{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Finding Common Ground for Measurement Disagreement

ASME B46.1-2019 for surface texture provides a starting point to help everyone agree on results

The ASME B46.1-2019 standard provides the building blocks for measuring and communicating surface texture. Image: “Reflection in black tiles.” Credit: annapolis_rose.

George Schuetz
Tue, 10/01/2024 - 12:02
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

When we think about making a simple measurement, such as an outside diameter, many methods can be used. These would include calipers, micrometers, mechanical snap gauges, air snaps, CMMs, and special fixture gauges, just to mention a few.

ADVERTISEMENT

The problem with all these methods is that, while each is good in its own right, there may be a bias seen among them. Each method has some slight variations that can cause differences in results. It may be different gauging force, different process methods (such as the difference between contact and air gauging), or different measuring techniques, such as a CMM doing average diameters as opposed to a caliper using two-point measurements.

So, with all these techniques and potential pitfalls, how do you account for multiple measurements to be made by different personnel, in either the same or different locations, and then agree on the results? The bottom line is, you don’t. The only correct way is to determine an agreed-upon method for making the measurement and ensure that each location follows the same process.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us