The Modelling and Analysis of Micro-Milling Forces for Fabricating Thin-Walled Micro-Parts Considering Machining Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled " Micro-milling forces modelling and analysis in fabricating thin-walled micro parts considering machining dynamics" presents the analysis of micro-milling cutting forces in machining thin-walled parts.

The paper needs major revisions.

1. Please clearly indicate what is new about the article. The results of other papers are similar in other studies.
2. What was the stiffness of the machine? Was vibration transmission from other equipment taken into account?
3. Specimens should have citations.
4. Please provide the exact dimensions of the specimen.
5. What was the clamping force of the workpiece in the chuck.
6. Please indicate the exact name of the tool.
7. What was the sampling rate for force measurements.
8. On what basis were the cutting parameters selected?
9. Why Ti6Al4V titanium alloy was chosen for the study, please characterize the material with respect to the vibrations occurring during machining.
10. Line 274-276 The authors state "In addition, at the peaks and troughs of the cutting force, the error between the predicted values and experimental values are relatively large." What is the reason for this, please justify.
11. What is the reason for the significant difference between the experimental results and the models at the Fz force (Figure 15c).
12. The conclusions should be quantified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper attempts to show micro-milling forces modelling and analysis in fabricating thin-walled micro parts considering machining dynamics. The study drew useful results by micro-milling force simulation and experiments. This paper addresses an important topic, but it still needs major revisions as followings:

 

1. Regarding the verification experiment in chapter 4, why did the authors use an end mill with a diameter of 1 mm for the experiment? In this manuscript, it is stated that "the tool diameter of micro mill is usually 100μm to 1mm", but is it possible to call an end mill a micro mill even if its diameter is 1mm nowadays? There needs to be an additional explanation in the manuscript about what is expected to happen when at least a smaller diameter tool is used.

 

2. In relation to the question 1, it is necessary to explain in the manuscript why the workpiece material was Ti-6Al-4V in the verification experiment. In other words, what kind of application do the authors have in mind?　It seems to the reviewer that the material is not likely to be used for the products mentioned in the beginning of the chapter 1.

 

3. The authors also need to explain in the manuscript the basis for setting the cutting conditions as n=10000r/min, ae=1mm, ap=50μm and fz=5μm/tooth. The spindle speed seems to be low for machining with a small diameter tool.

 

4. In relation to the above questions, how robust is the validity or effectiveness of the model to experimental conditions, including tool and workpiece conditions?　In other words, if there are results for different materials and different cutting conditions, it would be helpful to add them to increase the reliability of the model and this paper.

 

5. In Fig. 15, please also show the time variation of cutting forces (estimated value) under the ideal condition where there is no tool runout and chattering. The reviewer thinks this will show the effect of the proposed model more clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of the article “Micro-milling forces modeling and analysis in fabricating thin-walled micro parts considering machining dynamics“ have given proper answers to all questions. However, there are still elements that need improvement, namely:

1. The explanations from answer 2 of the second question should be added to the text.
2. In the abstract, the authors wrote “The results indicate that the micro-milling force modelling, by taking account of the influence of machining dynamics, has the better prediction accuracy, and the difference between the predicted resultant forces and the experimental results is less than 15%.”. This conclusion (more specifically, the indication of the % value) is very important and should be taken into account.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer looks forward to further progress in this research.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Response: Thanks to you for taking the time to review this paper. Your comments have been always crucial to the further improvements of the paper.