in the tool and in the press can be assumed to be insignificant.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
In the reviewer opinion, the paper can be recommended for publication in JMMP journal after addressing the following comments:
- Abstract: Authors should highlight the novelty of the current research.
- At the end of the introductory section, it is preferable to describe what is being done in this research.
- References 2022-2023 should be added and analyzed in the introductory section to check whether the subject has already been studied.
- Permission from the authors is required for use of figure 1
- In Figure 2, the part in red is a way valve?
- Line 150 please change the unit notation with mm2/s as well as line 152 mm/s
- Table 2: why is the number of trials set at 16?
- All the results presented are statistical plots, there are no experimental results such as surface roughness measurements or microscopic surface quality measurements. The authors should add experimental results showing the effect of each parameter on surface quality.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
Point 1: Abstract: Authors should highlight the novelty of the current research.
Response 1: We have revised the abstract and highlighted the novelty of the article in lines 4 to 7.
Point 2: At the end of the introductory section, it is preferable to describe what is being done in this research.
Response 2: At the end of the introduction, the difference to the state of the art has been clarified in lines 118 to 122. The further procedure and the objects of investigation are listed in detail in the following chapters.
Point 3: References 2022-2023 should be added and analyzed in the introductory section to check whether the subject has already been studied.
Response 3: Before submitting the paper, the current state of the art was reviewed and e.g. sources [25] and [26] were added; the authors are not aware of any other sources on the topic area.
Point 4: Permission from the authors is required for use of figure 1
Response 4: The figure is by the authors, only the cut surface characteristics are defined in the VDI standard. The figure caption has been adapted.
Point 5: In Figure 2, the part in red is a way valve?
Response 5: No, it is a hydraulic distributor block for the four cylinders. The labelling has been added to the figure.
Point 6: Line 150 please change the unit notation with mm2/s as well as line 152 mm/s
Response 6: The representation of the units has been adjusted.
Point 7: Table 2: why is the number of trials set at 16?
Response 7: In lines 148 to 149 the derivation for the experimental design is described (25-1=16 experiments)
Point 8: All the results presented are statistical plots, there are no experimental results such as surface roughness measurements or microscopic surface quality measurements. The authors should add experimental results showing the effect of each parameter on surface quality.
Response 8: Behind the statistical plots are the corresponding experimental values, which include the microscopic measurement of the surface/cut surface characteristics (Fig. 4). The roughness parameters, such as Rz, play a minor role in shear cutting as the primary objective is to maximise the clean cut zone. This has a very low roughness due to the plastic flow of the material.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The author needs to have recent citations with more discussion and provide more novelty and differentiation with current technology.
2. what is the tolerance level?
3. There are no error bars in the graph!
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
- we have added additional sources and content for the discussion in chapter 1 (lines 45-50, 55-96, 109-116). Furthermore, we have also added an illustration to clarify the measurement (Figure 1).
- the tolerance level is given for the technology between IT 7 and 11 (in the text line 48), but the tolerance level was not determined for the article.
- For the statistical evaluation, only one repetition of the measurement was carried out (lines 142-143). This meant that no standard deviation could be created.
Yours sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attached document, which is the review for the Authors.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
“what the article adds to the subject?”
The article adds how the quantifiable amount of stress superimposition affects the cut surface quality and tool forces in addition to the other 4 parameters. We have better elaborated this point of view and realisation. Especially in the state of the art, there is hardly any research on this solution approach (lines 45-50, 55-96, 109-116).
“Although all research builds on prior results, noticeable similarity with previously published findings may reduce that originality which forms a crucial consideration in the review”
The relationships described are of course based on the fundamentals of shear cutting and these were also included in the discussion. In order to better elaborate the degree of novelty, we have added further findings to the article and also discussed them in detail to show the connections to the stress superposition (e.g. Figures 8 and 9).
“The revised version resubmitted should consider the following paper Paolo Foraboschi. Lateral load-carrying capacity of steel columns with fixed-roller end supports. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019; 26(November); Article 100879.”
This mentioned article is certainly a valuable contribution to the development of steel beam supports. But unfortunately, we cannot make a connection to shear cutting.
“The abstract of the submitted manuscript seems to be the introduction.”
We have revised the abstract and in particular, made the results clearer.
“The conclusions of the submitted manuscript seems to be an abstract or a summary.”
The chapter "Conclusions and outlook" was revised and e.g. the results were presented more clearly.
Yours sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There are two remarks I want to point out in the draft:
1. Shortening the title of the manuscript may be considered. It is unusually long now.
2. The abbreviation HSS is used in the manuscript, denoting here high strength steels. However, in the literature, this abbreviation most often refers to high-speed steels. This may be confusing to some readers.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
thank you for the valuable advice. Please find attached the revised version of our article. We would also like to comment on your comments:
- we have shortened the title to "Determination of the influence of the tool side stress superposition and tool geometry on the cut surface quality during precision shear cutting".
- we have removed the abbreviation from the text and written it out in the appropriate places.
Yours sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The new resubmission is almost equal to the original submission.
None of the suggestions and criticisms of the this reviewer has been considered and included into the version resubmitted.
In this form the article does not deserve publication by any scientific journal as it does not provide any advance in knowledge. Moreover, the presentation is so confusing and missess so many pieces of information that the article requires spending to much time to understand the content.
