Surface Topography Model of Ultra-High Strength Steel AF1410 Based on Dynamic Characteristics of Milling System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s), the manuscript ‘Surface Topography Model of Ultra-high Strength Steel AF1410 Based on Dynamic Characteristics of Milling System’, Manuscript ID: processes-2144216, have some weakness that must be revised suitably.

Please find below some, of the most significant comments:

1.      The “introduction’ section is interesting, and well-written, respectively, providing a comprehensive review of an appropriate area of the study presented. Nevertheless, I would divide the gap starting on page 2 and ending on the 4, providing presented information with some portions. I recommend dividing it into 3-4 gaps from that one. In its current form, the reader is difficult to follow what the Author(s) is trying to convey.

2.      In section 2, especially 2.2., it is difficult to describe which theoretical investigation, including all of the equations, is proposed as novelty by the Author(s) and, respectively, which is a general, already commonly-known, knowledge. It must be highlighted, what in this section is proposed by the Author(s) and what is not. Please try to emphasize your novelty (proposal) in this section, if exist, and, correspondingly, reference what is not.

3.      According to the sentence ‘When meshing parts, set the mesh density appropriately. If the mesh density is too high, the tool element is too dense, resulting in a sharp increase in computing time or even failure. If the mesh density is too small and each cell is too large, the surface topography simulation data is distorted and cannot reflect the real surface topography.’, page 12, looks like only too low mesh density can distort surface topography (roughness) but, respectively, too high can be accepted. These sentences must be modified which makes the reader confused.

4.      Considering the ‘Simulation program flow’ presented in section 3.2 and, especially Figure 8, there is no word on the validation or, correspondingly, it is not included in the flow graph. The ‘Experimental verification’ from section 4 should be placed in this graph.

5.      The origin source of the Sa parameter equation (42), page 16, should be mentioned, e.g. ISO standard or some primary publications on this parameter.

6.      Presenting the surface topography measurement equipment is not clear: Firstly, the RC50H instrument is presented as both, contact (Figure 11) and non-contact (sentence ‘Processing on the surface of the surface topography using a leica laser confocal microscopy DCM – 3D measuring 3D surface roughness measurement, using non-contact measurement instrument RC50H (VALE, xi 'an) measuring two-dimensional surface roughness, as shown in figure 11.’, page 17).

7.      To the previous comment: Secondly, the cut-off selection was not justified. Why 0.8 mm? Any standard (e.g. ISO) or previous proposals?

8.      Similar to the two previous comments, even more words are presented on the measurement uncertainty (sentences ‘Lateral measurements along the center line of the sample are repeated at least three times for each measurement and the average values of the three values are recorded.’, page 17), the A method of its prediction should be both mentioned and referenced (justified). Moreover, there is no word against the measurement noise that various measuring techniques (contact and non-contact instruments) were used. Please try to refer to this issues appropriately, e.g.:

(1)   https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/3/3/035004

(2)   https://doi.org/10.3390/s22030791

(3)   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.086

9.      When comparing the view of the results of surface topography measurements, geometric simulation and proposed dynamic characteristics, even the surface height (z-axis) should be unified, if all of the axis (x- and y-) cannot be similar. Without their unifications, this Figure (12) is not providing a suitable response. Similar to Figures 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (the last figure should be numbered 17 and there are two figures with the number 16, in the text, it is mentioned as 17 but presented as 16 again).

10.  All of the ‘References’ must be formatted with unifications, according to the journal template requirements. Moreover, the full DOI links should be provided for all of the cited items, if exist.

Moreover, some additional comments are found, below:

11.  The word ‘and’ should be added between the last and its previous Author.

12.  Keywords are not required to start with a capital letter, if allowed.

13.  There are no spaces between some cited author names and brackets, like ‘Zekeriya Yerlikaya[7]’, page 1. Please check it in the whole manuscript.

14.  There are some double spaces in some cases, e.g. ‘…of the model was verified by experiments.  Wang Minghai…’, page 3. Please check it in the whole manuscript as well.

15.  There are two words ‘knife’ (knife knife) on page 18.

Generally, the proposed manuscript is interesting, however, has some weaknesses, respectively, at least in the current form, and is not suitable for publication in a quality journal as the Processes is.

The manuscript must be improved appropriately before any further processing, if allowed by the Editor.

Author Response

Response: We are very grateful to reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully. Thank you very much for your good suggestions. All your suggestions are very important. These professional suggestions have important guiding significance for our future scientific research work. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The details of the changes can be found in current manuscript. Please note that all page numbers and changes involved are based on the current manuscript (after revision). According to the suggestion of one of the reviewers, the manuscript adopted the IMRaD structure and the content order was adjusted accordingly, but the secondary title content of the original manuscript was still used. The grammar of the manuscript was re-examined and revised. The following is the detailed response to your questions you mentioned in your reports.

 

1. The “introduction’ section is interesting, and well-written, respectively, providing a comprehensive review of an appropriate area of the study presented. Nevertheless, I would divide the gap starting on page 2 and ending on the 4, providing presented information with some portions. I recommend dividing it into 3-4 gaps from that one. In its current form, the reader is difficult to follow what the Author(s) is trying to convey.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the beginning of the introduction section has been rewritten. From page 2 to page 4 of the original manuscript, the paragraphs were redivided and the sentences were condensed (page 1-3).

2. In section 2, especially 2.2., it is difficult to describe which theoretical investigation, including all of the equations, is proposed as novelty by the Author(s) and, respectively, which is a general, already commonly-known, knowledge. It must be highlighted, what in this section is proposed by the Author(s) and what is not. Please try to emphasize your novelty (proposal) in this section, if exist, and, correspondingly, reference what is not.

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. The original 2.2 is current 3.1.2. According to your suggestion, Formula (3) is from the literature, and the corresponding literature citations are added to the manuscript. Our proposal has been added in the last paragraph of 3.1.2 (page 10).

3. According to the sentence ‘When meshing parts, set the mesh density appropriately. If the mesh density is too high, the tool element is too dense, resulting in a sharp increase in computing time or even failure. If the mesh density is too small and each cell is too large, the surface topography simulation data is distorted and cannot reflect the real surface topography.’, page 12, looks like only too low mesh density can distort surface topography (roughness) but, respectively, too high can be accepted. These sentences must be modified which makes the reader confused.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the sentences “The appropriate mesh density should ensure that the simulation data is not distorted and the program has reasonable computing amount.” have been added in the current manuscript (Page14). And the sentence you mentioned has also been modified.

4. Considering the ‘Simulation program flow’ presented in section 3.2 and, especially Figure 8, there is no word on the validation or, correspondingly, it is not included in the flow graph. The ‘Experimental verification’ from section 4 should be placed in this graph.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. The original Figure 8 is current Figure 11. According to your suggestion, the ‘Experimental verification’ have been placed in Figure 11 (page 15).

5. The origin source of the Sa parameter equation (42), page 16, should be mentioned, e.g. ISO standard or some primary publications on this parameter.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. The original equation (42) is current equation (1). According to your suggestion, Sa parameter equation is from ISO, the sentences “According to ISO 25178-2-2012,” have been added in the current manuscript (Page4).

6. Presenting the surface topography measurement equipment is not clear: Firstly, the RC50H instrument is presented as both, contact (Figure 11) and non-contact (sentence ‘Processing on the surface of the surface topography using a leica laser confocal microscopy DCM – 3D measuring 3D surface roughness measurement, using non-contact measurement instrument RC50H (VALE, xi 'an) measuring two-dimensional surface roughness, as shown in figure 11.’, page 17).

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. According to your kind advice, the sentence have been revised to " Non-contact measuring instrument laser confocal microscope DCM-3D (Leica Inc., Germany) was used to measure three-dimensional surface roughness, and contact measuring instrument RC50H (VALE, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China) was used to measure two-dimensional surface roughness, as shown in Figure 3. " . (Page 5).

7. To the previous comment: Secondly, the cut-off selection was not justified. Why 0.8 mm? Any standard (e.g. ISO) or previous proposals?

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. The cut-off value is selected according to the processing method of the tested part for finishing, and the surface roughness value is preliminarly judged. Since the content is not important in this paper, this sentence is deleted to avoid ambiguity, if allowed (Page 5).

8. Similar to the two previous comments, even more words are presented on the measurement uncertainty (sentences ‘Lateral measurements along the center line of the sample are repeated at least three times for each measurement and the average values of the three values are recorded.’, page 17), the A method of its prediction should be both mentioned and referenced (justified). Moreover, there is no word against the measurement noise that various measuring techniques (contact and non-contact instruments) were used. Please try to refer to this issues appropriately, e.g.:

(1)   https://doi.org/10.1088/2051-672X/3/3/035004

(2)   https://doi.org/10.3390/s22030791

(3)   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.03.086

Response:Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, and referring to the literature you mentioned, the sentences “In order to reduce the influence of high-frequency errors on the results, the surface topography was characterized by three-dimensional surface roughness parameter values and two-dimensional surface roughness parameter values. Noise removal for area (3D) data should be considered when profile (2D) features are applied [29,30].” have been added in the current manuscript (Page5).

9. When comparing the view of the results of surface topography measurements, geometric simulation and proposed dynamic characteristics, even the surface height (z-axis) should be unified, if all of the axis (x- and y-) cannot be similar. Without their unifications, this Figure (12) is not providing a suitable response. Similar to Figures 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 (the last figure should be numbered 17 and there are two figures with the number 16, in the text, it is mentioned as 17 but presented as 16 again).

Response:Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, Figure 12(c) has been redrawn, as has the plot in Figure 13-17 involving highly uniform coordinates, and the wrong sequence numbers have been corrected in the current manuscript (Page18-23).

10. All of the ‘References’ must be formatted with unifications, according to the journal template requirements. Moreover, the full DOI links should be provided for all of the cited items, if exist.Moreover, some additional comments are found, below:
11. The word ‘and’ should be added between the last and its previous Author.
12. Keywords are not required to start with a capital letter, if allowed.
13. There are no spaces between some cited author names and brackets, like ‘Zekeriya Yerlikaya[7]’, page 1. Please check it in the whole manuscript.
14. There are some double spaces in some cases, e.g. ‘…of the model was verified by experiments.  Wang Minghai…’, page 3. Please check it in the whole manuscript as well.

Response:Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, all of "References" were re-edited, using a uniform format as required by the journal template. Author names are quoted in the format of templates. The keywords have been modified.

15. There are two words ‘knife’ (knife knife) on page 18.

Response:Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, word 'knife' changed to 'tool'. (Page18)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a new surface topography modelling method that exploits the dynamic displacement of the milling system and a flexible deformation model of milling cutter based on the ideal surface topography modelling method.

The article is interesting, and the authors are clearly well versed in the subject. However, I could see that some improvements could be made to the article before it is ready for publication.

I strongly recommend the IMRaD structure for the article. Now "methods" or "materials and methods" section of the article is scattered and incomplete.

Introduction:

The Introduction section starts with generalisations that do not hold true for all UHS steels. I recommend rewriting the beginning so that the different UHS steels are defined and the different types of steel included of that category are taken into account.

Materials and methods:

The code of the material used in the work is mentioned, but the material is otherwise not presented. Please present the chemical composition of the material as well as the delivery status and technical characteristics of the material used (Strengths, elasticity coefficient, elongations, etc.).

The equipment used in the experimental part is presented. The software used (or possibly coded) in the theoretical part has not been presented.

Results:

Milling surface topography model

o   Figure 6. “Mill Area” à Milling Area

o    After figure 16: “(kτ+τ-ξ)和B(kτ+τ-ξ) are periodic coefficient matrix,” à 和 ???

Simulation of surface topography based on dynamic characteristics of milling system

Ok

Experimental Verification

·         Figure 12 and 14. The coordinate system of all pictures should be in the same position so that the pictures can be compared. Now a) coordinate position is different than b) and c).

Discussion:

                The "Discussion" part of the article is incomplete.

Conclusions:

                Ok

Author Response

Response: We are very grateful to reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully. Thank you very much for your good suggestions. All your suggestions are very important. These professional suggestions have important guiding significance for our future scientific research work. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The details of the changes can be found in current manuscript. Please note that all page numbers and changes involved are based on the current manuscript (after revision). According to your suggestion, the manuscript adopted the IMRaD structure and the content order was adjusted accordingly, but the secondary title content of the original manuscript was still used. The grammar of the manuscript was re-examined and revised. The following is the detailed response to your questions you mentioned in your reports.

 

1. I strongly recommend the IMRaD structure for the article. Now "methods" or "materials and methods" section of the article is scattered and incomplete.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the manuscript adopted the IMRaD structure and the content order was adjusted accordingly. The "materials and methods" section has been integrated in the current manuscript (Page3-6). Among them, “Material characteristics” are new additions(Page3).

2. The Introduction section starts with generalisations that do not hold true for all UHS steels. I recommend rewriting the beginning so that the different UHS steels are defined and the different types of steel included of that category are taken into account.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the beginning of the introduction section has been rewritten. And from page 2 to page 4 of the original manuscript, the paragraphs were redivided and the sentences were condensed(page 1-3).

3. Materials and methods: The code of the material used in the work is mentioned, but the material is otherwise not presented. Please present the chemical composition of the material as well as the delivery status and technical characteristics of the material used (Strengths, elasticity coefficient, elongations, etc.). The equipment used in the experimental part is presented. The software used (or possibly coded) in the theoretical part has not been presented.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, “Material characteristics” section has been added in the current manuscript. “Material characteristics” are given in Table 1 and Table 2, which are the chemical composition and mechanical properties of the material, respectively (page 4). All the equipment of the experiment and the software used is included in “Experimental equipment and conditions” (page 4-6).

4. Results:

Milling surface topography model

o   Figure 6. “Mill Area” à Milling Area

o    After figure 16: “(kτ+τ-ξ)和B(kτ+τ-ξ) are periodic coefficient matrix,” à 和 ???

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. The original Figure 6 is current Figure 9, the original Formula (16) is current Formula (15). According to your suggestion, we have corrected “Figure 9. Diagram of Milling Area” to “Figure 9. Diagram of Mill Area” (page 9), “(kτ+τ-ξ)和B(kτ+τ-ξ) to“A(kτ+τ-ξ) and B(kτ+τ-ξ)” (page 12).

5.Experimental Verification:Figure 12 and 14. The coordinate system of all pictures should be in the same position so that the pictures can be compared. Now a) coordinate position is different than b) and c).

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, Figure 12(c) has been redrawn, as has the plot in Figure 13-17 involving highly uniform coordinates, and the wrong sequence numbers have been corrected in the current manuscript (Page18-23). 6.Discussion: The "Discussion" part of the article is incomplete.

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the discussion section adds simulation error data for Ra values. The simulation accuracy of each process parameter is discussed. The conclusions were rewritten and modified to data-based conclusions (Page19-23).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper, the Authors focused on the prediction of milling surface topography of ultrahigh strength steel AF1410. They studied the formation of milling surface and proposed to introduce a modelling method of surface topography based on dynamic characteristics of milling system. The accuracy of the model was finally verified by experiments. The article seems to be interesting and could be published in “Processes” after minor revision. Some of the comments on the manuscript are listed below.

 1) Some keywords have been already used in the title of your manuscript. Please change them into different ones (to avoid the keywords repetition with the words used in the title).

2) Some information from the abstract has been repeated in the introduction section. Please do not copy the same information twice.

3) If the equations from (1) to (42) are taken from the literature then the appropriate literature citation should be added to the manuscript.

4) Figures from 12 to 16. The font size on the abscissas and ordinates should be enlarged in order to be clearly visible. Currently the font size is not illegible.

5) The Reviewer could not find Figure 17 (probably because the Figure 16 has been repeated twice).

6) In the Reviewer’s opinion the conclusions in the conclusion section are rather statements and they should be newly formulated. There are a lot of calculations and the conclusions should be drawn on the basis of the presented calculations and the experimental data.

Author Response

Response: We are very grateful to reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully. Thank you very much for your good suggestions. All your suggestions are very important. These professional suggestions have important guiding significance for our future scientific research work. We have tried our best to improve and made some changes in the manuscript. The details of the changes can be found in current manuscript. Please note that all page numbers and changes involved are based on the current manuscript (after revision). According to the suggestion of one of the reviewers, the manuscript adopted the IMRaD structure and the content order was adjusted accordingly, but the secondary title content of the original manuscript was still used. The grammar of the manuscript was re-examined and revised. The following is the detailed response to your questions you mentioned in your reports.

 

1. Some keywords have been already used in the title of your manuscript. Please change them into different ones (to avoid the keywords repetition with the words used in the title).

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the keywords have been modified to “ultra-high strength steel; roughness; surface topography; dynamic displacement; flexible deformation; physical simulation” (Page1).

2. Some information from the abstract has been repeated in the introduction section. Please do not copy the same information twice.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the beginning of the abstract and the introduction section has been rewritten. (Page 1).

3. If the equations from (1) to (42) are taken from the literature then the appropriate literature citation should be added to the manuscript.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, Formula (3) and Formula (9) are from the literature, and the corresponding literature citations are added to the manuscript (page 8,11).

4. Figures from 12 to 16. The font size on the abscissas and ordinates should be enlarged in order to be clearly visible. Currently the font size is not illegible.
5. The Reviewer could not find Figure 17 (probably because the Figure 16 has been repeated twice). Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, Figure 12-16 has been redrawn, as has the plot in Figure 12-17 involving highly uniform coordinates, and the wrong sequence numbers have been corrected in the current manuscript (Page18-23).
6. In the Reviewer’s opinion the conclusions in the conclusion section are rather statements and they should be newly formulated. There are a lot of calculations and the conclusions should be drawn on the basis of the presented calculations and the experimental data.

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, the conclusions were rewritten. Based on the calculated and experimental data, the conclusions about the prediction accuracy of roughness and the influence of milling parameters on roughness are given. (Page23)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

please find below with my comments.

The goal of the authors was to develop surface topography model based on dynamic characteristics of milling system

A lot of imprecision's along the paper make it difficult for the reader to follow the work, and it is impossible to reproduce the work with the information contained in the work.

This makes the interpretation or exploitation of the data even more difficult.

The authors investigated too many output variables (cutting forces, vibrations, surface roughness), it is much better to investigate only one, but in detail and clearly present the results and comparison of simulation and experiment.

Many parts of the paper should be rewritten and / or completed.

In my opinion, the paper cannot be accepted for publication in the scientific journal such as Process is.

List of main disadvantages:

1.      Throughout the work, there are very long sentences, where the meaning is lost and it is very difficult to follow the work. There are a lot of mistakes, the writing style needs to be adapted to a scientific journal, and authors should use the common terminology, etc.

2.      In the chapter “1. Introduction”, : The method of citation is not appropriate, there are a lot of mistakes in the introductory part regarding the author's name, see the guide for authors. Check reference number 10 (Nilanjan Banerjee is not listed as an author in the bibliography). H. Kumar et al [32-34] ????
References are not written uniformly in the bibliography, see the guide for authors

3.      Keywords are not well chosen. (Dynamic displacement of milling tool  - too many words)

4.      Chapter 2 feels like I'm reading a student textbook rather than a scientific article. The source from which the equations were taken is not specified. The way of writing units of measurement is not common.

5.      The results presented are not readable

6.      …….

Best regards

Author Response

Response: We are very grateful to reviewer for reviewing the paper so carefully. Thank you very much for your good suggestions. All your suggestions are very important. These professional suggestions have important guiding significance for our future scientific research work. We have done our best to improve and rewrote the original manuscript in several sections. The details of the changes can be found in current manuscript. Please note that all page numbers and changes involved are based on the current manuscript (after revision). According to the suggestion of one of the reviewers, the manuscript adopted the IMRaD structure and the content order was adjusted accordingly, but the secondary title content of the original manuscript was still used. The grammar of the manuscript was re-examined and revised. The following is the detailed response to your questions you mentioned in your reports.

 

1. Throughout the work, there are very long sentences, where the meaning is lost and it is very difficult to follow the work. There are a lot of mistakes, the writing style needs to be adapted to a scientific journal, and authors should use the common terminology, etc.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the grammar of the manuscript was re-examined and revised. The long sentences are changed into short, concise sentences that are easier to understand. The structure of the manuscript was changed to IMRaD structure, the abstract and introdution were rewritten, and the content on material properties was added.

2. In the chapter “1. Introduction”, : The method of citation is not appropriate, there are a lot of mistakes in the introductory part regarding the author's name, see the guide for authors. Check reference number 10 (Nilanjan Banerjee is not listed as an author in the bibliography). H. Kumar et al [32-34] ????
   References are not written uniformly in the bibliography, see the guide for authors

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the introduction section has been rewritten, from page 2 to page 4 of the original manuscript, the paragraphs were redivided and the sentences were condensed. All of "References" were re-edited, using a uniform format as required by the journal template. Author names are quoted in the format of templates. (page 1-3)

3. Keywords are not well chosen. (Dynamic displacement of milling tool  - too many words)

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. According to your suggestion, the keywords have been modified to “ultra-high strength steel; roughness; surface topography; dynamic displacement; flexible deformation; physical simulation” (Page1)

4. Chapter 2 feels like I'm reading a student textbook rather than a scientific article. The source from which the equations were taken is not specified. The way of writing units of measurement is not common.

Response: Special thanks to you for your good suggestion. The original Chapter 2 is current 3.1. According to your suggestion, in revising Section 3.1 of the current manuscript, we changed the writing style, and with citations added to formulas from the literature. Formula (3) and Formula (9) are from the literature, and the corresponding literature citations are added to the manuscript (page 8,11)

5. The results presented are not readable

Response: Thanks very much for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, The conclusions were rewritten. Based on the calculated and experimental data, the conclusions about the prediction accuracy of roughness and the influence of milling parameters on roughness are given. (Page23)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

according to the review of the revised manuscript titled ‘Surface Topography Model of Ultra-high Strength Steel AF1410 Based on Dynamic Characteristics of Milling System’, Manuscript ID: processes-2144216.

Thank you for improving so sophisticated and full responses to all of the raised comments.

It was found to improve suitably so, respectively, can be further considered for publication in the quality journal as the Processes is.

All the best in future works.

Reviewer 2 Report

 The paper presents a new surface topography modelling method that exploits the dynamic displacement of the milling system and a flexible deformation model of milling cutter based on the ideal surface topography modelling method.

 

Many thanks to the authors for an interesting and timely article! Considerable improvements have been made to the second version of the article and I believe it is now in almost publishable condition. 

One small change: Reference no 2: Kernen, L à Keränen, L (”ä” is missing!)

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

by looking at the corrected version of your work, I can say that the authors invested enormous effort and knowledge and brought the article to a state where it can be published.

 

Congratulations and kind regards