Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ISEM XXI

Software-based setpoint optimization methods

for laser cutting machine tools
Raffael Amachera , Natanael Lanzb , Manuel Müllerc,∗, Ronny Bossartc
a Embotech AG, 8005 Zürich, CH
b ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, CH
c Bystronic Laser AG, 3362 Niederönz, CH

Abstract
The demands on laser cutting machine tools are increasing constantly. In this paper, we focus on increasing productivity while minimizing the
deterioration of part quality. Without specific countermeasures, increasing the dynamic settings leads to larger dynamic-induced contour errors
of the workpiece. Software-based methods offer potential to improve the contour tracking under varying dynamic settings without the need for
a mechanical redesign of the machine tool. Four such methods, which rely on different combinations of model- and/or sensor-based setpoint
compensation, are implemented and tested on a laser cutting machine tool. A comparison with respect to productivity and contour accuracy of cut
parts is presented, and the complexity of development as well as deployment for production are discussed.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ISEM XXI

Keywords: contour accuracy; setpoint optimization; laser cutting

reachable tracking accuracy, showing an inverse proportional

1. Introduction
In high dynamic manufacturing in general and more specif-
ically for laser cutting machines a fundamental trade-off be-
tween achievable motion accuracy and productivity exists. The
productivity of a laser cutting machine is limited by the jerk,
acceleration and velocity limits of all axes, which must be sat-
isfied by the setpoints supplied to the machine axis motion con-
troller. The reachable motion accuracy accordingly depends on
the mechatronic machine response to these setpoint inputs. The
machine response itself is influenced by the structural machine
design and the motion control architecture and parametrization.
Generally, if the machine productivity is increased by adopt-
ing the setpoints, the machine will respond with less accu-
racy due to an increase of the tracking error, dynamic devi-
ations caused by induced quasi-static deformations (Steinlin
[1]) and vibrations of the machine structure. For a properly pa-
rameterised standard cascaded motion controller according to
Batzies et al. [2] and Zirn [3], Spescha [4] derived a formula for
the relation between acceleration or jerk setpoint limits and the
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: manuel.mueller@bystronic.com
dependence. In order to overcome the above limitations, either
the machine design would need to be adopted, or the setpoint
inputs would need to be reshaped/optimized to compensate for
some of the induced dynamic deviations caused by an increase
in dynamics and productivity. An improvement in the structural
machine design is related to high costs, especially if it involves
the manufacturing of new prototypes [5]. Recent developments
in simulation, leading to virtual machine prototypes [6] never-
theless enabled the reduction of the costs for structural machine
design optimization.
Therefore, this work is focussing on the optimization of the
machine accuracy by adopting the setpoint values, leaving ma-
chine design and controller parameterization untouched. In lit-
erature, different approaches for algorithms are described for
this purpose involving either modelling or measurements of
the machine response to setpoint inputs. Most important ap-
proaches are based on (iterative) learning control (ILC) algo-
rithms, first introduced by Garden [7], that try to compensate
for simulated or measured deviations by adopting the setpoints
accordingly. A good survey over the available algorithms is pre-
sented by Britsow [8]. They might rely on direct proportional
feedback of the simulated or measured machine trajectory as

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ISEM XXI
10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.178

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Rafael Amacher et al. / Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587 583

for PID-ILC [9]. These algorithms were also applied to ma-

chine tools as presented by Kim [10] and Haas [11]. Or the
ILC algorithms might alternatively rely on solving an optimiza-
tion problem, by minimizing a definable cost function with the
help of a model of the machine response e.g. by Togai [12] and
Haas [11]. As all of the ILC algorithms use previously gathered
simulation or measurement information, they are not applica-
ble online. Therefore they fit especially well to applications,
where the same trajectories have to be followed repeatedly, as
e.g. the case for high volume production of identical parts. In
this paper, however, an optimization based learning algorithm is
presented, by which the time required for the learning process
can be reduced by using a very fast solver (Forces Pro [14]). By
following a trajectory with the laser switched off, the required
corrected setpoint values can be calculated in a short time and
without material loss, which makes the algorithm economically Fig. 1. Reference part used for measurements. The outer diameter is 120 mm.
applicable even for parts with less repetitions than before.
The required measurements for the learning algorithms may
further be derived from different sources. In the presented work, error. The cutting was always carried out in the center of the
the same optimization based learning algorithm is applied to machine to exclude the variation over the cutting area.
different measurement sources, which are: simulation results, The contour deviations and statistical distribution of the er-
internal encoder measurements, accelerometer data close to the ror were determined from the data of the optical measurement.
tool center point (TCP) and external optical measurements of Based on this analysis, the methods were tuned accordingly. It
the parts, where for the accelerometer motion estimation the was found that the median error is most suitable for compari-
algorithm described by Lanz [13] is applied. Divided into four son since it excludes any outliers that may occur from the laser
methods according to the measurement or simulation source, cutting process (e.g. splashes or unclean cuts).
this work implements and tests the optimization algorithm for
the first time on an industrial laser cutting machine.

2.3. Setpoint compensation

2. Methods
2.1. Test machine
The work was carried out on a ByStar Fiber 3015 laser cut-
ting machine. Initially, the machine was recalibrated with the
double ball bar method to ensure good calibration including
scaling, backlash and squareness compensation. The machine
features an acceleration sensor located in the cutting head, i.e.
close to the Tool Center Point (TCP). During cutting of the ref-
erence part, the drive and laser process data were recorded. Af-
ter performing setpoint compensation, the data was applied to
the machine. In this way, a part can be cut based on the setpoints
generated with different compensation methods while maintain-
ing the laser process data.
2.2. Test procedure
The measurements of the cut parts were carried out on a 2D
optical measuring device. The measured part contour was fitted
to the nominal contour using Gauss fitting which identifies the
perpendicular deviations of the geometry, so-called “spikes”. In
the following the absolute value of these spikes are referred to
as the contour error of the part.
The used reference part is shown in Figure 1 which was cut
with a 1mm thick metal sheet. The slender contour with fast
direction changes poses a challenge to minimizing the contour
Figure 2 shows the architecture of the setpoint compensa-
tion used in this paper. The reference trajectory for the X- and
Y-axes of the machine, which is generated by the CNC-Kernel,
is compensated based on an estimate of the TCP position. The
goal of the compensation algorithm is to reduce the expected
contour deviation while respecting velocity and acceleration
constraints of the machine axes. The compensation algorithm
is implemented using FORCES PRO [14]. The trajectory time
is left unaltered by the compensator, such that a decrease of ma-
chining time due to an increased acceleration limit is preserved
after compensation. For the TCP estimation step, four differ-
ent methods were implemented that rely either on an identified
machine model, measured data, or a combination of both:
• Model-based (Method 1): Compensation based on a cal-
ibrated machine model
• Machine feedback-based (Method 2 light): Compensa-
tion based on measured encoder positions
• Machine feedback-based (Method 2): Compensation
based on acceleration sensor at the TCP
• External feedback-based (Method 3): Compensation
based on the measured part contour
2.3.1. Model-based compensation (Method 1)
For each axis, a linear time-invariant dynamical black-box
model is used that predicts the TCP position given the refer-

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 584 Rafael Amacher et al. / Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587

estimation algorithm were identified based on optical measure-

CNC kernel
ments, similar to the model identification that was necessary for
Reference trajectory method 1.

TCP estimator
2.3.3. External feedback-based compensation (Method 3)
Measured encoder positions,

This method relies on using the measured contour of one

acceleration sensor data

Machine model or more cut parts. When cutting a part and measuring the re-

Reference contour (DXF)

Compensator sulting contour in high resolution, that reference data can be
mapped back to the reference trajectory of the CNC kernel to
Compensated reference
Measured cut part contour

get an accurate estimate of the deviation of the TCP from the

trajectory
reference trajectory. For this method, a part needs to be cut, its
Machine contour needs to be measured with an external measurement
system, and the resulting measurement data needs to be trans-
ferred back to the machine software ecosystem. It can then be
Cut part

used to compensate the reference trajectory. For further stabi-

lizing the method, always two measurements from two different
External cuts were used and averaged the estimated TCP position. The
drawback of this method is that impurities, or process-induced
measurement contour errors that are not caused by the machine’s position
system control, or errors in the optical measurement system can lead to
faulty compensations. The signal was therefore post-processed
to identify sections where one of these effects is suspected and
Fig. 2. The architecture of the setpoint compensation. compensation was switched off in these sections. Further, in the
lead-in region, there is a small section where it cannot be differ-
entiated whether contour deviations are caused at the beginning
ence trajectory from the CNC kernel as an input in an open- or at the end of the cut, and therefore, compensation was also
loop fashion. The model was identified by comparing the refer- switched off in these regions.
ence trajectory with optical contour measurements. Using this
method, an estimate of the TCP trajectory can be generated us-
2.4. Measurements
ing only the reference trajectory as an input, i.e., without any
feedback signal once the model is identified.
Table 1 lists all cuts that were made for this paper. Optimized
calibration “No” means that the machine’s calibration was in
2.3.2. Machine feedback-based compensation (Method 2 / factory settings (determined using double ball bar method),
Method 2 light) “Yes” means that it was specifically tuned for the part at hand.
These methods rely on machine feedback. The part of in- Compensation “None” means that the reference values from
terest is ”dry-cut” (laser switched off) once, and the encoder the CNC-Kernel were directly passed to the drives, in the other
positions of the X- and Y-axes, as well as the acceleration mea- cases, compensation was applied offline and the result was fed
sured close to the TCP are recorded. This information is used to the drive, bypassing the CNC-Kernel.
for computing an estimate of the TCP position. Two variants of
this compensation were implemented. Table 1. Measurements presented and discussed in this paper are summarized.
Method 2 light relies on the encoder feedback for the X- and
ID Optimized Calibr. Accel. Compensation
Y-axis only. The encoder data is directly used as an estimate for
the TCP position without further manipulation or model-based M1 No 4/10 None
manipulation. Effects that further influence the TCP position M2 No 4/10 Method 1 based on M1
relative to the encoder position due to e.g. the machine tool M3 No 4/10 Method 2 light based on M1
M4 No 4/10 Method 3 based on M1
mechanical behaviour are neglected. This method therefore fo- M5 Yes 4/10 None
cuses on reducing the residual errors from the position control M6 Yes 4/10 Method 1 based on M5
system. The advantage of this approach is that the method is M7 Yes 4/10 Method 2 based on M5
completely calibration free. M8 Yes 4/10 Method 2 light based on M5
Method 2 relies on the acceleration sensor data, which is M9 Yes 4/10 Method 3 based on M5
M10 Yes 9/10 None
physically closer to the TCP than the encoder measurements. M11 Yes 9/10 Method 1 based on M10
Therefore, it can potentially provide a more accurate TCP esti- M12 Yes 9/10 Method 2 based on M10
mate, as also e.g. mechanical vibrations of the machine tool can M13 Yes 9/10 Method 2 light based on M10
be taken into account. However, an estimation algorithm needs M14 Yes 9/10 Method 3 based on M10
to be parametrized and evaluated for converting the accelera-
tion data into a TCP position estimate. The parameters for this
3

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Rafael Amacher et al. / Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Standard dynamics and standard calibration
By default settings, the machine accelerates at 4 m/s2 dur-
ing cutting and at 10 m/s2 during positioning which will be re-
ferred to as “acceleration 4/10” in the following. First, a series
of measurements was performed at acceleration 4/10 and with
standard machine calibration. The corresponding results can be
seen in Figure 3. Method 3 significantly yields the best result
with 43% less median contour error (w.r.t. reference measure-
ment). Using Method 2 light a small improvement of 2% can be
achieved while Method 1 results in no improvement. Basically,
it should be understood that the contour error consists of two
parts. On the one hand there are quasi-static errors and on the
other hand there are dynamically induced errors. With acceler-
ation 4/10 and standard machine settings, the quasi-static errors
dominate (compare Figure 4). Method 3 takes the actual result-
ing contour into account and therefore can identify and correct
a constant static-offset while the other methods cannot.
3.2. Optimized machine calibration
In a next step the default calibration values of the machine
were optimally adjusted to the reference part in order to investi-
gate the potential of the setpoint correction methods for reduc-
ing the dynamically induced error. Instead of using the double
ball bar method, the calibration was conducted based on an opti-
cal measurement of the cut part to reduce the quasi-static errors
as much as possible. The description of this process is beyond
the scope of this paper and therefore not described. In general,
the quasi-static errors can also be reduced with other correc-
tion methods (e.g. friction compensation). After optimizing the
calibration, the measurement series was repeated as before. In
Figure 5 the results before and after optimizing the calibration
as well as the comparison between the different methods are
shown. Again, it can be seen that Method 3 results in the small-
est median contour error. However, the median error is only
reduced by 9%. All other methods are not able to significantly
reduce the median error at this dynamic. This result could be
expected since the quasi-static error was minimized and for ac-
celeration 4/10 only a relatively small dynamic error is present.
3.3. Increased dynamics
As a last step, the acceleration dynamics were increased to
investigate a possible productivity increase while maintaining
the same accuracy. In doing so, the proportion of the dynam-
ically induced errors increases. In Figure 6, the results for ac-
celeration 9/10 are presented whereat the dynamically induced
errors predominate the quasi-static errors (see Figure 4). Re-
ferring to the median form error Method 1, Method 2, Method
2 light and Method 3 reduced it by 4%, 26%, 26% and 14%
respectively. Thus, all the methods have achieved an improve-
ment with Methods 2 and 2 light performing best. Interestingly,
the data from the accelerometer in the cutting head was not nec-
essarily needed to estimate the TCP (Method 2). With the esti-
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
585
mated path from the feedback data of the measurement system
(Method 2 light), an equally good, if not slightly better, correc-
tion could be achieved. Method 3 worked worse compared to
the Methods 2 and 2 light, since with this method the dynamic
errors are rather difficult to compensate.
4. Conclusion and outlook
Setpoint compensation can be achieved with three funda-
mentally different approaches. First, model-based compensa-
tion can be applied offline based on model-based knowledge of
the machine. Second, machine feedback-based compensation
relies on the measured position and/or acceleration feedback of
the machine. Third, external feedback-based compensation re-
lies on a measurement of the contour of a cut part. In this paper,
implementations of all three of those approaches are used to
generate an estimate of the true TCP position and to apply it
for setpoint compensation to reduce the contour error of the cut
parts.
Method 1: This method relies on a machine model that needs
to be developed, identified, and validated. Once available, the
big advantage of this method is that it can be implemented up-
stream of the machine as soon as the cutting plan in the CAD-
CAM system is available, and thus can be decoupled from ma-
chine operation. However, that method cannot account for vari-
ation between different machines. In this paper, a rather simple
model for implementing this method is chosen, which resulted
in unsatisfactory performance. More complex and computation-
ally more expensive models could help improve the results from
this approach.
Method 2 / Method 2 light: These methods operate on ma-
chine feedback. The data can be collected with the laser turned
off in “dry-cut” mode to avoid rejected parts. There is however
a time investment that needs to be made for collecting the data;
If the goal is to increase productivity, these methods are only
valid if the same parts are cut several times, ideally in mass
production. As these methods relies on data that is generated
on the machine itself, it is possible to fully integrate them in the
software ecosystem of the machine provider which potentially
results in a very robust implementation. Method 2 light can be
realized without the need to tune parameters of the accelera-
tion based TCP estimation algorithm and is therefore easier to
industrialize than Method 2.
Method 3: This method requires the most effort to operate.
Further, it relies on data that is generated by a measurement
system that is typically not integrated in the machine tool sys-
tem. A manual work step is thus introduced which is potentially
error prone. A further drawback of this method is that it is not
always possible to determine the underlying cause of contour
deviation. There might be artefacts introduced by the measure-
ment system, or contour deviations that are process related and
cannot be corrected by path compensation. If such a deviation
is wrongly used for compensating the reference trajectory, the
result could be worse in some sections than without compensa-
tion. However, in sections where the measured contour is valid,
this method offers the highest robustness, as it does not rely on
 586 Rafael Amacher et al. / Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587

Fig. 3. Distribution of the contour error of the measurements M1 (median: 12.4 µm), M2 (median: 12.6 µm), M3 (median: 12.2 µm) and M4 (median: 7.0 µm) that
were cut with acceleration 4/10.

Fig. 4. Measured contours are shown 5 times superelevated with a ±30 µm tolerance band. Left: M1, M2, M3 and M4 with acceleration 4/10; Right: M10, M11,
M12, M13 and M14 with acceleration 9/10.

models and other assumptions about the machine tool but op-
erates on the real contour. Our results however indicate that the
method works well in regions with low acceleration, i.e. it com-
pensates quasi-static errors very well, but it does not perform as
well as Method 2 and Method 2 light in case of highly dynamic
sections.
In conclusion, method 1 requires more work to demon-
strate the benefits using more complex, digital-twin approaches.
Method 2 light offers the highest potential for industrialization
in case of high productivity requirements to counteract the loss
of contour accuracy. Method 3 could be industrialized for use
cases of mass production in cases where the highest accuracy is
desired and the machine operator is willing to accept an addi-
tional calibration step for each new part.
All presented methods as well as the presented state of the art
are based on offline a posteriori machine simulation or measure-
ment data. Future research and development could in addition
investigate the possibility to compensate for dynamic errors di-
rectly online during operation using additional online data. For
this, the architecture and parametrization of the motion con-
troller could be extended and adopted to consider more sensor
information as currently possible in a standard machine feed
drive controller. Industrial applicability has to be ensured by re-
specting the conservative requirements concerning robustness,
safety and simplicity of such future approaches.
References
[1] M. Steinlin, S.Weikert, K.Wegener, 2010, Open loop inertial cross-talk
compensation based on measurement data, in: Proc. of the 25th Annual
Meeting of the American Society for Precision Engineering (ASPE’10).
[2] E. Batzies, T. Schöller, V. Welker, O. Zirn, 2007, Optimal Control of Di-
rect Driven Feed Axes with Flexible Structural Components, in: 7th Inter-
national Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems. IEEE, pp.
1127–1131.
[3] O. Zirn, 2008, Machine tool analysis–modelling, simulation and control of
machine tool manipulators, A Habilitation Thesis, ETH Zürich.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Rafael Amacher et al. / Procedia CIRP 113 (2022) 582–587 587

Fig. 5. Distribution of the contour error of the measurements M1 (median: 12.4 µm), M5 (median: 7.7 µm), M6 (median: 8.6 µm), M7 (median: 8.0 µm), M8
(median: 8.3 µm) and M9 (median: 7.0 µm) that were cut with acceleration 4/10.

Fig. 6. Distribution of the contour error of the measurements M10 (median: 18.2 µm), M11 (median: 17.4 µm), M12 (median: 13.5 µm), M13 (median: 13.4 µm)
and M14 (median: 15.7 µm) that were cut with acceleration 9/10.

[4] D. Spescha, S. Weikert, O. Zirn, K. Wegener, 2017, Synchronisa-
tion of feed axes with differing bandwidths using set point de-
lay, International Journal of Automation Technology, 11, pp.155–164,
doi:10.20965/ijat.2017.p0155.
[5] Altintas, Y., Brecher, C.,Weck, M.,Witt, 2005, S.. Virtual machine tool.
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology; pp. 115–138.
[6] D. Spescha, 2017, Framework for Efficient and Accurate Simulation of the
Dynamics of Machine Tools, Ph.D. thesis, TU Clausthal.
[7] M. Garden, Learning control of actuators in control systems, Google
Patents, 1971.
[8] D. Bristow, M. Tharayil and A. Alleyne, June 2006, A survey of iterative
learning control, Control Systems, IEEE, Bd. 26, Nr. 3, pp. 96-114.
[9] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura and F. Miyazaki, 1984, Bettering Operation of
Robots by Learning, Journal of Robotic Systems, pp. 123-140, 1984.
[10] D. Kim and S. Kim, 1993, An iterative learning control method with ap-
plication for CNC machine tools in Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting, Conference Record of the 1993 IEEE.
[11] T. Haas, N. Lanz, R. Keller, S. Weikert, K. Wegener, 2016, Iterative Learn-
ing for Machine Tools Using a Convex Optimisation Approach, in: Proce-
dia CIRP, volume 46, pp. 391–395, doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.033.
[12] M. Togai and O. Yamano, 1985, Analysis and design of an optimal learning
control scheme for industrial robots: A discrete system approach, Decision
and Control, 1985 24th IEEE Conference.
[13] N. Lanz, 2021, Framework for Overcoming Structural Limitations of Ma-
chine Tools using Additional Tool Center Point Measurements, Ph.D. the-
sis, ETH Zurich.
[14] A. Domahidi and J. Jerez, 2014-2021, Embotech AG
(https://embotech.com/FORCES-Pro)

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.