Research on Vibration-Damping and Deflection Correction of BTA Deep Hole Drilling Tool Systems Based on Dynamic Pressure Lubrication and Squeeze Film Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer report

Manuscript Title;  “Vibration-Suppression and Deflection-Correction Study of BTA Deep Hole Drilling Tool Systems Based on Dynamic Pressure Lubrication and Squeeze Film Theory”

The manuscript presents study on a helical (spiral) vibration-suppression and deviation-correction device for BTA 2 deep-hole drilling that exploits hydrodynamic (dynamic) oil-film pressure and squeeze-film damping between a wedge-shaped protrusion on the device and the bore wall. Manuscript develops analytical lubrication theory and calculates the resultant forces, pressure distribution and). defines experiments derivation of film thickness, slip ring, eddy-current sensors, data acquisition, and pressure sensors. and validates performance. It is concluded that the device enables significant deviation and roughness reduction and can raise feed rates and yield. The paper contains a promising device concept with realistic experimental validation that will interest readers in machining process and tribology.

 

Comment 1; Carefully define and provide details  of all the key measurement specifications, such as data processing, statistical analysis sensor calibration, and sampling rates, (standard deviations, confidence intervals, p-values) are missing. These issues lacks confidence in the measured improvements.

Comment 2; There are inconsistent are seen in the values of surface roughness such as abstract and conclusions state an average surface roughness value that contradicts with values provided in the Section 3.3. Reconcile these values show numeric table of baseline vs device, sample-by-sample measurements, measurement instrument settings.

Comment ;3 Specify direct baseline test data if possible (same machine, tool, material, process parameters) or reference-controlled tests without the device under identical conditions. If baseline data are literature values, clearly cite and explain differences in test setup.

Comment ;4 Validate modelling assumptions / add numerical verification, At minimum, clearly state the validity limits of the assumptions and the expected error in the analytic solution.

Comment ;5  Design-of-experiments and optimization perspective need to be considered. The device design depends on multiple parameters (ℎa, ℎb, helix β, L/D). Consider a limited DOE (e.g., 2–3 factors at 3 levels) or present a parametric sensitivity table showing how predicted pressure and damping vary with each parameter. This will make the design guidance more actionable and justify recommended values (e.g., β = 10–15°, k ≈ 2.18).

Comment; 6  Increase clarity and resolve English/formatting issues thoroughly in the manuscript body, it would benefit from a detailed English language edit

 

 

Comment ;7 use consistent term capitalization for the device name (e.g., “vibration-suppression and deviation-correction device” with lower case except at section starts).

Comment;8  many figures in the PDF (Figs. 10–13) appear without numeric tick labels in the current review copy. Ensure high-resolution plots with clear axis ticks, units, and legends for final version. Provide scale bars for photos.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Increase clarity and resolve English/formatting issues thoroughly in the manuscript body, it would benefit from a detailed English language edit 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an innovative vibration-suppression and deviation-correction device for BTA deep-hole drilling systems using the principles of dynamic pressure lubrication and squeeze film damping. The topic is relevant to the Machines journal’s scope, combining theoretical modeling and experimental validation for precision machining enhancement. The study demonstrates technical merit and industrial applicability; however, it requires significant revisions to improve clarity, organization, and scientific rigor.

Comments:

1. Abstract can be shortened, focus on quantitative outcomes, and remove redundant explanations of device function.
2. While the concept of utilizing hydrodynamic lubrication for tool stabilization is interesting, the novelty over previous vibration-damping approaches (e.g., passive damping pads, active mechatronic control, or hybrid fluid-film bearings) needs to be more clearly articulated.
3. The introduction reviews existing literature extensively but lacks a concise statement identifying the research gap and specific advancements offered by this study. Include a focused paragraph at the end of the Introduction clearly defining what existing limitations this study overcomes and what is newly proposed compared to the references. [4], [16–18], and [21].
4. The derivation of governing equations in Section 2 is overly detailed and difficult to follow due to the mixture of dimensionless analysis, variable definitions, and results.
5. The authors should reorganize the section, introducing variables and coordinate systems before presenting derivations. The logical flow (from Reynolds equation assumption → simplification → integration → pressure distribution) should be explicitly shown.
6. Provide a schematic summarizing the physical model, define all variables in a table, and simplify the derivation using standard Reynolds lubrication notation for clarity. 
7. Regarding experimental validation, although a custom test bench was developed, the experimental methodology lacks sufficient detail for reproducibility. Critical parameters such as oil type, viscosity at operating temperature, measurement uncertainty, and calibration methods for sensors are missing.
8. Figures 10–13 show waveform and trajectory data but lack quantitative comparison (e.g., standard deviation or confidence intervals). Add a table summarizing test parameters and conditions, and include statistical analysis (mean ± SD) to strengthen the validity.
9. The discussion primarily restates observed trends without deeper physical interpretation. For example, the correlation between oil film pressure and vibration suppression should be discussed using the damping coefficient or stiffness estimation.
10. The transition between theoretical predictions and experimental validation is abrupt; no direct numerical comparison between predicted and measured pressures is provided. Include a comparative analysis between theoretical and experimental results (e.g., percent deviation, trend correlation), and discuss implications for real machining systems.
11. Figures (especially 1–3, 11–13) need improved labeling, higher resolution, and consistent axis titles with units. Experimental setup photos (Figures 4–9) should have scale bars or captions indicating dimensions and sensor locations.
12. The abbreviation “BTA” should be defined at first use.
13. The Conclusion section should avoid repeating data values already presented in Results; instead, emphasize broader implications and future work potential.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author has revised the manuscript and make significant changes, therefore the manuscript is ready to publish in this form

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone significant improvement after revision. I recommend it for publication.