IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

Use of Stiffness/Damping/Natural Frequency Criteria in Vibration Control

Eugene I. Rivin
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, rivin@eng.wayne.edu
Abstract--Vibration control requires in-depth study of
mechanisms of vibration generation/ transmission and
changes in dynamic characteristics (stiffness, damping,
natural frequencies) of the controlled object. Often,
improvement of one characteristic leads to deterioration
of other ones. The paper describes several important
cases of vibration control in mechanical systems in
which requirements to stiffness/natural frequencies and
damping are interrelated and can be expressed as
criteria. Such criteria help solving a vibration control
problems and provide guidance for more elaborate
efforts.
Keywords: stiffness; damping; chatter; vibration
isolation
1. Introduction
Vibration control is required to reduce vibration levels
or to prevent development of self-excited vibrations.
Two generic techniques used for solving these vibration
control problems are modifying stiffness or the
fundamental natural frequency of the specified
components/subsystems, and their damping. These
directions are often contradictory to each other, e.g. an
increase of stiffness results in reduction of deformations
of the component and/or in reduction of relative motions
between the components in a subsystem. These effects
usually lead to damping reduction in the stiffened
component/subsystem,
since
energy
dissipation
constituting the damping effect results from
deformations of and relative displacements (motions)
between the components. Thus, expensive modifications
aimed to enhance stiffness, may in the same time fail in
controlling vibrations due to reduction of damping.
Sometimes, an older machine tool with worn guideways,
having lower stiffness due to loosened connections, has a
more stable cutting process (less prone to self-excited
chatter vibrations) than a similar new machine tool. It is
important to note here that the old machine may be, in
the same time, much less accurate than the new one
because of its wear; in this case, the accuracy is a static
effect, while the chatter resistance is a dynamic effect.
Stiffening a component or a subsystem is timeconsuming and expensive. It is important to understand,
how much stiffness can be enhanced without loosing too
much damping capacity of the system. Increase of the
fundamental natural frequency is usually achieved by
increasing stiffness, although in some cases also by
reducing effective masses of the system, e.g. [1].
Damping can be increased by damping devices not
influencing stiffness, such as add-on dynamic vibration
absorbers (DVA). DVAs are effective but require
packaging space and need precision tuning. The latter
precludes use of passive DVAs when dynamic
characteristics of the base system change due to
adding/removal of massive components or movements
within the system. Another modality of damping

enhancement is by introduction of micro motions or

deformations into the system (e.g., by reducing preload forces
in joints between structural components). Such an approach
can result in stiffness reduction.
This paper demonstrates that in many cases the
requirements to stiffness/natural frequency and to damping
are interrelated and can be formulated as criteria combining
stiffness/natural frequency and damping qualifiers. It gives a
clear indication of influence of stiffness and/or damping on
achieving the vibration control goals. With such criteria
formulated, the vibration control practitioner gets a
convenient tool for estimating to what degree stiffness/natural
frequency magnitude can be sacrificed for enhancing
damping, and vice versa.
While many of the discussed cases relate to machine tools,
the conclusions are valid for any mechanical structures.
2. Stiffness/Damping/Natural Frequency Criteria
Self-excited Vibrations. Self-excited vibrations develop
during cutting processes (in machine tools, mining and rock
cutting/drilling machines, etc.), and friction-related processes
(stick-slip vibrations, brake squeal, etc.).
It was shown in [2] using the stability analysis apparatus of
automatic control theory that the maximum unconditionally
stable depth of cut can be expressed as
(1)
tlim = CRe(G),
where C is cutting force coefficient and Re(G) is the real
part of transfer function G of the machining system at the
natural frequency of the potential chatter mode. Expressing G
in [3] via the system parameters: effective stiffness K and
damping ratio = 2 of the chatter mode, where is log
decrement, led to the expression
tlim = 2CK.
(2)
To enhance the chatter resistance, at least some parameters in
(2) should be increased. They represent two independent
systems: parameter C represents cutting conditions, and K and
represent the mechanical system. Leaving C to cutting
specialists, we can consider K as a criterion defining
dynamic stability of the machining system. Thus, increase of
in the mechanical system is beneficial even if K is
simultaneously reduced (by a smaller percentage), and vice
versa. A similar statement can be made about interrelation of
K and for self-excited frictional vibrations.
While interrelations (1), (2) have been known for quite a
while, they were not considered as a criterion to be used for
enhancement of dynamic stability.
The first publication proposing enhancement of dynamic
stability by an intentional reduction of stiffness and a
simultaneous increase of damping seems to be [4]. This
concept was tested for turning a highly flexible bar (D = 17.5
mm, L = 380 mm) clamped in a chuck and supported by a live
center. Its radial stiffness is quite low and varies greatly along
the length, from 7,200 N/mm at the chuck to 2,250 in the midspan and tool stiffness in x-direction kt = 28,800 N/mm.
Machining such a bar is normally possible only with its
supporting by a steady rest, otherwise severe chatter is
generated resulting in poor surface finish (Ra > 3 m, visible

IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

vibration marks). Also, the machined bar has a barrel

shape, with diameter variation along its length 0.11 mm
due to variation of deflection caused by the cutting force.
Radial (x-direction) stiffness of the tool was reduced
by means of its clamping via a thin layer 1 of a highly
damped ( = 1.8) elastomeric material, Fig. 1. Since thin

clamped in Nitinol bushings was significantly improved (in

comparison with tools clamped in steel bushings) for

Fig. 2 Boring bar (2) with tool bit (1) in NiTi clamping sleeve
(3)

Fig. 1 Tool clamped with high damping rubber-metal

laminate
elastomeric layers have compression stiffness 3-4
decimal orders of magnitude higher than their shear
stiffness [5], such clamping assures high stiffness in all
directions but x, and a very substantially reduced
effective stiffness in the x - direction. The compliant tool
clamping in x-direction increases pumping of high
damping in the elastomeric layer into machining system,
thus increasing its effective , but reducing K. Simple
calculations have shown that the maximum K is
realized at
kt = 2,160 N/mm (stiffness of the
elastomeric layer in shear). The effective stiffness of the
overall machining system in the x-direction was reduced
by 1.6 4.0 times, depending on the tool position along
the machined slender bar. But such tool clamping
resulted in 2-3 times reduction of relative vibration
amplitudes between the tool and the workpiece, and in
surface finish Ra = 2.5 m without visible vibration
marks. The effective stiffness along the bar became more
uniform, from 1,800 N/mm at the chuck to 1,080 at the
mid-span. As a result, the diameter non-uniformity
(cylindricity) of the machined part improved from 0.011
to 0.007 mm.
A direct application of the K criterion for a boring bar
is described in [6]. It is based on high internal damping
of shape memory alloy Nitinol (NiTi alloy) when it is
in a properly stressed condition, with reaching as high
as = 0.19 0.31, as compared with = 0.0003-0.0015
for steel. Youngs modulus of Nitinol is E = 0.37
0.7x105 MPa vs. E = 2x105 MPa for steel. However, toolclamping collets made from Nitinol are promising since
the damping increase would more than compensate for
the lost stiffness. A small boring bar was interference fit
into steel and Nitinol bushings (collets) of identical
dimensions, Fig. 2. Damping of Nitinol was not utilized
to the full extent since the optimal stressing has not been
realized (only = 0.088 has been achieved). Still,
criterion K was improved by a factor of 3.7, while the
tool stiffness was reduced by ~50% when clamped in the
Nitinol sleeve. As a result, surface finish of the holes
machined in steel with the same regimes by boring bars

both carbon steel and stainless steel parts (Ra reduced from
3.7-7.4 m to 1.7-1.8 m). Clearly, use of such system is not
limited to boring bars; it can also be used for end mills and
other applications.
The cases described above involve introduction of special
devices (guiding sleeve for the tool in Fig. 1, special collet for
the boring bar in Fig. 2). Significant enhancements/
reductions in stiffness and damping values can be achieved by
design and manufacturing approaches. It should be
considered, of course, that since metal cutting machine tools
usually have very stringent requirements to their accuracy, the
reduction of stiffness can be tolerated only to the point when
static deformations of the system from the cutting forces
exceed the allowable amounts. In real life, however, the main
attention by the designers (at least, the machine tool
designers) is still paid to increasing stiffness for improving
dynamic stability.
Thus, stiffness at the spindle end exceeds 200x103 N/mm
for modern high speed machining centers. Since the cutting
forces at roughing high speed regimes seldom exceed 200 N,
these extremely high stiffness values are often excessive. On
the other hand, these high stiffness values may lead to
negative dynamic effects, such as reduction of damping and
decreasing the K criterion. Increase of stiffness of spindle
bearings by preloading above certain levels may result not
only in reduction of damping, but also in high dynamic loads
on the rolling bodies and the races, especially at very high
speeds. These dynamic loads may lead, in turn, to significant
temperature increases in the bearings. High preload forces
lead to high frictional losses and also to temperature increase
and to shortened life of the bearings. Similar effects of the
stiffness-enhancing preload may develop in rolling friction
guideways and ball screws.
Until recently, little attention was paid to damping
enhancement of the mechanical structures. When low
damping is a critical issue, so-called parallel action dampers
(DVAs) were used for machine tool and tooling structures,
not subjected to the process loads and not causing reduction
of stiffness.
The main source of damping in mechanical structures is
energy dissipation in the joints between components. Stiffness
of mechanical structures is determined by structural
deformations and by deformations in joints. The joints are the
most important stiffness and damping determining factor for
many precision structures. Data on joint damping and
stiffness in mechanical structures had been available for many
years, e.g. [7], but they were used separately. Preloading of a
joint results in increase of its stiffness but in reduction of its
energy dissipation (damping). At certain preload forces

IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

(dependent on the joint design and on macro- and microgeometry of the contacting surfaces), the rate of stiffness
increase with increasing preload force is slowing down.
At about the same preload, the rate of damping decrease
with increasing preload is also slowing down.
These facts are seldom considered in assembling
machine frames. Usually, the non-sliding joints between
the constitutive components are preloaded to very high
contact pressures, thus resulting in the higher stiffness.
Since the joints are so important (e.g., the toolholderspindle interface is sometimes responsible for over 50%
deformations at the tool-workpiece contact), it is
important to define the optimal preload conditions for the
interfaces.

b
Fig. 3 Static stiffness (a) and damping (b) of interfaces
vs. axial preload

Extensive information on stiffness and damping of

toolholder-spindle interfaces is provided in [8], Fig. 3, for
7/24 taper interfaces (#30, #40, #45), flat flange-to-face
interface, and Curvic coupling interface (all-teeth
engagement between two flat spiral teeth gears). A solid
connection is given for comparison. Table 1 gives K and ,
Table 1

Chatter-Resistance Criterion
Toolholder/Spindle Interfaces
K, N/m

Q, KN

15

Solid

18.5

--

Flat joint

13

#45

for

15

15

.006 --

.11

--

17.3

.075 .03

.98 .52

12.5

14

.06 .03

.75 .42

Curvic
coupling B

7.6

14

.11 .045 .84 .63

#40

10.5

12.5

.03 .01

Curvic
coupling A

5.5

13

.13 .075 .72 .98

#30

7.5

--

.02

--

.32 .125

.15 --

for high (15 KN) and low (5 KN) preload forces, extracted
from [8] as well as K calculated for these data. For each
interface, the optimal preload force is easy to select; for taper
and flat interfaces it is low, for Curvic coupling high axial
force magnitude. This fact is explained by a much stronger
dependence of damping, rather than stiffness, on the preload
force. Data in Table 1 allows selection of the best interface
designs.
Influence of Installation on Chatter Resistance. Modern
machine tools combine high performance characteristics with
high accuracy and surface finish, and their vibration isolation
is often required. Small and medium size machine tools,
weight ~10 t, can be installed directly on flexible isolating
mounts without reduction their effective structural stiffness.
However, installation of a machine tool on low stiffness
mounts may lead to deterioration of its chatter resistance,
while stiff mounts do not provide the desirable isolation from
external excitations. The mounting system may influence
effective damping in the working zone (between the tool and
the workpiece). The effective stiffness K in the working zone
of medium size machine tools is not noticeably influenced by
the installation technique.
Influence of mount parameters on the chatter resistance was
analyzed on a simplified two-degrees-of-freedom model in
Fig. 4. Here mB - generalized mass of the machine frame (bed)
on which the workpiece is mounted; mu - generalized mass of
the toolholding unit; kv is stiffness of the mounts; km = K is
generalized structural stiffness of the machine. Damping of
each spring (log decrement) is designated as m, v,
respectively. Dynamic influence of the installation system mB
-kv on the machining system mB -km-mu was evaluated by
analyzing their dynamic coupling with an assumption that the
partial natural frequency fv of the vibration isolation system is

IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

much lower than the partial natural frequency of the

machining system fm, or fv << fm. As a result, the
isolation

Fig. 4 Math model of an isolated object

mounting does not influence K but may pump some
damping into the working zone. The incremental
increase of the working/machining system damping due
to mounts can be expressed as [5]

mu
f v3 v ,
2 ( m B + mu ) f m3

(3)

or influence of installation on chatter resistance is

characterized by the criterion fv3v. Since fv is
proportional to kv1/2, this criterion can be rewritten as
kv3/2 v. This criterion states that if softer mounts (lower
fv) are used instead of stiffer mounts in order to improve
its vibration isolation, then chatter resistance will not
deteriorate if damping of the isolation system is
increased much more than reduction of isolator stiffness.
This analysis was validated by comparing performance
of a lathe installed on six different mounting systems A F, Table 2. The test results correlate well with this
criterion. Although the natural frequency and damping
are significantly different between installations on
mounts A and B, C and D, the criterion magnitudes and
tlim are very close for each of these pairs.
Table 2 Lathe Chatter Tests
fv3 v. tlim,mm
Setup fv, Hz v
A
32 0.39 12,800
3.2
B
30 0.57 15,400
3.25
C
24
0.5
6,900
2.05
D
20
0.9
7,200
2.2
E
17 0.42 2,060
1.7
F
12 0.38
660
1.35
Existence of criterion (3) does not mean that
all machine tools are sensitive to installation. If the
original km, m are very large and/or fm is very high, then
the installation influence can be neglected.
While forced vibrations caused by internal
excitation sources can be controlled by design
modifications, these can be made only by the unit
designers, not by the users. However, some control can
be achieved by a proper installation. Both: reduction of

relative vibration amplitudes in the working zone (between

the tool and the workpiece in a machine tool, between the
stylus and the part in a coordinate-measuring machine, etc.),
and reduction of vibration intensity of the machine frame
causing discomfort for the operator can be of interest.
For a detailed analysis both frequency content and
amplitudes of the internal excitation should be known. There
are two important frequency ranges of the internally generated
vibrations: 10-100 Hz, in which vibrations are caused mostly
by centrifugal forces due to unbalance and/or runout of the
rotating components, and 100-1000 Hz, in which vibrations
are mostly caused by gear errors, electromagnetic fluctuations
in motors, etc. Only the low frequency range can be
noticeably influenced by installation techniques.
The centrifugal force amplitude generated by a
rotating component is proportional to its unbalance and to the
second power of its rpm. The fastest rotating component
should make the largest contribution. But the fast rotating
components (pulleys, gears, grinding wheels, etc.) are usually
the better balanced ones. Analysis of the available data in [5]
shows that the rated amplitudes Fo of centrifugal forces of the
rotating components can be assumed to be not dependent on
rpm (frequency f) within the range 10-100 Hz. If Fo(f) =
const, and m is the machine mass, the resonance amplitude of
the machine on its mounts (the most dangerous case) is
F (3)
Fo

x res = o
=
(4)
2

kv v

4f v m B v

The amplitude of relative vibrations in the working zone for

the Fig. 2 model is then

x rel =

Fo
4f v2 m B v

1
f m2
mB
1
m B + mu f v2

m B + mu Fo
m B2
4f m2 v

(5)

Thus the maximum amplitudes of relative displacement in the

working area with the above assumptions do not depend on
the natural frequency of the isolation system, but only on its
damping v which can be considered as a vibration level
criterion. For stiff mounts, when fm and fv are commensurate,
xrel would substantially increase. Fastening the machine to a
massive foundation block is equivalent to increasing m1 in (5)
with a corresponding reduction of relative vibrations.
Often the vibratory velocity level is an indicator of the
machine vibration. An equally hazardous or annoying action
of vibration on personnel corresponds to an equal vibratory
velocity level at frequencies higher than 2-8 Hz (International
Standard ISO 2631). From (4), the maximum velocity
amplitude
(vo)f = 2fvxres =
v

Fo
2mf v v

(6)

Thus, a comparison of alternative mounting systems by

vibratory velocity level can be performed by the criterion
fvv., and to reduce the vibratory velocity level of an isolated
object, increase of fv and v have similar effects.

IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

Vibration isolation is especially critical for precision

production machines measuring equipment. Vibration
spectrum of the floor in both vertical and horizontal
directions usually contains components in a broad
frequency range, starting from very low frequencies (2
4 Hz). Basic models of vibration isolation in vibration
textbooks imply that the natural frequency of the
vibration isolation system in a given direction should be
two-to-three times less than the lowest excitation
frequency, which leads to very low isolator stiffness and
rocking of the object. Thus, heavy and expensive
foundation blocks are often used. The textbooks also
conclude that damping in the vibration isolation system
has a detrimental effect on its performance (higher
transmissibility of the unwanted floor vibrations to the
isolated object). Extensive surveys of floor vibrations are
performed for installation of precision equipment and
foundations are designed accordingly. This approach is
very time consuming and expensive, but often does not
bring desirable results.
It was suggested to control vibration amplitude in the
working zone of the object, e.g. vibration between the
tool and the machined surface [7]; its amplitude should
not exceed a specified fraction of the tolerance. Results
of numerous measurements of the floor vibration at
representative sites were combined and analyzed. The
upper boundaries of the combined spectra for both
vertical and horizontal vibration amplitudes can be
approximated by constant displacement amplitude
lines in narrow frequency ranges. These spectra give a
conservative representation for any industrial or
microfabrication site.
Using the generalized excitation spectra and
considering working zone vibration, it was shown that
a resonance within the vibration isolation system can be
a working regime and, consequently, quality of a
vibration isolating installation is determined not by the
natural frequency fv of the vibration isolation system in
the considered direction, but by the vibration isolation
criterion fv / v1/2 . This criterion can also be rewritten as
kv/v. Its reduction by reduction of fv or kv or by increase
of damping v results in improved isolation, thus for a
given installation kv/v should not be higher than the
specified value. So, if the isolators have higher damping,
their stiffness can be proportionally increased without
detrimental effects on isolation effectiveness.
Advantages of higher stiffness isolators include higher
rocking stability; lesser reduction of effective frame
stiffness of the object; possibility of reduction or
elimination of the inertia block; lesser amplitudes and
faster decay of transients caused by internal causes, such
as stoppage or reversal of heavy moving parts. The
criterion, as well as the above concept of vibration
isolation, were validated by successful installations of
thousands of various precision objects (machine tools,
measuring
instruments,
etc.).
Extensive
tests
demonstrated that stiffness values of numerous
commercially available vibration isolators recommended
for the same types of precision equipment differ by
150%, while values of k/ calculated for the same
isolators differ only by 25%.

It is interesting to note that increase in structural damping

allows to reduce structural stiffness according to the chatter
resistance criterion K; while increase in isolator damping
allows to reduce the isolator stiffness for machines whose
chatter resistance is sensitive to installation, thus allowing
effective vibration isolation of such machines; and increase in
isolator damping allows to increase the isolator stiffness
without losing effectiveness of vibration isolation.
Another important use of the criterion kv/v is for selection
of an optimized material for vibration isolators [7]. Dynamic
stiffness (effective stiffness under vibratory conditions) of
materials used in isolators (elastomers, wire mesh elements,
etc.) is always higher by dynamic-to-static stiffness
coefficient Kdyn than their static stiffness measured at slow
loading, at f ~ 0.1 Hz. Kdyn is frequently dependent on
vibration amplitude a (decreasing with increasing a) and/or on
vibration frequency f. Log decrement is also dependent on a
and f, especially on a at f < ~ 100 Hz, important for vibration
isolation applications, and is increasing with increasing a.
Criterion kv/v allows to optimize isolators depending on the
range of a and f for this application. For example, high
precision objects are exposed to floor vibration in 1 3 m
amplitude range, while avionics instruments are exposed to 30
100 m amplitudes. A proper selection of a rubber blend or
a wire mesh material for a minimal Kdyn/ in the given
amplitude range may result in significant increase of static
stiffness of the isolators, up to an order of magnitude, without
negative effects on performance of the isolation system. In
Table 3 values of Kdyn/ are compared for various types of
Table 3 Kdyn / for various materials and
vibration amplitudes
Elastomers
Type

Amplitude,m
H

10-15

100

41
4.6
3.3
56
5.4
3.6
75
5.0
2.4
---------------------------------------------------------42
4.6
3.75
CR
58
3.75
3.8
78
5.8
2.2
---------------------------------------------------------42
4.0
3.5
NBR-26
56
3.1
2.9
69
2.9
2.2
---------------------------------------------------------45
3.45
3.7
NBR-40
58
3.1
3.0
80
2.6
2.3
---------------------------------------------------------BR
50
2.8
2.65
--------------------------------------------------------Wire-mesh isolators Load, N
mod. V439-0
400
30
3.4
1,150
45
2.4
------------------------------------------------------Felt Unisorb
15
7.0
NR

IFToMM World Congress, Besanson, June 2-6, 2007

rubber (NR natural rubber; CR cloroprene; NBR

nitrile rubber with various percentage of acrylic groups;
BR butyl rubber) of different durometer H, for wire
mesh and felt isolators for two double-amplitude ranges.
Bold numbers indicate three minimum values for the
amplitude range.
A criterion fv /v0.25, or kv /v0.5, is derived in [5] for
isolation from dynamic excitation by forging hammers
and other pulse-generating objects. Increase in damping
allows to increase stiffness of isolators and to reduce the
size of the foundation block. Forging hammers are
mounted on huge concrete blocks suspended by large
steel coil springs (fv = 2 4 Hz, v 0.1 0.2). The same
quality of isolation was achieved in several installations
by suspending smaller blocks on rubber mats with fv = 5
6 Hz, v = 0.5 0.7 [8].
Discussion and Conclusions
It is shown that in many typical vibration
control situations effects of changing stiffness (natural
frequencies) and damping are interrelated and can be
expressed as criteria. These are useful for guidance
during solving vibration control problems and make the
problem solving process more flexible, since the effects
of changing stiffness and/or damping become
transparent.
Since these criteria are used in solving general
vibration control problems (vibration level caused by
internal excitation, isolation of vibration sensitive
objects, etc.), deriving the criteria may require
generalization of the involved parameters. Examples of
such parameters are amplitudes of internal excitation for
the vibration levels problems and spectra of floor
vibrations for the vibration isolation problem. While
these general approaches do not diminish usefulness of
the derived criteria, a detailed analysis of specific critical
cases may result in a somewhat better control of
vibrations, e.g. for an ultra-vibration-sensitive installed
in a specially designed building having a unique
vibratory environment.
References
1.
Rivin, E.I., Kang, H.L., Enhancement of
Dynamic Stability of Cantilever Tooling
Structures, 1992, Int. J. of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 539-562
2.
Kudinov, V.A., Dynamics of Machine Tools,
1967, Mashinostroenie, Moscow, 360 pp [in
Russian]
3.
Tlusty, J., Machine Dynamics, 1985, in
Handbook
of
High-Speed
Machining
Technology, ed. by R.I. King, Chapman and
Hall. L/N.Y.
4.
Rivin, E.I., Kang, H., 1989, Improving
Machining Conditions for Slender Parts by
Tuned Dynamic Stiffness of Tool, Intern. J.
of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 29,
No. 3, pp. 361-376
5.
Rivin, E.I., Passive Vibration Isolation,
2003, ASME Press, 420 pp
6.
Rivin, E.I., Xu, L., Damping of NiTi Shape
Memory Alloys and Its application for Cutting
Tools, 1994, in Materials for Noise and

7.
8.

Vibration Control, ASME NCA-18/DE, pp. 35-41

Rivin, E.I., Stiffness and Damping in Mechanical
Design, 1999, Marcel Dekker Inc., N.Y., 512 pp
Hasem, S., Mori, J., Tsutsumi, M., Ito, Y., 1987, A
New Modular Tooling System of Curvic Coupling
Type, Proc. of 26th Intern. Machine Tool Design
and Research Conf., MacMillan Publishing, N.Y.,
pp.261-267