International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317

A computational approach to evaluate temperature and heat

partition in machining with multilayer coated tools
W. Grzesik ∗, P. Nieslony
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Production Automation, Technical University of Opole, P.O. Box 321, Opole 45-271, Poland

Received 19 May 2003; accepted 10 June 2003

Abstract

In this paper, analytical models for estimating the interface temperature and heat partition to the chip in continuous dry machining
of steels with flat-faced tools treated with multilayer coatings are presented. The database for modeling includes changes in the
thermal properties of both workpiece and substrate/coating materials and the Peclet and Fourier numbers occurring at actual interface
temperatures. Process outputs involve the average tool–chip interface temperature, the tool–chip contact length, the friction energy
and the heat balance between the moving chip and stationary tool. It was found that the heat partition coefficient varies significantly
from 0.65 to 0.8 when using multilayer coated tools, and changes from 0.5 to 0.6 for uncoated carbide tools. This implies that the
use of multilayer coated tools causes about 30% more heat generated due to friction to be transferred into the moving chip. In
general, both power and linear models can be used to estimate the interface temperature.
 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Machining; Steels; Multilayer coatings; Heat partition

1. Introduction interface are sensitive to changes in the thermophysical

In metal cutting operations, temperature develops at
the tool–chip interface, and heat transferred from this
zone is a crucial factor, determining such key process
issues as tool wear and its life, and surface integrity.
These influences are predominant in dry machining at
high speed, which becomes an economical and ecologi-
cal imperative. While heat generation depends mainly on
process parameters and the machinability rate of the
work material, the thermophysical properties of the cut-
ting tool material used were found to be a decisive factor
in the distribution of temperature fields and heat dissi-
pation [1,2]. In this regard, the application of tools
treated with advanced cutting tool coatings can lead to
a substantial reduction of cutting temperatures and
increase of the heat partition to the chip and, as a result,
to moderate tool wear [3,4]. This is due to the fact that
both thermal and tribological outputs from the tool–chip
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-77-4006290; fax: +48-77-
4006342.
E-mail address: grzesik@polo.po.opole.pl (W. Grzesik).
properties of the workpiece and coating materials,
including the thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity
and heat transfer coefficient [5].
It is well known that temperature rise in metal cutting
is caused by two principle heat sources—the first
resulting from plastic deformation developed at the pri-
mary shear plane (the shear zone heat source) and the
second due to friction at the tool–chip interface (the fric-
tional heat source). There are many viable analytical and
computational/simulation methods which enable deter-
mination of the average interface temperature or the tem-
perature distribution curves along the tool–chip interface
[6,7]. This paper checks the fitting of temperature values
obtained experimentally by means of the natural thermo-
couple technique to the two different analytical models,
i.e. the power and linear relationships, which incorporate
basic thermal properties of the coupled materials under
actual interface conditions. It should be noted that the
exponential model was derived using the functional
analysis approach, originally proposed by Chao et al. [8]
and developed later by Loewen and Shaw [9], and the
linear model was obtained based on the theory of simi-
larity [10].

0890-6955/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00160-3
1312 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317
In addition, this work considers heat partition in the
stationary tool and in the moving chip due to frictional
heat at the tool–chip interface for two cases, namely
orthogonal machining with carbide and multilayer
coated tools. The novelty of this modeling approach
results mainly from the mutual application of the Peclet
and Fourier numbers in one integrated model, which
includes the changes in the thermodynamic properties of
the work (chip) and coating/substrate materials.
It is reported [6,11] that the heat partition fraction for
a body with a stationary heat source (tool) decreases rap-
idly with an increase in the Peclet number, NPe. For com-
parison of this effect, a high Peclet number of NPe⬇
5–20 is characteristic for conventional machining of
steel with a carbide tool, and a low value of NPe⬇0.5 is
typical for ultraprecision machining of aluminum with a
single-crystal diamond tool [12]. According to Reznikov
[2], heat sources for which the Peclet criterion is higher
than 10 belongs to the class of high-speed heat sources.
This means that the generated heat does not expand in
its front parallel to the movement direction, but only
below and beyond it. It is possible, with the increase
in the sliding velocity, to reduce substantially the heat
partition for the multilayer coated cutting tools tested.
In the study carried out with steels and both uncoated
and coated carbide tools, the machining process was per-
formed at high values of the thermal number, which
guarantees that the heat source moves faster than heat
can expand to the tool body [12,13].
2. Models for the prediction of interface
temperature and heat partition
2.1. Prediction of the chip–tool interface temperature
As noted in Section 1 two models, power and linear,
derived from the dimensional analysis and the theory of
similarity, are verified experimentally in the first part of
investigation. The models are given by Eqs. 1 and 2,
respectively.
冦 冧
n
冪(lrc)
vch
⌰T ⫽ CT ec
W given by [5]
where ⌰T is mean tool face temperature [⌰], ec is spe-
cific cutting energy [FT2], vc is cutting speed [LT⫺1], h
is undeformed chip thickness [L], and lWrWcp is heat
transmission coefficient of work material [F2L⫺2T⫺1
⌰⫺2], where lW, rW and cp are thermal conductivity,
density and specific heat, respectively.
Eq. (1) can be written in simplified form as:
⌰T ⫽ CTAn
The linear model involving thermophysical properties of
the contacted work (W) and tool (T) materials is as fol-
lows:
冉 冊
a0.625
⌰T ⫽ A ⫹B
W
(2)
l0.85
W lT
0.15
where aW is thermal diffusivity of the chip material, and
lW, lT are thermal conductivity of work and tool
(coating or substrate) materials.
2.2. Determination of the heat partition coefficient
In this study, prediction of partition of the heat flux
which flows into the chip, i.e. for body with a moving
heat source, was based on the determination of the heat
partition coefficient (Rch), which defines the percentage
of the heat entering the moving chip. It should be noted
that fraction (1⫺Rch) provides the percentage of the dis-
sipated energy going to the tool, i.e. the member that is
stationary relative to the heat source. Basically, two dif-
ferent methods of calculation of Rch values are proposed.
Kato and Fujii [17] have determined this coefficient for
conventional surface grinding based on the values of the
heat transmission coefficients (triple products used in Eq.
(1)) for workpiece and grinding wheel materials. The
same approach was used in the ASM Surface Engineer-
ing Handbook [18]. By analogy, the heat partition coef-
ficient for given thermal properties of work (W) and tool
(T) materials can be given by
1
Rch ⫽
1 ⫹ 冑(lrcp)T / (lrcp)W
(3)
On the other hand, Reznikov [2] has proposed calcu-
lation of the amount of heat flowing to the chip using
two dimensionless thermal numbers, namely the Peclet
(Pe) and Fourier (Fo) numbers. The adequate expression
can be written as
1
Rch ⫽
1 ⫹ (3 / 2)(lT / lW)冑PeTFoW
(4)
The Peclet number ascertains the velocity of the heat
source movement and for the uniform rectangular fric-
tional heat source localized on the tool–chip interface is
(1)
vchlc
Pe ⫽ (5)
aT
where vch is the sliding (chip) velocity, lc is the tool–
chip contact length and aT denotes the diffusivity of the
tool material.
The Fourier number, which defines the duration of the
contact (heat source influence), can be obtained as
aWt aW
Fo ⫽ ⫽ (6)
(1a) l2c lcvch
 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317 1313

where aW is the diffusivity of the work material.
Combining Eqs. (4)–(6) leads to the final expression
for the heat partition coefficient:
1
Rch ⫽
1 ⫹ (3 / 2)(lT / lW)冑aW / aT
(7)
Fig. 1 illustrates the influence of the product PeTFoW on
the heat partition for different values of the ratio lW /
lT, ranging from 0.1 up to 2. It should be pointed out
based on Fig. 1 that the fraction of heat cumulated in
the tool body (T) can be substantially reduced for large
values of the ratio of thermal conductivities of the sliding
partners and when the sliding system is itself able to
provide a large thermal number or the maximum value
of the product PeTFoW.
On the other hand, the decrease of the ratio lW / lT
denotes that the majority of heat flux, i.e. qT = Rq, flows
to the tool with higher thermal conductivity. This situ-
ation can occur when machining heat-resistant or high-
temperature alloys with carbide tools or plastics with
diamond tools.
m / min for stainless steel, feed rate f = 0.16 mm/rev,
depth of cut ap = 2 mm.
The measuring techniques were essentially similar to
those used in previous authors’ studies on cutting tool
coatings [5,14–16]. The cutting forces Fc and Ff were
measured using a two-component strain-gauge dyna-
mometer fixed on the tool post of a lathe.
For example, Fig. 2 shows values of the cutting forces
determined for varying cutting speed.
The thermal emf signals were recorded in the classical
tool–work thermocouple circuit and converted into equi-
valent temperature values. In order to store the data in
computer memory, on-line measurements were
accomplished using a multichannel data acquisition
software.
After cutting, the contact parts of the tool rake faces
were dimensioned with the PC-based optical image pro-
cessing system described in [15,16]. It included a CCD
camera, a high-resolution color display and a Corel
Photo Paint v.7.0 graphical package. This system pro-
vides a high-resolution and sharp image for visualization
and, as a result, the tool–chip contact length was esti-

3. Experimental investigation

In this study, the cutting experiments were conducted

using two multilayers with an intermediate ceramic
layer: CVD—TiC/Al2O3/TiN—⌺8µm and TiC/Ti(C,N)/
Al203/TiN—⌺10µm coated flat-faced inserts consisting
of ISO-P20 cemented carbide substrate. In order to
compare experimental results, the substrate was also
examined as a tool material. The insert geometry was
ISO-TNMA 160408 with a clearance angle equal to 0°.
The cutting tests were carried out on a precision lathe
using a thin-walled tube as the workpiece. The cutting
was performed dry. The thickness of the tube wall was
equal to 2 mm and the outer diameter of the tube was
set at 80 mm. The work materials used in this study
were: AISI 1045 carbon steel (easy-to-machine material)
and AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel (difficult-to-
machine material). For all experiments, cutting para-
meters were varied over the ranges: cutting speed vc =
50–210 m / min for carbon steel and vc = 30–180 Fig. 2. Dependence of the cutting force on cutting speed.

Fig. 1. Influence of thermophysical properties of sliding partners—workpiece (W) and tool (T) on heat partition after [2].
1314 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317
Fig. 3. Dependence of the tool–chip contact length on cutting speed.
mated with high accuracy. Consequently, this processing
technique guarantees more accurate determination of the
heat fluxes and the contact loads.
Fig. 3 shows changes in the tool–chip contact length
resulting from the coatings used in the whole range of
cutting speeds applied. Moreover, Fig. 4 illustrates how
the contact temperatures measured for the same cutting
speeds as in Fig. 3 influence the tool–chip contact
behavior represented by the tool–chip contact length. It
is characteristic that substantial differences occur for
Fig. 4. Dependence of the tool–chip contact length on contact tem-
perature.
multilayer coated tools in the case of cutting AISI 304
stainless steel (courses 1b and 2b vs. 3b in Figs. 3 and 4).
For thermal analysis of the process, the thermophys-
ical properties of workpiece and coating materials occur-
ring at higher temperatures, including the thermal con-
ductivity (l) and the thermal diffusivity (a = l / cr), were
determined. For example, variations in a are partially
shown in Fig. 5(a). For the WC–Co carbides, a
decreases monotonically, but under higher contact tem-
perature exceeding 400 °C for both titanium-based coat-
ing materials and Al2O3-based ceramics, it changes
insignificantly. The distribution of the thermal properties
of the steels used depends strongly on their physical
properties. For austenitic stainless steel (Fig. 5b), both
the thermal diffusivity and conductivity increase slowly
with an increase in temperature. On the other hand, for
medium carbon steel, these properties decrease up to
720–730 °C and subsequently increase, as for stainless
steel. It should be pointed out that at the contact tempera-
tures occurring during the experiments, both l and a
changed rather linearly.
4. Experimental and computation results
The results of the interface temperature and the heat
partition calculations according to the models described
in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are presented successively in
Figs. 6–10. In these figures, the experimental values of
Rch are presented for eight kinds of tool and work
materials. It is evident from Fig. 6 that the temperature
values predicted by the linear model given by formula
(2) are consistent with the measured ones. Similar results
were obtained based on the power model defined by Eq.
(1). For example, for machining stainless steel with
three-layer coated tools under cutting parameters
applied, the empirical formulae are as follows:
冢 冣
0.43
冪(lrc)
vc h
⍜̄ ⫽ 27.03 ec in °C (8a)
W
⍜̄ ⫽ 10.342 ⫻ 108 冉 l
a
W
0.625
W
0.85 0.15
lT
冊
⫺25.77 (8b)
⫻ 103 in °C
A slight disagreement between the experimental and cal-
culated values is observed. For these two models, calcu-
lation errors ranged from –3.0% to +1.54% and from –
1.03% to +0.65% for linear and polynomial approxi-
mations, respectively. In general, maximum calculation
error does not exceed 3.0% for all combinations of work
and tool materials used.
In contrast, Armarego et al. [20] reported that a com-
 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317 1315

Fig. 6. Relationship between measured and predicted values of the

tool–chip interface temperature for uncoated and multilayer coated
tools. Work material: AISI 304 stainless steel.

Fig. 7. Influence of the interface temperature on heat partition. 1—

Uncoated carbide P20, 2—TiC/Al2O3/TiN, 3—TiC/Ti(C,N)/Al2O3/
TiN, a—AISI 1045 carbon steel, b—AISI 304 stainless steel.

Fig. 5. Dependence of thermal diffusivity of contacted work (a) and

tool (b) materials on temperature rise [5,19].

prehensive predictive model for temperature and other

process outputs in ‘classical’ orthogonal cutting as a
function of major operation (technological) variables has
many limitations, and the predicted average tool–chip
interface temperature is on average within –10.7% and
51.7%, respectively, between the tool–work thermo-
couple and infrared methods. As a result, they concluded
that the quantitative correlation between the predicted
and measured average tool–chip interface temperature is
Fig. 8. Influence of the contact length on heat partition calculated
in very good agreement with the tool–work thermo-
using Eq. (7).
couple method.
1316 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317
Fig. 9. Influence of the thermal number on heat partition calculated
using Eq. (7).
Fig. 10. Influence of the specific friction energy on heat partition cal-
culated using Eq. (7).
Also, the simulation results obtained by means of the
finite difference method for the machining of mild steel
with the feed rate of 0.604 mm/rev and cutting speed of
22.86 m/min indicated that the predicted and measured
(classical Boothroyd’s data) values of the maximum
temperature on the rake face were equal to 810 and 760
°C, respectively [7].
In this investigation, the heat partition coefficient was
analyzed in terms of fundamental contact characteristics
such as the interface temperature, the tool–chip contact
length, the Peclet number and the specific friction
energy. It should be noted that in Figs. 7–10 the heat
partition expresses the percentage of friction energy
going to the chip, i.e. R ⬅ Rch. The use of the interface
temperature as a process variable instead of the tradition-
ally used cutting speed is motivated by the fact that the
tool should not be employed close to or beyond the dif-
fusion and bonding limits of cutting tool materials. For
example, the diffusion limit for cobalt binding in tung-
sten carbide tools is about 1100–1200 °C [7]. The rec-
ommended working temperatures for the range of coat-
ings mostly used in modern industry can be found in
[21].
Fig. 7 shows the percentage of heat transferred to the
chip, being the member that is moving relative to the
frictional heat source, depending on the tool–chip inter-
face temperature, which varies from 430 to 930 °C. It
is evident from Fig. 7 that heat transfer to the chip
becomes more intensive at higher temperatures or equiv-
alently at higher cutting speeds. Moreover, the model
taking into account the Fourier number provides lower
values of the heat partition coefficient. The maximum
heat partition was revealed for machining carbon and
stainless steels with the three-layer coated tools. The
values of the R coefficient computed by Eq. (3) are equal
to 0.77 and 0.71, respectively. On the other hand, the
corresponding values of R determined by Eq. (7) are
equal to 0.68 and 0.62. Consequently, for uncoated car-
bide tools, the partition of the heat flux varies from 0.51
to 0.42 depending on the combination of the steel grade
and the substrate/coating material. This implies that the
use of multilayer coated tools causes about 30% more
heat generated due to friction to be transferred into the
moving chip.
As shown in Fig. 8, the larger the length of the inter-
face contact, the higher the heat partition fraction for a
tool, which represents a body with a stationary heat
source. This means that less heat is carried away by the
chip, which is moving relative to the heat source. This
situation is mostly related to machining stainless steels,
for which the heat partition to the chip can be reduced
to 0.42 when using conventional carbide tools. One can
see based on Figs. 7 and 8 that the higher the velocity
of the moving heat source, the closer the maximum value
of temperature to the trailing edge. This experimental
evidence was also demonstrated by Komanduri and Hou
[12] for sliding steel and bronze bodies.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of the heat partition coef-
ficient as a function of the Peclet number for different
workpiece and cutting tool materials. It can be reasoned
based on Fig. 9 that the heat partition fraction qch =
RqF increases distinctly with an increase in the thermal
number. In general, significant reduction of the heat par-
tition fraction for a body with a stationary heat source
(tool) results from a rapid increase in the Peclet number
[12]. A similar effect was noted when considering the
influences of the cutting speed or cutting temperature.
As expected, the highest values of the heat partition for
the two sliding bodies occurred for coatings with an
intermediate ceramic layer and carbon steel used.
The comparison shown in Fig. 10 indicates that
substrate/coating–steel sliding systems, which provide
minimum friction at the interface, are able to transfer
more heat to the body with a moving heat source. It is
interesting to observe in Fig. 10 that this physical evi-
dence is mostly valid for machining stainless steel. It
should also be noted based on Figs. 7 and 10 that the
temperature rise for stainless steel is much higher than
that for carbon steel due to higher energy input (course
1b in Fig. 10) and relatively low thermal diffusivity
 W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 1311–1317
occurring at the interface temperatures lower than 600
°C (course 2 in Fig. 5). These temperature–energy
relationships are quite different from that observed in
grinding operations performed on the same work
materials [17]. As reported by Varghese et al. [22] for
regular straight surface grinding of steels, energy par-
titions to the workpiece range from about 60% to 85%
with aluminum oxide, which, in general, is consist with
the prediction results presented in this study.
5. Conclusions
1. Effects of the interface temperature (sliding speed),
length of the heat source, duration of the contact, and
thermophysical properties of two different materials
in sliding contact on the heat partition fraction were
investigated.
2. It is possible to predict with reasonable accuracy the
interface temperature and heat partition based on the
contact characteristics and/or thermophysical proper-
ties of the work and substrate/coating materials. In
particular, both power and linear models are accept-
able for predicting the tool–chip interface tempera-
ture.
3. Incorporation of the Fourier number, which addition-
ally takes into account duration of the heat source
action, results in reduction of the heat partition frac-
tion for the body with a moving heat source. In gen-
eral, these discrepancies do not exceed 15%.
4. Relatively strong influence of the contact character-
istics, including the interface temperature, the tool–
chip contact length, the Peclet number and the specific
friction energy, on the heat partition was observed in
this study.
5. It was found that the use of multilayer coated tools
causes about 30% more heat generated due to friction
to be transferred into the moving chip. This is due to
the fact that the sliding system produces minimum
values of the specific frictional energy.
References
[1] E.M. Trent, P.K. Wright, Metal Cutting, fourth ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston, 2000.
1317
[2] A.N. Reznikov, Thermophysical Aspects of Metal Cutting Pro-
cesses, Mashinostroenie, Moscow, 1981 (in Russian).
[3] W. Grzesik, Advanced Protective Coatings for Manufacturing
and Engineering, Hanser Gardner Publications, Cincinnati, 2003.
[4] W. König, R. Fritsch, D. Kammermeier, Physically vapour
deposited coatings on tools: performance and wear phenomena,
Surf. Coat. Technol. 49 (1991) 316–324.
[5] W. Grzesik, P. Nieslony, M. Bartoszuk, Thermophysical-pro-
perty-based selection of coatings for dry machining of carbon and
stainless steels, Trans. N. Am. Manufact. Res. Inst. SME 30
(2001) 343–350.
[6] R. Komanduri, Z.B. Hou, Tribology in metal cutting—some ther-
mal issues, Trans. ASME J. Tribol. 123 (2001) 799–815.
[7] L. Lazoglu, Y. Altinas, Prediction of tool and chip temperature
in continuous metal cutting and milling, Int. J. Mach. Tools Man-
ufact. 42 (2002) 1011–1022.
[8] R.T. Chao, K.J. Trigger, L.B. Zylstra, Thermophysical aspects of
metal cutting, Trans. ASME 74 (1952) 1039–1048.
[9] E.G. Loewen, M.C. Shaw, On the analysis of cutting-tool tem-
perature, Trans. ASME 76 (1954) 217–231.
[10] S.S. Silin, Similarity Methods in Metal Cutting, Mashinostroenie,
Moscow, 1981 (in Russian).
[11] R. Komanduri, Z.B. Hou, Analysis of heat partition and tempera-
ture distribution in sliding systems, Wear 251 (2001) 925–938.
[12] R. Komanduri, Z.B. Hou, Thermal modeling of the metal cutting
process—part II: temperature rise distribution due to frictional
heat source at the tool–chip interface, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 43 (2001)
57–88.
[13] V.P. Astakhov, Metal Cutting Mechanics, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 1999.
[14] W. Grzesik, The role of coatings in controlling the cutting process
when turning with coated indexable inserts, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 37 (1998) 133–143.
[15] W. Grzesik, The influence of thin hard coatings on frictional
behaviour in the orthogonal cutting process, Tribol. Int. 33 (2000)
131–140.
[16] W. Grzesik, An integrated approach to evaluating the tribo-con-
tact for coated cutting inserts, Wear 240 (2000) 9–18.
[17] T. Kato, H. Fujii, Energy partition in conventional surface grind-
ing, ASME Trans. J. Manufact. Sci. Eng. 121 (1999) 393–398.
[18] S. Chandrasekar, T.N. Farris, et al., Thermal aspects of surface
finishing processes, in: Surface Engineering, ASM Handbook,
vol. 5, ASM International, The Materials Information Society,
USA, 1999, pp. 152–157.
[19] F.P. Incropera, D.P. De Witt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer, third ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.
[20] C.B. Aluwihare, E.J.A. Armarego, A.J.R. Smith, A predictive
model for temperature distribution in ‘classical’ orthogonal cut-
ting, Trans. N. Am. Manufact. Res. Inst. SME 28 (2000) 131–
136.
[21] W. Grzesik, An investigation of the thermal effects in orthogonal
cutting associated with multilayer coatings, Ann. CIRP 50 (1)
(2001) 53–56.
[22] V. Varghese, C. Guo, S. Malkin, G. Xiao, Energy partition for
grinding of nodular cast iron with vitrified CBN wheels, Mach.
Sci. Technol. 4 (2) (2000) 197–208.