The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-09229-6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mathematical modeling of surface roughness in polystyrene foam

machining
Gopal Gote1   · Pushkar Kamble1 · Rajendra Hodgir1 · Yash Mittal1 · K. P. Karunakaran1

Received: 6 June 2021 / Accepted: 14 April 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
In the present era, polystyrene foam is widely used in foundries for pattern making. Industries extensively use the
steam molding routes for polystyrene foam pattern making. However, the molding method cannot produce complex
geometries. Industries are using the machining route for pattern making to overcome these limitations. There is limited
research carried out on expanded polystyrene foam machining. Patterns need smooth surfaces with minimum surface
roughness to make good quality castings. Therefore, there is a need to predict the surface roughness and its affecting
parameters for polystyrene foam machining. The present article discusses a new theory for foam machining. The pre-
liminary experiments identified two cutting mechanisms, mechanism I (through bead cutting) and mechanism II (bead
removal). A novel mathematical model for the surface roughness has been developed and experimentally validated. A
close correlation between the predicted and experimental values of average surface roughness (Ra) is observed with an
average error of 19.70%. The correlation analysis shows a 93.07% correlation between the predicted and experimental
values. The proposed mathematical model has been segregated into two parts because of through bead cutting and
bead removal. Observation shows, the model part due to bead removal contributes significantly more (approximately
90% for all experiments) to the surface roughness. Therefore, surface roughness can be improved by minimizing or
avoiding bead removal.

Keywords  Foam machining · Foam machining theory · Surface roughness · Mathematical model

Abbreviations 1 Introduction
Ra Average surface roughness
Ad Bead dislocation/removal area Machining is a well-established manufacturing process
Ab Distorted bead area where an object is made by cutting the block gradually
d EPS foam bead diameter(mm) as per the required geometry. Researchers have investi-
a Cord diameter of foam bead in cutting plane gated the machinability of the various materials. Most
x Position of mean line with respect to the cutting line researchers have focused on the machining of difficult to
Ө Deflection of the foam bead before cutting cut [1], lightweight [2], and biocompatible materials [3].
f Effective feed(mm/teeth) The machining quality is reflected on the two factors, viz.,
F Linear feed(mm/min) surface roughness and dimensional accuracy, that need to
N Spindle speed(rpm) be optimized according to the applications of the machined
Z Number of teeth part [4]. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foams have a wide
range of applications in foam foundries, prototyping indus-
tries, construction industries, and packaging industries.
Lost foam casting is considered “Casting technology of
the twenty-first century” because of the high precision,
* Gopal Gote environment-friendly, and ability to make complex cast-
gopalgote99@gmail.com ings [5]. Therefore, EPS foam has wide applications as
expendable foam patterns in lost foam foundries. Plastic
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute foam is popular in the prototyping industry since it has
of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India 400076

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

unique advantages like lightweight, low cost, and avail-
ability [5]. Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam is the most
commonly used plastic foam due to its low price and
easy availability. Researchers have studied the mechani-
cal properties of EPS foam to understand the mechanical
behavior and proposed some empirical relations to calcu-
late the different mechanical properties like yield stress,
young’s modulus, etc. [6]. Currently, industries are using
three routes for making polystyrene foam parts. The mold-
ing route requires higher capital equipment cost and has
dimensional accuracy and part intricacy limitations. Also,
tooling cost is high since separate molds are necessary
for every geometry. The second one is the hot wire cut-
ting route. It also has limitations in terms of dimensional
accuracy and poor surface quality [7]. These limitations
can be overcome by the machining route, which is the
third route [8]. Along with these primary routes of foam
shaping, various researchers are developing foam proto-
typing techniques; these techniques also use either alone
or a combination of the available foam shaping routes. Few
studies are available on the EPS foam 3D printing, such as
segmented object manufacturing which uses a combina-
tion of hot wire slicing and machining route [9], and foam
3DP by University of Nantes which uses robotic arm for
the printing and machining [10].
Polystyrene foam is a soft material and has the advan-
tage of thermal cutting [5, 11]. However, few studies have
been reported in the foam machining area. A previous study
describes the need to study foam machining. They have
optimized the surface roughness and machining time for
the polystyrene foam [12] but did not explain the chip for-
mation mechanism in foam cutting. Some researchers have
optimized the surface roughness in polystyrene machining
using 3D-printed plastic tools [13]. They have also formu-
lated a regression analysis to correlate surface roughness
and process parameters. However, they have not considered
the workpiece parameters in the investigation and failed to
explain the foam cutting theory.
Furthermore, Sharif performed the orthogonal cutting
of polyurethane foam to understand the chip formation.
They performed several experiments to find the correlation
between machining parameters and chip formation [14]. The
conventional approach to surface modeling is based on the
tool geometry (tool nose radius) and the path (feed/ rev)
[15]. This approach fails to predict the surface roughness
in foam machining because of the material behavior of the
plastic foams. Closed-cell foams have air entrapped; thus,
it adds resistance to the cutting. Another study categorized
the modeling of machining into three different categories as
analytical, experimental, and mechanistic numerical meth-
ods [16]. Few industries (Jyoti Tooling, Pune) are using
the machining route for foam shaping. They use the metal
machining tools for the foam machining as they use the
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
metal parameters. They are unable to achieve the required
surface finish. After the machining, they usually do hand
polishing using fine sandpaper. Photographs presented by
the previous studies also show the poor surface finish of the
machined foam as they have used conventional tooling [7, 8].
Therefore, there is a need to understand the foam cutting
theory and influencing parameters on the surface rough-
ness so that customized tooling for the foam cutting can
be manufactured to improve efficiency in achieving surface
roughness and dimensional accuracy. This article describes
the foam machining theory based on the material behavior
and formulates the mathematical expression to predict the
surface roughness. Validation of the proposed theory and
mathematical model is investigated. A statistical correla-
tion analysis has been performed to estimate the proposed
model’s validity and effectiveness. Furthermore, the signifi-
cance of the proposed model has been discussed.
2 Proposed foam machining theory
The proposed theory is based on material geometry and
properties. It is well known that expanded polystyrene (EPS)
foam contains a hard phase of polystyrene and about 98% air
or gaseous phase [15], EPS foam at the macroscopic level
can be visualized as closed beads ranging from 2 to 4 mm
diameter fused [17]. Each bead contains a gaseous phase
inside it. Therefore, during EPS machining, when the cutting
tool contacts the foam, it initially gets compressed because
of its low resistance to deformation. Furthermore, there are
two possibilities.
Mechanism I: Possibility of through-bead cutting. Con-
sider a single nearly spherical bead surrounded by other
beads, as depicted in Fig. 1a. XX represents the axis of the
foam bead. When the tool contacts the foam bead, it gets
distorted into an oval shape, as shown by position 2. After-
ward, the bead is cut throughout, as represented by position
3 in Fig. 1a. Furthermore, the tool leaves the foam bead
surface, and the foam bead tries to regain its shape, as shown
by position 4. Once the tool passes the machined surface, a
little portion of the foam bead comes above the cutting line,
as depicted by position 4 in Fig. 1a.
There are two primary reasons for this mechanism:
inter-bead strength is more vital than intra-bead strength.
The other reason is the bead position corresponding to the
cutting line, as depicted in Fig. 2a. If more than 50% of the
bead portion is below the cutting line, the adjacent beads
apply the resistance and reduce the chances of the bead
removal from its position, leading to through-bead cutting.
Figure 2a shows through bead cutting, the hatched portion
shows the material present at the machined surface, and
the dotted part of the bead shows the material removed
after machining.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Fig. 1  Foam cutting mechanism
a mechanism I (through-bead
cutting) b mechanism II (bead
removal)
Mechanism II: there is a possibility of bead removal from
its position. In this case, once the tool contacts the foam
bead, the bead gets compressed, as depicted by position 2
in Fig. 1b. Because of the loose bonding between the adja-
cent beads, the bead is removed from the surface instead of
throughout cutting, as depicted in position 3 in Fig. 1b. It
happens when inter-bead strength is weaker than intra-bead
strength. Another possibility for bead removal is when a
significant fraction of the bead lies above the cutting line,
as shown in Fig. 2b. Apart from the inter bead strength,
the bead’s position corresponding to the cutting plane also
plays a significant role. In Fig. 2b, the hatched bead shows
the material present at the machined surface, and the dotted
bead shows the material removed after machining, indicating
complete bead removal.
There are two possibilities of both the mechanisms
(mechanism I and mechanism II) for material removal in
the proposed theory. If more than 50% volume of the foam
bead lies below the cutting line, there is a tendency of bead
deflection followed by through bead cutting, as shown in
Fig. 1a. If more than 50% volume of the foam bead lies
above the cutting line, there is a tendency of material
removal by a complete detachment of the foam bead, as
shown in Fig. 1b. EPS foam has a very light mass density
with approximately 98% of air inside [18]. The bonding
strength is very minimal and can lead to easy detachment
of foam bead, based on the orientation with the cutting line.
The approximate machined surface can be visualized in
Fig. 3. The peaks are due to the through bead cutting and
valleys due to bead removal from its original position.
Several slot milling experiments are performed on EPS
foam to validate the proposed theory. The machined surface
of foam has been observed using the Tool Maker Microscope
(make-Olympus). Figure 4a shows the photographic view of
the machined surface depicting the observation line (AB) and
the direction of the observation for the study. Figure 4b shows
mechanism I (through-bead cutting), where observed slight
bead distortion. Figure 4c depicts mechanism I (through-
bead cutting), where the bead has left the machined surface.
Figure 4d describes mechanism I (through-bead cutting) and
mechanism II (bead removal), where both bead distortion
and bead removal can be seen. Figure 4e depicts the cluster
13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 2  Foam bead arrangement

along cutting line prone to the
cutting mechanism by a mecha-
nism I, b mechanism II

of beads arranged near one another on the machined surface,
which gives a clear view of both the mechanisms. The pre-
dicted surface matches the machined surface, as depicted in
Figs. 3 and 4.
mechanistic model for average surface roughness in the
EPS foam machining [14, 19]. As explained in the previous
section, the proposed mathematical model is based on the
machining theory. The assumptions are considered as fol-
lows to develop the surface roughness model.

3 Mathematical model
3.1 Assumptions
Modeling of machining can be done by three different
routes: analytical, experimental, and numerical methods. • The cutting edge is considered sharp since EPS plastic
The analytical method has been selected to formulate the foam is a much softer material.
Fig. 3  Approximate surface
profile after foam machining

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 4  a Foam machined slot showing observation view for microscopic study. b c d microscopic view of cutting surface showing through-bead
cutting, bead dislocation, and both through-bead cutting and bead dislocation. e zoomed view at the macroscopic level of the machined surface

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

• Bead cutting happens via both means, through bead cut- A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 + A5

ting and bead removal, as mentioned in the proposed Ra = (2)
2a
theory, and the probability of each mode is 50%.
• Nearly spherical foam bead. To calculate all five areas ­(A1, ­A2, ­A3, ­A4, and A
­ 5), the
• Negligible vibrations. construction lines are drawn as depicted in Fig. 6a and 6b to
• Bead deflection before actual cutting is considered unit calculate the area; hatched area CAB represents the distorted
multiplication of effective feed. area of the bead above the cutting line (­ A1). The ∠CAB
due to deflection of the foam bead before cutting is taken
as Ө. Therefore, according to the properties of the circle,
3.2 Description angle ∠COB = 2Ө; AB represents the cord length of the
bead along the cutting plane is considered AB = a; there-
According to the proposed theory, there are two foam cutting
fore, AG = GB = a/2, and by considering bead diameter d,
mechanisms: through-bead cutting and bead removal. As
then OB = OA = d/2. By using trigonometric relations from
explained in the previous section, through-bead cutting gen-
ΔACB in Fig. 6a, A1 can be written as,
erates the peaks, and bead removal causes the valleys. Since
the assumption shows the 50% probability of each mode, the
( (√ )) √
( )2 ( )2 ( )2
ad a a d a
unit surface area contributes to the surface roughness can
A1 =
4
× sin 2𝜃 + sin−1 1−
d
− ×
2 2
−
2 (3)
be visualized as a combination of average peak and average
valley, as depicted by the red-colored area in Fig. 5c. From Fig. 6a, the area shown by ▢AQRB(A2) can be
Arithmetic mean height (Ra) is the most used roughness written as,
parameter, defined as the average absolute deviation of surface A2 = a × x (4)
irregularities from the mean line over the sampling length and
mathematically described as follows (Eq. (1)) [20]. From Fig. 6b, the area of ΔIP’M(A3) can be written as,
L �

L∫
1 total prof ile area ⎛ �
�� �2 ��� �2 � �2 �2 ⎞
Ra = y(x)dx =
L (1) 1 ⎜a � d d a ⎟
0 A3 = × x × ⎜ − � − − +x ⎟
2 ⎜2 2 2 2
The area that contributes to the surface roughness is due
⎟
⎝ ⎠
to bead removal area (Ar) (cavity due to bead removal from (5)
the foam surface below the cutting line) and the distorted From the Fig. 6b, the area of segment LJM ­(A4) can be
bead area (Ad) (distorted area of the bead above the cutting written as,
� �� �2 ⎞
�� �
⎛ � 2 � �2 � �2
⎜2 × � d − d
− a
+ x ⎟ ⎛�
�
�2 ��
2 2 2
2
�� �2 ��� �2 � �2 � �2 � �2
�⎞
d d d a d a (6)
⎜ ⎟ ⎜�
−1 ⎜ ⎟
A4 = sin ⎟ × × � − − +x × − +x ⎟
⎜ d ⎟ 2 ⎜⎜ 2 2 2 2 2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

line). Here, the mean line is at a distance x from the cutting From Fig. 6b, the area of ΔHPL(A5) can be written as,
line. Therefore, from Fig. 5c, the colored area represents the �
area that contributes to the surface roughness. The peaks and �2 ⎞
�
⎛ �� �2 ��� �2 � �2
valleys of different sizes are present in the sampling length 1 ⎜a � d d a ⎟
A5 = × x × ⎜ − � − − +x ⎟
L, as depicted in Fig. 5a. For the simplification of the model, 2 ⎜2 2 2 2 ⎟
the equivalent peaks and valleys are considered between sam-
⎝ ⎠
pling length L with an average value of d and a, as depicted (7)
in Fig. 5b and rearranged the position such that peaks and As per the definition of the average surface roughness
valleys come together. Therefore, as per the assumption of ­(Ra), the total area above the mean line will be equal to the
equal probability of both modes, the average peak and valley area below the mean line, therefore,
pair act as unit cells, as shown in Fig. 5c. Since chord length A1 + A2 + A3 + A5 = A4
along the cutting plane will be the same for peaks and val-
leys, the sampling length can be considered 2a.
Therefore, from Fig. 5c, Ra can be calculated as,
A1 + A2 + A3 + A5 − A4 = 0 (8)

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 5  Average surface profile a peaks and valleys in sampling length L, b simplified peaks and valleys in sampling length L, c unit average sur-
face profile with a mean line

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 6  Construction diagram for area calculation of average, a distorted bead area above the cutting line, b cavity area due to bead dislocation
below the cutting line

From Eqs. (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), the average sur- By solving Eqs. (9) and (10), the average surface rough-
face roughness Ra can be written as, ness ­(Ra) and the position of the mean line with respect to the

� � �� �� � � �� �2
� �2 �� � �� �
2 � �2 ⎛ ⎛ � 2 � �2 � � 2 ⎞⎞
ad a a d a
4
× sin 2𝜃 + sin−1 1− d
− 2
× 2
− 2
+ (a × x) + 2 × ⎜ 2x × ⎜ a2 − � d2 − d
2
− a
2
+ x ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
�
(9)
�� �2
⎛ ⎛ � �� �2 � �2 � �2 ⎞ � � 2 �� ⎞
⎜ 2×� d2 − d
− 2a +x ⎟ � �� �
⎜ 2
⎛ �� � 2 � �2 � �2 � �2 � �2 ⎞⎟
d2
−1
+⎜sin ⎜ d
⎟×
2
× ⎜� d2 − d
2
− 2a + x × d
2
− 2a + x ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠
Ra =
2a

Also, from Eqs. (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8), the follow- cutting line(x) can be obtained for known material parameters
ing equation can be written, (a, and d) and machining parameters (F, N, and Z).

� � �� �� � � �� �2
� �2 �� � �� �
2 � �2 ⎛ ⎛ � 2 � �2 � �2 ⎞⎞
ad a a d a x a d d a
4
× sin 2𝜃 + sin−1 1− − 2
× 2
− 2
+ (a × x) + 2 × ⎜ × ⎜ − � − − + x ⎟⎟
d ⎜2 ⎜2 2 2 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
(10)
� �� �2
⎛ ⎛ � �� � 2 � �2 � �2 ⎞ � �2 �� � ⎞
⎜ 2×� d2 − d a
− +x � ��
⎜ 2 2 ⎟ ⎛�� �2 � �2 � �2 � �2 � �2 ⎞⎟
d2
−⎜sin−1 ⎜ d
⎟×
2
× ⎜� d2 − d
2
− a
2
+ x × d
2
− a
2
+ x ⎟⎟ = 0
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 7  Construction diagram to
show the position of the Ө 

Where Ө is the foam bead deflection which depends feed (f), as shown in Fig. 7. The arc VW is formed due to
on the machining, material properties, and tool param- linear displacement f in the cutting plane; therefore, the
eters, it can be calculated by two routes — by considering included angles of arc VW in Fig. 7 and arc CB in Fig. 6a
the cutting forces and by considering the equivalent feed are the same (∠ACB in Fig. 6a = ∠UVW in Fig. 7 = ϴ). h
assumption. is the distance between the cutting plane and the fixed point
As the cutting tool touches the foam bead, the rotat- on the circumference of the circle about which deflection
ing tool exerts forces on the foam bead, which causes the occurs.
through bead cutting or bead removal. The cutting force where f and h can be given as f = NZ F
and h = d +
2
exerted by the rotating tool can be represented as follows
√ ( )2 ( )2
d a
2
− 2
60P
Ft = (11) By placing the values of f and h in the equation of tan Ө,
2𝜋Nr
Ө can be written as,
where Ft = cutting force, P = power, N = RPM, and r = tool
radius. ⎛ ⎞
The cutting will start when Ft is more than or equal to
⎜ ⎟
−1 ⎜ F ⎟
the shear strength 𝜎t of the foam bead. The shear strength 𝜃 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ⎜ � �� � �⎟
(14)
2 2 ⎟
of the foam bead can be written as follows
� �
d d
− 2a
⎜
⎜ NZ 2 + 2 ⎟
(12)
⎝ ⎠
𝜎t = Ft × AS = G𝜃
Equations (13) and (14) both give the foam bead deflec-
where 𝜎t = shear strength of foam bead, 𝜃 = shear strain
tion, but the primary objective was to formulate the surface
(here bead deflection), As = shear area, and G = shear modu-
roughness model for machining and material parameters. It
lus. From Eqs. (11) and (12), foam bead deflection 𝜃 can be
can be seen from Eq. (14) that deflection is dependent on the
written as
material parameters (a and d) and machining parameters (F,
60PAs N, and Z). Therefore, by putting a value of Ө from Eq. (14)
𝜃= (13) into Eqs. (9) and (10), a mathematical model for average
2𝜋NrG
surface roughness (Ra) and the position of the mean line with
Also, it is assumed that deflection of the foam bead respect to the cutting line(x) can be written as Eqs. (15) and
before actual cutting is the unit multiplication of effective (16) respectively.

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

⎧ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞ �� �⎞ �� � ⎞ ⎫
⎜ ad � �2 ⎟ 2 � �2 ⎟
⎜ ⎜ −1 ⎜ F ⎟⎟ −1 a a d a
⎜ 4 × sin⎜2⎜tan ⎜ � �2 � �2 ⎟⎟ + sin 1− d
⎪ ⎪
⎪ � � � ⎟− 2 × 2
− 2 ⎟ ⎪
d d a
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ NZ 2 + 2 − 2 ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠�
⎠ ⎠ ⎠ ⎪
� � � � 2
⎪ ⎛ ⎛ �� � 2 � �2 � �2 ⎞⎞ ⎪
⎪ +(a × x) + 2 × ⎜ 2x × ⎜ 2a − � d2 − d
− a
+ x ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎨ ⎜
⎝
⎜
⎝
2 2 ⎟⎟
⎠⎠
⎬ (15)
⎪ �
⎪
�� �2
⎪ ⎛ ⎛ � �� �2 � �2 � �2 ⎞ � �2 �� ⎞ ⎪
⎜ 2×� d2 − d
− a2 +x ⎟ �� � �� � ⎪
2 2 2 2 2
⎪ ⎜ 2
⎛ � � � � � � � � � ⎞ ⎟
⎪ +⎜sin−1 ⎜ ⎟ × d 2 × ⎜� d − d
− 2a + x × d
− 2a + x ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ d ⎟ 2 ⎜ 2 2 2 ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎟ ⎪
⎩ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠⎭
Ra =
2a

⎧ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞ �� �⎞ �� � ⎞ ⎫
⎜ ad � �2 ⎟ 2 � �2 ⎟
⎜ ⎜ −1 ⎜ F ⎟⎟ −1 a a d a
⎜ 4 × sin⎜2⎜tan ⎜ � �2 � �2 ⎟⎟ + sin 1− d
⎪ ⎪
⎪ � � � ⎟− 2 × 2
− 2 ⎟ ⎪
d d a
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ NZ 2 + 2 − 2 ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠�
⎠ ⎠ ⎠ ⎪
� � � � 2
⎪ ⎛ ⎛ �� �2 � �2 � �2 ⎞⎞ ⎪
⎪ +(a × x) + 2 × ⎜ 2x × ⎜ 2a − � d2 − d
− a
+ x ⎟⎟ ⎪
(16)
⎨ ⎜ ⎜ 2 2 ⎟⎟ ⎬=0
⎪ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎪
� �� �2
⎪ ⎛ ⎛ � �� � 2 � �2 � �2 ⎞ � �2 �� ⎞ ⎪
⎜ 2×� d2 − d
− a2 +x ⎟ �� � �� � ⎪
2 2 2 2 2
⎪ ⎜ 2
⎛ � � � � � � � � � ⎞ ⎟
⎪ −⎜sin−1 ⎜ ⎟ × d2 × ⎜� d − d
− 2a + x × d
− 2a + x ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ d ⎟ 2 ⎜ 2 2 2 ⎟⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠⎟ ⎪
⎩ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠⎭

EPS foam with 30 kg/m3 (supplied by Themo Shield,

The proposed mathematical model predicts that the sur-
Mumbai) has been considered for the study. The
face roughness is the function of material properties (a and
detailed specifications of the EPS foam are tabulated
d) and machining parameters (F, N, and Z). a and d are
in Table 1. Images of the machined surface have been
constants for the given density foam. Therefore, by selecting
taken to determine the material parameters (a, d). The
the appropriate machining parameters (F, N, and Z), one can
average values have been calculated using the open-
predict the surface roughness. Automobile foundries essen-
source Image-J software. Ten images have been taken at
tially use the foam machining route for lost foam pattern
various locations along the cutting line, and nearly ten
making. Presently, foam patterns made through machining
readings have been calculated from the single image.
are hand-polished to achieve the desired surface rough-
Hence, the values of a and d are the averages of more
ness. The proposed model will help in selecting appropri-
than 100 readings each.
ate machining parameters to achieve that surface roughness
without manual intervention and post-processing.

Table 1  Specifications of the EPS foam

4 Validation
Sr no Specifications Values
In the above section, the material-based mathematical
01 Density 30 kg/m3
model has been developed to predict the surface rough-
02 Blowing gas used Pentane
ness for the EPS foam machining. It shows that the surface
03 Young’s modulus 3500 MPa
roughness during EPS foam machining depends on the
04 Tensile strength 52 MPa
material (bead diameter and chord length of a bead along
05 Elongation before break 3–4%
the cutting line), machining (linear feed, spindle speed),
06 Softening point 90 °C
and tool parameters (number of teeth).

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Fig. 8  Effective feed versus

predicted average surface
roughness when the position
of the cutting line coincides
with the mean line (x = 0) a
0.01 ≤ f ≤ 1.6, b 0.01 ≤ f ≤ 0.14 

The average values of d and a are 2.79 mm and 1.45 mm, the extent of variability of data, the coefficient of variation
respectively. These values have been considered further for (CV) is calculated using Eq. (13).
validation. To check the variability of the measurements, the 𝜎
variance and standard deviation are calculated from the fol- CV =
𝜇 (19)
lowing equations,
∑N � �2 For parameters d and a, the coefficient of variation came
xi − 𝜇
(17) out to be 4.3% and 2.07%, respectively. Both are in the
v = i=1
N acceptable range (CV < 10%).
As discussed earlier, Ra depends on a, d, the position of
�
∑N � �2 the mean line, and f. For a given density, foam values of a
i=1
xi − 𝜇 and d are nearly constant. If the position of the mean line is
𝜎= (18)
N known, then Ra is a function of f only for the given density.
For EPS foam with a density of 30 kg/m3, by putting average
The variance and standard deviation for d are as 0.000145
values of a and d in Eq. (15) with considering the cutting line
­mm2 and 0.12 mm from the above equations. Similarly, for
matches with the mean line (at x = 0), the average surface
­ m2 and 0.03 mm, respectively. To estimate
a are 0.00097 m
roughness for 30 kg/m3 density EPS foam is given by Eq. 20.
{ ([ ( ( ) ) ] )}
f
Ra = 65.19 + 0.34875 × sin 2tan−1 + 58.67 − 0.2979 × 1000 𝜇m (20)
2.58

Fig. 9  Experimental setup
(segmented object manufactur-
ing) for foam machining. 1
electrical spindle, 2 automatic
tool changer, 3 tool holder, 4
tool, 5 workpieces (expanded
polystyrene foam)

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 2  Experimentation details Sr. no Machining parameters Effective feed Experimental Predicted Absolute
with average surface roughness f = F/NZ Ra (µm) Ra (µm) error (%)
values (mm/rev.tooth)

01 Speed(N): 8000 RPM 0.010 62.26 75.80 21.71

Feed(F): 500 mm/rev
Number of teeth(Z): 6
02 Speed(N): 4000 RPM 0.021 63.15 77.08 22.05
Feed(F): 500 mm/rev
Number of teeth(Z): 6
03 Speed(N): 4000 RPM 0.031 63.98 78.20 22.22
Feed(F): 1000 mm/rev
Number of teeth(Z): 8
04 Speed(N): 4000 RPM 0.062 71.09 81.63 14.82
Feed(F): 1500 mm/rev
Number of teeth(Z): 6
05 Speed(N): 2000 RPM 0.093 72.15 84.90 17.67
Feed(F): 1500 mm/rev
Number of teeth(Z): 8

From Eq. (20), Ra is proportional to complex trigonomet-
ric function, which has sine and inverse of tan. To under-
stand the effect of f on Ra, here, values of f are considered
from 0.01 to the 1.6 mm/rev.tooth.
The graph has been plotted as shown in Fig. 8a; the pre-
dicted Ra at f = 0.01 mm/rev.tooth is observed as 66.71 µm;
it further increases along half cycle of sine up to 116.03 µm
at f = 0.73 mm/rev.tooth; after that, it starts decreasing. In
general, effective feed (f) varies between 0.01 and 0.14.
Therefore, the graph between predicted Ra and f, for values
of (f) between 0.01 and 0.14, has been extracted from
Fig. 8a. The extracted graph is shown in Fig. 8b.
The increase in values of Ra with the rise in values of
effective feed has been observed. Also, effective feed is
a function of linear feed, spindle speed, and the number
of teeth. Therefore, Ra increases with increases in feed
and decreases with increasing spindle speed and number
of teeth. Experimental validation has been performed as
follows.

Fig. 10  Bar graph of experi-

mental and predicted Ra

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Table 3  Mean and standard i 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (µ) Standard

deviations of the independent deviation
and dependent variables (σ)

Independent 62.26 63.15 63.98 71.09 72.15 66.526 4.704724

variables
(p)
Dependent 75.80 77.08 78.20 73.61 81.63 84.90 3.705768
variables
(q)

4.1 Experimentation ZETA optical profilometer, and average surface rough-

ness has been calculated and tabulated in Table 2. And the
The 1.5 kW electric spindle with Fanuc Oi PLC control- experimental and predicted values of surface roughness have
ler was used for the experimentation, an integral part of been shown by bar graph as depicted in Fig. 10.
the segmented object manufacturing (SOM) [9]. Linear This inconsistency arises because of the assumption that
slot geometry is selected for the machining. The machined both cutting mechanisms have equal probability during foam
slot’s CAD was created using SolidWorks 2021; after that, cutting. The maximum and average absolute errors have
NC code was generated using Power Mill 2021. That code been found to be 22.2% and 19.70%, respectively, which
is transferred to the machine, and individual tools are is in the acceptable range for the mathematical modeling
loaded in the automatic tool changer of the SOM machine mentioned in the previous study [19, 21]. A lower devia-
and used automatically according to the experiment. tion between predicted and experimental values has been
Figure 9 depicts the machine and experimental setup observed. It shows that a developed mathematical model can
used for the EPS foam machining. It also represents the be used to predict Ra for EPS foam machining.
machined slot after experimentation. Five cutting tools
with different numbers of teeth have been used for the 5 Discussion
experiments by keeping other tool parameters constant
(Tool diameter: 15 mm, Helix angle: 0-degree, Rake angle: The formulated mathematical model has been validated suc-
30-degree, Relief angle: 10-degree, number of teeth: 8). cessfully with the experiments. The average absolute error
Earlier studies mentioned the 3D-printed ABS tools for has been found to be 19.70%, which is in the acceptable
foam machining [13]. Here, also 3 sets of tools (15nos) have range. To understand the exact correlation of the mathemati-
been printed on Stratasys FDM printer. Each tool has been cal model, a statistical correlation analysis is also applied to
used only once so that its edge remains sharp throughout the predicted and experimental surface roughness values to
the slot. Five random experiments with values of f between estimate the proposed model’s validity and effectiveness.
0.01 and 0.09 have been designed, as shown in Table 2. Each In the analysis, the experimental values are treated as
experiment has been performed thrice; after the experi- the independent variables (p), and the analytical results,
mentation, the machined surface has been observed using obtained from the proposed model (using Eq. (20)), sub-
jected to the same machining parameters corresponding to
Table 4  Percentage contribution of each part of the model in the pre- the experimental results, are treated as the dependent vari-
dicted value of Ra ables (q), as shown in Table 3.
Sr. no Effective feed, % contribution of % contribution of The standard two-variable correlation equation (Eq. (21))
f = F/NZ part A part B determines the correlation coefficient (r).
(mm/rev.tooth) in predicted Ra in predicted Ra
) ∑ ( p − 𝜇p ) ( q − 𝜇q )
1
(
01 0.01 97.47 2.53 r= . .
n−1 𝜎p 𝜎q
02 0.02 95.50 4.50
03 0.03 93.64 6.36
In the above equation, n is the number of p-q pairs (5
04 0.04 91.88 8.12 (21)
05 0.05 90.20 9.80 in this case). 𝜇 and 𝜎 are the mean and standard deviations
06 0.06 88.60 11.40 of the respective variables. The correlation coefficient esti-
07 0.07 87.09 12.91 mated using Eq. (21) came out to be 0.93078, implying a
08 0.08 85.64 14.36 positive correlation of about 93.07% between the experimen-
09 0.09 84.26 15.74 tal values and the predicted analytical results of the surface
10 0.1 82.95 17.05 roughness using the proposed model.

13
 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

Equations (15) and (16) give the average surface rough- also affects the effective feed and should be kept at a lower
ness (Ra) and position of the mean line with respect to the bound to reduce the surface roughness. Hence, high feed
cutting line(x). To understand each mechanism’s contribu- rates and lower rpm with a tool with a smaller number of
tion, the model’s observation has been made at x = 0 (when teeth should be employed for foam machining.
the mean line coincides with the cutting line). Then, only Mechanism II involves removing the material by complete
Eq. (15) can give the mathematical model of Ra for EPS bead removal, and mechanism I involve material removal via
foam machining. From the observation, two parts have been through-bead cutting. As the complete mass (and not just a
identified in Eq. (15) and represented by Eq. (22) after sim- fraction) is removed in the single machining pass, the con-
plification; one part is the function of a and d. Another part tribution toward surface roughness is more. Part A (corre-
is the function of a, d, and f. These two parts have been sponding to mechanism II) contributes more to the Ra value,
identified and represented as follows. therefore, for controlling the surface roughness during EPS
{ [( (√ )) ( (√ ))]}
( )2 ( )2 ( )2
1 d −1 a −1 a
Part A ∶ × × 𝜋 − 2𝑠𝑖𝑛 1− − sin 𝜋 − 2𝑠𝑖𝑛 1−
4a 2 d d

⎧⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎛ ⎞⎞ ⎞ ⎞⎫
⎪⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟ �� �⎟ � ⎟⎪
f � �2 ⎟ � �2 � �2 ⎟⎪
⎪⎜ d ⎜ ⎜ −1 ⎜ ⎟⎟ −1 a 1 d a (22)
Part B ∶ ⎨⎜ × 𝑠𝑖𝑛⎜2⎜𝑡𝑎𝑛 ⎜ � � + 𝑠𝑖𝑛 1− ⎟− 4 × −
⎪⎜ 8 d 2 2 ⎟⎟⎬
�� � � �2 ⎟⎟⎟⎟
⎜ d 2
⎜ ⎜ d a ⎟ ⎪
⎪⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜ 2+ 2
− 2 ⎟⎟ ⎟ ⎟⎪
⎩⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠ ⎠ ⎠⎭

Part A is due to the bead removal. There are two possible
reasons for this: poor bonding and the position of the beads
corresponding to the cutting line. Part B is due to through-
bead cutting. Each part contributes to the Ra in a different
proportion and can be calculated as follows.
foam machining, the cutting because of mechanism II needs
to be reduced. Smaller bead size and good bonding strength
between beads are required to avoid or minimize mechanism
II. Therefore, high-density EPS foam can be machined with
good surface quality because of its smaller bead size. Foam

Ra due to part A
% contribution of part A in predicted Ra = × 100 (23)
Total predicted Ra

Ra due to part B
% contribution of part B in predicted Ra = × 100 (24)
Total predicted Ra

From Eqs. (23) and (24), the percentage contribution
of each part in the predicted Ra during EPS foam machin-
ing is calculated for the 30 kg/m3 density and tabulated
in Table  4. Values of f are used between 0.01 and 0.1
and a = 2.79 mm, and d = 1.45 mm. From the table, it is
observed that Part A contributes more to the roughness.
Therefore, surface roughness can be significantly con-
trolled by controlling the values of part A, which depends
on the geometrical parameters a and d. Both parameters
greatly rely on the foam density. It can be seen that with
the lower effective feed, part A contributes more to Ra, and
it decreases with the increase of effective feed. The effec-
tive feed increases with higher feed rates, leading to a bet-
ter surface finish. The effective feed can also be increased
by reducing the rotational speed of the spindle. It leads to a
reduced surface roughness value. The number of tool teeth
bead strength depends on the percentage of fusion during
manufacturing [15]; it is also a critical factor in controlling
mechanism II.
6 Conclusion
Foam cutting theory has been proposed and validated with
the help of microscopic study. The study shows the two foam
cutting mechanisms, mechanism I (through-bead cutting)
and mechanism II (bead removal). The proposed material-
based mathematical model has been developed to predict
surface roughness and position of the mean line with respect
to the cutting line in expanded polystyrene foam machin-
ing. The proposed model shows that surface roughness is
dependent on material parameters (bead diameter and chord

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
length along the cutting plane), linear feed, spindle speed,
and the number of teeth of a cutting tool.
The mathematical model has been validated successfully
by performing the appropriate experiments, and an average
absolute error of 19.70% has been recorded. A statistical
correlation analysis has been performed to estimate the pro-
posed model’s validity and effectiveness. The correlation
analysis shows a 93.07% correlation between the predicted
and experimental values. The proposed mathematical model
has been segregated into two parts because of through bead
cutting and bead removal. Observation shows, the model
part due to bead removal contributes significantly more
(approximately 90% for all experiments) to the surface
roughness. Therefore, surface roughness can be improved
by minimizing or avoiding bead removal. The mathematical
model presented in this article will pave the way for future
research and is helpful for industrial applications in under-
standing and optimizing the influencing parameters during
machining.
Acknowledgements  The authors would like to acknowledge the sup-
port from the MHRD UAY 005 project. The authors would also like
to thank the late Mr. Sunil Mohite, proprietor of JMT, Mumbai, for
his guidance and Mr. Prashant Chaurasia, a research scholar at IIT
Bombay, for his help.
Author contribution  Gopal Gote: conceptualization, validation, and
writing original draft, Pushkar Kamble: validation, Rajendra Hodgir:
validation, Yash Mittal: conceptualization, validation, K. P. Karunakaran:
conceptualization and ideation.
Funding  Funding is provided by MHRD under UAY-005.
Declarations  2005.​02.​002
Ethics approval  Not applicable.
Consent to participate  Not applicable.
Consent for publication  All authors agrees to publish this manuscript
in International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology and
Confirms that this work has not been published anywhere before.
Conflict of interest  The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Li S, Wang X, Xie L, Pang S (2015) The milling – milling machin-
ing method and its realization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 76:1151–
1161. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​014-​6345-y
2. Santos MC, Machado AR, Sales WF (2016) Machining of alu-
minum alloys : a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86:3067–3080.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​016-​8431-9
3. Saptaji K, Gebremariam MA, Azhari MABM (2018) Machining
of biocompatible materials : a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
97:2255–2292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​018-​1973-2
4. Benardos P, Vosniakos GC (2003) Predicting surface roughness
in machining : a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48:833–844.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0890-​6955(03)​00059-2
5. Petkov KP, Hattel JH (2017) Hot-blade cutting of EPS foam for
double-curved surfaces—numerical simulation and experiments.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93:4253–4264. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​017-​0807-y
6. Luo H, Liu X, Wang Po (2021) Study on mechanical properties
of lost foam pattern in machining. Key Eng Mater. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​KEM.​904.​148
7. Dongxia Y, Zhongde S, Feng L, Zhiquan Z (2014) The impact of
the cutting process on the dimensional accuracy of expendable
patterns. AMR 971–973:291–294. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​www.​
scien​tific.​net/​AMR.​971-​973.​291
8. Chen H, Shan Z, Dong H (2013) Research of foam pattern pro-
cessing for lost foam casting. AMM 331:600–603. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​AMM.​331.​600
9. Karunakaran KP, Agrawal S, Vengurlekar PD, Sahasrabudhe OS,
Pushpa V, Ely RH (2005) Segmented object manufacturing. IIE
Trans 37:291–302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07408​17059​05169​99
10. Paquet E, Bernard A (2021) Foam additive manufacturing technol-
ogy: main characteristics and experiments for hull mold manu-
facturing. Rapid Prototyp J 27(8):1489–1500. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​RPJ-​06-​2020-​0137
11. Aitchison DR, Brooks HL, Bain JD, Pons D (2011) Rapid manu-
facturing facilitation through optimal machining prediction of
polystyrene foam. Virtual Phys Prototyp 6:41–46. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​17452​759.​2010.​533961
12. Gote G, Kamble P, Kori S, Karunakaran KP (2020) Process opti-
mization of segmented object manufacturing for expendable poly-
styrene foam. In: Praveen Kumar A, Dirgantara T, Krishna PV
(eds) Advances in lightweight materials and structures. Springer
Proceed Mater 8:695–704. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​15-​
7827-4_​71
13. Sandhu K, Singh G, Singh S, Kumar R (2020) Surface character-
istics of machined polystyrene with 3D printed thermoplastic tool.
Materials 13:1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ma131​22729
14. Malak SF, Anderson AI (2005) Orthogonal cutting of polyurethane
foam. Int J Mech Sci 47:867–883. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijmec​sci.​
15. Brown CA, Brown CA (2011) Issues in modeling machined sur-
face textures. Mach Sci Technol 4–3:539–546. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​10940​34000​89457​21
16. Ahmann KF, Kapoor SG, Devor RE, Lazoglu I (1997) Machining
process modeling. J Manuf Sci Eng 119(4B):655–663. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1115/1.​28368​05
17. Vaitkus S, Laukaitis A, Gnipas I, Keršulis V, Vėjelis S (2006)
Experimental analysis of structure and deformation mechanisms
of expanded polystyrene (EPS) slabs. Mater Sci 12:323–327.
ISSN 1392–1320
18. Rossacci J, Shivkumar S (2003) Bead fusion in polystyrene foams.
J Mater Sci 38:201–206. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10211​80608​531
19. Wang R, Wang B, Barber GC, Jie Gu, David Schall J (2019) Mod-
els for prediction of surface roughness in a face milling process
using triangular inserts. Lubricants 7(1):2–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​lubri​cants​70100​09
20. Gadelmawla ES, Koura MM, Maksoud TMA, Elewa IM, Soliman
HH (2002) Roughness parameters. J Mater Process Technol 123:133–
145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0924-​0136(02)​00060-2
21. Su H, Yang C, Gao S, Fu Y, Ding W (2019) A predictive model
on surface roughness during internal traverse grinding of small
holes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103:2069–2077. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s00170-​019-​03643-z
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13