Five-Axis Finish Milling Machining for an Inconel 718 Alloy Monolithic Blisk
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe tip of the cutting tool in Fig. 5 is not clear, and a clearer and enlarged image of the tip should be given.
Error bars of the experimental data should be added in Figure 15. Why did not use Ra in Fig. 15?
SEM images of the machined surface morphologies under different cutting conditions are recommended to be added in the manuscript.
The quality of Figs. 8, 11, 15, 16 should be improved significantly.
The length scales of Figs. 10, 13, 17 should be added.
In the caption of Fig. 10, there is a mistake “Figure 10. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting”. Please delete “This is a figure.”.
Regarding as investigating the tool wear during machining of difficult-to-machine materials, there is a literature as below on this topic. The authors can cite it in the manuscript if possible.
[A] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2022.107856 .
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment for the author's reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript Number: applsci-2964017
Title: Five-axis Finish Milling Machining for an Inconel 718 Alloy Monolithic Blisk
Decision: Major revision
Article Type: Article
The article is, in general, well written but there are some issues that article should consider to revise in order to improve its quality. Some comments were done in this way:
Ø The abstract, according to the reviewer, is not a mini-paper but a quick tool to help readers decide whether they will read the rest of the paper. Please give the improvements that will attract the attention of the readers numerically (percentage rates) in the summary section.
Ø Why do you need Figures 2 and 3? Explained in the previous paragraph. The figures should be removed.
Ø Titles opened under heading 2.3 should be merged.
Ø In Figure 6, remove the arrows and give a-b-c-d.
Ø It must be reported whether coolant is used.
Ø The results of the 4th experiment in Fig 8 and 9 are quite interesting. The reasons should be discussed instead of just the bending moments have increased. Why did the bending moments increase in experiment 4 although the Cutting Speed, Effective Cut-ting Speed increased in experiments 5-6?
Ø The wear rate should be measured in the wear pictures given in Fig 10. For example, as in the previous graphs, the cutting tool used in experiment 4 seems to have worn more. However, there is no correspondence between wear rate and bending moments. Give a quantitative value. Please open a new topic on wear and give more detailed information.
Ø Please add an explanation for the graph given in Figure 11. Comments are important. The graphs should not just be passed over by saying that they have increased or decreased. Comments on the differences and reasons should be added. For example, in graph 11, the only variable in experiments 9, 10 and 11 was Fz and Fz liner did not increase. Why did this anomaly occur in Experiment 11? This is important. Please let the authors enrich this section with their comments. This deficiency is immediately noticeable throughout the article.
Ø The assessment for Fig 12 is that it is due to abrasion. But what is important is why that wear difference is there. Please improve the comments for this part as well.
Ø Repetition is essential in science. Were these experiments done once or averaged over repeated experiments? If it was done once, were these different results at least repeated?
Ø For Fig17, the part referred to as a crack is the BUE adhesion. BUE is a major problem with superalloys like Inconel 718. BUE can be proven by EDS analysis. The following article shows how to detect and interpret it.
https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants11040159
Please make use of the following article and other articles dealing with superalloys of this kind. Strengthen your comments.
Ø We will remove your articles in the literature older than 10 years, especially 15 years, unless it is very necessary.
Ø Expand your literature.
After the corrections have been made, I ask that they be sent to me for review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment for the author's reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Sincere congratulations fot the research. However, I suggested some minor modifications. Attention with the conclusion on the dependence of the cutting force with the cuttind speed. It is not deductible from the bending moment. See nmy suggetions and remarks in the attach.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please see the attachment for the author's reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the requested corrections. Thank you. The article can be published in this form. I wish the authors success in their future endeavours.
