Measurement. Measurement Study CMSC 2011 Phoenix Arizona

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Measurement. Measurement Study CMSC 2011 Phoenix Arizona"

Dulcie Gilmore
6 years ago
Views:

1 Measurement Measurement Study 2011

2 Thanks CMS Executive Committee Bertrand Metrologic Nathalie Metrologic Mark Metrologic Dennis Metrologic Charlie BMW Trevor Ben Preston Lucas Jason Coventry University NPL ATT Metrology East coast Metrology Prolink All of you

3 Measurement study 2010

dimensional measurement Objectives:To look at the importance of core measurement principles instilling

4 2010 measurement study Open measurement workshop inviting conference delegates to participate in a measurement study Subject: First principle measurement study based on a variety of hand tools used in dimensional measurement Objectives:To look at the importance of core measurement principles instilling the right measurement strategy observing behaviours when dealing with measurements instilling questioning

5 Measurement tasks Image taken from NPL Training materials

Activity The measurement studies were to be undertaken over

training & assessments techniques to be undertaken such as:

6 Activity The measurement studies were to be undertaken over 2 days in 2 separate areas using various defined first principle tasks. The criteria of the tasks was modified to allow for various training & assessments techniques to be undertaken such as: Assessment of prior learning and experience Questioning techniques Practical task monitoring Demonstration

7 Profile Varied industries ranging from Aerospace Nuclear Automotive Science Woodworking Varied job roles Quality Scientist Management Measurement Supplier Experience Measurement experience Ranging from newcomer to in excess of 15 years experience

Observations Checked jaws for parallelism Checked calibration status Used gauge block to check vernier Cleaned before using Made multiple measurements Made

8 Observations Checked jaws for parallelism Checked calibration status Used gauge block to check vernier Cleaned before using Made multiple measurements Made multiple re-zero s Checked vernier zero Cleaned jaws Misunderstanding of scale and units Check for damage Image taken from NPL Training materials courtesy Hexagon Metrology

Spent effort to find minimum value Used gauge block as a comparator Poor lighting

9 Observations Locked jaws using thumbscrew Measured with jaws not parallel to the workpiece Used internal jaws for depth measurement Used depth bar and checked zero Spent effort to find minimum value Used gauge block as a comparator Poor lighting didn t help reading scale Images taken from NPL Training materials courtesy Hexagon Metrology

Observations Cleaned the artefact Checked the zero Felt for dirt on the surface table Used without zeroing difference between 2 values Base upwards/ part

10 Observations Cleaned the artefact Checked the zero Felt for dirt on the surface table Used without zeroing difference between 2 values Base upwards/ part downwards Cleaned surface plate Checked using gauge block Used direct comparison against gauge block Image taken from NPL Training materials courtesy Hexagon Metrology

Data 4 measurement tasks with and without instruction covering diameters,

readings ranged from 0,155 to 0,191mm Task 2: Without procedures 43

21 inches Task 3: With procedures 39 readings ranged from 0,009 to 0,057mm

11 Data 4 measurement tasks with and without instruction covering diameters, length, depths and gauge block wringing Task 1: Without procedures 55 readings ranged from 0,155 to 0,191mm Task 2: Without procedures 43 readings ranged from to 1.21 inches Task 3: With procedures 39 readings ranged from 0,009 to 0,057mm Task 4: Without procedures 28 readings varied by inches Key observations and behaviours across a wide range of expertise

12 Summary

13 Key areas Summary Standards Traceabilty Calibration Measurement uncertainty Understanding design requirements Repeatability and reproducibility Questioning Attitudes and behaviours

14 Measurement study 2011

15 2011 CMSC measurement study Open measurement workshop inviting conference delegates to participate in a 3D co-ordinate measurement study on How behaviours impact your Measurement Objectives: Over a 3 day period of the conference participants are Days 1 & 2: Invited to undertake 3D co-ordinate measurements by a variety of methods whilst looking at underpinning measurement core principles and behaviours. Day 3: Invited to the measurement study workshop where the findings of the study will be presented by the study group. Sponsored By Metrologic

16 Activity: 2011 CMSC measurement study Day 1 (Tuesday): 3D measurement tasks with little or no instruction where the participant will need to determine the requirements to take measurements or instruct the operator as to the measurements needed. The resultant data will be stored in an appropriate system Day 2 (Wednesday): 3D measurement tasks with instructions or procedures where the participant will be required to take measurements or instruct the operator as to the method to collect the measurements needed. The resultant data will be stored in an appropriate system Day 3 (Thursday PM): Workshop presentation of the observations and data from the measurement study. The criteria of the tasks will allow for various training & assessments techniques to be undertaken such as: Assessment of prior learning and experience, questioning techniques, practical task monitoring and demonstration Sponsored By Metrologic

17 Study categories Pre- Measurement Measurement planning Measurement Post Measurement Participants Study Criteria Beginner to measurement Beginner to portable measurement Some experience of portable measurement Experienced

18 Tasks

19 Varied industries ranging from Aerospace Nuclear Science Varied job roles Quality Scientist Management Measurement Profile

20 Profile Industry Job 80% aerospace 15% Other 5% Nuclear 40% engineer 38% metrologist 8% management 8% other 6% scientist

21 Department 60% quality 12% design 12% manufacturing 16% other Experience 40% 0-3 years 10% 3-7 years 50% 7 years & above Profile

22 Profile Frequency of measurement activity 30% daily 40% occasionally or never 30% weekly Undertook CMSC 2010 workshop 25% Yes 75% No

23 Participant Observations

24 Pre Measurement Day 1 Articulated Arm 6% Temperature 6% Carpet 19% calibration 19% calibration of hemisphere 13% Accuracy 6% Repeatability 13% What is purpose of the measurement Planning 13% What are tolerances on alignment 13% Is CAD the reference

25 Measurement Process Day 1 Articulated Arm 19% different reference features to be measured 50% Lack of guidance of the probe tip resulting in large form errors 12% asked to re-probe due to form error 6% Fixturing is that sitting in fixture right 94% Best fit 6% Weighted fit

26 Analysis Day 1 Articulated Arm 31% Asked what was the tolerance 6% Vector deviation from the reference system 6% What you going to do with data 13% Requested repeat of measurements due to form errors 13% Asked if wanted to repeat measurements said no 6% Asked about functionality of the features being measured

27 Day 1 Laser Tracker Pre Measurement 6% Is there a Temperature sensor 6% Temperature better in hall than outside 20% Stability of part Carpet 65% Alignment - buttons 5% Alignment planes with projected point 8% put SMR in hole directly offset to datum Ad-hoc choice or probing strategy for planes with 3, 4, 5 points Scanned multiple points and asked for form errors 5% people asked about certification of reflector 5% asked to checked certificate 20% mentioned the state of the SMR Hemisphere several noticed they were sloppy but nobody attempted to measure or put it in the context of the tolerance

28 Day 1 Laser Tracker Buttons wide variety for number points. 1 used a formula for spacing of points 7% scanned 205 points 7% Asked for 250 points 7% knocked part after aligning and carried on 7% person cleaned the part 7% asked if tracker calibrated 7% scanned around top of hemisphere 7% Variable speed Wanted 200 points at spacing generic points and spacing Scanned round the hole and tried to scan the centre area of the hole but repeated after realising No point in measuring not accurate enough

29 Day 1 Laser Tracker 50% noticed Large hole had burrs 7% Measured by missing burrs using artefact obtained 7% Checked drift by checking one of the alignment points at the end of the measurement 7% Big hole with burrs what is functionality 7% Wanted to move tracker closer 4 wanted to repeat measurement of scanned need hole based on didn t feel right 7% person concerned about deviations form nominal but didn t do anything about it

30 Day 1 Laser Tracker Tprobe, Tscan Pre- measurement 25% discussed temperature 20% Stability and carpet 30% calibration and set up 50% discussed the measurement Measurement Planning 30% discussed specification and reference system 25% planning process What do I do!! 15% probing compensation and strategy 15% discussed orientation, handling and stability measurement and part 15% good alignment needed 10% drift 40% guided through the whole measurement process 90% were new to the combination of equipment

31 Day 1 Laser Tracker Tprobe, Tscan Measurement and Post Measurement operations 70% asked about CAD, tolerance requirements or alignment 30% asked about analysis decision making and data 15% asked about analysis of alignment system 15% asked How well did I do? 20% discussed repeating measurement Other observations 15% discussed operator mistakes 15% had fun

32 Pre Measurement Day 2 Articulated Arm 60% Temperature and air 86% Carpet and people (busy traffic) 75% calibration 30% Part stability Planning 18% Format of CAD 36% orientation of probing methods 60% target adaptors accuracy 80% Part location and height 30% arm location

33 Measurement Process Day 2 Articulated Arm 50% wanted to discussed alignments 30% discussed form of buttons 10% noticed missed location of button Post measurement 6% round probe for slot consider different probe 20% should have been higher 6% Validate the probe qualification after (field checks) 12% didn t like using hemispheres

34 Pre measurement Day 2 Laser Tracker 80% temperature, carpet 80% height and access 50% equipment certification and calibration 20% difficult Measurement Planning, Measurement and analysis 80% wanted part raised 30% wanted to move tracker square to part 3% wanted the part end on to tracker 12% discussed result requirements 6% repeated measurements 3% did a drift measurement (repeated a reference point)

35 Day 2 Laser Tracker, Tprobe, Tscan Pre measurement 60% temperature, 90% carpet 40% area too busy 65% equipment certification and calibration Measurement Planning, Measurement and analysis 40% discussed measurement strategy 50% talked about location 8% asked about appropriateness of measurement to needs or application

36 Day 2 Laser Tracker, Tprobe, Tscan 40% easier because of procedure 10% asked about cleaning equipment 10% asked about model validation 20% discussed the outcomes in detail 10% mentioned carpet after completing measurement process 10% repeated some of the measurements 5% requested a drift measurement

37 Results

38 Door Day 1 Day 2

39 Vehicle Day 1 Day 2

40 Motor compartment Consistency in results from day 1 to day 2 changed as the alignment routine was chosen and more functional. Day 1 option of using adaptors Day 2 adaptors were used in the programme Twice as many people completed the task on day 2

41 Summary

42 Summary Key areas Number of measurements Day 1-54 Day 2-94

43 Summary Key areas Standards Traceabilty Calibration Measurement uncertainty Understanding design requirements Repeatability and reproducibility Questioning Attitudes and behaviours

44 Questions and Feedback

TUBE INSPECTION SYSTEM

PRODUCT BROCHURE TUBE INSPECTION SYSTEM Tube measurement and production with the ROMER Absolute Arm 2 TUBE INSPECTION SYSTEM HIGHLIGHTS TUBE MEASUREMENT HAS A NEW SHAPE Hexagon Metrology s Tube Inspection