You are on page 1of 108

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF DUCTILE MODE MICRO

LASER ASSISTED MACHINING OF SILICON CARBIDE


Saurabh Ravindra Virkar, M. S.
Western Michigan University, 2010


This work was focused on the analysis of a new process called micro Laser
Assisted Machining (µ-LAM). It is a ductile mode machining process being
researched for machining of nominally hard and brittle ceramic and semiconductor
materials like Silicon Carbide (SiC).
Numerical simulations were conducted using the finite element metal
machining software ‗AdvantEdge‘ to study the material behavior during the µ-LAM
process. The simulation model uses the pressure sensitive Drucker-Prager yield
criterion to accommodate the material behavior due to a High Pressure Phase
Transformation (HPPT). Various heating effects were created to mimic the actual
machining process (laser heating and thermal softening). A realistic thermal softening
curve was developed based on various references to simulate the thermal softening
material behavior. A stress and temperature interaction study was done to identify the
relative (percentage) contribution due to pressure (and HPPT) and temperature
(thermal softening) during the µ-LAM process. The cutting and thrust forces and the
cutting pressures were compared at various temperatures of SiC to study the material
behavior during the µ-LAM process.






NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF DUCTILE MODE MICRO
LASER ASSISTED MACHINING OF SILICON CARBIDE









by

Saurabh R. Virkar









A Thesis
Submitted to the
Faculty of The Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Advisor: John Patten, Ph.D.






Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan
December 2010



Copyright by
Saurabh R. Virkar
2010









ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I could finish this work because of the help and support of many people. I
would first like to thank Dr. John Patten for his advice over the last two years,
relating to the research work as well as life in general. He guided me with patience as
I took time to learn and write about the topic which was fairly new for me when I
started working on this research project. He shared tremendous knowledge and gave
good exposure to the research and professional field. Special thanks to Third Wave
Systems support team especially Bradley Ragozzino, for all the support and quick
response even with his busy schedule. I would like to thank the National Science
Foundation (NSF) for providing funding for our grant CMMI-0757339. I would also
like to thank Dr. Muralidhar Ghantasala from Mechanical Engineering Department,
for sharing his knowledge and guidance. Also, I would like to thank my µ-LAM
project colleagues Bogac Poyraz, Deepak Ravindra, Amir Shayan and Thomas
Kremenski for sharing their knowledge and giving valued and critical reviews on my
work. Finally, I would like to thank my mother and brother for their continuous
support and motivation to keep me going throughout. Thank you very much.
Saurabh Virkar

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... viii
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.1 Machining of Ceramics ..................................................................... 1
1.2 Silicon Carbide (SiC) and its polytypes ............................................ 2
1.3 Applications of Silicon Carbide ........................................................ 4
1.4 Ductile Regime Machining ............................................................... 6
1.5 High Pressure Phase Transformation (HPPT) ................................... 8
1.6 Micro Laser Assisted Machining (µ-LAM) Process ....................... 10
1.7 Background of simulation software for ceramic machining ........... 12
1.8 Objective of the machining simulation work .................................. 14
2 SILICON CARBIDE MATERIAL MODEL ......................................... 15
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 15
2.2 Drucker-Prager Yield Criterion and calculation of Initial
Yield strength .................................................................................. 18
2.3 Thermal Softening Curves .............................................................. 19
3 2D SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THERMAL
EFFECTS DURING MICRO LASER ASSISTED
MACHINING OF SILICON CARBIDE ................................................ 22
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 22
3.2 Simulation Model ............................................................................ 22
3.3 Thermal Effects ............................................................................... 25




Table of Contents - Continued


iv

3.4 Results ............................................................................................. 27
3.5 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 37
4 SIMULATION OF THERMAL EFFECTS USING A
REALISTIC THERMAL SOFTENING CURVE FOR THE
ANALYSIS OF MICRO LASER ASSISTED MACHINING (µ-
LAM) ...................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 39
4.2 Simulation Model ............................................................................ 40
4.3 Thermal Effects ............................................................................... 41
4.4 Analysis of force data ...................................................................... 43
4.5 Results ............................................................................................. 43
4.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 52
5 COMBINED EFFECTS OF STRESS AND TEMPERATURE
DURING DUCTILE MODE MICRO LASER ASSISTED
MACHINING ......................................................................................... 54
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 54
5.2 Analysis Approach and Results ...................................................... 56
5.3 Discussion ....................................................................................... 63
5.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 66
6 3-D SCRATCHING SIMULATIONS ON SILICON CARBIDE.......... 68
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 68
6.2 Simulation model ............................................................................ 68
6.3 Results: ............................................................................................ 71
7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK ............................................... 77




Table of Contents - Continued


v

8 REFERENCES ....................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................... 90
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Elastic and Plastic properties of 4H-SiC (Jacob, 2006) ................ 16
Table 2.2 Values for Strain Rate Sensitivity (Jacob, 2006) .......................... 18
Table 3.1 Process parameters for both heated and workpiece
boundary condition ........................................................................ 23
Table 3.2 Workpiece material properties ...................................................... 24
Table 3.3 Tool geometry ............................................................................... 24
Table 3.4 Material properties of tool ............................................................. 25
Table 3.5 Tool and workpiece heated results ................................................ 31
Table 3.6 Workpiece Boundary Condition Results ....................................... 35
Table 3.7 Cutting Force comparison ............................................................. 37
Table 3.8 Thrust Force Comparison .............................................................. 38
Table 3.9 Cutting pressure comparison ......................................................... 38
Table 4.1 Process Parameters for tooltip, rake and clearance face
heated and workpiece boundary condition simulations ................ 40
Table 4.2 Tooltip Boundary Condition Results ............................................. 44
Table 4.3 Rake and Clearance Face heated results........................................ 47
Table 4.4 Workpiece Boundary Condition Results ....................................... 50
Table 5.1 Normalized yield strength vs. temperature and calculated
yield ............................................................................................... 57
Table 5.2 Percentage interaction of stress and temperature using
normalized cutting force approach ................................................ 59
Table 5.3 Percentage interaction due to pressure and temperature in
yield strength as a function of temperature approach.................... 60




List of Tables - Continued


vii

Table 5.4 Yield strength (κ) as a function of pressure and
temperature approach .................................................................... 62
Table 5.5 Percentage interaction due to pressure and temperature in
yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature
approach ........................................................................................ 63
Table 6.1 Workpiece Dimension for 3-D simulations .................................. 69
Table 6.2 Process parameters ........................................................................ 70
Table 6.3 Simulation and Experiment results ............................................... 75
Table A-1 Tooltip simulation results .............................................................. 86
Table A-2 Rake and Clearance face heated results using normalized
cutting force approach ................................................................... 87
Table A-3 Yield strength as a function and pressure and temperature
for tool tip and rake and clearance face heated boundary
conditions ...................................................................................... 88
Table B-1 Tool Dimensions for Silicon simulations ...................................... 90
Table B-2 Workpiece Dimension for Silicon simulations ............................. 90
Table B-3 Thermal properties of workpiece .................................................. 91
Table B-4 Process parameters ........................................................................ 92
Table B-5 Summary of Results (experiments and simulations) ..................... 94
Table B-6 Cutting pressure based on cutting forces for comparison
with maximum pressures from experiments ................................. 95
Table B-7 Cutting pressure based on thrust forces for comparison
with maximum pressures from experiments ................................. 96

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Location of Si and C (white atoms are Si and black atoms
are C) ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2 Stacking sequence of SiC polytypes (Different colors
represent different orientation of the Si atoms) ............................... 4
Figure 1.3 Principle axes for hexagonal crystals .............................................. 5
Figure 1.4 Plastic deformation due to HPPT .................................................... 9
Figure 1.5 Setup for Conventional LAM process ........................................... 11
Figure 1.6 Schematic of µ-LAM process (Dong, 2006) ................................. 11
Figure 2.1 Assumed (simplified) Thermal Softening Curve .......................... 20
Figure 2.2 Realistic thermal softening curve .................................................. 21
Figure 3.1 Tool and workpiece geometry ....................................................... 23
Figure 3.2 Both tool and workpiece heated condition (20° C
condition) ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 3.3 Workpiece Boundary Condition .................................................... 27
Figure 3.4 Tool and workpiece at 20° C ......................................................... 28
Figure 3.5 Tool and workpiece at 1000° C ..................................................... 28
Figure 3.6 Tool and workpiece at 1900° C ..................................................... 28
Figure 3.7 Tool and workpiece at 2000° C ..................................................... 29
Figure 3.8 Tool and workpiece at 2300° C ..................................................... 29
Figure 3.9 Tool and workpiece at 2600⁰ C ..................................................... 29
Figure 3.10 Tool and workpiece at 3100⁰ C ..................................................... 30
Figure 3.11 Forces vs. Temperature Plot .......................................................... 31




List of Figures - Continued

ix

Figure 3.12 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature Plot .......................................... 32
Figure 3.13 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 1000° C ................................. 33
Figure 3.14 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 1900° C ................................. 33
Figure 3.15 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2000° C ................................. 34
Figure 3.16 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2300° C ................................. 34
Figure 3.17 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2600° C ................................. 34
Figure 3.18 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 3100° C ................................. 35
Figure 3.19 Forces vs. Temperature plot .......................................................... 36
Figure 3.20 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature Plot .......................................... 36
Figure 4.1 Tooltip Boundary Condition ......................................................... 42
Figure 4.2 Workpiece Boundary Condition .................................................... 42
Figure 4.3 Tooltip boundary condition at 20° C ............................................. 45
Figure 4.4 Tooltip boundary condition at 2200⁰ C ......................................... 45
Figure 4.5 Tooltip boundary condition at 2700⁰ C ......................................... 45
Figure 4.6 Force vs. Temperature plot ............................................................ 46
Figure 4.7 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot .......................................... 47
Figure 4.8 Rake and clearance face at 20⁰ C .................................................. 48
Figure 4.9 Rake and clearance face at 2200⁰ C .............................................. 48
Figure 4.10 Rake and clearance face at 2700⁰ C .............................................. 48
Figure 4.11 Force vs. Temperature plot ........................................................... 49
Figure 4.12 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot ......................................... 49
Figure 4.13 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 20° C ..................................... 50




List of Figures - Continued

x

Figure 4.14 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2200° C ................................. 51
Figure 4.15 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2700⁰ C ................................. 51
Figure 4.16 Force vs. Temperature plot ............................................................ 52
Figure 4.17 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot .......................................... 52
Figure 5.1 Yield strength vs. Temperature curve ........................................... 55
Figure 5.2 Percentage pressure versus temperature ........................................ 64
Figure 5.3 Percentage pressure vs. temperature using second
approach ........................................................................................ 65
Figure 5.4 Percentage pressure vs. temperature using third approach ........... 66
Figure 6.1 Stylus tool with square top plate ................................................... 70
Figure 6.2 Tool dimension in 3-D .................................................................. 70
Figure 6.3 Isometric view of Pressure contour (with tool removed to
expose the SiC workpiece) ............................................................ 72
Figure 6.4 Calculation of the crescent area (actual contact area on the
tool) ............................................................................................... 73
Figure 6.5 Tool contact area ........................................................................... 74
Figure B-1 Normalized Yield strength vs. temperature curve (° C) ................ 91
Figure B-2 Projected height on the rake face side of the tool.......................... 93
Figure B-3 Projected length of tool-workpiece contact normal to the
thrust force used to calculate the normal (thrust force)
pressure .......................................................................................... 93



1

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Machining of Ceramics
The 20
th
century has produced the greatest advancement in ceramics and
materials technology since humans have been capable of conceptive thought. The
extensive material developments in this period have now produced almost every
conceivable combination of metal alloys and the capabilities of those alloys are fairly
well known and exploited. As the limits of metal-based systems are reached and
surpassed, new materials capable of operating under higher temperatures and lower
wear with longer life factors and lower maintenance costs are required to maintain
pace with technological advances. These advances changed the way ceramic systems
were viewed. Techniques previously applied to metals were now considered
applicable to ceramic systems. Phase transformations, alloying, quenching and
tempering techniques were applied to a range of ceramic systems. Significant
improvements to the fracture toughness, ductility and impact resistance of ceramics
were realized and thus the gap in adverse physical properties between ceramics and
metals began to close, while still maintaining the advantages of their superior
properties, such as hardness, strength and wear resistance (even at elevated
temperatures), in addition to newly realized advantages in optical and microelectronic
applications.






2

1.2 Silicon Carbide (SiC) and its polytypes
Silicon Carbide is a non oxide ceramic with extreme hardness, chemically
inert, high thermal conductivity and is electrical semi-conducting. The hardness of
SiC is ~26 GPa (CREE material data sheet, 2009). According to Srinivasan and
Rafaniello (1997), SiC is the leader among the various non-oxide ceramics, along
with Silicon Nitride, that have found commercial applications. Some of the SiC‘s
unique properties are listed below
- Large energy bandgap and breakdown field allowing it to be used in
high temperature, high power and radiation-hard environments, power
and microelectronic applications
- Mechanical strength and stiffness, expressed by its high yield strength
and Young‘s modulus respectively
- Desirable tribological properties, such as wear resistance (due to its
high hardness) and self lubricating (for porous sintered forms)
The raw materials required to produce SiC are also relatively inexpensive and
plentiful, thus providing further incentive for its commercialization.
SiC has a close packed structure with about 200 polytypes. Figure 1.1 shows a
typical structure for hexagonal (designated as ‗H‘) polytypes. Some common
polytypes of SiC are 2H, 3C, 4H, 6H and 15R. In these names, the numbers represent
the number of layers in the unit cell and letters denote the crystal structure, where H:






3

Hexagonal, C: Cubic and R: Rhombehedral. Figure 1.2 shows the stacking sequence
of most commonly available polytypes as given by (Zetterling & Osling, 2002)

Figure 1.1 Location of Si and C (white atoms are Si and black atoms are C)
The stacking sequence is shown for the three most common polytypes 3C, 4H
and 6H. If the first layer is called the A position, the next layer that can be placed
according to a closed packed structure will be placed on the B position or the C
position.
The different polytypes will be constructed by permutations of these three
positions. The 3C-SiC polytype is the only cubic polytype and it has a stacking
sequence ABCABC or ACBACB.
The material used in this study is 4H-SiC which has a hexagonal close packed
structure. For describing the hexagonal structures, four principal axes are commonly
used: a
1
, a
2
, a
3
and c as given in Figure 1.3.
Only three axes are required to identify a plane or direction. The three a-
vectors (with 120° between them) are all in the close packed plane also called the a-






4

plane, whereas the c-axis is perpendicular to this plane (Zetterling & Ostling, 2002).
SiC is polar across the c-axis in that one surface normal to the c-axis is terminated
with silicon atoms while the opposite normal c-axis surface is terminated with carbon
atoms.

Figure 1.2 Stacking sequence of SiC polytypes (Different colors represent
different orientation of the Si atoms)
These surfaces are typically referred to as ―silicon face‖ and ―carbon face‖
surfaces, respectively (Neudeck, 1998).
1.3 Applications of Silicon Carbide
The unique properties of SiC make it applicable in a variety of applications.
One major use is in the electronic industry due to wide band gap (single crystal) and
in high temperature applications (high power).






5


Figure 1.3 Principle axes for hexagonal crystals
Other applications include optical mirrors (CVD material) and mechanical
components (sintered material) using polycrystalline material.
Due to its extreme hardness, SiC is used in manufacturing industry for
abrasive machining processes such as grinding, honing, water – jet cutting and
sandblasting. Particles of SiC are laminated on paper to create sand papers and grip
tapes. Sintered SiC is being used as inserts on cutting tools and it has comparatively
less tool wear (due to high hardness even at elevated temperature) than traditional
carbide tool. Hence the tool life is longer. Due to stability (i.e., remains relatively
chemically inert) at high temperatures, SiC is being used in high temperature
applications such as refractory linings of kilns, spacecrafts and engines.
In electronics industry, silicon carbide is used for ultrafast, high-
voltage Schottky diodes, MOSFETs and high temperature thyristors for high-power
switching and power electronic devices, such as IGBTs (Bhatnagar et al., 1993). SiC






6

is being used as reflective mirrors in optical applications such as high power laser that
can be used in defense applications. The U.S. military is interested in SiC power
electronics for their hybrid-electric combat vehicles, which must utilize high-power
converters and motor drives that are capable of operating within harsh environmental
parameters (Neudeck, 1998). SiC is also being used commercially in hybrid electric
vehicles and wind turbines (high power electronics exposed to high temperatures). A
second major area of interest to the military is in pulsed power applications (such as
electromagnetic rail guns), which requires very high power coupled with fast device
responses. NASA is interested in SiC power converters for spacecraft and satellite
applications to drive digital and analog electronics from high voltage sources (such as
DC solar arrays) (Saddow & Agarwal, 2004). The advantage to NASA of an
increased operational temperature range is the reduction of required heatsinks and
heat exchangers— which are bulky, heavy components of the overall systems.
1.4 Ductile Regime Machining
Machining of nominally hard and brittle materials like ceramics and
semiconductors such as Silicon, Silicon Nitride and Silicon Carbide has always been
a challenge. Yet, plastic deformation can be realized in these materials, provided the
scale of deformation is small enough. The size scale where the ductile to brittle
transition (DBT) occurs is in the order of nanometers to micrometers. Below the
transition depth or size, in the ductile regime, these ceramic materials behave much
like metals to the extent that plastically deformed chips are obtained similar to those






7

produced during machining of metal (Patten et al., 2005). In the brittle regime, these
materials fail due to fracture without any evidence of plastic deformation.
Precision machining of these ceramics and semiconductors in the ductile
regime can be achieved using single point diamond turning (SPDT). The ductile
mode machining of these ceramics is attributed to a High Pressure Phase
Transformation that occurs at the tool-chip interface (Patten et al., 2006). These high
pressures (generally over 10 GPa) are developed due to contact between the tool and
workpiece, which can be achieved using a sharp diamond tool. The ductile regime
machining depends on parameters such as critical depth of cut, feeds and tool
geometry i.e. angles and radii (Patten et al., 2005). Evidence of a high pressure
metallic phase has been observed in the by-products of the deformation process, and
during in-situ detection (Dong, 2006). The surface of the ductile machined material
including the ductile chip, is amorphous if the machining is conducted in ductile
regime. By ductile regime, it means that the process is dominated by ductile material
removal rather than brittle fracture. Ductile mode machining is also characterized by
higher cutting forces, as it takes more energy to remove the material in a ductile
rather than a brittle mode (Patten et al., 2004, 2005).
Above the transition, i.e. when the DBT is exceeded in depth or size, the
machining is mostly brittle due to fracture. A critical size model has been defined
(Bifano et al., 1991) based on a material‘s brittle fracture properties and






8

characteristics. A critical depth of cut model was introduced based on the Griffith
fracture propagation criteria. The critical depth of cut (d
c)
formula is as follows:
d
c
= (E
.
R) /H
2
(1)
where E is the elastic modulus, H is the hardness and R is the fracture energy. The
value of the fracture energy (R) can be evaluated using the relation:
R ~ K
c
2
/ H (2)
Where, K
c
is the fracture toughness of the material. The above two equations can be
combined to represent the critical depth (d
c
) as a measure of the brittle transition
depth of cut:
d
c
~(E / H)
.
(K
c
/ H)
2
(3)
The researchers were successful in determining a correlation between the
calculated critical depth of cut and the measured depth (grinding infeed rate). The
constant of proportionality was estimated as to be 0.15 and this is now added into
Equation (2.3) to generate a more accurate empirical equation:
d
c
~ 0.15
.
(E / H)
.
(K
c
/ H)
2
(4)
1.5 High Pressure Phase Transformation (HPPT)
Ductile mode machining of ceramics such as SiC which has extreme hardness
and high brittleness is attributed to a HPPT (Patten et al. 2004). HPPT occurs in a
region of contact between the tool and workpiece. Due to this phenomenon at the
tool-chip interface i.e. in the chip formation zone, the resultant phase is metallic,
which leads to and provides the mechanism for a severe ductile response that is






9

necessary and results in material removal. Figure 1.4 shows the phase transformed
zone due to this high pressure. To achieve these high pressures at the tool-chip
interface, SPDT experiments were conducted by Patten et al. (2005) to optimize the
tool geometry and machining process parameters. It was determined that a -45° rake
angle and 5° clearance angle, developed high pressures sufficient to conduct ductile
regime machining of SiC. Due to this metallic phase and resultant amorphous
remnant at the tool-chip interface, commercial metal machining software can be used
to predict the forces and other process parameters (Ajjarapu et al., 2004).
From Figure 1.4, the blue color contour at the tool-chip interface (chip
formation region) shows the phase transformed zone due to the occurrence of high
pressure. Due to the high pressure phase, the material is behaving like a metal and
hence there is a clear chip formation at room temperature (Patten et al., 2004).

Figure 1.4 Plastic deformation due to HPPT






10

These high pressures are obtained only if the depths of cuts are lower than the
critical depth of cut i.e. the extent of HPPT must be sufficient to encompass the chip
formation zone. If the depths or size are above (exceed) the critical depth of cut (or
critical feed), it will result in brittle mode machining
1.6 Micro Laser Assisted Machining (µ-LAM) Process
µ-LAM is a new technology being researched and developed, primarily for
hard brittle materials such as semiconductors and ceramics. This precision machining
process is being developed to complement or replace traditional methods like
polishing and grinding. This process is an advancement of the traditional LAM
processes. In traditional LAM processes, the workpiece surface is first heated with a
laser to thermally soften the material and then a cutting tool is used for material
removal (Shin et al., 2007). This is shown in Figure 1.5.
Due to excessive laser heating involved in this process, the laser power has to
be very high (kW) in order to thermally soften the material before the tool moves
over the heated area.
The workpiece is heated intensely to lower the cutting forces and to achieve
ductile mode machining of these ceramics. Unlike traditional LAM processes, in µ-
LAM the workpiece is heated locally in the chip formation zone by a laser passing
through the optically transparent diamond tool.






11


Figure 1.5 Setup for Conventional LAM process
Thus, the entire laser power is directly used to heat the workpiece at the tool-
workpiece interface where a metallic and amorphous phase is developed due to
HPPT. This is shown in Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6 Schematic of µ-LAM process (Dong, 2006)






12

The laser wavelength is relatively transparent to the covalent or non high
pressure SiC. However, the high pressure phase absorbs the laser of certain
wavelengths thus causing a preferential heating effect. The heating effect produced is
at a microscopic scale (thus the micro (µ) in the name) compared to the macroscopic
scale in traditional LAM. During LAM processing the workpiece is deformed below
the fracture threshold, thereby enabling a visco-plastic flow rather than brittle fracture
(Shin et al., 2007).
1.7 Background of simulation software for ceramic machining
Indentation and scratch tests were done on ceramics to determine the hardness
and the ductile to brittle transition thresholds. Noreyan (2005) conducted some
molecular dynamics simulations to study the nanoindentations in 3C and 6H-SiC and
also nano scale scratching on 3C-SiC. This work studied the dependence of elastic-
plastic transition on the indentation velocity, size and workpiece temperature. The
nanoindentation simulations were followed by nano-scratching on 3C-SiC to identify
the dependence of the friction coefficient, scratch hardness, normal force and
tangential force, scratching velocity, scratching direction and indenter size and shape.
Currently, the finite element machining simulation software used is
AdvantEdge developed by Third Wave Systems based in Minneapolis, MN. This
software is the outgrowth of a Ph.D. dissertation by Dr Troy D. Marusich (Jacob,
2006) who went on to develop this software for commercial applications.
AdvantEdge was primarily written as a finite element (FE) metal machining






13

simulation software developed to optimize machining conditions and pursue reduced
tool wear opportunities. It uses a Lagrangian Finite Element Model assuming plane
strain conditions (for 2-D analysis). AdvantEdge implements adaptive re-meshing
schemes along with explicit dynamics and tightly coupled transient thermal analysis
to model the complex interactions of a cutting tool and workpiece (Marusich and
Askari, 2001).
In ceramics, due to the HPPT at the tool-chip interface the resultant phase is
metallic and hence this metal machining software can be used to predict the material
behavior provided a proper material model is used (Ajjarapu et al., 2004). To
accommodate the pressure induced phase transformation (pressure sensitivity) and the
resultant elastic-plastic behavior, the Drucker-Prager yield criterion is implemented in
the software. Initial simulation work was done by Ajjarapu et al., (2004), to simulate
the 2-D orthogonal machining of Silicon Nitride ceramic. Over the years, the software
has been improved to accommodate the depth of cuts as small as nanometers (as low
as 25 nm). Patten et al. (2008) successfully simulated the SPDT of SiC at the depth of
cuts varying from 50 to 500 nm. 3D scratch test simulations were also done (Jacob,
2006) to compare with the scratch tests performed on polycrystalline 3C-SiC.
Simulations prove to be a useful tool to complement the experiments.
Ceramics like SiC are very expensive hence it is beneficial to simulate the machining
process to understand the material behavior. Also the temperature and pressure






14

measurements at the nano to micro scale is very difficult to achieve experimentally,
but can be readily studied from simulation results.
1.8 Objective of the machining simulation work
The objective of this simulation work was to successfully capture the
dynamics (stresses, pressures, temperatures etc. as a function of process conditions
and time) of the actual µ-LAM process for machining of SiC. A direct laser heating
source cannot be implemented in the software hence various heating effects were
defined on the tool and workpiece to mimic the actual µ-LAM process. Also the
crystalline dependency of the brittle behavior of SiC cannot be simulated in the
software.
Initial work was done to confirm if thermal effects can be simulated and adequately
incorporated in the software. A thermal softening curve was developed to create an
effect so as to lower the yield strength with an increase in temperatures. The resultant
cutting and thrust forces and pressures, from the simulation output were studied to
evaluate the material behavior and material response to simulated laser heating and
machining conditions. The µ-LAM process is a combination of simultaneous stress
and temperature interaction. A study of the interaction between the stress and
temperature was done using the simulation results to identify the relative (%
contribution) dominance between stress and temperature throughout the thermal
softening region. Complementary experimental work is also being done and is
reported elsewhere (Shayan et al., 2009; Ravindra et al., 2010).






15

2 SILICON CARBIDE MATERIAL MODEL
2.1 Introduction
There is no commercial software currently available to readily simulate the
machining of ceramics such as silicon carbide due to its brittle nature. Thus,
confining the scope of the simulation to ductile mode, commercial metal machining
software ‗AdvantEdge‘ is being used to predict the behavior of SiC during ductile
regime machining. Both the 2D and 3D modules were used to compare the results
with the experiments.
As shown in Chapter 1, there is a high pressure phase transformation (HPPT)
at the tool-chip interface, due to high contact pressure and shear stress. This results in
ductile mode machining and the resultant phase is metallic (Patten et. al., 2004). At
certain depths of cuts, ductile mode machining was seen by Patten et al. (2005) during
single point diamond turning experiments.
The heating effect can be incorporated by defining the thermal softening curve
in the material model. In µ-LAM process, there is a ductile mode of material removal
due to combined effect of HPPT and thermal softening. Thus with ductile mode
material removal, the software can accurately predict the behavior of SiC for a given
set of process conditions.
The material model in AdvantEdge includes a number of different properties
to accurately predict the behavior of SiC. The properties include thermal softening
and heat transfer, elastic and plastic behavior along with the strain rate sensitivity.






16

2.1.1 Elastic Plastic Behavior
The elastic behavior is specified by providing the Elastic (Young‘s) modulus
and Poisson‘s ratio. The strain hardening behavior for the Drucker-Prager model is
defined as

=

Θ 1 +

1

(2.3)
where

is the initial yield strength,

is the plastic strain,

is the reference plastic
strain, Θ is the thermal softening function and n is the strain hardening exponent.
The initial yield strength is calculated using the Drucker-Prager yield criterion
(AdvantEdge Manual, 2009). The values for the elastic and plastic behavior were kept
constant for the entire simulation work. The input values are given in table 2.1
Table 2.1 Elastic and Plastic properties of 4H-SiC (Jacob, 2006)
Material Property Value Units
Elastic Modulus
427 GPa
Poisson's Ratio
0.212
Initial Yield strength
16.25 GPa
Reference Plastic Strain
0.038
Cutoff Plastic Strain
1.00E+05
Reference Plastic Strain Rate 1.00E+00

2.1.2 Thermal Softening and Heat Transfer
The thermal softening Θ (T) is defined as






17

5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2 1 0
) ( T c T c T c T c T c c T + + + + + = O , if T < T
cut
(2.1)
and
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
÷
÷ O = O
cut melt
cut
cut
T T
T T
T T 1 ) ( ) ( , if T >T
cut
(2.2)
The polynomial coefficients c
0
through c
5
are used fit to a 5
th
order
polynomial, T is the temperature, T
cut
is the linear cutoff temperature and T
melt
is the
melting temperature. In this simulation work, two types of thermal softening curves
were used an assumed thermal softening curve (Virkar & Patten, 2009) and a realistic
thermal softening curve based on various references (Virkar & Patten, 2010).
2.1.3 Strain Rate Sensitivity
The strain rate sensitivity is given by


1 +

=

(

)

1
,

(2.4)
1 +

1 +

2

1
=

(

)

2
,

>

(2.5)
where is the effective von Mises stress, g is the flow stress,

is the
accumulated plastic strain rate,

is the reference plastic strain rate, and m
1
and m
2

are low and high strain rate sensitivity exponents, respectively. ε
t
p

is the threshold
strain rate which separates the two regimes. For this study, the effect of stain rate was
neglected as the focus was more towards the thermal softening effect; hence, the input






18

values for strain rate sensitivity remain constant throughout the simulation work and
are listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Values for Strain Rate Sensitivity (Jacob, 2006)

Material Property Value Units
Low Strain Rate Sensitivity Exponent 100 -
High Strain Rate Sensitivity Exponent 100 -
Strain Hardening Exponent 50 -
Threshold Strain Rate 1.00E-07 1/s

2.2 Drucker-Prager Yield Criterion and calculation of Initial Yield strength
The ductile mode machining of SiC is achieved due to a HPPT (Patten & Gao,
2005). To accommodate the behavior due to HPPT, a pressure sensitive Drucker-
Prager model as proposed by Ajjarapu et al. (2004) is used in the material model to
describe the behavior of SiC and incorporate this effect in the simulation software.
The Drucker-Prager Yield criterion is given by
3J
2
+ I
1
α −κ = 0 (2.6)
where,
I
1
= σ
1
+ σ
2
+ σ
3
(2.7)
J
2
=
1
6
[(σ
1
- σ
2
)²+ (σ
2
- σ
3
)²+ (σ
3
- σ
1
)²] (2.8)
I
1
is the first invariant of the stress tensor, J
2
is the second invariant of the
deviatoric stress tensor, α is the pressure sensitivity co-efficient and κ is the initial
yield strength. The quantity κ is given by,






19

κ =
2 σ
c
σ
t
σ
c
+ σ
t
(2.9)
where, σ
c
and σ
t
are the yield stress in compression and tension respectively.
The quantity κ equals to the Mises yield stress in the case where there is no pressure
dependency.
The hardness (H) of 4H-SiC is taken as 26 GPa (CREE material datasheet,
2009) and the initial tensile yield stress (σ
t
) is taken as 11.82 based on a proposed
valued of H/2.2 (Gilman, 1975) for brittle materials. The compressive yield (σ
c
) is set
equal to the hardness (Ajjarapu et al., 2004).
For initial conditions (and for ease of computation), consider the uniaxial stress state

2
and σ
3
are set to zero),
I
1
= σ
1
(2.10)
From equation (2.8),
J
2
=

1
2
3
(2.11)
Substituting σ
1
= 26 in equation (2.9) κ = 16.25 GPa and from equation (2.6),
α = - 0.375. These two parameters are entered in the simulation material model to
provide a pressure sensitive yield criterion.
2.3 Thermal Softening Curves
In this study two different thermal softening curves are used, the first curve
assumed that the yield strength remains constant until the thermal cutoff point (2000°






20

C) and then decreases linearly until the melting point (3200° C) (Virkar & Patten,
2009). The thermal softening curve is given in Figure 2.1


Figure 2.1 Assumed (simplified) Thermal Softening Curve
In this curve the normalized yield strength is kept constant at 1 until the
thermal cutoff point and from the thermal cutoff point the curve has a linearly
decreasing slope up to the assumed melting temperature. There is no data available in
references above the thermal cutoff point through to the melting point of SiC. This
assumed (simplified) curve was used to study and evaluate the ability of the software
to incorporate and simulate a thermal softening effect (as a result of laser heating) and
this was previously not attempted.
Once confirmed that the laser heating can be adequately incorporated in the
simulation software, then a more advanced and realistic thermal softening curve
based on available references (Shim et al., 2008; Yonenaga, 2001; Yonenaga et al.,
2000; Samant et al., 1998; Tsetkov et al., 1996; CREE material data sheet, 2009;






21

Naylor et al., 1979) was developed to predict the thermal softening behavior of SiC at
elevated temperatures. The realistic thermal softening curve is given in Figure 2.2.
In this curve from 20° C up until the thermal cutoff point (1500° C), there is
3
rd
order polynomial fit to the data and from the thermal cutoff point up until the
melting point (2830° C), a linear decrease in slope is assumed as there is no data
available in the references beyond the thermal cutoff point.


Figure 2.2 Realistic thermal softening curve
The hardness of SiC is close to 26 GPa at room temperature and about 6 GPa
at 1500° C. Thus, the thermal softening effect begins immediately after 20° C and at
melting point (2830° C) the hardness of SiC is negligible.







22

3 2D SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THERMAL EFFECTS DURING
MICRO LASER ASSISTED MACHINING OF SILICON CARBIDE
3.1 Introduction
In µ-LAM, the laser beam passes through the diamond tool, heating the
surface just below the tool tip in the chip formation zone (Shayan et al., 2009). This
simulation work was done to verify if the thermal softening behavior can be
simulated in the software. The objective of this study is to simulate the change in the
chip formation and study the resultant machining forces and pressures with and
without laser heating. The workpiece is heated above the thermal softening point to
analyze the change in cutting and thrust forces during machining. The cutting
pressure also changes (decreases) as the workpiece temperature increases due to the
laser heating effect.
3.2 Simulation Model
In this work, an assumed hardness-temperature curve as given in Figure 2.1 in
Chapter 2 was used in the material model to simulate the thermal softening effect.
Hence the simulation temperatures were selected above and below the thermal cutoff
point (2000° C). The simulation temperatures were 20⁰ C, 1000⁰ C, 1900⁰ C, 2000⁰C,
2300⁰ C, 2600⁰ C and 3100⁰ C, where 2000º C is the thermal cutoff temperature. The
process parameters for this work are given in Table 3.1







23

Table 3.1 Process parameters for both heated and workpiece boundary condition
Parameters Values Unit
Feed 500 nm
Co-efficient of friction 0.5 -
Cutting speed 1 m/s
Depth of cut 0.02 mm
Thermal Cutoff point 2000 ° C
Melting Point 3200 ° C

The feed in the 2-D simulation relates to the uncut chip thickness, and the
depth of cut refers to the workpiece width. The workpiece simulated in this study was
SiC and the tool material was diamond. The tool and workpiece geometry are given
in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Tool and workpiece geometry
The workpiece was made long enough (L = 0.08 mm) to ensure that the length
of cut (loc) would allow steady state conditions to be achieved. The height (h = 0.02
mm) of the workpiece was much larger (between 10 to 100 times) in comparison to






24

the feed (f) or uncut chip thickness (t). The material properties of the SiC workpiece
are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Workpiece material properties
Material properties Value Units
Elastic Modulus, E 330 GPa
Poisson‘s ratio 0.212 -
Hardness, H 26 GPa
Initial yield strength,
0
16.25 GPa
Reference plastic strain,
0


0
/E -
Accumulated plastic strain,

1 -
Strain hardening exponent, n 50 -
Low strain rate sensitivity exponent, m
1
100 -
High strain rate sensitivity exponent, m
2
100 -
Threshold strain rate, ε
t
p
1E7 sec
-1


The tool geometry is given in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Tool geometry
Parameter Value
Cutting Edge Radius, r, (nm) 100
Rake angle, α - 45º
Relief angle, β 5º

The material properties of the tool are given in Table 3.4.






25

The -45⁰ rake angle creates a high pressure sufficient to accommodate the
HPPT, thus the chip formation zone is conducive for ductile deformation (Patten et
al., 2004). The objective of these simulations was to study ductile machining behavior
of single crystal SiC above its thermal cutoff temperature.
Table 3.4 Material properties of tool
Parameter Value Unit
Thermal Conductivity 1500 W/m ⁰C
Heat Capacity 471.5 J/kg ⁰C
Density 3520 kg/m³
Elastic Modulus 1050 GPa
Poisson's ratio 0.2 --

For this study, the crystalline dependency and the brittle behavior of SiC is not
included in the model, as the primary goal is to study the thermal softening and
resultant plastic and ductile material response.
3.3 Thermal Effects
The simulations were carried out in two stages. In the first stage both the tool
and workpiece were heated as shown in Figure 3.2. Heating both the tool and
workpiece was the default and easier to implement in the simulations.
In the second stage a thermal boundary condition was provided on the top
surface of the workpiece as shown in Figure 3.3 to simulate the laser heating effect
(Note: The simulation software does not provide for the direct incorporation of the






26

laser heat source, thus the heating effect is modeled with these thermal boundary
conditions). Heating the workpiece more closely resembles the actual µ-LAM process
but is more difficult to implement (definition and specification of the boundary
conditions) i.e. this was an incremental approach, starting with the simpler model to
confirm the software‘s ability to realistically simulate the heating conditions. In the µ-
LAM process, the laser passes through the optically transparent diamond tool which
is a good conductor of heat and hence the tool temperature is lower than the
workpiece temperature. The simulation input consists of the workpiece and tool
dimensions and their mechanical and thermal properties as described in the previous
section.

Figure 3.2 Both tool and workpiece heated condition (20° C condition)






27


Figure 3.3 Workpiece Boundary Condition
(Note that the top surface of the workpiece is heated, 700° C condition is shown
above)
The tool and workpiece material models used in this simulation work are
similar to a comparison study between numerical simulations and single point
diamond turning experiments done by Patten et al. (2005), which demonstrated the
material models to be quite reasonable (Jacob & Patten, 2008).
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Tool and Workpiece heated
In the first case when both the tool and workpiece were heated to the same
temperature, the comparisons of the different simulations are made with reference to
the simulation at room temperature as shown in Figure 3.4.







28


Figure 3.4 Tool and workpiece at 20° C

Figure 3.5 Tool and workpiece at 1000° C

Figure 3.6 Tool and workpiece at 1900° C






29


Figure 3.7 Tool and workpiece at 2000° C

Figure 3.8 Tool and workpiece at 2300° C


Figure 3.9 Tool and workpiece at 2600⁰ C






30


Figure 3.10 Tool and workpiece at 3100⁰ C
From Figures 3.4 – 3.10, it can be seen that from 20 ⁰C until the thermal
cutoff temperature of 2000 ⁰C there is no significant change in the chip formation.
Note that the temperature scale changes in each figure, as the minimum temperature
is set to the pre-heating temperature. The workpiece undergoes plastic deformation
and high pressures are observed at the tool-workpiece interface until the thermal
cutoff point (Refer Table 3.5). Figures 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 depict the thermal softening
behavior as the chip thickness increases due to decrease in the hardness of SiC as the
temperature increases. The resulting lower cutting forces enhance precision
machining through increased ductile material removal (Refer Table 3.5). The
simulation results are summarized in Table 3.5
From Table 3.5 and Figure 3.11, it can be seen that there is a sudden change in
cutting and thrust forces as temperatures rise above the thermal cutoff temperature
(2000⁰ C).







31


Table 3.5 Tool and workpiece heated results
Simulation
Temperature
(° C)
Maximum Cutting
Pressure (GPa)
Cutting Force
(N)
Thrust Force
(N)
20 27 0.56 0.85
1000 27 0.56 0.84
1900 27 0.53 0.83
2000 27 0.53 0.83
2300 19 0.48 0.67
2600 15 0.41 0.6
3100 2 0.08 0.09


Figure 3.11 Forces vs. Temperature Plot
0.56
0.56
0.53 0.53
0.48
0.41
0.008
0.85
0.84
0.83 0.83
0.67
0.6
0.09
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
20 1000 1900 2000 2300 2600 3100
F
o
r
c
e
s

(
N
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting Forces
(N)
Thrust Forces
(N)






32

The change in cutting pressure (refer to Figure 3.12) is due to a decrease in
hardness of SiC above the thermal cutoff point.

Figure 3.12 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature Plot
To generate a ductile cutting environment through purely applied stress
(hydrostatic and shear) requires that the pressures at the tool-chip interface be equal
to or higher than, the hardness of the material (Patten et al., 2005), which is taken to
be 26 GPa in the material model. In the simulation at 3100 ⁰C the forces and pressure
are negligible as the workpiece material is close to the assumed melting temperature
(3200 ⁰C). The chip formation is ductile at all temperatures and above the thermal
cutoff temperature, the chip thickness increases as expected (Refer Figures 3.8 –
3.10).
27 27 27 27
19
15
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 1000 1900 2000 2300 2600 3100
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
G
P
a
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)






33

3.4.2 Workpiece Boundary Condition
In this set of simulations, a thermal boundary condition was provided on the
top surface of the workpiece (refer to Figure 3.3) keeping the tool at room
temperature (20º C). These simulations were done to simulate laser assisted
machining such that the workpiece is heated by the laser before machining. Note that
the temperature scale changes in each figure (Figures 3.13 – 3.18), as the minimum
temperature is set at 10º C less than the boundary condition temperature to show the
effect of thermal boundary condition on the top surface of the workpiece.

Figure 3.13 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 1000° C

Figure 3.14 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 1900° C






34


Figure 3.15 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2000° C

Figure 3.16 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2300° C

Figure 3.17 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2600° C






35


Figure 3.18 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 3100° C
In these simulations the thermal boundary condition temperature on the
workpiece was varied from 1000° C to 3100° C. In these simulations the tool is also
heated (via conduction) to a temperature that approaches the workpiece temperature.
As diamond is a good conductor of heat, heat transfer readily takes place from the
workpiece to the tool.
From Figure 3.19, it can be seen that there is a change (decrease) in cutting
and thrust forces above the thermal cutoff temperature.
Table 3.6 Workpiece Boundary Condition Results
Simulation
Temperature (° C)
Maximum Cutting
Pressure (GPa)
Cutting Force
(N) Thrust Force (N)
1000 27 0.46 0.78
1900 27 0.45 0.78
2000 26 0.45 0.77
2300 21 0.41 0.61
2600 15 0.33 0.53
3100 4 0.012 0.016






36

Theoretically, below the thermal cutoff temperature (2000⁰ C), the cutting and
thrust forces should remain approximately the same, which they do. But in the
boundary condition simulations, the cutting and thrust force values also vary slightly
due to variation in mesh parameters used in the software i.e. numerical accuracies and
approximation due to discretization (necessary to incorporate the workpiece thermal
boundary condition).

Figure 3.19 Forces vs. Temperature plot

Figure 3.20 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature Plot
0.46
0.45 0.45
041
0.33
0.012
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.61
0.53
0.016
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
1000 1900 2000 2300 2600 3100
F
o
r
c
e
s

(
N
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Force (N)
Thrust Force
(N)
27 27 26
21
15
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1000 1900 2000 2300 2600 3100
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
G
P
a
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)






37

The behavior of SiC is the same in both cases with respect to the decrease in
forces and pressure as the temperature increases above the simulated thermal
softening (cutoff) point. The cutting pressure remains high until the thermal cutoff
point (2000° C), as SiC retains its strength and hardness up to the thermal cutoff point
as modeled in the thermal softening curve. Above the thermal cutoff point the yield
strength begins to decrease gradually (as indicated in Figure 2.1) and so do the
machining forces and pressures. As the temperature approaches the melting
temperature (3200° C) the workpiece (chip material) starts piling up on the rake face
of the tool (no fully developed chip is formed). This phenomena is due to a decrease
in hardness and enhanced ductility at elevated temperatures(Jacob, 2006).
3.5 Conclusions
From the summary of data in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 it can be seen that there is
considerable change in cutting and thrust forces. Tables 3.7 and 3.8 indicate the
percentage decrease in forces (cutting and thrust respectively) by comparing the
simulations at 2600º C to those at 2000º C i.e. above and at the thermal cutoff
temperature.
Table 3.7 Cutting Force comparison
Change in Cutting Forces Percentage decrease
Both tool and workpiece heated
(Case 1) 24%
Boundary Condition on
workpiece (Case 2) 26%






38

Table 3.8 Thrust Force Comparison
Change in Thrust Forces Percentage decrease
Both tool and workpiece heated
(Case 1) 28%
Boundary Condition on
workpiece (Case 2) 31%
Table 3.9 Cutting pressure comparison
Change in Cutting Pressure Percentage decrease
Both tool and workpiece heated
(Case 1) 55%
Boundary Condition on
workpiece (Case 2) 58%

The drop in cutting and thrust forces when the workpiece is heated above the
thermal cutoff temperature (2000 ⁰C) was significant as calculated by considering the
values of the cutting and thrust forces at 2000 ⁰C and 2600 ⁰C, as shown in Tables 3.7
and 3.8. Below 2000⁰ C, the cutting and thrust forces remain almost constant as there
is no appreciable thermal softening. In the similar way, the cutting pressures were
also compared at 2000° C and 2600° C and the decrease in cutting pressure above
thermal softening point is shown in Table 3.9. The chip formation is also seen to
change above the thermal cutoff temperature; above this temperature, the chip
formation is quite ductile and hence the chip thickness also increases (Refer Figures
3.9 and 3.17).







39

4 SIMULATION OF THERMAL EFFECTS USING A REALISTIC
THERMAL SOFTENING CURVE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF MICRO
LASER ASSISTED MACHINING (µ-LAM)
4.1 Introduction
The objective of this work was to simulate different heating effects on the tool
and workpiece and to replicate the laser heating process associated with the µ-LAM
process. In the µ-LAM process, the laser passes through the optically transparent
diamond tool heating the workpiece locally (Suthar at al., 2008). The laser beam used
during the experiments has a width of about 10 µm. To generate the thermal softening
effect, a realistic thermal softening curve was developed based on various references
(Shim et al., 2008; Yonenaga, 2001; Yonenaga et al., 2000; Samant et al., 1998;
Tsetkov et al., 1996; CREE material data sheet, 2009; Naylor et al., 1979) as shown
in Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2. The curve from these references is only from room
temperature (20° C) until the thermal cutoff point (1500° C). Beyond 1500° C until
the melting point (2830° C), there is no data available in the literature for the thermal
softening effect, and thus a straight line (linear) relationship is assumed. The
workpiece is heated above the thermal cutoff point to analyze the change in cutting
and thrust forces, and cutting pressures during machining. The cutting pressure also
changes (decreases) as the workpiece temperature increases due to the laser heating
effect. Complementary experimental work is being conducted and is reported






40

elsewhere (Shayan et al., 2009) and comparisons are provided in later chapters in this
thesis (See Chapters 5 and 6).
4.2 Simulation Model
In this work, a realistic curve based on references as given in Chapter 2 was
used in the material model to simulate the thermal softening effect. Hence the
simulation temperatures were selected above and below the thermal cutoff point
(1500° C). The simulation temperatures were 20⁰ C, 700⁰ C, 1500⁰ C, 2200⁰C and
2700⁰ C where 1500º C is the thermal cutoff temperature. The process parameters for
this work are given in Table 4.1. The coefficient of friction (CoF) was 0.5 in the
initial work (Refer Chapter 3) and in this work it was taken as 0.3. Previous work was
done by varying the CoF to determine the effect on the simulation results (Jacob,
2006).
Table 4.1 Process Parameters for tooltip, rake and clearance face heated and
workpiece boundary condition simulations
Parameters Values Unit
Feed 500 nm
Co-efficient of friction 0.3 -
Cutting speed 1 m/s
Depth of cut 0.02 mm
Thermal Cutoff point 1500 ° C
Melting Point 2830 ° C







41

The feed in the 2-D simulation relates to the uncut chip thickness, and the
depth of cut refers to the workpiece width. The workpiece used in this study is SiC
and the tool used is a single point diamond. The tool and workpiece geometry is
shown in Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3.The workpiece was made long enough (L = 0.08
mm) to ensure that the length of cut (loc) would allow steady state conditions to be
achieved. The height (h = 0.02 mm) of the workpiece was much larger (between 10 to
100 times) in comparison to the feed (f) or uncut chip thickness (t).The objective of
this work was to incorporate thermal effects that would closely replicate the actual
heating conditions during µ-LAM. The material properties of the SiC workpiece are
given in Table 3.2 in Chapter 3. The tool geometry and material properties are
referred from Tables 3.3 and 3.4 from Chapter 3.
4.3 Thermal Effects
The thermal effects were simulated by defining thermal boundary conditions
in three different ways to simulate the laser heating effect. In the first case, a thermal
boundary condition was provided on the tool tip about ~2µm along the rake and
clearance faces of the tool away from the cutting edge as given in Figure 4.1. The
blue color contour identifies the tool and workpiece being at room temperature and at
the tip, the contour color varies which is due to a thermal boundary defined for
heating effect. In the second case, the entire rake and clearance face of the tool was
heated. In Figure 4.1, the thermal boundary is at the tip, but for the second case the






42

thermal boundary was defined such that it extended on the entire rake and clearance
face.

Figure 4.1 Tooltip Boundary Condition
For the third case, a thermal boundary was provided on the workpiece top
surface as given in Figure 4.2 (similar to work reported in Chapter 3).

Figure 4.2 Workpiece Boundary Condition
The simulation input consists of the workpiece and tool dimensions and their
mechanical and thermal properties as described in Chapter 3.






43

4.4 Analysis of force data
The force data from the simulation output is used for calculating the cutting
pressures at the tool chip interface. Also the other parameters used in these
calculations are the width of the tool and feed or uncut chip thickness. The formula
used is given below
) (A Area Chip
) (F Force Cutting
Pressure Cutting
c
c
=
(4.1)
The chip area is calculated by multiplying the width of the tool (20 µm) with
the programmed feed (0.5 µm) of the simulation. To generate a ductile cutting
environment through applied stresses (hydrostatic and shear) requires that the
pressures at the workpiece-chip interface be equal to, or greater than, the hardness of
the material, which is taken as 26 GPa for 4H-SiC (CREE material datasheet, 2009).
The thermal softening effect begins from 20° C and the resulting cutting pressures
decrease as the simulation temperature increases. In µ-LAM, the cutting pressures are
lowered at the tool-chip interface due to thermal softening (Virkar & Patten, 2009).
4.5 Results
The results of the three different simulation cases are discussed below
separately. The simulations are run until the forces reach the steady state value, which
does not necessarily cover the entire length of cut. The length of cut is selected such
that the steady state is achieved before the tool runs through the entire length of
workpiece.






44

4.5.1 Tooltip Boundary Condition
As shown above in Figure 4.1, a thermal boundary is provided at the tip of the
tool, ~2 µm from the cutting edge, along the surface of the rake and clearance faces.
During the actual µ-LAM process, the laser beam passes through the tip (cutting
edge) of the tool, heating the workpiece locally at the tool work piece interface.
Hence, this boundary condition (on the cutting edge, ~2µm along the rake and
clearance faces) is a very close approximation to the location of the heating source in
the actual µ-LAM process. Table 4.2 summarizes the simulation results. In this case,
the chip formation is seen at 20° C and 2700 ° C (as shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.5)
and for the rest of the temperature points, there is a smooth ductile material
deformation (pile up and plowing in front of the tool), but no chip formation (as
shown in Figure 4.4).
Table 4.2 Tooltip Boundary Condition Results
Simulation
Temperature (° C)
Maximum
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)
Chip
Formation
Cutting
Force
(mN) Thrust Force (mN)
20 50 Yes 500 900
700 46 No 460 890
1500 37 No 370 610
2200 20 No 200 300
2700 8 Yes 80 130






45


Figure 4.3 Tooltip boundary condition at 20° C

Figure 4.4 Tooltip boundary condition at 2200⁰ C

Figure 4.5 Tooltip boundary condition at 2700⁰ C






46

Note that the temperature scale is changed in the above figures to show and
highlight the thermal effect. The chip formation at 2700° C is quite different than that
at 20° C as the chip is very thick at the base and pointed at its end in the former case.
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 describe the response of force and cutting pressure with respect to
the temperature. The cutting pressure is above the hardness value (26 GPa) at 1500°
C which means that the workpiece is still retaining its strength. Between 1500° C and
2200° C the calculated cutting pressure drops below the room temperature hardness
value (Refer Figure 4.7). The cutting forces and pressures show a decreasing trend
with increase in temperature, as expected.

Figure 4.6 Force vs. Temperature plot
4.5.2 Rake and Clearance Face heated Boundary Condition
In this case, a thermal boundary condition was defined on the entire rake and
clearance face.
470
450
390
200
30
1040
950
570
260
40
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
20 700 1500 2200 2700
F
o
r
c
e
s

(
N
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Forces (N)
Thrust Forces
(N)






47

This case was used to start this study and the easiest boundary condition to implement
on the tool.

Figure 4.7 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot
Using this boundary condition, the effect on chip formation and cutting forces
and pressures was established. Table 4.3 summarizes the result details
Table 4.3 Rake and Clearance Face heated results
Simulation Temperature (°
C)
Maximum
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)
Chip
Formation
Cutting
Force
(mN)
Thrust Force
(mN)
20 50 Yes 500 1060
700 45 No 450 1000
1500 38 No 380 620
2200 20 No 200 300
2700 6 Yes 60 90

In this case, the chip formation was again seen at 20° C and 2700° C (Figures 4.8
and 4.10). The chip at 2700° C is thicker at the base than that at 20° C (Figure 4.10).
47
45
39
20
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
20 700 1500 2200 2700
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
G
P
a
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)






48


Figure 4.8 Rake and clearance face at 20⁰ C

Figure 4.9 Rake and clearance face at 2200⁰ C

Figure 4.10 Rake and clearance face at 2700⁰ C






49

This behavior is also seen in the tooltip boundary condition (Refer Figures 4.3
and 4.5).The difference in material removal at 2200° C and 2700° C is seen in Figure
4.9 and 4.10. (Note that the temperature scale is changed in above figures to more
clearly show the thermal effect).Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show a decreasing trend of
cutting forces and pressures with an increase in temperature.

Figure 4.11 Force vs. Temperature plot

Figure 4.12 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot
500
450
380
200
60
1060
1000
620
300
90
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
20 700 1500 2200 2700
F
o
r
c
e
s

(
N
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Forces (N)
Thrust
Forces (N)
50
45
38
20
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20 700 1500 2200 2700
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
G
P
a
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)






50

4.5.3 Workpiece Boundary Condition
In this case, a thermal boundary is provided on the top surface of the
workpiece (Refer Figure 4.2). In µ-LAM, the workpiece surface is directly heated
using a laser which passes through the tool, hence the workpiece boundary condition
closely replicates the end result of the actual laser heating process, i.e. the workpiece
is directly heated.
Table 4.4 Workpiece Boundary Condition Results
Simulation
Temperature (°
C)
Maximum
Cutting Pressure
(GPa)
Chip
Formation
Cutting
Force (mN)
Thrust Force
(N)
20 47 Yes 470 1040
700 45 No 450 950
1500 39 No 390 570
2200 20 No 200 260
2700 3 No 30 40


Figure 4.13 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 20° C






51


Figure 4.14 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2200° C

Figure 4.15 Workpiece Boundary Condition at 2700⁰ C
In this case, the chip formation is seen only at 20° C. There is no chip
formation seen at other temperature points (Refer Table 4.4). The material
deformation in this case is seen in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 (Note that the temperature
scale is changed in both figures to show and highlight the thermal effect). The cutting
forces and pressures show a decreasing trend (Figures 4.16 and 4.17) with increase in
temperature which is an indication of thermal softening.






52


Figure 4.16 Force vs. Temperature plot

Figure 4.17 Cutting Pressure vs. Temperature plot
4.6 Conclusion
The three cases of thermal boundary condition have successfully simulated the
laser heating effects. In the results of each of the three cases, there is a decreasing
trend in cutting forces and pressures with an increase in temperature. This confirms
the thermal softening behavior due to simulated laser heating, which reduces the
hardness of the material. In the heated tooltip and rake and clearance face heated
470
450
390
200
30
1040
950
570
260
40
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
20 700 1500 2200 2700
F
o
r
c
e
s

(
N
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting Force
(N)
Thrust Force
(N)
47 45
39
20
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
20 700 1500 2200 2700
C
u
t
t
i
n
g

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
G
P
a
)
Temperature (° C)
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)






53

cases, chip formation was seen at 2700° C which is close to the melting point (2830°
C). This behavior for the heated workpiece boundary condition at 2700° C was
different, i.e., no chip formation. These simulations were run until the forces reached
steady state. But, if the simulation runs over the entire length of the workpiece (which
extends the time it takes to complete the simulation), a significant chip formation
could be seen (a longer workpiece may also be needed to ensure chip formation is
achieved).






54

5 COMBINED EFFECTS OF STRESS AND TEMPERATURE DURING
DUCTILE MODE MICRO LASER ASSISTED MACHINING
5.1 Introduction
µ-LAM is a ductile mode material removal process developed for precision
machining of nominally brittle materials augmented with thermal softening (provided
by laser heating). The machining of SiC mainly takes place due to interaction
between stress and temperature at the tool-chip interface. This work emphasizes the
stress and temperature effects during the µ-LAM process using three approaches:
normalized cutting force approach, yield strength as a function of temperature
approach and yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature approach. A
realistic thermal softening curve based on various references (Shim et al., 2008;
Yonenaga, 2001; Yonenaga et al., 2000; Samant et al., 1998; Tsetkov et al., 1996;
CREE material data sheet, 2009; Naylor et al., 1979) as given in Chapter 2, that
simulates the thermal softening behavior was used in this analysis. The yield strength
versus temperature curve as given in Figure 5.1 was developed by dividing the
hardness (H) value from the thermal softening curve by 2.2 (Gilman, 1975).
The analysis was performed on all three boundary conditions given in Chapter
4. The workpiece boundary condition was selected in this chapter as it closely
matches the heating effect in the µ-LAM process. The other two boundary conditions
shown in Chapter 4 were also analyzed and are shown in Appendix A. In the µ-LAM
process, the aim is to heat the workpiece locally by passing the laser through the






55

diamond tool which is optically transparent. A moving heat source or direct laser
heating cannot be simulated in the software; hence a boundary condition was defined
on the workpiece to represent the heating effect as discussed in Chapter 4.

Figure 5.1 Yield strength vs. Temperature curve
The first approach (normalized cutting force) is based on the cutting forces
obtained from the simulation output. It is an approximate way to represent the relative
dominance of stress and temperature. An attempt was made to capture the effect of
stress and temperature on the cutting forces. In Chapter 4, it is reported that the
cutting forces decrease with an increase in temperature. This is due to decrease in the
yield strength of SiC as represented by the thermal softening curve of the material
model. To capture the effect of temperature on the cutting force, the first approach
was chosen. The second approach determines the temperature (percentage)
contribution using the yield strength at room temperature and at respective
temperatures. The third approach (yield strength) is based on the calculated yield






56

using the Drucker-Prager pressure sensitive yield criterion as given in Chapter 2. This
approach is an attempt to capture the combined effect of pressure and temperature on
the machining process. The stress values for the calculation of yield (κ) are obtained
from the simulation output. The results from all three approaches show a similar
effect of stress and temperature on the workpiece at the simulated temperature points.
5.2 Analysis Approach and Results
To study the effect of stress (pressure) and temperature in the ductile mode µ-LAM
process, three approaches were chosen:
1. Normalized Cutting Force Approach
2. Yield strength as a function of temperature
3. Yield Strength as a function of pressure and temperature approach
The first approach is easy, simple and straightforward and the later two
approaches increased complexity and hopefully led to better approximations as to the
relative effects of pressure and temperature.
The results from the workpiece boundary condition given in Table 4.4 in
Chapter 4 are used for the analysis. The results are given below:
5.2.1 Normalized Cutting force Approach
A simple equation for normalized cutting force was developed using the
cutting force from the simulation results at selected temperature points in the thermal
softening regime. The equation is given as






57

Normalized Cutting Force = X *(stress factor) + Y *(temperature factor) (5.1)
where X and Y are proportional multipliers and X + Y = 100%
The normalized cutting force is obtained from the cutting forces taken directly
from the simulation output (Refer Table 4.4 in Chapter 4), by dividing the cutting
force at each designated temperature point by the force at 20° C. For example, from
Table 4.4, the cutting forces at 20° C and 1500° C are 470 mN and 390mN
respectively. The normalized cutting force at 1500° C is calculated as 390/470 (Refer
Table 5.1) which gives 82.98 ~ 83%. The stress factor in the equation is taken as ―1‖
because in the Drucker-Prager model stress or yield is not a function of temperature,
i.e. it is only a function of pressure. The thermal (temperature factor) contribution is
the normalized tensile yield strength value taken from Table 5.1 at the designated
simulation temperature.
Table 5.1 Normalized yield strength vs. temperature and calculated yield
Temperature
(°C)
Hardness

c
)
(GPa)
Yield strength

t
)
(GPa)
Normalized
yield
strength
Calculated yield
strength with
variable σ
c
(κ)
20 26 11.82 1 16.25
300 22 10.00 0.846 13.750
400 20 9.09 0.769 12.500
500 18 8.18 0.692 11.250
600 16.6 7.55 0.638 10.375
700 15 6.82 0.577 9.375
800 14.35 6.52 0.552 8.969
1000 12.75 5.80 0.490 7.969
1100 12 5.45 0.462 7.500






58

Table 5.1 - Continued
Temperature
(°C)
Hardness

c
)
(GPa)
Yield strength

t
)
(GPa)
Normalized
yield
strength
Calculated
yield with
variable (σ
c
)

(GPa)
1300 10 4.55 0.385 6.250
1400 8.835 4.02 0.340 5.522
1500 6.8 3.09 0.262 4.250
2700 2 0.91 0.077 1.250

At 1500° C, the normalized yield strength value was taken as 0.262.
Substituting these values in Equation (5.1) we get,
83 = X (1) + Y (0.262)
And, Y = 100 – X, substituting in above equation,
83 = X + (100 – X) 0.262
Solving for X we get, X = 77 % and Y = 100 – X = 23%
In this way the percentage interaction or contribution of stress and
temperature is determined (approximated) at all temperature points and is given in
Table 5.2. At room temperature, the stress factor is expected to be 100 % as there is
no thermal softening. As the temperature increases the stress dominance decreases
and in Table 5.2, it is seen that at 2700° C the stress factor is just 1% and the
temperature factor is 99%, which means it is temperature dominant.







59

Table 5.2 Percentage interaction of stress and temperature using normalized
cutting force approach

Temperatures
(° C)
Cutting Force
(mN) Stress % Temperature %
Workpiece
Boundary
Condition
simulation
20 470 100 0
700 450 90 10
1500 390 77 23
2200 200 31 69
2700 30 1 99

5.2.2 Yield strength as a function of temperature
This approach determined the effect of temperature on the yield strength
which in turn affects the cutting forces and pressures. A percentage contribution due
to temperature can be calculated using the yield at room temperature (20° C) and the
calculated yield (κ) at an elevated temperature.
It can be calculated using the equation given below at a given temperature:
% T =



(5.2)
where, κ
pr (RT)
is the yield stress at room temperature which is the initial yield
strength of 16.25 GPa (Refer Table 5.1 at 20° C), i.e. no temperature effect, and κ
temp
is the calculated temperature dependent yield strength (κ) using the compressive yield
strength and tensile yield strength by substituting in Equation (2.9) in Chapter 2 and
is given in Table 5.1. In this analysis, we assume that at room temperature (20° C),






60

the material response to cutting is only due to the effect of pressure and the
temperature interaction affects the process only at elevated temperature, when
thermal softening occurs. For example at 1500° C, the percentage increase in
temperature is calculated as given below:
At 1500° C, κ
pr (RT)
= 16.25 GPa and κ
temp
= 4.25 GPa (from Table 5.1)
% T =
16.25−4.25
16.25
= 73.8 ~ 74 %
The percentage interaction of temperature is estimated to be 74% and the
percentage interaction due to pressure is determined as 100 – 74 = 26%. The
percentage interaction using this second approach at all the simulation temperatures is
given in Table 5.3. In 20° C simulation, the increase in temperature is minimal (in
terms of ° C) and does not significantly contribute to thermal softening or influence
the above analysis.
Table 5.3 Percentage interaction due to pressure and temperature in yield
strength as a function of temperature approach
Temperature
(° C) Pressure % Temperature %
20 100 0
700 58 42
1500 25 75
2200 18 82
2700 9 91






61

5.2.3 Yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature
approach
This approach is based on the Drucker-Prager yield criterion (Equation (2.6))
given in chapter 2. Initially, the tensile yield strength was calculated as a function of
temperature as given in Figure 5.1.In the Drucker-Prager model, the κ value is the
calculated yield which is determined using equation (2.9) in Chapter 2. The σ
c
(taken
as the compressive yield strength) is then equated to the hardness value (H) at a given
temperature (Refer Table 5.1) and σ
t
is the tensile yield strength which is calculated
by dividing the hardness value at the given temperature by 2.2. The calculated yield
(κ) from 20° C to 2830° C is determined using the equation (2.9) and is given in table
5.2.
To calculate the yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature, we
consider the Drucker-Prager yield criterion from equation (2.6). In that equation, I
1

and J
2
are the first and second invariants of stress tensors respectively, and are
dependent on the three dimensional stresses which are taken directly from the
simulation output (note that the stresses are also dependent on the temperature via the
thermal softening model and thus the stresses in this case are both pressure and
temperature dependent). By substituting the values of σ
1
, σ
2
, σ
3
from simulations into
equations (2.7) and (2.8), we get the values of I
1
and J
2
. The σ
1
, σ
2
andσ
3
values
correspond to σ
x
, σ
y
and σ
z
of the simulation respectively
.
Substituting these values
back into equation (2.1) given in Chapter 2 gives us the value of calculated yield κ






62

which is given in table 5.5. The value of Drucker-Prager coefficient (α) is kept
constant at 0.375, which is obtained assuming uniaxial room temperature conditions.
As α is the Drucker-Prager (D-P) model‘s pressure sensitivity coefficient, it is
assumed not to be a function of temperature.
Table 5.4 Yield strength (κ) as a function of pressure and temperature approach
Simuln.
Boundary
Condition
Temp
.
(° C)
From
simuln.
output

x
)
(GPa)
From
simuln.
output

y
)
(GPa)
From
simuln.
output

z
)

(GPa)
First
variant of
stress
tensor in
D-P model
I
1

Second
variant
of stress
tensor
in D-P
model
J
2

κ
using
D-P
model
(GPa)
WBC 20 38.737 25.919 32.408 97.064 41.077 47.50
WBC 700 22.059 21.621 21.966 65.646 0.053 25.02
WBC 1500 8.855 10.789 9.813 29.457 0.935 12.72
WBC 2200 4.777 2.578 3.679 11.034 1.209 6.04
WBC 2700 0.395 0.783 0.591 1.769 0.038 0.99

In this approach also, we assume that at 20° C as the increase in temperature
is minimal, the machining takes place due to high pressures developed at the tool-chip
interface. Thus, the contribution due to pressure can be calculated by normalizing the
κ value in Table 5.4. This is done by dividing the κ value at elevated temperature by κ
value at room temperature (47.50 GPa). By subtracting the % pressure value from






63

100 would give us the percentage contribution due to temperature. Table 5.5 gives the
percentage contributions.
Table 5.5 Percentage interaction due to pressure and temperature in yield
strength as a function of pressure and temperature approach
Temperature
(° C) Pressure % Temperature %
20 100 0
700 53 47
1500 27 73
2200 13 87
2700 2 98

5.3 Discussion
The first (simplified) approach used to study the interaction between stress
and temperature was an approximate way and simplified technique to obtain an
overview of the dominance of stress and temperature contribution as the temperature
of the workpiece material was increased, and thermal softening occurred. From the
first approach, it was seen that at 20° C, the stress contribution dominated (no thermal
effect). As the temperature of the simulation increases, the temperature contribution
increases reducing the relative (%) effect due to the stress contribution. The cutting
and thrust forces decrease as the temperature contribution increases thus showing the
thermal softening effect. Based on the first approach, a graph of decrease in % of






64

pressure contribution versus temperature is plotted in Figure 5.2 to determine the
transition from pressure dominance to temperature dominance. From Figure 5.2, the
50 – 50 point (i.e. transition from pressure dominance to temperature dominance)
comes at 1900° C. Also in Equation (5.1), the stress factor is made ‗1‘ (favors a
pressure influence), this extends the dominance due to stress to higher temperatures,
1900° C and beyond that that the temperature dominance emerges due to the thermal
(heating) effect.

Figure 5.2 Percentage pressure versus temperature
The second approach (yield strength as a function of temperature) was an
analytical approach, using the yield strength at room temperature and at respective
temperatures. The temperature and pressure interaction from the second approach is






65

given in Table 5.3 and is plotted in Figure 5.3. The 50/50 point using the second
approach is observed at 900° C.
This approach is more temperature dependent and hence the dominance of
temperature is observed to begin starting at 900° C.

Figure 5.3 Percentage pressure vs. temperature using second approach
The third approach shows the combined effect of pressure and temperature
during the machining process. The calculated yield from Table 5.4 is determined
using the pressure sensitive Drucker-Prager yield criterion. Figure 5.4 shows the
percentage contribution due to pressure and the dominated regions due to pressure
and temperature.






66


Figure 5.4 Percentage pressure vs. temperature using third approach
The 50-50 point from third approach is observed to be at 750° C. Beyond this
temperature point, the temperature dominance on the process increases.
This signifies that the effect of pressure in the machining process decreases
with increase in the temperature. From Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, the temperature
dominance on the process is determined to start between 750° C and 1900° C until the
melting point.
5.4 Conclusion
The interaction due to stress and temperature was studied using three
approaches: normalized cutting force approach, yield strength as a function of
temperature approach and yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature
approach. The percentage interaction due to pressure and temperature is calculated
using first two approaches. The transition (thermal softening) point from pressure






67

dominated region to temperature dominated region is determined to be between 1900°
C in the first approach, 900° C in the second approach and 750° C in the third
approach (Refer Figure 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). Hence, the thermal softening point for SiC
is determined to be between 750° C and 1900° C from these three approaches.







68

6 3-D SCRATCHING SIMULATIONS ON SILICON CARBIDE
6.1 Introduction
Scratch tests are done on the semiconductors and ceramics with a hard stylus
or diamond cutting tool to determine the ductile to brittle transition (DBT). The
grooving module in AdvantEdge version 5.6 was used as a primary means of studying
the plastic material deformation during scratching. The grooving/scratching
experiments can also be used to simulate a single point cutting edge or grit, such as a
grinding grit or polishing particle.
Different options among the available modules such as cone-grooving,
oblique turning and grooving were tried to get a successful simulation. The cone-
grooving option was developed for evaluating scratch tests but had many issues with
the mesh refinement as the cone tool geometry was a combination of sphere and
truncated cone. A STEP file import was implemented in the oblique turning and
grooving option. The STEP file was generated in the CAD software Solidworks and
was imported in the grooving module. After meshing, the cutting edge on the tool was
defined on the top surface of the tool instead of the cutting surface of the tool. Hence
the cutting edge nodes were defined manually in the backend file (Nastran file).
6.2 Simulation model
The objective of this work was to compare the cutting forces and pressures of
the simulation with the results of experiments which can provide a validation for the






69

model. In the software, the pressure sensitive Drucker–Prager material model is used
to accommodate the pressure induced phase transition (pressure sensitivity) and the
resultant elastic plastic behavior (Ajjarapu et al., 2004). This work includes the
realistic thermal softening curve developed from various references (Shim et al.,
2008; Yonenaga, 2001; Yonenaga et al., 2000; Samant et al., 1998; Tsetkov et al.,
1996; CREE material data sheet, 2009; Naylor et al., 1979) as given in Figure 2.2 in
Chapter 2. The thermal cutoff point is specified as 1500° C and the melting point is
taken as 2830° C. In this chapter, the simulations reported are all at 20° C and the
elevated temperature simulations will be conducted and reported in the future. The
tool and workpiece properties are the same as given in Chapter 3. The thermal
properties of workpiece are given in Table 4.1 in Chapter 4. The dimensions of
workpiece are given below in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Workpiece Dimension for 3-D simulations
Dimension Value Unit
Length 8 µm
Width 6 µm
Height 2 µm

The stylus (tool) for the 3-D simulation was developed in Solidworks as
shown in Figure 6.1 with a square top plate. It was similar to the diamond stylus used






70

during the experiments i.e. the tip has a radius of 5µm.The 3-D tool is given in Figure
6.1.

Figure 6.1 Stylus tool with square top plate

Figure 6.2 Tool dimension in 3-D
The tool moves through the workpiece at a constant penetration depth (i.e. in-
feed). The tool developed in Solidworks is imported into AdvantEdge using the STEP
format. The tool is designed to be used for depths of penetration i.e., feed, up to about
400 nm. The process parameters for the 3-D simulation are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Process parameters
Parameter Value Units
Feed 200, 150, 100 nm
Tip Radius 5 µm
Scratch Speed 1 m/s
Length of Cut 8 µm






71

6.3 Results:
Experimental data is available at 54, 70, 95 and 120 nm depth of cuts. To
achieve these experimental depths of cuts, the programmed feeds were at 100, 150
and 200 nm.
After elastic spring-back due to hardness of the materials (SiC and diamond)
the actual depth will be approximately half of the programmed feed (Jacob, 2006). An
initial estimate of the success of the simulation is obtained by determining the
pressure generated at the tool-workpiece contact interface.
Under steady state conditions, this contact pressure value is expected to be
greater than or equal to the hardness of the material (Patten et al., 2005) at room
temperature. Figure 6.3 shows an isometric view of the pressure contours generated at
the tool-workpiece interface in the simulation. The pressures are higher than the
hardness (26 GPa) of SiC. At present, the only way to compare experimental results
and the simulations is in terms of the force values. The experimental results and the
simulations are compared using the cutting and thrust forces and also in terms of
maximum and average contact pressures.
For the contact pressure comparison, both the thrust and cutting force results
were used. For the calculation using the cutting forces, the projected contact area of
the tool was determined.
The tip radius is 5µm and the feed is in nanometers hence only a small
crescent part on the tool is in contact with the workpiece.






72


Figure 6.3 Isometric view of Pressure contour (with tool removed to expose the
SiC workpiece)
This crescent shaped area of contact is calculated as given in Figure 6.4. The
crescent shaped area is projected in the cutting direction. The area of sector with
radius R is calculated as given below:
Area of sector =
θ
360
πR
2
(1)
The radius of the sector is equivalent to the tip radius. The area of the triangle is then
subtracted from the area of the sector to get the crescent area. Hence, the base of the
triangle is equivalent to the width of cut taken from the experimental data and the
height is calculated as Radius of Sector (R) – Actual depth of cut.






73


Figure 6.4 Calculation of the crescent area (actual contact area on the tool)
Area of Triangle =
1
2
x Base x Height (2)
The actual depth is taken from the simulation after the elastic spring back of
the workpiece. The comparison of simulation and experimental results are given in
Table 6.3.
The maximum pressure is calculated by dividing the cutting force by the
crescent area (i.e. the projected area of contact between the tool and the workpiece in
the cutting direction). This is done for both the experimental and simulation cutting
forces. The results are given in Table 6.3. The maximum and average cutting
pressures are also evaluated to support the comparison. The maximum pressures are
the probed pressures measured below the tool on the workpiece as shown in Figure
6.3. The average pressures using the thrust forces are calculated by dividing the thrust






74

force by the projected contact area from the tool. The projected area from the tool in
the thrust direction is a calculated as given in Equation 3. Here, the radius of the
semicircle (contact area) is equivalent to the width of cut at the tool contact area.
Projected area from tool =
r
2
2
(6.3)
In Equation (6.3), the radius (r) is calculated by dividing the width of cut by
two. The width of cut is determined after the experiment or simulation is concluded
and thus includes the elastic spring-back of the workpiece. The pressures are obtained
directly from the simulation output by probing in the area of the tool-chip interface.
The maximum probed pressures are less than the average pressures calculated from
the thrust forces because the area considered in the calculation is smaller than the
actual area, and thus the calculated area pressures are higher. It is difficult to capture
the actual contact area in the calculation due to irregular shape of the contact area as
shown in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5 Tool contact area






75

Table 6.3 Simulation and Experiment results

Program
feed
Depth
of Cut
(nm)
Width
of cut
in expt
(µm)
Cutting Force
(mN)
Thrust
Force
(mN)
Calculated
contact
(crescent)
area
(mm²)
Max
calculated
pressures
(GPa)
Maximum
probed
pressure
(GPa)
Average
pressure
using the
projected
area and
thrust force
(GPa)
Expts -- 54 1.47 7.5 25 5.28E-08 161.14 -- 29.46
Simuln. 100 45 1.8 9.125 ± 1.105 48.5 ± 0.1 6.52E-08 141.98 27 33
Expts -- 70 1.5 16.4 50

6.67E-08 245 -- 29
Simuln. 150 70 1.9 9.94 ± 0.14 49.5 ± 0.1 9.80E-08 91 28 33







76

The projected area calculations are discussed in the previous section which are
used with the cutting and thrust forces to get the required pressures (Refer Figure
6.4). In the simulations the programmed feed (depth) is larger than the actual resultant
depth of penetration. The actual depth is smaller than the programmed depth (feed) as
it is determined after the elastic spring-back. In the experiments, the thrust force is a
constant (load) that is set and the machine measures the resultant cutting force in the
cutting direction. The cutting force is measured using a calibrated load cell. The
experiments are done on a Universal Micro Tribometer from CETR (Shayan, 2009).
The pressures obtained from the cutting forces are large (> than 100 GPa) at
the tool-chip interface (Refer Table 6.3). This behavior was also seen in the previous
study on SiC (Jacob, 2006). The average pressures are greater than the maximum
pressures as shown in Table 6.3. This discrepancy in the results is due to incapability
to capture the actual contact area is not captured in the calculation of average
pressure.
The next simulation work would involve conducting the simulations at
elevated temperatures using the realistic thermal softening curve to study the thermal
softening effect.







77

7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Continuous research is being done to study the high pressure phase
transformation behavior in Silicon Carbide (Gogotsi and Dominich, 2004). Recent
experiments by Patten et al. (2004, 2005) showed plastically deformed chips while
machining SiC at room temperature. The pressures generated at the tool-chip
interface are above the material‘s hardness (26GPa). To reduce the cutting forces, in
an effort to reduce tool wear due to material‘s high hardness, the material can be
thermally softened by heating with a laser. This work is focused on the thermal
softening effect of SiC using a process called micro-Laser Assisted Machining (µ-
LAM).
Using finite element simulation software AdvantEdge, 2-D and 3D
simulations were conducted to study the material behavior of SiC beyond its thermal
softening point. µ-LAM involves heating the workpiece using a laser that passes
through the optically transparent diamond tool. A direct laser heating source cannot
be simulated in the software. Hence, different heating conditions were defined on the
tool and workpiece to simulate the µ-LAM heating and thermal softening process.
Initial work was done by using an assumed thermal softening curve (Refer Figure 2.1)
to investigate the capability of the software to simulate the heating and thermal
softening effect. This work confirmed the software‘s ability and helped to obtain
preliminary results of the thermal softening behavior of SiC using different heating






78

conditions. In this work, the cutting forces and pressures decreased as the temperature
of the simulation increased beyond the thermal softening (cutoff) point.
Next, different boundary conditions were provided on the tool-tip and
workpiece top surface to mimic the heating effects of the µ-LAM process. A realistic
thermal softening curve (Refer Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2) based on various references
was used in this work (Shim et al., 2008; Yonenaga, 2001; Yonenaga et al., 2000;
Samant et al., 1998; Tsetkov et al., 1996; CREE material data sheet, 2009; Naylor et
al., 1979). The thermal cutoff point was set at 1500° C and the melting point was set
at 2830° C. These values were obtained by first heating the entire wafer in an oven
and then indenting it with the indenter tool. From 20° C until the thermal cutoff point
(1500° C), the curve is based on the references and a third order polynomial fit to the
data was used. Beyond the thermal cutoff point until the melting point, there is no
data available in references. Also there is no data available on the hardness or thermal
softening of the high pressure phase of SiC. Since there is a thermal softening effect
above the room temperature, the cutting forces and pressures show continuous
decrease with increase in temperature above room temperature. Close to the melting
point of SiC (at 2700° C), the machining forces and pressures are negligible.
The ductile regime machining of SiC is attributed to the HPPT and possibly
amorphization (Patten et al., 2004). Even though the material is thermally softened,
the machining takes place due to high pressure phase change at the tool-workpiece
interface (presumably to a metallic or amorphous phase). At room temperature it is






79

assumed that the machining takes place entirely due to high pressures/stresses
(HPPT) between tool and workpiece. At high temperature i.e. above the thermal
softening (cutoff) point, the temperature influence increases and at higher
temperatures (>1500° C), it is more dominant than pressure. However, it is not known
to distinguish the thermal softening of the covalent (non HPPT) bacterial from the
metallic (HPPT) material; it would be necessary to suppress the HPPT in order to get
a true thermal softening of the covalent bonded material phase. Similarly, to obtain a
true thermal softening curve of the HPPT material, first the HPPT would need to be
formed and then heated (as in µ-LAM) and then the temperature to be raised to obtain
the hardness versus temperature curve. To study this behavior, an interaction study
between stress and temperature was conducted using the simulation results from the
various boundary conditions. The workpiece boundary condition more closely
matches the actual µ-LAM process than the other two boundary conditions (Refer
Chapter 4). The analysis was done using three approaches:
1. Normalized cutting force approach
2. Yield strength as a function of temperature approach
3. Yield strength as a function of pressure and temperature approach
These approaches were used to determine the relative dominance between
stress and temperature as machining of SiC is a result of the interaction between and
combination of stress and temperature effects. The relative transition region, that
separates the stress/pressure dominated behavior and temperature dominated region,






80

were determined using both the approaches and found to be between 750° C and
1900° C (below 750° C, pressure dominates and above 1900° C temperature
dominates, resulting in a transition region between 750 and 1900° C. Recently
conducted high pressure and temperature tests with no shear effect showed a phase
change in SiC at 1200° C. This data point is in the middle of the range obtained from
the three approaches.
Thus, from all of the simulation results and the subsequent
pressure/temperature effects study, it is seen that the SiC material is thermally
softened above the thermal softening point. However, the thermal softening curve
used has no referenced data above the thermal cutoff point. Over this range, from the
thermal cutoff point up to the melting point, the thermal softening is simply assumed
to be a linear fit with decreasing slope (Refer Figure 2.2 in Chapter 2).
Future work should involve the study of the material behavior, i.e. thermal
softening, beyond the thermal cutoff point up until the melting point. The
experimental µ-LAM process will hopefully assist in determining those data points.
Further, 3D simulations will be conducted at elevated temperatures to compare with
the experimental scratch tests done with the laser. High pressure and temperature tests
were conducted at Argonne National Laboratory to determine the phase transition
conditions and parameters of 4H, 6H and 3C SiC. The phase change in these SiC
materials was seen over a pressure range of 66 - 88 GPa and at 1500 - 1600 K. The
data from these experiments is still under analysis to determine the characteristics of






81

the newly formed high pressure phase, such as optical absorption over the wide range
of wavelengths (UV through IR). After this analysis, an attempt will be made to
combine the pressure and temperature curve to study the behavior of high pressure
phase beyond thermal softening.






82

8 REFERENCES

AdvantEdge User Manual, version 5.6, 2010

Ajjarapu, S.K.; Cherukuri, H.; Patten, J.A.; Brand, C.J. (2004). Numerical simulations
of ductile regime machining of Silicon Nitride using Drucker-Prager model,
Proc. Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 218(C), pp. 1-6

Bhatnagar, M.; Baliga, B.J. (March 1993). Comparison of 6H-SiC, 3C-SiC, and Si for
power devices. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 40 (3): 645–6550

Bifano, T.G.; Dow, T.G. & Scattergood, R.O. (1991). Ductile regime grinding- a new
technology for machining brittle materials, Journal of Engineering for
Industry, Vol.113, pp. 184-189


CREE material data sheet, (2009), http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/MAT-
CATALOG.pdf

Dong, L. (2006). In-situ detection and heating of high pressure metallic phase of
silicon during scratching, PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte

Gilman J.J. (1975). Relationship between impact yield stress and indentation
hardness, Journal of Applied Physics, 46(4), pp. 1435-1436

Marusich, T.D.; Askari, E. (2001).Modelling residual stress and workpiece surfaces
in machined surfaces, www.thirdwavesys.com

Naylor, M.G.; Page, T.F. (1979). The effect of temperature and load on the
indentation hardness behavior of Silicon Carbide engineering ceramics,
Proceedings of International Conference on erosion of soil and impact, pp. 32

Neudeck PG (1998), SiC Technology, in The VLSI Handbook, The Electrical
Engineering Handbook Series, W-K Chen, Ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
Press and IEEE Press, 6.1-6.24

Jacob, J. (2006). Numerical simulation on machining of silicon carbide, Master’s
Thesis, Western Michigan University, MI, USA







83

O‘Connor, B.; Marsh, E.; Couey, J. (2005). On the effect of crystallographic
orientations for ductile material removal in Silicon, Precision Engineering,
Vol.29(1), pp. 124-132
Patten, J.A.; Bhattacharya, B. (2006). Single point diamond turning of CVD coated
silicon carbide, Journal of Manufacturing Science- ASME, Vol. 127, pp. 522

Patten, J.A.; Cherukuri, H.; Yan, J.W. (2004). Ductile regime machining of
semiconductors and ceramics, Institute of Physics Publishing, pp. 661

Patten, J.A.; Fesperman, R.; Kumar, S.; McSpadden, S.; Qu, J.; Lance, M.;
Nemanich, R. &Huening, J. (2003). ―High-Pressure Phase Transformation of
Silicon Nitride‖, Applied Physics Letters, 83(23), 4740-4742, 2003.

Patten, J.A.; Gao, W. &Yasuto, K. (2005). Ductile regime nanomachining of single-
crystal silicon carbide, Journal of Manufacturing Science- ASME,
Vol.127, No.3, pp. 522-532

Patten, J.A.; Jacob, J. (2008). Comparison between numerical simulations and
experiments for single point diamond turning of single crystal silicon carbide,
Journal of Manufacturing Processes, Vol. 10, pp. 28-33

Patten, J.A.; Jacob, J.; Bhattacharya, B.; Grevstad, A. (2008). Comparison between
numerical simulation and experiments for single point diamond turning of
Silicon Carbide, Society of Manufacturing Engineers NAMRAC conference,
pp.2

Ravindra, D &Poyraz, B. (2010). Unpublished data on experiments on Silicon

Shin, Y.C.; Rebro, P.A.; Pfefferkorn, F.E.; Incropera, F.P. (2002).Comparative
assessment of laser-assisted machining of various ceramics, Transactions of
NAMRI, Vol.30, pp. 153-160

Samant, A.V.; Zhou, W.L.; Pirouz, P. (1998). Effect of test temperature and strain
rate on the yield strength of monocrystalline 6H-SiC, Physica Status Solidi
(a), Vol. 166, pp. 155

Shayan, A.R.; Poyraz, H.B.; Ravindra, D.; Ghantasala, M. & Patten, J.A. (2009).
Force analysis, mechanical energy and laser heating evaluation of scratch tests
on siliconcarbide (4H-SiC) in micro-laser assisted machining (μ-LAM)
process, Proceedings of the ASME International Manufacturing Science and
Engineering Conference, Evanston, IL.







84

Shayan, A.R.; Poyraz, H. B.; Ravindra, D. & Patten, J.A. (2009).Pressure and
temperature effects in micro-laser assisted machining (μ-LAM) of silicon
carbide, TransactionsNAMRI/SME, Vol.37, pp. 75-80

Shim, S.; Jang, J.I., Pharr, G. M. (2008). Extraction of flow properties of single
crystal Silicon Carbide by nanoindentation and Finite Element simulation,
Act.Materialia, Vol. 58, pp. 3824-383

Shin, Y.C.; Pfefferkorn, F.E.; Rozzi, J.C. (2000). Experimental evaluation of laser
assisted machining of Silicon Nitride ceramics, Journal of Manufacturing
Science- ASME, Vol.122, pp. 666

Srinivasan M and Ranfaniello W (1997) ). Acheson Process. Carbide, Nitride and
Boride Materials Synthesis and Processing, Weimer, A. W., Ed., Chapman
and Hall, London, United Kingdom, pp. 3-42

Saddow, S; Agarwal, A (2004). Advances in Silicon Carbide processing and
Applications, Artech House Inc, pp. 6-26

Suthar, K.J.; Patten, J.A.; Dong, L.; Hisham, A.A. (2008), Estimation of temperature
distribution in Silicon during micro Laser Assisted Machining, Proceedings of
the ASME International Conference on Materials and Processing, paper #
72195, Evanston, IL

Tsevetkov, V.F.; Allen, S.T.; Kong, H.S.; Carter, C.H. (1996). Recent progress in SiC
crystal growth, Institute of Physics, Vol no. 142, pp.17

Virkar, S.R.; Patten, J.A. (2009). Numerical simulations and analysis of thermal
effects on Silicon Carbide during ductile mode micro-Laser Assisted
Machining, Proceedings of the ASME International Manufacturing Science
and Engineering Conference, West Lafayette, IN, pp # 84048

Virkar, S.R.; Patten, J.A. (2010). Simulation of thermal effects for analysis of micro
Laser Assisted Machining, Proceedings of ICOMM conference, Madison, WI

Yonenaga, I. (2001). Thermo-Mechanical stability of wide-bandgap semiconductors:
High temperature hardness of SiC, AlN, GaN, ZnO and ZnSe, Physica B.,
308-310, pp. 1150-1152

Yonenaga, I., Hoshi, T., Usui, A., (2000), ―High Temperature Strength of III-IV
Nitride Crystals,” J. Phys: Condensed Matter, 14, pp. 12947-12951







85

Zetterling C-M and Ostling M (2002). Advantages of SiC, Process Technology for
Silicon Carbide devices, Zetterling, C.-M., Ed., EMIS Processing Series, 2,
INSPEC, Institution of Electrical Engineers







86

APPENDIX A

In Chapter 5, stress and temperature interaction analyses are developed using
three approaches applied to the workpiece boundary condition simulation results. The
workpiece boundary condition was selected as it closely matches the actual µ-LAM
process. Along with the workpiece boundary condition, two more boundary
conditions were simulated as reported in Chapter 4. Those were tooltip boundary
condition and rake and clearance face heated boundary condition.
Stress and Temperature Effects on Tooltip Boundary Condition Results:
The results of the tooltip boundary condition are given in Chapter 4 Table 4.2.
Using the normalized cutting force approach described in Chapter 5, the temperature
and stress interaction or contribution is given in Table A-1:
Table A-1 Tooltip simulation results
Temperatures (° C) Cutting Force (mN) Stress % Temperature %
20 500 100 0
700 460 81 19
1500 370 65 35
2200 200 28 72
2700 80 7 93

The second approach (yield strength as a function of temperature) is based on
effect of pressure on the yield strength of the material. The yield strength values for






87

this analysis are obtained from Table 5.1. The calculation for this analysis is same for
all boundary conditions and is shown in Chapter 5.
In the third approach, yield strength is a function of pressure and temperature,
the yield stress is calculated using the stress values from the simulation output. The
results of this approach are shown in Table A-2.
Stress and Temperature Effects on Rake and Clearance Face Heated Boundary
Condition Results:
The results of rake and clearance face heated are given in Chapter 4 Table 4.3.
Using the first (normalized cutting force) approach, the simulation result for this
boundary condition is given in Table A-3.
Table A-2 Rake and Clearance face heated results using normalized cutting force
approach
Temperatures (° C) Cutting Force (mN) Stress % Temperature %
20 500 100 0
700 450 76 24
1500 380 67 33
2200 200 28 72
2700 60 3 97






88

Table A-3 Yield strength as a function and pressure and temperature for tool tip and rake and clearance face heated
boundary conditions
Simulation Boundary
Condition
Temperature
(° C)
From
simulation
output

x
)
(GPa)
From
simulation
output (σ
y
)
(GPa)
From
simulation
output

z
)

(GPa)
First
variant
of stress
tensor in
D-P
model
I
1

Second
variant
of stress
tensor in
D-P
model
J
2

κ
using
D-P
model
(GPa)
Tooltip 20 35.12 24.53 29.79 89.45 28.05 42.71
Tooltip 700 31.54 14.26 22.85 68.66 74.62 40.71
Tooltip 1500 16.27 12.65 14.70 43.63 3.30 19.51
Tooltip 2200 10.06 6.50 8.29 24.86 3.16 12.40
Tooltip 2700 4.41 4.08 4.25 12.74 0.02 5.06
Rake and clearance face
heated
20 36.84 30.38 33.68 100.90 10.44 43.43
Rake and clearance face
heated
700 27.88 16.35 22.09 66.32 33.24 34.85
Rake and clearance face
heated
1500 17.16 13.76 15.84 46.77 2.92 20.50
Rake and clearance face
heated
2200 9.64 8.40 9.049 27.1 0.38 11.23
Rake and clearance face
heated
2700 3.273 3.385 3.327 9.985 0.003 3.841







89

For this boundary condition, the calculations using second (yield strength as a
function of temperature) approach are same and are given in Chapter 5.Table A-2
shows the results using the third approach for rake and clearance face heated
boundary condition.
Both the boundary conditions (tooltip and rake/clearance face heated) show a
similar behavior as seen in Chapter 5 for the workpiece boundary condition. The
stress factor dominance is seen up until 1500° C and beyond that there is temperature
dominance. In the third approach, the calculated yield which is a combined effect of
pressure and temperature shows a decrease with an increase in temperature. Similar
behavior is seen in the workpiece boundary condition.







90

APPENDIX B
COMPARISON BETWEEN 2-D NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND
EXPERIMENTS DURING DUCTILE MODE MICRO LASER ASSISTED
MACHINING OF SILICON
This is a comparison study done on Silicon to evaluate the effect of thermal
softening on Silicon. This work was done to compare and validate the simulation
results with the experimental data that was available on Silicon. The material
properties for Silicon were taken from previous references (Jacob, 2006; Dong,
2006). The tool and workpiece dimensions in the simulation model are given in
Tables B-1 and B-2 respectively. The tool and workpiece dimensions were small as
compared to the tool and workpiece in Chapter 3, as the programmed feeds in these
simulations were smaller (75 and 100 nm) compared to that in Chapter 3 (500 nm)
Table B-1 Tool Dimensions for Silicon simulations

Dimension Value Unit
Cutting Edge Radius 50 nm
Rake face length 1.41 µm
Clearance face length 1.41 µm

Table B-2 Workpiece Dimension for Silicon simulations

Dimension Value Unit
Workpiece height 1 µm
Workpiece length 10 µm







91

For the experimental setup and results for the test on Silicon, please refer to
the unpublished data sheet by Ravindra et al. (2010).
The thermal softening curve for silicon was developed based on a reference (Dong,
2006). In the simulation model, the curve uses a third order polynomial fit for data
points between room temperature (20° C) and thermal cutoff point (500° C). The
curve is shown in Figure B-1 and the important thermal points are given in Table B-3.

Figure B-1 Normalized Yield strength vs. temperature curve (° C)
Table B-3 Thermal properties of workpiece

Thermal properties Value Unit
Room temperature 20 ° C
Thermal cutoff temperature 500 ° C
Melting temperature 1127 ° C







92

The average and maximum pressures are compared from the simulation and
experiments. The area calculation for determining cutting pressures from the
experiments is given in Figure 6.3 in Chapter 6. For the simulation, the area of
contact was calculated by taking a product of actual depth after the elastic spring-
back and the width of cut. The width of cut for the simulation was same as the width
of cut from experiments.
Table B-4 Process parameters

Parameters Value Unit
Programmed feeds 100, 75 nm
Width of cuts 32, 15 µm
Simulation temperatures 20, 200, 500 ° C

Results:
The summary of results is shown in Table B-5. The calculated area from
simulation and experiments are also shown in Table B-5. The average pressures using
the chip contact area were calculated to compare with the maximum pressures from
the experiments.
For calculations using the cutting forces, the chip contact area on the rake face was
considered as shown in Figure B-2 (i.e. the value of ―Y‖ was used as the height of the
contact in the area calculation).






93


Figure B-2 Projected height on the rake face side of the tool

Figure B-3 Projected length of tool-workpiece contact normal to the thrust force
used to calculate the normal (thrust force) pressure
Here, the area was calculated by multiplying the projected length ―X‖ with the
width of the cut. Using this area, the average thrust pressure is calculated by dividing
the cutting force with this area.







94

Table B-5 Summary of Results (experiments and simulations)
Simuln
temp
(° C)
Programmed
feed (nm)
Actual
depth
in
simuln
(nm)
Width
of cut
(µm)
Cross
Sectional
area
(from
simuln)
(mm²)
Cutting
Force
from
simuln
(N)
Depth of
cut (Expts)
(nm)
Width
of cut
(Expts)
(µm)
Cross
sectional
area
(expts)
(mm²)
Cutting
force
from
expts
(N)
Cutting
pressure
(expts)
(GPa)
20 100 49 32 1.57E-06 0.115 50 32 1.29E-06 0.0188 14.60
200 100 53 32 1.70E-06 0.11 60(w/Laser) 32 1.45E-06 0.0185 12.76
500 100 66 32 2.11E-06 0.108
60
(w/Laser) 32 1.45E-06 0.0185 12.76
20 75 25 15 3.75E-07 0.04 26 15 2.45E-07 0.0029 11.84
200 75 32 15 4.80E-07 0.032
28
(w/Laser) 15 2.68E-07 0.0031 11.57
500 75 42 15 6.30E-07 0.033
28
(w/Laser) 15 2.61E-07 0.003 11.49









95

The chip contact length and the contact areas in both the cases are calculated
and tabulated in Tables B-5 and B-6. The average pressures are less than the
maximum probed pressures. The probed pressures are derived by probing at the tool-
chip contact surface near the cutting edge of the tool.
Thus, in both cases, it is seen that the average pressures are less than the
maximum probed pressures. While calculating the contact pressures using the thrust
forces, the contact area considered is including the rake and the clearance face contact
length (Figure B-3) whereas for calculating pressure using cutting forces, only rake
face contact length is used which is comparatively smaller. (Figure B-2).
Table B-6 Cutting pressure based on cutting forces for comparison with
maximum pressures from experiments

Based on Cutting Force
Programmed feed
(nm)
Temperature
(° C)
Maximum
probed
pressure at
steady state
Actual
contact area
of chip
(mm²)
Average
Cutting
Pressure
(GPa)
100 20 13.5 8.64E-06 13.31
100 200 12.12 9.280E-06 11.85
100 500 11.08 9.760E-06 11.07
75 20 15.8 2.580E-06 15.50
75 200 15.1 2.325E-06 13.76
75 500 10.4 3.270E-06 10.09






96


Table B-7 Cutting pressure based on thrust forces for comparison with maximum
pressures from experiments

Based on Thrust Force
Programmed feed
(nm)
Temperature
(° C)
Maximum
probed
pressure at
steady state
Chip contact
area (mm²)
Average
Cutting
pressure
(GPa)
100 20 13.5 2.60E-05 9.17
100 200 12.12 2.36E-05 9.09
100 500 11.08 2.12E-05 7.89
75 20 15.8 8.08E-06 9.53
75 200 15.1 8.08E-06 9.29
75 500 10.4 8.13E-06 9.11

As a result, the average pressures using the thrust forces are less than the
average pressures calculated using the cutting forces. The cutting pressure decreases
with an increase in temperature as the yield strength of the material also decreases. .
In general the pressures at 75 nm are higher than at 100 nm feed, which is consistent
with previous work (Jacob, 2006).