3D Print Accuracy Scoring from Metrology Data
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Determining the accuracy of 3D-printed parts with complex geometries is time-consuming and labor-intensive due to inconsistent shrinkage, requiring a more efficient evaluation method beyond physical inspections.
Innovation Solution
A method utilizing three-dimensional metrology data to calculate a single Print Accuracy Score (PAS) based on distances between scanned points and a part model, scaled by tolerance values, to quickly assess and compare the accuracy of parts, facilitating iterative design and parameter adjustments.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Measurement precision
If physical inspection methods are used to determine part accuracy, then measurement precision is improved, but loss of time and productivity deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The patent uses digital 3D models as copies of physical parts and virtual point cloud representations of scanned parts. Instead of physically measuring each part, the system creates digital replicas and compares them computationally, eliminating the need for time-consuming physical inspections while maintaining measurement precision through accurate 3D scanning and registration algorithms
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces mechanical measurement systems with optical 3D scanning systems. The coordinate measuring machine (CMM) or other 3D scanning devices capture part geometry optically, converting physical measurements into digital point cloud data that can be processed computationally, thereby reducing measurement time while maintaining precision
2Manufacturing precision
If detailed physical measurements are performed on complex parts, then manufacturing precision is improved, but productivity deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a multi-level evaluation approach where not all parts require full detailed inspection. The system first performs automated 3D scanning and comparison to identify parts that meet acceptance criteria, allowing only those that fail automated inspection to undergo more detailed physical measurements. This partial action approach maintains manufacturing precision for critical parts while dramatically improving overall productivity
Solution Approach 2:
The system enables self-service quality evaluation where parts are automatically scanned, measured, and evaluated against design specifications without requiring manual intervention. The automated comparison of point cloud data with 3D models provides immediate feedback on dimensional accuracy, allowing rapid processing of multiple parts while maintaining precision through algorithmic analysis
3Productivity
If automated scoring systems are implemented, then productivity is improved, but measurement precision may deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a feedback mechanism where the automated scoring system's results can be reviewed and validated. The system provides quantitative accuracy scores based on point-to-model distances, but allows for threshold-based acceptance criteria that can be adjusted based on part criticality. This feedback loop ensures that automated high-throughput evaluation maintains measurement precision by allowing verification of borderline cases
Solution Approach 2:
The system allows dynamic adjustment of evaluation parameters such as tolerance thresholds, scoring weights, and acceptance criteria based on part geometry, material, and application requirements. This parameter flexibility enables the automated system to adapt to different measurement precision requirements while maintaining high productivity, as the same automated infrastructure can handle both tight and loose tolerance specifications
Data Source
AI summary
A method includes determining a plurality of distances between a representation of the part that is based on three-dimensional metrology data and a three-dimensional model of the part and applying each distance to a function to produce a plurality of function results. A single score is formed from the plurality of function results. The single score is displayed and at least one of the following is performed: comparing the single score to a single score of another part to determine whether changes made to a manufacturing process result in more accurate parts; determining whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant constructing additional copies of the part; or using the single score to determine whether the part is constructed accurately enough to warrant physical inspection.