Stochastic Evaluation of Cutting Tool Load and Surface Quality during Milling of HPL

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s Comments on applsci- 1991035

 

Stochastic Evaluation of Cutting Tool Load and Surface Quality during Milling of HPL

 

This paper presents an analytic approach based on tendency and dispersion statistics about the forces and roughness of a milling process to evaluate the dynamic loads. All in all, I consider that this manuscript needs to be improved in several aspects. I have the following comments:

 

1.     In the abstract, I do not consider appropriate to mention “stochastic (statistical)”, if a stochastic approach is proposed, the (statistical) is not necessary to be mentioned.

 

2.     The literature review is quite poor. the authors are encouraged to extend the literature review in the introduction section, please include and discuss related up-to-date published works that can enhance the proposed approach in the manuscript.

 

3.     Based on the thorough literature review, please discuss in more detail the main contributions of the proposed approach in comparison with the previously discussed works.

 

4.     Although, the manuscript presents valuable technical information about the process under study, the statistical analysis is not presented in a scientific way. For instance, the authors mention a “Stochastic evaluation” of the process, but no stochastic process is presented, the modeling approach is not discussed according to the characteristics of the process, instead a statistical analysis based on dispersion and central tendency statistics is presented.

 

5.     The authors are encouraged to provide a detailed methodology that includes the description of the considered modeling approach. In this version of the manuscript the authors mention “The measured data were evaluated in the usual way using Microsoft Excel software”, what is usual? And why do not consider a specific model which may provide analytical results?

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1

Thank you for your work. The attached file explains the answers to your questions and comments. Please, see attachment.

On behalf of our team,

With thanks and respect Prof. Karel Frydrýšek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 2 Universal milling machine DMG MORI DMU50 is redundant unless it shows the experimental arrangement, instrumentation, etc. Remove it.

Include actual experimental setup photo including all sensors, work material, tools, etc.

Figure 3 Cutting force distribution diagram and measuring equipment are misleading. I can’t see detailed force distribution. Also, instrumentation arrangement with experiment setup must be added as said earlier.

Tables 6 and 7 should be presented in terms of graphs to understand trends.

What’s the scope of ML in this application? Add a few lines in future scope referring to the articles such as ‘A Bayesian Optimized Discriminant Analysis Model for Condition Monitoring of Face Milling Cutter Using Vibration Datasets’, ‘Design of Bagged Tree
Ensemble for carbide coated inserts fault diagnosis’, ‘Supervision of Carbide Tool Condition by Training of Vibration-based Statistical Model using Boosted Trees Ensemble’, ‘Multi-Point Face Milling Tool Condition Monitoring Through Vibration Spectrogram and LSTM-Autoencoder’.

Figures 7, 8, and 9 have poor quality replace them in the revised version.

It is unclear how bin size and the range were selected for plotting histograms. Justify them.

Why was cutting force selected over cutting vibrations for this analysis?

Add contributions and novelty at the end of the introduction.

Results and discussion are poor and thus conclusion. Revisit them.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2

Thank you for your work. The attached file explains the answers to your questions and comments. Please, see attachment.

On behalf of our team,

With thanks and respect Prof. Karel Frydrýšek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript discussed about the Stochastic Evaluation of Cutting Tool Load and Surface Quality during Milling of HPL. Manuscript can be published after minor revision. 

1. The objective of the paper is not clearly defined in the abstract.

2. Abstract should be improved, including the novelty of this work, Result and discussion section should be provided with more graphical representation or figures with technical interpretation.

3. Introduction section is too short and should also be provided with some good references. Some latest references should be added in the literature review ranging from 2017-2022.   4. Discussion section is too shallow. Provide in depth discussion for the findings of the study.

5. Conclusion section should clearly highlight the major outcomes of the study instead of discussing the results.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3

Thank you for your work. The attached file explains the answers to your questions and comments. Please, see attachment.

On behalf of our team,

With thanks and respect Prof. Karel Frydrýšek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have provided references to importan sections of the manuscript and have improved the quality accordingly. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed my comments positively. I recommend acceptance of the paper.