PSI - Issue 43

12 4

Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

Kevin Blixt et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 43 (2023) 9–14

Fig. 2 Tool radius R = a) 100 Å , b) 200 Å , c) 300 Å . Force components d) F x and e) F y . Orientation [100].

Fig. 3. Sequence of snap shots illustrating chip formation by folding. Orientation [100]. R = 200nm. v c = 300m/s.

4.2. Cutting force

Figure 4d) shows the thrust force F x in the x- direction and 4e) the cutting force F y in the y- direction for the three orientations. Obviously, the orientation does not impact F x significantly which might be expected since the tool velocity is forced in the x -direction. A slight increase in F x with cutting distance is due the continuously increasing pileup is, however, observed for all orientations. The variations in F y are larger, indicating different dislocation activities for the three different orientations. Still the magnitudes are in the same order for all directions. An increase in force is followed by a drop, indicating stress redistribution due to dislocation movements, cf. Melin et al (2019) and Hansson et al (2022). But considering the vast differences in dislocation patterns the differences in both force components are surprisingly small. The thrust force is also independent of tool radius as seen in Fig. 2d). Here however, the cutting force seen in Fig. 2e) clearly increases with tool radius. This is mirrored by the increase in induced plastic region with increased toll radius.