Although almost any book and/or text on metal cutting, cutting tool design, and
5 x: n' e; F5 ]; g! Xmanufacturing process discusses to a certain extent the tool geometry, the body of
2 ~, c2 W. n1 u: i, |1 Cknowledge on the subject is scattered and confusing. Moreover, there is no clear + a9 `1 {- ?# T$ Q; D* w
objective(s) set in the selection of the tool geometry parameters so that an answer
& r7 P$ ]4 F0 S/ T+ R/ Fto a simple question about optimal tool geometry cannot be found in the literature
* Y) l5 @1 u# l. fon the subject. This is because a criterion (criteria) of optimization is not clear, on 6 D j! E: \" m* D" B
one hand, and because the role of cutting tool geometry in machining process
. |0 z% b3 d. eoptimization has never been studied systematically, on the other. As a result, many ) l) s2 B* f, H
practical tool/process designers are forced to use extremely vague ranges of tool ; ~* D( R' K2 ]) [3 x. O7 J1 E o5 w
geometry parameters provided by handbooks. Being at least 20+ years outdated, 3 k/ [. N- G- M3 N3 \6 s
these data do not account for any particularities of a machining operation including % u; u- |1 R9 F& j
a particular grade of tool material, the condition of the machine used, the cutting * Z7 X* U) E# [
fluid, properties and metallurgical condition of the work material, requirements to
5 |# D* r% R0 y: Zthe integrity of the machined surface, etc.
$ K4 `+ j: ]. F# L8 U6 KUnfortunately, while today's professionals, practitioners, and students are
0 A* o4 l r9 M$ rinterested in cutting tool geometry, they are doomed to struggle with the confusing * n+ i0 p3 w k
terminology. When one does not know what the words (terms) mean, it is easy to
* Y* {- D. J3 H4 v& Uslip into thinking that the matter is difficult, when actually the ideas are simple,
' C8 `, n( c" h4 h: b: X% L$ seasy to grasp, and fun to consider. It is the terms that get in the way, that stand as a
4 G7 m9 q% _6 h; ^# mwall between many practitioners and science. This books attempts to turn those
4 P4 P# X; ~# a- Swalls into windows, so that readers can peer in and join in the fun of proper tool
9 r2 t2 C7 z" L+ pdesign.
5 {* y( i! a5 [! |8 W# x% v: kSo, why am I writing this book? There are a few reasons, but first and foremost, 3 P# D5 Q4 w1 R& w# n; b9 H) i) v
because I am a true believer in what we call technical literacy. I believe that , W5 U5 s% U1 `1 J2 G: j
everyone involved in the metal cutting business should understand the essence and
( q; F- d9 k9 f6 p. Z6 S4 wimportance of cutting tool geometry. In my opinion, this understanding is key to 7 p; [3 X* u8 V' y6 C5 p2 F: `
improving efficiency of practically all machining operations. For the first time, this ) u' I. [0 M, t, K
book presents and explains the direct correlations between tool geometry and tool 0 Q. Z9 x- `1 q2 }$ n' y8 j, ^: [
performance. The second reason is that I felt that there is no comprehensive book
8 }; N3 S7 e' J, son the subject so professionals, practitioners, and students do not have a text from : j1 ^1 V% ~, J$ |- ~% P; O9 E+ d
which to learn more on the subject and thus appreciate the real value of tool
8 U' v# L9 M k" \8 M! \' A3 Z0 @/ egeometry. Finally, I wanted to share the key elements of tool geometry that I felt
U+ C/ y' D5 j1 `5 S3 x* m9 _- P9 kwere not broadly understood and thus used in the tool design practice and in ; j( q ^: P: p7 I
optimization of machining operations in industry. Moreover, being directly & C' m" d+ x3 ?4 ^
involved in the launch of many modern manufacturing facilities equipped with k' W& O$ a% A5 ?+ T: z
state-of-the-art high-precision machines, I found that the cutting tool industry is not n$ N7 n. T, Q
ready to meet the challenge of modern metal cutting applications. One of the key 1 k! P: u' y4 Z: Q( |8 x8 v
issues is the definite lack of understanding of the basics of tool geometry of
; \0 M- ~3 r9 K) d& ^standard and application-specific tools. ) K. ]$ a4 X5 B9 i& y6 ` b- U5 N
The lack of information on cutting tool geometry and its influence on the
$ W& o/ u9 ^6 c f1 U, noutcome of machining operations can be explained as follows. Many great findings
$ {8 {) N' K6 c) _) lon tool geometry were published a long time ago when neither CNC grinding
3 z% {+ F; Y/ ^% xmachines capable of reproducing any kind of tool geometry were available nor
2 z' b% f/ Q( J( b+ D8 ]3 }were computers to calculate parameters of such geometry (using numerical
0 d, A$ G' W4 u9 ?& ?methods) common. Manual grinding using standard 2- and 3-axis simple grinding
3 f7 a' `2 B' t, m& \' Z Lfeatures was common so the major requirement for tool geometry was the simpler
4 g. a5 g6 k5 \the better. Moreover, old, insufficiently rigid machines, aged tool holders and part % d/ v' z1 e# n
fixtures, and poor metal working fluid (MWF) selection and maintenance levered
! @9 W9 b8 ?- F* Q4 Wany advancement in tool geometry as its influence could not be distinguished under # c2 A+ J5 l- [. r% n8 k# D. x: j
these conditions. Besides, a great scatter in the properties of tool materials in the ' y8 r4 Y7 h. \$ L! K& Y9 }" I) R
past did not allow distinguishing of the true influence of tool geometry. As a result, 4 i: K4 O! B5 [8 h7 P* V3 o, C; y
studies on tool geometry were reduced to theoretical considerations of features of $ c# A" Q- x3 K& \- o
twist drills and some gear manufacturing tools such as hobs, shaving cutters, % {5 w* h5 J/ ]2 J: z: d
shapers, etc. ! Z# c; }* t/ F3 r1 O- R
Gradually, once mighty chapters on tool geometry in metal cutting and tool : z* Q4 @4 s4 T
design books were reduced to sections of few pages where no correlation between
; y7 [8 q5 l4 ttool geometry and tool performance is normally considered. What is left is a
) C' a; L' B( y Cgeneral perception that the so-called “positive geometry” is somehow better than . L2 \& ^3 J3 h$ V' N
“negative geometry.” As such, there is no quantitative translation of the word 3 ]; h- H, `/ k: ]) b
“better” into the language of technical data although a great number of articles 0 C' y, |4 `2 B5 o+ g0 K1 B9 `7 x- }
written in many professional magazines discuss the qualitative advantages of 1 o6 F! b% r) Z2 i& T
“positive geometry.” For example, one popular manufacturing magazine article
% d4 E" R# K, v) G1 a2 Hread “Negative rake tools have a much stronger leading edge and tend to push " f$ p4 a' e# e3 ~
against the workpiece in the direction of the cutter feed. This geometry is less free
: W2 C5 g w$ D1 l% Ucutting than positive rakes and so consumes more horsepower to cut.” Reading
* K E, a, Y* D8 U0 P0 Ythese articles one may wonder why cutting tool manufacturers did not switch their
2 g) B4 \& x( Q; U6 k" f4 Qtool designs completely to this mysterious “positive geometry” or why some of
$ v, Q8 o. t; o/ c) x: y1 R$ Z9 H7 tthem still investigate and promote negative geometry. ! a" A4 ~2 s0 Q# O& e4 p$ N' N
During recent decades, the metalworking industry underwent several important 5 G, ~4 M6 L& W$ s
changes that should bring cutting tool geometry into the forefront of tool design
4 f0 O- ?/ |' ]) V! i* j! Aand implementation: |