Different Surface Profile Results from Two Different Machines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Different Surface Profile Results from Two Different Machines

    ​​Good evening.

    I have two machines in the lab:

    - Global Performance CMM (has scanning ability, was utilized for the surface profile check)
    - Sheffield Endeavor 9.9.7 (TP20, only has touch trigger ability, utilized for the surface profile check)

    We wanted to perform a simple correlation study of the surface profiles for the 2 radii (at 2 different levels, if you look at it from above, it looks like a single diameter) and two stepped ribs that connect these two radii together.

    As far as we can see, the surface profile measurements for the 2 radii are pretty close to each other when comparing machine-to-machine. However, for the stepped ribs? Huge difference, see below:

    They both tell a similar story about the condition of the parts, but the readings are what bother me because beyond the machines and probing methodology used, the probe size and reporting methods are the same. I'm not sure how to diagnose the reasoning behind this difference.

    Has anyone experienced something similar? If so, what was causing the difference in the readings between the two machines even though those same machines correlated wonderfully for the radii surface profiles?

    Many thanks in advance for your thoughts.

    Global:
    Global1.JPG

    Global2.JPG

    Sheffield:
    Sheffield 1.JPG

    Sheffield 2.JPG

  • #2
    Out of curiosity, what are your probe diameter and scan settings?

    Comment


    • #3
      Did you check probe calibration?
      Probe clean? Clean, Recalibrate.
      Probe loose? Tighten, Recalibrate.
      Part clean? Clean part and set up.
      Part moving in the set-up?

      That’s where I would start.
      Darroll
      2018R2

      Comment

      Related Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X