Experimental study on performance verification tests for coordinate

measuring systems with optical distance sensors

Simone Carmignato
University of Padova, DTG, Stradella San Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
simone.carmignato@unipd.it
ABSTRACT
Optical sensors are increasingly used for dimensional and geometrical metrology. However, the lack of international
standards for testing optical coordinate measuring systems is currently limiting the traceability of measurements and the
easy comparison of different optical systems. This paper presents an experimental investigation on artefacts and
procedures for testing coordinate measuring systems equipped with optical distance sensors. The work is aimed at
contributing to the standardization of testing methods. The VDI/VDE 2617-6.2:2005 guideline, which is probably the
most complete document available at the state of the art for testing systems with optical distance sensors, is examined
with specific experiments. Results from the experiments are discussed, with particular reference to the tests used for
determining the following characteristics: error of indication for size measurement, probing error and structural
resolution. Particular attention is given to the use of artefacts alternative to gauge blocks for determining the error of
indication for size measurement.
Keywords: Optical distance sensors, Coordinate Metrology, Performance verification

1. INTRODUCTION
The use of optical measuring systems for industrial quality control and the integration of optical sensors into Coordinate
Measuring Machines (CMMs) are getting more and more common, due to several advantages of optical measuring
techniques respect to contact probing systems. The main benefits of optical measuring technologies in industrial
metrology concern the measurement speed and the suitability for in-process control in production. The increasingly
complexity of the industrial components often require thousands or even millions of points to obtain the accurate model
of a workpiece; in this case the time needed to digitalize the entire part by contact probing could grow to hours or
sometimes days, while non-contact measuring systems can be considerably faster. Furthermore, the use of non-rigid
materials in todays products can be a limit for traditional contact probes: in fact, measuring the surface of delicate or
flexible parts with a touch probe, the part could be damaged and the measuring accuracy affected by incidental
deflections.
There are a large number of different types of optical distance sensors on the market with different interfaces,
characteristics and performances [1]. The most common types of sensors are based on the following principles: laser
triangulation (1D or 2D), holographic conoscopy, image auto-focusing, laser focusing, chromatic focusing, confocal
microscopy, white light interferometry, structured light projection, stereo photogrammetry. Each type of sensor can be
influenced in a different way from several different error sources. The principal influencing quantities can be classified
as follows:
- Environmental error sources: illumination, temperature, humidity, dust, vibrations;
- Properties the object: surface finishing, colour, opacity, translucency, reflectivity, accessibility;
- Measuring strategy: measuring field, calibration procedure, coordinate system alignment;
- Hardware components: optical sensor, geometrical errors of positioning system, mechanical stability;
- Data processing: filtering, algorithms implementations, registration of multiple views;
- Extrinsic factors: operators, surface cleanliness, clamping system.
One of the main obstacles to a wider use of optical sensors and to their integration on CMMs can be found in the lacking
of internationally accepted specification and verification rules. International standards regarding performance
verification of optical systems are still missing. The existing standards related to contact probing CMMs cannot be
applied directly to optical systems, due to the different error sources influencing the measurement process.
Three-Dimensional Imaging Metrology, edited by J. Angelo Beraldin, Geraldine S. Cheok, Michael McCarthy,
Ulrich Neuschaefer-Rube, Proc. of SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vol. 7239, 72390I
2009 SPIE-IS&T CCC code: 0277-786X/09/$18 doi: 10.1117/12.805991
SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-1

Internationally accepted testing procedures are essential not only to allow the users to easily compare different measuring
devices, but also for taking full advantage of optical sensors capabilities [2]. Furthermore, standardization is needed to
protect the manufacturers from technical and commercial risks, reducing the sensors integration costs and giving the
right mean to guarantee the overall system performance [3].
In the following sections, procedures and artefacts for testing coordinate measuring systems with optical distance sensors
will be discussed. Particular focus will be put on the guideline VDI/VDE 2617-6.2 [4], which is expressly dealing with
performance verification of measuring systems with optical distance sensors.

2. STANDARDIZATION OF TESTING PROCEDURES

The lack of internationally recognised standards for acceptance and reverification tests for optical coordinate measuring
systems causes difficulties in comparing different measuring systems and in evaluating the accuracy of optical
measurements. The current status of published standards and guidelines for coordinate measuring systems is shown in
Table 1. As visible from the table, there are not international standards available for testing optical coordinate measuring
systems.
Table 1. Standards and guidelines for testing coordinate measuring systems.

Subject
Acceptance and
reverification tests
Characteristics, components
of the measur. deviation
Nomenclature, terms and
basic definitions
Measuring uncertainty

Standards and guidelines subdivided by type of

coordinate measuring system
Tactile CMMs
Optical systems
VDI/VDE 2617-6
ISO 10360-2 *
ASME B98-4.1
VDI/VDE 2634
VDI/VDE 2617 -2.1, -2.3
OSIS WG3
VDI/VDE 2617-6
ISO 10360-3, -4, -5 -6 *
VDI/VDE 2617-2.3, -3, -4
DIN 32877
OSIS WG3
VDI/VDE 2617-6
ISO 10360-1 *
VDI/VDE 2617-1
OSIS WG3
GUM *
ISO 15530-3, -4 *

GUM *

*International standards.

In its present form, the ISO 10360 series of standards provides acceptance and reverification tests that are intended for
tactile CMMs. Such tests are not directly applicable to optical measuring systems, mainly because optical sensors are
influenced by different error sources respect to tactile measuring techniques. The German guideline VDI/VDE 2617-6.2
[4], proposes an adaptation of the ISO 10360-2 [5] tests for coordinate measuring systems equipped with optical distance
sensors. Such guideline is already applied by several manufacturers and users of optical measuring systems and is
considered as one of the fundamental documents for the development of a future new part of the ISO 10360 series for
optical sensors [6]. Another important document that is already applied by several manufacturers for performance
verifications of optical measuring sensors and systems was published by OSIS WG3 [7]. Both OSIS WG3 and VDI/VDE
2617-6.2 documents are briefly discussed in the following.
2.1 OSIS WG3
Driven by the urgent need of standardization, the International Association of CMM Manufacturers IACMM [8] has
carried out the cooperative Project OSIS (Optical Sensor Interface Standard [9]) with the main goal to realize the first
official version of a common interface standard. OSIS is very significant for performance verification of optical systems
because it takes into consideration the existing national and international standards for verification of coordinate
measuring systems and integrates or adapts them where necessary [3, 10]. OSIS has been structured into three subworkgroups, dealing with different aspects of the integration of optical sensors:
WG1: Mechanical / electrical interface;
WG2: Data integration (Software interface);

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-2

WG3: Specification, classification and performance verification.

The OSIS WG3 documentation on specification and verification [7] is of particular interest for the topic of this paper.
Such documentation is based on the following requirements:
- A four-shells model approach is adopted for performance verification. The four-shells are four levels of
verification: (1) performance verification of the Optical Probing Sensor (OPS) itself, (2) performance verification
of the OPS integrated on the positioning system, (3) performance verification of the entire measuring system, (4)
performance verification of the measuring system when performing specific measurements close to the actual
application. The idea is to provide a systematic approach and a set of tests for all the four levels.
- The standards for systems specification shall be adopted wherever possible in order to be compatible with
internationally standardized or accepted procedures. In particular the series ISO 10360 for performance
verification of mechanical CMMs and the German guidelines VDI/VDE 2617 have to be taken in consideration;
- The additional specification and verification rules must be feature-related, in order to relax the need to be
sensitive for each and every uncertainty influence;
- The additional rules must cover virtually any optical sensor type, and must as well be open for future ones and for
any new measurement task. The adaptation can be simply done by specifying an adequate task-related reference
artefact;
The testing procedures developed by OSIS WG3 have been already investigated in a previous work [11], in which each
procedure was experimented with different optical sensors. Results from such experimental investigation demonstrated
the significance of the four-shell approach, even though some modifications should be implemented on the procedures in
order to improve them. For instance, the repeatability and reproducibility tests were found to be a valid method to
compare performance of different integrated sensors; however, since outliers are not removed in the data evaluation,
outliers can consistently affect the calculation of the characteristics. In addition, due to the number of repetitions and
related time of execution, these tests are very time consuming and hence they can hardly be accepted in industry to test
the sensors (e.g. experiments revealed that the complete test of a video sensor can take more than 20 hours).
2.2 VDI/VDE 2617-6.2
The German guideline VDI/VDE 2617-6.2:2005, proposes an adaptation of the ISO 10360-2 tests for coordinate
measuring systems equipped with optical distance sensors. While ISO 10360-2 is expressly written for CMMs with
tactile probes only, the VDI/VDE guideline provides the necessary additional specifications for the use of optical
sensors:
- artefacts to be used as an alternative to gauge blocks;
- comparability of the characteristics when different artefacts are used (e.g. ball bars or other artefacts with
spherical surfaces);
- comparability of the characteristics when different probing strategies are used for different sensors (e.g.
different points number, differences in coverage of the elements to be probed, use of swing-and-tilt
equipment or other accessories);
- definition of the characteristics for different operating conditions;
- regulation on how to take into account influencing variables such as environmental factors, mathematical filters,
and surface properties of the artefact.
According to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2, the two principal characteristics to be tested are: (1) probing error and (2) error of
indication for size measurement. Such two characteristics are briefly described in the following.
1)

Probing error: According to ISO 10360-2, the probing error characterises the three-dimensional errors of the
entire system consisting of coordinate measuring machine, optical distance sensor and accessories (such as
articulators) within a very small measurement volume. In VDI/VDE 2617-6.2, a distinction is made between the
probing errors for the form (PF) and for the size (PS), where:

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-3

- PF is the range of radial deviations between the measurement points and the calculated regression sphere. This
is identical to the difference between the maximum and minimum distances of probing points from the
centre of the regression sphere. The regression sphere is determined according to the least-squares method,
with the radius being unrestricted.
- PS is the error calculated in the diameter of the test sphere. This error is obtained from the difference between
the diameter of the test sphere as measured and the calibrated diameter of the test sphere.
2)

Error of indication for size measurement: This characteristic evaluates the three-dimensional errors of the entire
measuring system (positioning system plus measuring sensor) within the whole measurement volume. According
to ISO 10360-2, the error of indication for size measurement, E, is the error with which lengths on calibrated
artefacts can be measured using a CMM if measurement is performed by bidirectional probing of two opposite
points on nominally parallel surfaces, perpendicular to one of the two surfaces. The test length is the distance
between these two points. The artefacts shall be measured along four body diagonals and three further
orientations chosen by the user. In each position, five test lengths shall be measured three times each. Concerning
the artefacts to be used, VDI/VDE 2617-6.2 allows not only the use of gauge block, but also of ball bars. With
optical sensors, ball bars can be much more easy to use respect to gauge blocks: the distance between spheres
centres is easier than the distance between parallel faces because typically it does not need articulating system.
When using ball bars, it shall be noted expressly that the error of indication for size measurement differs from the
sphere-distance error, SD, introduced in VDI/VDE 2634-2. In fact, the probing error is not included completely
in the sphere-distance error; this is due to averaging effects in the calculation of the regression sphere from the
large number of permissible measurement points. Therefore, the sphere-distance measurement is not comparable
to bidirectional point-to-point measurements using gauge blocks. For this reason, when using ball bars, VDI/VDE
2617-6.2 states clearly that the contribution of the probing error shall be added separately to errors of indication
for size measurement calculated from more than two probing points per length.

An additional characteristic that should always be tested is structural resolution (lateral resolution). This characteristic is
briefly described in the Appendix A of VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. Structural resolution characterises the smallest structure
perpendicular to the direction of measurement that is measurable with the specified probing error. Structural resolution is
not already included in the probing error test. For instance, with increasing low-pass effect of filtering, the probing error
decreases while the structural resolution deteriorates. Structural resolution must, therefore, be considered and specific
artefacts have to be used in order to determine this characteristic.

3. TESTING ARTEFACTS
For testing optical sensors, calibrated artefacts are needed. In order to perform valid performance verification tests, the
properties of the artefacts surfaces should have no significant effect on the characteristic to be determined. Surfaces with
an insignificant influence on the measurement results are called cooperative surfaces. For many optical systems,
including triangulation sensors, the surface of the artefacts needs to be a diffuse scattering surface (ideally a
Lambertian surface). In such cases, artefacts with optically rough surfaces are needed [12].
Within this work, several artefacts have been developed for testing optical distance sensors. Figure 1, for example, show
a ball-bar that has been realized for testing laser scanners (2D triangulation laser sensors); this artefact allows the
determination of the error of indication for size measurement, according to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. The spheres of the ballbar are made of ceramic and their surface have a roughness Ra of about 1m. Several other spherical artefacts have been
developed for testing the probing error. Different types of material can be used in this case, for example stainless steel
with various surface treatments.
A different kind of artefact is shown in Figure 2. This artefact has been developed for testing the structural resolution
according to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. The artefact is made of stainless steel, with rough and flat surfaces. It includes a 1 mm
step with sharp edges.

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-4

Fig. 1. Ball-bar with six ceramic spheres. The spheres have diameter of 10 mm and distance between spheres of 15 mm.

Fig. 2. Artefact developed for testing the structural resolution of optical distance sensors. The artefact features a 1 mm step
with sharp edges.

4. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON VDI/VDE 2617-6.2

An experimental study was carried out on artefacts and procedures proposed by the guideline VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. This
investigation is aimed at contributing to the standardization of verification methods and determining the applicability of
the proposed artefacts and procedures, with particular focus on limitations arising in the implementation of tests. The
work was carried out using a 3-axis coordinate measuring system equipped with a 2D laser-triangulation sensor (laser
scanner).
The experiments included the implementation of the principal tests proposed in the VDI/VDE guideline: (1) test for
determination of the probing error and (2) test for determination of the error of indication for size measurement. The
results from such tests are briefly presented and discussed in the following, together with some consideration on
verification of the structural resolution. In addition, at the end of this section, the characteristics determined by the
performance verification tests are compared with the values of measurement uncertainties for specific measurement tasks
that are typically performed with the measuring system under testing.
4.1 Probing Error
The tests for the determination of the probing error were performed on a calibrated sphere with nominal diameter D = 22
mm, according to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. The investigation revealed that the values obtained for the probing error are
particularly influenced by two factors:
- value of the maximum slope angle (see Figure 3), which is the cone angle of the spherical bowl containing the
measured points considered for determining PF;
- algorithms and filtration methods employed for data elaboration.

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-5

Fig. 3. Schematic illustration showing the cone angle on a calibrated sphere. This angle delimits the area that is measured
on the sphere during the test for determining the probing error. The red dots schematize the points measured by the
probing sensor.

Table 2 illustrates the influence of the maximum slope angle on the probing error PF. From this and other similar tests,
it can be inferred that the probing error is strongly dependent from the angle chosen for the test.
Table 2. Variation of the probing error PF depending from the chosen value of the angle .

Angle
20 deg.
40 deg.
60 deg.
80 deg.

Probing error, PF
0.028 mm
0.034 mm
0.042 mm
0.053 mm

The influence of the algorithms and filtration methods employed for data elaboration is clearly visible from the
comparison of Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows the data obtained measuring the sphere with the laser scanner using a
simple elaboration algorithm, without further filtration. Figure 5, instead, show the data obtained when using a different
elaboration algorithm, including linear filtering. The probing error determined in the first case is PF1 = 0.18 mm, while
in the second case is PF2 = 0.06 mm. In both cases the probing error PS remains well below 0.01 mm.
0.095

0.0

[mm]

0.085

Fig. 4. Measurement data obtained using a simple elaboration algorithm, without further filtration. The colour map shows
the difference from the measured data and the regression sphere recalculated according to the least-squares method. In
this case the value of PF is 0.18 mm.

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-6

0.028

0.0

[mm]

0.033

Fig. 5. Measurement data obtained using an elaboration algorithm including linear filtering. The colour map shows the
difference from the measured data and the regression sphere recalculated according to the least-squares method. In this
case the value of PF is 0.06 mm.

As suggested in the Appendix A of VDI/VDE 2617-6.2, the structural resolution of the sensor shall always be
determined additionally to the probing error. In general, filter methods will impair structural resolution while at the same
time improving the probing error. Structural resolution can be tested by measuring a step artefact, as the one shown in
Figure 2. An example result of the implementation of a structural resolution test is shown in Figure 6. In this case, from
the measured profile (see Figure 6-right), a structural resolution of about 0.1 mm is determined according to the method
described in VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. Further details on structural resolution tests are given in the previous paper [13].

100

200

300

400

Z (pm)

500

600

700

100

200

300

400

Z (pm)

500

600

700

Fig. 6. Left: nominal profile for the step artefact shown in Figure 2. Right: measured profile obtained with the laser scanner;
from the measured profile the actual structural resolution can be calculated as described in VDI/VDE 2617-6.2-App.A.

4.2 Error of indication for size measurement

The tests for the determination of the error of indication for size measurement were performed on a calibrated ball bar
(Figure 1) with 6 spheres having nominal diameter of 10 mm and distance between two contiguous spheres of 15 mm,
according to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2. As suggested by the guideline, the spheres were measured using points distributed as
evenly as possible over the entire surface of the spheres and as symmetrically as possible to a plane that is perpendicular
to the measurement line and goes through the spheres centres.
Figure 7 shows the results obtained in one of the tests performed on the laser scanner. This diagram reports the values of
the so-called sphere-distance error, SD, which is defined as the difference between (1) the measured distance between
two sphere centres and (2) the calibrated distance between the same two sphere centres. In the diagram, there are actually

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-7

present 15 measurements, which result from the measurement of 5 lengths per 3 repetitions (as specified in VDI/VDE
2617-6.2 for testing one of the seven positions to be verified within the measurement volume).

Sphere-distance error
Rotation -45 deS Swing -4? decO

0,02

001
U

c'-.
2E

15

30

-0,01

-0,02
0

45

60

75

L(mmj
Fig. 7. Sphere-distance error, SD, determined through the measurement of five test lengths measured three times each.

As mentioned in the previous section, VDI/VDE 2617-6.2 specifies that the sphere-distance error cannot be used instead
of the error of indication: the averaging effect and compensation of bias errors encountered in measurements of sphere
distances shall be taken into account additionally to allow comparison with measurements of individual points on
opposite faces of a gauge block. In order to ensure comparability, the VDI/VDE guideline specifies that a correction
must be added to SD, using one of the following two methods: (1) additional measurement of a short gauge block for
each test length (2) correction obtained from the evaluation of the probing error. The first method, however, is not
always applicable; for example it is typically not applicable when the measuring sensor is not equipped with an
articulating system. Hence, the second method can actually be the only valid one for testing many measuring systems.
Figure 8 shows the calculation of the error of indication for size measurement (E) obtained from the sphere-distance
error (SD), given in Figure 7, plus the signed value of the probing error for form (PF) and the probing error for the size
(PS), as specified by VDI/VDE 2617-6.2.

Error of indication, E
Rotation 45 leo Swiito 45 Ieo}

002
0,01
E

-0,01

-0,02
0

15

30

45

60

75

L(mm]
Fig. 8. Error of indication for size measurement, E, determined by adding to the results given in Figure 7 the probing errors
PS and PF, according to VDI/VDE 2617-6.2.

4.3 Discussion of results

From the results presented above it is clear that, when using the verification procedure specified in VDI/VDE 2617-6.2,
the value obtained for the error of indication for size measurement can be dominated by the influence of the probing
errors. This is due to the fact that the VDI/VDE procedure requires adding the probing errors to the sphere-distance
errors for taking into account a single point measurement. However, for many optical sensors actually there exists not a
single point measurement: for example, for some sensors the row data is actually an image acquired from a camera and
so there exist not row single points. Depending on the algorithms used for points reconstruction and filtering, probing

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-8

errors can be much bigger than sphere-distance errors, so that the error of indication, E, can be completely masked by the
probing error, PF. For this reason, the intrinsic test uncertainty may result too high. In conclusion, keeping the probing
error and the sphere-distance error distinct could help the users to obtain more significant characteristics.
4.4 Comparison with measurement uncertainty
As part of this work, a comparison was carried out between the performance verification characteristics of the measuring
system under testing and the typical measuring uncertainties for specific measurement tasks of the same measuring
system. The workpiece shown in Figure 9 is a typical measuring task for the laser scanner system that was tested as
described above.

Fig. 9. Metallic workpiece. The two cylinders A and B were measured with the laser scanner system under testing.

In particular, cylinders A and B shown in Figure 9 were measured with the laser system and their diameters and
cylindricities were chosen as measurands. Cylinders A and B have diameters of approximately 15 mm. The measurement
uncertainties were determined by applying the substitution method, using a procedure derived from ISO 15530-3 [14].
The results of the uncertainty calculation are shown in Table 3. The values given in the table reveal that for the laser
scanner under testing the measuring uncertainties are very different depending from the type of measurement:
dimensional measurements (diameters) have lower uncertainty (UD15 = 7 m in the measurement of a 15 mm diameter)
while form measurements have higher uncertainty (Uform = 60-70 m in measurements of cilinricity).
Table 3. Measurement uncertainty determined according to ISO 15530-3

Measurand
Diameter A
Diameter B
Cilindricity A
Cilindricity B

Measurement uncertainty
UD15 = 0.007 mm
UD15 = 0.007 mm
Uform = 0.06 mm
Uform = 0.07 mm

This strong difference between UD15 and Uform could approximately be inferred also from the difference between the
characteristics SDE and PF: the laser scanner has SDE15 = 4 m and PF = 60 m (where SDE15 is the sphere-distance
error corresponding to a distance of 15 mm between two spheres centres). The same inference is not possible if the
characteristic E is used instead of SDE; in fact E15 is 70 m, which is very different from UD15 = 7 m and from SDE15 =
4 m because the error of indication for size measurement, E, is completely dominated by the probing error, PF.
This example confirms that keeping the probing error and the sphere-distance error distinct could be more significant,
rather than putting all together in only one characteristic.

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-9

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Coordinate measuring systems equipped with optical distance sensors are increasingly used for dimensional and
geometrical measurements, due to their rapidity and other advantages respect to contact probing CMMs. However, the
lack of internationally recognised standards for acceptance and reverification tests of optical systems is currently a major
problem in this field. The work presented in this paper was aimed at improving the state of the art methods that are used
for testing optical coordinate measuring systems. An experimental investigation was presented on procedures and
artefacts for testing specific characteristics according to the guideline VDI/VDE 2617-6.2: 2005, with particular
reference to: error of indication for size measurement, probing error and structural resolution. Based on experimental
results obtained from a laser scanner on specifically developed artefacts, the main problems arising in the
implementation of testing procedures were analyzed. In particular it was demonstrated that, when using ball bars, the
error of indication for size measurement, E, may be completely masked by the probing error, PF. Furthermore the value
of the probing error is extremely influenced by elaboration algorithms and filtration methods. As a consequence, the
intrinsic test uncertainty may result too high. Keeping the probing error and the sphere-distance error distinct could be
more significant. Further work is needed to extend the experimental investigation presented in this paper to other
coordinate measuring systems using different optical distance sensors.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of this work was financed by the European Union: Co-operative Research Project OP3MET, contract n. COOPCT200-32721. Alessandro Voltan and Raffaella Novello (University of Padova) are thanked for their valuable work in
connection with laser scanner testing.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]

[14]

Schwenke, H., Neuschaefer-Rube, U., Kunzmann, H., Pfeifer, T., Optical methods for dimensional metrology in
production engineering, CIRP Annals, vol. 51/1, 685 - 699, (2002).
Beraldin, J.-A., Blais, F., El-Hakim, S., Cournoyer, L., Picard, M., Traceable 3D Imaging Metrology: Evaluation of
3D Digitizing Techniques in a Dedicated Metrology Laboratory, 8th Conference on Optical 3-D Measurement
Techniques, Zurich, Switzerland, July 9-12, (2007).
Keferstein, C. P., Zst, R., Minimizing technical and financial risk when integrating and applying optical sensors
for in-process measurement, IMS International Forum, 475-482 (2004).
VDI/VDE 2617 - 6.2: 2005, Accuracy of CMMs - Characteristics and their testing - Guideline for the application
of DIN EN ISO 10360 to CMMs with optical distance sensors, VDI, Dsseldorf, (2005).
ISO 10360-2: 2001, GPS Acceptance tests and reverifications test for coordinate measuring machines (CMM)
Part 2: CMMs used for measuring sizes, ISO, Geneva, (2001).
ISO/DIS 10360-7, Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) - Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate
measuring machines (CMM) - Part 7: CMMs equipped with imaging probing systems, ISO, Geneva, (2008).
OSIS WG3, Documentation on Specification, classifications and performance verification, Rel. 1.1, (2006).
Website IACMM: http://www.iacmm.org, visited in September 2008.
Website OSIS: http://www.ntb.ch/3422.html, visited in September 2008.
Carmignato, S., Savio, E., Verdi, M., Standardizzazione e verifica dellaccuratezza dei sistemi ottici, Proceedings
of Reverse Engineering: potenzialit e applicazioni, Modena, (2004).
Carmignato S., Voltan A., Savio E., Investigation on testing procedures for optical coordinate measuring systems,
VIII International Science Conference on Coordinate Measuring Techniques, Bielsko-Biala, Poland, 31 March - 2
April 2008.
Ehrig, W., Neuschaefer-Rube, U., Artefacts with rough surfaces for verification of optical microsensors, SPIE
Conference on Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection V, Munich, Germany, June 18-22, 2007.
Carmignato S., Neuschaefer-Rube U., Schwenke H., Wendt K., Tests and artefacts for determining the structural
resolution of optical distance sensors for coordinate measurement, Euspen International Conference, Baden bei
Wien, May 2006.
ISO/TS 15530-3: 2004, GPS - CMMs: Technique for determining the uncertainty of measurement - Part 3: Use of
calibrated workpieces or standards, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, (2004).

SPIE-IS&T/ Vol. 7239 72390I-10