A comparison of reversal and multiprobe error separation

Eric R. Marsh Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA David A. Arneson Professional Instruments, Minneapolis, MN Donald L. Martin Lion Precision, St. Paul, MN February 28, 2008

Abstract This paper demonstrates the application of two methods of separating spindle error motion from artifact roundness on a spindle with less than ve nanometers radial error. Two error separation methods, reversal and multiprobe, were each applied to data taken on two dierent test stands allowing direct comparison of the four combinations of hardware and separation algorithm. Because the theory of both separation methods is well documented, this work focuses on their implementation for nanometer-level measurements. As will be seen, a number of issues must be addressed to obtain repeatable results at this level of precision in spindle metrology. Ultimately, the results show that sub-nanometer features in both spindle error and artifact form can be reliably and repeatably resolved by both techniques.

Introduction
This work seeks to characterize the radial error motion of a precision air bearing spindle with nanometer-level accuracy. This task is complicated by the requirement that the necessary measurements are usually made using a lapped spherical artifact whose out-of-roundness is too large to be ignored; a research-grade lapped spherical artifact may have an out-of-roundness at its equator of between 10 and 25 nm. The artifact out-of-roundness necessitates the use of an error separation method to extract the spindle error and artifact form from the raw measurements. Although the theory of error separation is widely known and well documented, there is signicant exposure to mistakes made in hardware design (particularly when testing at high

speed), data acquisition, data analysis, and environmental control. This work documents eorts to verify measurements made on a high quality (sub-ten-nanometer synchronous error) spindle by the application of two error separation algorithms and two sets of test hardware. Both sets of hardware were designed to make measurements for both error separation methods. A variety of methods have been proposed to remove the contribution of an imperfect artifact from a spindle measurement. The denitive survey of reversal and other error separation methods is by Evans, Hocken, and Estler [1], which provides a comprehensive overview of the three general classes of methods for dealing with spindle and roundness metrology: Reversals require two measurements to separate a single component of spindle error (i.e., radial or face error motion) from artifact roundness. Both the artifact and displacement indicator must be rotated 180 between measurements. Reversal is theoretically superior to other methods, but requires precisely-made xturing, accurate knowledge of rotation angles, as well as careful data synchronization to achieve nanometer-level repeatability. Grejda has proposed a rotary table-based approach to simplify the task of meeting these geometry issues that is suitable in some situations [2]. Multistep methods require many measurements to estimate each spindle error component. Here the indicator is left stationary, while the artifact is sequentially indexed a total of 360 in a large, but exible, number of equally-spaced increments. Accuracy is improved by using more measurements. Multiprobe methods use simultaneous measurements from three or sometimes more displacement sensors to separate spindle error from artifact out-of-roundness. Neither sensors nor artifact are indexed, but all must be precisely arranged to measure the same artifact track at the correct angles. Furthermore, the sensitivity (i.e., calibration) of the sensors must be well known. Ideally, a complete and accurate separation correctly assigns the appropriate contribution of the recorded data to the spindle or artifact in the correct proportion. This can be achieved if the geometrical assumptions built into the algorithms are met; the displacement sensor(s) must be precisely arranged, measurement data must be reliably triggered in equal angular increments, the test hardware must be rigid and thermally stable, and the various other challenges of working at the nanometer-level must be addressed. However, these concerns arise in all spindle error separation techniques. Accurate implementation of all three separation classes requires tight tolerances on the geometry of the sensor xtures, artifact and/or sensor indexing hardware, and the test stand to achieve nanometer repeatability when working with the highest 2

quality artifacts and spindles [3, 4]. However, once sucient hardware is available, the spindle metrology process may proceed without any particular requirement on the artifacts; none of the three separation classes rely upon a calibrated artifact. Instead, all are designed around sucient measurements to determine the spindle error and artifact form error without prior knowledge of either component. This allows the metrologist to obtain reliable information without comparison to independentlycalibrated and certied master artifacts. In this work, we do not consider the multistep method because of its limitations in accuracy (viz., harmonic suppression) as well as the obvious diculty of repeatedly moving the artifact for each test [5]. In contrast, reversal approaches proposed by Donaldson and Estler enjoy a proven track record of success and oer the simplest implementation and algorithm [6, 7] (Figure 1). Many researchers have published high quality reversal results [8, 9, 10]. Multiprobe methods, while conceptually and mathematically more involved than reversal, do oer important advantages in some situations (Figure 2). Multiprobe methods do not require calculation of the synchronous error prior to application. Furthermore, and most important for the spindles considered here, there are circumstances in which it is inconvenient or impossible to accurately index the artifact and sensors during testing.

Measurement Requirements
In general, a spindles error is characterized by ve components of o-axis motion one axial (Z), two radial (RX and RY ), plus either two face (FX and FY ) or two tilt (X and Y ). The axial component of spindle error does not require reversal or other separation; it can be obtained directly by measurementan artifacts imperfections do not inuence the axial measurement except by small, second-order eects such as artifact eccentricity, sensor spot size, and eld homogeneity. In practice, the tilt error is usually calculated from radial measurements taken at some known spacing. Alternatively, both face and tilt can be obtained by Estlers face error reversal. Each application of reversal uses two measurements to provide one error component, so a complete spindle characterization requires a total of nine measurements (8 radial and 1 axial). Alternatively, Estlers face error reversal could be applied twice (four measurements each) to nd the axial and face error motion for a total measurement count of 4 radial, 4 axial (3 are redundant), and 4 face. In principal, multiple displacement sensors and suitable xturing would allow up to half of these tests to be run simultaneously to speed up the process. The second half of the required data would be collected after the artifact and sensors are rotated 180 . In comparison, the multiprobe method here estimates a single component of spindle error motion from three measurements (it is theoretically possible, but not 3

usually advisable, to estimate the orthogonal spindle error component also). A set of three measurements will therefore be required for each of the four non-axial components. With enough capacitive sensors and the appropriate xturing, it is possible to completely characterize the error motion of a spindle in a single test. Only multiprobe oers this possibility as reversal methods require indexing of the artifact and spindle during the test. As will be shown in the work presented here, a modication may be used to make the three measurements sequentially with a single probe instead of simultaneously with three probes.

Multiprobe Error Separation

The three-probe implementation of multiprobe error separation is briey reviewed in this section to illustrate its application and utility in certain applications. Figure 2 shows the arrangement of three displacement indicators mA , mB , and mC ; a spindle with X and Y error resulting in relative motion between the stator and spinning rotor; and an artifact with form error R. Indicators mB and mC are separated in the xy plane from indicator mA by angles and . Figure 3 shows three representative measurements taken on an air bearing spindle. The multiprobe error separation results are also shown as a function of the spindles rotation angle. Figure 4 shows the same results plotted on polar plots to provide a dierent perspective. The measurements recorded by the three displacement sensors are represented mathematically by a summation of the artifact form error R, including a phase shift due to sensor location and the x() and y() components of the spindle error: mA () = R() + x() mB () = R( ) + x() cos + y() sin mC () = R( ) + x() cos + y() sin . M () is dened as a weighted combination of the three measurements using coefcients of unity, a, and b specically chosen to cancel the X and Y direction of spindle error motion in M : M () = mA () + a mB () + b mC () where: sin sin( ) sin b= . sin( ) (2) (1)

a=

(3)

The spindle error can be removed from M provided that the dierence between and is not near 0 or 180 , which result in division by a small number or zero in

Equation 3. The artifact out-of-roundness R and weighted spindle measurement M are represented with Fourier series:

R() =
k=1

Ak cos k + Bk sin k Fk cos k + Gk sin k.

k=1

(4) (5)

M () =

Equation 6 is obtained by substituting the Fourier series representations of R and M into Equation 2. Trigonometry identities for angle addition have been applied and common terms of cos k and sin k are collected to yield:

M () =
k=1

(Ak k Bk k ) cos k + (Ak k + Bk k ) sin k

(6)

where: k = 1 + a cos k + b cos k k = b sin k + a sin k. At this point, a and b are both known, as are and . However, the values of k and k will vary with every integer value of k = 1, 2, 3, . . . . The remaining step is to compare the terms of Equation 6 to the Fourier coecients used to reconstruct M () to determine Ak and Bk . Therefore, Equation 7 is solved repeatedly for every value of k (up to some nite limit): k k k k Ak Bk = Fk Gk . (7)

With the values of coecients Ak and Bk now known, the artifact out-of-roundness R is fully dened and is then used to determine the spindle error motion S using the rst measurement mA : S() = mA () R(). (8)

In practice, we do not actually carry out the computations to a particularly large value of k because our sampled data are already analog low-pass ltered to some fraction of the number of rotary encoder counts. Additional digital ltering may also be applied so that k need only be considered for perhaps a hundred or so terms, depending on the circumstances. However, poor choices of and can lead to problems with small values of k and k , even within a relatively narrow frequency 5

range of interest. This leads to ill-conditioning of the matrix in Equation 7. In the well-known example of = 120 and = 240 , the matrix in Equation 7 is singular every two out of three values of k. Figure 5 shows a more detailed example of how poorly chosen measurement angles lead to incorrectly computed Fourier coecients in Equation 7. In this case, one revolution of the rotor is divided into 32 equal increments of 11.25 . The rst sensor is at zero and the second sensor (at angle ) is located 9/32 of a revolution (101.25 ). Then, the eect of the location of the third sensor (at angle ) is checked for the remaining angles in 11.25 increments. This plot shows how the 31st and 33rd harmonics are always suppressed, regardless of , and how locating the third sensor opposite (i.e., 180 from) the rst or second sensor must be avoided. The proper computation of the Fourier series coecients becomes accurate for asymmetric arrangements of and . In the results that follow, the sensor angles are chosen to be 0 , 99.84375 , and 202.5 . These seemingly odd angles were chosen for their asymmetry and because they line up with encoder marks on a 1024count encoder. Figure 6 shows the results of Monte Carlo simulations comparing the eectiveness of these sensor angles to earlier published work by Mitsui [11] in the presence of sensor positioning (20 arc-seconds), spindle (5 nm), and artifact errors(15 nm).

Results
The spindle used to explore these issues is shown in Figure 7. Also shown is an enlarged view of the hardware used to rigidly hold axial and radial displacement sensors. Several potential contributors to the measurement uncertainty were eliminated by sequentially indexing a single radial sensor through the three angles used in multiprobe error separation rather than measure the three angle simultaneously with three dierent sensors. This allows repeatable (even if imperfect) placement of the sensor and avoids problems with mismatched sensors or inhomogeneous electrical elds at the expense of simultaneous data collection. The indexing capability is made possible using the ground and lapped piloting surfaces shown in Figure 7. These precisely prepared surfaces greatly simplify the process of indexing the sensor between measurements. Jig-ground holes (one of three is shown in the cutaway view) insure that the angular indexing is accurate to better than 20 seconds of arc. The particular spindle design used in this study is an externally pressurized, air bearing spindle (Professional Instruments ISO 5.5) with an integral 1024-count rotary encoder (Renco R35i) and brushless, frameless motor and amplier (MCS custom-wound motor with LA-2000 amplier). The encoder is required for commutation and is also used to trigger the data sampling at evenly spaced angular increments, eliminating the eect of spindle speed uctuations. 6

The motorization of an ultra precision spindle can have a signicant inuence on performance so this drive system was manually-tuned to nd an appropriate balance of torque, error motion, and heat generation for diamond turning and grinding applications. In this case, the spindle has a peak power of 5 kW, a maximum speed of 10 kRPM, and a quoted radial error motion of less than 25 nm. The actual synchronous radial error motion of the several spindles tested in the course of this research was typically 5 nm. The capacitive displacement sensor (Lion Precision C23-C, 0.5 nm/mV) targets a 25 mm lapped spherical master artifact. The electronics (Lion Precision CPL290) include a user-selectable rst-order low-pass analog lter with linear phase response set to 1,000 Hz for these measurements. The data acquisition system (Lion SEA V8.1) is triggered by the digital encoder pulse, providing immunity to errors caused by speed variation, which has proven to be important when working at the nanometer level. Further low-pass digital ltering was done in software (typically to 100 undulations per revolution). Additionally, the quasi-static frequency components caused by thermal drift and uctuations in air bearing supply pressure are attenuated by high-pass digital ltering (0.1 Hz cuto). Figure 8 shows results from four radial multiprobe error separations of the artifact. In collecting the data shown in this gure, the starting point was advanced 90 with respect to the spindle stator between each three-measurement test to more fully demonstrate the experimental performance (straight repeatability tests agree to a fraction of a nanometer). Fixed sensitive direction spindle measurements are shown. The measurement frequency components are shown in Table 1, which lists the rst ten harmonics of the artifact form error. The largest single component of the error is the second harmonic, which gives rise to a two-lobe shape, with decreasing amplitude in the higher harmonics. The standard deviation of the amplitude of any given harmonic is a small fraction of a nanometer across the four multiprobe separations. The test hardware was designed to also allow for a reversal to be carried out using the same artifact and spindle. Furthermore, both the multiprobe and reversal tests were repeated on a second instrument so that the form error of the artifact could be measured independently of the rst set of hardware and spindle. This second test rig is based on a general purpose metrology stand to test a wide variety of precision roundness artifacts, as described in Marsh et al. [12]. Figure 9 shows, in two pairs of comparisons, how the artifact form error is the same within 3 nm when measured on the two dierent test stands and within 1 nm when measured on the same test stand using the two dierent error separation methods. The data were taken over the course of several weeks, so at least some of

the 3 nm dierence may be due to handling and imperfect cleaning of the artifact. Furthermore, the testing done on the dedicated spindle stand was carried out at 3500 RPM while the general-purpose instrument runs at 30 RPM. Figure 10 shows the frequency components of the same data shown in Figure 9. Results obtained on either test rig by either error separation techniques agree quite closely, while the trends of data taken on two dierent test rigs match within one nanometer for any given harmonic.

Conclusions
This paper shows how multiprobe error separation gives results comparable to reversal in applications requiring calibration of spindles and artifacts at the nanometerlevel. By modifying the customary multiprobe measurement procedure such that the measurements are made sequentially with a single probe, as opposed to simultaneously with three probes, several error sources are reduced or eliminated from the multiprobe technique. In the examples shown here, the spindle measurement is particularly challenging because of the very small error motions (synchronous radial spindle error motion of approximately 5 nm). The lapped spherical artifact has form error on the order of 12 nm. Repeatable results can be obtained with adequate hardware, a result conrmed here with independent measurements made using a second test stand and a second error separation method.

References
[1] C. J. Evans, R. J. Hocken, and W. T. Estler. Self-calibration: reversal, redundancy, error separation, and absolute testing. Annals of CIRP, 45(2):617634, 1996. [2] E. R. Marsh. Precision Spindle Metrology. DEStech Publications, 2007. [3] W.T. Estler, C.J. Evans, and L.Z. Shao. Uncertainty estimation for multiposition form error metrology. Precision Engineering, 21(2):7282, 1997. [4] D. J. Whitehouse. Some theoretical aspects of error separation techniques in surface metrology. Journal of Physics E: Scientic Instruments, 9:531536, 1976. [5] R. D. Grejda, E. R. Marsh, and R. R. Vallance. Techniques for calibrating spindle with nanometer-error motion. Precision Engineering, 29(1):111123, 2005. [6] J. Bryan, R. Clouser, and E. Holland. Spindle accuracy. American Machinist, 111(25):149164, 1967. 8

[7] R. R. Donaldson. A simple method for separating spindle error from test ball roundness error. Annals of CIRP, 21(1):125126, 1972. [8] D. C. Thompson. COP gage error budget. Technical report, LLNL Preprint UCRL 100330, 1988. [9] P. D. Chapman. A capacitance based ultra-precision spindle analyser. Precision Engineering, 7(3):129137, 1985. [10] J. G. Salsbury. Implementation of the Estler face motion reversal technique. Precision Engineering, 27(2):189194, 2003. [11] K. Mitsui. Development of a new measuring method for spindle rotation accuracy by three points method. In Proceedings 23rd International MTDR Conference, pages 115121, 1982. [12] E. R. Marsh, J. A. Couey, and R. R. Vallance. Nanometer-level comparison of three spindle error motion separation techniques. ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science, (1):180187, 2006.

indle rotor Sp Artifact

Sp

indle rotor

mF()

mR()

Art

if a c t

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: The reversal method proposed by Donaldson. In this approach, the contribution of artifact and spindle are separated with two measurements taken before (mF ) and after (mR ) both the artifact and displacement sensor are indexed 180 .

10

mB() y

S pin dl e

A r tif a c t

mA()

mC()

Figure 2: The multiprobe method with simultaneous measurement of mA , mB , and mC . The angles and of the second and third sensor are chosen to accurately separate the artifact and spindle error while minimizing sensitivity to various imperfections in test hardware, sensors, and alignment.

11

12 nm

m1

m2

m3

12

Measurements Multiprobe error separation

12 nm

12 12 nm

Artifact

12 0 90 180 270

Spindle
360

Rotation angle (deg)

Figure 3: The three measurements needed to carry out a multiprobe error separation along with the computed results.

12

Measurement 1 16.2 nm 10

10 nm

Measurement 2 17.8 nm 10

10 nm

Measurement 3 17.1 nm 10

10 nm

Multiprobe error separation

Artifact 16.9 nm

10

10 nm

Spindle 5.8 nm

10

10 nm

Figure 4: Measurement data and multiprobe error separation results using a 25 mm spherical artifact measured on its equator at 3500 RPM after 100 upr low-pass lter.

13

 = 101.25 (fixed) mB varied in increments of 11.25 mC

- location of third sensor 135 180

= 180

0 (fixed) mA

Sensor mC is 180 from sensor mA 225 270 Sensor mC is 180 from sensor mB 315
= 281

Suppressed terms 360 2 5 10 15 20 Fourier series index k 25 30 31 33 35

Figure 5: Suppressed (i.e., incorrect) harmonics in multiprobe error separation. In this gure, one revolution of the spindle is divided into 32 equal increments. The rst sensor is always at angle zero and the second sensor angle is arbitrarily xed at the 9th increment ( = 101.25 ). The third sensor is tried at every remaining angular increment ( = n/32 360 where n = 10, 11, . . . , 31) to see which choices give rise to problems with separating certain harmonics of the spindle from the artifact. The horizontal dots at 180 and 281.25 reect the inaccurate error separation that occurs when any two sensors are 180 apart. The vertical dots at harmonics 31 and 33 show that none of these choices of will correctly separate these two frequency components.

14

1
Estimated error (nm)

Spindle

Artifact

This work Mitsui 0 0 10 20 Harmonic (upr) 30 40 50

Figure 6: Comparison by Monte Carlo simulation of two dierent choices of and in the presence of typical geometrical errors. Neither set of angles leads to a singularity within the frequency range of interest.

15

Piloted probe indexing ring

Probe indexing hole (one of three at 0, 99.84375, and 202.5)

Lapped piloting surfaces Spindle under test Lapped spherical artifact (rotates during test bolted to spindle rotor)

Spindle adapter ring (stationarybolted to spindle stator)

Figure 7: 10 kRPM, 150 mm air bearing spindle used in this study. The lapped spherical artifact is shaded, as are axial and radial capacitive sensors. In this implementation of the multiprobe error separation method, we use a single radial probe and index the probe using the piloted adapter ring shown in the gure. This requires three consecutive measurements, but helps ensure that several requirements such as probe matching, alignment, stand-o, and centering are met.

16

Artifact 12 nm
10 10 nm

Spindle 4 nm
10 10 nm

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Demonstration of repeatability using four multiprobe radial error separation results using dierent starting angles on the spindle stator (0, 90, 180, and 270 deg). The particular multiprobe algorithm used here requires three measurements per separation, so these four results required a total of twelve measurements.

17

Multiprobe

Test Rig I

Test Rig I Test Rig II

10 10 nm

Multiprobe Reversal
10 10 nm

Reversal

Test Rig II

Test Rig I Test Rig II

10

10 nm

Multiprobe Reversal

10

10 nm

(a)

(b)

Figure 9: Two dierent sets of test hardware were used to compute the artifact roundness by both reversal and multiprobe error separation. The polar plots in column (a) allow direct comparison of the results obtained on the the two dierent test rigs. The same data are rearranged in column (b) to allow comparison of the two reversal methods on a given test rig.

18

4 nm

Multiprobe error separation

4 nm Test Rig I Test Rig II

Test Rig I

Multiprobe Reversal

0 4 nm Reversal

0 4 nm Test Rig I Test Rig II Test Rig II

Multiprobe Reversal

0
0 5 Harmonic (upr) 10 15

0
0 5 Harmonic (upr) 10 15

(a)

(b)

Figure 10: The frequency content of the spherical artifact roundness allowing comparison of the two error separation methods (a) and two test rigs (b).

19

Harmonic (upr) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Measurement starting orientation angle 0 90 180 270 1.6 nm 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Standard deviation 0.1 nm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Table 1: Comparison of artifact spectral content from four consecutive multiprobe error separations made from dierent reference (i.e., starting) locations on the spindle stator.

20