INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.

31-44

JANUARY 2014 / 31

DOI: 10.1007/s12541-013-0303-8

Vectorial Method of Minimum Zone Tolerance for

Flatness, Straightness, and their Uncertainty Estimation
Roque Calvo1,#, Emilio Gmez2, and Rosario Domingo3
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Ronda de Valencia, 3; 28013 Madrid, Spain
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering and Construction, Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Ronda de Valencia, 3; 28013 Madrid, Spain
3 Department Construction and Manufacturing Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Educacin a Distancia (UNED), Juan del Rosal, 12; 28040 Madrid, Spain
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: roque.calvo@upm.es, TEL: +34 913367465. FAX: +34 913367676
KEYWORDS: Flatness, Form tolerance, Minimax problem, Minimum zone, Planar straightness, Measurement uncertainty

Flatness and planar straightness are fundamental form tolerances in engineering design and its materialization through
manufacturing processes. Minimum zone tolerance is a preferred approach of flatness and straightness for widely accepted ISO and
ANSI standards. In this paper, we propose a novel accurate method of minimum zone tolerance based on vectorial calculus of point
coordinates. The non-linear minimax formulation of the original flatness or straightness problem is transformed into a set of linear
problems. Next, the optimal solution of the envelop planes or lines is reached through vectorial calculus for both flatness and planar
straightness. Then, the developed algorithms are compared to a selection of methods with published tests in recent and classic
literature on the topic, reaching the best attained accuracies or outperforming them in the trials. Finally, we propose a new
decomposition of the uncertainty contributions for analysis and the improvement of sampling strategy. We conclude remarking the
practical contributions of the proposals.
Manuscript received: July 29, 2013 / Accepted: November 27, 2013

1. Introduction
Flatness and straightness are both fundamental tolerances of form in
precision design and manufacturing engineering, for product
dimensioning and its verification through direct measurement, or as a
support to verify other specifications. The tolerances of prismatic parts
are ordinary referred to a datum, plane or line, idealization of a physical
plane or its orthogonal projection. The measurement of angular
magnitudes or squareness is also subject to the determination of planes
or lines and their tolerances. In machining, not only the tolerance of the
parts, but those of the supporting tooling and the machine tool itself are
involved in the manufacturing process capability and its control for
specification compliance.1
Relative deviations of physical planes or lines are often controlled
in the job shop with analogical dial instruments, displacing its probe on
the surface, but today digital measurement on coordinate measuring
machines (CMM) are widespread for product verification. The CMM
uses a set of discrete points coordinates that is evaluated to determine
a plane or a line. The standards ISO 11012 or ANSI Y14.53 establish
the minimum zone (MZ) as a preferred criterion of tolerance of form,
before other used methods like the least-squares. The standards consider

KSPE and Springer 2014

flatness (planar straightness) the minimum distance between two parallel

planes (lines) with all the set of points between them -envelop planes
or lines-. Even so, the standards do not establish explicitly how to
determine the minimum zone. Conversely, the least squares criterion is
univocally defined by its mathematical formulation and direct solution.
In addition, the least-squares criterion conveys the statistical power of
maximum likelihood in the optimization, when the measured point set
is treated statistically. The interval of confidence of the model estimators
-plane or straight line coefficients- complements the analysis of
uncertainty in its statistical approach. Noteworthy, the widely accepted
approach to express measurements and their uncertainties lays on the
statistical treatment of the variables, where the least-squares criterion
finds also its own roots. Therefore, due to several reasons including its
easy calculation, least-squares algorithms are generally in the routines
of CMM machines. Nevertheless, the physical interference and contact
of surfaces are determined by the outstanding points of the plane, so the
minimum zone criteria responds better to functional tolerancing4 and
fitting.
The MZ criterion is referenced in early works by Chetwynd5 in the
research of dual conditions of linear programming models. Antony et
al.6 confirmed that at least 4 measured points must be included for

32 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

flatness assessment: In two different possible configurations, 2-2 and 31, depending on the minimum number of points lying on each of the
two envelop planes. In order to ensure an exact MZ solution, these
necessary conditions would require evaluating all possible configurations
from a given data set in a combinatorial hard problem. These
configurations will be revised later in the construction of the proposed
algorithm.
According with the ISO or ANSI standards, the determination of the
MZ for flatness involves not only the definition of the envelop planes
from the data points measured, but also its associated uncertainty. Since
the set of points is a sample from the whole surface, the strategy of
sampling includes the path of measurement and the number of points.
Previous research shows7 that the number of points has a higher
influence than the path of sampling in the results uncertainty. Due to
the close relationship of the number of measured points with the
measuring cost, several works8,9 have sought the reduction of the
sample size for a desired precision.
This paper is primary dedicated to the process of calculating the
flatness or planar straightness and its uncertainty after proper sampling.
Looking for an accurate calculation of flatness, several methods have
been developed since the 1980s that can be classified in a first instance
in two main categories:10 Based and non-based on computational
geometry. We can find other classifications11 where computational
geometry methods are at the same level of least-squares methods or
recent meta-heuristics. The first taxonomy by Lee10 is preferred and his
review is followed and complemented in the next paragraphs, because
the research line associated with computational geometry has provided
reference values to other new or improved methods.
We can mention among the non-computational geometry methods:
Direct least squares12 or weighted least squares.13 Its MZ interval
is ordinary overestimated, when the data points are not well aligned
with a CMM coordinate axis. Shunmugam14 proposed a method based
on the median, more robust estimator that the mean.
Non-linear optimization techniques. Its goal is minimizing the
maximum distance from an ideal reference plane or point. Some works
in the field are those by Shunmugam,15 Wang,16 Kaiser and Krishnan,17
Damodarasamy and Anand18 or Cheraghi et al..19 A characteristic point
of these non-linear search methods is the non-convexity of the
optimization problem and the need of several trials to look for a global
optimum.
Approximation methods. Based on linear programming, in some
cases they sacrifice accuracy for an easy implementation. We find in
this area the already mentioned work of Chetwynd.5 In addition,
Prakasvudhisarn,20 Car and Ferreira,21 Weber et al.22 or Zhu and Ding.23
Exchange methods. They construct the solution in a sequential search
of a better solution replacing a current set of points by a new one. The
works of Fukuda and Shimokohbe,24 Huang et al.,25 Deng et al.,26
Danish and Shunmugam27 or Burdekin and Pahk28 are between them.
Meta-heuristic methods. They have been applied to the minimum
zone problem after successful use in difficult combinatory problems. In
this category we find the genetic algorithm (GA) of Sharma et al.,29 Cui
et al.30 or Liu et al.31 combining GA with geometric calculation, particle
swarm optimization by Kovvur,32 and the gradient ascent approach of
the evolution algorithm by Malyscheff et al..33 Some weakness of these
methods could be the non-convergence to the exact solution or the

computation difficulties facing big data sets.

As a main second type of methods, computational geometry tackles
the problem through the construction of a convex hull and the
identification of the smallest convex domain including all the points.
Works in this field includes Houle and Toussaint,34 Anthony et al.,6
Traband et al.,35 Samuel and Shunmugam,36 Hermann37 and Lee.10 These
methods based on convex hull enumerate all the possible solutions
looking for an accurate result.
For planar straightness many authors have tried to adapt the same
spatial algorithm used for flatness, but others have tried to get benefit
directly from the 2D geometry, like the iterative method by Danish and
Mathew.38
In this context, our research in the tolerance of form and fitting is
looking for analytic solutions.39 We propose a new method that is
developed in Section 2, including its application for planar straightness
in Section 3. Then, we apply it in Section 4 for performance evaluation
to data sets from the literature, focused on the most accurate methods
referenced above. Across Section 5 we estimate the uncertainty
associated to flatness evaluation, in a breakdown useful for sampling
strategy improvement. Finally, in Section 6 we evaluate the results with
concluding remarks.

2. Vectorial Formulation of the Minimum Zone for Flatness

We consider the minimum zone for flatness where the envelop
planes must comply with:
At least one point of the data set must lie on each envelop plane.
Suppose by the moment that p1 and p2 are the envelop planes of minimum
zone at a minimum distance d and they do not contain at least one point
of the data set. In this case, we can always find a pair p1 and p2 of
parallel planes to p1 and p2 at a distance d < d, by supporting p1 and
p2 on the two points between p1 and p2 of minimum distance to p1 and
p2 respectively. Thus, p1 and p2 would not be the envelop planes of
minimum zone, in contradiction with the hypothesis. Therefore, p1 and
p2 must contain at least a point of the data set each one.
The envelop planes contain 1, 2 or 3 points of the data set under
the configuration 2-2 or 3-1. The identification of these configurations
appears in the early works in the field.5,34 A plane is a vectorial subspace
of dimension two, so it can be defined by two non-co-linear vectors,
configuration 2-2. Otherwise the configuration 1-3 corresponds to the
definition of a set of two planes determined by one point on each one
and the common normal direction to the planes. This direction is
determined directly by three points, equivalent to the normal vector
result of the cross product of two vectors defined by those three nonco-linear points. In the case of co-linearity, the three points of the
configuration just determine a line, so adding a fourth non co-linear
point will univocally define the plane.
Once we have approached to the envelop planes from a geometric
point of view, we can formulate the optimization problem. Noting by fp
the distance from the origin to each parallel plane that contains the point
p, the minimum zone problem for the data set of n points is the solution
of (1), formulation equivalent to (2).
min ( max fi fj ) , i, j = 1, , n

(1)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

JANUARY 2014 / 33

(fp f*)

is min. for (m, s) = (k, l)

Noteworthy, the condition (m, s) = (k, l) in (6) departs from the

solution of (4), but in the proposed algorithm we will resolve the
problem (5), where in general (m, s) (k, l).
We are proposing passing from one L minimax problem (1) to n(n1)/2 minisum problems of L2 by (5). The underlying idea of the problem
reformulation is as follows: In the least-squares problem we look for
the solution of a supporting plane f* between the points, so the sum of
residuals fi- f* is minimum. The solution of f* is the mean plane. We
do not minimize any pair of residuals, but the sum of all of them (7).
n

Fig. 1 The possible configurations of 4 points on the envelop planes,

departing from one point on each envelop plane Pk, Pl

min ( fk fl )

/ fk fp fl ; p = 1, , n

(2)

From (2) we derive (3), see Appendix A, as considering the function

of the distance continuous and at least C2. Note that the ordinary general
consideration of the measured points as a sample from a normal
distribution or other continuous distribution includes an even harder
hypothesis of C. This expression incorporates in the formulation a
supporting plane between the two envelop planes of the solution, in fact
its middle plane.
2

min [( fk fl ) ] = 2 min

(fp f*)

, p = k, l

(3)

fk + fl
f* = ---------2
Thus, we can substitute the problem (2) by its equivalent (4)
2

min

(fp f*)
p

fk + fl
- and fk fp fl ; p = 1, , n (4)
/ f* = ---------2

The problem (4) is equivalent to (5), deduced in (6)

2

min [( fk fl ) ] , fk fp fl ; p = 1, , n
2

subject to m, s [1, , n ] /
(4) (5)
(4) (5)

fm + fs
f -----------p
2

is minimum

because (2) (4)

fk fp fl ;

(6)

fk + fl
fk f* fp f* fl f* with f* = ---------2
2

(5)

n ( fk f* ) ( fp f* ) n (fl f* )

that is

4--- n ( f f* )2 = ( f f )2

k
l
np p

but (4) (2), so ( fk fl)

is min.

min [( fp f* ) ] = [( f1 f* ) + ( fn f* ) ] f* = --------n
p

(7)

In the minimum zone problem we try to minimize the distance

between two parallel envelop planes. The first step of the problem
consists on determining a pair of points and the minimum distance on
the envelop planes. It is accomplished creating a supporting plane that
links both conditions. The middle plane of those two planes is the
minimum optimum of the unconstrained formulation (3). Then, in a
second step we incorporate the rest of the points -constraint in (5)optimizing the residuals about this plane. We obtain from the n data set
points up to n(n-1)/2 pairs that enumerate all possible (m, s) nonordered pairs. We take by (5) the minimum distance solution /fk-fl/ for
the envelop planes, out of the n(n-1)/2 linear problems expressed by the
constraint. This condition contains the optimization of residuals around
the optimum solution of a pair and we will inspect every possible pair
looking for the minimum envelop.
In plain terms, we construct the solution around the unconstrained
solution of the minimum zone defined only by two points and a
supporting plane. The solution to the supporting plane is their middle
plane. So, let us enforced the rest of the points close around this plane,
minimizing its residuals around it, in order to obtain the minimum
distance between the extreme envelop planes. Nevertheless, it is not
evident that this supporting middle plane is not necessarily established
by the extremes k,l that define the envelop planes, but in general by
a different pair of points m,s of the data set. The demonstration passing
from (1) to (5) formalizes it.
The first part of the whole proposed algorithm is the n(n-1)/2 linear
problems expressed in (5), looking for the minimum distance between
the envelop planes. It allows identifying one point on each envelop plane.
The formulation of the constraint of (5) in the case of flatness is expressed
in (8), where the solution (a, b, c) is a normalized unitary vector and the
constraint is the relationship between the direction cosines of the planes
in the orthonormal base of the reference system.
Plane that contains the point p of coordinate s
0

n--- ( f f )2 n ( f f* )2 n--- ( f f )2
p
4 k l
4 k l
p

fp

xp, yp, zp

axp + byp + czp = fp

(8)

n
fm + fs 2
- =
min fp -----------2
p
0

n
ym + ys 0 zm + zs
0 xm + xs
- + b y0p -------------- + c z -------------min a xp -------------

2
2 p
2
p

34 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

subject to
2

a +b +c 1 = 0

Dm, s =

The minimization problem (8) can be expressed as a constrained

singular linear problem (9), where the constraint G allows discarding the
trivial solution a = b = c = 0 from the singular linear problem. Then, we
formulate the minimization problem by Laplace multipliers (10).
xp =

0
xp

0
xp

; yp =

a
A m, s B = 0 ; B = b
c

0
yp

0
yp

; zp =

0
zp

0
zp

(9)

xm + xs
x1 -------------2

ym + ys
y1 -------------2

zm + zs
z1 ------------2

xm + xs
xp -------------2

ym + ys
yp -------------2

zm + zs
zp ------------2
T

vm,s the eigenvecto r associated with min [eigenvalue ( Dm, s Dm, s ) ]

vm, s
Solution ( k, l ) = (i, j ) / min max ----------P P
m,s i,j vm, s i j
n
n
n
xm + xs
y m + y s
zm + zs
a xp -------------+ b yp -------------+ c zp ------------2
2
2
p
p
p

subject to G: a + b + c 1 = 0

(11)

(12)

= 2 ( a + b + c ) = 2
n

( xp x )

A m, s =

(xp x) (yp y ) p (xp x) (zp z )

p

( xp x ) ( yp y )

( yp y )

( xp x ) ( zp z ) ( yp y ) ( zp z )
where

( yp y ) ( zp z )
p

( zp z )

x m + xs
ym + ys
zm + zs
x = -------------; y = -------------; z = ------------2
2
2

(10)

subject to

2 0 0 A B = 2 B
2
2
2
G: a + b + c 1 = 0 G = 0 2 0
0 0 2
A B G B = 0;

As a result, the minimization problem is transformed into an

eigenvector problem of the matrix A . This matrix admits the
decomposition, also used in least-squares matrix formulation, known as
the normal form, (11). Note that any real mxn matrix M can be
decomposed uniquely as M = UHV T, where V is nxn orthogonal and its
columns are eigenvectors of MTM, because (MTM = VHUT.UHVT =
VH2VT) , where H = diag(1, 2, , n) ordered so that 1 2
n. In consequence, if S is a singular value of M, its square is an
eigenvalue of MTM.
The existence of the singular value decomposition of a rectangular
matrix allows to state that the squares of the singular values of D are
the eigenvalues of DTD = A . Multiplying in (10) each row by a, b
and c respectively, we obtain (12). The value of 2 is the value of the
function we want to minimize (8). We look for the minimum solution
of the singular linear problem, so we take the minimum of those three
eigenvalues. Its corresponding eigenvector represents the solution B,
the normal vector to the envelop planes. In order to get the solution to
(10) the direct inversion of A is not necessary, using the singular
value decomposition of A by (11). This avoids a possible bad
conditioning of A . For speedy calculation with increasing size
problems, we used in our algorithm directly the SVD or the 33 matrix
DTD to get the eigenvalues.
T

A B = D D B = 2;

We have finally reduced the optimization problem (5) to

eigenvectors problems. It requires the solution of n(n-1)/2 linear
problems retaining the solution that gives the minimum distance
between the envelop planes of the data set.
The first part of the algorithm has allowed identifying one point on
each envelop plane as a first necessary condition. The second part
completes the construction, looking for the other two points that
defines the solution out of the four configurations of minimum zone
already analyzed. This second task is accomplished by evaluating the
(n-2)(n-3)/2 possible pairs from the rest (n-2) points. The distances
between the envelop planes are dA dD. Next, we do simply to
calculate with the four configurations of Fig. 1 by vectorial calculus
(13), retaining the configuration of minimum zone.
Pi Pj
nki nkj
nli nlj
- ; dB = ------------------;
nij = -----------; dA = ------------------n
n

n
Pi Pj
ki
kj
li nlj

(13)

nki nlj
nkj nli
- ; dD = ------------------dC = ------------------nki nlj
nkj nli
It is evident that the four conceptual configurations are not compatible
between them, but they just enumerate all possible solutions based on
adding two points i, j to the initial two points k, l identified in the first
step. Before using a pair candidate for minimum in (13), the configuration
is checked for compliance of the envelop condition -first part of (5)-.
The two envelop planes are defined by the four points (i, j, k, l).

3. Specifics for Planar Straightness

The proposed algorithm in the former section is directly applicable
to planar straightness, by adapting the eigenvector problem and the
vectorial calculation to a bidimensional problem.
The constraint of (5) is formulated by (14)
Distance form the origin to the straight line in the plane XY
0
0
that contains the point p of coordinates xp, yp
0

xp yp
0
0
- + -------- = f
axp + byp = ------1/a 1/b p
Where the vector (a, b) is normal to the line and normalized

(14)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

JANUARY 2014 / 35

Fig. 2 Minimum zone defined by 3 points on the envelop lines, in 2

configurations

n
n
fm + fs 2
xm + xs 0 ym + ys
- = min a x0p -------------- + b y --------------min fp -----------
2
2 p
2
p
p

subject to
2

a +b 1 = 0
The corresponding eigenvalue problem is (15)
T

A B = 2 B ; D D B = 2 B
xm + xs
x1 -------------2
D m, s =

xm + xs
xp -------------2

(15)

ym + ys
y1 -------------2

ym + ys
yp -------------2

vm,s eigenvector associated with min[eigenvalue(Dm,sT Dm,s)]

vm, s
Solution ( k, l ) = ( i, j ) / min max ----------P P
m,s i,j vm, s i j

i,j,m,s = 1,,n

Note that in the case of planar straightness the solution vector (a,b)
is the normal to the envelop lines and it is defined by the eigenvector
corresponding to the smaller of the two eigenvalues of DTm,n Dm,n Where
(m,n) is the pair, out of the n(n-1)/2 possible, that gives the minimum
zone of the envelop lines defined by k,l, that is the first statement of (5).
The second part of the algorithm requires the examination of only
n configurations result of adding one more point to the pair. We can
transpose the reasoning about the configurations for flatness, to state:
- At least one point of the data set must lie in each envelop line.
- The envelop lines contain at minimum 1 or 2 points of the data
set under the configuration 1-2 or 2-1.
The vectorial calculations in the planar straightness case are given
by (16) that correspond to the geometrical configurations of Fig 2.
Pi Pj
= ( nxij, nyij ) ; nij = ( nyij, nxij)
nij = -----------Pi Pj
dA = nli Pk Pl ; dB = nki Pk Pl
Solution defined by 3 points [i, k, l] / min[min(dA, dB)],
i
i [1, , n ] {k, l}

(16)

Fig. 3 Flow chart of the VMZ algorithm for flatness

A blocks diagram of the algorithm for flatness is sketched in Fig. 3.

The planar straightness algorithm can be derived immediately from it.
In this work, both algorithms have been coded in Matlab for an easy
programming.

4. Algorithm Testing
The proposed algorithm, Vectorial Minimum Zone (VMZ), is tested
in Table 1 with datasets from the literature and the reported results of
selected methods are compared with those obtained by the VMZ
method.
We note VMZ reaches or surpasses the precision of all the methods
in the comparison: Those based on meta-heuristics or least-squares, but
also the geometry computational methods based on convex hull.
In particular, it can be mentioned the computational precision
inconsistencies found in a recent improved convex hull method,

36 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

Table 1 Trials of VMZ for flatness and comparison

ECHEM. For instance, one of the results marked with (*) in Table 1:
They reported minimum zone is 0.0261282, but the reported points
that define the envelop planes are (3,19)-(4,11), in agreement with the
VMZ solution.
Based on these four points coordinates the minimum zone can be
calculated as 0.0236128872, by (17).
( p3, p19 ) = ( [1.7277, 2.4538, 13.6542 ], [0.1132, 0.3538, 13.6468 ])
( p4, p11 ) = ( [3.1273, 2.4538, 13.6531 ], [0.1095, 0.5439, 13.6451 ])

x3, 19 = p3 p19 ; x4, 11 = p4 p11 ; x3, 4 = p3 p11

(17)

x3, 19 x4, 11
minimum zone = ---------------------------- x = 0.0026128872
x3, 19 x4, 11 3, 4
In the Table 2 we apply the VMZ algorithm for planar straightness
and we reach the better solutions found to the different problems,
giving more meaningful decimal places.
Reported by Zhu,23 the faster algorithm that guarantees the minimum
zone of flatness was presented by Houle and Toussaint34 with complexity
O(n2) in the worst case, while Traband35 is O(n3) in the worst case

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

Table 2 Trials of VMZ for planar straightness and comparison

Lee.41 Other methods have been reported23 with lower complexity than
O(n2), but only approximate algorithms.
The VMZ algorithm for flatness guarantees the MZ solution based
on its construction. We transform the original minimax formulation into
n(n-1) eigenvector problems, inspecting all of them to yield the better
possible MZ based on the demonstrated equivalence to the problem (5).
It is built-in two loops, Fig 3. The first loop requires the resolution of
n(n-1)/2 eigenvector problems. It catches the two pivot points in the
envelop planes. The second loop requires the inspection of the minimum
zone value after adding 2 additional points through vectorial calculus,
so (n-2)(n-3)/2 pairs inspection. This second loop inspects all the
possible solutions, retaining the best one. The complete algorithm
conceptually brings approximately to the order O(n2). After preliminary
testing for speed of our Matlab code, the computing time increases by
O(n2.2) for flatness and O(n2) for planar straightness, function of the
sample size n. We note that speed improvement would be a next step
by programming optimization or low-level programming language.

5. About the Estimation of Flatness and Straightness

Uncertainty

JANUARY 2014 / 37

the distribution, when known, or estimated from the experimental

standard deviation of the sample.
Under the GUM, the ISO Guide of Uncertainty Measurement, the
expected value of flatness could be approached by the mean flatness of
m samples. The uncertainty can be calculated by the uncertainty
propagation law by GUM or the alternative Monte Carlo Method
(MCM). The last one propagates the uncertainty distribution of the
points through the model -plane or straight line equation- to estimate the
uncertainty of flatness or planar straightness. Noteworthy, both GUM
and MCM requires a function or model of the mensurand that links its
uncertainty factors. Nevertheless, uncertainty comes directly from the
distribution of the mensurand in the case of a direct measure. Both, direct
and indirect measurement are conciliated under the same framework by
considering that the calculated flatness through the algorithm is the
mensurand and the measured points uncertainty is a contribution to
flatness or straightness uncertainty. Other factors contributing to
uncertainty will come from the model or the sampling procedure.
Flatness or straightness assessment will be expressed by the calculated
value through the proposed algorithm and the estimation of its
uncertainty. Not only the total number of data points or the size of each
sample will influence the uncertainty. The form under the minimum
zone criteria is determined by extreme values in the tails of the
distribution of points, so it is difficult to collect them in a small sample.
Obviously, the spatial strategy of sampling on the specimen surface
will condition the results. Diverse techniques of surface sampling has
been studied and proposed for an effective process, trying to catch the
form boundaries of the surface with small samples. An up-to-date brief
revision of the methods and last advances can be found in Rosa48, along
references to the different methods. Our work does not deal with this
aspect of an efficient sampling strategy for flatness or straightness
evaluation. So forth, we consider that a proper strategy of sampling has
been adopted to make the sample useful, representative and valuable
for flatness or straightness evaluation. Otherwise, we will probably
have a bias in the flatness value, in despite of the accuracy of the
minimum zone algorithm and the estimated uncertainty. Complementary
to the better flatness figure, its uncertainty estimation establishes an
interval where the flatness value is probably present.
We can express the uncertainty in a privileged reference system,
oriented by the mean direction of the m normal vectors to the envelop
planes solution of m samples (18). We develop in the Appendix C the
expression of uncertainty in this particular reference system. The input
variables are the position vector coordinates of two points in the envelop
planes and the components of the normal vector to the envelop plane.
The output variable is the minimum zone gap f.
2

u = 2uz'1 + ( x'1 x'2 ) uA' + ( y'1 y'2 ) uB' + 2 ( x'1 x'2 ) ( y'1 y'2 )uA'B'
Flatness or planar straightness is the subject of measurement.
Nevertheless, we determine the position of the points with a coordinates
measuring machine CMM and the flatness value under the minimum
zone criteria is the output of an algorithm, so it is an indirect measure
of flatness. The standard way of specifying a measurement includes the
better expected value and its uncertainty. When a direct measurement
is made, for instance the coordinates of a point, the mean value from
the sample of m measures is taken as the best expected value. The
estimation of the variance of this mean is the uncertainty, directly from

=u ( CMM ) + u// ( MODEL, mn )

(18)

This expression of uncertainty contains clearly separated the influence

factors: The point coordinates uncertainty estimation in the direction of
the normal to the surface z from the CMM, and the model and sampling
influence. We call this last contribution the parallel component, in a
resemblance of the expression (18) to the vector module from the
decomposition in two orthogonal directions. Note that the normal to the
surface is part of the solution. It also contains the influence of the number

38 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

of the samples used to evaluate the covariances. We can determine the

variances and covariances of the normal vector from a set m samples49
using the same sampling method.
The uncertainty of the CMM is the uncertainty of the measured
points, but the model incorporates additional uncertainty to the
mensurand. In practical terms, we would like to estimate whether
extensive sampling could be worthy to proper uncertainty estimation,
in addition to the CMM contribution.
As an example of application, we take the 3 datasets used in a recent
work. Its origin is an earlier work46 by Huang, who reports an uncertainty
estimation of 0.005. The same data sets have been used by Wen et al.44
presenting the minimum zone uncertainty following the ISO standards.
They apply a GA (their results are included in Table 1) and estimate the
uncertainty based on those 3 sets of 25 points under the same sampling
conditions of the same surface, using the uncertainty propagation law
by GUM and MCM. The minimum squares criterion of Batchman49 is
followed to calculate the variance and covariance. Finally, they report
under GUM a mean flatness of 0.0187 and expanded uncertainty of
0.0041 coverage factor 2. When using MCM the reported result is a
mean flatness of 0.0187 and estimated uncertainty 0.0042 coverage
factor 2. The standard uncertainty of the CMM is 0.0015, equal on the
three axis of the machine.
We use the propagation of uncertainties by (18) to evaluate the former
example of 3 samples (19). Note that after changing the reference system
we evaluate the sensitivity coefficients in the mean solution of the input
variable vectors estimated from the m samples. We approach f evaluated
in the points of the real solution (x1 and x2) nearest to the mean
minimum zone solution.
For low or moderate low number samples, the GUM50 points out,
paragraph 4.3.2, that the bias of the variance estimated from the
experimental standard deviation could be important for a small number
of samples.
Evaluation of flatness based on m=3 datasets of n=25 points each one.
Meand flatness f =0.01867538
Two points on the envelop planes of the first dataset solution (f=
0.0189)
x1=(34.9974 54.9996 3.9987); x2=(34,9993 104,9982 4,0201)
The normal vectors (a, b, c) to the envelop planes for the 3 samples
are in Table 1.
The mean vector is
n = ( 3.6656.10

4.2588.10

1 ) = ( A, B, 1 )

(19)

4.9030.10 8.7155.10 3.6656.10

C = C = 8.7155.101 4.9030.101 6.5158.105

7.4761.10

The normal vectors of the m=3 samples and envelop planes points
in the new reference system
n'1 = ( 8.7847.10

n'2 = ( 5.3396.10

n'3 = ( 3.4440.10

x'2 = ( 108.6719 20.9774 4.0120 )

From which we obtain for m=3
m

A'i

uA' = -------------------- = 1.9591.10

m(m 1)

11

B'i

; uB' = -------------------- = 7.9666.10

m (m 1)

12

A'i B'i

i
uA'B' = -------------------= 1,0953.10
m ( m 1)
2

11

( x'i x'2 ) = 1898.98 ; ( y'1 y'2 ) = 600.88 ;

( x'1 x'2 ) ( y'1 y'2 ) = 1068.21
For uz'1 = 0.0015
2

u = 2uz'1 + ( x'1 x'2 ) uA' + ( y'1 y'2 ) uB' + 2 ( x'1 x'2 ) ( y'1 y'2 )uA'B'
2

=u ( CMM ) + u ( model, m, n ) = 4.50.10 + 3.0289.10

u = 0.00213 and Uk=2 = 0.00426

In many practical cases and related with the cost of sampling, the
number of samples will be low. In our example, we use just 3 samples
to estimate de variances of the vectors. The bias of the experimental
standard deviation was studied by Craig.51 It has been revisited by
Huang,52 showing from simulation a significant lower bias of the
uncertainty in the Craig model than the ordinary estimation based on a
t-Student population, in special for small samples. In accordance with
this simulation study, the calculation of the variances and covariances
of the model parameters would admit an alternative calculation to the
standard GUM of lower bias, adopting the Craig model (20), where ( )
stands for Gamma function.
2

1
m
-----------
2
m 1 2 2
u = ----------- -------------------- s ; s is the experimental standard deviation
2 m
--2
2m

2
1 m
m 1
m
--------------------- B'2
A'
2
2
2
m 1 2 i
i
uA' = ----------- -------------------- ------------ ; uB' = -------------------- -----------; (20)
2
2 m m 1
m

----

-- 2
2
2m

From the Appendix A we obtain

x'1 = ( 65.0946 3.5355 3.9938 )

5.9084.10

1)

1.1861.10

1)

4.7223.10

1)

1
m
----------- A'B'
2
2
i
uA'B' = -------------------- -------------2
m

-- 2
In Table 3, we present the results of uncertainty based on the example
datasets, calculating variances with the Craig model and under three
different sampling setups (N=mxn). Uncertainty could be reduced to a
half sampling up to 75 points instead 30 points. A sampling setup N=70
with m=3 would allow an estimation of the uncertainty that can be
improved by additional sampling no more than 17%.
Noteworthy, the lower limit of the uncertainty is established by the
fix contribution from the CMM in the normal direction to the surface
u(CMM). The 3 dataset of n=10 has been generated retaining randomly

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

Table 3 Uncertainty contributions by sampling size

JANUARY 2014 / 39

VAR ( MZ ) = VAR [min (max fi fj )] = VAR [min ( fmax fmin )]

=VAR ( f*max f*min )
=VAR ( f*max ) + VAR ( f*min ) = 2 0

10 points from each sample of n=25.

Reducing the number of n points has an important effect in increasing
the uncertainty contribution of the model. In other terms, for a low n
each dataset is a poor representation of the real surface, so the variation
of the normal vectors of the envelop planes of each flatness solution
generates high uncertainty. In other cases, the high relative contribution
of the model could be due to the relative low contribution of a high
quality CMM machine, so the total uncertainty could be highly sensitive
to the sampling setup. The main influence on uncertainty of the sample
size n over the spatial sampling strategy has been formerly pointed out
in other studies.7 The ratio between the parallel component (model and
sampling contribution) and the normal component of the uncertainty is
a measure of the variability of the normal vectors found in the m
samples.
The uncertainty expression (18) makes explicit that the minimum
uncertainty is finally established in its lower bound by the uncertainty
associated to the points that define the envelop planes. The asymptotic
solution with increasing sample size (n) will lead to the progressive
reduction of the variance parallel to the surface that is associated to the
model and sampling. In fact, all our analysis of flatness departs from
the assumption that the surface or its normal direction exists (true
value) univocally defined by the outstanding points of the surface after
proper measurement and data processing. The limit situation would be
(21).
2

u = 2uz'1 = u ( CMM )

(21)

The minimum zone value is the minimum distance between the

envelop planes and it is measured by its normal direction, so the gap
uncertainty will be reduced to the normal component when the envelop
planes are finally determined (n). That is, we will have no parallel
component of the uncertainty, when a sufficient sampling is provided.
This result could correspond to the following intuitive heuristic
geometrical interpretation:
The definition of uncertainty is the dispersion of the mensurand as
a stochastic variable. The solution to the flatness problem gives the
minimum zone envelop planes, defined by their common normal vector,
where at least four points lie in the envelop planes. The distance between
two points of both planes is the same measured in the direction of the
normal to the plane, so only one point on each envelop plane is necessary
to determine the minimum zone value in that direction. The distance f
to each envelop plane will be the projection of the position vector of
the point on the normal direction to the plane (part of the solution), so
a stochastic variable. In an average isotropic behavior of the CMM, the
uncertainty is the same regardless the direction, but in other particular
cases the variance in the normal direction to the envelop planes will be
the relevant one. The variance of the difference fmax-fmin of two stochastic
variables independent equally distributed with variance so is the variance
of the convolution. In fact, this produces the same rule of uncertainty
propagation than GUM with sensitivity coefficients 1, for the very simple
model of the difference of two input variables that are independent, (22).

Where VAR ( fi) = 0

(22)
2

i = 1, , n

This plain reasoning includes implicitly the fact that all the points
between the two envelop planes do not affect the uncertainty of the
solution for samples of sufficient size: When sampling with increasing
sample points to n, the definitive or real envelop planes should be
finally identified at some point during sampling and the probability of
finding a point outside the minimum zone tends to 0 afterwards. The
variability of the normal vectors to the surface becomes progressively
reduced, because once established the envelop planes, the next points
added inside the minimum zone to the sample will not modify the normal
vector, so the variances and covariance uA, uB , uAB will tend to 0, as
n.
Applying it directly to the former example, with coverage factor k=2,
we calculate (23).
Uk=2 = k VAR (MZ ) = k 2 0 = 2 2 0.0015 = 0.00424 (23)
This simple calculation can be compared with the MCM reported
output of 0.0042 from a million shot simulation. The MCM is expected
to get the parent distribution of the output after propagating the point
distributions through the model. The standard recommendation of a
million shot run is an operative approximation of n. Our
decomposition (18) has as a first and fix term the asymptotic
uncertainty, in fact the irreducible uncertainty of the width of the set of
points by the CMM uncertainty in the normal direction to the surface.
We retake the case samples and their results to remark a feature on
the standard MCM. We could point out the high quality of the 3 samples
of 25 points with mean flatness of 0.0187, the same than the result of
the simulated parent distribution through MCM. Conversely, we could
interpret it in a reverse manner. The possible bias of the flatness present
at the 3 samples remains in the MCM, because we simulate imposing
on every point of the sample a N(0, 0) through each of the three axis.
Only the outstanding points on the envelop planes are required to
defining the minimum zone. The mean position of the points will be the
same than the initial sample, so flatness as the expected value or mean
of the distribution from a million shots is the same than the calculated
from the 75 original points. Note that the uncertainty calculated from
a simulated million shot on the distribution and from only 75 points are
both similar. The difference of using a larger sample across the whole
surface could represent the possibility of catching the more outstanding
picks and valleys. This will offer a lower biased value to minimum zone.
Meanwhile, the minimum zone value could be underestimated for small
samples even with a good value of the uncertainty interval. Increasing
the sample size with points between the envelop planes would not
improve the expected value of flatness and it would only reduce the
uncertainty to the lower limit of the CMM in the normal direction to
the surface. This decomposition makes explicit how the minimum zone
criteria of flatness is appropriated for relative low uncertainty CMMs,
so the irreducible contribution of the CMM to the uncertainty interval
is small and it does not ruin the operative use of low flatness values
from very flat surfaces.

40 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

As an overall assessment of the former considerations, the expression

of flatness will be influenced by the spatial strategy in the expected
value in relation to the chances of catching the outstanding picks and
valleys on the surface. Nevertheless, the number of sampled points is
a main influence factor of its uncertainty, with the lower limit of the
CMM uncertainty in the normal direction to the surface. Since the
assessment of the flatness or straightness tolerance is composed by the
best expected value and its uncertainty interval, both the sample size and
the spatial sampling path are important.
The reduction of the uncertainty with the sample size was a priori
expected, but the explicit decomposition (18) allows estimating how far
from the minimum uncertainty we are. This effect separation helps to
evaluate whether is worthy or not increasing the number of samples m
or the points per sample n for uncertainty estimation, because the
contribution in the normal direction to the surface -width of the datasetis its lower bound. This analysis is directly applicable -mutatis mutandisto planar straightness with a simplification of the equations, result of
reducing one dimension in the problem.

when the 3 points are colinear.

Noting by fp the distance from the origin O to each parallel plane
that passes through xp, with unitary normal n(a, b, c) of orientation n
from the origin to the plane,
d ( O, x ) = n ( x xp ) = a ( x xp ) + b ( y yp ) + c ( z zp ) = fp
By the definition of the distance to the family of parallel planes in
the direction to its common normal n
( fk f l ) = ( f k fm ) + ( fm f l )

when fl fm fk

For a given pair of points k, l, and a direction n, it exists a point p*

which plane is at a distance f*, that makes
2

min ( fk fl ) = 2min [(fk f* ) + (fl f* ) ]

fk + fl
- , so
We prove f* = ---------2
2

min [( fk fl ) ] = 2 min

p (fp f*)

fk + fl
, p = k, l f* = ---------2

It can be decoupled in two statements

6. Concluding Remarks

min
We have introduced two accurate and fast algorithms for flatness and
planar straightness calculation from data point coordinates and proposed
a practical improvement for their uncertainty estimation. We demonstrate
the transformation from a hard minimax problem into minisum problems,
and finally to eigenvector problems. Its accuracy has been satisfactory
tested, with the same good results or outperforming many well-known
methods.
We revise their uncertainty estimation and in particular the separation
of contributions through a vectorial approach. In order to complement
or monitor an effective sampling strategy, we suggest an integrated
analysis of the uncertainty of the measured points (CMM), the number
of samples m and the size of the samples n. We apply it to the real and
practical situation of a low number of samples, looking for a low biased
estimate of its uncertainty. We finally remark that the proposed flatness
and planar straightness assessment rely on the algebra of vectorial
calculus that is a natural technique in dealing with the coordinates of
the points, as well as a familiar tool in engineering for practitioners and
researchers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

APPENDIX A
In the Euclidean space, noting by d(k, l) the distance between the
points k and l, in general
d ( k, l ) d ( k, p ) + d ( l, p ) ; d ( k, l ) = d ( k, p ) + d (l, p )

, p = k, l

min [(fk fl ) ] = 2 min

p (fp f*)

fk + fl
f* = ---------2

(a)

, p = k, l

(b)

Prove of (a)
2

min

p (fp f*)

, p = k, l

fk + fl
f* = ---------2

Hipotesis fp is a C2 function R3R, but only takes values in the

points of the dataset, that is a compact set of points (close and bounded).
Therefore the necessary condition of relative extreme or critic point of
this differentiable function is
2

min

p (fp f*)

------fp

= min ( ) d = 0 ; ------fp

p (fp f*)

= 0 2

p (fp f* )

dfp = 0

f +f

k
-l
(fp f* ) = 0 f* = ---------2

p=k, l

f* is a relative extreme
f
f
f
dfp = ------p- dx + ------p- dy + ------p- dz = [a dx + b dy + c dz ] and
x
y
z
2

This work has received financial support by the Spanish Ministry of

Economy and Competitiveness (Directorate General of Scientific and
Technical Research), under project DPI2011-27135 and the Industrial
Engineering School-UNED through the project REF2012-ICF03.

p (fp f*)

f p fp fp f p
f
--------2- = --------2- = --------2- = ----------- = = ----------p- = 0 d 2fp = 0
yx
yz
x
y
y
2

d = --------2dfp

p (fp f*)

dfp = 2dfp

At the relative extreme f*, d2fp is definite positive, and d3=0; that
is a sufficient condition of relative minimum, thus f*=(fk+fl) / 2 is a
relative minimum of a continuous function in a compact so by the
Weierstrass theorem the absolute min. of .
The second statement (b). Given k, l and n. The minimum distance
between two parallel planes of normal n, that lie in k, l, is n(xk-xl)=|fk-fl|

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

JANUARY 2014 / 41

Thus
2

min ( fp f* ) =
p

f +f

k
-l
fp ---------2

p=k, l

fk + fl 2 fk + fl 2
- + f ----------= fk ---------
2 l 2

f l f k 2 f k f l 2 1
2
2
1
- + ----------- = --- ( f f ) = --- min [( fk fl) ]
= --------- 2 2 2 k l
2

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C
In the reference OXYZ of ortonormal base {e1, e2, e3}
Equation of the envelop planes of the sample i, Aix+Biy+Ci=z; Ci a
constant, i=1, , m;
Where
( z1 z2 ) A ( x1 x2 ) B ( y1 y2 )
f = ----------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
1+A +B
minimum zone value or min. distance between two points of the
envelop planes (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2).
The uncertainty expression retaining terms of the leading order
u2=fA2uA2+fB2uB2+fAfBuAB2+fx12ux12+fx22ux22+fy12uy12+fy22uy22+
fz12uz12+fz22uz22
A
fx = fx1 = fx2 = ---------------------------2
2
1+A +B
B
fy = fy = fy2 = ---------------------------2
2
1+A +B
1
fz = fz1 = fz2 = ---------------------------2
2
1+A +B
x1 + x 2
A [ ( z 1 z 2 ) A ( x 1 x 2 ) B ( y1 y 2 ) ]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------fA = --------------------------2
2 3/2
2
2
(1 + A + B )
1+A +B
y1 + y 2
B [ ( z 1 z 2 ) A ( x 1 x 2 ) B ( y1 y 2 ) ]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------fB = --------------------------2
2 3/2
2
2
(1 + A + B )
1+A +B
The change to the reference system O'Y'Z' of base {e'1, e'2, e'3 } is
given D:
Where e'3 is a unitary vector by the normal direction to the mean
plane
e'1
e1

A
B
1
--------------------------------, --------------------------------, -------------------------------- ; e'2 = C e2 ;
( 1 + A 2 + B 2 ) ( 1 + A 2 + B 2 ) ( 1 + A 2 + B 2 )
e'
e
3

( A + B )
A
B
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
(1 + A + B )(A + B ) (1 + A + B )(A + B ) (1 + A + B )(A + B )
C=

B
-----------------------2
2
(A + B )

A
-----------------------2
2
(A + B )

A
-------------------------------2
2
(1 + A + B )

B
-------------------------------2
2
(1 + A + B )

1
-------------------------------2
2
(1 + A + B )

42 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

C is an orthogonal matrix in an orthonormal base so C-1=CT

And the change of coordinates or a vector components is given by
1

G., and et al., Reference Software for Finding Chebyshev Best-Fit

Geometric Elements, Precision Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 2836, 1996.

[x' y' z' ] = [x y z ] C = [x y z ] C ;

7. Choi, W., Kurfess, T. R., and Cagan, J., Sampling Uncertainty in

Coordinate Measurement Data Analysis, Precision Engineering,

Where

Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 153-163, 1998.

m

Ai
Bi
i
i
; B = ---------A = ---------m
m

8. Raghunandan, R. and Rao, P. V., Selection of an Optimum Sample

Size for Flatness Error Estimation while using Coordinate Measuring
Machine, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
Vol. 47, No. 34, pp. 477-482, 2007.

In the reference OX'Y'Z' of orthonormal base {e'1, e'2, e'3 }

Equation of the envelop planes of the sample i: A'i x' + B'i y' + C'i = z' ;
C'i a constant, i=1, , m;
The mean plane solution will be z' = C' with A' = B' = 0
The partial derivatives evaluated at the mean plane

9. Cao, Y., Li, B., Guan, J., Yang, J., and Gan, C., A Study on Mutative
Scale Straightness Measurement Based on Uncertainty Analysis,

fx' = fx'1 = fx'2 = 0 ; fy' = fy'1 = fy'2 = 0 ; fz' = fz'1 = fz'2 = 1

10. Lee, M. K., An Enhanced Convex-Hull Edge Method for Flatness

Tolerance Evaluation, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 41, No. 12,
pp. 930-941, 2009.

fA' = x'1 + x'2 ; fB' = y'1 + y'2

11. Cho, S. and Kim, J. Y., Straightness and Flatness Evaluation using
Data Envelopment Analysis, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 63, No. 5-8, pp. 731-740, 2012.

Thus
2

u = fA' uA' + fB' uB' + fA' fB' uA'B' + fx'1 ux'1 + fx'2 ux'2
2

+fy'1 uy'1 + fy'2 uy'2 + fz'1 uz'1 + fz'2 uz'2

2

=2uz'1 + fA' uA' + fB' uB' + 2fA' fB' uA'B'

2

Measurement, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 145-153, 2013.

12. Murthy, T. S. R. and Abdin, S.Z., Minimum Zone Evaluation of

Surfaces, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and
Research, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 123-136, 1980.

u = 2uz'1 + ( x'1 x'2 ) uA' + ( y'1 y'2 ) uB' + 2 (x'1 x'2 ) ( y'1 y'2 )uA'B'

13. Zhu, X., Ding, H., and Wang, M. Y., Form Error Evaluation: An
Iterative Reweighted Least Squares Algorithm, Journal of
2

Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 535541, 2004.
14. Shunmugam, M. S., On Assessment of Geometric Errors,

REFERENCES
1. Kim, W. J., Shimizu, Y., Kimura, A., and Gao, W., Fast Evaluation
of Period Deviation and Flatness of a Linear Scale by Using a
Fizeau Interferometer, Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf., Vol. 13, No. 9,
pp. 1517-1524, 2012.
2. ISO No. 1101: 2012 Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) Geometrical Tolerancing - Tolerances of Form, Orientation, Location
and Run-Out, 2012
3. ANSI, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, http://webstore.ansi.org/
RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ASME+Y14.5-2009.html (Accessed 20 Dec
2013).
4. Weill, R., Clment, A., Hocken, R., Farmer, L. E., Gladman, C. A.,
and et al., Tolerancing for Function, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 603-610, 1988.
5. Chetwynd, D. G., Application of Linear Programming to Engineering
Metrology Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Management and Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 199, No. 22, pp.
93-100, 1985.
6. Anthony, G. T., Anthony, H. M., Bittner, B., Butler, B. P., Cox, M.

International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.

413-425, 1986.
15. Shunmugam, M. S., Criteria for Computer Aided form Evaluation,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 233-238,
1991.
16. Wang, Y., Minimum Zone Evaluation of Form Tolerances,
Manufacturing Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 213-220, 1992.
17. Kaiser, M. J. and Krishnan, K. K., Geometry of the Minimum Zone
Flatness Functional: Planar and Spatial Case, Precision Engineering,
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 174-183, 1998.
18. Damodarasamy, S. and Anand, S. A. M., Evaluation of Minimum
Zone for Flatness by Normal Plane Method and Simplex Search,
IIE Transactions, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 617-626, 1999.
19. Cheraghi, S. H., Lim, H. S., and Motavalli, S., Straightness and
Flatness Tolerance Evaluation: An Optimization Approach, Precision
Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 30-37, 1996.
20. Prakasvudhisarn, C., Trafalis, T. B., and Raman, S., Support Vector
Regression for Determination of Minimum Zone, Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 736739, 2003.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

21. Carr, K. and Ferreira, P., Verification of Form Tolerances Part I:

Basic Issues, Flatness, and Straightness, Precision Engineering, Vol.
17, No. 2, pp. 131-143, 1995.
22. Weber, T., Motavalli, S., Fallahi, B., and Cheraghi, S. H., A Unified
Approach to form Error Evaluation, Precision Engineering, Vol. 26,
No. 3, pp. 269-278, 2002.
23. Zhu, X. and Ding, H., Flatness Tolerance Evaluation: An
Approximate Minimum Zone Solution, Computer-Aided Design,
Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 655-664, 2002.
24. Fukuda, M. and Shimokohde, A., Algorithms for form Evaluation
Methods of Minimum Zone and Least Squares, Proc. of International
Symposium on Metrology for Quality Production, pp. 197-202, 1984.
25. Huang, S. T., Fan, K. C., and Wu, J. H., A New Minimum Zone
Method for Evaluating Flatness Errors, Precision Engineering, Vol.
15, No. 1, pp. 25-32, 1993.
26. Deng, G., Wang, G., and Duan, J., A New Algorithm for Evaluating
Form Error: The Valid Characteristic Point Method with the Rapidly
Contracted Constraint Zone, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Vol. 139, No. 1-3, pp. 247-252, 2003.
27. Dhanish, P. B. and Shunmugam, M. S., An Algorithm for form Error
Evaluation - using the Theory of Discrete and Linear Chebyshev
Approximation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 309-324, 1991.
28. Burdekin, M. and Pahk, H. J., The Application of a Microcomputer
to the On-Line Calibration of the Flatness of Engineering Surfaces,
Proc. of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 203, No. 2, pp. 127-137, 1989.
29. Sharma, R., Rajagopal, K., and Anand, S., A Genetic Algorithm
Based Approach for Robust Evaluation of Form Tolerances, Journal
of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 46-57, 2000.
30. Cui, C., Li, B., Huang, F., and Zhang, R., Genetic Algorithm Based
Form Error Evaluation, Measurement Science and Technology, Vol.
18, No. 7, pp. 1818, 2007.
31. Liu, C. H., Chen, C. K., and Jywe, W. Y., Evaluation of Straightness
and Flatness using a Hybrid Approach - Genetic Algorithms and Tte
Geometric Characterization Method, Proc. of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
Vol. 215, No. 3, pp. 377-382, 2001.
32. Kovvur, Y., Ramaswami, H., Anand, R. B., and Anand, S., MinimumZone form Tolerance Evaluation using Particle Swarm Optimisation,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and
Applications, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 79-96, 2008.
33. Malyscheff, A. M., Trafalis, T. B., and Raman, S., From Support
Vector Machine Learning to the Determination of the Minimum
Enclosing Zone, Computers and industrial engineering, Vol. 42,
No. 1, pp. 59-74, 2002.
34. Houle, M. E. and Toussaint, G. T., Computing the Width of a Set,
Proc. of IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine

JANUARY 2014 / 43

Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 761-765, 1988.

35. Traband, M. T., Joshi, S., Wysk, R. A., and Cavalier, T. M.,
Evaluation of Straightness and Flatness Tolerance using the
Minimum Zone, Manufacturing Review, Vol.2, pp.189195, 1989.
36. Samuel, G. and Shunmugam, M., Evaluation of Straightness and
Flatness Error using Computational Geometric Techniques,
Computer Aided Design, Vol. 31, No. 13, pp. 829-843, 1999.
37. Hermann, G., Robust Convex Hull-Based Algorithm for Straightness
and Flatness Determination in Coordinate Measuring, Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 111-120, 2007.
38. Dhanish, P. B. and Mathew, J., A Fast and Simple Algorithm for
Evaluation of Minimum Zone Straightness Error from Coordinate
Data, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, pp. 92-98, 2007.
39. Calvo, R., Gmez, E., and Domingo, R., Circle Fitting from the
Polarity Transformation Regression, Precision Engineering, Vol.
37, No. 4, pp. 908-917, 2013.
40. Zhang, K., Study on Minimum Zone Evaluation of Flatness Errors
Based on a Hybrid Chaos Optimization Algorithm, Emerging
Intelligent Computing Technology and Applications, Vol. 5754, pp.
193-200, 2009.
41. Lee, M. K., A New Convex-Hull Based Approach to Evaluating
Flatness Tolerance, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 29, No. 12, pp.
861-868, 1997.
42. Wang, D. X., Wen, X. L., and Wang, F. L., A Differential
Evolutionary Algorithm for Flatness Error Evaluation, AASRI
Procedia, Vol. 1, pp. 238-243, 2012.
43. Tseng, H. Y., A Genetic Algorithm for Assessing Flatness in
Automated Manufacturing Systems, Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 301-306, 2006.
44. Wen, X. L., Zhu, X. C., Zhao, Y. B., Wang, D. X., and Wang, F. L.,
Flatness Error Evaluation and Verification Based on New Generation
Geometrical Product Specification (GPS), Precision Engineering,
Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 70-76, 2012.
45. Mao, J., Cao, Y., and Yang, J., Implementation Uncertainty
Evaluation of Cylindricity Errors Based on Geometrical Product
Specification (GPS), Measurement, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 742-747,
2009.
46. Huang, J., An Efficient Approach for Solving the Straightness and
the Flatness Problems at Large Number of Data Points, Computer
Aided Design, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 15-25, 2003.
47. Wen, X. and Song, A., An Improved Genetic Algorithm for Planar
and Spatial Straightness Error Evaluation, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 43, No. 11, pp. 1157-1162,
2003.
48. Rosa, R. and Rizzuti, S., An Extracting Points Strategy for Flatness
measurement on Components by means of CMM, Proc. of
International Conference on Innovative Methods in Product Design,

44 / JANUARY 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 1

pp. 495-498, 2011.

49. Bachmann, J., Sprauel, J. M., and Bourdet, P., Aide in DecisionMaking: Contribution to Uncertainties in Three-Dimensional
Measurement, Precision Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 78-88,
2004.
50. JCGM, Evaluation of Measurement Data - Guide to the Expression
of Uncertainty in Measurement, 2008.
51. Craig, C. C., Remarks on the Probable Error of a Mean, The
American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 472476,
1927.
52. Huang, H. and Instruments, T. R., Comparison of Uncertainty
Calculation Models, International Journal of Metrology, Vol. 19,
No. 1, pp. 24, 2012.