Next Article in Journal
First-Principles Study on the Mechanism of Greenhouse Gas Generation in Aluminum Electrolysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Ceramic Cutting Materials and Tools Suitable for Machining High-Temperature Nickel-Based Alloys: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Behavior of Nitrogen in GH4169 Superalloy Melt during Vacuum Induction Melting Using Returned Materials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sub-Microstructure of Surface and Subsurface Layers after Electrical Discharge Machining Structural Materials in Water
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Vibroacoustic Monitoring Features of Radiation-Beam Technologies by the Case Study of Laser, Electrical Discharge, and Electron-Beam Machining

Metals 2021, 11(7), 1117; https://doi.org/10.3390/met11071117
by Sergey N. Grigoriev, Mikhail P. Kozochkin, Marina A. Volosova, Anna A. Okunkova and Sergey V. Fedorov *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Metals 2021, 11(7), 1117; https://doi.org/10.3390/met11071117
Submission received: 28 May 2021 / Revised: 6 July 2021 / Accepted: 10 July 2021 / Published: 13 July 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors are right that in metal  remowal in EDM, LBM and EBM processes  occurs as a result of melting and evapotrating - it is a aresult of high temperature in machining area. The Authors are right  that the technological indicators of above mentioned processes  are in relations with wibroacustic signals generated in machined area. Authors prooved this conclusion in theirs experimental investigations. 

However in order to explain these relations between vibroacustic signal  and phisical phenomena  in the area of material removal the more precise analysis is necessary.  It is worth to underline that results of these analysis will be different for each process as EDM, LBM or EBM.

Authors should also explain how they would like to use  wibroacustic signals for manitoring and controlling in practice technological indictors of investigated processes.

In my opinion The Authors did the first and important  step in solving investigated problems. However for practical application there are necessary  the additional research considerations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very mach for work you have done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no special comments. The scientific paper presents a well-documented research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the work you have done

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the effect of Laser radiation power on performance and vibroacoustic signals, as well as an analysis of vibroacoustic signals during electrical discharge and Electron beam Machining.

  1. The justification, also the novelty of the research and, especially, the progress beyond the state-of-the art are not clearly presented and described.
  2. Some industrial applications should be identified and briefly presented in the first part of the paper.
  3. The discussion is focused more on the vibroacoustic signals and less on the metals’ characterisation and their behaviour observed during the manufacturing processes. The investigations were made on a large range of materials, starting with different powder materials, ceramics and hard alloys, or different materials films deposited on unspecified substrates. An absolute lack of information in terms of chemical, mechanical and metallurgical aspects of the materials used in the experiments was noticed.
  4. The process parameters employed during laser sintering of powder materials, cutting of conductive ceramics and hard alloy plates or deposition of films by electron beam are incompletely or not defined.
  5. The explanations for figures have to be described before the figures/charts/tables occur in the text.
  6. Because the main findings, the knowledge progress and the contribution to the field approached are not clearly identified and highlighted, the “Conclusions’ section has to be rewritten.
  7. List of references should be updated. Only 5 titles out of 29 have been published in the last 5 years.
  8. The self-citation has to be avoided. The first author is author/co-author at 8 articles out of 29.
  9. Reference [23]: lack of information (year).

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your work yo have done and the comments you have made!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Generally, the authors made the modifications requested by the reviewers. There are still weaknesses that have to be eliminated.

  1. The “Conclusions” section has to be reorganised in order to briefly synthetize the main findings, the knowledge progress and the contribution to the field approached.
  2. Reference [24]: lack of information (year).

Author Response

Dear reviewer! Thank you for your comments.

  1. The conclusions of the article have been rewritten. Indeed, it will be better this way.
  2. The reference are corrected.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made the modifications requested by the reviewers, improving the content of the manuscript.

Back to TopTop