Methodology for Identification of Adaptive Reusable Modules in Automated Production Systems

  • Konstantin Kernschmidt
  • Philipp Klein
  • Nasser Jazdi
  • Peter Göhner
  • Michael Weyrich
  • Birgit Vogel-Heuser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Production Engineering book series (LNPE)

Abstract

The development and design of mechatronic systems require detailed knowledge in mechanical, electrical and software engineering. In order to face challenges, like reduced time-to-market, reduced costs and increased variability, complex systems should be modularized and the identified mechatronic modules reused for the development of new variants or versions. This paper focuses on the identification of adaptive reusable modules with an appropriate level of granularity and the representation of the deduced modules to support the development. Based on the collection of deduced modules, with defined functions and structure, new systems can be designed through a combination of the appropriate modules.In this contribution, the methodology will be presented through a use case. This example shows how appropriate modules are identified in a first step. In the second step, the impact on the engineering process is shown by the support of the selection and design of the modules.

Keywords

Modularization Development and Design Automated Production Systems Engineering tool 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Li, F., Bayrak, G., Kernschmidt, K., Vogel-Heuser, B.: Specification of the Requirements to Support Information Technology-Cycles in the Machine and Plant Manufacturing Industry. In: 14th IFAC Symp. on Inform. Control Prob. in Manufacturing, Bucharest (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weyrich, M., Klein, P., Löwen, U., Schäffler, T., Vollmar, J.: Knowledge Based Engineering in der Anwendung - Anwendungen und Trends wissensbasierter Engineeringmethoden und Werkzeuge. Industrie und Management (March 2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffel, F.: Componentware. Konzepte und Techniken eines Softwareparadigmas. Dpunkt, Heidelberg (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burd, E., Munro, M., Wezeman, C.: Extracting Reusable Modules from Legacy Code: Considering the Issues of Module Granularity. In: Proc. of the 3rd Working Conf. on Reverse Engineering, pp. 189–196. IEEE Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D., Murer, S.: Component software: beyond object-oriented programming, 2nd edn. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Szdzuy, A.: Aspects of granularity for components. In: Workshop on Component-based Software Development. Technical University Berlin (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weyrich, M., Klein, P.: Modulbasiertes Engineering von Produktionsanlagen - Wissensbasierte Konzeption basierend auf funktionsorientierter Modularisierung. wt Werkstattstechnik Online 102(9) (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weyrich, M., Klein, P.: Engineering of automated Manufacturing Systems with Mechatronic Objects. In: Proc. of 38th Annual Conf. of the IEEE IECON, Montréal (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weyrich, M., Klein, P.: Assisted Engineering for mechatronic Manufacturing Systems based on a Modularization Concept. In: 17th IEEE Conf. on ETFA, Cracow, Poland (2012) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lüder, A., Foehr, L.H.M., Wagner, T., Zaddach, J.-J., Holm, T.: Manufacturing System Engineering with Mechatronical Units. In: Proc. of IEEE Conf. on ETFA, Bilbao, Spain (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schuh, G., Arnoscht, J., Nußbaum, C.: Produktarchitekturen richtig gestalten. Industrie und Management (June 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korajda, I., Seyfarth, M., Pritschow, G.: Disziplinübergreifende Baukastensysteme. wt Werkstattstechnik Online 94(5), 215–219 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Urbas, L., Doherr, F., Krause, A., Obst, M.: Modularisierung und Prozessführung. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 84(5), 615–623 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shpitalni, M., Stiassnie, E.: Axiomatic modukar systen design for service oriented products. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on Axiomatic Design, Daejeon (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fay, A., Schleipen, M., Mühlhause, M.: Wie kann man den Engineering-Prozess systematisch verbessern? Automatisierungstechnische Praxis, 80–85 (February 1, 2009) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barth, M., Drath, R., Fay, A., Zimmer, F., Eckert, K.: Evaluation of the openness of automation tools for interoperability in engineering tool chains. In: 17th IEEE Conf. on ETFA, Cracow, Poland (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anacker, H., Dorociak, R., Dumitrescu, R., Gausemeier, J.: Integrated tool-based approach for the conceptual design of advanced mechatronic systems. In: 12th IEEE Int. Systems Conf. (SysCon), Heidelberg and Mannheim (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morel, B., Alexander, P.: Automating component adaptation for reuse. In: Proc. of the 18th IEEE Int. Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, Tokyo, pp. 142–151 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kernschmidt, K., Bayrak, G., Vogel-Heuser, B.: A port-based approach for modeling the structure of mechatronic modules. In: Proceedings of the 14th Int. Dependency and Structure Modelling Conf. (DSM 2012), Kyoto, Japan, pp. 111–123 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maga, C., Jazdi, N., Göhner, P.: Requirements on Engineering Tools for Increasing Reuse in Industrial Automation. In: Proc. of 16th IEEE Conf. on ETFA, Toulouse, France (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bassi, L., Secchi, C., Bonfe, M., Fantuzzi, C.: A SysML-based methodology for manufacturing machinery modeling and design. IEEE Trans. Mechatron 16(6), 1049–1062 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Object Management Group: OMG Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML), Version 1.3. OMG Document Number: formal/2012-06-01 (June 2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maga, C., Jazdi, N., Ehben, T., Tetzner, T.: Domain Engineering–Improved Systematisation in Industrial Solutions Business. In: Proc. of the Automation Congr., Baden-Baden (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stoics, A.: On hardware Evolvability and Levels of Granularity. Center for Space Microelectronics Technology. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (1997), http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22583/1/97-1093.pdf
  25. 25.
    Maga, C., Jazdi, N.: A Survey on Determining Factors for Modeling Reference Architectures. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA, Orlando, Florida, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maga, C., Jazdi, N., Göhner, P.: Requirements on Engineering Tools for Increasing Reuse in Industrial Automation. In: Proc. of 16th IEEE Conf. on ETFA, Toulouse, France (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maga, C., Jazdi, N., Göhner, P.: Reusable Models in Industrial Automation: Experiences in Defining Appropriate Levels of Granularity. In: 18th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC 2011), Milano, Italy (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantin Kernschmidt
    • 1
  • Philipp Klein
    • 2
  • Nasser Jazdi
    • 3
  • Peter Göhner
    • 3
  • Michael Weyrich
    • 2
  • Birgit Vogel-Heuser
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Automation and Information SystemsTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Automated Manufacturing and AssemblyUniversität SiegenSiegenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Industrial Automation and Software EngineeringUniversität StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations