Qualification of CT data for areal surface texture analysis

  • Yann QuinsatEmail author
  • Jean Baptiste Guyon
  • Claire Lartigue


The evolution of current manufacturing processes, such as additive manufacturing processes, enables to produce parts with increasingly complex internal and external geometries, to answer functional requirements. This requires an evolution of the measurement methods to analyze the complete part produced. In this context, the use of computed tomography (CT) is increasing. Considering the problem of surface quality control, and also considering the cost of such a measuring system, it becomes necessary to evaluate the capability of tomography techniques to characterize surface geometry despite an inadequate resolution. To this end, the study proposed in this paper aims at assessing the quality of surface roughness characterization by CT in comparison with classical optical measure means. Special attention is given to thresholding, which is necessary to extract the surface from CT measurements, which are the basis to evaluate roughness parameters. An advanced analysis is also performed to bring out surface typologies that are more appropriate for CT measurements with poor resolution.


CT measurement Threshold Surface extraction Surface topography 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Nikon Measurement which provided a part of CT measurements. CT measurements at ENS Paris-Saclay has been financially supported by the French “Agence Nationale de la Recherche,” through the “Investissements d’avenir” program (ANR-10- EQPX-37 MATMECA Grant).


  1. 1.
    Aloisi V, Carmignato S (2016) Influence of surface roughness on X-ray computed tomography dimensional measurements of additive manufactured parts. Case Studies in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation 6:104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer C, Figueroa D (2016) Design and analysis of lattice structures for additive manufacturing. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng 138:121014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carmignato S, Dewulf W, Leach R (2018) Industrial X-ray computed tomography. Springer International Publishing, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiffre LD, Carmignato S, Kruth J-P, Schmitt R, Weckenmann A (2014) Industrial applications of computed tomography. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 63:655–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diaza M, Kimb KY, Yeomb S, Zhuangb L, Parkc S, Minc K-B (2017) Surface roughness characterization of open and closed rock joints in deep cores using X-ray computed tomography. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 98:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 25178-2 (2012) Geometrical product specifications (GPS) surface texture areal part 2: Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters, International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerckhofs G, Pyka G, Moesen M, Van Bael S, Schrooten J, Wevers M (2013) High-resolution microfocus X-ray computed tomography for 3D surface roughness measurements of additive manufactured porous materials. Adv Eng Mater 15:153–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowaluk T, Wozniak A (2017) A new threshold selection method for X-ray computed tomography for dimensional metrology. Precis Eng 50:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lebon N, Tapie L, Vennat E, Mawussi B (2015) Influence of CAD/CAM tool and material on tool wear and roughness of dental prostheses after milling. J Prosthet Dent 114:236–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorensen WE, Cline HE (1987) Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In: ACM siggraph computer graphicsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehdi-Souzani C, Quinsat Y, Lartigue C, Bourdet P (2016) A knowledge database of qualified digitizing systems for the selection of the best system according to the application. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 13:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moronia G, Petro S (2016) Impact of the Threshold on the Performance Verification of Computerized Tomography Scanners 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing (CAT). Procedia CIRP 43:345–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman TS, Yi H (2006) A survey of the marching cubes algorithm. Computers & Graphics 30:854–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Obrist AF, Flisch A, Hofmann J (2004) Point cloud reconstruction with sub-pixel accuracy by slice-adaptive thresholding of X-ray computed tomography images. NDT&E International 37:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pyka G, Kerckhofs G, Papantoniou I, Speirs M, Schrooten J, Wevers M (2013) Surface roughness and morphology customization of additive manufactured open porous Ti6Al4V structures. Materials 6:4737–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quinsat Y, Lartigue C, Brown CA, Hattali L (2016) Multi-scale surface characterization in additive manufacturing using CT. In: Lecture notes in mechanical engineering. Springer International Publishing, pp 271–280Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinsat Y, Lartigue C, Brown C, Hattali L (2017) Characterization of surface topography of 3D printed parts by multi-scale analysis. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing.
  19. 19.
    Senin N, Thompson A, Leach R (2017) Characterisation of the topography of metal additive surface features with different measurement technologies. Meas Sci Technol 27(28):095003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach R (2016) X-ray computed tomography for additive manufacturing: a review. Meas Sci Technol 27(7):072001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson A, Körner L, Senin N, Lawes S, Maskery I, Leach R (2017) Measurement of internal surfaces of additively manufactured parts by X-ray computed tomography, ICT 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Townsend A, Senin N, Blunt L, Leach RK, Taylor JS (2016) Surface texture metrology for metal additive manufacturing: a review. Precis Eng 46:34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torral M, Jimenez R, Yague-Fabra JA, Ontiveros S, Tosello G (2018) Comparison of surface extraction techniques performance in computed tomography for 3D complex micro-geometry dimensional measurements. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
  24. 24.
    Townsend A, Pagani L, Scott P, Blunt L (2017) Areal surface texture data extraction from X-ray computed tomography reconstructions of metal additively manufactured parts. Precis Eng 48:254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Townsend A, Pagani L, Blunt L, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2017) Factors affecting the accuracy of areal surface texture data extraction from X-ray CT. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 66:547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weckenmann A, Kramer P (2009) Application of computed tomography in manufacturing metrology. Technisches Messen 76(7–8):340–346Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Quinsat
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean Baptiste Guyon
    • 1
  • Claire Lartigue
    • 1
  1. 1.LURPA, ENS Paris-SaclayUniversity of Paris-Sud, Université Paris-SaclayCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations