ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmactool

Stiffness inuential factors-based dynamic modeling and its parameter

identication method of xed joints in machine tools
Kuanmin Mao a, Bin Li a,nn, Jun Wu b,n, Xinyu Shao a
a

State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan 430074, PR China
b
School of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, PR China

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 8 May 2009
Received in revised form
29 October 2009
Accepted 30 October 2009
Available online 10 November 2009

A universal dynamic model of xed joints is built through considering the relative motion between the
sub-structures of the xed joints and the coupling among various degrees of freedom. The dynamic
model may accurately reect the dynamic characteristics of the joints. Based on the inverse relationship
between the frequency response function matrix and the dynamic stiffness matrix of a Multi-Degree-OfFreedom system, a high-accuracy parameter identication method is proposed to recognize the dynamic
model parameters of the joints using the dynamic test data of the whole structure including the joints.
The error between the theoretical and experimental results of the model is less than 10%, while the error
of the Yoshimura model is three times bigger than that of the model. The effectiveness and accuracy of
the dynamic model and its parameter identication have been validated. The establishment of the model
will provide a theoretical foundation for the precisely dynamic modeling of the CNC Machine Tool.
Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Fixed joints
Dynamic modeling
Modal analysis
Parameter identication
Finite element model

1. Introduction
On the nite element analysis of machine tools, it is inevitable
to set up accurate dynamic models and reduce the huge amount
of calculation. Giving that, the machine tools are mostly
simplied as lumped mass models or distributed mass models.
In the 1960s, Taylor and Tobias developed a lumped mass model
of the rocker drilling machine [1]. Although the calculated loworder natural frequencies of the whole machine tool were close to
the experimental values, its dynamic response could not be
calculated because of not considering the damping feature of the
joints and the system. Hijink built the computation model of the
horizontal lift milling machine by means of the distributed mass
beam [2]. According to the effect of structural elastic deformation
on the overall structure, the beam was divided into a exible and
a rigid part, of which a rigid beam was assumed to only have rigid
body movement without elastic deformation. So the characteristics of the actual structure of machine tools might be simulated
more precisely. However, its resonance frequency had still about
15 percent deviation from the experimental value and its dynamic
exibility even deviated more than doubled. It is because the
dynamic characteristics of the joints were not considered in the
process. By thinking about the features of joints, Yoshihara set up

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 86 027 87541769; fax: + 86 027 87557650.

Corresponding author. Tel.: + 86 027 87544384
E-mail addresses: libin999@263.net (B. Li), wujun_hg@yahoo.com.cn (J. Wu).

nn

a lumped mass beam dynamic model of a two-pillar vertical lathe

[3]. It had 20 joint surfaces with two rail joints and rest were the
bolted joints. Owing to taking the characteristics of joints into
account, the result was closer to the actual value. Dalenbring [4],
and Inamura [5] had also made some corresponding studies with
such regards. Therefore, it is very important to consider the
characteristics of joints in the dynamic models of machine tools.
As for the researches on the dynamic model of joints,
Greenwood took a normal spring as equivalent of the dynamic
model according to Hertz Contact theory [6,7]. The model was
extended to the case of two rough surface contacts and the
equations were deduced to calculate the normal rigidity. It had
been proven by Crawley [8] and Shi [9] to be correct and effective
using a contact resonance method. In 1979, Yoshimura made a
research on the joints of machine tools and found that the
dynamic forces of a joint were a combination of six forces in
different forms, that is six DOFs generalized forces [10]. By
simplifying the joint as a node, an equivalent dynamic model was
built, of which six DOFs are independent of each other. The
formulas were deduced to compute the equivalent spring stiffness
of each DOF and the equivalent damping. Furthermore, the
equivalent spring stiffness and the equivalent damping in
different conditions were tested by experiments and the data
charts of the joints under the unit normal pressure were obtained.
Thus it introduced that a joint area integral method was proposed
to get the stiffness and damping of the entire joint surfaces using
the data of joint surfaces under unit normal pressure. The
dynamic model of joints was often simplied into a group of

0890-6955/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.10.017

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

157

Fig. 2. . The rectangular nite element of the ideal joint surface.

Fig. 1. The spring-damper model of joints.

equivalent spring-damper model, which is shown in Fig. 1. Most

studies are based on the model. Spring-damper can be used as a
token of the normal or tangential dynamic characteristics of the
joints, but every spring-damper has no coupled relations.
It is assumed by Tong [11] that all the dynamic characteristics
of the joints under all conditions (including different materials,
pre-tightening force, surface roughness, machining methods,
media, etc.) can be equivalent with that of an ideal joint surface.
The so-called ideal joint surface means that the pressure in the
whole joint surface is constant, the points are of uniform contact
and all contact points have the same mechanical properties. The
nite element of the ideal joint surface is obtained by meshing the
joint surface, as shown in Fig. 2.
As for the researches on the parameter identication methods
for the dynamic model of joints, the dynamic model parameters
are initially identied by direct measurement [12]. The stiffness
features are obtained by the direct test of the relationship
between the joint force and displacement. Through repeatedly
loading and unloading, the hysteresis loop of the force and
displacement are acquired, and the area of the loop is used to
measure the joint damping characteristics. The parameter
techniques were adopted by Tlusty [13] as well as Inamura [5]
to identify the dynamic parameters of machine tools as early as
the 1980s. However, the techniques needed a complete modal
shape of the system, which might be obtained by experiments or
calculations. Wang [14] as well as Ren [15] made use of frequency
response functions (FRFs) of the sub-structure and overall
structure to identify joint parameters and considered the impact
of the FRFs testing error. But the FRFs of substructure obtained
from testing are not likely to be precise, as there may be some
noise pollutions. In order to improve the shortcomings in the
identication methods, Wang and Liou [14] introduced a transition matrix, which was linear to the FRF matrix of the substructure and also to that of the joints to be identied. Thereby
matrix inverse could be avoided, which can improve the
algorithm accuracy. To overcome the sensitivity on measurement
errors of the above algorithms, Ren [15] simultaneously made use
of the FRFs of the overall structure and sub-structure and
obtained the FRF matrix block relationship between the joints to
be identied and the sub-structures as well as the overall
structures according to the displacement coordination conditions
and the force balance conditions of joints, and then identied the
dynamic parameters of joints using least square method. Yuan
and Wu [16] obtained the modal shape data and modal matrix
using the dynamic data system technology. In the process, the
time history information of structural vibration was used to get an
autoregression moving average vector model, and the FRFs of
whole system were obtained. Then the system modal shape data
was obtained using the concept of poles and residuals. Finally, the

parameters of the dynamic model including the joints were

identied. Huang [17,18] made a wide research on the dynamic
characteristics of joints, dened the normal parameters as the
unit area normal stiffness and damping, and got the parameters. It
is found that the difculty in establishing structural dynamic
model is to establish the dynamic model of the joints, but there
are many complicated factors inuencing the dynamic characteristics of the joints. The major inuential factors include the
materials and appearance of joints, the size of the pre-tightening
force, the media between the mating surfaces (such as lubricating
oil, etc.), the size and geometry shape of joints and the
characteristics of the dynamic forces of joints.
To sum up, there were two dominant ways to study the
dynamic characteristics of joints. One is the experimental method
to establish the dynamic model of the joints and identify its
parameters, the other is the parameter identication method.
However, the entire dynamics of the joints are almost simulated
by a series of viscoelastic elements in the two methods, as shown
in Fig. 1. The inadequacies of the two methods are as follows:
(1) The stiffness and damping parameters identied by the
methods are only applied to the current joints but not others,
that is to say, they are not universal.
(2) These methods neglected the coupling between each viscoelastic element, as well as between the coordinate of the
viscoelastic elements.
(3) The relationship between the mechanical properties (such as
pre-tightening force) and physical attributes (such as size,
material properties, and machining methods) in the dynamics
of the joints is still difcult to be established.
Nowadays, the dynamic models of joints are established
whether through the experiment method or parameter identication method to get parameters (stiffness and damping). They both
cannot fully reect the specic attributes of the joints (such as
materials, appearance, pre-tightening force, geometry shapes,
etc.). It is the main reason why the current researches cannot be
universally applied.
This paper aims to establish a universal dynamic model of
xed joints. As long as the geometric parameters, the physical
parameters and the surface appearance parameters of joints are
the same, the dynamic model of the joints can be applied
whatever the joints consist in. Meanwhile, a high-precision
parameter identication method based on the dynamic matrix
and the FRF matrix is proposed, which is not required to invert
FRF matrix.

2. A new dynamic model of xed joints in machine tools

2.1. The general form of xed joints in machine tools
After analyzing the form of xed joints in many typical
machine tools such as MC6000 Plano machining center driven by
a linear motor, XHK5140 CNC machine tool, CKX5680 Seven-ve
Axis Lathe-milling CNC equipment, and EQD18 A-40 high-speed

ARTICLE IN PRESS

K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

q1

158

p
Fig. 3. (a) Beam-Column Connection, (b) Slide Block-Slider Connection and (c) Beam-Rail Connection.

machining center, it is found that the xed joints in the machine

tools are often used in the forms of Beam-Column Connection,
Beam-Rail Connection or Slide Block-Slider Connection, which are
shown in Figs. 3(a)(c).

2.2. Dynamic modeling of the xed joints

Beam-Column Connection and Beam-Rail Connection in Fig. 3(a)
and (c) are both called Linear Connection form, and Slide BlockSlider Connection in Fig. 3(b) is called Array Connection form.
The following assumptions of the dynamic characteristics of the
xed joints are proposed, which are inspired by the St. Venant
Assumption.
To the Linear Connection form, its assumptions is that the
dynamic characteristics of the joints between two neighboring
bolts are only affected by the mechanical attributes of the two
related bolts, and have nothing to do with other bolts. To the
Array Connection form, its assumptions is that the dynamic
characteristics of the joints between four neighboring bolts are
affected by the mechanical attributes of the four related bolts and
have nothing to do with other bolts.
In light of the assumptions above, the joints between every
two neighboring bolts in the Linear Connection joint nite
element are considered as an element and the joints between
every four neighboring bolts in the Array Connection joint
nite element is considered as an element, as shown in Figs. 4(a)
and (b).
Every element has 8 nodes and every node has 3 translational
degrees of freedom. Thus, every element has 24 degrees of
freedom. The movement of the joints is described in the form of
relative movement of node 1 and 5, node 2 and 6, node 3 and 7,
node 4 and 8. As long as the relationship between the
displacement and force of these nodes is accurately established,
the dynamic model of the xed joints will be built. For this reason,
the process to develop the dynamic model considering the elastic
and damping characteristics is presented as follows:
Suppose that the node displacement is represented by xij, and
the node force is represented by fij,i= 1,2,y,8, j =1,2,3. First of all,
the stiffness matrix of the joint nite elements is deduced. As
mentioned above, the movement of joints is demonstrated by the
relative movement of node 1 and 5, node 2 and 6, node 3 and 7,
node 4 and 8. So the relative movements between these nodes are
expressed as:
x1j  x5j ; x2j  x6j ; x3j  x7j ; x4j  x8j ; j 1; 2; 3

Fig. 4. (a)Linear Connection joint nite element and (b)Array Connection joint
nite element.

Fig. 5. Structure of test specimen

According to the method of stiffness inuential coefcient,

there is
3
X

ij
K1n
x1n  x5n

n1

3
X

ij
K2n
x2n  x6n

n1
3
X

ij
K4n
x4n

 x8n fij

3
X

ij
K3n
x3n  x7n

n1

n1

ij
Where Kmn
is the stiffness inuential coefcient, i,m= 1,2,3,4
represent the node and j,n =1,2,3 represent the direction. The
ij
is the corresponding necessary force
physical meaning of Kmn

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

imposed on node i in the j direction when the unit relative

displacement is only generated in the direction of n of the node m
and the node (m+ 4).
Under equilibrium conditions, there is

159

Then, Eq. (1) can be written as:

KfXg fFg

where
fXg x11 ; x12 ; x13 ;    ; x81 ; x82 ; x83

f1j  f5j ;

f2j  f6j ;

f3j  f7j ; f4j  f8j ;

j 1; 2; 3:
fFg f11 ; f12 ; f13 ;    ; f81 ; f82 ; f83

K

K0

K0

K0

K0


2424

[K]is a symmetric matrix, and [K0] composes the nite element

stiffness matrix with 12  12 dimension.
And then, Eq. (2) is transformed into the following equation:
K0fYg fQ g

where
fYg x11  x51 ; x12  x52 ; x13  x53 ; ; x41  x81 ; x42  x82 ;
x43  x83
fQ g f11 ; f12 ; f13 ;    ; f41 ; f42 ; f43 :
Furthermore, Eq. (3) can be expressed as
Fig. 6. Structure of test specimen

SfQ g fYg

Fig. 7. (a)Experimental setup and (b)Test Specimen.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
160

K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

where [S] is an inverse matrix of matrix [K0] and consists of element

sij. The physical meaning of sij is the corresponding displacement in
the i direction when the unit force is only imposed in the j direction,
which may be easily measured by experiment.
Finally, the dynamic equation of the nite element of the xed
joints can be obtained as follows:
iZK KfXg fFg

where Z is the structural damping coefcient of the nite element,

which is derived from the hysteresis loop of the force and the
displacement.

3. Identication of the model parameters based on the

dynamic matrix and FRF matrix
The dynamic equation of a Multi-Degree-Of-Freedom (MDOF)
system is expressed as
C X KX Ft:
MX

The dynamic stiffness matrix of the MDOF system is that

o2 M ioC K:
The inverse matrix of the dynamic stiffness matrix is denoted
by H(o), which is the FRF matrix of the MDOF system.
So the following equation is obtained.
o2 M ioC KHo I:

Moreover, according to the theory of vibration mechanics,

there is
HoFo Xo

That is
2

h11 o
6
6 h21 o
6
6 ^
4
hn1 o

h12 o
h22 o




hn2 o



3
32
3 2
x 1 o
f1 o
h1n o
7
76
7 6
h2n o 76 f2 o 7 6 x2 o 7
7
76
76
7
7
6
6
^ 54 ^ 5 4 ^ 7
5
xn o
hnn o
fn o

When a modal experiment is carried out by means of

hammer impact testing, the i degree of freedom is excited. The
corresponding
force
vector
can
be
expressed
as
h
iT
0    0 fi o 0    0 . So Eq. (9) is transformed into
the following equation.
3
3
2
2
x 1 o
h1i o
7
7
6
6
6 x 2 o 7
6 h2i o 7
7
7
6
6
6 ^ 7fi o 6 ^ 7
5
5
4
4
xn o
hni o

10

And the column i of FRFs is obtained. Then the following

equation is deduced as
3 2 3
2
h1i o
0
7 6^7
6
^
7 6 7
6
7 6 7
6
6 hi1i o 7 6 0 7
7 6 7
6
7 6 7
6
11
o2 M ioC K6 hii o 7 6 1 7
7 6 7
6
6 hi 1i o 7 6 0 7
7 6 7
6
7 6 7
6
^
5 4^5
4
hni o
0
where the mass matrix, the damping matrix, and the stiffness
matrix are assembled by the corresponding matrix of substructures and joints. For each sub-structure, its mass matrix,
damping matrix (proportional damping), and stiffness matrix can
be obtained based on the nite element theory. For each joint, its
stiffness and damping matrix have been established in Eq. (4), and
its mass matrix is neglected.

Fig. 8. (a1) Theoretical result of rolling and (b1) Experimental result of rolling,
(a2) Theoretical result of yawing and (b2) Experimental result of yawing,
(a3) Theoretical result of pitching and (b3) Experimental result of pitching,
(a4) Theoretical result of left-right translation and (b4) Experimental result of
left-right translation, (a5) Theoretical result of front-back translation and
(b5) Experimental result of front-back translation, (a6) Theoretical result of
up-down translation and (b6) Experimental result of up-down translation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

4. Dynamic experiment of xed joints

is 356 A15 piezoelectric accelerometer. Using a modal

hammering impact testing method, the rst six-order modal
shapes of the structure are obtained, which are illustrated
in Fig. 8.

4.1. Test specimen design

According to Eq. (11), the dynamic model parameters in Eq. (4)
may be identied by the nonlinear least squares method, when
the FRFs of the structural joints are entirely obtained. In order to
reect the characteristics of the joints and simplify the structure
as much as possible, two kinds of structures including joints are
designed for test specimens, which are shown in the Figs. 5 and 6.
The unit for the dimensions given in the Figs. 5 and 6 is mm.
Whether a pulse force hammer or a vibration exciter is
employed, the test specimen used in the form of the structural
2

2:5e 9
6
6 5:0e 8
6
6 1:0e 9
6
6
6 1:5e 9
6
6 1:0e 8
6
6
6 2:0e 8
K0 6
6 8:6e 8
6
6
6 5:0e 8
6
6 1:0e 8
6
6
6 1:1e 9
6
6 1:0e 8
4
5:0e 8

5:0e 8
1:5e 9

161

1:0e 9
5:0e 8

1:5e 9
1:0e 8

1:0e 8
3:3e 7

4.3. Dynamic parameter identication of the xed joints

When the FRFs characteristics of the structural joints are
obtained, the nonlinear least square method is adopted to identify
the dynamic parameters of xed joints in Eq. (4). According to
the modal testing in Figs. 7(a) and (b), the stiffness matrix
(previous 12  12 sub-matrix) of the test specimen is identied
as follows:

2:0e 8
2:5e 8

8:6e 8
5:0e 8

5:0e 8
3:6e 8

1:0e 8
5:0e 7

1:1e 9
1:0e 8

1:0e 8
6:6e 7
1:0e 8

5:0e 8

2:5e 9

2:0e 8

2:5e 8

4:6e 8

1:0e 8

5:0e 7

1:3e 8

5:0e 8

1:0e 8

2:0e 8

2:5e 9

5:0e 8

1:0e 9

1:1e 9

1:0e 8

5:0e 8

8:6e 8

5:0e 8

3:3e 7

2:5e 8

5:0e 8

1:5e 9

5:0e 8

1:0e 8

6:6e 7

1:0e 8

5:0e 8

3:6e 8

2:5e 8
5:0e 8

4:6e 8
1:0e 8

1:0e 9
1:0e 9

5:0e 8
1:0e 8

2:5e 9
5:0e 8

5:0e 8
2:5e 9

1:0e 8
5:0e 8

1:1e 9
1:0e 9

1:0e 8
1:5e 9

5:0e 7
1:0e 8

3:6e 8

5:0e 7

1:0e 8

6:6e 7

1:0e 8

5:0e 8

1:5e 9

5:0e 8

1:0e 8

3:3e 7

5:0e 7

1:3e 8

5:0e 8

1:0e 8

1:1e 9

1:0e 9

5:0e 8

2:5e 9

2:0e 8

2:5e 8

1:0e 8

5:0e 8

8:6e 8

5:0e 8

1:0e 8

1:5e 9

1:0e 8

2:0e 8

2:5e 9

5:0e 8

6:6e 7
1:0e 8

1:0e 8
1:1e 9

5:0e 8
1:0e 8

3:6e 8
5:0e 7

5:0e 7
1:3e 8

1:0e 8
2:0e 8

3:3e 7
2:5e 8

2:5e 8
4:6e 8

5:0e 8
1:0e 9

1:5e 9
5:0e 8

joints in Fig. 6 is not fully excited into the modal shapes that
characterize the relative movement of the joints. However, the
test specimen used in the form of the structural joint in Fig. 5 can
be easily excited into the modal shapes that characterize the
relative movement of joints. Therefore, the form of the structural
joint in Fig. 5 is adopted to implement the dynamic experiment of
the xed joints.
4.2. Dynamic experiment setup
As shown in Figs. 7(a) and (b), a dynamic testing device is set
up, which includes the LMS Test.lab vibration testing and analysis
system. A modal testing was performed on a test specimen. The
test specimen is composed of two sub-structures with up-andbottom blocks, which are connected as a whole by two screws.
The specimen material is 45 # steel. The dimension of each substructure is 190 mm  190 mm  110 mm. The size of the joint
surface is 60 mm  31.5 mm. The boss height is 29 mm and the
bolt pre-tightening torque is 45 Nm.
In the process of the modal testing, the used impact hammer
is 086C04 piezoelectric impact hammer produced by U.S. PCB.
Its head is a kind of nylon materials. The testing accelerometer

3
5:0e 8
7
1:0e 8 7
7
1:1e 9 7
7
7
1:0e 8 7
7
5:0e 7 7
7
7
1:3e 8 7
7
2:0e 8 7
7
7
2:5e 8 7
7
4:6e 8 7
7
7
1:0e 9 7
7
5:0e 8 7
5
2:5e 9

5. Effectiveness verication of dynamic model of xed joints

5.1. Comparison of results with other researchers
The result of this paper is compared with that of the boltsconnected spring-damper model in literature [19] and that of the
Yoshimura model in literature [10].
The specimen material is 45 # steel, the size of the joint is
60 mm  31.5 mm  29mm, the dimension of the sub-structure is
190 mm  190 mm  110 mm, and the bolt pre-tightening torque
is 45 Nm. The two sub-structures are connected by two M16 bolts.
The average applied force of the joint surface is
F0

T
45

14062:5N
0:2d
0:2  0:016

12

where T represents the pre-tightening torque, d represents the

nominal diameter of the bolts, F0 represents the pre-tightening
force. Furthermore, the average pressure of the joint surface is

Pn

F0
14062:5

7:4404762 MPa
pq
0:06  0:0315

13

Table 1
The rst six-order modal shapes and modal frequencies.
Mode shape

Experimental result from

the model
in this paper (Hz)

Theoretical result
from the model
in this paper (Hz)

Yoshimura model in
literature[10] (Hz)

Bolts-connected spring-damper
model in literature[19] (Hz)

1
2
3
4
5
6

409
471
871
1673
2130
2568

409
451
853
1765
2278
2647

110
385
755
391
394
1852

87
456
886
309
310
2430

yawing
rolling
pitching
left-right translation
front-back translation
up-down translation

ARTICLE IN PRESS
162

K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

where p represents the length of the joint, q represents the

width of the joint, Pn represents the average pressure of the joint
surface.

sponding chart in literature [10], it is known that the normal

stiffness Kn is equal to 4  6.237e8 N / m, and the tangential
stiffness Kt is equal to 4  7.702e6 N/m.
The rst six-order modal shapes and modal frequencies of the
three models are shown in Table 1. From Table 1, it is found
that the error between the theoretical and experimental
results from the dynamic model of the joints described in the
existing literature is relatively great, while the error of the
model proposed in this paper is less than 7%. It indicates that
the model proposed in this paper is more advanced and
reliable.

(1) Calculation of spring stiffness in bolts-connected springdamper model in literature [19]

The relation between the normal displacement and average
pressure of the joint in bolts-connected spring-damper model
are express as

l aPnm

14

where Pn represents the average pressure of the joint, l

represents the normal displacement of the joint, a and m are
constant values decided by the material and machining
technique of the joint. Thus, the normal stiffness of the joint is
Kn

dPn
1 1m

:
P
dl
am n

15

For the test specimen in Fig. 7(b), it is dened that a= 0.65 and
m =0.5. So the normal stiffness Kn is equal to 4  1.929e9 N/m.
The tangential stiffness of the joint is
Kt kt s

16

where kt is the unit area tangential stiffness of the joint. s is

the area of the joint. It is given in literature [19] that kt
is equal to 1  10 N/m3. So the tangential stiffness kt is
calculated by kt multiplied by s with the result of
4  4.725e6 N/m (1  10 N/m3  0.06 m  0.0315 m).
(2) Calculation of the normal and tangential stiffness of the
Yoshimura model in literature [10]According to the corre2

5:7e 9
6
6 1:3e 9
6
6 2:0e 9
6
6
6 3:8e 9
6
6 2:5e 8
6
6
6 4:0e 8
K0 6
6 2:2e 9
6
6
6 1:3e 9
6
6 2:0e 8
6
6
6 2:3e 9
6
6 2:5e 8
4
1:0e 9

(1) The dynamic model of the long beam structure with the
beam-rail connection
The Beam-Rail Connection in the MC2000 Plano machining
center produced by Beijing Machinery and Electricity Institute
is implemented by using bolts. The width and height of the
rail is respectively 63 mm and 58 mm, the center-to-center
distance between the bolts is 120 mm, and the bolted pretightening torque is 90 Nm. Thus, a joint specimen similar to
Fig. 7(b) is created. The size of its joint surface is 120 mm  63
mm, the dimension of its sub-structure is 300 mm  300
mm  120 mm, and the boss height is 50 mm.
A modal testing similar to Fig. 7(a) is executed on the
designed joint specimen. So the FRFs characteristics of the
structure including joint of the specimen are obtained. And
then, the stiffness matrix is identied as follows:

1:3e 9

2:0e 9

3:8e 9

2:5e 8

4:0e 8

2:2e 9

1:3e 9

2:0e 8

2:3e 9

2:5e 8

3:4e 9
1:1e 9

1:1e 9
4:8e 9

2:5e 8
4:0e 8

2:1e 8
5:3e 8

5:3e 8
4:7e 8

1:3e 9
2:0e 8

1:0e 9
1:1e 8

1:1e 8
2:6e 7

2:5e 8
1:0e 9

1:4e 8
2:1e 8

2:5e 8

4:0e 8

5:7e 9

1:3e 9

2:0e 9

2:3e 9

2:5e 8

1:0e 9

2:2e 9

1:3e 9

2:1e 8

5:3e 8

1:3e 9

3:4e 9

1:1e 9

2:5e 8

1:4e 8

2:1e 8

1:3e 9

1:0e 9

5:3e 8

4:7e 8

2:0e 9

1:1e 9

4:8e 9

1:0e 9

2:1e 8

1:9e 9

2:0e 8

1:1e 8

1:3e 9
1:0e 9

2:0e 8
1:1e 8

2:3e 9
2:5e 8

2:5e 8
1:4e 8

1:0e 9
2:1e 8

5:7e 9
1:3e 9

1:3e 9
3:4e 9

2:0e 9
1:1e 9

3:8e 9
2:5e 8

2:5e 8
2:1e 8

1:1e 8

2:6e 7

1:0e 9

2:1e 8

1:9e 9

2:0e 9

1:1e 9

4:8e 9

4:0e 8

5:3e 8

2:5e 8

1:0e 9

2:2e 9

1:3e 9

2:0e 8

3:8e 9

2:5e 8

4:0e 8

5:7e 9

1:3e 9

1:4e 8

2:1e 8

1:3e 9

1:0e 9

1:1e 8

2:5e 8

2:1e 8

5:3e 8

1:3e 9

3:4e 9

2:1e 8

1:9e 9

2:0e 8

1:1e 8

2:6e 7

4:0e 8

5:3e 8

4:7e 8

2:0e 9

1:1e 9

Table 2
Modal frequencies and errors of the joint of the long beam specimen.
Mode shape

Experimental
result (Hz)

Theoretical
result (Hz)

Error

1
2
3
4
5

394.287
409.289
783.722
1403.532
1681.608

405
409.3
777.8
1463.4
1626.5

2.717%
0%
0.75%
4.266%
3.277%

1758.438

1872.7

6.498%

rolling
yawing
pitching
left-right translation
front-back
translation
6 up-down translation

5.2. Verication on the long beam structure

1:0e 9

7
7
7
7
7
7
2:0e 8 7
7
1:1e 8 7
7
7
2:6e 7 7
7
4:0e 8 7
7
7
5:3e 8 7
7
4:7e 8 7
7
7
2:0e 9 7
7
1:1e 9 7
5
4:8e 9
2:1e 8
1:9e 9

The modal frequencies from the dynamic model of the joint of

the long beam structure are shown in Table 2. From Table 2, it is
found that the greatest error is less than 6.5%. The results make it
clear that the dynamic modeling and its parameter identication
method of the xed joints in this paper are practical.
The rst six-order theoretical and experimental modal shapes are
displayed in Fig. 8.
(2) The dynamic model of the 1505 mm long beam
A rail specimen composed of two 1505 mm  63 mm  58
mm long beams is designed and manufactured, which is
connected by 20 M16 bolts. A modal testing is executed on
the rail specimen, as shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Modal testing of a rail specimen.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

Table 3
Modal freqencies and errors of long beam specimen.
Modal shape

Experimental
result (Hz)

Theoretical
result (Hz)

Error

X rst-order bending
Y rst-order bending
X second-order
bending
X third-order bending

148
243
402

147
267
406

0.7%
9.8%
1.0%

774

798

3.1%

163

After the modal testing is implemented, the dynamic

parameters of the rail joint are identied and the dynamic
model of the rail including the joint is built through using the
dynamic modeling and its parameter identication method
proposed in this paper. The theoretical and experimental
modal frequencies of the rail specimen are shown in Table 3.
From Table 3, it is found that the error between the
theoretical and experimental results of the whole structure
composed of two long beams is less than 10%, which indicates
the dynamic model proposed in this paper is effective.

Fig. 10. (a1) Theoretical result of X rst-order bending and (b1) Experimental result of X rst-order bending, (a2) Theoretical result of Y rst-order bending and (b2)
Experimental result of Y rst-order bending, (a3) Theoretical result of X second-order bending and (b3) Experimental result of X second-order bending, (a4) Theoretical
result of X third-order bending and (b4) Experimental result of X third-order bending.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
164

K. Mao et al. / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 50 (2010) 156164

The theoretical and experimental modal shapes are displayed

in Fig. 10.
6. Conclusion
A new dynamic modeling method of the xed joints
in machine tools is proposed in this paper. By the experimental analysis and verication, the conclusions are drawn as
follows:

(1) The nite element model of the xed joints is built through
considering the relative motion between the sub-structures
composed of the joints. Compared with other current researches
of the joints, it is found that the dynamic model proposed in this
paper can reect the dynamic characteristics of the joints more
accurately. The reason is that it has considered about the coupling
among various degrees of freedom.
(2) A high-precision parameter identication method for the
dynamic model of the xed joints is introduced. The
advantage of the parameter identication method is that
the dynamic test data of the whole structure including the
joint can be applied to identify the model parameters, which
improve the accuracy of parameter identication.
(3) The effectiveness and accuracy of the dynamic modeling and the
parameter identication method proposed in this paper have
been veried by experiments. The error between the theoretical
and experimental results of the our model is less than 10%, while
the error of the Yoshimura model often used in the existing
literature is three times bigger than our model.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Basic Research Program
of China, Grant No. 2005CB724101 and National Natural Science
Foundation of China, Grant No. 50975104. The authors are
grateful to other participants of the projects for their cooperation.

References
[1] S. Taylor, S.A. Tobias, Lumped-constants method for the prediction of the
vibration characteristics of machine tool structures, in: Proceedings of fth
International MTDR Conference, Pergamon, 1964 3742.
[2] J.A.W. Hijink, A.C.H. Van Der Wolf, Analysis of a milling machine: computed
results versus experimental data, in: Proceedings of 14th International MTDR
Conference, Manchester, UK/Ed. J.M. Alexander (1973) 553558.
[3] M. Yoshihara, Computer-aided design improvement of machine tool states
incorporating joint dynamics data, Annals of the CIRP 28 (1) (1979) 241246.
[4] M. Dalenbring, Damping function estimation based on measured vibration
frequency responses and nite-element displacement modes, Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 13 (1999) 547569.
[5] T. Inamura, T. Sata, Stiffness and damping identication of the elements of a
machine tool structure, CIRP Annuals 28 (1979) 235239.
[6] J.A. Greenwood, J.H. Tripp, The elastic contact of rough sphere, ASME Journal
of Applied Mechanics 34 (1967) 153159.
[7] J.A. Greenwood, J.P.B. Williamson, Contact of nominally at surface,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and
Physical Sciences 295 (1442) (1966) 300319.
[8] E.F. Crawley, A.C. Aubert, Identication of nonlinear structural element by
force-state mapping, AIAA Journal 24 (1) (1986) 155162.
[9] Xi Shi, Measurement and modeling of normal contact stiffness and contact
damping at the meso scale, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 127 (2005) 5260.
[10] M. Yoshimura, Making use of CAD technology based on the dynamic
characteristics data of joints to improve the structural rigidity of machine
tools, Machine Tools 1 (1979) 142146.
[11] Z.F. Tong, J. Zhang, Research on the dynamic characteristic and its
identication of the joint between column and bed of a machining center,
Journal of Vibration and Shock 43 (3) (1992) 1319.
[12] C.F. Beads, Damping in structural joints, The Shock and Vibration Digest 6
(1982) 563570.
[13] J. Tlusty, F. Ismail, Dynamic structural identication task and methods,
Annals of CIRP 29 (1980).
[14] J.H. Wang, C.M. Liou, Identication of parameters of structural joints by use of
noise-contaminated FRFs, Journal of Sound and Vibration 142 (2) (1990) 261277.
[15] Y. Ren, C.F. Beards, Identication of effective linear joints using coupling and
joint identication techniques, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 120 (2)
(1998) 331338.
[16] J.X. Yuan, X.M. Wu, Identication of the joint structural parameters of machine
tool by DDS and FEM, Journal of Engineering for Industry 107 (1985) 6469.
[17] Y.M. Huang, W.P. Fu, L.X. Dong, Research on the dynamic normal
characteristic parameters of joint surface, Chinese Journal of Mechanical
Engineering 29 (3) (1993) 7478.
[18] Y.M. Huang, W.P. Fu, J.X. Tong, A method of acquiring applied tangential
damping parameters of joint surfaces, Journal of Xian University of
Technology 12 (1) (1996) 15.
[19] B.Y. Liao, X.M. Zhou, Z.H. Yin, in: Modern mechanical dynamics and its
application: modeling, analysis, simulation, modication, control, optimization, China Machine Press, Beijing, 2004.