Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact.

Printed in Great Britain

Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 343-365, 1993.

0890--6955/9356.00 + .00
~ 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd

DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TYPES OF DRILL A N D

E V A L U A T I O N OF THEIR P E R F O R M A N C E DRILLING CAST
I R O N - - I I . DRILLS WITH T H R E E MAJOR CUTTING E D G E S
JOHN S. AGAPIOUI"
(Received 20 September 1991; in final form 1 July 1992)
Abstract--This paper evaluates the performance of a new type of twist drill that is characterized by three
flutes, three major cutting edges, and either three or no chisel edges. The potential of this new drill in
significantly improving drilling accuracy and productivity is presented. It is shown that the new drifts produce
better holes than the two-flute ordinary drills, but not as good as the four-flute drill discussed in Part I (J.
S. AG~anou, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 33, 321-341 (1993)). The body, point geometry and the cutting
characteristics of three-flute drills are described and analyzed. The hole location, angularity, size and
roundness errors, chip morphology, as well as the cutting forces when drilling into cast iron material, are
evaluated. The deflection and vibration for the three-flute drills are drastically smaller than those for twoflute drills, especially in the presence of interrupted cutting.

NOMENCLATURE
a

[~]
[Ul-'

Lc
K
Kt

r~
Rl

2W
(If
~n

0
,ff

(x,y ,z )

(x,Y,Z)

major axis of an ellipse

minor axis of an ellipse
direction cosines matrix
inverse of direction cosines matrix [H]
length of chisel edge
half-point angle of a drill
half-point angle of a chisel edge
radius of an ellipse at an angle 4~
corner radius of a grinding wheel
web thickness
side relief angle at the cutting edge
normal relief angle at the cutting edge
orthogonai relief angle at the cutting edge
normal rake angle
heel (notch) angle
represents a plane
chisel angle for the straight cutting edge segment
chisel angle for a point i along the curved cutting edge segment
coordinate axes at center O1 on plane ~rt
coordinate axes with the Z drill axis
1. INTRODUCTION

A NEW carbide drill design with f o u r flutes was discussed in Part I [1]. T h e advantages
of going f r o m the o r d i n a r y two-flute drills to a four-flute carbide drill and the cutting
characteristics of the latter were presented. R e a m e d quality holes were o b t a i n e d by
drilling with the four-flute carbide drill. R e s e a r c h on the two-flute drill b o d y [ 2 - 6 ] ,
point g e o m e t r y [ 7 - 9 ] , optimization and the evaluation o r elimination o f its chisel edge
[ 1 0 - 1 3 ] , have b e e n carried out in o r d e r to i m p r o v e its p e r f o r m a n c e . H o w e v e r , a
n u m b e r o f cutting characteristics for the three-flute H S S conical drill point design were
evaluated very recently [14, 15]; holes with g o o d roundness, eccentricity, straightness
and cylindricity w e r e drilled b e c a u s e the whirling vibration frequently associated with
two-flute drills did n o t occur with the three-flute drill. T h e chisel edge g e o m e t r y
r e q u i r e m e n t s for a carbide point are different to those of an H S S point, because of
the differences in the material characteristics. Various m e t h o d s to r e d u c e the thick

TMachining Systems Department, Advanced Engineering Staff, General Motors Technical Center, Warren,
MI 48090-9040, U.S.A.
343

344

J . S . AGAPIOU

web of a three-flute carbide drill and to overcome the problems surrounding the chisel
edge thus need to be examined. In addition, some drilling process characteristics are
altered while changing the tool body material from HSS to carbide. Finally, solid
carbide drills tend to close the gap between the assumed rough drilling operation with
HSS drills and the precision reaming operation. The potential of the solid carbide drills
is currently in its infancy and a considerable research and development effort is needed
to properly identify their capabilities and limitations.
The objective of this study is to investigate the cutting characteristics of solid carbide
head three-flute drills. Four different three-flute drill designs were evaluated. Two of
the drills had three chisel edges, while the other two had an inverted point at the
center that eliminates the chisel edges. All drills were ground with the plane flank
(planar) point. The features of the four drills are described and the operating conditions
and tool geometry are related to the geometrical and surface characteristics of the
hole. The chisel edges generated by the web thinning process are analyzed, and the
two main conflicting parameters, adequate flute area for efficient chip disposal and
high drill rigidity to reduce its deflection and increase its stability, are considered since
they are critical for the design of the multiflute drill. The thrust, torque, and transverse
forces are also measured and examined, while the thrust and torque signals are additionally modelled. The drilled hole quality is expressed in terms of the dimensional errors
(on location, angularity, size, and roundness) while incorporating an interrupted cut
during drilling by introducing cross holes. The results of this study show that these
new drills can generate accurate holes that may completely eliminate the need for
reaming operations.
2.

G E O M E T R Y OF NEW DRILLS

A diagram of the new-type carbide head three-flute drills is given in Fig. 1, while
the four end-point and body configurations, designated as drills (a), (b), (c) and (d),
are shown in Fig. 2. This design is a compromise between the two-flute and four-flute
drills [1]. These drills incorporated two different cross-sections, namely types I and II
presented in Fig. 3. All drills had a 112 mm long carbide head (made of micro-grain
carbide material) with a 76 mm flute length that was brazed to the steel shank. Higher
cutting speeds and drill body rigidity were obtained with the solid carbide head drill
than with the HSS drills. A carbide head becomes a requirement at higher speeds for
the three-flute drills since no method currently exists to make them with carbide tips,
as has been the practice with some two-flute drills. The overall length and the steel
shank diameter were similar to those for the four-flute drill [1]. The three-flute drills
had a 5.0 mm diameter coolant hole along their axis split into three holes that break
through on the flank surfaces of the drill point. The three polished parabolic-shaped
flutes were symmetric at 120 apart.
The stiffness of the three-flute drill in both principal directions is the same because
the principal area moments of inertia are equal. Generally, the inscribed circle diameter
of the flute cross-section is the critical design parameter since the drill chip has a

:-:-::

, . _

F~G. 1. Diagram of the three-flute drill body.

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

~!i ~i~

345

!~ii
~i~i~'

FIG. 2. Multifacet three-flute drills: (a) type I with three-facet chisel edge; (b) type II with three-facet chisel
edge; (c) type I inverted; and (d) type II inverted.
conical shape. Type I drills were made with an approximately cylindrical flute shape.
The generation of short chips with gray cast iron material allowed us to deviate to an
S-shape flute cross-section on type II drills. The inscribed diameter of the circle normal
to the drill's axis was 6.1 mm and 4.1 ram, respectively for drill types I and II with a
resulting drill core (web) diameter behind the end point equaling 8.73 mm and
12.73 mm, respectively.
The land width (measured perpendicular to the helix) is also an important parameter
for the flute disposal capacity and the drill stiffness. The land width was 11.2 mm and
5.0 mm respectively for drill types I and II. The shape of the flute of drill type I was
optimized so that the inscribed circle was more or less a tangent to the drill radius
ending at the two intersections the flute forms with the drill periphery and the web of
the drill body. A comparison of the three-flute drill with the two- and four-flute drills
(described in Part I) with respect to the area moments of inertia in both principal
directions is given in Table 1 (the ratio Af represents the ratio of the flute area over
the drill diameter area).
The coolant hole through the drill's center has a negligible effect on the area moments
of inertia. Both types I and II three-flute drills have similar area moments of inertia,
which are about 3 - 5 % lower than that for the four-flute drill. However, the threeand four-flute drills are significantly stiffer, having a higher torsional stiffness and
bending strength than the two-flute drill.
Although there are various point styles (conical, two-facet, four-facet, helical etc.)
used on two-flute drills, the conical and planar (three-facet chisel) points are the only

346

J . S . AGAPIOU

FIG. 3. Cross-sections of the three-flute drills: (a) type I; (b) type II.
TAm.E 1. COMPAmSONOF ~

UOMEm" OF INEm1A SErWEEN TWO-, ral~EE-, AND FOUR-VLUrE

DRILLS

Number of
flutes
2
3(1)
3(II)
4

Web
diameter
(mm)

Land
width
(mm)

Inscribed
circle
diameter
(ram)

7
8.73
12.73
11.5

10.4
11.2
5.0
5.2

6.96
6.1
4.1
5.0

Moments of
inertia
Ratio
At
0.45
0.40
0.36
0.40

Principal Directions
I
II
5180
4100
4005
4239

1224
4100
4005
4239

ones that can be generated on three-flute drills because of the odd number of cutting
edges. A planar point (plane flank drill) was ground on all four three-flute drills. The
three-facet chisel point was obtained on drills (a) and (b) and it is defined by the
intersection of the three primary facets (one on each cutting edge) at the center of
the drill that generates the three chisel edges shown in Figs 4 and 5. Using the
conventional definition, the aforementioned drills in Fig. 2 are considered as multifacet
drills (i.e. drill (a) has five facets on each flank surface while drill (c) has seven facets).
The flank surface of a three-flute drill with three-facet chisel is similar to that of a
two-facet two-flute drill. However, a three-flute drill's center configuration is significantly different to that of a two-flute drill. A two-flute drill has one chisel edge that
is a function of the point angle and primary relief angle. The chisel angle generated
between the chisel edge and the primary cutting edge, t~, for a two-flute drill is:
tan an/
= 90 + arctan \ cos K /

(1)

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

347

Drill (a)

THREE FLUTE I - - T H R E E FACET CHISEL

ur

)--

tting Edge
"

Secondary Cutting

Edge

THREE FLUTE II - THREE FACET CHISEL

FIG.

4. Diagram of the first family drill points showing their features: drill (a) and drill (b).

where tn and z are the normal relief angle and the drill's half-point angle, respectively.
In this case, the chisel edge length, Lc, in the plane perpendicular to axis is:

L~ = 2__W_W~/tan%t.+ COS2K

(2)

cos K

where 2W is the web thickness at the point.

On the other hand, the three-facet chisel point generates three chisel edges on a
three-flute drill; its web (core diameter) at the point is a large percentage (usually
about 40%) of the drill's diameter. These chisel edges do not provide a good cutting
action owing to their large negative rake angle; they actually deform the material and
push it outward into the flutes and require an excessive amount of thrust to penetrate
into the workpiece. This is considered a major disadvantage of the three-facet chisel.
The three main approaches to overcome the problems of the chisel edge are:
(1) reduce the chisel edge length by thinning or splitting the drill point; (2) change
the shape of the chisel edge to improve its cutting action; and (3) eliminate the chisel
edge altogether. The second approach has been found to be very effective on twoflute drills, but it is not applicable to three-flute drills. Therefore, the first and third
approaches were used in the present investigation and are represented by two different
families of drills. Each family incorporated both type I and II cross-sections. Two
different points were ground in each family (see Fig. 2). Drills (a) and (b) belong to

348

J.S. AOAFIOU

(a)

(b)

THREE FLUTE .--THREE FACET CHISEL

FIo. 5. Configuration of the first family drill points: (a) traces of planes for drill (a); (b) central portion
(chisel edge) for drills (a) and (b).

the first family while drills (c) and (d) belong to the second family. The most pronounced difference between the two families is the point configuration since the chisel
edges were eliminated in the second family. A diagram for each drill point of the first
family is provided in Fig. 4 and a detailed description of all four types is given in Table
2.
The drills in the first family were web-thinned in order to reduce the chisel edge
length, drill walking and the thrust requirements. Conventional and notched webthinning configurations can be used, but the latter creates a secondary cutting edge
along the primary lip next to the chisel edge. The split point, a type of notched, webthinning, extends its secondary edge almost to the center of the drill and eliminates

349

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

TABLE 2. THREE-FLUTE DRILL GEOMETRIES
Drills

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Parameters

Type I

Type II

Type I

Type II

Body diameter at point ( m m )

N o r m a l relief angle ( a , )
primary
secondary
W h e e l radius, Rt ( m m )
W h e e l included angle
Notch/heel angle
Notch rake
Helix angle
Chisel angle
*s
*A
Drill point, 2 K
Half chisel edge point, xl
Chisel edge length, L , (ram)
W e b diameter at point ( m m )
Margin width ( m m )
L a n d width ( m m )

20.93

20.93

20.93

20.93

10
25-30
0.64
90
35
0.
20

10
25-30
1.04
90
35
0.
15

10.
25-30
0.64
70
45
0.
15

10
25-30
1.04
70
45
0.
12

150"
96*
140"
78*
0.556
1.22
1.4
11.2

149
94*
135"
76
0.973
1.89
1.5
5.0

--150"/130"

-150"

1.4
11.2

1.5
5.0

all or most of the chisel edge while it reduces the drill thrust by up to a third and
significantly improves its centering ability. The split point (which is similar to the
notched web-thinning in Refs [14, 15] on three-flute HSS drills) is weak when ground
on carbide drills and it was found to be susceptible to failure when used for drilling
steel and cast iron materials.
Both drills in the first family were therefore web-thinned using the notched configuration, extended to the center of the drill by a distance of about 3% of the diameter,
while the secondary cutting edge was ground along the whole flute for drill (a) and
for a distance of about two-thirds the drill's diameter for drill (b). This notch configuration basically gashes the point while shifting the cutting action out along a radius of
the drill by grinding a secondary cutting edge along the radius. The notch point is
generated with a radiused grinding wheel having a corner radius RI (see Fig. 5(a)).
The heel angle 0 of the notch point is represented by the direction of grinding to the
drill's centerline.
The primary facet, denoted by plane ~1, and the other four surfaces, 92, ~3, "~4 and
~s, ground on the flank face of drill (a), are depicted in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The notch
web-thinning generates the surface ~5, the radius R1 and the rake face on the flute.
Figure 6 is a detailed diagram of the drill's web configuration where O and O1 are the
centers of the drill and wheel radius R1, respectively. The wheel side plane, which
generates the secondary cutting edge, is positioned along a radius of the drill (see
Figs 4 drill (b), and 5(a)). The primary cutting edge is generated during the fluting
of the drill. This notching configuration generates a radial curved cutting edge, AD,
next to the chisel edge. The shorter length chisel edge, (OA), is generated along the
line OO1, which meets the cutting edge at the root of the notched radius (point A).
The orientation of the three chisel edges to some feature on the drill will be a function
of the half-point angle and the relief angle at the cutting edge. The three chisel edges
do not necessarily have to fall on line OO1. Therefore, the objective is to notch a
three-flute drill so that line OO1 coincides with the chisel edge OA.
Using the construction, Fig. 6, in which the cutting edge OD passes through the
center and the chisel edge OA is generated (based on the drill point angle and the
side relief angle), it can be shown that the half-point angle K1 (the included angle
between the chisel edge and the drill axis) is:

350

J . S . AoArlou

y.- \ \/;.,
/

'I

\\../\ //)~" ~" ..... . . .i . .~. . .~.

'E

'N

\-,~.,

~7 ,/"
Y~

Fro. 6. Chisel edge geometry for drills (a) and (b).

(3)

tan K1 = X/(cot2K + tan2af) .

However, angle K1 should be equal to the included angle Ki between the line OO1
and the drill axis in order for the chisel edge OA to coincide with line OO1. The
radius Rx of the grinding wheel and/or the approach distance (OD) (see Appendix)
can be adjusted so that Ki = K1. The variation of Ki as a function of wheel radius R1
is obtained based on what the proper radius R1 is, which is selected so that Ki = K1.
The secondary cutting edge consists of a straight segment and an elliptical segment.
The straight segment, DE, lies along the drill's radius while the elliptical segment,
AD, is located between the straight portion and the chisel edge. The secondary cutting
edge can be ground along the whole primary drill lip in which case the cutting edge
consists of two segments; otherwise it consists of three segments namely the primary,
secondary and the elliptical segments. The shape of the primary segment depends on
the point angle, helix angle and the flute contour and it is located from the outer
corner of the drill to the secondary segment.
The chisel angle for the straight segment of the secondary cutting edge DE is:

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

351

Os = 1800 - v

(4)

while for any point i along the elliptical segment of the cutting edge (i.e. 6i = 6 when
i -- A, see Fig. 6) is:
tl/i -~" 9 0 0 - - Pi

(5)

where v and p are defined in the Appendix by equations (A.9) and (A.11), respectively.
The true length of the chisel edge OA is:
L =

R1

c o s , b COS(an -- ' t n )

(6)

r,.

The analysis for relief angle along the elliptical segment of the cutting edge is also
presented in the Appendix. The chisel edge length and the relief angle increase when
the secondary cutting edge is ground above center (ahead of the drill radius as per
traditional drills) while the opposite response is obtained when the secondary cutting
edge is ground below center (behind the drill radius). However, a short chisel edge
and a large relief angle are desirable. By having the secondary cutting edge lying on
a line through the drill's center, a satisfactory compromise is obtained for the magnitude
of the chisel edge and the relief angle. The three chisel edges (midpoint geometry)
120" apart meeting at the drill's center are the edges of an equilateral triangular pyramid
with outside walls in the form of three triangles (generating the three-facet chisel) that
meet in a point at the top (see Fig. 5(b)). The effective chisel edge (or web) radius
is equal to Lc sin K1. All three chisel edges are of equal length and have an included
angle gl (half-chisel edge point angle) with the drill's axis (see equation (A.17) in the
Appendix). A comparison of the chisel geometry for a two-facet two-flute drill and a
three-facet three-flute drill is given in Table 3.
The angle zl (generated by line OO1 and the drill axis) as a function of wheel radius
R~ is shown in Fig. 7 using the three-flute drill (a) in Table 2. The half-point angle
for the chisel edge, zl, is obtained from equation 3 to be 78.4* using K = 70* and
or, = 10". The wheel radius R1 = 0.7 mm is selected from Fig. 7 to satisfy the condition
zl = K~ and so the chisel edge intercepts the cutting edge at the root of the notched
radius (point A).
Figure 8 shows the increase in OtnA and Ki by increasing a,; at the same time,
insignificant variations were found in the chisel angle and the chisel edge length. These
results were obtained for a drill with K = 70 and 0 = 35.
An increase in the heel angle resulted in a reduction of the chisel angle at point A
TABLE 3. A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO- AND THREE-FACET CHISEL EDGE
GEOMETRY

Parameters
Drill point, 2K
Relief angle, a n
Notch/heel angle
Notch rake
Distance (OD) (mm)
Wheel radius, Ra (mm)
Chisel edge length, Lc (mm)
Web diameter at point (mm)
Relief angle at point A, a . ^
Chisel angle
,.

~^
Chisel edge point angle, Kt

Two-facet
two-flute

Three-facet
three-flute

135
10
35
lY
1.96
1.89
10

135
10
35
00
1.78
1.04
0.973
1.89
19

115

149"
96*
77*

90*

352

J . S . AGAPiOU
86

84

82

80

78

76

0
74

72
0.2

I
0.4

I
0.6

I
0.8

I
1.0

I
1.2

t
1.4

1.6

Grinding w h e e l radius R 1 ( m m )
FIG. 7. Calculated values of angle K~ for various grinding wheel radii, R~.

24
o

f f

-BO

22

o
o

t~
o

"z

o"

2C

e~
at

CtnA

J f

~' 1

-- 78

.!
O

O
~m
o

~O

?
a

14

I
8

I
12

I
14

16

R e l i e f a n g l e , or. ( d e g r e e s )
FIG. 8. Calculated values of relief angle at A , ct~A, and chisel edge point angle for various relief angles, ct,.

as illustrated in Fig. 9; the chisel half-point angle and the length of the chisel edge are
not affected by this variation of the heel angle evaluated for a drill with K = 70 and
Ctn = 10 .
The response of the relief angle and the chisel angle along the elliptical portion of
the cutting edge is represented as a function of the angle tt, (which is a design variable,
see equation (A.3)) in Fig. 10. The relief angle increased while the chisel angle
decreased along the elliptical segment as d~ increased.
The characteristics of the first family of drills, (a) and (b), are specified in Table
2. Both drill types had almost the same point geometry and even the gashing was the
same. However, drill (b) with type II cross-section had a 4.7 mm x 45 corner chamfer
as compared to the 1.5 mm x 45 for drill (a) with type I cross-section. The secondary

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

353

104

102

g 100
r~
u
.
-3-

e,

98

96

"6
to

94

92

90
26

28

30

32

34

36

38

1.

40

42

46

44

Heel angle, 0 (degrees)

FIG. 9.

Calculated values of chisel angle at A for various heel angles.

20

140
%.

18

% %

130

/
~.. xr-

12o ~

14-

no

o~

ro

i00

12

10

20

30

4o

5o

~0

60

Included angle, ~t (degrees)

FIG. 10. The values of relief angle and chisel angle along the elliptical cutting edge segment.

cutting edge was generated along the whole drill radius on drill (a) and for 6.83 mm
from the drill's center on drill (b).
The third major direction followed by drill manufacturers in recent years was the
shift toward non-chisel edge drill point geometries. The second family of drills, (c)
and (d), incorporated this approach. The characteristics of these drills are given in
Table 2 while their point geometries are shown in Fig. 11(a). The drill point is sometimes
called an inverted point because of the inversion of the cutting edge's point angle near
the drill's center that splits the cutting edges in two segments. The outer segment has
a half-point angle, K, less than 90, while this angle for the inner segment is greater
than 90 .
The cutting edges of drill (c) consisted of four straight segments with a half-point
angle of 125 , 105 , 65 , and 45 from the center to the outer comer, respectively (see
33:3-0

354

J. S. AoAJ'Iou

Drill (c)

o.;mm
Drill (d)

FIG. ll(a). Diagram of the second family drill points showing their features.

,~,~ . -- ~ _ ~ j / , , , , , , P

"-

z.~

VERYSMAL L

=---- 0.23 mm

CUTTING EDGE

FIG. ll(b). Configuration of the central portion (chisel edge) for drills (c) and (d). A patent is pending for
this configuration.

Fig. 11(a)). The transition from the 65 to 105 half-point angle was very sharp. A
large portion of the cutting edge was generated by the intersection of adjacent flute
gashing at 45 notch angle. The cutting edge was ground at 0.223 mm behind center,
which generates a radial curved section of 0.25 mm length, between the drill center
and the straight segment, and eliminates the chisel edge (or dead center). The center
region of this drill is shown in Fig. 11(b).
On the other hand, three segments were ground on the cutting edges of drill (d);
the inner straight segment with K = 125 was connected to the outer straight segment
with K = 65 by a 2 mm radius as shown in Fig. 11(a). This radial segment improved
the transition between the two straight segments of the cutting edge at the inversion
location that tended to increase the drill stability at higher speeds. Each cutting edge
was ground along a radius through the drill center, as for drills (a) and (b), leaving
a small dead center (of 0.5 mm diameter). The flute was gashed at 45 .

355

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

3. EXPERIMENTALPROCEDURE

The same specimen plates (250 x 152 x 50 mm 3) used for the tests discussed in Part
I (made of Class 30-35 gray cast iron material with hardness in the range of 150-255
BHN) were also used here. Four different test specimen configurations were used and
three of them had cross holes designated as types A, B and C (see Fig. 7 in Part I
[1]) to simulate an interrupted cut. The drilling tests were conducted on a Scharmann
(Solon II) horizontal machining center and the Kistler type 9273 four-component
piezoelectric drill dynamometer was used to measure the drill's thrust, torque and
transverse forces in the X and Y directions (as in Part I).
The four three-flute drills analyzed in the previous section were evaluated at speeds
and feeds in the ranges of 45-122 m/rain and 0.15-0.46 mm/rev, respectively. However,
most of the tests took place at 76 m/min cutting speed and 0.3 mm/rev feed. Throughthe-spindle coolant at 1100 kPa pressure was used with all the drills. The tests were
conducted using a synthetic coolant (Van Straaten) at a concentration of about 10%.
Thirty-two through-holes were drilled in each test sample and the hole location,
angularity, size and out-of-roundness errors were measured in the same manner as in
Part I. The three workpiece configurations with the cross holes were used equally
during the tests. The thrust, torque, and X and Y transverse forces were also measured
at various combinations of cutting speed and feed; three or more holes were drilled
at each condition.
4. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
A comparison of the hole location error for all four drills was based on the average
and three standard deviations of the error and is shown in Fig. 12. Each datum point
is an average of at least 192 holes and the majority of these tests were conducted at
76 m/min and 0.3 mm/rev. The first family of drills (a) and (b) (with three chisel
edges) performed generally better than the second family of drills (without chisel
edges). The holes made with type I cross-section drills (a) and (c) in workpiece
configuration type C were not as good as the holes made in the type A and B
workpieces. The location error did not vary significantly in the different workpiece
configurations for the hole made with type II cross-section drills. The performance of
all the drills in solid materials was equal to that in the type A workpiece configuration.
Drill (c) tended to chatter when it was new for the first 80-120 holes at cutting
speeds higher than 50 m/rain; this instability phenomenon was attributed to the sharp
0.15

Workpiece
oA
RB

oc

0.10

u
e~
O
~
iiI

0.05

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

D r ill type

FiG. 12. Hole location error for the differentdrill types and workpiece configurationsA, B and C.

356

J . S . AGAPIOU
0.15
Workpiece
A
mB

oC
~" O.lO
..m

o.05

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Drill type
FIG. 13. Hole angularity error for the different drill types and workpiece configurations A, B and C.

transition of the inversion at the cutting edge and was eliminated in drill (d) ground
with a very generous radial segment at the inversion location. This instability increased
with lip height error of the cutting edges and it was eliminated when the lip height
error was kept below 0.01 ram.
The angularity error is compared in Fig. 13 for all four drills tested in the three
workpiece configurations. No significant error variation was observed between the four
drills. The lowest error holes were produced in the workpiece configuration B, while
the most inferior result was obtained with the workpiece configuration C and was as
high as 0.0019 mm per mm of depth. The results from type A and C workpiece
configurations were comparable and in these workpieces, the center of the cross hole
was away from the center of the drilled hole (or drill axis). Again, the angularity error
for drill (c) progressively decreased to a plateau level when the first 100-140 holes
were made after starting with a new drill.
A comparison of the hole oversize at the entrance and exit of the holes for the four
drills is presented in Fig. 14 for workpiece configuration C. Similar results were obtained
0.20
Entrance
Exit

0.15

.~ o.lo

tt tt

Q
0

_u
o.o5
0
I11

-0.05

(It)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Drill type
FIG. 14. Hole size error for the different drill types and workpiece configuration C.

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

357

O.tO0

t3 E n t r a n c e
..,

o Middle

0.075

Exit
(+/-)3

SD

Ct

g~ 0.050

?
o
o.o25

I
200

100

300

Number of holes

400

500

FxG. 15. Hole roundness variation obtained from drill (a) and workpiece configuration C.

from type A and B workpiece configurations. The lowest error was obtained with the
first family of drills (a) and (b). The oversize error of the second family of drills (c)
and (d) is due to the inaccuracy of the inverted point; their variations were as low as
that for the other drills, but the hole was greatly enlarged. The lip height error at the
inversion point, which contacts the workpiece surface first, generates an orbiting motion
of the drill. Nevertheless, large oversize errors (as high as 0.15 mm) were observed
with the first family of drills when grinding errors at the three chisel edges were present.
The hole out-of-roundness was at a maximum of 0.063 mm for all four drills for the
holes made in the workpiece configurations A, B, and C. Figure 15 shows the variation
of the roundness error for drill (a) (measured on a Coordinate Measuring Machine)
and similar responses were also obtained with the other three drills. The roundness
error, measured in the Talyrond instrument, when drilling solid work material is given
in Table 4 for two cutting conditions. The results were as good as expected from most
finish processes. These drills generated good round holes, especially when their points
were ground accurately with a maximum lip height difference and T.I.R. of 0.013 mm.
The chips produced by all four drill designs, shown in Fig. 16, were always small
resulting in easy ejection from the hole with the pressurized coolant. The web-thinning
was extended from two-thirds to the full radius to assure that the chips flowed smoothly
up the flutes. In cases where either the notch angle was larger than 45 or the webthinning length was shorter than two-thirds the drill's radius, the chip flow problems
eventually caused the drill to fail by chipping and breaking at the chisel edge area for
TABLE 4. ROUNDNESS EaRoa

Drill type

Speed (m/rain)

Feed (mm/rev)

Roundness (ram)

(a)

76
76

0.30
0.46

0.0109
0.0178

(b)

76
76

0.30
0.46

0.0076
0.0091

(c)

76
76

0.30
0.46

0.0157
0.0021

(d)

76
76

0.30
0,46

0.0132
0.0203

358

J . S . AGAPIOU

FIG. 16. Chips generated by the three-flute drills (actual size).

the first family of drills or at the inversion location on the cutting edge for the second
family of drills.
A comparison of the thrust data for the drills is presented in Fig. 17. The data were
obtained at 76 m/rain and 0.3 mm/rev. The invertable drills (c) and (d) required
80-100% lower thrust than drills (a) and (b) because the former drills, without chisel
edges, eliminate the non-cutting area at the center of the drill present with the latter
drills. The thrust difference between drills (a) and (b) is attributed to the small
difference in their chisel edge geometry since the chisel edge length for drill (b) is
longer than that of drill (a). The percentage of the thrust attributed to the chisel edge
and more specifically to the center drill portion within a 1.2 mm radius was 60-65%
for the first family of drills and 10-15% for the second family of drills.
The torque required for the previous drills is shown in Fig. 18. Drill (b) required
the highest torque while the lowest value was obtained with the inverted drill (c). The
percentage of the torque attributed to the chisel edge and more specifically to the
center drill portion within a 1.2 mm radius was 5-8% for the first family of drills and
2-4% for the second family of drills. Generally, the torque required by all chisel edges
was insignificant.
Mathematical models were formulated for the thrust and torque for all the drills in
15000

1000

500C

I
(a)

I
(b)

I
(c)

I
(d)

Drill type
FIG. 17. Effect of drill point configuration on thrust.

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

359

50

411

I~ 30
o
0

[-,, 20

113

I
(a)

I
(b)

I
(c)

I~
(d)

D r i l l type
I~G. 18. Effect of drill point configuration on torque.
TABLE 5. B~T-Frr PARAMETER VALU~ FOR THE THRUST MODEL (GIVEN
BY EQUATION (5) IN PART I)

Parameters
Drill
type

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

0.903
0.808
1.039
0.907

- 0.054
- 0.066
-+ 0.099
+_ 0.14

KI

0.178 + 0.064
0
0
0

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3

0.9016
2.055
0.7893
0.9932

a similar manner as for the four-flute drill in Part I. The best-fit parameters for the
thrust regression model (given by equation 5 in Part I) for all the three-flute drills are
given in Table 5. The unit of thrust is newtons (N). The cutting speed had an
insignificant effect on the thrust for almost all the drills.
The best-fit parameters of the torque regression model (given by equation 6 in Part
I) for all four three-flute drills are given in Table 6. The units for torque are (N m).
Variation of the cutting speed in the range 45-122 m/min did not affect the torque.
The parameters /(2 and a in these models were very dependent on the chisel edge
geometry of the three-flute drill.
As a result of interrupted cutting, the transverse drill force produces drill deflection.
The location of the cross hole causing the interruption with respect to the drill center
location was very important to the magnitude of deflection for the three-flute drills;
TABLE 6. BEST-Frr PARAMETER VALUES FOR THE TORQUE
MODEL (GIVEN BY EQUATION 6 IN PART 0

Parameters
Drill
type
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

0.712
0.778
0.84
0.909

/(2 x 10 -2

- 0.062
+ 0.027
-+ 0.039
+- 0.24

0
0
0
0

2
2
2
2

89.19
106.82
145.8
122.53

360

J . S . AOAPIOU

their deflection at the interruption was not corrected during their remaining penetration
into solid material below the cross hole. This phenomenon is depicted in Fig. 19(a)
and (b) where the transverse X and Y forces for drill (a) are shown for the workpiece
configuration C and A, respectively. The location of the interception along the hole
is indicated by the drop in the torque signal. The drill deflection is indicated by the
presence of the transverse forces. The transverse forces present at the interruption did
not drop down to zero after the drill passed the cross hole for workpiece configuration
A whereas they did for configuration C. Hence the drill was deflected while travelling
from the cross hole to the exit of the workpiece in that case. The drill deflection in
workpiece configurations B and C was much lower than that for workpiece configuration
A. Similar responses were observed with the remaining drills (b), (c) and (d). This
observation could facilitate the design of interrupted holes with respect to the main
hole so that good hole quality is obtained.
Drills (a) and (b) performed better than (c) and (d) with respect to chatter vibration.
The chatter of the inverted drills was significant especially at the interruption; at the
higher cutting speeds, drill (c) tended to fail. Low chatter was observed with drill (d)
but nevertheless, drills (a) and (b) were more stable. The superior drill stability of
the first family of drills is attributed to its chisel edge geometry when compared to the
non-chisel edge geometry of the second family. The chisel edge itself tends to stabilize
the drill in addition to its high thrust force. Generally, the inaccuracies from grinding
inverted points have a greater impact on drill performance than grinding errors on the
three chisel edges of a three-facet point.

(a)

80
X-transve~ilque 60

52c
390
260
I~ 13(J

Workpie
configuration C

"

(b)

Y-trtnsverse

Torque
el

4c-

z
/"-"~
o~J 2C-~ '

Y-tregt|verle

"~

~./.:.~-

13o-

\
/~

\~'~w
orkpiece

~, 26( ~ 39o520

~J
I

DI2

~-trtn|ver|e
I

3DI2

2D

Depth of hole

FIo. 19. Radial force of drill (a) generatedwith the workpiece configurationsC and A.

Drill Design Characteristics: Part II

361

5. SUMMARY
In this investigation, the design and p e r f o r m a n c e characteristics of a new three-facet
three-flute drill w e r e discussed. T h e design of the three chisel edges o n a three-flute
drill was a n a l y z e d and the m a t h e m a t i c a l equations for the relief, chisel and half-point
angles w e r e derived and c o m p a r e d to those for the chisel edge o f a two-facet two-flute
drill. T h e design o f three-flute drills w i t h o u t chisel edges was also evaluated. F o u r
different drill designs, two o f t h e m with chisel edges and two others without, were
tested o n gray cast iron material while involved in interrupted cutting. T h e chisel edges
r e d u c e d the drill vibration ( o r whirling) w h e n c o m p a r e d to that f r o m the same drills
w i t h o u t chisel edges. O n the o t h e r hand, the chisel edges required a higher a m o u n t
of thrust t h a n that required o f the cutting edges. T h e p e r f o r m a n c e of the drills w i t h o u t
the chisel edge was very sensitive to the lip height error of the cutting edges. H o l e s
with location, angularity, size, and roundness errors o f 0.07 m m , 0.0019 m m p e r m m
of d e p t h , 0.05 ram, and 0.02 m m , respectively, w e r e drilled with these tools in materials
involving i n t e r r u p t e d cutting and even better hole quality was o b t a i n e d w h e n there
was no interruption. T h e thrust and t o r q u e for the drills w e r e estimated t h r o u g h
regression models. T h e i r t o r q u e r e q u i r e m e n t was c o m p a r a b l e to that for o t h e r c o n v e n tional drills. T h e thrust for the first family of drills having a chisel edge was d o u b l e
that r e q u i r e d for o t h e r conventional drill geometries. O n the o t h e r hand, the thrust
o n the inverted point drills was lower than that for m a n y o f the conventional designs,
and significantly lower t h a n that for the first family o f drills.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]
[16]

J. S. AG^PIOtr, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 33, 321-341 (1993).

R. H. Tnozst~Y, A. B. I. EL WArtmsand J. D. MAIDEr~,Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 27, 383 (1987).
T. R. Cn.~DRUPATLAand W. D. WEnsrE~, Proc. Int. MTDR Conf., p. 231 (1985).
U. P. Slr~GHand P. P. MILLER,Ann. C1RP 37, 69 (1988).
K. NARAStMHA,M. O. M. OSMAN,S. CI-L~NDV.ASnEKHARand J. FaAZAO,Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol.
2, 91 (1987).
G. LORENZ,Ann. CIRP 28, 83 (1979).
S. KALDORand E. LENZ, WA/Prod-18, ASME (1981).
S. FUJII, M. F. DEVRIESand S. M. WtJ, Trans A S M E 29, 657 (1970).
R. Hosol and M. A. FOGELSO,Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. 24, 321 (1984).
A. BHA~ACHARX'VA,A. BnAaXACnARVVA,A. B. CHArrE~EE and I. HAM, Trans. A S M E J. Engng Ind.
95, 1073 (1973).
R. A. WILtaAMS,Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res. g, 325 (1970).
R. H. THOm~LEV,A. B. I. EL WArL~Band J. D. M~aOEN,Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 25,589 (1987).
R. H. THOnNL~Y,A. B. I. EL WAnABand J. D. MAIDEN,Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 25,741 (1987).
S. EMA, H. FuJll, E. MARtJIand S. KATO,Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 28, 461 (1988).
S. EMA, H. FuJn and E. Mxl~UI, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 31, 361 (1991).
Geometry of the active part of cutting tools--General terms, reference systems, tool and working
angles. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 3002/1 (1977).
APPENDIX

The geometry of the chisel edge for a three-flute drill is analyzed since it has a significant influence on
drill performance. The chisel edge is defined as the edge formed by the intersection of two adjacent drill
flanks. Web-thinning is accomplished by gashing the core with a radiused grinding wheel of radius R~. The
side of the wheel generates the secondary cutting edge. The drill is inclined at an angle 0 (known as the
heel angle between the drill axis and the wheel linear motion) and setting angle "t, (generating the normal
rake angle at the flute face).
Consider the plane ~ of the primary flank face (facet plane A,, [16]) that is generated based on the
relief angle as shown in Fig. 6. The intersection of this plane with the radiused web-thinning wheel forms
part of an ellipse having semi-axes a and b measured on plane ~r~ such as:
R1
a

c o s ( K - 0)

and

R1
b =cos(or,+ ~t~) "

(A.I)

The line OD is the intersection of the cutting edge with plane ~t. The line, OO~, connects the intersections
of plane ~z with the drill's axis and the center O~ of the grinding wheel radius Rt. The chisel edge OA is
generated when the relief surface ~x is ground. The optimum chisel edge is obtained when the shortest
chisel edge with sufficient relief is ground. Therefore, the objective of the present approach is to use a
notch web-thinning by selecting the grinding wheel radius value R~ so that the line OOt coincides with the
chisel edge OA. (OD) is the approach distance of the wheel from the drill's axis and is considered a design
parameter. The representation of the ellipse in a polar coordinate system on plane ~r~ results in a polar
equation (radial variable r~, where the pole is at the center 0~):

362

J . S . AGAPIOU
a 2 . b2
r~ = a2 . sin2~b+ b2 . cos2~b

(A.2)

and an angular variable ~b (the angle formed between lines OO~ and the minor axis b in plane ~r~):
dp = arctan ( ( O D ) . cos(a,R~+ % ) ) "

(A.3)

The chisel edge length (OA), Lc, is basically a function of the approach distance (OD), the wheel radius
R , the heel angle, and the drill point angle since:
Rt
L~ = (OA) = cos ~b cos(a, + % )

r 4>.

(A.4)

The chisel angle, ~, is constant along the straight portion (segment DE) of the secondary cutting edge while
it varies along the short elliptical segment of the cutting edge A D (next to the chisel edge). The chisel
angle at any point i along the cutting edge is defined as the projection of the angle between the chisel edge
and the tangent to the elliptical cutting edge at point i onto plane ~r; plane ~r (Pp [16]) is perpendicular to
the drill axis. However, the chisel angle measured on plane ~t is equal to:
/' tand?i COS2(K -- 0 ) ~
0* = 900 + ~ + tbt where ~bt = a r c t a n / 2
- ]

cos

(A.5)

(an + %,)

and the chisel angle of the straight secondary cutting edge segment is equivalent to that of the elliptical
segment at the point D (where the elliptical segment is tangent to the straight segment) for ~b~ = 0. bl is
the included angle between the line connecting the point i on the cutting edge with O~ and line OaD. This
chisel angle on plane ~h is transformed onto plane ~r later. The initial set of axes for the ellipse on plane
~r~ is represented in the coordinate system (x,y,z) so that: (1) the x-axis is the ellipse's major axis; (2) the
y-axis is the ellipse's minor axis perpendicular to the straight cutting edge; and (3) the z-axis is perpendicular
to the x and y axes and that it forms a right-handed orthogonal set. The intersection of the major and
minor axes is the origin of the coordinate system. A new coordinate system ( X , Y , Z ) is defined on plane
~r. The former coordinate system is obtained from the latter by means of two successive rotations ~ and
or, about the axes Y and xl and a translation resulting in the systems ( X , Y , Z ) , (xt,y~,z~), (x2,y2,z2) and
(x,y,z) respectively (see Fig. A.1). The relationship between the ( X , Y , Z ) and (x,y,z) coordinate systems
is explicitly expressed by the direction cosines matrix [HI through the following transformation equation:

sin x. sin ~

-cosan.sin~l

cos an
sinan

- sin an " cos ~

cosa,-cos

(A.6)

where xa = (OD), y. = b and ~ = 90 - K.

The equation of the ellipse x 2 cos2(K - 0) + y2, cos2(a, + % ) = R 2 is then expressed in terms of X,
Y and Z as follows:
al

" X2+a2

y2+a3 Z2+a,, X.

Y+a5 X. Z+a6 Y"

Z+~/7

"

X+as Y+a9 Z+a~o=O

(A.7)

Y,9~
i

/
IIC

'- ~ - " -

ROTATION~"~

~ X

- ~ -~"

X1, .)(2

FIG. A.1. Relationship between the coordinate systems (x,y,z) and ( X , Y , Z ) .

Drill D e s i g n Characteristics: Part II

363

where
at = cos2%

c0s201 + sin2%

a 2 = cos20tn ~20tn

a 3 = sin2%

+ cos2%

cos20t

sifl2Ctn

" COS2Ot=,

sin2otn cos2otm

a 4 = sinst sin2~t. cos2a,~

as = sin2~t(cos201 -

sin2o~ cos2a~)

a6----- - - C O S ~ l s i n 2 o t n COS20tnx

a7 = - 2 .

x. cos~t cos20t - 2 y .

sin%

s i n a . cos2ot.,~

as = - 2 y. s i n a . cos2ot,~
a 9 = - 2 x . sin% cos20t + 2 y . costt s i n a . cos2ot,~
a l = X~a . c o s 2 0 1 + y 2 . C o s 2 0 t u x _ R 2

0t = K-- 0 a n d c t , ~ = an + ~ .
The X and Y coordinates are d e t e r m i n e d in t e r m s of the x and y coordinates t h r o u g h the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
equation:

(A.8)

resulting f r o m e q u a t i o n ( A . 6 ) .
T h e chisel angle is, h o w e v e r , defined o n the plane Ir and therefore is obtained by rotating the ( X , Y , Z )
coordinate system by an angle v, which defines the ( X ' , Y ' , Z ' )
coordinate system. T h e angle v is the
projection of angle ( D O O I ) o n t o plane It:

{x}
Z'

o
-

sin

sin v
0

cos v

(A.9)

where
COSP =

2 sin2,

[ s i n 2 K ] --

sin2(Kt -- K)] + 2

COS2(K! -- K) "

[sinaKt -- COS2*] + sin2~ s i n a . sin2(Kt - K)

4 . sin2Ki s i m b - COS(KI -- K)
T h e chisel angle at any point o n the elliptical s e g m e n t of the cutting edge o n plane ", is obtained by
expressing e q u a t i o n ( A . 7 ) in t e r m s of X ' , Y ' a n d Z ' and substituting Z ' = 0 into the resulting equation.
The X ' axis passes t h r o u g h the p o i n t of interest o n the elliptical s e g m e n t and the equation o f the ellipse in
the ( X ' , Y ' Z ' ) coordinate s y s t e m is:

bt " X ' 2 + b 2 "

y , 2 + ba . X , . Y ' + b4 " X ' + bs " Y ' + b6 = O

(A.10)

where
b~ = at cos% + a2 sin2v + a4 sinv cosy
b2 = at sin2v + az cos2v - a4 sinv cosy
b3 = sin2v (a2 - a t ) + a4 cos2v
b4 = a7 cosy
b 5 = a s cosp

+ as sinv
-

a7

sinv.

The included angle g e n e r a t e d by the tangent, at the point of interest o n the elliptical segment, and the
Y' axis is o b t a i n e d by differentiating e q u a t i o n ( A , 1 0 ) with respect to Y' and evaluating the result at
X ' = X . cosy + Y - sinv a n d Y' = Y - cosy - X . sinv yielding:

tanpi =

2"b2" Y'+b3"X'+b
5
2 bt X ' + b3 Y' + b4 "

T h e r e f o r e , the chisel angle o n plane ~r for any point ( X i , Y i ) o n the elliptical edge is:

(A.11)

364

J.S.

,/

AGAPIOU

Trim View
of,Act

Y,

J
" r of
~ P" 0 [

lit

ibXl

I
I

Po

Fro. A.2. Tool-in-hand system of planes on elliptical segment of cutting edge.

#l = 90 - Pi

(A.12)

while on the straight e d g e s e g m e n t it is:

OA = 18(Y) - v .

(A.13)

The orthogonal relief angle ct~ [16] on the elliptical segment AD (see Fig. A.2) is determined by performing
two rotations and a translationof the (X,Y,Z) coordinate system as shown in Fig. A.3. For the rotations
of ~ and E2 = 90 - xt respectively representing the coordinate systems (xa,ya,z3) and (X4,y4,Z4) and a
translation along the x4-axis so that the origin O will coincide with a point i on the cutting edge and the X
axis with the X, axis, as shown in Fig. A.3. The transformation equation between the coordinate systems
(X,Y,Z) and (X~,Yx,Z,) is given by:

I"1.iI
Z 1

-- -- COS g i

-o I'}

" "-.

" COS ~1 -- COS Ki " s i n f.i

(A.14)

The equation (A.7) is defined in the (X~,Yt,Z,) coordinate system and then by substituting X, = 0, the
resulting equation is:
(A.15)

ca l~t + c2 Z~ + ca Y, Z, + c4 " Y, +cs Z, + c e = 0 .

9~,9~ y

Y1

./

/./
|

z, z~ p ~

.L

I
|
|
I
I
I
I
I

Fro. A.3. Relationship between the coordinate systems (Xt,Y,,Z,) and (X,Y,Z).

Drill D e s i g n Characteristics: Part II

365

T h e o r t h o g o n a l relief angle is d e t e r m i n e d by differentiating e q u a t i o n ( A . 1 5 ) to obtain the slope of the

t a n g e n t at a p o i n t of the elliptical s e g m e n t at Y~ = 0 a n d Z t -- 0:
c+
cs

tanetoi=

( A . 16)

where
c4 = as cos~i - a7 s i n ~ + Xto[Sin zi s i n 2 ~ (a2 - a t )
+ a4 s i n s ~

cos2~-

a s COSK~ s i n ~

+ a+ COSKi " COS~,]

c, = -Xto[Sin 2x,(a2 " sinZ,, + at . cos2,, + ~-sin 2 ~ , - a3) + coS 2K,(as . cos ,, + a6 . sin .,)]
-as
Xto=

COS~ =

coSKi

" sin f-i--~7

b - ri cos ~bi
cos e3

" COSKi

and

" coS~i

tan~3=

"Jr" a 9

sinKi

( O D ) - r+ sin 4)+
b - ri cos 4)~

2 - sin2~bi[sin2K+ -- sin2(Ki -- K)] + 2 " COS2(Ki- K)[sin2xt -- COS24),] + sin2~i s i n a . sin2(K i -- K)

4 " sin2Ki sincbi COS(K~- K)

cos Ki = COS 8t " COS 52 -- sin ~1 " sin 52

cos K sin (4)i + 4)

cos 8 t =

~/sin20bi + +4) + cos2i coS20gn

cos 82 --

sin (hi " sin (~b, + ~4) + cos24)i cos a 2

~/sin2((bl + ~ ) + cos2~b, cos2o..

tana~--

cosk~

and

~4=a.

dYt I
tan k~ = ~ , , l
llatXi

1-

dt
= -=
-- O. y l . 0

~2

dt = cos ~ [ s i n xi(2 at + aT) - cos r.i(2 a3 + a~)] - sin ~ ( 2 a 2 + as) +

X~osin 2~i[a+cos xi + a4sin mt] - )(lo as sin 2 ~ cos2~
d2 = Xlo

i n 2 ~ cos 2K~ -- a 4 s i n ~ cos 2 ~ + a+cos 2~. cos K+ -

sin ~+[sin Xi(2 at + aT) - cos ~ ( 2

a 3 "4- ~ 9 ) ]

--

COS i(2 a2 + as)

T h u s , the chisel a n d the relief angles at a n y point o n the elliptical s e g m e n t of the cutting e d g e c a n b e
o b t a i n e d by e q u a t i o n s ( A . 1 2 ) a n d ( A . 1 6 ) . respectively.
T h e drill p o i n t angle p is the i n c l u d e d angle b e t w e e n the cutting e d g e (line O D ) a n d the drill's axis. T h e
point angle Xt g e n e r a t e d b e t w e e n the chisel e d g e O A a n d the drill's axis is:
cos x~ -- cos 83 " cos 84 - sin 52 sin 84
w h e r e 53 = 81 a n d 84 = 52 with ~bi = 4).

(A.17)