See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270589164

Abbe Error/Offset

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 7,672

1 author:

Richard Leach
University of Nottingham
512 PUBLICATIONS   4,323 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biobanking View project

Reference algorithms and metrology on aspherical and freeform optical lenses (FreeFORM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Leach on 09 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Synonyms

Abbe error

Abbe offset

Definition

The Abbe Principle was first described by Ernst Abbe (1890) of Zeiss and states:

If errors of parallax are to be avoided, the measuring system must be placed co-axially (in

line with) the line in which displacement (giving length) is to be measured on the work-

piece.

Abbe error occurs when the measuring point of interest is spatially separated laterally from

the actual measuring scale location (reference line or axis of measurement), and when

angular error motions exist in the positioning system. Abbe error causes the measured

displacement to appear longer or shorter than the true displacement, depending on the

direction of angular motion. The spatial separation between the measured point and

reference line is known as the Abbe offset.

Application of the Abbe Principle can be illustrated by comparing the design of a caliper and

a micrometer (see Figure 1). In the case of the caliper, the measurement position in the jaws

is displaced from the axis of the scale. Therefore, any angular error of the motion of the

moving jaw will amplify the error of the scale, which results in an amplified error in the

length measurement. In the case of the micrometer, the measurement and scale axes are in

line, and there is no error amplification effect.

Theory and application

Figure 2 shows the effect of Abbe error on an interferometric measurement of length. To

ensure zero Abbe error, the reflector axis of movement should be co-linear with the axis of

measurement. To account for the Abbe error in an uncertainty analysis relies on knowing

the magnitude of the Abbe offset and the magnitude of the angular errors in motion of the

positioning system (for example, straightness).

Figure 2 Effects of Abbe error on an optical displacement measurement (from Leach 2014).

The Abbe error is given by

𝜀 = 𝑑 tan 𝜃

where d is the Abbe offset and  is the angular error motion of the positioning system. Thus,

a tilt angle change of 1 arcsec (approximately 5 µrad) leads to a distance deviation of 5 nm

per millimetre of Abbe offset.

and is also one that is commonly misunderstood. Bryan (1979) described it as ‘the first

principle of machine design and dimensional metrology’ and it has also been called “the principle

of alignment” and “the Abbe comparator principle” (Evans 1989). Despite the importance of the

Abbe Principle, its interpretation in terms of single-axis displacement measurement means

that many authors have approached the subject with a wider machine design perspective.

Bryan re-stated the Abbe Principle as:

The displacement measuring system should be in line with the functional point whose

displacement is to be measured. If this is not possible, either the slideways that transfer

the displacement must be free of angular motion or angular motion data must be used to

calculate the consequences of the offset.

Bryan’s restatement took into account both displacement and straightness measurement, but

still did not consider multi-axis machines or measurements of, for example, roundness and

runout. Zhang (1989) re-examined the Abbe Principle with more general dimensional

metrology in mind:

The line connecting the reference point and sensing point should lie in the sensitive direction.

In practice, and especially with multi-axis machines, the end-effector (the probe in the case

of a measuring instrument or the machine tool in the case of a manufacturing machine) will

have a finite working distance and the sensitive direction varies depending on the

workpiece geometry. In the example of a scanned probe microscope, the tip-sample distance

has to be small but it remains difficult to mount a displacement sensor stably in very close

vicinity to the tip. Practically, Abbe offsets in the order of 0.5 mm are normally achieved.

Also, the end-effector is located as close as possible to the, often virtual, intersection point of

the measurement axes with multi-axis systems. Here, the uncertainty of the determination of

this point in space, the uncertainty of the alignment of the displacement sensors in such a

way that their measurement axes intersect at one point and the uncertainty of mounting the

structure localisation sensor at the intersection point, lead to Abbe offsets, which are also of

the order of 0.5 mm. Such offsets are difficult to avoid without the use of specialised

alignment tools (Köning et al. 2007).

machine (CMM) and the axes of motion, CMMs exhibit large Abbe errors. However, there

are now many examples of three-axis instruments, especially CMMs, which attempt to

minimise the Abbe error through good design principles (Forbes et al. 2004). Three

commercially-available examples of this are the Zeiss F25 CMM (Vermeulen et al. 1998), the

ISARA CMM (Widdershoven et al. 2011) and the Tri-Nano CMM (Bos et al. 2012).

The principle of the F25 is shown in Figure 3. The red arms are stationary and firmly

attached to the machine base. The blue arms form the x and y measurement axes (linear

encoders) and are free to move (they are air-bearings). The green arms connect the x and y

axes to the machine and hold them orthogonal to the red arms. In this way, a probe attached

rigidly to the blue arms will stay in line with both the axes of motion, ensuring the

instrument follows the Abbe Principle in two dimensions.

Figure 3 The principle of the Zeiss F25 CMM (from Leach 2014)

The ISARA CMM, a schema of which is shown in Figure 4, is an example of an instrument

design that minimises Abbe error in three dimensions. Three orthogonal beams from three

interferometers cross at a common point at the position of the probe, and the sample moves,

thus ensuring all three measurement axes are in line with the probing axes. Note that the

precision CMM designs discussed here do not have zero Abbe error; rather they minimise

the effect of the Abbe offset, but there will always be some residual offset, even if this is

simply due to the uncertainty in the method that is used to determine the offset.
 Figure 4 The principle of the ISARA CMM, courtesy IBS PE

References

Abbe E (1890) „Messapparate für Physiker [Measuring Instruments for Physicists].”

Zeitschrift fur Instrumentenkunde [Journal of Scientific Instruments] 10:446-448 (in German)

Bos E, Moers A, van Riel M (2012) Trinano N100 3D measurements with nanometer

repeatability and effects of probe-surface interaction. Proc. of the 27th Annual Meeting of the

American Society for Precision Engineering (ASPE), San Diego, USA, 21-26 October, 2012 ,

Vol. 54

Bryan JB (1979) The Abbé principle revisited: an updated interpretation. Precision

Engineering 1:129–132

Evans C (1989) Precision engineering: an evolutionary view. Cranfield Press, Bedford

Forbes AB, Leach RK, Brill N (2004) The Abbe principle, self-calibration and the design of

co-ordinate measuring machines. Proc. 4th Int. euspen Conf., Glasgow, UK, May – Jun.: 388-

389

Köning R, Flügge J, Bosse H (2007) A method for in situ determination of Abbe errors and

their correction. Meas Sci Technol 18:476-481

Leach RK (2014) Fundamental principles of engineering nanometrology. 2nd ed. Elsevier,

Berlin

Vermeulen MMPA, Rosielle PCJN, Schellekens PHJ (1998) Design of a high-precision 3D-

coordinate measuring machine. Ann CIRP 47(1):447-450

ultra-precision CMM. J Phys: Conf Ser 311:012002

Zhang GX (1989) A study on the Abbe Principle and Abbe Error. Ann CIRP 38(1):525-528

View publication stats