Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback or proposed changes. In the enclosed document, we have furnished a comprehensive response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is well structured and well written, which is easy to follow. The ideas in the manuscript are very interesting. The methodology is thoroughly explained and the work overall seems to be skillfully performed. I believe this work provides valuable information for those with interests in the wood machining. It is recommended to take notice the following:

 

1.The lack of depth in summarizing the research on chips by domestic and international scholars does not justify the need for the research conducted in this paper. It seems out of place with the rigorous reasoning proofs that follow.

2.What is the cutting-edge material of the cutting tool, and how many teeth does it have?

3. How many frames are captured by the camera used to take chip images?

4. How the cutting parameters 8500r/min, 1100mm/min and 10mm in Table 2 were determined as a benchmark？

5. The color of the line in Figure 5 makes the angle less recognizable. Could it be presented in a more obvious way?

6. In section 3.1, why is the effect of depth of cut on the orthogonal diffusion angle negligible, and which parameter has the greatest degree of influence in the fitted mathematical model？

7. What is the average error in the validation of the model in section 3.5？

This manuscript is well structured and well written in English.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback or suggested changes. We have provided a comprehensive response in the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dears Authors

The authors studied chip size and kinematics while cutting pine wood. They developed a chip diffusion boundary surface model and identified vital parameters through CCD tests. The experiment results indicated that chip diffusion could be classified into three distinct areas based on the motion state: main diffusion, random diffusion, and vortex. The main diffusion zone's orthogonal diffusion angle was found to be most influenced by spindle speed and feed rate, while the top view diffusion angle was significantly impacted by cutting depth. Additionally, the chip scattering on the table exhibited an exponential increase in average chip size with sampling distance. The authors’ boundary surface model accurately characterizes chip motion, offering the potential to predict chip morphology and diffusion state.

After reading the work, I can formulate comments:

1.       The title is too long and doesn't quite match the content. Please consider "Research of the Movement of Chips during Pine Wood Milling" or "Analysis of Chip Movement during Pine Wood Milling" as more concise.

2.       In the Abstract, the authors wrote, “Circumferential milling is a critical component of wood processing". It is not true (true is “circumferential milling is used in wood processing”). Many other steps involved in wood processing, such as debarking, sawing, drying, hydro-thermal-chemical processing, melting, drilling, bending, sanding, coating, and assembly, are also critical and necessary for producing high-quality wood products. Therefore, while circumferential milling can be a component of wood processing, it is not always critical, and its importance can vary depending on the specific context.

3.       In the Abstract, the authors wrote, “This paper undertakes a theoretical analysis of chip size and kinematics using pine wood (…)” I think this is not only a “theoretical analysis”, but also experimental. Please change this sentence.

4.       Lines 24 and other. Did the authors really study chip morphology? Please define in the Introduction what is "chip morphology" and how the authors understand it.

5.       Line 30. The authors wrote: “Wood is a popular material used in the furniture and construction industries, owing to its unique aesthetic appeal [1]” whereas the publication [1] does not describe the popularity of wood in the industry. Please remove this reference or change it to more appropriate.

6.       Line 31-33. The authors wrote: “However, the process of milling wood poses challenges, such as incomplete collection of chips, leading to chip spillage and the creation of dusty working environments that put workers' health at risk [2]. The phrase “the process of” is redundant, and the reference [2] is not about wood milling.

7.       Lines 45-46. The authors wrote: “The analysis of chip size and motion generated during wood milling is a key concern 45 for wood processing researchers [8-10]”. I have two questions: Is it really a “key” concern, and do the literature sources 9 and 10 justify this statement? (“9. Koch, P. Utilization of hardwoods growing on southern pine sites. SouthernForest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, 460 1985. 461” and “10. Guhados, G; Wan, W; Hutter, J. L. Measurement of the elastic modulus of singlecellulose microfibrils by atomic force microscopy. Langmuir. 2005, 21(14), 6642-6646”). I suppose two times “no”.

8.       Lines 59-63. The aim of the research is not very well formulated in terms of grammar. The authors wrote: “Drawing upon the aforementioned findings, the wood milling machine is taken as the foundation to investigate the formation of wood chips resulting from stable cutting during circumferential milling of wood. In order to achieve this, both theoretical and experimental analyses are conducted. Additionally, a boundary surface model is established for the purpose of solving and studying the diffusion of wood chips”. Please consider: “Drawing upon the literature findings, it was decided to study the movement of the wood chips during circumferential milling of wood. To achieve this, both experimental and theoretical analyses were conducted. Additionally, a boundary surface model was established to describe the diffusion of wood chips.”.

9.       Line 68. "100-purpose sandpaper" is not a standard term used in the abrasives industry. Is the term refer to sandpaper with a grit size of 100?.

10.   Table 1. Please change “Mpa” into “MPa”.

11.   Figure 1. Why the authors specify the “sawdust” on the figure? The authors studied “wood chips”. Wood chips are larger pieces of wood created in woodworking. Wood chips are coarser and chunkier than sawdust. Only an airborne fraction of wood chips became sawdust.

12.   Figure 1. What is “Stat,” in figure caption?

13.   Equation 2. Why “×” istead of “·”. . It is a cross product?

14.   Line 116-117. Please subscript “c” and “t” letters.

15.   Line 248 and further Please write "p" in lower case (in p-value, as in table 4).

16.   Line 424. Please subscript “c” and italicize “a” letters.

Overall, the reviewed work provides a comprehensive overview of the author's findings which can be considered interesting for other researchers. I believe that the subject matter is suitable for publication in Forest. The paper addresses wood material processing topics and provides a clear and compelling introduction and discussion of the relevance. I believe that after correcting some flaws mentioned above the paper provides an original and more significant than a minor contribution to the literature.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback or suggested changes. We have provided a comprehensive response in the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for including my comments. Please consider some additional minor improvements:

1.       The article title. The autors used “research”; both "Research of the Movement of Chips during Pine Wood Milling" and "Study of the Movement of Chips during Pine Wood Milling" are acceptable titles for a research project on this topic. However, there is a subtle difference between the two. "Research" implies a more comprehensive and rigorous investigation of a topic, whereas "study" may be interpreted as a more focused examination. If you intend to convey a more comprehensive and in-depth investigation, "Research of the Movement of Chips during Pine Wood Milling" would be better. On the other hand, if you want to emphasize a more specific aspect of the investigation, "Study of the Movement of Chips during Pine Wood Milling" would be more appropriate. I recommend “study”. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on the scope and goals of your research project.

2.       Line 92, „Fuxin Hardware 1/4*1-1/2 cutter”, please specify: the cutter name, the proper name of the producer, city, and country (maybe “adjustable milling cutter (model ¼ – 1½, Zhejiang Fuxin Hardware Corp., Haiyan, China)” or “adjustable cutter head (model ¼ – 1½, Zhejiang Fuxin Hardware Corp., Haiyan, China)”).

3.       Line 93. Please change “possesses” to “has”. Both "possesses" and "has" can be used interchangeably. "Has" is a more common and more straightforward way to express the possession of something, while "possesses" is a more formal and too sophisticated term.

4.       Line 97. Please specify the woodworking machine used. Maybe “3-axis wood processing center (MGK 06, Nanxing Machinery, Dongguan City,, China)”.

5.       Line 102. In the “investigate the spreading state of wood chips”, the word “state” seems redundant.

6.       Line 111. The reference [17] is redundand.

7.       Line 176. The authors wrote “These observations were in line with previous studies conducted by Bartosz Palubicki [19,20]” and mistakenly reference to Calzada’s and Weihua Wei’s articles ([19 and [20]), please correct literature references – additionally should be written "Pałubicki".

8.       Line 450 in “However, on the one hand,…” the “However” is redundand.

9.       Line 463. In “The study explored the morphology and diffusion state of wood chips…” the “morphology” is redundand.

 

Sincerely

 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback or suggested changes. We have provided a comprehensive response in the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf