Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281289645
READS
39
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Xiangchao Zhang
Hao Zhang
Fudan University
36 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Xiaoying He
Fudan University
49 PUBLICATIONS 294 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
1. INTRODUCTION
With the rapid development of advanced design and manufacturing technologies, freeform components are increasingly
applied in modern opto-mechanical systems, because of their compact sizes, small weights, flexibility in
design/utilization and some attractive capabilities of system integration, realizing various novel functions and remedying
the drawbacks of traditional components. These freeform components realize the intended functionalities by their forms;
thereby the evaluation of the form errors with respect to their nominal shapes has become a central task of freeform
surface metrology.
In the ISO standards and commercial precision instruments, various fitting objectives and algorithms have been
developed. In ISO 5459, the objective functions of least squares, minimum zone, one-sided Chebyschev, maximum
inscribed, minimum circumscribed and the Lp-norm are defined [1, 2]. As for the freeform surfaces, the L1 norm, the
least squares and the minimum zone fitting are commonly adopted in accordance with the specific properties and
applications of the measured data,
N
L1 norm
min d i
i =1
N
least squares
min d i2
(1)
i =1
minimum zone
min max d i
i
In the equation, di denotes the signed deviation of data point pi with respect to the nominal shape and N is the number of
data points. Among these three criteria, the least squares approach is most widely used due to its ease of computation and
unbiasedness for the normally distributed noise, but bias will be caused in the obtained form error metrics. The solutions
of the L1 norm and the minimum zone fitting are unbiased for long-tailed and uniformly distributed errors, respectively.
In addition, the minimum zone approach can obtain the smallest parameter of form deviation, complying with the
*
definitions in the ISO 1101 [3]. However, these two objectives are non-differentiable, and thus very difficult to be solved,
especially for the freeform surfaces with complex mathematical representations. Recently some algorithms have been
proposed to solve the L1 norm and minimum zone fitting/matching problem [4-7]. Researchers mainly focused on the
form error parameters obtained, but the reliability of the solutions, i.e. the rotational angles, translation vectors, axis
orientations, shape parameters etc were not examined rigorously.
In order to verify the reliability and stability of the fitting algorithms, the uncertainty of the solutions have to be
estimated. The approaches to the uncertainty estimation have been investigated by many groups and scholars. Some of
the typical principles or methods are provided by Evaluation of measurement data-Guide to the expression of
uncertainty in measurement (GUM) [8] and Monte Carlo (MC) method [9]. The GUM technique can be employed to
assess simple processes, but it is impractical or impossible for the nonlinear minimum zone fitting of freeform surfaces.
Some researchers estimated the uncertainty of straightness and flatness calculation using MC method [10, 11]. The MC
method is a sampling technique that provides rich information by propagating the distributions for the input quantities.
AA
RMS
PV
1 N
di
N i =1
1 N 2
di
N i =1
max d i min d i
(2)
It is known that the objective function of surface fitting should be consistent with the form error parameter to be
calculated. In surface metrology the form deviations are usually assessed along the z direction only. It is known the
solutions of such algebraic fitting are unstable and sensitive to measurement noise [12]. Moreover, the obtained error
parameters are prone to be biased and over-estimated when the surfaces are highly curved [13]. As a result we adopt
orthogonal distance fitting here, i.e. the form deviations are calculated along the normal vectors of the nominal surfaces.
To assess the influence of the different configurations, including the objective functions, noise amplitudes and surface
shapes, the fitting program is run repetitively for M times, with random noise added onto the sampled data. To make the
calculation results faithfully reflect the properties of the fitting algorithms, it is important to ensure that no bias is
introduced by the added noise, i.e. the mean shapes and positions of the noisy data should always be identical with the
reference datums.
N
shape preserving
=0
i =1
N
rest in x direction
=0
i =1
N
rest in y direction
(3)
yi = 0
i =1
N
rest in z direction
=0
i =1
Here xi , yi and zi are the x, y and z components of the form deviation di, respectively.
In practice, outliers and defects are usually removed in advance, hence they are not considered here.
Then the distribution of the parameters of interest is analyzed. The mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis are
calculated respectively to assess the bias, dispersion, symmetry and peakedness of the distribution of each calculated
parameter,
ME =
mean
standard deviation
skewness
kurtosis
1
N
i =1
1 N
( xi ME )2
N 1 i =1
N
1
SK =
( xi ME ) 3
( N 1) SD 3 i =1
N
1
KU =
( xi ME )4
( N 1) SD 4 i =1
SD =
(4)
The implementing procedure of Monte Carlo estimation of the fitting uncertainty is presented in Figure 1.
change
configuration
generate
surface data
M times
add random
noise
surface fitting
analyze
distribution
establish
correlation
Figure 1. Procedure of Monte-Carlo estimation of fitting uncertainty
x 2 / Rx + y 2 / R y
1 + 1 (1 + k x ) x 2 / Rx2 (1 + k y ) y 2 / Ry2
+ a2 i x 2 i + b2 j y 2 j
i =2
(5)
j =2
In the equation, Rx=50 mm and Ry=60 mm are the radii of curvature and cx= -0.3 and cy=0.5 are conic factors. The
coefficients of polynomial terms are set as a4=3.5e-6, b4=-2.8e-6, a6=-1.9e-10 and b6=6.3e-9. A set of 200 200 points
are taken as measured data.
ME
SD
SK
KU
Rx
50.0000
0.0008
-0.0632
3.2891
kx
-0.30000
0.0003
-0.0033
2.7053
a4
3.50e-6
5.96e-10
-0.1692
3.0918
a6
-1.90e-10
4.94e-13
-0.2099
3.4022
AA
4.78e-4
2.84e-6
0.0959
3.0826
RMS
6.00e-4
3.23e-6
0.1067
3.4439
PV
0.0047
2.51e-4
0.6251
3.3067
parameters
ME
SD
SK
KU
Rx
50.0111
0.2752
-0.0191
3.1276
kx
-0.3033
0.0592
0.1645
2.1946
a4
3.51e-6
1.6420e-7
-0.0277
2.8722
a6
-1.95e-10
8.64e-11
0.0786
2.3807
AA
4.79e-4
2.85e-6
0.0826
3.0216
RMS
6.00e-4
3.24e-6
0.1094
3.4112
PV
0.0025
1.80e-4
1.1379
5.4346
( s ) / s0 100% . Here s and ( s ) are the mean and standard deviation of the fitted shape parameter s, and s0 is its
ideal value.
2
10
10
Rx
kx
a4
a6
10
0
10
10
Ry
ky
b4
b6
10
-2
10
Rx
kx
a4
a6
-4
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
(a) bias
Ry
ky
b4
b6
0.8
10
-1
10
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
(b) uncertainty
The x shape parameters Rx, kx, a4 and a6 are increasingly biased when the data set narrows down in the x direction. The
uncertainties are getting worse simultaneously. This is straightforward to understand. When the surface is narrowed, the
form is flattened, as a result the data correspond to only a small section on the original surface. Slight variation of data in
the z direction can cause remarkable change to the fitted shape parameters. This is consistent with the conclusions of [12].
Interestingly, the y parameters Ry, ky, b4 and b6 show a different trend. When the x coordinates are relatively small, the
coefficients associated with y dominate in the Hessian and Jacobian matrices. As a result the observation matrix will be
less affected by the x terms, and the numerical conditions of the y parameters can in turn be improved.
This finding implies the numerical condition of the observation matrix is critical to the performance of the fitting
algorithms of complex shapes. When the program is unsatisfactory, there are two feasible approaches to improving the
numerically stability of the fitting algorithms. One is subdividing the unknown parameters into groups, and updating
each group alternatively. It is common to have three groups in practice, the six motion parameters (rotation angles and
translation components), the base radii and conic factors, and the polynomial coefficients. The other technique is scaling.
Since the polynomials xk or yk are normally the greatest in the observation matrix, thus these terms determine the
numerical stability of the whole system. It is suggested to scale down the whole data set so as to make the greatest x and
y coordinates into 1. Then the values of the elements in the Hessian and Jacobian matrices can be balanced, thereafter
improving their numerical stability. The fitted shape parameters should be scaled back accordingly after the program
terminates.
4. CONCLUSIONS
For complex freeform surfaces, the objective functions, noise amplitudes, surface shapes, and configuration parameters
of the fitting algorithms severely affect the reliability of the fitted results. By theoretical analysis and numerical
experiments it is found that the solutions, including the motion and shape parameters of the L1 and least squares are
determined by the mean of all the data points, thus they are very stable. On the contrary, the solutions of minimum zone
fitting are determined by only several key points, hence the fitted surface may be severely shifted or tilt. If the tolerance
width is of concern, the minimum zone fitting can obtain much better deviation values, with similar uncertainties with
the L1 norm and least squares fitting. The curvedness of the surface is critical to the numerical stability of the program. It
is feasible to subdivide the unknown parameters or scale down the data sets in practice to improve the numerical
conditions of the observation matrices, so as to control the bias and uncertainty in the solutions of complex surface fitting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (51205064),
Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (12ZR1441100), Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher
Education (20120071120018) and Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Precision Manufacturing Technology, CAEP
(KF14004).
REFERENCES
1. Zhang, X., Freeform surface fitting for precision coordinate metrology, PhD thesis, University of Huddersfield,
UK (2009).
2. ISO 5459 Geometrical product specifications (GPS) -- Geometrical tolerancing -- Datums and datum systems,
(2011).
3. ISO 1101 Geometrical product specifications-geometrical tolerancing-Tolerances of form, orientation, location and
run-out, (2012).
4. Zhang, X., Jiang, X. and Scott, P.J., Orthogonal distance fitting of precision freeform surfaces based on L1 norm,
in Pavese, F et al, [Advanced Mathematical and Computational Tools in Metrology and Testing], World Scientific, 385390 (2009).
5. Gosavi, A. and Cudney E. A., Form errors in precision metrology: a survey of measurement techniques, Quality
Engineering 24(3), 369-380(2012).
6. Liu, J., Calculation of profile error for complex surface, Measurement 48, 183-186 (2014).
7. Zhang, X., Jiang, X. and Scott, P.J., Minimum zone evaluation of the form errors of quadric surfaces, Precision
Engineering 35,383-389 (2011).
8. JCGM 100, Evaluation of measurement data-Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, (2008).
9. JCGM 101, Evaluation of measurement data-Supplement 1 to the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement-Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method, (2008).
10. Wen, X., Xu, Y., Li, H., et al. Monte Carlo method for the uncertainty evaluation of spatial straightness based on
new generation geometrical product specification, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 25(5), 875-881 (2012).
11. Calvo, R., Gomez, E. and Domingo, R., Vectorial method of minimum zone tolerance for flatness, straightness,
and their uncertainty estimation, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 15(1), 31-44 (2014).
12. Sun, W., McBride, J.W. and Hill, M., A new approach to characterizing aspheric surfaces, Precision Engineering
34, 171-179 (2010).
13. Zhang, X., Zhang, H., He, X. and Xu, M., Bias in parameter estimation of form errors, Surface Topography:
Metrology and Properties2(3),035006 (2014).
14. Boggs, P.T., Byrd, R.H. and Schabel, R.B., A stable and efficient algorithm for nonlinear orthogonal distance
regression, SIAM J Stat Comput. 8(6), 1052-1078 (1987).