Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
= + +
(1)
where, is the equivalent stress, A is the initial yield stress (MPa), B is the hardening modulus
(MPa), n is the work-hardening exponent, C is the strain rate dependency coefficient, m is the
thermal softening coefficient, is the equivalent plastic strain, is the plastic strain rate,
o
is
the reference strain rate (1.0 s
1
),
room
T is room temperature,
melt
T is the melting temperature,
These work material constants have been found by various researchers by applications of several
methods, thus producing different values of data sets for a specific material. As a result, selection
of suitable data sets along with appropriate material model becomes equally important. The
present study selects three sets of Johnson-cook material constants, including a relatively new
data set explored by an evolutionary computational method, namely, M1, M2 and M3 from the
available literature. A brief description of each of the sets of data is given below, while the values
are listed in the Table 2.
M1: The data for the material constants of M1 were obtained by performing torsion tests over a
wide range of strain rates (quasi-static to about 400/s); dynamic Hopkinson bar tensile tests over a
wide range of temperatures as well as the static tensile tests. The data were then evaluated by
comparing computation results with data from cylinder impact tests (Johnson and Cook, 1983).
The values obtained are found to be used widely in the literature.
M2: Ozel and Karpat (Ozel and Karpat, 2007) developed a new methodology that utilizes an
evolutionary computational method with the aim of minimizing error in identifying the Johnson-
Cook constitutive model parameters. The material constants of M2 were explored and
recalculated by cooperative particle swarm optimization (CPSO).
M3: The M3 set of material constants were identified by conducting Split Hopkinson pressure bar
compression tests over a wide range of temperatures (-196C to 600C) and strain rates (quasi-
static to about 7000/s). A computer program was used to perform optimization to fit the
experimental data (Gray et al., 1994).
2.4. Friction models
Friction modeling plays a significant role as it is known to considerably influence the accuracy in
simulation of the chip formation process. Several models have already been proposed with the
aim of achieving results closer to the experimental data. In this study, seven friction models
developed by the researchers in the past were selected to study their effect on the process
variables. This section briefly discusses the selected friction models.
F1: Constant friction coefficient model
This model simply considers the coulombs friction law on the entire contact zone (Strenkowski
and Moon, 1990). The software defines this model by introducing a constant value of coefficient
of friction which, in the present case, is equal to 0.2 (Komvopoulos and Erpenbeck, 1991;
Mabrouki et al., 2008b).
F2: Constant friction coefficient with limited shear stress model
This model allows introduction of stick-slip conditions at the tool chip interface by defining the
equivalent shear stress limit from the beginning for sticking zone and a constant value of
coefficient of friction () for the sliding zone (Shi, Deng and Shet, 2002; Mabrouki et al., 2008b).
The constitutive mathematical model is given as:
max max
n
max
n n
, for ( Sticking zone)
, for ( Sliding zone)
(2)
In the sticking zone, the normal stress (
n
) is very large and frictional stress ( ) is assumed to
be equal to the equivalent shear stress limit,
max
. The value of
max
can be approximated
as 3 A , where A is the initial yield stress (Mabrouki et al., 2008). In the sliding zone, the
normal stress is small and the frictional stress follows the simple Coulombs law with =0.2
(Komvopoulos and Erpenbeck, 1991; Mabrouki et al., 2008b).
F3: Variable friction coefficient as a function of temperature
The friction law in this model accounts for the temperature effects. The model postulates the
Coulombs law with a mean coefficient of friction ( ) in terms of mean interface temperature
(T
int
) as defined below (Moufki, Molinari and Dudzinski, 1998):
int
( ) T = (3)
It is assumed that coefficient of friction is a decreasing function of temperature i.e. decreases
linearly to zero as the average temperature reaches the melting point of the workpiece material.
F4: Variable friction coefficient as a function of normal stress
This model defines the coefficient of friction as a function of the average normal stress (
n
) over
the entire tool chip contact surface. This is expressed as follows:
n
= . (4)
The normal stress and shear stress ( ) values used for the evaluation of are taken from the
experimentally found stress distributions by Buryta, Sowerby and Yellowley (1994).
F5: Variable friction coefficient as a function of sliding velocity
This model considers a variable friction coefficient as a function of the average local sliding
velocity at the tool-chip contact. Zemzemi et al. (2009) identified a new empirical friction model
based on the local sliding velocity
ls
V as follows:
057 . 0 ) ln( 07 . 0 + =
ls
V (5)
This friction relates the friction coefficient and the local sliding velocity in the range of 2-170
m/min corresponding to the cutting velocity up to 200 m/min.
F6: Rate dependent friction coefficient model
This recent friction model developed by Tawfiq (2007) is expressed by the following relation:
+ = e
k s k
) ( (6)
where,
k
is the coefficient of kinetic friction,
s
is coefficient of static friction, is the
exponential decay coefficient and v is the relative sliding velocity of the slave and master
surfaces. The optimum values of coefficients,
s
= 0.4 and
k
= 0.2 were determined through
trial and error approach (Tawfiq, 2007).
F7: Two friction coefficients model
In this model, basic Coulombs law is implemented with two different coefficients for specified
portions of the contact length (
c
L ), namely sticking region (
sticking
L ) and sliding region. On the
basis of past research, the length of the sticking region was assumed equal to the uncut chip
thickness (Ozel, 2006). In order to apply this at the tool-chip interface, the tool rake surface was
split into two sections such that
23 . 0 = when
sticking
L x 0 and 15 . 0 = when
c sticking
L x L ,
where x is the distance measured from the tool tip along the tool rake face. The constant values of
were taken based on the existing literatures (Komvopoulos and Erpenbeck, 1991; Ozel, 2006).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, numerical results obtained from FE simulations with different types of Johnson-
Cook material constants and the friction models are presented.
3.1. Johnson-Cook material constants
Since chip morphology affects the stress, strain and temperature distributions, prediction of the
right kind of chip morphology through finite element simulations is an important aspect in the
study of metal cutting. This motivates us to carefully select the material model as well as the
corresponding material constants to be used in the flow stress equation of the chosen material
model. The results dealing with three different sets of Johnson-Cook material constants, namely,
M1, M2 and M3 (see Table 1) are presented in this section. The friction model for each of the
three cases are kept same i.e. constant friction model with limited shear stress, so that the results
can be compared on the same conditions. Fig. 2 shows the predicted chip morphology and the
cutting force (
c
F ) variation over a simulation time of 2 ms at cutting velocity of 100 m/min and
uncut chip thickness of 0.2mm for different values of material constants (M1, M2 and M3). The
chip morphology may be described in terms of the average values of segmented chip geometry
such as distance between two saw-teeth (D), peak (a) and valley (b). In addition, the
corresponding cutting force profiles are presented which not only show the predicted values of
cutting forces but also aid in deriving the segmentation frequency. The segmentation frequency
(f
SN
in Hz) can be calculated as:
( )
1000
N
=
initial final
SN
T T
f (7)
where, N = number of saw teeth produced between a given time interval of
initial
T to
final
T .
The results in Figure 1 show too much variation in the predicted chip morphology, cutting force
values and the segmentation frequency with the change in the values of material constants. When
the sets M2 and M3 are compared with M1, cutting forces showed a deviation of as high as 68%.
While 63% of deviation in chip geometry and almost 50% of deviation in segmentation frequency
were observed. As discussed earlier, the constant A used in the Johnson-Cook model is known to
vary with the temper of steel and hence can be correlated to the hardness of the work material
(Banerjee, 2007). It is also evident from literature that as the hardness changes, there is a change
in the flow stress of the work material (Umbrello et al., 2007). That the value of A affects the chip
morphology, segmentation frequency as well as cutting force values is therefore, a logical
conclusion. Generally, harder the workpiece material, higher is the tendency for the deformation
to localize and thus produce more prominent segmented chips even at low cutting speeds
(Umbrello, Hua and Shivpuri, 2004). This can be figured out in the case of M3 where the value of
A is highest. Not only the saw teeth are well defined for M3 but also the segmentation frequency
is higher. Furthermore, as the material hardness increases, more deformation energy is required
for the chip formation (Qian and Hossan, 2007). This explains the increasing trend of cutting
forces from M1 to M3. In addition, m and n are also considered as the critical parameters that
influence the segmentation of chip (Baker, 2003). Baker (2003) suggested increase in m leads to
increase in chip segmentation and decrease in cutting forces, while increase in n causes lesser
tendency to undergo chip segmentation keeping cutting force nearly constant. This could be the
reason possibly for higher value of segmentation frequency (
SN
f = 3663 Hz) for M1 as compared
to the other two values. In the former case, greater value of m and lower value of n (see Eq. (1))
increases the number of saw teeth or segmentation frequency, but comparatively lesser distinct
and smaller chips are produced due to lower value of A.
To give a clear insight, the temperature distributions, being the most important factor responsible
for the varied chip morphology, are presented for all the three cases in Fig. 3 at a cutting velocity
(
c
V ) of 120 m/min and uncut chip thickness ( f ) of 0.2 mm for a simulation time of 2 ms. As
expected, the distribution patterns of temperatures are different from each other, reflecting
difference in the chip morphology. It is known that the chip segmentation basically results from
the thermal softening due to very high temperatures in highly localized regions of the shear plane
during the cutting of hardened steels. The temperature distribution of M1 is not as localized as the
other two, in the shear zone. While in case of M2 and M3, higher values of temperatures are
attained in a highly localized region in the form of a band extending from tool tip towards the
back of the chip. Consequently, highly pronounced saw teeth are produced due to the thermal
softening caused by very high temperatures at the back of the chip. The maximum temperature at
the rake face (
rake
T ) of the tool and shear zone (
shear
T ) of the workpiece can also be determined
from the simulated results presented in Fig. 3. In Fig. 3 (c), the chip appears to penetrate the
workpiece. But in actual sense, the chip flows out at the side of the workpiece and it is simply the
overlapping of the images of chip and workpiece (hidden boundary shown by dashed lines). The
predicted results conform well to the existing ones which have concluded that greater hardness,
which in the present context is higher value of A, yields higher cutting temperatures (Matsumoto
and Hsu, 1987). This, as stated earlier, can be attributed to the higher energy involved during the
cutting of the harder steels (Qian and Hossan, 2007).
The predicted results show that material constants significantly affect various aspects of the
simulation of the chip formation process. As far as the chip morphology is concerned, the
distance between the two consecutive saw-teeth in case of M2 (D=0.326 mm) is fairly closer to
the experimental one (D=0.3 mm) found by Belhadi et al. (2005). But at the same time, M2
underestimates the segmentation frequency to some extent. When cutting forces were considered,
experimental values were taken from the work of Lima, Avila and Abrao (2005). Tests were
conducted for machining AISI 4340 steel of hardness varying from 23 to 42 HRC with coated
carbide tool and the corresponding cutting forces measured were around 475 N and 575 N,
respectively. It is found that the M2 gives a cutting force value that is closer to the one obtained
by Lima, Avila and Abrao (2005) for 42 HRC steel, while M1 gives a cutting force of 408.19 N
comparable with the value obtained in the case of 23 HRC, (though an underestimated value) and
M3 yields cutting force of 687.7 N which of course is a much higher value. Hence, this work
demonstrates the importance of choosing optimum values of material constants that may prove as
a satisfactory compromise between the hardness of the workpiece material and the cutting
variables such as chip morphology, cutting forces and cutting temperatures.
3.2. Influence of friction models
This section aims to investigate the importance of implementing the right kind of frictional
boundary conditions in the FE simulation. Seven different friction models (F1 to F7) are selected
from the review of past research and are incorporated into a finite element model by keeping all
the other factors constant, say, the workpiece material model, tool geometry and the cutting
conditions. The Johnson-Cook material model, with M1 set of parameters, was considered for the
workpiece material AISI 4340 of hardness 48 HRC (Mabrouki and Rigal, 2006). Table 3 shows
the predicted values of various process variables such as the cutting force (
c
F ), thrust force (
t
F ),
tool chip interface temperature (
int
T ), contact length (
c
L ) and chip thickness (
2
a ) for the seven
cases by varying the cutting velocity from 60 to 180 m/min for uncut chip thickness of 0.2 mm.
The predicted values show the trend that accord well with the basic theory. The forces, contact
length and chip thickness tend to decrease while the interface temperature increases with the
increase in the cutting velocity in all the seven cases. However, percentage change in the
variables varies with the type of friction model used. The predicted cutting force and thrust force
are compared with the experimental values obtained by Lima et al. (2005) and Lima, Avila and
Abrao (2007) for machining AISI 4340 of hardness 42 HRC and 50 HRC using negative rake
( 6 = ) carbide tool under equivalent cutting conditions. Although the workpiece hardness
considered in this work is marginally different from those considered in Lima et al. (2005) and
Lima, Avila and Abrao (2007), the forces can be assumed to lie in the range identified in these
cited sources and thus, a qualitative assessment of the correlation between the published
experimental results and our numerical results can be made. Experimental findings of Lima et al.
(2005) show a percentage decrease of 30.78% and 21.88% for cutting forces when machining
AISI 4340 of hardness 42 HRC and 50 HRC, respectively as the
c
V is increased from 60 m/min
to 180 m/min. The numerical results show a maximum decrease of 15% in the cutting force and
27.8 % decrease in the thrust force (both observed in the case of F3) for the same variation in
cutting speed. The friction model F4 showed 11.8 % decrease in the cutting force while the rest of
the models, except F5, show a percentage decrease of 8-10% in cutting force. In case of F5,
variation in force is found to be lowest, i.e. 5 %. Lima, Avila and Abrao (2007) observed an
increase in the cutting and thrust forces with the increase in hardness (23 to 42 HRC) while
cutting AISI 4340. In their research (Lima, Avila and Abrao, 2007), cutting force and thrust force
came out to be around 550 and 240 N, respectively, while machining AISI 4340 of hardness 42
HRC at
c
V = 120 m/min and f = 0.2 mm/rev. However, lower forces were observed when
machining work material AISI 4340 hardened to 50 HRC in comparison with 42 HRC, i.e.
c
F =
425 N and
t
F = 100 N in the work of Lima et al. (2005). Since the present work deals with a
work material having hardness 48 HRC, the values of cutting and thrust forces ought to lie in
between the mentioned values (450550 N for
c
F and 150250 N for
t
F at
c
V = 120 m/min and f
= 0.2 mm/rev). It can be seen from Table 3 that the predicted values of the cutting and thrust
forces appear to fall in the concerned range; thrust force being slightly underestimated. The
model F5 seems to give one of the best values of cutting force (
c
F = 500.5 N) with
t
F =187.9 N,
while F4 gives a better value for thrust force (
t
F = 192.6 N) with a corresponding value of cutting
force (
c
F = 486.8 N) slightly lower than the value obtained from F5.
The percentage increase in the interface temperature is found to be as high as 40-45 % in case of
F1, F2, F6 and F7, while the friction models F5, F3 and F4 showed a percentage increase of 30,
29 and 23%, respectively. However, the predicted values of average interface temperatures for all
the cases are found to be underestimated when compared with the experimental results by Dhar,
Kamruzzaman and Ahmed (2006). The average interface temperatures for cutting velocities of 63
and 128 m/min were found to be 737.5 C and 788 C, respectively, when measured
experimentally while machining AISI 4340. Though the frictions models F1, F2, F6 and F7
exhibit large temperature increase with the increase in the cutting velocity, the
int
T values are
much lower especially at
c
V = 60 m/min. Hence, F5 and F4 can be considered as models showing
fairly better results for
int
T because not only they show higher values as compared to others but
also they exhibit temperature increase fairly well. Since temperature at interface is directly
influenced by the relative velocity, velocity dependent friction model F5 could possibly predict
the value of
int
T better. Fig. 4 shows the variation in the temperature distribution over the rake
face for friction models F4, F5 (that showed better results in terms of
int
T ) and F2 (one of the
commonly used friction model) at
c
V = 120 m/min and f = 0.2 mm/rev. As expected, all three
models show that the temperature is non-uniformly distributed along the rake face with peak
interface temperature occurring at some distance away from the cutting edge. The difference is
mainly observed in the position and the value of the peak interface temperature in models F2, F4
and F5. This may be attributed to the distribution of frictional stress along the tool chip contact
length. Fig. 5 presents the normal and frictional stress distribution along the tool chip interface. It
can be seen that F5 has the highest value of frictional stress followed by F4 and F2. This reflects
the trend observed in the case of temperature distribution in Figure 4. It is also noted that there is
almost no change in the stress distribution for model F1 (constant friction coefficient) and F2
(constant friction coefficient with limited shear stress model). Hence, it may be inferred that the
ABAQUS-Explicit software is unable to simulate the stick-slip zones based upon the equivalent
shear stress value effectively in case of F2.
Chip reduction coefficient (), one of the most important process output (in terms of process
evaluation and optimization) is defined as the ratio of chip thickness (a
2
) to uncut chip thickness
(f). This has been calculated and plotted for
c
V = 60180 m/min, as shown in Fig. 6 for each of
the seven models. The reason to determine chip reduction coefficient is that it is an important
machinability index giving much idea about the nature of the tool-chip interaction, chip contact
length, and chip form. As expected, decreases with the increasing cutting velocity for all the
cases. But it is observed that the decrease in is more prominent in F5 followed by F4 and F3.
Note that all the three models are variable friction models, F5 as a function of sliding velocity, F4
based on experimentally measured normal and frictional stresses and F3 being temperature
dependent model. Interestingly, similar type of behaviour was observed by Ozel (2006), who
suggested that the predicted process variables are clearly found to be most accurate when utilizing
variable friction models based on the experimentally measured normal and frictional stresses on
the tool rake surface.
In general, it is observed that the predicted values tend to vary with the change in the friction
model. The constant Coulomb friction coefficient model (F1) is one of the most widely used
models as it is considered to be a fair compromise from simplicity and accuracy point of view of
the problem. When rest of the models are compared with the model F1, the variable friction
models F4 (stress dependent) followed by F5 (sliding velocity dependent) and F3 (temperature
dependent) showed significant deviations in cutting force, thrust force and interface temperature,
while F2, F6 and F7 produced nearly same values for all the three variables. F4 showed a
deviation of 6 % in
c
F , 37 % in
t
F and 20 % in
int
T . Such observation is in agreement with the
results predicted by Filice et al. (2007) and Ozel (2006). Filice et al. (2007) found
t
F to differ by
29 %,
int
T by 24 % and
c
F by 12 % among different friction models for machining AISI 1045.
Similarly, Ozel observed the thrust force varying by 8 % and cutting force by not more than 3 %
with the friction models while machining Low Carbon Free Cutting steel (LCFCS). It can be said
that influence of friction models is larger over the thrust force followed by temperature as
compared to cutting force (Arrazola and Ozel, 2010). However, variation in contact length and chip
thickness are found to be less among all the models as compared to the variation in the contact
length with higher predicted values for models F4 and F5. Likewise, Filice et al. (2007) and Ozel
(2006) have also found out that the main mechanical results such as cutting forces, contact length
etc. are not as sensitive to the friction models as compared to the cutting temperatures.
From the predicted results, it is reasonable to state that the friction modeling is not very critical at
higher cutting speeds but it is fairly prominent in case of low cutting speed (
c
V = 60 m/min)
showing a difference of 37% in thrust force and 20% in interface temperature by model F4. The
model F4, being the function of average normal stress over the rake face, reflects the stick-slip
zone in a much realistic way. This could be a probable reason for which F4 comes out to be one
of best models when compared with the rest of the models as well as with the existing
experimental results. The friction models tend to be crucial at low cutting speeds can be attributed
to the fact that sliding contact strongly depends on the cutting speed. At low cutting speeds
sticking zone can be up to 30% of the total contact while for high cutting speeds the contact is
mainly sliding (Ozlu, Budak and Molinari, 2009). Consequently, at higher cutting speeds all the
friction models behave like constant Coulomb friction coefficient model, thus showing similar
kind of results.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Incorporation of different friction models were used in an FE model to predict cutting force and
thrust force within a satisfactory range during orthogonal machining. It is observed that cutting
temperatures followed by thrust force seem to be affected more by the type of frictional
conditions implemented as compared to the cutting forces. In the present work, the overall values
of cutting temperatures for all the seven considered friction models are found to be lower than the
experimental ones. The one possible reason could be the inability to include the effect of hardness
in the flow stress models which properly include the effect of the heat treatment on the selected
work material in the simulation. This necessitates the incorporation of the right kind of material
models and their corresponding material constant values depending upon the hardness along with
the appropriate friction model in the FE simulation. Therefore, the first part of this work dealt
with the variation of chip morphology, forces and temperatures with three different sets of
material constants used in the Johnson-Cook model. Significant differences were observed in the
values of cutting forces and chip geometry. The deviation in cutting force value was found to be
as high as 68%. The chip geometry and segmentation frequency were found to differ by 63% and
50%, respectively. The new set of material parameters developed by Ozel and Karpat (2007)
through evolutionary computational method, M2, gives values of cutting force and chip geometry
that are closer to the existing experimental results (Lima, Avila and Abrao, 2005). The results
indicate that suitable selection of the material constants incorporates the effect of hardness of the
workpeice material on the flow stress behaviour of the work material.
The models F4 followed by F5 gave the best results in terms of cutting force, thrust force and
interface temperature when compared with the existing experimental findings. The decrease in
with the increase in cutting speeds is also more prominent in F4 and F5. Interestingly, both the
models are variable friction models, F4 based on normal and frictional stresses and F5 as a
function of sliding velocity. F4 showed the maximum deviation in the values of thrust force
(37%) and interface temperature (20%) when compared with the commonly used model F1.
However, the cutting forces, contact length and chip thickness are not as sensitive to the friction
models as compared to the thrust force and cutting temperatures. It is also noted that there is
almost no change in the stress distribution for model F1 (constant friction coefficient) and F2
(constant friction coefficient with limited shear stress model) reflecting the inadequacy of the
software to model stick-slip zones based upon the equivalent shear stress value effectively in case
of F2.
The effect of friction model is not very significant at higher cutting speeds but it is reasonably
significant in case of low cutting speed showing a difference of 37% in thrust force and 20% in
interface temperature by model F4. The present investigation points out that the selected friction
models does not affect the chip formation process at high cutting speeds which may be attributed
to the fact that chip-tool contact is mostly sliding type, i.e, governed by Coulomb friction law, at
high cutting speed. But at low cutting speeds, it is observed that the friction modeling plays a
crucial role in predicting the correct thrust force and the temperature. Though the chip thickness
prediction accuracy is inadequate, as far as other results are concerned, F4 friction model may be
considered as most suitable friction model among the selected models.
Most of the works so far, including the present study consider the effect of material modeling and
the friction modeling individually on the simulation of chip formation process. It is, however felt
that emphasis should be given to the combining of the friction models with suitable material
models or at least the material constant values depending upon the hardness of the work material,
instead of considering the friction models or material models alone to overcome the inadequacies.
This will definitely characterize the metal cutting process in a more realistic way that may
possibly lead to results closer to the experimental ones.
REFERENCES
Adibi-Sedeh, A.H. Vaziri, M. Pednekar, V. Madhavan, V. Ivester, R. (2005), Investigation of the effect of
using different material models on finite element simulations of metal cutting, 8th CIRP International
Workshop on Modeling of Machining Operations, Chemnitz Germany.
Atkins, A.G. (2003), Modeling metal cutting using modern ductile fracture mechanics: quantitative
explanations for some longstanding problems, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 45, 373396.
Arrazola, P.J. Ozel, T. (2010) "Investigations on the Effects of Friction Modeling in Finite Element
Simulation of Machining", International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 52, 31-42.
ABAQUS Analysis Users Manual version 6.7 (2007), Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket,
USA.
Banerjee, B. (2007), The mechanical threshold stress model for various tempers of AISI 4340 steel,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44, 834-859.
Batra, R.C. (1988), Steady state penetration of thermo-visoplastic targets, Computational Mechanics, 3,
112.
Baker, M. Rosler, J. Seimers, C. (2002), Finite element simulation of segmented chip formation of
Ti6Al4V, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 124, 485-488.
Buryta, D. Sowerby, R. Yellowley, I. (1994), Stress distributions on the rake face during orthogonal
machining, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 3, 721739.
Baker, M. (2003), The influence of plastic properties on chip formation, Computational Materials
Science, 28, 556-562.
Belhadi, S. Mabrouki, T. Rigal, J.-F. Boulanouar, L. (2005), Experimental and numerical study of chip
formation during straight turning of hardened AISI 4340 steel, Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
Proceedings of the IMechE Part B, 219, 515524.
Bonnet, C. Valiorgue, F. Rech, J. Hamdi, H. (2008), Improvement of the numerical modeling in
orthogonal dry cutting of an AISI 316l stainless steel by the introduction of a new friction model,
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology,1,114 118.
Brocail
, J.Watremez, M. Dubar, L. (2010), Identification of a friction model for modelling of orthogonal
cutting, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 50, 807-814.
Childs, T.H.C. (1998), Material property needs in modeling metal machining, Proceedings of the CIRP
International Workshop on Modeling of Machining Operations, Atlanta, Georgia, 193202.
Coelho, R.T. Ng, E.-G. Elbestawi, M.A. (2007), Tool wear when turning hardened AISI 4340 with coated
PCBN tools using finishing cutting conditions, International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 47 (1-2), 263-272.
Calamaz, M. Coupard, D. Girot, F. (2008), A new material model for 2D numerical simulation of serrated
chip formation when machining titanium alloy Ti6Al4V, International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture, 48, 275288.
Dhar, N.R. Kamruzzaman, M. Ahmed, M. (2006), Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool
wear and surface roughness in turning AISI-4340 steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology
172 (2), 299-304.
Davies, M.A. Cao, Q. Cooke, A.L. Ivester, R. (2003), On the measurement and prediction of temperature
fields in machining AISI 1045 steel, Annals of the CIRP 52: 7780.
Filice L, Micari F, Rizzuti S, Umbrello D (2007), A critical analysis on the friction modeling in
orthogonal machining, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 47: 709-714.
Fang, N. (2003), A quantitative sensitivity analysis of the flow stress of 18 engineering materials in
machining, Proceedings of the ASME Manufacturing Engineering Division, 14, 2332.
Guo, Y.B. and Liu, C.R. (2002), 3D FEA modeling of hard turning, Journal Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, 124, 189199.
Gray, G.T. Chen, S.R. Wright, W. Lopez, M.F. (1994), Constitutive equations for annealed metals under
compression at high strain rates and high temperatures, LA-12669-MS, Los Alamos, NM.
Huang, J.M. Black, J.T. (1996), An evaluation of chip separation criteria for the FEM simulation of
machining, ASME Trans. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng, 118, 4553.
Haglund, A.J. Kishawy, H.A. Rogers, R.J. (2008), An exploration of friction models for the chip-tool
interface using an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element model, Wear 265 (3-4), 452-460.
Johnson, G.R. Cook, W.H. (1983), A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains,
high strain rates and high temperatures, Proceedings of 7th International Symposium Ball, Hague,
The Netherlands, 541547.
Klamecki, B.E. (1973), Incipient chip formation in metal cutting- A three dimensional finite element
analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Kronenberg, M. (1966), Machining science applications: Theory and practice for operation development
machining processes, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Komvopoulos, K. Erpenbeck, S.A. (1991), Finite element modeling of orthogonal metal cutting, ASME
Journal of Engineering for Industry, 113, 253-267.
Litonski. J. (1977) Plastic flow of a tube under adiabatic torsion, Bulletin of Academy of Pol. Science,
Ser. Sci. Tech., XXV, 7.
Lesuer, D.R. (2000), Experimental investigations of material models for Ti-6A1-4V titanium and 2024-T3
aluminum, FAA Rep. No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/25, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.
Lee, L.C. Liu, X. Lam, K.Y. (1995), Determination of Rake Stress Distribution in Orthogonal
Machining, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 35(3), 373382.
Lima, J.G. Avila, R.F. Abrao, A.M. (2007), Turning of hardened AISI 4340 steel using coated carbide
inserts, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Proceedings of the IMechE Part B, 221(80), 1359-1366.
Lima, J.G. Avila, R.F. Abrao, A.M. Faustino, M. Davim, J.P. (2005), Hard turning: AISI 4340 high
strength alloy steel and AISI D2 cold work tool steel, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
169, 388-395.
Matsumoto, Y. Hsu, D.C. (1987), Workpiece temperature rise during the cutting of AISI 4340 steel,
Wear, 116, 309-317.
Mabrouki, T. Girardin, F. Asad, M. Regal, J.-F. (2008), Numerical and experimental study of dry cutting
for an aeronautic aluminium alloy, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
48, 1187-1197.
Mabrouki, T. Deshayes, L. Ivester, R. Regal, J.-F. Jurrens, K. (2008), Material modeling and experimental
study of serrated chip morphology, Proceedings of 7
th
CIRP International Workshop on Model
Machin, France.
Moufki, A. Molinari, A. Dudzinski, D. (1998), Modelling of orthogonal cutting with a temperature
dependent friction law, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 46, 21032138.
Mabrouki, T. Rigal, J.-F. (2006), A contribution to a qualitative understanding of thermo-mechanical
effects during chip formation in hard turning, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 176, 214-
221.
Maekawa, K. Shirakashi, T. Usui, E. (1983), Flow stress of low carbon steel at high temperature and strain
rate (Part 2)Flow stress under variable temperature and variable strain rate, Bulletin of Japan Society
of Precision Engineering, 17, 167172.
Ng, E.G. Tahany, I. Wardany, E-. Dumitrescu, M. Elbestawi, M.A. (2002), Physics based simulation of
high speed machining, Machining Science and Technology, 6, 301-329.
Ng, E.-G. Aspinwall, D.K. (2002), Modeling of hard part machining, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 39, 885-903.
Ng, E. Wardany, T.I. E.I-. Dumitrescu, M. Elbestawi, M.A. (2002), 3D finite element analysis for the high
speed machining of hardened steel, ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress &
Exposition New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ozel, T. (2006), Influence of Friction Models on Finite Element Simulations of Machining, International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46(5), 518-530.
Oxley, P.L.B. (1989), The mechanics of machining: An analytical approach to assessing machinability,
Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester, UK.
Ozel T, Karpat Y (2007), Identification of constitutive material model parameters for high-strain rate
metal cutting conditions using evolutionary computational algorithms, Materials and Manufacturing
Processes, 22, 659-667.
Ozlu, E. Budak, E.
Molinari, A. (2009), Analytical and experimental investigation of rake contact and
friction behavior in metal cutting, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 49, 865-
875.
Qian, L. Hossan, M.R. (2007), Effect on cutting force in turning hardened tool steels with cubic boron
nitride inserts, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 191 (1-3), 274-278.
Rakotomalala, R., Joyot, P. Touratier, M. (1993), Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian thermomechanical finite
element model of material cutting, Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering, 9, 975-
987.
Rosa, P.A.R. Martins, P.A.F. Atkins, A.G. (2007), Revisiting the fundamentals of metal cutting by means
of finite elements and ductile fracture mechanics, Int. J. Mach. Tool Manu, 47, 607617.
Rech, J. Claudin, DEramo, C. E. (2009), Identification of a friction model -application to the context of
dry cutting of an AISI 1045 annealed steel with a tin coated carbide tool, Tribology International, 42,
738744.
Shi, J. Liu, C.R. (2004), The influence of material models on finite element simulation of machining,
Journal Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 126, 849-857,
Shi, G. Deng, X. Shet, C. (2002), A finite element study of the effect of friction in orthogonal metal
cutting, Finite Element Analysis and Design, 38, 863-883.
Strenkowski, J.S. Moon, K.-J. (1990), Finite element prediction of chip geometry and tool/workpiece
temperature distributions in orthogonal metal cutting, ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry,
112, 313-318.
Strenkowski, J.S. Carroll, J.T. (1985), A finite element model of orthogonal cutting, ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, 107, 349354.
Shaw, M.C. Metal cutting principles, 2003, ISBN: 81- 239-0136-4
Sima, M. Ozel, T. (2010), "Modified Material Constitutive Models for Serrated Chip Formation
Simulations and Experimental Validation in Machining of Titanium Alloy Ti-6Al-4V", International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, in print, DOI:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2010.08.004.
Tawfiq, M.A. (2007), Finite element analysis of the rake angle effects on residual stresses in machined
layer, Engineering & Technology: 25(1), 36-48.
Usui, E. Shirakashi, T. (1982), Mechanics of machining-from descriptive to predictive theory. On the art
of cutting metals-75 Years Later, ASME PED 7, 1355.
Umbrello, D. Hua, J. Shivpuri, R. (2004), Hardness based flow stress for numerical modeling of hard
machining AISI 52100 bearing steel, Materials Science and Engineering: A, 347, 90100.
Umbrello, D. Rizzuti, S. Outeiro, J.C. Shivpuri R, M'Saoubi R (2008), Hardness-based flow stress for
numerical simulation of hard machining AISI H13 tool steel, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 199, 64-73.
Umbrello, D. M'Saoubi, R. Outeiro, J.C. (2007), The Influence of JohnsonCook Material Constants on
Finite Element Simulation of Machining of AISI 316L Steel, International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture, 47 (34), 462470.
Usui, E. Takeyama, H. (1960), A photoelastic analysis of machining stresses, ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, 82, 303308.
Vaziri, M. R. Salimi, M. Mashayekhi, M. (2010), A new calibration method for ductile fracture models as
chip separation criteria in machining, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18, 1286-1296.
Vaziri, M.R. Salimi, M. Mashayekhi, M. (2010), Evaluation of Chip Formation Simulation Models for
Material Separation in the Presence of Damage Models, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
DOI: 10.1016/j.simpat.2010.09.006
Wu, J.S. Dillon, O.W. Lu, W.Y. (1996), Thermo-viscoplastic modeling of machining process using a
mixed finite element method, Journal Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Transactions of
ASME, 118, 470482.
Zemzemi, F. Ben, Salem, W. Rech, J. Dogui, A. Kapsa, P. (2008), New tribometer designed for the
characterization of the friction properties at the tool/chip/workpiece interfaces in machining, Tribotest
14, 1125.
Zemzemi, F. Rech, J. Ben, S.W. Dogui, A. Kapsa, P. (2009), Identification of a friction model at
tool/chip/workpiece interfaces in dry machining of AISI4142 treated steels, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 209 (8), 3978-3990.
Zerilli, F.J. Armstrong, R.W. (1987), Dislocation-mechanics-based constitutive relations for material
dynamics calculations, Journal of Applied Physics, 61, 18161825.
Zorev, N.N. (1966) Metal Cutting Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Zorev, N.N. (1963), Inter-relationship between shear processes occurring along tool face and shear plane
in metal cutting, ASME International Research in Production Engineering, New York, 4249.
FIGURES
Fig. 1 Geometric details and boundary conditions of the model
X
Y
Z
Chip surface
Work piece
Damage zone
Vc
Cutting tool
Model
Chip morphology
Cutting force
M1
D =0.199 mm
a = 0.309 mm
b = 0.272 mm
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
T
final
T
initial
C
u
t
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
e
(
N
)
Time (ms)
c
F = 408.19 N
SN
f = 3663.3 Hz
M2
D =0.326 mm
a = 0.368 mm
b = 0.217 mm
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
T
final
T
initial
C
u
t
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
e
(
N
)
Time (ms)
c
F = 597.25 N
SN
f = 1855Hz
M3
D=0.217 mm
a= 0.313 mm
b= 0.222 mm
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
T
final
T
initial
C
u
t
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
e
(
N
)
Time (ms)
c
F = 687.73 N
SN
f = 2798.5 Hz
Fig.2 Predicted chip morphology and cutting force for M1, M2 and M3 at
c
V = 120 m/min and
f = 0.2 mm for t = 2 ms
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3 Temperature distributions (C) for (a) M1, (b) M2 and (c) M3 at
c
V = 120 m/min and f =
0.2 mm
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
C
)
Distance fromthe cutting edge (mm)
F5
F4
F2
Fig. 4 Temperature distributions along the rake surface of the tool predicted by using friction
models F2, F4 and F5 at t = 2 ms
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
G
P
a
)
Distance fromthe cutting edge (mm)
Normal Stress (F1)
Normal Stress (F2)
Normal Stress (F4)
Normal Stress (F5)
Frictional Stress (F1)
Frictional Stress (F2)
Frictional Stress (F4)
Frictional Stress (F5)
Fig. 5 Stress distributions along the rake surface of the tool predicted by using different friction
models at t = 2 ms
60 90 120 150 180
1.80
1.95
2.10
2.25
2.40
2.55
2.70
2.85
3.00
C
h
i
p
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Cutting velocity (m/min)
F1 F5
F2 F6
F3 F7
F4
Fig. 6 Variation of chip reduction coefficient with cutting velocity with different friction models
Table 1 Physical properties of cutting tool and workpiece
Parameter
Work piece
(AISI 4340)
Tool
(Tungsten carbide)
Thermal Conductivity, k 44.5W/m/
o
C 50 W/m/
o
C
Density, 7850 kg/m
3
11900 kg/m
3
Youngs modulus, E 205 GPa 534 GPa
Poissons ratio, 0.3 0.22
Specific heat, C
p
475 J/kg/
o
C 400 J/kg/
o
C
Expansion coefficient, (10
-5
) 1.37
Table 2 Johnson-Cook Constants for AISI 4340
Model A (MPa) B (MPa) C n m
M1(Johnson and Cook, 1983) 792 510 0.014 0.26 1.03
M2 (Ozel and Karpat, 2007) 1523.3 1022.6 0.001512 0.5358 0.89438
M3 (Gray et al., 1994) 2100 1750 0.0028 0.65 0.75
Table 3 Predicted values from FE simulations at
c
V = 120m/min and f = 0.2 mm
Model
c
V (m/min)
c
F (N)
t
F (N)
int
T (C)
c
L (mm)
2
a (mm)
60 503.29 163.19 558.84 0.59 0.526
120 471.28 152.7 651.01
0.487 0.484
F1
180 448.9 146.34 778.4 0.428
0.423
60 503.07 163.34 558.8 0.570 0.517
120 471.28 152.7 651.01 0.448 0.47
F2
180 448.9 146.34 778.403
0.408 0.414
60 520.40 176.38 561.01 0.448 0.548
120 463.0 139.76 617.12
0.415 0.461
F3
180 441.15 127.22 721.16
0.407 0.409
60 532.41 223.66 667.07 0.530 0.590
120 486.88
192.687
683.16 0.489 0.501
F4
180 469.22
187.31
820.68
0.448 0.416
60 514.39 191.54 653.66 0.529 0.518
120 500.5
187.99
709.968
0.448 0.486
F5
180 486.34
179.97
847.19
0.407 0.461
60 502.88 162.64 526.85 0.448 0.507
120 470.15 152.25 646.15 0.428 0.464
F6
180 450.35 147.02 778.18
0.407 0.464
60 500.13 169.92 550.0 0.467 0.511
120 477.24 168.19 683.82 0.457 0.464
F7
180 457.52
163.15
800.71
0.416 0.424