Experimental Study of Improving the Durability of a Cup Cutter by Pre-Processing

Comments

Responds

The introduction section is concrete, I consider authors should search and use more recent references, at least > 2020.

Comment has been corrected.

 We have searched more recent references and source Position 1 added.

Section 2 shows the materials and methods, what are the tolerances authors used in this research? 

In the article, the research aimed at increasing the durability period of a cup cutter by pre-processing of its cutting part (tool periphery) is carried out. Therefore, it is unnecessary to hold specific tolerances to the machining material (workpiece).

Figure 2 shows the set up for experiment, how do you measured the eccentricity of the working piece? what is the variance in those measurements?

In this experimental study, measuring the eccentricity of the working surface is not required because the primary purpose of machining is to dress up the tool's working surface.

Figure 4 shows graphs with very different format as within the body of the manuscript...please verify. Same for figure 7...

Comment has been corrected.

Section 4. Discussions is vague in the mechanisms and analysis performed by authors. Same for Conclusions.

We agree with the comment. This may be because of full disclosure of the mechanism of working-in of the cutting part of cup cutters; it is necessary to carry out additional research, in particular, to study the formation of secondary contact structures. These studies will be carried out in the future in accordance with the schedule of the grant project.

Again, work on the references ( > 2020)

The comment has been corrected.

Additional research has been conducted, and sources have been supplemented. It can be seen in references 16,24,28 in the list of references.

Minor grammar modifications. 

The comment has been corrected. Grammar corrected words and sentences are highlighted in green.

"Connectivity" among paragraphs so it would be easier for reader to understand.

The comment has been corrected. Corrected words and texts are highlighted in blue color.

During the editing process, we added and removed unnecessary spaces between two words, e.g., in Fig. 4,a,b in this case, we added spaces but did not highlight them. But other grammatical corrections and parts of sentences that have been rewritten using appropriate compound nouns to preserve their meaning are highlighted.

Comments

Responds

Line 12: The results of experimental research- (not researches)

The comment has been corrected.

Line13-14: are a repetition of the previous sentence. Maybe it needs to be shortened: the conducted experiments and simulations confirmed the formation of .........

The comment has been corrected.

We shortened the sentence.

Line 16-17: incomprehensible! whether it is about determining the best parameters of the machining (pre-processing)  process of cup cutters?

In this case, the pre-processing with cup cutters is not investigated. It is carried out pre-treatment of the cutting part of the tool (cup cutter) to increase its durability (and wear resistance). The essence of the method of pre-machining is to increase the tool's durability by adapting its cutting part by machining at low cutting speeds. This process can be applied to new tools and after tool regrinding. This method has been successfully used to increase the durability of worm milling cutters and lathe cutters. This is the first time it has been applied to cup cutters.

Line 41-42: need to be redrafted, e.g.: it is possible to select the optimal machining parameters in order to obtain less wear and greater durability of the cutting tool.

The comment has been corrected.

We redrafted this sentence.

Line46-50; repetition of the sentence in lines 41-45

The comment has been corrected.

We corrected the sentence and removed the repetition.

Line 88-95: this is not a scientific text - please delete.  Information about funding, of course, it is advisable

The comment has been corrected.

We deleted the non-scientific text, left the funding information.

Line 102: check the correctness of this sentence.

The comment has been corrected.

Checked the correctness of this sentence.

Line 109:  is this sentence necessary?

The comment has been corrected.

The sentence was deleted.

Line 124: The first sentence is unnecessary and the rest needs to be redrafted, e.g. in order to determine the durability time the regression equation will be used…….

The comment has been corrected.

The first sentence was removed and the rest was redrafted.

Eq.1: is this the equation originally proposed by the authors? Why does it have this form? What is the physical meaning of the coefficients b0, b1, etc.? How were the number N of experiments counted?

Having analyzed the references, we found out that to determine the response function we can use a linear model with three variables, because the factors do not depend on each other, and at the first stage of planning the experiment, to determine the direction of movement to the optimum and steep ascent along the response surface, the response function is expressed by this equation.

Coefficients b₀, b₁ are sample regression coefficients determined by the results of the experiment.

The number of experiments (possible combinations of factor levels) is determined by the formula N = PK, where P is the number of factor levels, K is the number of factors, since the planning varies three factors X₁, X₂, X₃, each at two levels +1 and -1, then at N =23, possible combinations of factors are realized in eight experiments.

Eq.2: how the natural value of the factor is defined (determined)?

We determine the natural value of the factors of the regression equation by substituting the coded values into the coded equation (2), after obtaining the coded regression equation.

After arithmetic transformations, the regression equation in natural form is obtained, where instead of coded factors x₁, x₂ and x₃ there are natural values S, n_sp, τ_п.

Eq.3: Shouldn't it be xjmin instead of ximin?,  you are using two indices j and are they different ?

We agree, there is a typographical error in this equation 3, since the index j was originally used, then equation (3) should also have x_jmin instead of x_imin and x_jmax instead of x_imax.

Line 144-147: where did these numbers come from? furthermore, an error in the definition of I3.

These figures in the solution of formulas 3 and 4 were selected from Table 1. The error in the definition of X₃₀ probably occurred in the design, because the correct value of the main level of the considered factor (pre-processing speed), equal to 37.5 rpm, was used in the calculation.

Tab.2. explain the meaning of the + and – signs

Table 2 is called the matrix of experiment planning (MEP), in this table signs + and - show the upper and lower level of factors (+1 is upper level of the factor and -1 is lower level of the factor) and to simplify the recording of units in the matrices are omitted, leaving only the corresponding sign +/-.

Tab.3 is also illegible (incomprehensible). What means Ycp?

There is a typographical error in this table Yav = Tav - average value of durability period

Line 164: are the b coefficients the same as in Eq.1?

Yes, that's right.

Eq.5 and Tab.4: we have new undefined variables y

Equation (5) and Table 4 present the values of the difference of the experiment and the arithmetic mean of all repetitions of the i-th experiment; and the line-by-line variance of each experiment.

Experimental data not shown. I understand that the durability time was measured. How was it measured?

Sixteen cup cutters made of P6M5 steel were used for pre-processing. The cup cutters were pre-tempered at various (low) machining modes. These cutters, after pre-processing, were tested and used in machining multiple workpieces in the conditions of the laboratory base of the department. At the same time, the durability period (in minutes) before the first resharpening was determined for each cutter.

The rest of the work must be reviewed step by step. All introduced parameters should be precisely defined and justified. In its current form, the work is poorly legible for the reader.

The comment has been corrected.

The content of the article has been thoroughly checked, and all reviewers' comments have been corrected. English grammar has been reviewed by a specialist and corrected.

Language correction required

The comment has been corrected.

Also, formula (14) was corrected because there was a typographical error.

Comments

Responds

The introduction should provide a more clear and concise overview of the main objective of the study. It would benefit from a statement explicitly stating the purpose or problem being addressed.

The comment has been corrected. We added work objective.

The statement in line 25 about the rapid increase in characteristics of materials should be supported with specific data or examples to strengthen the argument.

We agree with the comment, but we did not find it necessary to explain the characteristics of these materials in depth. Since they are common knowledge and we mention them to reveal the problem of wear of metal-cutting tools.

The repetition of the content in lines 54-57 should be avoided. Check for redundancy and ensure that each sentence adds new information or contributes to the main points.

If you meant sentence 54-57 lines "It was found that an increase in load (feed rate or cutting speed) on the cutting tool leads to a rise in the wear rate with respect to lateral wear. And the formation of growing edges, growing layers, and dead zones were found on uncoated carbide-cutting tools." The second sentence is in addition to the previous one, and the words increase have been replaced with synonyms.

The wear mechanisms mentioned in line 58 should be further explained. Provide additional details about adhesion and abrasion and their impact on tool wear.

We agree with the comment. Indeed these processes are relevant to the case under consideration. However, the study of adhesion and abrasion, as well as their influence on tool wear, will be carried out by us in the future. According to the calendar plan of the grant project, it is planned for 2024.

The use of abbreviations without prior explanation, such as "nsp" and "rpm," can make it difficult for readers to understand the text. Consider providing the full terms or explaining the abbreviations upon their first mention.

The comment has been corrected. Added explanations of abbreviations, such as "n_sp" and "rpm," when they are first mentioned and highlighted them in red.

The purpose and methodology of the simulation using the ANSYS computer program should be described more explicitly. Explain how the simulation was conducted and what parameters were analyzed or compared.

The comment has been corrected.

We described the purpose and methodology of the modeling using the ANSYS computer program in more detail. We explained how the simulation was conducted and what parameters were analyzed or compared.