Crankshaft Evaluation via 3D Scanning and Boundary Shell Comparison

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for manufacturing crankshafts are labor-intensive and prone to human error, particularly in evaluating material distribution and die wear, which can lead to defects in critical areas like pin journals and webs, affecting the crankshaft's mechanical integrity and machining efficiency.

Innovation Solution

A method involving a three-dimensional scan to generate a computer model of the crankshaft, comparing it to inner and outer boundary shells to determine suitable material distribution for machining, ensuring enough material for strength and avoiding excessive material that could damage tools, thereby automating the evaluation process and reducing defects.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If visual inspection is used to evaluate crankshafts for improper die fill and misplaced material, then human operators can identify defects, but the process is labor intensive and subject to human error

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedefect detection accuracyVSAvoidinspection time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual visual inspection with an automated three-dimensional scanning system that captures crankshaft geometry and compares it against boundary shells. This substitution eliminates human labor and subjectivity, providing consistent, rapid evaluation of material distribution and die wear indicators.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates a three-dimensional digital copy of the crankshaft geometry through scanning. This digital model is then compared against predefined boundary shells to automatically detect deviations indicating improper die fill or misplaced material, replacing the need for human visual assessment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

2Strength

If enough material is left in the web and pin journal areas, then mechanical strength is sufficient to prevent failure, but excessive material increases the likelihood of die wear and improper die fill

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveweb and pin journal strengthVSAvoiddie fill accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The boundary shell methodology establishes predetermined geometric limits before the forging process. By comparing the as-forged crankshaft against these pre-defined shells, the system identifies areas where material distribution deviates from optimal values, allowing corrective actions to be taken before final machining.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system monitors and controls material distribution parameters in critical areas by comparing actual crankshaft geometry against target boundary shells. This enables adjustment of forging parameters to achieve optimal material distribution that balances strength requirements with die wear prevention.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If the crankshaft is evaluated using traditional methods, then defects can be identified, but the evaluation process is labor intensive and prone to human error

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveevaluation accuracyVSAvoidevaluation speed
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual evaluation methods with an automated three-dimensional scanning and comparison system. The system rapidly captures crankshaft geometry and automatically compares it against boundary shells, eliminating human labor while providing more consistent and accurate results.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides automated feedback by comparing the scanned crankshaft geometry against predefined boundary shells. This feedback mechanism automatically identifies deviations indicating defects, improper die fill, or misplaced material, replacing subjective human judgment with objective, rapid comparison.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Manufacturing precision

If three-dimensional scanning and computer modeling are used to evaluate the crankshaft, then evaluation accuracy and efficiency are enhanced, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvematerial distribution evaluation accuracyVSAvoidevaluation system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system creates a three-dimensional digital copy of the crankshaft and compares it against digital boundary shell models. This copying approach allows complex geometric evaluation without requiring complex physical measurement equipment, as the comparison is performed entirely in the digital domain.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces complex manual measurement and evaluation procedures with automated three-dimensional scanning and computer-based boundary shell comparison. This substitution simplifies the overall process by consolidating multiple manual steps into an automated digital workflow.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentEP2980667B1Method for evaluating a crankshaft
Publication Date: 2019.01.02 DEERE & CO
  • EP2980667B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2980667B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2980667B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A method (200) for evaluating a crankshaft, the method comprising the steps (202, 204, 212) of receiving data related to a three dimensional scan of the crankshaft; generating a crankshaft computer model based on the data; and determining whether the crankshaft is suitable for machining into a machined crankshaft based on the crankshaft computer model.