International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

The application of tool deflection knowledge in process planning

to meet geometric tolerances
T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Ashby Building, Queens University, Belfast BT9 5AH, Northern Ireland, UK
Received 21 October 2002; accepted 15 January 2003

Abstract
Machine tool deflections due to cutting forces can result in dimensional errors on workpieces. The problem is most severe when
flexible tools such as end mills are used. When dimensioned features are specified with tolerances, process planning should examine
the compromise between achieving high productivity rates and meeting dimensions within the specified tolerances. The use of
geometric dimensioning and tolerancing permits interaction between size and position and makes bonus tolerances available. The
errors occurring in end milling are first examined and modelled using regression methods. A procedure is proposed for selecting
optimal feed rates that ensure that tolerances can be met. The process is demonstrated in machining a slot using the down milling
mode. The use of a tolerance analysis chart clarifies the results of the test in relation to the tolerance standards. The need to consider
the transient errors at the exit of the cut is demonstrated.
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tool deflection error; Transient State error; Geometric tolerances

1. Introduction
In modern machining practice, there are competing
pressures for productivity and part accuracy. It has been
pointed out [1] that a 50% increase in tool life would
lead to a 1.5% reduction in production cost whereas a
20% increase in productivity would lead to a 15%
reduction in production cost. Greater gains are clearly
available by increasing metal removal rates but this in
turn creates problems in holding accuracy on parts since
an increase in metal removal rates, particularly if achieved through higher chip loads, leads to greater cutting
forces. In a CIRP keynote paper [2] that deals with
machining errors, it is reported that, deflection of the
machine due to cutting forces dominates the error
budget. End milling is a particular machining process
that has received a lot of attention in the context of tool
deflection [37]. End mills are comparatively flexible
tools that deflect easily, regardless of the rigidity of the
machine in which they are used. Moreover, the magni-

Corresponding author. Fax: +44-02890-661-729.

E-mail address: b.hinds@qub.ac.uk (B.K. Hinds).

tude, application point and direction of the resultant cutting force change with the rotation of the tool. There is
thus an inherent and unavoidable periodic variation in
the cutting force that is partly responsible for the dimensions that result on the cut surface. In addition, in selecting machining conditions, it is easy to stray into combinations of feed and speed that induce machining
instabilities such as chatter that further affect surface
finish and dimensions.
A number of methods have been proposed to deal with
tool deflection. A recommendation to use the shortest
possible tool for the greatest rigidity is obvious. Feed
rate regulation has also been proposed [810]. However,
a feed rate reduction may result in the tool operating at
a level below its potential and frequent changes in feed
rate may result in an inconsistent surface quality [11].
Another proposed method is tool path compensation.
Watanabe et al. [12] developed an adaptive control system on an NC machine that altered the tool path to compensate for surface errors. Suh et al. [5] investigated a
tool path correction method based on an instantaneous
deflection model whilst Yang et al. [11] proposed a tool
deflection compensation method based on tool tilting.
Law et al. [13] presented a method that predicts contour

0890-6955/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0890-6955(03)00027-0

732

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

accuracy as a result of tool deflection and compensates

for the error. Compensation methods such as these can
reduce the errors occurring while maintaining the initial
process conditions for maximum productivity but there
is little work reported that considers machining errors in
the context of process planning to meet specified part
tolerances. The machining of complete part features
often requires a combination of steady state cutting and
transient cutting conditions where the cutting geometry
changes. An example of the latter occurs at the entry
and exit of cuts. Force variations in these instances pose
problems in holding tolerances over the whole of a features surfaces.
Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) has
been in use for many years as an alternative to traditional
coordinate dimensioning. It is a method used to control
variations of a part from its specified size and form to
meet part functionality or interchangeability requirements. In particular, it introduces methods that link the
size and position of features from datum surfaces. It
offers the prospect of bonus tolerances on position when
the size of features is targeted at one of the limits of size
with the use of a material modifier. Instead of simply
searching for a compensation methods to reduce the
error of a cut surface, the wider problem is to consider
actual part requirements at the process planning stage,
to examine the tolerances that are required to be achieved, to evaluate the opportunities offered through the
interaction between size and position and to recommend
process conditions that can meet the tolerances specified.
This paper considers the errors that occur in the end
milling process and evaluates the process planning
decisions for a simple part containing a feature specified
with GD&T that is to be machined by end milling. The
need to take a complete view of the machining requirements is demonstrated.

Fig. 1.

Side view of end mill in cut.

2. Characterisation of tool lateral deflections in end

milling

the frontal area of the chip being removed at that

increment. The overall instantaneous force is found by
summing the incremental contributions. Other
approaches have also been developed and a detailed
review is presented in [15]. In terms of linking forces
with dimensional accuracy, Budak and Altintas [16]
examined tool deflection and indicated how metal
removal rates could be optimised while maintaining
workpiece accuracy. These authors also used a mechanistic cutting force model and commented that the
maximum difference between predicted and measured
forces was about 15% for both up milling and down
milling. The approach taken in the present work is simpler in that a regression equation is used to link the normal force with the process variables. This is slightly less
accurate than the mechanistic model but does not alter
the process planning considerations.
Fig. 2 shows the surface errors obtained in an end

To anticipate the surface error on a part feature at the

process planning stage, prediction of the cutting forces
is required. The factors that influence the cutting forces
are work material, tool geometry and process conditions.
Surface errors are determined by tool deflection normal
to the cut surface, which in turn is linked with the normal
component of the resultant cutting force FN and the tool
work flexibility. Fig. 1 shows an end mill in a cut where
dA is the axial depth of cut and dR is the radial depth of
cut. There has been a considerable amount of work on
the topic of forces in milling. Mechanistic cutting force
models were first developed by Tlusty and MacNeil [14].
This approach computes the instantaneous force on
incremental sections of the helical cutting edge, based
on the specific cutting force of the work material and

Fig. 2. Errors in down milling with increasing radial depth of cut

(d A = 20 mm, F = 200 mm/min, N = 400 rpm).

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

733

force on each test was measured with a Kistler 9257

table dynamometer. The equation for FN was obtained as
1.04 0.65 0.84
FN 52.09d 0.9
N
R dA F

Fig. 3.

Mean and spread of errors plotted against radial depth d R.

milling test using down milling where F is the feed rate

and N is the spindle speed. The cutting tool was a HSS
end mill with a diameter of 20 mm, four flutes, 30 helix
angle, a 83.5 mm overall length and a 38 mm flute
length. The overhang length was 53.5 mm. The work
material was an aluminium alloy; grade HE30 with hardness of 80 Vickers. It can be seen that for each radial
depth of cut d R, there is an inherent distribution of edge
points and as d R increases, there is a larger displacement
of the mean value of the spread in each case. Down milling causes the tool to deflect away from the cut surface,
referred to as undercutting. Up milling on the other hand
results in overcutting as the tool is drawn into the work.
The results in Fig. 2 resemble similar graphs in [16]
though in the latter case an increased chip load was achieved through an increase in the feed per tooth. If the
means and spreads are replotted as in Fig. 3, the trend
in the mean error with radial depth of cut d R can be more
readily seen. There is an approximately linear trend in
the mean surface error with a variable spread in the surface points. In terms of adjusting tool paths to compensate for errors it is possible that compensation could be
made for the linear trend, which is predictable, but the
spread is an inevitable result of the cutting process.
Though not explicitly treated in this paper, up milling
can be similarly modelled. The ratio of spread to mean
tends to be higher for up milling. For a given tool-work
pair, a functional relationship can be obtained to link the
mean normal force on the tool to the process variables.
To establish the accuracy of this approach a multi-factorial experiment was conducted [17] with variations in
the process parameters as shown in Table 1. The cutting

(N)

In order to establish the corresponding static tool

deflection that would occur as a result of F N, tests were
undertaken to measure the tool work stiffness in the x
y plane at various axes positions of the CNC machine
tool, a Deckel FP3A equipped with a Heidenhain TNC
407 controller. As the flexibility was largely due to the
end mill itself, the stiffness was reasonably constant. The
average stiffness at the end of the cutter was taken to
be 3500 N/mm. Both the cutting force and tool deflection
predictions were subsequently validated with a further
set of cutting tests and were found to give predictions
within 20%.

3. Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing

GD&T has been in use for many years as an alternative to traditional coordinate dimensioning. It is a
method used to control variations of a part from its
specified size and form in order to meet functional
requirements. Although GD&T is used extensively, it
provides little guidance on how tolerances should be
verified using flexible technologies such as Coordinate
Measuring Machines (CMMs) and laser scanners. The
main reason for this is that standards that relate to GD&
T such as ASME Y14.5-1994 were developed for
inspection with hard gauges. Krulikowski [18] presents
a good introduction to the topic.
Consider the simple part shown in Fig. 4. The feature
of interest is the rectangular slot and only its width is

Table 1
Range of process parameters
Process parameters

Range

Radial depth, dR (mm)

Axial depth, dA (mm)
Feed rate, F (mm/min)
Spindle speed, N (rpm)

1, 2, 4, 6, 10
5, 10, 20
100, 150 200
800, 1000, 1250

(1)

Fig. 4.

Simple part with slot specified with GD&T.

734

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

of interest. This is required to be within 30 0.25 mm.

The position has been specified with a Maximum
Material Condition (MMC) modifier, designated M. This
requires that if the slot width is at 29.75 mm (MMC)
then the centre of the slot should lie in a zone 0.08 mm
wide, centred on the True Position (TP) of 45 mm from
the datum B. The maximum acceptable deviation to one
side would be 0.04 mm.With hard gauge testing, the following tests would be applied.
1. A GO gauge of size 29.75 would have to fit in the
slot.
2. Actual Local Size (ALS) tests would have to be less
than 30.25 mm.
3. To verify the location of the slot from datum B, a
functional gauge would be required. This would be
made to a virtual condition width of the slot, which
is the MMC minus the positional tolerance value. Its
length from datum B is made to the exact TP of the
slot from the datum. If the functional gauge fits the
slot, the slot passes its positional tolerance test.
These requirements can be summarised on a Tolerance Analysis Chart (TAC) [18], shown in Fig. 5, that
links size with displacement from TP. Acceptable combinations of size and position would have to fall within
the perimeter of the polygon ABCD. Using a CMM, the
procedures to verify the slot to its MMC size limit can be
done as follows. For each surface of the slot, the CMM
measures with a set of equally distributed points over
the surface. The point locations are with reference to
Datum B. This would be set before the measurement
begins according to the 3-2-1 method of datuming. In
order for the slot to meet its MMC size limit, an imaginary Actual Mating Envelope (AME) of the slot must be
created, which must be equal or greater than the MMC
size limit. An AME of a feature is the equivalent feature
of size that inscribes an internal feature, and circumscribes an external feature, both at the highest points.
For the present case, the AME can be constructed with

Fig. 5.

Tolerance analysis chart.

two imaginary parallel planes inside the slot that touch

both the surfaces at the highest points. Assuming the
surfaces are sufficiently represented with the measured
points, the highest point(s) from the set of points on each
surface represents the highest point of the surface.
Because the point locations have a common origin at
Datum B, the highest point on the right surface minus
the highest point on the left surface of the slot gives the
size of the slot for verification to the MMC size limit.
This is only a 2D evaluation. However, this procedure
corresponds to the gauging philosophy where the gauge
is made up to a MMC size limit, and at perfect form
with parallel surfaces inside the slot. It must, however,
be indicated that the centre of this AME is parallel to
the datum surface. In some cases, the centre of the AME
may not be parallel to the datum surface. This would
alter the present method of obtaining the AME. Nonetheless, this is not considered at present.
For position verification, the centre of the imaginary
parallel planes can be compared with the allowable position shift of the slot from its TP. The AME size and
position should plot inside the polygon on the TAC. For
verification to the LMC size limit, a size from two
opposing points at each location along the slot, and at
each axial depth must be equal or lesser than the LMC
limit. This is the ALS of the feature. ALS measurements
and mid points should similarly plot inside the TAC
polygon. A similar description on the evaluation of size
and position tolerance using discrete measurement data
can be found in [19].

4. Process planning strategy

In order to link machining errors with tolerances
specified on the drawing a process planning strategy has
to be defined. A simple strategy is proposed here that
attempts to create surfaces with the minimum number
of passes. For internal features such as the through slot
discussed above, if this is to be machined by end milling,
it is likely that at least two passes will be required. The
unique case of machining a slot to the size of the tool
diameter with one pass is presently discounted. As an
example, a slot whose width lies between one and two
diameters of the cutter could be machined with two
passes. If tolerances could not be met, then the next
option would be to consider three passes with a central
full immersion pass and two finishing passes. A slot
whose width was greater than two diameters would have
to be scrutinized in a similar way with regard to finishing
passes. We treat as a case study the slot shown in Fig.
4 whose width is nominally 30 mm. Suppose this is to
be machined with a tool of 20 mm diameter. As shown
in Fig. 6, a two-pass plan would require a full immersion
first pass and a half immersion second pass. In order
to establish if a two pass plan would meet the required

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

Fig. 6.

735

Machining slot with two passes.

tolerances we examine whether the tool deflection can

be contained within the tolerance zones defined by the
LMC and MMC sizes for each side of the slot, relative
to the TP.
In Fig. 7(a), the progress of the tool completing one
side of the slot is shown. The case here is down milling.
At the entry of the tool to the work, deflection of the
tool to the steady state value occurs quickly. By the time

Fig. 7. Phases in cutting one edge and resultant surface errors. (a)
Phases of a tool completing one edge of slot (b) Resultant position of
surface points from expected edge.

the dimension at A is created, the tool forces will be

fully established. In this case, there will be little difference in the dimension of the edge left compared with
position B. However, at position C, the tool is emerging
from the work and the chip load decreases releasing the
elastic deflection of the tool. The steady state cutting
force declines to zero. The consequences for surface
error are considered in Fig. 7(b). Recalling that Fig. 3
demonstrated that surface errors could be represented by
a mean and a spread, steady state cutting produces surface points spread about a mean value offset from the
expected edge position due to the cutting force F N. At
the exit point, the mean offset declines but leaves some
spread. The test for whether the slot can be machined in
two passes can now be stated. Referring to Fig. 8, suppose that the spreads of points at the exits of the cuts are
positioned to be just inside the LMC positions relative to
the TP. This in turn will create AME boundaries at the
high points of the surface. It will then be necessary that
the AME boundaries fall inside the MMC limits. In order
to achieve this, the process conditions can be reduced
within their acceptable ranges to reduce sufficiently the
value of F N on each cut. AME values and positions
would have to plot inside the polygon of the TAC as
well as ALS measurements and mid position values. The
largest ALS values will occur at the ends of the cut. In
Fig. 8, as down milling is used on both surfaces, the exit
errors are not opposite each other.

Fig. 8.

Errors on both sides of slot.

736

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

the LMC, is associated with the exit locations of the tool.

The lower group of points in associated with the steady
state cutting areas of the slot. For this case study, the
part just about passes inspection.

6. Concluding remarks

Fig. 9.

Down milled surfaces of slot.

5. Case study of slot

A global selection of process variables would mean
that d R, d A, F and N would have to be selected for each
cut. In the present case, d A was chosen to be the depth
of the slot (10 mm) and the tool rotational speed was
set at 400 rpm for both passes. This value ensured chatter
free cutting in the full immersion cut. The regression
model for predicting the normal force was validated at
the lower tool speed N and the higher radial depth d R.
In the first pass, d R = 20 mm and the second pass d R
= 10 mm. An examination of the potential feed rate using
a regression equation gave F = 100 mm/min for the first
pass and this could be raised to F = 200 mm/min for
the second pass. Tool rotations were targeted to give
edges that would satisfy the TAC. Fig. 9 shows the surfaces, measured on a Brown and Sharpe Microxcel PFX
454 CMM. The measured sizes and position combinations are shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen that there
are two clusters of points. One group, towards and on

A process planning method that selects machining

conditions in order to meet tolerances, set out using
GD&T, has been presented. The approach taken is to
choose the highest feed rate that ensures that the part
can meet the tolerances. A regression equation has been
used to model the component of cutting force that is
responsible for the surface errors. However mechanistic
cutting force models could be employed to improve cutting force estimations and hence the reliability of the
planning strategy.
It is demonstrated that there is a need to consider exit
errors, as compensation for steady state errors alone will
not ensure that a toleranced feature will pass inspection
over its full length. The use of GD&T allows some interaction between the size and position of features. Acceptable combinations can be represented on a TAC. This is
useful as the errors associated with exit conditions result
in a local increase in size and a shift in the estimate of
the position of the feature. Under these circumstances
the bonus tolerance available is particularly useful. It
would be theoretically possible to alter the tool path as
the tool exits the cut to ensure uniform dimensions compared with steady state cutting, though this would be an
aspect for further work.
A case study that employed limiting feed rates
resulted in measured surfaces that only just passed
inspection. Given that the predictions of cutting force
are subject to errors of 20%, a more cautious plan
might reduce feed rates to ensure that the points were
contained nearer the centre of the polygon in the TAC.
In any case, a more global selection of process variables
would be required for optimization and avoidance of
chatter inducing combinations.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge student support
from The Queens University of Belfast.

References

Fig. 10.

AME and ALS measurements plotted on a TAC.

[1] R. Wertheim, Future direction for R & D in manufacturing engineering in Ireland and the UK, CIRP Workshop, Dublin, May
2002.
[2] S. Sartori, G.X. Zhang, Geometric error measurement and compensation of machines, Annals of the CIRP 44 (2) (1995) 599
609.

T.S. Ong, B.K. Hinds / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 43 (2003) 731737

[3] W.A. Kline, R.E. DeVor, I.A. Shareef, The prediction of surface
accuracy in end milling, Transactions of the ASME Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering 104 (1982) 272278.
[4] J.W. Sutherland, R.E. DeVor, An improved method for cutting
force and surface error prediction in flexible end milling systems,
Transactions of the ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry
108 (1986) 269279.
[5] S.H. Suh, J.H. Cho, J.Y. Hascoet, Incorporation of tool deflection
in tool path computation: simulation and analysis, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 15 (3) (1996) 190199.
[6] M.C. Leu, F. Lu, D. Blackmore, Simulation of NC machining
with cutter deflection by modelling deformed swept volumes,
Annals of the CIRP 47 (1) (1998) 441446.
[7] S.L. Ko, S.K. Lee, Determination of tool stiffness using neural
network in end mill, Technical paper, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Conference NAMRC XXVI, Atlanta, GA, May 1922 1998.
[8] C.G. Sim, M.Y. Yang, Reduction of machining errors by adjustment of feedrates in the ball-end mill process, International Journal of Production Research 31 (3) (1993) 665689.
[9] Z. Yazar, K.F. Koch, T. Merrick, T. Altan, Feedrate optimization
based on cutting force calculations in 3-axis milling of dies and
moulds with sculptured surfaces, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture 34 (3) (1994) 365377.
[10] Y. Altintas, Direct adaptive control of end milling process, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 34 (4) (1994)
461472.

737

[11] M.Y. Yang, J.G. Choi, A tool deflection compensation system

for end milling accuracy improvement, Transactions of the
ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 120
(2) (1998) 222229.
[12] T. Watanabe, S. Iwai, A control system to improve the accuracy
of finished surfaces in milling, ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control 105 (1983) 192199.
[13] K.M.Y. Law, A. Geddam, Prediction of contour accuracy in the
end milling of pockets, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 113 (2001) 399405.
[14] J. Tlusty, P. MacNeil, Dynamics of cutting forces in end milling,
Annals of the CIRP 24 (1975) 2125.
[15] S. Smith, J. Tlusty, An overview of modeling and simulation of
the milling process, Transactions of the ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 113 (1991) 169175.
[16] E. Budak, Y. Altintas, Peripheral milling conditions for improved
dimensional accuracy, International Journal of Machine Tools
and Manufacture 34 (7) (1994) 907918.
[17] T.S. Ong, Development of process planning methodology for
end-milled features specified with geometric tolerances, PhD
Thesis, 2002, The Queens University of Belfast.
[18] A. Krulikowski, Fundamentals of Geometric Dimensioning and
Tolerancing, Second ed., Delmar Publishers, 1998.
[19] Z.C. Yan, C.H. Menq, Evaluation of geometric tolerances using
discrete measurement data, Journal of Design and Manufacturing
4 (1994) 215228.