A comparison of orthogonal cutting data from experiments with three different finite element models


Bil H., Kilic S., Tekkaya A.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MACHINE TOOLS & MANUFACTURE, cilt.44, ss.933-944, 2004 (SCI İndekslerine Giren Dergi) identifier identifier

  • Cilt numarası: 44 Konu: 9
  • Basım Tarihi: 2004
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2004.01.016
  • Dergi Adı: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MACHINE TOOLS & MANUFACTURE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.933-944

Özet

The aim of this study is to compare various simulation models of orthogonal cutting process with each other as well as with the results of various experiments. Commercial implicit finite element codes MSC.Marc, Deform2D and the explicit code Thirdwave AdvantEdge have been used. In simulations, a rigid tool is advanced incrementally into the deformable workpiece which is remeshed whenever needed. In simulations with MSC.Marc and Thirdwave AdvantEdge, there is no separation criterion defined since chip formation is assumed to be due to plastic flow, therefore, the chip is formed by continuously remeshing the workpiece. However, in simulations with Deform2D, the Cockroft-Latham damage criterion is used and elements, which exceed the predefined damage value, are erased via remeshing. Besides this different modeling of separation, the three codes also apply different friction models and material data extrapolation schemes. Estimated cutting and thrust forces, shear angles, chip thicknesses and contact lengths on the rake face by three codes are compared with experiments performed in this study and with experimental results supplied in literature. In addition, effects of friction factor, different remeshing criteria, and threshold tool penetration value on the results are examined. As a result, it has been found that although individual parameters may match with experimental results, all models failed to achieve a satisfactory correlation with all measured process parameters. It is suggested that this is due to the poor modeling of separation. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.