Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

Research paper

A high accuracy six-dimensional motion measuring device: Design

and accuracy evaluation
Wei-Tai Lei b , Cheng-Wei Chen a ,∗
a Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
b LEI&SO Co., Ltd., Hsinchu, Taiwan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A novel six-dimensional Motion Measuring Device (MMD) is designed and evaluated in this
Six-dimensional measurement study. The MMD is based on the Stewart–Gough platform (SGP) mechanism, but the struts
Stewart–Gough platform (SGP) with U-joints are replaced by measuring ball bars, each with two precision ball joints. The
Double ball bar
independent kinematic parameters of the MMD are simplified thereby to twelve ball joint
Thermal error compensation
positions and six center distances of the ball bars, 42 parameters in total. An error budget
analysis of the kinematic parameters using the Monte Carlo simulation is performed to find
the tolerances of the kinematic parameters for micrometer-level measuring accuracy. To ensure
accurate measurement on the shop floor without temperature control, the MMD is augmented
with a novel referencing module, including a reference plate and a reference ball bar. The
reference plate is used to establish the center distance function (CDF) of each measuring ball
bar, which eliminates the geometric and initial thermal error thereof. The reference ball bar
is used to compensate for thermal errors of the ball bars induced by the change of ambient
temperature. Experimental evaluations prove the effectiveness of the novel referencing module
and the micrometer-level measuring accuracy of the MMD.

1. Introduction

Accurate measurement of six-dimensional pose is essential in industrial automation and manufacturing. For instance, in a five-axis
machine tool, kinematic errors arising from fabrication and assembly need to be measured and calibrated to enhance machining
accuracy [1,2]. Similar demands exist for robotic applications, in which optical vision systems that utilize multiple cameras [3,4] or
custom markers [5,6] are commonly used to obtain pose measurements. The accuracy of visual-based pose estimation is dependent
on the image resolution and camera calibration. Generally, the level of accuracy falls within the range of tens of micrometers to a
few millimeters. Besides, the occlusion issue and time-consuming setup may also limit the use of vision-based systems.
Laser interferometers can be used to accurately measure six-dimensional positioning errors along the beam path. Renishaw’s
XM60 laser interferometer, for example, has a measuring accuracy of linear displacement at ±0.2 μm within 4 meters distance.
However, its angular measuring ranges along pitch, roll, and yaw are restricted to ±500 μrad. Because of the limitation in angular
measuring range, laser interferometers are not a universally applicable six-dimensional pose measuring tool. On the other hand, laser
trackers are capable of 6D pose measurement in a large volume after incorporating with an actively controlled retroreflector [7],
but their price may be prohibitively expensive.
Several studies have suggested using the Stewart–Gough platform (SGP) [8,9] or hexapod mechanism to develop a passive
pose measuring device. The SGP offers distinct advantages as a pose measuring device when compared to other mechanisms. Its

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wtlei@leiso.com.tw (W.-T. Lei), cwchenee@ntu.edu.tw (C.-W. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2023.105469
Received 25 April 2023; Received in revised form 29 August 2023; Accepted 29 August 2023
0094-114X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

inherent design minimizes structural deformations, ensuring its robustness and resistance to external disturbances. Furthermore, the
platform’s ability to avoid singularities within the designated workspace enhances its overall performance as a measuring device.
Schiele et al. [10] filed a patent in which six telescoping ball bars are employed to create the legs of the SGP, and the relative
pose between the upper and the lower platform is computed by measuring the ball bar lengths and calculating forward kinematics.
Goswami et al. [11] utilizes one ball bar and relocates it six times to carry out pose measurements. The measuring device proposed for
industrial robotic manipulators [12,13] also employed one ball bar to manually measure the leg lengths, allowing for the evaluation
of robot kinematic errors from a set of distinct poses.
Developing an SGP-based, universally applicable measuring device that can achieve micrometer-level accuracy for large-scale
pose measurement, necessary for kinematic evaluation and calibration on the shop floor, is a challenging task. Such a device requires
six long-ranging and precise telescoping ball bars. However, previously proposed devices had limitations in measuring range or could
not provide the necessary accuracy for industrial applications due to geometric and thermal errors in the kinematic parameters of
each ball bar. Even an SGP-based motion tracking system recently reported by Kim et al. [14] faced the same issue, with an average
root mean square error of 0.186 mm in measuring linear displacement and an average attitude error of 0.160 degrees. Studies have
been conducted that explore the use of grating-rulers [15] or string encoders [16] as alternatives to ball bars. However, despite
these changes, the devices still achieve sub-millimeter accuracy at best in their measurements.
Although there is no report on error compensation in SGP-based 6D measuring devices, kinematic calibration for parallel
kinematic mechanisms (PKMs) has been studied since the early years [17,18]. A comprehensive review of kinematic and non-
kinematic calibration of PKMs can be found in [19]. In particular, thermal deflection has been considered a main error source and
compensated for in a model-based approach [20,21]. The error model predicts thermal deflection based on measured temperatures
at some critical locations. However, adding extra temperature sensors to the pose measuring device increases the cost and creates
wiring problems. Kalas et al. [22] used the deviation of leg lengths from a reference pose at different temperatures to estimate
thermal deflection. However, this method can be impractical as it requires constant movement to the reference pose, which disrupts
measurements.
To address the issue of geometric and thermal errors in ball bars, which is the key to achieve micrometer-level measuring
accuracy for an SGP-based 6D measuring device, a novel referencing module inspired by the concept of the reference beam in
laser interferometry is proposed. The referencing module utilizes a ZERODUR® reference plate that has a near-zero coefficient of
thermal expansion (CTE) to define several reference distances that remain constant despite changes in ambient temperature. At least
one reference ball bar, designed identically to the other six measuring ball bars, is placed on the reference plate. By analyzing the
thermal expansion of the ball bars, it has been discovered that the deviation of measurements obtained from the reference ball bar
represents the thermal deflection errors in the measuring ball bars. This allows for dynamic thermal error compensation without
the need for expensive sensing modalities and modeling procedures. Using the well-calibrated ball bars, a high-accuracy SGP-based
Motion Measuring Device (MMD) has been prototyped.
During the peer review process of this article, Renishaw released the RCS T-90 robot diagnostic system. This system employs
three telescoping ball bars, arranged in a tripod configuration, to create a three-dimensional measuring system. Although there
is potential for its expansion into a hexapod-type pose measuring device, it appears to overlook the issue of thermal errors. As
stated in the user guide, recalibration is recommended whenever there are significant fluctuations in room temperature. This recent
advancement emphasizes the necessity of a multi-dimensional measuring device in the automation and manufacturing industry.
Furthermore, the oversight of thermal error compensation in the RCS T-90 serves as a notable example that highlights the value of
our proposed measuring device. In summary, the main contributions of this article are as follows:

1. Determining the requirements of the SGP kinematic parameters needed for a micrometer-level measuring accuracy by
performing the error budget analysis.
2. Designing the SGP-based MMD for six-dimensional pose measurement in a cylindrical workspace with a diameter of 200 mm
and a height of 75 mm. The MMD measures rotational angles within the range of (±15, ±15, ±40) degrees about the 𝑥-, 𝑦-,
and 𝑧-axis, respectively.
3. Developing the novel referencing module and methods to compensate for geometric and thermal errors of the ball bars.
4. Demonstrating the micrometer-level measuring accuracy of the MMD in measuring linear displacement. The error in
measuring angular displacement is also shown less than 7.5 arc-seconds.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows: the kinematics, error budget analysis, and design of the MMD are described
in Section 2; the compensation methods for ball bar errors are proposed and analyzed in Section 3; Section 4 evaluates the accuracy
of the ball bar after error compensation; Section 5 demonstrates the performance of the prototypical MMD system; the concluding
remarks are given in Section 6.

2. Design of the MMD

The kinematic model of the SGP-based MMD is described in this section. The error budget analysis is performed to quantify
the tolerance of kinematic errors when implementing the MMD with micrometer-level measuring accuracy. Based on the accuracy
requirements, the MMD is designed.

2
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 1. Kinematic model of the MMD.

2.1. Kinematic model

In this work, the design of the MMD is based on the hexapod parallel mechanism. While there are other parallel mechanisms
available, such as the Hexglide [23], HexaM [24], and Linapod [25], they utilize struts with constant lengths. These parallel
mechanisms calculate the six-dimensional pose by measuring the variable positions of six ball joints. However, implementing ideal
linear or rotary guides for the moving ball joints is challenging, preventing these parallel mechanisms from offering the required
micrometer-level accuracy. Additionally, the guide elements are disturbed by friction forces when the struts push or pull the moving
ball joints. As widely recognized in precision engineering, friction forces in a measuring device can lead to hysteresis and stick–slip
phenomena, reducing the overall measuring accuracy [26].
Applying the hexapod parallel mechanism, the MMD consists of an upper plate, a lower plate, and six measuring ball bars.
The typical struts with U-joints are replaced by the ball bars with two precision ball-and-socket joints. Since the MMD is a
passive measuring device, replacing U-joints with ball joints does not create singularity issue but facilitates the calibration of joint
positions [14]. Consequently, the independent kinematic parameters of the MMD are streamlined to encompass twelve ball joint
positions and six center distances of the ball bars, totaling 42 parameters.
The kinematic model of the MMD is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1, whereby the symbols {𝑈 } and {𝐿} indicate the coordinate
frame of the upper plate and the lower plate, respectively. The ball bars connect the ball sockets fixed on the upper plate and the
lower plate via two precision balls. The distance between the centers of the two balls at the ends of a ball bar is denoted as the
center distance, 𝑑𝑖 , 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6}.
The pose of the upper plate coordinate frame {𝑈 } relative to the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿} is denoted as 𝒑 ∈ R6 ,
[ ]𝑇
𝒑= 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 𝜙 𝜃 𝜓 , (1)

where 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 represent the axial position; 𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜓 denotes the roll, pitch, and yaw angle, respectively.
The kinematic parameters of the developed MMD are tailored to meet workspace requirements while considering limitations
imposed by mechanical component availability and machining accuracy. Specifically, the workspace of the upper plate by a pure
translational motion, namely (𝜙, 𝜃, 𝜓)=(0,0,0), shall contain an inscribed cylinder of diameter 200 mm and height 75 mm. To strike
a balance between structural strength and weight, we have distributed the ball sockets on the upper plate along a 200 mm diameter
circle. The ball bar measurement range is chosen in line with existing components and machining accuracy. These determinations
guide the placement of ball sockets on the lower plate in a circular pattern with a 280 mm diameter to achieve the intended
workspace. Ball joint positions (𝒂𝑖 and 𝒃𝑖 , where 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6}) are detailed in Table 1, with center distances (𝑑𝑖 ) spanning 250 to
376 mm. The maximal range of the translational motion of the upper plate in x-, y-, and 𝑧-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame
{𝐿} are 348, 348, and 130 mm, respectively. These data are later used for the accuracy evaluation of the developed MMD system.
With the pose vector defined in Eq. (1), any vector in the upper plate coordinate frame {𝑈 } can be transformed into the lower
plate coordinate frame {𝐿}. For example,
𝐿
𝒂𝑖 = 𝐿𝑹𝑈 𝑈𝒂𝑖 + 𝐿 𝒕𝑈 , (2)

3
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Table 1
Positions of the ball joints 𝒂𝑖 and 𝒃𝑖 in {𝑈 } and {𝐿} coordinate frame respectively.
Joint Design (z=0 ∀ joint) Measured
position x [mm] y [mm] x [mm] y [mm] z [mm]
𝒂1 98.4808 −17.3648 98.4872 −17.3618 0.0000
𝒂2 98.4808 17.3648 98.4821 17.3618 0.0000
𝒂3 −34.2020 93.9693 −34.2318 93.9650 0.0000
𝒂4 −64.2788 76.6044 −64.2967 76.5904 0.0427
𝒂5 −64.2788 −76.6044 −64.2516 −76.6165 −0.0176
𝒂6 −34.2020 −93.9693 −34.1738 −93.9803 −0.0427
𝒃1 89.9903 −107.2462 89.9963 −107.2466 0.0176
𝒃2 89.9903 107.2462 89.9975 107.2466 −0.0176
𝒃3 47.8828 131.5570 47.9077 131.5840 0.0000
𝒃4 −137.8731 24.3107 −137.8723 24.3435 0.0224
𝒃5 −137.8731 −24.3107 −137.8653 −24.2803 0.0074
𝒃6 47.8828 −131.5570 47.8858 −131.5612 −0.0048

where 𝑈𝒂𝑖 and 𝐿𝒂𝑖 denote the position vector 𝒂𝑖 in frame {𝑈 } and {𝐿}, respectively; 𝐿𝑹𝑈 and 𝐿𝒕
𝑈 are the rotation matrix and
translation vector from the coordinate frame {𝐿} to the coordinate frame {𝑈 }, where
⎡𝑐𝜓 𝑐𝜃 −𝑠𝜓 𝑐𝜙 + 𝑐𝜓 𝑠𝜃 𝑠𝜙 𝑠𝜓 𝑠𝜙 + 𝑐 𝜓 𝑠𝜃 𝑐 𝜙 ⎤
𝐿
𝑹𝑈 = ⎢𝑠𝜓 𝑐𝜃 𝑐𝜓 𝑐𝜙 + 𝑠𝜓 𝑠𝜃 𝑠𝜙 −𝑐𝜓 𝑠𝜙 + 𝑠𝜓 𝑠𝜃 𝑐𝜙 ⎥ , (3)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −𝑠𝜃 𝑐𝜃 𝑠𝜙 𝑐𝜃 𝑐𝜙 ⎦
𝐿
[ ]𝑇
𝒕𝑈 = 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 . (4)

Note that 𝑠∗ ∶= 𝑠𝑖𝑛(∗) and 𝑐∗ ∶= 𝑐𝑜𝑠(∗).

The coordinate transformation from {𝐿} to {𝑈 } is then derived as
[𝐿 ]
𝐿 𝑹𝑈 𝐿 𝒕𝑈
𝑻𝑈 = . (5)
𝟎 1
When the pose vector 𝒑 is known, the inverse kinematics can be performed to calculate the center distance of each ball bar:
‖ ‖
𝑑𝑖 = ‖𝐿𝒂𝑖 − 𝐿𝒃𝑖 ‖ , 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6}. (6)
‖ ‖2
On the other hand, the forward or direct kinematics is performed to calculate the pose vector 𝒑 from the center distances of the
ball bars, 𝑑𝑖 , 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6}. The direct kinematics may have multiple solutions and can be solved by analytical or numerical
methods [27]. In this study, the Jacobian-based numerical approach [28] is utilized to iteratively solve for the pose vector 𝒑. By
initializing the iterative process with the previously estimated pose, direct kinematic errors converge to submicrometer level within
1 ms. As a result, the MMD exhibits the capability for real-time pose measurement.

2.2. Error budget analysis

To optimize the design, an error budget analysis is useful to clarify the effect of errors in kinematic parameters. The Monte
Carlo simulation [29] is performed to find the tolerance for the MMD kinematic parameters to achieve micrometer-level measuring
accuracy. In the simulations, the ball joint positions 𝒂𝑖 , 𝒃𝑖 and the center distances 𝑑𝑖 are randomly perturbed by uniformly distributed
noises 𝝐 𝑗𝑎,𝑖 , 𝝐 𝑗𝑏,𝑖 ∈ R3 and 𝜖𝑑,𝑖 ∈ R, respectively. These errors can be concatenated as
[ ]
𝝐 𝝐 𝑗𝑎,2 ⋯ 𝝐 𝑗𝑎,6
𝝐 𝑗 = 𝑗𝑎,1 ∈ R6×6 , (7)
𝝐 𝑗𝑏,1 𝝐 𝑗𝑏,2 ⋯ 𝝐 𝑗𝑏,6
[ ]
𝝐 𝑑 = 𝜖𝑑,1 𝜖𝑑,2 ⋯ 𝜖𝑑,6 ∈ R6 . (8)

The simulation results are shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2(a) shows the position measuring error when only ball joint positions 𝒂𝑖 , 𝒃𝑖
are perturbed. Fig. 2(b) demonstrates the case when only the center distances 𝑑𝑖 are perturbed. Note that the position measuring
error is defined as the 2-norm distance between the ideal setting position and the measured position, i.e., the angular error is
not considered in this analysis. The maximal amount of the perturbation is listed as the horizontal axis. The corresponding position
measuring errors, indicated by the mean of 𝑁=10,000 samples and the range of 2-sigma error, are illustrated as the vertical axis. Five
different setting positions are evaluated in this case, namely (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) equals (100,0,323), (50,0,304.25), (0,0,285.5), (−50,0,266.75),
and (−100,0,248).
According to the simulation results shown in Fig. 2(a), in order to achieve a position measurement accuracy of 2 μm using the
MMD (where the mean position error plus two times the standard deviation is less than 2 μm), it is recommended that the accuracy
‖ ‖
of the ball joint position be better than 0.8 μm (‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ ≤ 0.8 μm). Next, only the center distances 𝑑𝑖 are perturbed and the results are
‖ ‖∞
‖ ‖
shown in Fig. 2(b). The accuracy of the center distance is suggested to be better than 1 μm (‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ ≤ 1 μm) to yield 2 μm accuracy
‖ ‖∞
of position measurement.

4
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 2. Position measuring errors contributed by the random kinematic errors of (a) ball joint positions 𝝐 𝑗 and (b) center distances 𝝐 𝑑 . The error bar charts
illustrate the mean error ±2 times the standard deviation over 𝑁=10,000 samples.

From the results of the error budget analysis, three observations are remarkable. First, the relationship between the MMD’s
accuracy of position measurement and its kinematic error is nearly linear, with an approximate slope of 2. Second, the accuracy of
the MMD is a bit more sensitive to the error of the ball joint positions, by comparing Figs. 2(a) and 2(b). Third, the setting position
slightly affects the corresponding position measuring error, but the variation is less than 0.5 μm. The parallel kinematic mechanism
of the MMD contributes to these results.
To investigate the case with both ball joint positions and center distances are perturbed, another Monte Carlo simulation is
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
performed with various ‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ and ‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ . In this simulation, we set the position of the MMD at (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = (100, 0, 323), the one with
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
the largest estimation error compared to other positions. The simulation result is shown in Fig. 3.
Specifically, the accuracy of the MMD (defined as the mean position error plus two times the standard deviation) can be estimated
by an empirical second-order formula:
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
MMD Accuracy [μm] = 0.11 + 1.68‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ + 1.21‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
(9)
‖ ‖2 ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖2
+0.72‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ − 1.18‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ ‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ + 0.59‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ .
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
Based on the simulation result, the design criteria for the MMD are selected as ‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ ≤ 0.4 μm and ‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ ≤ 0.8 μm to ensure a
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
maximum measuring error of 2 μm in the cylindrical workspace. Note that we allocate a larger error allowance for the ball bars,
considering that the ball bar mechanism is more complex compared to the upper and lower plates.
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
Finally, a Monte Carlo simulation is performed with ‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ = 0.4 μm and ‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ = 0.8 μm at different setting positions. The
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. The error bar charts illustrate the mean error ±2 times the standard deviation over 𝑁=10,000
samples. For every setting position distributed at the top edge of the cylindrical workspace, which has larger errors than other
positions intermediately in the cylindrical workspace, the position measuring error is always less than 2 μm. From the simulation
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
result, it can be concluded that the criteria ‖𝝐 𝑗 ‖ ≤ 0.4 μm and ‖𝝐 𝑑 ‖ ≤ 0.8 μm are a good choice. These criteria also imply
‖ ‖∞ ‖ ‖∞
the compensation of thermal deflection plays an important role in achieving an SGP-based measuring device of micrometer-level
accuracy.

2.3. Mechanical design

The accuracy of the MMD is determined by the accuracy of its kinematic parameters, namely the ball joint positions 𝒂𝑖 , 𝒃𝑖 , and
the center distances 𝑑𝑖 . The error budget analysis in the previous subsection has shown that, to achieve micrometer-level measuring

5
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 3. Accuracy of the MMD under perturbed ball joint positions and perturbed center distances. The setting position of the MMD is (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = (100, 0, 323). To
quantify the accuracy of the MMD, we define it as the mean position error plus two times the standard deviation, calculated over 𝑁=10,000 samples for each
simulated case (represented by red dots). The accuracy can be approximated using a second-order polynomial surface. The green dot denotes the selected design
criteria for kinematic errors in the ball joints and ball bars. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

Fig. 4. Position measuring errors at various setting positions as the maximal error of the ball joint position and the center distance are set as 0.4 μm and 0.8 μm
respectively. (a) Setting positions distributed at the top edge of the cylindrical workspace, which has larger errors than other positions. (b) Setting positions
distributed intermediately in the cylindrical workspace.

6
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 5. MMD model and prototype. (a) CAD model. ①: the upper plate, ②: the ball bar, ③: the lower plate. (b) Assembled prototype. The center strut is used
only for the support of the upper plate for photography.

Fig. 6. Upper plate for the MMD. (a) 3D model. ①: position layer, ②: load-bearing layer, ③: magnetic ball socket. (b) Assembled prototype.

accuracy, the position accuracy of each ball joint on the upper plate or the lower plate is suggested to be better than 0.4 μm, while
the center distance accuracy of each ball bar is suggested to be better than 0.8 μm. The design of the MMD aims at satisfying these
requirements.
Since the MMD is expected to perform measurement on the shop floor under uncontrolled ambient temperature, its components
must be thermally stable against ambient temperature changes. A general rule for the design of the MMD components is to select
materials with low or near-zero CTE.
The developed MMD prototype is shown in Fig. 5, which consists of the upper plate, the lower plate, and six measuring ball
bars. The center strut in Fig. 5(b) is used only for the support of the upper plate for photography. Each of the upper plate and the
lower plate has six magnetic ball sockets, using a magnet and a polished conical surface to uphold the high precision ball at the
end of the ball bar.
The ball joint positions must remain stable even when the upper plate or the lower plate is under external forces, which appear
for example in transporting or mounting. The upper and the lower plate have a two-layer design: position layer and load-bearing
layer. The load-bearing layer supports the position layer in vertical direction. The load-bearing layer bears the reciprocating force
caused by fixing or transporting of the base, while the position layer does not. The magnetic ball sockets are inserted into the position
layer, which is made of ceramic glass with a CTE less than 0.5 ppm or ZERODUR® with a CTE less than 0.02 ppm for temperature
in the range 0 to 50 o C. Therefore, all ball joint positions have negligible thermal errors. The CAD model and a fabricated prototype
of the upper plate are as illustrated in Fig. 6. The actual ball joint positions can be obtained after measurement with an ultra-high
accuracy CMM. The ideal and actual positions of the ball joints are listed in Table 1. The weight of each plate is about 2 kg.
The measuring ball bar, as shown in Fig. 7, has high precision balls at both ends and uses a linear optical encoder as displacement
sensor. The resolution of the optical encoder is 50 nm and the CTE of the optical scale is 0.7 ppm. The balls are of the grade 3 or
better. According to the Standard ABMA/ANSI/ISO-3290 Grade specifications, the sphericity of a grade 3 ball is less than 0.076 μm,
and the surface roughness is less than 0.01 μm. The ball bar consists of a readhead assembly and a scale assembly. Each assembly
uses three parallel rods to form a spatial structure and to maximize the flexural stiffness against bending. All rods are made of INVAR
alloy with a CTE of 2 ppm. Among the three rods, two are guiding rods and the third is a tension rod. The readhead assembly and
the scale assembly guide each other using four linear bushes with circulating balls. The rolling guide reduces friction forces and
enables highly accurate linear motion.
Finally, the exact workspace of the MMD is assessed. The assessment incorporates the design parameters, including the measuring
range of ball bars (250 to 376 mm). Moreover, the evaluation takes into account interference between mechanical components, with
the maximum tilt angles between the ball bar and the upper plate and lower plate set at 38.58 and 47.62 degrees, respectively,
while ensuring a minimum distance of 42 mm between the centerlines of ball bars. The resulting workspace, depicted in Fig. 8, is

7
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 7. Ball bar for the MMD. (a) CAD model. ①: high precision ball, ②: optical scale, ③: readhead. (b) Assembled prototype.

Fig. 8. MMD workspace considering the extensible range of ball bars and interference between mechanical components. Various maximum angles of rotational
motions are evaluated, namely ±0, ±3, ±6, ±9, and ±12 degrees along 𝜙-, 𝜃-, and 𝜓-axis concurrently. As the range of rotational motions increases, the volume
of the workspace reduces as expected. When allowing a rotation of ±12 degrees, the workspace contains a spherical volume centered at (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = (0,0,300)
with a diameter of 50 mm.

presented in cross-sectional view due to the MMD’s symmetric design. As anticipated, the volume of the workspace decreases as
the range of three-dimensional rotational motions expands from ±0 to ±12 degrees. Notably, permitting a rotation of ±3 degrees,
where roll, pitch, and yaw axes can concurrently rotate, yields a workspace nearly identical to the one with only three-dimensional
translational motions. Even when allowing a rotation of ±12 degrees, the workspace is reduced but still encompasses a spherical
volume centered at (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = (0,0,300) with a diameter of 50 mm.

3. Geometric and thermal errors of the ball bar

The methods to secure the accuracy of the ball joint positions, i.e., 36 kinematic parameters in total, are described in the previous
section. Here, our design to secure the accuracy of the remaining 6 kinematic parameters, i.e., the accuracy of the measuring ball
bars, are presented. In this section, a novel referencing module is proposed to compensate for the geometric and thermal error of
ball bars.

3.1. Referencing module

The ball bar, which measures the center distance between the precision balls attached at both ends, is influenced by geometric
and thermal errors. The geometric errors include linearity error of the scale, misalignment error, and backlash-induced Abbe errors.
On the other hand, the changing ambient temperature will induce thermal error in the ball bar. The error budget analysis shows the
accuracy of each ball bar must be better than 0.8 μm, so that the MMD’s position measuring error is always less than 2 μm. In this
research, a novel referencing module is proposed to compensate for the geometric and thermal errors of the measuring ball bars.
The referencing module includes a reference plate and at least one reference ball bar. Since the linear optical encoder performs
relative measurement, a reference plate is used to initialize the absolute center distance, or more exactly, the distance between the
balls at both ends of a measuring ball bar. There are six three-point supported magnetic sockets fixed on the reference plate and
seven reference center distances are predefined by pairing the ball sockets, as illustrated in Fig. 9. These reference center distances
cover the whole measurement range of the ball bar and can be obtained by using an ultra-high accuracy CMM. The reference center
distances 𝑑𝑟𝑗 , 𝑗 ∈ {1, 2, … , 7}, in the prototype are listed in Table 2.
The reference plate is made of ZERODUR® with a near-zero CTE of 0 ± 0.02 ppm for temperature in the range 0 to 50 o C. Even
by a 10 o C increase in the ambient temperature, the thermal expansion of the longest reference center distance, 376 mm, is less

8
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 9. Reference plate for the MMD. (a) The reference center distances defined by socket pairs. (b) Assembled prototype.

Table 2
Reference center distances defined on the reference plate.
Ref. ctr. dist. Pair Design dist. [mm] Measured dist. [mm]
𝑑𝑟1 𝑅1 𝑅2 250.0000 250.0105
𝑑𝑟2 𝑅2 𝑅6 278.0000 278.0341
𝑑𝑟3 𝑅1 𝑅3 300.0000 299.9308
𝑑𝑟4 𝑅3 𝑅6 323.0000 322.9806
𝑑𝑟5 𝑅1 𝑅4 341.0000 340.9278
𝑑𝑟6 𝑅4 𝑅6 357.0000 357.0020
𝑑𝑟7 𝑅4 𝑅5 376.0000 376.0216

than 0.08 μm. Thus, the reference center distances defined on the reference plate are thermally stable and their thermal errors are
negligible. With the help of the reference plate, the geometric and thermal errors of each measuring ball bar are eliminated after
calibration, which will be described in the following subsections.

3.2. Geometric error compensation

To compensate for the geometric errors of a measuring ball bar, a piecewise continuous center distance function (CDF) is applied.
The CDF of a measuring ball bar is generated on-site near the machine. The procedure is described as below. The 𝑖th measuring
ball bar is being put seven times on the socket pairs on the reference plate. Each time the reference center distance 𝑑𝑟𝑗 and the
corresponding encoder reading 𝑞𝑖𝑗 define one calibration point (𝑞𝑖𝑗 , 𝑑𝑟𝑗 ), where 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6} and 𝑗 ∈ {1, 2, … , 7}. The subscript 𝑖
and superscript 𝑗 denote the 𝑗th calibration point of the 𝑖th ball bar. Once completed, seven calibration points are obtained for the
𝑖th ball bar, and a piecewise continuous linear function, the CDF, is generated. Specifically, the CDF consists of six linear segments
connecting the seven calibration points. It is clear that the calibration point is free of geometric error and the overall accuracy
depends on the number of the calibration points.
Given any encoder reading of the 𝑖th ball bar, 𝑞𝑖 (𝑡), the CDF interpolates the estimated center distance of the ball bar from the
two adjacent calibration points:
𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝑓𝑖 (𝑞𝑖 (𝑡))
⎧ 7
⎪𝑑𝑟 if 𝑞𝑖 (𝑡) ≥ 𝑞𝑖7 ,
⎪ 𝑗 𝑗+1 𝑗 𝑞𝑖 (𝑡)−𝑞
𝑗 (10)
= ⎨𝑑𝑟 + (𝑑𝑟 − 𝑑𝑟 ) 𝑗+1 𝑖𝑗 if 𝑞𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑞𝑖 (𝑡) < 𝑞𝑖𝑗+1 , 𝑗 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6},
𝑞𝑖 −𝑞𝑖
⎪
⎪𝑑𝑟1 otherwise.
⎩
Note that the subscript 𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6} indicates the 𝑖th ball bar; 𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) is the estimated center distance of the ball bar at timestamp
𝑡; 𝑞𝑖 (𝑡) is the encoder reading at timestamp 𝑡; 𝑓𝑖 (⋅) denotes the CDF of the 𝑖th ball bar.

9
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 10. Schematic thermal model of a reference ball bar being placed on a reference plate. The reference ball bar is shown in two parts: the readhead assembly
at the left and the scale assembly at the right. (a) 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑑𝑟1 . (b) 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑑𝑟7 . (c) 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑑 ≤ 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 .

3.3. Thermal error compensation

As mentioned above, the CDF of a ball bar is initialized on-site at an ambient temperature. Since the reference plate is made of
material with near-zero CTE, the reference center distances 𝑑𝑟𝑗 and the corresponding calibration points are free of thermal errors.
Therefore, the thermal error of the ball bar at the time of CDF initialization is zero. Nonetheless, a subsequent change of the ambient
temperature will induce unneglectable thermal errors in the ball bars. The common approach to eliminate the thermal error of the
main spindle [30,31] or the machine tool [32,33] is to build a thermal error model which predicts the overall thermal error based
on measured temperatures at some critical points. Adding extra temperature sensors to the ball bar will inevitably increase the cost
and create wiring problems.
The concept of reference beam in laser interferometry enlightens a novel idea for the compensation of dynamic thermal errors of
the ball bars. In laser interferometry, the laser beam is splitted into a measuring beam and a reference beam in the interferometer.
The measuring beam is reflected back by a retroreflector on the moving object and combined with the reference beam again. The
phase difference between the two beams is used to detect the displacement of the object. In this work, the idea is to introduce
at least a seventh ball bar into the MMD system. The seventh ball bar is named reference ball bar. During the measurement, the
reference ball bar is placed on two sockets of the reference plate (see Fig. 10).
The reference ball bar and the other six measuring ball bars all have the same design. As illustrated in Fig. 10, the ball bar
consists of a readhead assembly and a scale assembly. The symbol 𝐶𝐿 indicates the ball center at the left end of the readhead
assembly, and 𝐶𝑅 indicates the ball center at the right end of the scale assembly. When a ball bar is placed on sockets with the 𝑗th
reference center distance, its center distance is equal to 𝑑𝑟𝑗 and remains unchanged even if the ambient temperature changes.
As shown in Fig. 10a, when the reference ball bar is placed on the sockets defining 𝑑𝑟1 , the minimal reference center distance
𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 is obtained as 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑑𝑟1 = 𝑙𝐿 + 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 , where 𝑙𝐿 and 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 refers to the length of readhead assembly and the length of the part
of the scale assembly, respectively. Likewise, when the ball bar is placed on the sockets defining 𝑑𝑟7 , the maximal center distance

10
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 is obtained as 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑑𝑟7 = 𝑙𝐿 + 𝑙𝑀 + 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 ,where 𝑙𝑀 is the increased length over the scale assembly (see Fig. 10b). Note that 𝑙𝐿
and 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 are common to all ball bars. In general, for a ball bar having center distance 𝑑 as shown in Fig. 10c, 𝑑 = 𝑙𝐿 + 𝑙𝐷 + 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 ,
where 𝑙𝐷 is the variable scale length related to the variable center distance 𝑑. Note that for the parts of the ball bar illustrated in
Fig. 10, the symbol ‘𝑙’ and the ‘length’ of the part are used to emphasize its property of thermal deformation.
Assume the reference ball bar is placed on the sockets of the reference plate defining 𝑑𝑟𝑗 , 𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑑𝑟𝑗 ≤ 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 , after initialization.
The initial center distance 𝑑 is equal to 𝑑𝑟𝑗 , i.e., 𝑑(𝑡)|𝑡=0 = 𝑑𝑟𝑗 = 𝑙𝐿 + 𝑙𝐷 𝑗
+ 𝑙𝑆 + 𝑙𝑅 . Since the CDF of the reference ball bar is initialized
on-site, the calibration points of the CDF are free of geometric and thermal errors no matter what the initial ambient temperature
is, i.e., 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡)|𝑡=0 = 0, where 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) denotes the thermal error of this ball bar at the center distance of 𝑑𝑟𝑗 .
𝑟 𝑟
As the room temperature goes up, the two assemblies of the reference ball bar expand independently. Since the position of the
ball center 𝐶𝐿 is fixed, the readhead is forced to move towards the right due to the increment of the length 𝑙𝐿 . Similarly, since
the position of the ball center 𝐶𝑅 is fixed, the optical scale expands towards the left. As a result, the readhead moves relatively to
𝑗
the optical scale, and therefore 𝑙𝐷 decreases. The displacement reading of the optical encoder decreases, i.e., the measured center
distance 𝑑(𝑡) would be smaller than the reference center distance 𝑑𝑟𝑗 . The dynamic thermal error 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) for 𝑡 > 0 is defined thereby
𝑟
as

𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝑑(𝑡) − 𝑑𝑟𝑗 , (11)

𝑟

where 𝑑(𝑡) is the measured center distance at timestamp 𝑡.

Because the six measuring ball bars and the reference ball bar have the same design, it is reasonable to assume that all ball bars
perform the same thermal behavior. Assuming that the thermal error of the optical scale is linear, for the 𝑖th measuring ball bar
with a center distance 𝑑𝑖 , its thermal error 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) can be fully determined by using two reference ball bars, one being placed on
sockets of the reference plate defining the 𝑗th reference center distance 𝑑𝑟𝑗 and the other being placed on sockets of the reference
plate defining the 𝑘th reference center distance 𝑑𝑟𝑘 , 𝑑𝑟𝑗 < 𝑑𝑖 < 𝑑𝑟𝑘 , 𝑗, 𝑘 ∈ {1, 2, … , 6}. The thermal error of the 𝑖th measuring ball bar,
𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑𝑖 (𝑡), can be determined by linear interpolation as follows:

𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝑑𝑟𝑗
𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) =𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) + [𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑘 (𝑡) − 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡)]. (12)
𝑟
𝑑𝑟𝑘 − 𝑑𝑟𝑗 𝑟 𝑟

Note that two reference ball bars can be simultaneously put on the reference plate, one on the socket pair 𝑅1 𝑅2 defining the minimal
reference center distance and the other on the socket pair 𝑅4 𝑅5 defining the maximal reference center distance. As a result, the
terms 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) and 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑘 (𝑡) in Eq. (12) are directly measured by these two reference ball bars.
𝑟 𝑟
The use of two reference ball bars increases the cost of the MMD system. In the developed MMD system, we select 𝑗 = 4 and
remove the interpolation part in Eq. (12). In other words, a single reference ball bar is placed on the socket pair 𝑅3 𝑅6 defining the
reference center distance of 323 mm. The thermal errors measured by the reference ball bar are used to compensate the thermal
errors of all other measuring ball bars. The compensated center distance of the 𝑖th measuring ball bar 𝑑𝑖∗ (𝑡) is calculated as follow:

𝑑𝑖∗ (𝑡) = 𝑑𝑖 (𝑡) − 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 4 (𝑡) = 𝑓𝑖 (𝑞𝑖 (𝑡)) − 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 4 (𝑡). (13)
𝑟 𝑟

The thermal model in Fig. 10 is revisited to justify the simplification. When the center distance of a measuring ball bar changes
7 − 𝑙4 , which entirely falls on the optical scale. The optical scale is with a CTE of
from 𝑑𝑟4 to 𝑑𝑟7 . The increased scale length equals 𝑙𝐷 𝐷
0.7 ppm. Thus, the static thermal error is increased by (376–323) mm × 0.7 ppm = 0.037 μm per degree Celsius. On the other hand,
the overcompensated static thermal error of a measuring ball bar with the reference center distance of 250 mm is (323–250) mm ×
0.7 ppm = 0.051 μm. Both cases show that the term 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑘 (𝑡) − 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) in Eq. (12) is negligible. Based on the tolerance given from the
𝑟 𝑟
error budget analysis, the MMD system uses one reference ball bar instead of two. If the temperature change is smaller than 2o C,
the approximate Eq. (13) is practical because the term 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑘 (𝑡) − 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 𝑗 (𝑡) in Eq. (12) is sufficiently small to be ignored. In case the
𝑟 𝑟
temperature change is larger than 2 o C, the effects of the interpolation term in Eq. (12) will also be estimated and compensated by
using two reference ball bars.
For the developed prototype, the CTE of the position layer is 0.5 ppm, while the CTE of the optical scale is 0.7 ppm. The thermal
errors of the ball-joint positions are also estimated and compensated based on the readings of the reference ball bar. In summary,
with the help of the novel referencing module, the thermal errors of all MMD kinematic parameters, including the ball-joint positions
and the center distances of the measuring ball bars, are compensated.

4. Evaluation of the measuring ball bar

The accuracy of ball bar after the compensation of geometric and thermal errors is evaluated in this section.

4.1. Thermal stability

The performance of the thermal error compensation using the referencing module is evaluated in this subsection. The experi-
mental setup is as follows. One referencing module, including a reference ball bar and a reference plate, was used to measure the
thermal error 𝜖𝑡ℎ,𝑑 4 (𝑡). Six measuring ball bars were placed on the other six reference plates, all with the reference center distance of
𝑟
323 mm, such that the ground truth was known. The air conditioner was switched on for 8 h. In the first 8 h, the room temperature

11
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 11. Performance of the thermal error compensation. (a) The room temperature and the measured thermal error during the 20 h test. (b) The thermal error
of the six measuring ball bars before and after compensation.

decreased from 24.2 to 18.4 o C (see Fig. 11(a)). After the air conditioner was switched off, the room temperature increased slowly
to 22.1 o C.
The dynamic thermal error of the reference ball bar was captured and shown in Fig. 11(a). When the room temperature decreased,
the thermal error was induced in the reference ball bar as discussed. Fig. 11(b) shows the performance comparison before and after
the compensation. The thermal errors of the measuring ball bars were up to 6 μm before the compensation. After the compensation,
the maximal thermal error was reduced from 6 μm to 0.6 μm. This result verifies the simplicity and effectiveness of the proposed
method in compensating for the thermal errors of the ball bars. Note that minor differences exist between the thermal deformation
of each measuring ball bar. In practice, a reasonable decision is to select the ball bar having the mean thermal error as the reference
ball bar.

4.2. Ball bar accuracy

To verify the ball bar accuracy, the ball bar and the laser interferometer (XL80, Renishaw, UK) were mounted in parallel on a
five-axis CNC machine tool, as shown in Fig. 12. The laser interferometer XL80, treated as the ground truth, has a resolution of
1 nm and an accuracy of ±0.5 ppm. In this experiment, the axial direction of the ball bar was parallel to the 𝑍-axis of the machine
tool. The ball bar was firstly initialized by using the reference plate. Then, the 𝑍-axis of the five-axis CNC machine was driven to a
set of points back and forth for five times according to ISO 230-2. When the 𝑍-axis became stable at the test point, a trigger signal
was active to latch the displacement values of both measuring systems. The rotational errors of the 𝑍-axis in the test range were
smaller than 1 arc-second so that the Abbe error between the two measuring systems was negligible.
The accuracy of the ball bar was represented by the difference between the measured displacement from the ball bar and that
from the laser interferometer. The results are presented in Fig. 13. The center distance errors of the ball bar are bounded in the

12
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 12. Setup for the evaluation of ball bar accuracy. ①: Ball bar, ②: beam reflector, ③: five-axis CNC machine tool.

Fig. 13. Errors of the ball bar at various center distances.

range of ±0.8 μm. Thus, the effectiveness of the CDF is proved, and the accuracy of the ball bar satisfies the requirement found in
the error budget analysis.

5. Evaluation of the MMD system

In this section, the measuring accuracy of the MMD system is evaluated. It would be ideal to have a reference instrument capable
of six-dimensional motion measurement with the measuring accuracy of one order higher. Unfortunately, there is no such instrument
for the evaluation in the large workspace of the MMD. Alternatively, an accuracy evaluation of measurement in each axis of the
MMD is performed.

5.1. Setup of the MMD system

The hardware of the MMD system consists of the MMD device, an 8-channel encoder terminal, and a desktop PC. The A/B phase
encoder signals sent from the ball bars are counted by the encoder terminal at a sampling rate of 1 kHz. The count values are
transmitted to the desktop PC through the USB interface.
In applying the MMD to measure the motion of a machine tool, the upper plate is fixed on the tool holder, and the lower plate
is fixed on the worktable. Then, the CDF of each ball bar is established with the help of the reference plate. The reference ball bar
is placed on the reference plate for thermal error measurement. The initialized measuring ball bars are mounted between the two
plates to close the kinematic chain of the machine tool. Any pose change between the tool and the worktable causes changes of the
center distances of the measuring ball bars.
During the measurement process, the desktop PC receives the displacements of all ball bars, and calculates the center distances
of the measuring ball bars using the CDFs. Meanwhile, the thermal errors of the measuring ball bars are compensated based on the

13
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 14. User interface for the initialization of ball bars.

readings of the reference ball bar. Finally, the forward kinematic transformation is performed. The resulted six-dimensional pose is
recorded for further analysis. The user interface of the MMD system for the initialization of ball bars is shown in Fig. 14.

5.2. Linear positioning measurement

To evaluate the measuring accuracy of the MMD system, it would be ideal to have a reference instrument capable of six-
dimensional motion measurement in such a large workspace. In particular, its measuring accuracy should be at least of one order
higher. Unfortunately, there is no such instrument. Alternatively, the linear measuring accuracy of the MMD system was evaluated
by the position measurement along the axes of its lower plate coordinate frame. The laser interferometer XL80 was used as the
ground truth. The measurement results of the laser interferometer and the MMD system were compared. Under the assumption
that the laser measurement is error free, the accuracy of the MMD system in linear positioning measurement can be obtained by
subtracting the laser measured values from the MMD measured values.
In the evaluation experiments, a five-axis CNC machine tool of the type XYZAC was used. The MMD and the laser interferometer
XL80 were mounted on the five-axis machine tool at the same time. As shown in Fig. 15(a) schematically, the beam reflector of the
laser interferometer was fixed on the upper plate such that the laser beam passed through the origin of the upper plate coordinate
frame {𝑈 }. This arrangement allowed that the MMD system and the laser interferometer XL80 had the same measuring model and no
Abbe error occurred between the measured data of the two systems. Besides, both measuring devices were synchronously triggered
to obtain comparable data.
Fig. 15(b) shows the setup of the MMD on the five-axis machine tool for the evaluation of the MMD system along the 𝑥-axis of
the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿}. The 𝑥-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿} was adjusted such that it was parallel
to the 𝑌 -axis of the five-axis machine tool. The height of the upper plate was 300 mm and the rotational angles were zero. At the
beginning, the reading of the laser interferometer XL80 was reset to zero, and the start pose of the MMD was registered. Then, the
𝑌 -axis of the five-axis machine tool was driven to reach 11 target points over a test range of 200 mm according to ISO 230-2. After
the measurement was finished, the actual axis of the linear motion in {𝐿} was fitted. The positioning errors of the 𝑌 -axis measured
by the MMD system were calculated. After subtracting the values simultaneously measured by the laser interferometer XL80, the
errors of the MMD in linear positioning measurement along the 𝑥-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿} were obtained.
Similarly, the evaluation of the accuracy of the MMD system in linear positioning measurement along the y- and 𝑧-axis of the
lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿} were performed. Fig. 16 shows the accuracy of the MMD system in linear positioning measurement.
According to ISO 230-2, the bi-directional accuracy in linear positioning measurement along the x-, y- and 𝑧-axis of the lower plate
coordinate frame {𝐿} are 1.8 μm, 2.1 μm, and 0.9 μm in a measuring range of 200 mm, 200 mm, and 120 mm, respectively.

5.3. Angular positioning measurement

With the help of a rotary axis calibrator, the XR20-W, the laser interferometer XL80 can be used to measure the positioning
error of a rotary axis with a resolution of 1 arc-second. Due to the difficulty of installing the calibrator XR20-W and the MMD
simultaneously, the laser interferometer XL80 and the MMD system were used independently to inspect the accuracy of the rotary
axes of the five-axis machine tool, i.e., the A- and 𝐶-axis, according to ISO 230-2. The results obtained from two devices were
compared for evaluating the accuracy of angular positioning measurements of the MMD.

14
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 15. Setup of the MMD and the laser interferometer. (a) Schematic diagram. (b) Real machine. ①: MMD, ②: beam reflector, ③: five-axis CNC machine tool,
④: laser interferometer.

Table 3
Deviations of accuracy measurement between the laser interferometer XL80 and the MMD system (𝜙- and 𝜃-angle measurement).
B: Reversal; M: Mean deviation; E: System deviation; R+: Repeatability forward; R-: Repeatability backward; A: Accuracy. Unit
in arc-second.
Machine Measuring B M E R+ R- A
axis system
MMD 𝜙-axis −0.47 0.41 0.37 −0.54 −0.71 −0.28
A
MMD 𝜃-axis −0.78 1.43 −1.45 0.55 0.02 0.90

First, the angular positioning errors of the 𝐴-axis of the five-axis machine tool were measured by the laser interferometer XL80
and by the 𝜙-, 𝜃-angle of the MMD system. The test range covered from 0 to 15 degrees. The range of −15 to 0 degrees was not
tested because the XR20-W could not be installed on the opposite side of the rotary worktable.
The parameters of the 𝐴-axis specified in ISO 230-2 were independently generated by the MMD system and the laser
interferometer XL80. The deviations between two measuring devices are listed in Table 3. As can be seen, the deviations of all
specified parameters are within 1.5 arc-seconds. These results imply the measuring accuracy of the MMD system for 𝜙- and 𝜃-angle
measurement about the x- and 𝑦-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿} is less than ±1.5 arc-seconds.
Similarly, the angular positioning errors of the 𝐶-axis of the five-axis machine tool were measured by the laser interferometer
XL80 and the 𝜓-angle of the MMD system independently. For the MMD measurement, the test range covered from −40 to 40 degrees.
As listed in Table 4, the deviation of the specified parameter accuracy A and backlash B is 7.51 and 4.45 arc-seconds, respectively.
To find out the cause of the large deviations, the angular positioning errors of the 𝐶-axis measured by the XL80 and the 𝜓-angle
of the MMD system are shown in Figs. 17(a) and 17(b), respectively. As can be seen, the 𝜓- or yaw angle measurement of the MMD
for the unidirectional 𝐶-axis positioning was with high repeatability. The reversal error of the 𝐶-axis measured by the XL80 and the
𝜓-angle of the MMD system is 0.47 and 4.92 arc-seconds, respectively. Their difference is 4.45 arc-seconds, which is equal to the

15
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 16. Accuracy of the MMD system in measuring linear positioning along the (a) x-, (b) y-, and (c) 𝑧-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame {𝐿}. The green
and blue dots indicate the errors along the forward and backward paths, respectively. The shaded regions illustrate ±2 standard deviations. The red line shows
the average error at each commanded position. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Table 4
Deviations of accuracy measurement between the laser interferometer XL80 and the MMD system (𝜓-angle
measurement). B: Reversal; M: Mean deviation; E: System deviation; R+: Repeatability forward; R-: Repeatability
backward; A: Accuracy. Unit in arc-second.
Machine Measuring B M E R+ R- A
axis system
MMD 𝜓-axis 4.45 3.41 4.15 0.63 0.52 7.51
C
(Before error
compensation)
MMD 𝜓-axis 1.45 3.41 4.15 0.63 0.52 4.63
(After error
compensation)

16
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

Fig. 17. Positioning accuracy of the 𝐶-axis of the five-axis machine tool measured by (a) the laser interferometer XL80, (b) the 𝜓-angle of the MMD system,
and (c) the 𝜓-angle of the MMD system (after the compensation of mean hysteresis error). The green and blue dots indicate the errors along the forward and
backward paths, respectively. The shaded regions illustrate ±2 standard deviations. The red line shows the average error at each commanded position. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

deviation of 4.45 arc-seconds in parameter B as mentioned above. The large deviations in the specified accuracy parameter A and
backlash parameter B were contributed mainly by the hysteresis errors between the forward and backward 𝜓-angle measurement
of the MMD system. The hysteresis errors are rooted in frictions in the ball joints and the linear guides of the ball bars.
Since the repeatability of the MMD system’s unidirectional 𝜓-angle measurement was very high, the mean hysteresis error of
the MMD system’s bidirectional 𝜓-angle measurement could be compensated if the motion direction is known. The compensated
results are shown in Fig. 17(c). As listed in Table 4, the deviation in specified parameter accuracy A was reduced from 7.51 to
4.63 arc-seconds. The accuracy of the MMD system’s bidirectional 𝜓-angle measurement could be further improved through a full
compensation of the hysteresis errors at each sampled position.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, a six-dimensional motion measuring device (MMD) with micrometer-level accuracy is presented. The MMD is
augmented with a novel referencing module, including a reference ball bar and a reference plate. The reference plate is used
to compensate for the geometric error and the initial thermal error of each working ball bar. The reference ball bar is used to
measure and compensate for the dynamic thermal errors. Experimental results prove the effectiveness of the geometric and thermal
error compensation using the referencing module. The accuracy of the MMD system in linear positioning measurement are 1.8 μm,

17
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

2.1 μm, and 0.9 μm along the x-, y-, and 𝑧-axis of the lower plate coordinate frame in a measuring range of 200, 200, and 120 mm,
respectively. For measurements of rotational angles, i.e., the 𝜙-, 𝜃-, and 𝜓-angle about the x-, y-, and 𝑧-axis of the lower plate
coordinate frame, the deviations of the specified parameter accuracy A relative to that measured by the laser interferometer are
−0.28, 0.90, and 7.51 arc-seconds within the range of 15, 15, and 80 degrees, respectively. The accuracy of the MMD system in
𝜓-angle measurement can be improved after a compensation of the mean hysteresis error. The MMD of micrometer-level measuring
accuracy is promising for many industrial applications, including the calibration of the geometric errors in a three- or five-axis
machine tool. We will investigate the applications of MMD in future.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Science and Technology Council in Taiwan (Young Scholar Fellowship MOST
111-2636-E-002-028).

References

[1] M. Tsutsumi, A. Saito, Identification of angular and positional deviations inherent to 5-axis machining centers with a tilting-rotary table by simultaneous
four-axis control movements, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 44 (12–13) (2004) 1333–1342.
[2] H. Schwenke, W. Knapp, H. Haitjema, A. Weckenmann, R. Schmitt, F. Delbressine, Geometric error measurement and compensation of machines—an
update, CIRP Ann. 57 (2) (2008) 660–675.
[3] M. Windolf, N. Götzen, M. Morlock, Systematic accuracy and precision analysis of video motion capturing systems—exemplified on the Vicon-460 system,
J. Biomech. 41 (12) (2008) 2776–2780.
[4] T.D. McSheery, J.R. Black, S.R. Nollet, J.L. Johnson, V.C. Jivan, Distributed-Processing Motion Tracking System for Tracking Individually Modulated Light
Points, Google Patents, US Patent 6,324,296, 2001.
[5] C. Schempp, S. Schulz, High-precision absolute pose sensing for parallel mechanisms, Sensors 22 (5) (2022) 1995.
[6] J.-A. Kim, J.Y. Lee, C.-S. Kang, S.H. Eom, Measurement of six-degree-of-freedom absolute postures using a phase-encoded pattern target and a monocular
vision system, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. (2023) 1–13.
[7] Z. Wang, Experimental evaluation of leica T-mac angular accuracy, J. CMSC 13 (2) (2018) 28–32.
[8] D. Stewart, A platform with six degrees of freedom, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 180 (1) (1965) 371–386.
[9] E.F. Fichter, A Stewart platform-based manipulator: general theory and practical construction, Int. J. Robotics Res. 5 (2) (1986) 157–182.
[10] G. Schiele, R. Hofmann, T. Diep, H. Kunzmann, F. Wäldele, K. Busch, Transportable Measuring Instrument for Testing the Positional Accuracy of a
Program-Controlled Appliance Arm, German Patent No. DE 3504464 C1, 1986.
[11] A. Goswami, A. Quaid, M. Peshkin, Complete parameter identification of a robot from partial pose information, in: Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1993, pp. 168–173.
[12] A. Nubiola, M. Slamani, I.A. Bonev, A new method for measuring a large set of poses with a single telescoping ballbar, Precis. Eng. 37 (2) (2013) 451–460.
[13] A. Nubiola, I.A. Bonev, Absolute robot calibration with a single telescoping ballbar, Precis. Eng. 38 (3) (2014) 472–480.
[14] Y.-S. Kim, H. Shi, N. Dagalakis, J. Marvel, G. Cheok, Design of a six-DOF motion tracking system based on a Stewart platform and ball-and-socket joints,
Mech. Mach. Theory 133 (2019) 84–94.
[15] Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, D. Zheng, C. Cai, The self-calibration method based on grating-rulers used for 6-DOF motion measurement system, Measurement 204
(2022) 111894.
[16] E. Yavuz, Y. Şenol, M. Özçelik, H. Aydın, Design of a string encoder-and-IMU-based 6D pose measurement system for a teaching tool and its application
in teleoperation of a robot manipulator, J. Sensors 2021 (2021) 1–17.
[17] O. Masory, J. Wang, H. Zhuang, On the accuracy of a Stewart platform. II. Kinematic calibration and compensation, in: Proceedings IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1993, pp. 725–731.
[18] H. Zhuang, Self-calibration of parallel mechanisms with a case study on Stewart platforms, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 13 (3) (1997) 387–397.
[19] S. Karmakar, A. Patel, C.J. Turner, Calibration of parallel kinematic machine based on Stewart platform–a literature review, in: International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol.85376, 2021, V002T02A015.
[20] M. Weck, D. Staimer, Accuracy issues of parallel kinematic machine tools, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. K 216 (1) (2002) 51–57.
[21] K. Großmann, B. Kauschinger, S. Szatmári, Kinematic calibration of a hexapod of simple design, Prod. Eng. 2 (3) (2008) 317–325.
[22] V.J. Kalas, A. Vissiere, O. Company, S. Krut, P. Noiré, T. Roux, F. Pierrot, Thermal deflection decoupled 6-DOF pose measurement of hexapods, 2020,
arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04448.
[23] M. Honegger, A. Codourey, E. Burdet, Adaptive control of the hexaglide, a 6 dof parallel manipulator, in: Proceedings of International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, IEEE, 1997, pp. 543–548.
[24] F. Pierrot, T. Shibukawa, From Hexa to HexaM, in: Parallel Kinematic Machines: Theoretical Aspects and Industrial Requirements, Springer, 1999, pp.
357–364.
[25] K.-H. Wurst, LINAPOD—machine tools as parallel link systems based on a modular design, in: Parallel Kinematic Machines: Theoretical Aspects and
Industrial Requirements, Springer, 1999, pp. 377–394.
[26] R. Mahdi, K. Stephan, B. Friedrich, Experimental investigations on stick-slip phenomenon and friction characteristics of linear guides, Procedia Eng. 100
(2015) 1023–1031.
[27] M. Safeena, K. Jiji, et al., Survey paper on the forward kinematics solution of a Stewart platform, in: 2022 Second International Conference on Next
Generation Intelligent Systems, ICNGIS, IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8.

18
W.-T. Lei and C.-W. Chen Mechanism and Machine Theory 191 (2024) 105469

[28] C.C. Nguyen, Z.-L. Zhou, S.S. Antrazi, C. Campbell, Efficient computation of forward kinematics and Jacobian matrix of a Stewart platform-based
manipulator, in: IEEE Proceedings of the SOUTHEASTCON’91, IEEE, 1991, pp. 869–874.
[29] S.-W. Lee, G.-S. Yeo, J.-H. Lee, H.-K. Cho, W.-S. Han, Approach to critical dimension error budget analysis and specification estimation by the Monte
Carlo method, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 21 (6) (2003) 3120–3123.
[30] Y. Li, W. Zhao, S. Lan, J. Ni, W. Wu, B. Lu, A review on spindle thermal error compensation in machine tools, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 95 (2015)
20–38.
[31] T. Liu, W. Gao, D. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. Chang, C. Liang, Y. Tian, Analytical modeling for thermal errors of motorized spindle unit, Int. J. Mach. Tools
Manuf. 112 (2017) 53–70.
[32] J. Mayr, J. Jedrzejewski, E. Uhlmann, M.A. Donmez, W. Knapp, F. Härtig, K. Wendt, T. Moriwaki, P. Shore, R. Schmitt, et al., Thermal issues in machine
tools, CIRP Ann. 61 (2) (2012) 771–791.
[33] M. Fujishima, K. Narimatsu, N. Irino, M. Mori, S. Ibaraki, Adaptive thermal displacement compensation method based on deep learning, CIRP J. Manuf.
Sci. Technol. 25 (2019) 22–25.

19