On-Machine Measurements for Aircraft Gearbox Machining Process Assisted by Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents the dimensional control technology for the production of ADT gearbox housing based on Closed Door Technology, and the methodology of final inspection of bearing seats position deviation by replacing the CMM with a CNC machine and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System. The results of the work indicated that correct solutions were obtained. The outcome of the present study does bring values to manufacturing and measuring the ADT gearbox and deserves to be shared with a broad audience. I recommend this work for publishing in this journal after making a minor revision according to the following comments.

1) The Fig. 1 is not standard, and it should be redrawn.

2) The Fig. 14 should not appear in the conclusion.

3) The hole size and tolerance of the ADT gearbox housing should be given.

4) The Eq. (3) is recommended to be expressed by flow chart.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

The abstract highlights the aim of the study and the main result of the paper.

Introduction:

The state-of-the art is well summarized and structured in the introduction. The main problem and the goal of the paper is perfectly clear from the text. The contribution is given here. The amount and the quality of the cited publications can be considered as good.

Description of the issue:

In this section the details of the connection between the machining and measurement are described. The role of ANFIS is the process is clear; in Figure 3c the analyzed case is clearly presented.

Please use the a, b and c letters in this figure too and not only in the caption.

Experimental tests:

Although the machine tool is named, the specification of the used cutting tool and the exact cutting parameters should be provided.

The specifications (accuracy, tactile material, parameter setup details, etc.) of theRMP600 should also be provided shortly in this paper.

After Fig 5 it is added that the machine accuracy was verified (line 219). If not here, but in the appendix the results of this verification should be provided shortly.

Line 221: ‘manufacturer’s tolerances’. What are these tolerances exactly?

The details (parameter setups for measurement) of the Mitutoyo CMM should also be provided.

These, above mentioned details are necessary for the reproducibility of machining and measurement processes.

Concerning Table 2, the details about the Pearson c.c. should be added: why can the obtained values be considered as low enough? Please refer to at least one or two studies which can found this statement.

Case study:

The measurement data and error analysis is clear and it contains no conceptual errors. The cases of BS 2 and 6 highlight the necessity of the application of ANFIS. The basics of the ANFIS is clearly described. The results are well-presented and the obtained results are explained correctly.

Summary:

The title of this section should be ‘conclusions’. After a short summarization part the main findings should be described here with concrete numerical information. The main point of the conclusion section is providing so called stand-alone sentences about the main findings, which can be understood by anybody without reading the whole paper.

The figure about the neuro-fuzzy system should be removed from this section and placed earlier (introduction or discussion part). The further research is highlighted here.

 

Language:

The manuscript requires significant language corrections: vocabulary, grammar and academic writing style. The revision by a native speaker is highly recommended.

Overall evaluation:

The main problem in the in-process measurement is the change in certain stress states of the workpiece after unfastening it from the clamping instrument. The authors pay attention to this. That is why the paper can be considered as a high-level practical contribution. Moreover, the application of ANFIS is a real practical contribution. After the consideration of the above detailed corrections and modifications the paper can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors considered all the recommendations and made profound modifications. The manuscript is outstanding regarding the topic and the presentation of the results. It is recommended to be published.