International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311

A new dynamic model for drilling and reaming processes

Juhchin A. Yang a, Venkatraman Jaganathan b,1
, Ruxu Du c,*

a
Analytical Powertrain Methods Department, Powertrain Operations, Ford Motor Company, 21500 Oakwood Boulevard, POEE Building, MD
#65, P.O. Box 2053, Dearborn, MI 48121, USA
b
IS&S, Interior Systems Division, Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, 1401 Crooks Road, Troy, MI 48084, USA
c
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Miami, Corel Gables, FL 33124-0623, USA

Received 20 March 2000; accepted 20 May 2001

Abstract

This paper presents a new computer simulation model for drilling and reaming processes. The model is made of four parts: the
force model for the cutting lips, the force model for the chisel edge, the dynamic model for the machine tool (including the cutter)
and the regenerative correlation between the force and machine tool vibration. The models for the forces and the machine tool are
similar to the existing models. The key to the model is the regeneration correlation between the cutting forces and the machine
tool vibration. It uses a new 3D chip formation model to describe the interaction between the cutter and the workpiece. The model
can predict the dynamic forces and chatter limit. It also reveals several interesting phenomena, such as how the feed and the point
angle of the drill affect the chatter limit. The model is implemented using C++ language with an interface to I-DEAS CAE
software system. The simulation results are validated experimentally by both drilling and reaming under various cutting conditions.
The experiment results show that the simulation is accurate with average error about 10%. A number of research issues are also
proposed for the future work.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction drill has over 10 design parameters, each affecting the

In the study of the machining process, modeling is
very important as it helps us to understand the process
and hence, to solve practical problems such as chatter
and tool breakage. In the past two decades much
research has been carried out. In the survey paper by
Ehmann et al. [1], a systematical review was presented.
The paper listed over 100 research literatures and
pointed out six topics for future research including: (1)
damping of the cutting process; (2) the dynamics of the
machine tool and work fixture; (3) complex workpieces;
(4) chip breaking; (5) high speed machining; and (6)
residual stresses in aluminum alloys. In this paper, a new
model for drilling and reaming is presented with a focus
on the dynamics of the machine tool.
Drilling is the most commonly used machining oper-
ation. Yet, it is perhaps the most complicated machining
operation. Setting aside the multifacet drills, a typical
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-852-2609-8487; fax: +1-852-
2603-6002.
E-mail address: rdu@miami.edu (R. Du).
1
Originally in the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
cutting in a different way. From the metal cutting point
of view, drilling is a very severe process in which the
chip load is large and the chips may be trapped in the
cutting zone causing various problems [2]. The basic
principles of drilling are now well understood. It is
known that a drill consists of two cutting edges: the chi-
sel edge and the cutting lips. The chisel edge extrudes
into the workpiece material and hence, contributes sub-
stantially to the thrust force but little to the torque. The
cutting lips cut out the material and hence, produce the
majority of the drilling torque. They also contribute sig-
nificantly to the thrust force because of the point angle.
During a drilling operation, the chips are formed along
the cutting lips and moved up following the drill helix
angle. Note that, unlike milling, the helix in the drill
does not contribute to cutting. The drill geometry has a
complicated effect on the drilling forces. The rake angle,
inclination angle (i.e., the helix angle), and cutting velo-
city vary along the drill radius. In particular, the normal
rake angle has a large negative value at the center of the
drill resulting in larger thrust forces. Then it changes
from negative to positive along the cutting lips affecting
mostly the torque.

0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 2 - X
300 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311

Nomenclature
Ac Chip load (mm)
a n, a f Chip thickness coefficients in the empirical cutting force model
b n, b f Speed coefficients in the empirical cutting force model
c n, c f Rake angle coefficients in the empirical cutting force model
Cn, Cf Material coefficients in the empirical cutting force model
f Feed (mm/rev)
Fn, Ff Normal and friction force (N)
Fx, Fy Direction force (N)
Fcut Cut force (N)
Find Indentation force (N)
Flateral Lateral force (N)
Fthrust Thrust force (N)
i
Inclination angle, for a conical drill, i=sin−1
w
Rr 冉
sin k (mm) 冊
k Half of the drill/reamer point angle (degrees)
Ks Yield stress of the work material (N/mm2)
Kn, Kf Normal and friction specific cutting forces (N/mm2)
M, C, K The mass, damping and stiffness of the machine tool (including cutter)
N Cutting speed (RPM)
P Denotes the time delay between two consecutive cutting teeth
rc, rp The locations of a cutting element in the current and previous cut respectively
R Half of the drill/reamer diameter (mm)
Ra The radius of the drill indentation zone (mm)
Rp The diameter of the pilot hole (mm)
T Torque (N - mm)
Tind Indentation torque (N - mm)
tc Chip thickness (in the direction normal to the cutting speed)
w Half of the drill web thickness (mm)
Xe, Ye, Ze Element coordinate system set along the cutting lips
X, Y, Z Global coordinate system
an Normal rake angle (degrees)
an, ch Rake angle of the chisel edge (degrees)
b
Web angle, b=sin−1 冉 冊
w
Rr
(degrees)
e Slip line of the chisel edge (degrees)
j Elevation angle (degrees)
hc Chip flow angle (mm)
qc Drill chisel edge angle (degrees)
q Helix angle (degrees)
r Radial coordinate parameter defined as (r/R), where r is a distance from the center to the cutting
element on the drill cutting lips
2gw Wedge angle (degrees)
f Projection angle between the local cutting lip coordinate (Xe, Ye) and the global coordinate (X, Y)

According to the literature, there are at least 10 differ-
ent drilling process models, such as [3–6]. One of the
earliest cutting force models was the Merchant’s model
[7], applicable to both turning and drilling. By using the
law of energy conservation, Merchant showed that the
cutting force was proportional to the uncut chip area or
the chip load. Using photomicrographs of the chisel edge
of drills, Oxford [8] showed that in a small region around
the center of the chisel edge, the tool did not cut but
instead extruded the material. This region was then
called the extrusion or indentation zone. Outside the
indentation zone, the chisel edge created an orthogonal
cutting with large negative rake angles. Based on a com-
bination of the cuttings in the cutting lips and chisel
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311
edge, Armarego and Wright [9] developed an empirical
model to predict drilling thrust force and torque. More
recently, Stephenson developed a static force model for
drills with arbitrary geometry [10,11]. In this model the
cutting lip was divided into a number of small segments
and each segment was modeled as an oblique cutting
element. The elemental cutting forces were modeled as
the product of the specific cutting force and the chip
load. A procedure was also developed by which the spe-
cific cutting force coefficients could be found based on
simple turning tests (instead of drilling). In addition, the
model included a hardness correction function to com-
pensate for the variation in hardness of the workpiece
material. However, the effect of chisel edge was not
included in the model. Chandrasekharan et al. [12]
developed a model to predict the cutting forces for drill-
ing of metals and fiber reinforced composite materials.
They used the geometric similarity of the drills to formu-
late the force and torque equations in a normalized radial
coordinate system and thus, simplified the model. Their
model consisted of two parts. The first part used the Mer-
chant’s model to describe the cutting forces on the cut-
ting lips. The second part dealt with the chisel edge
based on the slip line field method derived by Kachanov
[13]. Later, Chandrasekharan [14] extended the model
to other processes such as end milling. He demonstrated
the effectiveness of the model by matching the cutting
force data obtained from the drilling model to that of
the end-milling model in [15]. This model had several
limitations. First, it did not consider the machine tool
run out. Second, it required a large amount of drilling
tests to calibrate the specific cutting force coefficients.
Finally, it did not consider the effect of the machine
tool vibration.
In fact, although modeling machine tool dynamics is
common for turning and milling [16,17], relatively few
research has been done for drilling. Ema et al. [18,19]
estimated the whirling vibration and chatter by modeling
the drill as a two-dimensional lumped mass system under
the assumption that thedrill is rigid along its lateral axis.
However, their model did not consider the geometry of
the drill across its radius. Tarng and Li [6,20] developed
a simple method to predict chatter limit in drilling. In
this model, the uncut chip thickness was decomposed
into two components: a mean value and a variable chip
thickness. The chip thickness was the input to the cutting
process (described by a transfer function) yielding the
thrust force. The thrust force excited the machine tool
(also described by a transfer function), which causes
vibration affecting the chip thickness. They used stan-
dard deviation in the thrust force per revolution as the
criteria to detect the onset of the chatter. In their experi-
ments, the chatter frequency was found using spindle
speed regulation. However, the accuracy of this model
was limited, as the transfer functions cannot model the
complicated mechanics of drilling. Another related work
301
was reported in Jouraij et al. (1997), in which a finite
element model was developed to estimate the dynamics
of the toolholder–cutting tool assembly. Using this
model, the dynamics of the machine tool including mass,
stiffness, damping coefficients, mode shape and static
deflection can be determined without modal analysis
experiments. Other important studies on the dynamics of
drilling include [21,22].
This paper presents a new copmuter simulation model
for drilling and reaming processes. It consists of five sec-
tions. Section 2 briefly describes the cutting force model.
Section 3 presents the new dynamic model. Section 4
presents two simulation examples with experiment veri-
fication. Finally, Section 5 contains the conclusions and
future work.
2. The cutting force model
The cutting force model is developed based on a com-
bination of the following works: ([11,13,14]; Mauch and
Lauderbaugh, 1990). In developing the presented model
the following assumptions are made:
1. The drill is a simple single facet drill.
2. During the machining, the temperature variations in
the tool and the workpiece are small and hence, can-
not be ignored, and
3. The effect of chip breakage is small and hence, can
be ignored.
In the model, the cutting force in drilling is composed
of two elements: the force generated by the cutting lips
and the force generated by the chisel edge. Note that the
later does not apply in reaming. Hence, reaming can be
considered as a special case of drilling (reaming may
also be considered as boring with multiple teeth).
2.1. Forces generated by the cutting lips
Fig. 1 illustrates the static force model of a drill,
which is essentially the same as the model developed in
[14]. It is known that the cutting speed and the drill
geometry (mainly the rake angle) vary along the cutting
lip. In order to accommodate these variations, the cutting
lip is decomposed into a number of small oblique cutting
elements [11]. As shown in Fig. 1, the element (Xe, Ye,
Ze) can be projected onto global coordinate system (X,
Y, Z) by a simple geometry transform:
Xe⫽rcosf cosq (1)
Ye⫽rcosf cosq (2)
Ze⫽sini (3)
where, i is the inclination angle, q is the helix angle and
r is the distance between the center of the drill and the
302 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311

Fig. 2. Illustration of the element cutting forces in oblique cutting.

angle an, and the chip thickness tc (defined in a plane

Fig. 1. Illustration of the cutting force model.
element. It should be pointed out that in [11,14], the
decomposition are made perpendicular to the cutting lip;
in our model, however, the decompositions are along the
axial direction (i.e., the Z axis). This simplifies the calcu-
lations when the vibration is considered later. For each
element, as shown in Fig. 2, the cutting force consists
of two components: the normal force, dFn, and the fric-
tion force, dFf. The normal force is defined as the force
normal to the cutting edge. The friction force is
coincided to the chip flow direction. Furthermore, the
normal to the cutting edge). According to Stephenson
and Bandyopadhyay [11], Kn and Kf can be determined
as follows:
Kn⫽Cntac nVbn(1⫺sin an)cn (7)
Kf⫽Cftac /Vbf(1⫺sin an)cf (8)
where, an is the rake angle, tc is the chip thickness, and
the constants Cn, an, bn, cn, Cf, af, bf and cf can be
obtained from simple turning experiments (instead of
drilling). Note that the rake angle varies along the cutting
lip. Also, according to the model by Oxford [8], the rake
angle can be represented as a function of radial coordi-
nate parameter r as expressed below:

冤 冢 冉 冊冣 冪1−冉2Rr冊
normal and friction forces are assumed to be pro- 2
portional to the chip load and hence, are expressed as w
tan q
follows:
an⫽ tan−1 (9)
dFn⫽KndAc (4) w
sin k−tan q cos k
2Rr
dFt⫽KfdAc (5)

冢 冉 冊 冣冥
where, Kn and Kf are the specific normal and friction
forces, and dAc is the chip load or the chip area of the
element. The chip area is defined on the plane whose 冉 冊
⫺tan−1
w
2Rr
cos k
normal coincides to the cutting velocity V. As shown in
冪
2
Fig. 1, the element chip load is as follows: w
1−
2Rr
dAc⫽(f/2)(dy)cosi (6)
where, f is the feed and dy is the decomposition size. The projection of the normal force and the friction force
The specific normal and friction forces are dependent on will give the thrust force, dFthrust, the cutting force, dFcut,
the workpiece material, cutting velocity V, normal rake and the lateral force, dFlat [14]:
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311 303

dFthrust⫽dFt[cos(hc)sin(an)]⫺dFnsin(an) (10) into two zones [13]. The region around the center of the
drill is called the indentation zone where the material is
dFcut⫽dFt[sin(hc)sin(i)⫹cos(hc)cos(i)sin(an)] (11)
removed by extrusion. The other portions of the chisel
⫹dFn[cos(i)cos(an)] edge are called the secondary cutting edges where the
dFlateral⫽dFt[cos(hc)sin(i)sin(an)⫺sin(hc)cos(i)] (12) material is removed by orthogonal cutting characterized
by large negative rake angles. The thrust force and the
⫹dFn[sin(i)cos(an)] torque in the indentation zone can be calculated using
where, hc is the chip flow angle which is measured from the equation below:
the normal to the cutting lip that lies on the rake face. 4Ks(1+e)fRasin an,ch
Furthermore, the torque of the element is determined by: Findentation⫽ (20)
[cos an,ch−sin(an,ch−e)]
dT⫽rFcut (13)
2Ks(1+e)fR2acos an,ch
Tindentation⫽ (21)
Based on the thrust force, lateral force and cutting force, [cos an,ch−sin(an,ch−e)]
the cutting forces in the global coordinate system can
be calculated: where, Ks is the yield stress of the work material, f is

冉 冊
the feed, Ra is the radius of the indentation zone, an,th
−sin b cos k is the normal rake angle of the chisel edge and e is the
dFx⫽dFthrust ⫺dFcutcos b (14)
cos i slip line. According to Mauch and Lauderbaugh (1990),

冉 冊
the radius of the indentation zone can be determined
−sin b cos b sin k as follows:
⫹dFlat
cos i

冉 冊
f

冉 冊
−cos b cos k Ra⫽ (22)
dFy⫽dFthrust ⫹dFcut sin b (15) p
cos i 2 tan −k
2

⫺dFlat 冉 cos2 b sin k

cos i 冊 and the rake angle of the chisel edge is given as follows,
an,ch⫽⫺tan−1[tan k cos(p⫺qc)] (23)
where, b is the web angle. By integrating all the
elements and then all the cutting lips, the total thrust where, qc is the drill chisel edge angle. Within the inden-
force, the torque, and the direction forces can then be tation zone the tool acts as a rigid wedge indenting the
found: workpiece material making the material extruding on

Fthrust⫽ 冘冘
all cutting lips all elements
dFthrust (16)

T⫽ 冘冘
all cutting lips all elements
dT (17)

Fx⫽ 冘冘
all cutting lips all elements
dFx (18)

Fy⫽ 冘冘
all cutting lips all elements
dFy (19)

It should be noted that when projecting to the global

coordinate, the directional forces Fx and Fy become zero
because of the symmetric geometry of the drill. If, how-
ever, there is an asymmetry between the two opposite
cutting lips (which may be caused by machine tool run-
out, drill lips asymmetry, or most commonly, machine
tool vibration), then they will not be zero. This will be
discussed further in Section 3.

2.2. Modeling the chisel edge

The cutting of the chisel edge applies only to drilling.

As shown in Fig. 3, the chisel edge can be decomposed Fig. 3. Illustration of the cutting force model on the chisel edge.
304 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311

both sides of the wedge. The wedge angle is equal to

twice of the normal rake angle:
gw⫽2an,ch (24)
Based on the wedge angle, the slip lines e can be found
by using the following equation:

冉 冉 冊冊
e⫽2gw⫺cos−1 tan
p e
⫺
4 2
(25)

The secondary cutting edges can be modeled as orthog-

onal cutting edges with large negative rake angles using
the same method as that of the cutting lips.

Fig. 4. Illustration of the dynamic model of the machine tool.

3. The machine tool vibrations and regeneration
MŸ⫹CẎ⫹KY⫽FY(t) (27)
As pointed out earlier, in the normal drilling/reaming
the cutting forces in X and Y directions are equal to zero. where, M, C, and K are the mass, damping, and stiffness
However, if there is a vibration, then there will be of the machine tool respectively. The differential Eqs.
residual forces in the X and Y directions. These forces (23) and (24) can be solved using numerical methods
may cause the machine tool to vibrate, which in turn such as the 4th order Runge–Kutta method. Note that
causes undulation of the cutting forces. Such a regenerat- the vibration acts on all the cutting edges.
ive effect has been studied extensively in turning and As shown in Fig. 5, the vibration will affect the chip
milling (Ismail and Tlusty 1989; [17]). However, for area. Such an effect is a 3D effect. Ema et al. [18,19]
drilling and reaming operations, it is much more difficult presented a simple model in which the chip area is com-
and is still an unsolved problem. In fact, in drilling or puted based on a simple 2D projection. In our model, the
reaming operations, the interactions between the hole 3D effect is considered. For simplicity, let us consider a
and the tool are rather complicated. In order to simplify cutting element and for convenience, the location trans-
the model, a number of assumptions are made: formation defined in Eqs. (1)–(3) are dropped. From Fig.
6, it is seen that without vibration, the chip thickness is:
1. The workpiece is rigid so that its vibration is negli- tc⫽(rc⫺rp)df (28)
gible.
2. The machine tool is rigid in the Z direction. In other
words, the vibrations occur only in the radian direc-
tion.
3. The effect of the chip is small and hence, can be
ignored.
4. The helix of the tool will not cut and hence, there
is no cutting action other than the cutting edges of
the tool.
5. The body of the tool will not touch the hole even
under severe vibration. It is known that under normal
condition, the body clearness of the drill prevents the
body of the drill from touching the hole. When
vibration occurs, the hole is enlarged by the cutting
edges of the vibrating tool. Hence, the body of the
drill will still not touch the hole.

Fig. 4 shows the dynamic model of the machine tool. In

the model, the machine tool is assumed to be rigid in
Z direction and approximated by a set of second order
differential equations in X and Y directions:
MẌ⫹CẊ⫹KX⫽FX(t) (26) Fig. 5. Illustration of the 3D effect of the vibration.
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311 305

Since: f
dA⬘c⫽ (rc⫹x(t)cos f⫹y(t)sin f⫺rp⫺x(t)cos f
rc−rp 2
tan k⫽ (29)
f/2 f
⫺y(t)sin f)⫽dAc⫹ ((x(t)⫺x(t⫺p))cos f⫹(y(t) (34)
It follows: 2

冉 冊
f
tc⫽ tan k df
2
(30)
⫺y(t⫺p))sin f)
Hence, the chip load is:
In addition, the chip area is:
dV⬘⫽(dA⬘c)(t⬘c)⬵(dAc)(tc) 冉tcf
冊
⫹dAcdf ((x(t)⫺x(t
冉冊
(35)
f f 2 2
dAc⫽ (rc⫺rp)⫽ tan k (31)
2 2 ⫺p))cos f⫹(y(t)⫺y(t⫺p))sin f)
Therefore, the chip load is: Assuming that df is small and hence, tc⬘⬇tc, we have:

dV⫽(dAc)(tc)⫽ 冉冊
f 3
2
(tan2 k)df (32) dA⬘c⬵dAc⫹ 冉 f dAcdf
2
⫹
tc 冊
((x(t)⫺x(t⫺p))cos f⫹(y(t) (36)

With the vibration, both the chip thickness and the chip ⫺y(t⫺p))sin f)
area will change. The chip thickness becomes:
Or:
t⬘c⫽(rc⫹x(t)cos f⫹y(t)sin f)df⫺(rp⫹x(t⫺p)cos f
dA⬘c⬵dAc⫹f((x(t)⫺x(t⫺p))cos f⫹(y(t)⫺y(t
⫹y(t⫺p)sin f)df⫽tc⫹((x(t)⫺x(t⫺p))cos f⫹(y(t) (33)
⫺y(t⫺p))sin f)df
where, t⫺p denotes the time delay between two consecu-
⫺p))sin f)⫽ 冉冊
f 2
2
tan k⫹f((x(t)⫺x(t⫺p))cos f (37)

tive cutting teeth. On one hand, the chip area becomes: ⫹(y(t)⫺y(t⫺p))sin f)
This is the equivalent chip area that can be used to com-
pute the cutting forces.
From Eq. (37) the following observations can be
made:

1. The generative effect is proportional to the feed (f)

and the point angle (k). The larger the feed and/or the
point angle, the larger the vibration and hence, the
more likely to have a chatter.
2. The chatter limit is related to the dynamics of the
machine tool. When chatter occurs, we would have
dAc⬘=0. Hence:
f
tan k⫽((x(t⫺p)⫺x(t))cos f⫹(y(t⫺p) (38)
2
⫺y(t))sin f)
At f=0, we have:
f
tan k⫽(x(t⫺p)⫺x(t)) (39)
2
Taking Fourier transform, it follows:
f
tan k⫽X(jw)[e−jwp⫺1] (40)
2
Recalling from Eq. (26):
Fx
X(jw)⫽ (41)
Fig. 6. Illustration of the effect of vibration. −mw2+jcw+k
306 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311
It is clear that the chatter is dependent on the dynam-
ics of the machine tool. In fact, this result is rather
similar to that of turning and milling.
3. The cutting speed affects the chatter limit. This is
shown in the term x(t)⫺x(t⫺p).
4. Chatter amplitude. From Eq. (37), assuming that
f=0.2 (mm) and k=55°, then we have: x(t⫺p)⫺
x(t)=0.1428 mm. This number can be used to estimate
the chatter amplitude.
In summary, the flow chart of the simulation pro-
cedure is shown in Fig. 7. The implementation is done
using C++ language with an interface to I-DEAS
software system (written using Open I-DEAS). It has
a menu-driven feature-based design interface to facilitate
its usage. Fig. 8 shows the interface of the software sys-
tem. The interface consists of six icons, by which the
users can define the drills, the machining conditions, the
machine tool run out and the machine tool dynamics eas-
ily. The other useful feature of the software is the
graphic display. It has the following graphic functions:
Fig. 7. The flow chart of the simulation model.
(a) display the design of the tool (drills and reamers),
(b) display different simulation results in different win-
dows or in a same window, and (c) display experiment
results together with the simulation results. The software
runs on computer workstations, such as Sun and SGI.
Typically, each simulation takes just a few minutes to
complete.
4. Experimental validation
In order to validate the presented model, a number of
cutting tests were conducted. In this section, two sets of
examples are presented.
4.1. Drilling
The drilling tests were conducted on a Cincinnati Mil-
acron Arrow 500 vertical machining center. The experi-
ment conditions are summarized in Table 1. First, fol-
lowing a standard modal analysis experiment, it is found
that the machine tool (including the tool and toolholder)
dynamics consists of several modes. In particular, the
mode at 163 Hz plays a dominant role and, accordingly,
the parameters of the machine tool M, C, and K are
obtained as shown in Table 1. This mode is believed to
be associated to cutter (Yang et al., 2000). Furthermore,
Fig. 9 shows its mode shape. From the figure, it is seen
that the vibration is largest at the tip of the tool and
hence, the assumption that the body of the cutter will
not touch the hole is reasonable.
During the experiments, the cutting forces were meas-
ured using a Kistler dynamometer mounted under the
workpiece and sampled using a PC based data acqui-
sition system with LABVIEW software. Fig. 10 shows
typical experiment data. From the figure, it is seen that
the thrust force, Fz, increases slowly as the drill gradu-
ally enters the cut. It reaches the steady state value when
the drill is fully engaged. The radian forces, Fx and Fy,
remain small at all times.
In the simulation, each cutting lip is divided into 50
elements. The specific cutting force constants and other
constants are those used in [11,14], Mauch and Lauder-
baugh 1990]. The simulation step size is 0.5°. So, at
N=600 rpm, the simulation step is
1/(2×360×10)=0.00014 s.
As an example, Fig. 11 shows the static and the
dynamic thrust force with the same cutting condition as
that in Fig. 10. It should be pointed out that under the
ideal situation, the radian cutting forces will be zero and
hence, the vibration will be zero. In practice, the
vibration may be started as the tool cuts a hard area in
the workpiece material. To simulate this phenomenon,
an additional 5% of the static force is randomly gener-
ated and added to the static force. This triggers the
vibration and hence, the variation in dynamic forces. As
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311 307

Fig. 8. The interface of the software.

Table 1
The cutter, workpiece and cutting conditions for drilling model vali-
dation

Cutter Type: single angle twist drill

Material: HSS
Dimensions
Diameter 2R=15.9 mm
Web thickness 2w=1.8 mm
Point angle 2k=118°
Helix angle q=33°
Chisel edge angle, qc=130°
Workpiece Material: gray cast iron and 1018 steel
Preparation: with or without pilot hole (the
diameter of the pilot hole is Rp=3.2 mm)
Machine tool Dynamics: M=1.4 kg
C=1.21×10−3 N•S/mm
K=395 N/mm
Cutting
Speed: 400–1000 rpm
conditions
Feed: 0.2–0.5 mm/rev

shown in Fig. 11, the dynamic force follows the same

pattern as that of the static force. In comparison to the
experimental results, it is seen that the simulation results
match the experimental results quite well. The simul-
ation reveals much more information. Fig. 12 shows the
vibration (displacement) in X and Y directions corre-
sponding to that of Fig. 11. From the figure it is seen Fig. 9. The first mode shape of the cutter (with the toolholder)..
that the vibration amplitude is about 40 ␮m (peak-to-
peak value). As mentioned in the previous section, the new model
Table 2 shows a comparison of the steady state thrust can be used to study the chatter in drilling. Fig. 13 shows
forces between the simulations and experiments under an example of the thrust and its corresponding FFT spec-
various cutting conditions. A simple calculation shows trum in a chatter condition. From the figure, it is seen
that the mean error is 9.115 (N) with a standard deviation that the onset of the occurs when the drill is fully
of 18.568 (N). This indicates that the computer model engaged in the workpiece. From the spectrum, it is inter-
is accurate and reliable. esting to see that there are three modes. The mode at 10
308 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311
Fig. 10. A typical cutting force (workpiece=1018 steel with a pilot
hole, drill=HSS single angle twist drill, rpm=1000, feed=0.2 mm/rev).
Fig. 11. A comparison of the simulation and experiment results
(workpiece=1018 steel with a pilot hole, drill= HSS single angle twist
drill, rpm=1000, feed=0.2 mm/rev).
Fig. 12. The drill vibration from the simulation (workpiece=1018
steel with a pilot hole, drill=HSS single angle twist drill, RPM=1000,
feed=0.2 mm/rev). (a) Thrust force, (b) the corresponding FFT spec-
trum.
Hz corresponds to the spindle rotating speed (600 rpm).
The mode around 160 Hz is related to the machine tool
vibration. It is not clear, however, what causes the very
low frequency mode (about 1 Hz). Table 3 summarizes
the chatter limit (feed limit) under various cutting con-
ditions obtained from simulation. Unfortunately, the
results have not yet been verified experimentally owing
to various reasons. In fact, chatter in drilling is a rather
difficult and still unsolved problem. Much research is
still needed in the future.
4.2. Reaming
Reaming can be considered as a special case of drill-
ing. However, the pre-drilled holes may have a chamfer
that affects the reaming forces. In the presented study,
two reamers are used as described in Table 4. Both
reamers have the same diameter of 5.5118 mm; however,
their geometry is somewhat different as shown in the
table. The workpiece material is cast iron. The pilot hole
is 5 mm in diameter with a chamfer of 15°.
During the simulation, regardless of the helix angle,
each flute is divided into 50 elements. The material con-
stants and the specific cutting forces constants were
found in [11]. Fig. 14 shows the simulated thrust force
and torque of the two reamers.
To validate the simulation results, the cutting tests
were performed at a special machine tool with flood
coolant. The simulation and experimental results are
summarized in Table 5 (for Reamer 1) and Table 6 (for
Reamer 2). From simple statistical calculation, the fol-
lowing results can be obtained: For Reamer 1, the mean
error of the thrust force is ⫺12.26 N with a standard
deviation of 17.88 N. The mean error of the torque is
0.04 N m with a standard deviation of 0.168 N m. For
Reamer 2, the mean error of the thrust force is 4.74 N
with a standard deviation of 14.56 N. The mean error of
the torque is ⫺0.01 N m with a standard deviation of
0.129 N m. In summary, the average error is less than
10%. This shows that the new model is accurate and
reliable.
5. Conclusions and future work
1. This paper presents a new computer simulation model
for drilling and reaming processes. In comparison to
the existing models [11,12,18,19], the new model
includes the dynamics of the machine tool and the
cutter, as well as the machine tool run-out. Hence, it
can predict the dynamic cutting forces and the
machine tool vibrations.
2. The model considers the chip load variation in 3D
and converts it to an equivalent chip area. In this way,
the model can predict the chatter limit.
3. The model has been validated experimentally. In
particular, two examples are presented: one in drilling
and one in reaming. Based on the testing results, the
simulation matches and experimental results are well
within an average error of 18 N in the thrust force
and 7 N-mm in the torque. The error may be due to
various reasons such as the inaccurate specific cutting
forces, damping of the cutting process and chip break-
ing.
Simulating drilling and reaming processes is a difficult
task. The presented model did not include all aspects of
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311 309

Table 2
A comparison of steady state thrust force between simulation and experimental results

Drill diameter (mm) Workpiece material Feed (mm/rev) Speed (rpm) Simulation (N) Experiment (N)

15.9 Cast iron 0.2 400 114.20 104.51

9.5 Cast iron 0.36 400 97.70 108.57
15.9 Cast iron 0.36 400 176.75 172.52
9.5 Cast iron 0.2 400 59.15 66.44
15.9 Cast iron 0.5 400 236.15 228.24
15.9 Case iron 0.2 400 278.5 232.68
9.5 Cast iron 0.36 400 294.35 276.63
15.9 Cast iron 0.36 400 476.75 439.64
9.5 Cast iron 0.2 400 172.8 156.11
12.7 1018 steel 0.2 1000 97.8 111.59
12.7 1018 steel 0.4 500 133.65 142.11
15.9 1018 steel 0.1 1000 152.25 141.63

Fig. 14. Simulated reaming thrust force and torque (reamer 1: diam-
eter 5.5118 mm, no. of flutes 6, helix angle 10°, point angle 20°;;
Reamer 2: diameter 5.5118 mm, no. of flutes 4, helix angle 0°, point
angle 45°, diameter of hole to be reamed 5.0038 mm, feed rate 0.24
mm/tooth, spindle speed 1400 rpm, tool: silicon nitride, workpiece:
gray cast iron).

cific cutting force coefficients (i.e, Kn and Kf). These

Fig. 13. An example of the thrust force and its corresponding FFT
spectrum in a chatter condition (workpiece=cast iron, no pilot hole;
drill=single angle twist drill, 2R=15.9 mm, 2k=117°; cutting con-
dition=600 rpm, f=0.34 mm/rev).
machining. In fact, several questions remain unansw-
ered including:
1. The specific cutting force. In our study, it is found
that the simulation is strongly dependent on the spe-
coefficients may not be readily available. Hence, it is
desirable to develop a database for various tools and
workpiece materials.
2. The onset of the chatter. In theory, the new model
can predict the onset of the chatter. However, the
experiment validation has not been completed. Often,
the cutting edges of the drill chips before chatter is
fully developed. This is perhaps due to the fact that
the cutting edges of the drills have variable rake
angles. The large rake angle near the end of the cut-
ting edge makes it weak and consequently easy to
break. This may be why, in practice, we see more
drill breakage than chatter.
310 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311

Table 3
The simulated chatter limited under various cutting conditions

Drill diameter (mm) Drill point angle Workpiece material Speed(rpm) Feed limit (mm/rev)

15.9 115 Cast iron 400 0.31

9.5 120 Cast iron 600 0.34
15.9 115 Cast iron 800 0.38
9.5 120 Cast iron 1000 0.41
12.7 117 1018 steel 500 0.33
12.7 117 1018 steel 1000 0.35
15.9 115 1018 steel 1000 0.37

3. The effect of the chip. The chip formation and

Table 4 removal by the cutter may play a significant role in
Reamers specification drilling. However, we find it difficult to model such
Reamer 1 Reamer 2
a phenomenon.
Diameter=5.5118 mm Diameter=5.5118 mm 4. The impact between the body of the cutter and the
Point angle=20° Point angle=45° hole. In the model, it is assumed that the body of the
Helix angle=10° Helix angle=0° (straight flute) cutter will not touch the hole no matter how severe
No. of flutes=6 No. of flutes=4 the vibration. This is true if the machine tool
Radial rake=0° Radial rake=0°
(including the cutter) has only a simple first-order
mode shape. The higher order mode shapes may cause

Table 5
Simulation and experiment results for Reamer 1

Experimental thrust Experimental torque Simulated thrust force Simulated torque (N

Feed rate (mm/tooth) Spindle speed (rpm)
force (N) (N m) (N) m)

0.24 1400 198.55 1.512 242.63 1.720

0.36 1400 275.85 2.080 270.07 1.8863
0.272 1550 232.111 1.6638 249.711 1.7619
0.332 1550 259.002 2.038 265.043 1.8551
0.304 1700 255.889 2.007 258.044 1.8115
0.272 1850 221.81 1.7048 247.839 1.7478
0.332 1850 278.199 2.06243 266.239 1.8609
0.24 2000 208.21 1.5308 235.37 1.6694
0.36 2000 270.204 2.0712 275.233 1.9154

Table 6
Simulation and experiment results for Reamer 2

Feed rate (mm/tooth) Spindle speed (rpm) Experimental thrust Experimental torque Simulated thrust force Simulated torque (N
force (N) (N m) (N) m)

0.06 1400 146.76 0.9411 144.077 0.8175

0.09 1400 150.532 0.79163 160.264 0.8483
0.068 1550 158.133 0.8756 141.30 0.7970
0.083 1550 144.92 0.8746 149.926 0.8152
0.076 1700 165.743 0.6936 139.766 0.7824
0.068 1850 145.762 0.5954 129.019 0.74768
0.083 1850 144.91 0.6340 138.544 0.7707
0.06 2000 127.243 0.9122 118.136 0.71165
0.09 2000 117.76 0.6399 138.031 0.7622
 J.A. Yang et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 299–311
the body of the cutter to impact the hole. Such a possi-
bility will be further studied.
5. The dynamics of the workpiece. When
drilling/reaming a large hole, or if the wall of the hole
is thin, it is necessary to consider the dynamics of the
workpiece. This remains as a topic of future research.
Acknowledgements
This research is partially supported by a contract from
Ford Motor Company Powertrain Operations. The
authors would like to thank Mr. Hong Zhang for con-
ducting part of the experiments.
References
[1] K.F. Ehmann, S.G. Kapoor, R.E. DeVor, I. Lazoglu, Machining
process modeling: a review, Transactions of the ASME, Journal
of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 119 (4) (1997)
655–663.
[2] United States Cutting Tool Institute, Metal Cutting Tool Hand-
book (7th ed), Industrial Press Inc, New York, 1989.
[3] W.D. Tsai, S.M. Wu, A mathematical model for drill point design
and grinding, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering
for Industry 101 (1979) 333–340.
[4] R.A. Williams, A study of the drilling process, Transactions of
the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry 106 (4) (1984)
1207–1215.
[5] D.A. Stephenson, S.M. Wu, Computer models for the mechanics
of three dimensional cutting processes, part II: results for oblique
end turning and drilling, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Engineering for Industry 110 (1) (1988) 38–43.
[6] Y.S. Tarng, T.C. Li, Detection and suppression of drilling chatter,
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Dynamic Systems,
Measurement and Controls 116 (1994) 729–734.
[7] M.E. Merchant, Basic mechanics of the metal cutting process,
Journal of Applied Mechanics (1954) A168–A175.
[8] C.J. Oxford Jr., On the drilling of metals: basic mechanics of the
process, Transactions of the ASME (1955) 103–114.
311
[9] E.J.A. Armarego, J.D. Wright, Predictive models for drilling
thrust and torque, Annals of the CIRP 33 (1984) 5–10.
[10] D.A. Stephenson, J.S. Agapiou, Calculation of main cutting edge
forces and torque for drills with arbitrary point geometries, Inter-
national Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 32 (4) (1992)
521–538.
[11] D.A. Stephenson, P. Bandyopadhyay, Process-independent force
characterization for metal-cutting simulation, Transactions of the
ASME, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 119 (1)
(1997) 86–94.
[12] V. Chandrasekharan, S.G. Kapoor, R.E. DeVor, A mechanistic
approach to predicting cutting forces in drilling—with application
to fiber reinforced composite materials, Transactions of the
ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry 117 (3) (1995)
559–570.
[13] L.M. Kachanov, Foundations of the Theory of Plasticity, North
Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.
[14] V. Chandrasekharan, Modeling the three dimensional cutting
forces in drilling, Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois-Urbana
Champaign, IL, USA, 1996.
[15] W.A. Kline, R.E. DeVor, I.A. Shareef, The prediction of cutting
forces in end milling, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Engineering for Industry 104 (3) (1982) 272–278.
[16] J. Tlusty, J., Machine dynamics, in: R.I. King (Ed), Handbook
of High Speed Machining.
[17] M.A. Elbestawi, R. Du, F. Ismail, B.C. Ullagaddi, Modeling
machining dynamics including damping in the tool–workpiece
interface, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for
Industry 116 (4) (1994) 435–439.
[18] S. Ema, H. Fujii, E. Marui, Whirling vibration in drilling, Trans-
actions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry 110
(1988) 309–314.
[19] S. Ema, H. Fujii, E. Marui, Whirling vibration in drilling, part
2: vibration analysis in drilling workpiece with a pilot hole,
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry
110 (1988) 315–321.
[20] Y.S. Tarng, T.C. Li, Adaptive pattern recognition of drilling chat-
ter, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 48 (1995)
247–253.
[21] S.Y. Hong, J. Ni, S.M. Wu, Analysis of drill failure modes by
multi-sensors on a robotic drilling end effector, Transactions of
the ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
118(3) (1996).
[22] D.M. Rincon, A.G. Ulsoy, Complex geometry, rotary inertia and
gyroscopic moment effects on drill vibrations, Journal of Sound
and Vibration 188 (5) (1995) 701–715.