Advertisement

Evaluation of a multi-sensor horizontal dual arm Coordinate Measuring Machine for automotive dimensional inspection

  • Glen A. TurleyEmail author
  • Ercihan Kiraci
  • Alan Olifent
  • Alex Attridge
  • Manoj K. Tiwari
  • Mark A. Williams
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Multi-sensor coordinate measuring machines (CMM) have a potential performance advantage over existing CMM systems by offering the accuracy of a touch trigger probe with the speed of a laser scanner. Before these systems can be used, it is important that both random and systematic errors are evaluated within the context of its intended application. At present, the performance of a multi-sensor CMM, particularly of the laser scanner, has not been evaluated within an automotive environment. This study used a full-scale CNC machined physical representation of a sheet metal vehicle body to evaluate the measurement agreement and repeatability of critical surface points using a multi-sensor horizontal dual arm CMM. It was found that there were errors between CMM arms and with regard to part coordinate frame construction when using the different probing systems. However, the most significant effect upon measurement error was the spatial location of the surface feature. Therefore, for each feature on an automotive assembly, measurement agreement and repeatability has to be individually determined to access its acceptability for measurement with a laser scanner to improve CMM utilisation, or whether the accuracy of a touch trigger probe is required.

Keywords

CMM Laser scanner Measurement systems assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zhao H, Kruth J-P, Van Gestel N, Boeckmans B, Bleys P (2012) Automated dimensional inspection planning using the combination of laser scanner and tactile probe. Measurement 45:1057–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martínez S, Cuesta E, Barreiro J, Álvarez B (2010) Analysis of laser scanning and strategies for dimensional and geometrical control. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muralikrishnan B, Ren W, Stanfield E, Everett D, Zheng A, Doiron T (2013) Applications of profile filtering in the dimensional metrology of fuel cell plates. Meas Sci Technol 24. doi: 10.1088/0957-0233/24/6/065003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bešić I, Van Gestel N, Kruth J-P, Bleys P (2011) Accuracy improvements of laser line scanning for feature measurements on CMM. Opt Lasers Eng 49:1274–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martínez S, Cuesta E, Barreiro J, Álvarez B (2010) Methodology for comparison of laser digitizing versus contact systems in dimensional control. Opt Lasers Eng 48:1238–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feng H-Y, Liu Y, Xi F (2001) Analysis of digitizing errors of a laser scanning system. Precis Eng 25:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isheil A, Gonnet J-P, Joannic D, Fontaine J-F (2011) Systematic error correction of a 3D laser scanning measurement device. Opt Lasers Eng 49:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kiraci E, Attridge A, Williams MA (2012) The use of laser scanning technology to improve the design process. Appl Mech Mater 110:4188–4122Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abenhaim GN, Desrochers A, Tahan A (2012) Nonrigid parts’ specification and inspection methods: notions, challenges, and recent advancements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63:741–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahmud M, Joannic D, Roy M, Isheil A, Fontaine J-F (2011) 3D part inspection path planning of a laser scanner with control on uncertainty. Comput Aided Design 43:345–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weckenmann A, Jiang X, Sommer KD, Neuschaefer-Rube U, Seewig J, Shaw L, Estler T (2009) Multisensor data fusion in dimensional metrology. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 58:701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuesta E, Carlos Rico J, Fernández P, Blanco D, Valiño G (2009) Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shakarji CM (2012) Coordinate measurement system algorithms and filters. In: Hocken R J, Pereira PH (eds) Coordinate measuring machines and systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 153–182Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weckenmann A, Estler T, Peggs G, McMurty D (2004) Probing systems in dimensional metrology. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 54:657–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Contri A, Bourdet P, Lartigue C (2002) Quality of 3D digitised points obtained with non-contact optical sensors. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 51:443–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vukašinović N, Bračun D, Možina J (2010) The influence of incident angle, object colour and distance on CNC laser scanning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Gestel N, Cuypers S, Bleys P, Kruth J-P (2009) A performance evaluation test for laser line scanners on CMMs. Opt Lasers Eng 47:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muralikrishnan B, Ren W, Everett D, Stanfield E, Doiron T (2012) Performance evaluation experiments on a laser spot triangulation probe. Measurement 45:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vukašinović N, Bračun D, Možina J, Duhovnik (2012) A new method for defining the measurement-uncertainty model of CNC laser-triangulation scanner. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58:1097–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vezzetti E (2009) Computer aided inspection: design of customer-orientated benchmark for noncontact 3D scanner evaluation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:1140–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vukašinović N, Možina J, Duhovnik (2012) Correlation between incident angle, measurement distance, object colour and the number of acquired points at CNC Laser Scanning. Stroj Vestn-J Mech E 58:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    British Standards Institution (2009) BS EN ISO 10360-2:2009—Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM)–Part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions, London, BSIGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Attridge A, Williams M, Tennant C (2005) Achieving craftsmanship targets across the UK automotive supply base, through the use of quality maturation tools and processes. In: Proceedings of the SAE 2005 world congress. DetroitGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Attridge A, Williams MA, Tennant C (2007) The role of physical modelling in the design verification stage of the automotive NPI process in the premium sector. Int J Automot Tech Manag 7:32–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Turley GA, Williams MA, Tennant C (2007) Final vehicle product audit methodologies within the automotive industry. Int J Prod Qual Manag 2:1–22Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirkup L, Frenkel RB (2006) An introduction to uncertainty in measurement using the GUM (Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pereira PH (2012) Cartesian coordinate measuring machines. In: Hocken RJ, Pereira PH (eds) Coordinate measuring machines and systems 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 5779Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen A. Turley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ercihan Kiraci
    • 1
  • Alan Olifent
    • 2
  • Alex Attridge
    • 1
  • Manoj K. Tiwari
    • 3
  • Mark A. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.WMG, The University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Jaguar Land Rover LimitedCoventryUK
  3. 3.Indian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations