Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hybrid fexible assembly systems (H-FAS): bridging the gap between traditional and fully flexible assembly systems

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automation can be a valid way to reduce production costs. Considering medium/low volumes and a wide set of different models, a mixed model assembly work cell is a proper automated production system. The authors have recently introduced a new class of flexible assembly systems (FAS), the F-FAS, in which highly flexible feeding systems are used to improve the flexibility and reduce the set-up times at batch change. Such systems, guaranteeing a higher level of flexibility than traditional automated FAS, show some limitations in terms of productivity, due to the stochastic process of feeding and reorientation of parts and to the time spent for image acquisition and processing. The aim of this paper is to introduce an innovative automated assembly work cell, called the hybrid flexible assembly system (H-FAS), that merges the traditional FAS bowl feeder utilisation with the innovative F-FAS feeding concepts. The paper analyses the main factors influencing the H-FAS design, productivity and cost. Moreover, through a comparative analysis between the different single cell assembly systems, it defines the working conditions in which they can be preferable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A :

Assembly matrix

\(\boldsymbol {A^{\prime }}\) :

Assembly matrix after the elimination of N ce columns

C cam :

Cost of the camera (€)

C cell :

Cost of the cell (€)

C feed :

Cost of reconfigurable feeder (€)

C vbf :

Cost of vibratory feeder (€)

C flexfeed :

Cost of the flexible feeder (€)

C rob :

Cost of the robot (€)

C wb :

Cost of the equipment of the assembly station (€)

C plant :

Investment cost of the plant(€)

C h :

Hourly cost (€/h)

C h,op :

Hourly cost of operators(€/h)

C u :

Unit direct production cost (€/part)

c m :

Average complexity of all models, i.e. average number of parts needed to assemble a model

c me :

Average complexity of the component removed from the fully flexible feeder and assigned to reconfigurable feeders

h pb :

Payback time (h)

h res :

Average working time between two subsequent re-settings of the work cell [hours]

K :

Efficiency of whole batch production

\(K_{\max }\) :

Maximum efficiency of the work cell

\(K_{\lim }\) :

Efficiency of the work cell that limits two regions of convenience

N a :

Number of parts identified from the vision system

N c :

Number of component types

N c,lim :

Number of components that separates H-FAS region and FAS region

N ce :

Number of components eliminated from the fully flexible feeder and assigned to reconfigurable feeders

N e :

Number of parts removed from the vision system

N p :

Number of parts on the working plane

N r :

Number of models to be assembled

N w :

Total number of parts handled by the H-FAS

p :

Average perimeter of all used parts, normalised by the plane diagonal

Q :

Hourly throughput of the work cell (parts/h)

R :

Order vector

t mpp :

Average time needed for the manual manipulation and assembly of a single component [s]

t pp :

Time needed for pick and place movements (ms)

t fj :

Time needed for parts feeding (ms)

t ij :

Time needed for image acquisition and processing (ms)

t fs :

Average time to feed a single part (ms)

t is :

Average time for the image acquisition of a single part (ms)

t set :

Time needed for setting up each reconfigurable feeder (h)

x :

Relative average complexity removed from the assembly matrix

y :

Relative Number of components removed from the assembly matrix

Δ:

Relative reduction of complexity

α :

Parameter related to the perimeter of the component to assembly

η :

Efficiency of the human operator

γ :

Ratio between K max,H−FAS and K max,F−FAS

References

  1. Cevikcan E (2014) A mathematical programming approach for walking-worker assembly systems. Assem Autom 34(1):56– 68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shewchuck JP (2008) Worker allocation in lean U-shaped production lines. Int J Prod Res 46(13):3485–3502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heilala J, Montonen J, Väätäinen O (2008) Life cycle and unit-cost analysis for modular reconfigurable flexible light assembly systems. J Eng Manuf 222(10):1289–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sprovieri J (2013) The role of people in automated assembly systems: Cost and flexibility are two factors to consider when deciding which processes to automate in an assembly system. Assembly 56(9):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mesa J, Maury H, Turizo J, Bula A (2014) A methodology to define a reconfigurable system architecture for a compact heat exchanger assembly machine. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(1):2199–2210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Edmondson NF, Redford AH (2002) Generic flexible assembly system design. Assem Autom 22(2):139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Battini D, Faccio M, Ferrari E, Persona A, Sgarbossa F (2007) Design configuration for a mixed-model assembly system in case of low product demand. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34(1):188–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wolfson W, Gordon SJ (1997) Designing a flexible feeding system for maximum flexibility. Assem Autom 17(2):116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Battini D, Faccio M, Persona A, Sgarbossa F (2011) New methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly system design. Int J Ind Ergon 41(1):30–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang Q, Sowden M, Mileham AR (2014) A methodology to define a reconfigurable system architecture for a compact heat exchanger assembly machine. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosati G, Faccio M, Carli A, Rossi A (2013) Fully flexible assembly systems (F-FAS): a new concept in flexible automation. Assem Autom 33(1):8–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosati G, Faccio M, Finetto C, Carli A (2013) Modeling and optimization of fully flexible assembly systems (F-FAS). Assem Autom 33(2):156–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Finetto C, Faccio M, Rosati G, Rossi A (2014) Mixed-model sequencing optimization for an automated single-station fully flexible assembly system (F-FAS). Adv Manuf Technol 70(5–8):797–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krüger J, Nickolay B, Heyer P (2005) Image based 3D surveillance for flexible man-robot-cooperation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):19–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heilala J, Voho P (2001) Modular reconfigurable flexible final assembly system. Assem Autom 21(1):20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Morioka M, Sakakibara S (2010) A new cell production assembly system with human–robot cooperation. Manuf Technol 59(1):9–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Medellin H, Corney J, Ritchie J, Lim T (2010) Automatic generation of robot and manual assembly plans using octrees. Assem Autom 30(2):173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gil P, Pomares J, Puente S, et al. (2009) A cooperative robotic system based on multiple sensors to construct metallic structures. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 45(11–12):1179–1186

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sugita S, Itaya T, Takeuchi Y (2004) Development of robot teaching support devices to automate deburring and finishing works in casting. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(3–4):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gudmundsson D, Goldberg K (2007) Optimizing robotic part feeder throughput with queueing theory. Assem Autom 27(2):134–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reinhart G, Loy M (2010) Design of a modular feeder for optimal operating performance. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 3(1):191–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Frädrich T, Pachow-Frauenhofer J, Torsten F, Nyhuis P (2011) Aerodynamic feeding systems: an example for changeable technology. Assem Autom 31(1):47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perks A (2006) Advanced vision guided robotics provide future-proof flexible automation. Assem Autom 26(3):116–121

    Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Ghathian F, Tarawneh M, Nawafleh MA, Al-Kloub N (2010) A mechanical device used to improve the vision inspection in small scale industry. Int J Mech Mater Eng 5(2):191–198

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ravikumar S, Ramachandran KI, Sugumaran V (2011) Machine learning approach for automated visual inspection of machine components. 38(4):3260–3266

  26. Rosati G, Boschetti G, Biondi A, Rossi A (2009) On-line dimensional measurement of small components on the eyeglasses assembly line. Opt Lasers Eng 47:320–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liang BSJ (2011) Robotic drilling system for titanium structures. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 54(5-8):767–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang S-H, Pan Y-C (2015) Automated visual inspection in the semiconductor industry: a survey. Comput Ind 6:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Müller R, Vette M, Scholer M (2014) A new collaborative testing system designed for the automotive final assembly line. Assem Autom 34(4):370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padua, Stradella San Nicola 3, 36100, Vicenza, Italy

    Giulio Rosati, Maurizio Faccio, Luca Barbazza & Aldo Rossi

Authors
  1. Giulio Rosati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maurizio Faccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Barbazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aldo Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio Faccio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosati, G., Faccio, M., Barbazza, L. et al. Hybrid fexible assembly systems (H-FAS): bridging the gap between traditional and fully flexible assembly systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81, 1289–1301 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7243-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7243-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation