International Journal of Material Forming

New method to characterize a machining system: application in turning
Claudiu F. Bisu1,2, Jean-Yves K'nevez², Philippe Darnis3, Raynald Laheurte²,3, Alain Gérard²
1

University Politehnica from Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, 060042 Bucharest
Roumanie (UE) email: cfbisu@gmail.com
2
Université de Bordeaux, 351 cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence-cedex France (UE)
email: alain.gerard@u-bordeaux1.fr
3
Université de Bordeaux - IUT EA 496, 15 rue Naudet, 33175 Gradignan Cedex France
(UE)

Abstract
Many studies simulates the machining process by using a single degree of freedom springmass sytem to model the tool stiffness, or the workpiece stiffness, or the unit toolworkpiece stiffness in modelings 2D. Others impose the tool action, or use more or less
complex modelings of the efforts applied by the tool taking account the tool geometry.
Thus, all these models remain two-dimensional or sometimes partially three-dimensional.
This paper aims at developing an experimental method allowing to determine accurately the
real three-dimensional behaviour of a machining system (machine tool, cutting tool, toolholder and associated system of force metrology six-component dynamometer).
In the work-space model of machining, a new experimental procedure is implemented to
determine the machining system elastic behaviour. An experimental study of machining
system is presented. We propose a machining system static characterization. A
decomposition in two distinct blocks of the system "Workpiece-Tool-Machine" is realized.
The block Tool and the block Workpiece are studied and characterized separately by matrix
stiffness and displacement (three translations and three rotations). The Castigliano's theory
allows us to calculate the total stiffness matrix and the total displacement matrix.
A stiffness center point and a plan of tool tip static displacement are presented in agreement
with the turning machining dynamic model and especially during the self induced vibration.
These results are necessary to have a good three-dimensional machining system dynamic
characterization (presented in a next paper).
Keywords: experimental model, displacement plan, self-excited vibrations, turning}

1

Nomenclature
a
BT
BW
[C]
[CO]
[Ci]
CRBT
D1
D2
{D}
Dij

ni

Distance between displacement transducer
Block Tool
Block Workpiece
Damping matrix
Compliance matrix
Displacement transducer (i =1 to 6)
Block Tool BT stiffness center
Holding fixture diameter (mm)
Workpiece diameter (mm)
Small displacements torsor
Straight line corresponding of the displacement direction of the
point Pi,j (i = x, y, z) and (j=1, 2, 3)
Points displacements vectors Pi,j (i = x, y, z) and (j=1, 2, 3)
Distance between the line Dij
Young modulus (N/mm²)
Scale factors
Force vectors applied to obtain BT stiffness center (i = x, y, z)
Inertial moment
Stiffness matrix (N/m)
Stiffness matrix of rotation (Nm/rad)
Stiffness matrix of displacement (N/m)
Stiffness matrix of BT displacement (N/m)
Stiffness matrix of BW displacement (N/m)
Stiffness matrix of machining system displacement (N/m)
Errors matrix for the matrix [K]
Stiffness matrix of rotation / displacement (Nm/m)
Stiffness matrix of displacement /rotation (N/rad)
Holding fixture length (mm)
Length workpiece (mm)
Point intersection between straight lines (Dij)(i = x, y, z) and (j=1,
2, 3)
Displacement measured at the charge point
Mass matrix
Plan normal Pi

O
OC
P
Pi
PBT
Pij
{T}
[V]
v1

Tool tip point
Cub center
Force (N)
Plan including the point Mi
Displacement plan considering tool point
Charge points (i = x, y, z) and (j=1, 2, 3)
Mechanical actions torsor
Matrix eigenvector [KF,BT]
Matrix eigenvalue [KF,BT]

dij
Dx
E
ex , fx
Fi
I
[K]
[KC]
[KF]
[KF,BT]
[KF,BW]
[KF,WAM]
[Kerrors %]
[KCF]
[KFC]
L1
L2
Mi
m
[M]

2

WTM
x (z)
y

i

i
i
i

Workpiece-Tool-Machine
Cross (feed) direction
Cutting axis
Displacement (mm)
Displacement along i (i=1,2,3)
Measured angle at the force point
Angular deviation of "Co-planarity" between lines Dij (i = x, y, z;
and j=1, 2, 3)
Minimal distance between straight lines Dij (i = x, y, z; and j=1, 2,
3)
Rotation along i (i=x, y, z)

Introduction
Metal cutting is one of the most important manufacturing process. The most common
cutting processes are turning, milling, drilling and grinding.
During the cutting process of different materials, a whole of physic-chemical and dynamic
phenomena are involved. Elasto-plastic strains, friction and thermal phenomena are
generated in the contact zone between workpiece, tool and chip. These phenomena are
influenced by: physical properties of the material to be machined, tool geometry, cutting
and lubrication conditions, and also the machining system dynamic parameters (stiffness,
damping). The machine tool vibrations are generated by the interaction between the elastic
machining system and the cutting process. The elastic system is composed of: the different
parts of the machine tool in movement, the workpiece and the tool. Actions of the
machining process are usually forces and moments. These actions also generate relative
displacements of elements composing the elastic system. They occur for example between
the tool and workpiece, the tool device and bed, etc. These displacements modify the
cutting conditions and in the same way the forces. Thus, the knowledge of the machining
system elastic behaviour is essential to understand the cutting process [6].
Certain scientists developed a finite element beam model of spinning stepped-shaft
workpiece to perform stability analysis using Nyquist criterion [38]} or the traditional
stability lobe diagram [16, 25]. This traditional stability analysis technique shows that the
chatter instability depends on the structural damping in the system and the spindle speed.
Chen and Tsao presented a dynamic model of cutting tool with [11] and without tailstock
supported workpiece using beam theory [10]. Here, the effects of workpiece parameters are
studied on the dynamic stability of turning process by treating the workpiece as a
continuous system. Carrino et al., [8] present a model that takes into account both the
workpiece deflection and the cutting force between tool and workpiece. The three
components of the cutting force are function of the cutting geometry. The effect of the
workpiece-tool-machine deflections is a shift of the workpiece cross-section and a moving
back of the tool holder in the radial and the tangential direction (2D model).
In these processes, the cutting forces measurement has important and tremendous
applications within industry and research alike. The cutting forces estimation allows to

3

supervise tool wear evolution [36], establishes material machinabilities, optimizes cutting
parameters, predicts machined workpiece surface quality and study phenomena such as
chip formation or vibrations appearance. Sekar and Yang propose a compliant two degree
of freedom dynamic cutting force model by considering the relative motion of workpiece
with cutting tool. Tool and workpiece are modelled as two separate single degree of
freedom spring-mass-damper systems [34].
In the literature, there are many studies concerning the cutting force measurement. Many
dynamometers for this purpose have been developed [5, 9, 12, 23].
Independently of the machining operation type, methods for cutting force measurements
can be divided into two general categories. The first corresponds to the category that uses
the current or the voltage signals emitted by the tool machine drive motor or control
systems [27]. The second uses transducers mounted on the tool or the workpiece assemblies
[20, 37, 40].
The cutting forces developed in machining operations may be estimated indirectly by
obtaining the power consumed or directly from metal cutting dynamometers; mechanical,
hydraulic, pneumatic or several types of electro-mechanical dynamometers.
Knowing the cutting forces is essential to machine tool builders in calculating power
requirements and frame rigidity. Cutting forces acting on the tool must be measured at the
design tool that are strong enough to remove chip at the desired quantity from the
workpiece and to calculate power of tool driver system. The dynamometer is able to
measure three force components: cutting force (Fc), feed force (Fa) and radial force (Fp)
but not the torque at the tool tip. Axinte et al., [1] propose a procedure to account for both
calibration and process errors in the uncertainty estimation for the specific situation of
single cutting force measurements. The influence parameters considered in their work,
contribution to the measurement uncertainty, workpiece, tool and machine were not
considered. Perez et al., [28] give a mechanistic model for the estimation of cutting forces
in micromilling based on specific cutting pressure. The model includes three parameters
which allow to control the entry of the cutter in the workpiece. The errors in the radial and
the angular position of the cutting edges of the tool is considered. The cutting forces are
calculated on the basis of the engaged cut geometry, the undeformed chip thickness
distribution along the cutting edges, and the empirical relationships that relate the cutting
forces to the undeformed chip geometry. This relation do not take into account the elasticity
of the machining system. In the measurement of the cutting forces [35], only elastic
deflections of the cutting tool due to the cutting forces were measured by means of the load
cells located at suitable position on the cutting tool.
However the dynamometer can measure three perpendicular cutting force components and
three torque components simultaneously during turning, and the measured numerical values
can be stored in computer by data acquisition system [12]. This dynamometer was designed
to measure up to 5,000 N maximum force and 350 N/m torque. The system sensitivity is pm
4 % in force and pm 8 % in torque.

4

During the cutting process, the cutting tool penetrates into the workpiece due to the relative
motion between tool and workpiece and the cutting forces and torques are measured on a
measuring plane in the Cartesian coordinate system. The cutting forces have been measured
by the dynamometers designed for different working principles as strain gauge based [12].
Thus it is necessary to have a good methodology to measure the workpiece-tool-machine
rigidity before measuring forces and torques. This new methodolgy is precisely the purpose
of this paper. In section 2 we present the experimental device. After (see section 3) we
conceive the workpiece. The workpiece geometry and dimensions retained for these testtubes were selected using the finite element method coupled to an optimization method, by
SAMCEF software. In the following section 4 a methodology based on the virtual work
(three translations and three rotations) is exhibited to study the static aims and to
characterize the static equivalent stiffness values in order to identify the three-dimensional
elastic behaviour of the machining system. The applied efforts are quantified with a force
sensor. The torsor of small displacements, 3 linears and 3 rotations displacement, is
measured by six displacement transducer. A stiffness global matrix is deduced with its
various results. The sum of the two stiffness matrix displacements block tool and block
workpiece determines the stiffness matrix of machining system displacement. By the
Castigliano's theorem we determine the angle that characterizes the principal direction of
deformation. Before concluding, in section 5 the stiffness center is obtained using the least
squares method in the coordinate system based on the tool in O point that is the origin of
the coordinate system.

General points
Today, machines tool are very rigid there are less and less geometrically faulty. The
vibratory problems are strongly related to the cutting. Ideally, cutting conditions are chosen
such that material removal is performed in a stable manner. However, sometimes chatter is
unavoidable because of the geometry of the cutting tool and workpiece. In [7] the bulk of
the motion during chatter comes from the workpiece since it has a static stiffness that is up
to 3.2 times less than the cutting tool. Since it is highly impractical to instrument the
workpiece during cutting the end goal is to develop an observer that can transform
measurements made at the cutting tool into a prediction about the motion of the workpiece.
Dassanayake [13] approaches in the 1D case the dynamic response of the tool holder to the
request of the tool which follows a regenerative surface. They consider only tool motions
and disregards workpiece vibration. Insperger continues in the 2D case keeping workpiece
rigid but he takes into account the flexibility of the tool[18]}. For an operation of milling
[33], the deflections of the machine-tool, the toolholder and the toolholder clamping in the
spindle, the tool clamping in the toolholder, and the tool itself, were measured
experimentally under the effects of known forces. The results of this study show that the
stiffness of both the machine and the clamping in the machine-spindle-toolholder-tool
system have a similar importance in the displacement of the tool tip (subjected to a cutting
force) to the deflection of the tool itself. Thus, it is necessary to identify the elastic
behaviour of machine parts [6]. These vibrations are generated and self induced by the
cutting process. A conventional lathe with high rigidity is used to study these dynamic

5

phenomena. The Workpiece-Tool-Machine (WTM) system is presented on the figure 1 for
a turning operation.

Fig. 1 Workpiece-Tool-Machine considering dynamic cutting process.
The elastic structure of WTM system has several degrees of freedom and has many specific
vibration modes. The vibrations of each element of the structure are characterized by its
natural frequency depending on the Stiffness matrix [K], the Mass matrix [M] and the
Damping matrix [C]. In a first time, only the stiffness matrix [K] is studied.
Our experimental approach is based on the matrix development that is presented in [29]. To
identify the WTM system static behaviour, the machining system is divided into two
blocks, the block Tool (BT) and the block Workpiece (BW) figure 2. These two blocks are
related to the turn bed supposed to be infinitely rigid.

Fig. 2 Presentation of the experimental device.}

6

3 Components of the system WTM
3.1 Block Workpiece: BW
As many workers [2, 27, 41], a cylindrical geometry of the workpiece is chosen. The BW
represents the revolving part of the WTM system; it includes the holding fixture, the
workpiece and the spindle (figures 3 a, b). To make the whole frame rigid, a very rigid unit
(workpiece, holding fixture) is conceived in front of the WTM elements (figure 4).

Fig.3 BW representation.}
The workpiece geometry and his holding fixture are selected with D1 = 60 mm, D2 = 120
mm and L2 = 30 mm (cf. figure 4). These dimensions retained for these test-tubes were
selected using the finite element method coupled to an optimization method by SAMCEF
software. It is necessary to determine the holding fixture length L1 to obtain a significant
stiffness in flexion. The objective is to move away the first BW vibration mode of the lathe
fundamental natural vibration mode (see [3]).

Fig. 4 Geometry of holding fixture / workpiece.}

7

As [33] and others the stiffness is calculated on the basis of the displacement  for a given
force P :
=

P  L3

(1)

3E  I

with inertial moment :
I=

  D14

(2)

64

The figure 5 represents the displacements and stiffness values relating to the length of
holding fixture / workpiece, for a force P = 1,000 N, a Young modulus E = 21.10-5 N/mm2
and a holding fixture diameter D1 = 60 mm.

Fig. 5 Displacements according to the holding fixture length.
A holding fixture length : L1 = 180 mm, for a stiffness in flexion of 7.10-7 N/m, is
reminded. This value is including in the higher part of the interval of the acceptable rigidity
values for conventional lathe (cf. figure 6), [19, 21, 22].

8

Fig. 6 Acceptable aria representation of the workpiece deformation.}

3.2 Block Tool: BT
In this case, the BT part includes the tool, the tool-holder, the dynamometer, the fixing
plate on the cross slide (figure 7a). The six-component dynamometer [12] is fixed between
the cross slide and the tool-holder. This is necessary thereafter to measure the cutting
mechanical actions. The stiffness of BT is evaluated into the next section.

Fig. 7 Block tool BT representation.

4. Static characterization of machining system
The static study aims at characterizing the static equivalent stiffness values in order to
identify the three dimensional elastic behaviour of the machining system. Generally, the
static tests consist in charging by known efforts the two blocks and measuring only the
9

associated displacements components [17, 39]. Here, also the static tests consist in loading
by known efforts the two blocks but measuring the small displacements torsor (i.e. three
linear displacements, and three rotations). The applied efforts are quantified with a force
sensor. The small displacements torsor is measured by six displacement transducers. A
stiffness global matrix is deduced with its various results. It is a real 3D pattern. For
instance, Carrino et al., present a model that takes into account both the workpiece
deflection and the cutting force between tool and workpiece. The three components of the
cutting force are a depend on the cutting geometry. The effect of the workpiece-toolmachine deflections is a shift of the workpiece cross-section and a moving back of the tool
holder in the radial and the tangential direction (2D model) [8].

4.1 Stiffness matrix
The experimental approach is based on the matrix development presented in [30]. The
deformation of a structure element is represented by displacements of nodes determining
this element. The "associated forces" correspond to displacements which act as these nodes.
The transformation matrix which connects generalized displacements of an element to the
"associated forces" is the rigidity matrix or the stiffness matrix of the element. In the same
way the matrix which connects generalized displacements of the structure to the applied
generalized discrete forces is the stiffness matrix of the structure simply named as "stiffness
matrix" : [K].
The relation between forces and displacements is given by [29]:
{T} = [K] x {D}

(3)

where {T} represents the mechanical action torsor, [K] the stiffness matrix and {D} the
small displacements torsor.
The general form of the square (6 x 6) stiffness matrix [K] is:
 K FC

[K]A, xyz = 

 KC

KF 

K CF  A, xyz

(4)

where [KF], [KC], [KCF] and [KFC] are respectively square (3 x 3) displacement matrix,
rotation and rotations / displacement and displacement / rotation expressed at the point A in
x, y, z machine axes.

4.2 Experimental determination of the stiffness matrix
The matrix elements of the small displacement torsor are identified thanks to the
experimental device presented in the figure 8. The considered system is a cube.
Displacements are measured by six displacement transducers. Two displacement
10

transducers are positioned symmetrically on each of the 3 directions. The force is applied to
each x, y, z direction in two different levels by a screw-swivel system controlled by a force
sensor. Each loading point coordinates are known starting from the cube center Oc. This
allows for each applied force to determine the moment and thus the complete torsor of
mechanical actions {T}.

Fig. 8 Experimental device for the static characterization.
Induced displacements are solid body displacements and it is noted that rotations are low (>
10- 5 rad) but exist. The existence of these rotations is important and in agreement with the
torque via the virtual work theory. The measure principle is presented in the figure 9 and is
used to determine the components of the small displacements torsor {D} which is
composed by the three rotations x, y, z and the three displacements x, y, z.

11

Fig. 9 Position of Displacement transducer.
Thus, the displacements m and rotations  are determined, for each loading direction, by
using the relations:
m=

m1  m 2
2

, tan  =

m 2  m1
a

(5)

From these relations and considering the six measurements points it results:

 x 
 
 y  =
 z 
 


0

0

 1
a
1

2

0

0


0

1
a

1
a

0

0

0

1
a

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
2

1
2

0

0

0

0

1
2

1
a
1
2

0


0
1  m 

1
a  
m
  2
0  m 
3
 
m
0  4 
 m 5 
  
0  m 6 
 
1

2

(6)

The tests are carried out with specific assemblies which are designed for each direction of
measurement. The loading (respectively unloading) is carried out by step of 30 daN (resp.
– 30 daN) until (resp. from) level of 200 daN, and this procedure is used for each test
following known directions. To check the repeatability and accuracy of identifications all
tests and measurements are carried out five times and the average is selected for each point
at figure 10.

12

To exploit measurements as well as possible, the displacements curves are plotted
depending on the applied force for each loading direction. A line of least squares is adjusted
to determine the displacements components values for a given force. Thus, six torsors of
small displacements are identified for six loadings cases. The linear behaviour observed in
loading is different from the linear behaviour noted in unloading. This different linearity
between loading and unloading is due to the existence of deviations and friction forces in
each point surfaces of the assembly. These deviations due to the installation of the parts of
the associated assembly and friction force are different in charge and discharge.
When this difference in linear behaviour appears (hysteresis), we use the line (figure 10)
which passes by the middle (C point) of segment AB (charge-discharge). OC is the line
which the slope, by assumption, corresponds to the "real" stiffness. Segment AB represents
the double of the friction forces and deviations for the deformation , [24].

Fig. 10 Diagrammatic representation of linear behaviour in charge and discharge.}
At this stage, the matrix column of the small displacements torsors and of the mechanical
action torsors are known. The flexibility matrix [C0] of the system is deducted by:
[CO] = {T}-1  {D} .

(7)

The inversion of experimental flexibility matrix gives the global stiffness matrix, [K].
4.2.1 Stiffness matrix of BT
The figure 11 presents a loading example in x direction of BT (see [3]). A similar loading
experimentation in y and z direction of BT is carried out. For each x, y or z direction
measurements are taken at three points and captured by data acquisition card installed in
PC. The stored data can be retrieved and used for analysis when required. Using Labview
software we obtain the experimental flexibility matrix [C0]. A simple inversion gives the
stiffness global matrix [KBT].

13

Fig. 11 Example of loading in x BT direction.
  5 10 6  7.7 10 6 2.9 10 6

6
7.8 10 6
 3 10 6
 5 10
6
6
 2.7 10
4 10
5.8 10 6
[KBT] = 
6
6
 7 10 6
 1.8 10  2.8 10
 1.7 10 6
2 10 6
4.6 10 6

6
6
1.4 10
 7.4 10 5
 110

6.7 10 6
 7.5 10 6
 1.4 10 6
1.5 10 6
1.5 10 6
 1.9 10 6

8.7 10 5
 3.3 10 5v
 1.7 10 6
 1.6 10 6
 4.7 10 5
 2 10 5

 3.4 10 6 

1.7 10 6 
1.3 10 7 

 1.2 10 7 
5.8 10 6 

1.7 10 6 

(8)

O , xyz

In addition, on figure 10 we made a simplifying assumption while retaining for each level
of deformation given (for example AB), the average charge (C) correspondent between the
value in charge (A) and the value discharges (B) from them. Consequently, it is advisable to
make sure the validity of this assumption. This must be done while estimating, on each
level of loading, the error made by using the median value between the charge and the
discharge. However, the use of the least squares method allows the evaluation of the error
made for each level of loading, i.e. each elements of the matrix [KBT]. Thus, a matrix of
error can be built. This matrix noted [Kerrors%] thus allows to know the error attached to each
element of the matrix [KBT]. This operation is performed by an errors matrix [Kerrors%] given
in (9).

[Kerrors%] =

 0.1
0.6

4.3

0.4
 0.1

 0.1

0.7 3.8
1.4 1.2
1.2 0.05
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.05
0.2 0.3

2.3
2.5
4.4
0.4
0.7
1.3

5.7
3.3
0.1
1
0.1
0.2

1.7 
2.5
4.7 

2.2
0.3

1.2 

(9)

14

It is noted that the error does not exceed 6 % what is largely acceptable.
In addition, for a "perfect" decoupled system [K] is diagonal, and the elements are stiffness
values in N/m. The matrix [K] obtained here is a matrix block. Comparing this matrix to the
matrix [K]A, xyz (4) we establish between elements the following correspondences:


the elements of the matrix 3  3 in the right higher corner are the elements
corresponding to stiffness values of displacements (N/m) noted [KF] in (4),
 the elements of the matrix 3  3 in the left lower corner are the elements
corresponding to stiffness values of rotations (N/rad) noted [KC] in (4),
 \item the elements of the matrix 3  3in the left higher corner are the elements
corresponding to the couplings of "displacements / rotations" noted [KFC] in (4),
 \item the elements of the matrix 3  3 in the right lower corner are the elements
corresponding to the couplings of "rotations / displacements" noted [KCF] in (4).
These two last elements ("displacements / rotations" [KFC], "rotations / displacements"
[KCF]) are not taken into account here. Only the stiffness part of displacement (noted
[KF, BT] below) is necessary considering in our next dynamic model (not presented here).

[KF, BT] =

 6.7  106

6
 7.5  10
  1.4  106


8.7  105 3.4  106 

 3.3  105 1.7  106 
1.7  106 1.3  107 
O, xyz

(10)

4.2.2 Stiffness matrix of BW
As the BW geometry was simpler, we limited ourselves to measure the stiffness values of
displacements by using three displacement transducer following the three main directions.
The loading was carried out with the dynamometer (cf. figure 12).

15

Fig. 12 Experimental device for the BW static characterization.
Using this geometry, the BW has a very high rigidity according to z axis and this value is
very small compared with the principal stiffness value. The BW behaviour is linear, with a
nearly null hysteresis. At the loading and unloading points, the part is not influenced by the
friction phenomenon or other various fits generated by the assembled elements, like the
spindle or the ball bearings. The stiffness matrix [KF, BW] obtained according to the three
directions is:

[KF, BW] =

 1.4 10 7

0


0


0
2  10 7
0



.

8
2.85 10 
O, xyz
0

(11)

We may notice that the spindle and its ball bearings decrease the global BW rigidity
compared with the calculated rigidity in the section 3.1.

4.3 Experimental determination of the machining system stiffness
matrix
In order to know stiffness values of the machining system in the three directions, the elastic
interaction BT BW is modelled by static stiffness which are assembled in parallel (figure

16

13). The chip is the common point between deformation and force. It connects the two
stiffnesses (BT / BW). The sum of the two stiffness matrix of displacements BT [KF,BT]
and BW [KF,BW] determines the stiffness matrix of machining system displacement
[KF,WAM].

Fig. 13 Static stiffness assembled in parallel.

[KF,WAM] =

 2.7  107

6
 7.5  10
  1.4  106


8.7  105
2.1  107
 1.7  106

 3.4  106 

1.7  106 
2.9  108 
O, xyz

(12)

In this form the matrix of the machining system shows that the main diagonal has elements
of a higher order than the others. Moreover the diagonalization of the matrix is possible and
it comes:

[KF, WAM-d] =

2.6  107

 0
 0


0
2.2  107




2.9  108 
O, xyz
0
0

(13)

By the Castigliano's theorem we determine the angle K. This angle characterizes the
principal direction of deformation. It takes place in the case of two blocks BT and BW
interaction (figure 14). On the figure 14, K-BT et K-BW correspond respectively to the
principal direction of deformation of the Block Tool and Block Workpiece in connexion
with the machine axes.

17

Fig. 14 Diagram of K angle determination.
The stiffness values [KBT] and [KBW] of the whole elastic system, among principales axes,
are determined by deformation energy minimization, allowing thus the diagonalization of
the matrix [KF,BT-d]:

[KF, BT-d] =

4.1  105





0
6  106




1.3  10 7 
O, xyz
0
0

(14)

In the plane O,x,y, with K-BT = 52° and K-BW = 0° we obtain an angle K = 76°. In the
plane O,y,z with K-BT = 32° and K-BW = 0° we have an angle K = 65°. On this direction,
the maximum deformation of the system is obtained.

5 Rotation center
Deacu [14] and Kudinov [24] show that any machine tool, is characterized by the
deformation principal directions. These deformation principal directions are function of the
machine structure, its geometrical configurations and cutting parameters used. We can
observe either a very stiff behaviour, or very rubber band according to the direction. Here,
the tool is regarded as forming integral part of block BT. The aim is to determine the
stiffness center CRBT of elastic system BT [26]. This stiffness center corresponds to the

18

rotation center of the block BT compared to the bed. Obtaining CRBT consists in finding
the points of intersection of different perpendicular to displacements.

5.1 Experimental step
The stiffness center is obtained in the coordinate system based on the tool in O point that is
the origin of the (x, y, z) coordinate system.
The procedure to obtain the stiffness center is detailed in the figure 15; the imposed charge
follows all three directions, Fi being known; (i = x, y, z).

Fig. 15 Experimental procedure to obtain stiffness center CRBT
The displacement vector measurement under the load di,j is obtained in two points Pi,j in
each direction (i = x, y, z) and (j = 1, 2). The direction (Dij) is released being straight line
containing di,j vector that include the point Pi,j.
According to the figure 16, these lines are not exactly coplanar and no secant. It is possible
to find for each direction the intersection point, named Mi, of the lines Dij using the
following relations, for x direction:
OM x =  OPx,1  ex   Od x,1



(15)

19

Using the method of least squares, we can minimize the distance dx between the lines (Dx,1
and Dx,2, figure 16); dx is calculated using the expression:
 OM  OP   d
x
x,2
x,2

dx = 
d x,2

(16)

and the angle x corresponds of angular deviation of "coplanarity":

 P M d
x = arccos  x,1 x x,1
 Px ,1M x  d x ,1








(17)

The two lines (Dij) are separated by a minimum distance i = 1.8 mm and maximum
deviation i = 2° (see the table 1).
In the next step, three mean plans Pi are defined by approximation of the points Mi and
containing the lines Dij.
We can draw the normal ni of each plan Pi that includes the point Mi (figure 17).

Fig. 16 Identifying the intersection point Mx
Writing the loop of geometrical closure under the three directions:
OCRBT = OJ i  f i  ni

(18)

where: i = x, y, z.
We obtain a linear system with three vectors' equations and three unknown factors, after
that is seeking to obtain the intersection point CRBT using least squares minimization

20

method. In reality, the directions of these three normal lines cross (nearly at r = 1.2 mm) in
only one point noted CRBT (see figure 17) which corresponds with stiffness center.

Fig. 17 Determination of the block tool rotation center: CRBT
Charge
point

Px,1

Px,2

Py,1

Py,2

Pz,1

Pz,2

Coordinate Displacement Shift
of point
distance I
vector d ij
(mm)
(m)
(m)
35
9.110-5
1.810-3
-20
1.710-5
52
3.410-5
35
0.810-5
1.810-3
-20
1.510-5
117
1.510-5
116
210-5
1.710-3
15
-210-5
56
-210-5
116
0.210-5
1.710-3
15
-1.310-5
103
9.810-6
45
5.510-6
8.810-4
-20
6.510-5
17
5.510-5
130
310-5
8.810-4
-20
110-5
6
8.710-5

Angular
shift i (°)

0.28

0.28

1.97

1.97

0.18

0.18

Intersection Coordinate
point Mi
of CRBT
(m)
(m)
0.366
0.042
0.178
0.366
0.042
0.178
0.086
0.045
0.081
0.086
0.045
0.081
0.033
-0.052
-0.227
0.033
-0.052
-0.227

0.56

0.56

-0.58

-0.58

-0.08

-0.08

Table. 1 Experimental values to obtain stiffness center CRBT

21

The obtained results using this experimental approach are coherent with other finding in the
literature [24].
Thereafter is made a verification measuring the tool point displacement O in work-space
under the charge. We considerate our experimental results viewing the tool point that
moves under one segment of a sphere with the center CRBT: assimilated with a normal plan
(O, CRBT) for small displacements (accordingly figure 18).

Fig. 18 Determination of the block tool center rotation: CRBT

5.2 Comparaison with stiffness matrix
If we proceed on the diagonalization of the block workpiece stiffness matrix [KF,BT]
obtained in the section (4.2.1}), we obtain:

[KF, BT-d] =

4.1  105





0
6  106



.

7
1.3  10 
O, xyz
0
0

(19)

The eigenvectors associated are:
 v1
v2
v3 


0.0688 0.4103
0.6336 
[V] = 
.
0.9896 0.3389  07713 


0.1260 0.83467  0.0603 O , xyz

(20)

We note that the maximum stiffness obtained is situated on the direction of third
eigenvector v3 , being at 4° nearly the direction (CRBT - O}) (see figure 19); and
respectively the minimum and stiffness average on the directions of eigenvectors v1 and v2 .
22

Fig 19 Eigenvectors.

6 Conclusion
In the literature many authors use only tool rigidity [15, 31, 32, 40, 41] and recently the
elastic behaviour of the machine [6]; furthermore, this research considers the rigidity of the
tool device system (BT). Anothers takes into account that both the workpiece deflection
and the cutting force between tool and workpiece [8]. In [34] tool and workpiece are
modelled as two separate single degree of freedom spring-mass-damper systems. All these
models are 2D, or more or less partially 3D, and thus does not allow a real 3D modeling of
the cut.
The approach presented in this paper is fully different from previous studies in the sense
that we use the six-dimension of the torsors (3 force components, 3 torque components).
Consequently, this way allows us to be directly in the most suitable framework for a real
3D cutting modeling. Thanks to the principle of virtual work, we determined the complete
torsor of small displacements (3 linear and 3 rotations displacement) associated with the
mechanical actions torsor (3 force components, 3 torque components) via the matrix of
rigidities. The stiffness center and the rotation center were obtained experimentally. The
minimal displacement direction was defined on the basis of experimental model. Using
Castigliano's theorem, we determined the angle K which characterizes the principal
deformation direction. Then, we characterized block workpiece (BW) was characterized by
its stiffness values and the diagonal matrix of displacements. This diagonal matrix of
displacement validate the hypothesis and confirm the good rigidity of workpiece. Whole
static behaviour analysis of the system (BT-BW) is thus validated. An application of this
methodology within a framework of machining really 3D is available in [4]. These results
are required to have a good 3D modeling of the cut, as being presented in a forthcoming
paper.

23

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Jean Pierre Larivière, Ingineer CNRS (Centre National de la
Recherche Scintifique - France) for the numerical simulation with SAMCEF software and
Professor Miron Zapciu for the helpful discussions on this subject.

References
1. Axinte D. A., Belluco W., De Chiffre L.,
Evaluation of cutting force uncertainty components in turning,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 41, pp. 719-730, (2001)
2. Benardos P. G., Mosialos S., Vosniakos G. C.,
Prediction of workpiece elastic deflections under cutting forces in turning,
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 22, pp. 505-514, (2006)
3. Bisu C. F.,
Etude des vibrations auto-entretenues en coupe tridimensionnelle: nouvelle modélisation
appliquée au tournage,
Ph. D. Thesis, Université Bordeaux 1 and Universitatea Politehnica Bucharest, (2007)
4. Bisu C. F., Darnis P., Gérard A., K'nevez J-Y.,
Displacements analysis of self-excited vibrations in turning,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 44, 1-2, pp. 1-16, (2009)
(doi: 10.1007/s00170-008-1815-8)
5. Buyuksagis I. S.,
Analysis of circular marble sawing using a block-cutter,
Ph. D. Thesis, Osmangazi University, Institute of Sciences and Technology, (1998)
6. Cano T., Chapelle F., Lavest J.-M., Ray P.,
A new approach to identifying the elastic behaviour of a manufacturing machine,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 48, pp. 1569-1577, (2008)
7. Cardi A. A., Firpi H. A., Bement M. T., Liang S. Y.,
Workpiece dynamic analysis and prediction during chatter of turning process,
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 22, 1481-1494, (2008)
8. Carrino L., Giorleo G., Polini W., Prisco U.,
Dimensional errors in longitudinal turning based on the unified generalized mechanics of
cutting approach. Part I: Three-dimensional theory,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 42, pp. 1509-1515, (2002)
9. Castro L. R., Viéville P., Lipinski P.,
Correction of dynamic effects on force measurements made with piezoelectric
dynamometers,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46, (14), pp. 1707-1715, (2006)

24

10. Chen C. K., Tsao Y. M.,
A stability analysis of regenerative chatter in turning process without using tailstock,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 29, (7-8), pp. 648-654,
(2006)
11. Chen C. K., Tsao Y. M.,
A stability analysis of turning tailstock supported flexible work-piece,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46, (1), pp. 18-25, (2006)
12. Couétard Y.,
Caractérisation et étalonnage des dynamomètres à six composantes pour torseur associé à
un système de forces,
Ph. D. Thesis, Universit\'e Bordeaux~1 Talence, (2000)
13. Dassanayake A. V., Suh C. S.,
On nonlinear cutting response and tool chatter in turning operation,
Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numercial Simulation, 13, (5), pp. 979-1001,
(2008)
14. Deacu I., Pavel G.,
Vibrations des Machines-Outils,
Dacia, Cluj Napoca, (1977)
15. Dimla Sr D. E.,
The impact of cutting conditions on cutting forces and vibration signals in turning with
plane face geometry inserts,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 155-156, pp. 1708-1715, (2004)
16. Ganguli A., Deraemaeker A., Preumont A.,
Regenerative chatter reduction by active damping control,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 300, pp. 847-862, (2007)
17. Gorodetskii Y. I., Budankov A. S., Komarov V. N.,
A system for experimental studies of the dynamics of the process of cutting metal,
Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, 37, (1), pp. 68-73, (2008)
18. Insperger T., Barton D. A. W., Stepan G.,
Criticality of Hopf bifucation in state-dependent delay model turning processes,
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 43, pp. 140-149, (2008)
19. Ispas C., Gheorghiu H., Parausanu I., Anghel V.,
Vibrations des systèmes technologiques,
Agir, Bucarest, (1999)
20. Karabay S.,
Design criteria for electro-mechanical transducers and arrangement for measurement
cutting forces acting on dynamometers,
Materials & Design, 28, pp. 496-506, (2007)

25

21. Koenigsberger F., Tlusty J.,
Machine Tools Structures, Pergamon Press, (1970)
22. Konig W., Sepulveda E., Lauer-Schmaltz H.,
Zweikomponenten schnittkraftmesser,
Industrie-Anzeiger, (1997)
23. Korkut I.,
Design and manufacturing of a dynamometer connected to computer which can do
measuring with strain gages on the lathe,
Ph. D. Thesis, University of Gazi, Institute of Science and Technology, (1996)
24. Kudinov V. A.,
Dinamica Masinilor Unelten,
Tehnicas, Bucarest,(1970)
25. Lapujoulade F., Coffignal G., Pimont, J.,
Cutting forces evaluation during high speed milling,
2th IDMME' 98, 2, pp. 541-549,
Compiègne, France, May, (1998)
26. Marinescu I., Ispas C., Boboc, D.,
Handbook of Machine Tool Analysis,
Deckker M., New York, (2002)
27. Mehdi K., Rigal J-F., Play D.,
Dynamic behavior of thin wall cylindrical workpiece during the turning process, Part 1:
Cutting process simulation,
J. Manuf. Sci. and Engng., 124, pp. 562-568, (2002)
28. Pérez H., Vizan A., Hernandez J. C., Guzman M.,
Estimation of cutting forces in micromilling through the determination of specific cutting
pressures,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 190, pp. 18-22, (2007)
29. Pestel E. C., Leckie F. A.,
Matrix methods in elastomechanics,
McGraw-Hill, New York, (1963)
30. Robinson J.,
Analyse matricielle des structures à l'usage des ingénieurs,
Dunod, Paris, (1971)
31. Saglam H., Unsacar F., Yaldiz S.,
Investigation of the effect of rake angle and approaching angle on main cutting force and
tool tip temperature,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 46, (2), pp. 132-141, (2006)
26

32. Saglam H., Yaldiz S., Unsacar F.,
The effect of tool geometry and cutting speed on main cutting force and tool tip
temperature,
Materials & Design, 28, pp. 355-360, (2002)
33. Salgado M. A., Lopez de Lacalle L.N., Lamikiz A., Munoa J., Sanchez J. A.,
Evaluation of the stiffness chain on the deflection of end-mills under cutting forces,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 45, pp. 727-739, (2005)
34. Seka, M., Srinivas J., Kotaiah K. R., Yang S. H.,
Stability analysis of turning process with tailstock-supported workpiece,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, doi: 10.1007/s001700008-1764-2, (2008)
35. Seker U., Kurt A., Ciftci I.,
Design and constrution of a dynamometer for measurement of cutting forces during
machining with linear motion,
Materials & Design, 23, pp. 355-360, (2002)
36. Toh C. K.,
Static and dynamic cutting force analysis when high speed rough milling hardened steel,
Materials & Design, 25, pp. 41-50, (2004)
37. Toulouse D.,
Contribution à la modélisation et à la métrologie de la coupe dans le cas d'un usinage
tridimensionnel, Ph. D. Thesis, Université Bordeaux 1 Talence, (1998)
38. Wang Z. C., Cleghorn W. L.,
Stability analysis of spinning stepped-shaft workpieces in a turning process,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 250, (2), pp. 356-367, (2002)
39.Yaldiz S., Ünsacar F.,
Design, development and testing of a turning dynamometer for cutting force
measurement,
Materials & Design, 27, 839-846, (2006)
40. Yaldiz S., Ünsacar F.,
A dynamometer design for measurement the cutting forces on turning,
Measurement, 39, pp. 80-89, (2006)
41. Yaldiz S., Ünsacar F., Saglam H.,
Comparaison of experimental results obtained by designed dynamometer to fuzzy model
for predicting cutting forces in turning,
Materials & Design, 27, pp.1139-1147, (2006)

27

