L.

Chuzhoy
Sr. Engineering Specialist-R&D
Caterpillar Inc.,
Technical Center,
Peoria, IL 61525

R. E. DeVor
Professor

S. G. Kapoor
Professor
Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering,
University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801

Machining Simulation of Ductile

Iron and Its Constituents, Part 2:
Numerical Simulation
and Experimental Validation
of Machining
To understand the influence of cast iron microstructure on its machinability, a numerical
model that simulates machined material on a microstructure scale was developed. This
microstructure-level model assembles individual constituents into a composite material
based on microstructural composition, grain size, and distribution. Extensive experimentation was performed to determine strain, strain rate, temperature, and load history
dependent material properties. The purpose of this work is to validate the microstructurelevel model on machining of ductile iron and two of its constituents: pearlite and ferrite.
Orthogonal cutting experiments were conducted of the three materials. The measured chip
morphology and machining forces were compared with the model predictions, and a good
correlation between them was found. DOI: 10.1115/1.1557295

Introduction
The finite element method has been extensively used to gain
understanding of material behavior during machining e.g. 1,2.
The method permits computation of deformations, strains,
stresses, strain rates, and temperatures during the process. These
quantities are extremely difficult to measure or compute analytically. In addition, the finite element method can provide an insight
into a process, since all the results are resolved in both time and
space domains.
Existing finite element models have been developed on the
macroscopic scale treating a material as homogeneous. However,
many ferrous materials, particularly cast irons, have a highly heterogeneous structure. To simulate machining of this class of materials, a microstructure-level model was developed 3. This
model generates pearlitic and ferritic grains and graphite nodules
or flakes, and, then, assembles them together to explicitly simulate
microstructure of cast irons. An internal state variable model
called the BCJ model 4 is used to describe the individual behavior of pearlite, ferrite, and graphite. The material model captures
the behavioral dependency of each constituent on strain, strain
rate, temperature, direction of loading, and amount of damage.
Part 1 of this paper dealt with material model characterization
and validation. Validation of the material model was isolated from
validation of the machining simulation to test the accuracy of
material model without the complexities of machining. The material parameters of the individual constituents were determined to
account for effects of two important phenomena associated with
machining: permanent material softening upon reverse loading
and material damage. Uniaxial reverse loading experiments and
simulation were performed to determine the material parameters
for the effect of permanent material softening upon reverse loading. The characterization was conducted on pearlite and ferrite,
while the validation is done using ductile iron. The damage parameters were determined from pearlitic, ferritic, and ductile iron
notched specimens. A single notch radius was chosen for characterization, and three notch radii are chosen for validation.
Part 2 of this paper deals with machining validation of the
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
June 2001; revised October 2002. Associate Editor: Y. Shin.

192 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

microstructure-level model. Both experimental work and simulation are done using orthogonal machining to focus on the role of
material microstructure. Photomicrographs of the collected chips
are examined to quantify chip dimensions. The machining forces
are measured during the tests. Predicted chip morphology and
cutting forces undergo detailed examination. The experimental
data and simulation results are compared and discussed.

Numerical Simulation
Three microstructures were used for the simulated workpiece:
pearlite, ferrite, and ductile iron. Four simulations were performed
on each material using the test matrix shown in Table 1. The depth
of cut and edge radius were chosen as variables to validate the
model under changing process parameters. Two levels of the
depth of cut were tested: 75 m and 125 m. Three levels of the
edge radius were used: 25 m, 50 m, and 75 m. The selection
of the 50 m edge radius was motivated by an interest to examine
influence of the edge radius to the depth of cut ratio on models
performance. Machining with the 50 m edge radius was selected
for case 1 to approximate the edge radius to the depth of cut ratio
of case 4. The selected values of the cutting depth provide good
range for microstructure-level model validation, since the depth of
cut is of the same order of magnitude as material grains. In addition, the low range of the depth of cut can be used to evaluate
models applicability to micro/meso-level machining.
Numerical Model. The microstructure-level model used in
this study explicitly models material microstructure during machining simulation. A finite element model is generated by defining grain boundaries and, then, enmeshing grains using a commercial pre-processor 5. The material behavior of each constituent is
captured with an internal state variable model called the BCJ
model 6. Extensive experimentation was conducted to define
material characterization parameters for the BCJ model. The BCJ
model is integrated with a processor of a commercial finite element code 7. The finite element model is periodically remeshed
and rezoned to avoid excessive distortion elements and remove
damaged elements. A detailed model description and results of
individual constituent characterization are provided in 3 and in
Part 1 of this paper.

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 1 Process parameters

Test Case #

Depth of Cut m

Edge Radius m

1
2
3
4

75
75
125
125

50
75
25
75

A plane strain two-dimensional approximation was used

throughout this study. The workpiece was modeled as a rectangular block consisting of a single microstructure meshed with bilinear quadrilateral elements. The bottom nodes were constrained
both vertically and horizontally, while the nodes at the left boundary were constrained only horizontally. The cutting tool was assumed to be perfectly rigid. The tool was constrained against vertical displacement and rotation. Loading was accomplished by
specifying incremental tool displacement in the horizontal direction and time to perform this step. To avoid the effects of model
constraints, the cut was terminated prior to reaching the left
boundary. The length of the cut was 720 m and its duration was
0.0009 second corresponding to the cutting velocity of 48 m/min.
The height and length of the workpiece were determined by
numerical experimentation using changes in machining forces and
chip geometry as the convergence criteria. To improve computational efficiency, the workpiece was divided into two layers. The
upper layer was meshed with the average element size of 10 to 15
m, while the bottom layer had the average element size between
40 and 60 m. Mesh fidelity was also tested numerically by
changing mesh size and using changes in machining forces and
chip geometry as the convergence criteria. The workpiece was
remeshed and rezoned ninety times to maintain a reasonable element shape and aspect ratio. It was decided not to use adaptive
meshing around the tool tip for two reasons. First, although adaptive meshing can effectively reduce run time, local mesh refinement may cause preferential displacement since a fine mesh is
generally less stiff than coarse mesh 8. Second, it is impractical
to use adaptive meshing for general microstructure-level model
since it already has very fine mesh required for enmesh grains.
The ductile iron workpiece was modeled using two sizes of
rectangular blocks with dimensions of 300 m by 700 m for 75
m cut, and 400 m by 900 m for the 125 m cut. It was
acceptable to use a smaller workpiece model for ductile iron since
this material is less ductile than either ferrite or pearlite and, therefore, has a smaller region affected by machining. The minimum
size of the workpiece was numerically tested based on the convergence of the cutting force. The workpiece size was doubled
until a change in the computed cutting force was less than 5%.
The workpiece microstructure for ductile iron is shown in Fig. 1.
The dark cylinders representing graphite nodules are surrounded
by ferrite shown with light colored hexagons. Pearlitic matrix is
shown with dark colored hexagons. The model contained 10%
graphite, 40% ferrite, and 50% pearlite measured by volume as
discussed in 3. The distribution and size of graphite nodules
were determined randomly using the Monte Carlo method. The
graphite nodule diameter was between 30 and 50 m and size of
ferritic and pearlitic grains is 80 m.
The analysis assumes adiabatic heating with the temperature
increase governed by the following equation:

Fig. 1 Simulated workpiece microstructure for ductile iron

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Fig. 2 Machining forces from cutting simulation of a pearlite,

b ferrite, c ductile iron

0.9
"Dp t,
C

(1)

where t is the time change, and and C are the material density and specific heat, respectively, is the Cauchy true stress,
and Dp is the plastic stretch tensor. Ninety percent of plastic work
is assumed to be converted to heat as discussed in 9.
Transient thermal analysis was conducted to study convective
and conductive heat removal during machining. It was established
that the amount of heat removed during 0.0009 second of the cut
was insignificant. Therefore, adiabatic heating provides a reasonable approximation of the process.
MAY 2003, Vol. 125 193

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 3 Influence of chip formation on cutting and thrust forces

for machining of pearlite case 1

Sticking is assumed between the tool and the workpiece. This

assumption is justified since the uncoated inserts were used and
the cuts were shallow. Sticking is modeled by setting the relative
tangential velocity between the contact surfaces of the tool and the
workpiece to zero. Full contact between the tool and the workpiece leads to increased plasticity mimicking a boundary fluid
layer observed in literature 10.
was computed as follows:
The material damage rate

1
1 n

1 Dp ,

where is the triaxiality factor defined as

sinh

2 2n1 p
,
2n1 eff

(2)

(3)

where p is the hydrostatic pressure, eff is the effective stress, and

n is the parameter determined experimentally on individual constituent basis as described in Part 1.
A significant amount of damage generally occurs during machining of ductile iron leading to formation of semi-continuous or
discontinuous chip 11. To prevent rigid body motion associated
with loose elements, the program continuously removes portions
of the damaged grains from the workpiece. This technique is
similar to element erosion used by several researchers e.g. 12.
Simulation Results. Since the objective of this work was to
correlate numerical model results with experimental data, the
simulation results presented below focused on chip type and geometry, and machining forces. Although temperature, strain and
stress distributions were computed, quantitative experimental
measurements were not available for comparison purpose. The
results are divided into two parts. First, the simulation results
related to the machining forces are discussed. Then, the simulation
results related to chip formation are presented.

Machining Forces
Pearlite. The computed cutting and thrust forces for case 1 of
the pearlitic specimen are shown in Fig. 2a. It was observed that
the cutting force clearly exhibits five cycles for the 75 m cuts
and four cycles for the 125 m cuts. These cycles correspond to
formation of shear localization zone. The cutting force at the peak
of the first cycle is always smaller than at the peaks of the following cycles. This relationship is due to unconstrained behavior of
the first chip segment in the direction of chip flow. It was also

194 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Fig. 4 Chip formation and temperature distribution during machining simulation of pearlite

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

observed that the cutting force stabilizes after the first two cycles.
The thrust force displays a less pronounced periodicity and stabilizes after the second shear localization cycle.
Fluctuations of the cutting and thrust forces are closely linked
to chip formation see Fig. 3. The cycle begins just after a serration initiates see inset a. At this point, the width of the shear
localization zone is approximately one half of its final value. The
shear angle is the smallest during the cycle the shear angle is
defined by a line connecting the tool tip with a point at the free
surface where the chip forms. The region around the tool tip is at
elevated temperature and, therefore softer than the surrounding
material. As the tool advances, the shear localization zone widens
and slides upwards leading to a rise in the thrust force. Initially,
the cutting force is reduced due to the growth on the shear localization zone see inset b. However, the upward movement of
the shear localization zone causes the tool to plough through
stronger material leading to increase in the cutting force. The cutting force reaches its peak when the chip is at its lowest thickness
see inset c. At this point, the ratio between the cutting and
thrust forces is the largest, which can be explained by the highest
value of the shear angle. Next, the material around the tool tip
starts to soften leading to formation of the shear localization zone
and a sharp drop in the cutting and thrust forces see inset d. As
another chip serration is formed, the process repeats itself.
Ferrite. Figure 2b provides the simulated cutting and thrust
forces for machining of ferrite case 1. Complete force stabilization takes up to 400 m. It was observed that for the 125 m
depth of cut the thrust force initially rises to a value higher than
the one achieved at equilibrium. This indicates that material softens during cutting. The cutting forces show a moderate amount of
fluctuation, while the thrust forces display little fluctuation. This
can be explained by linking machining forces to chip formation.
The ferrite chip has wide primary and secondary shear zones see
Fig. 5eh with a gradual transition into less strained cooler
parts of the chip. This indicated that the machining forces required
to machine ferrite do not have large fluctuations. In addition, the
area around the tool tip remains at nearly the same temperature
during machining in the stabilized region essentially acting as an
energy absorber for the tool.
Ductile Iron. The cutting and thrust forces for the simulated
ductile iron microstructure are shown in Fig. 2c. It was observed
that the forces display a strong dependence on the depth of cut.
The peak values of the cutting force range between 400 N and 450
N for the 75 m cuts and between 600 and 680 N for the 125 m
cuts. The peak values of the thrust force vary between 250 N and
300 N for the 75 m cuts and between 400 and 450 N for the 125
m cuts.
The cutting mechanism of ductile iron combines shear localization and material damage. Because graphite has much lower
strength than ferrite and pearlite, a shear localization zone usually
passes through graphite nodules. In addition, graphite nodules act
as initiation sites for fracture, eventually creating the segmented
chip. Therefore, the machining forces are strongly influenced by
material composition and the depth of cut. Since the chip is segmented, the tool edge radius does not significantly influence the
machining forces.
Chip Morphology
Pearlite. The machining simulation of pearlite computed formation of a serrated chip. The chip formation and temperature
distribution of pearlite are shown in Fig. 4. As the tool initiates
material movement, a localization zone occurs near the tool tip
Fig. 4a followed by plastic deformation in the primary and
secondary shear zones Fig. 4b. Since the temperature increase
is proportional to plastic deformation and material strength, the
temperature rapidly rises in the shear zones which, in turn, reduces material strength there. The high temperature in the secondary shear zone creates a thin boundary layer that allows chip
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Fig. 5 Predicted chip morphology for machining of a

pearlite-case 1, b pearlite-case 2, c pearlite-case 3, d
pearlite-case 4, e ferrite case 1, f ferrite-case 2, g ferritecase 3, h ferrite-case 4

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 195

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 6 Pearlite chip dimensions for case 1 machining parameters

movement along the tool face zones. The temperature rise along
the primary shear zone permits the upper portion of the chip to
slide along the primary shear zone creating a serrated chip Fig.
4c. The high temperature band initiates near the tool tip Fig.
4d and propagates towards the free surface Figs. 4ef . As
the material slides, most of the deformation occurs in the material
which is hotter and, therefore, weaker. Thus, the rate of temperature increase significantly drops Fig. 4g. The sliding continues
until the tool tip enters a cooler and, therefore, stronger material
region Fig. 4h. At this point, the temperature increases again,
and the process repeats itself Fig. 4i until the cut is complete
Fig. 4k. The simulated cutting mechanism was similar to a
description provided by Komanduri et al. 13 based on their experimental observations using high-speed photography.
All four cases of machining simulation of pearlite showed similar chip formation and temperature distribution patterns see Fig.
5ad. When simulation was performed for case 1 that had 75
m depth of cut with 50 m tool edge radius, five peaks cycles
in the serrated chip were predicted for the 720 m long cut see
Fig. 5a. The chip geometry stabilized after the second cycle.
The smallest and largest chip cross-sections see Fig. 6 were 95
m and 180 m, respectively. The distance between the peaks for
the last four cycles was around 110 m. The primary shear zone
contained large temperature gradient that indicated sliding
planes of chip segments. Since the segments were able to move
relative to each other, chip curvature was small. Although the
workpiece showed only insignificant surface waviness, the plastic
strain plots indicated periodic changes near the surface.
Ferrite. The simulated ferritic specimen behaved differently
than the pearlitic specimen. Although ferrite also generated a high
temperature in the primary shear zone see Fig. 5eh, the
temperature increase and material characteristics prevented pronounced formation of shear localization. As the tool travels
through the workpiece, broad temperature bands form in the chip.
The increased temperature causes a small amount of sliding to
occur putting a wave-like appearance on the chip surface opposite
to the tool. The surface deformation increases as the chip curls
making the wave height equal to 1015% of the total chip thickness.
The ferrite chip thickness for case 1 was approximately 190 m
Fig. 5e. Six cycles occurred during the simulated cut with the
process stabilizing after the third cycle. The interior temperature
of the chip varied less than the temperature of the pearlitic chip.
Because of the decreased temperature gradient in ferrite, its chip
displayed a moderate amount of curvature. The machined workpiece surface appeared to be reasonably straight, although small
fluctuations in temperature and equivalent plastic strain were seen
near the surface.
Ductile Iron. The chip formation mechanism for ductile iron
is more complicated than those described above. A sequence of
simulated material is shown in Fig. 7 and follows description
provided in 3. As the tool plows through the workpiece, large
deformations occur in graphite and ferrite. The damage accumu196 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Fig. 7 Simulated deformed grains of ductile iron at cutting distance of a 0.06 mm, b 0.17 mm, c 0.28 mm, d 0.40 mm

lates near the tool tip leading to a segmented fractured chip. In

addition, shear localization occurs around the primary shear zone.
The shear localization placement often coincides with location of
graphite in that region see Fig. 7a, c, and d. Graphite nodules in the shear localization region experience a significant
amount of elongation in the direction of chip flow. The graphite
nodules at the free surface were extruded from the material. The
chip is removed to prevent computational difficulties associated
with rigid body motion and complicated sliding associated with
loose material. The tool travels almost freely through the workpiece until it encounters the next cycle.
For case 1 the chip thickness was approximately 90 m, which
was slightly higher than the depth of cut. The segment length of
the chip averaged to 90 m. This leads to a conclusion that if the
chip segments remain attached, the chip has tight curl. Since periodic fracture occurred in the ductile iron chip, its temperature
was relatively low ranging between 100C and 250C.

Orthogonal Machining Experiments

Material and Experimental Procedure. The machining experiments were performed on workpiece materials with three distinct microstructures. One material was pearlitic-ferritic ductile
iron, while the other two were single structure steels with fully
pearlitic and fully ferritic microstructures. The single structure
steels were chosen to mimic behavior of two constituents of ductile iron: pearlite and ferrite. The heats of single structure steels
were custom made. They contained the same alloying elements
except for the amount of carbon as ductile iron. Each heat was
vacuum-induction-melted and poured into a 50 lb ingot mold. The
ingots were reheated to 2250 F 1232C for ferritic composition
or to 2050 F 1121C for pearlitic composition. The ingots were
then rolled into 1.7 inch 43.18 mm square bars. All bars were air
cooled after rolling. One of the steels had fully pearlitic microTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 2 Average amplitude machining forces

Material
Pearlite
Measured
Pearlite
Predicted
Ferrite
Measured
Ferrite
Predicted
Ductile Iron
Measured
Ductile Iron
Predicted

Case 1
590
200
550
200
520
20
500
30
370
80
350
300

Cutting Force, N
Case 2
Case 3
620
170
570
190
540
30
510
20
380
90
360
200

850
280
780
300
800
40
740
50
600
200
560
320

structure, while the other steel was fully ferritic. Their chemical
compositions and details of manufacturing methods for the experimental heats can be found in 3. It should be noted that all material characterization and machining experiments described in
both parts of this work were performed on the same materials.
Upon test completion, material microstructures were examined
at several locations and were found to be consistent. The pearlitic
steel had completely pearlitic microstructure with average grain
size of 20 microns. The ferritic steel had pure ferritic microstructure with average grain size of 100 microns. Ductile iron was
composed of 50% of pearlite, 40% ferrite, and 10% graphite. The
graphite nodule diameter ranged between 20 and 60 microns.
The workpiece had 41.3 mm square cross-section and 15.9 mm
height with two ribs on top. This specimen design was developed
to perform orthogonal cutting on a flat workpiece enabling constant machining parameters to be controlled. The machining was
performed on a Mori Seiki ZL-250 twin turret CNC lathe with the
workpiece mounted on one turret and the tool mounted in the
dynamometer on the opposite turret. Both turrets moved towards
each other to obtain cutting velocity of 48 m/min. The workpiece
was rigidly clamped on the four sides perpendicular to the cutting
plane and was supported on the backside. The width of cut was
equal to the width of each rib, which was 3.175 mm.
The machining was done with Kennametal grade K313
TPG432 inserts. These are uncoated inserts commonly used for
cast irons. The tool had a negative 7 deg rake angle and a positive
18 deg clearance angle. The insert edges had radii of 25, 50, and
75 m. After an edge was used for two cuts, an insert was either
rotated or replaced.
The cutting and thrust forces were measured with a Model 9121
Kistler turning dynamometer. Data was recorded at 60,000 Hz
sampling rate. The lateral force was also monitored to assure twodimensional nature of machining. In all the experiments the lateral
force was two orders of magnitude smaller than the cutting and
thrust forces.
The test matrix for each material was the same as the simulation matrix that is shown in Table 1. The machined surfaces of the
three materials looked dramatically different. The pearlitic specimen produced a rather clean cut that looked like a polished surface with periodically located ridges in the direction perpendicular
to the cut. The pearlitic specimen had very little burr on the sides
and the end. The ferritic specimen exhibited ductile behavior creating a smeared surface with side flow and burrs at the end of cut.
The ductile iron clearly displayed brittle behavior. The workpiece
surface was extremely rough showing surface damage visible with
a naked eye. The amount of surface damage varied in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the cut.
Prior to actual testing, reference cuts were performed to assure
that the actual cutting depths were correct. Replicates of each test
run were conducted to assure its repeatability. Chips were analyzed from the experiments with 75 m depth-of-cut and the 50
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Case 4

Case 1

1050
350
960
320
850
70
850
100
610
190
580
350

480
120
500
100
480
20
390
15
270
60
200
210

Thrust Force, N
Case 2
Case 3
600
110
610
120
510
30
510
20
300
100
270
200

650
70
500
50
700
40
410
20
420
150
380
300

Case 4
850
200
770
150
650
60
640
50
480
250
370
200

m radius tool case 1. These chips were examined from macroscopic and microscopic standpoints to show their characteristics
and differences.
Experimental Results and Comparison With Simulation.
Following the structure of the previous section, the discussion is
divided into two parts. First, the measured machining forces are
reviewed and compared with the computed forces. Then, the measured chip morphology is compared with the simulated chips.
Machining Forces. The measured cutting and thrust forces
were examined and compared with the simulated forces. The experimental forces were averaged over the stabilized regions of the
entire cut to compare their magnitudes and trends with the computed forces see Table 2. Measured force fluctuations were studied to compare local behavior of experimental and predicted
forces. Figure 8 show samples measured machining forces plotted
using the same scale as the scale used for the simulation plots.
Pearlite. The measured cutting forces increased by 50 60%
with the increase in the cutting depth from 75 to 125 m see
Table 2. The edge radius increase clearly elevated both the cutting and thrust forces. The experimental thrust forces were always
lower than the cutting forces. The ratio between the thrust force
and the cutting force was proportional to the edge radius to the
depth of cut ratio. The fluctuation of the measured forces had well
defined large cycles as shown in Fig. 8a.
The average values of the simulated forces were within 15% of
the experimental forces. The simulated and experimental forces
showed the same dependence on the edge radius, the depth of cut,
and the ratio of the edge radius to the depth of cut. Both simulated
and measured cutting forces had fluctuation amplitude between
200 and 300 N. The thrust forces also had similar fluctuation
amplitudes. For machining with the small radius and large depth
of cut case 3, both the predicted and measured thrust forces
showed significantly less fluctuation than the thrust forces for the
other three cases. This phenomenon is explained in the next section during the examination of chip morphology.
Ferrite. The measured cutting and thrust forces for ferrite,
first, increased and, then, stabilized after the first 10 millimeters of
cutting. Increasing the cutting depth from 75 to 125 m led to
about 25% increase in the cutting forces. The edge radius increase
did not noticeably change the cutting and thrust forces. Force
fluctuation was less pronounced compared to pearlite see Fig.
8b. The force cycles were not well defined. It is interesting to
notice that the cutting and thrust forces are within 1015% for all
four cases.
For machining of ferrite with the largest edge radius tool, the
cutting and thrust forces are within 10% for simulation and experiments. The only noticeable difference between computed and
measured forces occurred in the thrust force prediction for cutting
MAY 2003, Vol. 125 197

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 3 Comparison of predicted chip geometry with measured data for case 1

Material
Pearlite
Predicted
Pearlite
Measured
Ferrite
Measured
Ferrite
Predicted
Ductile
Iron
Predicted
Ductile
Iron
Measured

Largest Chip
Thickness m

Smallest Chip
Thickness m

Distance between Chip

Serrations or Segments
m

180

95

110

180

80

220

190

160

30

210

150

20 60

90

90

8090

100

85

70200

less heat and was less sensitive to shear localization. The model
correctly captured and explained the described phenomena.
Ductile Iron. Unlike the single constituent materials, the ductile iron forces had local waviness that probably corresponded to
micro-rupture discussed above. The cutting force increased by approximately 50% when the cutting depth was changed from 75
m to 125 m. The forces also increased when the inserts with
larger edge radii were used. Although the ratio between the thrust
force and the cutting force was proportional to the edge radius to
the depth of cut ratio, it was not as pronounced as in the case of
pearlite. Force fluctuation was between 50 and 300 N with large
variability in its duration.
The predicted forces showed the same trends as the measured
forces see Figs. 2c and 8c. However, the average values of
the forces were below the measured values. This reflects twodimensional nature of the model, which approximates grains and
nodules as extruded volume. Therefore, when a grain is damaged,
it simultaneously occurs throughout the width of the workpiece
leading to a sharp force drop. During the experiments, the material
fracture occurred more gradually reducing the force drop. The
peaks of the cutting and thrust forces were in a good agreement
with the experimental values see Fig. 8c.

Fig. 8 Samples of measured machining forces from cutting of

with parameters of a pearlite, b ferrite, c ductile iron

125 m with 25 m edge radius case 3. One possible explanation for this discrepancy can be the formation of a built-up edge,
which occasionally occurs when a soft material is machined with
an uncoated sharp tool. The amount of local force fluctuation was
very close for the simulated and experimental forces.
It should be noticed that the forces for the 75 m cutting depth
did not significantly vary between ferrite and pearlite. Although
the low strain rate yield strength of ferrite is about three times
lower than the strength of pearlite 3, ferrite exhibits more work
hardening than pearlite. In addition, pearlite is more sensitive to
permanent softening upon reverse loading and elevated temperature than the ferrite see Part 1 of this paper. Ferrite generated
198 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Additional Observations. In general, the computed magnitudes of the average forces and their fluctuations agreed well with
the experimental data see Table 2. To quantitatively compare the
length of force cycles, the Fast Fourier Transform FFT analysis
was performed on the simulated and experimental cutting forces
for case 1. The FFT analysis of the measured cutting force for
pearlite showed a large peak near 0.45 mm/cycle 1,800 Hz and
smaller peaks around 0.2 mm/cycle. The computed cycle length
was 0.17 mm. The analyses of the experimental data for ferrite
and ductile iron displayed large spread of the cycle length that was
due to combining cycles of variable amplitudes. The cycle length
of the simulated cutting force was in the lower portion of the
experimentally measured range.
Chip Morphology. The chips of the three specimens were
examined after machining with 75 m depth of cut using a tool
with the 50 m edge radius case 1. A stereo microscope was
used for this purpose. The comparison of the simulated and measured chip morphology is summarized in Table 3.
Pearlite. The pearlite chip was continuous and long. Its thickness was nonuniform with a serrated profile see Fig. 9a. The
thinnest chip section was 80 m, while the largest section was
180 m. The distance between two large neighboring peaks was
approximately 220 m. It should be noted that two to four smaller
peaks occurred between each pair of large peaks that was examTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

form a cycle, but the outside constraints prevented it. The difference in serration frequency disappears if the small cycles are
taken into account.
The local shape and amount of fluctuation in the simulated and
measured cutting forces showed strong links to chip formation.
The cutting force for pearlite had large wave-like fluctuations see
Fig. 2a and Fig. 8a, which corresponded to formation of large
uniformly spaced serrations on the pearlite chip see Fig. 9a.
Cutting with the 25 m edge radius tool produced the smallest
serration depth and the largest shear angle see Fig. 5e reducing
force fluctuations and increasing the ratio between the cutting and
thrust forces.
Ferrite. The ferrite chip was continuous and long as shown in
Fig. 9b. The chip surface had wavy appearance. The chip thickness varied between 150 and 210 microns for the 75 m cut with
the 50 m edge radius test case 1. The ferrite chip had slightly
tighter curl than the pearlite chip.
The simulated ferritic chip thickness was around 190 m with
15% periodic fluctuation recall Fig. 5e, while the actual chip
thickness ranged between 150 m and 210 m. This variation is
likely to be due to the influence of surface discontinuities in the
back of the chip typical for relatively soft materials 10. Both
simulated and experimental chips had wavy appearance with the
latter having significant amount of variation between its cycles
see Fig. 9b. This waviness was quantified by measuring the
distance between the chip peaks from the photomicrographs of the
ferrite chip e.g. Fig. 9b. The distance between the peaks of the
simulated chip was within the range of the experimental measurements.
Similar to pearlite, the cutting force for ferrite reflected the chip
shape. The cutting force had small ripples see Fig. 2b Fig. 8b
for case 1 which correlated to a wave on the ferrite chip see
Figs. 5e and 9b. Cutting force fluctuation for ferrite was
smaller than pearlite cutting force fluctuation directly corresponding to the difference between the chip shape of ferrite and pearlite.

Fig. 9 Photomicrographs of machined chips of a pearlite, b

ferrite, c ductile iron, d ductile iron-enlargement of c

ined. The structure of the chip was pearlitic indicating that the
temperature was below the austenitizing temperature.
During cutting simulation of pearlite, the model predicted formation of the serrated chip of similar geometry to the geometry of
the actual chip recall Fig. 5a. The thickness of the highest and
lowest chip sections in the simulated chip were within 10% of the
measured chip. The longitudinal distance between individual serrations in the computed chip was shorter than the measured value.
This discrepancy could be explained by examining a photomicrograph of the actual pearlitic chip see Fig. 9a. The actual chip
contained one to two small serrations that reside between each
pair of large serrations. This phenomenon was due to formation of
small shear localization zones between large cycles. The appearance of the small peaks indicated that the material attempted to
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

Ductile Iron. The ductile iron produced short semi-continuous

chips with a tight curl see Fig. 9c. The chip thickness was
around 100 m. It appeared to consist of a series of 40100
micron long sections, which were loosely attached to each other.
The graphite nodules were elongated in the direction of chip see
Fig. 9d.
The simulation of ductile iron predicted formation of segmented chip with thickness similar to the measured chip thickness. The simulation predicted elongation of graphite nodules and
surrounding ferritic grains in the direction of the chip flow, which
correlated with the experimental observations recall Fig. 7. The
measurements showed large variation in the chip segment length.
This variation can be attributed to random size and distributions of
graphite nodules that vary in the directions perpendicular and parallel to the cut see Fig. 9c. Since the model does not account
for grain distribution in the plane parallel to the plane of cut, the
model predicts the chip segment length in the lower range of the
experimental measurements.
The segmented ductile iron chip produced the cutting force
with fluctuation larger than force fluctuation of either constituent
see Figs. 2c and 8c. The cutting force had almost triangular
shape reflecting formation of the segmented chip.
Additional Observations. In summary, the model produced
good results for prediction of chip morphology for pearlite, ferrite,
and ductile iron. It is significant that the tested and simulated
materials formed three different types of chip and had three different modes of chip-surface separation. As it was shown in Part 1
of this paper, the model ability to predict chip morphology is
influenced by modeling and calibration of permanent material
softening upon reverse loading. The chip-surface separation was
simulated with the damage model described in Part 1. The damage
parameters used in the model differentiated between ductile behavior of ferrite and brittle behavior of pearlite and ductile iron.
MAY 2003, Vol. 125 199

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

structure steel displays uniform material movement, while the

ductile iron shows dramatically different displacements in neighboring grains. In summary, the microstructure-level model provides information which is difficult, if possible, to obtain from a
homogeneous model.
The model has another valuable advantage over experiments.
The model permits complete isolation of the microstructure response during machining. Thus, a study can be conducted examining various microstructures completely independent from the
response of the machine and tool. If a researcher desires to later
include the system in the study, it may be accomplished by coupling the microstructure-level model with a mechanistic model
similar to the one described in 14.

Conclusions
This effort applied the microstructure-level model to orthogonal
cutting of ductile iron and two of its constituents: pearlite and
ferrite. The experiments were conducted to validate simulation
results. The simulation results generally correlated well with the
experimental data for both individual constituents and ductile
iron. The following was observed:

Fig. 10 Computed equivalent stress for case 3 at t

0.00012 s with a ferritic workpiece, b ductile iron workpiece

Additional Comments
The simulation results provide insight into behavior of the modeled materials during machining. The simulation model permitted
correlation of the force variation to the chip shape. The cutting
force reached its highest value when the chip formed its peak. As
the cutting force dropped, the chip thickness also decreased reaching the lowest or separation point simultaneously with the cutting
force. The cutting force was always in-phase with the chip thickness essentially tracing chip shape. This phenomenon was also
observed experimentally by Komanduri et al. 13 who used various materials to study chip formation. Komanduri and coworkers
synchronized their force recorder with the high-speed camera used
to take chip pictures. They observed the same timing between the
cutting force and chip formation as the timing described above.
It is appropriate to state here that the microstructure-level
model validated in this work provides a method to assemble individual constituents into a composite material. The value of this
approach can be shown by examining the cutting forces for case 1.
The values of the cutting force for ferrite and pearlite were about
600 N. If the rule of mixture is used and the strength of graphite
is totally ignored, the cutting force for ductile iron should be 560
N. However, both the microstructure-level model and the experimental data showed this force to be 400 N demonstrating that the
rule of mixture is not applicable here.
Although the main objective of this work is to validate the
machining model, it is useful to use the results of this simulation
to compare information obtained from a single constituent homogeneous model and a multiple constituent microstructure-level
model. Figure 10 displays equivalent stress in ferrite and ductile
iron. If the material is approximated as homogeneous, the stress
distribution as well as any other variable is continuous. In contrast, the plot from the microstructure-level model shows that the
stress is dramatically different in individual constituents. Pearlite
carries the majority of the stress, reducing load on ferrite and
graphite. Since ferrite has lower strength than pearlite, pearlitic
grains locally deform ferritic grains. It is also important to observe
that material flow in the two models is quite different. The single
200 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

1. The model correctly simulated material behavior and chip

formation mechanisms for all three materials. The simulation and
experiments showed shear localization for pearlite, ductile flow
for ferrite, and chip segmentation for ductile iron.
2. The simulated chip geometry correlated well with the experimental measurements for all three materials. Small discrepancies between the model and the experiments can be explained by
material imperfections that act as stress risers.
3. The predicted magnitudes of the cutting and thrust forces
were in agreement with the experimental data. Discrepancies in
local cycle duration are attributed to the dynamic response of the
tool and machine unaccounted by the model.
4. The microstructure level model was successfully validated.
The model can be used to study influence of microstructure on
machinability of cast irons. The model can simulate microstructures prior to producing materials allowing their optimization for
machinability.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Caterpillar
Inc. through Management Review Board funding. The authors
would also like to acknowledge Mr. Michael Vogler for performing machining experiments. Leo Chuzhoy would like to thank his
colleagues at Caterpillar for helpful discussions.

References
1 Strenkowski, J. S., and Caroll, J. T., 1985, A Finite Element Model of Orthogonal Metal Cutting, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 107, pp. 349354.
2 Iwata, K., Osakada, K., and Terasaka, Y., 1984, Process Modeling of Orthogonal Cutting by the Rigid-Plastic Finite Element Method, ASME J. Eng.
Mater. Technol., 106, pp. 132138.
3 Chuzhoy, L., DeVor, R. E., Kapoor, S. G., and Bammann, D. J., 2002,
Microstructure-level Modeling of Ductile Iron Machining, ASME J. Manuf.
Sci. Eng., 124, p. 162.
4 Bammann, D. J., and Johnson, G. C., 1987, On the Kinematics of FiniteDeformation Plasticity, Acta Mech., 70, pp. 113.
5 SAS IP, Inc., 1998, ANSYS Modeling and Meshing Guide, 3rd Edition.
6 Bammann, D. J., Chiesa, M. L., and Johnson, G. C., 1996, Modeling Large
Deformation and Failure in Manufacturing Processes, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, pp. 359376, Tatsumi, Wanabe, Kambe, eds.
7 Hibbitt, Karlson, and Sorensen, 1998, ABAQUS Users and Theory Manuals,
Version 5.8.
8 Cook, R. D., Malkus, D. S., and Plesha, M. E., 1989, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 558
561.
9 Farren, W. S., and Taylor, G. I., 1925, The Heat Developed During Plastic
Extrusion of Metals, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 107, pp. 422 451.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

10 Shaw, M. C., 1984, Metal Cutting Principles, Bookcraft Ltd.

11 Cohen, P. H., Voigt, R. C., and Marwanga, R. O., 2000, Influence of Graphite
Morphology and Matrix Structure on Chip Formation during Machining of
Ductile Iron, AFS Casting Congress, Pittsburgh, PA.
12 Ceretti, E., Fallbohmer, Wu, W. T., and Altan, T., 1996, Application of 2D
FEM to Chip Formation in Orthogonal Cutting, J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
59, pp. 169180.

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering

13 Komanduri, R., Schroeder, T., Hazra, J., von Turkovich, B. F., and Flom, D.
G., 1982, On the Catastrophic Shear Instability in High Speed Machining of
an AISI 4340 Steel, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 104, pp. 121131.
14 Fu, H. J., DeVor, R. E., and Kapoor, S. G., 1984, A Mechanistic Model for
Prediction of the Force System in Face Milling Operations, ASME J. Eng.
Ind., 106, pp. 81 88.

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 201

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 10/06/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use