Measurement 158 (2020) 107692

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Investigation of the effect of temperature and other significant factors on

systematic error and measurement uncertainty in CMM measurements
by applying design of experiments
Branko Štrbac a, Bojan Ačko b, Sara Havrlišan c, Ivan Matin a, Borislav Savković a, Miodrag Hadžistević a,⇑
a
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Production Engineering, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
b
University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
c
Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Mechanical Engineering Faculty, 35000 Slavonski Brod, Croatia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The design of experiments was used in this paper in order to determine the significance of particular fac-
Received 7 November 2019 tors for the parameters that indicate the quality of measurement results obtained by means of a coordi-
Received in revised form 7 February 2020 nate measuring machine (CMM). Special emphasis was placed on the interaction of temperature and
Accepted 3 March 2020
other factors. In accordance with the design of experiments, the diameter and roundness of a ring gauge
Available online 18 March 2020
were measured at the reference temperature and at the temperature of 26 °C. The ISO 15530-3:2011
standard for the assessment of measurement uncertainty of CMM measurements distinguishes system-
Keywords:
atic error from measurement uncertainty. Thus, separate analyses were done on how temperature, in the
Temperature
Systematic error
first place, but also workpiece position on the CMM table, coordinate system, stylus tip diameter, sam-
Measurement uncertainty pling size and interaction of temperature with other factors affect systematic error and measurement
DoE uncertainty. The experimental results showed an increase in systematic error at the higher temperature
CMM when the diameter was measured, whereas with roundness, systematic error was even smaller at the
higher temperature. As for measurement uncertainty, measurements made at the higher temperature
have a significantly greater uncertainty when the diameter is measured, unlike with roundness, where
the effect of temperature is almost negligible.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction reference when investigating the accuracy of measuring systems

Modern production requires designing and constructing work-
pieces within exact specification limits with the aim of satisfying
functional requirements. Therefore, verification processes have to
be almost ideal and a quantitative indicator of the quality of mea-
surement results has to be given. Since measurement accuracy,
expressed via measurement error, can be assessed only when mea-
suring reference workpieces, it is necessary to assess the accompa-
nying measurement uncertainty in order to evaluate the quality of
measurement results [1,2].
Coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) are most appreciated
measuring instruments in verification procedures of dimensional
and geometric specifications of workpieces. CMMs are successfully
used both in state-of-the-art metrological laboratories and indus-
try, providing high measurement accuracy with complex products.
Equally, measurement results obtained by CMMs can be used as a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: miodrags@uns.ac.rs (M. Hadžistević).
whose traceability is difficult to verify [3]. These are the reasons
why evaluating quality of CMM measurements is extremely impor-
tant and why this has been one of the main research topics in the
field of dimensional metrology over the past three decades [4].
So far numerous experimental, simulation and analytical
methods of evaluating measurement uncertainty of CMM mea-
surements [5–9] have been developed. Some of these have been
ISO standardized [10,11]. It is generally believed that including
all influential factors and their interactions in the models of evalu-
ating uncertainty is impossible because CMM measuring is very
complex and measurement uncertainty is not a characteristic of
the measuring instrument but of the measuring task itself [12].
The following factors of uncertainty have been seen as the most
influential ones: geometric errors of the machine, probe errors,
number and position of points in the measuring strategy, form
error of the workpiece, and evaluation algorithm. However, despite
the fact that temperature affects measurement uncertainty to a
great extent, this factor has not been fully investigated in CMM
measurements [13]. The reason for this lies in the fact that the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107692
0263-2241/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692
developed models are primarily intended for laboratory conditions
where deviation from the reference temperature is considered neg-
ligible. This mainly refers to simulation models. Kruth et al. based
their simulation model on modeling hardware errors and work-
piece form errors, and pointed out that future research should
include integration of virtual surroundings with an emphasis on
temperature effects [14]. Gaska et al. recognized this problem.
They extended their model [15] so it could be used in industry,
including the effect of temperature via appropriate distribution
of residual errors for different temperatures [16]. Their model
examined the effect of temperature on the machine hardware
errors, whereas the effect of temperature on the workpiece was
omitted. Experimental and analytical models investigate the effect
of temperature on measurement uncertainty only through the
coefficient of thermal expansion of the workpiece and the CMM
[17,18]. They do not take into account the fact that temperature
has a strong effect on geometric errors of the machine which have
to do with the kinematics of the machine.
The models developed so far have mostly presumed that mea-
surements are made in temperature-controlled laboratories where
temperature is held at the reference temperature of 20 °C. How-
ever, a question arises over what happens when measurements
are performed in industrial conditions, where the economic aspect
is extremely important. When the aim is to reduce production
costs by reducing the time needed for the transport of workpieces
to metrological laboratories and the time needed for thermal stabi-
lization of a workpiece, the effect of temperature becomes very
important [21]. Peres et al. investigated making measurements in
a machine tool while a workpiece is still in the fixture [22]. In such
cases, there are significant temperature deviations from the refer-
ence temperature which affect both the CMM and the workpiece,
and the effect of temperature has to be assessed. Generally, if pos-
sible, temperature compensation is advised in order to achieve
necessary measurement accuracy [23,24]. However, it would be
interesting to examine how significant deviation from the refer-
ence temperature affects the uncertainty of CMM measurements
without activating temperature compensation.
Unlike previous research, this investigation has experimentally
determined how an increase in temperature which affects both the
CMM and the workpiece influences the quality of CMM measure-
ments. The design of experiments was used which, apart from tem-
perature, included several other factors of uncertainty. The aim
was to determine the significance of individual factors of uncer-
tainty and their interactions with temperature. The experiment
was conducted on a ring gauge and the uncertainty was assessed
for the diameter and form error (roundness) of the ring gauge.
2. The experimental set-up
The aim of the investigation was to examine the effect of tem-
perature on measurement uncertainty of a specific measuring task,
as well as the interaction of temperature and other factors of
uncertainty. For that purpose, we measured a ring gauge with
the nominal diameter D = 60 mm on a Carl Zeiss Contura g2 RDS
(Germany), coordinate measuring machine whose maximum per-
missible error amounts to MPEE= (1.9 + L/330) mm (L is the length
of measurement expressed in mm). The passive VAST XXT sensor
was used for sampling in the ‘‘point – by - point” mode with Rpt,
MPE = 1 mm repeatability. The point-by-point sampling mode was
used for two reasons: (1) the maximum permissible error in this
mode is smaller than with scanning [25] and (2) scanning speed
is a factor that can have a significant effect on experimental results.
For the purpose of determining the significance of uncertainty fac-
tors, the design of experiments (DoE) was applied. DoE is often
used in research and it is suitable for the analysis of interaction
between the examined factors and for assessing the conditions in
which measurement uncertainty is the smallest and the greatest.
Barini et al. used the design of experiments in order to determine
the effect of four factors on the value of shape deviation of a com-
plex surface and on measurement uncertainty of measurements
made on a CMM [26]. C.-X.J. Feng et al. used the design of experi-
ments in order to determine the effect of factors and their interac-
tions on measurement uncertainty when measuring the position of
the centre of a hole by means of a CMM [27]. Piratelli-Filho and Di
Giacomo used CMM performance tests by measuring the ball bar
[28]. They used the 23 design in order to examine the effect of ori-
entation and length of the ball bar on measurement uncertainty. A.
M.A. Al-Ahmari and J. Aalam used Taguchi designs for parameter
optimization when the CMM was used for reverse engineering,
i.e., for reconstruction of complex surfaces [29] Research data were
obtained by means of a general full factorial plan of the experiment
with five factors (Table 1). The input factors coordinate system,
stylus tip diameter, sampling size and temperature were varied
on two levels, whereas the factor workpiece position on the
CMM table was varied on four levels. The repetition of every com-
bination of factor levels was carried out five times with the aim of
investigating variation within each level. The total number of
experiments was 320 (41
24
5). The output variables were
the diameter and roundness of the ring gauge. The experiments
were conducted during two days because it was impossible to con-
duct a completely randomized experiment in one day due to the
temperature factor. On the first day, the experiments were carried
out according to the DoE at the temperature of 20 °C. Four days
later, the experiments were carried out at the temperature of
26 °C. Thus, the presented DoE was in two blocks [30].
The factor ‘‘workpiece position on the CMM table” includes the
effect of CMM hardware errors on measurement uncertainty. The
uncertainty of a sampled point is not uniform across the CMM
table and it is the resultant of 21 CMM geometric errors. This
way it is considered that the resultants of these errors differ
depending on the position of the sampling system. When sampling
each point in the measurement plan, the sampling system starts
from the reference coordinate system (MCS). As increase in tem-
perature affects the value of CMM geometric errors, it is assumed
that this factor will strongly affect the examined outputs when
interacting with temperature. This factor is present on four levels,
i.e. the workpiece was positioned in the corners of the table (Fig. 1).
Although standards recommend taking measurements in the cen-
tre of the CMM table, this position was not used in this research
because the positions in the corners of the CMM table were consid-
ered to have covered the ranges of geometric errors. The position
and orientation of the workpiece were chosen randomly by the
CMM operator. The holes on the CMM table served for approximate
positioning 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The ‘‘coordinate system” factor considers the assessment of
workpiece features if the coordinate system for the sampled points
is positioned in a different way. This way evaluation strategy was
taken into account. Fig. 1 also shows that on the first level of this
factor, coordinates of points are expressed using the machine coor-
dinate system (MCS), whereas on the second level the coordinates
of points are expressed using the coordinate system of the work-
piece (PCS).
The factor ‘‘stylus tip diameter” introduces mechanical filtration
for sampling deviations from the workpiece. This factor is particu-
larly important when measuring roundness because it filters out
the effect of roughness and waviness on the form error (Fig. 2).
The factor ‘‘sampling size” refers to the number of points which
describe real geometry (Fig. 3). A larger number of points in the
measurement strategy approximate real geometry more closely,
whereas a smaller number of points shorten the time needed for
inspection. In this experiment, a measurement strategy with uni-
 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692 3

Table 1
Analyzed factors and levels.

Factor Level Code

Workpiece position on the CMM table 1 2 3 4 A
Coordinate system CMM Workpiece B
Stylus tip diameter 5 mm 15 mm C
Sampling size 15 150 D
Temperature 20 °C 26 °C E

Fig. 1. Factors ‘‘workpiece position on the CMM table ‘‘and ‘‘coordinate system and
Fig. 3. Factor ‘‘sampling size‘‘.
their levels.

form profile

Fig. 2. Factor ‘‘stylus tip diameter”.

form distribution of 15 and 150 points was used to measure the Fig. 4. Experimental set-up and temperature control at 20 °C and 26 °C.
circle. Sampling was performed in the ‘‘point- by- point” mode.
The CMM and the workpiece were placed in a temperature-
controlled metrological laboratory where temperature was main- Table 2
Calibrated values of the ring gauge.
tained within an interval of ±0.5 °C at the 95% confidence level.
The experiments were carried out at the temperatures of 20 °C Characteristic Reference value in mm Standard uncertainty in mm
and 26 °C. Temperature compensation of the CMM was not acti- Diameter 60.0013 0.07
vated during the experiment, whereas the maintenance of air tem- Roundness 0.0006 0.05
perature in the laboratory, on the workpiece and the machine was
observed by means of a type K thermocouple (Fig. 4). The four-
channel device PCE-T395, Germany, was used.
Before the experiment, the workpiece was calibrated on a from the calibrated values, the values obtained on the CMM were
length measurement machine using a laser interferometer and assessed by means of the least squares method (LS) for diameter
mechanical probing. Calibrated values together with standard and minimum zone method (MZ) for roundness. The Machine soft-
uncertainties are presented in Table 2. In order to assess deviation ware Calypso was used for obtaining the association feature.
4 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692
The standard uncertainty of calibration was obtained from the
expanded measurement uncertainty with k = 2 coverage factor.
3. Measurement results and statistical analysis
Minitab 17 statistical software was used for the statistical anal-
ysis of the experimental data and the order of performing the ran-
domized experiment. The significance of factors and their
interactions for the deviation from reference values and standard
deviation were assessed by means of ANOVA analysis of variance
with the significance threshold of a = 0.05. As the focus of this
paper is the effect of temperature, the used models examined
two-factor interactions.
According to the revised ISO 15330-3:2011 standard, which is
considered to be the reference standard in assessing measurement
uncertainty of CMM measurements, the systematic error b is not a
part of measurement uncertainty. However, it is a part of the over-
all measurement result and it has to be stated. The systematic error
is defined as the difference between the value obtained by means
of a CMM, and the calibrated value. Therefore, this is an opportu-
nity to perform a separate analysis of the effect of the examined
factors on the systematic error, and a separate analysis of the effect
of these factors on measurement uncertainty.
3.1. Analysis of a systematic error
As assumed, statistical analysis of the experimental data
showed a high significance of the effect of temperature and work-
piece position on the CMM table (Fig. 5) and their interaction on
the systematic error of diameter measurement (Fig. 6). Based on
F–statistics, the most significant factors that affect the systematic
error of diameter are temperature (F = 18605,47), workpiece posi-
tion on the CMM table (F = 308) and their interaction (F = 172).
Equally, based on the given significance threshold and the
assessed value p (p < 0.05), other statistically significant factors
include stylus tip diameter, sampling size, and the following inter-
actions: workpiece position*Stylus tip diameter, workpiece posi-
tion*Sampling size and Sampling size*Temperature. The
statistical conclusions were drawn based on the adequate model
R-sq (pred) = 98.32%.
The same analysis was performed in measuring roundness. As
with diameter, the most significant factors affecting form error
are temperature (F = 37.44) and workpiece position on the CMM
table (F = 25.94) (Fig. 7). It can be seen that systematic errors in
roundness measurements are less significant at higher tempera-
tures. The interaction of these two factors is significant as well
(F = 17.86) (Fig. 8). However, in this case, the interaction between
Fig. 5. Main effects plot for systematic error of diameter.
Fig. 6. Interaction between position of workpiece on CMM table and temperature
for systematic error of diameter.
workpiece position on the CMM table and the number of points is
more significant (F = 22.08). Statistical analysis showed that apart
from the mentioned factors and interactions, other significant fac-
tors include stylus tip diameter and interactions between work-
piece position*Stylus tip diameter, Stylus tip diameter*Sampling
size, and Sampling size*Temperature. It can be seen that stylus
tip diameter and the number of points have a greater effect on
the systematic roundness error than on the systematic diameter
error. In this case, the adequacy of the model was R-sq
(pred) = 83.36%.
In both analyses, the effect of coordinate system on the system-
atic error was almost negligible. The effect of this factor would be
more significant in measuring workpieces characterized by greater
form deviation (production parts). This also applies to the effect of
stylus tip diameter and number of points, especially on the form
error.
Considering the reference values of the measured characteris-
tics, it can be seen that systematic measurement errors are greater
when the diameter is measured at higher temperature, whereas
they remain almost unchanged when roundness is measured at
the higher temperature (Fig. 9). However, when the values of stan-
dard deviation for both characteristics are analyzed, these values
are lower when measurements are made at the higher tempera-
ture. When the diameter is measured, standard deviation amounts
to 0.62 mm at the temperature of 20 °C, whereas it is 0.47 mm at the
temperature of 26 °C. With roundness, these values amount to
0.95 mm and 0.6 mm respectively.
Tables 3 and 4 present the minimum, maximum and mean val-
ues of the systematic error in measuring diameter and roundness.
 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692
Fig. 7. Main effects plot for systematic error of roundness.
Fig. 8. Interaction between position of workpiece on CMM table and temperature
for systematic error of roundness.
Fig. 9. CMM systematic errors in diameter and roundness measurements at
different temperatures.
5
3.2. Assessment of measurement uncertainty
The research into the topic of assessing measurement uncer-
tainty in CMM measurements has mostly relied on the following
methods so far: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measure-
ment (GUM), expert judgement, and standardized methods for
CMMs - ISO 15530-3 and ISO 15530-4 [12]. As the conditions
required by the standard ISO 15530-3:2011 have been satisfied,
measurement uncertainty in this paper was assessed according
to this standard. This standard demands repeated measurements
of the calibrated piece (at least 20) in a way that the workpiece
takes a different position and orientation in the CMM workspace
every time. In order to include as many uncertainty factors as pos-
sible, apart from position and orientation of the workpiece (factor
1), a few other influential factors were varied using the DoE. Since
in the newer version of this standard the systematic error is sepa-
rated from measurement uncertainty, uncertainties assessed
according to this standard are much smaller than with, for exam-
ple, the simulation method [16]. According to this standard, the
expanded measurement uncertainty is calculated using formula
(1).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
U ¼k
u2cal þ u2p þ u2b þ u2w ; ð1Þ
The standard uncertainty of repeated measurement (up) can be
determined using the expression (2):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
1 Xn 1 Xn
up ¼ x i  x i : ð2Þ
n1 i¼1 n i¼1
Tables 5 and 6 show the mean, minimum and maximum values
of the standard uncertainty at two different temperatures.
The tables show that the mean and the maximum values of
standard uncertainty are smaller at the higher temperature for
both measured characteristics. Standard uncertainty was derived
from the standard deviation calculated from the repeated mea-
surements. Thus, it can be said that this specific task has a better
repeatability at the higher temperature than at the reference tem-
perature. The reason for this might be in the fact that while the
temperature was being held at 26 °C, the temperature gradient
was lower. It can also be seen in the tables that the minimum val-
ues of standard uncertainty are 0 in both cases.
The values of standard uncertainties vary depending on the
level of the investigated factors. Tables 7 and 8 present levels of
factors that correspond to the minimum and maximum values of
the standard uncertainty of diameter and roundness, respectively.
Figs. 10 and 11 show a considerable effect of hardware errors on
the standard uncertainty, which is expected. Unlike measurement
6 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692

Table 3
Analysis of systematic diameter error at different temperatures.

Temp in °C Mean in mm Min in mm Max in mm

Systematic error 20 0.0005 0.0024 0.0004
Diameter 26 0.0026 0.0016 0.0036

Table 4
Analysis of systematic roundness error at different temperatures.

Temp in °C Mean in mm Min in mm Max in mm

Systematic error 20 0.0008 0.0001 0.0044
Roundness 26 0.0005 0.0003 0.0034

Table 5
Analysis of standard uncertainty of diameter error at different temperatures.

Temp in °C Mean in mm Min in mm Max in mm

St Unc Err Dia 20 0.00072 0 0.00137
26 0.00037 0 0.00061

Table 6
Analysis of standard uncertainty of roundness error at different temperatures.

Temp in °C Mean in mm Mini in mm Max in mm

St Unc Err Rou 20 0.00074 0 0.00169
26 0.00067 0 0.00162

Table 7
Levels of factors for minimum/maximum values of standard uncertainty for diameter error.

Factors A B C D E St Dev
Levels 2 CMM 5 150 26 min
3 Workpiece 5 15 20 max

Table 8
Levels of factors for minimum/maximum values of standard uncertainty for roundness error.

Factors A B C D E St Dev
Levels 4 CMM 5 150 26 min
2 Workpiece 15 15 20 max

errors where the factor of coordinate system was negligible, this
factor has a statistically significant effect on measurement uncer-
tainty. The standard uncertainty for both measured characteristics
is somewhat larger if coordinates of the sampled points are
expressed via the workpiece coordinate system. The explanation
for this lies in the fact that when the workpiece coordinate system
is used, a new coordinate system has to be defined every time by
measuring geometric primitives that constitute it. The strategy of
sampling these primitives is always different and chosen by the
operator, which is the source of uncertainty.
Mean values of standard uncertainty shown in Tables 5 And 6
were used to assess total uncertainty.
According to ISO 15530-3, ub and uw refer to the workpiece and
CMM because CMM do not use temperature compensation. These
values are calculated as, formula 3:
 °C. The difference interval of 0.1 °C is defined based on some exper-
ub1 ¼ uw1 ¼ ðT  20 CÞ
ua
L ð3Þ
Since there was no temperature compensation, apart from the
uncertainties ub1 and uw1 (uncertainty of the coefficient of expan-
of temperature according to the GUM (ISO JCGM 100:2008) Annex
H.1. [32].
The first thing that can be determined is the uncertainty of the

average thermal expansion uðaÞ. The interval of ±1
106 °C1 is
defined from the literature on steel. Standard uncertainty at the
supposed rectangular distribution is, formula (4):
1
106  C1
ub2 ¼ uw2 ¼ uðaÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ¼ 0:58
106  C1 ð4Þ
3
The sensitivity coefficient in this case is 0.1 °C1
L.
Also, the uncertainty of temperature difference can be deter-
mined. The ring is fixed on the same base plate and the tempera-
ture of the plate is measured. The temperature of the plate
during the measurement is limited to (20 ± 0.5) °C and (26 ± 0.5)
iments. Standard uncertainty at the assumed normal distribution
is:


sion the calibrated ring gauge ua = 0.12
106 L [31]) this paper 0:1 
uw3 ¼ ub3 ¼ uðdT Þ ¼ C ¼ 0:05 C ð5Þ
will include a few more standard uncertainties related to the effect 2
 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692 7

Fig. 10. Main effects plot for standard uncertainty of diameter error.

Fig. 11. Main effects plot for standard uncertainty of roundness error.

It is also necessary to determine the standard uncertainty of the Since the measurement is comparative, this difference is influ-
difference between the expansion coefficients of the CMM (pro- encing the measurement result only on the half measurement
ducer’s specification: a = 7.8
106 °C1) and the calibrated ring length in the worst case. Therefore, we use L/2 in the sensitivity
(steel; a = 11
106 C1) Ida = 4
106 C1 is supposed as the coefficient.
deviation interval. Standard uncertainty at the supposed rectangu- The uncertainty of average temperature deviation from 20 °C
lar distribution is, formula (6): and 26 °C u(h) can also be considered. The temperature expansion
6 
pffiffiffi is not corrected, but the allowed temperature deviation during the
uw4 ¼ ub4 ¼ uðdaÞ ¼ 4
10 C = 3 ¼ 2:3
106  C1
1
ð6Þ
8 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692

calibration is limited to ±0.5 °C. Standard uncertainty at the sup- The overall measurement results for the two measured charac-
posed rectangular distribution is, formula (7): teristics at different temperatures are given in Fig. 12. The mea-
pffiffiffi surement result (D, R) and the systematic error b are presented
 
uw5 ¼ ub5 ¼ uðTmÞ ¼ 0:5 C= 3 ¼ 0:29 C ð7Þ as mean values.
In Fig. 12 the effect of temperature on the systematic error b
Since the measurement is comparative, we apply mean differ-
and on the total measurement uncertainty U can be seen when
ence in a in sensitivity coefficient calculation. Average difference
the diameter (length) is measured. Therefore, when dimensional
in a is assumed to be 2.5
106 °C1.
characteristics are measured at the higher stable temperature of
The uncertainty budget for standard uncertainties ub2 and uw2,
the CMM and the workpiece, less accurate measurement values
ub3 and uw3, ub4 and uw4, ub5 and uw5 that will be named uncertainty
and higher measurement uncertainty are expected. However, in
components ubT and uwT is presented in Table 10.
the experiment, repeatability (one of the uncertainty components)
What follows is that standard uncertainty uw, i.e. ub is, formula
was greater at the higher temperature than at the reference tem-
(8):
perature. As for measuring roundness (form), the situation with
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the results is opposite. The systematic error and the total measure-
ub ¼ uw ¼ u2bT þ u2b1 ð8Þ

The last standard uncertainty is the uncertainty of the ring

gauge calibration ucal. Table 9 presents the measurement uncer-
tainty budget for measuring diameter at the reference tempera-
ture. Combined uncertainty uAB is calculated from all the
mentioned standard uncertainties, and based on the effective
degree of freedom, using t-distribution, k = 2 coverage factor is
chosen for 95% probability. Based on this, expanded measurement
uncertainty U95 is calculated. The table also presents other
expanded uncertainties for measuring diameter at the higher tem-
perature and measuring roundness both at the reference and the
higher temperature. When assessing uncertainty of roundness
measurements, standard uncertainties which contain temperature
effects have the value of 0 because L  0. Consequently, apart from
being present in the CMM and the workpiece, temperature effects
of measurement uncertainty cannot be contained in the standard
uncertainties ub and uw. The observations made by Jakubiec should
also be mentioned [19]. In order to obtain these values, it is neces-
sary to include, along with the coefficients of thermal expansion,
the value of length. However, when geometric characteristics such
as straightness, flatness, roundness or cylindricity are measured, a Fig. 12. Overall measurement results defined via mean values of measurement,
systematic error and expanded measurement uncertainty.
question arises about what length L is [20].

Table 9
Uncertainty budget for measuring diameter at 20 °C and expanded uncertainties for all cases.

Uncertainty component Source of uncertainty Distribution Standard Value of standard Effective degree of
Symbol for measurement uncertainty type measurement uncertainty in freedom
uncertainty component lm
up Repeated measurement according to none A 0.72
DoE
uw1 = ub1 From the manufacturing process and uniform B (20.5–20)
ua
L
the systematic error
uwT = ubT Other temperature effects uniform B 1.37
106
L
ucal Uncertainty of ring gauge calibration normal B 0.07
uAB Combined uncertainty 0.79 >30
U95 Expanded uncertainty of diameter 1.59
measurements at 20 °C
U95 Expanded uncertainty of diameter 3.98
measurements at 26 °C
U95 Expanded uncertainty of roundness 1.48
measurements at 20 °C
U95 Expanded uncertainty of roundness 1.34
measurements at 26 °C

Table 10
The uncertainty budget for other temperature effects.

Quantity Xi Standard uncertainty u(xi) Distribution Sensitivity coefficient ci Uncertainty contribution ui(y) = ci
u(xi)

a 0.58
106°C1 Rectangular 0.1 °C1
L 0.06
106
L
uðdT Þ 0.05 °C Normal 9.5
106°C1
L 0.47
106
L
da 2.3
106°C1 Rectangular 0.5 °C
L/2 0.57
106
L
h 0,29 °C Rectangular 2.5
106°C1 0.72
106
L
Total ubT and uwT 1.37
106
L
 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692
ment uncertainty have lower values when measurements are
made at the higher temperature. This seems to be very interesting
since the assessment of CMM measurement uncertainty in mea-
suring form error is much more interesting for investigation than
the dimensional measurements. Based on the results of the exper-
iment, it can be concluded that in measuring the form error, if the
CMM and the workpiece are thermally stable at the higher temper-
ature, the CMM is more accurate and more precise. The research
[15] also presented reduced measurement uncertainty when mea-
suring the form error (flatness and cylindricity) on the CMM if
measurements were made at temperatures other than the refer-
ence temperature.
The results of this investigation can be applied in measuring
real workpieces because the most significant factors (CMM hard-
ware and temperature) are the same for this case, whereby the
amount of measurement uncertainty will probably be expanded
with uncertainty factors such as workpiece form deviation, sam-
pling strategy, their interaction, and so on.
4. Conclusion
Evaluation of CMM measurement uncertainty is a challenging
task. It is necessary to include all influential factors in the evalua-
tion model and describe them adequately. Deviation from the ref-
erence temperature can affect measurement uncertainty to a great
extent. The design of experiments used in this research included
some of the most influential factors affecting measurement uncer-
tainty. It was examined how an increase in temperature interacting
with other factors of uncertainty affects quality parameters of a
CMM. Temperature compensation of the CMM was deactivated
during the experiment. Measuring the diameter and roundness of
a ring gauge, it was found that an increase in temperature has a
significant effect on the systematic diameter error, whereas its
influence on roundness is considerably weaker. Additionally,
strong interaction was observed between temperature and posi-
tion of workpiece on the CMM table which includes the effect of
geometric errors of the machine. As for measurement uncertainty,
the effect of temperature is conspicuous when measuring the
diameter, whereas in measuring roundness, the value of uncer-
tainty is smaller than the value of uncertainty at the reference tem-
perature. Experimental research is useful for measurements in
industry because the majority of measurements are made at tem-
peratures which significantly deviate from the reference tempera-
ture. Although this case study showed better results at the higher
temperatures, the general conclusion is that measuring roundness
at higher temperatures, which is often the case in industry, will not
affect the measurement error or measurement uncertainty to a
great extent. Future research would include the development of a
simulation model which would, apart from modeling hardware
structure and measurement strategy, model the behavior of CMMs
at higher temperatures, but also the behavior of workpieces at
higher temperatures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Branko Štrbac: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing - original draft. Bojan Ačko: Methodology, Investigation,
Writing - review & editing, Resources. Sara Havrlišan: Conceptual-
ization, Writing - review & editing. Ivan Matin: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Borislav Savković:
Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Miodrag Hadžistević:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Supervision.
9
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] B. Acko, S. Brezovnik, L. Crepinsek Lipus, R. Klobucar, Verification of statistical
calculations in interlaboratory comparisons by simulating input datasets, Int. J.
Simulat. Model. 14(2) (2015) A004, 227–237. https://doi:10.2507/IJSIMM 14
(2)4.288.
[2] R. D’Amato, J. Caja, P. Maresca, E. Gómez, Use of coordinate measuring machine
to measure angles by geometric characterization of perpendicular planes.
Estimating uncertainty, Measurement 47 (2014) 598–606, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2013.09.027.
[3] A. Horvatic Novak, B. Runje, J. Stepanic, Capabilities of industrial computed
tomography in the field of dimensional measurements, Adv. Product. Eng.
Manage. 12 (3) (2017) 245–253, https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2017.3.255.
[4] W. Płowucha, Point-straight line distance as model for uncertainty evaluation
of coordinate measurement, Measurement 135 (2019) (2019) 83–95, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.11.008.
[5] C. Cui, S. Fu, F. Huang, Research on the uncertainties from different form error
evaluation methods by CMM sampling, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 43 (1–2)
(2009) 136–145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1681-4.
[6] H. Li, X. Chen, Y. Cheng, H. Liu, H. Wang, Z. Cheng, H. Wang, Uncertainty
modeling and evaluation of CMM task-oriented measurement based on
SVCMM, Measur. Sci. Rev. 17 (5) (2017) 226–231, https://doi.org/10.1515/
msr-2017-0027.
[7] J. Beaman, E. Morse, Experimental evaluation of software estimates of task
specific measurement uncertainty for CMMs, Precis. Eng. 34 (1) (2010) 28–33,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2009.08.006.
[8] R. Calvo, R. D’Amato, E. Gómez, R. Domingo, Integration of error compensation
of coordinate measuring machines into feature measurement: Part I—Model
development, Sensors 16 (10) (2016) 1610, https://doi.org/10.3390/
s16101610.
[9] R. Calvo, R. D’Amato, E. Gómez, R. Domingo, Integration of error compensation
of coordinate measuring machines into feature measurement: Part II—
experimental implementation. Sensors 16(10) (2016) 1705. https://doi.org/
10.3390/s16101705.
[10] ISO/TS 15530-3:2011. Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – coordinate
measuring machines (CMM): technique for determining the uncertainty of
measurement – part 3: use of calibrated workpieces or standards.
[11] ISO/TS 15530-4:2008. Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – coordinate
measuring machines (CMM): technique for determining the uncertainty of
measurement – part 4: evaluating task-specific measurement uncertainty
using simulation.
[12] R.G. Wilhelma, R. Hockena, H. Schwenkeb, Task specific uncertainty in
coordinate measurement, CIRP Ann. – Manufact. Technol. 50 (2001) 553–
563, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62995-3.
[13] R. Hocken, P . Pereira (editors), Coordinate measuring machines and systems,
2nd ed, CRC Press, 2011.
[14] J.-P. Kruth, N. Van Gestel, P. Bleys, F. Welkenhuyzen, Uncertainty
determination for CMMs by Monte Carlo simulation integrating feature form
deviations, CIRP Ann. – Manufact. Technol. 58 (1) (2009) 463–466, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.028.
[15] J. Sładek, A. Ga˛ska, Evaluation of coordinate measurement uncertainty with
use of virtual machine model based on Monte Carlo method, Measurement 45
(6) (2012) 1564–1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2012.02.020.
[16] A. Ga˛ska, W. Harmatys, P. Ga˛ska, M. Gruza, K. Gromczak, K. Ostrowska, Virtual
CMM-based model for uncertainty estimation of coordinate measurements
performed in industrial conditions, Measurement 98 (2017) 361–371, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.12.027.
[17] I. Vrba, R. Palencar, M. Hadzistevic, B. Strbac, V. Spasic-Jokic, J. Hodolic,
Different approaches in uncertainty evaluation for measurement of complex
surfaces using coordinate measuring machine, Measurement Sci. Rev. 15 (3)
(2015) 111–118, https://doi.org/10.1515/msr-2015-0017.
[18] T. Tasic, B. Acko, Integration of a laser interferometer and a CMM into a
measurement system for measuring internal dimensions, Measurement 44 (2)
(2011) 426–433, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2010.11.002.
[19] W. Plowucha, W. Jakubiec, Proposal for changes in the ISO series of standards.
Quality – Access to Success 13(5) (2012) 237–240.
[20] B. Štrbac, V. Radlovački, V. Spasić-Jokić, M. Delić, M. Hadžistević, The difference
between GUM and ISO/TC 15530–3 method to evaluate the measurement
uncertainty of flatness by a CMM, MAPAN 32 (2017) 251–257, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12647-017-0227-3.
[21] R. Klobucar, B. Acko, Experimental evaluation of ball bar standard thermal
properties by simulating real shop floor conditions, Int. J. Simulat. Modell. 15
(3) (2016) 511–521, https://doi.org/10.2507/IJSIMM15(3)10.356.
[22] P. Pérez, S. Aguado, J.A. Albajez, J. Santolaria, Influence of laser tracker noise on
the uncertainty of machine tool volumetric verification using the Monte Carlo
method, Measurement 133 (2019) 81–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2018.10.012.
10 B. Štrbac et al. / Measurement 158 (2020) 107692
[23] S. Naeem, S. Mian, A.P. Longstaff Fletcher, Reducing the latency between
machining and measurement using FEA to predict thermal transient effects on
CMM measurement, Measurement 135 (2019) 260–277, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2018.11.034.
[24] J.-P. Kruth, P. Vanhercka, C. Van den Bergh, Compensation of static and
transient thermal errors on CMMs, CIRP Annals, 50(1) (2001) 377–380,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62144-1.
[25] ISO 10360-2:2009: Geometrical product specifications (GPS) — Acceptance
and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM), Geneva.
[26] E.M. Barini, G. Tosello, L. De Chiffre, Uncertainty analysis of point-by-point
sampling complex surfaces using touch probe CMMs. DOE for complex
surfaces verification with CMM, Precis. Eng. 34 (1) (2010) 16–21, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2009.06.009.
[27] C.-X.J. Feng, A.L. Saal, J.G. Salsbury, A.R. Ness, G.C.S. Lin, Design and analysis of
experiments in CMM measurement uncertainty study, Precis. Eng. 31 (2)
(2007) 94–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2006.03.003.
[28] A. Piratelli-Filho, B. Di Giacomo, CMM uncertainty analysis with factorial
design, Precis. Eng. 27 (3) (2003) 283–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-
6359(03)00035-7.
[29] A.M.A. Al-Ahmari, Javed Aalam. Optimizing parameters of freeform surface
reconstruction using CMM, Measurement 64 (2015) 17–28, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2014.12.031.
[30] K. Simunovic, G. Simunovic, T. Saric, Single and multiple goal optimization of
structural steel face milling process considering different methods of cooling/
lubricating, J. Cleaner Prod. 94 (2015) 321–329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.02.015.
[31] T. Doiron, J. Stoup, Uncertainty and dimensional calibrations, J. Res. Nat. Inst.
Stand. Technol. 102 (6) (1997) 647–676, https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.102.044.
[32] BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML, Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement, JCGM 100:2008 (GUM 1995 with minor
corrections), 2008. http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/
JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf.