What's new
What's new

flatness measuring help

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Hello. I have small ceramic rings that I need to measure the flatness on; they measure 0.420" ID x 0.460" OD x 0.035" thick; that right, an area of only 0.020" wide. The spec calls out a flatness of 0.00039" (0.01mm)...how would be the best/easiest way to do this? I thought about using an optical flat, but not being that versed, I thought that someone out there might have a better idea....Thanks, Mark
 

jccaclimber

Hot Rolled
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Location
San Francisco
How many, what budget?

1. How close do the edge do you have to get? Can you put the (hopefully perpendicular) opposite end down on a granite table and just spot check a few places with an 0.001 mm resolution drop gage with a ball tip or a tiny point? If not, is the part worth the trouble of getting it leveled to test that?

2. If it's not reflective, an optical flat isn't going to work anyways, even if you did want to deal with that, and it sounds unpleasant to be honest.

3. If I had to do it I'd throw it on our interferometer or other 3d scanning widget, but if you had one of those laying around you probably wouldn't be asking.

4. If it was a tiny bit looser spec I'd say to put it on a granite table and try fitting a shim under it, but you're a couple microns under any shim stock I've seen recently.

5. Say that your process naturally controls this, IE it's done on the same chucking as the datum is formed in, etc. Still probably need to prove it the first time though.

Can the customer actually tell? How do they plan to use/measure it?
 

specfab

Titanium
Joined
May 28, 2005
Location
AZ
^^^^^^ What he said, with the following comment: With an interferometer, you need some degree of reflectivity, in order to get light back into the measurement system. If your parts are specular to some degree, you can measure in that manner, which does also apply to optical flat, but more so, since you are judging by eye typically, instead of a very sensitive CCD or CMOS camera. For interferometric measurement, it would probably work best with a scanning white-light profiler and very low mag objective (like 1X or 0.5X), again depending on how much light you return to the instrument. This sort of form/shape measurement range, between about 5 and 25 microns is always a problem area in my experience, where you run out of easy reliable mechanical measurement capability, and you aren't quite into the range where optics work well. And if the part is non-reflective, more complications.

My choice for doing this would be 1) sanity check on surface plate with tenth indicator, and hope for really low numbers to say it's good, 2) tenth-reading mic to check for any thkns weirdness, to corroborate test indicator measurement and exercise common sense, 3) CMM with small probe and lotsa points if 1 and 2 are inconclusive, and 4) optical profiler (in that order, if you don't already have access to an optical profiler, in which case that would be first).
 

TGTool

Titanium
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Location
Stillwater, Oklahoma
I can imagine an easy surface plate furniture setup with a V nest opposite the indicator, or even under the indicator, so you could keep the indicator probe in position and measure however many points you want around the ring.
 

CarbideBob

Diamond
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Location
Flushing/Flint, Michigan
I like optical flat but small area.
Kiss any CMM under 1-2 million dollars goodbye here. Not gonna happen.
Surface plate and indicator. Does you indicator read and split microns into ten pieces?
A good LVDT will work but the surface under is going to need to very, very good.

How did you end up in this crazy land where angels fear to tread?
 

Skubeesnak

Plastic
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Location
Utah
I would use a tenth indicator and put the parts on a leveling plate, ( a flat piece of material with three fine pitch bolts going through to rock ) then adjust equal 3 points around perimeter of parts. it like using datum points that are invisible and not in way of indicator. kind of like upside down datum points . then simply swipe around part using surface gauge or height gauge making sure remainder is within tolerance. Biggest problem I see is part moving with pressure of indicator.
 

J_R_Thiele

Stainless
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Location
Columbia Missouri
Use surface plate, indicator, and 3 identical height gage blocks. Arrange blocks to support ring on sides and back- or just sides- possibly in V shape. Put a gage block on top of these and zero indicator reading from underside of top gage block. To use- place disk on top of gage blocks with side to be measured down and read indicator. You might be able to get readings from two indicators with each placement of the disk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pb1

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Guys, thank you for all of the interesting replies. The idea of using a interferometer did surface, but as noted, they aren't cheap. The quantities are 200+/- per week. More information that may be helpful; these parts go onto a fixture that is used to load/unload glass. The parts are attached to the fixture using glue, so one surface is pretty well sealed, the other makes contact with the part, and via vacuum, the part is adhered, and conveyed. The customer had issues with parts; come to find out, that the grinding vendor produced some parts via CNC grinder, and some on a manual grinder...I have yet to fully understand that....anyway, parts were failing to hold vacuum, thus dropping/not holding parts. They suggested checking all parts via a vacuum leak test....personally, I didn't think that was the best method...again in application, one side is glued in place...with the vacuum test, neither are glued, just sandwiched between sample wafers. IMO, the issue was really just the narrow face that makes contact with the glass....thinking that the real issue is the flatness of the contact face....that is where all of this comes from. Knowing that optical flats are a good, cheap way to check flatness....but knowing that a 0.020" wide surface isn't much too see, I wasn't sure if it was doable. The surfaces are fairly polished/reflective...
 

jccaclimber

Hot Rolled
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Location
San Francisco
Knowing that now, a vacuum test does make sense to me. Oring one side of the test fixture and use a pressure decay tester on the other. Cincinnati and Uson used to be good at that, not sure who is best now.

You might also be able to do a pull force test under vacuum.

I’m not fully convinced that flatness is your root problem here. Maybe one batch is less perpendicular and didn’t grind flat? Even on a manual grinder I wouldn’t expect much flatness error across such a short surface. Would some height and/or parallelism variation across the batch cause similar functional issues?
 

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Thank for the reply. Again, the test doesn't accurately represent the function of the test...in application, the part is glued to the apparatus; for the test, double sided tape. I have in fact built a better fixture that does use an o-ring to mate against the flat side (side that would be epoxied), and draw a vacuum. The parts are supposedly inspected by the vendor, although the parts themselves are not labeled/serialized in any way. Knowing that they found that some (the "CNC" parts vs manually ground) parts performed better lead me to believe that there could possibly be a flatness issue with the mating surface; again, that feature itself is called out on the print; I have no clue as to how or even if the vendor is inspecting that surface.
Mark
 

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Buck,
Well I don't think that would work...I don't think that it would take much of a flaw on such a small surface to cause this part not to hold vacuum...a gouge from a grinding wheel...scratch...porous area in the parent material that did not machine out...IDK...with the disc over the entire surface, that would hide minute irregularities, wouldn't it?
Mark
 

michiganbuck

Diamond
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Location
Mt Clemens, Michigan 48035
I wonder if the part set on a surface plate and with a precision .500 disk on top of the part might aid an indicator check, perhaps 1/2" dia x .250 thick near zero flat.
Then failed parts with the high place marked could be set on a lapping device for a certain number of seconds to take and flatten the required amount.

A simple lapping device might be a sheet of oiled automotive wet paper on surface steel with such grit that 3 swipes equal .00005..or a cast iron lapping block

When grinding varying amounts of take-stock parts I would just put the parts in/on rows to save marking/adjuting time....a row of take .0001s, a row of take .0002 and so on.
Good parts going to the To-Ship row,
 
Last edited:

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Buck, I get it...I came onto this project late, so I really don't know the entire story. I am looking at the print, and as mentioned, they call out a flatness of 0.01mm (0.00039") on that 0.5mm wide surface; when I asked the project manager how the vendor inspects this, the reply was " I don't think they do." WTF. In addition, I do not see a callout or spec as to the parallelism between the two faces...because they are used 3 at a time, I would think that overall height and parallelism could play into the issues....
 

michiganbuck

Diamond
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Location
Mt Clemens, Michigan 48035
Agree a wheel grind grit scratch would not show in the disk check.
wheel choice might reduce the grit scratch.
Sometimes one can go to a finer grit size and a more open (concentration) wheel to get a better surface finish with not adding heat. (but that can add cycle time)

It may be a very small number of failed parts. ..Once you know the x number running 5% over the count and inspecting 100% might be better than repairing the X parts, or running short count.

We had a tough job where the customer paid +10% number of parts just to be sure he got his wanted number, and on occasion, he got 110% number of parts.

OT Op: (they call out a flatness of 0.01mm (0.00039") on that 0.5mm wide surface)
Is there any/much give on the .035 size?
 
Last edited:

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Buck, in addition, there is a requirement of 6 Uin on the surface in question...again, I wonder how the vendor does their inspection. How can one justify/prove that they did 100% inspection if the parts are not marked/labeled in any way...I am not at liberty to share the drawing, I wish that I could.
 

michiganbuck

Diamond
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Location
Mt Clemens, Michigan 48035
It would be good if the customer could let you know how many bad parts he received.
If a very low number then a better inspection on your end might be better than changing your process.
Seems like .00039 flatness should not be difficult.
A chance the surface finish is the error/culprit.

QT Op: come to find out, that the grinding vendor produced some parts via CNC grinder, and some on a manual grinder / parts glued to the holding fixture (nonmagnetic part).

Do you:
own the part-holding fixture?
know the wheel grit being used, and the wheel type?
specify the surface finish requirement?
know the normal amount of stock removal in the facing process

re, QT Op: there is a requirement of 6 Uin on the surface in question.
(better than 8 so a mirror finish) so likely 1000 grit or finer diamond wheel.

Qt Op: anyway, parts were failing to hold vacuum / so could even be the customer's assembly process (?).

(X) but likely need .000001" to be dead airtight.
 
Last edited:

MCritchley

Hot Rolled
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Location
Milwaukee
I wonder if the part set on a surface plate and with a precision .500 disk on top of the part might aid an indicator check, perhaps 1/2" dia x .250 thick near zero flat.
I didn’t read all the posts, this one nailed it.

Buy a .250 thick square gauge block, and set it on the part then check under the gauge block with an .0001 indicator mounted in a surface gauge. Elevate your part with a small rectangular gauge block so you can get under it with a needle. Or grind the bottom of your needle off.

You’ll want a gauge block with some weight so it doesn’t move as repeatability is a good thing. The large block will amplify your error so you should be able to check to a very high degree of accuracy.
 

jccaclimber

Hot Rolled
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Location
San Francisco
I didn’t read all the posts, this one nailed it.

Buy a .250 thick square gauge block, and set it on the part then check under the gauge block with an .0001 indicator mounted in a surface gauge. Elevate your part with a small rectangular gauge block so you can get under it with a needle. Or grind the bottom of your needle off.

You’ll want a gauge block with some weight so it doesn’t move as repeatability is a good thing. The large block will amplify your error so you should be able to check to a very high degree of accuracy.
Your described method produces parallelism of the highest 3 points, not flatness of the surface.
 

M. Roberts

Aluminum
Joined
May 11, 2021
Given the surface finish and small area, is checking this via an optical flat a viable option, or should i just cross this off the proverbial list?
 








 
Top