Double B-Spline Curve-Fitting and Synchronization-Integrated Feedrate Scheduling Method for Five-Axis Linear-Segment Toolpath

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors proposed a curve-fitting and feed rate scheduling method for five-axis simultaneous machining process. For the curve-fitting part, the authors defined a double B-spline curve-fitting method to adjust the linear toolpath to spline, and adjust the tool orientation smoothly. And for the feed rate scheduling part, the authors also considered the positional feed rate and orientation feed rate as well. However, for this research, I have the following troubles in this manuscript:

1) In page 5 of 18, the authors said “It can see that the proposed method satisfies the fitting tolerance compared to the global curve-fitting method and has smaller curvature extreme than the local corner-smoothing method which decreases the nominal velocity in feed rate scheduling.” However, the proposed one has larger fitting error than local one and larger curvature than global one. So, I’m wondering the meaning of this comparison.

2) In Equation (7) and (8), the subscript “i” is a little confusing. I recommend the authors use “I” or prime “i” to suggest CL marks to distinguish with number “i”.

3) In page 8 of 18, the authors set du/dt=√p, I’m wondering that what the “p” means, and what the meaning of this setting is?

4) In section 3, the authors adjust the tool positional feed rate and orientation feed rate in two progress. However, in the case of real machining, there is only one feed rate for each feed command. So, I’m wondering that how to adjust the real feed rate in the real machining case?

5) In section 4, the authors applied both simulation and experiment to prove that the proposed method can make sense. However, in this chapter, there is no information to suggest that the machining accuracy is improved through this proposed method. Here I strongly recommend the authors make a comparison between the machining accuracy before the proposed fitting method and after the fitting method to show the readers that the proposed method can improve the machining accuracy obviously.

 

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very interesting. The layout of the article is very clear. The research required a lot of commitment from the research team.
However, there is no more detailed reference how the obtained parameters (speed, acceleration, fitting error of the tool-tip position) affect the dimensional accuracy of the machined workpiece.
This requires a workpiece measurement. But the issue of free form surface measurment is very complicated and may become the subject of the next publication.
Regardless of my comments, I accept and recommend this article.

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read this draft paper and concluded that this study is useful and interesting and may be acceptable for publication after some major revisions. Also, I have a few questions and concerns with your work as presented, which I invite the authors to address or explain, and which are attached below.

Sincerely,
Reviewer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Double B-spline curve-fitting and synchronization-integrated feedrate scheduling method for five-axis linear-segment toolpath.

This work is aimed to propose and investigate double B-spline curve-fitting and synchronization-integrated feedrate scheduling method for five-axis linear-segment toolpath. The five-axis linear toolpaths (previously three-axis toolpath) are widely used in CNC machine tools. To achieve a local and efficient smoothing for five-axis linear toolpaths is the main task in the field. Thus, this work is well-aligned with the main research line in the field and will be of interest and relevance for scientific and industrial community. The paper is well-structured and clearly demonstrate the studied aspects and obtained results. The English is good.

I have only minor comments to this manuscript:

• It could be of interest and importance to directly demonstrate differences in machining time and smoothing quality also with other methods utilizing, for instance smoothing by  replacing the corners of tool position with cubic B-splines, etc. Though authors did a good literature overview and demonstrate comparison analysis for some cases in the result section.
• Sentence 15 in the abstract is unclear.
• Sentence 65. Method32
• Figure 1. Such complicated figure requires a better figure caption explaining different sections.
• The Hausdorff distance could be a bit explain.
• Figure 6. Should be Orientation federate
• Sentence 204. Synchronization23
• “The maximum and mean fitting error of the tool-tip position are 0.0507 mm and 0.0243 mm respectively. The maximum and mean fitting error of the tool-tip position are 0.0512 and 0.0317 7 respectively”. It would be good to directly compare these values with the ones obtained with other relevant methods.

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Rows 1 - 2: Affiliation and email for each author
Row 15: cane guarantee => can guarantee
Row 25: [1,2]. => [1, 2].
Row 34: [11,12]. => [11, 12].
Row 45: [16,17]. => [16, 17].
Row 65: method32. => method [32].
Figure 1: Figure 1 should be more clearanceness and is not comprehensible,
and must be more clearly defined.
Rows 105 - 106: There are 32 rows not numbered between rows 105 and 106.
This makes it difficult for the review.
Figure 3: Figure 1 is not visible enough, should be more clearanceness and is not comprehensible,
and must be more clearly defined.
Rows 122 - 123: There are 7 rows not numbered between rows 105 and 106.
This makes it difficult for the review.
Rows 125 - 126: There are 11 rows not numbered between rows 105 and 106.
This makes it difficult for the review.
Rows 125 - 126: a2 + b2 = c2that => a2 + b2 = c2 that
Rows 139 - 140: There are 17 rows not numbered between rows 105 and 106.
This makes it difficult for the review.
Rows 149 - 150: There are 21 rows not numbered between rows 105 and 106.
This makes it difficult for the review.
Row 159: machine tool => machine tool (model of the machine tool)
figure 8: Figure 8c is not visible enough
Figure 10 and 11: If Figures 10 and 11 are compared,
it is obvious that the same font and the font size
are not used of the figures throughout the paper. All figures are required
with the same font and font size and that all must be visible enough.
Figure 11: constriants => constraints
Figure 12: All figures are required
with the same font and font size and that all must be visible enough.
Figure 14 and 15: the same
Row 204: synchronization23 => synchronization [23]
Figure 16: All figures are required
with the same font and font size and that all must be visible enough.
Table 2:
The authors do not explain why this large variance in values using different methods
especially for Accelerations

X (Without constraints 2795 - Parameter synchronization 2871 - Proposed 828.5).

Y (Without constraints 607.3 - Parameter synchronization 4781 - Proposed 493.4).

Z (Without constraints 569.3 - Parameter synchronization 2929 - Proposed 513.4).

A (Without constraints 2.67 - Parameter synchronization 44.4 - Proposed 1.62).

C (Without constraints 2.45 - Parameter synchronization 44.1 - Proposed 1.71).

Figure 20: All figures are required
with the same font and font size and that all must be visible enough.

Rows 223 - 240: Conclusion: Different text format from the rest of the paper

Row 312: 29. 29. Fan, => 29. Fan,

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your answers and revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

You have taken into account all the recommendations made by the reviewers. I will recommend the publication of the article in this journal.

Sincerely,

The reviewer