hexagon logo

Measuring Cylindricity

We are running a part with a 3" cylinder. The cylinder has a .0002 cylindricity call out. For 10 years we have been using a air Gage to measure this feature, we zero the Gage & spin it throughout the cylinder & the total reading is what we use as our result. Anyway, I was asked to start measuring this on our CMM, I get the cylindricity reading at around .001 every time, I measured a master ring the nominal size of this cylinder & also get the cylindricity around .001. Can I hear everyone's input on measuring cylindricity please.

1.) Which way is more accurate, CMM or air gage (I have tried multiple sized probes & stylus lengths.
2.) Is cylindricity of a cylinder the same as roundness of a circle??
Parents
  • Depending on what kind of touch trigger probe you use, the results can be better or worse. A Renishaw TP200 has a virtually non existent roundness error, whereas a TP20 and comparable probe systems produce a three-lobed error pattern when measuring a perfect round gage. A TP20 in a PH20 however gives better results due to the rotation of the head during probing.

    Best choice for form measurements is always a scanning system.

    The air gage has physical limits when it comes to form measurement.
Reply
  • Depending on what kind of touch trigger probe you use, the results can be better or worse. A Renishaw TP200 has a virtually non existent roundness error, whereas a TP20 and comparable probe systems produce a three-lobed error pattern when measuring a perfect round gage. A TP20 in a PH20 however gives better results due to the rotation of the head during probing.

    Best choice for form measurements is always a scanning system.

    The air gage has physical limits when it comes to form measurement.
Children
No Data