0
Research Papers

Dynamic Error Characterization for Non-Contact Dimensional Inspection Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Vijay Srivatsan, Reuven Katz, Debasish Dutta

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 2250 GGBL, 2350 Hayward Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Bartosz Powałka

Institute of Manufacturing Engineering, Szczecin University of Technology, al. Jednosci Narodowej 22a, 70-453 Szczecin, Poland

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 130(5), 051003 (Aug 14, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2952820 History: Received July 09, 2007; Revised March 26, 2008; Published August 14, 2008

High-precision non-contact dimensional inspection systems typically utilize high-precision motion stages to manipulate the sensor. Such motion stages are susceptible to position errors, which need to be characterized. While geometric and thermal errors can be characterized and compensated, compensation of dynamic errors is a challenging task. This paper presents a method for dynamic error characterization that is significantly different from dynamic error characterization on contact-based systems. A mathematical model to translate the vibrations on the sensor to the measurement errors on the part is presented. Through experiments on a four-axis system, a relationship between sensor motion speed, sampling frequency, and measurement accuracy is derived. The results of the experiments are used to describe the selection of optimal operating parameters for best accuracy and least uncertainty.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Four-axis turbine blade inspection machine

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Sensor path for raster scan: x and y raster scan modes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Definition of coordinate systems

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Vibration induced measurement errors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Experimental setup for the measurement of sensor vibrations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Schematic showing location of accelerometers on sensor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Schematic for impact tests: front view (left) and side view (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of FRFs for sensor rigidity test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Δx, Δy, and Δz versus position along the x direction for speed of 50 mm/min

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

FRF for impact along the x-axis (left) and the y-axis (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Effect of dynamic errors on sampling interval

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Sensor sampling frequency, measurement error, and sensor speed

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In