×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Metrology Best Practices

Metrology Best Practices

Metrology Best Practices

(OP)
In my years as a metrologist, it has been my practice to report dimensions to 1 place further than the specs given on the print that I'm working with. I know that I have seen this practice in writing as a "best" practice. My boss, who does not understand metrology, wants me to start reporting to the number of decimal places shown on the print. Can anybody provide a link to, or a direct quote from a source specifying this "best" practice?

RE: Metrology Best Practices

nonobaddog,

   I am not aware of a procedure that defines all of this.  If it were me inspecting, I would report the number of decimals I had confidence in.  

   If you are doing metric drawings to ASME Y14.5M-1994, the trailing zeros are supposed to be deleted from the drawing dimensions, making your problem moot.

                        JHG

RE: Metrology Best Practices

(OP)
I know I've seen it in writing somewhere... and it's not so much a procedure or requirement as it was a documented "best practices."

Thanks.


 

RE: Metrology Best Practices

It makes sense I suppose.  I can't think of a reference either though.  How about putting the 'official' result to the same sig fig/decimals as appropriate and a () for the actual measured value?

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

RE: Metrology Best Practices

It is often the practice of Calibration/Metrology professionals to report data to the last digit, however, it is not always the best method.  Writing extranious digits leads to transcription errors.  It is customary to report the Standards indication to one decade greater than the item being calibrated.
However, that is not a hard rule.  What you really need to concentrate on is the reporting of SIGNIFICANT digits per ASTM E 29 – 02.  This means that you would "Round-up" data that is over 5 in the following decade. SUch as 2.3505  would be rounded-up to 2.351.
 

RE: Metrology Best Practices

From the manufacturing side (our version) we would classify this under SPC (or SPQC) for statistical process quality control.   If a tool is wearing we want to know before it goes out of spec.   

Not sure if you use it but extra digits beyond what is specified are key to the whole process.  

E.G. 2.3505 then 2.3504 then 2.3503 might indicate wear in a drill bit.  

EG. # 2 – a set of solid 2.3505's would be good.  If you see 2.3505, 2.3504.2.3506 it might indicate collet wear.   

Tom
 

Thomas J. Walz
Carbide Processors, Inc.
www.carbideprocessors.com

Good engineering starts with a Grainger Catalog.    

RE: Metrology Best Practices

I have found that in general practice that what ever you are checking you should use anything that will produce a result that has an accuracy of 1/10th of what your are trying to check, when ever possible.smile

RE: Metrology Best Practices

quality geek

I too used to use the rule of "10".
But have recently been told that a "rule of 4" ( four times more accurate ) can be applied to CMM results.  Although this could lead to the measuring tool uncertainty actually using up 25% of your tolerance.

RE: Metrology Best Practices

Just happened across this thread and recalled a similar thread from a while back. I too used to use the read to 1 digit more significant and round. Was corrected to read all digits. Please see this thread for the detailed prior discussion and an applicable ANSI standard. thread286-122849: Decimal place inspection
the quote is from the thread "According to ANSI Y14.5M-1994 (and 1982), Paragraph 2.4 on page 25

"All limits are absolute. Dimensional limits, regardless of the number of decimal places, are used as if they were continued with zeros.

Examples:
12.2 means 12.20...0
12.0 means 12.00...0
12.01 means 12.010...0

To determine conformance within limits, the measured value is compared directly with the specified value and any deviation outside the specified limiting value signifies nonconformance with the limits."
"
 

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources