See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252157845

Boring Bar Chatter Control

Article  in  Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering · January 1998

CITATIONS READS

3 646

2 authors:

Jon R. Pratt Ali H. Nayfeh

National Institute of Standards and Technology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
137 PUBLICATIONS   2,720 CITATIONS    824 PUBLICATIONS   34,532 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geometrical determination of an added mass using M/NEMS resonators View project

Nonlinear Behavior of Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jon R. Pratt on 26 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BORING BAR CHATTER CONTROL
J. Pratt*
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA

A. H. Nayfeh
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0219, USA

ABSTRACT. Boring bars for single-point turning on NOMENCLATURE

a lathe are particularly susceptible to chatter and have f,w natural frequencies in Hz and radians/sec
been the subject of numerous studies. Chatter is, in where subscript implies coordinate
general, caused by instability. Clearly, the cutting pro- ( damping ratio
cess can be limited to regions of known stable operation. power amplifier gain
K1
However, this severely constrains the machine-tool op- actuator electromechanical gain
K2
eration and causes a decrease in productivity. The more sensor gain
Ks
aggressive approach is to attack the stability problem Z(s) actuator electrical impedance
directly through application of vibration control. Here, R actuator electrical resistance
we demonstrate a new biaxial vibration control system L actuator electrical inductance
for boring bars. We present the experimentally deter- d(s) Laplace transformed disturbance
mined modal properties of the VPI Smart Tool and A(s) Laplace transformed accelerance
demonstrate how these properties may be used to de- modal factor
hn
velop models suitable for chatter stability analysis, sim- angle between modal coordinate and
1/JJ
ulation, and development of feedback compensation. A normal to machined surface
phenomenological chatter model that captures much of stiffness coefficient
the rich dynamic character observed during experiments damping coefficient
is presented. We introduce the notion that the mean cutting stiffness
cutting force changes direction as the width of cut in- angle between mean cutting force and
creases due to the finite nose radius of the tool. This normal to machined surface
phenomenon is used to explain the progression from T period of one workpiece revolution
chatter that is dominated by motions normal to the ma- w width of cut
chined surface at small widths of cut to chatter that is dP differential cutting force
dominated by motions tangential to the machined sur- structural nonlinearity
fn(Xn)
face at large widths of cut. We show experimental evi- cutting force nonlinearity
gn(Xn)
dence to support our assertion that a biaxial actuation overlap factor
f-Ln
scheme is necessary to combat the tendency of the tool influence coefficients
/n,V,TJ
to chatter in both directions. C(s) compensator

Key 'Vords:
Chatter, control, self-excited oscillations, machining.
*The work presented here was completed in the Department
of Engineering SciPnce and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0219, USA.
1 INTRODUCTION
Boring bars are tools used in single-point turning op-
erations to create cylindrical inner surfaces. A typical
boring bar operation on a two-axes engine lathe is il-
lustrated in Fig. 1. Self-excited vibrations known as
chatter become increasingly problematic in boring due
to the tool overhang. Chatter vibrations have an ad-

215
verse effect on the surface finish and accuracy and must
be avoided. Generally, the rate of material removal is
reduced to maintain stability, but this causes a sub-
stantial decrease in productivity.
Many investigators have sought means to increase the
stability of machining operations. It is generally ac-
cepted that stiff, highly damped tools have a lower ten-
dency to chatter. Rivin and Kang [1] substantially in-
creased the damping of a lathe tool by using a sandwich
of steel plates and a hard rubber viscoelastic material
to form a laminated clamping device to hold the tool.
Kelson and Hsueh [2] also achieved an increase in sta-
bility by redesigning the tool holder for added stiffness
and damping. Tobias [3] cites a number of instances
where passive vibration absorbers of various configu-
rations have been applied with success. He describes
applications using a Lanchester absorber, a dynamic vi-
bration absorber, and an impact absorber. Researchers
have also found that the cutting speed can be modu-
lated to enhance stability [4, 5].
~achtigal, Klein, and Maddux [6] patented a synthe-
sis circuit to counteract the cutting forces and pro-
posed using it with a reaction mass actuator to control
boring bar chatter. Matsubara, Yamamoto, and Mizu-
moto [7] proposed an active piezoelectric damper for a
boring bar. Recently, Tewani, Rouch, and Walcott [8]
demonstrated chatter control of a boring bar by using
what they call an active dynamic absorber. The con-
trol scheme uses a piezoelectric, reaction-mass actuator
mounted inside the boring bar and has been patented
[9]. All of these control systems are unidirectional and
control vibrations in a principal modal direction of the
tool.
In this paper, we discuss the dynamic characteristics
of the VPI Smart Tool system. This system is de-
signed to sense and control tool vibrations both nor-
mal and tangential to the machined surface, which is
a natural extension of previous unidirectional research
efforts. We describe here how experimental identifi-
cation techniques have been used to develop models
of the Smart-Tool dynamics for control development
and chatter modeling. Chatter signatures are presented
that clearly indicate complex motions both normal and
tangential to the machined surface. A phenomenolog-
ical model based on nonlinear regenerative chatter is
offered to explain this behavior, and it is shown to pos-
sess good qualitative agreement with observed boring
bar vibrations. We then briefly review our active con-
trol scheme, details of which are reported elsewhere
[10, 11, 12]. Finally, we present experimental results
from performance testing of the VPI Smart Tool. These
experimental results reinforce the importance of apply-
216
ing control in both principal directions of vibration.
2 MODAL PROPERTIES
The VPI Smart Tool bolts directly to the cross-slide of
a two-axis engine lathe. The layout of components in
relation to the lathe is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The control system is comprised of two actuator/sensor
pairs; one pair to control motions in the direction tan-
gent to the machined surface, and the other pair to con-
trol motions in the direction normal to the machined
surface. The system is configured so that the tool is
much stiffer in the tangential than in the normal direc-
tion, because the corresponding Terfenol-D actuator is
coupled to the tool through a 10/32 stud in the former
case and through a thin, tensioned wire "stinger" in the
latter case.
We seek two types of information regarding the dynam-
ics of the Smart Tool. First, to model chatter, we need
information about the natural frequencies and damping
ratios of the two lowest Smart Tool vibrational modes.
Second, in order to model and develop the active vi-
bration control, we must characterize the frequency
response of the combined actuator-tool-sensor system,
which includes the actuator electrical impedance prop-
erties.
2.1 Linear Frequencies and Damping
The linear frequencies and damping ratios of the Smart
Tool were identified using impact testing and circle fits
of the resulting frequency-response functions or FRF's.
For our purposes, it was sufficient for chatter modeling
to obtain information about only the first transverse
vibration mode in the directions normal and tangential
to the machined surface.
We find, as did Salje [14] with his boring bar experi-
ments, that the modal characteristics of the tool sys-
tem vary greatly depending on the clamping condi-
tions. The dynamic properties were seen to vary from
ft = 491 Hz and (t ~ 0.025 and fn = 364 Hz and
(n ~ 0.02 on one occasion to ft = 524 Hz and (t ~ 0.03
and fn = 365 Hz and (n ~ 0.02 on another. Clearly,
the tangential coordinate shows the greatest variation.
This may be due to the rigid mounting of the actuator
in this direction, which made the system highly sensi-
tive to the actuator alignment within the supporting
fixture.
2.2 Plant Response Function
In order to design a compensator, we formulate a single- Table 1: Estimated Properties of the Tangential Plant
input, single-output problem in terms of the plant re- Response Function.
sponse function. We identify this function by develop-
Mode Hz damping ratio modal factor
ing a model for the FRF between the voltage input to
1 523.4 0.028 0.018
an actuator and the voltage output by its correspond-
2 750 0.1 -0.0013
ing accelerometer.
3 2535 0.05 0.223
4 3000 0.05 0.223
The normal and tangential vibration-control loops are
aligned with the principal axes of the tool cross section
so that we treat them as uncoupled systems in the ab-
sence of cutting forces. For this paper, we develop a
model for the tangential control system as an example expansion of the cross-accelerance so that its Laplace
of the procedure. transform A(s) is

The actuator is provided with a random voltage ex-

citation and the corresponding output acceleration is
sensed as a voltage from the accelerometer signal con-
ditioner. The actuator power amplifier is set at a
midrange gain and the random voltage input is selected
to avoid amplifier and actuator saturation. Both the
input and output voltages are measured using a digi-
tal frequency analyzer that computes the correspond-
ing FRF, shown as the dashed line in the Bode plot of
Fig. 3.
The phase indicates first-order dynamics, as evidenced
by the roll off from 180° to approximately 90° between
0 and approximately 300 Hz. This is to be expected
since the actuator is magnetostrictive, and its electrical
impedance should resemble that of an inductive load.
Between 450 and 600 Hz the response exhibits a res-
onance peak accompanied by a 180° shift in phase.
Clearly, this mode is observable and controllable. How-
ever, we note evidence of a noncollocated response in
the continued phase roll off near the first antiresonance.
In a collocated actuator-sensor pair, the input is in
phase with each modal response and there is phase re-
covery associated with each antiresonance.
Based on the preceding observations, we construct a
tentative block diagram for our control system in Fig. 4,
where K1 is the power amplifier gain, K 2 is the elec-
tromechanical gain of the actuator, the d( s) are un-
known cutting force disturbances, K 8 is the gain due
to the accelerometer sensitivity and amplification of its
signal conditioner, Z(s) = (R + Ls)- 1 is the actuator
electrical impedance, A(s) is the Laplace transform of
the cross-accelerance between the transduction "force"
input at the actuator location and the acceleration mea-
sured at the sensor location, and C (s) is a compensator
to be determined.
Following standard procedures [13], we assume a modal
model for the structural response in a partial-fraction
where Wn, (n, and hn are the frequency, damping ratio,
and modal factors, respectively, of the nth mode.
\Ve assume that the frequencies and dampings asso-
ciated with the structural response are global proper-
ties that can be determined using FRF's obtained any-
where along the structure. Since the resonant peaks are
fairly well separated, we use single-degree-of-freedom
techniques to obtain estimates of the natural frequen-
cies, damping ratios, and modal factors of the dominant
modes directly from the plant response function. The
results of such an analysis for the tangential control
system are summarized in Table 1.
The second-mode parameters are the result of trial and
error curve fits where the frequency, damping ratio, and
modal factor were varied in order to produce the ap-
propriate total phase response. The second mode is
not observable from the magnitude response and was
not apparent in impact tests of the structure; however,
its effect on the phase of the plant response function is
dramatic.
Next, the actuator's electrical properties L and R are
determined. The resistance R is measured and found to
be 5.7 Ohms. The manufacturer provides a plot of the
electrical impedance as a function of frequency from
which we estimate an L of approximately 6 mH. We
note that our model does not account for back emf or
eddy current losses.
The force generated by the actuator is assumed to be
proportional to the current by a constant electrome-
chanical gain factor K 2 and the actuator power am-
plifier is simply characterized as a constant gain K 1 .
Taking into account the sensor gain Ks, we obtain the

217
plant transfer function
(2)
Rather than determine each of the gains separately, we
lump them together as a single parameter K. Setting
K = 48 and letting s = iw, where w is the frequency of
excitation, we plot the model response as the solid line
in Fig. 3.
3 CHATTER ID AND MODEL-
ING
In this section we report some experimental observa-
tions of chatter obtained using the VPI Smart Tool.
Based on the observed tool responses, we develop a phe-
nomenological model of chatter using a reduced-order,
nonlinear dynamic model for the tool and cutting force
interactions.
3.1 Chatter Signatures
We begin by considering the response of the VPI Smart
Tool without feedback control and investigate boring
bar chatter for light, finish style cuts at the minimum
feedrate of the lathe, which is 0.0024 11 per revolution
(ipr ). Chatter signatures are obtained for a variety of
spindle speeds at nominal widths of cut of w 0 = 0.002"
and w 0 = 0.03".
In Fig. 5 the amplitude of the fundamental harmonic
of the tool's acceleration tangent to the machined sur-
face is plotted as a function of the workpiece rotational
speed in revolutions per minute (rpm) for the case when
wo = 0.03". For the data in this plot, the first lat-
eral vibration modes have frequencies and dampings
of ft = 524 Hz and (t :::::: 0.03 and fn = 365 Hz and
(n :::::: 0.02, respectively, as determined by impact test-
ing and circle fits of the resulting frequency-response
functions.
Two observations can be made from the results in
Fig. 5. First, the presence of stable cutting for all
workpiece rotational speeds below 165 rpm indicates
that the cutting forces are dependent on the mean cut-
ting velocity and contribute a positive damping effect
at low speeds, in agreement with Tlusty's results for
aluminum [15]. Second, a subcritical-type instability
occurs between 165 and 195 rpm, where both chatter
and stable cutting conditions coexist.
Next, we consider the time histories and autospectra
of the tangential and normal accelerations as well as
218
the cross spectra and coherences between these signals
for some typical chatter signatures obtained when the
tool frequencies and dampings are ft = 491 Hz and
(t :::::: 0.025 and fn = 364 Hz and (n :::::: 0.02. In this
series of tests, the tool tends to chatter more easily,
and the effect of positive damping due to the cutting
process seems to be much less.
Chatter is observed at spindle rotational speeds as low
as 90 rpm and for widths of cut as small as 0.002 11 ,
as seen in Fig. 6. We note that for the shallow cut of
0.002 11 , chatter tends to be localized in a direction nor-
mal to the machined surface, whereas for the deeper cut
of 0.03", chatter is oriented more along a line tangent
to the machined surface, as is evident in Fig. 7. In both
cases, the fundamental harmonic of the motion is seen
to be linearly coherent, suggesting that mode coupling
is present.
3.2 Chatter Modeling
The dynamic response of coupled machine-tool systems
has long been recognized for its complexity. Salje [14]
examined experimentally the problem of tools with two
orthogonally oriented degrees of freedom and revealed
rich dynamics. Kuchma [16] considered boring bars
with non-circular cross-sections and found that the sta-
bility is strongly dependent on the orientation of the
plane of symmetry with respect to the normal to the
machined surface. Tlusty [17] developed the first sim-
ple model for mode-coupled chatter, whereas Tobias
[3] suggested that regeneration must also be considered
in these systems. A variety of other models have been
suggested and studied for orthogonal cutting conditions
[18, 19, 20].
Recall that, in the experiments, we have observed
jumps from static to dynamic cutting conditions, or
the so-called subcritical-type instability typical of non-
linear dynamic systems. Similar behavior was reported
by Hooke and Tobias [21] for single-point turning, and
was observed and modeled by Hanna and Tobias [22]
for face milling. Hanna and Tobias [22] used a single-
degree-of-freedom model with both cutting-force and
structural nonlinearities to account for the jump behav-
ior. This model was recently the subject of a thorough
bifurcation analysis that revealed the local supercritical
and global sub critical nature of its stability [23, 24, 25].
Shi and Tobias [26] reproduced the theoretical results of
Hanna and Tobias [22] by dropping the structural non-
linearity and considering the effect of the tool leaving
the cut, a condition known as "multiple regenerative
chatter".
All of the aforementioned behaviors seem evident to
varying degrees in our experiments. To further com-
plicate matters, it appears from our experimental data
that the cutting geometry varies as the width of cut
is changed. Consider the sketches of Fig. 8 where we
recreate the chip flows that were observed to occur over
the cutting insert for two extreme cutting conditions.
For the case of a light cut, such as that characterized
by the chatter signature of Fig. 6, the chip tends to
flow directly from the work in a direction approaching
the normal to the machined surface. The differential
cutting force dP lies approximately within the x 1 - x 2
plane, as sketched in Fig. 8 (b).
In contrast, in a more substantial cut, such as that
characterized by the chatter of Fig. 7, the chip tends
to flow from the work in a direction normal to the so-
called transient surface. The differential cutting force
dP appears to change orientation and now lies within
the xz - x 3 plane, as is sketched in Fig. 8 (a).
two-degree-of-freedom coupled machine-tool systems.
Summing forces in Fig. 9, we obtain the following lin-
earized equations of motion expressed in terms of the
modal coordinates:
mi'1 +c1i1 +>.1x1 = -dPcos(8-1/J1) (3)
1
mi'z + cziz + AzXz = -dP cos ( 27r + 1/J1 - 8) (4)
where x 1 and x 2 are the tool modal coordinates, re-
spectively, m is the modal mass, c1 and c2 are linear
viscous damping coefficients, >. 1 and >. 2 are linear stiff-
ness coefficients, and dP is the differential regenerative
cutting force
(5)
Here, k 8 is the cutting force coefficient associated with
the workpiece material, x is the displacement compo-
nent normal to the machined surface, and Xr = x(t- T)
is the displacement during the previous workpiece rev-
olution, w is the width of cut, and T is the period of
the revolution.

The seeming change in the orientation of the plane in We neglect the effect of the tensioned wire stinger and
which cutting might be characterized as nearly "or- assume that the stiffness of the tool in the x 1 direction
thogonal" is due to the finite nose radius of the insert. is that of a simple cantilever beam of length l, modulus
Clearly, the effective tool lead angle can vary from 0° E, and moment of inertia I about its midplane so that
to ;::::; 90° as the chip width is decreased below a value
>. 1 -_ 3EI (6 )
corresponding to the radius of the insert (0.01" in this [3
case). Similar observations regarding the chip flow in
oblique, multi-edged cutting geometries were originally
reported by Stabler[27]. Dividing through by the modal mass m, we obtain
2
To begin our modeling, we consider first the condi- i'1 +2(lwdl +wix1 1
= -dPw cos(8-1j; 1) (7)
tions prevalent during the light cutting scenario, be- >.1
2
cause this will define the lower bound of stable cut
i'z + 2(zwziz + w~xz = dP~~ sin(() -1/Jl) (8)
widths. For the case of a plunge type of cut, where
the tool feeds directly into the tube wall along the x 1 where ( 1 and ( 2 are linear viscous damping ratios, and
axis, the schematic diagram of Fig. 9 is appropriate. w1 and w 2 are the natural frequencies.
We consider this cutting geometry to provide a crude
approximation of the case of a very shallow cut. From Fig. 9 we find that
x = x1 cos (1/J 1)- x 2 sin (1/Jl) (9)
We note that the bar is essentially symmetric, so that
the modal mass is the same for each of the first trans- so that
verse modes, but that the stiffnesses differ owing to the
dP = k 8 w[cos ('l/;l)(x1- Xlr)-
manner in which the boring bar is supported by the
actuators. \Ve assume that the principal modal coor- sin ('l/;1) (xz - Xzr )] (10)
dinates are rotated with respect to the normal to the
machined surface X, as indicated by the angle 1/J 1, in an
effort to reconcile the fact that, in actuality, this is an Let /'1 = wi~ cos(() -1j;1), 1'2 = -wi~ sin (8 -1/Jl),
oblique cutting geometry and not an orthogonal plunge TJ = cos (1/J1), and v = - sin (1j;1), then the equations of
type of cut. motion can be rewritten as
i'1 + 2(1w1i1 + wix =
3.3 Linear Stability Boundary -1'1w[ry(x1- X1r) + v(xz- Xzr)] (11)
The analysis to determine the stability boundary i'z + 2(zwzil + w~x =
closely parallels those of Tlusty [15] and Tobias[3] for -!'zw[ry(xl - X1 r) + v(xz - Xzr )] (12)

219

To analyze the stability of this system, we assume zero
initial conditions, take the Laplace transform, and ob-
tain
(s 2 +2C1w1s+w12 )X1(s) =
-11w[77(l- e-sr)Xl(s) + v(l- e-sr)X2(s)] (13)
(s 2 + 2(2wzs + w~)Xz(s) =
-1zw[77(l- e-sr)X1(s) + v(l- e-sr)Xz(s)] (14)
Then, solving equation(14) for X 2 (s) yields
Substituting equation (15) into equation (13), we find
the characteristic equation
[s 2 + 2(1w1 s + wf + 1 1w77(l - e-sr)][s 2 + 2(zwzs
+w~ + 12wv(l- e-sr)]- 'Y112 w 2 77v(l- e-sr) 2 = 0 (16)
To obtain the familiar lobed stability boundary, we as-
sume s = iwc, separate the real and imaginary terms,
and solve the resulting pair of equations for w and We
as a function of the delay T.
We now consider the predicted cutting stability of the
Smart Tool when the modal properties are h = 491 Hz
and ( 1 = 0.025 and h = 364 Hz and ( 2 = 0.02.
The boring bar itself may be approximated as a circu-
lar cylinder of length 9" (length of bar measured from
tool tip to clamped end) and diameter 1". We recall
that the moment of inertia for a circular cross section
is I = 7r / 4( d/2) 4 , then A. 1 = 6060 psi for a modulus
for steel of E = 30000 kpsi. A represenative value for
the cutting stiffness of aluminum is ks = 145000 psi
according to Kalpakjian [28].
We consider two cases. The first case is for a two-
degree-of-freedom system where 'lj;1 = 15°. In the sec-
ond case, 'lj;1 = 0° and the stability reduces to that of
a single-degree-of-freedom system. The resulting sta-
bility lobes are plotted for a range of spindle speeds
around 170 rpm in Fig. 10. We see from the plot that
the stability is affected by the presence of the second
degree of freedom. The limit width of cut is in rea-
sonable agreement with that observed experimentally,
though cuts below 0.002" were beyond the accuracy of
the lathe used.
3.4 Chatter Simulation
To simulate the chatter motions during the heavier cut,
we must include some nonlinearity to produce bounded
220
motions. Taking our cue from Hanna and Tobias [22],
we include both structural and cutting force nonlinear-
ities and modify the linear model as follows:
i"1 + 2(1w1i1 + 26i1 + wf[x1 + h(xl)]
= -~1 W{ 77 [(X1 - J.11X1 T) + gl(X1 - J.11X1 T)]
(17)
+v [(xz - J.izXzr) + gz(Xz - J.12X2r)]}
i2 + 2(zwzi2 + 26iz + wnxz + h(xz)] =
-/zW{ 77 [(x1 - J.11X1 T) + gl(x1 - J.11X1 T)]
+v [(xz - J.izXzr) + gz(Xz - J.izXzr)]} (18)
where fn (xn) is a function describing the structural
nonlinearity in the nth modal coordinate, 9n (xn -
J.inXnr) is a function describing the regenerative cutting
force nonlinearity in each coordinate, ~n is the damp-
ing due to the cutting process in each coordinate, In
is an influence coefficient describing the component of
the differential cutting force projected into each coor-
dinate, 77 is a coefficient describing the degree to which
motions in the x 1 direction contribute to the differen-
tial cutting force, v is a coefficient describing the degree
to which motions in the x 2 direction contribute to the
differential cutting force, and J.ln describes the degree
of cut overlap in each direction.
To obtain the simulated tool accelerations of Fig. 12,
we let 6/w1 + (1 = 0.2, 6 = 0, ~/1 =cos (7r/3)wn~,
11 = cos (7r /6)wf ~~ , 77 = 0.495, v = -0.24, J.11 = 1,
J.lz = 1, and assume the following functional relations
for the structural and cutting force nonlinearities:
if x 1 < 0
~x1
h(xl) = { otherwise
h(x 2 ) =lOx~+ 300x~
2 3
9n (xn- /lnXnr) = 5. 7(xn- J.inXnr ) - 3700(xn- J.inXnr )
The regenerative cutting force nonlinearity is identical
to that used by Hanna and Tobias [22]. The clamp-
ing in the x 1 direction was observed to be qualitatively
"high" in the time traces of the impact response of the
tool measured during stable cutting at lower speeds;
hence, the very substantial effect of process damping
incorporated by the large value of 6. The overlap co-
efficient J.1 1 = 1 was selected to capture the fact that
motions in the x 1 direction modulate the undeformed
chip cross-section in a complex fashion that depends on
the previous tool position; on the other hand, motions
in the x 2 direction can modulate the chip thickness via
a penetration effect labeled type B chatter by Tobias
[3]. The sign of the coefficient 1 2 was chosen to be neg-
ative based on the tendency of the chatter frequency to
be lower than w 2 , which would not be the case if 1 2 > 0.
Perhaps the most unconventional feature of the model
is the bilinear structural stiffness represented by the
function h (xl). This function was chosen to produce
the unsymmetric tool motions that were evident in the
time traces at this width of cut and speed. We hypoth-
esize that the tool does not so much cut the workpiece
in the x 1 direction as plow into it, giving rise to the
near impact style oscillations observed in this coordi-
nate during the experiments.
4 ACTIVE VIBRATION CON-
TROL
To achieve effective chatter control, we must minimize
the tool vibratory response to arbitrary disturbance
forces. In terms of closed-loop performance goals, this
translates into an output regulation problem. How-
ever, there is little to be gained by controlling all of the
states, or modes, present in our plant response func-
tions because the chatter vibration at the tool tip is
clearly dominated by the first mode in each case.
It is well known that second-order compensators can
enhance the damping of targeted structural modes
in a fashion analogous to a mechanical vibration ab-
sorber [30, 31]. We show in references [10, 29] that
an absorber-style approach can be quite effective for
chatter control even in the presence of nonlinear struc-
tural and cutting forces. Furthermore, in reference [12]
we develop a compensator synthesis scheme and show
that, for the Smart Tool system with Terfenol-D ac-
tuators, a feedback controller can be designed that is
entirely analogous to a vibration absorber by using a
compensator of the form
where g is the feedback gain, We and (c are the fre-
quency and damping ratio associated with the second-
order dynamics of the compensator, and Tc is the time
constant associated with its first-order dynamics. The
performance predicted for such a scheme when applied
to the tangential control system is repeated here in
Fig. 11. The response is seen to have the form one
would expect if a highly-damped mechanical vibration
absorber were appended to the system of Fig. 12.
5 PERFORMANCE TESTING
In Fig. 13 we show evidence of a jump-type instability
in the single-mode control. The time history of hor-
izontal vibrations is recorded when only the vertical
221
control loop is active. The cutting parameters are set
for a spindle speed of 170 rpm, a feedrate of 0.0024 ipr,
and a depth of cut of 0.002". Initially, the control is
only active in the vertical direction. The cut appears
to be stable. A disturbance is introduced by hitting the
bar in the horizontal direction with a hammer. Clearly,
the disturbance grows due to regeneration. After the
chatter reaches steady state, control is added in the hor-
izontal direction, thereby stabilizing the system. An-
other disturbance is applied but the control maintains
stability.
Finally, we demonstrate biaxial or two-mode control to
quench large-amplitude chatter in Fig. 14. The cut-
ting conditions are set for a spindle speed of 230 rpm,
a feedrate of 0.0024 ipr, and a depth of cut of 0.03".
Large-amplitude chatter is allowed to develop before
applying feedback control, which stabilizes the system.
\Ve observe a dramatic improvement in the surface fin-
ish.
6 CONCLUSIONS
We have presented the experimentally determined
modal properties of the VPI Smart Tool and demon-
strated how these properties may be used to develop
models suitable for chatter stability analysis, simula-
tion, and development of feedback compensation. A
phenomenological chatter model that captures much of
the rich dynamic character observed during the exper-
iments was presented. We introduced the notion that
the mean cutting force changes direction as the width
of cut increases due to the finite nose radius of the tool.
This phenomenon leads to a progression from chatter
that is dominated by motions normal to the machined
surface at small widths of cut, to chatter that is domi-
nated by motions tangential to the machined surface at
large widths of cut. We show experimental evidence to
support our assertion that a biaxial actuation scheme is
necessary to combat the tendency of the tool to chatter
in both directions. At present, the nonlinear coefficients
of the phenomenological model are determined in an ad
hoc fashion based on comparisons between simulation
and experiment. In the future, we will seek a system-
atic approach for the determination of these coefficients
based on a regression analysis of the chatter time series.
7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Army Research Office
under Grant No. DAAH04-96-1-0021 and the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. CMS-9423774.
References
[1] Rivin, E. I. and Kang, H., "Improvement of Ma-
chining Conditions for Slender Parts by Tuned
Dynamic Stiffness of Tool," Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf., Vol. 29, 1989, pp. 361-376.
[2] Kelson, Z. Y. and Hsueh, W. C., "Suppression of
Chatter in Inner-Diameter Cutting," JSME Int.
J. Series C: Dyn., Cont. Robot., Design, Manuf.,
Vol. 39, 1996, pp. 25-33.
[3] Tobias, S. A., Machine Tool Vibration, Wiley, New
York, 1965.
[4] Sexton, J. S., Milne, R. D., and Stone, B. J., "A
Stability Analysis of Single-Point Machining with
Varying Spindle Speed," Appl. Math. Modelling,
Vol. 1, 1977, pp. 310-318.
[5] Takemura, T., Kitamura T., Hoshi, T., and
Okushima, K., "Active Suppression of Chatter by
Programmed Variation of Spindle Speed," Ann.
C.I.R.P., Vol. 23, 1974, pp. 121-122.
[6] Nachtigal, C. L., Klein, R. G., and Maddux, K.
C., Apparatus for Controlling Vibrational Chatter
in a Machine- Tool Utilizing an Updated Synthesis
Circuit, U.S. Pat. No. 3,967,515, 1976.
[7] Matsubara, T., Yamamoto, H., and Mizumoto, H.,
"Chatter Suppression by Using Piezoelectric Ac-
tive Damper," ASME Design Eng. Div. DE-Vol.
18-2, ASME, New York, NY, 1989, pp. 79-83.
[8] Tewani, S. G., Rouch, K. E., and Walcott, B. L.,
"A Study of Cutting Process Stability of a Boring
Bar with Active Dynamic Absorber," Int. J. Mach.
Tools Manfu., Vol. 35, 1995, pp. 91-108.
[9] Rouch, et al, Active Vibration Control Device, U.S.
Pat. No. 5,170,103, 1992.
[10] Pratt, J. R. and Nayfeh, A. H., "Active Vibration
Control for Chatter Suppression," in Proc. of the
38th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conf., Kissimmee, FL, AIAA Paper No.
97-1210, 1997.
[11] Pratt, J. R. and Nayfeh, A. H., "Boring Bar Chat-
ter Control Using A Two-Axes Active Vibration
Absorber Scheme," in Proc. of NoiseCon97, Book
2, 1997, pp. 313-324.
[12] Pratt, J. R. and Nayfeh, A. H., "Experimental Sys-
tem Identification and Active Vibration Control of
a Smart Machine Tool," to appear in Proc. of the
Eleventh Symposium on Structural Dynamics and
Controls, Blacksburg, VA, 1997.
222
[13] Ewins, D. J., Modal Testing: Theory and Practice,
Research Studies Press, Ltd., Letchworth, Eng-
land, 1986.
[14] Salje, E., "Self-Excited Vibrations of Systems with
Two Degrees of Freedom," Trans. ASME, Vol. 78,
1956, pp. 737-748.
[15] Tlusty, J., "Machine Dynamics," R.I. King (ed.),
in Handbook of High Speed Machining Technology,
Chapman and Hall, New York, 1985, pp. 48-153.
[16] Kuchma, L. K., "Boring Bars with Improved Re-
sistance to Vibration," Eng. Digest, Vol. 18, 1957,
pp. 68-70.
[17] Koeingsberger, F. and Tlusty, J ., Machine Tool
Structures, Vol. 1, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1970.
[18] Grabec, 1., "Chaotic Dynamics of the Cutting Pro-
cess," Int. J. Mach. Tools Manu/., Vol. 28, 1988,
pp. 19-32.
[19] Wu, D. W. and Liu, C. R., "An Analytical Model
of Cutting Dynamics. Part 1: Model Building,"
ASME J. Eng. Indust., Vol. 107, 1985, pp. 107-
111.
[20] Lin, J. S. and Weng, C. 1., "A Nonlinear Dynamic
Model of Cutting," Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.,
Vol. 30, 1990, pp. 53-64.
[21] Hooke, C. J., and Tobias, S. A., "Finite Ampli-
tude Instability-A ~ew Type of Chatter," in Proc.
of the 4th International M. T.D.R. Conf., Manch-
ester, 1964, pp. 97-109.
[22] Hanna, N. H., and Tobias, S. A., "A Theory of
1.\"onlinear Regenerative Chatter," ASME J. Eng.
Indust., Vol. 96, 1974, pp. 247-255.
[23] Nayfeh, A. H., Chin, C.-M., and Pratt, J.,
"Perturbation Methods in Nonlinear Dynamics-
Applications to Machining Dynamics," to appear
ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 1997.
[24] Pratt, J. and :'-J"ayfeh, A. H., "Experimental Stabil-
ity of a Nonlinear Time-Delay System," in Proc. of
the 37th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conf., AIAA Paper No. 96-1643,
Salt Lake City, UT, 1996.
[25] 1.\"ayfeh, A. H., Chin, C.-M., and Pratt, J., "Appli-
cations of Perturbation Methods to Tool Chatter
Dynamics," F. C. Moon (ed.), in Dynamics and
Chaos in Manufacturing Processes, Wiley, New
York, in press.
[26] Shi, M. and Tobias, S. A., "Theory of Finite Am-
plitude Machine Tool Instability," Int. J. Mach.
Tool Design Res., Vol. 24, 1984, pp. 45-69.
[27] Stabler, G. V., "The Chip Flow Law and its Conse-
quences," in Advances in Machine Tool Design and
Research, Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1964, p.
243.

[28] Kalpakjian, S., Manufacturing Engineering and

Technology, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, New
York, 1992.

[29] Nayfeh, A. H. and Pratt, J. R., "Chatter Iden-

tification and Control for a Boring Process", in
Proc. of IUTAM Symposium on New Applications
of Nonlinear and Chaotic Dynamics in Mechanics,
Ithaca, New York, 1997.

[30] Juang, J.-N. and Phan, M., "Robust Controller

Designs for Second-Order Dynamic Systems: A
Virtual Passive Approach," J. Guid., Cont., Dyn.,
Vol. 15, 1992, pp. 1192-1198.

[31] Goh, C. J. and Caughey, T. K., "On the Stabil-

ity Problem Caused by Finite Actuator Dynamics
in the Control of Large Space Structures," Int. J.
Cont., Vol. 41, 1985, pp. 787-802.

+Y
Figure 2: A schematic showing the location of the ac-

1z
+X
tuators and sensors along the boring bar.

180

0-

·180
-~-
-
.

\ '

~~---·--o
-360
-'--~~

000 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00

Figure 1: The lathe and boring bar showing the tool

overhang. Figure 3: Bode plot of the tangential plant response
function. The dashed line is the experimentally mea-
sured response while the solid line is obtained from the
model.

d(s)

Reference Sensor
Input Output

Figure 4: Block diagram.

223
 14

..
g's

50 90 130 170 210 250

'1'III

(a) (b)
Figure 5: Bifurcation diagram showing the amplitude of
the fundamental harmonic of chatter for various spindle
Figure 8: Chip flow over the cutting insert (a) heavy
speeds when w = 0.03" and feedrate = 0.0024 ipr.
cutting and (b) light cutting.

~::~ 1 1.02 1.04

t:l [ .:J 0 500 1000 1500 2000

:::EB
time (sees) freq(Hz)

03 ol ~424Hz
(d)
"0 -20 .
1ii
-40 I
1 1.02 1.04 o~'-=so-:::o:"1!t~ooo~t~5oo~'=2oo':::o::---'
time (sees) freq (Hz)

i~ll~ ,
0 500 1000 1500 2000
freq. (Hz)
1 ] i·:iiii 0 500 1000 1500 2000
freq. (Hz)
Figure 9: Two-degree-of-freedom cutting system.

Figure 6: Time traces, autospectra, cross-spectrum,

and coherence when w = 0.002", speed = 90 rpm, and 0.0026
feedrate = 0.0024 ipr.

Single-degree-of-freedom model

~:~~ !~I ITW

0.0024

1 1.02
time (sec)
1.04 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Iraq (Hz)
w
100~·
:~LG·
0.0022

J
(c)

~ ~ ·.v
·z·.·
olmvvmvmvvvvvmml 0
o
-20
... . .
.
73

. • A Two-degree-of-freedom model
·100'-------:-:-:-----::-c--'
1 1.02 1.04 0 500 1000 1500 2000
time (seco) freq(Hz)
0.002-----

2.80 2.84 2.88 2.92

1/'t

Figure 7: Time traces, autospectra, cross-spectrum, Figure 10: Stability lobes for the two-degree-of-freedom
and coherence when w = 0.03", speed = 210 rpm, and cutting system
feedrate =0.0024 ipr.

224
 201

J 2 3 5 6 8 10 11

1500

-100

-200
0

500 1000 1500

I : ".-----.-'
2:fr----r---" >~:~.----.----,-
·~ :~..I ,. "
- 2 ~L.4--=2L.5--=2L.6--=2=-7--:2L.8--:2"c:-9-'--:30"c----,3J-.1_-:32:':----,33:':-___J34

Figure 13: Time traces of the tool accelerations normal

Figure 11: Compensated tangential plant response
function. to the machined surface; initially, only tangential con-
trol is active; then, in addition, control is applied in the
normal direction to quench the chatter and eliminate
the jump-type instability; w = 0.002", speed = 170
rpm, and feedrate = 0.0024 ipr.

~:~E:1;lJ:X.iJJ
1
.· •. 1.02
time (sees)
1.04
"C ~50

-100
0
.
500 1000 1500 2000
freq (Hz)

i]llll i'llG
1 1.02
time (sees)
1.04 -10oo:--::5-:.-:oo~1=oo7o -=1-="5oo:-::=2:"o"'=oo="
freq (Hz)
10
time (sees)
12 14 16 18 20

•Jl I i·Yjg U
0 500 1000 1500 2000
freq. (Hz)
0 500 1000 1500 2000
freq. (Hz)

10 12 14 16 18 20
Figure 12: Simulated time traces, autospectra, cross- time (sees)

spectrum, and coherence of the normal and tangential

tool accelerations when w = 0.03", speed = 210 rpm, Figure 14: Time traces of the normal and tangential
and feedrate = 0.0024 ipr. tool accelerations; w = 0.03", speed = 210 rpm, and
feedrate = 0.0024 ipr.

225

View publication stats