Scanning Probe Motion Course Determination

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current methods for determining the course of relative motion between a scanning probe and an artefact on a coordinate positioning apparatus are inefficient, as they require manual programming and do not optimize for rotational degrees of freedom, leading to suboptimal measurement paths and potential collisions.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that uses geometric data of both the artefact and the scanning probe to automatically determine the relative orientation along an interaction path, optimizing for one or more criteria such as speed, collision avoidance, and minimal movement, by generating and controlling motion data to dynamically vary the orientation of the probe during measurement.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If manual programming is used to determine measurement paths, then ease of operation is maintained through simple programming, but productivity is reduced due to inefficiency and suboptimal paths

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemeasurement efficiencyVSAvoidprogramming complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically determines the course of motion and probe orientation by utilizing geometric data of the artifact and probe itself, enabling the measurement system to self-program optimal paths without manual intervention. The computer program autonomously processes geometric models to generate measurement paths that optimize for speed, collision avoidance, and minimal movement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary analysis by loading and processing geometric data of the artifact and probe before generating measurement paths. By pre-processing the geometric models and analyzing the interaction space in advance, the system can automatically determine optimal measurement paths that avoid collisions and minimize movement, thereby improving productivity before the actual measurement begins.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Measurement precision

If fixed probe orientation is used along measurement paths, then device complexity is reduced, but measurement precision is compromised due to suboptimal measurement angles

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemeasurement accuracyVSAvoidorientation control complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the probe orientation along the measurement path by calculating the optimal orientation at each point based on the geometric data of the artifact and probe. The probe orientation is varied continuously to maintain optimal measurement angles, improving measurement precision while the computer program manages the complexity of orientation control.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the orientation parameters of the probe along the measurement path by calculating optimal Euler angles or rotation matrices at each measurement point. By dynamically adjusting orientation parameters based on geometric data, the system achieves high measurement precision while the computer program handles the computational complexity of parameter optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Productivity

If automated path generation is implemented, then productivity is improved through efficiency, but device complexity increases due to computational requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemeasurement efficiencyVSAvoidcomputational system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces manual programming operations with a computer-based automated system that processes geometric data and generates measurement paths. By substituting mechanical/manual path planning with computational algorithms, the system improves productivity through automated optimization while the computer program manages the computational complexity of the substitution.

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

4Loss of time

If measurement paths are planned manually from CAD drawings, then ease of operation is maintained through simple programming, but loss of time occurs due to manual interpretation and programming

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepath programming timeVSAvoidprogramming simplicity
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of timeVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system automatically determines the course of motion by loading geometric data from CAD models and processing it through computational algorithms. The measurement system self-generates optimal paths without requiring manual interpretation of drawings or manual programming, eliminating time loss while the computer program handles the complexity of automated path generation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary processing of geometric data from CAD models before measurement, automatically extracting features and generating measurement paths. By pre-processing the geometric information and automatically creating optimized paths beforehand, the system eliminates time loss associated with manual path programming while the computer program manages the computational complexity of preliminary analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentEP2185983B1Determination of the course of motion of a scanning probe
Publication Date: 2015.08.12 RENISHAW PLC
  • EP2185983B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2185983B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2185983B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A computer-implemented method for determining a course of motion between an artefact (10) and device (28) for interacting with the artefact (10) that are moveable relative to each other in at least one linear (X, Y, Z) and one rotational (A1, A2) degree of freedom, the method comprising: receiving geometric data representing the artefact (10); receiving geometric data representing the device; and determining, from the geometric data, how the device (28) and artefact (10) can be oriented relative to each other along an interaction path so as to comply with one or more optimisation criteria.