Simulation and Experimental Analysis of Surface Defects in Turning of TiCp/TC4 Composites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study presented in this research is sound, and the results produced are interesting. But a revision is required, and after responding to the following remarks and revising the paper, the manuscript may be considered for publication.
1. Literature review needs to include several recent, relevant publications (high impact) highlighting their key findings. The current version only discussed general aspects while the review of each from several papers is necessary. You may provide a review summary table consisting of a column for the comments or key conclusions.
2. More recent relevant literature or similar work discussion is mandatory in the introduction section, which is missing in the Introduction. Authors are suggested to add one paragraph in the introduction section by discussing the recent progress and citing similar work.
3. The novelty of the work is missing in the introduction. Authors are suggested to include a separate paragraph discussing the novelty and importance of the present work.
4. Authors are suggested to include a literature review on the recent publication on composite materials based on the following references in the introduction section: DOIs: 10.1016/j.rinp.2018.06.010; 10.1088/2053-1591/ab22d8; 10.1016/j.rinp.2019.102264; 10.1080/10420150.2019.1606809.
5. Reduce the similarity. Check the attached similarity report.
6. Also, check the typos throughout the manuscript during revision submission.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is written concisely. Suggestions for improving the manuscript are as follows:
1. How did you choose the machining parameters? Why are they representative?
2. What is the coefficient of friction? Elaborate in detail.
3. What fixtures did you use? How much influence does the fixtures have on the results obtained?
4. Potential errors have not been analysed and discussed.
5. The discussion of the obtained results must be more intensive. The physics of the process, causes and effects must be discussed. The obtained results should be scientifically compared with the results of previous research.
6. Emphasize the possibilities of industrial application.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with the Simulation and Tests Analysis of Surface Defects in Turning of TiCp/TC4 Composites.
According to the reviewer, the paper is worth publishing at micromachines Journal, but corrections are needed and then the paper can be accepted for publication in the journal.
While the authors have made considerable research effort,
the presentation of the paper and the results must be proved.
Additionally make the following corrections to the manuscript:
Comment 1
Line 63
Qi et al. [7] studied
The authors should replace (delete the "et al.")
Qi [7] studied
Line 85
Zhan C et al. [10] carried
The authors should replace (delete the "et al.")
Zhan C [10] carried
Comment 2
Line 120
as shown in Figure 1.
The authors must format the paper according to the journal's instructions.
Figures should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.
Comment 3
Extended text editing
Line 161
the following formula.[14].
The authors should replace
the following formula [14].
Line 196
2)is the
The authors should replace
2) is the
Line 212
numerically controlled machine tool,
Different text font size.
Line 237
composites. [19]In order
The authors should replace
composites [19]. In order
Line 331
Figure 8a When the shear zone
The authors should check if the sentence is right.
Line 483
Matrix Composites. . chinese Journal of
The authors should replace
Matrix Composites. Chinese Journal of
Comment 4
The authors must explain with more details the equation 4 (σ1, σ2 and σ3 = ?)
and why the authors used the "where ?o is the tensile strength of TiC particles." (there is not ?o in the equation 4).
Comment 5
Line 206
The authors must give more details for experiment equipments (SEM: type, model).
Comment 6
Lines 215 and 451
The authors should format the paper:
Delete the space in the page end
Comment 7
The authors must give more results for the Turning cutting parameters (Cutting speed (m/min) 15/30/45/60/90/120/150 - not only for 45 m/min)
Comment 8
The authors must give more details for FEM simulations (number of elements, minimum length, .....)
Comment 9
Line 245
It's not so good to start the sub-section at the bottom of the page without using text.
The authors should format.
Lines 277 and 306
It's not so good to start the sub-section with Figure and without using text (First text, then Figure).
The authors should format.
Comment 10
Figure 6
The authors must add the units for the Von Mises stress (MPa?).
Comment 11
Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI Journals.
Improove the quality of the reference papers.
More related literature should be included in introduction section about the FEM simulation.
Please consider the following ones, which are all related with FEM simulation:
(a) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12162522
(b) https://doi.org/10.3390/met10030338
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been corrected.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions
Reviewer 3 Report
Comment 1
Extended text editing.
Line 10
produced., processing
All the ref. with two or more authors must be mention with et al.
For examble:
Line 46
Xiong [4]
The authors should replace
Xiong et al. [4]
Line 51
mm mm
The authors should replace
mm
Line 80
Pramnik [15]
The authors should replace
Pramanik et al. [15]
Comment 2
Line 106
both local and international researchers
The authors comment the References in a very large percentage from local researchers. It would be preferable to refer to the Paper
with a more balanced rate.
Comment 3
Line 116
3D microstructure-based cutting simulation
Page 14 Figure 14 (not 12)
FEM simulation shows more in orthogonal cutting (and not turning).
Comment 4
The Table 4 must be accompanied on the same page as the Table's title.
The Table 6 must be accompanied on the same page as the Table's title.
Comment 5
Table 6
Cutting speed (m/min): only 45 (delete the other values, the authors did not give any results).
Comment 6
Lines 315 - 316
7000 and 10000 MPa
The authors must explain (give more details) the results.
The authors must give more details for temperature.
Comment 7
Line 374
the length, height and breadth of the model are set to 100m, 25 m, and 25 m, respectively.
The authors must check if the values are right (m).
Comment 8
Figure 11: 2 times!!!
Page 12 and Page 13
Figure 12: 2 times!!!
Page 13 and Page 14
Comment 9
The Section References must begin from Line 468.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
It is disappointing that the authors do not consider the reviewer's comments.
New Comment 1 (Previous Comment 1)
Line 80 (new line 320)
Pramnik [15]
The authors should replace
Pramanik et al. [15]
The name of the author for the ref [15] is Pramanik (no Pramnik as the authors of this paper mention again and again).
New Comment 2 (Previous Comment 1)
Extended text editing.
Line 920
Figure 10a Matrix-particle interface ruptures
There is not a sentence and the authors must rephrase.
New Comment 3 (Previous Comment 8)
Figure 11: 2 times!!!
Page 12 and Page 13
Author Response
I am very sorry for my carelessness in the previous rewriting process. This time I have checked my manuscript several times and used the 'track changes' feature during the revision process. Finally, thank you again for your always exceptionally detailed comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
