Although almost any book and/or text on metal cutting, cutting tool design, and 6 V/ E) P3 t& l" X. Z
manufacturing process discusses to a certain extent the tool geometry, the body of % y( |% |0 S+ p2 S# B
knowledge on the subject is scattered and confusing. Moreover, there is no clear
, ~; Q i1 G& k4 W6 i! [objective(s) set in the selection of the tool geometry parameters so that an answer 0 C9 H; M; }! @! l( x# M
to a simple question about optimal tool geometry cannot be found in the literature 1 }/ z7 ~1 j: J1 t+ T$ p1 f
on the subject. This is because a criterion (criteria) of optimization is not clear, on
1 F* c) v4 M% \8 W8 x: Hone hand, and because the role of cutting tool geometry in machining process 8 n) |& @; r( T' a+ u( e+ L* @2 L1 T
optimization has never been studied systematically, on the other. As a result, many
- C8 _8 K4 N. J; z( Dpractical tool/process designers are forced to use extremely vague ranges of tool ) x1 ~1 R9 Y% m2 G
geometry parameters provided by handbooks. Being at least 20+ years outdated,
9 [# K& ?# p0 Q4 L7 G9 Q/ }these data do not account for any particularities of a machining operation including 3 I6 X8 C/ X4 n A# D' U+ @
a particular grade of tool material, the condition of the machine used, the cutting % `* Q1 S4 y: O! _ m% W0 d0 k# h: H
fluid, properties and metallurgical condition of the work material, requirements to
; O7 c3 T2 T9 M1 Cthe integrity of the machined surface, etc. - b @; E$ I/ g& D0 T) E
Unfortunately, while today's professionals, practitioners, and students are 3 Q3 p% A# `, i, O \& D
interested in cutting tool geometry, they are doomed to struggle with the confusing
0 }% `2 |! F# h0 f$ ?! v8 l$ s( bterminology. When one does not know what the words (terms) mean, it is easy to : G0 W8 ?$ |% u* N4 q
slip into thinking that the matter is difficult, when actually the ideas are simple, 2 L/ p: z$ }9 }" a8 h2 |4 w1 b
easy to grasp, and fun to consider. It is the terms that get in the way, that stand as a
t6 Y9 F% Y: n6 R/ R7 [1 ewall between many practitioners and science. This books attempts to turn those % M" M1 X3 a* ^3 r4 s% c6 O
walls into windows, so that readers can peer in and join in the fun of proper tool
$ e q: O5 V$ u+ \$ v: edesign.
6 [& p+ @* x; z R3 ^* P& p/ [. h5 jSo, why am I writing this book? There are a few reasons, but first and foremost, 5 [( U1 M, ~, i* Z
because I am a true believer in what we call technical literacy. I believe that
6 X3 v1 u" L3 {8 H, A# n+ meveryone involved in the metal cutting business should understand the essence and 2 Z" \( b! \2 ^& R5 J" i- i
importance of cutting tool geometry. In my opinion, this understanding is key to
6 `+ n2 v( U* k4 v9 ?! M/ R1 }improving efficiency of practically all machining operations. For the first time, this 3 k- g: j, a, c! A- Y% ^6 Q5 n
book presents and explains the direct correlations between tool geometry and tool
0 ~: o. E; [9 V# _performance. The second reason is that I felt that there is no comprehensive book & n- S$ r) o! p5 Q
on the subject so professionals, practitioners, and students do not have a text from " `5 x) E, Y8 R" p" F
which to learn more on the subject and thus appreciate the real value of tool
+ D. Z9 B# W, k. \, g8 Wgeometry. Finally, I wanted to share the key elements of tool geometry that I felt - n, p7 C4 u7 _" k
were not broadly understood and thus used in the tool design practice and in ; Z5 P2 ^- {3 v% ?! m: E
optimization of machining operations in industry. Moreover, being directly
& F$ C0 o! u! y/ }involved in the launch of many modern manufacturing facilities equipped with
2 h3 s1 F$ M5 C5 X) p4 a% c) cstate-of-the-art high-precision machines, I found that the cutting tool industry is not $ \, ?9 d, H7 L. T" r4 u
ready to meet the challenge of modern metal cutting applications. One of the key
" i8 y- }8 H0 }' K iissues is the definite lack of understanding of the basics of tool geometry of
' P$ F- T' R9 j* w0 g; x d& M1 Q* Fstandard and application-specific tools. 1 N- U- D0 l% k7 V. G
The lack of information on cutting tool geometry and its influence on the : ]: I# P, O! D2 C: o2 E B( v0 s
outcome of machining operations can be explained as follows. Many great findings
0 k, q$ j+ G/ E# K- eon tool geometry were published a long time ago when neither CNC grinding ; U7 j& G/ R% M h
machines capable of reproducing any kind of tool geometry were available nor
9 ~6 c# j2 G' d; ewere computers to calculate parameters of such geometry (using numerical
: p, B ^& J, a. emethods) common. Manual grinding using standard 2- and 3-axis simple grinding
) p1 l- G8 O: v( Z- ?' Q Cfeatures was common so the major requirement for tool geometry was the simpler ! k6 ^2 T- i5 Q/ q2 K+ q* d
the better. Moreover, old, insufficiently rigid machines, aged tool holders and part / k! e7 z7 L" L4 W* Q7 }; D+ q/ P2 l
fixtures, and poor metal working fluid (MWF) selection and maintenance levered ; F# d# t; ~7 D
any advancement in tool geometry as its influence could not be distinguished under 6 H, G5 W% _& ]" w1 r g
these conditions. Besides, a great scatter in the properties of tool materials in the
) r9 L5 \) z& R0 rpast did not allow distinguishing of the true influence of tool geometry. As a result, ) _# o. Z3 v9 O- n4 d$ Z* R
studies on tool geometry were reduced to theoretical considerations of features of
. y) l3 V" ~* S, v; otwist drills and some gear manufacturing tools such as hobs, shaving cutters, 1 p% V3 S% }3 b' Z4 r& n @
shapers, etc.
8 n9 \# r; w1 g$ ]+ N% GGradually, once mighty chapters on tool geometry in metal cutting and tool ) {- |- T( c4 ~ K, U( j
design books were reduced to sections of few pages where no correlation between
' @5 g2 b$ k0 U% }tool geometry and tool performance is normally considered. What is left is a
7 E$ R' c- {5 P( v( ^general perception that the so-called “positive geometry” is somehow better than 6 t" y6 f+ H' i7 ?" j, o y* p
“negative geometry.” As such, there is no quantitative translation of the word
4 w: L" x1 D& y& h6 V3 `“better” into the language of technical data although a great number of articles
/ R4 e* ~- S& x+ U5 c# ^( H. Y- @& `1 fwritten in many professional magazines discuss the qualitative advantages of
2 w7 r4 _5 {2 v0 U/ O' k! C5 h# o2 o“positive geometry.” For example, one popular manufacturing magazine article
+ ]0 f. s0 U& Cread “Negative rake tools have a much stronger leading edge and tend to push $ b4 o3 ?1 k. H+ d9 ~
against the workpiece in the direction of the cutter feed. This geometry is less free " O. m3 c5 o5 z+ \" o! q: s
cutting than positive rakes and so consumes more horsepower to cut.” Reading 5 b5 Y: }' W4 f& S* I& \
these articles one may wonder why cutting tool manufacturers did not switch their
; V+ G" D0 L. [, mtool designs completely to this mysterious “positive geometry” or why some of ! k+ B% Q' F/ n0 V" y( i& X& Z1 n& P
them still investigate and promote negative geometry.
& R: `% M, `0 h4 dDuring recent decades, the metalworking industry underwent several important
# L& A- ` N4 D9 m1 D$ x9 x Ochanges that should bring cutting tool geometry into the forefront of tool design
4 e1 J% p5 N! m' v. }: |. q- ?and implementation: |