35

A review of the cutting of composite materials

S Gordon* and M T Hillery

Department of Manufacturing and Operations Engineering, University of Limerick, Plassey, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract: The increased use of composite materials has led to an increase in demand for facilities to
machine them. There are signi
cant differences between the machining of metals and alloys and that of
composite materials, because composites are anisotropic, inhomogeneous and are mostly prepared in
laminate form before undergoing the machining process. In most cases, traditional metal cutting tools and
techniques are still being used. While the process of metal cutting has been well researched over the years,
relatively little research has been carried out on the cutting of composite materials. This paper presents a
brief review of research on the cutting of
bre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites and medium-density

breboard (MDF). Most of the research published is concentrated on the chip formation process and cutting
force prediction with unidirectional FRP materials. A review of some recent research on the prediction of
cutting forces for MDF is also presented.

Keywords: machining,
bre reinforced polymer, medium-density
breboard, composites

INTRODUCTION embedded in a matrix. The reinforcing phase may be in

The process of metal cutting has been well researched over
the past 50 years [1–9] and it is well established that the
principal chip formation process in orthogonal metal cutting
with single-point cutting tools and continuous chip forma-
tion is one of shear deformation. Research has been carried
out to a somewhat lesser extent on the machining of non-
metals. The increased use of composite materials in manu-
facturing in recent years has led to an increased demand for
machining them. In most cases, traditional metal cutting
machine tools and techniques are still being used. However,
the cutting processes with these materials differ considerably
from the cutting of metals. The broad area of machining of
composites has been reviewed by Abrate and Walton [10]
and A Ê ström [11]. A brief review of some commonly
machined composite materials and their machining charac-
teristics is set out below.
1.1 Composite materials
A composite is a structural material that combines two or
more constituents in order to take advantage of the favour-
able characteristics of each [12]. They are combined at a
macro level and are not soluble in each other. These
constituents are typically a reinforcing phase which is
The MS was received on 22 April 2002 and was accepted after revision for
publication on 21 June 2002.
* Corresponding author: Department of Manufacturing and Operations
Engineering, University of Limerick, Plassey, Limerick, Ireland.
L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
the form of
bres or particles or akes.
Naturally occurring composites include wood and bone.
Advanced composites are those materials that are tradition-
ally used in the aerospace industry because they offer better
performance than traditional materials. Examples are
graphite/epoxy, aramid/epoxy and boron/aluminium compo-
sites. Glass
bre/polyester composites are widely used in the
marine and automotive industries. Natural materials may be
mixed with synthetics, as in the case of wood our
lled
polymer materials and in medium density
breboard (MDF)
where wood
bres are bound together using a synthetic resin
or other suitable binder [13, 14].
1.1.1 Fibre reinforced composites
In
bre reinforced composites, the
bre is the major load-
bearing component. Where discontinuous
bres are used,
they can be mixed with the matrix material to produce either
a random or a preferred orientation. Continuous
bres are
normally unidirectionally aligned as tapes, woven into a
fabric in an orthogonal arrangement, or wound around a
mandrel. The mechanical behaviour of
bre reinforced
composites at a macro level is inuenced by the properties
of the matrix and the
bres [12]. In general,
bres contribute
high modulus, high strength and brittleness, whereas resins
contribute toughness, low density, low strength, low stiff-
ness, high thermal expansion and low thermal stability.
Polymer matrix composites exhibit a wide variety of failure
modes including
bre fracture,
bre ‘pull out’ from the
matrix, plastic ow in the matrix, delamination, etc. [15].
Some of these failure mechanisms can resemble brittle
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
36
fracture of the composite, while others resemble ductile
failure.
1.1.2 Fibre reinforced polymers
Fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) are an important group of
composites, and a signi
cant amount of machining research
in the literature has been on these materials. They can be
easily moulded and cured to a required shape, eliminating
operations required in conventional metallic products. They
are often machined as a
nishing process in ‘near net shape’
manufactured mouldings.
In comparison with monolithic materials, FRP composite
materials have high speci
c modulus and speci
c strength,
so that weight can be reduced. The anisotropic nature of
FRPs can be a disadvantage [12], but cost or weight saving
can be achieved through orienting the reinforcing
bres in
the plane where they will be most effective. The commonly
machined materials in this category are glass
bre rein-
forced polymer (GFRP) and carbon
bre reinforced polymer
(CFRP) composites, and most of the research in the litera-
ture has been concentrated on these.
1.1.3 Medium-density
breboard
Medium-density
breboard (MDF) is a wood-based compo-
site material that is based on wood
bres rather than
particles or veneers to produce sheet products. It is manu-
factured from lignocellulosic
bres combined with urea
formaldehyde or isocyanate-based resins [16]. The panels
are compressed to densities of between 496 and 801 kg/m3.
The entire inter
bre bond is formed by the binder. It is
typically produced in board form and is widely used in the
manufacture of furniture, cabinet making and ooring. It is
easily machined and can be
nished to a smooth surface.
2 MACHINING OF COMPOSITES
2.1 Fibre reinforced polymers
There are signi
cant differences between the machining of
metals and alloys and the machining of composite materials
[17]. This is because FRP composites are anisotropic,
inhomogeneous and are mostly prepared in laminate form
before undergoing the machining process. As the matrix
material has a low thermal conductivity compared with
metals and many inorganic materials, heat build-up during
machining can be a problem.
The behaviour of a composite material during machining
depends on diverse
bre and matrix properties, the
bre
orientation and the relative volume of the matrix and
bres
[18]. The tool continuously encounters alternate matrix and

bre materials whose response to machining can vary
greatly. The chip formation process can be either based on
fracture or shear or a combination of both, depending on the

bre orientation and tool geometry. The high volume frac-
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Downloaded
Design andfrom pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Applications
S GORDON AND M T HILLERY
tion of abrasive
bres can cause rapid tool wear, and the use
of PCD tooling is recommended where possible [18].
There are a number of problems associated with machin-
ing
bre reinforced composite materials [10, 19]. The
varying material properties and degrees of anisotropy
cause dif
culty in predicting the behaviour of the material
while being machined. This can lead to speci
c problems of
FRP machining.
Damage can be caused to the composite material as
follows:
(a) delamination due to local dynamic loading caused by
different stiffnesses of the
bre and matrix;
(b) spalling and chipping and delamination of the material
on exit from the cut;
(c) fuzzing due to pulled out and crushed
bres;
(d) burning due to poor thermal conductivity.
Cutting tools may also be damaged by abrasive
bres
rounding the cutting edges prematurely. The difference in
hardness between the
bre and matrix may lead to edge
chipping of the tool. Also, the tool may be clogged by
melted matrix material.
3 RESEARCH ON THE MACHINING OF
COMPOSITE MATERIALS
3.1 FRP materials
3.1.1 Model of Everstine and Rogers
The
rst theoretical work on the cutting of FRP materials
was reported by Everstine and Rogers [20]. They formulated
a model for the prediction of minimum cutting force for
parallel
bres at 0¯ orientation, based on a continuum
mechanics approach. They proposed a displacement
eld
for the chip region analogous to the thick-zone model for
cutting of metals that was proposed by Oxley [8]. They
suggested that a ‘wrinkle’ was formed in the workpiece
material ahead of the tool tip owing to tensile loading from
the separation of the chip. They proposed a tentative
estimate of the principal cutting force, Fc , in terms of the
material properties, tool geometry and the proposed defor-
mation. However, the assumed deformation pattern lacked
experimental veri
cation, and they acknowledged that other
modes of deformation were possible.
3.1.2 Work of Koplev
Almost 10 years later, Koplev [21] carried out orthogonal
cutting tests on CFRP composite material using a single-
edged tool and a shaping machine. He studied the chip
formation process and the machined surface while cutting a
unidirectional material. The tests were carried out when the
cut direction was both parallel to and perpendicular to the

bre orientation. A quick stop device was used to investigate
the chip formation process near the tool tip and in front of it.
An innovative aspect of this work was the use of the so-
L01102 # IMechE 2003
 CUTTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of a macrochip [21]
called ‘macrochip method’ to handle and study the many
small chips produced by the cutting process. This method is
described as follows:
1. The workpiece surface is coated with a thin layer of
rubber-based adhesive, which is allowed to dry.
2. The machining takes place; after this all the chips stick to
the adhesive.
3. The chips on the adhesive are transferred to a suitable
support (i.e. double-sided adhesive tape) for later inves-
tigation.
4. If required, the macrochip can be stretched to separate the
individual chips to facilitate examination.
A schematic diagram of the macrochip is shown in Fig. 1.
Koplev made a number of observations on the quality of
the surface produced and the mechanisms of chip formation
at various
bre orientations.
Surface quality. He found that the surface quality obtained
during machining was dependent on the
bre orientation,
with the smoothest surface being obtained when the cut
direction was parallel to the
bre direction. He noted that the
friction force caused by the tool pressing down on them
caused tensile failure of the
bres. Machining in the
perpendicular direction caused greater surface roughness,
Fig. 2 Chip formation 0 and 90¯
bre orientation from Koplev [21]
L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
37
with a layer of disturbed material on the surface where both
matrix and small pieces of
bre were present. There was a
layer of cracked material below the surface, with cracks
running both parallel to and perpendicular to the surface. A
later study by Inoue and Ido [22] related the depth of this
damaged zone to the
bre orientation angle and the cutting
edge radius of the tool.
Chip formation. Examination of the macrochip showed the
chips themselves to be relatively undisturbed, with no sign
of plastic deformation. This suggested that the chips were
formed by brittle failure of both the
bres and matrix.
Koplev explained the chip formation for each
bre direction
as follows:
1. Machining perpendicular to the
bres. During machin-
ing perpendicular to the
bres, two separate effects occur
near the tool tip. As the tool moves forward, it presses on
the composite in front of it, causing the composite to
fracture and create a chip. At the same time there is a
downward pressure on the composite below the tool
producing the cracks referred to above.
2. Machining parallel to the
bres. When the composite is
machined parallel to the
bres, the tool also applies
pressure on the specimen, causing chips to be produced.
However, a crack appears in front of the tool tip,
indicating the start of the next chip. Surface cracking is
not as deep as for machining perpendicular to the
bres.
The two mechanisms are shown in Fig. 2.
In a later work, Koplev [23] studied the relationship
between cutting forces and the chip formation mechanism
and tool geometries. He found that the principal cutting
force was proportional to the depth of cut and decreased
slightly with an increase in rake angle. However, he found
that a large reduction in the thrust force occurred when the
relief angle was increased from 3 to 15¯ . He suggested that
this was because the force was proportional to the contact
area between the tool and workpiece. He also reasoned that
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
38 S GORDON AND M T HILLERY

the cutting force was independent of tool wear as the tool
did not cut into the material, and that the increased cutting
force was due to the increase in frictional force between the
tool and workpiece which in turn was due to the thrust force.
3.1.3 Work of Sakuma and Seto
Sakuma and Seto [24] conducted face turning tests on
undirectionally wound GFRP pipes in order to study the
effects of
bre orientation on tool wear and cutting forces.
They noted chip formation processes similar to those of
Koplev, and found that at small
bre angles the
bres were

rst bent by the progress of the tool and then broken by
tension. For large
bre angles, the glass
bres were sepa-
rated from the cut surface by bending and then broken by
shearing. They explained the variation in forces obtained
during cutting at different
bre orientations as being due to
the shear strength of the glass
bre being lower than the
tensile strength.
3.1.5 Theory of Takeyama and Iijima
Takeyama and Iijima [26] studied the chip formation
process when cutting glass
bre reinforced plastics with
continuous
bres at various
bre angles. They proposed a
model for predicting the cutting forces and surface
nish as
a function of the
bre angle.
They noted that, at 0¯
bre angle, cracking took place in
the direction of the
bre, whereas at 90¯
bre angle blocky
chips were produced by fracture. At intermediate angles
they reported a pattern of chip formation close to that of the
metal cutting process with the angle of the ‘shear plane’
being bound by that of the
bre.
Based on this assumption, they proposed a model for
prediction of cutting force based on the minimum energy
theory of Merchant [27] as shown in Fig. 3:
bt1 t…y0† cos…b ¡ g†
Fc ˆ
cos…f ‡ b ¡ g† sin f

and
3.1.4 Work of Hocheng et al.

Hocheng et al. [25] conducted milling tests on unidirec- bt1 t…y0 † sin…b ¡ g†
Ft ˆ …1†
tional carbon
bre reinforced epoxy material in an attempt cos…f ‡ b ¡ g† sin f
to observe chip characteristics and evaluate machinability as
a function of
bre direction and cutting conditions. They where
noted three distinct types of chip produced: Fc ˆ principal cutting force
Ft ˆ tangential cutting force
(a) powder-like chips which were tens of micrometres in f ˆ shear angle
diameter, y0 ˆ
bre shear angle, i.e. the angle between the shear
(b) Ribbon-like chips which were several millimetres in plane and the
bre direction
length, t…y0 † ˆ yield stress of the GFRP
(c) large brush-like chips. g ˆ rake angle
The powder-like chips suggested that the chips were b ˆ friction angle on the rake face
produced by fracture, in keeping with previous observations b ˆ width of cut
[21, 23]. Examination of the ribbon-like chips revealed that t1 ˆ depth of cut
they were composed of unbroken segments, each produced
The value for t…y0 † (the apparent shear strength of the
by fracture with
bre breakage, which were attached by the
material) was obtained experimentally by means of a
relatively viscous matrix polymer. The large brush-like chips simple shear test. The results of Takeyama and Iijima are
were produced by delamination at the end of a cut, caused shown in Fig. 4.
by intralaminar shear. They made the following observations Although the values for the forces obtained compared
on surface roughness and cutting forces.
well with experimental data, this model has been criticized
Surface roughness. They noted that surface roughness for the following reasons:
increased at higher cutting speeds and lower feed rates.
They argued that this was due to thermal effects caused by a
build-up of heat owing to the poor thermal conductivity of
the material at the higher speed and low feed rate.

Cutting force. They noted that the component of the

cutting force parallel to the
bres was less than that
orthogonal to the
bres and explained this in terms of the
different failure mechanisms described by Koplev [21, 23].
The force required to cause failure of the
bres by buckling
is less than that required to cause failure by shear. However,
their analysis was qualitative and no attempt was made to
predict the forces involved. Fig. 3 Orthogonal model of chip formation in GFRP
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Downloaded
Design andfrom pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Applications L01102 # IMechE 2003
 CUTTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS 39

produced by fracture. On examination of the chip root, they

Fig. 4 Experimental results obtained by Takeyama and Iijima
[26]
1. The machinability of FRP is strongly dependent on the
machining direction, as shown by Koplev [21, 23],
Koenig et al. [19], Sakuma and Seto [24], Wang et al.
[28, 29] and Arola et al. [30]. If the machining direction
reverses, then the chip formation phenomenon will differ.
Therefore, the model may not be valid for
bre orienta-
tions above 90¯ .
2. There is no standard technique for measuring the shear
plane angle in FRP materials. As the chips are generally
in powder form, it is extremely dif
cult to measure the
chip thickness and so calculate the shear plane angle as is
done in metal machining.
3. It is doubtful whether the mean angle of friction between
the chip and tool remains the same for all
bre angles.
Therefore, using one mean value for all
bre angles may
be incorrect.
4. Bhatnagar [17] pointed out that no details were given of
the shear test used to
nd the shear strength as well as the
shear phenomena.
found that a plane existed along which a macrocrack
propagated, resulting in the formation of the chip. This
plane corresponded to that found during the Iosipescu shear
test. They concluded that two events take place in the cutting
process when the
bre orientation is less than 90¯ :
1. Fibres break in tension to produce the machined surface.
2. Chips are produced ahead of the cutting edge of the tool
by shearing of the matrix in a plane along the
bre
orientation.
The experimental results they obtained showed that the
cutting forces were higher for
bre orientations less than
90¯ . The maximum force was for
bre orientations between
30 and 60¯ , with minimum forces at 120 to 150¯ as shown in
Fig. 5.
As the fracture of the material took place along the plane
of the
bres, they were able to model the relationship
between the
bre orientation and the cutting forces by
resolving the cutting forces parallel and perpendicular to
the
bres for
bre orientations less than 90¯ and
bre
orientations greater than 90¯ separately. This is shown in
Fig. 6.
For
bre angles greater than 90¯ , the progress of the tool
causes the
bres to experience compression and bending.

3.1.6 Work of Bhatnagar et al.

Bhatnagar et al. [17] presented some observations on the

orthogonal cutting of unidirectional CFRP material with
different
bre orientations. They noted that the in-plane
shear strength of a material played a key role during
machining.
They proposed to overcome the shortcomings of the
Takayama and Iijima model by obtaining accurate values
for the shear strength of the composite material. They noted
that there was no single standard test method for the
determination of the shear strength at any given
bre
angle. They used a novel procedure known as the Iosipescu
shear test [31, 32] to evaluate the shear strength of the
material accurately. From this, they were able to plot the
variation of in-plane shear strength with
bre angle.
On conducting machining tests at
bre orientations
greater than 90¯ , they found a chip formation process
similar to that of Koplev where the
bres were being bent
and the chip was formed by delamination of the material.
For angles less than 90¯ , they found that a blocky chip was Fig. 5 Experimental results obtained by Bhatnagar et al. [17]

L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
40
Fig. 6 Cutting mechanism of CFRP from Bhatnagar et al.
[17]
They are lifted upward by the tool and are broken by
shearing. In the case of
bre angles less than 90¯ , they
tend to be tilted by the cutting force and are subjected to
tension and bending as well as compression by the tool rake
face. Bhatnagar et al. made the same observation as Sakuma
and Seta [24] on how the ratio of tensile to shear strength of
the
bre affects the cutting forces.
To model the cutting process for
bres less than 90¯ , they
took the same approach as Takayama and Iijima [26] of
assuming that the chip was formed along a shear plane and
that the minimum energy principle applied [27]. They made
a number of further assumptions as follows:
1. A crack propagation plane exists along the
bre direction
at which the matrix shears.
2. The cutting forces depend on the in-plane shear strength
of the respective
bre angle.
3. The type of cut is two-dimensional.
4. The
bre angle is between 0 and 90¯ .
5. The effect of temperature is negligible.
6. The coef
cient of friction between the tool and the chip
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Downloaded
Design andfrom pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Applications
S GORDON AND M T HILLERY
varies for each
bre orientation, and substitution of the
correct value is vital for the analysis.
7. Chip formation takes place in such a manner as to
minimize the cutting energy.
8. The matrix shear plane angle is independent of the tool
rake angle.
Substituting the
bre angle instead of the shear plane angle
in Merchant’s model, Bhatnagar et al. predicted the cutting
forces as being
ta cos…b ¡ a†
Fc ˆ
sin y cos…y ‡ b ¡ a†
and
ta sin…b ¡ a†
Ft ˆ …2†
sin cos…y ‡ b ¡ a†
y
where
t ˆ in-plane shear strength of the material for a given
bre
angle
a ˆ area of the shear plane
y ˆ fibre angle
a ˆ rake angle
b ˆ friction angle
By taking force measurements, it was possible to derive a
value for b using Merchant’s circle. This, in turn, allowed a
value for the shear strength, t, to be calculated. This showed
good agreement with the results obtained from the Iosipescu
shear test up to 60¯
bre angle.
By using the methodology in reverse, values for Fc and Ft
could be predicted. Actual force measurements showed large
variations in Fc and Ft with
bre angle. The cutting force
showed a gradual increase up to 90¯ degree
bre angle, but
showed an increased rate of change at angles greater than
90¯ . The thrust force was high compared with the cutting
force and varied considerably, with the maximum value at
30¯
bre angle and the minimum value at 150¯ . From
analysis of the force data, Bhatnagar et al. observed that
the friction conditions at the rake face of the tool change
depending on the
bre orientations, and that the effect of the
rake angle on friction at the tool–chip interface is minimal.
3.1.7 Work of Wang
Wang et al. [28] studied the chip formation process in the
orthogonal cutting of a unidirectional graphite/epoxy
composite in order to identify the inuence of tool geometry
and
bre orientation on the mechanisms of chip formation.
They used two methods of analysis: in situ analysis, which
involved optical documentation of the chip formation
process, and post-process analysis, which consisted of
microscopic examination using quick stop techniques and
study of the macrochip obtained by the method proposed by
Koplev.
L01102 # IMechE 2003
 CUTTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
They found that the chip formation mechanism varied
greatly depending on the
bre angle. At 0¯
bre orientation,
the material failed by peel fracture emanating from the tool
point and propagating along the
bre/matrix interface. Chip
formation proceeded through chip advancement along the
tool face until bending fracture occurred under cantilever
loading. In
bre orientations between 15¯ and 75¯ , the chip
formation mechanisms included fracture from compression-
induced shear across the
bre axis combined with interfacial
shearing along the
bre direction. Chip ow occurred along
a plane parallel to the
bre orientation for all materials up to
90¯ . Chip formation mechanisms for materials greater than
75¯ were found to be primarily compression-induced frac-
ture perpendicular to the
bres and interlaminar shear
fracture along the
bre/matrix interface.
In line with previous researchers [17, 26], they observed
that the material removal process in all
bre orientations
up to 90¯ appears to be governed by the in-plane shear
properties of the material. At angles between 105¯ and 150¯ ,
out-of-plane fracture and delamination occurred ahead
of the tool. The chip formation processes are shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7 Cutting mechanisms in the orthogonal machining of CFRP [29]
L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
41
The thrust force was found to be greater than the
corresponding principal cutting force during the cutting of
materials with
bre orientations between 0¯ and 90¯ . They
attributed this to elastic recovery of the
bres which under-
went deformation within the contact zone prior to fracture.
This agrees with the results obtained by others [17,
21, 24].
They also noted the effect that varying the tool geometry
had on the cutting forces. They found that an increased rake
angle caused a reduction in cutting forces when cutting a
material with 0¯
bre orientation owing to the transition
from microbuckling to peel fracture. At
bre orientations up
to 90¯ , an increase in rake angle produced an increase in
the thrust force. Higher thrust values were found for tools
with smaller relief values, and cutting speed was found to
have no effect on the forces involved. An increase in the
depth of cut produced a linear increase in the forces
involved.
Owing to the fact that for
bre orientations between 15¯
and 90¯ the chip ow occurred along the
bre orientation, it
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
42
was possible to resolve the principal cutting and thrust
forces along the direction of these
bres as follows:
Ns ˆ Fc sin y ‡ Ft cos y
and
Fs ˆ Fc cos y ¡ Ft sin y
where
Ns ˆ normal force
Fs ˆ shear force in the
bre direction
Typical results are shown in Fig. 8. Wang et al. noted that
the abrupt discontinuities in the normal force corresponded
to the changes in chip formation mechanisms with
bre
angle that were observed earlier.
In a further study [29] they examined the cutting process
for a multidirectional laminate of the same material. The
lay-up of the panel was ‰45¯ =¡ 45¯ =…0¯ =90¯ =45¯ =¡ 45¯ †2 Šs .
Tests were carried using a variety of rake and clearance
angles. In general, they found that each layer behaved as it
would in a unidirectional composite. Adjacent plies were
found to support those with
bre orientations that tended to
exhibit macrofracture, and intralaminar damage, though
evident, was not severe.
Contrary to the results obtained when machining unidir-
ectional material, the principal cutting force was found to be
greater than the thrust force for all cutting conditions and
tool geometries. By statistical analysis of the cutting force
data, they were able to develop empirical models for the
principal cutting and thrust forces. Rake angle, a, and depth
of cut, t, were identi
ed as the main effects in the principal
cutting force, whereas clearance angle, g, and depth of cut
were the main effects in the thrust force model. They
modelled the thrust and cut forces as follows:
Fc ˆ a ¡ ba ‡ ct ‡ da2 ¡ eVt ‡ f gt
Ft ˆ a ¡ bg ‡ ct ‡ da2 ¡ eat ‡ f gt
Fig. 8 Force versus
bre orientation [29]
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Downloaded
Design andfrom pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Applications
S GORDON AND M T HILLERY
where V is the cutting speed and a, b, c, d, e and f are
constants based on the machining characteristics of the
material. Based on these relations, they predicted optimal
rake and clearance angles which gave minimum cutting and
thrust forces.
They also found that the magnitude of the resultant force
obtained during cutting was nearly equivalent to the summa-
tion of forces from the independent unidirectional plies as
…3†
calculated previously on the basis of a rule of mixtures
approach. They concluded, therefore, that a multi-ply lami-
nate material behaves like an assemblage of independent
materials.
In order to examine the dynamic effects and the periodi-
city of fracture events in the chip formation process, they
used spectral analysis to examine the
nished surface pro
le
[30]. Both unidirectional and multidirectional materials were
examined. They compared the various spectra obtained with
the
bre orientation in a unidirectional material, and found
that the periodicity of the waveforms obtained corresponded
to the physical dimensions of the chip width found from
analysis of the macrochip. This provided a more quantitative
analysis of the chip size than visual inspection alone. For
multidirectional laminate, spectral analysis showed that no
periodicity existed, which agreed with the observation that
the material behaved as an assembly of independent materi-
als, each with its own chip formation characteristics.
3.1.8 Arola and Ramulu
Arola and Ramulu [33] conducted a two-dimensional
nite
element analysis of the chip formation process for unidirec-
tional composites. Chip separation was modelled using a
critical stress criterion based on the strength of the compo-
nents of the composite. Their model had a prede
ned trim
plane which passed through the ank face or the tool. The
model was veri
ed with experimental measurements of
cutting forces. The measured values for the cutting force
agreed well with the model, but the predicted values for the
thrust force were incorrect owing to dif
culties in de
ning
…4† the fracture plane properly on account of the simplifying
assumptions made in the model.
3.1.9 Model of Ramesh et al.
Ramesh et al. [34] proposed a
nite element model for the
machining of unidirectional FRPs based on an anisotropic
plasticity theory. The material was modelled as being
homogeneous although anisotropic with a perfectly elastic
cutting tool.
Using physical and mechanical properties that had been
derived experimentally, they modelled the chip formation
process for a boron/epoxy composite, two types of GFRP
and graphite/epoxy composites at four
bre orientations, 0¯ ,
45¯ , 90¯ and 135¯ . They reported similar variations in the
cutting forces with
bre angle to Bhatnagar et al. [17] and
noted that the failure mode was predominantly by shearing
of the matrix.
L01102 # IMechE 2003
 CUTTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
3.1.10 Work of Mahdi and Zhang
Mahdi and Zhang [35] proposed an adaptive three-dimen-
sional algorithm for
nite element analysis which allowed a

bre and surrounding matrix material to be modelled as a
composite cell. Adaptive remeshing was critical to this
model and was the focus of the work. The material separa-
tion at the tool tip was modelled by the ‘element death’
technique where an element was deemed to rupture at a
certain critical value of shear stress. While the results
obtained seemed to agree with experimental observations,
the work was limited to the modelling of a single cell.
In further work [36] they presented a two-dimensional
cutting model to predict the cutting force behaviour of
composites in relation to
bre angle. In an approach similar
to that of Ramesh et al. [34] they modelled the periodic
repetitive microstructural properties of the material as being
an equivalent homogeneous anisotropic material having a
macro-stiffness equivalent to that of the combined matrix
and
bre structure. The model led to a reasonable prediction
of the cutting force compared with experimental results.
None of the above models made any attempt to predict the
chip size or shape.
4 RESEARCH ON THE MACHINING OF
WOOD-BASED MATERIALS
Most of the reported work in the literature has dealt with
tool wear in routing various wood species, e.g. references
[37] to [42]. An early work on chip formation was presented
by Pahlitzch et al. [43] in the machining of solid wood.
They investigated the chip formation process using a high-
speed camera and attempted to predict the chip ow.
However, this research has limited applicability outside the
machining of solid wood.
4.1 Machining of MDF
4.1.1 Work of Altintas
Altintas and his coworkers adapted a general mechanics and
dynamics model for machining metals with helical end mills
[44–46] for predicting the cutting forces when machining
MDF. This approach was a development of earlier mechan-
istic force prediction methods that have been used for metals
[47] and FRP [48]. The approach taken by Altintas was to
use a macromechanical model to predict the cutting forces
as a function of the work material, tool geometry, chip load
and cutting speed. In this model, the cutting forces Fc and Ft
were separated into ‘shear’ and ‘edge’ components as shown
in Fig. 9.
The ‘cutting’ forces due to the contact between the
workpiece material and the rake face were assumed to be
linearly proportional to the uncut chip area. The ‘edge’
forces were believed to be due to friction between the
cutting edge and the newly cut surface and were assumed
L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
43
Fig. 9 Altintas model of the cutting process [51]
to be directly proportional to the depth of cut but indepen-
dent of the uncut chip thickness. Therefore, the total cutting
forces could be expressed as
Ft ˆ Ftc ‡ Fte ˆ Ktc bh ‡ Kte b
Ff ˆ Ffc ‡ Ffe ˆ Kfc bh ‡ Kfe b
…5†
where the subscripts c and e refer to the rake face and tool
edge respectively. The subscripts t and f denote the thrust
and ank forces on the tool.
The cutting coef
cients Kcr , Kce , Ktr and Kte were unique
for each tool/workpiece material combination and were also
dependent on the tool geometry. They were either obtained
empirically from orthogonal cutting tests [49] or calculated
from average force values obtained from milling tests [50].
In a later work [51], they modelled the cutting forces for
machining MDF as a function of the frictional forces acting
on the rake face and on the ank face of a single-point tool
during the cutting process as shown in Fig. 10. They
resolved the forces acting on the cutting tool along the
rake face and ank face of the tool and obtained expressions
for the coef
cient of friction for each in terms of the
machining coef
cients as follows:
For the ank face
Kte ‡ Kfe tan g
mf ˆ
Kfe ¡ Kte tan g
For the rake face
Kfc ‡ Ktc tan a
mr ˆ …6†
Ktc ¡ Kfc tan a
In practice, the values obtained for mr were either negative or
very small, depending on the cutting conditions. This is
because the MDF chip is formed as small particles which do
not ow along the rake face as a rigid body as explained
previously. As a result, they concluded that the dominant
force on the rake face was the normal force exerted by the
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications
44
Fig. 10 Mode1 of the MDF cutting process [52]
uncut chip on the rake contact area. This force could be
expressed as
Ff …¡ sin g ‡ mf cos g† ¡ Ft …cos g ‡ mf sin g†
Frn ˆ
…mr cos a ¡ sin a†…¡ sin g ‡ mf cos g†
¡ …mr sin a ‡ cos a†…cos g ‡ mf sin g†
In addition, they suggested that the cutting force could be
identi
ed from the bending strength of the MDF board
which in turn could be related to its hardness.
Engin et al. [52] implemented the earlier mechanistic
model in a series of milling experiments using MDF. They
were able to assess the cutting force coef
cients for MDF by
conducting a series of milling experiments and measuring
the average forces on the cutter at various feeds. The results
obtained compared well with empirical data obtained from
previous orthogonal cutting tests [51].
4.1.2 Current research being carried out by the authors
At present, research is being undertaken by the authors on
the milling of MDF using part worn cutting tools at high
speed. The approach taken is similar to that of Altintas,
except the ank face is modelled with a
nite wear land. A
comprehensive software package has been written to simu-
late the cutting forces for a variety of cutting tools and
cutting conditions, and a high-speed cutting machine has
been built to carry out the cutting tests. The machine is
capable of 40000 mm/min table feed and 30000 r/min
spindle speed. Initial results from the cutting machine and
the simulation software have been encouraging.
4 CONCLUSIONS
1. The machining of composite materials is signi
cantly
different to that for metal cutting in terms of chip
formation, cutting forces and heat transfer. However,
metal cutting tools and techniques are still used for the
most part in the cutting of composites.
2. The majority of the research in the literature has concen-
trated on aspects of orthogonal cutting of FRP or CFRP
materials. This work has been concerned with single-ply
or multi-ply materials having a predetermined
bre
orientation.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Downloaded
Design andfrom pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Applications
S GORDON AND M T HILLERY
REFERENCES
1 Ernst, H. Physics of Metal Cutting: Machining of Metals,
1938, p. 24 (ASM).
2 Ernst, H. and Merchant, M. Chip formation, friction and high
quality machined surfaces. In Surface Treatment of Metals,
1941, pp. 299–378 (ASM).
3 Lee, E. and Shaffer, B. The theory of plasticity applied to a
problem of machining. Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mechanics, 1951,
18, 405–413.
4 Hill, R. The mechanics of machining—a new approach. J.
Mechanics and Phys. Solids, 1954, 3, 47–53.
5 Kobayshi, S. and Thomsen, E. Metal cutting analysis. I: re-
evaluation and new method of presentation of theories. Trans.
ASME, J. Engng for Industry, 1962, 63–69.
6 Kudo, H. Some new slip-line solutions for two dimensional
steady-state machining. Int. J. Mech Sci., 1965, 7, 43–55.
7 Dewhurst, P. On the non-uniquenessof the machining process.
…7† Proc. R. Soc. (Lond.) A, 1978, 360, 587–610.
8 Oxley, P. Mechanics of Machining, 1989 (Ellis Horwood,
Chichester).
9 Childs, T. Metal Machining, Theory and Applications, 1999
(Wiley, New York).
10 Abrate, S. and Walton, D. Machining of composite materials.
Part 1: traditional methods. Composites Mfg, 1992, 3(2), 75–83
and 85–94.
11 AÊ ström, B. Manufacturing of Polymer Composites, 1997, pp.
307–325 (Chapman and Hall).
12 Kaw, A. Mechanics of Composite Materials, 1997 (CRC Press,
Florida).
13 Medium density
berboard manufacturing.http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/ap42/ch10/
nal/c10s06.pdf, 1998.
14 Oikarinen, H., Hochstrate, M. and Weber, M. Medium
density
breboard, manufacturing, properties and further
processing. http://www.hochstrate.de/micha/reports/repmdf.
html, Technical Report, 1998.
15 Spencer, A. Deformations of Fibre-Reinforced Materials, 1972
(Clarendon Press, Oxford).
16 Chung, K., Cuthbert, U., Revell, G., Wassel, S. and
Summers, N. A study on dust emission, particle size distribu-
tion and formaldehyde concentration during machining of
medium density
breboard. Ann. Occup. Hyg., 2000, 44(6),
455–466.
17 Bhatnagar, N., Ramakrishnan, N., Naik, H. and Komanduri,
R. On the machining of
ber-reinforced plastic (FRP) compo-
site laminates. Int. J. Mach. Tools and Mf., 1995, 35(5), 701–
716.
18 Komanduri, R. Machining
ber-reinforced composites. Mech.
Engng, 1993, 115(4), 58–64.
19 Konig, W., Wulf, C., Grass, P. and Willerscheid, H. Machin-
ing of
bre reinforced plastic. Ann. CIRP, 1985, 34(2), 537–547.
20 Everstine, G. and Rogers, T. A theory of chip formation of
FRP composite materials. J. Comp. Mater., January 1971, 5, 94–
106.
21 Koplev, A. Cutting of CFRP with single edge tools. 3rd
International Conference on Composite Materials, Paris,
1980.
22 Inoue, H. and Ido, M. Study on the cutting mechanism of
GFRP. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Compo-
site Materials and Structures, Beijing, China, 1986.
L01102 # IMechE 2003
 CUTTING OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS
23 Koplev, A., Lystrup, A. and Vorm, T. Cutting process, chips
and cutting forces in machining CFRP. Composites, 1983,
14(4), 371–376.
24 Sakuma, K. and Seto, M. Tool wear in cutting glass-
ber
reinforced plastics. Bull. Jap. Soc. Mech. Engrs, 1983, 26(218),
1420–1427.
25 Hocheng, H., Puw, H. and Huang, Y. Preliminary study on
milling of unidirectional carbon-
bre reinforced plastics.
Composites Mfg, 4(2), 103–108.
26 Takeyama, H. and Iijima, N. Machinibility of glass
ber
reinforced plastics and application of ultrasonic machining.
Ann. CIRP, 1988, 37(1), 93–96.
27 Merchant, M. Mechanics of the metal cutting process. II:
Plasticity conditions in orthogonal cutting. J. Appl. Phys.,
1945, 16, 318–324.
28 Wang, D., Ramulu, M. and Arola, D. Orthogonal cutting
mechanisms of graphite/epoxy composite. Part 1: Unidirec-
tional laminate. Int. J. Mach. Tools and Mf., 1995, 35(12),
1639–1648.
29 Wang, D., Ramulu, M. and Arola, D. Orthogonal cutting
mechanisms graphite/epoxy composite. Part 2: Multi-direc-
tional laminate. Int. J. Mach. Tools and Mf., 1995, 35(12),
1623–1638.
30 Arola, D., Ramulu, M. and Wang, D. Chip formation in
orthogonal trimming of graphite/epoxy composite. Composites,
1996, 27A(2), 121–133.
31 Iosipescu, N. New accurate procedure for single shear testing of
metals. J. Mater., 1967, 2(3), 597.
32 Walrath, D. and Adams, D. The Iosipescu shear test as applied
to composite materials. Exp. Mechanics, 1984, 24(1), 105.
33 Arola, D. and Ramulu, M. Orthogonal cutting of
ber-
reinforced composites: a
nite element analysis. Int. J. Mech.
Sci., 1997, 39(5), 597–613.
34 Ramesh, M., Seetharamu, K., Ganesan, N. and Sivakumar,
M. Analysis of machining of FRPs using FEM. Int. J. Mach.
Tools and Mf., 1998, 38, 1531–1549.
35 Mahdi, M. and Zhang, L. An adaptive three-dimensional
nite
element algorithm for the orthogonal cutting of composite
materials. J. Mater. Processing Technol., 2001, 113, 368–372.
36 Mahdi, M. and Zhang, L. A
nite element model for the
orthogonal cutting of
ber-reinforced composite materials. J.
Mater. Processing Technol., 2001, 113, 373–377.
37 Salje, E. Milling of particle boards with high-hard cutting
materials. 9th International Wood Machining Seminar, Univer-
sity of California, Forest Products Laboratory, Richmond,
California, 1988, pp. 211–228.
38 Nordstrom, J. and Bergstrom, J. Wear testing of saw teeth in
timber cutting. Wear, 2001, 250, 19–27.
L01102 # IMechE 2003 Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
45
39 Djouadi, M., Nouveau, C. Beer, P. and Lambertin, M. Crx Ny
hard coatings deposited with PVD method on tools for wood
machining. Surf. and Coatings Technol., 2000, 133(134), 478–
483.
40 Miklaszewski, S., Zurek, M., Beer, P. and Sokolowska, A.
Micromechanism of polycrystalline cemented diamond tool
wear during milling of wood-based materials. Diamond and
Related Mater., 2000, 9, 1125–1128.
41 Endler, I., Bartsch, K., Leonhardt, A., Scheibe, H., Ziegle,
H., Fuchs, I. and Raatz, C. Preparation and wear behaviour of
woodworking tools coated with superhard layers. Diamond and
Related Mater., 1999, 8, 834–839.
42 Beer, P., Djouadi, M., Marchal, R., Sokolowska, A., Lamber-
tin, M. and Miklaszewski, S. Inuence of knife-surfaces
modi
cation with hard coatings on the peeling wood process.
J. Mater. Processing Technol., 1999, 92–93, 264–268.
43 Pahlitzch, G., Dziobeck, K., Puttkammer, K. and Braunsch-
weig, T. Chip formation and chip ow in milling of solid
wood. Ann. Inst. for Prod. Engng Res. (CIRP), 1978, 27(1),
55–59.
44 Montgomery, D. and Altintas, Y. Mechanism of cutting force
and surfacc generation in dynamic milling. Trans. ASME, J.
Engng for Industry, May 1991, 113, 160–168.
45 Altintas, Y. and Lee, P. A general mechanics and dynamics
model for helical end mills. Ann. CIRP, 1996, 45(1), 59–
94.
46 Altintas, Y. Modeling approaches and software for predicting
the performance of milling operations at MAL-UBC. CIRP
2000 Machining Workshop, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, 2000.
47 Machining Data Handbook, 2nd edition, 1972 (Metcut
Research Associates, Cincinnati, Ohio).
48 Caprino, G., Santo, L. and Nele, L. Interpretationof size effect
in orthogonal machining of composite materials. Part 1: unidir-
ectional glass-
bre reinforced plastics. Composites, 1998, 29A,
887–892.
49 Lee, P. and Altintas, Y. Prediction of ball-end milling forces
from orthogonal cutting data. Int. J. Mach. Tools and Mf., 1996,
36(9), 1059–1072.
50 Budak, E., Altintas, Y. and Armarego, E. Prediction of
milling coef
cients from orthogonal cutting data. Trans.
ASME, J. Mfg. Sci. Engng, May 1996, 118, 216–224.
51 Dippon J., Ren, H., Amara, B. and Altintas, Y. Orthogonal
cutting mechanics of medium density
bre boards. Forest
Products J., 1999, 50, 25–30.
52 Engin, S., Altintas, Y. and Amara, F. Mechanics of routing
medium density
breboard. Forest Products J., 2000, 50(9), 65–
69.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 217 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications