Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Precision Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/precision

Development of an on-machine measurement system for ultra-precision

machine tools using a chromatic confocal sensor
ZaoZao Chen a, ZhenDong Wang a, MingJun Ren a, XinQuan Zhang a, *, LiMin Zhu a,
XiangQian Jiang b
a
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200 240, China
b
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Future Metrology Hub, School of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield,
HD1 3DH, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In ultra-precision machining, the accuracy of a workpiece can be generally improved by surface measurement
Ultra-precision machining and compensation machining. Since on-machine surface measurement can avoid the errors caused by reposi­
On-machine measurement tioning workpieces and use the machine axes to extend the measuring range, there has been a trend from offline
Confocal sensor
measurement to on-machine measurement in recent years. However, the workpiece surfaces inspected by on-
Nonlinear least squares method
machine measurement system in previous studies generally have small slopes and depths. In this paper, an
on-machine measurement device based on a chromatic confocal sensor is designed, which can inspect workpiece
surfaces with larger slopes and depths. The on-machine measurement system and measurement procedure are
introduced first. A nonlinear least squares method is then used to further reduce the adverse influence of the
alignment error between the axes of the sensor and the spindle of the machine tool. Finally, machining and
measuring experiments of the spherical and free-form surfaces are performed using a Nanotech 650FG ultra-
precision machine lathe to validate the proposed on-machine measurement method. The profile pattern and
the form error obtained from the on-machine measurement device are compared with those obtained from a
Taylor-Hobson 3D stylus profilometer. There is good agreement between the two results, which verifies the
effectiveness of the proposed on-machine measuring method.

1. Introduction machine structural errors, vibration and thermal deformation, may

With the development of modern industry, surfaces with sub­
micrometric form accuracy and nanometric surface roughness are
widely used in optics [1,2], machinery manufacturing, biomedicine [3],
and national defence and the military [4]. Corresponding ultra-precision
machining technologies have also attracted attention [5]. Currently, a
variety of techniques have been developed to fabricate these surfaces,
mainly including laser processing technology [6], micro-electrical
discharge machining technology [7], micro-grinding technology [8]
and particle or electron beam processing technology [9]. However,
mechanical machining, such as ultra-precision single-point diamond
cutting technology, still plays a key role in high-precision surface
fabrication, providing the advantages of low surface roughness, high
shape accuracy and manufacturing efficiency.
Although ultra-precision machine tools can achieve high motion
accuracy, some external factors, including environmental factors,
cause a machined surface to deviate from the design surface [10]. Thus,
surface inspection and compensation machining are indispensable to
improve machining accuracy. The offline measurement method, which
involves moving the parts from the machine tools to the measurement
instruments, was proposed earlier and has been intensively investigated
[11]. Although the offline measurement method usually has the ad­
vantages of high precision, reliable performance and a large measuring
range, moving and repositioning the workpiece between the measure­
ment and manufacturing processes may significantly affect the mea­
surement accuracy and efficiency [12]. Therefore, there has been a trend
from offline measurement to on-machine measurement(OMM) to in­
crease measurement efficiency and accuracy [13]. On-machine surface
inspection can avoid the errors caused by remounting workpieces and
can use the machine axes to extend measuring ranges. The measuring
path can also be followed conveniently by using the CNC system of the
machine tool. OMM methods can mainly be classified into contacting

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangxinquan@sjtu.edu.cn (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2021.11.015
Received 27 July 2021; Received in revised form 22 October 2021; Accepted 29 November 2021
Available online 8 December 2021
0141-6359/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Z. Chen et al.
and optical non-contacting methods according to the sensor working
principles [14]. The contacting method typically utilizes a stylus or
probe to scratch the surface of the component to obtain the section
profile. Suzuki et al. developed a new contact-type OMM system to
measure aspherical optical parts. The contact angle between the probe
axis and the contact surface was kept constant to reduce variation in the
probe friction force [15]. Chen et al. proposed a compensation approach
for grinding tungsten carbide aspheric moulds based on on-machine
contact measurements [16]. Since the radius of the conventional con­
tact probe usually lies in the millimetre range, which limits the mea­
surement resolution, atomic force microscopy(AFM) and scanning
tunnelling microscopy(STM) have also been integrated into OMM sys­
tem [10]. Gao et al. designed and constructed an AFM-head for the
surface profile measurement of sinusoidal XY-grid workpieces on a
diamond turning machine [17]. Zhu et al. developed a new OMM system
based on the scanning tunnelling microscope principle for precision
form control of machined microstructures [18]. Nonetheless, contact
between the probe and the inspected surface is unavoidable with these
methods. As a result, the measured surface may be damaged to some
degree by the probes [19]. Meanwhile, the measurement efficiency is
also limited. Therefore, non-contacting OMM methods have been
developed to avoid these disadvantages.
Noncontact OMM methods share the advantages of fast data acqui­
sition and a non-destructive nature [10]. Interferometry is a mainstream
optical OMM system thanks to its nanometric precision. Li et al. inte­
grated an interferometric probing system on an ultra-precision turning
machine. To improve the performance of the proposed OMM system,
they calibrated and compensated for several systematic errors, including
on-machine vibration, machine tool kinematic errors and linearity er­
rors [13,20]. Finally, the measurement system was applied to the in­
spection and characterization of microlens array features [21].
However, the interferometry is inconvenient to inspect reflecting sur­
faces with large slopes according to its measuring principle. The
maximum sensor tilt angles of the current commercial
interferometric-based sensors are only a few degrees, such as the inter­
ferometer IMS5x00 series products developed by MICRO-EPSILON
(German). The chromatic confocal technology is an alternative way
for non-contacting surface measurement with high accuracy and
increasingly utilized in the ultra-precision machining applications. This
unique measuring system makes use of the controlled chromatic aber­
ration to focus each light wavelength at a specific distance and then
receive the light that is reflected from the target surface and transfer it to
the controller. The reflected light is focused back on to a detector
through a pinhole. If the focal point of the probe is in focus, the reflected
light passes through the pinhole and is detected as an intensity peak.
Then the spectrometer can detect the intensity and the wavelength at
which the maximum of intensity occurs. Therefore, the wavelength at
which the maximum of intensity occurs can be associated with the
surface height through calibration [22]. Based on the measurement
principle, its maximum detectable slope of the workpiece surface rea­
ches tens of degrees and is much bigger than that of
interferometric-based sensors. Nouira et al. developed a calibration
gauge for the characterization of a chromatic confocal probe, and the
proposed system could identify major error sources [23]. Rishikesan
et al. introduced a chromatic confocal displacement sensor for the
estimation of surface profile parameters [24]. Quinsat et al. presented an
approach using a confocal chromatic sensor to carry out on-machine
measurements of the surface roughness on a five-axis milling center
[25]. Keferstein et al. proposed a new optical system based on a chro­
matic confocal sensor to take measurements on a grinding machine for
quality assurance and optimization of the grinding process [26]. Zou
et al. integrated a chromatic confocal measurement sensor with an
ultra-precision diamond turning machine, and the measurement results
of the proposed OMM method were compared with those of the stylus
method. Before measurement, the sensor was moved along the X- and
Y-axes to scan the surface of a standard sphere affixed in a vacuum chuck
233
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
until the distance between the probe and the sphere along the Z-axis was
minimized. The sensor axis and the spindle axis were considered to be
coincident at that position [27].
Although the principle and application of chromatic confocal sensors
have been investigated by many researchers, there is little research on
their application to OMMs for ultra-precision machining. Meanwhile,
the chromatic confocal sensor was mostly employed to measure curved
surfaces with small depths in previous work, only tens of microns to
hundreds of microns. In this research, we design an on-machine mea­
surement device based on the chromatic confocal sensor, which enables
collecting the sensor data and the real-time position data of motion axes
synchronously. The sensor moves through the Z-axis during the mea­
surement process to ensure that the distance between the sensor and the
workpiece surface remains unchanged. Therefore, the measurement
range is theoretically the same as the Z-axis motion range of the machine
tool. Then the proposed OMM system is applied to the inspection of a
spherical surface and a free-form surface with the depths of several
millimeters respectively, which exceed the original range of the sensor.
Considering the influence of the alignment error between the axes of the
sensor and the spindle, a flat surface with an annular groove, rather than
a spherical surface, is used to calibrate the sensor position first, and the
nonlinear least squares method is proposed to further calculate the
alignment error accurately from the measurement data, which effec­
tively improves the accuracy of the measurement result.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The proposed
OMM system configuration and the measurement procedure are
described in Section 2. The compensation of the alignment error based
on the nonlinear least squares method is presented in Section 3. The
experimental setup and procedures are described in Section 4. The
experimental results and discussion are presented in Section 5. Finally,
the conclusion is summarized Section 6.
2. Measurement methodology
2.1. Measurement system
In this research, a chromatic confocal sensor was integrated into an
ultra-precision machine tool to measure the machined components.
Fig. 1 shows the structural configuration of the proposed OMM system.
The machine tool is equipped with three linear hydrostatic axes (X-, Y-
and Z-axis) and two rotational axes (B- and C-axis). The chromatic
confocal sensor is installed with a fixture on the platform of the B-axis.
This allows it to be driven to move along the Z-axis and rotate around the
B-axis. Meanwhile, the workpiece is held on a vacuum chuck, which can
be driven to move along the X- and Y-axes and rotate around the C-axis.
Thus, arbitrary three-dimensional movements of the sensor relative to
the workpiece can be achieved and the whole surface can be inspected. A
diamond cutting tool is fixed on a tool holder, which is installed on the
other side of the B-axis platform. When machining, the B-axis platform
Fig. 1. Structural configuration of the on-machine measurement system.
Z. Chen et al.
rotates 180◦ to make the cutting tool face the workpiece. Therefore, the
sensor does not need to be installed and removed repeatedly, which
improves the measurement efficiency. Additionally, the sensor and the
fixture will not be damaged during the machining process. The chro­
matic confocal probe is connected to its controller through an optical
fibre, which is then connected to an external Power PMAC controller
with a network cable for sensor data acquisition and storage, as pre­
sented in Fig. 2. The corresponding encoder signal output modules of the
machine tool axes are also connected to the Power PMAC controller to
collect the real-time position data of the machine tool axes at the same
time. Therefore, the sensor data can be matched with the position data
and the whole surface can be inspected.
2.2. Sensor position calibration
Before measuring, the relative position of the sensor and the machine
tool needs to be calibrated. Generally, the sensor axis is adjusted to align
with the spindle axis of the machine tool at first. In previous research,
spherical surfaces were employed by some scholars for sensor position
calibration. However, considering the small curvature near the extreme
point of the spherical surface, the variation of the measurement value is
only one hundredth of the displacements along the X- and Y-axes.
Additionally, external noises affects the measurement results. Therefore,
it is difficult to ensure that the sensor axis coincides with the spindle axis
accurately using this method. In this research, a two-step calibration
method is proposed. A flat surface with an annular groove is used to
calibrate the sensor position first, which can reduce the alignment error
to a few microns and will be illustrated in this section. Then the
nonlinear least square method is proposed to further reduce the align­
ment error to sub-micron level by using the measurement data of a
freeform surface, which will be introduced in Section 3.2.
In the first step, a flat surface with an annular groove is scanned by
the sensor along the X-axis and Y-axis as shown in Fig. 3 and the posi­
tions of the two linear axes are recorded when the sensor data changes
sharply. Then, the position of the sensor axis relative to the spindle axis
can be calculated. The detailed calibration steps are as follows:
1 The confocal sensor is first installed on the B-axis platform with an
elaborately designed and machined fixture. By ensuring the flatness
of the mating planes of the fixture via ultra-precision grinding, the
sensor axis is parallel to the B-axis platform plane. Then, the B-axis
Fig. 2. Data acquisition scheme of the on-machine measurement system.
234
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
platform is rotated manually to make the sensor axis parallel to the
spindle axis. Here, a micrometer is utilized to judge whether the two
axes are parallel by placing the probe of the micrometer on the
sensor. If the two axes are parallel, the displayed value of the
micrometer should be constant when the sensor moves along the Z
direction. Since the B-axis platform does not rotate during the
measurement process, the sensor axis does not need to intersect with
the B-axis.
2 The calibration cylinder is installed on the vacuum chuck, and the
eccentric error between the axes of the calibration cylinder and the
spindle is measured using the micrometer. The position of the cali­
bration cylinder is adjusted with a rubber hammer until the eccentric
error is less than 0.1 μm.
3 The end face of the cylinder with an annular groove is measured by
scanning the sensor along the X-axis as shown in Fig. 3(a), and the X-
axis coordinates are recorded when the sensor output changes
sharply, denoted as X1 and X2. Then, the surface along the Y-axis is
measured, as shown in Fig. 3(b), and the Y-axis coordinates are
recorded when the sensor output changes sharply again, denoted as
Y1 and Y2.
4 The X- and Y-axis coordinates of the machine tool are adjusted to
X1 +X2
and Y1 +Y
2 , respectively. In this position, the sensor axis in­
2
2
tersects with the spindle axis. Since the sensor axis has been adjusted
to be parallel to the spindle axis in step 1, the two axes are considered
to coincide at this position. Finally, the current position in the CNC
system of the machine tool is saved for subsequent use. The align­
ment error will be further reduced with the method in Section 3.2.
2.3. Surface measurement and reconstruction
After completing the calibration of the sensor position, the B-axis
platform needs to be rotated around the B-axis to keep the probe away
from the machining zone. Then, the machine tool can be used for
workpiece machining. After machining, the workpiece remains on the
spindle, and the sensor is moved back to the recorded position deter­
mined in the calibration process. Before surface measurement, the initial
relative distance between the sensor and the surface should be within
the measuring range when moving the probe along the Z-axis. In this
way, the sensor, workpiece and cutting tool do not need to be repeatedly
installed and disassembled. Meanwhile, the sensor only needs to be
calibrated once to complete the machining, measurement and
compensation processes.
In this study, a spiral trajectory is adopted to inspect the spherical
and free-form surfaces. Through the synchronous movements of the X-
and C-axes, the confocal sensor scans the workpiece surface in a spiral
scanning pattern from inside to outside of the measurement zone.
Considering that the depth of the workpiece surface along the Z-axis
may exceed the sensor measuring range, the sensor needs to be moved
synchronously along the Z-axis according to the theoretical surface
model and the coordinates of the X- and C-axes. During the measure­
ment process, the coordinates of the machine tool axes and the distance
data of the sensor are recorded synchronously in real time using the
Power PMAC controller. The maximum acquisition frequency can reach
2 kHz.
Before measuring, the probe axis is adjusted to align with the spindle
axis and the distance between the sensor and the measured surface is
adjusted to be within the measurement range, as mentioned above. The
initial sensor position is denoted as S0, and the corresponding mea­
surement point on the surface is denoted as p0, as shown in Fig. 4.
During the measurement, the sensor moves to position Si along the Z-
axis, and the corresponding measurement point on the surface is deno­
ted as pi at time i. When reconstructing the surface based on the mea­
surement data, using point p0 as the origin of the workpiece coordinate
system, the coordinates of point pi can be expressed in the polar coor­
dinate system as follows:
Z. Chen et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the calibration process using a calibration cylinder with an annular groove on the end face.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the measurement process using a spi­
ral trajectory.
r p i = Xi − X0
θ pi = Ci − C0
Zpi = (Di + Zi ) − (D0 + Z0 )
where Xi, Ci, and Zi are the coordinates of the X-, C- and Z-axes at time i,
X0, C0, and Z0 are the coordinates of the X-, C- and Z-axes at the initial
time, and Di and D0 are the sensor output data collected at time i and the
initial time, respectively.
The measurement point pi can also be expressed in the Cartesian
coordinate system as follows:
Xpi = rpi ∗ cos(θpi ) = (Xi − X0 ) ∗ cos(Ci − C0 )
Ypi = rpi ∗ sin(θpi ) = (Xi − X0 ) ∗ sin(Ci − C0 )
Zpi = (Di + Zi ) − (D0 + Z0 )
3. Alignment error compensation method
3.1. Analysis of the alignment error
Considering the machining error of the calibration gauge and mea­
surement noises, the alignment error can only be reduced to a few mi­
crons after the calibration step with an annular groove presented in
Section 2.2. Therefore, the nonlinear least squares method is employed
to reduce the alignment error further in this section. The influence of the
axis alignment error on the measurement results is analyzed first. As
shown in Fig. 5, if the sensor axis does not coincide exactly with the
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
(1) Fig. 5. The influence of the axis alignment error on measurement points.
(2)
spindle axis after calibration, the origin of the coordinate system for the
spiral scanning measurement would move from O to O’. The deviations
(3)
in the X direction and the Y direction are denoted as Δx and Δy,
respectively. After the preliminary calibration with an annular groove,
the values of these two deviations are on the order of a few microns. the
actual measurement points (p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 , …) will also be different
′ ′ ′ ′
from the theoretical ones (p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 , …), which may cause the
distortion of the measured surface profile. The adverse influence will be
enhanced when the slope of the measured surface increases. To discuss
the influence of the alignment error on the measurement results when O’
(4) is in different quadrants, the deviation is expressed in terms of the polar
coordinates (Δr, Δθ) as follows:
(5) √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Δr = Δx2 + Δy2 (7)
(6)
Δy
Δθ = arctan( ) (8)
Δx
Therefore, the value of Δr is on the order of a few microns, and the
range of Δθ is from 0 to 360◦ .
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 present the simulation results of the profile distor­
tions caused by the axis alignment error when measuring a spherical
surface with a radius of 30 mm and a chord height of 1.7 mm. The error
component Δr is increased from 0 to 40 μm, and Δθ is set to 45◦ in the
simulations summarized in Fig. 6. The error component Δr is set to 20
μm, and Δθ is increased from 0◦ to 180◦ in the simulations summarized
in Fig. 7. The maximum error of the simulated profile is nearly 10 μm
235
Z. Chen et al.
Fig. 6. Simulation results of profile distortions caused by the alignment error
when measuring a ball with a radius of 30 mm (the error component Δθ = 45◦ ).
and caused by an axis alignment error of 40 μm, which is unacceptable
in ultra-precision measurement.
3.2. Calibration principle
To further reduce the alignment error, a freeform surface, which is
machined with an ultra-precision machine lathe, is measured again on
the basis of the previous calibration, and the nonlinear least squares
method is utilized to calculate the alignment error accurately using the
measurement data. The part is attached to the vacuum chuck while the
surface axis is adjusted to coincide with the spindle axis.
Then, we define the distance function from the point to the surface as
follows: Given a point p ∈ R3 and a smooth regular surface S ∈ R3 in the
space, there is at least one point q ∈ S, which satisfies
Fig. 7. Simulation results of profile distortions caused by the alignment error when measuring a ball with a radius of 30 mm (the error component Δr = 20um).
236
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
||p − q|| = min ||p − x|| (9)
x∈S
Then, the distance between point p and surface S is defined as:
d(p) = ||p − q|| (10)
Clearly, when point q is located on the S, point p is located on the
normal line of surface S at point q, as shown in Fig. 8. That is
p − q = ±d(p)nq (11)
where nq is the unit normal vector of the surface S at point q. The sign
depends on whether nq points to the same side of point p or the opposite
side. Point q is designated as the projection of point p on surface S.
Furthermore, the directed distance from point p to surface S can be
defined as [28]:
ds (p) = (p − q)nq (12)
When the axis alignment error is zero, since the theoretical mea­
surement point pi is on the spherical surface S, point pi coincides with
projection point qi, and the directed distance from point pi to surface S
is:
ds (pi ) = (pi − qi )nqi = 0 (13)
When the axis alignment error is considered, the actual measurement
point is pi . Although point pi is also on surface S, the X and Y co­
′ ′
ordinates of pi are determined using the position of the machine axes
′
and will be affected by the axis alignment error when reconstructing the
surface, as shown in Fig. 9. Thus, point pi ′′ used in the actual calculation
deviates from point pi with an increment Δp. As shown in Fig. 5, the
′
axis alignment error is characterized by Δr and Δθ. Denoting the coor­
dinate of the C-axis at time i as Ci, Δp can be expressed in the Cartesian
coordinate system defined in Section2.3 as:
Δp = (Δr ∗ cos(Ci − Δθ), Δr ∗ sin(Ci − Δθ), 0) (14)
s
The directed distance from point pi to surface S is denoted as d (pi ′′ ).
′′
To calculate Δr and Δθ, the sum of the squared distance of all the
measuring points should be minimized. Therefore, the optimization
Z. Chen et al.
Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of the distance from the point to the surface.
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of the position error of measuring point pi.
objective function can be expressed as follows:
∑ of the confocal sensor are 0.3 mm and 34◦ , respectively. The measure­
min E(Δr, Δθ) = [ds (pi ′′ + Δpi )]2 (15)
i ment resolution along the axis is 10 nm. The chromatic confocal sensor
In this research, the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm(LMA) is adopted to
obtain the optimal solution to the above optimization problem. The LMA
interpolates between the Gauss–Newton algorithm (GNA) and the
gradient descent method. Thus, the LMA is more robust than the GNA,
which means that in many cases, it finds a solution even if it starts very
far from the final minimum. The readers can refer to Ref. [29] for a
detailed description of this method.As deduced in Ref. [28], the gradient
vector of the distance function ∇ds(p), which can be used in the LMA, is
presented as follows:
∇ds (p) = nq (16)
3.3. Simulation result
A simulation study is presented to verify the compensation method.
The nominal surface is a freeform surface with a length of 10 mm and a
width of 10 mm. The free-form surface can be expressed by XY poly­
nomials as z = 0.008*x2 + 0.006*y2. The alignment error components
Δr and Δθ are set to 20 μm and 45◦ , respectively, in the simulation. The
measurement data are simulated as follows: 1) The simulated mea­
surement point p is selected every two degrees along the spiral trajec­
tory, as shown in Fig. 4, and the pitch of the spiral is set to 40 μm. The
total number of simulation points is 63 000. 2) The deviation Δp caused
237
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
by the alignment error is added to point p, and the Z coordinate of the
new point p′ is calculated using the free-form surface equation. 3) The
coordinates of point p′′ can be obtained by combining the X and Y co­
ordinates of point p and the Z coordinate of the corresponding point p′ ,
which are the final measurement data used in the simulation.
As shown in Fig. 10(a), the maximum simulation error is nearly 3.3
μm due to the axis alignment error. Using the proposed method intro­
duced in Section 2.2, the alignment error components Δr and Δθ can be
calculated, and the corresponding deviation can be compensated. The Δr
and Δθ calculated using the simulation measurement date are 20 μm and
45◦ , respectively, which are exactly equal to the theoretical values. After
compensation, the distortion caused by the axis alignment error is
almost eliminated, as shown in Fig. 10(b).
In addition, to consider the environmental factors, random noise
with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 0.5 μm are added to the
simulation measurement data. The simulation measurement points
containing random noise are shown in Fig. 11(a). Fig. 11(b) shows that
the maximum error of the calculation result is 4.17 μm if the compen­
sation method is not applied in the surface reconstruction. By using the
proposed method, the Δr and Δθ calculated with the simulation mea­
surement date are 19.896 μm and 44.657◦ , respectively, which are close
to the theoretical values and satisfy the accuracy requirements. The
maximum simulation error decreases to 1.5 μm, as shown in Fig. 11(c).
The error can be further reduced by using a Gaussian filter. Fig. 11(d)
shows that the final maximum resulting error is less than 0.2 μm. The
influence of the axis alignment error is almost eliminated, and the re­
sidual error is mostly caused by random noise. To verify the repeat­
ability of simulation, the above simulation process is repeated five times.
The calibration errors in the X and Y directions are all at the sub-micron
level and less than 0.3 μm, which shows good simulation repeatability.
4. Experimental setup
Machining and measuring experiments were carried out on a
Nanotech 650FG ultra-precision machine tool to validate the proposed
on-machine measurement system and method. Fig. 12 illustrates the
integrated measurement system on the Nanotech 650FG machine tool.
The relevant parameters of the machine tool are listed in Table 1. The
confocal sensor model employed in this research is IFS2405–0.3(MICRO
EPSILON, Germany). The measuring range and the maximum tilt angle
was installed on the B-axis platform with an elaborately designed
fixture. The relative position of the sensor with respect to the machine
tool was calibrated first using the method described in Section 2.3 with a
calibration cylinder attached via the vacuum chuck. Then, the nonlinear
least squares method was utilized to further calculate the alignment
error, as illustrated in Section 3, using the freeform surface. After cali­
brating the probe position, the B-axis platform was rotated to keep the
probe away from the machining zone, and the workpiece was installed
on the spindle for machining. After machining, the machined workpiece
was retained on the vacuum chuck and the probe was returned to the
recorded position to start measuring with a programmed spiral
trajectory.
The surfaces machined and inspected in the experiments included
both spherical and free-form surfaces, as shown in Fig. 13. The spherical
radius of the former workpiece was 30 mm and the chord height was
approximately 1.7 mm. The free-form surface can be expressed by XY
polynomials. The length and width of the free-form surface were 32 mm
and 25 mm respectively. The depth in the Z direction was approximately
3 mm. During the measurement process, the feed speed of the X-slide
was 5 mm/min, and the rotation speed of the spindle was 100 rpm. The
feed speed of the Z-slide varied according to the theoretical measure­
ment surface profile. The sampling frequency for axis positions and
sensor data acquisition was set to 2 kHz. The entire measurement times
of the spherical and free-form surfaces were approximately 2 min and 4
Z. Chen et al. Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241

Fig. 10. Simulation results of profile distortions caused by the alignment error when measuring the freeform surface(Δr = 20 μm, Δθ = 45◦ ). (a) Calculated error
distribution without compensation. (b) Calculated error distribution with compensation.

Fig. 11. Simulation results of profile distortions caused by alignment error (Δr = 20 μm, Δθ = 45◦ ) with the consideration of random noise (μ = 0, σ = 0.5). (a)
Simulation measurement points containing random noise. (b) Error distribution after fitting without compensation. (c) Error distribution after fitting with
compensation. (d) Error distribution after fitting with compensation and Gaussian filtering.

Table 1
The relevant parameters of the machine tool.
Axis Programming Feedback Maximum Straightness Positioning
resolution Resolution Speed Accuracy

X 0.01 nm 0.008 nm 2000 mm/ 0.3 μm over /

min full travel
Y 0.01 nm 0.008 nm 2000 mm/ 0.3 μm over /
min full travel
Z 0.01 nm 0.008 nm 2000 mm/ 0.3 μm over /
min full travel
B 0.000 000 1◦ 0.005 arc 50 rpm / ±1.0 arc
seconds seconds
C 0.000 000 1◦
0.005 arc 3000 rpm / ±1.0 arc
seconds seconds

min, respectively. After the machined workpieces were measured

through the proposed OMM system, they were detached from the vac­
uum chuck and measured using a Taylor-Hobson 3D stylus profilometer.

Fig. 12. The integrated measurement system on the Nanotech 650FG ma­ 5. Results and discussions
chine tool.
After completing the measurements, the results provided by the two

238
Z. Chen et al. Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241

Fig. 13. The spherical and free-form surfaces inspected in the experiments.

measurement instruments were compared and analyzed. The measured
spherical surfaces and form errors obtained from the two measurement
methods are shown in Fig. 14. The measured free-form surfaces and form
errors obtained from the two measurement methods are shown in
Fig. 15. The profile patterns obtained from the OMM system agree well
with those obtained from the 3D stylus profilometer, demonstrating the
consistency of the measurement results.
To compare the measurement results more accurately, the form er­
rors of the two surfaces characterized in terms of the root mean square
(RMS) and peak-to-valley (PV) values calculated from the measurement
data are summarized in Table 2. For both the spherical and free-form
surfaces, the deviations of the RMS values obtained from the two mea­
surement methods are within 0.2 μm and the deviations of the PV values
do not exceed 0.4 μm, which shows that the proposed OMM method
meets the accuracy requirements for ultra-precision machining appli­
cations. To verify the repeatability of experimental results, the mea­
surement of the spherical surface and the freeform surface is also
repeated three times. The measurement data are summarized in Table 3,
which shows good measurement repeatability.
As for the measurement uncertainty, since the machine tool is placed
in a room with constant temperature and humidity, the effect of tem­
perature and humidity can be neglected; the sensor is fixed on the ma­
chine tool after calibration, thus avoiding the influence of reinstallation
errors; with the calibration method, the axis alignment error is at the
sub-micron level, and its influence on the measurement uncertainty is
also negligible; meanwhile, the ultra-precision machine tool Nanotech
650FG used in this research has been accurately calibrated, and its
motion accuracy and verticality meet the measurement accuracy re­
quirements. Therefore, the main factors that affect the measurement
uncertainty are the resolution of the sensor and the vibration when the
sensor tracks the Z-axis movement. The linear resolution of the chro­
matic confocal sensor is 10 nm. The vibration error can be obtained by
comparing the Z-axis coordinate of the machine tool with the sensor
distance value when measuring a fixed point with a moving Z-axis. The
measured vibration error is about 100 nm, which can be further reduced
by designing more stable fixture.

Fig. 14. Spherical surface measurement results by on-machine and offline measurements. (a)Measured spherical surface and form error obtained by on-machine
measurement. (b)Measured spherical surface and form error obtained by offline measurement.

239
Z. Chen et al. Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241

Fig. 15. Free-form surface measurement results by on-machine and offline measurements. (a)Measured free-form surfaces and form error obtained by on-machine
measurement. (b)Measured free-form surfaces and form error obtained by offline measurement.

the work reported in this paper.

Table 2
Form error parameters of the on-machine and offline measurements.
Acknowledgement
Sample Parameter On-machine Offline Deviation
measurement measurement
This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science
Spherical RMS/um 1.493 0 1.320 0.173 0 Foundation of China under Grants 52 075 332, U2013211 and
surface PV/um 5.248 0 4.886 0.362 0
Freeform RMS/um 0.209 6 0.062 1 0.147 5
51 975 375, the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Acad­
surface PV/um 0.883 9 0.531 9 0.352 0 emy of Sciences under Grants XDA25040000, XDA25040200 and
XDA25040202and Shanghai Pujiang Program under Grants
19PJ1404500.
Table 3
Form error parameters of the repeated on-machine measurements. References
Sample Parameter No.1 No.2 No.3 [1] Kim Jiyoon, Kim Se-Um, Lee Bo-Yeon, Suh Jeng-Hun, Lee Sin-Doo. Lenticular lens
Spherical surface RMS/um 1.493 0 1.415 1.433 array based on liquid crystal with a polarization-dependent focusing effect for
PV/um 5.248 0 4.875 5.126 2d–3d image applications. J. Inf. Disp. 2015;16(1):11–5.
[2] Xiang Li, Tian Lan, Wang Yun, Wang Long-Hui. Design and study of fresnel lens for
Freeform surface RMS/um 0.209 6 0.186 0.214
an antenna in indoor visible light communication system. Acta Phys Sin 2015;64:
PV/um 0.883 9 0.718 0.873
024201.
[3] Miyoshi Hiromi, Ju Jungmyoung, Lee Sang Min, Cho Dong Jin, Ko Jong Soo,
Yamagata Yutaka, Adachi Taiji. Control of highly migratory cells by
6. Conclusion microstructured surface based on transient change in cell behavior. Biomaterials
2010;31(33):8539–45.
[4] Yang Zhi, Dai Yi-fan, Zhang Pei. The study of hybrid refractive-diffractive
This paper develops an OMM device based on a chromatic confocal telephoto lens. Laser Technol 2007;31(2):206–8.
sensor. According to the measuring principle of the sensor, the work­ [5] Lee Wing Bun, Kong Ling bao, Cheung Chi Fai, To Suet, Chen Xin, Liu Qiang. An
piece surfaces with large slopes and depths can be inspected using this overview of ultra-precision diamond machining of microstructured freeform
surfaces. Jixie Gongcheng Xuebao/Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2013;49
measurement system. To consider the adverse influence of the alignment
(19):144–55.
error between the axes of the sensor and the spindle, a two-step cali­ [6] Vorobyev AY, Guo Chunlei. Multifunctional surfaces produced by femtosecond
bration method is proposed, and a nonlinear least squares method is laser pulses. J Appl Phys 2015;117(3):033103.
developed for fine calibration. The proposed OMM system and method [7] Pham Duc Truong, Dimov Stefan Simeonov, Bigot Samuel, Ivanov Atanas, Popov K.
Micro-edm—recent developments and research issues. J Mater Process Technol
are validated by machining and measuring experiments on both spher­ 2004;149(1–3):50–7.
ical and free-form surfaces. The measurement results show that the [8] Aurich JC, Engmann J, Schueler GM, Haberland R. Micro grinding tool for
profile patterns and form errors obtained from the proposed OMM de­ manufacture of complex structures in brittle materials. CIRP annals 2009;58(1):
311–4.
vice are consistent with those obtained from an offline measurement [9] Xu ZW, Fang FZ, Fu YQ, Zhang SJ, Han T, Li JM. Fabrication of micro/nano-
device, which verifies the effectiveness of the proposed OMM system structures using focused ion beam implantation and xef2 gas-assisted etching.
and method. There are sub-micron deviations between the results of the J Micromech Microeng 2009;19(5):054003.
[10] Li Duo, Wang Bo, Tong Zhen, Blunt Liam, Jiang Xiangqian. On-machine surface
on-machine and offline measurements, which may be caused by the measurement and applications for ultra-precision machining: a state-of-the-art
vibration and noise during the measurement and still need to be review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2019;104(1):831–47.
explored in the future. [11] Kim Ho-Sang, Lee Kwang-Il, Lee Kyoung-Min, Bang Young-Bong. Fabrication of
free-form surfaces using a long-stroke fast tool servo and corrective figuring with
on-machine measurement. Int J Mach Tool Manufact 2009;49(12–13):991–7.
[12] Zhang Xiaodong, Zeng Zhen, Liu Xianlei, Fang Fengzhou. Compensation strategy
Declaration of competing interest for machining optical freeform surfaces by the combined on-and off-machine
measurement. Opt Express 2015;23(19):24800–10.
[13] Li Duo, Tong Zhen, Jiang Xiangqian, Blunt Liam, Gao Feng. Calibration of an
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interferometric on-machine probing system on an ultra-precision turning machine.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Measurement 2018;118:96–104.

240
Z. Chen et al.
[14] Li Duo, Jiang Xiangqian, Tong Zhen, Blunt Liam. Development and application of
interferometric on-machine surface measurement for ultraprecision turning
process. J Manuf Sci Eng 2019;141(1).
[15] Suzuki H, Onishi T, Moriwaki T, Fukuta M, Sugawara J. Development of a 45
degrees tilted on-machine measuring system for small optical parts. Annals of the
CIRP 2008;57(1):414.
[16] Chen FJ, Yin SH, Huang H, Ohmori H, Wang Y, Fan YF, Zhu YJ. Profile error
compensation in ultra-precision grinding of aspheric surfaces with on-machine
measurement. Int J Mach Tool Manufact 2010;50(5):480–6.
[17] Gao Wei, Aoki Jun, Ju Bing-Feng, Kiyono Satoshi. Surface profile measurement of a
sinusoidal grid using an atomic force microscope on a diamond turning machine.
Precis Eng 2007;31(3):304–9.
[18] Zhu Wu-Le, Yang Shunyao, Ju Bing-Feng, Jiang Jiacheng, Sun Anyu. Scanning
tunneling microscopy-based on-machine measurement for diamond fly cutting of
micro-structured surfaces. Precis Eng 2016;43:308–14.
[19] Zhu Yongjian, Jingxin Na, Pan Weiqing, Zhi Yanan. Discussions on on-machine
measurement of aspheric lens-mold surface. Optik 2013;124(20):4406–11.
[20] Li Duo, Jiang Xiangqian, Tong Zhen, Blunt Liam. Kinematics error compensation
for a surface measurement probe on an ultra-precision turning machine.
Micromachines 2018;9(7):334.
241
Precision Engineering 74 (2022) 232–241
[21] Li Duo, Wang Bo, Zheng Qiao, Jiang Xiangqian. Ultraprecision machining of
microlens arrays with integrated on-machine surface metrology. Opt Express 2019;
27(1):212–24.
[22] Leach Richard. Optical measurement of surface topography, vol. 8. Springer; 2011.
[23] Nouira H, El-Hayek N, Yuan X, Anwer N. Characterization of the main error
sources of chromatic confocal probes for dimensional measurement. Meas Sci
Technol 2014;25(4):044011.
[24] Rishikesan V, Samuel GL. Evaluation of surface profile parameters of a machined
surface using confocal displacement sensor. Procedia Materials Science 2014;5:
1385–91.
[25] Quinsat Yann, Tournier Christophe. In situ non-contact measurements of surface
roughness. Precis Eng 2012;36(1):97–103.
[26] Keferstein Claus P, Honegger Daniel, Thurnherr Hugo, Gschwend Bernard. Process
monitoring in non-circular grinding with optical sensor. CIRP annals 2008;57(1):
533–6.
[27] Zou Xicong, Zhao Xuesen, Guo Li, Li Zengqiang, Sun Tao. Non-contact on-machine
measurement using a chromatic confocal probe for an ultra-precision turning
machine. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2017;90(5):2163–72.
[28] Han Ding, Zhu Limin. Geometric theories and methods for digital manufacturing of
complex surfaces. Science Press; 2011.
[29] Ranganathan Ananth. The levenberg-marquardt algorithm. Tutoral on LM
algorithm 2004;11(1):101–10.