Next Article in Journal
Mapping Areal Precipitation with Fusion Data by ANN Machine Learning in Sparse Gauged Region
Previous Article in Journal
A Size-Controlled AFGAN Model for Ship Acoustic Fault Expansion
Article
Peer-Review Record

Induction of Highly Dynamic Shock Waves in Machining Processes with Multiple Loads and Short Tool Impacts

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(11), 2293; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112293
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Magdalena Niemczewska-Wojcik
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(11), 2293; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9112293
Received: 15 April 2019 / Revised: 27 May 2019 / Accepted: 30 May 2019 / Published: 4 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Optics and Lasers)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer remarks to the article:

 

Induction of highly dynamic shock waves in machining processes with multiple loads and short tool impacts

 

This paper is well constructed. The state of the art is enough good elaborated. This is the very well planned and done scientific work. The authors determined the scientific gap and applied a methodical apparatus adequate to the assumed goals. Obtained results are interesting from the point of view of the cutting process mechanism. But the following comments should be addressed before considering of publication:

1)     Abstract looks like introduction. Abstract is not enough specific. The abstract is expected to include a brief digest of the research, that is - new methods, results, concepts and conclusions only. The abstract needs to be more focused and achievements should be clearly mentioned.

2)     Please emphasize what are the specific conclusions useful for workshop practice.


Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the review of our paper and the useful hints.

We have made the following changes in the text according to your comments:

 

1)     Abstract looks like introduction. Abstract is not enough specific. The abstract is expected to include a brief digest of the research, that is - new methods, results, concepts and conclusions only. The abstract needs to be more focused and achievements should be clearly mentioned.

 

The abstract has been renewed regarding your comments.

 

2)     Please emphasize what are the specific conclusions useful for workshop practice.

 

The abstract and introduction have been reformulated and a stronger focus has been placed on gaining process understanding for single tooth circumference milling. Nevertheless, at the end of the Conclusion and the Outlook, a sentence on possible applications was added.

 

 

With kind regards

Andreas Tausendfreund


Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The review concerns the work entitled: Induction of highly dynamic shockwaves in machining processes with multiple loads and short tool impacts.

The paper presented by the Authors has generally the correct construction. It contains few mistakes and lacks some information, but it can be published after correction.

1. The nomenclature and symbols should be systematized. I suggest enumerating necessary abbreviations and symbols used in the text at the beginning of the paper.

2. In the ‘Abstract’, the Authors wrote the following: The production of high-quality components and the targeted adjustment of their surface layer properties require precise production control and continuous process conditions. The Authors mentioned the quality of the components, the surface layer and its properties, but in the text they did not describe these issues. What kind of components did the Authors have in mind?

3.  In the paragraph ‘Introduction’, lines 29-31, the Authors wrote the following: Metal processing aims at the production of parts with distinct functional properties, which in general differ from the raw material. This usually requires different manufacturing processes in order  to specifically adjust the shape, surface roughness or hardness of the workpiece.

First of all, the Authors wrote about functional properties, which they did not analyse in the next paragraphs. There are not any studies or descriptions of that issue in the text. Secondly, in my opinion, it should be ‘surface texture’, not ‘surface roughness’. Surface topography consists of shape/form and surface texture (i.a. waviness, roughness, artifacts).

4. In the paragraph ‘Introduction’, the Authors presented, among the others, the plan of the paper. In the end of this paragraph, the Authors should add information what is the newest.

5. In the paragraph ‘Discussion and conclusion’, the Authors should establish and describe the influence of the results of the conducted research on the formation of the surface layer, including functional properties, about which they wrote both in 'Abstract' and 'Introduction'.

6. The figures should be corrected by the Authors – to improve the readability.


Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the review of our paper and the useful hints.

We have made the following changes in the text according to your comments:

 

1. The nomenclature and symbols should be systematized. I suggest enumerating necessary abbreviations and symbols used in the text at the beginning of the paper.

6. The figures should be corrected by the Authors – to improve the readability.

 

Regarding points 1 and 6: The images (Figure 3, 4, 5) have been revised with regard to readability and a clear indication of the quantities vc, vf and ap. The symbols have been integrated into the text to a greater extent.

 

2. In the ‘Abstract’, the Authors wrote the following: The production of high-quality components and the targeted adjustment of their surface layer properties require precise production control and continuous process conditions. The Authors mentioned the quality of the components, the surface layer and its properties, but in the text they did not describe these issues. What kind of components did the Authors have in mind?

3.  In the paragraph ‘Introduction’, lines 29-31, the Authors wrote the following: Metal processing aims at the production of parts with distinct functional properties, which in general differ from the raw material. This usually requires different manufacturing processes in order to specifically adjust the shape, surface roughness or hardness of the workpiece.

First of all, the Authors wrote about functional properties, which they did not analyse in the next paragraphs. There are not any studies or descriptions of that issue in the text. Secondly, in my opinion, it should be ‘surface texture’, not ‘surface roughness’. Surface topography consists of shape/form and surface texture (i.a. waviness, roughness, artifacts).

5. In the paragraph ‘Discussion and conclusion’, the Authors should establish and describe the influence of the results of the conducted research on the formation of the surface layer, including functional properties, about which they wrote both in 'Abstract' and 'Introduction'.

 

Regarding points 2, 3 and 5: The abstract and the introduction have been rewritten so that the focus is no longer on the surface layer and functional properties but on the dynamic processes in the milling process.

 

Although, a deeper understanding of all the different manufacturing processes ultimately also allows better adjustment of the functional properties of the workpiece surface.

 

4. In the paragraph ‘Introduction’, the Authors presented, among the others, the plan of the paper. In the end of this paragraph, the Authors should add information what is the newest.

 

Regarding point 4:

At the end of the introduction a sentence was inserted, which describes what is new.

 

 

With kind regards

Andreas Tausendfreund


Reviewer 3 Report

It is a very good job, well written and described. Although there are some things that have to be taken noticed and written.

Firstly, it is good the novelty of this paper to be described in the introduction.

Second, the discussion of the experimental results should be more detailed, and agreement and disagreement of this work with the work of other authors cited in the references should be also added.

Finally, the conclusion should be improved


Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Many thanks for the review of our paper and the useful hints.

We have made the following changes in the text according to your comments:

 

Firstly, it is good the novelty of this paper to be described in the introduction.

 

Parts of the introduction have been rewritten in order to describe the extension of the state of the art, presented in the article.

 

Second, the discussion of the experimental results should be more detailed, and agreement and disagreement of this work with the work of other authors cited in the references should be also added.

 

With regard to the measurement of shock waves caused by the tool impact, no comparison could be made with the literature used. Overall, the comparison with the available literature is very difficult, since the processes are examined on a much larger time scale when simulating chip formation and chip breaking. Obviously, the highly dynamic excitations have not been known or not of interest so far.

 

Finally, the conclusion should be improved

 

In Abstract and Introduction, the focus of the work is no longer so much on the surface properties but on the dynamic workpiece behavior during the single-tooth circumferential milling process.

The section discussion and conclusions were extended and abstract + introduction were partly rewritten to clarify the focus of the paper on the application of the speckle photography method and the opportunities, which can be open with this measurement method.

 

With kind regards

Andreas Tausendfreund


Back to TopTop