Professional Documents
Culture Documents
McMaster Manufacturing Research Institute (MMRI), McMaster University, JHE 316, 1280 Main Street West, Ham., ONT, Canada L8S 4L7
b
ENSAM, Laboratoire MECASURF, 2, Cours des Arts et Metiers, 13617 Aix-en-Provence Cedex, France
Received 24 January 2002; received in revised form 12 April 2002; accepted 22 April 2002
Abstract
This paper proposes a methodology to identify the material coefficients of constitutive equation within the practical range of
stress, strain, strain rate, and temperature encountered in metal cutting. This methodology is based on analytical modeling of the
orthogonal cutting process in conjunction with orthogonal cutting experiments. The basic mechanics governing the primary shear
zone have been re-evaluated for continuous chip formation process. The stress, strain, strain rate and temperature fields have been
theoretically derived leading to the expressions of the effective stress, strain, strain rate, and temperature on the main shear plane.
Orthogonal cutting experiments with different cutting conditions provide an evaluation of theses physical quantities. Applying the
least-square approximation techniques to the resulting values yields an estimation of the material coefficients of the constitutive
equation. This methodology has been applied for different materials. The good agreement between the resulting models and those
obtained using the compressive split Hopkinson bar (CSHB), where available, demonstrates the effectiveness of this methodology.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Modeling; Metal cutting mechanics; Constitutive equation; Orthogonal cutting
1. Introduction
The physical phenomena taking part in metal cutting
are numerous and complex. Chip formation is the result
of material plastic deformation during relative motion
between the tool and the workpiece. Deformations are
large (greater than 1) and the strain rate reaches 104 to
106 s1. Moreover, sliding at the tool/chip interface happens under very hard conditions of pressure, strain rate
and temperature.
To analyze the cutting process and to explain how the
cutting parameters and the material properties influence
this process, both finite element method (FEM) and analytical modeling require flow stress data for the workpiece material as a function of strain, strain rate, and
temperature.
Kumar [1] and Ozel [2] tried to obtain the material
0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 6 - 9
1374
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
Nomenclature
A,B,C0,n,m constants of JhonsonCook model
AB
main shear plane
Cp,K,r specific heat, thermal conductivity, and mass density of the material
primary shear zone thickness, and chip thickness
h,hc
P,PA,PB hydrostatic pressure, hydrostatic pressure at point A and B respectively
q
volumetric heat generation
s
uncut chip thickness
time, and time on plane AB
t,tAB
T,TAB,T0 temperature, temperature on plane AB, and room temperature
Tmelting melting temperature of the material
V,VAB cutting velocity, and cutting velocity on plane AB
Vxfn,Vyfn
components of the cutting velocity along X fn and Y fn directions
W
depth of cut
I,Ixn,Iyn
I AB,Ixfn,Iyfn
Rn,Rxfn,Ryfn
cutting force acting on plane AB, and its components along X fn and Y fn directions
Cartesian coordinate systems
X n,Y n,Z n,X fn,Y fn,Z fn,X gn,Y gn,Z gn vectors of the different Cartesian coordinate systems
xfn,yfn
coordinates along X fn and Y fn directions
a
proportion of the main shear zone
shear angle, and rake angle
fn,gn
s ,s d stress tensor, and deviatoric stress tensor
sfxn,sfyn
standard deviations of the components of the measured cutting forceI .
e ,e ,e AB strain tensor, effective strain, and effective strain on plane AB
e ,e ,e AB strain rate tensor, effective strain rate, and effective strain rate on plane AB
e xy,e 0 shear component of the strain rate tensor, and a reference effective strain rate
t,tAB,t0 shear stress, shear stress on plane AB, and shear stress at main shear zone inlet
b
fraction of the shear plane heat conducted into the work material
m
friction coefficient
2. Theory
The re-evaluation of the mechanics of orthogonal
metal cutting is based on an analysis of existing experimental work and FEM results. With reference to Fig. 1,
in the main shear zone, the iso-curves of the physical
quantities such as the effective shear stress, effective
strain rate and temperature are practically along straight
lines parallel to the main shear plane AB [48]. In
addition, both of Oxley [4] and Wu et al.[5] show that
the effective strain rate is maximum on the main shear
plane and vanishes at the boundaries of the primary shear
zone. Therefore, these physical quantities depend only
on one coordinate xfn. This coordinate is in the perpen-
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
Fig. 1.
1375
Distributions of velocity, shear stress, hydrostatic pressure, and effective strain rate in the primary shear zone.
(A,X gn,Y gn,Z gn), and Rfn (A,X fn,Y fn,Z fn). A is the
Vxfn
xfn
1 Vxfn Vyfn
2 yfn
xfn
1 Vxfn Vyfn
2 yfn
xfn
Vyfn
yfn
(1)
Rfn
The velocity field must satisfy the assumption of plastic incompressibility and, consequently, it obeys the following equation:
1376
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
Vxfn Vyfn
0
xfn
yfn
(2)
Vxfn Vsin(fn)
where, fn is the shear angle. Eqs. (1) and (3) lead to the
definition of the effective strain rate:
1 Vyfn
2
e:e
3
3 xfn
| |
(4)
xfn
e e AB 1
for xfn[0:ah]
ah
e e AB 1
xfn
for xfn[(1a)h:0]
(1a)h
(5)
x1
Vyfn
for xfn[0:h]
xfn
(1a)h:0]
x2
xfn=0
Vyfn
for xfn[
xfn
Vyfn|xfn=ah
(7)
xfn=0
(8a)
ah
x13e AB Vcos(fn)
2
(8b)
(1a)h
x13e AB
Vsin(fn)tan(fngn)
2
(8c)
e AB
3 h cos(fngn)
(9)
1 cos(2fngn)
2
2cos(gn)
(10)
x2fn
Vyfn x1 3e AB xfn
VAB for xfn[0:ah]
2ah
Vyfn x2 3e AB xfn
(3)
Vyfn Vyfn(xfn)
expression of the effective strain rate should be continuous through the shear plane AB. The velocity is equal
to the cutting velocity at the lower bound of the primary
shear zone. It is equal to the chip flow velocity at the
upper bound of this zone. Therefore,
x2fn
VAB for xfn[(1a)h:0]
2(1a)h
(6)
where, VAB is the shear velocity on the main shear plane.
In continuous chip formation process, there is no chip
segmentation and therefore there is no velocity discontinuity. If the shear component of the cutting velocity
defined at the lower boundary of the deformation zone
is compared to the shear component of the chip velocity
defined at the upper bound, we notice a change of its
sign. The main shear plane is assumed to be the plane
where the shear velocity is equal to zero. Therefore, VAB
is equal to zero. x1and x2 are introduced in (6) to account
for the sign of the quantity Vyfn / xfn in both parts of
the primary shear zone. To determine these coefficients,
the boundary conditions of the velocity field as well as
the effective strain rate should be considered. The
e xy
1Vyfn
2 xfn
xfn
e xy 3e AB 1
for xfn[0:h]
ah
e xy 3e AB 1
xfn
for xfn[(1).h:0]
(1a)h
(11)
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
1377
AB
e AB
e dt
(12)
Fig. 2.
ah
e AB
dxfn
e
Vsin(fn)
(14)
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
P t 0
s t P 0
0 0 P
Rfn
(16)
0 yields:
1378
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
P
t
0
xfn yfn
(17)
P
0
xfn
t (t0tAB)
xfn
tAB
ah
(18)
(t0tAB)
s
P
yfn
PB
ah
sin(fn)
Ixn
(19)
Iyn Rn
I AB
(s X fn)X fndyfn
/ sin(fn)
I AB
/ sin(fn)
(t0tAB)
2ah
s
s2
PB
sin(fn)2
sin(fn)
s
WtAB
sin(fn)
(20a)
(20b)
Rfn
I AB W
(t0tAB) s
s
PB
cos(fn)tABs
2ah sin(fn)2
sin(fn)
(t0tAB)
sin(fn)
(Iyncos(fn)Ixnsin(fn))
Ws
tABscos(fn)
s
s2
PB
sin(fn)
2ah sin(fn)2
sin(fn)
sin(fn) R
n
(21)
(22)
T
T
Vyfn
q 0
KTrCp Vxfn
xfn
yfn
(23)
(24)
(25)
q s d:e
d
where, s and e are the deviatoric stress and strain rate
tensors respectively. Consequently, and since the temperature depends only on the coordinate xfn, the heat
transfer (23) becomes:
T
s d:e
xfn
(26)
3e
xfn
tAB
rCpVxfn
(s X fn)Y fndyfn R
fn
tAB 1
Consequently:
xfn
T
dx
xfn fn
rCpsin(fn)V
AB
(t0tAB)
xfn
dx for xfn[0:h]
ah fn
xfn
ah
(27)
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
3e
T(xfn)TAB
AB
rCpsin(fn)V
(tABt0)x3fn (2tABt0)x2fn
tABxfn
3(ah)
2ah
(28)
acos(gn)
2tAB t0
rCpsin(fn)cos(fngn)
3
(29)
e
n
3t (A Be ) 1 C0ln e 1
(30)
0
TT0
TmeltingT0
(A Be AB(i)n
(A,B,n,C0,m) min
i1
e AB(i)
C0ln
e 0
3t
AB
TAB(i)T0
TmeltingT0
(i)
(31)
hc cos(fngn)
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed methodology, orthogonal cutting experiments have been carried
out for two steels: stainless steel 316L, and 35NCD16.
This is followed by the use of additional experimental
data published by Hamann et al. [13] for two different
steels: 42CD4U, and S300. This work provided the
material constants obtained by the use of the compressive split Hopkinson bar (CSHB) for these two steels.
(32)
3|t| As
3. Experimental verification
1379
(33)
This is coherent with the fact that A depends particularly on the material properties (heat treatment,
hardness). Table 4 shows a good agreement between
the material constants (A,B,n,C0,m) obtained by the proposed methodology and those obtained by the CSHB
demonstrating the effectiveness of this methodology.
In this paper, the main shear plane AB is assumed to
divide the primary shear zone into two unequal parts
characterized by the constant a. Table 3 shows that this
constant is larger than 0.5 for all cutting experiments.
The first part of the primary shear zone is then a wide
1380
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
Table 1
Physical characteristics of the different materials
Material
Hardness HRC
s0 t03 (Mpa)
K (w/(m K) r (Kg/m3)
Cp (J/(Kg K)
Tmelting
35NCD16
Stainless steel 316L
42CD4U
S300
31
28
880
502
693
250
39
14.6
480
500
400
400
1800
1800
1800
1800
7860
7500
7860
7860
Table 2
Results of orthogonal cutting experiments
Test
V (m/min)
S (mm)
W (mm) gn
hc (mm)
fn
sIxn (N)
sIyn (N)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.44
0.63
0.25
0.43
0.65
0.25
0.47
0.62
22.0
24.5
25.5
22.0
25.0
25.0
22.0
23.0
26.0
456
605
872
401
593
720
465
523
630
564
881
1394
501
926
1298
547
848
1196
31
74
145
13
34
51
13
19
37
20
55
92
10
22
36
22
16
44
0.81
0.69
0.62
0.80
0.64
0.56
0.85
0.62
0.52
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.23
0.43
0.53
0.20
0.37
0.53
23.5
25.0
29.5
26.5
28.5
29.5
515
691
810
470
561
640
608
964
1293
563
893
1165
26
48
72
25
44
28
19
36
45
20
26
22
0.85
0.72
0.63
0.84
0.63
0.55
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
0.20
0.39
0.59
0.79
28
28
28
28
550
700
750
800
800
1400
1800
2300
0.85
0.64
0.55
0.47
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
0.20
0.39
0.59
0.79
28
28
28
28
200
250
275
325
350
625
900
1100
0.72
0.53
0.42
0.40
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
1381
Table 3
Estimation of the physical quantities for the different orthogonal cutting experiments
Test
e AB
1.tAB (Mpa)
h (mm)
TABK
e AB (104 s1)
1.443
1.270
1.212
1.443
1.241
1.251
1.443
1.357
1.193
627
544
603
557
592
583
593
537
555
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.15
643
570
579
612
582
580
628
585
557
2.7859
1.4206
0.9550
5.3230
2.7253
1.8144
8.0093
4.0409
2.7538
1.328
1.241
1.020
1.155
1.068
1.020
702
615
596
656
617
574
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.15
689
630
566
622
585
559
2.5183
1.2735
0.9554
5.2932
2.6909
1.6984
1.086
1.086
1.086
1.086
701
710
645
647
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
660
663
637
638
4.1287
2.0643
1.3762
1.0322
1.086
1.086
1.086
1.086
337
340
347
325
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
464
465
468
459
8.2573
4.1287
2.7524
2.0643
Table 4
Material constants for different steels
35NCD16
Cutting exp.
CSHB
INOX316L
Cutting exp.
CSHB
42CD4U
Cutting exp.
CSHB
S300
Cutting exp.
CSHB
A (Mpa)
B (Mpa)
C0
848
474
0.288
0.0230
0.540
514
514
0.508
0.0417
0.533
589
598
755
768
0.198
0.209
0.0149
0.0137
0.800
0.807
245
240
608
622
0.35
0.35
0.0836
0.0900
0.144
0.250
4. Conclusion
A methodology is proposed in this paper to identify
the material constants of the constitutive equation using
analytical modeling of the orthogonal cutting process in
1382
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
Table 5
Estimation of the quantities (TAB, h, a) for different materials, for different cutting conditions, and with different models
b
TAB
h/s
a
M1
0.10
470
M2
0.18
491
M3
0.37
439
M4
0.36
443
M5
0.23
478
0.50
0.86
(29)
0.00
489
0.50
0.90
b
TAB
h/s
a
0.10
506
0.10
548
0.28
492
0.26
500
0.16
531
0.56
0.86
0.00
546
0.50
0.92
Ne 9445 [16]
b
gn 4,V 91.5m /min,s 0.249mmW 2.59mm,hc 0.6637mmr TAB
h/s
7860kg / m3,Cp 500J / (KgK)t0 400Mpa,Fxn 854N,Fyn 1681N
a
0.10
656
0.08
753
0.26
642
0.24
654
0.16
693
0.48
0.68
0.00
698
0.50
0.89
Table 6
Geometrical and analytical estimates of the constant a
Data of Fig. 2
Rake angle gn
Shear angle fn
Geometrical estimate of a
Analytical estimate of a
20
25
0.86
0.95
Data of Fig. 3
6
31
0.81
0.78
Data of Fig. 4
0
32
0.75
0.72
References
[1] S. Kumar, P. Fallbohmer, T. Altan, Computer simulation of
orthogonal cutting process: determination of material properties
and effects of tool geometry on chip flow, Technical Paper
NAMRI/SME XXV, 1997, p. 177.
[2] T. Ozel, Investigation of High Speed Flat End Milling Process,
PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
1998.
[3] M. Shatla, C. Kerk, T. Altan, Process modeling in machining.
Part I: determination of flow stress data, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture 41 (2001) 15111534.
[4] P.L.B. Oxley, Introducing strain rate dependent work material
properties into the analysis of orthogonal cutting, Annals of the
CIRP 13 (1966) 127138.
[5] J.S. Wu, O.W. Dillon Jr., W.Y. Lu, Thermo-Viscoplastic Mode-
N. Tounsi et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 13731383
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
1383
[10] D. Kececioglu, Shear strain rate in metal cutting and its effect
on shear flow stress, Transactions of American Society of Mechanical Engineers 80 (1958) 158.
[11] L. Dechiffre, in: Metal Cutting Mechanics and Applications,
Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, 1990, pp. 2638.
[12] J. Leopold, Mechanical and physical models of machining, in:
Nantes, 24-25 January, Proceedings of the Second CIRP Workshop on Modeling of Machining Operations, 1999.
[13] J.C. Hamann, V. Grolleau, F. Le Maitre, Machinability improvement of steel at high cutting speedsstudy of tool/work material
interaction, Annals of the CIRP 45 (1996) 8792.
[14] M.C. Shaw, Metal Cutting Principles, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK, 1984.
[15] G. Boothroyd, Fundamentals of Metal Machining and Machine
Tools, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1975.
[16] K.J. Trigger, B.T. Chao, An analytical evaluation of metal cutting
temperature, Transactions of the ASME 73 (1951) 5768.