This study presents multi-objective geometric optimization of a modular friction disk cutter for spur gear thermo-friction processing within the ANSYS Workbench 2024 R1. The integrated workflow—Geometry → Steady-State Thermal → Static Structural → Design of Experiments → Response Surface → Response Surface Optimization—enables selection of a rational tool geometry within a single parametric model. Variable dimensions (a, b, c) describe the load-bearing part: a characterizes the transitional thin profile zone, b is the massive supporting part, and c is the intermediate disk thickness controlling thermo-mechanical load transmission. Dimension c most significantly influences equivalent stresses and directional deformation, while maximum temperature depends on combined a and c effects. Based on Response Surface Optimization, the rational solution domain is concentrated near $a\approx 3 \mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}$, $b\approx 10 \mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}$, and $c\approx 4 \mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}$, yielding $P4\approx 33.306 \mathrm{M}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{a}$, $P5\approx 295.93 °\mathrm{C}$, and $P6\approx -5.7488·{10}^{-5} \mathrm{m}$. These values demonstrate a sufficient calculated safety margin within the finite element framework, providing a technically justified direction for prototype manufacturing. Although currently evaluated as purely computational without direct full-scale physical measurements, these results establish a foundation for subsequent experimental validation using thermal imaging and optical deformation analysis. Future research will focus on transient thermo-mechanical modeling with impulse cooling and experimental verification.

Gate-valve repair decisions may rely on numerical and tribological datasets generated at different scales. Combining them can produce unsupported claims when wear results are reported only as ranges. This study introduces a reproducible screening procedure and demonstrates it with previously published results for Grade 20 steel with and without Sv-10Kh17T (ER430Ti) hardfacing. For each lower-is-better wear metric, an interval improvement factor was calculated from untreated and hardfaced ranges; strict dominance required the conservative lower bound to exceed unity. The tribological screen was combined with component-level stress and displacement ratios and an evidence-sufficiency grade. For dry contact, the improvement-factor intervals were 1.67–4.00 for mass loss and 1.60–4.00 for wear depth. In distilled water, the corresponding intervals were 1.50–5.00 and 1.25–4.00. For HOCUT 795 H-eu, both lower bounds equaled 1.00; thus, the range-only data did not establish strict dominance. The component-scale stress ratio after hardfacing was 0.895 for the water load case, 1.039 for steam, and 1.114 for petroleum products. The procedure classifies the hardfacing as eligible for validation under dry and aqueous laboratory conditions, but not as qualified for deployment because allowable-stress verification, mesh convergence, interface validation, and replicate-level wear statistics are unavailable. The rule separates reduced material removal from structural admissibility and service-life claims.