Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Methods for evaluation of systematic geometric deviations in machined parts and their relationships to process variables
R.P. Henkea, K.D. Summerhaysb,*, J.M. Baldwinc, R.M. Cassoub, C.W. Brownd
Micro Vu, Inc., 7909 Conde Lane, Windsor, CA 95492, USA University of San Francisco, Harney Science Center, Room 409, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080, USA c Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 969, MS9133, Livermore, CA 94551-0969, USA d Allied Signal Inc., Federal Manufacturing & Technologies Division, D/458, 2B27, P.O. Box 419159, Kansas City, MO 64141-6159, USA
b a

Received 2 November 1998; accepted 26 April 1999

Abstract Increasing demands for precision-machined parts put a greater emphasis on achieving a better understanding of the relationships between manufacturing process variables and deviations from perfect geometric forms. To achieve this understanding, it is important to have high-quality metrology data on part features, which (in some sense) span the range of variability in form for the process under study. The problem is complex, involving the machine tool itself, materials, xtures, cutters, feeds, speeds, and many other factors. In this report, a method is introduced that can identify key deviations from perfect form and can elucidate their dependence on some of the factors enumerated above. This work presents two useful models for form errors of cylindrical features and develops special cases of those models to suit specic requirements. One is an analytical model based on Chebyshev polynomials to model the axial errors and Fourier series to model angular dependencies. The second modeling approach uses the techniques of principal component analysis to extract a basis set of characteristic shapes directly from the measurement data. This report includes a full development of the mathematical basis for the analysis and concludes with some application examples. 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Machining; Process understanding; Form error; Principal component analysis; Chebyshev polynomial; Fourier series; Eigen shapes

1. Introduction It is well understood that all manufactured surfaces exhibit departures from the ideal; for example, from the design specication, with respect to location, size, shape, and smoothness. These deviations can be random or systematic or, most commonly, a more or less complex combination of both. It is useful to regard such deviations as products of the entire production process, including the effects of such factors as material properties, the fundamental nature of the machining or forming process, the static and dynamic behaviors of the machine tool, the properties of the machining cutter (again, both static and dynamic), the specic operating conditions (feeds and speeds), thermal effects in both machine tool and workpiece, forces imposed by chucking or xturing, and perhaps even operator effects. Furthermore,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 415-422-6530; fax: 415-422-5800. E-mail address: summerhays@usfca.edu (K.D. Summerhays)

the nal shape of the workpiece may bear the imprint of successive operations [1]. Correlations of dimensional, shape, and texture information with process parameters are of interest across the entire manufacturing regime [2,3]. They can help the design engineer to arrive at a product denition that is, in some sense, optimal. They can provide information to the production engineer to control part manufacture. They can assist the work of the metrologist, who must provide data for part acceptance and for feedback into the design and production functions. Finally, detailed descriptions of the surfaces actually produced in machining operations are required as criteria of success by workers attempting to develop models of machining processes [4]. The need for ways to express the character of manufactured surfaces systematically has been recognized for over 60 years [5]. The literature is far too extensive to review here, but progress in surface characterization has been exhaustively chronicled by Whitehouse [6,7]. Early attempts at surface characterization focused on compact parameterizations of surface properties, on the dual grounds that the

0141-6359/99/$ see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 6 3 5 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 3 - 9

274

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

measurements for surface characterization and the means for expression of the results must be within reach of the typical shop oor [8]. As restrictions on available computing power have relaxed, more computationally intensive descriptors of surface character have been adopted, although most of these still have been based on data from onedimensional (1-D) surface scans. The majority of published approaches have been based on treatment of the manufacturing system as a random process [8 12] and employ the amplitude probability density and/or the autocorrelation function (or related functions) of the surface. Raja and Radhakrishnan [13] approximated surface proles of turned and ground surfaces with Fourier series. Watson and Spedding [14] used time series to model processes that produce non-Gaussian height distributions. Whitehouse [12] demonstrated that the parameters of the beta function can be used to discriminate the process used to produce a surface and that the typology so developed is more sensitive than one based on the third and fourth central moments. Murthy et al. [15] demonstrated similar success with the parameters of the log-normal distribution. Although these descriptors of surface quality convey useful information in a relatively compact manner, the desirability of more detailed descriptions of the manufactured surface is clear. The foregoing descriptors suppress information about the directionality of surface structure and, for the most part, of phase relationships. The statistical measures of roughness presume a model that is realized primarily in nely nished surfaces and so, although very useful in providing information fundamental to the machining process, are not particularly effective in elucidating the inuences of process variables, that are more commonly manifested as waviness, lay, form, or dimensional errors [3]. None of them deals well with sharp transitions or discontinuities in the surface. It seems possible that the relatively abstract nature of statistical measures of surface quality has worked against their adoption on the shop oor. Furthermore, the availability, in just the past few years, of inexpensive yet powerful facilities for computation and data visualization should alleviate some past motivations for extremely compact parameterizations, while opening the way for more detailed and intuitively accessible presentations of surface information. A few workers have attempted to treat the full threedimensional (3-D) topography of the surface. McAdams et al. [16] applied factor analysis techniques to model the topography of a coated abrasive surface. Peklenik and Kubo [17,18] extended the correlation function approach to two surface coordinates. It is interesting to note that their approach permits an estimation of surface isotropy or lay. Nayak [19] has applied random process analysis to twodimensional (2-D) isotropic surfaces, computing 3-D surface spectral moments from 2-D prole data. Whitehouse and Phillips [20] have reported computation of the 2-D parameters of a random surface, based on the autocorrelation function. Sato and O-hori [21] generated 2-D contour

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the cylinder artifact.

maps of surface roughness using Fourier analysis techniques. Boudreau and Raja [22] used the cross correlation function of parallel prole scans to analyze the lay characteristics of surfaces. The present report describes a methodology that can serve to identify, in workpiece dimensional measurement data, key systematic deviations from the ideal geometry and their dependence on some of the factors enumerated in the rst paragraph. Our illustrations of the technique are based on coordinate measuring machine (CMM) observations of a particular geometry; that is, machined cylindrical holes. It should be noted (and is demonstrated in subsequent reports) that the methods are applicable to point dimensional data, regardless of measuring device and nominal feature geometry. In addition, it will be seen that, although the point data presented below were obtained with spherical probes of 1- to 2-mm diameter and roughness information therefore may be signicantly attenuated, our methods are expected to apply equally well for systematic errors of any mean length for which the particular measuring system is sensitive.

2. Experimental 2.1. Description of the test artifact This work was conducted using two series of nominally identical artifacts intended to provide machining process characteristics data on internal cylindrical features. The artifact design is shown schematically in Fig. 1. They were produced from cast aluminum plate machined to nominal 1-inch (25.4 mm) thickness, and each contained 50 full internal cylindrical features, through, blind, and counterbored, of various sizes and depths, produced by a variety of machining techniques. All holes were started with a center-drill operation, followed by

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

275

drilling to nominal or near-nominal size (designated C/D). Some of the holes were further nished by reaming (C/D/R), boring/reaming (C/D/B/R), plunge end milling (C/D/P), or peripheral milling (C/D/M). Nominal hole sizes ranged from 1/16- to 1-inch (1.59 25.4 mm) diameter. Nominal hole depths were between 1/4 inch (6.35 mm) and the full thickness of the plate. Complete and detailed specications of the artifact are given in a separate report [23]. An initial series of 30 artifacts was produced at Allied Signal Federal Manufacturing and Technologies Division on a K&T Orion 2200 horizontal machining center with a Gemini-D System 65 controller. A further series of six artifacts was produced at Sandia National Laboratories on a Cincinnati Milacron horizontal machining center using the same machining parameters as for the rst series and, as far as possible, the same machining cutters. (A few were replaced because of breakage at various points in both production cycles.) 2.2. Measurement of the test artifact Measurements of the inside cylindrical features on all artifacts were taken with a Moore Special Tool Company Model M48V measuring machine, the basic performance capabilities of which have been described in detail elsewhere [24]. For all measurements, the artifacts were positioned with the nominal hole axes parallel to the machine z-axis, in a simple 3-2-1 xture. In all instances, the data were gathered in 37 vertical scans at equiangular intervals around the circumference of the feature. For through holes, data were taken over the complete vertical extent of the feature. For blind and counterbored holes, data taking was terminated approximately 0.5 mm above the nominal bottom of the feature. The number of discrete points taken per feature was in the range of 103 to 2 104, depending upon the feature size. Two different analog electromechanical probes, each with its own data collection system, were used in this work. The rst was a Federal Model A-D-4331 electronic indicator mounted in the rotary spindle of the M48V measuring machine. The worst case uncertainty of the radial distance measurement was estimated to be about 0.6 m. Details of the data collection and control systems, probe calibration, and the error budget estimate are given by Baldwin et al. [23]. Data on the rst set of 30 artifacts was collected with this system. Subsequently, the control and data analysis systems of the measuring machine were upgraded. The upgraded system consisted of a Leitz B2 controller and Leitz Quindos software running on a Digital Equipment Corporation Alpha 3000 computer. This control and data analysis system was used in conjunction with a Tridim 3-D analog probe with a stylus diameter of 2 mm to measure the second set of six artifacts. The uncertainty of the positional data derived with this probing system is similar to that of the earlier arrangement [23]. Data were collected in the same pattern

and approximately the same point density as for the rst set. Several artifacts from the rst set were measured as well with this system. There was no indication of signicant difference between the quality or the information content of the data produced by the two systems. Fig. 2 shows data obtained on a typical hole, in this case, one produced by center-drilling followed by drilling to nished size. Here are shown the residuals to the leastsquares t of a cylinder, with the radial coordinate plotted on a magnied scale. The upper four views represent successive 90 rotations of the data. Note the arrowhead, which gives a rotational reference for these plots. The lower left view shows the data end-on and the lower right view is of the data split at 0 and laid at with the internal face upward.

3. Analysis methods for cylinders 3.1. Conventional representation of feature errors It has long been a useful practice to categorize machined feature errors informally by their general shapes, which, in at least some cases, might be correlated with defects in the manufacturing process or equipment. Thus, in addition to errors of size, position, and orientation, commonly encountered deviations from perfect cylindrical shape might be classied, as suggested in Figure 3. These are the classical form deviations often cited for cylindrical shapes: (a) taper; (b) bellmouth (c) hourglass; (d) barrel; (e) banana; (f) lobing; and (g) random. Two other useful classications are cited by Whitehouse, one of which discriminates between errors arising from axis distortion, generatrix deviations, and cross-section deviations [6, pp. 186 7]. The other assigns probable causes to roundness lobing corresponding to various Fourier series coefcients [6, p. 151]. Another useful type of error classication has been that which segregates surface errors as belonging to roughness, waviness, or form. Often the boundaries between these are taken to be arbitrary lengths, but a more meaningful set of criteria is that used by Dagnall [25], who regards roughness as comprising irregularities inherent in the production process, waviness as a component of texture upon which roughness is superimposed and arising from machine or workpiece deection, vibration, chatter, and other extraneous inuences, and form as the general shape of the surface. This type of classication is mentioned mainly to point out that, although extremely short period surface errors normally categorized as roughness are attenuated in the data presented in this report by choice of sampling interval and to some extent by probe radius, the analysis techniques described are not restricted to any particular scale of errors and are, in fact, capable of identifying errors of any frequency that are signicantly represented in the data.

276

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Fig. 2. Typical form error plot, center-drill/drill hole. Range of residuals to least-squares perfect cylinder

0.0068 in (0.173 mm).

3.2. Models for cylinders with errors A variety of models have evolved for representing nominally cylindrical machined features known to have errors.

Most of these models have been devised by practitioners of dimensional metrology. The simplest and most commonly used is the least-squares t of a perfect cylinder to the available surface datapoints. The size, location, and orien-

Fig. 3. Classical form error categories for cylindrical shapes: a) taper; b) bellmouth; c) hourglass; d) barrel; e) banana; f) lobing; g) random.

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

277

tation of the tted cylinder are taken as estimates of the corresponding parameters of the real (imperfect) geometry, and some function of the residuals to the t is sometimes taken as an estimate of the form error. The least-squares cylinder model is imperfect, because it fails, in obvious ways, to give a detailed accounting of surface errors. It does possess the great virtue of relative stability as the number of surface points sampled becomes small. Fitting to other norms has sometimes been used; for example, minimizing the maximum absolute value of point deviation. The maximum inscribed or minimum circumscribed cylinders have also been calculated, and zone methods, which t pairs of coaxial cylinders, have increasingly been used. The zone method that leads to cylinders of minimum radial separation is particularly interesting, given that many prefer it as conforming to the theoretical denition of cylindrical form error [26]. All these other models suffer relative to the least-squares model, because only a few points directly inuence the best t. An arbitrary sparse sampling is unlikely to include the surface points that should determine the best t, leading to systematic misestimation of cylinder parameters. In addition, the chance that a single outlier can inuence the parameter estimates is increased. Later sections of this report introduce the extended zone model, which alleviates many of the difculties associated with the traditional methods described above. The extended zone method is a technique for mimicking an innitely sampled surface by using only a nite dataset. The missing information is supplied by assumptions, which are based on experimental results, about the possible shapes the surface may assume. The mathematical model chosen is a commonly used one. It assumes that the surface can be represented by a linear combination of basis functions (shapes). In the case of a machined cylinder, this means that, because the actual shape of the feature is nearly, but not exactly, a true (circular) cylinder, it can be represented as a perfect cylinder plus a small correction in the radius of the cylinder. The small correction is a function of the location on the cylinder given in a cylindrical coordinate system by the location along the axis, z, and the polar angle, . This correction function is given by the expression a1 f1 ( , z) a2 f2 ( , z) a3 f3 ( , z) ... as many terms as are necessary to represent all the possible shapes the form error may assume. The actual shape is chosen by assigning appropriate values to the coefcients, a1, a2, a3, . . .. The basis set chosen is somewhat arbitrary. Any set of functions that can represent all possible shapes is a candidate as a basis set. In this case, the basis set is said to span the space. Unfortunately, to represent all possible shapes requires an innite number of basis functions. Fortunately, the form errors of real machined cylinders can be represented by a set of relatively few different functions. Finding what these functions are has been one of the tasks of this project. Although a basis set composed of explicit mathematical functions has undeniable appeal as a vehicle for communicating process information to design and manufacturing

engineers, it has several drawbacks. First, the functions cannot be directly derived from measured datasets. The functions would have to be those that can best approximate the data. Second, in addition to representing the shape of the surface, it is also necessary to represent the boundary of the surfacefor example, where are the top and bottom of the cylinder? Additional mathematical functions are needed to serve as boundaries. Third, because several different operations are required for the formulation of sampling point optimization problems (discussed in detail in a subsequent report), the use of an analytical function representation of the shape of the surface and its boundaries overly complicates the problem. Fourth, barring a fortuitous choice of the function set, a set of analytical functions would not be expected to be particularly efcient at capturing unanticipated deviations. All of these problems can be addressed by using a linear algebra formulation. 3.2.1. Least-squares extended zone (EZN) surface estimation For the EZN linear algebra formulation, a dense set of n points evenly distributed in z and is chosen in a cylindrical coordinate system having its z-axis nearly coincident with the axis of the cylinder. These points (typically n 500 to 1,000) both dene the boundary of the surface (even for complicated cases) and serve as the locations at which the radius is to be specied. They are distributed as uniformly as possible so an integration over the surface can be approximated by a sum over these points. A vector of radius values (actually small corrections to the nominal radius R), each associated with one of the locations, then constitutes a description of the surface shape. Thus, the densely measured surface can be represented by a vector, d. The mathematical representation of an estimation of that surface is then given by the column vector, de Ba (1)

where the matrix B contains the set of basis shapes, and the column vector a is the parameter set giving the weights of each of the basis surfaces. Each column of B is a basis shape, so de can be viewed as the rst basis shape (rst column of B) times the rst element of a plus the second basis shape (second column of B) times the second element of a plus . . . plus the last column of B times the last element of a; that is, a linear combination of the columns of B. This means that with a dened basis set, B, the EZN surface is specied by a. Typically, a has many fewer elements than d, so this representation is a great simplication. If there are k basis shapes in the set, then B will be an n k matrix. The basis set B can be derived by evaluating an analytical function at each of the (z, ) points, by linearly combining other vector representations of the surface, or by appropriately combining dense measurement sets of a number of representative surfaces. The details of the selection of a basis set are discussed later in this paper. The value of a that best estimates the surface is derived

278

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

through least squares as follows. The vector de d gives the point-by-point deviation of the estimated surface from the measured surface. The least-squares requirement is that the sum of the squares of these errors be minimized. That is, it is necessary to minimize the quantity, [Eq. (2)] L de d
t

de

(2)

which is the dot or inner product of de d with itself. To nd the solution, take the derivative of L with respect to the vector a, and set it to zero to give 2(de d)t B 2(Ba d)t B 0t. Taking the transpose and solving for a gives a Bt B
1

Bt d

(3)

3.3. Analytical basis set models 3.3.1. Chebyshev/Fourier models As mentioned earlier, one possibility is to use an analytical basis set to represent the radial errors over a bounded (truncated) cylinder. The functional form of this representation of the cylinder is,
ordz

direction about its center, the coefcient of T1cos( ) is the amount of the simultaneous displacement of the top of the cylinder in the x direction and the bottom of the cylinder in the x direction. Likewise, the coefcient of T1sin( ) is the amount of the simultaneous displacement of the top of the cylinder in the y direction and the bottom of the cylinder in the y direction. Strictly speaking, we should consider that there are higher-order terms involved in expressing small changes in a perfect cylinder that is displaced in position and direction in the cylindrical coordinate system. However, if the changes are much smaller than R, the higher-order terms can be considered to be negligible. In the current instance, r 10 3; whereas, R 1, so the higher-order terms in r can clearly be ignored in the representation of the perfect form, slightly displaced cylinder. If these ve functions are represented by the vector Fc(z, ) and their coefcients by ac, then in a cylindrical coordinate system, the ideal cylinder can then be represented by [Eq. (6)] r z, be, 1 cos sin cos T1 T1 sin R F c z,
t

ac

(6)

To be explicit for the analyses to follow, Fc is taken to

r z,

R
i 0 ord j 0

Ti

2 z z min z max z min

ord

a ij cos j

j 1

b ijsin j

(4)

F c z,

(7)

where r is the analytical model of the actual curved surface. R is a predetermined constant nominal radius. It may be taken to be the nominal radius from a print, the best t radius from the t of an ideal cylinder to the data, or perhaps the average of the radii of best t cylinders to a set of nominally identical cylinders. The only real requirement on R is that the deviation of r from R be a small fraction of R. Ti ( ) is the Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind, [27] of order i. Finally, aij and bij are the coefcients that represent the curved actual cylinder, including its form error. The notation of Eq. 4 shows the explicit functional form of r(z, ) but is somewhat cumbersome. The notation can be greatly simplied by thinking of Eq. 4 as being, r z, R F z,
t

where 2 z z min zmax zmin 1 (7a)

(5)

where F(z, )t is a row vector of functions of z and times (dot product with) the column vector of coefcients, a. The elements of F are the individual products of Ti and sin(j ) or cos(j ). Five of the terms in Eq. 5 are of particular interest and use. They are the terms that can be used to represent small changes in the size, location, and orientation of the cylinder. The function T0 cos(0 ) is just the constant 1. Its coefcient gives the deviation of the cylinders radius from the nominal radius R. The coefcient of the function T0 cos( ) cos( ) represents a small displacement of the cylinder in the x direction. The coefcient of the function T0 sin( ) sin( ) represents a small displacement of the cylinder in the y direction. If the cylinder is to be tipped from the vertical

is the vertical position in the cylinder normalized to [ 1, 1] to be used as an argument for T. The Chebyshev/Fourier representation is useful in several respects. First, if the orders used in z and are sufciently high to represent the systematic component of the form error, a can be determined from relatively few points on the surface, and the radius of the actual cylinder at any point on its surface can be evaluated. The required orders in z and can be determined by densely measuring and leastsquares tting a number of surfaces typical of those produced by a particular manufacturing technique and observing the z and order of the terms that are statistically signicant. Second, once the functional form has been determined, it is possible to use experimental design techniques to nd the optimal measurement locations on the cylinder surface to provide the best determination of a from a minimum number of points. This determination has been one of the main thrusts of our work and will be presented in detail in a companion article. Third, knowing which terms are signicant (which components of a are large) provides a much better conceptual picture of the character of the form deviations than is provided by mere datasets alone. This is because certain terms in the Chebyshev/Fourier model can

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292 Table 1 Chebyshev/Fourier terms identied with common form error types Term T0( T0( T0( T0( T1( T1( T1( T2( T2( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) cos( ) sin( ) cos(n ), T0( ) sin(n ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ), T2( ) sin( ) Description Small change in radius Small change in x location Small change in y location n lobes Taper Small change in direction cosine i Small change in direction cosine j Hourglass/barrel Banana order of Fourier cosine term, B order of Fourier sine term, and C

279

Shorthand notation* 000 100 010 n00,0n0 001 101 011 002 102,012 order of Chebyshev term in Z.

* Notation: ABC where: A

be identied with commonly named and known types of form error. Table 1 lists of some of these terms. It should be noted, however, that the Chebyshev/Fourier basis set and, indeed, all analytical basis set models encounter difculty if asked to explain surfaces with sharp changes or discontinuities, unless terms of very high order are included. It is shown later that a basis set derived directly from the measurement data offers some relief on this point. 3.3.2. Least-squares cylinder estimation The least-squares solution for the t of an ideal cylinder to a dataset can be found by using the basis function set Fc from Eq. 7 and generating a row of a discrete basis matrix Bc as being Ft evaluated at the values of z and for the c point on the cylinder that corresponds to that row. That is, each point on the cylinder in the dense dataset generates a row of ve values in Bc. Then, at each of the dense points on the surface, the value of r(z, ) R becomes an element of the model surface vector. In this way the discrete parametric representation of the model ideal cylinder is by the model surface vector, [Eq. (8)] de B ca c (8)

Using the basis set for the ideal cylinder, Bc, rather than the general basis set B, Eq. 3 becomes [Eq. (9)] ac B ctB c
1

B ctd

(9)

and gives the parameter set ac, which is the least-squares best t of a cylinder to the dense dataset. It is the vector ac, from Eq. 6 that gives the continuous analytical representation of the surface. 3.3.3. Optimized order Chebyshev/Fourier basis set This section describes a renement of the general Chebyshev/Fourier basis set that offers improved efciency in representing deviations from ideality. In expanding the basis set B beyond the rst ve functions described in Eq. 7 and represented in Bc, the simplest alternative is merely to include successive terms in the Chebyshev/Fourier expansion suggested in Eq. 4; that is, to select values of ordz and ord thought sufcient to span the surface deformation space. This is a rather inefcient ap-

proach. For example, taking ordz and ord both to 9 results in the addition of 185 extra functions to B. Because each new function requires a minimum of one additional sample point, this method may rapidly become impractical. An alternative method is to select from such an expanded Chebyshev/Fourier basis set only those terms that have demonstrated their importance in representing the deviations from form in a representative suite of m features studied. An algorithm for producing such an optimal set is now developed. The most common method for quantizing the deviation of an actual surface from the desired (nominal) surface is through a minimax error called the prole error. Two surfaces parallel to the ideal surface are found that just contain all of the real surface. The separation of these bounding surfaces is the prole error. Because the actual surface is being represented by the linear combination of a set of basis shapes, it is desirable to nd the contribution of each of the basis shapes to the explanation of the error of the surface, so they can be used in the decreasing order of their contributions. Because the minimax error expression does not easily lend itself to this purpose, the error will be expressed as an rms error, or its square, the variance of the surface. Attention is now directed to the variance of the surface as expressed through the linear superposition of the basis shapes. Assume the surface is to be expressed through a dense set of points at n locations uniformly spread over the feature. This is specically the vector d, which is estimated by de B a (Eq. 1). B, at the moment, is considered to be an arbitrary set of basis shapes. The variance is the squared error at each of the points averaged over the feature; in other words, the dot product of d with itself divided by n, dtd/n. If the estimated surface is used to evaluate the variance, the expression is var d etd e/n a tB tBa/n (10)

The objective is to discover the error (variance) associated with each of the basis functions (given by a column in B). For an arbitrary basis set, Eq. 10 does not simplify the explanation, because we cannot directly associate each of the components of a with the corresponding basis shape in

280

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

B, as B is not assumed to be orthonormal. This means that despite the fact that the columns of B, taken as a set of vectors, are linearly independent (no one of the vectors can be expressed as a linear combination of the others), they are not necessarily perpendicular to each other (orthogonal) or of length 1 (normal). If B is assumed to be an orthonormal basis set, then Eq. 10 simplies to var a ta/n (11)

This is because the product Bt B is, in this case, the identity matrix. Note that in this case, Eq. 3 simplies to a B td (12)

If we look at the details of the matrix multiplication, it can be seen from Eq. 12 that each of the components of a is derived from one and only one column of B and from Eq. 11, that for the ith basis shape, the associated variance is a2/n. Therefore, in its orthonormalized form, B is a set of i orthonormal basis vectors in an orthonormal vector space. Moreover, under these conditions, a is the cylinder surface d, as projected into the space dened by B. Clearly, considerable simplication results from an orthonormalized the basis set. Creating such an orthonomalized transformation of a general linearly independent basis set is a relatively easy process (particularly with modern computers) using the GramSchmidt method [28]. Consider, now, how an optimal order orthonormalized set of Chebyshev/Fourier functions can be created. Fitting a perfect cylinder to a measured dataset amounts, in essence, to using a set of ve simple functions as a basis set. Specically, Eq. 7 gives the functional form of these shapes, but they must be subsequently turned into a vector basis set by evaluating each of these functions at all of the selected dense sampling locations to produce the basis set Bc. Finally, they are orthonormalized. These functions together account for the location (two degrees of freedom), orientation (two degrees of freedom), and average radial size (one degree of freedom) of a cylinder of perfect form. This set is a core basis set, and the process of choosing the best representations of deviations from this perfect form is started by removing the t of a perfect cylinder from each of the datasets d to produce the unexplained residual, d , given by d d B ca c d B cB ctd (13)

mind, although not mentioned explicitly hereafter, the procedure can be described in the following way. The initial question is, Which single term in the Chebyshev/Fourier expansion is most signicant in accounting for the observed form deviations? A convenient way of thinking about this question is to consider the n r, values on a specic feature as components of an n dimensional feature vector. Thus, 30 features, each providing an instance of the hole under study, constitute a set of 30 such vectors. Similarly, each term in the Chebyshev/Fourier expansion can be evaluated at each of the n ( ,z) locations, also yielding an n dimensional vector. The Chebyshev/Fourier term vector with the largest projection on any one of the r feature vectors will be the most important single term for that particular feature. Projections are obtained for all Chebyshev/Fourier terms on each of the feature vectors. Then for each Chebyshev/Fourier term, the sum of the squares of its projections (over all the features) is computed. The term with the largest sum is taken as the most important term overall, thereby answering the question posed at the beginning of this paragraph. Thus, this term is added to our basis set. The projection of this term vector is subtracted from each of the feature vectors, leaving, in each case, the residual deviation from perfect form; that is, that deviation not yet accounted for, or the new unexplained residual. If it is assumed that the new orthonormal basis vector to be added to the set B is the vector b, this subtraction is given explicitly by [Eq. (14)] d d b bt d (14)

The question to be considered now is, What additional functions must be added to our basis set to model the deviations from perfect cylindrical form most effectively? That is, the objective is to build an orthonormal basis set of functions of the Chebyshev/Fourier type and to order them in terms of their importance in accounting for the observed form deviations. Although this point will not be belabored further in our subsequent description of the process, it should be noted here that, before consideration for addition to the basis set, each new function is orthonormalized with respect to all the functions presently in the set. With this in

In this case, the vector d is the d or unexplained residual from the previous basis construction step given by Eq. 13. The next most important term can now be found by an analogous method, and the procedure continues up to some arbitrary limit set at 12 additional functions beyond the original ve needed to deal with the perfect cylindrical location, orientation, and size. In each of these steps, the d of the previous step is the d of the current step. The Chebyshev/Fourier terms were selected from all possible crossterms in an expansion that ranged up to ninth order in z for the Chebyshev and ninth order in both the cosine and sine terms of the Fourier. In total, then, 185 possible terms were considered, and the top 12 were selected. It is important to point out here that in the selection of the top 12, one additional rule has been operative. Before describing this rule, some background is offered that will serve in its justication. With the possible exception of the contour-milled counterbores, there is no a priori reason to expect any specic value to be unique in locking a particular form deviation into place. Thus, for example, notable 5- and 7-lobe characteristics was found in the holes produced by the center-drill/drill/ream method. However, the particular phasing of these lobing patterns is largely random (although not absolutely so in the statistically limited set of m 30 artifacts). To span the variability of the phasing of, say, the 5-lobe patterns, terms involving sin(5 )

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

281

as well as terms involving cos(5 ) must be included in the basis set. Hence, the rule was established that whenever the vector projection method described above results in inclusion in the basis set of a term involving a sin(n ) factor (times a particular order Chebyshev term for the dependence on z), the corresponding term with a cos(n ) factor will automatically be added to the basis set as the next function. Similarly, a cosine term results in the inclusion of its sine complement. Although the rule is arbitrary, it is reasonably justied by the foregoing argument and supported further by the observation of the variance accounted for by the additional term. Because the phasing, even in this limited set of 30 artifacts, is nearly random, the percentage of variance accounted for by each successive term in the basis set is ordinarily still found to drop monotonically. In practice, it is also found that if a sine or cosine term is the next term in the order of decreasing variance explanation, the corresponding cosine or sine term would usually not be far behind, even if it were to be selected strictly by size. Therefore, forcing it to follow immediately does not radically alter even what the natural order would be. 3.4. Eigen shape basis set As an alternative to the analytical (Chebyshev/Fourier) functions discussed thus far as basis sets, we now consider building model surfaces as linear combinations of Eigen shapes derived directly from the measurement data. Eigen shapes, as will be seen, are instances of the more generic Eigenvectors, which are orthogonal column vectors whose linear combinations can reconstruct some initial data matrix. Eigenvectors are extracted statistically from the original data. They represent an optimally efcient means of capturing the variance in the original data, conveniently ltering out underlying redundancy. Each Eigenvector has an associated Eigenvalue that indicates the extent to which that Eigenvector serves to account for the variance found in the original data matrix. Applications of Eigenvector/Eigenvalue analysis abound in most branches of physical and social sciences [29]. These applications have been described variously as factor analysis or principal component analysis. Here, it is applied to the study of measurement results for a suite of features produced by the same machining method. The application can be formulated mathematically as follows. A suite of m nominally identical feature surfaces is densely sampled at n (xed) locations, resulting in a data matrix, D, of dimensions n m. In the principal component analysis method employed here, we begin by writing, D BA (15)

Just as each column of D corresponds to an individual features shape as measured, each column of B corresponds to a surface (hereafter known as an Eigen shape) corresponding to the deviation (from perfect form) characteristic of an independent process-related factor. There will be in B as many of these Eigen shapes as there were feature surfaces in the dataset D under analysis. However, it is reasonable to expect that many (and probably most) of these Eigen shapes will be only minor contributors to D and safely can be ignored. Now, if, indeed, there is a reasonably nite subset of, say, k shapes in B that account for the bulk of the nonidealities of the surfaces measured, then [Eqs. (16) (25)] D Bk Ak (16)

can be written, where Bk is a submatrix (n k) of B, and Ak is a submatrix (k m) of A. The rst issue, then, is to determine an appropriate value for k so that the product Bk Ak is sufciently close to D to be acceptable for our purposes. The matrices B and A can be determined in the following manner. First, form the square symmetric product-moment matrix C by premultiplying D by its transpose. C Dt D (17)

Then diagonalize C using some orthonormal matrix E so that E

1

CE

(18)

where V is the diagonal matrix of Eigenvalues whose signicance will be discussed momentarily. Substitution of Eq. 17 into Eq. 18 gives E Now dene U so that UU V (20)
1

Dt D E

(19)

Note that U is diagonal with each of its elements along the diagonal being the square root of the corresponding element in V. Pre- and postmultiplying Eq. 19 by the inverse of U leads to U
1

Dt D E U

VU

(21)

which may be simplied as Bt B where B DEU

1

(22)

(23)

which, in turn, requires that D BUE

1

where B is a (n m) matrix of independent (process related) factors, and A is a (m m) matrix of featurespecic coefcients appropriately weighting the contributions of the various factors in B for each surface measured. Note that the dimensionality of B is the same as that of D.

(24)

Comparison of this relationship with Eq. 15 indicates the relationship A UE

1

U Et

(25)

282

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Hence, the diagonalization process yields both B and A, and, in addition, the Eigenvalues of V. The relative magnitudes of these Eigenvalues indicate the relative importance of the corresponding Eigen shape of B in accounting for the variance in D. Thus, these Eigenvalues serve to answer the question raised earlier; namely, how many Eigen shapes are needed in B to represent the original measurement data reasonably. An approach of the type just described is appropriate for the assessment of individual features, because it depends upon each instance of the feature being measured at the same point locations. It is desirable, however, also to have a means of capturing the same type of shape information over a variety of features that, although having different dimensions, share other common characteristics. For example, they may all be inside diameter cylinders produced by a drilling operation. The scope might be even broader, encompassing a set of inside diameter cylinders of various dimensions and produced by a variety of different manufacturing methods. The next section introduces a method to accomplish this. 3.4.1. Generic Eigen shape basis set The objective here is to have a basis set representative of all the cylinders of all sizes and aspect ratios and, perhaps, that spans all the common manufacturing methods. This universal set could then be used to reach conclusions about a variety of different applications of a specic manufacturing method or, indeed, about a range of related manufacturing methods. If the manufacturing regime or method were known, this would not constitute the best a priori information and the most detailed conclusion. However, in a typical manufacturing environment, it may not be practical to have to differentiate manufacturing techniques, and especially, to have sensitivity to such other renements as the cylinder diameters and lengths. To make it possible to analyze statistically what might seem to be heterogeneous types of cylinders, it is necessary to transform each of the measured cylinders into a common description of the form errors. The tools necessary to accomplish this goal have already been described. If we assume an analytical Chebyshev/Fourier basis set of as high an order as needed to represent all of the systematic variations present in all the measured features (functions through ninth order have been used here), each of the measured features can be represented by its parameter vector a through the usual least-squares solution given in Eq. 3. In this case, the discrete point basis set, B, may vary from cylinder to cylinder, not in overall shape, but in the distribution of points over the surface. For individual surfaces, the number of rows in B may vary, but the number of columns, k, will remain constant and will reect the number of basis functions in the Chebyshev/Fourier representation. The shapes can be said to be common, because the discrete basis sets are generated by the same analytical function, where the range in z is normalized to 1 through 1, and,

of course, the range in is 0 through 2 . The product of each of these transformations of the data vector d will be a parameter set a of constant dimension k (which is 190 in the case of ninth order in z and ). It is assumed that only small deviations from either nominal cylinders, best t ideal cylinders, or averages over several nominally identical cylinders are being represented. When using the deviations from best t ideal cylinders, the ve functions used for tting the ideal cylinder (i.e., those shown in Eq. 7) should be removed from the basis set. These should be reinstated as the rst shapes in the nal Eigen set, so that the full basis set will account not only for form errors but also for deviations in size, location, and orientation. Now assume all of the heterogeneous set of cylinders have been transformed into k-dimensional a vectors and dene a matrix A, each column of which is one of the a vectors. Then the covariance matrix of the individual elements in the as is given by {Eqs. (26) and (27)] Ca A At (26)

Next Ca is diagonalized to the form E at C a E a Va (27)

where Va is a diagonal matrix of Eigenvalues that give the transformed variances associated with the Eigenvectors that are the columns of the matrix Ea. Ca, Ea, and Va are all k k matrices. Furthermore, it is assumed that the columns of Ea and the corresponding diagonal position of the Eigenvalues in Va have been rearranged to provide a decreasing set of Eigenvalues. In this order, the rst few columns of Ea will be the normalized a vectors that correspond to the most important generalized basis functions. For a specic discrete point dense set, the total basis set will then be given by B Ea, where B is the full n k discrete basis set derived from the Chebyshev/Fourier functions. Each column of Ea is the set of weights used to provide the proper linear combination of the columns of B to generate the corresponding n-dimensional basis shape for the dense set represented by B. The fraction of the trace of Va represented by each of its diagonal elements is the fraction of the total variance explained by that Eigen shape.

4. Results This section describes several applications of the tools just developed to aid the systematization and understanding of form errors endemic to specic sequences of machining operations. 4.1. Typical form errors Here a few examples are offered to illustrate the efcacy of our models in representing the errors in machined cylinders. As discussed above, Fig. 2 shows the residuals to the

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

283

Fig. 4. Least-squares t of Chebyshev/Fourier model to data of Fig. 2. Range of tted data

0.0061 in (0.155 mm).

least-squares t of a perfect cylinder to a drilled hole. Fig. 4 shows for comparison the least-squares t to these residuals of an analytical function containing Chebyshev terms up to order six and Fourier terms of up to order four. It is obvious from visual comparison of the two gures that the model successfully represents all but the nest detail of the residuals plot. In these, as well as all similar plots to follow, the direction of tool penetration into the material was topto-bottom. A similar illustration of the power of the Eigen shape basis set model is given in Fig. 5. Here are shown the three most signicant Eigen shapes for a series of holes produced by a center-drill/drill/ream sequence of operations. The rst Eigen shape accounts for 30.1% of the variance from perfect form, the second for an additional 19.3%, and the third for yet another 10%. In this case, the inclusion of just three additional parameters along with the ve required for a perfect cylinder accounts for almost 60% of the deviation from perfect form. Further illustrations are given in Fig. 6, where the single most important Eigen shapes are shown for other machining sequences. Fig. 6a shows the rst Eigen shape for a hole produced by center drilling followed by drilling to nished size; this accounts for 54.3% of the variance from perfect cylindrical form. Fig. 6b shows the rst Eigen shape for center-drill/drill/plunge end-mill, and Fig. 6c for center-drill/drill/ream production of a blind hole, respectively. The corresponding percentages of variance

accounted for are 74.9 and 85.5. It is interesting to compare the rst Eigen shape in Fig. 5 with that shown in Fig. 6c. They are markedly different, although both were produced by the same sequence of machining operations. The principal difference seems to be that the data of Fig. 5 are for a through hole; whereas, Fig. 6c is from measurements on a blind hole, leading us to suppose that the major inuence on shape in the latter case might be inefcient chip extraction. 4.2. Inuence of process variables The data presented and discussed in this section were drawn from the initial set of 30 artifacts. 4.2.1. Results from the analytical model We rst consider the fraction of the variance as explained by each of the Chebyshev/Fourier terms as a function of the manufacturing method. The objective is to determine, as a function of the set of manufacturing operations used to produce the feature, which are the important basis terms for expressing the form errors. Measurements made on the rst set of 30 artifacts are used to illustrate the concept. All of the surfaces were least-squares analyzed using the Chebyshev/Fourier basis set. For each individual cylindrical feature, taken over all 30 artifacts, the fractional variance explained by each of the basis functions was computed. Then, for all features produced by a given sequence

284

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Fig. 5. Most signicant Eigen shapes for center-drill/drill/ream operation: a) rst (most signicant) Eigen shape; 30.1% of total variance; b) second Eigen shape, 19.0%; c) third Eigen shape, 10.0%.

of operations, the largest (worst) fractional error contributed by any of the holes was taken to be the signicant requirement for inclusion of that term. The results of this study are shown in Fig. 7, where the fractional contributions of all terms that represent more than 5% to the total variance are shown for all the features produced by each manufacturing method. To perform this summary over holes of different lengths, the datasets were normalized to unit length, as described earlier.

Some generalizations can be drawn from these data. Taper is a dominant error for all manufacturing sequences. Hourglass is another common form error type. Both of these error types might be caused by lack of perfect concentricity of all the elements of the machining apparatus. Reamed holes generated by an n-uted reamer also show pronounced n-1 and n 1 lobed patterns. Drilled holes possess a number of prominent terms with both a higher-order z and a dependance. It is not

Fig. 6. Most signicant Eigen shape for various operations: a) center-drill/drill, 54.0%; b) center-drill/drill/plunge end-mill, 74.9%; c) center-drill/drill/ream (blind hole), 85.5%.

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

285

Fig. 7. Dominant Chebyshev/Fourier terms for various manufacturing operations.

Fig. 8. Fractional unexplained variance vs. number of Eigen functions included in the basis set.

286

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Fig. 9. Eigen shapes for the center-drill/drill operation.

obvious from Fig. 7, but can easily be seen from the Eigen analysis (Fig. 6a) that these mostly serve to represent a spiral form error. Generally, the more complicated the manufacturing process, the more terms contribute signicantly to the resulting shape. The tendency of subsequent operations to erase traces of earlier ones is illustrated by the disappearance under further nishing operations of the higher-order terms needed to describe adequately the holes produced by drilling, particularly when the nishing tool is of relatively stiff design. 4.2.2. Results from the Eigen shape model Next, some results from principal component analysis are considered. Each of the ve manufacturing sequences is treated separately by the generic Eigen shape model, including all cylinders made by each particular method. Some initial results are shown in Fig. 8, where the fraction of the variance remaining to be explained is plotted versus the number of Eigen functions included in the basis set. From the relative rates of decrease of the unexplained variance, the general conclusion can be drawn that more complicated sets of operations produce surfaces that vary from perfect form in more complicated ways. The sets of operations that need few Eigen shapes to explain the errors they generate can be said to have few degrees of freedom in the behavior of the tools as the holes are being generated. With each

successive pass of a tool (which often is removing little material) the tool motion can couple with the existing pattern in the hole. That is, the previous pattern imprints itself on the following operation, which also produces its own contribution to the details of the shape of the hole. Generally, then, if the process involves a larger number of steps, more shape terms are required to represent the range of possible errors. However, in holes generated by a milling cutter, which is a reasonably rigid tool as compared with either a drill or a reamer, the effects of the preceding operation are essentially erased. In this sense, the milling operation might be considered to be a single-pass process. This is particularly true of the contour milling process, which removes much more material than plunge milling. In Fig. 8, this is demonstrated by the fact that the milling operations require the fewest Eigen shapes to explain the patterns they generate. The two-pass operation, center-drill/ drill (C/D), requires more shapes, the three-pass operation, center-drill/drill/ream, requires even more, and the fourpass operation, center-drill/drill/bore/ream, requires the most explanation. More detail of the information available from the Eigen shape model is shown in Figs. 9 13. In these gures, the rst 15 Eigen shapes for all of the cylinders, whether through, blind, or counter-bored, produced by each of the manufacturing methods are shown. The shapes are pre-

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

287

Fig. 10. Eigen shapes for the center-drill/drill/ream operation.

Fig. 11. Eigen shapes for the center-drill/drill/bore/ream operation.

288

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Fig. 12. Eigen shapes for the center-drill/drill/plunge end-mill operation.

sented in order of decreasing importance, going from upper left to lower right. Although, in some instances, something can be learned from even those Eigen shapes that express only a small fraction of the total variance, we conne our discussion to the few most signicant shapes from each manufacturing sequence. Although it is true that, by conning our attention to a specic feature, it might be possible to examine effects of machining conditions at a higher level of detail and see, for example, the effects of the specic machining cutter or any difference between through and blind holes, primary focus will be given to the characteristics attributable to the sequence of machining operations. The dominant behavior for the center-drill/drill sequence, Fig. 9, is a single-lobed, right-handed spiral shape. It is designated as single-lobed, because the cross section at any axial location is essentially circular. Looking at the pitch of the spiral as produced by the various tools, Fig. 14, it can be seen that the pitch of the spiral is related, but not equal, to the pitch of the tools. The pitch of the spiral varies from about 1.3 to 4 times the pitch of the tool. The second most signicant Eigen shape for this method is very similar to the rst and is simply the other (90 shifted) phase of the spiral. Such pairs of Eigen shapes occur quite commonly, and represent the eigen analysis decomposition of random phasing of the lobing pattern among the individual features, caused by the uncontrolled angle of cutter entry into the material. The spiral shape was more pronounced in smaller-

diameter holes and was particularly pronounced in a 14-in (6.35-mm) hole made with a parabolic ute drill. In general, there seems to be a relationship between prominence of the spiral form error and exibility of the tool. It should be noted that all the drills used here have two utes (n 2), and the spiral is thus consistent with the (n 1)-lobe behavior noted earlier. Three-lobed (n 1) behavior is evident in Eigen shapes 9 and 10. The third Eigen shape is particularly characteristic of the larger-diameter holes produced by the C/D process. It has a small banana component combined with several different orders of z-dependence. The holes produced with a nal pass by an n-uted reamer, Figs. 10 and 11, are dominated by (n 1)- and (n 1)-lobed patterns. All the reamers used in this work had six utes, so 7- and 5-lobed patterns appear; for example, the 7-lobed second, third, seventh, and ninth eigen shapes for C/D/R (Fig. 10) and fourth and fth shapes for C/D/B/ R(Fig. 11). Prominent examples of a ve-lobed pattern are the fourth through sixth shapes and rst and second shapes for C/D/R and C/D/B/R, respectively. The shapes often also have a z-dependence dominated by taper and/or hourglass. The C/D/R holes show both a strong, nearly pure z-dependence, which might be referred to as a pseudohourglass shape (rst Eigen shape) and a lobed -dependence (second Eigen shape). In this instance, the hourglass shape is not thought to arise from the traditional mechanisms for generation of this shape, but is exclusively a contribution of the

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

289

Fig. 13. Eigen shapes for the center-drill/drill/contour end-mill operation.

blind holes in the suite produced by C/D/R. One possibility is that this Eigen shape represents a combination of taper with enlargement of the bottom of the hole by scouring attributable to inefcient chip removal. The C/D/B/R holes are truer in the z-direction than are the C/D/R holes, with the only strong z-dependence being a taper component in the rst Eigen shape. Notice that any spiral pattern produced by the initial drilling operations has been erased by subsequent treatments. The sixth Eigen shape for C/D/B/R is worth mentioning, because it is attributable to a single hole in the suite of 300 that were used to generate this set of Eigen shapes. A single aw, seen at the exit end of the hole, contributed sufciently to the overall variance that it appears relatively high in the order of Eigen shapes. Holes generated by a nal pass of an end mill (C/D/P and C/D/M, Figs. 12 and 13) are dominated by taper, attributable to bending of the cutter under load. In the case of plunge end-milling, there can also be signicant hourglass, as shown by the second Eigen shape, and spiral, as shown by the third and fourth Eigen shapes of Fig. 12. This spiral, being essentially one-lobed, is likely a residual effect from the drilling operations. These shapes would be expected to be much weaker in the contour milling operation, and the Eigen shapes of Fig. 13 conrm this expectation. For the contour milled holes, the angular position at which the cutter began and ended its pass were essentially the same from hole to hole.

There is a slight hint of this in the rst C/D/M Eigen shape and a strong indication in the second, in the form of an axial indentation just before, and an axial bulge just past, the 270 position. Although, in general, it would not be expected that, for an otherwise xed set of machining conditions, a simple change from one cutter to another, nominally identical cutter (assuming both are in good condition) would result in a drastic change in the Eigen shape population, it is not unreasonable to expect the signicance of the contribution of one or more Eigen shapes to change. An example of this behavior is presented in Fig. 15, which shows the effect of a tool change on a hole produced by the C/D/M process. The suite of Eigen shapes used to model the deviations is, in all cases, the set derived from the complete suite of 30 artifacts. About midway through the production run, this cutter broke and was replaced. Concurrent with the replacement, there was a step decrease in the least-squares size of the hole and a corresponding decrease in the coefcient of the second Eigen shape. 4.3. Comparison of two machine tools Here, the interest is in seeing the extent to which the signicant shapes might persist from one manufacturing environment to another, similar but not identical. The most

290

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292

Fig. 14. Relation of spiral form error pitch to tool pitch.

signicant Chebyshev/Fourier terms are compared, for four specic features, for two sets of six artifacts each. One of these sets was the second group of six artifacts, produced on the Cincinnati Milacron horizontal machining center at Sandia National Laboratory, California. The other was a subset,

specically every fth artifact beginning with the fourth, of the original set of 30 produced at Allied Signal FM&T. The comparison is summarized in Tables 2 and 3. In Table 2, the 10 Chebyshev/Fourier terms most signicant in explaining the variance from perfect form for

Fig. 15. Effect of a tool change on Eigen shape weighting and least-squares size.

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292 Table 2 Top 10 Chebyshev/Fourier terms in explaining variance from perfect form Hole 11 C/D/R 6 AS/FM&T 001 050 500 002 300 030 200 020 040 400 6 SNL/CA 001 002 020 200 030 300 500 050 103 013 Hole 13 C/D 6 AS/FM&T 012 102 103 013 001 002 200 020 031 301 6 SNL/CA 012 102 001 103 013 002 300 030 301 031 Hole 16 C/D/P 6 AS/FM&T 001 003 201 021 020 200 004 022 202 002 6 SNL/CA 001 002 003 200 020 014 104 301 031 023 Hole 19 C/D/B/R 6 AS/FM&T 001 002 003 200 020 102 012 071 701 023

291

6 SNL/CA 001 002 005 004 007 003 008 006 009 102

each set of six artifacts are listed. A three digit shorthand notation is used, where the rst two digits indicate the order of the Fourier cosine and sine terms, respectively, and the third digit gives the order of the Chebyshev polynomial used to model the z-dependence. Examples of the shapes represented by typical terms and the corresponding shorthand notation are given in Table 1. Referring to Table 2 and recognizing that, for each manufacturing method represented there, the terms in common between the two sets are designated by bold characters, the number of common terms ranges between eight of 10 for the C/D and C/D/M machining sequences down to four of 10 for the most complicated sequence, C/D/B/R. In addition, the most signicant term is the same between the two sets in all four cases. It is clear that a substantial fraction of the shape character is maintained across this difference in manufacturing environment. A further illustration is offered in Table 3, where the efciencies of the top terms in capturing the variance from perfect form are compared. In column one, the fractional variance explained by the top 10 terms for one set of six artifacts is tabulated; in column two, the corresponding data for the other set. The nal two columns list the fractional variance accounted for in each set, using just the terms common between the two sets. In all cases, save one, hole 16 (C/D/P) from the original set of artifacts, the percentage variance accounted for by the set of common terms is substantially the same as that accounted for by all 10 terms specic to each set.

5. Conclusions We have presented a new approach to the classication and explication of form errors in engineered surfaces, and have given illustrations of its application. Although a specic geometry, the inside cylinder, was used, with several specic machining sequences, for the data presented in this report, we point out that, with an appropriate choice of basis functions, the analysis is extendable to any geometry. Moreover, it should be applicable not only to the machining operations discussed herein, but should be extendable to any production regime that exhibits adequate stability for the course of the study. Two alternative models for deviations from cylindrical form, each of which has its own particular set of strengths, have been offered. Analytical functions composed of Chebyshev/Fourier terms provide an effective means of representing the classical types of form errors for cylinders and work well for many manufacturing methods. Eigen shapes, however, are generally more efcient in modeling form errors, especially when the errors have notable discontinuities or are particularly complex, as is often the case when cylinders are produced by several successive manufacturing operations. Both models can be applied, in principle, to model form errors relative to other nominal shapes although the success of the analytical model depends upon choosing function(s) appropriate to the problem at hand. Beyond the range of applications suggested in this report,

Table 3 Variance-capturing efciency of top and common Chebyshev/Fourier terms % Variance accounted for by top 10 terms 6 AS/FM&T Parts Hole Hole Hole Hole 11(C/D/R) 13(C/D) 16(C/D/P) 19(C/D/B/R) 25.7 61.4 32.2 37.5 % Variance accounted for by top 10 terms 6 SNL/CA Parts 45.1 57.4 64.2 77.1 % Variance accounted for by common terms found in both top 10s AS/FM&T 24.3 59.3 21.7 30.1 SNL/CA 43.0 53.7 60.1 64.0

292

R.P. Henke et al. / Precision Engineering 23 (1999) 273292 [8] Pandit SM. Characteristic shapes and wavelength decomposition of surfaces in machining. Ann CIRP 1981;30(1):48792. [9] Peklenik J, Kwiatkowski AW. Random processes in manufacturing systems. Ann CIRP 1967;15:6774. [10] Peklenik J. Investigation of the surface typology. Ann CIRP 1967; 15: 3815. [11] Peklenik J. New developments in surface characterization and measurements by means of random process analysis. Proc Instit Mech Eng 1967 8; 182(3K):108 26. [12] Whitehouse DJ. Beta functions for surface typology. Ann CIRP 1978; 27(1):4917. [13] Raja J, Radhakrishnan V. Analysis and synthesis of surface proles using Fourier series. Int J Mach Tool Design Res 1977;17: 24551. [14] Watson W, Spedding TA. The time series modeling of non-Gaussian engineering processes. Wear 1982;83:21531. [15] Murthy TSR, Reddy GC, Radhakrishnan V. Different functions and computations for surface topography. Wear 1982;83:20314. [16] McAdams HT, Picciano LA, Reese PA. A computer method for hypsometric analysis of abrasive surfaces. In: Tobias SA, Konigs burger F, editors. Proceedings of the 9th MTDR Conference, Birmingham, England. 1968. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1968, pp. 1149 71. [17] Peklenik J, Kubo M. A basic study of a three-dimensional assessment of the surface generated in a manufacturing process. Ann CIRP 1968;16:257 65. [18] Kubo M, Peklenik J. An analysis of the microgeometric isotropy for random surface structures. Ann CIRP 1968;16:235 42. [19] Nayak PR. Random process model of rough surfaces. ASME J Lubric Technol 1971;93:398 407. [20] Whitehouse DJ, Phillips MJ. Two-dimensional discrete properties of random surfaces. Trans Roy Soc London 1978;A305:441 68. [21] Sato H, O-hori M. Characteristics of two-dimensional surface roughnessTaking self-excited chatter marks as objective. Ann CIRP 1981; 30(1):481 6. [22] Boudreau BD, Raja J. Analysis of lay characteristics of three-dimensional surface maps. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1992;32(1/2):1717. [23] Baldwin JM, Pilkey RD, Cassou RM, Summerhays KD, Henke RP. Modication of the Sandia National Laboratories/California Advanced Coordinate Measuring Machine for High-Speed Scanning. SAND97-8245. Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA. 1997. [24] Pilkey RD, Klevgard PA. Advanced Coordinate Measuring Machine at Sandia National Laboratories/California. SAND93-8208. Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA. 1993. [25] Dagnall H. Exploring Surface Texture. Leicester, UK: Rank Taylor Hobson, 1980. [26] ASME. Mathematical Denition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles. ASME Y14.5.1. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1994. [27] Arfken G. Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press, 1985. pp. 731ff. [28] Noble B, Daniel JW. Applied Linear Algebra, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1977. [29] Reyment R, Jorekog KG. Applied Factor Analysis in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. [30] Brown CW. Dimensional inspection techniques for sample-point measurement technology. Prec Eng 1992;14(2):110 1.

these techniques have proved fruitful in addressing some of the key issues of the methods divergence problem[30] of dimensional product acceptance. This latter issue is of sufcient importance that it will be addressed in a companion report. Finally, it should be pointed out that the computer software and hardware support needed to implement the analysis and visualization requirements of the methods presented here are modest. All the programs used in this investigation were written in the C programming language and currently run as stand-alone DOS tasks on a personal computer, bringing detailed shape analysis of engineered surfaces within the capability of any shop with a computercontrolled coordinate measuring machine of capability commensurate with the errors in the manufacturing process and the willingness to invest the time required to characterize that process.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the following organizations for nancial support of the work reported here: the Consortium for Advanced ManufacturingInternational under contract C-92-QAP-01 to the University of San Francisco; Sandia National Laboratories under DOE contract DE-AC04-94AL85000; and Allied Signal Inc., Federal Manufacturing and Technologies Division, under DOE contract DE-AC0476-DP00613. We thank Mr. Robert D. Pilkey for his assistance in making many of the high-accuracy measurements in support of this work.

References
[1] Chetwynd DG, McKee FA, Rakels JH. Machined surfaces: nal texture and underlying structure. Wear 1982;83:233 40. [2] Whitehouse DJ. Typology of manufactured surfaces. Ann CIRP 1971;19:41731. [3] Sherrington I, Smith EH. The signicance of surface topography in engineering. Prec Eng 1986;8(2):79 87. [4] Ehmann KF, Kapoor, SG, DeVor RE, Lazoglu I. Machining process modeling: a review. ASME J Manufact Sci Eng 1997;119:655 63. [5] Abbott EJ, Firestone FA. Specifying surface quality. Mech Eng 1933; 55: 569 72. [6] Whitehouse DJ. Handbook of Surface Metrology. Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics Publishing, 1994. [7] Whitehouse DJ. Surface metrology. Measure Sci Technol 1997;8: 95572.