1. Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM)

2. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 2 Overview The RIM and the inspection methodology What can the RIM measure and how? Comparison of measurement results Conclusion and future work

3. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 3 Reconfigurable Inspection Machine (RIM) Laser probes Slide system Engine cylinder head Vision system

4. 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)

5. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 5 Different measurements due to contact probe radius. Different point densities. Different flatness calculation algorithms. Device dependant characteristics. RIM and Conventional CMM Measurements Differ. Why?

6. 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

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

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

9. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 9 Flatness Calculation by RIM Flatness 2 planes Parallel to best fit plane That confine the Measured points LSQ fit plane to Measured points Filter outliers outside 3  zone Laser measured points “Virtual ball” interpreted points

10. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 10 Width and Parallelism Calculation by RIM Width Point confining planes parallel to datum Daturm, LSQ fit plane to joint face measured points Filter outliers outside 3  zone Laser measurements joint face “Virtual ball” interpreted points joint & cover faces Laser measurements cover face Best fit plane of cover face parallel to datum - + Parallelism

11. 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

12. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 12 Result Comparison Laser measurements Simulated contact probe measurements RIM Interpretation using the “Virtual ball” CMM measurements Inspec reference measurements Manual Inspection Vision measurements Comparison Part RIM

13. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 13 Measurements were obtained in two methods: Point on 3 lines (yellow) Point spread (yellow + blue) Inspec Measurements

14. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 14 Parts width was measured manually with 25µm accuracy. Part width was measured in 8 points and parallelism was deduced. Hole diameters were measured twice. Manual Measurements  

15. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 15 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Allowed Tolerance : 119  0.2 Part Width Inspec (mm) RIM (mm) Difference (mm) Part 1119.550119.5310.019 Part 3118.975119.106-0.131 Part 4118.332119.011-0.679 Part 5119.140119.1320.008

16. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 16 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Allowed Tolerance : 119  0.2 Part Width - Detailed Inspec (mm) RIM mean (mm) RIM Plus tolerance (mm) RIM Minus tolerance (mm) Manual (mm) Part 1119.550119.5310.060-0.092 Part 3118.975119.1060.038-0.038119.115 Part 4118.332119.0110.630-0.635118.934 Part 5119.140119.1320.407-0.396119.095

17. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 17 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Allowed Tolerance : 0.100 Parallelism Between Joint and Cover Faces Inspec (mm) RIM (mm) Difference (mm) Manual (mm) Part 10.0630.116-0.053 Part 30.9750.0350.9400.030 Part 40.3061.229-0.9230.870 Part 50.6530.758-0.1050.480 //

18. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 18 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Allowed Tolerance : 100 µm Flatness of Joint Face Inspec (µm) RIM (µm) Difference (µm) Part 12235-13 Part 33741-4 Part 4653728 Part 548462

19. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 19 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Allowed Tolerance : 100 µm Flatness of Cover Face Inspec (µm) RIM (µm) Difference (µm) Part 12074-54 Part 3402218 Part 42744-17 Part 522 0

20. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 20 Allowed Tolerance : 16.2  0.2 mm Hole Diameter Inspec (mm) RIM (mm) Difference (mm) Manual (mm) Part 1 -  1 16.03216.128-0.09615.964 Part 4 -  1 16.10315.9660.13716.027 Part 5 -  1 16.30416.1380.16616.147 Part 1 -  2 16.02216.036-0.01415.976 Part 4 -  2 16.03116.043-0.01216.147 Part 5 -  2 16.24816.1930.05516.147 11 22

21. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 21 Allowed Tolerance : 306  0.1 mm Distance Between Holes Inspec (mm) RIM (mm) Difference (mm) Part 1305.991305.7680.223 Part 4305.981305.7520.229 Part 5305.984305.8030.181

22. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 22 values for filtered data (outliers outside 3  zone removed after virtual ball interpretation) Maximum deviation : 6 µm Different number of probes RIM 3 scan lines (µm) RIM 2 scan lines (µm) Difference (µm) Part 135314 Part 34139-2 Part 437316 Part 546 0

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. NFS Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems College of engineering, University of Michigan 26 RIM Team Project Team: ERC: Dr. Reuven KatzERC Dr. Steve SegallERC Dr. Jacob BarhakERC Students: Anuj GuptaEECS Avinash KalyanaramanEECS Glenny TjahjadiEECS Yoou-Soon KimME Industrial partners: Ashish KachruCummins Robert J. HogarthGM Tim LockVision Solutions, Inc.