**Next message:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Previous message:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**In reply to:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Next in thread:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Reply:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I'd like to focus on 3D inspection and features:

Most complex shapes have a set of features that the designers use

to construct the model (e.g., the edges should have a certain radius,

the hood of a car should have a groove that follows a particular

trajectory, the wall should be a particular thickness). When the

manufacturers start building the part, they can interact with the

designers by talking about the precision of individual features rather

than (only) passing around pictures of the global part error.

One weakness of current tools which provide a colour map, is that

they may do a single fit for the entire part, rather than fitting each

feature individually. This is equivalent to setting the translation,

orientation tolerances for individual features to zero, which is likely

not the the designer's specification.

Finally, features are useful because they help specify which measured

points should be associated with particular surface. Assuming that

we know the surface normal of the measured point (e.g. from a

polygonal model), we can associate (project) a point to a particular

feature by:

1 associating points to the design model (using minimum distance),

2 eliminating those points that have a measured normal substantially different

from the minimum distance point's normal

3 repeating step 1 (now that the feature is closer to its as-measured position)

This approach substantially improves the quality of measurement

analysis (IMO) by removing "outliers" that should have been associated

with a different surface.

Colormaps are nice, but bring on feature-based inspection!!

Anshuman Razdan wrote:

*> Hi
*

*> A very interesting discussion indeed. Here is my input coming from a Free
*

*> form modeling perspective.
*

*>
*

*> So Why is it difficult to spec free form geometry?
*

*>
*

*> By freeform I am assuming you mean parametric (and not parametric as in
*

*> associative) geometric curves and surfaces. Which in turn means mostly B
*

*> Spline and NURB - a variant of B Spline curves and surfaces. Even though the
*

*> parametric surfaces are mathematically represented in the solid(surface)
*

*> modeling kernels, the display, manufacture (STL file) etc always requires
*

*> them to be tessellated to a certain resolution. So imagine a curve being
*

*> represented by a chunk of st. lines. Now these lines may be short and within
*

*> "tolerance" but still are not accurate representation. Another problem is
*

*> that unlike algebraic curves and surfaces there is no "root" solving to see
*

*> if a point is numerically on the curve or surface. All techniques are
*

*> numerical like Newton's method to find how close a point is to the curve or
*

*> surface and usually expensive to perform.
*

*>
*

*> Another problem is ... more theoretical but when designing algorithms we
*

*> have to consider all possibilities... A parametric curve/surface has the
*

*> play of domain and range. I.e. you pick a point in the U,V domain of the
*

*> surface and you can get a point on the surface. This mapping is unique i.e.
*

*> for every point in the domain there is a unique point in the range. However,
*

*> the inverse is not true. For example if a curve self intersects. The point
*

*> of intersection maps to two different points in the domain (although
*

*> individual mapping of each point in domain maps to unique point which is the
*

*> intersection point).
*

*>
*

*> So how does it play into finding the nearest point problem. For something
*

*> like a Newton's method to work you must start with a initial good guess
*

*> otherwise the solution may not converge. And the guess is in the parameter
*

*> domain. So if you apply a techniques to map the point (scanned point) to the
*

*> domain of the surface and you start with a wrong inverse mapping you will
*

*> possible never converge to the solution.
*

*>
*

*> So what is "good enough" solution. Approximate the free form surface with a
*

*> reasonable tessellation and then compare the scanned points to this
*

*> tessellation - so now you are comparing the scanned data to a close enough
*

*> approximation of the surface. Now is it good enough - that depends. On
*

*> tolerances used, how good the approximation of the original surface is,
*

*> noise in the scanned data etc etc. If you compared every scanned point to
*

*> the original NURB surface model you could take literally days to create the
*

*> color map.
*

*>
*

*> Hope above is useful - more than u wanted to know but I wanted to convey
*

*> that even though Parametric surfaces are wonderful gifts to man kind they
*

*> have their own set of problems !!.
*

*>
*

*> AR
*

*> ---------------------------------
*

*> Dr. Anshuman Razdan
*

*> Technical Director PRISM
*

*> Email: razdan@asu.edu
*

*> http://prism.asu.edu/~razdan
*

*> MC 5106 Arizona State University
*

*> Tempe AZ 85287-5106
*

*> Phone: (480) 965 5368
*

*> Fax: (480) 965 2910
*

*>
*

*> -> -----Original Message-----
*

*> -> From: owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
*

*> -> [mailto:owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi]On Behalf Of
*

*> -> Tommy Tucker
*

*> -> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 10:44 AM
*

*> -> To: Steve Pitt; rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
*

*> -> Subject: RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)
*

*> ->
*

*> ->
*

*> -> Steve,
*

*> ->
*

*> -> I thought your question was very interesting and was
*

*> -> surprised not to see
*

*> -> more discussion. Scanners and three-dimensional measurement
*

*> -> equipment have
*

*> -> been discussed a lot on this list, but this is a subject
*

*> -> that rarely comes
*

*> -> up. Everyone thinks its great to inspect free-form shapes
*

*> -> but doesn't say a
*

*> -> whole lot about what they mean by it.
*

*> ->
*

*> -> The main advantage in free-form surface inspection using
*

*> -> scanning/digitizing
*

*> -> technology has been the use of color mapping the errors from
*

*> -> measured points
*

*> -> to CAD surfaces. You raise an interesting question as to
*

*> -> whether this is
*

*> -> enough. Most of the other features you mentioned require a
*

*> -> tolerance.
*

*> -> Free-form surfaces should to, but how are these spec'd out?
*

*> -> Any input from
*

*> -> others on the list would be appreciated. My company is in a
*

*> -> position to
*

*> -> provide real innovation in this area based on input received.
*

*> ->
*

*> -> One area I have seen a tolerance used for free-form surfaces
*

*> -> is turbine
*

*> -> blades. Generally, these are spec'd out by cross-sections
*

*> -> along the blade's
*

*> -> length. This has always bothered me because it takes a 3D
*

*> -> geometry and
*

*> -> simplifies it to 2D. With modern modeling systems, why can't a 3D
*

*> -> tolerancing scheme be imposed? In any event, you may want
*

*> -> to look into
*

*> -> turbine blade inspection and how inspection planning is
*

*> -> performed for these
*

*> -> products.
*

*> ->
*

*> -> Tommy Tucker
*

*> -> (vc) 408-855-4372
*

*> -> (fx) 408-855-4360
*

*> -> tommy@paraform.com
*

*> -> http://www.paraform.com
*

*> ->
*

*> -> > -----Original Message-----
*

*> -> > From: owner-rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
*

*> -> [mailto:owner-rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi]On Behalf
*

*> -> > Of Steve Pitt
*

*> -> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 3:23 AM
*

*> -> > To: rp-ml@bart.lpt.fi
*

*> -> > Subject: little bit off topic (about inspection)
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> > Hello List,
*

*> -> > I am Ph. D. student and my research topic is about
*

*> -> inspection planning.
*

*> -> > I have a question about inspection.
*

*> -> > For inspection of freeform surface, what should be inspected?
*

*> -> > There exist a lot of inspection features such as plane,
*

*> -> cylinder, etc.
*

*> -> > In that case, sampling several points is enough.
*

*> -> > But I think that freeform surfaces are different from the features.
*

*> -> > Just is it enough to see the difference between point data and
*

*> -> > the original
*

*> -> > surface?
*

*> -> > Or the surface which is reconstructed from point data must be
*

*> -> > compared with
*

*> -> > the original one?
*

*> -> > Which way is a CMM used for inspecting freeform surface?
*

*> -> > I respect the answer from anyone who has expriences for
*

*> -> freeform surface
*

*> -> > inspection.
*

*> -> > Tnank you in advance.
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> > Steve Pitt
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> > ______________________________________________________
*

*> -> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> >
*

*> -> > For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
*

*> -> >
*

*> ->
*

*> ->
*

*> -> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
*

*>
*

*> For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
*

-- Bert van den Berg bert@hymarc.com Applications Engineer ftp://ftp.hymarc.com Hymarc Ltd. http://www.hymarc.com 35 Antares Drive Tel: (613) 727-1584 Ottawa, Canada, K2E 8B1 Fax: (613) 727-0441For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/

**Next message:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Previous message:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**In reply to:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Next in thread:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Reply:**Anshuman Razdan: "RE: little bit off topic (about inspection)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 23:03:03 EEST
*