Coordinate metrology often involves fitting a geometric surface to coordinate data. The increasingly rigorous approaches to uncertainty evaluation being developed across metrology have been reflected in the need to evaluate the uncertainties associated with coordinate data and calculate how these uncertainties are propagated through to uncertainties associated with the parameters describing the fitted surface. Standard least squares algorithms such as orthogonal distance regression (ODR) for finding the best-fit surface implicitly assume that the uncertainties associated with the coordinates are uncorrelated and axis-isotropic, i.e. the uncertainties associated with the x-, y- and z-coordinates are equal, but very few coordinate measuring systems have such uncertainty characteristics. Given a model of the measurement system, it is possible to propagate uncertainties associated with systematic and random effects influencing the measurements to determine an uncertainty matrix associated with the measured coordinates. This uncertainty matrix will generally be full, reflecting correlation amongst all the measured coordinates, but will have a factorization structure that gives a compact representation of the sources of uncertainty. In this paper, we derive surface fitting algorithms that take account of the coordinate uncertainties in order to provide maximum likelihood estimates of the surface parameters. We show that ODR algorithms can be adapted to take into account the type of uncertainty matrices that arise in practice, exploiting the factorization structure to enable very efficient implementations of these algorithms. As a result, a significant class of surface fitting problems can be solved efficiently using standard nonlinear least squares algorithms. We also discuss how the algorithms can be modified to account for probe radius effects. The calculation of the uncertainties associated with the fitted surface parameters is also derived in such a way that systematic effects associated with the measuring system, such as scale errors, are automatically accounted for.
[1]
Enrico Canuto,et al.
Coordinate Measuring Machines and Machine Tools Selfcalibration and Error Correction
,
1987
.
[2]
A. Balsamo,et al.
Results of the CIRP-Euromet Intercomparison of Ball Plate-Based Techniques for Determining CMM Parametric Errors
,
1997
.
[3]
George Trapp,et al.
Using Complex Variables to Estimate Derivatives of Real Functions
,
1998,
SIAM Rev..
[4]
R. Fletcher.
Practical Methods of Optimization
,
1988
.
[5]
B. Lu,et al.
A Displacement Method for Machine Geometry Calibration
,
1988
.
[6]
Yan-yan Zhan,et al.
Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
,
1995
.
[7]
A. Forbes.
Least-squares best-fit geometric elements.
,
1991
.
[8]
Bernard Butler,et al.
OPTIMISATION ALGORITHMS FOR GENERALISED DISTANCE REGRESSION IN METROLOGY
,
2000
.
[9]
Maurice G. Cox,et al.
AUTOMATIC DIFFERENTIATION AND ITS APPLICATION IN METROLOGY
,
2004
.
[10]
Jean-Pierre Kruth,et al.
Self-calibration method and software error correction for three dimensional coordinate measuring machines using artefact measurements
,
1994
.
[11]
Bernard Butler,et al.
The Reconstruction of Workpiece Surfaces from Probe Coordinate Data
,
1992,
IMA Conference on the Mathematics of Surfaces.
[12]
Alistair B. Forbes,et al.
Surface fitting taking into account uncertainty structure in coordinate data
,
2006
.
[13]
William T. Estler,et al.
The Calculation of CMM Measurement Uncertainty via The Method of Simulation by Constraints | NIST
,
1997
.
[14]
Gerald Farin,et al.
Curves and surfaces for computer aided geometric design
,
1990
.
[15]
Maurice G. Cox,et al.
Experimental Design In Determining TheParametric Errors Of CMMS
,
1970
.
[16]
Alistair B. Forbes,et al.
Reference software for finding Chebyshev best-fit geometric elements
,
1996
.