Influence of Tool Wear on Form Deviations in Dry Machining of UNS A97075 Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the article according to the comments. However, you still need to do the following:
1. Add geometry in table to the cutter (main cutting edge (approach) angle, rake and clearance angle, cutter overhang, etc.). What is the material of the cutting edge of the cutter? And what is the reason for this choice?
2. Such group citations [5,22,24-25,28-29,32,34-35] are not allowed in the article. Alternatively, this can be broken down into several sentences.
3. In Figures 3b, 3c, 4c, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13a, you need to add a scale bar.
After elimination of these comments, the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for helping to improve this paper. Once discussed the comments, the next actions have been taken (see attached cover letter).

Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewer again for the comments made in the successive reviews, since the article has clearly been improved compared to the initial version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the paper entitled ‘Influence of Tool Wear on Form Deviations in Dry Machining  of UNS A97075 Alloy’. The work is associated with the development of mathematical models to correlate the cutting parameters to the part’s deviations in machining operations of a UNS A97075 Alloy.

In general, the work is weak in the content and the accomplished results. The research topic is interesting, but in the present work no novelty in the use of mathematical models was introduced.  Furthermore, the paper is not well written and it need several improvements both in presentation (manuscript, figures) and in findings (description of the models).

My main concerns about the study are documented in the next comments:

1. Nearly the 30% of the text is yellow highlighted. That is unacceptable. Revise it.
2. The scope of the study is not referred in the introduction section, but only in the last paragraph
3. Language revision is necessary in the entire manuscript, like page 4 line 178 do not use ‘…’; Page 10, line 295 ‘This is because chip morphology tends 294 to be longer (leading to chip nest formation) for low f and high vc, Figure 11’, why did you put the word Figure 11 in the end of sentence?
4. The chip morphology is not clearly presented in Figure 11.
5. How did you calculate the mathematical expressions? Please provide more information. Do not state: ‘different mathematical equations were tested’ like in page 15 line 421, describe them.
6. Are the experimental data enough in order to extract a mathematical model? Please explain.
7. The main objective of the study (the models) is not adequately described, as it should be. In contrast, you provide too many figures and text for the experimental procedures.
8. The best-fit model was K∙ v_c ^x ∙ f ^y ∙ t_c ^z both for roundness, straightness AND cylindricity? Did you not use other mathematical equation to describe these behavior?
9. In page 15, line 427, you mention that R² was between 0.86 and 0.90. Please provide sufficient data for these claims.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for helping to improve this paper. Once discussed the comments and suggestions, the next actions have been taken (see attached cover letter). The changes in the text have been highlighted, following the specific instructions of the editors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the author has presented a well-structured and comprehensive analysis of the influence of tool wear on form Deviations. A novel equation was obtained which is very satisfy the demands in machining industry. However, following points must be addressed:

1. The conclusions are valid within the cutting tested conditions mentioned in this manuscript. These conclusions are difficult to confirm under other experiment parameters. Further tests and studies should be conducted to confirm these trends.
2. The coefficient of determination (R²) was mentioned using the Equation 1. However, there is the deviation between the equation result and the experimental result. How to understand the actual meaning of R²? Please explain in detail.
3. Authors selected tow of 48 groups of experiments to do EDS analysis, SEM test and SOM detection. Please explain why these two sets of experiments were selected for testing. Whether to test the tools under other experimental conditions to verify the accuracy of the experimental results.
4. There are grammatical errors and typos in this manuscription. Please check it out carefully and make it correct.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comment on the overall impression of the article. Once discussed the additional comments and suggestions, the next actions have been taken in order to improve this paper (see the attached file).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the article according to the comments. The article can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has significantly improved its quality. The authors have properly answered to my questions. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Thank you for your effort to response to my comments and questions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept.