Next Article in Journal
Optical Characterization of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Intralipid-Based Samples
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Objective Pareto Optimization of Tensile Membrane Architecture for Energy Harvesting
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Experimental Study of the Volumetric Error Effect on the Resulting Working Accuracy—Roundness

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(18), 6233; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186233
Reviewer 1: Apostolos Korlos
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(18), 6233; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186233
Received: 4 August 2020 / Revised: 3 September 2020 / Accepted: 4 September 2020 / Published: 8 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Industrial Technologies)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment 1
Row 39:
expanded this hypothesis in his 2010 publication [5] up to 80 % for five-axis machine tools.

=>

expanded this hypothesis in his 2010 publication [2] up to 80 % for five-axis machine tools.

Comment 2
Row 47:
These sources include geometric errors, thermal errors, dynamic errors, tool wear errors,

=>

These sources include geometric, thermal, dynamic and tool wear errors,

Comment 3
Row 47:
Quasi-static errors are defined as the errors of relative position of TCP and workpiece;

=>

What is TCP?

Comment 4
Row 58:
The reference [6] is not commented in the paper.

Comment 5
Row 58:
is presented in [9], Linear axis compensation procedures

=>

is presented in [9], linear axis compensation procedures

Comment 6
Rows 111 and 114:
From [29] => [35]
Change the reference numbering

Comment 7
Row 120:
in fig. 1.

=>

in Figure 1

Comment 8
Row 135:
Delete the space in the page end

Comment 9
Figure 1
w/o volumetric compensation

=>

with out
volumetric
compensation

Comment 10
Figure 1
Add a arrow (like the left side of the figure (calibration))

Comment 11
Row 141:
Fig. 2

=>

Figure 2

Comment 12
Row 146:
Workspace of the machine and the measured space are defined in the following table:

=>

Workspace of the machine and the measured space are defined in the table 1:

Comment 13
Row 149:
Axis Start axis WS / start measure MS [mm] End axis WS / End measure MS [mm] Length
[mm]

=>

Axis Start Axis WS / Start Measure MS [mm] End Axis WS / End Measure MS [mm] Length
[mm]


Comment 14
Row 157:
Figure 3. Workpiece diagram and representation.

=>

Figure 3. (a) Workpiece diagram and (b) representation.

Comment 15
table 2:
No bold (format) for
Speed 200 m/min
Feed 0.1 mm/tooth
Depth 0.02 mm
Width 50 mm

Comment 16
table 2:
Dimension Φ300 - 150

=>

Dimension Φ300 - 150 mm

Comment 17
Row 162:
It's not so good to start the sub-chapter at the bottom of the page without using text

Comment 18
Row 168:
In the publication [30], the results

=>

In the publication [31], the results


Comment 19
Row 174:
Insert a line between table 3 and text.

Comment 20
Row 191:
are listed in tabs. 5 and 6. For

=>

are listed in tables 5 and 6. For

Comment 21
Table 5
The whole table must be in the same page with the table title.

Comment 22
Row 194
Add a figure with calibration measurements

Comment 23
Row 195
What is the position (coordinates) of the points P1, P2, P3 and P4?

Comment 24
Row 215
Add a table or a figure to explain the symbols (Exx, Eyx, ....).

Comment 25
Row 231
and tab. 8 shows the selected

=>

and table 8 shows the selected

Comment 26
Row 232
test for DBB1and DBB2 tests.

=>

test for DBB1 and DBB2 tests.

Comment 27
Row 237

Fig. 8 shows the results

=>

Figure 8 shows the results

Comment 28
Row 239
The figure must be with the figure title in the same page.

Comment 29
Row 242
The following figure shows the results

=>

The figure 9 shows the results

Comment 30
Row 243
To table 10 δεν σχολιάζεται μέσα στο κείμενο.
The table 10 is not commented in the paper.

Comment 31
Row 248
From the results shown in figs. 7, 8 and 9, it can be

=>

From the results shown in figures 7, 8 and 9, it can be

Comment 32
Row 251
Figure 9. 3. Workpiece accuracy.

=>

Figure 9. Circularity test – diameter 100 mm: (a) without volumetric compensation; (b) with
240 volumetric compensation.

Comment 33
Row 254
in fig. 10.

=>

in figure 10.


Comment 34
Row 259
The tables (11-13)

=>

Maybe a table with the results from tables 11, 12 and 13
would be better for paper's presentation

Comment 35
Row 262
Fig. 11 shows

=>

Figure 11 shows

Comment 36
Row 263
Fig. 11 shows

=>

Figure 12 shows

Comment 37
Rows 269 - 271
Fig. 13 shows the roundness of the outer diameter of 200 mm. Here, the roundness improved
from 9.39 µm to 5.71 µm. Fig.14 shows the measurement result at the position 04 according to tab.12
and fig.10.

=>

Figure 13 shows the roundness of the outer diameter of 200 mm. Here, the roundness improved
from 9.39 µm to 5.71 µm. Figure 14 shows the measurement result at the position 04 according to table 12
and figure 10.

Comment 38
Rows 272 - 273
The authors comment first on figure 13 and then on table 11, but they appear in a different order,
first table 11 and later the figure 13.

Comment 39
Rows 276 - 278
The authors comment first on figure 15 and then on table 13, but they appear in a different order,
first table 13 and later the figure 15.

Comment 40
Table 14
What is the authors' estimate for the increase of the parameter TH1 (5.37μm) to TH2 (5.59μm)
for the case of 100 mm, while in the other two cases
there is a decrease of values respectively for the cases 200 (10.13 to 6.16) and 300 mm (9.39 to 5.71)?

Comment 41
Rows 306 - 307:
Figure 17. Diagram of dependence between machine circularity error and workpiece roundness
307 error.

=>

Figure 17. (a) Diagram of dependence between machine circularity error
and (b) workpiece roundness error.

Comment 42
Figure 17 should be more clearanceness.
Why is there not linear 100 in figure 17b?

Comment 43
Rows 354 - 355:
R. Ramesh, M.. Mannan, A.. Poo, Error compensation in machine tools — a review, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 40 (2002) 1235–1256. doi:10.1016/s0890-6955(00)00009-2.

=>

R. Ramesh, M.. Mannan, A.. Poo, Error compensation in machine tools — a review:
Part I: geometric, cutting-force induced and fixture-dependent errors,
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 40 (2000) 1235–1256. doi:10.1016/s0890-6955(00)00009-2.


Comment 44
Rows 367 - 370:
M. Holub, J. Knobloch, Geometric accuracy of CNC machine tools, in: Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Mechatronics -
Mechatronika 2014, IEEE, 2014: pp. 260–265. doi:10.1109/MECHATRONIKA.2014.7018268. M. Holub, J.
Knobloch, Geometric accuracy of CNC machine tools, in: Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Mechatronics - Mechatronika
2014, IEEE, 2014: pp. 260–265. doi:10.1109/MECHATRONIKA.2014.7018268.

=>

M. Holub, J. Knobloch, Geometric accuracy of CNC machine tools, in: Proc. 16th Int. Conf. Mechatronics -
Mechatronika 2014, IEEE, 2014: pp. 260–265. doi:10.1109/MECHATRONIKA.2014.7018268.

Comment 45
Row 388:
13. U. Mutilba, E. Gomez-Acedo, A. Sandá, I. Vega, J.A. Yagüe-Fabra

=>

13. U. Mutilba, E. Gomez-Acedo, A. Sandá, I. Vega, J.A. Yagüe-Fabra


Comment 46
Rows 354 - 444:
The authors must check the format references (same with the instructions of the journal)

Comment 47
There is not one paper published at Applied Sciences Journal.
Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI journals.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your inspiring comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on your manuscript and your research results. Allow me to make a few comments aimed at refining and thus improving the quality of the report of your resarch.

- Some of your sources seem a bit outdated. Especially in view of thermal compensation, a lot of progress has been made in recent years.

- Concerning your sources and state of the art, please also consider the most recent advances of the state of the Art, in order to give a more complete and also current view of the state of research, e.g. P. Blaser

- The explanation of the DIN 230 in lines 86ff are a bit lengthy, and do not nessecarily belong in a research paper

- When considering the working accuracy of the machine, why was Weikert's R-Test neglected?

- The text in all figures and images should be English (e.g. Figure 7)

- The layout is a bit inconsistent with regards to figures (Excel, extracts from Tools, etc.), and the text sizes and fonts vary too much

- If possible, ask an English native to proofread your manuscript, for some minor refinements. This will also help the lisibility.

- The research is well-written, presents some interesting findings, but tends to be more of a report than an actual research paper. Maybe try to improve your interpretation and conclusion of the results, instead of referring to future research.

Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns regarding my remarks.

Author Response

Thank you for your inspiring comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment 1
Row 396
cutting-force induced and fixture-dependent errors, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 40 (2002) 1235–1256.

=>

cutting-force induced and fixture-dependent errors, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 40 (2000) 1235–1256.


Comment 2
Row 139
Worpiece WP1

=>

Workpiece WP1


Worpiece WP2

=>

Workpiece WP2


Comment 3
Row 58:
is presented in [9], Linear axis compensation procedures

=>

is presented in [9], linear axis compensation procedures


Comment 4
Rows 436 - 437
14. Navratilova, B. Navrátilová, Weighted Multilateration in Volumetry of CNC Machine Tools, in: 2019: pp.
290–298. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97888-8_26.

=>

Title of journal, book or conference?
MENDEL 2017: Recent Advances in Soft Computing pp 290-298

Comment 5
Rows 436 - 437
23. M. Holub, M. Geometric Accuracy of Machine Tools, in: 2019: pp. 89–112. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03822-9_3.

=>
Title of journal, book or conference?
Measurement in Machining and Tribology pp 89-112

Comment 6
table 5, 6 and 9
The values must be placed just below aligned

Comment 7
Row 220
erorrs

=>

errors

Comment 8
Row 281
Figure 11 shows the measurement result at the
position 04 according to tab.table 11 and Figure 11.

Check if the right figure is Figure 11 or Figure 12

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
thank you for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for having considered the comments to a satisfactory extent. Some of the suggestions were not taken into account, which should be motivated or explained in order to make the review process a useful instrument. Moreover, the novelty and the takeaways could still be refined to add clarity and a more convenient communication of concept and results. Overall, the quality is now acceptable for publication, with the sole limitations of the figures still containing words that are not English, and the strong inconsistency between the layouts.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
thank you for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop