Cutting Energy Consumption Modelling of End Milling Cutter Coated with AlTiCrN
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors proposed a power consumption model that takes into account the effect of the tool edge shape on the cutting power. The tool used in this research is an AlTiCrN coated tool. The Taguchi method was used in order to test the effect of several cutting parameters on energy consumption during the machining process.
In the reviewer opinion, the paper can be recommended for publication in Coatings journal after addressing the following comments:
- Line 10: It is not logical to say that machine tools have a low efficiency when these machines have been the basis of manufacturing processes for decades and without them millions of mechanical systems could not exist today.
- Some new publications (2021-2023) should be analyzed in the introduction section. In fact, it is recommended to see the latest contributions in order to highlight the novelty of the present research compared to what is being done in the literature.
- Line 114. The formula of the energy consumption should be numbered.
- Equation 1. Usually this cutting power absorbed by the spindle is determined using a formula that takes into account: the cutting parameters according to the material to be machined, the cutting forces of the tool on the workpiece according to a variable called "Specific cutting pressure". Why the conventional model of the cutting power is not used for the current research.
Usually the cutting power in orthogonal cutting is expressed as follows Pc = (AD . Kc . Vc)/ 60 . 10E3
- Line 230 the size of material is not clear what is the thickness of the material is that 200 mm??
- Table 1 it is recommended to change the unit of the spindle speed n (better N) to rpm
- Looking at the same table, we notice that the spindle speed and feed rate are constant at 4000 rpm and 3000 mm/min respectively. First, it is better to remove these two parameters from the table and indicate their fixed values before. Secondly, why are these two key parameters fixed at constant values when they have a significant effect on cutting power?
- Table 2 it is recommended to change one cutting parameter in each experimental test to see precisely the effect of each parameter on cutting power and energy consumption.
- The novelty of the current research is unclear. The authors should emphasize the novelty of their research compared to what is done in the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract section needs to be expanded to provide quantitative data.
2. Please conclude your abstract with a "take-home" message.
3. Rearrange the keywords so that they are in alphabetical order.
4. The reviewer recommends to not using abbreviations in the keywords.
5. What is the current article novel? It has been extensively discussed in the past. Nothing truly novel in its current state. The absence of anything original makes the current study seem like a replication or a modified study. The introduction section should contain specifics about the writers' uniqueness. It is a significant reason to reject this study.
6. Previous literature related needs to explain in the introduction section consisting of their work, their novelty, and their limitations to show the research gaps that intend to be filled in the present work.
7. Encouraging to make the objective of the present work more clearly.
8. The reviewer encouraged the authors to provide an additional figure in the introduction section to improve the reader's understanding.
9. Rather than relying just on the predominant text as it already exists, the authors could incorporate more illustrations as figures in the materials and methods section that illustrate the workflow of the current study.
10. It is necessary to provide more information on the manufacturer, country, and specifications of the tools.
11. The inaccuracy and tolerance of the experimental equipment used in this inquiry are critical details that must be included in the article.
12. Findings must be compared to similar past research.
13. The general quality of the discussion in this current submission is quite low. The authors must truly make an effort in improving their discussion more comprehensive.
14. Why the present study performs experimental testing? It needs to discussed, why not computational and/or analytical? Also, potential further study in computational simulation of metals needs to discussed since it brings several advantages compared to experimental and analytical such as lower cost and faster results. For the reference encouraged to add relevant reference as follows: Minimizing Risk of Failure from Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Prosthesis by Selecting Ceramic Materials Based on Tresca Stress. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013413What is the current work's limitation? Please place it before entering the conclusion section.
15. Write a paragraph-length conclusion rather than the existing form's point-by-point explanation.
16. Please discuss the further research in the conclusion section.
17. In the whole of the manuscript, the authors sometimes made a paragraph only consisting of one or two sentences that made the explanation not clearly understood. The authors need to extend their explanation to become a more comprehensive paragraph. In one paragraph, it is recommended to consist of at least 3 sentences with 1 sentence as the main sentence and the other sentences as supporting sentences.
18. The reference is recommended to be enriched with literature from five years ago. MDPI reference is strongly recommended.
19. Recommending to reduce the number of literatures authored by the authors that are adopted as references in the present manuscript.
20. English needs to be proofread due to grammatical errors and English style.
21. A graphical abstract is suggested to be included in the submission after peer review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Suggestions for improving the manuscript are as follows:
1. The abstract should be supplemented with concrete results and main conclusions.
2. Why do you verify accuracy with a single factor experiment? Discuss in detail in the corrected article.
3. A major drawback of the methodology of this research is that real 3D cutting is equated with 2D cutting. This deviation from reality must be further analyzed and discussed.
4. Figures 3 and 4 don't seem to look the best. Are they original figures or should they be quoted?
5. How did you choose the cutting parameters? Why they are representative of your research.
6. Provide detailed information about the cutting tool and accessories used.
7. Estimate the measurement uncertainty of the obtained results.
8. Additionally, scientifically discuss your results. In all places in the manuscript, where possible, compare your results and obtained trends with previous research.
9. Analyze and discuss the influence of factor interaction on cutting energy consumption (Basic problem of the applied method). It can be very significant.
10. List the possibilities of practical application of your methodology in the conclusions.
11. Also, in the conclusions, emphasize the innovation of your methodology and scientific contribution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Good job to the authors in this stage, I save other comments in this stage as follows:
1. In line 12, mention the stand of abbreviations of “AlTiCrN”
2. In line 45, any reference/basis for Figure 1?
3. In line 212-213, incorporate additional reference for the authors explanation as follows: Tresca Stress Study of CoCrMo-on-CoCrMo Bearings Based on Body Mass Index Using 2D Computational Model. Jurnal Tribologi 2022, 33, 31–8. https://jurnaltribologi.mytribos.org/v33/JT-33-31-38.pdf
4. Please extend “Fig.” as “Figure” in the whole of manuscript.
5. Please extend “Eq.” as “Equation” in the whole of manuscript.
6. In line 383-411, please make a conclusion in just only one paragraph that have solid explanation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
