Measuring and

Modeling Project
Jaci Conroy, Luke Heil,
Luke Rysdahl, Joshua Kuhn

Engineering 291
Group Two
North Dakota State University

A model is defined as a proportional representation of an object in any scale (Model)

and measurement is defined as the extent, dimensions, quantity, etc., of something ascertained
especially by comparison with a standard (Measurement). Both modeling and measuring are
immensely valuable and necessary skills for engineers. As engineers deal with definites,
accuracy and precision are also key concepts in the field. Accuracy is defined as the degree of
conformity to an established standard or the closeness of measured results to actual values,
whereas precision is defined as the exactness of the measuring process (Project: 1). This
project explored the various methods to precisely and accurately measure an object and then
express that object in a variety of models.
Throughout this project, numerous topics related to measurement and models were
explored. The measurement of linear dimensions of a physical, three-dimensional irregular
object (i.e. a bone) were taken with devices such as height gage, calipers, fixed gauges, and other
common measuring tools. Then, modeling took place in the form of both a two-dimensional
sketch on paper and a three-dimensional model using the AutoCAD Inventor Professional
program. Finally, the concluding model of the bone, a plastic replica based off the computer
model, was printed by a 3D printer. By the culmination of this task, there was an object
characterization, dimensioned paper sketch, AutoCAD computer model, and a plastic
representation.
The part to be modeled was a three-dimensional and highly irregular figure. The object
possessed two distinct and different ends, with a semi-cylindrical shaft between them. One end
appeared to possess three main convex circles and the other end features two very separate
concavities. This object is 131.55 millimeters long, has a height range of 8.38 millimeters to
16.31 millimeters, and has a width range of 6.21 millimeters to 18.37millimeters.

The measurement process was a meticulous event that spanned multiple days. Measurements
were taken strictly in millimeters, except for the radius gauges which were in inches and
promptly converted to millimeters. Devices used include:

Pittsburgh 6 digital caliper Item # 68304 .01 mm resolution

Mitutoyo HDS Absolute Digimatic height gage model # HDS-H12C .01 mm resolution
Radius gauge set 25 piece 1/64 to 17/64 x64ths and 9/32 to x32nds with halder

All dimensions were taken in reference to establish x-points, which represented the length of the
bone. Then at each specific x-point, y-values (heights) and z-values (widths) were taken as well
from a datum flat on the granite surface. These x-axis related points dimensioned most of the
bone, except for one end, known as the irregular end, (x = 0 millimeters to x = 18.04 millimeters)
which the radius gauges were solely responsible for measurement. Radius measurements were
taken for curves known as C(1), C(2), and C(3) (Diagram 1). Finally, groove depth and width
measurements were taken for a shallow groove and a deep groove apparent on the more regular
end of the bone (Diagram 1).
Diagram 1 shows the pictorial sketch of the measurement of the real bone. It features the bone on two planes, the x-y plane and the x-z plane.
This also demonstrates which end is known as the irregular end and which end is known as the regular end. Finally, this shows the radii of the
three distinct curves and the depths and widths of the grooves of the regular end.

Once specific measurements were taken, the data had to be converted into a virtual three
dimensional model using the AutoCAD Inventor Pro 2015 program. Using excel spreadsheets, xand y-values were entered and ellipses with z-measurements were drawn. The heights of the
ellipses were created by the difference between the y-values at each x-point, and the radius of the
ellipse was created by halving the z-value (width). The ellipses on each different work plane
were lofted together to create the shaft of the bone. These x-points extended from x = 18.04
millimeters to x = 131.55 millimeters, so the entire shaft of the bone as well as one end of the
bone, the more regular end of the bone, were created utilizing this method.

The
more
regular end
of the bone
also
featured
two

concavities, which were recreated by doing extrusions and then fillet-ing the edges to make a
more curved groove. The more irregular end of the bone proved to be more difficult. Various
methods were explored to create the features, including stretching a 3D cylinder and drawing
separate spheres with the proper radius and melding them together. However, these methods
proved unsuccessful. In the end, an irregular polygon was drawn at the x = 0 millimeters work
plane and then lofted to the first drawn ellipse at x = 18.04 millimeters. Then, the many edges
were fillet-ed and a couple of cylindrical boolean removes were made to create the rounded
grooves. Also, some conical shapes were added in the middle of the figure to create more
roundness in the irregular shapes.
Once the model of the bone was as rounded and as close to the actual object as the
program would allow, the AutoCAD Inventor Pro file was converted to a stereo lithic format file
and exported to a lab computer, which readied the file for export to the Dimension bst 1200 es

three-dimensional printer. This particular printer utilized a printer head with .013 inch
resolution. The plastic loaded into the printer was orange ABS plastic P430 model. Once the file
was properly uploaded, the printer began printing, a one-hundred fifty-seven minute process.
The total volume of the 3D printed model encompassed .91 cubic inches of actual model material
and .34 cubic inches of support material. Once the process was finished, the support material was
easily broken away and a plastic replica of the bone existed.
In order to compare the printed plastic model and the actual bone, a couple different
measurements were taken. Obviously, the number of dimensions would not be as numerous as
the initial measurements taken, but they would still reflect the shapes of the bone. In order to
determine the accuracy of the shaft of the model bone, length, width, and height measurements
were taken about every twenty millimeters and compared to identical values on the real bone
(table 1). While x-values represent length, y(b) values represent the height of the each bone, and
z(b) values represent the width of each bone, all with respect to the x-values.
X-values

Y(b): Real

Y(b): Plastic

Z(b): Real

Z(b): Plastic

18.04

13.67

17.48

16.98

18.13

39.71

9.75

10.12

10.40

10.64

60.51

8.50

8.53

8.83

8.93

79.88

8.54

8.76

8.76

8.51

100.22

9.12

8.93

9.17

8.83

119.12

14.98

14.77

16.50

16.31

Table 1 represents the comparison between the x-,y-, and z- values for the real bone and the plastic modeled bone

Next, radius measurements were taken on the three major curves, C(1), C(2), and C(3), of the
irregular end of the plastic bone to compare to the irregular end of the real bone (Table 2).

Radius Curve (1)

Radius Curve (2)

Radius Curve (3)

Real Bone

8.73

6.35

3.97

Plastic Model

8.73

5.56

3.57

Table 2 represents the comparison between radius values of the irregular end for C(1), C(2), and C(3) for the real bone and the plastic modeled
bone.

Finally, comparisons were made on the grooves of the more regular end (Table 3).
Shallow Groove
Depth

Shallow Groove
Width

Deep Groove
Depth

Deep Groove
Width

Real Bone

3.95

6.35

5.12

4.76

Plastic Bone

1.94

7.43

2.66

4.64

Table 3 represents the comparison between the groove measurements of the more regular end for the shallow groove and deep groove on the real
bone and the plastic modeled bone.

As shown by the various tables, many parts of the plastic 3D model were very similar or
close to exact in comparison to the actual bone. In addition, the computer model also compared
very closely to both the bone and 3D model, most likely due to the input of exact coordinates and
measurements. The multiple comparisons between the plastic modeled bone and the real bone
show varying levels of success. The most accurate portion of the modeled bone is the shaft. The
shaft of the plastic modeled bone appears to follow the same curve of the actual bone from the
view of the human eye. Upon closer inspection, measurements of the shaft of the modeled bone,
excluding measurements at x=18.04, are within one millimeter of measurements taken on the
real bone. The ends of the bone, however, show more variance. The more irregular end of the
bone that features C(1), C(2), and C(3) have radii that are within one millimeter of the actual
bone. However, the transition from the end of the bone to x=18.04mm is not nearly as smooth as
on the actual bone. Also, on the opposite end, the grooves are not very similar. The depths of
both the shallow groove and deep groove are both very off from the actual bone, varying from a
difference of 2.01 mm to 2.46mm. Nonetheless, the widths of both the shallow groove and the

deep groove are both within one millimeter of the measurements on the real bone. Overall, most
of the bone is pretty similar to the actual bone, barring some roundness and concavity depths.
However, there were also some noticeable differences between the different forms
throughout the project. Multiple reasons could have attributed to these differences, including
poor initial dimensions and measurements, constraints of the AutoCAD Inventor program, and
the resolution of the printer head. Most of the major differences between the actual bone and the
model on inventor arose because of the limitations of the AutoCAD program and initial
dimensions that were taken. In order to make a perfect model, measurements would have to be
taken much closer together and across multiple planes, much more than just the x-, y-, and zplanes. With measurements in only three planes, the most accurate way to construct the shaft of
the bone is with ellipses drawn on the x-z plane at every x coordinate. These ellipses allowed a
fairly accurate shaft to be drawn. However, not every part of the bone was a perfect ellipse, this
meant that the plastic model would be slightly different throughout the shaft. Also, at one or two
points along the shaft, the initial measurements must have been slightly off, allowing for distinct
elevations and ridges apparent in the shaft of the bone. This small difference is not over much of
the shaft, but was clearly visible at some parts.
The ends of the bones were the areas where the constraints of Inventor were most
apparent. Problems arose when shapes became too curved and complex, and the Inventor
program was unable to carry out the operations that were necessary. In one specific case, in order
to smooth an edge with a fillet so it was not flat, a shape had to pulled out farther from the end of
the bone. The resulted in extending the total length of the bone, varying it from the original, Also
when using fillets in other places along the bone, the fillet would be constrained to a certain size

by Inventor. This constraint would not allow an accurate depiction of the bone. This pattern
would repeat and often the Inventor program limited the complexity of what was possible.
There are also very specific differences between the computer model of the bone and the
actual plastic printed model. The modeling program made it difficult to get a true scope of what
the computer sketch would look like once printed off. Lines and corners that seemed more
prominent on inventor ended up rounding out when printed. The zoomed-in view of the bone is
most likely what allowed for the noticeability and prominence of the sharp lines and corners on
the computer model. When working in AutoCAD, it is easy to see when an object or feature is
off by microns because it is possible to look at it so closely. In reality, and once the bone is
printed, the preciseness of the printer and the restriction of the human eye limit the amount of
detail able to be seen. Finally the way the bone was printed affected how the actual, printed and
computer model compared. Our resolution was set at .013 inch which was a lower resolution
than the printer is capable of. This caused the lines from the way the bone was printed to be more
noticeable, and for there to be more variance between our bone measurements and the
measurements of the printed model. The resolution also made our bone less smooth than the
actual bone and our computer model.
Overall, the paper sketch, the computer model, and the printed three dimensional model
are all varying degrees of similar to the actual bone. The most accurate part of the bone was the
shaft, due to numerous exact measurements taken. These very close measurements worked well
to model this part of the bone. In order to get a more exact replica of the entire bone next time,
more measurements should be taken both closer together and on more planes than the simple x-,
y-, z- set up featured in this bone. Also, a different approach to creating the ends of the bone
would be more appropriate. One such approach for next time would be creating a point cloud for

multiple cross sections at multiple x-values, and then lofting them together. This approach
would most likely work better for the more irregular end. Also, more careful attention should be
given to creating the grooves and extrusions on the more regular end. Finally, if given the proper
amount of time, measuring the points values twice would ensure the accuracy of the points and
eliminate any ridges that stick out. Overall, with the time and program constraints, the methods
used worked well enough to give a semi-accurate model of the bone.

References
N.a. Model. EngineeringDictionary.com http://www.engineering-dictionary.com/index Sept.
22, 2014
Na. Measurement. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/measurement?s=t
Sept. 22, 2014
N.a. Project 1: Measurement and Modeling. College of Engineering North Dakota State
University. Sept.9, 2014.