Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-3925-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 17 May 2011 / Accepted: 10 January 2012 / Published online: 11 February 2012
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012
Abstract In today's world of precision engineering, robustness and accuracy in the evaluation of the form
tolerances are considered as competitive advantages for
manufacturing enterprises. Amongst various methods for
accurate and robust evaluation, which have been studied, nonlinear optimization methods based on operational research have proved to be successful as far as they
can ensure unique and global convergence in practical
applications. However, it is well known that ensuring
the convergence is the most difficult thing to deal with
for a nonlinear optimization technique because the performance is in general highly sensitive to parameter
setting. Therefore, this paper introduces a robust linear
programming formulation-based algorithm in which the
performance is not dependent on the quality of parameters. Interestingly, in this algorithm, the data envelopment analysis technique is used to form a convex hull
that decides the minimum enclosed zone in a robust
manner. From the computational experiments, it is
shown that the proposed algorithm can be a promising
alternative to the traditional nonlinear optimization
method for straightness and flatness evaluation.
S. Cho (*)
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
Southern Illinois University,
Edwardsville, IL 62026-1805, USA
e-mail: scho@siue.edu
J.-Y. Kim
Division of Marine Equipment Engineering,
Korea Maritime University,
Youngdo-gu,
Busan 606-791, South Korea
1 Introduction
The geometric form of manufactured components deviates
from its nominal design to a certain extent due to errors in
manufacturing, wear, etc. that can be confirmed by measurement and evaluation. While uncertainty in measurement has
been significantly reduced by recent technological advancement in inspection methods, evaluation of geometric tolerances is still considered as a major challenge because of its
nonlinear nature. There are numerous algorithms that can
evaluate various geometric tolerances by modeling the evaluation of geometric tolerances as nonlinear optimization
problems and then solving the problems optimally (or close
to optimal). However, it is known that the convergence of
nonlinear optimization techniques is highly sensitive to setting of parameters such as starting conditions. It should be
pointed out that in today's world of precision engineering,
enhancing robustness as well as accuracy in the evaluation
of the tolerances is greatly required as important competitive
advantages for manufacturing enterprises.
The purpose of geometric tolerance evaluation is to provide the exact value of the error in measured data points
from manufactured parts conforming to a standard, for example, ANSI Y14.5M [1]. Specifically, ANSI and ISO
promote the use of the minimum zone form tolerance that
is based on minimizing the maximum deviation of the
inspected surface from a reference feature. The objective
of the minimum zone criterion is to fit the data points with
minimum peak-to-valley deviation to the fitting line. The
studies show that the minimum zone criterion yields more
accurate fitting results because: (1) it yields a zone value
732
2 Literature review
Research works for the evaluation of form tolerances, particularly straightness and flatness, focus on one of the following techniques:
1. Least squares method (LSM): Among several techniques existing for evaluation of straightness and flatness
tolerances, LSM is a widely accepted technique used in
industry for the evaluation of form errors. This technique finds the minimum sum of squared errors of the
measured points from the nominal feature and thus
provides only an approximation solution quickly [11].
More specifically, LSM does not ensure precise values
of straightness and flatness errors due to a different
objective function from the minimum zone criterion.
2. Computational geometric approach (CGA): Lai and
Wang [12] and Traband et al. [3] proposed computational geometry-based techniques for calculating exact
values of the minimum zone straightness and flatness.
More specifically, these research works proposed the
minimum solution for straightness and flatness problems in accord with the minimum zone criterion. The
basic principle of this technique is to find the minimum
zone of the convex hull that encloses all the measured
points. The minimum zone was determined by a pair of
parallel supporting lines parallel to an edge of the convex hull. Based on the same concept, Lee [13] presented
an approach, called convex-hull edge method, which
guarantees the minimum zone solution of flatness evaluation problems. Samuel and Shunmugam [4] also used
similar computational geometric techniques to solve the
minimum zone and function-oriented solutions for the
straightness and the flatness problems.
3. Operational research techniques (OR): Wang [5] used
optimization techniques for minimum zone evaluation
of form errors. Form errors were formulated as nonlinear optimization problems, and solution procedures
were developed to solve the nonlinear optimization
problems. Kanada and Suzuki [14] studied an application of some nonlinear optimization techniques for
The following summary can be drawn from the review of existing research: some reported algorithms in
CGA, such as convex hull/polygon method, minmax
method, control geometric feature rotation scheme, and
median approach, have been proved to be successful in
view of minimum zone evaluation. However, none of
these CGA algorithms satisfies the universality requirement to be able to evaluate various form tolerances. In
fact, the mathematical definition of minimum zone form
errors in the ANSI standards yields a nonlinear discontinuous optimization problem. To tackle this problem,
various nonlinear optimization techniques and OR methods have been proposed and tested. Among them are
Chebyshev approximation [17], downhill simplex method [14], and HookeJeeve direct search method [18].
Among these approaches, few have proved to be successful if unique and global convergence is ensured in
practical applications. However, it is known that ensuring the convergence is the most difficult thing to deal
with for a nonlinear optimization technique because the
performance is in general highly sensitive to parameter
setting. Therefore, a robust algorithm of which performance is not dependent on the quality of parameters is
highly required, and this paper introduces such
algorithms.
COLS
10
8
Output
minimum zone flatness. They also applied various optimization algorithms to calculate the minimum zone
straightness. Carr and Ferreira [15] developed algorithms to verify minimum zone straightness and flatness. The proposed model searched for two parallel
supporting planes so that all measured points were
below one plane and above the other while both planes
were as close together as possible. The model was a
constrained nonlinear programming problem, but the
objective function and all but one constraint were linear.
Hence, the successive linear programming algorithm
was used to solve a sequence of linear programs that
converge to the solution of the nonlinear problem. Cheraghi et al. [6] formulated straightness and flatness errors
as nonlinear optimization problems and then developed
a linear search method that reduces the nonlinear optimization problem to a linear programming problem with
only two constraints. It was reported that the exact error
values are quickly found by an iterative search procedure. Weber et al. [16] presented a unified linear approximation technique for the evaluation of various
form tolerances. They formulated a linear program model using a Taylor expansion of the minimum zone tolerance function.
4. Evolution algorithms (EAs): Malyscheff et al. [9] modeled minimum zone straightness and flatness by modifying a support vector classification that is based on
statistical learning. In this research work, a gradient
ascent approach was introduced to sequentially solve a
formulated non-convex optimization problem, noting
that straightness and flatness share some similarities
their functions are in 2D and 3D linear forms, respectively, which are also the basic functions used in support
vector machines. In Kovvur et al. [10], particle swarm
optimization, which is one of the most recent and popular EAs, has been shown to perform well for the
evaluation of minimum zone form tolerance such as
circularity, cylindricity, sphericity, flatness, and straightness form tolerances. In this approach, each particle of
the population, called the swarm, progresses toward the
optimal solution by adjusting its trajectory toward its
own previous best position and toward the previous best
position attained by any member of the population. The
advantage of using PSO over other optimization methods is the relatively insignificant impact of the starting
conditions.
733
OLS
6
DEA
SFA
4
5
Input
10
734
min j
n
P
lj xij j xij
This paper introduces the first-time approach that uses traditional DEA for identifying inefficient frontiers such that
both efficient and inefficient frontiers are used to form a
convex hull that encloses all the data points measured inside
as shown in Fig. 2.
j1
n
P
lj yrj yrj
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
r 1; 2; . . . :; s
j1
lj 0
j 1; 2; . . . :; n
4.1 Straightness evaluation
where j is the efficiency score for the jth DMU; where there
are n systems or DMUs, the jth DMU represents one of the n
DMU under evaluation, xij and yrj are the ith input and rth
output for the jth DMU, respectively, and s are dual variables. The CCR model (or CRS model) assumes constant
return to scale economies, which means that doubling output
exactly doubles inputs. The CCR model was extended to the
variable return to scale (VRS) model by Banker, Charnes, and
Cooper [22], referred to as the BCC model. The VRS inputoriented model is the same as the CRS model except for the
fact that the sum of s is equal to 1 and is written as:
min j
n
P
lj xij j xij
j1
n
P
j1
n
P
lj yrj yrj
lj 1;
lj 0
max j
n
P
lj xij j xij
j1
n
P
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
r 1; 2; . . . :; s
j 1; 2; . . . :n
j1
n
P
lj yrj yrj
lj 1;
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
r 1; 2; . . . :; s
lj 0
j 1; 2; . . . :n
j1
j1
where j is the efficiency score for the jth DMU; where there
are n systems or DMUs, the jth DMU represents one of the n
DMU under evaluation, xij and yrj are the ith input and rth
output for the jth DMU, respectively, and s are dual variables. It should be emphasized here that the DEA model
assumes monotonicity [23].
The solution of Eq. 3 provides information on inefficient frontiers which are used to create the lower
envelop in Fig. 2. In fact, the inefficient frontiers are
identified with the condition of j 01, and other data
points satisfy j >1. Note that the efficient and inefficient frontiers generate a convex hull that contains the
set S. Finally, the data points form efficient and
inefficient frontiers that are used to compute two parallel lines with minimum distance (d) that contains the set
735
S. The minimum distance d is straightness. The algorithm to find the minimum distance d is as follows:
736
90
80
70
y values
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Point 1
1.0
1.1
Point 2
2.0
1.9
Point 3
3.0
3.3
Point 4
4.0
4.0
Point 5
5.0
4.8
10
15
x values
25
30
20
j1
n
P
j1
n
P
j1
n
P
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
lj yrj yrj
r 1; 2; . . . :; s
lj ztj j ztj
i 1; 2; . . . ; u
lj 1;
lj 0
j 1; 2; ::::n
j1
4.5
Y-values
3.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
3
X-values
3.5
4.5
737
Table 2 Accuracy comparison for examples in Table 1
30
DEA
OTZ
NLP
LSM
25
20
15
10
n05
n010
n015
n020
n025
2.1213203
2.1213204
2.1213204
2.5860858
0.8578577
0.8578577
0.8578577
0.8877250
0.0051857
0.0051857
0.0051857
0.0053790
0.1645859
0.1645859
0.1645859
0.1705494
0.0013113
0.0013113
0.0013113
0.0014633
5
0
10
10
8
j1
n
P
4
y
2
0
max j
n
P
lj xij xij
j1
n
P
j1
n
P
i 1; 2; . . . ; m
lj yrj yrj
r 1; 2; . . . :; s
lj ztj j ztj
lj 1;
i 1; 2; . . . ; u
lj 0
j 1; 2; . . . :n
j1
yi
3
5
2
1
2
n020
xi
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
n010
xi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
yi
2.428
2.891
3.445
2.931
3.895
4.196
4.497
4.662
4.545
yi
xi
yi
n015
xi
0.3952
0.6953
0.9669
1.2762
1.5797
1.8593
2.1333
2.4197
2.6001
n025
xi
0.1288
0.1309
0.204
0.1841
0.1329
0.1570
0.2608
0.2588
0.2237
0.1891
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.1000
0.1837
0.1712
0.2304
0.1753
0.2107
0.1820
0.1730
0.2723
0.1949
0.2845
0.6600
1.2041
1.4994
1.8494
2.2261
2.5724
2.9076
3.2548
3.4142
yi
0.1010
0.1026
0.1000
0.1014
0.1005
0.1035
0.1032
0.1049
0.1049
xi
3.0662
3.2165
3.4217
3.6179
3.8185
yi
0.1067
0.1025
0.1068
0.1069
0.1089
yi
xi
yi
xi
yi
0.0006
0.0008
0.0010
0.0005
0.0004
0.0015
0.0012
0.0014
0.0009
0.0009
3.6307
3.9237
4.2647
4.5122
4.8150
5.1334
5.3603
5.6534
5.9058
6.0774
0.0011
0.0011
0.0012
0.0012
0.0013
0.0013
0.0010
0.0008
0.0020
0.0021
6.2962
6.5240
6.7114
6.9960
7.2076
0.0021
0.0021
0.0023
0.0021
0.0023
738
5 Computational experiments
Straightness First, the performance of the proposed DEAbased algorithm in this paper has been compared to other
approaches such as LSM, nonlinear programming approach
(NLP) from Malyscheff et al. [9], and optimization technique zone (OTZ) from Cheraghi et al. [6]. Problem instances are shown in Table 1, and performance comparison for
these test problems is provided in Table 2.
Next, randomly generated problem instances have been
used to test the performance of the DEA algorithm. Here,
problems have been generated based on the following linear
relationship with disturbances (): yi b 0 b 1 xi " . It
should be pointed out here that the performance of other
algorithms highly depends on the quality of parameters such
as incremental angle parameter in the case of OTZ and
initial condition in the case of NLP. Table 3 and Fig. 5 show
performance improvement (percent) by the DEA algorithm
against LSM and computational effort of the DEA compared
to OTZ and NLP. Note that each output in Table 3 has been
obtained as an average of ten replications, particularly for
NLP with different initial conditions.
10
50
100
500
Improvement by DEA
CPU-DEA
CPU-OTZ
13.8
1.05
5.46
4.5
2.69
5.48
5.2
5.26
5.47
10.1
6.28
6.93
9.2
7.93
8.64
1.53
3.62
5.96
11.79
35.50
CPU-NLP
1,000
739
Fig. 5 Performance
comparison for straightness
evaluation (n01,000) by
various algorithms
n025
xi
yi
zi
xi
yi
zi
xi
yi
zi
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
1
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
25
50
50
50
50
50
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
2
5
6
8
9
5
7
8
9
12
6
7
8
9
11
75
75
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
7
7
6
7
9
7
6
6
6
8
This implies that the other 86% of the data (169 points) are
enclosed in the convex hull.
6 Conclusion
This paper has introduced a robust algorithm for the evaluation of form tolerances, especially straightness and flatness
of manufactured parts. Specifically, this paper has developed a DEA approach-based algorithm that can form a
convex hull from both efficient and inefficient frontiers,
which enclose all of the measured data points. Computational experiments showed that this algorithm is more robust
than other existing methods in terms of the accuracy and
computational effort because it is based on LP formulation.
Table 5 Flatness performance comparison for randomly generated
data points
DEA/LSM
(% improvement)
DEA/NLP
(% improvement)
(nn)/n (%)
25
9.2
15
40.0
49
100
144
196
4.2
3.8
3.4
3.5
0
0
0
0
17
21
25
27
65.3
79.0
82.6
86.2
740
References
1. ANSI/ASME Y14.5 (1994) National standard on dimensioning
and tolerancing. ASME, New York
2. Choi W, Kurfess TR, Cagan J (1988) Sampling uncertainty in
coordinate measurement data analysis. Precis Eng 22(3):153163
3. Traband MT, Joshi S, Wysk RA, Cavalier TM (1988) Evaluation
of straightness and flatness tolerance using the minimum zone.
Manuf Rev 2:189195
4. Samuel GL, Shunmugam MS (1999) Evaluation of straightness
and flatness error using computational geometric techniques. Comput Aided Des 31(13):829843
5. Wang Y (1992) Minimum zone evaluation of form tolerances.
Manuf Rev 5(3):213220
6. Cheraghi SH, Lim HS, Motavalli S (1996) Straightness and flatness tolerance evaluation: an optimization approach. Precis Eng 18
(1):3037
7. Zhu LM, Ding H, Xiong YL (2003) A steepest descent algorithm
for circularity evaluation. Comput Aided Des 35:255265
8. Hong LJ, Shultes BC, Anand S (2001) Robust evaluation of
straightness and flatness tolerance using simulated annealing.
Transactions of NAMRI. 533540
9. Malyscheff AM, Trafalis TB, Raman S (2002) From support
vector machine learning to the determination of the minimum
enclosing zone. Comput Ind Eng 42(1):5974