IFAC

Copyright © IFAC Mechatronic Systems,

California, USA, 2002
c: 0 [>

Publications
www.elsevier.comllocate/ifac

STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE AGILITY AND MACHINING ACCURACY IN LINE BORING

z. J. Pasek, B.-K. Min, P.Szuba

Y. Koren, and A. G. Ulsoy

Department ofMechanical Engineering Lamb Technicon

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Warren, MI, USA

Abstract: This paper describes three strategies used in the development of an agile line
boring station for precision machining of long bores. Careful structural design assures
high overall stiffness. Additionally, two mechatronic devices assure high machining
accuracy via on-line compensation schemes. One mechanism, a "smart" line boring
tool with built-in instrumentation and control for real-time, facilitates correction of the
boring process. Another, a dual-ballscrew system enables correction of tool pitch
errors. Overall, the design integrates multiple new concepts for mechanical structure of
the machine with an intelligent controller. Copyright © 2002 IFA C

Keywords: Machine Tool, Cutting, Control

I INTRODUCTION control with precise machine hardware. To achieve

this goal, leading edge technologies in machine
Increased global competitiveness and pressure to design, sensing, tooling, and advanced control were
faster introduce new products while improving fuel applied in this project in a coordinated systems
economy, drive in the automotive market an urgent approach.
need for new powertrain machining technologies that
provide flexibility at an affordable cost. Although
FMS technology has been introduced over 20 years
ago [Koren, 1983], only in the last few years CNC
and FMS were started to be utilized in automotive
applications . Introduction of CNC machines into
powertrain machining systems increased the level of
flexibility in engine production. But machining of
long bores as needed in cam- and crankshafts of
engine blocks (see Figure I) still remains an
exception, requiring use of dedicated equipment, and
hence impeding achievement of full system agility.

Precision line boring is a very demanding application
in terms of both quality and production rate
requirements . Increasing flexibility without
compromising quality or production rate (in a two-
shift operation mode) is difficult and challenging, and
requires a systems approach integrating advanced
Fig. 1. View of a car engine blocks.
The goal of this project was to enable the
implementation of fully agile machining systems for
engine blocks, by designing an agile precision line
boring station to machine the bores for crankshafts

563
and camshafts. However, some trade-offs between
agility and machining precision are unavoidable . The
process requires usage of a very long and heavy tool.
Flexibility requires elimination of support bushings
for the tool, thus the tool may become a subject to
vibrations and deflections preventing achievement of
the required precision of 10 !lm.
Error mode ling has become an important part of
machinc tool error compensation procedures. Initial
methods originated from the error modeling of
CMMs [Schultschik, 1972]. In most models a method
relying on homogenous transformation was used to
describe the quasistatic error [Kim, 1972; Yang,
1996]. Drawbacks of most of these models are due to
the fact that many characteristics of machine tools
were ignored (e.g., error behavior under cutting load,
part accuracy issues, thermal effects).

3 BORING STATION DESIGN

The Agile Line Boring Station is a flexible, high-

Fig.2. Line boring with guided tooling.
2 STATE-OF-THE-ART
In powertrain components, where bearing support is
necessary for cam and crank shafts, a number of
precision bearing nests are located in-line. When the
distance between two such bores is not too large (less
than 5-10 bore diameters), line boring is used. Line
boring ensures that the holes are of the same diameter
and concentricity error is minimized. In typical
automotive applications the range of machined bore
diameters is D = 30-75 mm; the required cylindricity
of the bore lies within 10-25 !lm, and the surface
finish is Ra = 2-50 !lm. In extreme cases boring bars
can be as long as 1350 mm and weigh up to 120 kg.
speed machine. Extel1lal support for the boring bar in
the form of support bUs,hings incorporated into the
fixture has been eliminated. Station is equipped with
a tool magazine to hold multiple tools of different
sizes. The station has the following specifications:
I . Spindle: a conventional, motorized spindle with
modified arbor, 7.5 HP (5 .5. Kw), 0-6,000 rpm.
Optional rotary inductive power and data
transfer system mounted around the arbor. Tool
holder HSK 125B. High-pressure, through-tool
cooling system.
2. Motion ranges: X-axis 350 mm, Y-axis
350 mm (plus additional 650 mm stroke for tool
change), Z-axis 1250 mm
3. Positioning: accuracy 2 !lm; repeatability I !lm.

The state-of-the-art in flexible line boring technology

review [Pasek, 1993] provided relatively limited
results, most likely because proprietary information is
not made public by the manufacturers, and academic
research is almost non-existent in this area. Reviews
of the recent developments in the general-purpose
boring technology [Aronson, 1996; Mason, 1997;
Hanson, 1994] reveal new trends in the area of
traditional boring applications, the most prominent Fig. 3. Line boring machine tool prototype.
one of which is an increasing presence of
instrumentation and control in the boring tools.

Since requirements for precision and accuracy are

critical for manufacturing, machine tool error
analysis have been a very important research area.
Machine tool error analysis and compensation is
heavily based on the Abbe Principle [Bryan, 1979;
Weck et ai., 1996; Sartori, 1995]. Error induced by
the machining process are usually classified into
quasistatic errors (e.g., geometric, thermal, and
alignment errors), and non-quasi static (e.g., tool Fig. 4. Tool magazine
deflection [Rivin, 1992] and vibrations, workpiece
deflections , controller tracking errors) [Hocken, A number of different concepts were studied during
1980]. Quasistatic errors usually account for more the design process, and the concept based on closed
than 70 percent of total error budget. machine frame was selected [Pasek, 1998, Beecherl,

564
2000]. In this non-traditional concept, the spindle is
mounted on thc undersidc of a cross-slide and
suspended from a robust machine frame (Figure 3).
The tool changer (see Figure 4) is located at the
bottom of the frame and positioned directly under the
spindle. In the machine development, symmetry of
the design was sought to ensure even thermal growth
(i.e., minimum distortion) of the machine. The
vertical Y-axis has two ballscrews that have
independent, but coordinated motion control.
Through iterative analysis and design modification,
the design was modified multiple times to increase
the static stiffness (from initial 10 N/!1m to 50 N/llm)
and the lowest natural frequency (from 15Hz to 38
Hz). This was accomplished by careful consideration
of the Finite Element Analysis and adding
strength/increasing inertia without adding substantial
mass, thereby decreasing the natural frequency. By
making modifications in the design parameters it was
possible to eliminate most of the undesirable modes
of vibration.
4 TOOLING
A typical cutting tool used in the station is a solid
boring bar, equipped with two single-point cutters,
one for roughing, and the other for the finish
machining. Only one of the cutters operates during a
cutting pass. The boring tool has multiple guiding
pads supporting it in the already machined part of the
workpiece (see Figure 5). The initial threading of the
tool into the uncut bore and its support while
machining the first hole (when tool is completely
unsupported) is facilitated by a support bushing
integrated with the tool. During the tool change both
the tool and the bushing are replaced as a joint unit.
Fig. 5. The regular (dumb) boring bar.
While elimination of support bushings facilitates
agility by enabling automated tool change of the long
boring bars, the more traditional design of the tool is
still recognized as a major bottleneck in increasing
flexibility and precision of the line boring processes.
A new concept of the line boring tool have been
proposed to support agility at the boring station level.
It relies on an on-line compensation mechanism
565
utilizing sensing and intelligence built into the tool
itself to compensate for the increased compliance of
the tool without supports. This sensorized tool IS
called a "smart" tool [O'Neal, 1998, Szuba, 2000].
The boring bar is located in the motorized, high-
precision spindle and is connected with it through the
standard taper mechanism enhanced with additional
electrical connectors. The tool body (see Figure 7)
contains a number of sensors and the actuation
mechanism . The instrumentation supporting the
sensors and the actuation mechanism is located in the
package attached to the rear end of the spindle and
rotating with it. The instrumentation package
(including on-board computer) and the piezoelectric
actuator are receiving power from an external source
via an inductive device . The housing for the
instrumentation can work with multiple boring bars
thus eliminating the need for frequent disconnections.
Flexure
Mechanism
" -,~.......
Beam Sptiner
... Mirror
...... Capadtance Sensor
"'- Plezoelectlk: Stack
,
~ Gulde Pads
Fig. 6. The instrumented (smart) boring bar.
Functionally, the bar contains three subsystems: a)
sensors, b) actuation mechanism, and c) cutting
inserts. Details of the Smart Tool design, sensing, and
control are elaborated on in [O'Neal, 1998; Koren,
1999; O'Neal, 2000, Szuba, 2000).
The purpose of the tool tip controller is to isolate the
tool tip from any erroneous non-cylindrical motion of
the boring bar, holding the tool tip still relative to the
spindle under external disturbances. A single-laser,
double detector system provides the controller with
the displacements of the tool tip and the boring bar
relative to the spindle.
For the purpose of tracking the reference signal, a
digital linear quadratic optimal control law has been
designed and implemented on a single-board PC/l 04
computer running at 150 llS sampling period. A full
feedback control law was designed to create a stiff
tool tip with ability to reject the dynamic cutting
forces. Such control law requires knowledge of all
the current states of the system. A state space
realization was chosen in such a way that the first
state is current tool tip position. A Kalman filter
observer has been designed to estimate the states in
real-time for the full state feedback (see Figure 7).
Toof tip position
Cutting force monitoring ··········1 Machine controller
Fig. 7. Block diagram of the Smart Tool control
The implemented control scheme requires full
knowledge of all the states of the control system,
which are used in a full-state feedback. However,
since the Smart Tool uses sensors to measure only the
end positions of the tool tip and the bar, an observer
must be used to estimate remaining states.
Furthermore, there is a need to measure the cutting
force and compensate for it to improve the system
performance. For this purpose, an observer model
implemented includes both cutting force dynamics
and the tool dynamics. The estimated cutting force is
then used in two ways: for tool tip position control
and for process diagnostics [M in, 2002].
5 ERROR ANALYSIS AND COMPENSA nON
The six geometric errors affecting each axis of
motion can be described in two different ways. The
errors are either defined with reference to successive
translatcd and rotated axes (succesive approach) or
with respect to a fixed set of coordinate axes where
the orientation does not change. The second approach
is more experimentally viable, since the error is
measured with respect to the same set of fixed
reference axes.
With the resultant error motions known for all six
geometric errors, the total resultant error equation
was found by the superposition of component errors.
The results of the calculations implies that with the
maximum angular error of 10.0 arc-sec or less, the
error correction scheme has to be capable of
correcting errors in excess of 50 Jlm [Szuba, 1998].
It was also important to determine how each
geometric error, i.e. linear displacement error, roll,
pitch, yaw, oX, aY, contributes to the overall tool tip
error. Clearly, the pitch and yaw errors have the
highest contributions, which is due to the fact that
these angular errors are amplified with the
excessively long cantilevered boring bar. The roll
error has the smallest effect.
566
Fig. 8. Dual ball screw error compensation
mechanism
To carry out an active error compensation scheme,
additional dcgrees of frecdom (DOF) in the machine
structure need to be introduced. This additional DOF
for this purpose imple~ented by use of the dual
linear actuator system ' in the Y direction for
correction of large pitch errors . Concept of this
mechanism is shown in Figure 8.
The dual ball screw system can be effectively used
for correcting pitch error, as well as linear errors in
the Y direction. In the presence of an angular pitch
error, the platen carrying the tool can be rotated in the
opposite direction due to a differential motion
between the two ball screws. The resolution of the
differential motion depends directly on the resolution
of the axis feedback devices (e.g., servomotor-
mounted encoder).
When two ball screws are used to move a common
axis, incremental differences induce an angular
motion to the moving platen (see Figure 8). Based on
the known machine geometry, the angular
displacement is
g=atan[(B2 -B,)/S] (I)
and the resultant motion at the tool tip is equal to:
Y=(B2 -B,)(S+O+L)/S (2)
Using two ball screws with 20 mm pitch and encoder
resolution of 64,000 divisions gives the resolution for
pitch correction Dg = 2.308 arc-sec and linear error
correction at the tool tip D Y = 0.00052 mm. Further
improvement of the resolution can be obtained
through use of ball screws with different pitches and
corresponding modification of motion control
algorithms for each of them.
6 PC-BASED, OPEN CONTROLLER
The line boring station is equipped with a PC-based,
intelligent controller that utilizes several control
algorithms [Koren, 1992]. It includes a combination
of traditional algorithms [Ulsoy, 1993; Mehrabi,
2002] and feedforward algorithm as well as the
(optional) integration of the smart tool controller with
the main machine controller. The tasks of the
intelligent boring controller is : (I) to tune the
controller and the machining parameters to their
optimum conditions despite changing environment
conditions, such as temperature and load, (2) to
provide the system with the ability to autonomously
respond to irregular, unanticipated events which may
occur during the boring process, and (3) to provide a
platform for integration of multiple, non-standard
control and monitoring functions (e.g., thermal and
geometric error compensation). A block diagram of
the controller is shown in Figure 9.
Controller Comput,r
narrower error band can then be further reduced by
application of "smart" tool, down to ± 1/lm range. In
case when a "dumb" tool is used, the accuracy of the
process can be kept within standard process range.
The capabilities and effectiveness of each
compensation mechanism were verified
experimentally. In the first test, linear error long the
Z-axis were recorded over the operating range using
regular (dumb) tool. The guiding pads in this tool
were not extended over its full length (meaning that
the covered tool stroke was shorter than the length of
the workpiece) . Such tool design caused a sudden
sagging of the tool (over 300 /lm) when it slipped out
of the guiding pads (see Figure 10). Recorded data
were then used to curve-fit two-piece compensation
function, which in turn was used to control relative
motion of two ball screws. When the compensation
mechanisms was activated, the linear error range was
reduced to ±5 /lm band.

300
Fig. 9. Block Diagram of the Main Controller - - lIVithout compensation
200 ............ IlVith compensation
The CNC controll er is based on the Cranfield E'
Precision "CUPROC 6400" CNC Controller. It 3- 100
c:
0
controls and coordinates all machine 110 functions :-2
V> 0
and motions . The controller architecture is very
8.
generic and open, thus allowing the control of the
Agile Line Boring station to be customized for (5
particular user needs. ~ -2

The controller utilizes a dual ISA computer bus 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
configuration, each with a single board Pentium
Z-axis (mm)
computer and ethernet adapter card to connect the
two platforms. Such architecture provides: (I) an Fig. 10. Compensation of linear error in Z-axis using
open Windows NT environment for Human-Machine dual screw mechanism
Interface (HMI) and third party software, and (2)
deterministic hard real-time environment for Another set of tests was performed to investigate
trajectory planning, interpolation and transmitting effectiveness of control approach for "smart" tool
position commands to the intelligent digital drives [O'Neal, 1998; Min, 2002] . Figure II shows step
over the SERCOS drive network with 1 kHz response of the tool and its excellent tracking
frequency . abilities. The high dynamics and sensitivity of the
"smart" tool allow also to use the tool as a process
tracking and diagnostic instrument [Min, 2002] .
7 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
8.--------------,
The experimental modal analysis of the prototype
6
machine has conformed closely to the results of FEA
analysis. In the frequency range from 0 to 100 Hz E'4
seven structural modes were identified and the lowest ~2
o
significant one was at 37 Hz. That compares well
~ 0
with the analytical prediction of 38 Hz (typically, the
first mode for a 3-axis CNC machining center is in 8. -2
.g.
the 30-50 Hz range). --4
~ t-~....".......
-6 - - Reference
The error compensation approaches described in
previous sections are the basis for a two-stage ~~~--~~~~==~~
accuracy enhancement strategy implementation. The
o 25 50 75
Time (msec)
dual ball screw compensation mechanism is capable
of reducing tool tip errors induced by the structural Fig. 11 . Step response of the "smart" boring tool
inaccuracy of the machine to the ±5/lm range . This

567
 8 SUMMARY
A radically new machine tool concept for precision
line boring has been developed. In this new design
static stiffness was improved approximately 5 times
(over existing designs), which allowed the increase of
the first natural frequency of the machine to 38 Hz
(75% improvement) . Two-stage scheme for
compensation of geometric errors was developed :
coarse one at the machine level, and more precise one
at the cutting tool level. Machine control and
compensation algorithms were implemented on an
open-architecture, PC-based controller platform.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research presented in this paper was sponsored in
part by NIST Advanced Technology Program grant
# 70NANB5H1158.
REFERENCES
Aronson, R. B. (1996). The Whole Boring Business.
In: Manufacturing Engineering, 05/96, pp. 59-
68
Beecherl; P., Pagels, D., Saeedy, A ., Szuba, P.
(2000). U. S. Patent # 6,149,561 : Machine and
Method for Flexible Line Boring.
Bryan, J. B. (1979). Abbe Principle Revisited. In :
Precision Engineering, 113, pp. 129-132
Hanson, D. R., Tsao, T.-COo (1994). Development ofa
Fast Tool Servo for Variable-Depth-of-Cut
Machining. In: ASME, DSC Vol. 55-2, pp. 863-
871
Hocken, R. J. (1980). Technology of Machine Tools,
In: Machine Tool Accuracy, Vol. 5, Lawrence
Livermore Lab, Univeristy of California,
Livermore, CA
Kim, K., Eman, K. F., and Wu, S. M .. (1987). In-
process Control of Cylindricity in Boring
Operations. In: Trans. ASME J. of Eng. for
Industry, 109, pp. 291-296
Koren, Y . (1983) . Computer Control of
Manufacturing Systems, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York
Koren, Y. and C. Lo. (1992). Advanced Controllers
for Feed Drives (keynote paper) In: Annals of
the CIRP, 4112, pp. 689-698
Koren, Y., Pasek, Z., Szuba, POo (1999). Design of a
Precision, Agile Line Boring Station In: Annals
of the CIRP, 4811, pp. 313-316
Mason, F. (1997). Smart Tools for Boring and
Tapping. In: Manufacturing Engineering, 05/97,
pp. 84-93
Mehrabi. M. G., Szuba,P., G. O'Neal , B. Min, Pasek
Z ., and Koren Y . (2002) Geometric Error
Compensation in Line Boring Process. In:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13/5, pp.
379-389
568
Min, B.-K., G. O'Neal, Z. Pasek, and Y. Koren
(2002) Cutting Process Diagnostics Utilizing a
Smart Cutting Tool. In: Mechanical Systems
and Signal Processing (to appear)
O'Neal G., Pasek Z., Min B.-K., and Koren Y ..
(2000). Integrated Structure/Control Design of
Micro-Positioner for Boring Bar Tool Insert. In:
Proceeding of SPIE's 7th International
Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
Conference on Smart Structures and Integrated
Systems
O'Neal, G., B.-K. Min, Li, C.-I. Pasek Z. J., Y.
Koren, and P. Szuba. (l998). Precision
Piezoelectric Micro-Positioner for Line Boring
Bar Tool Insert. In: Symp. On Active Control of
Vibration and Nfise. ASME IMECE, DE-Vol.
97IDCS-Vol. 65, pp. 99-106
Pasek, Z.1., G. Ulsoy, Y. Koren (1993). Flexible Line
Boring Project: Benchmarking Study, Univ. of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
Pasek, Z. J., Szuba, P. (1998). Intelligent Agile Line
Boring Station. In: Proc. of Dynamic Systems
and Control Division, ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, DSC-Vol. 64, pp. 439-446,
Anaheim,CA
Rivin, E., H. Kang. (1992) . Enhancement of Dynamic
Stability of Cantilever Tooling Structures. In:
Inll. 1. of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 32/4,
pp. 539-556
Sartori, S. and G. X. Zhang. (1995). Geometric Error
Measurement and Compensation of Machines.
In: Annals of the CIRP, 44/2, pp. 599-609
Schultschik, R. (1972). Components of Volumetric
Accuracy. In: Annals of the CIRP, 25/1. pp.
223-226
Szuba, P. (1998) . Improving Part Accuracy in
Machining Operations that Employ
Cantilevered Boring Tools. PhD Thesis.
Oakland University
Szuba, P., O'Neal, G., Min, B.-K., Koren, Y., Pasek,
Z. (2000). U. S. Patent # 6,062,778: Precision
Positioner for a Cutting Tool Insert
Szuba, P., Pasek, Z. (2001). U. S. Patent # 6,325,578:
Method of Error Compensation for Angular
Errors in Machining (Droop Compensation).
U1soy, A. G., and Y. Koren. (1993). Control of
Machining Processes. In: ASME Trans. J. of
Dynamic Systems. Measurement. and Control,
115/28. pp. 301-308
Weck, M., P. A. McKeown, and R. Bonse. (1995).
Reduction and Compensation of Thermal Errors
in Machine Tools. In: Annals of the CIRP, 44/2,
pp. 589-598
Yang, S., 1. Yuan, and J. Ni. (1996) . Accuracy
Enhancement of a Horizontal Machining
Center. In: 1. of Manufacturing Systems, 15/2