Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387 DOI 10.

1007/s11740-007-0015-y

TOOLING

The dependency of material properties and process conditions on the cutting temperatures when drilling polymers
Klaus Weinert Florian Brinkel Christoph Kempmann Klaus Pantke

Received: 13 February 2007 / Accepted: 9 March 2007 / Published online: 6 October 2007 German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2007

Abstract Construction parts consisting of modern polymer materials still need to be machined. Thereby special attention has to be paid to the machining quality. The machining quality implies dimensional accuracy as well as a defect-free peripheral zone. Machining defects often occur as a consequence of excessive mechanical loads, which are often caused by unfavorable process conditions. Besides mechanical loads, the thermal inuence on the composite material, which is induced by the cutting process itself, has to be considered as crucial. According to the thermo physical material properties of polymer materials the boundary conditions differ from the machining of metals. Especially the drilling of polymer composites is introduced in this article and moreover the inuences of the material properties and the process conditions on the process temperatures are presented. Keywords Production process Polymers Cutting temperatures

1 Introduction The placement of reinforcing bers into a polymer matrix in 1930 opened up great potential for lightweight

constructions. Since that time high performance ber composites gain more and more importance for lightweight structures. This fact is founded in their immense exibility and innovative diversity for construction. Usually machining by drilling and milling follows after forming of berreinforced plastic parts [1, 2]. Therefore, the production quality and tool wear play a role especially when machining reinforced polymers [3]. Numerous studies in the past have shown that tool wear and the development of measurement and form errors and also the surface quality are caused by mechanical stress during machining in combination with reinforcement-bers acting strongly abrasive. Even though thermal load seems to have signicant impact on the quality of the work piece, temperatures resulting while drilling polymers and their inuence on plastics are still not analyzed in detail [47]. Because of their unfavorable thermo physical characteristics, knowledge about reducing thermal load while drilling plastics from this material group is important. Within this article measurements of tool temperatures while drilling reinforced and non reinforced thermoplastic polymers are introduced and effects of temperature on the production quality are analyzed.

2 Experimental set-up In the studies presented here tool temperatures while dry drilling four different thermo plastic polymers are studied. The tested materials are polyamide 6.6 (PA), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyoxymethylene (POM) and polyethyleneterephthalat (PET). Furthermore the temperature development while drilling glass- and carbon reinforced PEEK (PEEK GF 30 und PEEK CF 30) has been investigated. The ber volume percentage of these materials is 30 vol.%. Table 1 lists the most important

The investigations presented in this paper are funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) K. Weinert F. Brinkel C. Kempmann K. Pantke (&) Department of Machining Technology, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany e-mail: pantke@isf.de C. Kempmann e-mail: kempmann@isf.de

123

382 Table 1 Properties of the deployed polymer materials

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387

Material Tensile strength Rm in MPa Therm. cond. coeff. ak in 106 J/K m Heat capacity c in kJ/kg K Heat conductivity k in W/m K Glass trans. temp. Tg in C Melting temp. Ts in C Therm. intr. coeff. b in kJ m2 h0.5 K

PA6.6 90 70 1.7 78 255 40

PEEK

PEEK CF 30 PEEK GF 30 PET 156 22 1.71 0.43 143 334 63 81 20 1.1 0.24 69 255 36

POM 65 110 1.5 0.31 38 175 49

50100 224 47 0.32 143 334 19.5 4 1.85 0.92 143 334 94

0.23 0.25

mechanical and thermal characteristics of the materials used. Micrographs of the studied materials are shown in Fig. 1. The drills used for measuring tool temperature are straight uted tools made of carbide with K10/20 classication and a straight uted tool with a polycrystalline diamond (PCD) cutting edge. The tools have a diameter of d = 8 mm. Tool temperatures are measured with thermo elements, which are embedded into the clearance face of the drilling tools. The measurement of temperature directly at the area of impact is almost impossible because of mechanical load and difcult accessibility. Due to this fact the thermo elements are positioned with a dened distance away from the cutting edge. Thermo elements need a cable joint for data transfer therefore, it is not possible to perform the experiments with a rotating tool. For this reason an experimental set up with a rotating work piece have been used [8]. During a second test series temperature is measured inside the work piece with a distance of 0.1 mm from the bore edge and 10 mm from the beginning of the borehole. Figure 2 shows the experimental set-up for measuring tool temperatures and the position of the thermo elements in the clearance faces of the drilling tools.
Fig. 1 Microstructure of analyzed thermo plastics

3 Inuence of matrix material on thermal development The following chapter deals with the tool temperatures measured during the rst test series. With 400C the tool temperature measured when drilling 20 mm deep blind holes into thermo plastic polymers is unexpectedly high and almost always reaches the melting temperatures of the tested polymer materials. It is remarkable that the tool temperatures while using a carbide drill are up to 50C higher than while using a PCD-tool. The tests show that rising cutting speeds cause a higher tool temperature and on the other hand increasing the feed causes a smaller thermal load. The thermal load, which is induced into the tool, is a result of the conversion of mechanical energy into heat. Here, the mechanical material properties contribute to the generated heat quantity, but moreover the main inuence is given by the thermal material characteristics. The tensile strength and hardness of the polymer materials as well as the friction conditions determine the height of the occurring feed forces as well as drilling torques. The cutting power is in turn direct proportional to the feed force and drilling torque. The mechanical cutting power which is

123

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387

Positions of embedded thermocouples 0.9 0.5

383

Spindle

Collet with sample Boring tool with thermo couple Tool fitting

1.6 Top view: Cemented-Carbide-Tool 0.8 0.4

Load cell

1.7 Top view: PCD-Tool (Dimensions in mm)

Fig. 2 Experimental set-up and position of thermo elements in the tool

necessary for the drilling process is converted into heat by internal friction and friction of the process counterparts. Thereby, the separating work as well as the kinetic energy of the chips is considered to be neglectable. Thus, heat is distributed to the tool, the work piece and the chips as well as the environment. The quantity of heat distributed to the active components is controlled by the thermal properties of the tool and the polymer material. The heat capacity c describes the quantitative amount of energy per temperature and mass, which can be absorbed by a material. Temporary effects are not considered by this physical value. In contrast, the heat conductivity k species which time is needed for a certain amount of energy to spread into the inside of the material. Comparing the measured tool temperatures with the heat capacity and the heat conductivity no clear trend can be recognized. However, when taking into account the thermal intrusion coefcient b, a clear trend can be observed. Thus, the thermal intrusion coefcient b is characteristic for the magnitude of tool temperatures, which describes a correlation between the magnitude of temperatures inside the tool and the physical attributes of the matrix polymer. This value relates heat conductivity k, heat capacity c and density q and is dened as b p kqc in kJ=m2 s0:5 K:

Accordingly, the thermal intrusion coefcient is a measure of how much heat Q enters the work piece per time and area. In previous tests the shear zone was identied as the location for heat development. Because of the higher thermal intrusion coefcient b of the cutting material compared to the polymers, most of heat quantity

developed during the machining process ows directly into the tool. After 20 mm drilling distance the PEEK material shows the highest tool temperature with 360C compared to all other non-reinforced polymers. This effect results from the lowest thermal intrusion coefcient b = 19.5 kJ m2 h0.5 K for PEEK compared to the other tested materials. During the machining process, this thermo plastic conducts more heat into the tool compared to all others. As a result maximum tool temperatures when drilling the other materials develop in an opposite way compared to their thermal intrusion coefcient b. Consequently the lowest temperature of 190C occurs when drilling POM, which has a thermal intrusion coefcient of b = 49 kJ m2 h0.5 K. Figure 3 demonstrates the characteristics of tool and work piece temperatures when drilling non-reinforced thermo plastics with a cutting speed of vc = 120 m min1 and a feed of f = 0.1 mm. After dealing with tool temperatures, the second test series focused on the work piece temperatures also shows a relation between the thermal intrusion coefcient b and the temperature of the work piece. In polyamide PA and polyoxymethylene POM, both having a high thermal intrusion coefcient, the lowest work piece temperatures (35 and 29C) are measured at a distance of 0.2 mm from the drill edge and at a drill depth of 10 mm. On the one hand, the tool heats up more when drilling PEEK and PET while passing the measurement point, since a higher amount of energy is converted. On the other hand, the heat conducted from the cutting edge of the tool is more slowly absorbed by the work piece, according to the higher thermal intrusion coefcient b. Thus, heat distributes slower to the inside of the work piece material and consequently the measured work piece temperature is higher. In the case of PEEK and PET more heat is accumulated at the drill edge and at the bore hole wall because their thermal material properties limit the transportation of heat to the inside of the work piece. Accordingly, the quantity of heat is concentrated on a smaller amount of material at the tool tip and the borehole wall. Thus, higher temperatures are generated at the cutting edge as well as in the borehole wall. Regarding the lower thermal intrusion coefcient b of PEEK it is expected to have higher work piece temperatures than PET. Accordingly, the work piece temperatures in PEEK should be higher than in PET. The measured temperatures display the opposite. The reason for the lower work piece temperature of PEEK than PET seen in Fig. 3 can be found by temporal effects. At 10 mm drill depth the tool temperature by drilling PEEK is clearly lower than it is by drilling PET. By reaching 13 mm drill depth the tool temperature in PEEK exceeds that of PET. Thus, the rate of heating up is different. Consequently the work piece temperature of PEEK would be higher as the work piece

0.4

0.6

123

384 Fig. 3 Impact of polymer material on thermal development in tool and work piece

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387

Material: Matrix: :

Tool: Diameter: Cutting Material: l:

Tool temperature TWZ

PA 6.6, POM, PET, PEEK

C 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 PEEK PET PA 6.6 POM 8 10 12 14 16 mm 20 Drilling depth l

d = 8.0 mm PCD

Cutting Parameter: Cutting velocity.: .: vc = 120 m/min Feed rate: f = 0.1 mm F : Lubrication-concept: dry

Therm. intrusion coeff. b kJ(m hK)-1 kJ(m

60 50 49 40 30 20 19,5 10 0 PEEK PET PA POM 36 40

60 C Component temperature TWS 40 30 20 10 0 PEEK PET PA POM 35 29 51 53

TWS 0.2 mm WS 0.2 mm measured by the bore edge

temperature of PET if the temperature was measured in a depth of more than 13 mm.

5 Surface development and tool temperatures Besides the analysis of the occurring temperatures in the cutting tool as well as in the work piece material the inuence of the temperatures on the materials integrity was studied. In order to analyze the effect of the tool temperatures on the drilled surfaces Fig. 5 shows pictures at different drilling depths of the bore hole wall, made by a scanning electron microscope of characteristic areas of the drill surface in non-reinforced PEEK. The corresponding tool temperatures can be read from the line chart. At a drill depth of 2 mm and a tool temperature of 120C a relatively at surface is formed. Here, the temperature is lower than the materials glass transition temperature (Tg = 143C) and the polymer condition is dened by high internal bond strength. An indication for this effect is given by the characteristic feed marks. At a drilling depth of 10 mm the tool temperature of 280C is situated between glass transition temperature (Tg = 143C) and melting temperature (Ts = 335C). In this temperature range polymers become more ductile and their static friction coefcient rises. Local adhering and tearing of the tool causes a stick slip effect. This effect generates an uneven surface. The ductile material is smeared over the surface of the borehole wall by the minor cutting edges of the rotating drilling tool. This causes detectable unevenness at the surface. At 18 mm drilling depth the tool exceeds the

4 Effect of reinforcement-bers on temperature development Tool and work piece temperatures also show a dependency on the thermal intrusion coefcient when drilling berreinforced thermo plastics and thereby on thermo physical characteristics of the material. Figure 4 visualizes temperatures measured in the tool and the work piece. After a drilling distance of 20 mm non-reinforced PEEK causes the highest tool temperatures. This is a result of PEEK possessing a lower thermal intrusion coefcient b (19.5 kJ m2 h0.5 K) than ber-reinforced PEEK-materials. Consequently, maximum tool temperatures are measured in an opposite relation to the height of their thermal intrusion coefcient when drilling ber reinforced PEEK CF and PEEK GF materials. Tool temperature when drilling PEEK CF with a thermal intrusion coefcient of b = 94 kJ m2 h0.5 K is the lowest at 290C. Also the height of work piece temperatures directly results from the dependency on the thermal intrusion coefcient of the material. Due to these fact materials with high thermal intrusion coefcients results in lowest temperatures measured in the borehole wall.

123

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387 Fig. 4 Impact of ber material on thermal development in tool and work piece
400 Material: : : Matrix: Fibre: PEEK not reinforced , 30 Vol.-% GF, 30 Vol.-% CF C 300 Tool temperatureT WZ 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 Thermal intarusioncoefficientbkJ(m hK) -1 100 94 80 Component temperature TWS C 40 30 20 10 0 PEEK PEEK GF PEEK CF PEEK PEEK GF PEEK CF 34 29 51 2 4 6

385

Tool: Diameter: Cutting Material: Cutting Parameter: Cutting velocity.: Feed rate: Lubrication-concept:

d = 8.0 mm PCD

vc = 120 m/min f = 0.1 mm dry

PEEK PEEK GF PEEK CF 8 10 12 14 16 mm 20 Drilling depth l

60 TWS 0.2 mm measureded by the bore edge

60

63

40

20 0

19,5

Fig. 5 Effect of tool temperature on drill surface

Beginning of the bore: l = 2 mm

Middleof the b ore: l = 10 mm

End of the bore: l = 18 mm

20 kV 75x 200 m

20 kV 75x 200 m
400

20 kV 75x 200 m

PEEK

Tool: Diameter: d = 8.0 mm Cutting material: HM K10/20 Cutting parameters: Cutting velocity: vc = 120 m/min Feed rate: f = 0.1 mm Lubrication: dry

Tool temperature TWZ

Material: Matrix:

Melting temperature PEEK: 334 C

300 250

200 150

100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 mm 20 Thermo couple 1 Thermo couple 2

Drilling depth l

melting temperature of the polymer. In this temperature range the material partly adheres at the minor cutting edges. Subsequently, the material is pressed out between the lead chamfer and borehole surface.

6 Peripheral zone and tool temperatures An important criterion to prove the thermal inuence on the work piece is an analysis of the created peripheral zone.

123

386 Fig. 6 Changes in the peripheral zone of PET, PA and PEEK caused by heat

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387

Beginning of the bore:l = 2 mm

End of the bore: l = 18 mm

PET b= 36 kJ/m2h0.5K Tg= 69 C PA 6.6 b= 40kJ/m2h0.5K Tg = 78 C PEEK GF 3 b= 63kJ/m2h0.5K Tg= 143 C

medium thermal heat impact zone width WB: 47 m

medium thermal heat impact zone width 60 m

medium thermal heat impact zone width WB: 43 m

medium thermal heat impact zone width : 54 m

medium thermal heat impact zone width WB: 20 m

medium thermal heat impact zone width : 38 m

The generated microstructure exhibits the inuence of high temperatures on the polymer material. Light optical microscope pictures show that plastic at the peripheral zone has changed in color (Fig. 6). Tests on PEEK [9] in the past have shown that these discolorations are amorphous areas, which were created from crystalline areas through high temperatures. Tool temperature modies the microstructure of the material in such a manner, that the material becomes thermally weak and the crystalline areas in the microstructure begin to melt. Since the mechanical characteristics of polymers are dened by their level of crystallinity, the heat affected zone, where crystalline areas are damaged by high temperatures, is a signicant damage of the material. Destruction of the crystalline structures causes reduction of mechanical stability and lower temperature resistance during later application. In a few cases it is possible, that the machined work piece is rendered defective. Furthermore high process temperatures can lead to chemical disruption of the polymer in the peripheral zone. Because of missing verication methods this thesis could not be proved yet.

The research shows a direct connection between tool temperature and depth of damaged areas. The width of the heat-affected zone at the beginning of the drill hole is smaller than at the end of the drill hole, where tool temperatures reached their maximum. High tool temperatures cause a great temperature difference between the material and drilling tool. This immense gradient allows the exchange of a greater heat quantity Q between the drilling tool and work piece as the smaller gradient at the beginning of the drill allows. In plastic large heat quantities create critical temperatures deep within the work piece. This can be proven by a wider heat affected zone. The thermal intrusion coefcient b is the determining factor for the depth of heat impact. Figure 6 shows light optical microscope made pictures of the peripheral zone of drills in PET, PA and PEEK GF 30 at the beginning and the end of the drill hole. It becomes apparent, that materials with low thermal intrusion coefcients like PET are thermally damaged in greater areas because of a smaller heat conduction into the material. Consequently more heat is formed in a small area.

123

Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. (2007) 1:381387

387

7 Summary Drilling reinforced and non-reinforced thermo plastics causes high tool temperatures. High tool temperatures lead to melting and thermal damage of the material in the peripheral zone of the drill hole. A direct connection between the magnitude of the tool temperature, the thermal intrusion coefcient b and the depth of damaged areas in the borehole wall exists. The higher the tool temperature is, the deeper is the thermal material damage and the weakened areas at the drill hole wall. Furthermore, low thermal intrusion coefcients of the studied materials cause a concentration of heat within small areas. Consequences of this effect are high temperatures at the drilling tool, which results in damages of the microstructure. In order to avoid thermally induced destruction of polymers at the bore hole wall tool temperatures have to be kept as low as possible during the process. Low cutting speeds and high feeds are helpful to realize these favored tool temperatures. Due to the large amount of existing polymers with different material characteristics, no general conditions for cutting polymers can be given. Each different case needs to be analyzed individually.

References
1. Weinert K, Kempmann C (2004) Thread manufacture in brereinforced plastics. Kunststoffe Plast Euro 7:4448 2. Weinert K, Kempmann C (2005) Comparing drilling and circular milling for the drill hole manufacture of ber reinforced composites. Production engineering, Annals of the German Academic Society for Production Engineering XII/2:14 3. Weinert K, Kempmann C (2003) Wear development and drill hole quality when drilling textile reinforced polymer material. Production engineering, Annals of the German Academic Society for Production Engineering X/2:6164 4. Weinert K, Kempmann C (2004) Cutting temperatures and their effects on the machining behaviour in drilling reinforced plastic composites. Adv Eng Mater 6(8):684689 5. Hintze W, Gotsch F, Moller C, Puschel A, Santos-Quiroz S, Stover E (2004) Manche mogens nicht so hei. Thermische Wechselwirkungen beim Trockenbohren von Leichtbaustrukturen. MM Maschinenmarkt 37:7883 6. Gra P (1987) Zerspanarbeit und Schnitttemperatur beim Bohren faserverstarkter Kunststoffe. Industrie-Anzeiger 51:3738 7. Gra P (1988) Bohren faserverstarkter Duromere. PhD-Thesis, RWTH Aachen 8. Eisenblatter G (2000) Trockenbohren mit Vollhartmetallwerkzeugen. PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen 9. Cantwell WJ, Davies P, Jar PJ, Richard H, Kausch HH (1990) CarbonfaserverstarktesPEEK: Verbundwerkstoffe der neuen Generation. Technica 39(2):3036

123