Conceptual Design Review

1. Conceptual Design Review Senior Design 2004-2005

2. Overview • Material Flow • Remove cartridges from tray • Presentation of cartridges in front of camera • Inspect cartridge • Capture image of cartridge • Software Inspection • Future focus • Budget • Schedule

3. Material flow considerations • Minimal change in height desired from 500ct to 50ct tray • Minimize risk of incurring incidental and other defects while processing product • Cost of x-y positioning systems

4. Remove cartridges from tray • Gravity feed from 500ct tray • Freefall acceleration velocities are sufficient for 600parts/min requirement • How do we get them back up higher in elevation? • Vertical ascent out of 500ct tray • Vacuum and air blast alternatives considered • Air is readily available • Experimental results

5. Vertical ascent: Air jet and tube array • Remove cartridges from 500ct tray • 20 tube array, 1-D positioning system • 500ct tray gets positioned, tubes are stationary • Varied length tubes, cartridges arrive at different times • Ten cartridges pulsed every 1 second with an air jet array below the tubes

6. Where the tubes end • Cartridge queue • Accepts cartridges from feed tube • Advances cartridges to inspection area • Provides better advancement control than gravity feed tube

7. Presentation of cartridges in front of camera • Dropping • Contact Rolling • Single Roller • Multiple Roller

8. Dropping • Image: 3 images within one picture • Pros • Gravity is consistent and does work for us • Gravity produces proper orientation • Cons • Scaling issues, consistency in falling distance • Mirrors in place to give 360 degree view

9. Single Roller • Image: 3 images taken 120o apart • Pros • Consistent image in front of camera • Multiple parts within picture window • Cons • 3 images taken 120o apart cause long process time • High transfer rates, rotational and linear

10. Single Roller

11. Multiple Roller • Image: 1 unrolled image of entire cartridge • Pros • Consistent image in front of camera • Multiple parts within picture window • Cons • High transfer rates, rotational and linear • Complex apparatus

12. Multiple Roller

13. Lighting Options • Front lighting • Back lighting • Structured lighting

14. Things to Consider • Metallic reflective surface • Curved shape of case • Surface defects on case • Measurements of dimensions of entire bullet

15. Lighting Applications

16. Front lighting Light Sources Light Sources Brightfield illumination Darkfield illumination

17. Light Sources Shiny Object Omni-directional illumination Front lighting Light Sources Reflective surface Light Sources Diffused Front light

18. Back lighting Optical Diffuser Light Sources

19. Structured lighting

20. Lighting options for material flow

21. Schweitzer Inspection Systems • Led lighting configurations • Finding center of chip to place on boards • XY system for placing • Covering to protect from dust and pinch points • Mirrors not commonly for automated systems

22. Software Inspection • Three ways to use software to inspect bullets • Intensity • Edges • Shapes

23. Software Inspection • Intensity - Use multiple polygons to look for dark areas (flaws) on the cartridge surface. This sensor is looking for the amount of “white space” inside the red box

24. Software Inspection • Intensity • Pros • Easily detect major defects • Checks areas • Easily manipulate intensity values • Cons • Smaller sensors are better, but more work to make them • Hairline fractures can cause problems if intensity settings aren’t sensitive enough

25. Software Inspection Intensity Pass

26. Software Inspection Intensity Fail

27. Software Inspection • Edges - Use multiple sensors to look for edges (flaws) inside areas that are white on the cartridge surface. These sensors are looking for edges on the red lines

28. Software Inspection • Edges • Pros • Easily detect major defects • Checks for all edges • Easy to make multiple sensors in different places • Cons • Smaller sensors are better, but more work to make them • Hairline fractures can cause problems if edges are too far apart

29. Software Inspection Edge Pass

30. Software Inspection Edge Fail

31. Software Inspection • Shapes - Use a single or multiple sensors to look for “perfect” cartridges or parts of the cartridge. This sensor is looking for the “white” shapes on the cartridge

32. Software Inspection • Shapes • Pros • Easily detect major defects • Checks for all white “blobs” larger than a specified size. • Cons • Smaller sensors are better, but more work and more processing time • Smaller defects including hairline fractures and small dents are difficult to see

33. Software Inspection Shape Pass

34. Software Inspection Shape Fail

35. Other Ideas • Gage Wheel • 50-ct Tray Package Machine

36. Gage Wheel Pros • Gages parts for proper diameter • Outputs bad parts to separate bin • Produces timing interval between parts Cons • Limited to one type of defect • Allows minor defective parts to pass

37. Gage Wheel

38. 50-ct Tray Package Machine • Existing Prototype to be utilized for project • Electromechanical device that can be controlled by camera processor • Built for existing tray configuration

39. 50-ct Tray Packaging

40. Future Focus • Phase 1: Focus on successful inspection • Part orientation • Falling • Lighting • Combination of front and back lighting • Software inspection • Combination of intensity and edge sensors

41. Falling with current camera Pros Simple mechanical design Utilization of gravity Cons Complex use of mirrors and lighting Processor intensive Falling with additional cameras Pros Less processor intensive Eliminates mirrors Cons Money Camera communication Part Orientation

42. Lighting • Combination of front lighting and back lighting • Pro • Cheaper • Works well with dropping • Cons • Hard to adjust • Reflection

43. Software • Combination of intensity and edge sensors • Pros • Both sensors work well on different sections of the cartridge • Inspects entire cartridge • Cons • Multiple sensors • Increased processing time

44. Phase 1 Budget • Expected expenses • Materials • Controls • Motors • Microcontroller • Lighting • Expected date for budget approximation • December 6, 2004

45. Short Term Schedule • Experiment (to be completed by December 3rd) • Take pictures • Different lighting • Different transfer methods • Detect defects • Implement different sensors • Minimize processing time • Deliverables (December 17th) • Preliminary design of phase 1

46. Questions