You are on page 1of 20

Justification of Pros and Cons

In the first iteration of the concept evaluation, all proposed concept designs were compared
with the unmodified VJT Inline Robotic X-ray Inspection System that is highly dependent on an
operator to adjust the position of the robotic arm relative to each inspected casting. As the main
goal of all five proposed concepts is to increase throughput by automating the process of measuring
misalignment so that the robot arm can be programmed to readjust as needed, all concepts are
expected to perform faster than the datum. However, the accuracy of the measurements depends
on the resolution of the measuring instrument, which varies between concepts. The concepts which
utilize pressure and laser sensors earn a + rating for accuracy because they are high-resolution
instruments that can more accurately sense alignment than a human can. Unfortunately, the
concepts that use a Kinect system or ultrasonic sensor may not necessarily give readings that
outperform a human operator due to the lower resolutions of the sensors. The image processing
using the MATLAB Image processing toolbox also received a + rating since this method is
extremely accurate and utilizes the precision and speed of the MATLAB program to superiorly
generate feedback regarding the part orientation.
None of the sensors in any design concept will be placed in a way that obstructs the X-ray
path, so the addition of these design modifications will have no effect on the overall X-ray
compatibility of the system. Therefore, all concepts earn an S rating for the “X-ray compatible”
criteria in the Pugh Matrix. Similarly, no sensor will be in direct contact with a hot casting, so all
concepts earn an S rating for the “Heat Resistant” criteria as well. The only design that will
experience any notable loading are the pressure sensors in the third concept, in which pressure
sensors will be attached to the fixture bed that supports each casting. Consequently, the pressure
sensor system is the only design that may have a shorter (i.e. - rating) design life than the
unmodified system, while all others are expected to have the same design life.
Another major priority in designing this device is to decrease dependence on the operator
in making measurements for out-of-plane tilting, so it is reasonable to assume that all concepts
will have better (i.e. +) ratings than the datum for the “User Interface” and “Ease of Use” criterion.
The exception to this is the pressure sensor system, which has a negative “Ease of Use” rating
because its operating principle of locating weight distribution is effective for measuring single
parts only. It would be difficult for the pressure sensor system to measure misalignment in multiple
castings placed on the fixture bed simultaneously, which can normally be accomplished by an
operator-dependent system
Regarding cost, all of these concept designs will have an initial cost to install the
modification onto the existing system. However, by shifting responsibility from the operator to an
automated system, savings in labor cost should offset the initial investment costs within 15 months
or less, provided that each design conforms to requirement 3.4.6 (i.e. product cost should not
exceed $5,000). Therefore, all concepts earn a + rating for the “Cost” criteria.
Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

The Pugh Matrix has narrowed from five concepts to two concepts. In Section 4.4 below,
these two concepts are iterated. Before design iteration takes place it is important to reflect on
both the previous designs retained as well as those discarded and use this information in a
feedback loop to improve the concept design.
The Xbox Kinect system strengths are that it can image and object and provide depth to
the surfaces and objects in the image. The weakness of this is that it is very computationally
intensive to perform these calculations, which will require special hardware and software to
process the data. The other weakness is that the resolution of the depth sensing is not sufficient to
meet the product design specification.
The strengths of the ultrasonic system are that it is easy to implement with an Arduino
microcontroller, the weaknesses of the ultrasonic sensor are that it does not provide the accuracy
in the depth measurement that we require. The ultrasonic sensor is not a fine measurement device
but rather a coarse instrument.
The strength of the pressure sensor system is that the orientation measurement is based on
the weight distribution, which is more repeatable than a non-contact sensor. The weakness of the
pressure sensor system is that it can only measure the orientation of one object at a time, which
greatly limits throughput.
The two laser based measurement systems can provide both accuracy and precision.
These instruments are reliable and can provide fast measurements. By using the distance data to
place three points on the surface of the part, the amount of out-of-plane rotation can be
determined. This calculation is not difficult to compute and can be carried out on an Arduino
microcontroller. The weakness of the laser system is that the lens will accumulate dust over time
and the beam may reflect off the surface if it is polished. Both of these issues will affect the
measurement.
The strengths of the image processing with MATLAB image processing toolbox is that
he software is incredibly fast and accurate. As shown in the Pugh Matrix in Table 4.1, the image-
processing concept meets requirements for all specifications. Given that the measurement is
digital as opposed to physical, the speed of the system outperforms the sensor designs. Pending
further testing, the ability of the image processing software to identify part orientation is superior
in practice than the remaining concepts. Another strength of this method is that the camera and
included hardware is inexpensive compared to the concepts which require moving parts, as the
camera is fixed during operation. The downside to this concept is that it is software intensive and
requires a good amount of MATLAB experience to write the optimization code for the process.

1.2 Concept iteration
During the development of the market research, development of the Product Design
Specifications, and consultation with Stony Brook faculty advisors and advisors at VJ
Technologies, four major concepts are considered. These concepts are primarily defined by
possessing the capability of detecting and measuring the potential misalignment of a cast part
relative to the flat table. In other words, the four sensing options that would best solve the
problem are Microsoft Kinect, ultrasonic, pressure, and laser sensors.
Along the way, the student engineering team realized that the implementation of the
sensors in the X-ray system is critical in the conceptual design. Different combinations of the
four sensors and the possible implementations can generate a multitude of design concepts. A
standard vertical mount, an XY table mounted on the ceiling, and a sweeping servomotor with
actuation in one direction are proposed methods of holding the sensor within the inspection
cabinet. Note that these designs must be scaled to the particular cabinet under consideration and
should be grounded or be able to retract in a way to avoid any interference with the X-ray
imaging procedure. The five concepts described in detail in Section 4.2 are chosen from the 12
possible combinations of four sensors and three implementations as the most feasible and
synergistic combinations. This is the first iteration of generation and elimination of conceptual
designs.
Further convergence can be achieved using a Pugh Matrix to evaluate each concept using
the PDS criteria. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 explain in detail why laser sensors seem to triumph over
the other three sensors. Reduction of the concepts becomes a matter of comparing the
implementation methods using laser sensors. Placing the laser sensor on an XY table produces
the most accurate and easily interpreted measurements. The sensor can jog to any XY location to
provide calibration or confirmation of the part placement on the table. The workspace is equal to
the range of motion of the XY table and must cover the entire table. Placing the laser sensor on a
sweeping servo may introduce unnecessary and undesirable complexities. A cosine calculation is
required with every sensor XY position. The laser’s angle of incidence may become a problem
when measuring steep surfaces at the edge of the part. The design provides no distinct
advantages to make up for these nuances.
From iteration, we initially determined that the laser sensor attached to an XY table is the
design that best solves the misalignment problem. Additional concept generation and reduction
can be done before moving on to detail design. The student engineering team is considering a
new implementation method involving a completely separate measuring system. The system can
be designed using any of the four sensor options and situated on the conveyor belt before the
parts reach the inspection cabinet. The advantages include the elimination of inspection or
imaging spatial limitations, ability to use X-ray incompatible materials, and possibility of
increased sensor accuracy. In this system, the sensors that have been ruled out in the iteration
process due to weak range of measurement may be able to scan the part more closely.
Disadvantages include increased misalignment due to the additional layer of transportation of the
part and the largely increased cost of these projects.
Upon hearing of the concept of using a laser sensing system, Professor Longtin proposed
his idea of using laser shadow imaging. Laser light can be directed toward an object with a
screen to capture the projected image—or the shadow, rather. The outlined profile will be scaled
depending on the size of the laser source and the distance from the object, but the contour is
nonetheless remarkably comparable to that of the object itself. This profile is unique to the
orientation of the object. Although the measurement is applicable to the problem at hand, the
equipment is both difficult and risky to obtain. Calculations would have to be run on one or more
experimental setups before the correct setup can be derived. This concept was a stepping stone to
generate the image processing concept. Both systems measure the 2-dimensional profile of the
perimeter of the part. The image processing trumps the laser shadow technique because of the
built-in image capture capability, the filtering and analysis compatibility with MATLAB, and the
inexpensive but high-resolution camera technology.
After substantial discussion with Professor Longtin, Professor Kukta, and Mr. Anjelly of
VJ Technologies, the team decided to focus on solving the problem in the most practical manner
rather than focus on the mechanical design of the system. Several, more intricate issues are
brought up when considering the sensor concepts. The imperfect surface of the sand cast part
may introduce difficulty in reflecting the laser for the sensor to measure the distance. The team
believed that this could be worked around by utilizing the datum points as flat surfaces, but
fixtures would be required to be able to locate these datum points. Avoiding the use of fixtures
would be a huge asset to our design.
Our advisors heavily favor the image processing concept which is able to bypass many of
the hurdles that the previous concepts may have trouble with. Contemporary camera technology
boasts a resolution that would produce a measurement well within one degree of accuracy. With
enough persuasion, the student engineering team finally converged on the image processing
method of measuring the misalignment. We trust in the technical knowledge of our advisors and
agree that the image processing has significant advantages over the other conceptual designs.
However, the runner-up design, or the concept involving a laser sensor mounted on an XY table,
will not be discarded immediately. This idea can be implemented to improve the accuracy of the
system by serving as an additional method of measuring the misalignment. If spatial and budget
constraints can be met, the laser system will run along with the imaging system to produce
meaningful measurements with a faster cycle time.
1.3 Conclusion
The design concept selection process is finished by aborting the iteration process when a
suitable design is agreed upon the by the engineering team. In our case the Pugh matrix was used
to down select and eliminate solutions that did not offer the best functionality. The initial Pugh
matrix scored two designs with the same number of +,-,S totals, because of this concept iteration
was used to add new design concepts and more refined PDS criteria. Decreasing the filter
bandwidth for the concept design selection allowed our team to discard design concepts during
the iteration process. The controlled convergence process also involves adding newer concepts
into consideration, which can either be other designs that differ only slightly from the best option
determined from the Pugh matrix or design approaches that stem from not-yet-explored methods.
Of the first five conceptual designs, we selected the laser sensor on XY table. This design
was determined to be the best solution to the problem of misalignment during X-ray inspection.
The design is both accurate and efficient with cycle time. We concluded that Kinect sensing
technology introduced by Leonardo Rubio is inaccurate and may require expertise in infrared
calculations that we are not accustomed to. Ultrasonic sensors introduced by Jonathan Chu are
not meant for precision measurements. The concepts involving pressure sensors proposed by
Tony Chen are limited to the measurement of one part per cycle. The laser sensor approach
suggested by Dylan Magee proved to best support the criteria set in the PDS.
Upon further evaluation, the two laser sensors controlled by actuation methods were
again considered, along with a laser shadow technique suggested by Professor Longtin, and a
MATLAB image processing approach utilizing high-resolution cameras. The laser sensor
actuated by a rotating servo was rejected because the issue of a varying incidence angle was
expected to complicate measurements, while holding no real advantages over XY actuation. The
laser shadow technique was also discarded, as the team had no way to readily test the feasibility
of the method, so attempting to design around this concept given limited time constraints may
prove to be too large of a risk. Ultimately, the team was able to test the concept of the image
processing tools and determined that it had the potential to produce acceptable results perhaps
even faster than the laser XY design. At this stage, the team will pursue the image processing
approach, but will continue to consider the laser XY design as a back-up plan in the event that
the former concept should fail.
Detail Design

Detail design highlights the pertinent PDS information relevant for the detail design
subunits. For our selected concept after the iteration process, the various subunits are explained
and components for each are selected to meet specifications from the PDS information without
violating any of the codes and standards listed in section 3.8. For each subunit, options for different
hardware are evaluated to fulfill performance and functional requirements.

2.1 Subunit PDS

The portions of the overall PDS from Chapter 3 that are quantitative in nature and
relevant to the detail design are compiled as follows:

3.3 Performance
3.3.1 The system shall measure out of plane misalignment of any part of a single geometry
to within 1 degree of the XY-plane.
3.3.2 Inspection zone must be able to fit castings of sizes up to 1200mm x 500mm x
400mm.

3.4 Constraints
The following design constraints will limit the design options:
3.4.3 System must have access to 120 V 60 Hz AC power.
3.4.5 Wire and cables should not be placed in the paths of moving parts.
3.4.6 A product cost lower than $5,000.

3.5 User Interface
The system should have an interface to allow for two modes of operation. The reference
mode will be used to record the initial orientation after the camera has been adjusted to capture the
desired image. Then, the system will be set to a measuring mode, in which a new sample can be
placed on the fixture, then activated to be measure the part for misalignment with respect to the
reference orientation. This interface can be implemented using physical buttons, switches or
operate on a digital display in order to change between the two modes as well as interact within
each individual mode.

3.5.1 Reference Mode
The operator should be able to place the reference casting on the fixture surface and
pin the sample against two contact points. The operator can then use a joystick to position
the robot arm and X-ray path in a desired orientation relative to the placed casting. Another
button should then be pushed to save this reference orientation. After saving the necessary
data, the reference casting can then be safely removed.
Alternatively, it is desirable that the interface also allow for the CAD file of the
casting part to be loaded into the system. A view vector in space is defined as the selected
camera angle of the X-ray source and detector path relative to the CAD model part. After
selecting this vector, a button is pressed to confirm the selection and save the reference
orientation to the system.
3.5.2 Measuring Mode
Upon switching to the measuring mode, the operator must be able to place a new
casting in any position on the fixture surface. Upon activation of another button or switch,
the fixture system should measure relevant data on the new piece, and calculate
misalignment relative to the reference orientation to within 1 degree. The same button or
switch can then be activated again to reset the sensor system while keeping the reference
orientation data and allow for a new casting to be mounted.

3.6 Maintenance
The design should comply with the following:
3.6.1 Sensors should be accessible within five minutes for replacement in the event of
defect that cannot be resolved through simple recalibration.

2.2 Subunit A: MATLAB
The image processing utilizes MATLAB. MATLAB is a computational, programming
language based around C, C++, and java. MATLAB is short for Matrix Laboratory, image files
are essentially matrices so MATLAB is a natural choice to manipulate these images. MATLAB
also can generate 3D models from cad files. The subsections of this subunit will detail the path the
computer program takes to calculate the out of plane rotation of the physical part.
Part Placement

The part will be placed into a fixture to roughly orient the part. This part is expected to be
within 3o of the optimal rotational orientation. At this time the camera will capture and store an
image in the specified MATLAB directory.
Camera Image Manipulation

The first manipulation will be convert the image to grayscale. Grayscale images are faster
to process as they contain less data, and they are able to be filtered into black & white as the
threshold filter can be selected select. The MATLAB function rgb2gray(Image) is used to
transform the image into gray scale. Using the MATLAB function imbinarize(Image)the
picture is converted into a matrix of zeros and ones corresponding to black and white pixels.
These functions have been compiled into a new function IMP(Image, threshold). This
function takes an image converts it to gray scale, filters speckles out of the image, then converts
the image to black and white based on a thresholding value. In Figure 5.1, the results of the
IMP(…) function are shown. The real image is located on the left and the CAD image is located
on the right.
Figure 2.1: Results of Image Processing
CAD Model size and rotation
When comparing the captured image and projected image taken from the CAD file it is
necessary to have the two images the same size, and for the parts in the image to be nearly the
same size this is so the comparison performed later will converge quickly. The size of the model
in cad is changed using the zoom tool in MATLAB, the zoom of the CAD part is changed until
the number of white pixels in the filtered camera image is within the desired range of the number
of white pixels in the CAD image. The zoom process takes an iterative approach to correctly scale
the images.
Once the correct zoom for the cad model is found the part is rotated using the camorbit(…)
function. An image for each rotation is stored, these images will then be compared to the real
image. The pair of images that have the least amount of differences correlate to the position that
the real part is in

Image Properties

MATLAB contains built in functions to get the properties from a selected image matrix,
these properties include the name, centroid of an object, and values at locations of interest. We
will use the getfield(…,’Centroid’) function to locate the centroid of the image so that it can be
cropped to the correct size. Cropping the image to the correct size around the centroid allows the
images to be layered on top of each other. Layering the images shows a differences in pixels.

Figure 2.2: Layered comparison of the Real image and a CAD image
The image in Figure 5.2 shows the comparison between the real image and the CAD
image. Using MATLAB to compare all of the CAD images to the one real the position is
known when the difference between the real and CAD image is minimized.
Programming Flow Chart

Part placed under Image captured and
Start Scaling code
camera processed

Real
Image
No
Converge
Image cropping and Rotate CAD model
Yes
comparison and store images

Error CAD
matrix Images
Yes

Minimum Position located Another
difference found and sent to X-ray part

No End

Process Data Logic

Figure 2.3: Programming flowchart

In Figure 5.3 the logic for the program is shown in a flowchart. This simplifies the steps
taken to compute the position of the part, the detailed MATLAB code is located in appendix C.
The data in the error matrix is the difference between the real image and each individual CAD
image rotation. MATLAB has convenient built in functions to locate the minimum value in a
matrix. This location directly corresponds to the rotation of the part.
Figure 2.4:

2.3 Physical Prototype
The camera mount assembly, pictured in Figures 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19, has been completed
by the student group. Fasteners purchased from McMaster were used to assemble the legs, floor-
mounting base, and L-Brackets. These fasteners were specified on the McMaster site for the
schedule and size of the square pipe being used as the main structural component. The fastener set
comes with a nut, bolt and washer, all made out of stainless steel. These fasteners were used on
the three square tubes to secure the L-Brackets, the Camera Mount Attachment and the Floor-
Mounting Bases. The fasteners for the other components such as the Mini Ball Head and the Leg
Base are unique to those two unions and were not ordered as part of a set of fasteners. Note that
the square tubing running across the top of the prototype that connects the two legs is longer than
specified in the CAD Model. The length was modified from 2 feet to 4 feet to satisfy requirement
5.4.2. The intended workspace or table spans 3 feet and also has a rotating case. To ensure that the
prototype can be integrated with the fixture bed and clear the span of large parts, the bar running
across the top of the prototype will not be cut and instead left at 4 feet.
Figure 5.20 pictures the fabricated tilt table and the set of six interchangeable gauge block
pairs that dictate angles of tilt at 0.5o increments. Figure 5.21 shows the full testing setup used to
verify the accuracy of the MATLAB program in measuring tilt for an actual sand cast aluminum
steering knuckle.

Figure 2.5: Image of the complete prototype with fixed camera and tilted part under inspection
2.4 Bill of Materials with Cost Analysis
A list of required materials for this design, as well as their costs, and methods of
obtainment are summarized in Table 5.1 below.

Table 2.1: Bill of Materials with Cost Analysis

Item Quantity Source Unit Cost Total Spent
EOS Rebel T3i EF-S 18-135mm IS Lens Kit 1 On-Hand (Free) $ 799.99 -
Verbatim Silver 3mm 1kg PLA 3D Filament Purchased
Reel 2 (GovConnection) $ 26.20 $ 52.40
Widetone Seamless Background Paper 20
Black, 26 x 36 SABGP2620 1 Purchased (B&H) $ 10.53 $ 10.53
VM-160 LED Macro Ring Light BOVM160 1 Purchased (B&H) $ 82.46 $ 82.46
BD-0 Mini Ball Head OBBD0 1 Purchased (B&H) $ 9.71 $ 9.71
Heavy Duty Steel Bolt-Together Framing 1-
3/4" Square Tube, 4 ft Long 3 Purchased (McMaster) $ 23.32 $ 69.96
Zinc-Plated Steel 90 Deg Plate, 4-3/4" Lg
for Heavy Duty Steel Bolt-Together
Framing 4 Purchased (McMaster) $ 8.32 $ 33.28
Plate/Tee/Bracket Fastener for 1-3/4"
Square Heavy Duty Steel Bolt-Together
Framing, Packs of 10 3 Purchased (McMaster) $ 2.70 $ 8.10
Medium-Strength Steel Hex Nut Grade 5,
1/4"-20 Thread Size, Packs of 100 1 Purchased (McMaster) $ 3.26 $ 3.26
Galvanized STL Floor-Mounting Base, 6" Lg
for Heavy Duty Steel Bolt-Together
Framing 2 Purchased (McMaster) $ 67.20 $ 134.40
ASTM A193 Grade B7 Steel Threaded Stud
1/4"-20 Thread, 1-1/2" Long, Fully
Threaded 1 Purchased (McMaster) $ 1.20 $ 1.20
Cabinet Grade Plywood Sheet ¾”x4’x8’ 1 On-Hand (Free) $ 48.53 -
Plywood Leg Base Plate 2 Fabricated In-House - -
Camera Mount Attachment Plate 1 Fabricated In-House - -
$ 405.30
2.5 Results

The prototype allowed the student team to test the measurement functionality of the final
design. Real, casted-aluminum parts were obtained from VJT in order to complete testing and
verification of the prototype. Images of these sand castings were taken at various tilt angles and
the resulting measured azimuth and elevation angles were obtained from MATLAB calculations.
The team was successful in being able to identify the optimal viewing angle using the prototype
setup as well as two uniquely-shaped cast aluminum steering knuckles from VJT. Several plots,
shown in Figures 5.22 through 5.24, were created in order to show how the code converges on the
optimal viewing angle. The minimum point of pixel error, marked in red, for each 3D surface can
be matched to the matrix indices within the 7x7 error array, which correspond to azimuth and
elevation in 1o increments from -3o to +3o. Figure 5.22 illustrates that the system measurement of
a real casting has an inherent tilt of +1o in the azimuth and -3o in elevation when resting on a flat
plane ([5, 0] in the error matrix). Figures 5.23 and 5.24 show how the minimal point then changes
when this same casting is further tilted at +1o and +2o about the elevation axis, respectively, by
adjusting the tilt table gauge blocks pictured in Figure 5.20. As expected, the MATLAB calculated
minimum error correspond to [5,1], or +1o in the azimuth and -2o in elevation for the +1o tilt case;
and [5,2], or +1o in the azimuth and -1o in elevation for the +2o tilt case. Therefore, these results
appropriately reflect the 1o and 2o relative increases in tilt from the control position and verify that
the overall system functions as intended.

Figure 2.6: Plot of Pixel Error vs Tilt - Real Casting Resting on Flat Plane
Figure 2.7: Plot of Pixel Error vs. Tilt – Real Casting Resting on 0o, +1o Tilted Plane

Figure 2.8: Plot of Pixel Error vs. Tilt – Real Casting Resting on 0o, +2o Tilted Plane
2.6 Discussion
From the results, we can verify that by comparing the pixel array of the photograph to the
pixel arrays of the rotated CAD images, an optimal orientation where the pixel error is minimized
can be determined. The design is also able to recognize when the part is tilted as little as 1 degree
and reproduces this in the resulting azimuth and elevation angles. With our prototype, any
automotive or aerospace crucial casting can be X-ray inspected in the proper orientation before
further machining.
Although the design was created for the purpose of X-ray inspection, the image processing
concept can prove to be useful for many other applications. Industrial systems that handle low-
tolerance parts or operate around the intended geometry of the component may malfunction due
to a mistake in the manufacturing process. Even after machining, complex equipment may be
defective and too expensive to simply mass produce. Image processing may be useful in these
situations to determine the difference between the expected and actual dimensions.
Considering more sophisticated and futuristic applications of the design, image processing
may have a medical purpose. By eliminating the automated aspect of the project and adding human
intelligence into the picture, the design can augment existing medical systems such as CT scanners.
Instead of saturating the computer with enough X-ray images to reproduce a 3D structure, our
design can optimize the process and inform the user of the X-ray view angle required to obtain the
desired X-ray image.

2.7 Conclusion
Self-Evaluation of Team Work

The group meets regularly to collaborate on this project in the CAD Lab located on the
first floor of the Old Engineering Building, Professor Longtin’s Thermal Laser Lab, or also
in Jonathan and Tony’s dorm room in the West Apartments. While each member generally
takes charge of his own written section of the report, all members still communicate with
each other during the writing process to ensure that all content in the report is consistent in
voice and direction.

Jonathan Chu’s Contribution

Jonathan is responsible for communicating and setting up meetings with the team’s contact
from VJT Technology, Sam Anjelly. Jonathan also wrote the Product Design Specification
chapter and contributed the ultrasonic sensor actuated by an XY table concept design. He
takes the role as the team’s purchasing liaison, finalizing all sourcing decisions before
submitting purchase orders. Additionally, his duties as the main editor for the report consist
of double checking formatting, grammar, and organization of tables & figures.

Dylan Magee’s Contribution

Dylan works as an undergraduate research assistant with one of our two faculty advisors,
Professor Jon Longtin. Therefore, Dylan is usually the team member that arranges meetings
with Dr. Longtin and uses his lab access to 3D print scaled-replicas of sample casted model
files given to us by Mr. Anjelly. Dylan has also been investigating methods of accomplishing
the image processing design approach using MATLAB and proposed the sweeping laser
sensor concept.

Tony Chen’s Contribution

Tony provided all introductory statements and has completed all research on existing
models as well as patent research from Chapter 2 and contributed the pressure sensor
modification of the fixture bed concept. He assisted Dylan in exploring the feasibility of the
MATLAB image processing approach. Tony was the main contributor of the results and
verifications.

Leonardo Rubio’s Contribution

Leo oversaw all CAD modeling of design components, as well as the concept design
drawing of the laser XY table, and is adept in the use of Solid Works. He detailed the majority
of the concept generation and evaluation sections and contributed the Kinect concept.
Regarding the detail design, Leo also compiled the assembly drawings for the finished
system.
References

[1] VJ Technologies, 2016, “VJT RIX160/225 Product Sheet,” from http://vjt.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/VJT-RIX-Product-Sheet.pdf

[2] VJ Technologies, 2016, “Inline Robotic X-ray Inspection System Product Sheet,” from
http://vjt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/VJT-Inline-Robotic-Product-Sheet.pdf

[3] Nelson Air, 2016, “PIglide AT1: Linear Air Bearing Stage Product Sheet,” from
http://www.pi-usa.us/products/Air_Bearing_Stages/PIglide_AT1_Linear_Air_Bearing.pdf

[4] CNC Indexing, 2016, “Compact Tilt Rotary Table,” from http://www.cncindexing.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Compact-Tilt-Rotary-Table.pdf

[5] Canon, 2011, “EOS Rebel T3i EF-S 18-135mm IS Lens Kit,” from
https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-rebel-t3i-ef-s-18-135mm-is-lens-kit

[6] B&H Photo Video Incorporated, 2015, “Bolt VM-160 LED Macro Ring Light,” from
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/750878-REG/bolt_vm_160_led_macro_ring.html

[7] McMaster-Carr, n.d., “Heavy Duty Steel Bolt-Together Framing,” from
https://www.mcmaster.com/#steel-framing-system-rectangular-tubing/=16nqpur

[8] B&H Photo Video Incorporated, 2013, “Oben BD-0 Mini Ball Head,” from
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687361-
REG/Oben_BD_0_BD_0_TABLE_TOP_BALL.html

[9] Klingenbeck-Regn, K., 2008, “Method for Displacing a Superimposed Measuring Surface on
a Sensor Surface of an X-ray Detector and X-ray System for Implementing Said Method,” U.S.
Patent 20080031421.

[10] Ross, M., 2008, “Method and Apparatus for Automated, Digital, Radiographic Inspection of
Aerospace Parts,” U.S. Patent 20080226028.

[11] Ho, C.E., Yang, C.H. and Hsu L.H., 2015, “Adjustable Fixture Structure for 3-Dimensional
X-ray Computed Tomography,” U.S. Patent 20150168316.

[12] Gupta, R. and Webb B.J., 1998, “Fixture for Calibrated Positioning of an Object,” U.S.
Patent 005715167.
Appendix A. VJT Engineering Manager Email

Stony Brook University, Position sensing fixture design
2 messages

Dylan Magee <dylan.magee@stonybrook.edu> Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM
To: vshetty@vjt.com
Cc: Leonardo Rubio <leonardo.rubio@stonybrook.edu>, Jonathan Chu <jonathan.chu@stonybrook.edu>,
Tony Chen <tony.chen@stonybrook.edu>, Qiaode Ge <qiaode.ge@stonybrook.edu>, Dylan Magee
<dylan.magee@stonybrook.edu>

Dear Vrindesh Shetty,

We have prepared a list of questions for you relating to the position sensing and fixture design. We
are preparing the product design specification (PDS) and require additional information.

To what accuracy should the sensing system read? 1,5,10 degrees?

What metals or plastics are currently used in the table and fixture?

What is the average size of a part that will be imaged? What is the maximum size part that can
imaged with your machine?

What is the average weight of a part that will be imaged? What is the maximum weight that should be
supported by your current design?

What is the temperature range of castings that will be placed on the fixture?

How many parts can be imaged by your machine per unit time (parts/min, parts/hour)?

What materials are the castings made of (Aluminum, Iron, Steel)?

Are these machines used strictly for sand cast imaging or are they sometimes used for inspecting
forged or machined parts?

Would it be possible for you to send a sample CAD part file for us to inspect and see what geometries
we will be encountering?

Finally, a ballpark estimate on the most you would be willing to pay per fixture? and the price you
would like aim for?

We are excited to be working with you and your company. Please answer the questions to the best of
your knowledge, It is important for us to know exactly what you want so that we may meet your
needs.

We would like to schedule a meeting at your location in the near future. Fridays work best for us but if
that is not possible we can plan to meet another time.

- Dylan Magee, Jon Chu, Leo Rubio, Tony Chen
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Stony Brook University
Vrindesh Shetty <Vshetty@vjt.com> Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:19 AM
To: Dylan Magee <dylan.magee@stonybrook.edu>, Samir Anjelly <Sanjelly@vjt.com>
Cc: Leonardo Rubio <leonardo.rubio@stonybrook.edu>, Jonathan Chu <jonathan.chu@stonybrook.edu>,
Tony Chen <tony.chen@stonybrook.edu>, Qiaode Ge <qiaode.ge@stonybrook.edu>, Karen Ventura
<Kventura@vjt.com>

Hi Dylan,

You will be working with Sam (Samir Anjelly) on this project from our side for the ME team. He is
not available this Friday, but perhaps the 2 of you can work out other possible timings.

Regards

Vrindesh

Answers to your questions….

To what accuracy should the sensing system read? 1,5,10 degrees? 1 degree or
better

What metals or plastics are currently used in the table and fixture? Aluminum 6061
T6 at Thickness of .1875” - .125”; Sometimes we use G10/FR4 fiber glass up
to .1875” thick.

What is the average size of a part that will be imaged? What is the maximum size
part that can imaged with your machine? Up to 1.2 m Long X 500mm Wide X 400
mm High. Sand casted parts are typically smaller at about 400mm cubed

What is the average weight of a part that will be imaged? What is the maximum
weight that should be supported by your current design? Maximum Weight
Approximately 50 Lb. & height 450 mm

What is the temperature range of castings that will be placed on the fixture? 60-200
Degree F.

How many parts can be imaged by your machine per unit time (parts/min,
parts/hour)? This depends on part size & customer requirements. Typical is 20
– 30 sec /part

What materials are the castings made of (Aluminum, Iron, Steel)? Most
Automotive Casting are aluminum.
Are these machines used strictly for sand cast imaging or are they sometimes used
for inspecting forged or machined parts? No, It is for any part or process per
customer requirement but let’s consider sand casted parts for this exercise.

Would it be possible for you to send a sample CAD part file for us to inspect and
see what geometries we will be encountering? Yes, we can share example
drawings when you visit us.

Finally, a ballpark estimate on the most you would be willing to pay per fixture? and
the price you would like aim for? Let’s evaluate after we have candidate designs.
An upper limit can be arbitrarily set to $5000 – what is important is to
understand the features and functionality of the solution.

From: Dylan Magee [mailto:dylan.magee@stonybrook.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:59 AM
To: Vrindesh Shetty
Cc: Leonardo Rubio; Jonathan Chu; Tony Chen; Qiaode Ge; Dylan Magee
Subject: Stony Brook University, Position sensing fixture design