Measurement uncertainty evaluation model in radial composite gear inspection

Pueo, M.; Acero, R.; Lope, M.A.; Santolaria, Jorge

doi:10.1016/j.precisioneng.2019.07.015

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it does not show any expression for applying the uncertainty budget method according to Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) guidelines [32]. Therefore, two expressions have recently been developed following this method for the estimation of uncertainty of a single-flank [33] and double-flank worm gear rolling machine [34]. This method could be further extended to the development of new gear rolling test equipment after the identification of critical design points.…”

Section: Rolling Test Measurement Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this purpose, both straightness errors and rotation errors have been evaluated. Finally, the residual values of the corrections applied together with the guides geometric errors due to the displacement of the different elements, are included as sources of error in the measurement uncertainty budget [33][34][35]. Figure 3 shows a summary of the procedure followed for each measuring instrument.…”

Section: Error Modelling and Calibration Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Sensors Calibration in Worm Gear Rolling Testers

Pueo

Acero

Gracia

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ISO standard regulating gear-rolling measurement does not specify in detail the calibration and verification procedures for this type of equipment. This may be one of the reasons for the lack of reproducibility in these rolling tests. The uncertainty budget method, which is the most appropriate way to know the accuracy of this dynamic measurement, shows that the measuring sensors’ accuracy is only a part of the total measurement process uncertainty. In this work, a new calibration and verification procedure for a worm gear rolling tester is presented, based on machine tool, coordinate measuring machine and gear measuring instruments’ calibration techniques. After compensating numerically for the measuring instruments, it has been evaluated how the error components of each movement affect the meshing point, a fundamental factor to ensure a good gear transmission. The study shows that there are unintentional position variations, not detected by the measuring sensors, that have to be identified and quantified in the calibration for their later inclusion in the uncertainty budget. In this way, the measurement uncertainty could be reduced, and thus improve the reproducibility of these testers, as a preliminary stage to the development of optimized rolling measurement equipment to solve current limitations.

show abstract

Section: Rolling Test Measurement Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Error Modelling and Calibration Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Sensors Calibration in Worm Gear Rolling Testers

Pueo

Acero

Gracia

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in the results of machine calibration, non-numerically compensated errors appear involving unexpected variations in the nominal centre distance, in the height and in the perpendicularity between the axes. These do not necessarily affect the rolling parameters equally, having a different influence on the uncertainty of measurement [16,17]. For example, a lack of perpendicularity is equivalent to errors in the helix hobbing angle that change the functional tooth thickness.…”

Section: Experimental Sensitivity Coefficientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Uncertainty budget for worm gear single or double-flank gear rolling tests could be structured according to equation (1). It gives an expression for the expanded uncertainty U95 considering a coverage factor, k=2 for the 95% confidence interval [16,17]. The following terms are accounted in the uncertainty expression: (i) the tester initial calibration (u0); (ii) the movements of the master worm and worm gear holder carriages from the calibration point to the test execution centre distance (ucd) and height (uh) respectively; (iii) the assembling of the gears (ugear); (iv) the test performance (utest).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%