hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 13 replies
  • Subscribers 222 subscribers
  • Views 301 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Perpendicularity of cylinder

Unitn
Hi everyone,

I am new to the forum and by searching the topics I couldn't find the answer to my question.
I need to measure the perpendicularity of a hollow cylinder according to its planar surface used as datum. I have used two different approaches in this regard, but I obtain very different results.
in the first approach, I measure 5 circles at different levels along the cylinder height [using auto circle feature] then I construct a cylinder from these 5 circles [constructed feature] and finally I chose Perpendicularity Dimension to measure the perpendicularity.
in the second approach, I use Auto Cylinder feature[using Adaptive Cylinder Concentric Circle Scan] to construct the cylinder geometry as showed in the attached image, where the scans are performed at the same positions along the axis compare to the previous approach. by measuring the perpendicularity according to the same datum as the first approach, this time I get perpendicularity values which are much worst than the previous case. [in first case I get 0.006 mm while in second case it is 0.098mm].
I would appreciate if you can help me find out which of these two approach is correct, or is there a better solution to measure the perpendicularity precisely?

Thank you in advance.
Attached Files
Parents
  • I think the problem in the first case is that you are constructing a cylinder from circles. I think you need to construct the cylinder from the circle hits..

    You can construct a cylinder from constructed or measured circles, just not auto circles according to the help file anyway. I am guessing it will just use the original hit data.


    to the OP, you could check rather crudely which answer is closer to reality by measuring a circle at the top of the cylinder and aligning to it (set your origin on the centre of the circle). Then measure a circle at the bottom of the cylinder, do a quick linear dimension and see how far the center of the bottom circle deviates from the center of the top circle.

    I would say that the auto cylinder method is probably the best way to go about it.

Reply
  • I think the problem in the first case is that you are constructing a cylinder from circles. I think you need to construct the cylinder from the circle hits..

    You can construct a cylinder from constructed or measured circles, just not auto circles according to the help file anyway. I am guessing it will just use the original hit data.


    to the OP, you could check rather crudely which answer is closer to reality by measuring a circle at the top of the cylinder and aligning to it (set your origin on the centre of the circle). Then measure a circle at the bottom of the cylinder, do a quick linear dimension and see how far the center of the bottom circle deviates from the center of the top circle.

    I would say that the auto cylinder method is probably the best way to go about it.

Children
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement