Materials and Manufacturing Processes

ISSN: 1042-6914 (Print) 1532-2475 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lmmp20

Determination of Machining-Induced Damage

Characteristics of Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Composite Laminates

Dr. N. Bhatnagar , D. Nayak , I. Singh , H. Chouhan & P. Mahajan

To cite this article: Dr. N. Bhatnagar , D. Nayak , I. Singh , H. Chouhan & P. Mahajan (2004)
Determination of Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics of Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Composite Laminates, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 19:6, 1009-1023, DOI: 10.1081/
AMP-200035177

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/AMP-200035177

Published online: 07 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 201

View related articles

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lmmp20

Download by: [Amity University] Date: 23 August 2017, At: 21:48

 MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1009–1023, 2004

Determination of Machining-Induced Damage

Characteristics of Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Composite Laminates
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

N. Bhatnagar,1,* D. Nayak,1 I. Singh,1 H. Chouhan,1 and P. Mahajan2

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering and
2
Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT

Machining of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) components is often needed in spite

of the fact that most FRP structures can be made to near net shape. The material
removal mechanism of FRP is very difficult as compared with metals due to their
inherent inhomogeneity and anisotropy. This results in frequent fiber pullout,
delamination, matrix burning, and other damages leading to poor cut surface
quality. A finite element model is proposed to quantify the material damage,
which has been experimentally validated by means of nondestructive dye-
penetrant testing. Good agreement is observed for laminates with fiber
orientations up to 60
. Divergence is noticed for higher fiber orientations, and
the discrepancies increase with increasing fiber orientation. Proper interfacial
properties vis-à-vis machining of FRP materials are considered to be the main
reasons for the divergence.

Key Words: FRP composite; Fiber orientation; Image processing;

Nondestructive testing; FEM analysis.

*Correspondence: Dr. Naresh Bhatnagar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian

Institute of Technology, New Delhi 110016, India; Fax: 91-11-26582053; E-mail: nareshb@
mech.iitd.ernet.in.

1009

DOI: 10.1081/LMMP-200035177 1042-6914 (Print); 1532-2475 (Online)

Copyright & 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com
 ORDER REPRINTS

1010 Bhatnagar et al.

INTRODUCTION

Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) products are being widely used for a variety of
applications, and are slowly but surely replacing metals and alloys in engineering and
other areas. This occurs where weight reduction without impairing strength is of
primary importance. Most FRP products require machining in order to produce a
hole, achieve close dimensional tolerance, and so on for different applications.
Machining of composites has been a challenge due to multiphase constituents, unlike
metals. Fiber pullout and fragmentation, burning and fuzzing, and fiber-matrix
delamination are the main factors for poor surface quality. Effort is needed to
minimize the surface damage so maximum service life can be expected from a FRP
component. It is imperative to develop experimental and numeric/simulation
techniques to effectively predict damage characteristics for different operational
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

parameters so precautionary measures can be considered before the material is

machined.
This study puts forth a methodology to determine the extent of damage due
to machining with an Finite Element Method (FEM) simulation that is validated
with experimental measure of damage during machining of Uni-directional glass
fiber reinforced plastic (UD-GFRP) composite laminates.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Takeyama and Iijima[1] reported deterioration of the machined subsurface

during the orthogonal machining of UD-GFRP laminates. The subsurface damage is
determined by taking a magnified photograph of the side view of the cut laminate.
The internal deterioration is found to be significant for the so-called positive fiber
orientation and having a maximum damage value occurring in the range of 30–60

fiber orientations. Laminates with the negative fiber orientation are reported to
have resulted in negligible subsurface damage. Inoue and Yuge[2] presented the
results of cut surface quality and the resulting internal damage incurred during the
orthogonal machining of GFRP laminates for different fiber orientations. A white
light source illuminated the machined portion of the specimen, and a microscopic
photograph of the damaged zone was taken by means of the reflected and the
transmitted light source. The broken fibers and the fiber-matrix delamination were
clearly seen as dark areas in the figure, where the light was unable to pass through.
Severe damage to the specimen was noted for the so-called positive fiber orientation
(especially in the range of þ30
to þ45
), where fiber-matrix delamination and out-
of-plane displacement was found to dominate. A machining situation with negative
fiber orientation, which causes negligible damage to the work material, was
recommended. Three distinct modes of cutting (and hence damage) were also
observed. These modes are fiber-matrix interfacial failure for positive fiber
orientations, neat cutting of fibers for much of the negative fiber orientation, and
tensile rupture for very small negative fiber orientation (especially from 0
up to
negative 15
). Wang and Zhang[3] reported a study of subsurface damage during the
experimental investigation of orthogonal machining of UD-CFRP laminates. The
extent of internal damage becomes severe for positive fiber orientations, especially
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1011

from 30
to 60
. The reported assertion that the fiber orientation and depth of cut
have no significant influence on the damage characteristics for the so-called negative
fiber orientation (i.e., 90
<
< 180
) is not in agreement with results of other
researchers,[1,2] and there exists an ambiguity.
This calls for in-depth fundamental study to characterize the subsurface damage
done during the orthogonal machining of UD-FRP composites. This article
proposes a unique Finite Element (FE) model to predict damage criteria for
different operational parameters, which has also been experimentally validated for
various fiber orientations.

LAMINATE NOMENCLATURE AND

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

Fiber reinfored plastic composite laminates have, traditionally, been defined in

accordance with the orientation of the fiber that exists inside the matrix as
reinforcement. Although different researchers have adopted their own systems, we
propose to use a system of nomenclature that is most widely used to define
composite laminates. The fiber orientation is, by convention, measured from the
horizontal axis to the fiber in a counterclockwise manner (Fig. 1a). Laminates having
fibers up to 90
are termed positive orientation, and those beyond 90
up to 180
are
negative orientation. A laminate with 60
fiber orientation is called ‘‘positive 60

fiber’’ (þ60
), whereas 120
fiber orientation is called ‘‘negative 60
fiber’’ (i.e.,
180–120
). Similarly, a laminate with 135
fiber orientation is called ‘‘negative 45

fiber’’ (i.e., 180–135
).

PROPOSED FE MODEL

Finite Element Mesh

A finite element scheme is proposed to predict the extent of damage incurred

during the orthogonal machining of FRP composites with negative fiber orientation.
ABAQUS[4] general-purpose FE code is used for the simulation of the machining
process. A full-size model corresponding to the actual specimen dimension
(100  40 mm) is used for the analysis and 2D simulation. The finite element mesh
used for the analysis is shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
A combination of plane stress quadrilateral (CPS4) and triangular (CPS3)
elements are used to construct the model for the previous analysis. The region of
tool–work interaction is very finely meshed, and the elements are made coarser away
from the zone of interest (Fig. 2). The typical element size in the vicinity of tool–
work contact is 0.05  0.05 mm. The tool is modeled as a rigid body having an edge
radius of 0.05 mm, with a rake angle of 5
and relief angle of 6
. The tool can be
considered rigid because a carbide tool with which orthogonal machining is carried
out is hard compared with the GFRP composite specimen. A study to observe the
effect of depth of cut was performed. Three depths of cut (i.e., 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mm)
were considered during the FEM simulation.
 ORDER REPRINTS

1012 Bhatnagar et al.

Tool
Machining Direction

+q
x
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

(a) Positive fiber orientation.

Machining Direction
Tool

−q

(b) Negative fiber orientation.

Figure 1. (a) Fiber orientation measured counterclockwise from x-axis to the fiber.
(b) Negative fiber orientation with respect to the machining direction.

The bottom edge of the model is fixed and the left-side edge is constrained
to move in the vertical direction only. The tool is, at the same time, constrained to
move in the negative horizontal axis (i.e., negative x-axis) and is lowered against the
work material, depending on the depth of cut that is required in the simulation.
Duplicate nodes are placed on all the elements situated at the chip and machined
interface (i.e., trim plane). It may be noted here that different trim planes and
different duplicate nodes are needed for different depths of cut. Contact pairs are
established between the chip surface and the machined surface along the trim plane.
The two said surfaces are initially kept bonded by means of suitable interfacial
normal and shear strength properties. The idea of using duplicate nodes at the
interface is that node separation can be achieved to simulate the chip formation,
when a certain failure stress criterion is met. Two contact pairs are also established
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1013

100 mm

40 mm
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

Figure 2. Finite element mesh of the full-scale model of the specimen.

Figure 3. Finite element mesh showing the tool–work interaction at the zone of interest.

between the chip and tool, and between the machined surface and the tool, to
prevent the penetration of surfaces into one another.

Analysis Procedure

The simulation is initiated by giving a finite displacement to the tool in the

negative x-direction against the fixed workpiece. The process is started at some
 ORDER REPRINTS

1014 Bhatnagar et al.

distance into the work material instead of the incipient machining operation in order
to avoid numeric difficulties associated with contact and large deformation problems
(Fig. 3). The node separation (i.e., debonding) of the two earlier bonded surfaces is
allowed when the stress at the node ahead of the tool tip exceeds a predefined critical
stress value, following a critical stress criterion. The stress criterion factor, f, is
defined such that:
1  ftol  f  1 þ ftol ð1Þ
where f is stress criterion factor and ftol is tolerance, set to 0.1 by default in ABAQUS.
The stress criterion factor can be expressed as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ¼ ðn =f Þ2 þ ð1 =1f Þ2 þ ð2 =2f Þ2 ð2Þ
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

where  n is normal stress at the node nearest to tool-tip (N/mm2)

f is interfacial normal strength on the trim-plane (N/mm2)
1 is in-plane shear stress at the node nearest to the tool-tip (N/mm2)
1f is in-plane shear strength on the trim-plane (N/mm2)
2 is out-of-plane shear stress near the tool-tip (N/mm2)
2f is out-of-plane shear strength on the trim-plane (N/mm2).
Equation (2) is valid for a 3D crack propagation analysis. For a 2D analysis,
Eq. (2) is reduced to:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ¼ ðn =f Þ2 þ ð1 =1f Þ2 ð3Þ

The node separation by critical stress criteria is achieved when the stress
criterion factor, f, is equal to 1 (unity) or within the range of tolerance (i.e., 0.9–1.1,
in a default setting). The node(s) thus separated tend to move away from the work
material under the pressure from the advancing tool. The Tsai-Hill failure envelope
is used as the material failure criterion. It means that the region, for which the Tsai-
Hill envelope has a value equal to or more than 1 (unity), has failed. The Tsai-Hill
failure criterion can be expressed as:
ð12 =X 2 Þ  ð1  2 =X 2 Þ þ ð22 =Y 2 Þ þ ð12
2
=S 2 Þ ¼ 1 ð4Þ
where  1 is stress in principal material one-direction (N/mm2)
2 is stress in principal material two-direction (N/mm2)
 12 is in-plane shear stress (N/mm2)
X is failure strength parameters in global x-direction (N/mm2)
Y is failure strength parameters in global y-direction (N/mm2)
S is in-plane shear strength parameter in x-y plane (N/mm2).
The value of strength parameters can be tensile/compressive, depending on the
nature of applied stress on the test specimen in a biaxial state of stress. Equation (4)
is applicable for a 2D analysis only. Material properties for this study of orthogonal
machining simulation of UD-GFRP laminate, are listed in Table 1. The interfacial
shear strength values are taken from the experimental observations of Takeyama
and Iijima.[1] The interfacial shear strength values ought to be different from each
other and not be equated to in-plane shear strength. This is due to the fact that shear
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1015

Table 1. Mechanical properties of UD-GFRP laminate.

Modulusa GPa
Longitudinal modulus, E1 48
Transverse modulus, E2 12
In-plane shear modulus, G12 6
Ultimate strengthsb MPa
Longitudinal tensile strength, Xt 1200
Longitudinal compressive strength, Xc 800
Transverse tensile strength, Yt 59
Transverse compressive strength, Yc 128
In-plane shear strength (0
laminate) 25
In-plane shear strength (90
laminate) 250
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

a
Source: Handbook of Composites, S. T. Peters, 2nd ed.[7]
b
Source: Takeyama and Iijima.[1]

Table 2. Normal and shear strength properties along trim plane.

Fiber orientation Normal strength Shear strengtha

(deg) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)

0 59 25
15 87.1302 39.822
30 127.75 59.89
45 379.5 96.958
60 598.25 150
75 998.5471 180.62
90 1200 250
a
Source: Takeyama and Iijima.[1]

failure in a 0
laminate during orthogonal machining is a matrix-induced failure,

which occurs predominantly at the fiber–matrix interface, whereas the material
failure for 90
laminates is accompanied by transverse fiber cracking. Therefore, the
shear strength of a UD-90
laminate specimen is definitely far higher than the 0

laminate specimen with respect to machining direction. The interfacial normal
strength at the chip-surface and machined-surface interface is calculated from the
properties of a 90
laminate specimen by means of the Tsai-Wu tensor polynomial
equation. The interfacial normal and shear strength properties used in the present
analysis are given in Table 2.
The chip formation is assumed to take place when the Tsai-Hill contour meets
the free edge of the specimen when two consecutive node separations occur on the
trim plane; thus effecting the chip release. The extent of spread of the Tsai-Hill
contour beneath the trim plane at that point is an indicator of the depth of internal
damage caused due to machining[5].
 ORDER REPRINTS

1016 Bhatnagar et al.

EXPERIMENTS ON ORTHOGONAL MACHINING

In this work, orthogonal machining is carried out on four-layered UD-GFRP

composite specimens with different fiber orientation and is confined to the so-called
negative fiber orientation laminates only. The schematic diagram of the experimental
setup is shown in Fig. 4.
In orthogonal machining of FRP composites, it is generally observed that when
the fibers are oriented along the direction of movement of the tool, they get neatly
cut across their transverse axis, and a comparatively smooth surface results. In
contrast, when the fibers are oriented in a direction that opposes the tool movement,
hardly any cutting is observed and severe fiber–matrix debonding occurs, leading to
protruding fibers out of the trim plane with a very rough surface. Thus, this
investigation is limited to laminates that are oriented in the direction of tool travel
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

(i.e., negative fiber orientation). However, as the heterogeneity of the lamina

increases in a laminate, directional dependency reduces.
The geometry of the HSS tool, UD-GFRP work material and the operating
parameters are listed in Table 3.

Image Analysis

An effort to quantify the damage of negative fiber laminates is presented here.

A cleaner/remover (SKC-I) is first applied to the trimmed edge of the machined
specimen to clean it of dust, grease, and so on before other treatment processes are
initiated. A fluorescent dye (MAGNAFLUX, ZYGLO ZL–27A) is sprayed over the

Figure 4. The schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1017

Table 3. Tool geometry and process parameters used.

Rake angle (deg) 5

Relief angle (deg) 6

Nose radius (mm) 0.05
Fiber orientation (deg) 15
, 30
, 45
, 60
, 75
, and 90

Cutting speed (m/min) 0.5
Depth of cut (mm) 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3

machined edge of the specimen and is left for about 1 h for the dye to penetrate
completely into the cavities and cracks produced due to fiber breakage and fiber–
matrix pullout and ply delamination. The specimen is then washed in water to
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

remove the dye spread to the other parts of the specimen away from the zone of
interest. Although the specimen is washed thoroughly, the fluorescent dye is retained
in the voids and microcracks and at the fiber–matrix interface that opens up during
machining. The dye is also retained in some unwanted cavities that are formed on the
surface of the laminate during the manufacturing stage itself due to the entrapment
of air. This can also be seen as occasional spots on the surface of the specimen
(Fig. 5). An appropriate combination of developer is then used to clot and hold the
dye at its location.
The damage zone, up to which the dye has penetrated, is highlighted when the
specimen is exposed to an ultraviolet (UV) light source. The fluorescent dye material
gets illuminated due to exposure to the UV-ray and gives an indication of the extent
of internal damage that has taken place in a specimen machined in a particular
condition. The specimens are photographed with the help of a digital video camera
(Sony). Some typical digital images of the damaged zone at the trimmed edge of
specimens of different fiber orientations are shown in Figs. 5a and 5b.
The extent of internal damage depth (D) is shown in Fig. 5b. The magnitude of
the damage is determined by analyzing the digital image using a suitable image
analysis package. Digital image processing and analysis software (Image Pro-Plus,
4.5, Maryland, USA, 2002) is used for image segmentation, and the threshold
principle of the digital image of the specimen is used to distinguish the damaged area
near the cut edge. The penetration of internal damage depth is ascertained by
measuring the extent of dye penetration into the matrix material. The dimension of
the extent of dye penetration is determined by comparing it with a known dimension
of the specimen. At least 10 different readings are taken at approximately equal
intervals along the trimmed length of the specimen and averaged.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The typical Tsai-Hill contours for 0
and 60
fiber orientations are shown in
Figs. 6a and 6b. One interesting aspect of the Tsai-Hill contour is that it invariably
spreads along the direction of fiber orientation, which gives a clear indication of the
direction of damage and its propagation. A cone of high-stress concentration (i.e.,
high value of Tsai-Hill) can be seen propagating toward the free edge and within the
 ORDER REPRINTS

1018 Bhatnagar et al.

10 mm
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

(a)

10 mm

Extent of
Damage, D

(b)
Figure 5. Digital image of the penetration of the fluorescent dye into the machined FRP
specimen (100 mm long): (a) 60
fiber orientation, (b) 90
fiber orientation.

material of the specimen approximately along the direction of fiber orientation. In

case of 0
-fiber orientation, the spread of the Tsai-Hill envelope is horizontally ahead
of the tool-tip, which is consistent with the nature of the specimen.
The region bounded by the contour curve number 1 (Tsai-Hill contour) in
Figs. 6a and 6b is an indicator of the damaged portion. The zone below/beyond
contour number 1 indicates the undamaged area (i.e., a Tsai-Hill value of less than 1).
The depth of the damaged region below the trim plane (i.e., the plane of tool travel)
is presumed to be the extension of internal damage as shown in Fig. 6b. It is
interesting to note that inclination of the Tsai-Hill contour is almost along the line
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1019

(a)

Tsai-Hill
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

Contour

(b)

Depth of
Damage

Figure 6. (a) Tsai-Hill contour showing the extension of internal damage when to two nodes
ahead of the tool-tip have debonded 0
fiber orientations. (b) Tsai-Hill contour showing the
extension of internal damage when two nodes ahead of the tool-tip have debonded 60
fiber
orientations.

of fiber orientation, which probably indicates that the bulk of damage is caused by
fiber–matrix separation.
Figure 7 shows the internal damage of UD specimens for various fiber
orientations. It also shows both the experimentally observed and simulated damage
values that follow a definite trend. They generally follow a local minimum for a fiber
orientation of around 15
, which can also be explained with the trends of cutting
forces as shown in Fig. 8. Figure 8 shows the variation of cutting force, Fc and thrust
force, Ft, with changing fiber orientations for a 5
tool rake angle and different
 ORDER REPRINTS

1020 Bhatnagar et al.

Material = UD-GFRP
2.5 Rake angle = 5 deg
Depth of cut = 0.1 mm
2
Damage, mm

1.5 Simulation
Experimental
1

0.5
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fiber Orientation, deg
Figure 7. Comparison of internal damage  fiber orientation for experimental observation
and FEM simulation.

100

90

80

70 Fc, 0.1 mm
60 Ft, 0.1 mm
Force, N

Fc, 0.2 mm
50
Ft, 0.2 mm
40 Fc, 0.3 mm
30 Ft, 0.3 mm

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fiber Orientation, deg

Figure 8. Force  fiber orientation at 5
tool rake angle different depths of cut.

depths of cut. Force is observed to be minimum at around 15
fiber orientation, thus
justifying lesser damage in that range. The trend of rising internal damage, as well as
cutting forces with increasing fiber orientations, is noticed after that. The rise in the
magnitude of damage value is slow initially (i.e., approximately up to 45–60
fiber
orientation), and then it rises rapidly to 90
fiber orientation.

D ¼ 1:0 E06
3 þ 6:0 E05
3  0:005
þ 0:1498 ð5Þ

where, D is depth of damage (in mm), and
is fiber orientation (in degrees).
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1021

Material = UD-GFRP
Rake angle = 5 deg
3 Depth of cut = 0.2 mm

2.5
Damage, mm

2
Experiment
1.5
Simulation
1

0.5
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fiber Orientation, deg
Figure 9. Comparison of internal damage  fiber orientation for experimental observation
and FEM simulation.

It is clear from Fig. 7 that there is good agreement between the experimental and
the theoretical values of internal damage for the lower values of depth of cut up to
0.1 mm. The deviation between the simulation and experiment increases with
increased fiber orientation beyond 60
. A third-order polynomial equation is found
to fit well for experimental and simulation results at 0.1 mm depth of cut as given by
Eq. (5). There seems to be a change with a higher depth of cut (0.2 mm onwards),
indicating some form of size effect in the orthogonal machining of composites, which
was also studied earlier by Caprino et al.[6]
Figure 9 shows the comparison of the magnitude of internal damage from
experiment and by FEM simulation for 0.2 mm depth of cut. A regression
coefficient of 0.9848 is obtained, which again indicates a close fit. It is clear from
the plot in Fig. 9 that there seems to be an almost fixed difference between the
experimental and the predicted values. This is given by the following equation.

D ¼ 7:0E06
3  0:0004
2 þ 0:0021
þ C ð6Þ

where, C is constant (0.6  0.9 mm).

The previous equation gives the maximum predicted value of damage for 0.2 mm
depth of cut as a function of fiber orientation.
A comparison between the simulated values of internal damage for 0.1, 0.2, and
0.3 mm depth of cut is shown in Fig. 10. Plots for all depths of cut follow a similar
trend, (i.e., a minimum of damage value at around 15
to 30
fiber orientation).
Although predicted damage is higher for higher depths of cut, it approaches almost
one value at around 30
fiber orientation, where the damage is found to be minimum
for all the investigated cases.
 ORDER REPRINTS

1022 Bhatnagar et al.

3 Internal Damage vs. Fiber Orientation

2.5

2
Damage, mm

0.1 mm
1.5 0.2 mm
0.3 mm
1

0.5
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fiber Orientation, deg

Figure 10. Comparison of predicted values of internal damage at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mm depth
of cut.

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions are made from the present study:

1. Internal damage is minimum for fiber orientations in the range of 15
to 30

for UD-GFRP composite laminates and increases on both sides of that
range. This is related to the magnitude of cutting and thrust forces, which
are minimum for these orientations. The magnitude of damage value rises
slowly up to 60
, after which there is a steep rise up to 90
.
2. The plots of predicted internal damage for different depth of cut tend to
come closer at the range of fiber orientations, where minimum damage is
observed for any individual depth of cut. The magnitude of divergence of
damage values increases on either side of the plot (Fig. 10).
3. An almost constant difference between the experimental and predicted
values of damage is observed for higher depth of cut (0.2 mm and upward).
When the depth of cut is low (i.e., 0.1 mm), the predicted and experimental
values show a good agreement up to a fiber orientation of 60
. There is a
marked difference between the predicted and experimental damaged values
beyond 60
, spreading up to 90
.

The discrepancies between the observed and the predicted values may be due to
the following reasons:

1. The simulation considers the material to be a perfect, devoid of any residual

stresses and internal defects. This is not the case in any practical work
material. Some flaws (in the form of air pockets, microcracks, prestressed
 ORDER REPRINTS

Machining-Induced Damage Characteristics 1023

zones, etc.) are always present inside a specimen irrespective of best

precautions taken during the manufacturing process.
2. The material is considered anisotropic but homogeneous for this analysis.
There is no change of stiffness encountered by the cutting tool during
machining simulation. This means that there is no stiffness variation due to
the presence of matrix and fibers because an equivalent homogenous
material has been chosen.
3. Although the simulated values of damage are always lower than the
experimentally observed values, both follow a definite trend. A better-
simulated result, leading to accurate prediction of the internal damage, is
also influenced by proper interfacial properties between two separating
surfaces. Those values of interfacial properties as listed in Table 3 may not
be exact. This is because it is difficult to predict the failure strength of a
Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

material, especially composites, in a multiaxial state of stress.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are thankful to the Ministry of Human Resources Development,

Government of India, for their financial support under the scheme ‘‘Thrust
Areas—2002,’’ for the project ‘‘Machinability Index of FRP Composites.’’

REFERENCES

1. Takeyama, H.; Iijima, N. Machinability of glass fiber reinforced plastics and

application of ultrasonic machining. Ann. CIRP 1988, 37 (1), 93–96.
2. Inoue, H.; Yuge, T. Study on the surface finish after cutting glass fiber reinforced
plastics. Advances in Fiber Composite Materials; Elsevier Science and The Society
of Materials Science, 1999.
3. Wang, X.M.; Zhang, L.C. An experimental investigation into the orthogonal
cutting of unidirectional fiber reinforced plastics. Int. J. Machine Tool Manuf.
2003, 43 (10), 1015–1022.
4. Hibbit; Karlsson; Sorensen. ABAQUS 2003 Users and Theory Manuals,
Version 6.3; Providence, RI, 2003.
5. Nayak, D.; Singh, I.; Bhatnagar, N.; Mahajan, P. FEM Model for Material
Removal Mechanism in Fiber Reinforced Plastic Composite Laminates, 7th
International Pacific Conference on Manufacturing and Management, Bangkok,
Thailand, November 2002; 565–573.
6. Caprino, G.; Santo, L.; Nele, L. Interpretation of size effect in orthogonal machining
of composite materials. Part I: Uni-directional glass-fiber-reinforced plastics.
Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing 1998, 29 (8), 887–892.
7. Peters, S.T. Handbook of Composites, 2nd Ed; London, 1998; 133–134.

Received October 1, 2003

Accepted November 18, 2003
 Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!

Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright
Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before
using copyrighted content.

All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited
to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are
the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel
Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order

Downloaded by [Amity University] at 21:48 23 August 2017

reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/

Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the
U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S.
copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’
(AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.

The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted,
reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without
permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the
limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or
personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such
Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing
on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as
part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do
not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website
User Agreement for more details.

Request Permission/Order Reprints

Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081AMP200035177