Multi-Objective Optimization of Turning Operation of Stainless Steel Using a Hybrid Whale Optimization Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In section Introduction, the authors mentioned some different methods, such as the genetic algorithm, the modified genetic algorithm, and GRA were used to solve the multi-objective problem in turning. My question is why the authors choose hybrid Whale Optimization Algorithm to realize the multi-objective optimization in turning operation of stainless steel.
2. In section introduction, the authors said that GRA can only assess the set of data it is provided with, whereas WOA has the capacity to search a defined region on its own in order to look for the optimum solution. The discussion needs to be considered carefully.
3. In section introduction, the authors say that the cutting parameters taken into account are the cutting speed, feed rate and depth of cut, while in section 4.1, they say that three different cutting parameters which are cutting speed, feed rate and width of cut. Do these two variables (depth of cut and width of cut) mean the same thing in this article? The unit of Cutting speed V is deferent in section 2 and section 4.1. The unit of spindle speed is rpm, while the unit of cutting speed always is mm/min or m/min. Please use the same unit for the same variable in full text.

4.In table 4, the values of PTT, P, H and the cutting forces are extracted from the graphs produced by the simulations. And the maximum values of these parameters generated over the length of cut are taken into account. How to verify the correctness of the simulation output?

5. The research results of effect of cutting parameters on surface roughness and cutting force are already exist, Why do the authors do this research? What’s the significance or innovation?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,
We are very grateful to you that you have reviewed our article and given us very important comments. We have tried our best to reply to those comments point by point. We hope you will like it. However, if you need any further clarification, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this work is interesting. Couples of suggestions that may help to improve it

It is not clear which assumption was used for selecting the parameters from Table 1

How many measurements (for surface roughness) were performed for each trials ?

There is no details about SEM measurements

Please give details of mesh type ? seems to be triangular…which was the reason of this type and not other

How long take each simulation ?

There in simulation was considered the heat, fluid  and so on. please provide details of full model used.

There was performed any convergence analysis ?

The legend in Figure 2 is small

The font size in Figure 3 is very small

The results should be discussed in details against literature as there is plenty optimization and machinating  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,
We are very grateful to you that you have reviewed our article and given us very important comments. We have tried our best to reply to those comments point by point. We hope you will like it. However, if you need any further clarification, please let us know.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has answered the reviewers' comments appropriately. In my
opinion, this paper could be accepted as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for considering the suggestion.