The new CoroDrill 880 tool body is compatible with a range of insert grades.
The new CoroDrill 880 tool body is compatible with a range of insert grades.

Sandvik Coromant has launched a reinforced variant of its CoroDrill 880 indexable drill that could improve production economy in large diameter hole-making applications. The new CoroDrill 880 tool body is compatible with a range of insert grades, including a grade based on the company’s Zertivo technology, which delivers improved cutting edge integrity.

?The reinforced CoroDrill 880 features a new enhanced drill body that is up to 30% stiffer than its predecessor for applications of four to five times the drill diameter. This gives a more reliable drilling experience and a much better hole quality, the company says. In addition, the combination of an improved drill body and the new Sandvik Coromant grade chain for steel and cast iron results in a considerable improved insert tool life.

In tests, a customer making slewing rings for the wind power industry tried the new tool body for CoroDrill 880 in application requiring holes of five times the drill diameter. When using the old tool body in 42CrMo4, the hole size decreased over time providing an undersized hole after a period of use. With the new, stronger tool body, CoroDrill 880 produced correctly sized holes for a much longer period of use. In addition, the customer saw a tool life increase of 975%.

Wear resistance

Two of the insert grades, GC4324 and GC4334, are designed with Inveio coating for better wear resistance. The third, GC4344, produced with Zertivo technology, provides great edge-line security as a result of improved coating and substrate adhesion properties.

The CoroDrill 880 product range covers hole diameters from 12 to 84 mm (0.472-3.307 inch) off the shelf, as well as engineered solutions up to 129 mm (5.078 inch). The drills produce holes with tolerances of H12–13 and are suitable for holes up to five times the drill diameter.

This story is reprinted from material from Sandvik Coromant, with editorial changes made by Materials Today. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of Elsevier.