Calibration of Machine Squareness
Calibration of Machine Squareness
Calibration of Machine Squareness
Introduction
This paper describes a variety of methods for evaluating the squareness between the linear axes of
motion of a machine tool, in accordance with the 2012 version of ISO230-1 (Test code for machine
tools - Geometric accuracy of machines operating under no-load or quasi-static conditions). Computer
simulation is used to compare and contrast the squareness results that each method produces,
depending on the squareness, straightness and angular (pitch or yaw) errors present in the machines
axes and the location of the test within the machines working zone. The paper concludes with a
performance comparison table and advice on how to evaluate and apply machine squareness errors
as part of a volumetric accuracy compensation process.
2
Method 1 Bi-axial straightness test using a mechanical square and indicator
This method involves positioning a mechanical
square such that it is nominally aligned to the
machine axes of interest and then measuring the
straightness deviation of each axis in turn, using
a linear displacement sensor (e.g. digital indicator
or clock gauge). This setup is illustrated in Figure
3. This configuration is referred to as L shaped in
this paper. Once the straightness data has been
collected for both axes, the inclination (slope) of each
set of data is calculated (by least squares, end point,
or minimum zone fitting) and the two inclinations are
compared to give the squareness error. Care needs
to be taken to ensure the correct sign conventions
are used throughout, depending on the orientation of
the square, the indicator, and direction sense of the
axes.
Figure 3
3
Method 3 Bi-axial straightness test using optical square and laser straightness interferometer
This method uses a laser interferometer
system, (such as Renishaws XL-80
system), with straightness optics and
an optical square. The equipment
can be set up (depending on the
machine configuration) in either L
or T shaped configurations. Figure
6 shows an L shaped configuration
which is often used for testing the
squareness between two horizontal
axes. The setup works as follows; The
straightness reflector projects an optical
straightedge in space which the optical
square turns through 90. Straightness
deviations from these optical
straightedges are measured (indicated)
by the straightness interferometer. Figure 6
5
Method 5 - Diagonal displacement test
The final method for assessing machine
squareness involves using a laser
interferometer system, (such as Renishaws
XL-80 system) with linear optics to measure
the length of two diagonals, as shown in
Figure 11. This test method is described in
ISO230-6. Typically the laser is aligned to
allow the measurement of the length of the
first diagonal. The laser is then realigned to
allow measurement of the second diagonal.
It is essential that the portion of each axis
which is traversed during the test is identical
for both diagonals and that the effects of any
backlash are removed, ideally by measuring
the length of each diagonal in both directions
and taking the average.
It is also important that the two diagonal
lengths are measured promptly one after the Figure 11
other, to minimise the possibility of thermal
drift. On small machines care must also be taken to accurately align the laser to the diagonals to
minimise cosine errors.
Considering a test in the XY plane, as shown in Figure 11. If X is the programed travel length along
the X axis, and Y is the programmed travel length along the Y axis, then the squareness (in radians) is
given by;
Squareness = D0 (D1-D2)/(2XY)
Where D0 is the nominal diagonal length and D1 and D2 are the actual diagonal lengths.
If X=Y then this equation simplifies to;
Squareness = (D1-D2)/ D0
The advantage of this test is that it is quick and simple and ideally suited to larger machines and those
with unequal aspect ratios. The setup is less straightforward when one of the axes is vertical so a
turning mirror and swivel joint maybe required. Because the result is based on just two laser distance
readings, if the machine has poor repeatability it may be necessary to repeat the test to obtain a good
average. Alternatively, data may be taken at multiple positions along each diagonal. The measured
displacements are then compared with the programmed displacements. A least squares straight
line is fitted to the linear error data for each diagonal and the slopes are compared to determine the
squareness error. This paper uses the difference in the overall diagonal lengths to determine the
squareness error, as recommended in ISO230-1 and ISO230-6.
6
Simulation of machine errors
In order to assess the performance of the different squareness test methods, five machines with
differing combinations of squareness, straightness and yaw errors were simulated, as illustrated in
Figure 12. All five machines have X and Y axes that are 800mm long and the simulation considers
distortions in the XY plane only (however the results are generally applicable to other combinations
of axes). The blue lines in Figure 12 show the resulting distortion of the XY plane of each machine,
magnified 2000x and overlaid on a feint grid of undistorted 100mm squares.
Figure 12
All five machines have an underlying global squareness error of +15m/m. Superimposed on top of
this are various combinations of straightness and yaw distortion errors from the X and Y axes. Note
that when a yaw distortion error is included, the amount is that which would typically be associated
with the straightness error in that axis (assuming rigid body kinematics - refer to Appendix 1 for more
details). Note that a straightness error does not always cause angular distortion of the machines
XY plane, it depends on the machines kinematic construction (the kinematic chain). This is why the
simulations include straightness error combinations both with, and without, the associated yaw induced
distortions. If the axis with a straightness error supports the work-holder then any resulting yaw in that
axis is likely to distort the working volume as shown by Machines 3 and 5. If however the axis with the
straightness error supports only the tool then, even if there is a yaw error, it will not induce an angular
distortion of the machines XY plane. These error combinations have been deliberately chosen to
highlight differences in the ways the various test methods react when angular and straightness errors
(which can cause local variations in squareness), are superimposed on top of a global squareness
error. Machines 3 and 5 are of particular interest because, although they contain variable degrees of
yaw induced distortion, they have a uniform local and global squareness distortion of 15 m/m.
7
Simulation modes
Because of the direct analogy between a mechanical straightedge with indicator and a straightness
reflector with interferometer, the simulation results from these two methods in L and T shaped
configurations will be identical. Five different simulation modes can therefore be used to cover all the
test methods and equipment combinations described earlier. The five simulation modes (a-e), and the
test method/equipment they apply to, are listed below.
a. Circular test using telescoping ballbar
b. Laser diagonal test using laser interferometer and linear optics
c. Bi-axial straightness tests in + shaped configuration using;
Mechanical straightedge, indicator and 90 indexer
d. Bi-axial straightness tests in T shaped configuration using;
Mechanical straightedge, square and indicator, or
Laser straightness interferometer, optical square, large retro-reflector and turning mirror.
e. Bi-axial straightness tests in L shaped configuration using;
Mechanical square and indicator, or
Laser straightness interferometer and optical square
Figure 13 illustrates the five different simulation modes. As before, the blue lines show the distortion
of the XY plane of the simulated machine, overlaid on a feint grid of undistorted 100mm squares.
The movement of the machine during the test is shown in red. Any distortion in the movement of the
machine is also magnified 2000x. (Note, in the case of the ballbar trace, the red line is auto-scaled and
centred to match the scaling of traces typically seen during ballbar test analysis).
Figure 13
Note that simulation modes d and e can be carried out with the test equipment in four different
orientations (0, 90, 180, 270). The simulation parameters can also be adjusted to vary the size and
location of the test equipment within the 800mm x 800mm XY plane of the machine. For example, to
simulate a global squareness test the ballbar radius is set to 400mm and the test located in the centre of
the XY plane. For local squareness tests, the ballbar radius can be reduced and the test location altered.
8
Global squareness simulation results Machine 1
Figure 14 shows the results of the global squareness test simulations for Machine 1, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 14
The numbers in the small rectangular boxes show the calculated squareness results from each
simulation in m/m. In the case of the T and L shaped configurations there are four results, one for
each possible orientation of the test equipment. The results are placed close to the intersection of the
axis movement paths for the equipment orientation to which they apply, however, only one red T or L
shaped machine movement path is shown for clarity. For example in Figure 14 d) the top result relates
to the T shaped equipment orientation shown in red. The right hand result relates to a T shaped
arrangement which has been rotated clockwise by 90.
The results for machine 1 show that the global squareness result is always 15m/m irrespective of the
test method and equipment orientation. This is exactly as expected since the simulated machine has a
global squareness error of 15 m/m and no other errors.
9
Global squareness simulation results Machine 2
Figure 15 shows the results of the global squareness test simulations for Machine 2, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 15
The results for machine 2 show that the global squareness result is again always 15m/m irrespective
of the test method and equipment orientation. This shows the addition of an X axis straightness error
has not affected the performance of any of the global squareness test methods.
10
Global squareness simulation results Machine 3
Figure 16 shows the results of the global squareness test simulations for Machine 3, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 16
The results for machine 3 show that the global squareness results for the ballbar, laser diagonal and
+ shaped bi-axial straightness methods are again 15m/m. However, the results for the T and L
shaped test methods have changed. This shows these methods are sensitive to X axis yaw. These
results are not wrong, they simply highlight the change in the angle between the X and Y axes from
-35m/m to +65m/m as the Y axis is moved from the left hand end of the X axis to the right hand end.
Although the T and L shaped squareness tests involve the full travel of both axes, (and hence are
classified as global squareness tests), they actually only indicate the squareness between the two
axes when tested in a specific position. This comment also applies to the + shaped configuration.
However, in this example the symmetry of the simulated distortion has ensured the squareness result
from the + shaped configuration matches the value given by the ballbar and laser diagonal methods.
Note that if the L or T shaped squareness results from opposing corners or sides are averaged, they
match the values given by the other methods.
Note: ISO230-1 advises that ideally machine squareness should be evaluated along lines that pass
through the centre of the machines working zone. The above results indicate why. Both lines involved
in an L shaped test typically lie along the edges of the machines working zone, and therefore reflect
the machines squareness at the edges, rather than the centre.
11
Global squareness simulation results Machine 4
Figure 17 shows the results of the global squareness test simulations for Machine 4, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 17
The results for machine 4 show that all the global squareness results are now 15m/m again,
irrespective of the test method and equipment orientation. Now that the yaw error distortion has been
removed, all methods give the same result, even though there are now straightness errors on both X
and Y axes.
12
Global squareness simulation results Machine 5
Figure 18 shows the results of the global squareness test simulations for Machine 5, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 18
The results for machine 5 show that the global squareness results for the ballbar, laser diagonal and
+ shaped bi-axial straightness methods have remained at 15m/m. However, the results for the T
and L shaped test methods have changed again due to their sensitivity to X and Y axis yaw. Again,
these results are not wrong, they simply reflect the change in the angle of the X and Y axes as the Y
axis is moved from one end of the X axis to the other or as the X axis is moved from one end of the Y
axis to the other. Note that if the L or T shaped squareness results from opposing corners or sides
are averaged, they match the values given by the other methods.
13
Local squareness simulation results - Machine 1
Local squareness tests have been simulated at five locations within the machines XY plane using
each of the test methods. Figure 19 shows the results of the local squareness test simulations for
Machine 1, using each of the test simulation modes. The local squareness is evaluated over just a
200mm length of each axis in the various locations shown.
Figure 19
Machine 1 shows local squareness results of 15 m/m, irrespective of test location and method. This
is exactly as expected since the simulated machine has a global squareness error of 15 m/m and no
other errors.
14
Local squareness simulation results - Machine 2
Figure 20 shows the results of the local squareness test simulations for Machine 2, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 20
Machine 2 shows local squareness results that vary according to the location of the test, but all test
methods give the same results. This shows that the introduction of an X straightness error has caused
a variation in local squareness. Clearly on such a machine it is important to choose the location of the
test carefully. All test methods give the same results because there arent any yaw induced angular
distortions errors on Machine 2.
15
Local squareness simulation results - Machine 3
Figure 21 shows the results of the local squareness test simulations for Machine 3, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 21
Machine 3 shows local squareness results that vary according to the test method, but not test location.
The ballbar, laser diagonal, + and T shaped bi-axial straightness methods give the same result,
but the L shaped bi-axial test gives a different result. The consistency of the squareness result,
irrespective of test location is interesting. It shows that, if a machine has a straightness error in an axis
which induces a corresponding yaw distortion (rigid body model), the local and global squareness is
unaffected, even though the machine is clearly bent.
16
Local squareness simulation results - Machine 4
Figure 22 shows the results of the local squareness test simulations for Machine 4, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 22
Machine 4 shows local squareness results that vary according to the location of the test, but all test
methods give the same results. This shows that the introduction of an X and Y straightness errors
has caused a variation in local squareness. Clearly on such a machine it is important to choose the
location of the test carefully. All test methods give the same results because there arent any yaw
induced angular distortions errors on Machine 4.
17
Local squareness simulation results - Machine 5
Figure 23 shows the results of the local squareness test simulations for Machine 5, using each of the
test simulation modes.
Figure 23
Machine 5 shows local squareness results that vary according to the test method, but not test location.
The ballbar, laser diagonal and + shaped bi-axial straightness methods give the same result, but
the L and T shaped bi-axial test give different results. The consistency of the squareness result
irrespective of test location is again interesting. It shows that, if a machine has a straightness error in
two axes which both induce corresponding yaw distortions (simple rigid body model), the local and
global squareness is unaffected, even though the machine is clearly bent.
18
Testing global squareness errors on machines with unequal aspect ratios
The machines simulated so far have had X and Y axes of equal length. Real machines typically have
an X axis that is longer than Y, and a Z axis that is shorter. Testing the global squareness of machines
with significant differences in axis lengths requires test equipment that can be configured to handle
this. The bi-axial straightness and laser diagonal test methods can easily be adapted to deal with this
difference. However, ballbar tests typically rely on a 360 circular test and are therefore best suited
to machines with similar axis lengths. Renishaws advanced ballbar diagnosis software partially
addresses this by allowing analysis from a 220 arc, thereby allowing global squareness testing of
machines with aspect ratios approaching 1 : 1.
For machines with larger aspect ratios, it is possible to carry out multiple ballbar tests in a line along
the longer axis and then average the squareness results. In order to investigate the performance of
this method versus the other test methods, another machine was simulated (Machine 6) with a 750mm
long X axis and a 250mm Y axis. The machine has a global squareness error of 15m/m, an X axis
straightness error of 10m and a Y axis straightness error of 5m. Figure 24 shows the results of the
global squareness test simulations for Machine 6, using each of the test simulation modes.
Figure 24
Note that the average of the three ballbar squareness results matches the 15m/m global squareness
results from each of the other test methods.
19
The straightness errors simulated on machines 1 - 6 have been simple curves. Machines with long thin
axes often exhibit more complex forms of straightness error. In order to investigate the performance of
the various test methods under such conditions another machine was simulated. Machine 7 is identical
to Machine 6 except that its X axis shows a more complex form of straightness error, such as might
be shown by an axis supported at its airy points. Figure 25 shows the results of the global squareness
test simulations for Machine 7, using each of the test simulation modes.
Figure 25
The average of the three ballbar squareness results again matches the global squareness result from
each of the other test methods. Note that if associated X and Y axis yaw distortion errors are added in,
then the global squareness results obtained from the T and L shaped bi-axial straightness methods
become significantly different at 95 m/m and 39m/m respectively. However, the average ballbar
squareness and global squareness results from + shaped bi-axial straightness and laser diagonal
tests remain consistent at 15 arc-seconds.
The tests simulated above conveniently utilise three 125mm radius ballbar tests which exactly fit within
the 750mm x 250mm area of the machine. However, on most machines it isnt possible to exactly fit
several ballbar test circles into the machines working area. Under these conditions it is possible to use
overlapping circles that are evenly spaced. In order to investigate the performance of this method, 4
overlapping ballbar tests were simulated on machines 6 and 7 as shown in Figure 26.
20
Figure 26
These simulations show that the average squareness results from the four overlapping ballbar tests
match the 15m/m average squareness result from the three adjacent ballbar tests. Whilst an exact
match is not expected under all conditions, it does indicate that the method can tolerate some overlap.
If more than two tests are overlapped it is recommended that the tests are arranged so that the
amount of overlap is equal.
The above results indicate that using the average result from multiple ballbar tests can provide a useful
method of estimating the global squareness of machines with unequal axis lengths.
Overall conclusions
The paper has reviewed the ISO230-1 definition of squareness between two linear axes of motion
and the various test methods that can be used to measure it. It has modelled the test methods and
compared their performance in the presence of various combinations of straightness and yaw errors in
the machines axes.
The simulations undertaken indicate the following:-
The results obtained from the various squareness test methods listed in ISO230-1 can vary
according to the test method used, the location of the test within the machines working zone
and the orientation of the test equipment.
Ballbar, laser diagonal and + shaped bi-axial straightness configurations gave identical results
under all conditions. However, when there are pitch or yaw induced angular distortions within
the machines working zone, the L and T shaped bi-axial straightness test configurations gave
different results which also varied with equipment orientation.
It should be noted that none of the results are wrong, they are simply using different frames of
reference. Considerable care is therefore needed when comparing squareness results between
systems. It is not unlikely that results will differ if the test location or the test methods are not
identical. Differences in sign convention and reference line fitting methods also need to be taken
into account.
21
If L or T shaped bi-axial straightness tests are repeated in opposing corners or on opposing
sides of the machines working zone and the global squareness results obtained are averaged,
they will agree more closely with results obtained from ballbar, laser diagonal or + shaped bi-
axial straightness configurations.
The global squareness of machines with unequal axis lengths can be estimated by taking the
average squareness result from multiple ballbar tests.
Because pitch and yaw errors can cause variability in squareness test results according to
the test method, location and orientation, a careful approach is required when carrying out
volumetric accuracy compensations involving squareness. This topic is covered in more detail in
Appendix II.
As a footnote, Figure 27 shows a rough table of merit for the various global squareness test methods
described in ISO230-1. It is based on the results of these simulations combined with the key features
and limitations of each method.
Figure 27
22
Appendix I - Modelling of straightness and associated yaw errors
The equations used to model
straightness errors and
associated yaw errors are as
follows. Consider the X axis of a
machine, of length L, which has a
simple bend or curve giving rise
to a straightness error of S. This
is illustrated in Figure 28 which
shows the distortion, in blue
(grossly exaggerated for clarity).
This simple straightness error
can be modelled by a quadratic
equation of the form y = Kx,
Figure 28
where y is the straightness
deviation in the Y direction at position x along the X axis, and K is a constant. Substituting for y = S
and x = L/2 and rearranging gives K = 4S/L. The equation relating the X axis straightness error in the
Y direction, to X axis position is therefore;
y = 4Sx/L . Equation 1
Now consider what happens if a
straight Y axis is mounted on top
of the machines bent X axis, as
shown (in red) in Figure 29. In the
absence of other constraints, as
the X axis moves, the angle of the
Y axis with alter according to the
local yaw angle of the X axis. This
associated yaw angle , can be
found by differentiating Equation
1 with respect to x, giving =
8Sx/L. The associated yaw error
causes a small displacement x
in the X direction which will vary
according to the position along Figure 29
the Y axis. If is expressed in
radians and ignoring second order terms, this displacement can be closely approximated by
x = -y. Note that if the machine also has a global squareness error 0, then this is added to before
calculating x, giving x = -y(0 + ). Substituting for gives;
x = -y(0 +8Sx/L) ... Equation 2
Equations 1 and 2 allow the small errors, x and y, in machine position to be calculated for any
general x,y location. If the machine is commanded to move to position [x,y] then the actual position
achieved will be [(x+x),(y+y)]. Substituting for x and y gives;
Actual position = [(x - y(0 +8Sx/L)),(y+4Sx/L)] .. Equation 3
Equation 3 is the general equation used to calculate the positioning error at any x,y location for
a machine with an XY squareness error and a straightness error in the X axis which causes an
associated yaw distortion. Because straightness errors do not always cause associated yaw error
distortions (it depends on the machines construction and kinematic chain) the 8Sx/L maybe zero.
Under these conditions Equation 3 becomes;
Actual position = [(x - y0),(y+4Sx/L)] .. Equation 4
23
The equations used to model the effects of a straightness error in the Y axis and any associated
yaw errors are derived in a similar same way. (Note in this case there is no need to account for
the squareness error again). In combination these equations allow the positioning errors of all the
machines modelled in this paper to be calculated.
Simulation of each squareness test method involves generating an appropriate sequence of command
positions (according to the test method), calculating the machines positioning errors at each, and then
applying the appropriate algorithm to calculate the squareness.
REFERENCES
1. ISO230-1:2012 Test code for machine tools - Part 1: Geometric accuracy of machines operating
under no-load or quasi-static conditions.
2. Renishaw White Paper TE325 - Interferometric Straightness Measurement and Application to
Moving Table Machines
3. ISO230-4:2005 Test Code for machine tools - Part 4: Circular tests for numerically controlled
machine tools
4. ISO230-6:2002 Test Code for machine tools - Part 6: Determination of positioning accuracy on
body and face diagonals (Diagonal displacement tests)
25
Renishaw plc T +44 (0) 1453 524524
F +44 (0) 1453 524901
New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge,
E [email protected]
Gloucestershire GL12 8JR
United Kingdom www.renishaw.com
About Renishaw
Renishaw is an established world leader in engineering technologies, with a strong history of innovation in product development
and manufacturing. Since its formation in 1973, the company has supplied leading-edge products that increase process
productivity, improve product quality and deliver cost-effective automation solutions.
A worldwide network of subsidiary companies and distributors provides exceptional service and support for its customers.
Products include:
Additive manufacturing, vacuum casting, and injection moulding technologies for design, prototyping, and production applications
Advanced material technologies with a variety of applications in multiple fields
Dental CAD/CAM scanning and milling systems and supply of dental structures
Encoder systems for high accuracy linear, angle and rotary position feedback
Fixturing for CMMs (co-ordinate measuring machines) and gauging systems
Gauging systems for comparative measurement of machined parts
High speed laser measurement and surveying systems for use in extreme environments
Laser and ballbar systems for performance measurement and calibration of machines
Medical devices for neurosurgical applications
Probe systems and software for job set-up, tool setting and inspection on CNC machine tools
Raman spectroscopy systems for non-destructive material analysis
Sensor systems and software for measurement on CMMs
Styli for CMM and machine tool probe applications
For worldwide contact details, please visit our main website at www.renishaw.com/contact
RENISHAW HAS MADE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT IS CORRECT AT THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION BUT MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT. RENISHAW EXCLUDES LIABILITY,
HOWSOEVER ARISING, FOR ANY INACCURACIES IN THIS DOCUMENT.
*H-5650-2049-01*
2013 Renishaw plc. All rights reserved.
Renishaw reserves the right to change specifications without notice
RENISHAW and the probe symbol used in the RENISHAW logo are registered trade marks of Renishaw plc in the United Kingdom and other countries.
apply innovation and names and designations of other Renishaw products and technologies are trade marks of Renishaw plc or its subsidiaries.
All other brand names and product names used in this document are trade names, trade marks or registered trade marks of their respective owners.
Issued: 0513 Part no. H-5650-2049-01-A