Study on the Uncertainties of Form Errors Evaluation Under the New GPS Framework

  • Changcai Cui
  • Xiangqian Jiang
  • Fugui Huang
  • Xiaojun Liu


The uncertainty concept has been expanded from measurement uncertainty to a series of related uncertainties in the improved Geometrical Product Specifications and Verification (GPS) system. When using a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM), the uncertainty to the result mainly comes from the successive operations of separation, extraction, association and evaluation in the process of tolerance assessment. The uncertainties from CMM sampling, least squared association and evaluation methods have been discussed on emphasis. The uncertainty calculations for typical tolerance items have been demonstrated according to the error propagation theories and statistical principles. Some interesting conclusions have been drawn form the theories and examples of the flatness assessment: 1) the uncertainties to the result are from CMM sampling errors not the evaluation datum parameters, namely the association strategy; 2) If the uncertainties from evaluation parameters are ignored, the calculation of the uncertainties will be efficiently achived especially for the items with more parameters to describe its datum, for example, the cylindricity.


uncertainty form errors evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  1. [1]
    V. Srinivasan, (2001) An integrated view of geometrical specification and verification. Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. S. Nielsen, (2005) New concepts in specifications, operators and uncertainties and their impact on measurement and instrumentation. Measurement Science and Technology, 17: 541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    BIPM, IEC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML, (1993) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1st ed. ISBN 92_6710188-9Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. M. Ridler and M. J. Salter, (2002) An approach to the treatment of uncertainty in complex-parameter measurements. Metrologia, 39: 295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    B D Hall, (2004) On the propagation of uncertainty in complex-valued quantities. Metrologia, 41: 173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    H S Kimand, T L Schmitz, (2007) Bivariate uncertainty analysis for impact testing. Meas. Sci. Technol, 18: 3565–3571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Wang JX, Jiang X, Ma LM, Xu ZG, Li Z, (2006) Decision rules for workpieces based on total uncertainty. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 28:1169–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Jéróme Bachmanna, Jean marc Linares, Jean Michel Sprauel, Pierre Bourdet, (2004) Aide in decision-making: contribution to uncertainties in three-dimensional measurement. Precision Engineering 28: 78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Maurice G Cox, Peter M Harris, (2006) Measurement uncertainty and traceability. Measurement Science and Technology, 17: 533–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Changcai Cui, Bing Li, Fugui Huang and Rencheng Zhang, (2007) Genetic algorithm based form error evaluation. Measurement science and technology, 18: 1818–1824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changcai Cui
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiangqian Jiang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Fugui Huang
    • 2
  • Xiaojun Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.College of Mechanical Engineering and AutomationHuaqiao UniversityFujian, QuanzhouChina
  3. 3.Centre for Precision TechnologiesHuddersfield UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations