Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2014, Article ID 543298, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/543298

Research Article
A Mathematical Modeling to Predict
the Cutting Forces in Microdrilling

Haoqiang Zhang,1,2 Xibin Wang,1 and Siqin Pang1

1
Key Laboratory of Fundamental Science for Advanced Machining, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
2
Hebei United University, Tangshan 063009, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Haoqiang Zhang; haoqiang790914@163.com

Received 4 June 2014; Revised 18 July 2014; Accepted 19 July 2014; Published 6 August 2014

Academic Editor: Zhen-Lai Han

Copyright © 2014 Haoqiang Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

In microdrilling, because of lower feed, the microdrill cutting edge radius is comparable to the chip thickness. The cutting
edges therefore should be regarded as rounded edges, which results in a more complex cutting mechanism. Because of this, the
macrodrilling thrust modeling is not suitable for microdrilling. In this paper, a mathematical modeling to predict microdrilling
thrust is developed, and the geometric characteristics of microdrill were considered in force models. The thrust is modeled in three
parts: major cutting edges, secondary cutting edge, and indentation zone. Based on slip-line field theory, the major cutting edges
and secondary cutting edge are divided into elements, and the elemental forces are determined by an oblique cutting model and an
orthogonal model, respectively. The thrust modeling of the major cutting edges and second cutting edge includes two different kinds
of processes: shearing and ploughing. The indentation zone is modeled as a rigid wedge. The force model is verified by comparing
the predicted forces and the measured cutting forces.

1. Introduction past several decades. In the study of macrodrilling models,

There has been an increasing requirement for high-accuracy
microholes in the microelectronic, automotive, computer
components, and sensor industries. Microdrilling is experi-
encing a very rapid growth in precision production indus-
tries. In many aspects, microdrilling has fundamentally iden-
tical features with conventional drilling, but the downsizing
of the dimensions of the drill introduces many problems,
which has a major influence on the microdrilling process,
such as cutting edge radius, increased web thickness, large
vibrations due to high rotation speed, and high ratio of drill
breakage. There are many factors influencing the microdrill-
ing process, such as drill geometry, drill materials, drilling
forces, workpiece materials, machining parameters, and vib-
ration. Drilling forces are related to drill life, holes quality,
and productivity. Therefore, drilling forces are one of the most
important factors affecting the drill performance.
In general, there are four methods of modeling cutting
forces in metal machining: analytical method, experimental
method, mechanistic method, and numerical method [1].
Many models have been developed by researchers in the
Shaw and Oxford [2] were the pioneers. Armarego and
Cheng [3, 4] presented a model in which a series of oblique
cutting slices was used to the drilling process with flat rake
face and conventional twist drills. Watson [5–8] produced
a more detailed model of material removal in both cutting
edges and chisel edge. Stephenson and Agapiou’s model [9]
simulated arbitrary drill point geometries. Chandrasekharan
et al. [10, 11] developed a mechanistic model of the cutting
lips and chisel edge to predict the cutting force system
for arbitrary drill point geometry. Strenkowski et al. [12]
developed a thrust force model based on analytical finite
element technique in drilling with twist drills. In their model,
the cutting lips were regarded as a series of oblique sections,
and the cutting of the chisel region was treated as orthogonal
cutting. Wang and Zhang [13] presented a predictive model
for the thrust in drilling operations using modified plane rake
faced twist drills. Their models were based on the mechanics
of cutting approach incorporating many tools and cutting
process variables. There was less literature on force modeling
in microdrilling. Sambhav et al. [14] modeled the thrust by the
primary cutting lip of a microdrill analytically and modeled
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Indentation zone
Secondary
cutting edges Rind
Figure 1: Regions of the chisel edge.
shearing forces and ploughing forces of the major cutting
edges. Hinds and Treanor [15] analyzed the stresses occur-
ring in microdrills using finite element methods in printed
circuit board drilling process, but they did not produce any
mathematical model for cutting forces of microdrills.
Slip-line field theory was often used to analyze the cutting
process. Many machining parameters can be predicted by the
slip-line field model, such as cutting force, chip thickness,
shear strain, and shear strain-rate. Merchant [16] was the
first one who presented a mathematical model to determine
shear angle by using the minimum energy principle, and
his model was the basis of all subsequent models. Lee and
Shaffer [17] developed a slip-line field model which was
an approximation method under certain cutting conditions.
Dewhurst and Collins [18] presented a matrix technique for
numerically solving slip-line problems. Oxley [19] proposed
a parallel surface shear zone model of orthogonal cutting
that considered the change of material flow stress. Waldorf
et al. [20] developed a slip-line model for ploughing by a
cutting tool with a definite cutting edge radius. Fang [21]
presented a generalized slip-line field model for cutting
when edge was rounded. Fang’s model included nine effects
that commonly occurred in machining. Then Fang [22]
quantitatively analyzed orthogonal metal cutting processes
based on his slip-line model. Manjunathaiah and Endres [23]
developed a new orthogonal process model that included the
effects of edge radius. Jin and Altintas [24] simplified Fang’s
model, and they considered the effects of strain, strain-rate,
and temperature on the cutting process.
In microcutting applications the uncut chip thickness
is very small, typically within the range of 25 𝜇m. Since
the cutting edge radius is typically ground with a 5–20 𝜇m,
the assumption of having a perfectly sharp cutting edge in
macrodrilling is not valid, so the cutting edge radius should
not be taken to be zero in microcutting operations. Past
studies have found that if the uncut chip thickness is below
the minimum chip thickness 𝑡cmin , elastic deformation or
a mixed elastic-plastic deformation will take place. Above
this value, chip formation starts taking place. This is known
as the minimum chip thickness effect. However, due to the
extrusion of the material by the chisel edge region of the
drill, the drilling process can still take place, even if the chip
thickness is very small.
The cutting edge is made up of the major cutting edges
and the chisel edge of the microdrill. The major cutting edges
are formed by the intersection of the flute surface with the
flank surface of the microdrill, while the intersection of the
flank surfaces forms the chisel edge. Although the length of
chisel edge is very small relative to the cutting edge of the
microdrill, the thrust created by the chisel edge is significant,
and it exceeds even the thrust created by the cutting edges.
In the region around the center of the chisel edge, material
removal is by extrusion. This region is called the indentation
zone, as shown in Figure 1. The portion of the chisel edge
outside the indentation zone is termed as the secondary
cutting edges. Material removal of secondary cutting edge is
by orthogonal cutting with large negative rake angles.
During microdrilling, both shearing and indenting
actions are happening. When the microdrill contacts the
workpiece, the drill point rubs workpiece first. Under the
extrusion force of microdrill, material is squeezed around the
drill point; at the same time, the secondary cutting edges on
the chisel edge perform cutting. Then, the major cutting edge
enters into workpiece and begins to cut. The central portion of
the chisel edge performs the indenting action, and the second
cutting edges on the chisel edge and the major cutting edges
on the fluted portion perform shearing.
In this paper, the thrust is modeled in three parts of a
microdrill: major cutting edges, secondary cutting edge, and
the indentation zone. The major cutting edge and secondary
cutting edge force models are based on the slip-line field
theory, and the indentation zone is modeled as a rigid wedge.
The model is, then, verified by comparing predicted thrust
force with measured data including the effects of microdrill
geometric and machining parameters.
2. Major Cutting Edge Cutting Force Models
The cutting behavior of the major cutting edge is an oblique
cutting process. The cutting edge is divided into elements
and each element is approximated as a straight line, shown
in Figure 2. The magnitude of the total drilling thrust (𝐹1 ) is
obtained by summing the forces at all the cutting elements on
each edge and all the cutting edges on the drill.
The direction of the elemental cutting force 𝑑𝐹cut is
opposite to the velocity direction; 𝑑𝐹cut is resolved into
𝑑𝐹𝐶 and 𝑑𝐹𝐿 . The direction of 𝑑𝐹𝐶 is along the actual
cutting direction. 𝑑𝐹𝐿 is the elemental lateral force, which
is orthogonal to the cutting force and the elemental oblique
cutting thrust force 𝑑𝐹𝑇 . The thrust force 𝑑𝐹𝑇 is normal to the
plane that contains the velocity vector and the cutting edge.
The magnitude of those forces is given by
𝑑𝐹𝐶 = 𝑑𝐹cut ⋅ cos 𝜆 𝑠
𝑑𝐹𝐿 = 𝑑𝐹cut ⋅ sin 𝜆 𝑠
(1)
cos 𝜀 sin 𝜙
𝑑𝐹1 = ⋅ 𝑑𝐹𝑇 − tan 𝜆 𝑠 ⋅ cos 𝜙 ⋅ 𝑑𝐹𝐶,
cos 𝜆 𝑠
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

Y Z
Major cutting edge

Fz

r
dFT

𝜆s dFL
rw X
𝜀 Fx
𝜙
V
dFcut

dFC V
Fy
X
Y

Figure 2: Forces at an element on the major cutting edge.

where 𝜙 is the half point angle and the inclination angle 𝜆 𝑠 Due to the technological and material constraints in
and angle 𝜀 can be obtained by the following equations: microdrill preparation, the major cutting edge has a definite
𝑟 radius, and the uncut chip thickness is very small, so the
𝜆 𝑠 = sin−1 ( 𝑤 sin 𝜙) major cutting edge cannot be seen as completely sharp. The
𝑟
(2) slip-line field model of microcutting process for each cutting
−1 𝑟𝑤 element of major cutting edges is shown in Figure 3.
𝜀 = sin ( ) ,
𝑟 The material deformation region consisted of three zones:
where 𝑟𝑤 is half the web thickness and 𝑟 is the distance from primary shear zone [AIBB1 I 1 A1 A2 ], secondary shear zone
a point on the cutting edge to the drill axis. [𝐻𝐸𝐵𝐺𝐼𝐽], and tertiary zone [BSCD1 B1 ]. The shape of the
The normal rake angle at any point on the cutting edge is slip-line field was originally proposed by Fang [21]. In Fang’s
model, the slip lines HJ and JI are defined as two basic slip
(𝑟/𝑅) tan 𝛽 cos 𝜀
𝛾𝑛 = tan−1 ( ) lines; after their shapes are obtained, all other slip lines in
sin 𝜙 − (𝑟𝑤 /𝑅) tan 𝛽 cos 𝜙 the secondary shear zone can be determined using Dewhurst
and Collins’s matrix technique [18]. Then, the slip-lines in the
− tan−1 (tan 𝜀 cos 𝜙) primary and tertiary shear zones can be easily determined
from relevant slip-line relationships. The primary shear zone
(𝑟/𝑅) tan 𝛽√1 − (𝑟𝑤2 /𝑟2 ) included three regions: triangular region AA1 A2 , convex
= tan−1 ( ) (3)
region AII 1 A1 , and concave IBB1 I 1 . In region AA1 A2 , line
sin 𝜙 − (𝑟𝑤 /𝑅) tan 𝛽 cos 𝜙
AA2 is a stress-free boundary; all of the slip lines in AA1 A2
intersect with AA2 at a 45∘ angle. Both region AII 1 A1 and
region IBB1 I 1 consist of circular arcs and straight radial lines.
𝑟𝑤 cos 𝜙
− tan−1 ( ), Point S is the separation point for the upward and downward
√𝑟2 − 𝑟𝑤2 material bifurcating. Part of the materials flows downwards
from point S to point C along the rounded edge, while other
where 𝛽 is the helix angle of the drill and 𝑅 is the drill radius. parts of the materials flow upwards from point S to point B.
The magnitude of the total drilling thrust along the axis In order to simplify the mathematical formulas of the slip-
of the drill can be obtained by summing the forces at all line problem with a curved boundary, the tool edge BC is
the cutting elements on each cutting edge and all the cutting approximately represented by two straight chords BS and SC.
edges on the drill, so the magnitude of the total drilling thrust BS and SC are considered to have rough surfaces; the
force 𝐹1 is included angles between them and the slip lines are 𝜉2 and
𝜉1 , respectively. The intersection angle of AA2 and horizon is
𝐹1 = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝐹1 𝛿. The separation angle 𝜃𝑐 , the tool edge radius 𝑟𝑛 , and the
(4) tool rake angle 𝛾𝑛 determine the position of the stagnation
cos 𝜀 sin 𝜙 point 𝑆 on the rounded tool edge. Geometric analysis gives
= 2∫( ⋅ 𝑑𝐹𝑇 − tan 𝜆 𝑠 ⋅ cos 𝜙 ⋅ 𝑑𝐹𝐶) .
cos 𝜆 𝑠 the following set of equations:
Thus, if we know the forces for each cutting element in the
cutting and thrust direction in the plane perpendicular to the 5𝜋 𝛾 𝜃
cutting edge, the total drilling thrust force can be calculated. 𝛼1 = − 𝜉2 − 𝑛 − 𝑐 − 𝜃2 + 𝜃1 ,
4 2 2
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

𝛾n

Chip
𝜉4 H Tool primary
𝛿 A rake face
𝛼2 B
J
A3 O
𝛾e 𝜃b
A2 I 𝜉3 E rn
Rounded S 𝜃c
𝛼1 G B O cutting edge 𝜃s
A1
45∘ 𝜃1 C
I1 S
B1 D1
V 𝜃2 G1 C 𝜉2
B1 D1
Workpiece 𝜉1

Figure 3: Slip-line field model of each element cutting process of major cutting edges.

3𝜋
𝛿 = 𝛼1 − ,
4 Y

𝜃𝑠 = sin−1 (√2 sin 𝛿 sin 𝜉1 ) , Chip

X
𝜋 H
𝜃𝑏 = , A
2 + 𝛾𝑛 − 𝜃𝑐 N1 k J N3
A3 N1 𝜉
1 𝜏 A2 pN1 I
𝜉 = cos−1 ( ) ,
E
2 𝑘 A1
𝜃1 N2
G B O
N4 N5
𝜋 𝛾𝑛 𝜃𝑐 I1 S
𝑙𝐵𝑆 = 2𝑟𝑛 sin ( + − ),
4 2 2 𝜂 𝜃2 G
1 B1 C
D1
𝜃𝑐
𝑙𝑆𝐶 = 2𝑟𝑛 sin ,
2
(5) Figure 4: Stress analysis in the primary shear zone.

where 𝜏 is the frictional shear stress and 𝑘 is the material flow

stress. The tool-chip frictional shear stress along the rake face
was assumed to be constant.
Jin and Altintas evaluated the total cutting forces by
integrating the forces along the entire chip-rake face contact
zone and the ploughing force caused by the round edge. The
detailed process can be found in [24]. According to their
computing methods, the cutting forces on the major cutting
edges of microdrill can be derived as follows.
After the material passes through the shear zones, the chip
begins curling freely, so the resulting force along the slip lines
𝐴𝐼, 𝐼𝐽, and 𝐽𝐻 should be zero. Consider
𝐹𝑥𝐴𝐼 + 𝐹𝑥𝐼𝐽 + 𝐹𝑥𝐽𝐻 = 0,
(6)
𝐹𝑦𝐴𝐼 + 𝐹𝑦𝐼𝐽 + 𝐹𝑦𝐽𝐻 = 0.
Line 𝐴𝐴 2 is a stress-free boundary. The distribution of
hydrostatic pressure and shear flow stress along slip line 𝐴𝐼
can be calculated by dividing 𝐴𝐼 into several differential
elements, such as 100 differential elements, as shown in Figure
4. The total force along slip line 𝐴𝐼 is obtained by summing
all of the elemental forces in the 𝑋 and 𝑌 directions.
The forces on point 𝑁1 of slip line 𝐴𝐼 in the 𝑋 and 𝑌
directions are calculated as
𝑑𝐹𝑥 = (𝑝𝑁1 sin 𝜂 + 𝑘𝑁1 cos 𝜂) Δ𝑙𝐴𝐼 𝑤,
(7)
𝑑𝐹𝑦 = (𝑝𝑁1 cos 𝜂 + 𝑘𝑁1 sin 𝜂) Δ𝑙𝐴𝐼 𝑤,
where 𝑝𝑁1 is the hydrostatic pressure and 𝑘𝑁1 is the shear
flow stress on the element, 𝜂 is the angular coordinate of the
element, Δ𝑙𝐴𝐼 is the length of the element, and 𝑤 is the width
of cut. Consider
𝑙𝐴𝐼
Δ𝑙𝐴𝐼 = , (8)
𝑛
where 𝑛 is the number of divided differential elements.
So the hydrostatic pressure 𝑝𝐼 and shear flow stress 𝑘𝐼
of point 𝐼 can be concluded. After the total forces along slip
line 𝐴𝐼 are calculated, the forces along 𝐼𝐽 and 𝐽𝐻 can be
determined. In the second shear zone, slip line 𝐵𝐼 is divided
into 100 angular elements in the same way; then the same
number of slip lines is formed in the secondary shear zone.
For any slip line 𝑁2 𝑁3 , the shear flow stress 𝑘𝑁2 and the
hydrostatic pressure 𝑝𝑁2 at point 𝑁2 are obtained from the
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
stress distribution in the primary shear zone. Then, the shear
flow stress and hydrostatic pressure at point 𝑁3 are calculated
as
𝑘𝑁3 = 𝑘𝑁2 ,
(9)
𝑝𝑁3 = 𝑝𝑁2 + 2𝑘𝑁2 ⋅ (2𝜉) .
The elemental force is projected into the 𝑥 and 𝑦 direc-
tions, and then the elemental forces in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 directions
at point 𝑁3 are
𝑑𝐹𝑥𝐻𝐵 = [(−𝑝𝑁3 − 𝑘𝑁3 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝐻𝐵 𝑤] cos 𝛾𝑒
− [(𝑘𝑁3 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝐻𝐵 𝑤)] sin 𝛾𝑒 ,
(10)
𝑑𝐹𝑦𝐻𝐵 = [− (−𝑝𝑁3 − 𝑘𝑁3 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝐻𝐵 𝑤] sin 𝛾𝑒
− [(𝑘𝑁3 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝐻𝐵 𝑤)] cos 𝛾𝑒 .
The elemental force at other points along the tool rake face
𝐵𝐻 is calculated following the same procedure as point 𝑁3 ,
and then the total force along 𝐵𝐻 is obtained by summing all
of the elemental forces in the 𝑋 and 𝑌 directions.
In tertiary shear zone, line 𝐵𝐵1 is divided into 100 small
elements. The shear flow stress and hydrostatic pressure at
point 𝑁4 can be concluded from point 𝐵. Then, the shear flow
stress and hydrostatic pressure at point 𝑁5 are calculated as
𝑘𝑁5 = 𝑘𝑁4
(11)
𝑝𝑁5 = 𝑝𝑁4 − 2𝑘𝑁4 ⋅ (2𝜉) .
The elemental forces along line 𝐵𝑆 in the 𝑥 and 𝑦 direc-
tions at point 𝑁 are
𝑑𝐹𝑥𝐵𝑆 = [(−𝑝𝑁5 − 𝑘𝑁5 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝐵𝑆 𝑤] cos 𝛾𝑒
− [(−𝑘𝑁5 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝐵𝑆 𝑤)] sin 𝛾𝑒
(12)
𝑑𝐹𝑦𝐵𝑆 = [(−𝑝𝑁5 − 𝑘𝑁5 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝐵𝑆 𝑤] sin 𝛾𝑒
+ [(−𝑘𝑁5 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝐵𝑆 𝑤)] cos 𝛾𝑒 .
Similarly, along line 𝑆𝐶,
𝑑𝐹𝑥𝑆𝐶 = [(−𝑝𝑁5 − 𝑘𝑁5 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝑆𝐶𝑤] cos 𝛾𝑒
+ [(−𝑘𝑁5 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝑆𝐶𝑤)] sin 𝛾𝑒 ,
(13)
𝑑𝐹𝑦𝑆𝐶 = [(−𝑝𝑁5 − 𝑘𝑁5 sin (2𝜉)) Δ𝑙𝑆𝐶𝑤] sin 𝛾𝑒
− [(−𝑘𝑁5 cos (2𝜉) Δ𝑙𝑆𝐶𝑤)] cos 𝛾𝑒 .
The element forces in the plane perpendicular to the
major cutting edge along the cutting direction and the thrust
direction are obtained on the major cutting edge as
𝑑𝐹1𝑐 = (𝑑𝐹𝑥𝐻𝐵 + 𝑑𝐹𝑥𝐵𝑆 + 𝑑𝐹𝑥𝑆𝐶) Δ𝐿,
(14)
𝑑𝐹1𝑡 = (𝑑𝐹𝑦𝐻𝐵 + 𝑑𝐹𝑦𝐵𝑆 + 𝑑𝐹𝑦𝑆𝐶) Δ𝐿,
where Δ𝐿 is the length of differential element of major cutting
edge.
5
Therefore, the magnitude of the total drilling thrust along
the axis on the major cutting edge of the drill 𝐹1 is
𝐹1 = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝐹1
(15)
cos 𝜀 sin 𝜙
= 2∫( ⋅ 𝑑𝐹1𝑡 − tan 𝜆 𝑠 ⋅ cos 𝜙 ⋅ 𝑑𝐹1𝑐 ) .
cos 𝜆 𝑠
3. Chisel Edge Cutting Force Model
Mauch and Lauderbaugh [25] obtained the indentation zone
radius 𝑅ind (Figure 1) for a conical drill based on the point
angle. Paul et al. [26] suggested that the dynamic clearance
angle becomes zero at the indentation zone radius. So the
radius 𝑅ind of the indentation zone is given by the following
equation:
𝑓
𝑅ind = , (16)
2𝜋 tan 𝛾𝑠
where 𝛾𝑠 is the static clearance angle of the chisel edge.
3.1. Secondary Cutting Edge Cutting Force Model. Since the
chisel edge has a definite radius and the uncut chip thickness
is comparable in size to the edge radius, the chisel edge cannot
be seen as completely sharp but should be as a rounded
edge. The chip thickness at the elements on the chisel edge
is equal to half of the drill feed. The secondary cutting edges
are divided into elements and the elemental drilling thrust is
determined; then the magnitude of the total drilling thrust
along the axis of the drill can be obtained by summing the
forces at all elements for the secondary cutting edges.
Because the flank surfaces of microdrill are plane, the
slip-line model of secondary cutting edge is different from
the major cutting edge. Figure 5 shows the analytical slip-
line model for machining with secondary cutting edge. The
intersection angle of 𝐴𝐴 2 and horizontal line is 𝛿. Consider
𝜋
𝛿= − 𝜙𝑠
4
(17)
𝛿2 = 𝜙𝑠 − 𝛾𝑒 − 𝜉2 ,
𝛿3 = 𝜉1 + 𝜉2 + 𝛾𝑒 − 𝜃𝑠 .
The element forces in the plane perpendicular to the
chisel edge along the thrust direction on the chisel edge are
obtained as
𝑑𝐹2 = 𝑘Δ𝐿 {(cos 𝜙𝑠 − sin 𝜙𝑠 ) 𝑙𝐻𝐵
+ [cos 2𝜉2 cos 𝛾𝑒
− (1 + sin (2𝛿2 + 2𝜉2 )) sin 𝛾𝑒 ] 𝑙𝐵𝑆 (18)
+ [(1 + sin (2𝛿2 + 2𝛿3 + 2𝜉1 )) cos 𝜃𝑠
− cos 2𝜉1 sin 𝜃𝑠 ] 𝑙𝑆𝐶} ,
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

𝛾n

Chip

VChip Secondary
H
∘ cutting edge
45 B
O
𝛿A 𝛾e 𝜃b
A3 ∘ Chisel edge rn
A2 45
𝜙s S 𝜃c 𝜃s
I
A1 B C
tc 45∘ O
S
I1 C 𝜉2
𝛿2 𝛿3
V B1 D2
B2 D1 𝜉1
Workpiece

Figure 5: Slip-line field model for machining with secondary cutting edge.

where Δ𝐿 is the length of differential element, and Z

𝑡𝑐 + 𝑙𝐴𝐴 2 sin 𝛿 − 𝑟𝑛 (1 + sin 𝛾𝑒 ) Indentation zone model

𝑙𝐻𝐵 = ,
sin 𝜙𝑠
𝜋 𝛾𝑛 𝜃𝑐 (19)
2𝛾ind
𝑙𝐵𝑆 = 2𝑟𝑛 sin ( + − ),
4 2 2
𝜃𝑐
𝑙𝑆𝐶 = 2𝑟𝑛 sin ,
2 X
f/2
where 𝑡𝑐 is the uncut chip thickness, 𝑡𝑐 = 𝑓/2, and 𝑓 is feed. 𝜑
Consider
Workpiece Plastic region
𝑙𝐴𝐴 2 = √2 (𝑙𝐵𝑆 cos 𝜉2 + 𝑙𝑆𝐶 sin 𝜉1 ) . (20)

The magnitude of the total drilling thrust can be obtained Figure 6: Indentation zone model schematic.
by summing the forces at all elements for the secondary
cutting edges. So the magnitude of the total drilling thrust
force 𝐹2 is thrust force by the indentation zone needs to be considered.
In microdrilling, although the chisel edge is circular edge,
𝐿𝑐/2 due to the major effect of the indentation zone on extrude
𝐹2 = 2 ∑ 𝑑𝐹2 material, the indentation zone can be regarded as a rigid
𝑅ind wedge. The material is extruded on both sides of the wedge.
𝐿𝑐/2
The indentation zone model schematic is shown in Figure 6.
= 2𝑘 ∑ {(cos 𝜙𝑠 − sin 𝜙𝑠 ) 𝑙𝐻𝐵 According to the slip-line field theory, the force normal to the
𝑅ind
surface of the wedge can be determined. Consider
(21)
+ [cos 2𝜉2 cos 𝛾𝑒 𝑃𝑛1 = 2𝑘 (1 + 𝜑) , (22)

− (1 + sin (2𝛿2 + 2𝜉2 )) sin 𝛾𝑒 ] 𝑙𝐵𝑆 where 𝜑 is the solution of the slip line and is given by the
following equation:
+ [(1 + sin (2𝛿2 + 2𝛿3 + 2𝜉1 )) cos 𝜃𝑠
𝜋 𝜑
2𝛾ind = 𝜑 + cos−1 [tan ( − )] , (23)
− cos 2𝜉1 sin 𝜃𝑠 ] 𝑙𝑆𝐶} Δ𝐿, 4 2

where 𝐿 𝐶 is the length of chisel edge. where 2𝛾ind is the included angle of the wedge, which is equal
to twice the magnitude of the static normal rake angle at the
chisel edge and is given by
3.2. The Indentation Zone Cutting Force Model. In micro-
drilling processes, the ratio of web thickness to drill diameter 𝛾ind = −tan−1 [tan 𝜙 cos (𝜋 − 𝜓)] , (24)
is larger than that of macrodrilling, so the indentation zone
is quite important, and the contribution to the total drilling where 𝜓 is chisel edge angle of microdrill.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 7: Experimental setup and microdrill. (a) Experimental setup diagram; (b) CNS7d CNC machine; (c) diameter 0.5 mm microdrill.

The load acted on unit length of the wedge is on a DMG DMU 80 monoBLOCK machining center. The
experimental setup was shown in Figure 7(a). Workpiece is
𝑑𝐹3 = 2𝑙𝑂𝐴𝑃𝑛1 sin 𝛾ind , (25) AISI 1023 carbon steel plate with a thickness of 1.5 mm.
where Workpiece is mounted on a multicomponent dynamome-
ter (Kistler, model 9257B). The material of microdrills is
𝑓 cemented carbide of ultrafine grain (AF K34 SF, made by
𝑙𝑂𝐴 = . (26)
2 [cos 𝛾ind − sin (𝛾ind − 𝜑)] Germany AF Hartmetall Group), and its performance is listed
in Table 1. Microdrills were fabricated on a Makino Seiki
So the total drilling thrust force of the indentation zone CNS7d CNC microtool grinding machine, as shown in Figure
can be expressed as 7(b). The basic parameters of microdrills are shown in Table
𝑓 2. The microdrill was observed under a laser microscope
𝐹3 = 2 ⋅ ⋅ 2𝑘 (1 + 𝜑) (KEYENE vk-x100 Series) and a stereoscopic microscope
2 [cos 𝛾ind − sin (𝛾ind − 𝜑)] (Zeiss). Figure 7(c) shows an example of microdrills.
⋅ sin 𝛾ind ⋅ 2𝑅ind (27) The material shear flow stress 𝑘 is 282.7 MPa, the coeffi-
cient of coulomb friction is 0.15, and the shear stress ratio 𝜏/𝑘
4𝑘 (1 + 𝜑) 𝑓 sin 𝛾ind 𝑅ind is 0.95. The separation angle 𝜃𝑐 on the major cutting edges is
= . 56∘ and 58.5∘ on the second cutting edges. The spindle speed
cos 𝛾ind − sin (𝛾ind − 𝜑)
is 22,000 r/min and the feed is 0.5 𝜇m/r, 1.0 𝜇m/r, 2.0 𝜇m/r,
3.0 𝜇m/r, and 5.0 𝜇m/r, respectively. The following equation
4. Experimental Validation of the Thrust is used to evaluate the shear angle when the second cutting
Forces Model of Microdrills edges are cutting [14]:
4.1. Experimental Work. To calibrate the thrust forces model
of microdrills, the microdrilling processes were performed 𝜙𝑠 = 31.48 + 0.32𝛾𝑒 . (28)
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Table 1: Mechanical and physical properties of microdrills material.
Mechanical and physical properties Value
Co Content (%) 9 Diameter (mm)
WC including doping (%) 91
Density (g/cm3 ) 14.3
HV 30 (N/mm2 ) 2000
HRA 94.4
Transverse rupture strength (N/mm2 ) 4000
Tungsten carbide particle size (𝜇m) 0.2
The experimental thrust force signals were measured with
a dynamometer. The results are shown in Figures 8(a)–8(e).
A typical thrust profile is shown in Figure 9. In zone A,
the chisel edge has contacted and extruded the workpiece; at
the same time, the second cutting edge is cutting. In zone B,
the major cutting edges are entering the hole gradually and
begin to cut. The thrust forces in zone B consist of two parts
of forces, the force generated by the chisel edge and the force
generated by the major cutting edges. The latter increases
gradually in zone B, but it is always smaller than the former
even at its maximum. In zone C, the major cutting edges
have completely entered the hole and the entire microdrill is
exerting the thrust. In zone D, the chisel edge of microdrill
is just out from the bottom of workpiece and the major
cutting edges are still cutting. The force in zone D is generated
without the contribution of the chisel edge. Therefore, the
thrust in zone D is significantly smaller than that in zone B.
In zone E, workpiece has completely drilled through, and
there exists friction between drill and hole wall. Then, the
microdrill withdraws from the hole.
The chisel edge and cutting edges forces must be sepa-
rated in order to compare them to the values predicted by
the model. The approach is to use a blind pilot hole with a
diameter exactly equal to the web thickness of the microdrill
used for the validation. For pilot holes, 0.15 mm drills were
used, and the depth of pilot holes was kept at 0.5 mm. The
typical thrust profile for the operation is shown in Figure 10.
The experimental thrust force results are compared with
the corresponding predicted results in Figure 11.
4.2. Results and Discussion. As seen in Figure 8, the shape of
curve in Figure 8(a) is completely different from the others,
and the trend of the curve is basically the same as in Figures
8(b)–8(e). At very low feed, the chip thickness is less than
the minimum chip thickness; chips are not formed, and
only ploughing takes place. However, because the indentation
zone keeps extruding the work material, the cutting process
does take place. Figure 8(a) shows the thrust of this case; it
is the main ploughing forces. As the feed increases, when
the chip thickness exceeds the minimum chip thickness, both
shearing and ploughing take place in the cutting, so the thrust
forces include shearing forces and ploughing forces, as shown
in Figures 8(b)–8(e). By comparing Figures 8(a) and 8(b),
we can see that the value of the minimum chip thickness is
between 0.25 𝜇m and 0.5 𝜇m.
Table 2: Basic parameters of microdrill.
Geometric feature Value
0.5
Flute length (mm) 5.0
Helix angle (∘ ) 25
Web thickness (mm) 0.15
Web taper (mm/mm) 0.03
Point angle (∘ ) 130
Primary face angle (∘ ) 12
Chisel edge angle (∘ ) 42.8
Major cutting edge radius (𝜇m) 2
Second cutting edge radius (𝜇m) 3
As seen in Figure 11, almost all the predicted values
are lower than the experimental ones. The data shows that
the cutting force model of chisel edge including secondary
cutting edge and indentation zone can correctly predict the
thrust, and the average error is less than 5 percent. The
accuracy of major cutting edges cutting force is relatively
lower. The experimental results show that the average error
in the predicted steady state major cutting edges thrust is less
than 10 percent. When the feed is between 0.5 and 1.0, a mixed
elastic-plastic deformation happens to the material; a transi-
tion from the ploughing mechanism to shearing mechanism
can be seen. In general, the total drilling thrust (cutting edges
and chisel edge) is predicted with an average error of less than
7 percent. In major cutting edges cutting force model, because
the hydrostatic pressure and shear flow stress along tool-
chip contact zone are calculated by dividing some differential
elements, the number of divided differential elements has cer-
tain effect on the accuracy of the model. On the other hand, in
order to simplify the mathematical formulas, the tool circular
edge is approximately represented by two straight chords,
which lead to lower accuracy to some extent. Other sources
of deviation might include the wear or local fracture of the
major cutting edges in the cutting process; these factors can
lead to the increasing of the thrust during the drilling process.
The predicted and experimental results show that the
thrust created by the chisel edge is quite significant. It exceeds
the thrust created by the cutting edges and represents about
60–70 percent of total thrust. In this paper, the chisel edge
angle of microdrill is relatively low at 42.8∘ , which causes both
the length of chisel edge and the cutting force to increase.
5. Conclusions
The mathematical models to predict the microdrilling thrust
are developed. The thrust is modeled in three parts: major
cutting edges, secondary cutting edge, and the indentation
zone. Major cutting edge and secondary cutting edge force
models are based on the slip-line field theory, and the
indentation zone is modeled as a rigid wedge. The major
cutting edges and secondary cutting edge are divided into
elements and the elemental forces are determined from an
oblique cutting model and an orthogonal model, respectively.
Shearing and ploughing are included in the models of the
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

Thrust (N)
Thrust (N)

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

−0.2 −0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
Thrust (N)

Thrust (N)

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0

−0.2 −0.2
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
0.8

0.6

0.4
Thrust (N)

0.2

0.0

−0.2
0 1 2 3 4
Time (s)
(e)

Figure 8: The thrust force profile for microdrilling. (a) Feed: 0.5 𝜇m/r; (b) feed: 1.0 𝜇m/r; (c) feed: 2.0 𝜇m/r; (d) feed: 3.0 𝜇m/r; (e) feed:
5.0 𝜇m/r.
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

0.8 0.8

1 2 3 4 5 0.7
0.6

0.6
Thrust (N)

0.4
0.5

Thrust (N)
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3

−0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.2
Time (s)
0.1
Figure 9: A typical profile of the thrust force for microdrilling (feed:
1.0 𝜇m/r). 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Feed (𝜇m/r)
0.6
Expt (a) Pred (a)
0.5 Expt (b) Pred (b)
Expt (c) Pred (c)
0.4
Figure 11: Comparison of experimental and predicted value. (a)
Major cutting edges thrust; (b) chisel edge thrust; (c) total drilling
0.3
thrust.
Thrust (N)

0.2
Total thrust

0.1 Future work should aim at two aspects: improving the

accuracy of major cutting edges cutting force and considering
Major cutting
Edges thrust

0.0
the effect of the chisel edge angle and length on total drilling
−0.1 thrust.

−0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 Nomenclature
Time (s)
𝐹1 : Total thrust of major cutting edges
Figure 10: Thrust profile using pilot hole (feed: 1.0 𝜇m/r). 𝐹2 : Total thrust of second cutting edge
𝐹3 : Total thrust of the indentation zone
𝑑𝐹cut :Elemental cutting force
𝑑𝐹𝐿 : Elemental lateral force
major cutting edges and second cutting edge. The model is
𝑑𝐹𝑇 : Elemental oblique cutting thrust force
applied to a 0.5 mm ultrafine grain cemented carbide micro-
𝜏: The frictional shear stress
drill, and the experimental and predicted values of forces are
𝑘: The material flow stress
compared.
𝑝: The hydrostatic pressure
The main conclusions from the study are as follows.
𝜙: Half the drill point angle
(i) Almost all the predicted values are lower than the 𝜆𝑠: Cutting edge inclination angle
experimental ones. This might be attributed by factors 𝛾𝑛 : Normal rake angle of major cutting edge
such as drill vibrations, drill wandering, the friction of 𝛽: Helix angle
drill, and hole wall. 𝜃𝑐 : The separation angle
𝛾𝑒 : Effective rake angle
(ii) On the chisel edge, the forces of secondary cutting 𝜙𝑒 : Effective shear angle
edge can be modeled based on slip-line theory, and 𝜓: The chisel edge angle
the indentation zone can be modeled as a rigid wedge. 2𝛾ind :The included angle of the wedge
The model of chisel edge shows a good conformity 𝛾𝑠 : The static clearance angle of the chisel edge
with the experimental results. 𝑟𝑛 : The tool edge radius
(iii) The accuracy of major cutting edges cutting force 𝑟𝑤 : Half the web thickness
is low relatively, and the average error is about 10 𝑟: The distance from the selected point on
percent. This may be due to the fact that some of the major cutting edge to drill axis
the constants such as shear stress ratio and separation 𝑅: Drill radius
angle as well as others are calibrated for other process- 𝑅ind : The radius of the indentation zone
ing methods and not for drilling. 𝑓: Feed
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
𝐿 𝐶: The length of chisel edge
𝑡𝑐 : The uncut chip thickness
𝑡cmin : The minimum chip thickness.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank The National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Key Program, no. 50935001) for their
financial support. Without their support, this work would not
have been possible.
References
[1] K. F. Ehmann, S. G. Kapoor, R. E. DeVor, and I. Lazoglu, “Mach-
ining process modeling: a review,” Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 655–663, 1997.
[2] M. C. Shaw and C. J. Oxford, “On the drilling of metals—II. The
torque and thrust of drilling,” Transactions of ASME, vol. 79, pp.
139–148, 1957.
[3] E. J. A. Armarego and C. Y. Cheng, “Drilling with flat rake
face and conventional twist drills-I. theoretical investigation,”
International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, vol.
12, no. 1, pp. 17–35, 1972.
[4] E. J. A. Armarego and C. Y. Cheng, “Drilling wih flat rake face
and conventional twist drills-II. Experimental investigation,”
International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, vol.
12, no. 1, pp. 37–54, 1972.
[5] A. R. Watson, “Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results. I—initial
cutting lip model,” International Journal of Machine Tool Design
and Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 347–365, 1985.
[6] A. R. Watson, “Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results. II—revised
cutting lip model,” International Journal of Machine Tool Design
and Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 367–376, 1985.
[7] A. R. Watson, “Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge and
comparison of experimental and predicted results. III - drilling
model for chisel edge,” International Journal of Machine Tool
Design and Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 377–392, 1985.
[8] A. R. Watson, “Drilling model for cutting lip and chisel edge
and comparison of experimental and predicted results. IV-
drilling tests to determine chisel edge contribution to torque
and thrust,” International Journal of Machine Tool Design and
Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 393–404, 1985.
[9] D. A. Stephenson and J. S. Agapiou, “Calculation of main cutting
edge forces and torque for drills with arbitrary point geome-
tries,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 521–538, 1992.
[10] V. Chandrasekharan, S. G. Kapoor, and R. E. DeVor, “Mecha-
nistic approach to predicting the cutting forces in drilling: with
application to fiber-reinforced composite materials,” Journal of
engineering for industry, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 559–570, 1995.
[11] V. Chandrasekharan, S. G. Kapoor, and R. E. DeVor, “A mech-
anistic model to predict the cutting force system for arbitrary
drill point geometry,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 563–570, 1998.
11
[12] J. S. Strenkowski, C. C. Hsieh, and A. J. Shih, “An analytical
finite element technique for predicting thrust force and torque
in drilling,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manu-
facture, vol. 44, no. 12-13, pp. 1413–1421, 2004.
[13] J. Wang and Q. Zhang, “A study of high-performance plane rake
faced twist drills. Part II. Predictive force models,” International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 48, no. 11, pp.
1286–1295, 2008.
[14] K. Sambhav, P. Tandon, S. G. Kapoor, and S. G. Dhande, “Math-
ematical modeling of cutting forces in microdrilling,” Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 135, no. 1, Article
ID 014501, 8 pages, 2013.
[15] B. K. Hinds and G. M. Treanor, “Analysis of stresses in micro-
drills using the finite element method,” International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1443–1456,
2000.
[16] M. E. Merchant, “Basic mechanics of the metal cutting process,”
Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 11, pp. A168–A175, 1944.
[17] E. H. Lee and B. W. Shaffer, “The theory of plasticity applied to
a problem of machining,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 18,
pp. 405–413, 1951.
[18] P. Dewhurst and I. F. Collins, “A matrix technique constructing
slip-line field solutions to a class of plane strain plasticity
problems,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 357–378, 1973.
[19] P. L. B. Oxley, Mechanics of Machining, Ellis Horwood, Chich-
ester, UK, 1989.
[20] D. J. Waldorf, R. E. Devor, and S. G. Kapoor, “A slip-line field for
ploughing during orthogonal cutting,” Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 693–699, 1998.
[21] N. Fang, “Slip-line modeling of machining with a rounded-edge
tool. Part I. New model and theory,” Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 715–742, 2003.
[22] N. Fang, “Slip-line modeling of machining with a rounded-edge
tool. Part II. Analysis of the size effect and the shear strain-rate,”
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 51, no. 4, pp.
743–762, 2003.
[23] J. Manjunathaiah and W. J. Endres, “A new model and analysis
of orthogonal machining with an edge-radiused tool,” Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 384–
390, 2000.
[24] X. Jin and Y. Altintas, “Slip-line field model of micro-cutting
process with round tool edge effect,” Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, vol. 211, no. 3, pp. 339–355, 2011.
[25] C. A. Mauch and L. K. Lauderbaugh, “Modeling the drilling pro-
cesses—an analytical model to predict thrust force and torque,”
Computer Modeling and Simulation of Manufacturing Processes,
vol. 48, pp. 59–65, 1990.
[26] A. Paul, S. G. Kapoor, and R. E. DeVor, “A chisel edge model for
arbitrary drill point geometry,” Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Engineering, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 23–32, 2005.
Advances in Advances in Mathematical Problems Journal of
Operations Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Decision Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Algebra
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Probability and Statistics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

The Scientific International Journal of

World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Differential Equations
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

International Journal of Advances in

Combinatorics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematical Physics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Journal of International Journal of Abstract and Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Stochastic Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Applied Analysis
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Journal of
Applied Mathematics
Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Discrete Mathematics
Sciences

Journal of Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014

http://www.hindawi.com
Function Spaces
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com http://www.hindawi.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Optimization
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014