Predicting the Average Lead Angle in Turning

using Non-Dimensional Parameters and considering

the Size Effect
ME590 Research Project by
Gustavo A. Delno
for
Prof. William J. Endres, Ph.D.
University of Michigan
June 3,1997
Abstract
A new method to calculate the average lead angle (

) in turning is presented. This method is based
on the integration of forces along the cutting edge taking into account the size eect. The geometry of the
turning process changes with the feed (f), depth of cut (d), corner radius () and lead angle (
r
). Hence,
the geometry is analyzed for each of the cases that arise.
Unfortunately the integration must be performed numerically. This is a computationally expensive task;
therefore, the ultimate goal is to t an empirical model to the results of the numerical integration to obtain
a computationally ecient approximate model. Non-dimensional parameters are introduced to reduce the
number of independent variables simplifying the eventual curve tting process.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Many years of research has produced a good model for orthogonal cutting (Figure 1.1). The problem is
that, in practice, orthogonal cutting is rarely found. In cases like turning and boring the tool usually has a
corner radius (Figure 1.2). In order to predict forces with the current models an eective lead angle must be
modeled. The eective lead angle is the orientation that and orthogonal cutting process, of same chip load,
would require to produce the same thrust force direction as for the non-orthogonal cutting process, which,
in this case, exhibits a corner radius. The eective lead angle is very important to successfully represent the
cutting process.
Traditionally, the eective lead angle has been calculated using the following methods:
Colwells Method: uses a geometric approach.
Fus Method: integrates a constant force distribution.
Endres Method: geometric approach using width-weighted summations.
Subramanis Method: integrates a force proportional to the uncut thickness.
Size eect Method: incorporates the internal energies inside the integral because they change with
the uncut chip thickness.
The only method that has proven satisfactory over an acceptable range of feed rate and depth of cut is the
Size Eect Method. Unfortunately, this accuracy comes at great computational expense because it requires
two numerical integrations.
The the ultimate goal is to t an empirical model to the results of this numerical integration to provide
a computationally fast mechanistic model. The tting process of a non-linear function with so many inde-
pendent variables is not an easy task. In order to facilitate the process it is extremely important to have the
problem well dened and write an analytical model tailored to better curve tting. This involvesamong
other thingsselecting the directions in which the dierential forces within the integrals are projected. This
preliminary preparation is the objective of this project.
1
C
H
I
P

L
O
A
D

r
d
f
h
w
Figure 1.1: The geometry of the turning process, using a tool with zero corner radius.
C
H
I
P

L
O
A
D

r
d
f
Figure 1.2: The geometry of the turning process, note the presence of the corner radius.
2
Chapter 2
Geometry
In order to perform the integration along the cutting edge, an analytic representation of the uncut chip
thickness h(s) is needed. The uncut chip thickness is the perpendicular distance from a point in the cutting
edge contact length, to the prole created in the previous revolution. To write an expression for the uncut
chip thickness, the geometry must be known rst. The parameters that describe the geometry are the
feed (f), depth of cut (d), corner radius () and lead angle (
r
), as shown in Figure 2.1a.
2.1 Non-dimensional parameters
The geometry of the cutting process can be expressed in terms of non-dimensional parameters. One way
to non-dimensionalize this problem is to divide everything
1
by the corner radius. One advantage of this
approach is that the arc lengths becomes angles. This way the shape is going to be a function of 3
variables instead of four. These 3 variables are chosen as
G
d
=
d

G
f
=
f

and
r
(2.1)
as shown in Figure 2.1b, which is unique to the values G
d
= 1.2, G
f
= 0.5 and
r
= 20

.
1
The angles are already non-dimensional, so they are not aected by the non-dimensionalization.

r
d
f
G
d
G
f

r
1
(a) (b)

Figure 2.1: (a) Geometry for

r
= 20

, f = 0.5
mm
rev
, d = 1.2 mm and = 1 mm. (b) Geometry for G
d
= 1.2,
G
f
= 0.5 and
r
= 20

3
(a) (b)
s
=
0
s
=
w
w
S
=
0
S
=
1
W
=
w

Figure 2.2: (a) The variable s goes from 0 to the width of cut w. (b) The non-dimensional variable S =
s

goes from zero to one regardless of the non-dimensional width of cut W.

1

1
G
2
f
4
Figure 2.3: G
d
must be larger than 1
_
1 G
2
f
/4
The integration is to be performed along the cutting edge contact length. The cutting edge length
2
is
a function of G
f
, G
d
and
r
and is dened as follows:
W =
w

=

2
+ sin
1
G
f
2

_
sin
1
(1 G
d
) if G
d
< 1 sin
r

G
d
1+sin r
cos r
otherwise
(2.2)
To simplify the calculation of integration limits it is convenient to dene a non-dimensional variable S
that describes the position along the cutting edge where 0 S 1 (see Figure 2.2).
For all cases, the minimum depth of cut for this model validity is G
d
1
_
1 G
2
f
/4 (see Figure 2.3).
A depth of cut smaller than this is not typical and would simply produce an eective lead angle of 90

.
It is important to see the eects G
d
on the integrations to be performed. For this reason it is desired
to have G
d
as the abscissa in several graphs. It is convenient to have graphs starting at zero rather than
1
_
1 G
2
f
/4, especially for log-log or semi-log graphics. For this reason G
dx
, a new non-dimensional
quantity, is introduced. This is new G
dx
is basically the same G
d
shifted by 1
_
1 G
2
f
/4 so that it starts
at zero. The denition is
G
dx
= G
d
1 +

1
G
2
f
4
. (2.3)
The uncut chip thickness (h) is always measured perpendicular to the cutting edge, as shown in Fig-
ure 2.4. The non-dimensional uncut chip thickness is H = h/; it is a function of position in the cutting
edge. This function is going to be dened in the following sections.
2
from now and on all the lengths are non-dimensional i.e., multiply by to get the real length.
4
h
Figure 2.4: G
d
must be larger than 1
_
1 G
2
f
/4
1
G
f
G
d
L
a
f
L
aa
Figure 2.5: Case 1
2.2 Case 1
This is the smallest depth of cut case, which is shown in Figure 2.5. The conditions for this case are
G
d
1

1
G
2
f
4
and [(
r
0 and G
d
1 sin
r
) or (
r
0 and G
d
1)] . (2.4)
These conditions determine the boundaries between this case and cases 2, 4 and 7. See Figure 2.6 for details.
The lengths L
af
and L
aa
in Figure 2.5 stand for L
arcfree surface
and L
arcarc
. The equations that describe
the geometry of this case are
L
af
= tan
1
_
1 G
d
_
2G
d
G
2
d
G
f
_
sin
1
(1 G
d
) (2.5)
5

r
< 0
r
= 0
r
> 0
Case 1
Case 2 Case 4 Case 7
Case 1 Case 1
L
o
w
e
r
G
d
H
i
g
h
e
r
G
d
G
d
= 1 G
d
= 1 sin
r
G
d
= 1 sin
r
Figure 2.6: Transitions from case 1 to cases 2, 4 and 7.
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_
tan
1
_
1 G
d
_
2G
d
G
2
d
G
f
_
(2.6)
(S) = SW + sin
1
(1 G
d
) (2.7)
H(S) =
_
1
1G
d
sin (S)
SW L
af
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) otherwise
(2.8)
Note that (S) is the lead angle as a function of position along the cutting edge (i.e., (S) =
r
) and H(S)
is the non-dimensional uncut chip thickness: H(S) = h(s)/.
2.3 Case 2
This case is shown in Figure 2.7. The conditions for this case are

r
> 0 and (1 sin
r
< G
d
< 1 sin
r
+G
f
cos
r
sin
r
) (2.9)
The lengths L
lf
and L
al
in Figure 2.7 stand for L
lead edgefree surface
and L
arcline
. The equations that describe
the geometry of this case are
L
lf
=
sin
r
+G
d
1
cos
r
(2.10)
L
af
= tan
1
_
(1 G
d
) cos
r
1 + (G
d
1) sin
r
G
f
cos
r
_

r
(2.11)
L
al
= tan
1
_
sin
r
cos
r
G
f
_
tan
1
_
(1 G
d
) cos
r
1 + (G
d
1) sin
r
G
f
cos
r
_
(2.12)
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_
tan
1
_
sin
r
cos
r
G
f
_
(2.13)
6
La
a
L
a
f
L
l
f
L
a
l
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2.7: (a) Case 2. (b) Case 2 close to G
d
= 1sin
r
. (c) Case 2 close to G
d
= 1sin
r
+G
f
cos
r
sin
r
.
(S) =
_

r
SW L
lf
SW +
r
L
lf
otherwise
(2.14)
H(S) =
_

_
SW
tan r
SW L
lf
1
1G
d
sin (S)
L
lf
< SW L
lf
+L
af
1
1G
f
cos r
cos((S)r)
L
lf
+L
af
< SW L
lf
+L
af
+L
al
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) SW > L
lf
+L
af
+L
al
(2.15)
2.4 Case 3
This case, shown in Figure 2.8, is the most common. The conditions for this case are

r
> 0 and G
d
1 sin
r
+G
f
cos
r
sin
r
. (2.16)
The equations are
L
lf
= G
f
sin
r
(2.17)
L
ll
=
G
d
1 + sin
r
G
f
sin
r
cos
r
cos
r
(2.18)
L
al
= tan
1
_
sin
r
cos
r
G
f
_

r
(2.19)
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_
tan
1
_
sin
r
cos
r
G
f
_
(2.20)
(S) =
_

r
SW L
lf
+L
ll

r
+SW L
lf
L
ll
SW > L
lf
+L
ll
(2.21)
7
La
a
L
a
l
L
l
l
L
l
f
Figure 2.8: Case 3
H(S) =
_

_
SW
tan r
SW L
lf
G
f
cos
r
L
lf
< SW L
lf
+L
ll
1
1G
f
cos r
cos((S)r)
L
lf
+L
ll
< SW L
lf
+L
ll
+L
al
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) L
lf
+L
ll
+L
al
< SW
. (2.22)
2.5 Case 4
This case could be implemented as a part of case 3. However, for computational eciency reasons, it is
presented as a separate case. This is one of the easiest cases (see Figure 2.9). The condition for this case is

r
= 0 and G
d
> 1. (2.23)
The equations are
L
ll
= G
d
1 (2.24)
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_
(2.25)
(S) =
_
0 SW L
ll
SW L
ll
SW < L
ll
(2.26)
H(S) =
_
G
f
SW L
ll
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) SW > L
ll
. (2.27)
2.6 Case 5
This is the negative lead angle version of case 3. There is an important observation to make concerning
the lower triangle of Figure 2.10a. This triangular area is not being taken into account under the standard
procedures that have been used for all previous cases. The point S = 0 is always at the beginning of the
8
L
a
a
L
ll
1
G
d
G
f
Figure 2.9: Case 4
L
a
a
L
ll
L
la

r
?
$

L
a
a
L
ll
L
la
L
f
l

r
S
=
0
S
=
L
f
l
S
=
0
(a) (b)
Figure 2.10: Case 5
cutting edge (i.e. the lower left corner); see gure 2.2. If some modication is not introduced, this triangular
area would be neglected. Hence, a smaller chip load would be used with possible adverse eects in the
average lead angle prediction.
To take this triangular area into account it will be assumed that within this area the direction of the
cutting and thrust forces is the same as in the place where the cutting edge starts. For this, and the
following cases, the variables S and W will be redened to include a ctional additional cutting edge. With
this modication Equation 2.2 is no longer valid. For this case W is dened by Equation 2.33.
The conditions for this case are

r
< 0 and G
d
> 1 sin
r
G
f
cos
r
sin
r
. (2.28)
With this new approach, the equations are
L
lf
= G
f
sin
r
(2.29)
L
ll
=
G
d
1 + sin
r
+G
f
cos
r
sin
r
cos
r
(2.30)
9
L
a
a
L
la
L
f
a
L
f
l
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2.11: (a) Case 6. (b) Case 6 close to G
d
= 1 sin
r
. (c) Case 6 close to G
d
= 1 sin
r

G
f
cos
r
sin
r
.
L
la
= G
f
sin
r
(2.31)
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_

r
(2.32)
W = L
lf
+L
ll
+L
la
+L
aa
(2.33)
(S) =
_

r
SW L
fl
+L
ll
+L
la

r
+SW L
fl
L
ll
L
la
SW > L
ll
+L
la
(2.34)
H(S) =
_

_
SW
tan r
SW L
fl
G
f
cos
r
L
fl
< SW L
fl
+L
ll
1 +G
f
cos
r

_
1 (SW L
ll
L
fl
)
2
L
fl
+L
ll
< SW L
fl
+L
ll
+L
la
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) SW > L
fl
+L
ll
+L
la
. (2.35)
2.7 Case 6
This is the negative lead angle version of case 2. For this case W is dened by Equation 2.40. The conditions
are

r
< 0 and [1 sin
r
< G
d
< 1 (1 +G
f
cos
r
) sin
r
] . (2.36)
The equations are
L
la
= L
fl
=
G
d
1 + sin
r
cos
r
(2.37)
L
fa
= cos
1
_
1 (G
f
sin
r
+L
la
)
2
(2.38)
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_

r
(2.39)
W = 2L
la
+L
fa
+L
aa
(2.40)
(S) =
_

r
SW 2L
la
+L
fa

r
+SW 2L
la
L
fa
SW > 2L
la
+L
fa
(2.41)
10
L
a
a
L
f
a
Figure 2.12: Case 7
H(S) =
_

SW
tan r
SW L
la
1
sin(SWL
la
+L
la
)
tan r
cos(SW L
la
) L
la
< SW L
la
+L
fa
1 +G
f
cos
r

_
1 (SW G
f
sin
r
2L
la
L
fa
)
2
_
SW L
la
+L
fa
SW 2L
la
+L
fa
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) SW > 2L
la
+L
fa
.
(2.42)
2.8 Case 7
This is the negative lead angle version of case 1. For this case W is dened by Equation 2.46. The conditions
are

r
< 0 and [1 < G
d
< 1 sin
r
] . (2.43)
The equations are
L
aa
=

2
+ sin
1
_
G
f
2
_
+ sin
1
(G
d
1) (2.44)
L
fa
= G
f
sin(0) (2.45)
W = L
aa
+L
fa
(2.46)
(S) =
_
sin
1
(G
d
1) 0 SW L
fa
SW L
fa
sin
1
(G
d
1) L
fa
< SW L
fa
+L
aa
(2.47)
H(S) =
_
1
SW
tan (S)

_
1 (SW)
2
0 SW L
fa
1 +G
f
cos (S)
_
1 G
2
f
sin
2
(S) L
fa
< SW L
fa
+L
aa
.
(2.48)
11
Chapter 3
Integration
3.1 Eective Lead Angle
The eective lead angle is calculated by integrating the in-plane force along the cutting edge. This force,
always normal to the cutting edge, is projected into a coordinate system. By taking the inverse tangent of
the resulting magnitudes, the average direction with respect to this coordinate system can be found. The
direction of this coordinate system is dened by the angle

. When

= 0 the magnitude of the projections

are F
Rad
and F
Lon
and the average lead angle is = tan
1
(F
Rad
/F
Lon
). When

= 0, the magnitude
of the projections is dierent from F
Rad
and F
Lon
; the resulting magnitudes will be called F

Rad
and F

Lon
.
Note that F
Rad
= F

Rad
and F
Lon
= F

Lon
only when

= 0. In general, the eective lead angle is calculated

with the following formula
=

+ tan
1
_
F

Rad
F

Lon
_
(3.1)
The integrals for radial and longitudinal force components are
_
F

Rad
F

Lon
_
=
_ _
dF

Rad
dF

Lon
_
=
_
A dN +
_
B dP (3.2)
where the normal rake face force (dN) is proportional to the area (da)
dN = K da (3.3)
and the in-plane (friction/shear) rake force is
dP = dN = K da. (3.4)
The rake face force coecient (K) and the mean equivalent rake face coecient of friction/shear () are
modeled as
K = e
a0
h(s)
a1
V
a2
(3.5)
= e
b0
h(s)
b1
V
b2
(3.6)
The normal force transformation vector A, though dependent on the characteristic cutting process
angles, is constant with the edge location for the at faced tools considered here. It is dened as
A =
_
A
1
A
2
_
=
_
sin
n
sin(

) + cos
n
sincos(

)
sin
n
cos(

) cos
n
sinsin(

)
_
. (3.7)
12
(a) (b)

r
Figure 3.1: (a) When

= 0, the forces are projected into the radial and longitudinal directions. (b) For

= 0 the forces are projected into a dierent direction. In this case

=
(S=0)
The in-plane force transformation is
B =
_
B
1
B
2
_
=
_
cos

cos
n
sin(

) + (sin

cos cos

sin
n
sin) cos(

)
cos

cos
n
cos(

) (sin

cos cos

sin
n
sin) sin(

)
_
(3.8)
where is the inclination angle,

is the chip ow angle and

n
is the normal rake angle. All these angles
vary with edge orientation angle , which depends on edge location. The chip ow angle is approximated
using the Stablers rule:

= . The inclination angle () can be calculated with the formula

= tan
1
(tan
p
cos tan
f
sin) (3.9)
where
p
is the back rake angle and
f
is the side rake angle.
From Equation 3.1 is clear that the individual values of F

Rad
and F

Lon
are not essential. What is
essential is the ratio F

Rad
/F

Lon
. This is
F

Rad
F

Lon
=
_
A
1
dN +
_
B
1
dP
_
A
2
dN +
_
B
2
dP
. (3.10)
Substituting Equation (3.3) and Equation(3.4) into Equation(3.10),
F

Rad
F

Lon
=
_
A
1
Kda +
_
B
1
Kda
_
A
2
Kda +
_
B
2
Kda
. (3.11)
Substituting Equation (3.5) and Equation(3.6) into Equation(3.11),
F

Rad
F

Lon
=
_
A
1
e
a0
h(s)
a1
V
a2
da +
_
B
1
e
b0
h(s)
b1
V
b2
e
a0
h(s)
a1
V
a2
da
_
A
2
e
a0
h(s)
a1
V
a2
da +
_
B
2
e
b0
h(s)
b1
V
b2
e
a0
h(s)
a1
V
a2
da
. (3.12)
Grouping similar terms and moving out constants in integrals
F

Rad
F

Lon
=
A
1
e
a0
V
a2
_
h(s)
a1
da +e
a0+b0
V
a2+b2
_
B
1
h(s)
a1+b1
da
A
2
e
a0
V
a2
_
h(s)
a1
da +e
a0+b0
V
a2+b2
_
B
2
h(s)
a1+b1
da
(3.13)
Simplifying common terms and substituting = a
1
+b
1
+ 1 and
_
h(s)
a1
da =

h
a1
a,
F

Rad
F

Lon
=
A
1
V
a2
h(s)
a1
a +e
b0
V
a2+b2
_
B
1
h(s)
1
da
A
2
V
a2
h(s)
a1
a +e
b0
V
a2+b2
_
B
2
h(s)
1
da
(3.14)
where

h = a/w.
13
dS
d
h
dS
Figure 3.2: The two dierent kinds of dierentials of area.
3.2 Dierential of Area
The dierential of area needs to be carefully dened. At the lead edge a dierential of area is just a rectangle,
but at the curved part it is part of a segment of circle (see Figure 3.2). The area of this segment of circle is
da =
1
2

2
d
1
2
( h)
2
d =
1
2
_

2
(
2
2h +h
2
)
_
d =
h
2
(2 h)
ds

=
h(s)
2
_
2
h(s)

_
ds (3.15)
In general, the dierential area is
da =
_
h(s)ds straight part
h(s)
2
_
2
h(s)

_
ds curved part
(3.16)
The position at which the dierential area changes from one kind to the other is intrinsic to each of the
geometric cases.
3.3 Non-dimensionalization
In Equation (3.14) the only parts that require numerical integration are the
_
B

h(s)
1
da where = 1 or 2.
Hence, these are the terms that require a non-dimensional representation:
_
B

h(s)
1
da =

1

1
_
B

h(s)
1
da(s) (3.17)
=
1
_
B

_
h(s)

_
1
da(s) (3.18)
=
1
_
B

H
_
s
w
_
1
da
_
w
s
w
_
(3.19)
=
1
_
B

H(S)
1
da(wS) (3.20)
14
The dierential of area in
1
_
B

H(S)
1
da(wS) is dierent for the straight and curved parts. As s = wS,
then ds = wdS. Hence, for the straight part,
_
B

h(s)
1
da(wS) =
1
_
B

H(S)
1
h(wS)wdS (3.21)
=
1
w
_
B

H(S)
1
H(S)dS (3.22)
=
+1
W
_
B

H(S)

dS (3.23)
For the curved part,
_
B

h(s)
1
da(wS) =
1
_
B

H(S)
1
h(wS)
2
_
2
h(wS)

_
wdS (3.24)
=
1
w
_
B

H(S)
1
H(S)
2
(2 H(S)) dS (3.25)
=
+1
W
_
B

H(S)

_
2 H(S)
2
_
dS (3.26)
To summarize,

+tan
1
_
_
A
1
V
a2
h(s)
a1
a +e
b0
V
a2+b2

+1
W
_
_
c
0
B
1
H(S)

dS +
_
1
c
B
1
H(S)

_
2H(S)
2
_
dS
_
A
2
V
a2
h(s)
a1
a +e
b0
V
a2+b2

+1
W
_
_
c
0
B
2
H(S)

dS +
_
1
c
B
2
H(S)

_
2H(S)
2
_
dS
_
_
_
(3.27)
The only parts that require numerical integration are R
1
and R
2
; where
R
1
=
_
c
0
B
1
H(S)

dS +
_
1
c
B
1
H(S)

_
2 H(S)
2
_
dS (3.28)
R
2
=
_
c
0
B
2
H(S)

dS +
_
1
c
B
2
H(S)

_
2 H(S)
2
_
dS (3.29)
But these expressions do not take into account the increase in W as G
d
increases. In other words, the
magnitude of R
1
and R
2
reect a constant width of cut equal to 1 for all values of G
d
. This is because the
integration variable S is forced to go from 0 to 1. For this reason, it was found that modeling WR
1
and
WR
2
is sometimes more convenient than modeling R
1
and R
2
. The most appropriate case will be shown for
each integration result.
3.4 Integration Results
In this section, the values of R
1
and R
2
are calculated for dierents values of G
dx
to produce a continuous
plot
1
. As the ultimate goal is to t a function to these results, the plot must be made for all the extreme
values of the independent variables. This is crucial to select a good model to perform the curve tting.
Each plot overlays three curves; the solid line corresponds to
r
= 45

, the dashed line corresponds to

r
= 0 and the dotted line correspond to
r
= 45

. Each gure contains four of these graphics to represent

each combination of the extreme values of G
f
and . The back and side rake angles were set to zero as their
eect is expected to be very small.
1
The graphing algorithm in Mathematica automatically select the points to be evaluated to get an appropriate graph
15
3.4.1 Standard Integration (

= 0)
This is the intuitive rst attempt. The results of R
1
and WR
2
are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4 respectively.
Figure 3.3 looks smooth, the problem is that for
r
= 45

, the R
1
function becomes negative. This is
highly inconvenient if the curve tting is to be performed with a log-scale ordinate; hence, a dierent

is
going to be attempted.
Despite the undesired characteristic of R
1
, there is a very important advantage of using

= 0. The
impact of the lead angle in WR
2
is minimal as shown in Figure 3.4. The shape of WR
2
is very close to a
straight line in the log-log space; this is terric from a curve-tting point of view. Unfortunately, the same

must be used for both R

1
and R
2
; hence, if

= 0 is discarded for R
1
it can not be used for R
2
.
3.4.2 Integration with

= Colwells

The idea here is use the Colwells estimation of

as

. The results are shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.5. By

comparing this results to the previous ones with

= 0, it is clear that there is no improvement at all.

Now, WR
2
is more dicult to model than before because the eect of the lead angle can not be neglected.
Also, the problem of the negative values of WR
1
is worse and the are sharp corners that arise are dicult
to model.
There is an interesting characteristic in Figure 3.5. The values of WR
1
converge to a constant despite
the increase in W. This is because R
1
goes to zero as W increases; and the multiplication converges to a
constant.
3.4.3 Integration with

=

(S=0)
+
(S=1)
2
This time the value of

is selected as the average of the direction at the beginning and end of the contact
length of the cutting edge; that is

= (
(S=0)
+
(S=1)
)/2. The results are shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8.
The average of the aforementioned directions is close the Colwells

; hence, the results of the integration
are similar to those based on Colwells

.
3.4.4 Integration with

=
(S=0)
This time

is dened in the same direction as the beginning of the cutting edge; just like in Figure 3.1b.
The results are shown in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. For this case, R
1
is very good because it never gets negative
and it is mainly composed of straight lines in the log-log space. For this kind of behavior it is appropriate
to use a model of the form
left b
q
(a
2
+G
2
dx
)
k/2
a
k
(b
2
+G
2
dx
)
q/2
(3.30)
where a, b, p and q are constants, and left is the value of R
1
when G
dx
0. The situation with R
2
is very
dierent. This function is dicult to model due to the sharp points.
16
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
0.49236
0.00063339
0.1124
-0.49116
0.69128
0.00094766
0.80766
-0.68936
0.023433
0.000024439
0.00025692
-0.023388
0.59167 0.00078669
0.57156
-0.57015
Figure 3.3: R
1
vs. G
dx
with

= 0
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-12
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-11
10
-10
10
-9
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-8
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
Figure 3.4: WR
2
vs. G
dx
with

= 0
17
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
-0.23347
-0.69818
1.165910
-8
-0.42305
3.998210
-8
-0.15387
-0.49304
-0.73843
-0.005651
-0.019711
2.544910
-11
-0.0022114
1.512710
-8
-0.043402
-0.016337
-0.022509
Figure 3.5: WR
1
vs. G
dx
with

= Colwell angle
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
0.10493
0.75397
5.14110
-6
0.011839
Figure 3.6: WR
2
vs. G
dx
with

= Colwell angle
18
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0
0.01
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
1.248910
-8
-0.40777
-0.78112
-0.68636
4.282910
-8
-0.57235
-0.84518
-0.96324
-0.012831
-0.031038
1.271810
-9
-0.030642
-0.58348
-0.31285
7.559610
-7
-0.74699
Figure 3.7: R
1
vs. G
dx
with

=

(S=0)
+
(S=1)
2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
0.10493
0.75397
5.14110
-6
0.011839
Figure 3.8: WR
2
vs. G
dx
with

=

(S=0)
+
(S=1)
2
19
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
1.248910
-8
4.282910
-8
1.271810
-9
7.559610
-7
Figure 3.9: R
1
vs. G
dx
with

=
(S=0)
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
10
-7
10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.9 and = 0.05
G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.8 G
f
= 0.02 and = 0.05
0.10038
0.69613
0.91777
0.69527
0.72126
0.97725
0.9932
0.97573
0.033136
0.043701
0.0002569
0.033114
0.82184
0.80815
0.59164
0.80727
Figure 3.10: R
2
vs. G
dx
with

=
(S=0)
20
Chapter 4
Conclusion
The prediction of

taking into account the size eect is a computationally expensive task. The level of detail
needed to successfully capture the eects of the geometry is substantial. To work around this, a model can
be tted to the results of the integration to obtain an small and ecient way to estimate

. After studying
several possibilities for

it was found that the most likely to be be successful is

= 0. The reason is the

smoothness of the R
1
curve and the very easy to t WR
2
curve.
The biggest problem to be faced is to nd a good model for R
1
. It may be possible shift the curve to
force it to be positive and then, if appropriate, use the model presented in Equation 3.30. Once R
1
and R
2
are modeled,

can be calculated using Equation 3.27.
21