hexagon logo

Total indicated runout: A test

You guys will like this one.

So we are trying to establish the best way to measure TOTAL INDICATED RUNOUT. TIR.
We have a 15X22X10 GLOBAL S with a HPSX1 2.5° indexing head and a 5mm x 50mm tip (standard ruby)
We also have a MCMASTER CARR ordered 12'' long Ø1.5 steel bar. Accuracy of this bar isn't terribly critical although I think MMC guarantees less than .001'' over 12''.

We are going to be making parts in our shop sometimes with .0002 TIR and equally tight diameter tolerances.

I have created a basic test to see how accurately and repeatable this machine is.

STEP1: measure the shaft at 0,0 to establish cylinder

STEP 2: at 90,180 measure 1'' of Yminus end using 2 different POINT DENSITY's. 1. @ 6pnt/mm 2 @ 10pnt/mm SCAN SPEED IS 5MM / ACCEL IS 5MM FOR BOTH SETS
(ADAPTIVE CYLINDER CONCENTRIC CIRCLE SCAN)

STEP 3: rinse repeat on Yplus using 90,0
STEP 4: Paste Pattern 10x
STEP 5: REPORT TIR from ymin CYL to yplu CYL for each corresponding speed. For clarity, I am reporting YPLU to YMIN TIR, so i'm just checking end to end)

results are that the lower point density is netting better results by about .0002 (ex 6pnt = TIR .00064 10pnt= TIR .00088)
diameters measure within .0001 each side with both speeds.


THOUGHTS?

(i dont want to MF'ing hear that the CMM isn't the best way to check TIR. i know this. i want to know what i can do on this CMM to achieve the most accurate results. )
Parents
  • Thoughts other than a CMM is the wrong tool for TIR?

    Ensure your cylinder on the bar is the same size as your "datum" feature on the part, and I mean lenght. The length of measured axis is going to matter a lot.

    Ensure the cylinder you measure on the bar as your "feature" is the same length as the feature on the part.

    Ensure that the "feature" cylinder is the same distance away from the "datum" feature as the spread is on the actual part. This matters a TON.

    Iterate the "datum" feature, meaning, measure, align it, measure it again, align it again. The more out of cylindrical you think it is going to be, the more you iterate.

    Do NOT rotate the head between measurements of the datum and the feature. Extreme precision CMM's do NOT come with articulating heads.
    You have axis errors in the machine on X, Y and Z. Adding in two more for A and B is not going to be your friend.

    Align the part as CLOSE to phsyically in a machine axis as possible to try and negate the error of one of the machine axes.

    With all that, I have a part, .50" long "datum" bore. 4 inches away is the "feature" bore, also .50" long.

    The error in the machine gives about .00085" range of error in measurement. Meaning if I run the same part 30 times, the results have a range of .00085 to each other.
    An $85k roundness gage with articulating level table repeats at something like 9 millionths on the exact same part.
    That is the correct tool to check TIR.
    The CMM is simply not.

    Now, if your datum is 4 inches long and the feature is 0 inches away (like a counterbore) and only 1 inch long, you'll get MUCH better results than I got on that ONE configuration.
    Good enough to state you have certainty for .0002 tolerance? Probably not.

    You don't have a hyperaccurate CMM with a double isolated slab under it, I know because you have a 2.5° articulating head. I was going to test on a friend's shops machine that is hyper-accurate, but they had a crash and didn't have a new probe in time.
    The customer changed the print, so I don't have to inspect that anymore, so I never went over to give it a go and see if it solved the problem.

    I don't think it would, not for the tolerance you are playing with. But I could be wrong as I've never been given a machine that expensive to play with. :"(

    Good luck.
  • I have no choice I have to articulate. Features are often on different sides of the part and are unaccessible without articulation.
Reply Children
No Data