This paper presents an integrated modelling and decision-support reanalysis of a published 24-run experiment on diamond-spark grinding (electrical-discharge diamond grinding) of two hard alloys—the tungsten-free cermet TN-20 and the WC–TiC–Co alloy HS123—machined jointly with C45 steel; no new experiments are performed. Established components are deliberately combined into one reproducible workflow: quadratic response-surface models fitted by least squares and by minimax (Chebyshev) approximation, validation by prediction-oriented criteria including nested leave-one-out cross-validation of the entire model-selection pipeline, the addressable DEFMOT representation of the 94-factor grid formalized as an ε-constraint procedure, and benchmarking against desirability-function and Pareto analyses. Minimax fitting reduces the maximum absolute residual by 22.5–36.9% at the cost of higher aggregate errors. Nested validation exposes model-selection instability for the TN-20 responses, and a dedicated sensitivity analysis shows that the surrogate-model choice can change the recommended regime: the TN-20 compromise is efficient or one grid step from efficient under all three surrogate families, whereas the preferred HS123 regime shifts qualitatively (including a reversal of the wheel-speed setting) between least-squares and minimax surrogates. A residual-bootstrap analysis propagates data uncertainty through the complete optimization and quantifies how frequently each recommended regime is re-selected. Within the legacy cost basis, point estimates indicate comparable productivity (difference below 9%), an approximately 35% lower specific machining cost for TN-20 and approximately 1.8 times higher diamond consumption; the 95% confidence intervals for the between-material contrasts include zero, so experimental confirmation is required before industrial substitution. The framework quantifies, rather than hides, how surrogate uncertainty propagates into the engineering decision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
TONCHEV et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: