Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Software measurement standards for areal surface texture parameters: part 1—algorithms

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2012 Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 105008

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0957-0233/23/10/105008)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 132.239.1.231
This content was downloaded on 13/06/2017 at 15:23

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

You may also be interested in:

Software measurement standards for areal surface texture parameters: part 2---comparison of
software
P M Harris, I M Smith, C Wang et al.

A study of variations of areal parameters on machined surfaces

P Pawlus, W Grabo, R Reizer et al.

An analysis of type F2 software measurement standards for profile surface texture parameters
L D Todhunter, R K Leach, S D A Lawes et al.

Description of two-process surface topography

W Grabon and P Pawlus

Development of a roughness measurement standard with irregular surface topography

Kentaro Nemoto, Kazuhisa Yanagi, Masato Aketagawa et al.

Advanced measurement and analysis of surface textures produced by micro-machining processes

Evgueni V Bordatchev and Abdullah M K Hafiz

An implicit RBF based approach to shape tomography

Naren Naik, Rick Beatson, Jerry Eriksson et al.

Fast algorithm of the robust Gaussian regression filter for areal surface analysis
W Zeng, X Jiang and P J Scott

Summarizing the output of a Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation

P M Harris, C E Matthews, M G Cox et al.
IOP PUBLISHING MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 (11pp) doi:10.1088/0957-0233/23/10/105008

Software measurement standards for

areal surface texture parameters:
part 1—algorithms
P M Harris 1 , I M Smith 1 , R K Leach 1 , C Giusca 1,2 , X Jiang 2 and P Scott 2
1
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 0LW, UK
2
Centre for Precision Technologies, School of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield,
Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
E-mail: peter.harris@npl.co.uk

Received 19 January 2012, in final form 27 June 2012

Published 11 September 2012
Online at stacks.iop.org/MST/23/105008

Abstract
Reference software for the evaluation of a set of areal surface texture parameters is described,
focusing on the definitions of the parameters and giving details of the numerical algorithms
employed in the software to implement those definitions. The main consideration in the design
and development of reference software is its numerical correctness, and the algorithms chosen
and the implementations of those algorithms reflect this consideration. The surface for which
parameters are to be evaluated is a bicubic spline interpolant to the available discretely-
sampled data, and parameters are evaluated for that continuous surface either to a high
numerical precision or to a numerical precision that is under the control of the user.

Keywords: surface texture, areal parameters, reference algorithms

1. Introduction is necessary that all such steps are recognized explicitly

Knowledge of the topography of a machined surface is
necessary in order to understand the functional performance of
the surface, and is consequently essential to the manufacturing
process [1–3]. As with the instruments used in many other
areas of metrology, those that measure surface texture
generally interface to a computer that collects and analyses
numerical data. As part of the data analysis, surface
texture parameters are evaluated. The use of a surface
texture parameter to characterize numerically the measured
topography was proposed many years ago [4], and a
number of parameters have been adopted by standards
bodies and are used in industry. Whereas it is commonplace
to use physical artefacts to calibrate surface measuring
instruments, such artefacts do not allow validation and
verification in isolation of the software components of the
instrument.
Ensuring the traceability of surface texture measurements
requires that measurement results, including the values of
surface texture parameters, are linked to references, such as
measurement standards, through an unbroken documented
chain. When the chain involves computational steps, it
and shown to be operating correctly. Reference software,
developed independently of commercial software developed
by manufacturers and users of surface texture measuring
instruments, can be used for this purpose.
ISO 5436–2 [5] introduced into international
standardization the concept of the software measurement
standard in the context of the measurement of surface texture.
The standard defines Type F1 (reference data) and Type
F2 (reference software) software measurement standards
for testing the numerical correctness of software used in
surface texture measurement. Reference software is used as a
benchmark against which software in a measuring instrument
can be compared [6, 7]. A data set is used as input to both
the software under test and the reference software, and the
results delivered by the software under test are compared with
those provided by the reference software. The most important
consideration in the design and development of reference
software is its numerical correctness. This is in contrast
to considerations for production software, for which the
requirements on numerical correctness are generally more
modest, but issues of efficiency, such as computing time and
memory, and usability are of concern.

0957-0233/12/105008+11$33.00 1 © 2012 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008
In previous work [8], Type F1 and F2 software
measurement standards were developed and disseminated for
testing software for evaluating profile parameters [9]. The
aim of the current work, undertaken jointly by the National
Physical Laboratory and the University of Huddersfield, is to
develop reference software for a selection of areal parameters
[10]. As for the case of profile parameters, it is accepted
that there can be differences in how areal parameters defined
in international standards may be implemented in practice.
One source of such differences is that standards define the
parameters in terms of a surface that is assumed to be
known everywhere whereas, in practice, the surface is known
(approximately by measurement) only at discretely-sampled
points. Another relates to the choice of the various operators
and filters applied to the data, which are specified by values
of nesting indices and cut-off wavelengths according to the
values of sampling distances. Consequently, it is expected
that instrument manufacturers will make different choices,
albeit choices that are consistent with the definitions given
in standards, when developing their own algorithms and
software.
This paper gives a description of the reference software
that has been developed, focusing on the definitions of the
areal surface texture parameters covered and giving details
of the numerical algorithms employed in the software to
implement those definitions. In developing the software
various choices have been made, but these choices are
believed to be in the spirit of the relevant standards. It is
accepted that it is unlikely that instrument manufacturers will
choose to implement the algorithms described. However, by
making the interpretations of the definitions as algorithms
open, and software implementing those algorithms available,
instrument manufacturers (and instrument users) will be able
to quantify the effect of the choices and approximations
made in their own algorithms and software. In this way it
is hoped that instrument manufacturers will be encouraged
to provide software for evaluating the parameters that
delivers results that are consistent with each other and are
fit-for-purpose.
Software measurement standards have also been
developed by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST, US) for profile and areal surface texture
parameters [11, 12], and by the Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt (PTB, Germany) for profile parameters [13].
Comparisons of software measurement standards are reported
in [14, 15]. See also [16].
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an
overview of the main functions of the reference software
together with the conditions that are assumed to apply. The
algorithms implementing the main functions are described in
sections 3 to 6. A summary is given in section 7, and an
appendix contains supporting technical material. The reference
software may be freely downloaded from the web site of
the National Physical Laboratory. A companion paper [17]
presents a comparison of the results returned by the reference
software with those reported by proprietary software for
surface texture measurement.
2
P M Harris et al
2. Overview
The main functions of the reference software are as follows:
• Read data defining an S–F surface [10, clause 3.1.5], i.e.
a surface that has been S-filtered (to remove small scale
components) and from which form has been removed
(using an F-operation).
• Apply a Gaussian areal filter to the data defining an
S–F surface to obtain data defining the corresponding S–L
surface [10, clause 3.1.6], i.e. a surface derived from the
S–F surface by removing large scale components using an
L-filter (section 3).
• Remove points from the data defining an S–L surface, i.e.
‘trim’ the data, to produce a surface defined on an area
which has sides with lengths that are integer multiples of
the cut-off wavelength for the Gaussian areal filter used
to obtain the surface (section 4).
• Apply interpolation to the data defining the S–F and
S–L surfaces to obtain continuous representations of those
surfaces (section 5).
• Evaluate areal surface texture parameters in terms of these
continuous representations of the S–F and S–L surfaces
(section 6).
• Write the values of the areal surface texture parameters to
an output file.
The areal surface texture parameters to be evaluated are
from the S-parameter set3 and include field height parameters
Sq (root mean square height), Ssk (skewness), Sku (kurtosis),
Sp (maximum peak height), Sv (maximum pit height), Sz
(maximum height) and Sa (arithmetical mean height), spatial
parameters Sal (autocorrelation length) and Str (texture aspect
ratio), and field hybrid parameters Sdq (root mean square
gradient) and Sdr (developed interfacial area ratio).
For the representation of the surface and the specification
of areal surface texture parameters, a rectangular Cartesian
set of axes is assumed [10, clause 3.1.2]. Specifically, if
the nominal surface is a plane (or portion of a plane), the
x- and y-axes are taken to lie in the surface with the z-axis
orthogonal to the surface in an outward direction, i.e. from the
material to the surrounding medium. The measured surface
data are defined by uniform sampling intervals x > 0 and
y > 0 in, respectively, the x- and y-directions with, in general,
x = y , and a matrix Z of dimension mx × my containing the
surface heights zi j , i = 1, . . . , mx , j = 1, . . . , my . Without
loss of generality, the value zi j is considered to correspond
to the height of a surface z(x, y) at the point (xi , y j ) with
xi = (i − 1)x and y j = ( j − 1)y , i.e. z1,1 is the height at
the origin of the xy-coordinate system and zmx ,my at the point
‘diagonally opposed’ to the origin.
The following conditions are assumed to apply.
(i) The input data are provided in X3P format [18],
a format for defining surface data that allows the
smooth interchange of data between different measuring
systems. Software implementing the data format has been
developed by the ‘openGPS’ consortium as freeware [19].
3 For clarity, and to ensure the notation is mathematically unambiguous, the
notation Sq , etc, is used throughout to denote areal surface texture parameters
in place of the abbreviated terms Sq, etc, often used in practice.
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008
(ii) For an S–F surface, the evaluation area [10, clause
3.1.9], i.e. the area in the xy-plane used to specify the
portion of the surface under evaluation, is the rectangle
[x1 , xmx ]×[y1 , ymy ] with sides of lengths Lx = (mx −1)x
in the x-direction and Ly = (my − 1)y in the y-direction
containing the measured surface data.
(iii) For Gaussian areal filtering, the same cut-off wavelength
λ > 0 is applied in the x- and y-directions, with λ an
integer multiple of the sampling intervals x and y .
(iv) In order to minimize any distortion of the filtered surface
due to the finite extent of the surface, the lengths Lx and
Ly are at least three times the cut-off wavelength;
(v) In order to minimize any distortion of the filtered surface
due to the finite number of data points per cut-off
wavelength, there should be at least fifty points per cut-off
wavelength in each direction.
(vi) For an S–L surface, the evaluation area is a rectangle
with sides having lengths equal to integer multiples of
λ that is contained within the rectangle obtained from
the evaluation area for the corresponding S–F surface by
removing a border of width λ. The evaluation area for an
S–L surface is generally not uniquely defined. A particular
choice is made by requiring that it is the rectangle of
largest area having approximately the same centroid as
the evaluation area for the corresponding S–F surface: see
section 4.
3. Gaussian areal filter
The Gaussian areal filter is defined by the weighting function
  2 
1 ξ  η 2
sx,y (ξ , η) = 2 2 exp −π −π , parameters are calculated. The corresponding set of points
α λ αλ αλ
 (xi , y j ) defines the evaluation area for that S–L surface, which
with α = log 2/π , and λ denoting the cut-off wavelength
in the x- and y-directions [20]. Given a continuous surface
z(x, y), the Gaussian filtered surface w(x, y) is defined by the
convolution integral
w(x, y) = z(ξ , η)sx,y (x − ξ , y − η) dξ dη.
Due to the separability of the weighting function
w(x, y) = z(ξ , η)s(x − ξ ) dξ s(y − η) dη,
where
  2 
1 ξ
s(ξ ) = exp −π
αλ αλ
is the weighting function for a Gaussian profile filter with
cut-off wavelength λ [21]. It follows that Gaussian filtration
for an areal surface can be undertaken by applying profile
Gaussian filtration in the x-direction followed by profile
Gaussian filtration in the y-direction (or vice versa).
In practice, knowledge of the surface z(x, y) takes the
form of surface heights zi j at finitely-many points (xi , y j )
(section 2). Then, the calculation of wi j , an approximation
to w(xi , y j ), is implemented using the discrete convolution
⎡ ⎤
P M Harris et al
for i = 1 + nx , . . . , mx − nx , j = 1 + ny , . . . , my − ny , and
integers nx = λ/x and ny = λ/y . Finally, the S–L surface
derived from the S–F surface by Gaussian areal filtration is
defined by surface heights ri j with
ri j = zi j −wi j , i = 1+nx , . . . , mx −nx , j = 1+ny , . . . , my −ny .
4. Evaluation area for an S–L surface
Following application of a Gaussian areal filter, the S–L
surface is defined by surface heights ri j , i = 1 + nx , . . . ,
mx − nx , j = 1 + ny , . . . , my − ny , corresponding to points
(xi , y j ) in a rectangle with sides of lengths Lx − 2λ in the x-
direction and Ly − 2λ in the y-direction. In general, the lengths
are not integer multiples of λ (section 2), and it is necessary to
trim the data set (xi , y j , ri j ).
Consider first the x-direction. Let Hx = px λ, where px
is chosen to be the largest integer for which Hx  Lx − 2λ.
Since λ = nx x for integer nx (section 3), Hx = px nx x .
Consequently, the length Lx − 2λ contains mx − 2nx points and
the length Hx contains px nx + 1 points. Define
rx = (mx − 2nx ) − (px nx + 1) = mx − (2 + px )nx − 1.
If rx is even, then rx /2 points xi are removed from the left- and
right-hand ends of the set xi , i = 1 + nx , . . . , mx − nx . If rx is
odd, then int(rx /2) points are removed from the left-hand end,
and int(rx /2) + 1 points from the right-hand end, where int(q)
denotes the integer part of q.
Similar considerations apply to the y-direction. After
removing points in this way, the resulting set of heights
ri j defines the S–L surface for which areal surface texture
is a rectangle with sides of lengths Hx in the x-direction and
Hy in the y-direction having approximately the same centroid
as the evaluation area for the corresponding S–F surface. (The
differences in the x- and y-directions between the centroids of
the two surfaces are bounded in absolute value by, respectively,
the sampling intervals x and y .)
5. Surface interpolation
The surface heights zi j and ri j defining, respectively, the
S–F and S–L surfaces are used to construct continuous
representations z(x, y) and r(x, y) of the unknown underlying
surfaces. These continuous representations are then used as the
basis for evaluating surface texture parameters that are defined
in standards (e.g., [10]) in terms of such representations.
For this purpose, a bicubic spline interpolant to the
surface height data is used, which is a generalization of cubic
spline interpolation applied to (tabulated) data describing a
curve. The interpolant provides an ‘empirical’ continuous
representation of the unknown underlying surface when the
only knowledge of that surface comprises the values zi j or
ri j . The choice of interpolant constitutes a compromise that

j+ny

i+nx can be applied generally: it is smoother than, for example,
wi j = ⎣ zk s(xi − xk )⎦ s(y j − y ) a bilinear interpolant, since it is continuous in value and
= j−ny k=i−nx first and second derivatives, but not as smooth as high order

3
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 P M Harris et al

polynomial interpolants, which are continuous in value and where

all derivatives. A disadvantage of the choice is that the
resulting curve can exhibit unwanted oscillatory behaviour b4,x (x; 
μx ) = (N4,1 (x; 
μx ), . . . , N4,mx (x; 
μx )),
in the neighbourhood of outlying points (perhaps associated b4,y (y; 
μy ) = (N4,1 (y; 
μy ), . . . , N4,my (y; 
μy )),
with a local surface defect). Alternatives, such as the ‘Akima’
spline [22], may perform better in such circumstances. In and the matrix  C of dimension mx × my contains the spline
the presence of additional information about the underlying coefficients  ck .
surface, alternative forms for the interpolant may be expected The coefficients  ck defining the interpolant are
to perform better. For example, a Fourier series may better determined as the solution to the linear equations
represent a surface that is known to be periodic, and one that
μx )
z(xi , y j ) ≡ b4,x (xi ;  Cb (y j ; 
4,y μy ) = z i j ,
includes a step may be better represented by a function that is
not smooth in the region of the step. However, it is assumed in i = 1, . . . , mx , j = 1, . . . , my .
this work that such additional information is not available. In matrix form,

B4,x
 C
B4,y = Z,
5.1. Bicubic spline interpolation to surface height data
where the ith row of  μx ) and the jth row of 
B4,x is b4,x (xi ;  B4,y
Consider constructing a bicubic spline interpolant z(x, y) is b4,y (y j ; 
μy ). The solution to these linear equations can be
to the surface height data zi j defining an S–F surface. determined in two steps as follows [24]:
(Similar considerations apply for constructing a bicubic spline Step 1. Determine T as the solution to the linear algebraic
interpolant r(x, y) to the surface height data ri j defining an S–L system Z =  B4,x T.
surface.) z(x, y) is constructed to ‘reproduce’ (i.e. interpolate) Step 2. Determine  C as the solution to the linear algebraic
the surface height zi j at the point (xi , y j ). It comprises a set   
system T = CB4,y .
of polynomial surfaces, each defined on a rectangular region,
that reduce to a cubic polynomial in x (for a fixed value of y)
and a cubic polynomial in y (for a fixed value of x). At the 5.2. Bicubic spline interpolant with uniform knot spacing
boundaries of the regions the polynomial surfaces join in such In order to provide a representation of the bicubic spline
a way that z(x, y) is continuous in value, and first and second surface z(x, y) that is defined in terms of knot vectors with
order derivatives at points on the boundaries. uniform knot spacing, knot insertion [29] is used to obtain
The bicubic spline interpolant z(x, y) has the B-spline an equivalent representation of the bicubic spline surface with
representation [23, 24] additional knots at x and (mx −2)x in the x-direction, and at

my mx
z(x, y) = ck N4,k (x; 
 μx )N4, (y; 
μy ),
=1 k=1
where N4,k (x;  μx ) is the kth cubic B-spline basis function
defined with respect to the knot vector  μx in the x-direction and
N4, (y; 
μy ) is the th cubic B-spline basis function defined with
respect to the knot vector  μy in the y-direction. (The subscript
‘4’ denotes the order of the basis function, which is the
degree plus 1.) Numerically stable algorithms are available for
operating on z(x, y) represented in this way, e.g., to evaluate,
differentiate and integrate the function [23–27]. To ensure the
existence and uniqueness of the interpolant for given data,
the knots (elements of the knot vectors) must be chosen
appropriately [28]. One such choice is for the knots to satisfy
the ‘not-a-knot’ end condition [23, 24], in which the interior
knots are positioned at all the data points apart from the first
two and the last two. An advantage of this choice is that z(x, y)
is determined by the data only, and without the need to specify
arbitrarily other information, such as the values of derivatives
at the end-points. The knot vectors (comprising both exterior
and interior knots) then take the forms

μx = (−3x , . . . , 0, 2x , . . . , (mx − 3)x ,
(mx − 1)x , . . . , (mx + 2)x ),

μy = (−3y , . . . , 0, 2y , . . . , (my − 3)y ,
(my − 1)y , . . . , (my + 2)y ).
In matrix form,
μx )
z(x, y) = b4,x (x;  Cb
4,y (y; 
μy ),
4
y and (my −2)y in the y-direction. An advantage of having a
uniform knot spacing in each direction is that in the evaluation
of areal surface texture parameters each bicubic polynomial
surface patch of z(x, y) can be treated identically. Ensuring the
identical treatment of each bicubic polynomial surface patch is
also the reason for setting the exterior knots to have a uniform
spacing rather than setting the exterior knots equal, which is
often done.
Following knot insertion, the bicubic spline surface has
the representation
z(x, y) = b4,x (x; μx )Cb
4,y (y; μy ),
defined with respect to the knot vectors μx = (−3x , −2x ,
. . . , (mx + 2)x ) and μy = (−3y , −2y , . . . , (my + 2)y ).
5.3. Bicubic spline interpolant defined in terms of normalized
variables
For convenience, the interpolant is defined as a function of
normalized variables X = x/x and Y = y/y , in which
case the knot vectors are μX = (−3, −2, . . . , mx + 2) and
μY = (−3, −2, . . . , my + 2), and the interpolant has the
representation
z(x, y) = Z(X, Y ) = b4,X (X; μX )Cb
4,Y (Y ; μY ).
An advantage of working in terms of normalized variables is
that each B-spline basis function N4,k (X; μX ) and N4, (Y ; μY )
is a translation of the single B-spline basis function N4 (ξ ; μ4 )
with knot vector μ4 = (−3, −2, . . . , 1) and compact support
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 P M Harris et al

on the interval [−3, 1], i.e. it is identically zero outside that The two-dimensional integration (2) is expressed in terms of
interval [25]. Operations, such as evaluation, differentiation one-dimensional integrations as follows:
and integration, etc, applied to the interpolant Z(X, Y ) can be j+1
undertaken in terms of those operations applied to N4 (ξ ; μ4 ). q
Ii j = y J(Y ) dY,
For example, suppose X ∈ Ii and Y ∈ J j , where j
 where
[i, i + 1), i = 0, . . . , mx − 3,
Ii =
[i, i + 1], i = mx − 2, i+1
J(Y ) = x F 2 (X, Y ) dX.
and  i
[ j, j + 1), j = 0, . . . , my − 3, Since, for a fixed value of Y , and X in the interval [i, i + 1],
Jj =
[ j, j + 1], j = my − 2, F 2 (X, Y ) is a degree six polynomial function of X, so J(Y )
form subdivisions of, respectively, the intervals [0, mx −1] and can be evaluated exactly, either based on integrating F 2 (X, Y )
[0, my − 1]. Then, algebraically or using a numerical quadrature rule of sufficient
Z(X, Y ) = b4 (X − i; μ4 )Ci j b order. Similarly since, for Y in the interval [ j, j + 1], J(Y ) is
4 (Y − j; μ4 ), (1)
a degree six polynomial function of Y , so Iiqj can be evaluated
where exactly in a similar manner. An approach to constructing a
b4 (ξ ; μ4 ) = (N4 (ξ − 3; μ4 ), N4 (ξ − 2; μ4 ), numerical quadrature rule of sufficient order is to use Romberg
N4 (ξ − 1; μ4 ), N4 (ξ ; μ4 )) integration (see the appendix). For the rule to return exact
values, K = 3 refinement steps are necessary, giving a rule (for
contains values of N4 (ξ ; μ4 ), and Ci j is a sub-matrix of C
each univariate integration) involving 2K + 1 = 9 integration
of dimension 4 × 4 containing spline coefficients ci+k, j+ ,
points that is exact for polynomials of degree less than 8.
k = 1, . . . , 4,  = 1, . . . , 4, associated with B-spline basis
It follows, cf expression (A.1), that
functions that have support in the intervals Ii and J j .  
q
 9 9 
9
Ii j = y ω J(Y ) = y ω x ωk F (Xk , Y ) ,
2
6. Parameter evaluation =1 =1 k=1

In the following, f (x, y) ≡ z(x, y) for an S–F surface or
f (x, y) ≡ r(x, y) for an S–L surface. For both S–F and
S–L surfaces, the function f (x, y) takes the form of a bicubic
spline surface over a definition area [10, clause 3.1.10], i.e.
a portion of the evaluation area in the xy-plane for defining
surface texture parameters, which is denoted by A. For an
S–F surface, the definition area equals its evaluation area. For
an S–L surface, it also generally equals its evaluation area.
However, for certain field height parameters (viz, Sp , Sv and
Sz ), the definition area is a square of side λ. Values for these
parameters are determined as the arithmetic mean of values
calculated over each definition area within the evaluation area.
The definition area is expressed as the union of rectangular
regions Ai j defined by the knots of f (x, y):

A= Ai j , Ai j ≡ [μx,i , μx,i+1 ] × [μy, j , μy, j+1 ].
i, j
The function f (x, y) reduces to a (smooth) bicubic polynomial
surface defined on each rectangular region Ai j .
6.1. Root mean square height
The parameter Sq [10, clause 4.1.1] is defined by
 
where Xk and Y denote uniformly-spaced integration points
in the intervals [i, i + 1] and [ j, j + 1], respectively. In matrix
form,
Iiqj = x y ωK=3 F qi j ω
K=3 , (3)
where ωK=3 is the vector of dimension 1 × 9 of integration
weights ωk and F qi j is the matrix of dimension 9 × 9 containing
the values F 2 (Xk , Y ).
The value F (Xk , Y ) is given by, cf expression (1),
F (Xk , Y ) = b4 (Xk − i; μ4 )Ci j b
4 (Y − j; μ4 ).
Since the distribution of integration points Xk in the interval
[i, i + 1] is the same as that for the integration points Y in
[ j, j + 1], so the matrix F i j of dimension 9 × 9 given by
F i j = B4,K=3Ci j B
4,K=3 , (4)
contains the value F (Xk , Y ) as its (k, ) element, where the kth
row of B4,K=3 is the vector b4 (Xk − i; μ4 ). F qi j is then defined
as the component-wise product of F i j with itself.
For a general matrix F and integer n, use the notation
F ◦ · · · ◦ F ≡ F ◦n
  to denote the matrix obtained by multiplying n times each
1 1
Sq = f (x, y) dx dy = 
2 Iq , element of F with itself. Then,
A (x,y)∈A A i, j i j
F qi j = F i j ◦ F i j ≡ F ◦2
ij , (5)
where μy, j+1 μx,i+1 and combining expressions (3), (4) and (5) gives
Iiqj = f 2 (x, y) dx dy = f 2 (x, y) dx dy.  ◦2  
(x,y)∈Ai j μy, j μx,i Iiqj = x y ωK=3 B4,K=3Ci j B
4,K=3 ωK=3 ,
In terms of normalized variables (section 5.3),
j+1 i+1 in which the vector ωK=3 of integration weights, and the
q
Ii j = x y F 2 (X, Y ) dX dY. (2) matrix B4,K=3 of cubic B-spline basis functions evaluated at
j i the integration points, can be pre-computed.

5
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 P M Harris et al

6.2. Skewness k = i + 1, . . . , i + 4,  = j + 1, . . . , j + 4. It holds [23]

that
The parameter Ssk [10, clause 4.1.2] is defined by

 max f (x, y)  cpi j ,
1 1 (x,y)∈Ai j
Ssk = 3 f (x, y) dx dy .
3
Sq A (x,y)∈A where cpi j is the maximum value of the coefficients. It also
Proceeding as for Sq (section 6.1), and using Romberg holds that the maximum value f p of the surface heights fk
integration with K = 4 refinement steps and 2K + 1 = 17 contained in A cannot exceed the maximum value of the cubic
integration points, gives spline surface, since the heights are interpolated by the surface,
⎡ ⎤ and so
1 ⎣ 1  sk ⎦
Ssk = 3 I , f p  max f (x, y).
Sq A i, j i j (x,y)∈A
It follows that if
where
cpi j < f p ,
j+1 i+1
Iiskj = x y F 3 (X, Y ) dX dY then
j i
 ◦3   max f (x, y) < max f (x, y),
= x y ωK=4 B4,K=4Ci j B
4,K=4 ωK=4 . (x,y)∈Ai j (x,y)∈A

and the cubic spline surface on the rectangular region Ai j

The vector ωK=4 of dimension 1 × 17 of integration weights, cannot define Sp .
and the matrix B4,K=4 of dimension 17 × 4 of cubic B-spline For a rectangular region Ai j for which
basis functions evaluated at the integration points, can be pre-
computed. cpi j  f p ,
the maximum value of f (x, y) on Ai j is calculated in terms of
6.3. Kurtosis the solution to the linearly constrained minimization problem

The parameter Sku [10, clause 4.1.3] is defined by

 min [−F (X, Y )] subject to i  X  i + 1, j  Y  j + 1,
1 1 (X,Y )
Sku = 4 f 4 (x, y) dx dy . (6)
Sq A (x,y)∈A
Proceeding as for Sq (section 6.1), and using Romberg which is expressed in terms of normalized variables
integration with K = 6 refinement steps and 2K + 1 = 65 (section 5.3). Problem (6) can be solved using a general
integration points, gives purpose optimization algorithm, for example [30–32]. An
⎡ ⎤ initial approximation to the solution is determined by
1 ⎣ 1  ku ⎦ evaluating the objective function −F (X, Y ) for uniformly-
Sku = 4 I , spaced values of X and Y , and selecting that point for which
Sq A i, j i j
−F (X, Y ) takes the smallest value. A numerical tolerance is
where used to control the termination of the algorithm. Small values
j+1 i+1 of the numerical tolerance generally lead to more iterations in
Iikuj = x y F 4 (X, Y ) dX dY the optimization algorithm and a longer calculation time, but
j i a solution with a greater numerical precision.
 ◦4  
= x y ωK=6 B4,K=6Ci j B
4,K=6 ωK=6 .
6.5. Maximum pit height
The vector ωK=6 of dimension 1 × 65 of integration weights,
and the matrix B4,K=6 of dimension 65 × 4 of cubic B-spline The parameter Sv [10, clause 4.1.5] is defined as the largest
basis functions evaluated at the integration points, can be pre- absolute pit height:
   
computed. Sv =  min f (x, y) =  min Iivj , Iivj = min f (x, y).
(x,y)∈A i, j (x,y)∈Ai j

6.4. Maximum peak height Proceeding as for Sp (section 6.4), it holds [23] that
min f (x, y)  cvi j ,
The parameter Sp [10, clause 4.1.4] is defined as the largest (x,y)∈Ai j
peak height: where cvi j is the minimum value of the coefficients ck ,
Sp = max f (x, y) = max Iipj , Iipj = max f (x, y). k = i + 1, . . . , i + 4,  = j + 1, . . . , j + 4. It also holds
(x,y)∈A i, j (x,y)∈Ai j that
The approach taken to evaluating Sp is to rule out those f v  min f (x, y),
rectangular regions Ai j in which the maximum peak height (x,y)∈A
cannot occur, determine values Iipj by constrained optimization where f v is the minimum value of the surface heights fk
for the Ai j remaining, and evaluate the greatest of those values. contained in A. It follows that if
For the rectangular region Ai j , the cubic spline
cvi j > f v ,
surface f (x, y) is defined by the B-spline coefficients ck ,

6
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 P M Harris et al

then in successive approximations to Sa is less than a numerical

tolerance
a > 0, i.e.
min f (x, y) > min f (x, y),
(x,y)∈Ai j (x,y)∈A
Sa (K) − 
| Sa (K − 1)| <
a 
Sa (K − 1),
and the cubic spline surface on the rectangular region Ai j
where
cannot define Sv . ⎛ ⎞
For a rectangular region Ai j for which 1  

Sa (K) = ⎝ 
I a (1) + 
Iiaj (K)⎠ .
cvi j  f v , A (i, j)∈G i j (i, j)∈G
1 2

the minimum value of f (x, y) on Ai j is calculated in terms of Small values of the numerical tolerance generally lead to more
the solution to the linearly constrained minimization problem refinement steps and a longer calculation time, but a value with
a greater numerical precision. In order to limit calculation
min F (X, Y ) subject to i  X  i + 1, j  Y  j + 1,
(X,Y ) times, approximations  Iiaj (K) to Iiaj (K) for (i, j) ∈ G2 are
cf section 6.4. evaluated for a sequence of values of K up to a maximum
value Kmax . If the relative difference between  Sa (Kmax ) and

Sa (Kmax − 1) exceeds
a , then the value  Sa (Kmax ) is returned
6.6. Maximum height for Sa together with the corresponding relative difference as
The parameter Sz [10, clause 4.1.6] is defined as the sum of an indication of its numerical precision.
the maximum peak and maximum pit heights:
6.8. Autocorrelation length
Sz = Sp + Sv ,
The parameter Sal [10, clause 4.2.1] is defined by
using the values obtained in sections 6.4 and 6.5. $
Sal = min tx2 + ty2 ,
(tx ,ty )∈R
6.7. Arithmetical mean height
where
The parameter Sa [10, clause 4.1.7] is defined by
R = {(tx , ty ) : ρ(tx , ty )  s}
1
Sa = | f (x, y)| dx dy. and ρ(tx , ty ), the autocorrelation function, is defined by
A (x,y)∈A %
(x,y)∈A f (x, y) f (x − tx , y − ty ) dx dy
Proceeding as for Sq (section 6.1), ρ(tx , ty ) = % (7)
1 a (x,y)∈A f (x, y) f (x, y) dx dy
Sa = I , in terms of ‘lags’ tx in the x-direction and ty in the y-direction.
A i, j i j
For an S–F surface, −Lx  tx  Lx and −Ly  ty  Ly ; for an
where S–L surface, −Hx  tx  Hx and −Hy  ty  Hy . The value
j+1 i+1 0 < s < 1 is set by the user; the default value is s = 0.2.
Iiaj = x y |F (X, Y )| dX dY. The parameter Sal is calculated as the solution to the
j i
nonlinearly constrained minimization problem
Using Romberg integration with K > 0 refinement steps, $
   min tx2 + ty2 subject to ρ(tx , ty ) − s = 0. (8)
Iiaj (K) = x y ωK B4,K Ci j B
Iiaj ≈  
4,K ωK , (tx ,ty )

where ωK is a vector of dimension 1 × (2K + 1) of integration The minimization problem and its solution is described here
weights, B4,K is a matrix of dimension (2K + 1) × 4 containing in terms of unnormalized variables but, as for the other surface
the values of the cubic B-spline basis functions at the texture parameters, calculations are performed in terms of
integration points, and |F| denotes the matrix whose elements normalized variables: see section 5.3. Since ρ(0, 0) = 1 and
are the absolute values of the elements of F. ρ(±Lx , ±Ly ) = 0 (for an S–F surface), and by the continuity
The rectangular regions Ai j are divided into two groups. of the function ρ(tx , ty ) when f (x, y) takes the form of a
For those in the first group, defined by indices (i, j) ∈ G1 , (continuous) bicubic spline surface, it can be expected that the
F (X, Y )  0 or F (X, Y )  0 for all (X, Y ) ∈ [i, i + 1] × constraint ρ(tx , ty )  s is active at a solution and, consequently,
[ j, j+1], and |F (X, Y )| takes the form of a bicubic polynomial can be treated as an equality constraint. Problem (8) can be
surface. It follows that solved using a general-purpose optimization algorithm, for
example [30–32]. It is required to supply:
Iiaj = 
Iiaj (1), (i, j) ∈ G1 .
(i) A function to evaluate for given values of tx and ty the
For those in the second group, defined by indices (i, j) ∈ G2 , objective function
F (X, Y ) takes positive and negative values in [i, i+1]×[ j, j + $
1], and |F (X, Y )| is not a smooth (polynomial) surface. It S(tx , ty ) = tx2 + ty2 ,
follows that no choice of K is guaranteed to return the exact and its gradient vector with components
value of Iiaj for (i, j) ∈ G2 . Instead, for those rectangular
∂S(tx , ty ) tx ∂S(tx , ty ) ty
regions, approximations  Iiaj (K) to Iiaj are evaluated for a = , = .
∂tx S(tx , ty ) ∂ty S(tx , ty )
sequence of increasing values of K until the relative difference

7
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008
(ii) A function to evaluate for given values of tx and ty the
nonlinear constraint function
c(tx , ty ) = ρ(tx , ty ) − s.
Consideration is given to the evaluation of the
autocorrelation function ρ(tx , ty ). Firstly, since
ρ(−tx , −ty ) = ρ(tx , ty ),
it is only necessary to consider values for tx and ty within a half-
plane, e.g., that defined by tx  0. Secondly, the denominator
in the expression (7) is equal to A × Sq2 (section 6.1). It remains
to consider the evaluation of the numerator in expression (7).
As in section 6.1, the numerator can be decomposed as
P M Harris et al
Step 1. Evaluate the sample autocorrelation matrix R for
the matrix F of surface heights fi j .
Step 2. Determine from R contours corresponding to the
value s of the autocorrelation function, and identify the contour
that encloses the (central) element of R with value one and is
closest to that element. (The contours are defined by the x- and
y-coordinates of points that are regarded as connected.)
Step 3. Determine the point on the identified contour that
is closest to the (central) element of R with value 1.
A numerical tolerance is set that controls the termination
of the optimization algorithm. Small values of the numerical
tolerance generally lead to more iterations in the optimization
algorithm and a longer calculation time, but a solution with a

f (x, y) f (x − tx , y − ty ) dx dy = Iialj , greater numerical precision. The determination of a solution
(x,y)∈A i, j
to problem (8) can be difficult because the contours of the
constraint function c(tx , ty ) can be quite complicated, and they
where
can vary greatly for different surfaces. It follows that a large
Iialj = f (x, y) f (x − tx , y − ty ) dx dy number of iterations in the optimization algorithm can be
(x,y)∈A necessary to determine a solution. In order to limit calculation
μy, j+1 i j μx,i+1
times, a maximum number of iterations is set, and if that
= f (x, y) f (x − tx , y − ty ) dx dy. number is exceeded, the optimization algorithm terminates
μy, j μx,i
and the initial approximation (based on the data only) is used
However, unlike the treatment given in section 6.1, the to provide a solution.
integrand is not generally a bicubic polynomial surface over
the rectangular region Ai j , except when tx and ty are integer
6.9. Texture aspect ratio
multiples of, respectively, x and y . It is necessary to further
decompose Iialj as The parameter Str [10, clause 4.2.2] is defined by
4
$
 min(tx ,ty )∈R tx2 + ty2
Ii j =
al
f (x, y) f (x − tx , y − ty ) dx dy, Str = $ ,
(x,y)∈Ai jk
k=1 max(tx ,ty )∈Q tx2 + ty2
where
 where
Ai j = Ai jk .
k=1,...,4 R = {(tx , ty ) : ρ(tx , ty )  s}
Here,
⎧ and
⎪ [μx,i , μx,i + δx ] × [μy, j , μy, j + δy ], k = 1,
⎪
⎪ Q = {(tx , ty ) : ρ(tx , ty )  s}.
⎨ [μx,i + δx , μx,i+1 ] × [μy, j , μy, j + δy ], k = 2,
Ai jk =
⎪
⎪[μx,i , μx,i + δx ] × [μy, j + δy , μy, j+1 ], k = 3, The function ρ(tx , ty ) is defined by expression (7). The value
⎪
⎩ 0 < s < 1 is set by the user; the default value is s = 0.2.
[μx,i + δx , μx,i+1 ] × [μy, j + δy , μy, j+1 ], k = 4,
The parameter Str is calculated in terms of the solution to
where
* + * + the nonlinearly constrained minimization problem (8) together
tx ty with the solution to the problem
δx = tx − , δy = t y − ,
x y  $ 
and z is z rounded to the nearest integer towards zero. min − tx2 + ty2 subject to ρ(tx , ty ) − s = 0.
(tx ,ty )
Over each region Ai jk , the integrand takes the form of a
bicubic polynomial surface, and the integration over that region An initial approximation to the solution is determined as in
can be evaluated exactly (as in section 6.1) using Romberg section 6.8 for the evaluation of the autocorrelation length,
integration with K = 3 refinement steps. However, unlike except that step 3 is replaced by:
the treatment given in section 6.1, as the one-dimensional Step 3. Determine the point on the identified contour that
integrations are undertaken over intervals with lengths that is furthest from the (central) element of R with value 1.
are different from x and y , the vector ωK=3 of integration
weights and the matrix B4,K=3 of cubic B-spline basis functions 6.10. Root mean square gradient
evaluated at the integration points, cannot be pre-computed.
Instead, since the intervals have lengths that depend on tx and ty , The parameter Sdq [10, clause 4.3.1] is defined by
 
integration weights and B-spline basis function values must be 
1    
computed for each evaluation of the autocorrelation function.  ∂ f (x, y) 2 ∂ f (x, y) 2
Sdq = + dx dy.
An initial approximation to the solution to problem (8) is A (x,y)∈A ∂x ∂y
determined as follows:

8
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008 P M Harris et al

Proceeding as for Sq (section 6.1), 6.11. Developed interfacial area ratio


 
1 The parameter Sdr [10, clause 4.3.2] is defined by
Sdq =  I dq ,
A i, j i j ⎡
 2  2
where Sdr =
1 ⎣ 1 + ∂ f (x, y) + ∂ f (x, y)
 2 A (x,y)∈A ∂x ∂y
j+1
1 ∂F (X, Y )
i+1
⎤
Iidqj = x y
j i x ∂X
 2  − 1⎦ dx dy.
1 ∂F (X, Y )
+ dX dY.
y ∂Y
Proceeding as for Sdq (section 6.10),
The derivative function ∂F (X, Y )/∂X is a spline surface with
the same knots as F (X, Y ), but it is quadratic (order 3) in X 1  dr
Sdr = I ,
and cubic (order 4) in Y . The function has the representation A i, j i j
∂F (X, Y )
= b3,X (X; μX )DX b
4,Y (Y ; μY ), where
∂X
j+1 i+1
where [23] the matrix D of dimension (mx + 1) ×
X
Iidrj = x y
(my + 2) containing the spline coefficients dk X
is obtained
by ‘differencing the rows’ of C: ⎡ j i
   
⎣ 1 ∂F (X, Y ) 2 1 ∂F (X, Y ) 2
X
dk = ck − ck−1, . × 1+ +
x ∂X y ∂Y
Similarly, the derivative function ∂F (X, Y )/∂Y is a spline
⎤
surface with the same knots as F (X, Y ), but it is cubic (order
4) in X and quadratic (order 3) in Y . The function has the − 1⎦ dX dY. (9)
representation
∂F (X, Y )
= b4,X (X; μX )DY b
3,Y (Y ; μY ), Using Romberg integration with K > 0 refinement steps,
∂Y ,
where [23] the matrix D of dimension (mx + 2) × (my +
Y  ◦2
  1 X 
1) containing the spline coefficients dk Y
is obtained by Ii j ≈ Ii j (K) = x y ωK
dr dr
1K 1K + B3,K Di j B4,K
x
‘differencing the columns’ of C: ⎤
 ◦2 -◦1/2
Y
dk = ck − ck,−1 . 1 ⎦ 
+ B4,K DYij B − 1K 1
K ωK ,
As in section 5.3, values of the derivative functions for X ∈ Ii y 3,K

and Y ∈ J j are given by, respectively,

∂F (X, Y ) where 1K is a vector of dimension (2K + 1) × 1 containing
= b3 (X − i; μ3 )DXij b
4 (Y − j; μ4 ), unity in each element, and F ◦1/2 denotes the matrix whose
∂X
and elements are the square root values of the elements of F.
∂F (X, Y ) Since the integrand in the expression (9) is not a
= b4 (X − i; μ4 )DYij b
3 (Y − j; μ3 ),
∂Y polynomial surface, no choice of K is guaranteed to return
where the (exact) value of Iidrj . Instead, approximations 
Iidrj (K) to Iidrj
bn (ξ ; μn ) = (Nn (ξ − n + 1; μn ), . . . , Nn (ξ ; μn )) are evaluated for a sequence of increasing values of K until the
relative difference in successive approximations to Sdr is less
contains values of the B-spline basis function Nn (ξ ; μn )
of order n defined with respect to the knot vector μn = than a numerical tolerance
dr > 0, i.e.
(1 − n, . . . , 1). DXij and DYij are sub-matrices of, respectively, |
Sdr (K) − 
Sdr (K − 1)| <
dr 
Sdr (K − 1),
DX and DY containing those spline coefficients associated with
B-spline basis functions (of orders 3 and 4) that have support where
in the intervals Ii and J j .
 1  dr
Then, using Romberg integration with K = 3 refinement Sdr (K) = I (K).
A i, j i j
steps and 2K + 1 = 9 integration points gives
 ◦2
1 Small values of the numerical tolerance generally lead to more
dq
Ii j = x y ωK=3 B3,K=3 DXij B
x 4,K=3 refinement steps and a longer calculation time, but a value
 ◦2  with a greater numerical precision. As in section 6.7, in order
1
+ B4,K=3 DYij B ω
K=3 ,
to limit calculation times, approximations are evaluated for
y 3,K=3
a sequence of values of K up to a maximum value Kmax . If
in which the vector ωK=3 of integration weights and the the relative difference between  Sdr (Kmax ) and  Sdr (Kmax − 1)
matrices B3,K=3 and B4,K=3 of B-spline basis functions of 
exceeds
dr , then the value Sdr (Kmax ) is returned for Sdr together
orders 3 and 4 evaluated at the integration points can be pre- with the corresponding relative difference as an indication of
computed. its numerical precision.

9
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008
7. Summary
Type F2 software measurement standards, comprising
reference software, for evaluating a selection of areal surface
texture parameters has been described, focusing on the
definitions of the parameters and giving details of the
numerical algorithms employed in the software to implement
those definitions. The most important consideration in the
design and development of reference software is its numerical
correctness. The assumptions made, and the algorithms
chosen, reflect this consideration. In particular, the surface
for which parameters are to be evaluated is represented
by a continuous function, viz, a bicubic spline surface,
that is derived from the available discretely-sampled data,
and parameters are evaluated for that surface either to a
(guaranteed) high numerical precision or to a numerical
precision that is under the control of the user. Consequently, the
P M Harris et al
Here, R(0, 0) defines the trapezoidal rule, and R(n, 0)
the extended trapezoidal rule for 2n + 1 uniformly-spaced
integration points in [a, b] with spacing hn , applied to I.
Secondly, form, for n = 1, . . . , K,
4m R(n, m − 1) − R(n − 1, m − 1)
R(n, m) = ,
4m − 1
m = 1, . . . , n.
Here, R(1, 1) defines Simpson’s rule, and R(n, 1) the extended
Simpson’s rule with 2n +1 uniformly-spaced integration points
in [a, b], applied to I. The values R(n, n) can also be obtained
by applying Neville’s algorithm for polynomial interpolation
and extrapolation [34, section 4.3].
The value R(K, K) is exact for polynomials p of degree
less than 2K+2, since p(2K+2) is identically zero on the interval
[a, b]. R(K, K) can also be expressed as the linear weighted
sum
2
K
+1
algorithms are ‘complicated’, involving numerical quadrature
and general-purpose optimization, and can take a time to R(K, K) = ωk fk , (A.1)
k=1
execute that would be unacceptable for general use.
It is accepted that it is unlikely that instrument where ωk are integration weights and fk ≡ f (xk ) is f (x)
manufacturers will choose to implement the algorithms evaluated at xk , the kth of the 2K + 1 uniformly-spaced
described. Nevertheless, it is intended that the algorithms (and integration points in the interval [a, b]. To evaluate the weight
ωk , note that
the software implementing them) will be used as ‘benchmarks’ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
for algorithms that are designed to be fast (as is expected by
users) but are more modest in the numerical precision delivered
in the results.
The reference software may be freely downloaded from
the web site of the National Physical Laboratory. A companion
paper [17] presents the results of a comparison of the software
with that available in a number of surface texture measuring
instruments.
Acknowledgments
The National Measurement Office of the UK Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills supported this work as part
of its Engineering Measurement programme. Our colleague
Maurice Cox (NPL), and the anonymous referees, made
valuable comments on a draft of this paper.
Appendix. Romberg integration
Consider the problem of evaluating
b [3] Bruzzone A A G, Costa H L, Lonardo P M and Lucca D A
I= f (x) dx.
a
In a Romberg integration scheme [33] the results from K
successive refinement steps of the extended trapezoidal rule
applied to I are used to generate a quadrature rule with error
term O( f (2K+2) ), where f (2K+2) is the derivative of f of order
2K + 2 evaluated somewhere in the interval (a, b).
The method can be implemented as follows. Firstly, form
R(0, 0) = h0 ( f (a) + f (b))
and, for n = 1, . . . , K,
 
ωk = ⎝ ω f + ωk ( fk + 1)⎠ − ⎝ ω f + ωk fk ⎠ ,
=k =k
which is the difference between R(K, K) evaluated for the
function f (x) + δ(x − xk ) and R(K, K) evaluated for the
function f (x), where f (x) is an arbitrary function and δ(x)
is the Dirac delta function. Consequently, for any particular
choice of K and interval [a, b], the integration weights ωk
and integration points xk , k = 1, . . . , 2K + 1, can be pre-
computed, and R(K, K), an approximation to the integral I,
evaluated using expression (A.1).
References
[1] Jiang X, Scott P J, Whitehouse D J and Blunt L 2007
Paradigm shifts in surface metrology: part I. Historical
philosophy Proc. R. Soc. A 463 2049–70
[2] Jiang X, Scott P J, Whitehouse D J and Blunt L 2007
Paradigm shifts in surface metrology: part II. The current
shift Proc. R. Soc. A 463 2071–99
2008 Advances in engineering surfaces for functional
performance Ann. CIRP 57 750–69
[4] Leach R K 2009 Fundamental Principles of Engineering
Nanometrology (Amsterdam: Elsevier)
[5] ISO 5436-2:2002 Geometrical product specification
(GPS)—Surface texture: profile method—Measurement
standards—Software measurement standards (Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization)
[6] Butler B P, Cox M G, Ellison S L R and Hardcastle W A (ed)
1996 Statistics Software Qualification: Reference Data Sets
(Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry)
[7] Cox M G and Harris P M 1999 Design and use of reference
2n
−1 data sets for testing scientific software Anal. Chim. Acta
R(n − 1, 0)
R(n, 0) = + hn f (a + (2k − 1)hn ), 380 339–51
2 k=1
[8] Blunt L, Jiang X, Leach R K, Harris P M and Scott P 2008 The
development of user-friendly software measurement
b−a
hn = . standards for surface topography software assessment Wear
2n 264 389–93

10
Meas. Sci. Technol. 23 (2012) 105008
[9] ISO 4287:2000 Geometrical product specification
(GPS)—Surface texture: profile method—Terms, definitions
and surface texture parameters (Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization)
[10] ISO 25178-2:2012 Geometrical product specification
(GPS)—Surface texture: areal—Part 2: terms, definitions
and surface texture parameters (Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization)
[11] Bui S H, Renegar T B, Vorburger T V, Raja J
and Malburg M C 2004 Internet-based surface metrology
algorithm testing system Wear 257 1213–8
[12] Bui S H and Vorburger T V 2007 Surface metrology algorithm
testing system Precis. Eng. 31 218–25
[13] Jung L, Spranger B, Krüger-Sehm R and Krystek M 2004
Reference software for roughness analysis—features and
results Proc. 11th Int. Colloq. Surfaces (Chemnitz,
Germany) pp 164–70
[14] Li T, Leach R K, Jung L, Jiang X and Blunt L A 2009
Comparison of type F2 software measurement standards for
surface texture Technical Report ENG 16 (Teddington, UK:
National Physical Laboratory)
[15] Leach R, Li T, Jiang X, Blunt L and Giusca C 2010
Comparison of commercial software packages for
calculating surface texture parameters Proc. Euspen Int.
Conf. (Delft) pp 87–90
[16] Leach R and Haitjema H 2010 Bandwidth characteristics and
comparisons of surface texture measuring instruments
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 032001
[17] Harris P M, Smith I M, Wang C, Giusca C and Leach R K
2012 Software measurement standards for areal surface
texture parameters: part 2—comparison of software Meas.
Sci. Technol. 23 105009
[18] ISO/DIS 25178-72 Geometrical product specification
(GPS)—Surface texture: areal—Part 72: XML file format
X3P (Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization)
[19] Wiora G and Seewig J 2010 Free interchange of 3D measuring
data: X3P —a flexible, system-independent open source
data format Inspect 11 16–7
11
P M Harris et al
[20] Zeng W, Jiang X and Scott P J 2010 Fast algorithm of the
robust Gaussian regression filter for areal surface analysis
Meas. Sci. Technol. 21 055108
[21] ISO 16610-21:2011 Geometrical product specification
(GPS)—Filtration—Part 21: linear profile filters: Gaussian
filters (Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization)
[22] Akima H 1970 A new method of interpolation and smooth
curve fitting based on local procedures J. Appl. Comput.
Math. 17 589–602
[23] de Boor C 1978 A Practical Guide to Splines (New York:
Springer)
[24] Cox M G 1993 Algorithms for spline curves and surfaces
Fundamental Developments of Computer-Aided Geometric
Modelling ed L Piegl (London: Academic) 51–76
[25] Cox M G 1972 The numerical evaluation of B-splines J. Inst.
Math. Appl. 10 134–49
[26] de Boor C 1972 On calculating with B-splines J. Approx.
Theory 6 50–62
[27] Cox M G 1978 The numerical evaluation of a spline from its
B-spline representation J. Inst. Math. Appl. 21 135–43
[28] Schoenberg I J and Whitney A 1953 On Pólya frequency
distributions III Trans. Am. Math. 74 246–59
[29] Boehm W 1980 Inserting new knots into B-spline curves
Comput. Aided Des. 12 199–201
[30] The MathWorks Inc. The MATLAB Optimization ToolboxTM
Users Guide (Natick, MA)
[31] Numerical Algorithms Group NAG Library Manual (Oxford,
UK)
[32] Wächter A and Biegler L T 2006 On the implementation of a
primal-dual interior point filter line search algorithm for
large-scale nonlinear programming Math. Program.
106 25–57
[33] Romberg W 1955 Vereinfachte numerische Integration Det K.
Nor. Vidensk. Selsk. Forh. 28 30–6
[34] Press W H, Flannery B P, Teukolsky S A and Vetterling W T
1992 Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific
Computing 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)