Advertisement

Method for Compensation of Radius and Shape of Spherical Probe When Measuring Complex Surfaces with CMMs

  • F. V. Grechnikov
  • A. V. Kochetkov
  • O. V. Zakharov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Measurement practice on coordinate measuring machines showed that the real measurement accuracy is usually much higher than indicated in the technical documentation. The overall error in measuring the geometry consists of the errors in determining the point of contact on the surface of the part, compensation for deviations in the location of the base surfaces, and errors in calculating the surface parameters. The error in determining the touch point of the probe and the part is due to the difference in direction between the normals to the nominal and real surfaces. Therefore, the calculation becomes necessary to compensate the radius of the touch probe. A simple compensation method calculates only the normal to the nominal surface of the workpiece. More advanced methods take into account the coordinates of neighboring touch points and calculate equidistant surfaces. The article proposes an iterative method of compensating the radius of the probe by successively refining the coordinates of the point of tangency with respect to the nominal surface. In this method, the angle between the normals to the nominal and real surfaces at each measured point is minimized. Comparison of the results of compensation of the probe radius by the developed method with the standard method confirmed the high efficiency. The article provides an example of calculating the compensation of the probe radius for the turbine blade of the compressor, which showed a decrease in the measurement error by 23–29%. The application of the new method is useful when there is a small number of measured points and their location on the complex uneven surface.

Keywords

Coordinate measuring machine Complex surface Measurement error Compensation of probe radius Spherical probe 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was performed by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project № 16-19-10204).

References

  1. 1.
    Brazhkin BS, Mitrotvorskii VS (2005) Calculation of curved surfaces on coordinate measuring machines. Meas Tech 48:657–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marchuk V, Makov S, Minaev A, Voronin V, Chernyshov D (2017) Removing of systematic measurement errors caused by asymmetric distribution law of the noise Component. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE east-west design and test symposium, p 7807624Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Korolev AA, Kochetkov AV, Zakharov OV (2018) Optimization of control points number at coordinate measurements based on the monte-carlo method. J Phys Conf Ser 944:012061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pechenin VA, Bolotov MA, Ruzanov NV, Yanyukina MV (2015) Optimization of measurement of the geometry of parts with complex surfaces. Meas Tech 58:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinova LI, Grigoryev AS, Sokolov SV (2012) Diagnostics and forecasting of cutting tool wear at CNC machines. Autom Remote Control 73:742–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajamohan G, Shunmugam MS, Samuel GL (2011) Effect of probe size and measurement strategies on assessment of freeform profile deviations using coordinate measuring machine. Measurement 44:832–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee R, Shiou F (2010) Calculation of the unit normal vector using the cross-curve moving mask method for probe radius compensation of a freeform surface measurement. Measurement 43:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poniatowska M (2012) Deviation model based method of planning accuracy inspection of free-form surfaces using CMMs. Measurement 45:927–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ristic M, Ainsworth I, Brujic D (2001) Contact probe radius compensation using computer aided design models. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 215:819–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demyanenko EG (2014) A technique of shaping the barrel-type pats. Russian Aeronaut 57:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lunev AN, Moiseeva LT, Starikov AV, Ermakov RS (2007) Calculation of cutterpath errors in machining GTE monoimpeller vane channels with annular cutting tools. Russian Aeronaut 50:335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denisenko AF, Yakimov MV (2011) Determining elastic spindle characteristics by the finite-element model. Russ Eng Res 31:1133–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khaimovich IN (2014) Computer aided design of blank forging production facilities for aircraft engine compressor blades. Russian Aeronaut 2:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Savio E, DeChiffre L, Schmitt R (2007) Metrology of freeform shaped parts. CIRP Ann 56:810–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. V. Grechnikov
    • 1
  • A. V. Kochetkov
    • 2
  • O. V. Zakharov
    • 3
  1. 1.Samara National Research UniversitySamaraRussia
  2. 2.Perm National Research Polytechnic UniversityPermRussia
  3. 3.Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of SaratovSaratovRussia

Personalised recommendations