See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225520132

Precision radial turning of AISI D2 steel

Article  in  The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · June 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s00170-008-1644-9

CITATIONS READS

17 2,046

6 authors, including:

J. Paulo Davim A. M. Abrao

University of Aveiro Federal University of Minas Gerais
759 PUBLICATIONS   19,948 CITATIONS    144 PUBLICATIONS   4,051 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Juan Campos Rubio

Federal University of Minas Gerais
125 PUBLICATIONS   3,013 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Surface modification by die-sinking EDM (SM-SEDM) View project

Thermal and surface integrity evaluation of AZ31 magnesium alloy under cryogenic and dry turning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Campos Rubio on 11 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849
DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1644-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Precision radial turning of AISI D2 steel
J. Paulo Davim & C. Maranhão & P. Faria & A. Abrão &
J. C. Rubio & Leonardo R. Silva
Received: 11 March 2008 / Accepted: 27 June 2008 / Published online: 22 July 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008
Abstract This paper compares finite element model (FEM)
simulations with experimental and analytical findings
concerning precision radial turning of AISI D2 steel. FEM
machining simulation employs a Lagrangian finite element-
based machining model applied to predict cutting and thrust
forces, cutting temperature and plastic strain distribution.
The results show that the difference between the experi-
mental and simulated cutting force is near 20%, irrespec-
tively of the friction coefficient used in the simulation work
(approximately 19.8% for a friction of 0.25% and 18.4%
for the Coulomb approach). Concerning the thrust force,
differences of about 22.4% when using a friction coefficient
of μ=0.25 and about 56.9% when using the Coulomb
friction coefficient (μ=0.378) were found. The maximum
cutting temperature obtained using the analytical model is
494.07°C and the difference between experimentation and
simulation methods is 15.2% when using a friction
coefficient of 0.25 and when using the Coulomb friction
only 3.1%. Regarding the plastic strain, the differences
J. P. Davim (*) : C. Maranhão
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro,
Campus Santiago,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: pdavim@ua.pt
P. Faria : A. Abrão : J. C. Rubio
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Minas Gerais,
Campus Pampulha,
31.270-901 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
L. R. Silva
Department of Mechanics,
Federal Center for Technological Education of Minas Gerais,
Av. Amazonas, 5253, Nova Suíça,
30.480-000 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
between analytical calculations and FEM simulations (for
the presented friction values) suggest that the finite element
method is capable of predictions with reasonable precision.
Keywords AISI D2 precision turning .
Finite element modelling . Cutting forces .
Cutting temperature . Plastic strain
1 Introduction
Trent and Wright [1] stated that metal cutting constitutes a
complex process involving a variety of physical phenomena,
such as plastic deformation, frictional contact, thermo-
mechanical coupling and chip-and-burr-formation mecha-
nisms. Process features such as tool geometry and cutting
parameters directly affect cutting forces, chip morphology,
tool life and the final product quality. Finite Element Method
(FEM) models applied to machining operations lead to a
better understanding of the above-mentioned phenomena
[2]. Several finite element techniques are currently avail-
able for accurate and efficient modelling of metal cutting:
material and geometric non-linear analysis, mesh resizing
techniques, element separation for chip formation model-
ling, element separation criteria, tool wear modelling,
residual stress prediction, etc. In many cases, the FEM
simulations have also been validated by comparisons with
the results of experimental investigations to understand to
what degree the numerical results are close to the
experimental results. Bil et al [3] compared various
simulation models for orthogonal cutting in addition to
experimental data. In the analysis of orthogonal cutting
using FEM simulations, predictions are greatly affected by
two major factors: flow stress characteristics of the work
material at distinct cutting regimes and the friction
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849
characteristics at the tool–chip interface [4]. In their work
concerned with the machining of AISI 1045 medium
carbon steel, Ceretti et al [5] compared experimental results
with those given by numerical simulation using the
software DEFORM 2D. These authors concluded that the
FEM simulation results agree with the experimental
findings with regards to chip geometry, tool workpiece
contact length and chip and tool temperatures. Neverthe-
less, the prediction for cutting forces was within 10%
accuracy. Qian and Mohammad [6] studied the influence of
cutting speed, feed rate, tool geometry and workpiece
hardness when finish hard turning using numerical simu-
lations and experimental work. These researchers conclud-
ed that the machining forces tend to increase as feed rate,
tool nose radius and workpiece hardness increase and rake
angle decreases. These results are consistent with experi-
mental and numerical investigations reported in the other
investigations. According to Mamalis et al [7], the
numerical simulation results of a finite element machining
model suggest that this approach may be more reliable than
analytical methods owing to the fact that the effect of
parameters such as strain, strain rate and temperature on the
work material properties can be taken into account.
However, the properties of the materials under such
conditions are difficult to obtain, which limit the accuracy
of the results of any numerical model. Filice et al [8]
investigated the role played by the friction model in the
bidimensional simulation of orthogonal cutting, comparing
different models proposed previously by various research-
ers. Filice et al [8] concluded that in the near future, the
attention of research in this field will be focused on the
material modelling, usually derived by an inverse approach
based on the forces measurement. The reason for this
resides in the fact that contact length, chip thickness and
shear angle are strictly dependent on the work material.
Predictions when using FEM models are greatly influ-
enced by the flow stress and friction characteristics at the
tool–chip interface. Friction coefficient (μ) is the most
important parameter to obtain reliable simulations when
working with finite element formulation. Friction occurs in
two zones: the primary shear zone (where the major
shearing of work takes place) and the secondary shear zone
(adjacent to the tool–chip interface due to high stress
contact conditions). Granted, a precise friction coefficient is
crucial [4, 8–10] to obtain accurate predictions for the
variables such as forces, temperatures or stresses (all of
which are of extreme importance) to identify optimum
cutting parameters, tool material and tool geometry in order
to improve the quality and cut production times. Geiger et
al [11] showed that the use of traditional friction coef-
ficients can lead to erroneous results. Other researchers
have assumed the friction coefficient in a range from 0.1 to
0.5 when simulating machining operations. However, as
843
Zorev [12] proposed, shear and normal stresses can be
assumed in the tool rake face. According to Zorev, a
sticking region appears in the tool–chip contact area (near
the cutting edge), and the frictional shearing stress at the
sticking region can be assumed equal to an average shear
flow stress at the tool–chip interface. A sliding region forms
over the remainder of the tool–chip contact area, and the
frictional shearing stress can be determined by using a
friction coefficient. When the normal stress distribution
over the rake face is fully defined and μ is known, the
frictional stress can be determined. Accordingly, the shear
stress distribution on the tool rake face can be represented
in two different regions: the sticking and sliding regions
[13].
In the present analysis, numerical simulations using a
Lagrangian finite element-based machining model were
performed to predict cutting forces, temperature distribution
and plastic strain. Firstly, the orthogonal cutting model
results were validated by comparison with the cutting
forces obtained experimentally. The orthogonal model
proposed by Merchant [14] was used. Figure 1 shows a
schematic diagram of the radial turning operation, where
the cutting and feed directions can be seen. Finally, FEM
predictions of cutting temperature and plastic strain during
radial precision turning of AISI D2 steel using uncoated
carbide cutting tools were conducted. The friction value
provided through the Coulomb model is believed to output
higher friction results because the Coulomb model is used
with static contact in mind. When machining operations are
conducted, the contact (between the tool, chip and
workpiece) is dynamic, and physical transformations are
present. In this research, it is believed that the friction
coefficient should be less than the value calculated when
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the radial turning operation
844 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849

using the Coulomb model. The optimum value was found

through several iterations.

1.1 Experimental analysis

Dry radial turning tests using AISI D2 steel as the

workpiece material were carried out on a Kingsbury MHP
50 CNC lathe with 18 kW spindle power and a maximum
spindle speed of 4500 rpm. The chemical composition,
thermal and mechanical properties of AISI D2 steel are
presented in Table 1. Bars with 20 mm diameter and 80-mm
cutting length were turned with an uncoated cemented
carbide cutting tool. The workpiece and tool are shown in
Fig. 2. A Kistler piezoelectric dynamometer model 9121
with a load amplifier connected to a computer was used for
the acquisition of the cutting force (Fc) and thrust force (Ft).
The employed cutting conditions are given in Table 2. The
numerical results for cutting temperature and plastic strain
were compared with the analytical findings obtained using
the approach proposed by Boothroyd [15] in Table 3. The
plastic strain (ε) was calculated analytically using Eq. 1: Fig. 2 Workpiece and cutting tool used in the radial turning operation

1 þ R2c
2Rc  sin g

"¼ ð1Þ
Rc  cos g vanced finite element models appropriate for machining
where Rc is the chip thickness ratio and γ is the tool rake operations. The orthogonal cutting system is described in
angle. Figs. 3 and 4 showing a sample of the output given by the
above-mentioned software. Orthogonal cutting was simu-
lated using uncoated carbide as the tool material. The
2 Finite elements analysis workpiece material was AISI D2 tool steel, and its
mechanical properties were obtained using the FEM
Simulations were performed with Third Wave Systems program database. The input parameters entered into the
AdvantEdge™ simulation software, which integrates ad- code are given in Table 4. The μ used in this FEM analysis
was calculated applying the experimental cutting and radial
forces values to following equation:
Table 1 Chemical composition and thermal and mechanical proper-
ties of AISI D2 steel
Ft þ Fc  tgg
m¼ ð2Þ
Properties Fc
Ft  tgg
Chemical composition (%)
C 1.55 where Fc is the experimental cutting force, Ft is the
Cr 12.00 experimental thrust force and γ the rake angle.
Mn 0.50
To model the thermal-viscous plastic behavior of the
Mo 0.80
Si 0.30
workpiece materials, the software uses a constitutive
V 0.90
Thermal properties
Thermal conductivity (W/mK) 21
Specific heat capacity (J/kg°C) 460
Table 2 Experimental conditions used in dry radial turning of AISI
Mechanical properties
D2 steel
Density (kg/mm3) 7.64
Hardness (HB) 260 Cutting parameter Unit Value
Elongation (%) ≥16
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 180 Cutting speed m/min 70
Yield strength (MPa) ≥320 Feed rate µm/rev. 80
Tensile strength (MPa) 710–1,260 Width of cut mm 2.7
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849 845

Table 3 Cutting temperature calculation using Boothroyd’s [15]

approach

Temperature calculation

Maximum temperature q ¼ q5 þ qm þ q0
ð1
Γ ÞPI
Temperature in the primary shear zone q5 ¼ rcV c tb

Energy consumption rate PI ¼ FI  VI

Force acting on the shear plane FI ¼ Fc cos f
Fa sin f
g
Rate of stain on the shear plane VI ¼ Vc coscos
ðf
g Þ 
g
Shear plane angle f ¼ arctg Rccos
sin g

Chip thickness ratio R ¼ t'

c t

Undeformed chip thickness t ¼ f  sin #

Chip width b ¼ sinP #
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
Temperature in the secondary shear zone qm ¼ qf  Rt
lf

Average temperature qf ¼ rcVPIc tb

Thermal number R ¼ rcV
k
c t

Room temperature θ0
Fig. 4 Third Wave AdvantEdge™ finite element model output
f Feed rate, b chip width, c specific heat, t′ measured chip thickness,
Fa feed force, Fc cutting force, lf contact length, P depth of cut, Vc
cutting speed, γ rake angle, k thermal conductivity coefficient, ρ
specific weight, χ position angle tool, Γ absorbed heat proportin
Also of note is that the workpiece height is more than
five times bigger than the feed and relative tool sharpness
(RTS) defined by:
equation, the Johnson–Cook law, which can be represented tr
by the following formula: RTS ¼ ð4Þ
rn
 !!

m 
" T
Troom where tr is the uncut chip thickness (mainly affected by the
s eq ¼ ðA þ B" Þ 1 þ C1n
n
 1

"0 Tm
Troom feed) and rn is the tool edge radius [13, 17].
RTS should be bigger than 10 (however, in the present
ð3Þ
work, RTS equals 4) so ploughing could be a possibility.

where ε is the plastic strain, is the " plastic strain rate (s−1), Given the acceptable differences between experimental and

" is the reference plastic strain rate (s−1), T is the simulation work, it is believed that if ploughing is, in fact,
temperature of the workpiece material (°C), Tm is the present, it has not influenced the results in a negative way.
melting temperature of the workpiece material (°C), and The friction coefficient was the starting point in the FEM
Troom is the room temperature (°C). Coefficient A is the model, and a judicious analysis was taken in order to
yield strength (MPa), B is the hardening modulus (MPa) understand whether the Coulomb friction coefficient was a
and C is the strain rate sensitivity coefficient, n is the valid approach. Thus, in addition to the friction coefficient
hardening coefficient and m the thermal softening coeffi- obtained experimentally, several iterations were conducted
cient [16]. with various friction coefficient values in order to reduce the

Fig. 3 Schematic diagram of

the finite element model
846 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849

Table 4 Simulation parameters used in the finite element model search of a different friction coefficient, one capable of
Simulation parameters providing better results for the thrust force without harming
the rest of the cases of study. From this investigation, a
Workpiece parameters friction value of 0.25 was found. This friction value proved
Workpiece material AISI D2 to be a middle term because while it dramatically decreased
Workpiece Length [mm] 2.5
the difference in the thrust force, it increased the difference
Workpiece Height [mm] 2
in the cutting temperature and in the cutting force as well.
Tool parameters
Tool material Uncoated carbide tool However, it is believed that all cases of study are in the
Clearance angle (°) 7 acceptable range of differences between the numerical and
Rake angle (°) 0 experimental work.
Cutting edge radius (mm) 0.02 Table 5 gives an overview of the numerical and
Rake face length (mm) 1 experimental or analytical values and their difference using
Relief face length (mm) 1 friction coefficients of 0.378 and 0.25. As previously
Cutting parameters
detailed, the former friction coefficient was obtained using
Cutting speed (m/min) 70
Feed rate (μm/rev) 80
Eq. 2 and the latter friction coefficient was taken from the
Width of cut (mm) 2.7 simulation which gave the closest values between the
Length of cut (mm) 2.5 experimental and numerical forces results. It can be seen that
Initial temperature (°C) 20 the difference for temperature is smaller using μ=0.378,
Friction coefficient 0.378a while the numerical force is responsible for reduced differ-
0.25b ences related to thrust force and plastic strain. Moreover, the
Simulation difference between the numerical and experimental cutting
Maximum number of nodes 12,000
force values does not seem to be drastically affected by
Maximum element size (mm) 0.1
Minimum element size (mm) 0.02 the friction coefficient. However, the opposite occurs
when dealing with the thrust force (which decreases its
a
Value obtained experimentally difference substantially from 56.9% to 22.4%).
b
Value obtained numerically
3.1 Cutting and thrust forces

difference between the force values obtained experimentally
and numerically. A friction coefficient of 0.25 was the value
which provided closer results (the starting friction value was
0.378) between both (numerical and experimental) methods.
3 Results and discussion
Simulation results were compared with experimental values
to address if the differences between cutting and thrust
forces, cutting temperature and plastic strain were accept-
able. Whereas, for the cutting force, cutting temperature
and plastic strain, FEM results were satisfactory; the same
could not be said about the thrust force. This fact led to a
Figure 5 shows the experimental and numerical evolution
of the cutting and thrust forces (Fc and Ft, respectively) as a
function of the length of cut, while Table 5 gives the
average cutting and thrust forces values. The experimental
results show a steady pattern, in contrast to both simulation
results, which show some fluctuation as the cutting length
progresses. The experimental cutting force possesses an
average value of 483.02 N; however, the simulated values
are considerably higher (near 20%), irrespective of the
friction coefficient employed.
The difference between experimental and simulated
results for cutting force presented in Fig. 6 suggests that
the shear yield strength of the work material has not been
accurately estimated by the software for the cutting

Table 5 Experimental or analytical and FEM-simulated values for distinct friction coefficients

Experimental/ Analytical μ=0.378 FEM μ=0.378 FEM μ=0.25

Value Value Δ (%) Value Δ (%)

Cutting force (N) 483.02 571.93 18.4 578.75 19.8

Thrust force (N) 182.69 286.57 56.9 223.62 22.4
Temperature (°C) 494.07 509.49 3.1 419.16 15.2
Plastic strain 4.19 4.35 3.8 4.16 0.8
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849
Fig. 5 Cutting and thrust forces values obtained experimentally (a)
and by numerical simulations using friction coefficients of 0.378 (b)
and 0.25 (c)
847
Fig. 6 Average cutting and thrust forces obtained analytically and by
FEM simulations using distinct friction coefficients
condition tested, probably due to the influence of the
temperature in the shear plane on the shear strength.
Increasing the temperature in the shear plane promotes
lower shear strength and, as a consequence, lower cutting
force values. As far as the friction coefficient is concerned,
the variations in this parameter do not affect the cutting
force, in opposition to the thrust force.
In the case of the thrust force, the simulated values are
considerably higher than that the obtained experimentally
(182.69 N), i.e., 56.9% using the friction coefficient of
0.378 and 22.4% for μ=0.25.
3.2 Cutting temperature
Figure 7 shows the FEM simulation maps for cutting
temperature at the end of the length of cut using both
friction coefficients, where it can be seen that the isotherms
associated to higher temperatures are observed near the
cutting edge and along the shear plane. The simulation
employing the higher friction coefficient promotes higher
temperatures. The maximum cutting temperature value
calculated analytically (494.07°C) is compared with the
simulation work in Table 5 and Fig. 8. The difference
between the simulated and analytical values is smaller
using μ=0.378 (Δ=3.1% against Δ=15.2% for μ=0.25).
In this case, however, it is not possible to assert whether
the analytical or numerical estimates of temperature are
near the actual value owing to the difficulties associated to
the calculation of the cutting temperature by both methods.
These difficulties are related to the accuracy in establishing
the proportion of the generated heat which is conducted
into the chip and the lack of data concerned with the
848 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849

Fig. 7 Cutting temperature simulation at the end of the cutting length Fig. 9 FEM simulation for plastic strain at the end of the cutting
using friction coefficients of 0.378 (a) and 0.25 (b) length using friction coefficients of 0.378 (a) and 0.25 (b)

Fig. 8 Maximum cutting temperature obtained analytically and by Fig. 10 Plastic strain obtained analytically and by FEM simulations
FEM simulations using distinct friction coefficients using distinct friction coefficients
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:842–849
variation of the specific heat and thermal conductivity of
the work material as the temperature is altered. Addition-
ally, the tool–chip contact length in rake face plays a key
role in the temperature rise due to plastic deformation in the
secondary shear area.
3.3 Plastic strain
The FEM simulation maps for plastic strain using both
friction coefficients are presented in Fig. 9. It can be seen
that the higher strain values are observed in the region of
the chip, near the rake face and the employing of a higher
friction coefficient results in increased restriction to the chip
flow and, consequently, in higher strain values. The average
strain value calculated analytically and the maximum
values obtained numerically are given in Table 5 and
Fig. 10. In spite of the fact that the differences between the
analytical and numerical approaches are small (Δ=3.8% for
μ=0.378 and Δ=0.8% for μ=0.25), in a similar manner to
the cutting temperature results, it is not possible to
accurately determine whether these values are close to the
actual plastic strain.
4 Conclusions
Based on the experimental and analytical results and their
comparison with finite element model simulation, the
following conclusions can be drawn concerning radial
turning of AISI D2 steel with an uncoated carbide tool:
– The difference between the experimental and simulated
cutting force was near 20% and was not drastically
affected by the friction coefficient employed in the
FEM simulation work. In the case of the thrust force,
however, the difference was smaller (Δ=22.4%) using
a friction coefficient of μ=0.25. The large difference
between experimental and numerical values is attribut-
ed to alterations in the shear yield strength of the work
material as the machining temperature is elevated and
to the difficulty in accurately determine the chip–tool
contact area;
– The maximum cutting temperature obtained analytical-
ly was 494.07°C, and the difference between the
analytical and numerical values was smaller using μ=
0.378 (Δ=3.1%). Nevertheless, it is not possible to
assert how close these values are from the actual
temperature without an experimental investigation;
– The differences between the plastic strain calculated
analytically and using FEM simulations were small
irrespectively of the friction coefficient employed (Δ=
3.8% for μ=0.378 and Δ=0.8% for μ=0.25), thus,
suggesting that the analytical approach is capable of
View publication stats
849
providing plastic strain values comparable to the FEM
at lower expense.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the Foundation for
Science and Technology, Portugal, project POCTI/EME/61676/2004,
for the use of the software licence Advantedge®.
References
1. Trent EM, Wright PK (2000) Metal Cutting. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford
2. Marusich TD, Oriz M (1995) Modelling and simulation of high
speed machining. Int J Numer Methods Eng 38:3675–3694
doi:10.1002/nme.1620382108
3. Bil H, Kilic SE, Tekkaya AE (2004) A comparison of orthogonal
cutting data from experiments with three different finite element
models. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:933–944 doi:10.1016/j.
ijmachtools.2004.01.016
4. Ozel T (2006) The influence of friction models on finite element
simulations of machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:518–530
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.07.001
5. Ceretti E, Fallbohmer P, Wu WT, Altan T (1996) Application of
2D FEM to chip formation in orthogonal cutting. J Mater Process
Technol 59:169–180 doi:10.1016/0924-0136(96)02296-0
6. Qian L, Mohammad RH (2007) Effect on cutting force in turning
hardened tool steels with cubic boron nitride inserts. J Mater
Process Technol 191:274–278 doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.
03.022
7. Mamalis AG, Horvath M, Branis AS, Manolakos DE (2001)
Finite element simulation of chip formation in orthogonal metal
cutting. J Mater Process Technol 110:19–27 doi:10.1016/S0924-
0136(00)00861-X
8. Filice L, Micari F, Rizzuti S, Umbrello D (2007) A critical
analysis on the friction modelling in orthogonal machining. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 47:709–714 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.
2006.05.007
9. Fang N (2005) Tool-chip friction in machining with a large
negative rake angle tool. Wear 258:890–897 doi:10.1016/j.
wear.2004.09.047
10. Sartkulvanich P, Altan T (2005) Effects of flow stress and friction
models in finite element simulation of orthogonal cutting—a
sensitivity analysis. Mach Sci Technol 9:1–26 doi:10.1081/MST-
200051211
11. Geiger M, Kleiner M, Eckstein R, Tiesler N, Engel U (2001)
Microforming Annals. CIRP 50(2):445–462
12. Zorev N, Wallace P, Boothroyd G (1964) Tool forces and tool-
chip friction in orthogonal machining. J Mech Eng Sci 6:422
13. Özel T, Zeren E (2007) Numerical modelling of meso-scale finish
machining with finite edge radius tools. Int J Machining
Machinability Mater 2(3/4):451–468
14. Merchant ME (1945) Mechanics of metal cutting process I—
orthogonal cutting and type 2 chip. J Appl Phys 16(5):267–275
doi:10.1063/1.1707586
15. Boothroyd G, Knight WA (1989) Fundamentals of machining and
machine tools, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 542
16. Umbrello D, M’Saoubi R, Outeiro J (2007) The influence of
Johnson–Cook material constants on finite element simulation of
machining of AISI 316L steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:462–
470 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.06.006
17. Outeiro J (2007) Influence of tool sharpness on the thermal and
mechanical phenomena generated during machining operations.
Int J Machining Machinability Mater 2(3/4):413–432