Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 43–58 | Cite as

Key characteristics-based sensor distribution in multi-station assembly processes

  • Nagesh Shukla
  • Dariusz Ceglarek
  • Manoj K. Tiwari
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a novel approach for optimal key characteristics-based sensor distribution in a multi-station assembly process, for the purpose of diagnosing variation sources responsible for product quality defects in a timely manner. Current approaches for sensor distribution are based on the assumption that measurement points can be allocated at arbitrary locations on the part or subassembly. This not only presents challenges in the implementation of these approaches but additionally does not allow required product assurance and quality control standards to be integrated with them, due to lack of explicit relations between measured features and geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T). Furthermore, it causes difficulty in calibration of measurement system and increases the likelihood of measurement error due to the introduction of measurement points not defined in GD&T. In the proposed approach, we develop methodology for optimal sensor allocation for 6-sigma root cause analysis that maximizes the number of measurement points placed at critical design features called Key Characteristics (KCs) which are classified into: Key Product Characteristics and Key Control Characteristics and represent critical product and process design features, respectively. In particular, KCs have defined dimensional and geometric tolerances which provides necessary design reference model for process control and diagnosis of product 6-sigma variation faults. The proposed approach allows obtaining minimum required production system 6-sigma diagnosability. A feature-based procedure is proposed which includes Genetic Algorithm-based approach (allowing pre-defined KCs as the measurement points) and state-of-the-art approaches (unrestricted location of measurement points) to iteratively include arbitrary measurement points together with KCs in the final sensor layout. A case study of automotive assembly processes is used to illustrate the proposed feature-based approach.

Keywords

Assembly process Optimization Sensitivity 

References

  1. Baydar, C., & Saitou, K. (2004). Off-line error prediction, diagnosis and recovery using virtual assembly systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 15(5), 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Camelio, J., Hu, S.J., Yim, H. (2003b). Sensor placement for effective diagnosis of multiple faults in fixturing of compliant parts. In Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering congress. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 373–380.Google Scholar
  3. Ceglarek, D., & Prakash, P. K. S. (2012). Enhanced piecewise least squares approach for diagnosis of ill-conditioned multi-station assembly. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture., 226(3), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ceglarek, D., & Shi, D. (1995). Dimensional variation reduction for automotive body assembly. Manufacturing Review, 8, 139–154.Google Scholar
  5. Ding, Y., & Apley, D. W. (2007). Guidelines for placing additional sensors to improve variation diagnosis in assembly processes. International Journal of Production Research, 45(23), 5485–5507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ding, Y., Ceglarek, D., & Shi, J. (2002a). Design-evaluation of multistation manufacturing processes using state space approach. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design, 124, 408– 418.Google Scholar
  7. Ding, Y., Kim, P., Ceglarek, D., & Jin, J. (2003). Optimal sensor distribution for variation diagnosis in multi-station assembly processes. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 19, 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding, Y., Shi, J., & Ceglarek, D. (2002b). Diagnosability analysis of multi-station manufacturing processes. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control, 124, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Djurdjanovic, D., & Ni, J. (2003). Bayesian approach to measurement scheme analysis in multi-station machining systems. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 217, 1117–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Djurdjanovic, D., & Ni, J. (2004). Measurement scheme synthesis in multi-station machining systems. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 126, 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang, W., Kong, Z., Ceglarek, D., & Brahmst, E. (2004). The analysis of feature-based measurement error in coordinate metrology. IIE Transactions on Design and Manufacturing, 36(3), 237–251.Google Scholar
  12. Huang, W., Lin, J., Kong, Z., & Ceglarek, D. (2007). Stream-of-variation (SOVA) modeling II: A generic 3D variation model for rigid body assembly in multi station assembly processes. ASME Transactions on Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 129(4), 832–842.Google Scholar
  13. Jin, J., & Shi, J. (1999). State space modeling of sheet metal assembly for dimensional control. ASME Transactions, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 121, 756–762.Google Scholar
  14. Khan, A., & Ceglarek, D. (2000). Sensor optimization for fault diagnosis in multi-fixture assembly systems with distributed sensing. Transactions of ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 122(1), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khan, A., Ceglarek, D., & Ni, J. (1998). Sensor location optimization for fault diagnosis in multi-fixture assembly systems. Transactions of ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 120(4), 781–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khan, A., Ceglarek, D., Shi, J., Ni, J., & Woo, T. C. (1999). Sensor optimization for fault diagnosis in single fixture systems: A methodology. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 121, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levi, A., Taşçi, S. E., Lee, Y. J., Lee, Y. J., Bayramoglu, E., & Ergun, M. (2010). Simple, extensible and flexible random key predistribution schemes for wireless sensor networks using reusable key pools. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21(5), 635–645. Google Scholar
  18. Liu, Q., Ding, Y., & Chen, Y. (2005). Optimal coordinate sensor placements for estimating mean and variance components of variation sources. IIE Transaction, 37, 877–889.Google Scholar
  19. Mandroli, S. S., Ding, Y., & Shrivastava, A. (2006). A survey of inspection strategy and sensor distribution studies in discrete-part manufacturing processes. IIE Transactions, 8(4), 28.Google Scholar
  20. Meadows, J. (1995). Geometric dimensioning & tolerancing: Applications & techniques for use in design, manufacturing, & inspection. Boca Raton: CRC Press. ISBN: 0824793099.Google Scholar
  21. Rickli, J. L., Camelio, J. A., Dreyer, J. T., & Pandit, S. M. (2011). Fault detection and prognosis of assembly locating systems using piezoelectric transducers. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 22(6), 909–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shukla, N., Tiwari, M. K., Shankar, R. (2009). Optimal sensor distribution for multi-station assembly process using chaos-embedded fast simulated annealing. International Journal of Production Research, 47(1), 187–211.Google Scholar
  23. Wang, Y., & Nagarkar, S. R. (1999). Locator and sensor placement for automated coordinate checking fixtures. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 121, 709–719.Google Scholar
  24. Zhou, S., Ding, Y., Chen, Y., & Shi, J. (2003). Diagnosability study of multistage manufacturing processes based on linear mixed-effects models. Technometrics, 45, 312–325.Google Scholar
  25. Zhu, L., Luo, H., & Ding, H. (2004). Accuracy characterization and measurement point planning for workpiece localization. Science in China Series E Engineering and Materials Science, 47(6), 676–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nagesh Shukla
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dariusz Ceglarek
    • 1
    • 3
  • Manoj K. Tiwari
    • 4
  1. 1.The International Digital Lab, WMGUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.SMART Infrastructure FacilityUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Industrial & Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Industrial and Engineering ManagementIndian Institute of KharagpurKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations