Determining the Optimal Cutting Parameters for Required Productivity for the Case of Rough External Turning of AISI 1045 Steel with Minimal Energy Consumption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

the work is interesting, based on practical research. My comments are as follows:

- the proposed method could be shown on a schematic diagram, e.g. in section 2 or 3. 

- there are no dimensional tolerances on the drawing shown in Figure 1, also no surface roughness. These parameters influence the selection of process parameters. 

- was the quality of the manufactured part measured after manufacturing?

- the conclusions are very general. More specific indications for the industrial practice should be given. 

- the applicable range of the proposed method should be given, e.g. influence of the tolerances, shapes, starting material etc. 

- the number of the newest references related to the topic is limited. Please improve it. 

Regards, 

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Here are our comments on your observations and suggestions:

1. the proposed method could be shown on a schematic diagram, e.g. in section 2 or 3.

We made a schematic diagram and added it into the new version of the paper.

2. there are no dimensional tolerances on the drawing shown in Figure 1, also no surface roughness. These parameters influence the selection of process parameters. 

We added dimensional tolerances and surface roughness marks into the drawing. Yet, since we were focused on rough turning which consume more energy and require more power, we didn’t consider finishing operation. Measurement tolerances and surface roughness affect the choice of finishing mode. With us (according to the new technical drawing), after the rough/semi-finishing (medium machining) processing (we use a replaceable plate for semi-finishing processing), the final processing (which we did not deal with) follows?

3. was the quality of the manufactured part measured after manufacturing?

The quality is measured but the thorough analysis related to the correlation between surface roughness and cutting parameter values is going to be presented in some other occasion. Yet, we add a table with the values of measured surface roughness in the paper.

4. the conclusions are very general. More specific indications for the industrial practice should be given. 

We change the conclusion section and add some additional observations.

5. the applicable range of the proposed method should be given, e.g. influence of the tolerances, shapes, starting material etc. 

We added some comments regarding applicability range in the conclusion.

6. the number of the newest references related to the topic is limited. Please improve it. 

We added 7 references that are more recent.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented a paper named “Determining the Optimal Cutting Parameters for Required Productivity for the Case of Rough External Turning of AISI 1045 Steel with the Minimal Energy Consumption” which is good and acceptable after the following revisions:

1.     First, the cutting material is widely used and preferred in the industrial applications and literature papers which make it difficult to address a novel approach. Please clearly define the new sides of this paper in abstract and required points respectively.

2.     Give numerical results in the abstract.

3.     Please avoid multiple citations. Use separate citations for each sentence.

4.     Why did use select rough turning as the case study?

5.     There should be a comprehensive literature analysis about AISI 1045 steel and its equivalents in the introduction section. Also, several approaches to reduce the energy consume in the machining processes need to be addressed. Some of the missing ones are given below:

“Investigation of progressive tool wear for determining of optimized machining parameters in turning”

“Estimation, optimization and analysis based investigation of the energy consumption in machinability of ceramic-based metal matrix composite materials”

“The effects of MQL and dry environments on tool wear, cutting temperature, and power consumption during end milling of AISI 1040 steel”

6.     Describe the measurement procedure in more detail. At what point in time? How is the measuring setup set up? How many repetitions of measurements? What statistical methods are used to process experimental results? Describe the experimental stand in more detail. What method of experiment planning is used and why?

7.     It will be useful to add a section of Nomenclature in which to sign all the physical quantities and abbreviations encountered in the article. There are physical quantities in the text and such a section will help to find the description of the necessary element.

8.     Conclusions should be improved. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. The article is interesting, but needs to be improved. Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. Add 4-5 items of the findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Here are our comments on your observations and suggestions:

1. First, the cutting material is widely used and preferred in the industrial applications and literature papers which make it difficult to address a novel approach. Please clearly define the new sides of this paper in abstract and required points respectively.

We tried to add some comments that should address the “new sides” of the paper (especially in the conclusion)

2. Give numerical results in the abstract.

We add one numerical data in the abstract.

3. Please avoid multiple citations. Use separate citations for each sentence.

We changed this.

4. Why did use select rough turning as the case study?

As it was given in the paper and in the revised version of the paper, it is even little bit more accentuated, the rough (semi-finishing) external turning in the particular case found to be the operation which consumes the much more energy and requires more power than finishing operations.

5. There should be a comprehensive literature analysis about AISI 1045 steel and its equivalents in the introduction section. Also, several approaches to reduce the energy consume in the machining processes need to be addressed.

We added the references (Actually, we added 7 more references that are more recent including these you asked for)

6. Describe the measurement procedure in more detail. At what point in time? How is the measuring setup set up? How many repetitions of measurements? What statistical methods are used to process experimental results? Describe the experimental stand in more detail. What method of experiment planning is used and why?

We added a more detail description about the experimental stand including schematic diagram, and gave more details about the data measurement, recording and analyzing.

7. It will be useful to add a section of Nomenclature in which to sign all the physical quantities and abbreviations encountered in the article. There are physical quantities in the text and such a section will help to find the description of the necessary element.

We added table with the abbreviations and meanings and units.

8. Conclusions should be improved. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty Оof the article and the advantages of the proposed method. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance.

We changed the conclusion section and added some additional observations, addressing difference from previous studies, practical relevance, advantages of the proposed method and also, we tried to provide a comment on novelty.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

I accept your answers.

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your prompt reaction and help that made our paper better. In accordance with Editor’s recommendation, we made a slight revision of the paper. In particular, we made conclusion little bit shorter. In real, we decided not to cut the content of the paper, but we changed the position of a part of the text moving it from Conclusion to Discussion section. Also, we reframed the main findings placing them in a list of items as the Editor suggested. 

Kindest regards