The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-3061-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Multi-objective optimization of surface roughness, thrust force,

and torque produced by novel drill geometries using Taguchi-based
GRA
Güven Meral 1 & Murat Sarıkaya 2 & Mozammel Mia 3 & Hakan Dilipak 4 & Ulvi Şeker 4 & Munish K. Gupta 5

Received: 6 September 2018 / Accepted: 18 November 2018

# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
A significant part of today’s chip removal processes are drilling holes. Many parameters such as cutting parameters, material,
machine tool, and cutting tool, etc., in the hole-drilling process affect performance indicators such as surface roughness, tool
wear, force, torque, energy consumption, and costs etc. While cutting parameters are easily planned by the operator during
drilling, the selection and planning of the drill geometry are more difficult. In order to design and produce the new drill geometry,
a wide time and engineering research are needed. In this study, the design and fabrication of new drill geometry were performed
to improve the hole-drilling performance. The performance of the fabricated drills was judged with regard to surface roughness,
thrust force, and drilling torque. In the performance tests, four different drill geometries, four different cutting speed levels, and
four different feed rate levels were selected. Holes were drilled on AISI 4140 material. In addition, the optimization was
performed in two phases. Firstly, the mono-optimization was carried by using Taguchi’s S/N analysis in which each performance
output was optimized separately. Secondly, the multi-objective optimization was employed by using Taguchi-based gray rela-
tional analysis (GRA). For the purpose of the study, two different drill geometries were designed and fabricated. Experimental
results showed that the designed Geometry 4 is superior to other geometries (geometry 1, geometry 2, and geometry 3) in terms of
thrust force and surface roughness. However, in terms of drilling torque, geometry 2 gives better results than other drill
geometries. It was found that for all geometries, obtained surface roughness values are lower than the surface roughness values
expected from a drilling operation and therefore surface qualities (between 1.2 and 2.4 μm) were satisfactory.

Keywords Drill design . Drill production . Optimization . Thrust force . Torque . Surface roughness

1 Introduction

Hole-drilling is one of the foremost chip removal operations

and involves about 41% of chip removal operations [1].
* Mozammel Mia
Drilling is often accounted as the last process of the machining
mozammelmiaipe@gmail.com operations; hence, it is regarded as a highly important
manufacturing process. Even if the drilling process seems
1 simple, there exist some adverse conditions. This is due to
Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Gazi University,
Ankara, Turkey the fact that chip formation occurs in closed field and chip
2 flow is limited. Factors such as increasing cutting force,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sinop University,
Sinop, Turkey shrinkage of chips in the hole, difficulty in passing the cooling
3 liquid, etc., increase the difficulty of this machining process
Mechanical and Production Engineering, Ahsanullah University of
Science and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh further. To overcome these challenges, it is important to deter-
4 mine the correct cutting tool and cutting parameters [2].
Manufacturing Engineering Department, Technology Faculty, Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkey Several cutting tool geometries and cutting tool materials have
5 been developed to make the hole-drilling more reliable and
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chandigarh University,
Gharuan, Mohali, Punjab, India simple. Among them, the most preferred drilling tools are
helical carbide drills because of their high performance in

drilling [3]. Surface roughness, force, and drilling torque are
the basic criteria that determine the cutting tool performance.
Reportedly, the surface roughness obtained after machining
has an impact on the mechanical properties of the material
such as fatigue strength, abrasion resistance, and friction co-
efficient. Moreover, it is important to detect the thrust force
occurred in drilling process, since it affects other outputs such
as power consumption and energy costs [4]. There are param-
eters such as cutting speed, feed rate, cooling method, work-
piece material and cutting tool, etc., that affect cutting force,
torque, and surface roughness [5]. Researchers often work the
effect of cutting parameters on hole-drilling operations [3,
5–8]. However, studies on drill geometry are limited, because
more time, cost, and machinery-equipment and engineering
research are required. Moreover, since many parameters such
as tip angle, edge angle, edge length, cutting length and
diameter, helix angle, flute form, and workpiece material in
the drill design influence the drill-ability of the material and
therefore the cutting tool performance, the process becomes
quite complicated [9]. Even the smallest change in these
parameters significantly impacts the chip removal process
[10]. The drill flute form is an important element of the drill
body. Its shape and position impact the drilling performance
of the cutting tool, and they are very closely related to the
design of the grinding wheel shape for the flute form genera-
tion [11].
Some of the studies carried out on drill geometry in the
literature are summarized here. For example, Paul et al. [12]
researched the optimization of helical drill bit geometries to
reduce thrust force and drilling torque. Audy [13] conducted a
computer-assisted systematic study describing mathematical-
ly the relationship between drill and geometric features by
evaluating the cutting force and power in drilling. In another
study of Audy [14], a computer-assisted systematic study was
conducted in which the cutting forces (thrust force and torque)
were evaluated for the relationship between drill bit geometry
and estimated performance measurements in the drilling of
workpiece material with helical drills. Wang and Zhang [15]
worked the modification of the drill bit design for drilling
high-strength steels. Abele and Fujara [16] presented a new
method using the processing power for helical drill design and
optimization. They calculated numerical simulation models of
structural stiffness and power, torque and thrust force, cooling
fluid flow resistance, and chip evacuation ability. Satoshi [17]
used a number of drills with different core thicknesses, end
angles, mouth cavity angles, helix angles, and armor widths in
a study that systematically examined the effects of end geom-
etry on the cutting performance of flat-mouth helical drills.
Armerago and Cheng [18] examined theoretically the force
and moment acting on conventional and modified drills.
Accordingly, they found that the forces decreased by 40–
42% and the moment decreased by 15% in the modified drills.
Fuji et al. [19] studied the drill bit geometry in two planes, so
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
that the drill bit angle was observed in more detail. Ren and Ni
[11] performed a theoretical work to determine the effect of
the cutting edge angles. It has been determined that the hole
defects were affected by cutting angles less than 5%. Jung
et al. [20] made the drilling operation, and in their studies,
they examined the effects of different drill geometries as well
as helical drills; also, the critical thrust force on the delamina-
tion set was estimated and compared with the helical drill.
Vijayaraghavan [21] has done a study to create automatic
3D drill models depending on geometry as well as machining
parameters. In the study, the development of an automatic drill
with the tools in the SolidWorks software is evaluated. Meral
et al. [22] investigated the performance of the drill geometries
in terms of hole quality and determined the optimum param-
eters by using Taguchi method.
In addition to the studies in the literature, this study aimed
the design and fabrication of the unique drill flute form and drill
geometry. This flute form and geometry were subjected to real
environment performance tests. In the experiments, the carbide
drills with two mouths, helical, 10 mm diameter, and four dif-
ferent geometries were used. Two of four different geometries
are commercially used carbide drills, while the other two are the
developed drills. In experiments, the cutting tools were chosen
as internal cooling channels to ensure the optimum cutting con-
ditions. Taguchi’s L16 orthogonal array was employed for the
experimental design. In the experiments, the AISI 4140 was
used as workpiece material. A total of 100 holes are drilled
for each drill to observe the wear and/or material adhesion.
The results were interpreted by measuring the surface rough-
ness (on hole both from entry and exit point), thrust force, and
drilling torque. In addition, the optimization was carried out to
obtain the most suitable drill geometry and cutting parameters.
The optimization was performed in two phases. Firstly, the
mono-objective optimization was carried using Taguchi’s S/N
analysis in which each performance output was optimized sep-
arately. Secondly, the multi-objective optimization was utilized
with Taguchi-based gray relational analysis to simultaneously
minimize the responses (i.e., Raentry, Raexit, Fz, and MB) in dril-
ling of AISI 4140 steel.
2 Design and fabrication of drills
2.1 Design
In this study, four different drill geometries are discussed. As
seen in Fig. 1, two of them, geometry 1 and geometry 2, were
previously designed and currently have widespread use in dril-
ling operations, while the other two geometries, i.e., geometry 3
and geometry 4, are original drill geometries developed and fab-
ricated from the scope of this research. The features of geometry
3 and geometry 4 can be given in Fig. 2. The variation in the
angles of the geometries is due to the differences in the design of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 1 Drill geometries a geometry 1 b geometry 2
the flute side surfaces and the shapes of the cutting edge contours
which form the drill flute form. In drilling processes, if chip is not
quickly released from the workpiece, this may cause high friction
and high heat build-up, resulting in an increase in radial forces
and surface roughness. Even if these insufficiencies are not elim-
inated, the drill can break.
By taking these criteria into account, the first designed drill
geometry is geometry 3. The flute and grinding form of ge-
ometry 3 is seen in Fig. 3. The most distinctive difference
which separates geometry 3 from the others geometries is that
the second tooth is offset by 7° from the center axis. Indeed,
such cutting tools are also referred as staggered tools. The
objective here is to absorb the vibrations. Though it is desired
to overcome the adversities created by vibrations, the
regulations performed on geometry 3 did not give the expect-
ed results. As a result of this situation, it is thought that the
flute form is narrower than the other geometries. Therefore,
the narrow flute form has made the chip evacuation more
difficult and adversely affected the surface quality by causing
an increase in forces. A new geometry design (geometry 4)
has been made by taking into consideration these adversities
which were detected during the performance tests of geometry
3. The flute and grinding form of geometry 4 can be seen in
Fig. 4. When the geometrical features and flute forms of the
two original drills are compared, geometry 4 seems to be
parabolic in the “S” form. Furthermore, it is seen that the flute
form of geometry 4 is wider than geometry 3. This design was
discovered by J.W. Haggerty in 1958 [23]. This design offers
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 2 Developed drill geometries. a Geometry 3. b Geometry 4

Fig. 3 Flute and grinding form of

geometry 3
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 4 Flute and grinding form of

geometry 4

less axial force and better centering ability than drills with a
narrow flute volume. While geometry 3 has a single cutter
mouth free, it made as two steps in geometry 4 to minimize
the friction. The free angle varies according to the drill diam-
eter, cutter length, flute type, and workpiece material.
Generally in applications, large angle for hard materials and
low angle for soft materials are preferable. Following penetra-
tion of the cutting tip into the material, chip formation begins
and shapes to form the direction. Core-thinning helps to re-
duce thrust force and improve the cutting conditions. That is
why, the drill core thickness has been reduced (thinned), and
the angle between the flute side surface and the cutting edge,
which is defined as the cutting angle, has been increased from
40° to 43° to allow the chip to form earlier and leave it from
the flute. This facilitates the chip removal and reduces the
axial loads. This thinning of the core should be based on the
drill feature. If the core thickness is too thin, the drill cannot
maintain its rigidity against the force formed during drilling.
The helix angle in a drill is between 16° and 35° according to
the drill diameter and workpiece material [24]. It was reported
in the literature [25] that an increase in the helix angle reduces
the thrust force and drilling torque. Moreover, it has been
stated that the helical drill geometry has a higher resistance
to load and impact than a non-helical drill. However, it should
be noted that an excessive increase in the helical angle causes
the deterioration of the axial rigidity. Therefore, in this study,
the helix angle is taken as 30° for all geometries. Another
feature to pay attention is to minimize the forces is the radial
mouth. The radial mouth, formed by the joining of the cutting
edges on the core, is a line shaped part. It is shaped depending
on the flute form and contributed to chip removal process.
One of the factors affecting the performance of the cutting tool
is the coating material and method. In this study, TiAlN coat-
ing was applied on the developed drills. The hardness of
TiAlN films is about 2100–2300 HV. Along with many pos-
itive contributions to cutting process, the main reason for their
use in drilling applications is the increase in oxidation resis-
tance due to the addition of Al.
2.2 Fabrication
The design and fabrication models of geometries were obtain-
ed with the Numroto software used for the CAD/CAM activ-
ities of the rotating tools existing in the Karcan Cutting Tool
Company (see Fig. 5). Cemented carbide rods containing 10%
Co with CTS20D quality supplied from Ceratizit company
were used to fabricate the designed original drills. The carbide
rods were cut to the desired dimensions. Eccentricity checks
of the cut bars were performed on the Mitutoyo round-tester.
The carbide rods are grinded using the Rollomatic NP5 cylin-
drical grinding machine to obtain the high surface quality and
dimensional accuracy. Before metal cutting operations, the
final checks of workpieces were made on Walter Helicheck,
Mitutoyo Surface Test SJ-400, and Mitutoyo round-test ma-
chines. After the control stage of workpiece material, the ma-
chining operations of tool were carried out on special CNC
grinding machines. Control of the helical drills, completed in
the fabrication of geometric form, was done with Zoller
Genius Smart measuring machine. In the last stage of helical
drill fabrication, a TiAlN coating process with a micro hard-
ness of 3300 HV, a dry friction coefficient of 0.25, a hot
hardness of 900 °C, and a high oxidation resistance was
Fig. 5 CAD/CAM image of 5-axis grinding
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 1 Chemical composition of AISI 4140 material Table 3 Design of experiment of Taguchi L16 orthogonal array

Element C Mn Si Cr S P Mo Fe Test no. Set Geometry Feed rate Cutting speed

(A) (mm/rev) (B) (m/min) (C)
Weight % 0.41 0.83 0.21 0.9 0.027 0.027 0.18 Balance
1 A1B1C1 Geometry 1 0.15 90
2 A1B2C2 Geometry 1 0.20 100
applied. As a result, the fabrication of the prototype products 3 A1B3C3 Geometry 1 0.25 110
was successfully completed. 4 A1B4C4 Geometry 1 0.30 120
5 A2B1C2 Geometry 2 0.15 100
6 A2B2C1 Geometry 2 0.20 90
7 A2B3C4 Geometry 2 0.25 120
3 Experimental setup 8 A2B4C3 Geometry 2 0.30 110
9 A3B1C3 Geometry 3 0.15 110
In this study, AISI 4140 steel was used as workpiece material 10 A3B2C4 Geometry 3 0.20 120
in drilling operations. The chemical composition of this ma- 11 A3B3C1 Geometry 3 0.25 90
terial is given in Table 1. As the drill diameter was chosen as 12 A3B4C2 Geometry 3 0.30 100
10 mm, the thickness of the workpiece material was taken to 13 A4B1C4 Geometry 4 0.15 120
be 30 mm so that it was suitable for the 3xD ≤ L formula. In 14 A4B2C3 Geometry 4 0.20 110
the experiments, two geometries, widely used and commer- 15 A4B3C2 Geometry 4 0.25 100
cially available, were used and the other two geometries were 16 A4B4C1 Geometry 4 0.30 90
uniquely designed and fabricated. These geometries have two-
edged, helical, solid carbide drills with 10-mm diameter. The
cutting tools were selected as the internal cooling channels to a personal computer. Schematic representation of the thrust
apply the cooling process; because it is known that cutting force and torque measurement is given in Fig. 6.
fluids increase machining efficiency [26–30]. Johnford
VMC-550 CNC milling machine was used in the drilling ex-
periments. Machining parameters and their level can be seen 4 Result and discussion
in Table 2. Through Minitab’s package program, Taguchi’s
L16 experimental design for four variables and four levels 4.1 Thrust force (Fz) and drilling torque (Mb)
was employed as shown in Table 3. A total of 1600 hole-
drilling operations were made on AISI 4140 steel material Experimental results are listed in Table 4. The change in the
by drilling 100 holes with each drill to see the long-term per- mean deviation from the 1st hole to the 100th hole according
formance of tool. In order to determine the surface roughness to the cutting parameters for thrust force is shown in the 3D
of the drilled holes, Mahr Perthometer M1 type surface rough- graphs given in Fig. 7. When the graphics were evaluated for
ness measuring device was used. The surface roughness of the the four different geometries, the highest thrust force was ob-
11 holes was measured from holes 1, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, tained at the highest feed rate. Increasing the force was expect-
70, 80, 90, and 100 in a repeat of 100 holes drilled for each test ed, especially due to the increased chip cross-section with
condition. In this way, it is aimed to observe the state of these increasing of feed rate [31]. As the cutting speed was in-
holes in the same cutting tool used for 100 repetitions. The creased, there was a certain increase in forces and a partial
roughness values at both the hole entry point and the hole exit tendency to decrease afterwards. This decreasing trend can
point were determined. In order to measure thrust force and be attributed to the ease of plastic deformation in the material
torque, a Kistler piezoelectric dynamometer, model 9257B, due to the increase in heat on the machined workpiece [32].
was used. The signals received from the dynamometer were One of the most important parameters determining the mag-
delivered to a Kistler 5070-A type amplifier and then saved on nitude of the thrust force during drilling is feed rate. Therefore,

Table 2 Control factor and levels

Factors Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Geometry – Geometry 1 Geometry 2 Geometry 3 Geometry 4

Cutting speed m/min 90 100 110 120
Feed rate mm/rev 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 6 Schematic representation

of the experimental setup

it is expected to increase the thrust force with the increasing of
feed rate. Similar studies in the literature have also shown that
an increase in feed rate increases the cutting forces [33, 34]. It
is possible to say that the feed rate on the change of cutting
forces is more effective than the cutting speed. When the
graphics are examined, it can be seen that the cutting edge,
the tip, and flute forms of the drills are effective on the thrust
force. Geometry 3, the original geometry, was redesigned due
to the inability to remove chip and chip evacuation, and it was
observed that new design geometry 4 was the drill form in
which the best results were obtained. When the thrust force
was assessed, it was seen that geometry 4 had an improvement
of about 26%.
The cause of this improvement is the fact that the ability of
chip removal and chip evacuation due to the tip and flute form
is better. Geometry 4 has a unique flute form, and the cutting
edge is more parabolic and wider than the others. The two-step
clearance angle on the drill minimizes the friction while the
thinned core thickness facilitates the penetration process.
Along with the increase in the amount of feed, in spite of the
increase in the material removal rate per unit time, more ef-
fective drilling was achieved, resulting in a reduction in the
forces acting on the cutting edge. Figure 8 shows the change in
drilling torque depending on the tool geometry, cutting speed,
and feed rate. The similar trend observed with thrust force is
also valid for drilling torque (except geometry 2), which

Table 4 Experimental results

SL. no. Control factors Responses

Tool type Feed rate, Cutting speed Thrust force Torque Raentry side Raexit side
(mm/rev) (m/min) (N) (N·cm) (μm) (μm)

1 Geometry 1 0.15 90 1341.96 585.27 1.08 1.03

2 Geometry 1 0.20 100 1718.42 637.46 1.08 1.13
3 Geometry 1 0.25 110 1812.01 692.67 1.67 2.10
4 Geometry 1 0.30 120 2405.15 933.87 1.91 2.21
5 Geometry 2 0.15 100 1260.22 440.52 0.65 0.70
6 Geometry 2 0.20 90 1392.23 428.58 0.67 0.83
7 Geometry 2 0.25 120 1524.16 499.17 0.89 1.07
8 Geometry 2 0.30 110 1463.51 471.64 0.70 0.85
9 Geometry 3 0.15 110 2106.22 650.28 0.54 0.69
10 Geometry 3 0.20 120 2572.01 811.41 1.37 1.47
11 Geometry 3 0.25 90 2626.28 1310.91 1.66 1.72
12 Geometry 3 0.30 100 2725.01 1518.31 1.80 1.90
13 Geometry 4 0.15 120 1292.00 514.02 0.55 0.66
14 Geometry 4 0.20 110 1466.06 596.56 0.69 0.70
15 Geometry 4 0.25 100 1681.07 721.45 0.66 0.78
16 Geometry 4 0.30 90 924.80 1237.60 0.90 1.02

Fig. 7 3D plot for thrust force. a Geometry-feed rate. b Geometry-cutting speed
appears to increase torque parallel to the increase in feed rate.
Within each of the four geometries, it is seen that there is a
decrease in the torque values with an increase in cutting speed,
and a significant increase in torque with increasing feed rate.
Like thrust force, there is a decrease in torque values due to an
increase in cutting speed, which can be attributed to the fact
that the high temperatures occurring in the cutting zone reduce
the yield strength of workpiece material [35, 36].
4.2 Surface roughness
Figures 9 and 10 indicate the change in surface roughness at
the entry side and exit side of the drilled hole depending on the
geometry, feed rate, and cutting speed. When the graphs of the
surface roughness of the entry and exit sides are examined, it
can be seen that for all geometries, obtained surface roughness
values are lower than the surface roughness values expected
from a drilling operation and therefore surface qualities (be-
tween 1.2 and 2.4 μm) were satisfactory. An ideal drill geom-
etry for surface quality of the drilling should prevent the chip
Fig. 8 3D plot for torque. a Geometry-feed rate. b Geometry-cutting speed
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
from being trapped in the hole and facilitate the chip removal
by means of the flute form. In this way, damages that may be
formed on the hole surface by chips would be eliminated.
From the obtained results, it can be said that the two most
effective parameters on the surface roughness are the drill
geometry and the feed rate. When the general average of the
surface roughness was taken, the best surface roughness
values were measured at geometry 4. It can be attributed that
the original flute form of geometry 4 facilitates the chip flow
during drilling and increases the hole quality by preventing the
chip jamming in the hole. Average surface roughness value
decreases with increasing cutting speed, and while an increase
with increasing feed rate value. This situation is parallel to the
literature. It is known that the increase in cutting speed up to a
certain point affects the surface quality positively [37].
4.3 Mono-optimization with Taguchi’s S/N analysis
In this section, Taguchi’s S/N ratio is used to optimize the
quality outputs separately. The S/N ratio compares the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 9 3D plot for surface roughness at the entry side. a Geometry-feed rate. b Geometry-cutting speed

expected signal values with the unexpected noise values. Here, x indicates the measured values (i.e., Raentr, Raexit, Fz,
Therefore, it is desirable that the S/N ratio is maximum for and Mb); x reveals the mean of x; S 2x is the variation of x; and n
each response [38, 39]. Depending on the desired characteris- is the number of tests. The goal in present work is to minimize
tic of the response, one of the following equations can be used the surface roughness, thrust force, and drilling torque.
in calculating the S/N ratio [40–42]. Therefore, for all the outputs, Eq. 2 was employed to calculate
Nominal is the better quality target (Eq. 1): the S/N ratios and then presented in Table 5.
The calculated S/N ratios are shown graphically in Figs. 11,
12, 13, and 14, respectively, for the thrust force, the drilling
S x torque, and the surface roughness at both entry side and exit
¼ 10log 2 ð1Þ
N Sx side wherein the y-axis shows the average of S/N ratio and x-
axis indicates the control factors and their levels. As it can be
Smaller is the better quality target (Eq. 2): seen in the graphs, the points at which the S/N ratio is highest
for each factor are optimal levels for the output parameter.
S 1
Accordingly, Fig. 11 demonstrates geometry 4, 0.15 mm/rev
¼ −10log ∑x2 ð2Þ of feed rate (lowest level), and 90 m/min of cutting speed
N n
(lowest level) for the optimum combination of control factors
Larger is the better quality target (Eq. 3): to obtain minimum the thrust force. From Fig. 12, geometry 2,
  0.15 mm/rev of feed rate (lowest level), and 110 m/min of
S 1 1 cutting speed give the optimum combination of the control
¼ −log ∑ 2 ð3Þ
N n x factors for the minimum drilling torque. Moreover, as seen

Fig. 10 3D plot for surface roughness at the exit side. a Geometry-feed rate. b Geometry-cutting speed
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 5 Signal-to-noise ratios of

the output characteristics Exp. Input parameters Signal-to-noise ratio (dB)
no.
G f (mm/ V Thrust Drilling Surface roughness Surface roughness
rev) (m/min) force (Fz) torque (Mb) (Raentry side) (Raexit side)

1 1 0.15 90 − 62.554 − 5.347 − 0.663 − 0.240

2 1 0.20 100 − 64.702 − 56.089 − 0.699 − 1.081
3 1 0.25 110 − 65.163 − 56.810 − 4.464 − 6.431
4 1 0.30 120 − 67.622 − 59.405 − 5.629 − 6.887
5 2 0.15 100 − 62.008 − 52.879 3.681 3.142
6 2 0.20 90 − 62.874 − 52.640 3.453 1.623
7 2 0.25 120 − 63.660 − 53.965 0.972 − 0.593
8 2 0.30 110 − 63.307 − 53.472 3.108 1.461
9 3 0.15 110 − 66.470 − 56.262 5.393 3.204
10 3 0.20 120 − 68.205 − 58.184 − 2.749 − 3.338
11 3 0.25 90 − 68.386 − 62.351 − 4.375 − 4.715
12 3 0.30 100 − 68.707 − 63.627 − 5.119 − 5.593
13 4 0.15 120 − 62.225 − 54.219 5.199 3.575
14 4 0.20 110 − 63.323 − 55.513 3.184 3.049
15 4 0.25 100 − 64.511 − 57.164 3.670 2.111
16 4 0.30 90 − 59.32 − 61.851 0.945 −0.176

in Figs. 13 and 14, geometry 4, 0.15 mm/rev of feed rate
(lowest level), and 110 m/min of cutting speed ensure the
optimum combination of the control factors for both surface
roughness at entry side and exit side.
Optimum factor levels and the corresponding experimental
and predicted results are listed in Table 6. Furthermore, the
percentage errors were calculated to analyze the levels of com-
promise. In order to compute the predictive results, Eq. 4 was
used [43]:



example, while for thrust force the optimum design is geom-
Y pre ¼ Aopt −T þ Bopt −T þ C opt −T þ T
where YPre is the predicted value (i.e., Raentry, Raexit, Fz and
MB); Aopt, Bopt, and Copt show the S/N ratio for geometry, feed
rate, and cutting speed at optimal level; T corresponds to
average value of each response. It can be seen from Table 6
that percent errors of outputs are low, which clearly show a
good match between the predicted and experimental values of
the outputs corresponding to the optimum parameter design.
In spite of achieving a successful prediction by mono-
objective optimization with Taguchi’s S/N analysis, the opti-
mum parameter design may be different for each response. For
ð4Þ etry 4, 0.15 mm/rev of feed rate, and 90 m/min of cutting

Fig. 11 Mono-optimization
graph for thrust force
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 12 Mono-optimization
graph for torque
speed, for surface roughness, the desired design is geometry 4,
0.15 mm/rev of feed rate, and 110 m/min of cutting speed. For
this reason, a common combination is needed for all answers.
Therefore, it requires to be established for multiple response
optimization as shown in Sect. 4.4.
4.4 Multi-objective optimization with Taguchi-based
GRA
Mono-objective optimization approach made by Taguchi’s
S/N analysis is a popular method to overcome the problem
for optimization approaches discussed in Sect. 4.3. However,
this approach is inadequate for systems providing multiple
outputs [44, 45]. Therefore, this study established Taguchi-
based gray relational analysis (GRA) to simultaneously
Fig. 13 Mono-optimization
graph for surface roughness at
entry side
minimize responses (i.e., Raentry, Raexit, Fz and MB) in drilling
of AISI 4140 steel. Taguchi-based GRA overcomes the multi-
objectives problem with three categories: (i) maximization,
(ii) minimization, and (iii) combination of responses. Present
work aimed the minimization of all responses. For this reason,
gray relation grade that turns these goals into a single goal was
employed [46]. Multi-response optimization with GRA pro-
cess was carried out in four stages.
Stage 1: Data preprocessing
In the first stage, data preprocessing is required, because
the range and unit of the parameters in one data sequence may
differ from others. Therefore, scale of multiple response out-
puts was combined. There are three options for normalizing
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 14 Mono-optimization
graph for surface roughness at
exit side

the data in the direction of the goals: “the-larger-the-better,” In Eq. 6, ζ is the distinguishing or identification coefficient,
“the-smaller-the-better,” and “the-nominal-the-better.” In the and its value ranges from 0 to 1. In this study, the
present work, the-smaller-the-better normalization approach distinguishing coefficient is taken as 0.5 to fit the practical
was used as it is aimed to achieve minimum responses. requirements. Δ0i(p) describes a deviation from the target val-
Equation 5 used for this approach is expressed below: ue, which can be calculated according to Eq. 7:


max x0i ðpÞ −x0i ðpÞ Δ0i ðpÞ ¼ x*0 ðpÞ−x*i ðpÞ ð7Þ
xi ðpÞ ¼ ð5Þ
maxðx0i ðpÞÞ−minðx0i ðpÞÞ

In Eq. 5, x0i ðpÞ is the actual value, xi(p) is the normalized where x*0 ðpÞ is the reference is sequence and x*i ðpÞ is the


comparability sequence. The obtained values from these com-
value, and max x0i ðpÞ and min x0i ðpÞ are the maximum
putes are present in Tables 7 and 8 for the deviation sequence
value and minimum value of the actual data. The normalized
and the gray relational coefficient, respectively.
values calculated according to Eq. 5 are listed in Table 7.
Stage 3: Gray relational grade
Stage 2: Gray relational coefficient

The gray relational grade was obtained with multiply-

Gray relational coefficient (GRC) is employed to determine
ing each gray relational coefficient and its specific co-
the relationship between the ideal and the normalized experi-
efficient. In this study, each result was not equally
mental results and is computed using Eq. 6.
weighted. For example, the weight of surface roughness
ωRa is taken as 0.3 for both surface roughness at entry
Δmin þ ζΔmax
ξ i ð pÞ ¼ ð6Þ side and exit side because surface roughness has an
Δ0i ðpÞ þ ζΔmax important place as a quality indicator of manufactured

Table 6 Optimum factors

obtained by mono-objective Responses Optimum factors G, f, Vc Comparison of the results
optimization
Exp. Predicted Error (%)

Thrust force Geo.− 4, 0.15, 90 900.17 873.51 2.96

Drilling torque Geo.− 2, 0.15, 110 128,95 104.08 19.2
Ra at entry side Geo.− 4, 0.15, 110 0.22 0.2 9.09
Ra at exit side Geo.− 4, 0.15, 110 0.31 0.29 6.25
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 7 Preprocessing and deviation sequence

Experiment Preprocessing sequence Deviation sequence

number
Thrust Drilling Surface Surface Thrust Drilling Surface roughness Surface
force (Fz) torque (Mb) roughness, roughness, force (Fz) torque (Mb) (Raentry) roughness
(Raentry) (Raentry) (Raexit)

1 0.7683 0.8562 0.6058 0.7613 0.2317 0.1438 0.3942 0.2387

2 0.5592 0.8083 0.6058 0.6968 0.4408 0.1917 0.3942 0.3032
3 0.5072 0.7577 0.1752 0.0710 0.4928 0.2423 0.8248 0.9290
4 0.1777 0.5363 0.0000 0.0000 0.8223 0.4637 1.0000 1.0000
5 0.8137 0.9890 0.9197 0.9742 0.1863 0.0110 0.0803 0.0258
6 0.7403 1.0000 0.9051 0.8903 0.2597 0.0000 0.0949 0.1097
7 0.6671 0.9352 0.7445 0.7355 0.3329 0.0648 0.2555 0.2645
8 0.7008 0.9605 0.8832 0.8774 0.2992 0.0395 0.1168 0.1226
9 0.3437 0.7966 1.0000 0.9806 0.6563 0.2034 0.0000 0.0194
10 0.0850 0.6487 0.3942 0.4774 0.9150 0.3513 0.6058 0.5226
11 0.0548 0.1903 0.1825 0.3161 0.9452 0.8097 0.8175 0.6839
12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0803 0.2000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9197 0.8000
13 0.7960 0.9216 0.9927 1.0000 0.2040 0.0784 0.0073 0.0000
14 0.6993 0.8459 0.8905 0.9742 0.3007 0.1541 0.1095 0.0258
15 0.5799 0.7312 0.9124 0.9226 0.4201 0.2688 0.0876 0.0774
16 1.0000 0.2576 0.7372 0.7677 0.0000 0.7424 0.2628 0.2323

workpieces. Thrust force ωFz and drilling torque ωMb the drill due to the excessive increase in force and
were determined to be 0.2. These results also have a torque. GRG is calculated using Eq. (8) and listed in
certain importance since they often lead to breakage of Table 8.

Table 8 Gray relational coefficient and gray relational grade

Experiment Gray relational coefficient Gray relational grade

number
Thrust force (Fz) Drilling torque (Mb) Surface roughness (Raentry) Surface roughness (Raentry) Size Ranking

1 0.6833 0.776653 0.559184 0.676856 0.662805 10

2 0.5314 0.722877 0.559184 0.62249 0.605365 11
3 0.5036 0.673542 0.37741 0.349887 0.453619 13
4 0.3781 0.518842 0.333333 0.333333 0.379393 15
5 0.7285 0.978556 0.861635 0.95092 0.885182 2
6 0.6582 1 0.840491 0.820106 0.829818 3
7 0.6003 0.885304 0.661836 0.654008 0.691871 8
8 0.6256 0.926759 0.810651 0.803109 0.794597 6
9 0.4324 0.710788 1 0.962733 0.817463 4
10 0.3534 0.587332 0.452145 0.488959 0.470469 12
11 0.3460 0.381773 0.379501 0.422343 0.386105 14
12 0.3333 0.333333 0.352185 0.384615 0.354373 16
13 0.7103 0.864447 0.985612 1 0.910623 1
14 0.6245 0.764353 0.820359 0.95092 0.809151 5
15 0.5434 0.650403 0.850932 0.865922 0.75382 7
16 1.0000 0.402446 0.655502 0.682819 0.681986 9

Italicized values represent the best combination

 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 9 Response table of the average GRG 32.92%, and 4.44%, respectively. Therefore, tool geometry
Input parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Delta Rank (factor A) was the most important parameter affecting the
average GRG values. Another finding is that tool geometry
Geometry 0.5253 0.8004 0.5071 0.7889 0.2933 1 and feed rate have a statistical importance on average GRG
Feed rate 0.8190 0.6787 0.5714 0.5526 0.2664 2 results at the reliability level of 95% because the P value
Cutting speed 0.6402 0.6497 0.7187 0.6131 0.1056 3 results are lower than 0.05. On the other hand, cutting speed
had no statistically significant effect.
Italicized values represent the optimum level of the control factors

n
γ i ¼ ∑ ωp ξ ð pÞ ð8Þ 5 Conclusion
p¼1

In this study, two different drill geometries were designed and

Stage 4: Gray relational ranking
The last column of Table 8 indicated the magnitude of the
GRG and the order in which it was ranked from high value to
small value. Here, a higher value of the GRG exhibits the
better performance of outputs for all results simultaneously.
As shown in Table 8, test number 13 is marked as 1, namely
the best combination of parameters. According to this deter-
mination, designed, and fabricated drill, geometry 4, 120 m/
min of cutting speed, and 0.15 mm/rev of feed rate are opti-
mum parameters for multi-response optimization in experi-
mental design. In order to determine the effect of each level,
the average level of gray relational grades is employed using
Taguchi’s response table as seen in Table 9. The highest level
of each factor gives the optimum level for that factor. In addi-
tion, the parameter with the highest difference between the
maximum value and minimum value is the most contributing
factor on gray relation grade. Therefore, tool geometry has
been found as the most dominant factor followed by feed rate
and cutting speed. In the present paper, the drilling parameters
at level 4 (geometry 4), feed rate at level 1 (0.15 mm/rev), and
cutting speed at level 3 (110 m/min) represent the optimum
levels as seen in Table 9.
Analysis of variance was also performed to see the percent-
age effects of drilling parameters on average the GRG. The
analysis was employed at 95% confidence level and listed in
Table 10. The percentage contribution of each parameter on
average GRG is calculated and presented in the last column of
Table 10. As seen in Table 10, tool geometry, feed rate, and
cutting speed influenced the average GRG values by 56.95%,
Table 10 Analysis of variance for average GRG values
Factors Degree of Sum of Mean of F P
freedom squares squares
Tool geometry 3 0.31102 0.103674 20.01 0.002
Feed rate 3 0.17979 0.059931 11.57 0.007
Cutting speed 3 0.02425 0.008083 1.56 0.294
Error 6 0.03109 0.005181
Total 15 0.54615
fabricated successfully. After some problems were found with
first drill production in the preliminary experiments, a second
new drill geometry was designed and fabricated taking into
account the experiences there. The performances of the drills
were investigated by drilling holes in the AISI 4140 stainless
steel material and the thrust force, the drilling torque, and the
surface roughness at both entry side and exit side of the drilled
hole were selected as the performance criterions. According to
performance experiments, the designed geometry 4 is superior
to other geometries (geometry 1, geometry 2, and geometry 3)
in terms of thrust force and surface roughness. However, in
terms of drilling torque, geometry 2 gives better results than
other drill geometries. It was found that for all geometries,
obtained surface roughness values are lower than the surface
roughness values expected from a drilling operation and there-
fore surface qualities (between 1.2 and 2.4 μm) were satisfac-
tory. In addition, the optimization was performed in two
phases. Firstly, the mono-objective optimization was carried
using Taguchi’s S/N analysis in which each performance out-
put was optimized separately. Secondly, the multi-response
optimization employed using Taguchi-based gray relational
analysis. According to mono-objective optimization, geome-
try 4, 0.15 mm/rev of feed rate, and 90 m/min of cutting speed
were optimum combination of the control factors for mini-
mum thrust force. For minimum drilling torque, geometry 2,
0.15 mm/rev of feed rate, and 110 m/min of cutting speed
were determined. Moreover, geometry 4, 0.15 mm/rev of feed
rate, and 110 m/min of cutting speed ensured the optimum
combination of the control factors for both surface roughness
at entry side and exit side. According to multi-response opti-
mization with GRA, the designed and fabricated drill, geom-
etry 4, 120 m/min of cutting speed, and 0.15 mm/rev of feed
rate are the best combination for all the responses in experi-
% mental design. From ANOVA results, it was found that tool
geometry, feed rate, and cutting speed influenced the average
56.95 GRG values by 56.95%, 32.92%, and 4.44%, respectively.
32.92 Therefore, drill geometry was the most significant factor af-
4.44 fecting the average GRG values. Another finding is that tool
5.69 geometry and feed rate have a statistical importance on aver-
100 age GRG results, while cutting speed had no statistically sig-
nificant effect.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Karcan Cutting
Tool Company due to their contribution during development and produc-
tion of cutting tools.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Kuzu AT, Berenji KR, Ekim BC, Bakkal M (2017) The thermal
modeling of deep-hole drilling process under MQL condition. J
Manuf Process 29:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.
2017.07.020
2. Gökçe H, Yavuz M, Şeker U (2017) Parametric modeling approach
in the creation of drill geometry. 8th International Symposium on
Machining, 2–4 November, Turkey
3. Meral G, Sarıkaya M, Dilipak H, Şeker U (2015) Multi-response
optimization of cutting parameters for hole quality in drilling of
AISI 1050 steel. Arab J Sci Eng 40(12):3709–3722. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13369-015-1854-z
4. Kıvak T (2014) Optimization of surface roughness and flank wear
using the Taguchi method in milling of Hadfield steel with PVD
and CVD coated inserts. Measurement 50:19–28. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2013.12.017
5. Kıvak T, Samtaş G, Cicek A (2012) Taguchi method based optimi-
sation of drilling parameters in drilling of AISI 316 steel with PVD
monolayer and multilayer coated HSS drills. Measurement 45(6):
1547–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.022
6. Kurt M, Bagci E, Kaynak Y (2009) Application of Taguchi
methods in the optimization of cutting parameters for surface finish
and hole diameter accuracy in dry drilling processes. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 40(5–6):458–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
007-1368-2
7. Haq AN, Marimuthu P, Jeyapaul R (2008) Multi response optimi-
zation of machining parameters of drilling Al/SiC metal matrix
composite using grey relational analysis in the Taguchi method.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 37(3–4):250–255. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00170-007-0981-4
8. Rivero A, Aramendi G, Herranz S, Lacalle LL (2006) An experi-
mental investigation of the effect of coatings and cutting parameters
on the dry drilling performance of aluminium alloys. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 28(1–2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
004-2349-3
9. Pirtini M, Lazoglu I (2005) Forces and hole quality in drilling. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 45(11):1271–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2005.01.004
10. Jiang ZHU (2011) Machining Feature based geometric modeling of
twist drills. PhD thesis. Concordia University
11. Ren K, Ni J (1999) Analyses of drill flute and cutting angles. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 15(8):546–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s001700050100
12. Paul A, Kapoor SG, DeVor RE (2005) Chisel edge and cutting lip
shape optimization for improved twist drill point design. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 45(4–5):421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2004.09.010
13. Audy J (2008) A study of computer-assisted analysis of effects of
drill geometry and surface coating on forces and power in drilling. J
Mater Process Technol 204(1–3):130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jmatprotec.2007.10.079
14. Audy J (2008) A study of computer assisted analysis of effects of
drill point Geomerical features on forces and power in drilling with
general purpose twist drills. MM (Modern Machinery) Science
Journal 4–5
15. Wang J, Zhang Q (2008) A study of high-performance plane rake
faced twist drills.: part I: geometrical analysis and experimental
investigation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(11):1276–1285. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2008.03.005
16. Abele E, Fujara M (2010) Simulation-based twist drill design and
geometry optimization. CIRP Ann 59(1):145–150. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.063
17. Satoshi EMA (2012) Effects of twist drill point geometry on torque
and thrust. Sci Rep Fac Educ Gifu Unive (Nat Sci) 36:165–174
18. Armerago EJA, Cheng OY (1972) Drilling with flat face and con-
ventional twist drill experimental investigation. Int J Mach Tool
Des Res 12:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7357(72)90010-8
19. Fuji S, DeVries MF, Wu SM (1970) An analysis of drill geometry
for optimum drill design by computer. Part I—drill geometry anal-
ysis. J Eng Ind 92(3):647–656. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3427827
20. Jung J, Mayor R, Ni J (2005) Development of freeform grinding
methods for complex drill flank surfaces and cutting edge contours.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(1):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2004.06.020
21. Vijayaraghavan A (2006) Automated drill design software. Lab
Manuf Sustain 1:01–10
22. Meral G, Sarıkaya M, Mia M, Dilipak H, Şeker U (2018)
Optimization of hole quality produced by novel drill geometries
using the Taguchi S/N approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2956-z
23. Ernst H, Haggerty WA (1958) The spiral point drill—a new concept
in drill point geometry. Trans ASME 80(105971072):173–182
24. Bangalore HMT (2003) Production technology. Tata McGraw-Hill,
India
25. Galloway DF (1957) Some experiments on the influence of various
factors on drill performance. Trans ASME 79:191
26. Mia M, Gupta MK, Singh G, Królczyk G, Pimenov DY (2018) An
approach to cleaner production for machining hardened steel using
different cooling-lubrication conditions. J Clean Prod 187:1069–
1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.279
27. Singh G, Gupta MK, Mia M, Sharma VS (2018) Modeling and
optimization of tool wear in MQL-assisted milling of Inconel 718
superalloy using evolutionary techniques. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
97(1–14):481–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1911-3
28. Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V, Güllü A (2016) Analysis of cutting param-
eters and cooling/lubrication methods for sustainable machining in
turning of Haynes 25 superalloy. J Clean Prod 133:172–181. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.122
29. Yıldırım ÇV, Kıvak T, Sarıkaya M, Erzincanlı F (2017) Determination
of MQL parameters contributing to sustainable machining in the mill-
ing of nickel-base superalloy waspaloy. Arab J Sci Eng 42:4667–4681.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-017-2594-z
30. Gupta MK, Mia M, Singh G, Pimenov DY, Sarikaya M, Sharma VS
(2018) Hybrid cooling-lubrication strategies to improve surface topog-
raphy and tool wear in sustainable turning of Al 7075-T6 alloy. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2870-4
31. Taşkesen A, Kütükde K (2014) Experimental investigation and
multi-objective analysis on drilling of boron carbide reinforced
metal matrix composites using grey relational analysis.
Measurement 47:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.
2013.08.040
32. Sun S, Brandt M, Dargusch MS (2010) Thermally enhanced machin-
ing of hard-to-machine materials—a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
50(8):663–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.04.008
33. Kim D, Ramulu M (2005) Cutting and drilling characteristics of
hybrid titanium composite laminate (HTCL). In Proceedings of
Materials and Processing Technologies for Revolutionary
Applications Fall Technical Conference, U.S.A., 1–8
34. Ramulu M, Branson T, Kim D (2001) A study on the drilling of
composite and titanium stacks. Compos Struct 54(1):67–77. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00071-X

35. Trent EM (1989) Metal cutting. Butterworths Press, London, pp 1–171
36. Williams JE, Smart EF, Milner DR (1970) The metallurgy of
machining- part 2″. Metalurgia, February, 51–60
37. Boothroyd G (1981) Fundamentals of metal machining and ma-
chine tools. McGraw-Hill, New York City, pp 1–27
38. Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V (2018) Optimization and predictive model-
ing using S/N, RSM, RA and ANNs for micro-electrical discharge
drilling of AISI 304 stainless steel. Neural Comput & Applic 30(5):
1503–1517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2775-9
39. Sarıkaya M, Güllü A (2014) Taguchi design and response surface
methodology based analysis of machining parameters in CNC turn-
ing under MQL. J Clean Prod 65:604–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2013.08.040
40. Mia M (2018) Mathematical modeling and optimization of MQL
assisted end milling characteristics based on RSM and Taguchi
method. Measurement 121:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2018.02.017
41. Balki MK, Sayin C, Sarikaya M (2016) Optimization of the oper-
ating parameters based on Taguchi method in an SI engine used
pure gasoline, ethanol and methanol. Fuel 180:630–637. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.04.098
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
42. Sarıkaya M, Dilipak H, Gezgin A (2015) Optimization of the pro-
cess parameters for surface roughness and tool life in face milling
using the Taguchi analysis. Mater Tehnol 49(1):139–147
43. Sarikaya M (2015) Optimization of the surface roughness by ap-
plying the Taguchi technique for the turning of stainless steel under
cooling conditions. Mater Tehnol 49(6):941–948. https://doi.org/
10.17222/mit.2014.282
44. Sarıkaya M, Güllü A (2015) Multi-response optimization of minimum
quantity lubrication parameters using Taguchi-based grey relational
analysis in turning of difficult-to-cut alloy Haynes 25. J Clean Prod
91:347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.020
45. Sarıkaya M, Yılmaz V, Dilipak H (2016) Modeling and multi-
response optimization of milling characteristics based on Taguchi
and gray relational analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf
230(6):1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405414565136
46. Mia M, Khan MA, Rahman SS, Dhar NR (2017) Mono-objective
and multi-objective optimization of performance parameters in high
pressure coolant assisted turning of Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 90(1–4):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-
9372-z