Using an Artificial Neural Network Approach to Predict Machining Time

Reviewer #1

Comment/Suggestion

Action done

1. The manuscript title is not adequate. This research does not present a methodology that predicts machining time for all workpieces, for all operations, .... Be more specific in giving the manuscript title.

Thank you for your comment. The title has been adjusted.

2. In the last paragraph of the Introduction section, the authors state the following: "Thus, intending to improve the process of budgeting machining services, this work proposes a methodology to predict the cutting times of standard injection mold parts through the application of artificial neural networks." This paragraph needs significant correction. First, the shortcomings of previous studies should be mentioned. Then, based on that, the goal of the research and the scientific hypothesis should be defined. Finally, the innovation of the methodology and the scientific contribution should be emphasized.

Thank you for your critical opinion. The shortcomings of previous studies have been mentioned, the goal of the research and the scientific hypothesis have been defined and, finally, the innovation of the methodology and the scientific contribution has been emphasized.

3. The authors used ANN for modeling. Why ANN? ANN is not the only modeling method. Mention other methods as well. Compare them and then explain why ANN is the most suitable for the problem you are solving.

Indeed, the authors have made some other approach previously, but presenting a deviation higher than desired. Thus, we have tried another approach, comparing the results. A comparison is provided in the Introduction and Discussion.

4. Additionally, discuss the possibilities of practical use. How to apply your research in industrial practice.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have discussed the practical use of this research in industrial context.

5. The prediction should always be verified on concrete examples from practice, ie. through experiments.

Yes, experiments have been made to verify the feasibility of the predictions, as now mentioned in the data preparation section. These measurements are usually performed to validate the “traditional method” for calculating machining times. The different methods are now properly explained in the manuscript.

6. Are all influential variables shown in Figure 1 or only some of them.

Thank you for your comment. The main variables are indeed depicted in Figure 1; however, a conjunction of these variables was also used. This is explained in the manuscript. However, Figure 1 was changed to a higher quality one.

7. Expand the following sentence and explain in detail how everything was done. (The workpiece material and the machined geometries were defined based on a literature review and consultation with manufacturers of standardized components for injection molds).

The sentence has been revised accordingly.

8. Table 1 shows only some of the features. Why did you only take these features into consideration?

Thank you for the comment. Some limitations need to be imposed to the work due to restrictions in its presentation (length of the paper).

The remaining features have been before the table.

9. How you defined the sequence of operations shown in table 1. It is not the only way. Elaborate in detail why this sequence of operations.

The sequence of operations selection has been explained in Section 2.2.

10. Figure 3 is not clear. how these results were obtained. Elaborate in detail. What do you mean by traditional method, and what do you mean by empirical method. You need to be much more specific and detailed.

The results corresponding to Figure 3 have been detailed, and the means of certain specific terms have been explained.

11. Display 30 parts. Explain why they are representative of your research.

The 30 parts that were planned for production can now be seen in annex.

Reviewer #2

Comment/Suggestion

Action done

Title: Main title needs to be discussed again. What exactly is intended to find in the article? Seemingly, primary aim is to use ANN approaches for mold parts. Such goal can be integrated into the main title. If a new ANN approach was used, the authors have to indicate the novelty in title.

Thank you for your comment. The title has been adjusted.

Abstract: Abstract should be revised:

It is important to exhibit the practical contribution of the proposed method into the sector. Also the novelty of the study along with difference with the previous literature needs to be shown in abstract.

The abstract was revised and rewritten in some parts, now mentioning the novelty of the conducted study.

Introduction: Introduction needs big revisions at some parts:

The place and importance of ANNs is neglected in here. The authors should focus on the place of ANNs in the sector and the missing sides of previous ANN approaches. Also, the needs and requirements for a new ANN approach should be identified. This is the key point of this paper as per the authors claim that there is a new approach. In this direction some literature review papers must be investigated to research the place of ANNs in the machining industry.

Please regard the following papers carefully and widen the introduction section by adding new papers.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05449-w

https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010108

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-022-01923-2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.10.031

Please avoid multiple citations in a sentence. Such as:

Some studies increased .. [34, 35].

In the last paragraph of the introduction, add scientific novelty and practical relevance. Add a clear purpose to the article.

Thank you very much for your comment. The Introduction section was revised. Furthermore, the authors have followed your suggestions and added the mentioned references.

Additionally, multiple citations in a sentence were avoided when possible. Scientific novelty and practical relevance of the study was included at the end of the Introduction section.

Methods: Are all figures original? If not, there is a need to make appropriate citations and permissions. Figures 1 and 2 are bad. Please revise them to improve the presentation.

Describe the measurement procedure in more detail. At what point in time? How is the measuring setup set up? How many repetitions of measurements? What statistical methods are used to process experimental results? Describe the experimental stand in more detail. What method of experiment planning is used and why?

It will be useful to add a section of Nomenclature in which to sign all the physical quantities and abbreviations encountered in the article. There are physical quantities in the text and such a section will help to find the description of the necessary element.

Indicate the novelty of the ANN approach clearly with showing the new strategy with a schematic representation.

All the mentioned figures are original. Following your comments, Figures 1 and 2 were improved.

Regarding the measurement procedure, this is performed by mainly two methods, the traditional and empirical one. These methods are described in more detail as to avoid confusion about the performed time measurements.

The authors believe that there is no need for a Nomenclature section in the article, as every term is explained in the manuscript. However, the manuscript has underwent some changes. If still required, a nomenclature section will be added.

Paper novelty and industrial applications have been added in the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion sections of the manuscript.

Results: Frankly speaking, the results are not enough. Some tables are put with insufficient explanations. No comments, no citations, no details about findings. This cannot be acceptable. Much more explanatory details have to be placed.

There is a need to add conclusions section. It is necessary to more clearly show the novelty of the article and the advantages of the proposed method. What is the difference from previous work in this area? Show practical relevance. The article is interesting, but needs to be improved. Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. Add 4-5 items of the findings of the study.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. The tables now have commentary to accompany them. Furthermore, the conclusions section was revised and should now present the information in a clearer manner.