LITERATURE REVEW 1:

Integrated design environment for reusable modular assembly

systems
Authors: Pedro Ferreira, Paul Danny Anandan, Ivo Pereira, Vikrant Hiwarkar, Mohmed
Sayed, Niels Lohse, Susana Aguiar, Gil Gonçalves, Joana, Gonçalves, Fabian Bottinger
Document Type: journal
Source: Assembly Automation, 2019, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 664-672.
Publisher Information: Emerald Publishing Limited. June 12, 2019.
Publication Year: 2019
Rights:© Emerald Publishing Limited 2019
Database: Emerald Insight

1. Introduction
Manufacturing plays a vital role in the global economy, which contributes 16 per cent
to the global GDP (Manyika et al., 2012). The era of mass production has introduced
products with shorter life cycles, which lead to reduced utilization of purpose-built
production systems (Fleschutz et al., 2008). In this direction, the vision of the ReBorn
Project (2013) is to incorporate reuse strategies in the design and production phases of the
manufacturing systems, while creating new business opportunities for system
maintenance, service and integration.
This paper focuses on design of modular assembly systems (MAS) while providing
suitable methods and tools to access the reuse suitability of used equipment modules.
This history can be traced via the European Research projects such as SCOPES (ESPRIT
III, 1995), CISAL (De Lit et al., 2003), E-RACE (Lohse et al., 2004), EUPASS (2008)
and IDEAS (Onori et al., 2012; (2010) proposed the TRIZ (an acronym, which means the
“Theory of Inventive Problem Solving”) method that resolves potential conflicts within
the processes to improve the performance of the system.
All the above-mentioned tools have been previously used in the Design for X (DfX)
methods such as design for disassembly, design for material selection, design for
recycling and environment (Eco-Design). This paper proposes a collaborative framework
that allows seamless, agile and remote participation of stakeholders involved in the
RMAS design process. The use of this common AML model allows a seamless
communication through every single step of the design phase. Furthermore, it allows
information integration across all the self-description files of the plug-and-produce
equipment modules (ReBorn Project, 2013).

2. Integrated design methodology for reusable modular assembly systems

More recently, the trend toward self-descriptive equipment modules and cyber-
physical-devices has opened the door for gathering information about equipment
operations (ReBorn Project, 2013). This ensures a better understanding about the current
state of the used modules, which in turn can help to establish certain metrics for
reusability. Additionally, modules are expected to have higher lifespans due to better
predictive maintenances, which can be scheduled based on the operational data of the
equipment. The combination of these aspects provides a greater potential to exploit their
increased life and reliability by reusing them in newer production setups. Therefore, this
work proposes the development of a new framework based on the established design
process, which can support the design of RMAS. The ReBorn project developed a
Workbench to aggregate all the stages of the RMAS design process in a single work
place. It was designed to encapsulate all the individual design stage developments and
provide support tools to the end-users as the design process progresses. The Web
interface allows authenticated users to access the different tools. The first step in the
process enables users to define a set of assembly process requirements, relevant
constraints and objectives for a given system. The Workbench allows the tracking of the
sub-sequent developments of the design process, while providing access and ensuring
successful integration between all the tools. This is achieved through the backend
consisting of REST Web Service application programming interface (API) that manages
the entire communication between the different tools. The API is modular and flexible to
the extent that it allows the users to add, remove or edit the tools without violating the
communication protocols. The tools are independent of one another, and can be used on
demand to facilitate any of the design process steps. Figure 2 provides overview of the
framework, which details the functionalities of the RMAS design process. This process is
divided into four main stages, which requires four specialized support tools: requirements
tool, the RMAS configurator, system assessment tool (SAT) and the layout tool. This tool
will allow equipment suppliers and owners to list their equipment. The requirements tool
will facilitate the capture and the formalization of the product, process and business
requirements for the new or reconfigured assembly system. The layout tool analyses the
final solution and provides support for its adaptation, given the layout constraints of the
shop floor. The data exchange between the different tools and the ReBorn Workbench is
done through AutomationML (AML) (IEC 62714) (Yoong et al., 2015). As the current
developments in AML do not entirely support the assembly systems domain, several
enhancements were done to ensure the support for the RMAS design process.

Figure 2 Framework for the integrated design of RMAS

2.1 Requirements tool
The requirements tool captures all the key requirements of a production line and
provides a Web interface which guides the user through the process. The information that
is gathered comprises general company details (e.g. name, country), factory-related
information (e.g. available space, layout), KPIs that the user is interested in (e.g.
dimensions, required feeders), assembly process requirements specifying how an
assembly is built together (e.g. assembly workflow) and the assemblies themselves,
linking the assembly with all information collected before.
Requirement sets can be stored and reused anytime for different scenarios or for
corrections. As soon as the requirements specifications are stored, they are formalized
and exported in the ReBorn enhanced AML format. It then can be used in the ReBorn
Workbench to advance the design process.
2.2 Marketplace
The ReBorn Marketplace (Fonseca et al., 2016) is a platform, based on the multi-sided
market concept, which allows equipment owners/providers and buyers to have a common
ground to communicate. The Marketplace has two main parts: a database and a Web
interface. The database has the data for both new and old equipment modules, which
includes module description, reliability data, skills and historic operational records. All
this information has access/authorization restrictions. The Marketplace Web Interface
allows a vendor to add equipment to be sold or to be rented with all the necessary
information, such as country, price and condition of the machine (years, operating hours,
reliability data based on past operation, etc.). This rent/sell information that can be
viewed by everyone.
The Marketplace can receive requests from the Workbench and send all the information
available from the modules that meet the request. The information is stored in an AML
file that is sent to the Workbench
2.3 Reusable modular assembly systems configurator
The RMAS configurator generates solutions based on the set of established requirements
and the existing equipment modules (old and new). IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization
Studio (2009) was used to build an assembly configuration optimization model and
generate solutions. The detailed operational description of this model can be found in
Anandan et al.’s (2016)study. The input for the RMAS configurator is an AML file with
system requirements and both old and new equipment modules. This file is sent by the
ReBorn Workbench through the REST service bus. This tool uses critical information
from the requirements, namely skill types, cycle time, cost, reliability information and
remaining life of the reusable modules. It is important to note that a simplified cost model
is used as this significantly reduces the solution space making this process faster.
Nevertheless, this does not replace the need for a more detailed total lifecycle cost
analysis, which is conducted by the SAT (Section 3.4). After the internal solution
generation process, the configuration solutions are inserted in AML files. These files are
then sent to the ReBorn Workbench. It is important to note that each configuration
solution contains all the information at this stage. This entails the requirements, all the
individual module self-descriptions and the configuration information. The configuration
information provides the link between modules and requirements, while also providing
the configuration details of the actual system. This guarantees that all the required
information for the subsequent tools is stored in the output AML files.

2.4 System assessment tool

The SAT (Aguiar et al., 2016) receives the multiple solutions created by the RMAS
Configurator as AML files. For each of these solutions, the SAT calculates the reliability
and the life cycle status information of the system, using the equipment operational
records, which are included in the AML file. This tool has two main objectives: 1 provide
an easy and intuitive way for a user to compare machines or production lines; and 2
provide a Web API service to be able to receive requests and communicate the results
with the other components in the Workbench, or other future applications. The SAT is
able to compare machines and production lines in terms of reliability metrics (failure rate,
mean time between failure, mean time to repair, reliability, availability, performance,
quality, and OEE overall equipment effectiveness), of life cycle cost metrics (future
value, present value, net present cost and net present value with initial costs) and of life
cycle assessment metrics (life cycle emissions and impact categories such as Global
Warming Potential or Ozone Depleting Potential). The ability to compare the solutions in
detail will inform the selection of the final design. It is important to note that the
information gathered during this process will be stored in the respective AML solution
files, which guarantees complete transparency without any loss of data.

2.5 Layout tool

The Layout tool is the component responsible for finding the optimized layout for the
factory shop floor. It takes into consideration several aspects like space restrictions,
equipment to be included, restrictions on material flow and delivers a solution
minimizing the associated cost. The largest cost of designing a layout is related to the
material transport. Therefore, the main objective of the Layout Tool is to define a layout
that optimizes transport, reducing the need for such equipment. The Layout Tool gets an
input of the updated system configuration solution from the SAT which should be the
most cost-effective solution (before layout). The tool tries to fit the footprint of the
proposed system within the available space on a given factory shop floor blueprint. Based
on the modified layout, the decision is taken whether to use the optimum solution of the
system configuration, or explore one of the less optimal solutions in case they are a better
fit for the available space in the factory.

3. Conclusions

The process of designing assembly systems is complex and the introduction of reusable
equipment only increases this complexity. This paper proposed a novel integrated
approach for supporting the designing RMAS. The communication through an enhanced
AML model provides an integrated and transparent approach for the automation domain,
which is extendible to other engineering domains. This work provides a novel service-
based framework that uses an enhanced AML model for exchanging engineering
information throughout the design process. This approach provides system configurations
using both new and reused modules, without compromising the overall reliability of the
system. The ultimate aim is to deliver a design framework to small- and medium-sized
enterprises and provide low cost RMAS solutions.

This work provides a sustainable approach for the design of modular assembly systems
(MAS), which will ensure better resource utilization. Additionally, the standardization of
the data and the support of low cost tools is expected to benefit industrial companies,
particularly the small- and medium-sized enterprises.
The inclusion of reusability aspects in the design phase improves the sustainability of
future assembly systems, by ensuring equipment use until its end-of-life. Moreover, the
integrated support tools reduce the design time, while improving the quality/performance
of the system design solution, as it enables the exploration of a larger solution space. This
will result in a better response to dynamic and rapidly changing system requirements.

LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Change management in modular assembly systems to correspond to

product geometry change
Authors: Tohidi, Hossein, AlGeddawy, Tarek
Document Type: Article
Source: International Journal of Production Research. Oct2019, Vol. 57 Issue 19, p6048-
6060. 13p. 7 Diagrams, 3 Charts, 1 Graph.
Publication Year: 2019
Rights: Taylor & Francis Ltd
Database: Business Source Complete

1. Introduction
In today’s world, the proliferation of customers’ requirements, diversity of market
segments, rapid technology changeovers, price competition and price differentiation
are some of the reasons that companies now offer a wide range of products, despite
the burdens of product variety management in design and manufacturing (Algeddawy
and Elmaraghy 2011). Changeable manufacturing systems (CMS) have been
introduced to provide manufacturers with the desired adaptability to quickly
changeover and produce varieties of products in a timely manner, with high quality
and low cost. Changeoverability, reconfigurability, flexibility, transformability and
agility are the main enablers of system changeability, from the strategic, enterprise
and organisational level, to the operational, equipment and machine level (Wiendahl
et al. 2007; Ann-Louise, Brunoe, and Nielsen 2015).

On the machine level, fixtures are fundamental components of the manufacturing

process, since they are used to hold parts in place during different operations to keep
them secured in specific positions by avoiding shaking and slippage. Since 40% of
rejected parts are the result of poor fixturing (Wang et al. 2010), fixturing has become
a very complex task which is usually done by experienced people using CAD and
simulation-based tools (Peng et al. 2010). That includes setup and fixture planning,
fixture configuration design, and fixture design verification (Rong and Bai 1997). In
addition to production quality, production cost is also highly dependent on fixturing
(Wang et al. 2010; Jonsson and Ossbahr 2010), since fixturing associated cost is
estimated to be between 10% and 20% of the total manufacturing system costs (Hou
and Trappey 2001; Bi and Zhang 2001; Wang et al. 2010). Most fixtures in different
industries are designed for a specific purpose. It means that any changes in the
predefined parameters such as parts geometry, size and weight, might not be handled
by those fixtures properly (Arzanpour et al. 2006). Therefore, modular fixtures have
been considered and many different types have been designed to provide
manufacturing systems with the required changeability. Modular fixtures that can
hold a variety of parts will reduce the manufacturer need to design and calibrate
different fixtures and it can significantly reduce the manufacturing cost (Nelaturi et al.
2014; Wallack and Canny 1996; Kang and Peng 2009; Wang et al. 2010). Kang and
Peng (2009) believe that using modular fixtures can reduce 80% of fixturing
associated costs.

2. Literature survey

2.1. Types of modular fixtures

Many variants of modular fixture have been introduced in the literature for
different manufacturing processes in machining, assembly, sheet metal forming, etc.,
and they have come with various ways of holding methods and changeability
techniques (Vasundara and Padmanaban 2013). However, it can be noticed that there
are two basic categories for those fixtures in general, (1) active fixtures, in which an
external power or force source is used for holding and/or changeover and (2) passive
fixtures, in which neither external power nor force sources are needed for holding or
changeover. For example, an active fixture using sensory-based vacuum was
developed by Fuwen (2014) for machining operations to facilitate the part loading
process. In that fixture, a vacuum module is turned on when part existence is sensed
on the fixture at that particular module. Shirinzadeh (1995) introduced different
fixturing strategies such as the passive reconfigurable mechanical fixture for
machining, shown in Figure 1(b), which can hold different part geometries by
extending and retracting mechanical clamps that were placed at strategic locations to
maximise wrench/clamping reaction forces. Jonsson and Ossbahr (2010) introduced
an active 6 DOF robotic fixture with a flexible top platform for changeable location
and orientation (Figure 1(c)). They also discussed different approaches in using that
robotic fixture in different contexts of manufacturing processes. Xiong, Molfino, and
Zoppi (2013) presented a passive reconfigurable fixture that is suitable for forging and
pressing large sheet of metals (Figure 1(d)). They also introduced a genetic algorithm
model to determine the number of supports and their locations. Passive modular
dowel fixtures also provide manufacturing systems with changeability, especially in
assembly systems, in which there are no cutting or forming forces, but only insertion
and handling forces (Wu, Gao, and Chen 2008). Dowels are inserted in a hole-grid of
a metal baseplate around the part at maximum clamping/wrench forces. They also
reduce production lead time by simply changing the locations of the dowels to adapt
to different parts with different shapes and sizes (Kang and Peng 2009). This fixture
type is used in this paper to enable the introduced manufacturing system in Section 3
to reduce setup time and increase its utilisation (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Different types of flexible fixtures.

 Figure 2. A passive modular fixture, fixing 3 irregular shaped parts one after
another.

2.2. Modular fixtures optimisation models

Optimisation of modular fixture performance has been studied in the literature for
several decades. (Boyle et al.) by studying ninety researches in this area, presented a
comprehensive literature survey (Boyle, Rong, and Brown 2011). They classified
different researches in four categories: setup planning, fixture planning, unit design,
and verification. Setup planning is about defining the machining processes that can be
done on a workpiece without rotating the part. In fixture planning, fixtures are
developed for a specific setup plan based on the workpiece physical characteristics,
tolerance, and etc. In Unit design, the structure of fixture including locating and
clamping parts is designed. Finally, in the verification, the designed fixtures are
evaluated based on the machining needs and workpiece characteristics. Existing
Fixture Planning methods usually determine a possible range of locations (set of
candidate locations) around each part’s perimeters that dowels can be inserted to fix a
part while meeting the machining and assembling requirements. These models are
applied to the entire planning horizon before production starts. Therefore, the required
time to solve these models takes place offline and does not affect the actual
production time. However, the number of dowels that need to be replaced will change
the actual production time, which is minimised using these models.

3. Fixture changeover management approach

To minimise the changeover time and consequently cost associated with applying
fixturing in a make-to-order automated assembly system, a passive modular fixture is
used. In this assembly setting, a robot that is located on top of a conveyor belt /
 material handling system places different parts on the modular fixture and secures
them by inserting four dowels around each part (Figure 3). The returning fixtures will
need to be changed by relocating dowels to new locations on the hole-grid for the new
part geometry. The robot will pick the dowels and place them in the new locations
before placing the new part. These models are used in the assembly system to
determine the optimum dowels’ locations for each part considering the sequence of
parts to be done using a particular fixture to minimise the number of dowels’
replacements. More dowel relocations mean longer fixture changeover time. The
advantage of this individual fixture changeover approach is the possibility of
producing a product mix simultaneously on the same system without opting to a batch
production strategy to switch all the fixtures.

Robot
Hole-grid baseplate

Part Conveyor belt loop

Dowels

Figure 3. A robotic assembly station that places parts and locating dowels on the
passive modular fixture.

4. Conclusion
Designing and planning modular fixtures in a high-variety production firm can
reduce the manufacturing cost significantly. In this paper a hole-grid modular fixture
is used to hold a variety of products with different geometries in an automated
assembly line. In this line, a robot which is fixed on top of the conveyer belt loop sets
up the fixture with positioning different part one after another and rearrangement of
jigging dowels in order to keep them securely.

An assembly system of a batch size of one unit is becoming more and more
common. Reducing changeover time becomes the planning focus of such systems. By
using passive modular fixtures with the help of robotic assembly, changeability of
automated systems can be improved; however, the fixture setup time needs to be
minimised. The main focus of this work was to reduce the fixture setup time for a
given product changeover plan, or introduce the changeover plan itself to minimise
the setup time.
 This improvement will increase the efficiency and applicability of modular fixtures
in highly changeable assembly systems, which have a wide range product mix and
continuously switch between product variants.