Reconfigurable inspection machine rim
Download
1 / 26

Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM). Overview. The RIM and the inspection methodology What can the RIM measure and how? Comparison of measurement results Conclusion and future work. Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM). Engine cylinder head. Vision system. Laser probes.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM)' - grazia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Overview
Overview

  • The RIM and the inspection methodology

  • What can the RIM measure and how?

  • Comparison of measurement results

  • Conclusion and future work

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Reconfigurable inspection machine rim1
Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM)

Engine cylinder head

Vision system

Laser probes

Slide system

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


General measurement capabilities of the rim
General Measurement Capabilities of the RIM

  • Dimensional:

  • Distance between edges, between surfaces or between holes

  • Dimensions of holes and inclination angles of chamfers

  • Geometrical:

  • Flatness of surfaces

  • Parallelism between surfaces

  • Surface Texture:

  • Porosity defects on a surface

  • Surface roughness (ongoing research)

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Rim and conventional cmm measurements differ why
RIM and Conventional CMM Measurements Differ. Why?

  • Different measurements due to contact probe radius.

  • Different point densities.

  • Different flatness calculation algorithms.

  • Device dependant characteristics.

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Interpretation is required for contact probe why
Interpretation Is Required for Contact Probe. Why?

Interpreted measurement point

Actual surface point

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


The virtual ball algorithm
The “Virtual Ball” Algorithm

Interpreted height:

Ball contact point

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Measurement example with virtual ball interpretation
Measurement example with Virtual Ball interpretation

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Flatness calculation by rim
Flatness Calculation by RIM

“Virtual ball” interpreted points

2 planes

Parallel to best fit plane

That confine the

Measured points

Flatness

LSQ fit plane to

Measured points

Filter outliers outside 3 zone

Laser measured points

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Width and parallelism calculation by rim
Width and Parallelism Calculation by RIM

“Virtual ball” interpreted points

joint &cover faces

Point confining planes

parallel to datum

+

Parallelism

Width

-

Best fit plane of cover face

parallel to datum

Daturm, LSQ fit plane to

joint face measured points

Laser measurements cover face

Filter outliers outside 3 zone

Laser measurements joint face

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Measurement results
Measurement Results

  • Parts were measured by Inspec using a CMM.

  • Results compared RIM measurements:

    • Distance between joint and cover face

    • Parallelism between joint and cover face

    • Flatness of joint and cover face

    • Hole diameter

    • Distance between holes centers

  • Manual measurements serve as additional reference

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Result comparison
Result Comparison

reference

measurements

Manual Inspection

Comparison

Inspec

CMM

measurements

Part

RIM

Vision

measurements

RIM

Laser

measurements

Simulated

contact probe

measurements

Interpretation using the

“Virtual ball”

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Inspec measurements
Inspec Measurements

  • Measurements were obtained in two methods:

  • Point on 3 lines (yellow)

  • Point spread (yellow + blue)

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Manual measurements
Manual Measurements

  • Parts width was measured manually with 25µm accuracy.

  • Part width was measured in 8 points and parallelism was deduced.

  • Hole diameters were measured twice.

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Part width
Part Width

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Allowed Tolerance : 119 0.2

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Part width detailed
Part Width - Detailed

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Allowed Tolerance : 119 0.2

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Parallelism between joint and cover faces
Parallelism Between Joint and Cover Faces

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Allowed Tolerance : 0.100

//

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Flatness of joint face
Flatness of Joint Face

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Allowed Tolerance : 100 µm

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Flatness of cover face
Flatness of Cover Face

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Allowed Tolerance : 100 µm

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Hole diameter
Hole Diameter

  • Allowed Tolerance : 16.2  0.2 mm

2

1

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Distance between holes
Distance Between Holes

  • Allowed Tolerance : 306  0.1 mm

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Different number of probes
Different number of probes

  • values for filtered data (outliers outside 3 zone removed after virtual ball interpretation)

  • Maximum deviation : 6 µm

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • Overall, laser measurements are in the same range

  • The RIM may be used for process monitoring with a backup CMM.

  • Differences may result from:

    • Different measurement methods

    • Different measurement environment

    • Different algorithms

    • Measurement uncertainties (imperfect calibration)

    • Human error (further testing required)

  • Different number of probes per face (2 or 3) had negligible effect on the results

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Future work
Future Work

  • Further result analysis.

  • Repeating CMM measurements for additional reference.

  • Testing for repeatability and reliability.

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements

  • This research was supported in part by the NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Machining Systems under the grant EEC95-92125.

  • The RIM project team.

  • Dr. G. Sirat from Optimet.

  • Cummins metrology department.

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan


Rim team
RIM Team

Project Team:

ERC: Dr. Reuven Katz ERC Dr. Steve Segall ERC Dr. Jacob Barhak ERC

Students: Anuj Gupta EECS Avinash Kalyanaraman EECS Glenny Tjahjadi EECS Yoou-Soon Kim ME

Industrial partners:

Ashish Kachru Cummins Robert J. Hogarth GM Tim Lock Vision Solutions, Inc.

NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems

College of engineering, University of Michigan