A Diagnostic Approach for Turning Tool based on the Dynamic Force Signals

S. E. Oraby*, A. F. Al-Modhuf** and D. R. Hayhurst***

* Assoc. Prof., Dept. Prod. and Mech. Design, Faculty of Eng., Suez Canal University, Port Said, Egypt (on
leave). Currently, Assist. Prof., Dept. Mech. Prod. Tech., College of Technological Studies, PAAET, P.O. Box
42325 Shuwaikh 70654, Kuwait,
Phone: (+965) 9549019, Email: soraby@paaet.edu.kw, homepage: www.geocities.com/soraby/
** Assist. Prof., Dept. Mech. Prod. Tech., College of Technological Studies,
PAAET, P.O. Box 42325 Shuwaikh 70654, Kuwait,
*** Prof., Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and manufacturing
Engineering, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Sackville Street, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
KEYWORDS
Dynamic force signals, Tool wear, Time series analysis, ARMA modeling, Green's Function.

ABSTRACT
One of the key issues in tool condition monitoring is the proper handling of the measured
response signals. The selected response signals must be informative, sensitive to any variation
in the system and, at the same time, is economically feasible that can be implemented with
minimum alterations of the system structure.
In the current work it is proposed a simple and fast softwired tool wear monitoring approach
based upon the features of the time series analysis and the Greens Function (GF) features.
The proposed technique involves the decomposition of the force signals into deterministic
component and stochastic variation-carrying component. Then, only the stochastic component
is processed to detect the adequate ARMA (AutoRegressive Moving Average) models
representing the tool state at every wear condition. Models are further reduced to form a more
representative parameter; the "Green's Function (GF)". This reflects the dynamic behavior of
the tool prior to failure and, may provides a comprehensive and accurate measure of the
damping behavior of the cutting process subsystem. As wear enters the high rate region, the

1
cutting process is forced toward the instability domain where it tends to have less damping
resistance.
It is also explained how a system response surface can be generated based on its
Green's Function. It is proposed that this concept can be the basis for a diagnostic technique
for use with many systems.

1. INTRODUCTION
Performance of any process is usually evaluated in terms of its productivity and surface
quality. Each of these controlling criteria is affected directly, and in different way by the tool
edge wear and fracture.
Due to difficulties encountered in the direct monitoring of the in-process tool state in fully
automated machining systems, many methods are proposed instead. These methods are
usually achieved via observing variations in one or more of the operation responses (outputs)
related to tool deformation and, consequently, exploited to investigate the aspect of tool wear
monitoring and control [1-6]. Although many successful attempts have been reported,
research is still carried on seeking a smart integrated strategy.
In order to reach a satisfactory outcome, a proper formulation approach should be
implemented to detect and handle the most appropriate response signals. The strategy and
manipulation techniques by which signals are processed usually determine the feasibility of
the proposed approach.

A robust online wear monitoring and control technique depends, to great extent, on the
sensitivity of the data carrier (machining output or response) in addition to the mathematical
and formulation tools by which the useful information can be isolated from the huge variation
involved.

2
Among responses from machining operation, cutting forces are always considered as one of
the most reliable measures for tool wear monitoring and breakage detection [2-4]. Both static
and dynamic force components are frequently used. Variation in static force signals shows a
good correlation with tool wear progress in fixed parameters machining systems [4&7-9].
However, in situations where cutting parameters, especially feed and depth of cut, are subject
to on line change, wear effects is usually masked where static force trend is no longer
appropriate. In such situations, dynamic oscillations pattern is better to be used instead [5].
However, cutting vicinity is always surrounded by some hostile environmental disturbances
and noise and, the isolation from force signals, what is the only relevant and sensitive
component presents a challenge among investigators.
Among the approaches introduced to deal with force and vibration signals are the spectral
analysis [5&10], the conventional averaging and time series analysis [1113]. Although
averaging and filtering are simple and fast, they narrow the frequency bandwidth thus leading
to masking the effect of some random disturbances such as tool chipping and fracture [11].
Time series to analyze dynamic signals includes the ARMA analysis [12] and, the Dynamic
Data Systems [13]. Many investigators employed both the time series ARMA analysis and the
Dynamic Data Systems DDS technique to monitor machining performance. In their work,
Pandit and Kashou [13&14] have applied the methodology for tool wear monitoring through
the analysis of cutting vibration. Although these are very useful studies in this field, the
proposed technique is very complicated and time-consuming. It requires higher order ARMA
model, ARMA(20,19), which would increase the response time. Although a similar wear-
vibration trend was depicted by two of the authors [15] using much simpler experimental and
computational procedures, experience always indicated that vibration was not the response of
choice. Environmental noise, in addition to instantaneous variation in system dynamic
features, usually acts against reaching a firm and universal conclusion. Bandyopadhyay et. al.

3
[16] have used the Dynamic Data Systems to analyze the dynamics of the thrust/torque
signals of drilling operations to develop a "Normalized Damping Ratio" as the ratio between a
worn tool and that with no wear. This showed good correlation with average flank wear for
various drill sizes and speeds. Oglec and Guttermuth [17] suggested a numerical technique
based on ARMA time series analysis to represent the tool force dynamics as affected by some
controlling parameters: depth of cut, feed rate, and axial tool position. A One-by-One
parameter technique was introduced and claimed to be superior to the Dynamic Data System
methodology. However, information regarding tool wear has not been reported.
Altintas [18] has used time series analysis to develop a softwired filter, AR(1), to separate the
cutting transients from a tool breakage event in milling operation. The DDS methodology has
also been used in the detection of the tool failure and breakage [19&20]. Also, time series
analysis and DDS methodology are frequently used to provide information about system
stability and its dynamic characteristics [21-23], and determine the stability boundary of the
machine-tool system [24].
Moreover, the DDS approach has gained acceptance in various applications such as the
dynamic calibration of force transducers [25], the determination of the dynamics of surface
generation in turning [26] and even in the digital image processing [27].
Therefore, time series analysis can produce a significant and comprehensive modeling
technique if a proper isolation of the only variation-carrying component is successfully
isolated from the entire signals. Nevertheless, it can be stated that a robust data processing
technique to analyze and to formulate the functional relationship between tool wear and the
accompanied variation in the force signals is still debatable and a fast, accurate, sensitive, and
economically feasible approach is still required.
In this study, the possible hidden correlation between instantaneous tool wear state and the
corresponding variations in the stochastic signals (residuals) of the dynamic force signals is

4
investigated. Special attention is devoted to the instant at which the tool is unexpectedly and
catastrophically failed due to temperature softening.
In order to apply time series analysis, data or signals should be of random stationary
nature. Applying ARMA technique to a non-stationary time series usually leads to incorrect
results. Also, the conversion of the non-stationary data using first and second integration is
not a good strategy since some useful features may be lost. As stated by Spiewak and Wu
[28], getting rid of the deterministic components is a difficult problem and, therefore, they
handled the problem through what they called "Intelligent Filtering" by the decomposition of
the force signals into components having close relationships with physical phenomena taking
place during cutting. However, in the current study, the remaining stochastic signals are
modeled using AutoRegressive Moving Average ARMA procedures employing the
appropriate statistical criteria to examine the significance and the adequacy of the resulting
models. For each wear level, the corresponding model is further reduced to the equivalent
"Green's Function" (GF), which determines its behavior dynamic characteristics.
Working on only the stochastic part of the signals pattern is considered bearing in mind its
suitability to be used in adaptive control strategy where cutting parameters are continuously
subjected to change as the need arises. Variable parameters affect only the deterministic part
of the force signals. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier, the use of both elements of the signals
are necessary in the prediction and forecasting circumstances.

Due its simplicity, the proposed tool can be manipulated in a reasonable low response time
strategy to monitor and control of tool wear and breakage using minimal hardware and on-line
transducers instrumentation. Experimental set up and signal processing techniques throughout
the different stages of the current work are schematically illustrated in Fig. 1.

5


Machining Tests
3
-
D

D
y
n
a
m
o
m
e
t
e
r


Optical Microscope
Wear-Time



Measurement
Recording Force Signals
Static Component Isolation
Nonlinear Regression
Modeling
Residuals (Stochastic)

ARMA Modeling
Model Signature
W
e
a
r
-
N
o
i
s
e

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

GREENS FUNCTION












Fig. 1 Experimental Set up and Signal Processing Procedures
In section 3, it is explained how the stochastic force component is isolated from the
data carrying signals. Also, modeling using the time series ARMA procedures is explained.
Section 3 explains how each developed model is reduced to its equivalent "Green's Function".
A numerical procedure is introduced to indicate how a response can be generated from a
system signals providing its Green's Function is known.




6
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Multi-coated carbide inserts (Sandvik GC415 ISO P15) are used to turn hard and
tempered alloy steel (En24) 8-inch bars. Such types of tools and workpiece material are
selected for comparison with the different tool grade (Sandvik GC435), which was used
previously [7]. Dry turning is carried out employing a rigid Colchester 1600 Mascot center
lathe. Actual workpiece rotation is directly read from a digital counter based on pulses from
the loaded spindle. Force signals are measured using a three-component dynamometer [29]
and digitized using a three-channel ADC, Fig. 1, at a sampling period of 0.036 s, then they are
permanently stored for further off-line analysis. Test consists of subtests at about 2 min
interval repeated until the tool is failed by plastic deformation. After machining of each
subtest, nose wear is evaluated using a 3-dimensional optical microscope. Wear values at the
end of each subtest are shown in Fig. 2. A high surface speed of 200 m/min is selected for
testing to ensure a noticeable wear progress and also to be well within the practical speed
range of employed in modern machine tools. Another advantage of using such an operational
range is to avoid built-up edge formation mechanism and, to be inside the stable chatter-free
machining domain.
Figure 3 shows the records of the six subtests consisting the whole test. The static mean of
force usually increases as wear increases. Force signals are plotted against the sampling
sequence considering a sampling time of 0.026s between every two successive readings. The
tangential force component F
y
, however, is not as sensitive to progressive wear as the other
feeding F
x
and F
z
components. While F
y
increases only about 40% of its original mean value
until the tool is plastically failed (subtest f, Fig. 3), a corresponding increase of about 700% is
noticed within the same period for F
x
and F
z
. Also, both F
x
and F
z
increase about 100% of
their original value at subtest e and around 125% at subtest f where wear level reaches 0.344
mm. This is expected since the F
y
is predominately determined by the cross-section of a cut

7
and changes only slightly as tool wears, while both F
x
and F
z
are mainly penetrating and
frictional loads and hence are very sensitive to wear. Therefore, the thrust component normal
to the cutting edge F
xz
, (F
xz =
F
x
sin + F
z
cos , is the approach angle), is better used in the
analysis [4]. Another reason to use the thrust component F
xz
is, as experienced in this
research, the wear developed on the cutting edge does not conform to a uniform pattern. The
frequent but irregular chipping and fracture of the edge, subtest c (after 6 min), is observed
during optical examination of the tool. This widens the cut frictional area between the edge
and the workpiece leading to instantaneous force increase. At subtests a-c, Fig. 3, F
x
and F
z
tend to have similar values due to the fact that wear has almost regular pattern on both nose
and flank. At later stages, subtest d, F
z
attains slightly higher rate revealing the possibility of
nose wear domination. Subsequent data, subtests e&f, supported the idea that this is the onset
of the tool softening stage where the edge started to lose bulk material. This supports the idea
that there is a strong evidence that force signals are an efficient carrier of useful information
about how and when edge is deformed and, an appropriate technique is required to recognize,
and to isolate this information. In a previous study by one of the authors [5], different tool
failure forms are successfully monitored and assessed via force signals using spectral analysis
techniques. In this study, same data are manipulated using more physically interpreted
approach which is the time series analysis and its associated Greens Function.

3. ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Constituents of the Cutting Force Signals
Large numbers of parameters are involved in the dynamics of tool-workpiece
engagement during metal removal by machining. Variations in the force signals are caused by
variability in one or more of the system's elements: machine tool, workpiece, or cutting tool
and hence the first approximation of steady state static cutting is invalidated. Variability also

8
results from many other sources such as the chip formation and its separation mechanism.
Moreover, each of the above sources can have a mutual pronounced interference (interaction).
It is accordingly suggested [12] that force variations can be attributed to one or more of the
subsystems: the cutting process, mechanical structure of the machine tool, or a secondary
mode system and can be considered as:
(1) ) i ( X ) i ( F ) i ( F
t o t
+ =
where; (F
o
) is the deterministic, or the static mean component and (X
t
) is the stochastic, or the
"white noise" component of the signal F
t
.

3.2 Isolation of the Deterministic Trend
As shown by Figs. 2&3, tool was plastically deformed at the end of the sixth subtest
(f) after attaining a high level of progressive wear. Many model structures are evaluated using
non-linear regression technique to formulate the deterministic part of the force signals. Plain
first order model produced poor results while adding exponential term improved the model
predictability through giving better statistical criteria. Also, less number of iterations was
found to converge to the final model. This is thought to be due to the non-linearity involved in
the mean, or deterministic, part of the force signals. The proposed model structure takes the
form:
(2) e ) t ( ) i ( F
) t (
2 1 o o
+ + + =
where; s are the coefficients of the model, (t) is the aggregated time for a given interval and
is the residuals. Non-linear recursive regression analysis is used to estimate the models
coefficients s for each subtest using the last 1000 readings of the force record, Fig. 3.
Results and significance criteria are listed in Table 1. The determination factor (R
2
) indicates
how much of the variance in force signals is accounted for. The (R
2
) initially increases as
wear increases and then, sharply drops at wear level of 0.29 mm. which is considered as

9
failure onset. Higher increase is found when tool enters the softening failure zone represented
by subtests e&f. The residuals-sum of squares (RSS) varies differently at different wear
levels, (Table 1). At the constant wear rate region, subtests a&b, (RSS) value are almost
constant. However, it suddenly reaches a higher level as the tool enters the plastic
deformation zone, subtests e&f. This implies that a great proportion of the disturbances due to
tool wear is carried by the stochastic part of the force series and an appropriate modeling
strategy may quantitatively describe their true influential relationship.





Fig. 2 Wear-Time Curve and Cutting Conditions
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (min)
0
1
2
3
4
5
N
o
s
e

W
e
a
r

(
m
m
)

Speed: 200 m/min.
Feed; 0.2 mm/rev.
DOC: 2.5 mm.

10

Fx

Fy

Edge Chipping High Wear Rate Onset
Edge softening onset Edge Plastic Deformation
Fy
Fy
Fy
Fy
Fx
Fx
Fx
Fz
Fz
Fz
Fz

Fig. 3 Recorded Dynamic Force Signals

3.3 Time Series Modeling Analysis of the Stochastic Component of Force Signals
In the case of zero tool wear, residuals after the deterministic modeling () are of a
random "white noise" time series with uncorrelated zero mean and standard deviation. As

11
wear develops on cutting edge, the series is disturbed. The emerged characteristics can be
formulated by the AutoRegression Moving Average ARMA(n,m) model. The ARMA model
takes a set of data registrations and recasts it into a discrete, recursive, linear stochastic
format:
(3) ........ ..........
......... ..........
2 2 1 1
2 2 1 1
m t m t t t
n t n t t t
a a a a
X X X X



=



where; (X
t
) denotes the state parameter at instant (t), (a
t
) denotes the residuals zero mean
"white noise" term, (
i
) is the autoregressive coefficients at i=1,2,3,..,n and (
j
) is the
moving average coefficients at j=1,2,3,....,m. ARMA model usually expresses the dependence
of one variable on its own past values, or the effect of some disturbances a
t
's on the behavior
of subsequent values of the variable. A disturbance affecting a system lasts a certain period
depending on its dynamic damping resistance. Adequate ARMA(n,m) is usually obtained by
fitting higher-order (n,m), (m>n-1) models and applying the checks of adequacy. This is
carried out in steps by increasing the order by two. The model is usually judged through the
reduction in the residuals-sum of squares (RSS) and the F-value.
The statistical significance of the reduction in (RSS) after increasing the order of the model is
checked by the F-criterion [11]:
(4) ) , (
1
r N S F
r N
o
A
S
o
A A
F =

=
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(

where; (A
o
) is the smaller (RSS) of the ARMA(2n+2,2n+1) model, (A
1
) is the larger (RSS) of
the ARMA(2n, 2n-1) model, F(S,N-r) denotes the F-distribution with (S) and (N-r) degrees of
freedom, r=(2n+2)+(2n+1)= 4n+3, S= number of additional parameters in the higher-order
model and N=number of observations. Estimation procedures start with n=0 which yields an

12
ARMA(2,1) model, then n=1 which gives ARMA(4,3) and so on. Procedures are terminated
once an adequate model is obtained.
The ARMA modeling procedures are carried out for each subtest in turn using special
software in association with (SPSS) statistical computer package. Results are shown in Tables
2-7 with the adequate model in the last column. The corresponding (RSS) and F-value are at
the last two rows of each table.
Generally, as wear level increases, higher-order autoregressive models are found
necessary to adequately fit the data. As shown in Tables 3-7, these adequate models are
AR(2), AMRA(3,1), ARMA(3,3), ARMA(4,1) and ARMA(4,1) - for subtests b, c, d, f, and f
respectively. Again, three levels may be distinguished: the first at subtest b, the second at
subtests c&d and the third at subtests e&f. While the moving average parameters ( ) are
not affected, the autoregressive parameters ( ) are always greater as the wear level
advances. This reflects the strong dependence of data on its preceding values, where the tool
wear is a continuous and dependent disturbance to the signals.
s
,

s
,

Nevertheless, a higher-order ARMA(4,2) is found adequate to fit the data of the first subtest
even though of a low wear level, (Table 2). This is due to the discontinuous nature of tool
wear (chipping) associated with the rapid initial wear rate [21]. However, the low model
parameters and the slight (RSS) reduction imply that it is just on the boundary of the domain
and an ARMA(2,1) can be considered adequate without sacrificing accuracy. Another
exception is that a larger number of moving average parameters is resulted for subtest d,
(Table 5). This agrees with the practical onset of the plastic deformation zone as high wear
rate originated at the tool's nose area at the second half of the subtest, (Fig. 3.d). This affected
the radial force component (F
z
) only. Shortly following that, the tool failed by thermal
softening leading to a simultaneous increase in both the feed (F
x
) and the radial (F
z
)
components and, consequently, in the thrust (F
xz
) component. Table 8 indicates how much of

13
the deterministic (RSS) are reduced after the development of the adequate final ARMA
model. The (RSS) reduction represents the part of the stochastic component induced by the
associated amount of tool wear. As shown by Fig. 4 and data in Table 8, similar quantitative
trend of variability is obtained for both the final higher order adequate model and the
ARMA(2,1). For the first three subtests a, b and c, RSS increased proportionally. However, at
a point around the practical critical wear (between 0.3 and 0.35 mm), the (RSS) reduction
suddenly drops to its minimum value, then significantly increases as wear enters its final
softening where approximately 90% of variability is attributed to only wear.


Fig. 4 Comparison between ARMA(2,1) and the final adequate ARMA model
0.161 0.206 0.278 0.29
0.344 Failure
Wear (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S
S

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

%

Adequate Model
ARMA(2,1)





14
4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOOL WEAR AND DYNAMIC CHANGES IN THE
CUTTING PROCESS SUBSYSTEM
According to the conclusion previously drawn, a cutting process subsystem can be
expressed by a second-order one-degree of freedom dynamic system. Such a system may be
expressed by an ARMA(2,1):
(5)
1 1 2 2 1 1
=
t t t t t
a a X X X
Characteristics equation is:
(6) 0
2 1
2
=
with roots;
{ } (7) 4
2
1
2
2
1 1 2 , 1
+ =
However, machining stability is determined by satisfaction of the following
constraints:
(8)
0
0
0 4
1 2
2 1
2
2
1
(
(
(

<
< +
+





4.1 Green's Function of the Force Signals
One of the parameters that describe the dynamics features of the system is the Green's
Function. It explains how the disturbances (a
t
's) affect or influence the response (X
t
) by
expressing the response as a linear combination of a
t
's. For ARMA(2,1), Green's Function
(Gj) can be expressed in the characterized form:
(9)
2 2 1 1
j j
j
g g G + =
in which;
(10) ,
1 2
1 2
2
2 1
1 1
1 (

=
(

=




g and g

15
Parameters of the ARMA(2,1) determined for each subtest are summarized in Tables
2-7. To demonstrate the dynamic characteristics throughout the tools working lifetime,
Green's Function values (G
j
), j=0,1,...100, are considered and a graphical representation is
shown in Fig. 5 (a-f). Additionally, a 3D global representation for the same results is shown in
Fig. 6. Greens function starts with a unit value at j=0 implying a steady state stable
conditions. Then, its further behavior usually relies both on the severity of the current
disturbances and the permanent impact remaining from the preceding disturbances. At lower
wear levels, subtests a, b and c, Fig. 3, the tool dynamic oscillations decay rapidly reaching a
maximum damping resistance, or minimum amplitude, at subtest d. At subtest e, system
shows a significant instability level or, very low damping resistance. This trends continues
through subtest f at which tool catastrophically fails, Fig. 3.f.
Through the first three subtests, the tools dynamic characteristics are almost unchanged
especially at subtests a&b since wear is within the low rate level and, therefore, there is no
severe past or current disturbances. As a result, oscillations die out rapidly revealing a higher
damping resistance. Throughout that interval, the tool indicates one-sided positive oscillations
due to edge acuteness and inherent low friction. In subtest e, Figs. 3.e & 5.e, the tool is set
into total instability (two-side oscillations) due to the high wear rate and friction that was
initiated in the preceding subtests. This explains that the tool still strives to retain some of its
hardness, hence resisting the imposed fluctuating friction stresses. As indicated by the
Greens function, the damping resistance is reduced due to the fact that both the near past and
the current disturbances are of higher (higher wear rate). As wear rate increases, eg. In subtest
f, Fig. 3.f & 5.f, the edge starts to deteriorate gradually losing much of its material and
hardness until it is in a position where a very tight contact occurs between the tool and the
rotating workpiece, hence constraining the tool to vibrate in one direction only. This is shown
in Fig. 5.f by the undamped positive values of the Green's Function.

16
A similar trend was noticed in previous research by one of the authors [15] in which
vibration-wear interrelation was investigated. Oscillation amplitude at tools natural
frequency was found to reach its minimum value at the point where wear reached its criterion
level (the end of constant wear rate region) before it increased again. However, the dynamic
force technique produces a more accurate and consistent assessment of the tool state since it is
less sensitive to eddy current and other hostile environmental noise sources that always
accompany vibration signals.
A general overview on the whole test is shown in Fig. 6 where the six cases are gathered for
easy interpretation and comparison.

4.2 Response Generation using Green's Function
To extract the tools dynamic behavior under progressive tool wear, the system
response (X
t
) of the ARMA(2,1) can be generated according to relation:
(11)
0 0

=
=

=
=

= =
t j
j
j j t
j
j
j t j t
a G a G X
where a is the system disturbance or, impact.
A measure, which can be used to determine the system dynamic characteristics and behaviors
represented by the response amplitude (X
t
), is obtained by evaluating the systems response as
a reaction to regular disturbances (a
t
). A dynamically stable system with no sudden variability
is expected to behave in such a way that its output response amplitude (X
t
) is with a similar
pattern to the excited force. Deviation from such a state is usually attributed to some external
effects such as tool wear or, to a change in the systems dynamic features.
In this section two cases of system behaviors, represented by (X
t
), are presented. The first is
when the system is subjected to periodical disturbances while the other is when random
disturbances are applied.

17

(a) Subtest a
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
1
0
0
j
G
j
(b) Subtest b
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
1
0
0
j
G
j
(c) Subtest c
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
1
0
0
j
G
j
(d) Subtest d
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
1
0
1
9
2
8
3
7
4
6
5
5
6
4
7
3
8
2
9
1
1
0
0
j
G
j


(e) Subtest e
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1
1
1
0
1
9
2
8
3
7
4
6
5
5
6
4
7
3
8
2
9
1
1
0
0
j
G
j

(f) Subtest f

-
0
.
5
0
0
.
5
1
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97
j
G
j



Fig. 5 Tool dynamic characteristics under wear variation of Greens Function within a
domain of 100 disturbances (j=1 to 100)

18
-1
0
1
Gj
1
15
29
43
57
71
85
99
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
j
Subtest Seq.
Fig. 6 Three Dimensional Global View of Dynamic Characteristics of the Whole Test,
variation of Greens Function G with 100 disturbances

A periodical unit disturbances (a
t
's) has been fed into the Green's Function and hence,
the response (X
t
) of the ARMA(2,1) at a given interval is generated as explained in Tables 9-
14. The response (X
t
) has been computed according to eq. 11, the last row, as the summation
of the product of the disturbances and the Green's Function. The system response (X
t
) is
superimposed on the disturbance pattern as shown in Fig. 7(a-f) for each subtest in turn. For
the first four subtests (a-d) where lower wear levels are observed, the system response
resembles the excitation signal in both magnitude and direction. However, in subtests 5&6, at
the onset of the tools softening stage, the response amplitude (X
t
) varies in such a way that
system oscillates in one-sided positive direction. As concluded earlier, at the softening failure
stage, the tool is in tight contact with the workpiece as friction area widens. Significant tool
edge material is lost and sharp edge vanishes preventing tool-workpiece penetration

19
mechanism to continue and, this allows tool to oscillate in only one direction outward the
workpiece or in the positive vertical (power) direction.
Since, in practical machining, periodical disturbances are less likely to represent the system, a
second case is introduced where random disturbances are assumed. Data and analysis of the
case are listed in Table 15 and graphically plotted in Fig. 8. As shown by Fig. 8(a-f), the
system behaves differently at different wear levels, although it is subjected to the same
random disturbances. At lower wear values, Fig. 8(a-c), the amplitude of the system response
never exceeds the disturbance amplitude. Moreover, the influence of any disturbance at
instant j has a local effect and is not transferred to subsequent intervals. In other words, the
system oscillations usually resemble the excitation impacts; this reveals that there is no
memory effect from previous events. However, at elevated wear and wear rate, the system has
less damping resistance so that disturbances occurring at some previous event are not easily
forgotten. For subtest 5, Fig. 8.e, system behaves after j=3 as it is affected by event at (j-2). At
j=6 and a
t
=0, response (X
t
) is (2.759). Although the preceding impact was (-2), that positive
value indicates that the system is still affected by the positive impact at j=4. A similar
response may be observed in subtest f, Fig. 8.f. Generally, data of this case indicates that the
machining system is dynamically affected not only by the instantaneous tool wear and
fracture but also by the past accumulated tool deformation modes throughout its service life.
However, when the plastic deformation zone is reached, system exhibits a dominating
instantaneous effect that may hide what is left in the systems memory. This aspect may be
observed from data shown in Fig. 8.f at j= 9-11.
A general overview of the last case is shown in Fig. 9, where the response surface is generated
for the whole test (six subtests). While a stable response is noticed within the area that
characterized by the conditions of subtests (a-d), higher peaks and deeper roots are observed
for subtests (e&f)

20
Subtest a
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at Subtest b
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at

(a) (b)
Subtest c
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at

Subtest d
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at
(c) (d)
Subtest e
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at
Subtest f
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt at

(e) (f)

Fig. 7 Response generation using Greens function with
periodical impacts

21

Subtest a
-2
-1
0
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
j
X
t


(a) (b)



(c) (d)
Xt at
at
Xt at
at
Xt at
Xt at
Subtest b
-2
-1
0
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt
Subtest d
-2
-1
0
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Xt Subtest c
-2
-1
0
1
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Subtest f
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t
Subtest e
-5
-3
-1
1
3
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
j
X
t

(e) (f)

Fig. 8 Response generation using Greens function with random
impacts

22


Fig. 9 3-D Response Surface of the whole test using Greens
function with random impacts

5. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, a software approach is proposed to relate the state of the tool and its wear
with the variation encountered in the stochastic stationary component (residuals) of the
cutting force signals after the isolation of the deterministic component. AutoRegressive
Moving Average ARMA analysis has been used to obtain significant and adequate models at
various levels of progressive tool wear. Models are post-processed using the "Green's
Function" to extract information about the tool dynamic behavior at various tools
deformation wear modes. The principal conclusions are as follows:

23
Only random stochastic stationary part of the force signals is proven to carry most
variability equivalent to the severity of tool progressive wear.
The parameters of the adequate ARMA models are found to reflect the tool state
where models with higher order of autoregressive parameters are found for higher
wear levels.
To avoid complexity of calculation, ARMA(2,1) is selected to represent the
cutting process subsystem with a reasonable accuracy. Based on ARMA(2,1), the
dynamic characteristics variation due to wear is explained through its Green's
Function. Greens Function analysis indicates that at low level, system stability is
maintained. However, it explains a different trend at elevated wear level especially at
that onset of the plastic deformation zone. An undamped uni-directional damping
resistance is observed.
A numerical method is introduced and discussed which can be used to explain how
the variable dynamic characteristics of a system may be monitored using its output
data providing there is a prior knowledge about its Green's Function. The analyses
clearly demonstrated the ability of the approach to accurately detect the onset of the
plastic deformation zone.

The proposed approach may be utilized in an integrated monitoring and control system for
implementation of a tool change strategy in automated machining systems. System dynamic
characteristics are in-process defined and, examined at regular working intervals, and used to
ensure an efficient performance. As an early warning approach, system performance may be
compared at different conditions by the activation of its Green's Function or by observing its
response behavior when some disturbances are injected into its characteristics equation.


24
REFERENCES
1. E. A. Almeshaiei, S. E. Oraby and M. A. Mahmoud, Tool Wear prediction Approach for
Turning operations based on general Regression Neural Network (GRNN) Techniques,
Proc. The Int. Adaptive Computing in design and manufacture Conf., VI, Bristol UK, April
2004, pp. 161-172.
2. D. E. Dimla JR, P. M. Lister, and N. J. Leighton, (1997), Neural Network Solution to the
Tool Condition Monitoring Problem in Metal Cutting A Critical Review of Methods, Int.
J. Mach. Tools Manufact. (37) (9) pp. 1219-1241.
3. L. Dan and J. Mathew, Tool Wear and Failure Monitoring Techniques for Turning - A
Review, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact., 30(4) (1990) 579-598.
4. S. E. Oraby and D. R. Hayhurst, Tool Life Determination Based on the Measurement of
Wear and Tool Force Ratio Variation", Int. J. Machine Tools and Manufacture, 44(2004)
1261-1269.
5. S. E. Oraby," Monitoring of Machining Processes via Force Signals - Part I: Recognition
of Different Tool Failure Forms by Spectral Analysis", Wear, Vol 33, 1995.
6. S. E. Oraby, A. M. Alaskari and E. A. Almeshaiei, Quantitative and Qualitative
Evaluation of Surface Roughness Tool Wear correlation in Turning Operations, Kuwait
Journal of science & Engineering (KJSE), An International Journal of Kuwait university,
vol. 31, No. 1, June 2004.
7. S. E. Oraby and D. R. Hayhurst, Development of models for tool wear force relationships
in metal cutting, In. J. Mech. Sci. 33(2) (1991) 125-138.
8. S. K. Choudhury and K. K. Kishore, Tool wear in turning using force ration, Int. J.
Machine Tools & Manufacture 40 (2000) 899-909.

25
9. Jae-Woong Youn, Min-Yang Yang, A Study on the Relationships Between
Static/Dynamic Cutting Force Components and Tool Wear, Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, May 2001, Volume 123, Issue 2, pp. 196-205.
10. S. A. KUMAR, H. V. RAVINDRA and Y. G. SRINIVASA, In-process tool wear
monitoring through time series modeling and pattern recognition, International Journal of
Production Research, 35, 3, March 1, 1997, 739 751.
11. S. M. Pandit and S. M. Wu, Time Series and System Analysis, with Applications, John
Wiley & Sons, (1983).
12. S. M. Wu, Dynamic Data System: A New Modeling Approach, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind.
(1990) 708-714.
13. S. M. Pandit and S. Kashou, A Data Dependent Systems Strategy of On-Line Tool Wear
Sensing, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 104 (1982) 217-223.
14. S. M. Pandit and S. Kashou, Variation in Friction Coefficient with Tool Wear, Wear,
84(1) (1983) 65-79.
15. S. E. Oraby and D. R. Hayhurst, Tool Wear Detection Using the System Dynamic
Characteristics, Proc. the 2nd Int. Conf. on the Behaviour of Materials in Machining -
Advanced Machining for Quality and Productivity, The Institute of Metals, York,
ENGLAND, (1991) 39-55.
16. P. Bandyopadhyay, E. M. Gonzalez, R. Huang, and S. M. Wu, A Feasibility Study of On-
Line Drill Wear Monitoring by DDS Methodology, Int. J. Machine Tool Design and
Research, 26(3) (1986) 245-257.
17. N. Olgac and J. R. Guttermuth, A Simplified Identification Method for Autoregressive
Models of Cutting Force Dynamics, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 110 (1988) 288-296.
18. Y. Altintas, In-Process Detection of Tool Breakage using Time Series Monitoring of
Cutting Forces, Int. J. Machine Tool Design and Manufacture, 28(2) (1988) 157-172.

26
19. M. S. Lan and Y. Naerheim, In-Process Detection of Tool Breakage in Milling, Trans
ASME, J. Eng. Ind, 108 (1986) 191-196.
20. F. Richter and S. A. Spiewak, A System for On-line Detection and Prediction of
Catastrophic Tool Failure in Milling, Proc. 17th NAMRC, (1989) 137-143.
21. K. Eman and S. M. Wu, A Comparative Study of Classical Techniques and the Dynamic
Data System (DDS) Approach for Machine Tool Structure Identification, Proc. 7th
NAMRC, (1980) 401-404.
22. K. J. Kim, K. F. Eman, and S. M. Wu, Identification of Natural Frequencies Ratios of
Machine Tool Structures by the Dynamic Data System Approach, Int. J. Machine Tool
Design and Research, 24(3) (1984) 161-169.
23. S. Spiewak and S. M. Wu, Tool Wear Monitoring and Breakage Detection on "Intelligent
Filtering", Int. J. Machine Tool Design and Research, 28(4) (1988) 483-494.
24. F. A. Burney, S. M. Pandit, and S. M. Wu, A New Approach to the Analysis of Machine-
Tool System Stability Under Working Conditions, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., (1977) 585-
590.
25. E. Garcia-Gardea, F. A. Burney, and S. M. Wu., Determination of True Cutting Signal by
Separation of Instrumentation Dynamics from Measured Response, Trans ASME, J. Eng.
Ind., 101 (1979) 264-268.
26. S. M. Pandit and S. Revach, A Data Dependent Systems Approach to Dynamics of
Surface Generation in Turning, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 103 (1981) 437-444.
27. K. F. Eman and K. J. Kim, Modal Analysis of Machine Tool Structure Based on
Experimental Data, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 105 (1983) 282-287.
28. S. M. Pandit and C. R. Weber, Image Decomposition by Data Dependent
Systems, Trans ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 112 (1990) 286-292.

27
29. S. E. Oraby and D. R. Hayhurst, High-Capacity Compact Three-Component
Cutting Force dynamometer, Int. J. of Machine Tools & Manufacturing, vol. 30,
no. 4, 1991, pp. 125-138.

28
Table 1 Results of the Deterministic Component Modeling
Subset
No
Coefficients Total
Time
Wear
(mm)
Factor
R2
Residuals
RSS
a 824.00 0.192 -86.000 120 0.161 34 404015
b 699.00 -0.130 114.00 240 0.206 47 474655
c 694.00 -0.44 343.40 377 0.278 71 864534
d 1124.5 0.132 -33.600 497 0.290 23 1597180
e 2630.0 -5.520 4332.0 577 0.344 66 178785925
f 774 0.097 807.70 652 Failure 55 145752406

Table 2 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest a
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(6,5)
ARMA
(3,2)
ARMA
(4,2)
1
1.143 1.046 0.462 0.453 1.047
2
-0.151 -0.868 -0.998 0.647 -0.788
3
0.847 0.714 -0.113 0.076
4
-0.042 -0.739 0.157
5
0.535
6
0.073
1
0.967 0.866 0.277 0.277 0.863
2
-0.719 -0.990 0.668 -0.676
3
0.78 0.529
4
-0.782
5
0.318
RSS

F_value
376700


370262

4.3
367175

2.08
376666

8.5
371199

2.49

Table 3 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest b
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(1,0)
ARMA
(2,0)
1
0.818 0.195 0.350 0.305
2
0.100 0.207 0.182
3
-0.028
4
0.129
1
0.541 -0.084
2
0.030
3
-0.156
RSS

F_value
407336

405989

0.82
425470

22.0
413792

15.77


29
Table 4 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest c
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(6,5)
ARMA
(3,2)
ARMA
(4,2)
ARMA
(3,1)
1
1.134 0.545 -0.169 0.7095 0.627
1.134
2
-0.139 0.277 -0.377 -1.073 0.309
-0.205
3
0.056 0.434 0.514 -0.074
0.126
4
0.112 0.317 0.129

5
0.878

6
-0.111

1
0.923 0.322 -0.389 0.233 0.405
0.907
2
0.394 -0.517 -0.956 0.444

3
0.119 0.276

4
0.236

5
0.881

RSS

F_value

557010



546274

4.86
509101

17.92
623259

77.75
546299

0.045

549304

1.83

Table 5 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest d
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(6,5)
ARMA
(4,2)
ARMA
(4,1)
ARMA
(3,3)
1
0.846 -0.727 -0.554 -0.817 -0.578
-0.704
2
0.151 0.633 -0.209 -0.233 -0.038
0.664
3
0.977 0.097 0.022 0.069
0.984
4
0.010 0.411 -0.163 -0.162

5
0.987

6
0.074

1
0.999 -0.741 -0.546 -0.711 -0.578
-0.725
2
0.614 -0.221 0.184
0.646
3
0.933 0.071
0.944
4
0.408

5
0.902

RSS

F_value
1560680


1276812

55
1214689

16.7
1452161

135
1458476

70.28
1276809

0.0023



30
Table 6 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest e
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(6,5)
ARMA
(5,4)
ARMA
(6,4)
ARMA
(5,3)
ARMA
(4,1)
1
-0.008 -0.750 0.973 -0.972 1.030
0.234 0.572
2
0.984 -0.537 0.711 0.472 0.506
0.301 0.769
3
-0.301 -0.575 1.162 -1.337
0.181 -0.569
4
0.478 0.228 0.524 0.553
0.690 0.266
5
-0.360 -0.192 0.309
-0.409
6
0.059 -0.062

1
0.253 0.553 1.160 -0.774 1.246
0.530 0.797
2
-0.641 -0.064 0.075 -0.304
-0.529
3
0.770 0.058 0.705 -0.585
0.668
4
0.055 0.277 0.403

5
-0.239

RSS

F_value

2803278



2446935

36
2277492

18.26
2317400

8.59
2274799

1.16

2459115

26

2379890

7.3

Table 7 AutoRegressive Moving Average Results for Subtest f
Coef.
ARMA
(2,1)
ARMA
(4,3)
ARMA
(6,5)
ARMA
(3,2)
ARMA
(4,2)
1
-0.012 0.160 -0.522 -0.267 0.682
2
0.939 0.127 0.610 0.956 0.775
3
-0.102 0.812 0.243 -0.648
4
0.763 0.340 0.173
5
-0.315
6
0.008
1
-0.126 0.022 -0.654 -0.371 0.594
2
-0.838 -0.291 0.150
3
0.027 0.384
4
0.293
5
-0.048
RSS

F_value
17401954



16965786


6.36
15852572


13.79
17009908


1.28
17067494


2.69




31
Table 8 RSS Reduction Due To ARMA Modeling
Stochastic Model Reduction % Subtest Deterministic
Model
Final ARMA(2,1) Final ARMA(2,1)
a 404015 371199 376700 8.1% 6.76%
b 474655 413792 407336 12.8% 14.2%
c 864534 549304 557010 36.46% 35.6%
d 1597180 1276809 1560680 20.06% 2.3%
e 178785925 2379890 2803278 99% 98%
f 145752406 17067494 17401954 88% 88%

Table 9 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of periodical disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest a)(
1
=1.143,
2
=-0.151,
1
=0.967)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
j
G
t
1 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 -0.18 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 0.18 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 -0.18 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 0.18 0.05
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X
1 0.18 -0.95 -0.15 0.98 0.18 -0.95 -0.15 0.98 0.18 -0.95

Table 10 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of Periodical Disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest b)(
1
=0.818,
2
=-0.01,
1
=0.541)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
j G
t
1 0.277 0.237 0.196 0.163 0.135 0.112 0.093 0.077 0.064 0.053
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 0.277 0.237 0.196 0.163 0.135 0.112 0.093 0.077 0.064 0.053
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 -0.277 -0.237 -0.196 -0.163 -0.135 -0.112 -0.093 -0.077
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 0.277 0.237 0.196 0.163 0.135 0.112
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 -0.277 -0.237 -0.196 -0.163
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 0.277 0.237
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X 1 0.277 -0.763 -0.081 0.926 0.216 -0.814 -0.123 0.891 0.187 -0.838

32
Table 11 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of Periodical Disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest c)(
1
=1.134,
2
=-0.139,
1
=0.923)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
J G
t
1 0.21 0.1 0.084 0.082 0.081 0.081 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 0.21 0.1 0.084 0.082 0.081 0.081 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 -0.21 -0.1 -0.084 -0.082 -0.081 -0.081 -0.08 -0.08
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 0.21 0.1 0.084 0.082 0.081 0.081
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 -0.21 -0.1 -0.084 -0.082
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 0.21 0.1
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X 1 0.21 -0.9 -0.126 0.982 0.207 -0.901 -0.127 0.981 0.207 -0.903

Table 12 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of Periodical Disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest d)(
1
=0.846,
2
=-0.151,
1
=0.999)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
J G
t
1 -0.153 0.022 -0.005 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 -0.153 0.022 -0.005 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 0.153 -0.022 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 -0.153 0.022 -0.005 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 0.153 -0.022 0.005 0.001
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 -0.153 0.022
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X 1 -0.153 -0.978 0.148 0.977 -0.149 -0.978 0.148 0.977 -0.149 -0.978

Table 13 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of Periodical Disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest e)(
1
=-0.008,
2
=0.984,
1
=0.253)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
J
G
t
1 -0.261 0.986 -0.265 0.972 -0.268 0.959 -0.272 0.946 -0.275 0.933
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 -0.261 0.986 -0.265 0.972 -0.268 0.959 0.272 0.946 -0.275 0.933
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 0.261 -0.986 0.265 -0.972 0.268 -0.959 0.272 -0.946
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 -0.261 0.986 -0.265 0.972 -0.268 0.959
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 0.261 -0.986 0.265 -0.972
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 -0.261 0.986
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X 1 -0.261 -0.14 -0.004 0.986 -0.264 -0.027 -0.008 0.973 -0.267 -0.04

33
Table 14 Numerical Illustration Of Response Generation of Periodical Disturbances
using GREEN'S Function (Subtest f)(
1
=-0.012,
2
=0.939,
1
=-0.126)
t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 -1
j G
t
1 0.114 0.938 0.096 0.879 0.08 0.825 0.065 0.774 0.051 0.725
0 G
t-0
a
0
1 0.114 0.938 0.096 0.879 0.08 0.825 0.065 0.774 0.051 0.726
1 G
t-1
a
1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 G
t-2
a
2
-1 -0.114 -0.938 -0.096 -0.879 -0.08 -0.825 -0.062 -0.774
3 G
t-3
a
3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 G
t-4
a
4
1 0.114 0.938 0.096 0.879 0.08 0.825
5 G
t-5
a
5
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 G
t-6
a
6
-1 -0.114 -0.938 -0.096 -0.879
7 G
t-7
a
7
0 0 0 0
8 G
t-8
a
8
1 0.114 0.938
9 G
t-9
a
9
0 0
10 G
t-10
a
10
-1

=
=
10
1 j
j tj t
a G X 1 0.114 -0.062 -0.018 0.941 0.098 -0.116 -0.033 0.89 0.087 -0.164


Table 15 Summary of Dynamic Response Values at Different Test Stages using
Random Disturbances
j 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
t
0 0 -1 2 0 -1 0 1 -1 2
Subtest No.
a 0 0 -1 1.82 -1.69 -0.29 -1.07 -0.21 0.89 -0.88 1.81
b 0 0 -1 1.723 -1.683 -0.276 -1.245 -0.478 0.595 0.942 1.233
c 0 0 -1 1.79 -1.68 -0.304 -0.325 -0.187 0.836 -0.953 1.729
d 0 0 -1 2.153 -2.328 0.355 -1.053 0.162 0.979 -1.147 2.177
e 0 0 -1 2.261 -3.508 2.759 -4.474 3.003 -3.425 1.73 -1.133
f 0 0 -1 1.886 -2.71 1.552 -3.563 1.372 -2.372 -2.361 -0.349
-2






34