To be published in Applied Optics:

Title: Experimental observations on cutting performance of laser assisted diamond

turning of calcium fluoride with different crystal orientations

Authors: Hossein Shahinian,Charan Bodlapati,Di Kang,Jayesh Navare,Robert

Turnbull,Yuxiang Zhong

Accepted: 22 February 21

Posted 23 February 21

DOI: [Link]

© 2021 Optical Society of America

Experimental observations on cutting
performance of laser assisted diamond turning
of calcium fluoride with different crystal
orientations
C HARAN B ODLAPATI , 1 D I K ANG , 1 J AYESH N AVARE , 1 R OBERT
T URNBULL , 1 Y UXIANG Z HONG , 1 AND H OSSEIN S HAHINIAN 1,*
1 Micro-LAM, Inc., 5960 S Sprinkle Road, Portage, MI 49002, USA
* [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: In this paper single point diamond turning (SPDT) of single crystal CaF2 using
µ-LAM process is studied. The paper focuses on how crystal orientation of the workpiece can
influence tool wear and efficiency of the cutting process. Cutting experiments were performed
on single crystal CaF2 with <100>, <111> and <211> crystal orientations. The tool failed at
the smallest cutting distance for <111> crystal orientation whereas the tool failure on <100>
orientation occurred at the longest cutting length. Tool life for cutting the <211> and <111>
crystal orientations was found to be 92% and 67% to that of tool life during cutting <100>
orientation. To explain the results obtained, an anisotropic model based on schmid’s law was
used. It is shown that an inverse correlation between the resistance to plastic deformation and
maximum cutting distance without inducing any brittle fracture can be established.

© 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

1. Introduction
SPDT process has enabled efficient mass production of freeform and aspherical optics. Being a
deterministic process, SPDT is more efficient for mid to large volume optics production than
traditional optical fabrication techniques like grinding and polishing. In a typical SPDT setup,
single crystal diamonds with a defined cutting edge are used as cutting tools. High degree of
vibration isolation and thermal stability coupled with high end optical encoders enable nanometer
level positional repeatability of the machine axes [1–3].
The main limitation of SPDT is the restricted number of machinable materials. Machinability
refers to the ability to achieve ductile material removal without significant tool wear. Initially
SPDT was only used to cut soft metals and plastics, but later diamond turning of single crystal
materials like Ge, Si etc. was investigated [4–6]. Tool wear and brittle fractured zones were
the main problems with SPDT of IR optics like Si and CaF2 [7, 8]. Brittle fractured zones on
surface of optics implicates highly deformed grains beneath the surface which is detrimental to
mechanical and optical performance [9].
CaF2 has up to 90% transmission in both IR and UV wavelength ranges [10]. It has a very
high Abbe number and low dispersion which makes the design of narrow-band laser beam guide
systems with CaF2 optical elements quite feasible. It is particularly well suited for manufacturing
lenses, preproduction lithographic lenses, prisms and mirrors for dark field imaging systems,
large-scale microlithography systems and excimer lasers [11].
Studies on machining different single crystal materials suggest that crystal orientation of the
workpiece material affects shear angle and cutting forces. Single crystal materials like CaF2
exhibit brittle fractured zones on the surface [8]. This behavior is attributed to different crystal
orientations having different cleavage planes [12, 13]. Literature [14–17] also suggest that the
crystallographic structure of CaF2 affects the brittle-ductile transition zone and surface quality
of the machined optic. Degree of priority between slipping deformation or brittle fracture is
determined by crystal orientation. Slipping deformation is the main mechanism to create an
optical surface. [16] has studied the anistropic behavior of the crystal can impact the critical
depth of cut for ductile material removal.
The capability of machining <211> crystal oriented calcium fluoride crystal using the µ-LAM
process was studied in [18]. It was shown that the µ-LAM system can achieve improved form,
cosmetics and promote ductile material removal. This work is focused on building upon the
existing literature and to determine how the laser assisted machining of CaF2 is affected by its
crystallographic properties. The study is specifically focused on how the process responds to
three different crystal orientation of the workpiece material.

2. Previous work
The µ-LAM process uses an IR laser directed at the cutting edge of the tool. The laser delivery
system consists of a series of optics that direct the 1 µm wavelength Nd:YAG laser towards the
tool edge, and is embedded in a custom designed tool post (OPTIMUST+1 ) shown in Figure 1(b).
It is speculated that absorbed laser power thermally softens the material and facilitates ductile
material removal, see Figure 1(a). The localized heating due to laser is limited to an area of <
300 µm × 300 µm, most of the heat absorbed by the material is dissipated through the chips [19].
The tool post consists of a tool holder and an assembly holding the laser delivery optical
system (LDOS). The tool height with respect to the spindle centerline can be adjusted using
a differential screw mechanism embedded in the tool post. The assembly holding the LDOS
comprises of micrometers that allow the alignment of laser beam with respect to the tool edge.

Fig. 1. (a) Overview of µ-LAM process (b) OPTIMUST+1 tool post

The µ-LAM process has proved to enhance the cutting performance of IR materials like Silicon,
Ge and ZnS [19–21]. Machining of single-crystal Si samples using the µ-LAM process exhibited
little to no brittle fracture on the surface and the potential of extending the diamond tooling life
by 150% [19]. Machining germanium using the µ-LAM process produced lower post machining
residual stresses on the surface relative to conventional diamond turning. [20].
In [22], convex sample of single crystal CaF2 was machined to demonstrate a direct comparison
between conventional diamond turning and the µ-LAM process . The form error data is shown
in Figure 2 [22]. The brittle fracture pattern near the center was far more severe when the part
was machined with conventional diamond turning, see Figure 2(a) and 2(b). With conventional
diamond turning, clear defects and zones exhibiting brittle fractures were seen. The improved
surfaces of the materials with the addition of the µ-LAM process, implied that the local heating
of the laser, facilitated the ductile cutting of CaF2 .
 Fig. 2. Form error measurements for the CaF2 sample. (a) without µ-LAM (b) with
µ-LAM [22]

In [18], a set of cutting experiments with conventional diamond turning and with the µ-LAM
process was performed on a <211> crystal oriented CaF2 with identical machining conditions.
The part machined with the µ-LAM process had smaller brittle fracture zones, see Figure 3 [18].
Figure 3 suggest that the overall forces during machining the sample using the µ-LAM process
were lower. It was shown that the µ-LAM process can achieve improved form, cosmetics and
promote ductile material removal.

Fig. 3. Form error measurements for the CaF2 sample. (a) without µ-LAM (b) with
µ-LAM [18]

3. Experimental equipment
3.1. Test bed
The testing was done on a Nanotech 250 ultraprecision lathe (UPL), shown in Figure 4 (a).
Nanotech 250 consists of 2 axis – X and Z which were computerized numerically controlled with
200 mm travel. The positional repeatability of the stages was less than 10 nm. Vibrations during
machining were minimized using the active and passive damping system. The workpiece sample
was mounted on a PI IS0 5.5-PG high speed air-bearing spindle. The spindle had a maximum
rpm of 10,000. The laser unit was controlled with a laser control module (LCM) shown beside
Nanotech 250 UPL in Figure 4 (a). Figure 4 (b) shows the OPTIMUST+1 tool post mounted on
the machine table. The repeatability of laser spot exiting the tool was achieved using alignment
and calibration procedures outlined in [17].

Fig. 4. Experimental setup. (a) LCM integrated with Nanotech 250 UPL (b) test bed
with OPTIMUST+1 tool post

3.2. Test samples

Three CaF2 samples with different crystal orientations were used. The details about the samples
are listed in Table 1. Siemens D5000 X-ray diffractometer (XRD) with Cu K𝛼 radiation at 20 kV
and 5 mA was used to measure the crystal orientation of the CaF2 samples. The beam size was
approximately 2 mm × 12 mm.

Table 1. Test samples

Sample Crystal orientation Diameter (mm) Geometry

S1 <100> 25 Flat
S2 <111> 32 Flat
S3 <211> 64 Flat

All samples were pre-diamond turned to ensure that the surfaces were free of tilt, grinding
marks and any other surface defects.

3.3. Machining conditions

Three diamond tools with identical geometries were used. Before each test, a brass witness
sample was cut to correct for tool offsets in horizontal and vertical directions with respect to center
of the spindle. The tool offsets were less than 1 µm. The test conditions and cutting parameters
are listed in Table 2. As the feed was different, the results of the study are presented relative
to the track length. The feed for S1 and S2 was lower compared to S3 due to the emergence
of brittle fracture zones on S1 and S2 at higher feeds. The tests were concluded when brittle
fracture zones on the surface were visible under a 15 W observation fluorescent lamp.
 Table 2. Testing conditions

Tool Laser
Spindle Feed Depth of cut Cutting
Sample radius power
RPM (mm/min) (µm) fluid
(mm) (W)
S1 0.5 4500 3.375 1 2 OMS
S2 0.5 4500 3.375 1 2 OMS
S3 0.5 4500 4.5 1 2 OMS

3.4. Metrology
The surface roughness measurements were taken using a Zygo ZeGage PRO HR white light
interferometer. Fourth order Chebyshev polynomials were removed from all the measurements.
The measurements were taken using 20× Mirau objective with a lateral resolution of 434 nm and
a detector resolution of 1000×1000 pixels. To quantify the impact of the machining tests on the
surface roughness of the samples, three statistical parameters - RMS (Sq) of the surface, skewness
(Ssk) of the data, and kurtosis (Sku) were used. The roughness measurements were taken after
every two cycles of cutting. Multiple surface roughness measurements with a minimum sample
size of 3 per sample were taken. All the surface roughness statistics were averaged and presented
in section 4.

4. Results
Machined surfaces were inspected under a 15 W observation fluorescent lamp. Brittle fracture
zones were observed on S2 at a shorter track length, followed by S3. Brittle fracture zones on S1
were observed at larger track length.

Fig. 5. (a) RMS surface roughness vs track length (b) kurtosis vs track length (c)
Skewness vs track length
 Figure 5(a),(b) and (c) shows the evolution of the surface roughness statistical metrics with
the cutting track length for all three samples. The RMS surface roughness was same at smaller
track lengths for three crystal orientations but RMS surface roughness on <111> orientation was
higher at much shorter track length (6.4 km) compared to <100> (10.4 km) and <211> (9.6 km).
Figure 5(a) shows the variation of RMS surface roughness with track length. At smaller track
length, RMS surface roughness values for S1, S2 and S3 were identical. However, at the the
conclusion of testing, surface roughness of S2 increased by approximately 400% compared to
<100> and <211>.
Ssk and Sku data for <111> crystal orientation was larger relative to other orientations even
for small track lengths (<2.5 km), see Figures 5(b) and 5(c). Figure 5(b) shows the variation of
kurtosis with track length. S1 and S3 showed similar trend throughout the testing but kurtosis of
S2 was 166 times higher than the other two samples. Figure 5(c) shows the variation of skewness
with track length. Ssk values for S2 showed an upward trend with a slope of 1.84 per km of track
length, unlike consistent Ssk values for S1 and S3. Larger values of Ssk and Sku indicate an
uneven distribution of height data, indicating the existence of outliers or fractured zones on the
surface, which are in agreement with visual inspections of the surface.
The diamond cutting edge was imaged after completing the experiments to assess the tool wear.
Figure 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) show the tool wear after cutting samples S1, S2 and S3 [Link]
total track length on sample S1 and S3 was 10.4 km and 9.6 km respectively, whereas the track
length on sample S2 was 6.4 km. For <100> orientation, the tool cut 62% more than the tool that
cut <111> orientation. For <211> orientation, the tool cut 50% more than the tool that cut <111>
orientation, see Figure 6. Height of the wear land on clearance face was measured to be 2.24 µm,
1.48 µm and 1.76 µm for <100>, <111> and <211> orientations respectively.

Fig. 6. Tool wear on CaF2 samples (a) S1 <100> (b) S2 <111> and (c) S3 <211> after
conclusion of the tests

5. Crystal anisotropy model and explanation of results

Tool wear and surface roughness data suggest that different orientations have varied cutting
performances. A model was developed to provide a physical explanation that varied crystal
orientation cause variation in cutting performance. This model can be used to correlate the
surface roughness and tool wear results obtained to crystallographic orientation. The model
compares the resolved shear stress on the sample as the tool is rotated across the surface at
all possible tool angles. The stresses generated due to cutting forces (in all the directions) are
resolved on to the most active slip plane of single crystal CaF2 using Schmid’s law [23]. Plastic
deformation initiates due to movement of dislocations along slip planes in a crystal [24]. The set
of slip planes and associated slip directions constitute a slip system. For CaF2 , a cubic crystal
with a body-centered structure, {100}<100> is the most active slip system [25–29]. The schmid
factor tensor can be calculated as shown in equation 1 [23].
 1
𝑀˜ = ((𝑺 𝒑 𝑇 ⊗ 𝑺 𝒅 ) + (𝑺 𝒑 ⊗ 𝑺 𝒅 𝑇 )) (1)
2
where 𝑺 𝒑 is the unit vector of the normal of the slip plane, and 𝑺 𝒅 is the unit vector of the slip
direction.

Fig. 7. Illustration of coordinate system, stress tensor, and rotation angles 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾
using a sample with a <111> (surface normal) crystal orientation.

Figure 7 shows the global coordinate system and the slip plane for a <111> oriented sample.
It should be noted that bunge euler convention was used to represent crystal orientation in the
model [30, 31]. The rotation matrix ( 𝑅) ˜ is used to transform the stresses from the machine
coordinate system (global) to the slip plane (local) coordinate system based on euler angles. 𝑅˜ is
calculated as follows [32].
𝑅˜ = ( 𝐵˜ 𝐶˜ 𝐷)
˜ 𝑇 (2)
where B,C and D are transformation tensors that rotates a given vector from the machine
coordinate system to local coordinate system. B,C and D are calculated using following relations
for rotations 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾 respectively.
     
cos 𝛼 − sin 𝛼 0 1 0 0  cos 𝛾 − sin 𝛾 0
     
˜  sin 𝛼 cos 𝛼 0 𝐶=
𝐵= ˜ 0 cos 𝛽 − sin 𝛽 𝐷= ˜  sin 𝛾 cos 𝛾 0
     
     
 0 0 1 0 sin 𝛽 cos 𝛽   0 0 1
     
𝛽 is the angle between the orientation of the crystal plane and the slip plane, 𝛾 is the angle
between the slip plane and the slip direction. 𝛼 corresponds to the angle between the surface
normal and the point of application of force on the surface (see Figure 7). 𝛽 and 𝛾 angles for
different CaF2 crystal orientations are listed in Table 3.
 Table 3. Euler angles for different crystal orientations

Crystal orientation 𝛽 𝛾
<100> 0° 0°
<211> 35.3° 45°
<111> 54.74° 45°

To estimate the cutting induced stresses on the workpiece, cutting and thrust forces were
calculated using Arcona’s empirical force model [33]. The model estimates the cutting force (𝐹𝑐 )
and thrust force (𝐹𝑡 ) using equations 3 and 4.
r 
𝐻 𝐴𝑐  cot(𝜙)   𝐻
𝐹𝑐 = √ + 1 + µ 𝐴 𝑓 4.1𝐻 (3)
3 3 𝐸

 𝐻 𝐴  cot(𝜙)   r 
𝐻
𝐹𝑡 = µ
𝑐
√ + 1 + 𝐴 𝑓 4.1𝐻 (4)
3 3 𝐸
where 𝐻 is the knoop hardness, 𝐴𝑐 is uncut chip area, µ is coefficient of friction, 𝐴 𝑓 is contact
area between the tool’s flank face and machined surface and 𝐸 is the Young’s modulus. Based
on the experimental work of marsh [34] thrust force is about 150% of cutting force in SPDT of
crystalline materials such as CaF2 . Using the force ratio, the shear angle (𝜙) was calculated to be
24°. The ratio of 𝐹𝑐 to 𝐹𝑡 calculated using equations 3 and 4, was 0.72.
where µ is calculated using the following relation [33]

sin 𝜙
cos 𝜙 − √
3
µ= (5)
cos 𝜙
√ + sin 𝜙
3
𝐴 𝑓 is calculated using the following relation [33]
 2𝑠 
𝐴 𝑓 = 𝐿0 𝑟 + 𝑤 + (6)
3 tan(𝛿)
where 𝐿 0 is tool-chip contact area projected onto the surface (see Figure 8).
𝑟 is tool nose radius. which is 0.5 mm.
𝑤 is the flank wear land, is 100 µm based on measured micrsocopic image from the tool nose.
𝑠 is spring back of the surface after being deformed, estimated to be 0.03% of depth of cut [35,36].
𝛿 is clearance angle of the tool, which is 10°.
 Fig. 8. Tool-chip interface for non-overlapping cutting geometry, cutting direction out
of the page [33]

Table 4 lists the values of the terms in equations 3 and 4 to calculate 𝐹𝑐 and 𝐹𝑡 .

Table 4. Parameter values used in equation 4 and 5

Parameter Value
𝐻 (𝑁/𝑚𝑚 2 ) 1552 [35]
µ 1.19
𝐴𝑐 (𝑚𝑚 2 ) 1e-6
𝐴𝑓 (𝑚𝑚 2 ) 1e-2
𝐸 (𝑁/𝑚𝑚 2 ) 75800 [35]

The contact area 𝐴 𝑓 >> 𝐴𝑐 , thus the stress due to thrust force (𝜎𝑧𝑧 ) is negligible when
compared to the shear cutting stress (𝜎𝑥𝑧 ). The stress tensor is normalized with respect to 𝜎𝑥𝑧 .
Therefore, (𝜎)
˜ can be expressed as shown below.
 
0 0 0
 
˜ = 0
 
𝜎 0 1
 
 
0 1 0
 
The rotated stress tensor (𝜎˜ 0) for a specific orientation is given by equation 7 [32].

𝜎˜ 0 = 𝑅˜ · 𝜎
˜ · 𝑅˜𝑇 (7)
The resolved shear stress (𝜏𝑅 ) can be computed at each rotation angle 𝛼 from 0°to 360°using
equation 8, i.e. Schmids law.
𝜏𝑅 = 𝜎˜ 0 : 𝑀˜ (8)
The critical resolved shear stress (𝜏𝑅 ) per unit applied stress for six active slip systems of CaF2 at
each possible angular position of the diamond tool with respect to the surface of the workpiece is
plotted in Figure 9.
 Fig. 9. Critical resolved shear stress (𝜏𝑅 ) for <100>, <111> and <211> CaF2 crystal
orientations

The reason for the plot being in polar coordinates is to provide a better visual representation of
𝜏𝑅 distribution on a circular lens. It is evident from Figure 9 that the magnitude of 𝜏𝑅 for <111>
is consistently lower than that of <100> and <211> crystal orientations. The average resolved
shear stress on the slip plane of <111> is 40% lower than that of <100> and 27% lower than that
of <211>. As a result, the opportunity to remove material in a ductile manner from <111> is the
smallest at the same machining conditions. The emergence of brittle fracture zones on the <111>
sample prior to that of the <100> and <211> sample, can be attributed to lower overall 𝜏𝑅 for
<111> sample. The overall 𝜏𝑅 was highest for <100> orientation over the entire cutting region,
therefore the material from <100> is expected to display the least amount of resistance to ductile
material removal. With similar chemical and tribological properties the expectation is that the
tool wear would be the least for the surface easiest to cut.

6. Conclusion and Future work

In this paper, effect of crystal orientation of the workpiece on SPDT of single crystal CaF2 samples
using the µ-LAM process was studied. The key highlights of this paper can be summarized as
follows:
1. In the experimental study presented, tool failure occurred on <111> crystal orientation at
smaller track length, compared to <100> and <211>.
2. Even though the average RMS roughness data was in the acceptable range for low track
lengths, other surface finish parameters like Ssk and Sku can be potentially used to predict the
suitability of the material for machining at smaller track lengths.
3. A model for material removal initiation using schmid’s law was used to explain the results.
The model results were in good agreement with the cutting data.
As a future effort, residual stresses of CaF2 crystal orientations due to cutting with µ-LAM
process would be studied to establish a relation between tool wear rates and stress induced.
In addition, other CaF2 crystal orientations and crystalline materials like Si and Ge would be
investigated in a method similar to the one presented in this paper. Furthermore, a 3-D model to
find an optimum crystal orientation to machine crystalline materials using the µ-LAM process is
under development.

Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. J. Bryan, “Design and construction of an ultraprecision 84 inch diamond turning machine,” Precis. Eng. 1, 13–17
(1979).
2. T. T. Saito, “Diamond turning of optics,” Opt. Eng. 15, 155431 (1976).
3. J. Bryan, “International status of thermal error research (1990),” CIRP annals 39, 645–656 (1990).
4. T. Nakasuji, S. Kodera, S. Hara, H. Matsunaga, N. Ikawa, and S. Shimada, “Diamond turning of brittle materials for
optical components,” CIRP annals 39, 89–92 (1990).
5. W. Blackley and R. Scattergood, “Ductile-regime machining model for diamond turning of brittle materials,” Precis.
engineering 13, 95–103 (1991).
6. T. Leung, W. Lee, and X. Lu, “Diamond turning of silicon substrates in ductile-regime,” J. materials processing
technology 73, 42–48 (1998).
7. R. G. Jasinevicius, J. G. Duduch, and A. J. Porto, “Investigation on diamond turning of silicon crystal-generation
mechanism of surface cut with worn tool,” J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. 23, 241–252 (2001).
8. X. C. Luo, J. N. Sun, W. L. Chang, and J. M. Ritchie, “Single point diamond turning of calcium fluoride optics,” in
Key Engineering Materials, vol. 516 (Trans Tech Publ, 2012), pp. 408–413.
9. J. Yan, T. Asami, H. Harada, and T. Kuriyagawa, “Fundamental investigation of subsurface damage in single
crystalline silicon caused by diamond machining,” Precis. Eng. 33, 378–386 (2009).
10. A. A. Kaminskii, Laser crystals: their physics and properties, vol. 14 (Springer, 2013).
11. J. Ewing, “Excimer lasers at 30 years,” Opt. photonics news 14, 26–31 (2003).
12. W. Lee, S. To, and C. Cheung, “Effect of crystallographic orientation in diamond turning of copper single crystals,”
Scripta materialia (2000).
13. Z. Yuan, W. Lee, Y. Yao, and M. Zhou, “Effect of crystallographic orientation on cutting forces and surface quality in
diamond cutting of single crystal,” CIRP annals 43, 39–42 (1994).
14. L. Chen, L. Hu, C. Xiao, Y. Qi, B. Yu, and L. Qian, “Effect of crystallographic orientation on mechanical removal of
caf2,” Wear 376, 409–416 (2017).
15. J. Yan, J. Tamaki, K. Syoji, and T. Kuriyagawa, “Single-point diamond turning of caf 2 for nanometric surface,” The
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 24, 640–646 (2004).
16. X. Chen, J. Xu, H. Fang, and R. Tian, “Influence of cutting parameters on the ductile-brittle transition of single-crystal
calcium fluoride during ultra-precision cutting,” The Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89, 219–225 (2017).
17. Y. Namba, N. Ohnishi, S. Yoshida, K. Harada, K. Yoshida, and T. Matsuo, “Ultra-precision float polishing of calcium
fluoride single crystals for deep ultra violet applications,” CIRP Annals 53, 459–462 (2004).
18. C. Bodlapati, J. Navare, D. Zaytsev, D. Kang, H. Mohammadi, D. Ravindra, M. Arlt, and H. Shahinian, “Effect of
laser-assisted diamond turning (micro-lam) on non-optimally oriented calcium fluoride crystal,” 34th ASPE Annu.
Meet. (2019).
19. H. Shahinian, J. Navare, D. Zaytsev, and D. Ravindra, “Microlaser assisted diamond turning of precision silicon
optics,” Opt. Eng. 58, 092607 (2019).
20. H. Shahinian, K. Di, J. Navare, C. Bodlapati, D. Zaytsev, and D. Ravindra, “Ultraprecision laser-assisted diamond
machining of single crystal ge,” Precis. Eng. (2020).
21. J. Navare, D. Kang, D. Zaytsev, C. Bodlapati, D. Ravindra, and H. Shahinian, “Experimental investigation on the
effect of crystal orientation of diamond tooling on micro laser assisted diamond turning of zinc sulfide,” Procedia
Manuf. 48, 606–610 (2020).
22. H. Shahinian, J. Navare, D. Zaytsev, S. Kode, F. Azimi, and D. Ravindra, “Effect of laser-assisted diamond turning
(micro-lam) on form and finish of selected ir crystals,” in 33rd annual meeting of American Society for Precision
Engineering, Las Vegas, Nevada, (2018), pp. 1–5.
23. E. Schmid and W. Boas, Kristallplastizität: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Metalle, vol. 17 (Springer-Verlag,
2013).
24. A. F. Liu, Mechanics and mechanisms of fracture: an introduction (ASM International, 2005).
25. S. Azami, H. Kudo, Y. Mizumoto, T. Tanabe, J. Yan, and Y. Kakinuma, “Experimental study of crystal anisotropy
based on ultra-precision cylindrical turning of single-crystal calcium fluoride,” Precis. Eng. 40, 172–181 (2015).
26. Y. J. Lee, A. Chaudhari, J. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Thermally assisted microcutting of calcium fluoride single crystals,”
in Simulation and experiments of material-oriented ultra-precision machining, (Springer, 2019), pp. 77–102.
27. Y. Mizumoto and Y. Kakinuma, “Revisit of the anisotropic deformation behavior of single-crystal caf2 in orthogonal
cutting,” Precis. Eng. 53, 9–16 (2018).
28. Y. Mizumoto, T. Aoyama, and Y. Kakinuma, “Basic study on ultraprecision machining of single-crystal calcium
fluoride,” Procedia Eng. 19, 264–269 (2011).
29. A. Munoz, A. Domínguez-Rodríguez, and J. Castaing, “Slip systems and plastic anisotropy in caf 2,” J. materials
science 29, 6207–6211 (1994).
30. H.-J. Bunge, Texture analysis in materials science: mathematical methods (Elsevier, 2013).
31. “File:[Link] - wikimedia commons,” [Link]
[Link]. (Accessed on 04/07/2020).
32. D. Depriester, “Computing euler angles with bunge convention from rotation matrix,” (2018).
33. C. Arcona and T. A. Dow, “An empirical tool force model for precision machining,” ASME. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
(1998).
34. E. R. Marsh, B. P. John, J. A. Couey, J. Wang, R. D. Grejda, and R. R. Vallance, “Predicting surface figure in diamond
turned calcium fluoride using in-process force measurement,” J. Vac. Sci. & Technol. B: Microelectron. Nanometer
Struct. Process. Meas. Phenom. 23, 84–89 (2005).
35. “Caf2_en.cdr,” [Link] (Accessed on 04/07/2020).
36. M. J. Chen and W. B. Jiang, “Analysis of mechanical property of crystal caf2 and effects of tool rake angle on ductile
machining process,” in Advanced Materials Research, vol. 126 (Trans Tech Publ, 2010), pp. 891–896.