Efficient registration for precision inspection of free-form surfaces

  • Liang Zhu
  • Jacob Barhak
  • Vijay Srivatsan
  • Reuven Katz
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Precision inspection of free-form surface is difficult with current industry practices that rely on accurate fixtures. Alternatively, the measurements can be aligned to the part model using a geometry-based registration method, such as the iterative closest point (ICP) method, to achieve a fast and automatic inspection process. This paper discusses various techniques that accelerate the registration process and improve the efficiency of the ICP method. First, the data structures of approximated nearest nodes and topological neighbor facets are combined to speed up the closest point calculation. The closest point calculation is further improved with the cached facets across iteration steps. The registration efficiency can also be enhanced by incorporating signal-to-noise ratio into the transformation of correspondence sets to reduce or remove the noise of outliers. Last, an acceleration method based on linear or quadratic extrapolation is fine-tuned to provide the fast yet robust iteration process. These techniques have been implemented on a four-axis blade inspection machine where no accurate fixture is required. The tests of measurement simulations and inspection case studies indicated that the presented registration method is accurate and efficient.

Keywords

Optical inspection Registration between point set and CAD model ICP algorithm Approximated nearest node Simulated measurement 

Abbreviations

BIM

Blade inspection machine

CAD

Computer aided design

CMM

Coordinate measuring machine

ICP

Iterate closest point

MCS

Measurement coordinate system

PCS

Part coordinate system

RMS

Root mean square

SNR

Signal to noise ratio

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Neil Craft from Williams International Co. for providing the physical parts and geometry models used in this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Spyridi AJ, Requicha AAG (1990) Accessibility analysis for the automatic inspection of mechanical parts by coordinate measuring machines. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Cincinnati, OhioCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown CW (1991) IPPEX: an automated planning system for dimensional inspection. Manuf Syst 20(2):189–207Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hopp TH (1984) CAD-directed inspection. Ann CIRP 33Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blais F (2003) A review of 20 years of range sensor development. In: Videometrics VII, proceedings of SPIE-IS&T electronic imaging, Santa Clara, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giusarma S, Moroni G, Polini W (2004) Inaccuracy prediction due to six-point locating principle. Proceedings of the CIRP ICME ’04, 30 June – 2 July, Sorrento, Italy, pp 213–218Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barhak J, Djurdjanovic D, Spicer P, Katz R (2005) Integration of reconfigurable inspection with stream of variations methodology. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45(4/5):407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chua CS, Jarvis R (1997) Point signatures: a new representation for 3D object recognition. IJCV 25(1):63–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hebert M, Ikeuchi K, Delingette H (1995) A spherical representation for recognition of free-form surfaces. IEEE PAMI 17(7):681–690Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamany SM, Farag AA (1999) Free-form surface registration using surface signatures. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, Kerkyra, Greece, pp 1098–1104Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun Y, Paik JK, Koschan A, Page DL, Abidi MA (2003) Point fingerprint: a new 3-D object representation scheme. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 33(4):712–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghosal S, Mehrotra R (1995) Range surface characterization and segmentation using neural networks. Pattern Recogn 28(5):711–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knopf GK, Sangole A (2002) Registration of closed free-form surfaces using deformable maps. Proceedings of the artificial neural networks in engineering (ANNIE '92) conference, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu X, Li D (2003) Range image registration by neural network. Mach Graph Vis 12(2):257–266Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faugeras OD, Hebert M (1986) The representation, recognition, and locating of 3-D objects. Int J Robot Res 5(3):27–52Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen Y, Medioni G (1992) Object modeling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vis Comput 10(3):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE PAMI 14(2):239–255Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horn BKP (1987) Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. J Opt Soc Am A4(4):629–642MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arun K, Huang T, Bolstein S (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets. IEEE PAMI 9(5):698–700Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rusinkiewicz S, Levoy M (2001) Efficient variants of the ICP algorithms. Proceedings of the third international conference on 3D digital imaging and modeling, Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masuda T, Yokoya N (1995) A robust method for registration and segmentation of multiple range images. Comp Vis Image Underst 61(3):295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pulli K (1999) Multiview registration for large data sets. Proceedings of the international conference on 3D digital imaging and modeling, Ottawa, Canada, pp 160-168Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorai C, Wang G, Jain AK, Mercer C (1998) Registration and integration of multiple object views for 3D model construction. IEEE PAMI 20(1):83–89Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turk G, Levoy M (1994) Zippered polygon meshes from range images. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 94, Orlando, Florida, 24-29 JulyGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blais G, Levine MD (1995) Registering multiview range data to create 3D computer objects. IEEE PAMI 17(8):820–824Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon DA, Hebert M, Kanade T (1994) Real-time 3-D pose estimation using a high-speed range sensor. Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA '94), San Diego, CA, vol 3, pp 2235-2241Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greenspan M, Godin G (2001) A nearest neighbor method for efficient ICP. Proceedings of the third international conference on 3D digital imaging and modeling, Quebec City, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Godin G, Rioux M, Baribeau R (1994) Three-dimensional registration using range and intensity information. SPIE Videometrics III 2350:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arya S, Mount DM, Netanyahu NS, Silverman R, Wu A (1998) An optimal algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor searching in fixed dimensions. JACM 45(6):891–923MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sirat GY, Paz F, Kleinman M, Doherty M (2003) ConoProbe and conoline, two new 3-dimensonal measurement systems. LPM2002, proceedings of SPIE 4830:319–324Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhu L, Barhak J, Srivatsan V, Katz R (2004) Error analysis and simulation for a four-axis optical inspection system. Proceedings of DET 2004, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koren Y, Ulsoy A (2002) Vision, principles and impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Powertrain International, pp 14–21Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bergevin R, Soucy M, Gagnon H, Laurendeau D (1996) Towards a general multiview registration technique. IEEE PAMI 18(5):540–547Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang Zhu
    • 1
  • Jacob Barhak
    • 1
  • Vijay Srivatsan
    • 1
  • Reuven Katz
    • 1
  1. 1.NSF Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, College Of EngineeringUniversity Of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations