## 4 Results and Discussion
Hence, cutting force is reduced from 3.64% to 54.45% as the latter composition compared with the former one. The largest cutting force was induced in Set 3, particularly in the case corresponding to x = 0.1. In contrast, the cutting forces for x = 0.5 and x = 1.0 are sequentially reduced within the same experimental set and the similar trends are also noted in Sets 5 and 7. This indicates that with a high radial depth of cut, the alloy compositions significantly influence the cutting force, especially when the x value is lower (x = 0.1), where the cutting force is notably increased. Conversely, the cutting forces are gentle in Sets 1 and 8, where the cutting forces are less than the other sets, and the variation of cutting force with x variations is also not obvious. However, the results still show that x = 1.0 gives a better cutting performance than x = 0.1 in the same way as mentioned above. Therefore, it is noted that smaller cutting force results are obtained with lower feed rates and radial depths of cut and the effect of elemental composition on cutting force still exists. The ductility and deformation behavior of the x = 0.1 material make chip removal difficult, resulting in a greater cutting force being required to overcome the increase in cutting temperatures and tool wear. In contrast, a material with a high x value such as x = 1.0 exhibits lower cutting force requirements, indicating that this kind of material is easier to cut. Figure 5:7 Factor response diagrams for surface roughness using different cutting parameter combinations of the L\({}_{9}\) orthogonal array in the second phase experiment for different elemental compositions. (**a**) x = 0.1. (**b**) x = 0.5. (**c**) x = 1.0. Figure 5:8 Comparison of cutting forces using different milling parameter combinations of the L\({}_{9}\) orthogonal array in the second phase experiment for different elemental compositions. Figure 23 shows the cutting tool wear, V\({}_{B}\), using the process parameter combinations of the L\({}_{9}\) orthogonal array in the second phase experiment. It can be seen that as compared to x = 0.1, the cutting tool flank wear for x = 1.0 is reduced by 0.58% to 94.77%. In the x = 0.1 material, the tool exhibited apparent wear phenomena, especially under high feed rate and high radial depth of cut conditions, with the most severe wear appearing in Set 7. The cutting tool surface shows obvious edge chipping and fracture marks as shown in Figure 23g,h, indicating that the tool experienced considerable wear and heat accumulation during the machining processes. It is speculated that the material with x = 0.1 has lower hardness and strength, combined with higher ductility and plasticity, making the cutting tool prone to severe wear due to chip adhesion during the cutting process. In the case of the x = 1.0 alloy, the tool showed less noticeable wear features. The traces of damage on these tool surfaces are fewer, indicating that the tool experienced less wear and heat accumulation during the machining process. Particularly in Sets 1 and 8, there are almost no obvious wear marks on the cutting tool surfaces as shown in Figure 23b,j, which confirms that the x = 1.0 materials exhibit higher hardness and strength, making the cutting tool less prone to wear during the cutting process. On the other hand, as the feed rate was increased from 4000 to 6000 mm/min, the flank wear marks, V\({}_{B}\), on the cutting tool surface become more pronounced as indicated by the red boxes in Figure 23d,f. This is especially evident in the alloy with x = 0.1, where the high feed rate leads to severe flank wear and damage on the cutting tool surface. In contrast, while flank wear was also increased as feed rate was increased for materials with x = 0.5 and x = 1.0, the extent of the wear is relatively small. This demonstrates that increasing feed rate accelerates cutting tool wear, making the tool more susceptible to damage.