Predictive Modeling of Tool Wear

in Hard Turning
Yong Huang
Advisor: Prof. Steven Y. Liang
The G. W. W. School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
Introduction and motivation
Hard turning process is defined as single point turning of
materials harder than 50HRc and differs from
conventional turning in:
Workpiece material property
Chip formation mechanism
Cutting tool required
Cutting condition applied
It offers possible benefits over grinding process:
Lower equipment costs
Shorter setup time
Reduced process steps
High material removal rate
Better surface integrity
Elimination of cutting fluid
Challenging issues in hard
turning technology
The top issues to be solved in hard turning process:

Tool wear
Tool wear <Our researching interest>
Form accuracy
Surface integrity
Economic consideration
Why tool wear:
High cost of CBN cutting tool, which is generally applied in hard turning
Cost of down-time for tool changing affects the economic justification of
hard turning
What to do about tool wear:
To find a relationship defining tool wear rate as the function of cutting
condition and tool geometry for a given tool/work combination in hard
turning
Factors influencing wear rate
Tool materials composition
CBN particle size and CBN content
Binder materials
Applied coating material and coating thickness
Cutting condition
Feedrate
Depth of cut
Cutting speed
Tool geometry
Rake angle for up-sharp tool
Chamfer length and angle, rake angle for chamfered tool
Hone radius, rake angle for honed tool
Tool nose radius
Tool wear in hard turning
Wear patterns in metal cutting
Crater wear
Flank wear
Depth of cut notching
Thermal shock crack
Nose wear
Chipping
Tool breakage
Built-up edge
Wear mechanisms in metal cutting
Abrasion
Adhesion
Attrition
Fatigue
Dissolution/diffusion
Tribochemical process
Wear pattern in metal cutting
Tool wear in hard turning (contd)
Main wear patterns in hard turning
Crater wear
Flank wear
Chipping: happens in aggressive cutting conditions
Flank wear and crater wear are our interests in this study Flank wear and crater wear are our interests in this study
Main wear mechanisms in hard turning
Abrasion: due to cementite and CBN particle (if have in high CBN
tool) (Narutaki, et al., 1979; Davies et al., 1996)
Adhesion: due to high temperature/stress along the tool/chip and
tool/workpiece interfaces (Hooper, et al., 1988; Chou, 1994; Davies
et al., 1996)
Diffusion: binder material is not stable with iron due to high
temperature (Narutaki, et al., 1979; Konig, et al., 1993)
Tribochemical process: no convincible evidence yet
Abrasion, adhesion, and diffusion are considered as basic Abrasion, adhesion, and diffusion are considered as basic
mechanisms here mechanisms here
Objective of this research
Crater wear
Flank wear
To develop a scientific, systematic, and reliable methodology to
predict the tool flank/crater wear rates tool flank/crater wear rates based on cutting condition cutting condition
and tool geometry tool geometry for given tool and workpiece material properties.
Modeling of flank wear rate
2
l
R
R
R
VB
VB VB +
A
O
B
F
G
C
E

1
l
Worn flank face
Flank face
P
P
Cutting
velocity

P-P view
Worn flank face
Flank face
Tool chamfer
area
1
l
2
l
3
2
1
VB
( ) | |

)

+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
=
+

273
1
tan
) tan (cot
T
K
c diff c
aT
adhesion c
n
t
n
a
abrasion
Q
e VB V K V e K VB V
P
P
K K
VB R VB
R
dt
dVB

Abrasion
Adhesion Diffusion
Modeling of flank wear rate (contd)
Process
modeling
(Huang &
Liang,
2002a)
Temperature
model
(Huang &
Liang,
2002b)
Update
mechanism
Flank
wear
rate
model
Stress model
(Huang &
Liang, 2001)
dt
dVB
T

Material properties
of workpiece &
tool
Cutting condition
Tool geometry
Process
info.
Updated VB
Other process
constants and
calibrated
wear
coefficients
Modeling of crater wear rate
max
t
Interested
rectangular zone
x
feed
f/2
o
o
max
t
d
w
Previous
location of tool
nose center
Longest contact
length due to
max
t
Interested
rectangular zone
x
feed
f/2
o
o
max
t
d
w
Previous
location of tool
nose center
x
feed
f/2
o
o
max
t
d
w
Previous
location of tool
nose center
Longest contact
length due to
x
x x x
x V e K x x V e K
h
x x V
x P
x P
K K
dt
x dK
chip
x T
K
diff chip
x aT
adhesion chip
n
t
n
a
abrasion
T
Q

+
+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
+

) (
) ( ) ( ) (
1
) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
273 ) ( ) (
1

Abrasion
Adhesion Diffusion
Modeling of crater wear rate (contd)
max
t
Process
modeling
(Huang &
Liang, 2002a)
along the
interested zone
Chip velocity
model
Update
mechanism
Crater
wear
rate
model
dt
dK
T
Material properties
of workpiece & tool
Cutting
condition
Tool
geometry
Temperature,
stress, and
chip velocity
distributions
New
crater
profile
Other process
constants and
calibrated
wear
coefficients
Max. chip
thickness
model
Normal
stress
model
(Li,
1997)
Calibration & validation of wear rate models
Calibration of wear rate model
Q diff adhesion abrasion
K K a K K
,
, , ,
need to be calibrated
Those coefficients depend on tool/workpiece combination.

Calibration steps
Calibration steps
Optimize the coefficients of wear rate model by minimizing the least
square error between predicted and measured flank wear rates for three
cutting conditions (v=1.520m/s, f=.0760mm/rev, doc=.203mm;
v=2.29m/s, f=.168mm/rev, doc=.203mm; v=1.520m/s, f=.0760mm/rev,
doc=.102mm; ) (Huang and Liang, 2002c)

Validation steps
Validation steps
Validate the flank wear rate model based on seven cutting conditions
(Huang and Liang, 2002c)
Validate the crater wear rate model based on three cutting conditions
(Huang and Liang, 2002d)
Calibrated wear rate models
Tool material: Kennametal KD050
Workpiece material: hardened 52100, 62HRC
( ) | |

+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
=
+

273
20460
6 10 0313 . 9 14
1
10 7204 . 5 10 4761 . 1 0295 . 0
tan
) tan (cot
4
T
c c
T
c
n
t
n
a
e VB V V e VB V
P
P
K
VB R VB
R
dt
dVB

x
x x x
x V e
x x V
h
e
x x V
x P
x P
K
dt
x dK
chip
T
chip
T
chip
n
t
n
a
T

+
+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
+

) (
) ( 10 7204 . 5
) ( ) (
1
10 4761 . 1
) ( ) (
) (
) (
0295 . 0
) (
273
20460
6
10 0313 . 9 14
1
4

Validation of flank wear rate model

0 1 2 3 4
0
50
100
150
0 20 40 60 80
20
40
60
80
0 10 20 30 40
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4
40
60
80
100
40 50 60 70 80
10
15
20
25
Wear rate (m/min)
0 5 10 15
0
50
100
150
Time (min)
Flank wear length (m)
0 50 100 150
5
10
15
20
Flank wear length (m)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3) (3)
(4)
(4)
0 1 2 3 4
0
50
100
150
0 20 40 60 80
20
40
60
80
0 10 20 30 40
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4
40
60
80
100
40 50 60 70 80
10
15
20
25
Wear rate (m/min)
0 5 10 15
0
50
100
150
Time (min)
Flank wear length (m)
0 50 100 150
5
10
15
20
Flank wear length (m)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3) (3)
(4)
(4)
0 5 10 15
40
60
80
100
120
40 60 80 100
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60 80
0
100
200
300
Time (min)
Flank wear length (

m)
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
Flank wear length (

m)
Wear rate (

m/min)
(8)
(B)
(10)
(10)
(8)
(B)
0 5 10 15
40
60
80
100
120
40 60 80 100
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60 80
0
100
200
300
Time (min)
Flank wear length (

m)
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
Flank wear length (

m)
Wear rate (

m/min)
0 5 10 15
40
60
80
100
120
40 60 80 100
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60
0
50
100
150
200
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60 80
0
100
200
300
Time (min)
Flank wear length (

m)
0 50 100 150 200
0
5
10
15
Flank wear length (

m)
Wear rate (

m/min)
(8)
(B)
(10)
(10)
(8)
(B)
Solid line: predictions
Triangular: measurements
Flank wear progression
Validation of crater wear rate model
0 0.05 0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
h
i
p

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
0 0.05 0.1
0
500
1000
1500
Distance from tool tip (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
p
a
)
0 0.05 0.1
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
r
a
t
e
r

w
e
a
r

r
a
t
e

(
u
m
/
m
i
n
)
0 0.05 0.1
360
380
400
420
440
460
Distance from tool tip (mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
u
m
/
m
i
n
)
0 0.05 0.1
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
r
a
t
e
r

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
u
m
)
Time elapsed: 22.0 min
0 0.05 0.1
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
r
a
t
e
r

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
u
m
)
Time elapsed: 44.0 min
0 0.05 0.1
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
r
a
t
e
r

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
u
m
)
Time elapsed: 66.0 min
0 0.05 0.1
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Distance from tool tip (mm)
C
r
a
t
e
r

w
e
a
r

d
e
p
t
h

(
u
m
)
Time elapsed: 88.0 min
Cutting conditions:
cutting speed: 1.52 m/s, feedrate: 0.076 mm/rev, depth of cut: 0.102 mm
Solid line: predictions; dash line: measurements
Crater wear progression
Process information & crater wear rate
Summary:
Abrasion, adhesion, and diffusion in hard turning are
considered as the main wear mechanisms for the
progressive tool wear. The total tool wear rate is
contributed from abrasion, adhesion, and diffusion
mechanisms.
The progressive tool flank/crater wear can be modeled
as the function of cutting condition and tool geometry for
a given tool/workpiece combination in a reasonable
accuracy in hard turning.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time (min)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

o
f

e
a
c
h

m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
mAbrasion
Adhesion
Diffusion
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time (min)
Abrasion
Adhesion
Diffusion
General cutting condition (#10) Aggressive cutting condition (#4)
Hardened 52100
steel washer
Dynamometer
CBN tool insert
Pin-on-disk
Goal: to identify the wear
coefficients under semi-
sliding conditions without
the effect of diffusion
wear.