1 / 26

Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM)

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.

grazia
Télécharger la présentation

Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM)

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reconfigurable Inspection Machine(RIM)

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. The “Virtual Ball” Algorithm Interpreted height: Ball contact point NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan

  8. Measurement example with Virtual Ball interpretation NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Distance Between Holes • Allowed Tolerance : 306  0.1 mm NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

More Related