See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319648634

Metrology laboratory

Experiment Findings · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23004.90242

CITATIONS READS

0 56,064

1 author:

Tumisang Laurel Kalagobe

University of the Witwatersrand
8 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy recovery system for cryptocurrency mining activities View project

Reduction of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption in a heavy duty truck logistics operation by use of a hybrid drive train View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tumisang Laurel Kalagobe on 12 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Metrology laboratory

MECN3007 - Mechanical Engineering Laboratory II

Tumisang Kalagobe

Student number: 800363

A project report submitted to the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering.

Johannesburg, March 2017

 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

School of Mechanical, Industrial & Aeronautical Engineering

INDIVIDUAL DECLARATION WITH TASK SUBMITTED FOR ASSESSMENT

I, the undersigned, am registered for the course MECN3007 - Mechanical En-

gineering Laboratory II in the year 2017. I herewith submit the following task
”Metrology laboratory” in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the above course.

I hereby declare the following:

ˆ I am aware that plagiarism (the use of someone else’s work without their permis-
sion and / or without acknowledging the original source) is wrong;

ˆ I confirm that the work submitted herewith for assessment in the above course
is my own unaided work except where I have explicitly stated otherwise;

ˆ This task has not been submitted before. either individually or jointly, for any
course requirement, examination or degree at this or any other tertiary educa-
tional institution;

ˆ I have followed the required conventions in referencing the thoughts and ideas of
others;

ˆ I understand that the University of the Witwatersrand may take disciplinary

action against me if it can be shown that this task is not my own unaided work
or that I failed to acknowledge the sources of the ideas or words in my writing in
this task.

Signed this 19th day of March 2017

Tumisang Kalagobe 800363

i
Abstract

A practical investigation of metrology was undertaken where measurements were taken

of various objects. The use of vernier callipers, go or no-go plug gauges, linear trans-
ducers, dial test indicators and gauge blocks were investigated through the aforemen-
tioned measurements. Uncertainty analyses were conducted where possible.

ii
Contents

Declaration i

Abstract ii

Contents iii

List of Figures vi

List of Tables vi

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background, motivation and literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Apparatus 2

2.1 Gauge blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2 Angle gauge blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.3 Vernier calliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.4 Dial test indicator (DTI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.5 Go or no-go gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.6 Stepped shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Experimentation 5

3.1 Height of a triangular test piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

iii
 3.2 Angular discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.3 Go or no-go gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.4 Stepped shaft dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.4.1 Determine the ovality of shaft 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.4.2 Determine axis perpendicularity of shaft 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.4.3 Length of the sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.4.4 Lengths of shaft 2 and shaft 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.4.5 Diameter of shaft 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.4.6 Length of the sample measured with a linear transducer and DTI 8

4 Discussion 8

5 Conclusions 10

A Sample calculations 12

A.1 Height of triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

A.2 Angular discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

B Uncertainty analysis 14

B.1 Height of triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B.2 Stepped shaft geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B.2.1 Vernier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

B.2.2 Linear transducer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

iv
 B.2.3 Dial test indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

C Tables 16

C.1 Gauge block combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C.2 Stepped shaft measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

C.3 Total length of stepped shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

C.4 Lengths of shaft 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

D Health and safety risk assessment 18

v
List of Figures

1 Difference between precision and accuracy [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Set of gauge blocks [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Vernier calliper [6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 Dial test indicator [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5 Go or no-go gauge [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6 Steel stepped shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7 Triangular test piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

8 Triangular test piece for angular discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

List of Tables

1 Gauge block combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2 Shaft 1 diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 Random measurements of stepped shaft length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 Length of shaft 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

vi
1 Introduction

1.1 Background, motivation and literature review

The National Metrology Institute of South Africa describes metrology as “the process
to establish weights and measures as the basis for accurate measurements worldwide”
[1]. Establishing a standard to which all measurements can adhere to is crucial in
all engineering applications as accurate and precise work ensures good engineering
practise.

Uncertainty analysis forms an integral part of metrology as there is always a level of

uncertainty in measurements [2]. Accuracy is the closeness of measured values to a
set standard or known value while precision is the closeness of measured values. The
difference between accuracy and precision is shown in Figure 1. Uncertainty can be due
to measurement equipment or external factors such as thermal expansions, humidity
and pressure.

Figure 1: Difference between precision and accuracy [3]

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this experiment are to:

1. Determine the least possible number of gauge blocks that can give the most
precise height of a triangular test piece.

2. Determine if there is an angular discrepancy in a triangular gauge block through

the use of a dial test indicator.

1
 3. Determine whether 3 hollow cylinders pass a go or no-go plug gauge test.

4. Determine the geometry of a stepped shaft through the use of a vernier calliper.

5. Determine the length of a stepped shaft by using a vernier calliper, a linear

transducer and a clock gauge.

2 Apparatus

2.1 Gauge blocks

Gauge blocks are precision ground metallic blocks that are often used as a measurement
standard, or means of calibration [4]. These devices are available as sets, typically
ranging from 1.001mm to 100mm. Gauge blocks can have uncertainties ranging from
0.05 microns to 1.00 microns [5], making them extremely precise and a good standard
for measurements. An example of a gauge block set is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Set of gauge blocks [5]

2.2 Angle gauge blocks

Angle gauge blocks are similar to the gauge blocks discussed in subsection 2.1. The
main difference is that they are purposely designed to precise angles. They are also
used as a standard to calibrate equipment.

2
2.3 Vernier calliper

Vernier callipers are precision measurement instruments that can be used to measure
linear widths, depths, external and internal diameters. A vernier calliper is shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 3: Vernier calliper [6]

2.4 Dial test indicator (DTI)

DTI’s are used to measure small changes in linear displacements. A DTI is shown
in Figure 4. Each division for this experiment measures a displacement change of 2
microns.

Figure 4: Dial test indicator [7]

3
2.5 Go or no-go gauges

Go or no-go gauges are used to quickly detect if a component is out of its tolerance
region. The gauge has a large diameter on one side and a small diameter on the other,
representing the upper and lower diameter tolerances for the component. The gauge
is simply inserted into the desired region with either the small or large diameter. A
decision can then be made on whether the component dimensions are satisfactory or
not. Figure 5 shows a go or no-go gauge. There are also 3 hollow cylinders that are
tested with the go or no-go gauge.

Figure 5: Go or no-go gauge [8]

2.6 Stepped shaft

A steel stepped shaft of unknown dimensions, shown schematically in Figure 6, is

measured with the use of a vernier calliper. Figure 6 is not necessarily to scale.

Figure 6: Steel stepped shaft

4
3 Experimentation

A series of measurements were taken with the various measurement tools mentioned in
section 2 in order to demonstrate their precision and accuracy.

3.1 Height of a triangular test piece

For this measurement a triangular test piece of known hypotenuse length and inclin-
ation angle is used. It has a hypotenuse length and inclination angle of 127mm and
27o ± 300 respectively.

The objective is to determine it’s height, the uncertainty thereof and the combination
of the least number of gauge blocks needed to form that height.

Appendix A.1 shows the calculations for the height of the triangle and Appendix B.1
shows the uncertainty in the aforementioned calculations, opposite to the 27o angle.
The final height of the triangle is 57.657mm ± 1.00mm. This height can be achieved
by a combination of mass pieces as shown in Table 1 in Appendix C.1.

3.2 Angular discrepancy

Given a triangular test piece of known base length, the angular discrepancy must be
determined through the use of a dial test indicator. The procedure follows:

1. Ensure the test piece is clean.

2. Place the test piece on a rig that only allows linear motion.

3. Place the sensor button of the DTI on one edge of the test piece.

4. Set the DTI reading to zero.

5. Slowly move the test piece until the sensor button is on the side opposite to that
which it started on.

6. Record the reading on the DTI.

5
After conducting this experiment it was found that the sensor button had moved 8
microns. This resulted in an angular discrepancy of 0.0001rad. The calculation for
this discrepancy can be found in Appendix A.2. There is no uncertainty in this value.

3.3 Go or no-go gauge

The go or no-go experiment is conducted as follows:

1. Insert the smaller (Go) side into the first cylinder.

2. If the gauge slides into the cylinder then it has passed the first part of the test,
otherwise the component is too small and the test may be discontinued.

3. Remove the Go gauge.

4. Insert the larger (No-Go) side into the cylinder.

5. If the gauge does not slide into the cylinder then it passes the Go or No-Go test,
otherwise the component is too wide.

6. Repeat steps 1-5 for all 3 cylinders.

It is found that the first cylinder was too small, the second was the right size and the
third was too large.

3.4 Stepped shaft dimensions

A stepped shaft of unknown geometry is given. A series of measurements is required to

describe the geometry of the shaft. These measurements are outlined in the following
section. Refer to fig:steppedShaft for a schematic of this component. Shaft 1 is the
smaller diameter section and 2 is the larger diameter.

3.4.1 Determine the ovality of shaft 1

2 measurements are taken 90o to each other at the top, middle and bottom of region
1 with the external jaws of the vernier calliper. Table 2 in Appendix C.2 shows the

6
measurements that were taken. The ovality of a shaft is defined as:

ovality = D − d

Where D is the largest diameter measurement and d is the smallest diameter measure-
ment. The ovality of shaft 1 is found to be approximately 0.017mm. All measurements
must be taken by pushing the vernier jaws-first onto the diameter that is being meas-
ured. The vernier must be removed in the same manner.

3.4.2 Determine axis perpendicularity of shaft 2

The stepped shaft is set up on the DTI rig with the sensor button on the outer most
point of the diameter of shaft 2 and calibrated to zero. The shaft is then slowly rotated
360o . The largest deviation is then recorded. The largest deviation is found to be 8
increments, which translates to 16microns.

3.4.3 Length of the sample

The length of the shaft is found by use of a digital vernier calliper and measurements are
taken at random locations around the circumference of the shaft. Table 3 in Appendix
C.3 shows the measurements.

3.4.4 Lengths of shaft 2 and shaft 1

The length of shaft 2 is found with the vernier calliper’s external jaws. 3 random
measurements around its circumference are taken. The length of shaft 1 is found
mathematically by subtracting the length of shaft 2 from the total length of the shaft.
Table 4 in Appendix C.4 shows these lengths.

3.4.5 Diameter of shaft 2

The diameter of shaft 2 is found with the external jaws of a vernier calliper. Only one
measurement is taken and is found to be 74.9mm.

7
The measurement is taken with the vernier at an acute angle with the surface of the
shaft as this ensures that the true maximum external diameter is found.

3.4.6 Length of the sample measured with a linear transducer and DTI

The length of the sample is measured with the use of a linear transducer and a clock
gauge. The same method is used for both measurement devices as they have the same
operating principle.

A 75mm gauge block is used to calibrate the measurement device. The stepped shaft
is then placed under the sensor button and the displacement which is shown of the
measurement device is recorded. The recorded value is subtracted from the 75mm
to which the device was calibrated. The deviations of the transducer and DTI are
0.041mm and 0.02mm respectively. The shaft lengths of the transducer and DTI are
therefore 74.959mm and 74.98mm respectively.

4 Discussion

Measurements of various objects were recorded with the use of a number of different
measurement devices. The precision of these devices vary and are critically evaluated
in this section, along with the deviations from the ideal measurements.

The first measurements taken were done with the objective of demonstrating the use of
gauge blocks as a means of calibrating a measurement (see subsection 3.1). A triangular
test piece of a known hypotenuse length and inclination angle was used. The ideal
height of the side opposite to the inclination angle was found to be 57.657mm by the
sine trigonometry relationship. The uncertainty was found to be ±1.00mm due to an
angular uncertainty of ±300 .

These findings lead to the conclusion that 8 blocks of the dimensions shown in Table 1
are the least number of blocks needed to give the ideal length. The least number of
blocks need to be used in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty in the measure-
ments. Although gauge blocks are made with extreme accuracy and precision, they still
have uncertainties in the region of a few micrometers, as explained in subsection 2.1.
In the process of calibration there must be as little uncertainty as possible because the

8
point of calibration is to conduct measurements with the datum set to a known and
universal standard.

In the second measurement set, a triangular gauge block is assessed for an angular
discrepancy by use of a dial test indicator (see subsection 3.2). Only the base length
of the triangular test piece is known and no uncertainty is given by the manufacturer
for this length. The inclination angle and the uncertainty in the base length of this
test piece are unknown. Measurements showed that there is a 0.0001rad discrepancy
in the inclination angle.

The angular discrepancy in such a high precision piece of equipment is difficult to

attribute to the production process. The angular discrepancy in this triangular gauge
block could be due to corrosion from usage of the test piece. The usage of the sample
is unknown, and hence a source of uncertainty. The surface on which the test piece
was sliding is also not guaranteed to be perfectly flat and may have contributed to the
angular discrepancy. Knowledge of the angular discrepancy is vital when attempting
to calibrate with this gauge block, particularly in high precision measurements, as it
is assumed to be the standard.

The third measurement involved the use of a go or no-go plug gauge on a series of 3
hollow cylinders (see subsection 3.3). The first cylinder proved too small as the Go
side was unable to enter. The second cylinder was within the tolerance limits of the
plug gauge as the Go side was able to enter while the no-go side was unable to enter.
The final cylinder was too large because both the Go and No-Go sides entered the hole.
The failure of the first and third cylinders to meet the tolerances can be attributed to
machining flaws, assuming that all 3 are from the same production batch.

In order to ensure the first and third cylinders are able to meet the minimum re-
quirements some interventions can be undertaken. The small cylinder’s hole can be
cut slightly larger in order to meet the tolerance requirements. The large cylinder is
slightly more complex to correct as it is much easier to remove material than it is to
add material. The cylinder could be cut even wider and then a bush that meets the
tolerance requirements could be inserted.

The final measurements were of a stepped shaft (see subsection 3.4). The dimensions
were initially unknown and measurements of the diameters and heights were taken
through the use of a vernier calliper, linear transducer and a dial test indicator.

9
The ovality of the small diameter shaft was found to be 0.017mm. This deviation could
be attributed to the machining process used to make the shaft. The process used is
not known so no further conclusions or recommendations can be made. The surface
of shaft 2 was found to have a 16 micron discrepancy with surface of shaft 1. The
discrepancy means that the 2 surfaces are not perfectly perpendicular. Again, this
error can be attributed to the machining process used.

The length of the shaft was found through the use of a vernier calliper, DTI and
linear transducer. The transducer and DTI were calibrated through the use of a 75mm
gauge block. It was found that the transducer and DTI gave measurements that have
a difference of 0.02mm. The difference in these measurements are considered as the
process used to establish these values is the same. The difference could be due to
electrical noise in the transducer. Even though it is more precise, it might not be as
accurate as the DTI since the DTI uses mechanical elements to conduct measurements
and is less likely to have systemic imbalances.

5 Conclusions

Based on the objectives set out in subsection 1.2, the following conclusions can be
made:

1. A combination of 1 15.00mm, 7 5.00mm, 1 5.5mm, 1 1.15mm and 1 1.007mm

blocks is the least amount of blocks that give the desired height of 57.657mm.

2. It was found by use of a DTI that there is an angular discrepancy of 0.0001rad

in the triangular gauge block that has a base length of 75mm.

3. Of the 3 hollow cylinders that were considered, 1 passed the go or no-go test, 1
was too small and 1 was too large.

4. The stepped shaft lengths, diameters, ovality and perpendicularity were determ-
ined through the use of a vernier calliper.

5. The total length of the haft was also determined through the use of a linear
transducer and a DTI. The DTI is concluded as the most accurate as it has no
threat of electrical noise distorting the measurements taken. The transducer,
however, is the most precise.

10
References

[1] National Metrology Institute of South Africa. (2012). [online] Nmisa.org. Available
at: nmisa.org/theNMISA/Pages/About%20Metrology.aspx [Accessed 18 Mar.
2017].

[2] Howarth, P. and Redgrave, F. (2008). Metrology - in short. 1st ed. Lyngby: [Danish
Fundamental Metrology], p.21.

[3] Math Is Fun, (2013). Accuracy and Precision. [online] Mathsisfun.com. Available
at: mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html [Accessed 18 Mar. 2017].

[4] Moganedi, R. and Kruger, O. (2012). Calibration of gauge blocks by

using a mechanical comparator. [online] Pretoria, South Africa: Na-
tional Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA). Available at:
nla.org.za/webfiles/conferences/2012/Papers/... [Accessed 18 Mar. 2017].

[5] Mitutoyo, (n.d.). Length Standard Gauge Blocks. [online] Japan: Mitutoyo. Avail-
able at: mitutoyo.co.jp/eng/support/service/catalog/09/E12014.pdf [Accessed 18
Mar. 2017].

[6] Ryan, V. (2004). The Vernier Caliper - Manual Version. [online] Technologystu-
dent.com. Available at: technologystudent.com/equip1/vernier3.htm [Accessed 18
Mar. 2017].

[7] Integrated Publishing, I. (n.d.). Chapter 2 Measuring and Re-

pair Instruments. [online] Enginemechanics.tpub.com. Available at:
enginemechanics.tpub.com/14076/css/... [Accessed 18 Mar. 2017].

[8] Dive Avenue, (n.d.). Double smooth gauge ”GO/NOGO”

M 25x2.00. [online] Diveavenue.com. Available at:
diveavenue.com/Double-smooth-gauge-GO/NOGO-M-25x200 [Accessed 18
Mar. 2017].

11
A Sample calculations

The following section shows all sample calculations that were undertaken during the
course of the experiment.

A.1 Height of triangle

The height of the triangle and the angle of inclination are given as 5 inches and 27
degrees respectively, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Triangular test piece

The length of the hypotenuse is first converted to millimetres by the following conver-
sion:  
25.4mm
5inches = × 5in = 127mm
1in
A conversion from degrees to radians is not necessary, but preferred as that stays
consistent with the use of radians in the uncertainty analysis. A simple trigonometric
manipulation gives the general height of the triangle in terms of θ in Equation 1.

h = r sin θ (1)

The height can now be found, given the hypotenuse and the inclination angle.
 o 
27 π
∴ h = (127mm) sin = 57.657mm
180o

An uncertainty analysis for this height is conducted in Appendix B.1.

12
A.2 Angular discrepancy

The angular discrepancy, shown in Figure 8, is found by a simple trigonometric rela-

tionship.

Figure 8: Triangular test piece for angular discrepancy

Since the change in height and the base length of the test piece are known as 8microns
and 75mm respectively, a tangent ratio can be applied:

8 × 10−6 m
tan θ =
75 × 10−3 m
The angular discrepancy of the triangular gauge block in radians is therefore:

∴ θ = 0.0001rad

13
B Uncertainty analysis

The following section gives an uncertainty analysis of all measurements and calculations
shown in Appendix A. Equation 2 is the general uncertainty propagation on which all
of the following uncertainties are based on. In general if f is a function of a, b and z
such that f = f (a, b, ..., z) then the uncertainty in f for any number of variables is:
s 2  2  2
∂f ∂f ∂f
δf = δa + δb + ... + δz (2)
∂a ∂b ∂z
Equation 2 is tailored to the specific needs of each problem, as shown in the following
sections.

B.1 Height of triangle

The ideal height of the triangle is calculated in Appendix A.1. The uncertainty in the
height can be found through Equation 3 which is a simplification of Equation 1 and
Equation 2.
∂h
δh =δθ (3)
∂θ
The units for the angles are changed to radians because radians represent a ratio
between the arc length and the radius of a circle, which is a dimensionless ratio. The
uncertainty in the height due to the angle uncertainty can now be found:
 o   o 
0.5 π 27 π
∴ δh = o
(127mm) cos = 1.00mm
180 180o

B.2 Stepped shaft geometry

The uncertainty in the measurements of the stepped shaft arises from the u.certainty
in the measurement equipment. The equipment used is the vernier calliper, linear
transducer and the clock gauge.

B.2.1 Vernier

The vernier has an uncertainty of half the smallest increment on the vernier scale,
which is 0.005mm.

14
B.2.2 Linear transducer

The linear transducer uncertainty arises from half the smallest digital reading, which
is 0.0005mm.

B.2.3 Dial test indicator

The dial test indicator uncertainty is half of an increment, which translates to 1micron
since each incremental movement on the gauge is 2microns.

15
C Tables

The following section contains tables that contain important content, however would
occupy too much space in the main report.

C.1 Gauge block combination

The following table shows the combination of gauge blocks that satisfy the conditions
stipulated in subsection 3.1. The combined height of these blocks is 57.657mm

Table 1: Gauge block combination

Size of gauge (mm) Number of blocks

5.0 5
5.5 1
1.15 1
1.007 1

C.2 Stepped shaft measurements

Table 2 shows the measurements taken in subsubsection 3.4.1. The measurements are
approximated to 4 significant figures as there is no visible difference if measurements
are taken to 3 significant figures.

Table 2: Shaft 1 diameter

Measurement 1 (mm) Measurement 2 (mm)

Top 39.983 39.987
Middle 39.986 39.982
Bottom 39.999 39.993

16
C.3 Total length of stepped shaft

Table 3 shows the random measurements taken around the circumference of the stepped
shaft in subsubsection 3.4.3.

Table 3: Random measurements of stepped shaft length

Measurement number Length (mm)

1 100.10
2 100.16
3 100.07

C.4 Lengths of shaft 1 and 2

Table 4 shows the lengths of shaft 1 and 2, as found in subsubsection 3.4.4.

Table 4: Length of shaft 1 and 2

Shaft 1 (mm) Shaft 2 (mm)

65.1 35.00
65.12 35.04
65.12 34.95

17
 D Health and safety risk assessment

Risk Assessment

Activity: Metrology

Venue: North West Engineering Laboratory

Risk type Risk description Severity Likelihood Risk score Action type Action Notes
Mechanical Sharp edges on vernier calliper Insignificant Rare 2 Elimination First aid n/a

Version 1.0
Signed: Tumisang Kalagobe Date: 2017-03-19 Revision date: 2017/02/17

18
View publication stats