Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T00:01:25.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A COMPARISON OF STRUCTURED LIGHT SCANNING AND PHOTOGRAMMETRY FOR THE DIGITISATION OF PHYSICAL PROTOTYPES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Owen Freeman Gebler ,
Mark Goudswaard ,
Ben Hicks ,
David Jones ,
Aydin Nassehi ,
Chris Snider  and
Jason Yon
Owen Freeman Gebler
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Mark Goudswaard*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Ben Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
David Jones
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Aydin Nassehi
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Chris Snider
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Jason Yon
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
*
Goudswaard, Mark, University of Bristol, Mechanical Engineering, United Kingdom, mg0353@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Physical prototyping during early stage design typically represents an iterative process. Commonly, a single prototype will be used throughout the process, with its form being modified as the design evolves. If the form of the prototype is not captured as each iteration occurs understanding how specific design changes impact upon the satisfaction of requirements is challenging, particularly retrospectively.

In this paper two different systems for digitising physical artefacts, structured light scanning (SLS) and photogrammetry (PG), are investigated as means for capturing iterations of physical prototypes. First, a series of test artefacts are presented and procedures for operating each system are developed. Next, artefacts are digitised using both SLS and PG and resulting models are compared against a master model of each artefact. Results indicate that both systems are able to reconstruct the majority of each artefact's geometry within 0.1mm of the master, however, overall SLS demonstrated superior performance, both in terms of completion time and model quality. Additionally, the quality of PG models was far more influenced by the effort and expertise of the user compared to SLS.

Keywords

Design processNew product developmentPrototypingConceptual design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 11 - 20
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

3D Systems, 2020. How does Best Fit Alignment determine how the parts are aligned? [WWW Document]. URL https://support.3dsystems.com/s/article/How-does-Best-Fit-Alignment-determine-how-the-parts-are-aligned?language=en_US (accessed 11.15.20).Google Scholar
Agisoft, n.d. Metashape Professional Edition [WWW Document]. URL https://www.agisoft.com/features/professional-edition/ (accessed 11.16.20).Google Scholar
Barhoush, Y.A.M., Erichsen, J.F., Sjöman, H., Georgiev, G.V., Steinert, M., 2019. Capturing Prototype Progress in Digital Fabrication Education, in: Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design. pp. 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., Wood, K., 2017. Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design Science 3. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, E.J., Jensen, D.D., Buckley, R.T., Menefee, D.A., Ziegler, K.K., Wood, K.L., Crawford, R.H., 2012. Prototyping Strategies: Literature Review and Identification of Critical Variables. Presented at the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, p. 25. 1091.1-25.1091.22.Google Scholar
Dow, S.P., Heddleston, K., Klemmer, S.R., 2009. The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints, in: Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, C&C ’09. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1145/1640233.1640260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erichsen, J.F., Sjöman, H., Steinert, M., Welo, T., 2020. Protobooth: gathering and analyzing data on prototyping in early-stage engineering design projects by digitally capturing physical prototypes, in: AI EDAM. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060420000414Google Scholar
Hannah, R., Joshi, S., Summers, J.D., 2012. A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations. Journal of Engineering Design 23, 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.615302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L.S., Özkil, A.G., Mortensen, N.H., 2016. Prototypes in Engineering Design: Definitions and Strategies, in: DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference. pp. 821–830.Google Scholar
Jones, D.E., Snider, C., Kent, L., Hicks, B., 2019. Early Stage Digital Twins for Early Stage Engineering Design. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1, 2557–2566. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.262Google Scholar
Loflin, W.A., English, J.D., Borders, C., Harris, L.M., Moon, A., Holland, J.N., Kasper, F.K., 2019. Effect of print layer height on the assessment of 3D-printed models. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 156, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.02.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melenka, G.W., Schofield, J.S., Dawson, M.R., Carey, J.P., 2015. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and material properties of the MakerBot 3D desktop printer. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21, 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2013-0093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motorola, n.d. moto g7 Specifications [WWW Document]. URL https://support.motorola.com/uk/en/solution/MS143891 (accessed 11.16.20).Google Scholar
Moylan, S., Slotwinski, J., Cooke, A., Jurrens, K., Donmez, M.A., 2014. An Additive Manufacturing Test Artifact. J. RES. NATL. INST. STAN. 119, 429. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.119.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otto, K.N., Wood, K.L., 2001. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reed Doke, E., 1990. An industry survey of emerging prototyping methodologies. Information & Management 18, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(90)90037-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savio, E., De Chiffre, L., Schmitt, R., 2007. Metrology of freeform shaped parts. CIRP Annals 56, 810–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shining 3D, n.d. EinScan-Pro+ Multifunctional Handheld Scanner. Products. URL https://www.einscan.com/handheld-3d-scanner/einscan-pro-plus/ (accessed 11.16.20).Google Scholar
Sims-Waterhouse, D., Bointon, P., Piano, S., Leach, R.K., 2017. Experimental comparison of photogrammetry for additive manufactured parts with and without laser speckle projection, in: Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection X. Presented at the Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection X, International Society for Optics and Photonics, p. 103290W. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2269507CrossRefGoogle Scholar