See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245368267

Mechanical Properties of Hardened AISI 52100

Steel in Hard Machining Processes

Article in Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · February 2002

DOI: 10.1115/1.1413775

CITATIONS READS

81 4,756

2 authors, including:

Y.B. Guo
University of Alabama
222 PUBLICATIONS 2,874 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Y.B. Guo on 31 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanical Properties of
Hardened AISI 52100 Steel in
Y. B. Guo*
Hard Machining Processes
This paper provides an approach using tensile tests at elevated temperatures to estimate
C. R. Liu mechanical properties of the work material for both elastic and plastic deformations in a
broad range of strain, strain rate, and temperature in machining. The proposed method
School of Industrial Engineering, has been applied to estimate mechanical properties of hardened AISI 52100 steel in hard
Purdue University, machining. Tensile testing is shown capable of estimating the mechanical properties of
West Lafayette, IN 47907 both elastic and plastic regions with large strains at elevated temperatures. Flow stresses
at high strain rates in machining can be obtained by extrapolating the data from tensile
tests by using the velocity-modified temperature. Flow stress data from tensile and cutting
tests is consistent with regard to the velocity-modified temperature. Temperature is the
dominant factor of mechanical properties of this material, while the effect of strain rate is
secondary. Cutting forces and chip geometry predicted by the 3D FEM simulation of hard
turning using the material property data obtained from the developed method agree well
with the experimental data. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1413775兴

1 Introduction 2 Literature Review and Testing Method Evaluation

As shorter production sequences and higher flexibility are be-
coming increasingly important, the potential of time saving and
flexibility made possible by hard machining processes are highly
desired. Hard machining with geometrically defined cutting edges
has the potential to replace grinding as a finishing process. Sub-
stantial advantages in terms of flexibility, lower cost, and more
environmentally-friendly production in addition to high surface
integrity and surface finish may be achieved with this innovative
technology 关1–3兴.
Most of the workpiece materials used in hard machining are
case or through hardened steels. This paper focuses on the bearing
steel AISI 52100 共62 HRC兲 which is widely used in engineering
applications.
The material properties are determining factors on the advan-
tages mentioned above. The material properties are also essential
inputs for any FEM simulation and other analytical modeling of
hard machining processes to predict machining performance. In
addition, the material properties are required to measure the sur-
face integrity parameters such as residual stresses. As it is well
known, one of the most significant problems for the simulation of
real materials is to obtain material properties in the elastic and
plastic regions under machining conditions such as high strain/
strain rate, high temperature and their histories. Obtaining the nec-
essary data of material properties has been identified as one of two
key problems for the future of computational mechanics of the
machining process 关4兴. Although research on hard machining has
been conducted for years, the material properties of 52100 steel
共62HRC兲 at conditions as are occurring in cutting operations are
scarce in literature. Thus, one objective of this paper is to develop
a new, reliable, systematic and efficient approach to obtain mate-
rial property data of 52100 steel 共62HRC兲 in hard machining. The
other objective is to show that FEM prediction in terms of cutting
forces and the chip geometry is good with reasonable accuracy
using these material data obtained from the developed method.
*Corresponding author 共guo – yb@yahoo.com兲
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
August 1999; revised April 2001. Associate Editor: M. Elbestawi.
The following mechanical properties, which are functions of
strain/strain rate and temperature, are desired in both industry and
academia: 共1兲 Young’s modulus; 共2兲 Poisson’s ratio; 共3兲 yield
strength/strain; and 共4兲 flow stress/strain, and so on. There are two
possible ways to get the mechanical properties, tension or com-
pression tests and cutting experiments. Material properties in the
elastic and plastic regions can be obtained from tension or com-
pression test under elevated temperatures and moderate strain
rates. Average flow stress and strain may also be calculated from
cutting models.
A carefully designed machining test may provide an effective
method for measuring a material’s average flow stress properties
at a strain rate range at cutting conditions. In fact, for high strains
共1 and over兲, strain rates (103 to 106 /s) and temperatures 共200 to
1000°C兲 encountered in machining, it is difficult to conceive of a
more suitable testing method. The philosophy of obtaining a work
material’s flow stress properties from relatively few machining
test results and then applying these to make predictions of cutting
forces, and so on, over a much wider range of conditions, there-
fore, appears a sound one. However, the approach of using ma-
chining results to predict machining results clearly invites accusa-
tions of tail chasing 关5兴. The disadvantage of a machining test is
that only one data point of average flow stress/strain in a small
range of strain, strain rate, and temperature is available in one
cutting test. Using multiple cutting conditions, one can get a series
of stress/strain data. However, it is impractical to choose cutting
conditions to generate flow stress at the specified strain, strain
rate, and temperature. The material property dependence on strain/
strain rate and temperature histories is next to impossible to obtain
from metal cutting tests as they are difficult to control. Cutting
models are also difficult to estimate flow stresses/strains in a
broad range of strain, strain rate, and temperature. Even for the
estimated average flow stresses, it is difficult to estimate the cor-
responding strain rate and temperature as these parameters are
difficult to measure or calculate in machining process. The worst
of it is that cutting models may not estimate mechanical property
data including Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in the elastic
range. However, cutting models provide an approximate method
to obtain the average flow stress/strain data in metal cutting
processes.
Alternatively if one has an accurate constitutive model and fits

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 1

Copyright © 2002 by ASME
the parameters of the model using a few cutting tests, it would be
a perfect method. However, this constitutive model is not cur-
rently available.
For the time being, either method discussed above is thought
impractical to get the complete data as needed in FEM analysis. It
would be far better, from viewpoint of attempting to predict ma-
chining responses, if this could be done using material properties
obtained from an independent test.
In typical tension or compression tests the strain rate is lower
than that usually encountered in machining but the testing tem-
perature can cover a wide range 共room temperature to 1100°C兲.
This makes it possible to extrapolate the tension or compression
test results into the machining range by using the velocity
modified temperature parameter concept of MacGregor and
Fisher T mod 关6兴.
T mod⫽T 关 1⫺ ␯ log共 ␧˙ /␧˙ 0 兲兴 (1)
Here T and ␧˙ are the testing temperature and strain rate, and ␯ and
␧˙ 0 are material constants for a given material and range of testing
conditions. For a wide range of materials, from low carbon to high
carbon steels, ␯ and ␧˙ 0 are 0.09 and 1, respectively 关5兴. Research
关5兴 has given support to the validity of the velocity modified tem-
perature parameter. It has shown that flow stress data obtained
from high speed compression tests for a range of plain carbon
steels is suitable for use in making machining predictions. The
constitutive equation can be achieved by obtaining values of H
and n, which through the following equation, are taken as defining
the stress-strain curve of a material for a given strain rate and
temperature, from tension test results and then expressing these as
functions of velocity modified temperature.
␴ ⫽H␧ n (2)
Stevenson and Stephenson 关7兴 and Stevenson 关8兴 have shown
that the flow stress data derived by the metal cutting models is
‘‘consistent’’ with those by the compression test at very low cut-
ting speeds and low strain rates. Mechanical properties, including
Poisson ratio and failure stress/strain as a function of temperature,
were not obtained. This means the standard material test may give
the material properties at low cutting temperatures.
From literature review and reasoning we see that conducting
independent material testing at elevated temperature and extrapo-
lating experimental data to machining range is a feasible approach
to approximate the material behavior in machining. The material
properties are also homogeneous from the tensile or compression
testing. Spaans 关9兴 was one of the first researchers to use the Split
Hopkinson method to estimate mechanical properties of the work
material in metal cutting. Torsional Hopkinson bar tests were con-
ducted to measure stress-strain properties relevant to machining
and high speed forming 关10兴. Split Hopkinson bar impact testing
has been used to obtain the flow stress data of the materials under
elevated temperature and relatively low strain rate 共below 2000
s⫺1兲 关11–12兴. However, the testing system is very complex.
The pros and cons of the compression and tensile tests may be
evaluated in terms of four characteristics: 共1兲 High temperature:
the tensile testing can be conducted in the chamber with accurate
temperature control 共up to 1000°C兲. The compression test such as
the split Hopkinson bar may be conducted at elevated temperature
theoretically, but in practice, it is very difficulty to implement due
to the small size of the specimen 共the diameter and the height of
the specimen are usually less than 10 mm兲. To make such a small
chamber using induction heating with accurate temperature con-
trol is challenging. Furthermore, even if such a chamber can be
made, the transmission bar with the specimen mounted on it is
also in the high temperature field while the incident bar is not. The
Table 1 Chemical composition of AISI 52100 Steel
2 Õ Vol. 124, FEBRUARY 2002
test results will not be accurate due to the differences in the wave
speeds of the bars. 共2兲 Strain: The failure stress/strain of ductile
materials are difficult to obtain from compression testing. Strains
in the tensile testing are usually larger than those in the compres-
sion testing which is limited by the equipment load capability and
the large deformation of the specimen. The strain in tensile testing
may be determined accurately by using a high temperature exten-
someter, while the strain can only be estimated from the signals
which are usually corrupted by the wave phase lag. 共3兲 Strain rate:
relatively high strain rates 共up to 2000 s⫺1兲 can be achieved in
split Hopkinson bar testing, while low strain rates 共1–100 s⫺1兲
may be obtained in tensile testing. However, high strain rates 共up
to 106 s⫺1) are common in cutting. Neither testing methods can
achieve such a high strain rate, and the magnitude discrepancy is
very large. 共4兲 Specimen factor: The hardness of the split Hopkin-
son bar is similar to the hardness of the work material of AISI
52100 共62 HRC兲 and can be damaged during testing. This disad-
vantage can be easily avoided in the tensile testing. Mechanical
property data from either test need to be extrapolated to a certain
degree to apply the data to machining. The strain rate was ex-
trapolated to the machining range 共up to 106 ) based on the veloc-
ity modified temperature using tensile testing at elevated tempera-
ture. Both temperature and strain rate needed to be extrapolated if
the split Hopkinson bar testing is used. Unfortunately, temperature
is usually the dominant factor for material flow stress, while strain
rate effect is not as important. Considering these factors, the au-
thors used tensile testing at elevated temperature. The strain and
the temperature of tensile testing were not extrapolated to apply
the data to FEA of the cutting process. The average material flow
stress/strain under cutting conditions may also be evaluated ap-
proximately from cutting models. Both tensile and cutting tests
are used and viewed as complementary in this research. By doing
this, material behavior in machining processes may be recovered.
It is clear that the problems treated in this paper are very difficult
in nature and the right answers are not available. That is partial
motivation for this original work.
Two hypotheses are made in this paper:
1 Tensile testing at elevated temperature may estimate the me-
chanical properties of the work materials in machining.
2 The FEM model can simulate machining processes with rea-
sonable fidelity using the tensile testing data.
3 Experimental Procedure
The annealed 7/16 in. diameter AISI 52100 steel bar was ma-
chined into tensile specimens 1/4 in. in diameter and 6 in. long.
The chemical composition of AISI 52100 steel is given in Table 1.
The 52100 bars in annealed state were turned, ground gently and
polished to achieve the specified geometric tolerance and surface
finish. The effect of imperfection or pre-existing flaw on material
testing data should be very small. The machined specimens were
held at 1550°F⫾25°F for three hours in a 1 percent carbon po-
tential atmosphere, and were then quenched in oil and kept at
140°F for fifteen minutes. A subzero treatment was performed to
improve the microstructure stability of the specimens. To reduce
brittleness and residual stresses, and increase ductility and tough-
ness, tempering was done at 300°F⫾10°F for one hour followed
by air cooling to room temperature. The measured hardness of the
specimen is 62 共⫾1兲 HRC. The heat-treated specimens were
cleaned gently using sandpaper. The hardness of the specimen was
rechecked after cleaning to ensure the specimens had the designed
hardness. It is believed that there were no extensive tempering and
microstructure change induced in specimen cleaning.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 1 Specimen geometry and dimension

As through hardened 52100 steel 共62HRC兲 is brittle in nature at uniformly distributed thermocouples and controlled by the com-
room and low temperatures, fracture resulting from surface cracks puter. The tensile testing doesn’t begin until a uniform tempera-
in tensile testing may create difficulty in determining the strain ture of the specimen is reached. The high temperature extensom-
gage location and thus affect the testing results. The potential eter was attached to the specimen by a cobalt alloy bar which has
surface cracks were minimized by gentle grinding, polishing and high temperature resistance and rigidity. Signals from the load cell
cleaning after heat treatment to achieve a high surface finish. The and the extensometer were fed into the PC-based data sampling
finished geometry and dimension of the specimen is shown in Fig. and analysis unit. The cylindrical specimen with threaded ends is
1. Both specimen ends have threads that connect to the grippers of fixtured into a closely aligned 3 post servo-hydraulic test system
the tensile testing machine. Stepped diameter was designed for that is calibrated according to ASTM E4. The system contains a
constraining break location and reducing the failure load of the sliding platen to ensure lateral rigidity. The sample is fixtured such
specimen. A radius at the diameter change provides smooth size that backlash is effectively eliminated.
transition. Burrs were removed and sharp edges were chamfered. In tensile testing at room temperature, the specifications of the
These specifications should reduce stress concentrations in tensile strain gage are:
testing. Minimizing stress concentration and surface cracks on the Gage factor S g : 2.155 at 24°C
specimen surface are important for successful tensile testing at Voltage V: 4.0 Volts
room temperature as the material is brittle. In addition, straight- Amplitude factor C: 100
ness and roundness were also specified to reduce the bending Extensometers are of ASTM E83 class B-2. The method of
effect in tensile testing. determination of Poisson’s ratio at room temperature and elevated
Tensile tests were conducted at six temperature levels: room temperatures was different. At room temperature, the axial exten-
temperature, 200°C, 400°C, 600°C, 800°C, and 1000°C. Although someter is rotated in approximately 120 deg increments and the
an ideal material property testing needs to have the same heating corresponding load vs. strain recorded for each of the three posi-
scenario as that of cutting process, the heating condition in a tions. The diametral extensometer is rotated in 60 deg increments
cutting process can only be approximated in an independent ma- and again the corresponding load vs. strain recorded. Poisson’s
terial test. In each tensile test, the temperature of the specimen ratio is determined from the average of the slopes of the recorded
was stable and controlled with high accuracy 共⫾5°C兲. The tem- measurements. At elevated temperature, both an axial and a dia-
perature of the specimen rose very quick in the chamber for the metral extensometer were attached to the test sample.
specimen to achieve as high as 1000°C. The tensile tests were Two sets of hard machining tests using the same work material
performed at strain rates of 1–100 s⫺1. The hardness of the unde- as that in the tensile tests were conducted. The orthogonal cutting
formed section of the specimens was rechecked after each testing experiments with sharp PCBN tools, in Table 2, was conducted to
and found to still be 53 HRC after testing at 400°C. During the calculate the average flow stress of the work material and the
testing, the authors cannot in-process measure the hardness of the
specimen in the chamber. The specimen did experience some tem-
pering in the heating process. A tempered layer on the machined
surface can also be noticed in hard turning experiments. Temper-
ing in the chips is usually larger than that on machined surface. It
may be assumed that extensive tempering and spheroidization
doesn’t take place during such a short heating time. The discrep-
ancy between the specimen heating process and the heating ex-
cursion during cutting should not be large. The duration of the
specimen at elevated temperatures in any material tests affects the
measured values of the mechanical properties. An ideal material
property test needs to have the same heating condition as that in
the cutting process. However, the heating condition in a cutting
process can only be approximated in an independent material test.
It should be realized that the values of the mechanical properties
measured in the tests might deviate from those occurring in cut-
ting. The deviation should not be too large under good approxi-
mated testing conditions.
Three tensile tests at each temperature level were conducted to
reduce the experimental errors. Figure 2 shows the experimental
setup at elevated temperatures, which are recorded and controlled
by the computer. The setup for tensile testing at room temperature
is similar to Fig. 2 except a strain gage was used instead of an Fig. 2 Experimental setup schematic of tensile testing at el-
extensometer. The specimen temperature was measured by three evated temperature

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 3

 Table 2 Cutting conditions of orthogonal cutting

Table 3 Cutting conditions of hard facing

average chip temperature, in Appendix B, and to correlate the data microscope. The deviation from linearity, Fig. 3, corresponds to
with those from tensile testing. The hard facing experiment, Table the initial crack opening displacement and the fracture stress cor-
3, was used to verify the results of FEM simulation of the hard responds to the gross fracture. It should be pointed out that the
facing process. In both sets of cutting experiments, forces were tensile strength at room temperature is not defined for this curve,
recorded by a two-component force dynamometer. as the material is brittle in nature at this temperature.
At 200°C, the specimen has appreciable deformation because of
4 Experimental Results and Discussion increased ductility at elevated temperature. Necking is obvious in
the middle of the specimen. Compared to the stress-strain data at
The tensile testing was repeated three times at each testing tem-
room temperature, higher stress values exist in the plastic region
peratures. It was found that the engineering stress-strain data of
because of strain hardening resulting from relatively large plastic
the AISI 52100 specimens 共62HRC兲 has little variation at each
deformations in Fig. 4. Two mechanisms which affect the material
testing temperature indicating the testing results have good repeat-
ability. The engineering stress-strain curves for the AISI 52100
specimens 共62 HRC兲 are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 at
room temperature, 200°C, 400°C, 600°C, 800°C, and 1000°C,
respectively.
At room temperature, the engineering stress is calculated by
dividing the load by the original cross section area. The engineer-
ing strain e is calculated using
4⌬E
e⫽ (3)
S g •V•C
No necking was observed in the room temperature tensile tests.
The measurement of the diameter before and after testing shows
that the diameter change is negligible. This shows that AISI 52100
steel 共62 HRC兲 is brittle at room temperature. The yields stress
and strain corresponding to the point where the curve deviates
from the straight line would be found from Fig. 3. However, the
stress at 0.2 percent offset strain is not taken as the yield stress
and strain for the material at room temperature as the definition is
usually used for ductile materials. As the specimen at room tem-
perature had such a little deformation before breakage in a very
Fig. 4 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel
short time that the plastic deformation cannot be observed under a
„62 HRC… at 200°C

Fig. 3 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel Fig. 5 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel
„62 HRC… at room temperature „62 HRC… at 400°C

4 Õ Vol. 124, FEBRUARY 2002 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 6 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel
„62 HRC… at 600°C
Fig. 7 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel
„62 HRC… at 800°C
Fig. 8 The engineering stress-strain curve for AISI 52100 steel
„62 HRC… at 1000°C
strength, i.e., strain hardening and thermal softening, compete in
the deformation process. At this temperature, strain hardening is
dominant. The effect of thermal softening becomes obvious at
400°C in Fig. 5. It shows that the flow stress value varies within a
small range over a large range of plastic strain after an initial
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
strain hardening stage. Generally, as the test temperature is in-
creased, tensile strength decreases while ductility increases. In
particular, note the precipitous decrease in tensile strength be-
tween 400°C and 600°C, shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The possible
microstructure change results in the change of stress-strain curve
pattern near the yield stress in Fig. 6. At this temperature, the
pattern of the stress-strain curve is similar to that of low carbon
steel characterized by the curve feature near the yield stress. The
flat stress curves of Figs. 7 and 8, demonstrate that the effect of
strain hardening is largely cancelled by that of thermal softening.
The stress-strain pattern near the yield strength indicates possible
microstructure change around 1000°C, but the type of change is
uncertain in both Figs. 6 and 8. The dramatic decrease of tensile
strength can be noticed after 600°C due to the combined effect of
thermal softening and possible microstructure change. The par-
ticular pattern of the stress-strain curve near the yield point, Figs.
6 and 8, might be attributed to microstructure changes at certain
testing temperatures. The testing equipment related factors were
excluded as another three tests under the same testing conditions
were conducted and produced the same results. The phenomena
did not occur at other testing temperatures such as room tempera-
ture, 200°C, and 400°C. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that
microstructure change might exist at certain testing temperatures.
Phase transformations of the machined surface and of the chips
can also be noticed in hard turning experiments. However, it is
uncertain which phase transformation occurs as a reliable relation-
ship between microstructure, temperature and time is not available
for machining this work material. The metallurgy aspect of the
phenomena may be addressed in another study. The author’s cur-
rent interest is to obtain the mechanical property data at the el-
evated temperature.
In most situations, such as FEM simulations, true stress-strain
data is needed. The engineering stress-strain data from the experi-
ments can be easily converted to its true counterpart. The equa-
tions employed to generate the true stress-strain data are provided
in Appendix A. The converted true stress-strain data and the mea-
sured Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are listed in Table 4.
The data was corrected by the Bridgman factor due to the effect of
necking. Curve fitting can be applied easily to these stress-strain
data to find the coefficients H and n in Eq. 共2兲.
The elevated temperature testing covers a wide range of tem-
perature 共room temperature to 1000°C兲 and strain. However, the
strain rate is lower than that usually encountered in machining.
The effect of strain rate on material properties of AISI 52100 steel
共62HRC兲 need to be examined. In order to correlate material prop-
erties from tensile testing and the cutting experiments, the cutting
forces were measured in the orthogonal cutting of a 52100 steel
共62HRC兲 tube using cutting condition of Table 2. The metal cut-
ting data were analyzed in the conventional way to determine the
flow stress, strain rate, and the average temperature rise in the
chip. The strain rate and the average temperature rise of the chip
were calculated using an approach proposed by Oxley 关5兴, which
demonstrates excellent results. Three sets of cutting tests with
different cutting conditions were conducted while cutting and
thrust forces were measured and used to estimate flow stresses,
strain rates, and average temperature rise of the chips. The calcu-
lated flow stresses and the corresponding T mod is shown in Table 7
corresponding to strain rate of 6.57⫻104 s⫺1⫺8.61⫻104 s⫺1
which is in the strain rate range of machining. Additional details
are provided in Appendix B. It was observed that the continuous
chip portion stills exists in hard turning experiments. Shearing is
still the main mechanism of chip formation. Toenshoff 关2兴 showed
that the ductile mode of work materials exists close to the region
of cutting edge in hard turning. These facts support the usage of
the conventional analysis of flow stress in hard machining. Yield
stress points, taken from the curves in Figs. 3 to 8, were replotted
against T mod in Fig. 9 and can be seen to fit a single curve. The
data from the cutting experiments fits the curve well, thus support-
ing the use of Eq. 共1兲 for conditions where strain rate and tem-
FEBRUARY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 5

Fig. 9 Flow stress vs. velocity-modified temperature T mod
perature vary over large ranges and are of the same order of mag-
nitude as in machining. The cutting data location for a large range
of strain rate (6.57⫻104 – 105 s⫺1) has little variation with regard
to the curve, i.e., the strain rate effect is minor in determining the
flow stress of this material in hard machining. It indicates that the
material flow stresses from tensile testing at elevated temperatures
are consistent with the data from machining tests.
5 FEM Simulation and Experimental Comparison
Two processes of dry hard facing a through hardened 52100
steel 共HRC 62兲 using sharp PCBN cutting tools 共BZN 8100兲 were
simulated using the fully elastic-plastic explicit FEM model. The
cutting conditions are given in Table 3. The PCBN cutting tool
geometry is 共⫺5, ⫺5, 5, 5, ⫺15, ⫺15, r兲 where the corner radius
r is specified at 1.6 mm. Figure 10 shows the developed 3D finite
element mesh with the assemblage of the workpiece, the initial
chip, and the sharp tool 共partly modeled兲 regime at r⫽1.6 mm.
An initial chip was used to facilitate achieving a steady state cut-
ting process. The model consists of 8076 cubic solid elements and
9534 nodes. Each node has three translational degree of freedoms.
The mesh was constructed by means of the geometrical transfor-
mations where the primitives of the tool and the workpiece are
deformed and combined to meet the specification of geometry of
the cutting tool and the workpiece and their configurations. The
hard facing process was simulated using Abaqus/Explicit 关13兴.
Fig. 10 3D Finite Element Mesh
6 Õ Vol. 124, FEBRUARY 2002
The model formulation is attached in Appendix C. The separation
of elastic and plastic responses is based on the assumption that
there is an additive relationship between strains.
The solution stability was achieved by using a very small time
integration step, while the consistency was assured because the
time integration step approaches zero, the round-off and trunca-
tion errors also go to zero. The time integration step is determined
by the requirements of both stability and consistency. Therefore
the model is convergent as it is stable and consistent 关14兴. The
element size is determined by the convergence. The reported re-
sults come from the simulations with convergence.
Effective plastic strain, which can be obtained from the el-
evated temperature tensile testing, was used as the chip separation
criterion in this study. As the physics of chip separation is not
completely understood, a chip separation criterion based on the
physics of chip separation has not been developed. A partial duc-
tile failure mode or a completely ductile mode of chip formation
may exist due to the high specific forces and the great shearing
load near the cutting edge 关2,15–18兴. In a practical turning pro-
cess, the work material will experience much more deformation
constraints and higher specific forces, so the chip segmentation is
much less than that in orthogonal cutting. The ‘‘deformation con-
straints’’ refers the surrounding materials that constrain deforma-
tion of the materials of potential chips. Ductile failure mode of
work materials exists in a practical turning process. The authors
used chip separation criterion based on ductile failure mode to
simulate chip separation as ductile mode of chip formation hap-
pens near the cutting edge, which was supported by the above
researches. The SEM picture of the chip, Fig. 11, also supports the
ductile chip separation criterion. In this work, the authors rely on
the ‘‘best available’’ method in the literature, i.e., effective plastic
strain. The magnitude of the effective plastic failure strain was 0.5
in this study.
The end surface perpendicular to the direction of Doc and the
side surface perpendicular to the direction of Feed are fixed, Fig.
11. Both surfaces are far away from the chip formation region.
The radius curvature of the workpiece is ignored because of the
short cutting distance and constant configuration of the tool with
regard to the workpiece. The mechanical properties of this work-
piece material are given in Table 4. The physical properties are
cited in Tables 5 and 6 关19–20兴.
Boundary conditions of constant velocity were applied to the
cutting tool which moves in the 3-direction. The boundary condi-
tions are enforced to constrain the motion of the cutting tool in the
1 and 2-directions. With regard to the friction condition, two con-
tact regions, i.e., sticking and sliding regions, on the tool-chip
interface still exist in hard facing. It is reasonable that shear flow
stress was used to model the tool-chip sticking region, while a
friction coefficient was used to model the sliding region. The av-
erage friction coefficient on the interface of the tool/chip was 0.35
calculated from the cutting model in Appendix B. The frictional
shear stress limit is taken as ␴ y /), where ␴ y is the yield strength
of the work material. The mechanical and physical properties of
the cutting tool material are given in Table 6. The obtained mate-
rial property data were input to the developed FEA models using
the general thermos-elastic-plastic material models in ABAQUS
关13兴. The friction option available in ABAQUS 关13兴 can imple-
ment the proposed friction model. The errors induced from mate-
rial constitutive models do exist for this and any other FEM simu-
lations and result in the scatter with a certain degree in results.
However, it is difficult to evaluate the error. The scatter was re-
duced by input more detailed material data with a small tempera-
ture interval.
Cutting forces are usually used in the literature to verify the
FEM prediction 关21–23兴 and others even though it might not be
accurate due to the average of many possible errors. Cutting force
comparison is also used as partial result to verify the FEM simu-
lation model. Cutting forces were measured using a two-
component force dynamometer under the cutting conditions of
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 11 Chip formation in hard facing of cutting

Table 4 Mechanical properties of 52100 steel „62 HRC…

Table 5 Physical properties of 52100 steel „HRC 62…
are good, at least in terms of cutting forces. The comparison of
calculated and measured force components is certainly not suffi-
cient. The SEM picture of the chip, Fig. 11, which shows the
predicted chip has the similar morphology characteristics to the
chip produced from cutting experiments in terms of chip form and
cross section geometry ABC. The maximum difference of the di-
mension in the chip cross section between the simulated chip and
the physical is 21 percent. The simulated chip type and geometry
is not exactly the same as the physical chip because the authors
assumed continuous chip formation in the simulation. The chip

Table 6 Mechanical and physical properties of the PCBN

cutting tool

Table 3. Figure 11 shows the chip flow in a hard facing process.

The predicted cutting forces and measured forces in Figs. 12 and
13, agree well under the two cutting conditions. Two force com-
ponents were compared due to the capability constraint of the
available force dynamometer. The comparison shows that the re-
sults of the FEM simulation of hard machining using the material Fig. 12 Cutting forces from FEM prediction and experiment of
properties obtained from tensile testing at elevated temperature cutting condition 1

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 7

 Appendix A
The true stress-strain data can be calculated by
␴ t ⫽ ␴ e 共 1⫹e 兲 (A1)
␧ t ⫽ln共 1⫹e 兲 (A2)
Where ␴ e and e are engineering stress and strain and ␴ t and ␧ t are
true stress and strain, respectively. The above two equations are
valid before necking if necking exists. After necking, the true
stress-strain data can be calculated by
␴ t ⫽ P/A (A3)
A0 d0
␧ t ⫽ln ⫽2 ln (A4)
A d
Where P and A are instantaneous load and cross section area of
Fig. 13 Cutting forces from FEM prediction and experiment of
cutting condition 2
the specimen; d 0 and d are initial and instantaneous diameter of
the specimen, respectively.

has small periodic fracture ends at A and C which are difficult to Appendix B
see in the simulated chip. It is the assumption of material conti-
nuity in the used FEM code instead of the fixed surfaces in the The orthogonal cutting conditions including the rake angle ␣,
finite element mesh that affects the tooth chip formation. the uncut chip thickness t, the cutting velocity V, and the width of
Simulation data in terms of residual stresses, cutting tempera- cut W are shown in Table 2. The shear angle ␾ of cutting hardened
tures, and their sensitivity to the material properties and the mag- bearing steel 共around 62 HRC兲 is almost constant, 30 deg, regard-
nitude of criterion of chip separation will be presented in another less of wide variation of rake angle from ⫺5 deg to ⫺50 deg 关16兴.
paper. The effective flow stress ¯␴ f , the strain rate ␧, the average tem-
perature increase of the chip T, and the frictional force F at tool-
chip interface can be calculated as 关5兴
6 Conclusions ¯␴ f ⫽) 共 F c Sin␾ Cos␾ ⫺F t Sin2 ␾ 兲 / 共 tw 兲 (B1)
Several conclusions can be drawn from this work: 10•V•Cos␣ •Sin␾
Tensile testing at elevated temperature was proposed and con- ␧˙ ⫽ (B2)
ducted to obtain mechanical properties of the work material as a )tCos共 ␾ ⫺ ␣ 兲
function of temperature in both elastic and plastic regions with
T⫽FSin␾ / ␳ stwCos共 ␾ ⫺ ␣ 兲 (B3)
large strains. Flow stresses at high strain rates in cutting processes
can be estimated by extrapolating the data from tensile tests by F⫽F c Sin␣ ⫹F t Cos␣ (B4)
using the velocity-modified temperature. This method provides a
feasible and efficient systematic approach to estimate mechanical where ␳ and s are density and specific heat, respectively, Table 5.
properties of hardened 52100 steel in hard machining. This The calculated flow stresses and the corresponding T mod from
method may also be applied to other work materials in metal the orthogonal cutting tests are listed in Table 7. Figure 14 shows
cutting. the flow chart to estimate the flow stress and T mod from cutting
Flow stress data from tensile testing and cutting experiments is tests.
consistent with regard to the velocity-modified temperature. Tem- The average friction coefficient on the tool/chip interface is
perature is the dominant factor for mechanical properties of this calculated by
material, while the strain rate effect is secondary. F t ⫹F c tan ␣
FEM prediction in terms of cutting forces and chip geometry ␮⫽ (B5)
agrees with the experimental data with reasonable accuracy using F c ⫺F t tan ␣
the material property data obtained from the developed method.
Appendix C
The explicit dynamic algorithm used in this study is summa-
Acknowledgments rized below 关13兴:
The work is supported by NSF award 9713748-DMI, and it is 1. Nodal calculations.
gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Professor C. T. Sun, a. Dynamic equilibrium.
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics of Purdue University for ü共t兲⫽M ⫺1共 Pt⫺It兲 (C1)
the advice on the test design and the provision of partial labora- b. Integrate explicitly through time.
tory facilities to conduct the tests. The assistance of Mr. Douglas ⌬t t⫹⌬t ⫹⌬t t
Adams is appreciated. Dr. Robin Stevenson at GM R&D Center is u̇t⫹⌬t/2⫽u̇ t⫺⌬t/2⫹ ü t (C2)
2
also acknowledged for discussing the method to obtain mechani-
cal properties in machining processes. ut⫹⌬t⫽ut⫹⌬tt⫹⌬tu̇t⫹⌬t/2 (C3)

Table 7 Calculated flow stresses and the corresponding Tmod from the or-
thogonal cutting tests

8 Õ Vol. 124, FEBRUARY 2002 Transactions of the ASME


Fig. 14 Flow chart to estimate the flow stress and Tmod from
cutting tests
2. Element calculations.
a. Compute element strain increments, d␧, from the strain
rate, ␧˙ .
b. Compute stress, ␴, from constitutive equations.
␴t⫹⌬t⫽f 共␴t ,d␧兲 (C4)
c. Assemble nodal internal forces, I t⫹⌬t .
3. Set t⫹⌬t to t and return to step 1.
The explicit method is suitable to analyze machining processes
that require many small increments to obtain a high-resolution
solution. The time integration step is determined to satisfy both
stability and consistency in this study. Thus, the simulation con-
vergence is assured 关14兴. The finite element mesh was refined
continuously until the simulation results were consistent to assure
prediction accuracy.
The temperature-dependent isotropic elastic property was input
by giving the Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio as func-
tions of temperature. The inelastic mechanical properties were en-
tered as tables of flow stress values versus plastic strain, strain
rate, and temperature. The strain hardening data were input as
often as needed to define stress-strain curves at different strain
rates and temperatures. The flow stress at a given strain, strain
rate, and temperature is interpolated automatically from these
tables by ABAQUS. The simulation was implemented on a Sun
Ultra 5 workstation.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
View publication stats
References
关1兴 Konig, W., Klinger, M., and Link, R., 1990, ‘‘Machining Hard Materials with
Geometrically Defined Cutting Edges-Field of Applications and Limitations,’’
CIRP Ann., 39Õ1, pp. 61– 64.
关2兴 Toenshoff, H. K., Wobker, H. G., and Brandt, D., 1995, ‘‘Hard Turning—
Influences on the Workpiece Properties,’’ Transactions of NAMRI/SME, Vol.
XXIII, pp. 215–220.
关3兴 Liu, C. R., and Mittal, S., 1996, ‘‘Single-Step Superfinish Hard Machining:
Feasibility and Feasible Cutting Conditions,’’ J. of Robotics & Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 12, No. 1, pp. 15–27.
关4兴 van Luttervelt, C. A., Childs, T. H. C., Jawahir, I. S., Klocke, F., and Venuvi-
nod, P. K., 1998, ‘‘Present Situation and Future Trends in Modeling of Ma-
chining Operations—Progress Report of the CIRP Working Group ’Modeling
of Machining Operations,’’ CIRP Ann., 47Õ2, pp. 587– 626.
关5兴 Olxey, P. L. B., 1989, The Mechanics of Machining, Ellis Horwood,
Chichester.
关6兴 MacGregor, C. F., and Fisher, J. C., 1946, ASME J. Appl. Mech., 13, pp.
11–16.
关7兴 Stevenson, R., and Stephenson, D. A., 1995, ‘‘The Mechanical Behavior of
Zinc During Metal Cutting,’’ J. Eng. Mat. Tech., 117, pp. 172–178.
关8兴 Stevenson, R., 1997, ‘‘Study on the Correlation of Workpiece Mechanical
Properties from Compression and Cutting Tests,’’ J. of Machining Science and
Technology, 1„1…, pp. 67–79.
关9兴 Spaans, C., 1971, ‘‘The Fundamentals of Three-Dimensional Chip Curl, Chip
Breaking and Chip Control,’’ Ph.D. Dissertation, Delft University of Technol-
ogy.
关10兴 Stevenson, M. G., and Oxley, P. L. B., 1975, ‘‘Torsional Hopkinson Bar Tests
to Measure Stress-Strain Properties Relevant to Machining and High Speed
Forming,’’ North America Metalwork Res. Conf., 3rd Proc., Pittsburgh, PA,
May 5–7, pp. 291–304.
关11兴 Shirakashi, T., Maekawa, K., and Usui, E., 1983, ‘‘Flow Stress of Low Carbon
Steel at High Temperature and Strain Rate,’’ Bull. Jpn. Soc. Precis. Eng., 17,
No. 3, pp. 161–172.
关12兴 Yoshino, M., and Shirakashi, T., 1997, ‘‘Flow-Stress Equation Including Ef-
fects of Strain Rate and Temperature History,’’ Int. J. Mech. Sci., 39, No. 12,
pp. 1345–1362.
关13兴 Hibbit, Karlsson, and Sorenson, Inc., 1998, ABAQUS/Explicit User’s Manual,
ver. 5.8, Providence, RI.
关14兴 Reddy, J. N., 1993, An Introduction to the Finite Element Method, McGraw-
Hill, Inc.
关15兴 Luttervelt, C. A., and Pekelharing, A. J., 1977, ‘‘The Split Shear-Zone-
Mechanisms of Chip Segmentation,’’ CIRP Ann., 26Õ1, p. 33.
关16兴 Nakayama, K., Arai, M., and Kanda, T., 1988, ‘‘Machining Characteristics of
Hard Materials,’’ Annals of the CIRP, 37/1, pp. 89–92.
关17兴 Elbestawi, M. A., Srivastava, A. K., and El-Wardany, T. I., 1996, ‘‘A Model for
Chip Formation During Machining of Hardened Steel,’’ CIRP Ann., 45Õ1, pp.
71–76.
关18兴 Vyas, A., and Shaw, M. C., 1998, ‘‘The Mechanism of Chip Formation with
Hard Turning Steel,’’ CIRP Ann., 47Õ1, pp. 77– 82.
关19兴 Toulaukian, Y. S., 1967, Thermophysical Properties of High Temperature Solid
Materials, Vol. 3, Macmillan, New York.
关20兴 Gupta, V., Bastias, P., Hahn, G. T., and Rubin, C. A., 1993, ‘‘Elastio-plastic
Finite Element Analysis of 2D Rolling-plus-sliding Contact with Temperature-
dependent Bearing Steel Material Properties,’’ Wear, 169, pp. 251–256.
关21兴 Maekawa, K., Shirakashi, T., and Obikawa, T., 1996, ‘‘Recent Progress of
Computer Aided Simulation of Chip Flow and Tool Damage in Metal Machin-
ing,’’ Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., 210, pp. 233–242.
关22兴 Obikawa, S. H., Shirakashi, T., and Usui, E., 1997, ‘‘Application of Compu-
tational Machining Method to Discontinuous Chip Formation,’’ ASME J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng., 119, pp. 667– 674.
关23兴 Guo, Y. B., and Dornfeld, D. A., 1998, ‘‘Finite Element Analysis of Drilling
Burr Minimization with a Backup Material,’’ Trans. of NAMRI/SME, Vol.
XXVI, pp. 207–211.
FEBRUARY 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 9