A Comparative Performance Investigation of Single- and Double-Nozzle Pulse Mode Minimum Quantity Lubrication Systems in Turning Super-Duplex Steel Using a Weighted Pugh Matrix Sustainable Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented an article about “Comparative Performance Investigation of Single and Double Nozzle Pulse Mode MQL System in turning Super Duplex Steel using Weighted Pugh Matrix Sustainable Approach.”

The authors conducted a study on a current issue. A successful introduction and material method section is presented. However, the presentation of the results was not discussed with sufficient current literature knowledge. In general, the information presented in the graphs is presented. Additionally, it was determined that some graphic information was not adequately explained. This situation prevents the reader from presenting entirely scientific results regarding the results. I think the paper is well organized and appropriate for the “Sustainability” journal, but the paper will be ready for publication after major revision.

ü  Excellent information is given in the introduction section, but no information is given about Taguchi analysis. Please provide information in the article. Additionally, the transition has not been fully achieved with the issue of sustainability. Please ensure a smoother transition.

ü  Introduction part is well-written, and the information about the past studies and this study is given enough. But, in the last paragraph of the introduction, the novelty of the study and the differences from the past in detail should be expressed.

ü  Line 103 " .... sustainability" double s ?.

ü  Please give the chemical composition of the material in a table.

ü  Please give the cutting tool specifications in a table.

ü  Please provide MQL oil specifications in a table.

ü  What is the MQL nozzle diameter and MQL oil flow rate? Please specify in the material method section.

ü  How did the authors choose the cutting speed? Please specify in the material method section.

ü  Please show the units of the graphic titles in the three-dimensional graphics given in the result figures. (f, ap, Ra, Vb, Tf, Pc, MRR)

ü  Please discuss that ap was insignificant in the ANOVA analysis for Vb.

ü  It should be discussed why feed rate (f) is unimportant for the double nozzle in anova analysis (for Tf).

ü  It is not clearly explained why the single nozzle system consumes more power. Please explain this issue in the results section.

ü  Please discuss that Pt was insignificant in the ANOVA analysis for power consumption.

ü  In general, there is a lot of information in the results section that should be included in the introduction section. It may be better for authors to give this information more in the introduction section.

ü  It has been observed that scientific articles do not support the results for Ra, Vb, Tf, and Pc. (Although some has been done for MRR!) It is essential to discuss the results with literature support. Please provide literature support for your results.

ü  "To assess sustainability in manufacturing processes, Pugh Matrix decision making sustainability assessment technique is being preferred my many researchers." There is a need for citations for researchers who make this choice for their department. Please support with appropriate citations.

ü  The paper is well-organized, yet there is a reference problem. First, your reference list contains no paper from the “Sustainability” journal. If your work is convenient for this journal’s context, then there are many references from this journal. Secondly, cited sources should be primary ones. Namely, the indexed area shows the power of a paper and directly your paper’s reliability. Please make regulations in this direction.

ü  Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper.

*** Authors must consider them properly before submitting the revised manuscript. A point-by-point reply is required when the revised files are submitted.

ü  Please fix the typographical and eventual language problems in the paper. (Moderate)

Author Response

Respected sir, please find the comments reply in the attached doc file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not satisfied and convinced with the authors initial explanations and found a major revision requirement. I would like to go through the responses and revision prepared by the authors to make a final decision.

Pls address the following comments by responding to me queries and making changes/revisions:

1. P 4- Last paragraph 'Pulse time' ...what is this pulse time?

2. P 4 Last paragraph cutting speed fixed at 100 m/min .....On what basis you have fixed cutting speed 100 m/min?

Also what is the basis to fix the ranges and levels for all input variable parameters?

3. What is the reason behind selecting Taguchi DoE?

4. Flank Wear Vb- is it an average flank wear or maximum?

5. Pls provide the EDX report of your work material.

6. P 7 Section 3.1 first line 'Surface roughness (Ra) is one of the important scientific indexes to estimate the surface quality of the finished product'........................Ra plays a vital role during any machining operation and it is very closely related to tool wear.............how come? What is the basis? 

Ra is the most confusing roughness parameter that never gives any clear indication abt the surface roughness.................Rz mean roughness depth is much better and provides a clear picture.  

I would like to hear your defence on this?

How Ra is closely related to tool wear? Have you established that relation in your own work?

7. P 9 Section 3.2 Line 1 Tool-flank wear is the gradual worsening of flank face of cutting insert during machining operation.

Pls support such statements with the help of Reference citations

8. Tool wear analysis- P 10 the statements like 'Moreover, built-up edge on tool-tip was also noticed in some runs under both 302 cooling scenario as displayed in Figure 3'

Your Figure 3 is very poorly presented...I cannot differentiate between abrasion built up edge etc.

The illustrations by optical microscopic images are not proper and confusing.

I strongly recommend to do SEM. That will help me and may be other reviewers then further the readers to understand your explanations and the merit of this work.

9. Pls be advised that in MQL it is always be a 'lubricant' not the 'coolant'.

10. Research motivation based on specific research gaps is not clear. Overall Aim and Objectives are also missing. Also, Properly justify the contribution of your work.

11. I can see that you have used coated tool inserts. No effect of tool coating on tool wear etc. is discussed by you...that is beyond understanding. Tool coating plays a crucial role so what happened exactly in your machining research with regards to tool coating....I would like to hear.

12. Every experiment was done for what length or machining time? If I have missed that to read in the manuscript then pls highlight where is that mentioned.

I am not satisfied and convinced with the authors initial explanations and found a major revision requirement. I would like to go through the responses and revision prepared by the authors to make a final decision.

Author Response

Respected Sir, please find the response to the comments in the attached doc file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your response

Minor editing of English language required