Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

A case for aggressive drilling of aluminum

R.F. Hamadea, , F. Ismailb
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, American University of Beirut (AUB), P.O. Box 11-0236, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 11072020, Lebanon
b Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
Received 10 May 2003; received in revised form 26 July 2004; accepted 26 July 2004

Abstract
Considering that drilling constitutes about 40% of all metal-cutting operations, there is a surprisingly small number of published articles
addressing drilling in general and high-speed drilling in particular relative to other areas of metal cutting such as turning and milling. And
although the speed at which aluminum gets drilled has been climbing through the years, there appears to be yet a large margin to grow.
Applications that involve drilling large number of holes encompass industries such as the aerospace, automotive, and potentially many other
industries. As such, these same industries would stand to benefit handsomely from drilling holes at increasingly more rapid rates.
Combinations of properly set high cutting speed and tool feed resulting in proportionally large material removal rate summarize aggressive
drilling (AD). The basic ingredients for commercially viable, aggressive, yet economical drilling are coming together nowadays, promising a
quantum leap in the speed (thousands of meters per minute) and, consequently, the feed at which drilling takes place. Drilling at many times
the conventional rates undoubtedly translates into faster productivity, the savings of which typically would dwarf the cost associated with
excessive tool wear. The trends, issues and challenges of aggressive drilling are reviewed in this paper.
2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aggressive drilling; Aluminum; High speed; High feed

1. Introduction
One obvious benefit of high-speed machining (HSM) in
general is that at high spindle speeds the feed can be increased proportionally with the same chip-load as in conventional machining. High speed is a relative term varying
from one work material to another making the definition of
such a concept rather difficult. Nevertheless, and according
to Flom [1], high-speed machining for a given material can
be defined as that speed above which shear-localization develops completely in the primary shear zone. In quantitative
terms, von Turkovich [2] suggests ranges of 20006000 sfm
(6001800 m/min), 600060,000 sfm (180018,000 m/min),
and larger than 60,000 sfm (18,000 m/min) to describe highspeed, very high-speed, and ultra high-speed machining.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +961 1 350 000x3481; fax: +961 1 744462.

E-mail addresses: rhamade@aub.edu.lb (R.F. Hamade),
fismail@mecheng1.uwatrerloo.ca (F. Ismail).
0924-0136/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.07.099

Pushing the high-speed machining (HSM) envelope of

metals, researchers have over the years explored the general regimes of speed and feed. Salomon [3], in a series
of experiments from 1924 to 1931, obtained data on machining of mostly non-ferrous metals at surface speeds up
to 16,500 m/min (54,000 sfm). In trying to make HSM a
practical production process on the shop floor, many workers including Robert L. Vaughn in the 1950s and 1960s
[4,5], Robert I. King in the 1970s [6,7], and D.G. Flom
in the 1970s and 1980s [8] investigated the different aspects of machining. A relatively recent review of high-speed
machining in general was done by Schulz and Moriwaki
[9].
More specific to drilling, workers such as King [10] and
Kahng and Tyler [11] conducted high-speed drilling tests on
a variety of metals including aluminum. For example, Kahng
in 1978 drilled into 390-cast aluminum using 0.5 in. diameter coolant feeding twist drills. One interesting conclusion
was that when they pushed the (then) envelope on speed
(7000 rpm or 279 m/min) and feed (0.016 ipr or 0.4 mm/rev)

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

resulting in 112 m/min feed rate, they found that the hole
quality for this particular condition was remarkable.
Drilling speeds have been consistently and rapidly increasing thanks in part to recent developments in drill geometry
[12,13]. In fact, in the specialized area of high-speed micro
drilling speeds in excess of 120,000 rpm were reached [14].
More recently, there has been a flurry of trade journal articles [1521] addressing the issue of high-speed machining in
general and drilling in particular.
From a service point of view, aluminum is a soft, lowdensity () metal that appeals to weight-sensitive industries
because of its competitive specific stiffness (E/) and strength
(s/) where E is the modulus of elasticity and s is the tensile strength. To quote a recent press release by the Auto
Aluminum Alliance [22]: Simply put, aluminum builds a
better car. Case in point, the weight savings necessary for
better fuel economy has encouraged several automakers to
explore new car designs with all-aluminum chassis. For their
part, aerospace companies have for the longest time used
aluminum alloys as the metals of choice in the construction
of the airliner outer skin, fuselage frames, spar webs, etc
. . .. Both wrought and cast aluminum alloys are in demand,
where the former lends itself typically to continuous form
(such as sheet metal, bar, and rod stock, etc . . .) while the
latter exists in discrete bulk form applications such as cast
engine parts and other discrete mostly under the hood components.
From a material point of view, aluminum is a metal that
has the face-centered cubic (FCC) unit cell structure, which
is one reason why aluminum is an easy-to-machine metal
with machinability ratings superior to those of most engineering metals. This same property makes aluminum a metal
that lends itself easily to high-speed machining in general.
In fact, there appears to be no ceiling on how aggressively
most wrought aluminum alloys can be drilled. In recent work
by K. Sakurai et al [23], the high feed rate drilling of aluminum alloy A1050, A2017 and A6061 is attempted with titanium nitride-coated SKH56 drills under cutting conditions
of 1500 rpm and 1.0 mm/rev. Results obtained of cutting characteristics such as cutting forces, drill wear, heat generated,
chip shape, hole finish, etc., were examined in order to determine the critical cutting condition for conventional drills. It
is found that the high feed drilling of aluminum alloy A1050
is difficult practically, while high feed drilling in A2017 and
A6061 alloys is very feasible. These results support the theory that aluminum alloys under aggressive drilling conditions do not machine radically differently when compared
with conventional drilling. In fact, aluminum alloy A1050
(almost pure aluminum at composition of Al 99.50%) is conventionally classified ([24], p. 46) as a soft, gummy alloy with
poor machinability (worst rating, E), while A2017-T6 (composition Al 94.2%, Si 0.5%, Cu 4.0%, Mn 0.7%, Mg 0.6%)
and A6061-T6 (composition Al 97.9%, Si 0.6%, Cu 0.28%,
Mg 1.0%, Cr 0.2%) are both wrought precipitation-hardened
aluminum alloys that are assigned a rating of B (second best)
and C (third best), respectively.

87

2. Benets of aggressive drilling

There are many benefits associated with aggressive
drilling the most significant of which are:
2.1. Good-quality machining
Since the built-up edge (BUE) phenomenon tends to disappear at high cutting speeds, the result is a smooth surface
texture of the resulting drilled hole. According to B. Chamberlain [25], many of the chipping and surface finish difficulties encountered in machining aluminum alloys can be
eliminated by increasing cutting speed. For some applications, speeds of 3550 m/s (700010,000 sfm) are used to
obtain smooth surfaces. On the other hand, there appears
to be a limit on this beneficial effect as the accompanying
rise in temperature may cause the drilled surface quality to
degrade if the aluminum reaches the molten state. Regarding burr formation, it is well documented in the high-speed
milling literature that the size of the burr gets reduced in both
height and thickness as a function of increased cutting speed
([26], for example).
2.2. Proportionally lower cutting forces
There is substantial evidence in the literature of proportionally lower specific cutting power at higher rates of speed
in general. Based on a recent study of high-speed orthogonal cutting of XC18 (French Standards) steel, experimental
measurements made by Sutter [27] revealed the existence of
an optimal cutting speed for which the energy consumption
is minimum. In earlier work, sponsored by DARPA and performed at GE-CRD, D.G. Flom [28] found that the cutting
forces (in lathe-turning of Al 6061) decrease with increasing
speed and reach an absolute minimum at about 10,000 sfm
(50 m/s or 3000 m/min) beyond which the force increases
slightly. The cutting force at its lowest is about one-third
what it is commonly accepted as the average value at common cutting speeds. Similarly, C.F. Barth [29] in discussing
high-speed machining reports an observed drop and subsequent consistency of the specific energy for chip generation.
For Al 6061, a threshold speed of 20 m/s (1200 m/min) exists at which the specific energy is lowest, and the value of
which is about one-half what is reported in the literature at
common speeds. This phenomenon would naturally translate
into energy savings for aggressive drilling that involves high
drilling speeds. The specific cutting energy also decreases
with increasing feed (uncut chip thickness) as well.
2.3. Economical
Although it is acknowledged that drilling at AD rates
would result in high tool wear rates as compared to conventional drilling, optimizing the process parameters of any
drilling operation in order to result merely in maximum tool
life is not an accepted practice. This is because the faster
rate of material removal may more than compensate for the

88

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

higher tool cost. As drilling processes are typically characterized by having high ratios of cutting time/non-cutting time,
AD makes economical sense as well. According to Komanduri [30], floor-to-floor time can be regarded as the sum of
the cutting time and the non-cutting time. When the cutting
time is a significant fraction of the floor-to-floor time and
when tool wear at high speed is not significant, the cutting
speed can be increased considerably (13 orders of magnitude compared with a reference conventional speed) to effect
a significant reduction in floor-to-floor time. An example
of cutting time savings utilizing AD is the significant reductions in actual drilling time in the three scenarios presented in
Section 3.1 below, drilling a thousand holes in series would
require 568, 114, and 29 s of actual drilling time, respectively.
These impressive times when fed into a machining economics
optimization model perhaps similar to Agapious [31] may
in fact bridge the gap between what is considered Minimum
Cost Drilling and Maximum Production Drilling.
3. Challenges of aggressive drilling
Conversely, and not unlike high-speed machining (HSM)
or high-throughput machining (HTM) in general, the implementation of aggressive drilling poses a host of technical and
operational challenges the most significant of which are:

tion would require five times the rpms (a phenomenal 100,000 rpm corresponding to cutting
speed of 2000 m/min), and thus five times the
power (now 5.69 kW). Contrasting this with
Scenario I, this operation takes only 0.114 s and
removes material at a rate of 6.7 cm3 /s.
Scenario III: And for those serialized holes drilled in sheet
metal, for example one may drill the same hole
in a phenomenal 0.029 s per hole using the
phenomenal spindle speed of 100,000 rpm plus
an aggressive 0.5 mm/rev feed removing material at an equally phenomenal removal rate
of 26.4 cm3 /s. This operation requires about
22.42 kW of power.
Furthermore, the AD feed requirement would have to be
at least as high so as to keep the same load per tooth as
conventional drilling. For example, in Scenarios I, II, and III
above the process would require linear tool feeds of 42 mm/s,
212 mm/s, and 833 mm/s, respectively. As these phenomenal
feeds require steep rates of acceleration and deceleration, this
in turn imposes its own performance requirements on the
machine tool such as low-inertia components, fast-controls
software system, and equally agile controls hardware.
3.2. Tool wear

3.1. Machine tool power and feed requirements

The main requirement associated with aggressive drilling
is spindle power, and lots of it. Based on handbook shop formulas, given below are three hypothetical calculations (scenarios) of material removal rates (MRR), torque, power, and
resulting drilling time given a drill diameter, desired drilling
parameters, and material (aluminum in this case). Keeping in
mind that the equations used are based on simple mechanistic
calculations, the results nevertheless illustrate the penalties a
manufacturer would have to pay in order to achieve AD. For
a drill diameter of 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) the spindle speed was
varied between 12,000 and an ultra-high 100,000 rpm. Also,
two (2) tool feeds were chosen: a conservative 0.127 mm/rev
as well as a relatively aggressive 0.5 mm/rev. Given the linear
nature of the equations used, the results scale linearly with
the input parameters.
Scenario I: For example, it takes 0.568 s to drill a straight
hole of depth = 3 (the drill diameter of
6.35 mm) + (an assumed approach distance
of 5 mm) = 24 mm, using a spindle running at 20,000 rpm (surface cutting speed of
400 m/min) and being fed at 0.127 mm/rev.
This (relatively conservative) drilling operation
removes material at the rate of 1.3 cm3 /s but
would require 0.54 Nm of torque and spindle
power of at least 1.14 kW.
Scenario II: In trying to accomplish the same task five (5)
times faster at the same feed rate, the opera-

Machining of wrought aluminum does not result in excessive tool wear rates and a top drilling speed appears not
to exist. This is mainly because the melting temperature of
aluminum alloys (550660 C) is comparable to the softening temperature of the popular tool material HSS (reported
to be in the range of 540600 C) and is much lower than
that of cemented WC (reported range for most popular grades
8701100 C). Tool wear zone studies indicate low wear rates
for tools when machining aluminum alloys [32]. Case in
point, the machining data handbook [33] recommends using the maximum allowable cutting speeds of the cemented
carbide throwaway inserts while cutting wrought aluminum.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with some high-siliconcontaining cast aluminum alloys which upon solidification
from the melt the solution precipitate out a second phase that
is widely recognized to be responsible for high crater and
flank wear. For these alloys, and given their special nature,
conventional drilling handbooks recommend such low speeds
of no more than 50 fpm (15 m/min) and feeds not exceeding
0.012 ipr (0.3 mm/rev) for 1/2 in. HSS drills (M10, M7, M1
AISI grades) for example. Case in point, Alverio et al. [34]
used solid carbide drills to drill in lost-foam investment
cast 390 hypereutectic aluminum (which in addition to aluminum contains silicon 17.0%, copper 4.5%, zinc 1.3%, and
magnesium 0.6%) and found that wear rates increase three to
five times faster than the accompanying increase in speed. Of
course, the durability of most coated carbide tools have come
a long way since 1990 when this work was reported. Another
conclusion of the same work is the by-now well-recognized

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

fact that polycrystalline diamond (PCD) tools have lives several orders of magnitude of those of carbides, while machining cast aluminiumsilicon alloy compositions (but of course
at a high cost to match).
3.3. Chip control
Although aggressive drilling should result in improved
surface finish as mentioned above, this must not be accomplished at the expense of deteriorating chip control. Chamberlain has done an excellent review in [25] and the reader
is referred to it for a more thorough treatise. Besides speed,
other effective strategies to controlling chip problems include
using flood coolant and sharp, uncoated tools with high positive rake angles and polished rake faces. The shear volume
of AD-produced chips when compared with conventional
drilling may magnify potential chip control issues. But because aluminum alloys do not drill radically differently in AD
regimes when compared with more conventional regimes,
one may utilize the already recognized drilling characteristics
of the aluminum alloy composition of interest. For example,
while most cast alloys and wrought alloys of the 2xxx series
form the desired short and segmented chips making them ADready, soft alloys such as the cast 319 and the wrought 1xxx
and 3xxx series may or may not produce good-quality holes
judging by their poor chipping characteristic at conventional
rates.

4. Technical issues associated with aggressive drilling

Drilling tools come in endless combinations of configuration, geometry, material, and coating. A successful combination is one that offers the ability to drill at AD rates economically, and yet be able to produce an acceptable drilled hole
quality. Understanding that the ability to drill aggressively requires the availability of a whole support system capable of
accommodating the business end of the operation (the drill),
namely managing the generated heat generation at the tool
tip, providing a low-friction transportation path for the chip,
utilizing a tool with acceptable life, high-performance spindle capable of providing ample speed and power, tool holder
with low run-out, as well as worthy fixture able to rigidly
hold the work so as not to degrade the above hard-earned
performance. These issues are briefly discussed below.
4.1. The drill
4.1.1. Geometry and conguration
Available configurations include solid (typically under
25 mm diameter), brazed, insert, and other arrangements with
solid drills producing superior dimension tolerances especially at high rates of speed. Given that reliable and speedy
evacuation of chips is but one reason why drilling speeds have
traditionally lagged behind those of turning and milling, facilitating the removal of chips at higher cutting speeds have

89

been one driving force behind constant improvements in drill

geometry. For example, for a comparable feed, the recommended speed for face milling wrought aluminum using HSS
tools is two to four times higher than that recommended for
drilling [35]. The chip path can be long and tortuous given the
nature of the helix-angled flutes featured in most regrindable
drills. While Standard helix drills (helix angle of approximately 30 ) are used in drilling hard aluminum alloys, High
(quick) helix drills have helix angles of approximately 40
are used for drilling lower strength aluminum [36]. Also systematic enhancements of the drill performance and drilling
force reduction at high speeds have resulted in many improved versions of the traditional general-purpose twist drill
[12,13,3740].
4.1.2. Materials and coatings
The latest developments in tool materials and supercoating technologies is making feasible the previously insurmountable hurdle of performing aggressive drilling under dry conditions while preserving tool life. Although highspeed steel drills remain the main choice today for drilling
aluminums at conventional speeds, carbide drills constitute
the workhorse at medium/high speeds. This is mainly due
to a new generation of extremely wear resistant and tough
fine-grained carbides available through quality manufacturers such as Guhring, Kennametal-Hertel, Sandvik, Secko, and
several others. Although these carbide drills possess characteristically long lives when machining aluminum thanks to
their hardness relative to the work, the carbide drill varieties
are commonly treated with ever more durable coatings and are
able to operate at previously impossibly high cutting speeds
(even under dry or minimal coolant conditions). Thin, hard,
single or multi-layer coatings of the CVD (including TiC,
TiN, and Al2 O3 ) or PVD (including TiCN, TiAlN) varieties
are applied to the tools base material in order to increase wear
resistance through improving the hot hardness and providing
rake face lubricity. Consequently, these coatings translate into
extending the usefulness of the drill especially at AD rates.
Grzesik [41] recently demonstrated the effect of some multilayer coatings on lowering the coefficient of sliding friction
(and consequently the friction heat flux) during machining.
One example of the new super hard coating is FIREX from
Guhring [42] which is made up of distinct, alternating thin
coating layers deposited on solid carbide drills resulting in
hardness exceeding 90 Rc and a low friction coefficient of
0.25. Although the coating is rated to a maximum operating
temperature of 800 C, the life of such a tool is rated at several times that of TiN-coated drills and about two times the
life of TiCN-coated drills. Some of the new coatings have
extremely high lubricity resulting in even lower wear rates,
lower tool replacement cost, and proportionately higher productivity. For example, Guhring recently introduced a 0.05
coefficient of friction based on MoS2 commercially marketed
as MolyGlide [43]. Another breakthrough example is a TiAlN
coating with small additions of the rare earth material yttrium
by using arc bond sputtering (ABS) technology as a depo-

90

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

sition method. This results in extremely adherent and also

very smooth-surfaced hard ceramic coatings on the base drill
material. These properties are particularly essential in highquality drills when operated without lubricants or coolants.
Furthermore, new wear-resistant coatings based on the chemically extremely stable niobium are likely to be commercially
available [44,45].
Although tungsten carbide drilling tools perform well
enough to satisfy some AD operations, aggressive drilling
in some of the cast aluminum alloys containing high percentages of silicon may result in unacceptable tool life due
to second-phase abrasion and wear. Polycrystalline diamond
tools offer a solution in these instances where a PCD drill can
cut much faster (up to 10 times the recommended speed of
carbides) at durability of up to a 100 times higher than the carbide varieties thanks to diamonds extreme hardness. A major
disadvantage of PCD tools remains their price, where the cost
of a PCD drill is many times that of its carbide counterpart.
Furthermore, the limited toughness of these tools requires
machine set-ups that are extremely rigid and free of vibration. Yet another drawback is that PCD tools require coolant
for optimum performance. Having said that and while taking
advantage of the commercial availability of powerful, highspeed spindles, the use of PCD drills as the tool of choice
may offer an opportunity for making AD a common practice
on the shop floor.
4.1.3. Coolants
Generally, coolants (1) provide lubrication and, consequently reduce drill/work friction thus reducing the heat generated, (2) remove that heat once generated thus keeping
down the temperature of both the drill and work, as well
as (3) perform the ever-critical task of timely chip evacuation. More essential is the management of these issues with
aggressive drilling since any and/or all of these issues are
greatly magnified. A variety of methods and techniques are
used today in order to accomplish these tasks including the (1)
wet, through-the-drill coolant delivery, or (2) dry or semi-dry
minimal lubrication where the drill has a thin-film lubricant
coating (examples of which were discussed above) with minimum coolant applied typically using an aerosol mist [46].
4.1.4. Tool life
Being one limiting economical factor, commercial practices desire ever more durable cutting tools. Tool life is measured differently depending on which of several is construed
as the critical wear mechanism. At conventional cutting
speeds, mechanical wear mechanisms are active and flank
wear is a common measure of tool degradation while at
higher speeds several thermally activated wear mechanisms
come into play. For example, Liu [47] experimentally developed flank wear maps for dry drilling in cast aluminum alloy
AlSi9 Cu3 using HSS drills. To estimate tool life at conventional speeds, empirical deterministic equations such as the
classical Taylor equation VTn =C are used where, tool life, T,
is related to drilling speed, V, through the exponent n is the

slope of the log V versus log T line and the constant C has the
same value as the cutting speed for 1-min tool life [48]. Other
relations account for speed as well as other cutting parameters
such as feed and depth of cut [49,50]. At higher speeds, tool
life can only become shorter and where probabilistic-type
models [51,52] yield more realistic tool life estimates.
4.2. Spindle and tool holder
Spindles capable of very high speeds yet with respectable torque and power to match are becoming a reality thanks to a number of technological breakthroughs in
materials and hardware components (such as hybrid ceramic
/steel ball bearings), and ingenious designs such as the popular CAT and its varieties (CAT-V, . . .) and the more recent
radical HSK [5355]. All of this is accomplished at acceptable radial run-out and positioning tolerance accuracy due to
integral spindle/tool/tool holder. In cases, where the operation requires stopping and reversing the direction of rotation
of the spindle, spindles capable of high Gs in both acceleration and deceleration would also be required in AD so as not
to become the processs bottle neck.
4.3. Work set-up and xturing
Similar to other metal cutting operations, rigidity of the
drilling set-up including that of the machine as well as
of the drill itself affect the final quality of the drilled
hole. More so at aggressive combinations of feed and speed
where the stiffness requirements for the whole system becomes more critical due to static and dynamic issues that
may come to play. Therefore, it is important to think of the
quality of aggressively drilled holes as a system issue that
is determined by the complete set-up including proper work
fixturing [56]. One primary objective of a functional fixture
is to restrain the work statically and dynamically so as to
prevent the onset of chatter and/or vibration [57]. Chatter is
detrimental to any manufacturers efforts to increase productivity, and from a quality perspective, chatter and vibrations
are both undesirable in as much as they result in poor surface
finish, hole out-of-roundness [58], and accelerated tool wear.

5. Insights into the mechanics of aggressive drilling

It is the combination of aggressive speeds and feeds that
is advertised to have a synergistic effect in reducing the specific cutting energy (thus force) while removing substantial
amounts of material. Evidence from the literature supporting
this synergistic trend resulting from this combination will be
presented here forth.
5.1. Chip formation
As stated in the introduction, aluminum alloys under aggressive machining conditions do not machine radically dif-

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

ferently when compared with machining at conventional conditions. For instance, Siems [59] found that serrated chips
form in HSM of Al7075-T6 as expected and that the degree of segmentation increased at higher cutting speeds (up
to 8000 m/min). Also, experiments ([24], p.599) on chip formation in the speed range of 1504500 m/min show virtually
no change in lamellar thickness with speed and the morphology of these chips is of the type desired in drilling being small
and discontinuous.
Having said that there is ample evidence in the literature
to support the theory that the chip temperature approaches
that of the material melt at extreme cutting speeds. In fact,
Siems in [59] presented evidence pointing to A7075 work
melting at HSM speeds in excess of 1000 m/min using a
special WIDAX single-insert end-milling cutter. Also, Kottenstette [60] using a pyrometer, measured temperatures at
the toolchip interface in the neighborhood of the melting
temperature of the material while cutting three steel alloys
and Inconel 718. The temperature of the chip increases as a
function of increasing speed until it supposedly reaches the
melting temperature of the work material. The main reason
why chip temperature may become excessive is due to difference in heat transfer kinetics for conventional versus AD
machining. The (slow) parameters in traditional cutting favor isothermal tool/chip/work conditions by heat conduction,
while the aggressive speeds and feeds favor transient conditions where excessive plastic shear deformation and localized
heating occur along localized narrow shear strips under nearly
adiabatic conditions [61] (in what is referred to as adiabatic
shearing [62]). This combined with the retarded conduction
through the tool results in a larger percentage of the heat being
removed through the ejected chips [63,64].
Apparently, the optimum AD speed should be chosen so
that it exceeds the characteristic speed at which the desired
segmented chip types are typically produced but which does
not result in chip melting. For a specific application, an optimized combination of aggressive speeds and feeds is one
that also should meet the surface finish, roundness, and overall quality requirements of the drilled hole. To that end, an AD
version of Batzers [65] recent drilling study of chip morphology would be ideal. In drilling of two cast aluminum alloys:
309 and 390, the authors used five combinations of drills
(including materials, drill diameters, helix, number of flutes,
point angle, point style, and drill profile) to evaluate the effect of process variables such as speed (76123 m/min), feed,
hole depth, and cutting fluid on the size of the chips produced
and, consequently, the surface finish.
5.2. Specic cutting energy (and drilling force) versus
feed and speed
For years, researchers have used various models to determine the forces (thrust and cutting), torque, and power in
metal cutting processes [6673]. The concept of specific cutting power is a simplistic approach used to quickly estimate
the forces of machining and depends on several factors in-

91

Fig. 1. Adjusted specific cutting energy vs. uncut chip thickness [76].

cluding cutting conditions. Experimentally, it has been found

that the specific cutting power (and thus the cutting forces
and torque) generally decays versus increasing feed [7475].
One widely accepted explanation is that additional energy is
spent to provide for the plowing forces that act on the flank
area and on the tool edge. An empirical power law equation
that relates specific cutting power, Ks , to h, the uncut chip
thickness, has been used [76]:
Ks = Khp

(1)

where Ks is the adjusted specific cutting power, and p is a

constant ranging from 0.15 to 0.3. A widely accepted range
for this empirical parameter for various wrought aluminums
is 800900 W s/cm3 at a reference uncut chip thickness of
0.25 mm (0.01 in.). Fig. 1 shows how the specific cutting
power decreases as a function of increasing feed (uncut chip
thickness) while using three values for the constant p for
comparison.
For high-speed machining and beyond a certain threshold
speed, there exists a limiting constant value for the specific
cutting energy. Based on experimental work by Flom [28],
Barth [29] reports a limiting (constant) value for the specific energy of 305410 W s/cm3 for cutting speeds exceeding 1200 m/min. This range is less than one-half the accepted
values at slower conventional speeds such as those used to
construct Fig. 1.
As the drill takes a bigger bite, the cutting efficiency improves as the proportion of this plowing force to the cutting force at the toolwork interface decreases. This welldocumented positive effect yields its dividends in proportionally lower cutting forces and torques versus feeds. In order
to illustrate this point as applied to aggressive drilling, the
authors elected to re-plot experimental drilling data reported
by Elhachimi et al. [77,78]. As shown in Fig. 2, the experimentally collected drilling data of a 6-mm-diameter, slightly
modified standard drill in 45M5r steel shows the thrust force
to increase in a non-linear fashion versus cutting speed but
with decreasing slope. (This is in line with the beneficial
trends predicted above in Eq. (1) and in Fig. 1). Power fit lines
are shown through the slowest and fastest cutting speed data.

92

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

Fig. 2. Thrust force vs. feed at different speeds (Elhachimi data [78]).

Notice that the slope of the power fit line for the 245 m/min
has a smaller slope across the range than the 75 m/min line.
Although this data does not directly indicate the generally
acknowledged trend of reduced cutting forces versus speed, it
does point out to an interesting trend in that the combination
of high feeds and speeds have synergistic effects. Although
the thrust force is initially larger than that at lower feeds, the
thrust force approaches that at lower speeds and feeds for
feeds upwards of about 0.3 mm/rev. At feeds approaching
0.4 mm/rev, the thrust force is indeed smaller for speeds of
340 m/min than that at lower cutting speeds and this becomes
consistent with the general notion that the cutting forces decrease with speed.
Continuing this argument and examining reported data
on drilling in aluminum, Alverio et al. [34] reports a truly
impressive trend while using a 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) diameter
solid carbide drill 119 drill point and 33 high helix angle to
drill in 15.87 mm (0.625 in.) thick cast A390 samples. Fig. 3
shows the thrust force for each speed to increase with the feed,
which is in line with the fact that the force is proportional to
the area of the uncut chip (being roughly the product of the
feed per tooth and the drill radius). What is not predictable
though is the fact that the thrust force is consistently lower
at higher speeds than at lower speeds for all values of feed
rates.
Not only that Alverios data reflects the thermal softening
behavior due to the low melting temperature of aluminum
(A390 cast aluminum) but that the data is collected at higher

Fig. 3. Thrust force vs. feed at different speeds (Alverio data [34]).

cutting speeds than those used by Elhachimis. This combination of using high speeds and feeds while drilling aluminum
provides for a very appealing situation regarding the thrust
forces. A direct benefit is an impressive trend indicating the
drill life in terms of number of holes drilled increases with
feed rates because the contact time per hole becomes shorter.
This trend is seldom seen in machining except when the feed
rate is very low. In that case life can be increased by going to
higher feed rate.
It has also been found experimentally [7982] that the specific cutting energy (and thus the cutting forces and torque)
decreases with increasing cutting speed. For example, turning
of aluminum 6061-T6 exhibits a decrease in cutting forces
for cutting speeds up to about 10,000 sfm (3000 m/min) after
which a slight increase in these forces is observed. More applicable to aggressive drilling, the authors re-plotted some of
the experimental data reported by Alverio [34] in Fig. 4 below. The thrust force is shown to decrease over a wide range
of aggressive speeds for four different feeds. Power fit lines
for these feeds are also shown (as continuous lines).
Similar behavior of thrust force versus speed was documented in high-speed drilling tests in aluminum sheet metal
with speeds up to 16,000 rpm and feeds of 0.0250.1 mm/rev
while using HSS twist drill with 29 helical angle [83].
Similar findings were reported by Iwata [14] in the area of
ultra-high-speed micro drilling where the thrust force and
torque were more than halved while drilling stainless steel at
120,000 rpm as compared with drilling speeds of 50,000 rpm.
This phenomenon may be explained by the aluminum
works strength as being the sum of two competing phenomena: (1) softening of the work material due to thermal
softening thanks to heat generation at the shear plane and the
toolwork interface and (2) work hardening associated with
high strain rates at the shear plane (proportional to cutting
speed). Regarding the former, the work materials flow stress
decreases as a function of the materials working temperature. The bulk of the energy generated during drilling is dissipated as heat and principally removed through the ejected
chip with the retained portion contributing to local increase

Fig. 4. Thrust force vs. speed at different feeds (Alverio data [34]).

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

Fig. 5. Flow stress vs. temperature (various references [35,8486]).

in the works temperature. The flow stress of aluminum 2007,

for example [85,86], is reported to decrease as a function of
increasing homologous temperature, TH (= the metals working temperature divided by its melting temperature, T/Tm ).
Fig. 5 shows the flow stress of A2007 to equal 64,000 psi at
a homologous temperature of 0.4 (or working temperature of
about 260 C), this stress drops to about 34,000 psi for a TH of
0.6 (working temperature of about 400 C). This constitutes
halving the strength over a temperature increase of 140 C
only. Over the same temperature range, little increase is seen
as a result of strain rate increase from 14,000325,000 s1 .
Data for 2024-O, 2024-T6, and 7075-T6 were collected from
other sources [35,84] and also plotted in Fig. 5 in order to further demonstrate thermal softening. (The data contains different heat treatment conditions as well as various strain rates,
which explains some apparent disparity in the data shown.)
Regarding the strain-rate effect, the AD strains and the
corresponding strain rates are exceptionally high where the
latter may exceed 1E + 6 s1 [87]. Thanks to strain hardening, the material strength at higher strain rates is significantly
greater than that at lower strain rates (corresponding to conventional drilling speeds). Keeping in mind that strain rates
are proportional to cutting speed, for example, in Section 3.1
above Scenarios I and II the strain rates are estimated to be
2.2E + 5 and 1.1E + 6 s1 , respectively. Compared with strain
rates at more conventional drilling rates of about 1E + 4 s1 ,
the above AD strain rates are up to two orders of magnitude
greater.
Tensile strength versus strain rate data collected from
[35,84,88] is plotted in Fig. 6. While for a simple highpurity aluminum, the data [84] indicates comparable values
of strength increase due to work hardening (say from 1E + 4
to 1E + 6 s1 ) and softening due to temperature increase (say
from 200620 C), for Al7075-T6 the data shows strength
loss of about 70% over a temperature rise of 285 C com-

93

Fig. 6. Tensile strength vs. strain rate for various aluminums [35,84,88].

pared with only 6% strengthening over four decades of strain

rates from 1E 04 to 1 s1 .
At room temperature, the effect of strain rate is not significant, since it takes changes of several orders of magnitude
of strain rate before appreciable change in the yield or ultimate stress (tensile and shear) is observed. But although the
relative strain rate effects are more pronounced at high temperatures, the actual value of the stress is significantly lower
at high temperatures than at low temperatures. These trends
could be seen in Fig. 7 which presents data for shear stress as
a function of strain rate for some wrought aluminum alloys
(adapted from [89,90]).
It seems then that the thermal softening of the work aluminum due to the relatively high temperatures involved over-

Fig. 7. Maximum shear stress vs. strain rate for some wrought aluminum
alloys [89,90].

94

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

takes any strain hardening associated with the higher strain

rates. In modeling of deformation processing, for instance, it
is common practice to use materials constitutive equations to
account for the high-strain, high-strain rate, high-temperature
conditions on the mechanical behavior of the material. Examples of such equations include different mathematical forms
as developed by Hodgsin [91], Johnson and Cook [92], and
Kiuchi, Yanagimoto, and Yokobayashi (K-Y-Y) [93,94] to
name a few.
In Hodgsins formulation, the materials average flow
stress is modeled as:



Q
 n m
= A exp
(2)
RT
where and are the plastic strain and plastic strain rate,
respectively. Also, A , n , and m are material constants, Q
is the activation energy, R is the gas constant, and T is the
temperature (in Kelvin).
The model developed by Johnson and Cook relates the
shear stress to three variables: strain, strain rate, and temperature as follows:


 


 
T Tr m

n
s = (A + B ) 1 + C ln
1+
(3)
Tm T r
0
where is plastic strain, /0 is the dimensionless plastic rate,
T is the material temperature, Tr is reference temperature,
and Tm is the material melting temperature. Additionally, the
five experimentally determined material constants are: A is
the yield stress, B is the strain hardening coefficient, n is the
strain-hardening exponent, C is a strain-rate dependent coefficient, and m is a temperature-dependent coefficient. The first
bracket in the constitutive equation is the strain-hardening
term, the second is the strain rate-hardening term, and the
third is the thermal softening term, and assuming adiabatic
deformation at high strain rates, it allows for reduction in
strength corresponding to the increase in temperature.
Relative to forging, for instance, Koc et al. reported [95] a
mathematical model to describe the flow stress of semi-solid
alloy, and later utilized [96] this model in a finite element
program to predict the material flow of aluminum A356 in
semi-solid forging. The flow stress is defined as a function of
temperature and strain rate as follows:
m(T )
= C(T )

(4)

where C is the strength coefficient, T is the temperature ( C),

m is the strain-rate-sensitivity coefficient, and is the strain
rate.
Relative to metal cutting, several researchers utilized similar constitutive equations to those presented above. For example, Maekawa et al. [97] and in order to simulate metal
machining used a constitutional equation that was earlier developed by Maekawa, Shirakashi, and Usui [98] (to model
metal compression) of the form


c
aT
b(T T0 )2
= K e + Ae
(5)
()d
R

T, , , R represent flow stress, temperature, strain,

where ,
strain rate, and reference strain rate, respectively. The coefficients a, b, c, d, A, K, T0 are parameters computed by least
square fit methods.
In order to describe the material behavior during drilling
and ball end milling, Shatla and T. Altan [99] utilized a flow
stress model developed by Lee et al. [100]:
= (A + Bn )(1 + C ln )(1 T m )

(6)

where and are the flow stress and plastic strain, respectively. = /0 is the normalized strain rate (as divided by
a reference strain rate, 0 ) and T is the homologous temperature. A, B, n, C, and m are experimentally determined
material constants. This constitutive relationship was successfully used in an FEM model to predict the cutting forces
in drilling for a range of speeds (200400 m/min) and feeds
(0.1250.25 mm).

6. General guidelines for aggressive drilling

Specific guidelines would have to be custom-tailored to
meet specific production criteria; however the following are
offered here as generic guidelines:
Use conventional drilling handbook not to set the drilling
parameters but rather to generally understand how different
aluminum alloys behave when drilled. These differences
include chip formation and tool wear rates. This includes
classifying the work aluminum as either wrought or cast
alloy then sub-classifying the cast aluminum, for example,
as either of eutectic (containing roughly 10% Si such as
A319, A380, A383, and A356 although this last composition has less copper than other alloys making it of lower
machinability and higher tool wear), or hypereutectic composition (containing larger than 10% Si such as A390, . . .)
This early determination would prove critical to the success of any aggressive drilling operation.
Identify the AD speed and feed parameters that cause the
work aluminum to soften enough so as (1) to take advantage of the proportionally lower drilling forces and power,
(2) not to cause excessive tool wear rates, and 3) yet not
quite to cause chip melting (assuming the plausibility of
this happening) in order to preserve the quality of the wall
surface of the drilled hole.
Apply sound drilling practices including proper tool holding and fixturing in order to provide rigid conditions and
to minimize undesirable chatter or vibration.

7. Conclusions
This paper highlights the potential benefits and challenges
associated with drilling holes in aluminum using aggressive
combinations of speeds and feeds.

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

The main benefits of aggressive drilling include higher

productivity, a synergistic effect in reducing the specific
cutting power (and drilling forces) while removing substantial amounts of material.
The primary challenges for aggressive drilling include
spindle power, accelerated tool wear, set up rigidity, hole quality, chip evacuation, and high acceleration/deceleration demands on the spindle drives.
It is essential to understand how different aluminum alloys
behave when drilled. These differences include chip formation and tool wear rates. This includes classifying the
work aluminum as either wrought or cast alloy and then
sub-classifying to understand the subtle variations.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the grant from the Center of Excellence AUTO21 provided by the government of
Canada. Also, the first author acknowledges the support of
the University Research Board of the American University
of Beirut.

References
[1] D.G. Flom, High Speed Machining in: G. Bruggeman, V. Weiss
(Eds.), Innovations in Materials Processing, vol. 30, Plenum Press,
1983, pp. 417439.
[2] V. Turkovich, Influence of very high cutting speed on chip formation mechanics, in: Proceedings of the 7th NAMRC, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1979, pp. 241247.
[3] Karl J. Salomon, German Patent 523594, 1931.
[4] R.L. Vaughn, Ultra-high speed machining, Am. Machinist 107 (4)
(1960) 111126.
[5] R.L. Vaughn, L.J. Quackenbush, The high-speed milling of titanium
alloys, Technical Paper MR 66151, Soc. Manufact. Eng., 1966.
[6] R.I. King, J. McDonald, Product design implications of new highspeed milling techniques, transactions of the ASME, J. Eng. Ind.
98 (4) (1976) 11701175.
[7] R.I. King, High speed production milling of non-ferrous materials, in: Proceedings of the 4th NAMRC, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1976, pp. 334338.
[8] D.G. Flom, Advanced Machining Research Program (AMRP), Annual Technical Report, Air Force Contract No. F33615-79-C-5119,
GE Report No. SRD-80-118, 1980.
[9] T. Schulz, T. Moriwaki, High-speed machining, Ann. CIRP 41 (2)
(1992) 637643.
[10] R.I. King, High speed drilling of aluminum alloy and aluminum
graphite epoxy sandwich structures, in: Proceedings of the 10th
NAMRC, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1982, pp. 320324.
[11] C.H. Kahng, D.K. Tyler, High speed drilling of aluminum alloy,
Soc. Manufact. Eng. (1978) 17.
[12] J. Rotberg, A. Ber, A method for drilling parameters evaluation applied for drill point development, Ann. CIRP 36 (1) (1987) 2124.
[13] M.F. De Vries, M.K. Crosheck, H. Negishi, An investigation of
the cutting mechanisms of the new point drill, Ann. CIRP 37 (1)
(1988) 7378.
[14] K. Iwata, T. Moriwaki, T. Hoshi, Basic study of high speed micro
deep drilling, Ann. CIRP 30 (1) (1981) 2730.

95

[15] G. Hyatt, Innovations in holemaking, Tooling Prod. 61 (2) (1995)

4550.
[16] C. Tibor, New directions in drilling, Manufact. Eng. 115 (2) (1995)
7780.
[17] P. Zelinski, The fast track to high speed drilling, Mod. Mach. Shop
71 (1) (1998) 6271.
[18] P. Waurzyniak, Drilling holes, Manufact. Eng. 124 (3) (2000)
8490.
[19] Hole Making Trends Run Deep, Fast, and Dry, American Machinist, (May 2000) 97102.
[20] M. Albert, P. Zelinski, Drilling and beyond, Mod. Mach. Shop 73
(1) (2000) 92101.
[21] R. Roberts, High speed holemaking, Manufact. Eng. 125 (1) (2000)
108112.
[22] http://www.autoaluminum.org/alliance.htm.
[23] K. Sakurai, K. Adachi, G. Kawai, T. Sawai, K. Ogawa, High feed
rate drilling of aluminum alloy, Mater. Sci. Forum, (Switzerland)
331337 (1) (2000) 625630.
[24] J.R. Davis (Eds.), Metals Handbook, vol. 16, Machining, ASM
International, Metals Park, OH 44073.
[25] B. Chamberlain (Eds.), Machinability of Aluminum Alloys, Metals
Handbook, vol. 2, ASM International, Metals Park, OH 44073,
187190.
[26] J.D. Kim, Y. Kang, High-speed machining of aluminum using
diamond endmills, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 37 (8) (1997)
11551165.
[27] G. Sutter, A. Molinari, L. Faure, J.R. Klepaczko, J.R. Dudzinski,
An experimental study of high speed orthogonal cutting, J. Manufact. Sci. Eng. 120 (1998) 169172.
[28] D.G. Flom, in: G. Bruggeman, V. Weiss (Eds.), Innovations in
Materials Processing, Plenum Press, 1985, pp. 417439.
[29] C.F. Barth, in: M.B. Bever (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Materials Science
and Engineering, vol. 3, no. F-I, MIT Press, 1986, p. 2155.
[30] R. Komanduri, High speed machining, Mech. Eng. 107 (12) (1985)
6576.
[31] J.S. Agapiou, The optimization of machining operations based on
a combined criterion Part I: the use of combined criterion, ASME,
J. Eng. Ind. 114 (1992) 500507.
[32] Y.B. Liu, R. Asthana, P.A. Rohatgi, Map of wear mechanism for
aluminum alloys, J. Mater. Sci. 26 (1991) 99102.
[33] Machining Data Handbook, Metcut Research Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
[34] J. Alverio, J.S. Agapiou, C.-H. Shen, High speed drilling of 390
aluminum, in: Transactions of the North American Manufacturing
Research Institution of SME 1990, Soc. Manufact. Eng. (1990)
209215.
[35] H. E. Boyer, T. L. Gall (Eds.), Metals Handbook, ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio 44073, 1985.
[36] D.A. Stephenson, J.S. Agapiou, Metal Cutting Theory and Practice,
Marcel Dekker, 1997, p. 209.
[37] H. Ernst, W.A. Haggerty, The spiral point drilla new concept in
drill point geometry, Transact. ASME 80 (1958) 10591072.
[38] A. Bhattachrayya, A.B. Chattopahyay, R. Ray, Chisel-edge modification of small hss and carbide drills for improved machinability,
Ann. CIRP 30 (1) (1981) 2125.
[39] D.F. Galloway, Some experiments on the influence of various factors on drill performance, Transact. ASME 79 (1956) 191231.
[40] M.F. DeVries, M.K. Croscheck, H. Negishi, An investigation of the
cutting mechanisms of the new point drill, Ann. CIRP 37 (1988)
7378.
[41] W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony, The influence of thin hard coatings on
friction in the orthogonal cutting process, Transact. NAMRI/SME
28 (2000) 113118.
[42] Guhring, Guhring Coating Services, P.O. Box 643, Brookfield, WI
53008.
[43] P. Smith, Special delivery: made to order tooling can send profits
straight to the bottom line, Am. Machinist 145 (2) (2001) 8084.

96

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697

[44] Bodycote SHU Coatings Ltd., Matilda Street, Sheffield, United

Kingdom.
[45] Hydra Tools International Plc, Hydra Walks, Nether Lane, Ecclesfield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, S303ZF.
[46] R.B. Aronson, Machine tool basics-part 2, Manufact. Eng. 126 (4)
(2001) 6275.
[47] M.Z. Zhang, Y.B. Liu, H. Zhou, Wear mechanism maps of uncoated HSS tools drilling die-cast Aluminum alloy, Tribology Int.
34 (2001) 727731.
[48] F.W. Taylor, On the art of cutting metals, ASME Transact. 28
(1907) 3135.
[49] N.E. Woldman, R.C. Gibbons, Machinability and Machining of
Metals, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1951, pp. 4753.
[50] B.F. Colding, A three-dimensional, tool-life equation- machining
economics, ASME, J. Eng. Ind. 81 (1959) 239250.
[51] K. Hitomi, N. Nakamura, S. Inoue, Reliability analysis of cutting
tools, ASME Paper 78-WA/PROD-9, 1978.
[52] B.F. Von Turkovich, W.E. Henderer, On the tool life of high speed
steel tools, Ann. CIRP 27 (1978) 3538.
[53] B. Kellock, New technology taps the source of profit, Machinery
Prod. Eng. 153 (1995) 5964.
[54] Cutting bench time with high speed spindle system,
Modern Machine Shop Online Article, January 2001.
http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/0101td1.html.
[55] P.
Frederickson,
Applying
a
High
Speed
Machining
Spindle;
Metlfax
online,
April
2001.
http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/metlfax/archives/0401/0401spn.asp.
[56] S. Ema, E. Marui, Suppression of chatter vibration in drilling,
ASME, J. Manufact. Sci. Eng. Transact. ASME vol. 120 (1)
(1998) 200202.
[57] P. Zelinski, The dynamics of better drilling, Mod. Mach. Shop 74
(1) (2001) 7081.
[58] P.V. Bayly, K.A. Young, S.G. Calvert, J.E. Halley, Analysis of
tool oscillation and hole roundness error in a quasi-static model of
reaming, ASME, J. Manufact. Sci. Eng. 123 (3) (2001) 387396.
[59] S. Siems, R. Dollmeier, G. Warnecke, Material behavior of aluminum 7075 and AISI 1045 steel in high speed machining, Transact. NAMRI/SME 28 (2000) 101106.
[60] J.P. Kottenstette, Measuring tool-chip interface temperatures,
ASME, J. Eng. Ind. 108 (1986) 101104.
[61] H.K. Toenshoff, H. Winkler, M. Patzke, Chip formation at high
cutting speed, ASME Winter Meeting, PED 12 (1984) 95100.
[62] R. Komanduri, B.F. Turkovich, T. Shroder, J. Hazra, D.G. Flom,
On the catastrophic shear instability in high speed machining of
an AISI 4340 steel, ASME, J. Eng. Ind. 104 (2) (1982) 121181.
[63] E.P. DeGarmo, J. Temple Black, R.A. Kosher, Materials and Processes in Manufacturing, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1988, p.
539.
[64] J.S. Agapiou, On the determination of thermal phenomena during a
drilling process, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 30 (1990) 203215.
[65] S.A. Batzer, D.M. Haan, P.D. Rao, W.W. Olson, J.W. Sutherland,
Chip morphology and hole surface in the drilling of cast aluminum
alloys, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 79 (1998) 7278.
[66] R.A. Williams, Study of the basic mechanics of the chisel edge of
a twist drill, Int. J. Prod. Res. 8 (4) (1970) 325343.
[67] R.A. Williams, A Study of the Drilling Process, ASME, J. Eng.
Ind. 96 (1974) 12071215.
[68] E.J. Armarego, S. Wiriyacosk, Thrust and torque prediction in
drilling from a cutting mechanics approach, Ann. CIRP 28 (1)
(1979) 8791.
[69] A.R. Watson, Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results I initial cutting
lip model, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 25 (4) (1985) 347365.
[70] A.R. Watson, Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results II revised
cutting lip model, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 25 (4) (1985) 367
376.

[71] A.R. Watson, Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results III drilling
model for chisel edge, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 25 (4) (1985)
377392.
[72] A.R. Watson, Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results IV drilling
tests to determine chisel edge contribution to torque and thrust,
Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 25 (4) (1985) 393404.
[73] A.J. Berstrom, A.J. Filipovic, W.W. Olson, J. Sutherland, Mechanistic prediction of drilling forces incorporating a minimum energy
model for chip flow angle, Technical Paper MR00-193, Soc. Mech.
Eng. (2000).
[74] G. Boothroyd, Fundamentals of Metal Cutting, Edward Arnold,
1965, p. 21.
[75] J.P. Cordebois, T. Constantin, Viscoplastic modeling of cutting in
turning, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 41 (1994) 187200.
[76] J. Shey, Introduction to Manufacturing Processes, McGraw Hill,
2000, p. 633.
[77] M. Elhachimi, S. Torbaty, P. Joyot, Mechanical modeling of high
speed drilling I predicting torque and thrust, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manufact. 39 (4) (1999) 553568.
[78] M. Elhachimi, S. Torbaty, P. Joyot, Mechanical modeling of high
speed drilling II predicted and experimental results, Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manufact. 39 (4) (1999) 569581.
[79] P. Mathew, L.B. Oxley, Predicting the effects of very high cutting
speeds on cutting forces, Ann. CIRP 31 (1) (1982) 4952.
[80] L.C. Sarkar, B.K. Nagpal, Effect of user controllable variables on
the torque and thrust produced in drilling operations, SME Technical Paper MR82903, 1982.
[81] B.Y. Lee, Y.S. Tarng, Prediction of specific cutting force and cutting
force ratio in turning, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 41 (1) (1994)
7182.
[82] B. Rao, Y.C. Shin, Analysis on high-speed face milling of 7075-T6
aluminum using carbide and diamond cutters, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manufact. 41 (2001) 17631781.
[83] B. Bahr, T. Mankad, Study of drill tool geometry in high speed
drilling of aluminum sheet metal, SAE, J. Mater. Manufact. (USA)
108 (1999) 10401044.
[84] Forging Handbook, Forging Industry Association, American Society for Metals (ASM), Metal Park, Cleveland, Ohio, 1985. p. 90.
[85] M. Shatla, C. Kerk, T. Altan, Process modeling in machining. part
I: determination of flow stress data, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact.
41 (11) (2001) 15111534.
[86] M. Shatla, C. Kerk, T. Altan, Process modeling in machining. part
II: validation and applications of the determined flow stress data,
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 41 (11) (2001) 16591680.
[87] P.F. Bariani, G. Berti, S. Corazza, Enhancing performances of
SHPB for determination of flow curves, Ann. CIRP 50 (2001)
153164.
[88] C.W. Jiang, M.M. Chen, Dynamic properties of materials, Part II
Aluminum alloys, Report No. AMMRC CTR 74-23, Watertown,
MA, April 1974.
[89] G.R. Johnson, J.M. Hoegfeldt, U.S. Lindholm, A. Nagy, Response
to various metals to large torsional strains over a large range of
strain rates Part 2: less ductile metals, J. Eng. mater. Technol.
105 (1983) 4253.
[90] J.E. Hatch (Ed.), Aluminum: Properties and Physical Metallurgy,
American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1984, p. 112.
[91] P.D. Hodgsin, J.A. Szalla, P.J. Cambell, Modelling of Thermomechanical and Metallurgical Processes in Plate Rolling, The
Science and Technology of Flat Rolling, in: Procedure of 4th
Int. Steel Rolling Conference, Deauville, France, vol.1, 1987, pp.
c.8.1c.8.13.
[92] G.R. Johnson, W.H. Cook, A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates, and temperatures,
in: 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 1983, p. 541.

R.F. Hamade, F. Ismail / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005) 8697
[93] M. Kiuchi, J. Yanagimoto, H. Yokobayashi, Proceedings JSTP,
Spring Conference, 2000, pp. 277278.
[94] M. Kiuchi, J. Yanagimoto, H. Yokobayashi, Ann. CIRP (2001)
157160.
[95] M. Koc, K. Sweeney, and T. Altan, A review of the semi-solid
forging process, ERC/NSM Report-B-94-53. The Ohio State University, 1994.
[96] M. Koc, V. Vazquez, T. Witulski, T. Altan, Application of the
finite element method to predict material flow and defects in the
semi-solid forging of A356 aluminum alloys, J. Mater. Processing
Technol. 59 (1996) 106112.

97

[97] K. Maekawa, H. Ohhata, T. Kitigawa, T.H.C. Childs, Simulation

analysis of machinability of leaded CrMo and MnB structural
steels, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 62 (1996) 363369.
[98] K. Maekawa, T. Shirakashi, E. Usui, Bull. Jpn. Soc. Precision Eng.
17 (3) (1983) 167172.
[99] M. Shatla, T. Altan, Process modeling of drilling and ball
end milling, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 98 (2000) 125
133.
[100] W. Lee, C. Lin, High-temperature deformation behavior of Ti6Al4V
alloy evaluated by high strain-rate compression tests, J. Mater. Processing Technol. 75 (1998) 127136.