Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1644-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Precision radial turning of AISI D2 steel

J. Paulo Davim & C. Maranho & P. Faria & A. Abro &
J. C. Rubio & Leonardo R. Silva

Received: 11 March 2008 / Accepted: 27 June 2008 / Published online: 22 July 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Abstract This paper compares finite element model (FEM)

simulations with experimental and analytical findings
concerning precision radial turning of AISI D2 steel. FEM
machining simulation employs a Lagrangian finite elementbased machining model applied to predict cutting and thrust
forces, cutting temperature and plastic strain distribution.
The results show that the difference between the experimental and simulated cutting force is near 20%, irrespectively of the friction coefficient used in the simulation work
(approximately 19.8% for a friction of 0.25% and 18.4%
for the Coulomb approach). Concerning the thrust force,
differences of about 22.4% when using a friction coefficient
of =0.25 and about 56.9% when using the Coulomb
friction coefficient (=0.378) were found. The maximum
cutting temperature obtained using the analytical model is
494.07C and the difference between experimentation and
simulation methods is 15.2% when using a friction
coefficient of 0.25 and when using the Coulomb friction
only 3.1%. Regarding the plastic strain, the differences
J. P. Davim (*) : C. Maranho
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro,
Campus Santiago,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: pdavim@ua.pt
P. Faria : A. Abro : J. C. Rubio
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Minas Gerais,
Campus Pampulha,
31.270-901 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
L. R. Silva
Department of Mechanics,
Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais,
Av. Amazonas, 5253, Nova Sua,
30.480-000 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

between analytical calculations and FEM simulations (for

the presented friction values) suggest that the finite element
method is capable of predictions with reasonable precision.
Keywords AISI D2 precision turning .
Finite element modelling . Cutting forces .
Cutting temperature . Plastic strain

1 Introduction
Trent and Wright [1] stated that metal cutting constitutes a
complex process involving a variety of physical phenomena,
such as plastic deformation, frictional contact, thermomechanical coupling and chip-and-burr-formation mechanisms. Process features such as tool geometry and cutting
parameters directly affect cutting forces, chip morphology,
tool life and the final product quality. Finite Element Method
(FEM) models applied to machining operations lead to a
better understanding of the above-mentioned phenomena
[2]. Several finite element techniques are currently available for accurate and efficient modelling of metal cutting:
material and geometric non-linear analysis, mesh resizing
techniques, element separation for chip formation modelling, element separation criteria, tool wear modelling,
residual stress prediction, etc. In many cases, the FEM
simulations have also been validated by comparisons with
the results of experimental investigations to understand to
what degree the numerical results are close to the
experimental results. Bil et al [3] compared various
simulation models for orthogonal cutting in addition to
experimental data. In the analysis of orthogonal cutting
using FEM simulations, predictions are greatly affected by
two major factors: flow stress characteristics of the work
material at distinct cutting regimes and the friction

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

characteristics at the toolchip interface [4]. In their work

concerned with the machining of AISI 1045 medium
carbon steel, Ceretti et al [5] compared experimental results
with those given by numerical simulation using the
software DEFORM 2D. These authors concluded that the
FEM simulation results agree with the experimental
findings with regards to chip geometry, tool workpiece
contact length and chip and tool temperatures. Nevertheless, the prediction for cutting forces was within 10%
accuracy. Qian and Mohammad [6] studied the influence of
cutting speed, feed rate, tool geometry and workpiece
hardness when finish hard turning using numerical simulations and experimental work. These researchers concluded that the machining forces tend to increase as feed rate,
tool nose radius and workpiece hardness increase and rake
angle decreases. These results are consistent with experimental and numerical investigations reported in the other
investigations. According to Mamalis et al [7], the
numerical simulation results of a finite element machining
model suggest that this approach may be more reliable than
analytical methods owing to the fact that the effect of
parameters such as strain, strain rate and temperature on the
work material properties can be taken into account.
However, the properties of the materials under such
conditions are difficult to obtain, which limit the accuracy
of the results of any numerical model. Filice et al [8]
investigated the role played by the friction model in the
bidimensional simulation of orthogonal cutting, comparing
different models proposed previously by various researchers. Filice et al [8] concluded that in the near future, the
attention of research in this field will be focused on the
material modelling, usually derived by an inverse approach
based on the forces measurement. The reason for this
resides in the fact that contact length, chip thickness and
shear angle are strictly dependent on the work material.
Predictions when using FEM models are greatly influenced by the flow stress and friction characteristics at the
toolchip interface. Friction coefficient () is the most
important parameter to obtain reliable simulations when
working with finite element formulation. Friction occurs in
two zones: the primary shear zone (where the major
shearing of work takes place) and the secondary shear zone
(adjacent to the toolchip interface due to high stress
contact conditions). Granted, a precise friction coefficient is
crucial [4, 810] to obtain accurate predictions for the
variables such as forces, temperatures or stresses (all of
which are of extreme importance) to identify optimum
cutting parameters, tool material and tool geometry in order
to improve the quality and cut production times. Geiger et
al [11] showed that the use of traditional friction coefficients can lead to erroneous results. Other researchers
have assumed the friction coefficient in a range from 0.1 to
0.5 when simulating machining operations. However, as

843

Zorev [12] proposed, shear and normal stresses can be

assumed in the tool rake face. According to Zorev, a
sticking region appears in the toolchip contact area (near
the cutting edge), and the frictional shearing stress at the
sticking region can be assumed equal to an average shear
flow stress at the toolchip interface. A sliding region forms
over the remainder of the toolchip contact area, and the
frictional shearing stress can be determined by using a
friction coefficient. When the normal stress distribution
over the rake face is fully defined and is known, the
frictional stress can be determined. Accordingly, the shear
stress distribution on the tool rake face can be represented
in two different regions: the sticking and sliding regions
[13].
In the present analysis, numerical simulations using a
Lagrangian finite element-based machining model were
performed to predict cutting forces, temperature distribution
and plastic strain. Firstly, the orthogonal cutting model
results were validated by comparison with the cutting
forces obtained experimentally. The orthogonal model
proposed by Merchant [14] was used. Figure 1 shows a
schematic diagram of the radial turning operation, where
the cutting and feed directions can be seen. Finally, FEM
predictions of cutting temperature and plastic strain during
radial precision turning of AISI D2 steel using uncoated
carbide cutting tools were conducted. The friction value
provided through the Coulomb model is believed to output
higher friction results because the Coulomb model is used
with static contact in mind. When machining operations are
conducted, the contact (between the tool, chip and
workpiece) is dynamic, and physical transformations are
present. In this research, it is believed that the friction
coefficient should be less than the value calculated when

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the radial turning operation

844

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

using the Coulomb model. The optimum value was found

through several iterations.
1.1 Experimental analysis
Dry radial turning tests using AISI D2 steel as the
workpiece material were carried out on a Kingsbury MHP
50 CNC lathe with 18 kW spindle power and a maximum
spindle speed of 4500 rpm. The chemical composition,
thermal and mechanical properties of AISI D2 steel are
presented in Table 1. Bars with 20 mm diameter and 80-mm
cutting length were turned with an uncoated cemented
carbide cutting tool. The workpiece and tool are shown in
Fig. 2. A Kistler piezoelectric dynamometer model 9121
with a load amplifier connected to a computer was used for
the acquisition of the cutting force (Fc) and thrust force (Ft).
The employed cutting conditions are given in Table 2. The
numerical results for cutting temperature and plastic strain
were compared with the analytical findings obtained using
the approach proposed by Boothroyd [15] in Table 3. The
plastic strain () was calculated analytically using Eq. 1:
"

1 R2c
2Rc  sin g

Rc  cos g

where Rc is the chip thickness ratio and is the tool rake

angle.

2 Finite elements analysis

Simulations were performed with Third Wave Systems
AdvantEdge simulation software, which integrates adTable 1 Chemical composition and thermal and mechanical properties of AISI D2 steel

vanced finite element models appropriate for machining

operations. The orthogonal cutting system is described in
Figs. 3 and 4 showing a sample of the output given by the
above-mentioned software. Orthogonal cutting was simulated using uncoated carbide as the tool material. The
workpiece material was AISI D2 tool steel, and its
mechanical properties were obtained using the FEM
program database. The input parameters entered into the
code are given in Table 4. The used in this FEM analysis
was calculated applying the experimental cutting and radial
forces values to following equation:
m

Properties
Chemical composition (%)
C
Cr
Mn
Mo
Si
V
Thermal properties
Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
Specific heat capacity (J/kgC)
Mechanical properties
Density (kg/mm3)
Hardness (HB)
Elongation (%)
Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
Yield strength (MPa)
Tensile strength (MPa)

Fig. 2 Workpiece and cutting tool used in the radial turning operation

1.55
12.00
0.50
0.80
0.30
0.90
21
460
7.64
260
16
180
320
7101,260

Ft Fc  tgg
Fc
Ft  tgg

where Fc is the experimental cutting force, Ft is the

experimental thrust force and the rake angle.
To model the thermal-viscous plastic behavior of the
workpiece materials, the software uses a constitutive

Table 2 Experimental conditions used in dry radial turning of AISI

D2 steel
Cutting parameter

Unit

Value

Cutting speed
Feed rate
Width of cut

m/min
m/rev.
mm

70
80
2.7

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

845

Table 3 Cutting temperature calculation using Boothroyds [15]

approach
Temperature calculation
Maximum temperature

q q5 qm q0

Temperature in the primary shear zone

1
PI
q5 rcV
c tb

Energy consumption rate

PI FI  VI

Force acting on the shear plane

FI Fc cos f
Fa sin f

Chip thickness ratio

g
VI Vc coscos
f
g 
g
f arctg Rccos

sin g
R t'

Undeformed chip thickness

t f  sin #

Chip width

b sinP #

Temperature in the secondary shear zone

qm qf 

Average temperature

qf rcVPIc tb

Rate of stain on the shear plane

Shear plane angle

Thermal number

c t
R rcV
k

Room temperature

Rt
lf

f Feed rate, b chip width, c specific heat, t measured chip thickness,

Fa feed force, Fc cutting force, lf contact length, P depth of cut, Vc
cutting speed, rake angle, k thermal conductivity coefficient,
specific weight, position angle tool, absorbed heat proportin

equation, the JohnsonCook law, which can be represented

by the following formula:


s eq A B" 1 C1n
n

"


"0

!!

1

T
Troom
Tm
Troom

m 

3


where is the plastic strain, is the " plastic strain rate (s1),

" is the reference plastic strain rate (s1), T is the
temperature of the workpiece material (C), Tm is the
melting temperature of the workpiece material (C), and
Troom is the room temperature (C). Coefficient A is the
yield strength (MPa), B is the hardening modulus (MPa)
and C is the strain rate sensitivity coefficient, n is the
hardening coefficient and m the thermal softening coefficient [16].
Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of
the finite element model

Fig. 4 Third Wave AdvantEdge finite element model output

Also of note is that the workpiece height is more than

five times bigger than the feed and relative tool sharpness
(RTS) defined by:
RTS

tr
rn

where tr is the uncut chip thickness (mainly affected by the

feed) and rn is the tool edge radius [13, 17].
RTS should be bigger than 10 (however, in the present
work, RTS equals 4) so ploughing could be a possibility.
Given the acceptable differences between experimental and
simulation work, it is believed that if ploughing is, in fact,
present, it has not influenced the results in a negative way.
The friction coefficient was the starting point in the FEM
model, and a judicious analysis was taken in order to
understand whether the Coulomb friction coefficient was a
valid approach. Thus, in addition to the friction coefficient
obtained experimentally, several iterations were conducted
with various friction coefficient values in order to reduce the

846

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

Table 4 Simulation parameters used in the finite element model

Simulation parameters
Workpiece parameters
Workpiece material
Workpiece Length [mm]
Workpiece Height [mm]
Tool parameters
Tool material
Clearance angle ()
Rake angle ()
Cutting edge radius (mm)
Rake face length (mm)
Relief face length (mm)
Cutting parameters
Cutting speed (m/min)
Feed rate (m/rev)
Width of cut (mm)
Length of cut (mm)
Initial temperature (C)
Friction coefficient

AISI D2
2.5
2
Uncoated carbide tool
7
0
0.02
1
1
70
80
2.7
2.5
20
0.378a
0.25b

Simulation
Maximum number of nodes
Maximum element size (mm)
Minimum element size (mm)
a
b

12,000
0.1
0.02

Value obtained experimentally

Value obtained numerically

search of a different friction coefficient, one capable of

providing better results for the thrust force without harming
the rest of the cases of study. From this investigation, a
friction value of 0.25 was found. This friction value proved
to be a middle term because while it dramatically decreased
the difference in the thrust force, it increased the difference
in the cutting temperature and in the cutting force as well.
However, it is believed that all cases of study are in the
acceptable range of differences between the numerical and
experimental work.
Table 5 gives an overview of the numerical and
experimental or analytical values and their difference using
friction coefficients of 0.378 and 0.25. As previously
detailed, the former friction coefficient was obtained using
Eq. 2 and the latter friction coefficient was taken from the
simulation which gave the closest values between the
experimental and numerical forces results. It can be seen that
the difference for temperature is smaller using =0.378,
while the numerical force is responsible for reduced differences related to thrust force and plastic strain. Moreover, the
difference between the numerical and experimental cutting
force values does not seem to be drastically affected by
the friction coefficient. However, the opposite occurs
when dealing with the thrust force (which decreases its
difference substantially from 56.9% to 22.4%).
3.1 Cutting and thrust forces

difference between the force values obtained experimentally

and numerically. A friction coefficient of 0.25 was the value
which provided closer results (the starting friction value was
0.378) between both (numerical and experimental) methods.

3 Results and discussion

Simulation results were compared with experimental values
to address if the differences between cutting and thrust
forces, cutting temperature and plastic strain were acceptable. Whereas, for the cutting force, cutting temperature
and plastic strain, FEM results were satisfactory; the same
could not be said about the thrust force. This fact led to a

Figure 5 shows the experimental and numerical evolution

of the cutting and thrust forces (Fc and Ft, respectively) as a
function of the length of cut, while Table 5 gives the
average cutting and thrust forces values. The experimental
results show a steady pattern, in contrast to both simulation
results, which show some fluctuation as the cutting length
progresses. The experimental cutting force possesses an
average value of 483.02 N; however, the simulated values
are considerably higher (near 20%), irrespective of the
friction coefficient employed.
The difference between experimental and simulated
results for cutting force presented in Fig. 6 suggests that
the shear yield strength of the work material has not been
accurately estimated by the software for the cutting

Table 5 Experimental or analytical and FEM-simulated values for distinct friction coefficients

Cutting force (N)

Thrust force (N)
Temperature (C)
Plastic strain

Experimental/ Analytical =0.378

FEM =0.378

Value

Value

(%)

Value

(%)

571.93
286.57
509.49
4.35

18.4
56.9
3.1
3.8

578.75
223.62
419.16
4.16

19.8
22.4
15.2
0.8

483.02
182.69
494.07
4.19

FEM =0.25

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

847

Fig. 6 Average cutting and thrust forces obtained analytically and by

FEM simulations using distinct friction coefficients

condition tested, probably due to the influence of the

temperature in the shear plane on the shear strength.
Increasing the temperature in the shear plane promotes
lower shear strength and, as a consequence, lower cutting
force values. As far as the friction coefficient is concerned,
the variations in this parameter do not affect the cutting
force, in opposition to the thrust force.
In the case of the thrust force, the simulated values are
considerably higher than that the obtained experimentally
(182.69 N), i.e., 56.9% using the friction coefficient of
0.378 and 22.4% for =0.25.
3.2 Cutting temperature

Fig. 5 Cutting and thrust forces values obtained experimentally (a)

and by numerical simulations using friction coefficients of 0.378 (b)
and 0.25 (c)

Figure 7 shows the FEM simulation maps for cutting

temperature at the end of the length of cut using both
friction coefficients, where it can be seen that the isotherms
associated to higher temperatures are observed near the
cutting edge and along the shear plane. The simulation
employing the higher friction coefficient promotes higher
temperatures. The maximum cutting temperature value
calculated analytically (494.07C) is compared with the
simulation work in Table 5 and Fig. 8. The difference
between the simulated and analytical values is smaller
using =0.378 (=3.1% against =15.2% for =0.25).
In this case, however, it is not possible to assert whether
the analytical or numerical estimates of temperature are
near the actual value owing to the difficulties associated to
the calculation of the cutting temperature by both methods.
These difficulties are related to the accuracy in establishing
the proportion of the generated heat which is conducted
into the chip and the lack of data concerned with the

848

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

Fig. 7 Cutting temperature simulation at the end of the cutting length

using friction coefficients of 0.378 (a) and 0.25 (b)

Fig. 9 FEM simulation for plastic strain at the end of the cutting
length using friction coefficients of 0.378 (a) and 0.25 (b)

Fig. 8 Maximum cutting temperature obtained analytically and by

FEM simulations using distinct friction coefficients

Fig. 10 Plastic strain obtained analytically and by FEM simulations

using distinct friction coefficients

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842849

variation of the specific heat and thermal conductivity of

the work material as the temperature is altered. Additionally, the toolchip contact length in rake face plays a key
role in the temperature rise due to plastic deformation in the
secondary shear area.

849

providing plastic strain values comparable to the FEM

at lower expense.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Foundation for
Science and Technology, Portugal, project POCTI/EME/61676/2004,
for the use of the software licence Advantedge.

3.3 Plastic strain

The FEM simulation maps for plastic strain using both
friction coefficients are presented in Fig. 9. It can be seen
that the higher strain values are observed in the region of
the chip, near the rake face and the employing of a higher
friction coefficient results in increased restriction to the chip
flow and, consequently, in higher strain values. The average
strain value calculated analytically and the maximum
values obtained numerically are given in Table 5 and
Fig. 10. In spite of the fact that the differences between the
analytical and numerical approaches are small (=3.8% for
=0.378 and =0.8% for =0.25), in a similar manner to
the cutting temperature results, it is not possible to
accurately determine whether these values are close to the
actual plastic strain.

4 Conclusions
Based on the experimental and analytical results and their
comparison with finite element model simulation, the
following conclusions can be drawn concerning radial
turning of AISI D2 steel with an uncoated carbide tool:

The difference between the experimental and simulated

cutting force was near 20% and was not drastically
affected by the friction coefficient employed in the
FEM simulation work. In the case of the thrust force,
however, the difference was smaller (=22.4%) using
a friction coefficient of =0.25. The large difference
between experimental and numerical values is attributed to alterations in the shear yield strength of the work
material as the machining temperature is elevated and
to the difficulty in accurately determine the chiptool
contact area;
The maximum cutting temperature obtained analytically was 494.07C, and the difference between the
analytical and numerical values was smaller using =
0.378 (=3.1%). Nevertheless, it is not possible to
assert how close these values are from the actual
temperature without an experimental investigation;
The differences between the plastic strain calculated
analytically and using FEM simulations were small
irrespectively of the friction coefficient employed (=
3.8% for =0.378 and =0.8% for =0.25), thus,
suggesting that the analytical approach is capable of

References
1. Trent EM, Wright PK (2000) Metal Cutting. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford
2. Marusich TD, Oriz M (1995) Modelling and simulation of high
speed machining. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38:36753694
doi:10.1002/nme.1620382108
3. Bil H, Kilic SE, Tekkaya AE (2004) A comparison of orthogonal
cutting data from experiments with three different finite element
models. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:933944 doi:10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2004.01.016
4. Ozel T (2006) The influence of friction models on finite element
simulations of machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:518530
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.001
5. Ceretti E, Fallbohmer P, Wu WT, Altan T (1996) Application of
2D FEM to chip formation in orthogonal cutting. J Mater Process
Technol 59:169180 doi:10.1016/0924-0136(96)02296-0
6. Qian L, Mohammad RH (2007) Effect on cutting force in turning
hardened tool steels with cubic boron nitride inserts. J Mater
Process Technol 191:274278 doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.
03.022
7. Mamalis AG, Horvath M, Branis AS, Manolakos DE (2001)
Finite element simulation of chip formation in orthogonal metal
cutting. J Mater Process Technol 110:1927 doi:10.1016/S09240136(00)00861-X
8. Filice L, Micari F, Rizzuti S, Umbrello D (2007) A critical
analysis on the friction modelling in orthogonal machining. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 47:709714 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.
2006.05.007
9. Fang N (2005) Tool-chip friction in machining with a large
negative rake angle tool. Wear 258:890897 doi:10.1016/j.
wear.2004.09.047
10. Sartkulvanich P, Altan T (2005) Effects of flow stress and friction
models in finite element simulation of orthogonal cuttinga
sensitivity analysis. Mach Sci Technol 9:126 doi:10.1081/MST200051211
11. Geiger M, Kleiner M, Eckstein R, Tiesler N, Engel U (2001)
Microforming Annals. CIRP 50(2):445462
12. Zorev N, Wallace P, Boothroyd G (1964) Tool forces and toolchip friction in orthogonal machining. J Mech Eng Sci 6:422
13. zel T, Zeren E (2007) Numerical modelling of meso-scale finish
machining with finite edge radius tools. Int J Machining
Machinability Mater 2(3/4):451468
14. Merchant ME (1945) Mechanics of metal cutting process I
orthogonal cutting and type 2 chip. J Appl Phys 16(5):267275
doi:10.1063/1.1707586
15. Boothroyd G, Knight WA (1989) Fundamentals of machining and
machine tools, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 542
16. Umbrello D, MSaoubi R, Outeiro J (2007) The influence of
JohnsonCook material constants on finite element simulation of
machining of AISI 316L steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:462
470 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.06.006
17. Outeiro J (2007) Influence of tool sharpness on the thermal and
mechanical phenomena generated during machining operations.
Int J Machining Machinability Mater 2(3/4):413432