A gage requires just enough fixturing to do its job accurately and cost-effectively. Since the fixture establishes the relationship between the workpiece and the measuring system, its design and manufacture is as important to accurate gaging as the measuring instrument itself. However, in addition to accuracy issues, the fixture design can make a difference in a gage’s efficiency and economy of use.
Measuring surface roughness of valve seats on cylinder heads is challenging. The land areas are short, and the roughness values are high. Normally, valve seats require basic roughness parameter analysis by a skidded measuring system. However, because of the short length and high roughness values, some argue that a skidless system is the best way to measure roughness of these surfaces.
Sometimes a tool that provides suitable performance in a variety of applications is a better choice than a tool that performs extremely well at one dedicated job.
Years ago, I wrote a column in this space that talked about how electronic gaging amplifiers could help make gaging more efficient and productive. Like phones and computers, today’s bench amplifiers offer greatly improved performance, better displays, less power consumption and more data user capabilities.
In the 1980s, digital electric indicators were expected to blow mechanical dial indicators out of the water. Despite electronic indicators’ higher resolutions, better accuracy and usefulness in statistical process control and data collection systems, mechanical indicators retained other advantages and continued to be specified by many users.
We have talked about the gaging process and evaluated it through various testing methods such as GR&R studies. We have also seen that there are other factors that influence gage performance, such as linearity, long-term stability and bias from the gage design. Combined, measuring-system-based factors that influence results are called the “measuring uncertainty.”
Nearly twenty years ago, I wrote the column “What Do You Mean by Accuracy?” Since then, new standards have been created or updated to reflect new developments and thinking about what accuracy is. So, has accuracy changed?
The measurement of surface finish has come a long way in the past 60 years. We have advanced from fingernail scratch pads to microprocessor- and PC-based systems with inductive probes. We even have the choice of optical sensors to evaluate part surfaces.
GR&R studies are a way to assess the reliability of gaging results. For these studies, a few gage operators measure a small number of parts, several times each. The results are compiled and reduced to a single number that indicates the total expected spread of measurements for a single part, for all trials, by all operators. This number is expressed as a percentage of the total part tolerance.
Over the last few columns we’ve been talking about measurement system analysis, or MSA. A key component of this overall analytical process is the GR&R study, officially known as ANOVA GR&R, or “Analysis of Variance Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility.”