Digital measurement devices, such as coordinate measuring machines, laser scanning devices, and digital imaging, can provide highly accurate and precise coordinate data representing the sampled surface. However, this discrete measurement process can only account for measured data points, not the entire continuous form, and is heavily influenced by the algorithm that interprets the measured data. The definition of cylindrical size for an external feature as specified by ASME Y14.5.1M-1994 [The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME Standard Y14.5M-1994, ASME, New York, NY; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles, ASME Standard Y14.5.1M-1994, ASME, New York, NY] matches the analytical definition of a minimum circumscribing cylinder (MCC) when rule no. 1 [The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME Standard Y14.5M-1994, ASME, New York, NY; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles, ASME Standard Y14.5.1M-1994, ASME, New York, NY] is applied to ensure a linear axis. Even though the MCC is a logical choice for size determination, it is highly sensitive to the sampling method and any uncertainties encountered in that process. Determining the least-sum-of-squares solution is an alternative method commonly utilized in size determination. However, the least-squares formulation seeks an optimal solution not based on the cylindrical size definition [The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ASME Standard Y14.5M-1994, ASME, New York, NY; The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1995, Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles, ASME Standard Y14.5.1M-1994, ASME, New York, NY] and thus has been shown to be biased [Hopp, 1993, “Computational Metrology,” Manuf. Rev., 6(4), pp. 295–304; Nassef, and ElMaraghy, 1999, “Determination of Best Objective Function for Evaluating Geometric Deviations,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 15, pp. 90–95]. This work builds upon previous research in which the hull normal method was presented to determine the size of cylindrical bosses when rule no. 1 is applied [Turek, and Anand, 2007, “A Hull Normal Approach for Determining the Size of Cylindrical Features,” ASME, Atlanta, GA]. A thorough analysis of the hull normal method’s performance in various circumstances is presented here to validate it as a superior alternative to the least-squares and MCC solutions for size evaluation. The goal of the hull normal method is to recreate the sampled surface using computational geometry methods and to determine the cylinder’s axis and radius based upon it. Based on repetitive analyses of random samples of data from several measured parts and generated forms, it was concluded that the hull normal method outperformed all traditional solution methods. The hull normal method proved to be robust by having a lower bias and distributions that were skewed toward the true value of the radius, regardless of the amount of form error.
