3D Scanning vs. Profileograph for Checking Compliance to Floor Flatness Specifications
May 6, 2021
In this article published on LinkedIn, our Group M.D, Kevin Dare, analyses the use of a 3D laser scanner on a live project for a robotics picking facility running on a composite metal deck. The article details the reasons why he is still reluctant to go down the 3D scanning route for checking compliance to floor flatness specifications.
Overview
Face Consultants were contacted by the floor grinding team working on the project after they experienced problems grinding to the error plans produced by the 3D scanning company. Face Consultants’ job was to check the validity of the plans, as the grinding crew were struggling to find many of the errors marked, combined with a lack of onsite direction from the scanning company.
In fact, FACE discovered that 40% to 60% of the errors marked by the 3D scanning crew were false positives, and errors not found with the 3D scanning process, false negatives, were also uncovered.
Kevin explores why it might be that such errors were found, including looking at uncertainty values, the cleanliness of the floor, and the time taken to process the point cloud data and produce usable information. Also, how to validate the errors generated by the scan, therefore, ensuring that grinding is not carried out unnecessarily, and what the correct resolution of data for floor compliance is.
In this article Kevin observes that one of the main problems with the 3D scanning process was workflow and process time.
What are your thoughts on the role of 3D laser scanning for checking compliance to floor flatness specifications?
You can read the whole article here (PDF file) or continue the discussion on LinkedIn.
Please share this story:
