LMC MMC Matlab

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
11/06/2006
Date:___________________
Steven Turek
I, _________________________________________________________,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Master of Science
in:
Mechanical Engineering
It is entitled:
Cylindrical Datum Evaluation Methods under Maximum and Least

Material Condition Specifications
This work and its defense approved by:

Dr. Sam Anand
Chair: _______________________________
Dr. Sam Huang
_______________________________
Dr. David Thompson
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Cylindrical Datum Evaluation Methods under Maximum

and Least Material Condition Specifications
A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In the Department of Mechanical,

Industrial and Nuclear Engineering
Of the College of Engineering
2006
By
Steven Turek
B.S. University of Colorado at Boulder, 2002.
Committee Chair: Dr. Sam Anand
ABSTRACT
Modern design and manufacturing requires that a manufactured component be compared
to the design specifications through adequate dimensions and tolerances. Often the validation
process is electronic, requiring that discretely sampled data be geometrically evaluated; nowhere
is this more critical then when assessing a datum.
Datums serve as a reference for all
measurements, and the establishment of datums directly influences the likelihood of part
validation.
When a cylindrical datum feature is specified at maximum material condition (MMC) or
least material condition (LMC) a unique circumstance arises: a virtual condition (VC) cylindrical
boundary must be defined based on the sampled data [1]. The geometric relationship between
the cylindrical data cluster obtained from inspection equipment and a VC cylinder has not been
specifically addressed in previous research. This research focuses on datum evaluation of
cylindrical features specified at LMC or MMC.
Three novel approaches to this geometric analysis are presented, analyzed, and validated
in this study. Two of the proposed methods are new interpretations of established methods
applied to this unique geometric circumstance: least squares and maximum inscribing cylinder or
minimum circumscribing cylinder.
The third method utilizes computational geometry to
reconstruct the sampled surface for analysis. Each of the proposed methods utilizes a different
amount of sampled data, leading to differing levels of sensitivity to sample size and error.
The three methods were applied to different cylindrical forms, utilizing various sampling
techniques and sample sizes. Trends across sample size were analyzed to assess the variation in
axial orientation when compared to the true form, comprised of ten thousand data points. Two
relevant case studies explore the applicability of the methods in real world application, and this
study concludes with recommendations for applications and possible avenues of future research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Sam Anand, for his guidance and assistance
throughout my graduate studies. I have benefited through the many opportunities provided by
his hard work and open mindedness. I hope this relationship will continue to be constructive and
enjoyable throughout my career.
I would also like to thank Dr. Huang and Dr. Thompson for serving on my thesis
committee and enhancing my graduate school experience through challenging coursework and
assistantship opportunities.
I must thank my lab mates for their patience and willingness to listen to my frequent
ranting and raving. I have enjoyed my time at the University of Cincinnati, and it is largely due
to the social aspects of my work environment. I have learned more from Hemant, Yashpal, and
Arnold than in my studies, and I am glad these friendships will be lifelong.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family. My mother and sister are pillars of
support, and my wife is the center of my existence. I could not have made it this far without
their patience and support.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Background & Need for Research..................................................................................2
1.1.1 Cylindrical Datums & Material Conditions.........................................................3
1.1.2 Cylindrical definition of LMC and MMC............................................................7
1.2 Objectives of this Work...................................................................................................8
1.3 Contributions of Research..............................................................................................9
1.4 Outline of Thesis............................................................................................................10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................11
2.1 Computational Metrology.............................................................................................11
2.2 Computational Geometry..............................................................................................13
2.3 Sample Generation.........................................................................................................14
3 METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................16
3.1 Data Generation and Sampling....................................................................................17
3.2 Modified Least Squares.................................................................................................19
3.2.1 Modified Least Squares Theory..........................................................................20
3.2.2 Modified Least Squares Method..........................................................................22
3.3 Expanding Spheres........................................................................................................24
3.3.1 Expanding Spheres Theory..................................................................................25
3.3.2 Expanding Spheres Method.................................................................................26
3.4 Hull Normal....................................................................................................................30
3.4.1 Hull Normal Theory.............................................................................................30

3.4.2 Exterior Hull Normal Method.............................................................................39
3.4.3 Interior Hull Normal Method..............................................................................42
4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION.........................................................................................48

4.1 Convergence and Sample Size......................................................................................48
4.2 Discussion of Results......................................................................................52
4.2.1 Discussion of Modified Least Squares................................................................52
4.2.2 Discussion of Expanding Spheres........................................................................54
4.2.3 Discussion of Hull Normal...................................................................................55
4.3 Case Study 1: Parallelism..............................................................................................57
4.4 Case Study 2: Position...................................................................................................59
5 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK.....................................................................63

5.1 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................63
5.2 Future Research.............................................................................................................64
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................66
1 INTRODUCTION
When specifying the design of a particular product, the designer must specify the final
dimensions and tolerances required. This process, referred to as geometric dimensioning and
tolerancing (GD&T), relays the components range of acceptable dimensions from the designer
to the manufacturer.
GD&T has grown increasingly important as the level of precision
demanded by industry continues to rise. The dimensions in an engineering model define the
nominal size and shape of the part, and the tolerances provide the allowable variance. By
specifying a tolerance, the designer is recognizing that manufacturing is inherently imprecise.
Regardless of the manufacturing process and product material, the process of creating a
product to match specifications will include discrepancies.
The process of verifying a
components dimensions and tolerances is referred to as metrology. Traditionally, metrology

was conducted by means of physical measurement devices, which compared the manufactured
parts geometry to a more precisely machined object, a gauge. Due to high labor costs and the
need for quicker and more accurate measurements, physical measurement devices have given
way to coordinate measuring machines (CMMs) and other electronic methods. CMMs, based on
laser or touch measurements, and vision systems are widely used to capture a parts geometry for
comparison with the specified dimensions and tolerances. However, these technologies only
collect discrete data along the continuous surface being measured. The parts surfaces must be
mathematically defined from the data cluster obtained in the discrete measurement process. The
process of interpreting discrete data for the purpose of checking the adherence to geometric
tolerance specification is referred to as computational metrology.
1.1 Background & Need for Research

The conformance of a part to its design specifications is a product of the computational
metrology method utilized and the geometry of the measured data. It is typical that different
computational methods will describe the same data cluster with different parameters.
For
example, a cylindrical data cluster analyzed under two methods will often provide different axes
and radii. In the case of a cylindrical datum feature, the analysis method will not only influence
the datum definition, but all the tolerances referencing this datum.
The ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1] manual defines standards for geometric interpretations and
applications of dimensioning and tolerancing.
However, the ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1]
definitions are based on features of size (cylinders, spheres, parallel planes, etc.), not data
clusters. Thus, to apply the standards, computational metrology must be used to interpret the
data set and arrive at a definition for the feature of size. In the case of datums, a true geometric
counterpart (TGC) must be defined from the data cluster which serves as the basis for
dimensional measurements and tolerance evaluations.
Previous research has focused on the geometric interpretations of data clusters for form
analysis and datum optimization [2], but few efforts have been made to unite the two. Form
analysis research focuses on defining the form of a feature of size (FOS), a sphere, cylinder, etc.,
from a data cluster. This research focuses on optimizing characteristics of the FOS (e.g. radius)
or using least squares (LS) to determine the final form characteristics [3]. Datum optimization
research focuses on manipulating the geometric interpretation of the data set to optimize the
datum reference frame or axis [2]. The datum reference frame is the coordinate system used to
evaluate dimensions and tolerances on features referenced by that datum. This optimization can
lead to more parts passing inspection, but it falls short of a standard geometric interpretation of
the data cluster [2].

The material condition specified to a FOS will modify the geometric interpretation of the
data cluster. The effect of applying least material condition (LMC) or maximum material
condition (MMC) for datum evaluation has not been adequately addressed in previous research;
regardless of feature size (RFS) is typically addressed, as it is the default material condition.
This thesis presents multiple geometric interpretations of cylindrical data clusters, as
collected from an electric measuring device and specifically focuses on the unexplored area of
cylindrical datum evaluation at LMC and MMC. Each method explores the unique relationship
between the virtual condition (VC) cylinder and measured data, exclusive to LMC and MMC
specification.
1.1.1 Cylindrical Datums & Material Conditions

ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1] states A cylindrical datum feature is always associated with
two theoretical planes intersecting at right angles on the datum axis. The datum of a cylindrical
surface is the axis of the true geometric counterpart of the datum feature (for example, the actual
mating envelope or the virtual condition boundary)... This axis serves as the origin of
measurement from which other features of the part are located. [1] It is clear from this passage
that the determination of the cylinders axis will heavily influence all measurements which rely
on this datum.
The default material condition is RFS, such that in absence of the
(LMC) or
(MMC)
indicator in the feature control frame, as seen in Figures 3 and 4, RFS is assumed. The process
of datum evaluation under RFS is straightforward, as the datum axis is defined by the TGC.
Figure 1: An external features datum diameter under RFS; adapted from [1]
Figure 2: An internal features datum diameter under RFS; adapted from [1]
For an external cylindrical FOS (i.e. a boss), the TGC is the minimum circumscribed cylinder
(MCC3D) as shown in Figure 1; for an internal cylindrical FOS (i.e. a hole), the TGC is the
maximum inscribed cylinder (MIC3D) as shown in Figure 2. ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1] defines
LMC and MMC as:
Least Material Condition (LMC). The condition in which
a feature of size contains the least amount of material
within the stated limits of size for example, maximum hole
diameter, minimum shaft diameter. [1]
Maximum Material Condition (MMC). The condition in
which a feature of size contains the maximum amount of
material within the stated limits of size for example,
minimum hole diameter, maximum shaft diameter. [1]
Under LMC and MMC, the true geometric counterpart of the feature is a virtual condition (VC)
feature. In the case of cylinders, the virtual condition cylinder defines a boundary which the
feature, or data cluster, may not penetrate. Drake [4] describes one application of MMC where
the virtual condition boundary represents a restricted air space reserved for the mating part
feature. [4] This is excellent imagery for cylindrical features of size, as typically machined
holes and bosses are designed and toleranced for the specific purpose of mating; Use MMC on
any datum reference where the datum feature of size itself makes a clearance fit, and the features
controlled to it likewise make clearance fits. [4]
The fixed size of the VC cylinder is determined by three factors: 1) whether the feature is
internal (i.e. a cylindrical hole) or external (i.e. a cylindrical boss), 2) the MMC or LMC size
limit, and 3) the specified geometric tolerance value [4].
Internal Features:
VC = MMC size limit tolerance
VC = LMC size limit + tolerance
Equation 1 [4]
Equation 2 [4]
External Features:
VC = MMC size limit + tolerance
VC = LMC size limit tolerance
Equation 3 [4]
Equation 4 [4]
Figure 3: Datum features at MMC; adapted from [1]
Figure 4: Datum features at LMC; adapted from [1]
Figure 3 and Figure 4 display an application of MMC and LMC on a hole. Notice that in
this case, the axis of the VC cylinder is primarily restrained as perpendicular to datum plane A,
but also serves as a datum for other features. On the right side of Figures 3 and 4, the VC
cylinder of the central hole is depicted with the appropriate diameter, as defined by Equations 1
4. Observe how the VC cylinder can shift its position without touching the surface of the hole.
This variability is often referred to as bonus tolerance, as it allows additional position tolerance
inversely proportional to the actual hole size. In this circumstance, there is no one correct
position, as would be the case under RFS, and thus the question arises, what is the best
standardized geometric interpretation of this VC cylinder?
Before proceeding, it is necessary to discuss the restrictions that can be imposed on the
VC cylinder. As previously stated, Figures 3 and 4 include definitions in which the axis of the
VC cylinder is primarily restrained to be perpendicular to datum plane A. This is an example of
one level of specification for a VC cylinder; the next section discusses all four possible levels of
control [4].
1.1.2 Cylindrical definition of LMC and MMC

Four levels of control can be specified for MMC and LMC on a cylindrical feature, as
seen in Figures 5 and 6. These levels of geometric constraint are the direct result of a given
designs application of GD&T. The dotted lines represent the boundaries that the feature,
depicted with solid lines, cannot penetrate.
The methods proposed in this research are
constrained to have linear axes, thus levels two through four are relevant to this research.
In Figures 5a and 6a, Level 1 control is applied, which does not require perfect form.
Thus, the VC cylinder may have a curving axis, but the size of the feature is restricted by passing
a sphere of specified radius along the axis [4]. Figures 5b and 6b depict Level 2 control, where
the VC cylinder is under size control and at perfect form. Figures 5c and 6c incorporate
orientation control with size control at perfect form, while Figures 5d and 6d additionally include
a position control.
Figure 5: Levels of control at MMC [4]
Figure 6: Levels of control at LMC [4]
It is interesting that several of the cases above, Figure 6b for example, can not be
measured with physical gauges. That is to say, computational metrology must be used to
determine if the parts boundary is in conflict with the VC surface at LMC.
1.2 Objectives of this Work

The definition of a datum axis from a cylindrical feature will directly influence every
feature that references it. If the datum definition is not sound, unnecessary part rejections can
result, costing the manufacturer time and material. The objective of this research is to establish
an accurate and repeatable method for geometrically defining the datum axis of cylindrical
features at MMC and LMC. Previous research does not address the definition of datum axes
under LMC and MMC through a geometric interpretation. In other words, previous research has
not explored the geometric relationship between the VC cylinder and the cylindrical data cluster
for determination of the datum axis.
This study presents three methodologies for the
establishment of datum axes, and compares the results of each across sample size and sampling
technique for various forms. Each of the three methods is applied to exterior and interior
features, addressing LMC and MMC for both a cylindrical boss and hole. From the results of
these analyses, the shortcomings and strengths will be evident, and the most sound analysis
technique will be recommended for the definition of cylindrical datums at LMC and MMC.
1.3 Contributions of Research

The scope of this research is not only novel for the problem statement, but also for its
analysis techniques. The geometric relationship between the VC surface and the measured data
cluster has not previously been analyzed, and this query alone is noteworthy. The three methods
analyzed in this research are unique in that they primarily focus on the relationship between the
VC cylinder and the data cluster, not the relationship between the cylinders axis and the data
set; thus, each method used in this research is unique from previous research.
The Modified Least Squares (3.2) method and the Expanding Spheres (3.3) method are
similar to existing methods, but have been altered to address these unique circumstances. The
third method, Hull Normal (3.4), is novel and poses possible applications in other areas of
computational metrology. The Hull Normal method utilizes Delaunay tessellations to create a
surface representation of the data cluster. For the External case, as defined in 3.4.2, the convex
hull of the data cluster is utilized, and for the Internal case, as defined in 3.4.3, an internal hull
is defined. This method is particularly intriguing because it models the data cluster as surfaces,
which is exactly what the original data cluster attempted to measure; so instead of optimizing a
relationship based on data points, the surfaces generated from the data are interpreted as the
original feature and the optimization proceeds based on a surface relationship.
1.4 Outline of Thesis

This thesis continues in 2 with a comprehensive literature review; all external
contributions to this research will be discussed. Section 3 begins with a discussion of the
modeling and sampling procedures utilized, and then provides a detailed description of all three
datum generation algorithms for both Internal and External applications. Section 4 contains
results from the analyses performed on the different methods. First, each methods variability is
evaluated across sample sizes and sampling techniques, as the robustness of each algorithm is
critical. Next, a review of the overall performance of the methods is presented through two case
studies.
Section 5 provides conclusions based on 4s analyses and recommendations for
application. Section 5 concludes with a discussion of possible future research with the problem
of cylindrical datum generation under differing material conditions and avenues for future
research on the presented methods.
10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A substantial amount of form tolerance research has been reported; of this, the most
applicable papers pertaining to cylindrical datum generation are discussed in 2.1. This research
body includes the framework for the Expanding Sphere and Modified Least Squares algorithms
discussed in 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. Section 2.2 discusses computational geometry research
that influenced the Hull Normal algorithms, discussed in 3.4. Section 2.3 covers research that
directly contributed to the generation of cylindrical data used in this study.
2.1 Computational Metrology

Feng and Hopp [3] performed a comprehensive review of tolerance theories and
inspection algorithms in 1991. Although this compilation is dated, it describes the most widely
used approach in CMM data analysis, [3] namely, least squares fitting. The application is not
specified, but for cylindrical features the optimization procedure typically alters the axis
orientation, location, and size to achieve a minimal sum of squares. In this case, the squared
error term is the perpendicular distance between the cylinder surface and each data point.
Orady et al. [5] improved upon the body of cylindricity research by proposing an
improved nonlinear optimization method. Cylindricity concerns itself with defining two coaxial
cylinders where all the measured data is located within the enclosed volume. This specific
relationship, between coaxial cylinders, is not related to this thesis, but Orady et al.s [5]
formulation remains useful. The formulation uses a Simplex search on the X and Y coordinates
of the axis in the Z = 0 and Z = 1 planes, such that the position and orientation can be described
with four variables instead of five (two for position and three for orientation of the axis).
Chepuris [6] presented two datum evaluation algorithms under RFS material condition,
11
one based on the Nelder Mead simplex search technique [7] and another based on sequential
linear programming. A Simplex search is an unconstrained nonlinear optimization that directly
searches the scalar solution space; it does not use numerical or analytic gradients. Both methods
proved successful in outperforming the standard least squares solution for a given scenario.
However, Chepuri restricted his cylindrical datum evaluation to the material condition RFS.
Zhang and Roy [8] realized the ambiguities existing with current standards when applied
through computational metrology, and presented a through evaluation. They report Most of the
criteria as described in the standards do not uniquely define the datums from measured data
points of manufactured features. [8] Zhang and Roy propose three characteristics necessary for
establishing datums:
1. A datum is a basic perfect feature.
2. A datum established from a datum feature is a closest mating
feature or a symmetrical axis or plane of a closest mating feature of
the datum feature.
3. A datum established from a datum feature is unique. [8]
This framework applied to cylindrical features requires the MIC3D and MCC3D to define the
datum axis of the cylinder. Zhang and Roy [8] restrict this analysis to RFS and their methods
can not be directly applied under LMC or MMC.
Roy [9] presented a formulation for evaluating form and position tolerances for an
automated verification process. This work focuses on removing ambiguities in the interpretation
and evaluation of tolerance zones and minimum zones. Roy proposes four steps necessary for
location tolerance verification:
1. Verification of size of the size feature(s).
2. Establishment of an appropriate datum system from the measured
boundary data points of the corresponding manufactured feature.
3. Establishment of location tolerance zones.
4. Verification of the position of the center of the size feature within
the established tolerance zone. [9]
12
Traband et al. [10] presented statistical procedures applied to circular and cylindrical data
clusters aimed at including measurement uncertainty in the tolerance evaluation process. The
goal of Traband et al.s [10] research is to capture the underlying variation in the parts feature
when only discrete data is sampled. Although focused on position tolerance, this method can
also be applied to form and orientation tolerances. This research focuses on the fact that the data
cluster should be a valid interpretation of the underlying part, and care must be taken not to place
too much emphasis on the raw discrete sampled data.
Gou et al. [2] presents a comprehensive method for the generation of datum reference
frames. The datum reference frame is the coordinate system utilized in verifying tolerances of
measured features. As described in 1.1.1, a set of possible solutions, i.e. axes, is defined for a
cylindrical datum at LMC or MMC. Gou et al. propose that the datum axis should be chosen so
that the tolerance values of the referenced features are minimized. [9] That is to say, the
optimal solution sought for the datum definition is strongly based on the features that reference
the datum axis. Using this procedure decreases the probability of tolerance violation, but also
abandons all attempts to define features of size and true geometric counterparts based
independently on their sampled geometry.
2.2 Computational Geometry

Delaunay tessellations are used extensively in the Hull Normal methodology in this
thesis. Preparata and Shamos [11] and Fortune [12] describe the relationships between Voronoi
diagrams, Delaunay tessellations, and convex hulls. In particular, Fortune [12] discusses the
relationship between Delaunay tessellations and convex hulls in three dimensions, explaining
that every face of the convex hull is a Delaunay tessellation. Aurenhammer [13] expands the
13
relationship between Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay tessellations by discussing the uniqueness
of the tessellation for a set of data, and the continuous nature of a tessellation in n-dimensional
space, such that the space interior to the convex hull is partitioned without voids. The Quickhull
algorithm, as defined by Barber et al. [14], was utilized through MATLAB for the generation of
n-dimensional convex hulls and Delaunay tessellations.
Roy and Xu [15] present a computational geometry based algorithm for the evaluation of
cylindricity.
Beginning with measurement planes, (two dimensional cross sections of the
cylinder) the nearest Voronoi diagram and farthest Voronoi diagram are constructed in each
sampled plane. According to Roy and Zhangs [16] methodology, the concentric circles with the
minimal separation are attained. Roy and Xu [15] then construct coaxial cylinders from the
planar concentric circles. This research stands as the only attempt to evaluate a tolerance zone in
three dimensions with Voronoi diagrams.
2.3 Sample Generation

Wang [17] created model generation software to aid in computational metrology
algorithm verification. Wangs [17] research focuses on methods to model machined surfaces
(with error) for circularity, cylindricity, and sphericity algorithm testing. General axial form
error is achieved through the mix of quadratic equations and Fourier Spectrum circular models,
so that cylinders can take barrel, hourglass, bell mouth, banana, and tapered shapes. In addition,
any number of lobe errors, typically introduced by the chucks pressure on the work piece [17],
can be included with differing magnitudes per lobe. Noise is also included to simulate surface
imperfections and measurement error. A typical cylindrical model can be comprised of a large
number of data points, which can be sampled using various techniques.
14
Woo et al. [18] realized that sample size is directly proportional to inspection time, and
performed a study of sampling techniques. In their research uniform, Hammersley, and HaltonZaremba sequences are applied to the problem of surface sampling. Flatness was evaluated
through least squares and minimum zone algorithms for various sample sizes. The results of this
study conclude that Hammersley and Halton-Zaremba sampling techniques outperform uniform
sampling when comparing the RMS error of 100 simulations vs. sample size.
Lee et al. [19] presents a stratified Hammersley sampling method that outperforms
stratified random and uniform sampling techniques.
The proposed method is applied to
cylindrical surfaces at sample sizes of n = 16, 32, 64. Similar to Woo et al. [18], Lee et al. [19]
presents the RMSE over 100 simulations for various sample sizes.
All the works discussed above directly influenced this body of research and contributed
to the proposed methods.
The next section describes in detail the algorithms tested for
cylindrical datum evaluation at LMC and MMC.
15
3 METHODOLOGY
This section describes three algorithms for evaluating the datum axis of a cylindrical
feature of size: Modified Least Squares method, Expanding Spheres method, and Hull Normal
method. The three methods were applied to Internal and External applications of cylindrical data
clusters. It is extremely important to distinguish between internal and external features and
Internal and External relationships, as defined in this study. The terms internal feature and
external feature, as used in ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1], refer to whether the cylindrical FOS is a
hole internal with respect to the part, or a boss external with respect to the part. Independent
of the nature of the feature, the relationships between the cylindrical data cluster and the VC
cylinder can be deemed Internal or External, Figure 7.
Figure 7: Axial view of cylindrical Internal (left) and External (right) relationships
An Interior relationship is established when an interior feature (i.e. a hole) is specified at

MMC or an exterior feature (i.e. a boss) is specified at LMC. The opposite, an Exterior
relationship, is established when an interior feature (i.e. a hole) is specified at LMC or an
exterior feature (i.e. a boss) is specified at MMC. As previously stated, this research focuses on
the relationship between the VC cylinder and the cylindrical data cluster. The Internal vs.
External distinction is unique to this work, as the traditional approach would concern itself only
with the relationship of the cylindrical data cluster to its axis. The nature of the relationship,
Internal or External, will directly impact the formulation of each analysis method.
16
The three methods analyzed in this study not only vary in their computational approach,
but also by how much of the sampled data is recognized in the analysis. The Modified Least
Squares method incorporates every point in the data cluster, while the Expanding Spheres
methods final solution relies on only three data points. The Hull Normal algorithm attempts to
bridge this discrepancy by defining surfaces from the most relevant points in the data cluster.
3.1 Data Generation and Sampling

The cylindrical data clusters analyzed in this study were generated using Wangs [17]
methodology, as described in 2.3. Five common forms were generated: barrel, hourglass, bell
mouth, banana, and taper, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Types of form error in cylindrical feature; adapted from [17]
Each of the forms utilized in this study represents a common type of general form error that can
occur in the manufacturing process.
Figure 9: A typical generated form, prior to sampling [17]
17
The five generated forms, e.g. barrel in Figure 9, all were modeled with similar characteristics:
radius of ten units, height of one hundred units, four lobes varying from 0.1 to 0.5 units, axial
deviation to of 0.5 units, radial noise of .001 units, and axial noise of .01 units. These input
parameters lead to the generation of a matrix, 10,000 by 3, containing the X, Y, and Z Cartesian
coordinates for ten thousand data points describing the form. These ten thousand point sets are
considered to be the discrete equivalent of the manufactured (true) form, and were used as a
benchmark to assess the accuracy of each algorithm over sampling size and technique.
After discretely generating each form, the cylindrical data clusters were sampled using
three techniques: random sampling, stratified random sampling [19], and Hammersley sequence
[18]. Random sampling was implemented using two scaled random parameters, one denoting
the circumferential position of the sample on the cylindrical surface, and the other designating
the position along the axis of the cylinder. Uniform sampling is sensitive to periodic variations
and random sampling can lack sufficient coverage of the geometric form, but stratified random
sampling attempts to avoid these pitfalls by combining these methods.
Stratified random
sampling, often referred to as randomized grid sampling, requires that each sample be randomly
determined within a specified regular boundary [19]. For this method, one axis of the grid
represented the circumferential position on the cylindrical surface and the other axis represented
the position along the axis of the cylinder. Inside of each circumferential and axial partition, one
randomly placed sample was chosen. Hammersley sequence was adapted for implementation on
cylindrical surfaces, according to Woo et al.s [18] equations:
Circumferential componenti =
i
,
N
Equation 5, adapted from [18]
k 1
Axial componenti = bij 2 j 1 ;

j =0
18
Equation 6, adapted from [18]
where N = total number of sample points, k = [log 2 N ] , i [0, N 1] , j = 0,..., (k 1) . Note that
bij is defined as the j th bit in the binary representation of the index i . The circumferential and
axial components found in Equations 5 and 6, were then utilized as indices on the generated form
matrix.
Multiple sampling techniques were utilized to isolate the performance of the methods
from the bias of each sampling technique, and each sampling method was utilized at three
sample sizes: twenty, forty, and eighty.
The sample sizes considered in this study were
arbitrarily chosen within a practical sample size range for cylindrical features [19]. Sample sizes
are often restrained [16, 19] to a power of 2k, as certain sampling sequences require (e.g. HaltonZaremba). However, the observance of this constraint was not necessary for the sampling
techniques utilized in this study.
The sample size was varied to determine the rate of convergence of axis characteristics
compared with the discrete true form of ten thousand points, and to assess the error at small
sample sizes.
3.2 Modified Least Squares

Least squares is a common method of fitting a geometric shape to a data set; often used to
fit a line to a trend in plotted data. In this study, the geometric form is a cylinder, thus the data
set is cylindrical in nature. Least squares is the minimal sum of squared distances between the
geometric feature and the data points.
N
The sum of squared distances (SS) is defined as:
SS = (ei ) , where ei = the shortest distance between the geometric feature and each data
2
i =1
point, and N = total number of data points. The least squares solution is defined as:
19
N
2
Least squares = Minimal (ei ) .
i =1
3.2.1 Modified Least Squares Theory

Typically when fitting a cylinder to a cylindrical data cluster with least squares, the axis
orientation, position, and radius are the optimized quantities. In this type of analysis the logical
distance ( ei ) to consider is the perpendicular distance from the cylinders surface to each data
point, shown in gray in Figure 10. This method dictates the radius of the best fitting cylinder,
depicted in black, providing a valid solution for a RFS application.
Figure 10: Axial view of a cylinder defined by least squares
However, under LMC or MMC, this situation is not possible, as the VC cylinders radius is a
constant determined from the feature control frame. Therefore, an alternative to this procedure is
to optimize the position and orientation of the axis directly, and align the VC cylinder with the
result, as seen in Figure 11.
20
Figure 11: Axial view of cylinders under Axial Least Squares approach
for Internal (left) and External (right) relationships
The axial view depicted in Figure 11 includes the distance vectors ( u i ), in gray, and the
VC cylinder, in black.
This is defined in this work as Axial Least Squares by:
N
2
Axial Least Squares = Minimal (u i ) .
i =1
The distance considered in Figure 11 does not
represent the primary relationship of concern as specified under LMC and MMC. Thus, the
solution found though Figure 11s definition is inferior in performance to the relationship shown
in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Axial view of cylinders under the proposed Modified Least Squares approach
21
The axial view depicted in Figure 12 displays the Modified Least Squares method proposed in
this study. The distance vectors ( vi ), shown in gray, stretch perpendicularly from the VC
cylinder to each data point.
The Modified Least Squares algorithm utilized under these
circumstances minimizes the sum of squared distance between the VC cylinders surface and the
N
2
data cluster. This is defined as: Modified Least Squares = Minimal (vi ) . The Modified
i =1
Least Squares optimization will result in a unique solution when compared to the Axial Least
Squares formulation of Figure 11.
3.2.2 Modified Least Squares Method

With exception of the optimization function and the definition of bonus tolerance, the
Interior and Exterior Modified Least Squares methods are identical. Implemented in MATLAB,
both algorithms seek the least sum of squared distances; Figure 13 depicts the Interior case.
Figure 13: Modified Least Squares methods geometry (Interior relationship)
The steps involved in the Modified Least Squares method are:

1) Definition of parameters
a. Load sample data: Pi = [xi
yi
z i ] , i = 1,..., N
22
b. Define random initial values to define the axis: X 0 , Y0 , X 1 , and Y1 as per Orady
et al. [5] method
c. Define VC cylinder from feature control frame and Equations 1 4
2) Call Simplex [7] search loop to find Minimal [d ] , the minimal sum of squared distance
between the VC cylinder and the data cluster
a. Define axis control points: Pb = [ X 0 Y0
0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1], as seen in
Figure 13
[P Pb ] , as seen in Figure 13
K
b. Define axis unit vector: nnorm = t
[Pt Pb ]
c. Calculate perpendicular distance from the axis to each data point:
K
K
Vi = [Pi Pb ] nnorm , i
d. Sum the squared distances from the VC cylinder wall to Pi , depicted in Figure 13:
N
K
2
i. For the Internal relationship: d = Vi VC , where Minimal [d ] is
i
sought
N
K
ii. For the External relationship: d = VC Vi
i
sought
3) Determine final attributes
[P Pb ]
K
a. Final axis orientation: n final = t
[Pt Pb ]
b. Final axis position in Z = 0 plane: PZ =0 = Pb
c. Where the bonus tolerance is defined as:
23
, where Minimal [d ] is
[ ]
K
i. For the Internal relationship: Bonus Tolerance = Min Vi VC
[ ]
K
ii. For the External relationship: Bonus Tolerance = VC Max Vi
3.3 Expanding Spheres

A common method for determining the size of a boss or hole is to find the minimal or
maximal cylinder that can be fitted to the data cluster. The minimum circumscribing cylinder
(MCC3D) of a data cluster defines the axis of the cylinder, enclosing all the data, with smallest
radius. Any slight alteration to the position or orientation of the MCC3D would cause an increase
in the distance from the axis to the furthest data point. The opposite scenario is that of a
maximum inscribing cylinder (MIC3D). The MIC3D of a data cluster defines the axis of the
cylinder, enclosed by all the data, with largest radius. Any slight alteration to the position or
orientation of this axis would result in a decrease of the distance from the axis to the closest data
point. To simplify this discussion, let us consider the two dimensional parallel to MCC3D and
MIC3D, the maximum circumscribing circle (MCC2D) and the minimum inscribing circle
(MIC2D), respectively.
Figure 14: Maximum inscribing circle (left) and minimum circumscribing circle (right)
24
The circles in Figure 14 represent an optimal and unique solution, such that three
dominant points define the optimal solution, and that only one center point for the circle can be
equal distant from those three dominant points. It is not hard to imagine how the solutions
shown in Figure 14 are found geometrically. If a sufficiently small circle is placed somewhat
close to the center of the data cluster, and is free to move about in the two dimensional plane, as
the radius increases the circle will push against data points until it can expand no more, locked in
place by a minimum of three data points (MIC2D), as shown in Figure 14 (left). The opposite can
be imagined with a sufficiently large circle that would shrink around the data cluster (MCC2D),
as shown in Figure 14 (right). The next section will discuss how this optimal and unique
geometric solution can be found when the circle is of fixed size.
3.3.1 Expanding Spheres Theory

The Expanding Spheres algorithm is based on the premise that each data point in the
cluster is a sphere, and the VC cylinder of constant radius, is a perfect form. The magnitude of
the radii of the spheres is variable, but the center point of the spheres coincides with the location
of each data point in three dimensional space. The optimization proceeds by expanding the
spheres at a uniform rate, thus all the spheres are of equal size at any given time. This process
will terminate when the spheres on opposite sides of the data cluster are physically restrained by
the VC cylinder; and the radius of the spheres defines the bonus tolerance.
25
Figure 15: Axial view of VC cylinders defined by the Expanding Spheres approach
The optimal result of this method, as presented in Figure 15, is equivalent to finding the
MIC3D or MCC3D, with a radial offset equal to the bonus tolerance (i.e. the radius of the spheres).
3.3.2 Expanding Spheres Method

Similar to the Modified Least Squares method, the Interior and Exterior Expanding
Spheres algorithms are identical with exception to the optimization function and the bonus
tolerance definition. The Expanding Spheres methods were implemented in MATLAB, and
conceptually they both maximize the expanding radius of each data points spherical
representation.
The Expanding Spheres algorithms consist of two optimization loops, one inside the other.
The main Simplex [7] optimization loop alters the axis orientation and position with Orady et
al.s [5] definition. For a given axis position and orientation, the data cluster is rotated about a
vector in the XY-plane perpendicular to the axis and passing through the origin. This rotation
aligns the current axis with the z-axis of the coordinate system, and the cylindrical data cluster
can be processed as if it was two dimensional circular data in the XY-plane. At this point, the
26
second Simplex [7] search is utilized to determine the maximum radius for the spheres (circles),
determining the center of the data cluster. This second optimization is performed on only two
variables and has a high likelihood of finding the optimal position of the VC circle.
This process continues until the outer optimization loop attains the axis orientation that
results in the inner optimization finding the maximum radius for the expanding spheres (circles).
Figure 16: Expanding Spheres methods geometry
The steps involved in the Expanding Spheres method are:

yi
zi ] , i = 1,..., N
b. Define random initial values to define the axis: X 0 , Y0 , X 1 , and Y1 as per Orady
et al. [5] method
2) Call Simplex [7] Search loop to find Minimal [r ] , resulting in the maximum distance
between the VC cylinder and the data cluster. This computation is a maximization
because r is defined to be negative.
27
0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1], as seen in
Figure 16
[P Pb ] , as seen in Figure 16
K
[Pt Pb ]
K
c. Define a vector in the Z = 0 plane, through the origin, perpendicular to nnorm :
K
n = nx
ny
] [[ [[00
nz =
K
1 0] nnorm
K
1 0] nnorm
[1
[1
K
0 0] nnorm
K
0 0] nnorm
0]
, as seen in Figure 16
0]
K
d. Find the necessary angle of rotation: = cos 1 ([0 0 1] nnorm )
K
e. Rotate data cluster about n to align the current axis with the z-axis:
Ci = [R ]Pi T , where [20]:
n x2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )
n x n y (1 cos( )) nz (sin ( )) nx n z (1 cos( )) + n y (sin ( ))
[R ] = nx n y (1 cos( )) + nz (sin ( )) n y2 (1 cos( )) + cos( ) n y nz (1 cos( )) nx (sin ( ))

nx n z (1 cos( )) n y (sin ( )) n y n z (1 cos( )) + n x (sin ( ))
n z2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )
The rotated data can now be considered two dimensional, as depicted in Figure
17.
Figure 17: Projected geometry (Interior case)
f. Define the center of mass of the projected data to begin the nested Simplex [7]
search: A =
1
N
Ci , x , B =
i
1 N
Ci, y , so that F = Fx
N i
28
Fy
0 = [A
0]
g. Initiate Simplex [7] search from VC circle center, F , on the projected points, Ci ,
to find the position of the circle with the maximal separation between the data
cluster and the VC circle:
2
2
i. For the Internal relationship: r = VC Min (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy ) ,
where Minimal [r ] is sought

2
2
ii. For the External relationship: r = Max (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy ) VC ,
where Minimal [r ] is sought

[P Pb ]
K
a. Final axis orientation: n final = t
[Pt Pb ]
b. Final axis position in Z = 0 plane: Fglobal = [R ] Fx

K Fz global
PZ =0 = n final K
n z final
Fy
0 ,
+F
global
c. Calculate Bonus tolerance:

iii. For the Internal relationship:
2
2
Bonus Tolerance = Min (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy ) VC
iv. For the External relationship:

2
2
Bonus Tolerance = VC Max (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy )
29
3.4 Hull Normal

Modern metrology is primarily focused on estimating a parts geometry through discrete
sampling. Discrete sampling can be conducted and recorded electronically and provides an
efficient method for tolerance validation. However, the functionality of a machined part is based
on its actual form, not its sampled form. The Hull Normal methodologies utilize the discrete
sampled data to reconstruct the sampled form. This reconstruction can act as a middle ground
between the Modified Least Squares and Expanding Spheres methods. Modified Least Squares
utilizes all the data points and is hence susceptible to non-uniform sampling error, and
Expanding Spheres final solution is based on three data points, hence it can be largely affected
by measurement error in those points. Similar to Expanding Spheres, the surfaces constructed in
the Hull Normal algorithm are only based on the most relevant data as interpreted by their
geometry. Their susceptibility to measurement error is lowered by the influence of multiple
surfaces (where the number of surfaces is much greater than three).
Due to the procedural differences between the Interior and Exterior Hull Normal
algorithms, this section is broken into three subsections: Hull Normal Theory, Exterior Hull
Normal Method, and Interior Hull Normal Method.
3.4.1 Hull Normal Theory

The Hull Normal algorithm focuses on establishing surface relationships for axis
determination, unlike the previous two methodologies that focus on minimizing a distance
relationship. In comparing the relationship a cylinder of perfect form to its linear axis, several
interesting characteristics arise.
30
Figure 18: Axis and cylinder at perfect form
The surface of the cylinder in Figure 18 can be discretized into infinitesimally small
rectilinear facets. Each facets normal vector will be perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder.
That is to say, if we knew the surface of the cylinder, we could find the axiss orientation by
minimizing the dot product between the surface normals of the facets and the axis. In our case,
discrete sampling provides data points on the surface of the cylinder, from which surfaces can be
constructed and the axis orientation obtained through an angular minimization. The question is:
how should the surfaces be constructed from the data cluster?
When evaluating a cylindrical data cluster in an attempt to define the exterior surface, the
convex hull stands as a logical option. The convex hull of a data cluster is defined as the
smallest convex set containing the entire set [11]. In two dimensions, the convex hull of a data
set can be visualized as the boundary formed when a rubber band is released around the data
cluster. By definition the three dimensional convex hull defines the exterior of the data cluster
with surfaces, providing a logical surface representation for the External relationship. The
Delaunay tessellation [13] is a unique method of partitioning the space between a data set, where
the convex hull can be defined by the group of outmost tessellations. To address the need for a
31
solution for External and Internal relationships, Delaunay tessellations will be explored further.
A Voronoi diagram [11] is constructed from a set of discrete data partitions in the ndimensional space that the data lies within. This partitioning creates a boundary around each
data point, where a particular boundary is equal distant from a point and its nearest neighbors.
The edge dual of a Voronoi diagram is the Delaunay tessellation [13]. Figure 19 displays a two
dimensional Delaunay tessellation, referred to as a Delaunay triangulation, with solid lines and
the Voronoi diagram with dotted lines.
Figure 19: Delaunay triangulation as the straight-line dual

of the Voronoi diagram [11]
The Delaunay tessellation edges are constructed between sites that share a Voronoi edge,
such that Voronoi vertices correspond to Delaunay triangles. [13]
By partitioning a n-
dimensional data set with Delaunay tessellations, we arrive at a unique and non-overlapping
partition based on the original data set [13]. It is also important to note that the exterior
boundary of the set of tessellations is the convex hull of the data set [13].
The Hull Normal method utilizes Delaunay tessellations to generate surfaces that
represent the cylindrical data cluster.
This surface representation can then be utilized to
optimally orient the axis of the VC cylinder, similar to the relationship in Figure 18. With the
32
optimal orientation, the position of the axis can be found such that the distance between the data
cluster and its VC cylinder is maximized. Since the Delaunay tessellation will result in a three
dimensional partition of space, and only the surfaces correlating to the measured FOS are
desired, the tessellation must be modified.
The following two dimensional simplification is intended to graphically display the
algorithms defined in 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. The methods described in Figures 20 27 are relevant
in two and three dimensions; however, these figures are not an axial view of a three dimensional
cylinder.
Starting with a two dimensional circular data cluster, seen in Figure 20, the Delaunay
tessellation can be constructed.
Figure 20: Circular data cluster
The Delaunay tessellation in Figure 21 has more information than is needed for an
External relationship. Recall that in an External case, e.g. a boss at MMC, the VC cylinder is
external to the data cluster; thus, the relevant surfaces of the boss correlate to its convex hull.
33
Figure 21: Delaunay tessellation of data cluster
Figure 22 contains only the relevant surfaces (lines) for the External relationship, namely
the convex hull.
Figure 22: Convex hull of data cluster
Thus, in the Hull Normal methodology for an External relationship, only the surfaces of
the convex hull are considered. In the MATLAB implementation of the Exterior Hull Normal
algorithm, the Quickhull [14] algorithm is utilized, as the Quickhull [14] algorithm is more
efficient than constructing the full Delaunay tessellation and removing the interior partitions.
Given a two dimensional circular data cluster, the task of defining only the surfaces that
are relevant for an Internal relationship poses a much more challenging problem. The convex
hull is well established and has a strict geometric definition, but the concept of an internal hull
does not. In fact, the definition of an internal hull is circumstantial to the nature of the geometric
34
object; in this case a cylindrical internal hull is desired. To keep a strong correlation between the
Exterior and Interior Hull Normal methods, Delaunay tessellations were once again utilized.
However, additional data extrapolated from the original data was necessary for generating a
cylindrical internal hull. The following steps explain the proposed method of generating the
internal hull for the same circular data cluster.
Figure 23: Circular data cluster
The Delaunay tessellation of the circular data cluster has several interesting properties
when considering the concept of an internal hull, as shown in Figure 24. It may be noticed that
the interior triangles are larger, and often have distinct aspect ratios when compared to the
triangles on the periphery. Trends can be found in size and aspect ratio vs. location in the
tessellation, but no strict rules can confidently be defined.
Figure 24: Delaunay tessellation of data cluster
35
Instead of defining loose trends in the Delaunay tessellation, one data point can be
strategically added to partition the interior. This process can only be accomplished due to the
fact that the general shape of the final internal hull is known to be a circle. The most non-biased
approach and logical choice is to add one data point at the center of mass of the circle.
Extrapolating this to the three dimensional case of a cylinder, the Axial Least Squares axis, as
presented in Figure 11, of the data cluster will suffice. After obtaining the Axial Least Squares
axis, every data point can be perpendicularly projected onto the axis, leaving the data cluster
twice as numerous. The Delaunay tessellation is then constructed with the original and new data.
Figure 25: Delaunay tessellation with additional central point
Figure 25 depicts the Delaunay tessellation with the new data point at the center of mass.
Notice the distinction between the triangles that include the new point, and those which do not.
If the tessellations containing vertices of only the original data are removed, then we are left with
the tessellations of Figure 26.
36
Figure 26: Centrally linked tessellations
Figure 26 is comprised of triangles that all connect to the new data point. If the triangles
are consolidated by removing all lines directly linked with the new data point, we are left with a
definition of the internal hull, Figure 27. The three dimensional parallel to this processes is very
similar, except that instead of lines remaining to define the internal hull, there are surfaces which
define the internal hull of the cylinder. Now, similar to the Exterior case, the surface normals of
the relevant facets can be calculated and utilized to optimize the cylinders axis.
Figure 27: Internal hull of data cluster
Note that the new point chosen for this analysis, shown in Figures 25 and 26, does not
directly influence the final internal hull. If the new data point was a little to the right or left, the
same final solution is attained. Similarly for a cylinder, the Axial Least Squares axis mapping
procedure is fairly robust. It is unlikely that the Axial Least Squares axis mapping could directly
37
influence the final hull. Under extremely poor sampling of the cylindrical FOS or if the height to
diameter ratio of the FOS is sufficiently small, the defined Axial Least Squares axis can be
skewed enough to pass relatively close to the data points and alter the tessellation.
Now that the interior and convex hulls have been defined with surfaces, the best axis
orientation with respect to the surface normals can be found. Recall the discussion about Figure
18, in which the optimal axis of a perfect cylinder could be defined as perpendicular to the
discretized surface normals. Similarly, the optimal axis orientation for the interior and convex
hull can be found through the evaluation of the surface normals, as shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28: Surface representation of data cluster with VC cylinder
The process of best aligning the axis orientation proceeds by evaluating each surface
normals angle (x ) with the axis by means of a function. The optimization of the VC cylinders
axis is focused on minimizing the sum of the optimization functions evaluated for each surface.
The optimization function, cos( x ) 1 , is plotted in Figure 29, where x is the angle between the
38
axis and the surface normal.
Figure 29: Optimization function
It can be noticed that the optimization function varies its sensitivity by angle. That is to
say, a small angular deviation around 0 radians produces less change in the response than an
equally small angular deviation around
radians. Since the optimization should be dominated
by the surfaces perpendicular to the axis, the higher sensitivity should be around
. For similar
reasons, and because this minimization includes a summation, the Cosine function was shifted by
1 . Since the function is always negative, the sum is always negative, thus the MATLAB
minimization is actually maximizing the perpendicularity of the axiss orientation to the
collection of internal hull surfaces.
3.4.2 Exterior Hull Normal Method

The conceptual goal of the Exterior Hull Normal method was outlined in 3.4.1, and
implemented in MATLAB. The following are the steps involved in the Exterior Hull Normal
39
method:
yi
z i ] , i = 1,..., N
b. Define VC cylinder from feature control frame and Equations 1 4

2) Generate the surfaces with the convex hull and define the surface normals
a. Calculate the convex hull of Pi using the Quickhull [14] algorithm, so that each
hull surface V j , can be defined as V j = rj
sj
t j , where r j Pi , s j Pi , and
t j Pi ; and j = 1,..., M , as seen in Figure 30.
80
60
40
20
50
0
40
0
20
-20
-50
-40
Figure 30: Typical convex hull of a cylindrical data cluster; n=40, randomly sampled
][
K
b. Calculate the normal of each surface: n j = r j s j t j s j
3) Calculate the optimal axis orientation by calling a Simplex [7] search loop to find
Minimal [S ] , where S is the sum of the evaluated optimization functions
a. Define the axis control points: Pb = [0 0 0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1], as seen in

Figure 28
40
K
n j [Pt Pb ]
b. Define the optimization function cos( x ) 1 , as: O j = K
1
n j [Pt Pb ]
M
c. Sum the optimization functions: S = O j , where Minimal [S ] is sought

j =1
4) With the optimal axis orientation of Step 3, find the optimal position by finding
Minimal [r ] , which correlates to the maximal distance between the VC cylinder and the
data cluster at the optimal axis orientation
[P Pb ]
K
a. Define the optimal (final) axis from Step 3: n final = t
[Pt Pb ]
K
b. Define a vector in the Z = 0 plane, through the origin, perpendicular to n final :
K
n = nx
ny
[ [0
n ]=
[ [0
z
K
1 0] n final
K
1 0] n final
[1
[1
]
0]
K
0 0] n final
K
0 0] n final
c. Find the necessary angle of rotation to align the optimal axis orientation with the
K
Z axis: = cos 1 ([0 0 1] n final )
K
d. Rotate data cluster about n : Ci = [R ]Pi T , where [20]:
n x2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )

n z2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )
The rotated data can now be considered two dimensional.

e. Define the center of mass of the projected data to begin the Simplex [7] search:
A=
1
N
Ci , x , B =
i
1 N
Ci, y , so that F = Fx
N i
Fy
0 = [A
0]
f. Initiate Simplex [7] search from VC circle center, F , on the projected points, Ci :
41
2
2
r = Max (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy ) VC , where Minimal [r ] is sought,
correlating to the maximal distance between the VC cylinder and the data cluster
K
a. Final axis orientation: n final

K Fz global
PZ =0 = n final K
n z final
Fy
0 ,
+F
global

2
2
Bonus Tolerance = VC Max (Ci , x Fx ) + (Ci , y Fy )
3.4.3 Interior Hull Normal Method

The conceptual goal of the Interior Hull Normal method was outlined in 3.4.1, and
implemented in MATLAB. The following are the steps involved in the Interior Hull Normal
method:
yi
z i ] , i = 1,..., N
b. Define random initial axis values for Axial Least Squares : X 0 , Y0 , X 1 , and Y1 as
per Orady et al. [5] method
2) An Axial Least Squares axis, as described in Figure 11, is defined using a Simplex [7]
search loop focused on finding Minimal [d ] . The resulting axis provides the orientation
42
and position of the line to which all the data will be mapped to.
0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1]
[P Pb ]
K
[Pt Pb ]
K
K
c. Calculate perpendicular distance of all points to this axis: Vi = [Pi Pb ] nnorm , i
N K
2
d. Sum squared distances from axis to Pi : d = Vi
i
3) Map all data onto the Axial Least Squares axis for use when finding the Delaunay
tessellation
a. Determine initial axis orientation from Axial Least Squares solution:
[P Pb ]
K
ninitial = t
[Pt Pb ]
b. Find distance along Axial Least Squares axis each point maps to:
K
si = [Pi Pb ] ninitial
K
c. Define new data points along the Axial Least Squares axis: Qi = si ninitial
d. Concatenate Pi and Qi into E j , such that the list of data includes the original and
new data points, where Pi E j , Qi E j , and j = 1,...,2 N
4) Generate surfaces and define surface normals
a. Calculate the Delaunay tessellation of E j using the Quickhull [14] algorithm to
define the space by a collection of tetrahedra; so that each tessellation surface Tk
of the tetrahedra can be defined as Tk = [r
and t E j ; and k = 1,...,
43
t , where r E j , s E j ,
b. Calculate the convex hull of E j using the Quickhull [14] algorithm, so that each
hull surface H l , can be defined as H l = u
w , where u E j , v E j ,
and w E j ; and l = 1,...,

c. Remove selected tessellation surfaces from the set Tk to form p :
i. If a tetrahedral tessellation does not have at least one tessellation surface
connected to the axis, remove the tetrahedral tessellation (i.e. all four
surfaces defining it).
ii. From the remaining set of tessellation surfaces, remove all tessellation
surfaces directly connected to the axis.
iii. Remove from remaining set all tessellation surfaces coincident with the
convex hull, H l , and all neighboring tessellation surfaces that share an
edge with the convex hull set, H l .
iv. Define the remaining set as: p = [
], where q ,
q , and q ; and p = 1,..., ; and q = [x q

q = 1,..., , as seen in Figure 31.
44
yq
z q , where
80
60
40
20
50
0
40
0
20
-20
-40
-50
X
Figure 31: Typical internal hull of a cylindrical data cluster; n=40, randomly sampled
][
K
d. Calculate the normals of the remaining surfaces: n p = p p p p
5) Calculate the optimal axis orientation by calling a Simplex [7] search loop to find
Minimal [S ] , where S is the sum of the evaluated optimization functions
a. Redefine optimization parameters: Pb = [0 0 0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1], as seen

in Figure 28
K
n p [Pt Pb ]
b. Define the optimization function cos( x ) 1 , as: O p = K
1
n p [Pt Pb ]
c. Sum optimization functions: S = O p , where Minimal [S ] is sought

p =1
6) With the optimal axis orientation of Step 3, find the optimal position by finding
Minimal [r ] , which correlates to the maximal distance between the VC cylinder and the
data cluster at the optimal axis orientation
[P Pb ]
K
a. Define the optimal (final) axis from Step 5: n final = t
[Pt Pb ]
45
K
b. Define a vector in the Z = 0 plane, through the origin, perpendicular to n final :
K
n = nx
ny
[ [0
n ]=
[ [0
z
K
1 0] n final
K
1 0] n final
[1
[1
]
0]
K
0 0] n final
K
0 0] n final
c. Find the necessary angle of rotation to align the optimal axis orientation with the
K
Z axis: = cos 1 ([0 0 1] n final )
K
d. Rotate data cluster about n : C q = [R ]qT , where [20]:
n x2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )

n z2 (1 cos( )) + cos( )
The rotated data can now be considered two dimensional.

e. Define the center of mass to begin the Simplex [7] search:
A=
Cq , x , B =
q
q, y
, so that F = Fx
Fy
0 = [A
0]
f. Initiate Simplex [7] search from VC circle center, F , on the projected points, C q :
2
2
r = VC Min (Cq , x Fx ) + (Cq , y Fy ) , where Minimal [r ] is sought,
correlating to the maximal distance between the VC cylinder and the data cluster
K
a. Final axis orientation: n final

K Fz global
PZ =0 = n final K
n z final
+F
global
46
Fy
0 ,
2
2
Bonus Tolerance = Min (C q , x Fx ) + (C q , y Fy ) VC
In this section three methods were proposed for evaluating cylindrical datums under
LMC and MMC.
The next section will evaluate and compare the characteristics and
performance of these methods. An analysis of axial orientation variation vs. sample size and two
case studies are presented for the validation of these methods.
47
4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

This section discusses the results obtained from the performance of each algorithm under
different circumstances. The first analysis compares the proposed methods across sample sizes
to assess the characteristics of the datum features true form and the convergence of the sampled
axis orientations to the true forms axis orientations as sample size increases. It is important to
recall that the datum axis is defined by the axis of the VC cylinders position and orientation.
From the position and orientation of the axis within the data cluster, any required radial distances
can be calculated for size validation. Even though the axis must be present to calculate the radial
distance, the Modified Least Squares and Expanding Spheres methods focused on optimizing
parameters directly based on the radial distance between the VC cylinder and data cluster. The
Hull Normal methods optimized the orientation first, and then found the axis position and
resulting radial distances. Section 4.1 discusses the differences in each methods optimization
parameters, and how they directly influence the resulting axis orientation and position.
Sections 4.2.1 4.2.3 discuss the basic characteristics of each algorithm and how they
influence their overall performance, and 4.3 and 4.4 will review the results of the three
methods on two case studies.
4.1 Convergence and Sample Size

As described in 3.1, Wangs [17] methods were utilized to generate five cylindrical
forms that included form and surface error to simulate an actual machined surface. Ten thousand
data points were generated for each form in order to represent the true characterization of the
form and surface of the cylindrical feature. The true form describes the FOS prior to sampling
and can be used as a benchmark for comparing each methods performance under differing
48
sampling techniques and sizes. All parameters of the generated forms are specified in 3.1 in
detail.
To assess the variation of axis orientation for each sampling technique and size, the angle
of deviation of the sampled datas axis was compared to the true forms axis of each form. The
dot product of the unit vectors aligned with the axes was used to define the angle variation in
degrees. Notice that this measure is limited to the absolute angle between axes; there is no
information about the direction of the orientation error. This measure also does not assess the
position error of the axis, which is an equally important characteristic. Nevertheless, trends in
the axes orientation provide a solid measure of the robustness of each methodology. The angle
between the true forms axis and the computed VC cylinder axis for each sampling technique
and size was calculated and averaged across the form type. Four plots, Figures 32 35, display
the results of the axis deviation calculations in degrees vs. sample size. The plots are separated
by Internal and External relationships and the type of sampling technique, namely random or
stratified.
Figure 32 displays the External relationship under random sampling. It can be seen that
the Expanding Spheres and Hull Normal methods perform similar to each other and relatively
well in comparison to the Modified Least Squares algorithm. Even though the Expanding
Spheres method shows a slight increase from sample size forty to eighty, the overall trend is
clear for all curves: decreasing as sample size increases.
49
External Relationship
(averaged across form types)
Average angle with 10,000 point axis (degrees)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Random Sample Size

Expanding Spheres
Hull Normal
Modified Least Squares
Figure 32: External relationship with random sampling
Figure 33 is similar to Figure 32 except Modified Least Squares performs considerably

better under stratified random sampling when compared to random sampling. Regardless of
sampling technique and size, the Hull Normal algorithm produces an axis orientation closer to
the true forms axis than the Expanding Spheres algorithm.
External Relationship
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stratified Sample Size

Expanding Spheres
Hull Normal
Figure 33: External relationship with stratified sampling
50
80
90
Figure 34 presents the performance of the Internal relationship algorithms under random
sampling. As sample size increases, all of the average angles with the true forms axis decrease.
As explained in 3, the Expanding Spheres and Modified Least Squares algorithms are very
similar for the Internal and External cases, but the Hull Normal method substantially varies.
This is evident when comparing Figure 32 and Figure 34 at a sample size of eighty. It is apparent
that while the Modified Least Squares and Expanding Spheres results remain similar, the Interior
Hull Normal method performs worse in comparison to the Exterior Hull Normal.
Internal Relationship
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Random Sample Size

Expanding Spheres
Hull Normal
Figure 34: Internal relationship with random sampling
In comparing random and stratified sampling, presented in Figure 34 and Figure 35

respectively, it is evident once again that stratified random sampling outperforms random
sampling. It is also important to notice the difference in performance of the Interior Hull Normal
method under each sampling method. Random sampling tends to improve the performance of
the Interior Hull Normal method at large sample sizes, while this is not the case for Modified
Least Squares and Expanding Spheres.
51
Internal Relationship
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Stratified Sample Size

Expanding Spheres
Hull Normal
Figure 35: Internal relationship with stratified sampling
The following sections discuss more specific benefits and drawbacks of these methods,
and discuss why the trends in Figures 32 35 occur.
4.2 Discussion of Results

The following three sections discuss the performance of each method in detail. The
discussion includes the results of each method across various sample sizes and sampling
techniques, the results from the ten thousand data point analyses, and the trends from Figures 32
35. The weaknesses and strengths of each method will be discussed before proceeding to the
case studies of 4.3 and 4.4.
4.2.1 Discussion of Modified Least Squares

The Modified Least Squares method presented in this study is a simple and logical
assessment of a cylindrical data cluster in relation to a VC cylinder. In preliminary studies the
52
Modified Least Squares algorithm presented here (cylinder-to-data cluster) outperforms the axisto-data cluster approach discussed in 3.2.1. One of the shortcomings of the proposed Modified
Least Squares method is its indirect approach to optimizing geometric parameters.
Three
geometric quantities are of concern in the solution to the cylindrical datum generation problem:
the axis orientation, the axis position, and the distance of separation from the VC cylinder and
data cluster. Minimizing the least sum of squares of the distances from data points to the VC
surface is logical, but it does not directly correlate to the final defining characteristics of the
geometric solution.
The Modified Least Squares method is also moderately sensitive to
sampling technique, and insufficient sampling can lead to a position shift of the axis and
orientation error.
Another weakness of least squares is that it utilizes every data point in the set. When
comparing the data cluster to the VC cylinder, the data closest to the surface is most relevant. It
is easy to imagine a situation where a perfect cylindrical boss at MMC has an axial deformity,
but which does not affect the mating ability of the part, such as the gouge along the exterior
surface seen in Figure 36.
Figure 36: Cylindrical boss with axial defect
With sufficient sampling, a least squares algorithm would adjust the center of the axis due to the
deformity, only to in turn decrease the bonus tolerance between the data cluster and the VC
cylinder.
Alternatively, if the surface data from the deformity was not included in the
53
computation, the axis would remain central to the boss.
4.2.2 Discussion of Expanding Spheres

The Expanding Spheres method is a logical and intuitive geometric assessment of a
cylindrical data cluster. The External Expanding Spheres algorithms optimal solution provides
the identical axis orientation and location as the clusters MCC3D, and similarly the Internals
optimal correlates to the MIC3D. Similar to the MCC3D and MIC3D providing the optimal radius
for a cylindrical data cluster, the Expanding Spheres method produces the maximum distance
between the VC cylinder and the data cluster. Expanding Spheres bases its optimization directly
on the distance between the VC cylinder and the data cluster, thus the optimal solution directly
correlates to the maximal separation. This is important because the datum feature and the
toleranced feature typically both have specified size tolerances. For example, if a parallel
tolerance is specified, the axis of the feature must be within tolerance, and the datum and feature
must meet their respective size tolerances. The Expanding Spheres method, by definition,
focuses on optimizing the forms size error while determining the axis orientation and position.
Thus in our example, this method produces the highest probability of passing the size tolerance
specification on the datum feature before progressing to the parallelism tolerance.
The final solution of the Expanding Spheres algorithm is dictated by three points in the
data set and the axis orientation. That is to say, only the few most critical data points are utilized
in the final solution. Unlike the Modified Least Squares algorithm that can be negatively
influenced by irrelevant data, this method only focuses on the most critical data for a geometric
situation. However, this also means that if a measurement error exists in one of the few data
points, an equally large amount of error will directly translate to the final solution without being
54
damped by the bulk of the sampled data. This high susceptibility to measurement error does not
present itself in this analysis, but could still lead to insufficient parts passing the validation
process.
4.2.3 Discussion of Hull Normal

The novel Hull Normal algorithms are not simple or intuitive, but they do approach the
problem in a logical manner. Discrete sampling of a manufactured surface for metrological
purposes is rapidly replacing the use of physical gauges; where physical gauges had the benefit
of validating a surfaces geometry with a continuous form. When discretely measuring a surface
that inevitably has variations, the goal is not to capture some data, but to accurately represent the
surface. The Hull Normal algorithms attempt to recreate the sampled surface from its discrete
data set and base the orientation of the axis on the reconstructed surfaces. In this process, only
the relevant data associated with the convex hull or internal hull influence the final solution, and
the impact of measurement error is lowered by the shear number of surfaces considered.
The Hull Normal algorithms must be distinguished when discussing their performance.
The Exterior Hull Normal algorithm produced superior results over all sample sizes, and proved
to be a robust evaluation method based on a well established definition of the convex hull. The
Interior Hull Normal method did not perform equally well and is based on one interpretation of
an internal hull, as there is no established definition. As the method currently stands, the
variance of the axis orientation at low and moderate sample sizes is relatively high. The Interior
Hull Normal method also negatively interacted with the Hammersley sampling sequence. It is
presumed that the Hammersley sequence defines a geometric pattern when applied to a
cylindrical surface that results in a cumulative effect on the evaluation of the surface normals.
55
To simulate the actual manufactured part for the assessment of the influence of sample
size, addressed in 4.1, ten thousand point forms (true forms) were evaluated as benchmarks.
These ten thousand point calculations are considered for evaluating the true datum axis of each
method on all five forms, seen in Table 1.
Table 1: Results of ten thousand point calculations
The results of the ten thousand data point samples offer insight into the accuracy and
performance of each method. It is interesting to notice that the Hull Normal method and the
Expanding Spheres method produced very similar bonus tolerances. This verifies the Hull
Normal method is as valid a theory for form analysis as the MIC3D or MCC3D. Table 1 also
presents a common fault of the Modified Least Squares method: a shift in the axis position.
Although most axis orientations in this computation are near [0 0 1], the Modified Least Squares
solution has a slightly different position in the XY plane, causing a decrease in the bonus
56
tolerance. This explains why the Modified Least Squares method often encounters violations of
size error when the other methods did not.
4.3 Case Study 1: Parallelism

Case studies drawn from the ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1] manual are presented in this
section to directly compare the algorithms presented in 3. Some of the applications in Figures
37 40 were slightly modified prior to data generation [17] and sampling.
The design
specification of Figure 37 is a control on the alignment of the two cylindrical holes, relative to
each other. In this case, a parallelism tolerance of 0.5 is applied on the axis of the smaller hole.
Figure 37: Parallelism for an axis; adapted from [1]
Figure 37s specifications can be interpreted as in Figure 38.
57
Figure 38: Parallelism for an axis; adapted from [1]
The allowable orientation of the referenced features axis is dependent on the

interpretation of the datums axis and the size of the hole. If the feature is at the minimal
allowable size (10.00), the parallelism tolerance zone is 0.5, and if the feature is at the maximal
allowable size (10.22), the parallelism tolerance zone is 0.72.
The case study outlined above is based on a parallelism tolerance. The axis orientation of
the secondary feature is tied to the interpreted axis of the datum feature, where both are specified
at MMC. Since this is a parallelism specification, the position of the datum is independent of the
tolerance validation process.
From the analysis in 4.1, it was determined that Internal
calculations provided superior results when stratified random sampling was utilized with a
sample size of eighty, as seen in Figure 35. The three proposed Internal methods were evaluated
on the datum feature to determine its axis orientation, and the secondary features axis
orientation was defined from its MIC3D. Because the secondary features axis is defined by its
MIC3D, the tolerance zone is constant for each datum evaluation method comparison.
Table 2 displays the results of the analysis where each of the three studied methods were
applied to the datum feature and the MIC3D defined the secondary features axis.
58
Table2: Results of case study 1 calculations
The variation in the axis orientation across evaluation method can be seen in the first three
columns. The tolerance zone calculated in Column A is based on the VC axis of the datum
feature and the MIC axis of the secondary feature whose parallelism is measured. Column B is
defined as the allowable tolerance, based on the actual feature size and the parallelism tolerance
callout in the feature control frame. Thus, to be valid, the value in the calculated tolerance zone
column must be smaller than the value in the allowable tolerance zone column.
4.4 Case Study 2: Position

In this section the three proposed methods are applied to a case study where a position
tolerance is specified. The design specification of Figure 39 is meant to control the coaxial
relationship of the cylindrical FOSs through a position tolerance.
Figure 39: Position tolerancing for coaxiality [1]
In this case, a position tolerance of 0.4 is applied on the axis of the larger cylindrical
feature with respect to the smaller cylindrical datum feature. Since both cylindrical features are
59
to be interpreted at MMC, the permitable size range of each feature, 24.5 25 for the large
cylindrical feature and 13.9 14 for the small cylindrical feature, directly influences the
application of the tolerances. Figure 39s specifications can be interpreted as Figure 40:
Figure 40: Position tolerancing for coaxiality; adapted from [1]
The maximum allowable distance between the axes depends on the size of the cylindrical
features; such that if both are at the maximal allowable size, the maximum allowable distance
between axes is 0.2, and if both are at the minimal allowable size, the maximum allowable
distance between axes is 0.5.
The case study outlined above specifies a coaxial relationship between the axes if two
external features are both evaluated at MMC. The performance of the External algorithms under
stratified random sampling, as seen in Figure 33, is superior to the Internal, hence, a smaller
sample size was utilized for this analysis (n = 40). The axis of the datum feature from each of
the proposed methods dictated the axis orientation applied to the secondary features data cluster.
The secondary features axis orientation is constrained to be parallel to the datum axiss
orientation. With this constraint, the secondary features axis position is calculated by finding
the MCC3D of the secondary features data cluster. The distance between the axes is the
calculated coaxiality error. The Modified Least Squares algorithm, when evaluated on the datum
feature, resulted in a size tolerance violation, thus negating it from the analysis.
60
Figure 41: Gauge interpretation of case study tolerances [1]
This evaluation procedure originated from the referenced diagram in Figure 41. In this figure, a
gauge is applied to verify the coaxial relationship, where the two cylindrical features of the
gauge are fixed and coaxial. Thus in application, it is logical to apply the datum axis orientation
onto the secondary features geometry, as a physical gauge would. The results from this analysis
can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Results of case study 2 calculations
Column A of Table 3 displays the calculated distance between axes (coaxiality error), and
Column B displays the allowable distance, as defined from the tolerance callout and Figures 39
41. Thus, for a part to be valid, the values in Column A (coaxiality error) need to be lower than
61
the values in Column B.
The Exterior Expanding Spheres and Hull Normal algorithms
performed similarly well in these circumstances, while the Modified Least Squares method failed
the part due to a size violation.
62
5 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK

In this study, three novel approaches to the problem of cylindrical datum evaluation at
LMC and MMC are presented. The functionality of each method was studied and validated
through analysis and case studies. The evaluation technique utilized in establishing a cylindrical
datum will have a significant impact on the validation process of the manufactured part. The
following conclusions and recommendations for future research are presented to increase the
body of knowledge within the realm of cylindrical datum establishment under LMC and MMC.
5.1 Conclusions
The three datum evaluation methods presented are computationally distinct and adhere to
the basic premise of the ASME standard [1]. Each method utilizes a different amount of the
original data cluster in determining the optimal solution. The Modified Least Squares method is
simple and intuitive, but it bases the final axis orientation and position on every data point. This
may lead to negative impacts from irrelevant data points in the set. More importantly, the
Modified Least Squares algorithm typically produces a smaller tolerance between the data cluster
and the VC cylinder than the other methods, as seen in Table 1. For this reason, the Modified
Least Squares algorithm is often in violation of the datums size tolerance, as seen in the Position
case study. It is not recommended that the Modified Least Squares methodology be utilized for
datum evaluations under MMC or LMC, as it would provide false negatives in the part validation
process.
The Expanding Spheres method is logical and well established as the optimal solution
coincides with the data clusters MIC3D or MCC3D axis orientation and position. This method
provides the benefit of ensuring the best solution for the size tolerance of the datum feature, thus
63
the datums size should not be an issue in the evaluation process. The results of the axis
orientation analysis suggest that for Internal or External relationships, the Expanding Spheres
algorithm is robust and consistent. Although its final solution is more susceptible to influence
from measurement errors, this method is recommended for use with cylindrical datum evaluation
at LMC or MMC.
The Hull Normal methods provide a novel approach to the interpretation of a cylindrical
data cluster. The algorithms and performance of the Internal and External relationships are
distinct and should be addressed separately. As seen in the axis orientation analysis, the Exterior
Hull Normal algorithm produces robust and reliable results over varying sample sizes, and
should be utilized for datum axis evaluations under LMC and MMC. The Interior Hull Normal
algorithm does not mimic the low variance of the Exterior, and is not recommended for use in its
current form. However, the performance of the Interior and Exterior algorithms at a sample size
of ten thousand suggests that both theories are sound.
5.2 Future Research

The geometric analysis of datum features remains an important issue and further research
can always expand the body of knowledge. The unique geometric relationship between a
cylindrical features data point cloud and the VC cylinder should be further explored. LMC and
MMC are typically employed to increase the probability of a manufactured parts validation, and
this field lacks focused research on datum evaluation. Overall, this study should be expanded to
evaluate the performance of each method on more forms, and in particular more sample sizes.
Three sample sizes is the minimum required for determining a trend, but further analysis of
sample size with these methods would provide invaluable application knowledge.
64
The Modified Least Squares and Expanding Spheres methods are well founded, and
future research will not substantially benefit their results, although the structure of the algorithms
could be refined to shorten their computation time. Similarly, the Exterior Hull Normal method
is sound and may not substantially benefit from further research. However, a comparison of the
Exterior Expanding Spheres and Hull Normal methodologies could provide some valuable
insight with respect to sampling error robustness. The Interior Hull Normal method requires the
most future work, as it is not robust. The theory is sound, but the application of Delaunay
tessellations could be improved and the poor interaction with Hammersley sequence demands
further explanation. The author will leave these topics of future research untouched, as they are
outside the scope of this study.
65
REFERENCES
[1] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Dimensioning and Tolerancing,
ASME Standard Y14.5M-1994, ASME Press, New York, NY.
[2] Gou, J. B., Chu, Y. X., Xiong, Z. H., and Li, Z. X., 2000, A Geometric Method for
Computation of Datum Reference Frames, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation, 16(6), pp. 797-806.
[3] Feng, S. C., and Hopp, T. H., 1991, A Review of Current Geometric Tolerancing
Theories and Inspection Data Analysis Algorithms, Technical Report NISTIR-4509,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.
[4] Drake, P. J., 1999, Dimensioning and Tolerancing Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
[5] Orady, E. A., Li, S., and Chen, Y., 1997, Minimum Zone Cylindricity Evaluation Using
Improved Nonlinear Optimization Method (NOM), Transactions of NAMRI/SME, 25,
pp. 287-292.
[6] Chepuri, S., 2000, Evaluation of Flatness Tolerance and Datums in Computational
Metrology, Masters Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
[7] Lagarias, J. C., Reeds, J. A., Wright, M. H., and Wright, P. E., 1998, "Convergence
Properties of the Nelder-Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions," SIAM Journal of
Optimization, 9(1), pp. 112147.
[8] Zhang, X., and Roy, U., 1993, Criteria for Establishing Datums in Manufactured Parts,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 12(1), pp. 36-50.
66
[9] Roy, U., 1995, Computational Methodologies for Evaluating Form and Positional
Tolerances in a Computer Integrated Manufacturing System, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 10, pp. 110-117.
[10] Traband, M. T., Medeiros, D. J., and Chandra, M. J., 2004, A statistical approach to
tolerance evaluation for circles and cylinders, IIE Transactions, 36, pp. 777-785.
[11] Preparata, F. P., and Shamos, M. I., 1985, Computational Geometry, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY.
[12] Fortune, S., 1992, Voronoi Diagrams and Delaunay Triangulations, Computing in
Euclidean Geometry, Du, D. Z., and Hwang, F. K., eds., World Science Publishing Co.,
Singapore, pp. 193-233.
[13] Aurenhammer, F., 1991, Voronoi Diagrams A Survey of a Fundamental Geometric
Data Structure, ACM Computing Surveys, 23(3), pp. 345-405.
[14] Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., and Huhdanpaa, H. T., 1996, "The Quickhull Algorithm
for Convex Hulls," ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 22(4), p. 469-483.
[15] Roy, U., and Xu, Y., 1995, Form and Orientation Tolerance Analysis for Cylindrical
Surfaces in Computer-Aided Inspection, Computers in Industry, 26, pp. 127-134.
[16] Roy, U., and Zhang, X., 1992, Establishment of a pair of concentric circles with the
minimum radial separation for assessing roundness error, Computer-Aided Design,
24(3), pp. 161-168.
[17] Wang, Z., 2000, Modeling and Sampling of Work Piece Profiles for Form Error
Evaluation, Masters Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
[18] Woo, T. C., Liang, R., Hsieh, C. C., and Lee, N. K., 1995, Efficient Sampling for
Surface Measurement, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 14(5), pp. 345-354.
67
[19] Lee, G., Mou, J., and Shen, Y., 1997, Sampling Strategy Design for Dimensional
Measurement of Geometric Features using Coordinate Measuring Machine,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 37(7), pp. 917-934.
[20] Zeid, I., 2005, Mastering CAD/CAM, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
68

LMC MMC Matlab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LMC MMC Matlab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Cylindrical Datum Evaluation Methods under Maximum and Least

This work and its defense approved by:

Cylindrical Datum Evaluation Methods under Maximum

A thesis submitted to the

In partial fulfillment of the

In the Department of Mechanical,

Committee Chair: Dr. Sam Anand

Datums serve as a reference for all

The third method utilizes computational geometry to

3.4.1 Hull Normal Theory.............................................................................................30

4 RESULTS & DISCUSSION.........................................................................................48

5 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK.....................................................................63

GD&T has grown increasingly important as the level of precision

The process of verifying a

components dimensions and tolerances is referred to as metrology. Traditionally, metrology

1.1 Background & Need for Research

However, the ASME Y14.5M-1994 [1]

the data cluster [2].

1.1.1 Cylindrical Datums & Material Conditions

Figure 3: Datum features at MMC; adapted from [1]

Figure 4: Datum features at LMC; adapted from [1]

1.1.2 Cylindrical definition of LMC and MMC

The methods proposed in this research are

Figure 5: Levels of control at MMC [4]

Figure 6: Levels of control at LMC [4]

1.2 Objectives of this Work

This study presents three methodologies for the

1.3 Contributions of Research

1.4 Outline of Thesis

Section 5 provides conclusions based on 4s analyses and recommendations for

2.1 Computational Metrology

2.2 Computational Geometry

Beginning with measurement planes, (two dimensional cross sections of the

2.3 Sample Generation

The proposed method is applied to

The next section describes in detail the algorithms tested for

cylindrical datum evaluation at LMC and MMC.

An Interior relationship is established when an interior feature (i.e. a hole) is specified at

3.1 Data Generation and Sampling

Figure 8: Types of form error in cylindrical feature; adapted from [17]

Figure 9: A typical generated form, prior to sampling [17]

Equation 5, adapted from [18]

Axial componenti = bij 2 j 1 ;

Equation 6, adapted from [18]

The sample sizes considered in this study were

3.2 Modified Least Squares

The sum of squared distances (SS) is defined as:

3.2.1 Modified Least Squares Theory

Figure 10: Axial view of a cylinder defined by least squares

This is defined in this work as Axial Least Squares by:

The distance considered in Figure 11 does not

The Modified Least Squares algorithm utilized under these

3.2.2 Modified Least Squares Method

Figure 13: Modified Least Squares methods geometry (Interior relationship)

The steps involved in the Modified Least Squares method are:

0] and Pt = [X 1 Y1 1], as seen in

3.3 Expanding Spheres

3.3.1 Expanding Spheres Theory

3.3.2 Expanding Spheres Method

Figure 16: Expanding Spheres methods geometry

The steps involved in the Expanding Spheres method are:

a. Define axis control points: Pb = [ X 0 Y0