machines

Article
Implementation of Grey Wolf, Multi-Verse and Ant Lion
Metaheuristic Algorithms for Optimizing Machinability of Dry
CNC Turning of Annealed and Hardened UNIMAX® Tool Steel
Nikolaos A. Fountas 1 , Ioannis Papantoniou 2 , Dimitrios E. Manolakos 2 and Nikolaos M. Vaxevanidis 1, *

1 Laboratory of Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tools (LMProMaT), Department of Mechanical

Engineering Educators, School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE),
GR 151 22 Amarousion, Greece; [email protected]
2 School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, GR 157 80 Zografou, Greece;
[email protected] (I.P.); [email protected] (D.E.M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Advances in machining technology and materials science impose the identification of
optimal settings for process-related parameters to maintain high quality and process efficiency. Given
the available resources, manufacturers should determine an advantageous process parameter range
for their settings. In this work, the machinability of a special tool steel (UNIMAX® by Uddeholm,
Sweden) under dry CNC turning is investigated. The working material is examined under two states;
annealed and hardened. As major machinability indicators, main cutting force Fz (N) and mean
surface roughness Ra (µm) were selected and studied under different values for the cutting conditions
of cutting speed, feed rate, and depth of cut. A systematic experimental design was established as per
the response surface methodology (RSM). The experimental design involved twenty base runs with
eight cube points, four center points in the cube, six axial points, and two center points in the axial
direction. Corresponding statistical analysis was based on analysis of variance and normal probability
plots for residuals. Two regression models referring to main cutting force and surface roughness
Citation: Fountas, N.A.;
for both the annealed and hardened states of the material were developed and used as objective
Papantoniou, I.; Manolakos, D.E.;
functions for subsequent evaluations by three modern meta-heuristics under the goal of machinability
Vaxevanidis, N.M. Implementation of
optimization, namely multi-objective grey wolf algorithm, multi-objective multi-verse algorithm
Grey Wolf, Multi-Verse and Ant Lion
and multi-objective ant lion algorithm. All algorithms were found capable of providing beneficial
Metaheuristic Algorithms for
Optimizing Machinability of Dry Pareto-optimal solutions for both main cutting force and surface roughness simultaneously whilst
CNC Turning of Annealed and regression models achieved high correlation among input variables and optimization responses.
Hardened UNIMAX® Tool Steel.
Machines 2024, 12, 156. https:// Keywords: UNIMAX® tool steel; dry CNC turning; main cutting force; surface roughness; multi-
doi.org/10.3390/machines12030156 objective optimization; grey wolf algorithm; multi-verse algorithm; ant lion algorithm

Academic Editor: Kai Cheng

Received: 23 January 2024

Revised: 18 February 2024 1. Introduction
Accepted: 22 February 2024
Cold-work tool steels constitute the majority of materials used for numerous industrial
Published: 24 February 2024
applications, where the temperature is below 200 ◦ C. Typical mechanical properties of
cold-work tool steels have high hardness [1,2], high wear resistance, and good toughness
and compressive strength [3]. As major alloying elements for tool steels, carbon and
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
carbide-forming elements such as Cr, Mo, V, and W are used. Carbon content may typically
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. vary from 0.5 to 2.5 wt.% C and other values, whilst other alloying elements may vary from
This article is an open access article 1 to 13 wt.%. Representative examples of commercially available tool steels are AISI H13
distributed under the terms and (ORVAR® ), CALMAX® , Sverker® 21, and UNIMAX® to name a few. UNIMAX® is a high-
conditions of the Creative Commons hardness electro-slag, remelted tool steel which provides great wear resistance even over
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// extended working timespans at elevated temperatures. As such, it is suitable for coating
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and nitriding. UNIMAX® performs very well in the precision forging, hot stamping, and
4.0/). molding of reinforced plastics. In this process, a conventionally solidified ingot is used as

Machines 2024, 12, 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines12030156 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2024, 12, 156 2 of 13

an electrode and slag is placed at the bottom of the furnace. Heat is produced when a high
AC current is passed from the electrode to the slag. Due to the high electrical resistivity
of the slag, it melts first. The electrode starts melting when it is submerged in the molten
bath of slag. The molten steel and the slag are contained in a copper mold which is cooled
by water. The droplets of molten steel are denser than the slag and hence pass through
it. They are collected in the pool of molten steel which solidifies with time. The highly
reactive slag used in the electro-slag remelting operation removes the oxide inclusions and
reduces the sulfur content [4]. In contrast to the “up-hill casting” technique [4,5] the higher
solidification rate achieved in electro-slag remelting reduces carbide banding, carbide size
and grain size. In most applications, special tool steels may be used after proper heat
treatment in controlled environments. The typical range for heat treatment is between 45 to
65 HRC [6]. Since most of these materials are difficult to machine, a significant number of
research contributions have been devoted for investigating the machinability indicators
and different manufacturing processes, i.e., cutting forces and surface roughness [7–11].
All special engineering alloys, including UNIMAX®, require the proper selection of cutting
tool materials, especially in the case of finish machining. Noticeable contributions in the
field have reported the usage of cubic boron nitride tools and polycrystalline diamond
tools in the form of cutting inserts. Such materials are mandatory for maintaining surface
finish and accuracy. The rationale behind their selection is the fact that ordinary cutting
materials do not sustain their chemical stability during the machining process; they exhibit
rapid tool wear owing to high temperatures and strong adhesion. Cutting tool selection
should also be based on proper geometry according to the machining stage. Normally,
hard-turning cutting inserts have an 0.8 mm tool tip radius whilst those used for finish-
turning have a smaller tool tip radius equal to 0.4 mm. Even though these conventional
geometries have been widely applicable, they may restrict productivity or deteriorate
quality owing to the narrow range for selecting feed rates. A cutting insert with large
tool tip radius will maintain surface quality, but it will lead to higher cutting forces and
chattering. On the contrary, cutting inserts with smaller radii will reduce cutting force, but
they dramatically restrict the applicable range of feed rate selection for maintaining a good
surface finish. To balance this trade-off between productivity and surface finish, wiper
geometries for cutting inserts have been developed to provide an alternative to high surface
finish [12–23]. Undoubtedly, every manufacturing process is affected by its corresponding
process parameters. To determine feasible or even advantageous settings for process
parameters, handbooks and cutting tool catalogues are available to practitioners to select
specific values from a constrained applicable range. However, such recommended ranges
for setting process parameters are far from being optimal to satisfy performance metrics. In
addition, with new developments and novel aspects concerning modern materials, such
recommendations are yet to be provided. Based on this context, artificial intelligence and
soft computing techniques [24–30] are continuously implemented to provide advantageous
solutions to almost any manufacturing process.
This work investigates the effect of rotational speed, feed rate, and depth of cut on
main cutting force and surface roughness during the dry CNC turning of UNIMAX® tool
steel (Uddeholm-Sweden) under two discrete states; one soft annealed to approximately
180 HB/10 HRC (delivery condition) and one hardened to approximately 513–534 HB/
53–54 HRC. Statistical outputs are further examined to create robust regression models and
utilize them as objective functions to optimize the dry CNC turning process for UNIMAX®
tool steel. As regards this particular material, research results have yet to be presented to
facilitate industrial applications. The work contributes to practical decision-making when
it comes to the selection of optimal cutting parameters for the CNC turning of UNIMAX®
tool steel in soft-annealed and hardened conditions with a predetermined hardness range.
The results come with the novel aspect of generally implementing several variants of
new intelligent algorithms for optimizing the CNC turning operations of difficult-to-cut
materials and alloys such as the one studied in the current work.
Machines 2024, 12, 156 3 of 13

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design of Experiments
Aiming at examining the influence of the independent variables n (rpm), f (mm/rev),
and a (mm) on the responses of the Fz (N) and Ra (µm) experiments, CNC turning exper-
iments were executed considering the experimental protocol. Central composite design
(CCD) is an important approach in response surface methodology (RSM). It allows for
determining the corner, axial, and center points of the design and therefore it can lead to
more controllable solution domains for fitting a second-order regression model. However,
the CCD approach has the drawback of involving a relatively large number of experimental
runs owing to experimental replicates. As a result, the CCD method would be better
selected when the number of independent variables is low (i.e., three parameters). In the
current study, the three independent parameters give a reasonable number of experimental
runs. By maintaining uniform accuracy for three-factor experimentation, 8 factorial points,
6 axial points, and 6 center runs, 20 experimental runs were generated. The experimental
design is summarized in Table 1. Note that spindle speed n (rpm) is not considered as a
main cutting condition parameter, and cutting speed, Vc (m/min), which is the peripheral
speed of the workpiece, should be taken into account instead or at least to accompany the
resulting rotational speed given the initial diameter of the workpiece. Consequently Table 1
gives the three levels of cutting speed Vc (m/min) corresponding to the spindle speed’s
experimental levels.

Table 1. Cutting parameters and corresponding experimental levels.

Central Composite Design of Experiments

Parameter Symbol Level
Low (−1) Center (0) High (1) Unit
Spindle speed n 1500 1750 2000
rpm (m/min)
(Cutting speed) (Vc) (141) (165) (188)
Feed rate f 0.050 0.125 0.200 mm/rev
Depth of cut a 0.500 1.000 1.500 mm

UNIMAX® tool steel of the known Swedish manufacturer Uddeholm® was used in
its delivery condition, i.e., 180 HB (10 HRC) and in a hardened state with a hardness
equal to 513–534 HB (53–54 HRC). Two pre-machined rods, 30 mm in diameter, 300 mm
length, having ten discrete zones separated by 5 mm grooves were used for the main
experiments for ensuring chip removal (Figure 1). Figure 1a illustrates a pre-processed
and a finished rod whilst Figure 1b depicts the CBN wiper cutting insert that was used
(SECO® TNGA332S-00820-L1-C, CBN200) held on a PTJNR 2525M16 insert holder. The
surface roughness of the initial samples was found to be equal to 2.26 and 1.87 for the “as
received” and “hardened” material conditions, respectively.
The machining experiments were conducted using a HAAS® TL-1 CNC turning center
(Figure 2a). The CNC turning center was equipped with a three-component KISTLER® dy-
namometer accompanied with its corresponding data acquisition interface (Labview® mod-
ule) to collect online measurements for the three components of cutting forces (Figure 2b).
The TESA® Rugosurf 10-G portable roughness tester (Figure 2c) was used for collecting the
measurements for mean surface roughness Ra (µm).
Machines 2024,12,
Machines2024, 12,156
x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4ofof14
13

Figure 1. (a) Ø30 × 300 mm UNIMAX® bars for dry CNC turning experiments; (b) the SECO®
TNGA332S-00820-L1-C, CBN200 with the PTJNR 2525M16 insert holder.

The machining experiments were conducted using a HAAS® TL-1 CNC turning cen-
ter (Figure 2a). The CNC turning center was equipped with a three-component KISTLER®
dynamometer accompanied with its corresponding data acquisition interface (Labview®
module) to collect online measurements for the three components of cutting forces (Figure
(a) × ® bars for dry CNC turning experiments; (b) the SECO®®
Figure
Figure
2b). The (a) Ø30
1.1. TESAØ30 300 mm10-G
× 300
® Rugosurf UNIMAX
UNIMAX ® barsroughness
portable for dry CNC turning
tester experiments;
(Figure (b) the
2c) was used forSECO
collect-
TNGA332S-00820-L1-C,
TNGA332S-00820-L1-C,
ing the measurementsCBN200 CBN200 with
with
for mean the PTJNR
the PTJNR
surface 2525M16Ra
roughness insert
(µm).holder.

The machining experiments were conducted using a HAAS® TL-1 CNC turning cen-
ter (Figure 2a). The CNC turning center was equipped with a three-component KISTLER®
dynamometer accompanied with its corresponding data acquisition interface (Labview®
module) to collect online measurements for the three components of cutting forces (Figure
2b). The TESA® Rugosurf 10-G portable roughness tester (Figure 2c) was used for collect-
ing the measurements for mean surface roughness Ra (µm).

Figure 2. Experimental
Figure Experimentalset-up.
set-up.(a)
(a)The
TheHAAS
HAAS ® TL-1
® TL-1 CNC
CNCturning center
turning with
center KISTLER
with ® three-
® three-com-
KISTLER
ponent cutting force dynamometer; (b) Labview® environment
® to measure cutting force signals;
component cutting force dynamometer; (b) Labview environment to measure cutting force signals; (c)
TESA ® Rugosurf
® 10 G setup for roughness measurements.
(c) TESA Rugosurf 10 G setup for roughness measurements.

2.2.
2.2. Experimental
Experimental Results
Results
The
The actual measurementsof
actual measurements ofmain
maincutting forceFz,
cuttingforce Fz,were
werefurther
furtherexamined
examinedtotocompute
compute
the
the average
average
Figure values
2. Experimental from
values from raw
raw
set-up. data.
(a)data. The average
The average
The HAAS ® values
values
TL-1 CNC from
from
turning the meaningful
thewith
center KISTLERregions
meaningful ®regions (i.e.,
three-com-(i.e.,
where
where high
ponent high cutting
cutting force signals
force dynamometer;
cutting occurred)
force signals(b) were
Labview were
occurred) ® calculated
environment to establish
to measure
calculated the first
cutting
to establish response.
force
the firstsignals; To
(c)
response.
examine surface10roughness,
TESA Rugosurf
® G setup foreach cutting
roughness zone was measured three times on the periphery
measurements.
of the work piece at an angle of 120◦ and the mean value was kept to represent the final
2.2. Experimental
result. Results
To distinguish the two material conditions of the working material, the terms “AR”
and “HRD” were adopted.
The actual measurements The
of former term refers
main cutting to were
force Fz, the “as received”
further (annealed)
examined state
to compute
of UNIMAX ® , whereas the latter (HRD) corresponds to the hardened material condition.
the average values from raw data. The average values from the meaningful regions (i.e.,
The
whereasterisk “*” in the
high cutting experimental
force resultswere
signals occurred) denotes the corrected
calculated values
to establish theinfirst
theresponse.
response
Machines 2024, 12, 156 5 of 13

surface experiments based on the CCD design. The effect of the machining parameters as
well as the error estimation were studied using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results
for the two responses of Fz and Ra referring to both material conditions of the examined
UNIMAX® steel are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Experimental results for main cutting force (Fz) and surface roughness (Ra).

n/(Vc) a Fz Fz Ra Ra (µm)
No. f (mm/rev)
(rpm)/(m/min) (mm) (N) AR (N) HRD (µm) AR HRD
1 1500 (141) 0.050 0.50 140.760 120.644 4.499 1.291
2 2000 (188) 0.050 0.50 98.581 120.270 4.453 1.261
3 1500 (141) 0.200 0.50 170.008 280.139 6.778 4.279
4 2000 (188) 0.200 0.50 220.991 250.178 6.587 4.081
5 1500 (141) 0.050 1.50 220.166 320.886 4.931 1.753
6 2000 (188) 0.050 1.50 200.773 270.034 4.511 1.325
7 1500 (141) 0.200 1.50 430.855 580.945 6.863 4.362
8 2000 (188) 0.200 1.50 320.351 570.847 6.563 4.040
9 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.837 410.206 5.134 2.349
10 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.263 410.124 5.122 2.251
11 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.936 410.553 4.996 1.969
12 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.957 410.326 4.819 1.612
13 1342 * (126) 0.125 1.00 280.011 340.845 5.054 1.846
14 2158 * (203) 0.125 1.00 295.215 300.899 4.782 1.574
15 1750 (165) 0.025 * 1.00 180.069 210.112 4.468 1.260
16 1750 (165) 0.250 * 1.00 400.445 410.702 11.434 9.226
17 1750 (165) 0.125 0.18 * 80.407 90.524 5.205 1.997
18 1750 (165) 0.125 1.82 * 392.834 430.412 5.384 2.176
19 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.529 410.353 5.358 2.150
20 1750 (165) 0.125 1.00 340.023 410.152 5.251 2.043
St.Dev. 102.768 135.341 1.575 1.863
Mean 273.751 337.958 5.610 2.642
Median 307.783 375.485 5.128 2.02
Range 350.448 490.421 6.981 7.966
* Experimental values with reference to “alpha” factor of CCD design.

MINITAB® R17 software was used to statistically analyze the experimental data. The
regression models generated as per the full quadratic response surface regression depiction
are shown in Equation (1) up to Equation (4) for Fz-AR (N), Fz-HRD (N), Ra-AR (µm) and
Ra-HRD (µm), respectively.

Fz-AR (N) = −1617 + 1.589 × n + 1811 × f + 687 × a − 0.000423 × n2 −6018 × f2 −180.3 × a2 + 0.014 × n × f − 0.1387 ×
(1)
n × a + 595 × f × a

Fz-HRD (N) = −1282 + 1.305 × n + 2025 × f + 538 × a − 0.000380 × n2 −7105 × f2 −184.3 × a2 + 0.074 × n × f − 0.0306 ×
(2)
n × a + 905 × f × a
Machines 2024, 12, 156 6 of 13

Ra-AR (µm) = −5.09 + 0.0116 × n − 26.3 × f + 1.65 × a − 3 × 10−5 × n2 + 186.1 × f2 − 0.251 × a2 − 0.0002 × n × f −
(3)
0.00048 × n × a − 1.43 × f × a

Ra-HRD (µm) = −9.18 + 0.01259 × n−29.5 × f + 1.88 × a − 4 × 10−5 × n2 + 218.0 × f2 −0.317 × a2 − 0.0004 × n × f −
(4)
0.00052 × n × a −1.61 × f × a

Tables 3–6 summarize the results obtained by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with reference
to the experimental results. In the ANOVA, a result of less than 0.05 for the p-value suggests that
the corresponding independent variable is significant. When it comes to lack-of-fit, the p-value must
be greater than 0.05 to exhibit insignificance. An insignificant lack-of-fit is preferred, suggesting a
negligible error contribution to the model.

Table 3. ANOVA table for response surface regression: Fz (N)-AR vs. n, f, a.

Source DF Seq.SS Contribution % Adj.SS Adj.MS F-Val. p-Val.

Model 9 188,566 93.97 188,566 20,951.8 17.32 <0.005
Linear 3 137,073 68.31 128,711 42,903.6 35.46 <0.005
n (rpm) 1 696 0.35 657.0 657.0 0.54 0.478
f (mm/rev) 1 53,315 26.57 41,005 41,004.9 33.89 <0.005
a (mm) 1 83,062 41.39 87,049 87,048.9 71.95 <0.005
Square 3 45,100 22.48 45,100 15,033.3 12.43 0.001
n2 1 6729 3.35 9252 9251.6 7.65 0.020
f2 1 11,057 5.51 12,192 12,192.4 10.08 0.010
a2 1 27,314 13.61 27,314 27,314.2 22.58 0.001
2-way int. 3 6393 3.19 6393 2131.0 1.76 0.218
n×f 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 0.984
n×a 1 2405 1.20 2405 2404.7 1.99 0.189
f ×a 1 3988 1.99 3988 3987.6 3.30 0.100
Error 10 12,098 6.03 12,098 1209.8
Lack-of-fit 5 12,097 6.03 12,097 2419.5 6.56 0.235
Pure error 5 1 0 1 0.1
Total 19 200,664 100
R2 93.97%

Table 4. ANOVA table for response surface regression: Fz (N)-HRD vs. n, f, a.

Source DF Seq.SS Contribution % Adj.SS Adj.MS F-Val. p-Val.

Model 9 339,052 97.42 339,052 37,672 41.99 <0.005
Linear 3 280,464 80.59 269,026 89,675 99.95 <0.005
n (rpm) 1 1837 0.53 1687 1687 1.88 0.200
f (mm/rev) 1 103,913 29.86 83,447 83,447 93.01 <0.005
a (mm) 1 174,714 50.20 183,892 183,892 204.97 <0.005
Square 3 49,244 14.15 49,244 16,415 18.30 <0.005
n2 1 5102 1.47 7466 7466 8.32 0.016
f2 1 15,623 4.49 16,996 16,996 18.94 <0.005
a2 1 28,519 8.19 28,519 28,519 31.79 <0.005
2-way int. 3 9345 2.69 9345 3115 3.47 0.059
n×f 1 16 0 16 16 0.02 0.898
n×a 1 117 0.03 117 117 0.13 0.725
f ×a 1 9212 2.65 9212 9212 10.27 0.009
Error 10 8972 2.58 8972 897
Lack-of-fit 5 8972 2.58 8972 1794 4.25 0.244
Pure error 5 0 0 0 0
Total 19 348,024 100
R2 97.42%
Machines 2024, 12, 156 7 of 13

Table 5. ANOVA table for response surface regression: Ra (µm)-AR vs. n, f, a.

Source DF Seq.SS Contribution % Adj.SS Adj.MS F-Val. p-Val.

Model 9 43.4157 92.12 43.4157 4.8240 12.98 <0.005
Linear 3 30.8937 65.55 36.7643 12.2548 32.98 <0.005
n (rpm) 1 0.1473 0.31 0.1421 0.1421 0.38 0.550
f (mm/rev) 1 30.6931 65.12 36.5846 36.5846 98.46 <0.005
a (mm) 1 0.0533 0.11 0.0375 0.0375 0.10 0.757
Square 3 12.4698 26.46 4.1566 4.1566 11.19 0.002
n2 1 0.6894 1.46 0.5614 0.5614 1.51 0.247
f2 1 11.7276 24.88 11.6648 11.6648 31.39 <0.005
a2 1 0.0529 0.11 0.0529 0.0529 0.14 0.714
2-way int. 3 0.0522 0.11 0.0174 0.0174 0.05 0.986
n×f 1 0.0001 0.00 0.0001 0.0001 0.00 0.989
n×a 1 0.0230 0.06 0.0292 0.0292 0.08 0.785
f ×a 1 3.7158 0.05 0.0230 0.0230 0.06 0.809
Error 10 3.5361 7.88 0.3716 0.3716
Lack-of-fit 5 0.1797 7.50 0.7072 0.7072 1.68 0.187
Pure error 5 0.1797 0.38 0.0359 0.0359
Total 19 47.1315 100
R2 92.12%

Table 6. ANOVA table for response surface regression: Ra (µm)-HRD vs. n, f, a.

Source DF Seq.SS Contribution % Adj.SS Adj.MS F-Val. p-Val.

Model 9 62.9558 95.47 62.9558 6.9951 23.44 <0.005
Linear 3 45.9046 69.62 54.2317 18.0772 60.57 <0.005
n (rpm) 1 0.1517 0.23 0.1485 0.1485 0.50 0.497
f (mm/rev) 1 45.6974 69.30 54.0454 54.0454 181.09 <0.005
a (mm) 1 0.0555 0.08 0.0377 0.0377 0.13 0.730
Square 3 16.9874 25.76 16.9874 5.6625 18.97 <0.005
n2 1 0.8127 1.23 0.6532 0.6532 2.19 0.170
f2 1 16.0906 24.40 15.9990 15.9990 53.61 <0.005
a2 1 0.0841 0.13 0.0841 0.0841 0.28 0.607
2-way int. 3 0.0638 0.10 0.0638 0.0213 0.07 0.974
n×f 1 0.0005 0.00 0.0005 0.0005 0.00 0.969
n×a 1 0.0341 0.05 0.0341 0.0341 0.11 0.742
f ×a 1 0.0293 0.04 0.0293 0.0293 0.10 0.761
Error 10 2.9845 4.53 2.9845 0.2984
Lack-of-fit 5 2.6471 4.01 2.6471 0.5294 3.85 0.204
Pure error 5 0.3373 0.51 0.3373 0.0675
Total 19 65.9403 100
R2 95.47%

The Anderson–Darling normality test is used to validate the generated models’ suitability
referring to the Fz (N) and Ra (µm) responses. In the Anderson–Darling test, if p is lower than the
selected significance level (c.i. = 0.05), the data fails to follow a normal distribution. In this study,
the ANOVA results for the generated quadratic models, indicate that the models are suitable for
predicting Fz (N) and Ra (µm). The coefficient of determination (R2 ) indicates the percentage of total
variation in the response explained by the terms in the models. In the study, the ANOVA shows
that after examining the residuals for all four quadratic models referring to both material hardness
conditions of UNIMAX® , they are considered suitable for predicting Fz (N) and Ra (µm) with quite
high contributions, i.e., 93.97% for the main cutting force plot of the “AR” material condition, 95.10%
for the main cutting force plot of the “HRD” material condition, and 92.12% and 95.47% for surface
roughness in the “AR” and the “HRD” conditions, respectively. p-values for lack-of-fit are beyond
0.05 (Figure 3).
 contributions, i.e., 93.97% for the main cutting force plot of the “AR” material condition,
95.10% for the main cutting force plot of the “HRD” material condition, and 92.12% and
Machines 2024,95.47%
12, 156 for surface roughness in the “AR” and the “HRD” conditions, respectively. p- 8 of 13
values for lack-of-fit are beyond 0.05 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Probability plots for regression models: (a) Fz for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (b) Fz for
Figure 3. Probability plots for regression models: (a) Fz for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (b) Fz
the “HRD” condition of UNIMAX; (c) Ra for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (d) Ra for the “HRD”
for the “HRD” condition of UNIMAX; (c) Ra for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (d) Ra for the
condition of UNIMAX.
“HRD” condition of UNIMAX.
With reference to the p-value for parameter effects, it has been concluded that in both the
With reference to of
cases thethep-value
annealed for
andparameter
the hardened effects,
UNIMAX it has® conditions,
been concluded that force
main cutting in both
Fz (N) is mainly
the cases of the annealed and the hardened UNIMAX conditions, main cutting force Fz Specifically,
influenced by the linear terms, followed by the
® square terms and the interaction terms.
for cutting force Fz, the linear terms in “AR” case of UNIMAX® are 68.59% significant, followed by
(N) is mainly influenced by the linear terms, followed by the square terms and the
the square terms with 22.48% and 2-way interactions with 3.19%. Lack-of-fit error contributes as
interaction terms.muchSpecifically, for cutting force Fz, the linear terms in “AR” case of
as 6.03%. Similarly, for cutting force Fz, the linear terms in the “HRD” case of UNIMAX® are
UNIMAX are 68.59%
®
80.59%significant, followed
significant, followed by square
by the the squareterms terms with and
with 14.15% 22.48%
2-wayand 2-way with 2.69%.
interactions
interactions withLack-of-fit
3.19%. Lack-of-fit
error contributeserror contributes
as much as 2.58%.as much
In both as for
cases 6.03%. Similarly,
Fz, depth for affects Fz,
of cut primarily
followed by feed rate and spindle speed. When it
cutting force Fz, the linear terms in the “HRD” case of UNIMAX are 80.59% significant,comes ®to surface roughness, the linear terms in
the “AR” case of UNIMAX® are 65.55% significant, followed by the square terms with 26.46% and
followed by the square terms with 14.15% and 2-way interactions with 2.69%. Lack-of-fit
2-way interactions with 0.11%. Lack-of-fit error contributes as much as 7.50%. Similarly, the linear
error contributes terms
as muchin theas“HRD”
2.58%.case In both cases ®for
of UNIMAX areFz, depth
69.62% of cut primarily
significant, followed by affects Fz, terms with
the square
followed by feed 25.76%
rate and spindle speed. When it comes to surface roughness, the
and 2-way interactions with 0.11%. Lack-of-fit error contributes as much as 4.01%. In both linear
terms in the “AR”cases
caseforofRa,
UNIMAX ® are 65.55%
feed rate primarily affectssignificant,
Ra, followed by followed by the
spindle speed and square
depth of terms
cut. By examining
with 26.46% and the individual
2-way effects of with
interactions each process
0.11%.parameter
Lack-of-fit on the responses
error of main cutting
contributes as much forceasFz and surface
roughness Ra, the following results are observed. Referring to the main effects of the parameters
7.50%. Similarly, the linear terms in the “HRD” case of UNIMAX are 69.62% significant, ®
concerning main cutting force Fz, depth of cut a (mm) has the largest effect on main cutting force Fz
followed by the square termsbywith
(N), followed feed 25.76% and 2-way
rate f (mm/rev) interactions
and rotational speedwith 0.11%.
n (rpm) in bothLack-of-fit
hardness conditions of
error contributes UNIMAX
as much .as ® Main4.01%.
cuttingInforce
bothgradually
cases for Ra, feed
increases withrate primarily
the increase affects
in all Ra,
three parameters, with
followed by spindle speed
emphasis onand
depthdepth
of cut aof cut. Main
(mm). By examining
cutting force the individual
reaches high values effects
at middleof each
levels of rotational
process parameter speed,
on theand responses
high levels for of feed
main rate and depth
cutting forceof cut,
Fz while main cutting
and surface force is higher
roughness Ra, in the case
of the hardened condition of UNIMAX® . Figure 4a depicts the main effects of process parameters
the following results are observed. Referring to the main effects of the parameters
on the main cutting force in the “AR” case (material “as received”) and Figure 4b depicts the main
concerning main cutting
effects offorce
process Fz,parameters
depth ofon cutthe
a (mm) has the
main cutting largest
force in theeffect
“HRD”on main
case cutting
(material “hardened”).
force Fz (N), followed Asby feed
far as rate effects
the main f (mm/rev)
of process and rotational
parameters speedroughness
on surface n (rpm) Ra inareboth
concerned, feed
hardness conditions of UNIMAX
rate f (mm/rev) has the®. largest
Main effect
cutting
on theforce
responsegradually
of surfaceincreases
roughness Ra with
(µm)the
in both material
conditions of UNIMAX. The most advantageous values
increase in all three parameters, with emphasis on depth of cut a (mm). Main cutting force for roughness are exhibited at middle levels
of feed rate, i.e., 0.2 mm/rev. Surface roughness gradually increases with an increase in rotational
reaches high values at middle levels of rotational speed, and high levels for feed rate and
speed (1750 rpm) and then becomes lower for n = 2000 rpm. Depth of cut does not seem to affect
depth of cut, while main
surface cutting force
roughness. Figureis 5ahigher
depicts inthethe
main case of of
effects theprocess
hardened condition
parameters of roughness
on surface
 Machines 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Machines 2024, 12, 156 9 of 13

UNIMAX®. Figure 4a depicts the main effects of process parameters on the main c
in the “AR” case (material
force in the“as received”)
“AR” whereas “as
case (material Figure 5b depicts
received”) andtheFigure
main effects of process
4b depicts the main effe
parameters on surface
processroughness in theon
parameters “HRD” case cutting
the main (materialforce
“hardened”).
in the “HRD” case (material “hardene

Figure 4. Main effects plots for: (a) Fz for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX®; (b) Fz for the
condition of UNIMAX®.

As far as the main effects of process parameters on surface roughness R

concerned, feed rate f (mm/rev) has the largest effect on the response of surface roug
Ra (µm) in both material conditions of UNIMAX. The most advantageous valu
roughness are exhibited at middle levels of feed rate, i.e., 0.2 mm/rev. Surface roug
gradually increases with an increase in rotational speed (1750 rpm) and then be
lower for n = 2000 rpm. Depth of cut does not seem to affect surface roughness. Fig
depicts the main effects of process parameters on surface roughness in the “AR
Figure 4. Main effects for: (a) Fz for the
plots“as “AR” condition5b ofdepicts
UNIMAX ® (b) Fz for the “HRD”
(material
Figure 4. Main received”)
effects plotswhereas
for: (a) FzFigure
for the “AR” the ;main
condition effects ®of
of UNIMAX process
; (b) Fz for para
the “
condition of UNIMAX ® .
on surface
condition roughness. in the “HRD” case (material “hardened”).
of UNIMAX ®

As far as the main effects of process parameters on surface roughness R

concerned, feed rate f (mm/rev) has the largest effect on the response of surface roug
Ra (µm) in both material conditions of UNIMAX. The most advantageous valu
roughness are exhibited at middle levels of feed rate, i.e., 0.2 mm/rev. Surface roug
gradually increases with an increase in rotational speed (1750 rpm) and then bec
lower for n = 2000 rpm. Depth of cut does not seem to affect surface roughness. Fig
depicts the main effects of process parameters on surface roughness in the “AR
(material “as received”) whereas Figure 5b depicts the main effects of process param
on surface roughness in the “HRD” case (material “hardened”).

Figureplots
Figure 5. Main effects 5. Main
for: effects plots
(a) Ra for thefor:
“AR”(a) condition
Ra for the of
“AR” condition
UNIMAX of Ra
® ; (b) UNIMAX ; (b) Ra for the
for the ®“HRD”
condition
condition of UNIMAX . ® of UNIMAX ®.

Contour plots areContour plotsdepiction

an alternative are an alternative
of 3D surfaces depiction of 3D surfaces
on a 2D illustration. Theyon a 2Dtwo
involve illustration
predictors (parameters) on the X and Y axes whilst the response is shown on the
involve two predictors (parameters) on the X and Y axes whilst the response Z axis in the form of is sho
a contour. Representative contour plots for Fz and Ra responses were created to show their
the Z axis in the form of a contour. Representative contour plots for Fz and Ra resp variability
as functions of different pairs oftoindependent
were created show theirvariables.
variability Figure
as 6functions
shows theofresulting
differentchanges
pairs inof indepe
main cutting force and surface roughness when altering the two most influential process parameters
variables. Figure 6 shows the resulting changes in main cutting force and s
regarding the response under examination, i.e., feed rate with depth of cut for Fz and feed rate with
roughness when altering the two most influential process parameters regardin
spindle speed for Ra.
response
It is clear that underand
f (mm/rev) examination,
a (mm) yield i.e.,
thefeed rateeffect
largest withondepth
Fz (N)ofreferring
cut for Fz and feed rat
to both
spindle
Figure
material conditions. 5. speed
Main Main
cuttingfor Ra.plots
effects
force for: (a) Raatfor
is maintained lowthelevels
“AR”ifcondition
moderateof UNIMAX
feeds ®; (b) Ra for the “
are applied in
combination with condition of UNIMAX
low-to-moderate ®.
depths of cut. Main cutting force reaches its highest value close
to the highest feed rate levels and depth of cut. Figure 7 depicts the resulting tool wear by using
the cutting parameterContour
values ofplots th experimental run (Table 1; n = 1500 rpm, f = 0.2 mm/rev,
the 7are an alternative depiction of 3D surfaces on a 2D illustration.
a = 1.5 mm) for involve
the HRDtwo condition of UNIMAX ® tool steel. It is shown that severe abrasion and
predictors (parameters) on the X and Y axes whilst the response is show
extensive tool wear are exerted on the insert’s tool nose owing
the Z axis in the form of a contour. Representative to high levels of feed plots
contour and linear
for Fzspeed
and Ra resp
where more heat dissipates into the working sample during CNC dry turning.
were created to show their variability as functions of different pairs of indepe
Surface roughness is maintained at moderate to high spindle speeds, with low-to-moderate
variables. Figure 6 shows the resulting changes in main cutting force and su
feeds, while higher values for spindle may be used only in combination to moderate feeds to avoid
roughness
excessive tool wear, when altering
mainly referring the two
to the hardened mostUNIMAX
“HRD” influential process parameters regardin
® condition.
response under examination, i.e., feed rate with depth of cut for Fz and feed rate
spindle speed for Ra.
Machines 2024, 12, Machines
156 2024, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13 1

Figure 6. Contour plots for: (a) Fz for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (b) Fz for the “HRD”
condition of UNIMAX; (c) Ra for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (d) Ra for the “HRD” condition
of UNIMAX.

It is clear that f (mm/rev) and a (mm) yield the largest effect on Fz (N) referring to
both material conditions. Main cutting force is maintained at low levels if moderate feeds
are applied in combination with low-to-moderate depths of cut. Main cutting force
reaches its highest value close to the highest feed rate levels and depth of cut. Figure 7
depicts the resulting tool wear by using the cutting parameter values of the 7th
experimental run (Table 1; n = 1500 rpm, f = 0.2 mm/rev, a = 1.5 mm) for the HRD condition
of UNIMAX® tool steel. It is shown that severe abrasion and extensive tool wear are
exerted onContour
Figure 6. the insert’s tool(a)
plots for: nose owing
Fz for to high
the “AR” levelsofofUNIMAX;
condition feed and(b)linear
Fz forspeed where
the “HRD” more
condition
Figure 6. Contour plots for: (a) Fz for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (b) Fz for the “
heat dissipates
of UNIMAX; (c) into
Ra the
for theworking
“AR” sample
condition ofduring
UNIMAX;CNC(d) dry
Ra turning.
for the “HRD” condition of UNIMAX.
condition of UNIMAX; (c) Ra for the “AR” condition of UNIMAX; (d) Ra for the “HRD” con
of UNIMAX.

It is clear that f (mm/rev) and a (mm) yield the largest effect on Fz (N) referr
both material conditions. Main cutting force is maintained at low levels if moderate
are applied in combination with low-to-moderate depths of cut. Main cutting
reaches its highest value close to the highest feed rate levels and depth of cut. Fig
depicts the resulting tool wear by using the cutting parameter values of th
experimental run (Table 1; n = 1500 rpm, f = 0.2 mm/rev, a = 1.5 mm) for the HRD con
of UNIMAX® tool steel. It is shown that severe abrasion and extensive tool we
exerted on the insert’s tool nose owing to high levels of feed and linear speed where
heat dissipates into the working sample during CNC dry turning.

Surfacetopography
topographyof
ofcutting
cutting insert
insert during
during the ®
Figure7.7.Surface
Figure the dry
dry turning
turningof
ofhardened
hardened(HRD)
(HRD)UNIMAX .
UNIMAX®.
3. Multi-Objective Optimization
For bothroughness ®
UNIMAX istool steel conditions, two bi-objective
Surface maintained at moderate to high optimization problems
spindle speeds, withhave been
low-to-
formulated and solved using three modern meta-heuristics, namely the multi-objective grey wolf
moderate feeds, while higher values for spindle may be used only in combination to
algorithm, MOGWO [28], the multi-verse optimization algorithm MOMVO, [29] and the multi-
moderate feeds to avoid excessive tool wear, mainly referring to the hardened “HRD”
objective ant lion algorithm, MOALO [30]. Fz and Ra are the two optimization objectives with respect
UNIMAX
to the threecondition.
®
cutting conditions of n (rpm), f (mm/rev), and a (mm). The solution domain has been
created by adhering to the same parameter low-high levels whilst each candidate solution is a vector
corresponding to the values of three machining parameters within their predefined ranges. The
two problems were examined with respect to the default settings for algorithm-specific parameters
by applying 20 individuals and 1000 generations as the maximum number for evaluations. The
simulations were run in MATLAB® 2014b. For all three algorithms, 50 results for the non-dominated
Figure 7.Figure
solutions were stored. Surface7 topography of cutting non-dominated
depicts the strongest insert during thesolutions
dry turning
set of hardened
observed by(HRD)
UNIMAX
conducting a series
®.
of independent runs to examine the variability in the optimal solutions. All
three algorithms managed to obtain a uniform set of non-dominated solutions that cover most of
Surface
the experimental region. roughness
Figure 8a depictsisthe
maintained at moderate
non-dominated to high spindle
optimal solutions obtainedspeeds,
by the with lo
moderate
algorithms in the case of thefeeds,
“AR” while
UNIMAX ® condition.
higher values MOGWO
for spindle may be
managed to used only inthe
cover almost combinat
moderate
entire Pareto space feeds all
by providing to types
avoidofexcessive tool others
solutions, with wear, favoring
mainly referring to the
either cutting hardened
force or “H
surface roughness. MOMVO
UNIMAX and MOALO provided denser solution sets with emphasis on the center
® condition.

of the Pareto fronts. This is the region where both objectives are facilitated, and their trade-off is
 variability in the optimal solutions. All three algorithms managed to obtain a uniform set
of non-dominated solutions that cover most of the experimental region. Figure 8a depicts
the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained by the algorithms in the case of the “AR”
UNIMAX® condition. MOGWO managed to cover almost the entire Pareto space by
Machines 2024, 12, 156 providing all types of solutions, with others favoring either cutting force or11surface of 13
roughness. MOMVO and MOALO provided denser solution sets with emphasis on the
center of the Pareto fronts. This is the region where both objectives are facilitated, and
their trade-off
balanced. is depicts
Figure 8b balanced. Figure 8b depicts
the non-dominated the non-dominated
optimal solutions obtained by theoptimal
algorithmssolutions
in the
obtained by the algorithms in the case
®
case of the “HRD” hardened UNIMAX condition.of the “HRD” hardened UNIMAX ® condition.

Figure 8. Pareto optimal (non-dominated) solutions for optimizing UNIMAX® CNC turning: (a) “AR”
Figure 8. Pareto
condition; optimal“HRD”
(b) hardened (non-dominated)
condition. solutions for optimizing UNIMAX CNC turning: (a)
®

“AR” condition; (b) hardened “HRD” condition.

By observing the Pareto fronts, the better coverage and spread of the non-dominated solutions
By observing
are shown. MOGWOthe Paretotofronts,
managed obtain the better
a Pareto coverage
front andwith
of solutions spread of thespread
the largest non-dominated
covering
the entire are
solutions experimental space. The majority
shown. MOGWO managed of the solutions
to obtain a obtained by MOMVO
Pareto front and MOALO
of solutions with the
cover the center of Pareto region where both objectives are favored. In general, all algorithms have
largest spread covering the entire experimental space. The majority of® the solutions
managed to provide beneficial solutions for optimizing the CNC turning of UNIMAX tool steel for
obtained by MOMVO and MOALO cover the center of Pareto region where both
both examined material conditions. However, noticeable observations lead to the conclusion that
objectives
the MOALO are favored.
algorithm In general,
exhibited the bestall algorithms
performance have
from managed that
the perspective to provide beneficial
its corresponding
solutions for optimizing
non-dominated the the
solutions occupy CNC turning
central region of UNIMAX
of the ® tool steel for both examined
Pareto front as mentioned, whilst very few
material
solutions conditions. However,
are shown to exist noticeable
on maximized resultsobservations
referring to thelead
Fz andtoRathe conclusion
axes. This implies that
thatthe
the MOALO algorithm managed to maintain an efficient balance between
MOALO algorithm exhibited the best performance from the perspective that its cutting force and surface
roughness, and this is justified by the indications of low cutting force results with a simultaneous
corresponding non-dominated solutions occupy the central region of the Pareto front as
minimization of surface roughness. Each of the algorithms achieved better results from a different
mentioned, whilst very few solutions are shown to exist on maximized results referring
perspective or performance metric, allowing an engineer to select a solution according to the specific
toneeds
the Fz
andand Ra axes.
interest in termsThis implies thatrequirements.
of machinability the MOALO algorithm
Therefore, it is managed
the job of thetoend
maintain
user to an
efficient balance
decide which between
of these cutting
solutions shouldforce and surface
be implemented roughness,
regarding and needs
production this isandjustified byinthe
priorities
indications of lowobjectives.
terms of machining cutting force results with a simultaneous minimization of surface
roughness. Each of the algorithms achieved better results from a different perspective or
4. Conclusions
performance metric, allowing an engineer to select a solution according to the specific
needsInand
this study, the effect of CNC turning parameters, namely, spindle speed n, feed rate f, and
interest in terms of machinability requirements. Therefore, it is the job of the
depth of cut a was examined by considering main cutting force Fz and surface roughness Ra as
major machinability responses. This research refers to two conditions of the UNIMAX® tool steel:
as-received (soft-annealed, 10 HRC) and hardened (53–54 HRC). Response surface methodology was
adopted to establish the experimental design under the central composite design (CCD) approach.
ANOVA and regression analysis were the two key statistical tools that were used to interpret the
results. Normal probability and contour plots were investigated to study the variability of the effects
of independent turning parameters. The experimental results were further used for generating
regression models that served as objective functions for optimizing the objectives of Fz and Ra using
three cutting-edge intelligent algorithms, namely, MOGWO, MOMVO, and MOALO. The findings of
the study are summarized as follows:
• When finish-turning the UNIMAX® in its hardened “HRD” condition, main cutting force Fz is
approximately 19% larger than the one corresponding to the “AR” (soft-annealed) state. Yet,
surface roughness is reduced to 47.1% providing a superior surface finish.
• According to the analysis of variance, the hierarchy of the effects of the cutting parameters in
terms of cutting force suggests the linear terms, the square terms, and finally the interaction
terms, regardless of the material conditions.
• Depth of cut and feed rate are influential cutting parameters for main cutting force, whilst feed
rate and spindle speed are influential cutting parameters for surface roughness, regardless of the
material conditions. Both objectives of main cutting force Fz and surface roughness Ra alter their
experimental trends from one condition to another with quite high complexity. This can justify
the implementation of intelligent algorithms to solve multi-objective optimization problems.
Machines 2024, 12, 156 12 of 13

• There is no clear superiority in the application of multi-objective intelligent algorithms to this

case of the machinability optimization problem. However, the different algorithms may exhibit
different performance behavior affecting computational costs depending on the problem under
question. Algorithms should be tested by conducting several evaluations and examining their
statistical outputs to gain a clear understanding of their performance. Final selections for the
settings of advantageous machining parameters to facilitate all objectives under study should
be based on requirements corresponding to the production and shop floor’s resources.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.A.F. and N.M.V.; methodology, N.A.F. and N.M.V.;
software, N.A.F. and I.P.; validation, N.A.F. and I.P.; formal analysis, N.A.F. and I.P.; investigation,
N.A.F. and I.P.; resources, N.M.V. and D.E.M.; data curation, N.A.F., I.P., and N.M.V.; writing—original
draft preparation, N.A.F.; writing—review and editing, N.A.F., I.P., and N.M.V.; visualization, N.M.V.;
supervision, N.M.V. and D.E.M.; project administration, D.E.M. and N.M.V. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Ezugwu, E.O.; Da Silva, R.B.; Bonney, J.; Machado, A.R. Evaluation of the performance of CBN tools when turning Ti–6Al–4V
alloy with high pressure coolant supplies. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2005, 45, 1009–1014. [CrossRef]
2. Armendia, M.; Garay, A.; Iriarte, L.M.; Arrazola, P.J. Comparison of the machinabilities of Ti6Al4V and TIMETAL® 54M using
uncoated WC–Co tools. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2010, 210, 197–203. [CrossRef]
3. Kalpakjian, S.; Schmid, S.R. Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials, 6th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2022.
4. Hoyle, G. Electroslag Processes: Principles and Practice; Applied Science: London, UK, 1983.
5. Roberts, G.; Kraus, G.; Kennedy, R. Tool Steel, 5th ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2000.
6. Kumar, P.; Chauhan, S.R. Machinability Study on Finish Turning of AISI H13 Hot Working Die Tool Steel with Cubic Boron
Nitride (CBN) Cutting Tool Inserts Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). Arab. J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 40, 1471–1485.
[CrossRef]
7. Boy, M.; Yaşar, N.; Çiftçi, İ. Experimental investigation and modelling of surface roughness and resultant cutting force in hard
turning of AISI H13 Steel. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 161, 012039. [CrossRef]
8. Hosseini, A.; Hussein, M.; Kishawy, H.A. On the machinability of die/mold D2 steel material. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 85,
735–740. [CrossRef]
9. Elbestawi, M.A.; Chen, L.; Becze, C.E.; El-Wardany, T.I. High-speed milling of dies and molds in their hardened state. CIRP Ann.
1997, 46, 57–62. [CrossRef]
10. Abbas, A.T.; El Rayes, M.M.; Luqman, M.M.; Naeim, N.; Hegab, H.; Elkaseer, A. On the Assessment of Surface Quality and
Productivity Aspects in Precision Hard Turning of AISI 4340 Steel Alloy: Relative Performance of Wiper vs. Conventional Inserts.
Materials 2020, 20, 2036. [CrossRef]
11. Ghani, M.U.; Abukhashim, N.A.; Sheikh, M.A. An investigation of heat partition and tool wear in hard turning of H13 tool steel
with CBN cutting tools. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 39, 874–888. [CrossRef]
12. Outeiro, J.C. Surface integrity predictions and optimisation of machining conditions in the turning of AISI H13 tool steel. Int. J.
Mach. Mach. Mater. 2014, 15, 122–134. [CrossRef]
13. Pathak, H.; Das, S.; Doley, R.; Kashyap, S. Optimization of Cutting Parameters for AISI H13 Tool Steel by Taguchi Method and
Artificial Neural Network. Int. J. Mater. Form. Mach. Process. 2015, 2, 47–65. [CrossRef]
14. Mia, M.; Królczyk, G.; Maruda, R.; Wojciechowski, S. Intelligent Optimization of Hard-Turning Parameters Using Evolutionary
Algorithms for Smart Manufacturing. Materials 2019, 12, 879. [CrossRef]
15. Kumar, A.; Pradhan, S.K. Investigations into hard turning process using wiper tool inserts. Proc. Mater. Today 2018, 5 Pt 2,
12579–12587. [CrossRef]
16. Schaal, N.; Wegener, K. Comparison of ground and laser machined wiper geometry on carbide inserts for high performance
finishing. Proc. CIRP 2016, 46, 623–626. [CrossRef]
17. D’Addona, D.M.; Raykar, S.J. Analysis of surface roughness in hard turning using wiper insert geometry. Proc. CIRP 2016, 41,
841–846. [CrossRef]
18. M’Saoubi, R.; Guddat, J.; Alm, P.; Meyer, D. Hard turning of AISI 52100 using PCBN wiper geometry inserts and the resulting
surface integrity. Proc. Eng. 2011, 19, 118–124.
19. Balestrassi, P.P.; Paiva, E.J.; Lopes, L.G.D.; Ferreira, J.R.; Campos, P.H.; Paiva, A.P. A multivariate robust parameter design
approach for optimization of AISI 52100 hardened steel turning with wiper mixed ceramic tool. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater.
2012, 30, 152–163.
Machines 2024, 12, 156 13 of 13

20. Gaitonde, V.N.; Karnik, S.R.; Figueira, L.; Davim, J.P. Performance comparison of conventional and wiper ceramic inserts in hard
turning through artificial neural network modeling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 52, 101–114. [CrossRef]
21. Kurniawan, D.; Noordin, M.Y.; Sharif, S. Hard machining of stainless steel using wiper coated carbide: Tool life and surface
integrity. J. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2010, 25, 370–377. [CrossRef]
22. Gaitonde, V.N.; Karnik, S.R.; Figueira, L.; Davim, J.P. Machinability investigations in hard turning of AISI D2 cold work tool steel
with conventional and wiper ceramic inserts. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2009, 27, 754–763. [CrossRef]
23. He, X.; Wu, S.; Kratz, H. Forces in Hard Turning of 51CrV4 with Wiper Cutting Tool. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2006, 11, 501–506.
[CrossRef]
24. Markopoulos, A.P.; Georgiopoulos, S.; Manolakos, D.E. On the use of back propagation and radial basis function neural networks
in surface roughness prediction. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 2016, 12, 389–400. [CrossRef]
25. Markopoulos, A.P.; Manolakos, D.E.; Vaxevanidis, N.M. Artificial neural network models for the prediction of surface roughness
in electrical discharge machining. J. Intell. Manuf. 2008, 19, 283–292. [CrossRef]
26. Karagiannis, S.; Stavropoulos, P.; Ziogas, C.; Kechagias, J. Prediction of surface roughness magnitude in computer numerical
controlled end milling processes using neural networks, by considering a set of influence parameters: An aluminium alloy 5083
case study. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B J. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 228, 233–244. [CrossRef]
27. Stavropoulos, P.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Vasiliadis, E.; Chryssolouris, G. Tool wear predictability estimation in milling based
on multi-sensorial data. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 82, 509–521. [CrossRef]
28. Mirjalili, S.; Saremi, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Coelho, L.D.S. Multi-Objective Grey Wolf Optimizer: A Novel Algorithm for Multi-Criterion
Optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 47, 106–119. [CrossRef]
29. Mirjalili, S.; Jangir, P.; Mirjalili, S.Z.; Saremi, S.; Trivedi, I.N. Optimization of Problems with Multiple Objectives Using the
Multi-Verse Optimization Algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2017, 134, 50–71. [CrossRef]
30. Mirjalili, S.; Jangir, P.; Saremi, S. Multi-Objective Ant Lion Optimizer: A Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm for Solving
Engineering Problems. Appl. Intell. 2017, 46, 79–95. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.