Multiphase Finite Element

Modeling of Machining
Chinmaya R. Dandekar
Graduate Research Assistant
Yung C. Shin
Professor
Center for Laser-Based Manufacturing,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Unidirectional Composites:
Prediction of Debonding and
Fiber Damage
A multiphase finite element model using the commercial finite element package ABAQUS/
EXPLICIT is developed for simulating the orthogonal machining of unidirectional fiber
reinforced composite materials. The composite materials considered for this study are a
glass fiber reinforced epoxy and a tube formed carbon fiber reinforced epoxy. The effects
of varying the fiber orientation angle and tool rake angle on the cutting force and
damage during machining are considered for the glass fiber reinforced epoxy. In the case
of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, only the effect of fiber orientation on the measured
cutting force and damage during machining is considered. Two major damage phenom-
ena are predicted: debonding at the fiber-matrix interface and fiber pullout. In the mul-
tiphase approach, the fiber and matrix are modeled as continuum elements with isotropic
properties separated by an interfacial layer, while the tool is modeled as a rigid body.
The cohesive zone modeling approach is used for the interfacial layer to simulate the
extent of debonding below the work surface. Bulk deformation and shear failure are
considered in the matrix for both the models and the glass fiber. A brittle failure criterion
is used for the carbon fiber specimen and is coded in FORTRAN as a user defined material
(VUMAT). The brittle failure of the carbon fibers is modeled using the Marigo model for
brittle failure. For validation purposes, simulation results of the multiphase approach are
compared with experimental measurements of the cutting force and damage. The model is
successful in predicting cutting forces and damage at the front and rear faces with respect
to the fiber orientation. A successful prediction of fiber pullout is also demonstrated in
this paper. DOI: 10.1115/1.2976146

1 Introduction Numerous studies have been conducted on orthogonal machin-

ing modeling of composite materials. Two primary approaches
Composite materials offer high strength to weight ratio, high
have been successfully implemented: a micromechanics based ap-
modulus to weight ratio, good damage tolerance, and good corro-
proach 5 and an equivalent homogenous material EHM ap-
sion resistance, which make them highly competitive with con-
proach. Both these modeling strategies have their respective ad-
ventional materials for many structural applications, provided that
vantages and disadvantages. The micromechanics approach
they can be machined to desired shapes at an acceptable cost and
describes the material behavior locally, and hence it is possible to
quality. In todays engineering world, many classes of composite
study local defects such as debonding. The required computation
materials have emerged in importance, including fiber reinforced
time however is very high, as the model can predict local damage;
polymers, natural fiber composites, metal matrix composites, and
the mesh used for this study is a lot finer than the one needed for
ceramic matrix composites. Amongst these materials, polymeric
the EHM model. On the other hand the EHM approach reduces
composites are one of the most popularly used ones, particularly
the computation time but is not able to predict the local effects,
in the aerospace industry wherein carbon fiber reinforced compos-
namely, the damage observed at the fiber-matrix interface 2,3,6.
ites are primarily used. Composite materials, in general, exhibit
Another approach proposed recently by Rao et al. 7,8 is to use a
inhomogeneity, anisotropy, and nonductile behavior, making it
combination of the EHM and micromechanical models, where the
challenging to machine damage free parts. This paper deals with a
micromechanical model was used in the vicinity of the tool, while
multiphase finite element modeling FEM approach for machin-
the EHM model was implemented away from the tool.
ing unidirectional fiber reinforced polymers.
Damage free machining is a very attractive area of research, as
Machining of fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites has
the challenges involved are high with numerous advantages to be
been extensively studied experimentally in the past. These mate-
gained. Prediction of damage based on either analytical or numeri-
rials are shown to cause excessive tool wear, which in turn in-
cal studies helps in a better design of tool geometry and selection
duces such damage phenomena as fiber pullout, delamination, and
of cutting parameters. The primary damage associated with ma-
debonding. This severe tool wear in the case of both carbon and
chining is delamination. Delamination is defined as the separation
glass fiber reinforced composites is due to the abrasive nature of
of two or more plies in a laminate. Delamination not only causes
the fibers. The parameters that are the major contributors to the
defects in the structural integrity of the composite but also affects
cutting forces, surface quality, and tool wear are the fiber orienta-
the tolerances achieved 9. Analytical methods of predicting
tion, tool geometry, and machining parameters 14.
delamination have been predominantly developed for studying
drilling processes, while delamination in turning processes has
Manuscript received November 23, 2007; final manuscript received June 30, been studied by either experiments or finite element analysis.
2008; published online September 11, 2008. Review conducted by Suhas Joshi. Nayak and Bhatnagar 6 carried out finite element simulations on

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-1
Copyright 2008 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 machining of a unidirectional glass fiber reinforced plastic, and
their findings supported the results of Arola et al. 3 with regard
to the observed damage depth. All the authors indicated that the
extent of damage depth and the cutting force increase with in-
creasing fiber orientation 2,6,10, while the thrust force results
simulated by Arola et al. 3 and the equivalent homogenous ma-
terial approach by Nayak and Bhatnagar 6 were inconclusive.
Recently Nayak et al. 5 and Nayak and Bhatnagar 6 proposed
a micromechanical model approach by considering different prop-
erties for the matrix and fiber. This model resulted in a better
prediction of the observed cutting forces and debonding. The deb-
onding predicted by the authors was at the front face of the fiber.
There is no work found in existing literature, which predicts the
debonding at the rear face of the fiber. Another equally important
damage phenomenon observed during composite machining is fi-
ber pullout/damage. Rao et al. 8 recently simulated the extent of
fiber damage by considering the fibers to be elastic and by mea-
suring the maximum principal stress. However, the debonding
predicted is only on the front face of the fiber. This is a limitation
in the model as it fails to account for the statistical imperfections
in the strength of carbon fibers. It is the goal of this study to
model the fiber pullout through the use of a fiber damage model
and also through debonding at the fiber-matrix interface at both
the front and rear faces of the fibers.
The inhomogeneity of composite materials is well known to
cause problems during machining. Unlike glass fibers that can be
modeled isotropically, carbon fibers exhibit an orthotropic behav-
ior and show brittle failure during machining. A number of failure
models dealing with brittle failure are available in the literature.
Due to its inherent simplicity in implementation and reasonable
accuracy in prediction, this study uses the Marigo model of brittle
failure, which depletes the elastic modulus of the carbon fiber on
damage evolution 11. Fracture of brittle materials, in general,
involves statistical considerations. Carbon fibers will have ran-
domly distributed defects on their surfaces or in the interior. The
presence of these defects results in a rather large scatter in the
experimentally determined strength data. The damage evolution is
thus dependent on the Weibull distribution of the strength of the
carbon fibers. Thus the damage model incorporated in this paper
accounts for these statistical variances in strength.
In this paper, numerical simulations are conducted and com-
pared with experimental measurements of cutting force and dam-
age. To employ the multiphase model for machining of carbon
fiber reinforced polymers, a benchmarking study is first conducted
for machining of glass fiber reinforced epoxy GFRP, for which
the experimental data obtained by Nayak and Bhatnagar 10 are
employed for validation purposes. For a carbon fiber reinforced
epoxy composite CFRP, the data acquired from tube turning
tests are utilized for validation purposes. The model presented in
this study predicts damage debonding at the front and rear faces
of the fiber, along with the fiber pullout, while previous models
have been limited to the prediction of the damage at the front face
of the fiber only.
2 Modeling of Orthogonal Machining of Unidirec-
tional Composites
The multiphase approach utilizes a three phase finite element
mesh. The mesh is based on distinct properties of the fiber, the
matrix, and the fiber-matrix interface. The fiber is modeled as an
isotropic material for the glass fiber composite, while it is mod-
eled as an orthotropic material in the case of the carbon fiber
composite. In both models the epoxy is considered to be isotropic
in nature, while the fiber-matrix interface is modeled using cohe-
sive zone elements. The continuum elements account for the de-
formation present in the fiber and matrix, while the cohesive ele-
ments account for the occurrence of debonding.
2.1 Fiber Material Modeling. Traditionally the damage evo-
lution chip separation has been modeled using a predefined sac-
051016-2 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
rificial layer in the modeled workpiece. This method has its draw-
backs wherein the method is incapable of predicting any material
damage below the cutting plane. Using a failure criterion based on
the stress/strain state at the instant of loading would provide a
more accurate representation of the machining process. To this
end, incorporation of the damage of carbon fibers in the simula-
tion is made possible via a VUMAT EXPLICIT user defined mate-
rial for ABAQUS 12. Among the failure models currently avail-
able in the literature, the Marigo model 11 provides a good
framework for considering the brittle failure of carbon fibers. The
model is simple in implementation and yet provides accurate re-
sults for the stress-strain behavior of carbon fibers.
The derivation of the material behavior is based on the follow-
ing formulation. The model considers the total strain and elas-
tic modulus E associated with the stress and the damage
variable D. Further the damage variable is associated with the
opposite of the strain energy release rate Y. The damage variable
is thus included in the stress-strain relationship of the carbon fi-
bers. The law of elasticity coupled with the damage is given by
= E1 D: 1
where the symbol : denotes the double contracted product, or
the double dot product, of two second order tensors. The next step
is to determine the equivalent stress eq from the deviatoric
stress D and the hydrostatic part of stress H,
eq = 23 D:D1/2 2
H = 31 kk 3
The strain energy release rate is given by
2
1
Y = :E: = 4
2 2E1 D2
= eqRv1/2 5
where Rv, the triaxiality function, is given by the following equa-
tion and is the damage equivalent stress,
2 H 2
Rv = 1 + + 31 2 6
3 eq
The triaxiality accounts for the stress state prevalent during
loading at each time step by updating the hydrostatic and equiva-
lent components of stress at each time step. The damage evolution
is given by Eq. 7 for the carbon fiber failure. The evolution of
damage is a function of the Weibull parameters wl and mw. In the
damage model, mw is the Weibull shape parameter and wl is the
measured strength at the reference length. The Weibull parameters
take into account the variability in the strength of the fiber bundles
and are easily obtained from literature for the carbon fiber
bundles,
2EY mw/2
D = 1 exp 7
wl
2
The damage is then calculated from Eq. 7 and then updated in
Eq. 1. In this fashion damage is initiated and accumulated
throughout the carbon fibers. One of the advantages in this model
is that initial flaws in the carbon fibers can also be included. This
is achieved by having a nonzero value for the damage variable D
at the beginning of the time step. In the simulation results pre-
sented here, initial flaws in the fibers are neglected, but the model
is capable of including these effects.
2.2 Cohesive Zone Modeling. Modeling of the interface be-
tween the fiber and matrix is achieved using cohesive zone ele-
ments. The cohesive zone model CZM has been successfully
implemented in laser assisted machining of silicon nitride by Tian
and Shin 13. The cohesive model describes a relationship be-
tween the interfacial force and the crack opening displacement. In
Transactions of the ASME
 the CZM, the fracture process zone is simplified as being an ini- Table 1 Mechanical properties of glass fiber and epoxy
tially zero-thickness zone composed of two coinciding cohesive
surfaces. Under loading, the two surfaces separate, and the trac- Glass fiber
tion between them varies with the separation distance in accor- Diameter, m 10
dance with a specified traction separation law. The cohesive ele- Modulus of elasticity, GPa 72.5
ment progressively degrades in stiffness as the interfacial Tensile strength, MPa 3400
separation increases. When the opening displacement reaches the
Matrix, epoxy
maximum, the cohesive element fails, suggesting separation and
Modulus of elasticity, GPa 3.1
debonding of the interface. The crack propagation between the Tensile strength, MPa 70
continuum elements progresses along the boundary. This feature
of cohesive elements lets the user simulate debonding at the fiber- Fiber-matrix interface
matrix interface. Stresses that act both in the normal and tangen- Normal strength, MPa 160
tial directions leading to normal or shear fracture are also included Shear strength, MPa 34
in the cohesive model. The cohesive response addressed in the Strain energy release rate, J / m2 50
model here is based on Tvergaards assumed traction separation
law 14. The cohesive equations necessary for defining the model
are given below in Eqs. 813. These equations help in input-
ting the material properties in ABAQUS for the cohesive zone. The = O0.818 + 0.656 ln 14
nondimensional parameter in Eq. 8 relates the normal un
and tangential ut separations to the maximum allowable normal = O0.818 + 0.656 ln 15
n and tangential t separations of the cohesive element and
For the carbon fiber reinforced composite, the properties are
hence accounts for the damage of the cohesive element. The co- given in Table 2. The carbon fiber composite consists of 60% fiber
hesive element then fails when the value of reaches 1,

volume fraction. Unlike the strain rate dependency of the glass
un 2
ut 2 1/2 fiber, the carbon fiber is considered strain rate independent 18.
= + 8 The difference in the model for the carbon fiber and the glass fiber
n t
is the modulus of elasticity. Carbon fibers are orthotropic in na-
The traction separation law is then implemented through Eq. ture, while glass fibers are modeled as isotropic materials. Dam-
9, where max is the cohesive strength. In applying the traction age in the carbon fibers is then calculated using the Marigo model
separation law, the important parameters are max and the normal 5 for the carbon fiber. The two Weibull parameters needed for
separation energy Gc, or , while the shape of the traction sepa- the damage model can be obtained from literature. In the study the
ration law F is considered to be of second order relevance values of the Weibull parameters used are mw at 5.3 and wl at
15,16, 3.33 GPa 19.
27
F = 4 max1 2 + 2 9
4 Simulation Procedure
The normal separation energy Gc is the area under the traction
separation curve and is shown in Eq. 10. Knowing the cohesive A combination of 2D plane stress continuum quadrilateral
strength Tn and Tt and the Mode I GIC and Mode II GIIC CPS4R and triangular CPS3 elements is used for meshing the
fracture energies and using Eq. 10, we can then calculate the fiber and matrix, while the interface layer is modeled using the
zero-thickness 2D cohesive elements. A plane stress analysis is
maximum allowable separation distance of the cohesive ele-
used for the study contrary to the plane strain analysis convention-
ment. In Eq. 13, is the ratio of the shear to normal strength of ally used in cutting homogenous materials. The plane strain analy-
the cohesive elements, which can be calculated from the given sis is not valid for fiber reinforced composites due to the out of
material properties, plane displacements present in the machining of FRPs 2,3,6. A
16 max
9
Gc = 10 representative mesh for a fiber orientation of 90 deg is shown in
Fig. 1. The cutting tool is modeled as a rigid body. For the simu-
un lation the boundary conditions applied are as follows: the work-
Tn = F 11 piece is constrained to move in both the x and y directions at
n
the bottom side, the left-hand side, and the lower right-hand side.
ut The tool is given a constant velocity in the x direction, and the
Tt = F 12 tool movement in the y direction is constrained.
t

GIIC
= 13 Table 2 Mechanical properties of carbon fiber and epoxy
GIC
Carbon fiber
3 Material Properties Diameter, m 14
Modulus of elasticity E11, GPa 240
The material properties specified for the glass fiber reinforced Modulus of elasticity E22, GPa 18
composite are provided in Table 1. The fibers are considered as a Tensile strength, MPa 3600
fiber bundle to represent the fiber volume fraction of 60% used in Shear strength, MPa 38
the study. One of the reasons for this is to simplify the numerical
problems associated with concurrent single fiber and matrix Matrix, epoxy
phases due to the considerable difference in the moduli and Modulus of elasticity, GPa 3.1
strength between the fiber and matrix. The matrix material has Tensile strength, MPa 70
been considered to be strain rate and temperature independent Fiber-matrix interface
since the temperatures obtained during machining of carbon fiber Normal strength, MPa 160
reinforced composites are low. The glass fiber is found to be strain Shear strength, MPa 34
rate dependent and follows the constitutive equation Eqs. 14 Strain energy release rate, J / m2 50
and 15 proposed by Wang and Xia 17,

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-3

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 Representative mesh for a 90 deg fiber orientation
In the machining simulation of GFRP, the cutting tool is a high
speed steel HSS tool with a nose radius of 50 m, rake angles
of 5 deg, 10 deg, and 15 deg, and a clearance angle equal to 6 deg.
The depth of cut used is 0.1 mm, and the cutting speed is 0.5 m/s.
The simulation parameters are identical to those used by Nayak
and Bhatnagar 10 for the machining of GFRP. The friction co-
efficient at the tool-chip interface was kept at a constant value of
0.3 for the GFRP specimens. The fiber orientations used in this
study are 90 deg, 120 deg, and 135 deg, as shown in Fig. 2. The
fiber orientations are measured to be positive counterclockwise
from the x axis shown in Fig. 2. Traditionally in the composites
community the aforementioned fiber orientation of 135 deg would
correspond to a 45 deg fiber orientation. Similarly the 45 deg
fiber orientation then would be classified as +45 deg.
In the machining simulation of CFRP, the cutting tool is a solid
carbide tool with a nose radius of 10 m, a rake angle of 5 deg,
and a clearance angle of 6 deg. The depth of cut used is 0.1 mm,
and the cutting speed is set at 1 m/s. The fiber orientations used in
this study are 45 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg, as shown in Fig. 2. In
the case of the CFRP specimens, the coefficients of friction are
calculated from the orthogonal machining tests and are deter-
mined to be 1.8, 0.49, and 0.6 for the 45 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg
fiber orientations, respectively. The cutting conditions used in the
simulations are summarized in Table 3.
Two different chip separation criteria are used for machining
modeling of the two unidirectional fiber reinforced composites.
In the model for the glass fiber reinforced epoxy, damage initia-
tion and evolution for the matrix and fiber follow the
SHEAR FAILURE 12 option. The shear failure model is based
on the value of the equivalent strain, and failure occurs when the
damage parameter exceeds a nominal value of 1 12. Ramesh et
Fig. 2 Orthogonal machining of GFRP composites 6
Table 3 Cutting conditions
Material Rake angle deg Nose radius m Depth of cut mm
GFRP 5, 10, and 15 50
CFRP 5 10
051016-4 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 3 Cutting mechanisms in machining GFRP 19
al. 20 proposed that the predominant failure mechanism in fiber
reinforced composites is by matrix shearing. The crack develop-
ment within the fiber and matrix is defined along a predefined path
by placing a sacrificial layer of elements; this sacrificial layer of
elements is based on experimental observations. Figure 3 obtained
from Wern and Ramulu 21, who cited the work of Sakuma and
Seto 22 and Kaneeda 23, shows the various cutting mecha-
nisms during the machining of GFRP based on the fiber orienta-
tion. In the study conducted here, the fiber orientation angles dic-
tate that the failure mechanism in the fibers and matrix is by
shearing.
For modeling the failure in the carbon fibers, the constraint of
placing a sacrificial layer of elements in the fiber was avoided by
coding a failure criterion. The user material VUMAT subroutine
was coded using FORTRAN, and the simulation procedure is illus-
trated in Fig. 4. The advantage of using a user subroutine is that it
gives the control in specifying the necessary constitutive equa-
tions and the incorporation of damage as explained earlier. This
successful implementation of a user material allows for the chip
formation to proceed through the fiber in a physical manner. A
drawback of the model is that in the case of the matrix there is still
a definition of a predefined sacrificial layer. This is due to the
complexities involved in the extreme mismatch between the ma-
terial properties of the matrix and the fiber. The matrix then fol-
lowed the SHEAR FAILURE 12 option.
The cohesive section is defined by the
TRACTION SEPARATION 12 law. The damage initiation for
the cohesive section is based on the QUADS 12 function,
which specifies the onset of damage based on the quadratic-
traction interaction law for cohesive elements. The progressive
damage evolution of the cohesive section is then based on the
ENERGY 12 approach, which accounts for the strain energy
release rate.
To ensure the stability of the model, the following measures
were undertaken. In the simulation, a numerical damping of 0.5
was used in combination with the arbitrary LagrangianEulerian
ALE method. The value for the numerical damping ensures that
the solution is accurate to the second order time integration. The
ALE is an adaptive meshing technique, which combines pure La-
grangian and Eulerian formulations to incorporate the advantages
of both. In the ALE method, the finite element mesh is neither
fixed spatially nor attached to the material, but in fact it is allowed
Cutting speed m/s Fiber orientation deg
0.1 0.5 90, 120, and 135
0.1 1 45, 90, and 120
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 4 Simulation procedure for implementing the user
subroutine
to flow with the material 12. In this manner severe distortion of
the elements is avoided without the need for remeshing. The ALE
method has successfully been implemented in machining simula-
tions to simulate chip formation in metal cutting by numerous
authors 24,25.
Another consideration in the stability of the models involves
the contact definition between the continuum elements surround-
ing the cohesive zone. This is due to the inability of cohesive
elements to sustain forces in the normal or tangential direction
after element failure, resulting in the penetration of the surround-
ing continuum elements. The penetration of the continuum ele-
ments is avoided by defining a soft contact pressure-overclosure
relationship Fig. 4, Ref. 13. The values for the pressure con- 6 Experimental Results
stant P0 and the clearance constant C0 used in the simulation
are 38 MPa and 0.01 m, respectively. The pressure constant
corresponds to the transverse strength of the fibers. In the case of
the clearance constant, the previous research by Tian and Shin
13 showed that varying the clearance constant between
0.004 m and 0.02 m resulted in a negligible effect on the
model. On the other hand, reducing the value below 0.004 m
causes the simulation to be numerically unstable.
5 Experiments
Machining simulations were carried out on two different com-
posite materials: glass fiber and carbon fiber reinforced epoxies.
Between these two materials, machining tests were carried out
only on carbon fiber specimens, while experimental results of cut-
ting force and damage obtained from Nayak and Bhatnagar 10
Table 4 Workpiece dimensions
Material Length of cut mm Width of cut mm
CFRP 6 2.15
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 5 5 Cutting forces as a function of the length of cut for
machining 90 deg fiber orientation CFRP specimens at a feed
rate of 0.1 mm and a cutting speed of 1 m/s
were used for the validation of GFRP machining simulations. The
polymer matrix composite used for machining tests in this study is
a tube formed carbon fiber reinforced epoxy. The carbon fiber
tubes were manufactured by a hand layup procedure. The final
dimensions of the workpiece are summarized in Table 4. The car-
bon fiber tape was supplied by Hexcel Inc. Dublin, CA in the
form of a 305 305 2.3 mm3 thickness roll with a nominal
fiber volume fraction of 60%. The specimens were made in the
form of 2.15 mm thick composite tubes. Based on the hand layup
procedure, the carbon fiber tape was first cut according to the
desired fiber orientation angle and then rolled onto the mandrel.
The necessary pressure was applied through rolling of the heat
shrink tape around the assembly. This assembly was then cured at
120 C for 1 h and was then let to cool inside the oven. In this
manner carbon fiber specimens with fiber angles of 45 deg, 90
deg, and 120 deg were manufactured.
All machining experiments were conducted on a Jones and
Lampson turning lathe. The cutting tool and conditions used for
these experiments are the same as those used in simulations of
CFRP. No coolant was used in the machining of these composites.
The flexure of the hollow tubes was minimized by placing an
aluminum cylinder with an outer diameter of 26 mm halfway
inside the carbon fiber tube.
Force measurements were conducted during machining using a
Kistler 9121 type dynamometer, and also the debonding depth and
the fiber pullout were measured for the damage characterization
using a scanning electron microscope SEM with an accelerating
voltage of 15 keV. Several samples were first sectioned using a
diamond wheel, and then the sectioned edge was polished using
standard metallographic techniques 400 grit, 500 grit, and 600
grit and an aqueous suspension of 0.3 m and 0.05 m alumina
at the final stages. The samples were then vacuum sputter coated
with approximately 20 nm of gold so as to obtain optimum reso-
lution and to minimize excessive static charge buildup. The fluc-
tuation in the cutting force result is very common in the machin-
ing of composite materials due to the successive cutting of
varying phases. Since there was a lot of fluctuation in the col-
lected data, an eight point moving average was utilized for the
Outer diameter mm Length of tube mm
28.15 152.4
OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-5
 Table 5 Cutting force per unit width data for a cutting speed of 1 m/s for machining CFRP
specimens

Data points
Force data N/mm Fiber orientation deg 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average

Main force Fc 45 24.4 25.4 23.3 23.9 21.9 25.2 24.0

90 46.6 50.0 48.3 48.6 44.1 45.2 47.1
120 42.0 41.6 43.2 39.3 41.8 40.5 41.4
Thrust force Ft 45 48.5 50.5 45.5 48.3 42.9 51.0 47.8
90 17.9 20.5 18.6 19.7 19.2 21.9 19.7
120 22.6 22.8 20.9 21.5 22.0 21.9 22.0

measurement of the cutting force. Figure 5 shows a representative terior cross-section of the samples. For each fiber orientation, five
graph of the measured cutting force for a specimen with a 90 deg measurements each from three different samples were taken. The
fiber orientation. The solid line in the figure indicates the eight reported value is the average value of these 15 measurements for
point moving average, which, as mentioned previously, is used in each fiber orientation. A variation of 15% is observed in the ex-
reporting the cutting force values. The final reported value of the perimental measurements. The images indicate the extent of deb-
cutting force is the average of the steady state values for six ex- onding between the fiber and the matrix. Other damage phenom-
periments conducted under the same cutting condition, as given in ena are also observed, primarily microcracking of fibers,
Table 5. The width of cut was 2.15 mm, and the length of each cut debonding, and fiber pullout, as shown in Figs. 79. The average
was 6 mm. The average values of the main cutting and thrust force measured values for debonding are 78 m, 56 m, and 47 m,
for machining 45 deg fiber oriented samples were 24 N/mm and respectively, for the 45 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg fiber orientation
47.8 N/mm, respectively. For the 90 deg fiber orientation samples, samples. The average measured values for the fiber pullout are
the average values for the main cutting force and the thrust force 58 m, 40 m, and 30 m for the 45 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg
per width were 47 N/mm and 19.7 N/mm respectively, while they fiber orientation specimens, respectively. It is clear from Figs. 79
were 41.4 N/mm and 22 N/mm, respectively, in the case of the
120 deg fiber orientation.
Figure 6 shows the measured cutting forces per unit width as a
function of the fiber orientations. Contrary to the expectation, the
average cutting force was lower than the average thrust force for
the fiber orientation of 45 deg, while the cutting force was much
larger than the average thrust force for the 90 deg and 120 deg
fiber orientations. The average cutting force increased with in-
creasing fiber orientation, but above the 90 deg fiber orientation
the cutting force decreased. In the case of the thrust force, the
maximum value was observed during machining of the 45 deg
fiber orientation samples, but as the fiber orientation angle in-
creased the thrust force decreased drastically. A further increase in
the fiber orientation angle resulted in a slight increase in the thrust
force. The above phenomenon wherein the cutting force is smaller
than the thrust force for the 45 deg fiber orientation and the
gradual increase and subsequent decrease in the cutting forces
were previously observed for edge trimming of graphite epoxy
unidirectional laminates by Arola et al. 3 and by Wang et al.
26.
To check for the prediction of damage during the machining of Fig. 7 Damage observations in the machining of 45 deg fiber
CFRP polymers, SEM images were obtained by studying the in- orientation CFRP specimens at a cutting speed of 1 m/s

Fig. 6 Experimental cutting force per unit width results for

machining CFRP specimens at a cutting speed of 1 m/s at vary- Fig. 8 Damage observations in the machining of 90 deg fiber
ing fiber orientations orientation CFRP specimens at a cutting speed of 1 m/s

051016-6 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 9 Damage observations in the machining of 120 deg fiber
orientation CFRP specimens at a cutting speed of 1 m/s
that observable damage decreases with increasing fiber orienta-
tion. Representative measured values for damage are shown in
Figs. 79 for fiber orientations of 45 deg, 90 deg, and 120 deg,
respectively. For the 120 deg fiber orientation, the surface was
relatively smoother and also less fiber pullout is observed. Apart
from the debonding and fiber pullout, a lot of matrix redistribution
was observed for the 45 deg fiber oriented specimens as compared
to the 90 deg and 120 deg fiber oriented specimens. In general, the
damage decreased with decreasing cutting force.
7 Simulation Results and Validation
7.1 Simulation Results for Machining Glass Fiber Rein-
forced Epoxy. The finite element models for the 90 deg and 120
deg fiber orientations are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. Apparent in
the two figures is the extent of the debonding zone represented by
the deleted element along the fiber-matrix interface at the front
and back sides of the fiber bundle. Prior research considered the
damage associated with the front of the fiber, but the model de-
Fig. 10 Simulated von Mises stress distribution during the machining of a 90 deg fiber orientation with a 5 deg
rake angle tool
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
veloped here is capable of predicting damage at the front and back
sides of the fiber. The fiber failure mechanism shows considerable
compression induced failure on the front side of the fiber, whereas
the rear of the fiber shows a tensile rupture of the fiber, which
agrees with the work of Rao et al. 7. Fiber orientation was varied
for the tool with a 5 deg rake angle. The maximum debonding
depth decreases with increasing fiber orientation. The values of
the damage depth for 90 deg, 120 deg, and 135 deg fiber orienta-
tions are 54 m, 27 m, and 24 m, respectively, with an av-
erage variation of 17%. This is very close to the experimental
observations by Nayak and Bhatnagar 10, as shown in Fig. 12.
In their simulations Nayak and Bhatnagar 10 achieved good re-
sults for the damage measurements up to a fiber orientation of 45
deg, above which the variation between the measured and simu-
lated results was highly pronounced. The simulations are then
extended to study the effect of the rake angle on the debonding. A
fiber orientation of 90 deg is chosen since it demonstrated the
maximum debonding. Debonding occurs when the interface layer
represented by the cohesive zone reaches the maximum separa-
tion. At this element state the cohesive section carries no stress.
The presence of stress in the cohesive layer shown in Fig. 13
clearly indicates that the element has not reached its maximum
separation. The results thus reveal that increasing the rake angle
from 5 deg to 10 deg or 15 deg resulted in zero debonding. The
zero debonding at higher rake angles results from lower cutting
forces as observed during the simulations, as shown in Fig. 15.
The lowering of the cutting forces is a result of the reduction of
the contact area on the tool rake face with an increase in the tool
rake angle. The results presented here should be interpreted with
caution since the model simplifies the machining process and deb-
onding is not just dependent on the cutting forces.
The comparison of simulated cutting force and thrust force with
the experimental data obtained by Nayak and Bhatnagar 10 is
plotted in Fig. 14. The simulation machining conditions used in
this study are identical to those mentioned by Nayak and Bhatna-
gar 10. The average simulated values for the main and thrust
forces per unit width are 48 N/mm and 24.4 N/mm for the 90 deg
fiber orientation, while the experimental results are 54 N/mm and
28 N/mm, respectively. For the 120 deg fiber orientation, the
simulated main and thrust forces per unit width are 45.1 N/mm
and 28.2 N/mm, while the experimental results are 42 N/mm and
OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-7
 Fig. 11 Simulated von Mises stress distribution during the machining of a 120 deg fiber orientation with a 5 deg
rake angle tool
33 N/mm, respectively. Finally for the 135 deg fiber orientation,
the simulated values for the main and thrust forces are 40.5 N/mm
and 30.2 N/mm, while the experimental results are 38 N/mm and
36 N/mm, respectively. The simulated force results compare well
with the experimental data, as shown in Fig. 14, where the cutting
force decreases and the thrust force increases with decreasing fi-
ber orientation. Overall the maximum discrepancy between the
simulated and experimental results for the cutting force is 611%,
while the thrust forces differ by 1216%. In comparison the FEM
model by Nayak and Bhatnagar 6,10 predicted the cutting force
with a discrepancy of 10%. However their thrust force results
differed by almost 38%, showing poor correlation. On the other
hand, Arola et al. 3 failed to predict the trend observed for the
thrust force during the cutting of GFRP. A more recent study by
Fig. 12 Internal damage during orthogonal machining of
GFRP during machining with a 5 deg rake angle tool, in com-
parison with experimental measurements 10
051016-8 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Rao et al. 7 showed encouraging results in their prediction of
both the cutting and thrust force results. The model presented here
predicts the main cutting force and the thrust force along with the
observable trend very well. The cutting and thrust forces margin-
ally decreased with increasing rake angle, as shown in Fig. 15.
7.2 Simulation Results for Machining of Carbon Fiber Re-
inforced Epoxy. The finite element models for the 90 deg and
120 deg fiber orientations are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. Once
again apparent in the figures is the extent of the debonding zone
represented by the deleted element along the fiber-matrix interface
at the front and back sides of the fiber bundle. The novel result for
this composite involves the deleted elements in the fiber below the
cutting plane, representing the fiber damage. As is the case with
the glass fiber case, the fiber failure mechanism shows consider-
able compression induced failure on the front side of the fiber,
whereas the rear of the fiber shows a tensile rupture of the fiber.
Fiber orientation was varied for the tool with a 5 deg rake angle.
The maximum debonding depth decreased with increasing fiber
orientation: the simulated values of the damage depth for 45 deg,
90 deg, and 120 deg fiber orientations are 96 m, 75.9 m, and
56 m, respectively. This is very close to the experimental obser-
vations Fig. 18.
There was a very close agreement between the predicted and
measured values of fiber damage by experimental measurements
and simulated measurements for 90 deg and 120 deg fiber orien-
tation samples. In the case of the 90 deg fiber orientation sample,
the experimental damage depth was measured at 40 m, while
the simulated value of damage depth in the fiber is 50.6 m. In
the case of 120 deg fiber orientation samples, the experimental
damage depth was 30 m, while the simulated damage depth is
29 m. The simulation also corroborated the experimental data in
that the damage observed during the machining of these compos-
ites decreased with an increase in the fiber orientation.
The comparison of simulated cutting and thrust forces with the
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 13 Simulated von Mises stress distribution during the machining of a 90 deg fiber orientation with a 10 deg
rake angle tool

experimental data is plotted in Fig. 19. The simulated force results 8 Conclusions
compare well with the experimental data where the cutting force
Multiphase orthogonal machining simulations were conducted
increases gradually and then decreases once again with decreasing
for two unidirectional polymeric composites: a glass fiber rein-
fiber orientation, while the thrust force increases with decreasing
forced epoxy and a carbon fiber reinforced epoxy. The simulta-
fiber orientation. This reduction in the cutting forces resulted in
neous use of the Marigo brittle failure model and the cohesive
less damage as observed during the machining of higher fiber
zone model to describe material behavior was successful in pre-
orientation samples. Overall the maximum difference between the
dicting damage during machining of composites. Both machining
simulated and experimental results for the cutting force is 810%,
models compared well with the experimental data in terms of
while the thrust force differs by 1415%. The trends observed
cutting force and damage prediction. Debonding depth and fiber
both experimentally and through simulated results match ex-
damage decreased with increasing fiber orientation. The model
tremely well.
presented in this study is able to predict debonding at the front and
rear faces of the fiber, fiber damage, and cutting forces during

Fig. 14 Force per unit width as a function of fiber orientation Fig. 15 Force per unit width as a function of rake angle during
during the machining of GFRP with a 5 deg rake angle tool, in the machining of a 90 deg fiber oriented GFRP with a 5 deg rake
comparison with experimental measurements 10 angle tool

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-9

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 16 Simulated von Mises stress distribution during the machining of a 90 deg fiber orientation carbon fiber
reinforced epoxy with a 5 deg rake angle tool

Fig. 17 Simulated von Mises stress distribution during the machining of 120 deg fiber orientation carbon fiber
specimens with a 5 deg rake angle tool

051016-10 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Nomenclature
stress
strain
E modulus of elasticity
D nondimensional damage parameter
eq equivalent stress
D deviatoric stress component
H hydrostatic stress component
Y strain energy release rate
Rv triaxiality function
Poissons ratio
nondimensional parameter
un normal separation
ut tangential separation
n maximum normal separation
t maximum tangential separation
Fig. 18 Debonding depth during the orthogonal machining of
CFRP with a 5 deg rake angle tool at a cutting speed of 1 m/s Tn normal traction
Tt tangential traction
max maximum normal stress
GIC Mode I fracture energy
GIIC Mode II fracture energy
C0 clearance constant
P0 pressure constant
0 reference stress
0 reference strain
0 reference strain rate
TR room temperature
TM melting temperature

Fig. 19 Comparison of experimental and simulated cutting
forces per unit width for CFRP specimens machined at a cut-
ting speed of 1 m/s with varying fiber orientations
machining of composites with a few limitations on the considered
fiber orientation angles. One limitation is that the model does not
predict damage in the matrix in the form of cracking and matrix
redistribution. Since the aim of the study was to consider only
fiber damage along with debonding, in the future matrix damage
and redistribution of fibers can be considered.
In the case of glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites, the cut-
ting force decreased with increasing fiber orientation and tool rake
angle. The thrust force increased with increasing fiber orientation
but remained fairly constant with increasing tool rake angle. In-
creasing the tool rake angle resulted in no debonding for the glass
fiber reinforced epoxy simulations. For the carbon fiber reinforced
epoxy composites, the average cutting force increased with in-
creasing fiber orientation until 90 deg, after which the cutting
force decreased. A large value of the thrust force was observed
during machining of the 45 deg fiber orientation samples, but the
thrust force decreased drastically with higher fiber orientation
angles. The brittle failure model incorporated as a user defined
material model VUMAT was successful in simulating the fiber
damage observed in machining carbon fiber reinforced epoxy
composites for 90 deg and 120 deg fiber orientations.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Dr. R. B. Pipes and J. Coulter for
their assistance in providing and preparing the carbon fiber rein-
forced epoxy tube formed specimens. The authors would like to
gratefully acknowledge that this research was partially supported
by the National Science Foundation Grant No. IIP0538786.
References
1 Konig, W., Wulf, Ch., Gra, P., and Willerscheid, H., 1985, Machining of
Fiber Reinforced Plastics, CIRP Ann., 342, pp. 537547.
2 Arola, D., and Ramulu, M., 1997, Orthogonal Cutting of Fiber-Reinforced
Composites: A Finite Element Analysis, Int. J. Mech. Sci., 39, pp. 597613.
3 Arola, D., Sultan, M. B., and Ramulu, M., 2002, Finite Element Modeling of
Edge Trimming Fiber Reinforced Plastics, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.,
1241, pp. 3241.
4 Dandekar, C., Orady, E. A., and Mallick, P. K., 2007, Drilling Characteristics
of an E-Glass Fabric Reinforced Polypropylene Composite and an Aluminum
Alloy: A Comparative Study, ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 129, pp. 1080
1087.
5 Nayak, D., Singh, I., Bhatnagar, N., and Mahajan, P., 2004, An Analysis of
Machining Induced Damages in FRP Composites: A Micromechanics Finite
Element Approach, AIP Conf. Proc., 712, pp. 327331.
6 Nayak, D., and Bhatnagar, N., 2005, Machining Studies of UD-FRP Com-
posites. Part II: Finite Element Analysis, Mach. Sci. Technol., 9, pp. 503
528.
7 Rao, G. V. G., Mahajan, P., and Bhatnagar, N., 2007, Micro-Mechanical
Modeling of Machining of FRP Composites-Cutting Force Analysis, Compos.
Sci. Technol., 67, pp. 579593.
8 Rao, G. V. G., Mahajan, P., and Bhatnagar, N., 2007, Machining of UD-
GFRP Compsites Chip Formation Mechanism, Compos. Sci. Technol., 67,
pp. 22712281.
9 Hocheng, H., and Dharan, C. K. H., 1990, Delamination During Drilling in
Composite Laminates, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 1123, pp. 236239.
10 Nayak, D., and Bhatnagar, N., 2005, Machining Studies of Uni-Directional
Glass Fiber Plastic UD-GFRP Composites. Part I: Effect of Geometrical and
Process Parameters, Mach. Sci. Technol., 9, pp. 481501.
11 Lemaitre, J., and Desmorat, R., 2005, Engineering Damage Mechanics: Duc-
tile, Creep, Fatigue and Brittle Failures, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
12 Hibbit, Karlesson & Sorenson, Inc., 2004, ABAQUS Users Manual, Version 6.5,
Pawtucket, RI.
13 Tian, Y., and Shin, Y. C., 2007, Multiscale Finite Element Modeling of Sili-
con Nitride Ceramics undergoing Laser-Assisted Machining, ASME J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng., 1292, pp. 287295.
14 Tvergaard, V., 1990, Effect of Fiber Debonding in a Whisker-Reinforced
Metal, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 125, pp. 203213.
15 Tvergaard, V., and Hutchinson, J. W., 1992, The Relation Between Crack
Growth Resistance and Fracture Process Parameters in Elastic-Plastic Solids,
J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 40, pp. 13771397.
16 Hutchinson, J. W., and Evans, A. G., 2000, Mechanics of Materials: Top-
Down Approaches to Fracture, Acta Mater., 48, pp. 125135.
17 Wang, Y., and Xia, Y., 2000, Dynamic Tensile Properties of E-Glass, Kevlar
49 and Polyvinyl Alcohol Fiber Bundles, J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 19, pp. 583
586.
18 Zhou, Y., Wang, Y., Jellani, S., and Xia, Y., 2007, Experimental Study on
Tensile Behavior of Carbon Fiber and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Aluminum at

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering OCTOBER 2008, Vol. 130 / 051016-11

Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Different Strain Rate, Appl. Compos. Mater., 14, pp. 1731.
19 Pickering, K. L., Bader, M. G., and Kimber, A. C., 1998, Damage Accumu-
lation During the Failure of Uniaxial Carbon Fiber Composites, Composites,
Part A, 29A, pp. 435441.
20 Ramesh, M. V., Seetharamu, K. N., Ganesan, N., and Sivakumar, M. S., 1998,
Analysis of Machining of FRPs Using FEM, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 38,
pp. 15311549.
21 Wern, C. W., and Ramulu, M., 1995, Machining Mechanics in Fiber Rein-
forced Plastics, AMD Am. Soc. Mech. Eng., 208, pp. 128.
22 Sakuma, K., and Seto, M., 1983, Tool Wear in Cutting Glass-Fiber Rein-
forced Plastics: The Relation Between Fiber Orientation and Tool Wear, Bull.
JSME, 26218, pp. 14201427.
051016-12 / Vol. 130, OCTOBER 2008
Downloaded From: https://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 08/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
23 Kaneeda, T., 1991, CFRP Cutting Mechanism: Effect of Tool Edge Round-
edness and Relief Angle on Cutting Phenomenon, Int. J. Jpn. Soc. Precis.
Eng., 573, pp. 491496.
24 Movahhedy, M. R., Altintas, Y., and Gadala, M. S., 2002, Numerical Analysis
of Metal Cutting With Chamfered and Blunt Tools, ASME J. Manuf. Sci.
Eng., 124, pp. 178188.
25 Olovsson, L., Nilsson, L., and Simonsson, K., 1999, ALE Formulation for the
Solution of Two-Dimensional Metal Cutting Problems, Comput. Struct., 72,
pp. 497507.
26 Wang, D. H., Ramulu, M., and Arola, D., 1995, Orthogonal Cutting Mecha-
nisms of Graphite Epoxy Composite. Part I: Unidirectional Laminate, Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf., 3512, pp. 16231638.
Transactions of the ASME