Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is good but needs improvement with regards to the following:

(1)  What is novel in your study with regards to methodology and conclusions?

(2) Why the effect of feed rate is not considered? as the tool is vibrating in feed direction also.

(3) The tool worn areas in Figure 9 should be magnified to clearly demonstrate worn surface morphology.

(4) The conclusions are very general and could be predicted prior to the study. Specific findings should be stated more clearly to depict novelty of the research.

(5) Please check line no. 162 i.e. cutting depth=12 microns

(6) What cutting depth is taken for the tool wear analysis.

(7) Performing a cutting force analysis would be suitable to justify neglecting feed and radial forces with respect to the adopted cutting conditions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Your comments are extremely vital for improving the structure of the paper and optimizing the content of the paper. We will respond to your comments one by one. Please find my itemized responses below and my revisions/corrections in the revised manuscript.

please note:

Text in italic style: the comments.

Text in regular style: responses to the comments.

Changes were highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript.

To ensure that every comment is answered, we number all comments one by one.

Good wishes!

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is interesting and important studies for industry and academy, but there are several points which should be modified before publication.

1. Minor revision

1) the influence of cutting chatter on cutting surface morphology and diamond tool wear was mastered; ‘mastered’ is not proper word.

2) (Key Words) type error: Tool wea

3) Ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting (UEVC) was proposed by a Japanese scholar in 1994 at the CIRP international conference [1] -> Ultrasonic elliptical vibration cutting (UEVC) was introduced by Shamoto and Moriwaki in CIRP on 1994 [1].

4) (173) Three-axis ultra-precision single-point diamond lathe is used in the experiment, mainly for the spindle/C axis, X axis, and Z axis -> More detail specification of this lathe with manufacturer is needed.

5) Surface roughness standard, measuring method and device about ‘Sa50 nm’ are needed

2. Major

1) The working principle of UEVC is different from that of conventional turning (CT) -> The working principle of UEVC is different from that of conventional turning (CT) and ultrasonic assisted turning. So the introduction chapter should be modified according to this change

2) Fomula (1) “Where A and B are amplitude in X and Y directions” and “ the cross-section is A (103) ” cause misunderstanding -> should be corrected

3) To further study the influence of cutting depth on cutting chatter, the cutting depth is set to 8 μm when the cutting speed is 1 m/min. When the cutting speed is 1.5 m/min, the cutting depth is set to 12 μm. As shown in Table 1. ...

-> The cutting depth in Table 1 differs from this sentence.

4) There are no information on Feed Rate ?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript Number: metals-2305484

Cutting Chatter in Ultrasonic Elliptical Vibration Cutting and Its Influence on Surface Roughness and Tool Wear

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Your comments are extremely vital for improving the structure of the paper and optimizing the content of the paper. We will respond to your comments one by one. Please find my itemized responses below and my revisions/corrections in the revised manuscript.

please note:

Text in italic style: the comments.

Text in regular style: responses to the comments.

Changes were highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript.

To ensure that every comment is answered, we number all comments one by one.

Good wishes!

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The results presented in the paper are important from the technical point of view, so it could be some added value to the reader.

In general the paper is well organised, however, the reviewer has some points which should be taken into consideration to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 There are a lot of markings, especially in equations; therefore, in reviewer opinion, the abbreviation section should be added. It will help the reader follow the text, especially when all of abreviations will be in one section. This approach will also help the authors to remember about the units!!!

Pleass clearly explain why those not other cutting parameters were used?

- Why were those parameters of the surface texture analysed, not others? What was the measurement area? What filtration was used? Significant information connected with the measurement process should be added.

- What was thedispersion of the  roughness parameters?

- The surface roughness is haracterized by the surface roughness parameters. Therefore, please specify the parameters that were analysed insted of the usage of encryption with the words such us’surface roughness' (Fig. 8).

- Please add the scale to the figures where it is necessary (for example, Fig. 4).

- To Figs. 6 and 7 the scale of colours should be added as well as information from which direction the profiles were extracted from the surface texture; additionally, please add the detailed description of particular subfigures (for each subfigure there are 3 figures – what these Figures mean should be described).

- Definitively the style and language should be improved. The authors should look at the details (for example, what is the the Sa50 on page 7 - it is surface texture parameter and its value, not a one word.!!!)

Author Response

Manuscript Number: metals-2305484

Cutting Chatter in Ultrasonic Elliptical Vibration Cutting and Its Influence on Surface Roughness and Tool Wear

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Your comments are extremely vital for improving the structure of the paper and optimizing the content of the paper. We will respond to your comments one by one. Please find my itemized responses below and my revisions/corrections in the revised manuscript.

please note:

Text in italic style: the comments.

Text in regular style: responses to the comments.

Changes were highlighted in blue color in the revised manuscript.

To ensure that every comment is answered, we number all comments one by one.

Good wishes!

All authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript according to suggestions. The manuscript can be accepted now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After minor improvement of English expression, it could be published 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf