Evaluation of a multi-sensor horizontal dual arm Coordinate Measuring Machine for automotive dimensional inspection


Multi-sensor coordinate measuring machines (CMM) have a potential performance advantage over existing CMM systems by offering the accuracy of a touch trigger probe with the speed of a laser scanner. Before these systems can be used, it is important that both random and systematic errors are evaluated within the context of its intended application. At present, the performance of a multi-sensor CMM, particularly of the laser scanner, has not been evaluated within an automotive environment. This study used a full-scale CNC machined physical representation of a sheet metal vehicle body to evaluate the measurement agreement and repeatability of critical surface points using a multi-sensor horizontal dual arm CMM. It was found that there were errors between CMM arms and with regard to part coordinate frame construction when using the different probing systems. However, the most significant effect upon measurement error was the spatial location of the surface feature. Therefore, for each feature on an automotive assembly, measurement agreement and repeatability has to be individually determined to access its acceptability for measurement with a laser scanner to improve CMM utilisation, or whether the accuracy of a touch trigger probe is required.


  1. 1.

    Zhao H, Kruth J-P, Van Gestel N, Boeckmans B, Bleys P (2012) Automated dimensional inspection planning using the combination of laser scanner and tactile probe. Measurement 45:1057–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Martínez S, Cuesta E, Barreiro J, Álvarez B (2010) Analysis of laser scanning and strategies for dimensional and geometrical control. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:621–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Muralikrishnan B, Ren W, Stanfield E, Everett D, Zheng A, Doiron T (2013) Applications of profile filtering in the dimensional metrology of fuel cell plates. Meas Sci Technol 24. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/24/6/065003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bešić I, Van Gestel N, Kruth J-P, Bleys P (2011) Accuracy improvements of laser line scanning for feature measurements on CMM. Opt Lasers Eng 49:1274–1280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Martínez S, Cuesta E, Barreiro J, Álvarez B (2010) Methodology for comparison of laser digitizing versus contact systems in dimensional control. Opt Lasers Eng 48:1238–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Feng H-Y, Liu Y, Xi F (2001) Analysis of digitizing errors of a laser scanning system. Precis Eng 25:185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Isheil A, Gonnet J-P, Joannic D, Fontaine J-F (2011) Systematic error correction of a 3D laser scanning measurement device. Opt Lasers Eng 49:16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kiraci E, Attridge A, Williams MA (2012) The use of laser scanning technology to improve the design process. Appl Mech Mater 110:4188–4122

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Abenhaim GN, Desrochers A, Tahan A (2012) Nonrigid parts’ specification and inspection methods: notions, challenges, and recent advancements. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 63:741–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mahmud M, Joannic D, Roy M, Isheil A, Fontaine J-F (2011) 3D part inspection path planning of a laser scanner with control on uncertainty. Comput Aided Design 43:345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Weckenmann A, Jiang X, Sommer KD, Neuschaefer-Rube U, Seewig J, Shaw L, Estler T (2009) Multisensor data fusion in dimensional metrology. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 58:701–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cuesta E, Carlos Rico J, Fernández P, Blanco D, Valiño G (2009) Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 43:1157–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Shakarji CM (2012) Coordinate measurement system algorithms and filters. In: Hocken R J, Pereira PH (eds) Coordinate measuring machines and systems, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 153–182

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Weckenmann A, Estler T, Peggs G, McMurty D (2004) Probing systems in dimensional metrology. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 54:657–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Contri A, Bourdet P, Lartigue C (2002) Quality of 3D digitised points obtained with non-contact optical sensors. CIRP Ann-Manuf Techn 51:443–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Vukašinović N, Bračun D, Možina J (2010) The influence of incident angle, object colour and distance on CNC laser scanning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50:265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Van Gestel N, Cuypers S, Bleys P, Kruth J-P (2009) A performance evaluation test for laser line scanners on CMMs. Opt Lasers Eng 47:336–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Muralikrishnan B, Ren W, Everett D, Stanfield E, Doiron T (2012) Performance evaluation experiments on a laser spot triangulation probe. Measurement 45:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Vukašinović N, Bračun D, Možina J, Duhovnik (2012) A new method for defining the measurement-uncertainty model of CNC laser-triangulation scanner. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58:1097–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Vezzetti E (2009) Computer aided inspection: design of customer-orientated benchmark for noncontact 3D scanner evaluation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:1140–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vukašinović N, Možina J, Duhovnik (2012) Correlation between incident angle, measurement distance, object colour and the number of acquired points at CNC Laser Scanning. Stroj Vestn-J Mech E 58:23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    British Standards Institution (2009) BS EN ISO 10360-2:2009—Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM)–Part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions, London, BSI

  23. 23.

    Attridge A, Williams M, Tennant C (2005) Achieving craftsmanship targets across the UK automotive supply base, through the use of quality maturation tools and processes. In: Proceedings of the SAE 2005 world congress. Detroit

  24. 24.

    Attridge A, Williams MA, Tennant C (2007) The role of physical modelling in the design verification stage of the automotive NPI process in the premium sector. Int J Automot Tech Manag 7:32–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Turley GA, Williams MA, Tennant C (2007) Final vehicle product audit methodologies within the automotive industry. Int J Prod Qual Manag 2:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kirkup L, Frenkel RB (2006) An introduction to uncertainty in measurement using the GUM (Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Pereira PH (2012) Cartesian coordinate measuring machines. In: Hocken RJ, Pereira PH (eds) Coordinate measuring machines and systems 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 5779

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glen A. Turley.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turley, G.A., Kiraci, E., Olifent, A. et al. Evaluation of a multi-sensor horizontal dual arm Coordinate Measuring Machine for automotive dimensional inspection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72, 1665–1675 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5737-3

Download citation


  • CMM
  • Laser scanner
  • Measurement systems assessment