Finite Element Analysis of

Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted
Machining
Muhammad Fadhlan Afif (202304230)
ME 556 – 232-1 (Instructor: Dr. Abul Fazal M. Arif )
Mechanical Engineering
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Introduction

1 In advanced application, components are often 3 Conventional machining on these materials cause
made of high-performance material which high cutting forces, poor surface qualities, defects
and the associated tool wear.
categorized as hard-to-cut materials, namely: Vibration

Inconel 718 Vibration
Aerospace

Ti-6Al-4V Application Vibration


Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
(CFRP) a) b)


Ceramics Biomedical
Application

Bone

2

Glass
Figure 1. Orthogonal cutting model; a) conventional; b) transversal vibration-assisted [1]
These components often require precisions 4 Ultrasonic vibration-assisted machining
features that cannot be produced by precedent (UVM) is found to be a solution to overcome
manufacturing processes thus: the problems for machining these materials.
 Introduction: Defects

3 “high cutting Inconel 718 Low tool life  High tooling cost

Ductile
forces, poor
surface Ti-6Al-4V Poor surface integrity  Low quality product
qualities,
Carbon Fiber Conventional High burr and delamination  Defects
defects and
tool wear” Ceramics Machining Fractures  Defects
Brittle

Bone Traumas  Longer recovery

Glass Fractures  Defects

Wang, C. et. al (2016)

Agarwal, R. (2023)
©z1b - stock.adobe.com Hourmand, M. et. al (2021)

Figure 2. Defects in machining of Inconel 718, Ti-6Al-4V, CFRP, and Bone (left to right) [2]
Introduction: Role of Finite Element Analysis
Cutting point 2 (p2)
Vibration
5 Finite element analysis is considered to study
the cutting mechanism due to:
• Small geometry of the process (in μm scale) Cutting point 1 (p1)
• High speed phenomena (f > 20 kHz) Figure 3. Cutting point trajectory

• Complex phenomena (shearing, ploughing,

p1
chip forming) p2

• Limitation in using sensors and camera as the

material directly removed.
6 Most research directly study the optimized
parameters (amplitude, frequency, cutting
speed, depth of cut, etc.) without underlining
the reason of the improvement.

(r = (r
3 mm;
= 3 mm;
S = 1000
S = 1000
rpm;rpm;
tz0 = t0.05
z0 = 0.05
mm/tooth;
mm/tooth;
Ao = 15 µm;Aofo==10µm;
25000foHz;
= 600
t = 0.5
Hz)s;)
Objectives

1 Develop the finite element analysis of orthogonal cutting model that

represent the ultrasonic vibration-assisted machining process.

2 Investigate the cutting and chip formation mechanism underlining the

drilling process improvement.

3 Predict the cutting mechanism and chip formation on different

workpiece materials.
Finite Element Model

1. Idealization a) b)

Figure 1. Orthogonal cutting model; a) conventional; b) transversal vibration-assisted [1]

1 Orthogonal setting: the elemental cutting edge is modeled to cut material

2 2D Plan strain: The cutting-edge width is significantly larger compared with the lateral
and transversal direction
3 Constant machining and vibration parameters: The effective amplitude and
frequency are not affecting upon contact with workpiece
4 Well lubricated assumption: Thermal effect is negligible with reasonable coefficient of
friction
Finite Element Model
2. Geometry
c)

Vibration b)

Cutting points a)

Figure . Rake angle and tangential velocity along radius of drill cutting edge

Notable features (at radius 2 mm):

o Rake angle (α): 23.7o (measured and derived) c)
o Clearance angle (γ): 5o (measured and derived)
o Edge radius (re): 10 µm (measured)
Figure 1. FEA geometry;
o Uncut chip thickness (tzo): 50 µm (experimental) a) Workpiece; b) Tool; c) Assembly
Finite Element Model
3. Material property
Johnson-Cook Constitutive Model Johnson-Cook Damage Model
c)
Geometry material assignment:
o Tool: Analytical Rigid Surface
o Workpiece: Deformable Surface
(Aluminium 6061-T6) Parameter Value Parameter Value
General Johnson-Cook Damage
Density, ρ 2700 kg/m3 Damage Constant, D1 -0.77
Elasticity Damage Constant, D2 1.45
Young’s Modulus, E 68.9 GPa Damage Constant, D3 -0.47
Poisson’s Ratio, γ 0.25 Damage Constant, D4 0
Johnson-Cook Strength Damage Constant, D5 1.6
Yield Stress, A 324 MPa
Strain Hardening 114 MPa
Parameter, B
Strain Rate Parameter, C 0.002
Thermal Softening 1.34
Figure 4. Yield stress-plastic strain plot obtained from Exponent, m
Strain Hardening 0.42
Johnson-Cook constitutive model
Exponent, n
Melting Temperature, Tm 925 K
Room Temperature, Troom 300 K
 5. Discretization
Finite Element Model
Pilot Point
Displacement (Tool – RP-1)
4. Boundary Conditions c)
(Z=0, RZ = 0)

Velocity (X = -0.209 m/s) Mesh size: 5 μm

Displacement with
amplitude
(A = 16.21 μm, f = 20 kHz)

Mesh size: 50 μm

Surface-to-surface contact
- Penalty with μ = 0.3
- Applied Mesh on the geometry
Allow separation

Figure 5. Boundary condition applied

Fixed BC
o Element Type: 2D Explicit
o Element Deletion: Yes
o Arbitary-Langlarian-
Eulerian (ALE) adaptive
mesh
 Notable features (at radius 2 mm):
o Rake angle (α): 23.7o o Cutting Speed (Vt): -0.209 m/s
o Clearance angle (γ): 5 Edge radius (re): 10 µm
o o Amplitude (A): = 16.21 μm

Result and Discussion o Uncut chip thickness (tzo): 50 µm

o Frequency (f) = 20 kHz

1. Overview

Element deletion and

plasticity are observed
250 μm
The expected trajectory is
observed

Equivalent stress and strain

on the body can be
observed

The reaction force on the

pilot point (on the tool) is
regarded as cutting force
250 μm

Time period: 0.004785 s with

100 frame

Figure 1. FEA simulation; a) Conventional Machining; b) Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted Machining

 Result and Discussion Input
Drill geometry Material property

2. Verification and Validation Parameters Chip thickness

1 The experimental result is used to validate the FEA

results Verified Mechanistic Model
Ff Fs sin 
  tan 1 Ff 
Cutting Fn cos(     )
2 The chip thickness (besides other data) after drilling angle Ft
Fn 
Fs cos  αe

process is submitted into mechanistic model to formulation cos(     ) αn

predict the cutting force

JC Model
td  w  Fa
Fs 
3 The cutting force prediction is found to have ±10% Oblique
sin 
Fs cos(    )
accuracy with measured value Ft 
cos(     )
Ft

Cutting F sin(    )
Fr

Fr  s
cos(     )
4 The mechanistic model calculate the elemental
cutting force (5000 elements over cutting edge)
Output

5 The integration is performed to obtained the thrust Elemental Integration Thrust Force and
force and cutting torque Cutting Forces
Cutting Torque

Figure 1. Illustration of mechanistic model of conventional drilling using oblique cutting

 Result and Discussion
Elemental
2. Verification and Validation Cutting Forces

104
5 The resultant cutting force trend 4
increases as mesh size decreases Mesh size

Resultant Cutting Force (F r) per unit width [N/m]

20 m exp.
3.5

6 The expected value of particular elemental resultant

10 m
num.
5 m
cutting force based on the experiment is 34,600 N/m 3

7 This is to determine that the mesh can be more

2.5

refine to be more accurate. 2

However, the computational cost is too high thus the
study uses 5 μm. 1.5

8 Note that the expected value from experiment is

1

based on the oblique cutting model. 0.5

9 The numerical result is considered reasonable 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (s) [N/m] 10-3
Figure 1. The resultant cutting force for different mesh size and expected experimental result
 Result and Discussion
2. Verification and Validation Fr

4
Ft
5
10
Fc

Cutting Force
(Fc) [N/m]
Resultant
4
UVM gives lower resultant cutting
CM
1 3 UVM
force (Fc) than CM 2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x -3
10
4
10
0

Cutting Force
Tangential

(Ft) [N/m]
-1
2 UVM gives lower tangential cutting -2

force (Ft) than CM -3

-4
-5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x -3
10
4
10
Cutting Force 0
Transversal

3 UVM gives higher transversal cutting (Fr) [N/m] -1

-2
force (Fr) than CM -3
-4
There is penetration occurs where the -5
Fr value spikes (simillar frequency) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
time (t) [s]
3 3.5 4 4.5
10
5
-3
 Result and Discussion: 3. Changes of cutting angles

250 μm

Contact length (Rake vs Chip)

CM : 90 µm α
UVM : 41.23 μm to 107 µm

Figure 1. Cutting angles variation

 Result and Discussion: 3. Changes of cutting angles

250 μm

Contact length (Rake vs Chip)

CM : 90 µm α
UVM : 41.23 μm to 107 µm

αe

Figure 1. Cutting angles variation

 Result and Discussion: 3. Changes of cutting angles

250 μm

Contact length (Rake vs Chip)

CM : 90 µm
UVM : 41.23 μm to 107 µm α
-α
e

Figure 1. Cutting angles variation

 Result and Discussion: 3. Changes of cutting angles

250 μm

Contact length (Rake vs Chip)

CM : 90 µm
UVM : 41.23 μm to 107 µm

Figure 1. Cutting angles variation

 Free Surface Back Surface
R1 CM Back surface
Result and
89
t μ= 0.001436 s 50 μm
m

Discussion
CM

73o

4. Chip formation
analysis UVM
Free surface

Summary: 100 μm
Experimental Observation CM
t = 0.001436 s
Category CM UVM
Time [s] 0.001436 s 50 μm

Curvature on
Small Large
Free Surface
Fracture on
4 0
Back Surface
R66 μm 224o
Curling Radius
189 66
[μm]
Curling Angle UVM
73 224 t = 0.001436 s
[deg]
Figure 1. Chip formation analysis;
a) Conventional Machining; b) Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted Machining
 Back surface
150
CM. (Back Surface)

Result and Discussion

CM (Free Surface)
UVM (Chip 1, Back Surface)
100 UVM (Chip 1,Free Surface)
UVM (Chip 2, Back Surface) Free surface

Chip thickness (ao ) [ m]

UVM (Chip 2,Free Surface)
50

5. Chip thickness variation

0

1 In general, UVM gives thinner -50

CM
t = 0.002632 s
100 μm

and shorter chips

-100
CM UVM

2 Chip thickness is varying t = 0.002632 s t = 0.001436 s (at 1st chip breakage)

t = 0.002632 s (at 2nd chip breakage)
along the chip length
-150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Position along chip length [ m]

3 After 0.002632 s, UVM gives two

chip breakage, while CM give none. CM; H= 0-12 mm

6. Chip breakage UVM

100 μm
t = 0.002632 s (Chip 2)

1 UVM gives total chip breaking of 4 times Figure 1. Chip thickness variation along chip length
UVM; H= 0-12 mm End:
0.001436 0.002632 0.003254 0.004067 0.004875 0.005000

2 The possible reasons are: CM Chip

- Change of effective rake angle (αe) breakage count: 1*
- Higher chip curvature and curling with fractures
UVM Chip
- Thinner chips breakage count: 1 2 3 4 5*
*Predicted
Figure 1. Chip breakage comparison
 CM

Result and Discussion

t = 0.002871 s

6. Machined surface topology

1 The sawtooth-like profile is formed on the

machined surface
UVM
2 The penetration motion and flank face t = 0.002871 s
contact during the oscillation is the main
reason
3 This become advantage for lubrication or
other application
4 This may reduce the surface finish on final
surface. However, there is no problem on
the intermediate surface.

Figure 1. Machined surface topology comparison

Experimental measurement
 CM

Result and Discussion

t = 0.002871 s

7. Residual Stress-Surface Hardening

1 UVM gives higher residual stress to the

workpiece (0 – 80 μm at average of 225 MPa)
UVM
2 The penetration motion during the t = 0.002871 s
oscillation is the main reason

3 For the intermediate surface, this

may help in further machining
For the final surface, this may cause
4
lower fatigue life

5
Further study about machining on the effected zone
(represent the intermediate surface in machining)
Figure 1. Residual stress comparison
Conclusion

- The orthogonal cutting finite element simulation for Conventional and Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted
Machining have been developed

- The underlining phenomena that promotes drilling improvement:

• Alternating effective rake angle

• Chip topology (higher curvature, fracture, faster curling rate)

• Smaller and varying chip thickness

• Machined surface topology

Future work

- Machining on the effected zone (represent the intermediate surface in machining)

- Define other workpiece material to compare the mechanism involved in drilling performance
improvement
Thank you!
Main References:
• Afif, M.F., Wang, J.J., 2022, “Kinematic and Chip Formation on Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted
Drilling”, Master Thesis, National Cheng Kung University Respiratory.
• Yang, Z., Zhu, L., Zhang, G., Ni, C., and Lin, B., 2020, “Review of Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted
Machining in Advanced Materials,” Int J Mach Tools Manuf, 156, p. 103594.
• Flórez García, L. C., González Rojas, H. A., and Sánchez Egea, A. J., 2020, “Estimation of
Specific Cutting Energy in an S235 Alloy for Multi-Directional Ultrasonic Vibration-Assisted
Machining Using the Finite Element Method,” Materials 2020, Vol. 13, Page 567, 13(3), p. 567.
• Kao, C.C., Afif, M.F., Wang, J.J., 2021, “Drilling Force Model Considering the Effect of Chip-
Evacuation Forces”. Master Thesis, National Cheng Kung University Respiratory.
• Prasad, C.S., Ansel Berghuvud, 2009, “Finite Element Modeling to Verify Residual Stress in
Orthogonal Machining”. Master Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology Respiratory.