Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580

5th CIRP Conference on High Performance Cutting 2012

A new method for circular testing of machine tools

under loaded condition
Andreas Archentia*, Mihai Nicolescua, Guillaume Castermana, Sven Hjelmb
a
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvägen 68, Stockholm 10044, Sweden
b
Scania CV AB, TDX Production Development, Södertälje 15187, Sweden
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 (0)8 790 8353; fax: +46 (0)8 21 08 51 .E-mail address: andreas.archenti@iip.kth.se.

Abstract

This paper presents a novel test device for the evaluation of the accuracy of machine tools. The design concept is similar to a
double ball bar (DBB) with the difference that an adjustable load generated by the device can be applied between spindle nose and
machine tool table. The device, called Loaded Double Ball Bar (LDBB), can be used either as an ordinary double ball bar system
with no load applied to the structure, or with a predefined load applied to the structure. The load that is generated by the LDBB is
generally not equivalent to real cutting forces. However, from the static deflection point of view the effect of the load on the
machine tool structure has similar impact on the static behaviour of the system. For instance, the load can in some cases eliminate
existing play in ball screws, plays that under normal machining condition will be eliminated by the effect of cutting forces on the
structure. With the help of this test device, not only can the identifiable errors by an ordinary DBB be evaluated but also machine
tool elastic deflection in different directions. It is also possible to track different error patterns to the applied load.

© 2012
2012 The
Published byPublished
Authors. Elsevier BV. Selection
by Elsevier B.V.and/or peer-review
Selection under responsibility
and/or peer-review of Prof. Konrad
under responsibility Wegener
of Professor Konrad Wegener
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: Loaded Double Ball Bar (LDBB); Machine tool; Testing; Deformation; Static stiffness.

1. Introduction Machine tool testing methods, developed to aid

One key issue in the manufacturing of components
for new innovative, environmental friendly and safe
vehicle products is to meet increasingly higher accuracy
requirements in machining of tougher materials. In the
component manufacturing industry there is a need for
simple, fast and reliable methods to identify and control
capability in operational condition for robust machining
of complex components with respect to product quality
and with competitive productivity.
One way of increasing the efficiency of a production
system is to continuously improve, and develop new
tests and evaluation methods of the machining systems.
This is especially important when the goal is to produce
a specific part correctly for the first time, in the quickest
and most cost effective way. In this regard, new or
improved test methods help to gather information about
system status and can be stored in digital machine tool
models used for analysis and optimization.
machine tool manufacturers during fabrication, are now
commonly used to qualify new machines at purchase
time. These methods, based on international standards
define the accuracy during unloaded condition [1]. When
the accuracy of a machining system is measured by
traditional techniques, effects from neither the static
elastic structure’s stiffness nor the cutting process are
taken into account. This limits the applicability of these
techniques for realistic evaluation of a machining
system’s accuracy [2]. It was early stated that a customer
who is buying a machine tool needs an acceptance test,
which tests the machine during operation-like
conditions, to verify that the machine was design and
constructed properly [3].
The first part of the paper emphasizes the importance
of new fast machine test methods. In this context the
double ball bar (DBB) fast test method for machine tools
is reviewed. Methods for the evaluation of a machine
tool’s elastic deformation are also discussed. Then, the

2212-8271 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Professor Konrad Wegener
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.04.102
576 Andreas Archenti et al. / Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580
focus moves on to a novel type of double ball bar device,
which has the ability to create a preload on the elastic
structure of the machine tool, thus producing realistic
conditions for accuracy of measurements.
2. Machine tool test methods
The costs of unplanned disturbances are increased
when lean and agile production is implemented on the
shopfloors. It is becoming more and more important to
detect emerging problems at an early stage. There is a
need for new machine test methods to be able to perform
regular diagnoses of sensitive equipment and to perform
preventive maintenance to avoid unplanned disturbances
[4].
There are various test methods available for machine
tools [5]. Some of them can be used for fast tests
(regular testing) but the majority of the tests methods
take too long time to be performed (more than an hour)
[6]. However, some methods based on circular tests can
be considered as fast test methods.
2.1. Circular test methods
The basic idea of a circular test is to run a circle path
and as the test proceeds, all deviations from the base
circle are registered [7]. An error free machine tool
results in a perfect, circular path. Circular test methods
measure the changes in the distance between the spindle
nose, or the end of the tool, and the centre of a circle on
the table. The accuracy of the motion is evaluated from
the motion error traces, which can be diagnosed by
analysing the traces. The measurement offers a high
amount of detailed information due to the fact that the
most common errors distort the test path in a
mathematically definable way [8].
2.2. Double ball bar
The double ball bar (DBB), based on circular test [6],
is a device that can be used for quick tests, developed in
the early 1980s [9] and it is adopted by ISO230-4 and
ANSI B5.54-2005 as an instrument for circular test [10],
[11]. This ensures unified practice in ball bar
measurements and makes it possible to reliably find
many machine tool deviation types from this simple
measurement. DBB is the most common circular test
method for machine tools and can be solely used to
analyse unloaded machine tool structures. The device is
based on a very accurate linear scale which measures
changes in radial direction during a circular motion. The
evaluation of the results is well studied and many of the
most significant algorithms can be found in literature
[8].
2.3. Machine tools elastic deformation
The machining system is represented by the close-
loop interaction between the elastic structure (ES) and
the cutting process (CP), see Fig 1, which directly affect
the manufacturing accuracy.
In a quasi-static case, the machining system may be
represented by two transfer functions, one in the primary
loop, the static compliance, ca (the inverse of the static
stiffness ka), representing the ES, and the other in the
feedback loop, the cutting stiffness, ra, representing the
CP.
The response of ES to a static load corresponds to a
relative deflection ǻy, between tool and workpiece.
Physically, this means that the cutting tool will be forced
in or out of the workpiece. As a result, the real depth of
cut describing the position of the tool with respect to the
workpiece surface will be ǻap [mm] instead of the
nominal value ap . The resulting cutting force
ΔFc = k s h q Δa p
(1)
where ks [N/mm2] is the specific cutting coefficient, h
[mm] is the actual chip thickness, q (0 < q < 1) a small
exponent.
Elastic structure (ES)
Fc,nom+
Fc,nom ǻFc ǻy
ca=1/ka
Cutting process (CP)
ǻFc ǻap
ra=ksh
Fig. 1. Closed-loop machining system from static point of view. The
machine tool elastic structure forms the primary loop of the machining
system, while the cutting process static behaviour is represented as a
subsystem in the feedback loop
A machine tool´s structural characteristics change
depending on different factors, such as cutting forces
and subsystem configuration. For instance, if a force is
acting between the spindle nose and the machine table,
the stiffness can be very high. If the same force is acting
between a tool holder system and the machine table, the
resulting static stiffness can drop as much as 20 to 30
times, and if not compensated for will result in accuracy
errors [12].
The most common way to measure the static
deflection in a machine tool is by using an external force
generator (e.g. hydraulic jerk), a calibrated force sensor
and a displacement sensor. The static deformation of a
machine structure can then be plotted as a function of the
 Andreas Archenti et al. / Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580 577

load. The static stiffness can be calculated from the 3. Loaded double ball bar (LDBB)
applied force and resulting deformation [13]. If the
machine load is applied in a loading and unloading During machining, from a static behaviour point of
manner, a deformation diagram can be created and a view, the cutting tool and the workpiece are connected
more complete description of the static behavior for a together by a variable stiffness link. The static stiffness
given direction can be produced. of the link depends on the magnitude and direction of the
cutting force. Traditionally, the accuracy of machine
2.4. Test specimens for deformation test tools is measured under unloaded conditions by laser
interferometry or more practically by the DBB method.
A conventional approach for testing machines under By combining the traditional DBB test and the capability
loaded conditions is to produce some specially designed to generate a load on the machine tool structure, a more
standard specimens, which are designed to generate realistic condition for accuracy measurements is created.
predefined forces during the machining operation. The A device that combines these two capabilities is
parts are then measured and evaluated, in order to draw named Loaded Double Ball Bar (LDBB) [2]. The device
conclusions of the behaviour of the machine. The can be used as an ordinary DBB system when no load is
disadvantages of this method are that expensive tools applied to the structure, or to apply a predefined load to
and parts are needed and that the results depend on the the structure (the link closing the force loop in the
condition of these. The results from different tests are structure). The load that is generated by the LDBB is not
not comparable if not exactly the same test specimens, equivalent to real cutting forces but from a static
tools and process parameters are used. An example of deflection point of view the effect of the load on the
this type of test is the so called BAS machine tool test machine tool structure has similar impact on both static
[14]. The BAS test can be done for different machine and dynamic behaviours of the system. The load can in
tool configurations, e.g. turning and milling machines. In some cases eliminate existing play in ball screws, plays
case of a conventional milling machine the test that under normal machining condition will be
workpiece is milled (climb milling) along the entire long eliminated due to the effect of cutting forces on the
side, the direction of feed is reversed and the cutter is structure [2].
allowed to run out, being withdrawn from the surface The basic design of the system, Fig 2, looks similar to
half-way along the work piece. The undercut in each the traditional DBB system. The main difference is that a
direction is taken as a measure of the deflection pneumatic actuator is built inside the detecting probe.
(measured in radial direction milling in the direction of
X, Y and Z). The workpiece is mounted in such a way so
that the surface that will be machined coincides at half of
table radius (applicable for horizontal machining) and in
case of vertical machining, the workpiece should be
placed in such a way so that the middle of it coincides at
half of the table radius. In case of swivelling milling
head, deflection should be measured in both horizontal
and vertical planes to get a more complete view of the
stability of the system. The test can be done for both
positive and negative feed-direction. The results from
the BAS-test are used to check if the machine is within
the acceptable limits of deflection, and so accurate
enough to be used for production.
Another concept for analysing the static deformation
of a machine tool structure and specially its static
stiffness is done by a dynamic approach. The static
stiffness of a system can be considered as a special case
of dynamic stiffness, when the frequency is zero. For
instance, the static stiffness can be determined from an
impulse excitation measurement, based on experimental
modal analysis (EMA) [15].
Fig. 2. The Loaded Double Ball Bar (LDBB) system
578 Andreas Archenti et al. / Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580

3.1. LDBB measuring procedure 4.2. Deflection in X-Y plane

The LDBB measurement can be done in any cross
section of a sphere within the machine tool operation
space. The test is divided into five stages; an on-trigger
movement, an overshoot movement, a data capture
movement, an overshoot movement, and an off-trigger
movement. The on and off trigger movements trigger the
software to start and stop collecting the data. The
overshoot is needed to assure stable measuring
conditions (stable feed rate).
By running tests at different pressures it is possible to
calculate the static stiffness using a mean square method.
The strength of the force can be set by increasing
pressure on the LDBB between the table joint and the
tool joint. The machine tool structure deflects in the
force direction with a certain amount that depends on its
static stiffness. The resulting deflection in the direction
of the applied force on the machine tool structure can be
seen in Fig 4.

Y
X

Fig. 4. Deflection diagrams in X-Y plane for machine M3 (CCW feed

= 1000 mm/min): deflection as function of applied load Pforce (1-8) =
{36; 112; 238; 364; 490; 616; 742; 868} N, (scale: 10μm/div)

Fig. 3. CAD model of the LDBB clamped in a machine tool. 4.3. Static stiffness in X-Y plane
Measurements can be done in the X-Y, Y-Z and Z-X planes with a
radius of 150 mm and a sweep of up to 390 degrees The static stiffness is calculated by using
acquisitioned data from the deflection measurement and
the force value for each run. As can be seen in Fig 5 the
4. Testing machine tools under loaded condition static stiffness varies non-uniform in the investigated
In order to demonstrate LDBB´s ability to test plane.
machines under load and to determine the deformation
and static stiffness of machine tools, a case study in
which five five-axis milling machine tools (called M1 to
M5) were studied is presented. However, in this paper
only some results from the case study are presented.

4.1. Experimental setup and data

Test parameters were varied within a wide range, but

the results presented in the paper refer to feed rate 1000
mm/min (counter-clockwise CCW rotation in the X-Y
plane) and eight pressures {0.4; 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7} bar.
The maximal force in this study is 868 N and it is
reached with 7 bar air pressure. The table joint was
clamped on the machine tool table by two screws and the
tool joint was clamped in the spindle by use of a
CoroGrip Capto C8 tool holder (see Fig 2).
Fig. 5. Static stiffness diagram in polar coordinates for machine M3
(0.5 N/div). The inner circle of the grid is representing the minimum
stiffness, in this case 10.3 N/μm
 Andreas Archenti et al. / Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580 579

By plotting the stiffness in polar coordinates this measured at four fixed angular positions (separated by
behaviour can clearly be seen, see Fig. 5. The average 90°). The loads were increased and decreased
static stiffness in the plane is 11.8 N/μm and the accordingly, following steps Pforce {36; 112; 238; 364;
maximum stiffness is 13.4 N/μm, represented by the 490; 616; 742; 868} N. The absolute displacements were
green vector (13.4 N/μm at 120.2º). The minimum static measured at each step.
stiffness can be found at the inner circle of the diagram, As can be seen in Fig 7 hysteresis after one load and
represented by the purple vector (10.3 N/μm at 207º) in unload cycle is small, between 3 μm and 6 μm,
the figure. depending on the angular position.

4.4. Circular deviation G 140

120
The circular deviation G of the measured circles is
defined by ISO 230-4 standard to be the minimum radial 100

Deflection (μm)
separation of two concentrically circles enveloping the 80
actual path.
The circular deviation has been calculated for all 60
45°
machines and the trend is that the value increases with 40 135°
increased load applied onto the machine tool structure.
In Fig 6 the results from M3 and M5 show the results
225°
20

from measuring with 1000 mm/min feed. This feed has 315°
0
been chosen because it is the closest to the actual milling 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

feed used on investigated machine tools. As can be seen Load (N)

in the figure when the applied load increases, the circular
deviation of the measured path also increases (i.e. the Fig. 7. Hysteresis diagram. The hysteresis in four direction after a load
difference between the maximum and the minimum and unload cycle displayed for machine tool M3
radius is increasing with the load on the machine tool
structure). The stiffness varies between 10.1 N/μm and 12.4
Increasing the pressure inside the LDBB will result in N/μm for the test done with continuous feed and
enlarging the circular error. From circular deviation between 10.0 N/μm and 11.7 N/μm for the test done
point of view this means that the machine is more during zero feed (Table 1).
accurate under low loads on the structure, e.g. in
Table 1. Comparison between the calculated stiffness based on
finishing operations, which corresponds to the general deflection obtained during continuous feed and stiffness calculated
knowledge of machining systems. when feed is zero (M5)

0,025
Angle in X-Y plane Continuous feed Feed=0
[°] k [N/μm] k [N/μm]
0,020
45 10.1 10.0
Circular deviation G (mm)

135 12.6 11.4

0,015
225 10.5 10.2
315 12.4 11.7
0,010

M3 CW
M3 CCW
0,005
M5 CW 5. Conclusions
M5 CCW

0,000 The following major conclusions concerning the

introduced method for testing a machine tool´s
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Load (N)
deformation and static stiffness can be drawn:
Fig. 6. Circular deviation G, in CW and CCW feed rotation, for M3
• load errors at the tool – workpiece position depend on
and M5 the total static stiffness of the machine tool and can
be determined from process independent indirect
4.5. Hysteresis in the machine tool structure measurements using LDBB tests;
• the static deformation analysed with LDBB showed
To investigate the hysteresis characteristics during no uniformly distributed deformation in X-Y plane;
loaded and unloaded conditions, the hysteresis were
580 Andreas Archenti et al. / Procedia CIRP 1 (2012) 575 – 580

• the load generated by the LDBB has a great impact
on the deformation of the machine tool structure. For
instance, it has been observed that the circular
deviation increases as the load increase;
• the LDBB enables, in contrast to the traditional
method (e.g. BAS machine tool test), deflection and
static stiffness in all directions in the measured plane
(see Fig 8).
Fig. 8. Projecting the measured deflection and calculated static
stiffness onto a schematic picture of the test specimen used by the
industry (BAS machine tool test)
[6] Archenti A, Österlind T, Nicolescu CM, Evaluation and
representation of machine tool deformations, Journal of Machine
Engineering, vol 12/1, 2012
[7] Knapp W, Circular test for three-coordinate measuring machines
and machine tools, Precision Engineering, Butterworth & Co;
1983, Vol. 5/3, pp 115-124.
[8] Kakino Y, Ihara Y, Shinohara A, Accuracy Inspection of NC
Machine Tools by Double Ball Bar Method, Carl Hansen Verlag,
Munich, Germany; 1993.
[9] Bryan JB, Method for testing measuring machines and machine
tools, Part 1 and 2, Precision Engineering; 1982.
[10] ISO 230-4, Test code for machine tools Part 4: Circular tests for
numerically controlled machine tools, ISO; 2005.
[11] ANSI/ASME B5.54-2005, Methods for performance, evaluation
of computer numerically controlled machining centres; 2005.
[12] Stephenson DA, John S. Agapiou, Metal Cutting Theory and
Practice, CRC Press; 2 edition; ISBN-13: 978-08-2475-888-2;
2005
[13] Weck M, Brecher C, Werkzeugmaschinen 5 Messtechnische
Untersuchung und Beurteilung, dynamische Stabilität, CRC Press;
2 edition; ISBN-13: 978-08-2475-888-2; 2005
[14] Asea, Bofors, Scania Alfa Laval, Bearbeitungstests zur
Untersuchung des dynamischen Maschinenverhaltens der Firmen
AB Bofors, Alfa-Laval AB, ASEA and SAAB-Scania (BAS-
norm). Sweden; 1970
[15] Ewins DJ, Modal testing: theory and practice, in: J.B. Roberts
(Ed.), Research Studies Press Ltd., Bruel & Kjær, 1986

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for support and contribution

from Sverker Johansson (CE Johansson/Hexagon).
This work is funded by VINNOVA (The Swedish
Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems) and
KTH DMMS (centre of Design and Management of
Manufacturing Systems) and has been supported by
XPRES (Initiative for excellence in production
research).

References

[1] Schwenke H, Knapp W, Haitjerna H, Weckenmann A, Geometric

error measurement and compensation of machines - An update,
CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, vol. 57, pp. 660-675;
2008
[2] Archenti A, A Computational Framework for Control of Machining
systems Capability – From Formulation to Implementation, PhD
thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,
ISBN 978-91-7501-162-2; 2011.
[3] Tobias SA, Dynamic acceptance tests for machine tools,
International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, vol.
2, no. 3, pp. 267-280; 1962.
[4] Hjelm S, New test method for Industrial Robots and Numerical
Controlled equipment, in ISR, vol. 33; 2002
[5] ISO 230-1, Test code for machine tools - Part 1:Geometric
accuracy of machines operating under no-load or quasi-static
conditions, ISO (ISO 230-1:2012(E)); 2012.