Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

Int J Mater Form

DOI 10.1007/s12289-010-0986-7


FE-model for Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) cutting based

on the identification of limiting shear stress
at tool-chip interface
Yancheng Zhang & Tarek Mabrouki & Daniel Nelias &
Yadong Gong

Received: 9 December 2009 / Accepted: 5 May 2010

# Springer-Verlag France 2010

Abstract Modeling of metal cutting has proved to be Nomenclature

particularly complex, especially for tool-chip interface. The A initial yield stress (MPa)
present work is mainly aimed to investigate the limiting a half contact width (mm)
shear stress at this interface in the case of Titanium alloy ap cutting depth (mm)
(Ti-6Al-4V) dry cutting based on a FE-model. It is first B hardening modulus (MPa)
shown that the surface limiting shear stress was linked to C strain rate dependency coefficient (MPa)
the contact pressure and the coefficient of friction (CoF). A Cp specific heat (J/kg−1C−1)
relationship between CoF and the limiting shear stress was D overall damage variable
given, and the effect of the temperature on the limiting D1...D5 coefficients of Johnson-Cook material shear
shear stress was also considered. After that, an orthogonal failure initiation criterion
cutting model was developed with an improved friction E1 tool insert Young’s modulus (MPa)
model through the user subroutine VFRIC in Abaqus/ E2 machined material Young’s modulus (MPa)
Explicit software. The numerical results obtained were f feed rate (mm/rev)
compared with experimental data gathered from literature fc chip segmentation frequency (kHz)
and a good overall agreement was found. Finally, the Fc cutting force (N)
effects of cutting speed, CoF and tool-rake angle on chip Ff feed force (N)
morphologies were analyzed. L characteristic length (mm)
Lc chip segmentation wavelength (mm)
Keywords FE cutting model . Limiting shear stress . m thermal softening coefficient
Fracture energy . Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V m1 contact coefficient
n work-hardening exponent
Abbreviations n1 contact coefficient
FE Finite element p hydrostatic pressure (MPa)
J-C Johnson-Cook R radius of a cylinder (mm)
SDEG Scalar stiffness degradation Pc contact force per unit length (N/mm)
CoF Coefficient of friction p0 maximum contact pressure (N/mm2)
qo tangential traction at x = 0 (N/mm2)
tf limiting shear stress (MPa)
Y. Zhang : T. Mabrouki (*) : D. Nelias
tY shear stress calculated by yield stress (MPa)
Université de Lyon, CNRS, INSA-Lyon, LaMCoS, UMR5259,
69621 Lyon, France g shear strain in the primary shear zone
e-mail: Tarek.Mabrouki@insa-lyon.fr Rn cutting edge radius (μm)
T temperature at a given calculation instant (°C)
Y. Gong
tc cutting time (μs)
School of Mechanical Engineering & Automation,
Northeastern University, Tm melting temperature (°C)
Shenyang 10004, China Tr room temperature (°C)
Int J Mater Form

T* homologous temperature T ¼ the effects of the working parameter variation on material
ðT  Tr Þ=ðTm  Tr Þ cutting performance. For that, it is more judicious to build a
uf equivalent plastic displacement at failure (mm) reliable FE-model allowing more physical comprehension in
u equivalent plastic displacement (mm) relationship with this type of material cutting.
VC cutting speed (m/min) Nevertheless, the robustness of a given numerical model
Vchip local chip sliding speed (m/min) is strongly dependent on the work material contact nature at

e plastic strain rate (s−1) cutting tool-chip interface, material fracture criterion, and

e0 reference strain rate (s−1) both tool and workpiece material thermal parameters [5–8].
» »  
e normalized effective strain rate e ¼ e= e0 In the present study, Material fracture energy was put
e0i equivalent strain at the onset of damage forward to reduce the mesh dependency and achieve
ef equivalent plastic strain at failure material degradation during cutting process. Moreover, the
Δe equivalent plastic strain increment mesh sensitivity was also analyzed in order to obtain the
e equivalent plastic strain appropriate mesh size. The limiting shear stress in the friction
a0 flank angle (deg) model was refined with the maximum shear stress at the tool-
ad expansion coefficient (μm/m/°C) chip contact surface.
g0 rake angle (deg) Comparison of predicted results (in terms of chip
l thermal conductivity (W/m/°C) morphologies and cutting forces) with those obtained from
ν Poisson’s ratio experimental studies was carried out to validate the
KC fracture toughness (MPa m) numerical model for positive and negative tool-rake angle.
Gf fracture energy (N/m) Finally, effects of cutting speed, coefficient of friction
μ CoF (CoF), and rake angle on the chip morphology were studied
ρ density (kg/m3) with the numerical cutting model.
σI principal stresses (i=1...3) (MPa)
s von Mises plastic equivalent stress (MPa)
σY yield stress (MPa) Numerical approach
σ* stress triaxiality s » ¼ p=s
w damage initiation criterion Modeling data and geometrical model

To improve physical comprehension of segmented chip

Introduction formation, friction properties during Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-
4V cutting, the commercial software Abaqus 6.8-2 with its
For the high strength-to-weight ratio, combined with an explicit approach was employed. A 2D orthogonal cutting
excellent corrosion resistance at high temperature, the model was developed as shown in Fig. 1. Linear quadrilat-
cutting of titanium alloys has recently received considerable eral continuum plane strain element CPE4RT with reduced
interest due to their wide range of application in aerospace, integration was utilized for a coupled temperature–displace-
automotive, chemical, and medical industry [1]. ment analysis.
However, titanium alloys are classified as hard machin- Machining parameters were taken similar to those
ing materials because of their high chemical reactivity and adopted by Jiang and Shivpuri [9] and Umbrello [5]. For
low thermal conductivity [2]. The high chemical reactivity the workpiece, the uncut chip thickness was 0.127 mm with
increases with temperature and produces an early damage a cutting depth ap =2.54 mm. The WC ISO-P20 cutting tool
of the cutting tool affecting the surface quality and considered has normal rake and flank angles of 15° and 6°,
increasing the production costs [3]. Their low thermal respectively. The tool entering and inclination edge angles
conductivity hinders the evacuation of the heat generated were 90° and 0°, respectively. The tool-cutting edge radius
during the cutting process resulting in a temperature rise of the was of 0.030 mm. The tool-workpiece interaction was
workpiece [3]. This leads to the characteristic segmented considered under dry machining conditions.
chip feature even at very low cutting speed, as it was To optimize the contact management during simulation,
mentioned by Hou and Komanduri [4]. These authors a multi-part model (Fig. 1) was typically developed with
predicted the critical cutting speed value corresponding to four geometrical parts: (1) Part1—the insert active part, (2)
the onset of shear localization of Ti-6Al-4V to be approx- Part2—the uncut chip thickness, (3) Part3—the tool-tip
imately equals to 9 m/min whereas this value is equal to passage zone, and (4) Part4—the workpiece support.
130 m/min when cutting AISI4340 steel. In order to increase It should be noticed that the thickness of tool-tip passage
productivity and tool-life in machining of titanium alloys, it zone (Part3), which is the sacrificial layer, was usually
is necessary to study the mechanics of chip segmentation and recommended larger than that of the cutting edge radius
Int J Mater Form

Fig. 1 Model mesh and bound-

ary conditions γ0 Part1

Damage zones :


Part3-2 Rn=30µm
26µm Part3 α0
Part3-3 Part4


Vc X

No displacement
in Y-direction
Fixed boundaries

[10] to avoid mesh distortion problem. In the proposed model, The J-C material parameters of the workpiece made in
the critical layer size above which the element can climb up Ti-6Al-4V can be found in Table 1, whereas the physical
rake face without mesh distortion was found equal to parameters of both the workpiece and the tool-insert are
0.026 mm. The sacrificial zone was meshed with five given in Table 2.
elements to study the contact effect around the cutting edge.
Also, the passage zone (Part3) was divided into three small Chip separation criterion
parts: Part3-1, Part3-2, and Part3-3. The CoF in Part3-1should
be very small to reduce the influence of the sacrificial zone for For different software and material constitutive models, the
the new formed chip surface, or the chip surface can be torn approach to deal with element damage is different. Indeed,
out by the sacrificial zone before it enters into contact with the Umbrello [5] and Jiang and Shivpuri [9] employed the
tool surface. As Part3-2 and Part3-3 are usually the stick zones Cockroft and Latham’s criterion to predict the effect of
[11], the CoF should be set very high. However, there is no tensile stress on chip segmentation, but the elements are
more contact problem for them when they are finally deleted. deleted at the onset of damage initiation. This induces
For boundary conditions used in the present model, the instability in numerical simulation. The J-C model is widely
cutting tool is assumed to be fixed on its top and right sides, adopted for its satisfactory description of material flow
and the workpiece is allowed to move horizontally from the stress, while different approaches are used to achieve the
left to the right while restrained vertically. degradation of material to get segmented chip. Calamaz
et al. [15] introduced the strain softening through
Material behaviour and chip formation criterion improving the J-C model by adding the strain softening
effects. While the fracture energy as a failure evolution
Material constitutive model criterion after damage initiation can well achieve material
degradation, and this approach was adopted for the present
The material constitutive material model of Ti-6AL-4V study.
follows the Johnson-Cook (J-C) model [12]. It provides a
satisfactory description of the behaviour of metals and alloys Damage initiation The initiation of damage in the J-C
since it considers large strains, high strain rates and material model is derived from the following strain
temperature dependent visco-plasticity. This model is cumulative damage law:
expressed by the following expression of the equivalent stress.
h h i X Δe
» » w¼ ð2Þ
s ¼ ½A þ B"n  1 þ C ln e  1  T m ð1Þ e0i

Table 1 Johnson-Cook Materi-

al Model [13] Materials A (MPa) B (MPa) n C m D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Ti-6Al-4V 1098 1092 0.93 0.014 1.1 −0.09 0.25 −0.5 0.014 3.87
Int J Mater Form

Table 2 Workpiece and tool

physical parameters [14] Physical parameters Workpiece (Ti-6AL-4V) Tool(WC ISO-P20)

Density, ρ (kg/.m3) 4430 15700

Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 110 705
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.33 0.23
Specific heat, Cp (J/kg°C) 670 178
Thermal conductivity, l (W/m°C) 6.6 24
Expansion coef., αd (μm/m/°C) 9 5
Tmelt (°C) 1630 ×
Troom (°C) 25 25

Where $e is the increment of equivalent plastic strain Whereas an exponential damage parameter used for part 2,
during an increment of loading, and e0i the equivalent strain evolves according to:
at the onset of damage and is expressed as following:
h  ih h i u
» » » D ¼ 1  exp  du ð6Þ
"0i ¼ D1 þ D2 exp D3 s 1 þ D4 ln e  1 þ D5 T Gf
The formulation of the model ensures that the energy
The parameters D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 are experimental dissipated during the damage evolution process is equal to
data (Table 1). Damage is assumed to be initiated when the Gf, and the scalar stiffness degradation approaches to one
parameter w=1. asymptotically at an infinite equivalent plastic displace-
ment. In the case of plane strain condition Gf can be
Damage evolution The Hillerborg’s fracture energy [16] obtained by Gf ¼ KC2 ð1  n 2 Þ=E where KC is the fracture
was introduced in this model mainly for two reasons: toughness [14].
Firstly to control the material degradation after the damage
initiates (Fig. 2), which makes the failure process more Mesh sensitivity During machining process, large defor-
stable, secondly, to capture high strain localization mation is a common phenomenon, especially for the
during chip segmentation even for relatively large size segmented chip. According to Eq. 4, to get this large
element. deformation with constant element characteristic length L,
When material damage occurs, the stress-strain relation- the value of plastic strain must be very high, which also
ship does no-longer accurately represent the material’s depends greatly on the local mesh. The characteristic
behavior. Continuing to use the stress-strain relation length L could also be increased to reduce the mesh
introduces a strong mesh dependency based on strain dependency. Consequently, the question that can be asked
location, such that the energy dissipated as the mesh is in the present formulation is: which size is appropriate for
refined. The mesh size in the Calamaz’s [15] model is the characteristic length L?
around 2 µm near the cutting edge and along the primary Two constraints can be retained for the evaluation of L:
shear zone. The Hillerborg’s fracture energy, Gf, was First, the size should be relative large (to save computing
adopted to reduce the mesh dependency by creating a
stress-displacement response after damage initiation.
Z "pl Z upl Damage initiation
f f
Gf ¼ Ls Y d"pl ¼ s Y dupl ð4Þ (ω =1, D=0) d’
Where, the characteristic length L is the square root of Dσ~ Damage
the integration point element area based on a plane strain b evolution
element CPE4RT.
The scalar stiffness degradation for the linear damage Material stiffness
process used for part 3 is given by: E (1-D)E is fully degraded
d (D=1)
Le u ε0i ε
D¼ ¼ ð5Þ εf

uf uf
Fig. 2 Typical uniaxial stress-strain response of a metal specimen
Where the equivalent displacement is uf ¼ 2Gf =s Y . [17]
Int J Mater Form

mesh 6 µm
mesh 8 µm and 14 μm, the computed average cutting forces are 481 N
mesh 12 µm and 458.5N, respectively, which are far below the value of
mesh 14 µm
Average experimental force 550 N measured experimentally under the same working
conditions [5, 9]. Whereas for characteristic lengths of
8 μm and 6 μm, the cutting force reaches 541 N and 549 N,
respectively, which is close to the cutting force obtained
Cutting force(N)

especially. To contain the computing costs, the mesh size of
8 μm will be now chosen.

Limiting shear stress from the aspect of contact
0. 046 0. 0914 0. 1368 0. 1822 0. 2276 0. 273 0. 3184 0. 3638 0. 4092 0. 4546 0.5
Cutting time (ms) The Zorev’s temperature independent stick-slip friction
Fig. 3 Cutting force sensitivity versus cutting time with different model [11], see Eq. 7, was widely adopted by many
mesh sizes authors [10, 15, 18, 19] to define the friction properties at
the tool—chip interface. Zorev advocated the existence of
two distinct tool—chip contact regions: In the stick zone
time), second the result should be similar or close to near the tool tip the shear stress tf is assumed to be equal
experimental values (in terms of cutting force and chip to the yield shear stress of the material being machined,
morphology). For that, four mesh mean values are t Y,, whereas, in the sliding region, the frictional stress is
discussed with characteristic length of 6, 8, 12, and lower than the yield shear stress. Note that a constant
14 μm, where the simulated cutting forces are compared Coulomb friction coefficient is assumed here.
with the experimental ones. The dynamic cutting force

versus the characteristic length is first investigated. if t f < t Y & t f ¼ ms n ! Sliding region
Furthermore, the fracture energy was refined to get the if t f ¼ t Y & t f  ms n ! Stick region
appropriated material degradation evolution and conse-
quently the real segmented chip morphology. The yield shear stress tY, in Eq. 7 is usually related to the
Figure 3 presents the cutting force sensitivity for conventional yield stress σY of the workpiece material
different mesh sizes. For both characteristic length of 12 adjacent to the surface [18, 20, 21]. A reasonable upper

Fig. 4 Simplified contact model Cylinder 1-cutting tool Cylinder 1

at the tool-chip interface

(a) Z
Vchip Pc (c) Pc
Rn p0 Y
-a Cylinder 2

X Cylinder 2-chip
For µ=0

Cutting tool Pc Friction Q
Friction Q
Vchip a a
Chip contact zone
Int J Mater Form

p0 contact surface p0 contact surface

(τ / po) ( τ / po)
(a) 0 (b) 0
0.20093 0.0287 29
04 80
-0.2 0.22963
-0.2 0.2
57 4 2
0.25833 0.25 43

07 0.0 0.3
60 1

0.287 04 0.
-0.4 0.0

τ max / po = 0.37465
61 91
-0.6 τ max / po = 0.31574 11
(at X = 0.6, Z = -0.45)
(at X = 0.0, Z = -0.72) 0.25
contact zone 0.2
contact zone

-0.8 -0.8


-1 -1 0.3
11 0.2
0.15 74
-1.2 -1.2

-1.4 -1.4 0.28029





-1.6 -1.6

z/a 9 63 3
z/a 0. 2488
-1.8 0.22 09 -1.8 0.1
-2 -2 0.21738

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x/a x/a
p0 contact surface p0 contact surface
( τ / po) (τ / po)
(c) 0 0.44081
(d) 0

0. 4408 (at X = 0.42, Z = 0.0)


τmax / po =0.5271

-0.2 -0.2

0.4 0.45

τ max / po = 0.47727
0.404 35


-0.4 0. -0.4

8 76
11 0.


(at X = 0.69, Z = -0.27) 26 13


55 0.4


0.35 1




7 89


contact zone



contact zone




-1 -1

-1.2 0.25 -1.2 0.
-1.4 0. 294 -1.4 0.25



-1.6 -1.6
z/a 0.25851
z/a 0.2
-1.8 -1.8
-2 22 0
-2 0.15

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x/a x/a

Fig. 5 Contour plot of shear stress in chip contact zone for different CoFs: a μ=0.0; b μ=0.2; c μ=0.4; d μ=0.48

bound estimation [17] of the yield shear stress can be In which σ1, σ2 and σ3 are the principal stresses, and t Y
calculated by the von Mises criterion: and σY denote the yield stress values of the material in both
simple shear stress and tension, respectively.
1n o  However, when the CoF is relatively small, the maxi-
ðs 1  s 2 Þ2 þ ðs 2  s 3 Þ2 þ ðs 3  s 1 Þ2  t 2Y ¼ s 2Y 3
6 mum shear stress is found beneath the contact surface. If
ð8Þ this maximum value is adopted to define the limiting shear

0.6 600
CoF = 0
0.55 500 CoF = 0.1
CoF = 0.15
0.525 CoF = 0.2
0.5 400 CoF = 0.3

Τ f ( MPa )

CoF = 0.4

CoF = 0.48
0.425 Maximum shear stress in contact zone
0.4 Maximum shear stress at contact surface
0.375 100
0 0.1 0.2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5 0.6 0 .7 0.8 0 .9 1 0
CoF - µ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 6 Ratio of the limiting shear stress and σY versus CoF at a given
temperature Fig. 7 Limiting shear stress versus temperature for different CoFs
Int J Mater Form

Fig. 8 Chip morphology

Chip valley h2 =
obtained at VC =120 m/min, New formed
f=0.127 mm/rev: a computation free surface Considering crack
considering the scalar stiffness
degradation (SDEG = 0.74), and
b Experimental comparison with Free surface
[9] Segmentation

Lc =
Chip peak

(a) (b)

stress, the material beneath the contact surface will yield Frictionless contact between two cylinders
before the surface material reaches the critical value. So, it
is necessary to redefine the critical limiting shear stress. According to Johnson [22], under a normal force Pc (per
The latter is introduced in detail from the point of view of length), the stress field distribution in the chip (here
contact mechanics by considering the relationship between schematized by cylinder2) is given by Eq. 9 below:
the CoF and temperature. 8 n   o
Figure 4(a) schematizes the tool and chip contact. The >
z2 þn2
ðs x Þp ¼  pa0 m1 1 þ m2 þn12  2z
>  1 1  
tool is fixed and the workpiece moves at the cutting speed >

> ðs z Þp ¼  pa0 m1 1  z 2þn12 s y ¼ v ðs x Þp þ ðs z Þp
2 2
Vc from left to right. To analyze the contact condition, a <  2 2m1 þn1 p
m z
small region at the interface was considered with a sliding ðt xz Þp ¼  pa0 n1 m21þn2
> 2
h i
1 1
rate Vchip and a normal force Pc per length unit. More > 2 2 0:5
> m ¼ 1
ða 2
 x 2
þ z 2
Þ þ 4x z þ ð a2
þ z2
precisely the contact model was simplified according to >
1 p 2
h i

Fig. 4(b) which consists of a flat surface slider moving from : n21 ¼ 1 ða2  x2 þ z2 Þ þ 4x2 z2 0:5  ða2  x2 þ z2 Þ
p 2
left to right over a curved profile and with a steady velocity
Vchip. For frictionless elastic contact and when the contact ð9Þ
dimensions are small compared to the size of the contacting In the case of plane strain, the principal stresses can be
bodies (Hertz assumptions), the solution is well described calculated by Eq. 10.
by the Hertz theory [22]. The plane strain problem is 8 r

> ðs x Þp þðs x Þp 2

equivalent to the contact between two cylinders, see < s ¼ ðs x Þp þðs z Þp  þ ð t Þ
1;2 xz p
Fig. 4(c), with a is the half contact width and p0 is the


: s 3 ¼ s y ¼ v ðs x Þ þ ðs z Þ :
maximum pressure at the contact center. It is important to p p p
note that the contact pressure is distributed along a semi-
elliptical shape between [-a, a] along the x-axis. Combining Eqs. 8–10, the shear stress distribution in the
The load at which material yield begins is related to the (X, Z) plane shown in Fig. 5 (a) with a maximum shear
yield threshold of the softer material (here the workpiece) in stress of 0.31574 p0 at a depth z=−0.72a. Note that for
a simple tension or shear test through an appropriate yield frictionless contact, the maximum shear stress is found at a
criterion [22]. location far below the surface whereas it reaches the surface

Table 3 Comparison between

experimental and numerical VC =120 (m/min) Lc (µm) Peak (µm) Valley (µm) Fc [5] (N)
chip geometry
Experiment 140 165 46.5 559
Simulation 133 161.5 48 541.3
Int J Mater Form

Fig. 9 Comparaison between

the present simulations and
experiments [15] of chip mor-
phologies for f=0.1 mm/rev,
(Vc=60 m/min case of a and b)
and (Vc=180 m/min case
of c and d)

when CoF is equal or higher than 0.48. Consequently, for Where q0 =μp0 is the tangential traction at x=0, and the
frictionless contact or when the CoF is lower than 0.48, it is suffixes p and q refer to the stress components due to
necessary to consider the shear stress at the contact surface normal pressure and tangential traction, respectively. Also,
as the limiting shear stress, not the maximum one which is it is assumed that the tangential traction has no effect upon
located at the hertzian depth. the normal pressure distribution. When superimposed to the
effect of the contact pressure (normal effect) it yields:
Frictional contact between two cylinders
> s x ¼ ðs x Þq þ ðs x Þp
In presence of friction the contribution of the tangential force < s ¼ s
þ s

y y q y p
Q, acting on each contact surface along the direction opposed ð12Þ
> s ¼ ðs z Þq þ ðs z Þp
: z
to the motion (see Fig. 4(b)) should be also considered: t xz ¼ ðt xz Þq þ ðt xz Þp
8 n   o
> ðs x Þq ¼ qa0 n1 2  mz 2m
2 2
> þn12 Figure 5(b) presents the counter plots of the shear stress
< ðs Þ ¼ q0 ðt Þ

z q p0 xz p in the contact zone between the chip and the tool for a

> s y q ¼ v ðs x Þq þ ðs z Þq relatively low CoF, here 0.2. It is noticed that the maximum
: ðt xz Þ ¼ q0 ðs x Þ : shear stress is still below the contact interface. This
q p0 p maximum shear stress moves towards the interface when
Table 4 Comparison between
experimental and numerical Vc (m/min) Methods Lc (μm) Peak h1 (μm) Valley h2 (μm) Fc (N)
chip geometry
60 Experimentation [15] 100 N/A N/A 557
Simulation 96 136 94 600
180 Experimentation [15] 100 131 62 548
Simulation 96 132 77 580
Int J Mater Form

Table 5 Simulation parameters used in the study Results and discussions

Feed rate, f (mm) 0.06, 0.1, 0.127
Cutting speed, Vc (m/min) 60, 120, 180 Numerical model validation with experimental works
CoF, µ 0.3, 0.7, 1
Rake angle, γ0 =15°, −6°, −4° Clearance angle, α0 =6°, 12°
In order to validate the model developed in the present work,
Cutting width ap =2.54 mm Cutting edge radius Rn =30 μm
the numerical results presented are compared with experi-
mental data mainly gathered from literatures [5, 9, 15]. In the
present model, the failure of material is based on Pirondi’s
work [24], as described in experiment and simulation, crack
increasing the CoF as shown in Fig. 5(c) and (d). It reaches starts to take place when the scalar stiffness degradation
the surface when μ≥0.48. Whereas only one point is (SDEG) is larger than 0.74, so this value can be taken as the
concerned when μ=0.48 (see Fig. 5(d)). critical value for determining the material failure occurrence.
Figure 6 presents the maximum shear stress conditions at The simulation carried-out following Jiang and Shivpu-
the surface and below the contact versus the CoF. Results ri’s [9] data gives the result shown in Fig. 8(a). It can be
are normalized by the material yield stress σY. It can be seen seen that the periodic cracks initiate at the free surface of
that the maximum shear stresses are totally different when the cutting material ahead of the tool and is propagated
the CoF is less than 0.48. When the CoF is higher than towards the tool tip. This result agrees with the works of
0.48, the maximum shear p stress
ffiffiffi is located at the contact Vyas and Shaw [25]. The chip valley is measured from the
interface and is equal to 1= 3s Y . boundary of failure zone (SDEG=0.74) to the new formed
In practical condition, the yield stress σY is updated free surface for considering crack.
according to variations with temperature, strain rate, etc. A comparison between results obtained by experimenta-
So, it is necessary to identify accurately the limiting shear tion and simulation is shown in Table 3. It can be remarked
stress at the contact interface. According to Komanduri a good agreement between them. The average cutting force
[23], the yield stress of Ti-6Al-4V evolving with tempera- (Fig. 3 with mesh size of 8 µm) is nearly equal to
ture, by taking into account the results given in Fig. 6, it is Umbrello’s result [5] with the same cutting parameters.
possible to draw the limiting shear stresses versus temper- Another comparison was made with Calamaz’s [15]
ature for different CoFs as shown in Fig. 7. It can be experiment (Fig. 9). In the case of a cutting speed of 60 m/
noticed that the higher the CoF, the higher the limiting min, the chip segment morphologies as a result of the
shear stress, whereas the latter decreases monotonously periodic cracks initiation take place both at tool tip and the
when the temperature increases. Therefore, both CoF and free surface ahead of tool tip, where the failure zone at tool
temperature influence the limiting shear stress. The as- tip is presented in the form of secondary shear zone [26]
sumption of constant threshold shear stresses regardless the (Fig. 9(a)), while the propagation of the failure zone at the
frictional properties and temperature is no more valid. free surface only arrives at half of chip thickness arising
It is important to underline that this figure is drawn only from the lower shear strain rates in the upper region of the
for CoFs varying between 0 and 0.48. Indeed, for CoF primary shear zone.
higher than 0.48, thepffiffiffilimiting shear is found at the surface When the cutting speed increases to 180 m/min, the
and is equal to 1= 3 (see Fig. 6), and the limiting shear failure zone (with the stiffness degradation larger than 0.74)
stress is applied in the cutting model by user subroutine goes through the primary shear zone from two sides in and
VFRIC. out, as shown in Fig. 9(c), which is different form

Fig. 10 SDEG distribution in

chip according to VC variation
for µ=0.7 and f=0.127 mm/rev: a
VC =60 m/min; b VC =120 m/min;
and c VC =180 m/min
Int J Mater Form

Segmentation wavelength
35 out, go through the primary shear zone, and join in together
0.12 Segmentation frequency
30 forming the shear band zone with high cutting speed.
0.1 25
For Lc Parametric study of Ti-6Al-4V cutting
L c(mm)


fc (kHz)
0.06 15 With the proposed new model, a numerical parametric
0.04 study concerning chip morphology in the in orthogonal
For fc 10
cutting of Ti-6Al-4V was performed. The process simula-
0.02 5 tion parameters are listed in Table 5.
0 0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Cutting speed(m/min)
Cutting speed effect on chip morphology

Fig. 11 Effect of VC on Lc and fc for f=0.127 mm, and μ=0.7 The SDEG distribution in the shear zone is shown in
Fig. 10 with increased cutting speed, hereinto the value
Luttervelt [27], who discovered the occurrence of a crack at above 0.74 directly indicates the crack possibility of the
the tool tip and its propagation towards the free surface, chip as mentioned in “Numberical model validation with
which is also different from Vyas and Shaw [25] as experimental works,” which is also a reason for segmented
mentioned above for rake angle is positive. chip, as described in [8], among other phenomena. When
When the cutting speed increases, the stiffness degrada- cutting speed is equal to 60 m/min, the chip presents a
tion in the primary shear zone accelerates chip deformation continuous part and a segmented. Nonetheless, the region with
in further step i.e. the chip valley will become smaller the value of SDEG above 0.74 is just a small zone beneath the
(Table 4), while the chip wavelength and peak nearly don’t free surface of the cutting material ahead of the tool tip. When
change. The cutting forces in these two conditions are the cutting speed increases to 120 m/min, the segmentation
larger than the experimental value for the negative rake takes place on the entire chip, and part of the region with the
angle, while the errors are less than 10%. value of SDEG above 0.74 passes through half of the chip.
As a summary, it can be said that the new developed model When the cutting speed increases to 180 m/min, the regions
is in good corroboration with Shivpuri’s and Calamaz’s with the value of SDEG above 0.74 nearly arrive at the free
experiments. It permits to predict the chip morphology and surface around tool tip for all segmentations. So, the higher the
the cutting force with a good approximation. Moreover, it cutting speed the higher chip segmentation.
seems that the appropriate values of the limiting shear stress The segmentation frequency fc can be approximated by
are well expressed in this new proposed model. the ratio Vc∕Lc, where Lc is chip segmentation wavelength as
It is also found that the chip morphology is different with it is indicated in Fig. 8(b) [28, 29]
positive and negative rake angle cutting tool. Indeed, for
positive rake angle tool, the period cracks initiate at the free fc ¼ ð13Þ
surface of the machined material ahead of the tool and
propagate partway toward the tool tip. For negative rake The computed chip segmentation wavelengths, for
angle tool, the period cracks initiate at two free faces in and cutting speeds 60, 120, and 180 m/min (as shown in

Fig. 12 Temperature distribution with increased µ for f=0.127 mm/rev, VC =120 m/min: a µ=0.3; b µ=0.7; and c µ=1
Int J Mater Form

interfaces. The CoF for sacrificial passage zone (see
500 (Fig. 1), Part 3) is taken constant. As shown in Fig. 12,
the temperature distribution on chip and tool is greatly
Average force(N)

400 Cutting force

Feed force influenced by the CoF variation. It is remarked that the
300 insert-zone where the temperature is of 581–720°C
migrates from tool-tip to the rake face-chip contact end,
as CoF varies from 0.3 to 1.
100 Moreover, it is noted the absence of friction effect on
cutting force which has an average value around 540N, as it
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05
is illustrated in Fig. 13. This result can be expected because
CoF - µ the global chip morphology is remained the same with the
CoF variation. Whereas, the feed force does not rise with
Fig. 13 Evolution of the average cutting and feed force versus µ for
f=0.127 mm/rev, and VC =120 m/min the increased CoF, by contrary the values decline when CoF
evolves from 0.3 to 1. This phenomenon mainly attributes
Fig. 11), are constant, whereas the segmentation frequency to the thermal softening effect of the high temperature
is directly proportional to the cutting speed according to ahead of tool tip and rake face, and the limiting shear
Eq. 13. This result agrees with the experiment study carried stresses directly decrease as discussed in Fig. 7.
out by Sun [28].
Rake angle effect on chip morphology
CoF effect on chip morphology
Two feed rates 0.06 and 0.1 mm/rev were checked to study
To study the influence of CoF for the cutting of Ti-6Al-4V, rake angle effect on chip morphology. According to Fig. 14
friction values were taken 0.3, 0.7 and 1 for tool-chip it can be underlined that when passing from positive to

Fig. 14 Chip SDEG distribu-

tion at VC =120 m/min and µ=
0.7: a g 0 =15°, f=0.06 mm/rev;
b g 0 =−6°, f=0.06 mm/rev;
c g 0 =15°, f=0.1 mm/rev; and
d g 0 =−4°, f=0.1 mm/rev
Int J Mater Form

negative angle the chip segmentation phenomenon becomes – As CoF varies among 0.3 and 1, the highest temper-
more pronounced. ature located in the insert zone migrates from tool-tip to
For the same tool-rake angle, the increase in feed rate the rake face-chip contact end. This temperature
from 0.06 to 0.1 mm/rev implies more chip segmentation. migration has implied a decrease in feed force whereas
This can be observed when comparing Fig. 14(a) and (c). the variation of CoF is inactive regarding cutting force
So, the higher the feed rate the higher the material SDEG as variation.
it is also shown by Fig. 14(b) and (d) (see the propagation
In the meaning time, the FE model is being tested for
of SDEG between 0.74 and 1). It can be also underlined
other materials in the objective to propose to the scientific
that more negative rake angle, higher is the tool-workpiece
community a robust cutting model.
contact pressure and so the chip segmentation.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Prof.
Shivpuri and Prof. Calamaz for providing the experimental data in this
Concluding remarks work, and especially for the financial support of China Scholarship
Council (CSC).
The aim of this contribution concerns the a numerical finite
element cutting model for an aeronautic Titanium alloy
referenced as Ti-6Al-4V. The major findings are summa- References
rized as follows:
1. Arrazolaa PJ, Garaya A, Iriarte LM, Armendiaa M, Maryab S,
– The present work based on an energetic concept and Maîtrec FL (2009) Machinability of titanium alloys (Ti6Al4V and
refined limiting shear stress to build a multi-part cutting Ti555.3). J Mater Process Tech 209:2223–2230
model under Abaqus\Explicit was presented. The 2. Puerta Velasquez JD, Bolle B, Chevrier P, Geandier G, Tidu A
(2007) Metallurgical study on chips obtained by high speed
adopted approach can well predict the cutting force
machining of a Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 452–453:469–
and chip morphology, with the corresponding mis- 474
match less than 10 % compared with experiments. And 3. Ezugwu EO, Wang ZM (1997) Titanium alloys and their
the cutting model can be used to simulate high machinability—a review. J Mater Process Tech 68:262–274
4. Hou ZB, Komanduri R (1995) On a thermo mechanical model of
coefficient of friction (CoF) and low feed rate with
shear instability in machining. CIRP Ann—Manuf Tech 44(1):69–73
large cutting edge radius tool without convergence 5. Umbrello D (2008) Finite element simulation of conventional and
problem. In order to obtain the appropriate model mesh high speed machining of Ti6Al4V alloy. J Mater Process Tech
size for the present study, a mesh sensitivity analysis 196:79–87
6. Childs THC (2006) Friction modelling in metal cutting. Wear 260
was performed.
– The limiting shear stress at the tool-chip contact surface 7. Bonnet C, Valiorgue F, Rech J, Hamdi H (2008) Identification of a
is used as a friction model from the aspect of contact friction model-Application to the context of dry cutting of an AISI
mechanics. It is first shown that the surface shear stress 316L austenitic stainless steel with a TiN coated carbide tool. Int J
Mach Tools & Manuf 48:1211–1223
is linked to the contact pressure and the CoF. A
8. Mabrouki T, Rigal JF (2006) A contribution to a qualitative
relationship between the CoF and the limiting shear understanding of thermo-mechanical effects during chip formation
stress is given. The effect of the temperature on the in hard turning. J Mater Process Tech 176:214–221
limiting shear stress is also considered. 9. Jiang H, Shivpuri R (2004) Prediction of chip morphology and
segmentation during the machining of titanium alloys. J Mater
– The presentation of a parametric study is carried out
Process Tech 150:124–133
with the new cutting model. This allowed bring some 10. Subbiah S, Melkote SN (2008) Effect of finite edge radius on
physical comprehension accompanying chip formation ductile fracture ahead of the cutting tool edge in micro-cutting of
according to the variation of cutting speed, CoF, and Al2024T3. Mater Sci Eng A 474:283–300
11. Zorev NN (1963) Inter-relationship between shear processes
rake angle. The simulation result show that the higher
occurring along tool face and shear plane in metal cutting. Int
the cutting speed, the more marked chip segmentation Res Prod Eng ASME, pp 42–49
phenomenon, the distribution of material scalar stiff- 12. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for
ness degradation on the chip seems to be located metals subject to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures. Proc. of the 7th international symposium on
closely to the tool surface. ballistics, the Hague, pp 31–48
– A refined measure of the computed chip segmentation 13. Lesuer DR (2000) Experiment investigations of material models for
wavelengths show that they are constant regarding to Ti-6Al-4V Titanium and 2024-T3 Aluminum. Technical Report
cutting speed variation, whereas chip segmentation 14. http://www.matweb.com/. Accessed 25 August 2008
15. Calamaz M, Coupard D, Girot F (2008) A new material model for
frequency is directly proportional to it. Moreover, the chip
2D numerical simulation of serrated chip formation when
segmentation is also more pronounced when the insert machining titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
geometry passes from positive to negative rake angle. 48:275–288
Int J Mater Form

16. Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE (1976) Analysis of crack 23. Komanduri R, Hou ZB (2001) On thermoplastic shear instability
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture in the machining of a titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V). Metal Mater
mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6:773–782 trans 33:2995–3010
17. H.K.S, Abaqus/Explicit theory and user manuals, Version 6.8.2. 24. Pirondi A, Bonora N (2003) Modeling ductile damage under fully
Accessed August 8, 2008 reversed cycling. Comput Mater Sci 26:129–141
18. Haglund AJ, Kishawy HA, Rogers RJ (2008) An exploration of 25. Vyas A, Shaw MC (1999) Mechanics of sawtooth chip formation
friction models for the chip-tool interface using an Arbitrary in metal cutting. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 121:163–172
Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element model. Wear 265:452–460 26. Rech J, Calvez CL, Dessoly M (2004) A new approach for the
19. Shi GQ, Deng XM, Shet C (2002) A finite element study of the characterization of machinability—application to steels for plastic
effect of friction in orthogonal metal cutting. Fin Elem Anal Des injection molds. J Mater Process Tech 152:66–70
38:863–883 27. Luttervelt CAV, Pekelharing AJ (1977) The split shear zone—
20. Liu CR, Guo YB (2000) Finite element analysis of the effect of mechanism of chip segmentation. Ann CIRP 25(1):33–37
sequential cuts and tool-chip friction on residual stress in a 28. Sun S, Brandt M, Dargusch MS (2009) Characteristics of cutting
machined layer. Int J Mech Sci 42:1069–1086 forces and chip formation in machining of titanium alloys. Int J
21. Kishawy HA, Rogers RJ, Balihodzic N (2000) A numerical Mach Tools Manuf 49(7–8):561–568
investigation of the chip tool interface in orthogonal machining. 29. Barry J, Byrne G (2001) Study on acoustic emission in machining
Int J Mech Sci 5:379–414 hardened steels, Part 1: acoustic emission during saw-tooth chip
22. Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University formation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B: J Eng Manuf 215:1549–
Press, Cambridge 1559