Skip to main content

Validating the virtual clamp with CMM correlation on automotive production lines

Abstract

Mechanical clamping has major disadvantages when used in the in-line measurement of a welded automotive assembly. It is hard to adjust the welding process, the clamp prevents the flexibility of optical measurement and clamping equipment is expensive to buy and maintain. A method called “virtual clamp” has been developed to provide the results of clamped measurement without physically clamping the part. This eliminates the disadvantages of the mechanical clamp. The accuracy of the virtual clamp was validated on four real-world automotive production lines. Correlation between the mechanically clamped parts using a CMM and virtually clamped parts using an in-line measurement system showed the accuracy of the virtual clamp to be around 0.04 mm in half- and full-vehicle size welded assemblies. Although this is a considerable contribution to the overall measurement uncertainty budget, the virtual clamp appeared to reduce other uncertainties affecting the budget. Correlation actually improved when using the virtual clamp. The research has opened a way to validate the accuracy of a virtual clamp that does not require additional investments and uses existing technology. The market indicates that the next generation of manufacturing needs more flexibility from in-line measurement, and this research clearly shows that the virtual clamp can provide it.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Roland Berger (2012) Mastering Product Complexity. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. November 2012

  2. 2.

    Pine BJ (1993) (1993) mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    European Commission. (2004). Manufuture — A vision for 2020. Report of the high-level group

  4. 4.

    National Research Council (1998) Visionary manufacturing challenges for 2020. National Academy Press, Washington (DC), p 1998

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    ElMaraghy HA (2006) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 2006(17):261–276. doi:10.1007/s10696-006-9028-7

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wiendahl H (2005) Justifying changeability. A methodical approach to achieving cost effectiveness. Int J Manuf Sci Prod 6(1–2):33

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nyhuis P, Kolakowski M (2006) (2006) Heger CL. Evaluation of factory transformability — a systematic approach. Prod Eng 13(1):147–152

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dove R (1994) The meaning of life and the meaning of agile. Production 1994 106(11):14–15

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Goldman SL, Nagel RN, Preiss K (1995) (1995) agile competitors and virtual organizations. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yusuf YY, Sarhadi M, Gunasekaran A (1999) Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and attributes. Int J Prod Econ 62(1–2):33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gunasekaran A, Yusuf YY (2002) Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic and technological imperatives. Int J Prod res 40(6):1357–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Slack N (1988) (1988) manufacturing system flexibility — an assessment procedure. Comput-Integr Manuf Syst 1(1):25–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Upton DM (1994) (1994) the management of manufacturing flexibility. Calif Manag rev 36(2):72–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Upton DM (1995) (1995) flexibility as process mobility: the management of plant capabilities for quick response manufacturing. J Oper Manag 12(3–4):205–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Koren Y, Shpitalni M (2010) Design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst 2010(29):130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jeang A (1994) Tolerance design: choosing optimal tolerance specification in the design machined parts. Qual Reliab Eng Int 10:2735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chase KW, Greenwood WH, Loosli BG, Haugland LF (1990). Least cost tolerance allocation for mechanical assemblies with automated process selection. Manufacturing review 1990;3(1):4959.

  18. 18.

    Tuominen V (2012) Cost Modeling of Inspection Strategies in Automotive Quality Control. Engineering Management Research; Vol. 1, No. 2; 2012. ISSN 1927–7318 E-ISSN 1927–7326

  19. 19.

    Jeang A (2009) Optimal determination of the process means, process tolerances, and resetting cycle for process planning under process shifting. J Manuf Syst 28(2009):98106

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Frost & Sullivan (2014) Greater emphasis on automation in automotive industry to drive investments for dimensional metrology equipment (NDC7–30)

  21. 21.

    Frost & Sullivan (2015) Understanding industry 4.0—Impact on the global Inline metrology market

  22. 22.

    Tuominen, V. (2011). Virtual clamping in automotive production line measurement. Expert Systems with Applications Vol. 38, Issue 12, November/December 2011. ISSN 0957–4174

  23. 23.

    MSA (2002) Measurement System Analysis, Reference Manual, Third Edition. Automotive Industry Action Group. ISBN 978–1–60-534082-1

  24. 24.

    Mitutoyo web-site. Cited 18.6.2016. http://www.mitutoyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/L-Section-US-1003.pdf

  25. 25.

    VDI 2634 (2002) Optical 3D measuring systems. Imaging systems with point-by-point probing. Part 1. VDI-guideline, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Düsseldorf 2002

  26. 26.

    Haggrén H (1992) On system development of photogrammetric stations for on-line manufacturing control. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Civil Engineering and Building Construction Series No. 97, Helsinki 1992, 31 pp. Published by the Finnish Academy of Technology. ISBN 951–666–350-8. ISSN 0355–2705

  27. 27.

    Tuominen V (2007) Verification of the accuracy of a real-time optical 3D–measuring system. Master’s thesis, Helsinki University of Technology

  28. 28.

    Tuominen V, Niini I (2008) Verification of the accuracy of a realtime optical 3D-measuring system on production line. Int arch Photogrammetr, rem Sens spatial inform Sci 38, part B5-1, Comission V 13–19. ISSN 1682–1750

  29. 29.

    Hemming B (2007) Measurement traceability and uncertainty in machine vision applications. Julkaisu / Mittaustekniikan keskus. J, 6/2007. ISBN:978–952–5610-41-3. ISSN:1235–5704

  30. 30.

    Tikka, H., Lehto, H. and Esala, V-P. (2003) Konepajamittaukset ja kalibroinnit: Metalliteollisuuden kustannus Oy. Tekninen tiedotus/Teknologiateollisuus 3, Tampere: 79p. In Finnish (2003).

  31. 31.

    Kay & Laby (2010). Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants. 2.3.5. Thermal Expansion. Kaye & Laby Online. Version 1.1 www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk

  32. 32.

    Ley B (1999) Diameter of a Human Hair. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/BrianLey.shtml visited 1.7.2014

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valtteri Tuominen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuominen, V. Validating the virtual clamp with CMM correlation on automotive production lines. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93, 1293–1305 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0579-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • In-line measurement
  • 100% inspection
  • Clamp
  • Correlation to CMM
  • FEM
  • Automotive body and chassis manufacturing