ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Role of second-phase particles in chip breakability in aluminum alloys

Masatsugu Kamiya, Takao Yakou
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
Received 23 May 2007; received in revised form 26 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007
Available online 6 November 2007

Abstract

To evaluate chip breakability, turning tests for various wrought aluminum (Al) alloys were carried out with a cemented carbide tool
(K10) in dry and wet cutting conditions. In the alloys, Al2Cu, Al6Mn, Mg2Si, Al–Fe–Si system compounds and eutectic Si were observed
as second-phase particles. Chip breakability of the alloys containing Al2Cu or Si were superior to those of those containing Mg2Si or
Al–Fe–Si. This tendency was more prominent in wet cutting than in dry cutting. The second-phase particles of Al2Cu and Si in these
alloys fractured during the machining process. It was estimated that the fractured second-phase particles acted as the cause of chip
breaking. Moreover, the increase of the chip breakability in wet cutting was attributed to the Rehbinder effect due to the penetration of
cutting oil into the micro-cracks.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Aluminum alloys; Turning; Machinability; Chip breakability; Second-phase particle

1. Introduction particles to replace Pb [1]. In that research, the cracking of

Machinability of metals has been estimated by the
cutting force, tool life, surface finish and chip shape.
However, since the rigidity of machine tools has been
increased, the cutting force is no longer considered in the
machining of aluminum (Al) alloys. As a result, tool life,
surface finish and chip shape have become major factors of
machinability. Particularly, chip breakability is emphasized
as the most important feature to ensure reliable operation
in automated machining. One of the approaches for
improving machinability is the use of free-cutting alloys.
It has been considered that the addition of lead (Pb) to Al
alloys is the principal method to improve machinability,
and processes of adding Pb to 2XXX and 6XXX series
alloys have been developed. However, because of its
adverse environmental impact, the addition of Pb has been
restricted. Therefore, the development of new free-cutting
Al alloys without Pb is required.
There has been an attempt to improve the chip break-
ability of Al alloys by the dispersion of Si as second-phase
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81 45 3393845.
E-mail address: d02sa301@ynu.ac.jp (M. Kamiya).
Si particles in chips and the breaking of short chips into
pieces during machining were observed. Moreover, in
A6061 alloys with Si particles, the Si particles were cracked
because of concentration of strain [2], and the Si particles
in the alloys became the stress concentration zone in shear
deformation [3]. On the other hand, in the research of
the relationship between chip breakability and aging
treatment in Al–Cu and Al–Cu–Si alloys [4–7], the chip
breakability successfully improved with increased size of
second-phase particles accompanied by advanced aging.
In this case, however, it has been pointed out that the
chip breakability was also related to the cracking of the
second-phase particles and the ductility of the matrix
around them [7].
Anyhow, these facts suggest that the chip breakability
of Al alloys is expected to improve by the dispersion
of some kind of second-phase particles, and the second-
phase particles could be the cause of chip breaking by
cracking during machining. There are various second-
phase particles, including precipitates and crystallized
particles, in commercial Al alloys. In this study, the
influence of such second-phase particles in commercial
Al alloys on chip breakability was investigated using

0890-6955/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2007.10.018
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697 689

Table 1
Chemical compositions of specimens (mass%)

Material Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Cr Zn Ni Ti Zr+Ti Al

Alloy Treatment

A2017 T4 0.54 0.21 3.88 0.65 0.59 0.01 0.02 o0.01 0.02 0.02 bal.
A3003 O 0.10 0.39 0.12 1.10 o0.01 o0.01 o0.01 o0.01 o0.01 o0.01 bal.
A4032 T651 11.5 0.17 0.90 0.01 1.00 o0.01 o0.01 0.87 o0.01 o0.01 bal.
A5056 H34 0.11 0.17 0.02 0.06 4.93 0.06 o0.01 o0.01 0.02 o0.01 bal.
A6061 T6 0.71 0.20 0.29 0.12 1.00 0.18 0.03 o0.01 0.02 o0.01 bal.
A7075 T6511 0.04 0.23 1.32 0.02 2.18 0.20 5.35 o0.01 0.03 0.03 bal.
Al–12%Si F 12.0 0.14 0.02 o0.01 0.02 o0.01 0.01 o0.01 o0.01 o0.01 bal.

2XXX, 3XXX, 4XXX, 5XXX, 6XXX and 7XXX series 6°

Al alloys.

2. Experimental procedure

The materials used in the experiments were wrought 5°

aluminum alloys A2017, A3003, A4032, A5056, A6061
and A7075. Al–12mass%Si alloy (Al–12%Si), which
is produced by continuous casting, was also used in
this experiment. The chemical compositions of the materi- 6°
30°
als are shown in Table 1. Each material was treated

R=
with a type of thermo-mechanical treatment used in

0.4
industry. The thermo-chemical treatments are also listed 90°

in Table 1.
From the chemical composition of the alloys shown in
Table 1, it is expected that the existence of second-phase
particles is as follows: Al2Cu and Al2CuMg for A2017;
Al6Mn and Al–Fe–Si for A3003; Si, Mg2Si and Al–Fe–Si
for A4032; Mg2Si and Al–Fe–Si for A6061; Al2Cu,
Al2CuMg and Mg2Si for A7075; and eutectic Si and
Al–Fe–Si for Al–12%Si [8].
The cutting tests were performed on a lathe. The depth
of cut t and feed rate f were 0.5 mm and 0.1 mm/rev,
respectively, and the cutting speed V was varied from 0.5
to 1.5 m/s. Carbide cutting tool inserts (Tungaloy TPGN-
160304-K10) with a positive 51 rake angle, shown in Fig. 1,
were used in the experiment. The cutting tests were carried
out under dry and wet conditions. Compounded cutting oil
was used as a lubricant.
3. Results
3.1. Second-phase particles in Al alloys
The second-phase particles were observed with an
electron probe X-ray microanalyzer (EPMA). Fig. 2
shows the secondary electron images of the specimens,
and Table 2 shows the results of the EPMA analysis. The
spot size of the EPMA was bigger than the second-phase
particles in the specimens, even though the size of the
EPMA spot was made as small as possible; therefore,
the quantities of aluminum detected in the analysis were
mm
Fig. 1. Geometry of tool cutting edge used in the experimental study.
somewhat large. However, by referring to the phase
diagram, the second-phase particles contained in each
alloy were thought to be as follows: the white particles in
A2017 Fig. 2(a) to be Al2Cu; the white particles in A3003
Fig. 2(b) to be Al6Mn; the black particles in A4032
Fig. 2(c) to be Si and the white particles to be Al–Fe–Si; the
black particles in A5056 Fig. 2(d) to be Mg2Si and the
white particles to be Al–Fe–Si; the black particles in A6061
Fig. 2(e) to be Mg2Si and the white particles to be
Al–Fe–Si; the black particles in A7075 Fig. 2(f) to be Mg2Si
and the white particles to be Al2Cu; and the gray particles
in Al–12%Si Fig. 2(g) to be Si and the white particles to be
Al–Fe–Si.
Fig. 3 shows the Vickers hardness measured with an
indentation force of 0.03 N (the size of indentation was
about 2 mm so that we could measure the hardness of the
second-phase particles). The dashed lines in the graphs in
Fig. 3 indicate the hardness calculated from tensile strength
sB using the equation HVffi3sB [9]. The calculated
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
690 M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697

A2017 A3003

1(A)
2
2 1(B)

A4032 A5056

2(D)
1(D)
4 1(C)

2(E)
3

3(E)

A6061 A7075
2(E)

1(D)

1(D)

3
3
2(A)

Al-12%Si
1(C)

2(E) 3

5 µm

Fig. 2. SEM micrographs of second-phase particles in specimens: (A) Al2Cu, (B) Al6Mn, (C) Si, (D) Mg2Si and (E) Al–Fe–Si.

hardness is considered to be the hardness of the matrix of
the alloys. In each alloy, the data of the hardness was
categorized into two groups. The groups with the lower
hardness represent the hardness of the matrix without the
second-phase particles, and the groups with the higher
hardness represent the hardness of the second-phase
particles or the matrix including the second-phase particles.
So the maximum hardness in the group of higher hardness
represents the hardness of the second-phase particles. The
hardness of Al2Cu, Mg2Si and Si is HV400–700 [10],
HV450 [11], HV900–1100 [12], respectively. The maximum
hardness values in Fig. 3 are in good agreement with these
values.
3.2. Chip breakability of Al alloys in dry cutting
Fig. 4 shows photographs of the chip shapes formed
in dry cutting. The chip shape strongly depends on the type
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697 691

Table 2
Measurement results of quantitative analysis by EPMA (at%)

Material Measured point indicated in Fig. 2 Al Si Fe Cu Mn Mg Zn

A2017 1 90.68 – – 9.31 – – –

2 98.01 – – 1.99 – – –
A3003 1 89.50 – 4.22 – 6.28 – –
2 99.68 – 0.01 – 0.31 – –
A4032 1 30.27 69.52 0.01 – – 0.21 –
2 14.01 17.60 0.01 – – 68.37 –
3 96.73 1.00 2.26 – – 0.01 –
4 96.73 0.41 0.02 – – 0.66 –
A5056 1 47.00 18.14 0.01 – – 34.85 –
2 91.32 3.39 5.07 – – 0.22 –
3 94.16 0.08 0.09 – – 5.67 –
A6061 1 57.16 7.50 0.07 – – 35.27 –
2 90.06 3.16 6.38 – – 0.40 –
3 98.63 0.26 0.17 – – 0.95 –
A7075 1 85.70 9.09 – 0.50 – 2.46 2.25
2 79.81 0.05 – 18.59 – 0.50 1.06
3 94.19 0.04 – 0.57 – 2.67 2.52
Al–12%Si 1 31.89 37.54 0.08 – – – –
2 79.11 5.36 15.54 – – – –
3 99.36 0.63 0.01 – – – –

1200

1000
Vickers hardness HV0.03

800

600

400

200

0
A2017 A3003 A4032 A5056 A6061 A7075 Al-12%Si

Fig. 3. Micro Vickers hardness of specimens.

of Al alloy, and was slightly affected by cutting speed.
Especially, the chip shape of A7075 tends to be conti-
nuous; it was tangled with the cutting tool during
machining. On the contrary, the other alloys, A2017,
A3003, A4032, A5056, A6061 and Al–12%Si, are broken
apart. To evaluate the chip breakability from the
chip shape in these photographs, we defined the ‘‘chip-
breaking factor N’’ as a parameter of chip breakability,
which was determined by measuring the number of chips
contained in a 100 g sample of chips. According to Asano
and Fujiwara [13], the chip breakability is optimum in the
range of 104oNo105. Fig. 5 shows the chip-breaking
factor for various Al alloys. The chip-breaking factor
shows 103–104 for A2017, A4032 and Al–12%Si; about 103
for A5056 and A6061; and about 102 for A3003 and
A7075.
3.3. Chip breakability of Al alloys in wet cutting
Fig. 6 shows photographs of the chip shapes formed in
wet cutting. In wet cutting, the chip of A7075 is
continuous, as in the dry cutting; the chips of the other
alloys are smaller than those in dry cutting. Especially,
the chips of A2017, A4032 and Al–12%Si are much
smaller than those of the other alloys. Fig. 7 shows
the chip-breaking factor for various alloys in wet
cutting. The chip-breaking factor in wet cutting shows
a similar tendency to that in dry cutting; however,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
692 M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697

V = 0.5m/s V = 1.0m/s V = 1.5m/s

A2017-T4
A3003-O
A4032-T651
A5056-H34
A6061-T6
A7075-T6511
Al-12%Si-F

Fig. 4. Chip shapes formed in dry cutting.


M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697
Chip breaking factor, N (per 100g)
105
104
103
102
A2017
Fig. 5. Chip-breaking factor N for various aluminum alloys in dry cutting.
the difference between these alloys becomes clear.
The chip breakability shows a remarkably large value in
A2017, A4032 and Al–12%Si, and reaches 2  105 at a
maximum.
4. Discussion
4.1. Classification of materials by chip
To summarize the results, the materials used in the
experiment could be classified into three groups depending
on the chip-breaking factor. The grouping is shown in
Table 3. In Group I, N is 103–104 in dry cutting and
104–105 in wet cutting. A2017, A4032 and Al–12%Si
belong to this group. The second-phase particles in the
alloys that belong to this group are Al2Cu, Si, Mg2Si and
Al–Fe–Si. In Group II, N is around 103 in both dry and wet
cutting. A5056 and A6061 belong to this group. Mg2Si and
Al–Fe–Si exist in these alloys. In Group III, N is around
102 in both dry and wet cutting. A3003 and A7075 belong
to this group. Al6Mn, Al2Cu, Mg2Si and Al–Fe–Si are
observed in these alloys. We will continue our discussion by
focusing on the second-phase particles that exist in each
group.
4.2. Relation between existence of second-phase particles
and chip breakability
Fig. 8 shows cross-sectioned micrographs of the chips at
a cutting speed of 1.0 m/s in dry cutting. Compared with
Figs. 2 and 8, cracked second-phase particles are observed
in the chips. Cracked Al2Cu is observed in A2017, cracked
Si is observed in A4032 and in Al–12%Si. However, there
are no cracked Al6Mn particles in A3003 and no cracked
Mg2Si particles in A5056 and A6061. This observation
suggests that second-phase particles have different fracture
strengths. It can be stated that Al2Cu and Si could be easily
cracked during machining. Since the alloys in Group I
ARTICLE IN PRESS
693
V=0.5m/s
V=1.0m/s
V=1.5m/s
A3003 A4032 A5056 A6061 A7075 Al-12%Si
contain these second-phase particles and showed large chip
breakability, it is considered that cracked Al2Cu and Si
acted as the cause of chip breaking.
Fig. 9 shows the relation between the chip-breaking
factor N and the volume fraction Vf of the second-phase
particles in the alloys. A2017, A4032, A5056, A6061 and
Al–12%Si have a linear relation between N and Vf in both
dry and wet cutting. These alloys belong to Groups I or II.
As mentioned above, the cracked Al2Cu and Si particles in
alloys belonging to Group I seem to act as the cause of chip
breaking. The alloys of Group II also show a linear relation
similar to that for Group I. This fact suggests that the chip
breaking of the alloys of Group II is due to the cracking of
second-phase particles. It is reported that nearly half of the
Mg2Si particles around the cracks caused by the tensile test
were fractured or broken away at the matrix interface [14].
While we could not observe the fracture of Mg2Si, Mg2Si is
also thought to have an effect as a cause of chip breaking.
Moreover, the alloys of Groups I and II, in which fractured
second-phase particles act as the cause of chip breaking,
show a greater N in wet cutting than that in dry cutting. On
the other hand, Al6Mn in A3003, which is in Group III, has
no effect on chip breaking because they do not fracture
during machining as shown in Fig. 8.
A7075 shows an obviously different property from the
other alloys. The chip of A7075 was continuous in any
cutting conditions, although A7075 contains second-phase
particles Al2Cu and Mg2Si. It is known that superplasticity
occurs in fine-grained A7075 [15,16]. Moreover, it has been
reported that the chip of Al–Zn eutectoid alloy, which
shows superplasticity, is continuous [17]. Fine-grained
A7075 shows prominent superplasticity at a strain rate of
103 s1 and at a temperature of 520 1C [16]. The strain rate
in metal cutting is considerably faster, 105 s1, than that for
superplasticity [18]. It has not been clarified that super-
plasticity occurs at the high strain rate of 105 s1 for A7075.
There is a possibility that superplasticity occurs in A7075
machining; however, this remains to be solved.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
694 M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697

V = 0.5m/s V = 1.0m/s V = 1.5m/s

A2017-T4
A3003-O
A4032-T651
A5056-H34
A6061-T6
A7075-T6511
Al-12%Si-F

Fig. 6. Chip shapes formed in wet cutting.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697 695

Chip breaking factor, N (per 100g)

105 V = 0.5 m/s
V = 1.0 m/s
V = 1.5 m/s
104

103

102

A2017 A3003 A4032 A5056 A6061 A7075 Al-12%Si

Fig. 7. Chip-breaking factor N for various aluminum alloys in wet cutting.

Table 3
Classification of materials by chip-breaking factor N

Group Material Second-phase particle Chip-breaking factor N

Group I A2017 Al2Cu Dry cutting: 103–104

A4032 Si, Mg2Si, Al–Fe–Si Wet cutting: 104–105
Al–12%Si Si, Al–Fe–Si
Group II A5056 Mg2Si, Al–Fe–Si Dry cutting: 103
A6061 Mg2Si, Al–Fe–Si Wet cutting: 103
Group III A3003 Al6Mn, Al–Fe–Si Dry cutting: 102
A7075 Al2Cu, Mg2Si Wet cutting: 102

4.3. Chip breakability in dry and wet cutting 5. Conclusions

As shown in Fig. 9, the chip breakability of the materials The role of second-phase particles on the chip break-
belonging to Group I or II in wet cutting is much greater ability of Al alloys has been investigated with turning tests
than that in dry cutting. Here, we discuss the reason. for various wrought aluminum alloys. The main results are
Rehbinder [19] have reported a reduction of cutting force as follows:
when liquid containing an organic polar compound is
applied on the surface of workpieces; this phenomenon is
known as the Rehbinder effect. The reason for the (1) The alloys used in the experiment could be classified
occurrence of the Rehbinder effect in machining is that into three groups depending on the chip-breaking
embrittlement of metals results from the decrease of surface factor. This is due to the difference of the breakability
energy and the prevention of re-welding of micro-cracks due of second-phase particles in these materials.
to the lubricants [20]. The materials belong to Group I or II (2) The chip breakability increases in alloys with Al2Cu or
are the ones in which cracked second-phase particles act as Si, and this tendency appears more remarkably in wet
the cause of chip breaking. Such cracking of second-phase cutting than in dry cutting. The increase of chip
particles and interface debonding between matrix and breakability is due to the fracture of second-phase
second-phase particles lead to the generation of micro- particles during machining.
cracks. It is considered that the increase of chip breakability (3) The increase of chip breakability in wet cutting is
in wet cutting can be attributed to the Rehbinder effect due attributed to the Rehbinder effect, which results from
to the penetration of cutting oil into the micro-cracks. the penetration of cutting oil into micro-cracks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
696 M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697

A2017 A3003

A4032 A5056

A6061 A7075

Al-12%Si

10µm

Fig. 8. Optical micrographs of cross section of chip at cutting speed 1.0 m/s in dry cutting. Arrows indicate cracks in second-phase particles.

M. Kamiya, T. Yakou / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 48 (2008) 688–697
Group I
105
A2017
Chip breaking factor, N (per 100g)
104
Group II
A4032 Al-12%Si
103
A5056 A6061
Group III
102
A3003
A7075
10
0 5
Volume fraction of second-phase particles, Vf (%)
Fig. 9. Chip-breaking factor of alloys plotted against the volume fraction
of second-phase particles.
References
[1] S. Yoshihara, M. Hirano, Effect of Si particles on chipping
characteristics of Al–Mg–Si alloys during drilling operation, Journal
of Japan Institute of Light Metals 51 (2001) 238–241.
[2] S. Yoshihara, H. Hoshi, K. Kinoshita, S. Osaki, Effect of Si addition
on fracture toughness of 6061-based aluminum alloys, Journal of
Japan Institute of Light Metals 56 (2006) 271–276.
[3] S. Yoshihara, S. Osaki, K. Takai, Effect of addition on chipping
characteristics of 6061 based aluminum alloys under two-dimensional
cutting, Journal of Japan Institute of Light Metals 56 (2006) 261–265.
[4] T. Yakou, S. Yoshida, H. Matsuoka, T. Hasegawa, Machinability of
age-hardened Al–Cu, Al–Cu–Pb, Bi and Al–Cu–Si alloys from a view
point of chip breaking, Transactions of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Series C 66 (2000) 3772–3777.
[5] T. Yakou, M. Kamiya, T. Hasegawa, Influence of aging treatment on
chip breaking and surface roughness during turning in Al–5.6mass%-
Cu–4.0mass%Si alloys, Transactions of the Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Series C 69 (2003) 1102–1107.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
697
[6] T. Yakou, M. Kamiya, T. Hasegawa, Effect of cutting fluids on
machinability of aged Al–5.6mass%Cu–4.0mass%Si alloys, Transac-
tions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series C 70
(2004) 602–607.
[7] M. Kamiya, T. Sasaki, T. Yakou, Comparison of chip breakability
between age-hardened Al–Cu and Al–Cu–Si alloys, in: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Leading Edge Manufactur-
ing in 21st Century, Fukuoka, 7–9 November 2007, pp. 689–694.
[8] R.H. Brown, L.A. Willey, in: Kent R. Van Horn (Ed.), Properties,
physical metallurgy and phase diagrams/prepared by engineers,
scientists and metallurgists of Aluminum Company of America
(Aluminum, Vol. 1), Metals Park, Ohio, 1967, pp. 31–54.
[9] M.F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, 1992, pp. 14–23.
[10] L. Dubourg, H. Pelletier, D. Vaissiere, F. Hlawka, A. Cornet,
dry cutting Mechanical characterization of laser surface alloyed aluminium–cop-
per systems, Wear 253 (2002) 1077–1085.
wet cutting [11] J. Zhang, Z. Fan, Y.Q. Wang, B.L. Zhou, Microstructural
development of Al–15 wt%Mg2Si in situ composite with mischmetal
addition, Materials Science Engineering A 281 (2000) 104–112.
[12] S. Sundararajan, B. Bhushan, Micro/nanotribological studies of
10 15 polysilicon and SiC films for MEMS applications, Wear 217 (1998)
251–261.
[13] K. Asano, A. Fujiwara, Quantitative evaluation of free-machining
properties of 2011 alloy, Journal of Japan. Institute of Light Metals
21 (1971) 579–588.
[14] H. Toda, T. Kobayashi, A. Takahashi, In-situ SEM study on damage
evolution at coarse secondary particles in 6061 aluminum alloy,
Journal of Japan. Institute of Light Metals 51 (2001) 113–118.
[15] T. Sakaki, X. Yang, H. Miura, Dynamic evolution of fine grained
structure and superplasticity of 7075 aluminum alloy, Materials
Science Engineering A 234–236 (1997) 857–860.
[16] M. Kobayashi, Y. Kojima, Report of the research group for
superplastic phenomena and applications in aluminum alloys. The
Light Metal Educational Foundation, Inc., 1985, pp. 85–86.
[17] M. Suzuiki, I. Oshima, T. Yoshida, T. Shibata, Influence of cutting
speed to the shear stress of Al–Zn eutectoid superplastic alloy
containing Cu and Mg, Journal of Japan Institute of Light Metals 27
(1977) 181–188.
[18] E.M. Trent, Metal Cutting, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 2000,
pp. 21–55.
[19] P.A. Rehbinder, New physico-chemical phenomena in the
deformation and mechanical treatment of solids, Nature 159 (1947)
866–867.
[20] E. Usui, A. Gujral, M.C. Show, An experimental study of the action
of CCl4 in cutting and other processes involving plastic flow,
International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research 1
(1961) 187–190.