A Magnetic Abrasive Finishing Process with an Auxiliary Magnetic Machining Tool for the Internal Surface Finishing of a Thick-Walled Tube
and Xu Sun 1,3,4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting idea has been proposed in this paper for the finishing of the cylindrical internal surface, especially with the thick wall. I believe it should be useful for practical applications, even though it is only limited for cylindrical internal surface induced by the rotational operating mode.
I recommend to publish to manuscript. However, I still have some concerns, pls see the following:
1. How is the connection between the yoke and the magnet? No connection?
Or they are just sucked together directly? Because they are rotated under high speed, it is needed to fix the magnet.
2. In Fig. 2a, there are two colors of the external pole. Which color signifies the permanent magnet?
Please confirm. The other one should be the same material with the yoke, right? But their color are not consistent with FIg. 2b. So I'm confused. Please claim.
3. The magnetic strength level of the permanent magnet should be provided.
4. The literature review can be improved. You should briefly described other polishing methods for internal polishing. You can refer to this paper for more information. Wang C, Loh YM, Cheung CF, Wang S, Ho LT, Li Z. Shape-adaptive magnetic field-assisted batch polishing of three-dimensional surfaces. Precision Engineering. 2022 Jul 1;76:261-83.)
5. One comment for future improvement. You many consider to bond the iron powder with the polishing abrasive for higher material removal rate.
6. The fontsize in some figures are too small. Pls improve.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: How is the connection between the yoke and the magnet? No connection? Or they are just sucked together directly? Because they are rotated under high speed, it is needed to fix the magnet.
Response 1: For the external poles, the connection between the yoke and the magnet is realized by a jig with the mechanical force. For the internal poles, the connection between the yoke and the magnet is realized by the colloid since they are wrapped with the polymer.
Point 2: In Fig. 2a, there are two colors of the external pole. Which color signifies the permanent magnet? Please confirm. The other one should be the same material with the yoke, right? But their color are not consistent with FIg. 2b. So I'm confused. Please claim.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. Only the black color represents external poles. The grey color represents a block, it plays a role for restricting position in order to adjust the working gap between the magnetic pole and workpiece. We have more accurately adjusted the indicate position of arrows in Fig. 2a.
Point 3: The magnetic strength level of the permanent magnet should be provided.
Response 3: According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the magnetic strength level of the permanent magnet has be provided in ” 2.2 Experimental setup and Auxiliary magnetic machining tool” and Table 1.
Point 4: The literature review can be improved. You should briefly described other polishing methods for internal polishing. You can refer to this paper for more information. Wang C, Loh YM, Cheung CF, Wang S, Ho LT, Li Z. Shape-adaptive magnetic field-assisted batch polishing of three-dimensional surfaces. Precision Engineering. 2022 Jul 1;76:261-83.)
Response 4: Thanks for the provided reference, we learned a lot from the paper and we also described other polishing methods for internal polishing.
Point 5: One comment for future improvement. You many consider to bond the iron powder with the polishing abrasive for higher material removal rate.
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. Since the material removal rate is an important parameter affecting the machining efficiency, so we have carried out related research that investigating the size combination of the iron powder with the polishing abrasive for obtaining higher material removal rate.
Point 6: The fontsize in some figures are too small. Pls improve.
Response 6: Thanks for your comment. The fontsize has been enlarged in some figures, such as Fig. 4(a), Fig. 5(a), Fig. 6(a), Fig. 7(a), Fig. 8(a) & Fig. 9(a).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "Magnetic abrasive finishing with an auxiliary magnetic machining tool for internal surface finishing of thick-walled tube" presents a comparison of the roundness, roughness and removal rate of MAF with additional magnetic machining tool.
The results presented are interesting and address an important topic in the field of magnetic abrasive finishing. The paper is coherent and has a clear layout. The abstract sufficiently captures the description of the research work.
The introduction provides a correct introduction to the topic. The subject matter, scope, and choice of scientific publications cited are adequate to the topic discussed.
However, there are gaps in the description of the research methodology that should be corrected.
1. Paragraph clearly defining the purpose of the work is missing.
2. Information on the machining gap between the magnets and between the inner magnet and the workpiece is missing.
3. How were the abrasive and magnetic particles prepared (mixed??) and delivered to the machining gap?
4. Fig. 4 - I suggest changing the scale because the blue points are not visible.
5. I recommend using an identical scale on all roughness profiles to make them easier to compare.
6. Fig. 10a - after machining, but after what time of machining?
7. Fig 10b - two different directions of the arrows.
8. What is the source of formula 1?
9. Fig 11 - where do the results for traditional MAF come from?
10. Fig. 12 and 13 - I suggest you sign them: traditional MAF and MAF with additional magnetic tool.
11. What did the finite element mesh look like? Was it compacted? What kind of element was used? What was the quality, aspect ratio, skewnees, orthogonal quality of mesh?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Paragraph clearly defining the purpose of the work is missing.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment, the purpose of the work has been added in “Introduction”.
Point 2:Information on the machining gap between the magnets and between the inner magnet and the workpiece is missing.
Response 2:Related parameters of working gap have been added in “Experimental conditions”. The working gap between the internal magnets and external magnets is 9 mm; Between the internal magnets and internal surface of workpiece is 1 mm; Between the external magnets and external surface of workpiece is 3 mm.
Point 3:How were the abrasive and magnetic particles prepared (mixed??) and delivered to the machining gap?
Response 3:The quantitative electrolytic iron powder mixed withquantitative WA particles by the oily grinding fluid to formed the mixed magnetic abrasive. Themixed magnetic abrasive firstly was adsorbed on the the surface of the internal auxiliary magnetic machining tool as shown in Fig.3 (b), the internal magnetic pole was stuffed into the tube workpiece.
Point 4:Fig. 4 - I suggest changing the scale because the blue points are not visible.
Response 4:Thanks for your suggestion. Since the blue points and the red points are similar, the blue points are covered by the red points. We changed the icons of red color, so the blue points are slightly visible.
Point 5:Irecommend using an identical scale on all roughness profiles to make them easier to compare.
Response 5:Thanks for your comment, we have revised all roughness profiles with the identical scale in Fig. 5(a), 7(a) & 9(a).
Point 6:Fig. 10a - after machining, but after what time of machining?
Response 6:Thanks for your comment, the machining time has been added in Fig.10a.
Point 7:Fig 10b - two different directions of the arrows.
Response 7:According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the direction of the arrow has been revised in the right Fig.10 (b).
Point 8:What is the source of formula 1?
Response 8:Equation 1 is a mathematical model based on the effect of different particle sizes of abrasives on surface roughness. That was derived by members of the team who are engaged in grinding mechanismsresearch.
Point 9:Fig 11 - where do the results for traditional MAF come from?
Response 9:In previous research, we have done some research and experiments related to traditional MAF. The results for traditional MAF was obtained from the previous research and experiments.
Point 10:Fig. 12 and 13 - I suggest you sign them: traditional MAF and MAF with additional magnetic tool.
Response 10:According to the reviewer’s suggestion,“traditional MAF and MAF with additional magnetic tool” has been added in Fig. 12 and 13.
Point 11:What did the finite element mesh look like? Was it compacted? What kind of element was used? What was the quality, aspect ratio, skewnees, orthogonal quality of mesh?
Response 11:(1) Thefinite element meshis tetrahedron with the size in 0.5mm. (2) Since the simulation object is the magnetic flow field, it was not compacted. (3) The quality (0.99992 max, 0.21962 min), aspect ratio (10.326 max, 1.01 min), skewnees (0.97289 max, 0.0001856 min), orthogonal quality of mesh (0.99999 max, 0.027107 min).
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for interesting manuscript on the topic of magnetic abrasive finishing. New auxiliary magnetic machining tool for the internal surface finishing of thick-walled tube were developed and the influence of process parameters was investigated. However, the following amendments are recommended to enhance the value of the manuscript and provide for clarity:
(1) Please add the scale to Figures: 2a, 2b, 3, 10b.
(2) Table 1: please add the equivalent cutting speed for the sum of rotation speed of workpiece and rotation speed of external poles.
(3) Table 2 and 3: please remove duplicate information in comparison to Table 1.
(4) Figures 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b: please set different icons like circle, cuboid for different curves. Please modify the scale for X-axis to 15, 30, 45…120.
(5) Line 208-209: please modify the font size.
(6) Line 222-225: please provide a more detailed explanation of the results shown in Figure 6.
(7) Line 291-300: please add how was the initial surface created (turning or other technology, process parameters).
(8) Figure 10b: please modify the direction of the arrow for “Finished region”.
(9) Line 329-373: please modify the formatting.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Please add the scale to Figures: 2a, 2b, 3, 10b.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment, the scale have been added in Fig. 2a, 2b, 3 &10b.
Point 2:Table 1: please add the equivalent cutting speed for the sum of rotation speed of workpieceand rotation speed of external poles.
Response 2:Thanks for your comment, the equivalent cutting speed have been added in “Experimental conditions”.
Point 3:Table 2 and 3: please remove duplicate information in comparison to Table 1.
Response 3:Thanks for your comment, the duplicate informations have been romoved in Table 2 & 3.
Point 4:Figures 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b: please set different icons like circle, cuboid for different curves. Please modify the scale for X-axis to 15, 30, 45…120.
Response 4:According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the icons and the scale for X-axis have been revised in Figures 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b.
Point 5:Line 208-209: please modify the font size.
Response 5:Thanks for your suggestion, the font size in line 208-209 has been revised.
Point 6:Line 222-225: please provide a more detailed explanation of the results shown in Figure 6.
Response 6:According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a more detailed explanation of the results.
Point 7:Line 291-300: please add how was the initial surface created (turning or other technology, process parameters).
Response 7:Thanks for your comment, the initial surface iscreated by the pickling process, that has been added in “Experimental conditions”.
Point 8:Figure 10b: please modify the direction of the arrow for “Finished region”.
Response 8:According to the reviewer’s suggestion, the direction of the arrow has been revised in Figure 10b.
Point 9:Line 329-373: please modify the formatting.
Response 9:According to the reviewer’s suggestion,the formatting in Line 329-373 has been adjusted in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved after revision. I have no more comments.
Just one more comment which needs the authors to check.
In line 68, the citation number is wrong. Pls check.
