Dynamic Elastic Model of Ceramic Stock Removal

  • A. Choudry
  • P. J. Gielisse
Part of the Materials Science Research book series (MSR, volume 7)


Considerable work has been done on stock removal processes in metals; and on the failure properties of ceramics under ballistics impact. The former is dominated by plastic deformation prior to fracture, whereas the latter is. dominated by the propagation of a shock front which causes brittle fracture. For the process of ceramic stock removal as encountered in practice, neither of these mechanisms play dominant roles, i. e., neither the ceramic sample is expected to manifest plastic flow, nor do the practical machining techniques generate shock fronts. The theoretical model is thus different from commonly accepted theories of “cutting” and “brittle fracture in ceramics”. We shall describe a model where the cutting tool is a single diamond point as shown in Fig. 1. The conical diamond rotates with an effective radius R and is set to cut a V-shaped groove of depth r. The total length of the groove l is traversed by the cutting point in a large number of passes as the sample is fed with a velocity v.


Crack Length Grain Size Distribution Shock Front Stress Wave Wheel Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. J. Gielisse, T. J. Kim and A. Choudry, Proc. Eighth Cer. Symp. Alfred Univ., N. Y., Aug 26-29, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Steverding, J. Am. Cer. Soc., 52 (1969) 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Timoshenko and Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw Hill, N.Y. 1956.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. J. Gielisse, T. J. Kim and A. Choudry, Technical Report No. NOOO 1971 C O244 Naval Air Systems Command Dept. of Navy Wash. D. C. 20360.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. A. Griffith Proc. Intern Congr on Appl. Mech., Delft 1924.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. F. Brace, J. Geophys. Res., 65 (1960), 1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. C. Jaeger, Fracture Proc. first Tewksbury Symp. Univ. of Melbourne, August 1963, ed. C. J. Osborn.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. C. Drucker, Fracture, An advanced Treatise, Vol. 1, ed. H. Lieboritz Acad. Press. 1968.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Kolsky and D. Rader, loc. cit. 8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boussinesg J., Compt Rend, 154, 1883.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galin, L. A., Contact Problems, Ed. I. N. Sneddon, North Carolina State College, Raleigh, N. C. 1961.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Hertz, Collected Work, Vol VI 179 (1895).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahrens, T. J. Gust, and W. H. Royce; E. B., J. Appl. Phys. 39 (1968) 4610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delannoy, M., Lacam H., Phys. Rev. 6 (1972) 3593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rice, M. H., McQueen, R. G. and Walsh, J. M., Solid State Physics, F. Seitz and D. Turnbull, Eds. (Academic Press, Inc., N. Y. 1958) Vol. 6, pp. 1–63.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carniglia, S. C., J. Am. Cer. Soc. 55 (1972) 610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Triemel, J. and Pahhorst, H. J., Industrial Diamond Review, March 1973, pp. 95-101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Choudry
    • 1
  • P. J. Gielisse
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations