Optimizing Dual-Microstructure Parameters in Ball-End Milling Tools: Synergistic Effects and Parameter Combination Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper was trying to present a study the impact of weaving parameters on machined surface. However, I was struggling when reviewed this article. The presentation of this article is very bad and not in an academic way. Besides, the discussion section is also poor and presentation of results is also very poor!  Please see my comments:

1. The title of this article is confusing me. The title of a article should precisely describe the most important aspect of paper. Now the title is "A Study Was Conducted on the Combined Weaving Parameters 2 of a Ball-End Milling Cutter's Front and Rear Faces", which kind of information provided? I do not think it is a good title.

2. Repetitive and Ambiguous Phrasing
   For instance, "Figure 3 is the milling cutter in the process of work Figure 3 shows..." is repetitive and awkwardly constructed.

3. The text uses both "rear face" and "back face" interchangeably. For clarity and consistency, it is recommended to choose one term throughout the manuscript.
4. Very very long sentence all around the paper. I even cannot understand the context.  please improve sentence segmentation and grammar.
5. Section 2.2: Please use academic language... do not use old surface, new surface..
   Meanwhile, I don't understand 'The old surface wear after the formation of the new surface will also produce a new deformation'.
6. The phrase "the friction factor 𝜇(𝑥) of the crear face" appears to contain a typographical error. What is crear ?
7. How come two table had same title (table 1 and 2)??? BTW, please use informative captions.
8. Table 5: Table but diagram? I cannot understand...
9. Line 227: What was the results of Song Shuangzhu? If authors were trying to get support from other research work, please show their results to reader FIRST!
10. Table 6. Milling force or temperature?
11. Table 7, where is the visual analysis? Unit?
12. Figure 11-14. Font size is too small, difficult to read. And no need to show all images.
13. Figure 19: please DO NOT use low-resolution screenshot in article. Please replace it
14. Conclusion section is also confusion. Please show your conclusion, not the experiments report. Conclude like higher/lower temperature has less wear... Readers do not know what is T4 or whatever symbols mean.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English grammar must be improved. 

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. On what basis was the microstructure used on the ball mill selected? Why this one and not another? Why exactly 9 different microwave values? Where do these values come from? Please justify your choice in the text of the article.
2. Please indicate the chemical composition of stainless steel 304 (either carry out tests on a scanning electron microscope machine or download data from the literature). In my opinion, this would enrich the work.
3. Please create a nomenclature describing the abbreviations used.
4. „Nine sets of orthogonal tests with four factors and three levels were designed and orthogonal test tables were established with four parameters, namely, groove weave width (D), weave depth (H), microwave spacing (L1), and microwave distance from the cutting edge (L2), as shown in Table 3.” Lines 211-213. From Table 3 it can be seen that we have 3 different values of D, 4 different values of H, 3 different values of L1 and 3 different values of L2 (Line 217). Why was only one value of H 60 used? On this basis, the rest of the study is invalid. The authors describe in Table 5 three different values of H which is incorrect. Then the whole ANOVA analysis is unfounded ... clearly the smallest value was obtained for H 60....
5. “The collected data were subjected to polar analysis of variance (ANOVA), a statistical 223 method used to identify the sources of variation in a dataset.” Lines 223-224 Where is the table showing the ANOVA analysis? Please provide justification as to why L2>H>D>L1 The reader without a table will take the authors' word for it.
6. Table 5. “Visual analysis diagram of milling force.” Line 222. Please re-edit the name of this table, it is not very clear to me.
7. „Figure 4. The influence of different textures on cutting force.” Line 230. Please also show the error bars on the drawing
8. „As H is increased gradually, the cutting force initially decreases and then increases.” Line 238. From the graph in Figure 4, it appears that the milling force decreases all the time when increasing the parameter H... Please clarify.
9. Comparing Table 3 and Table 5 you can see that the values for D are set D(1) = 30 D(2) = 50 D(3) = 70, however for H we see discrepancies the reader is unable to determine (in my opinion an error was made) H(1), H(2), H(3) what values were assigned? L1(1) = 100 L1(2) = 120 L1(3) = 140 is correct. L2 is also correct L2(1) = 80 L2(2) = 100 L2(3) = 120.
10. “50um for D, 60um for H, 100um for L1, and 100um for L2.” Lines 248-249. So H = 60 um was chosen just because once at that value it came out right????? From my assessment of figure 4 it should come out 50um for D, 140um for H, 100um for L1, and 100um for L2. If I am wrong, please clarify?
11. „Table 7 Visual analysis of milling temperature.” Line 257 The same error I cited earlier with the value of H(1), H(2), H(3). There are errors in columns L1 and L2. Experiment no 7, 8, 9.
12. “The sequence of the impact of the four microstructure parameters on the temperature 262 was determined to be as follows: L1 > H > L2 > D by the method of polar analysis” Lines 262-263. Same as before please provide a table to justify the assumption L1 > H > L2 > D.
13. „Conversely, an increase in D results in a decrease in tool temperature, attributable to the increased width of the groove, which enhances its capacity to accommodate chips and thereby boosts the tool's cutting ability” Lines 275-277. From Figure 5 it appears that by increasing to level 3 the temperature increases? So this sentence and statement is wrong in some sense. Please clarify.
14. „In summary, when the parameters of the microwave of the tool are selected using the tool temperature as a criterion, the optimal parameters of the groove weave should be selected as 50um for D, 40um for H, 140um for L1, and 140um for L2. “ Lines 288-290. should be 50um for D, 140um for H, 140um for L1, and 100um for L2. If I am wrong please explain.
15. “When the effect of temperature and cutting force on the tool is considered concurrently, the parameters of the microwave on the front face should be selected as 50um for D, 40um for H, 100um for L1, and 100um for the distance of L2.” Lines 291-293. Here, in order to ascertain this, both graphs 4 and 5 should be presented in the form of a table or in one figure... It is difficult to confirm this immediately. For this purpose, a Grey Relational Analysis should be performed. An explanation of this analysis can be found in this sample article.

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010220

16. Comparing Tables 7 and 8 there is again a misspelling of the value D = 40 D 50 D 60 Please correct L1 = 120 140 160 same L2 same... Please correct Table 7.
17. „From the milling force 305 considerations, the design of the back face of the weave parameters is as follows: D is 40 306 μm, H is 50 μm, L1 is 60 μm, and L2 is 130 μm.” Lines 305-306. The lowest values were obtained for Experiment 3 i.e. D 40, H 50, L1 160, L2 130. Please check the results. Please ask for clarification.
18. „In the course of the milling tests, the optimal parameters for the groove weave were determined to be 60 μm for D, 50 μm for H, 140 μm for L1, and 90 μm for L2, with the tool temperature serving as the criterion for selecting the parameters of the tool microwave. “ Lines 332-333 isn't this a misstatement? L1 should not be for 160???? L2 for 90??? Please clarify.
19. “Considering the tool temperature as well as the cutting forces, the parameters of the 335 micro-weave structure on the back face were chosen as 40um for D, 50um for H, 140um 336 for L1, and 90um for L2.” Same comment as before. Here, in order to ascertain this, both graphs 4 AND 5 should be presented as a table or in a single figure... It is difficult to confirm this immediately. For this purpose, a Grey Relational Analysis should be performed. An explanation of this analysis can be found in this sample article.

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010220

20. What is T1 T2 T3 T4? Where is there any explanation?
21. „6. Milling Test „Line 383 Here, an overview photo of the machine with the sample attached and the tool prepared for machining would be useful.
22. Figures 11, 12, 13, 14 I cannot read anything from them.
23. “6.2. Tool Wear Test Analysis” Line 431. Please present the microscope with the attached instrument, describe its basic parameters.
24. „6.3. Analysis of Workpiece Surface Roughness Results” Line 454. Please introduce the machine on which the measurement was carried out, describe its basic parameters.
25. From Figures 20-23 you can see the other two parameters why are they not described? Where is the tabulation of the obtained values against T1 T2 T3 T4.
26. Please also describe the tools and machinery used in the study

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My Comments are addressed and paper quality improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their patience and for making comments in the text. In my opinion, the manuscript has been corrected and all my comments have been answered.

Regards