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

net/publication/282395533

Dynamic modeling and analysis for gantry-type machine tools considering

the effect of axis coupling force on the slider-guide joints' stiffness

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · September 2015
DOI: 10.1177/0954405415599908

CITATIONS READS

9 1,776

5 authors, including:

Huijie Zhang Chao Du

Collaborative Innovation Center of High-End Manufacturing Equipment State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering
19 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hui Liu Jun Zhang

Xi'an Jiaotong University Lanzhou University
22 PUBLICATIONS   129 CITATIONS    466 PUBLICATIONS   6,232 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Machining View project

On the mechanism of non-collocated control based on dynamic system inversion for high speed feed drives基于系统逆的高速进给系统非同位控制机理研究 View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Huijie Zhang on 03 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part B:

J Engineering Manufacture
1–11
Dynamic modeling and analysis for Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
gantry-type machine tools considering sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954405415599908

the effect of axis coupling force on the pib.sagepub.com

slider–guide joints’ stiffness

Huijie Zhang, Wanhua Zhao, Chao Du, Hui Liu and Jun Zhang

Abstract
As for the gantry-type machine tools, the forces of the slide blocks supporting the beam are different for different saddle
locations, which would further affect the stiffness of the slider–guide joints and the dynamic characteristics of the whole
machine tools. Therefore, the beam kinematic joints (the slider–guide joints) on the gantry-type machine tools are cru-
cial for the dynamics prediction of traveling bridge systems. In this article, considering the effect of axis coupling force
on the slider–guide joints’ stiffness, an equivalent dynamic model of traveling bridge systems for the gantry-type machine
tools is established using hybrid element method. The additional load variation in the four slider blocks is analyzed for
different locations of the saddle, and the variation in the slider–guide joints’ stiffness and traveling bridge system natural
frequency are also studied. Finally, validation experiments are conducted on the traveling bridge systems of the gantry-
type milling machine tools, and the results show that the dynamic modeling proposed in this article can reach a higher
accuracy.

Keywords
Gantry-type machine tools, axis coupling, modeling method, kinematic joint, dynamic characteristics

Date received: 26 November 2014; accepted: 13 July 2015

Introduction joints’ preload on the dynamic of the machine tools or

The computer numerical control (CNC) machine tool
is composed of many components by fixed joints and
kinematic joints. Therefore, the parameters of the
joints, especially for kinematic joints, are very crucial
for the machine tool dynamics which is complicated1
and play an important role in the surface quality and
machining accuracy of the parts2–4 and the stability of
machining process.5 Resonance and chatter must be
avoided during the machining process; hence, the natu-
ral frequencies of the machine tools should be acquired.
In order to predict and avoid the resonance and chat-
ter, the dynamics of the machine tools in the design
stage must be obtained by simulations or prototype
testing. So, a volume of research has been conducted
on the machine tool dynamics.
Using finite method, Mi et al.6 analyzed the influ-
ence of preload of screw–nut joints and slider–guide
joints on dynamic characteristics of a horizontal
machining center, and the results show that the pre-
loads have significant effects on the horizontal machin-
ing center dynamic stiffness. The effect of slider–guide
subsystem was analyzed by Lin et al.7 and Hung and
colleagues8,9 using finite method. Zhang et al.10 pre-
sented a systematic procedure to predict the dynamic
behaviors of a whole machine tool structure using
receptance synthesis method, in which the dynamic
model is composed of the distributed mass beams,
lumped masses and joints. Considering the tool–holder
joint interface, a dynamic model using distributed para-
meters was built by Ahmadi and Ahmadian11 to predict
the machine tool dynamic properties in various tool
configurations. In order to predict the dynamics of a
high-speed machine tool, Zaghbani and Songmene12
presented a methodology for estimating the machine
Collaborative Innovation Center for High-End Manufacturing Equipment,
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Qujiang Campus, Xi’an, People’s Republic of
China
Corresponding author:
Huijie Zhang, Collaborative Innovation Center for High-End
Manufacturing Equipment, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Qujiang Campus,
No.99, Yanxiang Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China.
Email: zhj3632@163.com

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

2 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
tool modal parameters during machining operation
using operational modal analysis.
Obviously, the states of the machine tool are differ-
ent during the machining process. The different states
will lead to the different static and dynamic characteris-
tics for the machine tools; therefore, the finite element
dynamic model based on single state cannot predict
these variations. Tlusty et al.13 studied the serial and
parallel kinematics for the machine tools and concluded
that the stiffness behaves differently owing to the posi-
tion variation in 1999. In 2006, Chanal et al.5 studied
the static stiffness variation in a machine tool for high-
speed machining and provided the static stiffness maps
for a given altitude z. In 2008, considering the deforma-
tion of the linear slider–guide joints and the bearing
joints, Lu et al.14 built the model of a hybrid machine
tool with 3 degrees of freedom and analyzed the static
stiffness during the machining workspace based on the
stiffness matrix. Sanger et al.15 analyzed the distribu-
tion of the stiffness for different types of parallel
machine tools in order to find its weakness. Yigit and
Ulsoy16 employed a systematic procedure to evaluate
the dynamic characteristics variation in a reconfigur-
able machine tool using a nonlinear receptance cou-
pling, which includes the effects of weakly nonlinear
compliant joints through the use of describing functions
for the nonlinearities involved. Van Brussel et al.17
studied the dynamics of a three-axis machine tool by
using finite element method (FEM) and found that it
possessed position-dependent dynamics. Using theoreti-
cal models, such as a simple mathematical model, a
three-dimensional (3D) model and finite element mod-
els, Sriyotha18 studied the dynamics of a coordinate
measuring machines and concluded that its dynamics
were highly dependent on its configuration in his doc-
toral dissertation. Symens and colleagues19,20 and
Paijmans et al.21 studied the dynamics variation in a
machine with the position of the tool in its workspace
for designing the high-performance motion controllers.
Considering the varying dynamics, Da Silva et al.22 dis-
cussed the integrated design of mechatronic system and
pointed out that the dynamics variation affects the
machine’s stability and performance. Law et al.23–25
researched the position-dependent dynamics and stabi-
lity of serial–parallel kinematic machine and three-axis
vertical milling machine tool considering the stiffness of
kinematic joints as a constant value or without model-
ing the kinematic joints’ stiffness and also studied the
structural design modifications and topology optimiza-
tion of the column.23 All these researches above made
great contributions to the understanding of the static
and dynamic characteristics of the machine tools.
These scholars analyzed the variation in dynamic
characteristics for the machine tools from the angle of
mass distribution, but not considering the effect of stiff-
ness variation owing to the variation in mass distribu-
tion on the dynamics of the machine tools. On the other
hand, Hung9 and Dhupia et al.26 found that the stiff-
ness of the linear rolling guide joints exhibits a variation
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015
as a result of different preloads and external loads. Verl
and Frey27 found that the preloads of the screw–nut
joints varied with the system feed rates through the
experimental method in 2010. Zhang et al.28 studied the
dynamics of high-speed ball screw feed system and con-
cluded that the system possesses velocity-dependent
dynamics. In this article, therefore, a traveling bridge
system of the gantry-type milling machine tools with
three axes is taken as an example to study the effect of
axis coupling force on the stiffness of the slider–guide
joints and the dynamics (natural frequency) of the
milling machine tools for different positions of the sad-
dle. Finally, validation experiments are conducted for
different saddle positions.
Dynamic modeling of traveling bridge
systems considering the change in slider–
guide joints’ stiffness
Equivalent dynamic model
In this article, a traveling bridge system of typical
gantry-type milling machine tool is mainly composed
of beam, saddle, headstock, spindle and ball screw feed
system, as shown in Figure 1. The beam and the saddle
can move along Y-axis and X-axis, respectively. The
headstock can move along Z-axis on which the spindle
is being carried. Because the force of the slide blocks
supporting the beam changes when the saddle locates
in different positions, the slide blocks’ stiffness also
changes. So, the dynamics of the traveling bridge sys-
tem should be discussed for different positions of the
saddle in this article.
The saddle is treated as a lumped mass element, and
the headstock and spindle are also treated as a lumped
mass element. The beam is equivalent to two spatial
continuous beam elements with consistent mass distri-
bution. The slider–guide joints are modeled by a set of
spring–damper elements and the ball screw feed system
is equivalent to a spring–damper element in transmis-
sion direction. Then, we can establish the equivalent
dynamic model of the traveling bridge system for a typ-
ical gantry-type machine tool considering the effect of
Figure 1. The gantry-type vertical milling machine tool.
Zhang et al. 3

where

M111 = M122 =
2 3
1
63 0 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 13 11 7
60 0 0 0  x7
6 35 210 7
6 7
6 13 11 7
60 0 0 x 0 7
6 7
6 35 210 7
rAx6 J 7
60 0 0 0 0 7
6 7
6 3A 7
6 7
6 11 x2 7
60 0 x 0 0 7
6 210 105 7
6 7
4 11 x 2 5
0  x 0 0 0
Figure 2. The dynamic model of the traveling bridge system. 210 105
ð3Þ
axis coupling force on slider–guide joints’ stiffness, as
shown in Figure 2.
In Figure 2, x is the distance between node 1 and M112 = M121 =
node 2, L is the span between the two sliders of the Y- 2 3
1
axis, y2sg is the distance between the two sliders, ys is 66 0 0 0 0 7 0
the distance between the beam centroid and saddle cen- 6 7
6 9 13 7
troid, yhs is the distance between the centroid of beam 60 0 0 0  x7
6 70 420 7
6 7
and the centroid of headstock and spindle, ms is the 6 9 13 7
60 0 0 x 0 7
mass of the saddle, mhs is the mass of the headstock and 6 7
6 70 420 7
spindle and ffi and ffl are the equivalent spatial continu- rAx6 J 7
60 0 0 0 0 7
ous beam elements. 1–5 are the node numbers. Node 2 6 7
6 6A 7
is a free node along the X-direction; in other words, the 6 7
6 13 x2 7
distance x between node 1 and node 2 is variable and it 60 0  x 0  0 7
6 420 140 7
is decided by the position of the saddle. The stiffness of 6 7
4 13 x2 5
the spring–damping element in red dotted line in 0 x 0 0 0 
Figure 2 is variable with the saddle position. 420 140
ð4Þ
Variable-coefficient dynamic equation
According to the equivalent dynamic model and where r is the material density, A is the cross-sectional
D’Alembert principle, a variable-coefficient linear area of the beam element and J is the polar moment of
dynamic equation of the traveling bridge system can be inertia for beam element
established as equation (1) considering the change of
⎡ M 222 M 232 ⎤
slider–guide joints’ stiffness M 2 ( x) = ⎢ 2 ⎥ ð5Þ
⎢⎣ M 32 M 332 ⎥⎦
½MðxÞf€
qg + ½CðxÞfqg
_ + ½KðxÞfqg = ½F ð1Þ

where [M(x)], [C(x)] and [K(x)] are the system total where
mass, damping and stiffness matrix, respectively. They
are a function of saddle position, and they are different M222 = M233 = rAðL  xÞ
2 3
when the saddle locates in different positions. 1
0 0 0 0 0
63 7
6 7
6 13 11 7
60 0 0 0  ðL  xÞ 7
6 35 210 7
Calculation of the system mass and stiffness matrices 6 7
6 13 11 7
60 0 0 ðL  xÞ 0 7
6 35 210 7
System mass matrix. 6 7
6 J 7
60 0 0 0 0 7
1. Mass matrix of spatial continuous beam element 6
6 3A 7
7
The mass matrices of element ffi and ffl are given 6 7
6 11 ðL  xÞ2 7
60 0 ðL  xÞ 0 0 7
by equations (2) and (5),29 respectively 6
6 210 105 7
7
4 11 ðL  xÞ2 5
0  ðL  xÞ 0 0 0
⎡ M 111 M 121 ⎤ 210 105
M ( x) = ⎢ 1
1
1 ⎥ ð2Þ ð6Þ
⎢⎣ M 21 M 22 ⎥⎦

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

4 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture

M223 = M232 = rAðL  xÞ

⎡ K111 K121 ⎤
K1 ( x) = ⎢ 1
21 3
1 ⎥ ð11Þ
6 0 0 0 0 0
6
6 9 13 7
7 ⎢⎣ K 21 K 22 ⎥⎦
60 70 0 0 0  ðL  xÞ 7
6 420 7
6 7
6 9 13 7
60 0 0 ðL  x Þ 0 7
6 70 420 7
6 7
60 J 7
6 0 0 6A 0 0 7 ⎡ K 222 K 232 ⎤
6
6 13 ðL  x Þ 2 7
7 K 2 ( x) = ⎢ 2 ⎥ ð12Þ
60
6 0 
420
ðL  xÞ 0 
140
0 7
7 ⎢⎣ K 32 K 332 ⎥⎦
6 7
4 13 ðL  x Þ 2 5
0 ðL  x Þ 0 0 0 
420 140
ð7Þ where

2. System mass matrix ⎡ EA ⎤

⎢ x ⎥
According to the mass matrix of each element, the ⎢ ⎥
expression of system mass matrix can be derived ⎢ 12 EI z 6 EI z ⎥
using the FEM29 ⎢ x3 x2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12 EI y 6 EI y ⎥
−
⎡M 1
M 1
⎤ ⎢ x 3
x2 ⎥
11 12 K11 = K 22 = ⎢
1 1
⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ GJ ⎥
⎢M
1 1
M 22 + M 222 M 232 ⎥
21
⎢ x ⎥
M ( x) = ⎢ M 2
M 332 ⎥ ð8Þ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 32
⎥ ⎢ −
6 EI y 4 EI y ⎥
⎢ MS ⎥ ⎢ x2 x ⎥
⎢ M HS ⎦⎥ ⎢ 6 EI z 4 EI z ⎥⎥
⎣ ⎢
⎢⎣ x2 x ⎥⎦

where MS and MHS are the matrix of the saddle and ð13Þ
the matrix of the headstock, respectively. The moments
of inertia for MS and MHS are ignored. Hence, the
expressions of MS and MHS are given by equations (9) ⎡ EA ⎤
and (10), respectively ⎢ x ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12 EI
− 3 z − 2z⎥
6 EI
⎢ x x ⎥
⎡M S -x ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ M S-y ⎥ ⎢ −
12 EI y 6 EI y ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ x3 x2 ⎥
⎢ M S -z ⎥ K12 = K 21 = ⎢
1 1
⎥
⎢ GJ ⎥
MS = ⎢ ⎥ ð9Þ −
0 ⎢ x ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ −
6 EI y 2 EI y ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ x 2
x ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 6 EI z 2 EI z ⎥⎥
⎢
⎢⎣ x2 x ⎥⎦
ð14Þ
⎡ M HS - x ⎤
⎢ M HS - y ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ M HS - z ⎥
M HS =⎢ ⎥ ð10Þ K 222 = K 332 =
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎡ EA ⎤
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢L− x ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 12 EI z 6 EI z ⎥
⎢ ( L − x )3 ( L − x )2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 12 EI y 6 EI y ⎥
where MS-x, MS-y and MS-z are the mass of the saddle ⎢ − ⎥
⎢ ( L − x )3 ( L − x )2 ⎥
along X-, Y- and Z-directions, respectively. MHS-x, ⎢ ⎥
GJ
MHS-y and MHS-z are the mass of the headstock in X-, ⎢ ⎥
⎢ L−x ⎥
Y- and Z-directions, respectively.
⎢ 6 EI y 4 EI y ⎥
⎢ − ⎥
System stiffness matrix. ⎢ ( L − x )2 L−x ⎥
⎢ 6 EI z 4 EI z ⎥
1. Stiffness matrix of spatial continuous beam element ⎢ ⎥
The stiffness matrices of element ffi and ffl are ⎣⎢ ( L − x )2 L − x ⎥⎦
given by equations (11) and (12),29 respectively
ð15Þ

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

Zhang et al. 5

direction. L2, L3 and L4 are the distance between

the centroids of saddle, headstock and beam
and the center of the four sliders along the Y-
direction, respectively. L5 is the distance between
the centroid of saddle/headstock and the center
of the four sliders along the X-direction, and the
distance changes with the machining process.
The forces act on every slider can be obtained
by the following equations according to the size
in Figure 3

Figure 3. The structure schematic diagram. (Gb + Gh + Gs ) Mxb Mxh

Fs1 =  +
4 2  y2sg 2  y2sg
ð17Þ
Myh (L5 ) Mxs Mys (L5 )
+ + +
2L 2  y2sg 2L

(Gb + Gh + Gs ) Mxb Mxh

Fs2 = + 
4 2  y2sg 2  y2sg
ð18Þ
Myh (L5 ) Mxs Mys (L5 )
+  +
2L 2  y2sg 2L

(Gb + Gh + Gs ) Mxb Mxh

Fs3 = + 
4 2  y2sg 2  y2sg
ð19Þ
Myh (L5 ) Mxs Mys (L5 )
Figure 4. The section schematic of linear guide.   
2L 2  y2sg 2L

K 232 = K 322 =
⎡ EA ⎤ (Gb + Gh + Gs ) Mxb Mxh
⎢L− x ⎥
Fs4 =  +
4 2  y2sg 2  y2sg
⎢ ⎥ ð20Þ
⎢ −
12 EI z
−
6 EI z ⎥ Myh (L5 ) Mxs Mys (L5 )
⎢ ( L − x )3 ( L − x )2 ⎥  + 
⎢ ⎥ 2L 2  y2sg 2L
⎢ 12 EI y 6 EI y ⎥
⎢ − ⎥
⎢ ( L − x) 3
( L − x )2 ⎥ where Gb, Gh and Gs are the gravity of the beam, saddle
⎢ GJ ⎥
⎢ − ⎥ and headstock, respectively. Mxb, Mxs and Mxh are the
⎢ L−x ⎥ X-axial disturbance moment of the beam, saddle and
⎢ 6 EI y 2 EI y ⎥
⎢ − ⎥ headstock under the center of the four sliders, respec-
⎢ ( L − x )2 L−x ⎥ tively. Mys(i) and Myh(i) are the Y-axial disturbance
⎢ 6 EI z 2 EI z ⎥
⎢ ⎥ moment of the saddle and headstock under the center
⎣⎢ ( L − x )2 L − x ⎥⎦ of the four sliders, respectively. The values of Mys(i)
ð16Þ and Myh(i) vary with the machining process and they
are a function of L5.
3. The nonlinear stiffness of slider–guide joints
where E is Young’s elastic modulus and I is the Figure 4 is the section schematic of circular arc-
moment of inertia for beam element. shaped linear guide with four rows.
2. Nonlinear stiffness of slider–guide joints for differ-
ent saddle positions The contact force between a rolling ball and the race-
1 The external loads of slider–guide joints way in the linear guide can be related to the local defor-
Figure 3 is the structure schematic diagram of mation at the contact point by the Hertz theory30
the traveling bridge systems. The black dots in
Figure 3 are the centroids of beam, saddle and d = Kh  Q2=3 ð21Þ
headstock, respectively. The black circle in
Figure 3 represents the center of the four sliders where d is the deformation, Q denotes the contact force
supporting the beam. L1 is the distance between and Kh represents the Hertz contact coefficient, which
the centroid of beam and slider 3 along the Y- is determined by the contact shape and material

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

6 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture

Table 1. Experimental parameters. System stiffness matrix. According to the stiffness of each
element, the expression of system mass matrix can be
Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value derived29 using the FEM
E (GPa) 120 L (m) 2.3 MS-x (kg) 263
A (m2) 0.14 L1 (m) 0.14 MS-y (kg) 263 K ( x) =
r (kg/m3) 3200 L2 (m) 0.12 MS-z (kg) 263 ⎡ K11sg -sn + K111 K121 ⎤
Iy (m4) 5 3 1024 L3 (m) 0.36 MHS-x (kg) 813 ⎢ ⎥
⎢
1
K 21 K +K +K
1 2 sg -sn
K 2
K sg -sn
⎥
Iz (m4) 5 3 1024 L4 (m) 0.06 MHS-y (kg) 813 22 22 22 23 24

J (m4) 1 3 1023 y2sg (m) 0.40 MHS-z (kg) 813 ⎢ K 2

K 33sg -sn + K 332 ⎥
⎢ 32
sg -sn
⎥
⎢ K 42 K 44sg -sn K 45sg -sn ⎥
⎢ K 54sg -sn K 55sg -sn ⎥⎦
⎣
ð25Þ
where Ksgsn
11 , Ksgsn
33 , Ksgsn
22 , Ksgsn
44 , Ksgsn
24 , Ksgsn
42 ,
sgsn sgsn sgsn
K55 , K45 and K54 are the stiffness matrices of
kinematic joints for the gantry-type machine tools.
Ksgsn
11 and Ksgsn
33 have the same form and the rest have
the same form. So, in this article, the expressions of
Ksgsn
11 and Ksgsn
22 are given by equations (26) and (27),
respectively

⎡ K11X ( L5 ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ K11Y ⎥
⎢ K11Z ( L5 ) ⎥
K11sg -sn =⎢ ⎥
⎢ T11X ( L5 ) ⎥
Figure 5. Hammer excitation test experiments.
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦

properties of the linear guide components.31,32 So, the ð26Þ

contact stiffness can be obtained by equation (22) ⎡ K 22X ⎤
⎢ Y ⎥
dQ 3 2=3 ⎢ K 22 ⎥
Kcon = = Kh  Q1=3 ð22Þ ⎢ K 22Z ⎥
dd 2
K 22sg -sn =⎢ ⎥ ð27Þ
As shown in equation (22), the contact stiffness ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
depends nonlinearly on the contact force. The contact ⎢ ⎥
force is composed of the initial preload and the addi- ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
tional load. The additional load varies with the position
of saddle. Therefore, the additional contact stiffness The KY X
11 in equation (26) and the K22 in equation
also changes. (27) represent equivalent axial stiffness of the ball screw
From Figure 4, we can derive the equivalent normal feed system, and for their calculation method, see
and tangential stiffnesses of a rolling ball in the linear Zhang et al.28
guide as follows

dFn dQ  sin a dQ
Experimental testing of traveling bridge
Kconn = = =  sin2 a systems for different locations of the
ddFn dd= sin a dd ð23Þ
2 saddle
= Kcon  sin a
The traveling bridge system of the gantry-type machine
dFt dQ  cos a dQ tools was used to do the experimental testing, as shown
Kcont = = =  cos2 a
ddFt dd= cos a dd ð24Þ in Figure 5. The parameters of the experimental setup
= Kcon  cos2 a are listed in Table 1. Table 2 represents the parameters
of the slider–guide joints along Y/V-axis.
where a is the contact angle of linear guide. Fn and Ft The dynamic characteristics of the traveling bridge
are the equivalent normal and tangential forces of the system for different locations of the saddle were tested
contact force for a rolling ball, respectively. dF-n and dF- using LMS Test.Lab. The acceleration vibration
t are the equivalent normal and tangential deformations response was acquired and stored by the data acquisi-
for a rolling ball, respectively. tion system of LMS Test.Lab. The frequency

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

Zhang et al.
Table 2. Slider–guide joints’ parameter.
Parameter Pd (kN) Pc
Value 95 0.06
Table 3. Models and parameters.
Model
Acceleration sensors PCB 356A16/95665
PCB 356A16/95666
Hammer PCB 086D05/53095102
Data acquisition system PCB SCM05/27727
Figure 6. The variation in additional load of each slider.
bandwidth is 512 Hz and the number of spectral line is
1024. The models of acceleration sensors, hammer and
data acquisition system are listed in Table 3. For the
test, five tests were performed for the saddle that was
located in every position, for example, 20.4, 0.2, 0, 0.2
and 0.4 m.
Results and discussion
Additional load and stiffness of the slider–guide joints
Figure 6 plots the additional load of each slider–guide
joint for different positions of the saddle. The value of
the additional load for each slider–guide is calculated
by equations (17)–(20). From Figure 6, it can be seen
that the additional load of each slider–guide varies with
the saddle position and the difference of additional load
reaches about four times among each slider.
According to related formulas (e.g. equations (22)–
(24)) and parameter (such as Tables 1 and 2) in this
article, we can calculate the equivalent stiffness and its
variation in each slider–guide joint for different saddle
positions, as shown in Figure 7.
From Figure 7, we can see that the equivalent nor-
mal and tangential stiffnesses of each slider–guide joint
change nonlinearly for different saddle positions. When
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015
7
f (%) db (mm) N a (°)
54 9.525 48 45
Sensitivity X Sensitivity Y Sensitivity Z Weight
103.0 mV/g 103.2 mV/g 98.0 mV/g –
98.4 mV/g 94.7 mV/g 102.3 mV/g –
0.21 mV/N 0.32 kg
– – – –
the saddle is stationary, a maximal variation of 25%
and 35% is found for the equivalent normal and tan-
gential stiffnesses of the four slider–guide joints.
The traveling bridge system natural frequency
Figure 8 plots the acceleration vibration response for
the test for different positions of the saddle (20.4, 0.2,
0, 0.2 and 0.4 m). From the LMS Test.Lab, we can see
that the mode shapes corresponding to the marked
peak value of the response in Figure 8 are different, as
shown in Figure 9.
Based on the variable-coefficient dynamic equation,
the related parameters and the variation in each slider–
guide joint for different saddle positions in this article,
we can obtain the frequency characteristics (fthe-vari) of
the traveling bridge system for different saddle posi-
tions, as shown in Figure 10. In addition, the frequency
characteristics (fthe-ideal) of the system were also calcu-
lated without considering the changes in stiffness for
the slider–guide joints. The ideal normal and tangential
stiffnesses of the slider–guide joints are 7.5 3 108 N/m.
The fexp in Figure 10 represent the experimental results
(the marked peak value in Figure 8) of the traveling
bridge system.
The equivalent normal and tangential stiffnesses of
each slider–guide joint for different saddle positions are
different; hence, the system stiffness matrix is also dif-
ferent for different saddle positions. On the other side,
the system mass matrix is also different for different
saddle positions. So, the solution (undamped natural
frequency) of equation (1) is different when the damp-
ing matrix and the load matrix of the equation (1) are
all 0. Therefore, the theory value of the undamped nat-
ural frequency for the gantry-type machine tools is dif-
ferent. In addition, we can think that the undamped
natural frequency and the damped natural frequency
(test values) are the same when we ignore the damping
effect on the natural frequency.
From Figure 10(a), we can see that the fthe-vari value
and the fthe-ideal value are the same under the same
8 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture

Figure 7. The variation in stiffness of each slider–guide joint: (a) equivalent normal stiffness, (b) equivalent tangential stiffness and
(c) variation in the equivalent stiffness.

Figure 8. The experimental value of acceleration response for different saddle positions.

position. The reason is that this mode shape is mainly
determined by the transmission stiffness of the Y-axis
ball screw feed system and the transmission stiffness
does not change with different saddle positions. From
Figure 10(b), (c) and (d), it can be seen that the fthe-vari
value is closer to the fexp value than the fthe-ideal value.
The reason is that the fthe-vari value is considered the
effect of axis coupling force on the slider–guide joints’
stiffness for different positions of the saddle. There are
some errors between the theoretical calculation results
and the experimental results for the natural frequency,
and the main reason may be that the beam of the
gantry-type machine tools is simplified as a beam ele-
ment model, or the calculation value is not fit well with
the actual value of the slider–guide joints’ stiffness. In a
word, the dynamic modeling proposed in this article
can reach a higher analysis accuracy. Besides, for ana-
lyzing the dynamics of the gantry-type machine tools,

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

Zhang et al. 9

Figure 9. The typical mode shapes of the traveling bridge system: (a) translation, (b) rolling, (c) pitching and (d) twisting.

Figure 10. Comparison of the theoretical and experimental results: (a) translation, (b) rolling, (c) pitching and (d) twisting.

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

10
the modeling method in this article is faster than FEM
that already exists in publications.
Conclusion
In this article, considering the effect of axis coupling
force on the slider–guide joints’ stiffness, a variable-
coefficient dynamic equation is proposed to depict the
varying dynamics behavior for the gantry-type machine
tools. The main conclusions of this article are as follows:
1. The additional load of the slide blocks supporting
the beam varies with the position of the saddle,
which would further affect the equivalent normal
and tangential stiffnesses of the slider–guide joints.
The stiffness of each slider–guide joint changes
nonlinearly for different saddle positions. The dif-
ference in additional load reaches about four times
among each slider, and a maximal variation of
25% and 35% is found for the equivalent normal
and tangential stiffnesses of the four slider–guide
joints when the saddle is stationary.
2. The frequencies of the traveling bridge systems of
the gantry-type milling machine tools are analyzed.
The theoretical calculation and experimental
results all show that the variable-coefficient
dynamic equation considering the effect of axis
coupling force on the slider–guide joints’ stiffness
can reach a higher analysis accuracy.
3. The traveling bridge systems’ frequencies of the
gantry-type milling machine tools vary with the
saddle position. Therefore, the traveling bridge sys-
tems possess position-dependent dynamics and the
dynamics variation can provide guidance for active
design and control of the CNC machine tools.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article: This work was financially supported by the key
project of National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51235009).
References
1. Neugebauer R, Denkena B and Wegener K. Mechatronic
systems for machine tools. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn
2007; 56: 657–686.
2. Toh CK. Vibration analysis in high speed rough and fin-
ish milling hardened steel. J Sound Vib 2004; 278: 101–
115.
Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015
Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
3. Maj R, Modica F and Bianchi G. Machine tools mecha-
tronic analysis. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering
Manufacture 2006; 220: 345–353.
4. Huo D and Cheng K. A dynamics-driven approach to
the design of precision machine tools for micro-
manufacturing and its implementation perspectives. Proc
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2008; 222:
1–13.
5. Chanal H, Duc E and Ray P. A study of the impact of
machine tool structure on machining processes. Int J
Mach Tool Manu 2006; 46: 98–106.
6. Mi L, Yin GF, Sun MN, et al. Effects of preloads on
joints on dynamic stiffness of a whole machine tool struc-
ture. J Mech Sci Technol 2012; 26: 495–508.
7. Lin CY, Hung JP and Lo TL. Effect of preload of linear
guides on dynamic characteristics of a vertical column–
spindle system. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2010; 50: 741–746.
8. Hung JP, Lai YL, Lin CY, et al. Modeling the machining
stability of a vertical milling machine under the influence
of the preloaded linear guide. Int J Mach Tool Manu
2011; 51: 731–739.
9. Hung JP. Load effect on the vibration characteristics of
a stage with rolling guides. J Mech Sci Technol 2009; 23:
89–99.
10. Zhang GP, Huang YM, Shi WH, et al. Predicting
dynamic behaviours of a whole machine tool structure
based on computer-aided engineering. Int J Mach Tool
Manu 2003; 43: 699–706.
11. Ahmadi K and Ahmadian H. Modelling machine tool
dynamics using a distributed parameter tool–holder joint
interface. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2007; 47: 1916–1928.
12. Zaghbani I and Songmene V. Estimation of machine-tool
dynamic parameters during machining operation through
operational modal analysis. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2009;
49: 947–957.
13. Tlusty J, Ziegert J and Ridgeway S. Fundamental com-
parison of the use of serial and parallel kinematics for
machines tools. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 1999; 48: 351–
356.
14. Lu YN, Wang LP and Guan LW. Stiffness analysis and
optimization of a hybrid machine tool based on the stiff-
ness matrix. J Tsinghua Univ 2008; 48: 180–183.
15. Sanger DJ, Chen JQ, Zhang SJ, et al. A general method
for the stiffness analysis of manipulator mechanisms.
Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science
2000; 214: 673–685.
16. Yigit AS and Ulsoy AG. Dynamic stiffness evaluation for
reconfigurable machine tools including weakly non-linear
joint characteristics. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering
Manufacture 2002; 216: 87–101.
17. Van Brussel H, Sas P, Németh I, et al. Towards a mecha-
tronic compiler. IEEE/ASME T Mech 2001; 6: 90–105.
18. Sriyotha P. A study on the dynamics and control of a
CMM for high-speed operations. Davis, CA: Mechanical
Engineering, University of California, Davis, 2005.
19. Symens W, Van Brussel H and Swevers J. Gain-schedul-
ing control of machine tools with varying structural flexi-
bility. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2004; 53: 321–324.
20. Symens W. Motion and vibration control of mechatronic
systems with variable configuration and local non-linear
friction. Leuven: KU Leuven, 2004.
21. Paijmans B, Symens W, Van Brussel H, et al. Identifica-
tion of interpolating affine LPV models for mechatronic
 Zhang et al. 11

systems with one varying parameter. Eur J Control 2008; Appendix 1

14: 16–29.
22. Da Silva MM, Brüls O, Swevers J, et al. Computer-aided Notation
integrated design for machines with varying dynamics.
Mech Mach Theory 2009; 44: 1733–1745. A cross-sectional area of the beam element
23. Law M, Altintas Y and Phani AS. Rapid evaluation and E Young’s elastic modulus
optimization of machine tools with position-dependent Gb gravity of the beam
stability. Int J Mach Tool Manu 2013; 68: 81–90. Gh gravity of the saddle
24. Law M, Ihlenfeldt S, Wabner M, et al. Position-depen- Gs gravity of the headstock
dent dynamics and stability of serial-parallel kinematic I moment of inertia for beam element
machines. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn 2013; 62: 375–378. J polar moment of inertia for beam element
25. Law M, Phani AS and Altintas Y. Position-dependent Kcon contact stiffness of a rolling ball
multibody dynamic modeling of machine tools based on
Kcon-n equivalent normal stiffness of a rolling
improved reduced order models. J Manuf Sci E 2013;
ball
135: 021008 (11 pp.).
26. Dhupia JS, Ulsoy AG, Katz R, et al. Experimental iden-
Kcon-t equivalent tangential stiffness of a rolling
tification of the nonlinear parameters of an industrial ball
translational guide for machine performance evaluation. Kh Hertz contact coefficient
J Vib Control 2008; 14: 645–668. L span between two sliders of the Y-axis
27. Verl A and Frey S. Correlation between feed velocity and mhs mass of the headstock and spindle
preloading in ball screw drives. CIRP Ann: Manuf Techn ms mass of the saddle
2010; 59: 429–432. Mxb X-axial disturbance moment of the beam
28. Zhang HJ, Zhang J, Liu H, et al. Dynamic modeling and Mxh X-axial disturbance moment of the
analysis of the high-speed ball screw feed system. Proc headstock
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2015; 229: Mxs X-axial disturbance moment of the saddle
870–877. Myh(i) Y-axial disturbance moment of the
29. Dhatt G and Touzot G. Finite element method. New
headstock
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
30. Harris TA and Kotzalas MN. Essential concepts of bear-
Mys(i) Y-axial disturbance moment of the saddle
ing technology. New York: CRC Press, 2006. Q contact force of a rolling ball
31. Greenwood JA. Analysis of elliptical Hertzian contacts. x distance between node 1 and node 2
Tribol Int 1997; 30: 235–237. yhs distance between the centroid of beam and
32. Brewe DE and Hamrock BJ. Simplified solution for the centroid of headstock and spindle
elliptical-contact deformation between two elastic solids. ys distance between the centroid of beam and
J Lubr Technol 1977; 99: 485–487. the centroid of saddle
y2sg distance of two sliders
a contact angle of a rolling ball
d deformation of a rolling ball
r material density

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com at Xi’an Jiaotong University on October 7, 2015

View publication stats