Convert Radius Measurement Into Profile

[[To...]]

I am taking radius measurements on a series of arc segments. I have R.094 with .004 profile. I am using ±.002 on the radius measurements but don't want to report all results, so I am masking those results and using Maximum and Minimum Result. However, I'd like to convert those results to a profile measurement.

See attached for my work so far. As you can see, it didn't grab the max deviation

Calypso.pdfRadMeasPoints to Profile.pdf

[[Ch...]]

Hi Tom,

I have a similar issue I've posted here and contacted Zeiss support measuring variable torus radius.
They have yet to come up with a solution.

For what it's worth, if this profile happens to have a DRF, then there is a "point" option under profile characteristic. (Point does not quite equal a surface in my book, but anyhow...)
I think this is similar to a space point evaluation, etc.

Optionally a way we've agreed upon inspecting ours, is create an alignment that essentially gets you to center of the radius, the create a few polar radial distance points, and tolerance the polar position radius, etc. ± 1/2 your profile tolerance.
So your point would have R,A,H, with R of .094 apply tolerance of ± .002. Does not get us a profile characteristic, but if you were to inspect a surface with single points, this is a similar evaluation, etc.

I'm trying to find out why profile of a torus is not allowed... sure it's 3D, but can be accomplished ....

Good luck !

[[Ke...]]

It was a few years back, but I think I remember calculating the "absolute" values in Results 1 & 2, then pulling the max of those into Result 3...

[[Gr...]]

Your subtraction of 0.094 should happen before you take the absolute value.
Right now you are getting the max between the max and min radii, not their deviations.

[[Me...]]

Tom,
This is based upon your existing work:

Bilateral Two Results (2 Result Elements)

“Profile Min" = getActual(“Maximum1”).dev.negated
“Profile Max" = getActual(“Minimum1”).dev.negated

Bilateral One Result (1 Result Element)

max(getActual(“Minimum1”).dev.abs,getActual(“Maximum1”).dev.abs)*2

If you want to omit the radius measurement characteristic altogether, then just constrain XYZR within the circle feature and use the following code in result elements. Keep in mind that both methods will require that the alignment of the feature be set to an alignment that represents your DRF.

Bilateral Two Results (2 Result Elements)

“Profile Min" = getActual(“Circle1”).maxDev.negated
“Profile Max" = getActual(“Circle1”).minDev.negated

Bilateral One Result (1 Result Element)

max(getActual(“Circle1”).minDev.abs,getActual(“Circle1”).maxDev.abs)*2

Another possibility would be to use a cylinder with one path in the strategy. This will allow you to just use a profile characteristic, however errors are possible within simulation because there will not be enough axial separation between points to "fit" the cylinder. This should not be an issue when inspecting an actual part because the points will have axial separation due to positioning error of the CMM.

[[Me...]]

My bad, I just noticed that you were dealing with an external feature and the above assumed a internal radii. Here is the revised code for your situation....

Bilateral Two Results (2 Result Elements)

“Profile Min" = getActual(“Minimum1”).dev
“Profile Max" = getActual(“Maximum1”).dev

Bilateral One Result (1 Result Element)

max(getActual(“Minimum1”).dev.abs,getActual(“Maximum1”).dev.abs)*2

Bilateral Two Results (2 Result Elements)

“Profile Min" = getActual(“Circle1”).minDev
“Profile Max" = getActual(“Circle1”).maxDev

Bilateral One Result (1 Result Element)

max(getActual(“Circle1”).minDev.abs,getActual(“Circle1”).maxDev.abs)*2

[[To...]]

Please sign in to view this quote.

Thanks Phillip. I will give this a shot