Effects of CMM Probe Tip Ball Size measuring a Round Part OD - CMM Help

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#1
Any CMM experts out there who can help answer a question would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the situation. We are measuring a round part (OD). First measurement with a 2mm probe tip we get one measurement. When we try with a 1.5mm probe tip, we get a .002+ difference -- the diameter is larger. We are measuring in the same spot with the same setup. When we check both tips against a gage pin, they both check the pin accurately.

The part is draw formed so the wall is not perfect. We suspect that has something to do with the measurements. But we can't figure out why. Logically, we would think the larger ball would cause bigger diameter as there is more surface area to pick up high spots. But that is not the case. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
T

True Position

#2
Re: CMM Help?

Any CMM experts out there who can help answer a question would be greatly appreciated.

Here is the situation. We are measuring a round part (OD). First measurement with a 2mm probe tip we get one measurement. When we try with a 1.5mm probe tip, we get a .002+ difference -- the diameter is larger. We are measuring in the same spot with the same setup. When we check both tips against a gage pin, they both check the pin accurately.

The part is draw formed so the wall is not perfect. We suspect that has something to do with the measurements. But we can't figure out why. Logically, we would think the larger ball would cause bigger diameter as there is more surface area to pick up high spots. But that is not the case. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
How many points are you taking? Can you add more points? Sometimes those types of problems are related to surface finish. Smaller probes are more to fall inside surface irregularities such as rough turned parts. I usually default to a 4-5mm tip for general measuring if it won't cause issues with retract and clearance.
 
#4
I usually default to a 4-5mm tip for general measuring if it won't cause issues with retract and clearance.
Excellent suggestion. That could very well be it.
How many points are you taking? Can you add more points?
Are the measurements repeatable? How many points are you taking for each measurement?
My thoughts exactly. A roundness problem combined with few points could easily cause the results mentioned. In a case like this I would begin by scanning the object to find out about its shape.

/Claes
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#5
Re: CMM Help?

How many points are you taking? Can you add more points? Sometimes those types of problems are related to surface finish. Smaller probes are more to fall inside surface irregularities such as rough turned parts. I usually default to a 4-5mm tip for general measuring if it won't cause issues with retract and clearance.
We are taking 11-12 points (around .750 OD). We also think the small probe would fall inside surfact irregularities. However, that would lead to a small measurment, not the larger measurment we are getting.

And yes the measurements are repeatable within each probe size. We just get different results with the different probe sizes.
 
J
#6
Interesting Problem - - -
I've been away from inspection for some time, and I only ever used a manual maching, so let me ask a couple of questions here.
1) Are these measures being taken manually or automatically?
2) Are the shafts on the two probes of different lengths?
It occurred to me that if the probe shafts are of different lengths and the measures are taken automatically then the measures may not be taken in the same location on the (presumably) Z axis.​
3) Are the Probes "calibrated" on a ball for each use or is the dia's set in the software.
The thought here of course has to do with wear on the probes.​
One other thought I had has to do with the probe design. Does the smaller probe have a tapered shaft? Is it possible that the shaft is hitting before the ball? I know it sounds rediculous but I'm just tossing out ideas.

Like I said - interesting problem.

Peace
James
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#7
Interesting Problem - - -
I've been away from inspection for some time, and I only ever used a manual maching, so let me ask a couple of questions here.
1) Are these measures being taken manually or automatically?
2) Are the shafts on the two probes of different lengths?
It occurred to me that if the probe shafts are of different lengths and the measures are taken automatically then the measures may not be taken in the same location on the (presumably) Z axis.
3) Are the Probes "calibrated" on a ball for each use or is the dia's set in the software.
The thought here of course has to do with wear on the probes.
One other thought I had has to do with the probe design. Does the smaller probe have a tapered shaft? Is it possible that the shaft is hitting before the ball? I know it sounds rediculous but I'm just tossing out ideas.

Like I said - interesting problem.

Peace
James
All things we considered. Each pc. is measured manually. We set the the Z down to the same level on each pc. So differing probe lengths are taken into account. And yes, each probe is calibrated on the ball during each change. We also looked at the tapered shaft issue. I thought that there might be contact, but it doesn't look like it (although I am much more comfortable with the larger ball).

Now here is an interesting tidbit. We checked a very similar part (the next larger size) and both probes check it within .0002 of each other.

So something strange is going on with the other part which gets us a .002 difference. Just can't figure out why.
 
J
#8
All things we considered. Each pc. is measured manually. We set the the Z down to the same level on each pc. So differing probe lengths are taken into account. And yes, each probe is calibrated on the ball during each change. We also looked at the tapered shaft issue. I thought that there might be contact, but it doesn't look like it (although I am much more comfortable with the larger ball).

Now here is an interesting tidbit. We checked a very similar part (the next larger size) and both probes check it within .0002 of each other.

So something strange is going on with the other part which gets us a .002 difference. Just can't figure out why.
OK, let me ask another question. Are the parts checkd on the same part of the table evey time?
Have you tried checking the parts in a different location on the table?

Peace
James
 
T

True Position

#9
All things we considered. Each pc. is measured manually. We set the the Z down to the same level on each pc. So differing probe lengths are taken into account. And yes, each probe is calibrated on the ball during each change. We also looked at the tapered shaft issue. I thought that there might be contact, but it doesn't look like it (although I am much more comfortable with the larger ball).

Now here is an interesting tidbit. We checked a very similar part (the next larger size) and both probes check it within .0002 of each other.

So something strange is going on with the other part which gets us a .002 difference. Just can't figure out why.
Can you try changing the Z height where you check the diameter or try instead of just probing a circle? Also you could try taking points as a cylinder and asking for the diameter/form of that?
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#10
Re: CMM Help?

We are taking 11-12 points (around .750 OD). We also think the small probe would fall inside surfact irregularities. However, that would lead to a small measurment, not the larger measurment we are getting.

And yes the measurements are repeatable within each probe size. We just get different results with the different probe sizes.
What is the min and max diameter reported with each probe tip? Are you using any averaging to report the diameter (RMS, etc.)? 11-12 points should be sufficient to deal with most lobing issues.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
K Monitoring the identified side-effects and contraindications ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
Q Determining Adverse Effects of Corrective/Preventive Actions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Watchcat Effects of Technology - 2020 Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 14
C Failure nets - Same level effects FMEA and Control Plans 0
M Informational US FDA paper – Epidemiological Evidence on the Adverse Health Effects Reports in Relation to Mercury from Dental Amalgam: Systematic Literature Review Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
C Detection Action for Failure Effects - AIAG 4th Edition Layout FMEA and Control Plans 5
J0anne Implantable Devices - The effects of surgical scaffold implanted into the human body Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 8
H Addressing of Undesirable side-effects, harms, risks and side-effects in clinical evaluation report (CER) EU Medical Device Regulations 12
B ISO 9001:2015 6.1.1 b - Enhance desirable effects - No opportunities were addressed ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
I DOE: High variance and small effects in Minitab Using Minitab Software 1
T How to Document Risk Effects on Design Change(s) ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
J Medical Device Failure Effects - Where to draw the line? FMEA and Control Plans 8
kedarg6500 Potential Effects of Failure(s) FMEA and Control Plans 23
J0anne Effects of Strengthened Surveillance of Notified Bodies in 2015 EU Medical Device Regulations 1
P UFMEA - Use Failure Mode Effects Analysis FMEA and Control Plans 7
Q Format to Evaluate the Effects of New Processes and Equipment Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
R Effects of Calibration Laboratory Temperature on Uncertainty Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 10
A Effects of categorical variables on single response Using Minitab Software 9
J Quality Management Process Model Possible Interactions and Effects ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
L "Half Normal Plot vs Normal Probability Plot" of Effects Using Minitab Software 1
R Drawing a Normal Plot of the Effects for Multilevel Factorial Design Using Minitab Software 3
E Laser Marking effects on the Fatigue Strength of Alloys CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 6
A Function for Effects - Beginner in usage of the IQRM FMEA and Control Plans 3
M Corporate Procedures and their effects on Companies they Own Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
Q Documenting the Review of Adverse Effects from Rework ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
B Process FMEA (PFMEA) Same Multiple Causes for Different Effects FMEA and Control Plans 6
P Adverse Effects caused by Manufacturing Material of Medical Devices Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
S Effects of Irradiation Sterilization on Medical Electronics - Li Coin Cell Batteries IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
R Are multi-faults needed? Effects of a Short Circuit IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
S Nylon Moisture Content - Transportation and Seasonal Effects Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
AnaMariaVR2 Effects of the Economic Downturn in Quality Systems & Quality in General Career and Occupation Discussions 9
R Effects of Dealing with Out of Tolerance Monitoring Equipment General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
M New Directive MDD 2007/47 - What is the status and effects? EU Medical Device Regulations 7
D ITAR/EAR and effects on commercial Heat Treating AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
H Removing fixed effects (time demeaned variables) in Minitab Using Minitab Software 12
S Process Failure Mode Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Basics FMEA and Control Plans 4
M PAA (Process Assurance Assessment) vs. FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) FMEA and Control Plans 3
Raffy Effects or Impact of Changes to ISO 17021 and Revision Status as of 16 NOV 2014 Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 25
J Effects of substrate on biological indicator organisms US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
Q FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and Control Plan Process Diagrams FMEA and Control Plans 3
S What is the use of bar code? The Potential Effects of Missing Bar Code Labels FMEA and Control Plans 6
S Basic PFMEA (Process Failure Mode Effects and Analysis) Questions FMEA and Control Plans 22
T Standard for "Simulating Long Term Effects on Materials / Thermal Disinfecion" needed Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 3
T The Effects of Anodization on Pressure Impregnated Castings Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
R Should I be notifying the FDA of adverse effects (per 21 CFR 803)? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
M Difference between potential failure mode and potential effects of failure FMEA and Control Plans 11
D ISO 14971 Risk Analysis - Effects of component failure on the patient ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 7
B Grain boundary effects in alloy depletion analysis - SAE AS7101 requirement AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
A How to organize DFMEA for Failures that have many Causes and Effects FMEA and Control Plans 2
F Quality Management System vs. Effects of Local Culture on Implementing a QMS Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 22

Similar threads

Top Bottom