×
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

Taking reference

Taking reference

Taking reference

(OP)
While taking datum for finding position, Is it right to do the following in a CMM:
1. Probe three points to form a plane.
2. Probe two circles and join their centres to form a line.
3. Use one of the above same centre as a point to completey fix datum system. (3-2-1 principle).

I think the step 3 (i.e. use of same datum feature twice) is not the right method?

Any comments please.

RE: Taking reference

We do nearly this exact thing with some of our assemblies.  It works.

One face can be a target for multiple datums.  It is allowed.

RE: Taking reference

While 3 points define a plane - unless identified as datum target points, the datum is the plane upon which the high points of the datum feature sits upon.

Unless the datum feature (a hole from your description?) is defined at a specific height, what is sought is the center-plane between the two holes delineated by the two axis.

One of the axis could certainly be reused.

RE: Taking reference

Interesting post.

Well answered!  Succinct!

RE: Taking reference

The method described in the original post is something one would learn the first day of a beginner's course in CMM programming.  Creating a coordinate system on a part using a plane and two holes.  Many CMM softwares have built-in routines for doing this exact thing.

Using the same feature twice is not the problem.  One circle is being used to define an origin point, the other is defining an axis direction.  That in itself is fine.

The problem is that the method is based on a very small number of randomly chosen points on each feature.   The coordinate system will generally have good repeatability but poor reproducibility.  In other words, the coordinate system created by Inspector 1's program will be different than the one created by Inspector 2's program because they each chose different points on the features.  But both programs will be very consistent on multiples runs on the same part.

Also, the coordinate system that one would get using this method is different from the datum reference frame one would get using strict Y14.5 principles (high point planes, orientation constrained maximum inscribed cylinders, etc.).

The magnitude of the difference is related to the amount of form and orientation error in the plane and holes.  If this error is small compared to the position tolerance, 3-point planes and circles can be a workable approximation.

If the form and orientation error in the datum features is significant, the 3-point planes and circles can cause massive inconsistencies.  This is why the example parts in CMM training courses always have datum features with extremely good flatness and cylindricity!

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.
www.axymetrix.ca

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