A Best Practice Guideline for Inspecting Precision Machined Parts by Using Several Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMMs)

Abstract:

Currently in Thailand, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) who produce precision-machined parts face a serious problem about product rejection from customers. This is because measuring results from the OEM supplier differ from the measuring results from the OEM buyer. Normally, for precision-machined parts, OEM suppliers and OEM buyers use CMM machines as an inspection tool. One major cause of the difference in measurements is that suppliers and buyers use different CMM machine, operators and measuring methods. In order to mitigate the difference in measurements, the standard guideline for measuring precision-machined parts by CMM machines needs to be improved. In this research, the guideline was developed by studying the best practices of five successful companies, who could minimize rejection due to the differences in the CMM machine operators and measuring methods. Validation results indicated that when manufacturers who had precision problems used this guideline, the product rejection could decreased significantly.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 894)
• Pages: 90-95
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.894.90
• Online since: September 2019
• Authors: Phaireepinas Phimpisan, Chatchapol Chungchoo*
• Keywords: CMM, Consistency, Guideline, Inspection, Product Rejection

References

[1] C. Li, Knowledge stickiness in the buyer-supplier knowledge transfer process: The moderating effects of learning capability and social embeddedness, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (2012) 5396-5408.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.045

[2] P. R. O. Payne, E. A. Mendonca, S. B. Johnson and J. B. Starren, Concept knowledge acquisition in biomedicine: a methodological review, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 40 (2007) 582-602.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2007.03.005

[3] R. R. Hoffman, N. R. Shadbolt, A. M. Burton, and G. Klein, Eliciting knowledge from experts: a methodological analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 62 (1995) 129-158.

DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1039

[4] J. Durkin, Expert Systems: Design and Development, Prentice Hall International Editions, U.S.A., (1994).

[5] L. E. Wood and J. M. Ford, Structuring interviews with experts during knowledge elicitation, Knowledge Acquisition as Modeling, Wiley, New York, 1993, pp.71-90.

DOI: 10.1002/int.4550080106

[6] R. R. Hoffman, The problem of extracting the knowledge of experts from the perspective of experimental psychology, The AI Magazine, 8 (1987) 53-66.

[7] M. Peleg, Computer-interpretable clinical guidelines: a methodological review, Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 46 (2013) 744-763.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2013.06.009

[8] D. Flack, Good Practice Guideline No. 41: CMM Measurement Strategies, National Physical Laboratory, July 2001 (updated May 2014).

[9] Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation, Measurement Systems Analysis: Reference Manual, 4th edition, (2010).

[10] S. Bell, A Beginner's Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement, National Physical Laboratory, Issue 2, (2001).

[11] ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

[12] P. Saunders, A. Wilson, N. Orchard, N. Tatman and P. Maropoulos, An exploration into measurement consistency on coordinate measuring machines, Procedia CIRP, 25 (2014) 19 – 26.

DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.005

[13] P. Cauchick-Miguel, T. King and J. Davis, CMM verification: a survey, Measurement, 17 (1996) 1-16.

DOI: 10.1016/0263-2241(96)00001-2