Int J Mater Form

DOI 10.1007/s12289-010-0986-7

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

FE-model for Titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) cutting based

on the identification of limiting shear stress
at tool-chip interface
Yancheng Zhang & Tarek Mabrouki & Daniel Nelias &
Yadong Gong

Received: 9 December 2009 / Accepted: 5 May 2010

# Springer-Verlag France 2010

Abstract Modeling of metal cutting has proved to be Nomenclature

particularly complex, especially for tool-chip interface. The A initial yield stress (MPa)
present work is mainly aimed to investigate the limiting a half contact width (mm)
shear stress at this interface in the case of Titanium alloy ap cutting depth (mm)
(Ti-6Al-4V) dry cutting based on a FE-model. It is first B hardening modulus (MPa)
shown that the surface limiting shear stress was linked to C strain rate dependency coefficient (MPa)
the contact pressure and the coefficient of friction (CoF). A Cp specific heat (J/kg−1C−1)
relationship between CoF and the limiting shear stress was D overall damage variable
given, and the effect of the temperature on the limiting D1...D5 coefficients of Johnson-Cook material shear
shear stress was also considered. After that, an orthogonal failure initiation criterion
cutting model was developed with an improved friction E1 tool insert Young’s modulus (MPa)
model through the user subroutine VFRIC in Abaqus/ E2 machined material Young’s modulus (MPa)
Explicit software. The numerical results obtained were f feed rate (mm/rev)
compared with experimental data gathered from literature fc chip segmentation frequency (kHz)
and a good overall agreement was found. Finally, the Fc cutting force (N)
effects of cutting speed, CoF and tool-rake angle on chip Ff feed force (N)
morphologies were analyzed. L characteristic length (mm)
Lc chip segmentation wavelength (mm)
Keywords FE cutting model . Limiting shear stress . m thermal softening coefficient
Fracture energy . Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V m1 contact coefficient
n work-hardening exponent
Abbreviations n1 contact coefficient
FE Finite element p hydrostatic pressure (MPa)
J-C Johnson-Cook R radius of a cylinder (mm)
SDEG Scalar stiffness degradation Pc contact force per unit length (N/mm)
CoF Coefficient of friction p0 maximum contact pressure (N/mm2)
qo tangential traction at x = 0 (N/mm2)
tf limiting shear stress (MPa)
Y. Zhang : T. Mabrouki (*) : D. Nelias
tY shear stress calculated by yield stress (MPa)
Université de Lyon, CNRS, INSA-Lyon, LaMCoS, UMR5259,
69621 Lyon, France g shear strain in the primary shear zone
e-mail: Tarek.Mabrouki@insa-lyon.fr Rn cutting edge radius (μm)
T temperature at a given calculation instant (°C)
Y. Gong
tc cutting time (μs)
School of Mechanical Engineering & Automation,
Northeastern University, Tm melting temperature (°C)
Shenyang 10004, China Tr room temperature (°C)
 Int J Mater Form

»
T* homologous temperature T ¼ the effects of the working parameter variation on material
ðT  Tr Þ=ðTm  Tr Þ cutting performance. For that, it is more judicious to build a
uf equivalent plastic displacement at failure (mm) reliable FE-model allowing more physical comprehension in
u equivalent plastic displacement (mm) relationship with this type of material cutting.
VC cutting speed (m/min) Nevertheless, the robustness of a given numerical model
Vchip local chip sliding speed (m/min) is strongly dependent on the work material contact nature at

e plastic strain rate (s−1) cutting tool-chip interface, material fracture criterion, and

e0 reference strain rate (s−1) both tool and workpiece material thermal parameters [5–8].
» »  
e normalized effective strain rate e ¼ e= e0 In the present study, Material fracture energy was put
e0i equivalent strain at the onset of damage forward to reduce the mesh dependency and achieve
ef equivalent plastic strain at failure material degradation during cutting process. Moreover, the
Δe equivalent plastic strain increment mesh sensitivity was also analyzed in order to obtain the
e equivalent plastic strain appropriate mesh size. The limiting shear stress in the friction
a0 flank angle (deg) model was refined with the maximum shear stress at the tool-
ad expansion coefficient (μm/m/°C) chip contact surface.
g0 rake angle (deg) Comparison of predicted results (in terms of chip
l thermal conductivity (W/m/°C) morphologies and cutting forces) with those obtained from
ν Poisson’s ratio experimental studies was carried out to validate the
pffiffiffiffi
KC fracture toughness (MPa m) numerical model for positive and negative tool-rake angle.
Gf fracture energy (N/m) Finally, effects of cutting speed, coefficient of friction
μ CoF (CoF), and rake angle on the chip morphology were studied
ρ density (kg/m3) with the numerical cutting model.
σI principal stresses (i=1...3) (MPa)
s von Mises plastic equivalent stress (MPa)
σY yield stress (MPa) Numerical approach
σ* stress triaxiality s » ¼ p=s
w damage initiation criterion Modeling data and geometrical model

To improve physical comprehension of segmented chip

Introduction
For the high strength-to-weight ratio, combined with an
excellent corrosion resistance at high temperature, the
cutting of titanium alloys has recently received considerable
interest due to their wide range of application in aerospace,
automotive, chemical, and medical industry [1].
However, titanium alloys are classified as hard machin-
ing materials because of their high chemical reactivity and
low thermal conductivity [2]. The high chemical reactivity
increases with temperature and produces an early damage
of the cutting tool affecting the surface quality and
increasing the production costs [3]. Their low thermal
conductivity hinders the evacuation of the heat generated
during the cutting process resulting in a temperature rise of the
workpiece [3]. This leads to the characteristic segmented
chip feature even at very low cutting speed, as it was
mentioned by Hou and Komanduri [4]. These authors
predicted the critical cutting speed value corresponding to
the onset of shear localization of Ti-6Al-4V to be approx-
imately equals to 9 m/min whereas this value is equal to
130 m/min when cutting AISI4340 steel. In order to increase
productivity and tool-life in machining of titanium alloys, it
is necessary to study the mechanics of chip segmentation and
formation, friction properties during Titanium alloy Ti-6Al-
4V cutting, the commercial software Abaqus 6.8-2 with its
explicit approach was employed. A 2D orthogonal cutting
model was developed as shown in Fig. 1. Linear quadrilat-
eral continuum plane strain element CPE4RT with reduced
integration was utilized for a coupled temperature–displace-
ment analysis.
Machining parameters were taken similar to those
adopted by Jiang and Shivpuri [9] and Umbrello [5]. For
the workpiece, the uncut chip thickness was 0.127 mm with
a cutting depth ap =2.54 mm. The WC ISO-P20 cutting tool
considered has normal rake and flank angles of 15° and 6°,
respectively. The tool entering and inclination edge angles
were 90° and 0°, respectively. The tool-cutting edge radius
was of 0.030 mm. The tool-workpiece interaction was
considered under dry machining conditions.
To optimize the contact management during simulation,
a multi-part model (Fig. 1) was typically developed with
four geometrical parts: (1) Part1—the insert active part, (2)
Part2—the uncut chip thickness, (3) Part3—the tool-tip
passage zone, and (4) Part4—the workpiece support.
It should be noticed that the thickness of tool-tip passage
zone (Part3), which is the sacrificial layer, was usually
recommended larger than that of the cutting edge radius
Int J Mater Form

Fig. 1 Model mesh and bound-

ary conditions γ0 Part1

Damage zones :
Part2

Part2+Part3
Part3-1

Part3-2 Rn=30µm
26µm Part3 α0
Part3-3 Part4

25º

Vc X

No displacement
in Y-direction
Fixed boundaries

[10] to avoid mesh distortion problem. In the proposed model,
the critical layer size above which the element can climb up
rake face without mesh distortion was found equal to
0.026 mm. The sacrificial zone was meshed with five
elements to study the contact effect around the cutting edge.
Also, the passage zone (Part3) was divided into three small
parts: Part3-1, Part3-2, and Part3-3. The CoF in Part3-1should
be very small to reduce the influence of the sacrificial zone for
the new formed chip surface, or the chip surface can be torn
out by the sacrificial zone before it enters into contact with the
tool surface. As Part3-2 and Part3-3 are usually the stick zones
[11], the CoF should be set very high. However, there is no
more contact problem for them when they are finally deleted.
For boundary conditions used in the present model, the
cutting tool is assumed to be fixed on its top and right sides,
and the workpiece is allowed to move horizontally from the
left to the right while restrained vertically.
Material behaviour and chip formation criterion
Material constitutive model
The material constitutive material model of Ti-6AL-4V
follows the Johnson-Cook (J-C) model [12]. It provides a
satisfactory description of the behaviour of metals and alloys
since it considers large strains, high strain rates and
temperature dependent visco-plasticity. This model is
expressed by the following expression of the equivalent stress.
h h i X Δe
» » w¼
s ¼ ½A þ B"n  1 þ C ln e  1  T m ð1Þ
The J-C material parameters of the workpiece made in
Ti-6Al-4V can be found in Table 1, whereas the physical
parameters of both the workpiece and the tool-insert are
given in Table 2.
Chip separation criterion
For different software and material constitutive models, the
approach to deal with element damage is different. Indeed,
Umbrello [5] and Jiang and Shivpuri [9] employed the
Cockroft and Latham’s criterion to predict the effect of
tensile stress on chip segmentation, but the elements are
deleted at the onset of damage initiation. This induces
instability in numerical simulation. The J-C model is widely
adopted for its satisfactory description of material flow
stress, while different approaches are used to achieve the
degradation of material to get segmented chip. Calamaz
et al. [15] introduced the strain softening through
improving the J-C model by adding the strain softening
effects. While the fracture energy as a failure evolution
criterion after damage initiation can well achieve material
degradation, and this approach was adopted for the present
study.
Damage initiation The initiation of damage in the J-C
material model is derived from the following strain
cumulative damage law:
ð2Þ
e0i

Table 1 Johnson-Cook Materi-

al Model [13] Materials A (MPa) B (MPa) n C m D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

Ti-6Al-4V 1098 1092 0.93 0.014 1.1 −0.09 0.25 −0.5 0.014 3.87
 Int J Mater Form

Table 2 Workpiece and tool

physical parameters [14] Physical parameters Workpiece (Ti-6AL-4V) Tool(WC ISO-P20)

Density, ρ (kg/.m3) 4430 15700

Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 110 705
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.33 0.23
Specific heat, Cp (J/kg°C) 670 178
Thermal conductivity, l (W/m°C) 6.6 24
Expansion coef., αd (μm/m/°C) 9 5
Tmelt (°C) 1630 ×
Troom (°C) 25 25

Where $e is the increment of equivalent plastic strain Whereas an exponential damage parameter used for part 2,
during an increment of loading, and e0i the equivalent strain evolves according to:
at the onset of damage and is expressed as following:
 Z 
h  ih h i u
s
» » » D ¼ 1  exp  du ð6Þ
"0i ¼ D1 þ D2 exp D3 s 1 þ D4 ln e  1 þ D5 T Gf
0
ð3Þ
The formulation of the model ensures that the energy
The parameters D1, D2, D3, D4, and D5 are experimental dissipated during the damage evolution process is equal to
data (Table 1). Damage is assumed to be initiated when the Gf, and the scalar stiffness degradation approaches to one
parameter w=1. asymptotically at an infinite equivalent plastic displace-
ment. In the case of plane strain condition Gf can be
Damage evolution The Hillerborg’s fracture energy [16] obtained by Gf ¼ KC2 ð1  n 2 Þ=E where KC is the fracture
was introduced in this model mainly for two reasons: toughness [14].
Firstly to control the material degradation after the damage
initiates (Fig. 2), which makes the failure process more Mesh sensitivity During machining process, large defor-
stable, secondly, to capture high strain localization mation is a common phenomenon, especially for the
during chip segmentation even for relatively large size segmented chip. According to Eq. 4, to get this large
element. deformation with constant element characteristic length L,
When material damage occurs, the stress-strain relation- the value of plastic strain must be very high, which also
ship does no-longer accurately represent the material’s depends greatly on the local mesh. The characteristic
behavior. Continuing to use the stress-strain relation length L could also be increased to reduce the mesh
introduces a strong mesh dependency based on strain dependency. Consequently, the question that can be asked
location, such that the energy dissipated as the mesh is in the present formulation is: which size is appropriate for
refined. The mesh size in the Calamaz’s [15] model is the characteristic length L?
around 2 µm near the cutting edge and along the primary Two constraints can be retained for the evaluation of L:
shear zone. The Hillerborg’s fracture energy, Gf, was First, the size should be relative large (to save computing
adopted to reduce the mesh dependency by creating a
stress-displacement response after damage initiation.
Z "pl Z upl Damage initiation
f f
Gf ¼ Ls Y d"pl ¼ s Y dupl ð4Þ (ω =1, D=0) d’
"pl
0
0
σ
c
Where, the characteristic length L is the square root of Dσ~ Damage
the integration point element area based on a plane strain b evolution
σy
element CPE4RT.
The scalar stiffness degradation for the linear damage Material stiffness
E
process used for part 3 is given by: E (1-D)E is fully degraded
d (D=1)
a
Le u ε0i ε
D¼ ¼ ð5Þ εf

uf uf
Fig. 2 Typical uniaxial stress-strain response of a metal specimen
Where the equivalent displacement is uf ¼ 2Gf =s Y . [17]
Int J Mater Form

mesh 6 µm
mesh 8 µm and 14 μm, the computed average cutting forces are 481 N
mesh 12 µm and 458.5N, respectively, which are far below the value of
mesh 14 µm
650
Average experimental force 550 N measured experimentally under the same working
conditions [5, 9]. Whereas for characteristic lengths of
600
8 μm and 6 μm, the cutting force reaches 541 N and 549 N,
respectively, which is close to the cutting force obtained
Cutting force(N)

550
especially. To contain the computing costs, the mesh size of
8 μm will be now chosen.
500

450
400
0. 046 0. 0914 0. 1368 0. 1822 0. 2276 0. 273 0. 3184 0. 3638 0. 4092 0. 4546
Cutting time (ms)
Fig. 3 Cutting force sensitivity versus cutting time with different
mesh sizes
time), second the result should be similar or close to
experimental values (in terms of cutting force and chip
morphology). For that, four mesh mean values are
discussed with characteristic length of 6, 8, 12, and
14 μm, where the simulated cutting forces are compared
with the experimental ones. The dynamic cutting force
versus the characteristic length is first investigated.
Furthermore, the fracture energy was refined to get the
appropriated material degradation evolution and conse-
quently the real segmented chip morphology.
Figure 3 presents the cutting force sensitivity for
different mesh sizes. For both characteristic length of 12
Limiting shear stress from the aspect of contact
mechanics
0.5
The Zorev’s temperature independent stick-slip friction
model [11], see Eq. 7, was widely adopted by many
authors [10, 15, 18, 19] to define the friction properties at
the tool—chip interface. Zorev advocated the existence of
two distinct tool—chip contact regions: In the stick zone
near the tool tip the shear stress tf is assumed to be equal
to the yield shear stress of the material being machined,
t Y,, whereas, in the sliding region, the frictional stress is
lower than the yield shear stress. Note that a constant
Coulomb friction coefficient is assumed here.

if t f < t Y & t f ¼ ms n ! Sliding region
ð7Þ
if t f ¼ t Y & t f  ms n ! Stick region
The yield shear stress tY, in Eq. 7 is usually related to the
conventional yield stress σY of the workpiece material
adjacent to the surface [18, 20, 21]. A reasonable upper

Fig. 4 Simplified contact model Cylinder 1-cutting tool Cylinder 1

at the tool-chip interface

(a) Z
Vchip Pc (c) Pc
X
Y Z
Rn p0 Y
Vc
ap
-a Cylinder 2

+a
X Cylinder 2-chip
For µ=0

(b)
Cutting tool Pc Friction Q
X
Y
Friction Q
Vchip a a
Chip contact zone
Workpiece
 Int J Mater Form

p0 contact surface p0 contact surface

(τ / po) ( τ / po)
(a) 0 (b) 0
0.20093 0.0287 29
04 80
-0.2 0.22963
0.0
-0.2 0.2
57 4 2
0.25833 0.25 43
0.3

0.2
07 0.0 0.3
60 1
-0.4

17
0.287 04 0.
08
-0.4 0.0

38
τ max / po = 0.37465
61 91
-0.6 τ max / po = 0.31574 11
-0.6
55
6
(at X = 0.6, Z = -0.45)
(at X = 0.0, Z = -0.72) 0.25
contact zone 0.2
contact zone

0.
12
-0.8 -0.8

30
0.1

1
14
81
-1 -1 0.3
11 0.2
0.15 74
-1.2 -1.2

-1.4 -1.4 0.28029

0.14352
0.15

22

0.15447
0.1

0.172

92
-1.6 -1.6

0.185
3
z/a 9 63 3
z/a 0. 2488
-1.8 0.22 09 -1.8 0.1
20
0.
0.05
-2 -2 0.21738

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x/a x/a
p0 contact surface p0 contact surface
( τ / po) (τ / po)
(c) 0 0.44081
1
(d) 0

0.
0. 4408 (at X = 0.42, Z = 0.0)

48

0.2
τmax / po =0.5271

79
-0.2 -0.2

92
1
0.4 0.45

13
0.44
τ max / po = 0.47727
0.404 35

0.

-0.4 0. -0.4
22

8 76
11 0.

0.2
20

(at X = 0.69, Z = -0.27) 26 13

7
5

55 0.4

0.4

52
0.35 1
0.36

-0.6

98
-0.6

09
0.

6
7 89

14
91

0.
0.
contact zone

17
-0.8
3

-0.8

37
0.35
contact zone

46
04

6
0.3

4
0.

-1 -1
33
14
3

0.3
0.3
-1.2 0.25 -1.2 0.
31
29
29
21
3
-1.4 0. 294 -1.4 0.25
0.18559

97

2
0.2

0.2138
-1.6 -1.6
z/a 0.25851
z/a 0.2
52
98
0.2
-1.8 -1.8
0.15
0.2
-2 22 0
5
-2 0.15

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

x/a x/a

Fig. 5 Contour plot of shear stress in chip contact zone for different CoFs: a μ=0.0; b μ=0.2; c μ=0.4; d μ=0.48

bound estimation [17] of the yield shear stress can be In which σ1, σ2 and σ3 are the principal stresses, and t Y
calculated by the von Mises criterion: and σY denote the yield stress values of the material in both
simple shear stress and tension, respectively.
1n o  However, when the CoF is relatively small, the maxi-
ðs 1  s 2 Þ2 þ ðs 2  s 3 Þ2 þ ðs 3  s 1 Þ2  t 2Y ¼ s 2Y 3
6 mum shear stress is found beneath the contact surface. If
ð8Þ this maximum value is adopted to define the limiting shear

0.6 600
0.575
CoF = 0
0.55 500 CoF = 0.1
CoF = 0.15
0.525 CoF = 0.2
0.5 400 CoF = 0.3
Y

Τ f ( MPa )

CoF = 0.4
0.475
/

CoF = 0.48
300
0.45
0.425 Maximum shear stress in contact zone
200
0.4 Maximum shear stress at contact surface
0.375 100
0.35
0 0.1 0.2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5 0.6 0 .7 0.8 0 .9 1 0
CoF - µ 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (ºC)
Fig. 6 Ratio of the limiting shear stress and σY versus CoF at a given
temperature Fig. 7 Limiting shear stress versus temperature for different CoFs
Int J Mater Form

Fig. 8 Chip morphology

Chip valley h2 =
obtained at VC =120 m/min, New formed
f=0.127 mm/rev: a computation free surface Considering crack
considering the scalar stiffness
degradation (SDEG = 0.74), and
b Experimental comparison with Free surface
[9] Segmentation
wavelength

Lc =
Chip peak

(a) (b)

stress, the material beneath the contact surface will yield Frictionless contact between two cylinders
before the surface material reaches the critical value. So, it
is necessary to redefine the critical limiting shear stress. According to Johnson [22], under a normal force Pc (per
The latter is introduced in detail from the point of view of length), the stress field distribution in the chip (here
contact mechanics by considering the relationship between schematized by cylinder2) is given by Eq. 9 below:
the CoF and temperature. 8 n   o
Figure 4(a) schematizes the tool and chip contact. The >
>
z2 þn2
ðs x Þp ¼  pa0 m1 1 þ m2 þn12  2z
>
>  1 1  
tool is fixed and the workpiece moves at the cutting speed >
>

>
> ðs z Þp ¼  pa0 m1 1  z 2þn12 s y ¼ v ðs x Þp þ ðs z Þp
2 2
>
>
Vc from left to right. To analyze the contact condition, a <  2 2m1 þn1 p
m z
small region at the interface was considered with a sliding ðt xz Þp ¼  pa0 n1 m21þn2
>
> 2
h  i
>
1 1
rate Vchip and a normal force Pc per length unit. More > 2 2 0:5
>
> m ¼ 1
ða 2
 x 2
þ z 2
Þ þ 4x z þ ð a2
 x2
þ z2
Þ
precisely the contact model was simplified according to >
>
1 p 2
h i
>
>

Fig. 4(b) which consists of a flat surface slider moving from : n21 ¼ 1 ða2  x2 þ z2 Þ þ 4x2 z2 0:5  ða2  x2 þ z2 Þ
p 2
left to right over a curved profile and with a steady velocity
Vchip. For frictionless elastic contact and when the contact ð9Þ
dimensions are small compared to the size of the contacting In the case of plane strain, the principal stresses can be
bodies (Hertz assumptions), the solution is well described calculated by Eq. 10.
by the Hertz theory [22]. The plane strain problem is 8 r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
> ðs x Þp þðs x Þp 2

equivalent to the contact between two cylinders, see < s ¼ ðs x Þp þðs z Þp  þ ð t Þ
1;2 xz p
Fig. 4(c), with a is the half contact width and p0 is the

2

2
 ð10Þ
>
: s 3 ¼ s y ¼ v ðs x Þ þ ðs z Þ :
maximum pressure at the contact center. It is important to p p p
note that the contact pressure is distributed along a semi-
elliptical shape between [-a, a] along the x-axis. Combining Eqs. 8–10, the shear stress distribution in the
The load at which material yield begins is related to the (X, Z) plane shown in Fig. 5 (a) with a maximum shear
yield threshold of the softer material (here the workpiece) in stress of 0.31574 p0 at a depth z=−0.72a. Note that for
a simple tension or shear test through an appropriate yield frictionless contact, the maximum shear stress is found at a
criterion [22]. location far below the surface whereas it reaches the surface

Table 3 Comparison between

experimental and numerical VC =120 (m/min) Lc (µm) Peak (µm) Valley (µm) Fc [5] (N)
chip geometry
Experiment 140 165 46.5 559
Simulation 133 161.5 48 541.3
 Int J Mater Form

Fig. 9 Comparaison between

the present simulations and
experiments [15] of chip mor-
phologies for f=0.1 mm/rev,
(Vc=60 m/min case of a and b)
and (Vc=180 m/min case
of c and d)

when CoF is equal or higher than 0.48. Consequently, for
frictionless contact or when the CoF is lower than 0.48, it is
necessary to consider the shear stress at the contact surface
as the limiting shear stress, not the maximum one which is
located at the hertzian depth.
Frictional contact between two cylinders
In presence of friction the contribution of the tangential force
þ s
Where q0 =μp0 is the tangential traction at x=0, and the
suffixes p and q refer to the stress components due to
normal pressure and tangential traction, respectively. Also,
it is assumed that the tangential traction has no effect upon
the normal pressure distribution. When superimposed to the
effect of the contact pressure (normal effect) it yields:
8
> s x ¼ ðs x Þq þ ðs x Þp
< s ¼ s

>
y y q y p
Q, acting on each contact surface along the direction opposed ð12Þ
>
> s ¼ ðs z Þq þ ðs z Þp
: z
to the motion (see Fig. 4(b)) should be also considered: t xz ¼ ðt xz Þq þ ðt xz Þp
8 n   o
>
> ðs x Þq ¼ qa0 n1 2  mz 2m
2 2
 2x
>
> þn12 Figure 5(b) presents the counter plots of the shear stress
>
< ðs Þ ¼ q0 ðt Þ
1

z q p0 xz p in the contact zone between the chip and the tool for a

 ð11Þ
>
> s y q ¼ v ðs x Þq þ ðs z Þq relatively low CoF, here 0.2. It is noticed that the maximum
>
>
>
: ðt xz Þ ¼ q0 ðs x Þ : shear stress is still below the contact interface. This
q p0 p maximum shear stress moves towards the interface when
Table 4 Comparison between
experimental and numerical Vc (m/min) Methods Lc (μm) Peak h1 (μm) Valley h2 (μm) Fc (N)
chip geometry
60 Experimentation [15] 100 N/A N/A 557
Simulation 96 136 94 600
180 Experimentation [15] 100 131 62 548
Simulation 96 132 77 580
Int J Mater Form
Table 5 Simulation parameters used in the study
Feed rate, f (mm) 0.06, 0.1, 0.127
Cutting speed, Vc (m/min) 60, 120, 180
CoF, µ 0.3, 0.7, 1
Rake angle, γ0 =15°, −6°, −4° Clearance angle, α0 =6°, 12°
Cutting width ap =2.54 mm Cutting edge radius Rn =30 μm
increasing the CoF as shown in Fig. 5(c) and (d). It reaches
the surface when μ≥0.48. Whereas only one point is
concerned when μ=0.48 (see Fig. 5(d)).
Figure 6 presents the maximum shear stress conditions at
the surface and below the contact versus the CoF. Results
are normalized by the material yield stress σY. It can be seen
that the maximum shear stresses are totally different when
the CoF is less than 0.48. When the CoF is higher than
0.48, the maximum shear p stress
ffiffiffi is located at the contact
interface and is equal to 1= 3s Y .
In practical condition, the yield stress σY is updated
according to variations with temperature, strain rate, etc.
So, it is necessary to identify accurately the limiting shear
stress at the contact interface. According to Komanduri
[23], the yield stress of Ti-6Al-4V evolving with tempera-
ture, by taking into account the results given in Fig. 6, it is
possible to draw the limiting shear stresses versus temper-
ature for different CoFs as shown in Fig. 7. It can be
noticed that the higher the CoF, the higher the limiting
shear stress, whereas the latter decreases monotonously
when the temperature increases. Therefore, both CoF and
temperature influence the limiting shear stress. The as-
sumption of constant threshold shear stresses regardless the
frictional properties and temperature is no more valid.
It is important to underline that this figure is drawn only
for CoFs varying between 0 and 0.48. Indeed, for CoF
higher than 0.48, thepffiffiffilimiting shear is found at the surface
and is equal to 1= 3 (see Fig. 6), and the limiting shear
stress is applied in the cutting model by user subroutine
VFRIC.
Fig. 10 SDEG distribution in
chip according to VC variation
for µ=0.7 and f=0.127 mm/rev: a
VC =60 m/min; b VC =120 m/min;
and c VC =180 m/min
Results and discussions
Numerical model validation with experimental works
In order to validate the model developed in the present work,
the numerical results presented are compared with experi-
mental data mainly gathered from literatures [5, 9, 15]. In the
present model, the failure of material is based on Pirondi’s
work [24], as described in experiment and simulation, crack
starts to take place when the scalar stiffness degradation
(SDEG) is larger than 0.74, so this value can be taken as the
critical value for determining the material failure occurrence.
The simulation carried-out following Jiang and Shivpu-
ri’s [9] data gives the result shown in Fig. 8(a). It can be
seen that the periodic cracks initiate at the free surface of
the cutting material ahead of the tool and is propagated
towards the tool tip. This result agrees with the works of
Vyas and Shaw [25]. The chip valley is measured from the
boundary of failure zone (SDEG=0.74) to the new formed
free surface for considering crack.
A comparison between results obtained by experimenta-
tion and simulation is shown in Table 3. It can be remarked
a good agreement between them. The average cutting force
(Fig. 3 with mesh size of 8 µm) is nearly equal to
Umbrello’s result [5] with the same cutting parameters.
Another comparison was made with Calamaz’s [15]
experiment (Fig. 9). In the case of a cutting speed of 60 m/
min, the chip segment morphologies as a result of the
periodic cracks initiation take place both at tool tip and the
free surface ahead of tool tip, where the failure zone at tool
tip is presented in the form of secondary shear zone [26]
(Fig. 9(a)), while the propagation of the failure zone at the
free surface only arrives at half of chip thickness arising
from the lower shear strain rates in the upper region of the
primary shear zone.
When the cutting speed increases to 180 m/min, the
failure zone (with the stiffness degradation larger than 0.74)
goes through the primary shear zone from two sides in and
out, as shown in Fig. 9(c), which is different form

0.14
Segmentation wavelength
0.12 Segmentation frequency
0.1
For Lc
0.08
L c(mm)
0.06
0.04
For fc
0.02
0 0
50 75 100 125 150 175
Cutting speed(m/min)
Fig. 11 Effect of VC on Lc and fc for f=0.127 mm, and μ=0.7
Luttervelt [27], who discovered the occurrence of a crack at
the tool tip and its propagation towards the free surface,
which is also different from Vyas and Shaw [25] as
mentioned above for rake angle is positive.
When the cutting speed increases, the stiffness degrada-
tion in the primary shear zone accelerates chip deformation
in further step i.e. the chip valley will become smaller
(Table 4), while the chip wavelength and peak nearly don’t
change. The cutting forces in these two conditions are
larger than the experimental value for the negative rake
angle, while the errors are less than 10%.
As a summary, it can be said that the new developed model
is in good corroboration with Shivpuri’s and Calamaz’s
experiments. It permits to predict the chip morphology and
the cutting force with a good approximation. Moreover, it
seems that the appropriate values of the limiting shear stress
are well expressed in this new proposed model.
It is also found that the chip morphology is different with
positive and negative rake angle cutting tool. Indeed, for
positive rake angle tool, the period cracks initiate at the free
surface of the machined material ahead of the tool and
propagate partway toward the tool tip. For negative rake
angle tool, the period cracks initiate at two free faces in and
Fig. 12 Temperature distribution with increased µ for f=0.127 mm/rev, VC =120 m/min: a µ=0.3; b µ=0.7; and c µ=1
Int J Mater Form
35 out, go through the primary shear zone, and join in together
30 forming the shear band zone with high cutting speed.
25
Parametric study of Ti-6Al-4V cutting
20
fc (kHz)
15 With the proposed new model, a numerical parametric
study concerning chip morphology in the in orthogonal
10
cutting of Ti-6Al-4V was performed. The process simula-
5 tion parameters are listed in Table 5.
200
Cutting speed effect on chip morphology
The SDEG distribution in the shear zone is shown in
Fig. 10 with increased cutting speed, hereinto the value
above 0.74 directly indicates the crack possibility of the
chip as mentioned in “Numberical model validation with
experimental works,” which is also a reason for segmented
chip, as described in [8], among other phenomena. When
cutting speed is equal to 60 m/min, the chip presents a
continuous part and a segmented. Nonetheless, the region with
the value of SDEG above 0.74 is just a small zone beneath the
free surface of the cutting material ahead of the tool tip. When
the cutting speed increases to 120 m/min, the segmentation
takes place on the entire chip, and part of the region with the
value of SDEG above 0.74 passes through half of the chip.
When the cutting speed increases to 180 m/min, the regions
with the value of SDEG above 0.74 nearly arrive at the free
surface around tool tip for all segmentations. So, the higher the
cutting speed the higher chip segmentation.
The segmentation frequency fc can be approximated by
the ratio Vc∕Lc, where Lc is chip segmentation wavelength as
it is indicated in Fig. 8(b) [28, 29]
Vc
fc ¼ ð13Þ
Lc
The computed chip segmentation wavelengths, for
cutting speeds 60, 120, and 180 m/min (as shown in
Int J Mater Form

600
interfaces. The CoF for sacrificial passage zone (see
500 (Fig. 1), Part 3) is taken constant. As shown in Fig. 12,
the temperature distribution on chip and tool is greatly
Average force(N)

400 Cutting force

Feed force influenced by the CoF variation. It is remarked that the
300 insert-zone where the temperature is of 581–720°C
migrates from tool-tip to the rake face-chip contact end,
200
as CoF varies from 0.3 to 1.
100 Moreover, it is noted the absence of friction effect on
cutting force which has an average value around 540N, as it
0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05
is illustrated in Fig. 13. This result can be expected because
CoF - µ the global chip morphology is remained the same with the
CoF variation. Whereas, the feed force does not rise with
Fig. 13 Evolution of the average cutting and feed force versus µ for
f=0.127 mm/rev, and VC =120 m/min the increased CoF, by contrary the values decline when CoF
evolves from 0.3 to 1. This phenomenon mainly attributes
Fig. 11), are constant, whereas the segmentation frequency to the thermal softening effect of the high temperature
is directly proportional to the cutting speed according to ahead of tool tip and rake face, and the limiting shear
Eq. 13. This result agrees with the experiment study carried stresses directly decrease as discussed in Fig. 7.
out by Sun [28].
Rake angle effect on chip morphology
CoF effect on chip morphology
Two feed rates 0.06 and 0.1 mm/rev were checked to study
To study the influence of CoF for the cutting of Ti-6Al-4V, rake angle effect on chip morphology. According to Fig. 14
friction values were taken 0.3, 0.7 and 1 for tool-chip it can be underlined that when passing from positive to

Fig. 14 Chip SDEG distribu-

tion at VC =120 m/min and µ=
0.7: a g 0 =15°, f=0.06 mm/rev;
b g 0 =−6°, f=0.06 mm/rev;
c g 0 =15°, f=0.1 mm/rev; and
d g 0 =−4°, f=0.1 mm/rev

negative angle the chip segmentation phenomenon becomes
more pronounced.
For the same tool-rake angle, the increase in feed rate
from 0.06 to 0.1 mm/rev implies more chip segmentation.
This can be observed when comparing Fig. 14(a) and (c).
So, the higher the feed rate the higher the material SDEG as
it is also shown by Fig. 14(b) and (d) (see the propagation
of SDEG between 0.74 and 1). It can be also underlined
that more negative rake angle, higher is the tool-workpiece
contact pressure and so the chip segmentation.
Concluding remarks
The aim of this contribution concerns the a numerical finite
element cutting model for an aeronautic Titanium alloy
referenced as Ti-6Al-4V. The major findings are summa-
rized as follows:
– The present work based on an energetic concept and
refined limiting shear stress to build a multi-part cutting
model under Abaqus\Explicit was presented. The
adopted approach can well predict the cutting force
and chip morphology, with the corresponding mis-
match less than 10 % compared with experiments. And
the cutting model can be used to simulate high
coefficient of friction (CoF) and low feed rate with
large cutting edge radius tool without convergence
problem. In order to obtain the appropriate model mesh
size for the present study, a mesh sensitivity analysis
was performed.
– The limiting shear stress at the tool-chip contact surface
is used as a friction model from the aspect of contact
mechanics. It is first shown that the surface shear stress
is linked to the contact pressure and the CoF. A
relationship between the CoF and the limiting shear
stress is given. The effect of the temperature on the
limiting shear stress is also considered.
– The presentation of a parametric study is carried out
with the new cutting model. This allowed bring some
physical comprehension accompanying chip formation
according to the variation of cutting speed, CoF, and
rake angle. The simulation result show that the higher
the cutting speed, the more marked chip segmentation
phenomenon, the distribution of material scalar stiff-
ness degradation on the chip seems to be located
closely to the tool surface.
– A refined measure of the computed chip segmentation
wavelengths show that they are constant regarding to
cutting speed variation, whereas chip segmentation
frequency is directly proportional to it. Moreover, the chip
segmentation is also more pronounced when the insert
geometry passes from positive to negative rake angle.
Int J Mater Form
– As CoF varies among 0.3 and 1, the highest temper-
ature located in the insert zone migrates from tool-tip to
the rake face-chip contact end. This temperature
migration has implied a decrease in feed force whereas
the variation of CoF is inactive regarding cutting force
variation.
In the meaning time, the FE model is being tested for
other materials in the objective to propose to the scientific
community a robust cutting model.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Prof.
Shivpuri and Prof. Calamaz for providing the experimental data in this
work, and especially for the financial support of China Scholarship
Council (CSC).
References
1. Arrazolaa PJ, Garaya A, Iriarte LM, Armendiaa M, Maryab S,
Maîtrec FL (2009) Machinability of titanium alloys (Ti6Al4V and
Ti555.3). J Mater Process Tech 209:2223–2230
2. Puerta Velasquez JD, Bolle B, Chevrier P, Geandier G, Tidu A
(2007) Metallurgical study on chips obtained by high speed
machining of a Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 452–453:469–
474
3. Ezugwu EO, Wang ZM (1997) Titanium alloys and their
machinability—a review. J Mater Process Tech 68:262–274
4. Hou ZB, Komanduri R (1995) On a thermo mechanical model of
shear instability in machining. CIRP Ann—Manuf Tech 44(1):69–73
5. Umbrello D (2008) Finite element simulation of conventional and
high speed machining of Ti6Al4V alloy. J Mater Process Tech
196:79–87
6. Childs THC (2006) Friction modelling in metal cutting. Wear 260
(3):310–318
7. Bonnet C, Valiorgue F, Rech J, Hamdi H (2008) Identification of a
friction model-Application to the context of dry cutting of an AISI
316L austenitic stainless steel with a TiN coated carbide tool. Int J
Mach Tools & Manuf 48:1211–1223
8. Mabrouki T, Rigal JF (2006) A contribution to a qualitative
understanding of thermo-mechanical effects during chip formation
in hard turning. J Mater Process Tech 176:214–221
9. Jiang H, Shivpuri R (2004) Prediction of chip morphology and
segmentation during the machining of titanium alloys. J Mater
Process Tech 150:124–133
10. Subbiah S, Melkote SN (2008) Effect of finite edge radius on
ductile fracture ahead of the cutting tool edge in micro-cutting of
Al2024T3. Mater Sci Eng A 474:283–300
11. Zorev NN (1963) Inter-relationship between shear processes
occurring along tool face and shear plane in metal cutting. Int
Res Prod Eng ASME, pp 42–49
12. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for
metals subject to large strains, high strain rates and high
temperatures. Proc. of the 7th international symposium on
ballistics, the Hague, pp 31–48
13. Lesuer DR (2000) Experiment investigations of material models for
Ti-6Al-4V Titanium and 2024-T3 Aluminum. Technical Report
14. http://www.matweb.com/. Accessed 25 August 2008
15. Calamaz M, Coupard D, Girot F (2008) A new material model for
2D numerical simulation of serrated chip formation when
machining titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
48:275–288
Int J Mater Form
16. Hillerborg A, Modeer M, Petersson PE (1976) Analysis of crack
formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture
mechanics and finite elements. Cem Concr Res 6:773–782
17. H.K.S, Abaqus/Explicit theory and user manuals, Version 6.8.2.
Accessed August 8, 2008
18. Haglund AJ, Kishawy HA, Rogers RJ (2008) An exploration of
friction models for the chip-tool interface using an Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element model. Wear 265:452–460
19. Shi GQ, Deng XM, Shet C (2002) A finite element study of the
effect of friction in orthogonal metal cutting. Fin Elem Anal Des
38:863–883
20. Liu CR, Guo YB (2000) Finite element analysis of the effect of
sequential cuts and tool-chip friction on residual stress in a
machined layer. Int J Mech Sci 42:1069–1086
21. Kishawy HA, Rogers RJ, Balihodzic N (2000) A numerical
investigation of the chip tool interface in orthogonal machining.
Int J Mech Sci 5:379–414
22. Johnson KL (1985) Contact mechanics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
23. Komanduri R, Hou ZB (2001) On thermoplastic shear instability
in the machining of a titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V). Metal Mater
trans 33:2995–3010
24. Pirondi A, Bonora N (2003) Modeling ductile damage under fully
reversed cycling. Comput Mater Sci 26:129–141
25. Vyas A, Shaw MC (1999) Mechanics of sawtooth chip formation
in metal cutting. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 121:163–172
26. Rech J, Calvez CL, Dessoly M (2004) A new approach for the
characterization of machinability—application to steels for plastic
injection molds. J Mater Process Tech 152:66–70
27. Luttervelt CAV, Pekelharing AJ (1977) The split shear zone—
mechanism of chip segmentation. Ann CIRP 25(1):33–37
28. Sun S, Brandt M, Dargusch MS (2009) Characteristics of cutting
forces and chip formation in machining of titanium alloys. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 49(7–8):561–568
29. Barry J, Byrne G (2001) Study on acoustic emission in machining
hardened steels, Part 1: acoustic emission during saw-tooth chip
formation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B: J Eng Manuf 215:1549–
1559