The difficulties in the machining of duplex stainless steel are well known. However, research on this matter is rather limited. Suppliers offer quite different cutting tools for the same raw material, with end mills of two, three or even four knives and a huge number of distinct coatings, some of them under commercial brands, making it difficult to assess the advantages they offer. Furthermore, there is a remarkable difference among the several types of duplex stainless steel available nowadays on the market. The present work intends to assess the machining performance of different tools, analyzing the behavior and wear mechanisms with two different cutting lengths, keeping constant the machining trajectory. Some other parameters were also kept constant, such as cutting speed, depth of cut and cutting width, as well as feed per tooth. The machining process was carried out under lubricated conditions, using an emulsion of 5% oil in water. Tools provided with a different number of teeth and surface coatings were tested, analyzing the wear behavior of each cutting length using scanning electron microscopy, trying to identify wear performance and how each coating contributes to increased tool life. The surfaces produced were also analyzed by means of profilometry measurements, correlating tool wear and part surface roughness. This comparative study allows determining the advantages of different tools relative to others, based on coatings and tool geometry.

It is well known that injection of glass fibre–reinforced plastics (GFRP) causes abrasive wear in moulds’ cavities and runners. Physical vapour deposition (PVD) coatings are intensively used to improve the wear resistance of different tools, also being one of the most promising ways to increase the moulds’ lifespan, mainly when used with plastics strongly reinforced with glass fibres. This work compares four different thin, hard coatings obtained using the PVD magnetron sputtering process: TiAlN, TiAlSiN, CrN/TiAlCrSiN and CrN/CrCN/DLC. The first two are monolayer coatings while the last ones are nanostructured and consist of multilayer systems. In order to carry out the corresponding tribological characterization, two different approaches were selected: A laboratorial method, using micro-abrasion wear tests based on a ball-cratering configuration, and an industrial mode, analysing the wear resistance of the coated samples when inserted in a plastic injection mould. As expected, the wear phenomena are not equivalent and the results between micro-abrasion and industrial tests are not similar due to the different means used to promote the abrasion. The best wear resistance performance in the laboratorial wear tests was attained by the TiAlN monolayer coating while the best performance in the industrial wear tests was obtained by the CrN/TiAlCrSiN nanostructured multilayer coating.

There are several ways to characterize the wear resistance of coatings in the laboratory, almost all of them applying relatively low contact pressure, both punctually and over surface contact. Pin-on-disc, reciprocal sliding, and micro-abrasion wear tests are quite common configurations for this purpose. Thus, a gap was identified in terms of characterization of hard physical vapor deposition (PVD) coatings subject to higher levels of contact pressure. This study aims to study and compare the wear behavior of two different coatings made by PVD, a B₄C (Boron Carbide) monolayer, less used, and another following a multilayer structure of CrN/CrCN/DLC, to identify the wear mechanisms involved in quite different coatings. Both coatings were initially characterized in terms of chemical composition, thickness, morphology, structure, hardness, and adhesion to the substrate, being subsequently tested in laboratory equipment for wear tests following the block-on-ring configuration and relatively high levels of contact pressure, with a view to study the failure mechanisms of the coatings and their wearrate. CrN/CrCN/DLC multilayered coatings presented a better overall wear behavior, whereas B₄C coating showed a good wear behavior regarding the load and configuration used, but in line with the behavior already observed when other wear testing configurations had been used. Thus, under the conditions imposed, CrN/CrCN/DLC coating is the best option when high contact pressure is applied to the coated surfaces.