Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132
DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1791-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Application of synthetic grey correlation theory on thermal
point optimization for machine tool thermal
error compensation
J. Y. Yan & J. G. Yang
Received: 22 November 2007 / Accepted: 3 October 2008 / Published online: 31 October 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008
Abstract This paper presents two new methods to opti-
mize the selection of minimum number of thermal sensors
for machine tool thermal error compensation. The two
methods, namely, direct criterion method and indirect
grouping method, are based on the synthetic grey correla-
tion theory. They are applied to analyze the data of an air
cutting experiment on a CNC turning center. After
optimization, the number of thermal points reduced from
16 to four. Thus, for machine tool thermal error modeling,
the number of temperature variables is greatly reduced
while coupling problems among temperature variables can
be avoided. A real cutting experiment is then conducted to
verify the efficiency of the presented optimization methods
under practical manufacturing conditions. The comparison
of the results between the model with all 16 thermal sensors
and the model with four optimized thermal sensors
indicates that, after optimization, the model accuracy is
greatly improved.
Keywords Machine tool . Thermal error . Modeling .
Grey system theory
1 Introduction
Thermal error is caused by the accumulation of machine
tool elements’ deformation along the transmission chain,
which stems from nonuniform temperature change in
J. Y. Yan (*) : J. G. Yang
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: yanjiayu@sjtu.edu.cn
machine tool structure. It causes relative displacement
between the workpiece and the cutting tool during the
machining process. So, it has significant influence on the
accuracy of workpieces produced by metal-cutting machine
tools [1].
Thermal error is one of the most important error sources
for machine tools, which affects machine tool processing
precision and, consequently, decrease the quality of
manufactured workpieces. It is reported that, in some cases,
thermally induced error can account for up to 70% of the
total manufacture error [2, 3]. Particularly when machine
tool positioning accuracy, tooling, and cutting performance
improved, thermal effects become more critical in their
contribution to the quality of processed workpieces. As a
result, reduction of thermal error is quite beneficial for
high-precision manufacturing system [4, 5].
Thermal error can be partly compensated in the design
stage by using some advanced hardware techniques, which
reduce or properly arrange the internal/external heat source
locations of the machine tool. Optimizing the structure of
the machine tool during the design phase, controlling the
ambient temperature field distribution, adding extra heat
generators in machine bodies, etc. [6–8] are examples of
this kind of techniques.
But from the result of the discussion by Postlethwaite et
al. [9], software method is still regarded as the most cost-
effective way to compensate for the thermally induced error
and widely accepted in machine industry. That is because,
comparing with hardware methods, there is no need to
change the design of structure and mechanism.
Theoretically, thermal error is determined by the whole
temperature distribution of the machine tool. During the
machining process, machine tool is under the effects of
several internal and external thermal sources, which can be
classified into the following categories: (1) heat generated
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132
in the cutting area; (2) heat generated by the movement of
machine components; (3) influence of coolant systems; (4)
circumstances; (5) people manipulating the machine; and
(6) thermal memory effect. These thermal sources can
interact with each other through conduction, convection,
and radiation; their temperature ranges can change widely
depending on the machining conditions [1, 3]. In addition,
the thermal characteristics of machine tool components and
contact conditions of machine joints are not totally clear for
us. So, it is nearly impossible to obtain time-varying and
nonlinear temperature distribution in the machine structure
by using classic physics theory or finite element method.
Hence, in recent years, effective software thermal error
compensation depending on mathematic models is popular
used. The models can accurately map the empirical
relationship between discrete temperature data of several
points and the thermal deformation of machine tools [10,
11]. Thus, selection of the number and locations of thermal
sensors becomes the first step to improve machine tool
accuracy. Generally speaking, a lot of thermal sensors have
to be at first attached on the machine body totally
depending on experiences in a thermal error experiment.
This strategy for thermal sensor placement can successfully
solve the problem of lacking useful temperature informa-
tion, but it also brings some serious problems: (1) the wire
of thermal sensors can seriously counteract the cutting
process; (2) increase the experiment expense; and (3)
increase the workload for thermal error model calculation.
So, the optimization of thermal points is of great importance.
Some research works have been done in the past decade.
Thermal mode analyses have been adopted to decompose
the final deformation of a machine tool into several modes.
Key thermal points can be picked out by further analyses on
each deformation mode [12]. It is a qualitative method and
is totally experience based. So the method cannot be
expressed in precise math functions. Several years later,
traditional statistical theory is adopted in this research field
[13]. The classic math theory-based method is sensitive to
noise signal, and the computation procedure for this
arithmetic is complicated. The grey system theory is later
adopted by Li et al. [14] to prevent the problems in
previous researches. Although it performs better than the
previous methods, the selection criterion is blurry and the
optimization result is not stable. Besides, the correlation
among temperature data of each thermal point is not
considered in this approach.
In order to get over the disadvantages of previous
strategies, two new optimization methods are presented in
this paper. Compared with traditional statistic theory, grey
system theory is much proper to be applied to the objective
systems that are influenced by many complex factors,
especially when some factors are not fully understood [15].
It can also diminish the ill effect of noise signal by the
1125
transformation of raw data. The two new methods are used
to optimize the placement of thermal sensors for a CNC
turning center by analyzing the data of an air cutting
experiment. The optimization results are all the same that
the number of thermal sensors decreased from 16 to four.
To validate the optimization methods under practical
processing conditions, a real cutting experiment is con-
ducted. Multivariable linear regression thermal error model
is then constructed. The modeling results indicate that
model accuracy is significantly improved after the optimi-
zation and that the optimization methods presented in this
paper are applicable and effective in practical machining.
2 Grey correlation theory
There are mainly three kinds of correlation algebra in the grey
correlation theory that are called absolute grey correlation,
relative grey correlation, and synthetic grey correlation,
respectively. Prior to the traditional statistical correlation
theory, which can only reveal the linearity among random
sequences of large sample, grey correlation theory can deal
with small sample sequences containing poor information of
the objective system, even the data of the sequences are
contaminated badly by random noise.
2.1 Absolute grey correlation
Assume Xi ¼ ðxi ð1Þ; xi ð2Þ;


; xi ðnÞÞ is the property se-
quence of an objective system, x0i ðk Þ is defined as [15]:
x0i ðk Þ ¼ xi ðk Þ  xi ð1Þ; k ¼ 1; 2;


; n ð1Þ


Xi D ¼ Xi0 ¼ x0i ð1Þ; x0i ð2Þ;


; x0i ðnÞ is called the origin
zeroed phase of Xi and D is origin zeroed operator.
Assume both Xi and Xj are property sequences of the
same objective system, absolute grey correlation between
them is defined as follows:
 
1 þ jsi j þ sj 
"ij ¼   ð2Þ
1 þ jsi j þ jsjj þ sj  si 
 
where jsw j and sj  si  are defined as:
n1 
P 
jsw j ¼  x0w ðk Þ þ 12 x0w ðnÞ; w ¼ i; j
k¼2 
  n1    
sj  si  ¼  P x0 ðk Þ  x0 ðk Þ þ 1 x0 ðnÞ  x0 ðnÞ :
 j i 2 j i 
k¼2
Absolute grey correlation reveals the similarity in the
shape of sequence curves. The displacement of any
sequence curve does not affect the result.
1126 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132

2.2 Relative grey correlation and relative grey correlation of Xi and Xj, then define their
synthetic grey correlation as follows [15]:
Assume Xi ¼ ðxi ð1Þ; xi ð2Þ; . . . ; xi ðnÞÞ is the property se-
rij ¼ q"ij þ ð1  qÞrij ð5Þ
quence of an objective system, and xi(k)c is defined as [15]:
where θ∈[0, 1] is the coefficient to adjust the weight of ɛij
xi ðk Þc ¼ xi ðk Þ=xi ð1Þ; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n ð3Þ
and rij, and in general, θ=0.5.
Xi C ¼ X ' i ¼ ðxi ð1Þc; xi ð2Þc;


; xi ðnÞcÞ is called the origin Synthetic grey correlation hybrids absolute grey correla-
phase, where C is the origin operator. tion and relative grey correlation, so it reveals both the
Assume both Xi and Xj are property sequences of the similarity of different property sequence curves of the
same objective system and their origin phase are X ' i and objective system and their changing rate with respect to
X ' j . Calculate the origin zeroed phase of X ' i and X ' j by their origin point. Generally speaking, synthetic grey
using Eq. 1 and get: correlation is a better measure of the relationship between
0
0 0 0  property sequences, so it is adopted to estimate the
Xi 0 ¼ xi0 ð1Þ; xi0 ð2Þ; . . . ; xi0 ðnÞ
0
0 0 0  relationship among temperature sequences acquired from
Xi 0 ¼ xi0 ð1Þ; xi0 ð2Þ; . . . ; xi0 ðnÞ : different thermal points placed on the machine tool and the
Define relative grey correlation of Xi and Xj as follows: relationship between the temperature sequences and thermal
  error sequences.
1 þ js' i j þ s' j 
rij ¼     ð4Þ
1 þ js' i j þ s' j  þ s' j  s' i 
3 Experiment setup
 
where js' w j and s' j  s' i  are defined as:
 1  3.1 Setup of measurement system
 0  nP 
s  ¼  x0 0 ðk Þ þ 1 x0 0 ðnÞ; w ¼ i; j
w  w 2 w  As shown in Fig. 1, in order to get the temperature data of
 nP  :
k¼2
 1    0
0 0
 the machine tool temperature field, 16 thermal sensors
xj ðk Þ  xi ðk Þ þ 2 xj ðnÞ  xi ðnÞ 
0 0 0
 sj  si  ¼  0 0 1 0 0
k¼2 are attached on a CNC turning center. Because the ther-
mal sensors are placed on the machine depending on
experience and the locations are not precise, only rough
Relative grey correlation reveals and only associates sensors’ positions are shown in Fig. 1. The sensors can be
with the similarity of sequences’ changing rate with respect classified into five categories according to their positions
to their own origin points. Hence, multiplication on any [16]:
sequence does not affect the result.
(1) two sensors (1 and 2) are placed on the headstock;
2.3 Synthetic grey correlation (2) four sensors (3–6) are placed on the nuts of X and Z
direction ball screw actuators;
Assume both Xi and Xj are property sequences of the same (3) two sensors (7 and 8) are placed on the coolant
objective system, ɛij and rij are absolute grey correlation system;

Fig. 1 Locations of temperature sensors

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132 1127

(4) one sensor (9) is placed in the air; a

37
(5) seven sensors (10–16) are placed on the machine bed.

35 8 7
Two noncontact capacitance distance sensors are used 2 11
to measure the relative displacement between the tool

Temperature/°C
33 13
tip and the workpiece. The configuration is shown in 1 12 3 6
Fig. 2. 15

31
5 4
3.2 Experiment
16
29 10
In order to get the temperature and thermal error data for 14
9
thermal points optimization, air cutting process is adopted, 27
which means that the spindle of the machine tool rotates in
a high speed to generate heat but without real cutting, the
25
carriages move, and the coolant flows. 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510
Time/min
To simulate the real working conditions in a day, the
machine tool working cycle is set as follows: run for 3.25 h; b 0
Z Direction
pause for 1 h; continue to run for 3.5 h; and stops for 1 h. X Direction
The sample interval is 5 min. Acquired temperature and 5
displacement data are shown in Fig. 3a,b.

10
Thermal Error/µm

4 Application of optimization models

15
4.1 Standardization algorithm
20
Calculated correlation values between thermal error and
temperature of each thermal sensor are to be plotted in the
same figure to compare in the next section. However, some 25

correlation values may be too close to each other. So, a

transformation is introduced to solve this problem. 30
Suppose r0 ¼ ðr01 ; r02 ; . . . ; r0n Þ is the vector of syn- 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510
Time/min
thetic correlation values.
0
Let r0i ¼r0i  min r0i ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n to form a new Fig. 3 Air cutting experiment data. a Temperature data, b thermal
i
vector r0 ¼ r001 ; r002 ; . . . ; r00n .
0 error data
'' ' '
 let r0i ¼ r0i =max
Then  i r0i ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n, the vector
'' '' '' ''
r0 ¼ r01 ; r02 ; . . . ; r0n can be acquired.
After the transformation, the range of the valuer'' 0i is
enlarged to [0, 1], the biggest value in the original vector
turns to be 1 while the smallest turns to be 0.

4.2 Direct criterion method

The X direction is the sensitive direction for the turning

Fig. 2 Locations of displacement sensors
process, so only the thermal error in the X direction is
considered. In this method, synthetic grey correlations
between each temperature sequence and thermal error
sequence in the X direction are measured, respectively, and
then some direct empirical criterions are presented to pick
out critical thermal points by judging the calculated values.
Following Eqs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, correlation values can
be derived. ρ0,i denotes the synthetic grey correlation
1128 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132

between the temperature sequence of thermal sensor no. i For subinterval [0.8, 1], thermal sensor 2 should be
and X direction thermal error sequence: selected. For subinterval [0.5, 0.8], thermal sensor 7 should
be selected. For subinterval [0, 0.3], thermal sensor 16
r0;1 ¼ 0:5148; r0;2 ¼ 0:520; r0;3 ¼ 0:5114; r0;4 ¼ 0:5114;
r0;5 ¼ 0:5121; r0;6 ¼ 0:5109; r0;7 ¼ 0:5160; r0;8 ¼ 0:5160; should be selected. Looking back to subinterval [0.3, 0.5],
r0;9 ¼ 0:5050; r0;10 ¼ 0:5075; r0;11 ¼ 0:5128; r0;12 ¼ 0:5142; thermal sensor 5 should be selected, for thermal sensor 16
r0;13 ¼ 0:5137; r0;14 ¼ 0:5071; r0;15 ¼ 0:5121; r0;16 ¼ 0:5084: has already been selected and thermal sensor 15 is also
attached on the machine bed. Thermal sensor 9 is dropped,
After the standardization process defined in Section 4.1, for its correlation value is too small.
the transformed values are plotted as star marks in Fig. 4. In conclusion, by using this method, thermal sensors
Then, critical measuring points can be selected by 2, 5, 7, and 16 are picked out as critical thermal points.
applying the following empirical criterions:
4.3 Indirect grouping method
1. Not only pick the points with relative bigger value
(such as select sensors 2, 7, 8, and 1). The direct method mentioned above only considers the
2. The value of picked out points should be distributed in relationship between temperature data and thermal error
different subintervals of the interval [0, 1]. data of the X direction, but without considering the
3. For the thermal sensors placed on the same machine relationships among temperature sequences. So, another
tool component, only the one with the biggest value method is presented.
should be picked out. In order to conveniently observe the values of synthetic
4. The number of picked out points should better be the grey correlation among temperature sequences, they are
same as the number of machine tool components where arranged as a matrix shown in Table 1. Each component of
the thermal sensors are placed. the matrix is the correlation value between the temperature
Following criterion 2, the whole value range are divided sequences acquired by thermal sensors with the number of
into four main subintervals: [0, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5], [0.5, 0.8], the row and the column. For the matrix is symmetric, only
and [0.8, 1], as marked by horizontal dash-dotted lines in the lower half of it is listed.
Fig. 4. Following criterion 3, thermal sensors placed on the The 16 thermal sensors can be categorized into different
same machine tool components are divided by vertical groups with the threshold of 0.95. The values bigger than
dotted lines. Following criterion 4, at most, five thermal the threshold are rendered in italics in Table 1. After the
sensors can be picked out. first searching process, from both the row direction and
Of all the four subintervals, the decision in [0.3, 0.5] is the column direction of the matrix, 16 groups are formed:
hard to make because, with the precision of four significant (1, 7, 8, 12, 13), (2), (3, 4, 5, 6, 15), (4, 3, 5, 6, 15), (5, 3,
figures, the correlation values of thermal sensor 5 and 15 4, 11, 15), (6, 3, 4), (7, 1, 8), (8, 1, 7), (9), (10, 14, 16), (11,
are the same. So the selection is put to the last. 5, 15), (12, 1, 13), (13, 1, 12), (14, 10), (15, 3, 4, 5, 11),
(16, 10).
After the combination of the groups with the same
1
thermal sensors, the former 16 groups can be reduced as
0.9 follows: (1, 7, 8, 12, 13), (2), (3, 4, 5, 6, 15), (5, 3, 4, 11,
0.8
15), (9), (10, 14, 16). Despite thermal sensors 6 and 11 are
not in the same group, they are all closely correlated with
0.7 thermal sensors 3, 4, 5, and 15, so the two groups are
0.6
chosen to be combined as one group.
So finally, there are five groups left and they are (1, 7, 8,
0.5 12, 13), (2), (3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15), (9), (10, 14, 16).
0.4
According to the synthetic grey correlation value
between the temperature sequences and the thermal error
0.3 sequences of the X direction listed in Section 4.2, the
0.2
thermal sensors with the biggest value in each group is
selected, they are 2, 5, 7, 9, and 16.
0.1
For the five sensors, there are 31(25 − 1) different
0 combinations. The combinations are then used to construct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 multivariable linear regression models that map the nonlin-
Thermal Sensor Number
ear relationship between temperature variables and thermal
Fig. 4 Relative value of synthetic grey correlation error in the X direction. At last, the synthetic grey
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132 1129

1.0000
correlation value between estimated thermal error of each
#16 model and sampled thermal error in the X direction is
calculated. The calculation work is actuated by using

1.0000
0.8343
MATLAB. The results are shown in Table 2.
#15

From the data listed in Table 2, it can be discovered that

when the number of variables is more or less than 4, the

1.0000
0.7774
0.9148
maximum synthetic grey correlation value between the
#14

estimated thermal error and the real thermal error decreases.

So by using this method, thermal sensors 2, 5, 7, and 16 are

1.0000
0.7434
0.9386
0.7933
picked out as critical thermal points, which is the same as
#13

the result by using the method in Section 4.2.

1.0000
4.4 Comparison and analysis
0.9805
0.7340
0.9215
0.7819
#12

The same conclusion is acquired by applying both of the

two methods on analyzing the air cutting experiment data,
1.0000
0.9465
0.9497
0.7619
0.9720
0.8156
#11

respectively. The key thermal points should be where the

selected thermal sensors are attached, and they are: sensor
2, which is on the headstock; sensor 5, which is on the nut
1.0000
0.7751
0.7457
0.7557
0.9762
0.7914
0.9556

of the X-axis; sensor 7, which is in the coolant tank; and

#10

sensor 16, which is placed on the machine bed.

From Fig. 4, it can be observed that the temperature
1.0000
0.8084
0.6701
0.6520
0.6581
0.8240
0.6802
0.7690

change of different points on the machine tool frame has

#9

different influence on thermal error in the X direction

and the point on the headstock is the most important
1.0000
0.6325
0.7141
0.8886
0.9351
0.9182
0.7038
0.8669
0.7454

factor. It can also be seen that even for the points placed
#8

on the same machine tool component, the importance of

their temperature change can be far different. So although
1.0000
0.9981
0.6325
0.7140
0.8886
0.9351
0.9181
0.7037
0.8668
0.7454

the approximate locations for the critical measuring point

#7

can be guessed or empirically analyzed, the efforts on

finding and optimizing their exact locations are still very
1.0000
0.8273
0.8274
0.7018
0.8265

0.8761
0.8914
0.8109
0.9461
0.8746
0.9211

necessary.
#6

Despite the fact that the details of the two methods are
totally different, they are essentially the same. The main
1.0000
0.9466
0.8664
0.8665
0.6804
0.7918
0.9715

0.9382
0.7778
0.9979
0.8347
0.9211

procedure for both methods is that: first, put the thermal

#5

sensors in different groups, and then pick up the one makes

the biggest contribution to the thermal error in each group.
1.0000
0.9721
0.9730
0.8459
0.8460

0.8090
0.9452
0.8975
0.9137
0.7942
0.9716
0.8545
0.6911

The difference is that: in the first method, the grouping

depends on some empirical criterions, which are semi-
#4

qualitative and it only takes the relationship between the

1.0000
0.9955
0.9678
0.9773
0.8429
0.8429
0.6927

0.9412
0.8940
0.9100
0.7968
0.9673
0.8576
0.8117

thermal error and the temperature change of each thermal

Table 1 Synthetic grey correlation matrix

sensor into consideration; while in the second method, it

#3

depends on the calculation and searching algorithm, which

is quantitative and the relationship between different
1.0000
0.7719
0.7744
0.7906
0.7596
0.8966
0.8966
0.6049
0.6696
0.8082
0.8451
0.8316
0.6615
0.7909
0.6945

measuring points is also taken into consideration. It is

#2

obvious that the first method is easier and the calculation

workload is relatively smaller.
1.0000
0.8605
0.8771
0.8805
0.9030
0.8600
0.9545
0.9546
0.6455
0.7353
0.9274
0.9786
0.9599
0.7240
0.9035
0.7698
#1

5 Real cutting experiment and modeling

Sensor num

In order to validate the optimization result and further

#10

#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#11
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9

justify the efficiency of the newly proposed methods under

1130 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132

Table 2 Synthetic grey correlation value of different combination types

Variable num 1 2 3 4 5

Combination type #2#5#7

#2#5#9
#2 #2#7 #2#7 #2#5#16 #5#7#9#16
#5 #2#9 #2#16 #2#7#9 #2#7#9#16
#7 #5#7 #5#9 #2#7#16 #2#5#9#16 #2#5#7#9#16
#9 #5#16 #7#9 #2#9#16 #2#5#7#16
#16 #7#16 #9#16 #5#7#9 #2#4#7#9
#5#7#16
#5#9#16
#7#9#16
Synthetic grey correlation value 0.706
0.783
0.503 0.661 0.718 0.756 0.795
0.612 0.606 0.665 0.723 0.796
0.673 0.647 0.676 0.718 0.851 0.875
0.529 0.733 0.721 0.746 0.912
0.492 0.641 0.625 0.801 0.892
0.812
0.77
0.725

practical conditions, a real cutting experiment is conducted
on the same CNC turning center.
The temperature data of all 16 thermal sensors and the
thermal error data in the X direction of all the three working
shifts for a whole working day are sampled.
It is supposed that the thermal error of workpieces in
radius direction (i.e., X direction) does not change along the
axis direction (i.e., Z direction), for the length to radius ratio
of the workpieces is small. Machine tool thermal error is
measured indirectly because the displacement sensors are
hard to be properly fixed under real cutting conditions. As
soon as a workpiece is manufactured, its real radius value is
measured offline. The error value of real radius value with
respect to the designed radius value is regarded as the X
direction thermal error.
The sampling interval for thermal sensors is 5 min, for
that is the time to produce a workpiece. The temperature
data of the selected thermal points are plotted in Fig. 5a,
while the temperature data of the other thermal points are
just recorded but not drawn. The thermal error data in the X
direction is shown in Fig. 5b.
It can be observed from Fig. 5 that there are, in total, 101
workpieces produced in this experiment. The numbers of
workpieces processed on the three shifts are 30, 44, and 27.
So the working time for each shift are 2.5, 3.7, and 2.25 h.
Between every two shifts, there is a pause of half an hour.
It can also be seen from Fig. 5b that, at the beginning of
each working shift, the thermal error value increases with
the machine tool warms up; during the pause, thermal error
value decreases; and in the afternoon shift, the main part of
the machine tool reaches thermal equilibrium, so there is
just small vibration for thermal error value.
Multivariable regression thermal error models with 16
thermal variables and optimized four thermal variables are
established, respectively. The modeling results are shown in
Fig. 6a,b.
From Fig. 6, it is easy to tell which model performs
better at a glance. The range of estimation residual for the
optimized model appears much smaller than that of the
model using all 16 thermal variables. Specific statistical
values are shown in Table 3.
In the table, MIN stands for the minimum residual value;
MAX stands for the maximum residual value; SD stands
for the standard deviation of residual; and RANGE stands
for the width of distribution range for residual. After
optimization, the standard deviation is reduced for 68.5%
and the residual range is reduced for 69.1%. So when the ill
effect of coupling problem among thermal variables is
diminished, thermal error model performance can be
improved for such a large extent.
In all, the optimization methods presented in this paper
are applicable and effective for practical processing. It can
notably improve the precision of the thermal error model
established with the optimization result.
6 Conclusion
The grey system theory, which is adept at dealing with the
problems with the properties of “small samples,” “lack of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132 1131

a 31 a 5
Sensor 7 Coolent
Sensor 5 X Nut
30 0
Sensor 2 Headstock
Sensor16 Bed
29
5
Temperature/°C

Thermal Error/µm
28
10

27
15
26

20
25

25 Real ThermalError
24
Estimated Thermal Error
Residual
23 30
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Part Number Part Number

b 0
b 15
10

5 5

0
10
Thermal Error/µm
Thermal Error µm

10
15

15

20
20

25
25
Real Thermal Error
30 Estimated Thermal Error
Residual
30 35
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Part Number
Part Number

Fig. 5 Real cutting experiment data. a Temperature of selected Fig. 6 Modeling results. a Modeling result with optimized thermal
thermal sensors, b thermal error in the X direction sensors, b modeling result with 16 thermal sensors

necessary information,” and “uncertainty,” is adopted in modeling results for models with 16 and optimized four
this research. thermal variables are compared. The results show that the
Two optimizing methods, namely, direct criterion meth- model with optimized variables performs much better,
od and indirect grouping method are presented. They are modeling accuracy is promoted for a large extent. So the
used to analyze the data acquired from an air cutting presented optimization methods are applicable and effective
experiment on a CNC turning center. After the optimiza- for real practical machining.
tion, the same result is acquired that the thermal sensors
number is reduced from 16 to four, i.e., the variable number
of the thermal error model is notably reduced. Thus, the
Table 3 Statistics of modeling results (μm)
variable searching and modeling time can be greatly saved.
In addition, the coupling problem among thermal variables Min Max SD Range
can also be avoided.
After optimization −3.151 4.089 1.314 7.24
A real cutting experiment is conducted to justify the
Before optimization −8.902 14.51 4.262 23.41
effectiveness of the presented optimization methods. The
1132
Acknowledgement This project is supported by the Foundation for
the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of China (no.
200131).
References
1. Ramesh R, Mannan MA, Poo AN (2000) Error compensation in
machine tools—a review. Part II: thermal errors. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 40:1257–1284 doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(00)00010-9
2. Bryan J (1990) International status of thermal error research. Ann
CIRP 39:645–656
3. Ni J (1997) A perspective review of CNC machine accuracy
enhancement through real-time error compensation. China Mech
Eng 8:29–32
4. Chen JS, Yuan JX, Ni J (1996) Thermal error modeling for real-
time compensation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 12:266–275
doi:10.1007/BF01239613
5. Wang Y, Zhang G, Moon KS, Sutherland JW (1998) Compensa-
tion for the thermal error of a multi-axis machining center. J Mater
Process Technol 75:45–53 doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(97)00291-4
6. Jedrzejewski J, Modrzyci W (1992) A new approach to modeling
thermal behavior of a machine tool under service conditions. Ann
CIRP 37:401–405
7. Zhang B, Zhuang Y, Cui C (1992) Improving the thermal center in
corporation acting active compensation for thermal distortion.
Ann CIRP 141:455–458
8. Hatamura Y, Nagao T, Mitsuishi M, Kato K, Taguchi S, Okumura
T, Nakagawa G, Sugishita H (1993) Development of an intelligent
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 43:1124–1132
machining center incorporating active compensation for thermal
distortion. Ann CIRP 42:549–552
9. Postlethwaite SR, Allen JP, Ford DG (1999) Machine tool thermal
error reduction—an appraisal. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng
Manuf 213:1–9 doi:10.1243/0954405991516598
10. Yang H, Ni J (2005) Dynamic neural network modeling for
nonlinear nonstationary machine tool thermally induced error. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 45:455–465 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.
2004.09.004
11. Kang Y, Chang CW, Huang YR, Hsu CL, Nieh F (2007)
Modification of a neural network utilizing hybrid filters for the
compensation of thermal deformation in machine tools. Int J Mach
Tools Manuf 47:376–387 doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2006.03.007
12. Yang JG, Yuan JX, Ni J (1999) Thermal error mode analysis and
robust modeling for error compensation on a CNC turning center.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39:1367–1381 doi:10.1016/S0890-6955
(99)00008-5
13. Yang JG, Ren YQ, Liu GL, Zhao HT, Dou XL, Chen WZ, He SW
(2005) Testing, variable selecting and modeling of thermal errors
on an INDEX-G200 turning center. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
26:814–818 doi:10.1007/s00170-003-1908-3
14. Li YX, Yang JG, Gelvis T, Li YY (2008) Optimization of
measuring points for machine tool thermal error based on grey
system theory. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:745–750 doi:10.1007/
s00170-006-0751-8
15. Deng JL (2002) Basis of grey theory. Huazhong University of
Science and Technology Press, People’s Republic of China
16. Yang JG (1998) Error synthetic compensation technique and
application for NC machine tools. Dissertation, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, People’s Republic of China