Manufacturing Processes of Integral Blade Rotors for Turbomachinery, Processes and New Approaches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please consider to replace 'little by ittle' (page 6 of 22) to something like:
step by step; or
continously improvement
Author Response
REVIEWER #1
Dear Reviewer 1,
First of all, we would like to thank your effort and time correcting the paper. In our sincere opinion, your comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the paper.
I attach in next page the point-by-point description of changes made after the comments.
*all the changes introduced in the article are emphasized in red in the text.
Best regards,
Point-by point description of the changes after the reviewing process:
Please consider to replace 'little by little' (page 6 of 22) to something like:
step by step; or continuously improvement
Reviewer is right and 'little by ittle' (page 6 of 22) is replaced by ‘step by step’.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is more of an overview of IBR manufacturing processes. Some sections need to be rearranged to provide definitions first or to gather the discussion in a concise manner.
It would be good to avoid repetitions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
REVIEWER #2
Dear Reviewer 2,
First of all, we would like to thank your effort and time correcting the paper. In our sincere opinion, your comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the paper.
I attach in next page the point-by-point description of changes made after the comments.
*all the changes introduced in the article are emphasized in red in the text.
Best regards,
Point-by point description of the changes after the reviewing process:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper is more of an overview of IBR manufacturing processes. Some sections need to be rearranged to provide definitions first or to gather the discussion in a concise manner.
It would be good to avoid repetitions.
Reviewer is right and some sections are arranged to provide definitions first and to gather the discussion in a concise manner. Repetitions are also avoided.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article needs English grammar review, I found many mistakes and pointed them out. But I may have missed some others.
- Lines 5, 7, and 9 have different font sizes (for the names) and type. Standardize it.
- Abstract: the abstract says this manuscript is a review on IBR manufacturing and repairing processes, but the title of the manuscript gives no clue that the reader is about to read a review. In my view, the current title is not adequate.
- Line 28: I suggest you add from in the sentence: “... Euros, from which...”
- Line 28: what does R&D+i mean? What does the “+i” stand for? It is not clear to me
- Line 37: I suggest you change to “..., which in turn is mounted on the final rotor”
- Line 41: You previously defined IBR acronym in the abstract, but I believe you need to define it again in the text
- You need a standard for the words “disc” and “disk”. You utilized “disc” in lines 54, 74, 82, 84, 419, 424, Table 1 (3 times). And you utilized “disk” in lines 35, 39, 42 (two times), 56, 253, 432. Choose a standard and be consistent with your choice.
- Line 59: “integral” requires to be made.... - integral what? I suppose you are referring to IBR, is that right? IF so, just write it.
- Line 61: I suggest you change to “The selection of machining processes...”
- Line 63: I suggest you change “motor” to “motors”
- Line 73: I suggest you change “blades” to “blade”
- Line 109: change to “Klocke et al. performed a technological...”
- Line 11: do you mean “reference” instead of “referent”?
- Up to now, four figures from other references (Figures 1-5). Do you really need other people’s figures in your manuscript? Can’t you create your own (for at least some of them) to express your thoughts? It seems too much for me.
- Line 127: do you mean motor exhaustion gases?
- Figure 4: resolution must be improved
- Line 148: change to “(...) the effect of the material does not cause cutting force and does not influence the erosion process”
-Line 149: the citation here is out of your standard format
- Line 174: change to “thermal and mechanical stresses.”
- Figure 6: resolution must be improved
- Line 196/197: capitalize “Jetting”
- Line 197/198: Include acronym MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
- Line 198: change “methods” to “method”
- Line 201: change to “(...) it has been expanding and replacing other manufacturing processes...”
- Line 203: I suggest you to change to “...placing a flat power layer of the part material, which is then heated and solidified...”
- Line 207: change to “(...), these technologies offer ...”
- Line 208: I suggest you to change to “(...) and the possibility of generating complex geometries which are impossible to other technologies”
- Line 210: change to “(...) and Ni based supperaloys with material components using AM are in the order of...”
- Line 212: change to “Overall, the process does not have the capability ...”
- Line 279: change to “(...) are the tool types ...”
- Line 302: I suggest you to change to “... choice of the tool holder also influences the milling process...”
- Line 313: do not capitalize Roughing
- Line 350: change to “...an useful ...”
- Line 368: your citation is not in your standard format, fix it
- Figure 12: resolution is awful and must be improved
- Lines 375/376 need to be re-worded, they are very hard to understand
- Lines 376: change to “there are numerous research works about...”
- Line 389: do not capitalize Abrasive
- Line 395: replace “born” by “developed”
- line 398: change to “a finishing precision”
- Line 405: change to “and they consist...”
- Most pictures in Table 1 have low resolution, they need to be improved
Author Response
REVIEWER #3
Dear Reviewer 3,
First of all, we would like to thank your effort and time correcting the paper. In our sincere opinion, your comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the paper.
I attach in next page the point-by-point description of changes made after the comments.
*all the changes introduced in the article are emphasized in red in the text.
Best regards,
Point-by point description of the changes after the reviewing process:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article needs English grammar review, I found many mistakes and pointed them out. But I may have missed some others.
Reviewer is right, English and grammar is reviewed.
- Lines 5, 7, and 9 have different font sizes (for the names) and type. Standardize it.
Corrected.
- Abstract: the abstract says this manuscript is a review on IBR manufacturing and repairing processes, but the title of the manuscript gives no clue that the reader is about to read a review. In my view, the current title is not adequate.
According to reviewer suggestion, the manuscript title is changed.
- Line 28: I suggest you add from in the sentence: “... Euros, from which...”
Corrected.
- Line 28: what does R&D+i mean? What does the “+i” stand for? It is not clear to me
R&D+I is corrected and changed to R&D&I. Moreover the meaning is added into brackets.
- Line 37: I suggest you change to “..., which in turn is mounted on the final rotor”
Corrected.
- Line 41: You previously defined IBR acronym in the abstract, but I believe you need to define it again in the text
Corrected.
- You need a standard for the words “disc” and “disk”. You utilized “disc” in lines 54, 74, 82, 84, 419, 424, Table 1 (3 times). And you utilized “disk” in lines 35, 39, 42 (two times), 56, 253, 432. Choose a standard and be consistent with your choice.
The word is standardized and ‘disc’ is used along the paper.
- Line 59: “integral” requires to be made... - integral what? I suppose you are referring to IBR, is that right? IF so, just write it.
Corrected.
- Line 61: I suggest you change to “The selection of machining processes...”
Corrected.
- Line 63: I suggest you change “motor” to “motors”
Corrected.
- Line 73: I suggest you change “blades” to “blade”
Corrected.
- Line 109: change to “Klocke et al. performed a technological...”
Corrected.
- Line 111: do you mean “reference” instead of “referent”?
Corrected.
- Up to now, four figures from other references (Figures 1-5). Do you really need other people’s figures in your manuscript? Can’t you create your own (for at least some of them) to express your thoughts? It seems too much for me.
As it is a review work, figures from other references are included.
- Line 127: do you mean motor exhaustion gases?
Corrected.
- Figure 4: resolution must be improved
According to reviewer suggestion, Figure 4 resolution is improved. Moreover figures in .tiff format are uploaded to the journal.
- Line 148: change to “(...) the effect of the material does not cause cutting force and does not influence the erosion process”
Corrected.
-Line 149: the citation here is out of your standard format
Corrected.
- Line 174: change to “thermal and mechanical stresses.”
Corrected.
- Figure 6: resolution must be improved
According to reviewer suggestion, Figure 6 resolution is improved. Moreover figures in .tiff format are uploaded to the journal.
- Line 196/197: capitalize “Jetting”
Corrected.
- Line 197/198: Include acronym MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Corrected.
- Line 198: change “methods” to “method”
Corrected.
- Line 201: change to “(...) it has been expanding and replacing other manufacturing processes...”
Corrected.
- Line 203: I suggest you to change to “...placing a flat power layer of the part material, which is then heated and solidified...”
Corrected.
- Line 207: change to “(...), these technologies offer ...”
Corrected.
- Line 208: I suggest you to change to “(...) and the possibility of generating complex geometries which are impossible to other technologies”
Corrected.
- Line 210: change to “(...) and Ni based supperaloys with material components using AM are in the order of...”
Corrected.
- Line 212: change to “Overall, the process does not have the capability ...”
Corrected.
- Line 279: change to “(...) are the tool types ...”
Corrected.
- Line 302: I suggest you to change to “... choice of the tool holder also influences the milling process...”
Corrected.
- Line 313: do not capitalize Roughing
Corrected.
- Line 350: change to “...an useful ...”
Corrected.
- Line 368: your citation is not in your standard format, fix it
Corrected.
- Figure 12: resolution is awful and must be improved
According to reviewer suggestion, Figure 12 resolution is improved. Moreover figures in .tiff format are uploaded to the journal. Nomenclature definitions are also included.
- Lines 375/376 need to be re-worded, they are very hard to understand
Corrected.
- Lines 376: change to “there are numerous research works about...”
Corrected.
- Line 389: do not capitalize Abrasive
Corrected.
- Line 395: replace “born” by “developed”
Corrected.
- line 398: change to “a finishing precision”
Corrected.
- Line 405: change to “and they consist...”
Corrected.
- Most pictures in Table 1 have low resolution, they need to be improved
Authors agree with the reviewer, the alternative is not to include the picture and leave patent reference and description, as it is not possible to improve the pictures resolution.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is interesting with aspects of state of art. I believe that the contribution of the authors to create the optimisation algorithm for the manufacturing process could be better accentuated.
Author Response
REVIEWER #4
Dear Reviewer 4,
First of all, we would like to thank your effort and time correcting the paper. In our sincere opinion, your comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the paper.
I attach in next page the point-by-point description of changes made after the comments.
*all the changes introduced in the article are emphasized in red in the text.
Best regards,
Point-by point description of the changes after the reviewing process:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper is interesting with aspects of state of art. I believe that the contribution of the authors to create the optimisation algorithm for the manufacturing process could be better accentuated.
Author is right, however, being a review of manufacturing processes of integral blade rotors for turbomachinery, processes and new approaches, authors do not want to highly their contribution to create the optimization algorithm for the manufacturing process among other contributions.
Moreover, changes required by the reviewer in the attached manuscript pdf version are made.
Here only some explanations:
-Line 104: this fiber does not correspond to composites, but to metallic materials fiber orientation. The discussion is focused on metals.
-Line 395: regarding SAM process definition, the definition given by one of the experts in the field, R. Petrilli, and defined as “grinding at machining rates” is included.
-Line 420: with the discussion included in this paragraph, authors would like to exemplify which are possible SAM process applications.
-Section 2.8 is included in 2.5.1.
-Paragraph line 341: it is maintained in this section. Authors think that explaining machining strategies in the same section is the correct order.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
All questions and suggestions were addressed. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The suggestions that I've made to improve the manuscript have been addressed. This is a good literature review, and I recommend acceptance.
