Measurement of concentricity using CMM

  • Thread starter Thread starter k.udhay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurement of concentricity between two cylinders using a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). Participants explore the methodology for achieving accurate measurements, the implications of tolerances, and the potential challenges posed by elliptical features in the geometry of the cylinders.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the procedure for measuring concentricity with a CMM, expressing confusion about how to index the job accurately without a 180° arrangement.
  • Another participant suggests measuring three points on each end of the cylinders to fit circles in 3D and then computing the concentricity from the deviation of the circle centers from a straight line.
  • A participant questions the accuracy of the proposed method, arguing that it may not account for elliptical shapes and how this could affect concentricity measurements, especially when position tolerances are considered.
  • Another reply points out that the original inquiry was about perfect cylinders, while the concern raised involved elliptical holes, suggesting that measurement errors could arise from alignment issues.
  • This participant discusses the relationship between measurement alignment and the resulting radius estimates, introducing concepts from sampling theory and the effects of different cutting tools on hole shapes.
  • There is a mention of the need for accurate drilling techniques to avoid producing elliptical holes that could violate positional tolerances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed measurement methods, with no consensus reached on the best approach to measure concentricity or the implications of elliptical shapes on the measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations related to measurement alignment, the assumptions about hole shapes, and the mathematical considerations involved in fitting circles or ellipses based on sampled points.

k.udhay
Messages
167
Reaction score
13
Hello,

If I want to measure the concentricity of a cylinder with another, is it possible using a CMM? If yes, can you pl. explain me the procedure?

I have read that concnetricity has to be measured based on the mid point of a diameter-line of a cylinder. This means, I have to measure the co-ordinates of two exact opposite points in the circumference of the cylinder. And then, I have to repeat this for atleast 3 (?) different diameter-lines. How can I do this in CMM without any arrangement to index the job exactly by 180°? I hope I have explained the portion of my confusion here. Kindly help me out!

Thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
If you measure three points arbitrarily spaced around each end of each cylinder, you will be able to fit a circle to each of those four sets of three points, in 3D.

Compute the coordinates of those four circle's centres.
You now have four points that should lie close to a common straight line.
Compute the concentricity from the deviation of those points from the straight line.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks, Baluncore.
But, won't this method be very approximate to measure concentricity?
Let us assume this way:
I have got a circular hole given a position tolerance with an MMC. Hence, even if the hole become little elliptical but still accepting the go and no-go gauges, the position tolerance is met. I think the CMM way of measuring this also will give me the same conclusion. But, if this was concentricity, still I can accept this, as concentricity doesn't mind if this hole was elliptical, unless it's axis lies on the tolerated boundary. But the CMM drawn circle will say that the hole is eccentric to the datum which is not true...
YyJlmgW.png

In the above image, the shaded portion shows the VC of the hole. The blue ellipse is the actual hole machined. There are three arbitrary points on the hole touched by CMM probe. Green is the CMM drawn circle, which is acceptable as per position tolerance. But it's centre is away from the true centre of the ellipse and hence may be rejected by concentricity tolerance...
What is your opinion on this?
 
Last edited:
Your OP specified the concentricity of one cylinder with another. You have now replaced the perfect cylinders with elliptical section holes.

That could be because you are not measuring on a plane perpendicular to their axis but on a slight diagonal.
If you align your cylinders close to a machine axis, the elliptical error will be a cosine function.
A one degree alignment error will change your radius estimate by a maximum of 1 – Cos( 1° ) = 0.00015
That should attenuate any elliptical effect by 6500 times or more, so maybe no problem.

A circle has a constant radius with direction. It takes three measurements to find the centre. Sampling theory says you must sample a signal at twice the rate of the highest frequency present. An ellipse has a 2'nd harmonic radius. (It has two minima and two maxima). The frequency of two requires four sample points to fit a Fourier ellipse approximation. But can the ellipse be fitted and the centre found with 4 points or does it take more? What if the points are arbitrarily spaced rather than equally spaced?

If the holes are drilled or milled with a drill having n cutting edges then they will have a radial frequency of n+1. A two flute drill produces slightly triangular holes. To bore an accurate cylindrical hole is a special case, you must use a single cutting edge that is the only point of contact.

If your holes are so elliptical that they intrude on the positional tolerance then you need to drill rounder holes.
An elliptical hole is usually only produced by different rigidity or movement in an x or y machine way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
30K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K