Journal Pre-proof

Measurement of form error of a probe tip ball for coordinate measuring machine
(CMM) using a rotating reference sphere

So Ito, Daisuke Tsutsumi, Kazuhide Kamiya, Kimihisa Matsumoto, Noritaka

Kawasegi

PII: S0141-6359(19)30690-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.09.017
Reference: PRE 7034

To appear in: Precision Engineering

Received Date: 20 September 2019

Accepted Date: 29 September 2019

Please cite this article as: So Ito, Daisuke Tsutsumi, Kazuhide Kamiya, Kimihisa Matsumoto,
Noritaka Kawasegi, Measurement of form error of a probe tip ball for coordinate measuring
machine (CMM) using a rotating reference sphere, Precision Engineering (2019), https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.precisioneng.2019.09.017

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Measurement of form error of a probe tip ball for coordinate

measuring machine (CMM) using a rotating reference sphere

So Ito1*, Daisuke Tsutsumi1, Kazuhide Kamiya1, Kimihisa Matsumoto1,

Noritaka Kawasegi2,
1Department of Intelligent Robotics, Toyama Prefectural University, Imizu, Toyama
930-0398, Japan
2Toyama Industrial Technology Research and Development Center

*Phone : +81-766-56-7500, *Fax : +81-766-56-8030

*E-mail: so.ito@pu-toyama.ac.jp

Abstract

This study presents a method of measurement of the form error of the tip ball in the

tactile probing systems of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) by using a rotating

reference sphere. The measurement of the form error of the CMM probe tip was

conducted without the use of additional external measuring instruments or sensors. The

form errors of the probe tip ball and the reference sphere were separated from the

probing coordinates of CMM by rotation of the reference sphere. The effectiveness of

the proposed method was evaluated based on an uncertainty analysis. The uncertainty in

measurement of diameter of the probe tip ball was estimated to be less than 0.5 m.

Keywords: Metrology, CMM, Diameter, Probe, Rotating sphere, Calibration

1
 Journal Pre-proof

1. Introduction

Coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) using tactile probing systems are one of

the metrology tools used widely for three-dimensional measurement of workpieces in

the industrial field owing to their high accuracy and good accessibility for measuring

complex objects. A typical stylus used for the CMMs possesses a spherical tip at the

end of the stylus shaft to maintain a uniform shape in all the directions. The dimensions

of the workpieces are calculated based on the probing coordinates therefore, an

omnidirectional calibration of the form error of the probe tip is essential in

three-dimensional measurements by a CMM. According to ISO 10360-5:2010 [1], the

single-stylus form error (PFTU) is determined by a least-squares fit of points measured

on a calibrated test sphere. The PFTU includes the uncertainty derived from the form

errors of the probe tip ball and the test sphere because the sphericity of commercially

available test spheres ranges from several tens to hundreds of nanometers. Consequently,

it is difficult to evaluate the form error of the probe tip ball with nanometric accuracy by

the method based on ISO. In the methods of measurement using reference artefacts with

higher dimensional accuracy, probe calibrations were performed using gauge blocks

[2-4]. Gauge blocks are one of the commonly used artefacts for calibration of length.

Their ultra-flat surfaces can be bonded together by wringing and the required reference

length can be prepared with a suitable combination. The uncertainty in measurement of

the central length was estimated to be below 40 nm (k = 2) [5]. In several previous

researches, the diameters of the tip ball of the CMM or micro-CMM probes were

evaluated by using precision slit gaps consisting of three gauge blocks bonded by

wringing, as the error in the length of the gauge blocks due to wringing was less than 10

nm. Thus, precision slits are one of the practical candidates among calibration artefacts

2
 Journal Pre-proof

to determine the uncertainty in nanometer-scale measurements. However, it is difficult

to measure the form error of the probe tip because the measurable direction of the probe

tip ball is limited to one direction. In addition, it is also difficult to remove the

dimensional errors derived from the artefacts themselves; for example, in the case of the

gauge blocks, the extent of flatness of the surfaces becomes a source of uncertainty in

the calibration [4].

A three-sphere calibration method was developed to measure the roundness and

absolute diameter of the probe tip ball [6, 7] in which the tip balls of three styli were

utilized as test spheres. Roundness of the tip ball was separated by arithmetic processing,

and the absolute diameter was calculated. However, this was a time-consuming method,

as it required removal and reinstallation of the styli. Instead of using calibration

artefacts such as test spheres or gauge blocks, optical methods allow high-resolution

measurements in a short time. Although interferometric methods [8-10] were used for

measurement of the surface form error or strain of the spheres with nanometer-scale

accuracy in non-contact conditions, it was difficult to measure the dimensions of the

sphere. A method based on the analysis of whispering gallery modes (WGMs) was

proposed [11] to measure the diameter of a microsphere based on the optical method.

Optical methods can achieve high-precision measurements associated with the

wavelength of light; however, it is necessary to construct the optical system composed

of a light source, detector, and optical components to carry out the measurement. In

general, it is inconvenient and not practicable to construct an optical system on the

measuring table of the CMM for three-dimensional measurement of the workpiece.

Therefore, a method of nanometric measurement that does not use external measuring

instruments or sensors except for the CMM will be a practical method for the precision

3
 Journal Pre-proof

measurement of the form error of the probe tip ball and calibration of the tip ball

diameter.

In this study, a precision steel ball was employed as a reference sphere to measure

the form error of the probe tip ball. To separate the form errors of the probe tip ball and

reference sphere from the CMM measurement results, probing detections by the CMM

were carried out on the reference sphere that could be rotated around the Z-axis, and the

form errors were calculated based on the probing coordinates on the rotating reference

sphere. The form error of the reference sphere was compared with the measurements of

a roundness measuring machine to evaluate the reliability of the proposed method. The

details of the proposed method and experimental conditions are described at first,

following which the results of the experiments and uncertainty analysis are presented.

2. Principle of measurement

Fig. 1 shows the schematic diagram of the precision steel ball that was employed

as a reference sphere for measurement of the form error of the probe tip ball. The

reference sphere was mounted on an automatic stage that could rotate around the Zr-axis.

XY manual stages were installed between the steel ball and rotating stage to reduce the

eccentricity of rotation of the reference sphere. This arrangement is referred to as the

rotating reference sphere. As shown in Fig. 1, the X, Y, and Z axes indicate the machine

coordinate system of the CMM; the Xr, Yr, and Zr axes indicate the coordinate system of

the reference sphere; and the Xp, Yp, and Zp axes indicate the coordinate system of the

probe tip ball. The form error of the probe tip ball is calculated based on the probing

coordinates obtained by the CMM on the reference sphere around the Zr-axis. Fig. 2 is a

4
 Journal Pre-proof

schematic of the contact points of the probe tip ball on the reference sphere in the X-Y

plane during the general calibration procedure. The arrowheads indicate the orientation

of the tip ball. As shown in Fig. 2, the contact points on the probe tip ball are different

for each probing direction because typical CMM probes cannot rotate around the Zp axis.

Consequently, the calibration result includes the form errors of the reference sphere as

well as the probe tip ball. Meanwhile, when the same point on the probe tip ball

contacts the test sphere as shown in Fig. 3, the form error of the probe tip ball included

in the measurement result is constant. However, as mentioned above, typical CMM

probes cannot rotate the stylus around the Zp axis. Therefore, in this study, a rotational

motion equivalent to the rotation of the probe around the Zp axis was achieved by

rotation of the reference sphere. When the reference sphere is given an angular variation

around the Zr-axis and the probing detections are conducted on the same measured

circumference on the reference sphere, the points on the probe tip ball in contact with

the same point on the reference sphere is changed. By using the measuring coordinates

of the CMM in contact with the same point on the reference sphere, it is possible to

obtain the form of the probe tip ball without including the form error of the reference

sphere. The procedure for measurement of the diameter of the probe tip ball is given

below: First, the average radius, rp, of the probe tip ball was obtained by the test sphere

by a general method according to ISO 10360-5:2010. Then, the average diameter, rr,

and center coordinate of the reference sphere were calculated by sphere fitting of the

CMM software before rotating the reference sphere. The measured circumference on the

reference sphere was determined so that the centers of the reference sphere and probe

tip ball were set in the same Z position.

If the same point on the probe tip ball contacts with the reference sphere as shown

5
 Journal Pre-proof

in Fig. 3, the center coordinates of the reference sphere and the probe tip ball in the

measurement of the diameter of the reference sphere are schematically shown as Fig. 4.

As shown in Fig. 4, the angle between the Xr-axis and contact point of the probe on the

reference sphere is denoted by  Since the reference sphere coordinate system rotates

around Zr-axis by the rotation of the reference sphere,  is calculated from the rotation

angle of the reference sphere and the probing coordinates on the reference sphere.

Similarly, the angle between the Xp-axis and contact point of the probe tip ball is

denoted by . In the actual CMM measurement, since the probe cannot be rotated

around Zp-axis,  is estimated from the probing coordinates on the reference sphere as

shown in Fig. 2. The probing coordinates are obtained on the measured circumference

of the reference sphere by measurement of the circle, so that the center coordinate of the

measured circumference on the reference sphere is calculated by circle fitting of the

CMM software. Therefore, the measurement interval on the probe tip ball, , can be

expressed as follows:

∆𝜙 = 2𝜋/𝑚 (1)

where m is the number of measurement points on the measured circumference of the

reference sphere. After the measurement of the circle, the reference sphere is rotated

around the Zr-axis by the rotating stage. The rotation angle of the reference sphere,  ,

can be expressed as follows:

∆𝜃 = 2𝜋/𝑛 (2)

where, n is the division number of one rotation of the reference sphere. The

measurement of the circle on the reference sphere is repeated until it makes one rotation

by the rotation stage and the probing coordinates and center coordinates of the reference

6
 Journal Pre-proof

sphere are obtained. In this study, n was set to be same as m because the relation ship

between  and  can be expressed as follows:

𝜙=𝜃+𝜋 (3)

Although m-th component of the form error cannot be removed if n is same as m, the

calculation become simple. Consequently, m × m setouts of the probing coordinates

with different  and  are obtained.

As shown in Fig. 4, assuming that the same point of the probe tip ball is in contact

with the reference sphere, D ( ) is denoted as the distance between two probe center

coordinates including the diameter of the reference sphere. The distance D ( )

between two positions of the probe at which  differs by 180° can be expressed by the

following equation:

𝐷(𝜃, 𝜙) = 2(𝑟𝑟 + 𝑟𝑝) +2Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙) + Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃) + Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃 + 𝜋) (4)

where rp () and rr () are the unknown form errors of the probe tip ball and reference

sphere, respectively. When  changes to  owing to a change in the contact

position of the probe tip ball, the distance D ( ) is expressed by the following

equation:

𝐷(𝜃, 𝜙 + Δ𝜙) = 2(𝑟𝑟 + 𝑟𝑝) +2Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙 + Δ𝜙) + Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃) + Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃 + 𝜋) (5)

Fig. 5 shows the variation of the distance D ( ) as a function of , calculated by

Eqs. 4 and 5. As shown in Fig. 5, the convexo-concave shape of the curve of D ( )

corresponds to the form error of the reference sphere when  is constant. The difference

between the curves of D ( ) and D ( ) is caused by the variation in the radius

of the probe tip ball between  and  at the same . Therefore, the variation in the

7
 Journal Pre-proof

radius of the probe tip ball, Δ𝑟'𝑝(𝜙), around the Zp-axis is derived as the difference of

the Eqs. 3 and 4 and is expressed as follows:

1 1
Δ𝑟'𝑝(𝜙) = {𝐷(𝜃, 𝜙 + Δ𝜙) ― 𝐷(𝜃, 𝜙)} = Δ𝜙
2Δ𝜙

{Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙 + Δ𝜙) ― Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙)} (6)

In Fig. 5, Δ𝑟'𝑝(𝜙) is indicated by the shaded area. The form error of the probe tip ball,

Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙), can be calculated by integrating Eq. 5, as shown below:

1
∫Δ𝑟'𝑝(𝜙)𝑑𝜙 = ∫Δ𝜙{Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙 + Δ𝜙) ― Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙)}𝑑𝜙 = Δ𝑟𝑝(𝜙) + 𝐶1 (7)

where C1 is an integral constant, which is determined so that the average value of Δ𝑟𝑝

(𝜙) becomes zero. Similarly, when  is the same and  changes to   , Eq. 6

changes to Eq. 7 as follows:

1
∫Δ𝑟'𝑟(𝜃)𝑑𝜃 = ∫Δ𝜃{Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃 + Δθ) ― Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃)}𝑑𝜃 = Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃) + 𝐶2 (8)

where C2 is an integral constant. As shown in Eq. 8, the form error of the reference

sphere, Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃), can also be obtained according to the probing coordinates without the

influence of the variation in diameter of the probe tip ball. The actual tactile probing

systems including the touch-trigger probes and scanning probes have characteristic of

the probing detection depending on the approaching directions. Therefore, it is assumed

that the calculated form errors include the disagreement with the actual probe tip form

derived from the characteristic of the probing direction. However, it was difficult to

evaluate the characteristic of the probing direction because the probe tip cannot be

displaced without the using the positioning systems of the CMM. In this paper, the

characteristic of the probing direction was considered as the uncertainty of the

8
 Journal Pre-proof

measurement. The uncertainty of measurement is described in detail in the next section.

3. Experimental results and estimation of uncertainty

The measurement of the form error of the probe tip ball was performed by using a

commercially available CMM (Mitutoyo LEGEX 574). The accuracy of coordinate

measurement of the CMM was 10 nm along each of the X, Y, and Z axes. The

measurement was carried out in a temperature-controlled room and the variation in

temperature during the experiment was 19.5 ± 0.5 °C. A single stylus touch-trigger

probing system (Renishaw, TP7M) was employed for the probing detection. A ruby ball

having nominal diameter and sphericity of 4.0 mm and 0.13 m, respectively, was

utilized as the probe tip ball. The average diameter and sphericity of the probe tip ball

were measured, based on ISO 10360-5:2010, using a high precision ceramic test ball.

According to the calibration certification, the average diameter and sphericity of the

ceramic test ball were evaluated to be 10.00007 mm and 0.08 m, respectively. The

number of probing points was set to be 36 for calibration of the probe tip. Consequently,

the average diameter and sphericity of the probe tip ball were evaluated to be 3.99843

mm and 0.48 m, respectively, by conducting the calibration procedure 5 times.

A precision ball for bearings, made of high carbon chromium steel, with a diameter

of 25.400 mm was employed as the rotating reference sphere in this study. The nominal

values of the sphericity and surface roughness Ra of the precision steel ball were 1 m

and 0.06 m, respectively. The precision steel ball was mounted on the XY manual

positioning stages (SIGMAKOKI, TADC-602WC) to reduce the eccentricity due to

rotation around the Zr-axis. In Eqs. 7 and 8, the eccentricity of the reference sphere can

9
 Journal Pre-proof

be eliminated in the calculation process of the form error. However, when the

eccentricity of the reference sphere is large, it is necessary to set the withdrawn distance

of the probe larger in order to avoid the collision of the probe tip during the rotation of

the reference sphere. Consequently, the eccentricity of the reference sphere became a

cause of the time-consuming, so the eccentricity was reduced as much as possible by the

manual stages in this study. The reference sphere and XY stages were fixed on the

moving table of the automatic rotating table (SIGMAKOKI, SGSP-80 YAW) with a

resolution of 0.005° and positioning repeatability of 0.02°. The eccentricity of the

reference sphere was estimated to be to less than 10 m. The rotating table with the

reference sphere was fixed with the help of screws on the table of the CMM. The

measurement of the form error of the probe was carried out on the maximum diameter

circumference of the probe tip ball along the Zp-axis. The center coordinate of the

reference sphere was estimated by using the sphere fit of the CMM software, and the

position of the center of the probe tip ball was set to be the same Z coordinate as that of

the reference sphere. The measurements of the circle by the CMM were carried out on

the maximum circumference of the reference sphere along the Zr-axis and the

coordinates of the contact points were obtained. The measurement of the reference

sphere was repeated 5 times. As the number of probing points, m, in the measurement of

the circle was set to be 36,  and  were estimated to be 10°. Although the center

coordinate of the reference sphere changed due to the eccentricity, it was possible to

calculate the center coordinates by least square fitting for each rotation and circle

measurement. As a result, the distance between the centers of the reference sphere and

probe tip ball could be calculated without the influence of the eccentricity of the rotation

of the reference sphere. Using Eq. 8, the form error of the reference sphere was

10
 Journal Pre-proof

separated from the probing coordinates obtained by the CMM. To confirm that the form

error of the reference sphere is measured without the influence of the eccentricity, the

calculated form error was compared with the measurement made by the roundness

measuring machine (Taylor Hobson, Talyrond290). The measurements of the roundness

of the reference sphere were conducted on the circumference of the maximum diameter

along the Zr direction using a stylus with a ruby ball tip of diameter 2.00 mm. The

process was repeated 5 times and Fig. 6 shows the result of the measurements. The

average roundness of the reference sphere was evaluated to be 0.701 m by applying a

low-pass filter of 15-UPR (Undulation per Revolution). Further, three convex parts are

seen in the measurements of the roundness. Meanwhile, Fig. 7 shows the form error of

the reference sphere before the separation of the form error of the probe tip ball.

According to the CMM measurement results, the average diameter of the reference

sphere was estimated to be 25.3986 mm, and the peak-to-valley value of the form error

was estimated to be 1.06 m. Three peaks are observed in Fig. 7, however, the form

error do not coincide with the results obtained by the roundness measuring machine

shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 8 shows the form error of the reference sphere after the separation of the form

error of the tip ball. The average diameter of the reference sphere was estimated to be

25.39930 mm, and the peak-to-valley value of form error calculated by the proposed

method was evaluated to be 0.69 m, which is almost the same as the value obtained by

the roundness measuring machine. In addition, the form error of the reference sphere

shows good agreement with the measuring result obtained by the roundness measuring

machine. Consequently, calculation based on Eq. 8 can determine the form error of the

reference sphere without the form error of the probe tip ball. Furthermore, the

11
 Journal Pre-proof

disagreement with the measurement of the roundness measuring machine is much

smaller than the eccentricity of the reference sphere in the measurement of form error of

the reference sphere. Therefore, it is confirmed that the error in measurement is almost

unaffected by the eccentricity of the rotating reference sphere.

Fig. 9 shows the results of calculation of the form error of the probe tip ball using a

rotating reference sphere. The average diameter was calculated to be 3.998148 mm

based on Eq. 7, and the peak-to-valley value of the form error of the probe tip ball was

evaluated to be 0.39 m. In this study, the sphericity of the probe tip ball, calculated by

the conventional method using a ceramic master ball, was evaluated to be 0.48 m. As

the evaluation of the form error in this experiment did not include the form error of the

calibration artefact, the form error of the probe tip ball was estimated to be smaller than

the sphericity determined by the conventional method.

To evaluate the accuracy of the form error, rp, in the measurement, an uncertainty

analysis was carried out for each of the terms in Eqs. 4 and 7 based on GUM (ISO

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) [12]. Table 1 shows a

summary of the uncertainty budget for the measurement of form error of the probe tip

ball. The combined standard uncertainty of (rr + rp), ur, was estimated based on the

calibration certificates and specifications of the CMM used in this study. As (rr + rp)

was calculated based on the probing coordinates, the errors were caused by the

maximum permissible error of indication of a CMM for size measurement (MPEE) in

the X and Y directions, i.e., uMPE_E_X and uMPE_E_Y respectively. The resolution of the

scales of the CMM, uscale_reso, was also considered, and the thermal effect of the scale

error, uscale_thermal, was estimated from the temperature during the measurement. The

12
 Journal Pre-proof

thermal effect of the probe tip ball was also considered to be a source of uncertainty in

ur. The thermal expansion coefficient of the ruby ball attached to the edge of the stylus,

uprobe_thermal, was evaluated to be 6.2 × 10-6/K. The average diameters of the probe tip

ball and reference sphere were calculated based on the calibration result using a ceramic

master ball; therefore, the sphericity of the ceramic master ball was also considered as a

source of uncertainty in ur. The sphericity of the ceramic master ball was estimated

based on its nominal value, and the uncertainty, usph_master, was calculated. The coverage

factor of all the sources of uncertainty marked as type B in Table 1 was assumed to be

3.

The combined standard uncertainty of rr() + rr(  )was uref. The thermal

expansion coefficient of high carbon chromium steel, uref_thermal, was evaluated to be

12.5 × 10-6/K. In this experiment, according to the measurement of the roundness

measuring machine, the variation in diameter of the reference sphere, rr (), was

approximated by the following equation:

Δ𝑟𝑟(𝜃) ≈ 𝐴𝑠𝑖𝑛3𝜃 (9)

where A is the amplitude of the surface undulation and assumed to be 0.35 m.

Therefore, the error in measurement of the form error of the reference sphere due to

repeatability of the rotating stage used in the experiment was estimated to be 0.366 nm.

The error in the direction of motion Zr of the reference sphere was measured by the

capacitive type displacement sensor and evaluated to be 0.68 m. The error in

measurement of the radius of the reference sphere due to the error in the Zr-directional

motion was estimated to be 0.0046 nm. The errors due to the positioning repeatability

and motion of the rotating stage were very small in comparison with the resolution of

13
 Journal Pre-proof

the CMM coordinate detection; hence, they are negligible sources of uncertainty.

The repeatability of the probing detection, uprobe, was also one of the main sources

of uncertainty. The uncertainty in the probing detection, uprobe_rep, was estimated based

on the standard deviation of the probing coordinates on the reference sphere. In this

study, the procedure for measurement of form error was repeated 5 times. According to

the experimental results shown in Fig. 9, the repeatability of the measurement of the

form error was estimated to be 25.5 nm. Consequently, the expanded uncertainty U of

the measurement of the form error of the probe tip ball was estimated to be 0.387 m (k

= 2). According to Table 1, the thermal expansion of the reference sphere was the main

source of uncertainty. As it is possible to change the material and diameter of the

reference sphere, the combined standard uncertainty, uref, can be reduced by

modification of these parameters of the reference sphere.

4. Conclusion

Measurements of the form errors of the probe tip ball and reference sphere were

performed by using a rotating reference sphere. The probing coordinates were

determined while rotating the reference sphere around the Zr-axis, and the form errors of

the probe tip ball and reference sphere were calculated. The calculated form error of the

reference sphere was in good agreement with the measurements of the roundness

measuring machine. Therefore, it was confirmed that the proposed method can separate

the form error without the influence of the eccentricity of the rotation of the reference

sphere. The repeatability of measurement of the form error of the probe tip ball was

estimated based on the standard deviation and estimated to be 25.5 nm. An uncertainty

14
 Journal Pre-proof

analysis with respect to the form error of the probe tip ball was carried out. The

expanded uncertainty in measurement of the diameter of the probe tip ball was

estimated to be 0.387 m (k = 2), which could realize the uncertainty in

sub-micrometric measurement. The proposed measurement method of the form error of

the probe tip ball on the CMM using a rotational reference sphere achieved a

nanometer-scale resolution. On the other hand, the measurement points on the probe tip

ball and on the reference sphere were the same, namely, n was set to the same number

as m in this study. Consequently, m-th component of the form errors cannot be removed

under this measurement condition. As a future work, a calculation method of the form

errors that can also separate the m-th components will be considered and applied it for

the compensation of the precision dimensional measurement.

Acknowledgment

This research is supported by the JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of

Science) KAKENHI Grant Number JP 16K05999 and Toyama Prefectural University

(TPU) The Society for the Promotion of cooperative Research Grant-in-Aid for

Encouragement of Scientists.

References

[1] ISO 10360-5:2010, Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - Acceptance and

reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM) - Part 5: CMMs

using single and multiple stylus contacting probing systems.

15
 Journal Pre-proof

[2] Lia RJ, Fan KC, Huang QX, Zhou H, Gong EM, Xiang M. A long-stroke 3D

contact scanning probe for micro/nano coordinate measuring machine. Precision

Engineering 2016; 43:220-229.

[3] Dai GL, Neugebauer M, Stein M, Bütefisch S, Neuschaefer-Rube U. Overview of

3D Micro- and Nanocoordinate Metrology at PTB. Applied Science 2016; 6(9):257.

[4] Ito S, Chen YL, Shimizu Y, Kikuchi H, Gao W, Takahashi K, Kanayama T,

Arakawa K, Hayashi A. Uncertainty analysis of slot die coater gap width

measurement by using a shear mode micro-probing system. Precision Engineering,

2016; 43:525-529.

[5] Claverley JD, Leach RK. A Review of the Existing Performance Verification

Infrastructure for Micro-CMMs. Precision Engineering 2015; 39(1):1-15.

[6] Thalmann R, Meli F, Küng A. State of the Art of Tactile Micro Coordinate

Metrology. Applied Science 2016; 6:150.

[7] Küng A, Thalmann R, Meli F. Ultraprecision micro-CMM using a low force 3D

touch probe. Measurement Science and Technology 2007; 18:319-327.

[8] Griesmann U, Soons J, Wang Q, DeBra D. Measuring Form and Radius of Spheres

with Interferometry. CIRP Annals 2004; 53(1):451-454.

[9] Ramirez C, Strojnik M. Estimation of the degree of asphericity of a glass sphere

using a vectorial shearing interferometer. Optics Communications 2011;

284:1517-1525.

[10]Fan KC, Wang N, Wang ZW, Zhang H. Development of a roundness measuring

16
 Journal Pre-proof

system for microspheres. Measurement Science and Technology 2014; 25:064009.

[11]Michihata M, Hayashi T, Adachi A, Takaya Y. Measurement of probe-stylus

sphere diameter for micro-CMM based on spectral fingerprint of whispering gallery

modes. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 2014; 63(1):469-472.

[12]JCGM 100:2008 (2008) Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide to the

Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM).

17
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 1 Schematic of rotating reference sphere for measurement of diameter of a

CMM probe tip ball

Figure 2 Schematic of contact points of probe tip ball on reference sphere during

conventional probe calibration procedure

Figure 3 Schematic of dimensional measurement without the influence of variation in

diameter of probe tip ball

Figure 4 Schematic of diameter measurement of reference sphere by CMM when same

point of probe tip is contacted

Figure 5 Variation of distance D ( ) as a function of 

Figure 6 Result of measurement of roundness of reference sphere

Figure 7 Form error of reference sphere before separation of form error of probe tip ball

Figure 8 Form error of reference sphere after compensation of form error of probe tip

ball

Figure 9 Form error of probe tip ball obtained by using a rotating reference sphere

Table 1 Uncertainty budget (unit: m)

18
 Journal Pre-proof

Probing coordinates
(x, y, z)

Reference sphere
coordinate system Zr
Yr Zp Yp Probe tip ball
coordinate system
Xr Xp
Reference sphere

XY-manual stages
Probe tip ball

Rotating stage
Z
Y

X
Machine coordinate system

Figure 1 Schematic of rotating reference sphere for measurement of diameter of a

CMM probe tip ball

19
 Journal Pre-proof

Xp
Yp Yr
Probe tip ball
Probe tip ball
coordinates

Xr

Y
Reference sphere

X
Z Machine coordinate system

Figure 2 Schematic of contact points of probe tip ball on reference sphere during

conventional probe calibration procedure

20
 Journal Pre-proof

Xp
Yp Yr
Probe tip ball Probe tip ball
coordinates

Xr

Reference sphere
X
Z Machine coordinate system

Figure 3 Schematic of dimensional measurement without the influence of variation in

diameter of probe tip ball

21
 Journal Pre-proof

Xp
Yp Probe tip ball
Probe tip ball Yr
coordinates 

Reference sphere
rr
 Xr
2rp

X
Z Machine coordinate system

Figure 4 Schematic of diameter measurement of reference sphere by CMM when same

point of probe tip is contacted

22
 Journal Pre-proof

D( )
D( )
rr()+ rr()
D( )

2rp()
2rp 2rp()
2rr
0  π

Figure 5 Variation of distance D ( ) as a function of 

23
 Journal Pre-proof

0.5 m

Figure 6 Result of measurement of roundness of reference sphere

24
 Journal Pre-proof

1
 = π/2

No. 1
0.5

No. 2
0
No. 3
=π =0
No. 4
-0.5

No. 5
-1
AVE.
0.5 m
 = 3π/4

Figure 7 Form error of reference sphere before separation of form error of probe tip ball

25
 Journal Pre-proof

1  = π/2

No. 1
0.5

No. 2
0
No. 3
=π =0
No. 4
-0.5

No. 5
-1
AVE.
0.5 m
 = 3π/4

Figure 8 Form error of reference sphere after compensation of form error of probe tip

ball

26
 Journal Pre-proof

 = π/2
1

No. 1
0.5

No. 2
0
No. 3
=π =0
No. 4
-0.5

No. 5
-1
AVE.
0.5 m
 = 3π/4

Figure 9 Form error of probe tip ball obtained by using a rotating reference sphere

27
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 1 Uncertainty budget (unit: m)

Source of uncertainty Symbol Type Standard uncertainty

Uncertainty in (rr+rp) ur - 0.061

MPEE in X-direction uMPEE_X B 0.035

MPEE in Y-direction uMPEE_Y B 0.011

Resolution (CMM scale) uscale_reso B 0.003

Thermal effect
uscale_thermal B 0.008
(CMM scale)

Thermal effect
uprobe_thermal B 0.014
(probe tip ball)

Sphericity of master ball u B 0.046

sph_master

Uncertainty in (rr()+rr()) uref - 0.183

Thermal effect
uref_thermal B 0.183
(reference sphere)

Uncertainty in D(, ) uD - 0.012

Repeatability of probing uprobing_rep A 0.012

28
 Journal Pre-proof

Highlights for review

 Form errors measurement method is developed for CMM probe tip.

 Rotating reference sphere is employed for the form error measurement.
 Form errors were calculated based on the CMM probing coordinate.
 Form error of reference sphere is removed from calibration result of probe tip.
 Expanded uncertainty of measurement was estimated to be 0.387 m (k = 2).