Hard Milling Process Based on Compressed Cold Air-Cooling Using Vortex Tube for Sustainable and Smart Manufacturing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A well written paper that was a good read. The structure and layout are as I would do. Focused on tool wear/forces/surface roughness when milling hardened steel. The method is clear with ISO standard methods detailed and a clearly detailed experiment. It is a fairly standard study on standard materials but is generally well done.

Suggestions for improvement: 
1. More quantification in the abstract. This was done in the conclusions. 

2. Focus more on the experimental side rather than the "smart manufacturing" and Industry 4.0&5.0. THis bit added very little. 

3. Tool wear micrographs should have scale bars. The flank wear levels were very low to see much. Figure 15 was better and more of this would be good. 

4. It would have been interesting to see if there was any affect on surface integrity. 

5. Further analysis from literature in the discussion section. 

6. Be careful on the number of decimal places. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper is very current, relevant to the focus of the journal, comparing different cooling systems with respect to the sustainability of the milling process. Advanced statistical analysis and ANN methods were used in the evaluation. The methodology was chosen appropriately for the research area and the conclusions are supported by the reported results.

The theoretical introduction is adequate, covering most of the sources reported in references. The section is written extensively and could be more concise without paraphrasing (Table 2).

Materials and methods are appropriately chosen, VB is measured according to the ISO 8688-1 standard. The dynamometer measurement conditions and dynamometer errors are recommended to highlight. The characterization of CF requires a detailed analysis of the chemical composition due to the significant influence on tool wear.

The results are consistent with the methods and follow the expected trend. Some parameters in the graphs are not explained immediately, only later in the following chapter (figure 12).

Discussion and results are clear and adequate.

 I recommend correcting these areas:

- Occasional grammar mistakes

- Correct errors in figures: 6, 7, 15.

- Correct the format of references: 12, 46

- Specify dynamometer measurement conditions and dynamometer error

- Specify the chemical composition of CF

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf