242 views

Uploaded by kalmarnagy

save

- 1506
- 005 Villarreal
- Primer Adapted Dynamic Analysis in vibration problems
- A Summary of Basic Vibrations Theory
- InTech-Active Vibration Control of a Smart Beam by Using a Spatial Approach
- Mechnaical_2
- civil mani.docx
- An experimental investigation of nonlinear vibration and frequency response analysis of cantilever viscoelastic beams
- M.tech Sem-2 DYN Tutorial-1
- 154 - Understanding Dynamic Time Analyses
- Forced Vibration
- Lect 1-2-3
- Application of Turned Mass Dampers for Bridge Decks
- Vibration
- 1-s2.0-S221201731300649X-main.pdf
- Iscar Face Grooving 7861759
- The 7 Natural Laws
- 2014-2
- 8. Eng-Fundamental Natural Frequency for-Ezeh J. C
- Wind Loading
- Simulating the Dynamic Response
- pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th_~pphongsa_teaching_vibration_Ch3
- Hilma
- RizviSyllabus
- LuuFinal
- Vehicle and Driver Vibration_PPT
- new selvam_ resume_ production
- Critical Speeds of Gyroscopes Course
- 06353936
- Olav.fyrileiv
- download.txt.txt
- revisi ark.docx
- Comprensión Textos Cortos Lengua2
- PERÚ_Gobierno de Criminales
- Spring 2019 Creative Paperbacks Catalog
- programme
- cisco_IOS_COMMANDS.pdf
- Abelha
- Reporte de La Práctica de Laboratorio 1
- Procesos Químicos Fase 3
- Aves Portugal
- Scolari_CommTheory_2012.pdf
- new anti carnapping law.docx
- Estructuras de Información
- Verdi - Rigoletto (Piano & Vocals) 03
- 12
- Politicas de Riesgos Auditoria Informatica
- Euterpe Papeles Perdidos - Contrabajo
- b2 Session 3 Juin 2017 Paris Quignard - Villa Amalia - St Malo - A l Abordage
- HUMANITIES - Digital Painting
- Ina CBGS PMK No. 27 Ttg Pedoman Pencegahan Dan Pengendalian Infeksi Di FASYANKES
- Actividad Individual.docx
- Robotic Nursing
- Arm_nicos_en_Redes_El_ctricas.pdf
- RPP BANGUN RUANG
- Estequiometria ejercicios quimica
- Aleaciones Del Sistema Pb-sn
- EL METAL
- calculo.pdf
- 8.4.2.1 Sop Akses Terhadap Rekam Medis
- Kalmar-Nagy Graph Decomposition Methods for Uncertainty Propagation in Complex, Nonlinear Interconnected
- Kalmar-Nagy Near-Optimal Dynamic Trajectory Generation and Control of an Omnidirectional Vehicle
- Kalmar-Nagy Propagation of Uncertain Inputs Through Networks of Nonlinear Components
- High Dimensional Harmonic Balance Analysis for Differential-Delay Equations
- Kalmar-Nagy Nonlinear Models for Complex Dynamics in Cutting Materials
- Kalmar-Nagy Subcritical Hopf Bifurcation in the Delay Equation Model for Machine Tool Vibrations
- Delay-Differential Models of Cutting Tool Dynamics With Nonlinear and Mode-Coupling Effects
- Experimental and Analytical Investigation of the Subcritical Instability in Turning
- Approximating Small and Large Amplitude Periodic Orbits
- Dynamics of a Relay Oscillator With Hysteresis
- The Random Fibonacci Recurrence and the Visible Points of the Plane

You are on page 1of 19

**Tamás Kalmár-Nagy
**

1

, Francis C. Moon

2

1

United Technologies Research Center, 411 Silver Lane, East Hartford, CT 06108

2

Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

Abstract

In this paper a new 3 degree-of-freedom lumped-parameter model for machine tool vibrations is developed and

analyzed. One mode is shown to be stable and decoupled from the other two, and thus the stability of the system

can be determined by analyzing these two modes. It is shown that this mode-coupled nonconservative cutting

tool model including the regenerative eﬀect (time delay) can produce an instability criteria that admits low-level

or zero chip thickness chatter.

1 Introduction

One of the unsolved problems of metal cutting is the existence of low-level, random-looking (maybe chaotic)

vibrations (or pre-chatter dynamics, see Johnson and Moon [17]). Some possible sources of this vibration are

the elasto-plastic separation of the chip from the workpiece and the stick-slip friction of the chip over the tool.

Recent papers of Davies and Burns [9], Wiercigroch and Krivtsov [43], Wiercigroch and Budak [41] and Moon

and Kalmár-Nagy [27] have addressed some of these issues. Numerous researchers investigated single degree-of-

freedom regenerative tool models (Tobias [39], Hanna and Tobias [13], Shi and Tobias [34], Fofana [11], Johnson

[18], Nayfeh et al. [28], Kalmár-Nagy et al. [20], Stépán [36], Kalmár-Nagy [21], Stone and Campbell [38], Stépán

et al. [37]). Even though the classical model (Tobias [39]) with nonlinear cutting force is quite successful in

predicting the onset of chatter (Kalmár-Nagy et al., [19]), it cannot possibly account for all phenomena displayed

in real cutting experiments. Single degree-of-freedom deterministic time-delay models have been insuﬃcient so

far to explain low-amplitude dynamics below the stability boundary. Also, real tools have multiple degrees of

freedom. In addition to horizontal and vertical displacements, tools can twist and bend. Higher degree-of-freedom

models have also been studied in turning, as well as in boring, milling and drilling (Pratt [32], Batzer et al.

[2], Balachandran [1], van de Wouw et al. [44]). In this paper we will examine the coupling between multiple

degree-of-freedom tool dynamics and the regenerative eﬀect in order to see if this chatter instability criteria will

permit low-level instabilities.

Coupled-mode models in aeroelasticity or vehicle dynamics may exhibit so-called ’ﬂutter’ or dynamics insta-

bilities (see e.g. Chu and Moon [8]) when there exists a non-conservative force in the problem. One example is the

follower force torsion-beam problem as in Hsu [15]. In the present work we assume that the chip removal forces

rotate with the tool thereby introducing an unsymmetric stiﬀness matrix which can lead to ﬂutter and chatter.

Tobias called this mode-coupled chatter. Often this model of chatter is analyzed without the regenerative eﬀect.

In this paper we will show that the combination of mode-coupling nonconservative model and a time delay can

produce an instability criteria that admits low-level or zero chip thickness chatter. There is no claim in this paper

to having solved the random- or chaotic low level dynamics since only linear stability analysis is presented in this

paper. But the results shown below provide an incentive to extend this model into the nonlinear regime. A dy-

namic model with the combination of 2-degree-of-freedom ﬂutter model with time delay may also be applicable to

aeroelastic problems in rotating machinery where the ﬂuid forces in the current cycle depend on eddies generated

in the previous cycle. However the focus of this paper is on the physics of cutting dynamics.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 an overview of the turning operation is given, together

with the description of chatter and the regenerative eﬀect. The equations of motion are developed in Section 3.

The model parameters are estimated in Section 4. Analysis of the model is performed in Section 5 and conclusions

are drawn in Section 6.

2 Metal Cutting

The most common feature of machining operations (such as turning, milling, and drilling) is the removal of a

thin layer of material (the chip) from the workpiece using a wedge-shaped tool. They also involve relative motion

1

pp. 129-149, in Guenter Radons and Raimund Neugebauer eds.: Nonlinear Dynamics of Production

Systems. Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2004

Machined surface

Workpiece

vto

o

l

Figure 1: Turning

between the workpiece and the tool. In turning the material is removed from a rotating workpiece, as shown in

Figure 1.

The cylindrical workpiece rotates with constant angular velocity Ω [rad/s] and the tool is moving along the

axis of the workpiece at a constant rate. The feed f is the longitudinal displacement of the tool per revolution of

the workpiece, and thus it is also the nominal chip thickness. The translational speed of the tool is then given by

v

tool

=

Ω

2π

f (1)

The interaction between the workpiece and the tool gives rise to vibrations. One of the most important source

of vibrations in a cutting process is the regenerative eﬀect. The present cut and the one made one revolution

earlier might overlap, causing chip thickness (and thus cutting force) variations. The associated time delay is the

time-period τ of one revolution of the workpiece

τ =

2π

Ω

(2)

The phenomenon of the large amplitude vibration of the tool is known as chatter. A good description of chatter is

given by S. A. Tobias [39], one of the pioneers of modern machine tool vibrations research: ’The machining of metal

is often accompanied by a violent relative vibration between work and tool which is called the chatter. Chatter

is undesirable because of its adverse aﬀects on surface ﬁnish, machining accuracy, and tool life. Furthermore,

chatter is also responsible for reducing output because, if no remedy can be found, metal removal rates have to

be lowered until vibration-free performance is obtained.’

Johnson [18] summarizes several qualitative features of tool vibration

• The tool always appears to vibrate while cutting. The amplitude of the vibration distinguishes chatter from

small-amplitude vibrations.

• The tool vibration typically has a strong periodic component which approximately coincides with a natural

frequency of the tool.

• The amplitude of the oscillation is typically modulated and often in a random way. The amplitude modu-

lation is present in both the chattering and non-chattering cases.

Tool vibrations can be categorized as self-excited vibrations (Litak et al. [24], Milisavljevich et al. [25]) or

vibrations due to external sources of excitation (such as resonances of the machine structure) and can be periodic,

quasiperiodic, chaotic or stochastic (or combinations thereof). A great deal of experimental work has been carried

out in machining to characterize and quantify the dynamics of metal cutting. Recently a number of researchers

have provided experimental evidence that tool vibrations in turning may be chaotic (Moon and Abarbanel [26],

Bukkapatnam et al. [5], Johnson [18], Berger et al. [3]). Other groups however now disavow the chaos theory for

cutting and claim that the vibrations are random noise (Wiercigroch and Cheng [42], Gradišek et al. [12]).

2

W

f

f

2

i

C

F

C

F

T

F

R

workpiece

cutting

tool insert

machined

surface

v

C

Figure 2: Oblique chip formation model

2.1 Oblique Cutting

Although many practical machining processes can adequately be modeled as single degree-of-freedom and orthog-

onal, more accurate models demand a chip formation model in which the cutting velocity is not normal to the

cutting edge.Figure 2 shows the usual oblique chip formation model, where the inclination angle i (measured

between the cutting edge and the normal to the cutting velocity in the plane of the machined surface) is not zero,

as in orthogonal cutting. The cutting velocity is denoted by v

C

, the chip ﬂow angle is η

c

, the thickness of the

undeformed chip is f, the deformed chip thickness is f

2

and the chip width is w. The three dimensional cutting

force acting on the tool insert is decomposed into three mutually orthogonal forces: FC, FT , FR. The cutting

force F

C

is the force in the cutting direction, the thrust force F

T

is the force normal to the cutting direction

and machined surface, while the radial force F

R

is normal to both F

C

and F

T

. While orthogonal cuting can be

modeled as a 2-dimensional process, oblique cutting is a true three-dimensional plastic ﬂow problem (Oxley [30]).

3 3 DOF Model of Metal Cutting

Figure 3 shows a tool with a cutting chip (insert) both in undeformed and deformed state of the tool.The three

z

y

x

cutting edge

tool insert

r

x

r

z

v

C

Figure 3: 3 DOF metal cutting model

3

degrees of freedom are horizontal position (x), vertical position (z), and twist (φ). In the lumped parameter model

(Figure 4) all the mass m of the beam is placed at its end (this eﬀective mass is equivalent to modal mass for a

distributed beam).

x

z

chip

m k ,c

k

x

c

x

k

z

c

z

F

T

F

C

Figure 4: 3 DOF lumped-parameter model

The equations of motion are the following

m¨ z + c

z

˙ z + k

z

z = F

z

(3)

m¨ x + cx ˙ x + kxx = Fx (4)

I

¨

φ + c

φ

˙

φ + k

φ

φ = M

y

(5)

Figure 5 shows the forces acting on the tooltip.

As the tool bends about the x axis, the direction of the cutting velocity (and main cutting force) changes, as

shown in Figure 6.In order to derive the equations of motion, two coordinate systems are deﬁned. An inertial

frame (I, J, K) ﬁxed to the tool and a moving frame (i, j, k) ﬁxed to the cutting velocity.The force acting on the

insert can then be written as

F = −FT I + FRJ −FCK (6)

or

F = Fxi + Fyj + Fzk (7)

where i, j, k are unit vectors in the x, y, z directions, respectively.

Fx = −FT (8)

F

y

= F

C

sinβ + F

R

cos β (9)

F

z

= F

R

sinβ −F

C

cos β (10)

The bending also results in a pitch ψ (shown in Figure 6). This is not a separate degree of freedom, but nonetheless

it will inﬂuence the inclination angle.

The following assumptions are used in deriving the equations of motion

• The forces that act on the insert are steady-state forces

• The width of cut w (y-position) is constant

• All displacements are small

• Yaw is negligible

Steady-state forces refer to time averaged quantities. The eﬀect of rate-dependent cutting forces were studied

by Saravanja-Fabris and D’Souza [33], Chiriacescu [7], Moon and Kalmár-Nagy [27]. Next we ﬁnd the position of

the tooltip in the ﬁxed system of the platform. To do so we have to ﬁnd the rotation matrix R that describes the

relationship between the moving frame (i, j, k) and the ﬁxed frame (I, J, K).

i j k

= R

I J K

(11)

Using the Tait-Bryant angles {ψ, φ} we express R as a product of two consecutive planar rotations (Pitch-Roll

system)

R = R

2

R

1

(12)

4

x

y

z

F

T

F

R

F

C

I

J

K

i

j

k

v

C

Figure 5: Forces on the tooltip

F

C

F

R

z

y

**Figure 6: Direction of cutting velocity
**

5

The cross section is ﬁrst rotated about I by the pitch angle ψ. The corresponding rotation matrix is

R1 =

¸

1 0 0

0 cψ sψ

0 −sψ cψ

(13)

where the abbreviations c = cos, s = sin were used. The second rotation is about the J2 (the rotated J) axis

through the roll angle φ (with respect to the toolholder)

R2 =

¸

cφ 0 sφ

0 1 0

−sφ 0 cφ

(14)

R can then be calculated by (12)

R =

¸

cφ −sφsψ cψsφ

0 cψ sψ

−sφ −cφsψ cψcφ

(15)

The position of the tooltip can be expressed in the ﬁxed frame as

r

∗

= R

¸

r

x

0

r

z

=

¸

r

x

cφ + r

z

cψsφ

rzsψ

r

z

cψcφ −r

x

sφ

(16)

The roll producing moment can then be calculated as

M

y

= (r

∗

×F) · j = F

T

(r

x

sφ −r

z

cφcψ) + F

C

cβ (r

x

cφ + r

z

cψsφ) −F

R

sβ (r

x

cφ + r

z

cψsφ) (17)

In the following we assume small displacements and small angles and neglect nonlinear terms. The angle β is

taken to be proportional to the vertical displacement, i.e. β = −nz (n > 0) and so is the pitch, i.e. ψ = kz

(k > 0).

m¨ x + c

x

˙ x + k

x

x = −F

T

(18)

m¨ z + c

z

˙ z + k

z

z = −

F

C

+ nz

¯

F

R

(19)

I

¨

φ + c

φ

˙

φ + k

φ

φ = M

y

= φ

r

x

¯

F

T

+ r

z

¯

F

C

−r

z

F

T

+ r

x

F

C

+ nzr

x

¯

F

R

(20)

where

¯

F

C

,

¯

F

R

,

¯

F

T

denotes the constant term in F

C

, F

R

and F

T

, respectively.

3.1 Cutting Forces

Generally we assume that the cutting forces FC, FT , FR depend only on the inclination angle i and chip thickness

f (see Figure 2), and the rake angle α (see Figure 3). We again emphasize that the chip width w is considered

constant in the present analysis. Our hypothesis here is that F

C

and F

T

depend linearly on both the rake angle

and chip thickness (see Section 4.2) in the following manner

F

C

= −l

C

α + m

C

t

1

+ F

C0

(21)

F

T

= −l

T

α + m

T

t

1

+ F

T0

(22)

where m

C

and m

T

are cutting force coeﬃcients, while l

C

and l

T

are angular cutting force coeﬃcients (they show

how strong the force dependence is on rake angle). The variable t

1

is the chip thickness variation (the deviation

from the nominal chip thickness). The constant forces FC0 and FT0 arise from cutting at a nominal chip thickness.

The radial cutting force can be expressed as (Oxley [30])

F

R

= sini

F

C

cos i (i −sinα) −F

T

sin

2

i sinα + cos

2

i

(23)

where Stabler’s Flow Rule (Stabler [35]) η

C

= i was used. The eﬀective rake angle depends on the initial rake

angle and the roll

α = α0 −φ (24)

while the inclination angle will depend on the initial inclination angle (i0) as well as the pitch

i = i

0

−ψ (25)

The chip thickness depends on the nominal feed and the position of the tooltip (both the present and the delayed

ones). The displacement of the tooltip is due to translational and rotational motion as shown in Figure 7.Here

the dashed line corresponds to the position vector of the tooltip in the undeformed conﬁguration, while the solid

6

r

x

r

z

i

k

z

x

Figure 7: Motion of the tooltip

line depicts how this vector rotates (φ) and translates (due to the displacements x and z). The chip thickness is

then given by

t1 = t10 + x −xτ + rz sin(φ −φτ ) ≈ t10 + x −xτ + rz (φ −φτ ) (26)

where x

τ

and φ

τ

denote the delayed values x(t −τ) and φ(t −τ), respectively. Then the cutting forces can be

written as

FC = mC (x −xτ ) + (lC + rzmC) φ −rzmCφτ +

¯

F

C

. .. .

mCt10 + FC0 −α0lC (27)

F

T

= m

T

(x −x

τ

) + (l

T

+ r

z

m

T

) φ −r

z

m

T

φ

τ

+ m

T

t

10

+ F

T0

−α

0

l

T

(28)

If the initial inclination angle is assumed to be zero, the expression for F

R

will simplify

F

R

= k

¯

F

T

+ (sinα

0

−1)

¯

F

C

+ t

10

(m

C

(1 −sinα

0

) −m

T

)

z (29)

3.2 The Equations of Motion

Substituting (27-28) into equations (18-20) and eliminating the constant (by translation of the variables) results

m¨ z + cz ˙ z + kzz = −n

¯

FRz −mC (x −xτ ) −(lC + rzmC) φ + rzmCφτ (30)

m¨ x + c

x

˙ x + k

x

x = −m

T

(x −x

τ

) −(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

) φ + r

z

m

T

φ

τ

(31)

I

¨

φ + c

φ

˙

φ + k

φ

φ = −rzmT (x −xτ ) −rz (lT + rzmT −mCt10 −FC0 + α0lC) φ + r

2

z

mT φτ (32)

where now (x, z, φ) represent deviations from the steady values of the original displacements. As we can see, the

x and φ equations are uncoupled from the z equation, so the stability of the system is determined by (31, 32).

Equations (31, 32) can also be written as

¨ x + 2ζ

x

ω

x

˙ x +

ω

2

x

+

m

T

m

x +

1

m

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

) φ =

m

T

m

x

τ

+ r

z

m

T

m

φ

τ

(33)

¨

φ + 2ζ

φ

ω

φ

˙

φ +

rzmT

I

x +

ω

2

φ

+

rz

I

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

−m

C

t

10

−F

C0

+ α

0

l

C

)

φ =

rzmT

I

x

τ

+ r

2

z

mT

I

φ

τ

(34)

where

ω

x

=

kx

m

, ω

φ

=

k

φ

I

(35)

By introducing the nondimensional time and displacement

ˆ

t = t/T ˆ x = x/X (36)

ˆ x

00

+ 2ζ

x

ω

x

T ˆ x

0

+

ω

2

x

+

m

T

m

T

2

ˆ x +

1

m

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

)

T

2

X

φ =

m

T

m

T

2

x

τ

+ r

z

m

T

m

T

2

X

φ

τ

(37)

φ

00

+ 2ζ

φ

ω

φ

Tφ

0

+

rmT

I

T

2

Xˆ x +

ω

2

φ

+

rz

I

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

−F

C0

−m

C

t

10

+ α

0

l

C

)

¸

T

2

φ =

r

z

m

T

I

T

2

Xx

τ

+ r

2

z

m

T

I

T

2

φ

τ

(38)

7

With the choice of the following scales

T =

1

ω

x

X =

I

m

(39)

the equations assume the form (ˆ τ = ω

x

τ)

ˆ x

00

+ 2ζ

x

ˆ x

0

+ k

11

ˆ x + k

12

φ = r

11

ˆ x

ˆ τ

+ r

12

φ

ˆ τ

(40)

φ

00

+ 2

ˆ

ζ

φ

φ

0

+ k

21

ˆ x + k

22

φ = r

21

ˆ x

ˆ τ

+ r

22

φ

ˆ τ

(41)

where

k

11

= 1 +

mT

ω

2

x

m

k

12

=

lT + rzmT

ω

2

x

√

Im

(42)

k21 =

r

z

m

T

ω

2

x

√

Im

ˆ

ζ

φ

= ζ

φ

ω

φ

ω

x

(43)

k

22

=

ω

φ

ωx

2

+

rz

ω

2

x

I

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

−m

C

t

10

−F

C0

+ α

0

l

C

) (44)

r11 =

m

T

ω

2

x

m

r12 = r21 =

r

z

m

T

ω

2

x

√

Im

(45)

r22 =

r

2

z

m

T

ω

2

x

√

Im

(46)

Note that the stiﬀnesses k

12

and k

21

are diﬀerent. This is characteristic of nonconservative systems (Bolotin [4],

Panovko and Gubanova [31]). In many mechanical systems this nonconservativeness is due to the presence of

following forces.

4 Estimation of Model Parameters

In the following we estimate diﬀerent terms in (42-46) to establish their relative strengths in order to simplify the

model.

4.1 Structural Parameters

The toolholder is assumed to be a rectangular steel beam. The length of the toolholder is relatively short for

normal cutting, while it can be longer for boring operations (see Kato et al. [22]). So we assume l to be between

0.05 m and 0.3 m. The width and height are usually of order of a centimeter. The stiﬀnesses for such a cantilevered

beam can be in the following ranges

k

x

' 10

4

÷10

7

N

m

(47)

kz ' 10

5

÷10

7

N

m

(48)

k

φ

' 1000 ÷10000

N

rad

(49)

Since a lumped parameter approximation is used, the mass at the end of the massless beam is assumed to be the

modal mass. The vibration frequencies are then

ωx ' 100 ÷5000

rad

s

(50)

ω

z

' 100 ÷10000

rad

s

(51)

ω

φ

' 1000 ÷10000

rad

s

(52)

The ratio

ω

φ

ω

x

varies between 2 and 10 (the shorter the tool is the higher the ratio).

4.2 Cutting Force Parameters

Experimental cutting force data during machining of 0.2% carbon steel is shown in Figure 8 (Oxley [30]).The graph

shows the forces FC and FT for diﬀerent rake angles (α = −5

◦

and 5

◦

for top and bottom Figures, respectively).

The width of cut and chip thickness were 4 mm and 0.25 mm, respectively. Since our model assumes constant

8

Figure 8: Forces in oblique cutting of 0.2% carbon steel. α = −5

◦

(top) and α = 5

◦

(bottom). f = 0.125 mm. After

Oxley (1989)

[rad]

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

F [kN]

C

F [kN]

T

[rad]

Figure 9: Forces vs. rake angle (derived from Oxley [30]) a, cutting force b, thrust force.

9

cutting speed, forces were taken from these graphs at the value 200 m/s of the cutting speed and plotted against

rake angle (Figure 9).The constants l

C

and l

T

were found as the slope of the lines corresponding to t

1

= 0.25 mm

l

C

= 1580

N

rad

, l

T

= 3150

N

rad

(53)

A linear relationship is assumed between forces at zero rake angle and chip thickness, i.e.

FC = FC0 + mct1 (54)

FT = FT0 + mT t1 (55)

where these coeﬃcients were determined to be

m

C

= 6 ∗ 10

6

N

m

F

C0

= 458 N (56)

mT = 1.65 ∗ 10

6

N

m

FT0 = 784 N (57)

4.3 Model Parameters

Since

r

z

ω

2

x

I

(l

T

+ r

z

m

T

−m

C

t

10

−F

C0

+ α

0

l

C

) ¿

ω

φ

ω

x

2

(58)

this term will be neglected, i.e.

k

22

=

ω

φ

ωx

2

(59)

Also, the term r

22

is very small, so it is neglected

r

22

= 0 (60)

5 Analysis of the Model

With the approximations (59, 60) the model (40, 41) can be written as the matrix equation

¨ x +C˙ x +Kx = Rx

τ

(61)

where

x =

ˆ x

φ

**and the matrices are given by
**

C =

¸

2ζx 0

0 2ζ

φ

, K =

¸

1 + p a + pq

pq k

22

, (62)

R =

¸

p q

q 0

(63)

Here we introduced the parameters

p =

m

T

ω

2

x

m

, q =

r

z

X

= r

z

m

I

(64)

where constants a and k

22

are

a =

l

T

ω

2

x

√

Im

, k

22

=

ω

φ

ω

x

2

(65)

It is characteristic of systems with nonsymmetric stiﬀness matrix, that they can lose stability either by divergence

(buckling) or by ﬂutter. Chu and Moon [8] examined divergence and ﬂutter instabilities in magnetically levitated

models. Kiusalaas and Davis [23] studied stability of elastic systems under retarded follower forces. Recently

several numerical methods were proposed to investigate stability of linear time-delay systems (see Chen et al. [6],

Engelborghs and Roose [10], Insperger and Stépán [16], Olgac and Sipahi [29]).

5.1 Classical Limit

If q = 0 the equations reduce to

x

00

+ 2ζxx

0

+ (1 + p) x + aφ = pxτ (66)

φ

00

+ 2ζ

φ

φ

0

+ cφ = 0 (67)

The φ-equation is uncoupled from the x-equation and reduces to that of a damped oscillator. Its equilibrium

φ = 0 is asymptotically stable and thus it does not aﬀect the stability of the x-equation. In this case we recover

the 1 DOF classical model (Tobias and Fishwick [40]).

10

5.2 Stability Analysis of the Undamped System without Delay

First we perform linear stability analysis of the system

¨ x +Kx = 0 (68)

where the matrix K is non-symmetric and of the form (k

22

> 0)

K =

¸

k

11

k

12

k

21

k

22

(69)

Assuming the solutions in the form

x = de

iωt

(70)

we obtain the characteristic polynomials

K−ω

2

I

d = 0 (71)

which have nontrivial solution if the determinant of K−ω

2

I is zero

k

11

−ω

2

k

12

k

21

k

22

−ω

2

=

k

11

−ω

2

k

22

−ω

2

−k

21

k

12

= 0 (72)

The characteristic equation for the coupled system becomes

ω

4

−(k

11

+ k

22

) ω

2

+ k

11

k

22

−k

21

k

12

= 0 (73)

Divergence (static deﬂection, buckling) occurs when ω = 0 (or det K = 0), that is when

k11k22 −k21k12 = 0 (74)

If ω 6= 0, then the characteristic equation (73) can be solved for ω

2

as

ω

2

=

1

2

k11 + k22 ±

(k11 + k22)

2

−4 (k11k22 −k21k12)

(75)

For stable solutions, both solutions should be positive. Since k

22

> 0, this is the case if

0 ≤ k11k22 −k21k12 ≤

k

11

+ k

22

2

2

(76)

The two bounds correspond to divergence and ﬂutter boundaries, respectively. With the stiﬀness matrix in (62)

k

11

= 1 + p, k

12

= a + pq (77)

k21 = pq (78)

In the plane of the bifurcation parameters q, p the divergence boundaries are given by

p =

1

2q

2

k

22

−aq ±

4k

22

q

2

+ (k

22

−aq)

2

(79)

and the ﬂutter boundary is characterized by

p =

1

1 + 4q

2

(80)

k22 −2aq −1 ±2

q

a (1 −k22) + a

2

q −q (k22 −1)

2

(81)

Figure 10 shows these boundaries on the (q, p) parameter plane for a = 1, k22 = 2.The diﬀerent stability regions

are indicated by the root location plots.

5.3 Stability Analysis of the 2 DOF Model with Delay

In this section we include the delay terms in the analysis. In order to be able to study how these terms inﬂuence

the stability of the system, we introduce a new parameter, similar to the overlap factor (Tobias [39]).

First we analyze the system with no damping:

¨ x +Kx = µRx

τ

(82)

When µ = 0 we recover the previously studied (68), while µ = 1 corresponds to equation (61) without damping.

The characteristic equation is

det

−λ

2

I +K−µe

−λτ

R

= 0 (83)

11

q

p

S

U

U

U

Figure 10: Stability boundaries of the undamped 2 DOF model without delay

λ

4

+

k

11

+ k

22

−µpe

−λτ

λ

2

+ k

11

k

22

−k

12

k

21

+

µe

−λτ

(q (k12 + k21) −pk22) −µ

2

q

2

e

−2λτ

= 0 (84)

Substituting λ = iω, ω ≥ 0 yields a complex equation that can be separated into the two real ones (the second

equation was divided by µsin(τω) 6= 0)

ω

4

−(k11 + k12) ω

2

+ k11k22 −k12k21+ (85)

µcos (τω)

pω

2

+ q (k

12

+ k

21

) −pk

22

−µ

2

q

2

cos (2τω) = 0

pω

2

+ q (k

12

+ k

21

) −pk

22

+ 2µq

2

cos (τω) = 0 (86)

We solve the second equation for cos (τω)

cos (τω) =

pω

2

+ q (k

12

+ k

21

) −pk

22

−2µq

2

(87)

Using this relation and the identity cos (2τω) = 2 cos (τω)

2

−1 in the real part (85) results

ω

4

−(k

11

+ k

22

) ω

2

+ k

11

k

22

−k

12

k

21

+ µ

2

q

2

= 0 (88)

Divergence occurs where ω = 0, that is where

k11k22 −k12k21 + µ

2

q

2

= 0

Substituting the elements of the stiﬀness matrix as given in (62) yields

−(q (a + q (p −µ)) (p −µ)) + k

22

(1 + p −p µ) = 0 (89)

which can be solved for p as

1

2 q

2

k

22

(1 −µ) + q (2 q µ −a) ±

(k

22

(µ −1) + q (a −2µq))

2

+ 4 q

2

(k

22

+ q µ (a −q µ))

(90)

The change of the divergence boundary is shown in Figure 11 (top, middle, bottom) for µ = 0.1, 0.5 and 1 while

the delay was set to 1. Flutter occurs for ω > 0, and the boundary can be found by numerically solving equations

(86, 88) for p and q for a given µ. Figure 12 shows the ﬂutter boundary for a small µ (0.01) together with the

ﬂutter boundary (80). Figure 13 shows how this boundary changes with increasing µ (µ = 0.1, 0.5, 1). Figure 14

shows the full stability chart, complete with both the divergence and ﬂutter boundaries, for µ = 1. To validate this

stability chart the parameter space (p, q) was gridded and the delay-diﬀerential equation (61, 62) was integrated

with constant initial function (note that the amplitude does not matter for linear stability) at the gridpoints.

The integration was carried out for 15τ intervals of which the ﬁrst 5τ intervals were discarded. Stability was

determined by whether the amplitude of the solution grew or decayed. Dark dots correspond to stable numerical

solutions. This ﬁgure can also explain a practical trick used in machine shops: sometimes, to avoid chatter, the

tool is placed slightly ABOVE the centerline. We note that increasing q moves the system into the stable region

of the chart.

12

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3

3

p

q

q

q

p

p

U U

S

U U

U

S

U U

U

U

S

Figure 11: The change of the divergence boundary for system (80), τ = 1. µ = 0.1, 0.5, 1 for top, middle and bottom

Figures, respectively

13

- 2 0 2

q

0

2 p

f

f

S

S

S

U

U

U

Figure 12: Flutter boundary of (80) with µ = 0.01. S and U denote Stable and Unstable regions

- 1 0 1

q

0

2 p

**Figure 13: Flutter boundary as a function of µ (µ = 0.1, 0.5, 1)
**

14

Figure 14: Stability chart for the undamped system (82), µ = 1, τ = 1

Now we examine the eﬀect of damping on the size of stability regions. It is an important step, as it is known

(Herrmann and Jong [14]) that damping can have a destabilizing eﬀect in nonconservative systems. The damping

coeﬃcients ζ

x

and ζ

φ

are taken to be 0.01, while the ratio of frequencies ω

φ

/ω

x

was changed in Figure 15 (this

is the same as keeping this ratio ﬁxed and increasing ζ

φ

). As the ﬁgure shows, the size of the stability regions

increases with added damping. And ﬁnally, we show how the lobes of the conventional stability chart deform with

the added parameter q (0 ≤ q ≤ 1). Figure 16 shows that increasing q results in the ’birth’ of unstable regions.

These upside-down lobes are actually lobes of the classical model for p < 0 (p is the nondimensional cutting force

coeﬃcient which is positive). In our model these lobes become a new source of instability, where the classical

model would predict stable behavior.

6 Conclusions

A new 3 DOF model derived may help explain at least two phenomena in metal cutting. The ﬁrst is that oﬀ-

centering the tool might help avoiding chatter. The second phenomenon is the observation that small amplitude

tool vibrations can arise below the classical stability boundary. As shown, the added degrees of freedom result

in unstable regions below the one predicted by the one DOF classical model. To summarize the important

observations:

• The 3-DOF model results in coupling between twist and lateral bending

• The model can exhibit both divergence and ﬂutter instabilities

• Damping seems to increase the size of stability regions

• The tool oﬀset produces new regions of instability (the upside-down lobes)

This model is based on the assumption of rate-independent cutting forces, i.e. forces that do not exhibit

hysteresis (Moon and Kalmár-Nagy [27]). It does not include temperature eﬀects either (Davies and Burns [9]).

Finally, only the analysis of a full nonlinear model could characterize the nature of vibrations and provide

estimates of vibration amplitudes for the low chip thickness unstable regions.

References

[1] B. Balachandran, Nonlinear Dynamics of Milling Processes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,

359, 793—819 (2001).

15

Figure 15: Stability chart for the 3 DOF model. a, ω

φ

/ω

x

= 2 b, ω

φ

/ω

x

= 10

16

Figure 16: Stability charts for the 3 DOF model with increasing q

[2] S. A. Batzer, A. M. Gouskov, and S. A. Voronov, Modeling the Vibratory Drilling Process. Proceedings of

the 17th ASME Biennial Conference on Vibration and Noise 1-8 (1999).

[3] B. S. Berger, I. Minis, Y. H. Chen, A. Chavali, and M. Rokni, Attractor Embedding in Metal Cutting.

Journal of Sound and Vibration, 184(5), 936—942 (1995).

[4] V. V. Bolotin, Nonconservative Problems of the Theory of Elastic Stability. New York: The MacMillan

Company (1963).

[5] S. T. S. Bukkapatnam, A. Lakhtakia, and S. R. T. Kumara, Analysis of Sensor Signals Shows Turning on a

Lathe Exhibits Low-Dimensional Chaos. Physical Review E, 52(3), 2375—2387 (1995).

[6] S.-G. Chen, A. G. Ulsoy, and Y. Koren, Computational Stability Analysis of Chatter in Turning. Journal of

Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 119, 457—460 (1997).

[7] S. T. Chiriacescu, Stability in the Dynamics of Metal Cutting. Elsevier (1990).

[8] D. Chu, and F. C. Moon, Dynamic Instabilities in Magnetically Levitated Models. Journal of Applied Physics,

54(3), 1619—1625 (1983).

[9] M. A. Davies, and T. J. Burns, Thermomechanical Oscillations in Material Flow During High-Speed Ma-

chining. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 821—846 (2001).

[10] K. Engelborghs, and D. Roose, Numerical Computation of Stability and Detection of Hopf Bifurcations of

Steady State Solutions of Delay Diﬀerential Equations. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 10, 271—289

(1999).

[11] M. S. Fofana, Delay Dynamical Systems with Applications to Machine-Tool Chatter. Ph.D. thesis, University

of Waterloo, Department of Civil Engineering (1993).

[12] J. Gradišek, E. Govekar, and I. Grabec, I, Time Series Analysis in Metal Cutting: Chatter versus Chatter-Free

Cutting. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 12(6), 839—854 (1998).

[13] N. H. Hanna, and S. A. Tobias, A Theory of Nonlinear Regenerative Chatter. Transactions of the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers - Journal of Engineering for Industry, 96(1), 247—255 (1974).

[14] G. Herrmann, and I.-C. Jong, On the Destabilizing Eﬀect of Damping in Nonconservative Elastic Systems.

Transactions of the ASME, 592—597 (1965).

[15] C. S. Hsu, Application of the Tau-Decomposition Method to Dynamical Systems Subjected to Retarded Fol-

lower Forces. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Journal of Applied Mechanics,

37(2), 259-266 (1970).

[16] T. Insperger, and G. Stépán, Semi-discretization Method for Delayed Systems. International Journal for

Numerical Methods in Engineering, 503-518 (2002).

17

[17] M. Johnson, and F. C. Moon, Nonlinear Techniques to Characterize Prechatter and Chatter Vibrations in

the Machining of Metals. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 11(2), 449—467 (2001).

[18] M. A. Johnson, Nonlinear Diﬀerential Equations with Delay as Models for Vibrations in the Machining of

Metals. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University (1996).

[19] T. Kalmár-Nagy, J. R. Pratt, M. A. Davies, and M. D. Kennedy, Experimental and Analytical Investigation

of the Subcritical Instability in Turning. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical

Conferences. DETC99/VIB-8060 (1999).

[20] T. Kalmár-Nagy, G. Stépán, and F. C. Moon, Subcritical Hopf Bifurcation in the Delay Equation Model for

Machine Tool Vibrations. Nonlinear Dynamics 26, 121-142 (2001).

[21] T. Kalmár-Nagy, Delay-Diﬀerential Models of Cutting Tool Dynamics with Nonlinear and Mode-Coupling

Eﬀects. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University (2002).

[22] S. Kato, E. Marui, and H. Kurita, Some Considerations on Prevention of Chatter Vibration in Boring

Operations. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 717-730 (1969).

[23] J. Kiusalaas, and H. E. Davis, On the Stability of Elastic Systems Under Retarded Follower Forces. Inter-

national Journal of Solids and Structures, 6(4), 399—409 (1970).

[24] G. Litak, J. Warmi´nski, and J. Lipski, Self-Excited Vibrations in Cutting Process. 4th Conference on

Dynamical Systems - Theory and Applications, 193-198 (1997).

[25] B. Milisavljevich, M. Zeljkovic, and R. Gatalo, The Nonlinear Model of a Chatter and Bifurcation. Pages

391—398 of: Proceedings of the 5th Engineering Systems Design and Analysis Conference. ASME (2000).

[26] F. C. Moon, and H. D. I. Abarbanel, Evidence for Chaotic Dynamics in Metal Cutting, and Classiﬁcation of

Chatter in Lathe Operations. Pages 11—12,28—29 of: Moon, F. C. (ed), Summary Report of a Workshop on

Nonlinear Dynamics and Material Processing and Manufacturing, organized by the Institute for Mechanics

and Materials, held at the University of California, San Diego ( 1995).

[27] F. C. Moon, and T. Kalmár-Nagy, Nonlinear Models for Complex Dynamics in Cutting Materials. Philo-

sophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 695—711 (2001).

[28] A. Nayfeh, C. Chin, and J. Pratt, Applications of Perturbation Methods to Tool Chatter Dynamics. In:

Moon, F. C. (ed), Dynamics and Chaos in Manufacturing Processes. John Wiley and Sons (1998).

[29] N. Olgac, and R. Sipahi, An Exact Method for the Stability Analysis of Time-Delayed LTI Systems. IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(5), 793-797 (2002).

[30] P. L. B. Oxley, Mechanics of Machining: An Analytical Approach to Assessing Machinability. New York:

John Wiley and Sons (1989).

[31] Y. G. Panovko, and I. I. Gubanova, Stability And Oscillations of Elastic Systems. New York: Consultants

Bureau (1965).

[32] J. Pratt, Vibration Control for Chatter Suppression with Application to Boring Bars. Ph.D. thesis, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University (1996).

[33] N. Saravanja-Fabris, and A. F. D’Souza, Nonlinear Stability Analysis of Chatter in Metal Cutting. Transac-

tions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers - Journal of Engineering for Industry, 96(2), 670—675

(1974).

[34] H. M. Shi, and S. A. Tobias, Theory of Finite Amplitude Machine Tool Instability. International Journal of

Machine Tool Design and Research, 24(1), 45—69 (1984).

[35] G. V. Stabler, Advances in Machine Tool Design and Research. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford (1964). Chap.

The Chip Flow Law and its Consequences, page 243.

[36] G. Stépán, Modelling Nonlinear Regenerative Eﬀects in Metal Cutting. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society, 359, 739—757 (2001).

[37] G. Stépán, R. Szalai, and T. Insperger, Nonlinear Dynamics of High-Speed Milling Subjected to Regenerative

Eﬀect. This volume (2003).

[38] E. Stone, and S. A. Campbell, Stability and Bifurcation Analysis of a Nonlinear DDE model for Drilling.

Submitted to Journal of Nonlinear Science (2002).

[39] S. A. Tobias, Machine Tool Vibration. London: Blackie and Son Limited (1965).

[40] S. A. Tobias, and W. Fishwick, The Chatter of Lathe Tools Under Orthogonal Cutting Conditions. Trans-

actions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 80(5), 1079—1088 (1958).

[41] M. Wiercigroch, and E. Budak, Sources of Nonlinearities, Chatter Generation and Suppression in Metal

Cutting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 663—693 (2001).

18

[42] M. Wiercigroch, and A. H-D. Cheng, Chaotic and Stochastic Dynamics of Orthogonal Metal Cutting. Chaos,

Solitons & Fractals, 8(4), 715—726 (1997).

[43] M. Wiercigroch, and A. M. Krivtsov, Frictional Chatter in Orthogonal Metal Cutting. Philosophical Trans-

actions of the Royal Society, 359, 713—738 (2001).

[44] N. van de Wouw, R. P. H. Faassen, J. A. J. Oosterling, and H. Nijmeijer, Modelling of High-Speed Milling

for Prediction of Regenerative Chatter. This volume (2003).

19

- 1506Uploaded byMano Har
- 005 VillarrealUploaded byTom Tampon
- Primer Adapted Dynamic Analysis in vibration problemsUploaded byijsret
- A Summary of Basic Vibrations TheoryUploaded byotniel_dav
- InTech-Active Vibration Control of a Smart Beam by Using a Spatial ApproachUploaded byOzgur Harputlu
- Mechnaical_2Uploaded byRaju Raju
- civil mani.docxUploaded byArulBala
- An experimental investigation of nonlinear vibration and frequency response analysis of cantilever viscoelastic beamsUploaded byRot
- M.tech Sem-2 DYN Tutorial-1Uploaded byRutvik Sheth
- 154 - Understanding Dynamic Time AnalysesUploaded bySameOldHat
- Forced VibrationUploaded byCaffrey Neal
- Lect 1-2-3Uploaded bydanial001
- Application of Turned Mass Dampers for Bridge DecksUploaded byHiep Truong Tuan
- VibrationUploaded byWidodo D Prasetyo
- 1-s2.0-S221201731300649X-main.pdfUploaded byNin
- Iscar Face Grooving 7861759Uploaded bylimuxer
- The 7 Natural LawsUploaded byvligr
- 2014-2Uploaded byHarish Jahan Mohan
- 8. Eng-Fundamental Natural Frequency for-Ezeh J. CUploaded byImpact Journals
- Wind LoadingUploaded byDineshVaghela
- Simulating the Dynamic ResponseUploaded bykareemsalah
- pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th_~pphongsa_teaching_vibration_Ch3Uploaded bypuneet_bahri
- HilmaUploaded byHaris Đulić
- RizviSyllabusUploaded byShoaib Shaik
- LuuFinalUploaded byFrancine Shelton
- Vehicle and Driver Vibration_PPTUploaded byAnirban Mitra
- new selvam_ resume_ productionUploaded bykamuthukumar
- Critical Speeds of Gyroscopes CourseUploaded byUma Mageshwari
- 06353936Uploaded byMhackSahu
- Olav.fyrileivUploaded byLava Sat

- Kalmar-Nagy Graph Decomposition Methods for Uncertainty Propagation in Complex, Nonlinear InterconnectedUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Kalmar-Nagy Near-Optimal Dynamic Trajectory Generation and Control of an Omnidirectional VehicleUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Kalmar-Nagy Propagation of Uncertain Inputs Through Networks of Nonlinear ComponentsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- High Dimensional Harmonic Balance Analysis for Differential-Delay EquationsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Kalmar-Nagy Nonlinear Models for Complex Dynamics in Cutting MaterialsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Kalmar-Nagy Subcritical Hopf Bifurcation in the Delay Equation Model for Machine Tool VibrationsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Delay-Differential Models of Cutting Tool Dynamics With Nonlinear and Mode-Coupling EffectsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Experimental and Analytical Investigation of the Subcritical Instability in TurningUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Approximating Small and Large Amplitude Periodic OrbitsUploaded bykalmarnagy
- Dynamics of a Relay Oscillator With HysteresisUploaded bykalmarnagy
- The Random Fibonacci Recurrence and the Visible Points of the PlaneUploaded bykalmarnagy