The Abb6 Principle Revisited:
An Updated Interpretation
J. B. Bryan*
Slideway displacement and angular
motion
The Abb~ principle was first made
public in a paper published by
Professor Abb~ in the Journal for
Instrumental Information (Vol X,
1890). In this paper Professor Abb~
discussed the benefits of using divided
scales as length measuring systems.
He also discussed the benefits of
arranging the measuring scale to be in
line with the distance to be measured.
The concept of designing a
machine tool or measuring machine
with the displacement measuring
system in line with the displacement
to be measured is referred to as the
Abb~ principle. It has also been called
the first principle of machine tool
design and dimensional metrology.
A strict interpretation of the
Abbe principle leaves us with no
options other than to design things to
be in line. I think that this was a
minor oversight caused by Abb~'s
concentration on single axis measuring
problems at the time. I feel confident
that Prof=ssor Abb~ would happily
endorse a restatement of his principle
that would cover those situations
where it is not possible to design 'in-
line', but the end result of the
alternative is the same. By the end
result being the s.ame, I mean that the
accuracy of the displacement
measuring system is unaffected by
slideway angular motion or changes
thereof. I therefore propose that the
generalized Abb~ Principle should be
stated as:
"The displacement measuring
system should be in line with the
functional p o i n t whose displace-
ment is to be measured. + I f this is
n o t possible, either the slideways
that transfer the displacement
must be free o f angular motion or
angular motion data must be used
to calculate the consequences o f
the offset. "
The first sentence represents
Abb~'s original recommendation. We
~Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
University of California, PO Box 808,
Livermore, California 94550, USA
PR EC IS ION ENG IN E E R I N G
can call this option number one. The
second sentence gives us two addition-
al options.
No angular motion?
The second option (no angular motion
in the slideways) might superficially
appear to be meaningless because we
know there is no such thing as a slide-
way without angular motion. It is
possible, however, to use two displace-
ment measuring systems parallel to
each other to read the displacement
of one slide. The difference in reading
between the two systems is a measure
of angular motion. This signal can be
used to drive some kind of mechanism
tp introduce a correcting angular
motion which will then make the
difference between the two systems
zero.
If the spacing between the two
systems is greater than the maximum
Abb~ offset, I propose that we
arbitrarily agree that such a system
complies with the Abb~ principle
since the error in displacement
accuracy due to slideway angular
motion will be less than the difference
of the two displacement measuring
systems. I feel confident that
Professor Abb~ would also endorse
this further compromise to his
original principle on the grounds that
there is no other practical solution for
situations involving varying Abb~
offset.
This concept (the second option)
was used by Professor Harrison in
the early 1950's at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He used two
interferometers to measure the
displacement of a diffraction grating
ruling machine slideway. The difference
signal between the two interferometers
was used to rotate a platform mounted
on top of the slide which supported the
workpiece and the moving mirrors.
The platform was then free of angular
motion.
+A more rigorous but longer phrasing of the
first sentence should read "The path of the
effective point of a displacement measuring
system should be colinear with the path of
the functional point whose displacement is
to be measured. ""
0 1 4 1 - 6 3 5 9 / 7 9 / 0 3 0 1 2 5 - 0 4 $02.00 @ 1979 IPC Business Press
A similar scheme was developed
by Dr. Erwin Loewen at Bausch and
Lomb in 1959. He used two white
light interferometers to measure
displacement and two leadscrews to
drive the slide. The difference signal
between the two interferometers was
used to drive one screw faster or
slower than the other to eliminate
angular motion.
Using angular motion data
The third option of the generalized
Abb~ Principle calls for using angular
motion data to calculate and correct
for the consequences of Abb~ offset.
Fixed Abb~ offsets are easier to deal
with than offsets which vary during a
machining or inspection procedure.
An example of varying Abb~ offset
is a classical jig boring machine that
is used to bore holes that are located
at a varying height above the table of
the machine.
Modern CNC control systems
can be programmed to accept angular
motion data, and then using their
own continuous knowledge of the
varying Abb~ offset, multiply the two
values and add or subtract the result
to the displacement measuring system.
To the best of our knowledge this
capability has not yet been demon-
strated, but Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory now has a contract with a
control builder to provide this feature.
The system will aequire angular motion
data in the form of the differences
between two parallel laser interfero-
meters that are spaced at a distance
greater than the maximum Abb~
offset.
It is possible to develop angular
motion data for either options two or
three by techniques other than the
differences between two linear
displacement devices. A sensitive
autocollimator could, for example, be
built into a machine for this purpose.
A question then arises as to how
accurate the autocollimator has to be
before the system can be regarded as
complying with the Abb~ principle.
I propose that we answer this question
by estimating the angular accuracy
that would be achieved if two linear
129
 - +, displacement measurement systems,
A i similar to the ones being used on the
J machine in question, were spaced at a
distance equal to the maximum Abbe
offset.
J The generalized Abbe principle
has been used to advantage in recent
Angular
motion
8 J
.52J
'~'- Straightness : ~ /
years at the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory. It is a great practical
convenience to be able to speak about
// I/ I/I Illil i l i l l l l l l l l / whether or not a design complies with
the Abbe principle and if it does,
which of the three options has been
0,~ ,, ~-~'(~,, ,, selected. I hope that it will be accepted
by the precision engineering community
Auto and find its way into our common
collimator vocabulary.

Slideway straightness and angular

motion
The Abbe principle for location of
Fig 1 Stationary straightedge," no angular motion displacement measuring systems has
been known for 89 years. It is
r11 +
~[- + remarkable that so few engineers,
physicists, and mechanics are aware of
its existence or its importance. It is a
simple idea, but far from being obvious.
J The massive nature of machine tool
slides misleads us into believing that
one point on the mass moves in the
Angular B J "\\ same manner as other points. The
motion
Straightness~ same thing applies to slideway
/ / , i / ~
straightness. If angular motion is
present in a slide, the straightness of
different points is different for the
same reason that displacement of
[i -i Cs--j E-sq I different points is different. A
Auto definition for slide straightness is
collimator
needed at this point in the discussion,
and is proposed as:

"slide straightness error is the non

Fig 2 Moving straightedge," no angular motion linear movement that an indicator
sees when it is either stationary
and reading against a perfect
straightedge supported on a
moving slide or moved by the
slide along a perfect straightedge
which is stationary. ""

Angular The purpose of the term 'non.

motion linear movernel~t' is to recognize the
Straightness-~-j" fact that the straightedge does not
," <l l ' , I / ' , " / / ~" ~" f , l , l i / ~'l / f" ,J need tJ be perfectly parallel to the
Ir--o-qr-m r-o-q r--m J slid, travel. If the slide is perfectly
straight but no[ parallel to the
~,p P straightedge, the resulting trace wilt
be a straight line,
Auto Figs 1 to 6 illustrate a few of
collimator
the motions that can occur in slide-
ways. The motions are exaggerated
for clarity, but I have observed each
condition in real machine tools in
small but significant magnitudes.
Fig 3 Stationary straigh tedge," oscillating angular motion

130 PRECISION ENGINEERING

 Fig 1 illustrates a slide moving
along a bed which has a sinusoidal
shape. The feet of the slide have a
spacing equal to an even number of
wavelengths. The movement of the I
slide is free of angular motion, but is /

not straight. Since there is no

angular motion all points move with Angular
the same amount of straightness error, motion
\,
and indicator positions 1, 2 and 3 Straightness
show the same values. Fig 2 is the
same as Fig 1 except that the
straightedge is moving. Here again,
the straightness error is unaffected
by indicator position.
[I o Io I
In Fig 3 the feet of the slide Auto
collimator
have been changed to a spacing equal
to a half wavelength longer. The slide
now has oscillating angular motion
as the autocollimator strip chart
indicates. This condition leads to the
rather amazing result that the straight- Fig 4 Moving straightedge," oscillating angular motion
ness error depends entirely on the - 4-
TZ
location of the indicator. A t position S -~ 061 T8~- 8R
No. 2 there is no error (or second A /i
S,ffin
order). Position No. 3 has a different 8, Arc seconds / I
magnitude and phase than position T = Slide travel, in / I
; I ;-,f,/.
No. 1. R = Radius,in
Fig 4 is the same as Fig 3 //
except that the straightedge is moving. 8
The straightness error is now a Angular - B Y
motion
combination of the profiles in Fig 3. \~ Straightness"~/
When the indicator tip is opposite the
centre of the slide there is no error
(or second order), when it is at the end
of the travel it shows a maximum. The
exact shape of the profile is not
represented accurately in the illustra-
ro
Auto
tion. For the purpose of this paper it is collimator
sufficient to show that for the same
slide motion there can be different
straightness error profiles depending on
the set-up and location of the indicator.
Fig 5 shows a slide having
uniform angular motion. The bedway Fig 5 Stationary straightedge; uniform angular motion
is circular with a radius of R. The
T~ - +
autocollimator trace is an inclined S~--O61 TOm 8R
straightline. The different indicator S,Fin
positions all show the same straight- 8, Arc seconds
ness error magnitude S, but the T = Slide travel, in \ I
inclination of a straightline passed R = Radius,in -~ + s
through the end points is different.
The general direction of the slide

1/i1~
travel changes with the position of the Angular ~ [ ~ .
indicator. This can create some terrible motion
Straightness
confusion when a slide is being
adjusted square or parallel w i t h
another slide or possibly a spindle.
Fig 5 also shows two
approximations for the value of S as a
function of either the travel of the Auto
collimator
slide T a n d the angular motion 0, or
the travel of the slide T a n d the R
radius of curvature R, These approx-
imations are accurate to a few percent
as long as the radius R is at least 10
Fig 6 Moving straightedge," uniform angular motion

PRECISION ENGINEERING 131

times as large as the travel 7-. These
approximations are not relevant to the
main subject of this paper, but I have
found them to be enormously useful
in acquiring a feel for the magnitudes
involved when dealing w i t h uniform
angular motion. Fig 6 is the same as
Fig 5 except that the straightedge is
moving. Changing the indicator
position does not affect the straight-
ness error or the general direction of
travel.
It should now be clear that an
ambiguity exists regarding straightness
measurement in the presence of
angular motion that is analogous to
the problem of displacement measure-
ment in the presence of angular motion.
If straightness error values and direct-
ions of travel of slides are dependent
on the location of the indicator tip,
what is the correct location? The
answer can only be found in the
function of the machine and the
functional point of importance. In a
machine tool the functional point is
the tool: in a measuring machine it is
the sensor, (stylus tip, microscope
focus point, etc). tn many machines
the functional point changes either
during the procedure or during
different set-ups. What is the correct
location in those cases? By substitut-
ing 'straightness' for 'displacement'
the wording of the generalized Abb~
principle appears to provide the
answer:
"'The straightness measuring
system s h o u l d be in l i n e w i t h the
f u n c t i o n a l p o i n t whose straightness
is to be measured. * I f this is n o t
132
possible, e i t h e r the slideways t h a t
transfer the straightness m u s t be
free o f angular m o t i o n o r angular
m o t i o n data m u s t be used to
calculate the consequences o f the
offset. ""
Applications
This principle will probably have
greater immediate application to
machine tool and measuring machine
metrology than it will to design.
However, in the design of special
machines optimised for accuracy,
this principle should dictate the
design. In the case of the ultra-
precision machines such as the 84-inch
Diamond Turning Machine (Precision
Engineering, Vol 1, No. 1 pp 13-17)
and the Error-Corrected Y-Z Coord-
inate Measuring Machine (discussed
on page 125 of this issue), this
principle did dictate the design.
I am proposing that this principle
be named the Bryan Principle rather
than treating it as a corollary to the
Abb~ Principle on the grounds that
Professor Abb~ was not particularly
interested in the question of slide
straightness, and that displacement
and straightness should be ,well
separated subjects to avoid confusion.
I am absolutely convinced that funda-
mental principles and methods such as
*A more rigorous but longer phrasing of the
first sentence should read "'The effective
point of a straightness measuring system
should be along a line which is perpendicular
to the direction of slideway travel and passes
through the functional point whose straight-
ness is to be measured. ""
this should have well defined names to
facilitate precise and rapid communi-
cation. The name should be linked
with the method as soon as possible.
There is always the possibility that
the method or principle will be
discredited in the future. Similar
sounding, but valid, principles should
not be discredited by association.
Acknowledgement
I would like to recognize the
contributions of my colleague,
Donald L. Carter, to the development
of this paper. Mr. Carter worked out
the concept of the illustrations and
provided invaluable assistance in
editing the text. I would also like to
thank Dr. Erwin Loewen of Bausch
and Lomb for his advice and encourage-
ment.
The work was performed under
the auspices of the US Department of
Energy by the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory under contract number
W-7405-ENG-48.
Notice
This report was prepared as an account of
work sponsored by the United States
Government. Neither the United States nor
the United States Department of Energy,
nor any of their employees, nor any of
their contractors, subcontractors, or their
employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness
or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately-
owned rights.
Reference to a company or product
names does not imply approval or
recommendation of the product by the
University of California or the U.S.
Department of Energy to the exclusion of
others that may be suitable.
PRECISION ENGINEERING