hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 27 replies
  • Subscribers 225 subscribers
  • Views 900 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

CMM Health

acgarcia
Good Afternoon Everyone,

We are starting a CMM health initiative to help trust the CMMs. As of right now, operators can only run parts and the probe calibration program. Management is looking into something like check an artifact of known size weekly or even daily. I have (4) 454 SFs with (3) with manual heads and (1) with an indexing head, (3) Tigos with fixed analog heads, and (1) 7.10.7 Sf with an indexing head.

What kind of artifacts do you all check on a regular basis for CMM confidence? Rings gages? Gage blocks? An actual machine'd part? If its a machine'd part, do you check on 1 CMM to compare to other CMMs? OR does the human check it with hand tools and then looks for correlation? I know Hexagon has the swift check thing but I think its only for indexing heads so it won't work with all my CMMs.

Any advice? Thanks.


  • You can verify true position "with other tools" if you have the correct equipment and know what you're doing, we do it every day Slight smile If you ever have any questions about gaging/datum interpretation/whatever...feel free to reach out. Will help if I can.

    For big/funky stuff we'll run the program on two CMMs and have one correlate the other

    To run program on two machine, how accurate your guys were working on ? 0.001mm Slight smile


  • You can verify true position "with other tools" if you have the correct equipment and know what you're doing, we do it every day Slight smile If you ever have any questions about gaging/datum interpretation/whatever...feel free to reach out. Will help if I can.

    For big/funky stuff we'll run the program on two CMMs and have one correlate the other

    That's kind of what I was wondering about. Like if you have a big awkward part with a profile of a surface: Are you just grabbing some gauge points and throwing an indicator at it to get an idea of where the surface probably is?

    You have a pretty solid process there. I do it similarly but I don't have an official form for it. I just make sure that I'm the one who proves out the program and I go measure the part with hand tools as well to check the validity of the program.


  • That's kind of what I was wondering about. Like if you have a big awkward part with a profile of a surface: Are you just grabbing some gauge points and throwing an indicator at it to get an idea of where the surface probably is?

    You have a pretty solid process there. I do it similarly but I don't have an official form for it. I just make sure that I'm the one who proves out the program and I go measure the part with hand tools as well to check the validity of the program.

    For profiles:

    We would double check it with another CMM. Load the same program on two CMMs and correlate the output.

    We also use Inspection Mylar with an optical comparator
  • in reply to vpt.se

    That's the Quindos CMM-Check - completely different beast.  That one is designed to estimate measurement uncertainty of your entire system whereas the SwiftCheck is a simple verification artifact designed to track drift.  In the UK I believe the Swiftcheck is somewhere in the region of £5,000

  • in reply to Matthew D. Hoedeman

    DAN_M

    What is the formula you use for 'Correlation' and Acceptable fields?

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