## 3 Results and Discussion
### Tool Wear
Additionally, it was noted that increasing the cutting speed reduces the extent of wear along the cutting edge of the 6160 inserts (Figure 10b,d). This effect was observed for both the lowest tested feed rate (\(f\) = 0.025 mm/rev) and the highest feed rate (\(f\) = 0.07 mm/rev). the next layer. At point 2 (Figure 11c), located 30 \(\upmu\)m below the cutting edge, the detected elements were AI, O, and Ti. These results indicate that the TiN layer was removed. Though trace amounts of Ti remained (Table 2). The removal of the TiN layer exposed the Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) layer, which continued to protect the cutting tool. No elements of the cutting insert substrate (W, C or Co) were found in point 2. EDS analysis at point 3, located on the cutting edge (Figure 11d), confirmed the formation of a built-up edge. Elements such as Ni, Cr, and Fe, key components of Inconel 718, were detected. Additionally, Al and O were found, indicating that the Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) layer was still intact and had not exposed the underlying TiN layer adjacent to the WC-Co substrate. This suggests that the Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) layer exhibits higher adhesion tendencies compared to the TiN layer, which was completely removed due to abrasive wear. Figure 11: EDS analysis of the flank face of S205 insert: (**a**) SEM image of flank face, (**b**) EDS analysis at point 1, (**c**) EDS analysis at point 2, (**d**) EDS analysis at point 3; \(f\) = 0.07 mm/rev, v\({}_{\rm c}\) = 200 m/min. Figure 12: EDS analysis of the flank face of 6160 insert: (**a**) SEM image of flank face, (**b**) EDS analysis at point 1, (**c**) EDS analysis at point 2, (**d**) EDS analysis at point 3; \(f\) = 0.07 mm/rev, \(v_{c}\) = 200 m/min. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Point No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ni**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cr**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fe**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Weight \%**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**No**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ti**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mo**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-10}  1 & & & & 5.67 & & 13.07 & & 65.49 & & 15.76 \\
2 & & & & 39.74 & & 50.65 & & 9.61 & & \\
3 & 49.65 & 16.31 & 15.35 & 3.85 & 0.13 & 1.6 & 7.8 & 2.18 & 3.13 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Point No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ni**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cr**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fe**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**O**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**V**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Al**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Nb**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ti**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mo**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} \\ \hline
1 & & & & 10.64 & & 14.54 & & 41.04 & & 33.78 \\
2 & & & & 54.45 & & 41.15 & & 4.4 & & \\
3 & 44.54 & 16.52 & 14.48 & 12.66 & 0.13 & 3.12 & 4.42 & 2.4 & 1.72 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical EDS analysis of the flank face in points 1–3 from Figure 11 (\(f\) = 0.07 mm/rev, \(v_{c}\) = 200 m/min). The EDS analysis conducted at point 1 of the 6160 insert reveals similar characteristics to those observed in the S205 insert. Specifically, no elements characteristic of the machined material were detected at this location (Figure 12b). The elements recorded at point 1 were Si, Al, O, and N (Table 3). Point 2 on the 6160 insert was located 40 \(\upmu\)m below the cutting edge (Figure 12c). The EDS analysis at this point revealed trace amounts of the machined material (elements Ni, Cr, and Fe) as well as elements characteristic of the cutting insert itself, namely Si, Al, O, and N. This differentiates the 6160 insert from the S205 insert, as no machined material elements were detected in point 2 of the S205 insert. Notably, significant changes in the quantities of Al and Si were observed between points 1 and 2. In point 2, the Al content was 50% lower, while the Si content increased by 132% compared to point 1. At point 3 (Figure 12d), the EDS analysis confirmed a substantial presence of the machined material, with Ni, Cr, and Fe detected in concentrations of 45.04 wt%, 15.32 wt%, and 14.25 wt%, respectively. The study by [PERSON] et al.