Almost all today's CMMs are software compensated for their geometry errors according to a well-agreed error model; on the other hand many different techniques for determining the error model parameters are avaiable but there exists neither agreement nor experimental evidence about how they compare. Therefore there exists a strong need of testing whether these techniques yield compatible results.
The intercomparison is based on data from two different CMMs carried out in two steps:
1. Identification of a parametric error map: participants are provided with a set of measurement data of a ball plate in different positions;
2. According to each participant's error map, error compensation of:
a) provided measurement data of a ball plate in different positions; results will be compared with values of an independent calibration;
b) simulated data of points of a thick 3D grid; participants' results are intercompared after a best-fit roto-translation.
The University of North Carolina (USA) wil participate too, in a co-operative action of CIRP - International Institution for Production Engineering Research.