Comparison of Material Removal Rate of

Aluminium Alloy AA6063 Using CVD Coated

Tungsten Carbide Inserts with PVD Coated
Cemented Carbide Inserts while CNC Turning
Santosh Kumar Patel1, Mohd Reyaz Ur Rahim2, Mohd Faizan Hasan3

1
Research Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Integral University, Affilated by UGC, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh,
India, Pincode : 226026. E-mail: santoshpatel.patel98@gmail.com
2
Project Guide, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Integral University, Affilated by UGC, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India,
Pincode : 226026.
3
Co-Guide,Department of Mechanical Engineering, Integral University, Affilated by UGC, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India,
Pincode : 226026.

Abstract - This thesis undertakes a comparative analysis
of the material removal rate (MRR) of AA6063
Aluminium Alloy, specifically when machined using
CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts and PVD
Coated Cemented Carbide inserts on a CNC lathe. The
primary objective of this study is to identify the most
effective tool coating method in terms of MRR. The
research conclusively demonstrates that the MRR
achieved with CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts
surpasses that of PVD Coated Cemented Carbide
inserts.
The experimental work involved maintaining consistent
machining parameters while systematically varying the
tool coating method. The MRR was meticulously
measured and meticulously analyzed using G*Power
software, which was instrumental in determining the
appropriate sample size. Utilizing a power level of 0.8,
an effect size of 0.8, and a significance level of 0.05, it
was established that a total sample size of 42
participants, divided equally into two groups of 21
participants each, was required. The variation in
experimental data from both tools was subsequently
analyzed using Statistical Analysis Software.
Upon conducting the statistical analysis using SPSS
Software, it was determined that the mean and
standard deviation for Group 1 were calculated as
0.04921 and 0.010245, respectively. Conversely, for
Group 2, the mean and standard deviation were found
to be 0.05877 and 0.014558, respectively. The
experimental results unequivocally demonstrate that
the samples machined with CVD Coated Tungsten
Carbide inserts exhibit a significantly higher MRR,
precisely 19.43% greater, compared to those machined
with PVD Coated Cemented Carbide inserts.
The implications of these findings are twofold, they
highlight the efficiency and effectiveness of CVD
Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts for machining
AA6063 Aluminium Alloys, and they contribute to the
ongoing development of improved tool coating methods.
By employing these advancements, machining
industries can enhance operational efficiency, reduce
costs, and ultimately improve the quality of final
products. These insights hold immense value for tool
manufacturers and machining industries seeking to
optimize their processes and make informed decisions
when selecting the most suitable tool coating method.
Furthermore, future research endeavors can explore
the wider application of these coatings to diverse
materials and investigate their impact on various
machining parameters, thereby expanding the collective
knowledge surrounding tool coating technology.
Keywords:- Aluminium Alloys AA6063, CVD Coated
Tungsten Carbide inserts, PVD Coated Cemented
Carbide inserts, G*Power software, Statistical Analysis
Software (SPSS)
I – INTRODUCTION
The machining industry is an integral part of modern
manufacturing, and it plays a vital role in the production of
a wide range of products used in our daily lives. The
selection of the right tool and tool coating is essential in
achieving the goals of the manufacturing process, including
efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and product quality. Among
the various materials used in the manufacturing process,
Aluminium Alloys are widely used due to their desirable
properties, including high strength-to-weight ratio,
corrosion resistance, and good thermal conductivity. In
order to effectively machine Aluminium Alloy, tool
coatings are used to improve tool life, increase cutting
speed, and improve the surface finish of the machined
component.
Solid tungsten carbide inserts are commonly used in the
machining of Aluminium Alloy due to their hardness,
toughness, and wear resistance. However, the effectiveness
of solid tungsten carbide inserts and Cemented Tungsten
Carbide inserts can be further improved through the
application of tool coatings. Two of the most commonly
used tool coating methods are Chemical Vapor Deposition
(CVD) and Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD). CVD
coatings are produced by chemical reactions between a gas
and the tool surface, resulting in a thin film coating with
high adhesion to the substrate. PVD coatings are formed by
the deposition of a thin film coating on the tool surface
through physical vaporization of the coating material.
In this study, we aim to compare the material removal rate
(MRR) of Aluminium Alloys AA6063 using CVD Coated
Tungsten Carbide inserts with PVD Coated Cemented
Carbide inserts while CNC turning. The objective of this
research is to determine the most effective tool coating
method in terms of MRR, surface finish, and wear
resistance. This research will contribute to the development
of new and improved tool coating methods for the
machining industry, which will help improve efficiency,
reduce costs, and enhance the quality of the final product.
A. JOB MATERIAL - Aluminium alloy 6063 is a
popular material for various industrial applications due
to its unique properties and characteristics. In this
study, we will discuss the reasons for using aluminium
alloy 6063 in research projects.
1. Aluminium Alloy 6063 has excellent corrosion
resistance properties, making it ideal for
applications in harsh environments. The alloy
contains magnesium and silicon, which are known
for their corrosion-resistant properties. When
exposed to harsh conditions such as saltwater or
acidic solutions, the alloy forms a thin protective
layer on its surface preventing further corrosion.
2. Aluminium Alloy 6063 has high strength-to-
weight ratio, which makes it a popular choice for
applications that require high strength and
stiffness, yet need to be lightweight. The alloy has
a density of only 2.7 g/cm3, which is significantly
lower than other metals such as steel and copper.
Therefore, using this alloy in research project can
help to reduce the overall weight of product,
which can be beneficial in industries such as
aerospace, automotive and construction.
3. Aluminium Alloy 6063 is easily extruded, which
makes it easy to manufacture into various shapes
and sizes. The alloy can be formed into intricate
shapes with high precision, which makes it ideal
for applications that require complex designs.
Additionally, the alloy can be easily machined,
welded and brazed, which makes it easy to
assemble into the final product.
4. Aluminium alloy 6063 has excellent thermal
conductivity, making it ideal for applications that
require efficient heat dissipation. The alloy can
conduct heat quickly and evenly, which helps to
prevent hot spots and maintain a consistent
temperature. This property makes it ideal for
applications such as heat sinks, where heat needs
to be dissipated efficiently.
5. Aluminium alloy 6063 is environmentally
friendly, which is becoming increasingly
important in today's world. The alloy is fully
recyclable, which means that it can be reused
repeatedly without losing its properties.
Additionally, the production of Aluminium alloy
6063 requires less energy compared to other
metals such as steel, which reduces the overall
carbon footprint.
6. In conclusion, Aluminium alloy 6063 is an
excellent material for various industrial
applications due to its unique properties and
characteristics. Using this alloy in research project
can provide many benefits such as corrosion
resistance, high strength-to-weight ratio, ease of
manufacture, thermal conductivity and
environmental friendliness. Therefore, if research
project requires a material with these properties,
Aluminium alloy 6063 can be a great choice.
B. TOOL MATERIAL - Tungsten carbide and Cemented
Carbide cutting tools are widely used in the
manufacturing industry due to their high hardness, wear
resistance, and toughness. Two popular methods for
coating the tools are Chemical Vapor Deposition
(CVD) and Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD).
C. PROBLEM STATEMENT - The problem addressed
in this thesis is the inefficiency of the machining
process for aluminium alloy AA6063. Despite the
widespread use of Aluminium Alloys in industries such
as automotive, aerospace, and construction, the
machining of these materials is a complex and
challenging process due to their low thermal
conductivity, high chemical reactivity, and tendency to
form built-up edges.
 Therefore, the problem statement for this thesis is to
investigate and compare the MRR of aluminium alloy
AA6063 when machined using CVD Coated Tungsten
Carbide inserts and PVD Coated Cemented Carbide
inserts. By comparing the MRR of these two coatings,
the study aims to provide a better understanding of the
relative performance of these coatings, and to identify
the optimal coating for machining Aluminium Alloys.
This will help to improve the efficiency of the
machining process and reduce manufacturing costs for
industries that use Aluminium Alloys.
D. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE - The primary objective of
this research is to compare the material removal rate
(MRR) of Aluminium alloy AA6063 using CVD
Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts and PVD Coated
Cemented Carbide inserts coating during CNC turning.
In particular, the study aims to achieve the following
research objectives:
1. To conduct a comprehensive literature review on
the machining of Aluminium Alloys, the different
types of coatings used on cutting tools, and their
effects on machining performance.
2. To design and carry out a series of experimental
tests to investigate the MRR of Aluminium alloy
AA6063 using CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide
inserts and PVD Coated Cemented Carbide
inserts.
3. To evaluate and compare the performance of the
two coatings in terms of MRR.
4. To analyze and interpret the experimental results
to identify the optimal coating for machining
aluminium alloy AA6063 in terms of MRR.
5. To provide practical recommendations for the
selection of the most suitable coating for solid
tungsten carbide inserts when machining
Aluminium Alloys.
6. To assess the economic implications of using the
optimal coating in terms of machining efficiency
and manufacturing costs.
7. To identify potential areas for future research and
development in the machining of Aluminium
Alloys using solid tungsten carbide inserts.
In summary, the research objectives of this study are to
investigate the performance of CVD Coated Tungsten
Carbide inserts and PVD Coated Cemented Carbide
inserts coatings on during the machining of Aluminium
alloy AA6063. The study aims to provide valuable
insights into the relative performance of these two
coatings in terms of MRR and good surface finish. The
results of this study can be used to improve the
efficiency of the machining process, reduce
manufacturing costs, and optimize the selection of
cutting tool coatings for the machining of Aluminium
Alloys.
E. LIMITATIONS - There are some limitations to this
study that need to be considered. These limitations
include:
1. Material selection: This study focuses solely on
the machining of Aluminium alloy AA6063.
Therefore, the results may not be applicable to
other materials or alloys. It is important to note
that the performance of cutting tool coatings may
vary depending on the material being machined.
2. Tool geometry: The study uses tungsten carbide
inserts and Cemented Carbide inserts with the
same geometry for both the CVD and PVD
coatings. Different tool geometries may have
different effects on machining performance, and
this should be considered when applying the
results to other tool geometries.
3. Machining parameters: The study investigates
the MRR of Aluminium alloy AA6063 using
CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts and PVD
Coated Cemented Carbide inserts at specific
machining parameters. The results may not be
applicable to other machining parameters or
conditions, and therefore caution should be
exercised when applying the results to different
machining conditions.
4. Surface finish measurement: The study uses
surface roughness as a measure of surface finish.
However, there are other factors that may affect
the surface finish, such as tool wear, cutting
forces, and temperature. These factors were not
investigated in this study, and therefore the results
may not provide a comprehensive analysis of
surface finish.
5. Statistical analysis: The study uses statistical
analysis to evaluate the results. However,
statistical analysis has its limitations, and the
results may not be applicable to individual
machining operations or machines.
6. Coating quality: The quality of the CVD and
PVD coatings may affect the performance of the
cutting tools. Although the coatings used in this
study were of high quality, the results may not be
applicable to coatings of lower quality.
7. Cost considerations: The study does not consider
the cost implications of using different cutting tool
coatings. While the results may provide insight
into the optimal coating for machining Aluminium
Alloy AA6063 in terms of MRR, the cost of the
 coatings may affect their practical application in
manufacturing processes.
Overall, it is important to consider these limitations
when interpreting the results of this study and applying
them to other machining operations or materials. The
limitations of this study provide opportunities for future
research to address these issues and provide a more
comprehensive understanding of the performance of
cutting tool coatings during the machining of
Aluminium Alloys.
II- LITERATURE REVIEW
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS PAPERS:- Machining is an
essential process in manufacturing industries, where
material removal is required to shape, form, or finish a
product. The selection of the cutting tool is crucial in
determining the efficiency and effectiveness of the
machining process. Solid tungsten carbide inserts are
widely used in machining due to their high wear resistance
and toughness. However, the performance of the tool can
be improved by applying coatings to enhance its properties.
In this study, the material removal rate (MRR) of an
Aluminium Alloys AA6063 using two types of CVD
Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts and PVD Coated
Cemented Carbide inserts was compared while CNC
turning. A study highlights a multi-objective optimization
problem by applying utility concept coupled with Taguchi
method through a case study in CNC end milling of UNS
C34000 medium leaded brass. The study aimed at
evaluating the best process environment which could
simultaneously satisfy multiple requirements of surface
quality. (Bharat Chandra Routara et al. 2010) [1]. This
research concentrates on the study and analysis of the
improvement of the surface quality in the final milling
operation of the metal Al/SiCp matrix composite.. These
materials are selected as they are most widely used in
automobile and aerospace industry. This research
document develops an improved mathematical model for
the prediction of surface roughness (Ra) in the final milling
of MMC Al/SiCp. The impacts of spindle velocity, feed
velocity, cutting depth and various percentages of silicon
carbide weight are investigated on surface irregularity. (R.
Arokiadass et al. 2011) [2]. In a previous an experimental
study has done through CNC Turning of EN24 Alloy Steel
– An Empirical Approach on Different Performance
Parameters like Surface Roughness, Tool Wear Rate &
Material removal rate with selection of various process
parameters such as velocity rate, feed rate, sample wear,
cutting depth. (Ashish Bhateja et al. 2012) [3]. Efficient
turning of high performance SS 316 austenite steel material
can be achieved through proper selection of turning process
parameters to minimize surface roughness and maximize
material removal rate.( NAVNEET K. PRAJAPATI et al.
2013) [4]. In this article, the Taguchi method has been used
with L25 (5^3) Orthogonal Array for three parameters,
namely speed, advance and depth of cut. Five different
levels for each of these factors have been determined and
used to conduct the turning parameters for maximum
material removal rate on an EMCO Concept Turn. 105
CNC lathe. SAE 1020 was used for machining, and a
carbide cutting tool was used. The MRR is monitored as
the goal of developing the optimal combination of cutting
settings. This research presents an orthogonal array
optimization strategy for maximizing MRR, and the results
corroborate this.( Sayak Mukherjee et al. 2014 ) [5]. In this
work, EN19 material was machined utilizing a CNC lathe
equipped with a physical vapour deposition coated
Chromium nitride drilling tool bit. The experiments were
carried out as per L9 orthogonal array with each
experiment performed under different conditions such as
speed, type of drilling tool, and feed rate. The Taguchi
method and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed
by using MINITAB-15 software to identify the level of
importance of the machining parameters on Surface
roughness (Ra), Machining time, and Material Removal
Rate (MRR).( V.Balakumaran et al. 2015) [6]. The study is
based on the machining process of making holes and it is
essential for manufacturing Industries like Aerospace
Industry, Automobile Industry, and Medical Industry. End
milling of EN 31 Steel Alloy is carried out in this work
utilizing the Taguchi technique in order to optimize the
Milling process parameter and the Surface Roughness.
(Pankaj Yadav et al.2015 ) [7].
III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To Determine The Minimum Sample Size For The
Experiment:- In my study is to determine the minimum
sample size required to perform the experiment.
Specifically, we will use the T-test to test the difference
between two independent means of two groups. By
inputting the effect size, significance level, and power level
into G*Power software, we can calculate the minimum
sample size required to achieve our desired power level
while taking into account the variability of the data and the
size of the effect we are trying to detect.
About G*Power Software:- Here we use G*Power
software to perform sensitivity analyses and also includes a
range of graphical displays and charts that help to visualize
my results. These displays include power curves, which
show the relationship between sample size and statistical
power, and effect size plots, which show the effect size
required to achieve a given level of statistical power.
Another useful feature of G*Power is its ability to perform
sensitivity analyses. We can use G*Power to determine the
effect of varying their sample size, effect size, or
significance level on their statistical power. This feature
allows to optimize my study design and determine the most
efficient way to detect a significant effect.
To determine the minimum sample size for my experiment,
I will need to input several parameters in G*Power
Software.

Input Parameters:- The power of a hypothesis test
is between 0 and 1; if the power is close to 1, the
hypothesis test is very good at detecting a false null
hypothesis. Beta is commonly set at 0.2
critical t-value of 1.6838510 indicates that the difference
between the two means must be greater than this value in
order to reject the null hypothesis with 95% confidence.

 β = probability of a Type II error, known as a "false

negative"
 1 − β = probability of a "true positive", i.e., correctly IV - EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
rejecting the null hypothesis. "1 − β" is also known as
the power of the test. Firstly, for the analysis of the material removal rate,
 α = probability of a Type I error, known as a "false Aluminium Alloys 6063 with a length of 12 feet (3.65
positive" meters) and a diameter of 16.25mm was selected. The
 1 − α = probability of a "true negative", i.e., correctly material was chosen based on the obtained data from the
not rejecting the null hypothesis software, and a circular bar of Aluminium Alloys 6063
with a size of 70mm was maintained on the lathe machine
(GEMA-Made in West Germany at the Place of “Institute
Set Input Parameter: Of Tool Room Training, U.P. Lucknow ”) using a parting
Analysis:-A priori: Compute the required sample size tool, resulting in 42 pieces. After that, the obtained 42
Input: Factors Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Tail(s) One
Effect size d 0.8 Spindle speed 1000 1200 1400
α err prob 0.05 (rpm)
Power (1-β err prob) 0.8 Feed Rate (mm/rev) 0.10 0.10 0.10
Allocation ratio N2/N1 1 Depth of Cut (mm) 0.5 0.8 -
Table- Input Parameter for Sample Size pieces were divided into two groups of 21 each and marked
for identification using a number punch.
The input data shows that the hypothesis test will have one
tail (i.e., a directional hypothesis) and that the desired
effect size is 0.8. The significance level (α) is set to 0.05, The table represents a set of factors and their
which means that the researcher is willing to accept a 5% corresponding levels. Each factor has three levels, denoted
risk of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. The desired as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. The factors and their
power level is set to 0.8, which means that the researcher levels are as follows:
wants an 80% chance of correctly rejecting the null
hypothesis when it is false. The allocation ratio of N2/N1 is Table 3.4- Specific values for each level of the factors.
1, which means that the sample sizes for both groups will
be equal.
These factors and their levels can be used in experimental
Output: analysis to study their effects on a response variable or
Noncentrality parameter 2.5922963 outcome of interest.
δ
Critical t 1.6838510 Following that, a table was created to enter the data
Df 40 obtained during the CNC turning process, allowing the
Sample size group 1 21 input of measurements and recording the weight of all 42
Sample size group 2 21 specimens from both groups in the table.
Total sample size 42 Subsequently, before taking readings on the CNC machine,
Table - Output for Sample Size PVD Coated Cemented Carbide inserts in the tool holder.
The first group of 21 specimens was set according to the
The output data shows that the Noncentrality parameter δ is marking level and fixed the feed value of 0.1mm, and the
2.5922963. This value is used to calculate the critical t- machining length is 40 mm on CNC Machine. Readings
value, which is 1.6838510. The degrees of freedom for the were then taken at different RPMs: 1000, 1200, and 1400,
test are 40. The sample size for each group is 21, and the with depth of cut at 0.5mm and 0.8mm. These readings
total sample size is 42. were entered into the table and calculate the MMR Value.
Based on these results, I found a total sample size of 42 (21 The same process was repeated for the second cutting, but
per group) to achieve the desired power level of 0.8 with an this time using a CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts
effect size of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05. The was held in the tool holder.
Finally, after the machining process, the weight of all 42
specimens from both groups was measured and entered
into the table, and the Material Removal Rate (MRR) was
calculated using the provided formula.

IV - RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The experimental result includes group statistics and an different tools, denoted as 1.0 (PVD Coated Cemented
independent samples test for the variable "MRR (g/s)" Carbide inserts) and 2.0 (CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide
(Metal Removal Rate in grams per second) using two inserts). Let's break down the information:

Table 4.1- MMR reading using PVD Coated Cemented Carbide inserts Top of Form
S.No Speed Dept Feed Weight Weight Weigh Tota M/C Material
(RPM) h of Rate Before After t loss l Time Removal
Cut (mm/rev) Machining Machining (gm) cycle (s) Rate
(mm) (gm) (gm) Time (g/s)
(s)
1 1000 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 33 29 0.047
2 1000 0.5 0.10 39 34 5 33 29 0.060
3 1000 0.5 0.10 39 35 4 33 29 0.047
4 1000 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 33 29 0.034
5 1000 0.8 0.10 38 35 3 33 29 0.034
6 1000 0.8 0.10 39 35 4 33 29 0.047
7 1000 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 33 29 0.047
8 1200 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 29 25 0.040
9 1200 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 29 25 0.040
10 1200 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 29 25 0.040
11 1200 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 29 25 0.040
12 1200 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 29 25 0.054
13 1200 0.8 0.10 39 34 5 29 25 0.069
14 1200 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 29 25 0.054
15 1400 0.5 0.10 39 35 4 26 22 0.062
16 1400 0.5 0.10 37 34 3 26 22 0.045
17 1400 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 26 22 0.045
18 1400 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 26 22 0.045
19 1400 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
20 1400 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
21 1400 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
S.No Speed Dept Feed Weight Weight Weigh Tota M/C Material
(RPM) h of Rate Before After t loss l Time Removal
Cut (mm/rev) Machining Machining (gm) cycle (s) Rate
(mm) (gm) (gm) Time (g/s)
(s)
1 1000 0.5 0.10 39 34 5 33 29 0.060
2 1000 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 33 29 0.047
3 1000 0.5 0.10 39 34 5 33 29 0.060
4 1000 0.5 0.10 38 36 2 33 29 0.021
5 1000 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 33 29 0.047
6 1000 0.8 0.10 39 34 5 33 29 0.060
7 1000 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 33 29 0.047
8 1200 0.5 0.10 39 35 4 29 25 0.054
9 1200 0.5 0.10 39 34 5 29 25 0.069
10 1200 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 29 25 0.054
11 1200 0.5 0.10 38 35 3 29 25 0.040
12 1200 0.8 0.10 40 34 6 29 25 0.084
13 1200 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 29 25 0.054
14 1200 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 29 25 0.054
15 1400 0.5 0.10 39 34 5 26 22 0.079
16 1400 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
17 1400 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
18 1400 0.5 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
19 1400 0.8 0.10 38 34 4 26 22 0.062
20 1400 0.8 0.10 38 33 5 26 22 0.079
21 1400 0.8 0.10 39 34 5 26 22 0.079
0.061784511784511
0.07 8
0.059308641975308
0.06 7
0.049158249158249
2
0.05 0.046871008939974
5 0.042613878246062
0.04 2
MMR

0.03 1000
0.039555555555555
6 1200
0.02 1400

0.01

0
0.5 0.8
0.10
RPM, Feed Rate, Depth of Cut

Figure 4.1 - PVD insert graph b/w MMR with 3 factors RPM, Feed Rate, Depth of Cut
Table 4.2- MMR reading using CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts
 0.08
0.073007856341189
0.07 7
0.065993265993266
0.064246913580246
MMR

0.06 0.054370370370370
4 9
0.05
0.051128139633886
0.046871008939974 8
0.04 5
1000
0.03 1200
1400
0.02

0.01

0
0.5 0.8
0.10
RPM, Feed Rate, Depth of Cut
.
Figure 4.2 - CVD insert graph b/w MMR with 3 factors RPM, Feed Rate, Depth of Cut

and tools for data manipulation, data analysis, and the

ABOUT SPSS SOFTWARE - SPSS (Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences) is a software program used for
statistical analysis and data management. It was initially
developed by IBM, and now it is owned by the software
company, IBM SPSS. SPSS provides a range of features
creation of reports and visualizations.
The table presents two groups of tools used: Group 1 (PVD
Coated Cemented Carbide insert) and Group 2 (CVD
Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts).
For Group 1, consisting of 21 samples, the mean material
removal rate (MRR) is 0.04921 g/s, with a standard
deviation of 0.010245 g/s and a standard error of the mean
of 0.002236 g/s.
For Group 2, also consisting of 21 samples, the mean MRR
is 0.05877 g/s, with a standard deviation of 0.014558 g/s
and a standard error of the mean of 0.003177 g/s.
It can be concluded that Group 2 (CVD Coated Tungsten
Carbide inserts) exhibits a higher mean MRR compared to
Group 1 (PVD Coated Cemented Carbide insert).
However, to assess the statistical significance of this
difference, additional statistical tests, such as t-tests or
ANOVA, would be required.

0.06 0.05877
Table 4.3 -MMR Mean Value of Both Inserts 0.056
0.052 0.04921

MMR
0.048
0.044
CVD Coated Tungsten PVD Coated Cemented
Carbide inserts Carbide insert
Tool N Mean Std. Std. Figure 4.4 - Mean of both Tools with respect to MMR
Used Deviation Error
Mean
MR 1.0 21 .04921 .010245 .002236
R PVD
(g/s) Coated
CCI
2.0 21 .05877 .014558 .003177
CVD
Coated
TCI
0.016 0.014558
0.014
0.012 0.010245 CVD
MMR

0.01 Coated
0.008 Tungsten
Carbide
0.006 inserts
0.004 0.003177
0.002236
0.002
0
Max of Std. Error Mean Max of Std. Deviation
Figure 4.3 – Std. dev. and Std. Error Mean of both Tools
with respect to MMR

Independent Samples Test:- The independent samples

test compares the means of the two groups to determine if
there is a significant difference between them. Two
different analyses are presented: one assuming equal
variances between the groups and one not assuming equal
variances.

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances:-

1. F: The test statistic for Levene's test, which assesses the
equality of variances between the two groups.
2. Sig. The p-value associated with the test statistic. It
indicates the statistical significance of the difference in
variances. In this case, the p-value is 0.461, which is
greater than the conventional threshold of 0.05, suggesting
that there is no significant difference in variances between
the groups.
t- test for Equality of Means: 1. t: The test statistic for the t-test, which compares
the means of the two groups.
 2. df: The degrees of freedom associated with the t-
test.
3. Sig. (2-tailed): The two-tailed p-value for the t-
test. It indicates the statistical significance of the
difference in means between the groups.
4. Mean Difference: The difference between the
means of the two groups.
5. Std. Error Difference: The standard error of the
difference between the means.
6. 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference:
The range within which the true difference
between the means is estimated to fall with 95%
confidence.
Levene's test for equality of variances indicates that there is
no significant difference in variances between the two
groups (F = 0.554, p = 0.461), assuming equal variances.
The t-test for equality of means reveals that there is a
significant difference in means between the two groups (t =
-2.459, df = 40, p = 0.018), assuming equal variances. The
mean difference is -0.009554, with a standard error of
0.003885.
The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means
ranges from -0.017405 to -0.001702. When equal variances
are not assumed, the t-test still shows a significant
difference in means between the groups (t = -2.459, df =
35.908, p = 0.019). The mean difference and standard error
remain the same, but the 95% confidence interval for the
difference in means changes slightly to -0.017433 to -
0.001674.
In conclusion, there is evidence to suggest that there is a
statistically significant difference in means between the
two groups, regardless of whether equal variances are
assumed or not.

Levene's Test
for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
Std. 95% Confidence
Mean
Sig. (2- Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df Differenc
Tiled) Differenc Difference
e
e Lower Upper
Equal
variance
.554 .461 -2.459 40 .018 -.009554 .003885 -.017405 -.001702
s
MRR assumed
Table– (g/s) Equal t-Test
for variance
-2.459 35.908 .019 -.009554 .003885 -.017433 -.001674
s not
assumed
Independent Samples Test of two group

CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that the variances
in the two groups are not significantly different. However,
the means of the groups do show a significant difference,
indicating a systematic variation in the average values. The
mean value can be used to quantify and describe this
observed difference.
The results indicate a statistically significant disparity in
the Metal Removal Rate (MRR) between the two types of
tools. Assuming equal variances, the samples machined
with CVD Coated Tungsten Carbide inserts exhibit a
19.43% higher MRR compared to the samples machined
with PVD Coated Cemented Carbide inserts.