Advertisement

SPG Simulation of Free Orthogonal Cutting for Cutting Forces Prediction

  • I. S. Boldyrev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Metal processing by cutting is a common process. The accuracy and quality of a machined part essentially depend on cutting forces and mechanics of the cutting process. Along with experimental measurements, there are many numerical techniques for cutting forces prediction. The purpose of this paper is evaluating of the Smoothed Particle Galerkin (SPG) method for modeling metal cutting and cutting forces prediction. SPG is a relatively new mesh-free method, and severe material deformations arising in the cutting process can be treated in such a way that mesh distortion is of minor effect. The SPG method leads to no element deletion, and material failure and chip formation are controlled by phenomenological failure criteria. A proposed SPG model was verified and showed a good similarity in modeling chip formation and more correct estimating the chip shape comparing with SPH as illustrated in some orthogonal cutting examples. The chip shape and cutting forces predicted values obtained with the help of this method were compared to SPH. The aim of the proposed approach is reducing high-cost experimental work or at least its amount.

Keywords

SPG SPH FEM Cutting Simulation Cutting force 

Notes

Acknowledgements

South Ural State University is grateful for financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (grant No. 9.5589.2017/8.9).

References

  1. 1.
    Bil H, Engin S, Erman A (2004) A comparison of orthogonal cutting data from experiments with three different finite element models. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 44:933–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boldyrev IS, Shchurov IA (2017) FEM thermo-mechanical simulation of the free orthogonal cutting and temperature distribution in tool and workpiece. Procedia Eng 206:1133–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahnama M, Movahhedy MR (2012) Application of FEM simulation of chip formation to stability analysis in orthogonal cutting. J Manuf Process 14(3):188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matsumura T, Tamura S (2015) Cutting simulation of titanium alloy drilling with energy analysis and FEM. Procedia CIRP 31:252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Binder M, Klocke F, Doebbeler B (2017) An advanced numerical approach on tool wear simulation for tool and process design in metal cutting. Simul Model Pract Theory 70:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang D, Zhang X-M, Ding H (2016) A study on the orthogonal cutting mechanism based on experimental determined displacement and temperature fields. Procedia CIRP 46:35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu GR (2003) Mesh free methods: moving beyond the finite element method. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belytschko T, Xiao S (2002) Stability analysis of particle methods with corrected derivatives. Comput Math Appl 43:329–350MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shchurov IA, Nikonov AV, Boldyrev IS (2016) SPH-simulation of the fiber-reinforced composite workpiece cutting for the surface quality improvement. Procedia Eng 150:860–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Limido J, Espinosa C, Salaun M, Lacome JL (2007) SPH method applied to high speed cutting modeling. Int J Mech Sci 49:898–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Randles P, Libersky L (1996) Smoothed particle hydrodynamics: some recent developments and applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 139:375–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vila JP (2005) SPH renormalized hybrid methods for conservation laws: applications to free surface flows. Lect Notes Comput Sci Eng 43:207–229MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madaj M, Piska M (2013) On the SPH orthogonal cutting simulation of A2024-T351 alloy. Procedia CIRP 8:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boldyrev IS (2017) EFG-simulation of the free orthogonal cutting and cutting forces prediction. Procedia Eng 206:1201–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patak H, Singh A, Singh IV, Brahmankar M (2015) Three-dimensional stochastic quasi-static fatigue crack growth simulations using coupled FE-EFG approach. Comput Struct 160:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong S, Shie Y (2009) Galerkin based smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Comput Struct 87(17–18):1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) 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, Netherlands, pp 541–547Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adibi-Sedeh AH, Madhavan V, Bahr B (2003) Extension of Oxley’s analysis of machining to use different material models. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 125:656–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang Y, Outeiro JC, Mabrouki T (2015) On the selection of Johnson-Cook constitutive model parameters for Ti-6Al-4V using three types of numerical models of orthogonal cutting. Procedia CIRP 31:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strains, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21(I):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussia

Personalised recommendations