Optimization of Texture Density Distribution of Carbide Alloy Micro-Textured Ball-End Milling Cutter Based on Stress Field
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Probably, the abstract is too long and might give more distinctive approach.
Author Response
Reviewer: 1
1) Probably, the abstract is too long and might give more distinctive approach.
Answer: The authors have revised the abstract.
Thank you for your comments on this article. If there are any more shortcomings, please inform us.
Best wishes
Shucai Yang
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an optimization procedure of texture density distribution of carbide alloy micro-textured ball-end cutter applied on a milling process, which optimization genetic algorithm uses as fitness function the stress field of cutting area.
The proposed corrections are listed below:
Line 27: verb is missing, "in the third area X3 is 0.0493"
Line 144: the L16 is not determined, if it corresponds to Taguchi method, if the approach is statistical and so on.
Line 192: in Table 4, title "cutting parameters" is broken in 3 lines
Line 267: Figure 4 and the corresponding manuscript, mention XYZ axes not in common symbols. Xw,Yw,Zw are the measured (worktable) forces mentioned in the text simply as X,Y,Z. Also, X1,Y1,Z1 axes are the same (?) with Xc,Yc,Zc but not clearly mentioned.
Line 267: Rotation angle "Ψ" is not clearly determined in Figure 4. It is also used as capital Ψ and lower case "ψ".
Line 318: in Table 6, title "boiling point (oC)" is broken in 3 lines
Line 325: No numerical data are provided regarding the applied meshing. Type, nodes, etc
Line 363: Figures of simulation results are of low resolution and the presented total area of the cutting tool is of no interest. Only the area of increased stresses should be focused using bigger fonts of the Ansys Workbench software.
Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams should not include point 0,0.
Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams should use a common format of time axis.
Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams are presented in a time width of 0002 (s). The cutting forces are measured (Table 3) and approached using a polynomial function for a period of 0.0036 (s).Why these data of period (0.002s to 0.0036s) are not used?
Line 381: Legend of Figure 8, "...with time.", would be better "...with respect to time." or "...vs time."
Line 423: The constraint is common for the three regions, but it is mentioned thrice. So, "Therefore, for the optimization of variable density distribution of micro-textured cutters based on stress field the constraints are the texture density in all three regions of the cutter-chip compact contact area as 0.01 < Xi < 0.1."
Line 443: In Conclusion, the presented optimum values of the texture distribution density corresponds to all the cases data? Are these values the parameters that optimizes the fitness function for all 16 cases. It should be clearly mentioned that it does not correspond to a single case of the 16.
Author Response
Reviewer: 2
1) Line 27: verb is missing, "in the third area X3 is 0.0493".
Answer: The authors have revised the sentence. "the texture distribution densities in the first, second, and third areas are second, and third areas are 0.0905, 0.0712, and 0.0493, respectively".
2) Line 144: the L16 is not determined, if it corresponds to Taguchi method, if the approach is statistical and so on.
Answer: L16 (45) was designed according to orthogonal test.
3) Line 192: in Table 4, title "cutting parameters" is broken in 3 lines.
Answer: The authors have revised it.
4) Line 192: Line 267: Figure 4 and the corresponding manuscript, mention XYZ axes not in common symbols. Xw,Yw,Zw are the measured (worktable) forces mentioned in the text simply as X,Y,Z. Also, X1,Y1,Z1 axes are the same (?) with Xc,Yc,Zc but not clearly mentioned.
Answer: XYZ is the workpiece coordinate system and XcYcZc is the tool coordinate. The authors have revised it in the article.
5) Line 267: Rotation angle "Ψ" is not clearly determined in Figure 4. It is also used as capital Ψ and lower case "ψ".
Answer: The authors have double checked the picture and edited it.
6) Line 267: Line 318: in Table 6, title "boiling point (oC)" is broken in 3 lines.
Answer: The authors have revised it.
7) Line 325: No numerical data are provided regarding the applied meshing. Type, nodes, etc.
Answer: Tetrahedral mesh is suitable for fast and efficient meshing of complex models, which is realized through automatic mesh generation. Therefore, Tetrahedral mesh was used in the mesh model. There are 931230 nodes in total and the minimum edge length is 2.5×10-8m.
8) Line 363: Figures of simulation results are of low resolution and the presented total area of the cutting tool is of no interest. Only the area of increased stresses should be focused using bigger fonts of the Ansys Workbench software.
Answer: The authors have double checked the pictures and edited them.
9) Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams should not include point 0,0.
Answer: The authors have examined the pictures carefully and revised them.
10) Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams should use a common format of time axis.
Answer: The authors have examined the pictures carefully and revised them.
11) Lines 381: Figure 8, Diagrams are presented in a time width of 0002 (s). The cutting forces are measured (Table 3) and approached using a polynomial function for a period of 0.0036 (s). Why these data of period (0.002s to 0.0036s) are not used?
Answer: Because we could get the maximum equivalent stress and equivalent effect change of the tool at 0.002 through simulation, and we wanted to get the change process of the tool stress value from zero to the maximum value.
12) Line 381: Legend of Figure 8, "...with time.", would be better "...with respect to time." or "...vs time."
Answer: The authors have revised it.
13) Line 423: The constraint is common for the three regions, but it is mentioned thrice. So, "Therefore, for the optimization of variable density distribution of micro-textured cutters based on stress field the constraints are the texture density in all three regions of the cutter-chip compact contact area as 0.01 < Xi < 0.1."
Answer: The authors have revised it.
14) Line 443: In Conclusion, the presented optimum values of the texture distribution density corresponds to all the cases data? Are these values the parameters that optimizes the fitness function for all 16 cases. It should be clearly mentioned that it does not correspond to a single case of the 16.
Answer: It has been mentioned in the paper that one group of cutting parameters combination is taken as an example for optimization research, and the cutting parameters are: n=2729 r/min, ap=0.7 mm, fz=0.08 mm/z.
Thank you for your comments on this article. If there are any more shortcomings, please inform us.
Best wishes
Shucai Yang
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript ‘Study on Optimization of Texture Density Distribution of Carbide Alloy Micro-Textured Ball End Milling Cutter Based on The Stress Field’ presents the ball end milling operation using the tool texturing as the special feature, then performs the simulation of the cutting, and finally optimized using genetic algorithm. I find the topic interesting and valuable for the readers. However, the following revision need to be carried out before that.
The presentation and organization of the paper is confusing, disordered and hard to follow. This can be due to the capturing of multiple objectives the authors aimed. I recommend simple but effective presentation of the content. For that, the concise writing can be helpful, and the figures/tables can be reduced in numbers. Only significant figures should be presented. The general theory/fact can be referenced to sources instead of presenting here in detail. First line of abstract is written as ‘future tense’. This is unacceptable. Scientific papers present facts. Please avoid such presentation. Literature needs recent articles inclusion on textured-tool use in machining like https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08121-y; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04221-z; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04377-8 Table 1 is not self-explanatory. The values are referring to what? The validity of Eq. 1 is missing. What is the R2 value? Does it agree with literature R2 value? Applicable for other equations as well. So many empirical models! Reduce the numbers. Empirical models are easy to develop and has limited usability. Software names, models, versions should be presented. Table 6, reference missing. There are instructional sentences, like what ‘should be done’. That needs to be removed and presented what you did. Justification of the numerical simulation model and its development should be given. Which version of genetic algorithm is used? Specify please. Reference needed. Conclusion is like procedure now. Please improve it.Best wishes with revision.
Author Response
Reviewer: 3
1) The presentation and organization of the paper is confusing, disordered and hard to follow. This can be due to the capturing of multiple objectives the authors aimed. I recommend simple but effective presentation of the content. For that, the concise writing can be helpful, and the figures/tables can be reduced in numbers. Only significant figures should be presented. The general theory/fact can be referenced to sources instead of presenting here in detail.
Answer: The authors have retouched the English editing of the whole article.
2) First line of abstract is written as ‘future tense’. This is unacceptable. Scientific papers present facts. Please avoid such presentation.
Answer: The authors have revised this sentence.
3) Literature needs recent articles inclusion on textured-tool use in machining like https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08121-y; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04221-z; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04377-8 Table 1 is not self-explanatory.
Answer: The authors have added references to the article and Table 1 is distribution and combination of different density textures.
4) The values are referring to what?
Answer: The values are referring to the value of cutting force.
5) The validity of Eq. 1 is missing. What is the R2 value? Does it agree with literature R2 value? Applicable for other equations as well.
Answer: The authors have calculated R2 = 0.9603. Therefore, equation (1) has 95% validity.
6) So many empirical models! Reduce the numbers. Empirical models are easy to develop and has limited usability. Software names, models, versions should be presented.
Answer: In this paper, the stress field changes of nine kinds of variable density micro-textured cutters and non-texture cutters were studied. Therefore, the stress density function model should be established separately. MATLAB R2017b software, ANSYS Workbench 16.0 software, and Origin 2017 software were used in this paper.
7) Table 6, reference missing. There are instructional sentences, like what ‘should be done’. That needs to be removed and presented what you did. Justification of the numerical simulation model and its development should be given.
Answer: The authors have added references to table 6, and have revised some sentences in the article.
8) Which version of genetic algorithm is used? Specify please. Reference needed. Conclusion is like procedure now. Please improve it.
Answer: The authors used the genetic algorithm toolbox in MATLAB R2017b software. The authors have revised the conclusion.
Thank you for your comments on this article. If there are any more shortcomings, please inform us.
Best wishes
Shucai Yang
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have to work on the 1, 4, 6, 8 number comments of review round 1.
