Jump to content

Bore ID not measuring true


Recommended Posts

---

Hey All,

I am coming across an issue measuring a Bore ID (75.06±.015) that does not correlate with the supplier or other measurement systems. 

We have tried various tests comparing different methods with the attempt to troubleshoot.  Below is a chart comparing different results.

  • D probe = regular production probe (5mm)
  • D probe new = replaced/recal (5mm)
  • 3mm probe = choosing a smaller probe size per cookbook
  • down probe = measuring the bore oriented upright instead of on its side
  • smartscope A down/A up = measuring a circle on each side of the part
  • MTM avg= average measurement of the suppliers' results
  • Bore gage measurement

image.thumb.png.57cded859761bc1e0524d9badb04fef3.png

We measure the Bore as a cylinder at 3 sections @ cookbook settings.

image.thumb.png.c95aa59d940cbcb1d9ab78bc9a3e7236.pngimage.png.b6ed1db54c0824d76826fd8290f03ebf.png

Any thoughts or suggestions for what could be going on?

TIA!

 

Link to comment
https://qualityforum.zeiss.com/topic/26698-bore-id-not-measuring-true/
Share on other sites

---

Please sign in to view this username.

 

Please sign in to view this username.

Outer tangential shows even smaller.

Cylindricity shows 0.009mm

Breaking the cylinder into individual Øs shows results within a few microns of each other. 

  1. 75.0363
  2. 75.0386
  3. 75.0353

We have matched the supplier's method with no noticeable change. They use a Hexagon CMM. 

---

What does the roundness plot look like?  Is it oval shaped or more tri-lobed or something else?   

The min/max difference I see from you chart is about 35 microns or so.  A test would be to evaluate the circle using max inscribed and then evaluate using min circumscribed.  Then see what the difference between those two evaluations is.

 

---

Please sign in to view this quote.

Read my mind, this was my next verification.

We measured a 75.09mm ring gauge. The gauge came in at 75.073mm, so this is roughly 0.017mm under spec and aligns with the delta we are seeing vs the supplier.

So what now? Is the vast head or CMM off? Should we look to get it checked out by Zeiss? Anything else I should do to verify?

  • Like! 1
---

When was the last maintenance / calibration of the CMM? Was there anything out of spec?

Over the years we had two cases where the maintenance tech had to change the radius of the cal. sphere slightly to get a deviating axis into the tolerance band again. They were quite old machines and it was a last resort (and of course officially documented) before they would have had to be laser calibrated again (CAA). But we never saw any issues with deviating measurement results because of this.

---

Please sign in to view this username.

Cal comes due in 2 months. I verified the last cal and nothing was oos. 

It's interesting that you mentioned the tech updated the radius settings. Every time I have seen a tech cal the machine, they bring their own cal sphere.

We just placed an order for a new cal sphere today. 

×
×
  • Create New...