ISSN 1068-798X, Russian Engineering Research, 2008, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 48–59. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2008.
Original Russian Text © A.L. Vorontsev, N.M. Sultan-Zade, A.Yu. Albagachiev, 2008, published in Vestnik Mashinostroeniya, 2008, No. 1, pp. 57–67.
Development of a New Theory of Cutting
1. Introduction1
A. L. Vorontsev, N. M. Sultan-Zade, and A. Yu. Albagachiev
Moscow State University (Polytechnic Institute)
DOI: 10.3103/S1068798X08010127
1 Currently, the calculation of cutting parameters is
based on a wide range of empirical formulas. Ingenu-
ity is employed to improve the technological effi-
ciency. Many of the physical laws observed (for exam-
ple, the formation of flaws of various kinds) have yet
to be explained in terms of the mechanics of deform-
able solids.
To improve metalworking processes purposefully,
rather than by trial and error, we need to create a viable
theory of these processes, i.e., a theory in full agree-
ment with current scientific consensus that could accu-
rately and reliably estimate the influence of various fac-
tors on the results of the process. Such a theory is
required to optimize metalworking by computational
means and to reliably predict the results of changing
tool geometry or the treatment of the initial blank.
In Russian cutting theory, it has been traditional to
assume that the theoretical investigation of cutting is a
separate field of knowledge, practically unrelated to the
theory of pressure treatment of metal, say, and corre-
spondingly to the theory of plasticity. Consequently,
scientists working on cutting theory are not sufficiently
aware of applied plasticity theory, while students in the
specialisms of cutting or manufacturing technology
generally have no idea of the existence of the mechan-
ics of a deformable solid and plasticity theory, since
they only study a very abbreviated course on the
strength of the materials, consisting entirely of simpli-
fied calculations in elastic deformation.
As a result, despite the growing number of Russian
attempts at a mathematical description of cutting pro-
cesses and surface hardening, a sound mathematical
theory of these processes still awaits development. Pub-
lished work relies on old theoretical ideas of the
founders of cutting theory, and contains many gross
theoretical errors and a fundamentally incorrect under-
standing of the basic principles of the mechanics of a
deformable solid.
In this context, we undertake here a brief analysis of
erroneous concepts and introduce correct definitions of
the corresponding terms. This is very important, since
we intend to create a fundamental mathematical theory
of cutting in strict agreement with the theoretical appa-
1 This series of articles will continue throughout 2008.
48
ratus of the mechanics of a deformable solid. Clear and
detailed description of the basic concepts is particularly
important, because our results may be used not only for
practical applications but also to greatly improve the
training of future specialists.
In our brief critical analysis of familiar works on
cutting theory, our intention is not to belittle other’s
achievements. However, we believe that today’s scien-
tists must not remain silent about the shortcomings of
earlier work, since, on the one hand, this fosters stagna-
tion and permits the repetition and application of incor-
rect principles and, on the other, if no shortcomings are
present, then further development makes no sense.
Note that, outside Russia, the inseparable link
between cutting processes and the pressure treatment of
metals has long been understood. For example, it was
noted in [10] that, in reality, the deformation scheme in
cutting is determined in the same way as in rolling or
pressing. Therefore, non-Russian scientists have pub-
lished many works proposing a theoretical description
of various cutting processes by means of familiar plas-
ticity-theory methods, used with the necessary degree
of attention. The basic results of such work will be
reviewed in the second article of this cycle.
In investigating the processes in a continuum (calcu-
lating the stress and strain fields and the temperature
fields and analysis of the failure conditions), the corre-
sponding physical fields must be studied. In a steady
process, these fields remain constant over time; in a
nonsteady process, they vary over time, reflecting the
influence of various factors. Solution of the theoretical
problem reduces to analysis of the distribution of the
corresponding variables (stress, strain, temperature,
etc.) over time and space. If the problem is correctly
formulated, its conditions must include the complete
set of initial data required for its solution, and the
unavoidable error of these data must have as little influ-
ence as possible on the accuracy of solution.
The fundamental kinematic formulas and defining
equations of the mechanics of solids constitute the
mathematical model of the internal mechanism of the
deformation processes considered. They do not
describe the interaction of the deformed body with the
environment nor its initial state. Accordingly, besides
the fundamental mechanics equations, the set of data
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
determining the initial state of the body (the initial con-
ditions) and describing the influence of the environ-
ment on the processes in the body (the boundary condi-
tions) must be considered. Together, they form the
uniqueness conditions of the accurate solution of the
problem and may be characterized as the constraints.
They constrain the space–time region within which the
process occurs.
As a result, we obtain a boundary problem: to deter-
mine the parameters of the processes occurring
throughout a particular space–time region on the basis
of specified conditions at its boundaries, by means of a
mathematical model.
We now consider several basic concepts in more
detail.
Another mechanical characteristic of the material
required for the calculations in plastic deformation is
the yield point. In plasticity theory, the concepts of the
yield point, proportionality, and elasticity are not dis-
tinguished [21]. The yield point is a particular case of
the more general concept of the yield strength, which
will shortly be defined.
In calculating process of metal treatment with plas-
tic deformation, we need to know the hardening curve,
i.e., the dependence of the yield strength σs of the mate-
rial on the accumulated strain ei. Note that we adopt
this notation here in preference to the notation εi some-
times employed [18, 19]. Strictly speaking, εi denotes
the strain used in the theory of small strains and cannot
correctly be transferred to the theory of large (finite)
strains.
No matter how accurate the theoretical research and
the resulting mathematical model, inaccurate specifica-
tion of the dependence σs = f (ei ) will often render the
results unsuitable for practical use. Therefore, there has
long been great research interest in the correct analysis
of test data for simple extension or compression and
identification of the best approximation for the harden-
ing curve.
Since the elastic sections on the hardening curves
are small, they are not usually shown. (In the extension
of most metal samples, the plastic state sets in even at
0.2% strain, whereas the strain in technological plastic-
ity problems is tens of percent.)
The accumulated strain is the quantity whose total
time derivative is equal to the strain rate, according to
the definition in [11]
de i /dt = ξ i .
Hence
t getic plasticity condition (the Huber–Mises plasticity
∫ ξ dt,
ei = (1)
i
0
where ξi is the strain rate; t is the time.
If the time factor t is formally replaced in Eq. (1) by
the corresponding path traveled s, it is obvious that,
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1
49
σs
σs0
0 ei
Fig. 1. Typical experimental hardening curve.
other conditions being equal, greater strain will accu-
mulate as the particle travels over a greater path in the
source of plastic deformation.
The yield strength σs is the stress causing plastic
strain in a linear stress state, with the given value of the
accumulated strain. It varies in the course of deforma-
tion, i.e., it is a variable. Hence, it must be distinguished
from the constant value σs0 which is the yield point.
The yield point is the initial value of the yield strength,
i.e., the stress at which plastic strain appears at the ini-
tial instant of deformation (Fig. 1).
The hardening (cold hardening) is the increase in
yield strength in the course of deformation. In tensile or
compressive tests of samples, as shown in [1], the accu-
mulated strain is the logarithmic (or true) strain, and
not the relative lengthening or decrease in cross-sec-
tional area of the sample (the conventional strain),
which is often used in simplified calculations [7, p.
136]. Therefore, in considering the hardening curve, we
consider the accumulated strain ei as a logarithmic
strain. Since there is a functional relation between the
logarithmic strain and the relative strain, the practical
use of the hardening curves given in the literature is not
difficult, regardless of the type of strain on which it is
based [18]. The relative linear strain may be determined
from the formula
–e
e = 1 – e i, (2)
where e is the base of natural logarithms.
In the academic theory of plasticity, for reasons of
tensor notation, the yield strength σs is often replaced
by the yield strength in shear τs (i.e., the tangential
stress is used instead of the normal stress). The relation
between these two characteristics will depend on the
plasticity condition adopted [3]. When using the ener-
condition)
τ s = σ s / 3. (3)
If the yield strength in shear τs is employed, the
characteristic of linear deformation—the accumulated
2008
50
σs (a) σs
ei
Fig. 2. Diagrams of ideal rigid–plastic (a), ideal elastoplastic (b), and elastoplastic material with linear (c) and staggered (d) hard-
ening.
strain ei —is replaced by the characteristic of angular
deformation—the shear strain Λi
Λi = 3e i .
In the past decade, there has been growing use of τs
and Λi —for example, in a series of theoretical volumes
on the pressure treatment of metals and failure [9, 16,
24, etc.]. In our view, this hinders engineers compre-
hension of the material and only serves to demonstrate
the academic aspirations of the authors.
Of course, in the academic theory of plasticity, any
terminology and notation may be used for the sake of
convenience in explicating the theoretical principles.
Academic theory is not concerned with design and
sometimes fails to give specific practical calculations of
technological processes. (For specific applications, ten-
sor notation in conventional engineering form is
required.)
For example, anyone studying an elementary course
in the strength of materials will have no difficulty in
understanding the statement that “the linear tensile
strain is 0.2, and the normal stress is 1000 MPa,” since
the quantities employed are directly related to simple
tensile tests. However, only specialists in plasticity the-
ory will clearly understand the statement that “the ten-
sile shear strain is 0.347, while the shear stress is
577 MPa.” Understanding this statement entails an
understanding of the relation between these quantities
and those in the first statement, which is given by
Eqs. (3) and (4), but these equations are not included
in courses on the strength of materials. Therefore, the
discussion here will be conducted in terms of σs and
ei , which may be found in any familiar handbook on
metalworking and the properties of manufacturing
materials.
The creation of mathematical theories describing
plastic deformation entails the use of schematic harden-
ing curves, i.e., the replacement of the actual hardening
curves by close approximations of simple mathematical
form.
The schematic curves most often used include the
diagrams of an ideal rigid–plastic material (Fig. 2a), an
ideal elastoplastic material (Fig. 2b), an elastoplastic
material (and, in particular cases, a rigid–plastic mate-
rial) with linear hardening (Fig. 2c), and a material with
VORONTSOV et al.
(b) σs (c) σs (d)
ei ei ei
power-law hardening (Fig. 2d). The last curve is
appealing because it is described by the same function
over the whole strain range
(4)
σ s = Ce i .
n
(5)
However, this approximation greatly distorts the
experimental hardening curve at small strain, as noted
in [21]. Detailed analysis of the deficiencies of this
approximation may be found in [1, 3]. The most accu-
rate of the known approximations takes the form
σ s = A – Be
–ei
– Ce
– N ei
, (6)
where the coefficients are determined from formulas
obtained in [1, 3]. This approximation describes the
experimental hardening curve (Fig. 1) practically accu-
rately over the whole range from small to large strain.
In a general sense, the strain rate characterizes
rapid variation in the deformed state. In other words,
the strain rate (s–1) determines the change in the accu-
mulated deformation per unit time.
This is not to be confused with the deformation rate
(m/s), which is the rate of mutual relative displacement
of the deforming tool and the rigid (plastically unde-
formable) part of the material being machined. It is
important to emphasize this distinction, since the scien-
tific literature sometimes conflates these concepts. The
deformation rate appears in the formula for the strain
rate and thus directly influences its value.
For example, the strain rate in cutting was said to be
much greater than the deformation rate in [7, p. 83].
This is just as absurd as the statement that “10 s is much
greater than 1 m.”
In [7, p. 25], it was noted that the frictional stress at
the contact surfaces of the cutting tool and the blank is
sometimes regarded as a primary tangential (or octahe-
dral) stress, and on that basis, the limiting values of the
frictional coefficient in metal cutting are determined as
µ = 0.5–0.577. The author of [7] regards this as unjus-
tified, and cites the value µ = 0.8 ([7], p. 28). This indi-
cates a lack of understanding of the fundamental dis-
tinction between two different frictional coefficients,
both of which are denoted by µ in [7]: the plastic-fric-
tional coefficient, which cannot exceed 0.577 accord-
ing to the plasticity condition; and the machine-friction
coefficient (i.e., the frictional coefficient of plastically
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
undeformable bodies), which may be much larger than
0.577.
Attempts to describe the friction at contact surfaces
with considerable plastic deformation by the Kra-
gel’skii or Deryagin frictional laws or others of that
type lead to unsatisfactory results, according to [13]. In
plastic deformation, the dependence of the frictional
stress on the normal pressure is disrupted. The actual
dependence is very complex and has yet to be accu-
rately established.
We now consider in more detail the use of frictional
laws in solving plasticity problems [3].
In most cases, the contact friction is taken into
account in calculations of metal treatment by plastic
deformation on the basis of the Amonton–Coulomb law
tc = fσn, (7)
where σn is the normal stress at the contact surface and
f is the frictional coefficient in terms of the normal
stress (it may be larger than 0.577); or on the basis of
the law of constant inertial force (the Siebel law)
τc = βµσs, (8)
where β is the Lode coefficient and µ is the frictional
coefficient in terms of the σs. In Eq. (8), the limiting
value of µ is 0.5.
The Lode coefficient takes account of the influence
of the intermediate primary stress and varies between
narrow limits: from 1 (when the two primary stresses
are equal) to 1.155 (with a plane deformed state charac-
terized by a mean primary sum equal to the half-sum of
the maximum and minimum primary stresses). Obvi-
ously, in a plane deformed state, the limiting value of
the product βµ = 1, is 1.555 × 0.5 = 0.577.
Attempts at accurate analysis of metal treatment
with plastic deformation on the basis of dry-friction
theory, described by the Amonton–Coulomb law, lead
to unsatisfactory results in many cases, especially in the
analysis of bulk deformation, as noted in [13]. The fact
is that, with considerable normal stress, there is plastic
deformation of the contact surface, accompanied by
softening and smoothing of the microprojections,
which disrupts the linear dependence of the frictional
force on the normal load. Accordingly, it is only expe-
dient to use the Amonton–Coulomb friction laws in the
analysis of processes for which σn < σs. Many sheet-
stamping operations satisfy this condition, for example.
Relatively rigorous solution of the plasticity prob-
lem entails the use of partial differential equations; for
the axisymmetric problem, for example, eight such
equations must be considered [3]. It is very difficult to
use Eq. (7) in rigorous solutions, since the boundary
conditions will include unknown functions. (The nor-
mal stress σn at the contact surface is one of the quanti-
ties to be determined and is unknown until the end of
the solution.) In this formulation, the problem cannot
be solved in terms of elementary functions and numer-
ical methods must be used, in an attempt to obtain a
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1
51
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Separation of a body into parts in the plastic state (a)
and (b) as a result of disintegration.
more or less acceptable solution. In practice, the solu-
tion obtained will almost always contain an irreconcil-
able contradiction between the Amonton–Coulomb
contact-friction law assumed and the kinematic flow,
resulting, in particular, in tangential-stress variation
that differs from the assumed law. Therefore, in what
follows, we mainly use the Siebel friction law.
Since we intend to construct a new theory of cutting
on the basis of the mathematical apparatus of contin-
uum mechanics, any reference to a crack in what fol-
lows should be assumed to mean a macrocrack. Micro-
cracks are the subject not of mechanics but of the phys-
ics of solids, which does not yet permit the practical
prediction of crack initiation.
Since part of the initial blank (a chip) is removed in
any cutting process, cutting specialists tend to have the
incorrect idea that any cutting process is accompanied
by disintegration. However, and separation of a body
into parts are different concepts.
Consider an example. Suppose that we must divide
a blank into two parts using a chisel. If the blank is
made of highly plastic material (say, S00 lead), the
chisel must be introduced over the whole thickness of
the blank for this purpose (Fig. 3a). Separation occurs
as a result of plastic deformation, and the geometry of
the fissure surface will be completely determined by the
geometry of the tool. To speak of the onset of disinte-
gration in this case is incorrect, since two intermediate
products of specified geometry are obtained. In cutting,
an analog of this example is the formation of a contin-
uous chip.
If the blank consists of a material of low plasticity
(say, V95 alloy), the introduction of the chisel to some
depth will give rise to an accompanying crack of cha-
otic form (Fig. 3b), which leads to separation of the
body into parts long before the chisel passes through
the thickness of the blank. In the crack zone, the fissure
surface will have a spontaneous irregular (torn) form,
whose geometry is unstable and is not uniquely deter-
mined by the shape of the tool. In this case, the separa-
tion of the body into parts is due to disintegration. The
analogous example in terms of cutting is the formation
of a discontinuous fracture chip.
Thus disintegration is the process by which parts of
the body are separated from one another as a result of
crack development. Thus, disintegration and crack for-
2008
52
Fig. 4. Natural markings on the surface of a part obtained by
extension.
mation may be used here as synonyms, in complete
agreement with current theories of failure [16, 24].
Note that, in mechanics of solids, the theory of disinte-
gration is often called crack mechanics.
An important concept in the current theory of disin-
tegration is the hydrostatic pressure or mean normal
stress
σ x + σ y + σz
σ = ----------------------------
-.
3
Note that in hydraulics, which is characterized
solely by compressive stress, with no tensile stress, the
compressive hydrostatic pressure is assumed positive,
for the sake of convenience. In the deformation of a
solid, the mean normal stress in Eq. (9) may be com-
pressive or tensile. Therefore, as in most works on the
mechanics of deformable solids, we will assume that
compressive hydrostatic pressure is negative, while ten-
sile pressure is positive. Thus, compressive stress
reduces the algebraic value of the hydrostatic pressure,
while tensile stress increases it. Note that the hydro-
static pressure has no influence on the strain rate and
the plastic flow of the deformed body.
An important cutting parameter is the shrinkage of
the chip, which is the ratio of the chip thickness to the
thickness of the layer to be cut [7]. This term is inapt,
since shrinkage generally means decrease in size,
whereas, in cutting, the chip thickness is increased with
respect to that of the cut layer in most cases. Therefore,
it is preferable to speak of the coefficient of chip thick-
ening. This coefficient shows by how much the chip
thickness exceeds the thickness of the layer to be cut. If
this coefficient is larger than 1, the material separated
becomes thicker in the course of cutting; if it is less than
1, it becomes thinner.
VORONTSOV et al.
(a) (b)
z z
τ3
τ2 a
τ1 a 4
3
a2
a1 a
b2 b3
b4
ϕ
0 x 0 x
Fig. 5. Construction of slip lines (a) and the slip-line grid (b).
For the purposes of the subsequent discussion, we
will now briefly outline a familiar plasticity-theory
method: the slip-line method (also called the character-
istic method), which has become popular around the
world in view of its simplicity of application. This
method has a profound experimental and theoretical
basis but also considerable deficiencies, which we will
consider later. Examples of slip lines are the Hartmann
lines observed on the surface of a plane polished sam-
ple on extension beyond the elastic limit or on the sur-
face of a flange in sheet extension (Fig. 4).
The slip-line method is best developed for a plane
deformed state. The deformed material is assumed to be
rigid–plastic (Fig. 2).
Ultimately, the method entails the construction of a
grid (field) of slip lines and the use of their properties.
(9) As we know, there are two mutually orthogonal direc-
tions along which the tangential stress takes the greatest
values at any point of a deformed body. We also know
that the area of action of the maximum tangential stress
is divided in half by the angles between the primary
areas in which the maximum σ1 and minimum σ3 pri-
mary stresses appear.
On the xz plane (Fig. 5a) in a body in a plane
deformed state, we take any point a1 and plot the corre-
sponding vector τ1 of the maximum tangential stress.
We proceed in the direction of this vector to a point a2
relatively close to a1. From point a2, we construct the
vector τ2 of maximum tangential stress. In general, τ2
will differ from τ1 in both direction and magnitude. Pro-
ceeding further in this way, we obtain the discontinuous
line a1a2a3a4, and so on.
On account of the pairing of the tangential stresses,
we may plot a second vector τ perpendicular to τ1.
Then, beginning at a1, as before, we may construct a
second discontinuous line a1b2b3b4, and so on. The two
lines intersect at point a1 at a right angle. These lines
may also be extended on the other side of point a1.
With infinite increase in the number of points and
decrease in the distance between them, the discontinu-
ous lines are converted into smooth curves, represent-
ing the trajectories of maximum tangential stress, or
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
slip lines, which are lines touching all the point of
action of the maximum tangential stress.
From each point a and b (Fig. 5a), other slip lines
may be constructed. As a result, we obtain an orthogo-
nal grid of slip lines (Fig. 5b), also known as the slip-
line field. In general, this grid is curvilinear. The points
of intersection of the slip lines are node points.
It is clear from our account of the construction of the
slip-line grid that, for different stress states of the grid,
the slip lines are different, and each particular stress
state corresponds to a particular slip-line field.
We may show that the stress-state components at the
given point are
⎧ σ
⎪ σ x = σ – ------s- sin 2ϕ,
⎪ 3
⎪
⎪ σs
⎨ σ z = σ + ------- sin 2ϕ,
⎪ 3
⎪ σs
⎪ τ xz = ------
- cos 2ϕ,
⎪ 3
⎩ Equations (12) and (13) are important. If we know
where ϕ is the inclination of the tangent to the slip line
at the corresponding point to the x axis. (In Fig. 5b, the
tangent will pass randomly through the coordinate ori-
gin and may intersect the x axis at any point.) It is obvi-
ous that, at the same point, the inclination of the tangent
to the slip line of the other (perpendicular) family will
be ϕ + π/2.
In a plane deformed state, the Huber–Mises plastic-
ity condition takes the form
3
------- ( σ x – σ z ) + 4τ xz = σ s .
2 2
2 constant at the points of this surface
It is noteworthy that Eq. (10) for the slip lines satis-
fies Eq. (11) identically, as is easily established by
direct substitution. Hence, when dealing with Eq. (10)
for the slip lines, there is no need to be concerned about
the satisfaction of the plasticity condition, since it will
be satisfied for any ϕ.
Thus, in order to determine σx , σz, and τxz from
Eq. (10), we need to know only two values: the hydro-
static pressure σ and the angle ϕ.
Using the integrals of the slip lines obtained by
Hencky (Germany) in 1923, we may show that, on
moving along any slip line, the hydrostatic pressure σ
varies in proportion to the angle of rotation of the slip
line (Fig. 6a)
2σ
σ a1 – σ a2 = --------s ( ϕ 1 – ϕ 2 ),
3 tion.
or
2σ s
σ a1 – σ a2 = --------ϕ 12 ,
3 to two slip lines of the same family at their points of
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28
53
(a) (b)
z z
a2
a1
θ
ϕ12
θ
ϕ2 ϕ1
0 x 0 x
Fig. 6. Determining the variation in hydrostatic pressure σ
(a) and explanation of Henckyís first theorem (b).
where ϕ12 is the angle of mutual rotation of the tangents
to the slip lines in the section a1a2.
For motion along the family of lines perpendicular
(10) to that shown in Fig. 6a, we must use the formula
2σ s
σ a1 – σ b2 = – --------ϕ 12 .
3
the hydrostatic pressure σ at any point of the slip-line
grid (for example, from the boundary conditions), then
it is simple to establish the hydrostatic-pressure distri-
bution over the whole slip-line field using Eqs. (12) and
(13), by passing from one node to another. Knowing σ
and ϕ, it is simple to determine all the stress-state com-
ponents σx, σz, and τxz from Eq. (10). This will be dem-
onstrated in what follows.
If the plastic region extends to the stress-free surface
of the body, the hydrostatic pressure σ and normal
(11) stress σt acting along the contour of the surface will be
σ
σ = ± ------s- , (14)
3
2σ s
σ t = ± --------. (15)
3
Thus, close to the free surface, the material experi-
ences uniform uniaxial extension (+) or compression (–)
in the plastic region. This will be clear from the specific
loading conditions.
We may show that the slip lines are characteristics
of the initial system of equilibrium equations and the
plasticity condition n Eq. (11). Therefore, the slip-line
method is sometimes called the characteristic method,
especially when the problem is not solved graphically
(12) but by numerical methods of boundary-problem solu-
Correct construction of the slip lines is associated
with a property determined by Henckyís first theorem,
(13) formulated as follows: the angle between the tangents
No. 1 2008
54
(a) (b)
0 “Simplified concepts regarding the deformation of the
A C
A
CB
B D 0 cited, reproduced here as Fig. 7b.
D
Fig. 7. Centering the slip-line field (a) and slip lines in cut-
ting according to [7] (b).
intersection with each slip line of another family will
remain constant (Fig. 6b).
Hence we derive another important consequence: if
any segment of a slip line of the given family is a frag-
ment of a straight line, then all the other segments of
the slip lines of this family demarcated by the same slip
lines of another family will also be straight-line seg-
ments and will be of the same length (for example, AB =
CD in Fig. 7a).
The centered field of slip lines with a singular point 0
in Fig. 7 is important, since it is often used in connect-
ing together different sections of the slip-line grid.
Since straight slip lines characterized by different
hydrostatic pressure σ converge at point 0, it follows
that, theoretically, the stress at singular point 0 is not
characterized by a fixed value. However, the equilib-
rium equation and the plasticity condition are formally
satisfied at this point.
The envelope of the slip lines of any family or the
line of discontinuity of the flow rates must reach the
free surface of the free surface of the deformed body,
since otherwise motion of the incompressible material
in the plastic regions in accordance with the tool motion
is impossible.
The results here considered characterize the internal
properties of the slip-line grid. Besides these proper-
ties, the slip-line grid must satisfy conditions at the
boundaries of the given cross section of the deformed
body. In the absence of friction, the slip lines must
reach the free surface and also at the contact surface of
the tool at an angle of π/4. If the friction at the contact
surface reaches the maximum value in Eq. (3) permit-
ted by the physical properties of the deformed metal,
one family of slip lines intersects the contour of the
cross section at π/2, while this contour is the envelope
for the family of lines. With an intermediate value of the
contact tangential stress, the angles at which the slip
lines meet the contact surface take corresponding inter-
mediate values.
For a symmetric problem, the tangential stress at the
symmetry axis must be zero. Hence, the slip lines must
reach the symmetry axis at an angle of π/4.
VORONTSOV et al.
The following statement was made in [7, p. 78]:
cut layer along a single shear plane have been given
here. In reality, the situation is more complex. The plas-
tic deformation—i.e., shear processes—occurs within a
certain zone and, according to plastic mechanics, the
corresponding shear line may be expressed by curves
passing through the cutting zone.” Then a figure is
Elsewhere in [7], the claim of familiarity with “plas-
tic mechanics” is made. However, it is only evident
from Fig. 7b that the author does not know the elemen-
tary principles of slip-line theory outlined here. At the
free surface of the chip, where there is no friction, the
slip lines in Fig. 7b reach points A and C at an angle of
π/2, rather than π/4, as should be the case. In moving
along lines 0A–0B and 0B–0C, Henckyís first theorem
is violated, since the lines at first diverge and then begin
to converge. The line 0D in general does not reach the
surface of the body, thereby preventing motion of the
material in the plastic region characterized by this line.
Such illiterate analysis, ostensibly based on plastic
mechanics, can only serve to mislead cutting special-
ists. It need not be considered further here.
We now turn to the theory of slip lines.
We will show that, in general, there is more than one
valid approach to constructing the slip-line field.
Obtaining a good solution requires considerable expe-
rience and intuition. A possible slip-line field that is
correctly constructed and satisfies the equilibrium con-
dition, the properties of the slip lines, and the specified
boundary conditions for the stress may not correspond
to the kinematic conditions. The theory of plasticity
proves that the lower bound of the deformation force is
determined by a statically possible slip-line field that
does not satisfy the kinematic conditions.
In order to determine the true deformation force (not
the value observed in reality but the value correspond-
ing to accurate solution of the problem [3]), the slip-
line field must also satisfy the kinematic conditions.
Therefore, derivation of the corresponding complete
solution entails the construction of a velocity field (or
hodograph). The velocity field also permits the deter-
mination of the direction of motion of the deformed
metal and judgments regarding the character of the
deformed state.
There is a characteristic geometric relation between
the hodograph and the slip-line grid: any infinitely
small segment of the slip line is orthogonal to an infi-
nitely small segment of the line in the hodograph. This
indicates change in velocity of the points of the given
slip-line segment.
As an example, consider the use of the slip-line
method to determine the initial introduction of a punch
with a plane end into a considerably larger blank, in the
absence of friction (Fig. 8). In academic plasticity the-
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING 55

ory, the solution is found by determining the resistance (a) z

to cutting, since loss of plastic equilibrium and the
q
onset of cutting will correspond to a force q (deter- A 0 B
mined at the end of the solution) that is larger than the 45° 45° x
resistance to cutting [26, p. 264]. The result obtained
here permits certain other conclusions.
D C E
Since we assume an absence of contact friction, the
slip lines must reach the working surface of the punch z
(b)
AB at an angle of 45°. In addition, as already noted, the
slip lines must intersect the symmetry axis at 45°. A 0 B
Therefore from the extreme points A and B at the end of
the punch, we plot straight slip lines at an angle of 45°;
they intersect at point C and bound a section of slip D'
D C E
lines adjacent to the end of the punch (Fig. 8a). The free
surface of the deformed body passes to the right and left z
of the punch; the slip lines are inclined at 45° to this (c)
surface. Preliminary lines AD and BE are plotted at 45° F A 0 B G
from points A and B. Obviously, points A and B are sin- 45°
gular points, since they are characterized by an abrupt
jump in the stress normal to the surface of the blank D'
from zero at the free surface to some finite value q at the D C E
end of the punch. Constructing circles of radius AC and
z
BC from these points (Fig. 8b), we obtain the bound- (d)
aries of the centered fields, connecting the region of slip
F A 0 B K G
lines adjacent to the punch to regions adjacent to the
free surface of the blank.
Since the slip line must reach any point of the free
surface at an angle of 45°, we construct the correspond- D C E
ing line from point D' to point F (Fig. 8c). Analogously, H
we obtain boundary EG on the right side of the figure.
Fig. 8. Stages in constructing the slip-line network when a
The slip-line grid may be clearly displayed by con- punch with a flat end is introduced in a body of large trans-
structing, within the established region, the correspond- verse dimensions.
ing orthogonal straight lines, radii, and circles (Fig. 8d).
The boundary between the plastic region and the lower example, point K—the hydrostatic pressure may be
rigid region is determined by the line FDHCEG, which found on the basis of Eq. (14)
is the envelope of a family of slip lines. (The plastic
region is also called the source of plastic deformation.) σ
σ K = – ------s- . (16)
It is evident that boundary is a line of discontinuity, 3
since the metal flows above this line but is in a motion-
In the case of motion along the slip line from point K
less state below it. Hence, the tangential stress acting to point 0 at the surface of the punch, in accordance
from the rigid region on this boundary will be the lim- with Eq. (13)
iting value. In full agreement with this, all the slip lines
of the other family reach the boundary at 90°, i.e., the 2σ s
σ K – σ 0 = --------ϕ K0. (17)
grid obtained is correct. The resulting slip-line grid was 3
plotted by Prandtl in 1921.
It is evident that the inclination of the slip line K0
We now determine the force q required for the onset relative to the x axis varies from +π/4 at point K to –π/4
of punch entry in the blank. at point 0. Hence, the total angle of rotation ϕK0 in
motion along the slip line from point K to point 0 will
Since the transverse flow of metal from under the be π/2. Substituting this value and Eq. (16) into
end of the punch is prevented by the surrounding rigid Eq. (17), we find the hydrostatic pressure at point 0
region, it is obvious that horizontal compressive stress
σ
will act on this metal in the region BEG (Fig. 8d). σ 0 = – ------s- ( 1 + π ). (18)
Accordingly, for any point of the free surface BG—for 3

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008

56 VORONTSOV et al.

(a) significantly different for the three solutions. (In the

z Hill solution, for example, it is half that in the Prandtl
solution.)
q
F A 0 B K Theoretically, we cannot assign a preference to any
x of the solutions. Therefore, we choose between them on
the basis of experimental data. Since experiments show
that the plastic deformation appears close to points A
H
and B and propagates slowly to the center of the punch,
(b) the Hill grid is selected (Fig. 9a).
z
Experimental data suggest that the Prandtl solution
q is of great practical interest in the case of rough
F A 0 B K
punches, according to opinions stated in [33, 10]. This
x is very dubious, in our view, for the following reasons.
On the one hand, with great friction at the end of the
punch, the Prandtl grid is incorrectly constructed: it
H should reach this surface at 90°, rather than 45°. On the
other, the forces on the punch with no friction and with
considerable friction are very different and cannot be
Fig. 9. Hill (a) and Prager–Hodge (b) solutions. equal [1].
The solutions obtained describe the first moment of
introduction of the punch in the blank. As the introduc-
Substituting Eq. (18) and the angle ϕ = –π/4 into the tion of the punch continues, the driving force will vary.
second expression in Eq. (10), we find the axial stress According to slip-line theory, the grid will cease to
at point 0 reach the upper horizontal surface at a certain instant
and will take the form in Fig. 10a. This grid is con-
σ structed analogously to that in Fig. 8, except that the
σ z = – ------s- ( 2 + π ). (19)
3 slip lines are inclined at 45° to the vertical cavity wall,
rather than the horizontal surface. The total angle of
Since the angle of rotation in motion along any other slip-line rotation ϕK0 on moving from point K to point
slip line—for example, from point G to point A—is also 0 will evidently be π. Therefore, in the course of intro-
π/2, the stress at this point is determined by Eqs. (18) duction, the driving force on the punch will increase
and (19). Thus, the axial stress on the end of the punch considerably, to
will be constant.
σ
Taking this into account, the force on the punch is q = σ z = ------s- ( 2 + 2π ) ≈ 5σ s . (21)
3
σ
q = σ z = ------s- ( 2 + π ) ≈ 3σ s . (20) Note that a correct solution will not always result
3 from the construction of a slip-line grid completely sat-
In 1950, Hill showed that the Prandtl solution is not isfying all the static requirements and characterized by
unique and proposed the slip-line field in Fig. 9a. In a hodograph that complies with the kinematic boundary
1956, Prager and Hodge showed that a solution com- conditions. Besides the requirements already noted, a
bining the Prandtl and Hill solutions may be con- correct grid must also correspond to positive power
structed (Fig. 9b). (energy) of plastic deformation. This requirement may
The Hill and Prager–Hodge grids also completely be expressed as follows: at any point of the grid, the
satisfy all the requirements imposed on the construc- sign of the tangential stress τ and the corresponding
tion of the slip-line fields. Since the angle of rotation angular strain rate η must be the same.
ϕK0 is constant, and is π/2 in all three cases, q will also The slip-line grid for the introduction of a rounded
be the same for all three types of grids. punch satisfying the existing static boundary conditions
The velocity fields (hodographs) are found to be dif- is shown in Fig. 10b. The grid is constructed analo-
ferent. However, all the grids will satisfy the kinematic gously to that for the introduction of a plane punch and
conditions of the problem. reaches the rounded surface at an angle of 45°. It is evi-
dent that, in this case, the angle of slip-line rotation is
Thus, three different accurate solutions of the same not the same for different contact points, i.e., the stress
problem have been obtained. Hence, when using the at the surface of the rounded punch will be variable. In
model of an ideal rigid–plastic material, the accurate 1940, this grid was constructed by Sokolovskii [26].
solution is not unique. The velocity hodograph for this grid satisfies the kine-
Note that the width of the buildup zone, determined matic conditions of the problem. Nevertheless, the
by the segment AF, and the height of the plastic-defor- solution is not correct, as noted in 1950 by Lee
mation source, determined by the segment AH, will be (England). In fact, the tangential stress and the corre-

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008

 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING 57

(a) (b)
z z

K
q
0

Fig. 10. Slip-line grids on introducing a punch in a cavity (a) and on introducing a rounded punch (b).

sponding angular strain rates have different signs, as
shown in detail in [26, 27].
Thus, some of the stress solutions are incompatible
with some of the velocity solutions.
Hill noted the use of the same incorrect slip-line
field by Sokolovskii, Shevchenko, Carrera, and Ansoff
[33, p. 203]. As Hill also pointed out, Hencky assumed,
in considering the insertion of a cylindrical punch, that
the slip-line field would be completely identical to that
for plane deformation [33, p. 321]. Ishlinskii improved
Henckyís solution by adopting the Haar–Karman
hypothesis that the intermediate primary stress is equal
to one of the two others and determining the corre-
sponding field on the basis of numerical integration.
Regarding the Ishlinskii solution for the insertion of a
spherical punch in hardness tests, Hill wrote: “Such
calculations are of little or no value, since the Haar–
Karman hypothesis for metals is physically unrealistic
and will introduce an error of unknown magnitude.”
Note that a solution free of these deficiencies will be
considerably more complex than the plane solution.
The three-dimensional axisymmetric problem of the
insertion of a cylindrical punch with a spherical end
was outlined in [6]. Instead of the characteristic
method, more rigorous plastic-flow theory was
employed in [6]. The stress and velocity fields obtained
are completely in agreement and everywhere satisfy the
requirement of positive power of plastic deformation.
For the first time, a finite (not small) accumulated strain
is found at any point of the source of plastic deforma-
tion. The dependence of the dimensions of the source
on the hardening curve of the given material is estab-
equilibrium equations if the material remains intact,
ensuring continuous velocity normal to the discontinu-
ity surface.
As an example, consider the typical cutting scheme
in Fig. 11. The cutting process is most often represented
by a single shear plane characterized by dashed line AB.
It is assumed here that a particle of the blank moving to
point M in the opposite direction to the cutter at veloc-
ity v0 and then moving across boundary AB to point N
undergoes sharp reversal of its motion and begins to
move parallel to the chip formed, at velocity v1.
We now consider the components of v0 and v1 nor-
mal (n) and tangential (t) to line AB. The continuity
condition requires that
v 0n = v 1n . (22)
It is evident from Fig. 11 that, on crossing the
boundary AB, there is a discontinuity in the tangential
velocity components. The total discontinuity is
∆v = v 0t ± v 1t . (23)
In Eq. (23), we take the plus sign if v0t and v1t are in
opposite directions, and the minus sign if they are in the
same direction.
n
ν1
h

lished. An arbitrary (rather than zero or maximum) con- ν1t ν1n

tact-friction coefficient may be taken into account here. A
In comparison with the existing formulas, the formulas N
obtained as a result of this solution provide better ν0
M ν0n
agreement with tens of independent experimental data
[1]. (The maximum discrepancy in the force is no more
ν0t
than 7.8%, and the mean discrepancy is 3%.)
B
We now consider the determination of the strain rate νpn t
and the accumulated rate on the basis of the slip-line
method. Of particular importance for further analysis of
cutting processes are the velocity-discontinuity sur-
faces, which are consistent with the system of plastic- Fig. 11. Velocity discontinuity in typical cutting system.

RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008

58
Thus, on crossing the discontinuity line (which may
be a slip line), a small element of the material sharply
changes its direction of motion and suddenly undergoes
finite shear in the direction of the discontinuity line. In
practice, there is some transition region of thickness h
within which the velocity reverses direction. In slip-line
theory, however, the thickness of this region is assumed
to be infinitesimal: h 0. Therefore, the shear strain
rate ηnt and the strain rate ξi are infinite at the disconti-
nuity surface, while the tangential stress is a maximum
η nt = ∆v /h ∞;
ξ i = η nt / 3 ∞;
τ nt = σ s / 3.
Note that the discontinuity surface may be station-
ary, i.e., in a fixed position during deformation (vpn = 0)
or may be mobile. In the latter case, the motion of any
point of the discontinuity surface is characterized by
the corresponding normal velocity vpn.
In general, the accumulated strain in an elementary
volume of the material passing through the velocity-
discontinuity surface is
∆v
e i = --------------------------------- .
3 v 0n ± v pn
Here, the plus sign corresponds to opposite direc-
tions of v0n and vpn, and the minus sign to the same
direction.
In cutting, the shear line AB is usually assumed to be
stationary, i.e., vpn = 0. In that case, a particle of the
metal intersecting the discontinuity line at point B is at
the edge of the cutter, and v0n = 0. Then it follows from
Eq. (27) that, according to this theoretical model, the
accumulated strain at a point intersecting the edge of
the cutter will be infinite. This result is obtained in
some of the theories of cutting considered earlier.
REFERENCES
1. Vorontsov, A.L., Teoriya shtampovki vydavlivaniem
(Theory of Pressure Stamping), Moscow: Mashinostroe-
nie, 2004.
2. Vorontsov, A.L., Teoriya malootkhodnoi shtampovki
(Theory of Low-Waste Stamping), Moscow: Mashinos-
troenie, 2005.
3. Vorontsov, A.L., Tekhnologicheskie zadachi teorii plas-
tichnosti (Technological Problems of Plasticity Theory),
Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 2006, vol. 1.
4. Vorontsov, A.L., Tekhnologicheskie zadachi teorii plas-
tichnosti (Technological Problems of Plasticity Theory),
Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 2006, vol. 2.
5. Vorontsov, A.L., Tekhnologicheskie zadachi teorii plas-
tichnosti (Technological Problems of Plasticity Theory),
Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 2006, vol. 3.
6. Vorontsov, A.L., Analysis of the Kinematic, Stress, and
Strain State of a Blank on Inserting a Cylindrical Punch
VORONTSOV et al.
in a Halfspace, Vestn. Mashinostr., 1998, no. 7, pp. 44–
47.
7. Vul’f, A.M. Rezanie metallov (Metal Cutting), Lenin-
grad: Mashinostroenie, 1973.
8. Gordon, J., Structures, or Why Things Donít Fall Down,
New York: Da Capo, 1978.
9. Gun, G.Ya., Teoreticheskie osnovy obrabotki metallov
davleniem (Theoretical Principles of the Pressure Treat-
ment of Metals), Moscow: Metallurgiya, 1980.
10. Jonson, U., Mellor, P., Teoriya plastichnosti dlya inzhen-
erov (Plasticity Theory for Engineers), Moscow: Mashi-
(24) nostroenie, 1979.
11. Il’yushin, A.A., Theory of Plastic Flow, Izv. Akad. Nauk
(25) SSSR, 1958, no. 2, pp. 20–33.
12. Ilíyushin, A.A., Trudy (Collected Works), Moscow: Fiz-
(26) matgiz, 2003, vol. 1.
13. Isachenkov, E.I., Kontaktnoe trenie i smazka v protses-
sakh obrabotki metallov davleniem (Contact Friction
and Lubrication in the Pressure Treatment of Metals),
Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1978.
14. Kachanov, L.M., Osnovy teorii plastichnosti (Principles
of Plasticity Theory), Moscow: Nauka, 1969.
15. Kovka i shtampovka. Spravochnik. T. 3. Kholodnaya
ob”emnaya shtampovka (Forging and Stamping: A
Handbook, Vol. 3, Cold Bulk Stamping), Nav-
rotskii, G.A., Ed., Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1987.
16. Kolmogorov, V.L., Napryazheniya, deformatsii, razrushe-
(27)
nie (Stress, Strain, Failure), Moscow: Metallurgiya,
1970.
17. Komarov, V.A., Povyshenie effektivnosti tekhnolo-
gicheskikh protsessov na osnove sovershenstvovaniya
obrabotki rezaniem (Improving the Efficiency of Tech-
nological Processes by Improving Cutting Processes),
Moscow: MGTU im. N.E. Baumana, 2002.
18. Krokha, V.A., Krivye uprochneniya metallov pri kholod-
noi deformatsii (Hardening Curves of Metals in Cold
Deformation), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1968.
19. Krokha, V.A., Uprochnenie metallov pri kholodnoi plas-
ticheskoi deformatsii: Spravochnik (Hardening of Met-
als in Cold Plastic Deformation: A Handbook), Moscow:
Mashinostroenie, 1980.
20. Loladze, T.N., Prochnost’ i iznosostoikost’ rezhu-
shchego instrumenta (Strength and Wear Resistance of
Cutting Tools), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1982.
21. Malinin, N.N., Prikladnaya teoriya plastichnosti i pol-
zuchesti (Applied Theory of Plasticity and Creep), Mos-
cow: Mashinostroenie, 1975.
22. Moroz, L.S., Mekhanika i fizika deformatsii i razru-
sheniya materialov (Mechanics and Physics of the
Deformation and Failure of Materials), Leningrad:
Mashinostroenie, 1984.
23. Pavlov, P.A., Mekhanicheskie sostoyaniya i prochnost’
materialov (Mechanical States and Strength of Materi-
als), Leningrad: Izd. Leningradskogo Univ., 1980.
24. Kolmogorov, V.L., Bogatov, A.A., Migachev, B.A., et al.,
Plastichnost’ i razrushenie (Plasticity and Failure),
Moscow: Metallurgiya, 1977.
25. Smirnov-Alyaev, G.A., Soprotivlenie materialov plas-
ticheskomu deformirovaniyu (Resistance of Materials to
Plastic Deformation), Leningrad: Mashinostroenie,
1978.
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1 2008
 DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW THEORY OF CUTTING
26. Sokolovskii, V.V., Teoriya plastichnosti (Plasticity The-
ory), Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1969.
27. Stepanskii, L.G., Raschety protsessov obrabotki metal-
lov davleniem (Calculations of the Pressure Treatment of
Metals), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1979.
28. Storozhev, M.V. and Popov, E.A., Teoriya obrabotki
metallov davleniem (Theory of the Pressure Treatment
of Metals), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1977.
29. Tarnovskii, I.Ya., Pozdeev, A.A., Ganaro, O.A., et al.,
Teoriya obrabotki metallov davleniem (Theory of the
Pressure Treatment of Metals), Moscow: Metallurgizdat,
1963.
30. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodyear, J., Theory of Elasticity,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
31. Tomlenov, A.D., Teoriya plasticheskogo deformiro-
vaniya metallov (Theory of the Plastic Deformation of
Metals), Moscow: Metallurgiya, 1972.
32. Feodos’ev, V.I., Soprotivlenie materialov (Strength of
Materials), Moscow: Nauka, 1970.
33. Hill, R., Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1950.
34. Kholodnaya ob”emnaya shtampovka. Spravochnik
(Cold Bulk Stamping: A Handbook), Navrotskii, G.A.,
Ed., Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1973.
35. Fadyushin, I.L., Muzykant, Ya.A., Meshcheryakov, A.I.,
and Maslov, A.R., Instrument dlya stankov s ChPU,
mnogotselevykh stankov i GPS (Tools for Numerically
Controlled and Multipurpose Machine Tools and for
Flexible Production Systems), Moscow: Mashinostroe-
nie, 1990.
36. Dmitriev, A.M. and Vorontsov, A.L., Analysis of Finite-
Element Solutions, Proizv. Prokata, 2004, no. 4, pp. 3–
11.
37. Dmitriev, A.M. and Vorontsov, A.L., Reliability of the
Finite-Element Method, Spravochnik, Inzh. Zh., 2004,
no. 6, pp. 13–22.
38. Makarov, A.D., Optimizatsiya protsessov rezaniya
(Optimization of Cutting Processes), Moscow: Mashi-
nostroenie, 1976.
RUSSIAN ENGINEERING RESEARCH Vol. 28 No. 1
59
39. Reznikov, A.N., Teplofizika rezaniya (Thermophysics of
Cutting), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1969.
40. Ryzhkin, A.A., Teplofizicheskie protsessy pri iznashiva-
nii instrumental’nykh rezhushchikh materialov (Ther-
mophysical Processes in the Wear of Cutting-Tool Mate-
rials), Rostov-on-Don: DGTU, 2005.
41. Ovchinnikov, A.G., Osnovy teorii shtampovki vydavli-
vaniem na pressakh (Fundamentals of the Theory of
Stamping on Presses), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1983.
42. Poletika, M.F., Kontaktnye nagruzki na rezhushchikh
poverkhnostyakh instrumenta (Contact Loads at Tool
Cutting Surfaces), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1969.
43. Silin, S.S., Metod podobiya pri rezanii materialov (Sim-
ilarity Method in Cutting Materials), Moscow: Mashi-
nostroenie, 1979.
44. Talantov, N.V., Fizicheskie osnovy protsessa rezaniya,
iznashivaniya i razrusheniya instrumenta (Physical
Principles of Cutting and Tool Wear and Failure), Mos-
cow: Mashinostroenie, 1992.
45. Krivoukhov, V.A. and Chubarov, A.D., Obrabotka reza-
niem titanovykh splavov (Cutting Titanium Alloys),
Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1970.
46. Kuvshinskii, V.V., Frezerovanie (Milling), Moscow:
Mashinostroenie, 1977.
47. Pronkin, N.F., Protyagivanie trudnoobrabotyvaemykh
materialov (Extension of Materials That Are Hard To
Machine), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1978.
48. Dinamika protsessa rezaniya metallov. Sb. tr. ENIMSa
(Dynamics of Metal Cutting: Proceedings of the Experi-
mental Scientific-Research Institute of Machine Tools),
Kashirin, A.I., Ed., Moscow: Mashgiz, 1953.
49. Spravochnik tekhnologa-mashinostroitelya (Manufac-
turing Handbook), Kosilova, A.G. and Meshcherya-
kov, R.K., Eds., Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1985.
50. Bronshtein, I.N. and Semendyaev, K.A., Spravochnik po
matematike (Mathematics Handbook), Moscow: GITTL,
1956.
2008