FEA Vs EMA

8/13/2019 FEA Vs EMA

1/9

Structural Dynamic Behavior

of a High-Speed Milling Machine

FEA Vs. EMA Assessment

* J. Rotberg , **B. Bork

* "Technion" I.I.T ** Technische Universitat Darmstadt

Faculty of Mechanical Eng. PTW Institut Petersenstr. 30Haifa 32000, Israel Darmstadt 64287, Germany

ABSTRACT. This work deals with the assessment of the structural dynamic behavior of aHigh Speed Milling machine, during the machine development and testing period. The taskwas carried out by a combination of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) , and Experimental ModalAnalysis (EMA) techniques. In the paper , the importance of this combination is explained ,

and , on the other hand , its applicability and availability are demonstrated.

The dynamic behavior of the machine structure in any milling condition, may be determinedin terms of its natural frequencies and mode shapes, as obtained from the FEA and EMAcombined application. The significance of the results is explained by specific examples. Thus ,improving of machine tool performance is achieved by the application of modern means for

engineering analysis and testing.

KEY WORDS: High speed machine, Finite element method (FEM), Modal analysis

1. IntroductionThis paper deals with the assessment of the dynamic behavior of the structure of a

newly developed Milling Machine for High Speed Machining (HSM), mainly in themanufacturing of dies and moulds.

.Fig. 1:High Speed linear motor milling machine
http://a4.pdf/http://a4.pdf/http://a4.pdf/http://../Authors/ns.pdfhttp://../Authors/ab.pdfhttp://../Authors/ns.pdfhttp://../Authors/ab.pdfhttp://a4.pdf/


2/9

The High Speed Milling machine, equipped with linear motor driven axes was

developed and built in the Institute of Production Engineering and Machine Tools(PTW) in Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany [SCH 95]. The workdescribed in the paper was carried out within the development process [ROT 96].

This work demonstrates the necessity of knowing the machine structural dynamic

features in high speed milling , and on the other hand , the availability of fast,effective means for the assessment of these required features, applying moderncombined techniques.

The machine is a 3-axis vertical , bridge type milling machine, having high speed

(up to 60,000 rpm) spindle, linear motor driven slides, yielding up to 80 m/minfeed rate and 25 m/s

2acceleration.

The machines bed and side columns are made of a concrete compound. The headconsole and all slides are made of light weight welded steel structures.

While working , the machine structure is submitted to two kinds of excitingforces: The acceleration and inertia forces of the slides and work-piece are not

negligible in this machine [SCH 96]. In addition, the milling exciting force is aperiodic, sharp signal of high frequency , [SCH 96], [ROT 97], [SCH 94],resulting also in higher harmonic components (Fig. 2), reaching definitely the

range of natural frequencies of the machine structure.

Fig. 2: Examples of force signals in milling operations

Consequently , the machine response to these exciting forces must be acquired inorder to avoid operating in non-preferred conditions, and yet enable maximal

operating range.


3/9

2. Finite Element and Experimental Modal AnalysesIf a linear approximation of the machine structure is made , the machine response

to any dynamic excitation may be estimated based on its Natural Frequencies andcorresponding Mode Shapes.These , may be acquired either from a theoretical computation of Finite ElementAnalysis (FEA) , or from an Experimental Modal Analysis (EMA) [EWI 84].

The FEA, starting with a model which is then used to predict the machineresponse (Fig. 3) , is essential at the design phase and provides us with generalinformation. However , in the FEA model there are several points of uncertainty

(such as contact points stiffness of bearings and guide-ways, internal damping ofstructural materials etc.) , which require simplification and assumptions , that may

result in large errors.

The EMA (Experimental Modal Analysis) of the built machine prototype istherefore required in order to verify the machine real behavior. In this methodthe actual machine response is measured , leading to an EMA machine model.(Fig. 3 ).

Fig. 3: Theoretical (FEA) and Experimental (EMA) modal analysis

Thus , the two inverse methods , as compared in Fig. 3, complete each other, andonly a proper combination of the two enables the design and correct prediction of

the machine behavior.

A detailed FEA model of about 7000 elements was constructed using IDEAS

software (Fig. 5a). Naturally, subsystem connecting points were simplified , thestiffness of the roller guide-ways was taken from the manufacturer information,internal damping of steel elements was neglected, etc. Yet the FE model is

rather detailed. The first 10 Natural Frequencies and corresponding ModeShapes were then computed theoretically. (examples in Figs. 5b , 5c).


4/9

The Experimental Modal Analysis was carried out by means of an impulsehammer excitation technique, which was found to be very convenient, practicaland effective, even for such a large complicated structure.

In Fig. 4 the experimental equipment is shown: A PCB impulse hammerand accelerometer, plus an HP35670A signal analyzer were used. STARsoftware was used for data analysis.

Fig. 4: Experimental Modal Analysis equipment

The machine structure was modeled by 34 points (Fig. 5a ). About a hundredtransfer functions were measured (three directions at each point).Analyzing the acquired data, an EMA model of the machine was created, yielding

12 natural frequencies and corresponding mode shapes in the frequency range of0-2400 Hz. (examples in Figs. 5b , 5c ).The Transfer Functions at the force-application point (the milling cutter zone),

were measured as well, giving a direct estimation of the tool point response to theperiodic cutting force in any given case of milling .

The EMA model, which was acquired experimentally in less than 3 weeks,provided a solid, real base for the structure behavior evaluation, the identificationof possible modifications, and most important , machine operating guidelines.


5/9

Fig. 5: FE Vs. EMA machine models, mode shapes and natural frequencies.


6/9

3. Results and Discussion

Some of the main results of the evaluation process will be brought here, in

order to demonstrate the importance of the combined action in the machinedevelopment process, the way and importance of the result application foroperating the machine, and maybe to point out the method applicability andavailability for other cases.

The FE model , as described above, yields the predicted natural frequencies andthe corresponding mode shapes appearing in Table 1 . The first two are shown inFigs. 5b and 5c. From this data , general features of the structure may be derived,

i.e. what kind of vibrations would be excited by a given milling operation.Exact natural frequencies, as well as the Evaluation of the Response Amplitude

depends , however, on accurate definition of damping values and machine partscontact stiffness. (which must be acquired experimentally ).During the FEA computations, it was noted that proper modeling of theinterconnections between different machine subsystem , is of great influence onthe computation results.

Table 1 : Natural Frequency values as obtained by FEA and EMA methods


7/9

The EMA results start with Fig. 6 showing two typical frequency-response-functions (F.R.F), as acquired from the impulse test, at the point of the millingforce application (model point no. 41). Response typical values are as follows:

Direction Nat. Freq. Damping ratio Compliance X/F max. Stiffness F/Xmin.

[Hz] [%] [um/N] N/um]

Y 220 0.65 0.042 24

X 280 0.90 0.032 30

Table 2: Typical response values at the milling force application point.

Fig. 6: Frequency Response Functions at the cutting force application point.


8/9

Comparing the natural frequency values obtained by the two methods, one maynotice the consistent difference showing always higher real frequency valuesthen predicted. Based on our experience, this is related to inaccurate

approximation of the machine subsystems contact-points (guide-ways, etc.).Anyway, this demonstrates again the necessity of the Experimental evaluation byEMA.In Figs. 5b , 5c the first two mode shapes are shown , as computed based on the

EMA model. (as constructed from the whole experimental testing data).The mode shapes are similar to the FE predicted shapes, but now we have realFrequency Response including exact natural frequencies as well response

amplitude values.

It is clear that these two modes of vibrations might be excited by a millingoperation in the X or Y direction at proper rotating spindle speed ( see Fig. 2).

As a practical Example:In milling with a 2 - teeth end mill, tooth frequencies of 220 Hz and 280 Hzshould be avoided. This results in non recommended spindle speeds of 6600rpm and 8400 rpm.

A semi-finish milling of an alloy steel , say , AISI 4140, with an 2-teeth 10 mmdiameter end mill, at Cutting Speed of about 210 or 260 m/min. ( realisticconditions for coated carbide tools) , will require operating the machine in the non

recommended rpm values .The pulsating cutting force, (see Fig. 2), under realistic cutting conditions (feedrate 0.05 mm/tooth , depth of cut 5 mm ) will lead to a vibration amplitude which

is now computable , (table 2) and may reach 0.015-0.020 mm.

Another Example:

Operating the machine for cutting at any rpm value, even with an almostconstant cutting force (face milling with a wide, multi-tooth, milling cutter),necessarily produces some "wide-band" force signal (cutting "noise"), exciting

the structure and translated into amplified vibration in the natural frequencies.In that case, the machine response (vibration amplitude) can now be computed andthe performance limitations may be well established.

Thus, the detailed data of the structure response is essential for estimating themachine performance in any operating conditions, while avoiding the dangerous

ones.

3. ConclusionThe structural dynamic behavior of a machine for high speed milling was

investigated during the machine development process. This was done by acombined application of both FEA and EMA techniques.


9/9

The Finite Element computation, essential in the design phase, supplied thegeneral behavior characteristics, and the basic evaluation of natural frequenciesand mode shapes.

The Experimental Modal Analysis, carried out in the machine prototype hascompleted the required knowledge by verifying the basic concept and obtainingreal accurate values for natural frequencies, mode shapes, and structure responseamplitudes.In the article , the definite necessity of proper combination of the two techniques

was explained. On the other hand, the availability of means and procedures forthe task was demonstrated .

The combined application of the two, provides the information for machine designimprovement, and machine operating recommendations leading eventually to

machine performance improvement.

References

1. [SCH 95] SCHMITT, T. Linearmotortechnik fur den werkzeug-und formenbau PTW Wissenswert, TH- Darmstadt Nr. 1 1995.

2. [ROT 96] ROTBERG, J., Short report on EMA , and on control response test, development of high speed machine. A report submitted to the PTW TH- Darmstadt, 1996.

3. [SCH 96] SCHULZ, H., Hochgeshwindigkeits - bearbeitung (High speed machining), Carl Hanser Verlag 1996.

4. [ROT 97] ROTBERG J., SHOVAL S., BER A., "Fast evaluation of cutting forces

in milling." J. of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Vol. 13 No. 1 pp.17-26, 1997.

5 [SCH 94] SCHULZ, H., HERGET, T., Simulation and measurement of transient cutting force signal in high speed milling, Production Engineering R&D in Germany,

Vol. I/2, pp. 19-22, 1994.

6. [EWI 84] EWINS, D., J. , Modal testing theory and practice, Research Studies Press 3rd print, 1984.

FEA Vs EMA

Documents

Transcript of FEA Vs EMA