coatings

Article
Experimental and Simulation Study on Tool Life
Models in Drilling of Forging Brass Using
Uncoated-WC and AlCrN Coated-WC Tools
Manit Timata and Charnnarong Saikaew *
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002,
Thailand; manitt@asu.ac.th
* Correspondence: charn_sa@kku.ac.th




Received: 30 October 2019; Accepted: 11 December 2019; Published: 13 December 2019


Abstract: Burr is an undesirable phenomenon occurring in drilling operation which is one of the
essential operations in the machining industry since it is directly influencing the operating costs.
Exit burr height (EBH) values as the function of drilling time during drilling the specific holes of
the forging brass workpieces used for producing the water-valve components with the uncoated-
tungsten carbide (WC) and the AlCrN coated-WC drills were discussed. The data sets of drilling time,
corresponding to EBH values at the appropriate criterion were used to develop the tool life models in
terms of cutting speed and feed rate using Taylor’s equation. Monte Carlo simulation was adopted to
study the uncertainty of cutting speed and feed rate on tool life predictions for sensitivity analysis.
The results showed that drilling with a low feed rate decreased the averages of EBH. The predicted
tool life values of the AlCrN coated-WC drills were higher than those of the uncoated-WC ones based
on the results of tool life predictions. The appropriate operating condition of the cutting speed of
60 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev was recommended for manufacturers in the drilling of the
forging brass workpieces using the AlCrN coated-WC drills. Moreover, the predicted tool life values
for the uncoated-WC and the AlCrN coated-WC drills were about 600 and 800 min, respectively.
This indicated that the AlCrN coated-WC drill increased tool life by 30%.

Keywords: drilling; tool life; burr height; Taylor’s model; Monte Carlo

1. Introduction
Tool life is very important in the machining industry to improve the quality of a cutting tool
as well as a machine component. If tool life expires, the reliability of the tool affects quality of the
machined parts and productivity. It is one of the important five criteria (tool life, material remove
rate, cutting forces, surface finish and chip shape) used for studying the material and cutting tool
behaviours during machining [1]. The tool life model can be effectively used to predict tool wear and
length of cutting time that the tool can be operated before changing a new tool. Tool life criteria have
been adopted for performing tool life models. Generally, tool life criteria used in the cutting operations
can be observed from failure of the tool, occurrences of maximum width of the flank wear, the depth
and width of crater wear, sound of the tool, type of chip, degradation of machined surface [2].
There have been previous researches on drilling tool life based on various tool life criteria.
de Paiva et al. [3] compared the performance of coatings deposited on cemented carbide drills in
drilling compacted graphite iron based on tool life criterion of flank wear. They found that the Cr-based
coatings (AlCrN and TiSiN/AlCrN) had better performance than other ones. Wu et al. [4] also used
the flank wear of the drill cutting edge as a tool life criterion in drilling compacted graphite iron with
coated carbide drill at the feed rate of 26.5 mm/s.

Coatings 2019, 9, 853; doi:10.3390/coatings9120853 www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2019, 9, 853 2 of 14

Burr height is another criterion used to develop a tool life model. It is noted that burr is a critical
problem of various manufacturing processes, especially drilling operation which is one of the most
important operations in the machining industry since it is directly influencing the operating costs. Burr
significantly influences productivity. Gillespie [5] stated that burr elimination can account for 30%
of the total operating cost. The deburring procedure after a drilling operation of thousands drilled
holes requires a tremendous operating cost to various industries [6]. Drilling operation accounts for
approximately 33% of all cutting operations [7]. Consequently, machined part should be used without
the process of deburring. Costa et al. [8] used the burr height of the drill coated with TiAlN as the
criterion in drilling of the steel DIN 38MnS6 with two cutting speeds (45, 60 m/min). They used the
average burr height as a function of the drill life levels (in percentage). They found that the average
burr height increased with the wear of the drills. The average burr heights for the cutting speed of
45 m/min were twice than those for the cutting speed of 60 m/min.
Some researchers have applied Taylor’s equation for the tool life modelling of drilling tools to
investigate the effect of drilling parameters on drilled holes. Lukic and Djapic [9] proposed a model
relationship between cutting speed and tool life for optimization of the cutting parameter in drilling
of various workpieces based on Taylor’s extended equation. Shen et al. [10] developed the tool life
of spade drills in drilling of ductile materials by varying cutting speeds, feed rates and drill point
angles. They showed that the extended Taylor’s equation could be used to predict qualitatively and
quantitatively the tool life of spade drills with variations of drilling parameters and drill geometry.
Astakhov et al. [11] proposed the logarithmic coordinate transformations of the regression equation
to investigate the effect of cutting speed, feed rate and cutting fluid flow rate on the drilled holes
roughness and roundness, the tool life and the cutting force in deep holes drilling. However, there has
been no previous study regarding tool life modelling using Taylor’s equation with the burr height
criterion in drilling of forging brass.
Timata and Saikaew [12] attempted to systematically investigate the effect of different spindle
speeds and feed rates on EBH and drilled diameter during drilling of forging yellow brass with the
special uncoated carbide drill. It was found that spindle speed and feed rate on the exit burr height
(EBH) and drilled diameter were statistically significant at the level of significance of 0.05. In addition,
the appropriate operating condition of the drilling parameters was obtained based on the results of
analysis of variance and response surface methodology. In this work, CNC drilling machine was
employed to carry out the experiments under dry condition for making the specific hole of the forging
brass workpieces for producing the water-valve components using the uncoated-WC and the AlCrN
coated-WC drills. It is noted that AlCrN was considered to be an alternative coating material for drilling
tools due to its excellent properties such as low thermal conductivity, better abrasive wear resistance,
low friction coefficient, high hardness, elastic modulus, H/E ratio, and bonding condition between
coating and the unique carbide substrate [13–15]. Tool life models of both drills were developed in
terms of cutting speed and feed rate using Taylor’s equation with a maximum EBH value of 0.16 mm for
the tool life criterion based on manufacturer’s specifications and customer’s requirement. In addition,
Monte Carlo simulation was used to investigate the influence of cutting speed and feed rate on tool life
predictions for sensitivity analysis and studying the uncertainty of drilling factors on EBH and tool life.
Hence, the novel research contributed to the systematic understanding of the sensitivities of tool life
predictions for uncertainty assessment of the drilling factors within the 95% confidence interval due to
the inherent variation of the drilling process. Only a few experimental runs were required to formulate
the tool life model. Furthermore, this study was simplified by the fact that the running time for the
Monte Carlo simulation was less time consuming using the Minitab® software.

2. Materials and Methods

Brass is an important material used for various manufacturing purposes. It is used to produce
a water-valve component by the forging manufacturing process under real working conditions in
a company located in a province of Thailand. Figure 1 shows a water-valve component and its
 machine (Number Five: model DR-8P) was used for all experiments in this study. A special drill is
made of tungsten carbide (WC) and prepared by sintering process (class K20, DIN: DK 255F). The
special drills were also coated with AlCrN by magnetron sputtering, filtered cathodic arc (FCA)
system equipped with two material targets and the proprietary straight duct filters (Kitagawa (Chon
Buri, Thailand)
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 and
x FOR Nanoshield
PEER REVIEW Co., Ltd.). The drills were cleaned by detergent and sonicated3 with of 13
14
alcohol for 30 min and then placed into the FCA chamber followed by evacuation to a base pressure
company
of 5 × 10−3 located in a province
Pa. The drills were heated of to
Thailand.
350 °C and Figure 1 shows
bombarded a water-valve
with component
metal ions produced by aand its
filtered
dimensions
dimensions including the the specific
specific holes
holes with the the diameters
diameters of of 14.8 ± 0.15 mm mm and 24.5 ±± 0.15
and 24.5 0.15 mm.
mm.
cathodic arcincluding
under a substrate bias of with1000 V for 10 min in14.8 ± 0.15
order to enhance the adhesion of
The water-valve
The water-valve component
component is made
is from yellow
made from brass
yellow (model
brassJIS-C3771).
(model The chemicalThe
JIS-C3771). compositions
chemical
deposited AlCrN film and remove residual surface impurities. The thickness of the AlCrN coating
in wt.% of the in
compositions brass consisted of 59.157% Cu,of38.35% Zn, 2.232% Pb,Zn,0.131% Fe, Pb,
0.077% Sn, Fe,
0.031% Ni,
measured by awt.% of the brass
commercial consisted
stylus profiler 59.157%
(Bruker Cu, 38.35%
model Dektak 2.232%
®, Karlsruhe, 0.131%
Germany) 0.077%
was
0.022%
Sn, Sb, 0.010%
0.031% Ni, 0.022% As, 0.003% Mn, 0.0013% Mg.
approximately 3 μm. Sb, 0.010% As, 0.003% Mn, 0.0013% Mg.
Figure 2 shows a schematic drawing of a drill. The drilling tool was designed and
manufactured for drilling the specific holes of the water-valve component. The CNC drilling
machine (Number Five: model DR-8P) was used for all experiments in this study. A special drill is
made of tungsten carbide (WC) and prepared by sintering process (class K20, DIN: DK 255F). The
special drills were also coated with AlCrN by magnetron sputtering, filtered cathodic arc (FCA)
system equipped with two material targets and the proprietary straight duct filters (Kitagawa (Chon
Buri, Thailand) and Nanoshield Co., Ltd.). The drills were cleaned by detergent and sonicated with
alcohol for 30 min and then placed into the FCA chamber followed by evacuation to a base pressure
of 5 × 10−3 Pa. The drills were heated to 350 °C and bombarded with metal ions produced by a filtered
cathodic arc under a substrate (a) bias of 1000 V for 10 min in(b) order to enhance the adhesion of
deposited AlCrN film and remove residual surface impurities. The thickness of the AlCrN coating
measured by aFigure Figure 1.1. (a)
commercial (a) Photograph
Photograph of aa water-valve
of
stylus profiler water-valve component
(Brukercomponent and(b)
and
model Dektak (b),itsKarlsruhe,
®its dimensions.Germany) was
dimensions.
approximately 3 μm.
Figure 2 shows a schematic drawing of a drill. The drilling tool was designed and manufactured
for drilling the specific holes of the water-valve component. The CNC drilling machine (Number
Five: model DR-8P) was used for all experiments in this study. A special drill is made of tungsten
carbide (WC) and prepared by sintering process (class K20, DIN: DK 255F). The special drills were
also coated with AlCrN by magnetron sputtering, filtered cathodic arc (FCA) system equipped with
two material targets and the proprietary straight duct filters (Kitagawa (Chon Buri, Thailand) and
Nanoshield Co., Ltd.). The drills were cleaned by detergent and sonicated with alcohol for 30 min and
then placed into the FCA chamber followed by evacuation to a base pressure of 5 × 10−3 Pa. The drills
were heated to 350 ◦ C and bombarded with metal ions produced by a filtered cathodic arc under a
substrate bias of 1000 V for 10 min in order
Figure to enhance
2. Schematic drawingtheofadhesion
a drill. of deposited AlCrN film and
(a)
remove residual surface impurities. The thickness of the AlCrN (b)coating measured by a commercial
stylusThere has(Bruker
been no previous ®
study of the effectGermany)
ofcomponent
cuttingwas
speed and
profiler Figure 1.model
(a) Dektak
Photograph , Karlsruhe,
of a water-valve and (b) its feed
approximately rate3 µm.
dimensions.on burr formation
and tool life in drilling of forging brass with AlCrN coated-WC and other coated drills. However, in
this study, the cutting speed and feed rate, and their levels were selected from the tool
manufacturer’s recommendation and based on the real production process as well as some literature
reviews. Some researchers studied the effects of different feed rates and cutting speeds on burr
formation [16], drilled hole surface roughness [11,17], tool life [18,19], and tool wear [20,21] during
drilling of various materials.
Lin and Shyu [18] improved the cutting performance of drilling stainless steel with coated drills
by varying feed rates while Lin [17] studied the effect of cutting speed and feed rate on burr height
and surface roughness and found that cutting speed and feed rate were superior to constant feed
rate regarding tool life, burr height and surface roughness. Karnik et al. [16] investigated the effect of
Schematic drawing of a drill.
Figure 2. Schematic

There has
There has been
been nono previous
previous study
study of of the
the effect
effect of
of cutting
cutting speed
speed and
and feed
feed rate
rate on
on burr
burr formation
formation
and tool life in drilling of forging brass with AlCrN coated-WC and other coated
and tool life in drilling of forging brass with AlCrN coated-WC and other coated drills. However, in drills. However, in
this study, the cutting speed and feed rate, and their levels were selected
this study, the cutting speed and feed rate, and their levels were selected from the tool from the tool manufacturer’s
recommendation
manufacturer’s and based on the
recommendation andreal production
based process
on the real as well process
production as someas literature reviews.
well as some Some
literature
researchers studied the effects of different feed rates and cutting speeds on burr
reviews. Some researchers studied the effects of different feed rates and cutting speeds on burr formation [16], drilled
hole surface[16],
formation roughness
drilled [11,17], tool life
hole surface [18,19], and
roughness tool wear
[11,17], tool [20,21] during
life [18,19], anddrilling of various
tool wear materials.
[20,21] during
Linof
drilling and Shyu materials.
various [18] improved the cutting performance of drilling stainless steel with coated drills
by varying
Lin andfeedShyurates
[18]while Lin [17]
improved the studied the effect of cutting
cutting performance speed
of drilling and feed
stainless steelrate oncoated
with burr height
drills
andvarying
by surfacefeed
roughness and Lin
rates while found[17]that cutting
studied thespeed
effect and feed rate
of cutting were
speed andsuperior
feed ratetoon constant feed
burr height
rate regarding tool life, burr height and surface roughness. Karnik et al. [16]
and surface roughness and found that cutting speed and feed rate were superior to constant feed investigated the effect
rate regarding tool life, burr height and surface roughness. Karnik et al. [16] investigated the effect of
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 4 of 14
Coatings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

of cutting
cutting speeds
speeds (8,(8,
12,12,
1616 m/min)and
m/min) andfeed
feedrates
rates(0.04,
(0.04,0.08,
0.08,0.12
0.12mm/rev)
mm/rev)on on burr
burr height
height and
and burr
burr
thickness during the drilling of AISI 316L stainless steel. Wang et al. [19] selected
thickness during the drilling of AISI 316L stainless steel. Wang et al. [19] selected the two cutting the two cutting
speeds (80 and
speeds (80 and 120120 m/min)
m/min) andand two
two feed
feed rates
rates (0.14
(0.14 and
and 0.18
0.18 mm/rev)
mm/rev) in in drilling
drilling of
of 42CrMo
42CrMo steel
steel
with TiN-coated fine grain cemented carbide twist drills. Polli and Cardoso
with TiN-coated fine grain cemented carbide twist drills. Polli and Cardoso [20] carried out [20] carried out the
the deep
deep
drilling
drilling experiments
experiments on on the
the forged
forged andand heat-treated
heat-treated SAE SAE 4144M
4144M steel
steel using
using solid
solid cemented
cemented carbide
carbide
twist drills with
twist drills with cutting
cutting speeds
speeds ofof 50,
50, 65
65 and
and 70 70 m/min
m/min andand feed
feed rates
rates ofof 0.05,
0.05, 0.12
0.12and
and0.15
0.15mm/rev.
mm/rev.
Cardoso
Cardoso et et al.
al. [21]
[21] selected
selected two
two cutting
cutting speeds
speeds andand two
two feed
feed rates
rates in
in drilling
drilling of of SAE4144M steel with
SAE4144M steel with
TiAlN
TiAlN and
and AlCrN
AlCrN coatedcoated drills. They stated
drills. They stated that
that AlCrN
AlCrN coated
coated drill
drill had
had better
better performance
performance thanthan
TiAlN coated drill based on a significant reduction of adhered material
TiAlN coated drill based on a significant reduction of adhered material on the drill. on the drill.
Table
Table 11 shows
shows threethree cutting
cutting speeds
speeds (40,
(40, 50
50 and
and 6060 m/min)
m/min) and and three
three feed
feed rates
rates (0.15,
(0.15, 0.20
0.20 and
and
0.25
0.25 mm/rev)
mm/rev) for for carrying
carrying out
out the
the drilling
drilling experiments
experiments using using the
the uncoated-WC
uncoated-WC and and the
the AlCrN
AlCrN
coated-WC
coated-WC drills.
drills.
Table 1. Drilling factors and their levels for carrying out the drilling experiments using the uncoated-WC
Table
and 1. Drilling
AlCrN coated-WCfactors and their levels for carrying out the drilling experiments using the
drills.
uncoated-WC and AlCrN coated-WC drills.
Level
Factor Level
Factor Low Middle High
Low Middle High
Cutting speed (m/min)
(m/min) 40 50
50 6060
Feed
Feed rate
rate (mm/rev)
(mm/rev) 0.15
0.15 0.20
0.20 0.25
0.25

The CNC
The CNC drilling
drilling machine
machine produced
produced approximately
approximately 1000 1000 drilled
drilled workpieces
workpieces for for each
each drilling
drilling
interval time of 72 min. At this drilling interval time, the drill was taken off the CNC
interval time of 72 min. At this drilling interval time, the drill was taken off the CNC machine. One machine. One
hundred samples of drilled workpieces were randomly selected from all drilled
hundred samples of drilled workpieces were randomly selected from all drilled workpieces. Then, workpieces. Then,
EBH values
EBH valuesofofeach
each sample
sample werewere measured
measured at different
at different three positions
three positions using a burrusing a burr
height height
measuring
instrument (Bruker: model Dektak XT) as shown in Figure 3. An average EBH was calculated fromwas
measuring instrument (Bruker: model Dektak XT) as shown in Figure 3. An average EBH the
calculated
three from the threeofEBH
EBH measurements eachmeasurements
sample and an of each sample
average EBH of and an average
one hundred EBH was
samples of one hundred
determined.
samples
The was determined.
averages EBH of each The averages
of one hundredEBH of each
samples of one
were hundred
collected samples
at every wereinterval
drilling collected at every
time of 72
min until reaching the EBH criterion of 0.16 mm. After EBH determinations were obtained, otherEBH
drilling interval time of 72 min until reaching the EBH criterion of 0.16 mm. After new
determinations
drills wereinobtained,
were installed other new
the CNC machine drills were
to continue installed
drilling of theinworkpieces.
the CNC machine to continue
drilling of the workpieces.

probe tip

Figure
Figure 3. Burr height
3. Burr height measuring
measuringinstrument
instrumentand
andschematic
schematicdiagram
diagramofofburr
burrheight
heightmeasurement
measurementonona
aworkpiece.
workpiece.

The drilling performances of both drills were investigated by the Taylor’s model fitting for tool
The drilling performances of both drills were investigated by the Taylor’s model fitting for tool
life equations of both drills using the EBH data sets. The Taylor’s model is expressed as:
life equations of both drills using the EBH data sets. The Taylor’s model is expressed as:
n m
S(T)
S(T) (f=) c = c
n(f)m (1)

Hence,
Hence,
nlogT + mlogf + logS = logc (2)
nlogT + mlogf + logS = logc (2)
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 5 of 14

where S denotes cutting speed, T represents tool life, f indicates feed rate. The constants of n, m and
c are determined using Taylor’s model fitting to the observations during drilling of the water-valve
workpieces with both drills.
Monte Carlo simulation is a sampling experiment whose objective is to estimate the distribution
of an outcome factor that depends on several probabilistic input factors [22]. Monte Carlo simulation
was used to assess the uncertainties of various applications such as a life prediction model of a fishing
net weaving machine component [23], rotary axis error calibration of five-axis machine tool [24],
measurement uncertainty of an H-drive stage with air bearing in the semiconductor manufacturing
industry [25], uncertainty on each of the eight link errors of a five-axis machine tools [26], verification of
the effectiveness of the robust optimization approach for improving the machining accuracy retainability
of the five-axis NC machine tool [27]. In this study, the Monte Carlo simulation technique was used
to evaluate the tool life prediction uncertainty of the two drills. This technique involved normal
probability distribution based on the Taylor’s model. This technique was employed to perform random
sampling from normal probability distribution by varying cutting speeds and feed rates within ±5% of
each factor for inputs at a confidence level of 95%. The five cutting speeds (40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 m/min)
and four feed rates (0.20, 0.22, 0.24 and 0.26 mm/rev) were assigned as the inputs to generate random
data sets for each factor by specifying mean for each factor and standard deviation for the variation of
each factor based on the tool life models of the uncoated-WC and AlCrN coated-WC drills. Each factor
generated a random data set of 10,000 that followed the normal distribution.
After drilling reaching the criterion of maximum EBH value of 0.16 mm, the surfaces of the two
drills were examined by scanning electron microscope (SEM: Hitachi Model S-3400N) at an accelerating
voltage of 20 kV.

3. Results
Figure 4 presents averages EBH as functions of drilling time at the three cutting speeds and feed
rates during drilling of the water-valve workpieces with the uncoated-WC drills. Figure 4a shows that
the averages EBH upon drilling of the workpieces increased monotonically with increasing drilling time
for all cutting speeds. The averages EBH at the three cutting speeds reached the criterion of 0.16 mm at
the drilling time approximately 640 min. On the other hand, Figure 4b illustrates that the averages
EBH increased rapidly with increasing drilling time within the range of approximately 200–500 min
when drilling at a feed rate of 0.25 mm/rev by keeping the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min. The
averages EBH increased very slightly with increasing time within the range of approximately 70–650
min when drilling at a feed rate of 0.15 mm/rev by keeping the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min
and increasing very rapidly after 650 min. The result also showed that at the criterion of 0.16 mm, the
drilling time increased two times when drilling at the feed rate of 0.15 mm/rev compared to drilling at
the feed rate of 0.25 mm/rev by keeping the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min. The results indicated
that drilling at a low feed rate decreased the averages EBH.
Figure 4c illustrates a relationship between averages EBH and drilling time at the three cutting
speeds (40, 50 and 60 m/min) by keeping the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev throughout the experiments
during drilling of the workpieces with the AlCrN coated-WC drills. The results showed that averages
EBH increased monotonically with increasing drilling time for all cutting speeds. The averages EBH at
the three cutting speeds reached the criterion of 0.16 mm at the drilling time approximately 800 min.
This indicated that the average drilling time was reduced by approximately 25% during drilling of
the workpieces until reaching the EBH criterion when using AlCrN coated-WC drills by varying the
cutting speeds and keeping the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev.
with increasing time within the range of approximately 70–700 min when drilling at a feed rate of
0.15 mm/rev and increasing rapidly after 700 min. The results also illustrated that the drilling time
increased two times when drilling at the feed rate of 0.15 mm/rev by holding the cutting speed
constant at 50 m/min compared to drilling at the feed rate of 0.25 mm/rev by evaluating at the
criterion
Coatings of9,0.16
2019, 853 mm. The results also indicated that drilling with a low feed rate decreased6 ofthe
14
average EBH.

0.20 0.20

0.18 0.18

0.16 0 0.16 0

0.14 0.14
Exit burr height (mm)

Exit burr height (mm)

0.12 0.12

0.10 0.10

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04
40 m/min
0.02 0.02 0.25 mm/rev
50 m/min
0.20 mm/rev
0.00 60 m/min 0.00
0.15 mm/rev
72 . 216 . 360 . 504 . 648 72 . 216 . 360 . 504 . 648 . 792 . 936 .

Time (min) Time (min)

(a) (b)
0.20 0.20

0.18 0.18

0.16 0 0.16 0

0.14 0.14
Exit burr height (mm)

Exit burr height (mm)

0.12 0.12

0.10 0.10

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04
40 m/min 0.25 mm/rev
0.02 0.02
50 m/min 0.20 mm/rev
0.00 60 m/min 0.00 0.15 mm/rev

72 . 216 . 360 . 504 . 648 . 792 . 72 . 216 . 360 . 504 . 648 . 792 . 936 . 1080 . 1224 .
Time (min) Time (min)

(c) (d)
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Average
Average exit
exit burr
burr height
height versus
versus drilling
drilling time
time using
using the
the uncoated-WC
uncoated-WC drills
drills by
by varying
varying (a)
(a)
cutting speeds
cutting speeds (keeping
(keeping the
the feed
feed rate
rate constant
constant at
at 0.2
0.2 mm/rev)
mm/rev) and
and (b)
(b) feed
feed rates
rates (keeping
(keeping the
the cutting
cutting
speed constant
speed constant at
at 50
50 m/min)
m/min) and
and using
using AlCrN
AlCrN coated-WC
coated-WC drills
drills by
by varying
varying (c)
(c) cutting
cutting speeds
speeds and
and (d)
(d)
feed rates.

Figure 4d shows
According a relationship
to the between averages
results of variations EBH and drilling
in the averages EBH at time
the at the three
three feed rates
different feed (0.15,
rates
0.20 anddrilling
versus 0.25 mm/rev) by holding
time using the twothe cutting
differentspeed constant
drills, at 50 m/min
the drilling all over theapproximately
time increased experiments. The1.5
results showed a dramatical variation in the averages EBH at the different feed rates
times when drilling with the AlCrN coated-WC drills compared to drilling with the uncoated ones versus drilling time.
The averages
before EBH
reaching theincreased rapidly
EHB criterion of with increasing
0.16 mm. drilling
This could be time within
probably the rangetoofthe
attributed approximately
reduction in
200–600 min when drilling
cutting temperature, at a feed
prevention rate different
of the of 0.25 mm/rev by keepingatthe
wear occurring thecutting speed constant
tool surface, increasingat
50 m/min. The averages EBH increased very expeditiously with increasing time within
hardness and wear resistance and decreasing coefficient of friction by applying the thin film coating the range of
approximately 500–800
on the cutting tools min when drilling at a feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev and increasing very rapidly after
[28,29].
650 min. On the other hand, the averages EBH increased very slightly with increasing time within the
range of approximately 70–700 min when drilling at a feed rate of 0.15 mm/rev and increasing rapidly
after 700 min. The results also illustrated that the drilling time increased two times when drilling at the
feed rate of 0.15 mm/rev by holding the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min compared to drilling at
the feed rate of 0.25 mm/rev by evaluating at the criterion of 0.16 mm. The results also indicated that
drilling with a low feed rate decreased the average EBH.
According to the results of variations in the averages EBH at the three different feed rates versus
drilling time using the two different drills, the drilling time increased approximately 1.5 times when
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 7 of 14

drilling with the AlCrN coated-WC drills compared to drilling with the uncoated ones before reaching
the EHB criterion of 0.16 mm. This could be probably attributed to the reduction in cutting temperature,
prevention of the different wear occurring at the tool surface, increasing hardness and wear resistance
and decreasing coefficient of friction by applying the thin film coating on the cutting tools [28,29].
Tables 2 and 3 show the results of drilling time at the three cutting speeds and feed rates
corresponding to the EBH criterion for carrying out the drilling experiments using the uncoated-WC
and the AlCrN coated-WC drills, respectively.

Table 2. Drilling time at the three cutting speeds and feed rates corresponding to the EBH criterion for
carrying out the drilling experiments using the uncoated WC drills.

Factor Level Drilling Time (min)

40 625
Cutting speed (m/min)
50 620
(Feed rate was fixed at 0.2 mm/rev)
60 600
Feed rate (mm/rev) 0.15 1010
(Cutting speed was hold constant 0.20 620
at 50 m/min) 0.25 450

Table 3. Drilling time at the three cutting speeds and feed rates corresponding to the EBH criterion for
carrying out the drilling experiments using the AlCrN coated WC drills.

Factor Level Drilling Time (min)

40 857
Cutting speed (m/min)
50 850
(Feed rate was fixed at 0.2 mm/rev)
60 803
Feed rate (mm/rev) 0.15 1289
(Cutting speed was hold constant 0.20 850
at 50 m/min) 0.25 641

The drilling time data sets at the EBH criterion of 0.16 mm were used to develop the tool life
models of both drills by Taylor’s equation. The tool life models in terms of cutting speed and feed rate
were investigated based on Equation (2). The unknown constants of the models were calculated based
on the Taylor’s equation and the results in Tables 2 and 3. According to the results from Table 2, the
unknown constant (n) of the model for the uncoated-WC drills was obtained as follows:

nlog625 + mlog0.2 + log40 = logc (3)

and
nlog600 + mlog0.2 + log60 = logc (4)

According to Equations (3) and (4), the constant of n was 9.9325. The unknown constant (m) of the
model for the uncoated-WC drills was estimated as follows:

nlog1010 + mlog0.15 + log50 = logc (5)

and
nlog450 + mlog0.25 + log50 = logc (6)

According to Equations (5) and (6), the constant of m was 7.1855. Accordingly, the constant c was
2.2375 × 1024 . Thus, the tool life model for the uncoated-WC drill was defined as:

S(T1 )9.9325 (f )7.1855 = 2.2375 × 1024 (7)

Coatings 2019, 9, 853 8 of 14

where T1 represents tool life for the uncoated-WC drill. Hence Equation (7) could be expressed as:

282.8264
T1 = (8)
S0.1007 f 0.7234

Similarly, according to the results from Table 3, the tool life model in terms of cutting speed and
feed rate for the AlCrN coated-WC drill was defined as:

S(T2 )6.2299 (f )8.3155 = 1.1537 × 1014 (9)

Equation (9) is represented as:

180.7912
T2 = (10)
S0.1605 f 1.3348
where T2 represents tool life of the AlCrN coated-WC drill.
The tool life models of both drills were used to investigate the effects of cutting speed and feed
rate on average tool life values. These models were valid for the value of EBH lower than 0.16
mm. Equations (8) and (10) were used to predict tool life values during drilling of the forging brass
workpieces with the uncoated-WC and the AlCrN coated-WC drills, respectively. Figure 5 shows the
relationships between predicted tool life values and the cutting speed and feed rate during drilling
of the workpieces with both drills. Figure 5a illustrates the predicted values of tool life as a function
of cutting speed. It could be seen that predicted tool life values of both drills varied almost linearly
with cutting speed. Furthermore, predicted tool life values of both drills remained almost unchanged
with increased in cutting speed by keeping the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev. Figure 5b depicts
the predicted values of tool life as a function of feed rate. It could be seen that predicted tool life
values of both drills varied sharply with feed rate. In addition, predicted tool life values of both drills
decreased sharply with increased in feed rate by keeping the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min for
both drills. This indicated that feed rate had a stronger significant influence on predicted tool life than
the cutting speed. It was also found that predicted tool life values of the AlCrN coated-WC drills
were higher (approximately 1.5 times) than those of the uncoated-WC ones. The longer tool life of
the AlCrN coated-WC drill was attributed to its synergistic hardness, strengthening and toughness
mechanisms induced by the WC particles and CrN particles. Fox-Rabinovich et al. [30] reported that
the presence of Cr and Al improves thermal stability that prevents particles removal by oxidation and
abrasion. In addition, tool life of the coated drill could be enhanced by increasing tool surface hardness
and segregation of the tool cutting edge from the severe cutting environment (high temperature
and pressure) leading to the resistance of abrasive wear and oxidation of the hard-coated cutting
tool [14,31,32].
Based on Equations (8) and (10), Monte Carlo simulation technique was used to understand the
impact of uncertainty in the prediction of tool life values when varying the cutting speeds and feed
rates within ±5% of each factor. Figure 6 illustrates an example of output results from Monte Carlo
simulation based on the tool life model of an uncoated-WC drill when varying the cutting speeds and
feed rates within ±5% of each factor using the software Minitab® Version 16 [33]. The random data
set of 10000 was generated from the normal distribution. The mean of the tool life was 596.59 min
with 95% confidence intervals of 596.52 and 596.66 min while simulating tool life values at the cutting
speed of 50 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev. The standard deviation was 3.68 min with 95%
confidence intervals of 3.63 and 3.73 min.
rates within ±5% of each factor. Figure 6 illustrates an example of output results from Monte Carlo
simulation based on the tool life model of an uncoated-WC drill when varying the cutting speeds
and feed rates within ±5% of each factor using the software Minitab® Version 16 [33]. The random
data set of 10000 was generated from the normal distribution. The mean of the tool life was 596.59
min with 95% confidence intervals of 596.52 and 596.66 min while simulating tool life values at the
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 9 of 14
cutting speed of 50 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev. The standard deviation was 3.68 min
with 95% confidence intervals of 3.63 and 3.73 min.

Coatings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Plots of the relationships between predicted tool life values and (a) cutting speed (keeping
Figure
the Plotsconstant
feed5. rate of the relationships between
at 0.2 mm/rev) predicted
and (b) tool(keeping
feed rate life values
theand (a) cutting
cutting speed speed (keeping
constant at 50
the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev) and (b) feed rate
m/min) during drilling of the workpieces with both drills.(keeping the cutting speed constant at 50 m/min)
during drilling of the workpieces with both drills.

Anderson-Darling Normality Test

A-Squared 0.78
P-Value 0.043

Mean 596.59
StDev 3.68
Variance 13.51
Skewness 0.0503028
Kurtosis 0.0051690
N 10000

Minimum 580.91
585 590 595 600 605 610 1st Quartile 594.10
Median 596.53
3rd Quartile 599.06
Maximum 614.05
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
596.52 596.66
95% Confidence Intervals
95% Confidence Interval for Median
Mean
596.45 596.61
Median 95% Confidence Interval for StDev

596.45 596.50 596.55 596.60 596.65 3.63 3.73

Figure 6. Output results from Monte Carlo simulation based on the tool life model of an
Figure 6. Output results from Monte Carlo simulation based on the tool life model of an
uncoated-WC drill.
uncoated-WC drill.
According to the Monte Carlo simulation results from the tool life models of both drills,
According to the Monte Carlo simulation results from the tool life models of both drills, Figures
Figures 7 and 8 graphically display the effects of cutting speed and feed rate on tool life for both drills
7 and 8 graphically display the effects of cutting speed and feed rate on tool life for both drills when
when varying the cutting speeds and feed rates within ±5% of each factor. Figure 7 shows that the
varying the cutting speeds and feed rates within ±5% of each factor. Figure 7 shows that the AlCrN
AlCrN coated-WC drills had longer tool life than the uncoated-WC ones at most of the feed rates.
coated-WC drills had longer tool life than the uncoated-WC ones at most of the feed rates. Moreover,
Moreover, variations of tool life values at the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev for both drills were larger than
variations of tool life values at the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev for both drills were larger than those of
those of tool life values at the rest levels. Figure 8 reveals that most of the tool life values of the
tool life values at the rest levels. Figure 8 reveals that most of the tool life values of the AlCrN
AlCrN coated-WC drills were significantly higher than those of the uncoated-WC ones at feed rate in
coated-WC drills were significantly higher than those of the uncoated-WC ones at feed rate in the
the range of 0.2–0.26 mm/rev. On the other hand, variations of tool life values at all cutting speeds
range of 0.2–0.26 mm/rev. On the other hand, variations of tool life values at all cutting speeds
corresponding to each feed rate were not different for both drills. This indicated that there were no
corresponding to each feed rate were not different for both drills. This indicated that there were no
statistically significant differences of tool life values while drilling of forging brass at the cutting speed
statistically significant differences of tool life values while drilling of forging brass at the cutting
in the range of 40–60 m/min corresponding to each feed rate (overlapping of the intervals of tool life
speed in the range of 40–60 m/min corresponding to each feed rate (overlapping of the intervals of
values for the cutting speed in the range of 40–60 m/min at each feed rate).
tool life values for the cutting speed in the range of 40–60 m/min at each feed rate).
Based on the EBH criterion and simulation results, the highest acceptable tool life values were
obtained at the lowest feed rate (0.2 mm/rev) and highest cutting speed (60 m/min) during drilling of
forging brass using the AlCrN coated-WC drill. At the high cutting speed and low feed rate, it was
apparent for chips to evacuate along the hole axis due to shortened chip and coated drill contact
based on low friction and high wear resistance of the AlCrN coated-WC drill. This result agreed
Coatings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
Coatings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13
approximately 600 and 800 min, respectively based on estimates from the tool life models. This
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 10 of 14
indicated
approximatelythat the600coated drillmin,
and 800 increased tool lifebased
respectively by 30%.
on estimates from the tool life models. This
F eed 0.20
indicated that the coated drill increased tool life by 30%.
F eed 0.22
850
850
FF eed
eed 0.24
0.20
800 FF eed
eed 0.26
0.22
850 800
850
F eed 0.24
750
800 F eed 0.26 750
800
700
750 700
life (min)

life (min)
750
650
700 650
700
(min)

(min)
600
Tool lifeTool

Tool lifeTool
650 600
650
550
600 550
600
500
550 500
550 F eed 0.20
450 F eed 0.22
500 450
500 FF eed 0.24
400 eed 0.20
450 400 FF eed
eed 0.26
0.22
450
40 45 50 55 60 F eed 0.24
400 40 45 50 55 60
C utting speed (m /m in) 400 C utting speed (m /m in) F eed 0.26

40 45 50 55 60 40 45 50 55 60
(a)
C utting speed (m /m in) (b)
C utting speed (m /m in)

Figure 7. Effect of cutting (a)speed on tool life for (a) the uncoated-WC and (b)(b) the AlCrN coated-WC
drills.
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Effect
Effectofofcutting
cuttingspeed
speed
onon tool
tool lifelife
for for (a) uncoated-WC
(a) the the uncoated-WC andthe
and (b) (b) the AlCrN
AlCrN coated-WC
coated-WC drills.
drills.
C utting speed 40 C utting speed 40
850 C utting speed 45 C utting speed 45
850
C utting speed 50
40 C utting speed 50
40
800 C utting speed 55
45 C
C utting
utting speed
speed 55
45
850 800
850 C
C utting speed 60
50 C utting
utting speed
speed 60
50
750
800 C utting speed 55 C utting speed 55
750
800
C utting speed 60 C utting speed 60
700
750 700
life (min)

life (min)

750
650
700 650
700
(min)

(min)

600
Tool

Tool

650 600
650
Tool life

Tool life

550
600 550
600
500
550 500
550
450
500 450
500
400
450 400
450

400 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26

400 F eed rate (mm/rev )
F eed rate (mm/rev )
0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26
(a)
F eed rate (mm/rev )
(b)
F eed rate (mm/rev )

(a) (b) AlCrN

Figure 8. Effect of feed rate on tool life for (a) the uncoated-WC and (b) the
the AlCrN coated-WC
coated-WC drills.
drills.
Figure 8. Effect of feed rate on tool life for (a) the uncoated-WC and (b) the AlCrN coated-WC drills.
Based
Figureon 9 the
shows EBHSEM criterion and simulation
micrographs results, the highest
of an uncoated-WC acceptable
drill and an AlCrN tool life values were
coated-WC one
obtained
before at the
and after
Figure lowest
9 showsdrilling feed
SEMof therate (0.2 mm/rev)
workpiecesofuntil
micrographs and highest
an reaching
uncoated-WC cutting
the criterionspeed
drill and (60
of EBH m/min) during
of 0.16 coated-WC
an AlCrN drilling
mm. According one
of
to forging
before andbrass
Figure 9b,
afterthe using
main
drilling the AlCrN
wear
of coated-WC
mechanisms
the workpieces drill.
were
until At the
chisel
reaching high
and
the cutting
outer
criterion speed
corner
of EBH ofand
wear. low
mm.feed
0.16The chisel rate,
Accordingwear it
was apparent
occurred in thefor chips
region to
of evacuate
the chiselalong
edge the hole
because axis
of due
high to shortened
stress
to Figure 9b, the main wear mechanisms were chisel and outer corner wear. The chisel wear in thechip
flow andzonecoated
of drill
the contact
drill and
based
occurredon low
workpiece friction
ininterface.
the regionandofhigh
The the wear
outer corner
chisel resistance of the
wearbecause
edge was theofAlCrN
high coated-WC
critical thedrill.
failureinmode
stress This
because
flow zone result
the agreed
of thermal
the drillwith
load
and
the
was previous
the study
highest. found
The tool in [15].
wear Although
rapidly drilling
increased at higher
leading cutting
to speeds
chipping
workpiece interface. The outer corner wear was the critical failure mode because the thermal load gave
occurring more on productivity
the cutting
than
edge drilling
was theof an
highest.at lower
The cutting
uncoated-WC tool drill.speeds,
wear Cuttingit resulted
rapidly force, in accelerated
thermal
increased to tool
fatigue,
leading wearand
torque
chipping or failure
stress and
occurring on higher
occurred onEBH
the cutting the
formation.
drill
edge when
of an it Boopathi
moved et
uncoated-WC al. drill.
along [34]
the stated that
hole axis
Cutting higher
to
force,remove cutting
thermal chips.speeds
Chipping
fatigue, couldon
torque increase
and thestress
toolthe frictional
could
occurred onheat
affect the
the
transfer
quality between
of drilled the drill
holes and
and the workpiece,
productivity which
degradation. in turn
In increased
addition,
drill when it moved along the hole axis to remove chips. Chipping on the tool could affect the the
the temperature
worn area of of the
cutting brass
edge
attaining
quality ofthe
produced highmaximum
drilled holes value
roughness and and 468 ◦height
ofburr C. It was
productivity of also observed
the drilled
degradation. thatof
In holes
addition,higher
the feed rates
theworkpieces.
worn area required
ofHowever,
cutting higherthe
edge
thrust
chipping
producedforce for the
occurring
high penetration
on the and
roughness ofburr
cuttingtheedge
workpiece.
height On
canofbethe the other
resolved
drilled and hand,
holes of the
reducedthe thrust
by forcethe
using
workpieces. decreased at the
coated drills.
However, the
higher
Coating cutting
materials speeds can for constant
reduce the feed rate.
magnitude Hence
of this
cutting operating
forces, condition
torque
chipping occurring on the cutting edge can be resolved and reduced by using the coated drills. and was recommended
stresses. Since AlCrN for
manufacturers
coating
Coatinghas in drilling
low thermal
materials manufacturing
conductivity,
can reduce industry
friction of
the magnitude based
coefficient on the machine
and high
cutting forces, performance
thermal
torque and stability and
stresses. [14,30], its ability
Since AlCrNit can
to produce
reduce a very
temperature large number
between of
coateddrilled
drill parts.
and At
chip this operating
resulting condition,
cutting
coating has low thermal conductivity, friction coefficient and high thermal stability [14,30], it canforce the
and predicted
stress tool
reductions. life
values
Accordingof theto uncoated-WC
Figure 9d, there and
werethenoAlCrN
visible coated-WC
crack and drills
chipping were approximately
formations
reduce temperature between coated drill and chip resulting cutting force and stress reductions. on the 600 and
surface 800
of min,
AlCrN
respectively
coated-WC
According to based
drill
Figure on9d,
duringestimates
drilling
there from
were nothevisible
of the tool life
forging models.
brass
crack and This indicated
workpieces
chipping that the
until reaching
formations oncoated drill
the surface
the EBH increased
criterion
of AlCrN of
tool
0.16 life
mm. by 30%.
The AlCrN coating deposited using magnetron sputtering,
coated-WC drill during drilling of the forging brass workpieces until reaching the EBH criterion of filtered cathodic arc (FCA)
0.16 Figure
reduced
mm.the 9 formation
The shows
AlCrN SEM ofmicrographs
the droplet
coating depositedof an
phase uncoated-WC
voids as drill
andmagnetron
using well and an AlCrN
as provided
sputtering, coated-WC
high
filtered adhesive
cathodic one
arc before
strength
(FCA)
and afterthe
between
reduced drilling
the coating
formationof the ofworkpieces
and thedroplet
the carbideuntil reaching
substrate
phase the criterion
[35,36].
and voids The as
as well ofprovided
EBHcoating
AlCrN of 0.16
highmm. According
exhibited
adhesive the to
best
strength
Figure 9b, the main wear mechanisms were chisel and outer corner
between the coating and the carbide substrate [35,36]. The AlCrN coating exhibited the best wear. The chisel wear occurred in
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 11 of 14

the region of the chisel edge because of high stress in the flow zone of the drill and workpiece interface.
The outer corner wear was the critical failure mode because the thermal load was the highest. The tool
wear rapidly increased leading to chipping occurring on the cutting edge of an uncoated-WC drill.
Cutting force, thermal fatigue, torque and stress occurred on the drill when it moved along the hole
axis to remove chips. Chipping on the tool could affect the quality of drilled holes and productivity
degradation. In addition, the worn area of cutting edge produced high roughness and burr height
of the drilled holes of the workpieces. However, the chipping occurring on the cutting edge can be
resolved and reduced by using the coated drills. Coating materials can reduce the magnitude of cutting
forces, torque and stresses. Since AlCrN coating has low thermal conductivity, friction coefficient
and high thermal stability [14,30], it can reduce temperature between coated drill and chip resulting
cutting force and stress reductions. According to Figure 9d, there were no visible crack and chipping
formations on the surface of AlCrN coated-WC drill during drilling of the forging brass workpieces
until reaching the EBH criterion of 0.16 mm. The AlCrN coating deposited using magnetron sputtering,
filtered cathodic arc (FCA) reduced the formation of the droplet phase and voids as well as provided
high adhesive strength between the coating and the carbide substrate [35,36]. The AlCrN coating
exhibited the best
Coatings properties
2019, 9, x FOR PEERofREVIEW
abrasive, spalling, and adhesive wear resistances [37–39].11 However, of 13 the
adhesive wear could be caused by rubbing of a cutting edge of the drill against the workpiece surface
properties of abrasive, spalling, and adhesive wear resistances [37–39]. However, the adhesive wear
by fast moving chip, as well as friction generated at a contact interface between the chips and the
could be caused by rubbing of a cutting edge of the drill against the workpiece surface by fast
drill. The cutting edgeaswas
moving chip, well covered
as friction with a large
generated amount
at a contact of asperities
interface of workpiece
between the chips and thesurface
drill. Thethat could
generate adhered
cutting edgelayer. This result
was covered with acaused an undesirable
large amount increase
of asperities of ofsurface
workpiece the EBH with generate
that could the specification
adhered
limit of 0.16 mm. layer. This result caused an undesirable increase of the EBH with the specification limit of
0.16 mm.

500 μm

(a) (b)

500 μm

(c) (d)

Figureimages
Figure 9. SEM 9. SEM images of (a)
of (a) an an uncoated-WC
uncoated-WC drill
drill before and
before and (b)
(b)after
afterdrilling of the
drilling ofworkpieces (c)
the workpieces (c) an
an AlCrN coated-WC drill before and (d) after drilling of the workpieces.
AlCrN coated-WC drill before and (d) after drilling of the workpieces.
4. Conclusion
4. Conclusions
Tool life modelling based on Taylor’s equation and Monte Carlo simulation technique has been
Tool life modelling
successfully basedtoon
employed Taylor’stheequation
investigate effect andand MonteofCarlo
uncertainty simulation
cutting technique
speed and feed rate on has been
successfully employed
averages EBH and to investigate the effect
tool life predictions and
while uncertainty
drilling of forgingofbrass
cutting speed with
workpieces and feed
the rate on
uncoated-WC
averages EBH and tooland
lifeAlCrN coated-WC
predictions whiledrills. The conclusions
drilling of forgingcould be drawn
brass as follows:
workpieces with the uncoated-WC
and AlCrN• coated-WC
Feed rate affected
drills.averages EBH more strongly
The conclusions couldthan
be cutting
drawnspeed.
as follows:
• The AlCrN coated-WC drill had better performance than the uncoated-WC one.
• Tool life of the AlCrN coated-WC drill at the criterion of EBH of 0.16 mm was higher (about 1.5
times) than that of the uncoated-WC one.
• The average drilling time was reduced by about 25% during drilling of the workpieces until
reaching the EBH criterion when using the AlCrN coated-WC drills by varying the cutting
speeds and keeping the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev.
• Chipping occurred on the cutting edge of an uncoated-WC drill.
• The cutting speed of 60 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev were recommended for
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 12 of 14

• Feed rate affected averages EBH more strongly than cutting speed.
• The AlCrN coated-WC drill had better performance than the uncoated-WC one.
• Tool life of the AlCrN coated-WC drill at the criterion of EBH of 0.16 mm was higher (about 1.5
times) than that of the uncoated-WC one.
• The average drilling time was reduced by about 25% during drilling of the workpieces until
reaching the EBH criterion when using the AlCrN coated-WC drills by varying the cutting speeds
and keeping the feed rate constant at 0.2 mm/rev.
• Chipping occurred on the cutting edge of an uncoated-WC drill.
• The cutting speed of 60 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev were recommended for
manufacturers in drilling of forging brass using the AlCrN coated-WC drill.
• The predicted tool life values of the uncoated-WC and the AlCrN coated-WC drills were
approximately 600 and 800 min, respectively at the recommended operating condition.
• The coated drill increased tool life by 30% during drilling of the forging brass workpieces at the
cutting speed of 60 m/min and the feed rate of 0.2 mm/rev.

Although using coated-WC drills can reduce burr height and increase tool life, drilling tool design
can reduce burr height and prolong tool life leading to quality of drilled workpieces and productivity
improvement. Sugita et al. [40] proposed a dedicated drill design of tool shape and nicked shape to
reduce burr height and delamination and to increase the accuracy drilled holes during the drilling
of composite materials. Hence, further research should be focused on tool design for burr height
reduction and quality improvement of the drilling process for forging brass.

Author Contributions: M.T. carried out the experiments, collected the data sets, analyzed the data and wrote the
manuscript; C.S. analyzed the data, wrote, edited and reviewed the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University for
the financial supports of this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wright, P.K.; Trent, E. Metals Cutting; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2000; ISBN 9780750670692.
2. Viktor, P.A. Geometry of Single-Point Turning Tools and Drills Fundamentals and Practical Applications; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.
3. de Paiva, J.M.F.; Amorim, F.L.; Soares, P.; Torres, R.D. Evaluation of hard coating performance in drilling
compacted graphite iron (CGI). J. Mater. Eng. Perf. 2013, 22, 3155–3160. [CrossRef]
4. Wu, W.; Kuzu, A.; Stephenson, D.; Hong, J.; Bakkal, M.; Shih, A. Dry and minimum quantity lubrication
high-throughput drilling of compacted graphite iron. Mach. Sci. Technol. 2018, 22, 652–670. [CrossRef]
5. Gillespie, L.K. The $2 billion deburring bill. Manuf. Eng. Manag. 1975, 74, 20–21.
6. Schafer, F. Deburring: Theory, Processes, Systems; Krausskopf Verlag: Mainz, Germany, 1975.
7. Toenshoff, H.K.; Spintig, W.; Koenig, W.; Neisses, A. Machining of holes developments in drilling technology.
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 1994, 43, 551–561. [CrossRef]
8. Costa, E.S.; da Silva, M.B.; Machado, A.R. Burr produced on the drilling process as a function of tool wear
and lubricant-coolant conditions. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2009, 31, 57–63. [CrossRef]
9. Lukic, L.; Djapic, M. Machinability parameters for optimal cutting process in flexible manufacturing systems.
Metal. Int. 2012, 17, 10–16.
10. Shen, Q.; Lee, T.C.; Lau, W.S. Wear characteristics and flank wear model of the main cutting edges in spade
drilling of ductile metals. Wear 1997, 208, 73–80. [CrossRef]
11. Astakhov, V.P.; Osman, M.O.M.; AlAta, M. Statistical design of experiments in metal cutting 2 Applications.
J. Test. Eval. 1997, 25, 328–336.
12. Timata, M.; Saikaew, C. Influences of spindle speed and feed rate on exit burr height and workpiece diameter
in drilling forging brass. Solid State Phenom. 2018, 279, 67–71. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 13 of 14

13. Gong, M.; Chen, J.; Deng, X.; Wu, S. Sliding wear behavior of TiAlN and AlCrN coatings on a unique
cemented carbide substrate. Int. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2017, 69, 209–214. [CrossRef]
14. Mo, J.L.; Zhu, M.H.; Lei, B.; Leng, Y.X.; Huang, N. Comparison of tribological behaviours of AlCrN and
TiAlN coatings-deposited by physical vapor deposition. Wear 2007, 263, 1423–1429. [CrossRef]
15. Tekaüt, İ.; Demir, H.; Şeker, U. Experimental analysis and theoretical modelling of cutting parameters in the
drilling of AISI H13 steel with coated and uncoated drills. Tran. FAMENA 2018, 42, 83–96. [CrossRef]
16. Karnik, S.R.; Gaitonde, V.N.; Davim, J.P. A comparative study of the ANN and RSM modeling approaches
for predicting burr size in drilling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 38, 868–883. [CrossRef]
17. Lin, T.R. Cutting behaviour using variable feed and variable speed when drilling stainless steel with
TiN-coated carbide drills. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2002, 19, 629–636. [CrossRef]
18. Lin, T.R.; Shyu, R.F. Improvement of tool life and exit burr using variable feeds when drilling stainless steel
with coated drills. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2000, 16, 308–313. [CrossRef]
19. Wang, X.; Huang, C.; Zou, B.; Liu, H.; Wang, J. Effects of geometric structure of twist drill bits and cutting
condition on tool life in drilling 42CrMo ultrahigh-strength steel. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 64, 41–47.
[CrossRef]
20. Polli, M.L.; Cardoso, M.J. Effects of process parameters and drill point geometry in deep drilling of SAE
4144M under MQL. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2018, 40, 137. [CrossRef]
21. Cardoso, M.J.; Polli, M.L.; Pintaude, G. Wear analysis of PVD-coated twist drills under MQL. Ind. Lubr. Tribol.
2018, 70, 1664–1669. [CrossRef]
22. Evans, J.R.; Olson, D.L. Introduction to Simulation and Risk Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 2002.
23. Prengela, H.G.; Jindal, P.C.; Wendt, K.H.; Santhanam, A.T.; Hegde, P.L.; Penich, R.M. A new class of high
performance PVD coatings for carbide cutting tools. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2011, 139, 25–34. [CrossRef]
24. Ibaraki, S.; Ota, Y. A machining test to calibrate rotary axis error motions of five-axis machine tools and its
application to thermal deformation test. Int. Mach. Tool Manuf. 2014, 86, 81–88. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, Y.; Yuan, M.; Cao, J.; Cui, J.; Tan, J. Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in H-drive stage during high
acceleration based on Monte Carlo method. Int. Mach. Tool Manuf. 2015, 93, 1–9. [CrossRef]
26. Andolfatto, L.; Mayer, J.R.R.; Lavernhe, S. Adaptive Monte Carlo applied to uncertainty estimation in five
axis machine tool link errors identification with thermal disturbance. Int. Mach. Tool Manuf. 2011, 57,
618–627. [CrossRef]
27. Cai, L.C.; Zhang, Z.; Cheng, Q.; Liu, Z.; Gu, P.; Qi, Y. An approach to optimize the machining accuracy
retainability of multi-axis NC machine tool based on robust design. Precis. Eng. 2016, 43, 370–386. [CrossRef]
28. Lin, Y.J.; Agrawal, A.; Fang, Y. Wear progressions and tool life enhancement with AlCrN coated inserts in
high-speed dry and wet steel lathing. Wear 2008, 264, 226–234. [CrossRef]
29. Srisattayakul, P.; Saikaew, C. Effects of hard and MoN-coated stainless steel on wear behavior and tool life
model under two-body abrasion wear testing. Metalurgija 2017, 56, 371–374.
30. Fox-Rabinovich, G.S.; Beake, B.D.; Endrino, J.L.; Veldhuis, S.V.; Parkinson, R.; Shuster, L.S.; Migranov, M.S.
Effect of mechanical properties measured at room and elevated temperatures on the wear resistance of
cutting tools with TiAlN and AlCrN coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2006, 200, 5738–5742. [CrossRef]
31. Bourhis, E.L.; Goudeau, P.; Staia, M.H.; Puchi-Cabrera, E.S. Mechanical properties of hard AlCrN-based
coated substrates. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2009, 203, 2961–2968. [CrossRef]
32. Endrino, J.L.; Fox-Rabinovich, G.S.; Reiter, A.; Veldhuis, S.V.; Galindo, R.E.; Albella, J.M.; Marco, J.F. Oxidation
tuning in AlCrN coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2007, 201, 4505–4511. [CrossRef]
33. Minitab®Version 16.2.4; Minitab Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2013.
34. Boopathi, M.; Shankar, S.; Manikandakumar, S.; Ramesh, R. Experimental investigation of friction drilling on
brass, aluminium and stainless steel. Procedia Eng. 2013, 64, 1219–1226. [CrossRef]
35. Vereschaka, A.A.; Grigoriev, S.N. Study of cracking mechanisms in multi-layered composite nano-structured
coatings. Wear 2017, 378, 43–57. [CrossRef]
36. Vereschaka, A.A.; Grigoriev, S.N.; Sitnikov, N.N.; Batako, A.D. Delamination and longitudinal cracking in
multi-layered composite nanostructured coatings and their influence on cutting tool life. Wear 2017, 390,
209–219. [CrossRef]
37. Aihua, L.; Jianxin, D.; Haibing, C.; Yangyang, C.; Jun, Z. Friction and wear properties of TiN, TiAlN, AlTiN
and CrAlN PVD nitride coatings. Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater. 2012, 31, 82–88. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2019, 9, 853 14 of 14

38. Mo, J.L.; Zhu, M.H.; Leyland, A.; Matthews, A. Impact wear and abrasion resistance of CrN, AlCrN and
AlTiN PVD coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2013, 215, 170–177. [CrossRef]
39. Birol, Y. Sliding wear of CrN, AlCrN and AlTiN coated AISIH13 hot work tool steels in aluminium extrusion.
Tribol. Int. 2013, 57, 101–106. [CrossRef]
40. Sugita, N.; Shu, L.; Kimura, K.; Arai, G.; Arai, K. Dedicated drill design for reduction in burr and delamination
during the drilling of composite materials. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 68, 89–92. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).