Multi-Objective Parameter Optimization Dynamic Model of Grinding Processes for Promoting Low-Carbon and Low-Cost Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a model for low carbon and low cost production in grinding processes.   (1) In order to achieve low carbon emission, a detailed description of the carbon emission coefficient in the model is required. (2) What does T mean in line 85? (3) There is a need to increase the resolution of the inserted picture. (4) A detailed explanation of Table 3 is required. (5) Since there are many formulas in the paper, NOMENCLATURE is required. (6) English corrections will be necessary.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewers:

We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewers' comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Reviewer #1:

Comments 1: In order to achieve low carbon emission, a detailed description of the carbon emission coefficient in the model is required.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows, the 98th line in the article ”Taking energy consumption as the basic input and Green House Gas (GHG) as the output, the corresponding carbon emissions in this process are converted through the carbon emission coefficient of various energies[25].is the carbon emission coefficient of the energy type (fuel, electricity, etc.). is the environmental impact, such as the time of production and the area where the workshop is located,etc. is the influence of the auxiliary process, such as the cooling of the processing environment, etc. “

Comments 2: What does T mean in line 85? 

Response: The T of the 85th line in the article is the transpose symbol of the vector.

Comments 3: There is a need to increase the resolution of the inserted picture.

Response: We have shown some clearer pictures for readers to review easily.

Comments 4: A detailed explanation of Table 3 is required.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows,the 353th line in the article ”Table 3 shows the specific parameters of the 30 optimal front individuals, each row representing an individual's the speed of grinding wheel outer circle, the cutting feed rate, the rotational speed of the workpiece, the individual's carbon emissions and costs.”

Comments 5: Since there are many formulas in the paper, NOMENCLATURE is required.

Response: We have changed the numbering of the formula to separate the numbering based on chapters.

Comments 6:English corrections will be necessary. 

Response: We have re-examined the language and grammar parts of the paper based on the questions you pointed out, and made some modifications to this to make the papers read more smoothly.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper.  And here we did not list the changes but marked  in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                        August 26, 2019

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper comprehensively analyzes the energy consumption and manufacturing costs including the dynamic change of the life of grinding wheel, cutting fluid and labor cost.  Optimization of the Carbon emission cost model is suggested considering wheel speed, feed rate and work speed.

It will be applicable to expand more practical situation.

Minor check

1) page 4 line 150, Fp is not identified.

2) page 4 line 158, Equation(9) ln Ft=ln Fp should be revised with small letter

3) page 5 line 164, 'grinding swept volume' seems better instead of 'grinding amount'

4) page 5 line 174, '0 to mt' should be corrected as '0 to tm'

5) page 9 line 291, 'vs  vr  vw' should be corrected with small letter

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewers:

We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewers' comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Reviewer #2:

Comments 1: Page 4 line 150, Fp is not identified.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows, the 174th line in the article ”andis experimental variables based on different processing environments.“ is based on different machine tool experiments, substituted into the experimental data regression solution.

Comments 2: Page 4 line 158, Equation(9) ln Ft=ln Fp should be revised with small letter.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows ,the 178th line in the article “”.

Comments 3: Page 5 line 164, 'grinding swept volume' seems better instead of 'grinding amount'.

Response:We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows,the 184th line in the article

 ” is the i-th grinding variable,”.

Comments 4: Page 5 line 174, '0 to mt' should be corrected as '0 to tm'.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows,the 178th line in the article, the 201th line in the article“ and the power from 0 to  is integrated to obtain the energy consumption value. ”.

Comments 5: Page 9 line 291, 'vs  vr  vw' should be corrected with small letter.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows,the 360th line in the article

Table 3. Pareto front-end values obtained from a certain operation

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper.  And here we did not list the changes but marked  in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                        August 28, 2019

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The text should be rebuilt to make it clear what was developed by the authors. It is recommended to use the traditional layout (1. introduction, 2. methodology, 3. results and discussion, 4. conclusions) with any additional points at the discretion of the authors.
The authors did not clearly define the research goal and the group of results recipients.
The introduction should be ordered, forming one whole and indicating the research problem that the authors want to solve. In addition, according to the reviewer, literature should constitute a global review, which is why the authors should also analyze research conducted by researchers of e.g. European origin.
The authors describe point 2 (theoretical) extensively, and point 3 very poorly, in which parameters for optimization appear. It is not described exactly how the input data was obtained. In point 3, the authors briefly describe the research and use the words "numerical value", without specifying whether they are their own results of numerical tests and analyzes, or whether they used literature data (if so, which one?). The authors did not present the methodology of these studies and analyzes and did not refer to, for example, their previous publications, where these results were presented.
According to the reviewer, the article would be more interesting if it were to expand the input database.
Other housekeeping notes
The summary should be rebuilt. The summary should include the research goal, the method of its solution, results and their effect.
Authors should define all used symbols in the text.
Stylistic errors are in the text, e.g. combining words, literature, etc.
The way of presenting literature should be standardized.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewers:

We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewers' comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Reviewer #3:

Comments 1:The introduction should be ordered, forming one whole and indicating the research problem that the authors want to solve.

Response: We reconstructed the introduction based on the reviewer's suggestion and the article we changed is as follows,the 31th line in the article ”In the production and processing of the enterprise, the grinding process aims to precision machining and ultra-precision machining of parts. The high-speed rotation of the grinding wheel and the long processing time in the process lead to a large carbon emission of the machine tool, and accompanied by high processing cost and the use of cutting fluid. According to the analysis of the energy consumption of the grinding process [1-3], the multi-energy-sources features and the mathematical model of a CNC [4-5]. The optimization of the grinding process parameters based on carbon emission and cutting cost is an urgent need to be solved.

Many scholars have carried out a lot of research and discussion on green CNC machining. Liu et al. [6-7] summarized the connotation of energy efficiency of manufacturing system. Cai et al. [8-9] proposed new concept of entitled lean energy-saving and emission reduction and new concept of fine energy consumption allowance. Greinacher S. et al. [10] focused on the identification of a cost optimized combination of lean and green strategies with regard to green targets. Cai et al. [11] measured the eco-environment loss caused by industrial solid waste. Then many scholars had done a lot of research on the model of green CNC machining. Feng Ma et al. [12] established the multi-objective laser sintering forming process optimization model with minimum energy consumption and material cost. Jiang et al.[13] proposed a method to predict the remanufacturing cost based date-driven. Lin et al. [14] proposed a method to directly quantify carbon emissions during the entire turning process, establish a low-carbon efficient turning model. The model built by Yan et al. [15] improved the thermal efficiency of the arc welding process, reducing energy consumption. Zhang et al. [16] optimized the surface grinding process with three objectives: production cost and speed, and surface roughness.

Grinding forces are key parameters in the grinding modeling process, however most studies were based on analysis of grinding motion and individual abrasive forces. Shen et al. [17] analyzed the characteristics of non-circular grinding movement of special-shaped parts, and established an empirical model of grinding force during the processing of special-shaped parts. Li et al. [18] considered the microscopic interaction between abrasive particles and workpieces at different processing stages, and proposes a detailed cutting force model. Zhang et al. [19] based on material-removal and plastic-stacking mechanisms, proposed the aggregate force is Derived through the synthesis of each single-grain force.

For the analysis of the results of green manufacturing, many scholars have proposed many assessment and decision making methods of energy efficiency[20-23]. Cai et al.[24] proposed energy performance certification to manage energy consumption and improve energy performance. Jia et al. [25] developed an energy consumption evaluation method for the activities related to machine tools and operators. Green manufacturing processing steps can also be evaluated by the general principles of fuzzy matter evaluation [26], and carbon emissions from it can be evaluated by aggregating the unit process to form a combined model [27].

Comprehensive analysis of the above research, although the optimization of the machining process is discussed, the influence of the optimization variables on the dynamic changes of the multi-objective model is rarely considered. In order to improve the accuracy of the model, the dynamic modeling method needs to be studied. In the actual processing, the use of a single abrasive force to establish a theoretical model has errors, and less scholars dynamically fit the model at each stage of the process through experimental data. In the analysis of the results, the application of fuzzy matter evaluation method is less involved. How to improve the accuracy of models and results requires more research.”

Comments 2: It is not described exactly how the input data was obtained.

Response: In the article we have shown, the 339th line in the article ”The 45# steel blank material and the 100# resin bond diamond grinding wheel are used for the processing experiment. The grinding force under each grinding scheme is detected and collected in real time by the top force measuring instrument, and the expression of the fitting grinding force is calculated. The power values of each stage were collected through the SIN-D200 power recorder of Hangzhou joint measurement, and the nonlinear regression fitting model was obtained by fitting parameters with the least square method. The corresponding parameter values are shown in table 2.”. This section of the paper describes where the experimental data came from and summarizes the important data obtained.

The power data in this article are measured by the power measuring instrument in each state of the actual machine tool (please see Figure 1,2,5,6). The mechanical data in the model fitting are also measured by the mechanical testing instrument in the actual cutting(please see Figure 3,4), but the specific experimental situation is that the author has written other academic papers, so the third part of this article is written with a set of experimental data. Only relevant experimental pictures and final optimized processing data can be provided (please see Table 1).

Figure 1                                     Figure 2

Figure 3                            Figure 4

Figure 5                  Figure 6

Table 1

Comments 3: The summary should be rebuilt.

Response: We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows, the 15th line in the article ”Grinding is widely used as a processing method in mechanical manufacturing finishing to achieve carbon efficiency improvement and cost saving, and the carbon emission model and processing cost model of the grinding process are established. In the modeling process, a speed change-based adjustment function is introduced to dynamically derive the change of the target model; using regression method, the carbon emission model is derived by the grinding force. Considering the constraints of machine tool equipment performance and processing quality requirements, the grinding wheel’s linear velocity, cutting feed rate and the rotation speed of the workpiece are selected as the optimization variables, and the improved NSGA-II algorithm is applied to solve the optimization model. Finally, the fuzzy matter element analysis is used to evaluate the most optimal processing plan.”

Comments 4: Authors should define all used symbols in the text.
Response: We have constructed the formula table, but due to the content and layout problems, we still need to discuss with the editor whether to add the article, please forgive us.

Comments 5:Stylistic errors are in the text, e.g. combining words, literature, etc. The way of presenting literature should be standardized.

Response: Based on the questions you pointed out, we re-examine the language and grammar parts of the paper, and made some modifications to this, so that the paper can be read more smoothly and make the article more academic.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper.  And here we did not list the changes but marked  in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                        August 28.2019

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Several sentences are difficult to be understood, such as: “Grinding is widely used as a processing method in mechanical manufacturing 13 finishing to achieve carbon efficiency improvement and cost saving”…grinding is used because the only way to achieve both precision and part requirements.

Thera re others.

State of the art: recent works about grinding in Metals or Materials, with flank super abrasive milling are missed, in those case applied to IBRs or gears. Materials 11 (9), 1638 or https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2033-7

Model is right, perhaps the works by Bustillo and ANN with short sets are missed, as Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48, 108-121

In short, paper can be going on but those points needs to be improved.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewer:

      We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Round 1 of reviewer #4: 

Comments 1:

Several sentences are difficult to be understood, such as: “Grinding is widely used as a processing method in mechanical manufacturing 13 finishing to achieve carbon efficiency improvement and cost saving”…grinding is used because the only way to achieve both precision and part requirements.

Response: 

      We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article. The content of the article we changed is as follows, the 15th line in the article”Grinding is widely used in mechanical manufacturing finishing, to obtain both precision and part requirements. In order to achieve carbon efficiency improvement and cost saving, the carbon emission model and processing cost model of the grinding process are established.” 

      And the 31th line in the article”In the production and processing of the enterprise, the grinding process has a small amount of cutting, and the surface roughness of the parts after processing is very low, which is mainly used for precision machining and ultra-precision machining of parts.”

Comments 2:

State of the art: recent works about grinding in Metals or Materials, with flank super abrasive milling are missed, in those case applied to IBRs or gears. Materials 11 (9), 1638 or https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2033-7

Model is right, perhaps the works by Bustillo and ANN with short sets are missed, as Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48, 108-121

Response: 

      We are very grateful for your proposed technology, and we have taken your valuable comments into consideration and revised the introduction of the article.

      After read the article of Amaia Calleja that you recommended, and we think that the model of this article is meaningful for the theoretical study of our research, so we quoted this article as 6th reference.

      After read the article of Bustillo that you recommended, and we think the theory of this article is very helpful for the establishment of the model we studied, so we quoted this article as 23th reference.The 52th line in the article”Bustillo et al. [23] takes into account the optimization of the process requires calibration of the main input parameters in relation to the desired output values.”

      We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the  manuscript .These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper .And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper .We appreciate for Editors /Reviewers' warm work earnestly ,and hope that the correction will meet with approval .

      Once again ,thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions .

                  Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                                           October 18, 2019

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author seems to have corrected the article according to the reviewer's comments, and the publication seems to be possible.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewer:

        Thank you very much for your enthusiastic work, and thank you again for your valuable opinions and suggestions.

Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                                     September 14, 2019

Reviewer 3 Report

Please explain why "Comprehensive analysis of the above research, although the optimization of the machining process is discussed, the influence of the optimization variables on the dynamic changes of the multi-objective model is rarely considered"?

Please specify the following, giving what is new about it? why is it so important and to what extent will it contribute to the development of the discipline of science?
"In order to improve the accuracy of the model, the dynamic modeling method needs to be studied. In the actual processing, the use of a single abrasive force to establish a theoretical model has errors, and less scholars dynamically fit the model at each stage of the process through experimental data. In the analysis of the results, the application of fuzzy matter evaluation method is less involved. How to improve the accuracy of models and results requires more research ".
Figure 4 is small. The axis descriptions should be corrected.
Tables 3 and 4 - values ​​should be given to significant numbers

The authors did not comment on:
"The authors describe point 2 (theoretical) extensively, and point 3 very poorly, in which parameters for optimization appear. It is not described exactly how the input data was obtained. In point 3, the authors briefly describe the research and use the words "numerical value", without specifying whether they are their own results of numerical tests and analyzes, or whether they used literature data (if so, which one?). The authors did not present the methodology of these studies and analyzes and did not refer to, for example, their previous publications, where these results were presented."

The authors did not comment on:
"In addition, according to the reviewer, literature should constitute a global review, which is why the authors should also analyze research conducted by researchers of e.g. European origin."

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewer:

        We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

Round 2 of reviewer #3:

Comments 1:

        Please explain why "Comprehensive analysis of the above research, although the optimization of the machining process is discussed, the influence of the optimization variables on the dynamic changes of the multi-objective model is rarely considered"?

Response: 

        In the past research, researchers have determined the optimization variables, built the model and the constraints, and then optimized the model. But in the process of machining, the change of the optimized variables affect the dynamic changes of the model, such as mentioned in this article, the linear velocity of grinding wheel change leads to the use amount of grinding fluid, at the same time will increase the wear amount of the grinding wheel, and so on. This factor is rarely considered in existing studies, so it is necessary to study the influence of variable changes on the model.

Comments 2:

        Please specify the following, giving what is new about it? why is it so important and to what extent will it contribute to the development of the discipline of science?”In order to improve,...and results requires more research.”

Response: 

        In the process of establishing the model, the use of a single abrasive force to establish a theoretical model is a static process. The influencing factors of the machine tool cannot be considered. Different machine tools have different output conditions, and dynamic changes during machining can cause changes in grinding force.The force of using a single abrasive will lead to the error of the model in different processing environments, which will affect the optimization result. Therefore, it is necessary to use the experimental method to dynamically fit the machining model of the machine tool.

        In the process of analysis of results, most of studies use general evaluation methods or directly obtain optimal values, but in the face of complex model conditions and more influential factors, they often do not produce absolute optimal values. Considering the correlation between the output value and the input value, and their relative optimal value. In our research suggests that the fuzzy matter element evaluation method can obtain more accurate result evaluation and can take into account the correlation between things.

        So we think that the above two ideas can effectively improve the existing technology.

Comments 3:

Figure 4 is small. The axis descriptions should be corrected.
Tables 3 and 4 - values should be given to significant numbers

Response:

        We have taken your valuable comments into consideration and reviewed the article.Please see the revised version for changes in content.

Comments 4:

        "The authors describe point 2 (theoretical) extensively, and point 3 very poorly, in which parameters for optimization appear. It is not described exactly how the input data was obtained. In point 3, the authors briefly describe the research and use the words "numerical value", without specifying whether they are their own results of numerical tests and analyzes, or whether they used literature data (if so, which one?). The authors did not present the methodology of these studies and analyzes and did not refer to, for example, their previous publications, where these results were presented."

Response:

        In point 3,we have not borrowed data from other relevant literature. We introduced the materials used in the experiment: the 45# steel blank material and the 100# resin bond diamond grinding wheel are used for the processing experiment, and we recorded the time taken to machine each step of the machine tool, the use of cutting fluid, etc.

        Because we are fitting the machining power of the grinding by experiment, then we describe the grinding force under each grinding scheme is detected and collected in real time by the top force measuring instrument, and the expression of the fitting grinding force is calculated.

        As for the power parameters in various states of the machine during the machining process, they collected through the SIN-D200 power recorder of Hangzhou joint measurement, and the nonlinear regression fitting model was obtained by fitting parameters with the least square method.

        In the article we have shown the 339th line in the article,and this section of the paper describes where the experimental data came from and summarizes the important data obtained in Table 2, and we shown the important data of machine tool in Table 1.

        So why didn't we describe the experimental process in detail?

        First of all, the experiment process is too complicated, so we summarize the key data obtained during the experiment.

        Second, the focus of this article is on the model part.

        The power data in this article are measured by the power measuring instrument in each state of the actual machine tool. The mechanical data in the model fitting are also measured by the mechanical testing instrument in the actual cutting, but the specific experimental situation is that the author has written other academic papers, but this article has not been published yet, so the third part of this article is written with a set of experimental data. Only relevant experimental pictures and final optimization of one step can be provided.

Comments 5:

        "In addition, according to the reviewer, literature should constitute a global review, which is why the authors should also analyze research conducted by researchers of e.g. European origin."

Response:

        In the introduction, we have added a lot of references to expand the horizon of this article, and it has grown from more than 20 references to nearly 40. References 1,2,3,6,7,8,11,12,13,14 etc. are came from Western scholars' research, and most of the articles in the article are cited in The Engineering Index and Science Citation Index.Please refer to the revised content. 

        We did our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. We have not listed the changes here, but they have been marked in the revised paper. We are very grateful to the editor/reviewer for their enthusiastic work and hope that the revision will be recognized.
        Thank you again for your valuable comments and suggestions.

Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                                     September 13, 2019

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
thank you very much for your answers. The answers themselves are definitely better expressed than their improvement in the content of the article. I suggest including them in the article:

1) in the introduction to articulate why these studies are so important and for whom. In the article, the authors write only that this has rarely been the subject of research (In the analysis of the results, the application of fuzzy matter evaluation method is less involved. How to improve the accuracy of models and results requires more research.), which is not convincing (please describe how the accuracy will affect the results of the analysis, improve existing calculations, what parameters, what will it involve, etc.).

2) in terms of note: "The authors describe point 2 (theoretical) extensively, and point 3 very poorly, in which parameters for optimization appear. It is not described exactly how the input data was obtained. In point 3, the authors briefly describe the research and use the words "numerical value", without specifying whether they are their own results of numerical tests and analyzes, or whether they used literature data (if so, which one?). The authors did not present the methodology of these studies and analyzes and did not refer to, for example, their previous publications, where these results were presented. " - if the results of experimental research are published in another journal, as you write, it should be clearly indicated in this article, e.g.
"Experimental data will be presented in [xx]" and in refences [xx] .... - in print (if true)
According to the reviewer, however, sometimes it is better to have one article containing everything than several of the individual parts. The article should be one whole.
2) in the scope "In addition, according to the reviewer, literature should constitute a global review, which is why the authors should also analyze research conducted by researchers of e.g. European origin."
The reviewer has read the literature and sees expansion in this area, however, these are still local literature items (8 others out of 15 added).

Based on the above, I propose that the content of this article be reconsidered by the authors.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewer:

         We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. As well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

        Please refer to the text and materials in the attached file.

        We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

        Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

                      Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                                            October 26, 2019

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
thank you very much for your proofreading and clarification. Your improvement makes me happy.
As for the first remark (regarding the introduction) and the third remark (considering the problem on an international scale), I can consider it explained and corrected in the article. However, with the second remark regarding the lack of description of experimental research in the content of the article, I can not agree. I consider it to be a large, even decisive, lack. This makes the article impossible to reproduce, which is the main feature of scientific articles. So I have the following suggestions:
1) you describe the experiment briefly, writing that it will be discussed in detail in another article by the authors,
2) you refer to the second article, in the bibliography you put this article with the note "in press" if it has already been accepted for printing or "in acceptance", if not and if it is in practice a journal (permission of the journal editor required),
3) we are waiting for the publication of the second article and then we publish the one with reference to the second one.

Author Response

Dear, Editor and Reviewer:

       We are so appreciated for your letter and for the reviewer's comments conceming our manuscript entitled”Multi-objective Parameters Optimization Dynamic Model in Grinding Processes for Promoting Low Carbon and Low Cost Production”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. As well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.

       Please see the attachment for the specific reply.

       We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not affect the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/ Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

       Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions.

                      Mingmao Hu, Yu Sun, Qingshan Gong, Shengyang Tian, Yuemin Wu

                                                          November 17, 2019

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 5

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your article improvement. I think that's enough. Although I also think that the article could be much better if the description of the study and analysis were thoroughly described, and it was not broken down into several articles.

Best Regards