Advertisement

Methodology to establish a hybrid model for prediction of cutting forces and chip thickness in orthogonal cutting condition close to broaching

  • Gorka Ortiz-de-ZarateEmail author
  • Andres Sela
  • Mikel Saez-de-Buruaga
  • Mikel Cuesta
  • Aitor Madariaga
  • Ainhara Garay
  • Pedro J. Arrazola
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Broaching is a widely used finishing operation for the manufacturing of transmission gears which are commonly made of steel AISI 1045. Therefore, there is a high interest for industry to understand the metal cutting process and modeling could shed light on it. In the present work, an innovative methodology to establish a hybrid model based on the combination of empirical, numerical, and analytical approaches is presented. The hybrid model improves the cutting force, feed force, and chip thickness predictions when compared to the results obtained with the empirical, numerical, or analytical ones separately. The empirical model was developed by carrying out experimental tests under orthogonal condition close to broaching. The analytical method uses the Oxley law extended to the proposed flow stress model. DEFORM-2D software was used for the finite element model development with a specific subroutine for the constitutive model. The influence of each approach in the hybrid model was calculated based on a statistical analysis between experimental and model results. Moreover, to achieve better predictions in the numerical and analytical models, the material was characterized by static and dynamic compression tests to take into account strain softening and coupling between strain rate and temperature phenomena, not considered in the commonly used Johnson-Cook law. Furthermore, the hybrid model was validated with additional experimental tests, to demonstrate its validity in a wide range of cutting conditions. The relative error obtained with the hybrid model in force and chip thickness predictions were 6% and 12%, respectively, reducing more than three times the maximum error in comparison to any other approach.

Keywords

Hybrid model AISI 1045 Machining Transmission gear Orthogonal cutting Broaching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Laboratory Technicians Denis Soriano and Erika Dominguez for their assistance in the realization of experimental tests and chip analysis.

Funding information

This study was funded by Basque and Spanish Government projects AEROBROCH (UE2016–07), SMAPRO (KK-2017/00021), MICROMAQUINTE (PI_2014_1_116), EMULATE (DP12015–67667-C3-3R), and in the grant for Education and Training of Research Staff (PRE_2017_1_0394).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Abed FH, Saffarini MH, Abdul-Latif A, Voyiadjis GZ (2017) Flow stress and damage behavior of C45 steel over a range of temperatures and loading rates. J Eng Mater Technol 139(2):021012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kishawy HA, Hosseini A, Moetakef-Imani B, Astakhov VP (2012) An energy based analysis of broaching operation: cutting forces and resultant surface integrity. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 61(1):107–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kokturk U, Budak E (2004) “Optimization of broaching tool design,” Proceeding of the CIRP ICME, vol 4Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hosseini A, Kishawy H (2013) Prediction of cutting forces in broaching operation. J Adv Manuf Syst 12(01):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ortiz-de-Zarate G, Soler D, Cuesta M, Madariaga A, Garay A, Arrazola P (2017) “Predictive model of forces for aeronautic materials fir tree broaching,” Proceeding of ISABE 2017Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klocke F, Vogtel P, Gierlings S, Lung D, Veselovac D (2013) Broaching of Inconel 718 with cemented carbide. Prod Eng 7(6):593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merchant ME (1945) Mechanics of the metal cutting process. I. Orthogonal cutting and a type 2 chip. J Appl Phys 16(5):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arrazola P, Özel T, Umbrello D, Davies M, Jawahir I (2013) Recent advances in modelling of metal machining processes. CIRP Ann 62(2):695–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li W, Kara S (2011) An empirical model for predicting energy consumption of manufacturing processes: a case of turning process. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 225(9):1636–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Budak E, Altintas Y, Armarego E (1996) Prediction of milling force coefficients from orthogonal cutting data. J Manuf Sci Eng 118(2):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaymakci M, Kilic Z, Altintas Y (2012) Unified cutting force model for turning, boring, drilling and milling operations. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 54:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merchant ME (1945) Mechanics of the metal cutting process. II. Plasticity conditions in orthogonal cutting. J Appl Phys 16(6):318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hastings W, Mathew P, Oxley P (1980) A machining theory for predicting chip geometry, cutting forces etc. from work material properties and cutting conditions. Proc R Soc Lond A 371(1747):569–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oxley P (1998) Development and application of a predictive machining theory. Mach Sci Technol 2(2):165–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Astakhov VP, Xiao X (2008) A methodology for practical cutting force evaluation based on the energy spent in the cutting system. Mach Sci Technol 12(3):325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boothroyd G (1963) Temperatures in orthogonal metal cutting. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 177(1):789–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fang N, Jawahir I (2002) An analytical predictive model and experimental validation for machining with grooved tools incorporating the effects of strains, strain-rates, and temperatures. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 51(1):83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oxley PLB, Hastings W (1976) Minimum work as a possible criterion for determining the frictional conditions at the tool/chip interface in machining. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 282(1310):565–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Third Wave Systems AdvantEdge Version 7.3 User manual (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Özel T, Zeren E (2007) Finite element modeling the influence of edge roundness on the stress and temperature fields induced by high-speed machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35(3–4):255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vogtel P, Klocke F, Puls H, Buchkremer S, Lung D (2013) Modelling of process forces in broaching Inconel 718. Procedia CIRP 8:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jayal A, Badurdeen F, Dillon O Jr, Jawahir I (2010) Sustainable manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2(3):144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li X, Iynkaran K, Nee A (1999) A hybrid machining simulator based on predictive machining theory and neural network modelling. J Mater Process Technol 89:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grzesik W (2006) Determination of temperature distribution in the cutting zone using hybrid analytical-FEM technique. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46(6):651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mondelin A, Valiorgue F, Rech J, Coret M, Feulvarch E (2012) Hybrid model for the prediction of residual stresses induced by 15-5PH steel turning. Int J Mech Sci 58(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jing X, Li H, Wang J, Tian Y (2014) Modelling the cutting forces in micro-end-milling using a hybrid approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(9–12):1647–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ozel T, Llanos I, Soriano J, Arrazola P-J (2011) 3D finite element modelling of chip formation process for machining Inconel 718: comparison of FE software predictions. Mach Sci Technol 15(1):21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnson GR, “A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, Netherlands, 1983, 1983Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang X, Huang C, Zou B, Liu H, Zhu H, Wang J (2013) Dynamic behavior and a modified Johnson–cook constitutive model of Inconel 718 at high strain rate and elevated temperature. Mater Sci Eng A 580:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lurdos O, Montheillet F, Damamme G (2008) Empirical and physically based flow rules relevant to high speed processing of 304L steel. Int J Mater Form 1(1):1431–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iturbe A, Giraud E, Hormaetxe E, Garay A, Germain G, Ostolaza K, Arrazola P (2017) Mechanical characterization and modelling of Inconel 718 material behavior for machining process assessment. Mater Sci Eng A 682:441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melkote SN, Grzesik W, Outeiro J, Rech J, Schulze V, Attia H, Arrazola P-J, M’Saoubi R, Saldana C (2017) Advances in material and friction data for modelling of metal machining. CIRP Ann 66(2):731–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saez-de-Buruaga M, Esnaola J, Aristimuno P, Soler D, Björk T, Arrazola P (2017) A coupled Eulerian Lagrangian model to predict fundamental process variables and wear rate on ferrite-pearlite steels. Procedia CIRP 58:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abdelali HB, Claudin C, Rech J, Salem WB, Kapsa P, Dogui A (2012) Experimental characterization of friction coefficient at the tool–chip–workpiece interface during dry cutting of AISI 1045. Wear 286:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng K (2008) Machining dynamics: fundamentals, applications and practices. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    DEFORM (2012) Deform™-user manual V10.2. Scientific forming technologies corporationGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ducobu F, Arrazola P-J, Rivière-Lorphèvre E, Ortiz de Zarate G, Madariaga A, Filippi E (2017) The CEL method as an alternative to the current modelling approaches for Ti6Al4V orthogonal cutting simulation. Procedia CIRP 58:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tay A, Stevenson M, de Vahl Davis G, Oxley P (1976) A numerical method for calculating temperature distributions in machining, from force and shear angle measurements. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research 16(4):335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fenton R, Oxley P (1969) Mechanics of orthogonal machining: predicting chip geometry and cutting forces from work-material properties and cutting conditions. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 184(1):927–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hastings W, Oxley P, Stevenson M (1974) Predicting a material’s machining characteristics using flow stress properties obtained from high-speed compression tests. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 188(1):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oxley P, Hastings W (1977) Predicting the strain rate in the zone of intense shear in which the chip is formed in machining from the dynamic flow stress properties of the work material and the cutting conditions. Proc R Soc Lond A 356(1686):395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oxley P (1962) Shear angle solutions in orthogonal machining. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research 2(3):219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stevenson MG, Oxley P (1970) An experimental investigation of the influence of strain-rate and temperature on the flow stress properties of a low carbon steel using a machining test. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 185(1):741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lalwani D, Mehta N, Jain P (2009) Extension of Oxley’s predictive machining theory for Johnson and Cook flow stress model. J Mater Process Technol 209(12–13):5305–5312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arrazola P, Ugarte D, Villar J, Marya S (2006) “Finite element modelling: a qualitative tool to study high speed machining,” in Fifth international conference on high speed machining (HSM), Metz, France, pp. 14–16Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ortiz-de-Zarate G, Madariaga A, Garay A, Azpitarte L, Sacristan I, Cuesta M, Arrazola P (2018) Experimental and FEM analysis of surface integrity when broaching Ti64. Procedia CIRP 71:466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sivaraman V, Sankaran S, Vijayaraghavan L (2012) The effect of cutting parameters on cutting force during turning multiphase microalloyed steel. Procedia CIRP 4:157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lalwani D, Mehta N, Jain P (2008) Experimental investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel. J Mater Process Technol 206(1–3):167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Altintas Y (2012) Manufacturing automation: metal cutting mechanics, machine tool vibrations, and CNC design. Cambridge university pressGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang J, Huang C, Song W (2003) The effect of tool flank wear on the orthogonal cutting process and its practical implications. J Mater Process Technol 142(2):338–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Byrd RH, Gilbert JC, Nocedal J (2000) A trust region method based on interior point techniques for nonlinear programming. Math Program 89(1):149–185MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringMondragon UnibertsitateaMondragonSpain

Personalised recommendations