Technical information
This guide is built around what you see at the machine: first the marks on the part, then the state of the cutting edge, and finally the behaviour of the chip.
The order within each card is not accidental. It goes from the cheapest fix to the most expensive: cutting data first, then chipbreaker geometry, then grade, and only at the end the rigidity of the setup and the machine. Doing it the other way round — changing the grade without checking the cutting speed — is the most common mistake: the new insert fails in exactly the same way and the cause stays unknown.
Notation: Vc — cutting speed, f — feed, ap — depth of cut, rε — nose radius, κr — lead angle.
These are the cases an inspector or operator notices without necessarily looking at the tool. That is why the first step in each of them is to go back to the edge: the part shows the consequence, the cause is almost always on the insert or in the setup.
The size does not drift evenly in one direction but jumps both ways. Adjusting does not help — after a correction the scatter is exactly the same.
The first parts are in tolerance, then the size creeps slowly and evenly in one direction. After N parts a correction is needed, and after another N, again.
This is not a fault but flank wear on the edge: the nose recedes, and the size goes with it. The only question is whether it is happening too fast.
The surface is dull, torn or scratched instead of showing an even feed pattern.
A whistle or a rattle, a regular wavy pattern on the surface, fine chipping along the whole contact length of the edge.
Where the tool leaves the cut, a bent-over ridge of metal is left behind. Consistently so on ductile materials.
At the end of the cut a layer is left in front of the edge with nothing behind it: the metal is not cut off but bent aside.
As the tool leaves the cut, part of the edge of the workpiece breaks away. Typical of cast iron and hardened steel.
The same cause as with a burr, with the opposite sign: the material does not bend, it fractures.
The first two are normal wear, and the only question is how fast. The other seven should not be happening at all if the conditions are chosen correctly.
An even bright band along the cutting edge on the flank side.
The working form of wear — the abrasive action of the material. It is accelerated by too high a Vc, too low a grade hardness and running without coolant.
A hollow on the rake face a little back from the edge. The edge is intact at first; when the crater reaches it, the edge breaks without warning.
The temperature where the chip contacts the rake face. The main factor is cutting speed.
A local notch exactly where the edge leaves the material. The rest of the edge is in good condition.
The work-hardened layer left by the previous pass, scale on the workpiece and a concentration of stress at one point. Typical of stainless and heat-resistant alloys.
Small breakouts along the edge. Appears suddenly, often on the first part after an insert change.
Isolated cracks along or across the edge, without a thermal comb. They often precede the insert breaking altogether.
Mechanical overload: too much feed and depth, an impact on entry, play in the clamping, a worn pocket or shim.
A row of parallel cracks across the edge, like a comb, at even spacing. Fragments then break out between them.
Not the temperature itself but the swings in it: interrupted cutting, leaving the cut, and most often an intermittent coolant supply.
The nose is neither fractured nor worn but has “flowed” — sagged and spread.
A temperature higher than the grade can hold: Vc, feed and depth too high in combination.
Workpiece material welds itself to the edge, the surface becomes torn and the size jumps. The built-up edge periodically tears away, taking part of the edge with it.
Too low a cutting speed plus a material prone to adhesion: low-carbon steels, stainless, aluminium, copper.
The chip is blue or purple, the part is hot, and the size after cooling does not match what was measured at the machine.
More heat is generated than the chip and the coolant can carry away. It then turns into cratering, deformation or thermal cracks.
The chip is the only process parameter you can see without measuring. What you want is a short spiral or fragments that leave the cutting zone on their own.
A continuous ribbon that wraps around the part, the boring bar or the turret.
The chipbreaker is not working: feed and depth have fallen outside its range. Most often the feed is too low.
Small hard fragments fly about, clog the slideways and leave scratches on the machined surface.
The chipbreaker is breaking the chip too aggressively for these conditions.
● — act in this direction · ↑ — increase · ↓ — decrease. An empty cell means this parameter has practically no effect on this case. The order of the actions is given in the card for the case concerned.
| What happened | Choice of grade | Cutting data | Tool geometry | Setup | Machine | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hardness | strength | heat resistance | resistance to adhesion | Vc | f | ap | toolpath | coolant | chipbreaker | rake angle | rε | κr | edge strength | class M→G | toolholder rigidity | workpiece clamping | overhang | ||
| The size wanders from part to part | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| The size drifts one way through the batch | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||
| Poor surface finish | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
| Vibration | ● | ● *1 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||
| Burrs on the edges of the part | ● | ● *2 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
| Chipping of the part edges | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||
| Flank wear | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| Crater on the rake face | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
| Notch at the depth-of-cut line | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| Chipping of the cutting edge | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||
| Cracks in the insert | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||
| Thermal cracks | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| Plastic deformation of the nose | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||
| Built-up edge on the cutting edge | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| Overheating of the cutting zone | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| Long tangled chips | ● *3 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
| Chip throw | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||
The state of the edge under magnification answers the question faster than working through grades. Fracture and deformation look alike but are cured in opposite ways.
Two changes at once make the result impossible to read: you will not know what worked, and you will not be able to repeat it.
Cutting data, coolant, geometry, grade, rigidity, machine. Changing the grade as the first step is the most expensive way of not finding the cause.
There are deliberately no numerical values on this page: the Vc, f and ap ranges by workpiece material group are collected in a separate block, which goes below.