Interim check and practical accuracy improvement for machine tools with sequential measurements using a double ball-bar on a virtual regular tetrahedron



This study proposes a method for a quick, simple interim check and practical accuracy improvement of machine tools using just a double ball-bar. The double ball-bar is used to measure sequentially the length of the six sides of a virtual regular tetrahedron within the workspace of the machine tool. Then, the scale and squareness errors of and between the three linear axes are calculated from the length results, and the measured lengths and the calculated errors can be used as criteria for the interim check. The calculated errors can also be compensated for to improve the accuracy of experimented machine tools practically. A sample machine tool was subjected to experimental interim checks applying the proposed method; it showed primarily large length deviations for the six sides due to geometric errors mainly. To improve the geometric accuracy practically, the calculated errors were compensated for and the measurements were repeated, showing significantly improved length deviations for the six sides. The main advantage of the proposed method is that it requires only a double ball-bar and sequential measurements; thus, it is a simple procedure with a measuring time of ∼5 min for a virtual regular tetrahedron. Additionally, the size of the virtual regular tetrahedron can be readily modified by changing the nominal length of the double ball-bar, increasing measurement flexibility. Thus, the proposed method is suitable for quick, simple, cost-effective daily and periodic interim checks, with practical improvement of machine tool accuracy.


Double ball-bar Interim check Machine tools Scale error Squareness error Virtual regular tetrahedron 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO 230–1 (2012) “Test code for machine tools—part 1: geometric accuracy of machines operating under no–load or quasi-static conditions,” ISOGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramesh R, Mannan MA, Poo AN (2000) Error compensation in machine tools—a review part I: geometric, cutting–force induced and fixture-dependent errors. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40(9):1235–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ISO 10791–7 (1998) “Test conditions for machining centres—part 7: accuracy of a finished test piece,” ISOGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi JP, Min BK, Lee SJ (2004) Reduction of machining errors of a three-axis machine tool by on-machine measurement and error compensation system. J Mater Process Technol 155–156:2056–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwenke H, Knapp W, Haitjema H, Weckenmann A, Schmitt R, Delbressine F (2008) Geometric error measurement and compensation of machines—an update. CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology 57(2):660–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibaraki S, Knapp W (2012) Indirect measurement of volumetric accuracy for three-axis and five-axis machine tools: a review. Int J Autom Technol 6(2):110–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryan JB (1982) A simple method for testing measuring machines and machine tools part 1: principles and applications. Precis Eng 4(2):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 230–4 (2005) “Test code for machine tools—part 4: circular tests for numerically controlled machine tools,” ISOGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakino Y, Ihara Y, Nakatsu Y, Okamura K (1987) The measurement of motion errors of NC machine tools and diagnosis of their origins by using telescoping magnetic ball bar method. CIRP Annals–Manufacturing Technology 36(1):377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 10360–2 (2009) “Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM)—part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions,” ISOGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruth JP, Zhou L, Van den Bergh C, Vanherck P (2003) A method for squareness error verification on a coordinate measuring machine. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 21(10):874–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curran E, Phelan P (2004) Quick check error verification of coordinate measuring machines. J Mater Process Technol 155–156:1207–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agapiou JS, Du H (2007) Assuring the day-to-day accuracy of coordinate measuring machines—a comparison of tools and procedures. J Manuf Process 9(2):109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asano Y, Furutani R, Ozaki M (2011) Verification of interim check method of CMM. Int J Autom Technol 5(2):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ziegert JC, Mize CD (1994) The laser ball bar: a new instrument for machine tool metrology. Precis Eng 16(4):259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srinivasa N, Ziegert JC, Mize CD (1996) Spindle thermal drift measurement using the laser ball bar. Precis Eng 18(2–3):118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmitz T, Ziegert J (1998) Premachining computer numerical control contour validation. Precis Eng 22(1):10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Okafor AC, Ertekin YM (2000) Derivation of machine tool error models and error compensation procedure for three axes vertical machining center using rigid body kinematics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 40(8):1199–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee DM, Yang SH (2010) Mathematical approach and general formulation for error synthesis modeling of multi-axis system. Int J Mod Phys B 24(15–16):2737–2742CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO 230–9 (2005) “Test code for machine tools—part 9: estimation of measurement uncertainty for machine tool tests according to series ISO 230, basic equations,” ISOGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Automotive EngineeringKyungil UniversityGyeongsan-siRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of Mechanical EngineeringKyungpook National UniversityDaeguRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations