Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293

DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4168-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An improved methodology for the experimental evaluation

of tool runout in peripheral milling
Eduardo Diez & Hilde Perez & Mario Guzman &
Antonio Vizan

Received: 9 June 2011 / Accepted: 11 April 2012 / Published online: 28 April 2012
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Abstract The modeling of cutting forces plays an impor- Nomenclature

tant role in the progress of research and technology in most ap Axial depth of cut (millimeter)
machining processes. In particular, peripheral milling is a D Nominal diameter of the tool (millimeter)
cutting process difficult to model due to the large number of ft Feed per tooth (millimeter per tooth)
variables involved. Among these variables, tool runout Ft Tangential component of the cutting force
affects process performance by modifying milling force (Newton)
patterns, shortening the tool life and machine components, Fr Radial component of the cutting force (Newton)
and by degrading workpiece quality. In this paper, a meth- Fx X component of the cutting force (Newton)
odology to evaluate tool runout in peripheral milling is Fy Y component of the cutting force (Newton)
presented. The use of a boring toolholder is proposed to Fx,i,j X component of the cutting force acting on the jth
make controllable changes in the tool offset that modifies disk of the flute ith (Newton)
tool runout. In addition, the proposed methodology has been Fy,i,j Y component of the cutting force acting on the jth
validated by means of a piezoactuator-based system that disk of the flute ith (Newton)
allows tool runout compensation through controlling work- hi,j(ϕ) Uncut chip thickness for disk jth of the flute ith
piece displacement. Experimental and simulated results pre- (millimeter)
sented in this paper reveal the practical applications of this kt Specific cutting pressure in tangential direction
methodology for researchers and engineers involved in the (Newton per square millimeter)
practice of milling and its modeling. kr Specific cutting pressure in radial direction (Newton
per square millimeter)
Keywords Milling . Tool runout . Modeling . Simulation . Kt0,m Cutting force coefficients of the specific cutting
Experimental verification pressure in tangential direction (depending on
workpiece material and cutting tool; −)
Kr0,n Cutting force coefficients of the specific cutting
pressure in radial direction (Depending on workpiece
E. Diez (*) : M. Guzman
material and cutting tool; −)
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universidad de La Frontera, mi,j Number indicating that current flute is cutting
Temuco, Chile material left by mith (−)
e-mail: ediez@etsii.upm.es nf Number of flutes of the tool (−)
Ri,j Radius of the disk jth of the flute ith (millimeter)
H. Perez
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad de Leon, ϕ Tool rotation angle (degree)
Leon, Spain ρ Tool runout value (micrometer)
λ Tool runout position (degree)
A. Vizan
λs Helix angle of the tool (degree)
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, θi,j Angular position of the cutting edge in the disk jth
Madrid, Spain of the flute ith (degree)
284
ψi,j Angle measured from the point of the flute ith to
the portion of the cutting edge in the disk jth
(degree)
Δz Disk thickness (millimeter)
1 Introduction
Cutting forces in all machining processes are closely related
to tool condition and process performance. The develop-
ment of analytical models for the prediction of cutting
forces, taking into account the large number of variables
involved, has given us profound knowledge of the process.
Among these variables, tool runout has received special
attention from researchers in order to assess its influence
on the milling process. The effects of tool runout in milling
are well documented. Tool runout makes tool flutes cut
uneven quantities of material in every revolution. As a
consequence, it causes a deterioration of the milled surface
and a shortening of the tool life, due to the overload expe-
rienced by some cutting flutes.
Papers regarding tool runout in milling concentrate on
three principal areas. The first group includes tool runout in
models for cutting force estimation in milling. The main
objective is to provide an analytical description of the
influence of tool runout on both chip thickness [1, 2]
and cutting forces (in static and dynamic regimes). In
general, most research attributes tool runout to tool
eccentricity in peripheral end milling [3–6] and errors
of positioning in inserted cutters [7, 8]. Tool runout
modifies the cutting geometry making tool flutes deviate
from the initial cutting conditions, thereby affecting the
surface quality of the workpiece and reducing tool life.
Another aspect that has been investigated is the rela-
tionship between tool runout and tool deformations. The
work carried out by Sutherland and DeVor showed that
milling system deflections temper the effects of runout on
cutting forces [9]. In recent years, other consequences of tool
runout have been investigated. Simulating the milling process
dynamically, Wan et al. [10] showed that tool runout affects
the stability of the process.
A second group of research includes papers regarding
the experimental determination of tool runout. The ob-
jective is to measure the difference in radius for the
cutting flutes statically [11] or dynamically. Research
done by Heckman and Liang [12] proposed a methodol-
ogy for online monitoring of tool runout. The estimation
of the parameters that characterize tool runout is obtained
from real time spectral analysis of the cutting force
signal. Therefore, the effect of spindle speed on tool
runout is taken into account. Finally, other papers focus
on the analysis of tool runout directly from cutting force
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293
data. In peripheral milling, the methodology developed
by Liang and Wang [13] shows how to determine simul-
taneously both the tool runout parameters and the spe-
cific cutting pressure. Recently, various papers using
similar approaches have been developed for cylindrical
[14, 15] and ball end mills [16, 17]. Seethaller and
Yellowley [8] proposed a methodology for face milling
to determine the offset for each insert of the tool.
Finally, some researchers have focused on the mitigation
of the effects of tool runout on cutting forces [18, 19]. The
aim is to correct the variation of chip thickness produced by
tool runout. To achieve this goal, a fast variation of the feed
per tooth is required for each spindle revolution. This
requires the use of piezoelectric-based feed drives that are
able to produce a precise feed variation at higher frequencies
than conventional feed drives.
So far, experiments have been carried out with unknown
tool runout values. However, it would have been desirable
to check the procedures using different values of runout, for
the same tool assembly and in the same cutting conditions.
Therefore, the possibility of obtaining reproducibility in
testing tool runout has been an unattainable objective.
In this paper, a new experimental procedure is proposed
in order to vary tool runout precisely. The micrometric
resolution necessary for small tools makes precise adjust-
ments difficult.
This procedure allows us to carry out experimental mill-
ing tests varying the tool offset by keeping the same tool
assembly. This methodology is not dependent on the non-
linear character of the milling process or on the influence of
other variables that affect tool runout.
The first part of this paper presents a new procedure for
actual tool runout variation, for the same tool and the same
cutting conditions in order to prove the robustness of the
cutting force models that consider tool runout. The funda-
mental issue in this procedure is to obtain the condition of
“zero runout”, that is, all sources of error that can produce
tool runout have been compensated for, in order to obtain
the same chip load for every cutting flute. Measured cutting
forces are compared to simulated cutting forces showing the
relevance and the scope of the proposed methodology.
Therefore, the resulting cutting forces on each flute are the
same.
The second part of this paper presents a methodology for
additional assessment of tool runout that may reveal the
influence of other process parameters like tilt or tool defor-
mation, among others. This procedure is based on external
compensation for the cutting edge runout by controlled
displacement of the workpiece in order to cancel its effect.
The perfect match for the initial value of tool runout with the
estimated value and the corrected value of tool runout indi-
cates that the proposed procedure and the cutting force
model are both correct.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293 285

Fig. 1 The definition of tool runout in peripheral milling

2 Cutting force modeling when taking tool runout

into account
Tool runout in milling produces a variation of the nominal
chip thickness on each cutting edge so that each flute has an
effective radius which is different from the nominal radius.
The chip thickness, taking into account the fact that the
cutting edge follows a circular path, is given in Eq. 1.


hi;j ðfÞ ¼ mi;j ft sin θi;j ðfÞ þ Ri;j  Rimi;j ;j ð1Þ
This variation of the effective radius can be attributed to
different causes, among which the most important are:
& Eccentricity of the tool–toolholder–spindle assembly.
& Manufacturing dimensional errors of the cutting edges
(radial or angular)
& Tool inclination (tilting)
Fig. 3 Comparison between the measured and the nominal values of
the toolholder
In peripheral milling, it is assumed that tool runout is
mainly due to the eccentricity of the tool–toolholder–
spindle assembly, as described by Kline and DeVor [3].
In this case, tool eccentricity is characterized by means
of two parameters that represent the value of the tool
offset and its angular position with regard to a reference
flute, as seen in Fig. 1. According to this approach, the
effective radius of the tool is variable along the flute and it can
be calculated from Eq. 2.
 
2ði  1Þ
Ri;j ¼ R þ ρ cos l  y i;j  p ð2Þ
nf

Fig. 2 Toolholder for the

experimental verification of
tool runout
286 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293

Table 1 The cutting conditions for the experiments shown in Fig. 4 where, kt(ϕ) and kr(ϕ) are the corresponding specific cutting
Parameter Unit Value pressures given in Eqs. 5 and 6, respectively.
 m
Tool diameter mm 12
kt ðfÞ ¼ Kt0 hi;j ðfÞ ð5Þ
Number of flutes – 2
Helix angle ° 45  n
Spindle speed rpm 1,200 kr ðfÞ ¼ Kr0 hi;j ðfÞ ð6Þ
Feed per tooth mm/tooth 0.075 The constant coefficients kt0, kr0, m, and n are determined
Axial depth of cut mm 2 through experimental milling tests. Considering the specific
Operation – Slotting cutting pressure as a potential function of chip thickness,
Workpiece material – Al 7040 instead of linear functions, a more precise estimation of the
Workpiece support – Rigid tool offset can be obtained. The cutting forces in directions
X and Y are calculated as follows.

Equation 2 calculates the effective radius from the nominal  

Fx;i;j ðfÞ   Ft;i;j ðfÞ
tool radius and the tool runout parameters defined previously. ¼ Ti;j ðfÞ ð7Þ
Fy;i;j ðfÞ Fr;i;j ðfÞ
Once the chip thickness along the cutting edge has been
defined for each flute, the cutting forces can be calculated by Where Ti,j(ϕ) is the transformation matrix to project
dividing the tool into a discrete number of disks [6]. In this tangential and radial forces into X and Y directions.
paper, the cutting forces were calculated using a model based

on specific cutting pressures. The chip thickness was consid-    cos θi;j ðfÞ  sin θi;j ðfÞ
Ti;j ðfÞ ¼ ð8Þ
ered variable along the arc of engagement. Therefore, it is sin θi;j ðθÞ  cos θi;j ðfÞ
possible to characterize the workpiece material and define the
When N flutes are cutting simultaneously and ND disks
model for the calculation of the milling forces considering tool
are in the engagement arc, the resultant force acting on the
runout. The tangential and radial forces acting on jth flute for
tool is obtained as the sum of the cutting forces acting on
the ith disk are given in Eqs. 3 and 4, respectively.
each disk, as Eqs. 9 and 10 show.
Ft;i;j ðfÞ ¼ kt ðfÞhi;j ðfÞΔz ð3Þ
nf X
X ND
Fx ðfÞ ¼ Fx;i;j ðfÞ ð9Þ
Fr;i;j ðfÞ ¼ kr ðfÞhi;j ðfÞΔz ð4Þ i¼1 j¼1

Fig. 4 Milling tests to evaluate

the influence of tool inclination
on cutting forces for λ090
and a ρ00 μm, b ρ040 μm,
and ρ080 μm
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293 287

Fig. 7 Experimental setup for the verification of the actual value of

tool runout

Fig. 5 Experimental procedure for the verification of tool runout in milling

Fig. 6 Flute trajectories

considering tool runout and its
compensation using a
piezoelectric actuator
288 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293

Table 2 Cutting conditions us to vary the values of tool offset and thus control tool
Parameter Unit Tool 1 Tool 2 runout. The use of this type of toolholder is common in
boring operations. The proposed methodology is directed at
Tool diameter mm 8 12 the experimental verification of tool runout in milling. How-
Helix angle ° 30 45 ever, this procedure can easily extend to other machining
Number of flutes – 2 2 operations that use rotating tools. The experimental assem-
Spindle speed rpm 1,200 1200 bly proposed in this paper is shown in Fig. 2.
Feed per tooth mm/tooth 0.075 0.075 The boring toolholder allows the displacement of the tool
Axial depth of cut mm 2 2 in one direction by means of a micrometer screw. This has
Operation – Slotting Slotting been used to obtain different values for tool runout. However,
Workpiece material – Al 7040 Al 7040 it is necessary to ensure that the precision of the tool position-
Workpiece support – Piezo-based table Rigid ing allows us to set the runout in the toolholder accurately.
In order to quantify the positioning error when using the
nf X
X ND micrometer screw, a series of positioning tests was devel-
Fy ðfÞ ¼ Fy;i;j ðfÞ ð10Þ oped for various tool offset values. The tool position was
i¼1 j¼1 recorded using a dial indicator (1 μm resolution) with plane
contact point. The tool runout was calculated as the differ-
3 Proposed methodology ence between measured values for two cutting edges. A set
of five measurements were taken for each position of the
In this research, the use of an adjustable toolholder to tool. The mean value and the standard deviation were also
control tool runout is proposed. The toolholder used allows calculated from collected data. Results are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 8 Experimental setup

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293 289

Tool inclination may arise during tool displacement, runout under typical cutting conditions for milling. Figure 5
making the control of this effect on the cutting forces nec- shows the experimental procedure for the simulation and
essary. This tool tilt produces a similar effect to runout on verification of tool runout in milling using the boring
the cutting forces. In order to assess whether this variation toolholder. The first step before carrying out a milling
could affect tool runout significantly, a series of milling tests test is to locate the tool position where runout is zero.
were performed. Various tool offset values and a constant This is achieved by adjusting the tool position until
angular position of tool runout equal to 90° were consid- each flute of the tool cuts the same quantity of material.
ered. Due to this angular position of tool runout, any vari- This is known as “zero runout” position. At this point,
ation of the runout value in the toolholder had no influence the cutting forces acting on each flute are the same.
on the cutting forces. Therefore, any variation of the cutting From this position, tool runout values can be fixed in order to
forces would be the consequence of the tool inclination and validate cutting force models in milling, taking tool runout
not due to runout. The cutting conditions for these milling into account.
tests are shown in Table 1.
Figure 4a shows the measured cutting forces in a slot
milling test when the position on the micrometer screw is at
zero. As is shown in Fig. 4a, both flutes cut uneven quantities
of material. To begin with, this can be attributed to tool
inclination or to an initial runout. In order to differentiate
between these effects, a predetermined tool offset value is set
on the toolholder. Later tests were carried out for 40 and 80 μm
tool offset values, under the same cutting conditions. The
measured cutting forces are shown in Fig. 4b and c. In both
cases, it can be seen that cutting force patterns remain invari-
able. Therefore, the variation in tool runout does not produce
appreciable variations on the chip section that could affect the
cutting forces. This allows us to conclude that, for the milling
test conditions considered, the uneven cuts of the flutes shown
in Fig. 4a are due to tool inclination. Figure 5b and c show that
for different tool runout values, there is no variation due to tool
tilting that could noticeably affect cutting forces.
The reference pulse generated in each tool revolution, which
is necessary in order to identify the reference flute and control
the entry of each cutting edge into the cutting zone, can also be
seen in Fig. 4. It is measured with an optic type detector.
Once the toolholder performance has been analyzed, it
will be shown that the toolholder can be used to control tool

Fig. 9 Cutting force coefficients for tool 2 and material Al 7040 Fig. 10 Cutting forces for tool 1 (kt(ϕ)0390.7h−0.43, kr(ϕ)035.4.7h−0.92)
290
4 Assessment of tool runout setting
The accuracy in the estimation of the cutting force coefficients
and the precision of the devices employed in the proposed
methodology may affect the estimated value of tool runout
making it different from the geometric value of the tool run-
out. For this reason, it is necessary to verify both values.
In order to ensure that adjusted runout coincides with the
desired value, an external verification method is proposed.
This method is based on the use of a piezoelectric actuator.
The verification process consists of producing a fast dis-
placement of the workpiece to vary instantaneous chip
thickness. This variation will result in equal cutting forces
on each flute.
The trajectory of each cutting edge of the tool is shown in
Fig. 6. The segmented lines represent nominal trajectories
for each flute without tool runout. If tool runout is consid-
ered, flute trajectory is different from the nominal trajectory
producing a variation of chip thickness, as shown in Fig. 6a
and b. This effect is taken into account in Eq. 1. For a two-
fluted tool, this variation is equal to 2ρ.
The use of a piezoactuator to allow the synchronized
movement of the workpiece with the cutting edge action,
and with a value that results in the same chip load for both
cutting flutes, will indicate the actual value for tool runout.
Therefore, when the minor edge is cutting, a 2ρ displace-
ment of the workpiece against the direction of the feed rate
Fig. 11 Experimental
assessment of tool runout
setting for tool 1, using a
piezoelectric actuator to correct
runout
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293
(Fig. 6c) will result in the nominal chip load for this flute.
As the workpiece has moved back to its initial position, the
next cutting edge of the tool is on its nominal trajectory
(Fig. 6d) and both flutes cut the same amount of material.
The experimental setup used for the external verification
of the proposed methodology is shown in Fig. 7. The setup
consists of a piezoelectric actuator driving a precision table
with elastic displacement. A detailed description of this
arrangement is made in reference [19].
5 Results
In order to verify the proposed methodology, different mill-
ing tests were performed using various tools. In this section,
experimental and simulated results are presented for two of the
tools tested in slot milling. The use of slot milling allows us to
explore what is happening along the entire revolution of the
tool. The cutting conditions considered in these tests are shown
in Table 2. Both tools were tested for tool offset values of 0, 10,
and 20 μm. In order to asset tool runout setting, tool 1 was
tested using the experimental setup shown in Fig. 7. Although
the use of this configuration is not strictly necessary to apply the
methodology presented in this paper, it permitted to validate the
procedure to set tool runout in milling. Once the methodology
has been validated, cutting tests using tool 2 were performed
fixing the workpiece to a rigid support. Figure 8 shows the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293 291

experimental setup for the milling tests using tool 2. In each

case and before testing, the tool was mounted on the toolholder
and the procedure shown in Fig. 5 was followed to locate the
“zero runout” position. All the cutting tests were carried out in a
five-axes Deckel Maho 50 Evolution machining center. In all
cases, the cutting forces were measured with a dynamometric
platform Kistler 9257A. The workpiece material was Al 7040.
Cutting force coefficients were estimated from fitting of cutting
forces data measured for the condition of zero runout. This
allowed a precise estimation of the specific cutting pressure.
Figure 9 shows the cutting force coefficients obtained for tool 2
and material Al 7040. The values for two flutes and the fitted
curve are displayed for comparison.
The experimental and simulated results for tool 1 are
displayed in Fig. 10. Figure 10a shows the cutting forces
for “zero runout”. The procedure to achieve “zero runout”
condition is shown to be effective because the cutting forces
acting on each flute are equal. Figures 10b and c show the
measured and simulated cutting forces for tool offset values
of 10 and 20 μm, respectively. These values were obtained
by displacing the tool from “zero runout” position. The
simulated and the measured cutting forces fit well which
proves the validity of the proposed methodology to evaluate
and simulate tool runout in milling.
In order to make an additional assessment of the developed
methodology for tool runout setting, an external validation
was performed. This method, introduced in Section 4, is based
on the action of a piezoelectric actuator to correct the trajec-
tory deviation of one of the tool edges. As explained in Fig. 6,
to correct the effect of the actual tool runout on the cutting
forces, the actuator should provide a 2ρ displacement to the
workpiece, acting on the cutting edge. Figure 11 shows ex-
perimental and simulation results used to assess the actual tool
runout setting. Simulated cutting forces were obtained using a
model of the dynamic correction of tool runout in milling
developed by the authors and published previously [18].
Figure 11a shows corrected cutting forces for the case of ρ0
10 μm when the actuator provided a displacement of 20 μm,
as Fig. 11b shows. Similar results are presented in Fig. 11c and
d for a tool runout value of 20 μm. In this case, correction of Fig. 12 Cutting forces for tool 2 (kt(ϕ)0401.1h−0.54, kr(ϕ)0104.5h−0.82)
cutting force was achieved for an actuator displacement of 40.
In both cases, the results show that the presented methodology 6 Discussion
to set tool runout is adequate.
Figure 12 shows the measured and the simulated cutting A new methodology for the experimental simulation of tool
forces for tool 2. The procedure was the same as that of the runout in milling has been presented. This methodology,
previous test but the workpiece was mounted rigidly on the easy to implement, consists of mounting the tool to be tested
dynamometer, because no external verification was done. in a boring toolholder that allows us to adjust the position of
Figure 12a shows the cutting forces obtained for “zero the tool to vary tool runout. Therefore, the eccentricity of the
runout” and the cutting forces for the tool offset values of tool can be modified and tool runout controlled. For a given
10 and 20 μm which are shown in Fig. 12b and c, respec- tool, before applying the methodology, a procedure had to
tively. In all cases, the results demonstrate that the proposed be followed to find the “zero runout” position. Experimental
methodology to simulate tool runout, when using different verification of “zero runout” position was presented in
tool diameters and different helix angles, is successful. Figs. 10a and 12a. It was shown that the procedure
292
described in this paper is useful in order to find the tool
position where all flutes carry the same chip load. It is
important to highlight the fact that the “zero runout” posi-
tion of the tool does not imply that the nominal rotation
axis coincides with the actual rotation axis. This posi-
tion ensures that the sum of the errors that produce tool
runout is zero and therefore each flute cuts the same amount of
material. From this position in the toolholder, the effect of any
displacement of the tool will be equal to the tool runout
variation.
In addition, an external verification of the tool runout
setting procedure was carried out. This method showed that
runout setting was precise. The fact that the actuator cor-
rected the effect of tool runout on cutting forces by displac-
ing the workpiece a distance equal to 2ρ indicates that the
actual value of tool offset was the geometric value fixed in
the toolholder in both cases. According to these results, it
can be seen that other variables affecting cutting forces in
presence of tool runout, like tool/workpiece deformations or
tool inclination [Sutherland86] have less influence on the
setting of tool offset using the procedure presented in this
paper.
Experimental results that validate the proposed method-
ology have been compared to simulated results using the
cutting force model presented in Section 2 of this paper. The
measured and simulated results show the relevance and
practical applications of the proposed methodology and the
possibility of simulating the effect of a variation in tool
runout on cutting forces.
In order to use the proposed methodology, it is necessary
to take into account the resolution of the micrometer screw
that may restrict analysis of the effect of runout variation.
On the other hand, the toolholder mass would induce dy-
namic effects, making the reduction of the spindle speed
used in the experiments necessary.
7 Conclusions
This research has allowed us to develop a methodology for
the experimental simulation of tool runout in milling. Addi-
tionally, a piezoelectric actuator has been used to move the
workpiece in order to compensate tool runout. The main
conclusions of this paper are as follows:
– An experimental procedure to vary actual tool runout is
proposed in order to validate the estimation of the
cutting force models that consider tool runout.
– The variations of tool runout are obtained by using a
boring toolholder with nonius that allows radial dis-
placements. The tool is mounted so that the reference
flute matches the radial direction of the toolholder with
varying runout.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293
– A key issue in this experimental procedure is the precise
positioning of the tool. An initial verification takes
place with a tool presetting in the machine and then
another verification takes place using measured cutting
forces, checking if the difference of the cutting forces
coincides with tool runout.
– Zero runout in the positioning of the tool in the tool-
holder corresponds with the same cutting forces for all
flutes.
– The toolholder mass could have affected the dynamic
behavior of the process. However, this was not the case
for the cutting speeds used in the experiments.
– Due to the nonlinear relationship between cutting force
variations and tool runout variations, the potential func-
tion of chip thickness used in this research allowed us to
estimate tool runout more precisely.
– The measured and simulated results show the practical
applications of the proposed methodology in order to
simulate and evaluate tool runout in milling.
Acknowledgments Professor Diez would like to thank to Universidad
de La Frontera (Chile) and Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Spain) for supporting
this work.
References
1. Li HZ, Li XP (2005) A numerical study of the effects of cutter
runout on milling process geometry based on true tooth trajectory.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25:435–443
2. Kumanchik LM, Schmitz TL (2007) Improved analytical chip
thickness model for milling. Precis Eng 31:317–324
3. Kline WA, DeVor RE (1983) The effect of runout on cutting
geometry and forces in end milling. Int J Mach Tool D R
23:123–140
4. Wang J-J, Liang SY (1996) Chip load kinematics in milling with
radial cutter runout. J Eng for Industry 118:111–116
5. Liu X, Cheng K, Webb D, Longstaff AP, Widiyarto MH (2004)
Improved dynamic cutting force model in peripheral milling. Part
II: experimental verification and prediction. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 24:794–805
6. Wan M, Zhang WH (2006) Calculations of chip thickness and
cutting forces in flexible end milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
29:637–647
7. Fu HJ, DeVor RE, Kapoor SG (1984) A mechanistic model for the
prediction of the force system in face milling operations. J Eng for
Industry 106:81–88
8. Seethaler RJ, Yellowley I (1999) The identification of radial runout
in milling operations. J Manuf Sci Eng 121:524–531
9. Sutherland JW, DeVor RE (1986) An improved method for cutting
force and surface error prediction inflexible end milling systems. J
Eng for Industry 108:269–279
10. Wan M, Zhang W, Dang J, Yang Y (2010) A unified stability
prediction method for milling process with multiple delays. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 50:29–41
11. Schmitz TL, Couey J, Marsh E, Mauntler N, Hughes D (2007)
Runout effects in milling: surface finish, surface location error, and
stability. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47:841–851
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 65:283–293
12. Hekman KA, Liang SY (1997) In-process monitoring of end
milling cutter runout. Mechatronics 7:1–10
13. Liang SY, Wang JJJ (1994) Milling force convolution modeling for
identification of cutter axis offset. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
34:1177–1190
14. Wang J-J, Zheng CM (2003) Identification of cutter offset in end
milling without a prior knowledge of cutting coefficients. Int J
Mach Tools Manuf 43:687–697
15. Rivière-Lorphèvre E, Filippi E (2009) Mechanistic cutting force
model parameters evaluation in milling taking cutter radial runout
into account. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45:8–15
293
16. Wang J-J, Huang C (2004) A force-model-based approach to
estimating cutter axis offset in ball end milling. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 24:910–918
17. Ko JH, Cho D (2005) Determination of cutting-condition-
independent coefficients and runout parameters in ball-end milling.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26:1211–1221
18. Liang SY, Perry SA (1994) In-process compensation for milling cutter
runout via chip load manipulation. J Eng for Industry 116:153–160
19. Diez Cifuentes E, Pérez García H, Guzmán Villaseñor M, Vizán
Idoipe A (2010) Dynamic analysis of runout correction in milling.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 50:709–717