Advertisement

Ambient intelligence in self-organising assembly systems using the chemical reaction model

  • Regina FreiEmail author
  • Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo
  • Traian Florin Șerbănuță
Original Research

Abstract

This article discusses self-organising assembly systems (SOAS), a type of assembly systems that (1) participate in their own design by spontaneously organising themselves in response to the arrival of a product order and (2) manage themselves during production. SOAS address the industry’s need for agile manufacturing systems to be highly responsive to market dynamics. Manufacturing systems need to be easily and rapidly changeable, but system re-engineering/reconfiguration and especially their (re-)programming are manual, work-intensive and error-prone procedures. With SOAS, we try to facilitate this by giving the systems gradually more self-* capabilities. SOAS eases the work of the SOAS designer and engineer when designing such as system for a specific product, and supports the work of the SOAS operator when supervising the system during production. SOAS represent an application domain of ambient intelligence and humanised computing which is not frequently considered, but therefore none the less important. This article explains how an SOAS produces its own design as the result of a self-organising process following the Chemical Abstract Machine (CHAM) paradigm: industrial robots self-assemble according to specific chemical rules in response to a product order. This paper reports on SOAS in general, the specification of the chemical reactions and their simulation in Maude.

Keywords

Self-organisation Evolvable assembly systems Chemical reaction model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors also thank the EU-funded coordination action PerAda, http://www.perada.org, for financially supporting travel exchange between authors’ institutions.

References

  1. Adamietz R (2007) Development of an intermodular receptacle: a first step in creating EAS modules. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Applied Computer Science/Automation (AIA), Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas A, Banatre J-P, Priol T (2009) Developing autonomic and secure virtual organisations with chemical programming. In: 11th International symposium on Stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems (SSS). LNCS, vol 5873. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–89Google Scholar
  3. Avizienis A, Laprie J, Randell B, Landwehr C (2004) Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans Dependable Secur Comput 1(1):11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banâtre J-P, Fradet P, Le Métayer D (2000) Gamma and the chemical reaction model: fifteen years after. In: WMP. LNCS, vol 2235. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–44Google Scholar
  5. Barata J (2005) Coalition based approach for shopfloor agility. Edições Orion, Amadora - LisboaGoogle Scholar
  6. Barata J, Camarinha-Matos L (2003) Coalitions of manufacturing components for shop floor agility: the cobasa architecture. Int J Netw Virtual Organ 2:50–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barata J, Onori M (2006) Evolvable assembly and exploiting emergent behaviour. In: IEEE International symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), vol 4. Montreal, Canada, pp 3353–3360Google Scholar
  8. Barata J, Cândido G, Feijão F (2006a) A multiagent based control system applied to an educational shop floor. In: IFIP International conference on information technology for balanced automation systems (BASYS), Niagara Falls, Canada, pp 119–128Google Scholar
  9. Barata J, Santana P, Onori M (2006b) Evolvable assembly systems: a development roadmap. In: Dolgui A, Morel G, Pereira C (eds) IFAC symposium on information control problems in manufacturing (INCOM), vol 12. Elsevier, St Etienne, France, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  10. Barata J, Ribeiro L, Colombo A (2007a) Diagnosis using service oriented architectures (SOA). In: 5th IEEE International conference on industrial informatics (INDIN), vol 2. Vienna, Austria, pp 1203–1208Google Scholar
  11. Barata J, Ribeiro L, Onori M (2007b) Diagnosis on evolvable assembly systems. In: IEEE International symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), Vigo, Spain, pp 3221–3226Google Scholar
  12. Barata J, Ribeiro L, Onori M (2007c) Diagnosis on evolvable production systems. In: IEEE International symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), Vigo, Spain, pp 3221–3226Google Scholar
  13. Benjaafar S, Heragu S, Irani S (2002) Next generation factory layouts: research challenges and recent progress. Interfaces 32(6):58–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berry G, Boudol G (1998) The chemical abstract machine. Theor Comput Sci 96(1):217–248CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Bongard J, Zykov V, Lipson H (2006) Resilient machines through continuous self-modeling. Science 314:1118–1121Google Scholar
  16. Camarinha-Matos L, Afsarmanesh H, Galeano N, Molina A (2009) Collaborative networked organizations: concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen H, Sheng W, Xi N, Song M, Chen Y (2002) Cad-based automated robot trajectory planning for spray painting of free-form surfaces. Ind Robot Int J 29(5):426–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clavel M, Durán F, Eker S, Lincoln P, Martí-Oliet N, Meseguer J, Talcott C (2007) All about Maude: a high-performance logical framework, how to specify, program, and verify systems in rewriting logic. LNCS. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  19. Clavel M, Palomino M, Riesco A (2006) Introducing the ITP tool: a tutorial. J Univers Comput Sci 12(11):1618–1650Google Scholar
  20. Di Marzo Serugendo G (2009) Robustness and dependability of self-organising systems: a safety engineering perspective. In: International symposium on stabilization, safety, and security of distributed systems(SSS). LNCS, vol 5873. Springer, Berlin, pp 254–268Google Scholar
  21. Di Marzo Serugendo G, Fitzgerald J, Romanovsky A (2010) Metaself: an architecture and development method for dependable self-* systems. In: Symposium on applied computing (SAC), Sion, Switzerland (page To appear)Google Scholar
  22. Di Marzo Serugendo G, Fitzgerald J, Romanovsky A, Guelfi N (2007) A metadata-based architectural model for dynamically resilient systems. In: ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC), ACM, Seoul, Korea, pp 566–573Google Scholar
  23. Eker S, Meseguer J, Sridharanarayanan A (2003) The Maude LTL model checker and its implementation. In: 10th International SPIN workshop on model checking of software, LNCS, vol 2648. Springer, Berlin, pp 230–234Google Scholar
  24. ElMaraghy H (2006) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 17(4):261–276zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Farzan A, Chen F, Meseguer J, Roșu G (2004) Formal analysis of Java programs in JavaFAN. In: Computer Aided Verification (CAV), pp 501–505Google Scholar
  26. Ferrarini L, Veber C, Lüder A, Peschke J, Kalogeras A, Gialelis J, Rode J, Wunsch D, Chapurlat V (2006) Control architecture for reconfigurable manufacturing systems: the PABADIS’PROMISE approach. In: IEEE International conference on emerging technologies and factory automation (ETFA), Prague, Czech Republic, pp 545–552Google Scholar
  27. Frei R (2010) Self-organisation in evolvable assembly systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  28. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Barata J (2006) Designing self-organization for evolvable assembly systems. Technical report, BBKCS-09-04, School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birkbeck College, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. Frei R, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Barata J (2008a) Designing self-organization for evolvable assembly systems. In: IEEE International conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems (SASO), Venice, Italy, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  30. Frei R, Ferreira B, Barata J (2008b) Dynamic coalitions for self-organizing manufacturing systems. In: CIRP International conference on intelligent computation in manufacturing engineering (ICME), Naples, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  31. Frei R, Ferreira B, Di Marzo Serugendo G, Barata J (2009a) An architecture for self-managing evolvable assembly systems. In: IEEE International conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), San Antonio, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Frei R, Pereira N, Belo J, Barata J, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2009b) Self-awareness in evolvable assembly systems. Technical report, BBKCS-09-07, School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birbeck College, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Frei R, Pereira N, Belo J, Barata J, Di Marzo Serugendo G (2010) Implementing self-organisation and self-management in evolvable assembly systems. In: To appear in IEEE International symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  34. Garstenauer M (2009) Das virtuelle engineering. Comput Autom 9:24–26Google Scholar
  35. Ghallab M, Nau D, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning, theory and practice. Morgan-KaufmanGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanisch C, Munz G (2008) Evolvability and the intangibles. Assembl Autom 28(3):194–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hollis R, Rizzi A, Brown H, Quaid A, Butler Z (2003) Toward a second-generation minifactory for precision assembly. In: International advances robotics program workshop on microrobots, micromachines and microsystems, Moscow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  38. ISTAG (2001) Scenarios for ambient intelligence in 2010. information society technologies advisory group report. http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm
  39. ISTAG (2003) Ambient intelligence: from vision to reality. information society technologies advisory group report. http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm
  40. Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritchow G, Ulsoy A, Van Brussel H (1999) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 48(2):6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laprie J (2008) From dependability to resilience. In: IEEE/IFIP International conference on dependable systems and networks, DSN 2008, Fast AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  42. Lohse N (2007) Towards an ontology framework for the integrated design of modular assembly systems. PhD thesis, School of Mechanical Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  43. Lohse N, Hirani H, Ratchev S, Turitto M (2005) An ontology for the definition and validation of assembly processes for evolvable assembly systems. In: 6th IEEE International symposium on assembly and task planning: from nano to macro assembly and manufacturing (ISATP). Montreal, QC, Canada, pp 242–247Google Scholar
  44. Lohse N, Ratchev S, Barata J (2006) Evolvable assembly systems: on the role of design frameworks and supporting ontologies. In: IEEE International symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), vol 4. Montreal, Canada, pp 3375–3380Google Scholar
  45. Maffei A, Rossi T (2007) Development of an ontology to support the EAS: ELECTROLUX Test case. M. Sc. thesis, University of Pisa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  46. Maffei A, Dencker K, Bjelkemyr M (2009) From flexibility to evolvability: ways to achieve self-reconfigurability and full autonomy. In: International IFAC symposium on robot control (SYROCO), Gifu, JapanGoogle Scholar
  47. Meseguer J (1990) Rewriting as a unified model of concurrency. In: Concur Conf., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. LNCS, vol 458. Springer, Berlin, pp 384–400Google Scholar
  48. Meseguer J (1992) Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theor Comput Sci 96(1):73–155zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. Onori M (2002) Evolvable assembly systems: a new paradigm? In: 33rd International symposium on robotics (ISR), Stockholm, Sweden, pp 617–621Google Scholar
  50. Onori M, Hanisch C, Barata J, Maraldo T (2008) Adaptive assembly technology roadmap 2015, project report-public, document 1.5f, nmp-2-ct-2004-507978Google Scholar
  51. Pechoucek M, Marik V, Stepankova O (2000) Coalition formation in manufacturing multi-agent systems. In: International conference on database and expert systems application (DEXA), London, UK, pp 241–246Google Scholar
  52. Ribeiro L, Barata J, Mendes P (2008a) MAS and SOA: complementary automation paradigms. In: Azevedo A (ed) Innovation in manufacturing networks, vol 266. Springer, Boston, pp 259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ribeiro L, Barata J, Onori M, Amado A (2008b) OWL ontology to support evolvable assembly systems. In: 9th IFAC workshop on intelligent manufacturing systems (IFAC-IMS), Szczecin, Poland, pp 393–398Google Scholar
  54. Roșu G (2007) K: a rewriting-based framework for computations: preliminary version. Technical Report Department of Computer Science UIUCDCS-R-2007-2926 and College of Engineering UILU-ENG-2007-1827, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USAGoogle Scholar
  55. Roșu G (2010) An overview of the K semantic framework. J Log Algebraic Program. doi: 10.1016/j.jlap.2010.03.012
  56. Sasse R, Meseguer J (2007) Java+ITP: a verification tool based on Hoare logic and algebraic semantics. In: Denker G, Talcott C (eds) 6th International workshop on rewriting logic and its applications (WRLA). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol 176(4), pp 29–46Google Scholar
  57. Semere D, Barata J, Onori M (2007) Evolvable systems: developments and advance. In: IEEE International symposium on assembly and manufacturing (ISAM), Ann Harbor, MI, USA, pp 288–293Google Scholar
  58. Semere D, Onori M, Maffei A, Adamietz R (2008) Evolvable assembly systems: coping with variations through evolution. Assembl Autom 28(2):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Șerbănuță TF, Roșu G (2010) K-Maude: a rewriting based tool for semantics of programming languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th International workshop on rewriting logic and its applications (WRLA’09), LNCS (To appear)Google Scholar
  60. Șerbănuță TF, Roșu G, Meseguer J (2009) A rewriting logic approach to operational semantics. Inf Comput 207(2):305–340Google Scholar
  61. Shen W, Maturana F, Norrie D (1998) Learning in agent-based manufacturing systems. In: AI & manufacturing research planning workshop, Albuquerque, NM, USA, pp 177–183Google Scholar
  62. Siltala N, Hofmann A, Tuokko R, Bretthauer G (2009) Emplacement and blue print an approach to handle and describe modules for evolvable assembly systems. In: International IFAC symposium on robot control (SYROCO), Advances in soft computing, Gifu, JapanGoogle Scholar
  63. Simaria A, Vilarinho P (2009) 2-antbal: An ant colony optimisation algorithm for balancing two-sided assembly lines. Comput Industrial Engineering 56(2):489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ueda K (2006) Emergent synthesis approaches to biological manufacturing systems. In: 3rd International CIRP conference on digital enterprise technology (DET), Keynote paper, Setubal, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  65. Valckenaers P, Van Brussel H (2005) Holonic manufacturing execution systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wermelinger M (1998) Towards a chemical model for software architecture reconfiguration. IEEE Proc Softw 145(5):130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regina Frei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanna Di Marzo Serugendo
    • 1
  • Traian Florin Șerbănuță
    • 2
  1. 1.Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Formal Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations