PSI - Issue 43

Kevin Blixt et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 43 (2023) 9–14 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

13

5

Fig. 4. CSP for: a) the [100] orientation, b) the [110] orientation, c) the [111] orientation. Force components d) F x and e) F y for the three orientations. r = 200nm.

Fig. 5. Close-up of Fig. 4b). Left: Activated slip planes (green) and pile-up in front of the tool. Right: Thin green lines behind the tool are individual dislocations, and white areas show potentially emerging grains enclosed by dislocation clusters.

After tool passage the surface shows almost no roughness and, in praxis, no elastic recovery has occurred. This holds for all orientations. It is illustrated in Fig. 6, showing again Fig. 4a) with atoms above the cutting depth d = 2nm colored red and below d colored blue. The line in Fig. 6 shows the original height of the workpiece. Besides the pileup, a slight raise of the surface in front of the tool due to forcing the material in the x- direction is observed. In Fig. 7 the temperature distributions according to Eq. (1) for the [100] orientation are seen for v c = 100m/s and v c = 300m/s. The highest temperature is found just below the tool flank. The temperature increases with tool velocity since, with higher velocity, the time to conduct heat decreases. This heat concentration in the tool vicinity affects the durability of the tool. On the other hand, convection is neglected, and the tool modelled as a shell which makes conclusions disputable. Also chip length increases with tool velocity and the chip folding tendency increases.