Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Wear, 76 (1982) 15 - 34 15

SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON THE MECHANICS OF CHIP FORMATION


WHEN MACHINING TITANIUM ALLOYS

R. KOMANDURI
General Electric Corporate Research and ~eveZo~~ent, Seheneclady, NY 12301 (U.S.A.)
(Received May 18, 1981)

Summary

With the increasing need to use titanium alloys for aerospace structural
applications and because of the difficulties experienced in machining them
(except at low speed), an investigation on the fund~en~l mechanism of
chip formation when machining these alloys was undertaken. An attempt is
made in this paper to clarify various aspects related to the mechanism of
titanium chip formation based on a critical review of the literature and
machining studies on a Ti-(6Al-4V) work material at various speeds with
the aid of high speed photography and in situ machining experiments inside
a scanning electron microscope.

1. Introduction

Titanium alloys are important materials for aerospace structural


engineering applications. They are, however, extremely difficult to machine
except at low speed owing to rapid tool wear. Considerable information is
available in the literature concerning certain phenomena associated with
machining titanium alloys. Unfortunately, several misconceptions, conflict-
ing statements and statements needing further clarification are also found. In
this paper an attempt is made to clarify these problems so as to formulate a
unifying mechanism that explains adequately various phenomena affecting
the mechanics of chip formation when machining titanium alloys.
Pioneering studies on the mechanics of chip formation when machining
titanium alloys have been conducted since the early 1950s in the U.S.A. at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Shaw and coworkers [ 1 -6]), the
University of Michigan (Boston and coworkers f7 - 9] ) and Cincinnati
Milacron Inc. (Merchant and coworkers [ 10, 111), and in France by Le
Maitre and Gobin [ 12, 131. The applied aspects of machining titanium have
been studied at other places [ 14 - 201. These studies illustrated several
unique features associated with the machining of these alloys, including the
following.

0043-~64g/82/0000-0000/$02.75 @ Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands


16

(1) The role of the poor therma properties of titanium alloys which
interact with the physical properties in controlling t,he nature of plastic
deformation (i.e. strain localization) in the primary zone is illustrated.
(2) Periodic gross inhomogeneous deformation occurs in the primary
zone (i.e. relatively low deformation forming the bulk of the segment sepa-
rated by intense strain localization).
(3) Instability in the chip formation process results in a serrated or
cyclic chip.
(4) Oscillations in the cutting and thrust components of force cause
chatter and the need to have a rigid tool-work-machine tool system.
(5) High tool-chip interface temperatures and high chemical reactivity
of titanium in machining with almost any tool material are responsible for
the rapid tool wear.
(6) The low modulus of elasticity which decreases rapidly, even at a
moderate temperature (it has about 50% of its room temperature value at
400 OF [l] ), causes undue deflections of the workpiece, especially when
machining slender parts, and inaccuracies in the finished part.
These findings have enabled the formulation of a partial model of
titanium chip formation. Unfortunately, as already pointed out, we also find
constantly in the literature and in everyday practice in the machine shop
several misconceptions and conflicting statements needing further clarifica-
tion and/or additional experimental support. These include (1) details of
the chip formation mechanism, (2) variation in shear strain in the primary
zone (as will be discussed shortly, there are actually two distinct regions, the
strains in each of which are vastly different), (3) the nature of secondary
shear deformation of the chip on the tool face, (4) probable reasons con-
tributing to rapid tool wear at its apex besides the high chemical reactivity
of titanium with most tool materials, (5) metallurgical interpretation of the
deformation in catastrophic shear-failed chips, (6) validity of chip thickness
ratio measurements and estimation of the shear angle and chip velocities
based on chip thickness measurements, (7) probable reasons why tool tem-
peratures are so high, (8) whether titanium chips are ductile or not, (9)
details of why and when the unit pressure on the tool face is high, (10)
the degree of work hardening of titanium alloys compared with other
materials such as carbon steels and stainless steels and the implications of
this on the chip formation process and (11) whether or not a built-up edge
forms on the tool face with titanium alloys and the implications of this on
tool life.
An attempt will be made in this paper to clarify some of the above
statements, based on machining experiments at various cutting speeds on a
Ti-(6Al-4V) alloy work material. It is surprising, however, to note that,
since the pioneering work in the early 195Os, very little new information has
been reported in the literature (except for some review articles [ 16 - 181) on
the mechanism of chip formation when machining titanium alloys. Also
commendable and noteworthy is the stretch of imagination of some of the
pioneers in this field in visualizing certain aspects of the titanium chip forma-
17

tion process which were only to be reinforced and clarified (in some cases)
with the aid of more sophisticated equipment available today.

2. ~xpe~ent~ investigation

Chip formation studies on Ti-(GAl-4V) were conducted at various


machining speeds from an extremely low speed (0.127 cm min- (0.050
in min-)) to a moderately high speed (244 m mine1 (800 ft min-))
under orthogonal machining conditions. The low speed experiment was con-
ducted inside a scanning electron microscope and the cutting process was
recorded on a video tape using the technique originally conceived by Bell
et al. [21], Doyle [22] and Iwata and Euda [ 231. Chip formation studies at
higher cutting speeds were conducted on a lathe with the aid of a Hi-Cam
high speed movie camera (camera speed up to 8000 frames s-l) using the
technique developed by Komanduri and Brown [ 241,

3. Brief description of the mechanism of chip formation

The sequence of events leading to cyclic chip formation when machin-


ing titanium was described by Komanduri and von Turkovich [25] based on
a detailed study of video tapes of low speed machining experiments inside
the scanning electron microscope, high speed movie films of the chip forma-
tion process at higher speeds and the micrographs of the midsections of the
chips. Insofar as the me~h~ism of chip formation of titanium alloys is eon-
eerned, it was found to be inv~i~t with respect to cutting speed. However,
speed is found to affect the details of the process such as tool temperature,
tool wear and secondary chip generation.
In brief, there are two stages involved in this process. One stage involves
plastic instability and strain localization in a narrow band in the primary
shear zone leading to catastrophic shear failure along a shear surface. The
surface originates from the tool tip almost parallel to the cutting velocity
vector and gradually curves concavely upwards until it meets the free surface.
The other stage involves gradual build-up of the segment with negligible
deformation by the flattening of the wedge-shaped work material ahead
of the advancing tool. Initial contact between the segment being formed
and the tool face is at the apex of the tool and is of extremely short dura-
tion. The contact increases as the flattening progresses. There is almost
no relative motion between the bottom surface of the chip segment being
formed and the tool face until almost the end of the flattening stage. The
gradual bulging of the chip segment slowly pushes the previously formed
chip segment. The contact between the segment being formed and the one
before it shifts gradually, beginning close to the work surface and gradually
shifting towards the tool face as flattening progresses. As the upsetting of the
segment being formed progresses, the build-up of stresses in the primary
18

Wxh Material

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a shear-localized chip formation process, such as the case
with titanium alloys, showing various surfaces that take part in the process: 1, unde-
formed surfaces; 2, part of the catastrophically shear-failed surface separated from the
following segment owing to intense shear; 3, intense shear band formed by catastrophic
shear during the upsetting stage of the segment being formed; 4, intensely sheared surface
of a segment in contact with the tool and subsequently slid on the tool face; 5, intense
localized deformation in the primary shear zone; 6, machined surface.

zone causes intense shear between this segment and the one before it. The
highly intense concentrated shear bands (white etched bands) that are
observed between the segments in a longitudinal midsection of a titanium
chip are actually formed during this stage. This occurs at all cutting speeds.
Further, with increase in cutting speed, this intense shear takes place so
rapidly that the contact area between any two segments gradually decreases
to a stage when the individual segments of the chip are actually separated.
Such a phenomenon was observed at higher cutting speeds (above 1000 m
min- (3200 ft mini)) when machining a hardened AISI 4340 steel
(hardness, 325 HB) and even at 100 m mine1 in the case of a nickel-
base superalloy (Inconel 718) [ 26) . These and other features are represented
schematically in Fig. 1.

4. Discussion

4.1. The me~h~~isrn of chip ~ormatia~


4.1.1. The primary shear ztxze
Figure 2 shows schematically the models of chip formation according
to Boston et al. [ 71 when machining steel and titanium respectively. Presum-
19

Tool Twl

04 (b)
Fig. 2. Models of chip formation when machining (4 steel and (b) titanium. (After
Boston et al. [ 7 ] .)

ably the authors have tried to emphasize here that, for the same undeformed
chip thickness t, the nominal chip thickness t, for titanium is smaller than that
with steel. While this is true, it is not due to the high shear angle attributed
by some investigators but rather to the fact that very little deformation is
involved in forming the bulk of the segment of a chip. It is also somewhat
misleading to represent the chip formation process, when machining titanium
alloys, by the conventional continuous chip formation model (such as that
of Merchant-Piispanen), as shown in Fig. Z(b), when the actual chip forma-
tion is periodic (chip thickness varying in a cyclic asymmetric manner) with
localized intense shear (shown by arrows in Fig. 3) separated by large areas
(segments) of material where deformation is very small.
Another statement that needs further clarification is in a paper by
Merchant (lo].
It was found that very much less plastic deformation occurred ahead
of the tool in forming the chip when machining titanium than when
machining the steel. In fact, the plastic deformation taking place was
less than half as great when machining titanium as when machining the
1020 steel. That meant that a great deal less heat was generated when
machining titanium, from the source of plastic deformation,
As already pointed out, plastic deformation in the primary shear zone
when machining titanium alloys is not uniform. While considerably less
deformation is involved, as Merchant rightly pointed out, in forming the
bulk of the segments of a titanium chip (Fig. 3) by an upsetting process,
intense localized deformation is involved in the primary shear zone ahead of
the tool followed by highly intense concentrated shear between the segment
just formed and the one being formed (Fig. 4). In addition to the effect of
thermal softening at higher temperature on the plastic deformation charac-
teristics of most metals, there is an additional factor involved when machin-
ing titanium. Pure titanium at room temperature has an h.c.p. lattice struc-
ture with a limited number of slip systems on the prismatic planes. With
increase in temperature, titanium undergoes an allotropic transformation
Fig. 3. Micrograph of a Ti-(6AlL4V) shear-localized chip. The intense shear bands
(between arrows) in the chip, which are formed between the segment just formed and the
one being formed during the upsetting stage of the segment being formed, should be
noted.

Fig. 4. Transmission electron micrograph of a replica of part of a shear-localized Ti-(6AlL


4V) chip showing intense shear in a narrow band between the segments.

from an h.c.p. to a b.c.c. structure. The b.c.c. structure has more slip
systems, thereby enabling more deformation locally wherever the structure
has transformed into b.c.c. With poor thermal properties and localized
deformation in a narrow band in the primary shear zone, all the heat
generated will concentrate in this band, thereby increasing the local tempera-
ture to a high value. If the temperature is high enough for the allotropic
transformation, this will increase slip considerably. This in turn causes
additional heat. Such a mechanism can localize shear and cause instability
in the primary zone. This possibility, to the knowledge of the present
writer, has never been proposed in the machining of titanium and its alloys.
Also, local changes in crystal structure can result in volume changes which
can lead to microcracking.
21

4.1.2. The secondary shear zone


The intense shear region at the underside of the chip close to the tool
face, as observed in a titanium chip [ 251, is not actually due to the conven-
tional secondary deformation, as found in the case of continuous chip
formation. It is actually formed by intense shear in a narrow band formed
during the upsetting stage of the segment being formed and the one before
it. As this happens, the segment just formed rolls over and slides on the tool
face. There is, however, neither sticking of the chip on the tool face nor
considerable shear between the chip and the tool. Consequently, the
so-called secondary shear of the chip on the tool face, which is so very
important in the case of continuous chip formation, appears to be relatively
insignificant and can probably be neglected in the case of machining of
titanium alloys.

4.2. TooE wear


Owing to the poor thermal properties of tit~ium alloys, most of the heat
generated during intense localized defo~ation in a narrow band in the pri-
mary zone is confined to that band. During the upsetting stage of segment
formation the intense shear between this segment and the segment just
formed causes the segment just formed to roll on top of the tool face,
starting from the tip of the tool, thereby dissipating most of the heat
generated into the tool. This freshly generated hot shear-failed surface in
contact with the tool face can cause rapid chemical reaction and is most
certainly responsible for the high tool wear on the rake face. Video tapes
of low speed machining inside the scanning electron microscope and high
speed movie films of the cutting process at higher speeds, obtained in the
present investigation, made it possible to observe these features clearly. It is
appropriate to include here the classical evidence, after Colwell and Trucken-
miller [ 91 (Fig. 5), of tool wear on the rake face when machining a titanium
alloy. As can be seen, it is not the conventional crater wear, with the maxi-

Fig. 5. Photograph of tool wear on the rake face when machining a titanium alloy. (After
Colwell and Truckenmiller [9 ] .)
22

mum crater depth occurring away from the apex of the tool, but a crater
with the maximum depth at what used to be the tip of the tool. The other
mode of wear which is extremely critical for the survival of the tool is the
rapid wear on the clearance face. Erosion of small fragments of tool material
from the flank face due to build-up of titanium metal and subsequent
fracture, akin to a drawing operation, was observed in this investigation to be
responsible for rapid flank wear.

4.3. metallurgical interpretation of the extent of deformation in a cata-


strophic shear-localized chip
Reformation in the primary and secondary shear zones in the case of
conventional machining can be studied qu~itatively by a metallurgical
examination of the longitudinal midsections of the chips generated. For
catastrophic shear-localized chips, such as the kind obtained in machining
titanium alloys, it was found that care should be exercised in making such
an interpretation of the data. The intense shear band observed between any
two segments is actually formed between the segment being formed and the
one before it. Such an intense shear is due to the combined effect of build-up
of stresses in the primary zone as the upsetting of the segment being formed
progresses and the heat localization in the narrow band (because of poor
thermal properties), resulting in the viscous behavior (large-scale deformation)
of the material in this region.

4.4. Validity of chip thickness ratio measurements


Since titanium chips are thinner, for the same undeformed chip thick-
ness, the chip thickness ratio r (r = t/t, where t, is the chip thickness and t is
the undeformed chip thickness) calculated by the conventional continuous
chip formation model will be high (close to unity). A high chip thickness
ratio in a conventional continuous chip formation process implies a high
shear angle Q,(close to 45 when r = 1) (where

and Q! is the rake angle} and a high chip velocity on the tool face (since
V, = Vr where V is the cutting velocity and V, is the chip velocity). This led
Boston et al. [ 7 ] , and many others, to believe falsely that the shear angle is
high when machining titanium alloys. The actual reason why titanium chips
are thinner than steel chips is that the individual segments in a titanium chip
are very little deformed and are formed predominantly by a gradual flatten-
ing of a softer half-wedge by the advancing tool [25] . Consequently we
would not expect the chip to be very thick, as in the case of machining steel
where concentrated shear subjects the chip to a considerable strain (strains
of the order of 2 or more) leading to a thick chip, low shear angle and a low
chip velocity. Also at higher speeds the tool wear is so rapid that the nominal
undeformed chip thickness decreases rapidly, yielding thinner chips.
23

In continuous chip formation, the chip thickness ratio r is a good mea-


sure of the efficiency of machining. The higher the value, the more efficient
is the cutting process. Thus, an experienced machine tool operator can tell
by superficial examination of the chips at different cutting conditions how
the cutting variables should be changed to optimize the cutting process. In
the absence of continuous chip formation, there is an urgent need for an
appropriate parameter(s) to characterize the process and to enable the
operator to make a similar judgment when machining titanium alloys.

We tian see a real paradox between theory and practice when machining
titanium alloys, While in practice these alloys are extremely difficult to
machine, it is generally claimed by many researchers that the shear angles
obtainable are extremely high (about 40 - 45). Unfortunately, as already
pointed out, the shear angles are usually calculated using the chip thickness
ratios and continuous chip formation theory. Generally, in continuous chip
formation, the efficiency of machining can be judged by the magnitude of
the shear angle. For example, an increase in the rake angle, an increase in the
cutting speed or an improvement in the frictional conditions on the rake face
(better lubrication) will result in higher shear angle, lower strain in the chip
(i.e. lower strain in the primary shear zone), decrease in the ma~itude of the
cutting force components and an improvement in the surface finish of the
work material. Consequently, the metal cutter tries to optimize his tool
geometry and the cutting conditions to obtain as high a shear angle as
possible. Unfortunately, such high shear angles in practice are rarely, if ever,
attained. They do not approach even half the values reported for titanium.
If such high shear angles were really obtained in the machining of titanium
alloys, and yet we find them difficult to machine, visualize the situation when
the actual shear angles obtainable are much lower (about one-fourth), as is
the case, than claimed. Such a basis will leave no room for improvement. A
similar explanation can be offered for the residual tensile stresses in the
machined surface when machining tit~ium alloys. It is therefore clear that
both parameters, shear angle and cutting ratio, are perhaps unfortunate
choices in describing such a grossly inhomogeneous plastic deformation
process.
On the assumption that the shear angles are very high when machining
titanium alloys, Shaw [27] pointed out that these high shear angles can
cause relatively high chip velocities which in turn can cause a high propor-
tion of the total energy to appear as frictional energy on the tool face. Based
on a detailed study of the chip formation in the present investigation, the
frictional energy on the tool face as the chip slides appears to be insignificant
relative to the deformation in the catastrophic shear band and rubbing on
the flank face. Even friction between titanium and the tool face was
reported to be low 1.281 owing to transfer of titanium to the tool face and
formation of a thin oxide acting as a lubricant.
4.6. Prob~b~e reasons why tool t~rn~er~tur~~ are so high when m~ch~ning
t~t~n~urn ~~~0~s
Alloys of titanium are among the most difficult materials to machine
except at low cutting speeds. The greatest difficulty stems from the very
high temperatures experienced by the tool at its apex under conditions that
are normal for most other materials of comparable strength and hardness.
Consequently, tools wear rapidly, thereby limiting productivity. A high shear
angle and a low strain in the chip as reported in the literature and attempts to
apply the mechanics of continuous chip formation could not explain
adequately why tool temperatures should be so high when machining
titanium alloys. We have to observe the cutting process more carefully in
order to reformulate the mechanics of chip formation. As will be shown,
the energy petition equations developed for continuous chip fo~ation as
well as the assumptions regarding the magnitude of shear strain in the
primary shear zone have to be modified for application to titanium machin-
ing. The modified model can explain qualitatively the probable reasons for
the higher tool temperatures when machining these alloys.
In machining, heat is generated (Fig. 6(a)) in three zones: (1) the
primary shear zone; (2) the secondary shear zone (tool-chip interface); (3)
the interface between the flank (clearance face of the tool) and the
machined surface.
In conventional continuous chip formation, the energies UC, U, and U,
per unit volume of metal removed going into the chip, the tool and the
workpiece respectively are functions of the specific energies of the cutting
process (i.e. shear energy US per unit volume and friction energy U, per
unit volume on the rake face) and fractions R1 and Rs of the heats going
into the chip from the shear plane and from the chip-tool interface respec-
tively [ 271. Thus

r/, = RIUS + R2Uf (1)


U, = (1 -Rz)Uf (2)
U, = (1 -R,)U, (3)
From eqn. (2), it is apparent that there is no contribution of heat from
the primary shear zone or from that due to rubbing between the flank and
the machined surface that goes into the tool. Only a portion of the heat
generated at the chip-tool interface owing to secondary shear goes into the
tool. This implies that only a small fraction of the total heat generated in the
machining process actually goes into the tool which explains why tools last
as long as they do in practice and the importance of friction on the tool face
in conventional machining.
In machining steel, it was found [29] that most (about 75%) of the
heat is generated in the primary shear zone, followed by a significant portion
(about 20%) in the secondary shear zone, and only a small fraction (5%) at
the interface between the flank and the machined surface due to rubbing.
Out of this amount of heat generated, most (about 80%) is carried away by
25

APPROXIMATE
HEAT GENERATION TOOL

0 75 PER CENT

20 PER CENT

HEAT IN CHIP III


83 5 PER CENT
HEAT TO TOOL

APPROXIMATE
HEAT DISSIPATION

80 PER CENT

10 PER CENT

IO PER CENT
-------

cl3 HEAT TO WORKPIECE

WORKPIECE

HEAT fN WORKPIECE

HEAT IN TOOL

2M 500 loo0 2c!cG 3Mx) 4cal


SPEED, SFPM.

Fig. 6. (a) Energy partition (heat generation and heat dissipation) in the machining of
steel [ 291; (b) variation in the relative amount of heat in the chip, tool and workpiece
with respect to the cutting speed [29 1.

the chip and small fractions (10% each) are conducted into the tool and the
machined surface. Figure 6(a) shows schematically the energy partition
(both heat generation and heat dissipation) in machining steel yielding a
continuous chip [29] , and Fig. 6(b) shows the variation in the relative
26

amount of heat in the chip, tool and workpiece with respect to the cutting
speed 1291. With most of the heat carried away by the chip, it is not too
difficult to appreciate why tools last as long as they do in conventional
machining.
Loewen and Shaw [ 301 developed an analysis of cutting tool tempera-
tures for continuous chip formation. Using the heat transfer technique
involving energy partition first developed by Blok [31] for the solution of
the temperature distribution in a friction slider, Loewen and Shaw arrived at
the following equation for the mean temperature on the tool face:

PW
where r is the shear stress on the primary shear plane, V is the cutting speed,
t is the depth of cut in orthogonal machining, y is the shear strain in the
primary shear zone, K is the thermal conductivity of the work material, pC is
the volume specific heat of the work material, J is the mechanical equivalent
of heat, A and B are essentially constants, p is the coefficient of friction
and (t set cr)/a is the ratio of the projection of the depth of cut on the tool
face to the length of contact between the chip and the tool.
Loewen and Shaw [30] pointed out that in eqn. (4a) the group of
variables
vty lt2
1
7
--
J i KpC
having the dimensions of temperature is of primary importance while the
non-dimensional group (t set &)/a is of secondary importance. Conse-
quently, we can simplify eqn. (4):

(4b)
Kronenberg ]32] also arrived at eqn. (4b) using dimensional analysis. In
the present investigation the non-d~~nsion~ ratio (t set &)/a is found to be
close to unity when machining titanium alloys and other materials that yield
a shear-localized chip.
Since the shear strain y does not vary significantly in the conventional
speed range when yielding a continuous chip, Shaw [ 271 in subsequent work
assumed y to be a constant and omitted it from eqn. (4b) for simplifidation
when comparing the temperatures generated at the tool while machining two
different materials. While this is reasonable for the case of a continuous chip,
the contribution of y can be si~ific~t when machining titanium alloys
owing to high strain localization in a narrow band. It can also be seen from
eqn. (4b) that the cutting speed V, the depth t of cut, the shear strain y and
the combination KpC of thermal properties of the work material are of equal
importance but are of less importance than the shear stress 7.
When comparing the machining characteristics of titanium alloys with
those of steel, Loewen and Shaw [30] assumed the shear strain in the
27

titanium chip to be relatively low and similar to that of steel. Consequently,


use of eqn. (4b) could not explain completely the high tool face tempera-
tures or the poor tool life experienced when machining titanium alloys.
While there is no doubt that poor thermal properties play a significant role
in increasing tool face temperature (eqn. 4(b)), as Loewen and Shaw rightly
pointed out, there still remained two crucial and pertinent questions raised
subsequently by Loewen [3] when considering the temperatures in machin-
ing titanium, namely Why is it that the cutting temperatures of titanium are
so high? and Where do our cutting temperatures come from?
High tool temperatures and rapid tool wear normally experienced in
practice, together with a careful re-examination of the chip formation
characteristics, have led to a reconsideration of the energy partition for the
machining of titanium alloys, The new energy partition, in conjunction with
the large strain localization in the narrow primary shear zone and subsequent
intense shear between the segments during the upsetting stage, appears to
explain reasonably well the high tool temperatures when machining titanium
alloys. Details on the energy partition when catastrophic Shea-failed chips
form are beyond the scope of this paper and will be considered separately.
Here, only the salient features will be presented. Owing to rapid flank wear
and almost no secondary deformation on the rake face, the significance of
zones 2 and 3 (Fig. 7) when machining titanium alloys is virtually opposite
to that for materials yielding continuous chip formation (Fig. 6). This means
that a significant portion of heat is generated at the clearance face (due to
rapid flank wear) as a result of rubbing between the flank and the machined
surface and that an insignificant portion of heat is generated between the
sliding chip and rake face. Also, the fractions of heat getting into the tool
and carried away by the chip will be different. The new energy partition is
more likely to be as follows:

Meetto Work piece


Work Piece

Fig. 7. Proposed energy partition in the machining of titanium alloys.


28

U, = R,U, (5)

Ut = (1 -R,)Us + R,Utf (61

U, = (1 - R3)Uff (7)

where Uff is the frictional energy per unit volume due to rubbing between
the flank and the machined surface and R3 is the fraction of heat conducted
into the tool due to flank friction. Also, it should be noted that Uf and Rz
are assumed negligible, since practically no secondary deformation of the
chip on the tool face was observed. The heat generated by direct intimate
contact between the tool face and the shear-failed surface from the shear
zone (during the deformation of the subsequent segment) and by the flank
friction rubbing are combined to determine the heat input to the tool (eqn.
(6)). Owing to poor thermal properties of the work material, most of the
heat generated by intense shear in the primary zone is contained within a
narrow band. Consequently, we can assume that little or none of this heat
actually enters the work material. The only heat that ends up on the
machined surface is that fraction generated by rubbing of the flank on the
machined surface. If we compare eqns. (1) - (3) with eqns. (5) - (7), the
differences in heat partition are apparent. This is also consistent with the
shop floor observation that the heat carried away by the chip at normal
speed is small (eqn. (5)) and greater heat is conducted into the tool (eqn.
(6)) when machining titanium alloys.
With the above considerations, the equation for the mean tool face
temperature, developed by Loewen and Shaw [30], is modified by adding to
eqn. (4b) an additional term due to flank face friction. Thus,

A& a 1 - vt-Y l/z;+ FffV (8)


J i KpC i I JpCba

contribution contribution
due to cutting due to rubbing
on the flank face

where Fft is the flank friction force and a and b are the width and height of
the flank wear in contact with the machined surface.
However, in a recent personal communication, Shaw [33] suggested
that there is no need to add the second term in eqn. (8) by using the follow-
ing equation that he developed [ 341 for the mean tool temperature (instead
of eqn. (4b)):

(9)

where u is the specific energy required per unit volume of material removed.
The quantity u according to Shaw [33] is approximately independent
of V, varies approximately as l/to*2 and will generally increase with tool
29

wear. Thus, according to Shaw, the wear land friction is included in u.


Unfortunately, in practice, u is affected not only by the rubbing forces on
the flank face but also by the negative rake angle effect in machining at
extremely fine undeformed chip thickness values. Also, experimentally it is
very difficult to determine accurately the variation in u with t especially at
low values of t. Consequently there is still no consensus on either the func-
tional relationship between u and t or the physical interpretation of that
relationship amongst machining researchers [35 - 371. Thus, although eqn.
(9) is a much simpler one than eqn, (8) proposed here, owing to uncertainty
in the magnitude and in the in~rpretation of U, especially at the lower values
of t, eqn. (8) is preferred here for a better appreciation of the interaction of
the cutting process with the rake and the clearance face of the tool.
Hahn [38] pointed out the importance of rubbing forces on the clear-
ance face for fine grinding and finish machining. He gave an example of
grinding tungsten carbide with conventional abrasives where significant
normal and tangential forces were registered, but the process produced
virtually no chips. The origin of these forces is entirely frictional in nature.
If we were to calculate the specific energy under these conditions we would
obtain a value of infinity. Hahn also suggested that the frictional heat source
on the clearance surface should be included in the analysis of cutting tool
temperature especially under conditions where interference between the
flank and the machined surface is substantial. Since the flank wears rather
rapidly in machining of ti~nium alloys, resulting in rubbing of the clearance
force on the machined surface, the added frictional heat source, as originally
proposed by Hahn, was introduced in the analysis.
Generally, when machining titanium alloys, tool temperatures are very
high when the depth t of the undeformed layer is very low, and consequently
the tool life is very short. That is why it is generally recommended to use the
largest value of t possible consistent with the available power and other con-
straints. However, eqn. (4b) does not explain why tool temperatures should
be high when t is low. Actually, when t is low, the contribution of heat due
to cutting will be low (i.e. the first term in eqn. (8)) but that due to rubbing
of the flank on the machined surface (i.e. the second term in eqn. (8)) will
increase considerably. The net result will be higher tool temperatures, which
can be better explained qu~itatively by eqn. (8) than by eqn. (4b).
It may be pointed out that the magnitude of the shear strain y in the
primary shear zone when machining titanium alloys is not low, as assumed
by Loewen and Shaw [30] and many others, but actually rather high
(perhaps an order of magnitude higher). The intense shear localization in a
narrow band in the primary shear zone, as shown in Fig. 4, leads to con-
siderable strain. Consequently, the assumption of low shear strain based on
chip thickness measurements is subject to error. When we take into account
(1) the periodic high shear strains in the primary shear zone, (2) the intimate
contact of the shear-failed surface with the tool face during upsetting of the
following segment, (3) the intense heat conducted into the tool owing to
rubbing of the flank on the machined surface and (4) the relatively small
30

amount of heat carried away by the chips, we can appreciate better why the
machining of titanium alloys is so difficult. We should not, however, confuse
this machining difficulty when machining titanium alloys with the sparks
created when thin chips are formed. These sparks are caused by exothermic
reaction of the chips with air.
Thus, it is not difficult to account for the high tool temperatures when
machining titanium alloys, Of course, the high chemical reactivity of
titanium with most tool materials, the high temperatures generated at the
tool tip and the intimate contact of the virgin shear-failed surface from the
primary shear zone on the tool face all account for the rapid wear at the
apex of the tool.

4.7. The nature of ductility in titanium chips


The extent of ductility of the chips in machining is important not only
from the viewpoint of chip disposal (including safety aspects) but also
relative to its potential role in controlling chip curl and any damage to the
machined surface as a consequence. In machining titanium alloys, the
question of whether or not titanium chips are ductile (a more appropriate
consideration would be bend strength) is pertinent because it offers an
important clue to the mechanism of their formation. Olofson et al. [ 181,
quoting from Van Voast [ 391, pointed out that titanium chips are tough and
stringy like stainless steel chips. Cook [Z ] , however, took a different stand.
He made several interesting and important obse~ations, some of which
were reported in ref. 2, of which three will be quoted.
Perhaps the best way to see just what is going on is, first of all, to take
a look at the chips you might pick up out in the shops. Take a mild steel
chip, the type you are used to seeing. It is quite ductile. You can bend
it, tear it and twist it quite a bit before it finally breaks. It has a
reasonable amount of ductility. You next might go out and pick up a
titanium chip machined under similar conditions. It is a very nice con-
tinuous piece of material. However, it takes a little bit of bending and it
breaks; very different from the same chip that you would get from a
piece of steel.
Cook continues by stating
In most materials, you expect that with an increase in the cutting
speed, the chip formation will tend to become continuous. Chips go
from discontinuous to continuous because of the fact that you are
generating a tremendous amount of heat and the material essentially
becomes more ductile. However, we see that this is not the case for
titanium; we get discontinuous chips at slow speed; we speed it up and
still get discontinuous chips.
In another context, Cook comments as follows.
It is very difficult to tell whether these segments were made as
individual segments and then welded together under the heat and tem-
perature which was available in the process or whether the process is
one of actual plastic deformation.
31

Of course, in actual practice, as Cook has rightly pointed out, chips of


titanium are neither tough nor stringy. They have low bend strength as
individual segments constituting the chip are held intact by regions of highly
localized intense shear bands. When titanium chips are bent they break at
these junctions. This explains Cooks first observation. Further, since the
basic mechanism of chip formation is the same at all cutting speeds when
machining titanium alloys, we would not observe or expect any transitions
in the chip form, unlike the case of machining steel, which explains Cooks
second observation, With respect to Cooks third observation, the individual
segments of a titanium chip, as found in the present investigation, are joined
by regions of highly intense shear bands. These bands are formed between
the segment being formed and the one before it, owing to the high tempera-
ture available in the process as a result of localized deformation in the
primary zone and extensive shear (or piastic deformation) during the
upsetting stage of the segment being formed. Thus the interpretation of
Cooks third comment is that the individual segments are formed by an
upsetting process with negligible deformation and are joined by narrow
intense shear bands caused by extensive plastic deformation between the
segment just formed and the segment under formation during the upsetting
stage of the latter.

4.8. Why and when the ~nitpre~ure on the tool face is high
Build-up of the segment starts with the gradual flattening of the wedge-
shaped work material ahead of the tool. The initial contact on the tool face
with the segment being formed is extremely small (starting at the tip of the
tool) and the contact length increases as the flattening process progresses.
Upsetting of the chip segment being formed causes high unit pressure on the
tool face owing to the small contact area between the segment being formed
and the tool face. It is this small contact area during the formation cycle of
the chip segment (upsetting process) that causes high unit pressures. This
situation is quite different from that found in the case of the continuous
chip formation process.

4.9. The degree of work hardening of titanium a~~oy


Difficulties in machining titanium alloys are at times attributed to its
high rate of work hardening. However, the true stress-true strain charac-
teristics of some titanium alloys and other materials [ 161 showed the strain-
hardening exponent to be lower than that for stainless steel and nickel-
base superalloys and only slightly higher than that for carbon steels.
Machining tests by Colwell and Truckenmiller [ 91 showed a much smaller
increase in the hardness of the chip. Colwell and Truckenmiller reported no
visual distortion of titanium except in the chip and even that is pretty well
localized in the distinct cleavage lines. The cleavage lines they are referring
to are the intense shear bands that form in the primary shear zone when
machining ti~ium alloys. Of course, the degree of work hardening also
depends on the extent and rate of strain under a given state of stress. Also, it
32

should be kept in mind that the conditions in machining are far more severe
than those in a conventional material-testing apparatus.

4.10. Formation of a built-up edge


It is reported that titanium alloys do not form a built-up edge (BUE) on
cutting tools. For example, Olofson et al. [ 181 reported that titanium does
not form a BUE on tools. Colwell [ 81 and Colwell and Truckenmiller [ 91
also report that titanium has little or no tendency to form a BUE. This
appears to be the case insofar as a stable BUE is concerned for a limited
range of cutting conditions, Machining tests at various speeds in the present
investigation have shown the formation of an unstable BUE periodically at
various speeds. There is general agreement, however, that the chip can weld
to the tooth of a multitooth cutter when the tool dwells in the cut even
momentarily because of a sudden drop in temperature. When the tooth
re-enters the cut, the welded chip can interfere with the cutting action and
be broken, leaving a portion of titanium metal on the cutting edge. This
layer can then pick up additional titanium to form a stable built-up layer and
even pluck a chunk of tool material and carry it away together with the chip,
thus causing rapid tool wear. A similar situation can occur even in con-
tinuous turning during exit when feed is withdrawn.

5. Conclusions

(1) An attempt has been made to clarify some of the questions raised in
the literature about the machining of titanium alloys. The experimental
observations made in this investigation support some of the earlier findings
and reinterpret others.
(2) The machining of titanium alloys is a classical case of distinct gross
inhomogeneous plastic deformation involving periodic upsetting and intense
shear localization in a narrow band. It is suggested that the continuous chip
formation models, such as the classical Merchant-Piispanen model and the
use of parameters derived from the model (such as the chip thickness ratio r
and shear angle @), should be discontinued in describing machining charac-
teristics of titanium alloys. Efforts should be made to develop another set of
appropriate parameters to describe the machining of titanium. This will aid
the machine tool operator in optimizing the cutting process.

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was performed under Contract F33615-79-


C-5119 on an Advanced Machining Research Program sponsored by the
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and managed by the
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories (AFWAL). The author would
like to thank Dr. M. Buckley of DARPA and Mr. W. A. Harris and Ms. R. M.
33

Stach of the AFWAL for their support and management. The author
acknowledges the many valuable discussions with Professor B. F. von Turko-
vich of the University of Vermont. Thanks are also due to Drs, D. G. Flom,
A. W. Urquhart and M. Aven of General Electric Corporate Research and
Development for their interest in this work and to Mrs. L. Lucia for the
preparation of the manuscript,

References

1 M. C!, Shaw, S. 0. Dirke, P. A. Smith, N. H. Cook, E. G. Loewen and C. T. Yang,


Machining titanium, MIT Rep., 1954 (~a~achusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, MA) (Contract AF 33~600~22674).
2 N. H. Cook, Chip formation in machining titanium, in Proc. Symp. on Machining and
Grinding Titanium, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown, MA, March 31, 1953, U.S. Army
Ordnance Corps, 1953.
3 E. G. Loewen, Temperatures in machining titanium, in Proc. Symp. on Machining and
Grinding Titanium, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown, MA, March 31, 1953, U.S. Army
Ordnance Corps, 1953.
4 M. C. Shaw, Assessment of machinability, in Machinability, ISI Spec. Rep. 94, 1967,
p. 1 (Iron and Steel Institute, London).
5 N. H. Cook, Self excited vibrations in metal cutting, Trans. ASME, 81 (May 1959)
193.
6 N. H. Cook, Visual study of the machining of titanium, MIT Rep., 1953 (Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA) (Contract DA-lQ-OZO-ORD-2425).
7 0. W. Boston, R. M. Caddell, L. V. Colwell, R. E. McKee, K. F. Packer and P. R.
Visser, Machining titanium, Final Rep., 1955 (Production Engineering Department,
University of Michigan) (U.S. Army Contract 20-018ORD-11918).
8 L. V. Colwell, Machining of titanium, in Proc. Symp. on Machining and Grinding
Titanium, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown, MA, March 31, 1953, U.S. Army Ordnance
Corps, 1953, p. 16.
9 L. V. Colwell and W. C. Truckenmiller, Cutting characteristics of titanium and its
alloys, Mech. Eng., 76 (June 1954) 461 - 466,480.
10 M. E. Merchant, Fundamental facts in machining titanium, in Proc. of the Titanium
Symp., Metallurgical Advisory Committee on Titanium, Inf. Bull. 15, Watertown
Arsenal, Watertown, MA, October 1952.
11 M. E. Merchant, E. J. Krabacher, H. W. Young and J. H. Miller, Titanium is
unorthodox when machined . . . heres why,Am. Mach., 98 (July 1954) 118.
12 F. LeMaitre, Contribution & letude de lusinage du titane et de ses alliages, Ann.
CIRP, 23 (1970) 413 - 424.
13 F. LeMaitre and F. Gobin, Considerations experimentales sur les parametres de
coupe dans les alliages de titane, Rev. Metnll. (Paris), 65 (January 1968) 67 - 74.
14 N. Zlatin, Machining of titanium, in Proc. Symp. on Machining and Grinding
Titanium, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown, MA, March 31, 1953, U.S. Army Ordnance
Corps, 1953, p. 36.
15 N. Zlatin and M. Field, Procedures and precautions in machining titanium alloys. In
R. I. Jaffee and H. M. Burte (eds.), Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Titanium Science and
Technology, Vol. 1, Metallurgical Society of AIME, New York, 1973, p. 489.
16 H. C. Child and A. L. Dalton, Machining of titanium alloys - Part 1 - Metallurgical
factors affecting machinability, ISI Spec. Rep. 94,1968, pp. 139 - I.42 (Iron and
Steel Institute, London).
17 E, J. Catt and D. Milwain, Machining of ti~nium alloys - Part 2 - General machining
behaviour of titanium, ISI Spec. Rep. 94, 1968, pp. 143 - 150 (Iron and Steel
Institute, London).
34

18 C. T. Olofson, F. W. Boulger and J. A. Gurlis, Machining and grinding titanium and its
alloys, NASA Tech. Memo. X-53312, August 4, 1965.
19 W. Konig, Applied research on the machinability of titanium and its alloys, in Proc.
47th Meet. AGARD Structural and Materials Panel, Florence, September 26 28,
I9 78, AGARD-CP-256, NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Develop-
ment, London, 1979,~~. 1.1 1.10.
20 W. Konig and K. W. Schroder, Face milling and drilling of titanium alloys, in Proc.
Conf. on the Influence of Metallurgy on Machinability, ASM Tech. Ser. 7, October
1975, pp. 308 - 323.
21 A. C. Bell, S. Ramalingam and J. T. Black, Dynamic metal cutting studies as per-
formed in the SEM, in Proc. 1st North Am. Metal Working Research Conf., ~cMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, May 14, 1973, Scientific Committee of the North
American Metal Working Research Conference, p. 99.
22 E. D. Doyle, Chip Formation in Machining: A High Resolution Study by Scanning
Etectron Microscope, Film produced by the Materials Research Laboratories, Depart-
ment of Defense, Melbourne, 1974.
23 K. Iwata and K. Euda, Crack nucleation and its propagation in discontinuous chip
formation performed with a scanning electron microscope, in Proc. 3rd North Am.
Metal Working Research Conf., Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May
1975, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI, p. 63.
24 R. Komanduri and R. H. Brown, On the mechanics of chip segmentation in machining,
J. Eng. Ind., 103 (1981) 33 - 51.
25 R. Komanduri and B. F. von Turkovich, New observations on the mechanism of chip
formation when machining titanium alloys, Wear, 69 (1981) 179 - 188.
26 R. Komanduri, unpublished work, 1980.
27 M. C. Shaw, &fetal Cutting ~~ncip~es, Ma~achusetts Institute of Technology Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1953.
28 E. Rabinowicz, Frictional properties of titanium and its alloys, Met. Prog., 65
(February 1954) 107.
29 H. J. Swinehart, Cutting Tool Material Selection, American Society of Tool and
Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI, 1968, pp. 13 - 41.
30 E. G. Loewen and M. C. Shaw, On the analysis of cutting tool temperatures, !fmns.
ASME, 76 (1954) 217.
31 H. Blok, Theoretical study of temperature rise at surfaces of actual contact under
oiliness lubricating conditions, in Proc. General Discussion on Lubrication and
Lubricants, Vol. 2, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1937, p. 222.
32 M. Kronenberg, Trans. ASME, 76 (1954) 217 (discussion).
33 M. C. Shaw, personal communication, 1981.
34 M. C. Shaw, Historical aspects concerning removal operations on metals. In W. W.
Mullins and M. C. Shaw teds.), Metal ~ansformatio~, Gordon and Breach, New
York, 1968, p. 211.
35 W. R. Backer, E, R. Marshall and M. C. Shaw, The size effect in metal cutting, !Z%ns.
ASME, 74 (1952) 61.
36 E. J. A. Armarego and R. H. Brown, On the size effect in metal cutting, ht. J. Prod.
Res., I (1962) 75.
37 S. Malkin, K. L. Wiggins, M. Osman and R. W. Smalling, Size effects in abrasive
processes. In S. A. Tobias and F. Koenigsberger (eds.), Proc. 13th Int. Machine Tool
Design and Research Conf., Birmingham, September 1972, Macmillan, London, 1973,
pp. 291 - 296.
38 R. S. Hahn, Trans. ASME, 76 (1954) 217 (discussion).
39 J. Van Voast, increased Production, Reduced Costs Through a Better Understanding
of the Machining Process and ControZ of Muteriats, Tools and Machines, Vol. III,
~urtiss-Wright Corp., Wood-Ridge, NJ, 1951 (U.S. Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Air Force Contract AF 33 (108)~9348).