Review article

Proc IMechE Part E:

J Process Mechanical Engineering
Review on sensor design for cutting 1–12
© IMechE 2022
force measurement Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09544089221106264
journals.sagepub.com/home/pie

Thangamuthu Mohanraj1 , Mohammad Uddin2

and Sevagoundanoor Karuppusamy Thangarasu3

Abstract
The measurement of cutting force is one of the key factors in determining the tool condition and improving machine
reliability. Therefore, the cutting force measurement becomes crucial to improve the machining process. The cutting
force can be measured with piezoelectric as well as piezoresistive transducers. The force measuring transducers with
later ones are cost-effective and can be easily installed in any small/medium-scale enterprise. For this approach, the selec-
tion of sensing elements is essential. The various mechanical ring elements were used for sensing the deformation. The
low-cost device can be affordable in small-scale industries. Along with cutting force, it is suggested to measure the vibra-
tion signals to analyze the machining dynamics of the process. The salient features and diverse force measuring trans-
ducers were discussed in this article. This paper aims to briefly review the existing design and performance of
dynamometers used in modern manufacturing.

Keywords
Dynamometer, circular ring, octagonal ring, hexagonal ring, square ring, dial gauge, strain gauge

Date received: 21 December 2021; accepted: 13 May 2022

Introduction process.13 Measurement of cutting force is one of the

The maintenance cost and timing in manufacturing indus-
tries are raised, and productivity declines due to tool fail-
ures.1 The tool life was computed from the wear values of
the previous experiments. Life remains functional, and
tool-changing strategies are framed based on this tool.
Overutilization or underutilization of cutting tools leads
to loss of capital. Therefore, an effective tool condition
monitoring system (TCMS) is essential to replace the
tool at the right time and enhance productivity. The differ-
ent sensors and signal processing techniques applied for
the machining process were briefed in.2 During the
initial phase of cutting, the tool is sharp. Later, the mater-
ial loss occurs due to high pressure and high temperature.
The tool lost its sharp edge and increased the tool-
workpiece contact area, and the material removal
process became complicated. There is a need for a
higher cutting force to remove the chip from the work-
piece under the same cutting conditions.3
Moreover, with the increased tool-workpiece contact
area resulting from tool wear, the same pressure generates
more cutting force. During the machining process, the
estimation of tool conditions is complicated. The indirect
monitoring of tool conditions can be performed by
measuring various signals like vibration,4,5 cutting
force,6–8 acoustic emission signals,9–11 spindle current,12
temperature,12 and cutting sound7 during the machining
indirect methods used in TCMS14 and has a significant
role in TCMS.13
The cutting force has a massive influence on the gener-
ation of heat, wear, dimensional accuracy of the compo-
nent, and the surface roughness of the machined
component.15,16 During the turning with low feed values,
it was noticed that cutting force increases with an increase
in flank wear due to the losing of the cutting ability of
tools.12 When the number of passes increases, also tool
wear increases, which is indicated by the cutting force
value.17 It is essential to understand the cutting force and
its importance in optimizing the cutting parameters and
ensuring the manufacturing of high-quality products at
a low cost.18 The cutting parameters for least cutting
force, surface roughness, and tool wear were optimized.19
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering,
Coimbatore, India
2
UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA,
Australia
3
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Kongu Engineering College,
Erode, India
Corresponding author:
Thangamuthu Mohanraj, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita
School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, India.
Email: t_mohanraj@cb.amrita.edu
2 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
The previous work discussed the salient features and
various force measuring transducers.20
The cutting force can be measured with the current sensor,
capacitive, optoelectronic,21,22 strain gauge, load cell,23
flexure displacement,24 and piezoelectric sensor. The
cutting force acted on the piezoelectric crystal produced the
voltage proportional to the applied load. An amplifier
circuit was used to amplify the voltage and then converted
to force. Generally, piezoelectric sensors are responsive to
mechanical force and have a wide bandwidth range of over
50 kHz. On the other hand, they are costly and require a sig-
nificant concentration while installed in industry. Also, they
are exposed to noise from nearby electrical drives.25
Force transducers use strain gauges to measure the
strain when the sensing element is subjected to an external
load.26 Typically, ring element was considered a sensing
element. The gauges are connected in the form of a
Wheatstone bridge. While the applied load is zero, the
bridge circuit is balanced, and the output voltage is
zero. Once the transducer is subjected to loading, balan-
cing of the bridge circuit is disturbed, and the voltage is
a measure of applied load.20 Recently, piezoceramic
thick film sensor was used to measure the milling force.27
The numerous ring elements like circular ring,28,29
diaphragm type,30 elastic body,31 bending beam,32,33
hexagonal ring,34 square ring,29 modified square ring,35
octagonal ring,25,36–43 two extended octagonal rings,44 octag-
onal–elliptical ring,45 eight-shaped elliptical ring,46 and G &
S-shaped ring47 were used as a sensing element for force
transducers. The review on cutting force measurement
using different dynamometers is not published to the
author’s knowledge. This paper will discuss the various
sensing methods and dynamometer designs for cutting
force measurement.
Strain gauge-based turning
dynamometer
Strain gauge has been extensively used to measure the
cutting force, owing to its simple construction, high reli-
ability, and low cost. The first strain gauge-based tool
holder dynamometer was designed to measure the
turning force. The strain gauge sensors were fixed on
the specific location of the tool holder with a bridge
circuit to increase the sensitivity and decrease the cross-
sensitivity. An IR module was used to transfer the data
from the bridge circuit to the data acquisition system.
Experimental results show that the dynamometer had a
sensitivity of less than 0.24 mV/N.48 The sensitivity was
dependent on the design of the transducer.
A dynamometer using a strain gauge and piezoelectric
accelerometer to measure the static and dynamic cutting
forces in the turning process was designed. The designed
dynamometer consists of an elastic element attached
adequately with strain gauges, and Wheatstone bridge cir-
cuits were established to measure the cutting force. The
cutting force was measured with a 1.4% linearity error
and 0.17–0.92% cross-sensitivity error during machining.
The cross-sensitivity is mainly depending on the ring
element and the selection of placement of strain gauges.
The locations of the strain gauge can be identified
through finite element (FE) analysis.49
A Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) strain
gauge-based dynamometer was fabricated to capture the
two-axis force during the turning process. An elastic
element with two mutually perpendicular octagonal rings
(TMPOR) was fixed to the cutting tool. The proposed
MEMS sensor has optimized sensitivity and natural fre-
quency. The TMPOR dynamometer sensitivity was 16
times higher than the conventional strain gauge-based
dynamometer. The sensitivity and natural frequency of
the developed dynamometer were 0.31 mV/N and 771 Hz,
respectively. The strain gauge-based turning dynamometer
is shown in Figure 1.50
A dynamometer with a high-performance sensor for the
turning process was fabricated. TMPORs were used as a
sensing element. Static calibration and impact tests show
that the dynamometer had linearity of 83% and a natural fre-
quency of 1122 Hz. The cross-sensitivity values were 2.5%
to 10.5%. The higher value of cross-sensitivity is due to the
misalignment of strain gauges on the TMPORs.51 It is
reduced by bonding the strain gauges in the appropriate
location on the sensing element. The strain gauge-based
tool holder dynamometer52 was developed to measure the
cutting force (1500 N) and torque (7.5 Nm) during the
turning process. The FE analysis, calibration, and metro-
logical characterization were not performed in this study.53
A strain gauge-based tool holder dynamometer was
designed to measure the cutting force (2000 N) during the
turning process. After calibration, the actual machining test
was conducted with the designed and Kistler 9257B dyna-
mometer. The error percentage between the theoretical and
experimental values was less than 5%.54 This one-piece
dynamometer can measure the cutting force after performing
the calibration. The static and dynamic cutting force was mea-
sured with a strain gauge and accelerometer55 in an ultra-
precision lathe. The machining test with different process
parameters was directed to validate the performance of the
designed dynamometer. The total cutting force was estimated
by adding the static and dynamic components. The authors
did not perform the metrological characterization.
A strain gauge-based high-capacity tool holder dyna-
mometer was developed. The stiffness was reduced by
adding the two holes symmetrically positioned about the
axis. They found that this modification increased the sensitiv-
ity.56 A maximum cross-sensitivity of 4.5% was found in the
Z-axis, and cross-sensitivity can be decreased by placing the
strain gauges in the proper location. Shankar et al.57 designed
the dynamometer to measure the turning force in two axes.
The static calibration result shows that the designed dyna-
mometer had no hysteresis error. The machining test was
carried out with a lathe, and the results were at par with the
lathe tool dynamometer. They did not perform the dynamic
calibration and metrological characterization.
A strain gauge-based novel dynamometer was
designed for the turning process, and cutting parameters
were optimized based on the measured cutting force.52
The strain gauge-based turning dynamometer was
Mohanraj et al.
Figure 1. Strain gauge-based turning dynamometer.
developed to measure the cutting force up to 2.9 kN with a
natural frequency of 766 Hz. They found that sensitivities
were 31.3 × 10−3–172.4 × 10−3 mV/N, and it had a low
cross-sensitivity error of below 0.87%.58
Yaldiz and Unsacar59 developed a dynamometer to
measure the static and dynamic cutting force using a strain
gauge and accelerometer. Four octagonal rings with strain
gauges were used to measure the static force. The designed
dynamometer measured the cutting force up to 3500 N with
a sensitivity of ± 5 N and cross-sensitivity of 0.17–0.92%.
They suggested using this dynamometer to measure the
cutting force in milling and drilling, and they have not per-
formed any test for the milling and drilling process.
Current sensor-based cutting force
measurement
Initially, Taylor proposed the current sensor-based cutting
force measurement system by evaluating the motor
3
current of the machine tool. Since then, all over the
world, the number of described initiatives to predict
cutting force through current and power measurement
has increased significantly. Figure 2 depicts the current
sensor-based cutting force measurement system. The
current signals consumed by the machine tool’s spindle
motor are used to estimate the cutting force values.60–62
The acceleration and current sensors measured the vibra-
tion and spindle motor current to calculate the cutting
force during the micro-end milling process.63
A dynamic model was proposed to calculate the
cutting force from the spindle motor of a CNC machine
tool. The proposed model gives the relationship between
the cutting force and drives components.64 Based on the
feed drive control systems, a model was developed to
analyze the current signals and estimate the cutting
force to predict failures in the milling process. The feasi-
bility of predicting the cutting force through armature
current was discussed.65,66 Hall effect sensor and
4 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

Figure 2. Schematic representation of current sensor-based cutting force measurement.

Figure 3. Strain gauge-based octagonal ring dynamometer.

control system model of a CNC lathe’s spindle and feed
drive system were used to estimate the cutting force.
The tangential and axial cutting force was predicted
using an adaptive-neuro fuzzy inference system with
75% accuracy.67,68
The current of the spindle drive motor measured to
estimate the cutting force is an alternate choice of an
expensive dynamometer. The dynamics of the cutting
force were measured using a mathematical model devel-
oped with machining conditions and current signals.
The maximum root-mean-squared error between the mea-
sured and actual force was 25.99 N. The current signals
had limited bandwidth and could not measure the dynam-
ics of the cutting force.69 The relationship between the
spindle motor current and the cutting force is complex.
The frictional force between the feed table and guideways
and the material properties of the workpiece lead to a vari-
ation in motor current. Hence, it is challenging to charac-
terize the relationship between current signals and the
cutting force in the machining process.
Strain gauge-based milling dynamometer
In general, force transducers use dial gauges to measure
the linear deflection up to a certain extent. Such transdu-
cers can be used only for the continuous cutting process,
not for intermediate cuttings. The dial-gauged force meas-
uring instruments does not have consistent performance
Table 1. Summary of designed dynamometers.

Finite Element Machining

S. No. Reference Sensor Ring element Load Accuracy Uncertainty Method analysis Process test

1. Kumar et al.28 Strain gauge Circular ring 50 N NA ± 0.10% Yes Milling No

Mohanraj et al.

2. Kumar et al.37 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 25 kN NA ± 0.10% No Milling No

3. Kumar et al.29 Strain gauge Circular and octagonal ring 1000 N NA ± 0.10 Yes Milling No
4. Kumar et al.73 Strain gauge Circular ring 50k N NA ± 0.025% Yes – No
5. Zhao et al.50 MEMS strain gauge Two mutually perpendicular 200N NA NA NA Turning Yes
octagonal rings
6. Liu et al.31 Annulus elastic body Fiber Bragg grating sensor 5000 N NA NA NA Milling Yes
7. Soliman25 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 100 N NA NA Yes L9 OA – –
8. Panzera et al.53 Strain gauge Tool holder 1500 N, 7500 Nmm NA NA NA Turning Yes
9. Turgut and Korkut77 Strain gauge – 10 kN NA NA NA Milling Yes
10. Ateş and Aztekin54 Strain gauge Tool holder 2 kN NA NA NA Turning Yes
11. Zhao et al.51 Strain gauge Two mutually perpendicular 2000 N NA ≤0.84% Yes Turning Yes
octagonal rings
12. Kumar et al.34 Strain gauge Square ring 20 kN NA ± 0.10% Yes Milling No
13. Kumar et al.29 Strain gauge Square ring 1 kN NA ± 0.10% Yes Milling No
14. Uddin and Songyi45 Strain gauge Octagonal–ellipse ring 1 kN Cross sensitivity 1.78% Yes Milling No
< 5%
15. Kroencke and Hull38 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 600 N NA NA Yes Milling No
16. Kim and Kim55 Strain gauge & Piezo Tool holder 5N NA NA NA Turning Yes
film accelerometer
17. Şeker et al.32 Strain gauge Bending beam 2000 N NA NA NA Shaping Yes
18. Oraby and Hayhurst56 Strain gauge Tool shank High capacity NA NA NA Turning No
19. Shankar et al.57 Strain gauge Tool holder 1000 N NA NA NA Turning Yes
20. Jain et al.78 Strain gauge Cylindrical bar 2000 N NA NA NA Turning No
21. Korkut39 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 4500 N Cross-sensitivity NA NA Milling No
0.05%
22. Pathri et al.40 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 3000 N NA NA NA Milling Yes
23. Yaldız et al.36 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 5000 N Linearity error NA NA Milling Yes
1.2−1.4%,
cross-sensitivity
error 0.6–1.7%,
Eccentricity
error 0.13–0.18%.
24. Ammar et al.44 Strain gauge Two extended octagonal ring 300 N NA NA Yes Milling Yes
25. Dandage et al.41 Strain gauge Octagonal ring 500 N Cross sensitivity NA NA Milling Yes
error 10–15%
26. Yaldız et al.59 Strain gauge & Piezo Octagonal ring 3500 N Cross sensitivity NA NA Turning Yes
electric accelerometer error 0.17–0.92%

(continued)
5
6 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

over a while, and their stability studies were not encour-

Machining

aging.70 Hence, the strain gauges can measure the strain

test

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
while applying the load. Kumar et al. developed the ring-
shaped milling dynamometer with a strain gauge to
measure the cutting force up to 50 N. The FE analysis
Process

Turning

Turning

Turning
Drilling

Milling

Milling
Milling

Milling
Milling

Milling
was carried out to analyze the stress–strain pattern and
deformation while applying the load. The location of
maximum deformation was identified, and the strain
Method analysis

gauge was fixed on that location to sense the deformation

Finite Element

of the ring element.28

The computation of stress, strain, and deformation was
NA

NA

NA
NA
done based on ring theory,71 and the results were matched
No
Yes

No

Yes
Yes

Yes
with FE analysis. The metrological investigation analyzed
Uncertainty

the uncertainty due to zero offset, repeatability, reso-

lution, interpolation, and reversibility. From the metro-
0.06%

logical analysis, the measurement of uncertainty was

NA
NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA
NA

NA

found as ± 0.10%. They have not performed any machin-

ing test, which can be used to confirm the accuracy of the
error 0.17 −0.92%

Cross-sensitivity 0.2–

dynamometer. Kumar et al. designed and developed the

error < ± 1.81%

Max. error 1.11%

Cross-sensitivity

Cross-sensitivity

Cross-sensitivity

cross-sensitivity

ring-shaped precision force transducer to measure

error <5%

error <4%

Error 0.15%

50 kN. After the metrological characterization, the uncer-

Accuracy

tainty error was found as ± 0.025%.72,73 The designed

2.7%

dynamometer was not undergone any actual machining

NA
NA

NA

test. They performed various investigations of force

measurements.20
The circular ring-shaped sensing element was modified
1500 N, 100 Nm

1000 N, 140 Nm

to square,35 hexagonal, and octagonal rings.74 This sug-

50 Nm torque

gested modification significantly improves the net deflec-

3500 N

1500 N

2500 N

2000 N

2500 N
5000 N

tion of the ring and the transducer’s sensitivity. Kumar

5 kN
Load

et al.34 compared the metrological performance of hex-

agonal and octagonal ring-shaped transducers with 20 kN
capacity and measured the deformation using a dial
gauge and strain gauge. The results show that the maximum
Diaphragm–circular ring
Deformable beam with

uncertainty error for square, octagonal, and hexagonal

Thin-walled cylinder

rings was ± 0.15%, ± 0.10%, and ± 0.09%, respectively.

Octagonal ring

Octagonal ring
Octagonal ring

Octagonal ring

The hexagonal ring-shaped dynamometer performed

tool holder
Ring element

better than the octagonal and square ring dynamometer.

This design can be used to develop the dynamometer to
measure the cutting force.
–

The strain gauge-based milling dynamometer was

designed to assess the machining force up to 4500 N.
Strain gauge & accelerometer

The ring element dimensions were selected based on the

ring theory. Totally 16 strain gauges were employed to
Triaxial force sensor

Triaxial force sensor

MEMS strain gauge

Capacitive sensors

measure the cutting force in three directions. The dynamom-

eter was analyzed and found the natural frequency as 192.2
Strain gauge
Strain gauge

Strain gauge
Strain gauge
Quartz disc

rev/s and cross-sensitivity as 0.05%.39 They have not per-

formed any metrological characterization or machining
Sensor

tests. Figure 3 shows a strain gauge-based octagonal ring

dynamometer.19
The circle of the octagonal ring was changed to an
Murthy and Rajendran43

ellipse to enhance the ratio of strain to displacement.

Saglam and Unuvar42
Yaldız and Ünsaçar49

Totis and Sortino80

The obtained results show that compared to the octagonal

Table 1. (continued)

Kumar et al.30

ring, the octagonal–elliptical ring maximizes the sensitiv-

Mulik et al.83
Totis et al.81
Gao et al.79

Qin et al.82

Xie et al.33
Reference

ity of about 15% and 26% in axial and tangential direc-

NA: not available.

tions, respectively. The FE analysis was used to detect

the maximum stress/strain concentration, and strain
gauges were bonded on the respective places. The cross-
S. No.

sensitivity error was less than 5%. After a metrological

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.
32.
33.

34.
35.

36.

investigation, it was found that the overall uncertainty

Mohanraj et al.
was 1.78%.45 The octagonal–ellipse ring design improves
the sensitivity, and uncertainty error has to be reduced by
proper calibration.
A multi-component dynamometer with an extended
octagonal ring was designed and developed to measure
the cutting force in the turning, milling, and drilling
process. The vibration analysis was performed, and a
machining test was conducted to ensure the reliability of
the developed dynamometer.75 The calibration and
machining tests were not performed. The designed dyna-
mometer measures the cutting force during any machining
process. A drilling dynamometer with an extended octag-
onal ring was developed with a sensitivity of ± 5 N and a
cross-sensitivity of 0.05%. The performance of the dyna-
mometer was examined, and the results were consistent
with theoretical calculations.76 Table 1 gives a summary
of various dynamometers for measuring the cutting
force. The upcoming section describes the development
of an octagonal ring-shaped dynamometer due to its
better accuracy and sensitivity.
Steps in designing a dynamometer
The ring element has to be selected based on the applica-
tion and range of measurement. The initial dimension of
the ring element can be chosen based on the numerical
modeling. The FE analysis is essential to estimate the
ring’s deformation and stress values under the applied
load. The design modification can be carried out based
on the structural analysis. After that, the ring elements
have to be machined as per the dimensions.
Construction of dynamometer
The critical component of dynamometer design is the
sensing element. Piezoresistive MEMS sensors were
used to measure the deformation. The strain gauges are
attached to the ring where the maximum strain occurs.
The location of maximum deformation has to be identified
with FE analysis. The strain gauges must be attached
based on the FEA results and ring theory. Before install-
ing the strain gauges, the ring element must be coated with
Zinc oxide to avoid corrosion. The ring surfaces have
Figure 4. Schematic representation of data acquisition system.
7
undergone a surface preparation process to achieve
better accuracy. Later, appropriate adhesive glue was
applied to attach the gauges to the ring, and finally, the
bridge circuit was designed to measure the cutting force.
Dynamic analysis
The natural frequency of the dynamometer must be four
times larger than the exciting vibration frequency during
the material removal process to eliminate the influence of
machine tool vibration.39 The dynamometer is viewed as
a small mass supported by ring elements. Based on the
dynamometer’s ring constant, the dynamometer’s natural
frequency is computed. The stiffness of an elastic
member is called a dynamometer ring constant. The stiff-
ness of a thin circular ring was given by the following equa-
tion71:
Ebt 3
Kr =
1.8r3
The natural frequency of the dynamometer, which is
assumed as a small mass supported by ring elements, can
be obtained from the following equation:




1 Kr
fd =
2π m
where
Kr—ring constant (N/mm),
m—mass of the dynamometer (kg),
fd—dynamometer’s natural frequency (Hz).
The impact test must be carried out to identify the
natural frequency experimentally.
Data acquisition
After designing and developing the dynamometer, it has
to be interfaced with the data acquisition system to
acquire the cutting force during the machining process.
Proper amplification and signal conditioning circuits
must convert the strain/voltage signals into cutting force
data. A computer connection must be established with a
data acquisition system to acquire the cutting force and
8 Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)

log into the computer. The strain signals are initially cap-
tured from the strain gauge sensor and converted into
voltage using the Wheatstone bridge circuit. The voltage
signals are at millivolt level and unable to process
further. Therefore, amplifier circuit is required to
amplify the voltage level. After processing, the boosted
voltage signals can be converted into appropriate cutting
force and stored in the computer for more analysis. The
typical representation of the data acquisition system is
shown in Figure 4.
Discussion
Piezoelectric material-based force sensors such as the
Kistler dynamometer are widely used. It has good sensi-
tivity, and machining dynamics can be easily measured.
The drawback of the piezoelectric dynamometer is
rigidity and requires recalibration due to regularly
changing workpiece material and machining conditions.
Furthermore, the cost of the device is more and unable
to afford in small- and medium-scale industries. Hence,
the researchers’ interest is the strain gauge-based dyna-
mometer with different designs of sensing elements.
Therefore, various designs like square, hexagonal, octag-
onal, S-shaped, and G-shaped rings were considered for
FE analysis. The EN8 material is chosen for the FE ana-
lysis. The base was fixed, and a load of 5000 N was
applied at the center point. The responses were recorded
and is shown in Table 2. On comparing the results, it is
noticed that the eight-shaped ring with a circular hole
has higher displacement for a given axial load.
However, in the case of the eight-shaped rings with a cir-
cular hole, they cannot withstand the applied shear force
and reaches the yielding point. Therefore, the eight-
shaped rings with an elliptical hole are chosen. The
dimensions of the ring element can be finalized based
on the stress values, and the induced stress value should
be less than half of the yield strength to avoid yielding.

Table 2. Results of comparison of different shapes when a normal load is applied.

Normal Load Tangential Load

Displacement Stress Displacement Stress

S. No. Shape (mm) Strain (MPa) (mm) Strain (MPa)

1 Square ring 0.002068 7.42E-5 13.18 0.009876 1.80E-4 26.96

2 Hexagonal ring 0.01512 1.72E-4 26.27 0.1032 6.36E-4 85.54
3 G-shaped ring 0.04898 5.41E-4 72.21 0.05957 8.95E-4 117
4 S-shaped ring 0.02593 5.2E-4 77.64 0.07145 9.55E-4 123
5 Octagonal ring with a circular hole 0.009278 3.138E-4 41.42 0.05824 1.016E-3 134.4
6 Octagonal ring with elliptical hole 0.01637 3.635E-4 47.33 0.08843 9.935E-4 130.7
7 8-shaped ring with circular hole 0.03598 4.35E-4 54.39 0.3013 2.821E-3 348.9
8 8-shaped ring with elliptical hole 0.02822 3.14E-6 39.63 0.2136 1.546E-3 194.8

Figure 5. Milling dynamometer with eight-shaped elliptical ring.

Mohanraj et al.
This can be obtained by increasing the thickness of
the material at the shear zone by modifying the
circular ring into an elliptical ring element, as shown in
Figure 5.46
During the fabrication of the ring element, the dimen-
sional accuracy has to be appropriately maintained to
enhance the performance. The essential characteristics
are sensitivity, cross-sensitivity, accuracy, and linearity.
The maximum sensitivity and minimum cross-sensitivity
are crucial to the dynamometer. The elliptical design
increases the strength of the ring element to withstand
the shear load and increases the sensitivity of the ring.
The sensitivity mainly depends on the deformation of
the ring element. The cross-sensitivity can be minimized
by bonding the sensor in the appropriate location by
matching the sensor’s axes in both directions. The
natural frequency of the dynamometer can be increased
by increasing the stiffness of the ring element and by
decreasing the mass of the ring element.
The metrological characterization has to be performed
as per the ISO standard. The errors in measurements
are unavoidable while performing the calibration tests.
Therefore, uncertainty analysis is required to validate
the accuracy of the designed dynamometer. An ISO
376:2011 standard procedure has to be followed for
uncertainty analysis.29 According to ISO 376-2011, six
uncertainty components were considered.
It was found that an octagonal ring with an elliptical
section performed better than an octagonal ring with a cir-
cular section in terms of sensitivity and uncertainty
values. The designed dynamometers are more suitable
for measuring the cutting force components and cannot
measure the cutting force’s dynamics. The dynamics of
the cutting force have a significant role in TCMS. The
dynamics can be analyzed using an accelerometer and a
dynamometer in the future.
Challenges and future outlook
The selection of ring elements and their dimensions
require significant attention to enhance the sensitivity.
The sensitivity analysis is essential to confirm the dimen-
sions of the ring element. The dimensional accuracy has
to be maintained during the machining of rings. The loca-
tion of strain gauges has to be marked clearly to reduce the
cross-sensitivity error. Additional safety measures have to
be incorporated to safeguard the sensor from the coolant.
Proper calibration is required to design a signal condition-
ing unit.
The designed dynamometers can be affordable in
small- and medium-scale industries to measure the
cutting force and develop TCMS. Moreover, the facil-
ity to perform cloud computing or edge computing
for supporting Industry 4.0 or digital manufacturing
is a value addition. It can be accomplished through
additional interfacing and connectivity (Wi-Fi,
BlueTooth, etc.). It is helpful deploying the Industrial
Internet of Things (IIOT) to enhance the effective
machining process.
9
Conclusions
This paper reviews cutting force measurement using a
strain gauge with various sensing elements. The different
sensing methods and ring elements were used for measur-
ing the cutting force. Based on the discussion, the follow-
ing results have arrived.
• The indirect measurement of cutting force seems to be
low cost and reliable. Therefore, different types of ring
elements have been used, and the results are consistent.
• The deformation measured through the dial gauge is
suitable for only a narrow range. For better measure-
ments, strain gauges can be effectively used.
• Dynamometers can be designed with G- and S-shaped
rings. However, they have a higher value of stress,
which is not suitable for higher load.
• The circular ring element was suitable for low-load
applications only.
• For higher precision measurement, modified ring
elements can be used. The hexagonal and octagonal
ring elements are most suitable for cutting force
measurement.
• The octagonal–ellipse ring with MEMS-based sensors
and proper location of sensors will be the better
option to enhance the sensitivity of the dynamometer.
• Additionally, the dynamics of the cutting force can be
analyzed through the measurement of vibration signals
• The measurement of cutting force can be used to
monitor the tool condition in real time.
• The force measurement can be integrated with connect-
ivity to push the data to the cloud and enable the intel-
ligent manufacturing process.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Thangamuthu Mohanraj https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-1428
Mohammad Uddin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-5594
Sevagoundanoor Karuppusamy Thangarasu https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-4167-9166
References
1. Dimla DE. Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal
cutting operations—a review of methods. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 2000; 40: 1073–1098.
2. Kuntoğ lu M, Salur E, Gupta MK, et al. A state-of-the-art
review on sensors and signal processing systems in mechan-
ical machining processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2021;
116: 2711–2735.
3. Kuntoğ lu M, Aslan A, Pimenov DY, et al. A review of indir-
ect tool condition monitoring systems and decision-making
10
methods in turning: critical analysis and trends. Sensors
2020; 21: 108.
4. Mohanraj T, Shankar S, Rajasekar R, et al. Tool condition
monitoring in the milling process with vegetable based
cutting fluids using vibration signatures. Mater Test 2019;
61: 282–288.
5. Krishnakumar P, Rameshkumar K and Ramachandran K.
Machine learning based tool condition classification using
acoustic emission and vibration data in high speed milling
process using wavelet features. Intell Decis Technol 2018;
12: 265–282.
6. Shankar S, Mohanraj T and Rajasekar R. Prediction of
cutting tool wear during milling process using artificial
intelligence techniques. Int J Computer Integr Manuf
2019; 32: 174–182.
7. Shankar S, Mohanraj T and Pramanik A. Tool condition mon-
itoring while using vegetable based cutting fluids during
milling of inconel 625. J Adv Manuf Syst 2019; 18: 563–581.
8. Niaki FA, Ulutan D and Mears L. Stochastic tool wear
assessment in milling difficult to machine alloys. Int J
Mechatron Manuf Syst 2015; 8: 134–159.
9. Rameshkumar K, Mouli D and Shivith K. Machine learning
models for predicting grinding wheel conditions using
acoustic emission features. SAE I J Mater Manuf 2021;
14: 387–406.
10. Shivith K and Rameshkumar K. AE Signature analysis using
continuous and discrete wavelet transforms to predict grind-
ing wheel conditions. In: Nor Azlan Othman (Ed.) IOP
conference series: materials science and engineering.
Singapore: IOP Publishing, 2021, p.012034.
11. Mouli D and Rameshkumar K. Acoustic emission-based
grinding wheel condition monitoring using decision tree
machine learning classifiers. In: Li L, Pratihar D,
Chakrabarty, S and Mishra P (eds) Advances in materials
and manufacturing engineering. Singapore: Springer,
2020, pp.353–359.
12. Kuntoğ lu M and Sağ lam H. Investigation of signal beha-
viors for sensor fusion with tool condition monitoring
system in turning. Measurement 2021; 173: 108582.
13. Mohanraj T, Shankar S, Rajasekar R, et al. Tool condition
monitoring techniques in milling process—a review.
J Mater Res Technol 2020; 9: 1032–1042.
14. Balazinski M, Czogala E, Jemielniak K, et al. Tool condi-
tion monitoring using artificial intelligence methods. Eng
Appl Artif Intell 2002; 15: 73–80.
15. Luis N, Lamikiz A and Sanchez J. Simultaneous measure-
ment of forces and machine tool position for diagnostic of
machining test IEEE T Instrum Meas 2005; 54: 2329–2335.
16. Seguy S, Campa FJ, Lopez de Lacalle LN, et al. Toolpath
dependent stability lobes for the milling of thin-walled
parts. Int J Mach Mach Mater 2008; 4: 377–392.
17. Kuntoğ lu M and Sağ lam H. Investigation of progressive
tool wear for determining of optimized machining para-
meters in turning. Measurement 2019; 140: 427–436.
18. Segonds S, Landon Y, Monies F, et al. Method for rapid
characterisation of cutting forces in end milling considering
runout. Int J Mach Mach Mater 2006; 1: 45–61.
19. Shankar S, Mohanraj T and Thangarasu SK. Multi-response
milling process optimization using the taguchi method
coupled to grey relational analysis. Mater Test 2016; 58:
462–470.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
20. Kumar H, Sharma C, Kumar A, et al. Retrospective investi-
gations of force measurement. Mapan 2015; 30: 291–302.
21. Sandwell A, Lee J, Park C, et al. Novel multi-degrees of
freedom optical table dynamometer for force measurements.
Sens Actuators, A 2020; 303: 111688.
22. Subasi O, Yazgi SG and Lazoglu I. A novel triaxial optoe-
lectronic based dynamometer for machining processes. Sens
Actuators, A 2018; 279: 168–177.
23. Lapsomthop W, Wongsirirax N, kititeerakol A, et al. Design
and experimental investigation on 3–component force
sensor in mini CNC milling machine. Mater Today Proc
2019; 17: 1931–1938.
24. Gomez MF and Schmitz TL. Displacement-based dyna-
mometer for milling force measurement. Procedia Manuf
2019; 34: 867–875.
25. Soliman E. Performance analysis of octal rings as mechan-
ical force transducers. Alexandria Eng J 2015; 54: 155–162.
26. Tavakolpour-Saleh AR and Sadeghzadeh MR Design and
development of a three-component force/moment sensor
for underwater hydrodynamic tests. Sens Actuators, A
2014; 216: 84–91.
27. Drossel W-G, Gebhardt S, Bucht A, et al. Performance of a
new piezoceramic thick film sensor for measurement and
control of cutting forces during milling. CIRP Ann 2018;
67: 45–48.
28. Kumar H, Sharma C, Kumar A, et al. Design, development
and metrological characterization of a low capacity
precision industrial force transducer. ISA Trans 2015; 58:
659–666.
29. Kumar H, Sharma C and Kumar A. The development and
characterization of a square ring shaped force transducer.
Meas Sci Technol 2013; 24: 095007.
30. Kumar R, Pant BD and Maji S. Development and character-
ization of a diaphragm-shaped force transducer for static
force measurement. MAPAN 2017; 32: 167–174.
31. Liu M, Zhang Z, Zhou Z, et al. A new method based on fiber
Bragg grating sensor for the milling force measurement.
Mechatronics 2015; 31: 22–29.
32. Ş eker U, Kurt A and Çiftçi I. Design and construction of a
dynamometer for measurement of cutting forces during
machining with linear motion. Mater Des 2002; 23: 355–360.
33. Xie Z, Lu Y and Li J. Development and testing of an
integrated smart tool holder for four-component cutting
force measurement. Mech Syst Signal Process 2017; 93:
225–240.
34. Kumar H, Kaushik M and Kumar A. Development and char-
acterization of a modified ring shaped force transducer.
MAPAN 2015; 30: 37–47.
35. Mohanraj T, Shankar S, Rajasekar R, et al. Design, develop-
ment, calibration, and testing of indigenously developed
strain gauge based dynamometer for cutting force measure-
ment in the milling process. J Mech Eng Sci 2020; 14:
6594–6609.
36. Yaldız S, Ünsaçar F, Sağ lam H, et al. Design, development
and testing of a four-component milling dynamometer for
the measurement of cutting force and torque. Mech Syst
Signal Process 2007; 21: 1499–1511.
37. Kumar H, Sharma C, Arora P, et al. Development and metro-
logical characterization of a precision force transducer for
static force measurement related applications. Measurement
2016; 88: 77–86.
Mohanraj et al.
38. Kroencke M and Hull M. A method for designing multiload
component dynamometers incorporating octagonal strain
rings. Exp Mech 1989; 29: 195–204.
39. Korkut I. A dynamometer design and its construction for
milling operation. Mater Des 2003; 24: 631–637.
40. Pathri BP, Garg AK, Unune DR, et al. Design and fabrica-
tion of a strain gauge type 3-axis milling tool dynamometer:
fabrication and testing. Int J Mater Forming Machin
Process 2016; 3: 1–15.
41. Dandage R, Bhatwadekar S and Bhagwat M. Design, devel-
opment and testing of a four component milling tool dyna-
mometer. Int J Appl Eng Technol 2012; 2: 45–50.
42. Saglam H and Unuvar A. Three-component, strain gage
based milling dynamometer design and manufacturing.
J Integr Des Process Sci 2001; 5: 95–109.
43. Murthy KS and Rajendran I. Design and development of
strain gauge based milling tool dynamometer. Int J Mach
Mach Mater 2010; 7: 286–298.
44. Ammar AA, Jallouli M and Bouaziz Z. Design and
development of a dynamometer for the simulation of the
cutting forces in milling. Int J Autom Control 2010; 5: 44–60.
45. Uddin M and Songyi D. On the design and analysis of an
octagonal–ellipse ring based cutting force measuring trans-
ducer. Measurement 2016; 90: 168–177.
46. Mohanraj T, Deepesh T, Dhinesh R, et al. Design and ana-
lysis of a strain gauge based eight-shaped elliptical ring
dynamometer for milling force measurement. Proc Inst
Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci 2020; 235(17): 3125–3134.
47. Chang Y-S and Lin T-C. An optimal g-shaped load cell for
two-range loading. Eng Agric Environ Food 2013; 6: 172–176.
48. Santochi M, Dini G, Tantussi G, et al. A sensor-integrated
tool for cutting force monitoring. CIRP Ann 1997; 46: 49–52.
49. Yaldız S and Ünsaçar F. A dynamometer design for meas-
urement the cutting forces on turning. Measurement 2006;
39: 80–89.
50. Zhao Y, Zhao Y, Wang C, et al. Design and development of
a cutting force sensor based on semi-conductive strain
gauge. Sens Actuators, A 2016; 237: 119–127.
51. Zhao Y, Zhao Y, Liang S, et al. A high performance sensor
for triaxial cutting force measurement in turning. Sensors
2015; 15: 7969–7984.
52. Hanif MI, Aamir M, Ahmed N, et al. Optimization of facing
process by indigenously developed force dynamometer. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol 2019; 100: 1893–1905.
53. Panzera TH, Souza PR, Rubio JCC, et al. Development of
a three-component dynamometer to measure turning force.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2012; 62: 913–922.
54. Ateş E and Aztekin K. Design, manufacturing, and calibra-
tion process of one piece lathe dynamometer for measure-
ment in two axes. J Manuf Sci Eng 2013; 135: 044501.
55. Kim J-D and Kim D-S. Development of a combined-type
tool dynamometer with a piezo-film accelerometer for
an ultra-precision lathe. J Mater Process Technol 1997;
71: 360–366.
56. Oraby S and Hayhurst D. High-capacity compact three-
component cutting force dynamometer. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 1990; 30: 549–559.
57. Shankar S, Thangarasu S, Mohanraj T, et al. Prediction of
cutting force in turning process: an experimental and
fuzzy approach. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2015; 28: 1785–1793.
58. Rizal M and Ghani JA. Design and construction of a strain
gauge-based dynamometer for a 3-axis cutting force
11
measurement in turning process. J Mech Eng Sci 2018;
12: 4072–4087.
59. Yaldız S and Ünsaçar F. Design, development and testing of
a turning dynamometer for cutting force measurement.
Mater Des 2006; 27: 839–846.
60. Euan I, Ozturk E and Sims N. Modeling static and dynamic
cutting forces and vibrations for inserted ceramic milling
tools. Procedia CIRP 2013; 8: 564–569.
61. Choudhury S and Rath S. In-process tool wear estimation in
milling using cutting force model. J Mater Process Technol
2000; 99: 113–119.
62. Zaman M, Kumar AS, Rahman M, et al. A three-dimensional
analytical cutting force model for micro end milling oper-
ation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2006; 46: 353–366.
63. Shin B-C, Ha S-J, Cho M-W, et al. Indirect cutting force
measurement in the micro end-milling process based on fre-
quency analysis of sensor signals. J Mech Sci Technol 2010;
24: 165–168.
64. Stein JL, Colvin D, Clever G and Wang C. Evaluation of
DC Servo Machine Tool Feed Drives as Force Sensors.
ASME J Dyn Sys Meas Control December 1986; 108(4):
279–288. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3143795.
65. Altintas Y. Prediction of Cutting Forces and Tool Breakage
in Milling from Feed Drive Current Measurements.” ASME
J Eng Ind 1992; 114(4): 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.
2900688.
66. Altintas Y. and Dong C. L. (1990). Design and analysis of a
modular CNC system for machining control and monitor-
ing. Modeling of Machine Tools: Accuracy, Dynamics,
and Control, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Production Engineering Division (Publication) PED 1990;
45: 199–208.
67. Li X. Development of current sensor for cutting force meas-
urement in turning. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 2005; 54:
289–296.
68. Li X, Li H-X, Guan X-P, et al. Fuzzy estimation of feed-
cutting force from current measurement-a case study on
intelligent tool wear condition monitoring. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cybern C 2004; 34: 506–512.
69. Kim D and Jeon D. Fuzzy-logic control of cutting forces in
CNC milling processes using motor currents as indirect
force sensors. Prec Eng 2011; 35: 143–152.
70. Kumar H and Kumar A. Investigations on measurement
uncertainty and stability of dial gauged force proving instru-
ments. NCSLI Measure 2011; 6: 64–68.
71. Milton C and Shaw M. Metal cutting principles. UK:
Clarendon Press, Oxford Science Publication, 1984, p. 176.
72. Kumar H and Sharma C. Performance evaluation of force
transducers. Indian J Pure Appl Phy 2012; 50: 86–90.
73. Kumar H, Sharma C and Kumar A. Design and develop-
ment of precision force transducers. J Sci Ind Res 2011;
70: 519–524.
74. Gaikwad SV, Mahapatra MM and Mulik RS. Design, devel-
opment, and calibration of octagonal ring type dynamom-
eter with FEA for measurement of drilling thrust and
Torque. J Test Eval 2018; 48(4): 2699–2712.
75. Karabay S. Design criteria for electro-mechanical transdu-
cers and arrangement for measurement of strains due to
metal cutting forces acting on dynamometers. Mater Des
2007; 28: 496–506.
76. Karabay S. Analysis of drill dynamometer with octagonal
ring type transducers for monitoring of cutting forces
12
in drilling and allied process. Mater Des 2007; 28:
673–685.
77. Turgut Y and Korkut I. High capacity three-component
dynamometer design, construction and its calibration. Sci
Res Essay 2012; 7: 2699–2707.
78. Jain R, Rathore JK and Gorana VK. Design, development
and testing of a three component lathe tool dynamometer
using resistance strain gauges. In: Mandal DK and Syan
CS (eds) CAD/CAM, Robotics and Factories of the Future.
Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. New Delhi:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2740-3_2.
79. Gao C, Li W and Sun B. Research on the piezoelectric tor-
sional effect of a rectangular quartz disc and a novel drilling
dynamometer. Measurement 2010; 43: 336–343.
Proc IMechE Part E: J Process Mechanical Engineering 0(0)
80. Totis G and Sortino M. Development of a modular dyna-
mometer for triaxial cutting force measurement in turning.
Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2011; 51: 34–42.
81. Totis G, Wirtz G, Sortino M, et al. Development of a
dynamometer for measuring individual cutting edge forces
in face milling. Mech Syst Signal Process 2010; 24:
1844–1857.
82. Qin Y, Zhao Y, Li Y, et al. A high performance torque
sensor for milling based on a piezoresistive MEMS strain
gauge. Sensors 2016; 16: 513.
83. Gaikwad SV, Mahapatra MM and Mulik RS. Design, devel-
opment, and calibration of octagonal ring type dynamom-
eter with FEA for measurement of drilling thrust and
Torque. J Test Eval 2018; 48(4): 2699–2712.