Comparison studies of different measurement methods using a Coordinate Measuring Arm are presented. Studies were divided into two parts. The first was point measurements of contact and pseudo-scanning contact measurements. The second part consisted of point measurements of contact and non-contact scanning measurements. Contact research (point measurements and the pseudo-scanning) were accomplished with the use of PowerINSPECT software, whereas non-contact with use of Focus Handheld and Focus Inspection software. Handheld Focus was used to collect a point cloud and its processing, while the detection of set elements was made using the second software from the group of Focus. According to the developed procedure for both parts sample elements with known nominal values were measured (available CAD model of object of research). It became the basis for examining whether there are statistically significant differences between results of different methods in both parts. Statistical comparison of measurement methods was carried out using four tests: Comparison of Means, Comparison of Standard Deviations, Comparison of Medians and a Kolmogorov- Smirnov Test.
The article presents the methodology to estimate the operator influence on measurements performed with a coordinate measuring arm. The research was based on the R&R analysis, adapted to the specifics of redundant devices such as ACMM (selection of a test object difficult to measure). The method provides for measurements by three operators, who measure ten parts in two or three samples (measurement data developed in the article relate to the three measurements of holes). The methodology is designed to identify which operator has the best predisposition to perform measurements (generates the smallest measurement errors). Statistica software was used to analyse and visualize measurement data.
This paper presents a comparison of different techniques to capture nominal data for its use in later verification and kinematic parameter identification procedures for articulated arm coordinate measuring machines (AACMM). By using four different probing systems (passive spherical probe, active spherical probe, self-centering passive probe and self-centering active probe) the accuracy and repeatability of captured points has been evaluated by comparing these points to nominal points materialized by a ball-bar gauge distributed in several positions of the measurement volume. Then, by comparing these systems it is possible to characterize the influence of the force over the final results for each of the gauge and probing system configurations. The results with each of the systems studied show the advantages and original accuracy obtained by active probes, and thus their suitability in verification (active probes) and kinematic parameter identification (self-centering active probes) procedures.