The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10640-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Influence of process parameters and robot postures on surface quality

in robotic machining
Peng Xu1 · Yinghao Gao1 · Xiling Yao2 · Ye Han Ng2 · Kui Liu2 · Guijun Bi3

Received: 31 May 2022 / Accepted: 4 December 2022 / Published online: 15 December 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
The use of industrial robots for machining large parts has attracted more and more attention. Previous studies have shown
that ball-end milling is greatly affected by the process parameters. Besides, robotic machining is also affected by various
posture-dependent robot performances. However, these two critical aspects are usually treated separately in many works
studying robotic machining. In this paper, a robotic machining system consisting of a six-axis industrial robot, a two-axis
positioner and a linear track was developed. The combined effects of milling process parameters and robot postures on the
machining results were experimentally investigated. Grey relational analysis–based multi-objective optimization was con-
ducted for lower cutting force and better surface quality. A group of process parameters and robot postures were obtained as
the optimal combination that generally yields the best milling performance. The results allow users to preliminarily determine
the main factors affecting the quality of robotic machining.

Keywords Process parameters · Robot posture · Multi-objective optimization · Grey relational analysis · Robotic machining

1 Introduction [5–10]. On the other hand, robotic milling is still a work in

CNC machine tools are highly effective and precise in
machining. The main disadvantages are the high cost of the
machines and the limited workspace. Thanks to their low
cost, large workspace, high flexibility, and good maneuver-
ability, industrial robots are attractive alternatives to CNC
machine tools for machining large parts [1]. Industrial robots
have achieved remarkable success in many machining appli-
cations, such as polishing [2], grinding [3], and chamfer-
ing [4]. In recent years, the application of industrial robots
in milling operations has drawn more and more attention
* Xiling Yao
yao_xiling@simtech.a-star.edu.sg
* Guijun Bi
gj.bi@giim.ac.cn
1
School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
2
Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Agency
for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), 73
Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637662, Singapore
3
Guangdong Institute of Intelligent Manufacturing,
Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510070,
China
progress since it is challenging to create components with
acceptable dimensional tolerances and surface quality [11].
The problem of robotic machining, which is an important
scientific and technological difficulty, necessitates more
investigation. According to existing studies, the factors
affecting the machining quality in robotic machining can
be categorized into process parameters and robot postures.
The ball-end milling has been widely used in CNC
machining to finish high-quality freeform surfaces in the
automotive, aerospace, and precision engineering industries
[12]. Optimizing the cutting condition is an effective way to
enhance the machining performance. Due to the complicated
cutting mechanisms of ball-end milling, various investiga-
tions have been carried out to find optimum process param-
eters. The process parameters mainly include the spindle
speed, feed per tooth, axial depth of cut and radial depth of
cut [13]. The cutting velocity varies according to the contact
position of the cutting edge relative to the workpiece in ball-
end milling. So it is also vital to select the appropriate tool
orientation, which are determined by the lead angle and tilt
angle [14, 15]. Additionally, the surface quality is directly
related to the cutting mode, either up-milling or down-mill-
ing. The different cutting modes result in changes in the feed
directions. Masmiati and Sarhan [16] studied the surface

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2546 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561
integrity in ball-end milling of S50C steel. The results
showed that the milling strategy significantly influenced the
microhardness and residual stress in the feed direction. The
influence of milling strategy selection on the surface rough-
ness of an Al7075-T6 alloy was investigated by Vakondios
et al. [17]. In this study, a series of mathematical models
were fitted based on the experimental data to determine the
expected surface quality. However, most previous experi-
ments and analyses on process parameter optimization were
conducted on CNC machine tools instead of robots.
Along with the process parameters optimization, many
researchers have also put effort into optimizing the robot
postures. The main problem in robotic machining is the
insufficient stiffness of the robot. Since the performances
are pose-dependent [18], it is possible to exploit robot pos-
ture optimization to improve the robot performance that in
turn improves the machining performance. Xu et al. [19]
showed that the deformations of the robot varied signifi-
cantly in the robot workspace. It is preferable to use the
robot in the workspace with the best kinematic, stiffness,
and dynamic performance, as this reduces errors caused by
deformation and vibration of the tool center point (TCP).
Vosniakos and Matsas [20] tried to perform the machining
operation in the robot workspace with optimal static and
dynamic performance. They also investigated the optimal
placement of the workpiece to reduce the range of joint tor-
ques. Cvitanic et al. [21] conducted robot pose optimization
using static and dynamic stiffness models for different cut-
ting scenarios by developing a stiffness model considering
link weights. Wang et al. [3] showed that milling results
depended not only on the robot pose but also on the feed
direction of the milling task.
In the study of the combined effects of process parameters
and robot posture in robotic machining, an accurate theoreti-
cal model on surface quality is very difficult to formulate due
to the various nonlinear factors. Experimental investigation-
based optimization is advocated in many machining opera-
tions to reveal critical factors preliminarily. Simões et al.
[21] used the experimental method through factorial tech-
niques to evaluate the surface quality and geometric preci-
sion influenced by the main factors in the plaster machining
process using a robotic system. Using the response surface
method (RSM), Slamani et al. [22–24] improved the end-
mill geometry during the machining of Al7075-T6 alloy.
Since the robotic machining process involves more than one
performance, multi-objective decision-making approaches
must be employed. From the literature, it has already been
proved that Taguchi-Grey relational analysis (TGRA) is a
practical approach that can compute a better combination
of input process parameters with higher prediction accuracy
in many machining processes [25–28]. Pillai et al. [29] used
the TGRA to optimize the robotic machining process for
Al6005A alloy. The same approach was applied by Kuram
13
and Ozcelik [26] to conduct multi-objective optimization for
the micro-milling of Al7075 alloy. It helped obtain a group
of optimal milling parameters that simultaneously minimize
the force, tool wear, and surface roughness.
It is known that there are substantial differences between
the robotic machining system and the CNC machining sys-
tem. The existing process parameters optimized from the
machining CNC system are not applicable to the robotic
machining system [30]. Many studies asserted that various
robot pose-dependent performances needed to be considered
[6]. However, there is no reported work on process param-
eters optimization considering robot performance in robotic
machining with the ball-end milling process. Therefore, this
study focuses on the combined effects of investigating pro-
cess parameters and robot posture on surface quality in the
robotic machining. The obtained results can be used to iden-
tify, understand, optimize, and control the process param-
eters in robotic machining.
2 Experimental details
2.1 Robotic machining system
The experiments were conducted on a robotic machining
system, as shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a six-axis industrial
robot (Kuka KR 500 R2830), a linear track (Kuka KL 4000
C), and a two-axis positioner (Kuka KP2-HV 1100 HV).
The industrial robot is mounted on the linear track to enlarge
the workspace. The payloads of the industrial robot, posi-
tioner, and linear track are 500 kg, 1100 kg, and 4000 kg,
respectively. The repeatability accuracies of the industrial
robot, positioner, and linear track are ± 80 μm, ± 200 μm
(r = 400 mm), and ± 20 μm, respectively. A high-perfor-
mance spindle (Jaeger F150-H930.01 K1VW2) with a
maximum speed of 30,000 rpm is installed on the robot
end-effector through a designed flange. The rated power of
the spindle is 67 kW. The whole system is controlled by the
KR C4 controller.
2.2 Materials and tools
The work material used was NAK80 steel (3.0% Ni, 1.5%
Mn, 1% Cu and Al, 0.35% Si, 0.3% Mo, and 0.15% C) with
a hardness of approximately 40 HRC. The specimen used in
the experiment had a rectangular prism shape with a dimen-
sion of 90 mm × 70 mm × 50 mm. All the cutting tests were
carried out with a ball-end tool (Seco MM12-12,012-B90P-
M05 F30M). Fig. 2 shows the details of the cutting tool. The
distance between the cutting tool tip and the end of the tool
holder (overhang length) is about 200 mm. The coated car-
bide tool inserts have two flutes, and the diameter is 12 mm.
The flute helix angle, rake angle radial, and rake angle axial
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561
Fig. 1  (a) CAD model and (b)
photo of the robotic machining
(a)
system
Robot
Linear track Positioner
Fig. 2  (a) Tool holder, (b) tool
insert, and (c) dimension of the (a)
insert
200 mm
are all zero. All the milling experiments were conducted in
dry-cutting conditions without any coolant.
2.3 Controllable parameters
As mentioned previously, the parameters affecting the sur-
face quality could be divided into two groups, i.e., process
parameters and robotic posture. For the first group, there are
many process parameters such as spindle speed, feed rate,
depth of cut, tool geometry, work-tool materials, and cutting
conditions that affect the machinability characteristics. Four
controlling factors namely cutting mode, spindle speed, feed
per tooth, and axial depth of cut were chosen. These factors
were selected from literature study of machining optimiza-
tion problems and machinability studies [31, 32]. Two dif-
ferent cutting modes, i.e., down milling and up milling, as
illustrated in Fig. 3, were tested. In the down milling mode,
the cutting started at the surface of the workpiece. The chip
thickness was maximum at the start of the cut and minimum
at the end. In this scenario, the cutting chips fell behind the
tool. While in the up milling mode, the width of cutting
chips increased from minimum to maximum. The cutting
chips fell in front of the cutting tool. The range of the other
numerical parameters was selected based on recommended
2547
(b)
Spindle
(b) (c)
14.1
mm
12 mm 6 mm
process parameters of NAK80 and preliminary experiments.
For every parameter, three levels were selected. The radial
depth of the cut was fixed at 0.5 mm. To avoid tool damage
due to the zero velocity at the TCP, the tilt angle and lead
angle were fixed at 30° and 0°, respectively.
The second group includes the different robot postures
due to the kinematic redundancy. The redundancy of the
robotic system can be analyzed as follows. Each actuated
joint of the robotic system has one degree of freedom
(DOF). Let θ = [θA, θC, L, θR]T ∈ ℝ9 denote the set of all
actuated joint variables, where θA and θC are the positioner
variables representing the tilting and rotating angles, respec-
tively, L is the linear track variable representing the position
of the robot on the track, and θR = [θ1, …, θ6]T ∈ ℝ6 are the
robot joint variables. The joint space of the robotic system
has dim(J ) = 9. The pose of the end-effector can be speci-
fied with three translations and three rotations, making the
operation space dim(O) = 6. Because of tool symmetry, the
spindle can rotate around the tool axis without changing its
pose. Therefore, minimally five DOFs are enough to carry
out a milling task, making the task space dim(T ) = 5. The
intrinsic redundancy is defined as ri = dim(J )—dim(O) = 3,
and the functional redundancy is rf = dim(O)—dim(T ) = 1.
As the summation of the operation and task redundancy, the
13
2548 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Fig. 3  Process parameters in

(a) down-milling and (b) up-
milling

kinematic redundancy of the robotic system is rt = 4. Fig. 4
shows different robot postures with the same cutter location
in the workpiece frame. The postures in Fig. 4(a) and (b) are
obtained by moving the robot base on the linear track. The
difference in Fig. 4(a) and (c) are caused by different posi-
tioner rotations (θA and θC). Fig. 4(c) and (d) have different
configurations due to the spindle rotation (θZ) around the
tool axis.
Once a group of redundant parameters (θZ, θA, θC, L)
was given, the robot posture could be uniquely determined.
The range was selected based on the motion range of each
redundant parameter, and three levels were selected for
every parameter. At the same time, the accessibility and
interference of the robotic system corresponding to each
processing point are considered. Compared to the robot
dimensions, the size of the sample was limited. As a result,
the variations in the robot performances because of the vari-
ation of θR could be neglected.
2.4 Design of experiment
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of parameters on
robotic machining performance via experiments. As depicted
in Fig. 5, the correlations between the eight parameters and
the four responses were determined. Taguchi technique
was a straightforward and effective solution to design the

Fig. 4  Different robot postures:

(a) (b) (e)
(a) initial configuration, (b)
vary spindle rotation, (c) vary Toolholder
positioner rotation, (d) vary
track position, (e) cutter loca-
L
tion in the workpiece frame
Tool
Feed direction
60o

Fx
(c) (d) Fz Fy Workpiece

Dy
θC nam
om
eter
θA
θZ

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561 2549

Fig. 5  Eight factors and four Process parameters

responses in the robotic machin-
ing experiment Cutting model
Spindle speed
Feed per tooth Dynamometer
Depth of cut
Measurement
Design of Robotic
Robot redundancy of output
experiment Machining
response
Track position
C-axis rotation Profilometer
A-axis rotation
Spindle rotation

Table 1  Control factors and their levels in the robotic machining in Table 2. The corresponding robot postures are shown in
experiment Fig. 6.
Control factors Levels
2.5 Measurements
1 2 3

1 Cutting mode (CM) Down milling Up milling - Figure 7 shows the experimental setup and machined surface
2 Spindle speed (ω, rpm) 4775 7162 9549 in one of the tests (using test no. 10 as an example). To deal
3 Feed per tooth (fz, μm/tooth) 60 80 100 with the synchronized errors between various coordinate
4 Depth of cut (ap, μm) 400 600 800 systems due to poor calibration, a reference surface for each
5 Track position (L, mm) -300 400 1100 test was machined first to remove any synchronized errors.
6 C-axis rotation (θC, °) -30 0 30 The reference surface was machined on a 30 mm × 30 mm
7 A-axis rotation (θA, °) 0 20 40 area. It ensured flatness and prevented any offsets of the ref-
8 Spindle rotation (θZ, °) -20 0 20 erence surface when moving the robot, positioner, and track.
Then, a step surface was machined from the reference sur-
face to the given axial depth of cut on half of the area. Cut-
experiment [33]. Based on the control factors and factors ting forces were measured online with a Kistler dynamome-
­ 18 ­(21 × ­37) mixed orthogonal array
listed in Table 1, the L ter Type 9129A and were recorded by DEWEsoft7 software.
was selected. A total of 18 tests were carried out, as listed The cutting force measuring frequency is 50,000 Hz. The

Table 2  Design of experiment Test no CM ω (rpm) fz (μm/tooth) ap (μm) L (mm) θC (°) θA (°) θZ (°)

1 Down 4775 60 400 − 300 − 30 0 − 20

2 Down 4775 80 600 400 0 20 0
3 Down 4775 100 800 1100 30 40 20
4 Down 7162 60 400 400 0 40 − 20
5 Down 7162 80 600 1100 30 0 − 20
6 Down 7162 100 800 − 300 − 30 20 0
7 Down 9549 60 600 − 300 30 20 20
8 Down 9549 80 800 400 − 30 40 − 20
9 Down 9549 100 400 1100 0 0 0
10 Up 4775 60 800 1100 0 20 − 20
11 Up 4775 80 400 − 300 30 40 0
12 Up 4775 100 600 400 − 30 0 20
13 Up 7162 60 600 1100 − 30 40 0
14 Up 7162 80 800 − 300 0 0 20
15 Up 7162 100 400 400 30 20 − 20
16 Up 9549 60 800 400 30 0 0
17 Up 9549 80 400 1100 − 30 20 20
18 Up 9549 100 600 − 300 0 40 − 20

13
2550 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Test No. 1 Test No. 6 Test No. 7 Test No. 11 Test No. 14 Test No. 18

Test No. 2 Test No. 4 Test No. 8 Test No. 12 Test No. 15 Test No. 16

Test No. 3 Test No. 5 Test No. 9 Test No. 10 Test No. 13 Test No. 17

Fig. 6  Robot postures in all the tests

Fig. 7  Experimental setup: (a)

robot posture, (b) cutting force
measurement, and (c) machined
(a) (b)
surface Wor
kpie
ce
Robot
Dy
na
mo
me
Spindle ter

(c) 30 mm

Tool Button surface

Step

Positioner
Top surface

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561 2551

workpiece was mounted on the dynamometer that was fixed
on the positioner. Using this setup, three-dimensional cut-
ting forces could be measured simultaneously during the
machining process.
Geometric accuracy and surface roughness were meas-
ured offline after the workpiece was machined by the Taylor
Hobson profilometer. As shown in Fig. 7(c), the geomet-
ric accuracy, represented by the step height deviation of
machined surfaces, was measured in the cross-feed direction.
The surface roughness was measured in the feed direction.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Surface topography
Surface topography influences mechanical and physical
properties, such as contact, friction, lubrication, and fatigue
life. Fig. 8 gives a surface topography in typical ball-end
milling resulting from test No. 6. Due to the structure and
movement characteristics of the ball-end mill, two kinds
of scallops could be found on the surface, i.e., the feed-
interval scallop and the pick-interval scallop [33]. The pick-
interval scallop can be observed between successive paths.
Due to the spherical shape of the ball-end cutter, another
kind of feed-interval scallop is generated between succes-
sive teeth. Moreover, the cutting speed direction and the
micro-scratches left by every single tooth of the cutting tool
are distinguishable. The directions of the micro-scratches
are parallel to the cutting speed direction depending on the
tool orientation. The initial and final conditions of the cutter
edges are shown in Fig. 9. The micro-scratches are caused
by the tool wear and the severe friction between the cutter
edge and workpiece.
Another distinguishing feature is the groove width
between the two teeth changing significantly in the feed
direction, as displayed in Fig. 8. Theoretically, the distance
between two teeth should be the same as simulated in [33].
Layegh K and Lazoglu [34] attributed it to the tool runout
during the tests. One tooth overcuts and the other tooth
undercuts the workpiece. Besides, the groove widths for the
same tooth are not stable during different cycles caused by
the tool vibration.
3.2 Cutting force
Cutting force affects the tool wear, heat generation, and robot
deformation and vibration. A typical three-dimensional cut-
ting force measured from one of the tests (using test No. 13
as an example) is depicted in Fig. 10.
Figure 10(a) depicts the cutting force acquired during
one single path. It can be found that the axial force Fz
and feed force Fy are larger than the cross-feed force Fx.
Therefore, the maximum forces in the Y and Z directions

Fig. 8  Surface topography in μm

Distances between two paths
typical ball-end milling meas- Feed-interval scallop
ured from test No. 6 Overcut Undercut 7
5
Cross feed direction

Micro-scratches 3
1
Distances between two tooths -1
-3
-5
-7
0.5 mm Pick-interval scallop 0.2 mm

Feed direction

Fig. 9  (a) Initial and (b) final

conditions of the cutter edges (a) (b)

182 μm 315 μm

1000 μm

13
2552
Fig. 10  Cutting force in typical
ball-end milling measured from
600
test No. 13
400
200
Cutting force [N]
0
-200
-400
0 0.5
(b) 400
200
Cutting force [N]
-200
2 2.002
are considered in the subsequent analysis. Cutting forces
can be qualitatively divided into three stages, i.e., enter-
ing stage, stable stage, and existing stage. In the entering
stage, the tool begins to contact the workpiece material.
An abrupt increase in the cutting force behavior and severe
vibration of the cutting forces can be seen. After that is
the stable stage, where the cutting force becomes relatively
stable and regular. The final stage is the exiting stage,
which occurs when the tool exits the material. In both the
entering and existing stages, irregular cutting force peaks
can be observed.
Figure 10(b) involves two complete revolutions of the
tool within the stable stage when the cutting force is rela-
tively stable and regular. Since the tool has two teeth, four
primary peaks correspond to tooth engagement during the
two revolutions. Here, apparent differences between the two
adjacent primary peaks can be observed because of the tool
runout errors [35]. During the experiment, one time there is
only one tooth out of two is in contact with the workpiece. A
period exists when no tooth is in contact with the workpiece.
In this period, the forces should attenuate rapidly. Different
from the work conducted on the CNC machine [36], it can
also be noticed that the axial force Fz due to the impact of
every tooth engagement has not subsided to a reasonable
range by the time the next tooth comes in contact. That is,
after the disengagement of one cutting tooth and until the
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561
Fy Fz Fx
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time [s]
Fy Fz Fx
2.004 2.006 2.008 2.01 2.012 2.014 2.016
Time [s]
second cutting tooth comes into contact, the workpiece and
its system vibrate at their natural frequency.
Figure 10(b) also shows that the cutting forces have a
certain periodicity. The corresponding Fast Fourier Trans-
form (FFT) analysis result of the cutting force is displayed
in Fig. 11. The tooth passing frequency f0 can also be calcu-
lated directly from the spindle speed and the number of teeth
1 𝜔
f0 = n= n (1)
T 60
where ω is the spindle speed (rpm), and n is the number of
flutes. When ω = 7162 r/min, f0 is equal to 238.7 Hz. Due to
the tool runout and differences in tool wear, the cutting force
under the condition that the chips formed on the first tool
pass and the second tool pass are different. So, the charac-
teristic frequency of cutting force is around 119.3 Hz. The
amplitude at 0 Hz represents the average value of force.
In this case, the mean values of Fx, Fy, and Fz are 3.11 N,
70.78 N, and 13.11 N, respectively. Thus, it is reasonable to
use the value of amplitude in 0 Hz as the value of cutting
force in reaming analysis. Besides the frequency of 0 Hz,
the fourth, fifth, and sixth harmonic generation amplitude
occupies the most significant proportion in the Fx. Compared
with the previous frequency, it has no attenuation. For Fy,
the fourth is the highest. For Fz, it is not easy attenuation in
the first nine harmonic generations. The principal reason
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561 2553

Fig. 11  FFT analysis of cutting 20

force measured from test No. 13

Amplitude Fx [N]
10
X: 0

Y: 3.112

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

40

Amplitude Fy [N]
20 X: 0

Y: 10.78

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

30

X: 239
20
Y: 25.45
Amplitude Fz [N]

10 X: 0

Y: 13.11

0
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Frequency [Hz]

is that these harmonic frequencies are close to the natural
frequency of the system.
3.3 Surface roughness and step feature height
According to Fig. 7(c), a typical step height in the cross-feed
direction measured from test No. 9 is depicted in Fig. 12,
where the nominal step height is 400 μm. While the actual
step height is only 376.9 μm, resulting in a 23.1 μm step
height deviation. Two reasons may attribute to the deviation.
The first one is the repeatability of the robot, and the second
reason may be the robot’s deformation.
The measured cutting force, surface roughness and
step height deviation in robotic machining are analyzed to
determine the process parameters and robot postures. The
general optimization procedure is depicted step-by-step in
Fig. 13. The Taguchi experiment, which is a single-objective
analysis, is described in subsection 3.4. The results of
multi-objective analysis utilizing TGRA are described in
subsection 3.5.
3.4 Analysis of the S/N ratios
The desired effect for the output characteristic is referred
to as signal, while the undesirable effect is referred to as
noise. Taguchi method takes the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio
as the quality characteristics of the responses to measure
the deviation of current values from the desired values. The
quality characteristics in the analysis of S/N ratio are gener-
ally identified as lower-the-better, nominal-the-better, and
higher-the-better. In this study, the machining aims to mini-
mize the forces, step height deviation, and surface rough-
ness. Thus, the smaller-the-better S/N ratio is computed
using the equation

Fig. 12  Deviation of step height

in typical cutting tests Top surface Nominal step height
Deviation
Micrometres

Actual step height

Bottom surface

Millimetres

13
2554 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Fig. 13  The stages of the

applied optimization procedure

[ ( n )]
Consequently, it enables the identification of the optimal
1 ∑ 2
xi (k) = −10log y (k) (2) input parameters for each output response separately. The
n i=1 i
average of each response and their corresponding S/N ratios
are shown in Table 3. Main effect plots are drawn in Figs. 14,
where xi(k) is the value of S/N ratios for k-th (k = 1, …, 4,
15, 16, 17 to evaluate the effects of the eight parameters on
which indicates Fy, Fz, Ra and De, respectively) response at
the four responses. The four figures depict the effect of each
i-th (i = 1, …, 18) trial, and yi(k) is the original experimental
factor on different responses. The rank is assigned based
data for the kth response at ith trial.
on the factor’s impact on the response, and a higher rank
The optimal setting for each response is considered as
indicates a higher weight of the factor in determining the
the parameter combination with the maximum S/N ratio.
response.

Table 3  The average of four Responses Fy(N) Fz(N) Ra(μm) De(μm)

measurements and S/N ratios of
process responses Test no Fy S/N Fz S/N Ra S/N De S/N

1 192.47 − 42.85 194.68 − 47.01 1.13 − 1.08 10.87 − 21.69

2 203.31 − 57.83 221.60 − 55.51 1.31 − 2.37 23.89 − 29.05
3 133.90 − 59.33 151.57 − 56.80 1.58 − 4.02 20.47 − 27.65
4 138.81 − 51.14 156.71 − 52.59 1.21 − 1.66 78.28 − 39.50
5 778.38 − 51.28 740.82 − 58.17 1.20 − 1.56 21.95 − 27.50
6 926.08 − 47.85 880.75 − 50.11 1.25 − 1.95 128.53 − 42.25
7 360.44 − 55.13 373.51 − 52.59 1.53 − 3.73 45.07 − 34.47
8 366.27 − 51.52 455.84 − 48.76 1.29 − 2.28 69.77 − 37.14
9 246.89 − 54.30 261.37 − 53.37 1.08 − 0.67 22.81 − 29.57
10 570.92 − 50.66 541.04 − 48.97 1.23 − 1.80 6.80 − 17.75
11 376.60 − 60.34 354.94 − 56.53 1.26 − 2.02 27.39 − 30.43
12 518.88 − 46.72 508.22 − 48.49 1.16 − 1.27 56.12 − 35.17
13 341.19 − 55.17 329.19 − 55.62 1.22 − 1.73 11.58 − 23.39
14 1038.57 − 53.69 958.32 − 50.96 1.59 − 4.12 7.08 − 18.35
15 216.59 − 51.11 225.74 − 49.01 1.31 − 2.38 17.65 − 26.64
16 573.50 − 42.85 577.84 − 47.01 1.26 − 2.06 231.71 − 47.39
17 483.78 − 57.83 455.95 − 55.51 1.56 − 3.96 31.41 − 31.69
18 359.23 − 59.33 342.18 − 56.80 1.27 − 2.12 50.76 − 34.44

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561
Fig. 14  Main effects diagram for Fy
Fig. 15  Main effects diagram for Fz
Factor combination A1B1C1D1E2F2G3H3 leads to the
lowest cutting force in the Y direction, and the parameter
selection is shown in Table 4. Two factors that significantly
affect Fy are the depth of cut and positioner tilt. Fy dimin-
ishes with the decrease of cut depth and the increase of posi-
tioner tilt.
Combination A1B1C1D1E3F2G3H3 generates the small-
est Fz. Cutting force in the Z direction is mainly affected by
cut depth, spindle speed, and positioner tilt. The parameter
combination is tabulated in Table 5. Fz is positively related
to cut depth and spindle speed, and negatively related to 𝜃A.
2555
In general, shallow cut depth, low spindle speed, and large
positioner titling yield a smaller Fz.
The main effect analysis on cutting force reveals the
importance of process parameter selection in affecting cut-
ting force, and also shows the effects of robot poses cannot
be ignored. In general, the depth of cut is the most critical
factor for cutting force in both Y and Z directions. A deeper
cut intuitively creates a higher cutting force. In addition
to the milling process parameters, the configuration of the
robotic system also affects the cutting force significantly.
Positioner tiling angle ( 𝜃A ) ranks third in affecting Fy and
13
2556 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Fig. 16  Main effects diagram for surface roughness

Fig. 17  Main effects diagram for step height deviation

Table 4  Factor combination Factor CM ω (rpm) fz (μm/tooth) ap (μm) L (mm) θC (°) θA (°) θZ (°)
yields smallest Fy
Parameter Down milling 4775 60 400 400 0 40 20
Rank 4 5 6 1 3 7 2 8

Table 5  Factor combination Factor CM ω (rpm) fz (μm/tooth) ap (μm) L (mm) θC (°) θA (°) θZ (°)
yields smallest Fz
Parameter Down milling 4775 60 400 1100 0 40 20
Rank 8 2 4 1 6 5 3 7

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561 2557

Fz, respectively. A bigger positioner tilting angle creates the
lowest cutting force in both directions.
The finest surface can be obtained by adopting factor
combination A1B1C1D1E2F1G1H2 during the milling pro-
cess, whose related parameters are listed in Table 6. Spindle
rotation, positioner tilt, and depth of cut are three factors that
significantly impact surface roughness.
A2B1C2D1E3F2G1H1 is the optimal combination that
gives the smallest step deviation, and the related parame-
ters are tabulated in Table 7. Track position, spindle speed,
and spindle rotation outweigh the rest factors affecting
step height deviation. A smaller surface deviation can be
obtained when a lower spindle speed is chosen.
The main effect analysis on surface quality shows higher
importance of robot configuration than that of process
parameters. Spindle rotation is the primary factor that affects
milling surface roughness. Track position, spindle speed,
and spindle rotation are three main factors that significantly
influence step deviation. Since industrial robots are more
compliant than CNC machines, significant tool tip vibra-
tion may occur that negatively affect the surface quality. It
has been shown that the vibration depends not only on the
process parameters but also on the robot configuration [6,
37]. This is probably because the dynamic behavior varies
within its workspace. The obtained results indicate that the
robot has higher stiffness in specific postures than others that
are favorable for robotic machining.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a confidence inter-
val of 95% was performed to determine the contribution of
each factor to the four responses. The ANOVA results are
tabulated in Table 8, 9, 10, 11, which concurs with the previ-
ous analysis of the S/N ratios. Depth of cut, positioner tilt,
and spindle speed contribute 27.18%, 19.44%, and 15.83%
to cutting force in the Y direction, respectively. 31.69%,
18.4%, and 15.29% of contribution to Fz are made by depth
of cut, positioner tilt, and spindle speed. Thus, depth of cut,
positioner tilt and spindle speed are the three main factors
affecting cutting force. Spindle rotation is the major factor
influencing surface roughness by 40.12%, and positioner tilt
is the secondary factor by 11.89%. Feed per tooth, spindle
rotation and spindle speed comprise 19.42%, 17.13%, and
13.42% of contribution to step height deviation.
3.5 Multi‑objective optimization using the grey
relational analysis
Since the machining process involves more than one output
response, it is critical to find a single set of optimal input
parameters for all of the investigated responses at the same
time. To achieve it, the grey relational analysis (GRA) is
applied in the investigation. The goal is to find the grey rela-
tional grade (GRG), which converts a multi-objective optimi-
zation issue to a single-objective optimization problem. And

Table 6  Factor combination Factor CM ω (rpm) fz (μm/tooth) ap (μm) L (mm) θC (°) θA (°) θZ (°)
that creates the lowest surface
roughness Parameter Down milling 4775 60 400 400 − 30 0 0
Rank 8 7 4 3 6 5 2 1

Table 7  Factor combination that Factor CM ω (rpm) fz (μm/tooth) ap (μm) L (mm) θC (°) θA (°) θZ (°)
creates the lowest step deviation
Parameter Up milling 4775 80 400 1100 0 0 − 20
Rank 6 2 5 8 1 4 7 3

Table 8  ANOVA for Fy Factors DoF Sum of squares Mean of squares F-value Contribution

Cutting mode 1 71,280 71,280 1.21 6.08%

Spindle speed 2 185,586 92,793 1.58 15.83%
Feed per tooth 2 106,048 53,024 0.9 9.04%
Depth of cut 2 318,764 159,382 2.71 27.18%
Track position 2 128,030 64,015 1.09 10.92%
Positioner rotation 2 13,272 6636 0.11 1.13%
Positioner tilt 2 227,959 113,979 1.93 19.44%
Spindle rotation 2 3894 1947 0.03 0.33%
Error 2 117,818 58,909 10.05%
Total 17 1,172,652 100.00%

13
2558 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Table 9  ANOVA for Fz Factors DoF Sum of squares Mean of squares F-value Contribution

Cutting mode 1 40,761 40,761 0.81 4.21%

Spindle speed 2 148,110 74,055 1.47 15.29%
Feed per tooth 2 96,475 48,238 0.95 9.96%
Depth of cut 2 306,850 153,425 3.04 31.69%
Track position 2 78,893 39,447 0.78 8.15%
Positioner rotation 2 15,629 7814 0.15 1.61%
Positioner tilt 2 179,116 89,558 1.77 18.50%
Spindle rotation 2 1500 750 0.01 0.15%
Error 2 101,083 50,542 10.44%
Total 17 968,417 100.00%

Table 10  ANOVA for surface Factors DoF Sum of squares Mean of squares F-value Contribution
roughness
Cutting mode 1 0.00436 0.0044 0.15 1.05%
Spindle speed 2 0.00881 0.0044 0.15 2.12%
Feed per tooth 2 0.03974 0.0199 0.67 9.55%
Depth of cut 2 0.03901 0.0195 0.65 9.38%
Track position 2 0.02081 0.0104 0.35 5.00%
Positioner rotation 2 0.02721 0.0136 0.46 6.54%
Positioner tilt 2 0.04948 0.0247 0.83 11.89%
Spindle rotation 2 0.16694 0.0835 2.79 40.12%
Error 2 0.05974 0.0299 14.36%
Total 17 0.41611 100.00%

Table 11  ANOVA for step Factors DoF Sum of squares Mean of squares F-value Contribution
deviation
Cutting mode 1 83.9 83.89 0.01 0.10%
Spindle speed 2 11,676.1 5838.06 0.63 13.42%
Feed per tooth 2 16,745.5 8372.77 0.9 19.24%
Depth of cut 2 9567.5 4783.76 0.51 11.00%
Track position 2 1278.6 639.3 0.07 1.47%
Positioner rotation 2 8004.7 4002.34 0.43 9.20%
Positioner tilt 2 6105.6 3052.79 0.33 7.02%
Spindle rotation 2 14,903.2 7451.58 0.8 17.13%
Error 2 18,648.4 9324.21 21.43%
Total 17 87,013.5 100.00%

ANOVA for multi-objective using GRGs is performed after
the GRA.
The original responses should be linearly normalized
between 0 and 1, called the normalization of responses. Since
all responses in the robotic machining experiment are desired
to have small values, the normalization is formulated as
maxyi (k) − yi (k)
xi∗ (k) =
maxyi (k) − minyi (k)
where maxyi(k) is the maximum experimental data for the
k-th response at all trials, minyi(k) is the minimum experi-
mental data for the k-th response at all trials, xi∗ (k) is normal-
ized value for k-th response at i-th trial, and i is the number
of trials.
After the normalization of response values, the grey
relational coefficient (GRC) is calculated. It quantifies the
(3) relations between the ideal and actual experimental results,
and it is written as

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561 2559

Δmin + 𝜌Δmax ANOVA results reveal the importance of each factor to

𝜉i (k) =
Δi (k) + 𝜌Δmax
| |
where Δ=|x0∗ (k) − xi∗ (k)| is the deviation sequence of the ref-
| |
erence sequence x0∗ (k) and the comparability sequence xi∗ (k),
Δmin = minΔ, Δmax = maxΔ, ρ ∈ [0, 1] is a distinguishing
coefficient. In this study, the ρ value is set to 0.5.
Once the GRCs of each response variable are obtained,
the GRG can be computed by averaging the GRCs corre-
sponding to each experiment
m
1∑
𝛾i = 𝜉 (k)
m k=1 i
where γi is the GRG for the i-th experiment and m is the
number of performance characteristics (m = 4). Among all
investigated responses, optimal input parameters can be
found based on the GRG values in Table 12.
To evaluate the effect of parameter selection on milling
performance, normalized responses using Eq. (2), GRC and
GRG are computed, as tabulated in Table 8. The experiments
are ranked in GRG descending order. Sets with higher ranks
yield better quality than those with lower ranks. Test No. 4 is
ranked first, giving optimal parameter combination with the
best milling performance among all 18 sets. Down-milling,
spindle speed of 7162 rpm, low feed per tooth of 60 μm/
tooth, shallow cut depth of 400 μm together with a specific
robot pose (L = 400 mm, θC = 0°, θA = 40°, θZ = -20°) yield
generally optimal milling performance.
(4) general milling performance, as tabulated in Table 13. Feed
per tooth and depth of cut both make a quarter of the con-
tribution to the machining performance. Cutting mode and
track position both make about 12% contribution. The influ-
ence of robot configuration should not be ignored, though
the process parameters take a large portion in the general
ANOVA.
4 Conclusion
(5)
This paper focuses on the combined analysis of process
parameters and robot posture on cutting force and surface
quality in robotic machining. Four process parameters (cut-
ting mode, spindle speed, feed per tooth, and depth of cut)
were selected, and four kinematic redundancies (track posi-
tion, C-axis rotation, A-axis rotation, and spindle rotation)
were identified for the robotic system. Their effects on out-
put responses, namely cutting force, surface roughness, and
step height deviation were evaluated. Based on this study,
the following conclusions were obtained.
(1) Two kinds of scallops could be found on the machined
surface. Distinguishing groove width between the two teeth
changing significantly in the feed direction is found, which
can be attributed to the tool runout error. The axial force
Fz and feed force Fy are larger than the cross-feed force Fx.
Because of runout errors on the tool, obvious differences
between the two adjacent primary peaks can be observed.

Table 12  Grey relational Normalized measurements GRC​ GRG​ Rank

analysis
Test no Fy Fz Ra ΔH Fy Fz Ra ΔH

1 0.935 0.947 0.210 0.902 0.885 0.903 0.388 0.836 0.753 2

2 0.923 0.913 0.159 0.549 0.867 0.852 0.373 0.526 0.654 5
3 1.000 1.000 0.240 0.020 1.000 1.000 0.397 0.338 0.684 4
4 0.995 0.994 0.491 0.745 0.989 0.987 0.496 0.662 0.784 1
5 0.288 0.270 0.292 0.765 0.412 0.406 0.414 0.680 0.478 16
6 0.124 0.096 0.658 0.667 0.363 0.356 0.594 0.600 0.478 15
7 0.750 0.725 0.381 0.118 0.666 0.645 0.447 0.362 0.530 12
8 0.743 0.623 0.000 0.588 0.661 0.570 0.333 0.548 0.528 13
9 0.875 0.864 0.204 1.000 0.800 0.786 0.386 1.000 0.743 3
10 0.517 0.517 0.209 0.706 0.509 0.509 0.387 0.630 0.509 14
11 0.732 0.748 0.141 0.647 0.651 0.665 0.368 0.586 0.567 9
12 0.574 0.558 0.045 0.843 0.540 0.531 0.344 0.761 0.544 11
13 0.771 0.780 0.261 0.725 0.686 0.694 0.403 0.646 0.607 8
14 0.000 0.000 0.208 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.387 0.333 0.347 18
15 0.909 0.908 0.245 0.549 0.845 0.845 0.398 0.526 0.654 6
16 0.514 0.472 1.000 0.647 0.507 0.486 1.000 0.586 0.645 7
17 0.613 0.623 0.334 0.059 0.564 0.570 0.429 0.347 0.477 17
18 0.751 0.764 0.063 0.627 0.667 0.679 0.348 0.573 0.567 10

13
2560 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561

Table 13  ANOVA for GRG​ Source DoF Sum of squares Mean of squares F-value Contribution

Cutting mode 1 0.028453 0.028453 4.19 12.84%

Spindle speed 2 0.011173 0.005587 0.82 5.04%
Feed per tooth 2 0.055925 0.027963 4.12 25.24%
Depth of cut 2 0.056328 0.028164 4.15 25.43%
Track position 2 0.026789 0.013394 1.97 12.09%
Positioner rotation 2 0.00428 0.00214 0.32 1.93%
Positioner tilt 2 0.015758 0.007879 1.16 7.11%
Spindle rotation 2 0.009263 0.004632 0.68 4.18%
Error 2 0.013567 0.006783 6.12%
Total 17 0.221537 100.00%

(2) The single-objective analysis reveals that the depth References

of cut is the most significant factor for cutting forces in
both Y and Z directions. The same analysis also shows that
the influence of robot poses, especially positioner tilting,
should not be ignored. Robot poses have higher importance
than process parameters for milling surface quality. Spin-
dle rotation and track position are the most significant fac-
tors for surface roughness and step deviation, respectively.
ANOVA for each response concur with the conclusion of
S/N ratios analysis, and further quantify the contribution
of each factor.
(3) The optimal combination of process parameters and
robot poses estimated through the GRA method are down
milling, 7162 rpm spindle speed, 60 μm feed per tooth,
400 μm depth of cut together with certain robot pose hav-
ing 400 mm track position, 0° positioner rotating angle, 40°
positioner tilting angle and − 20° spindle rotation angle,
under the defined conditions in this study.
(4) ANOVA using GRGs concludes that process param-
eters make a large portion of the contribution to the machin-
ing performance and that the influence of robot postures
should also be noted. Robotic machining can obtain promis-
ing performance if the process parameters and robot posture
are considered simultaneously.
Funding This work was supported by the Guangdong Basic and
Applied Basic Research Foundation (Grant No. 2021A1515110043),
Science and Technology Innovation Committee of Shenzhen (Grant
No. GXWD20220811151912002), Academy of Sciences Project of
Guangdong Province (Grant No. 2022GDASZH-2022010108) and the
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A∗STAR) of Singapore
through the IndustryAlignment Fund – Pre-positioning Programme
(IAF-PP) (Grant No. A1893a0031).
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
1. Verl A, Valente A, Melkote S, Brecher C, Ozturk E, Tunc LT
(2019) Robots in machining. Cirp Ann 68:799–822
2. Pan R, Zhao W, Wang Z, Ji S, Gao X, Chen D, Fan J (2021)
Research on an evaluation model for the working stiffness of
a robot-assisted bonnet polishing system. J Manuf Process
65:134–143
3. Zhang T, Xiao M, Zou Y, Xiao J (2020) Robotic constant-
force grinding control with a press-and-release model and
model-based reinforcement learning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
106:589–602
4. Hu J, Pagilla PR (2021) Dual-edge robotic gear chamfering with
registration error compensation. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf, 69
5. Cen L, Melkote SN (2017) CCT-based mode coupling chatter
avoidance in robotic milling. J Manuf Process 29:50–61
6. Mousavi S, Gagnol V, Bouzgarrou BC, Ray P (2018) Stability
optimization in robotic milling through the control of functional
redundancies. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 50:181–192
7. Chen C, Peng F, Yan R, Li Y, Wei D, Fan Z, Tang X, Zhu Z (2019)
Stiffness performance index based posture and feed orientation
optimization in robotic milling process. Robot Comput-Integr
Manuf 55:29–40
8. Liao Z-Y, Li J-R, Xie H-L, Wang Q-H, Zhou X-F (2020) Region-
based toolpath generation for robotic milling of freeform surfaces
with stiffness optimization, Robot Comput-Integr Manuf, 64
9. Peng J, Ding Y, Zhang G, Ding H (2020) Smoothness-oriented
path optimization for robotic milling processes. Sci China Technol
Sci 63:1751–1763
10. Lu Y-A, Tang K, Wang C-Y (2021) Collision-free and smooth
joint motion planning for six-axis industrial robots by redundancy
optimization, Robot Comput-Integr Manuf, 68
11. Ji W, Wang L (2019) Industrial robotic machining: a review. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 103:1239–1255
12. Mali RA, Gupta TVK, Ramkumar J (2021) A comprehensive
review of free-form surface milling– Advances over a decade. J
Manuf Process 62:132–167
13. Arruda ÉM, de Paiva AP, Brandão LC, Ferreira JR (2019) Robust
optimisation of surface roughness of AISI H13 hardened steel
in the finishing milling using ball nose end mills. Precis Eng
60:194–214
14. Ozturk E, Tunc LT, Budak E (2009) Investigation of lead and tilt
angle effects in 5-axis ball-end milling processes. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 49:1053–1062

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 124:2545–2561
15. Dong J, Yu T, Chen H, Li B (2020) An improved calculation
method for cutting contact point and tool orientation analysis
according to the CC points. Precis Eng 61:1–13
16. Masmiati N, Sarhan AAD (2015) Optimizing cutting parameters
in inclined end milling for minimum surface residual stress –
Taguchi approach. Measurement 60:267–275
17. Vakondios D, Kyratsis P, Yaldiz S, Antoniadis A (2012) Influence
of milling strategy on the surface roughness in ball end milling of
the aluminum alloy Al7075-T6. Measurement 45:1480–1488
18. Xu P, Cheung CF, Li B, Wang C, Zhao C (2021) Design, dynamic
analysis, and experimental evaluation of a hybrid parallel–serial
polishing machine with decoupled motions. J Mech Robot, 13
19. Xu P, Yao X, Liu S, Wang H, Liu K, Kumar AS, Lu WF, Bi G
(2021) Stiffness modeling of an industrial robot with a gravity
compensator considering link weights, Mech Mach Theory, 161
20. Vosniakos G-C, Matsas E (2010) Improving feasibility of robotic
milling through robot placement optimisation. Robot Comput-
Integr Manuf 26:517–525
21. AntunesSimões JFCP, Coole TJ, Cheshire DG, Pires AR (2003)
Analysis of multi-axis milling in an anthropomorphic robot, using
the design of experiments methodology. J Mater Process Tech
135:235–241
22. Slamani M, Gauthier S, Chatelain J-F (2015) A study of the com-
bined effects of machining parameters on cutting force compo-
nents during high speed robotic trimming of CFRPs. Measure-
ment 59:268–283
23. Slamani M, Gauthier S, Chatelain J-F (2014) Analysis of trajec-
tory deviation during high speed robotic trimming of carbon-fiber
reinforced polymers. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 30:546–555
24. Slamani M, Chatelain J-F (2019) Assessment of the suitability
of industrial robots for the machining of carbon-fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRPs). J Manuf Process 37:177–195
25. Muthuramalingam T, Akash R, Krishnan S, Phan NH, Pi VN,
Elsheikh AH (2021) Surface quality measures analysis and opti-
mization on machining titanium alloy using CO2 based laser beam
drilling process. J Manuf Process 62:1–6
26. Kuram E, Ozcelik B (2013) Multi-objective optimization
using Taguchi based grey relational analysis for micro-milling
of Al 7075 material with ball nose end mill. Measurement
46:1849–1864
27. Uzun G (2019) Analysis of grey relational method of the effects on
machinability performance on austempered vermicular graphite
cast irons. Measurement 142:122–130
2561
28. Soorya Prakash K, Gopal PM, Karthik S (2020) Multi-objective
optimization using Taguchi based grey relational analysis in turn-
ing of Rock dust reinforced Aluminum MMC, Measurement, 157
29. Unnikrishna Pillai J, Sanghrajka I, Shunmugavel M, Muthura-
malingam T, Goldberg M, Littlefair G (2018) Optimisation of
multiple response characteristics on end milling of aluminium
alloy using Taguchi-Grey relational approach. Measurement
124:291–298
30. Slamani M, Gauthier S, Chatelain J-F (2016) Comparison of sur-
face roughness quality obtained by high speed CNC trimming and
high speed robotic trimming for CFRP laminate. Robot Comput-
Integr Manuf 42:63–72
31. Kuram E, Ozcelik B (2016) Optimization of machining parameters
during micro-milling of Ti6Al4V titanium alloy and Inconel 718
materials using Taguchi method. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B: J
Eng Manuf 231:228–242
32. Fontaine M, Moufki A, Devillez A, Dudzinski D (2007) Model-
ling of cutting forces in ball-end milling with tool–surface inclina-
tion. J Mater Process Tech 189:73–84
33. Chen J-S, Huang Y-K, Chen M-S (2005) A study of the surface
scallop generating mechanism in the ball-end milling process. Int
J Mach Tools Manuf 45:1077–1084
34. Layegh SE, Lazoglu KI (2017) 3D surface topography analysis in
5-axis ball-end milling. Cirp Ann 66:133–136
35. Wang SB, Geng L, Zhang YF, Liu K, Ng TE (2015) Cutting force
prediction for five-axis ball-end milling considering cutter vibra-
tions and run-out. Int J Mech Sci 96–97:206–215
36. Sai L, Belguith R, Baili M, Dessein G, Bouzid W (2018) An
approach to modeling the chip thickness and cutter workpiece
engagement region in 3 and 5 axis ball end milling. J Manuf Pro-
cess 34:7–17
37. Sun C, Altintas Y (2016) Chatter free tool orientations in 5-axis
ball-end milling. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 106:89–97
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13