P37 Ijariie

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/361163744
FEA AND DESIGN MODIFICATION OF SHREDDER BLADE USED FOR RECYCLING

PLASTIC
Article in International Journal Of Advance Research And Innovative Ideas In Education · June 2022
CITATIONS READS
0 1,590
3 authors, including:
C.M. Sedani Mr Sudarshan

Savitribai Phule Pune University Pune Savitribai Phule Pune University
43 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by C.M. Sedani on 08 June 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vol-8 Issue-3 2022 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396
FEA AND DESIGN MODIFICATION OF

SHREDDER BLADE USED FOR
RECYCLING PLASTIC
Mr.Sudarshan B.Shinde1, Prof.Dr.C.M.Sedani2
1
Student M.E(Design), Mechanical Engineering, PVPIT-Pune , Maharashtra, India
2
Principal/Guide, Mechanical Engineering, PVPIT-Pune, Maharashtra, India
ABSTRACT
A paper shredder is considered to be a mechanical machine that is used to cut paper into either strips or fine
particles that portray no information that was written on the paper initially. Government establishments, big
business holders, and private personalities use these shredders to abolish private, personal, or otherwise delicate
and secret pamphlets. Privacy specialists frequently claim that individuals should shred their bills, tax papers,
credit cards, and statements of their bank account, and other kinds of stuff that might be used by robs to commit
deceit and theft. In this report, we are going to design a shredder blade and perform a FEA Static Structural
analysis followed by topology optimization and Material comparison for low weight, durability, strength, span life
and other stress factors, so that the blade can handle cutting force applied to it.
Keyword - Shredder Blade, FEA Static Structural Analysis, Topology Optimization, Material
Comparison
1. INTRODUCTION
This research work is aimed at solving the problems of plastic wastes management in developing countries. In this
study, we designed and constructed a plastic shredding machine. The machine consists of the following main
components; hopper assembly, shredding chamber, drive shaft, frame, V-belts, and an electric motor. Although the
form of the plastics was vastly different to their equivalent when it comes to mass recycling over large sizes, the
energy difference highlights the potential environmental benefit of utilizing re-cyclites plastics where it can be
pointed out that shredding machine is a feasible operation for recycling purposes.
Humans have always produced trash and disposed of it in some way so solid waste management is not a new issue.
What have changed are the types and amounts of waste produced, the methods of disposal, and the human values
and perceptions of what should be done with it. The applications of plastic materials and their composites are still
growing rapidly due to their low cost and ease of manufacture. Therefore, high amount of waste plastic being
accumulated which create big challenges for their disposal.
This research is motivated by concerns about rising global composite waste. Despite the developing composite
recycling technology, environmental aspects, particularly the process energy demand of the recycling methods, has
not been thoroughly addressed. This research aims to model energy demand of composite recycling processes while
considering the quality and characteristics of the re-cyclites. The outcomes are to establish efficient use of energy
demand and to enable assessment of a circular economy for composite materials
1.1 Aim and Purpose

A shredding machine Blade is designed to reduce large solid material objects into a smaller volume, or smaller
pieces. Shredding machines are usually used to reduce the size and shape of materials so they can be efficiently used
for the purpose intended to. Shredding just like crushing can be defined as the process of transferring a force
17154 www.ijariie.com 3104

amplified by mechanical advantage through a material made of molecules that bond together more strongly, and
resist deformation more, than those in the material being crushed do. The shredding materials must possess a better
strength and toughness than the plastic materials.
This study’s aim to investigate the effect of operational parameters on process energy demand and quality of re-
cyclates in mechanical recycling of plastics. Three control factors which will be investigated are blade, material
thickness and material size. Performance of two different granulator technologies will be also compared. The vision
is to develop the knowledge base for selecting optimum parameters to minimise energy footprint and to predict re-
cyclites quality
1.2 Problem Statement

Paper shredders are great machines that can help keep everyone’s private information under wraps. However, it
doesn’t matter if you own a personal-sized device or a large departmental one, you probably will experience some
problems with it at some point. Here are five common problems and some ideas on how to fix them.
There may be chance of a paper jam. Even if you have a jam free shredder, you might still have to deal with a paper
jam at some point, depending on your usage so this need to understand the cutting force for the blade.
Most jams can be cleared up by simply running the machine in reverse and removing the paper.
If uneven force is applied to paper blade then it may loss its balance, shredder makes too much noise. Some of the
units out there are noisy from the get-go.
2. Design Process
When a new product or their elements are to be designed, a designer may proceed as follows:
Make a detailed statement of the problems completely; it should be as clear as possible & also of the
purpose for which the machine is to be designed.
Make selection of the possible mechanism which will give the desire motion.
Determine the forces acting on it and energy transmitted by each element of the machine.
Select the material best suited for each element of the machine.
Determine the allowable or design stress considering all the factors that affect the strength of the machine
part.
Identify the importance and necessary and application of the machine Problems with existing requirement
of the machine productivity and demand.
In this research work each critical part of the machine will be conceptually set up and this choice will be based on
criteria design criteria which will be used to produce a detailed design of machine.
The quality that makes a good design is based on the developed of a good philosophy of design. The following
consideration was adopted in this design:
 Minimum vibration level

 Lower overall cost
 Machine longer and extended product life
 Good and attractive appearance of machine assembly- color and styling.
 Design for easy manufacturing
 Design for easy maintenance and assembly
 Design for high efficiency.
Facilities Required
1. Catia v5
 Surface modeling
 Part design

 Drafting
2. FEA Ansys Workbench R1 2020
a. Static Structural Analysis
b. Topology Optimization
c. Vibrational Modal analysis
d. Material Comparison
3. Process in Ansys
a. Stress, strain & deformation factors with fatigue assessment on Structural steel.
b. Mass reduction on topology optimization
c. Frequency generation Modal analysis on 7 modes
d. Comparing for different Material grades for strength, weight and etc.
PROPERTY METRIC UNITS ENGLISH UNITS
General
Density 952 - 965 kg/m^3 00.344 - lb/ft^3

0.0349
Mechanical
Yield Strength 2.62e7 - 3.1e7 Pa 3.8 - 4.5 ksi
Tensile Strength 2.21e7 - 3.1e7 Pa 3.21 - 4.5 ksi
Elongation 11.2 - 12.9 % strain 1.12e3 - % strain

1.29e3
Hardness (Vickers) 7.75e7 - Pa 7.9 - 9.9 HV

9.71e7
Impact Strength (un- 1.9e5 - 2e5 J/m^2 90.4 - 95.2 ft.lbf/in^2

notched)
Fracture Toughness 1.52e6 - Pa/m^0.5 1.38 - 1.66 ksi/in^0.5

1.82e6
Young's Modulus 1.07e9 - Pa 0.155 - 0.158 10^6 psi

1.09e9
Thermal
Max Service Temperature 113 - 129 °C 235 - 264 °F
Melting Temperature 130 - 137 °C 266 - 279 °F
Insulator or Conductor Insulator Insulator
Specific Heat Capability 1.75e3 - J/kg °C 0.418 - 0.432 BTU/lb.

1.81e3 °F
Thermal Expansion 1.06e-4 - strain/°C 59 - 110 µstrain/°F

Coefficient 1.98e-4

Table 5.1 properties of cutting waste
2.1 Equations required to calculate the cutting force for blade.

Breaking strength can be assumed as the ultimate strength multiplied by a designer factor of safety.
Breaking strength of PET plastic material:
τ_(br)" plastic " )=Fos*ultimate strength of material
The cross-sectional area of the material to be cut is
A=w^* ts
Where: W= Width of cutting blade edge,
t= Thickness of the plastic material
The cutting force required for cutting the plastic.
F_c=τ_(br)plastic)*A
Fos=2
ultimate strength of material to be cut=45Mpa
Assume thickness to cut as = 1-5 mm = 5mm
τ_(br)" plastic " )=2*45=90Mpa
Form a trail & error method select 2cm to be as width of the blade
A = 20*5 = 100 mm^2
F_c=τ_(br)plastic)*A
= 90*100 = 9000 N
9000 N of force to be applied on the blade and also to optimize the blade for its yield strength.
2.2 Material
1 A2 Tool Steel
Properties Metric Imperial
Density 7.86 g/cm3 0.284 lb/in3
Melting point 1424°C 2595°F

Mechanical Properties
The mechanical properties of A2 tool steels are displayed in the following table.
Properties Metric Imperial
Hardness, Rockwell C (as air-hardened (63-65 HRC

average), 60-62 HRC at 205°C, 59-61 HRC at
260°C, 58-60 HRC at 315°C, 57-59 HRC at 370°C64 64
and 425°C and 480°C, 56-58 HRC at 540°C, 50-52
HRC at 595°C, 42-44 HRC at 650°C)
Bulk modulus (typical for steels) 140 GPa 20300 ksi
Machinability (based on carbon tool steel) 65% 65%

Shear modulus 78.0 GPa 11300 ksi
Poisson's ratio 0.27-0.30 0.27-0.30
Elastic modulus 190-210 GPa 27557-30457 ksi
Table 5.2 Properties of A2 tool Steel
Material 2 Stainless steel

Mechanical properties for 304 stainless steel alloys - plate from 8 - 75 mm thick
Grade 304 304L 304H
Tensile Strength (MPa) 520 - 720 500 - 700 -
Proof Stress (MPa) 210 Min 200 Min -
Elongation A5 45 Min % 45 Min %
Property Value
Density 8.00 g/cm3
Melting Point 1450 °C
Modulus of Elasticity 193 GPa
Electrical Resistivity 0.72 x 10-6 Ω.m
Thermal Conductivity 16.2 W/m.K
Thermal Expansion 17.2 x 10-6/K
Table 5.3 Material properties of 304 Stainless Steel
4. Analysis
Figure 6.2 Geometry Importation

Bounding Box
Length X 20. mm
Length Y 112.5 mm

Length Z 109.95 mm
Properties
Volume 1.422e+005 mm³
Mass 1.1163 kg
Scale Factor Value 1.
Table geometry properties
Material – Structural Steel
Table 6.1 Material Properties Structural steel

Figure 6.3 Mesh Creation on 3D part body
Definition
Suppressed No
Method Automatic
Element Order Use Global Setting
Type Element Size
Element Size 2.0 mm
Advanced
Defeature Size Default
Behavior Soft
Statistics
Nodes 107051
Elements 24010
Table 6.2 Mesh Configuration
Boundary Condition
Object Name Rotational Velocity
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Geometry Selection
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Define By Components
Coordinate System Global Coordinate System
X Component 50. RPM (ramped)
Y Component 0. RPM (ramped)
Z Component 0. RPM (ramped
Table 6.3 boundary Condition

Graph Rotational velocity

Definition
Type Fixed Support Force
Suppressed No
Define By Vector
Applied By Surface Effect
Magnitude 9000. N (ramped)
Direction Defined
Table 6.4 Force at blade face
Figure Force

Figure 6.4 Boundary Condition
Results
Results
0.mm 1.028 MPa 5.6068e-006 mm/mm
Minimum
Deformation Stress Strain
Maximum 4.4824e-002 mm 184.59 MPa 1.0785e-003 mm/mm
Average 1.2839e-002 mm 31.124 MPa 2.3453e-001 mm/mm
Table 6.5 Over all result
Result
Total Deformation
Time [s] Minimum [mm] Maximum [mm] Average [mm]
1. 0. 4.4824e-002 1.2839e-002
Table Result Total Deformation

Figure 6.5 Total Deformation
Result Von-Misses Stress

Time [s] Minimum [MPa] Maximum [MPa] Average [MPa]
1. 1.028 184.59 31.124
Table 6.6 Result Von-Misses Stress

Figure 6.6 Result Von-Misses Stress

Result Von-Misses Strain
Time [s] Minimum [mm/mm] Maximum [mm/mm] Average [mm/mm]

1. 5.6068e-006 1.0785e-003 1.5637e-004
Table 6.7 Result Von-Misses Strain
Figure 6.7 Result Von-Misses Strain

Table 6.8 Fatigue Factor
Loading
Type Fully Reversed
Scale Factor 1.
Definition
Display Time End Time
Options
Analysis Type Stress Life
Mean Stress Theory Goodman
Stress Component Equivalent (von-Mises)
Life Units
Units Name cycles
1 cycle is equal to 1. cycles

Gigue Mean Stress Theory
Results
Safety
Object Name Life Damage Biaxiality Indication
Factor
State Solved
Scope


Geometry All Bodies
Definition
Safety
Type Life Damage Biaxiality Indication
Factor
Identifier
Suppressed No
Design Life 1.e+009 cycles
Integration Point Results
Average Across
No
Bodies
Results
Minimum 34402 cycles 0.46698 -1.
Minimum Occurs Blade design-
Blade design-FreeParts|PartBody
On FreeParts|PartBody
Maximum 29068 0.96613
Maximum Occurs Blade design- Blade design-
On FreeParts|PartBody FreeParts|PartBody
Average -0.40553
Table 6.9 Overall Fatigue Results
Figure 6.8 a. Life b. Damage c. Safety Factor d. Biaxiality Indication.

Graph Fatigue Sensitivity
Alternating Stress MPa Cycles Mean Stress MPa

3999 10 0
2827 20 0
1896 50 0
1413 100 0
1069 200 0
441 2000 0
262 10000 0
214 20000 0
138 1.e+005 0
114 2.e+005 0
86.2 1.e+006 0
TABLE 33
Table Sn-Curve of Material
214 20000 0
138 1.e+005 0
Table Oure alternative stress

Fatigue alternative stress

Discussion
The designed shredder blade was analyzed using Static Structural analysis for calculated boundary condition 9000 N
load on blade face to cut the plastic of 45 Mpa tensile strength with an factor of safety of 2.
But the obtained safety is less then the proposed safety so, in next procedure optimization will be carried out to
reduce stress factors from the blade by redesigning the part to the absolute one by trying to maintain a minimum
mass increment in the part body.
2nd iteration Topology Optimization
Topology optimization generates the optimal shape of a mechanical structure. Given a predefined domain in the
2D/3D space with boundary conditions and external loads, the intention is to distribute a percentage of the initial
mass on the given domain such that a global measure takes a minimum. Without any further decisions and guidance
of the user, the method will form the structural shape thus providing a first idea of an efficient geometry. The design
space is discretized by the finite element method to represent the material distribution and at the same time the
structural behavior. Therefore, lesser deflections are produced by more material. So, the optimization constraint is
the volume of the material. Integration of the selection field over the volume can be done to obtain the total utilized
material volume.
Topology optimization can be implemented through the use of finite element methods for the analysis and
optimization techniques based on Homogenization method, Optimality criteria method, level set, Moving
asymptotes, Genetic algorithms. A brief discussion on these methods is given below.
Procedure
1. To simulate a part under topology formation, it must be simulated with one of the main modules of system
like static, transient, Dynamic, CFD, Model or IC engines etc.
2. After the main module boundary processing a topology optimization module or scope is combined with the
static structural analysis, results section from static are targeted into the optimization and upon the requirement we
can optimize the part for required constraints mode like percentage of reduction of material from part stress based,
strain based, vibrational based and mass based.

Figure number of iterations, Convergency accuracy & density of solution for optimization
Figure 6.9 Region of optimization

Object Name Response Constraint
State Fully Defined
Scope
Scoping Method Optimization Region
Optimization Region Selection Optimization Region
Definition
Type Response Constraint
Response Global von-Mises Stress
Maximum 100. MPa
Environment Selection All Static Structural
Suppressed No

Table 6.10 Stress Reduction Response Constraint

Star End Start End
Response Criterio Formulatio Environmen Weigh Multipl Ste Mod
Goal t Ste Mod Mod
Type n n t Name t e Sets p e
Step p e e
Complianc Minimiz Program Static
N/A N/A Enabled 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A
e e Controlled Structural
Table Objective
Figure 6.10 Response Constraint
Result
Graph Minimize compliance /Vs No of iterations performed

After optimization
Redesigned part with minimized material condition & equalized strength condition.

Figure 6.11 redesigned part

Weight of the geometry after Topology optimization at 100 MPa Stress Retention
Bounding Box
Length X 25. mm
Length Y 112.5 mm
Length Z 109.95 mm
Properties
Mass 1.2296 kg
Table 6.11 geometry Parameter after optimization
Discussion
finally, the optimization helped in reducing the mass.
Before optimization mass of the part body = 1.1163 Kg
After Optimization mass of the part body = 1.2296 Kg
Average = 0.113grms of weight has been Increased &
In next iteration let us see how much stress has been reduced from the blade part body with mass increment of
optimized part.

Iteration 3
Geometry, Mesh & Boundary Condition.
In this Iteration Same Boundary Condition is Applied to know the difference after the optimization for stress
reduction.
Figure 6.12 a. Geometry Importation b. Mesh Generation c. Co-Ordinate System d. Boundary Condition.
Results
Results
0. mm 0.39824 MPa 2.4609e-006 mm/mm
Minimum
Total Deformation Stress Strain
Table Overall Results
Fatigue Result
Biaxiality Equivalent Alternating
Object Name Safety Factor Life Damage
Indication Stress
State Solved
Scope
Geometry All Bodies
Definition
1.e+009 1.e+009
Design Life
cycles cycles
Biaxiality Equivalent Alternating
Type Safety Factor Life Damage
Indication Stress
Identifier
Suppressed No

Integration Point Results

Average Across
No
Bodies
Results
2.0738e+005
Minimum 0.76091 -0.99999 0.39824 MPa
cycles
Maximum 4822.1 0.99054 113.28 MPa
Average -0.37431 21.148 MPa
Table 6.12 Fatigue Overall Results
Figure a. Total Deformation. b. Strain c. Stress d. Life
Figure a. Safety Factor b. Damage c. Biaxiality Indication d. alternative stress

Graph Fatigue Sensitivity
Alternating Stress MPa Cycles Mean Stress MPa

3999 10 0
2827 20 0
1896 50 0
1413 100 0
1069 200 0
441 2000 0
262 10000 0
214 20000 0
138 1.e+005 0
114 2.e+005 0
86.2 1.e+006
Table SN- Curve
114 2.e+005 0
86.2 1.e+006 0
Our Alternative strength
Discussion
Before optimization mass of the part body = 1.1163 Kg
After Optimization mass of the part body = 1.2296 Kg

Average = 0.113grms of weight has been Increased &

Alternative stress Before optimization mass of the part body = 184.59 MPa
Alternative stress After optimization mass of the part body = 113.28 MPa
 Hence the part body optimized was successfully designed to reduce the stress factor only by increasing the
mass to a 113 grms.
 The part body with optimized parameter will be feasible to fabricate then the parent section.
 In next iteration two materials will be compared with the optimized part body, to know variation of strength
with respect to material physical property.
Iteration 4 Material Comparison

Material 1 A2 Tool Steel
Bounding Box
Length X 25. mm
Length Y 112.5 mm
Length Z 109.95 mm
Properties
Mass 1.2312 kg
Table geometry property
Results
0. mm 0.4477 MPa 2.3553e-006 mm/mm
Minimum
Table Overall Result
Figure a. Boundary Condition b. Total Deformation c. Strain d. Stress

Alternative stress = 112.86
114 2.e+005 0
86.2 1.e+006 0

Material 2 Stainless steel

Bounding Box
Length X 25. mm
Length Y 112.5 mm
Length Z 109.95 mm
Properties
Mass 1.2531 kg
Table geometry property
Results
0. mm 0.46241 MPa 2.8672e-006 mm/mm
Minimum
Table Overall Result
Figure a. Boundary Condition b. Total Deformation c. Strain d. Stress

Alternative stress = 113.45 Mpa
114 2.e+005 0
86.2 1.e+006 0

4. CONCLUSIONS
FEA Static Structural Analysis had been successfully conducted on the Engine Mount bracket for the self-load
condition, to investigate the stress concentration factor & vibrational modes of frequency for a defined boundary
condition. Finally, all the results were observed and noted down.
In first iteration the proposed modal was solved for the Static condition, stress and deformation factors were more
so on the Blade for an applied boundary Condition, so optimization strategy was used to reduce the Stress and also
to maintain equalized Mass.
After 1st optimization redesign was made, by Editing the geometry and then solved for the same. This time
deformation and stress factor were brought to minimum by conducting topology method.
Material Comparison For final designed part of Blade, Material comparison was Made to investigate the stress
factors for A2 Tool steel & Stainless-steel Alloy, Hence the solution was optimum as expected.
The following result table explains the FEA modulation for designed, optimized part of engine mount bracket.
Table of Result
Sl No Material Type of Deformation Strain Stress in Mass of
State In mm MPa part body
in Kg
1. Structural Static 0.00482 1.07e-3 184.59 1.1163
Steel Structural
Analysis
2. Structural After 0.002501 5.66e-4 113.28 1.2296
steel Redesign
part
3. A2 tool After 0.002374 5.373-4 112.86 1.2312
Steel Redesign
part
4. Stain-less After 0.002549 5.87e-4 113.45 1.2531
steel Redesign
part
Table 7.1 overall result column
Structural steel is low cost, high strength material for cutting plastics with the shredder machine.
6. REFERENCES
[1]. Joseph Y. Ko, 2002, “Paper Shredding Device”, US 6390397 B1.

[2]. Frank Chang, 2000, “Blade Assembly For Paper Shredder”, US 6089482, BO2C 18/06, BO2C 18/18.
[3]. Gu-Ming Zeng, 2006, “Blade of Paper Shredder”, US 2008/0040934A1.
[4]. Li-Ming Wu Huang, 2002, Taipei (TW), “Blade Of Paper Shredder”, 6390400B1.
[5]. Ming-Hui Ho, 2003, Taipei Shein, “Blade Of Paper Shredder”, 6513740B2.
[6]. S Nithyananth, Nithin Mathew, Libin Samuel, S Suraj, 2014, “Design Of Waste Shredder Machine”, ISSN:
2248-9622, Vol. 4, Issue 3( Version 1), March 2014, pp.487-491.
[7]. Emily Lo, 2010, Taipei Shein (TW), “Paper Shredder Blade”, 7748656B1.

[8]. Tsai, 2000, Taiwan, “Dual Function Shredder”, 6065696, App. No.-09/320948.
[9]. Bruce R. Kroger, Raymond R. Ferriss, 2001, “Paper Shredder Shaft”, 6260780B1.
[10]. Frank Chang, 2001, Taipei, “Gear Protection Device Of A Paper”, 6325309B1.
[11]. Emily Lo, 2008, Taipei Shiepei (TW), “Blade For Paper Shredder Cutting Tool”, 7328867B1.
[12]. Simon Hunag, 2006, San Chung (TW), “Elliptical Acetabuliform Blade For Shredder”, 6981667B2, App.
No. 10/682198.
[13]. Frank Chang, 2005, Taipei (TW), “Linkage Mechanism Of Paper Cut And Antiblock Of Double Duty
Shredder”, 6966513B2.
View publication stats

P37 Ijariie

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

P37 Ijariie

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P37 Ijariie

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

FEA AND DESIGN MODIFICATION OF SHREDDER BLADE USED FOR RECYCLING

C.M. Sedani Mr Sudarshan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FEA AND DESIGN MODIFICATION OF

1.1 Aim and Purpose

17154 www.ijariie.com 3104

1.2 Problem Statement

 Minimum vibration level

17154 www.ijariie.com 3105

PROPERTY METRIC UNITS ENGLISH UNITS

Density 952 - 965 kg/m^3 00.344 - lb/ft^3

Yield Strength 2.62e7 - 3.1e7 Pa 3.8 - 4.5 ksi

Tensile Strength 2.21e7 - 3.1e7 Pa 3.21 - 4.5 ksi

Elongation 11.2 - 12.9 % strain 1.12e3 - % strain

Hardness (Vickers) 7.75e7 - Pa 7.9 - 9.9 HV

Impact Strength (un- 1.9e5 - 2e5 J/m^2 90.4 - 95.2 ft.lbf/in^2

Fracture Toughness 1.52e6 - Pa/m^0.5 1.38 - 1.66 ksi/in^0.5

Young's Modulus 1.07e9 - Pa 0.155 - 0.158 10^6 psi

Max Service Temperature 113 - 129 °C 235 - 264 °F

Melting Temperature 130 - 137 °C 266 - 279 °F

Insulator or Conductor Insulator Insulator

Specific Heat Capability 1.75e3 - J/kg °C 0.418 - 0.432 BTU/lb.

Thermal Expansion 1.06e-4 - strain/°C 59 - 110 µstrain/°F

17154 www.ijariie.com 3106

Table 5.1 properties of cutting waste

2.1 Equations required to calculate the cutting force for blade.

Properties Metric Imperial

Density 7.86 g/cm3 0.284 lb/in3

Melting point 1424°C 2595°F

Properties Metric Imperial

Hardness, Rockwell C (as air-hardened (63-65 HRC

Bulk modulus (typical for steels) 140 GPa 20300 ksi

Machinability (based on carbon tool steel) 65% 65%

17154 www.ijariie.com 3107

Shear modulus 78.0 GPa 11300 ksi

Poisson's ratio 0.27-0.30 0.27-0.30

Elastic modulus 190-210 GPa 27557-30457 ksi

Table 5.2 Properties of A2 tool Steel

Material 2 Stainless steel

Figure 6.2 Geometry Importation

17154 www.ijariie.com 3108

Material – Structural Steel

Table 6.1 Material Properties Structural steel

17154 www.ijariie.com 3109

Figure 6.3 Mesh Creation on 3D part body

17154 www.ijariie.com 3110

Graph Rotational velocity

17154 www.ijariie.com 3111

Figure 6.4 Boundary Condition

17154 www.ijariie.com 3112

Figure 6.5 Total Deformation

Result Von-Misses Stress

17154 www.ijariie.com 3113

Figure 6.6 Result Von-Misses Stress

Time [s] Minimum [mm/mm] Maximum [mm/mm] Average [mm/mm]

Figure 6.7 Result Von-Misses Strain