|
|
|
|
The Value of Daily CMM Capability Checks
Coordinate measuring machines are not infallible. A variety of factors can
adversely affect their measuring accuracy, including a crash, large temperature
fluctuations, a malfunctioning probe head, use of an uncalibrated probe—even a
person leaning on the machine gantry might be enough to take it out of square.
If the CMM’s true capability is verified only once a year via laser or another
calibration method, then it’s possible that the CMM might be inaccurately
measuring parts for an extended period of time, unbeknownst to the operator. The
question remains—did a workpiece fail inspection because of an imprecise
manufacturing process or an inaccurate CMM?
At the General Motors R&D center in Warren, Michigan, Dr. John Agapiou, staff
research engineer, and Mark Muczynski, CMM programmer and operator, are part of
a team that evaluates equipment to enable the company’s manufacturing facilities
to perform daily CMM checks on their own. Their goals are to identify a device
that can perform its test quickly, provide reports that are simple to understand
and yet is easy to set up and use.
One device the team has been examining is Asanuma Giken’s Quality Master gage,
which is available in the United States from Tecnara Tooling Systems, Inc.
(Santa Fe Springs, California). This artifact-based CMM inspection method is
said to enable 20-minute reliability checks and more comprehensive accuracy
checks that can be performed whenever it is deemed necessary. The Quality Master
is NIST-traceable, and it complies with ISO 9001:2000 and ISO/TS16949.
This artifact inspection system
This artifact inspection system allows users to daily check a CMM’s
repeatability.
The system consists of a cylindrical artifact as well as data collection and
reporting software. The artifact is made from material that is said to have
one-fourth of cast iron’s coefficient of thermal expansion. This allows it to
remain stable despite fluctuating environmental conditions. It has 12
precision-ground locating bushings—four on its top surface and four vertically
oriented pairs located at 90-degree positions around its perimeter. Locating the
bushings in such a way allows the system to collect X, Y and Z data in one
setup. During a test, the CMM probes the outer surface and ID of the 12 bushings
to determine their hole diameters and position relative to the others.
After collecting the measurement data, the system’s software compares the data
to that of previous tests and creates a statistical report to identify trends
that could show the existence of a problem. The repeatability test demonstration
performed during this editor’s recent visit to GM’s R&D facility took 22 minutes
to complete.
An accuracy test can be performed if it is felt that the CMM may have been
damaged or is not taking accurate measurements. The accuracy test differs from
the repeatability test in that the bushing probe routine is performed three
times; the artifact is then rotated 180 degrees, and the test is carried out
three additional times. The data collected from these multiple probing routines
are averaged to ensure accuracy. The accuracy test, which takes approximately 2
hours, reveals X-Y-Z axial positioning, X-Y-Z straightness (pitch and yaw) and
perpendicularity between the X-Y, X-Z and Y-Z axes. The tests reveal individual
axis errors, rather than an overall volumetric error. This allows users to
determine the positioning accuracy in discrete areas on the CMM’s table. The
artifact is compact to allow this. Its diameter is 250 mm; its height is 245 mm;
and it weighs 36 kg.
The accuracy reports that the software generates may also be helpful in reducing
CMM service downtime. The report can offer clues that give the service person an
idea of what the problem could be prior to the visit.
For CMMs without an articulating head, it is necessary to use a star probe to
access the bushings on top and around the perimeter of the artifact. Regardless
of the style of head, the same probe should be used for all tests, so as not to
introduce an element of variability.
Article Courtesy of MMS online.
Comment on this article
 |
|
|