International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416

Evaluation of sphericity error from form data using computational

geometric techniques
*
G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam
Manufacturing Engineering Section, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras-600 036, India

Received 4 July 2000; accepted 2 August 2001

Abstract

The measurement data for evaluation of sphericity error can be obtained from inspection devices such as form measuring
instruments/set-ups. Due to misalignment and size-suppression inherent in these measurements, sphericity data obtained will be
distorted. Hence, the sphericity error is evaluated with reference to an assessment feature, referred to as a limacoid. Appropriate
methods based on the computational geometry have been developed to establish Minimum Circumscribed, Maximum Inscribed and
Minimum Zone Limacoids. The present methods start with the construction of 3-D hulls. A 3-D convex outer hull is established
using computational geometric concepts presently available. A heuristic method is followed in this paper to establish a 3-D inner
hull. Based on a new concept of 3-D equi-angular line, 3-D farthest or nearest equi-angular diagrams are constructed for establishing
the assessment limacoids. Algorithms proposed in the present work are implemented and validated with the simulated data and the
data available in the literature.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sphericity error; Computational geometry; Equi-angular diagram; Minimum circumscribed limacoid; Maximum inscribed limacoid;
Minimum zone limacoids

1. Introduction The International Standard ISO 3290 [5] dealing with

Spherical components such as contact probes in
inspection devices, balls in bearings and other precision
products need to be manufactured and inspected with
strict dimensional and geometric controls to achieve high
levels of functional performance. The geometrical
imperfections such as surface roughness, waviness and
form error have remarkable influence on performance of
these components. For example, the imperfections on the
precision engineering components of gyroscopes and
measuring instruments will lead to erroneous infor-
mation [9,2]. In heavily loaded components like ball
bearings in engines, turbines etc., these imperfections
may result in the generation of a large amount of heat
and in turn lead to reduction in life. Hence it is important
to carefully evaluate the spherical surfaces for geometric
form imperfections.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-44-445-8520; fax: +91-44-235-
0509.
E-mail address: shun@iitm.ac.in (M.S. Shunmugam).
rolling bearings, bearing parts and balls for rolling bear-
ings, defines the deviation of spherical form as the great-
est radial distance in any radial plane between a sphere
circumscribing the ball surface and any point on the ball
surface. As practised in rolling bearing industries, the
ball profiles are obtained in two or three equatorial
planes at 90° to each other using a roundness measuring
instrument. The evaluation based on roundness measure-
ments, namely two-dimensional measurements, is inad-
equate to arrive at the sphericity error that is three-
dimensional in nature. The sphericity data must be
obtained using appropriate inspection devices such as
form measuring instruments/set-ups [6]. The data must
also be processed using appropriate techniques to obtain
reliable results during the evaluation of sphericity error.
It is also important that these techniques have to follow
the specifications laid down in the standards. Inter-
national Standard ISO 1101 [4] does not deal with the
sphericity tolerance explicitly and therefore the concepts
of form tolerances dealt with in this standard have to be
extended to the evaluation of the sphericity error.
Many attempts have been made to evaluate circularity

0890-6955/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 2 4 - 9
406 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
Nomenclature
ri, qi, bi Polar coordinate of a point
x0, y0, z0 Estimated coordinates of center of the assessment feature
r0 Radius of assessment sphere
ra Radius of the assumed sphere
ei Deviation of ith point from assessment feature
emax, emin Maximum and minimum deviations of the profile
⌬ Sphericity error
r⬘i Radius of the points on inverted profile
rmax, rmin Maximum and minimum radii
d Increment
k Constant, from 0.5 to 1.0
error from the form data obtained using roundness meas-
uring instruments. Since the roundness profile is dis-
torted by the misalignment between the axes of a compo-
nent and a rotating table and by radius-suppression
inherent in the measurement, a limacon is used as an
assessment feature [15]. Using a limacon as the assess-
ment feature, the Least Squares Method (LSM) and sev-
eral numerical methods have been employed to arrive at
the circularity error. Apart from Minimum Zone evalu-
ation, the concepts of Minimum Circumscribed and
Maximum Inscribed limacons are also used in circularity
evaluation. Considering the limacon as a curve rep-
resenting the locus of foot of the perpendiculars drawn
from a pole to the tangents of a circle, the computational
geometric techniques have been successfully developed
to arrive at the circularity error [17].
In the case of sphericity, a few attempts have been
made by previous researchers to develop methods for
evaluating the sphericity error from the form data. The
Least Squares Method that minimizes the sum of the
squared deviations of the measured points from a fitted
feature has been suggested [15]. Though the Least
Squares Method is based on sound mathematical prin-
ciples, the error values obtained are not the minimum
[10,11]. A statistical technique for estimating the spher-
icity from a few 2-D roundness values was also proposed
[7]. Shunmugam has suggested a new simple approach
called the Median technique that gives minimum value
of sphericity error [15]. Using discrete Chebyshev
approximations, Danish and Shunmugam have arrived at
the minimum zone values [1]. Apart from the Minimum
Zone principle, the concepts of Minimum Circumscribed
and Maximum Inscribed features used in circularity
evaluation can also be extended to the evaluation of the
sphericity error.
In the past decade, the computational geometric tech-
niques have gained enormous attention from the design-
ers of algorithms for solving geometric problems. These
computational geometry based algorithms can be very
well applied for the evaluation of the sphericity error
in manufactured components. Computational geometry
based techniques show greater promise for solving the
minimum zone problems encountered in the geometrical
evaluations. However, no attempt has been made by
researchers in the past to adopt computational geometry
based assessment techniques for different methods of
evaluation of the sphericity error. In this paper, tech-
niques for evaluation of the sphericity error using form
data have been presented. To take care of the distortion
introduced during the sphericity measurement, a 3-D
assessment feature referred to as a limacoid is estab-
lished by extending the concept of a limacon. Apart from
using the existing computational geometric concept of a
3-D convex outer hull, a heuristic method for obtaining
a 3-D convex inner hull has been proposed. A new con-
cept of 3-D equi-angular line is introduced and 3-D far-
thest and nearest equi-angular diagrams (EA diagrams)
are developed to arrive at different assessment limacoids.
The results obtained using the simulated data and data
reported in the literature are included in this paper.
2. Evaluation of sphericity error
Fig. 1 shows a schematic arrangement for the
measurement of spherical form. As only the deviation
from the true form is measured, there will be size sup-
pression (radius suppression) in the form data. The data
obtained from the measuring instruments/set-ups will be
in the polar form, with the radial values in microns and
the angles in degrees. Also, the misalignment between
component center and the axis of the measuring
instrument/setup cannot be totally eliminated. Due to the
misalignment and size suppression, the form data
obtained will be distorted. Even when a truly spherical
surface is measured, if the axis of the rotating table of
the measuring instrument does not coincide with the
component center, distortion will be introduced in the
measurement data. The surface obtained by such
measurement is approximated to a new surface referred
 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
Fig. 1. Schematic arrangement for spherical form measurement.
to as a limacoid in this paper. The limacoid is a surface
that passes through the foot of the perpendicular drawn
from a pole to the tangent planes of a given sphere. The
geometric properties and the construction of the limacoid
are given in Appendix A. The limacoid is also expressed
in the linear form as
ri⫽r0⫹x0 cos bi cos qi⫹y0 cos bi sinqi⫹z0 sin bi
For form data shown in Fig. 2, the sphericity error is
evaluated with reference to the assessment limacoid and
the deviation of a point (ri, qi, bi) and are expressed in
the linear form as
ei⫽ri⫺(r0⫹x0 cos bi cos qi⫹y0 cos bi sin qi
⫹z0 sin bi)
Fig. 2. Spherical form data (ri in µm, qi and bi in degrees) for illustration only.
407
where x0, y0 and z0 refer to the center and r0 is the radius
of the sphere from which the limacoid is obtained [16].
The sphericity error with reference to the assessment fea-
ture is given by
⌬⫽|emax|⫹|emin| (3)
where emax and emin are the maximum and minimum
deviations of the data points from the assessment feature.
emax is zero for a Minimum Circumscribed Limacoid
(MCL) and all the points will be enclosed by this feature.
emin is zero in the case of a Maximum Inscribed Lima-
coid (MIL) and the points lie outside. For Minimum
Zone (MZ) evaluation, the deviation can be computed
as the least value obtained when a pair of limacoids has
same center for the spheres from which they are
developed and contain all the points in the annular space
between them.
3. Algorithms for evaluation of sphericity
3.1. Minimum Circumscribed Limacoid (Crest
Limacoid)
(1)
The Minimum Circumscribed Limacoid (MCL) will
pass through four vertices of the outer hull. Keeping this
in view, a 3-D convex outer hull is constructed first for
the given set of data points to eliminate most of the
points that lie inside and do not influence the final result.
(2)
The 3-D convex outer hull (sometimes referred to as the
outer hull) of a given set of points in Euclidean space
408 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
is the boundary of the smallest convex domain contain-
ing all the points of the set. A domain is said to be con-
vex if, for any two points in the domain, the segment
connecting them should be entirely contained in the
domain [14]. In other words, the convex hull of points
in three-dimensional space is the shape taken by plastic
wrap stretched tightly around the points [12]. The algor-
ithms used in the present work for constructing the con-
vex hull is based on the Divide-and-Conquer and Merge
techniques suggested by Preparata and Hong [13].
Fig. 3(a) shows the outer convex hull with vertices
V1, V2 etc. for the data points shown in Fig. 2. In the
next step, the initial EA lines are established. The details
of the EA planes and lines are given in Appendix B.
Taking the vertices V2, V3 and V4, lines connecting these
vertices to the origin O are obtained. Three planes PL2,
PL3 and PL4 perpendicular to these lines V2O, V3O and
V4O are established as shown by thin lines in Fig. 3(a).
For each pair of planes, a plane bisecting the angle
between them (referred to as the EA plane) is estab-
lished. There will be three such EA planes and the inter-
section of these three EA planes results in an EA line.
For the three planes PL2, PL3 and PL4, the EA line
obtained is referred to as EA234. Taking any point on
this EA line, a sphere can be drawn tangential to the
three planes PL2, PL3 and PL4. In the next step, the far-
thest center of the EA line is determined. For example,
EA234 will be intersected by three adjacent EA planes
(corresponding to PL2 and its adjacent plane, PL3 and
its adjacent plane, etc.). The farthest intersection point
among them gives the farthest center and the sphere
drawn with it as a center will also be tangential to the
adjacent EA plane resulting in this intersection point.
The portion of the EA line beyond the farthest center is
known as the farthest edge, FE234. Following the above
procedure, all EA lines and farthest edges are con-
structed. The initial farthest EA edges are shown in
Fig. 3(b).
After constructing the initial EA diagram, the hull is
updated by eliminating the vertices with adjacent faces
having common farthest EA centers. Different cases that
may be encountered and updating of the hull in these
cases are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4(a) shows three points
of a face V1, V2, and V3. Radial lines are established
through these points and the planes PL1, PL2 and PL3
are established tangential to the radial lines through V1,
V2 and V3, respectively. The EA line for these planes is
established following the procedure explained in Appen-
dix B. Fig. 4(b (i)) shows three faces formed by four
vertices V1, V2, V3 and V4, and all have a common far-
thest center. Any two faces can also have a common
farthest center as shown in Fig. 4(b (ii)). In both cases,
the vertex V1 is deleted and the hull is updated by for-
ming a new face V2, V3, V4, as shown in Fig. 4(b (iii)).
In the case of a vertex with four faces, if all the faces
have a common farthest center as shown in Fig. 4(c (i)),
the common vertex V1 is deleted. The updated faces are
obtained either by joining V2 and V4 or V3 and V5. If
there is at least a pair of adjacent faces with a common
farthest center, the edge common to adjacent faces is
eliminated. For example, Fig. 4(c (ii)) shows that two
faces V1, V3, V4, and V1, V4, V5 have a common center
C1345 and faces V1, V2, V3 and V1, V2, V5 have another
common center C1235. In this case also, the vertex V1
along with the edges V1, V4 and V1, V2 gets eliminated
resulting in the formation of a new edge V3, V5 as shown
in Fig. 4(c (iii)). For other cases with more than four
faces also, the same logic is applied and the updated
faces are obtained. The updating procedure is equivalent
to the formation of faces in arriving at the convex hull.
The first stage of updating is carried out by consider-
ing the vertices and faces that have common centers.
However, a vertex belonging to the updated face should
not be deleted in the process of updating the vertices and
the faces in the neighborhood. After the first stage of
updating covering all potential vertices, the next stage
of updating starts. The process of updating continues till
the number of vertices is reduced to three.
The hull shown in Fig. 3(b) with the initial farthest
EA edges is updated following the procedure explained
above. The vertices V1 and V3 get eliminated as the three
faces surrounding each of these vertices have a common
center. The remaining vertices are V2, V4 and V5. The
EA line for this face results in FE245, as shown in Fig.
5. The centers obtained at all stages of updating are the
candidate centers for the spheres from which the circum-
scribed limacoid can be generated. A complete EA dia-
gram with Minimum Circumscribed Limacoid is shown
in Fig. 5. This Minimum Circumscribed Limacoid passes
through four crest points and encloses all other points
of the data set, in such a way that the sphere from which
it is generated has the least radius.
3.2. Maximum Inscribed Limacoid (Valley Limacoid)
The points controlling the inscribed limacoid lie on
the inner hull and, therefore, the inner hull of the given
set of data points is determined before constructing the
nearest EA diagram. The inner hull of a set of points is
the boundary of the largest empty subset of a given set
of points.
A new heuristic algorithm for finding the inner hull
is proposed in the present work. This method involves
transformation of the original data with reference to the
measurement center O of the sphere as shown in Fig.
6(a). With this center, a suitable diameter of the sphere
is selected such that all the measured points are within
this assumed sphere. The transformation is done by
arriving at radial deviations between the measured points
and the corresponding points on the assumed sphere. For
example, the point P⬘1 is obtained by taking along the
 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416 409

Fig. 3. Construction of initial farthest EA diagram.

corresponding radial line the distance a from the center
O, that represents the deviation P1 S1.
Assuming a very large radius ra can lead to a consider-
able distortion of the data. A simple heuristic rule to
select the radius of this sphere is
ra⫽rmax⫹d (4)
where d=k(rmax⫺rmin) and k can be selected between 0.5
and 1.0. rmax and rmin are the maximum and minimum
radii with respect to the selected center.
410 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416

Fig. 4. EA diagram and updating of hull.

The 3-D convex outer hull for the transformed data is
determined as explained earlier. The points of the orig-
inal data set corresponding to the vertices of the outer
hull of the transformed data are taken as the vertices of
the inner hull as shown in Fig. 6(b) schematically. The
procedure for constructing the nearest EA diagram is
similar to that of the farthest EA diagram, except that
the nearest common centers are considered as end points
of the nearest EA lines. Fig. 6(b) shows the initial near-
est EA lines for the faces of the inner hull. For example,
the nearest EA line NE123 for face V1, V2, V3 is obtained
by finding the EA center nearest to the face. The hull is
updated in a similar way as explained earlier. The verti-
ces V3 and V4 are eliminated as they have common near-
est EA centers. The nearest EA line NE125 is established
for the remaining three vertices of the hull V1, V2 and
V5. The complete nearest EA diagram and the Maximum
Inscribed Limacoid are shown in Fig. 6(c). The
Maximum Inscribed Limacoid passes through four
points and all other points lie outside. The sphere from
which it is generated has a maximum radius.
 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
Fig. 5. Complete farthest EA diagram and minimum circumscribed
limacoid.
3.3. Minimum zone limacoids
The minimum zone value is obtained when a pair of
limacoids generated from two concentric spheres contain
all the points of the data set and have minimum distance
between them.
In order to determine the minimum zone limacoids,
the farthest and nearest EA diagrams are superimposed
as shown in Fig. 7. The following cases may arise, while
considering candidate centers for minimum zone error.
(i) All the centers of the farthest and nearest EA diagram
may be the candidate centers. When these centers are
selected, the inner or outer assessment limacoid will pass
through four points and the other limacoid through at
least one point of the data set. (ii) The intersection points
of farthest and nearest EA edges may be taken as the
candidate centers. In this case, both circumscribed and
inscribed limacoids will pass through three points each.
However, when an intersection point coincides with the
centers of the farthest or nearest EA diagram, four points
lie on one of the limacoids and the other limacoid will
pass through three points. (iii) Candidate centers may
also be obtained as the intersection of EA plane for two
points (Refer to Fig. 9 in Appendix B) and EA line for
three points (Refer to Fig. 10 in Appendix B). In this
case, three points lie on the circumscribed or inscribed
limacoid and two points on the other limacoid. If such
intersection points are considered for all the points of
the data set, the number of intersection points will be
very large and it will take a longer time for computation.
As the potential minimum zone control points will be
among the crest and valley points, the intersection points
of the EA line and the EA plane for these points alone
411
are considered as the candidate centers for minimum
zone evaluation.
The radial distance between the spheres from which
the limacoids are generated is determined for all the can-
didate centers and a pair that has minimum separation
is taken to represent the Minimum Zone Limacoids. The
sphericity error is obtained from these Minimum Zone
(MZ) Limacoids.
4. Results and discussion
The computer programs were written in C++ based
on the proposed algorithms. The package was run on a
Pentium III, 128 MB, 450 MHz machine. The programs
were tested for the simulated data and the data available
in the literature. The data sets are shown in Table 1 and
Table 2. The algorithms developed in the present work
are validated with the published results. Table 3 shows
the results obtained on the basis of Minimum Circum-
scribed Limacoid (MCL), Maximum Inscribed Limacoid
(MIL) and Minimum Zone (MZ) Limacoids. For the pur-
pose of comparison, the values based on the Least
Squares (LS) method are also included in Table 3. The
LS solution for the form data is found by minimizing
the sum of the squares of the deviations given by Eq. (2).
The LS technique yields larger values of sphericity error.
The evaluation of the sphericity error by the compu-
tational geometry technique yields superior results with
error values equal to or less than the results published
in the literature as shown in Table 3. For the form data
given in Data Set 1, the reported value of sphericity error
is 2.88 µm [15], whereas the present method gives mini-
mum zone error of 2.82843 µm. This is in agreement
with the error value reported by Danish and Shunmugam
[1]. However, the numerical methods reported in the
literature for the evaluation of sphericity error based on
crest and valley features require some value for conver-
gence. Though the MZ solution can be obtained directly
by certain numerical methods such as the Chebyshev
approximation [1], some attempts have been made to use
other methods that require a convergence value [8]. In
all these cases, the accuracy of the solutions obtained
depends on the value specified for the convergence. The
algorithms proposed in the present work does not require
any specified convergence value and the results depend
only on the points that are used for establishing the
assessment limacoids.
The form data set given in Table 2 is simulated from
CMM data given by Fan and Lee [3]. For this purpose,
a suitable transformation is applied as reported by the
authors elsewhere. It is found that the minimum zone
error value obtained for this data set by the present
method is well in agreement with the reported value of
7.66 µm and the data points 7, 16 and 45 lie on the outer
limacoid and the points 20 and 39 on the inner one.
412 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
Fig. 6. Construction of inner hull and nearest EA diagram.
In the proposed algorithms, the convex outer hull and
the inner hull for the given set of data points are con-
sidered so that the points which do not influence the final
results are eliminated and the construction of EA dia-
grams becomes less cumbersome. However, care should
be taken while finding the inner hull and the subsequent
construction of the EA diagram.
The computational complexity of finding the convex
outer hull by a divide and conquer algorithm is O(n log
n). The complexity of finding the inner hull is also O(n
log n) as the time required for transforming the data is
O(n), and for finding the outer hull of the transformed
data is O(n log n). The EA diagrams can be constructed
in O(n) time. Hence the overall complexity of the pro-
posed algorithms is O(n log n).
5. Conclusions
Considering the need for fast and efficient algorithms
for processing the geometric data obtained from the form
measuring instruments, the algorithms based on compu-
tational geometric techniques have been developed. It is
established that the limacoids are assessment features to
be considered for evaluating the sphericity error using
form data. The geometry of a limacoid has been
explained for the first time by the authors and this has
helped in the development of the appropriate compu-
tational geometric techniques. New concepts involving
EA diagrams have been introduced and successfully
applied in this work.
The minimum zones as well as Minimum Circum-
scribed and Maximum Inscribed methods of evaluation
 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416 413

Table 2
Form data set 2a

Sl ri µm qi deg bi deg
No.

1 2.6832932 331.92743 ⫺22.637085

2 7.4336558 213.17468 16.040048
3 3.6250598 87.731895 ⫺25.245568
4 4.5488358 342.51340 ⫺25.082736
5 2.1872350 188.23962 59.095722
6 6.7727147 318.31927 ⫺0.38596954
7 8.6930751 273.24542 ⫺0.15121173
8 4.5718330 106.25565 51.143023
9 2.6244735 324.80060 ⫺29.985575
10 4.2563315 227.16957 45.739774
11 3.7867565 274.52350 ⫺42.255998
12 5.9989341 21.781172 86.821015
13 6.8987431 71.339958 22.738432
14 5.1636555 259.76367 28.859755
15 4.6856344 0.0000000 ⫺67.259493
16 9.4522086 89.520180 42.866003
17 3.8018238 40.055141 ⫺36.287121
18 5.0416828 283.06317 ⫺90.000000
Fig. 7. Superimposed EA diagrams and minimum zone limacoids.
19 8.5118334 120.27706 ⫺28.352954
20 2.0510909 89.474907 6.4154435
Table 1 21 7.4711677 190.47194 ⫺19.257391
Form data set 1 ([16]) 22 3.8263393 235.31940 32.305525
23 5.1149254 59.995167 1.8550883
Sl no. ri µm qi deg bi deg 24 5.6836520 5.2321429 ⫺36.248701
25 2.5152909 4.7001133 ⫺32.345761
1 5 0 90 26 3.5640372 347.72479 68.448408
2 5 0 45 27 5.8959117 165.48901 ⫺36.003614
3 3 45 45 28 4.2625184 123.82193 ⫺33.366902
4 4 90 45 29 2.2547926 181.34886 ⫺20.977347
5 3 135 45 30 4.0042076 49.045292 ⫺49.362975
6 1 180 45 31 5.155986 166.20020 61.160748
7 2 225 45 32 2.8021395 325.89014 43.093571
8 2 270 45 33 3.1713023 33.478748 32.519314
9 3 315 45 34 3.2191303 330.52554 ⫺39.656008
10 4 0 0 35 4.6505752 262.77283 59.570523
11 4 45 0 36 2.9636450 95.772682 15.240091
12 3 90 0 37 4.7648219 69.843063 32.623069
13 3 135 0 38 1.8786658 239.49573 38.084180
14 3 180 0 39 1.0000000 194.02498 71.392027
15 2 225 0 40 5.0637425 222.33180 18.209365
16 2 270 0 41 3.8928533 345.63394 ⫺46.573147
17 3 315 0 42 5.6329602 259.95084 44.503074
18 3 0 ⫺45 43 2.5894086 98.632454 ⫺49.112970
19 2 45 ⫺45 44 7.320343 159.43929 81.973008
20 4 90 ⫺45 45 9.4698072 108.35489 ⫺25.711905
21 3 135 ⫺45 46 6.6561778 326.26495 ⫺78.571069
22 2 180 ⫺45 47 8.0848335 319.18689 90.000000
23 3 225 ⫺45 48 2.3037656 294.38531 ⫺68.424520
24 1 270 ⫺45 49 4.4632286 117.61561 ⫺14.954742
25 2 315 ⫺45 50 4.7804065 204.95993 47.255251
26 3 0 ⫺90
a
Transformation carried out on CMM data set given by Fan and
Lee ([3]).

of the sphericity error using form data have been carried

out and the results are presented. In the present work,
the effectiveness of the computational geometry based
approaches in the evaluation of sphericity error has been
demonstrated successfully using simulated data and the
data available in literature.
A heuristic method proposed in this work for
obtaining the 3D-inner hull works well for the evaluation
of the sphericity error by the MIL method. The trans-
formation of the data suggested in this heuristic method
has to be carried out carefully to maintain the nature of
414 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416

Table 3
Sphericity error using form data

Data Parameters Reported method Present method LS

Crest Valley MZ MCL MIL MZa

Set 1 x0 (µm) 1.29c 1.59c 1.41b, 1.29c 1.292893 1.5857864 1.41421 0.681218
y0 (µm) 0.296c 0.17c 0.24a, 0.296c 0.292893 0.171573 0.24264 0.806218
z0 (µm) 0.71c 0.728c 0.58b, 0.71c 0.707107 0.707107 0.58578 0.412132
r0 (µm) 4.29c 1.62c 3.00b, 2.85c 4.292893 1.62132 3.00000 2.884615
⌬ (µm) 2.88c 2.97c 2.82b, 2.88c 2.878680 2.964466 2.82843 3.397595
Control 1,14,20,23c 3,6,19,24c 1,6,14,19,24b, 1,14,20,23 3,6,19,24 1,6,14,19,24 –
points 1,6,14,20,23c
Set 2 x0 (µm) – – – 1.86667 0.63818 1.11808 ⫺0.53055
y0 (µm) – – – 0.50951 0.22282 0.41494 0.13803
z0 (µm) – – – ⫺0.35705 ⫺0.60176 ⫺0.17266 0.12931
r0 (µm) – – – 9.25327 1.78505 5.37178 4.76377
⌬ (µm) – – – 8.391589 7.85256 7.66012 8.48576
Control – – – 2,7,16,45 20,25,39,48 7,16,20,39,45 –
points

a
Assessment feature having equal magnitude of maximum deviations on either side.
b
Danish and Shunmugam ([1]).
c
Shunmugam ([15]).

the surface measured. The present method for minimum
zone evaluation always guarantees a minimum value for
a given set of data points.
These algorithms are computationally quite robust
giving unique solutions and require a short time for
execution. The proposed algorithms can handle data with
both uniform and non-uniform spacing. The present
algorithms cannot only be applied to measurement data
corresponding to a full sphere but also to the partial
sphere.
Appendix A. Limacoid and its properties
A limacoid has a pole O and an axis OOo. In Fig. 8(i),
a base sphere is drawn with OOo as its diameter. A point
Pi on the limacoid is at a distance of ri from the pole
where the distance between the point Pi and P⬘i located
on the base of a sphere is equal to a constant value ro.
Similarly, other points on the limacoid are obtained by
laying out the constant value ro from the corresponding
points on the sphere. The surface of the limacoid passes
through all these points.
Alternatively, a sphere of radius ro is drawn with Oo
as its center, as shown in Fig. 8(ii). A plane is estab-
lished passing through a point T on the sphere and tan-
gential to it. From the pole O, a perpendicular line to
this tangent plane is established. The foot of this perpen-
dicular gives Pi that lies on the limacoid. The distance
of this point from the pole is given by ri. The limacoid
is obtained as a surface that passes through the foot of
the perpendicular to the tangent planes of the sphere.
Fig. 8(iii) shows two points P1 and P2 on the limacoid
and the corresponding points T1 and T2 on the sphere.
It can be inferred that the line OP1 and OoT1 are perpen-
dicular to the tangent plane established at point T1 of the
sphere. OoT1 is also a radial line for the sphere. For the
second point T2 on the same sphere, there will be another
set of lines OP2 and OoT2, perpendicular to the second
tangent plane. By geometry, it can be shown that the
plane bisecting the angle between the first and second
tangent planes will pass through the center of the sphere.
Alternatively, if a plane is established at P1 perpendicu-
lar to the line joining P1 and the pole O and another
plane is established in a similar way at a different point
P2 on the limacoid, then the angle bisector of these two
planes will also pass through the center of the sphere
from which the limacoid is established.
Appendix B. Equi-angular planes and lines
Fig. 9 shows two planes PL1 and PL2 intersecting. The
equi-angular plane (EA plane) is drawn such that it
bisects the angle between the two planes PL1 and PL2.
For any point X on the EA plane, the perpendicular dis-
tance d to the planes PL1 and PL2 will be equal.
Three planes PL1, PL2 and PL3 intersecting each other
are shown in Fig. 10. The equi-angular plane EA12
bisects the angle between the planes PL1 and PL2. Simi-
larly the EA planes EA23 and EA13 are established.
These three EA planes EA12, EA23 and EA13 intersect
along a line. This line will be referred to as the EA line
hereafter. Any point X on this EA line will be at an
equal distance from the three planes and this line will
pass through the point of intersection of the three planes
PL1, PL2 and PL3. A sphere can be drawn with X as a
center such that it is tangential to the planes PL1, PL2
and PL3.
 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416 415

Fig. 9. Equi-angular plane.

Fig. 10. Line intersection of three EA planes.

Fig. 11 shows the three planes PL1, PL2 and PL3 along
with the adjacent planes PL4, PL5 and PL6. The line
EA123 corresponds to the three planes PL1, PL2 and PL3
as explained earlier. This line EA123 is intersected by
three other EA planes, namely EA14, EA25 and EA36
established taking the adjacent planes PL4, PL5 and PL6.
Three intersection points are obtained. The intersection
point Cf farthest from the planes PL1, PL2 and PL3 is
the farthest center and intersection point Cn nearest to
the planes is the nearest center. For example, if the far-
thest center Cf is obtained by intersection of the EA line
EA123 with the plane EA14, a largest possible sphere can
be drawn tangential to the four planes PL1, PL2, PL3 and
PL4 with Cf as a center. The line beyond Cf is known
as farthest EA line FE123. Any point taken along the line
EA123 away from Cf can yield a sphere tangential to the
Fig. 8. Geometry of a limacoid. three planes PL1, PL2 and PL3. The portion of the line
from Cn towards the planes PL1, PL2, PL3 is known as
nearest EA line NE123 and point Cn would result in the
smallest sphere.
416 G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 42 (2002) 405–416
Fig. 11. Farthest and nearest centers/edges.
References
[1] P.B. Danish, M.S. Shunmugam, An algorithm for form error
evaluation using the theory of discrete and linear Chebyshev
approximations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 92 (1991) 309–324.
[2] C.W.F. Everitt, J.A. Lipa, G.J. Siddall, Precision Engineering and
Einstein: the relativity gyroscope experiment, Precision Engineer-
ing 1 (1979) 5–11.
[3] K.C. Fan, J.C. Lee, Analysis of minimum zone sphericity error
using minimum potential energy theory, Precision Engineering
23 (1999) 65–72.
[4] ISO 1101, Technical drawings — Geometrical Tolerancing
(1983) 12-01.
[5] ISO 3290 Rolling Bearings — Bearing parts — balls for rolling
bearings (1975) E.
[6] F. Itoigawa, T. Nakamura, K. Funabashi, Harmonic analysis by
spherical function for evaluating form error of spherical parts,
JSME International Journal, Series III 35 (1992) 174–179.
[7] T. Kanada, Evaluation of spherical form errors — Computation
of sphericity by means of minimum zone method and some exam-
inations with using simulated data, Precision Engineering 17
(1995) 281–289.
[8] T. Kanada, Estimation of sphericity by means of statistical pro-
cessing for roundness of spherical parts, Precision Engineering
20 (1997) 117–122.
[9] J.A. Lipa, G.J. Siddall, High precision measurement of gyro rotor
sphericity, Precision Engineering 2 (1980) 123–128.
[10] T.S.R. Murthy, B.R. Rao, S.Z. Abdin, Evaluation of spherical
surfaces, Wear 57 (1979) 167–184.
[11] T.S.R. Murthy, S.Z. Abdin, Minimum zone evaluation of sur-
faces, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and
Research 20 (1980) 123–136.
[12] J. O’Rourke, Computational Geometry in C, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1994.
[13] F.P. Preparata, S.J. Hong, Convex hulls of finite sets of points in
two and three dimensions, Communications of the ACM 20
(1977) 87–93.
[14] F.P. Preparata, M.I. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Intro-
duction. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.
[15] M.S. Shunmugam, On assessment of geometric errors, Inter-
national Journal of Production Research 24 (1986) 413–425.
[16] M.S. Shunmugam, Comparison of linear and normal deviations
of engineering surfaces, Precision Engineering 9 (1987) 96–102.
[17] G.L. Samuel, M.S. Shunmugam, Evaluation of circularity from
coordinate and form data using computational geometric tech-
niques, Precision Engineering 24 (2000) 251–263.