Influence of tool geometry and numerical parameters when modeling orthogonal cutting of LFRP composites

Abstract

The first objective of this paper is to analyze the influence of mesh size and shape in finite element modeling of composite cutting. Also the influence of the level of energy needed to reach complete breakage of the element is considered. The statement of this level of energy is crucial to simulate the material behavior. On the other hand geometrical characteristics of the tool have significant influence on machining processes. The second objective of the present work is to advance in the knowledge concerning tool geometry and its effect in composite cutting.A two-dimensional finite element model of orthogonal cutting has been developed and validated for Glass LFRP composite, comparing with experimental results presented in scientific literature. It was demonstrated that both numerical parameters and tool geometry influence the predicted chip morphology and machining induced damage.

Meshfree formulation for modelling of orthogonal cutting of composites

“…By comparing with FEM model, the EFG model under-estimated the forces at lower angles and overestimated them at higher angles. This could be attributed to the different failure mechanisms that are adopted between this study (maximum stress) and that used in [17] i.e. Hashin.…”

“…The concept of degrading the stiffness of the composite in certain directions has been used in study composites failure including machining of composites [11,15,17]. In this study, the stiffness degradation values were adopted from [47] and are shown in Table 2.…”

“…Material failure is governed by composite failure criteria. Different studies used various failure criteria, such as Tsai-Hill [8,10,14], maximum stress [10,11], Hashin [11,15,17]. Some studies [8][9][10] combined two failure mechanisms, primary failure for the onset of chip formation and a secondary failure for the progressive failure and completion of chip formation.…”

“…Studies that used the steady state approach include [8][9][10][11][12][13]. Some studies that adopted the transient approach include [14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

“…Some studies [8][9][10] combined two failure mechanisms, primary failure for the onset of chip formation and a secondary failure for the progressive failure and completion of chip formation. The progressive failure was modelled through stiffness degradation concept [11] or continuum damage mechanics approach [15][16][17] .…”