J Cja 2020 08 003

CJA 1700 No.
of Pages 13
7 September 2020
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2020), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx
1
Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com
of
3 Evaluation of tool wear and cutting performance
4 considering effects of dynamic nodes movement
o
5 based on FEM simulation
Pr
6 Zhenyu SHI a,b,*, Xin LI a,b, Ningmin DUAN a,b, Qibiao YANG a,b,c
a
7 Key Laboratory of High Efficiency and Clean Mechanical Manufacture, Ministry of Education, Shandong University, Jinan
8 250061, China ed
b
9 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China
c
10 School of Mechanical Engineering, Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan 430000, China
11 Received 4 March 2020; revised 3 August 2020; accepted 3 August 2020

12
ct
14 KEYWORDS Abstract An accurate estimation of tool wear morphology can provide the opportunity to inves-
15
tigate the influence of tool wear on cutting performance as well as reduce the overall production
re
16 Finite element method;

17 Friction model; cost. However, tool wear prediction is still a very challenging research issue. In this paper, a novel
18 Machining; method for simulating the actual chip formation and wear evolution thorough the 3D finite element
19 Stress distribution; model has been carried out. In order to improve the accuracy of simulation results, the influence of
20 Wear worn tool, stress and temperature distribution on wear rate are considered. Then cutting experiment
or
has been conducted by turning AISI1045 with uncoated carbide tools to validate the accuracy of the
proposed model. The comparison between experimental and simulation results show good agree-
ment which proves the ability of the proposed model in forecasting the tool wear. The validated
finite element model has been further utilized studying how the worn tool affects the cutting perfor-
mance including actual cutting rake, stress distribution, cutting force and temperature. The results
nc
of this paper not only provide a clear understanding of wear evolution between tool rake face and
chip, but also are meaningful to optimize tool design and cutting parameters.
21 Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
U
* Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of High Efficiency and 1. Introduction 22
Clean Mechanical Manufacture, Ministry of Education, Shandong

University, Jinan 250061, China. Metal cutting is still one of the most important manufacturing 23
E-mail address: shizhenyu@sdu.edu.cn (Z. SHI). processes in industry. Up to 15% of the value of all mechanical 24
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. components manufactured worldwide is derived from metal 25
cutting operations.1 During the machining process, tool wear 26
affects the tool life, the tool substitution policy and the quality 27
of final products in terms of roughness, geometrical accuracy 28
Production and hosting by Elsevier
and residual stress state. Researchers indicated that tool wear 29
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.08.003
1000-9361 Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: SHI Z et al. Evaluation of tool wear and cutting performance considering effects of dynamic nodes movement based on FEM sim-
ulation, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.08.003
CJA 1700 No. of Pages 13
7 September 2020
2 Z. SHI et al.
30 was affected by the material adhesion, abrasion, erosion, diffu- 3D model by considering the nose arc and inclination angle. 92
31 sive wear, corrosion and fracture.2–4 And wear mechanisms The dynamic nodes movement technology has the advantages 93
32 generally existed simultaneously, even if only one or few of of simulating tool wear in lower consumption time and better 94
33 them were dominant. accuracy by comparing with Arbitrary Lagrange-Euler (ALE) 95
34 Many methods had been conducted to predict the tool wear or remeshing technology. Then cutting experiment is per- 96
35 morphology and wear amount. One of the methods was to formed by turning AISI1045 with the uncoated carbide tool 97
36 establish wear model analytically. The wear rate was treated to validate the ability of the proposed model. The comparison 98
37 as a function of cutting parameters such as cutting velocity, between experimental and FEM results show a good agree- 99
38 feed, depth of cut. Pálmai4 suggested the abrasive wear ment to prove the ability of the combined tool wear model 100
39 amount was estimated to be proportional to the sliding veloc- in forecasting the tool wear. The validated finite element model 101
40 ity and independent of temperature, whereas the rate of has been further utilized studying how the worn tool affects the 102
41 physical-chemical wear process depends largely on the inter- cutting performance including actual cutting rake, stress distri- 103
face temperature. Usui et al.5 established the wear rate mode
of
42 bution and cutting force. 104
43 by taking into account the effects of contact pressures, sliding
44 velocity and interface temperature. However, those analytical 2. Workpiece material and procedures 105
45 models didn’t have high accuracy in predicting wear amount
46 since they ignored the thermo-mechanical loads on the tool
o
Machining experiments were performed as shown in Fig. 1 and 106
47 edges would vary with the cutting condition and wear evolu- the machined material was AISI1045. Cylindrical bars with 107
48 tion. Meanwhile, those analytical models still needed the con- 110 mm diameter and 50 mm length was used for the experi- 108
49 tact information such as contact pressure and interface
Pr
ments. The cutting tool used (Grade: CNMG120404, Ken- 109
50 temperature to be input, which were difficult to be measured nametal Inc.) was the uncoated tungsten carbide tool with 110
51 accurately during the machining process.1,6,7 the nose arc r = 0.4 mm, initial rake anglec0 = 0°, clearance 111
52 Another mothed to predict the tool wear morphology and angle a = 0° and inclination angle ks = 5°. The material prop- 112
53 wear amount was presented by combining finite element erties were summarized in Table 1. 113
54 method (FEM) and wear rate model. Yen et al.8 developed a The specific cutting parameters were selected at the cutting 114
55 methodology for tool wear simulation by implementing the ed speed 70 m/min, the feed rate 0.2 mm/r, and the width of cut 115
56 well-known Usui wear rate model into a two-dimensional cut- 1 mm. The dynamometer Kistler 9129AA was applied to mea- 116
57 ting simulation. Similarly, Filice et al. simulated both flank sure the cutting forces. The K type thermocouple was used to 117
58 and crater wear in a two-dimensional model with an innovat- measure the temperature on the cutting tool, which was com- 118
59 ing method that tool meshes were updated directly during cut- bined with a multiple channel USB data acquisition module 119
60 ting process in every 30 s.9 However, the shortcomings of
61 simulations in two-dimensional models were that tool details
ct
62 such as the inclination angle and the nose arc were ignored
63 and were only used in the orthogonal cutting condition.10,11
64 The 3D FEM software (DEFORM 3D, AdvantEdge, ABA-
65 QUS) allowed the simulation of tool wear progression in lon-
re
66 gitudinal turning operations. Many researchers predicted tool

67 wear geometry and the influence of wear on cutting perfor-
68 mance with the commercial wear rate codes inside the soft-
69 ware.12–15 Attanasio et al.12 estimated tool wear development
during turning operations by taking into account diffusive
or
70
71 wear mechanism. The tool wear simulation results showed
72 good accuracy in terms of crater extension, but problems in
73 the correct identification of crater depth and position were
74 noticed. Then the author used the coupled abrasive-diffusive
nc
75 model to present the tool wear for machining of AISI1045 with

76 uncoated WC tools.13 A comparison between experimental
77 and simulative results showed a general good agreement in cra-
78 ter wear parameters. However, the most simulation results Fig. 1 Experimental setup.
79 mentioned above only focused on orthogonal cutting model
and ignored the influence of the worn tool geometry on the
U
80
81 wear rate.14,15 Meanwhile, the simulations combined with con-
82 stant wear rate ignored stress and temperature distributions on Table 1 Material properties of AISI 1045 and cutting tool are
83 the tool rake and would lower the accuracy of FEM input for finite element model.18,19
84 results.16,17 Material properties AISI1045 Cutting tool
85 To overcome these limitations, in this paper an innovation
Density q (kg/m ) 3
7850 15,000
86 method for simulating the actual chip formation and tool wear Elasticity E (GPa) 210 800
87 evolution by means of the 3D FEM simulation has been car- Poisson ratio m 0.3 0.2
88 ried out. The wear rate model is implemented into the nodes Conductivity k (W/mK) 53.9 46
89 movement subroutine for performing tool wear morphology. Specific heat c (J/(kgK)) 420 203
90 The wear rate is decided by considering the worn tool geome- Expansion aw (K1) 1.2 105 4.7 106
91 try, stress and temperature. The cutting tool is modelled in the
7 September 2020
Evaluation of tool wear and cutting performance considering effects of dynamic nodes movement based on FEM simulation 3
120 OM-DAQ-2401. Detailed tool wear in terms of tool rake face 3. Tool wear simulation 130
121 and flank face were measured using scanning electron micro-
122 scope (SEM) ZEISS EVOMA 10 and the confocal laser scan- Fig. 2 illustrates the steps of the tool wear evolution. Firstly, 131
123 ning microscope (CLSM). the finite element model is set up to simulate the chip forma- 132
124 The machining experiments were performed in dry cutting tion. When the error between simulated force and experimen- 133
125 environment and the temperature and wear amount were mea- tal force is less than the setting value, the variables including 134
126 sured to determine the wear rate constants C1 and C2 as contact area, stress, sliding velocity and initial interface tem- 135
127 described in Section 3.3.1. Then the wear amount, cutting force perature are output to calculate heat flux and tool temperature 136
128 and temperature were summarized in Section 4.2 to validate during cutting process. Secondly, it is necessary to reach the 137
129 the simulation results. thermo-mechanical steady-state. Once the simulated tempera- 138
o of
Pr
ed
ct
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 2 Steps of tool wear simulation algorithm.
7 September 2020
4 Z. SHI et al.
139 ture meets the measured value at some positions on the rake thermo-mechanical behaviors of material deformation under 179
140 face, the temperature distribution on the rake face is decided. different cutting processes, which is widely used in cutting 180
141 Then those variables are input the selected wear model and simulations. 181
182
142 the wear value of each tool node in the contact area is calcu- !! m
_
lated individually. Thirdly, the tool wear subroutine is applied n e T Troom
143
r ¼ A þ Bðe Þ 1 þ Cln 1
_ Tmelt Troom
144 to perform the worn tool geometry. The nodes movement are e0
145 decided by the selected wear model and Python subroutine. ð1Þ 184
146 Then the tool geometry is updated and used to reach the next
n
147 mechanical and thermal steady-state. This procedure contin- where A is the initial yield strength and A þ Bðe Þ represents 185
148 ued iteratively until the total cutting time reached 600 s and the influence of strain hardening under different plastic equiv- 186

149 all tools in experiment tests had serious wear or broke off _ _
alent strain e . 1 þ Cln e = e 0 is the strain rate sensitivity and 187
150 before that time.
_
_

the strain rate e is normalized with reference strain rate e0.
of
188
151 3.1. Finite element modelling 1 ½ðT Troom Þ=ðTmelt Troom Þm is the thermal softening 189
between room temperature Troom and melt temperature Tmelt . 190
152 ABAQUS software is taken in this paper since it could per- The material properties of AISI1045 are summarized in 191
form machining process effectively and support user definition Table 2. 192
o
153
154 programs as input to define variables such as residual stress,
155 constitutive model or friction model. In simulation, stress 3.2. Friction model and the friction coefficient 193
Pr
156 should be decided with strain and elasticity and the rigid tool
157 model in the previous references is inappropriate.6,8–11 In this The sticking-sliding friction model could represent both stick- 194
158 paper, the tool is treated with an elastic-plasticity model to ing and sliding regions and was widely adopted by many 195
159 present stress distribution and strain on tool rake face. researchers to define the friction properties at the tool-chip 196
160 A three-dimensional model is carried out by considering the interface 14,16,19–23. The shear stress is fully defined by normal 197
161 influence of the inclination angle and nose arc on cutting per- stress rn ðxÞ and friction coefficient l. The interfacial contact 198
162 formance. In simulations, more meshes would be benefit to occurred along two distinct regions: In the plastic region char- 199
163
164
165
improve the accuracy of results but lead to huge computer
time. To balance the accuracy of the simulation and the con-
sumption time, the hexahedron mesh is taken and minimum
ed acterized by a sticking friction with a plastic localization in the
secondary shear zone (SSZ) near the tool tip, shear stress
reached a maximum level as shown in Eq. (2a).
200
201
202
203
166 mesh size around the cutting region is 0.005 mm, whereas the
sðxÞ ¼ smax when smax 6 lrn ðxÞ and 0 6 x 6 lp ð2aÞ 205
167 mesh in other parts enlarge slowly as shown in Fig. 3. The tool
168 model is meshed with 98,525 prism or hexahedron elements, In the elastic region characterized by a sliding friction and a 206
ct
169 which performed better than in tetrahedral elements in previ- linear proportionality between normal and shear stress as 207
170 ous simulations and the workpiece mesh are 199,775 hexahe- shown in Eq. (2b). 208
209
171 dron elements. The workpiece is revolved with speed 200 r/ sðxÞ ¼ lrn ðxÞ When lrn ðxÞ < smax and lp 6 x 6 lc ð2bÞ 211
172 min and tool is fixed following the actual cutting process.
re
173 The cutting feed in the simulation was taken with 0.2 mm/r The friction coefficient had an important influence on the 212
174 and width of cut 1 mm, which are same with the experimental accuracy of simulation results. In this article, the mean friction 213

175 parameters shown in Section 2. coefficientlis determined from cutting force and tangential 214
176 The constitutive model represents work material behavior force measured in experiments. 215
216
or
177 under different strains, strain rates and temperatures. Ft þ Fc tanc0

178 Johnson-Cook(J-C) model could represent elastic, plastic and l¼ ð3Þ
Fc Ft tanc0 218
where Fc is the cutting force, Ft is the tangential force and c0 is 219

the initial rake angle. 220
nc
It is commonly assumed that three main sources of heat 221

coexist: the primary, the secondary shear zone and the tertiary 222
zone (Fig. 4). The transformation of frictional energy to heat is 223
heavily responsible for cutting temperature increase. For any 224
point at tool-chip interface, the heat flux transmitted into tool 225
U
could be estimated by 226

227
qf ¼ Rs gsðxÞVs ð4Þ 229
where Rs is the cutting heat partition coefficient, g is the factor 230

to convert mechanical energy into thermal energy and Vs is the 231
sliding velocity at tool-chip interface. 232
According to the models based on Blok’s theory, the factor 233
Rs is assumed as a constant and that two bodies have the same 234
maximal surface temperature.18 For the primary or secondary 235
zone, the factor Rs could be calculated 236
237
Fig. 3 FE model and boundary conditions.
7 September 2020
Table 2 Johnson-Cook model parameters for AISI 1045.13,19

Type A (MPa) B (MPa) n C _
m Tmelt (°C) Troom (°C)
e 0 (1/s)
AISI 1045 553 600.8 0.234 0.0013 1 1 1459.85 20
1 temperature and rn is the contact pressure. This model had 273

Rs ¼ h iqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð5Þ
1 þ 0:754 ðkT =kw Þ= A k= Vchip lc therefore been used by several authors to simulate the wear 274
239
behavior of coated and uncoated tools in machining steels, 275
240 where kT is the thermal conductivity of tool, kw is the thermal Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy and Ni-based superalloys by using 276
241 conductivity of workpiece, k is the thermal diffusivity, Vchip is proper sets of parameters C1 and C2.18,25–29 The results indi- 277
of
cated that this model could well represent the abrasion effects. 278
242 the chip velocity and lc is the tool-chip contact length. A is a In order to account for the changes of tool geometry 279
243 geometrical factor that depends on the ratio b/lc. through the wearing process, two constants C1 and C2 in the 280
244

2 2b 1 lc 1 applied Usui tool wear equation (Eq. (2)) need to be cali- 281
A ¼ ln þ þ ð6Þ brated. For the regression analysis, Eq. (2) can be rewritten as
p 282
o
246 lc 3 b 2
283
dw C2
247 where b is the width of cutting tool. =ðrn Vs Þ ¼ C1 exp ð8Þ
248 In the numerical simulations, to ensure that heat can be dt Tint 285
Pr
249 transferred between the chip and the tool, the contact conduc- By taking the logarithm of this expression, the equation is 286
250 tance hc must be adequately determined. In previous works, obtained: 287
251 Filice et al.9 and List et al.24 have shown that a value of 288
dw C2
252 106kW/(m2°C) for hc was sufficient to ensure a rapid stabi- lg =ðrn Vs Þ ¼ lgC1 ð9Þ
253 lization of the cutting temperature at the tool-chip interface. dt Tint 290
254 In this case, hc is equal to 106kW/(m2°C). ed As shown in Fig. 5, the wear amount measurements are 291
used to calibrate the constants C1 and C2 and the wear rate 292
255 3.3. The wear evolution process Eq. (7) following the steps described in above, yielding the 293
expression: 294
295
256 3.3.1. Tool wear model
7:46 104
257 Many researchers indicated that the tool wear in machining w_ ¼ 5:8 104 Vs rn exp ð10Þ
Tint 297
ct
258 can be caused by different mechanisms such as abrasion, adhe-
259 sion, dissolution and diffusion.20–22 The tool mechanism varies
260 with the cutting conditions and the thermo-mechanical proper- 3.3.2. Nodes movement algorithm 298
261 ties of the tool-work materials would decide the amount of Mesh nodes movement have been assigned according to the 299
tool wear together.23–26
re
262 wear value during a time increasement. The advantages of 300

263 Usui et al.5 suggested that the tool wear behavior of dynamic nodes movement are avoiding remeshing tool geome- 301
264 uncoated cemented carbides in machining steels would be esti- try and lowering consumption time in the simulation. The 302
265 mated more accurately by taking into account the effects of nodes movement steps are shown in following. Firstly, the tool 303
266 contact pressures, sliding velocity and interface temperature mesh is divided into several layers from the rake face to the 304
or
267 on the tool wear rate. bottom side. Secondly, the chosen nodes according to the 305
268
FEM result outputs on the first layer are moved along the nor- 306
C2
w_ ¼ C1 Vs rn exp ð7Þ mal vector of the layer and the distance to the second layer is 307
270 Tint
nc
271 where the constants C1 and C2 are the model constants of tool
272 materials, Vs is the sliding velocity, Tint is the tool interface
U
Fig. 5 Regression analysis for calibration of AISI1045 and

Fig. 4 Chip formation with heat transfer during cutting process. carbide tool.
7 September 2020
6 Z. SHI et al.
308 calculated to prevent negative elements happening. When the

309 distance of neighbor nodes is beyond the setting value Dh,
310 the deformed meshes are output and the subroutine is ending.
311 Otherwise, the nodes on the neighbor layer would be chosen
312 and moved repeatedly. The nodes movement algorithm and
313 steps are shown in Fig. 6.
314 For any point (xt, yt, zt) located on the tool-chip contact
315 area, the vector normal to the surface is defined by
316 n ¼ ðnx ; ny ; nz Þ.The displacement in the direction n during a
317 time increasement Dt is then estimated by:
318

C2
WtþDt ¼ C1 Vs rn exp Dt ð11Þ
320 Tint
of
321 And finally, for the selected point (xt, yt, zt), the new posi-
322 tion ðxtþDt ; ytþDt ; ztþDt Þ can be decided as
323
8 tþDt
>
> x ¼ xt þ jnnxj WtþDt Fig. 7 Illustration of calculating cater wear in simulation.
<
o
n
ytþDt ¼ yt þ jnyj WtþDt ð12Þ
>
>
: ztþDt ¼ zt þ nz WtþDt
325 jnj
Pr
326 4. Result and discussion
327 4.1. Comparison of simulated crater wear and experiments
The crater wear is evaluated by calculating tool volume loss in

328
329
330
Abaqus software. As shown in Fig. 7, the nodes movement
would change the shape of rake face as well as decrease the
ed
331 tool volume. By comparing the deformed tool volume with
332 the initial geometry, the crater wear is set. Fig. 8 reports the
333 comparison between experimental and simulated tool crater.
ct
334 The experimental values are the mean value amongst five tests
335 realized using the same process parameters combination. At
Fig. 8 Tool wear depending on cutting time.
336 the severe tool wear stage (t > 400 s), the adhesive workpiece
337 material is catastrophically broken off and takes away pieces
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 6 Nodes movement process.
7 September 2020
338 of tool material easily, which result in the acceleration the depth of crater wear.11,13 Wear topographies of the tool 347
339 condition. rake face are taken to show that the abrasion and adhesion 348
340 The crater wear would decrease the tool resistance section occurred simultaneously. During this period, the cutting tem- 349
341 and lead to tool damage.12,16,20 The evolution of tool wear perature is not very high and some workpiece materials are 350
342 behaviors on rake face are shown in Fig. 9. The deepest crater stuck on the rake face with high pressure. As cutting continu- 351
343 located at the distance away from the cutting edge and gradu- ing, the tool material becomes soften and is taken away with 352
344 ally increases with the increase of removed material volume. friction effect when the heat is accumulated. Both the experi- 353
345 That is because at the beginning of cutting, the abrasion and mental and simulated results show the same tendencies in 354
346 adhesion are the main reasons that cause the tool wear and terms of the evolution of crater occur and grow up. 355
o of
Pr
Fig. 9
ed
Evolution of experimental and simulated crater wear.
ct
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 10 Wear morphology of tool rake face at cutting time t = 120 s.
7 September 2020
8 Z. SHI et al.
356 The KT (crater depth) and KM (crater position) can be

357 evaluated from the cross section of 3D surface topography
358 of the tool rake face to show the details of crater growing
359 up. The depth of crater wear gradually increases as cutting
360 processing. As shown in Fig. 10(b) and Fig. 11(b), the error
361 happens because of the adhesion materials existing. The adhe-
362 sion material increases the height of the rake face, which is
363 inconsistent with the assumption in this simulation that the
364 wear only reduces the material of tools. Even that, the exper-
365 imental and simulated results of tool section (Fig. 10(d) and
366 Fig. 11(d)) are in good agreement and are evident showing
367 the ability of the FEM model in forecasting the correct tool
of
368 worn geometry.
369 Chip morphology results are shown in Fig. 12. The chip
370 morphology in simulation matches well with experimental
371 result. However, since the mesh deletion method is adopted
372 to simulate chip formation, which was usually taken in previ-
o
373 ous simulations9,10,12,13,29, some errors occur in predicting chip
374 thickness. The accuracy of chip prediction is limited by the
375 minimum mesh size in chip region. Further reducing mesh size
Pr
376 will lower simulation efficiency significantly or cause mesh dis-
377 tortion badly.
Fig. 12 Results of chip morphology at t = 120 s.
378 4.2. Tool wear influence on cutting performance
379 As the amount of crater wear increases, the cutting parameters

ed (c) from its initial value (c0 ) and consequently the actual resis- 382
380 such as contact pressure, contact area or the real rake angle tance of the tool (in Fig. 13(a)). Higher rake angle values are 383
381 change. It is evident that the tool wear changes the rake angle related to low tool resistance section, as a consequence, the 384
ct
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 11 Wear morphology of tool rake face at cutting time t = 300 s.
7 September 2020
o of
Fig. 13 Tool wear influence on tool resistance section and rake angle.
Pr
ed
ct
re
Fig. 14 FEM results at cutting time t = 40 s.

or
nc
U
7 September 2020
10 Z. SHI et al.
385 higher the actual rake angle, the higher the risk of tool mum crater depth located at a distance away cutting edge 407
386 breakage.1,14 and the exacerbation of tool wear. Serious crater causes fur- 408
387 Meanwhile, the stress distribution on the rake face changes ther change of the actual rake angle. The real rake angle and 409
388 totally as the crater wear occurs and grows up. At the begin-
389 ning of cutting (in Fig. 14), the maximum stress (450 MPa)
390 only locates on the cutting-edge region near the nose arc. It
391 is different to the orthogonal simulation results proposed by
392 Xie10 and Attanasio12 in which the maximum stress stayed in
393 the middle of cutting edge. It is reasonable because the inclina-
394 tion angle ks = 5° is taken in this article, the maximum region
395 exists near the nose arc where the rake face meets the work-
396 piece and chip early. High pressure would make adhesive
of
397 workpiece material catastrophically broken off and takes away
398 pieces of tool material. As crater wear occurs, the decreased
399 contact area or inadequate contact would obviously raise con-
400 tact stress. In Fig. 15, the red region (contact stress beyond
401 750 MPa) have significantly enlarged and high stress gradient
o
402 appears near the edges of the contact zone. The crater wear
403 aggravates chip accumulating on the rake face, which results
404 in the increase of stress and the change of actual rake angle.
Pr
405 Fig. 16 confirms that thermo-mechanical stress combined with
406 the severe friction effect of chips bottom results in the maxi- Fig. 18 Cutting temperature depending on cutting time.
ed
ct
re
or

nc
U
Fig. 17 Forces depending on cutting time.
7 September 2020
410 maximum principle stress during cutting process are shown in This indicates that the edge breakage and damage are the 418
411 Fig. 13(b). result of the decreased thickness of tool resistance, inadequate 419
412 The stress distribution in the tool resistance section and contact and increasing maximum principle stress. Liang et al.30 420
413 chip formation are shown in Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16. As investigated the tool wear morphology evolution in cutting the 421
414 crater wear occurs and grows up, the direction of contact force titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V and found the similar conclusion that 422
415 change and lead to higher contact stress and non-uniform the serious wear led to the cutting edge broken off 423
416 stress distribution. After reaching the target time of 10 min catastrophically. 424
417 in experiments, all the tool edges present serious wear or break.
o of
Pr
ed
ct
Fig. 19 Cutting temperature distribution.
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 20 Residual element and atomic percentage at rake face (point 1).
7 September 2020
12 Z. SHI et al.
425 The tool wear behavior has directly impact on both the tan- turning AISI1045 with uncoated carbide tool to validate the 484
426 gential force (Ft) and the cutting force (Fc). Seen from Fig. 17, accuracy of the proposed model. The validated FEM model 485
427 both the tangential force (Ft) and the cutting force (Fc) present has been further utilized studying how the worn tool affects 486
428 an increase trend at the beginning. In this period, the abrasion the cutting performance including actual cutting rake, stress 487
429 and adhesion are the main reasons that cause the tool wear and distribution, cutting force and temperature. The results of this 488
430 the depth of crater wear gradually increases with the increase paper are meaningful to understand wear evolution during 489
431 of removed material volume. Then when the cutting time reach machining and realize the cutting performance under different 490
432 200 s, the accumulated frictional heat would accelerate the dif- wear conditions. The main conclusion of the paper are as 491
433 fusion and the soften tool material would be taken away by the follows: 492
434 chip easier when the tool-chip interface is subjected to both
435 higher thermal loads and mechanical loads. The tangential 1. The FE-based methodology of dynamic nodes movement 493
436 force (Ft) enlarges, whereas the cutting force (Fc) still stays a can be used for predicting the tools wear morphology with 494
stable stage. Liang and Liu 30 specialized in the tool wear
of
437 less consumption time and numerical issues. 495
438 behaviors and got similar conclusions that the wear rate 2. The crater would affect the actual rake angle as well as 496
439 increased when cutting temperature raised. At the severe tool maximum principle stress and the edge breakage and dam- 497
440 wear stage (t > 500 s), both the tangential force (Ft) and cut- age are the result of the decreased thickness of tool resis- 498
441 ting force (Fc) indicate an obvious increase. This result is tance, inadequate contact and increasing maximum 499
o
442 related to the occurrence of severe adhesion due to the serious principle stress. 500
443 deterioration of tool wear, especially the tool-chip interface. 3. The maximum depth of crater wear locates on a distance 501
444 Reference has revealed that this severe adhesion would lead away from cutting edge and is result of high contact stress 502
Pr
445 to the average local sliding reduced significantly and that can and cutting temperature. In this zone, adhesion and diffu- 503
446 explain the phenomenon of increasing the tangential force sion are main reasons that accelerate the tool wear. 504
447 (Ft) in the severe tool wear stage.31 In experiments, the reason 4. At the severe tool wear stage (t > 500 s), both the tangen- 505
448 why the large errors of cutting force (Fc) and tangential force tial force (Ft) and cutting force (Fc) indicate an obvious 506
449 (Ft) occur at the end would be associated with the serious increase. This result is related to the occurrence of severe 507
450 insert breakage under high thermal-mechanical load. The ed adhesion due to the serious deterioration of tool wear, espe- 508
451 increasing depth of crater wear would lower tool resistance sec- cially the tool-chip interface. 509
452 tion and lead to severe adhesion, which results in higher the 5. Heat accumulated in the crater wear results in the change of 510
453 risk of tool breakage.30,31 main wear mechanisms and serious adhesion and diffusion 511
454 Fig. 18 shows the cutting temperature change during in turn further promote the maximum temperature of crater 512
455 machining and simulation processes. The K-type thermocou- wear. 513
456 ple is buried in tool rake face outside contact region and the 514
ct
457 element temperature on the same position is output in simula-
458 tion. The cutting temperature raises rapidly at the cutting Declaration of Competing Interest 515
459 beginning and stays stable at almost cutting process. The sim-
460 ulation results are good agreement with experiments. Temper- The authors declare that they have no known competing 516
re
461 ature details are shown in Fig. 19. At the cutting beginning (in financial interests or personal relationships that could have 517
462 Fig. 19(a)), the maximal temperature locates near the tool arc, appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 518
463 where the main wear mechanism is abrasion. Then cutting tem-
464 perature raises and the maximal temperature position moves Acknowledgements 519
right with a distance away from the cutting edge (in Fig. 19
or
465
466 (b)). As the cutting continuing, heat is accumulated in the cra- The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support for 520
467 ter wear, which leads to the main wear mechanisms become to this work by the National Natural Science Foundation of 521
468 adhesion and diffusion. Serious adhesion and diffusion in turn China (No. 51975334), Key R&D project of Shandong Pro- 522
469 further promote the maximum temperature of crater wear (in vince (2018GGX103005 and 2019JMRH0407) and the Funda- 523
nc
470 Fig. 19(c) and (d)). mental Research Funds of Shandong University. 524
471 The chemical element distributions at the tool crater
472 regions are measured to analyze the tool wear mechanism.
References 525
473 The energy-dispersive spectrometer (EDS) results confirm that
474 the element of oxygen (O) and iron (Fe) increase by comparing 1. Chen Y, Gong W, Kang R. Review and propositions for the 526
the element result of the Point 0 and Point 1, which prove that
U
475 sliding/impact wear behavior in a contact interface. Chin J 527

476 both serious adhesion and diffusion happened in crater wear Aeronaut 2020;33(2):391–406. 528
477 region (in Fig. 20). 2. Sartori S, Moro L, Ghiotti A, et al. On the tool wear mechanisms 529
in dry and cryogenic turning Additive Manufactured titanium 530
478 5. Conclusion alloys. Tribol Int 2016;105:264–73. 531

3. Malakizadi A, Gruber H, Sadik I, et al. An FEM-based approach 532
for tool wear estimation in machining. Wear 2016;368–369:10–24. 533
479 In this paper, a novel method for simulating the wear evolu- 4. Pálmai Z. Proposal for a new theoretical model of the cutting 534
480 tion and the cutting performance has been carried out. tool’s flank wear. Wear 2013;303(1–2):437–45. 535
481 Dynamic nodes movement technology combined with wear 5. Usui E, Shirakashi T, Kitagawa T. Analytical prediction of cutting 536
482 rate model has been conducted to predict tool wear morphol- tool wear. Wear 1984;100(1–3):129–51. 537
483 ogy and wear amount. The cutting experiment is performed by
7 September 2020
538 6. Sales WF, Schoop J, Jawahir IS. Tribological behavior of PCD 20. Poulachon G, Moisan A, Jawahir IS. Tool-wear mechanisms in 580
539 tools during superfinishing turning of the Ti6Al4V alloy using hard turning with polycrystalline cubic boron nitride tools. Wear 581
540 cryogenic, hybrid and flood as lubri-coolant environments. Tribol 2001;250(1):576–86. 582
541 Int 2017;114:109–20. 21. Courbon C, Pusavec F, Dumont F, et al. Tribological behaviour 583
542 7. Luo B, Zhang K, Liu S, et al. Investigation on the interface of Ti6Al4V and Inconel718 under dry and cryogenic conditions – 584
543 damage in drilling low-stiffness CFRP/Ti stacks. Chin J Aeronaut Application to the context of machining with carbide tools. Tribol 585
544 2019;32(9):2211–21. Int 2013;66:72–82. 586
545 8. Yen YC, Söhner J, Weule H, et al. Estimation of tool wear of 22. Shi ZY, Liu LN, Liu ZQ, et al. Frequency-domain stability lobe 587
546 carbide tool in orthogonal cutting using FEM simulation. Mach prediction for high-speed face milling process under tool-work- 588
547 Sci Technol 2002;6(3):467–86. piece dynamic interaction. Proc IMechE Part B: J Eng Manuf 589
548 9. Filice L, Micari F, Settineri L, et al. Wear modelling in mild steel 2017;231(13):2336–46. 590
549 orthogonal cutting when using uncoated carbide tools. Wear 23. Luo M, Luo H, Axinte D, et al. A wireless instrumented milling 591
550 2007;262(5–6):545–54. cutter system with embedded PVDF sensors. Mech Syst Signal 592
551 10. Xie LJ, Schmidt J, Schmidt C, et al. 2D FEM estimate of tool wear Process 2018;110:556–8. 593
of
552 in turning operation. Wear 2005;258(10):1479–90. 24. List G, Sutter G, Bi XF, et al. Temperature rise and heat transfer 594
553 11. Attanasio A, Umbrello D. Abrasive and diffusive tool wear FEM in high speed machining: FEM modeling and experimental 595
554 simulation. Int J Mater Form 2009;2(1 Supplement):543–6. validation. Advanced Materials Research 2011; 189-193: 1502-06. 596
555 12. Attanasio A, Ceretti E, Giardini C, et al. Criterion to evaluate 25. Lotfi M, Jahanbakhsh M, Farid AA. Wear estimation of ceramic 597
o
556 diffusive wear in 3D simulations when turning AISI1045 steel. Int and coated carbide tools in turning of Inconel 625: 3D FE 598
557 J Mater Form 2008;1(1 Supplement):495–8. analysis. Tribol Int 2016;99:107–16. 599
558 13. Attanasio A, Ceretti E, Fiorentino A, et al. Investigation and 26. Hosseinkhani K, Ng E. A combined empirical and numerical 600
559 FEM-based simulation of tool wear in turning operations with approach for tool wear prediction in machining. Proc CIRP 601
Pr
560 uncoated carbide tools. Wear 2010;269(5):344–50. 2015;31:304–9. 602
561 14. Buciumeanu M, Crudu I, Palaghian L, et al. Influence of wear 27. Özel T, Sima M, Srivastava AK, et al. Investigations on the effects 603
562 damage on the fretting fatigue life prediction of an Al7175 alloy. of multi-layered coated inserts in machining Ti–6Al–4V alloy with 604
563 Int J Fatigue 2009;31(8–9):1278–85. experiments and finite element simulations. CIRP Ann-Manuf 605
564 15. Yang Q, Wu Y, Liu D, et al. Characteristics of serrated chip Technol 2010;59(1):77–82. 606
565 formation in high-speed machining of metallic materials. Int J Adv 28. Thepsonthi T, Özel T. 3-D finite element process simulation of 607
566 Manuf Technol 2016;86(5–8):1–6. micro-end milling Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy: experimental valida- 608
567
568
569
machining technology on fiber reinforced composites. Surface
Technology 2019; 48(01): 305-19 Chinese.
ed
16. Shi ZY, Cui P, Li X, et a. Overview of ultrasonic vibration assisted tions on chip flow and tool wear. J Mater Process Technol
2015;221:128–45.
29. Thakare A, Nordgren A. Experimental study and modeling of
609
610
611
570 17. Luo M, Luo H, Zhang D, et al. Improving tool life in multi-axis steady state temperature distributions in coat-ed cemented carbide 612
571 milling of Ni-based superalloy with ball-end cutter based on the tools in turning. Procedia CIRP 2015;31:234–9. 613
572 active cutting edge shift strategy. J Mater Process Technol 30. Liang XL, Liu ZQ. Tool wear behaviors and corresponding 614
ct
573 2018;252:105–15. machined surface topography during high-speed machining of Ti- 615
574 18. List G. Cutting temperature prediction in high speed machining by 6Al-4V with fine grain tools. Tribol Int 2018;121:321–32. 616
575 numerical modelling of chip formation and its dependence with 31. Rech J, Claudin C, D’Eramo E. Identification of a friction model- 617
576 crater wear. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2012;55(3):1–9. Application to the context of dry cutting of an AISI1045 annealed 618
577 19. Wan L, Wang D. Numerical analysis of the formation of the dead steel with a TiN-coated carbide tool. Tribol Int 2009;42(5):738–44. 619
re
578 metal zone with different tools in orthogonal cutting. Simul Model 620
579 Pract Theory 2015;56:1–15.
or
nc
U

J Cja 2020 08 003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Cja 2020 08 003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJA 1700 No.

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

11 Received 4 March 2020; revised 3 August 2020; accepted 3 August 2020

16 Finite element method;

* Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of High Efficiency and 1. Introduction 22

Clean Mechanical Manufacture, Ministry of Education, Shandong

66 gitudinal turning operations. Many researchers predicted tool

75 model to present the tool wear for machining of AISI1045 with

Fig. 2 Steps of tool wear simulation algorithm.

177 under different strains, strain rates and temperatures. Ft þ Fc tanc0

where Fc is the cutting force, Ft is the tangential force and c0 is 219

It is commonly assumed that three main sources of heat 221

could be estimated by 226

where Rs is the cutting heat partition coefficient, g is the factor 230

Fig. 3 FE model and boundary conditions.

Table 2 Johnson-Cook model parameters for AISI 1045.13,19

1 temperature and rn is the contact pressure. This model had 273

262 wear value during a time increasement. The advantages of 300

Fig. 5 Regression analysis for calibration of AISI1045 and

308 calculated to prevent negative elements happening. When the

327 4.1. Comparison of simulated crater wear and experiments

The crater wear is evaluated by calculating tool volume loss in

Fig. 6 Nodes movement process.

Fig. 10 Wear morphology of tool rake face at cutting time t = 120 s.

356 The KT (crater depth) and KM (crater position) can be

379 As the amount of crater wear increases, the cutting parameters

Fig. 11 Wear morphology of tool rake face at cutting time t = 300 s.

Fig. 14 FEM results at cutting time t = 40 s.

Fig. 15 FEM results at cutting time t = 120 s.

Fig. 16 FEM results at cutting time t = 360 s.

Fig. 17 Forces depending on cutting time.

475 sliding/impact wear behavior in a contact interface. Chin J 527

478 5. Conclusion alloys. Tribol Int 2016;105:264–73. 531

You might also like