CHATTER IN MACHINING

PROCESSES: A REVIEW
SUBMITTED BY
SRIRAM NANDAN P
18M441
CONTENTS:
■ Introduction
■ Strategies for ensuring stable machining processes
■ Out-of-process strategies for stability lobe diagram identification
■ In-process strategies for chatter recognition
■ Passive chatter avoidance
■ Active chatter elimination
■ Summary
■ References.
INTRODUCTION:
1.1 CHATTER RELEVANCE IN MACHINING:
 Chatter has been and still is a very important topic in manufacturing research.
 That persistent relevance can be explained by two principal factors:
 The complexity of the phenomenon makes its study and understanding nontrivial;
and
 The negative effects of chatter stimulate interest in solving the problem.
 With regard to the first factor, chatter is a highly complex phenomenon due to the
diversity of elements that can compose the dynamic system and its behavior: the
cutting tool, the tool holder, the work piece material, the machine tool structure and
the cutting parameters.
INTRODUCTION:
■ Predicting its occurrence is still the subject of much research, even though the
regenerative effect, the main cause of chatter, was identified and studied.
■ chatter can occur in different metal removal processes:
– milling,
– turning ,
– drilling ,
– boring,
– broaching and
– grinding .
INTRODUCTION:
■ Regarding the second point, chatter occurrence has several negative effects:
– Poor surface quality.
– Unacceptable inaccuracy.
– Excessive noise.
– Disproportionate tool wear.
– Machine tool damage.
– Reduced material removal rate (MRR). Increased costs in terms of production
time.
– Waste of materials.
– Waste of energy.
– Environmental impact in terms of materials and energy.
– Costs of recycling, reprocessing or dumping non-valid final parts to recycling
points.
INTRODUCTION:
1.2 SELF EXCITATION MECHANISMS:
■ Chatter is generally classified in two categories:
– Primary,
– Secondary.
■ Primary chatter can be caused by the cutting process itself (i.e. by friction between
the tool and the work piece, by thermo-mechanical effects on the chip formation or
by mode coupling).
■ Secondary chatter may be caused by the regeneration of waviness of the work piece
surface. This regenerative effect is the most important cause of chatter.
■ It has to be mentioned that it is possible to distinguish between frictional chatter,
thermo-mechanical chatter and mode coupling chatter and regenerative chatter
depending on the self-excitation mechanism that causes the vibration.
INTRODUCTION:
■ Frictional chatter occurs when rubbing on the clearance face excites vibration in the
direction of the cutting force Fc and limits in the thrust force Ft direction.
■ Thermo-mechanical chatter occurs due to the temperature and strain rate in the
plastic deformation zone.
■ Mode coupling chatter exists if vibration in the thrust force direction generates
vibration in the cutting force direction and vice versa. Mode coupling chatter exists if
vibration in the thrust force direction generates vibration in the cutting force
direction and vice versa.
■ Physically, it is caused by a number of sources such as friction on the rake and
clearance surfaces, chip thickness variation, shear angle oscillations and
regeneration effect.
INTRODUCTION:
■ Regenerative chatter is the most common form of self-excited vibration.
■ It can occur often because most metal cutting operations involve overlapping cuts
which can be a source of vibration amplification.
■ The cutter vibrations leave a wavy surface.
■ When milling the next tooth in cut attacks this wavy surface and generates a new
wavy surface.
■ The chip thickness and, hence, the force on the cutting tool vary due to the phase
difference between the wave left by the previous teeth (in turning it is the surface
left after the previous revolution) and the wave left by the current ones.
■ This phenomenon can greatly amplify vibrations, become dominant and build up
chatter. If the relative phase difference is zero, the dynamic chip thickness is also
zero.
REGENERATION OF WAVINESS IN A MILLING MODEL WITH
TWO DEGREES OF FREEDOM:
INTRODUCTION:
1.3. STABILITY LOBE DIAGRAMS:
■ The border between a stable cut (i.e. no chatter) and an unstable cut (i.e. with
chatter) can be visualized in terms of the axial depth-of cut as a function of the
spindle speed.
■ At high speeds, the stabilizing effect of process damping diminishes, making the
process more prone to chatter.
■ Process damping usually occurs at low spindle speeds and provides the stability due
to the short undulations left on the part’s surface by high-frequency vibrations.
■ These surface waves interfere with the cutting tool flank face and dampen the
cutting tool vibration.
STABILITY LOBE DIAGRAM:
STRATEGIES FOR ENSURING STABLE MACHINING PROCESSES:
OUT-OF-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR STABILITY
LOBE DIAGRAM IDENTIFICATION:
■ This research line is focused on avoiding chatter phenomena without modifying the
characteristics of the system composed by the machine tool structure, the tool
holder and cutting tool.
■ The aim is to select optimal cutting parameters by seeking stable regions between
the lobes of the stability chart.
■ At low spindle speeds the stabilizing effect of the process damping is dominant and
chatter does not usually appear.
■ At higher spindle speeds, the effect of process damping diminishes and it is
necessary to analyze the lobbing effect in order to optimize the material removal
process.
■ To carry out this strategy the complete SLD or, at least, the SLD in the working speed
range, must be identified.
OUT-OF-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR STABILITY
LOBE DIAGRAM IDENTIFICATION:
■ To identify the SLD, the system behavior must be predicted or modelled by
characterizing or simulating the response of the machine tool, tool holder and
cutting tool system.
■ The transfer function of a multi-degree-of-freedom system can be identified by
structural dynamic tests.
■ The structure is excited with an impact hammer instrumented with a piezoelectric
force transducer and the resulting vibrations are measured with displacement,
velocity or acceleration sensors.
■ Usually an impact hammer is used. The impact force that the hammer provides has
a short duration and can be analysed as a narrow pulse with a flat frequency
spectrum. Thus it is excited a wide frequency range, which contains the natural
modes of the system.
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF IMPACT HAMMER
TESTING
OUT-OF-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR STABILITY LOBE
DIAGRAM IDENTIFICATION:
■ However, electromagnetic or electrohydraulic shakers are more effective in exciting
the structure than the impact hammer as the can provide force at random
frequencies and amplitudes.
■ It is important to select the hammer and the tip material considering the mass and
rigidity, of the structure.
■ It is very common to use accelerometers for measuring the resulting vibrations. It is
also important to select the adequate mass and frequency range of the
accelerometers.
■ Also, the interface material between the structure and the accelerometer must be
carefully selected to be able to perform accurate measurements.
■ Non-contact sensors are useful in order to avoid the effect of the accelerometer
mass on the measurement but it can be difficult to mount them on machine tool.
OUT-OF-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR STABILITY LOBE
DIAGRAM IDENTIFICATION:
■ Once the transfer function of the structure at the cutting point and the cutting
constant are identified or measured, the SLD can be calculated following several
steps:
– Selecting a chatter frequency around a dominant mode;
– Calculate the phase angle of the structure at the chatter frequency selected;
– Calculate the critical depth of cut;
– Calculate the spindle speed for each stability lobe;
– Repeat the procedure by scanning the chatter frequencies around all the
structure natural frequencies.
IN-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR CHATTER
RECOGNITION:
■ The estimation of lobes explained above is the off-line approach to prevent unstable
machining through stability frontier identification.
■ If the lobes are carefully calculated, the operator can optimize cutting conditions for
stable machining by seeking regions between lobes.
■ This permits a large axial depth of cut to be machined and increases the material
removal rate. However, this approach implies a complete analysis of machine
dynamics, which is difficult for industrial users to carry out, and requires in-depth
knowledge of the machining process and material.
■ r, in some cases (e.g. where there are more than three axes or for thin-walled work
pieces), the SLD of the system tool, machine tool and work piece is continuously
changing and it is difficult to make predictions in advance and schedule the correct
parameters to ensure stable operations
IN-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR CHATTER
RECOGNITION:
■ The methods based on chatter recognition do not need SLD identification. For such
cases, researchers have developed methods consisting of online chatter detection,
by monitoring a certain signal such as vibration, sound, power, etc.(shown in below
fig) with different types of sensors or instruments to obtain process information.
IN-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR CHATTER
RECOGNITION:
■ Recently, Okuma has presented a commercial solution for chatter detection and
avoidance, called Machining Navi.
■ This application can be implemented in the company machine tools through the use
of a microphone connected to a USB port or a piezoelectric accelerometer
integrated in the machine tool spindle.
■ The software is fully integrated in the NC screen and suggests improved parameters
for stable cuts, ensuring that the operator can automatically modify them online.
■ The use of microphones for capturing and analyzing the cutting sound has been
demonstrated to be an efficient and cheap solution.
■ Perhaps one of its drawbacks is that the sound coming from other machines of the
factory can introduce noise to the signal.
IN-PROCESS STRATEGIES FOR CHATTER
RECOGNITION:
■ However, there are several signal treatment techniques to filter the sound and
extract the correct information.
■ On the other hand, accelerometers, for example, are more expensive than
microphones and can also be affected by the vibrations coming from other machine
tools through the workshop floor.
■ Faassen et al. propose detecting chatter online at its onset, before it is completely
developed.
■ Early chatter detection allows operators to interfere in the process and avoid chatter
occurrence. Faassen et al. claim that the method presented can be applied using
various sensors, but for practical reasons they prefer accelerometers.
PASSIVE CHATTER AVOIDANCE:
■ In contrast to those methods that aim to avoid chatter by situating the machining
process in the stable zone of the SLD, high MMRs can be obtained using another
research line whose the aim is to enlarge the stable zone of the SLD by expanding
the stability frontier or simply changing the system behavior.
■ These methods are based on improving the design of the machine tool to change its
performance against vibration or on the use of extra devices that can absorb extra
energy or disrupt the regenerative effect.
■ Wang and Lee propose changes in the dynamic behavior of the machine tool system
by redesigning the weakest component of the structure.
■ They performed several cutting tests and the analysis of the process vibration
showed that the spindle was the weakest component.
■ Marui et al. increased the damping capacity of a cutting tool system with inner
friction plates.
PASSIVE CHATTER AVOIDANCE:
■ Semercigil and Chen suggested a passive vibration controller – an impact damper –
to reduce the excessive vibrations of an end-mill cutter.
■ Kim et al. introduced a mechanical damper into a cylindrical hole in the center of a
standard end-milling cutter to dissipate chatter energy in the form of friction.
■ Migue´lez et al. focus on the behavior of boring bars with a passive dynamic
vibration absorber (DVA) for chatter suppression.
■ The use of a non-standard cutting tool, i.e. with variable pitch and variable helix
milling tools (shown in upcoming Fig), has been proposed to increase the stable limit
depth of cut by disrupting the regenerative effect.
■ Yusoff et al. experimentally evaluated role of tool geometry in-process damped
milling by considering different cutting tool edge radii, rake and relief angles, and
variable helix and pitch angles.
Fig. (a) Conventional cutting tools; (b) Variable pitch
cutting tools; (c) Variable helix cutting tools.
ACTIVE CHATTER ELIMINATION:
■ Active systems for chatter elimination are distinguished from the passive methods
basically by their ability to monitor the dynamic state of the machine tool system,
diagnose a certain occurrence and actively execute those decisions that change, if
necessary, the system to a more adequate situation.
■ Active vibration reduction systems are usually composed of monitoring, diagnosis
and execution elements.
■ This strategy is becoming more important thanks to advances in recent years in
fields such as computers, sensors and actuators.
■ With these strategies the SLD is actively expanded or, at least, modified.
■ Implementing them requires the use of certain elements capable of modulating the
quantity of work provided, absorbing or supplying energy.
ACTIVE CHATTER ELIMINATION:
■ Olgac and Hosek [present a practical approach to chatter elimination based on root
locus plot analysis and use a device – a delayed resonator – for active vibration
suppression.
■ Dohner et al. took an active control approach to mitigate chatter actively by
expanding the stability lobes diagram.
■ Chiou et al. propose an algorithm to control machining chatter by changing the
response function of the structure and its modal properties using active
electrostatic and piezoelectric spindle bearing support.
■ Huyanan and Sims investigated the active control of work piece-induced chatter,
with an active electromagnetic proof mass actuator.
■ Moradi et al. applied tunable vibration absorbers (TVA) as semi-active controllers to
suppress chatter vibrations in boring processes.
ACTIVE CHATTER ELIMINATION:
■ Another method for active chatter suppression is varying the spindle speed to
disrupt regenerative effects.
■ The concept is similar to the use of variable pitch mills but spindle speed variation
(SSV) is more flexible.
■ It is a well-known technique to suppress regenerative machine tool vibrations, but it
is usually considered to be effective only for low spindle speeds.
■ Upcoming Fig. graphically shows two types of spindle speed variation (in contrast
with constant spindle speed): triangular spindle speed variation and sinusoidal
spindle speed variation
Fig. (a) Constant spindle speed; (b) Triangular spindle
speed variation; (c) Sinusoidal spindle speed variation.
SUMMARY:
■ Vibrations in machining result from the lack of dynamic stiffness of some
component of the machine tool-tool holder cutting tool-work piece system.
■ They can be divided into free, forced and self-excited vibrations. If the system is well
balanced, the second type of vibration is due to variable chip thickness and the
interrupted nature of the process.
■ That means that they are always present. Therefore, to prevent damage, the
vibration level must be controlled.
■ The most common self-excited vibration is regenerative chatter.
■ Lots of significant advances have been made over the years.
■ Advances in computers, sensors and actuators have increased understanding of the
phenomena, and developed and improved strategies to solve the problem.
SUMMARY:
■ This presentation reviews the great amount of literature regarding the chatter
problem and classifies several methods developed to ensure stable cutting into
those that take the most of the lobbing effect, out-of-process or in-process, and
those that, passively or actively, modify the system behavior
■ The advantages of detecting, identifying, avoiding, preventing, reducing, controlling
or suppressing chatter are obvious from the negative effects avoided:
– poor surface quality,
– unacceptable inaccuracy,
– excessive noise and tool wear,
– machine tool damage,
– reduced material removal rate (MRR),
– increased costs in terms of time,
– materials and energy,
– environmental impact and costs of recycling,
– reprocessing or dumping non-valid final parts to recycling points.
REFERENCES:
■ Brian Stone, “Chatter and Machine Tools”, Springer. [3]
■ Chatter in machining processes: A review [Guillem Quintana, Joaquim Ciurana].