A Study of Key Optical Profiler Parameters for Form Error Measurement

X. Huang; Y. Gao

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.437.242

Paper Titles

Least Squares Association of Geometrical Features by Automatic Differentiation
p.222

Study and Improvement of a Destructive 3D Digitizer Based on Grinding Technique
p.227

Error Modeling and Compensation for High-Precision Non-Contact Four Coordinate Measuring System
p.232

Inner-Base Optoelectronic System for the Control of Linear Displacements
p.237

A Study of Key Optical Profiler Parameters for Form Error Measurement
p.242

Laser Doppler Visualization of 2D Velocity Fields with Minimization Dependence from Multi–Particle Scattering
p.247

Estimation of Uncertainty of Coordinate Measurements According to the Type B Method
p.253

Principles for Echo Position Determination Using Airborne Ultrasound
p.258

A 3D Ultrasonic Positioning System with High Accuracy for Indoor Application
p.263

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vol. 437A Study of Key Optical Profiler Parameters for...

A Study of Key Optical Profiler Parameters for Form Error Measurement

Abstract:

Optical profiler is a typical modern device for precision form error measurement. In our use of the equipment, we found that the surface form profile after stitching is ambiguous if the lens magnification is changed. The error in terms of PV value can be up to 3200% when the lens magnification changes from 2.5 times to 30 times. This has been confirmed by the equipment supplier. It is worthwhile to offer a comprehensive study as many users may use the instrument of the kind straightforward without detailed investigation of the performance. We found that, among the 6 key parameters studied, 3 independent parameters are more important. For the 3 independent parameters, we recommend to set the magnification A=2.5 times, the resolution r=0.5, and the overlap p=20%. With the recommended settings, the measurement error can be less than 0.5%. Backscan and length for scanning in the vertical direction, and cut off frequency for delivering form profile are less critical compared with the three independent parameters.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Measurement Technology and Intelligent Instruments IX

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volume 437)

Pages:

242-246

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.437.242

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

May 2010

Authors:

X. Huang, Y. Gao

Keywords:

Form Error, Magnification, Optical Profiler, Overlap, Stitching, Uncertainty

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] C. Cui, B. Li, F. Huang and R. Zhang: Meas. Sci. Technol. Vol. 18 (2007), p.1818.

Google Scholar

[2] C.J. Evans: CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology (2008), in press.

Google Scholar

[3] ISO: ISO 1101: 2004 ISO/TC213 (ISO, 2004).

Google Scholar

[4] J.C. Wyant: Int. Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture Vol. 38. No. 5-6 (1998), p.691.

Google Scholar

[5] Veeco Metrology Group: Wyko Surface Profilers Technical Reference Manual (Veeco, 1999). Filtering cut off frequency fc (1/mm) Peak-valley value of surface form profile PV(y(x) (µm).

Google Scholar

[20] 30 40 50 60 2. 3 2. 4 2. 5 2. 6 2. 7 2. 8 2. 9 Workpiece: Mild steel Wheel speed: ns=2700rpm Infeed rate: u0=3µm Grinding machine: ESG-818ASD Filtering cut off frequency fc (1/mm) Peak-valley value of surface form profile PV(y(x) (µm).

Google Scholar

[20] 30 40 50 60.

Google Scholar

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Silicon sample.

Google Scholar