The influence of the measuring device error on the consumer’s and manufacturer’s risks was studied for three cases of the organization of completing: complete interchangeability, selective completing and completing with ranking. The presence of measurement error does not allow to avoid risks; however, their values must be estimated so that they do not have a significant impact on manufactured products. The study was carried out for a “shaft-hole” connection by statistical modeling, the laws of dimension distribution were accepted as normal, as well as the laws of distribution of measurement errors. For the case of completing with complete interchangeability, the accuracy of two-stage control was studied; it is recommended to establish the accuracy of the initial measurements at 20–25 % of the tolerance field, repeated measurements at 10–12 % of the tolerance field, while the manufacturer’s risk does not exceed 0.2 %, the consumer’s risk is practically zero. In the case of selective completing, the requirements for the accuracy of the measuring device are significantly higher than in the case of completing with complete interchangeability, since errors are possible not only at the limits of the tolerance field but also at the limits of the selection groups. Therefore, the measurement error should not exceed 5 % of the tolerance field width; it is also advisable to limit the number of selection groups. When completing with ranking, the accuracy of the measuring device has the least impact on risks, especially if the number of parts in the batch is large enough and the measurement error complies with the standards in mechanical engineering. It was established that for the number of sets greater than 10, almost complete assemblability is achieved and the risks associated with the measurement error become insignificant. Thus, if it is necessary to increase the accuracy of products at the assembly stage, it is recommended to use completing with ranking instead of selective completing.
[1] A. V. Kupriyanov, and N. Y. Lamnauer, “Metody komplektovaniya detaley na osnove ranzhirovaniya dlya umen'sheniya dopuska zamykayushchego zvena razmernoy tsepi” [“Methods of completing parts based on ranking to reduce the tolerance of the end link of the dimensional chain”], Systemy obrobky informatsiyi [Information processing systems], vol. 8 (89), pp. 58–61, 2010. [in Russian].
[2] A. V. Kupriyanov, “Ispol'zovaniye metodov komplektovaniya na osnove ranzhirovaniya dlya mnogozvennoy razmernoy tsepi” [“Using ranking-based picking methods for a multi-link dimensional chain”], Prohresyvni tekhnolohiyi i systemy mashynobuduvannya [Advanced technologies and systems of mechanical engineering], vol. 1, 2 (44), pp. 123–127, 2012. [in Russian].
[3] A. Sramek, and R. Jankovych, “Accuracy of measurement in nanometrology”, Modern Machinery, vol. 12, pp. 1643–1647, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17973/MMSJ.2016_12_2016203
[4] B. B. Dynaev, Tochnost' izmereniy pri kontrole kachestva [Measurement Accuracy at Quality Control]. Kyiv, Ukraine: Tekhnika Publ., 1981. [in Russian].
[5] D. K. Moru, and D. Borro, “A machine vision algorithm for quality control inspection of gears”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 106, pp. 105–123, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04426-2
[6] Douglas O. J. deSa, Instrumentation Fundamentals for Process Control. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2001.
[7] D. Blanco, G. Valino, P. Fernandez, C. Rico, and S. Mateos, “Influence of part material and sensor adjustment on the quality of digitised point-clouds using conoscopic holography”, Precision Engineering, vol. 42, pp. 42–52, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precisioneng.2015.03.008
[8] K. Ostrowska, A. Gaska, and J. Sladek, “Determining the uncertainty of measurement with the use of a Virtual Coordinate Measuring Arm”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 71, pp. 529–537, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5486-8
[9] R. Aston, J. Davis, and K. Stout, “A probing question: A customer's investigation into the directional variability of a coordinate measuring machine touch trigger probe”, International journal of machine tools & manufacture, vol. 10 (37), pp. 1375–1382, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-6955(97)00011-4