Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the influence of tool eccentricity on the formation of milling burrs in AISI304 stainless steel. Based on the JC constitutive model and JC shear failure criterion, a three-dimensional thermal-mechanical coupled finite element model was established. The influence laws of the eccentric direction and eccentricity on the burr size were analyzed, and the reliability of the simulation results was verified through experiments. It is meaningful to conduct the study on burr evolution with eccentricity and eccentric direction as the main variables. Combining the thermal-mechanical coupling with the JC failure model provides a parameterization rule for burr control and simulation prediction. However, the theoretical modeling in this paper still needs more rigorous explanations. The specific comments are as follows:

1. Page 5, lines 170-176, JC formula (1) and formulas (2)-(3) on page 6, why did the JC model parameters choose to come from references [19] and [20]? Is the content described in the references applicable to the strain rate range of high-speed milling of AISI304?
2. Section 3.5, lines 232-247, the friction coefficient μ was not given a numerical value or range, and it was not explained how the critical shear stress τc of the material was determined.
3. Table 6, the macro tool with an eccentric distance upper limit of 0.02 mm, does it match the micro-milling conditions?
4. Section 5, the simulation and verification values, the experimental feed rate 0.02 and the simulation value 0.2 differ by an order of magnitude. Will this affect the accuracy of the verification?
5. Table 7, the last row Ey, why Eccentric distance e is 0.02, while w2 is 0.0996, which is different from the data in the previous section. Please the author carefully check the data. If the result is like this, what is the cause? In addition, Figure 14 does not provide experimental error bars. Figures 10-13 have inconsistent font sizes for the temperature scale, and some are difficult to read clearly.
6. In the conclusion, (4) proposes that eccentric direction may significantly influence burr formation, but it did not quantify the standard for significant influence. How did the author obtain this conclusion through comparison?

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Research on Milling Burrs of AlSi304 Stainless Steel with Consideration of Tool Eccentricity” addresses an important issue that is highly relevant from both scientific and industrial perspectives. Burr formation during machining significantly affects component quality, increases manufacturing costs, and has direct implications for tool wear, and overall process efficiency. Therefore, studies focused on understanding burr mechanisms and the influence of tool eccentricity on burr formation are of substantial value to the field of machining research.

However, in its current form, the manuscript requires several revisions before it can be considered suitable for publication. The following comments and suggestions are provided with the intention of helping the authors improve the clarity, structure, and scientific contribution of the paper.

• The overall structure of the manuscript is unclear and may be confusing to the reader. In particular, parts of Section 2 contain general background information that would be more appropriately placed in the Introduction to provide proper context and improve logical flow. The authors are encouraged to reorganize the content to enhance readability and ensure a coherent structure consistent with standard scientific paper layout.
• The manuscript does not fully comply with the journal template. In particular, the tables are incorrectly formatted. According to the journal’s guidelines, table captions should be placed above the tables, not below. The authors are requested to revise the formatting accordingly.
• The manuscript does not present a clearly articulated aim of the study. The introduction should explicitly state the research gap, the motivation for the study, and the main objectives. At present, the purpose of the work remains unclear to the reader.
• A distinct and coherent Discussion section is missing. Moreover, the explanation provided by the authors makes it difficult to understand the relationships between the studied parameters and the results. The authors are encouraged to include a separate section dedicated to discussion, in which the obtained results are interpreted in light of existing knowledge, literature, and underlying physical mechanisms.
• The statement “Numerous burr studies have employed finite element simulation methods [11-14]” is not suitable for the Conclusions. The conclusion section should focus on summarizing the main findings of the current research, practical implications, and potential directions for future work. Any literature references or general background information should not be presented in this section.
• The “Acknowledgements” section is highlighted in red, which is inconsistent with the journal’s formatting guidelines. The authors are requested to adjust the formatting to meet the required template.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed the reviewers’ comments very well and has met the requirements of the article. It is excellent.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking into account my comments