Interim Report No. 3 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ON TOOL WEAR (Results on Carbide Tool Wear, Surface Finish, Built-Up-Edge, and Finish Machining) L. V. Colwell, L. J. Quackenbush, J. C. Mazur, and J. M. Hardy ABSTRACT This is the third in a series of four reports scheduled for this contract. The first two (Interim Reports Nos. 1 and 2) presented the outline and objectives of the entire program along with detailed information on the properties of the tool materials and the XC45 work material (1045 steel). This report presents the results of the cooperative program on the wear of European grades of sintered carbide tools in machining the controlled work material. An encouraging degree of agreement was found between the results of the nine participating laboratories located in eight different countries. Undoubtedly some causes for dispersion other than the workpiece and tool materials will be identified in later phases of the International Cooperative Program. Some results obtained at The University of Michigan for the later stages of tool wear point to the possibility that machine tool rigidity may be an influential factor. This and other identifiable factors will ultimately be investigated to greater depth in later phases of the CIRP/OECD program. The results to date are to be considered as essentially a progress report with final interpretation being withheld until the validity of results across international boundaries can 4e estabAished iWithin predictable probability limits as in "atomic weight!:aan, similar physicochemical properties. In addition to the resul.s d n..-wear of carbide tools, the report includes the extra work done by the Univesit of' Delft:onthe repeatability of wear measurements between laboratoriesiand:special.studies on surface finish, built-up-edge, and finish machinirg.; I'itial results of a special study at Chalmers University on the plastie',ty.o-f the-work material also are presented. ii

-cr x'6Y uu kt e( k

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART Io WEAR ON EUROPEAN CARBIDES IN MACHINING SC45 STEEL 1 Typical Supporting Information 1 Summary of Tool Wear Results 5 Conclusions 9 PART II, REPEATABILITY OF WEAR MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN LABORATORIES 57 Simulated Tools 57 Results 57 PART III. INFLUENCE OF SPEED AND FEED ON FORCES, FINISH AND BUILT-UP EDGE 67 Introduction 67 Test Conditions 67 Results 67 Conclusion 69 PART IV, A NEW METHOD FOR STUDYING TOOL WEAR IN FINISH MACHINES 85 Introduction 85 The Comparative Test Program 85 Data to be Measured 86 Recommendations for the Execution of the Test 86 Measuring Methods 86 PART V. PLASTICITY STUDY OF XC45 WORK MATERIAL (1045 STEEL) 95 Procedure and Method of Analysis 95 Test Results 98 iii

PART I WEAR ON EUROPEAN CARBIDES IN MACHINING XC45 STEEL The carbide tool portion of Phase 1 of the tool wear program with European carbides is completedo Progress reports on the work which began in 1963 have been issued by Professor Opitz from the Technical University of Aachen in Germany. The University of Michigan, the latest institution to join the program through the medium of this contract has also carried out tests on the European carbides, The results have been combined with those of the other participating countries to provide the first section or part of this report, The University of Michigan has also carried out some initial work on the XC45 steel with American carbide tools as a preliminary to a longer term program whose objective is to develop a workable "tie-in" between American grades of tools and work materials with those of the CIRP/OECD program, The latter results will be included in the last report of this series' The following information on the wear of carbide tools is divided into two parts; the first part on "Typical Supporting Information" and the second on "Summary of Tool Wear Results " The total volume of information precludes presenting all of the supporting information in single report. Therefore, only some typical supporting information like that suggested in Interim Report No, 1 is included at this point to illustrate the basis for the final results given in the summaryo For the most part the supporting information is abstracted from a working report issued by the Technical University of Aachen in June, 1963o The summary of results includes all of the quantitative correlations derived from the main program. It includes the results obtained recently by The University of Michigan and those from the other participating laboratories as summarized in the report issued by Professor Opitz on December 23, 1964, Most of the quantitative information in Figso 1-1 through 1!45 has been presented in the units of both the metric and English system for the convenience of those readers not normally accustomed to both and to encourage the development of greater familiarity with both- systems. TYPICAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION Examples of the supporting information upon which the summary results are based are illustrated in Figso - -1 through 1-13 Tne first three of these are concerned directly with the wear criteria upon which tool life determinations are based The second group of three deal with chip foreshortening known more commonly in the USA as cutting ratio4 The remainder of the figures are con1

cerned with the different tool life results arising out of the two heats of steel used for the Main Program. Wear Criteria (Figs. 1-1 -, 1-3) Figure 1-l shows a double logarithmic plot of flank wear as a function of elapsed cutting time. The test protocol suggests that limiting values of either 0.2 mm (.008 in.) or 0.4 mm (0o016 in.) be used as the end of useful tool life. It will be noted however that the large asterisks in four of the five tests included in this figure indicate that the tool was rendered unusable before a flank wear of 0.4 mm was reached; consequently the lower value must be used in this case, All of the tests except for the highest speed show the familiar bend or "dog lego" The precise cause of this is not known as yet but it is suspected that it is related to the observation by Trigger and others that tool flank temperature actually decreases initially until a certain critical amount of wear is reached after which it increases. This would seem to be consistent with the observation that the bend occurs at lower values of wear at lower cutting speeds since a slower moving workpiece could sustain the same temperature on a smaller worn area, The fact that the rate of wear is more rapid after the bend could be due to the onset of diffusion as a wear mechanism on the flank, Takeyama in Japan suggested this several years ago, Figure 1-2 is a Cartesian plot of crater depth versus elapsed cutting time, It is not used directly as a wear criterion, Instead it is used in combination with the distance from the cutting edge to the deepest point of the crater, This forms a dimensionless ratio such as that shown plotted on double logarthmic coordinates in Fig. 1-3 and permits using the same ratio as a criterion of failure for a large range of feed rates, Figure 1-2 is included only to illustrate the orderliness of crater depth as a wear parameter, Figure 1-3 shows that the crater ratio (ratio of depth to distance of the deepest point from the cutting edge) also gives an orderly or consistent plot, These lines also exhibit a tendency to bend but the point of the bend appears to occur at a later time than the corresponding bend for flank wear. However, it is quite probable that the two are related through temperature although much further research on temperature phenomena and distribution will be needed before this can be established. The test protocol suggests that a limiting crater ratio of either 0.1 or 0,2 be used as a criterion for determining the end of useful tool life, It can be seen that the larger of these values was nearly reached in all tests which was not true for the flank wear, Which criterion should be used obviously depends upon proximity to catastrophic failure and its significance to the job being done, More important, however, to the machinability of the work mate2

rials and the cutting ability of the tools is the shape which these two criteria give to the tool life curve. This is discussed later in connection with Figs, 1-7 through 1-13. Cutting Ratio or Chip Foreshortening (Figso 1-4 - 1-6) This quantity is a sensitive measure of the friction between the chip and the cutting tool. By definition it is the ratio of the length of the chip to the length of the cut. As a measure of friction it is an average of a quantity which varies rapidly with'time especially in the lower ranges of cutting speed. Furthermore, it is difficult and time consuming to measure accurately, The three different methods suggested in the test protocol for measuring cutting ratio are compared in Fig. 1-4 for Test No. 2.1b. It is clear that even the average values vary by as much as 10% between the extremes. Consequently, it should not be surprising that cutting ratio has not provided any useful guide for predicting tool life differences in relation to cutting speed and work material. This is evident in Figs. 1-5 and 1-6 where typical values determined by the density method are plotted for a range of cutting speeds on both heats of the XC45 steel. Despite the erratic nature of cutting ratio data it nevertheless indicates important trends. It will be noted that except for the one short test all of the data in Figs. 1-4 through 1-6 show an undeniable trend toward lower cutting ratios and higher friction at the longer tool liveSo This means not only that frictional energy is higher but also that the shear-strain energy per unit volume has increased0 Consequently, the power component of cutting force also must have increased despite the increases in crater depth, It could be useful in future research to make an exhaustive analysis of the changes in at least eight quantities as the tool wears0. These are (1) flank wear, (2) crater wear, (3) cutting'forces, (4).cutting temperatures, (5) cutting ratio, (6) shape of the chip cross-section, (7) shape of the crater, and (8) degree and frequency of chip segmentation. There is a pronounced lack of information of this type which could guide metallurgists in developing better tool materials for unique combinations of workpiece composition and microstructure0 5

Tool Life Plots (Figs. 1-7 1-13) Typical tool life, cutting speed plots are shown inFigs. 1-7 through 1-13. These give a comparison of the two different wear criteria and different ways of representing them. They also emphasize the influence of the slight differences between the two heats of the program steel. Figure 1-7 is a tool life plot based upon total tool travel rather than cutting time. The ordinate is the tool travel or rubbing distance. The volume of metal removed is simply the product of this distance and the cross-sectional area of the chip. When tool life is plotted in time units the amount of metal removed is the product of the time and the rate of removal which involves the cutting speed. Figure 1-7 shows that using flank wear as the criterion for the end of useful tool life results in a straight line on the double logarithmic coordinates whereas the crater ratio produces an elliptically shaped curve. This is rather typical although flank wear also may show a tendency to curve in the same direction in the lower speed range, It will be recalled from Fig0 1-1 that flank wear could be tolerated beyond the 0~2 mm limit at all but the highest test speeds, Consequently, the two criteria would have given more nearly the same result had the limiting flank wear been fixed at 0.3 or 0.25 mm. This phenomenon varies, however, with the different combinations of tool and work materials so that realistic limiting values cannot be based on a single combination, The most important feature shown in Fig~ 1-7 is the difference in shape of the two lines0 This difference means that some cutting conditions will encounter catastrophic failure due to crater wear while others will be due to flank wear. This is the principal reason for different grades of carbide tools. The sensitivity of these parameters to cutting speed, size of cut, and tool geometry is not understood adequately at this time and will require a substantial amount of further studyo Figure 1-8 also is a plot of total tool travel versus cutting speed. Two curves each representing limiting crater wear as the criterian of tool life show the results for both heats of the OECD program steel. Heat No, Z0656 permits somewhat higher cutting speeds than the other heat when compared through this criterian, It is also notable that both lines are distinctly curved compared to the straight line shown for flank wear in Fig. 1-7. Figures 1-9 through 1-13 are the familiar double logarithmic plots of tool life versus cutting speed. Figure 1-9 gives a comparison of the tool-life characteristics of both heats of the program steel based on a limiting flank wear of 0Q2 mm, It is interesting that there is no significant difference between these two heats based on this criterian but there is an appreciable dif4

ference between them when the crater wear characteristics are compared as shown in Fig. 1-8. Figure 1-10 is a replot of the same data as Fig. 1-8 but with the tool life being expressed in minutes rather than in terms of the total rubbing distance. It will be noted that the curvature is not as evident in Fig. 1-10. Figure 1-11 and 1-12 show a comparison of the tool life curves for the work material in the inner zone of the test bars versus that in the outer zone. Figure 1-11 makes a comparison for heat No. Z0656 based upon flank wear of 0.2 mm as a criterion. On the other hand Fig. 1-12 gives a similar comparison for heat No. Z0648 based on a crater ratio of 0.2. It will be noted that in both instances the work material in the outer zones of both heats permits higher cutting speed for the same tool life although it will be noted in Fig. 1-11 that the difference tended to disappear for a tool life of about one hour. It was pointed out earlier in this section that differences in tool life depending upon whether one selects flank wear or crater wear as the limiting criterion is somewhat arbitrary depending upon the limiting values selected in each case. This is emphasized in Fig. 1-13 where two sets of tool-life lines are shown for heat No, Z0656. The set representing the higher cutting speeds and longer tool lives is based respectively upon a flank wear of 0.3 mm and a crater ratio of 0.2. The other set at lower cutting speed is based on flank wear of 0.2 mm and a crater ratio of 0.1. It will be noted in both cases that the results are nearly equal but that the crater wear becomes dominant at higher cutting speeds. Appropriate values of both of these criteria differ between work materials and vary with the type of operation. Consequently, it is inadvisable to specify any one set of limiting values as being best without much further information of this same type. SUMMARY OF TOOL WEAR RESULTS (Figs. 1-14 - 1-45) The results of both the Standard and Main Tool Wear Programs are summarized in Figs. 1-14 through 1-45. All test conditions are identified by test numbers shown in the figures with the corresponding test conditions described in detail in Tables II and III of Interim Report No. 1. Most of the tests in this Phase 1 program were carried out with the P30 tool material since the cutting speeds were not as high as those for the P10 material and therefore required less steel for carrying out the tests. The first four figures give a summary comparison of the two different grades of tool materials. The next 22 figures give a more detailed analysis of the influence of tool geometry and other parameters. The next two figures (1-40 and 1-41) give an overall summary of the influence of chip breakers. The last four figures give a direct comparison of the results from the Standard Program which was carried out at the same test conditions by most of the participating laboratories. Obviously not all of the test conditions for the Standard Program were identical since the machine tools themselves were not measurable quantities. 5

Summary Comparison of Carbide Grades P10 and P30 (Figs, 1-14 through 1-17) Figures 1-14 and 1-15 compare the two different grades of tool material over a range of side-cutting-edge angles. The numbers appearing on the abcissas of these two figures are in reality the setting angles as they are now defined by the ASA standard. These are also setting angles in the ISO standard used commonly in Europe. Consequently an angle of 90~ as it appears in these figures corresponds to a zero side-cutting edge-angle in the ASA systenm while an angle of 50~ corresponds to a side-cutting-edge angle of 40 in the same systemo It will be noted that when tool life is based on limiting flank wear the cutting speed for the grade P10 carbide is at least 60% higher than that for the grade P30 carbide. On the other hand when tool life is based on the crater ratio as shown in Fig, 1-15 the cutting speed for the same tool life appears to be nearly 100% higher, Thus it can be seen why economics dictated the study of most of the variables with the grade P30 tool materials Figures 1-16 and 1-17 summarize the influence of feed rate upon the cutting speeds for 30- and 60-minute tool lives based respectively upon flank wear (Fig. 1-16) and crater ratio (Fig. 1-17). It will be noted from this summary that the percentage relationships of the cutting speeds for the two different tool materials are not as pronounced at the heavier feed rates. Effect of Rake Angle The effect of rake angle for both tool materials used for a variety of cutting conditions is summarized in Figs. 1-18 through 1-27. The rake angle, designated in these figures by the Greek letter gamma, is also properly described as the normal rake angle, This means that the rake angle is the inclination or slope away from the cutting edge. This does not correspond to either of the two terms or values used to express rake angles in the American standard, On the other hand it is being considered for a new American standard as well as for a uniform international standard. This practice has also been used in the United States since the mechanically clamped carbide tool tips became common. Consequently, it seemed proper to report the results of this study in units of "normal rake angle." Results for the P30 carbide are summarized in Figs. 1-18 through 1-21 while those for the PlO grade are summarized in Figs. 1-22 through 1-27. The first two figures show the amount of flank wear after specified periods of cutting time at each of two cutting speeds. It will be noted that the amount of flank wear decreases with an increase of rake angle from -6o to about +60 after which it rises again rather rapidly. Similar information for three different cutting speeds is shown for a cutting time of 20 mm in Fig, 1-20, Here again it will be noted that a positive normal rake of 6~ appears to give an optimum or minimum of wear, 6

A similar comparison based on the cutting speed for a 30-min tool life is shown in Figo 1-21. Here the results shown in the upper portion are based on a. limiting flank wear of 0.2 mm whereas those shown in the lower portion are based on a crater ratio of 0olo Again the results based on limiting flank wear seem to indicate that a normal rake angle of +60 is best not only for a feed rate of 00 010 ipr but probably also for a, feed twice as great, On the other hand the cutting speeds based on limiting crater ratio as shown in the lower portion of Fig~ 1-21 are not as sensitive to normal rake angle and in fact appear to favor a negative angle of -6~ Obviously in the presence of such contradictory guide lines more research needs to be done not only to provide a broader base for making proper selections but also for determining the causes' A similar trend is shown later for the grade P10 carbide, Flank wear information for the grade P10 carbide is shown for two normal rake angles in Figs. 1-22 and 1l23o These results show the same general trend as those for P30 tool material in the range from -6 to +6~ of normal rake angle but unfortunately do not show corresponding information for the rake angle of +10~o On the other hand flank wear data for the P10 tool material run with chip breakers does show a tendency for an optimum to occur at +60 as shown in Figs0 1-24 and 1-254 Chip breakers were not used for the test results reported in Figso 1-22 and 1-230 Figures 1-26 and 1-27 once more demonstrate an opposite trend with regard to optimum or best normal rake angle depending upon whether flank wear or crater wear is used as the criteria for the end of useful tool life0 As suggested earlier in this report this type of evidence justifies further study of these phenomena with the analysis being extended to include at least cutting temperature distributions development of the crater profiles and changes in the shape of the cross section of the chips with all of these criteria being analyzed and documented during the entire useful life of the cutting tools' Effect of Setting Angle (Side-Cutting-Edge Angle) The influence of side-cutting-edge angle or setting angle of the sidecutting edge is summarized for the grade P30 tool material in Figo 1-28o The cutting speeds for a 30-amin tool life based both on limiting flank wear and crater ratio are plotted respectively in the upper and lower portions of the figure~ It will be noted in the upper portion that increases of the sidecutting-edge angle from 0 (900 setting angle) permits higher and higher cutting speeds. On the other hand when the tool life is based on the crater ratio an increase in the side-cutting-edge angle first causes a reduction in cutting speed followed by an increase beyond the level which is valid for the O side cutting-edge angleo These conditions appear to be true for all three feed rates represented in the test conditions reported in this figure0 7

Consequently the analysis permitted by the results reported in the Fig. 1-29 are also interesting~ Here the side-cutting-edge angle was held constant at 20" (70~ setting angle) as the rake angle was changed. In the upper portion of the figure representing results based on limiting flank wear a rake angle of +6~ was best while -6" was poorest. On the other hand the data in the lower portion of the figure based on crater ratio as a tool life criterion show a rake angle of -6~ as best and 0~ as poorest. The latter data appeared to be somewhat erratic although when one recalls that these are the averages from more than one laboratory there must be some consistent causes that are not yet understood. Detailed supporting information for Figs. 1-28 and 1-29 are shown cross plotted in Figs. 1-30 through 1-380 Similar information for the grade P10 tool material at a constant feed rate of 0o010 ipr is summarized in Fig0 1-39o These results are for only one feed rate but they show the same tendencies as were revealed for the grade P30 tool material so it may be concluded tentatively that the same unknown factors are operative here as well0 Effect of Chip Breakers Several of the tests in the cooperative program were made with chip breakers and the results are reported in several places elsewhere in this report. However the group of similar tests made both with and without chip breakers are summarized here in Figso 140 and 1-41a Those in the first figure compare the cutting speed for 30-min tool life based upon a limiting flank wear of 02 mm whereas those in the second figure present similar information based upon a limiting crater ratio of 0,l.o In all cases that were directly comparable those tests made with a chip breaker resulted in speeds at least equal to or slightly higher than for those tests made without a chip breaker, The chip breaker settings were as specified in Table IV of Interim Report No. 1 and presumably all of the results are valid only for these settings. Consequently there remains a question as to the influence of the chip breaker setting itself. It probably exerts some influence analogous to that of the rake angle and the side-cutting-edge angle. Comparison of Results Between Participating Laboratories All of the laboratories who participated in the cooperative program carried out tests in both the Standard and the Main Programs as outlined in Tables II and III of Interim Report Noo l1 Only those tests in the Standard Program were common to all laboratories0 The results are summarized in Figs. 1-42 through 1-45o Only the cutting-speed9 tool-life results based on limiting flank wear and limiting crater ratio are plotted in these figures~ Some of the test points are the result of extrapolation and are so indicated by being contained within parentheses0 8

The results for the grade P30 carbide are shown first in Figs, 1-42 and 1-43. The first of these is based upon limiting flank wear equal to 0.2 mm while the second is based upon a crater ratio of 0,1, There is a scatter of the order of two to one in most of the data but this is considerably better than that for the high-speed steel where the scatter was from 10 to 20 times as great. Straight lines have been drawn through the data in both of these figures although the original line submitted in the working report for Fig, 1-43 was drawn curved concave toward the left in the figure or in other words with a bulge toward higher speeds in the tool-life range of 20 to 50 min, Similar information for the grade- PlO carbide is shown in Figs, 1l44 and 1-45 The cutting-speed, tool-life line shown in Figo 1-44 is based on limiting crater wear and gave the most consistent results with relatively little scatter. On the other hand similar information based on limiting flank wear of 0.2 mm resulted in the greatest scatter as shown in Figo 1-45 Here the range is appreciably more than 2 to 1 but yet substantially better than the corresponding information obtained for high-speed steel. The tool-life results obtained at The University of Michigan and based upon crater ratio compared very favorably with those obtained from other laboratories,. On the other hand the results based upon flank wear were generally somewhat poorer especially with the grade P10 carbide as shown in Figo 1-45. The lathe used for these tests was the only one in participating laboratories mounted upon vibration isolators, This was suspected as a possible cause along with the- shuck mounting and the live center in the tail stocks Attempts at changing the shuck mounting conditions and the tail stock center produced some improvement but not in any consistent pattern. Therefore, it might be concluded tentatively that loss of torsional rigidity through the lathe not being fastened to the floor is a contributing factor to a faster rate of flank wears CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are those of the authors of this report and not necessarily those of the CIRP/OECD committee. 1. It is possible to obtain reasonable agreement across international boundaries as to the machining characteristics of tools and work materials when both are adequately defined and analytical procedures are specified and controlled and test equipment is carefully compared, 2P The American practice of basing the life of carbide tools only upon flank wear is suspect for many applications. Tool geometry may be a more a important factor in influencing the wear of carbide tools than is generally understood, 9

For these and other reasons which might be drawn from these results it is recommended that the cooperative program be extended to other work materials and microstructures as is contemplated in Phase 2. It is recommended further that. efforts be made to explore a broader range of tool properties and to make more exhaustive analysis of the changes in the eight quantities listed earlier in this section. These are: 1, flank weary 2. crater wear; 3. cutting forces; 4o cutting temperatures and their distribution; cutting ratio; 6. shape of the chip cross section; 7. shape of the crater; and 8. degree and frequency of chip segmentation. 10

,020 0.51.016 0.4.012.0. *.J.Q0,o 0.2 C__ w SYMBOL SPEED MM. m/min fpm I /A. ~ —250 820 ~~< ^ *0........ goo.200 656 J.004 -, x —— 160 525 *. /2 -.5 4/0 0. 0 0 o~~~a. 328 +~~.....~~80 262 IN. 0..' ~ 63 207.002 do 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME, T(MINf WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT Z0656 WORKING DIA.: 96-48 mm TOOL GEOMETRY 4-2 in ^*'^ TOOL MATERIAL:CARBIDE P30 I6' O 7^0.8mm 0.032 in SIZE OF CUT: bxs= 3x0.25 mm = 0.12 x 0.0O in2 TEST NO. 2. b VB vsT FIG. NO. I-I

240- KT vsT ~ / 200 0,u/ /m JLm I J / c i i SYMBOL SPEED t w / m/mmln fpm ^J 80- / ^ ^^^.^....250 820 ro o 160 80 // / ^.........200 656~ ^I" IX / on@@- ^oo 328 40 / / 80 0..... 63 207 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150 200 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME, T(MIN) WORK MATERIAL: XC45 HEAT: Z0656 WORKING DIAME TERS: 96-48mm 2-4 in TOOL GEOMETRY TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 30 6 6 0 70 90 OBmm TEST NO. 2.1b 0032 in FIG. NO. 1-2 SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25 mm 0.12 x 0.01 in

K vsT 0.3 I.-.-X-,_,_ *0.2 A / /1 /~: O Mo,: / SYMBOL SPEED + &.... A-.....A250 820 WOKN 7IAMETR A..-..200 656 0.05-. / X. —. ~160 525 SIE OF x5 mm F~I ~........125 410 \oH 0.04- I^ ^~~~*~~~0 0 328 0.03 ++.... —.80 262 * 0.*..~ *- 63 207 0.03 OX)2 I I I 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME,T r (MIN.) WORK MATERIAL: XC45 TOOL GEOME TRY HEAT: Z0656 WORKING DIAMETERS 1T17riOT 96-46mm or4-2in 0.032 in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2.lb SIZE OF CUT?3x0.25 mm FIG. NO. 0.01 0.12 x 0.01 in

CHIP FORESHORTENING VS,4,)'ELAPSED CUTTING TIME x DENSITY PROCESS xE' ~ Co CHIP THICKNESS MEASUREMENT \ ~^ CHIP CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENT 0- \ I35 \ \\.25,J - \^ \ U- &.235 - 4 10 20 min 50 100 200 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME WORK MATERIAL: XC45 HEAT: Z0648 TOOL GEOMETRY WORKING DIAMETER: llll r 96-48mm or4-2in. 61610 oo190o.8mm 0.032 in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 0.0 TEST NO. 2.1i SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25mm 0.12 x 0. 01 i. NO. 1-4 14

CHIP FORESHORTENING VS,4 0o ELAPSED CUTTING TIME SYMBOL SPEED m/min fpm....... 250 820 _-^^\ 0A- -ot~..200 656 x....... 160 525,35 \ 0 0......- 125 410 0. 0\ - 0-l00 oo 328 __0 2+ -....-..0 080 262 WORKINGEi ~0........63 207 IJJ 0: 96-48mm or4-2in. 6610 019010.8mm 4 10 20min 50 100 200 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME WORK MATERIAL: XC45 HEAT: Z0656 TOOL GEOMETRY WORKING DIAMETER-': l l IVl & i r 96-4emro or4-2in. 6 16 lo0 170o010.8mm TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 0.032 TEST NO. 2. b SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25mm 0.12 x 0. 01 FG.NO.5 15

CHIP FORESHORTENING VS.40 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME.4 \ ~- \,^,iSYMBOL SPEED m/min fpm....~......250 820........ 200 656 / X........160 525.35 * /,*~. ~12.....125 410 ^\5^ oO..........100 328.........-80 262 ^ o Oas^\ *.~~~~~~~63 207 LL.30.25.23 4 10 20 mn 50 100 200 ELAPSED CUTTING TIME WORK MATERIAL: XC45 HEAT:Z 0648 TOOL GEOMETRY WORKING DIAMETER: oLlll1lI L r 96-48mm or4-2in. 6 l6o p17010.8mm TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30- 0.032i TEST NO. 2.10 SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25mm 0.12x0.01A.E FIG. NO.1-6 16

L'vsV \ft m\ 33330 I0000F 16660 500 VB0.2mm\ \ K0.2mm j 6666 200. 3333 -1000 1666 - 500 I 50 100 rrvmin 200 300 - I- I. m166 333 ft'rnin 666 1000 CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 HEAT: Z0656 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 6 6 0 70900Bmm TEST NO. 2.1b 0.032 in SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25mml 0.12 x 0.01 in2 FIG. NO.1-7 17

L'vsV 33330 1000 ft m Z0648 \ 0656 16660 -500( OK.2mm K- 0.2mm j 6666 200 ~ 3333 -1000 1666 500 ~ 1666 - 500 I l I I I 50 100 rr'min 200 300 I.....I.I I.. 166 333 fftmin 666 1000 CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 HEAT: Z0648/Z0656 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL GEOMETRY'< lo c I ~ WORK MATERIAL: XC45 66j f r[OO Bmm TEST NO. 2.1 /b 0.032 in SIZE OF CUT: 3x.25 mmL 0.12 x 0.01 inz FIG. NO.1-818

T'vs V 200 min 100. 0 \ o.-Z0656 50 - x.20648 40 30 20 - 0 5. 3 50 m/tAn 00 200 300 167 333 666 1000 ft/min CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL' XC 45 ALE HEAT Z0648/Z0656 6161 0170.8mm WORKING DIAMETER 0.032in 96 -4 8 mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 30 TEST NO 2.1 a/b SIZE OF CUT: 3xO.25mm. N. *0.120 x0.010 in; 19

T'vs V 200 min \_ 100 50 40 30 Z0648 -7 Z0656 I-. u`20,0 i0 5 3 50 m/nin 1 200 300 167 333 666 1000 ft/min CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL GE HEAT:Z0648/Z0656 6 610 170O8mm WORKING DIAMETER 0.032in 96-4 8 mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P'30 TEST NO 2.1 a/b SIZE OF CUr 3x25mm FI. NO. =0120 x0.010 inz 20

T'vsV 200 min 100 o CENTER ZONE x OUTER ZONE 50 40 10 \ 30 5 ~o e _ 50 m/nmn 1 00 200 300 167 333 666 1 000 ft /min CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 ETR HEAT:ZO656 61 6 070 9OOB.mm WORKING DIAMETER 0.032 in 96-48 mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 TEST NO-2.o1/b SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmL FIG. NO. 1-11 0-120 x0-010 inz 21

T'vsV 200 min 100 100\ o CENTER ZONE x OUTER ZONE 50 40 30 20\ o 0 0 3 50 mAnln 100 200 300 167 333 666 1000 ft/min CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL' XC 45 HEAT:Z0648 61 6 0019 70 WORKING DIAMETER 0.032 in 96-4 8 mm or 4-2 in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 TEST NO 2. a/c SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mm. N -0 120 x0010 inz 22

T'vsV 200 \, min 100 \ \oo \ \ VB 0.2mm \ VB-0.3mm 50* \ 0 K =0.1 mm o K =0.2 mm 40 30 -..I 5 _ 50 m/mnn I 00 200 300 167 333 666 1000 ft/min CUTTING SPEED, V TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 R HEAT:Z0656 61610170 9 0. 8mm WORKING DIAMETER 0.032 in 96 -4 8 mm or 4-2 in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 TEST NO 2.1b T O FIG. NO. 1-13 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mm FIG.NO =0.120 x0.010 inz 23

V3oVEI0.2 mm X.....,g-n m.. CARBIDE p30 CARB 300 f/ 1- -.- - - 800 1400^^ -— ~" - >. — —'"-' 600 180 ------ IC — p 2400 O- go 2.00 60 lww6~50 EDGE ANGL~, W ZOO00~~- cuTTING 50 SIDE rrXC45~~,t NO. I" oO14 MATERAL: CU 45 FIG N0 i HEAT:. 6AME6 WoRKINGo,-~it..,o ion/p3 96-48 " ~nor4 RBDE pC0,P3O 9OOL MATERIALTS 1 o115.111 13.6 TOLO

V vs 10 r 300 f/ nm n - f* 8 0 0 2 4 0......~ x V 30 K -O. Im m 800- 240 - VeoK-.mm VeoK=O. Imm --- CARBIDE PIO _ _ -~ CARBIDE P30 600 180 ru oo 200- 60 - 30 50 70 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE, (DE G WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT' WORKING DIAMETER 96-48mm or4-2in A r TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P10/P30 6 0 IA I90mmr TEST NO. 2.114.1/5.1110o1P2.113&1 0.032 in FIG. NO. 1-15 SIZE OFCUT: 3x0.25mm =0.12 xO.OlOln

vsS WORKING MATERIAL: XC45 WORKING DIAMETER 96-48mrn or 4-2 in. TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO/P30 TEST NO. 2.1,2,3 10.1,2 SIZE OF CUT:3 xV4r. mm o0.12 xO.01 in. cl Ylx10l E r 6 6 070 90 0.8mm 0.3 FPM MPM 666 200, 532 160 \..>^~ ~~ PIO, V30 Vso.2 M Lu 4 400 120 - C4 ^^ 1 14^ PIO, V6o VBo.0. 266 80 P30,V6,V30V00o.2 P30, V6o v —O.2 o -P Voo V~~=0.2 0 0O 0 0.25 0.50 0.80 mm/rev. 0.01.02.032 in/rev. FEED, S FIG. NO. 1-16 26

V vsS WORKING MATERIAL: XC 45 WORKING DIAMETER 96-48mm or 4-2 in. TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO/P30 TEST NO. 2.1,23 10.1,2 SIZE OF CUT:3x Var mm =0.12 x.0.01 in 6 6 1017019 0 0.8 mm 0.3 FPM MPM 666 200 532 160 -.400 120 PIO, V30K-O.I'~~ PIO, V\oOKO.I'-~@~~~~~ |o 4 P10, V60 Ko.a 266 80 - 8~ 266 ~ —80 —P30,V60K K~ P30, V30 K2 o.1 0 -.0 ~ 0.25 0.50 0.80 mmore. 0.J..02.032 inrev. FEED, S FIG. NO. I-17 27

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 11; 1 IE r HEAT:Z0648/Z0656 61 l0 o01i.8mm WORKING DIAMETER -6 0.032 in 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 30 IN | MM TEST NO..1/2.113.117.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmn =0.12 x0.01 in CUTTING SPEED, V 80m/mn.'X,o.o08 0.2 T=315 minm. ~' ~ |;eO T=2Omin. _.004 oi 0.1 " a= T. — min. -6~ 0 ~ +6~ +IO0 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG.) VB vs FIG. NO. 1-18

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 6I ai Aold ~li r HEAT Z0656 61 1O01t 03182m inWORKING DIAMETER "b 0.032 in 96-48mm or4-2in ^~IN ~~~~ MMI^~ ~TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIE P30,IN ~MM, TEST NO..112.113.1171 SIZE OF CUT: 3xO.25mmz = 0.12 xO.01 in2 CUTTING SPEED, V=125m/min,008 0.2 - T=16min. z I | -5 m X ro -Lu a T= 8min.,.004 0.1 / U. T=4 min. a-n_ a T=2min. -a -6~ 0 -+6~ 4-10 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG.) VB vs ~ FIG. NO.I-19

CUTTING TIME, T=20mi. TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 F1 1 1 _______________HEAT:Z0648/Z0656 61 10 701900.8m WORKING DIAMETER - 6 0.032 in 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 30 IN MM TEST N0.1.112.113.17.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmt |\ V=1t25 m/mm. 0.12 x0.01 in2 oo8l'o.2 ~x I0 2g ^^^ ^^^ /'~~~v~0m 0 Lu 6V=80m/min..004 I0.1 -6~ 00 R+6E- +ICO NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG.) VB vs y FIG. NO.- 20

TOOL GEOME TY WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 61 0170190 n0.8mm TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 -6 0.032 n SIZE OF CUT: 3x Vcar mm8 - 0.12 xO.OI inz TEST NOS.: //Z./,2.5/3.J1 t F PM MPM 400.120 333- Ioo- s 0.25mm/we (I) 266.8 ^266-s = 0.50 mm/rev o 0 200- 60 I -6 0 +6 +10 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, r(DEG) 400r 120 ci x 333x 100x s= 0.25m/rev vc 333- l00 x s 0,500 m/rev: 266- 80 233- 706 0I I 0 — 6~ 0~ +6 o.+100 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, X(DEG) V VSY FIG. NO. 1.21 31

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 _ _d I C HE r EAT: Z0648 61 1 o017010.e mm WORKING DIAMETER M.6 0.032 in 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE Pi IN TEST NO. 10.1 15I. SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmL = 0.12 xO.01 inO | Tx 63min. CUTTING SPEED,V=125m/min.,008 - 0.2 X 50min\ > 20O40mn. l I. I.......I. I ~.004 o.i-0 +25 min.I -6~ 0o -.6~ -10i NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG) VB vs y FIG. NO.1-22

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 ___ __ __ _____ HEAT: Z 0648 61 OI7O9CIQmm v61 101701^0^m WOK6ING DIAMETER -6 0.032 in96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PtO IN MM TEST NO. 10.1 15.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmL = 0.12 xO.OinZ oT=20 min CUTTING SPEED, V=200m/mm. A008 0.2 * ^o 16 min co ^ I I f,~2.5rnm 12.5 min T ^ ^^ ~,,8min 4.004 0.1 Li. -~A -60 00 -60 0I0o NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, y (DEG.) VBvs y FIG. NO. 1-23

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 61^1 0V1 m~ HEAT:Z0656 61~O0.8 1nm WOKING DIAMETER 0.032 in 96-48mm or4-2in IN MM TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 1 TEST NO. 14.1,2,3 3 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.2Smm 0.12x0.0 in CUTTING SPEED, V= 125 m/min A008 0.2 co cc W~~~0 T =40 mm i 315mm in J.004 0.1 2___ U. ^A ^ —-~ 25min -a~Aa - 20min - 16min _~_ 12minm 8mnR - 4min - -60 00 4-" 10* NORMAL RAKE ANGLE,r (DEG.) VBVs ~Y FIG. NO. 1-24

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 oI 01 A 1~ I1r HEAT:Z0656 6 01701p0.08 mm WORKING DIAMETER 0.032 in 0.032. in 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 0 IN M _IN^~~~~~~ MM|^~~~~ -TEST NO. 1.1,2,3 SIZE OF CUT: 3 x.25mmL = 0.12 xO.01 in2 CUTTING SPEED, V:200m/min s008 0.2 T20min\ 4 16 min / / Iz~~~~~~ ^.S~125min --,..004 0.1 LL 8min - o 4mm i — 6~ 0o 4-6 I0" NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG.) VB vs y FIG. NO. 1-25

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 o I ll 1 | e ___r TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDC PIO 6 0 70r90o0.8 mm SIZE OF CUT: 3xO.25mm' 0. 032 in 0.12 x 0.01 in' TEST NO.: 14.1,14.2,143 * FPM MPM 800 240 c l^ /-x_ V30 VB=0.2mm Cs Y\ o 666 200 5 532 160 _: O^ |eV a/V60VB=0.2mm 400 120 -6 0 +6 +10 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG) Vvs Y FIG. NO. 1-26

TOOL GEOMETRY WORK MATERIAL: XC45 io A I Ar a E r_ TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDOC PIO 6 0 70 90 0.8 mm SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mm* 0.032 in =0.12x 0.01 in TEST NO.: 4.1,14.2,14.3 FPM MPM 800 240 ~ 666 200 - I 532 160 —. V3o K=O.Imm 532 160 (3 | - o VeoK-O.lmm 400 120 -6 0 6 +10 NORMAL RAKE ANGLE, (DEG) Vvs Y FIG. NO. 1-27

V vsS. I Xtl1ElgIr?WORK MATERIAL: XC45 6 |6 0 1900.8mm TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 0.032 in SIZE OF CUT 3x(Varmma 0.12 x 0.01 In TEST NO 2.1,2,3/4.1,3/5.1,2 04 5 W~50:\ 400 1203!$90 ufpm () 333 100 - mwin ol ^nm/m 267 80 233, 7 0.25 5 mm/U 8 i.. 0.01,02 r.032 FEED, S 400 120 X=50 fp i =70; e fp ^ 333 -100- - - 267 80.200o. 60 0.25.5 mm/U.8 0.01'.02.032 FEED, S FIG. NO. 1-28 38

VvsS ^l ^lh tlgjr ^WORK MATERIAL: XC45 61 10 7~9008*Bmm TOOL MATERIAL" CARBIDE P30 0.032 in SIZE OF CUTs 3xiVcarmm2 ~0.12 x 0.01 in TEST NO 2.1,73 3.1,2 rO 80 0 a \ 2333- 0- ~00 233 mm/ 0 0.25 5 m8 -- i --- XI -- 400~ 120 C/ 333 100 co m~~ o A, 70 267- 80 8I -.. I I o.1o.02 pr.032 FEED, S FIG. NO. t-29 39 cUP~~~~~:59

CUTTING SPEED, V=80m/min VB vs WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or 4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2.1 4.1 5.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3xO.25mm in: mm =0.12xO.1OinL 0.012' 03 TOOL GEOMETRY oc IE''aI;~ I r 6 60 1 90 10 mm 88 0.032 in U. T=50min. 0. 0.1 T=25min. -A T —2min. T=16min. 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE,^(DEG) FIG. NO.I-30

CUTTING SPEED,V100m/min. _VB VS _ WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL' CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2J 4.1 5.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25 mm in mm in^~~~~~~~ ~- m =0.12 xO.OI in0 0.012' 0.3 ~~~~0.0/1~~2" 03 - ^TOOL GEOMETRY oc II;k0 e r 6 60/j90 0.8 mm 0.032 in ct^~~ T5m ^T=SOmin. LU 0.00C- 0.2 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I I I ~~T=40min _ ^ ~~~~-o~ 0^^ T=31.5min T=20min.~ 0.0f 0. I T-16m~n. 0 0 5 50 60 70 8090 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE,)k(DEG) FIG. NO. 1-31

CUTTING SPEED, V=160m/min. VB vs WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL' CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2.1 4.1 5.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.m25mm in mm 0.12 x0.01I in 0.012 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0~~x012x0.012 03 TOOL GEOMETRY 6 6 0.90 0.8 mm 0.032 in O.Ooe 0.2 Li. T=8min. CD~~~0 0.00 0.! T= 4 min. 0 00 0.0^ O. - ^^ ~50 60 70 8090 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE, pDEG) FIG.NO.I-32

CUTTING TIME, T=8min. VB vs X WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or 4-2in TOOL MATERIAL' CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2.2 4.2 5.2 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0O.5mm' In mm 0.0.12 x.01in 0.012 03 - TOOL GEOMETRY Ic ~' 1 k 7te I r 6 6 1 90 0.8mm 88'0.032 0.008 0.2 V=125 m/min x 0.0/ 0.1 V= 80m/min. -0 0 0 50 60 70 8A0 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE, (DEG) FIG. NO. 1-33

CUTTING SPEED,V'eOm/min. VB vs A WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96 -48 mm or 4-2in TOOL MATERIAL'' CARBIDE P30 TEST NO. 2.3 4.3 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.6 mm* in mmt01 OO n ^ ^ s O.I2x0. 0.012 03 "TOOL GEOMETRY 660 90 0.8mm QQ 0.032mn T, T=40min. ^ 10.006 - 0.2 -z 31.5 min. ^C A.. T=25min.' _ -T=20min. - - T^6 mIn. 0.0^ 0. \ - ^.~~~T T2.5rnin, ^^ b o~~oo~~CS o~~r L L, ~ - Tt!2.5T= min. 0 0 0 6 70 8 0 90 SIDE CUTTfiVG EDGE ANGLE,lk(DEG ~ I.N.13

WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL; CARBOVE P30 TEST NO.2.1 4J.1 5.1 SIZE OF CUT; 3 x0.25mm z0.12 xO.OI ins' TOOL GEOMETRY a y ja k e l r 6 6 O 90lo.8mm FPM MPM 88a032in 467 r 140 400 1- 20 uj^ V30 VB=0.2mm Q.. (1333 100 Z, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~V6OVBO=2 mm ^267 -80 VB0.2 mm 200- 6011 50 70 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE,, (DEG.) FIG NO. 1-35

.V VS ~ WORK MATERIA.: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL CARBIDE P30 TEST NO.2.1 4.1 5.1 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmn.0.12 x.01 in1 TOOL GEOMETRY 6 61 0 9010.8mm FPM MPM 88 0032 in FPM OEin 467 - 140 400 - 120 2^ l; | ^ X-V30K=O.I 333 - 100 I... _oV3oK0O.t 267 - 80 200 - 60 50 70 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE,;(DEG.) FIG NO. 1-36

V vs ^ WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL CAFODE P30 TEST NO. 2.1923 4.123 5.1,2 SIZE OF CUT: 3x VAr mm ~0.12 xO.o1 in" TOOL GEOMETRY 66 \10 90 0.8mm * * *0~032 w FPM MPM in p467 r 140 4u'a 8400 - 120 CL K^ s 0.25 mm/rev. cn333 1oo00 - O5 I ( ^^^^ 267 80 s5. s=0.8mm/rev. 0 S:0.5 mm/rev. 200 60 ~ 50 70 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE, (DEG.) FIG NO. 1-37

V -Vs Vvs^ ^ ~ WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL; CAFDE P30 TEST N0.2. 4,3 4.123 5.1,2 SIZE OF CUT: 3 x Varn m 0.12 xO.Il in2 TOOL GEOMETRY rC a keL E r 6 6 0~90 0.6mm 032 in FPM MPM 467 r 140 ii 400oo 120 co Q"; s =0.25 mm/rev. r333- 100 B^~~~~ ^s^^I~~~~ I ^_o,~s 5=0.5 mm/rev. 267 80 A. s80.8 mm/rev. 200 601~ 50 70 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE, (DEG.) FIG NO. 1-38

V^oB vs^~ ~~CUTTING SPEED,V-160m/min. VB Vs WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 HEAT: Z0648 WORKING DIAMETER: 96-48mm or4-2in TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PF10 TEST NO.10.1 12.1 13.1 in mm SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mmn 0.012 0 = 0.12 x 0.01 in' TOOL GEOMETRY oc1~ s'e IlIr 6 61 0 90 0. mm 0.032 in ~ 3 0.008 0.2 T=31.5 min. 2L /,T=25min. T=20min. O-Q. A -, T..-A~12.6 mi. 0. I _ -_______,_ T 12.Smin...~- 0' ~________________,T=8min. -..3 0 0 50 60 70 80 90 SIDE CUTTING EDGE ANGLE,^(DEG,) FIG. NO. 1-39

CUTTING SPEEDS FOR 30min. TOOL LIFE WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO/P30 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25 mm2 = O.12xO.01 in2 TEST NO. 1.1 2.1 3.1 6.1,2,3 7.1.0.1 12J 14.1,2,3 15.1 ~ FPM MPM TOOL GEOMETRY 800oo 240 PO 1 1A P r Plo0 6 0 70 90 0. 8mm 1-6'.0 32 in p" 600 1- 180 - t,) ^ 400 - 120 - P30 P30 l~~~ —~ ~ ~ ~ 200 - 60' o k-I WITH CHIP BREAKER WITHOUT CHIP BREAKER FIG. NO. 1-40

CUTTING SPEEDS FOR 30min. TOOL LIFE WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO/P30 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25 mm = 0.12x0.01 in2 TEST NO. 1.1 2.1 3.1 6.1,2,3 71 10.1 12.114.1,2,3 15J FPM MPM TOOL GEOMETRY 800 240 l lll_ ( I a s I o ~607090 0.8mm -6 0 32 in ^ o"600 180 PIOp COPIO 1 400 120 P30 P30 k 200 60 DI -t(DljO a II.100I WITH CHIP BREAKER WiTHOUT CHIP BREAKER FIG. NO. 1-41

TOOL LIFE vs CUTTING SPEED WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P30 SIZE OF CUT:3x0.25mmt =0.12 xO.Olin2 TEST NO. 6.2 TOOL GEOMETRY 2001 1 E r 6 6 0 70190 O.8m.032h + X AACHEN IX) - + DELFT' LIEGE 1, MUNICH ZURICH'~ \ o L.C.A. PARIS wO 50,' GOTEBORG It oYx A MANCHESTER - \ r MICHIGAN E \ ay 20 tL or \ 3 I 10 - 2 - 50 I00 200 m/min. 500 I I lI 167 333 667 fpm 1667 CUTTING FIG. N..1-4 CUTTING SPEED, V 52

TOOL LIFE vs CUTTING SPEED WORK MATERIAL; XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE P 30 SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mm' =0.12 xO.01in2 TEST NO. 6.2 TOOL GEOMETRY 200 ^ ol iE r 6 6 0 70190 0.8m.032n X AACHEN 00- - + DELFT Y LIEGE noy Z~A MUNICH XS\ ~~* ZURICH o L.C.A. PARIS 50 \ A o GOTEBORG v^~ \V~ ^~ MANCHESTER HI+ v MICHIGAN'd 20 y O \ - wl + -0 -\ oY 5 50 I00 200 m/min. 500 I I I.I 167 333 667 fpm 1667 167~CUTTING SPEEDV1667 FIG. NO. 1-43 CUTTIING SPEED, V 53

TOOL LIFE vs CUTTING SPEED WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO 5^(v),SIZE OF CUT: 3x0.25mm2 rW~Ja,'0.12x0.01 int 1000 TEST NO. 14.2 TOOL GEOMETRY o V1lI I~bL I r 6 61 6170 9010.8mm.032in \ AACHEN 500 + DELFT Y LIEGE \ MUNICH (o)\ ~ ZURICH 0 L.C.A. PARIS a, t o)\# 0 GOTEBORG d^ *^^ ^r MANCHESTER y200- I v MICHIGAN I ^I v\.,I 100 tOo 50 y20 +\ 20 oA 4. 10 50 100 200 m/mm 500 I _....... FIG. NO.1-44 167 333 667 fpm 1667 CUTTING SPEED, V 54

TOOL LIFE vs CUTTING SPEED WORK MATERIAL: XC 45 TOOL MATERIAL: CARBIDE PIO SIZE OF CUT: 3xO.25mm2 =0.12xO.01 in 1000 - TEST NO. 14.2 TOOL GEOMETRY (1 1-I bf1..E,1 r 6 6 017019010.8mm.032in X AACHEN 500- (0) + DELFT r LIEGE A MUNICH * ZURICH EN^ \~~' C~0 L.C.A. PARIS odQe a0 GOTEBORG MANCHESTER - 200 V MICHIGAN i( o)y 4b \v 2 \Y {X) (o)Y\ 20- 10 50 100 200 m/min 500 _____ __i________FIG. NO.1-45 167 333 667 fpm 1667 CUTTING SPEED, V 55

PART II REPEATABILITY OF WEAR MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN LABORATORIES Up to this time two formal attempts have been made to ascertain the degree of reliability or repeatability of tool-wear measurements between the participating laboratories, Both investigations have been coordinated by Professor Pekelharing at the University of Delft and the results were reported out, respectively, in 1963 and 1965; The first study involved only five laboratories all of which measured all eight of the same group of eight worn carbide tools. The results are summarized in Table 2.1, The figures within parentheses in the left-hand column refer to the desired resolution of measuring instruments and to the units reported. The tool "edge code numbers" refer to the system illustrated in Fig. 9 of Interim Report No, 1 while the dimensions measured are shown in Fig. 11 of the same report, It is suggested that some of the dispersion or scatter shown in Table 2,1 is due to human judgement in making measurements. Such judgment as must be exercised in the measuring of actual tools tends to mask errors arising out of the equipment itself, Consequently a second series of tests was carried out with simulated tools prepared at the University of Delfts SIMULATED TOOLS (2nd Series) Sixteen slices of hardened steel were bolted together and the contours of the artificial wear marks were ground (see Fig. 2.l). Inspection revealed that the dimensions of the wear marks were uniform to an accuracy of within 0oOl mm, The bolts were then loosened and the slices numbered from 1 to 16 inclusive and the edges marked A and B (see Fig. 2.1)o Some laboratories used different devices to measure the dimensions and some tools were measured by more than one institute~ Therefore, the cutting surface was given a number and a letter if more than one institute used it0 Table 2.2 lists the institutions and identifies the type of measuring devices used by them, RESULTS (2nd Series) The results of the data obtained by the respective institutes are compiled in Table 2~3 and graphically presented in Figs0 2,2 through 2e4~ Important 57

deviations are summarized in Table 2.4. A further analysis leads *to the tentative conclusion that equipment using physical contact with diamonds or similar devices may be responsible for some of the larger deviations. At least two of the tools (those measured in London and Michigan) had grinding burrs which confuse some of the measurements' It is easier to avoid the influence of burrs and similar hazards by optical techniques where they can be recognized, It is possible also that the included angles of tracer styli tend to mask boundaries such as the edges of tools. The simulated tools will be retained by the various laboratories as reference standards since the deviations from the averages shown in Table 2.3 seem to be under control. Some institutions, especially those using tracer equipment, will have to be especially careful in interpreting certain measurements, 58

TABLE 2.1 TOOL WEAR MEASUREMENTS (Average, minimum, and maximum values of tool wear measurements obtained by Aachen (A), Kapfenberg (K), Zurich (Z), Torino (T), and Delft (D) on 8 worn carbide tool edges from Delft are given below.) Dimen~ion~Edge 5-1 Edge 5-3 Edge 6-1 Edge 6-3 Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By VB (0.01 mm) 17.2 15.5 T 18.86 K 20.8 15.6 T 23.5 A 22.1 20.8 T 25.0 A 20.8 16.8 T 22.4 D VB max. (0.01 mm) 23.0 20.6 T 24.5 Z 36.6 26.0 A 36.0 Z 29.4 26.5 T 31.0 A 27.6 25.8 T 28.9 D KS (0.001 mm) 3.4 1.0 D 5.5 Z 2.9 2.0 A-Z 3.7 T 2.8 1.5 A 3.8 T 1.9 1.0 D-Z 5.0 T KT (0.001 mm) 421.0 384.0 T 46o.o Z 319.0 296.0 T 350.0 Z 463.0 408.o T 490.0 D-T 311.0 279.0 T 550.0 Z KM (0.001 mm) 754.0 619.0 Z 800.0 A 867.0 675.0 K 940.0 Z 903.0 738.0 K 955.0 T 1104.0 803.4 K 1210.0 Z KT/KM 0.576 0.504 T 0.648 K 0.375 0.328 T 0.456 K 0.503 03.47 T 0.533 K 0.288 0.235 T 0.5696 K KB (0.01 mm) 128.0 121.1 T 144.0 D 131.1 126.0 A 134.6 Z 145.7 142.0 D 147.5 K 159.0 157.8 T 160.68 K \.A Dimension Edge 7-1 Edge 7-5 Edge 8-1 Edge 8-3 Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By Average Minimum By Maximum By VB (0.01 mm) 24.1 22.3 D 26.0 T 22.7 20.8 T 24.0 A 21.0 18.0 T 23.0 A 19.5 16.2 T 21.0 A VB max. (0.01 mm) 31.7 29.4 T 33.4 D 29.6 27.8 K 32.0 D 25.0 19.2 T 28.0 D 30.0 25.0 T 55.6 D KS (0.001 mm) 2.8 2.0 D 3.4 Z 4.1 3.0 D-A 5.2 Z 3.5 1.0 D 5.5 Z 4.0 3.0 DA 6.5 T KT (0.001 mm) 525.0 473.0 T 560.o A 351.3 518.0 T 380.0 z 46o.o 407.0 T 490.0 Z 335.0 305.0 T 570.0 Z KM (0.001 mm) 889.0 745.7 K 960.0 Z 1043.0 792.1 K 1157.0 Z 781.0 635.0 K 840.0 D 881.0 666.9 K 956.0 T KT/KM 0.594 0.509 T 0.6862 K 0.345 0.286 T 0.4276 K 0.568 0.499 T 0.6493 K 0.385 0.319 T 0.4828 K KB (0.01 mm) 1455 142.0 D 150.0 A 157.0 155.0 D 160.0 A 126.9 125.0 D 129.0 A 133.4 15.0 D-A 154.0 Z

TABLE 2.2 PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES AND EQUIPMENT USED Tool Laboratory Equipment No. 1 Delft (Netherlands) A, B, VB', KB, KL: toolmakers' microscope amplification 30x KM, KT; Talysurf amplification: vertical 200x; horizontal 20x 2a Aachen (Germany) A, B, VG', KB, KL: toolmakers' microscope A, KB, KM, KL, KT: Leitz-Forster 2b London First reading 2c London One day later 3a Kapfenberg (Austria) KT: Leitz-Forster all other sizes: Stereo microscope with ocular micrometer magnification rx and for KL lOOx 3b Aachen Same as 2b 4 Zurich Schmaltz-lightsection microscope on a SIP universal measuring machine MU 214 B 5a Chippendale (Austria) Light section microscope of own design 5b Chippendale Profile projection method 7 Goteborg (Sweden) Talysurf and toolmakers' microscope 8 Leige A, B, VB', KB, KL: toolmakers' microscope KT: Forster-Leitz 9a Manchester (England) Microscope 9b Manchester Talysurf 9c Manchester Talysurf and microscope, readings one month later 10 Saint-Ouen B, VB': SIP measuring machine MU 214 B other sizes: Perthometer lla Arcueil (France) SIP measuring machine MU 214 B llb Arcueil A, B, VB', KB, KL: toolmakers' microscope magnification 13x; KT, KM: Schmaltz light section microscope 12a Torino (Italy) SIP measuring machine MU 214 B 12b (Torino A, B: optical comparator Microtechnica magnification 50x; VB', KB, KM, KL, KT: optical micrometer (Galileo) magnification 50x 12c Michigan (U of M) Toolmakers' microscope 12d Michigan Proficorder 15 Kapfenberg Same as 3 16a Delft Same as 1 16b Pittsburgh (Carnegie Tech.) Profile recorder and measuring microscope 60

TABLE 2.3 MEASUREMENTS ON SIMULATED TOOLS Tool ~~~~~~~~~~~~Edge A (see Fig. 2.1) Edge B So. A B V_ _ KBS KM EL KT A B BVB' KB KM L ET Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev^ Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. Size Dev. I 3.14 +15 2.02 +10 1.63 +38 i.46 +13 0.75 - 7 0.19 + 7 0.224 - 6 2.96 -12 1.92 + 8 1.84 +14 0.93 - 8 0.52 - 6 o.14 - 2 0.061 - S 2a 3.2 ++ 2.0 -10 1.59 -2 1.53 ++ 0.84 ++ 0.2 +17 0.26 ++ 2.95 -22 1.9 -12 1.8 -26 0.88 - 0.52 - 6 0.14 -2 0.o66 + 5 2b 3.125 0 2.017 + 7 i.6l0 +18 1.447 0 0.767 +10 0.175 - 8 0.231 + 1 2.957 -15 1.914 + 2 1.798 -28 0.935 - 3 0.507 -19 0.122 -50 0.066 + 5 2c 3.121 - 4 2.020 +10 1.607 +15 1.444 - 3 0.757 0 0.178 - 5 0.233 + 3 2.954 -18 1.914 + 2 1.804 -22 0.936 - 2 0.507 -19 0.128 -14 0.067 + 4 3a 3.110 -15 1.990 -20 1.579 -13 1.4-42 - 5 0.813 ++ 0.187 + 4 0.231 + 1 2.956 -16 1.916 + 4 1.818 - 8 0.943 + 5 0,538 +12 0.143 +1 0.064 +1 3b 3.115 -10 1.995 -15 1.555 -37 1.458 - 8 0.730 -27 0.185 + 2 0.229 - 1 2.960 -12 1.900 -12 1.820 - 6 0.935 - 3 0.540 -14 0.135 - 7 0.067 + 6 4 3.124 - 1 2.016 + 6 1.601 +11 I.444 - 1 0.76 + 3 0.185 + 2 0.227 - 3 2.969 - 3 1.918 + 6 1.839 +13 0.942 + 4 0.538 +12 0.135 -7 0.063 0 5s 3.124 - 1 2.012 + 2 1.570 -22 1.450 + 3 0.759 + 2 0.180 - 3 0.236 + 6 2.974 + 2 1.910 - 2 1.808 -18 0.937 - 1 0. 4 +18 0.157 +15 0.058 - Sb 3.129 + 4 2.012 + 2 1.567 - 25 1.450 + 3 0.750 + 2 0.180 - 3 0.236 + 6 2.972 0 1.913 + 1 1.808- -18 0.942 + 4 o.54i +15 0.150 + 8 0.061 - S 7 3.12 - 5 0.01 0 1.58 -12 1.44 - 7 0.76 + 3 o.18 - 3 0.225 - 5 2.96 -12 1.91 -2 1.83 + 4 0.94 + 2 0.53 + 4 0.15 +8 0.060 -3 8 3.128 + 3 2.018 + 8 1.595 + 3 1.458 +11 0.783 +26 0.170 -13 0.224 - 6 2.965 - 7 1.908 -4 1.835 + 9 0.938 0 0.520 -6 0.137 -5 0.064 +1 9a 3.136 +11 2.019 + 9 1.585 - 7 1.435 -12 - - 0.162 -21 - - 2.969 - 3 1.928 +16 1.851 +25 0.944 + 6 - - 0.126 -16 9b 3.161 +36 - 1.445 - 2 0.744 -13 0.225 +42 0.208 - 3.02 +48 - - - - 0.949 +11 0.492 -34 0.161 +19 0.032 9c 3.130 + 5 2.010 0 1.579 -13 1.371 - 0.284 - - - 0.286 ++ 2.790 - 2 1.927 +15 1.838 +12 0.939 + 1 0.380 - - - 0.081 ++ 10 3.110 -15 2.066 - 4 1.577 -15 1.440 - 9 0.780 +23 0.180 -3 0.230 0 2.970 - 2 1.910 - 2 1.834 + 8 0.940 + 2 0.530 + 4 0.130 + 8 0.060 - 3 lia 3.111 -14 2.006 - 4 1.579 -13 1.44. - 8 0.76 + 3 0.169 -14 0.233 + 3 2.964 - 8 1.903 - 9 1.828 - 4 0.932 - 6 0.53 + 4 0.123 -19 0.065 + S lib 3.116 - 9 2.006 - 4 1.580 -12 1.44 - 8 0.745 -12 0.171 -12 0.227 - 3 2.964 - 8 1.903 - 9 1.823 - 3 0.934 - 4 0.525 -1 0.138 - 4 0.061 - S 12a 3.126 + 1 2.005 - 5 1.513 - 1.427 -20 0.749 - 8 0.176 - 7 0.230 0 2.986 +14 1.910 -S - - 0.931 - 7 0.536 +10 0.172 +30 0.062 -1 12b 3.132 + 7 2.104 ++ 1.526 - 1.430 + 3 0.790 +33 0.178 - 5 0.237 - 7 3.004 +32 1.925 +13 1.844 +18 0.940 + 2 0.511 -15 0.152 +10 0.070 + 7 12c 3.116 - 9 2.008 - 2 1.577 -15 1.450 + 3 0.764 + 7 0.173 -10 0.239 + 9 2.958 -14 1.902 -10 1.823 - 3 0.943 + 5 0.535 + 9 0.138 -4 0.064 +1 12d 3.185 ++ 2.027 +17 1.603 +11 1.476 +29 0.752 + 7 0.170 -13 0.236 + 6 3.018 +46 1.920 + 8 1.864 +38 0.958 +2o 0.534 +28 0.135 - 7 0.064 +1 15 3.122 -13 1.988 -22 1.574 -18 1.438 -11 0.726 -31 0.185 + 2 0.231 +1 2.957 -17 1.918 + 6 1.819 - 7 0.943 + 5 0.525 - 1 0.144 + 5 0.063 0 16a 3.13 + 5 2.02 - 8 1.62 +28 1.45 + 3 0.76 + 3 0.20 +17 0.225 - 5 2.98 + 8 1.91 -2 1.83 + 4 0.93 - 8 0.53 + 4 0.15 +8 0.060 -3 16b 3.12 - 5 2.07 - 8 1.62 +28 1.44 - 7 0.740 -17 0.180 - 3 0.234 + 4 2.969 - 3 1.77 - 1.68 - 0.942 + 4 0.515 -II 0.142 0 0.064 +1 Avg. 3.125 2.010 1.592 1.447 0.757 0.183 0.230 2.972 1.912 1.826 0.938 0.526 0.142 0.063

TABLE 2.4 IMPORTANT DEVIATIONS Tool Defaults Defaults No. Laboratory On Edge A On Edge B 2a Aachen VB' +KB+KM+ KB5a Kapfenberg KM + 9b Manchester KT- KT9c Manchester KB-KM-KT+ KM-KT+ 12a Torino VBr 12b Torino B + VB' 12d Michigan A+ 16b Pittsburgh B -VB'62

A.KB TOOL INSERT PROFILE FIG. 2.1 63

^ DISTANCE A 3= DISTANCE B 0= DISTANCE VB' 3.30 EDGE A EDGE B 2.70 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - _ 2.40~.-. z 2.10 EDGE A EEDGE B IDENTIFICATION NUMBER F. 22 COMPARATIVE TOOL WEAR MEASUREMENTS

0= DISTANCE KM ^= WIDTH OF CRATER KB 1.80....... 1.50... io ~~"'"' -- — ~ *~"-~-'" z- /- ~'ED E A 1.20 IX _ -j"^ _-.'"" S —,.E ^~EDGE B w0.390 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER EDGE A 0.60 EDGE B 0.30. 0.0 00 -.. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FIG. 2.3 COMPARATIVE TOOL WEAR MEASUREMENTS

o= WIDTH OF LIP, KL, DEPTH OF CRATER, kT.30.250 EDGE A -- ^ EDGE A CT\4z EDGE B'10.05 EDGE 8.00 -- IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FIG. 2.4 COMPARATIVE TOOL WEAR MEASUREMENTS. NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEDGENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNBNN

PART III INFLUENCE OF SPEED AND FEED ON FORCES, FINISH AND BUILT-UP EDGE INTRODUCTION Professor Pekelharing at the University of Delft undertook a voluntary study of the influence of built-up edge on surface finish using the same tools and work material being studied for the Main Program. The following information is abstracted from the working report submitted to the CIRP/OECD Committee in January, 1965. The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of a BUE (Built-Up Edge) on the surface finish of a medium carbon steel. Also, its effects on the cutting forces at various feeds and speeds were considered. The objective was to determine the cutting conditions for obtaining the best possible surface finish on a medium carbon steel workpiece. TEST CONDITIONS The workpiece material was XC45 steel; Heat No. Z0648. The tool materials were standard CIRP/OECD carbide tool tips. A P10 carbide tool was used for the determination of cutting forces and surface roughness, and a P30 carbide tool for the quick stop tests. The tool geometry is as follows: a = 6, y = 6, k = 0, X = 70, A = 90, r = 0.8 mm (see Fig. 13 of Interim Report No. 1) and the depth of cut was kept constant at d = 3 mm. For the determination of cutting force and surface roughness, three different feeds were used (0.16 mm/rev, 0.25 mm/rev, and 0.50 mm/rev). The cutting speed was varied and the resulting force and surface roughness were measured. RESULTS It is evident from Figs 3-1 through 3-6 that the surface finish varies with the cutting forces required for the different tool speeds. (Note: Fz is the vertical component, Fx is the feeding or longitudinal component and Fy is the radial component for cylindrical turning operations. Also, R1 is the conventional surface roughness produced by the secondary cutting edge parallel to the axis of rotation; R2 is the surface roughness produced by the major cutting edge around the circumference.) Neglecting very low speeds, the cutting force increases as the speed increases until a maximum force has been reached. This occurs rather rapidly. For example, at a feed of 0.25 mm/rev (0.010 ipr) the maximum cutting force occurs at a cutting speed of 30 m/min (98 fpm). This 67

value was found to change approximately linearly with the feed, or it can be expressed mathematically as VxS = Constant where V is the speed for maximum cutting force and S is the feed (see Figs. 3-7). After the maximum cutting force has been reached and the speed continues to increase, the surface roughness and cutting forces taper off asymptotically as shown in the first six figures. It is therefore concluded that the feed should be large and the speed high enough to be beyond the maximum cutting force range. This, however, brings into play the economic feasibility of a decrease in tool life that is sacrificed for a good surface finish. For instance, other machining processes may be economically more desirable. The reason that a rough surface is present at relatively low speeds and a smooth surface at high speeds is that a BUE is formed and disappears as the speed increases. Two sets of photographs were taken to illustrate this theory. The first set (Figs. 3-8 through 3-11) shows the results of some quick stops at various cutting speeds. The feed used for these tests was 0.16 mm/rev. The pictures show the cut surfaces on the shoulder of the turning cut and the undersides of the chips. The BUE is visible and increases in size as the speed increases. It begins to decrease noticeably at V = 31.5 m/min (106 fpm) until it disappears at 50 m/min (164 fpm). It should be noted that the pictures for V = 36 m/min and V = 40 m/min show carbide tool fragments that have broken off during the test. Because of the difficulty in deliberately accomplishing this they have been left in the sequence. The second set (Figs. 3-12 through 3-14) of pictures are side angle shots that show the results of the BUE on the surface of the workpiece. At very low cutting speeds segmented chips are obtained. These chips may be considered as large individual built-up edges that have formed and parted from the tool. This behavior is clearly evident in the photograph for V = 3.5 m/min (Fig. 3-12). The result of this is a rough surface that contains a pattern of drag marks left by the BUE. As the speed increases, the chip becomes continuous and a normal BUE is formed on the tool that acts as an increased rake angle. As a result, the cutting forces decrease. The BUE increases in size as the tool moves along the surface and acts as an extension of the tool. It extends below the regular cutting surface and as a result leaves an indentation in the surface. This continues until the BUE reaches a size such that the tool acts as a moment arm and the cutting force breaks off the BUE from the workpiece. The small forward edge which is below the surface of the tool is left on the work surface and the rest becomes part of the chip. This pattern is repeated over and over and consequently gives a uniformly torn surface. This is clearly evident in the sequence of pictures. As the speed increases further the BUE decreases and therefore a better surface finish is obtained. At V = 50 m/min no BUE is formed and a smooth surface is obtained. 68

CONCLUSION The best cutting condition for a smooth surface finish is one in which the cutting speed is high enough not to produce a BUEo This varies among materials as well as with the feed. In general, it may be stated that a maximum feed should be used so that the cutting speed required to eliminate the BUE is a minimum, The exact values for each of these is different for various tool materials. There is too little of this type of information to justify attempting a more formal expression at this time. 69

oL CUTTING FORCER F (KS c*) I I I I I ^ ~ ~ ~~~

200 i~~~ 60..~~ 0I..20__ lu rt 40 /- \ I. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 SPEED, V (M/MIN.) SURFACE ROUGHNESS vs SPEED FEED= 0.16 MM/REV. FIG. NO.3-2 ---------

350....... 300 ~.250 k. o) 200..._... / f 50 0 20 40 60 80 o00 120 140 160 SPEED, V(M/MIN.) CUTTING FORCES vs SPEED FEED = 0.25 MM/REV. FIG. N0.3-3

200 Q: 160 0.20 ~/~ ~~~'\ 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 SPEED, V(M/MIN.) SURFACE ROUGHNESS vs SPEED FEED = 0.25 MM/REV. FIG. NO. 3-4

350 300 F2 F250...'U k. /200. 50 CUTTING FORCES vs SPEED FEED = 0.50 MM/REV. FIG. N0.3-5

200...... 120....... I O - __ 40 (C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I.NI)O3 FIG. NO. 3-6

9L SPEED AT MAXIMUM CUTTING FORCE ^ o 0O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 - / l, r,,.__ I, s, i I I I.. q m.. 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,x.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, -1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii SPEED SPEED V3.5 MIMIN. V 5.0M/MIN. 11.5 FPM 165 FPM NOTES QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS UNDERSIE OF CHIP MACHINED SURFACE FIG. NO. 3-8

~::~liii:ii~ il~,~iii:il7 SPEED SPEED V 16.0 M/MIN. V= 25.0 M/MIN. -52.5 FPM =82.2 FPM QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS NOTES UNDERSIDE OF CHIP MACHWED SURFACE FIG. NO. 3-9

SPEED SPEED V 31.5 M/MIN V= 36.0 M/MIN =104.0FPM -118.1 FPM QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS NOTES UNDERSIDE OF CHIP MACHINED SURFACE FIG. NO. 3-10

NOE BROKENALL CARBIDE - SAL BUILT UP EDGE Gc~rrr g~c6..4.....^-.. ^.... - cl 2 o-I SPEED SPEED V = 40.0 M/MIN V 50.0 M/MIN = 1310 FPM = 164.0 FPM NOTES QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS UNDERSIDE OF CHIP MACHINED SURFACE FIG. NO. 3-11

SPEED - 3.5 M/MIN. SPEED- 5.0 M/MIN. CROSS-SECTION OF QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS FIG. NO. 3-12 81

SPEED - 25.0 M/MIN. SPEED -31.5 M/MIN. SPEED 36.0 M/MIN. CROSS-SECTION OF QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS 82

................. SPEED ~40.0 M/MIN. SPEED, 50.0 M/MIN. CROSS-SECTION OF QUICK-STOP SPECIMENS FIG.NO. 3-14 83

PART IV A NEW METHOD FOR STUDYING TOOL WEAR IN FINISH MACHINING INTRODUCTION The University of Delft under the direction of Professor Pekelharing has specialized and concentrated extra effort in studying the problems of finish machining and has developed special techniques for this purpose, Some of these were tried on the CIRP/OECD work and tool combinations and the results along with description of techniques is given in the following abstract of a report submitted to the OECD in January, 1965, When finish turning, the main problem is to maintain the dimensional accuracy and surface smoothness of the machined pieces within specific limits. When operating at speeds above the area where a built-up edge is formed, nose wear and groove wear of turning tools are important factors in the determination of surface conditionso No attempt is made to explain the causes of nose and groove wear except to-point out that considerable research has been done in this field with varied results. One purpose of this report is to stimulate interest in a test program in which the consequences of nose wear and groove wear may be adequately studiedo THE COMPARATIVE TEST PROGRAM A very moderate test program is suggested. It involves essentially the study of the results of tool wear on the surface roughness of the workpiece and the interaction of the resulting pattern on the tool configuration, The intent of this study is to produce results which may be used for comparison with the results of others, With this in mind, it is essential to develop an accurate means for the measurement of wear, In this particular test, a jig for holding the tool both in the lathe and under photographic equipment was made and a displacement gage was attached to the front, The tool could then be removed and replaced in the lathe at will without affecting its position. Photographs of the tool at high magnification can be taken and a single picture showing the development of the wear can be made by superimposing one upon the other (see top of Fig, 4-7). This procedure always shows much dispersion; therefore, it is advisable to repeat the test five times so that meaningful results may be obtained, According to experience at the University of Delft, the followirg test conditions are best suited: 8

Workpiece material: XC45 (OECD stock) Tool Material: carbide P10 (standard OECD tool tips) Tool geometry: a = 6~, 7 = 6", X = 00, Y= 70, ~ = 90", r = 0.5 mm Cutting speed: V = 200 m/min (655 fpm) Feed: s = 0.1 mm/rev (0.004 ipr) Depth of cut: d = 0.4 mm (0.016 in.) DATA TO BE MEASURED On the tool piece, there are two dimensions of primary inportance to this investigation. The first is the degree of nose wear, N (see Fig. 4-7). The second dimension is the depth of the grooves (G). The tool should show a pattern of grooves along the line of contactwith the finished surface of the work. Except for the first and last ones, these grooves should have a distance equal to the feed from peak-to-peak or valley-to-valley. From these two dimensions the theoretical increase of the diameter due to the tool wear may be calculated: 2(N+G).tM (microns). On the workpiece the surface roughness is measured. These data should be plotted up against cutting time. Figures 4-2 through 4-6 are obtained and are the results of four tests run at the aforementioned conditions. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show the relationship between cutting time and G and N for four different kinds of steel. Three tests were run on each material. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE- EXECUTION OF THE TEST A rigid lathe in a good state of maintenance is needed for these tests since the results of such tests are strongly influenced by vibrations. It was found preferable to mount the workpiece between two dead centers. A carbide tipped center is recommended for the tailstock and it is advisable to provide a bronze insert for the workpiece center hole. This should be kept well greased, since much heat is generated. It was found that not every tool tip supplied had perfect cutting edges. Therefore it was necessary to regrind them in such a way that the nose radius was precisely 0.8 mm and the cutting edge roundness was below 5 mm as measured with the Arnoulf method. MEASURING METHODS In Fig. 4-7 the description of the dimensions N and G is shown. The degree of nose wear N may be measured with the aid of the instruments shown in Fig. 4-1. The depth of the grooves G may be measured with the aid of either a measuring microscope or a profile projection apparatus. Preference was in86

dicated for photographing the profile of the tool and measuring the degree of wear afterwards on a point magnified 250 or 333 times. This gives the advantage of recording the complete profile of wear for future reference. The progression of wear may be studied on photograph assemblies as shown in Fig. 4-7. It should be noted that it is advisable to tilt the tool a small amount so that a good sharp profile is obtained (see Fig. 4-1). The roughness (R+) of the workpiece after a certain cutting time may be determined with the aid of either a light section microscope or a tracer instrument 87

OPTICAL AXIS OF MICROSCOPE — mmI I WORKPIECE TOOL DIFFUSE SOURCE OF LIGHT MEASURING METHOD OF GROOVE DIMENSIONS FIG. NO. 4-1 88

.14 ~~~~~~~~ 16 tu C.) o 0...) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TOOL CUTTING TIME, T(MIN.) SURFACE ROUGHNESS vs CUTTING TIME FIG NO.4-2

16 14 ~~~ 12 Jo.6 o 0k4 2 TOOL CUTTING TIME T (MIN50 60 7 DEPTH OF GROOVESvsCUTTING TIME FIo. NO. 4-3

30 28 26. 24 22 20 16 14J14 I24 bLJ 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TOOL CUTTING TIMET (MIN.) DERE4FNSEWA v UTIGT9' 91

, ~. — CK35 14 ~~_~~~ ~ $ UO 10 20 340~0~60 70~8 DEP/T --— OF — GR- CK45 ro3~~~~~~~~f I ~ ~ ~~ ~~I i-CK53 ^0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 TOOL CUTTING TIME, T(MIN.) DEPTH OF GROOVES vs CUTTING TIME FIG. NO, - 5

70 O 65 CK3 CK 53 55 o0 10________ _____ /_0 C 5'~~/I ___TO CUTTING ____, ___._ 35 ~ UJ // ^ 30 c XCC45 "20 / ^/ ^ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TOOL CUTTINGTIME, NFI. NO.. 4.6 93 ~so,', /~....... ~~ Io,~~~~~~~ 4 93

125 X MAGNIFICATION G rl'e0'=. PHOTOGRAPH a SCHEMATIC OF TOOL WEAR IN FINISH MACHINING Fl. NO. 4'94

PART V PLASTICITY STUDY OF XC45 WORK MATERIAL (1045 STEEL) The following is a translation and condensed summary of a report submitted by Professor Olov Svahn of Chalmers University in Goteborg, Sweden. It presents the results of an initial study of the plasticity of the XC45 work material used for Phase 1 of the CIRP/OECD program on tool wear. No attempt has been made to correlate the results with other program data because of the lack of similar results for subsequent phases. The experimental analysis consisted of conventional tension and compression tests carried out at relatively low strain rates. Further studies at high strain rates are contemplated for later phases of the program, The following condensation is intended to document the methods and essential results for Phase 1o Results are presented only for heat No, Z0648 but it was indicated that those for heat No. z0656 are "in acceptable agreements" PROCEDURE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS The purpose of the tests was to determine true stresses and strains in the case of tensile tests and compression tests, The samples were taken from the material according to Fig. 5-1, Fifteen samples each were used for the tensile and compression tests, Dimensions of both types of specimens are shown in Fig, 5-2. Tension (Procedure) The tensile tests were performed in an Amelor test machine at a head speed which resulted in a strain rate of less than 0,01 per seco All tensile samples were photographed for determination of area and waist radius as shown in Fig, 5-35 Calculations were done according to Bridgeman's method, which considers the three-dimensional state of stress at the'necked-in' area. Bridgeman's equation is a= 1x (V-l) A (i+ 2r) ln + a where: 95

P 1 = true stress = P x A K P = load A = effective area Ae aa See Figo 5-3 for details r = neck radius a = radius of sample K = Bridgeman's correction factor Compression (Procedure) The compression tests were performed in a Fjellman hydraulic press, Press velocity was approximately Oo l mm/sec corresponding to a strain rate of 0.005 per seco The compression samples were centerless ground to diameters of 9O00 ~ 0oO0 mm and the height H was 18o00 ~ 0.01 mmo To reduce friction the end surfaces were lubricated with Molykote "Spray-Rapido " The load and displacement were continuously recorded by Offener recorderso The load transducer was calibrated on the machineo It consisted of a cylinder with 16 strain gauges attached to ito The sideplacement was given by a potentiometero Similar instrumentation was used for the tensile testso Some scatter of data could be expected because of the instrumentation but this was minimized by calibrating it in the testing machines. Tension (Error Calculation) Probable Errors in Original Data: Load: AP ~ 5 kp Diameter: Aa = ~ 0.01 mm Correction factor: AK = ~ 0O002 The above relate to the following equation which is derived from Equation (V-l)0 P 1 kt= — ~ x - (V-2) a2 K Substitution of the probable errors into Equation (V-3) yields the probable error in the resulting stress Akt AP - -A-k (v-3) kt P a K For example, when kt = 100o2 kp/mme P = 1150 kp 96

K 1.077 2a 3,69mm Substitution in Equation (V-3) yields =kt 100o~2 [15- + 2 x 0.02 +0. 002 [1150 3.69 L t 10 LIlO 5369 1,.077J Akt 1.188 kp/2mn 1. kp/mm2 Consequently the probable error in stress is less than 1,5 kilograms per square millimeter (2130 psi) or about 1 5lo Compression (Error Calculation) Probable Errors in Measurements: Diameter: Ad = 0.01 mm Height: Ah - 0.01 mm Load: AP = 100 kp (AP = + 100 obtained because of errors in reading) The corresponding calculations are as follows: kc P = P4 hm (V-4) A V where: - EdG A 4 hm specimen height at the load under consideration A kc + 2Ad. (V-5) kc P d h for kc = 44.7 kp/mm2 P = 2884 kp d = 9mm h = 18 mm Substitution yields: 97

Akc = 44,7 12 + 2 884 + 01 ^2884 9 18J Akc = 1.68 kp/mm2 which gives a probable error of less than 2.0 kilograms per square millimeter (2840 psi) or about 4.5%. TEST RESULTS Sample test data are recorded in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 for tension and compie ssion, respectively. Data points and average lines are shown for all tests on heat No, Z0648 in Fig. 5-4. From the tension results one could conclude that: 1. The material in the center zone 1 is harder than the rest, 2, Zones 2, 3, and 4 correspond fairly well, 3, Zone 4 has the least scatter while zone 3 has the largest scatter, This is probably due to the history of the material. 4. The curves have approximately the same slope and are parallel. The compression test curves correlate well with the tensile curves considering that end friction was not taken into account, A comparison of similar data from heat No. Z0656 shows the tensile results to be in acceptable agrees ment but the compressive results for Z0656 are higher although the slope is the same as for Z0648. The higher value for Z0656 was thought to be due to different specimen dimensions. No attempt has been made to interpret the results of this plasticity study in relation to tool wear because only one work material has been studied thus far and there have not been any significant differences in tool wear characteristics between the two heats of XC45 steel, Subsequent tool wear studies with different compositions and microstructures and plasticity studies at high strain rates will provide a more substantial body of information in which to search for fundamental correlation, These results will be analyzed and added to the larger body of information. 98

TABLE 5-1 TYPICAL TENSILE TEST DATA Material: XC45 (steel) Heat No.: zo648 Sample: 1 For nomenclature see Fig. 5-3 Load 2a r Stress-, kp, Neck Diameter, Neck Radius, kp/mm2 Strain kg mm mmn -0 4.90 0 0.000 1000 4.87 53.6 0.006 1100 4.85 59.5 0.022 1200 4 79 66.5 0.045 1300 4.74 73.7 0.069 1355 4.6 21.5 78.3 0.114 1350 4.47 16.2 83.1 0.183 1355 4.41 13.5 85.3 0.191 1340 4.33 10.8 86.6 0.244 1325 4.25 9.7 88.5 0.284 1300 4.09 7.5 93.6 0.360 1275 3-93 7.0 98.3 0.440 1245 3.88 6.5 98.4 0.470 1220 3-82 5.4 98.1 0.496 1190 3 72 4,3 99.5 0.552 99

TABLE 5-2 TYPICAL COMPRESSION TEST DATA Material: XC45 (steel) Heat No.: Zo648 Dimensions on test pieces: Diameter: 9.00 + 0.01 mm Volume: 1145 + 3 mm3 Height: 18.00 + 0.01 mm Strain Rate: 0.005 s. Instantaneous Load k P/ Height, kp, p/mm Strain kp/mm2 mm kg_ Test 1:1 18.00 0 0 0.0000 17.75 2961 46.9 0.0139 17.50 34.6 5212 0.0296 17.25 4239 64.6 0.0422 17.00 4858 72.0 0.0574 16.50 5610 81.0 0.0871 16.00 6263 87.5 0.1178 15.00 7174 94.0 0.1824 14.00 8085 98.8 0.2516 13.00 9072 102.9 0.3258 12.00 10211 107.0 0.4056 11.00 11463 110.1 0.4926 10.00 12906 112.6 0. 880 9.00 14614 114.8 o.6935 Test 1:2 18.00 0 0 0.0000 17.75 2847 44.1 0.0139 17.50 3340 51.0 0.0296 17.25 4137 62.4 0.0422 17.00 4745 70.4 0.0574 16.50 5618 81.0 0.0871 16.00 6149 85.9 0.1178 15,00 7136 93.5 0.1824 14.00 7971 97.4 0.2516 13.00 8996 102.0 0.3258 12.00 10097 105.8 0.4056 11,00 11312 108.6 0.4926 10.00 12716 111.0 0.5880 9.00 14462 113.6 0.6935 100

Original Diameter of XC45 Location Work Material v I ~1 7L' ~~~\ L^JS~ /\ Number (a) 16 Original Diameter e Number of XC45 Work Material (b) Fig. 5-1. Location of both compression and tension specimens by test number is shown in (a). Zone number is shown at (b). 101

1 0 9~.01 ~30 ^ II I tX I - ~ H 165 TENSION COM\PRESSION Fig. 5-2. Dimensions of test specimens. All sizes are given in mm (millimeters).

p Neck Radius ^ / Area = A Neck Diameter /2a /. I -p Fig. 5-3. Dimensions of strained tensile specimen. 103

kc 110 kplmm 2 - 100 A 90 ^^^^^> vOU~~~~~~~ ~Material: XC45 Steel S ^~~r~~~ iffy^^~~~~, Heat No. Z 0648 70 60 4 < 1) o ^ 50 Jo' Zone 1 * medellinie -- ~40 ~F Zone 2 x l Tension Zone 3 A Zone 4 o 30 Compression 20 10 0 ~I I_________________________________________________________I 0 0 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 True Strain Fig. 5-4. True stress vs. true strain.

DISTRIBUTION LIST (One copy unless otherwise noted) AFML (MATF, F. L. Whitney) 6 Chief, Bureau of Naval Weapons WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Department of the Navy Industrial Division Defense Documentation Center 20 Washington, D.C. 20013 Cameron Station Attn: Industrial Readiness Branch Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (PID-2) AFML (MAA, Mr. J. Teres) U. S. Naval Research Laboratory WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Washington, D.C. 20390 Attn: Code 6383 AFML (MAAE) WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Defense Metals Information Center Battelle Memorial Institute AFML (MAAM, Librarian) 505 King Avenue WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Columbus, Ohio 43201 Attn: Library AFML (MAX, Dr. Lovelace) WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Scientific & Technical Information Facility Hq., USAF (AFSPPI, Mr. Joe Joers) P. 0. Box 5700 Washington, D.C. 20330 Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Attn: Technical Library, SEG (RTD) RQT-16448 SEPIE WPAFB, Ohio 45433 National Academy of Sciences National Research Council SEG (RTD) Materials Advisory Board SEPIR 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Washington, D.C. 20418 FTD (TDEWP) Adamas Carbide Corporation WPAFB, Ohio 45433 Market & Passaic Streets Kenilworth, New Jersey Commander Attn: A. J. Fisher, Director Army Research Office Research and Engineering Arlington Hall Station Arlington, Virginia 22210 Aerojet-General Corporation P. O. Box 296 U. S. Army Production Equipment Agency Azusa, California Rock Island Arsenal Attn: K. F. Mundt Rock Island, Illinois Vice President of Manufacturing Attn: Manufacturing Technology Division, AMXPE-MT AiResearch Manufacturing Company 9851 Sepulveda Boulevard Army Materials Research Agency Los Angeles, California 90009 Watertown 72, Massachusetts Attn: Technical Library Attn: S. V. Arnold

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) Alfred University Carnegie Institute of Technology College of Ceramics Pittsburgh 13, Pennsylvania Alfred, New York Attn: Dr. M. C. Shaw, Head Attn: Dr. Philip H. Crayton Department ofMechanical Engineering Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation Research Center Breckenridge, Pennsylvania Chicago Latrobe Attn: P. R. Borneman 411 W. Ontario Avenue Chief Research Metallurgist Chicago 10, Illinois Attn: D. J. Kallio,Chief Engineer Commander Watervliet Arsenal Cincinnati Milling & Grinding Machines Watervliet, New York 4701 Marburg Avenue Attn: Mr. George Hohenstein Ciiai, Oi Production Methods Production Methods Cincinnati, Ohio 45209 Attn: Dr. M. Eugene Merchant AVCO Corporation Lycoming Division Cincinnati Milling & Grinding Machines Main Street 4701 Marburg Avenue Stratford, Connecticut Cincinnati, Ohio 45209 Attn: Superintendent Attn: Gerald W. Long Manufacturing and Engineering Manufacturing and Engineering Production Development Department Battelle Memorial Institute 505 King Avenue Cincinnati Milling & Grinding Machines Columbus, Ohio 43201 4701 Marburg Avenue Attn: Mr. Francis W. Boulger, Chief Cincinnati, Ohio 45209 Metalworking Research Division Attn: Dr. Richard L. Kegg Physical Research Department Bell Aircraft Corporation Niagara Falls Airport Buffalo F5 New York Cleveland Twist Drill Company Attn: R. W. Varrial, Manager 1242 E. 49th Street Product Engineering Cleveland 14, Ohio Attn: D. D. Burdett, Vice President Bendix Corporation Manufacturing and Engineering Research Laboratories Division Southfield, Michigan Cleveland Twist Drill Company Attn: Ronald M. Centner 1242 E. 49th Street The Boeing Company, Headquarters Cleveland 14, Ohio P. 0. Box 3707 Attn: R. D. Lesher, Research Engineer Seattle 24, Washington Research Laboratory Dept. 106 Attn: B. K. Bucey, Director Research and Development Crucible Steel Company of America P. 0. Box 7257 The Boeing Company, Headquarters P.tB 5 i Pittsburgh 13, Pennsylvania P. O. Box 3707 Seattle 24, Washington Attn: E. J. Dulia, Manager Attn: L. Pickerell, Manager Product Research Carborundum Company P. 0. Box 337 Niagara Falls, New York Attn: Dr. E. Dow Whitney

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) Curtiss-Wright Corporation Ford Motor Company Metals Process Division 20000 Rotunda Drive P. 0. Box 13 Dearborn, Michigan Buffalo, New York Attn: Dr. M. Huminik Attn: R. A. Kaprelian, General Manager Research and Engineering Center Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. Ford Motor Company 3855 Lakewood Boulevard 20000 Rotunda Drive Long Beach 8, California Dearborn, Michigan Attn: O. L. Rumble, Tooling Manager Attn: Scientific Laboratory Ceramics and Glass Department Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. 3855 Lakewood Boulevard General Dynamics/Astronautics Long Beach 8, California San Diego 12, California Attn: J. S. Sempres Attn: D. Weisinger Production Development Manager General Dynamics/Ft. Worth Firth Sterling, Inc. Grants Lane Carbide Division Ft. Worth, Texas 3115 Forbes Avenue Attn: F. A. Fuhrer, Chief Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Manufacturing Engineering Attn: T. G. Barnes, Vice President General Electric Company Fairchild Stratos Corporation Large Jet Engine Department Aircraft and Missiles Division Cincinnati, Ohio 45215 Hagerstown 10, Maryland Attn: Guy Bellows, Manager Attn: L. B. Carroll, Manager Manufacturing Engineering ReTool Manufacturing and Design search Laboratory Fairchild Stratos Corporation General Electric Company Aircraft and Missiles Division 1 River Road Hagerstown 10, Maryland Schenectady 5, New York Attn: A. D. Jairett, Manager Attn: Dr. W. W. Gilbert, Manager Tool Engineering and Manufacturing Machine Division Firth Loach Metals, Inc. General Motors Corporation Buttermilk Hollow Road General Motors Technology Center McKeesport, Pennsylvania Detroit, Michigan Attn: W. J. Loren, President Attn: H. D. Hall, Director Manufacturing Development Ford Motor Company 20000 Rotunda Drive Goodyear Aerospace Corporation Dearborn, Michigan Tool Research and Development Attn: Dr. V. F. Zackay, Director Akron 15, Ohio Research and Engineering Center Attn: R. J. Moldovon

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) Greenfield Tap & Die Company Kearney & Trecker Corporation Sanderson Street 11000 Theodore Trecker Way Greenfield, Massachusetts Milwaukee, Wisconsin Attn: R. S. Harper Attn: W. C. Beverung President and General Manager Assistant Sales Manager Greenfield Tap & Die Company Landis Tool Company Sanderson Street Waynesboro, Pennsylvania Greenfield, Massachusetts Attn: H. E. Balsiger, Chief Engineer Attn: S. Sinclair, Director of Research Engineering Department Latrobe Steel Company Latrobe, Pennsylvania Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation Attn: C. R. Wendell, Manager Bethpage, L.I., New York Metallurgical Services and Attn: W. J. Hoffman, Vice President Tool Steels Manufacturing Engineers LTV-Vought Aeronautics Division Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation P. 0. Box 5907 Bethpage, L.I., New York Dallas,Texas 75222 Attn: Mrs. Sara T. Moxley, Director Attn: W. W. Wood Technical Info File, P1. 12 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Heald Machine Company California Division 10 New Bond Street 2555 N. Hollywood Way Worcester 6, Massachusetts Burbank, California Attn: Dr. R. S. Hahn Attn: Robert L. Vaughn Research Engineer Lockheed Georgia Company Hughes Aircraft Company 86 S. Cobb Drive Florence and Teals Marietta, Georgia Building 15, Mail Station H-155 Attn: W. P. Frech Culver City, California Manufacturing Engineering Attn: W. W. Lampkin Vice President of Manufacturing The Marquardt Corporation 16555 Saticoy Street IIT Research Institute Van Nuys, California 10 W. 35th Street Attn: Director of Manufacturing Chicago, Illinois 60616 Attn: F. C. Holtz, Senior Metallurgist The Martin.Company Metallurgical Engineering Baltimore 3, Maryland Attn: Chief Librarian Kennametal, Inc. Engineering Library 700 Lloyd Avenue Latrobe, Pennsylvania Naval Ordnance Test Station Attn: W. L. Kennecott, Vice President China Lake, California Attn: Dr. B. Langenecker

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) Professor Walter Backofen Department of the Navy Department of Metallurgy Bureau of Naval Weapons Massachusetts Institute of Technology Material Division 77 Massachusetts Avenue Washington 25, D.C. Cambridge, Massachusetts Attn: Thomas F. Kearnes Professor Nathan H. Cook North American Aviation, Inc. Room 35-132 Rocketdyne Division Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rocket yn e Diviion 77 Massachusetts Avenue 663 Canoga Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts Canoga Park, California Attn: Joe Foreman McDonnell Aircraft Corporation P. 0. Box 516 North American Aviation, Inc. St. Louis 66, Missouri Rocketdyne Division Attn: A. F. Hartwig 6633 Canoga Avenue Chief Industrial Engineer Canoga Park, California Attn: E. C. Haynie, D/520 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation Attn: E. C. Haynie, D/520 P. O. Box 516 P. 0. Box 656 Mis iNorth American Aviation, Inc. St. Louis 66, Missouri Attn: Central Files Dart t 10 Space and Information Systems Division Attn: Central Files Department 110 22 Lakewood Boulevard 12214 Lakewood Boulevard Metcut Research Associates, Inc. Downey, California 3980 Rosslyn Drive Attn: L. E. Gatzek, D/098 Cincinnati, Ohio 45209 Attn: Dr. Michael Field, President Northrop Corporation Norair Division Mr. Leslie L. Gould, Staff Metallurgist 1001 W. Broadway Materials Advisory Board Hawthorne, California National Academy of Sciences Attn: V. L. Boland 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Northrop Corporation Norair Division National Science Foundation Norair Division Office of International Science Activities 1001 E. Broadway Washington, D.C. 20550 Hawthorne, California Attn: Dr. Philip W. Hemily, Deputy Head Attn: R. R. Nolan National Science Foundation Pennsylvania State University Office of International Science Activities 207 Old Main Building Washington, D.C. 20550 University Park, Pennsylvania Attn: Mr. Ray W. Mayhew, Head Attn: Professor A. 0. Schmidt International Organizations Staff Industrial Engineering National Science Foundation Office of International Science Activities Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20550 East Hartford 8, Connecticut Attn: Mr. Paul A. Roessler, Staff Associate Attn: R. A. Foisie, Product Engineering International Organizations Staff Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company, Inc. National Twist Drill Company East Hartford 8 Connecticut 6841 N. Rochester Road East Hartford 8. Connecticut 6841 N. Rochester Road Rochester, Michigan Attn: R. Stoner, Supervisor Attn: C. J. Oxford, Director of Research Methods Development Section

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) Purdue University Tungsten Alloy Manufacturing Company Lafayette, Indiana 65-67 Colden Street Attn: Professor 0. D. Lascoe Newark, New Jersey Industrial Engineering Union Twist Drill Company Republic Aviation Corporation Research and Development Department Farmingdale, L.I., New York Monroe Street Attn: A. Kastelowitz Athol, Massachusetts Director of Manufacturing Research United Aircraft Corporation Rohr Aircraft Corporation 400 Main Street P. 0. Box 878 E. Hartford 8, Connecticut Chula Vista, California Attn: B. F. Raynes Sikor-sky Aircraft Division Executive Vice President United Aircraft Corporation N. Main Street Ryan Aeronautical Company Stratford, Connecticut 3701 Harbor Drive Attn: W. S. Nochisaki San Diego 12, California Attn: J. P. Orr Sikorsky Aircraft Division United Aircraft Corporation Sandia Corporation N. Main Street Sandia Base Stratford, Connecticut Alburquerque, New Mexico Attn: A. Sperber Attn: E. P. Quigley, Supervisor Manufacturing Processes United Greenfield Corporation Development Division 2565 411 W. Ontario Chicago 11, Illinois Society of Carbide Engineers Attn: Woodrow Tichy, Vice President 718 Finley Road Lombard, Illinois University of California Attn: William Pelger Los Angeles, California Attn: Professor M. A. Simon Solar Aircraft Company Facilities Division University of California San Diego 12, California Los Angeles, California Attn: J. A. Logan, Manager Attn: Reno Cole Mr. K. W. Stalker University of California Lake Layetteville Road Bancroft Way Springdale, Arkansas 72764 Berkeley 8, California Attn: Professor E. G. Thomsen Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge, Inc. Industrial Engineering 23555 Euclid Avenue Cleveland 17, Ohio University of Cincinnati Attn: E. J. Hayes Cincinnati, Ohio Attn: Professor L. Doty Mathematics Department

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued) University of Cincinnati Dr. L. C. Hamaker Cincinnati, Ohio Vice President of Technology Attn: Professor Hans Ernst Vanadium-Alloys Steel Company Latrobe, Pennsylvania University of Cincinnati Vascoloy-Ramet Corporation Cincinnati, Ohio 800 Market Street Attn: Dr. J. R. Lemon Waukegan, Illinois Engineering College Attn: Dr. F. H. Driggs Vitro Corporation of America University of Cincinnati Chemistry and Arc Department Cincinnati, Ohio 200 Pleasant Valley Way Attn: Dr. I. Morse West Orange, New Jersey Engineering College Attn: Dr. Stanley Grand University of Cincinnati Wendt-Sonis Company Cincinnati, Ohio 10th and Collier Streets Hannibal, Missouri Attn: Dr. Frank Tse Hannibal, Missouri Attn: T. V. Hilt, General Manager University of Dayton Weldon Tool Company Research Institute 3000 Woodhill Road Dayton, Ohio 45409 Cleveland 14, Ohio Attn: G. J. Roth Attn: W. C. Bergstrom Westinghouse Electric Corporation University of Denver Aviation Gas Turbine Division Denver Research Institute Kansas City, Missouri Denver 10, Colorado Attn: D. C. Goldberg Attn: Robert Venuti Manager of Metallurgy Research Metallurgist Westinghouse Electric Ccrporation Aviation Gas Turbine Division University of Illinois Kansas City, Missouri Department of Mechanical Engineering Attn: E. C. Sedlack Urbana, Illinois Manager of Manufacturing Attn: Professor K. J. Trigger Professor S. A. Tobias Mechanical Engineering Department University of Illinois The University of Edgbaston Department of Mechanical Engineering Birmingham 15, England Urbana, Illinois Attn: Dr. B. F. Von Turkovich Professor-Dr.-Ing. F. Eisele Institut fur Werkzeugmaschinen und Betriebswiessnschaften University of Wisconsin Technische Hochschule Muenchen Madison, Wisconsin Muenchen 2 Attn: Professor J. C. Bollinger Arcisstrasse 21, Germany Valeron Corporation Professor-Dr.-Ing. H. Optiz Valenite Metals Division Laboratorium fur Werkzeugmaschinen Valenite Metals Division und Betriebslehre 31100 Stephenson Highway Technische Hochshule Aachen Madison Heights, Michigan Aachen Wuellnerstrasse, Germany

DISTRIBUTION LIST (Concluded) Adamas Carbide Corporation Vermont American Corporation Kenilworth, New Jersey 07033 500 East Main Street Attn: E. L. Dreyer, President Louisville 2, Kentucky Attn: John D. Knox, Manager Carmet Company Multi Metals Division 1151 Jarvis Avenue Ferndale, Michigan 48220 Metal Carbides Corporation Attn: C. H. Toensing, Director 6001 Southern Boulevard Technical Services Youngstown, Ohio 44512 Attn: R. T. Beeghly VR/Wesson Company 800 Market Street Sandvik Steel, Inc. Waukegan, Illinois 60086 1702 Nevins Road Attn: R. L. Brogan, Vice President Fair Lawn, New Jersey Attn: D. P. Cameron Newcomer Products, Inc. P.O. Box 272 Latrobe, Pennsylvania 15650 Attn: J. Kozusko

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 02841 2727