Abstract

In this work a comparison of different techniques to capture nominal data for its use in later verification and kinematic parameter identification procedures for articulated arm coordinate measuring machines (AACMM) is presented. By using four different probing systems (passive spherical probe, active spherical probe, self‐centering passive probe and self‐centering active probe) the accuracy and repeatability of captured points has been evaluated. The nominal points are materialized by a ball‐bar gauge distributed in several positions of the measurement volume. By comparing these systems it is possible to characterize the influence of the force over the final results for each of the gauge and probing system configurations. The results with each of the systems studied show the advantages and original accuracy obtained by active probes, and thus their suitability in verification (active probes) and kinematic parameter identification (self‐centering active probes) procedures.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.