Smart questions

Smart answers
Smart people
• Join
• Directory
Go
• Search
Go • Tell A Friend
• Whitepapers

• Jobs

INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS Home > Forums > Engineering Methods > Engineering Methods > Drafting
FOR ENGINEERING Standards, GD&T & Tolerance Analysis Forum
PROFESSIONALS
Member Login
concentricity vs. the cmm (concentricity is
HANDLE evil)
thread1103-184185
Foru Searc FAQ Link Job Whitepape Forum MV
m h s s s rs Ps
PASSWORD
joebk (Mechanical) 13 Apr 07 Back To Forum
14:49 Back To Drafting Standards, GD&T &
Remember Me
Tolerance Analysis
Forgot Password? I have been arguing with the QA folks
Join Us! about what the ASME Y14.5M-1994
Come Join Us! standard calls concentricity and what they
Are you a are checking.
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now! As far as I am concerned if concenctricity
is called out between two cylindrical
• Talk With Other features, the median points of all
Members correspondingly located elements have to
• Be Notified Of fall within the cylindrical tolerance zone
Responses (more or less taken straight from the ASME
To Your Posts
standard). So if concentricity is specified,
• Keyword Search
the median points of the entire surface in
• One-Click Access To question must be generated and compared
Your
Favorite Forums to the datum axis to ensure they all fall
• Automated Signatures
within the tolerance zone (as I understand
On Your Posts it).
• Best Of All, It's Free!
The issue is that our QA folks seem to have
a different definition for concentricity (note
E-mail* that company policy is ASME Y14.5M-1994
as is stated on our drawings). When they
Handle check it on the CMM, they only check it
from circle to circle in a single cross
section and not over the entire surface. To
Password make matters worse, the manual for the
 CMM software actually states "Use only a
Verify P'word
circle or arc. Concentricity tolerances do
not apply to other types of features" i.e.
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on
members receiving e-mail. By joining
cylinders. The software gives an error
you are opting in to receive e-mail. when attempts are made to check
Partner With Us! concentricity using cylinders.
"Best Of Breed" Forums Add
Stickiness To Your Site Now it has degenerated to "this is the way
we have always done it and this is the way
everyone in quality control checks
concentricity". I hate statements like that
unless there is something backing it up,
(Download This Button Today!) but I also know how hard it is to change
Member Feedback things like this in manufacturing.
"...I've learned more from your
forums in 3 days than 3 months The problem is that the part rotates at high
at school and on the job speed - balance is an issue - and our
combined..." customer is having problems (and is
More...
disputing our concentricity methodology).
Geography
Where in the world do Eng-Tips Please don't get me wrong, I am not in
members come from? love with concentricity - far from it. It is a
Click Here To Find Out!
royal pain and in my humble opinion is
Partners rarely (if ever) needed and is confusing
A to Z of Materials and this particular case is no exception.
Engineering Search Engine The surfaces should most likely be
ENGINEERING.com
eFunda
controlled by either runout or total runout
Eng-Tips Forums (maybe a combination of the two) and a
balance spec should be added to the
drawing.

So am I way off base or what? Has anyone

ever had to deal with concentricity and QA
procedures / CMM limitations? I am
probably going to change the drawing as
indicated above but any guidance or
experience with similar situations would be
appreciated. Sorry for the rant and thanks
for your patience.

JBK PE
TheTick (Mechanical) 13 Apr 07
15:22
Maybe use runout? Usually folks specify
concentricity when runout will do.

Honesty may be the best policy, but

insanity is a better defense.
http://www.EsoxRepublic.com-SolidWorks
API VB programming help
sbozy25 (Mechanical) 13 Apr 07
16:03
Yeah runout should suffice nicely.

The problem you are having with the CMM

is a common one. The way they like to do
it is create your two circles and generate
an artificial cylindrical zone. There logic is
that if the two ends are good, the whole
part is good. Well as we all know that is
not the case. If you change it to runout
they will be able to use a dial indicator
instead of a CMM. Everyone wins.
dingy2 (Mechanical) 13 Apr 07
17:12
You really didn't state the full definition of
concentricity. Yes, it is median points of
diametrically opposed elements and that is
pretty hard to do on a CMM. I am talking
about the diametrically opposed elements
part. Having a pimple on one side and a
flat on the other really shifts the median
point. Roundness of the feature is now
involved.

I bet that the guys in QA are taking many

points on the datum to create a centre
line. They are also taking many points on
the feature in 1 slice perpendicular to the
axis and then finding the centre of the
feature and compare centre line.

Concentricity can be taken on any slice of

the feature perpendicular to the axis. If QA
people checked in a couple of areas
(slices) on the feature, they should report
the worst case.

That is NOT concentricity but positional in

a RFS mode. They did not take median
points from diametrical opposed elements
and, frankly, they probably can't.

Change the concentricity to circular runout

and it should be relatively easy to do but
circular runout cannot be performed on a
CMM. It should be confirmed with a divider
head (chuck) on a granite table with a
digital indicator and stand. Yup - no CMM
here.

If it is required to check the full feature

since balance is important, then use total
runout.

What they are doing in QA is the best they

can do. Here is something else one could
do. If you see a concentricty call out of
diametrical tolerance zone of 0.4 mm., it
means that the median point(s) cannot be
off centre over 0.2 mm. They could
change this to a circular runout of 0.4 and
it would be about a close as one will get
but not perfect. We still didn't get
diametrically opposed elements.

I wish that ALL Designers would replace

concentricity with circular runout. You
achieve what you want and it can be
confirmed correctly.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca
powerhound (Mechanical) 16 Apr 07
0:25
I've had numerous dealings with
concentricity vs. position or runout, etc.
and one thread on this page caused me to
delve more into it and from what I've
learned, there is no substitute for
concentricity when balance at high RPM is
a factor. I'll have to give more thought to
what Dave said about circular runout being
sufficient. I may have just learned
something new.
Personally, I have never, in 18 years of
being a machinist, CNC Programmer, and
Draftsman (mostly all at the same time),
seen a case where concentricity was called
out appropriately. Every time I've seen it, it
was because the designer wanted the
features to be "concentric". Position or
Runout has always been the more
appropriate callout. The concept of Actual
Mating Envelope is foreign to those who
think that GD&T is simply knowing what
the symbols mean.
To sum this up joebk, your customer is
correct to dispute your QC's method.
Try this:
Concentricity is called out with respect to a
datum axis, so use the CMM to create the
datum axis through your datum feature.
Now, touch off one wall of your feature
being controlled and then again at another
point 180 degrees revolved around the
datum axis. The center of those two points
should fall within your diametric tolerance
zone. This procedure is repeated however
many times your QC department personnel
see fit. The points should not be taken
along the same plane or Z level every
time. Every median point between the 2
touch offs at 180 degrees separation
should fall within the tolerance zone.
Your customer seems to be one of the
few that actually knows what concentricity
really means (probably because of their
application) and your QC department is
probably typical of most. You have the
right idea regarding the true meaning of
concentricity but I don't know how much
I'd argue with QC. In my experience, they
are the "know all to end all".

Powerhound
Production Supervisor
Inventor 11
Mastercam X
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
434343434342 16 Apr 07
(Aerospace) 13:40
How about a CMM with a scanning probe?
What is an acceptable point sampling
density required for runout or circularity?
dingy2 (Mechanical) 16 Apr 07
15:52
43::

Scanning probes are great for profiles,

cylindricity, flatness and wild curves. As far
as circular or total runout ----mmmmmm. A
divider head (chuck) and an indicator are
best but still tricky to do.

Powerhound:

Looking at your experience as a Machinist,

performing (circular or total) runout with a
divider head and indicator would entail
infinite number of contacts around the
feature. While the method you used for
concentricity is correct, we would not
achieve infinite contact as we would with
the runouts.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca
powerhound (Mechanical) 16 Apr 07
20:07
Dave,
I understand that point completely and I
believe it actually exposes an inherent flaw
in the concentricity callout. Obviously,
touching an infinite number of points is
unfeasible and probably unnecessary. I
didn't mean to imply that that was what
needed to happen, but where the
customer wants concentricity checked as
correctly as possible, that's where it starts.
The actual number of points acquired
would be an issue between QC and the
customer.
As I've pondered the circular runout vs.
concentricity issue, I think the biggest
difference between the two is that runout
controls form while concentricity doesn't.
That may be moot but there may be some
use somewhere out there in fantasy land
for controlling centerlines without
controlling form.
I sure hope this isn't a hijacking...I don't
mean for it to be.

Powerhound
Production Supervisor
Inventor 11
Mastercam X
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II
joebk (Mechanical) 17 Apr 07
9:08
Thanks for all of the feedback everyone!

The situation is crazy because our

customer calls out concentricity at TIR on
the drawing!? So in my opinion they are
actually asking for total runout. When they
discuss this with us, they are quoting
numbers for "full indicator movement". So
much for concentricity. Sorry, I should
have mentioned this from the get-go.

Our QA department checks concentricity

by comparing the center of two circles (on
the CMM) and nothing more. They have
refused to even entertain any other
method so I think this is going up the food
chain. I think it is tough to be 2D in a 3D
world.

I have to admit that I tend to be relatively

pig-headed on stuff like this, so I think QA
and engineering are not so different. The
key in our case is that we define the ASME
standard as the controlling standard for
GD&T but our QA folks tend to ignore the
standard and operate under historical
practice (i.e. "this is the way we have
always done it"). So as an engineer, I can't
be certain that what I have put on a
drawing is what is being produced. This is
the real problem.

You did hit the nail on the head, when we

have a customer who is knowledgeable on
the ASME Y14.5 standard, this could really
bite us.

Since I am fortunate enough to be able to

make some decisions I have decided to
outlaw concentricity (and symmetry for
that matter) for any drawings produced by
our engineering department.

If we have to use a customer drawing that

includes concentricity, it is now our policy
to discuss the specification with the
customer so that we understand exactly
what is meant on the drawing.

I agree that concentricity is most

appropriate when balance is an issue but it
is so misunderstood that I think it is better
left off drawings. I have seen drawings of
sheet metal parts with concentricity on
them, I assume to maintain alignment
between two holes. This is nonsense.

Since we have the means to dynamically

balance these parts, the drawings are to
include balance notes when balance is an
issue. So balance is controlled by the
balancing process and form/size/etc are
controlled by
dimensions/tolerances/notes/etc.

The drawing in question has been changed

to replace concentricity with total runout
and a balance note has been added. I think
this has cleared up the concentricity issue
(at least for a little while).

The customer seems happy with this, and

that is really the most important thing.

Out of the strain of doing, and into the

peace of the done!

JBK PE (and all around pain in the butt)

PaulJackson 26 May 07
(Automotive) 9:17

Since so many are disenchanted with the

current definition and proper measurement
of ASME concentricity, I thought that I
would throw my two cents in on substitute
callout considerations.

Concentricity as defined in the 1982

standard and prior controlled the “central
tendency” of a feature without
constraining its form to a…circle, cylinder,
or any other symmetrically circumferential
surface! Its functional use could control the
location of the multi-lobbed cam surface
on the distributor shaft that fired the
points on my 67 Camero RS and without
skipping a beat it could tolerance the
location of the odd-toothed driven gear at
the opposite end. My point (pardon the
puns) is that Concentricity WAS not EVIL
for those that applied it to ODD shapes. Its
shortcoming was in the definition of how
that measurement of concentricity was
accomplished.

The new definition of concentricity in ASME

Y14.5M-1994 (codified in the mathematical
definition of Y14.5, Y14.5.1) attempts to do
the same thing but falls short in the ODD
shapes department. By tolerancing median
points of diametrically opposed elements
of the surface can be any size and shape,
so long as it is uniform, so long as it is
central “having median points within the
zone” and since 1994 so long as its
uniform shape is divisible by an even
number.

I’ll agree with others that recommend

position RFS is probably the best substitute
for most applications of concentricity but
the choice should be driven primarily by
the feature’s functional liabilities to
variation. Where a feature’s form is
circular or cylindrical without interruption
and form is equally important as location I
would say that runout or total runout
should have been specified originally but if
the shape is not continuously circular or its
shape is not as important as the “central
tendency” then runout is not a functional
choice.

Position RFS carries with it baggage as well

that doesn’t reflect the liberties that
concentricity originally entitled. Figuring
the axis or median planes of a true
geometric counterpart reflects contact
with the surface only at its extremities.
True geometric counterparts don’t have to
be round or cylindrical they can reflect any
specified geometric shape but in order to
construct that true geometric counterpart
one would have to assume the feature’s
specified form constraints independent of
size. Form restrictions and extremity
location are characteristics that neither the
new nor old definition of concentricity
includes.

So what is the best substitute for the “evil”

concentricity? That depends, sometimes
there is no better substitute, sometimes
runout, and sometimes position RFS. If the
standards guys would have left it alone
last time then what the inspectors typically
do to check both position RFS and
concentricity with a CMM (a circular least
squares regression) would still be the best
estimate for both with that instrument.

Paul F. Jackson

TheTick (Mechanical) 30 May 07

13:28
I went through this with a client a couple
months ago. They put concentricity on a
drawing. I changed it to runout and
explained why. They changed it back to
concentricity, then wrote a special work
instruction explaining how concentricity
was to be measured. The explanation was
a near-textbook measurement of runout!

PaulJackson 3 Jun 07
(Automotive) 16:38

Tick, What exactly was their special work

instruction?

joebk (Mechanical) 4 Jun 07

12:20
I have basically the same problem.
Customer calls out concentricity at FIM.
When customer inspects, our part is placed
on a mandrel between centers and
rotated. An indicator placed on the surface
in question is monitored for FIM, this
reading is used to qualify this feature. So it
is circular runout.

We can deal with differences between the

standard and what the customer wants but
the problem is that on their drawing they
invoke the ASME Y14.5-1994 standard (we
do as well). In addition, in emails to us
they refer to the standard and the
definition for concentricity (they do state
the definition for concentricity correctly to
the standard).

The worst part - our customer is rejecting

parts because they do not conform to the
runout/concentricity specification and
nobody is willing to change to runout to
more accurately reflect what is expected.

Our QA department inspects position at

RFS on the CMM and refuses to inspect
runout - this is not an exaggeration. QA is
also hotly debating the definition of
concentricity stating "this is the way we
have always done it, why change now?".
They are currently in a pissing contest with
our customer concerning this issue. It is
nuts.

Our sales and manufacturing departments

are big time against runout because they
know we cannot produce parts that meet
the customer's spec using current
manufacturing methods (without
increasing the cost of the part).

So I stuck between a rock and a hard

place, it is a no-win situation. Mainly
because of confusion in regards to
concentricity and a lot of bad decisions
and flawed logic.

I proposed changing the drawing to runout

and increasing the price to compensate for
increased costs but this is not acceptable.
So we continue without resolution.
TheTick (Mechanical) 4 Jun 07
13:18
PaulJackson:
per what joebk said
dingy2 (Mechanical) 4 Jun 07
16:11
The QA department is checking positional
in RFS rather than runout. Runout cannot
be checked on CMM but, as I stated before,
in a divider head.

What you describe from the customer is

definitely circular runout.

Good luck in your rock and a hard place.

Been there, done that and don't like it.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

PaulJackson 4 Jun 07
(Automotive) 19:07

Tick, I understand and agree that your

customer is describing runout when their
"special work instruction" says to do “full
indicator movement” as joebk replied. I
was just curious, since the thread is titled
"Concentricity vs. CMM...,” what their
"special work instruction" for concentricity
using the CMM actually was.

Where I do agree that doing the ASME …

1994 estimation of concentricity on a CMM
is difficult because the midpoints must be
derived from diametrically opposed points
on the surface from the DRF axis, both
runout and total runout can be estimated
fairly well on a CMM. It’s done all the time.
So long as the software is written (or the
programmer writes the routine) to
examine the difference between the
minimum and maximum radius values
from the surface points in each
perpendicular cross-section for runout, or
between the Min/Max radii from all cross-
sections for total runout. Naturally as the
number of points examined increases the
estimate improves.

I doubt that any of the modern CMM

software uses the doubled differences
between the resolved centroids of the
“best-fit” circles and the DRF axis to
estimate runout as is done with position
RFS. That routine assumes that the surface
is round! Some of the best software with
DCC driven axes and scanning probes use
continuous circirlar or spiral scans with
thousands of points to estimate runout and
total runout respectively.

Dingy2, I have to disagree with you that

runout or total runout cannot be estimated
using a CMM. As with all inspections and
inspection equipment assumptions are
made and error exists. Chucks are
assumed to be oriented and located
coaxial with the bearing surfaces…they are
not. Mag surfaces are assumed to be
square with bearing axes … they are
not. You pay for what you get with bearing
accuracy… roundness machines have air-
bearing and swash-plate tables that
generally provide the best precision and
accuracy but seldom is that kind of
precision required for runout checks.
Inspection from centers is usually the
cheapest and most repeatable way to
check runout but assumptions are made
that the adjacent journals that were
ground from those centers are coaxial with
them …they are not.

You can say that there is greater error in

establishing an axis from geometric form
regression equations applied to datum
feature surfaces on a CMM but one always
has to pay attention to the margin of their
assumptions in relation to the tolerance
specified. Volumetric accuracy, apparent
datum feature form errors, point
saturation, and tangent contact error of
datum features as well as spindle
accuracy, physical tooling
orientations/locations, instrument rigidity,
and trace abbreviations all have to be
“checked at the door” to make reliable
measurement estimations. No matter
whether the measurement is accomplished
with physical observations relative to
artifacts or mathematical assumptions
applied to data gathered from artifacts,
inspection involves uncertainty. One is not
better than the other they are just result in
better estimations in the hands of skilled
inspectors!

Paul F. Jackson

dingy2 (Mechanical) 5 Jun 07 8:53

Paul Jackson:

The word "cannot" that I used is too

conclusive when expressing that the two
(2) runouts cannot be checked on CMM.
We can check anything with anything but
it is the amount of error that we
experience. I call this confidence in the
outcome. Both the divider head and the
CMM have error built in and then we have
skill and repeatability/reproducibility.

The software that you expressed sounds

wonderful but most companies have only
limited scanning capabilities, if any, on
their CMM. Some older CMMs still around
do not even have computer capabilities.

Both circular and total runout are

conducive to small cylindrical features that
share the same centres and are best
checked on a divider head or chuck.

I really don't want you to influence

Designers that they should use the runout
everywhere.

I remember one Customer who used

circular runout on a counter bore relative
to the bore. I knew the CMM Operator
would have a problem so I asked the lady
how she confirmed the requirement. She
said that she didn't. Here, the more
appropriate geometrical symbol should
have been positional at MMC relative to
the datum at MMC. A checking fixture
would have been ideal.

Dave D.
www.qmsi.ca

PaulJackson 5 Jun 07
(Automotive) 10:20

Thanks for the advice Dave.

In response to:
I really don't want you to influence
 Designers that they should use the runout
everywhere.

One of the Y14.5 committee members

asked, Should designers consider
inspection methods? I responded...
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Y
14-5_User_Group/message/1014

Paul
Start A New Thread
Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-
only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Promoting, selling, recruiting and

student posting
are not allowed in the forums.
Posting Policies
LINK TO THIS FORUM!
(Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This
Professionally Managed Technical Forum)
TITLE: Drafting Standards, GD&T &
Tolerance Analysis Forum at Eng-Tips
URL: http://www.eng-
tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=1103
DESCRIPTION: Drafting Standards, GD&T
& Tolerance Analysis technical support
forum and mutual help system for
engineering professionals. Selling and
recruiting forbidden.

Join | Jobs | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Site Policies

Copyright © 1998-2011 Tecumseh Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Unauthorized reproduction or linking forbidden without express written permission.