New Part Inspection with Minimal Measurement Devices

T

TRISHKIA

#1
I need advise on measuring a new part we are reselling. I do not have a CMM. What I do have is -dial calipers, I.D. mics, height stand. Can we really inspect this part and be confident the dimensions are within tolerance? I have attached a copy of the part dwg and hi-lighted the critical dimensions to be inspected. Thanks for any advice.:thanx:
 

Attachments

Elsmar Forum Sponsor
T

True Position

#2
I need advise on measuring a new part we are reselling. I do not have a CMM. What I do have is -dial calipers, I.D. mics, height stand. Can we really inspect this part and be confident the dimensions are within tolerance? I have attached a copy of the part dwg and hi-lighted the critical dimensions to be inspected. Thanks for any advice.:thanx:
With the equipment you listed you have no ability to measure the profile between A and B.
 

Michael_M

Trusted Information Resource
#3
I mostly agree with True Position.

You could attempt to make funtional gages, basicly fit, not fit but this would be difficult. A camera, cmm, or comparator is most likely needed (CMM being my first choice of the 3).
 
T

TRISHKIA

#4
THANK-YOU. I agree. In your opinion what measuring devices/ tools would you recommend -including measuring the line profile? I am in need of your knowledge for backup. My managers are expecting a little too much from me with what I have on hand. They think a pair of dial calipers can sufficiently measure the diameters. Fisrt of all I don't agree because of the tolerances. I would love to justify the purchase of new tools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

TRISHKIA

#5
Thank you for the replies. I spoke again with my manager today. He believes I can measure the 1.997 diameter with a bore mic or I.D. mic. The 2.201 dimension with I.D. mics and .496 dimensions with dial calipers. He thinks I should be able to set the part up on a v-block and use a dial indicator to check the profile between A and B. Do you agree with him? If not please explain to me so I can reason with him.
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#7
Thank you for the replies. I spoke again with my manager today. He believes I can measure the 1.997 diameter with a bore mic or I.D. mic. The 2.201 dimension with I.D. mics and .496 dimensions with dial calipers.
What are the resolutions of the ID mic and dial calipers? In a perfect world the measurement tool should have 10 times more resolution than the tolerance of the dimension. In a worst-case situation it should be at least four times minimum.

For the 1.997" diameter, ideally you'd want a resolution of .0001", or .00025" minimum. If your ID mic has only .0005" or .001" resolution, you can't expect reliable results. For the .496" your total tolerance is .002". Ideally you'd want your calipers to have .0002" resolution or .0005" minimum. The 2.201" dimension has a higher tolerance, so it should be doable.

He thinks I should be able to set the part up on a v-block and use a dial indicator to check the profile between A and B. Do you agree with him? If not please explain to me so I can reason with him.
I can't see how this can be done, since the datum is eccentric with the center point of the profile. At best, I think you could scribe some lines on the surface and measure their X-Y coordinates to see if the points are in tolerance. I'd be interested to see how your manager thinks it can be done though - can you ask him to show you a setup that will give you the desired results, and post them here? :notme:
 
D

Dave Dunn

#8
Where are the basic dimensions to show where the true profile is supposed to lie? It doesn't appear to have positions or radii called out to define the curve, which appears to be a complex curve additionally, and there are insufficient datum features called out to restrain the coordinate system for a feature that is not concentric.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#9
Where are the basic dimensions to show where the true profile is supposed to lie? It doesn't appear to have positions or radii called out to define the curve, which appears to be a complex curve additionally, and there are insufficient datum features called out to restrain the coordinate system for a feature that is not concentric.
Which means, of course, that you can use a caliper to measure it. :tg:

This is the main reason that people who actually have to measure things should be shown the drawings in the RFQ (contract review) stage. There's nothing worse than having something like this dropped in your lap when the customer is screaming for parts.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#10
This is the main reason that people who actually have to measure things should be shown the drawings in the RFQ (contract review) stage.
Good time to ponder gaging cost, too, so you don't have to use a stick and a string to measure a complex part!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Incoming (Receiving) Inspection - General form for incoming part inspection Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 17
N ISO 17020 Inspection Bodies - NDE as part of manufacture? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
C Acceptable NDC for %GR&R part inspection to Tolerance (%Tolerance) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
Crimpshrine13 MSA for a part Automated and part Manual Inspection Machine IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
K FAI (First Article Inspection) vs PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) APQP and PPAP 15
J Incoming Inspection Plans under Design Control (part of DMR)? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
I Supplier Using Reference Part for PASS/FAIL Inspection Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
S Inspection Kits for Each Customer Part: Calibration and Asset Control? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
I Part Variation for Gage R&R of Vision Inspection system Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
T Is 'Supplier Part Batch' a Root Cause - No Receiving Inspection Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 11
L 8.2.4.2 First Article Inspection - Does every new part that is run require a FAIR AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
V C=0 vs. ANSI/ASQC Z1.4 - Part Inspection Sampling Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
D Difficult Inspection Level/AQL - Verifying it is the correct part AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
K Inspection Dimensional Check Sheets - Over 500 part numbers Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
J Testing Potential New Hires for a Low Level Part Inspection Position Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 5
S Dimensional Inspection Technique for a small Silicone Part Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 17
J System to capture history on Inspection Hours comparision to part family Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
Z Inspection of Flatness of a part using an electronic device Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
J 'Final Inspection' and 'Layout & Functional Testing' - Part of Control Plan? FMEA and Control Plans 9
N Receiving inspection: Part and Vendor history - your favorite format/application? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 1
A Should inspection be part of the FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 2
S ISIR (Initial Sample Inspection Report) vs. PSW (Part Sample Warrant) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
J Part Approval - Eliminating Incoming Quality Inspection by Customer Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 4
B Final Dock Audit - Dock Audit (inspection) on every part number? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 32
A MDR ANNEX XI part A or Part B EU Medical Device Regulations 0
J Part submission warrant for Level 1 PPAP APQP and PPAP 1
K How to handle GTINs for different configurations of one device with one part number? Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
A 60601-1 : Integrated Dry ECG Electrodes = 2 Patient connections inside 1 applied part? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
E Zero part to part variation - Gage R&R project Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 15
0 To which part of 13485 does this refer? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Separation of F-type applied part and remaining parts IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
V Part selection for R&R studies Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
S ISO 9001:2015 vs 21 CFR Part 211 matrix Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 0
D CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space PART 120—DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING PROGRAM Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 3
D Is PMCF really a continuous activity per Annex XIV,Part B? EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M 21 CFR 820 vs 21CFR820 vs 21 CFR Part 820 Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
N BF-type applied part MOPP vs secondary IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
D Relabelling a component that will be sold as a spare part - Do I become legal manufacturer? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
T Single Fault Condition IEC 60601 Clause 8.7.1 shorting Cr/Cl in Patient Applied Part IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 7
D Partial FAI - AS9102 - One single drawing has 10 part numbers AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Anonymous16-2 21 CFR Part 11 - Steps to take if we want to validate an electronic system Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
T ISO 13485 8.3 - Non-Conforming Materials - on-line rework or part of process? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 11
DuncanGibbons Should the requirements FAA/EASA Part 21 be addressed within the QMS and AS9100D quality manual? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
K IEC 62304 compliance - Code reviews as part of verification strategy IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
G Gage R&R - Where am I going wrong? Part of a FAIR submission (Aerospace) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
A 21 CFR part 11 - section 11.100 - Electronic Signature Certification Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
M AS9102B Detail Part/Assembly FAI Form 1 box 13; AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
M 2xMOPP insulation for Applied Part B. IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
A ISO 41001:2018 - Clause No.8 Operations Part Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 2
NDesouza Getting Rid of Part Marking Errors Benchmarking 40

Similar threads

Top Bottom