ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool
Stiffness inﬂuential factorsbased dynamic modeling and its parameter identiﬁcation method of ﬁxed joints in machine tools
Kuanmin Mao ^{a} , Bin Li ^{a}^{,} ^{n}^{n} , Jun Wu ^{b}^{,} ^{n} , Xinyu Shao ^{a}
^{a} State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China ^{b} School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China
article info
Article history:
Received 8 May 2009 Received in revised form 29 October 2009 Accepted 30 October 2009 Available online 10 November 2009
Keywords:
Fixed joints Dynamic modeling Modal analysis Parameter identiﬁcation Finite element model
abstract
A universal dynamic model of ﬁxed joints is built through considering the relative motion between the
substructures of the ﬁxed joints and the coupling among various degrees of freedom. The dynamic model may accurately reﬂect the dynamic characteristics of the joints. Based on the inverse relationship
between the frequency response function matrix and the dynamic stiffness matrix of a MultiDegreeOf Freedom system, a highaccuracy parameter identiﬁcation method is proposed to recognize the dynamic model parameters of the joints using the dynamic test data of the whole structure including the joints.
The error between the theoretical and experimental results of the model is less than 10%, while the error
of the Yoshimura model is three times bigger than that of the model. The effectiveness and accuracy of
the dynamic model and its parameter identiﬁcation have been validated. The establishment of the model
will provide a theoretical foundation for the precisely dynamic modeling of the CNC Machine Tool. Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
On the ﬁnite element analysis of machine tools, it is inevitable to set up accurate dynamic models and reduce the huge amount of calculation. Giving that, the machine tools are mostly simpliﬁed as lumped mass models or distributed mass models. In the 1960s, Taylor and Tobias developed a lumped mass model of the rocker drilling machine [1] . Although the calculated low order natural frequencies of the whole machine tool were close to the experimental values, its dynamic response could not be calculated because of not considering the damping feature of the joints and the system. Hijink built the computation model of the horizontal lift milling machine by means of the distributed mass beam [2] . According to the effect of structural elastic deformation on the overall structure, the beam was divided into a ﬂexible and a rigid part, of which a rigid beam was assumed to only have rigid body movement without elastic deformation. So the character istics of the actual structure of machine tools might be simulated more precisely. However, its resonance frequency had still about 15 percent deviation from the experimental value and its dynamic ﬂexibility even deviated more than doubled. It is because the dynamic characteristics of the joints were not considered in the process. By thinking about the features of joints, Yoshihara set up
^{n} Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 027 87541769; fax: +86 027 87557650. ^{n}^{n} Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 027 87544384 Email addresses: libin999@263.net (B. Li), wujun_hg@yahoo.com.cn (J. Wu).
a lumped mass beam dynamic model of a twopillar vertical lathe [3] . It had 20 joint surfaces with two rail joints and rest were the bolted joints. Owing to taking the characteristics of joints into account, the result was closer to the actual value. Dalenbring [4] , and Inamura [5] had also made some corresponding studies with such regards. Therefore, it is very important to consider the characteristics of joints in the dynamic models of machine tools. As for the researches on the dynamic model of joints, Greenwood took a normal spring as equivalent of the dynamic model according to Hertz Contact theory [6,7] . The model was extended to the case of two rough surface contacts and the equations were deduced to calculate the normal rigidity. It had been proven by Crawley [8] and Shi [9] to be correct and effective using a contact resonance method. In 1979, Yoshimura made a research on the joints of machine tools and found that the dynamic forces of a joint were a combination of six forces in different forms, that is six DOFs generalized forces [10] . By simplifying the joint as a node, an equivalent dynamic model was built, of which six DOFs are independent of each other. The formulas were deduced to compute the equivalent spring stiffness of each DOF and the equivalent damping. Furthermore, the equivalent spring stiffness and the equivalent damping in different conditions were tested by experiments and the data charts of the joints under the unit normal pressure were obtained. Thus it introduced that a joint area integral method was proposed to get the stiffness and damping of the entire joint surfaces using the data of joint surfaces under unit normal pressure. The dynamic model of joints was often simpliﬁed into a group of
08906955/$  see front matter Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
157
Fig. 1. The springdamper model of joints.
equivalent springdamper model, which is shown in Fig. 1 . Most studies are based on the model. Springdamper can be used as a token of the normal or tangential dynamic characteristics of the joints, but every springdamper has no coupled relations. It is assumed by Tong [11] that all the dynamic characteristics of the joints under all conditions (including different materials, pretightening force, surface roughness, machining methods, media, etc.) can be equivalent with that of an ideal joint surface. The socalled ideal joint surface means that the pressure in the whole joint surface is constant, the points are of uniform contact and all contact points have the same mechanical properties. The ﬁnite element of the ideal joint surface is obtained by meshing the joint surface, as shown in Fig. 2 . As for the researches on the parameter identiﬁcation methods for the dynamic model of joints, the dynamic model parameters are initially identiﬁed by direct measurement [12] . The stiffness features are obtained by the direct test of the relationship between the joint force and displacement. Through repeatedly loading and unloading, the hysteresis loop of the force and displacement are acquired, and the area of the loop is used to measure the joint damping characteristics. The parameter techniques were adopted by Tlusty [13] as well as Inamura [5] to identify the dynamic parameters of machine tools as early as the 1980s. However, the techniques needed a complete modal shape of the system, which might be obtained by experiments or calculations. Wang [14] as well as Ren [15] made use of frequency response functions (FRFs) of the substructure and overall structure to identify joint parameters and considered the impact of the FRFs testing error. But the FRFs of substructure obtained from testing are not likely to be precise, as there may be some noise pollutions. In order to improve the shortcomings in the identiﬁcation methods, Wang and Liou [14] introduced a transi tion matrix, which was linear to the FRF matrix of the sub structure and also to that of the joints to be identiﬁed. Thereby matrix inverse could be avoided, which can improve the algorithm accuracy. To overcome the sensitivity on measurement errors of the above algorithms, Ren [15] simultaneously made use of the FRFs of the overall structure and substructure and obtained the FRF matrix block relationship between the joints to be identiﬁed and the substructures as well as the overall structures according to the displacement coordination conditions and the force balance conditions of joints, and then identiﬁed the dynamic parameters of joints using least square method. Yuan and Wu [16] obtained the modal shape data and modal matrix using the dynamic data system technology. In the process, the time history information of structural vibration was used to get an autoregression moving average vector model, and the FRFs of whole system were obtained. Then the system modal shape data was obtained using the concept of poles and residuals. Finally, the
Fig.
ξ
The rectangular ﬁnite element of the ideal joint surface.
parameters of the dynamic model including the joints were identiﬁed. Huang [17,18] made a wide research on the dynamic characteristics of joints, deﬁned the normal parameters as the unit area normal stiffness and damping, and got the parameters. It is found that the difﬁculty in establishing structural dynamic model is to establish the dynamic model of the joints, but there are many complicated factors inﬂuencing the dynamic character istics of the joints. The major inﬂuential factors include the materials and appearance of joints, the size of the pretightening force, the media between the mating surfaces (such as lubricating oil, etc.), the size and geometry shape of joints and the characteristics of the dynamic forces of joints. To sum up, there were two dominant ways to study the dynamic characteristics of joints. One is the experimental method to establish the dynamic model of the joints and identify its parameters, the other is the parameter identiﬁcation method. However, the entire dynamics of the joints are almost simulated by a series of viscoelastic elements in the two methods, as shown in Fig. 1 . The inadequacies of the two methods are as follows:
(1) The stiffness and damping parameters identiﬁed by the methods are only applied to the current joints but not others, that is to say, they are not universal. (2) These methods neglected the coupling between each viscoe lastic element, as well as between the coordinate of the viscoelastic elements. (3) The relationship between the mechanical properties (such as pretightening force) and physical attributes (such as size, material properties, and machining methods) in the dynamics of the joints is still difﬁcult to be established.
Nowadays, the dynamic models of joints are established whether through the experiment method or parameter identiﬁca tion method to get parameters (stiffness and damping). They both cannot fully reﬂect the speciﬁc attributes of the joints (such as materials, appearance, pretightening force, geometry shapes, etc.). It is the main reason why the current researches cannot be universally applied. This paper aims to establish a universal dynamic model of ﬁxed joints. As long as the geometric parameters, the physical parameters and the surface appearance parameters of joints are the same, the dynamic model of the joints can be applied whatever the joints consist in. Meanwhile, a highprecision parameter identiﬁcation method based on the dynamic matrix and the FRF matrix is proposed, which is not required to invert FRF matrix.
2. 
A new dynamic model of ﬁxed joints in machine tools 
2.1. 
The general form of ﬁxed joints in machine tools 
After analyzing the form of ﬁxed joints in many typical machine tools such as MC6000 Plano machining center driven by a linear motor, XHK5140 CNC machine tool, CKX5680 Sevenﬁve Axis Lathemilling CNC equipment, and EQD18 A40 highspeed
158
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
Fig. 3. (a) BeamColumn Connection, (b) Slide BlockSlider Connection and (c) BeamRail Connection.
machining center, it is found that the ﬁxed joints in the machine tools are often used in the forms of BeamColumn Connection, BeamRail Connection or Slide BlockSlider Connection, which are shown in Figs. 3 (a)–(c).
2.2. Dynamic modeling of the ﬁxed joints
BeamColumn Connection and BeamRail Connection in Fig. 3(a) and (c) are both called ‘‘Linear’’ Connection form, and Slide Block Slider Connection in Fig. 3(b) is called ‘‘Array’’ Connection form. The following assumptions of the dynamic characteristics of the ﬁxed joints are proposed, which are inspired by the St. Venant Assumption. To the ‘‘Linear’’ Connection form, its assumptions is that the dynamic characteristics of the joints between two neighboring bolts are only affected by the mechanical attributes of the two related bolts, and have nothing to do with other bolts. To the ‘‘Array’’ Connection form, its assumptions is that the dynamic characteristics of the joints between four neighboring bolts are affected by the mechanical attributes of the four related bolts and have nothing to do with other bolts. In light of the assumptions above, the joints between every two neighboring bolts in the ‘‘Linear’’ Connection joint ﬁnite element are considered as an element and the joints between every four neighboring bolts in the ‘‘Array’’ Connection joint ﬁnite element is considered as an element, as shown in Figs. 4 (a) and (b). Every element has 8 nodes and every node has 3 translational degrees of freedom. Thus, every element has 24 degrees of freedom. The movement of the joints is described in the form of relative movement of node 1 and 5, node 2 and 6, node 3 and 7, node 4 and 8. As long as the relationship between the displacement and force of these nodes is accurately established, the dynamic model of the ﬁxed joints will be built. For this reason, the process to develop the dynamic model considering the elastic and damping characteristics is presented as follows:
Suppose that the node displacement is represented by x _{i}_{j} , and the node force is represented by f _{i}_{j} , i =1,2, y ,8, j =1,2,3. First of all, the stiffness matrix of the joint ﬁnite elements is deduced. As mentioned above, the movement of joints is demonstrated by the relative movement of node 1 and 5, node 2 and 6, node 3 and 7, node 4 and 8. So the relative movements between these nodes are expressed as:
x _{1} _{j} x _{5} _{j} ; x _{2} _{j} x _{6} _{j} ; x _{3} _{j} x _{7} _{j} ; x _{4} _{j} x _{8} _{j} ; j ¼ 1 ; 2 ; 3
Fig. 4. (a)‘‘Linear’’ Connection joint ﬁnite element and (b)‘‘Array’’ Connection joint ﬁnite element.
Fig. 5. Structure of test specimen
According to the method of stiffness inﬂuential coefﬁcient, there is
3
X
n ¼ 1
3
3
1 _{n} ð x _{1} _{n} x _{5} _{n} Þþ ^{X} K _{n} ð x _{2} _{n} x _{6} _{n} Þþ ^{X} K _{n} ð x _{3} _{n} x _{7} _{n} Þ
_{K}
2
3
ij
ij
ij
n ¼ 1
n ¼ 1
þ
3
ij
^{X} K _{n} ð x _{4} _{n} x _{8} _{n} Þ ¼ f _{i}_{j}
4
n ¼ 1
ð 1 Þ
ij
Where K _{m}_{n} is the stiffness inﬂuential coefﬁcient, i , m =1,2,3,4 represent the node and j , n =1,2,3 represent the direction. The physical meaning of K _{m}_{n} is the corresponding necessary force
ij
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
159
imposed on node i in the j direction when the unit relative displacement is only generated in the direction of n of the node m and the node ( m +4). Under equilibrium conditions, there is
f _{1} _{j} ¼ f _{5} _{j} ;
f _{2} _{j} ¼ f _{6} _{j} ;
f _{3} _{j} ¼ f _{7} _{j} ; f _{4} _{j} ¼ f _{8} _{j} ;
j ¼ 1 ; 2 ; 3 :
Fig. 6. Structure of test specimen
Then, Eq. (1) can be written as:
½ K f X g¼f F g
where
f X g¼ð x _{1}_{1} ; x _{1}_{2} ; x _{1}_{3} ; ; x _{8}_{1} ; x _{8}_{2} ; x _{8}_{3} Þ
f F g¼ð f _{1}_{1} ; f _{1}_{2} ; f _{1}_{3} ; ; f _{8}_{1} ; f _{8}_{2} ; f _{8}_{3} Þ
½ K ¼
K 0 K 0
K 0 K 0
24 24
ð 2 Þ
[ K ]is a symmetric matrix, and [K 0 ] composes the ﬁnite element stiffness matrix with 12 12 dimension. And then, Eq. (2) is transformed into the following equation:
½ K 0 f Y g¼f Q g 
ð 3 
Þ 
where 

f Y g ¼ ðð x _{1}_{1} x _{5}_{1} Þ ; ð x _{1}_{2} x _{5}_{2} Þ ; ð x _{1}_{3} x _{5}_{3} Þ ; ; ð x _{4}_{1} x _{8}_{1} Þ ; ð x _{4}_{2} x _{8}_{2} Þ ; 

ð x 43 x 83 ÞÞ 

f Q g¼ð f _{1}_{1} ; f _{1}_{2} ; f _{1}_{3} ; ; f _{4}_{1} ; f _{4}_{2} ; f _{4}_{3} Þ : 

Furthermore, Eq. (3) can be expressed as 

½ S f Q g¼f Y g 
ð 4 
Þ 
Fig. 7. (a)Experimental setup and (b)Test Specimen.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
160
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
where [S] is an inverse matrix of matrix [K0 ] and consists of element s _{i}_{j} . The physical meaning of s _{i}_{j} is the corresponding displacement in the i direction when the unit force is only imposed in the j direction, which may be easily measured by experiment. Finally, the dynamic equation of the ﬁnite element of the ﬁxed joints can be obtained as follows:
ð i Z ½ K þ½ K Þf X g¼f F g
ð 5 Þ
where Z is the structural damping coefﬁcient of the ﬁnite element, which is derived from the hysteresis loop of the force and the displacement.
3. Identiﬁcation of the model parameters based on the
dynamic matrix and FRF matrix
The dynamic equation of a MultiDegreeOfFreedom (MDOF) system is expressed as
’’
’
M X þ C X þ KX ¼ F ð t Þ :
ð 6 Þ
The dynamic stiffness matrix of the MDOF system is that
o ^{2} M þ i o C þ K :
The inverse matrix of the dynamic stiffness matrix is denoted by H ( o ), which is the FRF matrix of the MDOF system. So the following equation is obtained.
ð o ^{2} M þ i o C þ K Þ H ð o Þ ¼ I :
ð 7 Þ
Moreover, according to the theory of vibration mechanics, there is
Þ
H ð o Þ F ð o Þ ¼ X ð o Þ
ð
8
That is
2
6
6
6
6
4
h _{1}_{1} ð o Þ
h _{2}_{1} ð o Þ
^
h _{n} _{1} ð o Þ
h _{1}_{2} ð o Þ
h _{2}_{2} ð o Þ
h _{n} _{2} ð o Þ
^^^
3
7
h _{2} _{n} ð o Þ 7 6 6 f _{2} ð o Þ 7
7
7
5
h _{1} _{n} ð o Þ
f _{1} ð o Þ
7
7
5
6
6
4
^
f _{n} ð o Þ
3
7
2
h _{n}_{n} ð o Þ
¼
2
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
x _{2} ð o Þ 7
^
x _{n} ð o Þ
5
7
7
x _{1} ð o Þ
ð
9 Þ
When a modal experiment is carried out by means of hammer impact testing, the i degree of freedom is excited. The
corresponding
i ^{T} . So Eq. (9) is transformed into
the following equation.
force
0
vector
0
can
be
expressed
as
h 0
0
f _{i} ð o Þ
2
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
h _{2} _{i} ð o Þ 7
7
7
h _{1} _{i} ð o Þ
^
5
h _{n}_{i} ð o Þ
f _{i} ð o Þ ¼
2
6
6
6
6
4
3
x _{1} ð o Þ
7
x _{2} ð o Þ 7
7
7
5
x _{n} ð o Þ
^
ð
10 Þ
And the column i of FRFs is obtained. Then the following equation is deduced as
2
2
h _{1} _{i} ð o Þ
^
3
^{h} i 1 i ^{ð} ^{o} ^{Þ}
h _{i}_{i} ð o Þ
4
^{h} i þ 1 i ^{ð} ^{o} ^{Þ}
^
h _{n}_{i} ð o Þ
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
^
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
^ 5
7
7
7
0
0
1
0
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
ð o ^{2} M þ i o C þ K Þ 6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 ¼
7
7
7
7
ð
11 Þ
where the mass matrix, the damping matrix, and the stiffness matrix are assembled by the corresponding matrix of sub structures and joints. For each substructure, its mass matrix, damping matrix (proportional damping), and stiffness matrix can be obtained based on the ﬁnite element theory. For each joint, its stiffness and damping matrix have been established in Eq. (4), and its mass matrix is neglected.
Fig. 8. (a1) Theoretical result of rolling and (b1) Experimental result of rolling, (a2) Theoretical result of yawing and (b2) Experimental result of yawing, (a3) Theoretical result of pitching and (b3) Experimental result of pitching, (a4) Theoretical result of leftright translation and (b4) Experimental result of leftright translation, (a5) Theoretical result of frontback translation and (b5) Experimental result of frontback translation, (a6) Theoretical result of updown translation and (b6) Experimental result of updown translation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
161
4. 
Dynamic experiment of ﬁxed joints 
is 356 A15 piezoelectric accelerometer. Using a modal hammering impact testing method, the ﬁrst sixorder modal 
4.1. 
Test specimen design 
shapes of the structure are obtained, which are illustrated in Fig. 8 . 
According to Eq. (11), the dynamic model parameters in Eq. (4) may be identiﬁed by the nonlinear least squares method, when the FRFs of the structural joints are entirely obtained. In order to reﬂect the characteristics of the joints and simplify the structure as much as possible, two kinds of structures including joints are designed for test specimens, which are shown in the Figs. 5 and 6 . The unit for the dimensions given in the Figs. 5 and 6 is mm. Whether a pulse force hammer or a vibration exciter is employed, the test specimen used in the form of the structural
4.3. Dynamic parameter identiﬁcation of the ﬁxed joints
When the FRFs characteristics of the structural joints are obtained, the nonlinear least square method is adopted to identify the dynamic parameters of ﬁxed joints in Eq. (4). According to the modal testing in Figs. 7 (a) and (b), the stiffness matrix (previous 12 12 submatrix) of the test specimen is identiﬁed as follows:
K 0 ¼
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
2 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 5 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
8 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
3 :3 e þ 7
2 : 5 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
3 :6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
6 : 6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 6 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
1 : 3 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 :5 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
8 :6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
3 : 3 e þ 7
2 : 5 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
6 : 6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
3 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
2 :0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 6 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
5 :0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 :0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
1 : 3 e þ 8
8 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 5 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
3 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
6 :6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 :5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
3 : 3 e þ 7
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 :0 e þ 8
5 :0 e þ 7
1 : 3 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 :0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 6 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
8 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 5 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 8
6 : 6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
3 :6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 8
3 :3 e þ 7
2 :5 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 5 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 8
3
7
1 : 0 e þ 8 7
7
7
7
1 : 0 e þ 8 7
7
7
7
1 : 3 e þ 8 7
7
2 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1 : 0 e þ 9 7
7
7
5 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
5 : 0 e þ 7
4 : 6 e þ 8
5 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 9
7
7
5
joints in Fig. 6 is not fully excited into the modal shapes that characterize the relative movement of the joints. However, the test specimen used in the form of the structural joint in Fig. 5 can be easily excited into the modal shapes that characterize the relative movement of joints. Therefore, the form of the structural joint in Fig. 5 is adopted to implement the dynamic experiment of the ﬁxed joints.
4.2. Dynamic experiment setup
As shown in Figs. 7 (a) and (b), a dynamic testing device is set up, which includes the LMS Test.lab vibration testing and analysis system. A modal testing was performed on a test specimen. The test specimen is composed of two substructures with upand bottom blocks, which are connected as a whole by two screws. The specimen material is 45 # steel. The dimension of each sub structure is 190 mm 190 mm 110 mm. The size of the joint surface is 60 mm 31.5 mm. The boss height is 29 mm and the bolt pretightening torque is 45 Nm. In the process of the modal testing, the used impact hammer is 086C04 piezoelectric impact hammer produced by U.S. PCB. Its head is a kind of nylon materials. The testing accelerometer
5. 
Effectiveness veriﬁcation of dynamic model of ﬁxed joints 
5.1. 
Comparison of results with other researchers 
The result of this paper is compared with that of the bolts connected springdamper model in literature [19] and that of the Yoshimura model in literature [10] . The specimen material is 45 # steel, the size of the joint is 60 mm 31.5 mm 29mm, the dimension of the substructure is 190 mm 190 mm 110 mm, and the bolt pretightening torque is 45 Nm. The two substructures are connected by two M16 bolts. The average applied force of the joint surface is
F 0 ¼
T
0 : 2 45 _{0} _{:} _{0}_{1}_{6} ¼ 14062 : 5 N
0 : 2 d ^{¼}
ð 12 Þ
where T represents the pretightening torque, d represents the nominal diameter of the bolts, F _{0} represents the pretightening force. Furthermore, the average pressure of the joint surface is
P n ¼
^{F} ^{0}
14062 : 5
p q ^{¼}
_{0} _{:} _{0}_{6} _{} _{0} _{:} _{0}_{3}_{1}_{5} ¼ 7 : 4404762 MPa
ð 13 Þ
Table 1 The ﬁrst sixorder modal shapes and modal frequencies.
Mode shape 
Experimental result from the model in this paper (Hz) 
Theoretical result from the model in this paper (Hz) 
Yoshimura model in literature [10] (Hz) 
Boltsconnected springdamper model in literature [19] (Hz) 
1 yawing 
409 
409 
110 
87 
2 rolling 
471 
451 
385 
456 
3 pitching 
871 
853 
755 
886 
4 leftright translation 
1673 
1765 
391 
309 
5 frontback translation 
2130 
2278 
394 
310 
6 updown translation 
2568 
2647 
1852 
2430 
ARTICLE IN PRESS
162
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
where p represents the length of the joint, q represents the width of the joint, P _{n} represents the average pressure of the joint surface.
(1) Calculation of spring stiffness in boltsconnected spring damper model in literature [19] The relation between the normal displacement and average pressure of the joint in boltsconnected springdamper model are express as
14 Þ
where P _{n} represents the average pressure of the joint, l represents the normal displacement of the joint, a and m are constant values decided by the material and machining technique of the joint. Thus, the normal stiffness of the joint is
l ¼ aP
m
n
ð
_{K} n _{¼} dP _{n} d l ^{¼} am ^{P}
1
1
n
m
:
ð 15 Þ
For the test specimen in Fig. 7 (b), it is deﬁned that a =0.65 and m =0.5. So the normal stiffness K _{n} is equal to 4 1.929e9 N/m. The tangential stiffness of the joint is
ð 16 Þ
where k _{t} is the unit area tangential stiffness of the joint. s is the area of the joint. It is given in literature [19] that k _{t} is equal to 1 10 N/m3. So the tangential stiffness k _{t} is calculated by k _{t} multiplied by s with the result of 4 4.725e6 N/m (1 10 N/m3 0.06 m 0.0315 m). (2) Calculation of the normal and tangential stiffness of the Yoshimura model in literature [10] According to the corre
K _{t} ¼ k _{t} s
sponding chart in literature [10] , it is known that the normal stiffness K _{n} is equal to 4 6.237e8 N / m, and the tangential stiffness K _{t} is equal to 4 7.702e6 N/m. The ﬁrst sixorder modal shapes and modal frequencies of the
three 
models are shown in Table 1 . From Table 1 , it is found 
that 
the error between the theoretical and experimental 
results from the dynamic model of the joints described in the existing literature is relatively great, while the error of the model proposed in this paper is less than 7%. It indicates that
the model proposed in this paper is more advanced and
reliable.
5.2. Veriﬁcation on the long beam structure
(1) The dynamic model of the long beam structure with the beamrail connection
The BeamRail Connection in the MC2000 Plano machining
center produced by Beijing Machinery and Electricity Institute
is implemented by using bolts. The width and height of the
rail is respectively 63 mm and 58 mm, the centertocenter
distance between the bolts is 120 mm, and the bolted pre tightening torque is 90 Nm. Thus, a joint specimen similar to Fig. 7 (b) is created. The size of its joint surface is 120 mm 63 mm, the dimension of its substructure is 300 mm 300
mm 120 mm, and the boss height is 50 mm.
A modal testing similar to Fig. 7 (a) is executed on the
designed joint specimen. So the FRFs characteristics of the
structure including joint of the specimen are obtained. And
then, the stiffness matrix is identiﬁed as follows:
K 0 ¼
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
5 : 7 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 9
3 : 8 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 :0 e þ 8
2 : 2 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 8
2 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 :0 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
3 : 4 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 : 4 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
4 : 8 e þ 9
4 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
4 : 7 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 9
2 : 1 e þ 8
1 : 9 e þ 9
3 : 8 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 0 e þ 8
5 :7 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 9
2 :3 e þ 9
2 :5 e þ 8
1 :0 e þ 9
2 : 2 e þ 9
1 :3 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
3 : 4 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 : 4 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 8
4 :0 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
4 : 7 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
4 : 8 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
2 : 1 e þ 8
1 : 9 e þ 9
2 :0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 6 e þ 7
2 : 2 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 8
2 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
5 : 7 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 9
3 : 8 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 0 e þ 8
1 :3 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 :1 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 :4 e þ 8
2 :1 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
3 : 4 e þ 9
1 :1 e þ 9
2 :5 e þ 8
2 :1 e þ 8
5 :3 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 6 e þ 7
1 : 0 e þ 9
2 : 1 e þ 8
1 : 9 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
4 : 8 e þ 9
4 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
4 : 7 e þ 8
2 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 : 0 e þ 9
2 : 2 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 8
3 : 8 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
4 : 0 e þ 8
5 : 7 e þ 9
1 : 3 e þ 9
2 : 0 e þ 9
2 : 5 e þ 8
1 : 4 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 8
2 : 5 e þ 8
2 : 1 e þ 8
5 : 3 e þ 8
1 : 3 e þ 9
3 : 4 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 9
3
7
2 : 1 e þ 8 7
7
7
7
2 : 0 e þ 8 7
7
7
7
7
2 : 6 e þ 7 7
7
7
7
5 : 3 e þ 8 7
7
4 : 7 e þ 8
2 : 0 e þ 9 7
7
7
7
7
7
5
7
7
1 : 0 e þ 9
1 : 9 e þ 9
1 : 1 e þ 8
4 : 0 e þ 8
1 : 1 e þ 9
4 : 8 e þ 9
Table 2 Modal frequencies and errors of the joint of the long beam specimen.
Mode shape 
Experimental 
Theoretical 
Error 
result (Hz) 
result (Hz) 

1 rolling 
394.287 
405 
2.717% 
2 yawing 
409.289 
409.3 
0% 
3 pitching 
783.722 
777.8 
0.75% 
4 leftright translation 
1403.532 
1463.4 
4.266% 
5 frontback 
1681.608 
1626.5 
3.277% 
translation 

6 updown translation 
1758.438 
1872.7 
6.498% 
The modal frequencies from the dynamic model of the joint of
the long beam structure are shown in Table 2. From Table 2, it is found that the greatest error is less than 6.5%. The results make it
clear that the dynamic modeling and its parameter identiﬁcation
method of the ﬁxed joints in this paper are practical. The ﬁrst sixorder theoretical and experimental modal shapes are displayed in Fig. 8.
(2) The dynamic model of the 1505 mm long beam
A rail specimen composed of two 1505 mm 63 mm 58
mm long beams is designed and manufactured, which is
connected by 20 M16 bolts. A modal testing is executed on
the rail specimen, as shown in Fig. 9 .
Fig. 9. Modal testing of a rail specimen.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
163
Table 3 Modal freqencies and errors of long beam specimen.
Modal shape 
Experimental 
Theoretical 
Error 

result (Hz) 
result (Hz) 

X 
ﬁrstorder bending 
148 
147 
0.7% 
Y 
ﬁrstorder bending 
243 
267 
9.8% 
X 
secondorder 
402 
406 
1.0% 
bending 

X 
thirdorder bending 
774 
798 
3.1% 
After the modal testing is implemented, the dynamic parameters of the rail joint are identiﬁed and the dynamic model of the rail including the joint is built through using the dynamic modeling and its parameter identiﬁcation method proposed in this paper. The theoretical and experimental modal frequencies of the rail specimen are shown in Table 3 . From Table 3 , it is found that the error between the theoretical and experimental results of the whole structure composed of two long beams is less than 10%, which indicates the dynamic model proposed in this paper is effective.
Fig. 10. (a1) Theoretical result of X ﬁrstorder bending and (b1) Experimental result of X ﬁrstorder bending, (a2) Theoretical result of Y ﬁrstorder bending and (b2) Experimental result of Y ﬁrstorder bending, (a3) Theoretical result of X secondorder bending and (b3) Experimental result of X secondorder bending, (a4) Theoretical result of X thirdorder bending and (b4) Experimental result of X thirdorder bending.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
164
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156–164
The theoretical and experimental modal shapes are displayed in Fig. 10 .
6. Conclusion
A new dynamic modeling method of the ﬁxed joints in machine tools is proposed in this paper. By the experi mental analysis and veriﬁcation, the conclusions are drawn as follows:
(1) The ﬁnite element model of the ﬁxed joints is built through considering the relative motion between the substructures composed of the joints. Compared with other current researches of the joints, it is found that the dynamic model proposed in this paper can reﬂect the dynamic characteristics of the joints more accurately. The reason is that it has considered about the coupling among various degrees of freedom. (2) A highprecision parameter identiﬁcation method for the dynamic model of the ﬁxed joints is introduced. The advantage of the parameter identiﬁcation method is that the dynamic test data of the whole structure including the joint can be applied to identify the model parameters, which improve the accuracy of parameter identiﬁcation. (3) The effectiveness and accuracy of the dynamic modeling and the parameter identiﬁcation method proposed in this paper have been veriﬁed by experiments. The error between the theoretical and experimental results of the our model is less than 10%, while the error of the Yoshimura model often used in the existing literature is three times bigger than our model.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Basic Research Program of China, Grant No. 2005CB724101 and National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 50975104. The authors are grateful to other participants of the projects for their cooperation.
References
[1] S. Taylor, S.A. Tobias, Lumpedconstants method for the prediction of the vibration characteristics of machine tool structures, in: Proceedings of ﬁfth International MTDR Conference, Pergamon, 1964 37–42. [2] J.A.W. Hijink, A.C.H. Van Der Wolf, Analysis of a milling machine: computed results versus experimental data, in: Proceedings of 14th International MTDR Conference, Manchester, UK/Ed. J.M. Alexander (1973) 553–558. [3] M. Yoshihara, Computeraided design improvement of machine tool states incorporating joint dynamics data, Annals of the CIRP 28 (1) (1979) 241–246. [4] M. Dalenbring, Damping function estimation based on measured vibration frequency responses and ﬁniteelement displacement modes, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 13 (1999) 547–569. [5] T. Inamura, T. Sata, Stiffness and damping identiﬁcation of the elements of a machine tool structure, CIRP Annuals 28 (1979) 235–239. [6] J.A. Greenwood, J.H. Tripp, The elastic contact of rough sphere, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics 34 (1967) 153–159. [7] J.A. Greenwood, J.P.B. Williamson, Contact of nominally ﬂat surface, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 295 (1442) (1966) 300–319. [8] E.F. Crawley, A.C. Aubert, Identiﬁcation of nonlinear structural element by forcestate mapping, AIAA Journal 24 (1) (1986) 155–162. [9] Xi Shi, Measurement and modeling of normal contact stiffness and contact damping at the meso scale, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 127 (2005) 52–60. [10] M. Yoshimura, Making use of CAD technology based on the dynamic characteristics data of joints to improve the structural rigidity of machine tools, Machine Tools 1 (1979) 142–146. [11] Z.F. Tong, J. Zhang, Research on the dynamic characteristic and its identiﬁcation of the joint between column and bed of a machining center, Journal of Vibration and Shock 43 (3) (1992) 13–19. [12] C.F. Beads, Damping in structural joints, The Shock and Vibration Digest 6 (1982) 563–570. [13] J. Tlusty, F. Ismail, Dynamic structural identiﬁcation task and methods, Annals of CIRP 29 (1980). [14] J.H. Wang, C.M. Liou, Identiﬁcation of parameters of structural joints by use of noisecontaminated FRFs, Journal of Sound and Vibration 142 (2) (1990) 261–277. [15] Y. Ren, C.F. Beards, Identiﬁcation of ‘effective’ linear joints using coupling and joint identiﬁcation techniques, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 120 (2) (1998) 331–338. [16] J.X. Yuan, X.M. Wu, Identiﬁcation of the joint structural parameters of machine tool by DDS and FEM, Journal of Engineering for Industry 107 (1985) 64–69. [17] Y.M. Huang, W.P. Fu, L.X. Dong, Research on the dynamic normal characteristic parameters of joint surface, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 29 (3) (1993) 74–78. [18] Y.M. Huang, W.P. Fu, J.X. Tong, A method of acquiring applied tangential damping parameters of joint surfaces, Journal of Xi’an University of Technology 12 (1) (1996) 1–5. [19] B.Y. Liao, X.M. Zhou, Z.H. Yin, in: Modern mechanical dynamics and its application: modeling, analysis, simulation, modiﬁcation, control, optimiza tion, China Machine Press, Beijing, 2004.
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.