Study of the Influence of Helical Milling Parameters on the Quality of Holes in the UNS R56400 Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Study of the influence of helical milling parameters 2 on the quality of holes in the UNS R56400 alloy.

 

This work deals with influence of helical milling parameters on the holes quality (roughness, diameter and burr height) in UNS R56400 alloy. In general this work is of sufficient quality, with substantial literature review and within the scope of on-going studies. I would recommend this manuscript to be further improved to be accepted.

 

Main points:

English is sometimes quite poor and not scientifically formulated:

“Sentence 28 : should be “is positioned or has been positioned”, also here “a real alternative” should be just an alternative or good alternative. “So much so” does not sound as scientific language.

Sentence 37: “thanks to” is not much of scientific language.

Sentence 46: these fluids, and many more, for instance, sentence 168 “being essential the clarification”

Please check your text and improve it. “

Two-level fractional factorial experimental design. You should explain this more clearly and also with emphasis on how accurate this approach is. The key point of this study is correlation between chosen drill parameters and the resulting quality of holes. Authors did demonstrate that they are aware that the tool wear (geometry change, contact area change) and local heat increase can significantly influence the result. Taking into account that some tool has broken it can indicate about on-going tool wear. There is no data presented on the tool quality after the drilling and thus it could be difficult to correlate the resulting quality only with the drill parameters. What is the accuracy of the set drill parameters by the equipment used for drilling? The obtained roughness parameters were compared with some literature parameters. Did you compare the obtained roughness and diameter accuracy with the main competitor as fluid drilling?

Minor comments:

4.0 industrial revolution: needs brief explanation and a reference Sentence 46 about 16% overrun needs a reference. Equation 3: what is Fzt Table 2, I am not sure “non-reproducible” is a right word choice. Sentence 196, 6.35mm or 6.35 mm, check the entire manuscript to keep one style. The composition in table 7. How was it obtained? Figure 4-6, The figure caption is not sufficient and scientifically good. Figure 8 and others, check the capital letters in the captions, it should be same style in the manuscript. Table 13 is not really easy readable and easy to be understood.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for the reviews carried out in this paper.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper is very good organized.

Results are original and compared with other authors.

Conclusions are supported by results represented in this paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for the reviews carried out in this paper.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review:

Study of the influence of helical milling parameters on the quality of holes in the UNS R56400 alloy.

 

The aim of the paper is realisation of bibliographic review possible to identify the sources of problems associated with the parameters that define the movement of helical milling. Kinetics has been defined from different studies, proposing a unique nomenclature to unify and standardize the process parameters and its units.

Experimental design has been carried out to identify and evaluate the sensitivity and main trends of the hole quality indicators with the kinematic variables of the process.

 

Comments:

Row 77: Please explain MQL

Row 117: Table 1, Please better is write unites as m.min^-1 instead m/min,

Row 134,135: Please correct in the all manuscript indexes Vfht, Vft on V_fht, V_ft and so on,

Row 250: Please describe statistical software, version, producer and origin,

Row 348: Please describe the Table 13

 

 

The question is partially original and well defined. The manuscript obtains good literal review. 

The results are interpreted appropriately. They are significant. All conclusions are justified and supported by the results.

 

 

Introduction and material and method are described in detail. The data and analyses presented partially appropriately. The high statistical standards for presentation of the results were used.

 

 

Study is correctly designed. The analyses are performed with Pareto analysis, analysis of variance and optimization. The data are no very robust but enough to draw the conclusions.

 

The conclusions are interesting for the readership of the Journal. The paper could be interesting only to a limited number of people interesting with the drilling.

 

 

The measurements are standard, but very useful. The helical milling conditions that have most affected the roughness of the machined surface have been a milling  direction (strategy) and to a lesser extent the tangential feed rate per tooth (f_zt). The lowest roughness values are found with down milling and an increase in the tangential feed rate per tooth.

Values above and below the programmed value have been found. It has been possible to observe the influence that the feed rate parameters (axial and tangential) have on the diameter of the hole, which may be strongly related to the cutting forces.The obtained results are new knowledge.

 

 

English language is appropriate and understandable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for the reviews carried out in this paper.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have made a good effort on improving the manuscript.