ISSN 1068-798X, Russian Engineering Research, 2008, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 144–155. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2008.
Original Russian Text © A.L. Vorontsov, N.M. Sultan-zade, A.Yu. Albagachiev, 2008, published in Vestnik Mashinostroeniya, 2008, No. 2, pp. 56–66.
Development of a New Theory of Cutting:
2. A Review of Cutting Theory1
A. L. Vorontsov, N. M. Sultan-zade, and A. Yu. Albagachiev
Moscow State University (Polytechnic Institute)
DOI: 10.3103/S1068798X08020093
1 Machining may be broadly characterized as the use
of wedge-shaped tools to remove a thin layer of mate-
rial from a large and relatively thick blank. Since the
chip thickness is relatively small, its possible expansion
is usually neglected in theoretical analysis. Plane defor-
mation, i.e., two-dimensional flow, is assumed. (In
pressure treatment of metals, this corresponds to the
familiar slight expansion of broad strip in rolling,
which is also neglected.)
We will begin our review by considering foreign
sources.
In the mechanics of cutting, according to [10]:
There is, as yet, no theory that is quantitatively
consistent with experimental data even with con-
straints on the cutting conditions such that there
is no buildup at the edge of the cutter and no
vibration. This is unsurprising, since none of the
theories take account of the large strain rates,
hardening, or temperature, which influence the
properties of the machined materials.
In the light of this skeptical but objective evaluation
of foreign theories (although they are entirely consis-
tent with the basic propositions of solid-state mechan-
ics), we may be surprised by the groundless optimism
of Russian cutting theorists, who pile one gross theoret-
ical error on another (as we will show), obtain very dif-
ferent formulas and equations, but unanimously assert
that their own theory is highly accurate and permits, for
the first time, the determination of optimal machining
parameters and the derivation of unique technological
results. This may be attributable either to the excep-
tional luck of Russian scientists in deriving valuable
information from erroneous theories or else to subjec-
tive evaluation of their own theoretical accomplish-
ments.
The first noteworthy theory of metal cutting is the
theory of Ernst and Merchant developed in 1941,
according to [10, 33]. This theory is not based on plas-
ticity theory and does not determine the stress in the
plastic-deformation source within the cutting zone but
reduces the mathematical description of the process to
1 The first article in this series appeared in Russian Engineering
Research, no. 1, 2008. The reference list may also be found there.
144
consideration of the force equilibrium on the basis of
Fig. 12. (The cutter angle α may be positive or nega-
tive.)
In this theory, it is assumed that the frictional coef-
ficient f is constant over the whole contact surface of the
chip and cutter and may be characterized by the fric-
tional angle
λ = arctan f . (28)
The basic assumption is that the region of plastic
deformation takes the form of a single straight line
inclined at some angle ϕ to the machined surface, i.e.,
that deformation consists of simple shear. Hill’s analy-
sis of this theory shows that, with nonzero hardening,
this finite shear cannot be confined to an infinitely thin
line, on the basis of equilibrium considerations [33]; in
other words, the finite shear cannot be instantaneous.
Nevertheless, negligible thickness of the shear zone is
assumed.
Suppose that the material is supplied to the cutter at
speed v0. Taking account of the frictional force, the
resultant of the N external forces on the cutter deviates
from the normal to the cutter’s front surface at an
angle λ. (Here and in what follows, forces acting on
unit width of the chip are assumed.) This resultant may
h2
α
P λ
K
λ–α
N Q
h1 T
ϕ
v0
Fig. 12. Ernst–Merchant cutting diagram.
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING 145

(a) (b) (c)

α
C
C s
A C A ϕ
h s
h D α ϕ–α
ϕ
v0 B D B ϕ
A

Fig. 13. Determining the shear strain.

be resolved into two components: a horizontal primary is evident from the enlarged view (Fig. 13c) that the
cutting force P and a vertical force Q. Obviously shear deformation (relative shear) is
Q = P tan ( λ – α ). s h tan ( ϕ – α ) + h cot ϕ
(29) Λ i = --- = ---------------------------------------------------
h h (35)
Using Eqs. (28) and (29), the frictional coefficient f
may be determined by means of experimental measure- = tan ( ϕ – α ) + cot ϕ.
ments of P and Q. In the 1944 Merchant experiments, Taking account of Eq. (4), we may write the accu-
f = 0.1–0.5. These relatively high values may be mulated strain as follows in the Ernst–Merchant model
explained in that the chip surface in contact with the
cutter is freshly formed and so free of adsorbed films. tan ( ϕ – α ) + cot ϕ
e i = --------------------------------------------, (36)
Merchant established that fivefold increase in the speed 3
reduces f by around 20%. It was also established that f
depends on the machining depth. i.e., it is a function of ϕ. Thus, the yield strength σs in
Eq. (34) will also depend on ϕ, in accordance with the
Obviously, the shear force T (Fig. 12) is strengthening curve of the specific material. Neglecting
the strengthening, solution of Eq. (34) is greatly simpli-
h1 σ h1
T = τ s ----------
- = ------s- ----------
-. (30) fied, since the initial equation reduces to the form
sin ϕ 3 sin ϕ cos ( 2ϕ + λ – α ) = 0, (37)
The equilibrium equation of the chip is determined and hence
by projecting all the forces present onto the shear line
90° + α – λ
ϕ = ---------------------------- . (38)
T = P cos ϕ – Q sin ϕ. (31) 2
Substituting Eqs. (29) and (30) into Eq. (31), we find Substituting Eq. (38) into Eq. (32), we finally obtain
the cutting force the cutting force

σ cos ( λ – α )
P = ------s- h 1 ------------------------------------------------.
3 sin ϕ cos ( ϕ + λ – α )
In order to determine ϕ, we assume that the inclina-
tion of the shear plane corresponds to minimum cutting
force, i.e., that the tool performs minimum work. Math-
ematically, we may write
∂P/∂ϕ = 0,
and then, after the substitution of Eq. (32)
1 ∂σ
cos ( 2ϕ + λ – α ) = ----- --------s sin ϕ cos ( ϕ + λ – α ). (34)
σ s ∂ϕ
We now determine the shear deformation of a layer
of thickness h (Fig. 13a). As the line AB moves in the
direction of the cutter, the line CD will be displaced
into the chip (Fig. 13b). Here, obviously, the line CD is
shifted relative to its initial position by an amount s. It
2σ s cos ( λ – α )
P = --------h 1 ----------------------------------. (39)
(32) 3 1 – sin ( λ – α )
The thickening coefficient of the chip is (Fig. 12)
k c = h 2 /h 1 = cos ( λ – α )/ sin ϕ. (40)
This expression may be reduced to the form
tan ϕ = cos α/ ( k c – sin α ), (41)
(33)
which gives an accurate method of determining the
shear angle ϕ once kc has been measured. On that basis,
Merchant performed experiments to confirm Eq. (38)
and (39) in 1945, with the discovery that these formulas
are only satisfactory for plates. For steel, Eq. (38) over-
estimates ϕ by 20–40%. This discrepancy cannot be
explained by the failure to take account of the strength-
ening, since that would make the theoretical ϕ even
larger. The shortcomings of Ernst–Merchant theory are
almost certainly due to the unjustified assumption of
minimum work, according to Hill [33].

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

146 VORONTSOV et al.

(a) As already noted, Ernst–Merchant theory is associ-

ated only with the forces on the chip; it does not con-
sider the stress distribution. In 1951, Lee and Shaffer
used the slip-line method to determine the stress in the
cutting zone. They also adopted Eq. (28) and used a
(b) model of an ideal elastoplastic material (see Fig. 2 in
part 1), on the grounds that the strengthening rate at
large deformation is very small for most metals and
hence the yield strength is practically constant.
The grid of slip lines proposed by Lee and Shaffer
Fig. 14. Chip formation according to Merchant (a) and Ban- consists of a simple triangle of orthogonal lines (Fig. 15),
nerjee and Palmer (b).
in which the whole material is in the plastic state. The
slip lines reach the cutter surface at an angle η that is
not 45°; it depends on the frictional angle λ
h2 η = 45° – λ. (42)
α A theoretical advance here is that the deformation
does not occur incrementally on a single shear line but
covers an extended region.
The angles formed by mutually perpendicular
straight lines must be equal
h1 η ϕ = η + α, (43)
ϕ
and hence, taking account of Eq. (42)
v0
ϕ = 45° + α – λ. (44)
Obviously, the thickening coefficient of the chip, as
Fig. 15. Lee–Shaffer cutting diagram. before, is determined by Eq. (40).
Formulating the equilibrium equation of the exter-
nal and internal forces in the shear plane at an angle of
v0 ϕ, by analogy with Ernst–Merchant theory, we may
find the horizontal primary cutting force
C α–ϕ
O F ϕ
E P = σ s h 1 [ 1 + cot ( 45° + α – λ ) ]/ 3. (45)
α 45°

h If α is negative—for example, α = –10°—and λ =

45° D 35°, then cot(45° + α – λ) = ∞. Thus, at certain values
A
B of α and λ, according to the Lee–Shaffer theory, an
G
Fig. 16. Introducing a wedge in a halfspace.
Experiments by Merchant permitted the tracking of
chip formation from the moment of breakaway of one
element to breakaway of the next element (Fig. 14a).
In 1966, on the basis of experiments on chip forma-
tion with failure, Banerjee and Palmer proposed
another mechanism of chip formation (Fig. 14b). In this
case, there is no contact with the chip at the sharp edge
of the tool; such contact occurs in a region above the
cutting edge at the cutter’s front surface. In addition, the
zone of plastic deformation is considerably larger than
the idealized shear plane usually assumed in theoretical
accounts of cutting.
It would be hard to express a preference for either
approach, since their differences are probably due to
the different materials of the machined blanks and the
different cutting parameters.
unrealistically large cutting force P is obtained. Hence,
this theory only gives relatively accurate results within
a certain range of α and λ.
Further improvement in the theory of cutting pro-
cesses largely derived from a solution obtained in 1947
by Hill, Lee, and Tupper, for the introduction of a
wedge in a halfplane [33]. We will examine this solu-
tion in more detail.
First, following Hill, we consider the introduction of
a wedge in the complete absence of contact friction
(Fig. 15). On introducing the wedge, the material is
compressed symmetrically on both sides. To simplify
the figures, we show the corresponding grid of slip lines
only on one side. In fact, on applying this solution to
cutting processes, we consider only half of the figure, in
accordance with the cutter geometry, which is asym-
metric relative to the direction of introduction.
On introducing the wedge, a projection CEF
appears at the surface of the deformed body. We now
consider the position of the upper contact point C of the
machined material with the wedge. At the beginning of

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
the solution, we assume that the position of point C is
known. In the absence of friction, the slip line leaves
the tool surface AC at 45°. Projecting the extreme lines
from points A and C, we obtain triangle ABC, which
determines the field of slip lines in contact with the
wedge. Point C is simultaneously part of the contact
surface with the wedge and the free surface CE of the
projection, i.e., it is a singular point. Correspondingly,
we consider a centered field defined by the region BCD.
The angle ϕ determining the position of line CD is
found on the basis that this line leaves the free surface
CE at 45°. The extreme line DE leaves the free surface
CE at 45°. Therefore, triangles ABC and CDE are equal.
Thus, the length of contact surface AC is equal to the
length of surface CE. The current position of point C is
determined from the condition of constant volume of
the deformed material, i.e., the condition that the dis-
placed area AOF is equal to the area CEF. Hence, we
obtain an equation for ϕ
cos ϕ
cos ( 2α – ϕ ) = --------------------. (46)
1 + sin ϕ
It is simple to show on the basis of geometric con-
siderations that the segment determining the position of
point C is
h tion [14, 21, 22, 28]
AC = --------------------------------------------, (47)
cos α – sin ( α – ϕ )
where h is the depth of introduction of the wedge rela-
tive to the initial surface.
Since transverse flow of the metal from under the
end of the wedge is hindered by the surrounding rigid
region, it is obvious that horizontal compressive stress
acts on the metal in region CDE. Taking this into
account, for any point of the free surface CE—for
example, point E—we may express the hydrostatic
pressure in the following form, on the basis of Eq. (14)
σ
σ E = – ------s- . (48)
3 stress and the area of the projection of the given surface
On moving along the slip line from point E to point A
on the wedge surface, according to Eq. (13), we obtain
2σ s
σ E – σ A = --------ϕ EA . (49)
3 P = 2 σ n AB sin α = 4σ s ( 1 + ϕ ) AB sin α/ 3. (54)
Obviously, the total angle of rotation ϕEA will be ϕ.
Substituting this result into Eqs. (48) and (49), we find
the hydrostatic pressure at point A
σ A = – σ s ( 1 + 2ϕ )/ 3. (50)
Since the total angle of rotation is the same on mov-
ing along any other line of the same family, the hydro-
static pressure σ will be uniform over the whole work-
ing surface of the wedge, i.e., it will be uniformly dis-
tributed (σ = σA).
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2
147
q
-----
σs
0 α
Fig. 17. Theoretical dependence of the unit force on the
semivertex angle of a wedge introduced in a halfspace.
Since the tangential stress at the surface of the
wedge is zero, the normal stress σn from the deformed
material on this surface is the primary stress. Corre-
spondingly, the normal stress σt acting along the wedge
surface is also the primary stress. If we substitute σt for
σx and σn for σz in Eq. (11), and also set τ = 0, we find
that
2σ s
σ t – σ n = --------. (51)
3
On the other hand, we know that, in plane deforma-
σt + σn
----------------- = σ. (52)
2
Eliminating σt from Eq. (51) using Eq. (52) and tak-
ing account of Eq. (50), we find that the normal stress
or pressure on the wedge surface is
σ n = – 2σ s ( 1 + ϕ )/ 3. (53)
According to the well-known theorem, if the normal
stress on any surface is constant in magnitude, the force
that it creates in any plane is equal to the product of this
onto the specified plane [5, 28]. On that basis, the com-
pression force is given by the following expression (the
factor of 2 takes account of the second working surface
of the wedge)
Correspondingly, the unit compressive force is
P 2σ
q = ----------------------- = --------s ( 1 + ϕ ). (55)
2 AB sin α 3
The graph plotted by Hill on the basis of Eq. (55),
taking account of Eq. (46), is shown in Fig. 17. It
appears that q will increase with increase in α (the
semivertex angle of the wedge). However, as noted by
Hill [33], this is inconsistent with experiments that he
2008
148 VORONTSOV et al.

(a) (b) In relation to this topic, consider the following com-

ments from [1]:
Researchers’ common practice of subjectively
disregarding distinct but small distortions of the
C grid or structure of the deformed metal seems
α α unfounded. This practice greatly changes exper-
ϕ imental judgments regarding the shape and size
η ϕ of the source of plastic deformation. Since the
A B source of plastic deformation moves during the
insertion of the wedge, fresh material is con-
Fig. 18. Modification of the slip-line grid in the presence of stantly drawn into it. Particles that are closer to
friction (a) and longitudinal friction (b) between the mate- the lower boundary of the plastic-deformation
rial and the wedge.
source will spend less time within it. Since parti-
cle motion is determined not only by the velocity
but by the time, the displacement of particles
close to the lower boundary will be slight even at
large plastic-flow rates. Thus, small displace-
α ment in that case does not indicate that plastic
flow is undeveloped. As we know, the condi-
45°
tional yield point (the onset of plastic deforma-
tion) corresponds to 0.2% deformation, which
means, for example, 4-µm distortion for a grid
with a 2-mm base.
Fig. 19. Formation of a stagnant zone on introducing a blunt
wedge (α > 45°). Note also that the more complex three-dimensional
problem of conical-punch insertion was solved using
plastic-flow theory in [1]; the results were in complete
agreement with experiments. This solution takes
h2 account of the great depth of the plastic-deformation
source and shows the presence of optimal semivertex
α angles, i.e., decrease in q at certain α values, as estab-
lished in Hill’s experiments, although it is somewhat
inconsistent with his theory. On the basis of the solution
A in [1], all the parameters of the process may be deter-
η
mined for any contact-friction coefficient, and not sim-
ply for zero contact friction.
χ
h1 To take account of the frictional coefficient (µ ≠ 0)
θ in the Hill–Lee–Tupper solution, the corresponding
grid of slip lines in must be modified, replacing the
B equilateral triangle ABC with the triangle in Fig. 18a.
v0 Buildup
For limiting friction, the grid of slip lines degenerates,
as shown in Fig. 18b. If α > 45°, a stagnant zone (shown
Fig. 20. Cutting with buildup. by dotted lines in Fig. 19) is formed ahead of the
wedge’s sharp edge. It serves as an extension of the tool
and effectively equalizes any shape with α > 45°. As a
conducted in 1945, together with Bishop and Mott. result, the indentation force at α > 45° remains practi-
These experiments showed that, on pressing a well- cally constant, as observed experimentally by Hill.
lubricated wedge into a plane surface, the unit force is On the basis of the given solutions for a wedge, Lee
reduced if the wedge becomes less sharp, i.e., if α refined his cutting theory. He developed a solution tak-
increases. When α > 30°, the reduction is slight, and q ing account of the formation of buildup (a stagnant
is approximately constant: q = 2.3σs. In addition, exper- zone) at the cutter edge; this solution gives better
iments with a grid applied to the vertical plane of the results than are obtained on the basis of Fig. 15. The
deformed body show that the actual source of plastic slip-line grid obtained on taking account of the buildup
deformation is not confined to the line ABDE (Fig. 16) in friction between a tool and a slipping material is
but covers a greater depth and is characterized by line shown in Fig. 20. In this case, the cut layer passes over
GE. Hill, however, noted that the deformation in the the buildup and the front surface of the cutter. From
zone between lines ABDE and GE is small. Johnson time to time, the buildup breaks off, and the process is
[10] also stated that the deformation in this zone is plas- repeated. In machining, because of the buildup, the sur-
tic but limited. face of the part is rough. As before, η is given by

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
α
E D
B
h1 C α
η
θ
ϕ h1
A O
v0
Fig. 21. Slip-line grid in chip formation.
Eq. (42). Hence, on the basis of simple geometric con-
siderations
χ = 45° – α + λ – θ.
We may show that the horizontal cutting force on
plane AB is
σ integral, modified to take account of the dependence of
P = ------s- h 1 ( 1 + 2θ + tan χ ) + P fr ,
3 σs on ei . As a result, the correlation of theory and exper-
where Pfr is the horizontal force due to friction between
the base of the buildup and the surface of the section.
Lee also developed a theory of cutting with chip for-
mation, on the basis of the Merchant experimental
scheme in Fig. 14a. The corresponding slip-line grid is
shown in Fig. 21.
When point O (Fig. 21) is at cutter tip A, the preced-
ing chip particle breaks away. Then the introduction of
the cutter in the freshly formed surface OD begins, with
the formation of buildup BC. Further motion of the
material expands the plastic-deformation zone ABC,
which gradually reaches the uncut surface DE and then,
after a certain degree of deformation has built up,
breaks away from the basic material along the bound-
ary of the plastic-deformation source, forming a chip
particle. Then the formation of a new chip layer begins
again.
The cutting force is directly proportional to the
introduction depth AO and may be calculated analo-
gously to the force applied by the wedge (as described
earlier). “However, the use of this solution for brittle
materials is hardly correct, although it provides a useful
means of understanding the process,” according to [10].
The marked disagreement between all the theories
considered and the experimental data has been empha-
sized by various foreign authors. This disagreement
depends significantly on two factors, according to [10]:
(1) the degree of idealization in the theoretical analysis;
(2) certain fundamental difficulties in using the
mechanics equations.
Confirmation follows from the attempts of Christo-
pherson, Palmer, and Oxley in 1956 to take account of
strengthening. In experiments at low speed, the
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28
149
h2
v0
Fig. 22. Slip-line grid taking account of strengthening.
machined surface, the chip, and the tool were inspected
under a microscope and recorded on cine film. The
machined surface was polished and etched so as to
(56) reveal the deformation of individual crystals and the
streamline structure. This permitted the construction of
an optimal slip-line grid (Fig. 22), on the basis of which
the cutting force was estimated by means of a Hencky
(57)
iment was improved, but some discrepancy persisted.
We may conclude that the actual plastic-deforma-
tion zone occupies a considerably larger area than the
shear plane represented by a single line.
Some other grids taking account of the Hill solu-
tions obtained for wedge introduction (Figs. 18 and 19)
were presented in [10]; they were first proposed by
Johnson in 1962. For the example in Fig. 23a, we may
show that the unit force on the cutter’s front surface is
σ π
q = ------s- ⎛ 1 + --- – 2α⎞ .
(58)
3 ⎝ 2 ⎠
Theoretical analysis of Fig. 23 leads to the following
conclusions, noted in [10]:
(1) the strain rate will be very large on intersecting
the first shear line BDA, especially at point A;
(2) the accumulated strain acquired on intersecting
line DA is very large; at point A, it is infinite;
(3) since real materials cannot withstand infinite
strain, cracks must be formed close to point A;
(4) close to the edge of the tool, on account of the
large accumulated strain, the heat liberation must be
very large, which leads to large temperature growth
(infinite growth at point A, in theory);
(5) close to the cutter’s front surface, the accumu-
lated strain and temperature remain very large.
A sample calculation of the strain rate on the basis
of the given theory yields [10] the value ξi ≈ 103 s–1
[10]. In regular tensile tests, by comparison, the strain
rate is of the order of 10–3 s–1. Thus, in machining, the
strain rate is about six orders of magnitude greater than
in standard tests. Hence, the yield strength in machin-
No. 2 2008
150 VORONTSOV et al.

(a) (b) (c)

h2
h2 h2 α
α

45°
45° C C 45°
B 45° B
45° 45° 45°
h1 h1 45° h1
D D 45°
A v0 A A
v0 v0

Fig. 23. Slip-line grids.

ing will be markedly greater than in ordinary tensile will be observed close to the contact surface with the
tests. tool.
As we know (see [27], for example), the unit force In a real cutter, the edge usually has some rounding.
of plastic deformation in an elementary volume of an This may be approximated by straight line AE, forming
elastoplastic body, during plane deformation, is given the break (Fig. 24), as shown in [10]. For this case, the
by the equation slip-line grid reflects cutting of the material along the
line AC and working of the surface layer to a depth h
U i = σ s ε i = σ x ε x + σ z ε z + τ xz γ xz = τ s γ max , (59) below line AE. At point F, which is at depth h, the accu-
mulated strain will be infinite.
while the unit power is
The foregoing illustrates the long history of
W i = σ s ξ i = σ x ξ x + σ z ξ z + τ xz η xz = τ s η max , (60) attempts, outside Russia, to construct a satisfactory the-
ory of cutting on the basis of the mechanics of a
where εx, εz, γxz, γmax are the corresponding strains; ξx, deformable solid. These efforts have engaged accom-
ξz, ηxz, ηmax are the corresponding strain rates. plished specialists in the field of mechanics, most nota-
Assuming that there are no heat losses and a con- bly Hill.
stant proportion of the plastic-deformation energy is In contrast, Russian attempts to develop a theory of
converted to heat, we may estimate the temperature dis- cutting have been made by researchers with little train-
tribution in the blank. It is evident from Eq. (59) that ing and little understanding of the mechanics of a
greater accumulated strain corresponds to higher unit deformable solid. This accounts for the very primitive
energy and temperature. Since, for example, the mate- Russian theories, based on an elementary course in the
rial in Fig. 23a entering the chip from zone BCD inter- strength of materials that was evidently taken years ago.
sects only one line of discontinuity BD, the accumu-
lated strain will be less than in material passing through We now consider some examples that typify the
zone ACD and intersecting two lines of discontinuity level of accomplishment in current Russian papers and
AD and CD. Therefore, the greatest temperature rise dissertations on this topic.
Note, first of all, that an energetic approach prevails
in current theoretical studies of machining. Proponents
of this approach argue that knowledge of the energy
h2 supplied to the machined body permits the determina-
tion of all relevant machining parameters: the dimen-
α sions of the plastic-deformation source, the degree of
strengthening, the possibility of failure, etc.
This approach is fundamentally incorrect and can
C only randomly yield satisfactory results, as we shall
B 45° 45°
now show. To avoid tautology, we will speak only of the
h1 deformational energy, although it would be equally
D acceptable to speak of the deformational power, which
E is equivalent in this context; see Eqs. (59) and (60).
A
v0 h As we know, energy is the most common feature of
F physical processes occurring in nature. The generality
of this concept often permits us to create theories of
complete scientific validity, despite our ignorance of
Fig. 24. Slip-line grid with blunt cutter. specific properties of some object or process.

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
As an illustration, suppose that we want to deter-
mine the lift force of a jack (Fig. 25), when the jack
mechanism is enclosed in a housing and we do not
know its structure. External observations that we can
perform indicate that, when the jack handle is moved
down a distance s1, its working part moves upward a
distance s2. If we apply a force P1 to the handle, what
will be the lift force P2 produced at the working part?
It is relatively simple to find the answer if we
assume that all the energy applied to the jack input (the
handle) is transmitted to the output (the working part).
Then, the condition of equal work
P1 s1 = P2 s2 (61)
allows us to conclude that
s Il’yushin made the following comments regarding
P 2 = P 1 ----1 . (62)
s2
Suppose that s1/s2 = 10. It follows from Eq. (62) that
the jack produces a tenfold increase in the force. We
may now perform an experiment. We apply a force of
100 N to the jack handle and find that the jack can raise
a load of 1000 N. (For the sake of simplicity, we assume
that the efficiency of the jack is 100%.) Suppose that,
after this experiment, we want to raise a load of 5000 N
using the jack. We apply a load of 500 N to the handle,
and see that the handle moves downward, but the work-
ing part of the jack remains unmoved: contrary to the
theory, the load is not raised.
In fact, the jack may be based on different mecha-
nisms. For example, if it employs a lever, the rigidity of
the lever may be sufficient to raise a 1000-N load, but
may bend under the action of a 2000-N load, so that the
load does not rise. Alternatively, perhaps the jack
includes a belt drive that can raise a 1000-N load; with
a load above 1500 N, however, the belt begins to slip on
the pulley.
It is clear from this example that a generalized ener-
getic theory may give a satisfactory result in some
instances but is fundamentally unable to predict the
working properties of the jack in all possible circum-
stances. Reliable prediction obviously requires analysis
of the stress–strain state of all the relevant components
of the jack’s internal mechanism. Only such an analysis
permits the determination of the possible flexure or
slipping conditions in the actual mechanism.
Note that, because of its simplicity, the energetic
approach was first used a century ago, during the initial
development of the mechanics of a deformed solid and,
in particular, plasticity theory. This approach was criti-
cized in 1935 by Il’yushin, a leading twentieth-century
theorist, who developed the basis for calculating the
penetration of armor by shells. Prior to his work, only
“very coarse empirical formulas” existed [12]. These
were based on the energetic approach. Since the mass
of the shell was known, its velocity in order to penetrate
the armor could be determined from these formulas.
The weight of shell and the thickness of the armor were
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2
151
P2
P1
s2
s1
Fig. 25. Determining the lift force of a jack of unknown
design.
substituted into these formulas, along with the values of
several empirical coefficients, taking account of the
material used in the armor, in particular.
such formulas [12]:
They all have three significant deficiencies:
First, they give reliable results only when the
armor and shell are analogous to those for which
the formulas were written. For example, they
cannot be used if the caliber of the shell is con-
siderably greater than the armor thickness.
Second, they take no account of the influence
exerted by the shape of the head of the shell on
the armor penetration.
Third, they take no account of the operating
conditions of the armor, such as its size and
attachment. The latter factors demand particular
attention: as we will see, the shape and size of the
armor have an unexpectedly large influence on
the velocity required for penetration.
Then Il’yushin undertakes a rigorous mathematical
analysis of the armor’s deformation in the penetration
zone and obtains a fundamentally new result, of great
importance for the defense industry. He shows that,
with the same shape of the projectile and the same
armor thickness and material, multilayer armor (with n
layers) will be n times stronger than single-layer armor,
other conditions being equal. In other words, three
times as much energy will be required to destroy armor
consisting of three 1-cm sheets than to destroy mono-
lithic armor of thickness 3 cm.
However, for present-day theorists of machining,
everything is again as simple as it was at the beginning
of the twentieth century: regardless of the shape of the
tool, the geometry of the part being machined, and the
machining conditions, failure occurs when the energy
reaches the failure energy of the given material. This is
a complete analogy to the reasoning criticized by
Il’yushin in 1935. We will consider failure in more
detail in part 4 of the present series.
Here, we emphasize that even to determine the
deformational energy required for a specific machining
process is a complex scientific problem, since it
requires investigation of the stress–strain state. The
2008
152 VORONTSOV et al.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

d d
s
h
h h

d D D>>d

Fig. 26. Axisymmetric compression: (a) reduction; (b) broaching; (c) insertion; (d) compression within an enclosing matrix.

array of quantities that must be known here may be seen strength (also known as the theory of maximum normal
in Eq. (59). stress) in the seventeenth century. At the beginning of
the nineteenth century, this theory was refuted by
Without solving the relevant problems of the St Venant and then was universally regarded as invalid
mechanics of a deformable body, the creators of cutting until its recent resurrection by ill-informed contempo-
theories often proceed in a very simple fashion: on the rary theorists of machining.
basis of incomplete and outdated information from a
course on the strength of materials, they assume that We now present another instructive example. Sup-
plastic deformation may be produced if a unit force pose that the different blanks in Fig. 26 are compressed,
equal to the yield point σs0 is applied to the surface of a without lubrication, by the same cylindrical tool. (All
blank, by means of a tool. Sometimes, the shear stress the results are obtained on the basis of highly accurate
τs or short-term strength σB will be used instead [7]. solution by plastic flow theory and are confirmed by
(Note that σB is not used at all in the academic theory comparison with hundreds of experimental data [3–5].)
of plasticity, since it is derived from a conditional ten-
In reduction (Fig. 26a), the unit force required for
sile diagram, plotted without taking account of the
plastic deformation is
decrease in the initial cross-sectional area of the sample.
For example, for low-carbon steel, σB is 2.5–3 times less
q = σ s ⎛ 1 + ------⎞ ,
d
than the true failure stress.) Then, the chosen unit force (63)
⎝ 8h⎠
is multiplied by the contact area to determine the force,
which is used to calculate the work on the path of tool where h is the current height; d is the current mean
introduction. That work is assumed to be the desired diameter of the blank.
energy of deformation.
Note that, in reduction by forging, the dimensions of
Courses on the strength of materials simply note the forgings obtained are often d/h = 5–10. The source
that, on reaching the yield point, plastic deformation of plastic deformation extends over the whole height of
begins in simple extension, i.e., in the simplest linear the blank.
stress state (as we also noted in part 1 in defining the In open broaching (Fig. 26b), the unit force required
yield strength). It is evident from the results of the prob- for plastic deformation is
lem considered in part 1 that a unit force three times the
q = 1.1σ s ⎛ 1.7 + ln ----⎞ ,
yield point is required for the onset of plastic introduc- D
(64)
tion, even in the complete absence of contact friction. ⎝ d⎠
As we have already shown, even for a sharp tool (Fig. 16),
the unit force of tool introduction with no friction is and the source of plastic deformation does not extend
2.3σs. During introduction (Fig. 17), the unit force over the whole height of the blank, in general, but
increases sharply, to 5σs. Given that considerable con- reaches a depth
tact friction is always present in practice, these values
must be increased about 1.5-fold [1, 23]. Thus, the error h = 0.35d. (65)
in rough determination of the unit force required for the The displaced metal mainly flows radially.
onset of plastic deformation is 230–750%.
On insertion in a blank of large transverse dimen-
Note that the value q = σs was not obtained in any of sions (Fig. 26c), the unit force required for plastic
the foreign studies considered earlier. deformation is
The idea that plastic deformation always begins on
2h ⎛ ------ + 1⎞
⎧ 2h ⎫
reaching a stress equal to the yield point (regardless of ⎪ ⎝d ⎠ 2s ( 6h + 2.6d ) ⎪
the actual deformation conditions determining the q = σ s ⎨1 + 0.385 ---------------------------- + ---------------------------------
2 2
- ⎬, (66)
stress state, which will be generally be nonlinear) has a ⎪ 2h – d 4h – d ⎪
very long history. It constituted Galileo’s theory of ⎩ ⎭

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING 153

and the source of plastic deformation does not extend (a) (b)
over the whole height of the blank, in general, but
reaches a depth
d
h = --- [ 2.414 + 0.48s + k y ( 2 – e – e ) ],
–s – 5s
(67)
2
where s is the insertion depth; ky is the strengthening
coefficient, characterizing the slope of the strengthen-
ing curve of the deformed metal. The displaced metal
flows upward. Fig. 27. Shape of blank before and after reduction: (a) at high
tool speed; (b) with lubricant at the top but not at the bottom.
Finally, on compression within an enclosing matrix,
if the matrix is absolutely strong and rigid, plastic
deformation cannot be produced by any unit force q, no
matter how large (Fig. 26d). r
It is obvious that, when using a hammer, a crank µ1
press, or a screw press, the tool may introduce the same
energy in all four cases. However, the results are com-
µ h
pletely different, in terms of both the deformation of the
blank and the penetration depth of the plastic deforma-
tion.
Moreover, even in the simplest case of reduction by R
an ordinary hammer, a barrel-shaped blank is obtained
(Fig. 26a). When applying the same energy with a high- Fig. 28. Parameters of interior compression of a cylindrical
speed hammer characterized by smaller striker mass vessel.
but considerably greater impact velocity, the ends of the
blank are unclenched, and its lateral surface becomes
concave (Fig. 27a) [28]. However, when using an ordi-
nary hammer or press, if the same energy is supplied
but the upper end of the blank is lubricated, it acquires
the shape in Fig. 27b [5].
Thus, knowing the energy supplied does not permit Fig. 29. Possible shapes of the end of the punch in interior
the determination even of the change in shape of the compression.
deformed blank.
Knowing the energy certainly does not permit reli-
able judgments regarding the penetration depth of plas- These examples permit four conclusions.
tic deformation in the body. For example, in interior (1) The unit force required for the onset of plastic
compression of a vessel (Fig. 28), increasing both the deformation will be different in each case. For any sys-
frictional coefficient µ1 at the punch and the frictional tem, it considerably exceeds the yield strength σs.
coefficient µ at the matrix increases the unit force of (2) The shape and size of the plastic-deformation
deformation, i.e., the required deformational energy. source and the change in shape of the deformed body
Thus, the same required energy may correspond, in one will also be different in different deformation condi-
case, to increase in the frictional coefficient at the tions.
punch and, in another, to increase in the frictional coef- (3) Knowing the energy supplied to the blank by the
ficient at the matrix. However, with increase in the fric- tool does not permit reliable judgments regarding the
tional coefficient at the punch, the depth h of the source results of the deformation produced by this energy.
of plastic deformation will be considerably increased; (4) Reliable determination of the most important
with increase in the frictional coefficient at the matrix, characteristics of deformation in each specific case
conversely, the depth h will be considerably reduced. entails solving a boundary problem using a system of
At a certain ratio R/r of the matrix and punch radii, differential equilibrium equations, equations relating
the unit force and correspondingly the energy on insert- the stresses and strain rates, kinematic equations, and
ing punches with ends of different shape (Fig. 29) will continuity conditions.
be the same as the unit force and energy of insertion for We may contrast these conclusions with the research
a punch with a plane end (Fig. 23). However, there will in [17], for example. In [17], the penetration depth of
be a severalfold difference in the penetration depth h of the plastic deformation is determined by means of an
the plastic deformation [1]. incorrectly determined value of the deformation

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008

154
Fig. 30. Flattening of a nail tip on a supporting plate.
energy, in combination with analysis of the heat propa-
gation due to this energy. We read the following in [17,
p. 74]:
To determine the penetration depth of the defor-
mation … we use the law of energy conservation,
as embodied in the first and second laws of ther-
modynamics. If the external forces perform work
to change the internal energy of the body, they
will be consumed in a change in heat … The pen-
etration distance of the heat flux will always be
equal to the penetration distance of the deforma-
tion. (With no deformation, there is no change in
the thermal Brownian motion in the material.)
We have already provided sufficient examples to
refute the first assertion (that the penetration depth of
the deformation is determined by the energy). The last
assertion may be refuted by means of another simple
example, which may readily be verified in practice.
Suppose that we put part of a nail on a supporting
plate (Fig. 30) and begin to flatten its sharp end with a
hammer. After flattening, we may badly burn our fin-
gers if we carelessly touch the freely suspended end of
the nail (the head). However, that end of the nail is free
not only of plastic deformation but even of elastic
deformation. Thus, a simple experiment shows that the
heat flux may penetrate much farther than the deforma-
tion, contrary to the assertion in [17].
In the spirit of modern traditions, we may note that,
in some sense, the correct method of solving the stated
scientific problem was formulated in [17]. First, how-
ever, it is necessary to solve the plasticity boundary
problem, determine the stress–strain state and the shape
and size of the plastic-deformation source. Only this
permits correct calculation of the energy of plastic
deformation, which takes the general form [1–3, 27–29]
Uq = Uσ + U∆ + Uτ,
where Uq is the energy of deformation and
Uσ = ∫ ∫ ∫ σ ε dVs i
V ing force with mass and acceleration
is the energy of the internal forces in the plastically
deformed volume V, while
σ
∫∫ ∆u dS
U ∆ = ------s-
3
S∆
VORONTSOV et al.
is the energy consumed by the maximum tangential
stress at all the surfaces S∆ of discontinuity of the dis-
placement ∆u and
Uτ = ∫∫ τ co u co dS (71)
S co
is the energy corresponding to the frictional contact
stress τco over the slip displacement uco at the contact
surface Sco with the tool.
The use of Eqs. (68)–(71) for correct solution of
practical problems was illustrated in [1–5, 27–29].
It is clear from these formulas that calculation of
the energy requires a priori (and not a posteriori)
knowledge of the size of the plastic-deformation
source, in order to calculate the volume V and the area S∆
of the surfaces of discontinuity. Knowing the dimen-
sions of the source also permits correct calculation of
the distribution of heat sources due to the plastic defor-
mation in the plastic region [27, pp. 30, 31] and deter-
mination of the thermal power, with subsequent inves-
tigation of the heat-flux propagation in the directions
that are of interest.
In some other recent works on the theory of machin-
ing, the unit energy of deformation is equated to the
tangential shear stress τs (probably because they are of
the same dimensions). This is another gross error,
since, as we see in Eq. (59), it omits multiplication by
the strain, which, although dimensionless, may have a
much greater influence than τs on the result. The shear
stress τs for any material is finite, whereas the accumu-
lated strain or strain rate may be very large (theoreti-
cally infinite). Sometimes the unit energy is equated to
other stresses, such as the strength or yield point, which
is equally wrong.
It is difficult to explain this error, since even elemen-
tary courses in the strength of materials include the
information that the unit energy of deformation is
determined by the product of the stress and the corre-
sponding strain [32, p. 256].
Sometimes specialists in the theory of machining
distinguish between failure due to slip and shear,
although, according to the mechanics of a deformable
body, shear is separation of the body into parts as a
result of slip [14, p. 189; 22, p. 6]. In other words, shear
(68) is the limiting case of slip [29, p. 97].
To explain how formulas that we know are incorrect
may give satisfactory results, consider the following
example.
(69) Suppose that, instead of Newton’s second law relat-
F = ma,
some scientist derives the incorrect formula
2
(70) F = ma /g,
where g is the acceleration due to gravity.
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2 2008
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
The incorrect equation (69) is qualitatively correct
to the extent that it shows increase in the force with
increase in the mass m and acceleration a. It will even
give relatively accurate quantitative results in cases
where the acceleration a is close to g = 9.81 m/s2.
Even the more erroneous formula
F = 9.81ma /g
2 deformation in a linear stress state with simple exten-
will give relatively accurate results in cases where the
acceleration a is close to 1 m/s2.
Thus, theoretical formulas based on gross errors
may give acceptable results within certain parameter
ranges. This evidently explains why such formulas usu-
ally satisfy their creators.
On the basis of the foregoing, we may make some
general critical remarks.
It is difficult to take account of nonlimiting contact
friction and strengthening of the material on the basis of
the slip-line method used by foreign researchers, as
noted in [3]. The practical use of this method essen-
tially reduces to solving a particular problem each time,
with coarse assumptions and considerable graphical
constructions and subsequent calculations. The reliabil-
ity and accuracy of the resulting formulas cannot be
high. Because the solutions are discontinuous, infinite
strain, strain rate, and temperature may be predicted
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 2
155
theoretically but are not encountered in practice. In
many cases, correct solutions cannot be obtained at all,
on account of the opposite signs of the tangential stress
and the corresponding flow rates.
Russian theories of cutting are obtained by the
incorrect application of the characteristics of plastic
sion to the incomparably more complex three-dimen-
sional stress state of a blank in machining. The attrac-
tive simplicity of such approaches cannot compensate
for their inconsistency with the basic principles of plas-
ticity theory and with the actual mechanics of plastic
deformation in cutting or surface hardening.
We may sum up our review of current Russian theo-
ries of machining in the words of Orovan [10]:
It is simple to perform rupture tests, but they do
not provide all-encompassing formation, since the
process that occurs remains unknown. The defor-
mation of metals is a more complex process than
the operation of pocket watches, and to expect to
obtain information regarding the mechanism of
deformation by means of two or three measure-
ments in the course of tests is as optimistic as to
attempt to study the operation of pocket watches
by determining their compressive strength.
2008