The demand in manufacturing industries productivity with high product quality is important. Nowadays, NC, CNC, and automated machine shops are playing vital role for higher productivity. Similarly, the quality inspection of the product also needed higher productivity. For the reason, there are lots of inspection methods such as direct and indirect measurement techniques which are used in measurement of products. In that machine vision is one of the newer techniques, which is used to measure the products with the aid of CCD camera and image processing techniques such as image acquisition, denoising with filters, comparison of real image and actual image, mapping of image, and image processing algorithm. In this chapter, the two important measurement techniques were discussed: firstly tool wear measurement and secondly surface finish measurement. Finally, this chapter proposes the machine vision technique that is best suitable to measure the tool wear and surface finish in automated manufacturing industries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
dos Santos ESF, Xavier WB, Rodrigues RN, da Botelho SSC, Werhli AV (2017) Vision based measurement applied to industrial instrumentation. IFAC PapersOnLine 50(1):788–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim J-H, Moon DK, Lee DW, Kim JS, Kang MC, Kim KH (2002) Tool wear measuring technique on the machine using CCD and exclusive jig. J Mater Process Technol 130–131:668–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayub MA, Mohamed AB, Esa AH (2014) In-line inspection of roundness using machine vision. Procedia Technol 15:808–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley C, Wong YS (2001) Surface texture indicators of tool wear—a machine vision approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 17:435–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen MC (2002) Roundness measurements for discontinuous perimeters via machine visions. Comput Ind 47:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chethan YD, Ravindra HV, Krishne Gowda YT, Bharath Kumar S (2015) Machine vision for tool status monitoring in turning Inconel 718 using blob analysis. Mater Today: Proc 2:1841–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar