Chatter and Stability Analysis of the Slender Composite Boring Bar with Constrained Damping Layer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work has been written in a clear way. The introductory section deserves special attention, in which the authors refer to many research papers, describing them in detail and giving some of their own fresh insights. The paper presents mainly analytical and experimental considerations of stability analysis of composite bar. The paper is clearly written, but a few minor corrections would be useful to include:
- Figure 2 should be of much better quality - it is not readable.
- Formula (28) is presented as if in a different font from the others, please unify the entry.
- The signature under Figure 5 should not be moved to the next page.
In this work, it would be useful to consider additional presentation of the results of experimental studies - the idea is to show the experimental stand which would confirm the results of the analytical studies. In addition, the possibility of trying to carry out numerical tests with the use of FEM should be considered - after all, all the material data have been presented and are sufficient for the implementation of such tests.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Maria Simion
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper described research related to chattering stability of the composite boring bar with limited damping layer during deep boring.
The article is missing a definition of a detailed, explicit aim of the study. The introduction describes current state of knowledge in the field in very detailed way however on the end it was worth to add the aim of the study or goal which the authors want to achieve.
Researches are described very clear and understandable. Results are well interpreted and explained in details.
However, editorial side of the paper needs more attention, especially references. The formatting of the literature list needs improvement. Various different formats are used, lack of spaces in some wording, upper case errors (“china”), different punctuation marks, e.g.:
- verse 616: Du,J.X.; Study on Theory and Experiments for Damping Tools with High Slenderness Ratio.Master’s 616 Thesis, North University Of China, Taiyuan,China,2013.
- verses 622, 623: He,M.Dynamic Characteristics Analysis and Optimization Design of Dynamic Damping Boring Bar. 622 Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing,china,2018.
In the text there are editorial errors, e.g.
- verse 432 7 (c)displays the
- verse 575 No.11672166),and China
And finally, if research was not granted with external funding authors have to remove below template or reword it correctly:
- verse 570 – 573 Funding: Please add: “This research received no external funding” or “This research was funded by NAME OF FUNDER, grant number XXX” and “The APC was funded by XXX”. Check carefully that the details given are accurate and use the standard spelling of funding agency names at https://0-search-crossref-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/funding, any errors may affect your future funding.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Maria Simion
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
The submitted manuscript has been written in a proper structure, the figures are in good quality, the language seems fine and the organization of the content is fine. The reviewer’s main concerns are:
- Please stress the novelty of the work, I cannot find any novelty emphasis along the manuscript. It should be impressive, please describe the novelty of the work in the introduction section.
- Please also indicate the deployed methodology and the advantages of the proposed methodology compared to the other works.
- The length of the manuscript is excessive, the introduction is long (almost 4.5 pages), it is not really required to present such long text, and it is not a review paper. Please try to shorten it by citing the reference or previously published works and the readers will refer to the reference with ease.
- A huge amount of mathematical formulations was presented in the manuscript, some of them are really well known, it is not really needed to demonstrate a full set of them. I recommend you to review the equations and attempt to reduce it by citing or simplification.
- It is essential to present a table of acronyms and abbreviations, there are many variables along the manuscript, and sometimes the readers may be confused.
- The numerical simulation seems to be performed in Matlab, Very good, but I cannot find any details on how to use Matlab as a numerical solver? Please try to explain it.
- Have the authors developed any algorithm or routine by programming in Matlab? Or using the default function or previously developed code in Matlab?
- Figures 3, 4, 5 …. are demonstrating the obtained results, I cannot find any description related to the figures, it would be great if the authors try to present a descriptive sentence on each figure to highlight the points for the readers.
Sincerely yours
The reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Major issues:
This work has a very unusual layout. The introduction is significantly too long and there is no clear separation between the introduction and results section. Further, in the introduction the aims of the work must be stated clearly, which has not been done in the submitted manuscript.
Minor comments:
Line 48: MRF abbreviation must be explained.
Line 129: KM abbreviation must be explained.
Line 202: A reference here is needed.
Lines 570-573: This text should be removed.
Line 597: It should be “Shijiazhuang” as in line 595.
Reference 18 is unclear.
Reference 23: it should be “China”.
Author Response
Dear Dr. Maria Simion
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Good improvement! Currently, I do recommend this paper for publication.
Best regards
The Reviewer
Reviewer 4 Report
The Authors have improved their article by addressing my comments.
