T-based Lathe

Bethanylettiere.weebly.com
A T-based lathe consisting of two linear motion systems (LMS) with two lead screw driven
rotary motion systems (RMS) was assembled – see Figures 1-3. Attached to the carriage on one
of the LMS is the tool and the spindle is on the other. In this case, the spindle is a DC motor with
the work piece (nylon) press fit onto the shaft. This lathe was designed to cut nylon and is made
of primarily laser cut pieces of acrylic and delrin. This satisfies the “simple manufacturing”
portion of my FRDPARRC chart.
According to Suksawat, the cutting force for cutting nylon at a cutting speed of 68 m/min, feed
of 0.08 mm/rev, and a depth of cut of 1.75 mm is ~7.5 N ( 2010 Suksawat Chip Form
Classification and Main Cutting Force Prediction of Cast Nylon in Turning Operation Using
Artificial Neural Network). So, the expected loads for this system will be on the order of 7 N.
The following is the FRDPARRC chart for the entire lathe system (combined from the LMS and
RMS).

Lettiere 1
Figure 3 Side view of the assembled lathe, post cutting nylon

Figure 1 Overview of the assembled lathe.

Figure 2 Final CAD model of the assembled lathe.

Lettiere 2
 Linear Motion Slider
I assembled the linear motion slider (LMS) using 1/4 and 1/8 inch thick
laser cut acrylic screwed together. The top layer of the rails (thinner
piece of acrylic) has threaded holes, while the bottom two layers have
clearance fit holes. The manufacturing and assembly of this system was
rather simple. Two carriages were made to accommodate the lathe tool
and spindle. They both rely on the same system of a slot mechanism to
epoxy the tool or spindle support.
Test
The stiffness of the spindle in the Y,Z, yaw, pitch, roll was calculated and Figure 4: Definitions of roll,
measured as well as the accuracy and repeatability. A summary of the pitch, and yaw. Note: x-
direction is the direction of
calculations and measurements are shown below in Figure 5:
travel

Figure 5 Summary of results: accuracy, repeatability, roll, pitch, yaw, stiffness in Y and Z.

Repeatability and Accuracy

The set-up for measuring repeatability and

accuracy is shown in Figure 6. The calculation
for accuracy is shown in Figure 8, where the
“wiggle” in the system was calculated.
Repeatability was calculated to be half the
accuracy. The accuracy was measured by
attaching a laser pointer to the top of the LMS
and rotating the carriage to the left or right
(moving to the edge of the railing system) and
measuring the displacement of the laser pointer.

Figure 6 Set-up for measuring the accuracy and repeatability

Lettiere 3
 The repeatability was measured by marking the position of the laser at the beginning of the slider
and at the end of the slider’s motion and repeating this motion.

Figure 7 Example of the accuracy and repeatability marking. This is for the
system without the lead screw. The dots circled in purple are the accuracy
measurements for the left and right side wiggle. The purple circle in the middle
marks the center point of the laser before the moving it. The repeatability is
shown by the blue dots and crosses. The crosses represent the location of the
laser when the LMS is at the beginning of the run and the dot represent the
location of the laser when the LMS is at the end of the run.

Figure 8 Calculation for the accuracy of the system. The

carriage is shown in teal/black

Stiffness
The stiffness was calculated using both a laser pointer test and a dial indicator. For all of the
angular stiffnesses, the stiffness is calculated from the measured values by finding the average
distance from center – the shift - and dividing that shift by the projected distance to get the
angular deflection. Then, the angular deflection is divided by either the force or the moment
(depending on the calculations) to calculate stiffness.
Roll, Yaw, Pitch
The set-up for measuring the roll, yaw, and pitch stiffness is shown in Figure 9. The stiffnesses
were calculated by applying a load using a 50 N spring scale and marking the deflection of a
laser beam from a distance away (shown at the below each testing set-up. The model for the
calculations is shown in Figure 10.

Lettiere 4
Figure 9 Set-up and laser pointer marks for roll, yaw, and pitch measurements.

As shown in Figure 10(left), the roll stiffness calculation was modeled as a cantilever beam fixed
at one end. This is because the center of the carriage is bolted in and essentially fixed. The
measured and calculated stiffness are on the same order of magnitude, but not close. The
differences may stem from a variety of factors such as the calculation being a conservative
estimate, the center not being fixed (possibility of clearance) resulting in the system deflecting
more than predicted by the fixed center. There could also be deviation due to the uncertainty in
applied force (± 3N).
Similar to the roll, the yaw (shown in Figure 10(middle)) was modeled as a cantilever from the
edge where the load is applied to the bolt. The load is applied 1 inch from where the bolt is fixed
end of the cantilever. The measured stiffness is close to the calculated values because the system
is close to the modeled system – a simple beam with a point load. The deviations seen are most
likely due to measurement error and the uncertainty in applied force (± 3N).

Lettiere 5
The clamp shown in Figure 10(right( when measuring the pitch was used to prevent the carriage
from moving in the x-direction under load. The system was modeled as a simply supported beam
with a moment applied in the middle. The difference can attributed to the uncertainty in applied
force - the calculated stiffness is close (within 5%) to the measured stiffness when accounting
for that error.

Figure 10 Model of how the stiffnesses in the roll, yaw, and pitch direction were calculated

Y,Z Stiffness
The stiffness in the Z was measured using a dial indicator. The dial indicator was placed on one
side of the carriage. After applying a 50 N load, there was no change in the dial indicator reading
(resolution 12.7 μm). Since the slow is a relatively wide, thick piece of material, the load would
be uniformly applied along the length. Therefore, the system was modeled as a beam with simply
supported ends with uniformly distributed loads. The calculated stiffness is shown in Figure 5
and is much larger than the capabilities available to test. The capabilities are defined on the order
of 5 N/ μm to see a deflection using the spring scale and dial indicator available.
The stiffness in the Y was not measured because it’s stiffness is
still above the capabilities of testing using the available spring
scale and dial indicators. The stiffness in the Y direction was
approximated as a simply pinned cantilever. The length of the
cantilever is said to be the gap between the screws. Therefore, the
largest deflection would be in the middle of between two screws.
However, this is assuming a point load between the two screws,
which wouldn’t be achievable in real applications. It would be a
distributed load, which would result a higher stiffness (604 N/
μm versus 22 N/ μm). Therefore, the stiffness in the Y direction
wouldn’t be measurable either.
Rotary Motion Slider
The rotary motion slider consisted of a threaded rod attached to
Figure 11: Rotary Motion Slider with a
the carriage of the linear motion slider through a nut. This is
threaded rod attached to the carriage shown in Figure 11.
via a delrin nut.

Lettiere 6
 Testing
First, I used a dial indicator to measure the displacement of
the leadscrew while turning. This was done by placing the
dial indicator at the edge of the lead screw. The lead screw
deflected 90 µm. This load can be attributed to two things.
One, machining error - as per my drawing the lead screw it
turned down twice. Once to fit in the bearings and another
time to be threaded for a nut. For the bearing section, it
should be ½’’ long to fit into both bearings. However, my
specs state it can be 120 µm longer, so that is possible
where some of the deflection is coming from. Two, the
support/bearing might be deflecting under the thrust force.

Next, y-repeatability was testing by placing a dial indicator

sliding along the top of the carriage as the lead screw was
turned. The results can be found in Figure 13.

Figure 12 Set-up for measuring the y-

repeatability of the lead screw

Figure 13 y-repeatability with respect to the number of turns of the handle.

The non-straightness of the thread can be predicted by the y-variation.

𝑘𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝛿𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝛿 = 0.083 𝑚𝑚
𝑘𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
I can shim a piece of paper underneath my lead screw when I place it on a granite surface and a
piece of paper is 0.1 mm thick – so the straightness is approximately correct.
I measured the displacement of the carriage per turn by placing a dial indicator on the edge of
carriage and moving the carriage forward, see Figure 14. After one turn, the carriage moved 0.89

Lettiere 7
 mm. The threaded rod is ¼-28 - which would mean there’s a
displacement of 0.91 mm per turn. The small deviation may be due to
precisely turn the handle one full rotation or measurement error.
I tested was the deflection of the delrin support under a load.
Unfortunately, forgot to take a picture of the test prior to finishing my
assembly (which I can’t really take apart because I glued the supports
in), so a sketch will have to do. I only fixed one of the delrin supports
and used a 50 N fish scale and a dial indicator to apply force/measure
deflection, respectively.
Under a 50 N load, the system deflected 444.5 µm. When only
considering the deflection of the support structure, the deflection under
Figure 14 Measuring the 50 N load is only 310 µm. The difference could be attributed to the
displacement of the carriage keeper plate on the LMS. The keeper plate is a 1/8’’ piece of acrylic that
per turn of the lead screw
is deflecting along with the support structure. Accounting for this, the
additional deflection is 98 µm, for a grad total of 408 µm calculated deflection. The additional
deflection may be attributed to the a combination of uncertainty in the force (±2N), uncertainty
in the dial indicator (±6.3 µm), and possible imperfect epoxying of the support onto the LMS.

Figure 15 Set-up for measuring the deflection of the lead screw supports under load. The load was applied by a fish scale
hooked through the holes for the bearings. A dial indicator was placed approximately in the top-center of the support.

Figure 16 Set-up for measuring run out of the system

Lettiere 8
Next, I used a dial indicator to measure the run out of the leadscrew while turning. This was done
by placing a dial indicator on the external threads of the leadscrew and measuring the deflection
as I rotated the lead screw one turn. After one turn, the tip of the lead screw deflected up 190 µm
and down 127 µm for a total deflection of 317 µm. I’m not sure how to calculate run-out, but I
assumed it was similar to accuracy. The diameter of the bearing is 4.78 mm and the diameter of
the shaft is, at the largest 4.72 mm. If we model this as the “wiggle” as shown in Figure 8, the
wobble/error at the location of measurement would be 357 µm. The total deflection 317 µm is
close to the predicted, but the difference may be attributed to errors in the diameter of the bearing
and the shaft.
Lathe
The lathe was assembled using a piece of delrin as the base to connect the two LMS/RMS. The
alignment of the two LMS/RMS was measured by using a dial indicator to align one LMS (tool
axis) along an axis of the mill – a known “straight” - see Figure 17a. Then measuring the
“straightness” of the perpendicular axis (spindle axis), see Figure 17b. The spindle axis deflected
0.15 mm over 13.4 mm leading to a misalignment of 0.011 radians.

Figure 17 (a) measuring the "straightness" of the tool axis with the mill (b) measuring the "straightness" of the spindle
(perpendicular axis).

Using a dial indicator, the profile of the cut was measured. Sixteen points were measured, as
shown in Figure 19. Based off the dial indicator measurements shown in Figure 18, the angle of
the slope is 0.047 radians. On the first order, the profile is related to the misalignment of the two
axis and the deflection of the tool.

Lettiere 9
 Figure 19 Measuring the profile of the
cutting using a dial indicator

The deflection of the tool was

Figure 18 Profile of the cut as measured by a dial indicator. The top
measured using a dial indicator and image shows the lines measured and the bottom shows the profile of
spring scale. I applied a load of 20 N the cut
(max of the scale) and scaled the
measured displacement for what forces I expect when cutting the nylon (7 N). The deflection of
the tool consists of a few parts – (1) deflection of the tool, (2) deflection of the tool holder, and
(3) deflection of the carriage. Focusing first on the deflection for 20 N, the measured deflection
was 2.54 mm. The calculated deflection is 2.70 mm. The deviation between measured and
calculated may be due to errors associated with measuring the force (±3 N) or errors in the
measurement using the dial indicator. Dropping this down to 7 N (the expected force for a small
pass on nylon), the deflection
is 0.89 mm. The angle of the
deflected tool is 0.035
radians.
Focusing back on the profile
of the cut, the angle
associated with both the
alignment and the deflection
of the tool is 0.046 radians.
Figure 20 Images of the cut piece of nylon

Lettiere 10

Figure 21 Set-up for measuring the displacement
of the spindle under load
The measured slope of the cut is 0.045 radians. The two
are reasonably close.
The deflection of the spindle was also measured using a
spring scale and a dial indicator. The deflection of the
spindle can be broken down into three parts – (1)
deflection of the spindle tip (assumed to be a cantilever),
(2) deflection of the spindle tip holder, and (3) deflection
of the carriage. The measured total deflection under a 20
N load is 0.203 mm. The calculated deflection for each of
the parts above are: 0.020 mm, 0.013 mm, and 0.18 mm,
respectively, for a total calculated deflection of 0.216 mm.
The deviation may be due to assuming the spindle tip is a
cantilever and due to measurement errors / deviations in
the applied force (±3 N).

Error Budget
An error budget model was made for this system.
The applied load is for cutting a piece of nylon. According to Suksawat, the cutting force for
cutting nylon at a cutting speed of 68 m/min, feed of 0.08 mm/rev, and a depth of cut of 1.75 mm
is ~7.5 N( 2010 Suksawat Chip Form Classification and Main Cutting Force Prediction of Cast
Nylon in Turning Operation Using Artificial Neural Network). I’m assuming the thrust force will
be on the same order of magnitude.
In regards to the error budget spreadsheet, I followed the spreadsheet provided by Professor
Slocum. The CS from class is implemented – Y up, X – away from user, Z along spindle. As
described on the summary slide, my system is broken down into 5 coordinate systems (CS).
1. CS-1 is the LMS carriage attached to the tool
2. CS-2 is the base connecting the LMS with the tool and the LMS attached to the spindle
3. CS-3 is the LMS carriage attached to the spindle
4. CS-4 is the spindle on the LMS
5. CS-5 is the work piece (WP).

For CS-1 and -3, the stiffnesses were the stiffnesses measured and/or calculated in for the LMS
in the previous week. The rail compliance is bundled into attachment point stiffness because the
bushing stiffness is high.
For CS-2, the base was modeled as being “infinitely” stiff. There would be stiffnesses associated
with connection of the LMS and the base, but for the first order estimate, I’m assuming it’ll be
infinitely stiff.
CS-5 is modeled as a piece of nylon that’s fixed-free attached to the spindle.

Lettiere 11
 CS-4 was modeled as shown in the following figure:

Where there’s two

springs (support shaft,
lead screw) connected
by a bearing (much
stiffer than the two
springs). Since the
system is symmetric, it
was cut in half and the
stiffness was multiplied
by two. The position of
the carriage on the lead
screw will change the
Figure 22 Model of CS-4 - the spindle
stiffness, but for the sake
of a first order analysis,
the carriage is assumed to be in the middle of the system.

Figure 23 Summary of errors from error budget spreadsheet All displacements are in mm and this is under a 7 N load.

The geometric errors seem low, considering that most of my machine is made out of acrylic or
delrin, however the cutting forces are low, so this might be reasonable. The systematic errors
stem from the errors associated with laser cutting (114 µm) and the tolerance of a mill to
machine the spindle (12.7 µm).
Conclusion
I’ve successfully designed and manufactured a T-based lathe using laser cutting as the primary
manufacturing method. This lathe was constructed by designing two linear motion sliders with
rotary motion systems attached. The stiffness and deflection of the LMS and RMS systems were
calculated and measured. The lathe successfully turned a piece of nylon with a depth of cut of
0.5 mm.
The overall stiffness of the system (0.04 N/μm) is lower than initially planned (~0.1 N/μm) . This
is mostly attributed to the system being made out of delrin and acrylic instead of a stiffer
material, such as aluminum. In additional, the system is larger than initially planned to
accommodate the spindle. In addition, since the system is primarily laser cut, this introduces

Lettiere 12
more systematic errors. However, another functional requirement was simple manufacturing, so I
traded some stiffness for a simpler manufacturing process (laser cutting instead of milling/lathe).

Lettiere 13