Toughness and Oblique

Metalcutting
A. G. Atkins
Department of Engineering,
University of Reading,
Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AY, UK
e-mail: a.g.atkins@reading.ac.uk
The implications of whether new surfaces in cutting are formed just by plastic flow past
the tool or by some fracturelike separation process involving significant surface work, are
discussed. Oblique metalcutting is investigated using the ideas contained in a new alge-
braic model for the orthogonal machining of metals (Atkins, A. G., 2003, “Modeling
Metalcutting Using Modern Ductile Fracture Mechanics: Quantitative Explanations for
Some Longstanding Problems,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 45, pp. 373–396) in which significant
surface work (ductile fracture toughnesses) is incorporated. The model is able to predict
explicit material-dependent primary shear plane angles ␾ and provides explanations for
a variety of well-known effects in cutting, such as the reduction of ␾ at small uncut chip
thicknesses; the quasilinear plots of cutting force versus depth of cut; the existence of a
positive force intercept in such plots; why, in the size-effect regime of machining, anoma-
lously high values of yield stress are determined; and why finite element method simula-
tions of cutting have to employ a “separation criterion” at the tool tip. Predictions from
the new analysis for oblique cutting (including an investigation of Stabler’s rule for the
relation between the chip flow velocity angle ␩C and the angle of blade inclination i)
compare consistently and favorably with experimental results.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.2164506兴

1 Introduction
Cook et al. 共关1兴, p. 156兲, in 1954, pointed out that the Piispanen
“deck of cards” single shear plane model for cutting cannot oper-
ate in plane plastic strain at constant plastic volume without there
being a “new surface” at the tip of the tool. That is, there had to be
a gap of at least the thickness of the shear band in order to release
material at the tip of the tool to be sheared at constant volume. In
Fig. 1, unless a gap is continually formed in the region of XY,
there is an increase in plastic volume represented by ZWV. This
percipient observation is rarely mentioned in monographs on ma-
chining when basic cutting mechanics are introduced. Astakov 关2兴
remarked that there is a major difference between machining and
other metalforming processes, in that there must be physical sepa-
ration of the layer to be removed from the work material and that
the process of separation forms new surfaces.
There are two views as to how new surfaces are formed in
cutting: either the traditional view 共i兲 that they occur simply be-
cause of “plastic flow” around the tool tip; or the controversial
view 共ii兲 that they are produced by progressive formation of in-
cremental gaps like XY as the tool moves forward. Whatever the
precise manner of formation, the production of new surfaces re-
quires energy, and Shaw 关3兴 at MIT in the 1950s considered what
work was likely to be involved in the machining of engineering
metals under typical conditions. He argued 关3兴 that there were four
contributions to the energy required for cutting which are 共i兲 plas-
tic flow, 共ii兲 friction, 共iii兲 chip momentum change, and 共iv兲 forma-
tion of new surfaces. Their calculations for common engineering
metals concluded that the contributions from plasticity and fric-
tion far exceeded the other two components. In this way they gave
support to the earlier modeling approach of Merchant 关4兴 for cut-
ting who had assumed from the outset that only plasticity and
friction mattered.
Since that time, there has been considerable progress in ma-
chining theory, with improved algebraic models involving ever-
more-complicated primary and secondary flow fields that better
represent experimental observations of chip deformation, and with
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
January 19, 2005; final manuscript received November 8, 2005. Review conducted
by W. J. Endres.
improved modeling of friction. For example, Oxley 关5兴 has devel-
oped workhardening slip line field analyses of chip formation, and
also parallel-sided primary and secondary shear zone models in
which rate and temperature effects are taken into account. A sum-
mary of this and related work may be found in 关5兴 and recent
modifications to Oxley’s machining theory may be found in, for
example, Adibi-Sedeh and Madhavan 关6兴; Fang and Jawahir 关7兴
have studied machining with the Klopstock 共restricted contact兲
tool in this way.
In Piispanen/Ernst-Merchant single shear plane modeling of or-
thogonal cutting, predictions for the inclination ␾ of the primary
shear plane are material independent 共that is “␾ = 共␲ / 4兲 − 0.5共␤
− ␣兲” where ␤ is the friction angle and ␣ is the tool rake angle兲.
This expression involves no material properties yet it is well
known that experimental data fall below the line given by this
relation when plotted on axes of ␾ versus 共␤ − ␣兲. Predictions for
␾ given by the parallel-sided Oxley model are implicitly material
dependent in the sense that the shear plane angle involves factors
controlling material yield strength 共workhardening, rate, and tem-
perature effects兲. Calculations for each case are complicated, how-
ever, and require extensive knowledge of constitutive relations. It
is not known whether there has ever been a systematic investiga-
tion that shows quantitative agreement between this theory and
experiment for ␾, ␣, and ␤, nor for cutting forces, for the wide
range of metals for which data exist. As discussed later, it is be-
lieved that “plasticity and friction only” models, however sophis-
ticated, cannot give the material dependence required.
In all this improved modeling, there is no consideration of the
work of surface formation. It not clear whether neglect of surface
work is 共i兲 because researchers do not believe in the necessity of a
gap at the tool tip for plane strain plastic flow in orthogonal ma-
chining and that the new surfaces are produced just by plastic
flow; or 共ii兲 they do believe in its requirement but argue, as Shaw
and coworkers did, that the associated energy is very small and
therefore can be neglected.
Since “gaps” at the tool tip suggest “cracks” and “fracture,” and
since cracks are not seen at the tips of tools in continuous-chip
machining of common metals, there has been a reluctance to be-
lieve that fracture can have anything to do with continuous-chip
machining of ductile metals; 共we are not here considering cracks
in discontinuous chip formation, nor the formation of the “tear

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 775
Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 1 Piispanen’s “deck of cards” model for cutting with a
single shear plane. Plastic slip in plane strain along a finite-
width primary shear band is impossible under constant volume
unless a gap occurs in the region of XY. Otherwise ZWV is an
increase in plastic volume „adapted from Cook et al. †1‡….
chip” at deep uncut chip thicknesses observed by Rosenhain and
Sturney 关8兴 where the chip is formed by a crack running parallel
with the machined surface兲. Articles on whether fracture does play
a role in regular chip formation have appeared in the literature
over the years 共e.g., 关2,9,10兴兲. Back in 1900, Reuleux 关11兴 sug-
gested that chip formation in metal cutting was by bending and
splitting like an axe into wood: That is not true for the tool rake
angles commonly found in metal cutting, but it is true in the
cutting of other materials with slender knife-like tools.
When they calculated the work of new surface formation, Shaw
employed the “chemical surface free energy” of a few J / m2,
which is related to the unbalanced surface bonds of freshly formed
surfaces 关12兴. That parameter was used by Griffith 关13兴 for energy
of surface formation in glass 共a very brittle solid兲 in his seminal
work on fracture mechanics. In later developments of fracture
mechanics it was realized that for more ductile solids the associ-
ated specific surface energy was at least 1000 times as great as the
chemical surface energy, because the mechanism of formation of
surfaces involved boundary layers of deformed ductile material
extending below the free surfaces, rather than just unmatched
bonds on the surface itself. 共Even in brittle fracture of ferrous
alloys, cleavage usually occurs on a number of planes to give
“river marks” and requires far more work/area to produce than the
simple surface free energy 关14兴.兲 It is in these finite thickness,
highly strained, layers that mechanisms of void growth and coa-
lescence take place that permit cracks to initiate, propagate, and
form new surfaces in ductile metals 共for a review, see 关14兴兲. Such
microprocesses require specific surface energies of kJ/ m2 which
are typical of the order of magnitude of the fracture toughness of
ductile solids employed in elastoplastic fracture mechanics 共JC
values and so on兲.
The present author believes from mechanics arguments that
new surfaces are formed by fracture processes which require sig-
nificant surface work, and Trent 关15兴 argues that machined sur-
faces are formed by controlled fracture from metallographic ob-
servations and scanning electron microscopy 共SEM兲 pictures. But
even if one believes that new surfaces in cutting are produced by
plastic flow and not by “cracking,” it is legitimate to ask what
would have been the effect on Shaw’s conclusions 关3兴 had he
incorporated large specific surface energies in his calculations
rather than the miniscule values of surface free energy. The con-
clusions would certainly have been different, for recent calcula-
tions 关16兴 reveal that surface work can be as large a percentage of
total cutting work as the plasticity and friction components, de-
pending on cutting conditions 共tool angles, uncut chip thickness,
material properties, friction兲. Those calculations are contained in a
recently proposed algebraic model of orthogonal cutting with a
sharp tool 关16兴, which incorporates significant surface work as
well as the usual components of plasticity and friction. To keep
matters simple, the single shear plane Piispanen model with Cou-
776 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
lomb friction was employed, although it was acknowledged that
there are greatly improved models of chip flow and friction 共see
above兲 which could have been employed.
Despite its simplicity, the new model predicts a number of well-
known features of experimental machining. In particular, the in-
clination of the primary shear plane ␾ becomes explicitly material
dependent owing to the inclusion of the independent second ma-
terial parameter R 共the specific energy of surface formation兲 as
well as ␶y the shear yield stress 共which can still include all the
variations with workhardening, rate and temperature considered
by Oxley and co-workers 共see 关5兴兲. It was demonstrated that an
important factor in machining is the material toughness/strength
ratio 共R / ␶y兲. The R parameter is, loosely speaking, an indicator of
material ductility. While, in broad terms, it is accepted for metals
that increased hardness results in reduced ductility, the ratio will
change in complicated detailed ways with rate, temperature,
chemistry, and thermomechanical treatments, and may go up or
down after processing. It was suggested in 关16兴 that changes in the
ratio between hard and soft versions of the same alloy explained
why it can sometimes be easier to cut harder materials than softer.
The ratio, formed into a nondimensional parameter Z using the
uncut chip thickness t0, i.e., Z = 共R / ␶yt0兲, was shown to control
ductile cutting mechanics 关16兴. For R in kJ/ m2 and ␶y in MPa,
10−5 ⬍ 共R / ␶y兲 ⬍ 10−3 m; and for t in fractions of millimeters, 1
⬍ Z ⬍ 30, say.
The inclination ␾ was shown to be constant above a sufficiently
thick uncut chip thickness 共strictly a sufficiently small Z兲; the
primary shear strain ␥ in this region is consequently constant too,
and cutting force varies linearly with uncut chip thickness. Below
the critical uncut chip thickness 共at larger Z兲, ␾ decreases, ␥ in-
creases, and force plots curve down toward the origin; 共in prac-
tice, data are not always available at these small uncut chip thick-
nesses and the curved part of the plot is absent兲. Significantly, in
both cases, the new model predicts that plots of cutting force
versus uncut chip thickness do not pass through the origin and
that there should be positive force intercepts 共one from a linear
back extrapolation of data obtained at large t0, the other from the
curving-down part of the plot at small t0兲. According to the new
theory the two intercepts are measures of the surface work; the
same specific work value may be calculated from the two inter-
cepts via different conversion factors given by the theory; see Eq.
共2兲 later for the oblique cutting version.
Experimental cutting force plots have long been known to ex-
hibit force intercepts at zero uncut chip thickness. This is true not
only for metals, but also for plastics and wood 关17兴. Now all
traditional “plasticity and friction” theories of machining predict
that plots of cutting force versus uncut chip thickness should pass
through the origin. In cutting analyses, the positive intercept is
sometimes ignored or explained away in terms of tool bluntness,
rubbing/ploughing on the clearance face of the tool, or simply as
“the force unavailable for cutting” 关18兴. In data reduction, differ-
ent answers are obtained depending upon whether force intercepts
are included or not 关19兴. It is true that for blunt tools, rubbing of
the edge does cause a force intercept. But even with the sharpest
tools, the intercepts do not disappear 关20兴 and, it was argued in
关16兴 must be caused by something else. The analysis in the present
paper assumes a sharp tool, or at least a tool whose bluntness is
smaller than the natural crack-tip opening at which a crack in the
material will propagate 共i.e., the so-called crack tip opening dis-
placement 共CTOD兲 关14兴兲. Without inclusion of surface work, the
intercept would not exist; see Eq. 共2兲 later for oblique cutting.
Comparison was made 关16兴 with a wide range of orthogonal ex-
perimental results for ␾, for cutting force plots and so on, all with
quite good agreement. The new model also showed that the
anomalously high values for yield strength obtained at very small
depths of cut in machining could be explained by not accounting
for the force intercept in data reduction; see Eq. 共4兲 later for the
equivalent relation for oblique cutting. That is, the yield strength
Transactions of the ASME
 should be determined from the actual slope of the force versus
uncut chip thickness, rather than from lines joining the origin to
individual data points.
Part of the spur for constructing the new algebraic model was
the realization that when workers began to simulate metalcutting
using the finite element method 共FEM兲 from the 1980s onward,
they could not get the tool to move appreciably unless a so-called
separation criterion was employed at the tool tip. That require-
ment remains to this day in FEM cutting analyses 共however so-
phisticated the code兲, even though the same codes are able to
simulate other metalforming processes without use of the extra
feature of a separation criterion. The problem people were solving
without the separation criterion was oblique indentation by a
wedge 共the tool兲 at the corner of a block, and that is why the tool
would not move very much. Of course, the separation criterion
could be just a computational fix to overcome the singularity at
the sharp tool tip, but calculations 关16兴 for the specific surface
work associated with various physically meaningful separation
criteria gave values of kJ/ m2 not the free surface energy of J / m2
assumed 共quite understandably in the 1950s兲 by Shaw at MIT.
What FEM workers were rediscovering was what Cook et al. 关1兴
had said in 1954, namely, that 共in FEM parlance兲 nodes at the tool
tip had to be released to permit tool travel. The critical question is
whether release of such nodes consumes negligible, or appre-
ciable, work and whether release of nodes constitutes “fracture.”
Put another way, if separation is crucial in FEM analyses of cut-
ting, why is it absent in traditional algebraic analyses?
For those who favor separation by plastic flow around the tip of
the tool, it is worth remembering that in plastic flow, elements of
material that are neighbors before permanent deformation are the
same neighbors after flow. In machining this means that elements
just above, and just below, the putative parting line at the tool tip
are supposedly still to be neighbors afterward. That is, elements
on the underside of the chip are still “joined” to elements on the
machined surface, however far away from one another they may
have travelled. This is implausible and suggests that simple plastic
flow cannot be the manner in which chip and machined surface
separate. 共Separation is not a consideration in most steady-state
working processes: The only occasion it may arise is when we
enquire what really takes place at the interface between dead
metal zones and material flowing plastically through an extrusion
die 关21兴 or in the operation of bridge/porthole dies.兲 Of course,
limits in forming are often connected with fracture and the con-
nection, between old-established empirical relations for stress/
strain states at fracture in forging, extrusion, and so on, and po-
rous plasticity modeling of crack tip zones in ductile fracture
mechanics, has been pointed out 关22兴. An investigation of crop-
ping and guillotining 关23兴 discussed how separation takes place in
such processes and whether cracks should be visible: Cropping is
no different in principle from cutting except that the bottom 共far
face兲 of the workpiece is much closer to the tool, so that it is
energetically favorable for flow and fracture to occur in a shear
band between the tool and the bottom of the cropped workpiece,
along the cropped face rather than, as in machining, on an inclined
shear band from the tip of the tool to the free surface. Consider-
ation of cropping and guillotining can explain why cracks are part
and parcel of the process of separation in ductile solids and the
formation of new surfaces, yet may not be seen as free-standing
cracks ahead of the tool tip. The point is whether the crack just
keeps pace with the cutting tool or whether it is faster, and this is
a question of crack stability rather than crack formation 关23–25兴.
In Ref. 关16兴 it was argued that machining was from the class of
ductile fracture problems where there is complete plastic collapse
共in the formation of the chip兲 in which the specific work of surface
separation is not negligible. Furthermore it was argued that the
failure of the simple Merchant 关4兴 line of attack is less to do with
problems of uniqueness in plasticity and more to do with the
problem not being properly posed, i.e., not including surface
work. It is noteworthy that McClintock 关26兴 has recently intro-
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
duced a new field of study called slip line field fracture mechanics
to which the new model is related. It seems clear that a new line
of attack for cutting theories would be to take those slip line fields
proven to represent curling chip flow and to include in the analy-
sis significant surface work.
The present paper extends the new theory in 关16兴 to oblique
cutting and provides material-dependent oblique cutting force pre-
dictions from minimization of total work done. A number of un-
certainties in oblique cutting mechanics, such as how good
Stabler’s law 关27兴 is at relating obliquity angle i to the chip ve-
locity angle ␩C, are investigated.
Even if some readers remain to be convinced that surfaces in
machining are produced by a fracture process, the present paper
demonstrates that when significant surface work is included in
even the traditional simple Ernst-Merchant analysis of oblique
cutting, the predictions agree well with well-known experimental
observations, in particular that the shear plane angle ␾ depends
explicitly upon the material being cut, and that positive force in-
tercepts should exist in plots of cutting force versus uncut chip
thickness. Furthermore, the inclusion of a parameter R which
quantitatively represents ductility in addition to plastic flow and
friction, makes physical sense in that the machining behaviors of
materials with the same ␶y but different R, or the same R but
different ␶y, are different.
2 Oblique Cutting
In the orthogonal cutting of ductile materials, material is
sheared along the primary shear plane and spiral chip curl is pro-
duced by secondary shear, the axis of rotation of chip curl being
parallel to the cutting edge of the tool. In the oblique cutting of
ductile materials, primary and secondary shear also take place but
now the chip comes off as a helix, again with the axis of rotation
approximately parallel to the tool cutting edge, Fig. 2共a兲. In a
simple single shear plane model of cutting 共where secondary shear
is, of course, absent兲 there are three velocity components, namely,
the workpiece approach velocity VW, the shear velocity VS in the
shear plane, and the chip velocity VC in the plane of the tool face.
In orthogonal machining, all three velocities and the hodograph lie
in the plane of cutting, and the direction of shear and direction of
chip flow are both along lines of steepest slope in the primary
shear plane and along the rake face of the tool respectively. In
oblique cutting, both the primary shear direction in the shear
plane, and the chip flow direction across the tool face, are no
longer in the directions of steepest slope: VS is now at an angle ␩S
共the shear flow angle兲 to the normal to the cutting edge in the
shear plane, Fig. 2共b兲; the shearing action at angle ␩S produces the
final skewed direction of the chip which is defined by the angle ␩C
共the chip flow angle兲 to the normal to the cutting edge in the rake
face, Fig. 2共a兲. Since all three velocities VW, VS, and VC form a
hodograph in one plane they are related by geometry; see, for
example, 关28兴, p. 80, and also Eq. 共A8兲 in the Appendix of the
present paper. This also produces a relationship between ␩S and
␩C that is given by Eqs. 共4-12兲 in 关28兴, viz.
tan i cos共␾n − ␣n兲 − tan ␩c sin ␾n
tan ␩s = 共1兲
cos ␣n
where ␾n and ␣n are explained as follows.
The inclination of the cutting blade to the workpiece approach
velocity vector means that a number of alternative definitions of
tool rake angle, and of shear plane angle, in oblique machining are
possible; for a discussion see 关3,28兴. There is 共a兲 the “normal,”
“oblique,” or “primary” rake angle ␣n, which is the rake angle
measured in the plane normal to the cutting edge; 共b兲 the “veloc-
ity” or “true” rake angle ␣V, measured in the plane parallel to the
cutting velocity vector and perpendicular to the machined surface;
and 共c兲 the effective rake angle ␣e, measured in the plane contain-
ing the cutting velocity vector and the chip flow velocity vector.
We shall use the normal rake angle ␣n in what follows, but since
AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 777
 Fig. 2 „a… Permanent skewing of chip in oblique cutting into a helix as opposed to into a spiral in orthogonal
cutting. Rake angle ␣n = 10 deg, depth of cut 0.13 mm; material steel „from Shaw †3‡…; „b… chip formation in
oblique cutting showing the three velocity components, namely, the workpiece approach velocity VW, the shear
velocity VS in the shear plane, and the chip velocity VC in the plane of the tool face „from Amarego and Brown
†28‡…; and „c… the resultant force Fres has components FP parallel with the velocity approach vector VW; FQ
perpendicular to the finished work surface; and FR perpendicular to the other two. FP is the “power” force, FQ
is the “thrust” force, and FR is the “radial” force which are the forces usually measured by a dynamometer. ␩C
is the chip velocity angle; ␩C⬘ is the angle of inclination of the friction force F to the normal to the cutting edge
in the rake face; ␩S is the shear flow angle; and ␩S⬘ is the angle of inclination of the shear force FS to the normal
to the cutting edge in the shear plane „from Amarego and Brown †28‡….

778 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 all the different ␣ are related, other expressions are possible 共see
Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲 later兲. Similarly we shall also employ the normal
shear plane angle ␾n to define the inclination of the primary shear
plane, Fig. 1共c兲, rather than the alternative effective shear angle
␾e. As with the different definitions of ␣, the different definitions
of ␾ are related 关28兴.
The resultant force Fres has components F P parallel with the
velocity approach vector VW; FQ perpendicular to the finished
work surface; and FR perpendicular to the other two, Fig. 2共c兲. F P
is the “power” force, FQ is the “thrust” force, and FR is the “ra-
dial” 共sideways兲 force. These are the forces usually measured by a
dynamometer. They are related by force resolution; see, for ex-
ample, pp. 82–83 of 关28兴. The shear force in the shear plane is
denoted by FS which is inclined at the angle ␩⬘S to the normal to
the cutting edge in the shear plane, and the friction force between
tool and chip is denoted by F which is at the angle ␩C⬘ to the
normal to the cutting edge in the rake face. Note that ␩⬘S and ␩C⬘
are permitted at this stage to be different from ␩S and ␩C, that is
the shear and friction force vectors are not necessarily colinear
with their respective displacement vectors 共see later兲.
Experiments 关29兴 on cold-rolled 1015 steel with tools orientated
up to i = 30 deg obliquity, and on cold rolled 1008 steel 关19兴 with
i up to 40 deg obliquity, show that ␾n is essentially independent of
the angle of obliquity 共other things being equal兲 so that for a given
tool rake angle and friction, the quasilinear plots of F P and FQ
versus uncut chip thickness are also approximately independent of
i, and thus follow the well-known trend in orthogonal cutting of
lower forces for greater ␣n. The power required for cutting over
this same range of obliquity is also approximately constant. How-
ever, the corresponding quasilinear plots of the sideways force FR
versus uncut chip thickness do depend on i and, for given tool
rake angle, increase as i increases 共see Figs. 3共a兲–3共c兲 later兲. If,
instead of varying i at constant ␣n, ␣n is varied at constant i, plots
of F P and FQ versus uncut chip thickness now depend upon ␣n,
but this time results in 关19兴 show that FR is apparently indepen-
dent of ␣n. There is, of course, no theory yet to predict any of
these plots because there is no means of predicting the material-
dependent ␾n. That will be an outcome of this paper.
In oblique cutting the resultant cutting force is not in the plane
perpendicular to the finished surface as it is in orthogonal cutting;
nor is it necessarily in the plane of the three velocities. In the
plane of the finished surface, the components of the resultant force
and resultant velocity are coincident: it is what happens out of that
plane where there is uncertainty; for a discussion see, for example,
关3,28兴. Uncertainties also arise about whether the force and veloc-
ity vectors are colinear. Experiments to establish the ␩ angles are
often difficult to interpret, and whether it is ␩C or ␩C⬘ that is being
determined depends upon the method employed, i.e., chip dis-
placements give ␩C and forces give ␩C⬘ 关3,19,28,29兴; note that
different answers are given depending on whether the positive
force intercept is subtracted from the total forces, as illustrated in
Appendices B and C in 关19兴. Shaw et al. 关29兴 performed experi-
ments where it was shown that the deviation between the shear
velocity vector and the resultant force vector in the shear plane
was insignificant in all their tests. There were deviations however
between ␩C and ␩C⬘ in some of their experiments. 共Note that Shaw
and co-workers use the symbol ␦S for ␩S⬘ and employ ␨S = 共␩S
− ␦S兲 = 共␩S − ␩S⬘兲; likewise ␦C is used for ␩C⬘ and ␨C = 共␩C − ␦C兲
= 共␩C − ␩C⬘ 兲.兲
The simplest assumption is to say that all force and velocity
components are coincident, i.e., ␩S = ␩⬘S and ␩C = ␩C⬘ . When this
assumption is made, ␩C is known in terms of ␾n, ␤n, i, and ␣n
共Eq. 共7兲兲, and ␩S is also known from Eq. 共1兲. Alternatively, only
one of the pair may be taken as colinear. A general theory assumes
that neither pair is equal.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
3 Model
The internal work done in our model has three components,
namely, plasticity on the single shear plane, friction on the rake
face of the tool, and fracture toughness work at the tool tip. As
explained in 关16兴, traditional force resolution methods using the
Merchant circle can only apply when there is no separation work.
As soon as separation work is included, part of the work done by
the external forces provides that work, but since separation is
quantified in terms of energy/area and not a force or stress, it is
impossible using force resolution to identify how much goes to
separation and how much to plasticity. Force resolution can still
be used, however, to determine the friction force F along the rake
face of the tool. This is permissible because friction occurs at the
boundary between the external work and the internal 共plasticity
and surface separation兲 works.
The Appendix contains the algebraic expressions for friction
force and increment of friction work; the increment of plastic
work; the increment of surface formation work 共fracture tough-
ness work兲; and the increment of external work.
By equating the internal and external work rates an expression
is obtained for the power force F P namely,
F P 共␥oblique/Z兲 + 1
= 共2兲
Rw Qoblique
in which Z = 共R / ␶yt0兲 is the nondimensional term incorporating
material properties and uncut chip thickness, and Qoblique is the
friction factor given by
Qoblique = 1 − 冉 冊
F sin ␾n cos i cos共␩C − ␩C⬘ 兲
FP cos共␾n − ␣n兲cos ␩C
共3兲
The ratio 共F / F P兲 in Eq. 共3兲 may be eliminated using Eqs. 共A1兲 to
共A3兲 but it is algebraically cumbersome. Without the fracture term
in Eq. 共2兲, i.e., when F P / Rw = ␥oblique / ZQoblique, the analysis re-
verts to an Ernst-Merchant solution for oblique cutting. However,
as demonstrated in 关16兴 the fracture toughness term should not be
negligible in practical metalcutting. Equation 共2兲 says that there
will be a positive force intercept in plots of cutting force versus
uncut chip thickness, and that it is a measure of the material
toughness R. As in traditional analyses, the slope of the plots gives
the material shear yield strength ␶y; the difference now is whether
the line passes through the origin or has an intercept.
Blunt tools will rub on the clearance face of the tool and this
will add to the intercept predicted by the sharp-tool analysis given
in Eq. 共2兲; see Sec. 4.
For given material, tool rake angle, friction and uncut chip
thickness, the primary shear plane angle ␾n is obtained by mini-
mizing the total work done or, equivalently, by minimizing Eq.
共2兲. Once the optimum F P has been established from the minimi-
zation of Eq. 共2兲, FQ and FR are obtained from Eqs. 共A2兲 and
共A3兲.
In Eq. 共2兲, 共1 / Z兲 = 共␶yt0 / R兲 represents the uncut chip thickness
for a given material 共R / ␶y兲 ratio. In orthogonal cutting, to which
Eqs. 共2兲, 共3兲, and 共A6兲 apply 共with i = 0 and ␩S = ␩C = 0兲, it is found
both experimentally 关5兴 and predicted by the new theory 关16兴 that
above a limiting uncut chip thickness, ␾ is constant and so ␥ is
constant whence Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲 predict that a plot of F P versus
t0 will be linear with slope 关␥␶yw / Q兴 and intercept 关Rw / Q兴. At
smaller t0 共greater Z兲, ␾ is predicted to become smaller, so ␥
becomes greater and F P versus t0 curves downward, but still does
not pass through the origin, and has an intercept of Rw since Q
= 1 at zero t0 when ␾ = 0. It will be found that similar things occur
for oblique cutting, although the constancy of ␥oblique is slightly
affected by the cos ␩S factor in the denominator of Eq. 共A6兲. Even
so, quasilinear plots of component forces versus t0 are predicted
for oblique cutting and, as discussed later, are confirmed by ex-
periment. Calculations show that FR increases at greater i, mainly
because Qoblique decreases.
AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 779
 The specific cutting pressure 共“unit power”兲 given by F P / wt0
becomes
F P/wt0 = 共1/Qoblique兲关␥oblique␶y + R/t0兴 = 共␶y/Qoblique兲关␥oblique + Z兴
which is expected to rise disproportionately at small t0 owing to
the inverse-dependent final term on the right-hand sides of the
relations. This is called the “size effect” in cutting and has been
discussed in 关16兴 in terms of the new model where it is shown that
the anomalously high values of ␶y derived from “plasticity and
friction only” analyses in this range of small t0 are erroneous and
are caused by neglect of the intercept in the force plots; that is, ␶y
should be determined from the slope of the plot and not from lines
joining the origin to data points. If the uncut chip thicknesses are
such that Z is above the critical value at which ␾ decreases and ␥
increases 共see above兲, so that the force plot bends down toward
the origin, another discrepancy will arise. It was shown 关16兴 that
experimental variations in specific cutting pressure with uncut
chip thickness given by Kopalinsky and Oxley 关30兴 could be ex-
plained with a constant ␶y when the orthogonal version of Eq. 共4兲
was employed.
The area of the shear plane is given by
As = wt0/sin ␾n cos i
and from the force Fs along the shear plane we obtain
冋 册
␥oblique sin ␾n cos i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲
Fs = ␶ yAs
Qoblique cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos ␩s
+ 冋 cos i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲
Qoblique cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos ␩s
Rw册
where tan ␤n = tan ␤ cos ␩C⬘ , Eq. 共A4兲.
Equation 共6兲 suggests a linear plot of Fs versus As in oblique
cutting having slope
冋 册
␥oblique sin ␾n cos i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲
␶y
Qoblique cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos ␩s
and intercept
关cos i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲/Qoblique cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos ␩s兴Rw
When i = 0, Eq. 共6兲 reduces to the corresponding relation for or-
thogonal cutting given in 关16兴 and analyzed there against data
given by Thomsen and co-workers 关18兴. The important features
predicted by Eq. 共6兲 for oblique cutting are that all Fs versus As
data should fall into a single line having a positive force intercept,
for all t0, all ␣n and all i, providing that the slope 共first square-
bracketed term兲 remains constant 共see later兲.
The most general expression for F P given by Eq. 共2兲 is in terms
of three unknowns, namely, ␾n, ␩C, and ␩S. When the assumption
is made that both the chip velocity and friction force vectors, and
the shear velocity and shear force vectors, are colinear 共that is,
␩C = ␩C⬘ and ␩S = ␩⬘S兲, Stabler 关27兴 showed that the only unknown
is ␾n since ␩C and ␩S are both expressible in terms of ␾n. His
relation for ␩C is given by Eq. 共4-26兲 in 关28兴, viz.
tan i cos ␣n
tan共␾n + ␤n兲 =
tan ␩C − sin ␣n tan i
and ␩S is given by Eq. 共1兲. The solution then follows the same
procedure as that for orthogonal machining in 关16兴 in which ␾n is
obtained by minimization of total work done. Results are obtained
for given tool rake angle ␣n, friction angle ␤, inclination angle i,
and nondimensional material-geometry parameter Z = 关R / ␶yt0兴.
Progressively more complicated solutions are obtained by al-
lowing either 共i兲 ␩S = ␩⬘S but ␩C ⫽ ␩C⬘ and searching for the 共␾n,
␩C⬘ 兲 pairs that give the absolute minimum for work done; or 共ii兲
␩C = ␩C⬘ but ␩S ⫽ ␩⬘S and searching for the 共␾n, ␩⬘S兲 pairs that give
the absolute minimum for work done; or 共iii兲 allowing all three to
780 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
vary and finding the absolute minimum. In this paper we shall
limit ourselves to predictions based upon ␩S = ␩S⬘ and ␩C = ␩C⬘ ,
since the aim is to show that oblique cutting may be sensibly
analyzed in terms of the new model incorporating significant sur-
共4兲 face work. Further work will investigate options 共i兲–共iii兲 in due
course.
4 Solution With ␩S = ␩S⬘ and ␩C = ␩C⬘ and Comparison
With Experimental Data
Nondimensionalized plots of oblique cutting forces versus un-
cut chip thickness derived from the optimised Eq. 共2兲 are easily
shown to have the right sort of shapes given by experiment, but
predictions by the new analysis require the material properties ␶y
and R both of which are affected by rate, temperature, and envi-
ronment. While some knowledge of ␶y is often available indirectly
through hardness, independent measures of R are usually not
available, although use of the fracture mechanics JC parameter
would not be far wrong. Indeed it has been suggested that machin-
ing could be a method of simultaneously determining ␶y and R in
the intermediate strain rate range 关31兴. In 关16兴 it was shown how
to determine the best fit values of ␶y and R, for a given material
undergoing given machining conditions over a wide range of vari-
共5兲
ables, from the intercepts and slopes of experimental plots of cut-
ting forces versus uncut chip thickness. The same procedures can
be applied in oblique cutting.
Brown and Amarego 关19兴 report an extensive series of results
for oblique cutting of SAE 1008 cold drawn steel of 240 VPN in
共6兲
the form of a 4 in. 共102 mm兲 outside diameter tube having a wall
thickness of 0.126 in. 共3.2 mm兲. Three sets of 共HSS兲 tools with a
6 deg clearance angle and 0 deg, 10 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg, and
40 deg angles of obliquity were employed, with uncut chip thick-
nesses in the range 0.0025 in. to 0.008 in. 共0.064 mm to
0.203 mm兲. Linear plots of the cutting force components vs. uncut
chip thickness were obtained, all having definite positive force
intercepts.
The friction angle ␤ can be determined from the ratio of the F P
and FQ plots in the usual way from Eq. 共A3兲, and is found to be
some 0.8 rad or 46 deg over most of the range of results reported
in 关19兴. Calculations using the new model of metal cutting show
that agreement for cutting forces, tool rake angles, and obliquity
angles over the whole range of uncut chip thickness is obtained
when 5 ⫻ 10−3 ⬍ 共R / ␶y兲 ⬍ 6 ⫻ 10−3 in. 共1.3⫻ 10−4 ⬍ 共R / ␶y兲 ⬍ 1.5
⫻ 10−4 m兲 with individual values of R ⬇ 300 lb/ in.2 共54 kJ/ m2兲
and ␶y = 56, 000 psi 共390 MPa兲. For a nonmartensitic steel, a hard-
ness of 240 VPN corresponds with an ultimate tensile stress of
⬇3.45共240兲 = 828 MPa 关32兴. The tensile flow stress predicted
from the ␶y derived from the machining data will be some 2␶y
共Tresca yield criterion兲, i.e., 2 ⫻ 390= 780 MPa, which is sensible
for a 共UTS兲 of 828 MPa. The value of the fracture toughness R is
also reasonable in terms of independently determined values 关16兴.
The lines in Fig. 3 are the predictions of the new analysis and the
data points are those of Brown and Amarego 关19兴. We note that
although there is separation between the plots for F P and FQ at all
obliquities, the differences are not marked within the range of
obliquities employed experimentally, which is why Brown and
共7兲 Amarego 关19兴 considered that F P and FQ were independent of
obliquity angle i. However, at tool obliquities greater than those
employed in the experiments, the predicted F P and FQ force com-
ponents separate out, with FQ changing sign. FR versus t0 is both
experimentally and theoretically always different for all obliqui-
ties.
Brown and Amarego 关19兴 also present other results for oblique
cutting forces versus uncut chip thickness for various different
tool rake angles ␣n all at constant angle of obliquity. This time, F P
and FQ lie on distinct lines for each rake angle, exactly as for
orthogonal machining, but FR bunch up into an apparently single
line. The new analysis is capable of reproducing such results 共not
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 3 Experimental results given in †19‡ for „a… FP, „b… FQ, and „c… FR versus depth of cut for 1008 cold drawn steel; w
= 0.126 in. „3.24 mm… and ␣n = 20 deg for all. Inclination angles in experiments are i = 10 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg, and 40 deg. Full
lines are predictions of new theory employing ␤ É 0.8 radians or 46 deg, R É 300 lb/ in.2 „54 kJ/ m2…, and ␶y É 56, 000 psi
„390 MPa…. Although there is separation between the plots for FP and FQ at all obliquities, the differences are not marked
within the range of obliquities employed experimentally. At tool obliquities greater than those employed in the experiments,
the predicted FP and FQ force components separate out, with FQ changing sign. FR versus t0 is always different for all
obliquities.

shown here兲 noting, however, that separate lines are predicted for
FR, albeit closely spaced within the range of 0 deg⬍ i ⬍ 40 deg
over which experiments were conducted.
Shaw et al. 关29兴 performed 0.248 in. 共6.3 mm兲 wide oblique
planing experiments on 1015 steel using CCl4 as the cutting fluid.
The range of parameters is not as wide as in 关19兴 and only a single
uncut chip thickness was employed, namely 0.005 in.
共0.125 mm兲. We note also that the friction angles derived by Shaw
et al. for oblique cutting vary quite a bit. All calculations in this
paper are presented employing the same ␤ for all angles of obliq-
uity. Calculations determined by the new model using their ex-
perimental results suggest that R ⬇ 800 lb/ in. 共105 kJ/ m2兲 and
␶y ⬇ 20,000 psi 共140 MPa兲, giving R / ␶y ⬇ 0.045 in. 共1 ⫻ 10−3 m兲
and therefore Z = 9. Although Shaw et al. state that their 1015 steel
is “cold rolled,” no hardness value is given for us to make a
comparison between the ␶yvalues derived from the cutting model
and from the quasistatic hardness, as done above for Brown and
Amarego’s results above 关19兴.
In comparison with the data in 关19兴 it would appear that the
Shaw et al. steel was not fully work hardened, and was tougher
and softer. This would explain the rather high values for ␶y 共some
60– 80,000 psi or 420– 560 MPa兲 given in 关29兴 which come about
because of neglect of the positive force intercept in Eqs. 共2兲 or 共6兲.
As explained in 关16兴, ␶y should be determined from the slope of
such plots instead of presuming that the plot passes through the
origin: when R is relatively high 共as here兲 the discrepancy be-
comes worse. These remarks take into account that rate and tem-
perature may produce different values from quasistatic properties
derived from hardness, i.e., the pair of values for toughness 共from
the intercept兲 and for shear yield stress 共from the slope of the

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 781

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Fig. 4 The full lines show the variation of „a… the theoretical normalized power force FP / Rw,
„b… thrust force FQ / Rw, and „c… radial force FR / Rw with angle of obliquity at different Z
= „R / ␶yt0… for constant tool rake angle ␣n = 20 deg and friction angle ␤ = 46 deg. For i < 0.7 rad
„>40 deg…, FP / Rw and FQ / Rw are essentially constant, but thereafter FP / Rw is predicted to
decrease slightly, and FQ / Rw to decrease more and change sign at i > about 70 deg. Over all
angles of obliquity, FR / Rw increases throughout. Experimental data for a 20 deg rake angle
tool at inclination angles of i = 10 deg, 20 deg, 30 deg, and 40 deg are given by the open circles
„t0 = 0.008 in. … and open triangles „t0 = 0.004 in.…. The dashed lines are for a frictionless 20 deg
rake angle tool and Z = 1. From the Z loci and the known depths of cut, the data and theory
correspond to R / ␶y É 5 Ã 10−3 in. „1.4Ã 10−5 m….

cutting force versus uncut chip thickness兲 will be those for the
strain rate and cutting temperature produced by the particular con-
ditions of the test; but determining the yield stress from the slopes
of lines passing through the origin will always give values that are
too high whatever the strain rate and temperature.
Figures 4共a兲–4共c兲 shows how F P / Rw, FQ / Rw, and FR / Rw are
all predicted to vary with tool obliquity at constant ␣n. F P / Rw is
essentially constant at small i and decreases a little at large i,
particularly at small Z; under frictionless conditions F P / Rw is
constant and independent of Z. FQ / Rw is also constant 共or slightly
decreasing depending on Z兲 at small i but decreases more rapidly
at large i; the frictionless case has opposite sign and decreases
most of all. FR / Rw is almost linear with i until it increases at a
faster rate at larger i and smaller Z. The Brown and Amarego
results for different depths of cut 共different Z for a given material兲
are superimposed in the figures, using Rw = 300⫻ 0.126= 37.8 lb
for force normalization.
5 Discussion
It was mentioned in Sec. 2 that three definitions of tool rake
angle are possible in oblique cutting. Brown and Amarego 关19兴
performed experiments where tools were ground so as to have
either ␣n, ␣V or ␣e constant in order to investigate how the power

782 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 force varied with obliquity. Within the range of obliquity they
employed 共i ⬍ 40 deg兲, their Fig. 2 shows that at constant depth of
cut F P begins immediately to rise with i for constant ␣e— up to
nearly twice the value for zero obliquity; for constant ␣V, F P also
increases but at a far lower rate; but at constant ␣n, F P is practi-
cally constant and independent of obliquity. The same pattern of
behavior was shown by the thrust force FQ; the radial force FR
increased with i as would be expected. The various definitions of
␣ are related trigonometrically, viz.
tan ␣V = tan ␣n/cos i 共8兲
and
sin ␣e = sin i sin ␩C + cos i cos ␩C sin ␣n 共9兲
Since, for small i, cos i ⬇ 1, there will be only minor differences
between tools with constant ␣V and ␣n when the obliquity is not
too big. This is confirmed by various experimental data 关19,29兴.
The effective rake angle ␣e, on the other hand, has ␩C in its
definition which is why apparent departures from the orthogonal
behavior appear at lower obliquities.
Because the power force was constant with obliquity when the
␣n definition of tool rake angle was employed, Brown and Ama-
rego 关19兴 concluded that the ␣n definition was the “controlling
rake angle.” However, for constant ␣n, Figs. 4共a兲–4共c兲 show that
while F P / Rw is predicted to be practically constant at small i, it
decreases at large i particularly at small Z, i.e., at large uncut chip
thickness for a given material; the theory predicts that FQ / Rw is
also essentially constant at small i as found by Brown and Ama-
rego 关19兴 but decreases at large i; and that FR / Rw is almost linear
with i at small i, but increases at a faster rate at larger i. In all
these predictions ␾n is still the same as ␾orthogonal. All predictions
depend, of course, upon rake angle, friction, and material
toughness/strength 共R / ␶y兲 ratio combined with the uncut chip
thickness in the non-dimensional Z parameter, but calculations
show that the same trends are visible for all.
Brown and Amarego 关19兴 plotted other data to justify their
choice of ␣n as the “controlling rake angle.” For example, in
experiments with −10 deg⬍ ␣n ⬍ + 20 deg they found that F P and
FQ both decreased linearly with ␣n, data from all i falling on to
the same two lines. Calculations by the new theory 共not shown
here兲 predict this behavior but additionally demonstrate that the
negative slope depends upon Z: At large Z ⬇ 100 共small uncut chip
thicknesses兲 the slope is almost zero 共no change in F P or FQ with
␣n兲, but the slopes progressively become more negative as Z de-
creases, that is, 共a兲 with the same material when the uncut chip
thicknesses is increased, or 共b兲 at the same uncut chip thickness
with “more brittle,” i.e., lower 共R / ␶y兲 ratio, materials.
Why the power force F P in oblique cutting, and the inclination
␾n of the primary shear plane, are essentially independent of the
angle of obliquity of the tool 共at least up to i ⬇ 40 deg or so兲 may
be explained as follows:
The minimization of the internal work rate to give ␾n, is a
minimization of 兵␥oblique / Qoblique其 where ␥oblique and Qoblique are
given by Eqs. 共A6兲 and 共3兲, respectively, 共in both of which, in this
paper, ␩S = ␩⬘S and ␩C = ␩C⬘ 兲. For ␾n to be independent of i, the
effect of ␾n on changes in ␥oblique in the numerator must be com-
pensated by the effect of ␾n on changes in Qoblique in the denomi-
nator. For given ␣n 共and given ␤兲, ␥oblique depends on ␩S: But ␩S
is uniquely determined from ␩C when the assumption is made that
␩S = ␩⬘S and ␩C = ␩C⬘ . Since the values of ␾n from minimization are
independent of i in this range, it follows that values for ␩S pre-
dicted from minimization must be in the range where cos ␩S ⬇ 1.
Also the effect of variations of ␾n on Qoblique given by Eq. 共3兲 in
this range must not be marked. Both observations are confirmed
by the theoretical predictions. The answers depend upon the non-
dimensional parameter Z = 共R / ␶yt0兲 but, again, for the particular
metals investigated, depths of cut employed, and range of angles
of obliquity, ␩S is never more than about 20 deg, and
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
cos 20 deg= 0.94. This is why ␥oblique is, for practical purposes,
“constant” above a limiting depth of cut exactly as in orthogonal
machining, despite the cos ␩S factor in the denominator of Eq.
共A6兲, and why FS versus AS data are expected to follow the usual
linear plot predicted by Eq. 共6兲. That is not to say, however, that at
greater angles of obliquity and different Z, the values of ␥oblique
and Qoblique may not be different from values found in orthogonal
cutting and Fig. 4 demonstrates that this is indeed the case, even
with the assumption that ␩S = ␩⬘S and ␩C = ␩C⬘ which gives ␾n
= ␾orthogonal.
Shaw et al. 关29兴 state that there is a paradox in their results in
that their derived ␶y increase with i even though ␥oblique definitely
decreases with i. The predictions of the new theory agree that
␥oblique decreases especially at larger i 共the absolute values depend
on Z and ␤兲, but the analysis is capable of explaining the results of
Shaw et al. with a constant mean flow stress ␶y. In a companion
paper employing a rotary cutting tool, Shaw et al. 关33兴 explained
their paradox in terms of a size effect with uncut chip thickness,
together with another size effect associated with the thickness of
the shear plane. As explained in Sec. 3 above, there is doubt about
the values of ␶y quoted by Shaw et al. because of problems asso-
ciated with the influence of the positive force intercept in plots of
cutting force versus uncut chip thickness on the calculated ␶y.
Shaw et al. used only one uncut chip thickness in their experi-
ments, so they could not have derived ␶y from a slope but only
from the line joining the origin with the one data point for each
obliquity. Such a procedure will always overestimate the shear
yield stress, as explained in 关16兴.
The chip flow direction ␩C given from Eq. 共7兲 is automatically
predicted by the new model, once ␾n is predicted; and ␩S also is
then given by Eq. 共1兲. Since tan ␤n in Eq. 共7兲 is given by
tan ␤ cos ␩C according to Eq. 共A4兲, ␩C has to be solved numeri-
cally once ␾n is known. Some predictions from the new model for
how ␩C is expected to vary with ␣n at different obliquities are
shown in Fig. 5共a兲. It is seen that values of ␩C depend upon Z and
i, and that ␩C increases with ␣n, the rate of increase being greater
at greater values of i.
Historically, a number of empirical relations between ␩C and
inclination angle have been put forward 关27,34兴. Stabler 关27兴 pro-
posed that ␩C ⬇ i for all ␣n which corresponds with plane strain
chip formation, i.e., the width of cut and width of chip are the
same. Some predictions for ␩C versus i given by the new model
for the Brown and Amarego experimental conditions are shown in
Fig. 5共b兲 together with the machining data. The results confirm
what has long been known from experiments, namely, that while
Stabler’s rule is not too bad an approximation for small obliqui-
ties, the rake angle has an effect on ␩C. The new analysis also
predicts that the relationship should additionally depend upon un-
cut chip thickness through the parameter Z.
For completeness, Figs. 6共a兲 and 6共b兲 show the predictions for
␩S in terms of ␣n, i, and Z corresponding to the predictions for ␩C
in Fig. 5. It transpires that the value for ␩S increases somewhat as
Z increases but is virtually independent of ␣n; and rises almost
linearly with i.
One of the referees of this paper remarked that the old experi-
mental data used in this paper to justify the new model were from
slow speed cutting with HSS tools where built-up edges are pos-
sible, and that modern carbide/diamond/共CBN兲 tools use very
small 共even negative兲 inclination angles. That is true. The question
of positive or negative obliquity is of great interest when inter-
preted in terms of the relative motion between tool and cut mate-
rial, that is, to the ratio of velocity parallel to the cutting edge to
the velocity perpendicular to the edge. In cutting with knives
共very large rake angles兲 this ratio is known as the slice/push ratio
and is given the symbol ␰ 关35兴. In the case of cutting thin slices of
floppy materials, i.e., materials which do not store or dissipate
strain energy and for which the only work required concerns
toughness and friction, 共the other end of the spectrum of machin-
AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 783

Fig. 5 „a… Theoretical variation of chip velocity angle ␩C with
tool rake angle ␣n for two tool obliquity angles „i = 40 deg and
20 deg… and two values of Z „10 and 1…. „b… A “Stabler” plot of
␩C versus i for various ␣n. Full lines are present theory, points
are the Brown and Amarego results †19‡.
ing mechanics from metalcutting兲, it was shown that the larger the
␰, the smaller the cutting forces. An explanation was thus given
for the common experience that, however, sharp a kitchen knife,
mere pressing down alone does not achieve much of a cut, but that
cutting is “much easier” as soon as sideways motion is introduced.
The effect is noticeable because there is a nonlinear coupling be-
tween the vertical and horizontal forces, so that the slightest side-
ways motion disproportionately reduces the vertical force 关35兴.
Reduced cutting forces are important in the food industry in order
to minimize damage to cut slices. A cutting blade inclined at angle
i has ␰ = tan i. The sign of i is immaterial when the tool has no
independent motion 共the “sideways” force simply changes direc-
tion兲 but when the tool can move independently 共e.g., Napier’s
rotary tool 关33兴, milling cutters兲, ␰ may increase or decrease and
this is why “uphill” and “downhill” cutting are different. For ex-
ample, in a bacon slicer where the material is cut on the centerline
of the wheel, ␰ is given approximately by the ratio of the periph-
eral speed of the disk blade to the feed speed of the material;
when cut above or below the centerline, ␰ is different because the
共tan i兲 term comes into play and has a different sign above and
below the centerline. The analysis for floppy materials 关35兴 shows
784 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Fig. 6 Predictions for the shear flow angle ␩S „a… as it depends
on i at different ␣n and different Z; and „b… as it depends on ␣n
at different i and different Z „␣n has only minor influence in
these plots, the main influence is from Z…
that cutting “uphill” 共negative i兲 is more difficult than when cut-
ting “downhill.” The action of a cylinder grass lawnmower has
recently been investigated in this way, together with the optimum
planform for flat disk cutters 关36兴.
6 Conclusions
Oblique cutting has been investigated in terms of a recent
model of machining 关16兴 which, by incorporating significant spe-
cific works of separation 共ductile fracture toughnesses兲, was able
to predict a material-dependent primary shear plane angle ␾n and
hence remove most of the shortcomings of the traditional “plas-
ticity and friction” approaches to cutting. It has been shown that
the new analysis describes oblique machining well and gives a
theoretical basis for a number of well-known experimental results
in oblique cutting such as the near independence of the power
force F P and thrust force FQ with angle of tool obliquity i when
the normal rake angle ␣n of the tool is constant, and the quasilin-
ear plots of cutting force components with uncut chip thickness at
either constant ␣n or constant i. However, at larger angles of
obliquity outside the range of current experimental results, the
new analysis predicts departures from this simple picture.
As for orthogonal machining, an important parameter in the
new approach is Z = R / ␶yt0 which combines the toughness-to
strength material property with the uncut chip thickness. The ex-
plicit predictions for the primary shear plane angle ␾n, and all
other predictions, are controlled by Z. It has been demonstrated
that the primary shear strain ␥oblique is essentially constant above a
limiting uncut chip thickness—at least over the range of obliquity
angles for which experimental results are available—which ex-
Transactions of the ASME
 plains why linear plots of force components versus uncut chip R ⫽ fracture toughness
thickness are to be expected. These do not pass through the origin, t0 ⫽ uncut chip thickness 共depth of cut兲
the positive force intercept for sharp tools being a measure of the w ⫽ width of cut 共measured perpendicular to VW兲
fracture toughness of the cut material and the slope a measure of VC ⫽ chip velocity in the plane of the tool face
the shear yield stress of the cut material, both at the particular VS ⫽ shear velocity in the shear plane
conditions of rate and temperature experienced in the tests. Some VW ⫽ workpiece approach velocity
care is required in the interpretation of the intercept when blunt Z ⫽ nondimensional parameter given by 共R / ␶yt0兲
tools are employed, owing to rubbing on the clearance face of the ␣ ⫽ tool rake angle
tool. It is likely that the rubbing contribution can be eliminated by ␣e ⫽ effective rake angle, measured in the plane
performing experiments with tools of known tip radii, in which containing the cutting velocity vector and the
the greater intercepts given by the blunter tools may be plotted chip flow velocity vector.
against tool tip radius and back extrapolated to zero tip radius to ␣n ⫽ “normal,” “oblique,” or “primary” rake angle
give the “true toughness” intercept. The author is not aware of ␣n, measured in the plane normal to the cut-
such experiments. ting edge
Stabler’s rule for the relationship between the chip flow angle
␣V ⫽ “velocity” or “true” rake angle, measured in
␩C across the rake face of the tool and the tool inclination angle i, the plane parallel to the cutting velocity vector
namely, that ␩C ⬇ i, has been investigated and shown to be ap- and perpendicular to the machined surface
proximately correct only for small ␣n and for low friction. In ␤ ⫽ friction angle
general it depends not only on ␣n and friction, but also on the new ␤n ⫽ normal friction angle in oblique cutting
parameter Z. ␥ ⫽ shear strain in primary shear plane in orthogo-
Since the inclined straight tool forms the basis for studying nal cutting
practical cutting tools such as milling cutters and drills that have ␥oblique ⫽ shear strain in primary shear plane in oblique
more complicated three-dimensional geometries, the results of the cutting
present paper suggest that these other types of tool can be suc-
␩C ⫽ chip velocity angle
cessfully analyzed in terms of the new model for machining and
further work on oblique cutting of ductile solids might benefit ␩C⬘ ⫽ angle of inclination of F to the normal to the
from using the slice/push ratio concept that has proved so useful cutting edge in the rake face
in the cutting of soft solids. ␩S ⫽ shear flow angle
␩⬘S ⫽ angle of inclination of FS to the normal to the
cutting edge in the shear plane
Nomenclature ␶y ⫽ shear yield stress
F ⫽ friction force ␾ ⫽ inclination of primary shear plane in orthogo-
F P ⫽ force component parallel with the velocity ap- nal cutting
proach vector VW 共the “power” force兲 ␾n ⫽ “normal” inclination of primary shear plane in
FQ ⫽ force component perpendicular to the finished oblique cutting
work surface 共the “thrust” force兲
FR ⫽ force component perpendicular to F P and FQ
共the “radial” or sideways force兲 Appendix
Fres ⫽ resultant cutting force The friction force F is given by Eq. 共4-31兲 in 关28兴, and in terms
FS ⫽ shear force in the shear plane of F P is

F = Fp 冑再 冉 冉 冊 冊
cos i +
FR
FP
冉 冊
sin i sin ␣n +
FQ
FP
cos ␣n 冎 再
2
+ sin i −
FR
FP
cos i 冎 2
共A1兲

in which FR / F P and FQ / F P are given by 共work/volume兲共flow rate兲 = 共␶y␥oblique兲t0wVW 共A5兲

FR cos共␤n − ␣n兲sin i − tan ␩s⬘ cos i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲 where t0 is the uncut chip thickness, w the width of cut 共measured
=
F P cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos i + tan ␩s⬘ sin i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲 perpendicular to VW兲, ␶y is the 共rigid-plastic兲 shear yield strength,
and ␥oblique the shear strain on the primary shear plane which is
共A2兲
given by

FQ sin共␤n − ␣n兲
= cot ␾n + tan共␾n − ␣n兲
F P cos共␤n − ␣n兲cos i + tan ␩s⬘ sin i cos共␾n + ␤n − ␣n兲 ␥oblique = 共A6兲
cos ␩s
共A3兲

and in which the “normal friction angle” ␤n is related to the fric- 共Note: there is a misprint on p. 87 of 关28兴 in Eq. 共4-37兲 for ␥
tion angle ␤ by where “cos” is written in the numerator instead of “cot.”兲
It is easy to incorporate workhardening in this type of analysis
tan ␤n = tan ␤ cos ␩⬘c 共A4兲 as shown in a recent paper on the types of chip encountered in
orthogonal machining 关17兴. It is not done in this paper in order to
The internal work rate therefore has components of keep down the number of parameters.
共i兲 Plasticity: 共ii兲 Friction:

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering AUGUST 2006, Vol. 128 / 785

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 FVC cos共␩C − ␩C⬘ 兲 共A7兲
The cosine term in Eq. 共A7兲 accounts for the possibility of the
chip velocity and friction force vectors not being coincident. The
chip flow velocity VC is related to the workpiece approach veloc-
ity VW by Eq. 共4-10兲 in 关28兴, i.e.
VC = VW sin ␾n cos i/cos共␾n − ␣n兲cos ␩c 共A8兲
and 共iii兲 Fracture 共separation兲:
RwVW 共A9兲
where R is the fracture toughness.
The internal work rate is given by the sum of Eqs. 共A5兲, 共A7兲,
and 共A9兲. The external work rate is given by F PVW.
References
关1兴 Cook, N. H., Finnie, I., and Shaw, M. C., 1954, “Discontinuous Chip Forma-
tion,” Trans. ASME, 76, pp. 153–162.
关2兴 Astakov, V. P., 1999, Metal Cutting Mechanics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
关3兴 Shaw, M. C., 1984, Metal Cutting Principles, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
关4兴 Merchant, M. E., 1944, “Basic Mechanics of the Metal Cutting Process,” J.
Appl. Mech., 11, pp. A168–A175.
关5兴 Oxley, P. B. L., 1989, Mechanics of Machining: An Analytical Approach to
Assessing Machinability, Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
关6兴 Adibi-Sedeh, A. H., and Madhavan, V., 2002, “Effect of Some Modifications
to Oxley’s Machining Theory and the Applicability of Different Material Mod-
els,” Mach. Sci. Technol., 6, pp. 379–395.
关7兴 Fang, N., and Jawahir, I. S., 2002, “Analytical Predictions and Experimental
Validation of Cutting Force Ratio, Chip Thickness, and Chip Back-Flow Angle
in Restricted Contact Machining Using the Universal Slip-Line Model,” Int. J.
Mach. Tools Manuf., 42, pp. 681–694.
关8兴 Rosenhain, W., and Sturney, A. C., 1925, “Report on the Flow and Rupture of
Metals During Cutting,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1, pp. 194–219.
关9兴 Atkins, A. G., 1974, “Fracture Toughness and Cutting,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 12,
pp. 263–274.
关10兴 Atkins, A. G., 1974, “A Dimensional Analysis for Machining to include Frac-
ture Toughness,” Proc NAMRC-II Madison, SME, Dearborn, MI, pp. 398–407.
关11兴 Reuleux, F., 1900, “Uber den Taylor Whitescen Werkzeugsthal,” Verein zur
Berforderung des Gewerbefleissen in Preussen Sitzungsberichte, 79, pp. 179–
189.
关12兴 Kendall, K., 2001, Molecular Adhesion and its Applications, Kluwer/Plenum,
NY.
关13兴 Griffith, A. A., 1921, “The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids,” Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 221, pp. 163–198.
关14兴 Atkins, A. G., and Mai, Y-W, 1984/88, Elastic and Plastic Fracture, Ellis
Horwood, Chichester, UK.
关15兴 Trent, E. M., 1991, Metal Cutting, 3rd ed, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, p.
34.
关16兴 Atkins, A. G., 2003, “Modeling Metalcutting Using Modern Ductile Fracture
786 / Vol. 128, AUGUST 2006
Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 12/31/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Mechanics: Quantitative Explanations for Some Longstanding Problems,” Int.
J. Mech. Sci., 45, pp. 373–396.
关17兴 Atkins, A. G., 2004, “Rosenhain and Sturney Revisited: The ‘Tear’ Chip in
Cutting Reinterpreted in Terms of Modern Ductile Fracture Mechanics,” Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng., Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 218, pp. 1181–1194.
关18兴 Thomsen, E. G. Yang, C. T., and Kobayashi, S., 1965, Mechanics of Plastic
Deformation in Metal Processing, Macmillan, New York.
关19兴 Brown, R. H., and Amarego, E. J., 1964, “Oblique Machining With a Single
Cutting Edge,” Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., 4, pp. 9–25.
关20兴 Finnie, I., 1963, “A Comparison of Stress Strain Behaviour in Cutting With
That in Other Material Tests,” Proceedings International Production Engineer-
ing Research Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, ASME, New York, pp. 76–82.
关21兴 Atkins, A. G., Rowe, G. W., and Johnson, W., 1983, “Shear Strain and Strain
Rates in Kinematically-Admissible Velocity Fields,” Int J Mech Eng Educa-
tion, 10, pp. 265–278.
关22兴 Atkins, A. G., 1997, “Fracture Mechanics and Metalforming: Damage Me-
chanics and the Local Approach of Yesterday and Today,” Fracture Research
in Retrospect: G Irwin Festschrift, H. P. Rossmanith, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 327–338.
关23兴 Atkins, A. G., 1980, “On Cropping and Related Processes,” Int. J. Mech. Sci.,
22, pp. 215–231.
关24兴 Atkins, A. G., 1981, “Surfaces Produced by Guillotining,” Phil Mag 共David
Tabor Festschrift兲, 43, p. 627.
关25兴 Atkins, A. G., 2000, “Ductile Shear Fracture Mechanics,” Key Eng. Mater.,
177–180, pp. 59–68.
关26兴 McClintock, F. A., 2002, “Slip Line Field Fracture Mechanics: A New Regime
of Fracture Mechanics,” in Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics, W. G. Reuter and
R. S. Piascik, eds., American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH.
关27兴 Stabler, G. V., 1951, “The Fundamental Geometry of Cutting Tools,” Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng., 165, pp. 14–26.
关28兴 Amarego, E. J., and Brown, R. H., 1969, The Machining of Metals, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
关29兴 Shaw, M. C., Cook, N. H., and Smith, P. A., 1952, “The Mechanics of Three-
Dimensional Cutting Operations,” Trans. ASME, 74, pp. 1055–1064.
关30兴 Kopalinsky, E. M., and Oxley, P. L. B., 1984, “Size Effects in Metal Removal
Processes,” Conf. 3rd on Mechanical Properties at High Rates of Strain 共Inst.
Physics Conf. Series No. 70兲, Oxford Univeristy, pp. 389–396.
关31兴 Atkins, A. G., 2005, “Toughness and Cutting: A New Way of Simultaneously
Determining Ductile Fracture Toughness and Strength at Intermediate and
High Strain Rates,” J. G. Williams Festschrift, ed., Eng. Fract. Mech., 72, pp.
849–860.
关32兴 Felbeck, D. K., and Atkins, A. G., 1996, Strength and Fracture of Engineering
Solids, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
关33兴 Shaw, M. C., Smith, P. A., and Cook, N. H., 1952, “The Rotary Cutting Tool,”
Trans. ASME, 74, pp. 1065–1076.
关34兴 Kronenburg, M., 1954, Grundzuge der Zerspanunglehre, 2nd ed., Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
关35兴 Atkins, A. G., Xu, X., and Jeronimidis, G., 2004, “Cutting, by Pressing and
Slicing, of Thin Floppy Slices of Materials Illustrated by Experiments on
Cheddar Cheese and Salami,” J. Mater. Sci., 39, pp. 2761–2766.
关36兴 Atkins, A. G., 2005, “Optimum Blade Configurations for the Cutting of Soft
Solids,” Proc ESIS TC-4, submitted to Engr Fract Mech.
Transactions of the ASME