P-SOP Agent Generator for Flexible Manufacturing

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

In a flexible manufacturing industry the production planner may need to make an updated description of the control strategy every day. The description contains all possible routing paths and is based on actual circumstances. It varies depending on, e.g., rebalancing due to market changes, scheduling of available operators, introduction of new parts, and rerouting due to a machine break down or planned service. A Part oriented Sequence of Operation (P-SOP) description language has been formulated to assist the production planner to be able to handle these flexible manufacturing scenarios. Multi-agents to control the manufacturing are automatically generated from the P-SOP description language. The P-SOP agent generator creates IEC 61131-3 PLC code that can be executed on standard PLC’s. An agent consists of a head, a communicator, and a body. The head and the communicator are the automatically generated part with a predefined interface against the physical body, e.g., the mechanical/electrical structure of a robot. This feature eliminates the need for an external expert in PLC programming. The head contains many small sub-sequences for all operations that are defined for the specific body. The purpose of the communicator is to communicate with surrounding neighbor agents to form a multi-agent system. The formulated language and the P-SOP agent generator has been successfully tested and evaluated in an industrial environment.

References

  1. 1.
    Xu N, Huang SH, Rong YK (2007) Automatic setup planning: current state-of-the-art and future perspective. Int J Manuf Technol Manage 11(2):193–208Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stryczek R (2011) A hybrid approach for manufacturability analysis. Adv Manuf Sci Technol 35(3):55–70Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jang J, Koo PH, Nof SY (1997) Application of design and control tools in a multirobot cell. Comput Ind Eng 32(1):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larin DJ (1989) Cell control: what we have, what we need. Manuf Eng 41–48Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson DG (1987) Programmable controllers for factory automation. Marcel Dekker Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Standard (2003) IEC 61131 programmable controller—Part 3: programming languages, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castillo I, Smith JS (2002) Formal modeling methodologies for control of manufacturing cells: survey and comparison. J Manuf Syst 21(1):40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silva JR, Benitez I, Villafruela L, Gomis O, Sudria A (2008) Modeling extended petri nets compatible with GHENeSys IEC61131 for industrial automation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36(11–12):1180–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogel-Heuser B, Wisch D, Katzke U (2005) Automatic code generation from a UML model to IEC 61131-3 and system configuration tools. In: International conference on control and automation, Budapest, Hungary, pp 1034–1039Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thapa D, Park CM, Park SC, Wang GN (2009) Auto-generation of IEC standard PLC code using t-MPSG. Int J Control Autom Syst 7(2):165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith JS, Joshi SB, Qiu RG (2003) Message-based part state graphs (MPSG): a formal model for shop-floor control implementation. Int J Prod Res 41(8):1739–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lennartson B et al (2010) Sequence planning for integrated product, process and automation design. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 7(4):791–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang L, Adamsson G, Holm M, Moore P (2012) A review of function blocks for process planning and control of manufacturing equipment. J Manuf Syst 31:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2005) IEC 61499 Function blocks—Part 1: Architecture, January 2005. [Online]. http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_iec61499-1%7Bed1.0%7Den.pdf
  15. 15.
    Gou L, Luh PB, Kyoya Y (1998) Holonic manufacturing scheduling: architecture, cooperation mechanism, and implementation. Comput Ind 37(3):213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valckenaers P, Van Brussel H (2005) Holonic manufacturing execution systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 54(1):427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Åkesson K, Fabian M, Flordal H, Vahidi A (2003) Supremica—a tool for verification and synthesis of discrete event supervisors. In: Proceedings of the 11th mediterranean conference on control and automation, Rhodos, GreeceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Svensson
    • 1
  • Anders Nilsson
    • 1
  • Fredrik Danielsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering ScienceUniversity WestTrollhättanSweden

Personalised recommendations