11

Functional Inspection Techniques

11.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses inspection techniques that seek to duplicate, with varying levels of success, the information provided by hard gaging. These fall into three groups. First, surface-plate methods are discussed that may aid in developing the product denition if included as an element of the component design methodology. Additionally, machine-based techniques exist using CMMs and optical comparatorspossibly involving surface-plate accessories and xturesto create the data set. Last, paper gaging, which continues to evolve into computer-based methods, can be used. The last technique (e.g., soft gaging), attempts to replicate hard gaging using data sets taken either by CMMs or by other inspection equipment. Each of these tools has its own characteristic applications, and each has limitations that need to be kept in mind as the inspection process is designed. Arguably the most important concept used to understand the limitations of these techniques is measurement uncertainty. There is an unnerving tendency to attach low values of error (uncertainty) to any machine that digitally acquires data and manipulates it using a computer. Unfortunately, while such machines are of great benet in the correct application, it is also easy to misapply or misuse them in ways that yield either unacceptable or unintended results.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

11.2 FUNCTIONAL GAGING WITH SURFACE PLATES

Surface plates can serve as the base for specially constructed functional gages whose gaging elements are partially or completely simulated by standard surfaceplate inspection accessories. These accessories have been referred to as universal functional gages by at least one source (Tandler, 2000). Such gages are carefully constructed setups of xed geometry that resemble receiver gages and can be assembled with almost any degree of accuracy. They are clamped together with mechanical or magnetic force and can be calibrated in place when required. As mentioned, the concurrent engineering team can use many of these techniques to simulate hard gaging. As such, they provide a reality check for the team even in the instance where a CMM will provide the production inspection capability. Surface-plate gages can include wear allowances and can even be toleranced against the part if they are used as emergency measures until actual gages become available. Surface-plate gaging should be considered whenever any or all of the following conditions exist: 1. A number of parts, made from the same drawing, must be inspected. 2. The parts do not require variable inspection data; that is, simple Go or Not Go attributes are sufcient. 3. Schedules are tight and an in-process or acceptance gage is needed quickly. 4. Open-setup inspection of variables on the surface plate would be timeconsuming because parts are difcult to set up or part surfaces are hard to contact reliably. 5. The parts do not lend themselves to paper gaging analysis. With the advent of shop-oor CMMs and a signicant reduction in their cost, functional gaging and functional inspection with surface plates may be less likely to be the preferred option. Yet they are still useful techniques in some applications. Manufacturing personnel who understand how these more traditional techniques may be applied to a given situation are more apt to apply coordinate metrology in ways that gather the required data for the decisions at hand. The following exposition serves to show how parts may be set up and data gathered, serving to expand understanding of the underlying processes and ensure that the correct information is acquired.

11.2.1 Gaging Positional Tolerances

As an example of gaging an MMC hole pattern, Figure 11-1 shows a part containing a pattern of clearance holes dimensioned from part datums A, B, and C.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-1 Drawing for a clearance hole pattern.

Each hole has a variable tolerance of position allowed by the MMC callout (0.010-in. tolerance for a .510 in., 0.017-in. tolerance for a .517 in., etc.). The setup gage (Figure 11-2) is complex and requires careful planning. If the part is nonmagnetic, the gage can be held in place by magnetic force on a plate. The four pins are all .500 in. (0.510-in. hole at MMC minus the 0.010-

FIGURE 11-2 Surface-plate hole pattern gage (plan view).

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-3 MMC specication for symmetry.

in. tolerance allowed at MMC), and their basic center locations are 0.750 in. and 1.750 in. from the angle plate and the parallels. The part is acceptable if the holes t over the gage pins and surfaces B and C contact the angle plate and parallels. It should be possible to position the primary datum feature (A) of the part parallel to the surface plate, which supports the surface-plate gage items in the plan view. The .510.520-in. hole size limits must be checked separately to complete the inspection. Figure 11-3 shows a part with a symmetry requirement (specied by a positional tolerance) that is difcult to inspect by conventional means. The gage stack shown in Figure 11-4 is a true Go functional gage. The gage setup has a 2.000-in. gap between the outer gage blocks to accommodate part datum feature B at MMC (2.000 in. on the nished part). It also has a 0.500-in. slot gage the slot is allowed no symmetry tolerance when it is 0.500 in., and up to 0.010-

FIGURE 11-4 Surface-plate setup for gaging symmetry.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-5 Specication for coaxiality (MMC datum).

in. symmetry tolerance when it is 0.510 in.). The entire gage stack is placed on a surface plate, which must contact part datum feature A during gaging. If the part enters the gage, the inspector need only inspect the 0.510-in. maximum slot width and the 1.995-in. minimum datum feature B width to complete the inspection. Figure 11-5 shows another part that is difcult to inspect. The single functional gage setup shown in Figure 11-6 will relieve the inspector of several calculations and individual setups involving the actual size of datum feature A. The .600-in. gage pin (0.605-in. MMC hole minus the 0.005-in. positional tolerance allowed at MMC) and the .400-in. pin (the MMC size of the datum hole) should be coaxial. If both pins enter and touch bottom in the holes, all the inspector needs to do to complete the inspection is to check the 0.605-, 0.610-, and 0.402-in. limits. The part should not be forced against either V block while being inspected.

FIGURE 11-6 Surface-plate setup for gaging coaxiality (plan view).

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-7 MMC specication for perpendicularity.

11.2.2 Gaging Form and Orientation Tolerances

Perpendicularity. Figure 11-7 illustrates a part to be measured against a variable perpendicularity tolerance. When the hole is nished to .505 in., the perpendicularity tolerance is 0.005 in; when the hole is nished to a .510 in., the perpendicularity tolerance increases to 0.010 in. All nished hole sizes between .505.510 have corresponding perpendicularity tolerances. Figure 11-8 shows the functional gage setup for measuring variable perpendicularity, consisting of a .500-in. gage pin (.505-in. MMC hole minus the

FIGURE 11-8 Setup for gaging perpendicularity.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-9 MMC specication of straightness.

.005-in. perpendicularity tolerance allowed at MMC) clamped in a V block. If the part ts over the pin and datum feature A makes ush contact with the V block, the part is acceptable, providing the hole diameter is within the 0.505- to 0.510-in. limits. Straightness. Figure 11-9 shows a pin whose axis must be straight within a .002-in. zone when it is at MMC (.400 in.) and can deviate within a straightness tolerance of .004 in. when it is at .398 in. Instead of measuring each pin to its exact diameter and then computing the resulting straightness tolerance (that is, a .3992-in. pin is allowed a 0.0028-in. tolerance), the inspector can inspect a series of these parts more rapidly with the setup shown in Figure 11-10. The surface-plate gage in Figure 11-10 has a 0.402-in. opening (0.400-in. plus 0.002-in. straightness tolerance at MMC). The pin need only roll under the bridge (making a complete revolution) to be acceptable, provided other measurements have shown that it is no larger at any cross-section than .400 in. and no smaller than .398 in. Prole. Figure 11-11 shows a prole tolerance of 0.010 in. normal to the basic contour. (The series of coordinate prole-locating dimensions have been omitted for clarity.) The inspection of such a requirement is time-consuming with normal setup procedures. Figure 11-12 shows a Go gage setup for inspecting contour tolerances consisting of standard surface-plate equipment. The pin sizes

FIGURE 11-10 Surface-plate setup for gaging straightness.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-11 Contour tolerance specication.

are determined by drawing a layout of the contour and tting a series of circles (representing gage pins) to the contour so that the circles contact the maximum (Go) prole. This type of gage can rapidly monitor (as contrasted with verifying conformance) production of parts too large for optical projectors.

11.3 FUNCTIONAL GAGING WITH COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINES

Coordinate measuring machines can be considered to perform three possible tasks: reporting actual values; manufacturing process feedback; and compliance

FIGURE 11-12 Setup for gaging contour (plan view).

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

testing. The rst two uses are arguably the machines strong suit. Compliance testing requires more care and ingenuity on the parts of the planner and the programmer to ensure the results are generated at an acceptable level of uncertainty. Coordinate measuring machines can emulate functional gages through their software. Hypothetically, a more extreme view might see them converted to universal functional gaging devices by adding a precision chuck to permit the use of standard gage pins and bushings instead of probes. While this emphatically would not be done, theoretical consideration of this technique serves to illustrate what the CMM is attempting to simulate through software. Ultimately, the mental exercise allows the inspection planner to understand both the advantages and the disadvantages of applying the CMM in functional gaging situations. It also helps guide programming decisions when constructing the virtual geometry of the inspection model.

11.3.1 Functional CMM Programming

When emulating functional gaging using a CMM, a series of steps (after Tandler, 2000) must be explicitly incorporated in the inspection process. Assuming a measurement process plan exists, the rst step involves acquiring a raw data set. In the case of CMMs, this may involve the use of a probe with a nite tip radius. The raw data is collected as the location of probe center points that require correction for the probes nite radius. The tip radius will introduce mechanical ltering effects along with contributions to measurement uncertainty. Additionally, such a method raises questions relating to which surface points the probe actually contacted on the workpiece. Uncertainty arises from the inability to calculate the specic correction factors without full knowledge of the geometry of the workpiece. This does not substantially differ from other measurement processes involving the use of a nite radius on a probe. Initial data collected is used to establish an alignment between the machine and the workpiece. The alignment locates the part with respect to the machines coordinate system. This accomplishes with software what would be a timeconsuming process if the part needed to be physically aligned within the machine. In its simplest form, the probed points establish the primary, secondary, and tertiary planes and create the alignment. To create the base alignment, subsets of the corrected data are used to construct substitute geometry. The construction methods involve a series of decisions by the programmer that deal with geometry in a virtual, three-dimensional space where different geometry construction techniquesincluding number of points and local point densitiesmight be used and many candidate projection planes exist. Creating the desired geometry requires selecting the appropriate planes upon which to project geometry and choosing the appropriate commands from the software command set to create the geometric entity.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

As pointed out by Tandler, in CMM programming, The more imperfect the geometry, the more difcult its assessment. Sheetmetal components are one excellent example of this type of geometry. Particularly, with highly exible sheetmetal parts, determination of datum feature location and controlled features can be challenging undertakings for the metrologist. Pitfalls that await the programmer might include the construction of geometric entities such as circles and cylinders. In particular, as form errors become signicant contributors to the actual geometry, assessing the characteristics of the cylinder (e.g., the diameter and axis of a cylinder) begins to test the ingenuity of the programmer. This may involve a multitude of decisions concerning the geometry construction tools to be used and the coordinate systems within which these tools will be applied. Projection of the probed points onto an incorrect projection plane (i.e., into an incorrect DRF) can signicantly alter geometry and yield invalid reported values. A specic example would be tting a circle to series of points taken from a perfect cylinder. Projected onto an incorrect plane, the perfect geometry falsely reports an out-of-roundness condition. Following the measurement plan, the substitute features that have been created are now used to construct DRFs. At this point it is assumed that the product denition has been sufciently analyzed so that the programmer can arrive at valid interpretations of the necessary coordinate systems (i.e., DRFs) to support inspection. The DRF may be equivalent to the single functional frame touted throughout this book or may include multiple DRFs that can occur in extremely complex product denitions. The results of the analysis provide the informationthe DRFsneeded to construct the virtual equivalent of datum feature simulators and incorporate these into what can be described as a virtual functional xture. This software-based xture provides the coordinate system necessary to inspect the controlled features. In essence, the programming process for the CMM requires that the measurement process planner or the CMM programmer design a software equivalent of the functional gage. When the programmer creates the DRFs within the software, he or she mimics the design and manufacture of the xture elements of a functional gage. The result is the functional coordinate system required to assess conformance of the controlled features. The remainder of the process involves completing the inspection of the controlled features. This requires probing additional points to create substitute features as proxies for the actual controlled features. It may also include the construction of additional coordinate systems when multiple DRFs are found in the product denition or prove necessary for inspection purposes.

11.3.2 Hypothetical Conversion

Figure 11-13 shows how this imaginary exercise of converting a CMM into a functional gage might be put into practice. The calibrated precision chuck forms

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-13 Hypothetical conversion of coordinate measuring machine to functional gage.

the basis for this conversion. Once the precision chuck is in place, standard gage pins available in 0.0001-in. increments could be used [Figure 11-13(a)]. The pins could be slightly oversized to reect wear allowances and gage tolerances. Alternatively, bushings might be used, still based on the installation of a precision chuck and gage pins to hold the bushings [see Figure 11-13(b)].

11.3.3 Examples
This imagined conversion of the CMM, modied for functional gaging, can be used to check size, perpendicularity, and location of holes, pins, and tapped holes. In the following discussions, there should be consideration of measurement uncertainty as it relates to simultaneous versus separate requirements. The softwarebased functional gaging capability does not completely simulate the hard gage; in particular, the effects of the physical assembly process where a number of part features are assembled simultaneously should be considered. Obviously, the hypothetical examples assume manual control of the CMM.

11.3.3.1 Holes
Perpendicularity. Figure 11-14 shows the method of checking hole perpendicularity. Using the actual mating size of the holewhich includes a specication of a basic orientation for this applicationto determine pin size, the gaging element mimics the similar element that would be found in the functional gage and used to check the hole for compliance. If gage pins are interchanged until the largest pin is selected that just ts in the bore, one is said to be inspecting

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-14 Proposed check of actual mating size at basic orientation.

the orientation-constrained actual mating size of the feature. In this example, the hole accepts a .514-in. plug gage (regardless of orientation), which means that it has at least a .514 in. However, if the hole is not perpendicular to primary datum surface A, it will not accept a .514-in. mating part feature. (This can be readily determined by inserting the .514-in. plug gage in the precision chuck mounted on the machine spindle and attempting to push the gage through the hole.) Note in Figure 11-14 that the largest perpendicular pin that will pass through the hole has a .510 in. This is the virtual size of the hole and means that the hole axis is out of perpendicularity to the primary datum surface by 0.004 in. (0.514 0.510 in.). Location. Figure 11-15 shows a straight pin being used to check the location of a positionally toleranced hole. Suppose the callout for the hole is .510 .530, with a .010-in. positional tolerance at MMC. The size of the straight pin to be used for gaging location is determined by subtracting the 0.010-in. MMC positional tolerance from the MMC diameter of the hole, which is 0.510 in. Thus, .510 .010 .500-in. pin. The spindle is positioned at the basic hole location by the machine (datum feature A should be perpendicular to the machine spindle), and the pin is passed through the hole. This procedure is repeated at each hole location. Separate gaging operations to determine hole size with .510-in. Go and .530-in. Not Go gages complete the inspection operation. If the callout for the hole were .500.530, with zero positional tolerance at MMC, the same .500-in. pin (.500 .000 in.) would be used to gage the hole location. However, the zero MMC tolerancing specication would eliminate the need for a separate Go gage (.510 in.) to gage minimum hole size, because the Go gage is incorporated in the .500-in. straight pin. Thus, location

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-15 Gaging a hole location.

and minimum size are gaged at the same time. A separate .530-in. Not Go gage is still required to gage maximum size.

11.3.3.2 Pins
Figure 11-16 shows a bushing used to check the location and size of a dowel pin. Suppose the callout for the dowel pin is .4996.5000, with a .010-in. positional tolerance at MMC. The inside diameter of the bushing to be used for gaging is determined by adding the 0.010-in. MMC positional tolerance to the MMC diameter of the hole (0.500 in.). The result is .500 .010 .510in. bushing internal diameter.

FIGURE 11-16 Gaging a stud for location.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-17 Gaging a tapped hole for location.

The spindle is positioned at the basic pin location (datum feature A should be perpendicular to the machine spindle) and the bushing is lowered over the pin. The bushing should touch the top surface of the part. The operation is repeated at each pin location.

11.3.3.3 Tapped Holes

Figure 11-17 illustrates a bushing used to check the location and size of a tapped hole. Suppose the callout for the tapped hole is 1/2-13 UNC-2B, with a positional tolerance of .010 in. at MMC and a projected tolerance zone of 0.750 in., which is the maximum thickness of the mating part. The inside diameter of the bushing is determined by adding the .010-in. positional tolerance to the MMC diameter of the bolt shank that will t the tapped hole. Thus, .500 .010 .510in. bushing ID. A .500-in. Go thread gage with a .500-in. shank is inserted into the tapped hole. The shank should project 0.750 in. above part surface A. Datum surface A should, of course, be perpendicular to the machine spindle. The spindle is positioned at the basic tapped hole location and the bushing lowered over the thread gage shank. The operation is repeated at each tapped hole location. For low-volume work, the Go thread gage can be moved to each tapped hole and inserted prior to the inspection. Parts should not be repositioned during the above gaging operations, as this would destroy pattern integrity.

11.4 FUNCTIONAL GAGING WITH OPTICAL COMPARATORS

Optical comparators can simulate functional gages by using specially constructed chart gages, which are two-dimensional simulations of three-dimensional receiver

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

gages resembling the most critical mating part. Thus, optical chart gages can be used to directly gage positional tolerances modied with MMC specications and prole tolerances that dene size limits. This occurs because any xed set of circles on a chart is representative of the xed gage pins on a receiver gage and will automatically allow tolerances to vary as hole sizes vary.

11.4.1 Applications
Small, relatively thin parts are usually quite suitable for optical measurement because they may be magnied numerous times. Most optical projectors have available magnications of 10, 20, 50, or 100, with some machines incorporating zoom capability. This phantom-gaging technique is particularly applicable to parts entirely dened with prole tolerance zones because these boundaries describe the exact optical projector chart gage outlines. The following description illustrates the use of this technique: 1. Draw the part to scale, using nominal (basic) dimensions. 2. Superimpose the tolerance zones on the basic prole using either unilateral or bilateral zones as required. These zones dene the limits of size and the location of the part features. See Figure 11-18(a). 3. The lines representing the tolerance zones [the phantom-gage outlines in Figure 11-18(a)] are the chart gage that will be placed on the viewing screen of an optical projector. The nal part shadow, when magnied to the same scale as the chart gage, must lie within the chart gage tolerance zones. Figure 11-18(b) illustrates the functional gage design demanded by the part optically gaged by the phantom outlines. The minimum distance between chart gage lines should be great enough for the inspector to conveniently resolve and never be closer than 0.020 in. Thus, a 0.002in. tolerance zone width must be magnied at least 10 times. This rule is a convenient guide for determining a minimum chart gage scale. Datum targets can be conveniently and directly represented on a chart gage, using small circles for dowel locators, dashed lines for parallel bars, and so on. The primary datum feature is aligned with appropriate staging xtures so that it is perpendicular to the collimated light beam.

11.4.2 Prole Tolerancing

As mentioned, when prole tolerancing is used, the tolerance zones are the chart gage lines, and a pictorial tolerancing concept is used to describe part form and size limits. Figure 11-19 shows how both prole and positional tolerancing could be employed to dene such a part. This concept is discussed in some detail in the section on phantom-gage dimensioning in Chapter 6.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-18 Part entirely dened with phantom-line tolerance zones and functional gage.

The primary datum is feature A, identied by the chamfered edge, and is staged so that it is perpendicular to the collimated light beam. The secondary datum feature is the outside contour. This entire contour of the part is then controlled using a prole tolerance related to the primary datum. The two .105 .110 holes at MMC are then controlled to DRF consisting of A and the prole. The part cannot be rotated or translated for t if nished to the MMC size of the datum feature, because it cannot be moved when its shadow is compared to the MMC contour on the chart gage [see Figure 11-20(a)]. If the B datum feature is nished smaller than its MMC size, the part can be adjusted to allow the two circles representing gage pins to move within the part holes.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-19 Prole and MMC positional tolerance.

The two circles are each .100 in., multiplied by the chart gage magnication factor. The .100 in. is calculated as follows: .105, diameter at MMC .005, positional tolerance at MMC
.100, chart gage diameters before scale factor

FIGURE 11-20 Chart gages for prole tolerancing with MMC positional tolerancing.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-21 Prole and zero MMC positional tolerancing.

Figure 11-20(a) shows that the chart gage simultaneously determines if the exterior prole complies with the basic prole contained in the product denition. This would be required for control of the prole to datum A. Figure 11-20(b) shows the separate chart gage, which is required to check hole size. This chart gage is comparable to separate Go and Not Go plug gages and is used to check each hole size in the pattern independently. Figure 11-21 shows the part of Figure 11-19 redened with zero MMC positional tolerancing, which eliminates the separate Go check. The chart gage for Figure 11-21 is contained in Figure 11-22. Note that the separate inside line of Figure 11-20(b) has been eliminated in Figure 11-22(b); the Go conguration is included in the .100-in. circles of Figure 11-22(a). Prole tolerancing lends itself to inspecting stamped parts, particularly those produced by a single operation on automatic equipment. Part stamping dies can be designed so that, as they wear, the changes in size of the parts produced will stay within the tolerance zones during the life of the dies.

11.5 PAPER LAYOUT GAGING

Paper layout gaging is a direct and inexpensive technique for making an immediate functional check of inspection results, permitting the adjustments possible with functional three-dimensional receiver gaging. It provides a method of de-

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-22 Chart gages for prole tolerancing with zero MMC positional tolerancing.

termining if a part can be reworked and, if so, the most economical rework required. It is also a useful way to evaluate tooling, indicating the adjustments required to produce an acceptable product. Moreover, paper layout gages neither wear out nor require storage space, as do receiver gages. Conventional dimensioning and tolerancing techniques usually employ tighter tolerances than necessary to make sure that manufacturing stays within required limits. Gaging the rst tool-made sample part in a production run with a paper gage can immediately tell a manufacturer how well the tooling will meet the design specications during actual production. This might encourage the manufacturer to relax his or her tolerance and size limits or establish new tooling nominals, thus increasing potential acceptance rates.

11.5.1 Application
The rst step in applying the paper gaging techniques is to decide when to use it. An examination of the inspection report will yield certain essential information about design specications and inspection procedures, indicating whether or not paper gaging is necessary or feasible. A part with coordinate datum dimensions, all originating from a single specied DRF, does not require paper gaging, regardless of the tolerancing method, because the part features are xed in relation to the datum reference frame (see Figure 11-23). Conformance can be checked mathematically by using the inspection report rather than resorting to a graphical technique that adds additional and unnecessary steps to the inspection process.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-23 Parts that should not be paper-gaged.

Some parts can be paper-gaged, but the procedure is more trouble than it is worth. It is better and easier to analyze the inspection results directly. A prime example of this is inspecting a part with coaxial requirements. Figure 11-24 shows a drawing of a part that must be coaxial about a datum axis. Part coaxiality, if specied as a positional tolerance, can be partially checked by rotating the part about its datum axis and measuring surface runout with an indicator. This may be a feasible inspection method in the situation where the

FIGURE 11-24 Circular runout to control coaxiality.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-25 Inspection setup for coaxiality example in Figure 11-24.

process adequately controls form such that the remaining form errors do not inuence measurement uncertainty. There are numerous ways to determine the axis of a datum feature. In this functional case, a gage pin, .7015 in., just ts datum feature A. The setup, using this pin inserted into a precision chuck, is shown in Figure 11-25. Note that the FIM (full indicator movement) checks in Table 11-1 can be deceiving, because they include elements of runout, out-of-roundness, measurement axis error, and so on. A detailed inspection of form should be made along with all FIM measurements if eccentricity is to be segregated.

11.5.2 Parts That Can Be Paper-Gaged

Parts with independent patterns of axial features (holes or pins, for example) related only to a primary datum, which would ordinarily be gaged with a feature relation receiver gage, can be effectively paper-gaged. These situations arise when patterns of features are used as datums or for the pattern control that occurs with composite positional callouts.
TABLE 11-1 Inspection Results
Measured feature diameters (in.)
0.792 1.598 1.002 0.902

Tolerance (in.)
0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015

Runout tolerances (in.)

0.002 0.012 0.000 0.000 (0.792 (1.610 (1.002 (0.920 0.790) 1.598) MMC) MMC)

FIM
0.0033 0.0133 0.0013 0.0013

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-26 Independent hole pattern dimensioning.

Dimensioning to allow hole pattern independence on a part is shown in Figure 11-26. This type of part creates problems when the gage designer attempts to create a design. It would not be unusual to see that hole 4 is erroneously considered to be a datum. Many gage designers might therefore gage this hole with a tapered pin, which unduly restricts the relationship of hole 4 to the other holes in the pattern.

11.5.3 Paper Gaging Procedure

Separate layouts are made for a pattern of part features: one of measured axis locations, and the other of positional tolerance zones. The tolerance-zone layout is superimposed over the measured axis layout and rotated and translated to determine if any single orientation allows all plotted axis points to fall within their respective tolerance zones. The procedure is analogous to drawing an extremely large part exactly as described on the inspection report and comparing it to another equally large drawing of the gage to see if the part ts. Obviously, this particular procedure is impractical because the scale factor required to make the tolerances visible would create drawings to ll a room. The part shown in Figure 11-26, which will be used to illustrate the procedure, can be inspected using two outside peripheral surfaces or any two holes as secondary and tertiary datum features. In any case, datum surface A is used as the primary datum. The results of one inspection procedure are shown in Table

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

8-3 (reproduced here as Table 11-2), based on Figure 11-26. Two outside surfaces were used as secondary and tertiary datums, and the part was set up as shown in Figure 11-27. The letter A modifying a measurement in Table 11-2 merely indicates that this was the coordinate location of a hole center point nearest datum surface A. Scaling Tolerances. Tolerances are generally cited with an order of magnitude in thousandths of an inch. For this reason, tolerance zones and measured axis variations must be scaled up so that they can be seen and accurately plotted and evaluated. Scaling Dimensions. If dimensions are scaled up by the same factor as tolerances, the layout will be too large to handle. The same scale factor is therefore not used for dimensions unless the actual paper gaging operation indicates a marginal part. Format. Experience dictates that the layout format should resemble the geometry of the part. Prepared plots of coaxial circles about a common axis are used, but this technique can lead to confusion if not carefully plotted and evaluated. Material. Plastic materials such as Mylar can be used in place of paper for layouts. Mylar is somewhat more stable than paper and is reusable, since pencil lines on it can be easily erased. Several Mylar sheets and a grid can be used over and over again, with copies of each gage made as a permanent record.

11.5.4 Inspection Results Layout

The measured locations of points at both ends of each feature axis are plotted in relation to the x and y-axes established by the datums specied on the inspection report. The two perpendicularity points plotted for each hole axis can be joined by a line to indicate that they are points for the axis of one hole. This procedure creates the effect of a three-dimensional gage. Grid Plot. Each square in a preprinted metric grid is assigned a value, perhaps 0.001 in. Because each square is 1 mm or 0.039 in. on a side, this would give a scale factor of 39 to 1. A piece of transparent sketch paper is laid over the grid, xed so that it will not shift, and the basic locations of each axis plotted with a compass point for accuracy. As an aid to quick identication of part geometry, the center lines may be joined in a rectangular grid pattern. The difference between the basic axis location and each measured axis point location is translated into metric grid squares and counted off in the x and y directions from each basic axis location plotted on the layout.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

TABLE 11-2 Sample Inspection Report Inspection Report Figure: Datum. Setup: Surface A and two additional sides. Datum targets used are marked on part.
Specied dimension, tolerance, etc.
Tolerance diameter at MMC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Actual dimension as checked

Tolerance diameter allowed by MMC
0.030
0.035
0.020
0.025

Item no.
1
2
3
4

x
0.520
2.520 (0.520 2.000)
2.520 (0.520 2.000)
0.520

y
2.020 (0.520 1.500)
2.020 (0.520 1.500)
2.020 (0.520 1.500)
0.520

Size
0.500 0.540
0.500 0.540
0.500 0.540
0.500 0.540

x
0.538 0.540(A)
2.548 2.545(A)
2.522 2.522(A)
0.505 0.510(A)

y
2.033 2.030(A)
2.000 2.000(A)
0.497 0.497(A)
0.525 0.525(A)

Tolerance (actual)
See paper gage 1
See paper gage
See paper gage
See paper gage

Size
0.530
0.535
0.520
0.525

Results
OK
OK
OK
OK

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-27 Setup to inspect part in Figure 11-26.

Figure 11-28 shows the inspection plot for Figure 11-26 and Table 11-2. Drafted Plot. The basic angle axis locations of a bolt circle or similar simple circular pattern can be laid out with drafting instruments or plotted with a CAD system. The basic locations of complicated or rectangular patterns can be handled in the same manner. The measured axis locations are readily plotted from each basic location. An appropriate scale factor for plotting the measurements is selected, perhaps for each 0.001 in. of factual variation.

11.5.5 Tolerance Layout

It is important that the basic axis locations of the inspection results layout be plotted identically on the tolerance layout, which is the second layout required in paper gaging. This can be done by redrafting, or laying the tolerance layout sheet (or CAD layer) over the inspection results layout and transferring the basic locations. The positional tolerance-zone diameters taken from the inspection report are scaled up by the same factor selected for plotting the measured axis locations and then drawn in.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-28 Plot of hole center deviations from inspection report.

A tolerance layout for Figure 11-26 and Table 11-2 is shown in Figure 11-29. The positional tolerance zones are plotted directly from the Tolerance diameter allowed by MMC column on the inspection report.

11.5.6 Combining Layouts

Because the sizes of the tolerance zones vary, the results of paper gaging will be entirely nullied if the tolerance zones are not placed over their corresponding

FIGURE 11-29 Plot of positional tolerance zones.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 11-30 Completed paper gage.

axis locations. It is thus advisable to mark or number each hole location on both layouts of a complex pattern, particularly if the pattern is symmetrical. The completed tolerance layout is placed over the inspection results layout and slightly shifted and/or rotated if necessary to determine if all sets of measured axis location points fall simultaneously within their respective tolerance zones. This graphically demonstrates whether or not the part being gaged will assemble with its mating component. Figure 11-30 shows the completed paper gage for the part of Figure 11-26 and Table 11-2. The tolerance layout has been rotated and shifted, much the same as a receiver gage or mating part would be adjusted for assembly. All four sets of axis points (top and bottom readings) fall within their respective tolerance zones, demonstrating that the part is acceptable. Measurements taken from any setup used for the part in Figure 11-26 will result in plots of hole centers and tolerance zones that have the same relationship to each other. The tolerance-zone plot (Figure 11-29) is uniformly the same, and the nished hole sizes and their perpendicularity remain constant for the same part. Thus, identical results are obtained with paper gaging.

11.5.7 Allowance Factors

The overall accuracy and validity of paper gages are affected by such factors as the accuracy of the layouts themselves, the accuracy of inspection measurements, and the completeness of inspection results. Also, allowances must sometimes be made for gage tolerances and gage wear if paper gaging is to be used in conjunction with functional receiver gages. Reducing the diameters of the tolerance zones

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

on the paper gage layout by a xed percentage can serve as an overall safety factor to compensate for inaccuracies and gage allowances. Layout Accuracy. The material on which the layouts are made introduces error equivalent to its coefcient of expansion and contraction. If the same material is used for both inspection and tolerance layouts, this type of error cancels out. The grid used for a plot can introduce error if it is not a perfect grid (a printed or photocopied grid can be assumed to be somewhat imperfect). Using the same grid in an identical manner for making both layouts cancels out this error. There is likely to be at least a 0.010-in. error in positioning lines, points, and diameters. This error is directly minimized by the scale factor selected; thus, positioning error scale factor
actual error

In making the layouts, a 0.010-in. width of pencil line, with a 100 to 1 scale factor, can cause a 0.0001-in. error (0.010/100), 0.00005 in. on each side of the line. This error can be minimized by working to one side of the line. Inspection Measurements. Obviously, a certain amount of uncertainty is inherent in inspection measurements. However, since open-setup inspection is used to calibrate tooling, xtures, and gages, it can be assumed that carefully made measurements will not produce an error factor greater than 5% in the data on an inspection report. Incomplete Inspection Results. Sometimes an inspection report is incomplete in that it does not contain information about setup or hole perpendicularity, yet a paper gage must be made from it. Therefore, some reduction in the size of the tolerance zones can be made to compensate for the uncertainty of incomplete inspection results. This reduction may be as much as 25% and not be unreasonable. Such a reduction is useful when the inspection report contains an uncertainty factor, as previously discussed, since the reduction can be directly applied to modify the tolerance-zone layout. Gage Allowances. Reducing the size of each tolerance zone can also serve to include allowances for gage tolerances and wear. This is important if the paper gage is intended to accept or reject to the same degree as a receiver gage. Such would be the case when paper gages are used for in-process checks or at the beginning of a tool run when receiver gages are not yet available but will be used. No allowance should be made on the paper gage for gage tolerance or wear if no receiver gage will be used for the part(s) being inspected. This would only lead to rejection of otherwise acceptable parts. Also, no reduction of tolerancezone size is necessary to accommodate virtual size; the plotting of both ends of

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

the axis to establish perpendicularity automatically takes care of this, because both points must fall within the tolerance zone. This also gives the paper gage a three-dimensional effect. Gage Policies. The question of allowing for gage tolerances and wear brings up the problem of differing gaging policies. Currently, no standard presents an unequivocal interpretation of Go and Not Go gage tolerances, and there is no commonly accepted standard percentage of wear to be allowed before a gage is taken out of service to be reconditioned. It is extremely important for users and suppliers (or design, manufacturing, and inspection departments) to arrive at a common understanding on these matters before production starts.

11.5.8 Analyzing Results

In analyzing a completed paper gage, the true power of this technique becomes clear. Not only does it indicate functional acceptance, but it also can be used as the basis for determining the feasibility of reworking a part, the nature of the rework, and what tooling changes might be required to bring parts into acceptance. A series of paper gages made during a production run can be used to monitor the rate of tool wear and to predict accurately when tooling should be replaced or reworked. Rework Determination. Paper gage analysis, including scaling plotted axis locations in relation to the perimeter of their respective tolerance zones, can be of great value in determining rework. Suppose the hole centers lie outside their respective tolerance zones; if one or more tolerance zones can be increased in diameter (which is accomplished by reaming out the corresponding holes to a larger diameter), the part can be accepted. Measurement of the paper gage relationships between axis locations and tolerance-zone perimeters can be used to determine the amount of rework and when and where it is required. Whoever makes the paper gage can indicate on the inspection report the rework required to bring the part into acceptance and indicate a provisional OK in the results column for the particular feature or features to be reworked. Ordinarily the inspector does not judge acceptance of a part; he or she merely records inspection measurements on the report, and the designer determines acceptance. However, if the inspector makes the paper gage, he or she can indicate the required rework on the report. Of course, it is necessary that the part be reinspected and perhaps paper-gaged again after rework to make sure it is then acceptable. Tooling Check. Succeeding parts made on the same tooling will look much the same as the rst part, with only minor variations. Thus, necessary changes in tooling can be determined on the basis of one paper gaging operation,

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

and perhaps additional perfunctory checks made during production. Paper gages can also be made on a regular basis to conveniently monitor tool wear so that the frequency and occasion for change and rework of tooling can be accurately predicted. Once the paper gage has been veried (therefore calibrated) by a second independent check to catch any incidental errors, it can take on the status of any other functional gage. If any number of parts meets essentially the same dimensional requirements, and are therefore acceptable by the same paper gage, the individual inspection reports can (1) reference the report that includes the paper gage or (2) include a copy of the original paper gage.

11.5.9 Paper Gages Compared to Other Functional Gages

Paper layout gaging offers advantages comparable to those of three-dimensional functional gaging and optical comparator gaging, without the disadvantages associated with the physical aspects of hard gaging. The functional gage, however, has one distinct and unique advantage: Being a three-dimensional object, it receives a part exactly as a worst-case mating part would, thus giving direct evidence of intended function. The optical comparator and paper gage, as two-dimensional representations of the functional gage, are one step removed from a true functional gage. Compensation for the value of the missing third dimension sometimes can be achieved on an optical comparator if the part is mounted so that the primary datum surface is perpendicular to the collimated light beam. The part must be moved so that an edge throughout the depth of the part can be examined in focus to ensure that it meets its locational requirement. Obviously, the part should be thin enough to be conveniently checked. The paper gage will include the threedimensional effect of a functional gage as long as three-plane datum setup and axial perpendicularity information are included on the inspection report and in the layouts. One disadvantage of the functional gage (in addition to the cost and lead time required to obtain one) is the necessity for gage tolerance and wear allowance, which cuts into its acceptance rates if a pessimistic gaging policy is applied. Neither the paper gage nor the optical comparator need include the tolerances or allowances, unless these types of gaging are being used as preliminary inspection devices prior to receiver gaging. An important and unique advantage of the paper gage is that there is no signicant time factor involved in making one; it can be developed quickly and easily for a single part with little planning and can be as quickly veried. Another advantage of the paper gage is exibility of application. It is impractical to design

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

and construct functional gages or chart gages for only one or two parts, but paper gages can be applied conveniently to 1, 100, or 10,000 parts. In the case of large numbers of similar parts, only a few paper gages may be required to check questionable parts. Finally, inspection report comparisons are more meaningful when paper gages are used.

11.6 SUMMARY
The techniques outlined in this chapter demonstrate inspection and measurement techniques that emulate hard functional gages. Each of the three methods contains both advantages and limitations of which the concurrent engineering team must be aware. The techniques provide additional tools available to the process planner, for both manufacturing and measurement that may overcome the economic limitations of hard functional gages. In making the appropriate choices for a specic project, these methods should be adapted in a manner that yields results similar to those obtained by true functional gaging. The level at which the alternative techniques simulate hard gaging is the deciding factor in which one of the methods to use and how it is to be applied.

REFERENCES
Tandler, W., Applying ASME Y14.5M to Coordinate Measuring Machine Operation, Menlo Park, CA: Multi Metrics, Inc., 2000.

Copyright 2003 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved.