Accepted Manuscript

Comparing the kinematic efficiency of five-axis machine tool configurations through nonlinearity errors O. Remus Tutunea-Fatan, Md Shafayet H. Bhuiya PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in: S0010-4485(11)00113-8 10.1016/j.cad.2011.05.003 JCAD 1779 Computer-Aided Design

Received date: 28 October 2010 Accepted date: 8 May 2011 Please cite this article as: Remus Tutunea-Fatan O, Bhuiya MSH. Comparing the kinematic efficiency of five-axis machine tool configurations through nonlinearity errors. Computer-Aided Design (2011), doi:10.1016/j.cad.2011.05.003 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Comparing the kinematic efficiency of five-axis machine tool configurations through nonlinearity errors

O. Remus Tutunea-Fatan1, Md Shafayet H. Bhuiya Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario Canada N6A 5B9

Five-axis CNC machines represent a particular class of machine tools characterized by superior versatility. Little attempts were made in the past to compare directly their performances through a common indicator. In this sense, the present study proposes nonlinearity error as a valuable method to quantify the kinematic efficiency of a particular five-axis configuration. Nonlinearity error is defined as the maximum deviation of the cutter-location point from the reference plane generated by the initial and final orientations of the tool during linearly-interpolated motions of the cutter along the intended tool path. The proposed concept has demonstrated that nonlinearity error occurs approximately around the middle of the linearly-interpolated interval and therefore has validated the current post-processing practice of halfway cutter-location point insertion. The employment of nonlinearity error in evaluation of the kinematic efficiency of vertical spindlerotating five-axis machine tools revealed that for an identical machining task, configurations involving the vertical rotational axis tend to move more than those involving only horizontal rotational axes.

Keywords: five-axis machine tools; vertical spindle-rotating configuration; kinematic efficiency; nonlinearity error

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-519-661-2111, ext. 88289; fax: +1-519-661-3020; E-mail: rtutunea@eng.uwo.ca

1.

Introduction Five-axis CNC machining represents one of the most effective material removal

technologies used in manufacturing of a wide range of moulds, turbine blades, automotive and aerospace parts whose geometries are typically defined by complex surfaces [1]. Over the past decade, five-axis machine tools have already proved their superiority compared to their three-axis counterparts. The most quoted advantages of five-axis machines are their increased productivity and accuracy that enable significant reductions of the manual polishing time that in some cases could amount up to 66-75% of the total machining time [2]. However, their increased versatility is often achieved at the expense of more complex tool path generation methods and higher initial investment costs. Both advantages and drawbacks of five-axis machine tools are a consequence of their complex kinematic configurations that typically incorporates three translational and two rotational joints [3]. At least from a theoretical standpoint, other combinations are also possible, but it seems that this particular combination that is practically an extension of the traditional three-axis configuration meets to a satisfactory level the needs of the machining process. The most common design solution involves reciprocally orthogonal axes for the five joints involved, although some other options are available, typically involving nutating axes [4]. Since both tool posture and its relative motion with respect of the workpiece are practically influenced by the configuration of the five-axis machine tools, a large variety of research papers have investigated their kinematic behaviour from different perspectives.

Among them, a first category of studies was mainly concerned with their taxonomy and notable efforts were made in this direction. For instance, Ishizawa et al. [5] were among the first to propose a classification scheme for the five-axis machines, accompanied by a detailed outline of the essential differences between their basic structural configurations. A few years later, Sakamoto and Inasaki [6] performed critical assessments of the possible arrangements of the translational slides within the kinematic chain of the five-axis machine. Other comprehensive classifications and structural synthesis schemes were proposed by Bohez [3] and Chen [7]. A second important research direction was concerned with determination of the errors introduced by the machine tool kinematics. This particular type of errors influences tool posture along the tool path. One of the earliest studies in this direction was proposed by Kiridena and Ferreira [8] who analyzed the influence of positional joint accuracy on cutting tool position and orientation. Later studies have proposed models that were able to predict various other types of errors generated by the kinematics of the five-axis, including but not limited to geometric, thermal and link inaccuracies [9-12]. The vast majority of these researchers have also addressed the need for appropriate corrective measures that were intended to specifically compensate for this type of error. A particular class of errors introduced by the kinematic chain of the five-axis machines are the nonlinearity errors that are practically generated by the superposition between translational and rotational motions. They determine the relative position and orientation of the tool with respect of the workpiece as it travels along the intended tool path. The existence of these errors has been acknowledged since early days of five-axis machining [13], but extremely limited attempts were made to compensate them [14,15].

The most common method employed by the industrial practice in order to reduce their amount is based on the initial suggestions made by Takeuchi and Watanabe [16] and Cho et al. [13]. According to this approach, denoted by the term tool path linearization, additional cutter-contact (CL) points are inserted by the post-processor typically midway between the points originally determined by the Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software during tool path generation algorithm [4,10,17]. The third category of research studies investigating the kinematics of five-axis machine tools was concerned with the development of appropriate kinematic models primarily intended for post-processing or tool motion analysis purposes. While only few authors have proposed generalized solutions [4,18,19], a large variety of particular cases are discussed by the majority of papers dealing with five-axis machining topics, since conversion of the tool posture data from workpiece coordinate system into machine coordinate system represents a mandatory step of tool path generation algorithm [20]. Despite the relatively large number of research papers focused on kinematics of the five-axis machines, very limited attempts were made to compare their structures through a common performance indicator. One of the earliest comparison measures proposed for this purpose was the maximum linear movement area required to machine a square workpiece [6,7]. Later, Bohez [3] indicated a minimal set of criteria to be used in selecting a five-axis machine structure that would be suitable for a certain machining task. Nonlinearity of tool motion caused by the two mutually orthogonal rotary axes represents one of the important sources of error in five-axis machining and it also translates into inefficient machine tool movements. Nonlinearity errors are typically associated with current offline tool path generation methods based on linearly

interpolated motions [14,21]. Being generated by the inherent kinematics of the five-axis machine tool, these machining errors can be reduced but not completely eliminated through enhanced NC post-processing techniques. As a result, the present study will employ nonlinearity error as a measure of the kinematic efficiency associated with a particular five-axis machine configuration. Kinematic efficiency translates into a reduced amount of motions on translational and rotational axes that in turn translates into energetically efficient machining operations. Detailed methodology on its calculation, along with its specific values for all feasible configurations of vertical spindle-rotating five-axis machine with reciprocally orthogonal and intersecting rotational axes will be provided in the following sections. The two rotational axes of the analyzed five-axis machine tool configurations are always assumed at the end of the kinematic chain, since this represents the most common constructive solution. Only the linear interpolation scheme will be assumed throughout the study, since it is extensively used in industrial practice and it allows a clearer illustration of the investigated phenomenon. 2. 2.1 The concept of nonlinearity error Cutter location curve Generation of the sculptured surfaces through five-axis end milling is generally accomplished through sequential motions of the cutter along the intended tool paths. Determination of the tool paths on a given design surface constitutes the object of the path generation algorithms that are implemented within CAM software. The trajectory of the tool path and the feed rate at which it is being travelled by the cutter depends on the machining strategy selected by the user. Based on the specific constraints aiming a

simultaneous increase of the overall effectiveness of the machining process, CAM software determines optimized tool orientations for each cutter contact (CC) point of the analyzed tool path. On the other hand, the main function of the numerical controller installed on the five-axis machine tool is to coordinate its motions in order to ensure the contact of the tool with the intended tool path and to preserve the optimal tool orientations as established during path planning phase. The tool posture along the tool path is defined by its position vector PCL and its

tool axis orientation unit vector k T along ZT axis (Figure 1):

= ( PCL , k T )

(1)

However, because tool postures that are embedded into CL data are expressed by the CAM software in workpiece coordinate system (WCS), their conversion into joint movements of the machine tool is mandatory. This conversion of the tool posture from machine independent (CL data) into machine dependent format (G-code) represents the task of the post-processor that is a mandatory element of the information flow in five-axis machining. In order to attain a certain tool posture, five-axis machine has to move its joints according to its particular kinematic structure. Due to the serial kinematic structure of the five-axis machines, they can be assimilated with a manipulator attempting to reach a desired posture for its end-effector represented by the milling cutter, in this case. As a result, the amount of motion required for each of the five joints within its kinematic chain can be determined through inverse kinematic analysis.

One of the available options to perform this type of analysis involves the use of a generalized kinematic model for a five-axis CNC machine like the one proposed in [18]. According to this model, the generalized homogeneous coordinate transformation matrix
W T

[T] that is required to convert the position of a point from tool coordinate system

(TCS) into WCS can be expressed as:

W T

[R] b [T] = 0 1

(2)

where [R] is a generalized rotational matrix and b is a generalized position vector, both dependent upon the particular kinematic configuration of the five-axis machine tool (Figure 2). Machine kinematics is essentially a consequence of the physical structure of the machine tool (Figure 3). The vertical spindle-rotating (SR) machine depicted in Figs. 2 and 3 is able to perform three translational motions (sX, sY and sZ) and two rotational motions (A and C). The most significant point of the kinematic structure is denoted by the term pivot point [22] and is placed at the intersection of the two rotary axes of the machine (point OP in Figure 2). This intersection becomes defined only when the only nonzero component of b5 connecting the origins of the two rotational axes becomes collinear with axis of rotation of the primary rotational joint. The generalized position vector b in Equation (2) is dependent on the machine control coordinates (MCC) that represent the amount of translational and rotational motions to be performed by the joints in order to achieve a desired configuration:

b = f (MCCi ( ), b j ) with i 1..5 , j 0..6 and [0,1]

(3)

where is the interpolation parameter and bj are the vectors required to position significant coordinate systems (joints) located along the kinematic chain of the machine tool (Figure 2). Alternatively, the general coordinate transformation matrix can also be expressed as:

W T

i [T] = T 0

jT 0

kT 0

PCL 1
W T

(4)

By equating the expression of the fourth column of

[T] in Equation (1) and (3), the

general expression of position vector associated with CL point PCL for a five-axis machine becomes:
PCL ( ) = f (MCCi ( ), b j )

(5)

which means that trajectory of the CL point is simultaneously affected by machine tool kinematics and type of interpolation function used to calculate intermediate cutter postures along the tool path. The generalized expression of the CL curve presented in Equation (5) can be individualized for various machine configurations by applying indices that are specific to the previously mentioned generic kinematic model.
2.2 Definition of nonlinearity error

In linearly interpolated five-axis machining, inherent machine tool kinematics prevents a continuous and permanent contact between cutter and intended tool path. As a result, this type of motion translates into a sequence of discrete CC points along the tool path (Figure 4) between which the tool moves according to instantaneous MCC values determined by a linear interpolation law:

MCC ( ) = (1 ) MCC m + MCC m +1

(6)

While the distance between successive CC points similar to CCm and CCm+1 can be dictated by variety of constraints, the most common technique employed in practice to establish the length of the forward step is based on the chordal deviation [23]. When travelling along each of the linearly interpolated segments, the machine tool continuously adjusts tool postures between its intended initial (m) and final (m+1) values according particular kinematic poses of the machine tool that are determined by instantaneous MCC values (Figure 5). As a result, simultaneous motions of all five-axis joints induce a nonlinear trajectory of the CL point, while machines pivot point follows a linear trajectory. The kinematics of the vertical SR five-axis machine tool imposes a motion of the CL point that is laterally away and not contained within the bilinear surface determined by CLm, CLm+1, OPm and OPm+1 points. For general five-axis motions, the trajectory of the CL is dictated by a simultaneous superposition of the translational and rotational movements performed by the five joints of the machine. The approach used in this study to determine the nonlinearity error resembles the idea of decoupling translational from rotational motions of the tool [24]. According to this, a general five-axis motion can be seen as an overlap of two elementary movements: a planar motion contained within T plane and a rotational motion about a fixed point OPm+1 that determines the R plane (Figure 6). Since the linear motion of the CL point between CLm and CLm+1i is characterized by a zero nonlinearity errror, it becomes clear that this type of error is introduced by the two rotational motions

of the machine tool that are responsible for motion of the CL point between CLm+1i and CL m+1 f . The two end positions of the tool determined by CL m O P and CLm+1 f OPm+1
m

segments are noncoplanar, implying that the two motion planes involved T and R are different. When T and R coincide, it means that five-axis motion has been reduced to a particular case of four-axis motion. Intuitively, since the length of the translational motion is identical regardless of machine tool structure, it means that the length of the general motion is essentially set by the rotational motion. A longer rotational motion means that the CL point will have to deviate more from the surface in order to end up in the same location as one that was subjected to a shorter rotational motion caused by a different kinematics. Essentially, this implies that a direct proportionality relationship exists between the amount of maximum deviation , the length of the CL curve, and the length of the rotational motions required to perform a general five-axis tool motion. By taking into consideration only the rotational motions performed along each of the linearly interpolated segments of the tool motion (Figure 7), it may be observed that CL point traces between CLi and CLf a sphere curve that belongs to the spherical surface of radius L centered in OP. The nonlinearity error of this motion nonlinear is defined as the maximum deviation from the reference plane R determined by the two end tool orientation vectors is given by:

nonlinear = max( ) ( ) =| (PCL ( ))T n | and n = k m k m +1

[ 0 ,1]
R R R

(7)

Three important observations are to be made regarding the linearly-interpolated trajectory of the CL point between its initial and final positions: (1) For a family of five-axis motions, characterized by identical initial and final tool postures, the larger nonlinear is, the more the machine will have to move its rotational joints, and this decreases the kinematic efficiency of the analyzed fiveaxis machine. As a result, it can be inferred that small nonlinearity errors are generally desirable in five-axis machining at least from an energy consumption perspective. (2) The absence of kinematic constraints would allow a more direct, shorter and hence more energetically-efficient motion of the CL point between its initial and final positions. Such calculations could be based on quaternion-based approaches that are common in computer graphics [25] and have been recently extended to kinematic analysis of five-axis machine tools [26]. One typical example of shortest path motion is represented by the dash-dotted geodesic shown in Figure 7. This in-plane motion happens in this case along one of the great circles of the sphere and is accompanied by a zero nonlinearity error. However, such motions cannot be accommodated in practice due to the constraints set by machine tool kinematics that makes the five-axis in-plane tool motion virtually impossible. (3) The superposition of the interpolated translational and rotational motions forces the CL point laterally away from bilinear surface . This departure, expressed through deviation , has a major but until presently little accounted for effect on the length of tool motions in five-axis machining. In common industrial

practice, tool postures along the tool path are established within CAM systems that have no information on the machine tool kinematics that will be used [20]. It is important to emphasise that this decouple of the translational from rotational motions is performed solely in the context of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of deviation , to be later used to compare qualitatively the kinematic efficiency of five-axis machines. An alternate approach involving an interative numerical evaluation of the distance from instantaneous position of CL to surface based on Newton-Raphson method is also possible, but this procedure would be more computationally expensive and thus not preferred. Furthermore, a pure numerical approach would practically minimize most of the insight provided via a more geometrically intuitive procedure like the one adopted in this study. It is perhaps important to note here that while nonlinearity error has an important impact on kinematic performances of five-axis machines when analyzed in the context of linearly-interpolated motions, some of the particular instances of multi-axis machining might be affected by it to lesser degree. For example, the nonlinearity error associated with 3 -axis machining operations [27] is expected to be relatively small, since the cutter is expected to execute a quasi-three-axis motion along the tool path. Moreover, depending on the local configuration of the machined surface, the rather fortuitous nonlinear motion of the tool might be able to actually reduce the overall machining errors, despite of the inherent inefficiency of simultaneous five-axis movements.

3.
3.1

Determination of nonlinearity error

Deviation from reference plane

According to Equations (2-4) and previously proposed generalized formula for position vector b of a SR five-axis machine [18], the trajectory of the CL point is given by:
4

PCL = b i + [R PS ] b 5 + [R PS ] [R SS ] b 6
i =0

(8)

where [ R PS ] and [ R SS ] represent the rotational matrices associated with primary and secondary rotational axis of the machine, respectively. The position vectors bi ( i 0..6 ) in Equation (8) are used to locate spatial position of the characteristic coordinate systems. The primary rotational axis is placed closer to the machine bed (ground) within the kinematic chain of the machine tool. Depending on the rotational axis of the joints installed on the five-axis machine tool, [PS] and [SS] can be determined by equating them with classical expressions of the rotational matrices about an axis of the coordinate system:
0 0 1 0 cos( A) sin( A) [R A ] = 0 sin( A) cos( A)
cos( B ) 0 sin( B ) [R B ] = 0 1 0 sin( B ) 0 cos( B )

(9)

(9)

cos(C ) sin(C ) 0 [R C ] = sin(C ) cos(C ) 0 0 0 1

(9)

Depending on the combination of rotary axes installed on the machine tool, four main types of vertical SR five-axis machines exist: CA, CB, AB, BA. The first letter of the pair indicates the primary rotational axis. The other two possible combinations (AC and BC) were previously shown as infeasible for this type of machine tool due to the symmetry of the tool about its own axis. For the purpose of this work, CA/CB or AB/BA will be treated as distinct configurations based on the home position of the axes as set by the manufacturer. Without losing the generality of the solution when analyzing the trajectory of the CL point during nonlinearity error-generating motion shown in Figure 7, a simplified machine tool configuration will be assumed: bi = 0 ( i 0..5 ) and (b 6 ) = [0 0 L ]
T

This structure accurately describes the most common types of vertical SR machines encountered in practice with intersecting rotary axes that were analytically proved to be more effective than those with non-intersecting axes [18]. As a result, combination of Equations (8) and (9) allows determination of parametric expression for CL point rotational only curve PCLR , value that can be used subsequently to calculate the instantaneous value of the deviation from the R plane according to Equation (7). Both formulas are summarized in Table 1 for all four types of vertical SR machines. All intermediate values for rotational angles A, B, C are to be determined based on the linear interpolation law presented in Equation (5) and their end values Af, Bf, Cf are to be calculated for = 1.

3.2

Interpolation parameter characteristic to nonlinearity error

An analysis of the formulas presented in Table 1 reveals that nonlinearity error defined by Equation (6) is in fact a function of three variables, namely: interpolation parameter , primary final PS f and secondary final S S f rotational angles of the machine tool. As a result, a generalized form of the nonlinearity error would be:

nonlinear = max[ ( PS , S S , PS , S S )]
[ 0,1]
f f

(10)

Since this study assumes linear interpolation only as defined by Equation (5), intermediate rotational angles can be determined based on the intended rotational speeds

vPS and vSS :

PS ( ) = { vPS PS (1) = PS f }
S S ( ) = { vSS S S (1) = S S f }

(11)

(11)

Based on this assumption, the Equation (9) can be transformed as:

nonlinear = max[ ( , vP , vS )]
[ 0,1]
S S

(12)

Determination of nonlinear involves a classical one-variable maximization problem, according to which for each known pair of primary and secondary angles, a certain value of interpolation parameter max will allow maximization of the deviation value . However, no closed form solutions were found in this case since the first derivative test

d d = 0 yields inevitably transcendental equations. As a result, a numerical subroutine

based on Brents method that is built in Matlab was used to calculate max for various combinations of PS f and S S f angles. A graphical representation of the values obtained for max is depicted in Figure 8. No difference in results was observed between CA and
CB or between AB and BA configurations, respectively. To obtain meaningful results that

are also unaffected by the periodicity of the trigonometric functions involved in expressions presented in Table 1, the range of the two rotational angles analyzed was varied only within 0 to 90 interval. Furthermore, to avoid singularities introduced by null denominators, only rotational angles larger than 1 were considered in a first iteration. The extreme values of max for all four types of vertical SR machines analyzed are synthesised in Table 2, along with the specific combination of rotational angles that generated them. According to the tabulated data presented, the nonlinearity error is produced for interpolation parameter varying between 0.4523 and 0.5477 when C axis is involved and between 0.5 and 0.57735 when C axis is not involved in kinematic configuration of the five-axis machine tool. For most general five-axis motions programmed along the tool path and subjected to various constraints, the range of primary and secondary final angle previously analyzed is too broad. In order to provide more insightful information on max that is characteristic to small rotational motions, typically restricted to less than 1 values [28], a second iteration was used to establish its value in these cases. In order to solve for interpolation parameter values, Taylors expansion was used to approximate trigonometric functions since no closed form solutions can be used to determine the maximum value of . Once again, a clear distinction is to be made between the vertical

SR configurations involving or not C axis: while for CA and CB machines Taylors first order terms yield max = 0.5, for AB and BA types up to fifth order terms were needed to calculate the characteristic value of the interpolation parameter that is associated with nonlinearity error. As a consequence, some minimal corrections are to be made on max values for AB and BA configurations as reported during the first iteration (Table 1): max = 0.57741 (AB type) and max = 0.58223 (BA type) when both axes rotate with extremely small amounts (A, B 0). Summing up the results acquired so far, it may be concluded for general five-axis linearly-interpolated motions, nonlinearity error will be obtained for interpolation parameter max ranging between 0.4523 and 0.5477 for CA and CB machines and between 0.5 and 0.58223 for AB and BA machines, respectively. For all analyzed cases, both primary final and secondary final rotational angles can take any values between 0 and 90, but without attaining the boundaries in order to avoid singularities: 0 < PS f < 90 and 0 < S S f < 90 . Although possible, rotational angles larger than 90 are considered outside of the scope of the current work, since the largest five-axis motions used in practical surface generation applications will rarely exceed the 90 upper bound. Especially for primary rotational axis, larger than 90 (and up to 360) working angles are also possible, but their upper-range values are generally used in context of positioning/indexing motions solely. Interestingly, these results confirm that in case of linearly interpolated motions performed on vertical SR five-axis machine tools, the current empirical post-processing practice of inserting an additional CL point at the mid distance between two other pre

determined ones in order to limit machining errors [4,10,13,16,17] is in fact correct and it is now supported by computational evidence. The middle CL point is the point associated with largest nonlinearity error. By passing through an additional mid CL point, the tool is practically constrained to deviate less from the bilinear surface , but this comes on the expense of additional motions to be performed by the machine. For CA and CB machines, mid CL point insertion is almost an accurate procedure since max 0.5 when Cf and Af or
Bf angles have small values. By contrast, AB and BA machines are characterized by a

larger but still acceptable approximation, since max approaches 0.58 when both Af and Bf angles are small. For all four vertical SR machine types, once max has been determined for a certain general tool motion, the nonlinearity error can be calculated with tabulated formulas presented in Table 1. The required interpolated and final rotational angles are generated from known rotational parametric speeds as introduced in Equation (11). 4. Kinematic efficiency Based on the concept of nonlinearity error defined above, the kinematic efficiency of vertical SR five-axis machine tools will be compared. For this purpose, two main scenarios will be considered: i) both primary and secondary final angular values are the same; and ii) all four machines move to the same final tool orientation. According to the definition of the nonlinearity error proposed, the CL deviation from the reference plane is only generated by the combination of the two rotational motions presented in Figure 7. The underlying assumption of this analysis is that the kinematic efficiency of the machine tool is directly proportional with the amount of nonlinearity error.

4.1

Identical final rotational motions

The goal of this assessment is to predict the most kinematically efficient vertical SR five-axis machine in the event of identical motions performed by the two rotary axes of the five-axis machine tool. To simplify the comparison, the initial tool orientation will be assumed the same. Figure 9 depicts representative CL trajectories for all four types of vertical SR machines investigated when they all started to move from an initial vertical position characterized by PS = S S = 0 . The CL curves are plotted for equal primary final and
i i

secondary final angles: PS f = S S f = 24 and a tool length L = 212.5 mm. The graph shows clearly that in the event of identical primary final and identical secondary final rotational motions applied to the tool, AB and BA configurations move more than CA and
CB types. This remark can be validated consistently for all possible combinations of PS f

and S S f angles (Figure 10) by analyzing the magnitude of the direct 3D angle between
k Ti and k Tf vectors (Figure 7):

CA,CB = S S

(13)

AB, BA = cos 1 (cos(PS ) cos(S S ))

f f

(13)

It is relatively straghtforward to show that CA ,CB AB = BA for all PS f , S S f [0, 90] , meaning that AB and BA machine types tend to travel longer and equal distances compared to CA and CB that travel less and in different amounts.

A second important remark may be made regarding the amount of nonlinearity error generated during rotational motions characterized by identical PS f and S S f angles. By analyzing the plot of nonlinear calculated from Equations (10-12) and Table 1 (Figure 10), it can be inferred that AB and BA machines are consistently more kinematically efficient than CA and CB types. No difference in nonlinearity error amounts was noticed between AB and BA or CA and CB machines, respectively. By combining both observations, it can be concluded that when vertical SR five-axis machines are constrained to move identically their primary and secondary rotary axes, respectively, the
AB and BA machines are capable to travel longer distances and their motions are

characterized by smaller nonlinearity errors compared to CA and CB configurations.

4.2 Identical final orientation

The scope of this analysis is to provide a direct comparison of the kinematic efficiency associated with the four possible types of vertical SR five-axis machines, in the event that they are all constrained to move between identical initial and final orientations, which is equivalent to an identical machining task. As outlined in Section 4.1, when identical PS f and S S f rotational motions are used, the final orientation of the tool is generally different for each machine type. As a result, for the purpose of the current comparison, the CA configuration was chosen as reference, while the other three machine types were constrained to move to match its final orientation starting from an initial vertical position defined by PS = S S = 0 . To
i i

satisfy this constraint, individual values were calculated for primary final and secondary final angles involved in each transformation according to the transformation formulas

presented in Table 3. In case of multiple solutions available for the same final orientation, the combination that enabled the shortest travel path between initial and final orientation was selected. Figure 11 presents variation of CL trajectories for all investigated machine types when CA reference configuration was moved to a final tool orientation as determined by

A f = 80 and C f = 20 angles. The viewing angle of the graph was chosen in such a
way to emphasise that nonlinearity errors associated with each machine type have completely different values in this case. This finding is further reinforced by a general plot of the nonlinearity error over the entire analyzed range: A f , C f [0, 90] . The chart, presented in Figure 12, reveals that depending on the final tool orientation, different vertical SR five-axis machine types will introduce various amounts of nonlinearity errors. However, unlike the situation when machines move identically on both their rotary axes, no absolute worst or best configuration exists. Furthermore, the overall aspect of the

nonlinear variation is more irregular than in the previously analyzed case.

Two main zones are identifiable on the graph and they are delimited by a vertical plane located at Cf = 45. When this threshold value is crossed, different machine configurations become responsible for generation of the largest/smallest nonlinearity error. For example, when Cf < 45, the smallest nonlinearity error generated for a particular combination of Cf and Af angles is associated with AB machine, while the largest nonlinearity error is associated with CB type. By contrast, when Cf > 45 the smallest nonlinearity error is generated by BA and the largest by CA machine. At Cf =

45, the nonlinearity errors introduced by AB and BA or CA and CB configurations become equal, respectively. Two important comments are to be made regarding the practical insights related to this comparison: (1) For the most common five-axis machining operations, that are generally characterized by small angular motions ( 0 < A f , C f 5 ), only a small difference in nonlinearity errors will be noticed between AB and BA configurations, such that
nonlinear
AB

nonlinear .
BA

(2)

Although from a strictly mathematical standpoint, the tool orientation determined by Ci = Ai = 0 for CA machine is identical with tool orientation determined by

Ci = Bi = 0 for CB machine, the latter option occurs rarely in practice because of

the computational singularities associated with angular conversions. As a result, most inverse kinematic algorithms tend to convert a Ci = Ai = 0 tool orientation (CA case) into one that is determined by Ci = 90 , Bi = 0 (CB case) based on the formulas presented in Table 3. Therefore, for most practical tasks, no difference will be noticed between the cutter motions along tool path that are characteristic to CA or CB five-axis machines ( nonlinear
CA

= nonlinear CB ). However,

differences are possible, depending on the angular conversion formulas used by the post-processor. By coupling the nonlinearity variations depicted in Figure 12 with these two observations, it may be concluded that the kinematic efficiency of the four studied

machine types can be ordered for practical purposes according to the following relationship:
nonlinear nonlinear
< nonlinear CA = nonlinear CB

AB

BA

(14)

5.

Case Study In order to further emphasise the practical aspects related to the aforementioned

findings, all four vertical SR machine configurations were used to perform tool path tracking simulations on the sculptured surface patch of approximately 110x130 mm shown in Figure 13. For this purpose, the linearly-interpolated motions of a 5 mm diameter flat-end cutter travelling between 11 discrete CC points located along the tool path were tracked in terms of CL point position and associated joint movements. The 11 CC points used were selected in such a way to allow a clear visualization of the CL point trajectory for each of the linearly-interpolated tool motions. The tool orientation at each of the CC points was determined based on curvature matching and gouging avoidance constraints that are common to five-axis machining operations. The distance between CL and pivot point was assumed as 212.5 mm. As implied by the ordering of the nonlinearity errors for motions with identical initial and final orientations and small angular motions introduced by Equation (14), the length of the CL trajectory for the investigated five-axis machine types follows an identical trend (Table 4). In terms of MCCs, while all machine types perform identical translational motions along the tool path, significant differences can be observed in terms of rotational angles when compared through a common indicator related to the length of total rotational movement defined as follows:

1 IR = m =0 0
10

dPS m ,m+1 d

dS S m ,m+1 + d

2 d

(15)

where PS m ,m+1 ( ) and S S m ,m+1 ( ) represent the instantaneous amounts of primary and secondary rotational angles, respectively for linearly-interpolated motion defined by CCm and CCm+1 end points. From the data presented in Table 4, it can be inferred that in order to trace the same tool path, CA machine has to perform approximately 3.1 times longer rotational motions than AB machine. This observation has important consequences on the amount of energy consumed by vertical SR five-axis machine tools while performing an identical machining task. 6. Conclusions The study proposes a new method to evaluate the nonlinearity method introduced by the kinematics of the vertical SR five-axis machine tools. Although most modern fiveaxis post-processors generally acknowledge the existence of nonlinearity errors through tool path linearization process, little attempt was made to quantify their magnitude and/or variation along the tool path. In this work, evaluation of the nonlinearity errors during linearly-interpolated motions of the cutter along the intended tool path is primarily based on the separation of the translational and rotational movements of the tool. The maximum deviation of the CL point of the tool with respect of the reference plane generated by the initial and final orientation of the tool are then used to quantify the magnitude of nonlinearity errors. The technique used to calculate nonlinearity errors demonstrated that common industrial practice used to limit their amount through halfway CL point insertion is in fact

correct and present study provides computational evidence required to support this decision. For all analyzed five-axis machines, nonlinearity error occurs at interpolation parameters approximately equal to 0.5, with small variations caused by the machine type and the amplitude of the rotational only motion performed. Nonlinearity errors also constitute an useful tool that can be used to compare the kinematic efficiency of the vertical SR five-axis machines. Determination of these errors in context of identical final rotational motions or of identical tool orientations revealed that, while tracing an identical tool path, AB and BA machines generally tend to move their rotary axes less than CA and
CB types. This conclusion has equally important implications on tool path generation in

five-axis and on selection of a particular five-axis kinematic configuration that is energetically efficient for a specific machining task. Although all considerations made throughout the study specifically refer to spindle-rotating machines, the procedure can be extended to the other two main types of machines: table-rotating or hybrid, as long as the same framework is used to calculate the nonlinearity error. This is a direct consequence of the equivalence between rotational only motions performed in a scenario of decoupled translational and rotational movements of the cutter. Future research efforts will be directed towards definition of nonlinearity errors in context of more complex interpolation schemes, followed by their integration in general five-axis tool path planning algorithms. References [1] Lasemi A, Xue D, Gu P. Recent development in CNC machining of freeform surfaces: A state-of-the-art review. Computer-Aided Design 2010. 42(7):641-654.

[2] [3] [4] [5]

Makhanov SS, Anotaipaiboon W. Advanced Numerical Methods to Optimize Cutting Operations of Five Axis Milling Machines. Springer 2007. Bohez ELJ. Five-axis milling machine tool kinematic chain design and analysis, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 2002; 42(4):505-520. She CH, Chang CC. Development of a five-axis postprocessor system with a nutating head. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2007; 187:60-64. Ishizawa H, Hamada M, Tanaka F, Kishinami T. Form shaping function model of 5-axis machine tools classification of 5-axis machine tools based on form shaping functions. In: Proceedings of the 5th Sapporo International Computer Graphics Symposium, 1991. Sapporo, Japan, 64-69. Sakamoto S, Inasaki I. Analysis of generating motion for five-axis machining centers. Transactions of NAMRI/SME 1993; 21:287-293. Chen FC. On the structural configuration synthesis and geometry of machining centres. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 2001. 215(6):641-652. Kiridena V, Ferreira PM. Mapping the effects of positioning errors on the volumetric accuracy of five-axis CNC machine tools. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 1993; 33(3):417-437. Munlin M. Errors estimation and minimization for the 5-axis milling machine. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology IEEE ICIT 2002; 1013-1018 vol.10122002.

[6] [7] [8]

[9]

[10] Bohez ELJ. Compensating for systematic errors in 5-axis NC machining. Computer-Aided Design 2002; 34(5):391-403. [11] Bohez ELJ, Ariyajunya B, Sinlapeecheewa C, Shein TMM, Lap DT, and Belforte G, Systematic geometric rigid body error identification of 5-axis milling machines. Computer-Aided Design 2007; 39(4):229-244. [12] Uddin MS, Ibaraki S, Matsubara A, and Matsushita T. Prediction and compensation of machining geometric errors of five-axis machining centers with kinematic errors. Precision Engineering 2009; 33(2):194-201. [13] Cho HD, Jun YT, Yang MY. 5-Axis CNC Milling for Effective Machining of Sculptured Surfaces. International Journal of Production Research, 1993; 31(11):2559-2573. [14] Liang H, Hong H, Svoboda J. A combined 3D linear and circular interpolation technique for multi-axis CNC machining. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering-Transactions of the ASME 2002; 124(2):305-312.

[15] Ye T, Xiong CH. Geometric parameter optimization in multi-axis machining. Computer-Aided Design 2008. 40(8):879-890. [16] Takeuchi Y, Watanabe T. Generation of 5-Axis Control Collision-Free Tool Path and Postprocessing for NC Data, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 1992 41 (1), 539-542. [17] Ho MC, Hwang YR. Machine codes modification algorithm for five-axis machining. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2003. 142(2):452-460. [18] Tutunea-Fatan OR, Feng HY. Configuration analysis of five-axis machine tools using a generic kinematic model. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2004. 44(11):1235-1243. [19] Mann S, Bedi S, Israeli G, Zhou X. Machine models and tool motions for simulating five-axis machining. Computer-Aided Design 2010. 42(3):231-237. [20] Makhanov S. Adaptable geometric patterns for five-axis machining: a survey. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2010. 47(9):11671208. [21] Tutunea-Fatan OR, Feng HY. Determination of geometry-based errors for interpolated tool paths in five-axis surface machining. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering-Transactions of the ASME 2005. 127(1):60-67. [22] Apro K. Secrets of 5-Axis Machining. Industrial Press 2008. [23] Faux ID, Pratt MJ, Computational Geometry for Design and Manufacture. Halsted Press 1979. [24] Hsu YY, Wang SS, Mapping geometry errors of five-axis machine tools using decouple method. International Journal of Precision Technology 2007. 1(1):123-132. [25] Shoemake K. Animating rotation with quaternion curves, In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques SIGGRAPH 1995. 19(3):245254. [26] Guo RF, Li PN, Research on Kinematics Based on Dual Quaternion for Five-axis Milling Machine, In: Global Design to Gain a Competitive Edge, Springer 2008. [27] Roman A, Bedi S, Ismail F, Tool path planning for 3-axis machining, International Journal of Manufacturing Research 2006. 1(2):248265. [28] Roth D, Gray P, Ismail F, Bedi S. Mechanistic modelling of 5-axis milling using an adaptive and local depth buffer. Computer-Aided Design 2007. 39(4):302-312.

List of Figures Figure 1. Tool posture in five-axis machining Figure 2. Kinematic configuration of vertical spindle-rotating machines Figure 3. Physical configuration of vertical spindle-rotating machines: a) AB; b) BA and c) CA types Figure 4. Discretized CC points along the intended tool path Figure 5. General cutter motion in five-axis machining Figure 7. Rotational only component of a general five-axis motion Figure 8. Interpolation parameter characteristic to nonlinearity error Figure 9. CL trajectories for PS f = S S f = 24

Figure 10. Nonlinearity error for identical final rotational motions Figure 11. CL trajectories for Cf = 20 and Af = 80 Figure 12. Nonlinearity error for identical final orientations set by CA reference type Figure 13. Tool movements for vertical SR machine tool configurations

List of Tables Table 1. Detailed expressions of rotational only CL curve and instantaneous deviation from reference plane for vertical SR five-axis machines Table 2. Extreme values for interpolation parameter characteristic to nonlinearity error Table 3. Angular conversion formulas relative to CA reference machine Table 4. Kinematic efficiency of vertical SR five-axis machines

Table 1. Detailed expressions of rotational only CL curve and instantaneous deviation from reference plane for vertical SR five-axis machines Machine Type
CA

Rotational only CL Curve sin C sin A PCLR = L cos C sin A cos A

Deviation from Reference Plane R

L cos C f sin A f sin C sin A sin C f sin A f cos C sin A sin A f

CB

PCLR

cos C sin B = L sin C sin B cos B

L cos C f sin B f sin C sin B sin C f sin B f cos C sin B sin B f

L sin A f cos B f sin B sin B f sin A cos B sin 2 A f cos 2 B f + sin 2 B f L sin A f sin B cos A sin B f cos A f sin A sin 2 A f + sin 2 B f cos 2 A f

AB

BA

sin B sin A cos B PCLR = L cos A cos B sin B cos A PCLR = L sin A cos B cos A

Table 2. Extreme values for interpolation parameter characteristic to nonlinearity error

Machine Type

Final Rotational Angles PS f [deg.] S S f [deg.] A 90 1 B 90 1 C 1 1 90 90 A 90 1 90 1 B 90 1 90 1

Interpolation Parameter

max

0.4523 0.5477 0.5 0.57735

CA and CB

AB and BA

Table 3. Angular conversion formulas relative to CA reference machine Machine Type BA Final Rotational Angles ABA f = sin 1 (cos C f sin A f ) sin C f sin A f B BA f = sin 1 cos ABA f C CB f = tan 1 ( cot C f ) sin C f sin A f BCB f = sin 1 cos C CB f cos C f sin A f AAB f = sin 1 cos B AB f

CB

B AB f = sin 1 (sin C f sin A f ) AB

Table 4. Kinematic efficiency of vertical SR five-axis machines Machine Type AB BA CA, CB CL Trajectory Length [mm] 119.50 119.73 127.5
IR

1.207 1.230 3.806

 kT

ZT Work piece ZWCS PCL YWCS XWCS Figure 1. Tool posture in five-axis machining CL CC XT YT Tool path

AB type

BA type B O5 b5

CA type C O5 b5 A O6 OP A b3 b4 sZ

O4

b5 O5 A b6 TCS O7 O6 OP

O6 OP

b6 TCS O7 b6 O7 TCS O0 WCS sX b0 O1 b1 O2 sY

Z O3 b2 Y X

Figure 2. Kinematic configuration of vertical spindle-rotating machines

C B A sZ sX B A sZ sX A sZ

sY

sY

sY

sX

a)

b) Figure 3. Physical configuration of vertical spindle-rotating machines: a) AB; b) BA and c) CA types

c)

intended tool path

design surface CCm

CCm+1

Figure 4. Discretized CC points along the intended tool path

OPm 1
kTm 1

OPm

pivot point trajectory CLm+1

kTm

CL point trajectory

PCLm 1

Z CLm

PCLm

X Y Figure 5. General cutter motion in five-axis machining

Y X

OPm 1

OPm
R T

CLm 1 f

CLm 1i

CLm Figure 6. Resolving general tool motion into translational and rotational only components

Z OP X Y

k Tf
R

PCLR

CLf
nonlinear =

k Ti

max

( ) CLi shortest path motion

Figure 7. Rotational only component of a general five-axis motion

0.60 0.58

AB and BA
0.56 0.54

max 0.52
0.50

CA and CB
0.48 0.46 0.44 80 60 40 20 20 40 60 80 100

S S f [deg]

PS f [deg]

Figure 8. Interpolation parameter characteristic to nonlinearity error

-170 -180 -190

AB CB BA

Z [mm]
-200 -210 -220 -40

CA
-80 -60 -20 0 20 -40 X [mm] 40 60 -20 80 100 0

-100

Y [mm]

Figure 9. CL trajectories for PS f

SS f

24

120 100 80

CB and CB

AB and BA
100

nonlinear

60 40 20 0 0 50 20 40

SS f

PS f

60

80

100

a)

120 100 80

nonlinear [mm]

60 40 20 0 0

CB and CB

AB and BA

20

40

60

S S f [deg]

80

100

100

80

60

40

20

PS f [deg]

b) Figure 10. Nonlinearity error for identical final rotational motions

-20 -40 -60 -80 -100

Z [mm]

-120 -140 -160 -180 -200 -220 -120 -100 -80 100 150 200

CB

BA

AB

CA

-60

-40

-20

50

X [mm] Figure 11. CL trajectories for Cf = 20 and Af = 80

Y [mm]

120 100 80 60

CA BA CB AB

nonlinear

40 20 0 100 0 20 80 60 40 40 60 20 80 0 100

Cf [deg]

Af [deg]

Figure 12. Nonlinearity error for identical final orientations set by CA reference type

machined surface CL point

AB, BA

CA, CB

CC point

tool path

Figure 13. Tool movements for vertical SR machine tool configurations

Research Highlights Nonlinearity error can be used to assess the kinematic efficiency of five-axis machines In linear interpolation, maximum nonlinearity error occurs around mid-parametric point AB and BA vertical 5-axis SR machines tend to move farther than CA and CB types CA and CB tend to move more than AB and BA machines Vertical 5-axis SR machines involving C-axis are less kinematically efficient