The Influence of Automated Machining Strategy on Geometric Deviations of Machined Surfaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of section 2.3 "Programming programs" sounds strange.

The reviewer prefers the phrase “Programming NC program”.

The small suggestions is to deal with another workpiece or another machine tools.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all comments.  Please find below our response to each of the comments.

Note, changed fragments in the article body are marked in yellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. The title of section 2.3 "Programming programs" sounds strange.

2. The reviewer prefers the phrase “Programming NC program”.

According to your notes, we changed the title of section 2.3 to programming NC program.

 

3. The small suggestions is to deal with another workpiece or another machine tools.

It is planned to continue research and further measurements of deviations on a larger number of samples in the future. A change in the material and the possibility of extending the measurements to other types of deviations are also being considered.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of applsci-1130116-peer-review-v1: “The influence of automated machining strategy on geometric deviations of machined surfaces”

The subject of the paper is relevant with the topics of the journal. It deals with various automated milling strategies and their influence on their accuracy on produced part.

The paper is well structured and contains clear aims achieved.

It would improve the quality of the paper if the authors were willing to incorporate the following changes:

• Line 28: rephrase the sentence in order to be understandable.
• Table 2 should contain the name of the manufacturer and the tool code
• An English native speaker should correct the paper from the language point of view.
• Figure 5, 7, 8, 9 11 and 12 should contain some pictures or graphics about the meaning of the measured areas in order to increase readability.
• In line 381: a paragraph titled “results” or similar should contain the vast majority of the content from paragraph 5. Finally, paragraph 5 (Conclusions) should be rewritten and become much shorter.
• Check if the proposed paper can be included as reference:
  • Vakondios D., Kyratsis P., Yaldiz S., Antoniadis A., (2012), 'Influence of milling strategy on the surface roughness in ball end milling of the aluminum alloy Al7075-T6', Measurement, Vol. 45(6), pp. 1480-1488.

My proposal to the editor is to accept the paper after minor revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all comments.  Please find below our response to each of the comments.

Note, changed fragments in the article body are marked in yellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. The subject of the paper is relevant with the topics of the journal. It deals with various automated milling strategies and their influence on their accuracy on produced part.

2. The paper is well structured and contains clear aims achieved.

3. It would improve the quality of the paper if the authors were willing to incorporate the following changes:

4. Line 28: rephrase the sentence in order to be understandable.

The sentence was rewrite.

5. Table 2 should contain the name of the manufacturer and the tool code

The manufacturer name and tool code are listed in Table 2.

6. An English native speaker should correct the paper from the language point of view.

The paper was after revision corrected by MDPI's English editing service

7. Figure 5, 7, 8, 9 11 and 12 should contain some pictures or graphics about the meaning of the measured areas in order to increase readability.

All measured characteristics are defined in Figure 3 to avoid the duplication of figures/informations. Prefixes in characteristic name FLT, PAR, PER represent the evaluated geometrical tolerance.

8. In line 381: a paragraph titled “results” or similar should contain the vast majority of the content from paragraph 5. Finally, paragraph 5 (Conclusions) should be rewritten and become much shorter.

The Conclusion was divided to chapters “Results” and “Conclusions”. The results are slightly reorganised due to better presentation of results

9. Check if the proposed paper can be included as reference:

Vakondios D., Kyratsis P., Yaldiz S., Antoniadis A., (2012), 'Influence of milling strategy on the surface roughness in ball end milling of the aluminum alloy Al7075-T6', Measurement, Vol. 45(6), pp. 1480-1488.

The paper was cited.

My proposal to the editor is to accept the paper after minor revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find attached reviewer´s comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all comments. Please find below our response to each of the comments.

Note, changed fragments in the article body are marked in yellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. Conclusions - Too long, one must separate the scientific ones from commercial ones. 3 and 8 are nonsenses

The Conclusion was divided to chapters “Results” and “Conclusions”. The results are slightly reorganised due to better presentation of results

2. References - Some are in capital letter, why?

The references imported to Mendeley desktop have sometimes incorrect format. The problem was fixed.

3. You missed some sources of information. The integration of cutting forces in modelling is key in CAM and five-axis milling Your references are not including some of the recent leading groups: Calleja, Lazoglu, Lamikiz, Barton, or others.

Thank you for the information. The answer for this comment it is given below

4. Currently there were some recent and more classic references. CAM is used since 90s, as it was clearly stated in: Improving the high-speed finishing of forming tools for advanced high-strength steels (AHSS) 2006 in The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology DOI: 10.1007/S00170-004-2482-Z

The article was cited.

 5. Highly accurate 5-axis flank CNC machining with conical tools, Published: 2018 in The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology DOI: 10.1007/S00170-018-2033-7

Thank you for the suggestion, but the article is out of focus of the manuscript

6. Some point to enhance: state of the art, check above and others, the integration of cutting forces in 3d milling and 5-axis is a global trend, as it was stated by some authors. Meanwhile you used references in national journals, please change the way to introduce the method.

We agree that the measurement of cutting forces has great justification in the machining process. The values of the cutting force components can vary significantly depending on the relative position of the face mill towards the workpiece. It plays also an important role, for example, in the milling of thin parts, ribs, where it is necessary to prevent vibration, which occurs during machining as well as during planar surface machining depending on the type of tool used. It would also be interesting to investigate the influence of cutting forces on inclined surfaces machined in different directions, or to compare their influence on some milling strategies. This area of measurement and evaluation of cutting forces is planned in the future

7. Table 3 is using reference in the test piece, please explain, test pieces are a complex matter, and some introduced reference planes in the corners.

Only planes and cylinders are measured in this research. During the measurement the safe distance of the stylus from the adjacent surfaces was observed.

8. Figure 4 does no6t include useful information

The Figure 4 was deleted

 9. Figure 3 is not showing the coordinate references: the people in CAM usually produce a three-plane reference, as it was described in DOI: 10.1080/00207540210140068. The idea can help you: make a reference and compare in CMM

The coordinate base system for measuring the piece in CMM is shown in Figure 1 (Green cross with axis orientation) and the features used for coordinate system creation was mentioned in lines 268-270. Coordinate system for manufacturing of the part is shown in Figure 1 by blue colour cross.

The article was cited.

10. Some discussion points:

Ligth and optical systems are noew spreading in free-form surfaces, in gears, etc. You can check MDPI database for gear making works, or integral blade rotor works. Thay are dealing with similar problem to yours.

Yes, with optical CMM systems we can measure and evaluate geometrical tolerances and there are very useful for profile evaluation (gears, blades, …). We have a standard coordinate system Carl Zeis Contura G2 with a touch probe and don’t have this advantage.

10. The machining of aluminum parts was carried out on the 3-axis milling machine EMCO Concept 188 Mill 155 (EMCO MAIER Ges.m.b.H., Hallein/AUSTRIA) with control system Heidenhain TNC 426 189 (JOHANNES HEIDENHAIN GmbH, Germany). This machine is not very interesting, can you reduce some information not useful for readers? Paper is ful of sentences of this type: The aim of the research, conducted by the authors of this work, to provide the result of a comparison of milling strategies in two different programs and evaluated geometric characteristics of the produced test specimens. Which ones are the main contributions…surely not to use CAM…please introduce better the state of the art, above you have some hints and clues to do that.

Please try to aim at finding: time, errors, and surface deviations. The idea is not bad…but you can do better in introduction, description.

A review of the literature in the Introduction has been expanded and improved.

11. Try to reduce the mention of commercial brands.

Dear reviewer, here we have a conflict with another reviewer, who wants manufacturers and types of tools and machines used to be described.

 12. In summary, we expect to re-evaluate the work, but the above points are all compulsory: more and better description, track the real leading groups in the world…do it and resubmit.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I like the article and consider it partially original.

The aim of the research of the presented article is to provide the results of the comparison of milling strategies in two different programs and to evaluate the geometric characteristics of the produced test specimens.

Parts with the same cutting conditions were produced in two different programs. The main difference was only in the overlap of the tool, which also had a great impact on the results achieved.

It is necessary to explain to the authors of the paper why the same tool overlay was not used in both programs.

It is clear from the presented paper that it will be necessary to continue the research and perform further measurements of deviations on a larger number of samples, choose another material, extend the measurements with other types of deviations and the like.

The cited literature number 3 in the list of bibliographic sources contains two identical names of the author and needs to be checked and possibly corrected.

The cited literature number 4 in the list of bibliographic sources is not clearly defined ("undefined").

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, very helpful remarks and suggestions that really helped us to improve the paper and to make it more attractive for readers, especially for the international audience. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, taking into account all comments. Please find below our response to each of the comments.

Note, changed fragments in the article body are marked in yellow.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

1. I like the article and consider it partially original.

2. The aim of the research of the presented article is to provide the results of the comparison of milling strategies in two different programs and to evaluate the geometric characteristics of the produced test specimens.

3. Parts with the same cutting conditions were produced in two different programs. The main difference was only in the overlap of the tool, which also had a great impact on the results achieved.

4. It is necessary to explain to the authors of the paper why the same tool overlay was not used in both programs.

The manuscript describe the pilot study focused to obtain results for the next research. The different overlap was set for this reason. The problem was described in lines 182-191.

5. It is clear from the presented paper that it will be necessary to continue the research and perform further measurements of deviations on a larger number of samples, choose another material, extend the measurements with other types of deviations and the like.

The presented experiment was focused on verifying our assumptions and on obtaining input information for further wider research.

6. The cited literature number 3 in the list of bibliographic sources contains two identical names of the author and needs to be checked and possibly corrected.

The reference was corrected. Problem was occurred during import to Mendeley Desktop.

7. The cited literature number 4 in the list of bibliographic sources is not clearly defined ("undefined").

The reference was corrected. Problem was occurred during import to Mendeley Desktop.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx