Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Determining fracture toughness from cutting tests on polymers

Y. Patel a, B.R.K. Blackman a,*, J.G. Williams a,b
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
b
Aero, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A cutting test method has been developed for polymers and analysis schemes derived for
Received 12 December 2008 the determination of the fracture toughness, Gc from the cutting data. The experimental
Received in revised form 23 July 2009 scheme requires the measurement of forces for a cut of width b, in both the cutting direc-
Accepted 24 July 2009
tion, Fc/b and the transverse direction, Ft/b. Depths of cut were varied from 0.025 mm to
Available online 30 July 2009
0.25 mm and the tool rake angle was varied from 20° to 30°. Cutting was performed at
a speed of 10 mm s1 on three polymers (HIPS, PA 4/6 and LLDPE). In addition, values of
Keywords:
fracture toughness and yield strength were determined for the polymers using standard
Cutting
Fracture toughness
tests for comparison with the values obtained from cutting. Three analysis methods were
Adhesion derived to analyse the cutting data with the most favoured scheme based on an energy bal-
Friction ance and using Merchant’s force minimisation criterion to determine the shear plane angle.
Shear This avoids the need to measure the cut chip thickness. Results for HIPS and PA 4/6 gave
values of Gc in good agreement with the values determined via LEFM. However, the cutting
method is intended for materials such as LLDPE which has a low yield stress and moder-
ately high toughness, i.e. materials which cannot be tested using standard LEFM fracture
mechanics tests. The cutting analysis appeared to give valid values of Gc for LLDPE in that
they were independent of rake angle. There were some complications when analysing this
polymer due to visco-elastic recovery effects in the chip and these have been considered.
Finally, the cutting analyses always determined high values of yield stress which would
appear to indicate work hardening.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It remains a challenging task to measure the fracture toughness of tough materials, especially when there is an accom-
panying low yield stress. Such a combination leads to both crack growth and crack blunting which are difficult to separate.
The most widely used approach over many years has been J testing using both single and multiple specimen methods to de-
fine an initiation value, JIC, and a resistance or ‘R’ curve. The methods were developed for metals [1] and applied to polymers
[2,3], and for materials with flat, or gently rising, R curves they proved useful and standards were introduced [4]. However,
for many materials the issue of separating cracking from blunting or indeed measuring crack growth at all has proved insur-
mountable. Revisions to the standards have defined a toughness value at some arbitrary crack growth and do not purport to
measure an initiation value as did earlier versions. In addition there is substantial evidence that R curves are geometry
dependent and do not represent a fundamental material property.
With this in mind other possible schemes for measuring toughness have been explored. One such scheme is to use
machining or cutting. The analysis of machining has traditionally not involved the inclusion of fracture terms because it

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7594 7196; fax: +44 20 7594 7017.
E-mail address: b.blackman@imperial.ac.uk (B.R.K. Blackman).

0013-7944/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.07.019
2712 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Nomenclature

Greek alphabet
a rake angle
dc crack opening displacement
ex,y,z normal strains
exy,yz,zx shear strains
es shear strain
eY yield strain
eR recovery strain
u shear plane angle
(Calibration factor in App. 1)
u0 value of u for zero friction
u1 value of u calculated using Eqs. (4), (10) for minimum Fc
u2 value of u determined from Eq. (2) with measured h and hc
c shear strain
l coefficient of friction
rx,y,z normal stresses
rs critical shear stress
rY tensile yield stress
r equivalent uniaxial stress
rxy,yz,zx shear stresses

English Alphabet
a_ crack speed
a crack length
b cutting width
C compliance of a fracture specimen
dus shear displacement
dx tool movement
dxc distance moved by force S
dUfrict increment of frictional work
dUplast increment of shear work
dy width of the shear zone for a movement dx
Fc driving force on the tool in direction of cut
Ft force transverse to direction of cut, generated by Fc
Fn force acting normal to the shear plane
Fs shear force on the shear plane
Ga adhesion toughness
Gc fracture toughness
h cut thickness
hc chip thickness
hc chip thickness after recovery
n work hardening coefficient
N normal force on the tool face
P load applied to SENB fracture specimen
S shear force on the tool face
t loading time in an SENB test
tf time to fracture
Uext external work done
Ud dissipated energy
V cutting velocity
W width of an SENB specimen
x (a/W) in Appendix B
ltan a
Z Friction factor ¼ 1þ l tan a

was concluded [5] that the fracture energies were too small to be significant and that the absence of visible cracking pre-
cluded a fracture contribution. Atkins [6,7] has pointed out that the energy value considered was the true surface work
and not the much higher, plasticity enhanced values. More recently [8] it has been observed that a cutting tool may touch
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2713

the crack tip so obviating the need for cracks to precede the tool. When fracture terms are included in the analysis then plots
of machining force versus depth of cut show a positive intercept on the force axis at zero depth of cut. This provides a pos-
sible method for determining toughness whilst avoiding the problems associated with crack blunting.
The idea has been explored for metals and polymers in a preliminary way [7,8] and here it is taken forward in more detail
as a possible standard. Some round-robin testing has been initiated in the ESIS Technical Committee 4 and this paper gives
the background to the protocol being developed.

2. Analysis

Three analysis methods are described here based upon (i) an energy balance (ii) Merchant’s force minimisation scheme
and (iii) equilibrium on the tool–chip interface. The second method presented here has been referred to as Method 1 because
it is the simplest to use. However, the methods are most logically presented in the order below.

2.1. Gc from an energy balance (Method 2)

The cutting, or machining, process is shown in Fig. 1 where a tool, of rake angle a (defined as positive clockwise), is driven
at a constant speed, V, to remove a layer of thickness h and width b from a workpiece or specimen. In general there is a clear-
ance angle on the lower tool surface to reduce friction. Rather complex combinations of behaviour can occur [8] depending
on the values of h, a and the yield stress of the material, leading to plastic bending of the chip section and hence chip curling.
For small values of rake angle, the bending process is superseded by chip shearing and the tip of the tool touches the crack tip
as shown in Fig. 2.
The shear plane forms at an angle u to the plane of the cut surface and a shear force Fs and a normal force Fn act on the
shear plane as shown in Fig. 2. There is a driving force Fc on the tool which additionally generates a transverse force, Ft on the
chip as shown. The tool is assumed to fit into the region behind the chip and touches the end of the shear plane. As a result,
the tool delivers energy directly to the fracture process and the analysis could proceed via a consideration of equilibrium
along the shear plane, with the fracture toughness, Gc, modelled as a reaction force, bGc acting on the tool tip (where b is
the width of cut). However, an energy balance analysis is presented here.
Considering energy, if we assume that the tool moves forward a distance dx then the increment of external work, dUext, is
given by Fc  dx, as is the case for any wedge problem. In these ‘steady-state’ cases there is no change in elastic energy and the
energy balance becomes

dU ext ¼ dU diss

where dUdiss is the increment of dissipated energy and is given by,

dU diss ¼ dU fract þ dU plast þ dU frict
where dUfract, dUplast and dUfrict are the increments of fracture energy, plastic energy dissipated on the shear plane and fric-
tional work done on the tool–chip interface, respectively.
Thus
dU ext ¼ F c dx
and
dU fract ¼ bGc dx
The shear force S on the tool–chip interface is given by
S ¼ ðF c  bGc Þ sin a þ F t cos a
and S moves a distance dxc. From the plane strain condition we have
hc dxc ¼ h  dx
where hc is the chip thickness and h the depth of cut. Fig. 2 shows that the chip thickness may change to hc during shearing. If
plane strain is assumed, and this is sensible for the removal of thin sections, then,
h= sin / ¼ hc = cosð/  aÞ
and the increment of frictional work is,
sin /
dU frict ¼ S  dxc ¼ ½ðF c  bGc Þ sin a þ F t cos a  dx
cosð/  aÞ
The plastic work done on the shear plane is,
dU plast ¼ F s  dus
2714 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Fig. 1. The cutting, or machining process. The tool has a rake angle a and is driven at constant velocity, V, removing a thickness h from the workpiece.

Fig. 2. Cutting with shear yielding. The forces Fc and Ft are those acting on the chip due to contact with the tool and Fn and Fs are those acting on the shear
plane. (Note that as here the tip of the tool touches the crack tip, Gc resists Fc and also that hc > h).

Fig. 3. The distance moved by the shear force, dus along the shear plane and the associated distance moved by the force S, i.e. dxc, along the tool–chip
interface for a tool advance of dx. Construction line (i) shows the width of the shear zone, dy, associated with the tool advance of dx.
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2715

where dus is the movement along the shear plane for a tool advance of dx as shown in Fig. 3. Thus:

cos a
dus ¼ dxðcos / þ sin /  tanð/  aÞÞ ¼  dx
cosð/  aÞ

and therefore,

cos a
dU plast ¼ F s   dx
cosð/  aÞ

The energy balance is therefore,

sin / cos a
F c  dx ¼ bGc dx þ ½ðF c  bGc Þ sin a þ F t cos a  dx þ F s   dx
cosð/  aÞ cosð/  aÞ
which leads to the result,
F s ¼ ðF c  bGc Þ cos /  F t sin /
In this analysis we assume that the shear plane is formed at some critical shear stress, rs and that rs obeys the Tresca yield
criterion such that rs is independent of the normal stress on the plane arising from Fn. The shear strains involved are high and
work hardening is likely to occur but in the first instance we assume that rs = rY/2 where rY is the tensile yield stress. The
effective yield stress in the cutting process is likely to be much greater than this and will be discussed later in the light of the
experimental results.
The length of the shear plane is h= sin / and hence the shear force on the shear plane Fs is given by:

rY bh
Fs ¼
2 sin /

Therefore on substituting for Fs from the energy balance we have,

 
rY h Fc Ft
 ¼  Gc cos /  sin / ð1Þ
2 sin / b b

and because

h hc
¼
sin / cosð/  aÞ

we have

cos a
tan / ¼ hc ð2Þ
h
 sin a

Thus the shear angle can be determined from a measurement of the chip and cut thicknesses, hc and h, respectively. If hc, Fc/b
and Ft/b are measured then from Eqs. (1) and (2), Gc may be determined since Eq. (1) becomes,
   
Fc Ft rY h 1
 tan / ¼ tan / þ þ Gc ð3Þ
b b 2 tan /
F c   
and rY and Gc can be determined from the linear plot of b
 Fbt tan / versus tan / þ tan1 / h data. The gradient gives rY/2 and
the positive intercept on the Y-axis is Gc.

2.2. Gc from Merchant’s force minimisation scheme (Method 1)

The experimental method would be greatly simplified if the separate measurement to determine u could be avoided, i.e. if
the measurement of hc could be omitted. A possible way to achieve this is to use the Merchant [9] notion of minimising Fc/b.
This may be achieved by assuming both Fc and Ft minimise at the same condition since Ft is a function of Fc. When u is deter-
mined via this route it is termed u1 in the present work. From Eq. (3) we have,
   
d Fc rY h Ft d Ft
¼ ð1  tan2 /1 Þ þ ¼ 0 and ¼0
dðtan /Þ b 2 b dðtan /Þ b
i.e.
2716 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 Ft
cot /1 ¼ 1 þ ð4Þ
rY h b
and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fc 2 Ft
¼ rY h cot /1 þ Gc ¼ rY h 1 þ þ Gc ð5Þ
b rY h b
For Ft/b  Fc/b, i.e. at larger h values, this has the approximately linear form in h,
 
Fc Ft
  rY h þ G c ð6Þ
b b
i.e. cot /1  1 and /1 ¼ p4.
Eq. (5) however, is non-linear in h and gives Fc/b = Gc at h = 0.
If Fc/b and Ft/b values are determined experimentally for a range of h values, then Gc and rY are most easily determined by
 
estimating rY from the linear plot of Eq. (6), i.e. from the slope of the Fbc  Fbt versus h plot. This estimation for rY is then used
as the initial trial value in Eq. (5) to determine the mean and standard deviation values of Gc. The best fit values of Gc and rY
are then found by minimising the variation in Gc, i.e. by minimising the standard deviation.

2.3. Modelling friction on the tool–chip interface (Method 3)

It is also possible to model the friction conditions on the tool–chip interface by resolving the forces ðFbc  Gc Þ and Fbt along
and normal to the interface, i.e.
 
S Fc Ft
¼  Gc sin a þ cos a ð7Þ
b b b
 
N Fc Ft
¼  Gc cos a  sin a
b b b
where S is the shear force and N is the normal force on the tool–chip interface. Due to the high speeds that are used during
cutting and machining, locally high temperatures are often developed along the tool–chip interface. This frequently leads to
the chip adhering to the tool and an adhesion toughness, Ga, is required in addition to Coulomb friction to model this. By
including the adhesion toughness and the coefficient of friction, l, for the tool–chip interface we can write:
 
S N
 Ga ¼l ð8Þ
b b
and,
 
Ft Fc Ga
¼Z  Gc þ ð9Þ
b b ðcos a þ l sin aÞ
where Z is the friction factor, given by,
l  tan a
Z¼
1 þ l tan a

Ft/b may be substituted into the previous minimised solution, i.e. Eq. (5) to give,

Fc
¼ rY h: cot /1 þ Gc ð10Þ
b sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2Ga
cot /1 ¼ Z þ 1 þ Z2 þ
rY hðcos a þ l sin aÞ

It should be noted that the case for zero friction and adhesion on the interface gives l = Ga = 0 and Z = tan a and hence

cos a
tan /o ¼
1  sin a

which is the condition for hhc ¼ 1 in Eq. (2). Thus, any change in chip thickness arises from the constraint of the friction forces
on the chip. The dependence of uo on a in this case is,
p a
/o ¼ þ
4 2
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2717

2.4. Observations on the analysis schemes

As the objective of this work is to measure Gc, the simplest route is to measure values of Fc/b and Ft/b for a range of depths
of cut, h, and then to use Eq. (5) as discussed in Section 2.2 to find Gc and rY. This will subsequently be referred to as Method
1. This assumes that u is determined by the minimum force criterion. This assumption may be checked by additionally mea-
suring hc and calculating tan u from Eq. (2) to use in Eq. (3), again to find Gc and rY as described in Section 2.1. This will sub-
sequently be referred to as Method 2. Finally, these same data may be used to find Ga and l for the tool–chip interface using
Eqs. (9) and (10), as described in Section 2.3. This has been achieved by using the Excel Solver function to simultaneously
solve Eqs. (9) and (10) and return values for Gc, Ga, rY and l. This scheme will subsequently be referred to as Method 3.
The validity of the minimising analysis to find u may be assessed by comparing values of cot u determined using Eqs. (4)
and (10) with those values determined by measuring the chip thickness, hc, and then using Eq. (2) to determine cot u. The
notation used in the present paper is that values of cot u determined using Eqs. (4) or (10) are termed cot u1 and values
determined by measuring the chip thickness and then using Eq. (2) to determine u are termed cot u2. Thus, the validity
of the force minimisation scheme is demonstrated if cot u1 = cot u2.

3. Experimental

3.1. The cutting rig

The experimental setup is shown schematically in Fig. 4 and a photograph of the rig is shown in Fig. 5. The cutting tool
was ground from a tool steel and had a clearance angle on the bottom face of 11°. The tip was sharp with a radius of about
5 lm and a set of tools were manufactured with the rake angle, a, varying from 20° to 30°. Tool sharpness can influence
results, particularly for low toughness materials, but for the polymers considered here the 5 lm tip radius was sufficiently
sharp to give Gc values independent of tool sharpness. The tool width was always greater than the specimen width, b. The
tool was mounted on a three axis piezo-electric load cell and two of the axes were used to measure Fc and Ft for each depth of
cut. The position of the tool was controlled using a calibrated screw thread. The specimen was supported between clamped
steel plates on the ram of a servo-hydraulic testing machine capable of speeds in the range (0.1–5) m s1.

3.2. The cutting tests

The specimen was driven at a preset constant speed until it contacted the tool and the cutting test proceeded. Controlling
and measuring the depth of cut, h, was the most difficult part of the experiment since a positive Ft, i.e. into the specimen,
causes deformation of the surface. The method adopted was to first cut the surface to give a smooth reference plane and then
to advance the tool to approximately the desired depth. An independent electronic vernier displacement gauge was then
used to measure the position of the surface at five points before and after cutting. With experience, cuts in the range of
0.025–0.25 mm could be achieved with an accuracy of ±0.01 mm. The width of the cuts taken were always in the range
3–6 mm, as recommended in the ESIS TC4 testing protocol.

Ft
Screw thread

Load cell Fc
Tool
V

Specimen b

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the cutting rig setup.

2718 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Guiding Vernier
clamp calliper

Hydraulic
ram

Workpiece

Cutting
Specimen
tool
holder

Guiding rod
3 axis
load
cell
Single
axis
table

Fig. 5. Photograph of cutting rig setup.

Fig. 6 gives an example of force traces, i.e. Fc and Ft measured during a test. There was usually an initial peak when the tool
contacts the specimen and an initial rise but there after a steady-state was achieved. Cutting speeds of 102 m s1 were used
here since these gave quite smooth load traces and averages were taken. Higher speeds and discontinuous chip formation
from cracking can give irregular traces but this was not encountered in the tests described here. A typical set of tests con-
sisted of measuring the forces for at least eight different depths of cut for each of the six different rake angles employed. At
higher rake angles, (i.e. >30°) discontinuous chips formed and therefore these were not used. For each test the chip thickness
was measured at five points along the chip length and an average was taken.
Supporting experiments were also conducted to measure Gc and the compressive yield stress. The Gc test were performed
in accordance with ISO 13586 using the single edge notch bend (SENB) test. Due to the relatively slow test speeds used, com-
plications arising from dynamic effects were avoided. For comparison with the cutting tests it was necessary to compute a
crack speed. For the crack lengths used the test give stable crack growth and it is shown in Appendix A that the crack speed,
_ may be calculated via:
a,
W
a_ ¼ 0:94 ð11Þ
tf

500

450 Initial impact between tool Fc

and specimen Ft
400

350

300
Force (N)

Steady-state cutting
250

200 Fc average

150

100

50
Ft average
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 12
Time (ms)

Fig. 6. Typical load traces showing Fc (upper trace) and Ft (lower trace) values as a function of test time. (The average values for Fc and Ft are obtained in the
steady-state cutting region.)
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2719

where W is the specimen width and tf is the failure time, i.e. the time to fracture. The compression tests were performed on
cylindrical specimens of diameter 20 mm and height 6 mm and they were tested at a crosshead rate of 1 mm/min. A silicone
oil lubricant was used.

4. Results and discussion

Results are presented for the cutting of three polymers; HIPS, PA 4/6 and LLDPE analysed using each of the three analysis
schemes, i.e. Methods 1–3. The raw experimental data for each set of tests performed (i.e. values of hc, Fc/b and Ft/b) is tab-
ulated in Appendix B. It should be noted that the crack opening displacement given by,

Gc
dc ¼ ð12Þ
rY

may be deduced for all three polymers and is 64 lm for HIPS, 59 lm for PA 4/6 and 500 lm for LLDPE. These are all much
greater than the 10 lm tool tip diameter so crack tip touching [8] is easily achieved in all cases.

4.1. Results for the HIPS polymer

The first set of data is for the HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene) polymer which is quite tough and for which Gc can be mea-
sured satisfying LEFM conditions. The SENB tests were conducted at a crosshead rate of 10 mm min1 and gave an average
failure time of 6 s and a_ ffi 2 mm s1 and a Gc value of 1.98 ± 0.05 kJ m2. Compression tests gave rY = 27 MPa. Cutting tests
were performed at V = 10 mm s1 and at rake angles of a = 20°, 0°, 10°, 15°, 20° and 30°. The data were then evaluated by
the three methods described in Section 2. (Recall that for Method 1, each data set at a given rake angle was evaluated numer-
ically by varying rY in Eq. (5) and minimising the standard deviation in the Gc values.) The results of this procedure are
shown in Table 1 and it is seen that both the Gc and rY values are reasonably constant with increasing a to within ±5%
for rY and ±11% for Gc. The data were also evaluated by Method 2. (Recall that in Method 2, the u values for each test are
computed from hc and then Eq. (3) is used to determine Gc .) The data are shown in Fig. 7 and the expected linear plots
(Eq. (3)) are confirmed and clearly there is only a slight variation with a. The values for each set are given in Table 1 and
are very close to those from Method 1, confirming that the values of u determined from the force minimisation scheme
are a good estimate.
The analysis for Method 3 is performed via the plots shown in Figs. 8 and 9 and the four parameters deduced are also
shown in Table 1 using the Excel Solver function. Again there is almost no difference in the rY and Gc values, except for
a = 20° when Gc is about 10% higher than for the other methods. Ga is almost constant for all values except a = 20°
and although there is some variation in the value of l, the value at 20° is significantly lower. The origins of those differ-
ences are apparent in Fig. 8 where it is clear that the Ft/b values are much higher for 20° than for other cases and the linear
model is not a particularly good fit to the data. Method 3 extracts more parameters than Method 2 for the same input data
and is thus more sensitive to variations. The negative a case is also a rather severe test of the model since it involves the
largest deformations. Fig. 10 confirms that the predictions for u from Eq. (4) (u1) are close to the measured values, i.e. from
using Eq. (2) (u2), as the plot of cot u1 versus cot u2 lies on the 1:1 line.
The SENB value of Gc = 1.98 ± 0.05 kJ m2 at a_ ¼ 2 mm s1 while the cutting method gave Gc = 1.72 kJ m2 at
V = 10 mm s1, (thus a_ ¼ 10 mm s1 ), i.e. around a 15% difference. For the yield stress, standard compression tests gave a va-
lue of about 27 MPa whilst all three analysis methods gave rY = 71 MPa for the cutting data. Thus, the yield stress values
derived from the cutting analyses were always a factor of 2.6 times higher than the simple compression value, although
it is accepted that the strain rates in cutting and from the compression tests were not matched.

Table 1
Results of the cutting analysis for the HIPS polymer at 10 mm s1.

a (°) Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

ry Gc ry Gc ry Gc l Ga
20 72.6 1.79 ± 0.45 72.4 ± 2.4 1.78 ± 0.45 71.6 1.96 0.11 4.75
0 74.3 1.78 ± 0.48 74.1 ± 2.6 1.77 ± 0.43 74.3 1.77 0.24 1.02
10 74.7 1.43 ± 0.44 74.4 ± 2.4 1.42 ± 0.4 74.9 1.46 0.34 1.04
15 65.2 2.00 ± 0.64 64.4 ± 6.3 2.08 ± 1.00 65.2 1.99 0.44 0.95
20 72.1 1.59 ± 0.48 71.6 ± 2.6 1.61 ± 0.46 72.1 1.56 0.38 1.01
30 69.2 1.70 ± 0.50 69.5 ± 2.5 1.64 ± 0.41 69.1 1.78 0.35 0.59
Average 71.4 1.72 71.1 1.72 71.2 1.75 0.31 1.56
SD 3.6 0.19 3.7 0.22 3.6 0.21 0.12 1.57

Note: From standard tests: Gc = 1.98 ± 0.05 kJm2 and rY = 27 MPa. For cutting: V = 10 mm s1 and b = 4.2 mm.
2720 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

25
-20
0
20 10

Fc/b - (Ft/b tan φ )

15
15 20
30
10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
(tan φ + 1/tan φ )h

Fig. 7. HIPS data – Method 2 using Eq. (3). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

25
-20
0
20
10
15 15
Ft/b (kJ m )

20
-2

10 30

0
0 10 20 30 40
-5 -2
Fc/b (kJm )

Fig. 8. HIPS data – Method 3, Eq. (9). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

40
-20
35 0
10
30 15
25 20
Fc/b (kJm )
-2

30
20
15

10
5

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
h (mm)

Fig. 9. HIPS data – Method 3, Eq. (10). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

4.2. Results for the PA 4/6 polymer

Table 2 shows the results for PA 4/6 (polyamide) for which Gc = 4.35 ± 0.35 kJ m2 from SENB tests and rY = 65 MPa from
compression tests. The combination of higher toughness and yield strength enabled the LEFM criteria to be achieved once
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2721

3
-20
2.5 0
10
2 15
20

cot φ 1
1.5 30

0.5

0
0 1 2 3
cot φ 2

Fig. 10. HIPS data – predicted shear plane angle u1 and measured value u2. The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

Table 2
Results of the cutting analysis for the PA 4/6 polymer at 10 mm s1.

a (°) Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

ry Gc ry Gc ry Gc l Ga
20 155.1 4.19 ± 1.22 152.9 ± 6 4.28 ± 1.16 155.3 4.21 0.21 4.11
0 156.4 3.74 ± 0.59 158.1 ± 3 3.45 ± 0.44 156.6 3.80 0.10 1.85
10 159.2 3.61 ± 1.04 160.0 ± 6.6 3.44 ± 0.98 158.9 3.57 0.25 2.52
15 147.3 4.06 ± 0.82 145.7 ± 7.9 4.08 ± 1.14 140.4 4.82 0.22 2.82
20 148.5 3.82 ± 1.26 149.0 ± 7.6 3.61 ± 1.08 148.4 3.87 0.26 1.46
30 137.0 3.55 ± 0.65 138.4 ± 6.1 3.28 ± 0.69 137.0 3.54 0.29 1.50
Average 150.6 3.83 150.7 3.69 148.0 3.97 0.22 2.38
SD 8.1 0.25 8.1 0.40 9.4 0.48 0.07 1.01

Note: From standard tests: Gc = 4.35 ± 0.35 kJ m2 and rY = 65 MPa. For cutting: V = 10 mm s1 and b = 4.95 mm.

50
-20
45 0
40 10
Fc/b - (Ft/b tan φ )

35 15
30 20
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(tan φ +1/tan φ)h

Fig. 11. PA 4/6 data – Method 2 using Eq. (3). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

more. The results from Method 1 again gave Gc and rY values which were sensibly independent of a, with the average value
being 3.83 ± 0.25 kJ m2 (i.e. ±7%) and 151 MPa, respectively. The percentage variation in Gc was similar to that for HIPS and
arises from both Gc and rY being approximately doubled. The results from Method 2 which are also shown in Fig. 11 are al-
most identical, confirming the u predictions. Method 3 gave a constant l value of 0.22 and Ga of about half that of Gc. For
a = 20° the results again show rather elevated values. Figs. 12–14 give the data in graphical form.

4.3. Results for the LLDPE polymer

Tests were also performed on LLDPE (Linear Low Density Polyethylene) which had a compression yield stress of 7.7 MPa
measured in the compression test. For the sheet thickness available, i.e. 3.8 mm, it was not possible to perform valid Gc or Jc
2722 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

50 -20
0
40 10
15
30 20

Ft/b (N/mm)
30
20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80
-10
F c /b (N/mm)

Fig. 12. PA 4/6 data – Method 3, Eq. (9). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

80
-20
70 0
10
60
15
50 20
Fc/b (N/mm)

30
40

30

20

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
h (mm)

Fig. 13. PA 4/6 data – Method 3, Eq. (10). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

3
-20
0
2.5 10
15
2 20
30
cot φ 1

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
cot φ 2

Fig. 14. PA 4/6 data – predicted shear plane angle u1 and measured value u2. The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

tests because of large scale blunting of the cracks due to plastic deformation. However, the cutting tests worked well for all
rake angles other than at 20°. In these latter tests, chips failed to form and so testing at a = 20° was abandoned. The data
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2723

for the remaining rake angles are given in Table 3 and for Method 1 both rY and Gc are reasonably constant at 24.7 ± 5.2 MPa
(i.e. ±21%) and 3.63 ± 0.34 kJ m2 (i.e. ±9%), respectively.
The variations in rY are much larger than for the other polymers (when expressed as a coefficient of variation) and those
for Gc are slightly higher. Method 2 gives similar Gc values but those for rY are changed. This can be seen in Fig. 15 where the
slopes, which determine rY, are significantly different. Method 3, as shown in Figs. 16 and 17, gives almost identical rY and

Table 3
Results of the cutting analysis for the LLDPE polymer at 10 mm s1.

a (°) Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

ry Gc ry Gc ry Gc l Ga
20
0 25.6 3.63 ± 0.41 24.5 ± 3 3.53 ± 0.45 25.5 3.65 0.28 3.36
10 23.2 3.75 ± 0.19 20.5 ± 2 3.81 ± 0.28 23.2 3.75 0.23 3.81
15 33.3 4.13 ± 0.37 27.0 ± 6 4.51 ± 0.8 33.5 4.11 0.20 4.35
20 20.7 3.38 ± 0.36 16.1 ± 2 3.15 ± 0.33 20.6 3.38 0.30 3.31
30 20.9 3.28 ± 0.20 14.8 ± 1 3.42 ± 0.3 20.7 3.29 0.23 3.30
Average 24.7 3.63 20.6 3.68 24.7 3.64 0.25 3.63
SD 5.2 0.34 5.2 0.52 5.3 0.33 0.04 0.46

Note: From standard tests Gc could not be measured and rY = 7.7 MPa. For cutting V = 10 mm s1 and b = 3.8 mm.

12
0
10 10
15
8 20
Fc/b - (Ft/b tan φ )

30
6

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-2
(tan φ + 1/tan φ )h

Fig. 15. LLDPE data – Method 2 using Eq. (3). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

8
0
7 10
15
6
20
5 30
Ft/b (kJ m )
-2

0
0 5 10 15 20
Fc/b (kJm-2)

Fig. 16. LLDPE data – Method 3, Eq. (9). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.
2724 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Gc values to Method 1 and reasonably constant l values of 0.25. Ga is also sensibly constant and is very close to Gc in this case.
The differences in Methods 1 and 2 arise from the differences in the predicted u1 and measured u2 values and this is illus-
trated in Fig. 18. The measured values, i.e. cot u2 are always lower than the predicated values, i.e. cot u1. This discrepancy
probably arises from the visco-elastic recovery of the LLDPE chips, such that the value of chip thickness decreases with time
following cutting. This effect is estimated in the following section.

4.4. Strain recovery in the LLDPE chips

If we assume that a visco-elastic recovery in the LLDPE chip occurs, leading to the initially cut value of hc recovering then a
positive recovery strain of eR may be defined such that the chip thickness hc changes to hc which is given by,

hc ¼ hc  heR
and the measured value of u becomes,
!
hc hc
h
 sin a h
 sin a eR
cot /2 ¼ ¼ 
cos a cos a cos a

thus:

12
0
10
10 15
20
8 30
Fc/b - (Ft/b tan φ )

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-2
(tan θ + 1/tan θ )h

Fig. 17. LLDPE data – Method 3, Eq. (10). The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees.

3.5
0
3
10
2.5 15
20
2 30
cot φ 1

1.5

0.5 R

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
cot φ 2

Fig. 18. LLDPE data – Predicted shear plane angle u1 and measured value u2. The legend shows the rake angle, a, in degrees. The offset depicts the recovery
strain, eR which is 0.6 for 0° < a < 15°.
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2725

eR
cot /1 ¼ cot /2 þ
cos a
eR
i.e. a line parallel to that for equality but displaced by cos a. A line is shown in Fig. 18 which fits the data for 0 < a < 15° with
eR  0.6. Rather higher values of eR are suggested by the a = 20° and 30° data.
The shear strain in the chip is very high and the engineering shear strain c may be computed from the shear displacement
dus for a tool movement of dx and, as was shown in Section 2.1, is given by [10]
dus ¼ dxðcos / þ sin / tanð/  aÞÞ:
This takes place over a distance dy, given by,
dy ¼ dx sin /
and hence

dus cos a 1 þ cot2 /

c¼ ¼ cot / þ tanð/  aÞ ¼ ¼ :
dy sin / cosð/  aÞ tan a þ cot /
From Figs. 10, 14 and 18 we can see that cot u varies from about 1 to 2 and since tan a  1 the average value of c is approx-
imately 2.

4.5. Work hardening

The high, and only slightly varying, strains identified in the previous section may provide an explanation for the high,
constant, yield stresses measured during cutting. If power law work hardening is assumed then at such high strains the vari-
ations in rY would be small. An approximate power law form is,
 n
e
r ¼ rY
eY
where r and e are uniaxial values. Fig. 19 shows the stress–strain curves obtained in simple compression tests for the three
polymers investigated. The strains were limited by the onset of high friction effects when the lubricant was extruded from
the specimen surface. The fitted parameters are given in Table 4 and the fitted lines are also shown in Fig. 19.
The equivalent stress and strain expressions using the von-Mises yield criterion are:

2r2 ¼ ðrx  ry Þ2 þ ðry  rz Þ2 þ ðrz  rx Þ2 þ 6ðr2xy þ r2yz þ r2zx Þ

and
9 2 3
e ¼ ðex  ey Þ2 þ ðey  ez Þ2 þ ðez  ex Þ2 þ ðe2xy þ e2yz þ e2zx Þ
2 2
pffiffiffi
and for the shear plane, r ¼ 3  rs and e ¼ pcffiffi3.
The predicted values are obtained from,
 n
r c
rs ¼ pYffiffiffi pffiffiffi
3 3:eY
For c  2, e  1 which is a large strain and far beyond the range of the data in Fig. 19. However, if the fitted values of rY, eY
and n, as given in Table 4, are used then rs can be found for c = 2; and these numbers are also given in Table 4 together with

Fig. 19. Stress–strain data from simple compression tests with power law fits to the data.
2726 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

Table 4
Measured work hardening parameters for the three polymers and a comparison of predicted shear stress values with those deduced from analysis Method 1.

Material rY0 (MPa) eY n rs (MPa) rs (from Method 1) (MPa)

HIPS 27 0.022 0.36 65 35
PA 4/6 65 0.031 0.34 128 75
LLDPE 7.7 0.065 0.45 15 12

the experimental values of rs which are half the yield stress values calculated in the cutting analysis. The result for LLDPE is
in fair agreement but in both HIPS and PA 4/6 the predictions are too high and are probably a consequence of the large
extrapolation of the compression data. High values of yield stress have also been noted in metal cutting [11] and have been
ascribed to work hardening. Finally, it is accepted that the strain rates induced during cutting and those in the compression
tests were not matched, so this analysis can only give an estimation of the true effects of work hardening.

5. Conclusions

A cutting test method has been developed for polymers and analysis schemes derived for the determination of the frac-
ture toughness, Gc from the cutting data. The experimental scheme requires the measurement of forces for a cut of width b,
in both the cutting direction, Fc/b and the transverse direction, Ft/b. Depths of cut were varied from 0.025 mm to 0.25 mm
and the tool rake angle was varied from 20° to 30°. Cutting was performed at a speed of 10 mm s1. In addition, values
of fracture toughness and yield strength were determined for the polymers using standard tests for comparison with the val-
ues obtained from cutting.
Three analysis methods were derived to analyse the cutting data. Method 1 was based on an energy balance and used
Merchant’s force minimisation criterion to determine the shear angle. Method 2 was again based on an energy balance
but with the shear angle determined via measurement of the cut chip thickness, the depth of cut and the rake angle. Thus
Method 1 had the advantage that it avoided the need to measure the chip thickness after the cut. Method 3 was based on the
force equilibrium on the tool–chip interface and invoked both Coulomb friction and an adhesion toughness between the chip
and the tool. All methods allowed the determination of both Gc and the polymer yield strength and Method 3 additionally
gave values of the coefficient of friction and the adhesion toughness along the tool–chip interface.
Cutting tests were performed on HIPS, PA 4/6 and LLDPE. The first two of these materials could be tested using standard
LEFM fracture mechanics tests, resulting in valid Gc values and these tests were performed. For HIPS and PA 4/6 the values of
Gc from cutting tests agreed well with the values determined via LEFM, i.e. the cutting values were about 15% lower even
though they were tested at almost a decade faster, i.e. at 10 mm s1 as opposed to 2 mm s1. Analysis Method 1, assuming
the minimum force condition to determine the shear plane angle, gave very close agreement with values determined exper-
imentally via the chip thickness. This is a very convenient scheme since only Fc/b and Ft/b need be measured. Method 3 gives
some insight into the friction conditions which may be useful for other purposes but is not essential for determining Gc.
The cutting method is intended for materials such as LLDPE which have a low yield stress and moderately high toughness.
Thus, LLDPE cannot be tested using standard LEFM fracture mechanics tests and here the samples were also too thin for valid
Jc tests to be performed, so no comparison with standard Gc values can be made for this polymer. Using the cutting analysis,
Method 1 appeared to give valid values of Gc in that they were independent of rake angle. However, cross-checks on the
validity of the force minimisation scheme by the determination of the shear plane angle were not successful. This was be-
cause the cross-check requires the measurement of the shear plane angle and due to recovery from visco-elastic effects aris-
ing because the LLDPE polymer was tested above its glass transition temperature, this measurement was in error. A scheme
to estimate the strain recovery was shown to largely account for the discrepancy between the measured and predicted shear
plane angle and thus these results are certainly encouraging.
All three cutting analysis methods returned high values for the apparent yield stress of the polymers based on the Tresca
criterion. When compared to values determined via compressive yield tests, the cutting analyses returned values higher by a
factor of 2.6 (for HIPS), 2.3 (for PA 4/6) and 3.1 (for LLDPE). This has been attributed to work hardening of the cut chip and an
estimation of the work hardening, based on the approximate equivalent strain in the polymer chip and the compressive yield
data gives significantly elevated values.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Mr. T. Nolan (Imperial College London) for his assistance with specimen preparation and testing.

Appendix A. Crack speed at fracture initiation

For a single edge notch bend (SENB) test specimen loaded at a constant speed, V, a crack speed at initiation may be com-
puted from the expression for Gc;
 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2727

P2 dC
Gc ¼
2b da
where P is the load at fracture initiation, b the specimen thickness, a the crack length and C is the specimen compliance,
Vt
C¼
P
and t is the time.
Substituting for P we have,
 
2bWGc t 2 dC
2
¼
V C 2 dx

Table A2.1
Raw experimental data for the HIPS polymer cut at 10 mm s1.

a (°) h (mm) hc (mm) Fc/b (N/mm) Ft/b (N/mm)

20 0.05 0.08 10.77 8.91
0.08 0.11 13.53 10.54
0.1 0.14 17.15 12.84
0.12 0.16 20.77 15.13
0.14 0.18 23.64 17.10
0.19 0.21 27.45 17.69
0.2 0.22 28.93 18.34
0.2 0.21 29.01 17.66
0.24 0.25 33.37 20.27
0 0.05 0.07 7.19 2.21
0.07 0.09 8.70 2.66
0.09 0.12 12.03 3.33
0.13 0.15 14.28 4.02
0.15 0.18 17.31 4.70
0.18 0.22 19.72 5.26
0.2 0.24 21.51 5.90
0.25 0.3 25.63 6.55
0.23 0.27 24.73 6.23
10 0.02 0.03 4.47 1.60
0.08 0.11 9.21 2.24
0.11 0.13 11.02 2.67
0.14 0.18 14.40 2.94
0.14 0.19 15.16 3.12
0.18 0.23 18.20 3.67
0.2 0.26 20.20 3.83
0.22 0.29 21.70 4.27
0.26 0.33 25.05 4.81
15 0.09 0.07 8.41 1.29
0.11 0.13 10.42 1.36
0.13 0.14 11.97 1.43
0.15 0.19 14.44 1.63
0.2 0.21 16.13 1.77
0.22 0.24 17.99 1.83
20 0.06 0.08 6.09 1.02
0.07 0.1 7.96 0.98
0.11 0.14 10.28 0.99
0.13 0.17 12.29 1.09
0.16 0.21 14.14 1.18
0.18 0.24 16.47 1.13
0.22 0.27 18.48 1.22
0.24 0.3 20.19 1.19
0.27 0.33 21.74 1.22
30 0.02 0.04 3.69 0.33
0.08 0.11 7.02 0.36
0.1 0.13 7.97 0.51
0.13 0.17 9.40 0.82
0.15 0.19 10.52 1.04
0.17 0.22 12.58 1.43
0.21 0.26 13.69 1.65
0.23 0.29 15.58 1.90
0.25 0.31 17.32 2.21

Note: b = 4.20 mm.

2728 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

where W is the specimen width and x = a/W. Now the energy calibration factor u is given by [12],
C
/ ¼ dC 
dx

Note that u is used here for this calibration factor as it is used conventionally. It is not the shear plane angle. If we assume
that Gc is constant during propagation then,
     
d 2bWGc d t2 2t t2 1 1 d/ a_
2
¼ ¼  þ ¼0
dt V dt C/ C/ C/ / / dx W
i.e.
!
W 2/
a_ ¼
t 1 þ d/
dx

Table A2.2
Raw experimental data for the PA 4/6 polymer cut at 10 mm s1.

a (°) h (mm) hc (mm) Fc/b (N/mm) Ft/b (N/mm)

20 0.03 0.06 17.03 12.27
0.06 0.09 23.10 16.74
0.08 0.13 31.08 21.74
0.11 0.15 39.10 26.45
0.14 0.18 45.20 30.63
0.17 0.21 52.66 34.49
0.19 0.24 61.83 40.61
0.21 0.27 68.63 44.49
0 0.03 0.06 11.55 2.62
0.04 0.07 12.20 2.72
0.07 0.09 17.01 3.19
0.1 0.12 21.96 3.72
0.13 0.14 27.94 4.33
0.16 0.18 32.89 4.80
0.18 0.2 37.33 5.11
0.21 0.24 41.77 5.47
10 0.03 0.06 9.57 2.67
0.06 0.1 16.60 3.32
0.09 0.13 23.26 3.80
0.13 0.17 26.68 3.84
0.15 0.21 30.46 4.22
0.17 0.21 35.29 4.52
0.2 0.26 39.61 4.71
0.22 0.28 43.79 5.08
15 0.08 0.11 17.71 2.13
0.06 0.1 15.59 2.19
0.11 0.14 22.09 1.90
0.14 0.16 25.27 1.79
0.17 0.19 29.65 1.56
0.18 0.2 32.30 1.44
0.2 0.24 35.77 1.15
20 0.05 0.07 10.98 0.68
0.07 0.1 16.41 0.39
0.05 0.09 12.70 0.64
0.13 0.16 21.47 0.12
0.13 0.15 21.34 0.12
0.17 0.21 28.93 0.86
0.18 0.21 29.47 0.93
0.23 0.26 37.05 1.67
30 0.04 0.07 8.66 0.27
0.1 0.13 15.97 1.50
0.11 0.14 16.52 1.74
0.05 0.08 10.97 0.35
0.09 0.12 14.76 1.24
0.12 0.14 17.05 1.69
0.15 0.18 21.25 2.76
0.17 0.22 23.56 3.39

Note: b = 4.95 mm.

 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730 2729

For the standard specimens the span to depth ratio is 4 and 0.45 < x < 0.55 the u values are [12],

x 0.45 0.5 0.55

u 0.260 0.234 0.210

d/
at x = 0.5, dx
¼ 0:5 and hence,

2/ 2  0:234
d/
¼ ¼ 0:936
1þ dx
0:5

and hence

W
a_  0:94
t

Appendix B

See Tables A2.1–A2.3.

Table A2.3
Raw experimental data for the LLDPE polymer cut at 10 mm s1.

a (°) h (mm) hc (mm) Fc/i (N/mm) Ft/b (N/mm)

0 0.04 0.10 7.22 4.34
0.09 0.15 8.05 4.62
0.11 0.17 9.38 4.96
0.12 0.19 10.05 5.10
0.14 0.23 11.21 5.45
0.17 0.25 12.03 5.73
0.18 0.25 12.86 6.01
0.23 0.31 13.71 6.07
0.25 0.34 14.70 6.42
10 0.06 0.14 7.09 3.96
0.06 0.13 7.62 3.88
0.12 0.17 8.97 4.00
0.11 0.18 8.97 4.00
0.17 0.23 10.34 4.04
0.18 0.24 10.86 4.03
0.19 0.27 11.53 4.17
0.23 0.29 12.38 4.22
0.26 0.32 13.07 4.21
15 0.08 0.14 9.00 3.77
0.08 0.15 9.83 3.98
0.11 0.16 10.53 3.89
0.15 0.19 11.54 4.09
0.15 0.19 12.08 3.85
0.16 0.21 12.43 3.77
0.18 0.22 13.32 3.45
20 0.06 0.10 5.66 2.95
0.08 0.12 7.04 2.92
0.09 0.12 7.55 2.98
0.15 0.18 8.75 2.95
0.16 0.19 8.95 2.72
0.20 0.23 9.98 2.70
0.23 0.25 10.14 2.77
0.25 0.27 10.50 2.69
30 0.05 0.09 5.54 2.50
0.08 0.13 6.58 2.40
0.11 0.16 7.45 2.31
0.12 0.16 7.65 2.08
0.16 0.19 8.20 1.77
0.18 0.21 8.55 1.69
0.23 0.24 9.09 1.45
0.27 0.28 10.14 1.28

Note: b = 3.8 mm.

2730 Y. Patel et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 76 (2009) 2711–2730

References

[1] ASTM E1820-08. Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughness for metals.
[2] ASTM D6068-96. Test method for determining J–R curves for plastic materials.
[3] Hashemi S, Williams JG. Fracture toughness study on low density and linear low density PE. Polymer 1986;27(3):384–92.
[4] Hale GE, Ramsteiner F. J-fracture toughness of polymers at slow speed. In: Moore R, Pavan A, Williams JG, editors. Fracture mechanics testing methods
for polymers, adhesives and composites. London: ESIS Publication 28, Elsevier Science; 2001. p. 123–58 (Chapter 2).
[5] Finnie I. Review of the metal cutting theories of the past hundred years. Mech Engng 1956;78:715–21.
[6] Atkins AG. Modelling metal cutting using modern ductile fracture mechanics: quantitative explanations for some longstanding problems. Int J Mech Sci
2003;45:373–96.
[7] Atkins AG. Toughness and cutting: a new way of simultaneously determining ductile fracture toughness and strength. Engng Fract Mech
2005;72:849–60.
[8] Williams JG, Patel Y, Blackman BRK. An analysis of cutting and machining using fracture mechanics concepts. Engng Fract Mech; 2009. doi:10.1016/
j.engfracmech.2009.06.011.
[9] Merchant ME. Mechanics of the metal cutting process. I. Orthogonal cutting and a type 2 chip. J Appl Phys 1945;16(5):267–75.
[10] Hill R. Mathematical theory of plasticity. Clarendon Press; 1950.
[11] Kobayashi S, Thomsen EG. Some observations on the shearing process in metal cutting. Trans ASME J Engng Indust 1959:251–61.
[12] Williams JG. Fracture mechanics of polymers. Ellis Horwood; 1984.