micromachines

Article
The Development of a Triaxial Cutting Force Sensor
Based on a MEMS Strain Gauge
You Zhao, Yulong Zhao * and Xiaohui Ge
State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 28,
Xianning West Road, Xi’an 710049, China; zhaoyou628@xjtu.edu.cn (Y.Z.); xjgxh1994@stu.xjtu.edu.cn (X.G.)
* Correspondence: zhaoyulong@xjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-029-8339-5073

Received: 17 November 2017; Accepted: 11 January 2018; Published: 15 January 2018

Abstract: Cutting force measurement is a quintessential task for status monitoring during machining.
In the past, a number of cutting force sensors have been developed, each featuring a different
set of performance advantages. In a pursuit to improve the measuring sensitivity and reduce
the cross-interference error, in this paper we propose a triaxial cutting force sensor based on
a commercial micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) strain gauge. An elastic-sensitive element
comprised of two mutual-perpendicular octagonal rings is designed for triaxial cutting force
measurement, and a decoupling matrix is derived from static calibration to reduce cross-interference.
It can be concluded from static calibration that the sensor’s sensitivity is 0.32 mV/N, 0.32 mV/N,
and 0.05 mV/N in triaxial directions, and the proposed decoupling matrix is able to reduce
cross-interference error to 0.14%, 0.25%, and 4.42%. Dynamic cutting force measurement shows that
the cutting force sensor can reflect the variation of cutting status very well, it is qualified to measure
triaxial cutting forces in practical applications.

Keywords: cutting force sensor; sensitivity; micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) strain gauge;
cross-interference; decoupling matrix

1. Introduction
Cutting force is closely related to machining accuracy, cutting vibration, heat generation,
and tool wear during metal machining [1,2], it reflects every slight change in machining status,
and it is a significant factor that influences surface roughness, energy consumption, tool life, etc.
Thus, measuring cutting force is an effective method for machining condition monitoring in intelligent
manufacturing [3] and can provide data support for cutting fault prediction, tool life research,
and cutting parameter optimization [4,5].
Cutting force measurement can be generally divided into two parts: indirect measurement and
direct measurement. Indirect measurement is mainly realized by tool vibration detection [6,7], motor
current measurement [8,9], optical fiber displacement monitoring [10,11], etc. Indirect measurement
method is simple for use but is poor in accuracy. In direct measurement, specially designed cutting
force sensors are needed. These sensors are based on different working principles such as the
resistance strain effect, the piezoelectricity effect, and the capacitance/inductance effect. Among
them, strain gauge and piezoelectric cutting force sensors are widely used due to higher accuracy
and good reliability [12]. However, owing to the intrinsic contradiction between sensitivity and
rigidity, the strain gauge cutting force sensor’s sensitivity is usually sacrificed in order to achieve
high rigidity [13]. For example, Yaldiz et al. has reported a strain gauge cutting force sensor whose
sensitivity is 0.082 mV/N, 0.122 mV/N, and 0.119 mV/N in triaxial directions [14]. Panzera et al.
developed a cutting force sensor with a sensitivity of 1.342 mV/N, 0.684 mV/N, and 0.514 mV/N
after 1000× amplification [15]. In addition, octagonal ring type cutting force sensors have become

Micromachines 2018, 9, 30; doi:10.3390/mi9010030 www.mdpi.com/journal/micromachines

Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 2 of 11

hot research topics. For instance, Yuan et al. developed an octagonal ring structure triaxial cutting
force sensor with sensitivities of 215.5 µε/kgf, 237.8 µε/kgf, and 326 µε/kgf [16], and Shan Zhongchen
reported an octagonal ring based cutting force sensor with sensitivities of 1.506 µε/kgf, 1.121 µε/kgf,
and 5.711 µε/kgf in theoretical calculation [17].
Piezoelectric cutting force sensors are famous for their high sensitivity and high rigidity.
Some piezoelectric sensors, such as the 9129A cutting force sensor from KISTLER Company
(Winterthur, Switzerland) [18] and the YDC-III89B cutting force sensor produced by Dalian University
of Technology (Dalian, China) [19] are already commercial available. However, piezoelectric cutting
force sensors are not suitable for measuring stable or static cutting force due to electric charge
leakage [20], so high-impedance electric charge amplifiers are needed, but they are expensive.
Cross-interference error is a key factor in judging cutting force measurement accuracy, which
is defined as the ratio between a sensor’s undesirable output caused by the force of another
direction and the output caused by its measuring direction’s force in full scale, as described in
Equation (1). Researchers have substantially contributed to inhibiting cross-interference error;
for example, the authors of [14] introduced a strain gauge cutting force sensor with a cross-interference
error in the range of 0.54–9.25%, and the KISTLER piezoelectric cutting force sensor’s (type 9219A)
cross-interference error is less than 3%. Table 1 illustrates cross-interference indicators of some typical
cutting force sensors, where Fc , Ff , and Fp represent the main cutting force, the feeding force, and the
thrust force, respectively. Though these sensors have already achieved favorable cross-interference
error, it still remains a possibility for improving.

VFc ← Ff
Cerror = × 100% (1)
VFc ← Fc

where Cerror , VFc ← Ff , and VFc ← Fc indicates the cross-interference error, the undesirable output of the
Fc measuring circuit under the effect of force in the Ff direction, and the full scale output of the Fc
measuring circuit under the effect of force in the Fc direction, respectively.

Table 1. Cross-interference error of some typical cutting force sensors.

Cross-Interference Error (%)

Cutting Force Literature [16] Literature [17] Literature [14] Literature [18]
Fc Ff Fp Fc Ff Fp Fc Ff Fp Fc Ff Fp
Fc - 1.29 1.63 - 1.70 2.10 - 3.35 0.54 - ≤3 ≤3
Ff 3.64 - 4.00 2.10 - 1.30 1.80 - 0.72 ≤3 - ≤3
Fp 3.56 0.50 - 2.00 3.10 - 1.73 9.25 - ≤3 ≤3 -

In this paper, a triaxial cutting force sensor using a commercial MEMS strain gauge in order
to achieve high sensitivity is introduced, and a decoupling matrix method is proposed to reduce
cross-interference error. Details on the sensor design, fabrication, and performance test will be
introduced in the following sections.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. MEMS Strain Gauge

The contradiction between sensitivity and rigidity in the strain gauge sensor is inherent due to
its working principle [13], which can hardly be avoided. Using a strain gauge with a highly sensitive
coefficient is a feasible way to obtain a satisfactory sensitivity while keeping high rigidity.
For a section of conductor with a length of L, the cross-section area of S and resistivity of ρ,
its resistance value can be calculated as
L
R=ρ . (2)
S
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 3 of 11

Further, it can be expressed as

Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 3 of 11
dR dρ dL dS
= + − = πEε + ε − (−2µε) = [πE + (1 + 2µ)]ε = Kε (3)
R ρ L S
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= + − = 𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 + 𝜀𝜀 − (−2𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇) = [𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 + (1 + 2𝜇𝜇)]𝜀𝜀 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 (3)
where π, E, ε, µ, and 𝑅𝑅K represent 𝜌𝜌 𝐿𝐿 the 𝑆𝑆piezoresistive coefficient, elastic modulus, strain value, Poisson’s
ratio,
whereandπ,sensitive coefficient
E, ε, μ, and K represent of the
theconductor,
piezoresistiverespectively.
coefficient,For themodulus,
elastic metal material, its πEPoisson’s
strain value, value is so
small that it can be ignored, and its sensitive coefficient is around 1.5–2; however,
ratio, and sensitive coefficient of the conductor, respectively. For the metal material, its πE value is for semi-conductive
so small
material, itsthat it can isbefarignored,
πE value larger thanand that
its sensitive
of 1 + 2µ,coefficient is around
and its sensitive 1.5–2; however,
coefficient is as large forassemi-
70–170.
conductive
Therefore, material, its πE strain
a semi-conductive value gauge
is far larger
basedthan
on a that
MEMS of 1technique
+ 2μ, andwas its sensitive
chosen as coefficient is as
the transducing
large as 70–170. Therefore, a semi-conductive strain gauge based on a MEMS technique was chosen
element of the cutting force sensor in this study.
as The
the transducing
MEMS strain element
gaugeof the cutting
(type TP-3-1000)forceused
sensoris aincommercial
this study. one that was produced by Anhui
TianguangThe MEMS
sensor strain gauge
Co., Ltd., (type TP-3-1000)
Bengbu, China. This used is a of
kind commercial
MEMS strain one that
gaugewashas produced by Anhui
good stability and
Tianguang sensor Co., Ltd., Bengbu, China. This kind of MEMS strain gauge
consistency. It is featured with batch manufacturing and is user-friendly. Figure 1a displays its detailed has good stability and
consistency.
structure: It is featured with
a semi-conductive batch resistor,
sensitive manufacturing
two gold andwires,
is user-friendly.
two metal Figurepads, a1apolyimide
displays its film,
anddetailed structure:
two pins. Detailed a semi-conductive
parameters of the sensitive resistor,
strain gauge aretwo goldinwires,
listed Tablestwo metal
2 and pads, a 1b
3. Figure polyimide
illustrates
thefilm, and twoprocess
fabrication pins. Detailed
of the MEMSparametersstrainof the strain
gauge: 1 an gauge
n-type aresilicon
listed wafer
in Tables 2 and 3. and
is prepared Figure 1b
cleaned
illustrates the fabrication process of the MEMS strain gauge: ① an n-type
for use; 2 boron ions are implanted into the top layer of the n-type silicon wafer in order to form silicon wafer is prepared
and cleaned
a resistance for (p-type);
layer use; ②boron ions are implanted
3 aluminum is sputteredintotothe top alayer
form metalof the n-typelayer;
electrode silicon4wafer in order
the aluminum
to form a resistance layer (p-type); ③ aluminum is sputtered to form a metal electrode layer; ④ the
layer is patterned to form an electrode; 5 the resistance layer together with aluminum electrodes
aluminum layer is patterned to form an electrode; ⑤ the resistance layer together with aluminum
are patterned into individual strain gauges; 6 the front side of the wafer is etched in order to form
electrodes are patterned into individual strain gauges; ⑥ the front side of the wafer is etched in order
a separating groove; 7 the wafer thickness is reduced and its back side is polished; 8 single resistance
to form a separating groove; ⑦ the wafer thickness is reduced and its back side is polished; ⑧ single
pieces are obtained by wet etching the wafer from the back side; 9 a single piece of the MEMS strain
resistance pieces are obtained by wet etching the wafer from the back side; ⑨ a single piece of the
gauge
MEMS resistor; 10 theresistor;
strain gauge semi-conductive sensitive resistor
⑩ the semi-conductive and two
sensitive pieces
resistor andof twometal pads
pieces are glued
of metal padson
theare glued on the polyimide film, two gold wires are bonded between the resistor and metal pads.
polyimide film, two gold wires are bonded between the resistor and metal pads.

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Schematicview
Schematic viewofofmicro-electro-mechanical
micro-electro-mechanical system
system(MEMS)
(MEMS)strain
straingauge’s
gauge’sstructure and
structure and
micro-fabrication process.
micro-fabrication process.

Table 2. Physical parameters of the micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) strain gauge—Part 1.

Table 2. Physical parameters of the micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) strain gauge—Part 1.
Strain Gauge Type Substrate Size (mm) Resistor Size (mm) Resistance (Ω) Sensitive Coefficient
TP-3-1000
Strain Gauge 5 × 3 (mm)
Type Substrate Size 3 × 0.20
Resistor × 0.04
Size (mm) 1000 (Ω)
Resistance 150 ± Coefficient
Sensitive 5%
TP-3-1000 5×3 3 × 0.20 × 0.04 1000 150 ± 5%
Table 3. Physical parameters of the MEMS strain gauge—Part 2.

Resistance Temperature
Table 3. Sensitivity Temperature
Physical parameters Working
of the MEMS Working
strain gauge—Part 2. Strain
Coefficient (1/°C) Coefficient (1/°C) Temperature (°C) Current (mA) Limit (με)
<0.40%Temperature
Resistance <0.30%
Sensitivity Temperature <80
Working Working5 Strain6000
Coefficient (1/◦ C) Coefficient (1/◦ C) Temperature (◦ C) Current (mA) Limit (µε)

2.2. Cutting Force Sensor

<0.40% <0.30% <80 5 6000

An octagonal ring is a classic elastic-sensitive element (ESE) in sensor design due to its favorable
decoupling ability, high rigidity, and good machinability. Thus, octagonal rings are adopted in
cutting force sensor design. For an octagonal ring (t/r ≦ 0.2) under the effect of vertical force Fv and
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 4 of 11

2.2. Cutting Force Sensor

An octagonal ring is a classic elastic-sensitive element (ESE) in sensor design due to its favorable
Micromachines
decoupling ability, 9, 30 rigidity, and good machinability. Thus, octagonal rings are adopted 4in
2018,high of cutting
11
force sensor design. For an octagonal ring (tr5 0.2) under the effect of vertical force Fv and tangential
force Ft, as shown in Figure 2a, its surface stress in θ = 90° ◦and θ = 50° positions can be
forcetangential
Ft , as shown in Figure 2a, its surface stress in θ = 90◦ and θ = 50 positions can be expressed as
expressed as follows [14]:
follows [14]:
𝐹𝐹F𝑣𝑣v∗∗𝑟𝑟r
σ90°←𝐹𝐹
σ90 ◦ ←F = = 0.7
0.7 22 (4) (4)
v𝑣𝑣 𝑏𝑏𝑡𝑡
bt
◦ ←F = 0
σσ5050°←𝐹𝐹v = 0 (5) (5)
𝑣𝑣

σ90◦ ← Ft = 0 (6) (6)

σ90°←𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡 = 0
Ft ∗ r
σ50◦ ← Ft = 1.4𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡 ∗ 2𝑟𝑟 (7)
σ50°←𝐹𝐹 = 1.4 bt (7)
𝑡𝑡
𝑏𝑏𝑡𝑡 2
where t, b, and r stand for the thickness, width, and average radius of the ring; σ90◦ ← Fv represents
where t, b, and r stand for the thickness, width, and average radius of the ring; σ90°←Fv represents stress
stress in a 90◦ position caused by Fv , as do σ90◦ ← Ft , σ50◦ ← Fv , and σ50◦ ← Ft .
in a 90° position caused by Fv, as do σ90°←Ft, σ50°←Fv, and σ50°←Ft.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. (a) Theoretical analysis model of the octagonal ring; (b) a schematic view of two mutual-
Figure 2. (a) Theoretical analysis model of the octagonal ring; (b) a schematic view of two
perpendicular octagonal rings; (c) the structure and composition of the cutting force sensor; (d) the
mutual-perpendicular octagonal rings; (c) the structure and composition of the cutting force sensor;
sensor installation on the tool post.
(d) the sensor installation on the tool post.
According to Equations (4)–(7), it is suitable to bond the MEMS strain gauge at 90° and 50°
Accordingontothe
positions octagonal(4)–(7),
Equations ring initorder to measure
is suitable to bondFv and Ft individually.
the MEMS Considering
strain gauge at 90◦ andthe 50◦
requirement of tool installation and high rigidity in practical applications, a structure
positions on the octagonal ring in order to measure Fv and Ft individually. Considering the requirement comprised of
two mutually perpendicular octagonal ring (TMPOR) is designed for triaxial cutting force
of tool installation and high rigidity in practical applications, a structure comprised of two mutually
measurement as shown in Figure 2b, where triaxial force components are distributed onto two
perpendicular octagonal ring (TMPOR) is designed for triaxial cutting force measurement as shown in
octagonal rings and each ring is able to measure two of the triaxial components.
Figure 2b,Thewhere triaxial
cutting force force
sensorcomponents
introduced inare thisdistributed onto two
paper is upgraded octagonal
from ringswork
our previous and [21,22],
each ring is
able to measure
Figure two of
2c depicts thethe triaxial components.
composition of the sensor: the cutting tool is fixed in the tool slot by screws, and
the ESE
The is in force
cutting the middle
sensorofintroduced
the senor. MEMSin thisstrain
paper gauges are bonded
is upgraded from onour
the previous
ESE for measuring
work [21,22],
Figuretriaxial cuttingthe
2c depicts force Fc, Ff, and Fp,of
composition respectively.
the sensor:Atthe thecutting
end of the sensor
tool is a shaft
is fixed in thefortool
fixing
slotit by
intoscrews,
a
tool post, Figure 2d is a schematic view of the sensor’s installation on the tool
and the ESE is in the middle of the senor. MEMS strain gauges are bonded on the ESE for measuring post.
17-4PHforcesteel F
is ,chosen to fabricate the designed sensor because of its good machinability and
triaxial cutting c Ff , and Fp , respectively. At the end of the sensor is a shaft for fixing it into
mechanical property. The sensor
a tool post, Figure 2d is a schematic view is machined as a monolithic
of the sensor’s element
installation in order
on the to reduce strain
tool post.
transmission loss and improves the sensor’s response speed. The main processing steps of the sensor
are illustrated in Figure 3: ① rough machining and preparing 17-4PH steel with appropriate
dimensions for the next step; ② wire-electrode cutting and machining the preliminary shape of the
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 5 of 11

17-4PH steel is chosen to fabricate the designed sensor because of its good machinability and
mechanical property. The sensor is machined as a monolithic element in order to reduce strain
transmission loss and improves the sensor’s response speed. The main processing steps of the
sensor are illustrated in Figure 3: 1 rough machining and preparing 17-4PH steel with appropriate
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 5 of 11
dimensions for the next step; 2 wire-electrode cutting and machining the preliminary shape of the

sensor,
sensor, suchsuch as TMPOR
as TMPOR and
and toolshaft;
tool shaft; electric discharge
3③electric discharge machining
machiningand removing
and unexpected
removing unexpected
columnar
columnar structure
structure in the
in the TMPOR;
TMPOR; threaded hole
4④threaded hole processing; 5milling
processing;⑤ and
milling grinding,
and removing
grinding, removing
redundant material, and smoothing strain gauge
redundant material, and smoothing strain gauge bonding faces. bonding faces.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 5 of 11

sensor, such as TMPOR and tool shaft; ③ electric discharge machining and removing unexpected
columnar structure in the TMPOR; ④ threaded hole processing; ⑤ milling and grinding, removing
redundant material, and smoothing strain gauge bonding faces.

Figure 3. Fabrication process of the cutting force sensor.

Figure 3. Fabrication process of the cutting force sensor.

2.3. MEMS Strain Gauge Bonding

Figure 3. Fabrication process of the cutting force sensor.
2.3. MEMS Strain Gauge Bonding
The MEMS strain gauge bonding process is a key factor in the sensor’s performance. M-bond
610 glue
The 2.3.from
MEMS MEMS
strainStrain
gaugeGauge
Micro-measurement Bonding process
bonding Company is aiskey
used for MEMS
factor in the strain
sensor’s gauge attachment.M-bond
performance. Figure 4610 is glue
from aMicro-measurement
schematic Theview
MEMS of the
strain bonding
Company gauge is process:
bonding
used for ①
process
MEMS strain gauge
is astrain
key factor selection;—strain
gauge in the gauges4with
sensor’s performance.
attachment. Figure complete view
isM-bond
a schematic
of thestructure
bonding and
610 glue close strain
from
process: 1resistance
Micro-measurement(deviation
gauge withinis ±2
Company
selection;—strain Ω)
used are
for
gaugesMEMSselected;
strain
with ② strain
gauge
complete gauge positioning
attachment.
structure Figure
and and
4 is resistance
close
bonding a schematic
surface view of the bonding
clearance—a cross process:
symbol ①is strain
marked gaugeon selection;—strain
the sensor’s gauges
surface with
where complete
strain gauge
(deviation within ±2 Ω) are selected; strain 2 gauge positioning and bonding surface clearance—a cross
should structure and close
be bonded, and resistance
the surface (deviation
is then within
cleaned±2 Ω)by are selected; ②
anhydrous strain gauge
ethanol; ③ MEMS positioning
strainandgauge
symbol is marked
bonding surface clearance—a cross symbol isstrain
on the sensor’s surface where marked gauge
on theshould
sensor’sbe bonded,
surface where and the
strain surface
gauge is then
bonding—a thin layer of M-bond 610 glue is coated on the bonding surface, it is desiccated in an
cleaned byshould ethanol; MEMS
be bonded, and the surface is then cleaned by anhydrous ethanol; ③ MEMS strain gauge
anhydrous 3 strain gauge bonding—a thin layer of M-bond 610 glue is coated
environment of 24 °C with a relative humidity of 50%, and the◦ MEMS strain gauge is then bonded on
bonding—a thin layer of M-bond 610 glue is coated on the bonding
on the bonding surface, it is desiccated in an environment of 24 C with a relative humidity of 50%, and the surface, it is desiccated in an
the pre-coated
environment glue at
24 the marked position, making sure
andthere is no strain
bubble involved; ④ drying on and
MEMS strain
curing—the gauge is of
sensor then
is
°C with
bonded
placed
a relative
intoonan the
80
humidity
pre-coated
°C
of 50%,
environment glue at
and
the MEMS
the marked
dried for 30
gauge
position, is then bonded
making sure there is no
the pre-coated glue at the marked position, making sure there is no bubble ◦ involved; ④ drying and into
min, and it is then put
bubble involved;
a 120 °C drying
environment
4
curing—the sensorand for 2curing—the
h of into
is placed curing;
an 80sensor
⑤ is placed and
°Cpost-curing—the
environment intodried
an 80foris
sensor C environment
30putmin,into
andait150 and driedintofor 30 min,
℃ environment
is then put
and itfor 1 ha in
is then 120order
put°Cinto 120 ◦ Cfor
toa achieve
environment a stable bonding
2 h of curing;
environment for
⑤2 and then slowly
post-curing—the
h of curing; cooled
5 sensor down
post-curing—the
is put intoto room
a 150 temperature;
℃ environment
sensor is put into a⑥ 150 ◦ C
environment forfor
measurement 1 h1inhcircuit
order
in ordertoorganization—strain
achieve a stable
to achieve bonding
a stable and then
gauges
bonding are slowly
and organized
then cooled
slowly down
into to room
three
cooled groups
down temperature;
toofroom
Wheatstone
⑥
temperature;
bridge measurement
for triaxial circuit
cutting organization—strain
force measurement. gauges
Figure are5 organized
depicts a into three
photograph groups
of the of Wheatstone
packaged cutting
measurement
6 circuit organization—strain gauges are organized into three groups of Wheatstone bridge
bridge for triaxial cutting force measurement. Figure 5 depicts a photograph of the packaged cutting
force sensor.
for triaxial force
cutting force measurement. Figure 5 depicts a photograph of the packaged cutting force sensor.
sensor.

FigureFigure 4. Bonding
4. Bonding process of
process of the
theMEMS
MEMSstrain gauge.
strain gauge.
Figure 4. Bonding process of the MEMS strain gauge.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 6 of 11
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 6 of 11

Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 6 of 11

Figure 5. Photograph of the packaged sensor.

Figure 5. Photograph of the packaged sensor.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results 3.1.
andStatic
Discussion
Calibration and Result Analysis
A calibration
3.1. Static Calibration test wasAnalysis
and Result carried out 5.
Figure toPhotograph
verify the static
of the performance of the cutting force sensor. An
packaged sensor.
experimental platform was set up, as shown in Figure 6a, including an electro-mechanical universal
3. Results
testing
A calibration machineandwas
test Discussion
(EMUTM,
carriedtypeout
UTM6104, Sunsthe
to verify Company,
static Shenzhen,
performance China),of athe
computer,
cuttinga DC force sensor.
power supply (type GPS-3303C, Gwinstek Company, New Taipei
An experimental platform was set up, as shown in Figure 6a, including an electro-mechanical City, Taiwan), and three sets of universal
3.1. precision
high Static Calibration
digital and Result Analysis
multimeter (type FLUKE 8846A, Fluke Corporation, Everett, WA, USA).
testing machine (EMUTM,
DuringAthe
type UTM6104,
test, the sensor was fixedout
Suns
on to
Company,
theverify
base the
of EMUTM
Shenzhen,
and powered
China), a computer,
by cutting
5 V DC.force
The EMUTM
a DC power
calibration test was carried static performance of the sensor. An
supply (type
was GPS-3303C,
then controlled
experimental
Gwinstek
by the
platform
Company,
wascomputer
New
set up, astoshown
impose Taipei
in aFigure
standard City, Taiwan),
force on the
6a, including
and three sets
cutter. The standard
an electro-mechanical
of high
force precision
universal
increases
digital multimeter from
testing (type
machine0 to 200
FLUKE N
(EMUTM, and then
8846A, falls
typeFluke from
UTM6104, 200 to
Corporation,0 N in
Suns Company, one calibration
Everett, cycle.
WA, USA).
Shenzhen, Output
China),During signals of
the test,
a computer, athe
DC the sensor
sensor
was fixed onpower were
the base recorded
supply of(type
EMUTM with a high
GPS-3303C, precision
and Gwinstek digital
poweredCompany, multimeter.
by 5 V DC. New The The
Taipei sensor was
City, Taiwan),
EMUTM calibrated
was andthenthree in F c, Ff,
sets of by the
controlled
and Fp directions;
high precision at leastmultimeter
digital three cycles(type
of test are needed
FLUKE forFluke
each Corporation,
direction of calibration, andUSA).
the
computer to impose
experiment
a standard force on the cutter. The8846A,
standard force increases Everett,
from 0WA, to 200 N and then
During thedata test,were averaged
the sensor wastofixed
diminish
on therandom
base oferror.
EMUTM Figures
and 6b–d depict
powered bythe
5 Vcalibration
DC. The EMUTM result
falls from 200
forwastothen
each 0direction
Ncontrolled
in oneand calibration
the main
by the
cycle.
performance
computer
Output
indexes
to impose
signals
of the sensor
a standard
of the
forceare
sensor
onlisted
were
in Table
the cutter. The4.recorded
standard force
with a high
precision digital multimeter. The sensor was calibrated in F , F ,
increases from 0 to 200 N and then falls from 200 to 0 Nc in fone calibration and Fp directions;
cycle. Output signals of the of test
at least three cycles
sensor were recorded with a high precision digital multimeter.
are needed for each direction of calibration, and the experiment data were averaged The sensor was calibrated in Fc, Ff, random
to diminish
and F p directions; at least three cycles of test are needed for each direction of calibration, and the
error. Figure 6b–d depict the calibration result for each direction and the main performance indexes of the
experiment data were averaged to diminish random error. Figures 6b–d depict the calibration result
sensor are listed in Table 4.
for each direction and the main performance indexes of the sensor are listed in Table 4.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. (a) Experiment set up for static calibration; (b) Fc measurement circuit output in different directions’
calibration; (c) Ff measurement circuit output in different directions’ calibration; (d) Fp measurement circuit
output in different directions’ calibration.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 7 of 11

Table 4. Static performance indexes of the sensor.

Static Performance Indexes

Cutting Force
Linearity Hysteresis Repeatability Cross-Interference Error
Component Sensitivity
Error Error Error Fc Ff Fp
Fc 0.32 mV/N 0.46% 0.17% 3.61% - 2.66% 80.40%
Ff 0.32 mV/N 0.48% 0.35% 1.22% 0.19% - 4.27%
Fp 0.05 mV/N 1.97% 4.45% 12.93% 1.19% 2.22% -

Performance indexes of hysteresis, repeatability, linearity, and accuracy are defined as follows:
Hysteresis: The difference between the sensor outputs in the loading and offloading processes is
called hysteresis. Hysteresis error can be calculated with Equation (8), where H represents hysteresis
error; 4ymax is the maximum output deviation between loading and offloading process, and ymax and
ymin are full scale and zero output signals of the sensor, respectively.

∆ymax
H=± × 100% (8)
2(ymax − ymin )

Repeatability: The deviation among different groups of sensor outputs under the same input value
is called repeatability. Repeatability error can be calculated by Equations (9) and (10). For a certain
test cycle, it is assumed that the number of measuring points is m, and the output of each measuring
point has been measured n times. Thus, Si (i = 1, 2, . . . ,m) stands for the standard deviation of each
measuring point; yij is j-th (j = 1, 2, . . . ,n) measured value of the i-th (i = 1, 2, . . . ,m) measuring
point; yi is the average value of the measured values for the i-th measuring point. R stands for the
repeatability error; Smax represents the maximum standard deviation among Si (i = 1, 2, . . . ,m); ymax
and ymin are full scale and zero output signals of the sensor, respectively.
v
u n
2
u ∑ (yij − yi )
u
t j =1
Si = (9)
n−1

3Smax
R= × 100% (10)
ymax − ymin
Linearity: Linearity is the maximum deviation between the sensor’s practical output curve and
the theoretical curve. In this study, the sensor’s theoretical output curve is obtained by the least-square
linear fitting method. Thus, the linearity error can be calculated as Equation (11), where L represents
the linearity error; 4max is the maximum deviation value between the sensor’s practical output curve
and its theoretical one.
∆max
L= × 100% (11)
ymax − ymin
Accuracy: Accuracy is a comprehensive indicator that reflects the sensor’s static performance;
it can be calculated by Equation (12), where A represents accuracy error.
p
A= H 2 + R2 + L2 (12)

The sensor possesses favorable static performance according to Table 4. Its accuracy is calculated as
3.64%, 1.36%, and 13.82% in triaxial directions. Specifically, its sensitivity is about 27–30 times that of our
previous developed metal strain gauge sensor as reported in [21], and it is also higher than that of sensors
introduced in the literature [14,15], which proves that using a MEMS strain gauge is a workable method
of improving a sensor’s measuring sensitivity. Its sensitivity in the Fc and Ff directions is about five times
higher than that of the Fp direction. This is due to the sensor’s ESE structure. According to theoretical
analysis of the octagonal ring, the stress value at the 50◦ position (where the MEMS strain gauges for Fc and
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 8 of 11

Ff measurement were bonded) on the octagonal ring is twice that at the 90◦ position (where the MEMS strain
gauge for the Fp measurement was bonded). As two octagonal rings are involved in the ESE, the stress value
at 50◦ position is four times that at the 90◦ position, so the sensitivity ratio between the Fc and Fp directions
should be four times the theoretical value. Considering the positioning error during strain gauge bonding
as well as some unforeseen random errors during the calibration test, this deviation from the theoretical
value of the sensitivity ratio between the Fc and Fp directions is reasonable.
In addition, the sensor’s linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability are similar in the Fc and Ff
directions, but different with the Fp direction. This is because the sensor’s structure is similar
and symmetrical in the Fc and Ff directions, so their performance indexes are almost the same.
The difference between the Fc (or Ff ) and Fp directions is mainly caused by the fixing method of the
cutting tool. As shown in Figure 2c, the cutting tool is fixed in the tool slot by screws, which can hardly
avoid relative slippage between the cutting tool and the tool slot when Fp direction force is imposed.
This leads to a nonlinear loss of strain and finally causes performance defects.
It is obvious that the cross-interference error in the Fp direction is much higher than those in the Fc
and Ff directions, which will seriously affect measuring accuracy. In order to inhibit cross-interference,
a decoupling matrix is proposed. Because the linearity error between the sensor’s input and output
is as low as 0.46%, 0.48%, and 1.97%, a linear matrix is adopted to describe the input and output
relationship of the sensor as follows:
      
VFc a11 a12 a13 Fc b1
 V  
 Ff  =  a21 a22 a23  Ff  +  b2  (13)
   
VFp a31 a32 a33 Fp b3

where VFc , VFf , and VFp are sensor outputs for Fc , Ff , and Fp measurement circuits; aij
(i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1, 2, 3) and bk (k = 1, 2, 3) are constant coefficients. These constant coefficients can
be obtained by taking the calibration result into Equation (13), and the constant coefficients are then
calculated as listed in Equation (14).
      
VFc 0.3207 0.298 × 10−3 −0.0037 Fc 0.4594
 V  
=
 Ff   0.0086 0.3259 −0.0072  Ff  +  0.3431 . (14)
   
VFp 0.0400 0.0018 0.0496 Fp 0.0449

According to Equation (14), a triaxial cutting force decoupling equation can be derived as follows:
      
Fc 3.0896 −0.0041 0.2299  VFc 0.4594  
 Ff  =  −0.1365 3.0661 0.4349   VFf  −  0.3431  . (15)
       
−2.4867 −0.1080 19.9601  VFp
 
Fp 0.0449 

In order to verify the feasibility of the decoupling equation in triaxial cutting force measurement,
another calibration test was carried out. During the test, a standard static force of 200 N was imposed
on the sensor’s tool tip from the Fc , Ff , and Fp directions, respectively. The sensor’s output were
recorded, and triaxial cutting force components Fc , Ff , and Fp were calculated from VFc , VFf , and VFp
using Equation (15), the calculated cutting force components were compared to the actual standard
forces as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Experiment result for triaxial cutting force decoupling verification.

Measured Forces Cross-Interference Error

Standard Force General Error
Fc Ff Fp Fc Ff Fp
Fc = 200 N 199.73 N 0.875 N 4.750 N - 0.44% 2.49% 0.14%
199.507
Ff = 200 N 1.445 N 6.931 N 0.72% - 3.63% 0.25%
N
Fp = 200 N 2.518 N 1.754 N 191.154 N 1.26% 0.88% - 4.42%
 Table 5. Experiment result for triaxial cutting force decoupling verification.

Measured Forces Cross-Interference Error

Standard Force General Error
Fc Ff Fp Fc Ff Fp
Fc = 200 N 199.73 N 0.875 N 4.750 N - 0.44% 2.49% 0.14%
Ff = 2018,
Micromachines 200 N 9, 30 1.445 N 199.507 N 6.931 N 0.72% - 3.63% 0.25% 9 of 11
Fp = 200 N 2.518 N 1.754 N 191.154 N 1.26% 0.88% - 4.42%

It
It can
can be
be found
found from
fromTable
Table55thatthatthe
thecross-interference
cross-interferenceerror
errorwas
waseffectively
effectivelyreduced
reduced using a
using
decoupling matrix, which helps improve the sensor’s measurement accuracy. The general
a decoupling matrix, which helps improve the sensor’s measurement accuracy. The general
measurement
measurement errorerror in
ineach
eachdirection
directionare are0.14%,
0.14%,0.25%,
0.25%,and
and4.42%,
4.42%,respectively, when
respectively, whencompared
compared to
standard input forces, this means that the sensor is capable of accurately measuring triaxial cutting
to standard input forces, this means that the sensor is capable of accurately measuring triaxial cutting
forces, especially in the F
forces, and FFff directions.
Fcc and directions.

3.2.
3.2. Cutting
Cutting Force
Force Measurement
Measurement in
in the
the Machining
Machining Process
Process

In order to
In order to demonstrate
demonstratethe thesensor’s
sensor’spracticability
practicability
forfor dynamic
dynamic cutting
cutting force
force measurement,
measurement, it wasit
was installed on a CNC lathe (type FTC-20, Fair Friend Group, Taipei, Taiwan) for the application in
installed on a CNC lathe (type FTC-20, Fair Friend Group, Taipei, Taiwan) for the application in the
the machining
machining process,
process, as illustrated
as illustrated in in Figure
Figure 7a.7a.Detailed
Detailedinformation
informationaboutabout the
the cutting
cutting parameters
parameters
are
are listed
listed in
in Table
Table 6. 6. Figure
Figure7b 7bdepicts
depictsthe
themeasured
measuredcutting
cutting forces
forcesversus
versusthethe
change
changein in
feed rate.
feed It
rate.
can be seen that ① cutting force rises promptly with feed rate increments, and they stay in good
It can be seen that 1 cutting force rises promptly with feed rate increments, and they stay in good
accordance
accordance withwith each
each other,
other, which
which means
means thatthat the
the sensor
sensor can
can effectively
effectively reflect
reflect cutting
cutting force
force variation
variation
according
according to to the
the cutting
cutting parameter’s
parameter’s change;
change;② 2 cutting
cutting forces
forces always
always show
show anan abrupt
abrupt decrease
decrease when
when
feed rate changes, which is because there is a short moment during which cutting declines as the feed
feed rate changes, which is because there is a short moment during which cutting declines as the feed
rate
rate changes,
changes, so cutting force
so cutting force appears
appears toto quickly
quicklydrop;
drop; 3 a alarge
③ largepeak
peakexists
existsasascutting
cutting ends,
ends, which
which is
is because,
because, when
when thethe continuous
continuous movement
movement between
between the cutting
the cutting tool the
tool and andworkpiece
the workpiece suddenly
suddenly stops,
stops,
there isthere is a sudden
a sudden increaseincrease in cutting
in cutting force. force.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Picture of the sensor installed in a CNC lathe; (b) cutting force measurement result.
Figure 7. (a) Picture of the sensor installed in a CNC lathe; (b) cutting force measurement result.

Table 6. Experiment parameters of dynamic machining process.

Table 6. Experiment parameters of dynamic machining process.
Cutting Parameters
Workpiece Material
Workpiece Diameter Spindle Cutting
Speed Parameters
Depth of Cut Feed Rate
Workpiece Material
AISI 1045 steel 61.8 mm Diameter 900Spindle
Workpiece r/min Speed0.1 mm
Depth of 0.15,
Cut 0.20, Feed
0.25, Rate
0.30 mm/r
0.15, 0.20, 0.25,
4. Conclusions
AISI 1045 steel 61.8 mm 900 r/min 0.1 mm
0.30 mm/r
This paper proposes a triaxial cutting force sensor that aims to improve sensitivity and reduce
cross-interference
4. Conclusions error. Static calibration and dynamic cutting force measurement results have
demonstrated
This paperthe feasibility
proposes of this proposal.
a triaxial Conclusions
cutting force canaims
sensor that be summarized as follows:and reduce
to improve sensitivity
(1) The proposed error.
cross-interference sensor effectively improves
Static calibration thedynamic
and cutting force sensor’s
cutting force sensitivity
measurementusing the MEMS
results have
strain gauge.
demonstrated Static calibration
the feasibility result shows
of this proposal. that the sensor’s
Conclusions sensitivity is
can be summarized as27–30 times greater
follows:
than previously developed sensors.
(1) The proposed sensor effectively improves the cutting force sensor’s sensitivity using the MEMS
strain gauge. Static calibration result shows that the sensor’s sensitivity is 27–30 times greater
than previously developed sensors.
(2) The decoupling matrix is a feasible method of inhibiting cross-interference and helps reduce
cross-interference error in the range of 0.14–4.42%, which increases the measurement accuracy of
the sensor.
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 10 of 11

(3) During the cutting force measurement experiment, the measured cutting forces were in good
accordance with the change in cutting parameters, which proves that the sensor can reflect cutting
status variation very well.

This study has proposed a highly sensitive and low cross-interfering cutting force sensor based
on a kind of MEMS strain gauge and a decoupling matrix method. It is simple and effective,
as demonstrated in static and dynamic experiments. The developed sensor is competitive due to its
concise structure and low cost. Future work will focus on MEMS strain gauge bonding and sensor
structure optimization to improve accuracy further. Compared to other piezoelectric cutting force
sensors currently in use, our proposed sensor is indeed promising, and continuative study is merited.

Acknowledgments: This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51705408), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (xjj2017017), the Changjiang Scholars and
Innovative Research Team in University of China (No. IRT_14R45), and the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 51421004).
Author Contributions: You Zhao designed the sensor and analyzed the data, Yulong Zhao Contributed guidance
for sensor design and experiment, Xiaohui Ge performed the experiment.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Teti, R.; Jemielniak, K.; O’Donnell, G.; Dornfeld, D. Advanced monitoring of machining operations.
CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2010, 59, 717–739. [CrossRef]
2. Rehorn, A.G.; Jiang, J.; Orban, P.E. State-of-the-art methods and results in tool condition monitoring: A review.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2005, 26, 693–710. [CrossRef]
3. Abellan-Nebot, J.V.; Subiron, F.R. A review of machining monitoring systems based on artificial intelligence
process models. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2010, 47, 237–257. [CrossRef]
4. Dimla, D.E. Sensor signals for tool-wear monitoring in metal cutting operations—A review of methods.
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2000, 40, 1073–1098. [CrossRef]
5. Andersson, C.; Stahl, J.E.; Hellbergh, H. Bandsawing. Part II: Detecting positional errors, tool dynamics and
wear by cutting force measurement. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2001, 41, 237–253. [CrossRef]
6. Shin, B.C.; Ha, S.J.; Cho, M.W.; Seo, T.I.; Yoon, G.S.; Heo, Y.M. Indirect cutting force measurement in the
micro end-milling process based on frequency analysis of sensor signals. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24,
165–168. [CrossRef]
7. Zhu, J.; Wang, J.; Zhang, T.; Li, X. Dynamic milling force measuring method based on cutting tool vibration
displacement. Chin. J. Sci. Instrum. 2014, 35, 2772–2782.
8. Auchet, S.; Chevrier, P.; Lacour, M.; Lipinski, P. A new method of cutting force measurement based on
command voltages of active electro-magnetic bearings. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2004, 44, 1441–1449.
[CrossRef]
9. Li, X.L. Development of current sensor for cutting force measurement in turning. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.
2005, 54, 289–296. [CrossRef]
10. Jin, W.L.; Venuvinod, P.K.; Wang, X. An optical-fiber sensor-based cutting force measuring device.
Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 1995, 35, 877–883. [CrossRef]
11. Liu, M.; Zhou, Z.; Tao, X.; Tan, Y. A dynamometer design and analysis for measurement the cutting forces on
turning based on optical fiber bragg grating sensor. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Intelligent
Control and Automation (WCICA 2012), Beijing, China, 6–8 July 2012; Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc.: Beijing, China, 2012; pp. 4287–4290.
12. Audy, J. An appraisal of techniques and equipment for cutting force measurement. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci.
2006, 7, 1781–1789. [CrossRef]
13. Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, W.; Sun, L.; Jiang, Z. A high-performance multi-beam microaccelerometer for
vibration monitoring in intelligent manufacturing equipment. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2013, 189, 8–16.
[CrossRef]
14. Yaldiz, S.; Unsacar, F. A dynamometer design for measurement the cutting forces on turning. Measurement
2006, 39, 80–89. [CrossRef]
Micromachines 2018, 9, 30 11 of 11

15. Panzera, T.H.; Souza, P.R.; Rubio, J.C.C.; Abrao, A.M.; Mansur, T.R. Development of a three-component
dynamometer to measure turning force. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 62, 913–922. [CrossRef]
16. Yuan, Z.; Tang, Y.; Feng, Y. New octagonal ring cutting force dynamometer for turning. Mech. Eng. 1981, 2,
1–3.
17. Shan, Z.; Wang, X.; Cao, Z. Small octagonal ring and tool shaft type cutting force dynamometer for turning.
Appl. Technol. 1984, 1, 33–38.
18. Web Site of TeLc Company. Available online: http//:telc.de (accessed on 10 October 2017).
19. Lu, J.; Zhang, J.; Qian, M. Development of New Piezoelectric Dynamometer on Turning. Instrum. Tech. Sens.
2009, 12, 32–34.
20. Li, Q. Research on Cutting Force Measurement Technique by Alloy Film Sensor. Master’s Thesis,
North University of China, Taiyuan, China, 2014.
21. Zhao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liang, S.; Zhou, G. A high performance sensor for triaxial cutting force measurement in
turning. Sensors 2015, 15, 7969–7984. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Zhao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, C.; Liang, S.; Cheng, R.; Qin, Y.; Wang, P.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Hu, T. Design and
development of a cutting force sensor based on semi-conductive strain gauge. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2016,
237, 119–127. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).