Determination of Aspect Ratio Limitations, Accuracy and Repeatability of a Laser Line Scanning CMM Probe
Bart Boeckmans*, Min Zhang*,**, Frank Welkenhuyzen*, and Jean-Pierre Kruth*
*Department Mechanical Engineering, Division Production Engineering, Machine Design and Automation, KU Leuven
Celestijnenlaan 300, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
**Beijing Engineering Research Center of Precision Measurement Technology and Instruments,
Beijing University of Technology (BJUT)
Beijing 100124, China
Coordinate measurement machine (CMM) probing techniques can involve direct mechanical contact (e.g., tactile probing) or diverse non-contact principles (e.g., laser line scan probing). For some applications, contact methods are not capable of measuring fast enough to ensure 100% quality controlled parts. A laser line scanning probe uses a laser triangulation-based method to acquire 3D measurement points on a workpiece relative to a sensor. Mounting the sensor in a 3D coordinate frame, e.g., in a CMM provides enough information to fully examine the workpiece. These techniques are most commonly exploited in medical industry and industries involving plate materials. A high data density and measurement speed are significant advantages when measuring free-form surfaces by laser line scanning, making the process much more time-efficient. However, high-precision geometrical features (such as cylinders, spheres, etc.) must be measured for locating and aligning the free-form shapes. The accuracy of the equipment therefore has to be assessed. Probe Maximum Permissible Error (MPEP) values below 10μm have been reported for cutting-edge laser line scanners. This paper compares the major influences on measurements on cylindrical features. First, the aspect-ratio limitations are considered by comparing two inherently different techniques. The stable inspection of reference features is important, while trying to maximize the spatial extent of the measured features. Second, the measurement method is analyzed in two ways: by using a limited sample of the features to increase stability and eliminate interference from neighboring features; by varying the number of scan tracks, which greatly affects the measurement time.
-  S. Osawa, T. Takatsuji, T. Kurosawa, R. Furutani, and M. Shibata, “Traceability system of coordinate measuring machines through internet,” J. of the Japan Society for Precision Engineering, Vol.70, No.4, pp. 528-532, 2004.
-  K. Umetsu, R. Furutani, S. Osawa, T. Takatsuji, and T. Kurosawa, “Optimization of measurement strategy for calibration of coordinate measuring machine,” J. of the Japan Society for Precision Engineering, Vol.70, No.9, pp. 1174-1179, 2004.
-  Y. Asano, R. Furutani, and M. Ozaki, “Verification of interim check method of CMM,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.5, No.2, pp. 115-119, 2011.
-  J. Matsuda, “Uncertainty analysis of three-dimensional coordinate measuring machines,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 140-145, 1997.
-  Y. Takaya, “In-process and on-machine measurement of machining accuracy for process and product quality management: a review,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 4-19, 2014.
-  O. Jusko, M. Neugebauer, H. Reimann, and R. Berhardt, “Recent progress in CMM-based form measurement,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 170-175, 2015.
-  S. Ibaraki and Y. Ota, “Error calibration for five-axis machine tools by on-the-machine measurement using a touch-trigger probe,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 20-27, 2014.
-  Y. Ihara and T. Nagasawa, “Fundamental study of the on-machine measurement in the machining center with a touch trigger probe,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.7, No.5, pp. 523-536, 2013.
-  N. Van Gestel, S. Cuypers, P. Bleys, and J.-P. Kruth, “A performance evaluation test for laser line scanners on CMMs,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering, Vol.47, pp. 336-342, 2009.
-  H. Hamana, M. Tominaga, M. Ozaki, and R. Furutani, “Calibration of articulated arm coordinate measuring machine considering measuring posture,” Int. J. of Automation Technology, Vol.5, No.2, pp. 109-114, 2011.
-  A. Weckenmann, X. Jiang, K.-D. Sommer, U. Neuschaefer-Rube, J. Seewig, L. Shaw, and T. Estler, “Multisensor data fusion in dimensional metrology,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology Vol.58, No.2, pp. 701-721, 2009.
-  H. Zhao, J.-P. Kruth, B. Boeckmans, N. Van Gestel, and P. Bleys, “Automated dimensional inspection planning using the combination of laser scanner and tactile probe,” Measurement, Vol.55, No.5, pp. 1057-1066, 2012.
-  A. Contri, P. Bourdet, and C. Lartigue, “Quality of 3D digitized points obtained with non-contact optical sensors,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol.51, No.1, pp. 443-446, 2002.
-  C. Lartigue, A. Contri, and P. Bourdet, “Digitised point quality in relation with point exploitation,” Measurement, Vol.6, pp. 193-203, 2002.
-  H. Feng, Y. Liu, and F. Xi, “Analysis of digitizing errors of a laser scanning system,” Precision Engineering, Vol.25, pp. 185-191, 2001.
-  Y. Tan, “Scanning and post-processing parameter optimization for CT dimensional metrology,” Ph.D. Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 2015 (in press).
-  B. Boeckmans, Y. Tan, F. Welkenhuyzen, Y. S. Guo, W. Dewulf, and J.-P. Kruth, “Roughness offset differences between contact and non-contact measurements,” Proc. of Euspen 15th Int. Conf., 2015, in press.
-  B. Igor, N. Van Gestel, J.-P. Kruth, P. Bleys, and J. Hodolivc, “Accuracy improvement of laser line scanning for feature measurements on CMM,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering, Vol.45, No.11, pp. 1274-1211, 2011.
-  A. Bernard and M. Véeron, “Analysis and Validation of 3D Laser Sensor Scanning Process,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol.48, No.1, pp. 111-114, 1999.
-  B. Boeckmans, F. Welkenhuyzen, and J.-P. Kruth, “Accuracy verification of a laser line scanner probe,” Laser Metrology and Machine Performance X, pp. 279-288, 2013.
-  B. Boeckmans, M. Zhang, F. Welkenhuyzen, W. Dewulf, and J.-P. Kruth, “CMM sensor evaluation method with machine error exclusion,” Laser Metrology and Machine Performance XI, 2015.
-  ISO 14253-1:1998. GPS – Inspection by measurement of workpieces and measuring equipment – Part 1: Decision rules for proving conformance or non-conformance with specifications.
-  ISO 14253-2:2011, GPS – Inspection by measurement of workpieces and measuring equipment – Part 2: Guide to the estimation of uncertainty in GPS measurement, in calibration of measuring equipment and in product verification.
-  ISO, GUM, JCGM 100:2008: Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.
-  ISO 10360-8:2013. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and reverification test for coordinate measuring machines (CMM) – Part 8: CMMs with optical distance sensors.
-  ISO 10360-1:2000, Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM) – Part 1: Vocabulary.
-  B. Boeckmans, M. Zhang, F. Welkenhuyzen, W. Dewulf, and J.-P. Kruth, “Comparison of aspect ratio, accuracy and repeatability of a laser line scanning probe and a tactile probe,” Proc. of the 11th IMEKO Symposium (LMPMI2014), A14, 2014.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.