Hello guys, I'm not so new, but not so guru into the PC-DMIS workarounds and in the forum as well. I have a question with one strategy about measuring a radius with less than 90° of arc.
Is it feasible to do the following procedure as having the CAD model for the part number, align as necessary to restrict the part freedom, obviously as the drawing requires it.
And so we got this radius callout for an arc less than 90°.
So we don´t have any stated coordinates for the CL of the radius in the 2D Drawing, but we do on the CAD model, so into Cartesian Coordinate System, you just simply
pick it from the CAD model as an auto-circle, then just give some clearance to the measurement angles to not probe into the edges.
Keeping it into nominals in the advanced options and the math fit as fixed radius, measure it with 6 points (Just as example), then align X, Y & Z to the measured circle.
Change the workplane as needed (Conserving the level & orientation from the A+B+C Datum alignment), then change to Polar Corrdinate System, and measure 3 to 4 radial auto-vector points into the circle feature, and so... Create and offset point constraining the X Coordinate of the point with the Fixed Radius measured circle radius value (On the following example I've used 0 degrees or X = FRC Radial Value for the offset point).
And created a Constructed circle with the 3 or 4 measured polar points onto the radius, plus the offset point.
Then recall the A+B+C alignment and late on the program do the required feature location.
The results that PC-DMIS (9.12.8 Global Advantage) was trowing along with two other performed GR&Rs with an OGP SmartScope & InSize Electronic Radius Gage, were statistically evaluated.
We we're greatly satisfied with the possitive results.
But it could be all wrong with the measuring procedure with PC-DMIS, so I do want a second opinion from the gurus, obviously all this test were performed out shop floor production, and was requested
by the upper ops to squeeze all the juice out of the CMMs making the inspection quite costly but accelerating the inspection process by almost 30%, even our skilled auditors took quite the time to do an accurate reading by other means, such as 2 to 3 tries on the Vision System, it did speed up quite the inspection process for many part numbers that drains a lot of QA Time on shop floor.
the results of the 3 measuring devices were so close, talking about ± .0006" and the tolerance for almost all the radii on our drawing ain't as close as the rotary level parts or GD&T features on them.
So it did a good job, for that kind of tolerance that is ± .010.
AGAIN, this could be so WRONG, so just tests were performed.
I'll attach a screenshot and paste a sample of the code for the radius measurement, I'm completely open to all kind of feedbacks.
Thank you so much Guys!
SAMPLE:
Hello guys, I'm not so new, but not so guru into the PC-DMIS workarounds and in the forum as well. I have a question with one strategy about measuring a radius with less than 90° of arc.
Is it feasible to do the following procedure as having the CAD model for the part number, align as necessary to restrict the part freedom, obviously as the drawing requires it.
And so we got this radius callout for an arc less than 90°.
So we don´t have any stated coordinates for the CL of the radius in the 2D Drawing, but we do on the CAD model, so into Cartesian Coordinate System, you just simply
pick it from the CAD model as an auto-circle, then just give some clearance to the measurement angles to not probe into the edges.
Keeping it into nominals in the advanced options and the math fit as fixed radius, measure it with 6 points (Just as example), then align X, Y & Z to the measured circle.
Change the workplane as needed (Conserving the level & orientation from the A+B+C Datum alignment), then change to Polar Corrdinate System, and measure 3 to 4 radial auto-vector points into the circle feature, and so... Create and offset point constraining the X Coordinate of the point with the Fixed Radius measured circle radius value (On the following example I've used 0 degrees or X = FRC Radial Value for the offset point).
And created a Constructed circle with the 3 or 4 measured polar points onto the radius, plus the offset point.
Then recall the A+B+C alignment and late on the program do the required feature location.
The results that PC-DMIS (9.12.8 Global Advantage) was trowing along with two other performed GR&Rs with an OGP SmartScope & InSize Electronic Radius Gage, were statistically evaluated.
We we're greatly satisfied with the possitive results.
But it could be all wrong with the measuring procedure with PC-DMIS, so I do want a second opinion from the gurus, obviously all this test were performed out shop floor production, and was requested
by the upper ops to squeeze all the juice out of the CMMs making the inspection quite costly but accelerating the inspection process by almost 30%, even our skilled auditors took quite the time to do an accurate reading by other means, such as 2 to 3 tries on the Vision System, it did speed up quite the inspection process for many part numbers that drains a lot of QA Time on shop floor.
the results of the 3 measuring devices were so close, talking about ± .0006" and the tolerance for almost all the radii on our drawing ain't as close as the rotary level parts or GD&T features on them.
So it did a good job, for that kind of tolerance that is ± .010.
All it ain't quite valid but the results * 2, and using that pin gage in tenths, didn't let pass trough any light from the part to the pin, nor the feeler gage .001" fitted in, I now, this is quite the stupid reference LOL.
AGAIN, this could be so WRONG, so just tests were performed.
I'll attach a screenshot and paste a sample of the code for the radius measurement, I'm completely open to all kind of feedbacks.
Thank you so much Guys!
SAMPLE:
A+B+C =ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:A+B,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,XAXIS,D_C
ALIGNMENT/END
PREHIT/0.078
RETRACT/0.078
L_R =FEAT/CONTACT/CIRCLE/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN,IN,FIXED_RAD
THEO/<1.2025,-0.825,0.23>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
ACTL/<1.1946,-0.825,0.2306>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
TARG/<1.2025,-0.825,0.23>,<0,-1,0>
START ANG=219,END ANG=268
ANGLE VEC=<1,0,0>
DIRECTION=CCW
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
NUMHITS=6,DEPTH=0,PITCH=0
SAMPLE METHOD=SAMPLE_HITS
SAMPLE HITS=0,SPACER=0
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0
FIND HOLE=DISABLED,ONERROR=NO,READ POS=NO
SHOW HITS=NO
LEFT_RADII =ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:A+B+C,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,XAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,YAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,ZAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/END
WORKPLANE/YMINUS
MOVE/CLEARPLANE
RAD1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,220,0>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
ACTL/<0.38,219.9629,0.0001>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
TARG/<0.38,220,0>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
RAD2 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,242.5,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
ACTL/<0.3799,242.4899,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
TARG/<0.38,242.5,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
RAD3 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,265,0>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
ACTL/<0.3805,265.0019,0.0001>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
TARG/<0.38,265,0>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/CLEARPLANE
OFF_1 =FEAT/POINT,CARTESIAN,NO
THEO/<0.38,0,0>,<0,0,1>
ACTL/<0.38,0,0>,<0,0,1>
CONSTR/POINT,OFFSET,ORIGIN,L_R.R,0,0
L_R2 =FEAT/CIRCLE,POLAR,OUT,MIN_CIRCSC,NO
THEO/<0,79.471,0>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
ACTL/<0.0007,294.656,0.0001>,<0,-1,0>,0.7594
CONSTR/CIRCLE,BF,2D,RAD1,RAD2,RAD3,OFF_1,,
OUTLIER_REMOVAL/OFF,3
FILTER/OFF,UPR=0
RECALL/ALIGNMENT,INTERNAL,A+B+C
Is it feasible to do the following procedure as having the CAD model for the part number, align as necessary to restrict the part freedom, obviously as the drawing requires it.
And so we got this radius callout for an arc less than 90°.
So we don´t have any stated coordinates for the CL of the radius in the 2D Drawing, but we do on the CAD model, so into Cartesian Coordinate System, you just simply
pick it from the CAD model as an auto-circle, then just give some clearance to the measurement angles to not probe into the edges.
Keeping it into nominals in the advanced options and the math fit as fixed radius, measure it with 6 points (Just as example), then align X, Y & Z to the measured circle.
Change the workplane as needed (Conserving the level & orientation from the A+B+C Datum alignment), then change to Polar Corrdinate System, and measure 3 to 4 radial auto-vector points into the circle feature, and so... Create and offset point constraining the X Coordinate of the point with the Fixed Radius measured circle radius value (On the following example I've used 0 degrees or X = FRC Radial Value for the offset point).
And created a Constructed circle with the 3 or 4 measured polar points onto the radius, plus the offset point.
Then recall the A+B+C alignment and late on the program do the required feature location.
The results that PC-DMIS (9.12.8 Global Advantage) was trowing along with two other performed GR&Rs with an OGP SmartScope & InSize Electronic Radius Gage, were statistically evaluated.
We we're greatly satisfied with the possitive results.
But it could be all wrong with the measuring procedure with PC-DMIS, so I do want a second opinion from the gurus, obviously all this test were performed out shop floor production, and was requested
by the upper ops to squeeze all the juice out of the CMMs making the inspection quite costly but accelerating the inspection process by almost 30%, even our skilled auditors took quite the time to do an accurate reading by other means, such as 2 to 3 tries on the Vision System, it did speed up quite the inspection process for many part numbers that drains a lot of QA Time on shop floor.
the results of the 3 measuring devices were so close, talking about ± .0006" and the tolerance for almost all the radii on our drawing ain't as close as the rotary level parts or GD&T features on them.
So it did a good job, for that kind of tolerance that is ± .010.
AGAIN, this could be so WRONG, so just tests were performed.
I'll attach a screenshot and paste a sample of the code for the radius measurement, I'm completely open to all kind of feedbacks.
Thank you so much Guys!
SAMPLE:
Hello guys, I'm not so new, but not so guru into the PC-DMIS workarounds and in the forum as well. I have a question with one strategy about measuring a radius with less than 90° of arc.
Is it feasible to do the following procedure as having the CAD model for the part number, align as necessary to restrict the part freedom, obviously as the drawing requires it.
And so we got this radius callout for an arc less than 90°.
So we don´t have any stated coordinates for the CL of the radius in the 2D Drawing, but we do on the CAD model, so into Cartesian Coordinate System, you just simply
pick it from the CAD model as an auto-circle, then just give some clearance to the measurement angles to not probe into the edges.
Keeping it into nominals in the advanced options and the math fit as fixed radius, measure it with 6 points (Just as example), then align X, Y & Z to the measured circle.
Change the workplane as needed (Conserving the level & orientation from the A+B+C Datum alignment), then change to Polar Corrdinate System, and measure 3 to 4 radial auto-vector points into the circle feature, and so... Create and offset point constraining the X Coordinate of the point with the Fixed Radius measured circle radius value (On the following example I've used 0 degrees or X = FRC Radial Value for the offset point).
And created a Constructed circle with the 3 or 4 measured polar points onto the radius, plus the offset point.
Then recall the A+B+C alignment and late on the program do the required feature location.
The results that PC-DMIS (9.12.8 Global Advantage) was trowing along with two other performed GR&Rs with an OGP SmartScope & InSize Electronic Radius Gage, were statistically evaluated.
We we're greatly satisfied with the possitive results.
But it could be all wrong with the measuring procedure with PC-DMIS, so I do want a second opinion from the gurus, obviously all this test were performed out shop floor production, and was requested
by the upper ops to squeeze all the juice out of the CMMs making the inspection quite costly but accelerating the inspection process by almost 30%, even our skilled auditors took quite the time to do an accurate reading by other means, such as 2 to 3 tries on the Vision System, it did speed up quite the inspection process for many part numbers that drains a lot of QA Time on shop floor.
the results of the 3 measuring devices were so close, talking about ± .0006" and the tolerance for almost all the radii on our drawing ain't as close as the rotary level parts or GD&T features on them.
So it did a good job, for that kind of tolerance that is ± .010.
All it ain't quite valid but the results * 2, and using that pin gage in tenths, didn't let pass trough any light from the part to the pin, nor the feeler gage .001" fitted in, I now, this is quite the stupid reference LOL.
AGAIN, this could be so WRONG, so just tests were performed.
I'll attach a screenshot and paste a sample of the code for the radius measurement, I'm completely open to all kind of feedbacks.
Thank you so much Guys!
SAMPLE:
A+B+C =ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:A+B,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,XAXIS,D_C
ALIGNMENT/END
PREHIT/0.078
RETRACT/0.078
L_R =FEAT/CONTACT/CIRCLE/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN,IN,FIXED_RAD
THEO/<1.2025,-0.825,0.23>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
ACTL/<1.1946,-0.825,0.2306>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
TARG/<1.2025,-0.825,0.23>,<0,-1,0>
START ANG=219,END ANG=268
ANGLE VEC=<1,0,0>
DIRECTION=CCW
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
NUMHITS=6,DEPTH=0,PITCH=0
SAMPLE METHOD=SAMPLE_HITS
SAMPLE HITS=0,SPACER=0
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0
FIND HOLE=DISABLED,ONERROR=NO,READ POS=NO
SHOW HITS=NO
LEFT_RADII =ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:A+B+C,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,XAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,YAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/TRANS,ZAXIS,L_R
ALIGNMENT/END
WORKPLANE/YMINUS
MOVE/CLEARPLANE
RAD1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,220,0>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
ACTL/<0.38,219.9629,0.0001>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
TARG/<0.38,220,0>,<0.7660444,0,0.6427876>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
RAD2 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,242.5,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
ACTL/<0.3799,242.4899,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
TARG/<0.38,242.5,0>,<0.4617486,0,0.8870108>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
RAD3 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,POLAR
THEO/<0.38,265,0>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
ACTL/<0.3805,265.0019,0.0001>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
TARG/<0.38,265,0>,<0.0871557,0,0.9961947>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=NO,DISTANCE=0.1
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/CLEARPLANE
OFF_1 =FEAT/POINT,CARTESIAN,NO
THEO/<0.38,0,0>,<0,0,1>
ACTL/<0.38,0,0>,<0,0,1>
CONSTR/POINT,OFFSET,ORIGIN,L_R.R,0,0
L_R2 =FEAT/CIRCLE,POLAR,OUT,MIN_CIRCSC,NO
THEO/<0,79.471,0>,<0,-1,0>,0.76
ACTL/<0.0007,294.656,0.0001>,<0,-1,0>,0.7594
CONSTR/CIRCLE,BF,2D,RAD1,RAD2,RAD3,OFF_1,,
OUTLIER_REMOVAL/OFF,3
FILTER/OFF,UPR=0
RECALL/ALIGNMENT,INTERNAL,A+B+C