Skip to main content

Thermal modeling and uncertainty quantification of tool for automated garment assembly

Abstract

In this work, a thermal Finite Element model is developed to simulate the performance of a blade-like tool for robotic work cells performing automated garment production using a novel thermoplastic stiffening layer. Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis are applied to determine the most important design properties and optimize key performance metrics for swift and reliable garment assembly. Attention is focused on the geometric and thermal design properties that minimize sensitivity to environmental conditions while maximizing expected productivity. An example design is shown for illustrative purposes. This work may inform future design innovation for similar heating tools and reduce the need for physical experiments and long calibration times on the factory floor.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

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

Data Availability

The data used in this work was generated by code written by the authors. It may be obtained from the contributing authors upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

The code used in this work may be obtained from the contributing authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Nayak R, Padhye R (2018) Introduction to Automation in Garment Manufacturing. In: Automation in garment manufacturing. Elsevier, pp 1–27

  2. Li X, Hui EC, Lang W, Zheng S, Qin X (2020) Transition from factor-driven to innovation-driven urbanization in china: A study of manufacturing industry automation in dongguan city. China Econ Rev 59:101382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schrage S, Huber K (2018) 15 living wages in international supply chains and the capability approach. New frontiers of the capability approach, 351

  4. Maitin-Shepard J, Cusumano-Towner M, Lei J, Abbeel P (2010) Cloth grasp point detection based on multiple-view geometric cues with application to robotic towel folding. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2308–2315

  5. Zornow J (2020) Sewbo, inc.,

  6. Balkcom D (2004) Robotic origami folding. PhD thesis, Citeseer

  7. Fisher R A (1935) The design of experiments. The design of experiments., 1st Ed,

  8. Bulthuis K, Arnst M, Sun S, Pattyn F (2019) Uncertainty quantification of the multi-centennial response of the antarctic ice sheet to climate change. Cryosphere 13(4):1349–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liang B, Mahadevan S (2011) Error and uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis in mechanics computational models. Int J Uncertain Quantif 1(2):147–161

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Isukapalli SS, Roy A, Georgopoulos PG (1998) Stochastic response surface methods (srsms) for uncertainty propagation: application to environmental and biological systems. Risk Anal 18(3):351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4:409–423

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Abdar M, Pourpanah F, Hussain S, Rezazadegan D, Liu L, Ghavamzadeh M, Fieguth P, Cao X, Khosravi A, Rajendra A U, et al. (2020) A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06225

  13. Shiraiwa, T, Briffod, F, Enoki M (2017) Uncertainty quantification of fatigue life prediction in welded structures using microstructure-based simulations. In International Conference on New Trends in Fatigue and Fracture, pages 329–334. Springer

  14. Li K, He S, Liu H, Mao X, Li B, Luo B (2020) Bayesian uncertainty quantification and propagation for prediction of milling stability lobe. Mech Syst Signal Process 138:106532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang C, Radi B, El Hami A (2016) Uncertainty analysis of deep drawing using surrogate model based probabilistic method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 86(9):3229–3240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang Z, Liu P, Ji Y, Mahadevan S, Horstemeyer MF, Zhen H, Chen L, Chen L-Q (2019) Uncertainty quantification in metallic additive manufacturing through physics-informed data-driven modeling. JOM 71(8):2625–2634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhen H, Mahadevan S (2017) Uncertainty quantification and management in additive manufacturing: current status, needs, and opportunities. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 93(5):2855–2874

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nannapaneni S, Mahadevan S (2014) Uncertainty quantification in performance evaluation of manufacturing processes. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 996–1005. IlEEE

  19. Könnö J, Schötzau D, Stenberg R (2011) Mixed finite element methods for problems with robin boundary conditions. SIAM J Numer Anal 49(1):285–308

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lozanovski B, Downing D, Tran P, Shidid D, Qian M, Choong P, Brandt M, Leary M (2020) A monte carlo simulation-based approach to realistic modelling of additively manufactured lattice structures. Addit Manuf 32:101092

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tapia G, King W, Johnson L, Arroyave R, Karaman I, Elwany A (2018) Uncertainty propagation analysis of computational models in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using polynomial chaos expansions. J Manuf Sci Eng 140(12):121006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Soize C (2012) Stochastic models of uncertainties in computational mechanics. American Society of Civil Engineers

  23. Taber A, Castrillon N, Kumar G (2021) Sensitivity computation of integral quantities with moment derivatives [manuscript submitted for publication]. Journal of mechanical design

  24. Allaire G, Jouve F, Toader A-M (2004) Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. J Comput Phys 194(1):363–393

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tortorelli DA, Michaleris P (1994) Design sensitivity analysis: overview and review. Inverse problems in Engineering 1(1):71–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Holmberg E, Torstenfelt B, Klarbring A (2013) Stress constrained topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(1):33–47

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jun W, Clausen A, Sigmund O (2017) Minimum compliance topology optimization of shell-infill composites for additive manufacturing. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 326:358–375

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Viana FAC, Venter G, Balabanov V (2010) An algorithm for fast optimal latin hypercube design of experiments. Int J Numer Meth Eng 82(2):135–156

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saltelli A, Aleksankina K, Becker W, Fennell P, Ferretti F, Holst N, Li S, Qiongli W (2019) Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environmental modelling & software 114:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was partially funded by the Siemens Corporation and the Advanced Robotics Manufacturing (ARM) Institute. Professor Zohdi’s work is supported by AFRI Competitive Grant no. 2020-67021-32855/project accession no. 1024262 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This grant is being administered through AIFS: the AI Institute for Next Generation Food Systems. https://aifs.ucdavis.edu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tarek I. Zohdi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Castrillon, N., Rock, A. & Zohdi, T.I. Thermal modeling and uncertainty quantification of tool for automated garment assembly. Comput Mech 70, 879–889 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-022-02215-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-022-02215-5

Keywords

  • Uncertainty quantification
  • Finite element method
  • Thermal modeling
  • Automation
  • Garments