CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by University of Huddersfield Repository

University of Huddersfield Repository

Qi, Qunfen, Jiang, Xiangqian, Liu, Xiaojun and Scott, Paul J.

An unambiguous expression method of the surface texture

Original Citation

Qi, Qunfen, Jiang, Xiangqian, Liu, Xiaojun and Scott, Paul J. (2010) An unambiguous expression
method of the surface texture. Measurement, 43 (10). pp. 1398-1403. ISSN 0263-2241

This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10166/

The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the

University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:

• The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
• A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
• The content is not changed in any way.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk.

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
An unambiguous expression method of the surface texture

Qunfen Qi1,2, Xiangqian Jiang2, Xiaojun Liu1 and Paul J. Scott2,3

1
School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China;
2
Centre for Precision Technologies, University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, United Kingdom;
3
Taylor Hobson Ltd, 2 New Star Road, Leicester, LE4 9JQ, United Kingdom

Abstract The current specification and verification of surface texture in international standards are con-
sidered to be too theoretical, complex and over-elaborate for industry. A functional approach that com-
pletely expresses the complicated surface texture knowledge for designers and engineers is often non-
existent on the shop floor. Based on Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) philosophy, this paper
proposes an unambiguous expression schema of surface texture. The surface texture knowledge in design,
manufacture and measurement is based on the general GPS matrix and structured by a categorical object
model. Explicit specification and verification processes and the mapping between them are presented. The
ultimate goal is to improve the collaboration and bridge the knowledge gap between design, manufacture
and measurement of surface texture to reduce product development lead time and improve product quality
and performance.

Keywords: Surface texture; Specification; Verification; Geometrical Product Specification (GPS); Cate-
gorical object model

1. Introduction
In the development of the surface texture expression, more than 100 profile parameters and 40 areal pa-
rameters have been defined. The specification of surface texture is getting more and more complicated as
shown in figure 1. There is a large amount of surface texture specification and verification data with as-
sociated information regarding function requirements, manufacturing process and measurement that needs
to be expressed, transferred, stored or analysed. As more data is being collected, there is a need for sharing
data and associated information effectively, to eliminate redundancy in data collection and analysis.
However, formats currently being used do not convey all the required information of the component, for
example, the SDF data format only covers the representation of measured discrete data points with some
header information. In 2001, S.H. Bui of NIST applied Java and internet technology to develop an internet
based surface texture analysis and information system [1]. B. Muralikrishnan proposed the specification of
a common XML language for expressing surface texture metrology data with related process and functional
data in 2002 [2]. Other national measurement institutes have also attempted to establish reference software
for profile surface texture analysis [3, 4]. Unfortunately, none of these achieved a complete and unambi-
guous expression of the surface texture for a connection between design, manufacture and measurement.
Although the specification should be designed in sufficient detail that any uncertainty is negligible in
comparison with the function requirements, it must be recognized that this may not be always practicable.
The design may be incomplete because the definition of the surface texture parameter is ambiguous in some
situations. Or it may imply conditions that can never be fully met and whose imperfect realization is dif-
ficult to take into account. Currently, so-called “complete” and “unambiguously” expressions are an esti-
mate of the probability of nearness to the best expression that is consistent with presently available
knowledge. In addition, the extent of integrity is correlated to function and cost requirements, and extra
integrity beyond these requirements is unnecessary and costly. It is important to find a way to satisfy the
requirements by omitting other detail offset specifications.
In order to make a clear expression of surface texture for designers and engineers, an unambiguous ex-
pression schema of surface texture is proposed. Based on Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) prin-
ciples, the surface texture knowledge in design, manufacture and measurement is based on the general GPS
matrix [5] and structured by a categorical object model [6]. The ultimate goal is to improve the collabora-
tion and bridge the knowledge gap between design, manufacture and measurement in surface texture to
reduce product development lead time and improve product quality and performance.
Honing
3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Ra 3.2 Ra 3.2 U “G”0.0025-0.08/Ra 0.025
X
a b c d

Figure 1 Different versions of the surface texture symbol used in the drawing. a. the 1955 version, high
specification uncertainty. b. the 1965 version , up to 300% specification uncertainty. c. the 1991 version, up
to 30% specification uncertainty [7]. d. the ISO 1302: 2002 version [8], low specification uncertainty

2 Surface texture specification and verification in the next generation GPS

There have been perceived gaps and contradictions in the “chain” of standards that dealt with dimensional
and geometric tolerance specifications and their verifications using metrological instruments, systems and
procedures [9]. The rapidly expanding CAD/CAM/CAQ marketplace placed a high premium on mathe-
matical formalism so that reliable and compact software can be developed to support computerized ap-
plication in these areas. From the summer of 1996, ISO/TC 213 has been working towards harmonizing
previous standardized practices in specification and related verification, known as Geometrical Product
Specification (GPS). Armed with the experience gained thus far, ISO/TC 213 published its vision for the
next generation GPS. The objective of the next generation GPS is to provide engineering tools for economic
management of variability in products and processes. Based on metrology and uncertainty, the next gen-
eration GPS ensures product function through unambiguous, explicit and complete specifications for de-
sign, manufacture and verification of product geometric characteristics.
 Figure 2 shows the schematic diagram of the general GPS matrix model in surface texture [5]. In the GPS
matrix model, the concept of chain links refers to a specified geometrical characteristic. Chain links 1-3
describe the requirements for specification and verification is defined in chain links 4-6, see [5] for details.
The reference to the complementary GPS Matrix considers the items relating to manufacture.
Chain link number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Geometrical Product Definition of tolerances Definitions for Assessment of Measurement Ca libration
cha racteristic of documentatio - Theoretica l definition actua l fea ture - the devia tions of equipment requirements -
feature n indica tion- a nd va lues chara cteristic the workpiece - requirements Mea surements
Codifica tion or pa rameter Comparison with sta ndards
tolerance limits
ISO 1302 ISO 4287, 11562,12085, ISO 4287, 11562, ISO 4288,12085 ISO 3274, 11562 ISO 5436, 12179
Roughness 13565-1,13565-2, 13565-3 12085, 13565-2
Profile Waviness ISO 1302 ISO 4287,11562, 12085 ISO 11562, 12085 ISO 4288, 12085 ISO 3274, 11562 ISO 5436, 12179

Primary ISO 1302 ISO 4287,11562 ISO 4288 ISO 3274, 11562

Areal ISO 25178-1(D) ISO 25178-2(D) ISO 25178-3(D) ISO 25178-6 (D),25178- ISO 25178-7(D)
601(D), 25178-602(D), 25178-701(D)
25178-603(D), 25178-702(D)
25178-604(D) 25178-703(D)
D: ISO draft standard in progress

Specification Verification
Surface Texture General GPS matrix

Manufacture
Complementary GPS Matrix

Figure 2 Scheme of general GPS matrix model in surface texture

According to the general GPS matrix, the expression of surface texture can incorporate two processes:
specification and verification processes. The surface texture specification process is the design step where
the field of permissible deviations of a set of control elements of surface texture is stated, accommodating
the required functional performance of the workpiece. ISO 1302:2002 version (see figure 1d) gives 10
different control elements which include profile parameter, limit value, filter type, transmission band,
evaluation length, comparison rule, manufacture process and surface texture lay. The purpose of the spe-
cification process is to establish those control elements associated with the design requirements of parts and
their functional surfaces commensurate with production capabilities for the use of design and engineering
drawings. The surface texture verification process takes place after the specification process. It assists
manufacturing and inspection areas in the interpretation of drawing information and method of assessment,
and explains to them the terms, symbols and values shown on drawings. It defines how surface texture
specification data will be interpreted, and how a metrologist determines whether the surface of a workpiece
conforms to the specification.
As shown in figure 2, profile surface specification includes the first three chain links. The last three chain
links are belong to the verification process. Between chain links 3 and 4 are the comparison rules. Ac-
cording to ISO 4288:1996 [10], there are two comparison rules: the 16%-rule and the max-rule. The default
comparison rule in ISO and ASME is the 16%-rule, but in a few company standards it is the max-rule. The
comparison rule in the verification process determines whether the workpiece is accepted or rejected ac-
cording to measurement results. Used as one of ten control elements in specification, the comparison rule
must be specified in the specification process to reduce the specification uncertainty. In this paper, the
comparison rule is also an essential tool for the mapping between the specification and verification
processes.

3 Unambiguous expressions of specification and verification in surface texture

3.1 Knowledge modeling - categorical object model
The categorical object model in this paper is based on category theory and uses categorical object structures
to identify and model the knowledge structures of surface texture. Category theory is a general mathe-
matical theory that deals in an abstract way with mathematical structures and relationships between them
[11]. It can provide a good unifying tool, with a high-level of abstraction, to unify different types of models
from different modeling mechanisms into a single category model. Arrows and objects are two fundamental
concepts in category theory. The convenience of category theory to describe complex relationships between
different objects was first used for structured entities in surface texture by Yan Wang in her doctoral dis-
sertation in 2008 [6]. A general surface texture object-relationship data model based on category theory was
proposed. This idea set a precedent for a mathematical theory to express complex surface texture know-
ledge. However, her thesis established a basic framework rather than a complete and unambiguous ex-
pression. This paper emphasises the unambiguous expression of surface texture, inherits the categorical
object model to structure a complete specification and verification for surface texture.
3.2 Categorical object model for specification and verification
In this project, a categorical object model is used to achieve the surface texture knowledge structure model.
As shown in figure 3, a high-level abstract diagram of the categorical object model for profile surface
texture specification has been presented. The rectangles (I#, Ca#...) in the figure are categorical objects
representing characteristic features in profile specification. The dashed arrows Ri (1≤i<20, the relationships
label numbers in the figure are no more than 20) represent the complicated relationships between different
categorical objects. The relationships between different elements in the same categorical object are pre-
sented by dashed line arrows with label si. The solid line arrows Fi show the direction of the inheritance.
At the left side of figure 3, the Input categorical object includes the elements which the designers need to
input for completing the specification. The Callout categorical object is the most important part for a sur-
face texture specification design which will be shown in the engineering drawing. A specific example of
surface texture specification according to ISO 1302:2002 is shown in figure 1d. The Callout object is
composed of 10 control elements. These elements belong to four categorical objects which are the chain
links 1-3 in the general GPS matrix respectively and the Comparison object. The Codification object be-
longs to the chain link No.1 which will determine the indication of the callout. The ToleranceDefinition
object belongs to the chain link No.2 which is the definition of surface texture parameters and value. The
FeatureCharacteristic object is chain link No.3 and is composed of three different feature operations which
are Partition, Extraction and Filtration. The Comparison object is determined by the comparison_rule in the
Callout object and it will be an essential tool for the mapping between the specification and theverification
processes.
 As a high-level abstract diagram, relationships between two different objects are simplified by label Ri.
A single Ri may expresses two or more relationships. These relationships can be regarded as refinements of
categorical modeling. Figure 4 gives an example of the categorical modeling diagram of the relationship
R5. c5 demonstrates the relationship between the ToleranceDefinition and the Filtration objects. It stores all
the possible relations and extra information between objects of TD# and F#. The expression “deter-
mine_filter_type×transmission_band::prameter_type×prameter_name…” is the name and type of the de-
termination procedures. The notations π1c5 and π2c5 are projections of c5 into the initial objects of TD# and
F# respectively, while λ1c5 and λ2c5 are represented as arrows injecting the initial instance objects into the
pool of instances of this constraint relationship. There are two different refinements of the c5. Refinement 1
expresses that the combination of parameter_type, parameter_value and parameter_ name in the Tole-
ranceDefinition object determines transmission_band in the Filtration object. Refinement 2 presents the
filter_type in the Filtration object is determined by parameter_type in the ToleranceDefinition object. s1, s2
and s3 are the internal relationships between the four elements of the ToleranceDefinition object. For ex-
ample, the s1 means parameter_name RSm belongs to profile spacing parameters in parameter_type. The s2
shows parameter_name RSm has related parameter_value range such as 0.013-4µm. The s3 indicates pa-
rameter_name RSm has related parameter_definition. Table 1 gives three examples of these relationships.
Here, transmission band of the Gaussian filter for profile spacing parameter RSm with value 0.04 µm is
0.0025(λs)-0.08mm (λc); transmission band of the Gaussian filter for profile amplitude parameter Ra with
value 0. 8 µm is 0.0025(λs)-0.8mm (λc); transmission band of the Motif filter for motif roughness para-
meter R with value 1.6 µm is 0.008 (λs)-0.5mm (A, see ISO 12085:1998 [12]).

Figure 3 The categorical object model diagram for surface texture specification (high-level abstract di-
agram)
 Figure 4 Determination procedures of filter type and transmission band (relationship R5)

ToleranceDefinition Filtration
parameter_type parameter_name parameter_value parameter_definition filter_type transmission_band

Profile spacing Mean value of the profile element 0.0025-0.08mm

RSm 0.04µm Gaussian filter
parameters widths within a sampling length (λs – λc)

Profile amplitude Arithmetical mean deviation of the 0.0025-0.8mm

Ra 0.8µm Gaussian filter
parameters assessed profile (λs – λc)

Motif roughness 0.008-0.5mm

R 1.6µm Mean depth of roughness motifs Motif filter
parameter (λs – A)

Table 1 Examples of relationships between ToleranceDefinition and Filtration objects

In this paper, according to the general GPS matrix, profile surface verification includes measurand’s
specifications, the chain links 4-6 characteristic of the features and measurement result. Similarly, a
high-level abstract diagram of the categorical object model for profile surface texture verification has been
presented as shown in figure 5. The internal relationships of categorical objects are presented by dashed line
arrows with label vi. The MeasurandSpecification categorical object is determined by the specifications
process. It interprets the specification and explains to manufacturing engineers and metrologist the terms,
symbols and values shown on engineering drawings. It includes ToleranceSpecification, Partition, Extrac-
tion, Filtration and Comparison (chain link 4) objects which are the major parts of specification. The
MeasurandSpecification object determines the MeasurmentEquipment and CalibrationRequirement ob-
jects. Finally, the MeasurementResult is generated according to the Comparison object. As an example, the
comparison_definition and comparison_type determine the comparison_process in the Comparison object,
the limit_value in the ToleranceSpecification object and comparison_process in the Comparison object
determine the measurement_No. in the Partition object which is a part of the MeasurandSpecification ob-
ject.
Figure 6 gives an example of the categorical modeling diagram of the relationship R14. c14 is the rela-
tionship between the ToleranceDefinition and the MeasurementEquipment objects. There is only one re-
finement. Refinement 1 expresses that the combination of limit_value and parameter_name in the Tole-
ranceDefinition object determine instrument_type, tip_radius and smapling_spacing in the Measuremen-
tEquipment object. v1 and v2 are the internal relationships between three elements of the ToleranceDefini-
tion object. v8 and v9 are the internal relationships between three elements of the MeasurementEquipment
object. For example, v8 means only the stylus instrument type can choose tip_radius. The v9 shows the value
of tip_radius can determine the resolution of the instrument. Table 2 gives two examples of these rela-
tionships. Here, parameter Ra with limit value 0.8µm can determine instrument type suggesting stylus,
Focus and SEM types, tip radius of 5 µm and sampling spacing of 0.5 µm; parameter Ra with limit value
0.08µm can determine instrument type suggesting stylus, Focus and SEM types, tip radius of 2 µm and
sampling spacing of 0.5 µm.

Figure 5 The categorical object model diagram for surface texture verification (high-level abstract dia-
gram)
 Figure 6 Determination procedures of instrument type, tip radius and sampling spacing (relationship
R14)

ToleranceDefinition MeasurementEquipment
parameter_type parameter_name limit_value instrument_type tip_radius sampling_spacing

Profile amplitude parameters Ra 0.8µm Stylus,Focus,SEM 5µm 0.5µm

Profile amplitude parameters Ra 0.08µm Stylus,Focus,SEM 2µm 0.5µm

Table 2 Examples of relationships between the ToleranceDefinition and MeasurementEquipment objects

4 Conclusions
In this paper, the categorical object model of specification and verification structured an unambiguous
expression schema of surface texture. The basic philosophies of GPS are the key to connect specification
and verification of surface texture. This paper concentrates on profile surface texture because the areal
surface texture standards are still in progress. The whole structure is suitable for areal surface texture and
will be developed in future work. Meanwhile, as the uncertainty concepts are still under development, we
cannot give a quantitative specification or measurement uncertainty for a specified surface texture speci-
fication or verification. What we can do to satisfy the requirements is to detail the specification as far as
possible consistent with presently available knowledge (especially up-to-date ISO standards).
This work is a foundation to bridge the collaboration gap between design, manufacture and measurement
in surface texture to reduce product development lead time and improve product quality and performance,
thus providing a more timely and profitable solution for industry. The next step is to develop an infra-
structure which can integrate CAx (computer-aided technologies) systems for designers and engineers
involved in the manufacturing supply chain, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and institutes.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by China Scholarship Council and University of Hudders-
field Scholarship. The authors would like to thank Mr. David Brook for his kind help in this paper.

References
[1] S.H. Bui, V. Gopalan, J. Raja, An internet based surface texture information system, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture. 41(2001) 2171-2177.
[2] B. Muralikrishnan, J. Raja, A proposal for a common language for sharing surface texture data, Proceeding of the
ASPE 2002. (2002) 434-437.
[3] L. Jung, B. Spranger, R. Krüger-Sehm, M. Krystek, Reference software for roughness analysis - features and
results, Proc. XI. Int. Coll. on Surfaces part 2, Chemnitz (2004) 164-170.
[4] T. Li, R.K. Leach, L. Jung, X. Jiang, L.A. Blunt, Comparison of Type F2 Software Measurement Standards for
Surface Texture, NPL Report ENG 16, National Physical Laboratory, 2009.
[5] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14638:1995 Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) –
Masterplan. 1995.
[6] Y. Wang, A Knowledge-based Intelligent System for Surface Texture (VirtualSurf) in Department of Computing
& Engineering, The University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, 2008, pp.232.
[7] P. Bennich, H.S. Nielen, An Overview of GPS, A Cost Saving Tool, http://www.ifgps.com/, 2005.
[8] International Organization for Standardizations, ISO 1302:2002 Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) –
Indication of surface texture in technical product documentation. 2002.
[9] P. Bennich, Chains of Standards – A New Concept in GPS Standards, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers - Manufacturing Review. 7(1994) 29-38.
[10] International Organization for Standardizations, ISO 4288:1996 Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) –
Surface texture: Profile method – Rules and procedures for the assessment of surface texture. 1996.
[11] M. Barr, C.Wells, Category Theory for Computing Science, Prentice Hall, London, 1996.
[12] International Organization for Standardizations, ISO 12085:1998 Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) –
Surface texture – Profile method – Motif parameters. 2001.