Why are my measured values of a vector point so far off from my theoretical values? I'm measuring points on a blade airfoil and for example my vector point theo is (X 1, Y 1, Z 1) w/ (I 0, J 1, Z 0) but when my program runs in takes the hit at (.994, .999, 1.001) (0,1,0) The .006 off in the X is a big difference in my world. I don't understand why the probe would hit that far off when it is approaching the part parallel to the Y-axis at the given X & Z coordinates.
CMM not taking hit at theoretical coordinate
Collapse
X
-
Here is my code:
ALN_PART_THEO_CENTER=ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:TG37728_TBALL,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,XAXIS,2.8661
ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,YAXIS,-0.2178
ALIGNMENT/TRANS_OFFSET,ZAXIS,4.1724
ALIGNMENT/ROTATE_OFFSET,0.3,ABOUT,ZPLUS
ALIGNMENT/END
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-3,0,10>
TIP/T1A90B0, SHANKIJK=0.007, 1, 0, ANGLE=-179.9977
ALIGN_START=LABEL/
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<0,2,5>
WORKPLANE/YPLUS
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-.445,2,-0.4>
DAT_X1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<-0.445,0.241,-0.4>,<0,1,0>
ACTL/<-0.4533,0.2531,-0.4035>,<0.0005148,0.9999997,0.000604>
TARG/<-0.445,0.241,-0.4>,<0,1,0>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=0.25
SHOW HITS=NO
DAT_X3 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<0.36,0.202,-0.4>,<0,1,0>
ACTL/<0.3516,0.2137,-0.4041>,<0.0005148,0.9999997,0.000604>
TARG/<0.36,0.202,-0.4>,<0,1,0>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=0.25
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<0.36,2,-0.4>
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<0.36,2,0.3>
DAT_Z1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<0.5984,0,-0.0731>,<0.1000067,-0.0048222,0.9949751>
ACTL/<0.5903,0.0113,-0.0773>,<0.1008071,-0.005475,0.9948909>
TARG/<0.5984,0,-0.073>,<0.1000067,-0.0048222,0.9949751>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=0.25
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<0.36,2,0.3>
DAT_X2 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<-0.155,0.5644,1.8605>,<0.2086474,0.9755214,-0.0694565>
ACTL/<-0.1613,0.575,1.8573>,<0.2090935,0.9754558,-0.0690357>
TARG/<-0.155,0.5644,1.86>,<0.2086474,0.9755214,-0.0694565>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=0.25
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-1,2,1.8605>
DAT_Y2 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<-0.5266,0.1719,1.8605>,<-0.9774794,0.2102724,-0.0178762>
ACTL/<-0.5331,0.1827,1.8573>,<-0.9773851,0.2107859,-0.01696>
TARG/<-0.5266,0.172,1.86>,<-0.9774794,0.2102724,-0.0178762>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=0.25
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-1.5,0.1,1.8605>
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-1.5,0.1,-0.34>
DAT_Y1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR POINT/DEFAULT,CARTESIAN
THEO/<-0.6621,-0.1,-0.34>,<-0.9961947,-0.000926,0.0871508>
ACTL/<-0.6705,-0.0878,-0.3432>,<-0.9961244,-0.0004663,0.0879545>
TARG/<-0.6621,-0.1,-0.34>,<-0.9961947,-0.000926,0.0871508>
SNAP=NO
SHOW FEATURE PARAMETERS=NO
SHOW CONTACT PARAMETERS=YES
AVOIDANCE MOVE=BOTH,DISTANCE=1
SHOW HITS=NO
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-1.5,0.1,-0.34>
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<-1.5,0.1,5>
MOVE/POINT,NORMAL,<0,2,5>
DCC_PART_ALIGN=ALIGNMENT/START,RECALL:ALN_PART_THEO_CENTER,LIST=YES
ALIGNMENT/ITERATE
PNT TARGET RAD=0.002,START LABEL=,FIXTURE TOL=0,ERROR LABEL=ALIGN_FAILED
MEAS ALL FEAT=ALWAYS,MAX ITERATIONS=4,LEVEL AXIS=YAXIS,ROTATE AXIS=XAXIS,ORIGIN AXIS=ZAXIS
LEVEL=DAT_X1,DAT_X3,DAT_X2,,
ROTATE=DAT_Y1,DAT_Y2,,
ORIGIN=DAT_Z1,,
ALIGNMENT/END
GOTO/ALIGN_PASSED
Comment
-
JABrown,
The ACTL numbers shown are based their position relative to your previous alignment (ALN_PART_THEO_CENTER). From all of the blades and vanes I've inspected, an iterative alignment of the airfoil target points to the stacking axis is the correct way to go. The iterative alignment will repeat until it places all of the points within the target radius of .002. If you put a location dimension below your alignment your points should be very close to nominal. For aero and IGT blades/vanes I have always had good luck with a target radius of .010 and never saw any benefit going tighter than that.
Comment
Related Topics
Collapse
-
PC DMIS CAD 2018 R2 SP4
Hi all,
Please see code below.
Is there a way to get the probe to move circularly around...-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
02-26-2019, 10:37 AM -
-
by andrewb91Manual alignment runs correctly, DCC gives the dreaded "Iterative Alignment Error" message.
PNT1 =FEAT/CONTACT/VECTOR...-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
05-08-2018, 12:11 PM -
-
Hi people
I have been given a prototype part to measure and see how close to nominal the dimensions are. I have been given the CAD and...-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
05-05-2015, 09:45 AM -
-
by RookieHey, guys.
First off, I have a parametric program that is driven by external files (.csv, .txt, etc.).
I'm pretty sure that...-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
09-09-2014, 04:53 PM -
-
Hi everyone
Hoping you could hopefully point me in the right direction.
I have a part that is shaped like a banana and there...-
Channel: PC-DMIS for CMMs
09-19-2016, 09:27 AM -
Comment