ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

A new acceleration-based methodology for micro/meso-scale machine tool performance evaluation

Andrew G. Phillip, Shiv G. Kapoor, Richard E. DeVor
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA Received 5 September 2005; accepted 28 September 2005 Available online 7 November 2005

Abstract Micro-machining and micro/meso-scale machine tools (mMTs) use substantially different motion parameters than those used at the macro-scale. A new acceleration-based mMT performance evaluation methodology is developed based on an assessment of motion parameters, and in particular, unique acceleration requirements at the micro-scale. Performance evaluations using the new methodology are carried out on two prototype mMTs. Following errors are found for the most part to increase linearly with acceleration. The closed loop bandwidth is found to be the current major factor affecting acceleration capability for the machines tested. A linear model linking servo-update frequency, closed-loop bandwidth, acceleration and following error is proposed. The model results provide a basis for prescribing maximum acceleration values to maintain 102103 relative accuracy. Future mMT component performance requirements are explored. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Micro/meso-scale machine tool; Performance evaluation; Acceleration requirements; Micro-machining motion parameters

1. Introduction A new breed of micro-machining systems called micro/ meso-scale machine tools (mMTs) are now evolving [14] with the goal of creating micron-scale features with 103105 relative accuracies (error divided by feature size). Among the advantages of mMTs, the motor size requirement is reduced by the third power of the machines characteristic length resulting in high specic-force and increased acceleration and jerk capabilities. This is important since acceleration requirements are one to two orders of magnitude larger at the micro-scale than the macro-scale due to unique cutting mechanics and nonlinear scaling of motion parameters (distances, feed rates and accelerations). These acceleration requirements can degrade machine performance due to limiting factors associated with controller servo update frequency and closed-loop bandwidth. As the mMT paradigm continues to evolve, there is a need to formally address performance
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 3432; fax: +1 217 244 9956.

E-mail address: sgkapoor@uiuc.edu (S.G. Kapoor). 0890-6955/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.09.015

evaluation methods for these machines, taking unique motion parameter considerations into account. Existing performance evaluation methods for macroscale machine tools include measurements of geometric accuracy and surface nish of machined artifacts [5] (ISO10791-7 [6]), the evaluation of bi-directional positioning errors [7] (ISO 10791-4), vibration [8] and stiffness. Given that machined artifact evaluations are impractical for mMTs due to metrology limitations at the micro-scale, some mMT researchers have used other evaluation methods involving feedrates below 3 mm/min [9,10] and positioning repeatability moves of 300 mm [11], parameters that fall well outside the proper mMT regime [12] and result in unrealistic performance evaluations of micromachining operations. Furthermore, these tests do not emphasize the large mMT acceleration magnitudes required to avoid the high forces, excessive tool wear and poor surface nish encountered at low feedrates due to the minimum chip thickness effect [13]. Existing performance evaluation methods involve acceleration capability as a consequence of the test procedure rather than as the foundation of the test. For example,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1436 A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444

circular contour moves involve acceleration demand, but they also involve other effects such as interactions between stages. Similarly, machined artifact-based tests require acceleration, but the results are confounded with many machine attributes such as stiffness, encoder resolution and structure dynamic response. This paper proposes a procedure to conduct acceleration testing for mMTs that allows a direct evaluation of machine performance in terms of following error as a function of acceleration for each individual stage. The remainder of this paper evolves as follows. Cutting mechanics issues in micro-machining are discussed along with their impact on the motion parameters including spindle speeds, feedrates and accelerations required in the micro-scale motion regime. A new acceleration-based performance evaluation methodology is proposed and its specications are dened. A three-axis and a ve-axis mMT prototype are evaluated using the new evaluation methodology and the method is compared to other techniques including circular contour and spline contour move tests. A linear model relating servo frequency, closedloop bandwidth, acceleration magnitude and following error is proposed. Finally, future mMT performance and design requirements are developed based on the evaluation results and the proposed model for following error. 2. Motion parameter requirements for micro-machining Unique machining parameters (spindle speeds, feedrates and accelerations) at the micro-scale are driven by the cutting mechanics requirements of surface speed and the minimum chip thickness effect. Micro-machined features range from 1 mm to 10 mm as do the tools (e.g. endmills, drills, routers, etc.) used to create those features. These tool sizes create the need for spindle speeds between 38,000 rpm and 1.9 106 rpm to achieve conventional surface speeds for workpiece materials such as brass and stainless steel (60120 and 150300 m/min, respectively) [14]. While current spindle technology does not support speeds beyond about 200,000 rpm, it is expected that this technology will advance as micro-machining applications continue to expand. In micro-scale machining, Weule et al. [13] found that the minimum chip thickness effect, owing to the large edge radii of micro-tools relative to chipload, denes a chipload below which the cutting mechanism shifts from shearing to ploughing with the associated increase in cutting forces and deterioration of both surface nish and feature quality [13]. This effect, also described by Vogler et al. and others [12,15], can lead to excessive tool wear and breakage. Working with pearlite, Vogler et al. found the minimum chip thickness to be 0.2 times the cutting edge radius, resulting in a minimum chip thickness between 0.4 and 1.0 mm for cutting edge radii, typically between 2 and 5 mm. Depending on the axial depth of cut, feed rate requirements often need to be substantially higher than the value determined by the minimum chip thickness [16], for

example, a 50100% increase is typical. Spindle speed requirements and the minimum chip thickness effect combine to dictate the minimum feed rate for a given machining operation. For example, a commercially available 160,000 rpm spindle for micro-machining and a microendmill with an edge radius of 5 mm requires a feed rate of 320 mm/min to 960 mm/min (13 mm chip load) for a 2 uted endmill. Acceleration requirements driven by the minimum chip thickness effect manifest themselves during acceleration from a stop position and during moves such as circular contouring. In either case, acceleration requirements are established to minimize the number of tool revolutions that occur below the feed rate required by the minimum chip thickness. For acceleration from a stop, bounds can be placed on the required acceleration based on the maximum distance the machine is allowed to traverse below its required feed rate (the acceleration distance). For example, if 10 mm is chosen as the acceleration distance then the required acceleration magnitude is 1.412.8 m/s2 (0.11.3 G) to achieve a 320960 mm/min feedrate (typical of existing spindle technology). Bounding the allowable acceleration distance to two complete rotations of the tool creates even more severe acceleration requirements 721 m/s2 (0.72.1 G) for 320960 mm/min feedrate, a 160,000 rpm spindle and a 2-uted endmill. Similar requirements are encountered during circular interpolation moves where the feed rate and radius determine the acceleration demand. Fig. 1 summarizes feed rate and acceleration requirements as they are driven by tool size (horizontal scale, in mm) across both macro- and micro-machining. The gure shows the high spindle speeds (left vertical scale, in rpm) and accelerations (right vertical scale, in m/s2) required in micro-machining. The gure uses a 224 m/min surface

Spindle RPM Linear Accel (10m accel dist) Radial Accel (tool radius) 1600 1400 Spindle (RPM/1000) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.010 0.100 1.000 Tool Size (mm) Micro Macro 500 450 Acceleration (m/s2) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 10.000

Fig. 1. Spindle speed and acceleration requirements for various tool diameters (carbide tool, SAE 1023 steel).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 1437

speed (low-carbon steel workpiece and carbide endmill) [17] and acceleration requirements based on both a 10 mm acceleration distance (for acceleration from a stop) and a radius equal to the tool size (for circular interpolation). As shown in the gure, spindle speeds and acceleration requirements are one to two orders of magnitude larger for tool diameters between 50 and 250 mm than they are for macro-scale tools. 3. Micro-machining acceleration-based performance 3.1. Acceleration test methodology The proposed new performance evaluation method is based on moves during which an individual stage undergoes constant acceleration from a stop up to the feed velocity appropriate for that acceleration. The acceleration then changes sign and the stage returns to zero velocity. This type of move is typical of pocketing operations, slotting cuts and point-to-point drilling operations. During each move the following error (difference between the CNC controller command position and the feedback encoder actual position reading) is recorded along with the servo loop commanded acceleration and the data are analyzed to determine the peak and RMS following error values. The conditions for an individual test are calculated based on the desired test acceleration magnitude and the relationship between feed rate and linear acceleration using the two-tool revolution rule (as discussed in Section 2) to determine the velocity associated with that acceleration. Tests are run for a range of commanded acceleration values (and associated velocities) between the minimum and maximum values appropriate for the mMT being evaluated. As a further consideration, speeds associated with future spindle technology can be used to create a wider range of acceleration values that may be encountered. This proposed new acceleration-based method for mMT evaluation addresses several important issues, viz., 1. Single stage, linear moves evaluate individual stages independent of the effects due to multiple stage motion and cutting forces involved with circular interpolation and machined artifact tests. 2. Data collected from the feedback encoder of the stage under test reduces the noise due to machine stiffness and structure dynamics that would be captured using an external measuring device such as a laser interferometer. 3. Varying the commanded acceleration across several tests (as opposed to running a single test with an acceleration ramp) increases the quantity of data that can be captured at a given acceleration value. 4. Constant acceleration up to the appropriate peak feed rate and back to a stop without constant velocity travel maximizes the portion of the test that occurs at the desired acceleration magnitude and therefore maximizes the quantity of the data collected at that acceleration magnitude.

5. Calculating each tests velocity and acceleration using the underlying equations relating surface speed, spindle speed, minimum chip thickness and acceleration produce a set of tests based on realistic machining parameters. 3.2. Acceleration test parameters The range of the acceleration test parameters (minimum and maximum acceleration magnitudes and the associated velocities and distances) for a specic mMT is determined based on the spindle speeds and feature size requirements for that machine. Minimum acceleration requirements correspond to large feature diameters and/or slow spindle speeds and feedrates. Maximum acceleration requirements are calculated based on the maximum spindle speed associated with that machine and linear acceleration from a stop to the appropriate feed rate in two spindle revolutions. The velocity as a function of time for each move can be calculated by rst determining the time required to achieve the feed rate associated with a given acceleration magnitude based on t 2vmax =a where t is time, vmax is peak velocity and a is acceleration. The velocity prole is then determined based on applying positive acceleration between 0otimept and negative acceleration between totimep2t. Fig. 2 shows an example pair of acceleration test moves (two acceleration magnitudes and associated velocities chosen from within the micro-machining motion parameters developed in Section 2). The displacement for each commanded move is calculated by integrating the equation of velocity as a function of time over the duration of the move to determine the distance associated with the correct R 2t move duration (2t as described above) based on, s 0 f v dt, where s is the displacement in meters and f v is the velocity as a function of time.

Velocity, 10m/s2 Velocity, 30m/s2 Accel, 10m/s2 Accel, 30m/s2 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.0005 0.001 Time (s) 0.0015 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0.002 Acceleration (m/s2)

Velocity (mm/min)

Fig. 2. Example acceleration and velocity.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1438 A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444

Rotary stage test conditions are calculated as a function of linear stage conditions due to the fact that 5-axis contouring moves involve coordinated motion between the linear and rotary stages. Therefore, the acceleration time for the rotary stage is taken to be the same as that of the linear stages so that the desired linear and rotary velocities are achieved simultaneously. Similarly, the rotary velocity for a given test is proportional to the linear velocity for that test so that the rotary and linear components of these coordinated moves take the same amount of time. Therefore, the rotary velocity is determined such that the duration of a rotary move with a distance of, for example 301 is the same as the duration of a linear move with a distance equal to the tool size.

4. Methodology application 4.1. Experimental setup Two mMT prototypes developed at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were used as test vehicles for the new performance evaluation methodology. Figs. 3 and 4 show the machines, one 3- and one 5-axis mMT. Both of these machines have footprints of approximately 0.3 m2 and use 160,000 rpm air-turbine, air-bearing spindles. The 3-axis machine utilizes DC voice-coil linear motors, rolling element bearings, 100 nm resolution optical linear encoders and has 25 mm of travel in all stages. The 5-axis machine uses brushless AC linear and rotary motors, 20 nm resolution optical linear encoders and 0.316 arcsec resolution optical rotary encoders. The linear stages on this machine use rolling element bearings and the rotary stages use air bearings. The 5-axis machine has 40 mm of travel in the X-, Y- and Z-axis stages, 1801 of travel in the B-axis stage and 3601 of travel in the C-axis stage. Table 1 shows

Fig. 4. UIUC 5-axis mMT Prototype.

Table 1 3- and 5-axis mMT stage characteristics Moving mass (kg) 5-Axis X Y Z B C 3-Axis X Y Z Max accel Peak force/ torque Inductance (mH)

5.5 3.2 3.3 1.2 1.0 1.5 0.5 2.0

7.5 G 7.0 G 6.6 G 247 rad/s2 2016 rad/s2 5.0 G 5.0 G 5.0 G

406 N 218 N 218 N 1.27 N m 1.27 N m 76 N 27 N 102 N

2.0 1.0 1.0 15.0 15.0 29.2 33.7 33.4

important stage specications relating to moving mass, peak motor force (or torque) and motor inductance. Instrumentation for executing the new performance evaluation methodology includes a Delta-Tau Turbo PMAC2 controller to send move commands to the machines and capture the optical encoder data. Optical encoders from Micro-E Systems (M3500) and RSF Electronics (LIK 21) were used to sense machine position. 4.2. Acceleration testing plan and results Based on the 160,000 rpm spindle available on both the 3- and 5-axis test machines the acceleration requirements were determined to range between 0.06 m/s2 (0.006 G) and

Fig. 3. UIUC 3-axis mMT Prototype.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 1439

21 m/s2 (2.1 G). The lower requirement was determined from a 1 mm circular trajectory with a 1 mm chipload and the upper requirement was determined based on accelerating to the proper feed rate in two tool revolutions with a 3 mm chip load. Each rotary stage was tested at commanded acceleration levels between 1 and 1400 rad/s2 and the corresponding speeds (6320 rad/s), in accordance with the discussion in Section 3.2. Figs. 5ae and 6ac show the test results and the correlation between peak commanded acceleration and following error (both RMS and peak) for the 5-axis X-, Y-,

Z-, B- and C-axis stages and the 3-axis X-, Y- and Z-axis stages, respectively. Not all stages were able to achieve all the peak commanded accelerations in the evaluation due to the fact that actual closed-loop acceleration capability is dependent on multiple factors including moving mass, motor peak force, stage dynamics and tuning of the control loop. All linear stages on the 5-axis mMT show following errors in excess of 5 mm for accelerations above 20 m/s2 (2 G), while the 3-axis mMT stages show errors near or above 10 mm for accelerations above 10 m/s2 (1 G).

14 Following Error ( m) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0

5-Axis mMT X-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration Following Error ( m) RMS RMS Peak

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

5-Axis mMT Y-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration RMS RMS Following Error ( m) Peak

5-Axis mMT Z-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration 30 RMS RMS 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2) 20 Peak

(a)

5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2)

20

(b)

5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2)

20

(c)

5-Axis mMT B-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration Following Error (10-3 rad) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 Peak Peak Following Error (10-3 rad) RMS RMS 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0

5-Axis mMT C-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration RMS Peak

(d)

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Peak Acceleration (103 rad/s2) (e)

0.5 1 1.5 Peak Acceleration (103 rad/s2)

Fig. 5. (ae): 5-axis mMT acceleration test results for the X-, Y- and Z-axis stages (left to right).

3-Axis mMT X-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration 70 Following Error ( m) Following Error ( m) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2) 20 RMS RMS Peak Peak 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

3-Axis mMT Y-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration Following Error (m) RMS RMS Peak

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

3-Axis mMT Z-Stage Following Error vs. Acceleration RMS RMS Peak

(a)

(b)

5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2)

20

(c)

5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2)

20

Fig. 6. (ac): 3-axis mMT acceleration test results for the X-, Y- and Z-axis stages (left to right).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1440 A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444

A calculation of relative accuracy as a function of acceleration can be performed based on evaluating the following error associated with an acceleration magnitude, determining the corresponding tool size and calculating a relative accuracy between that following error and a feature size appropriate for the tool size. In the case of the 5-axis machine tested here, the results of the acceleration testing show that a relative accuracy of 102 can be achieved for feature sizes around 500 mm, using a 750 mm tool and the associated motion parameters involving accelerations up to about 4.9 m/s2 (0.5 G). Alternately, a relative accuracy of 103 can only be achieved for feature sizes close to 1 mm using a tool of the same size and the associated motion parameters involving acceleration below 2 m/s2 (0.2 G). The 3-axis machine, with larger following errors for a given acceleration, can achieve 103 relative accuracy only when machining with accelerations below 1 m/s2 (0.1 G). 4.3. Other acceleration prole testing Acceleration proles in machining operations vary across different types of moves such as pocketing, spline contours and circular contours. Fig. 7a shows the acceleration prole for a 10 m/s2 (1 G) constant acceleration move used in the new test methodology as well as acceleration proles for a circular contour (sine acceleration) and a spline contour (linear acceleration) move with the same acceleration value. Figs. 7b and c show the velocity and position proles for these moves, respectively, and the differences in motion parameters for moves involving the same peak acceleration. The constant acceleration moves from the new evaluation methodology are shorter in duration and therefore have a lower peak velocity and a shorter move distance. The circular contour moves, whose parameters are based on geometry with a diameter equal to the tool diameter, use a smaller tool for the same acceleration value (compared to the constant acceleration moves) and therefore involve a higher velocity and a larger displacement. The spline moves, dened using the same peak acceleration and overall displacement as the circular moves also involve larger velocities than the constant acceleration moves. During these moves, the peak following error occurs either at the peak acceleration or the peak velocity value. For the constant acceleration, linear velocity moves in the new methodology, the peak following error occurs at the peak velocity. During the circular and spline moves, the peak following error occurs during peak acceleration. Tests were conducted on the X- and Y-stages of the 5axis mMT using linear and sine acceleration proles (spline and circular contour moves, respectively) to compare acceleration-based errors from those moves to the errors from the constant acceleration moves used in the proposed evaluation methodology. For the sine acceleration testing, a series of moves was executed using radii and velocities as determined assuming the tool diameter and the feature

Const. Accel. Circular Cont. Spline Cont. 12 Acceleration (m/s2) 8 4 0 -4 -8 2.00 4.00 6.00 Time (ms) Const. Accel. Circular Cont. Spline Cont. 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0.00 8.00 10.00

-12 0.00 (a)

Velocity (mm/min)

2.00

(b)

4.00 6.00 Time (ms)

8.00

10.00

Circular Cont. Spline Cont. Const. Accel. (Secondary Axis) 0.14 0.12 Position (mm) 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 (c) 2.00 4.00 6.00 Time (ms) 8.00 0.000 10.00 0.005 Position (mm) 0.010

Fig. 7. (a) Example acceleration proles for constant acceleration, circular and spline contour moves, (b) velocity proles for example constant acceleration, circular and spline contour moves and (c) position proles for example constant acceleration, circular and spline contour moves.

diameter are the same, thus determining the spindle speed and feed rate. For the linear acceleration moves, the series of proles tested used the same range of acceleration magnitudes as used in the sine acceleration testing. The results were evaluated in a manner similar to the results from the new evaluation methodology; each test in each

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 1441

series was analyzed to determine the peak commanded acceleration and the peak and RMS following error values. Both sets of additional tests (Figs. 8a and b show the circular contour test results) showed the same following error trend, but different magnitudes from those in Figs. 5a and b. A summary of the RMS and peak following errors for the X- and Y-axis stages at 10 m/s2 acceleration for constant acceleration, linear acceleration (spline contour) and sine acceleration (circular contour) moves is shown in Table 2. These results demonstrate that the trend of linearly increasing error magnitudes with increasing acceleration magnitude is a general behavior of mMT stages operating in the micro-machining realm. Furthermore, these results show that the acceleration proles associated with circular contour and spline contour moves produce following errors that are about half the magnitude of the following errors measured with the new methodology using constant acceleration moves. Thus, it appears that the new methodology, as proposed, provides a worst-case scenario evaluation of following error.
9 8 7 Following Error ( m) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 (a) 8 RMS 7 Peak Following Error ( m) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 (b) 5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2) 20 5 10 15 Peak Acceleration (m/s2) 20 RMS Peak

Table 2 Following error (mm) at 10 m/s2 acceleration for different move types for the 5-Axis mMT Acceleration prole Constant X RMS Peak Y RMS Peak Linear Sine

2.6 5.7 4.1 10.5

1.3 3.4 2.7 5.9

1.4 2.4 1.5 4.4

Table 3 Stiffness and bi-directional positioning evaluation results for the 5-Axis mMT Direction Stiffness (N/mm) 0.81 0.85 1.73 Move distance Compliance (mm/N)

X Y Z Stage

1.23 1.18 0.58 Positioning error RMS Peak 2.363 arcsec 5.537 arcsec 0.200 mm 0.120 mm 0.100 mm

B C X Y Z

3.6 arcs 3.6 arcs 1 mm 1 mm 1 mm

0.556 arcsec 1.015 arcsec 0.025 mm 0.021 mm 0.021 mm

4.4. Additional performance test methods Stiffness and bi-directional repeatability evaluations were also performed on the 5-axis mMT prototype. Those tests were conducted using a Lion Precision capacitance gauge and tri-axial force sensors from Kistler (9018A and 9251A). Stiffness measurements were made by applying a force and measuring deection while the bi-directional positioning error testing was conducted by commanding positioning moves and observing the steady-state positioning error. Those results, summarized in Table 3, reveal that the machine stiffness needs to be improved in future prototypes to achieve mMT accuracy goals given the magnitudes of the inertial and cutting forces applied to the machine structure. However, the positioning error is in the range required for mMT accuracy goals and is good relative to the magnitude of the errors due to acceleration. 5. Assessing future requirements of mMTs In this section, a model is developed relating acceleration, following error, closed-loop bandwidth and servofrequency. The model is tted using the results of the new

Fig. 8. (a) 5-axis mMT X-axis stage circular contour test results, (b) 5-axis mMT Y-axis stage circular contour test results.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1442 A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444

acceleration test methodology and is then used to focus design efforts for continuing mMT development. 5.1. Model for following error based on acceleration The proposed model for following error as a function of acceleration is based on the concept that move durations decrease with increasing acceleration and that the short durations of high-acceleration moves create performance limitations given the servo frequencies and bandwidths typical of current mMTs. The temporal duration of a high-acceleration move in micro-machining is of the same order as a typical controller servo-update period. For example, the duration of a 10 mm, 6 m/s2 (0.6 G) constant acceleration move is 1.8 ms. Typical controller servo-update frequencies are between 5 and 20 kHz, meaning that the entire acceleration move will occur over 936 servo cycles, resulting in coarse move discretization and large following errors. A linear error model is proposed here for the ratio between servo cycle time (inverse of servo frequency) and acceleration, viz., ef K f a=f , (1)

the stage bandwidth is found from the frequency response to a position step move. Two different servo frequencies were congured in the Delta-Tau, allowing the acceleration-based performance evaluation methodology to be conducted at the two different servo frequencies. Each stage exhibited a different bandwidth; Fig. 9 shows the FFT of the results of the step test performed on the X-axis stage of the 5-axis mMT. The gure shows a peak in the stage response to a step input at 107.1 Hz, which is the value used as the closed-loop bandwidth for this stage. The acceleration-based performance evaluation data revealed that the bandwidth of the stage is the dominant driver in the acceleration-error model. Fig. 10 shows an example least squares t of the linear model to the data for the 5-axis mMT Z-axis stage. Table 4 summarizes the bandwidths and the linear model t for each stage on the 3- and 5-axis machines. All stages on the 5-axis machine exhibited the expected linear relationship between
125.00

Actual Position (counts)

105.00 85.00 65.00 45.00 25.00 5.00

107Hz

where ef is the following error in microns due to servo update frequency, Kf is the proportionality constant in inverse time, a is the acceleration in meters per second squared and f is the servo loop frequency in hertz. Closed-loop bandwidth is the result of system physical limitations such as motor inductance, peak force and stage mass as well as control issues such as servo tuning. The performance impact of bandwidth on following error and acceleration is similar to that due to servo-update frequency. However, typical closed-loop bandwidths, between 15 and 110 Hz, are several orders of magnitude slower than typical servo frequencies. This results in a situation where a 1.8 ms commanded acceleration move occurs in a fraction (0.030.2) of a bandwidth period. Another linear model is proposed here relating this following error to the ratio between the period of the closed-loop bandwidth and acceleration, viz., eB K B a=B, (2)

75

150

225

300

375

450

525

600

675

750

Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 9. Step test FFT response for the X-axis stage on the 5-axis mMT.

16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 Error ( m) 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Experimental Model (KT =68.5)

where eB is the following error in microns due to closedloop bandwidth, KB is a proportionality constant in inverse time and B is the bandwidth in hertz. Combining these effects (Eqs. (1) and (2)) results in the total following error model: eT ef eB K T a 1=f 1=B. 5.2. Model interpretation Using the data from the 5- and 3-axis stages, the frequency- and bandwidth-based model (Eq. 3) relating following error to acceleration was tted by the method of least squares. For the model, the servo frequency is determined from settings in the Delta-Tau controller and (3)

5.00

10.00

15.00

Acceleration (m/s2)
Fig. 10. Example experimental data and linear model for the Z-axis stage on the 5-Axis mMT.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 Table 4 Bandwidth-based error model results Bandwidth 5-Axis X Y Z B C 5-Axis X Y Z KT value R2 value 1443

error characteristics due to the difference in peak acceleration capability (motor force divided by rotational inertia). 5.3. Model application and future mMT requirements The tted model for following error can be used to gain insight into specic improvements for future mMTs. In particular, mMT design requirements can be determined based on calculating the required bandwidth given a feature size and a desired relative accuracy. Consider that 102 relative accuracy is required on a 300 mm feature created with a 300 mm diameter tool. That tool diameter requires a 237,000 rpm spindle (224 m/min surface speed) which in turn requires a feedrate of 940 mm/ min (2 uted endmill, 2 mm per ute) due to the minimum chip thickness. That feedrate requires that the mMT perform a 31 m/s2 acceleration move (accelerate in 2 tool revolutions) with less than 3 mm following error (102 relative accuracy). Based on the tted model, this requires a bandwidth of 325 Hz for a stage similar to the 5-axis X-axis stage (KT value of 31.5 and servo frequency value of 15 kHz). To achieve that bandwidth, three times higher than the value of the current X-axis stage, a combination of reduced motor inductance, increased operating voltage, increased motor peak force and/or reduced stage moving mass must be implemented. The results from the two mMTs evaluated here help determine the required changes to those stage characteristics. In addition to inductance, operating voltage, motor peak force and stage mass, other issues specic to mMT design also inuence bandwidth and therefore following error performance. For example, the 5-axis Z-axis stage interacts with the B-axis stage because of the eccentric spindle mounting on the B-axis stage. Thus, despite the Z-axis stages high peak acceleration capability and low inductance, it must be de-tuned (to increase stability) resulting in a lower bandwidth and higher acceleration-based following errors. 6. Conclusions To overcome the limitations of existing machine-tool performance evaluation methods, a new machine performance evaluation methodology based on the high micromachining acceleration demands has been developed and tested. Specic conclusions drawn from this work are: 1. Micro-machining operations have their own set of motion parameters, imposed by the combination of the minimum chip thickness effect and the high spindle speeds needed when using small diameter tools. These motion parameters involve minimum required feedrates of over 3000 mm/min, leading to acceleration requirements above 5 G (49 m/s2). 2. A new acceleration-based performance evaluation methodology was proposed involving a series of singlestage, constant acceleration, linear moves to observe the

107.1 93.7 68.7 58.3 128.1 15.6 21.2 26.2

31.5 39.4 68.5 344 24.2 31.3 20.7 40.7

0.92 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.94 0.14 0.69

acceleration and following error, as shown through the high R-squared values for the linear model in Table 4. However, on the 3-axis machine, only the X-axis stage acceleration-error relationship t a linear model. The Yaxis stage exhibited behavior that requires a 3rd order polynomial t to achieve an R-squared value above 0.9. Two aspects of this design of stage may contribute to the observed higher-order behavior; (1) this stage is oriented vertically and uses a spring counterbalance and (2) the motor coil design uses a special rectangular cross-section (rather than square, as on the other stages) that allows offaxis travel. Similarly, the Z-axis stages behavior requires a 5th-order t to obtain an R-squared value above 0.9. The higher-order behavior exhibited in the voice-coil motors of the 3-axis mMT is not further explored here because it occurs at a point where error magnitudes are well above desired levels based on typical micro-machining requirements. The bandwidth of mMT stages is partially determined by motor inductance and operating voltage, which combine to determine the current rise time. As seen previously in Table 1, there is a substantial difference in motor inductance between the linear stages of the 3- and 5-axis machines. The 3-axis machines DC voice coils operate at a relatively low amplier voltage (40 V) using a large number of turns, a combination that results in a slow current rise time and a slow response to high-acceleration movement. By contrast, the 5-axis machines AC linear motors are three-phase devices with lower impedance and operate at a higher amplier voltage (90 V), contributing to higher closed-loop bandwidth and better response to high-acceleration moves. Another important factor inuencing bandwidth is peak acceleration capability, which is determined by the combination of peak motor force and stage mass or inertia. As shown in Table 1, the rotary stages of the 5-axis machine have the same motor inductance (actually using the same motor), but substantially different peak acceleration capabilities due to the eccentric mounting of the spindle on the B-axis stage and the associated difference in rotational inertia. Those two stages exhibit signicantly different bandwidths and acceleration-based following

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1444 A.G. Phillip et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 46 (2006) 14351444 [2] M.P. Vogler, X. Liu, S.G. Kapoor, R.E. DeVor, K.F. Ehmann, Development of meso-scale machine tool (mMT) Systems, in: Proceedings of the NAMRC XXX Conference, West Lafayette, IN, 2124 May 2002, pp. 19. [3] N. Mishima, K. Ashida, M. Tanaka, Development of machine tools for the microfactory, in: Proceedings from the Second International Workshop on Microfactories, Fribourg, Switzerland, 910 October 2000, pp. 137140. [4] J. Werkmeister, A. Slocum, Design and fabrication of the mesomill: a ve-axis milling machine for meso-scaled parts, in: Proceedings of Machines and Processes for Microscale and Meso-scale Fabrication, Metrology and Assembly, 2223 January 2003, pp. 7982. [5] M. Geldart, P. Webb, H. Larsson, M. Backstrom, N. Gindy, K. Rask, A direct comparison of the machining performance of a variax 5 axis parallel kinetic machining centre with conventional 3 and 5 axis machine tools, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 43 (2003) 11071116. [6] International Standards Organization, ISO 10791, 1998 (E). [7] Y. Tomita, K. Makino, M. Sugimine, N. Taniguchi, High-response X-Y stage system driven by in-parallel linear motors, Annals of the CIRP 45/1 (1996) 359362. [8] I. Inasaki, Surface grinding machine with a linear-motor-driven table system: development and performance test, Annals of the CIRP 48/1 (1999) 243246. [9] D. Cox, G. Newby, H.W. Park, S.Y. Liang, Performance evaluation of a miniaturized machining center for precision manufacturing, in: Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Anaheim, CA, 1517 November 2004, pp. 503510. [10] C.R. Friedrich, M.J. Vasile, Development of the micromilling process for high-aspect-ratio microstructures, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 5/1 (1996) 3338. [11] Y. Okazaki, Development of a desk-top milling machine with a 300 krpm spindle and a linear motor stage, in: Proceedings from the Second International Workshop on Microfactories, Shanghai, China, 1517 October 2004, pp. 2933. [12] X. Liu, R.E. DeVor, S.G. Kapoor, K.F. Ehmann, The mechanics of machining at the microscale: assessment of the current state of the science, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 126/4 (2004) 666678. [13] H. Weule, V. Hu ntrup, H. Tritschler, Micromilling of steel to meet new requirements in minaturization, Annals of the CIRP 50/1 (2001) 6164. [14] T. Schaller, L. Bohn, J. Mayer, K. Schubert, Microstructure grooves with a width of less than 50 mm cut with ground hard metal micro end mills, Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 229235. [15] M.P. Vogler, R.E. DeVor, S.G. Kapoor, On the modeling and analysis of machining performance in micro-endmilling, Part I: surface generation, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 126 (2004) 685694. [16] M. Jun, Modeling and analysis of micro-end milling dynamics, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 2005. [17] E. Oberg, F.D. Jones, H.L. Horton, H.H. Ryffel, Machinerys Handbook, 26th ed, Industrial Press Inc, New York, 2000.

3.

4.

5.

6.

variation of following error (command minus actual position) with acceleration magnitude. Results from testing two prototype mMTs with the new acceleration-based methodology provide a basis to determine allowable acceleration levels to achieve a relative accuracy of 102103. Additional following error performance evaluations conducted using circular contour and spline contour moves showed the same trend and lower following error magnitudes compared to those determined from the proposed evaluation methodology. This demonstrated that the proposed methodology provides a worst-case evaluation of following error as a function of acceleration. A linear model relating servo frequency, bandwidth, acceleration and following error was proposed as a way to determine expected mMT following error during micro-machining operations. The model was t to the evaluation results and demonstrated that closed-loop bandwidth is a driver in the relationship between acceleration and following error. The model for following error as a function of acceleration was used to show the need for a signicant improvement in closed-loop bandwidth to deliver the performance desired of mMTs. These improvements can initially be obtained through the use of lower inductance, higher voltage motors.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the US Army Aviation and Missile Command through Alion Science and Technology (Contract DAAH23-00C-R232) during the course of this research. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Jerry Dickson of the US Army Aviation and Missile Research and Development Command. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the partial funding support of the NSF NSEC: Center for NanoChemical-Electrical-Mechanical Manufacturing Systems (NanoCEMMS) (project DMI-0328162). References
[1] R. Subrahmanian, K.F. Ehmann, Development of a meso-scale machine tool (MMT) for micro-machining, in: Proceedings of the JapanUSA Symposium on Flexible Automation, Hiroshima, Japan, 1419 July 2002, pp. 163169.