A concept of using the V-block method for waviness deviation measurement of cylindrical parts

W artykule przedstawiono wyniki badań eksperymentalnych mających na celu weryfikację koncepcji zastosowania metody odniesieniowej do pomiaru odchyłek falistości powierzchni cylindrycznych w zakresie 16-50 UPR. Przeprowadzono badania porównawcze, polegające na ocenie odchyłki falistości wzorcowym przyrządem bazującym na metodzie bezodniesieniowej, a następnie za pomocą przyrządu opartego na metodzie odniesieniowej. Wyznaczono eksperymentalną dokładność metody odniesieniowej.Measurement of waviness deviation of large size cylindrical parts using a widespread measuring device based on the non-reference method is significantly stymied. For this reason a concept of the V-block method adaptation to waviness measurement of cylindrical parts in industrial conditions was developed. The paper presents the results of experimental research aiming at the verification of the concept of applying the V-block method to waviness deviation measurement of cylindrical surfaces in the range 16-50UPR. Section 5 presents the construction and the principle of operation of the model measuring device ROL-2 (Fig. 4) developed to perform the V-block waviness measurement. This measuring device is based on the three-point reference method. Section 2 describes the main features with advantages and disadvantages of the non-reference method known as the radial method (Fig. 2). Section 3 contains a short characteristic of the V-block method (Fig. 3). In Section 4 there is presented the procedure of experimental research performed to calculate the V-block experimental method accuracy. For this reason comparative investigations were performed. They consisted in evaluation of the waviness deviation using the standard non-reference measuring device Talyrond 365 (Fig. 5), and next using the tested device based on the V-block method. The results of the statistical verification of the V-block waviness measurement show that the experimental method accuracy equals about 28,1% (Table 1) in relation to the non-references method