Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Oussama Beldi 1,2,
  • Tarik Zarrouk 1,2,* and
  • Mohammed Barboucha 1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Yixuan Feng Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. There are more works on analytical models of ultrasonic vibration assisted milling that should be reviewed, for example: Force prediction in ultrasonic vibration-assisted milling (https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2020.1815048)
  2.  It would be good to show photos of actual workpieces and tools besides Fig 2 and 3.
  3.  Could you show more details on the sensitivity analysis of mesh size to confirm that the results are convergent under 0.35 mm?
  4.  Title of Fig. 4: please make sure the whole manuscript is written in english.
  5.  Why is Abaqus chosen for FEM? Other software such ANSYS and DEFORM is also capable of this.
  6.  For section 6.1, please justify the assumption of constant coefficient of friction. It should vary depending on surface roughness, materials, lubrication, normal force, temperature, and wear.
  7.  Please show error bars in Fig. 7.
  8.  Color map needs to be added in Fig.8, 9.
  9.  For Fig. 10, 11, it would be interesting to see an optimal range of vibration amplitude and frequency, as the force should increase again with larger vibration parameters. Please refer to the paper mentioned in comment #1.
  10. Besides force, other factors such as temperature, residual stress, and tool wear should also be examined.
  11. How do you apply the findings to more general cases outside the range of parameters studied?

Author Response

 

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

 

“Modification of the tribomechanical cutting regime in longitudinal-torsional ultrasonic milling: from adhesion to controlled fragmentation”

 

By O. Beldi, T. Zarrouk, A. Abbadi, M. Nouari, W. Ding, M. Abbadi, J-E. Salhi, M. Barboucha.

 

Manuscript Number: micromachines-4200304

 

Dear Editor,

Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.

All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript and are highlighted in yellow. color

Yours Sincerely.

 

 

 

  1. There are more works on analytical models of ultrasonic vibration assisted milling that should be reviewed, for example: Force prediction in ultrasonic vibration-assisted milling (https://doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2020.1815048).

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. It has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

  1. It would be good to show photos of actual workpieces and tools besides Fig 2 and 3.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. The figure has been modified in the new version of the manuscript.

  1. Could you show more details on the sensitivity analysis of mesh size to confirm that the results are convergent under 0.35 mm?

 

Answer: In reality, we did not conduct a detailed study of mesh convergence; however, the mesh was refined as much as possible. Based on this, the chosen mesh represents a good compromise between the accuracy of the results and CPU computation time.

  1. Title of Fig. 4: please make sure the whole manuscript is written in english.

 

Answer: This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

  1. Why is Abaqus chosen for FEM? Other software such ANSYS and DEFORM is also capable of this.

 

Answer: Abaqus was chosen for the finite element modeling due to its robustness in handling nonlinear problems, particularly those involving large deformations, complex contact conditions, and advanced material behavior. It also provides suitable capabilities for simulating dynamic phenomena and Multiphysics coupling. Moreover, its use is consistent with existing literature in this field, which facilitates validation and comparison of results. Although other software such as ANSYS and DEFORM are also capable, Abaqus was considered the most suitable for the specific requirements of this study.

 

  1. For section 6.1, please justify the assumption of constant coefficient of friction. It should vary depending on surface roughness, materials, lubrication, normal force, temperature, and wear.

 

Answer:  This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

  1. Please show error bars in Fig. 7.

 

 

Answer:   Thank you very much for your comment. Indeed, we did not include error bars in Fig. 7 because the figure illustrates general and comparative trends between different configurations rather than precise measured values. The main objective is to show the relative effect of the studied parameters, not the statistical variability of the data.

 

  1. Color map needs to be added in Fig.8, 9.

 

Answer:  Thank you very much for your comment. We did not add a color map in Figs. 8 and 9 because the results are already clear and effectively illustrate the phenomena under study. The main information is adequately conveyed in the current format and adding a color map would not provide significant additional clarity.

 

  1. For Fig. 10, 11, it would be interesting to see an optimal range of vibration amplitude and frequency, as the force should increase again with larger vibration parameters. Please refer to the paper mentioned in comment #1.

Answer:    This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

  1. Besides force, other factors such as temperature, residual stress, and tool wear should also be examined.

 

Answer:  Thank you for this comment. However, these aspects will be addressed as perspectives for future work. Indeed, beyond cutting forces, other factors such as temperature, residual stress, and tool wear also deserve to be investigated in subsequent studies.

 

  1. How do you apply the findings to more general cases outside the range of parameters studied?

 

Answer:  These results can be extended to more general cases by considering that they provide qualitative trends and general behavior of the studied phenomenon. Although the exact values depend on the specific parameters analyzed, the conclusions can guide the optimization and understanding of similar processes. For precise application to other conditions, adjustments or additional studies would be necessary to account for differences in materials, geometry, or operating conditions.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. The Introduction section should include some recent research developments over the past three years. The references only contain three papers that are from the last three years.
  2. The conclusion should more prominently reflect the data results obtained in this study.
  3. Please explain how this tool is connected to the horn and how the horn shown in Figure 1 is connected to the BT-40 tool handle.
  4. To ensure the reliability of the data, please add error bars to the experimental result data.
  5. Please provide processed pictures of the processed workpiece or the tool to better support the conclusion.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

 

“Modification of the tribomechanical cutting regime in longitudinal-torsional ultrasonic milling: from adhesion to controlled fragmentation”

 

By O. Beldi, T. Zarrouk, A. Abbadi, M. Nouari, W. Ding, M. Abbadi, J-E. Salhi, M. Barboucha.

 

Manuscript Number: micromachines-4200304

 

Dear Editor,

Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.

All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript and are highlighted in yellow. color

Yours Sincerely.

 

 

 

  1. The Introduction section should include some recent research developments over the past three years. The references only contain three papers that are from the last three years.

 

Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. It has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

  1. The conclusion should more prominently reflect the data results obtained in this study.

 

Answer:  Thank you very much for your comment. It has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

  1. Please explain how this tool is connected to the horn and how the horn shown in Figure 1 is connected to the BT-40 tool handle.

 

   Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. It has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.

 

  1. To ensure the reliability of the data, please add error bars to the experimental result data.

 

  Answer: Thank you very much for your comment. Indeed, we did not include error bars because the figure illustrates general and comparative trends between different configurations rather than precise measured values. The main objective is to show the relative effect of the studied parameters, not the statistical variability of the data.

 

  1. Please provide processed pictures of the processed workpiece or the tool to better support the conclusion.

 

Answer: Thank you for this comment. The photos shown illustrate the condition of the tool after machining.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Model Validation Scope:​ The simulation model demonstrates excellent agreement with experiment for a calibrated friction coefficient (µ=0.20) under specific cutting conditions (500 rpm, 3000 mm/min). To strengthen the model's general applicability and robustness, it is recommended to include validation results across a broader range of spindle speeds and feed rates, not just varying the cutting width. 2. Material Behavior Model:​ The use of a single-layer orthotropic model with a progressive damage law based on the Tsai-Wu criterion is appropriate. However, the Nomex paper/phenolic resin composite may exhibit rate-dependent (viscoelastic) or plastic behavior under high-frequency cyclic loading. A brief discussion on the potential influence of these behaviors on the simulated damage and fragmentation process, even if deemed secondary, would enhance the completeness of the modeling discussion. 3. Experimental Detail for Wear/BU Analysis:​ The numerical analysis of adhesive wear and material build-up is insightful. To better correlate and ground these simulations, the manuscript should provide more detailed descriptions of the experimental methods used to assess tool wear (e.g., measurement technique, equipment) and quantify the post-machining surface quality or material adhesion. This will improve the reproducibility and context of the numerical findings. 4. Parameter Range Justification:​ The study effectively explores the impact of vibration amplitude (5-25 µm) and frequency (21-22.5 kHz). Please consider adding a brief justification for selecting these specific ranges. Are they constrained by the experimental setup's capability, or are they considered the most relevant for this material-process combination? A comment on the potential effects of exploring amplitudes or frequencies outside this window would be valuable. 5. Discussion on Practical Implementation & Challenges:​ The longitudinal-torsional (L-T) mode shows superior performance. The conclusion would benefit from a concise discussion on the practical challenges and feasibility of implementing this more complex L-T ultrasonic vibration mode compared to the simpler longitudinal mode, considering factors like system design, stability, and cost for industrial adoption.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

 

“Modification of the tribomechanical cutting regime in longitudinal-torsional ultrasonic milling: from adhesion to controlled fragmentation”

 

By O. Beldi, T. Zarrouk, A. Abbadi, M. Nouari, W. Ding, M. Abbadi, J-E. Salhi, M. Barboucha.

 

Manuscript Number: micromachines-4200304

 

Dear Editor,

Please, find herewith our responses to the reviewers. Many thanks to them for their comments and valuable suggestions that helped us to improve our manuscript. We hope that we satisfied all required changes and suggested modifications to enhance the quality of our paper. We indicate below how we responded to required and suggested revisions.

All comments, point by point, are described in the manuscript and are highlighted in yellow. color

Yours Sincerely.

 

 

 

  1. Model Validation Scope: ​ The simulation model demonstrates excellent agreement with experiment for a calibrated friction coefficient (µ=0.20) under specific cutting conditions (500 rpm, 3000 mm/min). To strengthen the model's general applicability and robustness, it is recommended to include validation results across a broader range of spindle speeds and feed rates, not just varying the cutting width.

 

           Answer: Thank you for this comment. However, our study focused on the effect of cutting width and did not consider other parameters.

 

 

  1. Material Behavior Model: ​ The use of a single-layer orthotropic model with a progressive damage law based on the Tsai-Wu criterion is appropriate. However, the Nomex paper/phenolic resin composite may exhibit rate-dependent (viscoelastic) or plastic behavior under high-frequency cyclic loading. A brief discussion on the potential influence of these behaviors on the simulated damage and fragmentation process, even if deemed secondary, would enhance the completeness of the modeling discussion.

 

 

  Answer: This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

 

  1. Experimental Detail for Wear/BU Analysis: ​ The numerical analysis of adhesive wear and material build-up is insightful. To better correlate and ground these simulations, the manuscript should provide more detailed descriptions of the experimental methods used to assess tool wear (e.g., measurement technique, equipment) and quantify the post-machining surface quality or material adhesion. This will improve the reproducibility and context of the numerical findings.

 

Answer: This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

 

  1. Parameter Range Justification: ​ The study effectively explores the impact of vibration amplitude (5-25 µm) and frequency (21-22.5 kHz). Please consider adding a brief justification for selecting these specific ranges. Are they constrained by the experimental setup's capability, or are they considered the most relevant for this material-process combination? A comment on the potential effects of exploring amplitudes or frequencies outside this window would be valuable.

 

Answer: This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

 

  1. Discussion on Practical Implementation & Challenges: ​ The longitudinal-torsional (L-T) mode shows superior performance. The conclusion would benefit from a concise discussion on the practical challenges and feasibility of implementing this more complex L-T ultrasonic vibration mode compared to the simpler longitudinal mode, considering factors like system design, stability, and cost for industrial adoption.

 

 

Answer: This comment has been taken into account in the revised version.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are addressed properly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted now.