Production Engineering

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 137–146 | Cite as

A non-rigid registration method for the efficient analysis of shape deviations in production engineering applications

  • Matthias Schweinoch
  • Renke Schäfer
  • Alexei Sacharow
  • Dirk Biermann
  • Christoph Buchheim
Quality Assurance


A common requirement in production engineering applications is the comparison of designed and as-built parts. Due to manufacturing influences and geometric changes incorporated during physical prototyping, there may exist significant deviations between these shapes. In order to compensate the manufacturing influences and to incorporate geometric changes into the virtual design, a detailed analysis of the deviations is required. The designed (or reference) shape is usually given in terms of a CAD data set, while the as-built (or test) geometry is acquired by digitization of the physically manufactured prototype. Given these two geometries, one is faced with the problem of determining points of correspondence between them. This is also referred to as registration. In rigid registration, correspondences are determined by first aligning the two geometries rigidly using a best-fit approach. Subsequently, the correspondences between the aligned geometries are determined by finding for a point of one shape the closest surface point on the other. While several efficient rigid registration methods exist, they do not account for shape deviations, resulting in inaccurate correspondences when applied to such geometries. Non-rigid registration methods, conversely, do not search for a global best-fit alignment, but instead affect a deformation of the one geometry onto the other, allowing for an improved correspondence calculation. Most published state-of-the-art non-rigid registration methods are not necessarily applicable to production engineering scenarios due to, among others, the typical data sizes and the required level of accuracy in the correspondence determination. A further hindrance is their lack of shop-floor applicability, attributable to their calculation times as well as to the expertise that their application requires on behalf of the user. This paper presents a non-rigid registration method for the efficient calculation of correspondences in production engineering scenarios. By combination of several established methods from the field of geometric modeling, the test shape is iteratively deformed onto the reference shape. When the deformed test shape satisfiably approximates the reference geometry, correspondences are determined by projection. The procedure is applied to the problem of springback behavior, which arises in sheet metal forming. A validation of the method is achieved by comparing the calculated correspondences with the ideal correspondences, as determined by finite element simulation.


Non-rigid registration Springback analysis Correspondence ICP Segmentation 



This work is funded as transferproject T1 of the Collaborative Research Center 3D-Surface Engineering (SFB 708) by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in cooperation with Audi AG and AutoForm Engineering GmbH.


  1. 1.
    Schuler GMBH (1998) Metal forming handbook. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gan W, Wagoner RH (2004) Die design method for sheet springback. Int J Mech Sci 46(7):1097–1113. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2004.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tam Gary KL, Cheng ZQ, Lai YK, Langbein FC, Liu Y, Marshall D, Martin RR, Sun XF, Rosin PL (2013) Registration of 3d point clouds and meshes: a survey from rigid to nonrigid. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Gr 19(7):1199–1217. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingbeek RA, Gan W, Wagoner RH, Meinders T, Weiher J (2008) Theoretical verification of the displacement adjustment and springforward algorithms for springback compensation. Int J Mater Form 1(3):159–168. doi: 10.1007/s12289-008-0369-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang XA, Ruan F (2011) A die design method for springback compensation based on displacement adjustment. Int J Mech Sci 53(5):399–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2011.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zitov B, Flusser J (2003) Image registration methods: a survey. Image Vis Comput 21(11):977–1000. doi: 10.1016/S0262-8856(03)00137-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256. doi: 10.1109/34.121791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bare R, Dieulot JY, Rabat P (2011) An innovative subdivision-icp registration method for tool-path correction applied to deformed aircraft parts machining. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53(5–8):463–471. doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2875-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geiger M, Hagenah H, Hutterer A (2005) Task specific registration algorithms within the closed loop control of laser forming processes. Prod Eng 2(7):125–130Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hähnel D, Thrun S, Burgard W (2003) An extension of the icp algorithm for modeling nonrigid objects with mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the 18th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI’03, pp 915–920. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA.
  11. 11.
    Li H, Sumner RW, Pauly M (2008) Global correspondence optimization for non-rigid registration of depth scans. In: Proceedings of the symposium on geometry processing, SGP ’08, pp. 1421–1430. Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville.
  12. 12.
    Pottmann H, Huang QX, Yang YL, Hu SM (2006) Geometry and convergence analysis of algorithms for registration of 3d shapes. Int J Comput Vis 67(3):277–296. doi: 10.1007/s11263-006-5167-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sacharow A, Balzer J, Biermann D, Surmann T (2011) Non-rigid isometric icp: a practical registration method for the analysis and compensation of form errors in production engineering. Comput Aided Des 43(12):1758–1768. doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2011.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sederberg TW, Parry SR (1986) Free-form deformation of solid geometric models. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH ’86, pp 151–160. ACM, New York, NY doi: 10.1145/15922.15903
  15. 15.
    Sorkine O (2006) Differential representations for mesh processing. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 25, pp 789–807. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein L, Wagner T, Buchheim C, Biermann D (2014) A procedure for the evaluation and compensation of form errors by means of global isometric registration with subsequent local reoptimization. Prod Eng 8(1–2):81–89. doi: 10.1007/s11740-013-0510-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schweinoch M, Sacharow A, Biermann D, Buchheim C (2015) An error-adaptive, non-rigid registration method for the analysis of springback in sheet metal forming. Key Eng Mater 651–653:1015–1020. doi: 10.4028/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang QX, Adams B, Wicke M, Guibas LJ (2008) Non-rigid registration under isometric deformations. Comput Gr Forum 27(5):1449–1457. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2008.01285.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sorkine O, Alexa M (2007) As-rigid-as-possible surface modeling. In: Symposium on geometry processing, vol. 4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinkall U, Polthier K (1993) Computing discrete minimal surfaces and their conjugates. Exp Math 2(1):15–36MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu L, Zhang L, Xu Y, Gotsman C, Gortler SJ (2008) A local/global approach to mesh parameterization. In: Computer graphics forum, vol. 27, pp 1495–1504. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gower JC, Dijksterhuis GB (2004) Procrustes problems, vol 3. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Schweinoch
    • 1
  • Renke Schäfer
    • 2
  • Alexei Sacharow
    • 3
  • Dirk Biermann
    • 1
  • Christoph Buchheim
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Machining TechnologyTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Discrete OptimizationTU Dortmund UniversityDortmundGermany
  3. 3.AutoForm Engineering GmbHDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations