Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this submission the effect of Eco-Friendly Non-Edible Vegetable Oils when Drilling Inconel 718 alloy under MQL conditions. This topic is interesting, however, some minor corrects should be done:

1.     Drill trademark should be described according ISO standard, not only Malaysian,

2.     Cutting parameters used in testing are poor: only two cutting speed values and One feed rate. It should be expanded, and graphs BV=f(v) and VB=f(f) should be shown,

3.     A method for statistical processing of test results should be presented,

4.     Results of thermal conductivity testing should be introduced at the beginning of chapter nr 3, and then use when discussing,

5.     To talk about the build-up-edge, worn surfaces should be presented with much higher magnifications,

6.     If the Authors say about the Ra roughness parameter, its definition should be introduced in accordance with the ISO standard,

7.     I don't see the difference between long grooves and feed marks,

8.     There no micro-cracks in Figs 10,11 but random distortions of material deformed and smeared,

9.     When discussing hole accuracy, it is better to analyze the diameter deviation than its size,

10.  Conclusions may be abbreviated; besides that, the presented accuracy of changes with the second number after the decimal point is questionable (it should be based on statistics, not on arithmetic).

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment for the response to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented an article «Roles of Eco-Friendly Non-Edible Vegetable Oils in Drilling Inconel 718 through Minimum Quantity Lubrication».  

·         Abstract

The abstract need to be improved. The abstract is written long. Shorter and core findings of the study should be given. Please provide the main quantitative and qualitative research core findings. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Briefly list the input and output parameters of the research.

·         Introduction

In the last paragraph of the introduction section

What is the scientific novelty of the paper? What is the practical value? What makes this approach different from other researchers? Please specify. Gap and significance of the work must be included.

The introduction part was a little bit short and did not summarize well the key advances in the fields of machining quality. The below literature is listed for your reference. Please add detailed discussions of it. 10.1680/jemmr.19.00127

·         2. Materials and Methods

Please provide more detailed basis and reference for selecting drilling parameters. Please specify.

What method of experiment planning is used and why? 

Describe the measurement procedure in more detail. At what point in time? How is the measuring set up? How many times were the experiments repeated?

Why is this material so important?

In the machining of materials, the measurement of thrust force is important. Why didn't you measure thrust force or torque?

·         3. Results

It is useful to add explanations of parameters to the results obtained. At least five sentences for each Figures. The results obtained should be explained by supporting the literature.

Could you discuss the relationship between cutting speed change (10-20) and tool wear in more detail? What are phenomena?

Cutting parameters selected too high. When 15 holes are drilled, the tool completes its life. Are these cutting parameters industrially applicable?

In Figure 6, there is no trend regarding surface roughness. Shouldn't the surface deteriorate as tool wear increases?

why the hole quality is better than others (Vcastor:10 m/min (14 th hole)

There was no significant difference in the average chip thickness formation. While there was a significant change in tool wear and tool life, the chip thickness was not affected. Please specify

·         Conclusions

The conclusions need to be improved. The results are written too long. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. Add qualitative and quantitative results of your work. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. What are the differences from previous works?

·         Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. All changes should be highlighted in color.

Author Response

We are grateful of your critical comments to improve the manuscript. Please find the attachment containing our responses to your suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx