Jump to content

Base Alignment Help - Irregular Part


---
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all. Long story short management threw me into calypso basic (i'm an engineer, not a programmer, nor do I have any CNC experience...) which went completely fine, I didn't struggle with the GD&T and felt like the course was rather easy. Flash forward to now, i'm creating a program for an irregular part (first part since training), similar to attached.

The head of the part (bottom of picture) is on a curved surface about .11" higher than the tail (top of the picture). The tail has about half an inch of flat surface, that I can easily probe a plane on. Some holes are threaded with a small counter bore. Some holes are not threaded and are simply. The tail also has a perpendicular hole.

For my base alignment, my thoughts were use the flat plane on the tail as my planar rotation (+Z), while using the tails perpendicular hole as my planar rotation (-X). This appeared to work fine, I would do a manual alignment, than the probe would CNC a few points, but then it would just drift off in the +X direction until it errored out the machine. Does anyone have any thoughts? I can't help but think my base alignment sucks. I've also come to the conclusion that having freeform may be beneficial, however if I can avoid that for now that would be preferential. Not sure management wants me to tell them we need to spend another $10k....

Using a Vast XXT with a .3mm stylus, qualified multiple times today with no issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Surely you meant to use the plane as the +Z spatial rotation?

Please sign in to view this quote.

There are several possible causes. Did you establish a full base alignment, I mean with proper zeroes in all directions? Because if you use the hole as the planar rotation in X, you also need something else that serves as a rotation point. Another hole for example. With two holes it would be best to create a line between both and use that as planar rotation, then set X and Y zero to one of the holes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Correct, I did mean spatial rotation, darn end of the day typos...
I believe I did attempt to create a line between two of the holes and still saw that issue. I'll doublecheck this morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A typical beginner's mistake would be to use point recall instead of normal (feature) recall to create such a line.
This can work, but is not correct and prone to fail at some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Well this certainly helped, probe no longer wanders off. Only issue i'm battling now is a "32 command ignored: Collision - Continue with G60 or joystick".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran into the same error earlier "32 Command Ignored: Collision-Continue with G60 or joystick". Ran a manual alignment on part and it seemed to fix the error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

I've tried running a manual alignment to no luck - new day so going to give a few things a shot. Fake it till we make it right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've measured very similar parts before.

I would use a 3d Best Fit Alignment as the Base Alignment. The only standard geometry on these parts are the short threaded holes, and they are all at various compound angles.

Great part for 3d scanning. 🙂
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

Besides the fact that /i know 3d Best Fit exists, i've never had to deal with it. Do you have any literature I can read up on?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to view this quote.

The only literature I would have is from the Advanced Manual, which I cannot share.

It's pretty straightforward to setup though.

Here is an example on a similar part. The main goal is to touch all around the part in all axis. Even touching both sides is great - the more distinct points, the better.
659_5d25318a8bc5c265a1e8b7589149d3f8.png
659_11718f129f929149490dd362ad34f234.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a Cervical Plate for the Spine around the neck area.
It is very complicated geometry. There are no normal (as in perpendicular, parallel, etc..) surfaces that would be typically used to create an alignment.
All the part itself is about 2.5394 inches wide, the part is a Large Taurus. All geometry exists on this torus.
I developed the program, process, utilizing scanning and trigger methods along with a 3D Best Fit alignment.

All of the points used for the 3D alignment are mirrored, that means from the center left and right and Top to bottom the points are exact opposite of each other. This makes investigating point data easier if something doesn't work. The alignment plan worked flawlessly.

All CMM programs I write utilize a "Base Alignment", and conversely all Calypso CMM programs require a Base Alignment.
All my "Base Alignments are never used for any measurement, they do nothing more than describe to the CMM working volume where an object exists numerically. All my programs use a what I have named a "CNC Alignment". The name of the "CNC Alignment can vary, but it will always start with "CNC Alignment" and then add a suffix if needed, such as "CNC Alignment A_B_C". This defines the alignment is based on Datums A, B and C.
Base Alignments should be SIMPLE and do not have to be related to any Datums.

Torus.jpgUntitled1.jpgBase Alignment.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard and Rick,

I appreciate the help, I was finally able to make it to the machine today to give the 3D best fit alignment a shot. It worked wonders, no issues at all. Thanks a bunch!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...