ARTICLE IN PRESS

G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Precision Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/precision

Review

Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint

kinematic error in machine tools
Paweł Majda ∗
West Pomeranian University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics, Al. Piastów 19, 70-310 Szczecin, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the problems of the geometric accuracy of machine tools. The analytical and exper-
Received 8 July 2011 imental examinations were carried out for a table in which guideway geometric errors may result in
Received in revised form 8 November 2011 significant deformations. The main aim was to propose a method of analytical examination of the influ-
Accepted 4 February 2012
ence of geometric errors in linear guideway on joint kinematic errors. The proposed method served
Available online xxx
to isolate and simulate geometric errors, one of the causes of volumetric errors in machine tools. This
approach helped to understand and interpret the results of experimental examinations of angular kine-
Keywords:
matic errors (pitch, yaw, roll) obtained for a real machine tool. The results helped to verify the hypothesis
Machine tool accuracy
Guideway geometric error
that the deformation of a table may be a significant source of errors in volumetric error models. One of
FEM the final conclusions indicated that off-line compensation of some characteristics of angular kinematic
errors in machine tools may be unjustified.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Model for linear guideway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. The results of calculations for static characteristics of a linear guideway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Model for guideway geometric error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5. Simulation of joint kinematic errors of a machine tool table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
6. Experimental research of angular kinematic errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

1. Introduction of geometric errors compensation in such cases? In addition,

the problem can be dealt with the distinction of machine tool
Guideway geometric errors are one of the causes of undesirable working states, (i) with the cutting process taken into account,
differences between the nominal and real position and orientation and (ii) without cutting process. In the first case, compensa-
of a tool in relation to the workpiece. These differences in the tion may be unprofitable, because due to the presence of other
entire workspace of a machine are known as volumetric error. sources of errors in the machine it is not really possible to obtain
Beside the geometric errors the influences on volumetric errors the higher dimensional and shape accuracy of the workpieces.
have: temperature changes which cause thermal deformations, The second case we have to deal with when measuring the geo-
deformations of machine tool parts caused by operating loads, metrical specification on the machine tool using a 3D measurement
the properties of the axis controls. It may be (in example for touch probe. Such probes use machine tool displacement measure-
precision machine tool with hydrostatic linear guides [1]) that ment systems as a length standard. It is one of the flaws of this
geometric errors have a small share in the total volumetric error. solution, because the measurement accuracy is determined by the
Then a question arises that is there an explanation and a point accuracy of the machine tool itself. In such case the geometric errors
participation is greater in the total balance of volumetric error. Then
the geometric error compensation can give the desired increase
∗ Tel.: +48 91 449 42 66; fax: +48 91 449 44 42. of the accuracy of measurements made directly on the machine
E-mail address: Pawel.Majda@zut.edu.pl tool.

0141-6359/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10
2 P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
The knowledge of volumetric error is used in software off-
line compensation of machine tool errors, thus increasing their
positioning accuracy. The efficiency of such compensation is espe-
cially effective for large machine tools [2]. Large machine tool
tables are bigger then 1200 mm × 600 mm, medium sized machine
tools tables are smaller then 1200 mm × 600 mm [3]. One of the
characteristic properties of large machine tools is their kinematic
structure, usually of a portal/gantry type, where a tool path runs
in many axes against a fixed workpiece. In this case, regardless of
the measurement method and determination of volumetric error,
the fixed table on which the workpiece lies is also a measure-
ment datum for the measured machine tool errors. Volumetric
error is determined in relation to that datum. A similar procedure
is applied for medium-sized machine tools. The fact that medium-
sized machine tools usually have a movable table as a measurement
datum should also be taken into account. Using direct measurement
[4] of machine tool errors, e.g. by laser inferometer or electronic
level, the elements of the measuring system are thus located on a
movable table. In indirect measurements [4] the situation is similar,
for example in the method proposed by Yang et al. [5] in which a
ball bar test is used, with one end situated in different positions on
the table. The methodology of measurements using a ball plate arte-
fact, used by Bringmann and Knapp [6], and other material artefacts
(Woody et al. [2]; Choi et al. [7]), also requires the location of mea-
suring system elements on the table. Effective tools for mapping
of volumetric errors using a lasertracer system (developed under
the supervision of Schwenke [8,9]) also require the location of the
measuring equipment on the table. A question arises, (i) whether
this situation may generate errors in the determination of volumet-
ric error, and (ii) whether methods verified for large-sized machine
tools can be adopted for medium-sized machine tools. The range of
analytical and experimental studies presented in the further part
of this paper should help answer to these questions.
Apart from the methodology of measurements, the accuracy
of software compensation of machine tools errors is very much
affected by the manner and accuracy of volumetric error modeling.
The principal assumption of modeling is the ability to determine
volumetric error based on the characteristics of joint kinematic
errors, i.e. translation errors (positional, vertical and horizontal
straightness) and angular errors (pitch, yaw, roll) associated with
the kinematics of the studied solid, most often treated as a rigid
body [10–12]. It is desirable that the characteristics of kinematic
errors have the characteristics of systematic errors. The model
assumptions are then fulfilled and volumetric error compensation
is justified. One of the most interesting papers on the verification
of modeling assumptions is by Ekinci and Mayer [13]. The authors
performed a detailed analysis of a basic guideway. They exam-
ined the relationships between straightness and angular kinematic
errors for different ratios of carriage length to the wavelength of
a guideway geometric error. For a two-dimensional model, they
analytically proved and then experimentally verified the relation-
ship between angular errors and respective straightness errors.
They showed how significant errors result from strict conversion
of angular errors into straightness errors. The conclusions of the
authors [13] were the result of a detailed analysis at an elementary
level, i.e. on the level of elementary causes of volumetric errors.
The causes were obviously guideway geometric errors. It must be
emphasized here that many authors had previously uncritically
used a simplified assumption that angular errors may be converted
directly into straightness errors [14–16] or vice versa [17]. It is still
an open question as to what extent such simplifications affect the
accuracy of volumetric error determination.
The direct inspiration for this paper were the observations made
during modeling of volumetric error for a specific structure of a
medium-sized milling machine (vertical machining centres) with
a cross table. It was noticed that some characteristics of angular
Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
kinematic errors measured on the milling machine table strongly
depended on the location of measuring instruments. This effect
should be unnoticeable if the assumption of ideal stiffness of the
examined solids is to be permissible (correct) in a volumetric error
model. The discussion presented in this paper continues the exam-
ination of problems from the paper [13], i.e. associated with the
identification of sources of machine tool errors and the accuracy of
volumetric errors models. Our simulation studies were extended
for a three-dimensional case. The realization of such a task required
the development of a modeling method which should enable an
analytical examination of the effect of guideway geometric errors
on joint kinematic errors, and thus on volumetric errors in machine
tools. Based on literature, we developed a model of a single roller
linear guideway. The manner of modeling is presented in Section 2.
In order to verify the reliability of results obtained with the devel-
oped model, Section 3 presents the comparison of calculated char-
acteristics of force–displacement and the characteristics provided
by the manufacturer of the guideways. In the next stage in Section
4 we present the manner of modeling entire guideways allowing
for guide rail geometric errors. Section 5 presents an example of a
milling machine with a linear guideway including guide rail geo-
metric errors. Based on the conclusions drawn after the performed
simulation, an experimental examination was prepared, the results
of which are presented and commented in Section 6.
In this paper I assumed the definition of machine tools according
to the division proposed by [13].
2. Model for linear guideway
In modeling, the finite elements method (FEM) [18] was used.
The sub-assemblies of a guideway were discretized with solid ele-
ments, which made it possible to allow for a elasticity within the
linear elastic range for carriage and guide rails.
Considering the usefulness of the performed analytical exami-
nations, it was deemed that omitting the elasticity of single rolling
elements is a too great simplification, which decreases the relia-
bility of the performed analyses. Below is the description of the
applied models.
A contact element was used to model the interactions between
contact phenomena in the area of the roller patch – rolling ele-
ment – roller patch, and the elasticity of a single rolling element.
With regard to physical modeling, a rolling element is replaced by a
spring element of unilateral action (compression only), which con-
nects/joins a carriage with a guide rail at the contact points between
rolling element and roller patch. It has a linear dimension – a length
equal to the diameter of a rolling element. The idea of modeling is
presented in Fig. 1 [19–21].
Considering geometric non-linearity (only compression) and
physical non-linearity, the contact deformation of the single ball
within two grooves can be found by Hertzian analysis as being
dependent on the normal load F [19,21,22].

g − 2 · ı for : F ≤0 compression
ı(F) = (1)
→∞ for : F>0 tension
  2
3 2·D−d 1−2
where ı(F) = 1.41 ·  · F2 · d·D
· 2· E
ı(F), deformation
of a single ball; g, gap or preload (Fig. 2); F, force acting on a single
ball; d, diameter of the ball; D, diameter of the groove; E, Young’s
modulus of ball and groove material; , Poisson ratio of ball and
groove material; and , parameter that depends on the ratio d and
D. If D → ∞ (i.e. ball in contact with flat surface), then  → 1
Fig. 2 presents the effect of g parameter from Eq. (1) on the char-
acteristics of contact deformation of a rolling element when g is
lower than zero, gap occurs. When g is greater than zero, preload
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 3

Fig. 1. Cross-section of the linear guideway – diagrams of models for solid structures
and rolling elements.

of the contact element occurs. Parameter g was used in the model

for guideway preload and for mapping/reproducing guide rail geo-
metric errors.

3. The results of calculations for static characteristics of a

linear guideway

The object of the model and calculations was a single guideway,

a carriage-guide rails type. The modeling was carried out in accor-
dance with the description in Section 2. The parameters of Eq. (1)
for contact elements which model rolling elements are: d = 3 mm,
D = 1.01 d, E = 210 GPa,  = 0.3,  = 1.412. The analysis concerned the
structure of a roller sub-assembly, size 25 (width of the rail at its
base) and number 1651, according to the manufacturer’s product
list [23]. Necessary geometric dimensions and preload for the car-
riage were also taken from the product list. Preload was 8% C; C
is the dynamic capacity and equals 22.8 kN. Dividing the preload
by the number of rolling elements gives force per rolling element.
Based on the force and characteristic described by Eq. (1), param-
eter g is calculated. The parameter was used directly in the FEM
Fig. 3. The comparison of calculations for static guideway characteristics with char-
guideway model, thus allowing for carriage preload. In the calcu- acteristics provided by the producer [23] for various types of loads: F: (a) upward,
lations the base of the guide rail was fixed and the concentrated (b) downward, and (c) lateral.
force was applied in the model using a solid with ideal stiffness.
The comparison of the calculations with the experimental charac-
teristics provided by the guideway manufacturer [23] for various is probably the lack of models for screw joints. It should be noted
loads (upwards, downwards, and lateral) is shown in Fig. 3. that the characteristics were obtained on the basis of a computa-
This comparison of the aforementioned results with the FEM tional model for a system with clearly defined assumptions and
calculations shows a substantial conformity with data provided without the need to identify any of the parameters of the model.
by the manufacturer. This applies especially to schemas of down- Therefore it must be considered that the achieved qualitative and
ward and lateral load. A somewhat worse consistency (greater quantitative conformity was high and proves the high reliability
calculation stiffness), especially for a force greater than 9 kN, was of the calculations using the aforementioned guideway model.
obtained for an upward load. The main source of this discrepancy An important advantage of this presented model is the possibility

Fig. 2. The effect of g parameter on the characteristics displacement–force of rolling element.

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

4 P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Example diagram of a model for straightness error in the system roller patch – rolling elements – roller patch, using contact elements.

of its use in spatial analysis including geometric errors of the 5. Simulation of joint kinematic errors of a machine tool
guideways themselves. table

The adopted object of the model was a guideway with four car-
4. Model for guideway geometric error riages and a table – Fig. 6. Models for carriages and guide rails
were made according to the technique described in Section 2. The
One of the main purposes of this is was to propose a method of configuration of table dimensions and guideway correspond to the
analysis of the effect of guideway geometric error on the charac- machine tool visible in the photographs presented in the graphs in
teristics of joint kinematic errors in machine tools. Theoretically, it Figs. 10–12. A cast iron table was modeled in linear elastic – FEM.
is possible to create an FEM model which takes into account geo- The model geometry was simplified. The thickness of the table was
metric errors in the form of an appropriate distribution of nodes the result of optimization, which minimized the difference in k1
belonging to the finite elements. However, since the geometry of stiffness of a detailed model and k2 stiffness of a simplified model
shape errors (including the location of relevant nodes) in relation to – Fig. 6a and b. The calculations allowed for the force of gravity.
the dimensions of the model is subject to marginally small changes, The base of the guide rails was fixed. The table had the ability to
this approach would be questionable due to errors of discretization move freely along the rails, therefore in order to solve the system
of the model [18], thus making the obtained results also question- of equations in the FEM model, the movement had to be reduced
able. Therefore, in this work, the proposed model has a constant through a model for a guide screw. A guide screw was modeled as a
topology of element nodes, and the mapping of geometric errors spring element, schematically shown in Fig. 6c. The stiffness of that
is performed by the application of values variable for the parame- element corresponds to the bar stiffness respective to the screw
ters of contact elements that model the rolling elements. Modeling core diameter – 32 mm.
guideways according to the manner presented in Section 2 pro- In models for guideway geometric errors, according to the con-
vides such opportunities through the use of different values of g in cept presented in Section 4, there is no need to model the entire
Eq. (1). The idea of mapping the straightness error by giving differ- guide rails, and there is no need to create multiple computational
ent values of parameter g in the contact elements is shown in Fig. 4. models for the different positions of the table against the guides.
The balance of internal forces in such a system will be reached after The representation of geometric errors is carried out through the
projection of the defined shape error. use of a data set from the previously calculated values of the g
The modeling of geometric errors occurring in the linear guides parameter for contact elements that model the rolling elements.
components is based on differing the value of g parameter accord- The value of the g parameter is a function of the current position
ing to the assumed geometric error describing function. Taking into of the table in the present system and depends on the geometric
account the geometry of the rolling assembly the formulas for cal- errors, which were adopted in the calculations. The computational
culating of the g parameter are as follows:for g > 0 that is for the simulation used an a priori function describing guide rail geometric
preload (extension) errors according to the following equation:
 x
 x 2 
2 g= ·+ · (4)
gH = c 2 + (b + i ) − d 1000 1000 2
where  = 0.05 mm, x in mm; the current position of the table.
 Taking into account the geometry of the rolling ball in contact
2 with the rail and carriage, the aforementioned function was used
gV = b2 + (c + i ) − d (2)
in the later part of this paper in models for geometric errors of
the guide rail, on vertical and horizontal planes. In this approach,
and for the g < 0 that is for the gap (shortening) such a system is subjected to kinematic excitations caused by
 geometric errors in the guide rail. We analyzed three variants of
2
gH = c 2 + (b − i ) − d


2
gV = b2 + (c − i ) − d (3)

where the H index refers to the geometric error defined in the hor-
izontal plane, the V index refers to the geometric error defined in
the vertical plane, d – diameter of the rolling element, and i –
geometric deviation, b and c according to Fig. 5.
The above described method is proposed as a solution that
allows the simulative study of the effects of geometric errors occur-
rence in the linear guide joints. Fig. 5. Geometric dependences in cross-section of carriages – guide assembly.

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx 5

Fig. 6. Table – guideway configuration (bottom side); (a) detailed model, (b) simplified model, and (c) model FEM.

calculations, which differ in the location of the error described by
Eq. (4):
• Variant 1 – one guide rail has a geometric error in the vertical
plane and a second rail does not have any error.
• Variant 2 – one guide rail has a geometric error in the
horizontal plane and the second rail does not have any
error.
• Variant 3 – one guide rail has a geometric error in the verti-
cal plane and a second guide rail has a geometric error in the
horizontal plane.
The aforementioned variants were meant to create an image
of the effect of geometric errors in the guide rails on joint kine-
matic errors. The results of a computational session for translational
and angular errors for the table modeled using the aforementioned

Fig. 7. Characteristics of joint kinematic errors variant 1 (FEM calculation).

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10
6 P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Fig. 8. Characteristics of joint kinematic errors variant 2 (FEM calculation).
assumptions are shown in Figs. 7–9. The initial value (zero) table
position against the guideways was adopted in the central part of
the considered system. The current position of the table is on the
X-axis; the value of the joint kinematic error is on the Y-axis. The
values of all joint kinematic errors have been determined in the
same coordinate system in which the FEM model has been defined.
In the drawings, the icon schematically shows the location of the
geometric error of the guide rail. Each of the characteristics of the
joint kinematic error was made for five control points (P1–P5) on
the surface of the table – in the four corners and the fifth point in
the middle of the table.
The results of calculations can be commented as follows.
Since the guide rail geometric errors were a priori assumed,
the obtained calculation results should be considered in qualitative
terms. It should be remembered that comparisons are relevant to
the characteristics of the computational gains obtained rather than
absolute values. In this approach modeling applies to the linear
guide connection with arbitrary assumed geometric errors. There-
fore the results of calculations should not be directly compared
with the results of experimental studies presented in Section 6 of
further part of this paper. This approach is justified because the con-
clusions made on the results of computer simulations are to assist
and to mark out the direction of experimental research rather than
to describe the behavior of a particular machine tool.
The system was considered as fixed on an ideally rigid sur-
face, and therefore the system is probably stiffer in relation to the
Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
real system. Hypothetically, this means that the occurrence of geo-
metric errors in a real system, with similar values to those that
were included in the calculations, would cause smaller increases
in individual joint kinematic errors. Different characteristics of
translational errors (positioning, vertical and horizontal straight-
ness error) for options 1–3 in various control points on the surface
of the table, indicate that the table as a solid undergoes rotation;
while differing characteristics of the angular errors (pitch, yaw and
roll error) indicate that the table is subject to a complex strain
state, which in turn indicates a significant deviation in the behavior
of the considered system from the assumed ideal stiffness. If this
request is confirmed experimentally, it will mean that the defor-
mation occurring in the system makes it impossible to define the
spatial movement of solids in the form which can be used to model
volumetric error [25–29]. In such case off-line geometric errors
compensation should not be used.
Analyzing the graphs of translational errors (three vari-
ants/option: Figs. 7–9), it can be stated that the directions of
displacement of the various control points on the table are consis-
tent with the nature of the defined geometric error – and seemingly
do not pose a problem in interpretation. This state should be con-
sidered valid as the table as a solid may be experiencing rotation. In
the analysis of translational errors it can be noted that if the guide-
way is subject to a dominant geometric error in the vertical plane
(variant 1 in Fig. 7) the vertical straightness error is dominant (the
greatest increases). Similarly, for a dominant error in the horizontal
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10
P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
Fig. 9. Characteristics of joint kinematic errors Variant 3 (FEM calculation).
plane (variant 2 in Fig. 8), horizontal straightness error is dominant
(the largest increases). If guide rails contain geometric errors on
a similar level in the horizontal and vertical planes (variant 3 in
Fig. 9), the dominant translation error is vertical straightness error,
due to the greater flexibility in the vertical direction than in the
horizontal direction (in the plane of the table). Positioning error
plays the smallest part among the concerned translation errors.
In real systems, its value is primarily determined by the static and
dynamic properties of feed drives and the characteristics of the used
displacement measurement systems. However, on the basis of the
results of calculations, it can be concluded that classical measure-
ment of positioning accuracy [24] may also include a term which is
the effect of guideway geometric errors.
Analyzing the graphs of angular errors (three variants: Figs.
7–9), it can be stated that the table is subject to a complex strain
state. With regard to the models for volumetric errors, it is desir-
able for such a system to resemble the behavior of rigid solids. So
it is desirable that the characteristics of angular kinematic errors,
irrespective of the guideway geometric errors and irrespective of
the position of a control point, are qualitatively and quantitatively
similar. That occurs only for yaw error characteristics (Figs. 7–9)
resulting from the geometry, i.e. in the plane normal to the sur-
face of the table the values of second moment of area are much
lower than in a plane parallel to the surface of the table. Thus
we observe a greater flexibility on table bending in planes nor-
mal to the table surface, and much higher qualitative differences
Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
7
in the characteristics of pitch and roll error, in comparison to yaw
error. The results of calculation for pitch and roll error for variant
2 in Fig. 8 are very interesting, i.e. a variant where the domi-
nant error is the geometric guide rail in the horizontal plane. We
are seeing not only the quantitative changes of these character-
istics, but also important qualitative changes. Yaw or roll errors
can undergo an increase or decrease in value depending on the
current position and depending on the location of the checkpoint
in question on the surface of the table. This situation has very
important implications for modeling volumetric error where it is
desirable to have the characteristics of angular kinematic error
clearly defined regardless of the location of the checkpoint on the
surface of the table. If the simulation results are to be consid-
ered credible, the following question arises: is there a possibility
of using the characteristics of angular kinematic errors in the cor-
rection of volumetric errors in machine tool? The answer is no.
It is because in operating conditions, the trajectory of movement
(with an angular kinematic error) associated with the workpiece
or chuck, will depend on the location on the machine table. In
this case, the use of these characteristics in order to increase the
accuracy of an off-line machine is problematic because prior to
fixing the workpiece on the table, angular kinematic errors are
unknown. The practical use of the characteristics of such errors to
compensate for machine tool geometric errors would require the
measurement of their value for a particular position of a workpiece
on the table.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

8 P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

Fig. 10. Experimental characteristics of pitch error in the four corners of the table: (a) measurement with electronic levels, and (b) measurement taken with the laser
interferometer.

It is characteristic that, regardless of the direction (vertical or
horizontal) of the guideway geometric errors in the examined sys-
tem, a roll error is always dominating (the largest increases) –
Figs. 7–9.
An interesting case can be observed for variant 2 and the roll
error. Increases in this error, determined at the control point in the
central part of the table, are close to zero. However, in the corners
we can see a significant increase in the error. Assuming that such
a situation could occur in the real object, then because in direct
measurements it is usually measured in the central part of the table,
the roll error would be underestimated.
6. Experimental research of angular kinematic errors
and in control points on the surface of the table, i.e. in its four cor-
ners. During measurement, the electronic level was placed at the
control points and the reference level was placed on the spindle
head Figs. 10–12 present the results of experimental measurements
of angular kinematic errors in the four corners of the table. In the
plots are photos showing the location of the measuring instruments
during the measurement. Each characteristic is the averaging of
five bidirectional measurements. Bidirectional repeatability for the
characteristics, measured with the laser interferometer, did not
exceed 2 ␮m/m, and for the levels 4 ␮m/m.
The experimental measurements were carried out to verify the
conclusions that were formulated on the basis of calculations of
joint kinematic errors presented in Section 5, namely:

The subject of the study was the characteristics of angular kine-

• Is the tested table flexible enough to observe significant qualita-
matic errors of a milling machine table with a serial kinematic
tive differences in the characteristics of angular kinematic errors
structure – XYOZ. Machining dimensions are 700/460/500 mm. In
for various control points?
the sliding joints Mannesmann-Rexroth roller guideways (size 25)
• Is there qualitative and quantitative conformity among the mea-
were used. Measurements were performed using a laser interfer-
sured characteristics of angular errors, regardless of the location
ometer and electronic levels.
on the machine table?
Measurements were made on the table against the spindle head.
• Does yaw error confirm the nature of movement of the table as a
The elements of the laser interferometer optics used in the mea-
rigid body?
surement of angular misalignment were mounted in the spindle
• Does roll error have a greater range in relation to pitch and yaw
error?

Fig. 11. Experimental characteristics of yaw error in the four corners of the table – Fig. 12. Experimental characteristics of roll error in the four corners of the table –
measurement with a laser interferometer. measurement with electronic levels.

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10
P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx
• With regard to flexible structures, is there a possibility of using
the results of direct measurement angular kinematic errors to
compensate for the volumetric error?
Yaw error cannot be measured with electronic levels, so Fig. 11
shows only the result of the measurement taken with a laser inter-
ferometer. A similar situation occurs with roll error – Fig. 12, which
is easily measured with levels, and its measurement by an interfer-
ometer is cumbersome without a special set of optics.
The obtained results of measurements of angular kinematic
errors in the four corners of the table confirm conclusions based
on the results of analytical calculations, i.e.:
• The tested table showed higher flexibility than the carriages on
which it was mounted. It is shown by the different quantitative
and qualitative characteristics of angular kinematic errors that
result from strains to kinematic excitation resulting from guide
geometric errors. This applies especially to roll error (Fig. 12)
which, depending on the table, not only changes value but also
even the direction of increase.
• Regardless of the position of the laser interferometer on the
table, measurements confirmed the qualitative and quantitative
similarity of yaw error characteristics – Fig. 11. Therefore it con-
firms the conclusions resulting from computer simulation, i.e. the
insensitivity of the examined system to strains in the plane of the
table.
• Pitch and yaw errors reach 20 ␮m/m, while the roll error is in the
range from 8 to 32 ␮m/m. Thus it confirms that the roll error is
predominant among angular kinematic errors for a table that can
be subject to strain.
• The use of the presented characteristics in compensation for vol-
umetric error is questionable. Out of the three measured errors,
only yaw error does not raise objections, because it confirms the
assumption that the table is subject to rigid body motion. Charac-
teristics of pitch error, due to the point for which it is considered,
show a significant dispersion, but it qualitatively confirms the
direction of the movement of a solid, so it seems that the use of
this characteristic in compensation is also justified. However, in
this case, the use of roll error is unacceptable in the model for
volumetric error compensation because its value and even the
direction depend on the location in which it is measured on the
machine table. This demonstrates the systematic nature of this
error only for a specific configuration in which a measurement
was made. One should be aware that in operating conditions
the measuring apparatus will be replaced by a workpiece, the
unwanted movement of which, due to the machine tool geomet-
ric errors, will depend on the location on the table, i.e. before
fixing the roll error characteristics would be unknown, and thus
it cannot be practically used to compensate for off-line volumetric
error in machine tool.
7. Conclusion
This paper proposes a model for rolling guideways with geo-
metric errors, and considers aspects of the practical use of the
characteristics of joint kinematic errors in models for volumetric
error in a medium-sized machine tool. It has been shown analyti-
cally and confirmed experimentally, that the strains of the table due
to guideway geometric errors should be taken into account during
mapping of geometric errors. Development in methodology of vol-
umetric error determination in the case of elastic structures is still
an open question.
It should be emphasized that the conclusions of this work are
of fundamental importance for the methodology of measuring and
determining volumetric error in machine tool with movable tables.
Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001
9
Most of the known measuring methods require that the measuring
instruments should be set on the machine table. It has been shown
that such a situation may be accompanied by ambiguity in the
determination of certain angular error characteristics (especially
roll error). Therefore, it is problematic to adopt a representative
configuration for the measurement of these characteristics, and
thus it is also debatable to use them later to compensate for off-
line volumetric error in machine tools. Solutions to this problem
must be sought in the development of methods of measuring volu-
metric error on-line or developing new design solutions that allows
to control the movement of machine tool parts in an easy way (only
six degrees of freedom).
Acknowledgment
The work was financed from the Resources for National Science
Centre as a research project no. N N504 670440.
References
[1] Brecher C, Utsch P, Klar R, Wenzel C. Compact design for high precision machine
tools. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2010;50:328–34.
[2] Woody BA, Smith KS, Hocken RJ, Miller JA. A technique for enhancing machine
tool accuracy by transferring the metrology reference from the machine
tool to the workpiece. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
2007;129:636–43.
[3] http://mtpselector.renishaw.net/en/vertical-machining-centres – 8458.
[4] Schwenke H, Knapp W, Haitjema H, Weckenmann A, Schmitt R, Delbressine
F. Geometric error measurement and compensation of machines – an update.
CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 2008;57:660–75.
[5] Yang SH, Kim KH, Park YK, Lee SG. Error analysis and compensation for the
volumetric errors of a vertical machining centre using a hemispherical helix
ball bar test. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2004;23:495–500.
[6] Bringmann B, Knapp W. Machine tool calibration, geometric test uncertainty
depends on machine tool performance. Precision Engineering 2009;33:524–9.
[7] Choi JP, Minb BK, Lee SJ. Reduction of machining errors of a three-axis machine
tool by on-machine measurement and error compensation system. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 2004:155–6.
[8] Schwenke H, Franke M, Hannaford J. Error mapping of CMMs and machine tools
by a single tracking interferometer. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology
2005;54:475–8.
[9] Schwenke H, Schmitt R, Jatzkowski P, Warmanna C. On-the-fly calibration of
linear and rotary axes of machine tools and CMMs using a tracking interferom-
eter. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 2009;58:477–80.
[10] Ahn KG, Cho DW. An analysis of the volumetric error uncertainty of a three axis
machine tool by beta distribution. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture 2000;40:2235–48.
[11] Okafor AC, Ertekin YM. Vertical machining center accuracy characterization
using laser interferometer. Part 1. Linear positional errors. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology 2000;105:394–406.
[12] Raksiri C, Parnichkun M. Geometric and force errors compensation in a 3-axis
CNC milling machine. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture
2004;44:1283–91.
[13] Ekinci TO, Mayer JRR. Relationships between straightness and angular
kinematic errors in machines. International Journal of Machine Tools and Man-
ufacture 2007;47:1997–2004.
[14] Ferreira PM, Liu CR. Contribution to the analysis and compensation of the geo-
metric error of a machining center. CIRP Annals 1986;35(1):259–62.
[15] Srivastava AK, Valdhuis SC, Elbestawit MA. Modelling geometric and thermal
errors in a five-axis CNC machine toll. International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture 1995;35(9):1321–37.
[16] Jung JH, Choi JP, Lee SJ. Machining accuracy enhancement by compensating for
volumetric errors of a machine tool and on-machine measurement. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 2006;174:56–66.
[17] Pahk HJ, Kim JS, Moon J. A new technique for volumetric error assessment
of CNC machine tools incorporating ball bar measurement and 3D volumet-
ric error modelint. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture
1997;37(11):1583–96.
[18] Zienkiewicz OC. The Finite Element Method. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1977.
[19] Dhupia JS, Ulsoy AG, Katz R, Powalka B. Experimental identification of the non-
linear parameters of an industrial translational guide for machine performance
evaluation. Journal of Vibration and Control 2008;14(5):645–68.
[20] Hung JP, Lai YL, ChY. Lin, Lo TL. Modeling the machining stability of a vertical
milling machine under the influence of the preloaded linear guide. Interna-
tional Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2011;51:731–9.
[21] Wu JSS, Chang JCh, Hung JP. The effect of contact interface on dynamic char-
acteristics of composite structures. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
2007;74:454–67.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G Model
PRE-5893; No. of Pages 10

10 P. Majda / Precision Engineering xxx (2012) xxx–xxx

[22] Rivin EI. Stiffness and Damping in Mechanical Design. New York: Marcel
Dekker; 1999.
[23] Linear Motion and Assembly Technologies. Schweinfurt: Rexroth Star GmbH;
2002.
[24] ISO 230-2:2006(E), Test Code for Machine Tools. Part 2. Determination of
Accuracy and Repeatability of Positioning of Numerically Controlled Axes, ISO,
Geneva.
[25] Ahn KG, Min BK, Pasek ZJ. Modeling and compensation of geomet-
ric errors in simultaneous cutting using a multi-spindle machine tool.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2006;29:
929–39.
[26] Lei WT, Sung MP. NURBS-based fast geometric error compensation for
CNC machine tools. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture
2008;48:307–19.
[27] Okafor AC, Ertekin YM. Derivation of machine tool error models and error com-
pensation procedure for three axes vertical machining center using rigid body
kinematics. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2000:40.
[28] Bohez ELJ. Five-axis milling machine tool kinematic chain design and analysis.
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 2002;42:505–20.
[29] Lin PD, Tzeng ChS. Modeling and measurement of active parameters and work-
piece home position of a multi-axis machine tool. International Journal of
Machine Tools & Manufacture 2008;48:338–49.

Please cite this article in press as: Majda P. Modeling of geometric errors of linear guideway and their influence on joint kinematic error in
machine tools. Precis Eng (2012), doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2012.02.001