Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Cutting force modeling of machining carbon fiber reinforced polymer

(CFRP) composites: A review
Yang Song a, b, Huajun Cao a, b, *, Wei Zheng c, Da Qu d, Lei Liu a, b, Chunping Yan a, b
a
College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
c
Beijing Institute of Astronautical Systems Engineering, Beijing 100039, China
d
College of Mechanical Engineering, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing 400044, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites have been widely used in high-tech industries due to
CFRP excellent performances. Because subsequent machining operations, including drilling and trimming, et al., are
Cutting force necessary to meet dimensional or assembly-related requirement, accurate prediction of cutting forces is of great
Mechanistic
importance to improve tool life and machining quality, which is good for planning and improving machining
Macro-mechanical
Micro-mechanical
process of CFRP composites. To explore this issue, the paper gives a detailed review and discussion of the cutting
Numerical force models, including, mechanistic models; macro-mechanical models; micro-mechanical models and numer­
ical models. Among them, macro-mechanical models are the earliest proposed cutting force models, while
mechanistic models are the most studied. This paper predicts and analyzes the future development trend of
cutting force models, including variable diversification development for semi-empirical models, study on
process-oriented cutting force models, research on cutting mechanisms and study on intelligent manufacturing-
oriented cutting force models based on modular development of numerical models.

1. Introduction
Since carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites have su­
perior mechanical characteristics, such as high specific strength, good
dimensional stability, high damping capacity, fatigue resistances, stiff­
ness in combination with high corrosion resistance and low thermal
expansion properties[1–6], compared with conventional metallic ma­
terials, they have been increasingly used in aerospace, automotive, en­
ergy industries and sporting goods. Although CFRP are usually
fabricated to near-net-shapes, a post machining operations, i.e. turning,
milling, drilling, are still necessary to assure CFRP parts meet dimen­
sional tolerance, surface quality and others quality requirement [7,8].
However, the material properties, such as inhomogeneity and anisot­
ropy, determine that its chip formation process is associated with
debonding of interface and that the chip is crumbled and fragment
usually [9]. Many defects occur easily, i.e. burr, fiber pull out, delami­
nation, burning and cracking [9,11–13]. Excellent mechanical proper­
ties also make CFRP more difficult to machine than traditional metal
materials [10–12], as shown in Fig. 1. As the reviews of the researches
are beneficial to systematic research and they also have certain guiding
function for future researches, many reviews have been made to
participate in different aspects of composites machining.
Wan et al. [13–15] reviewed cutting force of fiber reinforced poly­
mer (FRP), including drilling and milling force. Besides cutting force, the
influences of tool materials and geometries and drilling parameters on
the torque and the machining defects were investigated [14]. The dril­
ling operations, drill bit geometries and materials, tool wear, drilling-
induced delamination and its suppressing approaches were summa­
rized, too [15]. Norbert et al. [16] reviewed advanced cutting tools and
technologies which were used for drilling CRFP from the machinability
of CFRP, cutting tool requirements and recent industrial solutions.
Compared to conventional drilling, helical milling presents several ad­
vantages in hole-making. Robson et al. [3] corroborated that the helical
milling was a smooth hole-making process and described the current
state of the art of helical milling process. Besides drilling, other
machining operations, i.e. turning, milling, etc., were reviewed too.
Chinmaya et al. [17] reviewed the models of machining composite
materials, including molecular dynamic simulations, 2D and 3D finite
element models and the emerging field of multiscale models. Demeng
et al. [8] focused on conventional and unconventional hybrid processes

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hjcao@cqu.edu.cn (H. Cao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116096
Received 7 December 2021; Received in revised form 3 June 2022; Accepted 8 August 2022
Available online 11 August 2022
0263-8223/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Song et al.
Fig. 1. Material properties of CFRP govern the machinability of CFRP.
Fig. 2. CFRP cutting force model statistics; (a) Model development history; (b) Numerical statistical of various cutting force models.
for CFRP machining, cutting theories and thermal/mechanical response
studies, numerical simulations, tool performance and techniques, and
economic impacts of CFRP machining. Aymen et al. [18] reviewed the
researches on cutting mechanisms of CFRP from three parts: experi­
mental studies, analytical approaches and numerical simulations. Shetty
et al. [19] reviewed machining of composites by conventional methods,
discrete element methods and finite element methods. As it is not
enough to explore the mechanism of cutting FRP using experimental
method, Du et al. [20] summarized the methods, theories, and conclu­
sions in cutting simulation of fiber-reinforced composites. The cutting
mechanisms of FRP were concluded from the aspects of cutting force,
surface finish quality, cutting chips, and cutting temperature and ma­
terial removal mechanism [20]. It was a comprehensive overview of
cutting mechanism by discrete element method (DEM) and finite
element method (FEM) [20]. Based on the cutting mechanisms sum­
marized in [20] are good for establishing the cutting force prediction
model of FRP. Compared with [20], this paper provided a more
comprehensive summary focused on cutting force prediction model in
machining CFRP of experiment and simulation, which not only help to
understand the cutting mechanism, but also guide the actual machining.
The cutting force plays an important role in characterizing cutting
process, which is related to tool wear and surface texture [21]. The
cutting force can also be used to establish models to optimize the cutting
process and to reflect the cutting mechanisms [22]. However, the cut­
ting mechanisms are different with different reinforcement of
2
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
composites due to different failure behavior of both kinds of fibers, i.e.
aramid fibers are flexible with high toughness, while carbon fibers are
brittle with high hardness. This paper focus on CFRP to clear the
development and give a detailed and comprehensive review on cutting
force models to reveal cutting mechanisms.
2. The development of cutting force models
As the application range of CFRP becomes wider and wider, many
cutting force models of CFRP have been proposed to reduce the
machining defects and to improve the tool life and machining quality.
Cutting force models can be divided into four categories, including: i)
Macro-mechanical models learn from metal cutting theory, which treat
CFRP as continuous homogeneous materials; ii) Mechanistic models are
established by data fitting, which can reflect the relationship between
cutting force and feed, cutting speed, cutting depth, tool geometries,
etc.; iii) Micro-mechanical models describe physical essence of the cut­
ting, including fracture of fibers and matrix, fiber–matrix debonding,
fiber micro-buckling, fiber bending and so on; iv) Numerical models are
developed by using finite element model (FEM) and discrete element
methods (DEM) to simulate the machining process of CFRP. To complete
a comprehensive review, the databases used to collect the references
were Elsevier ScienceDirect, Web of Science and China National
Knowledge Infrastructure. From 1970 to 2022, the references were
searched with CFRP, prediction model and cutting force (including
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Table 1 Table 2
Determining variables of cutting force model. Processing variables of cutting force model.
Variables related to cutting process Force and energy variables
v Cutting speed vs Circular speed of grinding Fc Principal force Ft Thrust force
wheel Frc Normal force Ftc Tangential force
vw Workpiece feed speed ae Depth of cut Fx Cutting force in x-direction Fy Cutting force in y-direction
aw width of cut f Feed speed Fz Cutting force in z-direction Pt Tangential specific cutting
fz Feed per tooth fc Feed per rotation pressure
fza Axial feed per tooth fzt Tangential feed per tooth Pn Normal specific cutting Ff Force of cut matrix
h Uncut chip thickness θ Fiber orientation pressure
n Spindle speed tl Drill thickness of core Kc Average specific cutting Kt Average specific cutting
hw Thickness of workpiece H Thickness of elastic energies in energies in radial directions
foundation the tangential directions
Aa Uncut chip area Fm Force of cut matrix Fμ Friction force
qmax Uniform load damaging the FNchip Force of chip on rake face
matrix
Variables related to cutting tool
FAn1 Forces on the rake face in FAn2 Forces on the relief face in
γ Rake angle α Clearance angle
FAf1 point A FAf2 point A
R Drill radius D Drill diameter
Fμchip Friction force of chip and FzI Horizontal forces in region
s Number of teeth on the tool G The grit size
rake face I
bt Length of the chisel edge re Cutting edge radius
FzII Horizontal forces in region FzIII Horizontal forces in region
αt Angle of cutting edge ψ Rake angle of the chisel edge
II III
ρd Half point angle for the drilling γw Half of the chisel edge angle
FyI Vertical cutting forces in dFt Thrust force Infinitesimal
edge
region I element
FyII Vertical cutting forces in FyIII Vertical cutting forces in
Variables related to material properties region II region III
rf Fiber radius θl Laminate orientation dFc Element of principal force P1 Force perpendicular to
vof Fiber volume fraction 2c Fiber spacing surface
Ef Elasticity modulus Eef Equivalent elasticity modulus P2 The total force of cutting dFzchisel Cutting force unit of chisel
Eb Equivalent Young’ s modulus Em Young’ s modulus of matrix region 2 edge
If Second moment the fiber df Fiber diameter dFzmajor Principal force element unit dMzchisel Torque unit of chisel edge
zT Fiber deflection value of bending Kmax Maximum curvature of dMzmajor Principal torque unit Sshear Lateral force from matrix
fracture deflection shearing
νP Poisson’s ratio Gf Shear modulus of fiber M Torque Esurf Energy consumed for new
E Tensile modulus E3 Rebound zone of effective surfaces
bend
modulus S Lateral force from fiber Echip Fracture energy for chip
TU Ultimate tensile strength τ Shear strength bending formation
τf Shear strength of fiber τm Shear strength of matrix Efric Friction energy at tool-chip Edeb Delamination energy
Gm Shear modulus of matrix τBC Shear strength in BC direction interface consumption
τAC, Shear strength in AC direction GLT Shear modulus of CFRP Uf Elastic strain energy of the Um Shear strain energy in the
EOP Young’s modulus in OP direction Xfc Longitudinal compressive fiber matrix
strength
Xf Fiber ultimate strength τp Fiber axial shear strength
Intermediate process coefficient variables
Xft Longitudinal tensile strength of Lf Instantaneous fiber content in
Ktc Tangential cutting force Krc Radial cutting force
fiber cut
coefficients coefficients
Kte Tangential edge force Kre Radial cutting edge
coefficients coefficients
milling force, orthogonal cutting force, drilling force and grinding force) Kc_m Cutting force coefficients of Kc_f Cutting force coefficients of
as keywords and 5 years as time unit. Base on the methodology matrix fiber
mentioned above, the statistics of cutting force models in this paper is Ke_m Edge force coefficients of Ke_f Edge force coefficients of
matrix fiber
shown in Fig. 2.
Ketc Equivalent isotropic cutting Kete Equivalent isotropic edge
Macro-mechanical models appear earliest, which had been proposed Kerc force coefficient Kere force coefficient
since 1971, and there are still researches of macro-mechanical models gj Control function ach Characteristic coefficient
until now, as shown in Fig. 2 (a). Although macro-mechanical models g(θ) Function of fiber δ Unit impulse function
have the longest development time, they have been least studied, as orientation
Kc The specific cutting Kp Specific pressure on relief
shown in Fig. 2 (b). The second is mechanistic models, which had been
coefficient face
developed since 1993. This models have been most studied among four μf Friction coefficient of tool μ Friction coefficient
types and thus they have strong vitality. Next comes micro-mechanical and fiber
models. These models have done more in-depth research on cutting kh Correction coefficient kV Coefficients of vof
kA Deformation coefficient of kzw Influence coefficient of feed
mechanism, which are more difficult, so the number of the models are
fiber
less than that of mechanistic models. Finally, numerical models emerge. ki Correction factor GIc Critical strain energy
With the rapid development of simulation software and computer, nu­ release rate
merical models have been most studied in addition to mechanistic C Compression coefficient KR Coefficients of spindle
models since its appearance in 2005. However, its development rate is speed
Kf Coefficients of feed rate Kn Coefficients of drill
slower than that of the micro cutting force model in recent ten years due
diameter
to the limitation of cutting mechanisms. c3, K Coefficients of Ft km Winkler foundation
It has been 40 years since cutting force models were put forward, modulus
whose development has a lag period. More and more attention has been kchi Coefficient of the chisel ke Coefficient of subgrade
paid to the cutting force models of CFRP, and researches on them have edge reaction
a、b Fitting coefficients。
developed rapidly since 2010. Because different parameters have
different influences on cutting force, a large number of variables are
Intermediate process analysis variables
used for calculation and explanation to establish clear and accurate
ϕ Rotation angle αn Normal rake angle
cutting force models. The variables were divided into determining
(continued on next page)

3
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Table 2 (continued ) variables. In Sec. 3, the cutting force models are reviewed in detail.
Au Contact area on the rake Ac Contact area on the relief
face face 3. Cutting force models of CFRP
A Uncut chip cross sectional αchip Chip flow angle
area
3.1. Macro-mechanical models
αq Inclination angle L The length of the chip
αμ Mean of friction angle γf Feed rate angle
λdem Angle of definition φbdem Boundary between two Macro-mechanical models cannot reveal the microchip formation
cutting states process, but the material characteristics are considered to establish the
φsi Angle between bottom φbi Angle between lower blade models. The models can reflect the relationship of cutting tool and
cutting of peripheral and -y axis
workpiece to optimize cutting parameters and to reduce cutting force.
trimming and -y axis
σμ Maximum stress of chip bc Bouncing back of the The representative macro-mechanical models are summarized, whose
formation workpiece context are shown in Table 3.
ρ Normalized radial ax、ay Slope of the approximate Based on shear plane theory, the first macro-mechanical work was
coordinate line
presented by Everstine and Rogers [23] in 1971. This model only
bx、by Intercepts of the mm Number of main cutting
approximated lines edge elements
focused on 0◦ fiber orientation angle, as shown in Fig. 3. After that,
t Time ηRVE Number of RVE based on the classical Merchant’s model, Bhatnagar [24] presented a
a1、a2 The length of the first mc Number of elements on the force prediction model which verified by orthogonal machining, as
b1、b2 drilling edge side of chisel edge of the shown Fig. 4 (a) and (b). The model assumed that fiber orientation in the
drill center
position where failure occurs equals the shear plane angle, founding that
t Tangent to fiber P Point angle
∼ fiber orientation was a key factor of the surface integrity. As shown in
ξ Ellipticity ratio n Vertical to fiber
∼ Fig. 4 (c) ~ (g), the minimum force occurred in the range of 0◦ to 60◦
dl Unit length of the cutting Shear angle
φ
fiber orientation, while the maximum value reached the range of − 30◦
lip
r The length of the line ρ r/D to − 60◦ fiber orientation. There was approximately a 100 % increase in
Lc Distance between fiber free Con Ratio defining of the load the resultant forces when the direction of machining was reversed from
end and the origin contribution positive to negative fiber orientation. Zhang et al. [25] suggested an
rm Radius of RVE Li Periphery cutting edge analytical mechanics model which divided the cutting zone into three
contact length with
workpiece
characteristic regions: region I (chipping), region II (pressing) and re­
gion III (bouncing). The division method of cutting zone and its force
analysis was shown as Fig. 5 (a)~(e). As shown in Fig. 5 (f) and (g), Fz
decreased first and then increased with increasing fiber orientation,
Table 3 while Fy increased first and then decreased with increasing fiber orien­
The context of macro-mechanical models. tation. The maximum error in predicting vertical and horizontal force
Machining Tool type Materials Fiber Fiber Refs. were 37 % and 27 %, respectively. The errors were relatively large but
operation content orientation this model had captured major deformation mechanisms.
Orthogonal Wedge- UD-CFRP Theoretical 0◦ [23] Based on Fig. 6, Zhang et al. [26] predicted cutting force model of
cutting shaped tool analysis helical milling unidirectional CFRP (UD-CFRP). This model realized the
Brazed UD-CFRP – 0◦ -180◦ [24] transformation from micro to macro and from static to dynamic,
carbide tools [0◦ /90◦ ]4
founding that with the increase of spindle rotation speed, fza and fzt
(K20 grade) (T300/LY-
556)
decreased, and then the cutting force decreased, while with the incre­
Tungsten UD-CFRP – 0◦ -90◦ [25] ment of pitch, the fza and Li increased, and then the cutting force
carbide (F593 and increased. But the model also had some limitations. For example, some
MTM56 failure modes were neglected, such as extrusion failure.
prepregs)
To reduce or avoid delamination defects, Wang et al. [27] divided
Milling Carbide tools UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ /180◦ [26]
(T300) axial force on horizontal edge into the force between rake face and
Drilling Carbide drill UD-CFRP 60 % – [27] CFRP, circular arc and CFRP, which were calculated based on drilling
(YG6X) (T300/ micromechanics theory, Hoffman strength measurement and Hertz
5208)
contact. The average axial force of chisel edge was <25 % of total axial
Carbide twist UD-CFRP 60 ± 5 % – [28]
drills (T300)
force, founding that the proportion was proportional to the feed speed.
[0/-45/ In the meanwhile, the feed per revolution was the most important
90/45]5s drilling parameter. The model could predict quantitatively the stratifi­
High speed UD-CFRP 64 % – [29] cation in borehole, which had certain practical value. Guo et al. [28]
steel drills [0]15s
applied contact theory to chisel edge cutting zone and divided cutting
Crystalline UD- 65 % – [30]
diamond CFRPHTS lips cutting zone into three cutting regions, like [25], as shown in Fig. 7.
coating (12 k)/ That was to say, some cutting mechanisms of milling and drilling were
cemented MTM44-1 similar, which could be used for reference. The model successfully
carbide drills
incorporated tool geometrical parameters and the failure of fibers and
matrix considering the influential factors comprehensively. The cutting
variables and processing variables by statistics and analysis. Since cut­ force predicted by this model were in satisfactory agreement with
ting force depends on cutting parameters, tool parameters and material experimental results and thus it was concluded that the proposed model
properties which are defined as determining variables, as show in could be used to optimize the cutting parameters and tool geometries.
Table 1. The workpiece deformation, work, force, and various co­ The characteristics of drilling force not only contain average, maximum
efficients caused by cutting are generated in the cutting process, which and minimum value, but also contain frequency and amplitude. Meng et
are defined as processing variables, as shown in Table 2, as they exist on al [29] devoted to the prediction and analysis of the fluctuation of the
the basis of determining variables. Different cutting force models have thrust force. The modified orthogonal cutting model was introduced into
different assumptions and considerations for various parameters and the proposed model, as the cutting process of cutting lips could be
assumed to orthogonal cutting. The cutting lip was divided into a set of

4
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

x
F
h x
h
H

a F

H
2

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of cutting fiber-reinforced materials [23].

Fig. 4. The schematic illustrating of the cutting mechanism and the analysis of the results [24].

5
Y. Song et al.
Fig. 5. Model analysis and comparison of results [25].
elements, as shown in Fig. 8 (a). The variable parameters leaded to the
fluctuation of thrust force were analyzed separately, as shown in Fig. 8
(b1)~(d1). Seeholzer et al. [30] developed an analytical force model for
drilling out pre-drilled UD-CFRP material. A coordinated structural
failure of entire fiber regions by axial compression was considered by
micro-buckling. The tool-fiber contact situation was simplified as the
Hertz contact. The thrust force and torque values were functions of fiber
orientation, space-dependent geometries and process parameters.
Consequently, this model enabled to show causalities, e.g. the influence
of tip angle, cutting edge angles and the web thickness on resulting
process forces.
In a word, macro-mechanical models draw on cutting theory of metal
and treat CFRP as continuous homogeneous materials, but material
characteristics different from metal are considered in the cutting pro­
cess, including fiber orientation and content. Macro-mechanical models
have captured major deformation mechanisms. Thus, the models can
help to optimize cutting parameters and to reduce cutting forces as
models can describe the relationship of cutting tool and CFRP.
6
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
3.2. Mechanistic models
Mechanistic models are the most intuitive method to optimize cut­
ting parameters and tool geometries and are a summary of cutting
phenomena. However, they cannot reveal the cutting mechanisms and
require a lot of time-consuming experiments to ensure the accuracy and
applicability. The representative mechanistic models are summarized,
whose context are shown in Table 4.
Wang et al. [31] researched edge trimming of CFRP with various PCD
insert geometries. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the
average cutting force data. A generalized, second order, nonlinear
regression model for principal and thrust forces could be established,
founding that cutting tool with γ ∈ [6◦ , 7◦ ] and α = 17◦ could get mini­
mum value of resultant cutting force with a good tool life. Mei et al. [32]
captured the influence of fiber distribution of modelling the variability
of cutting forces in orthogonal machining of UD-CFRP. The fiber dis­
tribution confirmed to Gaussian distribution, which was first introduced
into the model. Subsequently, UD-CFRP milling force oscillations model
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

b bdem

dem

s dem

dem dem

dem s -

Fsx, Fsz, Fbx, Fbz

FX, FY, FZ

Fig. 6. flowchart of the cutting force model [26].

Fig. 7. Model analysis [28] (a) force angle relationships on the chisel edge (b) cross-section at a point on the cutting lip.

was established through capturing the influence of fiber distributions
[33], claiming that the variation of composite milling forces came from
the variation of chip thickness, the random fiber distribution and the
continuous variation of cutting direction.
Based on [32], Cao et al. [34] established a high speed dry (HSD)
milling force model and presented a two-dimensional joint probability
distribution model of fiber distribution, founding that carbon fiber was
more easily affected by milling parameters compared with PEEK matrix
and it was also verified feasible to HSD milling CF/PEEK, as shown in
Fig. 9. Hocheng et al. [35] presented preliminary study on milling of
CFRP, which was a good basis for mechanical modelling. As shown in
Fig. 10 (a)~(c), cutting force increased with feed per tooth, regardless of
the fiber orientation, and the cutting force component orthogonal to the
fiber was larger than that parallel to the fiber, as shown in Fig. 10 (d) and
(e), especially at 90◦ due to the contribution of feed across the fibers.
Based on experimentally collected cutting force data during slot milling
of UD-CFRP using two different polycrystalline diamond cutters, Karpat
et al. [36] proposed a mechanistic cutting force model. Milling forces
acting on the tool was showed in Fig. 11 (a) and (b). Based on experi­
mental data and analysis, the largest tangential forces occurred in
machining 135◦ fiber orientation, while the smallest tangential forces
occurred in machining 45◦ fiber orientation. Radial forces recorded on
45◦ and 135◦ fiber orientation were smaller than recorded on 0◦ and 90◦ .
As shown in Fig. 11 (c) and (d), the average force coefficient in radial
direction was higher than that in tangential direction. Then, the model
was developed in [37] to improve double helix tool designs and to
optimize milling process parameters. Based on milling tests, cutting and
edge coefficients were get, that was Ktc = 583 N/mm2, Kte = 2.66 N/mm,

7
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 8. Dirlling of UD-CFRP and thrust force under various cutting parameters [29]. (b1) ~ b(3) f = 20 mm/min, f = 40 mm/min and f = 50 mm/min respectively,
when n = 800r/min, R = 3 mm, and (c1)~(c3) n = 800 r/min, n = 1300 r/min, n = 1600 r/min respectively, when f = 40 mm/min, R = 3 mm, (d1)~(d3) R = 2.5
mm, R = 3 mm, R = 4 mm respectively, when n = 800 r/min, f = 40 mm/min.

Table 4
The context of mechanistic models.
Machining Tool type Materials Fiber Fiber Refs.
operation content orientation

Orthogonal PCD tools MD-Graphite/Epoxy (IM-6/3501–6) [45◦ /-45◦ /(0◦ / 68 % 0◦ -180◦ [31]
Cutting (COMPAX 1300) 90◦ /45◦ /-45◦ )2]s
Solid carbide tool UD-CFRP 47.4 % 90 ◦
[32]
Milling Straight milling tool UD-CFRP 55.7 % – [33]
Helical milling tool
PCD (APKT1604) UD-CF/PEEK (Carbon fiber reinforced 55 % 90◦ [34]
polyetheretherketone)
OSG-Walter F2037 single square carbide insert UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ /45◦ /90◦ [35]
PCD milling tools (Schwegler) UD-CFRP [0◦ /45◦ ]15 59 % 0◦ -180◦ [36]
Helical end mill and double helix end mill (both diamond UD-CFRP [0◦ /45◦ ]15 59 % 0◦ -180◦ [37]
coated carbide tools) MD-CFRP [0◦ /45◦ /90◦ /135◦ ]18
Straight-flute carbide end mills UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [38]
(TC35-12 K/150)43
Tungsten Carbide end mill UD-CFRP [0◦ /90◦ ] – 0◦ -180◦ [39]
Carbide helical end mills UD-CFRP, 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [40]
MD-CFRP[60◦ /0◦ /120◦ ]
Single straight tooth cutter with micro-grain tungsten UD-CFRP (IM6/3501–6) 62 % 0◦ -180◦ [42]
carbide insert
Drilling Carbide drills. UD-CFRP (AMOCO T300/934)105 62 % 0◦ -180◦ [43]
Diamond core drill UD-CFRP [0/90]12S (HTA-E30-12 K/934). 67 % – [44]
Solid carbide steels tapered drill and twist drill. Woven bidirectional CFRP – – [45]
Solid carbide drills Twill 2/2 weave CFRP (‘Sigratex CE 8204–650-42′ 53.5–54.7 – [46]
prepregs) %
Carbide drill bit UD-CFRP (T300-12 K) 60 % – [47]
K44UF tungsten carbide twist drills UD-CFRP (P2352 prepreg) 60 % – [48]
Grinding Polycrystalline diamond grain CFRP (Vinyl resin) 70 % [74]

Krc = 555 N/mm2, and Kre = 12.92 N/mm. The coefficients reflected that
radial forces were significantly larger than tangential forces, as fibers
contacted with tool’s edge radius and flank face, which showed the
importance of cutting edge radius. Based on a two-region cutting model,
He et al. [38] established a milling force model to analyze components of
cutting force resulting from the cutting and edge effects. The friction
coefficient during the milling process increased initially, and then
decreased with the increment of fiber orientation. The maximum net
cutting force was observed in the fiber orientation range of 55◦ -70◦ and
the minimum one was observed in the range of 5◦ -15◦ . This model
provided a more accurate prediction of the cutting force than the model
that neglected the edge effects. Mullin et al. [39] presented an experi­
mental method to identify the parameters of the model. Since
unavoidable characteristics of CFRP milling processes such as excessive
tool wear, fiber pull-out, and fiber peeling would influence the accuracy
of the presented model, studying the linkage between the variation of
the cutting force coefficients and the physics of chip formation at
different fiber cutting angles might provide a better understanding of the
mechanics of the process. Kalla et al. [40] verified that the mechanistic
modeling approaches from metal cutting were valid for cutting CFRP.
Based on transforming orthogonal cutting to oblique cutting and the
approach in [41], a methodology was developed for predicting the
cutting force in helical end milling of UD-CFRP and multidirectional
CFRP (MD-CFRP) over the entire range of fiber orientation. Among
them, artificial neural network was a continuous function of fiber
orientation and chip thickness, which ccould predict the specific cutting

8
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 9. Influence of ae and v on Ff and Fm at fz = 0.06 mm/z and its relative change rate [34].

Fig. 10. Correlation between cutting forces, orientation and cutting parameters(v = 188.4 m/min; f = 0.0167 mm/tooth) [35]; (a) 0◦ ; (b) 90◦ ; (c) 45◦ ; (d) 0◦ ; (e) 90◦ .

energy and then could predict cutting force, as shown in Fig. 12 (a).
Compared Fig. 12 (b) and (c), model predictions of cutting UD-CFRP
were in good agreement with experimental results, while the pre­
dictions of cutting MD-CFRP were lesser agreement. It was a significant
improvement in previous models which only dealt with orthogonal
cutting and limited-range fiber orientation. For segmented flute cutter in
slot milling, Jamal et al. [42] utilized neural network data fitting to get
the cutting force coefficients too, as shown in Fig. 13. Among them, Kte
and Kre were neglected as the use of a relatively sharp cutting edge. The
method could be used to analyze the performance of new cutters starting
from a CAD model.
Chandrasekharan et al. [43] predicted the drilling force, which were
calibrated by chip load and cutting forces and were modified by the drill
point geometries. The model showed that there was no interaction be­
tween chip thickness, cutting velocity and normal rake angle. Therefore,
the specific cutting pressure curves were shifted uniformly by control
variable method, as shown in Fig. 14. To reduce the delamination, Tsao
et al. [44] obtained the correlation between the thrust force and cutting

9
Y. Song et al.
Fig. 11. Milling of CFRP laminates [36]; (a) milling forces acting on the tool; and (b) tool eccentricity; (c) Ktc; and (d) Krc.
parameters in drilling CFRP. The multi-variable linear regression anal­
ysis and ANOVA were used to get the model and regulations. In the
study, the main influence parameters of thrust force were grit size and
feed rate. Large grit size was good for reducing thrust force and the
extent of delamination. Considering forces on rake and relief faces and
empirical coefficients, Lazar et al. [45] predicted the cutting force dis­
tribution along the cutting edges of a drill, founding that roughly 35 % of
the total force was generated by chisel edge. The model related drilling
to oblique cutting using direction cosine transformation matrix. As
shown in Fig. 15 (a) and (b), XYZ was the coordinate system associated
with the drilling process, while X’Y’Z’ was associated with oblique
cutting element. As shown in Fig. 15 (c) and (d), the distribution of the
axial elementary cutting force did not increase uniformly along the
radius with increment of feed rate. The elementary force increased more
pronounced at the cutting lips bordering the chisel edge side with the
increment of the axial feed, while almost no increase for the rest of the
cutting lip due to the cutting angle and all angles involved in forces
definitions and decomposition. Since the model has some limitation,
which was based on the assumption of isotropy of CFRP, the prediction
of torque tended to underestimate the experimental values especially at
higher axial feeds. However, the total cutting force and force distribu­
tion had been captured simultaneously with a high precision under
different drill geometries and cutting parameters. Anand and Patra [46]
predicted thrust force and torque in micro-drilling of CFRP considering
the tool edge effects, as shown in Fig. 16 (a). Fabric plies and epoxy resin
matrix layers were considered as separate phases, as shown in Fig. 16
(b). The results were shown in Fig. 16 (c). The average absolute de­
viations in thrust force and torque predictions in fabric plies regions
were 3.99 % and 6.29 %, while in epoxy resin matrix regions they were
6.30 % and 14.81 %, respectively. Though the prediction errors in epoxy
resin matrix were comparatively higher than the errors in fabric plies,
10
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
these were reasonable since epoxy resin matrix failure and interfacial
debonding and so on, were not modeled. Wang et al. [47] presented the
concept of the azimuth angle between chisel edge and carbon fiber.
Based on the theory of bending fracture, a single carbon fiber was
modeled as a beam on an elastic foundation, as shown in Fig. 17,
founding that the decrement of feed rate per revolution could effectively
reduce the thrust force. Otherwise, it was found that the azimuth angle
helped in developing a deep understanding of the CFRP drilling process
and the material removal mechanisms. The work could make up for the
shortages of qualitative interpretation. Bai et al. [48] predicted thrust
force considering tool wear effects in drilling. Firstly, tool wear
geometrical characteristics of main cutting edge were identified as a
line, elliptical arc and line profiles, respectively, as shown in Fig. 18.
Then the contact zone was divided into three regions [25] considering
tool wear profiles. The contact conditions could be simplified as the
Hertz contacts, and the half axis lengths of the worn cutting edge rep­
resented the indentation depth. The thrust force model was developed
by integrating the thrust force along the main cutting edge as well as
chisel edge. This thrust force model could achieve an accurate prediction
(error within 13.71 %).
To reveal the various fundamental mechanisms in machining CFRP
of special transversal grinding and lubrication conditions, Li et al.
established four sub-models, including i) the contact force model, ii) the
local contact stress model, iii) the tensile fracture force model, and iv)
the extrusion and shearing force model. The grinding force model was
obtained by integrating these sub-models, as shown in Fig. 19. Based on
the model, Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL) and CNT Nano-
lubricant MQL could effectively reduce the grinding forces. Compared
with dry grinding, their corresponding maximum Frc values could be
reduced by 14.81 % and 20.07 %, while their maximum Ftc values could
be reduced by 27.03 % and 26.81 %, respectively.
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 12. Artificial neural networks and results [40]; (a) A schematic diagram for network committee, (b) Comparison between experimental and predicted forces for
(b1) 0◦ laminate and (b2) 60◦ laminate and (c) Comparison between experimental and predicted forces for MD-CFRP at ae approximately 0.45 mm.

Fig. 13. Neural network architecture used for function approximation [42].

It can be seen that mechanistic models are semi-empirical model,
which need a lot of time-consuming experiments. Data fitting method
are used to reflect relationship of cutting force and cutting parameters.
Compared with macro-mechanical models, they have worse adaptability
and their accuracies depend heavily on the experiment. That is to say,
the coefficients need to be re-determined with the change of the tool
geometries and the characteristics of materials. But mechanistic models
are generic and can be extended to machining with different complex
cutting tools as long as the cutting geometries of the corresponding
processes are analyzed, such as instantaneous chip thickness,
instantaneous fiber orientation and normal rake angle of the tool.
Otherwise, different coefficients of the models can reflect different
characteristics in machining process, such as fiber distribution and tool
geometries, which can help to simplify the prediction and to optimize
tool geometries for reducing cutting force.
3.3. Micro-mechanical models
In the calculation of micro-mechanical models, single fiber or the
representative volume element (RVE) are regarded as a beam and then

11
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 14. Specific cutting pressure variation along the cutting lips for varying [43]; (a) feed rate, and (b) spindle speed.

Fig. 15. Coordinate system and comparison between predicted and experimental results [45].

12
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fz z
Fthu
z r
Ff
c Fn ce f
r

F r
Fcut v
v
vr
Flat
F

Fz

Mz
Fz

Fz

Fz
Mz

Mz
Mz

Fig. 16. Model analysis and comparison of results [46].

Fig. 17. Analysis for motion resistance of chisel edge and its contact model [47].

are solved by linear elastic fracture mechanics, composite mechanics or
energy methods. But they are difficult to calibrate parameters of the
model by many actual measurements. The representative micro-
mechanical models are summarized, whose context are shown in
Table 5.
Jahromi et al[49] presented that the energy balance for a fiber which
was composed of the energy of the external lateral force, strain energy
and shear strain energy for fiber orientations θ ranging from 90◦ to 180◦ .
The model was divided into two parts, including θ < γ + 90◦ and θ ≥ γ +
90◦ , showing that higher rake angel caused the fibers to store more
strain energy until they break with higher force. In conclusion, the fiber
orientation and rake angle had a significant effect on cutting force, as
shown in Fig. 22. Qi et al. [50] established a force prediction model in
microscale by taking slipping, peeling, and bounding mechanism in
three different deformation areas into consideration. The deflection of
RVE was analyzed based on the minimum potential energy principle
(MPEP), as shown in Fig. 23 (a). The results showed that the cutting
force increased and then decreased with the increase of fiber

13
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

x x x
x

x x

Fig. 18. Wear geometrical characteristics of main cutting edge in five measured regions [48].

Fig. 19. Flowchart of the grinding force modeling of the single grain [74].

orientation; thrust force decreased and changed the direction when fiber
orientation came to 90◦ +γ. The cutting force increased with increment
of cutting depth, which was more pronounced when the θ was small, as
shown in Fig. 23 (b)~(e), as the force produced by the rank edge played
a dominant role under this condition. The paper utilized CFRP micro­
structure details to transform an equivalent homogeneous material to a
multiphase material but ignored the interaction between the surround­
ing material and the RVE. Zhang et al. [22] presented that the total
cutting force came from rake face, tool edge, and relief face. The model
was divided into three parts, as shown in Fig. 24 (a1) ~ (a3). When
0◦ <θ < 90◦ , Vlazov’s elastic foundation was used. When 90◦ ≤θ < 180◦ ,
non-uniform Winkler foundation was used. When θ = 0◦ , the energy
equation of the splitting process was constructed by using virtual crack
close technique. As shown in Fig. 24 (b1) ~ (e), the minimum cutting
force appeared when θ ranged from 20◦ to30◦ . The model revealed
mapping relationships between cutting forces and fiber orientation, rake
angle and depth of cut. Within some particular ranges of fiber orienta­
tion, such as 0◦ <θ < 10◦ , 170◦ <θ < 180◦ and 80◦ <θ < 100◦ , there
existed several different cutting mechanisms that mixed up and influ­
enced with each other. Based on the energy method, Shan et al. [51]
proposed a prediction model of dynamic cutting force in time domain.
The random distribution of fibers and voids were simulated

14
Y. Song et al.
Fig. 20. Model analysis and comparison of results [54].
mathematically, showing that the mechanical properties could be
effectively characterized when RVE size was 150 μm. The forces of three
cutting deformation zones were discussed individually, as shown in
Fig. 25. Hao et al. [52] presented that the total specific energy for cutting
was composed by forming new surfaces, friction, fracture in chip for­
mation and subsurface debonding, as show in Fig. 26. The chip forma­
tion mechanisms included model I and mode II [18], as indicated by the
thick red dashed line in Fig. 26 (b1) and (b2). Xu et al. [53] revealed the
major material removal mechanisms considering the effects on the fiber
deformation, fiber fragmentation and fiber–matrix debonding. The
method of contact mechanics introduced by Zhang et al. [25] was used,
and the geometric model was changed slightly. The model captured the
major mechanisms of UD-CFRP orthogonal cutting both with and
without ultrasonic vibration, showing that vibration-assisted cutting
could significantly decrease the cutting forces, reduce the penetration
depth of interface debonding, and hence provide a much better surface
integrity. The elliptic vibration trajectory (EVA mode) provided the best
performance, as shown in Fig. 28. However, there existed a critical
depth of cut beyond which the debonding depth did not vary.
Focus on 90◦ fiber orientation, Honcheng et al [54] used beam theory
(shown in Fig. 20 (a)) and laminate mechanics to establish the corre­
lation between cutting force, chip length and thickness. It was found that
chip separation in thickness due to intrinsic bonding defects and over-
bent chips, as shown in Fig. 20 (b) and (c). Compared with [54], Cao
et al. [55] presented composite light ropes model in cutting UD-CFRP
with 0◦ fiber orientation considering size effect and counted fiber dis­
tribution by mathematical statistics, as shown in Fig. 21 (a) and (b), as
the radius of carbon fibers and cutting edge were same order of
magnitude. Composite light ropes model assumed that carbon fibers
were only subjected to axial tension from the interface, like light rope.
Based on the proposed model, cutting region was divided into four parts
which were affected by bending, stretching, pressing, bouncing corre­
sponding to different mechanisms of carbon fiber and matrix in different
parts to predict cutting force, respectively, as shown in Fig. 21 (c). The
maximum relative error in cutting stage was 8.3 %, demonstrating that
composite light ropes model caused by size effect played an important
role in establishing cutting force prediction model and in revealing
cutting mechanisms of cutting CFRP.
Based on classical lamination plate theory and linear elastic fracture
mechanics principles, Jamed et al. [56] modeled the interaction zone.
For a twist drill with diameter 6 mm, a load scheme combining a
concentrated load and a uniformly distributed load were the closest to
the experimental condition, which explained the importance of the
15
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
chisel edge effect for this type drilling. Zhang et al. [57] developed a
method of infinitesimal elements to get the theoretical model with a
mathematical description of flank wear, founding that the force of the
deformation region under the wear land in the element were the
increscent component which contributed a lot to the variation of the
total thrust force. Among them, the infinitesimal elements and stress
states were shown in Fig. 27. Based on the model, the countersinking
thrust force increased much sharper with the number of holes made,
from 87.8 N to 1275.4 N after making 430 holes. And the abrasion area
AB of this edge contributed the most to the force increase, while the
drilling force was from 109.7 N to 328.6 N. The work in this paper
enabled us to understand the influence of flank wear on thrust force
through the fundamental insight of CFRP cutting process.
Compared with macro-mechanical models and mechanistic models,
micro-mechanical models can predict the cutting force by the physical
essence of cutting of CFRP based on microscopic characteristics of CFRP.
The models can predict CFRP behavior accurately during machining to
predict cutting force by revealing the cutting mechanisms. But the
models contain many parameters and details, which are difficult to be
calibrated by measurements. Thus, application of these models have
great limitations.
3.4. Numerical models
Since cutting experiments always expend many manpower, physical
resource, financial resource and time costs, numerical models are
promising and have attracted more and more researchers to analyze
cutting mechanisms, the chip formation process and the process me­
chanics. Among them, FEMs are continuous and based on traditional
continuum mechanics [13], while DEMs are discontinuous and based on
the interaction between particles. The representative micro-mechanical
models are summarized, whose context are shown in Table 6.
Based on plane strain and quasi-static condition, Venn et al. [58]
estimated the cutting force during machining by FEM using ABAQUS
v6.5. The paper assumed that CFRP were two-phase micro-mechanical
model with elastic fiber and elastic–plastic matrix, and the interface was
modeled using zero thickness cohesive elements. The model held the
advantages of both the continuum and micromechanics models in pre­
dicting cutting force and sub-surface damage, as show in Fig. 29.
However, the model only focused on simulating the fiber breakage
location, but could not simulate the whole process of full chip’s for­
mation. Based on simulation, the failure of fiber was a combination of
crushing and bending with the bending effect becoming more significant
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 21. Model analysis and comparison of results [55].

16
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Table 5 machining quality. Based on the traction-separation law, Alessandro

The context of micro-mechanical models. et al. [60] established a 3D finite element model by ABAQUS for
Machining Tool type Materials Fiber Fiber Refs. orthogonal cutting UD-CFRP and the interface was simulated as [58].
operation content orientation The model showed that 0◦ fiber orientation in the cohesive elements
Orthogonal Customized UD-CFRP 65 % 90◦ -180◦ [49] shear and tensile stresses contributed together to damage initiation and
Cutting carbide tool (3K70P/ evolutions until failure with a bigger contribute of the shear for the
NB321) damage initiation. Instead, the damage initiation and failure were
Cemented UD-CFRP 65 % 0◦ -90◦ +γ [50] generally mainly caused by the shear stress for 45◦ , 90◦ and 135◦ fiber
carbide tool [0◦ ]15S
Customized UD-CFRP 65 % 0◦ -180◦ [22]
orientation. To verify the advanced nature of the model, it was
carbide tool (T300/ compared with previously published models, including approach 1: zero
Epoxy)15 thickness cohesive elements based on traction-separation low [61];
Cemented UD-C/C 40 % 30◦ -150◦ [51] approach 2: cohesive elements based on traction-separation law pre­
carbide composite
senting a small thickness [62]; approach 3: surface-based cohesive
K40 planer
tools behaviour [63]. Based on Virtual crack extension(VCE) method, Zitoune
Tungsten UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -75◦ [52] et al. [64] analyzed the drilling process of UD-CFRP by FEM according to
carbide tools [0◦ ]48 orthogonal cutting model, which was verified by quasi-static punching
(T700/ tests with a good agreement with measurements [65]. Cheng et al. [66]
5250BMI)
TIALN/TiN UD-CFRP 60 % 90◦ [53]
captured the failure model of fibers, matrix and interface based on a
coated micro-level RVE and demonstrated a micro-scale fracture model of
tungsten cutting UD-CFRP. RVE for UD-CFRP was constructed in ABAQUS by
carbide insert using a user material subroutine which included the thermal­
Milling Square carbide UD-CFRP 60 % 90◦ [54]
–mechanical coupling and failure models, founding that the cutting
insert (OSG-
WALTER force was larger than the thrust force regardless of fiber orientation.
F2037) When the fiber orientation approached 90◦ , the horizontal cutting force
PCD UD-CF/ 55 % 0◦ [55] was highest and the vertical cutting force was lowest. When fiber
(APKT1604) PEEK orientation approached 0◦ , the difference between horizontal and ver­
Drilling Tungsten UD-CFRP 59 % [56]
tical force was smallest. Iliescu et al. [67] studied the machining
–
carbide (K20) (T700-M21)
twist drill [0◦ /-45◦ / mechanisms of CFRP by simulating orthogonal cutting process by DEM
90◦ /45◦ ]2S which included pretreatment, dynamic calculation and post-treatment.
Tungsten CFRP/Al – – [57] In the model, the material behavior were clarified based on micro-
carbide drill
mechanical particles interaction laws, as shown in Fig. 30.
Rentsch et al. [68] established macroscopic model and microscopic
as the fiber orientation changed from 15◦ to 90◦ . A progressive damage model of orthogonal cutting and analyzed the slot milling process of UD-
model provided by ABAQUS/EXPLICIT was used to simulate the epoxy CFRP with a disc milling cutter by FEM. Among them, macroscopic
material by Kevin et al. [59], which could capture and analyze the chip model simulated the average process response for the material with
formation and fiber failure mechanisms with a velocity-based boundary implicit fiber orientation and continuous but anisotropic properties; and
condition, including tension and compression stage. The carbon fibers the microscopic model simulated the microscopic cutting mechanism for
underwent crushing-dominated failure for the 45◦ and 90◦ orientations the material with explicit fiber orientation.
and bending-dominated failure for the 0◦ and 135◦ orientations. It was Cohesive zone elements (CZEs) constitute an advantage over VCE,
helpful to design a new tool to reduce the cutting force and to improve which is that CZEs do not need to set up a pre-defined crack front [69].

Fig. 22. Model analysis and comparison of results [49]. (a) Schematic, and predicted and experimental forces for (b) rake = 5◦ ; (c) rake = 10◦ ; (d) rake = 15◦ ; and (e)
rake = 20◦ .

17
Y. Song et al.
M
PC
-Q0
M
Lc
PC -
OA Q0
FU Lc
L
OA FU
Pb
PB
Pb
2rf
2rm
Fig. 23. Model analysis and comparison of results [50]; (a) Solving process of the deflection equation; Theoretical and experimental results with: (b) γ = 10◦ and ae
= 0.1 mm; (c) γ = 20◦ and ae = 0.1 mm; (c) γ = 10◦ and ae = 0.2 mm; and (d) γ = 20◦ and ae = 0.2 mm.
Based on CZE, Durao et al. [70] developed FEM with interface elements,
which showed a linear relationship between stresses and relative dis­
placements of the homologous points before damage started to grow.
The predicted thrust force from FEM had a good agreement with the
experimental value through considering a step-by-step removal. Isbilir
et al. [71] established a 3D FEM to investigate the effects of cutting
parameters on thrust force and torque during drilling CFRP. The pre­
dicted results showed that thrust force and torque increased with the
increment of feed rate while decreased with the increment of cutting
speed. However, the shell elements were not suitable for the simulation.
The associated inter-laminar and intra-laminar damage models could be
far from the real process [69]. Therefore, Isbilir et al. [69] developed a
3D FEM to predict thrust force and torque during drilling of CFRP with
twist drill bit and step drill bit. A pre-defined local coordinate system
was used to describe orthotropic material properties of composite lam­
ina in different fiber orientation and the Hashin’s theory [72] was used
to establish the intra-laminar damage initiation criteria. It was found
that the usage of step drill could improve the machining quality of holes,
and that a high step ratio could reduce the workpiece stress distribu­
tions. Based on ANSYS R16.2, Hocheng et al. [73] predicted the critical
thrust force value with average difference 15 %, founding that the
delamination was not only caused by one fracture mode with the
generated thrust force. To sort out different effects of different fracture
mode, the drilling experiment at near-zero feed rate was conducted with
sufficient air cooling. However, the proposed near-zero feed rate
approach still required for further analytical and experimental study.
Numerical models can simulate the machining process of CFRP to get
the cutting force. The main advantages of the models are that a lot of
manpower and material resources can be saved and cutting process can
be revealed more vividly to guide production. However, the numerical
models are restricted by computer technology and finite element theory.
4. Analysis and discussion
CFRP are widely used in various fields with their excellent
18
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
performances, and gradually replace metal materials. The researches on
CFRP cutting force models began in 1971. With the wide application of
CFRP, the researches on cutting force are also increasing. Since 2010,
the researches on CFRP cutting force models have entered a relatively
rapid development period. The modeling method developed from simple
empirical formula to complex theoretical analysis, from equivalent ho­
mogeneous material model to heterogeneous anisotropic material
model, with the purpose of improving machining quality and tool life,
and of reducing machining defects. However, as the anisotropy and
heterogeneity of CFRP, the cutting mechanisms of CFRP are not clear,
and the cutting force models have certain limitations. With the deep­
ening of CFRP cutting researches, the paper concludes that the devel­
opment trend of cutting force models, as follows.
(i) Variable diversification development for semi-empirical models
Mechanistic models are semi-empirical model. Although the uni­
versality of this models is poor, their parameters are fewer than that of
others, their pertinence and purpose are stronger, and their analysis is
more intuitive, which make the models conducive to guiding the actual
production. Through the summary of the development process of liter­
ature, mechanistic models develop fastest and apply most widely. With
the emergence of advanced tools and processes, mechanistic models still
have great development potential for multivariate variables, meaning
that some new variables will appear to guide specific questions. For
example, the Kc_f, Kc_m, Ke_f and Ke_m [32] were presented to reflect the
distribution of carbon fiber based on Ktc and Kte; the variables in [37] are
good for improving double helix tool designs [37]. The diversification of
mechanistic model variables is one of the future development trends.
(ii) Study on process-oriented cutting force models
At present, the cutting force models need to be targeted at specific
machining processes and tools. Studies have shown that high-speed dry
cutting is suitable for CFRP cutting [34]. High-speed dry cutting is a
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 24. Model analysis and comparison of results [22]; (a1)~(a3) Schematic; (b1)~(c2) cutting force and thrust force for γ = 15◦ and ae = 0.1; (d)~(e) Plot of
cutting force for θ = 0◦ .

19
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 25. Model analysis [51]. (a1)~(a3) Illustration of cutting state on face I for θ = 0◦ , θ < 90◦ +γ and θ ≥ 90◦ +γ, respectively; (b)~(c) Diagram of cutting force on
face II and III, respectively.

Fig. 26. Energy consumption in orthogonal cutting of UD-CFRP and fracture mode [52].

Fig. 27. The infinitesimal elements and the stress states [57].

20
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Fig. 28. Deformation of a fiber during cutting and Influence of the depth of cut on the force [53].

Since the cutting mechanisms of CFRP are not clear at present, fiber
Table 6 orientation, fiber content and preparation methods will all affect the
The context of numerical models. cutting force models. Under specific conditions, the cutting force models
Machining Tool type Materials Fiber Fiber Refs. can accurately qualitatively analyze the cutting process and reveal the
operation content orientation cutting mechanisms. With the in-depth study of CFRP cutting, the
Orthogonal Solid UD-CFRP 60 % 15◦ -90◦ [58] damage form and cutting mechanisms of CFRP under different working
machining Tungsten (Carbon conditions will be clarified. Moreover, cutting force models which can
Carbide tool fibers/LY be applied to the whole fiber orientation, cutting parameters and tool
(Grade K-10) 556)4,6
Tungsten UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [59]
parameters will be established. The study of cutting mechanisms is one
carbide of the directions of future development.
Tungsten UD-CFRP 60 % 0 -180
◦ ◦
[60]
carbide (iv) Study on intelligent manufacturing-oriented cutting force models
Tungsten UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [64]
based on Modular development of numerical models
carbide tool (T2H/EH25)
insert (NFE [0◦ ]16,
66 366) [90◦ ]16, Due to different cutting conditions in cutting process, including fiber
[+45◦ ]16 and orientation, tool parameters, cutting region [25] and process parame­
[-45◦ ]16 ters, the cutting mechanisms are different and complex. With the
Tungsten UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [66]
carbide
development of computer technology and simulation software, the
carbide UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ -180◦ [67] different cutting force modules are integrated corresponding to different
H13A (WC- (T300/914) cutting mechanisms to realize digital twinning in actual manufacturing.
Co6%) The identification of cutting force modules and parameters (such as
Milling Carbide UD-CFRP 60 % 0◦ /90◦ [68]
[42]) caused by the change of cutting conditions can be realized by
insert
Drilling Carbide twist UD-CFRP 65 % – [70] intelligent algorithm to complete the prediction of cutting force. It is
drill (T300) [0◦ / meaningful to realize intelligent manufacturing in cutting and to guide
45◦ /90◦ / the practical production timely. Study on intelligent manufacturing-
135◦ )]4s oriented cutting force models based on modular development of nu­
TiAlN coated Hexcel M21 [71]
merical models is one of the development directions of cutting force
– –
tungsten T700 GC
carbide models.
drills.
Multilayer UD-CFRP 59 %. – [69] 5. Conclusions
coated WC (Hexcel
Solid carbide HEXPLY T700
drills 268 M21 34 This paper summarizes the cutting force models of CFRP from four
% T700-M21) aspects: macro cutting force models, mechanical cutting force models,
[90◦ /− 45◦ / micro cutting force models and numerical models. In summary, the
0◦ /45◦ ]5s conclusions and prospects of this study are as follows.
High-speed UD-CFRP [0◦ / – – [73]
steel twist 90◦ ] (T700).
drill bits • Due to the non-uniformity and anisotropy of CFRP materials, their
cutting process and cutting mechanisms are more complex than that
of metal. Cutting force and analysis models have certain limitations
green and efficient cutting process. However, the machining mecha­ as fiber orientation, fiber content and preparation methods can affect
nisms and phenomenon of high-speed cutting and low-speed cutting are the cutting force models. Under specific conditions, the cutting force
quite different. The development of CFRP high speed dry cutting process models may accurately qualitatively analyze the cutting process and
and cutting tool will promote the development of cutting force models. reveal the cutting mechanisms.
For high speed dry cutting and other new processes, the study on • Since the macroscopic cutting force models were proposed for about
process-oriented cutting force models are one of the future development 40 years, the development of CFRP cutting force models have a lag
trends. period. Since 2010, more and more attention has been paid to the
cutting force models of CFRP. And the researches on the cutting force
(iii) Research on cutting mechanisms models have developed rapidly, which can be considered to be

21
Y. Song et al.
Fig. 29. Finite element analysis [58].
Fig. 30. Chip formation in orthogonal cutting of UD-CFRP [67]. (a1) ~ (d1) are fiber orientations 90◦ , 0◦ , 45◦ and − 45◦ , respectively and (a2) ~ (d2) are the high
speed video image.
related to the preparation performance, application range and pro­
portion of CFRP.
• Although a large number of experimental data are needed to support
their accuracy, the researches on mechanistic models are the most. It
shows that mechanistic models have their unique advantages in
improving machining quality and tool life, reducing machining de­
fects. Since the upgrading of preparation methods and machining
process have great influence on cutting mechanisms, mechanistic
models will maintain a rapid development speed with their adapt­
ability and intuition.
• Macro-mechanical and micro-mechanical models are superior to
mechanistic models in revealing cutting mechanisms, but they are
more complicated. In addition, their development is limited by the
intuitive application and the complexity of cutting mechanisms.
• Since the emergence of numerical models, they have become the
most studied models besides mechanistic models rapidly, which can
save a lot of time and economic costs. Furthermore, they can be used
not only to optimize machining parameters and tool design, but also
to explore the physical properties of CFRP-tool interactions. With the
development of simulation software, computer science and CFRP
cutting mechanisms, more influencing factors such as cutting heat,
friction under different conditions, tool wear and tool deformation
22
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
need to be considered in the future numerical models which have
great development prospects.
• This paper predicts and analyzes the future development trends of
cutting force models, including (i) Variable diversification develop­
ment for semi-empirical models; (ii) Study on process-oriented cut­
ting force models; (iii) Research on cutting mechanisms; (iv) Study
on intelligent manufacturing-oriented cutting force models based on
modular development of numerical models.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China
(2020YFB2010500).
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

Appendix A

The meaning of each variable in the formula is shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

No. The general formula of some models Refs.

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
( )
Fc = 2 1 − νp Gf /Eπae TU (tanαt + tanδ) [23]
{ ( )/ ( )
Fc = τAcos( αμ − γ)/ sinθcos( θ + αμ − γ) [24]
Ft = τAsin αμ − γ sinθcos θ + αμ − γ
{
FyI = τAC hw h(cosϕtan(ϕ + β − γ) − sinϕ )/((τAC /τBC )cos(θ − ϕ)sinθ − sin(θ − ϕ)cosθ ) [25]
FzI = τAC hw h(sinτtan(ϕ + βγ) + cosϕ )/((τAC /τBC )cos(θ − ϕ)sinθ − sin(θ − ϕ)cosθ )
⎧
⎨ FyII = ( r2 sin2 θ + r2 cos2 θ)πEOP hw (sinθ + μcosϕ)g(θ)/( 8re ( 1 − νp ) )
e e
( ) ( ( ))
⎩ FzII = r2e sin2 θ + r2e cos2 θ πEOP hw (cosθ + μsinθ)g(θ)/ 8re 1 − νp
{
FyIII = re Ehw cos2 α/2
FzIII = re Ehw (1 − μcosαsinα)/2
⎧ ∫ tl /sin(π− ψ ) [28]
( ) ( )
⎨ Ft =
⎪
⎪ E kchi tl + fc /2 tanγw cosγf dR/ 1 − v2
− t/sin(π− ψ )
⎪ ∫ t/sin(π− ψ )
⎪ ( ) ( )
⎩ Fc = E kchi tl + fc /2 tanγw sinγf dR/ 1 − v2
− t/sin(π− ψ )
( ( ) ⎞
⎧
⎪ f c τm sinpcosξ[cosθ + ηsinθ] π(sinθ + μcosθ) + 4μcos2 α re E ⎠
⎪
⎪ dFrc = ( ( ) ) + ( ) dl
⎪
⎪
⎨ 2 sinθ − τm /τf ηcosθ 8 1 − ν2 p
⎛ ⎞
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f c τm sinpcosξ[ηcosθ − sinθ] (π(cosθ − μsinθ) + 4(1 − μcosαsinα) )re E ⎠
⎩ dFtc = ⎝ ( ( ) ) + ( ) dl
2 sinθ − τm /τf ηcosθ 8 1 − ν2p
( )
where ξ = arctan(tan(arcsin(tl /R) )cosp ), η = tan θ + β − aq
( ( ) )
∫ λ12 CKn Kf KR ae τp cosφtan φ + αμ − γ − sinφ 2r2 − ω2 sin2 (ε/2) [29]
Ft = λ11 ⋅ dr
cos(θ − φ)sinθ − sin(θ − φ)cosθ 2r2 sin(ε/2)
{
Fc = 10.68 − 11.67γ + 1584.53ae + 0.99γ − 7.1vae + 12.74αae 2 [31]
Ft = 147.27 − 4.92α + 188.55ae + 0.77γ2 − 32.54γae + 24.19αae
( ) ( )
Fc = Fm + Ff = Kc m haw 1 − Lf + Kc f haw Lf + Ke m aw 1 − Lf + Ke f aw Lf [32]
[ ] ( [ ][ ] [ ][ ])
Fx ∑s− 1 − cosϕ sinϕ Ktc (θ) − cosϕ sinϕ Kte (θ)
( ) [36]
= aw j=0 gj hj + hj = fsin ϕj
Fy sinϕ − cosϕ Krc (θ) sinϕ − cosϕ Kre (θ)
[ ] (( ( ) )[ ] [ ])
Frc ∑ Krc (θl ) Kre (θl ) [37]
= aw s−j=01 gj fsin ϕj +
Ftc Ktc (θl ) Kte (θl )
{ ( )
Ftc = aw ( fz sinϕ⋅Ktc + Kte ) [38]
Frc = aw fz sinϕ⋅Krc + Kre
{
Ftc (ϕ) = Ktc (β)aw h(ϕ) + Kte (β)aw [39]
Frc (ϕ) = Krc (β)aw h(ϕ) + Kre (β)aw
{ e ( ( ) )⃒ ⃒
| Ktc Kerc | = 4π/ aw π2 + 4 ⃒ 2ax + πay 2ay − πax ⃒
where e e
⃒ ⃒
| Kte Kre | = π/(2aw ) by + bx by − bx
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒ Fc ⃒
⃒ ⃒ = ⃒ Kc (θ, ae ) ⃒Aa
⃒ ⃒ [40]
⃒ Ft ⃒ ⃒ Kt (θ, ae ) ⃒
⃒ ⃒ [ ] [ ]
⃒ Ftc ⃒
⃒ ⃒ = Ktc htl + Kte tl [42]
⃒ Frc ⃒ Krc Kre
{ ( )
dFrc (ρ) = Pn (ρ)fdx/2 = a0 ha1 va2 ea3 αn fcos αq (ρ) Rdρ/2 [43]
b1 b2 b3 αn
( )
dFtc (ρ) = Pt (ρ)fdx/2 = b0 h v e fcos αq (ρ) Rdρ/2
Ft = − 23.03 + 54tl + 0.181G − 224f + 9.575 × 10− 2 n [44]
⎧ ( ) ⎫
⎪ − cos(αn )sin αq ⎪
⎪ ⎪ [45]
⎨ ( )⎬
⎧ {FAn1 }X′ Y′ Z′ = Kc Au − cos(αn )cos αq
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎩ ⎭
⎪
⎪ − sin(αn )
⎪
⎪ ⎧ [ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )] ⎫
⎪
⎪ − sin α cos αq − sin(αn )cos αchip sin αq
⎨ [ ( chip) ( )
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨{ } ( ) ( )] ⎬
FAf1 X′ Y′ Z′ = {μFAn1 }X′ Y′ Z′ = μKc Au × − sin αchip sin αq − sin(αn )cos αchip cos αq
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ( ) ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎩ ⎭
⎪
⎪ cos(αn )cos αchip
⎪
⎪ ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ 0 ⎪ 0
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎨ ⎪
⎬ ⎪
⎨ ⎪
⎬
{ }
{FAn2 }X′ Y′ Z′ = Kp Ac sin(α) , FAf2 X′ Y′ Z′ = {μFAn2 }X′ Y′ Z′ = μKp Ac − cos(α)
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭ ⎩ ⎭
cos(α) sin(α)
⎧
⎪ ∑ j=mm ( ) ∑ q=mc
[46]
⎪
⎨ Ft = 2
⎪
j=1
dFtmajor + 2 j
(dFtchisel )
q=1 q

⎪ ∑j=mm ( ) ∑q=mc
⎩ Mz = 2 j=1 dMzmajor j + 2 q=1 (dMzchisel )q
⎪
⎪
⎧ [ ]
⎨ kzw bt zT Ee ( fc − re )(1 + μ)tanγ + 2ke re fc ⩾re [47]
( ) f
Ft = Fzw +32kh kV bt kA Ef If a3ch fc (cos(πnt/15)/3 + cos(2πnt/15)/15 + cos(πnt/5)/35 − kv /2kV )/ πki df where Fzw = ( )/
⎩ re − fc re fc < re
[46]
(continued on next page)

23
Y. Song et al. Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096

(continued )
No. The general formula of some models Refs.
⎧
⎪
⎪ ∑j=mm ( ) ∑q=mc
⎨ Ft = 2
⎪ dFtmajor + 2
j=1
(dFtchisel )
j q=1 q

⎪ ∑j=mm ( ) ∑q=mc
⎩ Mz = 2 j=1 dMzmajor j + 2 q=1 (dMzchisel )q
⎪
⎪
⎧ [ ]
⎨ k b z Ee ( f − r )(1 + μ)tanγ + 2k r f ⩾r [47]
( ) zw t T f c e e e c e
Ft = Fzw +32kh kV bt kA Ef If a3ch fc (cos(πnt/15)/3 + cos(2πnt/15)/15 + cos(πnt/5)/35 − kv /2kV )/ πki df where Fzw = ( )/
⎩ re − fc re fc < re
F = σμ aw h2 /6(L − ae ) [54]
⎧c
⎪
⎪ ⎧ ( ) (⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒) ⎫ [49]
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎨ Fc = − GLT πd2 aw cosθ/ 8c + 4df + max ⃒sshear ⃒, ⃒sbend ⃒ η ⎬
f
⎪ , θ < γ + 90◦
RVE
⎪
⎪ ( )
2
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎩ Ft = GLT πdf aw sinθ/ 8c + 4df − μFc ⎭
⎧ ( ) (⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒) ⎫
⎪
⎪ ⎨ Fc = − GLT πd2 aw cosθ/ 8c + 4df + max ⃒sshear ⃒, ⃒sbend ⃒ η (1 + μsinγ)vof/cosγ ⎬
⎪
⎪ f
, θ⩾γ + 90◦
⎪ RVE
⎪
⎪ ( ) ( ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ ⃒ )
⎪⎩
⎪
⎪ Ft = GLT πd2f aw sinθ/ 8c + 4df − max ⃒sshear ⃒, ⃒sbend ⃒ tanγηRVE vof ⎭
⎩
{
Fc = FU (μcosθ + sinθ) + rm re Eb cos2 α + FC cos(γ − arctanμ) [50]
,
Ft = FU (μsinθ − sinθ) + rm re Eb (1 − μsinαcosα) + FC sin(γ − arctanμ)
⎧
⎪
⎪ ( [ ])
⎪
⎪
⎪ FU = 4λ1 λ2 If Xf e2λ1 Lc / rf λ2 e2λ1 Lc − λ2 cos(2λ2 Lc ) + λ1 sin(2λ2 Lc ) ,
⎪
⎪ {
⎪
⎪ 2rm ae τm cotγ/(cos(zT − γ + arctanμ)cosθ ), θ < γ
⎪
⎪
⎪ FC =
⎨ 2rm ae τm /(cos(zT − γ + arctanμ)sinθ ), θ < γ
where, √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪ 2 2 2
A G m m Gm )/2 )/ 2Ef If , Am = πrf (1 − vol)/vol,
4
⎪
⎪ λ 1 = m m + cos(arctan(m/A
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪ 2 2 2( )4
⎪ λ2 = Am Gm + m sin(arctan(m/Am Gm )/2 )/ 2Ef If , m = (Am Gm ) rm /rf − 8Eb Ef If
⎪ 4
⎪
⎩
when θ ∈ (0◦ , 90◦ ), [22]
⎧ ∫L
( ( ) )
⎪
⎪
⎨ Fc = qmax dxsinθ + Fμ cosθ + FNchip cos(γ − ε)/sin θ + arctan Fμchip /FNchip − γ + re Eb tl cos2 α/2
0
⎪ ∫L
⎪ ( ( ) )
⎩ Ft = qmax dxcosθ + Fμ sinθ + FN sin(γ − ε)/sin θ + arctan Fμchip /FNchip − γ + re Eb tl (1 − μcosαsinα)/2
0
{
Fc = Kmax Ef rf cosγ
when θ ∈ [90◦ , 180◦ )
Ft = − Kmax Ef rf sinγ
{
Fc = (1/(6W1 ) + 2W2 )M − re Eb tl cos2 α/2
when θ = 0◦
Ft = (1/(6W1 ) + 2W2 )Mtanα − re Eb tl (1 − μcosαsinα)/2
⎧ ∑3 [( )/ ( )/( ( 2 )) ( )]
⎪
⎪
⎪ W1 = i=1 i
A B2i + C2i (4λ) + λ C2i − B2i 4 λ + β2 + βBi Ci / 2λ2 + 2β2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( √ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
⎨ W = EItan2 α/96, W = ( 12cos(α) − π2 )( 1 + tan(α)π2 I )/ 2304 3cos(α)e2
⎪
2 3
where
⎪
⎪ (√ )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ √̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( 2 3
)/ 2
⎪
⎪
⎩ M = 1/ 3108W 3 + 12 3 27W 1 W 3 − 4W 2 W 1 W1
( )/
Fc = Esurf + Efric + Echip + Edeb v [52]
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[( ) ( )] [56]
Ft = πGIc /ξ Con2 c3 + (1 − Con)2 c3 /3 − Con2 K + (1 − Con)2 K
∫ b1 ∫ b1
⎧ [57]
⎪ Fc = 2
⎪
⎨ dFcy sinρd cos(arctan(v/(πnD) ) ) + 2 dFcz sin(arctan(v/(πnD) ) )
a1 a1
⎪ ∫ b2 ∫ b2
⎪
⎩ Ft = 2 dFty sinρd cos(arctan(v/(πnD) ) ) + 2 dFtz sin(arctan(v/(πnD) ) )
a2 a2
{
Fc = FAz + P1 μcos2 λ + P2 μcos2 α [53]
Ft = μf FAz + P1 (1 − μcosλsinλ) + P2 (1 + μcosαsinα)
⎧ ∫ ae − re ∫ ae +h− bc ∫ +∞
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ FAz = km x1 dz + km x2 dz + kmb x3 dz
⎪
⎪ 0 ae − re ae +h− bc
⎪
⎪ ⎧
⎪
⎪ ( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
arctan bc / r2e − (re − bc )2 , x(t)⩽re − r2e − (re − bc )2
⎨ ⎪
⎪
⎪
where ⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪ [ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ]/ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪
⎪ λ=
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ arctan re −
⎪ r2e − (re − x(t) )2 (re − x(t) ), re − r2e − (re − bc )2 ⩽x(t)〈re
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
⎪
⎩ 0, x(t)⩾re

References [5] Hou Y, Yao P, Zhang H, Liu X, Liu H, Huang C, et al. Chatter stability and surface
quality in milling of unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Compos Struct
2021;271:114131.
[1] Di A, Dg A, Ii A, Fgab C, Meg B. A discrete element method for the simulation of
[6] Hassan EAM, Ge D, Zhu S, Yang L, Zhou J, Yu M. Enhancing CF/PEEK composites
CFRP cutting. CIRP J Manuf Sci Tec 2010;70(1):73–80.
by CF decoration with polyimide and loosely-packed CNT arrays. Compos Part A-
[2] Voss R, Seeholzer L, Kuster F, Wegener K. Analytical force model for orthogonal
Appl S 2019;127:105613.
machining of unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP) as a function
[7] Wang DH, Ramulu M, Arola D. Orthogonal cutting mechanisms of graphite/epoxy
of the fibre orientation. J Mater Process Technol 2019;263:440–69.
composite. I: Unidirectional laminate. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1995;35(12):
[3] Pereira RBD, Brandão LC, de Paiva AP, Ferreira JR, Davim JP. A review of helical
1623–38.
milling process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2017;120:27–48.
[8] Che D, Saxena I, Han P, Guo P, Ehmann KF. Machining of carbon fiber reinforced
[4] Cao H, Liu L, Wu Bo, Gao Y, Qu Da. Process optimization of high-speed dry milling
plastics/polymers: a literature review. J Manuf Sci E-T Asme 2014;136(3).
UD-CF/PEEK laminates using GA-BP neural network. Compos Part B-Eng 2021;
[9] Scl A, Ikc B. Drilling carbon fiber-reinforced composite material at high speed.
221:109034.
Wear 1996;194(1–2):156–62.

24
Y. Song et al.
[10] Teti R. Machining of composite materials. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 2002;51(2):
611–34.
[11] Qu D, Wang B, Gao Y, Cao H. A comprehensive micro-milling force model for a
low-stiffness machining system. J Manuf Sci E-T ASME 2021;143(11).
[12] Qu D, Zheng W, Wang B, Wu B, Cao H, Yi H. Nondestructive acquisition of the
micro-mechanical properties of high-speed-dry milled micro-thin walled structures
based on surface traits. Chinese J Aeronaut 2021;34(5):438–51.
[13] Wan M, Li S-E, Yuan H, Zhang W-H. Cutting force modelling in machining of fiber-
reinforced polymer matrix composites (PMCs): a review. Compos Part A-Appl S
2019;117:34–55.
[14] Abr OAM, Faria PE, Rubio J, Reis P, Davim JP. Drilling of fiber reinforced plastics:
a review. J Mater Process Tech 2007;186(1–3):1–7.
[15] Liu DeFu, Tang YongJun, Cong WL. A review of mechanical drilling for composite
laminates. A review of mechanical drilling for composite laminates. Compos Struct
2012;94(4):1265–79.
[16] Geier N, Davim JP, Szalay T. Advanced cutting tools and technologies for drilling
carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites: a review. Compos Part A-Appl
S 2019;125:105552.
[17] Dandekar CR, Shin YC. Modeling of machining of composite materials: a review.
Int J Mach Tool Manu 2012;57:102–21.
[18] Soussia AB, Mkaddem A, Mansori ME. Rigorous treatment of dry cutting of FRP –
Interface consumption concept: a review. Int J Mech Sci 2014;83:1–29.
[19] Shetty N, Shahabaz SM, Sharma SS, Divakara Shetty S. A review on finite element
method for machining of composite materials. Compos Struct 2017;176:790–802.
[20] Du J, Geng M, Ming W, He W, Ma J. Simulation machining of fiber-reinforced
composites: a review Simulation machining of fiber-reinforced composites: A
review. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2021;117(1-2):1–15.
[21] Kang IS, Kim JS, Kim JH, Kang MC, Seo YW. A mechanistic model of cutting force
in the micro end milling process. J Mater Process Tech 2007;187-188:250–5.
[22] Chen L, Zhang K, Hui C, Qi Z, Meng Q. A cutting force predicting model in
orthogonal machining of unidirectional CFRP for entire range of fiber orientation.
Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2017;89(1–4):1–14.
[23] Everstine GC, Rogers TG. A theory of machining of fiber-reinforced materials.
J Compos Mater 1971;5(1):94–106.
[24] Bhatnagar N, Ramakrishnan N, Naik NK, Komanduri R. On the machining of fiber
reinforced plastic (FRP) composite laminates. Int J Mach Tool Manu 1995;35(5):
701–16.
[25] Zhang LC, Zhang HJ, Wang XM. A force prediction model for cutting unidirectional
fibre-reinforced plastics. Mach Sci Technol 2001;5(3):293–305.
[26] Zhang S, Jiao F, Wang X, Niu Y. Modeling of cutting forces in helical milling of
unidirectional CFRP considering carbon fiber fracture. J Manuf Process 2021;68:
1495–508.
[27] Dong Wang FJ. Study on critical feed rate of delamination based on thrust force of
chisel edge during CFRP drilling. J Mech Eng 2021;57.
[28] Guo DM, Wen Q, Gao H, Bao YJ. Prediction of the cutting forces generated in the
drilling of carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic composites using a twist drill. P I Mech
Eng B-J Eng 2011;226(1):28–42.
[29] Meng Q, Zhang K, Cheng H, Liu S, Jiang S. An analytical method for predicting the
fluctuation of thrust force during drilling of unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced
plastics. J Compos Mater 2015;49(6):699–711.
[30] Seeholzer L, Scheuner D, Wegener K. Analytical force model for drilling out
unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP). J Mater Process Tech
2020;278:116489.
[31] Wang DH, Ramulu M, Arola D. Orthogonal cutting mechanisms of graphite/epoxy
composite. Part II: multi-directional laminate. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1995;35
(12):1639–48.
[32] Mei J, Gavalda Diaz O, Axinte DA. An approach on capturing the influence of the
stochasticity of fibre distributions for modelling the variability of cutting forces in
composite materials. Compos Part B-Eng 2017;125:27–38.
[33] Mei J, Diaz OG, Axinte DA. Modelling the unidirectional fibre composite milling
force oscillations through capturing the influence of the stochastic fibre
distributions. Compos Struct 2019;226:111188.
[34] Cao H, Song Y, Wu B, Wang K, Qu D. A force model of high-speed dry milling CF/
PEEK considering fiber distribution characteristics. J Manuf Process 2021;68:
602–15.
[35] Hocheng H, Puw HY, Huang Y. Preliminary study on milling of unidirectional
carbon fibre-reinforced plastics. Composites Manufact 1993;4(2):103–8.
[36] Karpat Y, Bahtiyar O, Değer B. Mechanistic force modeling for milling of
unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates. Int J Mach Tool Manu
2012;56:79–93.
[37] Yk A, Np B. Mechanistic force modeling for milling of carbon fiber reinforced
polymers with double helix tools. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 2013;62(1):95–8.
[38] He Y, Sheikh-Ahmad J, Zhu S, Zhao C. Cutting force analysis considering edge
effects in the milling of carbon fiber reinforced polymer composite. J Mater Process
Technol 2020;279:116541.
[39] Mullin R, Farhadmanesh M, Ahmadian A, Ahmadi K. Modeling and identification
of cutting forces in milling of Carbon. Fibre Reinforced Polymers J Mater Process
Tech 2020;280:116595.
[40] Kalla D, Sheikh-Ahmad J, Twomey J. Prediction of cutting forces in helical end
milling fiber reinforced polymers. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2010;50(10):882–91.
[41] Li HZ, Zhang WB, Li XP. Modelling of cutting forces in helical end milling using a
predictive machining theory. Int J Mech Sci 2001;43(8):1711–30.
[42] Sheikh-Ahmad J, He Y, Qin L. Cutting force prediction in milling CFRPs with
complex cutter geometries. J Manuf Processes 2019;45:720–31.
25
Composite Structures 299 (2022) 116096
[43] Chandrasekharan V, Kapoor SG, Devor RE. A mechanistic approach to predicting
the cutting forces in drilling: with application to fiber-reinforced composite
materials. J Eng Industry 1995;117(4):559–70.
[44] Tsao C, Hocheng H. Parametric study on thrust force of core drill. J Mater Process
Technol 2007.
[45] Lazar M-B, Xirouchakis P. Mechanical load distribution along the main cutting
edges in drilling. J Mater Process Tech 2013;213(2):245–60.
[46] Anand RS, Patra K. Mechanistic cutting force modelling for micro-drilling of CFRP
composite laminates. CIRP J Manuf Sci Tec 2016. S1755581716300372.
[47] Wang D, Jiao F, Mao X. Mechanics of thrust force on chisel edge in carbon fiber
reinforced polymer (CFRP) drilling based on bending failure theory. Int J Mech Sci
2019;169(3):105336.
[48] Bai Y, Jia ZY, Fu R, Hao JX, Wang FJ. Mechanical model for predicting thrust force
with tool wear effects in drilling of unidirectional CFRP. Compos Struct 2021;
113601.
[49] Jahromi AS, Bahr B. An analytical method for predicting cutting forces in
orthogonal machining of unidirectional composites. Compos Sci Technol 2010;70
(16):2290–7.
[50] Qi Z, Zhang K, Cheng H, Wang D, Meng Q. Microscopic mechanism based force
prediction in orthogonal cutting of unidirectional CFRP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2015;79(5–8):1209–19.
[51] Csa B, Mza B, Yang Y, Sza B, Ming L. A dynamic cutting force model for transverse
orthogonal cutting of unidirectional carbon/carbon composites considering fiber
distribution. Compos Struct 2020;251.
[52] Hao L, Qin X, He G, Price MA, Sun D. An energy based force prediction method for
UD-CFRP orthogonal machining. Compos Struct 2017;159:34–43.
[53] Xu W, Zhang LC. On the mechanics and material removal mechanisms of vibration-
assisted cutting of unidirectional fibre-reinforced polymer composites. Int J Mach
Tool Manu 2014;80:1–10.
[54] Pwu HY, Hocheng H. Chip formation of cutting fiber-reinforced plastics
perpendicular to fiber axis. J Manuf Sci E-T Asme 1998.
[55] Song Y, Qu D, Wu B, Cao H. Composite light ropes model-based dynamics force
prediction model of high speed dry milling UD-CF/PEEK considering size effect.
J Manuf Process 2022;76:210–22.
[56] Saoudi J, Zitoune R, Mezlini S, Gururaja S, Seitier P. Critical thrust force
predictions during drilling: analytical modeling and X-ray tomography
quantification. Compos Struct 2016;153:886–94.
[57] Yuxi Z, Dan Wu, Ken C. A theoretical model for predicting the CFRP drilling-
countersinking thrust force of stacks. Compos Struct 2019.
[58] Rao GVG, Mahajan P, Bhatnagar N. Micro-mechanical modeling of machining of
FRP composites – cutting force analysis. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(3):579–93.
[59] Calzada KA, Kapoor SG, DeVor RE, Samuel J, Srivastava AK. Modeling and
interpretation of fiber orientation-based failure mechanisms in machining of
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. J Manuf Process 2012;14(2):141–9.
[60] Abena A, Soo SL, Essa K. Modelling the orthogonal cutting of UD-CFRP composites:
Development of a novel cohesive zone model. Compos Struct 2017;168:65–83.
[61] Rao G, Mahajan P, Bhatnagar N. Machining of UD-GFRP composites chip formation
mechanism. Compos Sci Technol 2007;67:2271–81.
[62] Abena A, Soo SL, Essa K. A finite element simulation for orthogonal cutting of UD-
CFRP incorporating a novel fibre-matrix interface model. Procedia CIRP 2015;31:
539–44.
[63] Chennakesavelu G. Orthogonal machining of uni-directional carbon fiber
reinforced polymer composites. Wichita State University; 2010.
[64] Zitoune R, Collombet F, Lachaud F, Piquet R, Pasquet P. Experiment–calculation
comparison of the cutting conditions representative of the long fiber composite
drilling phase. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65(3):455–66.
[65] Zitoune R, Collombet F. Numerical prediction of the thrust force responsible of
delamination during the drilling of the long-fibre composite structures. Compos
Part A-Appl S 2007;38(3):858–66.
[66] Cheng H, Gao J, Kafka OL, Zhang K, Luo B, Liu WK. A micro-scale cutting model for
UD CFRP composites with thermo-mechanical coupling. Compos Sci Technol 2017;
S0266353817312769.
[67] Iliescu D, Gehin D, Iordanoff I, Girot F, Gutiérrez ME. A discrete element method
for the simulation of CFRP cutting. Compos Sci Technol 2010;70(1):73–80.
[68] Rentsch R, Pecat O, Brinksmeier E. Macro and micro process modeling of the
cutting of carbon fiber reinforced plastics using FEM. Procedia Eng 2011;10:
1823–8.
[69] Isbilir O, Ghassemieh E. Numerical investigation of the effects of drill geometry on
drilling induced delamination of carbon fiber reinforced composites. Compos
Struct 2013;105:126–33.
[70] Durão LMP, de Moura MFSF, Marques AT. Numerical prediction of delamination
onset in carbon/epoxy composites drilling. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75(9):2767–78.
[71] Isbilir O, Ghassemieh E. Finite element analysis of drilling of carbon fibre
reinforced composites. Appl Compos Mater 2012;19(3–4):637–56.
[72] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Mech 1980;47(2):
329–34.
[73] Hocheng H, Chen CC, Tsao CC. Prediction of critical thrust force for tubular
composite in drilling-induced delamination by numerical and experimental
analysis. Compos Struct 2018.
[74] Gao T, Li C, Yang M, Zhang Y, Jia D, Ding W, et al. Mechanics analysis and
predictive force models for the single-diamond grain grinding of carbon fiber
reinforced polymers using CNT nano-lubricant. J Mater Process Tech 2021;290.