Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov.
2002
TOWARDS IMPLEMNTING THE VECTORIAL DIMEWNSIONING AND
TOLERANCING SCHEME
FOR THE INSPECTION OF FREE FORM SURFACES
Dr. Elsayed Orady, University of Michigan Department of Industrial and Manufacturing
Systems Engineering (orady@umich.edu)
Dr. Mohamed Gadalla, Cairo University (On leave), Kean University, Department of Technology,
(gadalla@kean.edu)
ABSTRACT
To guarantee minimum measurement errors
during the inspection of a free form surface
(FFS), two different processes are carried
out in sequence. The first process is the
alignment process that is required to align
the machine coordinates with the workpiece
coordinates. The second process is the data
collection through proper sampling over the
free surface. There are two common
aligning techniques used with FFS. The data
collection is usually based on a sampling
strategy. This paper presents an overview of
the state-of-the-art of the different tolerance
scheme, alignment techniques and the
sampling strategies for measurement of free
form surface. It also highlights some of a
possible solution to maintain accurate and
efficient inspection for FFS.
1. INTRODUCTION
The use of CMM (Coordinate Measuring
Machine) in the area of inspection and
metrology has increased enormously in the
last two decades. Geometric Dimensioning
and Tolerancing (GD &T) provides a mean
for specifying the shape requirements and
the interrelations between part features.
Shape requirements include the assurance of
functioning mechanical systems after
assembly, its suitability for assembly and
finally manufacturing process capabilities
and its conformance to regulations.
Unfortunately, there are many problems that
are associated with the use of the CMM
together with GD&T. These problems can
be summarized as follows:
?? Conflicting interpretation of the
ANSI Y 14.5 Standards.
?? Lack of standard measurement
practice.
?? Different performance of
different CMM software.
A new geometric dimensioning technique
has been introduced by Professor Wirtz that
is referred to as Vectorial Dimensioning and
Tolerancing (VD&T). This technique could
be used to avoid the aforementioned
problems and improve the inspection
efficiency of FFS.
This paper presents the use of VD&T for
inspection of FFS on CMM. The work in
this paper is intended to explore new ideas
in tolerancing and inspections of FFS. A
trial experiment together with results are
presented for VD&T.
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002

2. TOLERANCING TECHNIQUES

There are three basic tolerancing techniques.

These are:
a. Conventional Tolerancing
b. Geometric Dimensioning and 2.2 Geometric Dimensioning and
Tolerancing (GD&T) Tolerancing (GD&T)
c. Vectorial Dimensioning and
Tolerancing (VD&T) Table 1 shows the historical highlight of
GD&T [2].
The following Sections provide brief
description of these techniques.
Table 1: Historical Highlight
2.1 Conventional Tolerancing
Year Milestone
1820 The artisan
Conventional tolerancing deals only with 1820 Gages Gaging
dimensioning of the part. It does not 1930 First Drafting Standard
support datum and datum precedence [10]. 1935 Tolerancing in Drafting standard
Fig. 1 shows the dimensioning and 1950 MIL-8,….MIL-STD-8A
tolerancing of a mechanical part based on 1966 ANSI Y14.5 1966,…1973,82,94
1985 Methods Divergence
conventional tolerancing method. It may be 1990 Y 14.5 Mathematization
Geometric
noticed that the un-toleranced dimension d12 Tolerance
2000 Math-Based standard
can be determined by two basic techniques:
(a) worst case conditions, and (b) statistical
method of the toleranced dimensions. GD&T ANSI Y14.5 M – 1982 enables
tolerances to be placed on attributes of
features. Geometric tolerancing handles
imperfect form through containment zones
where the part features or their resolved
geometries (centerplane, centerline,
counterpoint) are constrained to lie [3, 4]. It
also provides means to define the reference
system i.e. datum’s [2]. The tolerance
amendment ANSI 14.5.1 M 1994 provides
mathematical definitions of these tolerance
zones. Figure 2 shows the GD&T
presentations for datum’s, dimensions and
form tolerances.
Parameter limit zone

In the tolerance zone shown in Fig. 2, the

width t is given by
? ? t
Tˆ ? ( P ? A) ?
2

Figure 1 Description of Conventional

and Statistical Tolerances
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002

where T̂ is the direction vector of the calculated from the assessed points
? using algorithms based on
centerline of the straightness zone, A Is a Gaussian method.
position vector locating the centerline of the ?? A system of co-ordinates is to be
straightness zone, P is any measured point. allocated to localize the substitute
GD&T standards also introduce the elements.
conformance principle. A feature conforms ?? Separate and independent vectors
to a straightness tolerance width t 0 if all determine the location and
points of the feature lie within some orientation of the substitute
straightness zone as defined above. elements.
?? The size of some substitute
elements may be described by
t A
scalar measures.

Special symbols and tables are necessary to

designate VD&T in the technical design.
Fig. 3 shows the principles of Vectorial
dimensioning and tolerancing as proposed
by Writz [ 2].
-A-

Size
In-spec part boundary Direction Vector
means
t
Position Vector

Figure 2 GT & T Principles

Orientation Tolerance
Zone
2.3 Vectorial Dimensioning and Position Tolerance Zone
Tolerancing (VD&T)

In 1991, Professor Wirtz, introduced VD&T Figure 3 Principles of Vectorial Tolerance

concept in Germany. The primary idea is
based on parameterizing and tolerancing
mechanical parts in terms that relate
naturally to manufacturing and inspection 3. INSPECTION OF FREE FORM
processes [2]. As mentioned in by Bialas, et SURFACES
al. [6 ], the VD&T is based on the following
principles: In order for a free form surface to be
?? The dimensioned feature is the inspected, two different processes should be
substitute element not the real carried out in sequence. The first process is
feature, where the substitute the alignment of the workpiece on the
element is identified by measuring CMM machine. Aligning the part is
the real workpiece surface and refereed to in the literature as part
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002
localization to determine a rigid body
transformation matrix. The transformation
matrix includes translation and rotational
vectors that optimize the position and
orientation of the workpiece on the CMM
table with respect to the CAD model.
The second process constitutes the
measurement and inspection of the free
form surface in accordance with the standard
practices.
The current standards such as ANSI
Y14.5M-1982 and Y14.5.1M-1994 define
profile tolerance for surfaces as the outline
of an object in a given plane (two-dimension
figure). Profiles are formed by projecting a
three dimensional figure onto a plane. The
ANSI Standard defines profile tolerance
zone as the volume or the area generated by
offsetting each point on the nominal surface
in the direction of the normal to the nominal
surface at that point. The ISO Standard
defines a tolerance zone for the sculptured
surfaces (see Figure 4) as the zone which is
limited by two surfaces enveloping spheres
of diameter t, the centers of which are
situated on a surface having the true
geometric form.
Fig. 4 The ISO Representation of Surface
Form Errors
3.1 Part Localization
Workpiece localization can be used to
automate the process of workpiece setup. In
the manufacturing environment to inspect
FFS a hard gage is normally used using the
3-2-1 principle. This process significantly
contributes to the inspection cost since hard
and accurate gauges are required to be
manufactured and be located very accurately
on the surface in order to establish a frame
relationship between the manufactured and
the designed model. This problem can be
formalized as a minimization of the sum of
the square distances of the measured
coordinate from the CAD surface with
respect to six variables (rotation (x,y and z)
+ translation (? ?? ?and ?). The least square
formulation of the Lp-Norm equation is [9]:
2
m n
?1
F? ? ? T r ?r ij
i ? 1 j ?1
where, rij is the jt h measurement point on the
ith surface and r is the corresponding nearest
point on the surface facet. T is the
transformation matrix, to be determined,
which contains a translation and rotation
vectors (i.e. six components). Menq et. al.
indicated that this problem is highly
nonlinear and non-unique[9]. Other
problems include region of convergence
which are sometimes hard to detect.
Singularities and robustness are problems
that can be encountered during solution.
Iterative methods are always used to solve
this problem which adds to the computation
time. This is a factor to be considered.
Several techniques can be used to solve this
problem and achieve a global minimum
rather than local minimum and avoid regions
of divergence that can be summarized as
follows:
? ? Improved methods to determine the
initial solution.
? ? Develop methods for perturbation to test
the local minimum and to exit the
solution algorithm from the local
minimum regions, if exits.
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002
?? Develop intelligent search techniques to
solve the high non-linearity of this
problem.
It is also of interest to expand the knowledge
and algorithms developed by Orady et al. [5]
to investigate this problem.
3.2 Offset Surface Representation
As discussed in the pervious section and
according to the ISO Standard the surface
form errors should comply to a tolerance
zone that is bounded by an offset surface.
The offset value is equal to the tolerance
zone width. Unfortunately, this operation in
parametric surface representation does not
yield an exact solution [9]. It has to be
approximated thus introducing another
source of error that depends on the
approximation technique. For more details
refer to ref. [9]. A brief description is given
in the next paragraph.
A parametric surface is expressed as a
function of two parameters normally know
as u, and v and can be represented by the
following equations:
Q (u , v ) ? B (u , v ) ? d ? n
B u(u , v ) ? B v(u , v )
n (u , v ) ?
B u(u , v ) ? B v(u , v )
where, B (u, v) is a point on the surface, d is
the offset value. The offset value d is
dependant on the diameter of the probe and
the tolerance value t. It is very difficult to
express the offset surface in terms of the
same basis of the original surface because of
the square root term in the normalization of
the surface normal vector. To overcome this
problem approximation a new technique has
been developed.
3.3 Sampling of Free Form Surface
CMM is referred to as coordinate metrology.
The actual shape of a workpiece is obtained
by probing its surface at certain points with
the CMM touch probe. The collected data is
then fed to fitting algorithm to determine the
shape of the worpkice and determine
whether the part meets the design
specifications. The effect of selecting a
measurement sampling strategy has been
recognized as a major component of
measurement uncertainty [11]. It has been
proven also that the part form errors have a
great impact on the fitted features. It might
be intuitively that increasing the number of
points will decrease the measurement errors.
However, the time spent for inspection is an
important factor that affects the inspection
cost and consequently the product cost.
Therefore, it is desirable to perform the
inspection with the lowest possible number
of sample points (sample size). On the other
hand it is of a great importance to locate the
sample points in suitable locations so as to
represent the feature being inspected, and to
reduce the error component due to the
sampling strategy.
The sampling strategies that are common in
literature are: uniform (equi-parametric
sampling), equidistant sampling, mean
curvature based sampling, randomized
sampling, and stratified sampling. Figure 5
shows the sampled points in case of an equi-
paramteric and mean curvature methods [1].
Although many attempts for CMM
inspection planning show that many areas
have been extensively investigated for
specific case. For instance, sampling of
prismatic and conical shapes has received
significant attention from the researchers.
However many other problems remain
unsolved for other geometric elements.
Among these problems are the optimization
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002

of the sampling plan, and sampling of free
form surfaces. Therefore, the objective of
work in this area would be as follows:
?? Examine the effect of different
sampling strategies on the accuracy
of free form surfaces.
? ? Develop a set of criteria to determine
the optimum number of sampling
points.
? ? Develop algorithms to automate the
sampling of free form surfaces.
tolerance FFS as an initial experimental
attempt. According to the principles of the
vectorial tolerance, there are a position
vector, orientation vector and form error
tolerance zone (as shown in Figure 3).
Figure 6 shows a surface patch that have
been inspected based on the vectorial
tolerancing principles i.e the measured
surface error has been divided into location
error, orientation error and form error.
Figure 7 shows the calculated and measured
errors. It can be seen that they are in very
good agreement which is a promising results
for further investigation.

Fig. 6 Surface Being Inspected

Calculated Vs. Measured Errors

Location Errors Orientation Errors

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
Fig. 5 NURBS Surface Sampled using
equiparamteric and Mean Curvature Sampling 0.2

Methods [1] 0

Inspected Surface Points

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Fig. 7 Result of Initial Experiments to Define
Free Form Surface Errors
After a careful examination of the different
tolerancing schema the authors have
selected the VD&T to be applied to
Proceeding of the third Pacific Manufacturing Conference (PMC) conference held at Thailand, Nov. 2002
5. CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this paper was to investigate
the application of VD&T for inspection of
FFS. Sn overview of tolerancing of free
form surfaces and different related issues
such as alignment and sampling strategies
has been presented together with a thorough
for the parametric tolerancing, GD&T, and
VD&T. It appeared that there is a need for
the examination of the effect of different
sampling strategies on the accuracy of free
form surfaces, developing a set of criteria to
determine the optimum number of sampling
points and developing algorithms to
automate the sampling of free form surfaces.
It is also suggested to investigate the pros
and cones of different alignment techniques
for FFS. The VD&T presents a well
organized schema to handle the inspection
of FFS. But more work still needed to
support these proposals.
REFERENCES
1. Elkout, D., ElMaraghy, H., ElMarghy, W. 1999,
“Sampling for free form surfaces inspection
planning”, Proceedings of The1999 ASME
Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
September 12-15, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada.
2. Voelcker, H., B., 1993, “ A Current Perspective
on Tolerancing and Metrology”, CRTD-Vol. 27,
International Forum on Dimensional
Tolerancing and Metrology, pp. 49-59.
3. Walker, R. K., Srinivasan, Vijay, “ Creation and
Evolution of the ASME Y14.5.1M Standard”,
CRTD-Vol. 27, International Forum on
Dimensional Tolerancing and Metrology, pp. 19-
30.
4. Nigam, S. D., Turner, J. U, “ Review of
Statistical Approaches to Tolerance Analysis”,
Computer Aided Design, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 6-
14.
5. Orady, E. A, Li, S., Chen, Y., 1997, “ Minimum
Zone Cylindricity Evaluation using Improved
Nonlinear Optimization Method (NOM)”,
Transactions of the North American
Manufacturing Research Institution of SME, pp.
287-292
6. Bialas, s., Humienny, Z., Kiszka, K., 1997, “
Relations Between ISO 1101 Geometric
Tolerances and Vectorial Tolerances-
Conversion Problems” The 5th CIRP Seminar on
Computer-Aided Tolerancing, Toronto, April 27-
29, pp. 88-99.
7. Requicha, A. G., “Mathematical Meaning and
Computational Representation of Tolerance
Specifications”, CRTD-Vol. 27, International
Forum on Dimensional Tolerancing and
Metrology, pp. 61-67.
8. Farouki, R. T., 1986 “ The Approximation of
Non-Degenerate Offset Surfaces” Computer
Aided Geometric Design, Vol. 3, pp. 15-43.
9. Menq, C. H., Yau, H. T., Lai, G. Y., 1992,
“Automated Precision Measurement of Surface
Profile in CAD-Directed Inspection”, IEEE
Transaction on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 8
No. 2.
10. Zeid, I., "CAD/CAM theory and Practice”,
McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1991.
11. Orady, E., Chen, Y., Ma, C., "Sampling
Strategies for Measurement of Circular Features
Using Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMM),"
Proceedings of the 1996 Canadian Society of
Mechanical Engineering (CSME) Forum, 13th
Symposium on Engineering Applications of
Mechanics , Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, May 7-9, 1996, pp. 488-494.