Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Analysis of optical linear encoders’ errors under vibration

at different mounting conditions
J. López a,⇑, M. Artés a, I. Alejandre b
a
Departamento de Mecánica, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, C/Juan del Rosal, 12, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
Fagor Electrodomésticos S. Coop., Barrio de San Andrés, 18, 20500 Mondragón, Guipúzcoa, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The optical linear encoders are the preferred choice sensors for positioning machine tools’
Received 15 December 2009 moveable parts. Machine tools’ errors have been traditionally focused on the analysis and
Received in revised form 17 February 2011 performance of the machine tool structure until recent works have treated the encoder
Accepted 5 May 2011
itself as a source of error. Encoder error quantification has been done for several mounting
Available online 20 May 2011
conditions in static situations, but there is a lack of information regarding the performance
of the encoder under dynamic solicitations. The aim of this work is to analyze the loss of
Keywords:
accuracy of the sensor because of vibration for different mounting conditions. A finite ele-
Optical encoders
Vibration
ment model of encoder has been developed and experimental results have been analyzed
Mounting conditions using this model.
Finite element Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction flatness of the surface in which the encoder is to be

The optical linear encoders are the preferred choice
sensors for positioning machine tools’ moveable parts. Its
high accuracy and resolution combined with a relatively
low price for a sealed sensor protected to dust, chips and
liquid splash are the main characteristics responsible for
the wide spread of these sensors not only in the machine
tools field, but also in coordinate measuring machines
(CMM), robotics, position stages and every application area
where position and speed measurements are required for
position or motion control [1]. Machine tools and CMM er-
rors have traditionally been focused on the analysis and
performance of the machine structure [2–6]. Recent works
[7] have treated the encoder itself as a source of error but
current methods for estimating the encoders’ accuracy
usually neglect vibration influence [16]. Encoder error
quantification has been done for several mounting condi-
tions, such as lack of parallelism between the measure-
ment axis of the encoder and the machine guide, lack of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 913986422.
E-mail addresses: jlopez@ind.uned.es (J. López), mecanica@ind.uned.
es (M. Artés), ialejandre@fagorelectrodomesticos.com (I. Alejandre).
mounted, scanning head support weakness and relative
movement between glass scale and scanning head, to
name a few.
Encoder error due to vibration occurs when there is a
relative movement between the two gratings that pro-
duces the interference pattern, which is the basis for the
measurement system. Such relative movement can happen
because excitations of flexible or rigid modes of the glass
scale, the scanning carriage and/or the parts of the encoder
in contact with these elements, such as the aluminum
housing. Separation due to vibration of the electronic
board in which photodetectors are allocated can also intro-
duce error in the instrument reading process. Specifically, a
vibration mode of an encoder component that varies the
gap between gratings or the gap between scale and photo-
detectors influences the intensity distribution in moiré
fringes [8]. In-plane rotations between gratings can also
occur because of vibration; this type of movement
produces unwanted additional tilt angle that leads to non-
orthogonal error [9].
Although clarifying examples allowing identification
and evaluation of the error due to mounting conditions
in static situations have been done [7], there is a lack of

0263-2241/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2011.05.004
1368 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
information regarding the performance of the encoder
under dynamic solicitations. The proposed experimental
methodology is based on assessing the loss of accuracy of
the sensor because of vibration, resulting in a final diagram
of error versus frequency. Analytical basis for results dis-
cussion is provided by finite element analysis (FEA),
through sensitivity analysis based on probabilistic design.
Three commercial encoders of three different commercial
firms have been tested to ensure that results are as much
general as possible.
2. Mechanical design of transmissive optical linear
encoders
Fig. 1 shows the mechanical design of a sealed linear en-
coder based on a transmission reading head specifying the
main elements. In the sealed type, all these elements are
hermetically isolated from the exterior by means of a hous-
ing and a sealing lips, preventing possible distortion of the
measuring process because of external contamination
agents.
The possibilities of arrangements between components
are diverse especially in the case of sealed encoders, since
their configuration allows different positions of the scale
inside the housing, flexible joint of the scanning head to
the machine part and particular fastening element designs.
These make possible to have a wide range of geometric and
material properties parameters available. Therefore, the
designer can act over them in order to improve the accu-
racy of the sensor, strongly conditioned by thermal, vibra-
tion, deformation and translation errors. Transmission
reading heads arrangements imply the use of glass scales
placed on cantilever configurations allowing the solidarity
movement of the photodetectors board with the reading
head. The possible constructive solutions to join the head
to the scanning carriage are diverse; however, the predom-
inant arrangement for the majority of the commercially
available encoders is a flexible joint by means of a set of
Fig. 1. Main components of a sealed optical transmissive linear encoder and detailed view of the optical system.
compression and torsion springs in order to diminish the
adverse effects in the measuring process generated by an
excessive pressure or deformation of the head support. A
typical configuration is the one represented in Fig. 1. As
it can be observed, the scanning unit is linked to the head
by three compression springs in vertical direction avoiding
gap variation, one compression spring in the displacement
measurement direction to control the relative displace-
ment between the scanning unit and the head because of
inertia, and two torsional springs to prevent lateral dis-
placements of the carriage. By doing this, the tendency of
the scanning carriage to yaw, pitch or roll can be controlled
changing the rigidity or initial strain of the springs; and
therefore, the dynamic behavior of the set scanning unit-
scale can be independently altered in different directions.
The force applied on the scanning unit due to the initial
strains of the springs fit the carriage to the scale, aligning
both to a proper guidance all through the measuring
length.
The joint between the scale and the housing is solved by
means of an elastic or highly elastic adhesive. The use of
highly elastic adhesives is based on the compensation of
the changes in length of scale (glass) and housing (alumi-
num) due to differences in their dilatation coefficients
through the deformation of the elastic layer. Bond tapes
used utilize acrylic adhesive. The thickness of the bonded
joint is an important factor to be considered in the design, gi-
ven that on one hand high thickness values are recom-
mended to join rigid substrates (such as aluminum and
glass) and also to achieve a high tolerance to thermal expan-
sions and contractions; on the other hand, the more the
thickness increases, the less the bonded joint rigidity it
would be, allowing the occurrence of modes of vibration of
the scale at low frequencies. This way, for very low measur-
ing lengths, such as that corresponding to the encoder se-
lected, the common choice is to resort to very low
thickness values of the adhesive tape, given that in this case
the encoder performance is not sharply influenced by ther-
mal expansions and contractions. The type of adhesive has
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
an important role too in the behavior of the joint insofar as it
conditions the shear modulus. Adhesive tapes of firm type
are typically used in general purpose applications with a
shear modulus value double to that corresponding to con-
formable type, normally used in multipurpose applications.
3. Mounting conditions
Encoder manufacturers mounting requirements are
very tight. Specifically, it is common to find values such
as 0.1 mm of parallelism between the scale and the guide
of the machine, and between the scale and the head of
the encoder. Additionally a 0.1 mm flatness of the surface
in contact with the encoder is required. A value of
1.00 ± 0.50 mm has to be established for the gap between
the head and the housing of the encoder. These mounting
requirements are shown on Fig. 2.
Once known the conventional mounting process of a
linear encoder [10] and the strict mounting requirements,
it is not difficult to appreciate that the process is not ex-
empt from possible errors due to successive alignment,
centering and marking procedures, errors in the flatness
of surface and alignment of the guide of the machine tool
itself, etc. Fig. 3 shows the mounting of two linear encoders
to control the table movements of a milling machine.
Regarding the longitudinal encoder, the scale is attached
to the table and the scanning head to the saddle. The enco-
der that controls the transversal movement of the table is
attached in a way that the head bracket is tied to the sad-
dle which moves relative to scale, since the latter is fixed to
the knee.
As it is shown in Fig. 3, the conventional attachment of
linear encoders is in a position with the back of the housing
upward, preventing possible filtering of liquid splash
through the sealing lips. However, if it is considered a loca-
tion in the machine or an application where the encoder is
prevented from liquid splash, such as for example in coor-
dinate measuring machines, a first question arises: is this
the position of the encoder with best dynamic perfor-
mance? Clearly, the orientation of the main components
regarding the direction of vibration excitations produces
dissimilar encoder accuracy response. A first study has
been done trying to clarify this aspect. This study analyses
the encoder error corresponding to different excitation
Fig. 2. Prescribed mounting conditions required in manufacturer’s specifications.
1369
directions under prescribed mounting conditions, i.e.,
mounting requirements of encoder manufacturers are ful-
filled at the specified mounting condition. The experiments
done related to this question have been named mounting
conditions 1a and 1b and the purpose, as it has been men-
tioned, is to assess what are the positions of the encoder
relative to the vibration direction that produces the worst
and the best performance of the sensor.
As it can be seen in Fig. 3, the table of the milling ma-
chine is positioned in such a way that the longitudinal en-
coder is centered in relation to the head while the
transversal encoder is at the beginning of the measuring
length. Analyzing this, a second question has been set
out: how does affect the position of the scanning unit along
the scale in the dynamic response of the encoder? The sec-
ond part of the study has to do with this question, tackled
by mounting conditions 2a and 2b together with previ-
ously defined mounting condition 1a. This way, the inten-
tion of mounting conditions 1a, 2a, 2b is to assess how the
position of the head along the scale affects the behavior of
the encoder under vibrations, positioning the head at the
center of measuring length (1a), and at the beginning and
the end of the measuring length (2a, 2b).
The rest of the work done is related to quantify to what
extent a defective assembly of the encoder to the machine
modifies the accuracy of the sensor. The origin of a defec-
tive assembly of the encoder can be due to the mounting
process itself or by deformations of the machine parts in
contact with the encoder under operating solicitations.
The third part of this paper has to do with this subject. In
this manner, the aim of mounting arrangement number
3a is to assess to what extent the lack of parallelism be-
tween the head and the scale affects the encoder behavior.
The purpose of number 3b is to quantify the effect of the
non fulfilment of the requirements regarding the gap be-
tween head and housing of the encoder under parallelism
conditions between them. Test number 3c tries to simulate
the misalignment between head encoder surface and
housing encoder surface in contact with machine parts.
In order to create this mounting error it has been produced
a displacement introducing a washer (thickness: 1.728 ±
0.015 mm) between the fixture surface and the encoder
head surface. Fig. 4 presents a schematic view of the
different mounting conditions, showing the mount of the
encoder on the fixture and the direction of vibration
1370 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380

Fig. 3. Mounting of two linear encoders in a milling machine to control the longitudinal and transversal movements of the table.

Fig. 4. Schematic view of the different mounting conditions showing the mount of the encoder on the fixture and the direction of vibration excitation.

excitation. Measurements of parallelism between head and
scale and of gap value are also presented for each mount-
ing arrangement in Table 1.
Fixture flatness surface requirements are fulfilled and
surpassed for vertical and horizontal positions as it is
shown in Table 2. Measurements have been done on a
Grade 0 granite surface table using a Mitutoyo 1913B-10
dial indicator with a resolution of 2 lm. Five measures
have been taken for each one of the nine points repre-
sented on figures showed on Table 2 and corresponding
values are indicatives of the mean and the uncertainty
associated. The same procedure has been followed for
measure values shown in Table 1.
Test fixture dynamic performance in the frequency
range selected is shown in Fig. 5. This figure shows the
transmissibility function between an accelerometer placed
next to the shaker bolt joint (named control acc.) and an-
other one placed next to a thread, where the encoder will
be allocated in a horizontal position (named measure
acc.). As it can be observed, the response is almost flat
until 1000 Hz, presenting a resonance at 1335 Hz. This
resonance can be observed on several tests, but its
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380 1371

Table 1 modeling process has been developed in a traditional envi-

Mounting conditions experimental data. ronment calculating the mathematical relations between
Mounting Prescribed Parallelism Parallelism Maximum the parameters wanted to be defined in the model on
condition mounting A–B (mm) B–C (mm) gap (mm) user’s part. Current trends in finite element modeling such
requirements as geometry idealization, feature and detail removal, cell
1a YES 0.005 0.020 1.182 ± 0.007 decomposition, dimensional reduction and associativity
1b YES 0.005 0.019 1.316 ± 0.005 maintenance have been applied to the model. The
2a YES 0.019 0.010 1.248 ± 0.017
2b YES 0.017 0.002 1.188 ± 0.023
parameterization has been accomplished through the
3a NO 0.003 0.901 1.994 ± 0.009 Ansys Parametric Design Language (APDL) in ‘‘ANSYS
3b NO 0.003 0.054 0.314 ± 0.006* Classic’’ environment.
3c NO 0.014 0.028 1.104 ± 0.013 Fig. 6 shows the finite element model of the transmisive
*
Minimum gap. type optical linear encoder studied. The housing, the scan-
ning carriage, the photodetectors board, the head and the
presence does not affect the main purpose of this work scale have been modeled with structural solid elements
which is to compare the encoder performance for different of eight nodes with three degrees of freedom at each node
mounting conditions. For the tests described on Table 1, (SOLID45). Materials for each one of these elements are
the control accelerometer has been placed on the fixture shown on Table 3.
surface in contact with the encoder, given that it is one that Compression springs have been modeled as 3-D spars
will transmit the vibration to the instrument in working (LINK8), so that spring stiffness can be defined from the
conditions. spar axial stiffness, given that only tension or compression
stress states are allowed. For torsional springs two uniaxial
elements with tension, compression, bending and torsion
4. The finite element model capabilities and with six degrees of freedom at each node
(translations and rotations) (BEAM4) have been used.
Both, structural dynamic and probabilistic analysis Elements have been arranged in such a way that torsional
have been done with finite element software ANSYS. The spring stiffness is defined from the torsional stiffness of

Table 2
Flatness of the fixture surfaces (scale factor on Z axis: 1000).

Vertical Horizontal

1: 0 lm 1: 0 lm
2: 23.2 lm ± 1.5 lm 2: 27.8 lm ± 0.8 lm
3: 30.6 lm ± 1.4 lm 3: 23.8 lm ± 0.8 lm
4: 39.8 lm ± 2.6 lm 4: 30.4 lm ± 0.9 lm
5: 11.8 lm ± 2.6 lm 5: 7.2 lm ± 1.6 lm
6: 16.6 lm ± 1.9 lm 6: 11.6 lm ± 1.3 lm
7: 7.6 lm ± 2.7 lm 7: 14.2 lm ± 0.5 lm
8: 11.2 lm ± 2.5 lm 8: 21.2 lm ± 0.6 lm
9: 26 lm ± 1.6 lm 9: 31.2 lm ± 0.8 lm
Max. diff.: 47.4 lm Max. diff. 45.4 lm

Fig. 5. Test fixture dynamic performance through transmissibility between the control and measure accelerometers.
1372 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
Fig. 6. Finite element model of a transmissive type optical linear encoder.
Table 3
Materials of encoder elements.
Element Material
Housing Aluminum
Scanning carriage ABS
Photodetectors board FR-4
Head Cast iron
Scale Glass
only one of the two elements, acting the element that
configures the spring arm as a rigid element. Special care
has been taken establishing relationships between rota-
tional degrees of freedom of beam elements and transla-
tional degrees of freedom of solid elements through
constraint equations. Roller wheels contact has been mod-
eled with uniaxial compression-only 3-D spars (LINK10),
allowing separation between scanning carriage and scale.
Adhesive bonded joint modeling has been done accord-
ingly to Loss and Keyward [11]. This method is based on ri-
gid elements interconnected with spring elements. The
main advantage of this method against those based on so-
lid elements is the significant improvement in CPU time,
given that the latter has to resort to a large number of ele-
ments to avoid violations of condition related to element
shape factors (due to the low adhesive thickness value in
relation to substrates thickness). The method is character-
ized by the presence of two coincident nodes in the middle
of the adhesive thickness. One of the rigid elements
stretches from one substrate to one of the coincident nodes
mentioned above, while the other rigid element stretches
from the other coincident node to the other substrate.
The coincident nodes are interconnected by three spring
elements with zero initial length; two are intended to sim-
ulate shear behavior and the other one to simulate peel
adhesion. In ANSYS, the rigid elements have been modeled
defining a rigid region (CERIG) between the corresponding
nodes, and spring elements have been specified as 1-D
spring (COMBIN14) for each one of the directions defined.
There are two possibilities to simulate base excitation
of structural systems in ANSYS. One is commonly known
as the ‘‘large mass method’’ and the other one as ‘‘spectrum
analysis’’. The low number of works published treating
mathematical aspects of the large mass method has re-
sulted in some uncertainties when this method is applied,
such as for example the exact value of the large mass. This
is the reason why the spectrum analysis technique has
been chosen and also because regarding the accuracy of
the results is the more referenced one [12,13]. All the anal-
ysis performed with the model have been done under the
prescribed mounting conditions. To analyze the dynamic
response of the sensor, in the stiffness matrix of the
previous modal analysis, the stress state resultant from
an initial nonlinear static analysis has been taking into ac-
count. In this analysis the acting forces are only due to the
initial strains of the vertical compression springs. Natural
frequencies values and yaw, pitch and roll angles between
scanning carriage and scale for each mode have been de-
fined as output variables. Yaw, pitch and roll angles have
been calculated from displacements values through multi-
plication of each mode database by its corresponding mode
coefficient. The estimation of angles has been done from
the displacements of three nodes that delimit the scanning
zone, as it is shown in Fig. 7. To study the relevance of
these result variables Direct Monte Carlo Sampling Method
has been the probabilistic technique chosen, specifying a
total of 50 set of input parameter values (each one of them
constitutes a particular configuration of the model). The
chosen parameters have been:
kv, stiffness of vertical compression springs.
Lc, initial strains of vertical compression springs.
kt, stiffness of torsional springs.
Gadh, adhesive shear modulus.
ka, stiffness of axial compression spring.
For each parameter a uniform distribution has been
defined in their respective variation interval. Lower and
upper limits of the parameters are shown in Table 4.
The thickness value of the bonded joint for the encoder
selected appears to be 50 lm, and this value has been
defined as a constant value in the probabilistic analysis
for results discussion.
5. The experimental set up
In the experimental set up the ‘‘vibration generator sys-
tem’’ and the ‘‘encoder error measurement system’’ can be
distinguished. Fig. 8a shows the different elements that
integrate each of these systems and the connections be-
tween them and inside of them.
5.1. Vibration generator system
The vibration generator system with closed loop con-
trol is composed of an electrodynamics shaker TIRAvib
50101 with its corresponding power supply and the
amplifier BAA 1000-E, the controller VR8500 from Vibra-
tion Research Corporation with an HP laptop, and the
control accelerometer Type 4383 with a NEXUS condi-
tioning amplifier (not shown on Fig. 8a), both from Brüel
& Kjaer.
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
Fig. 7. Estimation of yaw, pitch and roll angles from displacements of nodes delimiting the scanning zone.
Table 4
Parameter’s lower and upper limits.
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
kv 0.5  103 N/m 2  103 N/m
Lc 0.15 (of initial length) 0.5 (of initial length)
kt 0.015 N m/rad 0.06 N m/rad
Gadh 3  105 Pa (conformable type) 6  105 Pa (firm type)
ka 0.5  103 N/m 2  103 N/m
The fundamental parameters that can be defined in the
controller software those to determine the severity of the
test are: frequency range, vibration amplitude and test
duration. The European standard EN 60068-2-6 Environ-
mental testing Part 2: Tests. Tests Fc: Vibration (Sinusoi-
dal) [14] gives the values of these parameters for the
purpose of finding critical frequencies or to make endur-
ance tests. The chosen frequency range is 20–2000 Hz, in
order to have the widest representation of the encoder er-
ror versus frequency. Also, this frequency interval complies
with maximum and minimum values of machine tool
structure resonance frequencies according to Mahdavine-
jad [15]. The cited standard gives also different values of
the vibration amplitude. A value of 100 m s 2 has been
chosen as this is the specified maximum acceleration
vibration amplitude given by manufacturers to assure a
proper behavior of the encoder without any kind of protec-
tion. At very low frequencies (20 Hz–82.3 Hz) the vibration
is controlled through a constant displacement of 0.75 mm,
as specified in the cited standard. Also, tolerance limits
have been set to ±3 dB. An example of acceleration, veloc-
ity and displacement profiles of one of the tests done is
shown in Fig. 8b. This figure shows the demand, the limits
that check the validity of the test and the control. It can be
appreciated how the control follows straightforwardly the
demand above the cutting frequency (82.3 Hz). For fre-
quencies below this value, the control could be improved
1373
diminishing the sweep rate, but it has to be taking into
account that test duration is influenced by the size of the
archive where encoder’s signals are registered. A linear
frequency sweep rate of 22 Hz/s has been chosen allowing
a direct relation between frequency and test time, and also
giving as a result archives of a reasonable size.
5.2. Error measurement methodology
The encoder is a sealed incremental type, with an accu-
racy of 5 lm, 20 lm of grating period and measuring
length of 70 mm. The tests have been performed at a con-
stant temperature and with the encoder in a fixed position
to avoid influence of main sources of errors (thermal and
deformations) [7].
The error measurement method is based on assessing
the loss of accuracy of the encoder for a certain excitation
frequency range. This is possible through the measure of
the angle covered by the Lissajous figure (Fig. 9d) com-
posed of the quasi-sinusoidal signals A and B (Fig. 9b) as
a result of the signals generated in the photodetectors I0°
I90° I180° I270° (Fig. 9a) because of the maximums and min-
imums of light intensity produced by the interference pat-
terns between the two gratings (Fig. 9c) [16]. For the
encoder selected, a measurement error of 20 lm corre-
sponds to an arc of 360° of the Lissajous figure, given that
it corresponds with one period of the output signals. This
way, by estimating the angle covered by the Lissajous fig-
ure (explained below), it is possible to quantify the error
made by the encoder.
A Tektronix TDS 210 Oscilloscope has been used to visu-
alize the Lissajous figure, so if an anomaly happens during
the test it can be detected in real time. The data acquisition
system used is PULSE 12.5 from Brüel & Kjaer. To register
the signals A and B the software module ‘Time Data Recor-
der’ has been used. A sampling frequency of 8192 Hz has
been chosen keeping both the archive size and a proper
1374 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380

Fig. 8. (a) Schematic view of the experimental set up. (b) Acceleration, velocity and displacement profiles for the tests.

Fig. 9. Error measurement method. (a) signals generated in the photodetectors. (b) encoder’s measurement quasi-sinusoidal signals A and B. (c)
interference patterns between the gratings. (d) Lissajous figure of the encoder’s measurement signals.

register of the signals rate in reasonably levels. As the
maximum value of excitation frequency is 2000 Hz, a sam-
pling frequency slightly greater than four times the maxi-
mum value fulfil Nyquist theorem requirements by far.
The encoder error charts are obtained by a program
developed in MATLAB. The program is based on a discrete
treatment of the Lissajous figure using optimization
techniques. Basically, it takes a certain amount of sampled
data and calculates the circle that best fits the sampled set
minimizing the geometric error through nonlinear theory
of least-squares [17]. Once the center and radius of the
circle has been calculated a subroutine determines the
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
arc angle covered by the data set, making it possible to
estimate the encoder error for a certain instant. Clearly,
the sampled set is directly related to the desired excitation
frequency resolution, which in turn is related to the veloc-
ity rate of the excitation frequency sweep. Although a cir-
cle approach has been used, the program can be
generalized to fit ellipses to the sampled set making it pos-
sible to estimate errors associated to amplitude and phase
variations [18].
Finally, the digital readout completes the error mea-
surement system, serving as a power supply to the
encoder.
6. Results and discussion
Deformed shapes and natural frequencies of the first
nine vibrational modes obtained by FEA are shown in
Fig. 10. Deformed shapes of vibrational modes obtained by FEA and natural frequencies.
1375
Fig. 10. All given values from FEA represent the highest
relative frequency histogram value result obtained from
probabilistic analysis. Yaw, Pitch and Roll angle values be-
tween scanning carriage and scale obtained applying FEA
for vertical and horizontal direction are shown on Tables
5 and 6, respectively. Encoder experimental error charts
for the different mounting conditions are presented in
Fig. 11. A sample size of 10 measures for each test has been
chosen to set uncertainty in acceptable values, resulting in
a total of 70 measures for the comparative study. Charts
presented correspond to the mean of the mentioned 10
measures and the resultant uncertainty. Chart limits for er-
ror values have been set from 0 to 20 lm; this value has
been chosen to facilitate the comparison between mount-
ing conditions.
First mode obtained by FEA appears at a frequency va-
lue of 311 Hz being predominantly a roll movement of
the scanning carriage, as it can be appreciated in the
1376 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380

Table 5
Yaw, pitch and roll angle values between scanning carriage and scale. Vertical direction.

Parameter Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode7 Mode 8 Mode 9
Yaw 0.504E 3 0.139E 2 0.201E 2 0.274E 3 – 0.907E 3 0.200E 4 0.216E 7 0.167E 3
Pitch 0.438E 2 0.300E 5 0.243E 2 0.234E 3 – 0.190E 3 0.200E 5 0.147E 6 0.900E 4
Roll 0.343E 1 0.220E 4 0.190E 1 0.183E 2 – 0.149E 2 0.190E 4 0.100E 5 0.708E 3

Table 6
Yaw, pitch and roll angle values between scanning carriage and scale. Horizontal direction.

Parameter Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode7 Mode 8 Mode 9
Yaw 0.189E 2 0.418E 3 0.464E 3 0.990E 4 – 0.334E 3 0.470E 4 0.648E 6 0.166E 3
Pitch 0.180E 2 0.823E 6 0.566E 3 0.930E 4 – 0.660E 4 0.170E 4 0.700E 5 0.127E 3
Roll 0.141E0 0.600E 5 0.443E 2 0.727E 3 – 0.519E 3 0.134E 3 0.560E 4 0.993E 3

Fig. 11. Experimental error charts for different mounting conditions and uncertainty associated. (a) Mounting conditions 1a. (b) Mounting conditions 1b.
(c) Mounting conditions 2a. (d) Mounting conditions 2b. (e) Mounting conditions 3a. (f) Mounting conditions 3b. (g) Mounting conditions 3c.
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380 1377

Fig. 11 (continued)

deformed shape of Fig. 10a and in roll angle value in rela-
tion with yaw and pitch angle values given in Tables 5 and
6. Observing encoder error charts of Fig. 11 for this fre-
quency value, we cannot distinguish a significant error in
any of them. Natural frequency value from FEA for second
mode is 590 Hz. Fig. 10b and angle values from Tables 5
and 6 clearly show a yaw movement of the scanning car-
riage. This mode is not clearly discernible from error exper-
imental charts for vertical direction (it can be appreciated
as a small error peak only in Fig. 11c, f and g), but it is
noticeably distinguished for horizontal direction as an er-
ror peak value twice the accuracy of the encoder (10 lm)
at an excitation frequency of 600 Hz. From Fig. 10b it can
be seen that it is easier to excite this mode for horizontal
than for vertical direction. Which is in line with results ob-
tained from experimental tests. Mode number 3 (708 Hz)
can be seen in experimental error charts for both vertical
(as a peak of around 2 lm) and horizontal direction
(4 lm error value). The highest angle value for this corre-
sponds to roll movement but, in contrast to angle results
obtained for mode 1, yaw angle value is significantly closer
to roll angle value. This would explain the importance of
this mode in encoder error charts. Mode number 4
(908 Hz) consists in a pitch movement of the scanning car-
riage together with the scale. This mode is only excited in
vertical direction and has a very low influence in the per-
formance of the encoder (error does not reach 1 lm, as it
can be observed in Fig. 11a). Mode 5 has to do with a vibra-
tional mode of the housing wall at a frequency value of
1140 Hz. Effects of this mode cannot be analyzed with
1378 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380

our finite element model given that sealing lips have not
been included (it is the element connecting housing walls
with head support). However, interesting remarks can be
make from experimental results. This mode can be ob-
served in several error charts and is clearly distinguishable
for mounting condition 3c (Fig. 11g). In this mounting con-
dition, a displacement of the head towards the housing
wall was forced. This way, it is not difficult to figure out
why the effect of this mode is more accentuated for this
mounting condition. For the encoder selected it does not
constitute an important loss of accuracy. However, for lar-
ger measuring length encoders, several modes related to
this wall vibration can appear in the selected frequency
range with larger moving masses involved, and possibly,
with higher error values. From Fig. 10f a yaw movement
of the scanning carriage can be appreciated again for Mode
6 (1220 Hz), and again, high error values are shown in all
encoder error charts for this excitation frequency. The only
case in which this error does not exceed the accuracy of the
instrument (although the value is very close) corresponds
to mounting condition 1a, that is, the conventional posi-
tion with prescribed mounting conditions. FEA results sit-
uate mode number 7 at a frequency of 1318 Hz. Yaw is
predominant for this mode too. Peak error value associated
with this mode is only discernible for mounting conditions
1a (Fig. 11a) and 3b (Fig. 11f) given that for the other
charts seems to be add up to Mode 6 error in a continuous
way. Frequency values from FEA for modes number 8 and 9
differ to some extent in relation to those values observed in
experimental charts. Mode number 8 (1550 Hz) can be
seen as a 2 lm peak error value at 1500 Hz of excitation
frequency in most of experimental error charts. Mode
number 9 (1708 Hz), a combination of roll and yaw
movement of the scanning carriage, can be observed
for all encoder error charts with an error value of
1 lm.
Observations made through deformed shapes of
different modes, experimental error values and yaw, pitch
and roll angles suggest that yaw movements of the scan-
ning carriage in relation to the scale have a strong influ-
ence in the performance of the encoder. Trying to clarify
this influence, Tables 7 and 8 show the correlation coeffi-
cient between yaw angles and encoder experimental errors
for the most significant modes. As it can be observed in
these two tables, highest and positive values of correlation
coefficient have been obtained for yaw angles for both
directions, being the influence of yaw movements in the
accuracy of the encoder quite clear for horizontal direction.
Table 9 shows probabilistic sensitivities to yaw angle of
input variables. The highest sensitivity values correspond
to adhesive shear modulus except for mode number 6, in
which the parameter relative to initial strain of the vertical
compression springs has the strongest sensitivity. Regard-
ing spring stiffness, the most influential is that related to
vertical springs, being torsional spring stiffness and axial
spring stiffness the less influential variables in yaw angle
FEA results. Focusing on vibrational modes with highest
experimental error values, that is, mode numbers 2, 3
and 6, it can be appreciated from Table 9 signs and values,
that yaw angles can be minimized resorting to high values
of adhesive shear modulus (Gadh) and spring stiffness of
vertical springs (kv), diminishing their initial strains (Lc).
The sensitivity values of this parameter (Lc) agrees well
with experimental results as it can be observed in mount-
ing conditions 1a (Fig. 11a) and 3b (Fig. 11f). In fact, for all
mounting conditions, the probabilistic variables chosen for
FEA other than this one (Gadh, kv, kt, ka) are constant. The
only variable that changes its value when gap variations

Table 7
Correlation coefficients between angle values and experimental errors for the most significant modes. Vertical direction.

Parameter Mode 3 Mode 6 Mode7 Mode 8 Mode 9 Correlation coefficient

Yaw 0.201E 2 0.907E 3 0.200E 4 0.216E 7 0.167E 3 0.25
Pitch 0.243E 2 0.190E 3 0.200E 5 0.147E 6 0.900E 4 0.09
Roll 0.190E 1 0.149E 2 0.190E 4 0.100E 5 0.708E 3 0.09
Exp. Error (lm) 1.80E0 4.50E0 2.00E0 1.30E0 1.30E0

Table 8
Correlation coefficients between angle values and experimental errors for the most significant modes. Horizontal direction.

Parameter Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 6 Mode 8 Mode 9 Correlation coefficient

Yaw 0.418E 3 0.464E 3 0.334E 3 0.648E 6 0.166E 3 0.61
Pitch 0.823E 6 0.566E 3 0.660E 4 0.700E 5 0.127E 3 0.28
Roll 0.600E 5 0.443E 2 0.519E 3 0.560E 4 0.993E 3 0.28
Exp. Error (lm) 1.04E + 1 4.00E0 7.00E0 2.80E0 1.10E0

Table 9
Sensitivities to Yaw angle between scanning carriage and scale.

Parameter Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode7 Mode 8 Mode 9
Gadh 7.793e 1 9.7503e 1 9.561e 1 9.904e 1 – 3.839e 1 1.605e 1 4.805e 1 7.297e 1
Lc 5.933e 1 Insignificant 2.315e 1 9.109e 2 – 9.195e 1 2.732e 2 2.377e 1 6.236e 1
kv 3.519e 1 4.7381e 1 4.564e 1 4.989e 1 – 1.724e 1 1.277e 1 2.201e 1 3.426e 1
kt 2.474e 1 1.8310e 1 1.977e 1 1.958e 1 – 7.707e 2 1.221e 1 2.109e 1 5.344e 2
ka 3.106e 2 2.4826e 2 5.383e 2 2.828e 2 – 7.322e 2 1.493e 2 2.242e 2 2.521e 2
 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
Table 10
Correlation coefficient between yaw sensitivity values to Lc and most significant experimental errors variations from mounting condition 1a to mounting
condition 3b.
Parameter Mode 3 Mode 4
Lc 2.32E 01 9.11E 02
Variation in error 0.5E0 0.5E0
Fig. 12. Scale displacement field for mode 6. (a) Head positioned at end of the scale. (b) Head centered in relation to scale.
between head and scale are forced such as in mounting
condition 3b is the initial strain of the vertical springs. This
way, the high increment of error for Mode 6 from mount-
ing condition 1a to mounting condition 3b is well related
to the highest sensitivity value of yaw angle for this mode
of vibration. Direct relation between yaw sensitivity values
to Lc and most significant experimental errors variations
from mounting condition 1a to mounting condition 3b is
well reported by the high correlation coefficient showed
in Table 10, agreeing well again FEA with experimental
results.
Regarding results obtained for positions of the head in
relation to scale others than centered (mounting condi-
tions 2a, 2b; Fig. 11c and d, respectively), a peak error va-
lue higher than that corresponding to mounting condition
1a can be observed for Mode 6. This is probably due to the
lesser adhesion surface of the bonded joint that contributes
to the movement of the set scanning carriage-scale when
the head is positioned at both ends of the scale, as it can
be observed on Fig. 12. This agree well with the fact that
Mode 8 presents a peak error slightly lower for mounting
condition 2b than for 2a, given that for mounting condition
2b axial spring compensates to some extent the lower
rigidity contribution of the adhesive at the end of measur-
ing length.
7. Conclusions
Optical linear encoders present dissimilar dynamic per-
formance regarding the direction of vibration. Error values
for certain positions can exceed the accuracy of the instru-
ment even for acceleration levels at which manufacturers
do not recommend the use of vibration protection elements.
The mounting position with reference to the direction of
vibration can cause new resonances with important
1379
Mode 6 Mode7 Correlation coefficient
9.20E 01 2.73E 02 0.89
14E0 5E0
encoder error values to appear. Encoder error is sharply
influenced by yaw movements of the scanning carriage in
relation to the scale. This way, dynamic force directions that
tend to excite the modes of vibration with a significant yaw
component have to be avoided, if possible. A defective
assembly of the encoder in the machine tool amplifies the
error committed by the encoder, making it possible that
an encoder that is working with errors lower than accuracy
under prescribed mounting conditions, becomes one work-
ing with errors higher than accuracy. For the special case
where gap requirements are not fulfilled between scale
and head, the error can exceed several times the accuracy
of the encoder, due to the strong influence of initial strains
of vertical springs in the yaw movement of the carriage.
Vibrational modes associated to the housing walls can cause
a loss of accuracy too, especially in case of encoders with
high measuring lengths. Dissimilar accuracy response have
been obtained regarding the position of the head in relation
to the scale; specifically, higher encoder error values are ob-
served for head positions at the beginning or end of the mea-
suring length than when the head is centered with the scale,
due to the lower rigidity contribution of the adhesive at the
end of measuring length, which involves larger displace-
ments of the scale relative to the carriage.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the Ministry of
Science and Education of Spain under Project DPI2007-
64469.
References
[1] P. Sente, H. Buyse, From smart sensors to smart actuators: application
of digital encoders for position and speed measurements in numerical
control systems, Measurement 15 (1995) 25–32.
1380 J. López et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1367–1380
[2] S. Chatterjee, An assessment of quasi-static and operational errors in
NC machine tools, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 16 (1) (1997)
59–68.
[3] G. Dessein, P. Lagarrige, W. Rubio, The configuration of a machining
centre and its influence on accuracy, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology (1998) 38–42.
[4] M. Weck, C. Hessel, B. Müller-Held, The virtual machine tool,
Production Engineering (VII/2) (2000) 89–94.
[5] W.G. Weekers, P.H.J. Schellekens, Compensation for dynamic errors
of coordinate measuring machines, Measurement 20 (3) (1997) 197–
209.
[6] G.H.J. Florussen, F.L.M. Delbressine, M.J.G. van de Molengraft, P.H.J.
Schellekens, Assessing geometrical errors of multi-axis machines by
three-dimensional length measurements, Measurement 30 (4)
(2001) 241–255.
[7] I. Alejandre, M. Artés, Machine tool errors caused by optical linear
encoders, in: Proceedings of the I MECH E Part B Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, vol. 218, no. 1, January 2004, pp. 113–122.
[8] K. Patorsky, M. Kujawinska, Handbook of the Moire Fringe
Technique, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland, 1993.
[9] J. Song, K. Kim, S. Kim, Reducing tilt errors in moire linear encoders
using phase modulated grating, Review of Scientific Instruments 71
(6) (2000) 2296–2300.
[10] M. Brumbaugh, Mounting tool for linear encoder, United States
Patent 6820348, 2004, November 23.
[11] K.R. Loss, K.T. Keyward, Modeling and analysis of peel and shear
stresses in adhesively bonded joints. AIAA paper 84-0913.
[12] W. Weaver, P.R. Johnston, Structural Dynamics by Finite Elements,
Prentice-Hall, 1987. pp. 413–415.
[13] R.W. Clough, J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1975.
[14] EN 60068-2-6, Environmental testing. Part 2: tests. Tests Fc:
vibration (sinusoidal), 1996, July.
[15] R. Mahdavinejad, Finite element analysis of machine and workpiece
instability in turning, International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture 45 (2005) 753–760.
[16] I. Alejandre, M. Artés, Method for the evaluation of optical encoders
performance under vibration, Precision Engineering 31 (2007) 114–
121.
[17] W. Gander, G.H. Golub, R. Strebel, Least-squares fitting of circles and
ellipses, BIT 34 (1994) 556–577.
[18] L.M. Sánchez-Brea, T. Morlanes, Metrological errors in optical
encoders, Measurement Science and Technology 19 (2008) 115104.