Research on Double-Arc Cutting Tool Design and Cutting Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
I specified my reviews about manuscript as below;
- It is understood that the surface topography is examined in terms of machining in cutting with DACT and BEM tools. Has any study been done about the cutting forces coming to both tools during machining? I think it would be better to compare the cutting forces with the experimental and numerical results.
- Was wear observed on cutting tools during machining? I recommend that the wear SEM images be given in terms of comparison for DACT and BEM cutting tools.
-Is any process applied to the tool sharpening surfaces after grinding for cutting tools?
-How were the experimental and numerical results verified? Have validation tests been carried out?
Kind regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A brief summary:
The aim of the paper was to develop a new cutting tool design based on a double-arc revolving surface of tool’s end to raise machining efficiency and quality. The authors established parametric geometric model of a double-arc cutting tool (DACT) and proposed three types of cutting edge curves: with constant helix angle, with constant pitch and the orthogonal spiral cutting edge. Numerical simulations were conducted. DACT was manufactured. Experimental tests were performed. Surface roughness and deviations were measured.
Broad comments:
A significant achievement and main novelty of the presented work is the new design of the cutting tool, allowing for better quality of machining and manufacturing efficiency. The subject of the paper is practical and important as it could potentially improve machining of free-form surfaces. The introduction of the paper provides sufficient background. The references are numerous, relevant and up to date. The methods and results are presented mostly in a clear way. The conclusions that the authors draw from the experiment tests are sufficiently detailed, however not all assumptions are supported by the results. The text has numerous language errors as well, and it should be improved in that regard.
Specific comments:
· Authors state that the DACT improves machining efficiency. It is supported by the analyses, however, in the experimental tests, machining efficiency for both BEM and DACT seems to be the same – why?
· As the authors state in the introduction, problems of machining undertaken by authors are focused on free-form surfaces, which are machined in five-axes milling. However, authors chose to conduct the experiment using a three-axis milling machine. The results would be completely different with introducing tilt or lead angle for both end mills. Thus, the experiments seem to be flawed. When three-axis milling it is quite obvious that a tool with larger effective cutting diameter can achieve lower surface roughness. Authors need to explain why the experimental tests are conducted in three-axes only.
· Simulations were performed for three types of cutting edge curves. Experimental tests were conducted for only one type of geometry. Why the specific geometry was selected? Authors need to elaborate.
· Many figures are of poor quality and difficult to read, ie. Fig 14 the numbers are small and blurry. Needs to be improved.
· Is the chapter 3.1 really necessary? Grinding of end mills is a quite known process.
· In the experimental tests there is no information how the surface roughness and deviations were measured.
· Fig. 22 – no information about the angle in the description.
· Line 35 “…it is important to design tools … to improve the existing problems” – problems should be solved not improved.
· There are many typos and language errors that need to be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Manuscript can be accepted for publishing.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and professional advice.
Thank you again and best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adressed all my coments. I am content with all the revisions except the first one, where authors have not really adressed the issue why in the experimental tests both tools are set at the same width of cut (path interval) when the advantage of DACT is, as the authors state in the response, that the interval can be larger for DACT and thus the efficiency can be better. Hence, in the experimental tests authors test the parameters that would normally be not used or claims about the improved efficiency are not supported.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and professional advice.
Please see the attachment.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
