Off-Line Programming of CMM
Off-Line Programming of CMM
Off-Line Programming
of Coordinate
Measuring Machines
Eur. Ing.
David Ian Legge
TEKNISKA
HÖGSKOLAN I LULEÅ
LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Contents
Page
Contents 1
Preface 2
Introduction 3
Summary of the Papers 5
Paper 1 Integration of Design and Inspection Systems 6
- A Research Review
Paper 2 Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for 26
Feature Based CMM Programming.
Paper 3 Integration of Design, Inspection and 35
Quality Management Systems
Epilogue 41
1
Preface
Since 1990 I have learnt to enjoy the landscape of northern Sweden, which is far
removed from the open moors and the tree clad limestone dales of Derbyshire. It is
enough to know that these are only out of sight, and remain for me to return to should
my future lie in that direction.
I have also had the opportunity to learn a little of the Swedish post graduate education
system, the aims of which, less still the methods used to fulfil these, remain, to a large
part, bound in mystery.
Despite this, my knowledge has widened, although not in the direction that I intended.
This licentiate thesis allows me to share with you some of this knowledge concerning the
ideas and practice which lie behind computer aided design and the off-line programming
of co-ordinate measuring machines. It was written to be read.
When I was younger, I used to rock climb. On one occasion whilst hitching out into
Derbyshire, I was given a lift by another climber. During conversation it turned out that
he climbed routes far harder than those which I could or I even aspired to climb; a real
hero. When I suggested that he must have to train really hard to climb at such a level the
hero replied, ''No, not really, it's just that all the people that I climb with climb at that
standard.'' Nuff said.
4
Introduction
Whilst computer controlled (CNC) machine tools can now work virtually unattended 24
hours a day, the fact remains that manufactured components must be inspected to
ascertain whether they lie within those limits set by the designer. The level of inspection
applied varies from the in-process inspection of key dimensions of every component
(often as the basis of in-process correction of tool offsets and wear) through to sample
inspection of components downstream of the manufacturing operation for the purpose
of statistical process control.
Co-ordinate measuring machines
Co-ordinate measuring machines (CMM’s) are a common piece of equipment used in
manufacturing for inspection of components downstream of a manufacturing process.
CMM’s vary in size from ‘desk top’ variants through to large, purpose built units
capable of measuring motor vehicle and similarly sized structures. The basic function of
a CMM is to allow the x, y, z position of a point on the surface of a component to be
established. The CMM consists of a machine tool like structure, with precision
slideways and scales and some form of sensor to determine the point of contact. A
variety of sensor technologies are in common use; touch trigger probes, contact
scanning probes and a variety of non-contact probes.
Programming of Co-ordinate measuring machines
CMM’s are usually computer controlled and, whilst they can be used interactively as a
measurement tool, are usually programmed in order to carry out repetitive inspection on
large batches or samples of parts. Once a programme has been developed, it can be
‘run’ to automatically inspect a component with little or no manual intervention. CMM
programmes can be developed interactively at the CMM, so called ‘teach-in’
programming, or 'off-line' using a simple text editor or some form of programming aid.
In this respect, CMM’s are very similar to robots or machine tools. Graphical off-line
programming (OLP), which is common for CNC machines, was, for many years
uncommon for co-ordinate measuring machines. One of the early research results of
this work was the development of a CMM OLP system based upon the commercial
software available at Luleå University; functionality which is now an accepted part
of many computer aided design (CAD) or simulation packages.
Analysis of Inspection Results
The results of CMM inspection is, in it’s raw form, simply copious data giving details
about each inspection point. This data must be further processed in order to give
meaningful results. The most typical analysis is the generation of a measured ‘feature’
from this raw data by fitting a circle, cylinder, plane etc., through the measured points.
The measured feature geometry may be then compared to the nominal feature definition
and the difference in position, orientation, size etc., compared to the allowable
tolerance(s) associated with the feature. Geometry with a more complex mathematical
definition, so called free form surfaces, present a more complex analysis problem. This
analysis is typically carried out by the CMM, although the raw data may be output for
transfer to a third party system for analysis, reverse engineering etc. The basic data that
is required for meaningful analysis to be carried out is a mathematical description of the
nominal feature, the raw inspection data and the tolerance applicable to the features
being inspected. The first and last of these is available on component drawings, and
usually keyed into the CMM, whilst the second results from the measurement itself.
4
Increasing Automation through Improved Data Transfer
A significant limitation to increasing the level of automation in OLP tools and in the
software for analysing inspection results has been the lack of the necessary 3D geometry
and tolerance data in a computer interpretable form. Whilst a human may ‘read’ a 2D
drawing and interpret the information presented, computers are not able to do this.
Integrated 3D geometry and tolerance (GD&T) models are now common in high end
CAD systems, but this information is not available in downstream systems such as OLP
systems as data transfer standards, which address the transfer of 2D drawings and 3D
geometry, have not kept up with this development. The standard which comes closest
to satisfying this is need is the dimensional measuring interface standard (DMIS) which
is designed primarily for the transfer of inspection programmes and results between
CAD / OLP and CMM’s. DMIS deals with tolerancing, but is limited in its ability to
handle the geometry of the component as a whole; DMIS works with ‘features’ which
are seldom directly accessible in the CAD model. Conversely, the IGES standard,
which is probably the most widely accepted neutral transfer standard for drawings and
3D geometry, has no provision for tolerance data and deals with geometry as a whole,
rather than at the feature level which is necessary for inspection planning and evaluation
of inspection results.
The principle conclusions that was drawn from this work is that the ability to
transfer both tolerance data and its associated three dimensional model data from
CAD via a common neutral format is important for the further evolution of
computer aided inspection systems. The standard for the exchange of product model
data (STEP) would appear the most likely tool for this as it is now widely accepted as
the next generation neutral standard for CAD geometry, and allows new data
transfer requirements to be satisfied by the further developed of the standard.
Definition, Inspection and Analysis of Free Form Surfaces
Related to computer aided inspection there are two principle areas of current interest;
inspection and analysis of free-form surfaces, most commonly through non-contact
inspection technique, and tolerancing of three dimensional models. These areas are
topical as a result of the knock on effect of technical developments related to CAD and
CMM’s and also as natural progressions of ongoing research work related to inspection
and OLP.
Both the above are of interest to users of inspection technology, especially designers and
manufacturers of products with complex surface geometry. Products incorporating this
kind of geometry are often manufactured ‘indirectly’ through the use of moulds and
dies. These products are becoming increasingly technical and there is a need for both
accurate manufacturing processes and a means of assessing and documenting both
manufacturing process (e.g. tool geometry) and resulting product. These points are
addressed more fully in the following papers as well as being the subject of ongoing
research and development.
4
Summary of the Papers
This licentiate thesis consists of three papers:
Paper 1 Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
Paper 2 Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM
Programming.
Paper 3 Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management Systems.
Paper 1 reviews a large proportion of the published work concerning the integration of
design and inspection systems; specifically co-ordinate measuring machines.
Given access to a 3D model of component which includes tolerances set against key
component dimensions, highly automated inspection planning is possible. To date this
level of automation has not been found in commercial systems due to the lack of a
tolerancing function in computer aided design systems. (On a 3D solid or surface model
as opposed to simply having tolerances on a 2D drawings.) Limitations within existing
formats for transfer of this toleranced 3D model to off-line programming systems is
another problem which remains to be overcome. This paper has been accepted for
publication in the International Journal of Production Research.
Paper 2 describes how component probing points and movements between these can
be generated based upon a 'feature' based definition of component geometry.
The techniques described have been implemented in part in a prototype off-line
programming system based upon the robotics simulation system GRASP. This
prototype, known as the Inspection Planning Assistant (IPA), allows semi-automatic
off-line programming to be carried out. IPA has been has been tested against a number
of real CMM programming problems from industry. This work remains unpublished.
Paper 3 discusses the new standard for the exchange of product model data (STEP ISO
10303) and specifically a part of STEP (known as an application protocol or AP) for
inspection process planning, AP219. This paper was presented at the 27th International
Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation in Aachen, Germany.
Work on STEP AP 219 is currently in a state of abeyance, this paper was one of the
actions taken to raise interest, in this case within the automotive industry, in order that
work on the AP could be continued. The relatively limited number of CMM
manufacturers and off-line programming system developers and the wide range of these
systems installed in the automotive industry place made this an ideal group to facilitate
the development and demonstration of this AP. Although carried through to a draft
proposal for funding within the European ESPRIT programme, it proved impossible to
draw together all interested parties at the time. Despite this, the excersise generated
widespread interest and a network of contacts within key organisations within Europe
concerned with STEP and / or inspection technologies. This network will certainly be of
use in the future.
5
Paper 1
6
Paper 1
Abstract
This article reviews some 75 published papers in areas related to the integration of design and
inspection systems. The principle aim of this integration is the automatic or semi-automatic off-
line programming of co-ordinate measuring machines (CMM). The level of automation possible
depends upon the availability of toleranced geometric model in a computer aided design system.
Building upon this base, numerous techniques have been developed for the creation and
validation of inspection process plans for subsequent execution in a CMM.
Keywords
Co-ordinate Measuring Machines, Inspection, Off-Line Programming, CAD
1. Introduction
To take a component model from a computer aided design (CAD) system and automatically
generate all the information required for down stream activities such as machining, assembly and
inspection represents a utopian situation which is many years away from realisation.
The situation facing manufacturing industry today is far from this ideal, with numerous separate
systems linked, at best, through transfer of files in standard formats or via specially written
routines. Individual systems have often limited or no facilities to help the user or to automate the
process. The linking and automation of the activities involved in the design and manufacture of
components hence provides fertile ground for research and development.
This article reviews a significant proportion of the published research work related to the linking
of CAD, automated inspection process planning for co-ordinate measuring machines (CMM’s)
and evaluation of inspection results and feedback to design. The first part of the article provides
an overview of the development and current use of CMM’s in industry. A brief background to
CAD, and the application of tolerances to geometric models, is followed by a review of research
inspection process planning systems. This includes all the key techniques applied in the
automation of .inspection planning leading to valid inspection routines for a CMM. Brief
mention is also made of the return of inspection data to CAD.
Many of the techniques discussed are now commonly available in commercial systems.
Development and application of is limited by industry demand for off-line programming
techniques, the availability of CAD systems allowing tolerancing of solid geometric models and
by the availability of neutral interface standards for the transfer of these toleranced models to off-
line programming systems. The current pace of development of the standard for the exchange of
product data (STEP), which will allow this data transfer to take place, is likely to lead to increased
automation of many process planning activities, not least of which will be inspection process
planning. Possible future trends are hence briefly discussed at the end of the article.
This article provides a thorough and timely review of the state of the art for those working, or
wanting to work, with off-line programming for co-ordinate measuring machines.
7
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
not the surfaces between these are explicitly represented. However, hidden line removal
algorithms can be applied to give the impression of a solid. [10]
3.1.2. Surface and Solid Models.
One of the representations which explicitly defines the surfaces of a model, rather than just the
framework or outline, is the boundary representation or B-rep. In a B-rep model, the object is
described by the set of faces which bound the object, individual faces are bounded by a loop of
edges which are in turn specified by their vertices; not unlike a wireframe. Neither the boundary
of a face nor the face itself need by linear/planar, more complex surfaces or boundaries can be
described by mathematical curves which are known as splines, the surfaces generated being
known as surface patches. [11] B-rep modellers are generally acknowledged as offering a good
basis for the visualisation of a component at a graphics terminal as the geometry of each surface
is explicitly known.
Another common representation, known as constructive solid geometry (CSG), store component
geometry as a set of Boolean operations, cut, join, intersect etc., applied to a limited set of solid
primitive objects, cubes, cylinders, cones etc. CSG models are a good basis for calculating mass
related properties. However, this data structure, known as a CSG tree, contains information
about an object in an 'unevaluated' form which needs to be evaluated into the explicit vertices,
edges and surfaces of the resulting solid for the purpose of visualisation. [12] In order to benefit
from the advantages of both representations, many of today's CAD systems use a hybrid B-
rep/CSG representation. [10]
3.1.3. Features, Product Data Models and Meta Models.
The basic geometric entities of a component model in a CAD system, such as a surface, edge or
vertex, or an auxiliary geometric attribute of a part such as a centre line, are often referred to as
primitive features. Within the component geometry, specific areas of geometry can be identified
which perform particular functions. These are often known as form features. Examples of form
features would included slots, holes, chamfers etc. [13] Some CAD systems allow geometry to
be created using user defined form features or allow primitive features or surfaces to be identified
and to have additional parameters associated with them for use in down stream activities such as
process planning or NC part programming. These systems are often known as feature based
systems. Techniques are also available for identifying features within none feature-based CAD
systems. [14]
More comprehensive data structures which take account of the overall needs of engineering, not
just nominal and toleranced geometry, are known as product data models, [15] or metamodels.
[16]
3.2. Geometric Tolerancing
3.2.1. Geometrical Tolerancing Standards.
The current ANSI / ISO standard for dimensioning and tolerancing divides geometric tolerances
into four categories; form, orientation, location and runout. Tolerances should only be applied
''where they are essential, that is, in the light of functional requirements, interchangability and
probable manufacturing circumstances.'' [17] Tolerances constrain a feature to lie within regions
known as tolerance zones and may relate to a single feature, for example a diameter, or to several
features, for example a distance between two holes. Features usually are referenced to datum
features which are used to establish the location and orientation of component datum's or
reference surfaces.
9
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
10
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
entity linking node, pointing to the specific entity on the model which was being toleranced and
an evaluated data node used to hold dimensions.
Walker and Wallis [29] used a CSG modeller which allowed attributes to be attached to surfaces.
Yau and Menq [18, 30, 31, 32] used CATIA's Graphic Interactive Interface (GII) and the
ATTRIBUTE function as a basis for associating tolerances with particular component surfaces.
Smolky and Vrana [22] described software which verifies that the model has been correctly
toleranced to ANSI Y14.5M and from this develop a worst case part or Softgauge® which is a
displayed along side the original geometry in the CAD system. This can be later used for
generation of CMM part programmes and for validation of the component. This is also described
by Foundyller [33] and Granquist. [34 ]
3.2.5. Tolerance Representation in Feature Based Systems
The use of form features or identification of features in an existing model (CSG or B-rep) offer a
way of linking manufacturing data to the CAD model [35] However, the use of design features
as a basis for subsequent or concurrent manufacturing process planning is not without its
difficulties. What constitutes a 'feature' will differ in design, manufacturing, assembly or
inspection contexts; the so called multiple-view problem. [13]. Also, a given component can be
generated, or decomposed, into an almost infinite number of ways. In practice only a
significantly small sub-set of these would be used but even this sub-set will not necessarily form
a good basis for automation of down stream activities, for example manufacturing process
planning or inspection process planning. [36] There is thus the need for 'feature' recognition,
feature refinement, feature conversion or feature mapping where feature is a context dependent
entity. All these are active areas of research interest. [13]
ElMaraghy and Gu [37] developed a feature based system offering a limited number of
toleranced primitives with known engineering and dimensional attributes. The selection of
features available representing a trade off between the flexibility and generality of the modelling
system developed and the complexity of the feature data structure.
Merat and Radack [38, 39] developed a feature base design system, the strategic design driven
inspector, based upon Concept ModellerTM [40] Associated with each feature type was a set of
alternative schema's for dimensioning and tolerancing the feature. When developing a
component, the user would create a starting feature, for example a block or cylinder, and add or
subtract additional features. When creating a specific feature, the actual dimensions and method
of tolerancing would be stated.
4. Component Inspection
4.1. Inspection Process Planning
4.1.1. Computer Aided Process Planning and CAD/CAM Systems.
Computer aided process planning (CAPP) systems are often regarded as being central to the
realisation of computer integrated manufacturing systems as they provide the link between
design activities and manufacturing activities. [19] Early CAPP systems were almost purely text
based and not typically associated with another planning activity, that of generating cutter paths
and the code necessary to drive computer numerically controlled (NC / CNC) machines. [41]
Due to the common link with computer aided design, these machining related systems are known
as CAD/CAM systems. In this article, the term Inspection Process Planning will be used to
encapsulate the high levels of automation typically associated with CAPP and the generation of
code for computer controlled machines or CAD/CAM.
11
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
12
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
Commercial offerings are typically a combination of an established CAD system coupled with a
third party inspection program. Available off-line programming systems for CMM’s include:
Prime/Calma, [49] EDS/Unigraphics, IBM's CATIA with Audi AG's Audimess or Valisys, [33,
34] Matra Datavision's Euclid with GEMINI and CAMPS 3D, Silma with CimStation Inspection,
[47] Tecnomatixs with Robcad/CMMxWorks, [50] Brown & Sharp with Microquindos, [51]
Qualstar/First [49] and Mitutoyo with CMMCAD. Bespoke developments include Lehr
Precision integrating with McDonnell Douglas [52] and Mitutoyo/Geopak with a number of CAD
systems. [1]
4.2. Research Inspection Process Planning Systems
Few fully automated inspection planning systems have been realised, although all research into
inspection process planning contain elements of automation. Those research groups that have
reported complete systems, as opposed to concentrating upon elements of the process planning
task, break the problem of process planning down into different stages.
4.2.1. Expert Planning System One - EPS-1
Expert Planning System One (EPS-1) is a research system developed by CAM-I. This testbed
system aimed to develop an intelligent inspection process planning environment leading to highly
automated dimensional inspection planning through the integration of CAD, CAM and CAPP.
EPS-1 included a geometric modeller, a dimensioning and tolerancing modeller and an inspection
process plan generator. Considerable use of built in logic aimed to automate the process as much
as possible. Automated facilities included selection of appropriate CMM, fixturing, global
inspection plans and probing sequences for individual features. [19, 20, 27]
EPS-1 breaks the problem of inspection process planning down into nine parts:
a) obtain/define inspection plan.
Definition of part id's and inspection strategy constraints.
b) task decomposition/definition.
Extraction of toleranced features and datum surfaces from the GD&T modeller. For each
feature a 'work element' is added to the overall inspection plan.
c) determine methods.
Selection of a suitable CMM based upon the types of features to be measured.
d) determine set-up
Optimisation orientation of the part with respect to the CMM using orientation vectors for
each feature. Work element accessibility is based upon machine axis, feature surface
normal's or cylindrical axis and reference / datum feature orientation. The rules used
minimised the total number of component orientations required.
e) determine tool/holder
Probe orientations required are selected for each feature / work element heuristically.
Strategy may be to minimise the number of probes used or to maximise the number of
probing's from a given probe.
f) detail/optimise plan
Sequencing of inspection activities / work elements is determined via heuristics and
decision table logic. Datum and feature precedence is accounted for.
g) generate/simulate
Individual feature probing sequences are generated using templates, and the path of viewed
as a 3D line in the geometric modeller. Clash detection and avoidance must be carried out
manually as no clash detection was available.
h) produce control information
Produce DMIS output for the measurement task.
i) produce support information
Add further information required by the operator.
13
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
14
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
15
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
Mullineux with Medland, Singh, Sittas and also with Cowling [55, 56, 57] used standard probing
algorithms for regular features and point to point inspection for other, none regular surfaces.
Standard algorithms included equi-distant points on the circumference of a circle, the number of
points to be inspected could be defined interactively.
EPS-1 [19, 20, 27] used a template for each feature assuming an ideal relative orientation of probe
and feature. This idea was extended by Legge and Åhman [61] to compensate for relative probe /
feature orientation. Merat and Radack [38, 39] used a template known as an Inspection Plan
Fragments Generator (IPFG) which produced inspection code fragments, i.e. process plans for
individual feature, depending upon tolerance feature type.
Walker and Wallis [29] used a regular rectangular grid projected upon the surface of the feature
to be measured, placing probing points at a random positions inside each grid cell. These points
were then grouped into 'clusters', the cluster size (and grid mesh) depending upon feature type
and tolerance. Each cluster was subsequently replaced by a representative probing point.
Vardar and Ozsoy [62] used a method for the placement of probing points on a planar surface
which was derived from the technique of mesh generation for Finite Element Analysis (FEA). A
candidate set of inspection points was given by the centroid of each of the triangular mesh
patches from the mesh generation algorithms. Three methods of selecting the required number
of points from this candidate set were presented; random selection, maximising the distance
between selected points and selection of the outermost points within the meshed surface.
Kanai, Kawamura, Kishinami and Saito [26] used an integrated CMM / NC programming system
to locate probing points in such a way as to detect expected inaccuracies from the machining
process, for example surface waviness when face milling.
Yau and Menq [18, 30, 31, 32] used a statistical sampling plan to determine the number of
probing points required based upon the design tolerance and the accuracy of the manufacturing
processed used to generate the feature. This information was held as Inspection Attributes
associated with each feature in the CAD system used. The sampling plan gave the number of
inspection points but not their distribution over the feature and, as would be expected, increased
the number of sample points in response to tighter tolerances, but reduces them as process
capability improves.
Duffie, Feng and Kann [11] generated paths for probing complex sculpted surfaces which drove
the probe normal to the surface, with a given scanning density. This technique was also
described by Roth-Koch [54] and Reynolds [52] Kawabe, Kimura and Sata [63] increased the
probing density at the edge free form surface to reduce the influence of a zero curvature
assumption at the boundary. Mullineux with Medland, Singh, Sittas and also with Cowling [55,
56, 57] suggest a similar procedure in which probe points along two adjacent features are made
closer together towards the expected/predicted feature transition.
Chen, Tang, Ni and Wu [64] described predictive algorithms for placement of probing points
when scanning free form surfaces. These algorithms increased the scanning density where the
surfaces experienced large rates of change. The same technique was used by Jennings [49]
4.3.3. Sequence of Probing
The probing points on a given feature can usually be probed in any sequence. Likewise, the
sequence of inspection of features is only constrained by the requirement to inspect datum
features first. It is therefore possible to minimise the overall inspection time by selecting an
optimum sequence of execution of features and feature probing sequences.
Merat and Radack [38] determine the sequence of probing for the set of points related to a feature
by starting from an arbitrary point and moving to the nearest unprobed point on the current
16
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
feature. Walker and Wallis [29] introduce the idea of a cost function proportional to the weighted
distance between the points being considered; the weighting accounts for different axis of the
CMM taking different times to move the same distance. The same technique is used to select the
next feature to inspect.
4.3.4. Clash Avoidance
A CMM can be regarded as a Cartesian robot whose end effector is the probe tip. The aim of
inspection process planning is to generate a collision free path through all inspection points. Two
possible methodologies are possible; clash avoidance and clash detection / evasion. In clash
avoidance schemes, clash situations are avoided when defining a probe path. In clash evasion
schemes candidate probe paths are evaluated for clash situations which, if found, are corrected.
[65] In both situations it is important to know the distance between objects during relative
movement as well as the extent of a clash if it should occur. Dong and Yuan [66] identify a
variety of techniques including vertex based, surface based and convex object based methods for
calculating the distance between object.
Merat and Radack [38] used pre-calculated configuration spaces for given feature orientations
and CMM / probe combinations. Using the fact that the configuration space for a component is
the union of the configuration spaces of its individual features, were able to generate a
component configuration space. This was then used with a minimum path algorithm to derive
allowable paths within the configuration space.
Yau and Menq [18, 30, 31, 32] consider the avoidance of clash by selection of alternative probe
orientations. The idea of a local accessibility cone developed by Spyridi and Requicha [59] were
modified to take account of only those points being inspected rather than the entire surface of the
feature. From the candidate orientations found, the probe orientations which allow access to the
inspection points can be determined. A heuristic method was used to select a probe orientation
that does not clash with the component during approach to these points.
4.3.5. Clash Detection and Evasion
Walker and Wallis [29] approached the problem of clash detection by using the technique of
shrinking the model of the probe tip (or any other part of the probe model ) to a point and
growing the model of the component being inspected by a corresponding amount. If the probe
tip centre lies inside the grown component at any time a clash situation exists. This is a technique
well known in the robot path planning community. [66, 67] This clash was subsequently avoided
by using a heuristic search technique to locate a point on the edge of the surface to be avoided
which was closest to the destination point. A transit point is created which is offset from this
edge point.
Yau and Menq [18, 30, 31, 32] used a heuristic method of clash detection and correction. In this
work, the probe tip was taken to be a point and the CMM was assumed to move with straight line
path segments. A clash situation occurred if the line representing the movement of the tip
intersected the component surface. This idea was extended to include modelling of the stem of
the CMM probe as a line, (which becomes a face when the stylus moves along a straight line
path) and the column as a cylinder, (with a swept volume approximated to a box). A clash
situation was known to have occurred when the stem 'face' or any face of the column 'box'
intersects the component. A heuristic method was then used to modify the probe path by the
placement of additional transit points if a clash situation was discovered however no details were
given.
17
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
18
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
19
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
6. Acknowledgements
As this article represents a review of published work it is impossible to include the most recent
developments. Limitations of space also preclude a more detailed analysis of individual aspects
of inspection process planning, which, after all, are dealt with most thoroughly in the original
works. I hope that the researchers and research groups whose work is mentioned here will bear
this in mind when criticising me for the poor coverage I have given their work.
Acknowledgement is duly given to my co-workers in the Department of Manufacturing
Engineering at Luleå University of Technology and especially to NUTEK for funding.
7. References
1 T. Inglesby, "CMM in CIM." Manufacturing Systems October 1989 pp18-25
2 J.A. Bosch, ''Planning Overview: Systems Aspects in Flexible Inspection for Automated
Manufacturing.'' ASME Manufacturing Review Vol.2 No.1 March 1989 pp26-31
3 J. Raja and U.P. Sheth, "Integration of Inspection into Automated Manufacturing
System." Recent Developments in Production Research 1988.
4 W. Tandler, "Critical Concepts of High Performance Co-ordinate Measuring Systems."
Multi-Metrics Incorporated, Redwood City, California, USA. 1984.
5 A. Sostar, "Co-ordinate Measuring Technique in Quality Assurance." Robotics and
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Vol.4 No.1/2 pp259-265
6 H. Kunzmann and F. Wäldele, "Performance of CMM’s." Annals of the CIRP Vol.37,
2/1988 pp633-640
7 G.L. Bowen and L.S. Duncan, "Integrated Metrology System." Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Incorporated, Cleveland Ohio, USA.
8 J. Bosch, "The Case for CMM’s." Tooling and Production October 1988.
9 L. Smith, "CMM Smoothes Mold Design at Ford." American Machinist, April 1993
10 D.L. Taylor "Computer Aided Design." ISBN 0 201 16891 X
11 N. Duffie, S. Feng & J. Kann, "CAD-Directed Inspection, Error Analysis and
Manufacturing Process Compensation Using Tricubic Solid Databases." Annals of the
CIRP Vol.37, 1/1988
12 U. Roy and C.R. Liu, "Feature Based Representational Scheme of a Solid Modeller for
Providing Dimensioning and Tolerancing Information." Robotics and Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 1988 Vol.4 No.3/4
20
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
13 O.W. Salomons, F.J.A.M. van Houten & H.J.J. Kals, "Review of Research in Feature-
Based Design." Journal of Manufacturing Systems Vol.12 No.2
14 R-K. Li and S. Adiga, "Part Feature Recognition - A vital Link in the Integration of CAD
and CAM." Recent Developments in Production Research 1988.
15 N.K. Shaw, M.S. Bloor & A. de Pennington, "Product Data Models." Research in
Engineering Design 1989/1 pp43-50
16 T. Tomiyama, T. Kiriyama, H. Takeda, D. Xue & H. Yoshikawa, "Mete-Model: A Key to
Intelligent CAD Systems." Research in Engineering Design 1989/1 pp19-34
17 "Dimensioning and Tolerancing." Swedish Standard SS ISO 1101
18 H-T. Yau and C-H. Menq, "An Automated Dimensional Inspection Environment For
Manufactured Parts Using Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." International Journal of
Production Engineering Research. 1992 Vol.30 No7 pp1517-1536 ISSN 0020 7543
19 C.W. Brown and D.A. Gyorog, "Generative Inspection Process Planner for Integrated
Production." 1990 Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. ASME PED Vol.47 pp151-162
20 L. Patrick, "EPS-1 An Expert Programming System For Dimensional Measuring
Equipment Programming." 24th Annual Meeting and Technical Conference Proceedings -
AIM Tech '87: Back To Basics. ISSN 0882 5548
21 N.P. Juster "Modelling and Representation of Dimensions and Tolerances." Computer
Aided Design, Vol.24, No.1 January 1992.
22 R. Smolky and J.J. Vrana, "CMM: In-Process Inspection Analysis on a CAD System."
Worldwide Passenger Car Conference. ISBN 1 56091 296 0
23 D.C. Gossard, R.P. Zuffante & H. Sakurai, ''Representing Dimensions, Tolerances and
Features in MCAE Systems.'' IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. March 1988
24 A.A.G. Requicha and S.C. Chan, "Representation of Geometric Features, Tolerances and
Attributes in Solid Models Based On Constructive Geometry." IEEE Journal of
Robotics and Automation Vol.2 No.3 September 1986
25 N. Wang and T.M. Ozsoy, "A Scheme to Represent Features, Dimensions and
Tolerances in Geometric Modelling." Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol.10, No.3
26 S. Kanai, T. Kishinami, R. Kawamura & K. Saito, "The Computer Aided Testing and
Diagnostic Systems of the Manufacturing Process using the Co-ordinate Measuring
Machine." Proceedings of NAMRC XVII pp.311-318 ISBN 0-872-63-356-X
27 M.D. Reimann and J. Sarkis, "An Architecture for Integrated Automated Quality
Control." Journal of Manufacturing Systems. Vol.12 No.4.
28 P.S. Ranyak and R. Fridshal, ''Features For Tolerancing a Solid Model.'' Proceedings of
the 1988 ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference and Exposition.
29 I. Walker and A.F. Wallis, "Application of 3D Solid Modelling to Co-ordinate Measuring
Inspection." Proceedings of the 5th. International Conference on Metrology and Properties
of Engineering Surfaces. ISSN 0890 6955
30 C-H. Menq, H-T. Yau & C-L. Wong, "An Intelligent Planning Environment for
Automated Dimensional Inspection using Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." Journal
of Engineering for Industry. ISSN 0022 0817.
21
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
31 H-T. Yau and C-H. Menq, "Path Planning for Automated Dimensional Inspection Using
Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on
Robotics and Automation. Vol.3 pp1934-1939
32 C.H. Menq, C.L. Wong & H.T. Yau, ''An Intelligent Planning Environment for
Automated Dimensional Inspection of Manufactured Objects.'' Ohio State University.
33 C. Foundyller, ''Tolerancing: Common Thread of MCAE.'' CAE August 1988.
34 J. Granquist, "Closing the Loop of Mold Design, Manufacturing and Inspection."
American Machinist April 1993.
35 H.D. Park and O.R. Mitchell, "CAD Based Planning and Execution of Inspection."
Proceedings of the 1988 Computer Society Conference of Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition. pp858-863
36 K.E. Hummel and C.W. Brown, ''The Role of Features in the Implementation of
Concurrent Product and Process Design.'' Proceedings from Symposium on Concurrent
Product and Process Design, AMSE Winter Meeting 1989. pp1-8
37 H.A. ElMaraghy and P.H. Gu, "Expert System for Inspection Planning." Annals of the
CIRP Vol.36, 1/1987
38 F.L. Merat, G.M. Radack, K. Roumina & S. Ruegsegger, "Automated Inspection Planning
within the Rapid Design System." IEEE CH 3051-0/91/0000-0042
39 F.L. Merat and G.M. Radack, "Automatic Inspection Planning Within a Feature Based
CAD System." Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Vol.9 No.1 pp61-69
ISBN 0 7803 0173 0
40 Wisdom Systems, Pepper Pike, Ohio, USA
41 W. Eversheim and J. Scheenwind, ''Computer Aided Process Planning -- State of the Art
and Future Development.'' Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1993 Vol.10
No.1/2 pp65-70
42 T.H. Hopp, "CAD-Directed Inspection." Annals of the CIRP Vol.33 1/1984
43 ''IGES and Beyond.'' CIM Technology, Summer 1985 pp20-21
44 ''The Dimensional Measuring Interface Standard.'' ANSI CAM-I 101, 1990
45 J. Zink, ''Linking CAD/CAM Systems to CMM’s.'' Proceedings of Test, Measurement and
Inspection for Quality Control. Detroit 1987
46 B.J. King and P.W. Norman, "A STEP in the Right Direction." Professional Engineering,
November 1992
47 F. Mason, "Program Your CMM Off-Line." American Machinist October 1992.
48 1991 Report by Future Technology Surveys Incorporated, Lilburn, GA, USA.
49 R.M. Jennings, ''Feature Recognition Reduces CMM Programming Time Whilst
Speeding Analysis.'' SME Technical Paper MS91-293 119
50 "CMM Support Systems Speed Throughput." Manufacturing Engineering March 1992.
51 "Fine-Tuning Quality." Manufacturing Engineering November 1992.
52 "CAD to CMM Link Produces Precise Airfoils." CAE June 1988
22
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
53 J.G. Galm and F.L. Merat, ''The Strategic Design Driven Inspection of Machined Parts.''
1988 IEEE Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing
ISBN 0-816-0888-9
54 S. Roth-Koch, ''Measuring as a CAD Application.'' Interfaces in Industrial Systems for
Production and Engineering 1993.
55 A.J. Medland, G. Mullineux, R. Singh & E. Sittas, "A Modular Approach to Linking
Computer Aided Design and Automatic Inspection Systems." Department of
Manufacturing Systems, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK.
56 G.J. Cowling and G. Mullineux, "Toward an Intelligent CAD-CMM Interface."
Engineering with Computers 5. pp133 - 141
57 A.J. Medland, G. Mullineux, ''A Constraint Approach to Feature-Based Design.''
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.6 No's.1&2, 1993, pp34-38
58 L.E. Farmer and G. Smith, "Integrating CAD and CMM Inspection." Proceedings of the
Australian Institute of Engineers International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exhibition - MECH 91. ISSN 0313 6922
59 A.J. Spyridi and A.A.G. Requicha, "Accessibility Analysis for the Automated Inspection
of Mechanical Parts by Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." Proceedings of the 1990 IEE
Conference on Robotics and Automation. ISBN 0 816 2061 7
60 B. Khoshnevis, Z. Yeh, ''Automatic Measurement Planning For Co-ordinate Measuring
Machines.'' Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on CAD/CAM, Robotics and
Factories of the Future. pp581-590
61 D.I. Legge, P. Åhman, ''Feature Probing Algorithms Used in a Semi-Automatic CMM
Programming System.''
62 H.O. Vardar and T. M. Ozsoy, "A Method for Selecting Measurement Points On Planar
Faces of Objects with Holes." Computers in Engineering. Vol.1 pp429-436 ISBN 0 7918
0935 8
63 S. Kawabe, F. Kimura & T. Sata, "Generation of NC Commands for Sculptured Surface
Machining from 3-Coordinate Measuring Data." Annals of the CIRP Vol.29, 1/1980
64 Y.D. Chen, X.J. Tang, J. Ni & S.M. Wu, "Automatic Digitisation of Free Form Curves By
Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." Proceedings of the Winter Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ISBN 0 7918 1124 7
65 S.M. Udupa, ''Collision Detection and Avoidance in Computer Controlled
Manipulators.'' Proceedings of the 5th. MIT International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence.
66 Z. Dong and J. Yuan, "A Formulation for Collision Identification and Distance
Calculation in Motion Planning Using Neural Networks." International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1993-8 pp227 - 234
67 T. Lozano-Perez and M.A. Wesley, "An Algorithm for Planning Collision Free Paths
Among Polyhedral Obstacles." Communications of the ACM October 1979 Vol.22 No.10
68 D.T. Pham, K.F. Martin & L.P. Khoo, "A Knowledge Based Pre-Processor Generator for
Co-ordinate Measuring Machines." International Journal of Production Research 1991
Vol.29 No.4 pp677-694 ISSN 0020 7543
23
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
24
Paper 1: Integration of Design and Inspection Systems - A Research Review.
F. Mason 47 I. Walker 29
A.J. Medland 55, 57 A.F. Wallis 29
O.R. Mitchell 35 N. Wang 25
C-H. Menq 18, 30, 31, 32 M.A. Wesley 67
F.L. Merat 38, 39, 53 R. Wilson 71
G. Mullineux 55, 56, 57 C-L. Wong 30, 32
J. Ni 64 S.M. Wu 64
P.W. Norman 46 F. Wäldele 6
T.M. Ozsoy 25, 62 D. Xue 16
D. Palanvelu 71 J. Yang 71
H.D. Park 35 H-T. Yau 18, 30, 31, 32
L. Patrick 20 Z. Yeh 60
A. de Pennington 15 H. Yoshikawa 16
D.T. Pham 68 J. Yuan 66
H. Qiao 70 X. Zhang 72
G.M. Radack 38, 39 J. Zink 45
J. Raja 3, 71 R.P. Zuffante 23
P.S. Ranyak 28 P.Åhman 61
M.D. Reimann 27
A.A.G. Requicha 24, 59
S. Roth-Koch 54
K. Roumina 38
U. Roy 12, 72
S. Ruegsegger 38
R. Sagar 74
K. Saito 26
H. Sakurai 23
O.W. Salomons 13
J. Sarkis 27
T. Sata 63
J. Scheenwind 41
N.K. Shaw 15
U.P. Sheth 3
R. Singh 55
E. Sittas 55
L. Smith 9
G. Smith 58
R. Smolky 22
A. Sostar 5
A.J. Spyridi 59
H. Takeda 16
W. Tandler 4
X.J. Tang 64
D.L. Taylor 10
T. Tomiyama 16
S.M. Udupa 65
H.O. Vardar 62
J.J. Vrana 22
25
Paper 2
26
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
Background
The Need For Off-Line Programming Tools.
The benefits of Co-ordinate Measuring Machines (CMM’s) are well recognised [1]. The high
productivity of Numerically Controlled (CNC) machines requires near instant component
verification; indeed the purpose of a co-ordinate measuring machine is often to evaluate and
monitor the performance of a machine tool [2]. For this verification to be carried out effectively,
especially in the case of first-off inspection, pre-prepared part inspection programmes are
required.
Using and Programming CMM's.
The majority of CNC machine tools are now programmed either off-line or at the machine whilst
it is running another part program, CMM’s are only just starting to follow this path. Software for
off-line programming of CMM’s being said to lie a decade behind comparable software for CNC
machines [3]. A recent Delphi survey highlighted good off-line programming tools and the
integration of computer aided design (CAD) systems with CMM’s as major areas of
development for the 1990's [4].
CMM’s have many modes of operation, the simplest being to work interactively and use the
CMM to evaluate component features by specifying the feature type and probing the feature by
manually driving the machine. This sequence can be saved and re-run with the next component;
the so called 'teach in' mode of operation.
An inspection sequence or programme can also be modified or the CMM’s own programming
language used to write an inspection sequence from scratch.
Another mode of operation is off-line programming (OLP) which is carried out at a PC or
Workstation unconnected with the CMM. Off-line programming may be an integrated function
in a CAD/CAM system, or a separate system using geometric data transferred from a CAD
system as a basis for programming. Instead of developing probe paths with a real component
and CMM, OLP uses the CAD model. Many CAD/CAM vendors already offer off-line
27
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
programming capability, vendors of robot simulation systems also offer this functionality [3, 5, 6,
7]. Commercial systems are often a combination of an established CAD system coupled with a
third party inspection program. In this way, interface problems between CAD system and off-
line programming system are avoided.
Off-line programming in a third party system, for example a CAD/CAM system, requires that
this systems native CNC programming language be converted to the CMM's language. Initially
this was done via bespoke translators, however a neutral format, the Dimensional Measuring
Interface Standard (DMIS) [8] has been defined to rationalise the communication between
CMM’s and other computer systems.
Benefits of Off-Line Programming.
Off-line programming offers many benefits including:
i Elimination of non-productive programming time on the CMM thereby offering the
potential to increase machine utilisation.
ii Avoidance of unexpected clash, reach and access problems, hence removing unproductive
re-programming time at the CMM.
iii Possibility to minimise the time required to inspect a given component, allowing greater
throughput of work at the CMM.
iv Reduction in the work involved in defining feature probing sequences, allowing better use
to be made of inspection staff's time.
The extent to which these constitute a strategic advantage will depend upon batch quantities,
component complexity and other manufacturing or production related constraints. These,
coupled with the ease of use of off-line programming tools will dictate their take-up in industry.
System Overview
A prototype off-line programming system has been developed based upon an 'open' version of a
commercial robot programming system; instead of a robot a model of the CMM, complete with
interchangeable tooling, is used. The off-line programming functionality for the CMM has been
created by the addition of two new system menus and a separate programming window.
The CMM movements required for the probing sequences generated can be simulated within the
system and corrected for access, clash and reach problems not prevented by the predictive clash
avoidance techniques described. Additional transit points and other DMIS statements required in
the final inspection program can also be added and the finished program exported in DMIS
format to the CMM.
Definition of Feature and Component Geometry.
In the off-line inspection planning system developed, component features are described in the
format given by DMIS. These feature definitions are entered via a screen form or imported from
a CAD system in the form of a DMIS text file. Component geometry is handled separately by
the host simulation system, being imported in IGES format1 [9]. From the DMIS feature
definitions the required probing points and probe paths are automatically generated for each
feature following the algorithms described.
1 Whilst this results in an almost parallel information flow, one stream to the inspection planning software and one
to the simulation system, feature recognition within the incoming IGES file was not deemed to be within the scope
of this work, having been well covered elsewhere [10].
28
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
Of interest here is the automatic generation of the DMIS statements necessary to drive a CMM to
probe a given component feature. The algorithms must first place probing points on the feature,
secondly adjust these so that they can be reached with the configuration of probe used and
thirdly generate a path between these points which avoids clash with the component. The path
generation algorithms can also be used for clash evasion when moving between features if clash
occurs with a component feature that has known geometry.
Placement of probing points on a given feature.
The position of probing points on a measured feature are generated automatically with reference
to those given for a standard feature of the same type2 (Fig. 1). Any number of probing points to
be used when measuring a feature; given the minimum required to establish the size, position and
orientation of a particular feature type.
A general method to describe the location of 'n' points on a feature is not possible, so for each
value of 'n' used, a probing pattern on a standard feature must be defined. This pattern is given in
the form of a list of either a single or double co-ordinates3, which may be linear or angular
depending upon the feature type.
In order to use the above probe point location data, a feature must be of finite size. The extent of
some features can be found from their DMIS definition, whilst others DMIS considers
unbounded. DMIS allows for an unbounded feature to be limited with bounding planes. Such
boundings are used primarily for the purpose of defining tolerance zones and their use for
describing the actual feature geometry, whilst permissible, would be potentially extremely
complex.
In the system developed, the size of unbounded feature is found by prompting the user for key
dimensions when defining the feature or when invoking the 'auto-measure' function.
Alternatively, reference could be made to the actual feature geometry if this is known.4
Access to a feature with the probe used.
The basic probe point positioning algorithms assume that the probe has free access to all areas of
the feature defined. In practice, areas of a feature may be inaccessible to the probe. Several
conditions affect accessibility to a given point, and can be used to adjust the position of the
probing points so that they lie within reach of the probe.
* Actual depth of features penetrating a surface
2 In the system developed, several probing patterns can be stored and selected when generating the probing sequence.
This is a manual decision, the structure of the off-line programming system being such that the tolerance being
evaluated may not known until the user chooses to evaluate an already measured feature. Because of this, it is
impossible to use pattern/tolerance selecting routines developed by other research groups. [9]
3 Single co-ordinates on 2D features, double co-ordinates on 3D features.
4 Interaction with the original component geometry is not currently possible. The interactive definition of features
with reference to component geometry will be implemented in the future.
29
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
A probe has finite length which may be greater or less than the depth that a feature penetrates a
surface, or the height of a feature which protrudes from a surface. If the length of a feature is
greater than the declared length of the probe, the probing points must be corrected to lie within
reach of the probe. (Fig. 2a) This can be done by scaling the position of all probing points so that
they lie within reach of the probe (Fig. 2b) or by shifting those that fall outside the probe's reach
(Fig. 2c).
Other situations can occur when a feature, in effect, penetrates the component. For example, the
x,y position of a hole may be established by probing a circle some distance down the hole being
measured. In this case, if the circle lies outside the reach of the probe, it must be redefined within
the probes reach or an alternative probe selected.
* Probe diameter
Apart from the obvious problem of probe diameter relative to a limiting dimension of a
penetrating feature, the diameter of the probe tip can also affect the area of a sphere or 'inverted'
conical feature that may be probed. In the case of a sphere, slightly less than 50% of its surface is
hidden from view, an 'inverted' conical feature has almost its entire probed surface hidden from
view5. In these situations, a larger probe tip diameter allows access to a proportion of these
hidden areas (Fig. 3).
5 Assuming that the feature axis aligns with the declared sensor axis, the actual area hidden depends upon the probe
tip diameter and stem diameter.
30
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
6 The algorithms do not attempt to minimise the distance traversed by the probe by altering the sequencing in which
the probing points are visited. However, this technique has been used by other researchers.[11]
31
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
Conclusions.
The algorithms described above take a 'feature' view of the problem of the placement of probing
points on a feature and the probe paths between these points. These can be used as a sound
basis for the rapid generation of feature probing sequences in both off-line and on-line
programming systems. The algorithms described are especially applicable in feature based
systems or where feature recognition is implemented although the ideas expressed should also
have a place in non feature based systems.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks must be given to the authors of the GRASP robotics simulation package, BYG
Systems Ltd. of Nottingham, England, for the help and support that they have given during the
prototyping and implementation of several of the algorithms described here. Thanks also to Per
Åhman, who provided many useful pointers and carried out much of the implementation of the
ideas described above; a programmer doing a programmers job.
Acknowledgement is also duly given to my co-workers in the Department of Manufacturing
Engineering at Luleå University of Technology and especially to NUTEK for funding this work.
32
Paper 2: Semi-Automatic Probe Path Planning for Feature Based CMM Programming.
References
1. J. Bosch, "The Case for CMM’s." Tooling and Production October 1988.
2. W. Tandler, "Critical Concepts of High Performance Co-ordinate Measuring Systems."
Multi-Metrics Incorporated, Redwood City, California, USA. 1984.
3. F. Mason, "Program Your CMM Off-Line." American Machinist October 1992.
4. 1991 Report by Future Technology Surveys Incorporated, Lilburn, GA, USA.
5. J. Granquist, "Closing the Loop of Mold Design, Manufacturing and Inspection."
American Machinist April 1993.
6. "Fine-Tuning Quality." Manufacturing Engineering November 1992.
7. "CMM Support Systems Speed Throughput." Manufacturing Engineering March 1992.
8. "The Dimensional Measuring Interface Specification." ANSI CAM-I 101 1990
9. I. Walker & A.F. Wallis, "Applications of Solid Modelling to Co-ordinate Measuring
Inspection." International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacturing Vol. 32 No 1/2.
10 K.E. Hummel & C.W. Brown "The Role of Features in the Implementation of
Concurrent Product and Process Design." Proceedings from Symposium on Concurrent
Product and Process Design, ASME Winter Meeting 1989
11 F.L. Merat & G.M. Radack "Automated Inspection Planning within the Rapid Design
System." IEE CH 3051-0/91/0000-0042
33
Paper 3
34
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
Abstract
This paper discusses the standard for exchange of product model data ( STEP - ISO 10303 ) and
the proposed STEP application protocol (AP) for inspection process planning (AP219). The need
for a concerted industry lead initiative to develop this AP is suggested. An industry consortium
should include users and vendors of the hardware and software associated with inspection related
activities and would build upon work already ongoing including work related to STEP. The goal
of such a consortium would be to develop and promote the use of STEP for inspection process
planning and related activities and will act as a focus for development of both AP219 and
software tools to support it's adoption and implementation.
Keywords
Co-ordinate Measuring Machines, Off-Line Programming, STEP
35
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
although their use is still far from widespread. The leading OLP tools offer a 3D graphical
presentation of the component being inspected as well as varying levels of automation for
creating inspection paths for individual features and of overall inspection planning.
Like CAD/CAM, OLP systems fall into two classes; those that are integrated into a host CAD
system, via functionality written into the CAD system or in the form of a third party system
which is closely integrated through bespoke data transfer routines or through access to common
database, and those which are 'stand-alone' but which can import data from the source CAD
system in a neutral format such as the initial graphics interface standard (IGES).
Commercial OLP systems usually offer semi automation of the planning process. In the case of
independent, 'stand alone,' systems, the user must typically decide upon the overall sequence of
inspection as well as identifying which features are to be measured and how they are to be
evaluated. The lack of tolerance data in geometry transferred from CAD in IGES format means
that tolerances must be entered manually. Research systems have demonstrated high levels of
automation when a fully toleranced geometric model is available. This functionality is likely to
become more commonplace in commercial systems in the future.
OLP systems generate inspection process plans which have then to be passed onto the CMM.
This is done by producing output in either the CMM's native programming language or in the
dimensional measurement interface standard (DMIS - ANSI 101 1990). DMIS programmes are
invariably translated into the CMM’s native language in a pre-processor before being run.
Most companies will claim to have unique inspection problems, however, virtually all inspection
situations fall into one of two categories:
a) Process evaluation / validation; where the principle aim is the comparison of production
process and product. This would include development of forming tools and first off-
inspection of products manufactured on CNC machine tools.
b) Product validation; where inspection is carried out for acceptance / rejection and product
tracability or statistical process control (SPC) of production processes of known capability.
Evaluation of a component is typically by assessment of individual features against tolerance,
although more complex evaluation may include fitting of several inspected features to nominal
geometry simultaneously. Evaluation may be carried out by the CMM control software or by
analysis of raw or part processed data output from the CMM. This output is typically in a user
defined format, although the DMIS covers output of raw or evaluated data in a comparable
format to the inspection plan used to generate the data. Feedback of data to computer aided
design (CAD) systems is more typically the case in the former category of problem.
36
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
Figure 1. Possible integration combinations for design, programming and inspection systems.
37
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
will be able to use this information, allowing the automation of overall inspection strategy and
development of individual probing sequences.
OLP to CMM - AP219
The STEP application protocol, AP219, for inspection process plans has already been identified,
although little work has been done towards its development. The current standard for transfer of
inspection process plans, DMIS, will obviously act as a basis for AP219, however, DMIS is
recognised as lacking explicit structure and being underdefined in some areas whilst being
overdefined in others. Users experiences of DMIS as well as developments in off-line
programming systems and CMM control software must also be taken into account.
CMM and Evaluation - AP219
AP219 should also cover the results of the inspection, as either raw data, semi-evaluated data or
fully evaluated data. This information should obviously be suitable for evaluation in external
systems as well as being fed back to CAD. Feed-forward to product management systems,
(MRP and quality control software.) is also a possibility.
Inter-operability with other AP's
Inspection process planning is not only carried out on stand alone CMM's. In process gauging is
becoming increasingly important in both machines and cells and AP219 should also be usable in
this type of system. It would seem likely that this level of development will take place once the
basic format for AP219 has been established, although this base must take some account of the
other AP's which concern process planning.
CAD CMM CAD OLP CMM Evaluation
Validation
OLP Evaluation
Presentation
Validation
Presentation
AP2?? AP219 AP219
AP219 AP219
CMM
CAD OLP
Shop floor control Evaluation
Validation
Presentation
AP203 AP219
CAD OLP CMM
AP203 AP219
Evaluation
Validation
Presentation AP219 Quality audit / tracability
|
38
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
Development of AP219
On the assumption that sufficient interest to develop AP219 exists, the first step must be to
establish the current status of ongoing work related to STEP and inspection planning
A number of groups working in this area are known, whilst the remainder should be contactable
without too much difficulty. Once the status of the work carried out to date is known, a more
detailed strategy for development can be established. Input from individuals or groups with
experience of development of STEP AP's would obviously be actively sought.
It would seem likely that some software tools specific to AP219 could beneficially be developed.
These would allow parsing of STEP files, interface to commonly used databases, input,
interrogation and editing of data within STEP format files or databases. Such tools would be of
use to both system developers and users.
The original estimate for development of AP219 was in the order of three years. This still
remains a realistic, but not overly conservative, estimate.
Conclusions
Development of STEP in the areas related to inspection, e.g. transfer of toleranced 3D geometry
will lead to a significant increase in the functionality and level of automation offered by off-line
programming systems including off-line programming of co-ordinate measuring machines. For
this to become a reality, STEP must become more widely adopted and seen as a necessary
development by industry.
39
Paper 3: Integration of Design, Inspection and Quality Management
The STEP application protocol for inspection process planning, AP219, is not being actively
developed at present. Development of AP219 will provide an ideal opportunity for individuals
and companies to develop knowledge of and expertise in the use of STEP.
The scope of AP219, and the relatively limited number of hardware (CMM) and software (OLP)
vendors potentially involved in the development of this AP, make it an ideal candidate for the
rapid and successful development and demonstration of STEP based data transfer.
Development of AP219 will ideally be with the support of an industry consortium.
The automotive industry is ideally placed to provide the impetus necessary for the proposed
consortium to be effective. Not only is the automotive industry well placed to motivate
commercial development of STEP AP219, it also has representative hardware and software
systems from the majority of the off-line programming and CMM suppliers.
A range of either public domain or consortia specific software tools will be developed as a means
of providing support to both system developers and users
40
Epilogue:
” In the search for truth there are certain questions that are not important.
Of what material is the universe constructed ? Is the universe eternal ? Are
there limits or not to the universe ? What is the ideal form of organisation
for human society ? If a man were to postpone his search and practice for
Enlightenment until such questions were solved, he would die before he
found the path. ”
- Buddha
41