Prediction and Optimization of Drilling Parameters in Drilling of AISI 304 and AISI 2205 Steels with PVD Monolayer and Multilayer Coated Drills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to their high ductility, high durability, and excellent corrosion resistance, stainless steels are attractive materials for a variety of applications. However, high work hardening, low thermal conductivity, and high built-up edge (BUE) formation make these materials difficult to machine. Rapid tool wear and high cutting forces are the common problems encountered while machining these materials. In the present work, the application of Taguchi optimization methodology has been used to optimize the cutting parameters of the drilling process for machining two stainless steels: austenitic AISI 304 and duplex AISI 2205 under dry conditions. The machining parameters which were chosen to be evaluated in this study are the tool material, cutting speed, and feed rate, while, the response factors to be measured are the tool life (T), cutting force (Fc), and specific cutting energy (ks). Additionally, empirical models were created for predicting the T, Fc and ks using linear regression analysis. The results of this study show that AISI 2205 stainless steel has a shorter tool life, a higher cutting force, and a higher specific cutting energy than AISI 304 stainless steel. In addition, the Taguchi method determined that A3B1C1 and A3B3C1 (A3 = TiN-coated twist drill, B1 = 13 m/min, B3 = 34 m/min, C1 = 0.12 mm/rev) are the optimized combination of levels for the best tool life and the lowest cutting force, respectively. Meanwhile, the optimized combination of levels for all three control factors from the analysis, which provides the lowest specific cutting energy, was found to be A3B1C3 (A3 = TiN-coated twist drill, B1 = 13 m/min, C3 = 0.32 mm/rev) for both stainless steels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".