Study of the Machining Process of GFRP Materials by Milling Technology with Coated Tools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer comments

The influence of the abrasive effect of glass fibers on the durability and wear of the tool flank face, including their influence on the machined surface structure, roughness and topography of the laminate is investigated in this study. Three types of instruments were selected for the study. This article provides an opportunity for researchers to further their knowledge of specific aspects of milling GFRP composites, whether with a tool whether with a tool specifically designed for machining composites. However, the academic and innovative nature of the paper should be greatly strengthened, this manuscript can be accepted and published under major revision.

The modifications are shown below:

1. Some Figures are not clear enough (such as Figure 1 and Figure 2), higher resolution pictures should be provided.

2. The microstructure changes of composites before and after milling should be further elaborated and explained.

3. A microphotograph of the tool surface structure after milling should be provided.

4. The influence of different variables on the milling process should be discussed in depth, and a more in-depth analysis is necessary.

5. How does the temperature of the material change during the milling process, and how does this affect the properties of the material itself, relevant discussions should be provided.

6. Further language modification is necessary.

7. The influence of different variables on cutting effect should be further studied quantitatively, and the specific relationship should be given.

8. Only using roughness to evaluate milling effect is relatively simple, and more evaluation methods should be used.

9. The innovative nature of the article should be clearly stated in the introduction section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Although the concept of  machining process of PMCs is interesting, the manuscript is not well-stated, while its English is poor and extensive editing is required since many expressional mistakes exist. According to my comments below the manuscript contains serious flaws and therefore I recommend its rejection. However, I encourage the authors to address my comments and to resubmit it.

1- Lack of novelty

2- A limited experimental procedures

 

3- Lack of adequate discussion

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the current manuscript, authors have investigated the possibility of machining GFRP sheets. The problem is real and is targeted, however, there are fundamental changes required in the manuscript as mentioned below:

1.      The title of paper is very lengthy. It has to be shortened compulsorily.

2.      The abstract is also very lengthy. Ideally an abstract should be divided into motivation, work done and noteworthy results.

3.      Introduction section should be elaborated. Only 5 references are mentioned which does not serve the purpose.

4.      Table 01 should be changed to table 1.

5.      The GFRP sheet mentioned in section 2 does not specify the making of the sheet. If it procured, details such as thickness etc. should be mentioned.

6.      Similar comment 5 for tool and its salient features.

7.      Authors need to mention the parameter selected for the cutting.

8.      Lines 135 to 139 should be removed.

9.      Fig 4 and 5 shall be taken in section 2. Section 3 is for results and discussion

10.  Figure 6 to 11 does not depict any differentiation. Authors need to explain clearly or differentiate clearly.

11.  Graph 01-08 should not be there. Graph are figures. Do it should be figure ____.

12.  Authors should mention in detail, the reason for delamination mentioned in conclusion  1 in discussion section .

 

13.  Authors should mention clearly the criteria of quality for the GRPF cutting. It necessarily means required properties after cutting.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

More in-depth analysis of the mechanism needs to be added, in addition, English still needs to be further improved

 

Author Response

Thank you for your report.

Can you please specify, which mechanisms you mean?

If you mean mechanisms of milling, wear formation or chip formation...

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

No more issues.

Author Response

thank you for your review report

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

It is felt from your response, that you are adamant about making the changes. Please note the changes suggested are the betterment of the manuscript and for the good reading experience of readers. 

For Comments 1 and 2 changes are not done. event though it has been entered into the system, it can be changed by the help of editor. Also, the manuscript uploaded does not have any changes in abstract. 

For comment 3 you added few references however ref 6 and 7 is missing. In line 43-44 ref 8 is coming directly after ref. 5. Use a proper referencing software for same. 

Also for each of the comments thereon provide a detailed response about what changes are made and that changes in the manuscript with line number. 

 

Author Response

the title has been changed

the abstract was revised (line 8-22)

references have been revised and their order aligned (line 35, 36, 38, 405-433)

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept