Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managing complexity of assembly with modularity: a cost and benefit analysis

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

Abstract

Industry 4.0 is characterized by a modular structure of the production process that consists of cyber-physical systems. These cyber-physical systems provide interoperability, information transparency, and decentralization of decisions. The modular structure, according to Industry 4.0 principle, creates intelligent networks of machines, work pieces, and systems that can predict failures, self-organize themselves, and react to unexpected events. In this paper, we consider the complexity of assembly processes and propose modular structures for assembly processes based on probabilistic formulation. Despite the reliability and precisions that the use of cyber-physical systems such as robotics and automation in assembly processes have introduced, and because of the increasing complexity, there is a need for probabilistic process characterization models for smart assembly planning purposes. First, a new framework for assembly complexity measurement based on processes’ probabilistic and Markovian characters is suggested. Then, two effects of modularization, namely stabilization of components by boundary creation and application modular interfaces, are analyzed. For each case, a probabilistic formulation for assembly formation and analysis is presented. The effect of task sequencing and component modularization on assembly time and cost is considered simultaneously by the Bayesian formulation of the assembly problem. Several heuristics are derived from simulation examples, and the modularization cost is studied through utilization of design structure matrix.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weyer S, Schmitt M, Ohmer M, Gorecky D (2015) Towards Industry 4.0—standardization as the crucial challenge for highly modular, multi-vendor production systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(3):579–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zamfirescu CB, Pirvu B-C, Loskyll M, Zuehlke D (2014) Do not cancel my race with cyber-physical systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 47(3):4346–4351

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bortolini M, Galizia FG, Mora C (2018) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: literature review and research trend. J Manuf Syst 49:93–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bortolini M, Ferrari E, Gamberi M, Pilati F, Faccio M (2017) Assembly system design in the Industry 4.0 era: a general framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1):5700–5705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Thramboulidis K, Kontou I, Vachtsevanou DC (2018) Towards an IoT-based framework for evolvable assembly systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(11):182–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baudin M (2002) Lean assembly: the nuts and bolts of making assembly operations flow. CRC, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Bortolini M, Faccio M, Gamberi M, Pilati F (2017) Multi-objective assembly line balancing considering component picking and ergonomic risk. Comput Ind Eng 112:348–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.08.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boysen N, Fliedner M, Scholl A (2007) A classification of assembly line balancing problems. Eur J Oper Res 183(2):674–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boothroyd G (1987) Design for assembly—the key to design for manufacture. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2(3):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan J, Dong J Intelligent virtual assembly planning with integrated assembly model. In proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, man and cybernetics, October 5-8, 2003, Washington,D.C., USA pp. 4803–4808

  11. Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA (2010) Product design for manufacture and assembly. CRC Press, London

  12. Burke GJ, Carlson JB (1989) DFA at Ford Motor Company. DFMA Insight magazine 1(4):1–10

  13. Yoosufani Z, Boothroyd G (1978) Design of parts for ease of handling. Technical report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, report no 2

  14. Boothroyd G (1979) Design for manual handling and assembly. Report no. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seth B, Boothroyd G (1979) Design for manual handling. Technical report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Report no. 9

  16. Yoosufani Z, Ruddy M, Boothroid G (1983) Effect of part symmetry on manual assembly times. J Manuf Syst 2(2):189–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Corbett J, Crookall J (1986) Design for economic manufacture. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 35(1):93–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ishikawa K (1976) Guide to quality control: industrial engineering and technology. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harry MJ, Stewart R (1988) Six sigma mechanical design tolerancing. Motorola University Press, Schaumburg

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shimbun NK (1989) Poka-yoke: improving product quality by preventing defects. CRC Press, New York

  21. Hinckley M (1993) A global conformance quality model—a new strategic tool for minimizing defects caused by variation, error, and complexity. Doctoral Thesis, Stanford University

  22. Efatmaneshnik M, Ryan Mj (2015) On optimal modularity for system construction. Complexity 21(5):176–189 https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx

  23. Shoval S, Efatmaneshnik M, Ryan MJ (2017) Assembly sequence planning for processes with heterogeneous reliabilities. Int J Prod Res 55(10):2806–2828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Simon HA (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482

    Google Scholar 

  25. Efatmaneshnik M, Shoval S, Qiao L (2018) A Standard Description of the Terms Module and Modularity for Systems Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2878589

  26. Shoval S, Qiao L, Efatmaneshnik M, Ryan M (2016) Dynamic modular architecture for product lifecycle. Procedia CIRP 48:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shoval S (2016) Dynamic modularization throughout system lifecycle using multilayer design structure matrices. Procedia CIRP 40:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Boothroyd G (2005) Assembly automation and product design. CRC Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, 47000, Ariel, Israel

    Shraga Shoval

  2. School of Engineering and Information Technology, UNSW Canberra at ADFA, Campbell, ACT, Australia

    Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik

Authors
  1. Shraga Shoval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 The MVs and their SD and size (m) for the eight elements
Full size table
Fig. 12
figure 12

The minimum cost (c) and minimum time (d) (over all sequences) for 128 MVs for the P, C, and T (=C) matrices shown in a and b

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shoval, S., Efatmaneshnik, M. Managing complexity of assembly with modularity: a cost and benefit analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 105, 3815–3828 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03802-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03802-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation