0
Research Papers

Evaluation of Ductile Fracture Models in Finite Element Simulation of Metal Cutting Processes

[+] Author and Article Information
Chengying Xu

e-mail: Chengying.Xu@ucf.edu
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816

Manuscript received January 15, 2013; final manuscript received September 30, 2013; published online November 5, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Y. B. Guo.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 136(1), 011010 (Nov 05, 2013) (14 pages) Paper No: MANU-13-1017; doi: 10.1115/1.4025625 History: Received January 15, 2013; Revised September 30, 2013

In this paper, a systematic evaluation of six ductile fracture models is conducted to identify the most suitable fracture criterion for metal cutting processes. Six fracture models are evaluated in this study, including constant fracture strain, Johnson-Cook, Johnson-Cook coupling criterion, Wilkins, modified Cockcroft-Latham, and Bao-Wierzbicki fracture criterion. By means of abaqus built-in commands and a user material subroutine (VUMAT), these fracture models are implemented into a finite element (FE) model of orthogonal cutting processes in abaqus/Explicit platform. The local parameters (stress, strain, fracture factor, and velocity fields) and global variables (chip morphology, cutting forces, temperature, shear angle, and machined surface integrity) are evaluated. The numerical simulation results are examined by comparing to experimental results of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy published in the open literature. Based on the results, it is found that damage evolution should be considered in cutting process FE simulation. Moreover, the B-W fracture model with consideration of rate dependency, temperature effect and damage evolution gives the best prediction of chip removal behavior of ductile metals.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

FEM model for the machining problem

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Stress–stain curve with progressive damage degradation [24]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fracture locus of empirical B-W model [33]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of chip morphology using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of chip temperature using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of tool rake face temperature using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of temperature distribution on tool rake face using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of cutting forces using different fracture models for the cutting results listed in Table 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of surface profiles using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of Von Mises Stress using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of plastic temperature using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison of tool tip temperature using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Temperature distributions on the tool rake face for different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Cutting force comparison for different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Surface profile comparison for different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Comparison of damage factor values using different fracture models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of (a) simulated chip formation of BWRT model and (b) real chip formation from literature [1]

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In