Accurate Registration of Point Clouds of Damaged Aeroengine Blades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a novel method for aligning the scanned point clouds of damaged blades with their nominal computer-aided design (CAD) model. To inspect a damaged blade, the blade surface is scanned and the scan data in the form of a point cloud is compared with the nominal CAD model of the blade. To be able to compare the scanned point cloud and the CAD model, they must be brought to a common coordinate system via a registration algorithm. The geometric nonconformity between the scanned damaged blade and its nominal model stemmed from the damaged regions can affect the registration (alignment) outcome. The alignment errors then cause wrong inspection results. To prevent this from happening, the data points from the damaged regions have to be removed from the alignment calculations. The proposed registration method in this work can accurately and automatically eliminate the unreliable scanned data points of the damaged regions from the registration process. The main feature is a correspondence search technique based on the geometric properties of the local neighborhood of points. By combining the average curvature Hausdorff distance and average Euclidean Hausdorff distance, a metric is defined to locally measure the dissimilarities between the scan data and the nominal model and progressively remove the identified unreliable data points of the damaged regions with each iteration of the fine-tuned alignment algorithm. Implementation results have demonstrated that the proposed method is accurate and robust to noise with superior performance in comparison with the existing methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".