Skip to main content
Log in

Adapting the coherent point drift algorithm to the fixtureless dimensional inspection of compliant parts

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a free-state condition, deformable bodies (or compliant parts) have a significantly different shape than their nominal geometry (CAD model) due to gravity loads and residual stress. Typically, the dimensional metrology of such parts requires a particular approach where expensive and specialized jigs are needed to constrain and follow the component during inspection. This paper proposes a new method to fixtureless inspect deformable bodies by adapting the coherent point drift (CPD) algorithm. This new approach combines the optimization of the smoothness regularization parameters of the CPD powerful non-rigid registration method alongside the Thompson-Biweight statistical test as an identification method to distinguish profile and localization process manufacturing defects from a part’s deformation. In other words, a new “flexible” registration approach that meets the specifications of compliant parts is proposed. The CAD model is smoothly modified to fit the scanned part by minimizing two criteria that belong to deformable bodies. The first criterion is the conservation of the curvilinear distance (isometric transformation). That is to say, the condition that the stretch difference between the original CAD model and the modified one should be very small. The second criterion is the usual minimization of the Euclidean distance between the modified CAD model and its corresponding scanned part. Many case studies were performed on a typical industrial sheet metal which presented profile and localization defects. The estimated values of the defects, as well as their positions, are much closer to their reference ones in most cases, thus reflecting the effectiveness of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ASME Y14.5-2009 (2009) Dimensioning and tolerancing. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers National Standard. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. AIAG 2002 (2002) “Measurement systems analysis. Reference manual, 3rd edn.” Automotive Industry Action Group

  3. Aidibe A, Tahan S-A (2014) The inspection of deformable bodies using curvature estimation and Thompson-Biweight test. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(9–12):1733–1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yadong L, Peihua G (2004) Free-form surface inspection techniques state of the art review. CAD Comput Aided Des 36:1395–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Abenhaim G, Desrochers A, Tahan A (2012) Nonrigid parts’ specification and inspection methods: notions, challenges, and recent advancements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Malamas EN, Petrakisa EGM, Zervakisa M, Petitb L, Legatb J-D (2003) A survey on industrial vision systems, applications and tools. Image Vis Comput 21(2):171–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ravishankar S, Dutt HNV, Gurumoorthy B (2010) Automated inspection of aircraft parts using a modified ICP algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46(1–4):227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weckenmann A (2006) “Optical inspection of formed sheet metal parts applying fringe projection systems and virtual fixation”. Metrol Measure Syst (4):321–334

  9. Jaramillo AE, Boulanger P, Prieto F (2009) On-line 3-D inspection of deformable parts using FEM trained radial basis functions. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 57:1053–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Abenhaim GN, Tahan AS, Desrochers A, Maranzana R (2011) A novel approach for the inspection of flexible parts without the use of special fixtures. J Manuf Sci Eng 133(1):011009-1-011009-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Aidibe A, Tahan AS, Abenhaim GN (2012) Distinguishing profile deviations from a part’s deformation using the maximum normed residual test. WSEAS Trans Appl Theoretical Mech 7:18–28

    Google Scholar 

  12. Radvar-Esfahlan H, Tahan S-A (2012) Nonrigid geometric metrology using generalized numerical inspection fixtures. Precis Eng 36(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Radvar-Esfahlan H, Tahan S-A (2013) “Robust generalized numerical inspection fixture for the metrology of compliant mechanical parts”. Int J Adv Manuf Technol, pp. 1–12

  14. Wen X, Zhao Y, Wang D, Zhu X, Xue X (2013) Accurate evaluation of free-form surface profile error based on quasi particle swarm optimization algorithm and surface subdivision. Chin J Mech Eng 26(2):406–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14:239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gold S, Rangarajan A, Lu CP, Suguna P, Mjolsness E (1998) New algorithms for 2d and 3d point matching: pose estimation and correspondence. Pattern Recogn 38:1019–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chui H, Rangarajan A (2003) A new point matching algorithm for non-rigid registration. Comput Vis Image Underst 89:114–141

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Myronenko A, Song X (2010) Point set registration: coherent point drift. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32:2262–2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peng W, Ping W, ZhiGuo Q, YingHui G, ZhenKang S (2011) A refined coherent point drift (CPD) algorithm for point set registration. Sci Chin Inform Sci 54:2639–2646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Koch M, Bauer S, Hornegger J, Strobel N (2013) “Towards deformable shape modeling of the left atrium using non-rigid coherent point drift registration”. Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin. pp. 332–337

  21. Hu Y, Rijkhorst EJ, Manber R, Hawkes D, Barratt D (2010) Deformable vessel-based registration using landmark-guided coherent point drift. Med Imaging Augment Reality 6326:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thompson R (1985) A note on restricted maximum likelihood estimation with an alternative outlier model. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 47:53–55

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey J W. (1983) “Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis”. The Wiley Classic Library

  24. Yuille AL, Grzywacz NM (1989) A mathematical analysis of the motion coherence theory. Int J Comput Vis 3:155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barber CB, Dobkin DP, Huhdanpaa H (1996) The Quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Trans Math Softw 22:469–483

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Aidibe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aidibe, A., Tahan, A. Adapting the coherent point drift algorithm to the fixtureless dimensional inspection of compliant parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79, 831–841 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-6832-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-6832-9

Keywords

Navigation