Fleksibilni Montazni Sistem

Module and System Design in
Flexibly Automated Assembly

J.A.W.M. Vos

Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnicus prof.ir. K.F. Wakker,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 19 juni 2001 om 13:30 uur
door Jeroen Augustinus Wilhelmus Maria VOS
werktuigkundig ingenieur
geboren te Cadier en Keer.
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Prof.dr.ir. H.J.J. Kals
Toegevoegd promotor:
Dr.ir. T. Storm
Samenstelling promotiecommissie:
Rector Magnicus,
Prof.dr.ir. H.J.J. Kals,
Dr.ir. T. Storm,
Prof.ir. L.N. Reijers,
Prof.ir. P. de Ruwe,
Prof.dr.ir. J.J. Krabbendam
Prof.dr.ing. K. Feldmann
voorzitter
Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Technische Universiteit Delft, toegevoegd promotor
Technische Universiteit Delft
Technische Universiteit Delft
Universiteit Twente
Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg
Published and distributed by: DUP Science

DUP Science is an imprint of Delft University Press
P.O. Box 98
2600 MG Delft
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31-15-2785678
Telefax: +31-15-2785706
E-mail: DUP@Library.TUDelft.NL
ISBN 90-407-2195-5
c 2001 by J.A.W.M. Vos
Copyright
All rights resserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice
may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher: Delft University Press.
Printed in The Netherlands
Abstract
The problem domain dealt with in this thesis is exibly automated assembly.
Assembly is dened as the joining together of parts to form a complete product
or part thereof. Flexibility is the capability of an assembly system to adapt to
changing conditions. Automation is the process of substituting or eliminating
human assembly work or skill by introducing equipment.
Flexibly automated assembly is an important subject since both assembly and
assembly automation are highly relevant to industry. Four ndings do support
this statement: the growth of the assembly industry, the signicant costs of
assembly, the market developments and the predicted shortage of assembly
workers.
The realization of exibly automated assembly requires suitable solutions for
three key-problem areas: (a) the product design, (b) the process planning
method and (c) the assembly system design.
Of these problem areas, it is the system design that is of the greatest importance. Equipment is the core of exibly automated assembly but the lack of
systematically designed equipment is found to be the major bottleneck in assembly automation. Furthermore, the equipment lacks attention in research.
However, other areas |like product design t for assembly| are equipment
dependent.
The present practice in the design of (sub)systems |a cluster of pieces of
equipment| shows several drawbacks. The present situation forces the use of
either a universal machine or a system with a limited coverage of the product
range. Moreover, these systems use product based designed equipment. This
results in (sub)systems that show: (a) an inadequate degree of exibility, (b) a
lack of economic justiability, (c) a lack of fully exibly automated processes,
(d) a low reliability and (e) a low reusability.
(Sub)systems that can overcome these drawbacks must be fully customised to
the production situation. They must be designed based on a process focus and
they must use process based designed equipment.
The underlying problem of the dierence between the present and the desired
situation is found in the poor systematics applied in the system design. The
problem occurs in the embodiment phase for the selection which module to
use. A module is a piece of equipment that can execute one or more basic assembly actions. Additional support is necessary in the system design: support
in the module selection, insight into the possibilities of integration of multiple processes into a single piece of equipment and a process based system
ISBN 90-407-2195-5
design. Key-strategy in this additional support is an extensive modularity of

the (sub)systems.
System design support rstly requires an extensive process and product classication. The basic elements in the process classication are the operations: a
single action changing only one aspect of the state of the object acted upon. The
operations are further dened by attributes |characteristics of an operation|,
parameters |values of the attributes in a specic instance| and process and
operation windows |the union of the parameters|.
Applying modularity in system design requires: the availability of adequate
standard modules and a conguration method. Neither of these are available
in the present situation in system design. This necessitates the development of:
I. A method that facilitates the realization of a set of standard modules
II. A method that supports the conguration of assembly systems for specic assembly situations: specic to a product range and the production
parameters.
The development of both methods is part of the research presented in this
thesis.
Support in the decision of either the integration or the distribution of processes
into or over modules is present in both methods: during module specication
|Method I| and during module selection |Method II|. During module
specication, strategies are applied that support the tuning between the module
window and the product window. During module selection, operation integration possibilities are identied that support the choice in the integration or the
distribution of operations into or over modules.
Situation specic system conguration requires information on the product
range and on the specic assembly situation parameters. The basis for this
information, is the requirements to be put on the system for the specic application. A method to identify these requirements has been developed. This
method identies the requirements put up by the environment of the system
per life-cycle phase of the system.
To validate the developed methods, an example of an industrial product has
been analysed. A review of this example and of the methods shows the eectiveness of the methods in achieving the desired situation in assembly (sub)systems.
This is mainly realised by ve key-technologies applied in the methods: (a) use
of an assembly process based approach, (b) use of general methods, (c) use
of logical relations, (d) use of a classication based approach and (e) use of
decision classes.
vi

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
The research presented in this thesis represents a relevant contribution to the

area of assembly system design. However, further work is necessary to complete
the methods in both a scientic and a practical manner. The details must be
completed and a computer implementation of a module database and a system
conguration support must be realised.

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
vii
viii

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
Samenvatting
Dit proefschrift handelt over exibel geautomatiseerde assemblage. Assemblage is het samenvoegen van onderdelen tot een compleet product of een deel
daarvan. Flexibiliteit is de mogelijkheid van aanpassing van een assemblagesysteem aan veranderende omstandigheden zoals bijvoorbeeld veranderingen
in te assembleren producten of in het productievolume. Automatisering is de
substitutie of eliminatie van handmatige assemblage-taken door het gebruik
van apparatuur.
De exibel geautomatiseerde assemblage is een belangrijk onderzoeksgebied
door het grote belang voor de industrie van zowel de assemblage als de automatisering daarvan. Vier argumenten ondersteunen dit: (a) de groei van de
assemblage-industrie, (b) de signicante kosten van assemblage, (c) de marktontwikkelingen en (d) het verwachte tekort aan assemblage-personeel.
Flexibel geautomatiseerde assemblage vereist geschikte oplossingen voor drie
belangrijke probleemgebieden: (a) het productontwerp, (b) de werkvoorbereiding en (c) het ontwerp van de apparatuur.
De belangrijkste van deze drie is het ontwerp van de apparatuur. Enerzijds is
de apparatuur in grote mate bepalend voor exibel geautomatiseerde assemblage en anderzijds schiet de systematiek in het ontwerpen ervan tekort. Sterker
nog, weinig onderzoek is gericht op het ontwerp van apparatuur, terwijl andere
disciplines |zoals het ontwerpen van producten geschikt voor assemblage|
afhankelijk zijn van de toegepaste apparatuur.
De huidige gang van zaken bij het ontwerpen van assemblage apparatuur heeft
verschillende nadelen. Die bestaat uit toepassing van universele systemen en
systemen met een beperkt product-spectrum. Voorts wordt bij deze systemen
apparatuur toegepast die overwegend ontworpen is op basis van productkenmerken. Dit resulteert in (sub)systemen met de volgende nadelen: (a) een
onjuist niveau van exibiliteit, (b) een geringe economische toepasbaarheid,
(c) een tekort aan volledig exibel geautomatiseerde processen, (d) een geringe
betrouwbaarheid en (e) een geringe herbruikbaarheid.
(Sub)systemen zonder deze nadelen, dienen volledig speciek voor de productie situatie ontworpen te zijn. Het ontwerp van deze systemen moet niet op
product- maar op proceskenmerken worden gebaseerd.
Het verschil tussen de huidige situatie en de gewenste situatie wordt veroorzaakt
door een gebrekkige aanpak van het systeemontwerp. Dit gebrek is met name te
vinden in de \embodiment"-fase: de selectie van de modules. Een module is een
gedeelte van de apparatuur dat een of meerdere elementaire assemblage-acties
ISBN 90-407-2195-5
ix
kan uitvoeren. Extra ontwerpondersteuning is noodzakelijk: (a) ondersteuning

bij de selectie van de modules, (b) ondersteuning bij de integratie van processen
in een module en (c) ondersteuning gericht op het systeemontwerp gebaseerd
op assemblage processen. Kern-strategie in deze extra ondersteuning is een
uitgebreide modulariteit van de (sub)systemen.
Ondersteuning van het systeemontwerp vereist proces- en product-classicatie.
Het basis element van de proces-classicatie is de enkele operatie: een enkele
actie die slechts een aspect van de status van het bewerkte object verandert.
De operaties worden verder gedenieerd door attributen (operatie karakteristieken), parameters (attribuut-waarden in een speciek geval) en proces- en
operatie-windows (de parameter vereniging).
Het gebruik van modulariteit in het systeemontwerp vereist de beschikbaarheid
van geschikte standaard modules en van een conguratie-methode. Beide ontbreken in de huidige gang van zaken bij het systeemontwerp. Nodig zijn:
I. Een methode om standaard modules te ontwikkelen en in een systematische verzameling te ordenen.
II. Een methode gericht op het congureren van assemblage-systemen voor
specieke assemblage-situaties: speciek voor een product-spectrum en
de bijbehorende productie-parameters.
De ontwikkeling van beide methoden is deel van het in dit proefschrift gepresenteerde onderzoek.
Ondersteuning bij de keuze voor hetzij het samenvoegen van processen of operaties in een module, hetzij de verdeling van processen of operaties over een aantal
modules, wordt bij beide methoden geboden: zowel gedurende de modulespecicatie |methode I| als gedurende de module-selectie |methode II|.
Bij de module-specicatie worden strategieen gebruikt die de afstemming tussen
module-window en product-window ondersteunen. Bij de module-selectie worden mogelijkheden van integratie gedenticeerd. Deze ondersteunen de keuze
van integratie of juist de verdeling van processen of operaties in, dan wel over,
modules.
Een systeemconguratie die speciek op een bepaalde situatie is gericht, is
gebaseerd op informatie over het product-spectrum en op de waarden van de
parameters van de specieke assemblage-situatie. De basis voor deze informatie
zijn de eisen die gesteld worden aan het systeem voor die specieke applicatie.
Een methode om deze eisen te identiceren is beschreven in dit proefschrift.
Deze methode identiceert de eisen gesteld door de omgeving van het systeem
voor iedere fase in de levenscyclus van het assemblagesysteem.
x

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
Om de ontwikkelde methoden te testen is als proef een industrieel product geanalyseerd. Een beschouwing van die proef leert dat de ontwikkelde methoden
geschikt zijn om assemblage-(sub)systemen te realiseren met de gewenste karakteristieken. Hierbij worden met name vijf kern-methoden toegepast: (a) een
analyse gebaseerd op het assemblage-proces, (b) het gebruik van methoden
met een brede toepasbaarheid, (c) het gebruik van methoden die gebaseerd
zijn op logische relaties, (d) een aanpak gebaseerd op een producten procesclassicatie, en (e) het gebruik van beslissingsklassen.
Het in dit proefschrift gepresenteerde onderzoek geeft een bijdrage aan de
wetenschap van het assemblage-systeemontwerp. Echter, vervolg-werkzaamheden
zijn nodig om de methoden te completeren in zowel wetenschappelijke als ook
praktische zin. De methoden kunnen verder worden verjnd en een computer
implementatie van een module database en van de methode voor de systeem
conguratie kan worden gerealiseerd.

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
xi
xii

ISBN 90-407-2195-5
Contents
Abstract
Samenvatting
List of gures
List of tables
Glossary
Part I:
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Introduction
The assembly process

Problem domain: exibly automated assembly
Relevance of assembly and assembly automation
Structure of this thesis
v
ix
xvii
xxi
xxiii
1
3
3
5
9
12
15
2.1
15
16
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
25
25
35
47
51
54
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Flexibility
2.1.1 Flexibility types
2.1.2 The importance of exibility
2.1.3 Flexibility quantication methods
The key-elements of exibly automated assembly
2.2.1 The product design
2.2.2 The process planning method
2.2.3 The assembly equipment
Importance of the equipment
Literature review on exibly automated assembly
2.4.1 Assembly systems
2.4.2 Assembly sub systems
2.4.3 Supportive engineering and planning processes
The state of the art
Closing remarks
xiii
Project description
55
3.1
55
56
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Part II:
67
69
4.1
69
70
72
4.3
Classication of the assembly processes and products

4.1.1 Classication of the assembly processes
4.1.2 Classication of the products
4.1.3 A combined example of the process and product
classication
The structure of the method
4.2.1 The general structure: division into two branches
4.2.2 The structure of Branch I: module development
4.2.3 The structure of Branch II: FAS conguration
Re ections
Detailing the FAS-development method

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
xiv
System development method
58
60
60
61
62
64
64
65
65
FAS-development method
4.2
Problem denition
3.1.1 Drawbacks of the present situation in (sub)systems
3.1.2 Underlying problem: defective systematics in the
system design
3.1.3 Problem statement
Identication of the research goal
3.2.1 Desired state in exibly automated assembly systems
3.2.2 Key strategy: modularity
3.2.3 Statement of the research goal
Deliverables
Scope of the research
The research approach
Step I.1 and II.1: Process (focus) identication

5.1.1 The method for process identication
5.1.2 Process class identication
5.1.3 Process identication of a product
Step I.2: Assembly operations identication
5.2.1 The method for assembly operation identication
5.2.2 An example
5.2.3 Operations involved in the joining processes
Step I.3 and II.3: Parameter identication
Step I.4: Module specication identication
74
75
75
78
82
86
87
87
88
88
93
94
94
96
97
99
100
5.5
5.6
6
Method for the identication of FAS requirements

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Part III:
103
109
113
Requirements identication as the basis for the

114
Structure of the method for requirements identication
115
6.2.1 Core technologies for requirements identication
115
6.2.2 Step 1: identication of the elements in the FAS'
environment
117
6.2.3 Step 2: identication of the requirements per element 117
An example on the requirement identication method
118
6.3.1 Step 1: identication of the elements in the FAS'
environment
118
6.3.2 Step 2: identication of the requirements according to
each element
121
Conclusions from the case study
127
Re ections
130
Results
133
Example of the FAS development method
135
7.1
135
136
137
138
140
141
143
144
147
7.2
Step II.4: Module selection

Re ections
A Branch I example: development of a set of modules

7.1.1 Step I.1: process focus identication
7.1.2 Step I.2: assembly operation identication
7.1.3 Step I.3: parameter identication
7.1.4 Step I.4: module specication identication
7.1.5 Presentation of the set of modules
A Branch II example: FAS conguration
7.2.1 The example product and production situation
7.2.2 Step II.1: process identication
7.2.3 Steps II.2 and II.3: reproducing operations and
parameter identication
7.2.4 Step II.4: module selection
148
151
Conclusions and recommendations
161
8.1
8.2
8.3
161
162
163
Reviewing the research goals

Research goals achieved
Key-technologies of the method
xv
8.4
Recommendations for future work
165
Identication of the operations within the screw process 169
Tables of Chapter 7
Bibliography
Index
About the author
xvi
171
177
189
197
List of Figures
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
Position of assembly within the product creation process

The three types of assembly [RH90]
Potential assembly time reduction according to various
rationalisation strategies [WSTN92]
Key gures on the relevance of assembly and automation
Total costs of the assembly system versus degree of
automation [N+ 97]
The structure of the thesis
Types of exibility ordered in a pyramid view [L+ 98]
Obstructions for assembly automation according a survey
by [Sch92]
Link between product design, assembly processes and
assembly equipment
Layout of DIAC [Baa95]
Picture of DIAC [Baa95]
Layout of Genasys [Hol89]
Station of Genasys [Hol89]
Picture of Max [SSG92]
Schematic representation of Robot world [Sch87]
Layout of Mart [G+ 93]
Layout of MarkIII [AG96]
An example of the MarkIV hyper exible assembly
system [OAB99]
Example and details of minifactory [HKS95, HQ95]
A vibratory feeder with orienting devices along the track
Reel or tape feeding
Orienting parts via controlled impact [EM88]
Directing planar rigid parts by pushing with a one-jointed
manipulator [AHLM95]
The APOS part feeding system
4
5
8
9
12
13
17
19
22
27
27
28
29
30
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
38
xvii
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
2.32
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
xviii
The Utah-MIT gripper [VI90]

Grasp congurations of a three-nger gripper [Baa95]
Picture of the 234-gripper [Baa95]
Gripper nger exibility: grasping dierent shapes with one
pair of gripper ngers [VNZC98]
Orienting parts with the pivoting gripper [CGRW94]
The gripper with mechanical compliance in the gripper
jaws [RG95]
Examples of orienting parts using mechanical compliance in
the gripper jaws [RG95]
The principles of the palm-gripper [Erd98]
Two examples of orienting a part with the palm
gripper [Erd98]
Example of an adaptable xture: the Force14 [Hof96]
Example of a phase changing xture [SW97]
The principles of a passive compliant mechanism [SR96]
System design method from Butala [BSP96]
System design method from Lundstrom [LOB91]
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
44
45
46
51
52
Economic justication of exibility

58
Relation between current state and desired state in system
design
63
Research approach
66
Classication of the assembly processes and an example
(classied using the UML basics [Lar98])
Classication of the composed products and an example
(classied using the UML basics [Lar98])
Identication of part, part window and parameter
Example of the major product and process classication for
a Philips electric shaver [KLM96]
The structure of the two methods: development of a set of
modules and FAS conguration
Structure of the method for development of an assembly
process based set of modules
Controverse between maximizing exibility and minimizing
conguration eort
Structure of the method for conguration of a product
range based FAS
Module capability testing
70
73
74
76
77
79
82
83
85
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
Subsequent stages of a product in construction

The system components
Basic structure for identifying the main assembly processes
Main process classes in an assembly system
Example product for process identication
Identifying the operation, operation window and operation
parameter
Translation operations identied in the example process
Base of parameter identication
Six strategies on module specication
Example of the combination and separation of
parameter-ranges into modules
Examples on integration of operations into modules
The detailed module development method
The detailed FAS conguration method
89
90
91
92
93
95
97
99
102
103
106
110
111
Background to the identication of requirements

The structure of the method for requirement identication
Denition of the system border
Various categories of elements in the environment of a FAS
The Philips shaver which provided the basis for the case
study
Final assembly line developed for the shaver given in
Figure 6.5.
115
116
119
121
Parts process classes to be considered

Partly transparent picture of the linear bearing system
Picture of the main assembly steps of the sample product
Names of the parts of the carrier belonging to the linear
bearing system
Assembly steps in the assembly of the carrier of the linear
bearing system
Three variants of the carrier of the example product
Subsequent stages of the example product under assembly
Identied assembly processes for the example product
Process workstation type selection
137
144
145
A.1 The example product of Figure 5.5
129
131
145
146
147
148
149
159
170
xix
xx
List of Tables
1.1
Main type of equipment used for each type of assembly
2.1
2.2
2.3
Overview of FAS strategies [VS99]

The evolution of manufacturing systems [Kra98]
Driving forces, attributes and imperatives of the next
generation manufacturing enterprise [For97]
State of the art in exibly automated assembly systems
26
48
3.1
3.2
Drawbacks of the present situation

Desired state versus state of the art in exibly automated
assembly systems
56
5.1
5.2
5.3
Operations identied in the joining processes

Operations generally present in each process class
Example on the identication of attributes for the
translation operation
97
98
6.1
In uencing elements in the environment of a FAS in each

life-cycle phase
Assembly characteristics of parts and
products [Wil94, S+ 94, Hop96]
Using variant equipment in the FAS
Requirements imposed on a FAS using the requirement
identication method
2.4
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
49
52
61
100
120
123
126
128
Operations identied in the move, insert and screw process 138

The identication of attributes for the rotation operation 138
The identication of a selection of the parameters for the
operations considered.
139
xxi
xxii
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
The example set of modules

142
Two examples of the module operation windows
143
Operations identied in the move, insert and screw process 149
Operations in the considered processes
150
Attributes for the translation and rotation operations
150
Parameter valuation of the considered operations
151
Module selection for the considered operations
153
Possible subsystems per process
154
Examples of workstations dedicated to a process
155
Examples of multipurpose workstations
156
FAS selection depending on the required production volume 158
The best workstation types for integrated peg insertions
160
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
The operation windows of the translation modules

The operation windows of the rotation modules
FAS selection possibilities: dedicated workstations
FAS selection possibilities: multipurpose workstations
172
173
174
175
Glossary
Assembly: the putting together of parts to form a complete product or part
thereof.
Assembly equipment: a cluster of components that together execute assembly processes.
Assembly operation: a single action changing only one aspect of the state
of the object acted upon.
Assembly process: a distinct process out of a class of processes.

Assembly process class: a group of assembly processes for the performing
of similar assembly functions.
Attribute: a characteristic |e.g. velocity| of an operation or process.

Automation: process of substituting or eliminating human work or skill by
introducing equipment.
Check: all processes that examine an object's state or supervise a process.

Composed product: a product composed of separate objects.
De-xture: the process-class where the xation of the xture process is re-
moved. After de-xturing the partial assembly comes to be classied

either as a part or as a product.
FAS: Flexible Assembly System; an available equipment set, tuned to the
specied assembly tasks.
Fixture: the process-class where the rst part of a partial assembly is xed in
position and given an orientation that is relative to the xing element.
Flexibility: the capability to adapt to a changing environment. Flexibility is
determined both by its range and ease of adaptation.
Grasp: the process-class in which an object is temporarily grasped by a system
element.
Join: the process-class where a part joins with a partial assembly.
Module: is an equipment building block with a specic function: execution of
one or more basic assembly actions, e.g. moving, holding or heating. A
module includes its own mounting devices, interfaces etc.
Move: the process-class where a part is moved |translated and rotated|
from the position where it is grasped to the position where it has to be
joined or xtured.
Operational exibility: the ability to change processes at plant level.
xxiii
Parameter: the value or range of values of an attribute of an operation or
process instance. This value might be constant or specied by a function

which is either based on time or on another parameter.
Part parameter: the value of an attribute of a part, e.g. material or geometrical dimension. The value might be specied as a function based on
other parameters.
Part: a component fed into the assembly processes as a single entity. A part
can be either a separate fabricated part or an assembled units itself.
Partial assembly: two or more parts which are assembled but do not yet
constitute a product.
Primary processes: bring the product-to-be stepwise closer to its nal 'product' state by joining or fastening the part and the product-to-be together;
e.g. insertion and screwing.
Process based equipment: equipment especially tuned to (a part of) one or
more specic assembly processes.
Process focus: the set of processes that best covers the product ranges in the
industry specied.
Process integration: the execution of multiple processes by a single piece of
equipment.
Product: the desired result of the production process. In case of assembly, it
is a composition of parts.
Product based equipment: equipment especially tuned to (a part of) the
assembly of one or a few specic product types.
Product family: a group of products that show such similarity as far as assembly is concerned that no reconguration of equipment is necessary
for assembly switches between the dierent products within the product
family.
Product range: all types of composed products to be assembled by one
system.
Product variant: a product as a member of a product family.
Production processes: all actions involved in the creation of products.
Production volume: the number of products to be assembled per time unit.
Reconguration exibility: a type of exibility for changeovers outside the
process scope of a given equipment conguration. Reconguration is
generally in the form of equipment changes.
Release: the process-class where a grasped object is released.
Retrieve: the process-class in which an object is retrieved from storage and
presented to the system in the right position and in the right orientation.
Secondary processes: support the primary processes; e.g. the handling and
storage of the parts and the partial assemblies.
xxiv
Semi-random production ability: a type of exibility related to changeovers

within a given equipment conguration. Generally this is only realised by
changing software settings.
Store: the process-class in which an object is transfered from the system and
stored in its storage place.
Strategic exibility: the ability of a manufacturing rm to shift from one
dominant strategy to another, from one competitive priority to another.
Sub-batch principle: a type of assembly where several |the sub-batch|
product xtures are mounted on one frame. Each partial assembly process
is executed with each product in the sub-batch before the next process
is executed.
System: a cluster of one or more workstations that together realise the complete assembly of the product from separate parts to a product.
Tactical exibility: the ability to cope with changes in customers' demands.
Volume- exibility: the ability to adjust the production volume. This can be
considered both in the long and the short term. The eorts made include
price, labour and system down time.
Window: the union of all the parameters of the operation or process instance
considered. The functionality of the operation instance is captured within
this process window.
Workstation: a cluster of one or more modules that together realise a dened
part of the complete assembly of a product.
xxv
xxvi
Part I
Introduction
1
Introduction
This chapter gives a brief introduction to the eld of research
covered by this thesis. The position of the assembly process in
relation to its environment is explained. After that the problem
domain of this thesis, which is exibly automated assembly, is
described. By explaining the relevance of assembly and assembly automation the signicance of both is highlighted. At the
end of this chapter an overview of the structure of the remainder of this thesis is given.
Chapter 2 will give a more detailed study of the area of exibly
automated assembly introduced in Chapter 1.
1.1 The assembly process

Assembly is dened as the putting together of parts to form a complete product
or part thereof. Putting together includes joining and fastening the part and
the product. Parts are input for the assembly of products. Parts can be either
separate fabricated parts or assembled units themselves. The product is the
desired result of the production process. In case of assembly, it is a composition
of the parts, whereas partial assembly is dened as two or more parts which are
assembled but do not yet constitute a product. This terminology is explained
in more detail in Section 4.1.2.
3
The need for assembly arises from the separation of parts. In general, there
are seven fundamental technical reasons that give rise to the need for part
separation [Wil97]:

Motion between parts

Dierent material properties
Fabrication considerations
(Dis-)assembly considerations
Use of standardised or purchased parts
Recycling or environmental considerations
Aesthetic considerations
Figure 1.1 positions assembly in the product creation process. As can be seen,
Materials
Materials
Production
Production
Fabrication
Assembly

Production planning
Product design
Factory layout planning
....
....
Products
Figure 1.1: Position of assembly within the product creation process
assembly is the nal part of the product creation process. The input to this
process is minerals, e.g. iron ore. Materials production transforms these into
one of the resources for the fabrication process: the raw materials. By means of
fabrication and assembly processes which may, possibly, be recurrent these materials are transformed into discrete parts (fabrication ) and composed products
4
Chapter 1
(assembly ). Since a product can be input as a part in a succeeding fabrication

or assembly process the processes can sometimes be considered recurrent.
Production denotes the area that includes fabrication (part-manufacturing),

assembly and all product creation related elds such as production planning,
product design and factory layout planning.
Assembling products involves several actions: the assembly processes. Two main
assembly process types are distinguished:
Primary processes bring the product-to-be stepwise closer to its nal 'prod-
uct' state by joining or fastening the part and the product-to-be together;
e.g. insertion and screwing
Secondary processes support the primary processes; e.g. the handling and
storage of the parts and the partial assemblies
Assembly is this thesis' problem domain. Section 1.2 species the domain more
in detail.
1.2 Problem domain: flexibly automated assembly
Annual production volume

(Logarithmic )
The assembly domain is a domain important to all composed products.

Three types of assembly may be distinguished: mass assembly, exibly automated assembly and manual assembly (see Figure 1.2). What is the most
Mass
assembly
Speed
Flexible
assembly
Flexibility
Manual
assembly
Product complexity
Figure 1.2: The three types of assembly [RH90]
Introduction
feasible type of assembly for a given situation depends on several parameters.

The most important ones are:
Production volume: the number of products to be assembled per time unit

Product complexity: this includes the number of parts per product and the
number of dierent product types
Mass assembly typically focuses on high volume assembly with low product
complexity. Manual assembly is more suitable for highly complex products or
simple products manufactured in relatively low production volumes. Flexibly
automated assembly focuses on medium volumes and medium complexities.
Table 1.1 indicates the main type of equipment used for the three kinds of
assembly.
Type of assembly:
Mass assembly:
Manual assembly:
Flexibly automated assembly:
Main type of equipment:
Special purpose equipment

Human labour, supporting tooling
Congurable & programmable equipment
Table 1.1: Main type of equipment used for each type of assembly
Flexibly automated assembly clearly distinguishes itself from mass and
craft assembly by combining two characteristic aspects: exibility and automation.
Flexibility is dened as the capability to adapt to a changing environment. Flexibility is determined both by its range and ease of adaptation. In an assembly
system the main type of exibility is the capability to assemble dierent types
of products. While manual assembly has a high degree of exibility by nature,
exibly automated assembly aims to incorporate this into a more automated
system. A more extensive introduction to exibility is given in Section 2.1.
Automation is the process of substituting or eliminating human work or skill
by introducing equipment. automation focusses on automation of the primary

processes. Automation of the secondary processes |e.g. automation of the
logistics| is part of assembly automation but is not the prime focus. Necessary
programming and supervision of the automation is a result of automation but
is not considered prime goal of the assembly automation.
Two main groups of motives for automation may be distinguished:
Chapter 1
The economic motives include the direct savings brought about by automa-
tion: reduction of assembly operation costs. However, possible indirect

savings must be considered as well: reduction of the necessary oor space,
reduction of the costs of reworking faulty products, reduction of overhead costs, etc. Up until now, these indirect savings have hardly been
considered when seeking to justify automation.
The technical motives include the unsucient ability of the human when it
comes to executing certain assembly tasks accurately and reliably.
Many dierent strategies for economic justication exist. Some important issues
in the case of a FAS are pointed out by Leeuw [LvW97], based on work by
among others Kaplan and Lavelle [Kap86, LL92]:

Strategic considerations are not yet used |especially within Europe|,

thus the investment should be justied by traditional investment calculations like the pay-back period calculation.
Especially in the case of new technology, a very high IRR |Internal Rate
of Return| must be achieved.
The higher the risk of a new project, the lower the desired pay-back
period.
The time between investment and signicant return on the investment
must be minimized.
Investments must be made stepwise rather than all at once. This calls
for the possibility of phased implementation of the FAS.
The system must be very trustworthy since |if strategic considerations are made at all| managers often do not use extensive nancial
calculations. They do investments even if the nancial criteria are not
completely met [SB92]. They invest as an act of faith.
A FAS must oer enough short-term advantages. Long-term advantages
of a FAS are mostly not considered since they are outside the time scope
of the nancial calculations.
The dierence between mass and exibly automated assembly lies in the focus
of the automation. Mass assembly focuses on automating dedicated operations
while exibly automated assembly aims also at including changeover possibilities. Flexibly automated assembly aims at widening the application capabilities
of the equipment to increase its use in a broader product diversity.
According to a survey conducted by Warnecke [WSTN92] at 355 companies,
potential assembly time reduction is expected mainly in the area of product development/design and mechanisation/automation. An overview of the
expectations is given in Figure 1.3.
Introduction
Figure 1.3: Potential assembly time reduction according to various rationalisation strategies [WSTN92]
The assembly system is the main issue in this thesis. This system is called
a FAS: a Flexible Assembly System, in literature sometimes also referred to
as a FAAS: a Flexibly Automated Assembly system. In this thesis a FAS is
dened as follows:
An available equipment set, tuned to the specied assembly
tasks
This also relates to the controllers and their software. Parts, products and
operators are not considered to be a part of the FAS since not the same parts,
products and operators are continually present in the equipment set.
The assembly domain focussed on in Section 1.2 is the problem domain for this
thesis: exibly automated assembly. Section 1.3 explains the relevance of this
domain to industry.
8
Chapter 1
1.3 Relevance of assembly and assembly

automation
The domain indicated in Section 1.2 is an important one since both assembly
and assembly automation are highly relevant to industry. Four major reasons
exist to support this relevance:

The growth of the assembly industry

The signicant costs of assembly
The increase in signicance of assembly
The predicted shortage of assembly workers
The next paragraphs will elaborate on these issues. Some key gures relating
to these issues are summarised in Figure 1.4.
%
50
50
40
40
30
20
30
1990
1980
20
10
10
y
s
bl
st
e
s
e
em
co ost
m tim
s
t
s
c
ti
n
n
a
o
n
e
i
n
y
o
t
l
o
n
i
b
i
a
tm
ti
ct
t
er uc
es
em u
en nv
op od
ss r od
i
m
r
y
A
t
p
t
bl t p
l
es
n
a
v
a
em ni
ot
pl
in
ss l u
T
l
t
A a
n
ta
la T o
ot
P
T
ns of s
ofratio ostsation
s
r
t e
cods op tivel cope
e
e
a
v
i t
la
latma Rme anu
Raeuto
Figure 1.4: Key gures on the relevance of assembly and automation
Growth of the assembly industry. In comparison to what may be described as

the non-assembly industry Nof [N+ 97] signals signicant growth in the assembly
industry. This is supported by the fact that plant investments in assembly rose
Introduction
from 25% [N+ 97] at the beginning of the eighties to 30% by the end of the
eighties [WSTN92] 1 .
Signicant costs of assembly. Assembly operations take up about 53% of
the total production time [N+ 97] and about 20% of the total unit production costs [MVBSS95]. The assembly costs are roughly divided into setting
up |e.g. part retrieval, kitting and xturing| (12%), assembly process costs
(48%) and support which includes quality, management, design, facility etc.
(40%) [MVBSS95].
Although manual operations are costly, the degree of automation in assembly is

low. The gures are: 19% of the assembly operations are fully automated which
constitutes only 1% of the total assembly operations costs. However, 59% of
the assembly operations are fully manual which constitutes a major 77% of the
total assembly operations costs [MVBSS95].
The costs per operation type |manual, automated or other| can thus be
compared as follows:
Operation type:
Automated
Manual
Other
1%
77%
22%
100%
costs by
costs by
costs by
19%
59%
22%
100%
of the operations
of the operations
of the operations
The dierence in relative costs between automated and manual operations

seems large. The relative costs between automated and manual operations could
be compared as follows:
Operation type:
Automated
Manual
Other
Relative costs:
1/19
2.2%
77/59 55.4%
22/22 42.4%
The dierence in relative costs between automated and manual assembly operations is signicant. This dierence might be caused by the dierence in
complexity between automated and manual operations. The less complex operations, thus cheaper operations, can easily be automated while the more
complex, thus more expensive operations, are too dicult to automate. The
automated 19% of the operations might thus be the cheaper operations, while
1. Since the gures result from two dierent surveys an exact comparison is not possible.
Both surveys do however cover the same industrial branches and are based on a signicant
number of participants.
10
Chapter 1
the manual 59% of the operations might be the more expensive operations.
Suitable automation for the most complex processes might thus signicantly
contribute to lowering the assembly costs when these processes are costly.
No general gures are available on the change in costs in the transition from
manual to automated assembly. The dierence in costs between automated and
manual operations is pictured in Figure 1.4.
In the automotive industry sector about 50% of the assembly costs are related to
direct labour costs. For precision instruments this is 20{70% [Lot86, WSTN92].
The increase in signicance of assembly. Several customer oriented developments in the eld of assembly |described in Section 2.1.2| will change the role
of assembly and increase its signicance. Since assembly is the production step
closest to customer demands [F+ 96] this point becomes especially true. If there
is to be a short response time to changes in customer demands, these changes
must be anticipated. However, fabrication and assembly especially must change
instantly if new demands are to be complied with.
Automation is becoming increasingly important due to the miniaturisation

trend and, the increasing complexity of certain products 2 which means such
products can no longer be assembled manually [N+ 97]. The trend towards zero
defects also increases the importance of automation.
The predicted shortage of assembly workers. The shortage of assembly workers as predicted by the Agility Forum [For97] and Arai [Ara93], will increase
the importance of and thus also the need for suitable automation.
Furthermore, the current degree of assembly automation is low. According an

investigation carried out by Martin-Vega [MVBSS95], 19% of all assembly operations have become automated. In the nal assembly stages this gure is only
5%, except for the automotive industry where this gure is 15%. Processes
like spot-welding, pressing work and other fabrication processes in the same
automotive industry show, in general, a degree of automation of 60{90% [N+ 97].
The degree of automation will highly in uence the total costs of the assembly system. Accumulating the costs of capital, maintenance, design and power
will result in a parabola (see Figure 1.5). The curve minimum indicates the
nancially best degree of automation [N+ 97].
2. Increasing the complexity (the number of parts involved) of the product only increases
technically required equipment
the importance of automation if the ratio number
of process instances to execute decreases.
Introduction
11
Figure 1.5: Total costs of the assembly system versus degree of automation [N+ 97]
The issues mentioned in Section 1.3 underline the relevance of the problem
domain of this thesis.
Section 1.4 details how this thesis deals with the given problem domain.
1.4 Structure of this thesis

This thesis is structured in three parts. Part I analyses the problem domain and
results in a problem statement. Part II describes the solution to the formulated
problem and Part III evaluates the solution and presents the major conclusions
of the research.
Figure 1.6 illustrates the structure of this thesis. The general introduction in
Chapter 1 is followed by an extensive review on exibly automated assembly
in Chapter 2. Part I is concluded with a problem denition and research goal
which are presented in Chapter 3.
This leads to Part II where a new method for the development of customised
FAS's is presented. Chapter 4 rst presents a classication of assembly processes
and products which is essential for the FAS development method. That chapter
continues with the overall structure of the method. Chapter 5 presents the
details of the method.
12
Chapter 1
Part I: Problem statement

Introduction, Chapter 1
Review exibly automated assembly, Chapter 2
Project description, Chapter 3
Part II: presentation solution

FAS development method, Chapter 4
Details FAS development method, Chapter 5
Requirements identication, Chapter 6
Part III: evaluation and conclusions

Example and evaluation, Chapter 7
Conclusions and recommendations, Chapter 8
Figure 1.6: The structure of the thesis
This part is concluded with Chapter 6 that presents a method for the identication of the FAS requirements. These requirements are used as an input
information to the FAS development method.
In Part III Chapter 7 gives an example that illustrates the use of the method.
Based on the problem statement dened in the rst part. Part III and the
thesis are concluded with some conclusions and some recommendations for
future work.
Introduction
13
14
Chapter 1
2
Flexibly Automated
Assembly
This chapter details the underlying eld of research introduced
in Chapter 1. First of all exibility and its importance will be
addressed. After that the three key-elements of exibly automated assembly will be presented, which are: (1) the product
design, (2) the process planning method and, (3) the assembly
equipment. Section 2.3 then explains why the equipment is so
important. The subsequent literature review on exibly automated assembly will thus focus primarily on developments in
the eld of assembly equipment. This review results in a state
of the art description of assembly equipment, that is to say, the
system as well as the sub systems and of the system design.
Chapter 3 will present a project description based on the state
of the art description presented in Chapter 2.
2.1 Flexibility
As explained in Section 1.2, exibility is dened as the capability of an (assembly) system to cope with a changing environment. This implies that it must be
possible to change the characteristics of the system. The two main parameters
15
dening the degree of exibility are, the range of change and the ease of change
of the characteristics.
In this section three issues will be addressed: the exibility types, the importance of exibility and the exibility quantication methods.
2.1.1 Flexibility types

Many dierent types of exibility are distinguished in the literature: productmix exibility, reconguration exibility, volume exibility, organizational exibility etc. Unfortunately the use of these terms is not consistent throughout
the literature.
In this thesis the view on exibility that is used resembles the pyramid-view of
Larso [L+ 98] (see Figure 2.1).
All the possible types of exibility fall into three main groups:
Strategic exibility or long-term exibility: the ability of a manufactur-
ing rm to shift from one dominant strategy to another, from one

competitive priority to another.
Tactical exibility or medium-term exibility: the ability to cope with changes
in customers' demands.
Operational exibility or short-term exibility: the ability to change processes at plant level.
Each type of exibility can only be accurately realised if the lower type(s) of
exibility have been realised.
The main types of exibility considered in this thesis fall into the tactical
exibility category. Operational exibility has to be achieved before these types
of exibility can be realised. The main types of exibility considered are:
Product- exibility: the ability to switch from one product type to another
during production. The two kinds of product- exibility that can be

distinguished are: semi-random production ability and reconguration
exibility. The rst one is related to changeovers within a given equipment conguration. Generally this is only realised by changing software
settings. The second type of exibility is for changeovers outside the
process scope of a given equipment conguration which is generally in
the form of equipment changes.
Volume- exibility: the ability to adjust the production volume. This can
be considered both in the long and the short term. The eorts made
include price, labour and system down time.
16
Chapter 2
ility
exib

tegic
Stra
R&D
Financial
Marketing
Manufacturing
Organizational
nal
ity
il
exib
Operation
Production
Resource
Change-over
ratio
Ope
Capacity
y
ibilit
Machine
Process
Expansion
Routing
Operation
x
al e
Product
ic
Tact
Volume
Product-mix
New-product / modication
Delivery-time
Figure 2.1: Types of exibility ordered in a pyramid view [L+ 98]
17
Many manufacturing paradigms exist that merely stress the importance of one
given aspect over and above all others. Paradigms like mass, lean, exible and
recongurable manufacturing each have specic strategies on aspects such as
the cost, quality and variety of products and the responsiveness of the processes.
Each aspect is related to a type of exibility. Thus each paradigm stresses the
importance of one exibility type above all the others.
However, each manufacturer nds himself in a specic situation. His needs will
thus not precisely match any given one of the paradigms. For each manufacturer
the best situation is to establish a balance between the exibility types that
best match his needs.
2.1.2 The importance of flexibility

The importance of exibility in manufacturing is widely accepted in the literature. It is considered to be of crucial importance to future manufacturing
practice [C+ 97, Aro95, M+ 94]. Some authors even see it as the new competitive edge along with cost control, quality and reliability [L+ 98, Wes98]. These
ideas are supported by extensive research carried out in the framework of the
'Next-Generation Manufacturing Project' [For97]. That project shows the need
for exibility in conjunction with increased customer demands and increased
market competition. Research conducted by Schweigert [Sch92] also indicates
the need for exibility; after evaluating 45 companies in 6 branches, assembly
automation obstructions were ranked. The most frequently mentioned obstruction (76%) was the small batch size. Ranking in fourth place (60%), was the
variety of types and variants. The full result of the survey is shown in Figure 2.2. Future trends are expected to show a decrease in production volumes
and an increase in product variety [F+ 96], due to geographically decentralised
assembly practices. This emphasises the importance of exibility.
The importance of exibility will even further increase. This is caused by some
major developments that aect the eld of assembly. Some of the generally
anticipated developments are [Bjo91, For97]:

18
Stier and ercer market competition

The life cycles of products will decrease
The design of products will change during the life cycles
The product mix will become uncertain
It will become dicult to estimate future production volumes
More product variants will emerge
There will be a demand for higher and more consistent quality
There will be a demand for shorter delivery times and more secure
delivery capacity
Chapter 2
Figure 2.2: Obstructions for assembly automation according a survey by [Sch92]

There will be less time to develop production systems

There will be faster changes, new demands and market trends
Production will be more according to customer demand
The above-mentioned changes require assembly systems to possess more exibility than current systems do [N+ 97, For97].
2.1.3 Flexibility quantification methods

A certain amount of research has been conducted in order to quantify exibility.
Three methods are:
19
Penalty of change (POC): described by Chryssolouris [Chr96], multiplies
the probability of a required change and the penalty, e.g. the extra
costs associated with it, for that change:
P OC
= P robability penalty
The lower the result, the higher the exibility for the change considered
will be.
Capability and capacity: described by Cheng [C+ 97], is dened as the capability of the system to respond to a change divided by the capacity
of the system to adjust to that change:
C apability
C apacity
V ariety
Rate of change
M agnitude
The nominator indicates the ability of the system to handle a variety

of products (diversity exibility) and its ability to cope with the rate
of change (response exibility). The denominator indicates the capacity
of the system to adapt to the magnitude of change (volume exibility).
Capacity exibility index (CFI): described by Larso [L+ 98], indicates the
ability of a system to deal with changes in the required capacity based
on the gap between the available capacity and the required capacity:
CF I
(Available capacity
Required capacity
Available capacity
A low CFI indicates low exibility while a high CFI indicates high
exibility of the considered aspect.
2.2 The key-elements of flexibly automated

assembly
Flexibility |as described in Section 2.1| pertains to a type of production.
The assembly equipment must provide operational exibility. Furthermore it
must support the application of tactical exibility. Limitations in exibility and
automation thus together limit a type of production.
Flexibility and automation are, however, only two aspects. The realization of
exibly automated assembly requires more than just a exibly automated system. In general suitable solutions for three key-elements of exibly automated
assembly are necessary:

20
The product design

Chapter 2

The process planning method

The assembly equipment
The following section discusses these three aspects.
2.2.1 The product design

The rst requirement for exibly automated assembly is a suitable product
design. A composed pruduct must be \Designed For Assembly" (DFA). This
holds for all products to be assembled by the assembly system. The goal of
DFA is to ease the assembly process thereby making assembly more time and
cost-eective and reliable without making quality concessions. Applying DFA
to products in general leads to a less complex and thus more reliable and
cost-eective assembly system.
DFA deals with the following questions [N+ 97, Wil97, BD91] :
1. Minimising the number of components and partial assemblies
2. Maximising reliability and minimising the time and cost of assembly
tasks
3. Maximising assembly stability
4. Maximising process yields
5. Eliminating 'hidden' assembly faults and defects
6. Standardising by incorporating common components, processes and
methods
Several guidelines for achieving these objectives are given by Nof [N+ 97].
The consistent application of DFA will signicantly reduce the complexity of
the assembly system. Many design-issues of either the product or the system are
a trade-o between the costs of the system and the eort that has to be put into
product design. This relation between the assembly equipment and the product
design is also presented in Figure 2.3. Since higher costs are associated more
with assembly than with product design, eective DFA application becomes a
prerequisite for cost-eective exibly automated assembly.
2.2.2 The process planning method

Process planning concerns itself with the planning and control of all the major and minor tasks involved in assembly. Good planning increases assembly
eciency notably by providing support for a smooth transition between different products. Planning thus enables smooth adaptation to changing market
requirements.
21
The planning process involves three phases: planning, scheduling and dispatching operations at batch, product, part and primitive level [Hee90]. Planning is
done once per product, scheduling and dispatching is executed recurrently.
Planning is the non real-time determination of the best parameters for the
assembly process, such as the assembly sequence of parts. The result is

a sequence of tasks.
Scheduling has to do with the allocating of resources to the tasks generated
at the previous stage. Time optimality is an important issue at this
stage.
Dispatching delegating tasks generated by the scheduler to the resources and
checking to see if all the conditions have been met by the resources
available for executing the task.
For optimal results, these three phases should be interconnected.
2.2.3 The assembly equipment

Next to having a suitable product design and process planning method, the
characteristics of the assembly equipment |a cluster of components that together execute assembly processes| will determine the capabilities for exibly
automated assembly. The equipment denes the limits within which the assembly processes may be applied. There are two important considerations to this
(see also Figure 2.3):
Product
design
prescribes
constraints
Assembly
processes
prescribes
constraints
Assembly
equipment
Figure 2.3: Link between product design, assembly processes and assembly equipment
Required processes prescribe the equipment: the capabilities required
of the equipment are dened as the processes to be executed by the

equipment. The necessary processes are in turn prescribed by the product design.
The equipment constraints the designers' freedom: alternatively, once
the equipment is there, a limited set of assembly processes can be executed using the equipment. Within this set, the designer can freely
choose which processes to use. Processes outside this set must be
avoided since they require equipment changes.
22
Chapter 2
In this thesis, three terms are frequently used to address specic parts of
assembly equipment:
Module: is an equipment building block with a specic function: execution of
one or more basic assembly actions, e.g. moving, holding or heating. A

module includes its own mounting devices, interfaces etc.
Workstation: a cluster of one or more modules that together realise a dened
part of the complete assembly of a product.
System: a cluster of one or more workstations that together realise the complete assembly of the product from separate parts to a product.
Since this thesis is on the subject of assembly, use of the above terms always
denotes assembly |e.g. 'module' denotes 'assembly module'| unless stated
otherwise.
2.3 Importance of the equipment

Of the three key-elements of exibly automated assembly described in Section 2.2, it is the equipment that is of greatest importance. If the applicability
and price of the equipment is improved this will directly increase the economic
justiability of the assembly equipment.
Current systems are not economic justiable (see Section 3.1.1). The main
bottleneck for economic justiability is the assembly equipment. Improving
equipment is the best way of increasing justiability. Four main considerations
found this statement:
Equipment is the core of exibly automated assembly: Without proper

equipment exibly automated assembly is impossible. Suitable product
designs and support in process planning ease exibly automated assembly. The importance of these aspects must not be underestimated.
Without them exibly automated assembly would still be possible but
far more complex.
Major bottleneck: As indicated in Figure 2.2 the major obstruction points
in assembly automation are |at rank 1| the small batch size and |
at rank 4| the great variety in the types and sorts of products. Even
now it is still commonly accepted that where assembly is concerned
batch size will decrease further while product type variety will sharply
increase.
Both obstructions are mainly related to the assembly equipment.
23
Lack of attention: In literature, little attention is given to assembly equip-
ment. A similar observation is presented by Schweigert [Sch92]: he

notices a decit in exibly automated assembly equipment
Other areas are equipment dependent: Though general concepts can be
studied in other elds of exibly automated assembly, equipment has

to constitute action input in specic cases. DFA can, for example, be
applied more straightforwardly in cases where the exact capabilities of
the equipment available are known.
The importance of the equipment is further emphasised by the lack of DFA

usage in industry. A thorough use of DFA would ease the assembly process. This
would, in turn, ease the requirements placed on the equipment. In general this
results in cheaper equipment which thus becomes more economically justiable.
In cases where DFA is not used this stresses the importance of equipment even
further.
There are two reasons which explain why DFA has not yet reached full maturity
in industry:
Interdependency between DFA and the equipment: before better equipment can be developed, products must be designed for assembly. However, straightforwardly applying DFA requires knowledge about the
capabilities of the equipment.
DFA thus becomes especially important when new equipment is being
developed. Existing equipment is capable of handling products that are
not especially designed for assembly. Applying DFA without developing
new equipment will thus result in limited overall improvement. However,
developing equipment without applying DFA to the products will also
lead to the development of rather complex and expensive equipment.
The successful introduction of industrial DFA applications for automated assembly is thus especially possible if the DFA of products and
the development of equipment is considered simultaneously.
Long DFA penetration time: the penetration time of new techniques is,
in general, quite long. In the case of DFA, the penetration time even
increases. This is caused by the above described limited gains of DFA
if the equipment is not especially t for DFA products.
24
Chapter 2
2.4 Literature review on flexibly automated

assembly
This section reviews the developments made so far in exibly automated
assembly. Systems, sub systems and supportive engineering and planning processes are reviewed. This review serves as a general introduction to the major
developments in assembly automation.
Because of the importance of the equipment |see Section 2.3|, the primary
focus of the literature review will be on assembly systems, sub systems and
system design methods. The review forms the state of the art basis to exibly
automated assembly described in Section 2.5. Issues highlighted in the review
are: degree of exibility and industrial applicability.
2.4.1 Assembly systems

There are many assembly systems which show some kind of exibility. If only
the main research systems are described this will give a good overview of the
existing techniques for assembly systems. Each system will be brie y described
and then the main shortcomings of the underlying project will be pointed out.
This review is partly based on work carried out by Scheepbouwer [Sch96] and
Vos [VS99]. A summary of the results |except for Mark IV| Is given in
Table 2.1
Three types of systems are distinguished: (1) exibly automated assembly cells,
(2) moving workstations and (3) exibly automated assembly workstations in
line.
Flexibly automated assembly cells
The former DIAC [SB93] (Delft Intelligent Assembly Cell, see Figures 2.4
and 2.5) project at Delft University of Technology was the main reason for
undertaking the FlexFactory project. DIAC was aimed at exibly automated
assembly in small to medium production volumes of electromechanical products. The system is not the result of a specic FAS design. DIAC is rather a
test bed for several research issues.
The system consists of two assembly robots |a SCARA and an anthropomorphic one| and a robot for the transportation of parts, assemblies and products.
These robot congurations hamper reconguration exibility because of their
mass and because of the conguration interdependency between the transport
robot and the assembly robots.
25
Fault tolerance
Reconguration
Semi-random production

Running-in

Flexibility
Universal components
Multi- gripper
Multi- functional

Gripper change
Jointed
Fixed
AGV
Robot micro-transport
Power-and-free transfer
Strategy:
Index-transfer

SCARA
Cartesian
Spherical

Manipulation:
robot
Manipulation:
gripper
Finger change
Half ordered
Non-ordered
Micro
transport

Ordered (tray)
DIAC
Genasys
MAX
Robotworld
MART
MARK III
Minifactory
Feed
Ordered (other)
Table 2.1: Overview of FAS strategies [VS99]
26
Chapter 2
Figure 2.4: Layout of DIAC [Baa95]
Anthropomorphic robot
Scara robot
Transport robot
Buerspaces
Figure 2.5: Picture of DIAC [Baa95]
27
Transportation is standardised by using pallets. The assembly robots are positioned next to each other and have their own and shared workplaces. Underneath the workplaces is a rack of buer spaces for the pallets. All the buer
spaces are randomly accessible to the transportation robot. This conguration
supports part assembly in ow, kit or sub-batch.
Using the sub-batch principle (described by Arnstrom [AG88]) will increase the
eciency of the assembly process. Several |sub-batch| product xtures are
mounted on one frame. Each partial assembly process is executed with each
product in the sub-batch before the next process is executed. This reduces the
frequency of the need for gripper changes. Furthermore, the exchange time can
be divided over the sub-batches, thus considerably improving eciency.
With the exception of the exible gripper |see Page 39| no special equipment
is used for the supporting processes.
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the low degree of reconguration
exibility and (2) the non- exibility of the supporting processes which are
mainly part feeding.
The Genasys project [Lou95, Hol89] (Generic Assembly System, formerly

the INFACT project, see Figures 2.6 and 2.7) aims at a FAS for medium
Rails for
part & product
transport
Linear vibratory
feeders
Figure 2.6: Layout of Genasys [Hol89]
production volumes (50k{750k products/year) of electromechanical products

28
Chapter 2
Gantry
Assembly robot 1
Assembly robot 2
Figure 2.7: Station of Genasys [Hol89]
consisting of 5{25 parts and of a product size of up to 300 mm3 . Special

attention is paid to semi-random production and reconguration exibility.
The system is constructed around linear vibratory feeders and two crossing
rails for part and product transport are employed via a shuttle system. At the
intersection of the shuttle system, two assembly robots mounted on a gantry
perform the assembly tasks.
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the lack of exibility of the
supporting processes, mainly part feeding, and (2) the high level of purposebuilt equipment.
The MAX project [SSG92, WWW93] (Modular Assembly Example, see Figure 2.8) at the IPA in Stuttgart integrates special connection methods with
generic assembly processes.
The system contains one anthropomorphic robot on a seventh axis for assembly
and transport operations and four robots for special operations, which are at
present: riveting, sealing, ultrasonic welding and bolt screwing. All the workstations are connected through a pallet conveyor which also supplies the parts.
Much eort has been put into developing tools for exibly automated assembly.
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the high level of purpose-built
equipment and (2) the low rate of reconguration exibility.
29
Figure 2.8: Picture of Max [SSG92]
The Robot world project [Sch87, Pay93] (see Figure 2.9) aims at creating
Drive surface
Manipulator
Index module
Work surface
Figure 2.9: Schematic representation of Robot world [Sch87]
an environment in which robots can be put to best possible use. The other
important issues are: reducing the size of the assembly system and the modular
nature of the system.
The system is based on horizontally suspended driving surfaces beneath which
manipulators are mounted. These can move around freely on the driving surfaces. The system provides tools such as reference points and sensor and
communication interfaces so that the robots capabilities can be put to optimal
use.
No aspects are taken into account that concern supporting processes such as
part feeding.
30
Chapter 2
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the high level of purpose-built
equipment and (2) the lack of exibility of the supporting processes.
Moving assembly workstations
The MART project [G+ 93] (Mobile Autonomous Robot Twente, see Fig-
ure 2.10) has been developed as part of a factory for the future. It aims at
Part supply or
special operations
Moving workstation
Figure 2.10: Layout of Mart [G+ 93]
providing assembly on demand for products made up of modules, each of which

fullls a specic (set of) function(s) in a given product family.
A moving workstation |a SCARA assembly robot mounted on an AGV|,
performs assembly operations while remaining routed to workstations. At these
workstations parts can be supplied or processes can be executed which would
be impossible to execute when in motion. New workstations can easily be added
and the routing of the mobile robot can easily be adjusted. A similar system
has been developed within the framework of the KAMRO project [LNR95].
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the restrictions it lays on
products because of the limited capacity of the AGV, (2) the poor ratio between assembly time and transport time and (3) the demands made of partial
assembly stability.
The MARK III project [AGEO93] (see Figure 2.11) aims at providing
31
Figure 2.11: Layout of MarkIII [AG96]
industrial solutions to exibly automated assembly where small to medium

volumes are concerned. This project does not focus on a specic product group.
A workstation is mounted on a rail and moves past stations so that parts can
be picked up or special operations can be executed. The workstation consists
of an assembly robot, a work place, a tray with product xtures and a number
of grippers and tools. The non-productive processes can be executed while
the robot is being moved to a dierent workstation which reduces the overall
non-productive time.
No special attention is given to the supporting processes.
The main feature of this project is that it employs the sub-batch principle
(described on page 28).
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the limitations on the products
and partial assemblies because of movement during assembly and (2) the lack
of exibility found within supporting processes, mainly part feeding.
The MARK IV project [OAB99] (see Figure 2.12) is in continuation of the

Mark III project. Mark IV focuses on stepwise expandability of the system and
extreme capacity exibility. The main theme of the project is the development
of a standardised, modular, hybrid assembly system concept. This project does
not focus on a specic product group.
32
Chapter 2
Figure 2.12: An example of the MarkIV hyper exible assembly system [OAB99]
The actual system is only to be considered as an engineering platform. Figure 2.12 shows a possible layout of the system: two robotic assembly workstations combined with one manual packing station. The assembly workstations
consist of product ow, material ow and robotic modules.
The parts that will be assembled are placed on trays and then stored in material
magazines. Pallets with empty assembly xtures are placed in the magazine on
the \product-side". An assembly starts with an assembly xture being sent
to the assembly position and a material tray to the picking position. After
execution of all processes, the empty trays return to their magazines.
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the focus on capacity exibil-
ity instead of a focus on customised functionality in general and (2) the low
exibility in conguring an assembly system at the lowest level.
Flexibly automated assembly workstations in line
The MiniFactory project [HQ95] (see Figure 2.13) is based on the Architecture for Agile Assembly (AAA) concept. This is a concept that focuses on
optimising computer and communication possibilities. Four main objectives are
pursued: (1) to heavily reduce system development time, (2) to radically cut
back on system (re)conguration time, (3) to improve assembly processes by
33
Figure 2.13: Example and details of minifactory [HKS95, HQ95]
34
Chapter 2
means of sensor integration and (4) to reduce the size and mass of the system
and the modules of which it is composed.
The backbone of the system is a driving surface |platen| layout (table size)
upon which two small degrees of freedom manipulators are mounted. On the
platens small couriers |robots with a planar workspace| are able to (1) move
around, (2) transport partial assemblies (3) position them beneath the manipulators and (4) control two degrees of freedom |in the base plane of the
partial assembly| during the assembly process. The manipulators assemble
parts once a courier has positioned a product underneath the manipulator.
This conguration only supports vertical assembly.
No special attention is given to the supporting processes.
The main shortcomings of this project are (1) the limitations placed on the com-
plexity of the assembly processes, (2) the heavy requirements made of control
and communication and (3) the lack of exibility of the supporting processes,
mainly involving part feeding.
2.4.2 Assembly sub systems

This section brie y reviews the developments taking place in exibly automated assembly research. The main issues of assembly processes and assembly
strategies will be discussed. The focus will be on exibility and current developments.
Part feeding
Part feeding is the process of transferring parts from unknown positions and
orientations to predened part-specic positions and orientations. This is the
rst step that needs to be taken in the part assembly process.
Three main solution types exist [Coo94, BPL82]:
Vibratory feeders use vibration to move parts along a linear or cylindrical
track. Mechanical orienting devices, like wiper blades or slotted tracks,

are mounted along the track. These devices either change the part orientation or reject the part, sending it back to the beginning of the track.
After having passed all the orientation devices the part will have (one
of) the prescribed orientation(s). An example of a vibratory feeder and
certain track orientation devices is given in Figure 2.14.
Reel or tape feeders use two tapes consisting of: a base tape on which parts
are put down and a foil cover which serves to preserve the position and
35
Figure 2.14: A vibratory feeder with orienting devices along the track
orientation of the part. The tapes are generally put on a reel from which
they are fed to the assembly workstation. The foil cover is removed
when a part has to be picked up by a manipulator. This type of feeder
only transports parts, the orientation is determined by the orientation
of the part on the tape. An example of a tape with parts is given in
Figure 2.15.
Removed
Foil cover
Base tape
Part to be
picked up
Foil cover
Parts
Figure 2.15: Reel or tape feeding
Trays and stacks use trays with nests, each of which is designed to hold a
single part. In general, the nest is part and orientation specic. The
tray is put in the manipulator's work space.
36
Chapter 2
New solutions focus on the process of orienting parts. Such parts are based on
processes that are dierent from the traditional feeding methods:
Random impact: parts are dropped onto a surface. The impact of the fall
changes the orientation of the part. The process has been studied by
Lee and Ngoi [LLNL93, NLE97] and it is used in commercially available
feeders as well as for research purposes [CQ97, Ros94]. Part design
guidelines can be developed that will increase the chance of attaining
suitable orientation after the part has been dropped and subjected to
impact.
Controlled impact: parts are slid onto a tray with upright edges. The part
changes orientation on impact with a side [EM88]. This process is
depicted in Figure 2.16.
Figure 2.16: Orienting parts via controlled impact [EM88]
Pushing: parts are pushed over a surface. The contact conguration between
part and surface and part and pushing force is what determines the
change in orientation. This process has been studied by Lynch [Lyn92]
and it led to the creation of a one-jointed manipulator [AHLM95]
which redirects planar rigid parts as they move along a conveyor belt,
see Figure 2.17.
Nests: parts are put into a hole where they can only be accepted in one orientation. Other orientations will be rejected and so the part will be
returned to the beginning of the feeding process. The best known commercially available system is the Advanced Parts Orientation System
(APOS) [Hit88], depicted in Figure 2.18.
37
Figure 2.17: Directing planar rigid parts by pushing with a one-jointed manipulator [AHLM95]
Figure 2.18: The APOS part feeding system
38
Chapter 2
Grasping
Grasping is the process of brie y retaining a part in order to manipulate it.
The grasp must be stable to ensure that the pose of the part after manipulation
has only been changed through manipulation.
Simple pneumatic grippers are widespread in industry. The grippers generally
have only one degree of freedom. This gives rise to the need for the gripper
ngers to be adapted to the part to be grasped: part specic grippers are
required. In exibly automated assembly this necessitates gripper changes. New
developments aim at achieving more part-independent solutions:
Dextrous grippers: versatile grippers that challenge the abilities of the hu-
man hand. Examples are described by Venkataraman [VI90]. These

grippers are not specically designed for assembly tasks and they are
expensive and complex. The Utah-MIT gripper depicted in Figure 2.19
provides an example of such a dextrous gripper.
Figure 2.19: The Utah-MIT gripper [VI90]
Flexible grippers: are developed with a view to the process to be exe-
cuted. Three ngers can grasp 90 per cent of all the possible part
shapes [Bej83]. Three dierent grasp congurations are depicted in Figure 2.20. It was on this premiss that Scherrer and Baartman [SV91,
BS94] each developed grippers with three independently placed ngers specically suited to assembly tasks. The three part independent
gripper-ngers ensure force closure and greatly reduce the necessary
number of gripper changes. Baartman's gripper is depicted in Figure 2.21.
Gripper nger development: [VNZC98] aims at rapidly developing partspecic ngers and at providing possibilities for grasping multiple parts
39
Figure 2.20: Grasp congurations of a three-nger gripper [Baa95]
Figure 2.21: Picture of the 234-gripper [Baa95]
40
Chapter 2
with the same set of ngers. The technique utilises geometric computations on CAD part descriptions in order to produce form and force
closure tooling: the form of a part is substracted from a rectangular solid
nger. Rapid prototyping technologies are used to fabricate the tooling
which is taken directly from computations. Grasping multiple parts requires that the parts to be handled are superpositioned. The result is
substracted from the rectangular solid nger. An example showing how
dierent part shapes can be grasped with one set of ngers is given in
Figure 2.22.
Figure 2.22: Gripper nger exibility: grasping dierent shapes with one pair of gripper
ngers [VNZC98]
Furthermore, there are some new solutions which integrate grasping and manipulation for specic tasks.
Carlisle [CGRW94] developed a gripper that had an extra rotational

degree of freedom around the ngertips (see Figure 2.23). This is especially useful when long parts need to be put in upright positions because
that position is not a stable one.
Figure 2.23: Orienting parts with the pivoting gripper [CGRW94]
41
Rao [RG95] uses mechanical compliance to orient parts during grasping.

Two parallel jaws are used as gripper planes. One jaw has an extra
translational degree of freedom to ensure that there is zero friction
between the part and the jaws in the plane of the part. The gripper
itself is depicted in Figure 2.24, the possibilities for orienting a part
with this gripper are given in Figure 2.25.
Figure 2.24: The gripper with mechanical compliance in the gripper jaws [RG95]
Figure 2.25: Examples of orienting parts using mechanical compliance in the gripper
jaws [RG95]
Erdmann [Erd98] integrates grasping and manipulation even further

by using nonprehensile palm manipulation. Instead of using ngertips,
the entire device surface |\palm"| is used. The object rests on the
surface of the palm which is not wrapped around the object: it remains
"nonprehensile" as opposed to replicating the form or force closure of
a ngered gripper.
The principle of the palm-gripper is depicted in Figure 2.26, an example
of orienting parts with palm manipulation is given in Figure 2.27.
Fixturing
Fixturing is the process of locating, holding and supporting various parts. Fixturing serves to ensure the accurate positioning, orientation and stability of the
part, partial assembly or product during transport and assembly operations.
42
Chapter 2
Figure 2.26: The principles of the palm-gripper [Erd98]
Part ow
Finger motion
Figure 2.27: Two examples of orienting a part with the palm gripper [Erd98]
43
In general, xturing is not something that is researched specically for assembly.
Solutions for xturing within manufacturing are widely in use within assembly.
Three groups of solutions are distinguished: dedicated, generic and exible
xtures.
Dedicated xtures: are specically designed for a product or family of products
Generic xtures: clamps able only to hold prismatic products

Flexible xtures: are able to adapt to the product design [Shi96, NWSk95].
Three main classes can be distinguished:

Adaptable xtures: at least one jaw of a clamp conforms to the
shape of the work piece. Force 14 is, for example, given in Figure 2.28.
Figure 2.28: Example of an adaptable xture: the Force14 [Hof96]

44
Modular xtures: xtures congured out of standard modules

Recongurable xtures: xtures congured out of adaptable modules
Phase changing xtures: xtures that use the phase changing of
the xturing element to clamp the product. An example of this is
given in Figure 2.29. In the example the work piece or component is
located on a locating die. A low melting point liquid is added that,
once coagulated, acts as ller material rmly xing the component.
Chapter 2
Figure 2.29: Example of a phase changing xture [SW97]
Recent research does not focus on new solutions for xturing, instead, the focus has shifted to CAD-based [JG97, FNSkT95] or the automated design of
xtures [SD94, DNFSk97] and algorithms for synthesizing 2D-xtures [BG94].
Wagner [WZG95] took it one step further when he developed a planning
algorithm and strut equipment for 3D xturing.
Robots and manipulation

Parts manipulation is the act of changing the position or orientation of parts.
In automated assembly systems this process is usually carried out with the
help of an industrial robot: an automated manipulator with more than one
freely programmable degree of freedom [Baa95]. The relevant literature provides
evidence of several developments in the manipulation process and in robots:
The modularization of robots: unlike with the traditional xed robot con-
gurations, modular robots can be (re)congured to t in with customer requirements. Production is the main eld giving rise to the
need for research on recongurable systems, that is to say, systems
with increased production process responsiveness facilitated by modular robots [MUK98]. Paredis [Par96] has carried out extensive research
into the design and application of modular robots. Pritschow [PW96]
describes the development and design of a congurable modular robot
system created especially for exibly automated assembly.
The use of compliance: as a solution to correct part misalignment during
assembly operations.
Passive compliant mechanisms [SR96, Mil96] eliminate misalignment
because contact forces are used during the joining process. The contact forces reorient the part accordingly. The underlying principle
45
of a passive compliant mechanism is depicted in Figure 2.30. Yamaguchi [YYF98] investigated the possibility of using compliance with
the xture instead of with the manipulator.
Fixed to manipulator
Part rotates
Fixed to manipulator
Part translates
Figure 2.30: The principles of a passive compliant mechanism [SR96]
Active compliant mechanisms use the control of the manipulator to

adjust its position in order to eliminate misalignments. One method
is to use sensors to measure the misalignment [Klo94], another solution is to change to impedance control [Str98] to create a less rigid
manipulator. Hollis [HH92] developed a three degree of freedom ne
positioner. Mounting this on a robot's last link he claims a performance
improvement of two orders of magnitude for the robot arm alone.
The introduction of new manipulation processes: includes the combination of processes referred to on page 41 such as grasping and manipulating: having a gripper with rotating ngertips or a gripper with
a sliding jaw. A manipulation process which is more in the research
stage is that of impulsive manipulation [HKM95, HM98]: manipulation
carried out by striking and sliding.
Using cooperative robots: involves using multiple manipulators as well
as multi-arm manipulators [Buc96]. Cooperative robots are benecial [CPP94b] in the case of (1) assembly processes necessitating actions with dierent and sometimes con icting skills and (2) assembly
processes requiring many insertion directions. The critical aspects of cooperative robots are: co-ordination strategies, control methods, collision
avoidance, communication architecture and process planning [KB88,
CPP94a]. Cooperative robots [QH96] are extensively used especially in
minifactory situations (see page 33) where the transport robots are
directed by means of overhead assembly robots.
The introduction of new types of robot strategies: such strategies include sawyer motor technology [Saw94] which results in fast, light and
46
Chapter 2
very precise performance of the style used in robot world (see page 30)
and in the minifactory (see page 33) and, in the case of this latter
situation, the general trend towards smaller systems is re ected. Furthermore, there is the use of fast and precise cartesian robots [Pre93]
and the development of types of robots with dierent characteristics
such as the delta-robot.
2.4.3 Supportive engineering and planning processes

This section brie y reviews the developments continuing in three important
areas that support the assembly process: (1) planning and control, (2) organization and strategy and (3) assembly system design.
Planning and control

Planning and control covers all the control issues related to the course from
the product CAD model to the execution of assembly processes.
Much research has been conducted in this eld. It is especially assembly sequence planning |determining the order of assembly operations| that has received much attention [Hee90, Bon93, KTM96, MKY90, Lee94]. Scheduling has
been a little less thoroughly studied; some papers on this topic are available in
the proceedings of the symposia on assembly and task planning [San95, Lee97].
The execution of robot motions incorporates various subjects: collision free
path planning [Ver91], error management [Sti94], impedance control [Str98]
and multi-arm robot control [NTB93, DI93, ZC94]. Assembly control, specifically for exibly automated assembly systems, is something that has been
studied by several authors [EH96, F+ 98, A+ 98].
Organization and strategy

Manufacturing systems and the organization surrounding them are constantly
changing. This evolution is summarised by Kramer [Kra98], see Table 2.2.
The eld of production is facing some major changes. This has been extensively
investigated by the Agility Forum [For97]. Table 2.3 shows the driving forces,
attributes and imperatives of the next generation of manufacturing enterprises.
Two more important research aspects to be mentioned are: (1) manufacturing
process responsiveness [MUK98], referred to as recongurable: involving rapid
adjustment possibilities for production capacity and functionality in response
47
Table 2.2: The evolution of manufacturing systems [Kra98]
48
Chapter 2
Investment per
unit production
Lot size
Unit cost
Quality
Delivery time
Flexibility
Environmental
consciousness
Core technology
Time frame
Prehistory
to
present
Human intuition,
dexterity and skill
Very low to moderate
Small
High
Highly variable
Long
High
Low
Digital
tion
High
Moderate
Moderate
Good
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Very large
Low
Good
Long
Low
Low
computa-
1950s to present
Mechanical
automation
Low
1800s to present
Craft production Mass production Computerintegrated

production
Small
Low
Excellent
Short
High
high
Communications
and networking
Modurate
1990s and beyond
Next generation
systems
Table 2.3: Driving forces, attributes and imperatives of the next generation manufacturing
enterprise [For97]
49
Driving forces:
- Ubiquitous availability and distribution of information
- Accelerating pace of change in
technology
- Rapidly expanding technology
access
- Globalization of markets and
business competition
- Global wage and skill shifts
- Environmental responsibility
and resource limitations
- Increasing customer expectations
- Customer responsiveness
- Physical plant and equipment
responsiveness
- Human resource responsiveness
- global market responsiveness
- Teaming as a core competency
- Responsive practices and cultures
Attributes:
People related:
- Extended enterprise collaboration

- Enterprise integration
Integration related:
- Next-generation manufacturing
processes and equipment
- Pervasive modeling and simulation
- Adaptive, responsive information systems
Technology related:
- Rapid product/process realization

- Innovation management
- Change management
Business process related:
- Workforce exibility
- Knowledge supply chains
Imperatives:
to new circumstances and (2) the further integration of product, process and
system design [CSD98, TSV99].
Assembly system design
The types of methods available for assembly system design can be
separated into top-down and bottom-up approaches. With the bottom-up approach one starts with extensive product analysis, one then goes on to select
technically feasible system concepts and then one chooses the economically optimal solution. The bottom-up approach ensures that the solution found is the
best from a technical point of view. With the top-down method one starts with
an extensive product, market and company analysis before going on to design
a given system. Top-down designing ensures that the solution found is the best
from an economical point of view.
Some methods have focussed on drawing up the requirements made of an
assembly system in a specic case [BDRZ94].
High-level design choices like the number of workstations and the number of
operations per workstation are supported by the method of Redford [RD98].
Design choices relating to the level of the kind of system-architecture implemented are supported by several authors [M+ 94, BN93, Boo82, BW87]. They
use product and production data to determine the optimal solution: dedicated
equipment, exible equipment, manual assembly and other general system architecture principles. At the level of equipment selection, general classes of
equipment are dened, together with their characteristics. A situation-specic
choice is made between the classes of equipment. The choice is based on
the diculty levels of operations or is made via high-level assembly parameters [BN93, BR97, OMJ91].
Few system design methods exist. All attention is on the major proce-
dural steps from demand for a system to production. None of the methods
focus on the details of constructing equipment on the basis of product and production requirements. Instead, the methods focus on the selection of suitable
classes from a limited set of classes of equipment or systems.
Butala [BSP96] denes four system design steps: product re-design, process
planning, system design and evaluation, see Figure 2.31. What any of these
steps involves is not dened in any detail. These steps guide the system designer
but the results achieved depend mainly on the quality of the execution of the
steps made by the designer. Rampersad [Ram93b] gives a similar model with
more steps divisions but again without detailing the procedure per step.
50
Chapter 2
Figure 2.31: System design method from Butala [BSP96]
At Linkoping University extensive research has been conducted into an assembly system design method [BL95, Lun94, Lun93, LBJ93]. The method
compromises thirteen phases structured in three blocks: background, development and realization (see Figure 2.32). The method extensively investigates
strategic and operative parameters. A rule database [LOB91, OJ92b, OJ92a]
gives high-level suggestions (such as the degree of automation) based on the
values of the parameters in the specic situation. One important issue with this
method is the simultaneous consideration of technical as well as social aspects.
Rampersad [Ram93a] developed a method that simultaneously considers the
design of products, processes and systems. The most other methods use product
design and processes as information sources rather than actively changing them.
2.5 The state of the art

From the previous review some conclusions can be drawn on the state of the
art where exibly automated assembly is concerned. The description is based
on three dierent areas: systems, sub systems and systems design. These topics
remain the focal areas for the rest of this thesis. They are discussed in the next
paragraphs. Table 2.4 summarises the state of the art in exibly automated
assembly systems.
51
Figure 2.32: System design method from Lundstrom [LOB91]
System:
Sub system:
System design:
State of the art
- Universal machine
- Small product focus
- Product based
- High level choices

- Choice automation degree
- Choice equipment principles
Table 2.4: State of the art in exibly automated assembly systems
52
Chapter 2
The state of the art predominantly pertains the results of developments in

research laboratories and less in industrial practice.
The state of the art from a systems point of view. From the review
on the systems the main conclusion to be drawn is that there is a low level of
reconguration exibility. So far the projects have focussed on the design of a
universal system to be adapted to each specic situation. The goal has been to
dene one architecture system that will suit dierent kinds of situations. This
has been achieved by developing systems that incorporate a broad functionality
or which have limited product focus.
The main exception to all of this is the minifactory project. With this project it
is the architecture that is dened rather than the system. For each situation a
specic system has to be congured out of process and transport modules and a
frame. The architecture supports only a limited variety of process functionality
aspects and thus has a limited product focus.
The state of the art from a sub system point of view. From the review
of the areas of part feeding, grasping, xturing and robots and manipulation
the main conclusion to be drawn is that the equipment still shows limited
exibility. With each product, new equipment has to be developed or existing
equipment has to be adjusted to the characteristics of the product. It may be
concluded that the sub systems are still very product based.
Product based equipment versus process based equipment is an important issue
in this thesis (see Section 3.2.1). They are dened as:
Product based equipment: equipment especially tuned to (a part of) the

assembly of one or a few specic product types.
Process based equipment: equipment especially tuned to (a part of) one or

more specic assembly processes.
The state of the art from a system design point of view. From the
review of assembly system design it can be concluded that support is developed

in three areas:
1. Support of high level choices. These considerations focus on nding
the optimal number of workstations, the number of operations per
workstation, the assembly sequence and the layout of a system.
2. Support of the choice on the degree of automation of the assembly
system. The choice is situation-specic.
53
3. Support regarding the choice of equipment selection. These considerations focus on the choice of general classes of equipment and their
characteristics. The choice remains situation specic.
2.6 Closing remarks

Chapter 2 has extensively introduced exibly automated assembly. Both exibility as well as the three key-elements of exibly automated assembly |
product design, process planning method and assembly equipment| have been
detailed.
Section 2.3 underlined the great importance of the assembly equipment. The
literature review described in Section 2.4 thus heavily focussed on assembly
equipment. This resulted in the state of the art description of systems, sub
systems and system design described in Section 2.5.
Chapter 3 will nd why the state of the art hampers wide introduction of
exibly automated assembly. In fact, Section 3.1.1 will point out the drawbacks
of the state of the art. It will be seen that the underlying problem to these
drawbacks is to be found in defective systematics in the system design.
It is these defective systematics in the system design that are the basis for
the problem addressed in this thesis. This problem will be further dened in
Section 3.1.
54
Chapter 2
3
Project description
This chapter identies the problems, the goals, the deliverables,
the scope and the approach to the research. First the present situation, as described in Section 2.5, is analysed from the point of
view of its drawbacks. The underlying cause of these drawbacks
is then identied as defective systematics in the system design.
This leads to the research problem statement. On the basis of
this problem statement, the goal of the research is identied by
comparing the present situation with the desired situation in
the system, the sub system and the system design. Next the deliverables, the scope and the research approach are identied.
Chapters 4 and 5 will explain the FAS development method on
the basis of the information given in Chapter 3.
3.1 Problem definition

Section 2.5 identied the present situation in the systems, the sub systems
and the system design. However, the present situation re ects several major
drawbacks. This section rst identies the drawbacks of the present situation.
Next the underlying problem is identied as being the defective systematics
in the system design. This leads |in the nal subsection| to the research
problem statement.
55
3.1.1 Drawbacks of the present situation in (sub)systems

The present situation in systems and sub systems, as presented in Section 2.5,
is unsatisfactory for industrial application. In Section 3.1.1, the drawbacks of
the present situation are identied and analysed against the background of the
three characteristics of (sub)systems mentioned in Chapter 2 (Table 2.4): (1)
universal machine, (2) small product focus and (3) product based equipment.
Table 3.1 summarises the drawbacks of the present situation.
No
ity
bil
sa
reu
y
w
ilit
Lo
iab
rel
w
ot
Lo es n ted
ess ma
oc to
Pr au
ble
ly
ia
xib
t
e
us
j
ly
ee
lly
ful
gr y
ca
de ilit
mi
te ib
no
ua ex
co
eq f
te
ad o
In
Universal machine
Small product focus
Product based
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 3.1: Drawbacks of the present situation
The universal machine
Inadequate degree of exibility: It is dicult to incorporate new processes
because of the |generally| closed architecture of a universal machine.

This is due to a lack of adequate exibility. This makes the system
subject to obsolescence [MUK98].
Not economically justiable: The universal machine hardly ever possesses
the appropriate functionality for a given application. If the system lacks
functionality it will not function at all or else it will have to be adapted.
However, adaptation reduces the advantages of the universal machine.
In most of the cases some of the functionality of the system will not
be used in a specic situation. Because of this over-functionality |a
thing also noted by Mehrabi [MUK98]| exibly automated assembly
systems become too expensive for economically justied use. The latter
point is also concluded by Hollis [HQ95].
56
Chapter 3
Small product focus
Inadequate degree of exibility: Products that fall out of the system's
product focus are not supported. This is because of the limited exibility of the system, i.e.: the exibility required for the product focus.
A product assortment oered by a manufacturer that does not match
the system's product focus might require a dierent degree of exibility.
Low reusability: The small product focus of the system reduces reusability since only new products can be assembled that exclusively rely on
the processes supported by the system [MUK98]. This process focus is
however only based on a small product focus.
Product based equipment

Having product-based equipment is the logical solution to the assembly problem. Nof and Tichem [N+ 97, TSV99] state that assembly is highly product specic and that the tasks involved are, by nature, very variable. What especially
in uences assembly is the continually changing market requirements.
The product-based approach does however have at least ve major drawbacks:
Inadequate degree of exibility: Changeover of the assembly system is
time-consuming [HQ95]. This is due to a lack of standard highly exible

and reusable robotic components [MVBSS95] and to the inadequacy of
system software [MUK98].
Not economically justiable: The frequency of product changes is increasing (see Section 2.1.2). This decreases the system life of non- exible
systems. Flexibility can extend system life, thereby increasing prots
which, in turn, might justify higher investment. This is depicted in
Figure 3.1.
However, the often used ROI-method |Return On Investment| for
justication of investments is unsuitable for these kinds of systems [Bjo91].
More generally, a survey conducted by Martin-Vega [MVBSS95] points
out that current accounting and cost estimation methods frequently
prevent technology adoption.
Nof [N+ 97] states that economic justication is dicult because of the
lack of programmable equipment.
Associated processes are not fully exibly automated: A prerequisite for
successful exibly automated assembly is exibility of all the associated
processes. However, secondary assembly processes |mainly part feeding and xturing| show little exibility today [VS98, HQ95, Wil97],
because of product solutions being highly focused.
Project description
57
Money
Savings
Prot
Investment
Time
System
end-of-life
Market: Equipment:
product changes exibility
Figure 3.1: Economic justication of exibility
Low reliability: In general, the reliability of the combination of the assembly
system, the parts and the operators is too low [MUK98, Wil97]. A major
reason for this is the fact that equipment is product-based. Equipment
is only a proven solution for specic products. If the products that
are to be assembled change, reliability might become insucient. The
major reason for this is lack of extensive process knowledge [VS98].
Baartman [Baa95] noticed an emphasis on the attention paid to logistics
rather than to the primary assembly processes. Furthermore, research
has focused on the optimisation of existing technologies, instead of on
the exploration of new technologies which lack the limitations of the
existing ones [Sch96].
Low reusability because of the product- specic nature of the equipment. As
equipment lifetime is reduced so too is the economic justication.
The identied drawbacks in the present situation of (sub)systems have a common underlying problem: defective systematics in the system design.
3.1.2 Underlying problem: defective systematics in the

system design
As pointed out in Section 3.1.1, the present situation in systems and sub systems is unsatisfactory. Section 2.3 however, explained the importance of the
58
Chapter 3
equipment. It is therefore concluded that the equipment constitutes a major

bottleneck when it comes to realising a successful exibly automated assembly
system. The (sub)systems are not suitable for the specic situation they are to
be applied in.
This problem is caused by defective systematics in the assembly system design;
the design does not result in an optimal system for the production situation
being aimed at. The production situation is the product range for the system
together with the associated production parameters. The defective systematics
must be found in one or more of the following design phases:
Conceptual design: a schematic design of the system that incorporates high
level choices (see Section 2.5), a degree of automation and general

equipment principles.
Embodiment: a more detailed design that denes the conguration and the
design of all the components relevant to the execution of assembly
processes.
Detailed design: a full design of a system including all the major and minor
components.
In systematics the main defects can be detected at the embodiment phase:
the conceptual phase is well supported (see the state of the art review in Sections 2.4.3 and 2.5) and drawing up a detailed design is common practice in all
rmware design projects.
At the embodiment phase, certain elements are custom designed but many elements are standard modules. At module level, there are two possible problems
in the design process:
1. The right module is not available
(a) The module of the process or operation specied is not available
(b) The modules of the process or operation specied do not meet the
requirements made by the process or operation
2. The choice as to which module to use is not the best
The problem is to be found in the selecting of the right modules. In most cases
many well proven solutions exist at module level. Both simple and complex
modules are available in a wide range of varieties: manipulators, welding modules, transport modules but also linear actuators, rotary actuators, air pumps,
liquid heaters etc. It is highly unlikely that within this wide variety a suitable
module will not be found. Even more so since each type of module is generally
available in several variants, for instance, single pneumatic cylinders are available in many variants, each with a dierent stroke. Since it is unlikely that the
Project description
59
problem will lie in the right module being available, the problem must lie in
the selection of the best module.
This conclusion is supported by the state of the art in system design (see
Section 2.5). System design support is only available on a (sub)system level.
At the embodiment level no support is available.
The defective systematics in the system design are the basis for the problem
statement this thesis addresses.
3.1.3 Problem statement

The previous considerations relating to the drawbacks of the present situation
and to defective systematics in the system design result in the following problem
statement:
Though the equipment is of major importance for exibly automated assembly systems, the present state of development
in assembly equipment does not suit the industrial need.
This is mainly caused by inadequate methods used in system
design, particularly related to the embodiment design. There
is a lack of technical insight when it comes to designing and selecting the best equipment for a specic situation. This reduces
economic justiability.
This problem statement together with the desired state in exibly automated
assembly systems is the basis for identication of the research goal.
3.2 Identification of the research goal

Section 3.1 identied the problems existing in the present situation in the system, the sub system and the system design. As opposed to this present situation
Section 3.2 rst identies the desired situation. After that modularity will be
introduced as the key strategy for realising the desired situation. In the nal
sub section the combination of the desired situation and the key strategy will
lead to a statement relating to the research goal.
60
Chapter 3
3.2.1 Desired state in flexibly automated assembly systems

Support is necessary in system design. This support must be such that it overcomes the drawbacks of the present situation in the (sub)systems as presented
in Section 3.1.1. The support must realise three turn abouts: (1) from a universal machine to a fully customised system, (2) from a system with a product
focus to a system with a process focus and (3) from product based equipment to process based equipment. This is the basis for the desired state of the
(sub)systems. The turn abouts are summarised in Table 3.2. The turn abouts
are explained below:
System:
State of the art
- Universal machine
- Small product focus
Sub system: - Product based

System
design:

- Choice automation
degree
- Choice equipment
principles
Desired state
- Fully customised system

- Process focus
- Process based
- Low level choices
- Insight into integration of
processes
- Process based
Table 3.2: Desired state versus state of the art in exibly automated assembly systems
A fully customised system. Instead of modifying a universal system, a spe-
cic system must be designed or congured for every new production situation. The customised system must possess the right level of
functionality, including exibility. Furthermore, functionality can be
adapted to increase economic justiability. The present situation |
the universal machine| does not possess the appropriate degree of
exibility and functionality which hinders economic justiability.
The process focus of the system. A system with a process focus places
fewer limitations on reusability and exibility than a system which has
a product focus. Every product change is a potential danger for the
usability of a system with a product focus. However, in the case of a
product change, the assembly processes are less likely to change signicantly than the product design. A system with a process focus can thus
more easily be used for the new product.
Process-based equipment. This approaches the desired process focus of the
system. The equipment will be suitable for more dierent situations.
Project description
61
Furthermore, process-based equipment will eventually become more reliable. Since the same equipment is used in dierent situations, it will
eventually become a proven solution. Product-based equipment is a
one-of-a-kind solution that provides less insight into reliability.
Designing (sub)systems that comply to the mentioned characteristics, requires
a change in system design. Though the current state of the art in system
design does give good insight into the general characteristics of the system,
supplementary support is necessary. The focus is on three key aspects:
Low level choices. As well as having high level choices it is also necessary to
have low level choices that will support the choice at module level. This
will contribute to the realization of a fully customised system with the
appropriate degree of functionality.
Insight into the process integration possibilities. Process integration is
the execution of multiple processes by a single piece of equipment.
Insight in these integration possibilities will increase the economic justiability of the system since process integration reduces the total
amount of equipment needed. Reduction of the total amount of equipment reduces the total cost of the system without compromising the
functionality.
It should be noted that integrating processes into equipment, might give
rise to other costs like the expense of having to have a more complex
controller. However, rst of all, insight into the possibilities for process
integration must be created.
Being process based. This assures wide application since the design remains
highly independent of the considered product range. A process-based
design can be used in dierent production situations.
It is important to notice that from a (sub)system point of view a dierent focus
is required. However, from a system design point of view no changeover but
supplementary support is required. The result for system design is depicted in
Figure 3.2.
3.2.2 Key strategy: modularity

Section 3.2.1 emphasised the need for a customised yet quick to design exibly
automated assembly system. Modularity is a key strategy when it comes to
complying with this need. Modularity focuses on standard system modules. The
importance of this strategy is also noted by Hollis and Voho [HQ95, VH91].
The major advantages of this strategy are:
62
Chapter 3
Current state:
Desired state:

- Choice automation degree
- Choice equipment principles
- Low level choices

- Insight into process integration
- Process based
Equipment considerations
Detailed equipment considerations
Figure 3.2: Relation between current state and desired state in system design
Reduction of system realization time: the system design time as well as
the system manufacturing time is reduced by comparison to assembly

systems specically designed for a manufacturer. The design time is
reduced because the main part of the detailed equipment and software
design is already present in the modules. System design merely becomes
an aspect of module selection.
The manufacturing time is reduced because the modules have already
been manufactured. They can be acquired o-the-shelf from vendors
selling or leasing them. System manufacturing thus merely becomes a
matter of module conguration.
Increase reconguration exibility of the system: in the same way that
system realization time is reduced system redesign time is reduced and

so is system remanufacturing time. A modular system can thus more
easily be adjusted to changing production parameters than either a
specically designed or a standard system.
Increase customisability of the system: paragraph 3.2.1 pointed out the
rigidness of current exibly automated assembly systems. With modularity customisability of the system can be realised and adapted to the
specic manufacturer situation.
Project description
63
Increase reliability of the system: since modules have been used and im-
proved in previous systems. This enhances the reliability of successive

systems.
Using modularity combines the advantages of specically designed systems

|highly customised| with standard systems |realised in a short time|.
Modularity furthermore reduces investment risk since the system can more
easily be adapted to changing production parameters.
3.2.3 Statement of the research goal

The previous considerations relating to the desired state in systems, sub systems and system design and modularity result in the following research goal:
Enabling the design of customised assembly systems. The customisation must be based on a assembly process focus.
This must be realised by providing support in system design that is (1) based on modularity, (2) supports low level
choices, (3) gives insight into the integration possibilities of
the processes and (4) is process based.
3.3 Deliverables
Section 3.2 presented the research goal. On the basis of these objectives Section 3.3 identies the deliverables of the research.
A general assembly system design method for situation specic solutions will be
developed. It will be general in the sense that its application will be independent
of a specic production situation. Application of the method results in a system
that is customised to that particular production situation.
As described in Section 3.2, the method will support the design of assembly
systems that: (1) are fully customised, (2) possess a process focus rather than
a product focus and (3) use process based equipment. This will ensure that
economic justiability remains optimal and it will increase reusability.
As explained in Section 3.2, the important aspects to be supported in the
method are: (1) the choices at module level, (2) the creation of insight into the
integration possibilities of processes and (3) a process-based approach.
64
Chapter 3
Further method requirements are mainly based on the expected developments

in the eld of assembly (see Section 2.1.2). The main areas are: (1) a decrease
in system realization time and (2) an increase in product changes within the
product range.
3.4 Scope of the research

This section describes the scope of the research in terms of the application eld
that will be addressed in this study. An application eld is identied by mainly
the product- exibility studied in this research. However, other elds also, like
the mass assembly of consumer products will benet from this research due to
the market developmental trend towards smaller series and more customised
production.
Regarding the product type, the primary focus of this research will be on the
assembly of discrete electro-mechanical products produced in many variants
and in small to medium volumes. Within this product spectrum there is strong
market pressure for: more variants, reduced cost, fast delivery and low timeto-market for newly developed products.
As far as the assembly process is concerned, the primary focus is on exibly automated assembly, especially on joining processes. Of these processes the most
common ones are considered. Special processes like ultrasonic welding or processes relating to special parts ( exible, sticky, tangling parts etc.) are excluded
for reasons of simplicity of the study. The decision to emphasise joining processes derives from the fact that they represent the core processes in assembly.
Furthermore, these processes and the necessary equipment show the highest
degree of development. This is usefull when it comes to method evaluation.
3.5 The research approach

Section 3.5 describes the research approach: moves made in the basic research
to provide the deliverables described in Section 3.3. Figure 3.3 summarises this
research approach. Furthermore, it indicates which chapters cover which topics.
As indicated in Section 3.2.2, the method will employ modularity as a key
strategy. This will lead to two branches of overall method as will be described
in Chapters 4 and 5. One branch concerns itself with the development of general applicable modules. The other branch provides a method for developing a
Project description
65
Investigation of
Problem Domain
FAS Development
Method
Chapters 1{3
Chapter 4 (general structure)

Chapter 5 (details)
Requirements
Method
Chapter 6
Example
Chapter 7
Figure 3.3: Research approach
conguration for the specic assembly situation studied. To assure the general
applicability of the modules, their design is based on general assembly processes
and not on product-specic assembly processes. In the conguration development phase, this process oriented approach improves product independency
and reduces system development and set-up time.
For assembly process-based and product independent but generally applicable
modules, the assembly processes, have to be divided into basic blocks or operations. These operations form the basis of all the subsequent assembly processes.
The same type of operation can be applied to dierent processes. However, each
process may require dierent parameter settings for such operations.
Before the FAS development method can be implemented, it is necessary to
know the exact requirements of the FAS that is to be developed. These requirements are part of the method input. To comply with this requirement, an
additional method is developed that can identify the requirements of a FAS in
a specic situation. This method is described in Chapter 6.
Chapter 7| will give an example using the FAS development method.
66
Chapter 3
Part II
System development
method
4
FAS-development
method
This chapter introduces the overall structure of the FAS development method. Chapter 3 pointed out the need for such a
method and described the relevant general characteristics.
First of all the terminology and the classication of assembly
processes and composed products will be introduced. Next the
overall structure of the method will be presented. This structure will then be specied in more detail for each of the two
branches: module development and FAS conguration.
Chapter 5 will give a more detailed description of the method
presented in Chapter 4.
4.1 Classification of the assembly processes

and products
This section introduces the terminology used throughout the remainder of this
thesis by classifying the assembly processes as well as the products. The terminology is essential for a good understanding of the method presented in this
and the next chapter.
69
4.1.1 Classification of the assembly processes

The set of all assembly processes is an instance of the set of the production processes. The latter also encloses the fabrication processes: the processes used to
transform raw material into single parts. Since this thesis focuses on assembly,
the fabrication processes will not be further classied.
The set of assembly processes will, however, be further classied. The classication is depicted in Figure 4.1. For the purposes of this thesis, all the classes from
Production
processes
Assembly process
1
1..*
Process
classes
Joining
1..*
1..*
Processes
Screwing
1..*
1..*
Operations
(a) Classication
Rotation
(b) Example
Figure 4.1: Classication of the assembly processes and an example (classied using the UML
basics [Lar98])
production processes |top-level| to assembly operation |bottom-level| are

dened as follows:
Production processes: all actions involved in the creation of products.

70
Chapter 4
Assembly process class: a group of assembly processes for the performing of

similar assembly functions (The assembly process classes are identied
in Section 5.1.2).
Assembly process: a distinct process out of a class of processes.
Assembly operation: a single action changing only one aspect of the state
of the object acted upon.
The two major production process distinghuished are: fabrication and assembly
processes.
Multiple parent-child relations exist between the dierent levels of classication. Each element on any given level can sustain multiple children on the next
level. However, each given element can also have multiple parents on a previous level. An assembly process |e.g. screwing| might, for example, consist
of multiple operations |translation, rotation, torque execution etc.| but an
operation might also constitute multiple assembly processes |e.g. translation
also constitutes to the insertion process|. At each level, though, the set of
elements is nite.
Figure 4.1 shows the assembly classication along with an example using the
basics of the Unied Modeling Language (UML) [Lar98]. The arrows indicate
the direction of the inheritance of attributes: in other words, processes inherit
attributes from operations. For example, the associated attribute \accuracy"
of the operation \translation" is inherited by the process \insertion" for that
specic operation.
Furthermore, the number of instances is indicated. Instances of classes with
one parent only |or in the other direction with one child only| are indicated
as \1". A class instance with multiple parents |or in the other direction with
multiple children| is indicated as \1..*".
In addition to process classication, three additional items further dene instances of operations, processes, classes etc.: attributes, parameters and windows. Using an operation as an example, these three items are dened as
follows:
Attribute: a characteristic |e.g. velocity| of an operation or process.

Parameter: the value or range of values of an attribute of an operation or
process instance. This value might be constant or specied by a function

which is either based on time or on another parameter.
Window: the union of all the parameters of the operation or process instance
considered. The functionality of the operation instance is captured
within this process window.
71
In this thesis two kinds of assembly attributes are frequently used:
Operation attribute: the characteristic of the operation instance considered,

e.g. in the case of a translation: its velocity or accuracy.
Production attribute: an economic, production related characteristic of a

product. For example, production volume or maximum admissible production price/product.
In this thesis the three most frequently considered windows are: (1) the operation window, (2) the process window and (3) the module window. The rst
two dene the abilities of an operation or process instance. The third denes
the capabilities of a module.
4.1.2 Classification of the products

The class of products |a manufacturer's target object| includes two major
classes: single part products and composed products. In general the single part
products only result from fabrication processes. Since assembly is only involved
in the composed products class, the other classes will not be further considered.
Figure 4.2 depicts the product classication used in this thesis.
In this thesis the class known as composed products is further classied as
follows:
Composed product: a product composed of separate objects

Product range: all types of composed products to be assembled by one
system.
Product family: a group of products that show such similarity as far as as-
sembly is concerned that no reconguration of equipment is necessary

for assembly switches between the dierent products within the product
family.
Product variant: a product as a member of a product family.
Partial assembly: the partial composition of a composed product.
Part: a component fed into the assembly processes as a single entity
It should be noted that an object is classied in a given context. For one
manufacturer |the vendor| an object can be a product because it is his
target object. For the other manufacturer |the vendee| the same object can
be seen as a single assembly processes entity which means that the object will
classify as a part.
As with the assembly process classication, multiple parent-children relations
exist between the dierent levels of product classication. A partial assembly
72
Chapter 4
Composed
products
Assembled product
1
1..*
Product
ranges
Shavers
1
1..*
Product
families
Shavers HF-series
1
1..*
Product
variants
Shaver type HF3905
1..*
1..*
Partial
assemblies
Shaver head
1..*
1..*
Parts
(a) Classication
Shaver head housing
(b) Example
Figure 4.2: Classication of the composed products and an example (classied using the UML
basics [Lar98])
73
will for example be composed of several parts but it might also itself be part
of several product variants.
As with the assembly classication, the lowest level of product classication |
part-level| is further dened by parameters. It is the combination of parameter
ranges that denes the part window. All the upper levels of classication show
windows that are a result of the relations between the windows of the lower
levels. The part parameters are dened as:
Part parameter: the value of an attribute of a part, e.g. material or geomet-
rical dimension. The value might be specied as a function based on

other parameters. These terms are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
Part window:
Part
- Parameter 1
- Parameter 2
..
.
- Parameter n
Figure 4.3: Identication of part, part window and parameter
It must be noted that a part parameter usually shows a constant value. An

example of an exception to this is the length of a spring which may vary during
assembly.
4.1.3 A combined example of the process and product

classification
The classications described in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 can be combined into
one example.
Figure 4.4 provides an example of the product and process classication, in
this case for an electric shaver. The classes of part, partial assembly and product variants are depicted. The product variant depicted is part of a family of
shavers. This family is again part of a range of products which in turn is part
of the class of composed products.
The fastening of one of the screws on the shavers housing is taken as an example for the process classication. As a production process this classies as
an assembly process. At process class level the fastening is a joining process.
Within the joining processes, the considered process is a screwing process. Two
74
Chapter 4
operations involved in this screwing process are the translation and rotation
operations.
4.2 The structure of the method

This section introduces the structure of the method required to design a exibly
automated assembly system. Two branches can be distinguished in the method:
(I) development of a set of system modules and (II) FAS conguration. The
rst subsection provides a general introduction to the overall structure of the
method, including the relation between the two branches. The second and third
subsection dene the structure of the separate branches.
4.2.1 The general structure: division into two branches

Section 3.2.2 discussed using modularity as a key strategy. Applying modularity
requires: (1) a set of standard modules and (2) a conguration method: a
method to determine the best combination of modules for a specic situation.
At the moment neither of these conditions has been fullled which makes it
necessary for two developments to take place:
I. A method that will facilitate the realization of a set of standard modules
II. A method that will support the conguration of assembly systems
for specic assembly situations: specic to the product range and the
production parameters.
Both the method for development of a set of modules and the method for FAS
conguration form separate branches within the overall structure. Figure 4.5
depicts the overall structure of the two methods.
The rst branch |the method for development of a set of modules| must lead
to assembly modules suitable for the type of industry considered. The input to
the method is the assembly process focus that is representative for that type of
industry. The output is a set of modules that together cover this process focus.
The second branch |the FAS conguration method| must result in a suitable
FAS conguration for the production situation considered. The method input
is the process focus of the production situation. The output is a proposal for
a conguration of modules from the set of modules that together best covers
the process focus of the production situation. The conguration of modules
perhaps completed by some product specic elements constitutes the assembly
system.
75
(a) Product variant
(b) Partial assembly
(c) Parts
Translation
Rotation
(Operation)
Screw
(Process)
Join
(Process class)
Assembly
(Production
process)
Figure 4.4: Example of the major product and process classication for a Philips electric
shaver [KLM96]
76
Chapter 4
Branch I:
Branch II:
Assembly
processes
Product range &

Production parameters
Development of
a set of modules
FAS
Conguration
FAS design
Module design
Figure 4.5: The structure of the two methods: development of a set of modules and FAS
conguration
It must be noted that the process focus for the FAS conguration is a subset of
the process focus for the set of modules developed in the rst branch. Processes
outside the process focus of the development of the set of modules are not
covered by the modules. If these processes are required for the production
situation it might not be possible to nd a suitable FAS conguration.
Both methods are based upon assembly processes. With both methods the
input as well as the output can be expressed in terms of processes. On the
input side the process focus to be covered is dened. On the output side the
capability of the equipment |whether this constitutes modules or a FAS| is
best expressed in terms of the assembly process capabilities.
Assembly process-based modules ensure that the results of both methods and
the interfaces between both methods, i.e. the method interface will be good.
The module windows are an expression of the module's process capabilities,
i.e. the process window for the module. Comparisons between process requirements and the equipment capabilities thus becomes a matter of process window
comparison.
Furthermore the assembly process-based modules increase product independency and limit the number of module types. Dierent product variants in
general hardly dier when expressed in terms of processes. Product-based
equipment might reveal diculties with dierent product variants, process
based equipment will show this problem to a lesser extent.
77
It is to be expected that process-based equipment also reduces the number

of modules. This is because multiple product variants are covered within the
same process focus. A product focus would require more modules since product
variants do dier as far as product focus is concerned. Having fewer modules
is favorable since this reduces the conguration eort (see also Figure 4.7).
Whether modules are developed by the user or by an external vendor, the
method of Branch I remains the same. The dierence might be in the process
scope dened. The user will most probably dene a process scope pointed more
towards his specic application than an external vendor would. This will reduce
the applicability of the dened module for other applications.
Section 4.2.2 describes the structure of the method for development of the
set of modules in more detail. Section 4.2.3 describes the structure of the
conguration method in more detail.
4.2.2 The structure of Branch I: module development

The method employed for development of the set of modules must result in
a set of modules that is based on the assembly processes. The set of assembly processes considered, should be limited to the ones frequently used in the
industry for which the set of modules is being developed. In this thesis the
emphasis is on the type of industry described in Section 3.4.
The method is closely related to the classication of assembly processes presented in Section 4.1.1. Fully dened process specications for the modules must
be present in both branches. Branch I requires the desired module capability
for the development of the modules. Branch II requires module specication
for good selection. Both |the desired capabilities and the specications| are
only fully dened when all lower process classication levels have been fully
dened.
Branch I thus requires the full identication of all the lower levels of the processes used in the specied industry. Next, these process windows must be
divided between the module windows in such a manner that all production
situations can be covered.
The previous considerations reveal the overall structure of the method for
development of the set of modules. Four actions are required: (I.1) process
focus identication, (I.2) assembly operations identication, (I.3) parameter
identication and (I.4) module specication identication. This is depicted in
Figure 4.6.
The contents of the four actions are discussed in the next paragraphs.
78
Chapter 4
I.1: Process focus identication

Identication of the set of assembly processes
common to the relevant industry
I.2: Assembly operations identication

Identication of the assembly operations required for each of these processes
I.3: Parameter identication

Identication of the parameters for each of
these operations
I.4: Module specication identication

Identication of the specications of the modules in relation to the dened processes
Figure 4.6: Structure of the method for development of an assembly process based set of
modules
79
Step I.1: Process focus identication is the rst step towards full identi-
cation of all process levels. In this step, the set of processes is determined that
best covers the product ranges in the industry specied: the process focus. For
all processes within this processs focus, suitable modules must be developed.
As an input, a spot check of the products representative for the industry in

question should be analysed. These products must be analysed on its required
assembly processes. Together, these processes dene the process focus for the
development of the set of modules.
Section 5.1 will elaborate on process focus identication.
Step I.2: Assembly operations identication further denes the pro-
cesses within the process focus determined in step I.1. This rened denition
is necessary for the development of suitable low level modules. This is an important step since in most cases, the set of assembly operations is more limited
than the set of processes within the process focus. When modules are designed
to perform certain operations they might be used for multiple processes thus
increasing exibility and decreasing the required hardware.
Section 5.2 will elaborate on the process of operation identication.
Step I.3: Parameter identication is the nal step in the process of full
identication of all process levels. All operation instances determined in Step I.2
must be further dened in terms of the operation windows. The boundaries of
the windows are specied by the parameters of the operations. The dimensions
of the windows are expressed in the attributes of the operation. Parameter
identication thus requires two actions:
I.3.a. Attribute identication: an identication of the attributes of each operation
I.3.b. Value assignment to the attributes
The identication of the associated parameters is based on the parameters of
the product spot check. Section 5.3 will elaborate on the process of parameter
identication.
After completion of Step I.3, the process focus is dened in all underlying
process levels. Step I.4 continues on this by identifying the module specications
that together cover this process focus.
80
Chapter 4
Step I.4: Module specication identication involves determination of

the required module window. This is an important step because it denes the
technical as well as the economical applicability of the module.
The specication of a module is the result derived from three groups of specications:
Specications of the operation(s) to be executed: these identify the pa-
rameters essential for the correct technical execution of the process.

Together they dene the module window which is based on the full
identication of processes on the lower classication levels. This group
of specications holds the key to the technical ability to execute the
process.
Specied relations between operations also result in module specications, e.g. correlated moves.
Specications of the production parameters: these identify the ranges
of certain attributes of the process window to comply with the more
economical requirements indicated by the production parameters.
Specications for the module interfaces: these ensure the smooth conguration of the assembly system from the modules. The specications
include protocols for mounting, energy supply and data transfer. These
specications are not studied in this thesis since assembly modules with
standardised mechanical and electrical interfaces are already commercially available like the MoRSE product range [Amt97].
Modules can be specied according to their process level |e.g. screw module|
, operation level |e.g. rotation module| or a combination of these levels. An
example of the latter is an insertion module for uni-directional insertion with an
added extra rotation for insertion at a dierent angle. It should be noted that
small module windows increase the exibility by covering the dierent process
windows necessary for the product range: the combination of module windows
can thus be better ne-tuned. On the other hand using small module windows
increases the conguration eort so creating more possibilities or choices which
complicates the choice between modules and the physical connections between
the modules to be realized. Using large module windows gives the opposite
result. Figure 4.7 illustrates the controverse between maximizing exibility and
minimizing conguration eort in relation to the number of modules in the set
of modules.
Determining the appropriate module window is a dicult process. The specications accompanying the operations to be executed require choices related to
the integration or separation of operations into or between modules. The specications that go with the production parameters require, in the customer's
case, expectations concerning the ranges of these parameters.
81
nu I
mb nc
er rea
of sin
m g
od
ul
es
Flexibility
Best
Worst
Conguration eort
Figure 4.7: Controverse between maximizing exibility and minimizing conguration eort
The integration of operations results in a larger module window, i.e. in more

capabilities and the need for fewer modules. Separation, however, gives the
reverse result. Integration thus reduces the customisability of the FAS but
increases the ease of conguration. In these terms, separation contradicts to
integration. Ease of conguration requires few modules and thus the integration
of operations. Customisability requires many modules with few capabilities or,
in other words, the separation of operations.
In support of the decisions on integration and separation there are six integration rules that can be dened. Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) will elaborate on these
rules.
Next to determination of a process scope, a production parameter scope can
be determined. This can be achieved by using the same spot check as in the
rst step of this method.
Chapter 5 (Section 5.4) will elaborate on the process of module specication.
4.2.3 The structure of Branch II: FAS configuration

The FAS-conguration method must result in the best possible conguration of
modules for the specic situation for which the FAS is developed. This situation
is characterized by the product range and the production parameters for the
product range.
The contents of the method closely resembles the contents of Branch I. Four
steps are distinguished in Branch II: (II.1) identify the processes necessary for
82
Chapter 4
the product range assembly, (II.2) reproduce |for each process| the necessary operations as identied per process in Branch I, (II.3) reproduce the
attributes and identify the parameters per operation and (II.4) select the best
conguration of modules for the given situation. These steps are depicted in
Figure 4.8
II.1: Process identication

Identify assembly processes needed for assembly of the product range
II.2: Reproduce operations

Reproduce operations for the processes from
Branch I
II.3: Parameter identication

Reproduce attributes from Branch I and valuate them to parameters per operation
II.4: Module selection
Select suitable modules for the given situation

Figure 4.8: Structure of the method for conguration of a product range based FAS
The input of both branches is a set of products to be analysed for the required
assembly processes. The module specications |module windows| identied
in Branch I, are compared with the required process windows in Branch II.
Module windows encompassing the required process windows indicate that
modules are technically capable of executing the processes.
As in Branch I, the assembly processes required for the product range considered must be fully identied into their lower levels. On the input side, the
dierence with Branch I lies in the set of products to be analysed. Branch I
is based on a spot check of products representative for the specied industry
in question. Branch II is based on the actual product range |further specied
in the basic classication levels| in a specic situation. On the output side,
the dierence between the branches lies in the specied |Branch I| versus
required |Branch II| capabilities. Branch I species the process window to
be fullled by the module, Branch II determines the minimum process window
level required for the execution of the associated operation(s).
83
The details of the four steps of the method are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Step II.1: Process identication is the rst step towards full identication
of all process levels for the product range considered. This is a process similar to
the identication of the assembly process focus in the rst branch. All products
within the product range should be analysed according to the required assembly
processes. Only assembly processes identied in the rst branch can be used.
With other processes no modules will be available.
At the same time requirements relating to the order of the assembly processes
can be determined. This information can be used for the nal conguration of
the FAS.
Step II.2: Reproduce operations further denes the processes identied

in Step II.1 into the next level. Reproduction of the operations is a matter
of simply copying the next level in the classication of the specic assembly
process instance. In Branch I all the operations necessary for each of the process
types are already identied. These are the same for the processes in the second
branch.
Step II.3: Parameter identication is the nal step in the process of full
identication of the process levels. Similar to Step I.3, parameter identication
in Branch II requires two actions:
II.3.a. The reproduction of attributes is the process of copying all attributes
identied in Branch I for the operation instance considered.
II.3.b. The identication of parameters is the determination of the value ranges
that each parameter must cover. This activity must be executed in every
assembly system design process.
The ranges of the parameters should be determined on the basis of two dierent
information sources:
The production parameters are dened according to the highest level of
the assembly process classication. They should be analysed for their
impact on the lower levels of processes and operations. An example
of this is the production parameter of the production volume which is
related to the operation parameter of velocity
The product design contains information on parts |part parameters| as
well as information on the relations between parts |part relation
84
Chapter 4
parameters|. An example is given for both categories. An example

of part information is to be found in the length of a peg to be fully inserted in relation to the distance a translation should cover to execute
the insertion. An example of part relation information is the relative position accuracy of two parts to the accuracy of the operation executing
the positioning.
Step II.4: Module selection is divided into three stages:

II.4.a. Module capability testing: selection of modules technically capable
of executing the operations or processes
II.4.b. Workstation identication: identication of technically feasible workstation congurations per process or combination of processes
II.4.c. Workstation combination selection: selection of the economically
best combination of workstations for the assembly of the product range
At the rst stage the required process window determined during the previous
steps is compared to the module windows. This comparison can be either on the
operation level or on the process level. If the required process window ts within
the module window, this module will be capable of technically performing the
operation or process. A process window ts into another one if the required
range of each dimension for the rst process window is fully covered by the
range relating to the same dimension for the second process window.
Parameter b
Parameter b
Two examples of module capability testing are given in Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9.a
gives an example of a module not capable of executing the required operation
or process. Figure 4.9.b gives an example of a module capable of executing the
required operation or process.
Parameter a
module window does
(a) not enclose process

window
Module
window
Parameter a
(b)
Process
window
module window
encloses process
window
Figure 4.9: Module capability testing
85
The second stage identies combinations of modules capable of performing

parts of the product range assembly processes. An important issue is the matter
of checking the integration possibilities of several operations into modules.
The third stage identies the combinations of workstations that best suit the
production parameters.
It should be noted that the assembly sequence can in uence the way in which
suitable modules are selected. The assembly sequence is, however, determined
through the high-level choices (see Section 2.5) which are made prior to the
execution of the FAS conguration method presented here.
Section 5.5 elaborates on the process of module selection.
4.3 Reflections
The goal of the research of this thesis as presented in Section 3.2.3 is to enable
the design of customised assembly systems.
Chapter 4 has presented a method to do so. The major outlines of this method
have been sketched in this chapter. First a classication of products as well as
processes has been dened which form the base of the method. Next, a general
overview of the method was outlined. The method has been divided into two
branches: (I) module development and (II) FAS conguration. Both branches
have been further divided into four steps that have been brie y described in
Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.
Chapter 5 further details the steps of both branches.
86
Chapter 4
5
Detailing the
FAS-development
method
This chapter details the FAS-development method introduced
in Chapter 4. The steps of process, operation and parameter
identication, parameter valuation, module specication and
module selection are detailed.
5.1 Step I.1 and II.1: Process (focus)

identification
This section details the steps I.1 and II.1 of process focus and process identication. This is used in the rst step of both branches as introduced in Section 4.2.2
and Section 4.2.3.
Section 5.1.1 presents the method for process identication. Section 5.1.2 then
details the similar process of identication of process classes. These process
classes are an aid to the process identication for a product as is described in
Section 5.1.3.
87
5.1.1 The method for process identification

In both branches, the rst step is to identify the processes necessary to assemble
a product or a group of products. Acquiring a full process identication for a
product is a complex task. This task can be eased by using standard sequences
of process classes.
The task of identifying the standard sequences of process classes is similar to
the task of identifying the processes for a given product without using process
classes.
Assembly processes are executed by the equipment on the product. This reveals
the two elements |equipment and product| to be studied to identify the
required assembly processes. The equipment as an executer of the processes
and the product as a state changing element because of the execution of the
processes. Analysis of the execution of the processes and analysis of the changes
in the state of the product identify the required assembly processes.
The above considerations reveal three substeps for the method for process
identication:
I.1.a. Identication of the subsequent stages of a product in construction
I.1.b. Identication of the system components: the generally present components in an assembly system that directly contribute to the goal of the
assembly process: progress in terms of product stages.
I.1.c. Analysis of the processes executed by the system components
This consists of processes executed by the system components (1) for
the product and (2) for the other system components
These three substeps can be used for the identication of the standard sequences
of process classes as well as for the identication of the required processes for
a given product. Subsection 5.1.2 executes the identication of process classes.
Subsection 5.1.3 presents the method for process classes based identication of
processes for a given product.
5.1.2 Process class identification

This section identies common classes of processes in assembly systems. The
three substeps described in Subsection 5.1.1 required to identify assembly processes are relevant to the process identication of specic products. A similar
process is that of the identication of common classes of processes in assembly systems. Instead of identifying specic processes for specic elements, the
elements and relations to other elements are studied in a more abstract manner.
88
Chapter 5
Step I.1.a: identication of the subsequent stages of a product in construction: this was merely carried out in Section 4.1.2 where a description
was given of the classication of composed products. The product stage is the
nal state to be reached in the assembly system since the product is the output
of the system. Accordingly the classication, partial assembly stage and part
stage are the stages to be passed before the product stage is reached.
Assembly processes ensure progress in product stages: assembling a part automatically makes it an element of the higher stage of partial assembly. If the
last part is added, the partial assembly as a whole can be de-xtured which
brings it in the product stage.
In between processes a decline in stage level is possible: a partial assembly can
be treated as a part of the next process e.g. a partial assembly to be inserted
to form one part in another partial assembly set up. It is also possible there
is no change in state but from instance only. For example, a partial assembly
on which a part is added becomes a new instance but the instance might still
classify under partial assembly stage.
The three subsequent stages relating to a product in construction are depicted
in Figure 5.1. The arrows indicate the possible transitions between the stages.
Part
Partial
assembly
Product
Figure 5.1: Subsequent stages of a product in construction
Step I.1.b: identication of the system components. The primary sys-
tem components are those components that directly contribute to the goal
of the assembly process: progress in terms of product stages. The only processes assuring this progress are those that join a part with a partial assembly
to result in another partial assembly or product. The primary |and generally available| components for the joining processes are (interchangeable)
tools and non-interchangeable manipulators. In general the manipulator is not
interchanged unless this happens during reconguration.
The relation between a tool and a manipulator is not xed. Tools can be interchangeable which means that the relation between a specic tool and a
manipulator can be established and broken. Only a valid tool-manipulator
combination can execute assembly processes.
89
Figure 5.2 depicts the primary components of an assembly system together

with the non-xed relation between these same components.
Tool
Manipulator
Tool-manipulator
combination
Figure 5.2: The system components
Step I.1.c: Analysis of the processes executed by the system components . In this case, process classes instead of process instances are idenitied.
The analysis is based on the combination of the product stages and the system
components. The tool-manipulator combinations execute the processes that
establish progress in product stage development. The process classes are identied by analyzing the product stages and system components as well as their
relations.
During the assembly of products it is only the manipulator that is constantly

present. The parts, partial assemblies, products and tools are only temporarily
associated with the primary assembly process. However, when not associated
these elements have to be present or else association with the assembly process
becomes impossible. The transition between presence and association will reveal
the process classes. A presence but lack of association between the processes is
represented by a stored state |storage| of the parts, the partial assemblies,
the products and the tools. This storage must be taken into account during the
process class identication phase. This is what ensures that there is process
class identication in the transition between presence and association.
Only the relation between the parts and the tool-manipulator combination will
be considered, not the possible relations between the tool-manipulator combination and the partial assembly or the products. The relations between the
parts and the tool-manipulator combination in general are necessary for the
execution of the joining processes thus necessary in the transition from part
stage to partial assembly stage. The other transitions |from the partial assembly stage to the part or the product stage| do not necessarily require a
relation with the tool-manipulator combination. In this respect only the relation between the tool-manipulator combination and the parts is necessary for
identication of the assembly processes.
90
Chapter 5
Figure 5.3 depicts the basic structure for identifying the main assembly processes. Figure 5.4 depicts the identied assembly process classes.
Tool
storage
Store
Retrieve
Tool
Grasp
Manipulator
Release
Tool-manipulator
combination
System
Grasp
Release
Part
Fixture
or Join
De-xture
Retrieve
Part
storage
Product
Partial
assembly
De-xture
Retrieve
Store
Assembly
storage
Product
Store
Product
storage
Figure 5.3: Basic structure for identifying the main assembly processes
Each relation between the elements given in Figure 5.3 indicates a process class.
Four process classes can be identied based on the relations between storage
and the elements:
Retrieve: the class in which an object is retrieved from storage and presented
to the system in the right position and in the right orientation.
Store: the class in which an object is transfered from the system and stored
in its storage place.
91
Parts:
Join
Retrieve
Grasp
Part
processes
Tools:
Retrieve
Release
Fixture
Assemblies:
Retrieve
Move
Grasp
Store
De-xture
Part
processes
Release
Store
Products:
Store
Figure 5.4: Main process classes in an assembly system
Grasp: the class in which an object is temporarily grasped by a system

element.
Release: the class where a grasped object is released.

Four more process classes are to be identied at the part stage or partial
assembly stage:
Move: the class where a part is moved |translated and rotated| from the
position where it is grasped to the position where it has to be joined or

xtured.
Join: the class where a part joins with a partial assembly.
Fixture: the class where the rst part of a partial assembly is xed in position
and given an orientation that is relative to the xing element.
De-xture: the class where the xation of the xture process is removed.
After de-xturing the partial assembly comes to be classied either as
a part or as a product.
The following process class is frequently encountered but it is not dened under
the main process classes and it is not subject of this thesis:
Check: all processes that examine an object's state or supervise a process.

92
Chapter 5
5.1.3 Process identification of a product
Process class-based identication of processes: the aim is to identify all

the assembly processes needed to assemble a specic product. This process is
carried out in Branch I as well as in Branch II. In Branch I a product spot check
is analysed whereas in Branch II the underlying product range is analysed.
How the processes exactely occur might well depend on the assembly sequence
of the product. However, this sequence is determined by the high level choices
|see Section 2.5| before the FAS development method is started.
The process classes presented in Figure 5.4 are to be used as a basis for process
identication. With each part the associated classes must be checked for the
occurrence of a specic process. The same holds true for assembly, tools and
products. Within each class the specic process in question must be identied.
In the joining processes class, for example, the specic type of process can be:
peg-in-hole insertion, welding, screwing etc. In using the classes as a basis it is
assumed that the identied classes cover |in Branch I| the process focus of
the underlying industry or, |in Branch II| the product range processes.
An example is given that is based on the product depicted in Figure 5.5.

The product consists of a base part (A) on which a peg (B) and a screw (C)
z
y
B
. FB
. FC
A
Figure 5.5: Example product for process identication
must be mounted. The peg must be picked up at a xed feeder position (FB)
and assembled at a xed position on the base part. The screw must be picked
up at a dierent xed feeder position (FC) and, depending on the product
variant, assembled at a variable point along the x-axis.
93
By way of example peg B is analysed. Tracing the process classes for a part
reveals the following processes:
Retrieve: retrieve the peg from its storage and present it at feeder pick up
point FB in the correct orientation
Grasp: the peg is grasped by the gripper

Move: the gripper is moved to the insertion position together with the grasped
peg
Join: the peg is joined to base part A by means of an insertion process
Release: the peg is released by the gripper
If the identied processes are combined with the assembly sequence this reveals
a complete assembly process diagram for the product.
In case of a sub-batch (see page 28) the sub-batch of partial assemblies or
products is considered to be one entity. The parts are single entities which is
why the part processes are executed per part. The processes for assemblies or
products are however executed on the sub-batches of partial assemblies. The
tools processes are independent of the use of a sub-batch. The only dierence is
that the part processes are executed multiple times |according to the number
of products in the batch size|, before the tools can be changed for a dierent
process.
5.2 Step I.2: Assembly operations identification

This section details the Step I.2 of assembly operation identication. The processes identied in Steps I.1 and II.1 as described in Section 5.1 have to be
further decomposed into the assembly operations.
Section 5.2.1 presents the method for assembly operation identication. Section 5.2.2 then presents an example of the method. Finally, Section 5.2.3
presents the operations identied in the joining processes.
5.2.1 The method for assembly operation identification

The processes identied in the Steps I.1 and II.1 have to be further divided
into assembly operations. This identication is based upon the identication
of the changes in the state of the object acted upon by the process. The state
of an object is described by the combination of all relevant object parameters
94
Chapter 5
at a given point in time. Each change in parameter value between the beginning, intermediate and nishing state of the object identies an operation. The
operation is the parameter modier.
A second operation identier is the necessity to resist external in uences
upon parameters. This indicates that an operation is capable of preserving
a parameter state. The operation is the parameter stabilizer.
The above considerations on identication of assembly operations thus results
in the need to execute three steps:
I.2.a. Establish all the relevant beginning, intermediate and end state parameters of the basic process object
I.2.b. Establish which parameters:
(a) change their value or
(b) might be aected by external in uences
I.2.c. Establish which operation is the associated parameter modier or parameter stabilizer
This method is illustrated in Figure 5.6 for the state changes between begin
and end state.
Begin state:
Object
- Parameter 1=a0
- Parameter 2=b0
..
.
- Parameter n = z0
End state:
- Parameter 1=a1 a1 = a0
- Parameter 2=b1 b1 6= b0
..
.
- Parameter n = z1
Operation window
- Parameter 1
Operation - Parameter 2
..
.
- Parameter n
Figure 5.6: Identifying the operation, operation window and operation parameter
95
5.2.2 An example
The example product depicted in Figure 5.5 is used. The move and insertion
process for peg B are analysed. The steps mentioned in Section 4.2.2 are carried
out:
I.2.a. Establish all the relevant beginning, intermediate and end state parameters of the basic process object:
Begin state move: as was outlined in the previous section the insertion process starts with peg B being grasped by the gripper at
point FB.
Intermediate state 1 move: place the peg B just above the feeder
point FB to avoid collision with base part A
Intermediate state 2 move: place the peg B above the insertion
point
End state move & begin state insertion: place the peg B just above
the insertion point
End state insertion: as indicated in the previous section the insertion process ends with the peg B being grasped by the gripper
inserted in the part A base.
I.2.b. Establish which parameters change their value or might be aected by
external in uences:
Begin state to intermediate state 1 of the move process: only a
change in the position of the peg in the z direction is relevant. No
external in uences are identied.
Intermediate state 1 to intermediate state 2 of the move process:

only a change in position of the peg in
external in uences are identied.
direction is relevant. No
Intermediate state 2 to end state of the move process: only a change
in position of the peg in z direction is relevant. No external in uences are identied.
Begin state to end state of the insertion process: a change in position of the peg in z direction is relevant. An external in uence
might be present because of the contact between part A and the
peg. Depending on what are the exact characteristics of the parts
this might result in a change in force or torque acting upon the
peg.
I.2.c. Establish which operation is the associated parameter modier or parameter stabilizer:
Translation (in z direction)
Translation (in x direction)
Translation (in z direction)
Eectuate a force
96
Chapter 5
The translation operations are indicated in Figure 5.7.

z
y
x
B
. FB
A
Figure 5.7: Translation operations identied in the example process
Note that the feeder pick up point FB has been positioned on the same y position as the insertion point. If FB was positioned dierently, an extra
translation along the y -axis would be necessary. Considerations on positioning these essential positions are part of the integration rules introduced in
Section 4.2.3 and detailed in Section 5.4.
5.2.3 Operations involved in the joining processes

The process of operation identication was carried out for the joining processes
in the way described in the classications created by Boothroyd [BPM82] and
DIN [din67]. The result is a set of ten basic operations as listed in Table 5.1:
- Translation
- Rotation
- Force transfer
- Torque transfer
- Material properties changes

- Adding material
- Removing material
- Preserve position
- Preserve orientation
- Check operations
Table 5.1: Operations identied in the joining processes
The process classes identied in Section 5.1.2 are analysed for the occurrence
of the operations given in Table 5.1. The result is listed in Table 5.2. This
table can be used for initial identication to determine which operations are
necessary for a given assembly process class. Eventually this table should be
extended to include the identication of operations per process instead of per
process class.
97
on
ati
ent
ori sition
ve
l
ser e po
Pre serv teria
Pre ve ma rial
te
mo
Re dd ma nge
A
cha
ties que
per Tor
e
pr o
orc
ial
F
ter
e
Ma
tat
Ro e
at
nsl
Tra
Parts:
Retrieve
Grasp
Move
Join
Fixture
Release
Assemblies:
Retrieve
Store
De-xture
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Products:
Store
Tools:
Retrieve
Grasp
Release
Store
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 5.2: Operations generally present in each process class
98
Chapter 5
5.3 Step I.3 and II.3: Parameter identification

Section 4.2.2 pointed out that parameter identication requires two actions: (1)
attribute identication in the case of Branch I |step I.3.a| or attribute reproduction in the case of Branch II |step II.3.a| and (2) value assignment to the
attributes |step I.3.b and II.3.b|. Both actions are explained in Section 5.3.
The identication of the attributes is based on the associated object attribute.
The object attribute is only one-dimensional. All aspects that are relevant to
a dimension in association with the object attribute might reveal attributes
for the associated operation. the dimensional aspects include: range, change in
time and relevance of intermediate values.
The attributes are identied by describing a general state on the dimension.
State characteristics are: the point and the resistance to external in uences.
Furthermore, the accuracy of each identied parameter and the mathematical
derivatives of each parameter for the time complete the set of parameters of a
dimension.
When these attributes are identied, value assignment is necessary to derive a
complete set of parameters. For the value assignment |which includes value
description by functions| the point itself as well as the transition between
points must be considered.
Figure 5.8 depicts the basics for attribute identication and value assignment.
Start
State:
-
Point
Accuracy
Derivatives
Resistance external
in uences
End
Transition between states

- Start state
- Intermediate states
- End state
Figure 5.8: Base of parameter identication
Extra parameters could be identied that are dependent on the ones identied here, e.g. the parameter 'position range' depends on the minimum and
maximum of the parameter 'position'.
As an example, Table 5.3 identies the attributes of the translation operation,
e.g. the translation operations of the example of Figure 5.7.
99
State:
Point
Accuracy
Attribute:
1st derivative
2nd derivative
Position
Velocity
Accelaration
Position accuracy
Velocity accuracy
Accelaration accuracy
In uence
resistance
Stiness
Stability
|
Table 5.3: Example on the identication of attributes for the translation operation
Determination of the parameters requires value assignment to the attributes

for a specic operation instance. This value assignment requires analysis of
the production and product data. For example, accelaration might be limited
because of product fragility or the mean velocity of the translation might be
prescribed based on the required production volume.
The identication of the parameters does not necessarily has to be on all attributes. It is important to identify all attributes, however it depends on the
production situation considered, which attributes are taken into account and
thus require full identication of the associated parameters. For example, the
attribute of velocity accuracy might be prescribed in some situations where
operations must be synchronised. In other cases the velocity accuracy might
not be prescribed, thus the attribute does not have to be identied into a
parameter.
5.4 Step I.4: Module specification identification

The identication of the process and operation windows was carried out in
the rst part of Branch I. The occurrence of processes and operations and the
valuation of parameters is carried out by analysing a product spot check (see
Section 4.2.2).
The determination of the specications of the modules in Branch I is based on
the required process and operation windows necessary for the process focus.
The module specications dene module windows that together fully cover
all process windows of the process focus. Each dened module window then
dictates the required capabilities of that module.
Section 4.2.2 dened three categories of specications for modules: (1) specication by means of the operation(s) to be executed, (2) specication by means
of the production parameters and (3) specications according to the interfaces.
The module window is a result of the rst two categories. The module window
100
Chapter 5
denes the technical as well as the economical applicability of the module in

dierent situations.
To support the process of module specication |module window denition|
six strategies on the modularization process can be applied. These strategies are
depicted in Figure 5.9. Three strategies emerged from the link between productdesign, assembly process and assembly equipment as depicted in Figure 2.3:
Increase the module window: this strategy increases the exibility of the
module so that it can be used in more dierent situations. An example

is the extension of the range of a linear motor thus enabling it to also
reach other relevant positions.
Decrease the product window: this strategy decreases the required exibility of the module which becomes simpler and thus less costly. The
strategy requires a (re)design of the product.
Functionality selection: this strategy simplies the equipment by only sup-
porting limited functionality. However, at the same time, this reduces

the freedom in the design of the product. An example may be found
in the decision to only use screwing as a joining process means. This
strategy reduces the number of modules required to congure the FAS.
Three more strategies are deducted from the process of integration or separation
of operations between modules:
Combine operations into one module: this strategy reduces the number
of modules in a system by making the modules more exible so that

dierent operations can be executed. This strategy results in higher level
modules. An example is the combination of rotations and translations
within one module for in case this combination is often required.
Separate module windows: in general this strategy results in processes that
can be executed faster but which take more time to change. In the
case of the screwing and rotational positioning of a part to provide the
same degree of freedom, one can choose to construct a separate module
for each of the settings of this rotation. This strategy is illustrated in
Figure 5.10.
Integrate module windows: this strategy is opposite to the previous one.
In general this strategy results in processes that are executed slower

but in exibility that can be applied faster. This strategy is illustrated
in Figure 5.10.
101
Figure 5.9: Six strategies on module specication
102
Chapter 5
Decrease product Functionality

window
selection
Product alterations
Separate or
module
integrate module Increase
window
windows
Operation 2
Operation 1
Operation 2
Combine
operations into
one module
Operation 1
Module alterations
Product
window
Module
window
Insertion:
Accuracy
Module B
(Insertion only)
Range
Accuracy
Module C
Screwing:
Range
(Insertion and
screwing)
Accuracy
Module A
(Screwing only)
Range
Figure 5.10: Example of the combination and separation of parameter-ranges into modules
5.5 Step II.4: Module selection

The nal step of Branch II identies the combinations of modules suitable for
the assembly of the given product range based on the estimated production
parameters. The modules are selected from the set of modules identied in
Branch I. The module selection is based on the required process and operation
windows as identied in the previous part, in Branch II. The selection of the
best combination of modules |workstation conguration selection| is based
on the production parameters valid for the product range.
As indicated in Section 4.2.3, three substeps must be executed if the best
workstation congurations are to be identied:
II.4.a. Module capability testing: selection of modules technically capable
of executing the operations or processes
II.4.b. Workstation identication: identication of technically feasible workstation congurations
II.4.c. Workstation combination selection: selection of the economically
best workstation combination for the assembly of the product range
103
These three substeps will be explained in further detail in this section.
Step II.4.a: module capability testing. The process of module selection
involves identifying module windows |as determined in Branch I| which together cover the required process and operation windows |as identied in
Branch II|. Module capabilities and product range assembly requirements are
dened on the same level: process and operation windows. Comparison at this
level indicates the possible selections.
The comparison of the windows is based on logical relations. The requirements
identied in Branch II should be met according to the capabilities laid down
in Branch I. This results in easy to automate comparisons between parameter
P and the required threshold values a and b such as:
P
= a;
P > a; P < a or a < P < b
The threshold values can either be constant values or functions of time or other
parameters. Module windows that satisfy the requirements qualify for selection.
It should be noticed that at this stage in the procedure, modules with overcapabilities also qualify for the considered operations. Thus a SCARA would
classify as a simple translation if parameters like accuracy and range comply
with the requirements.
Another possibility for the module capability testing, is the test of combinations
of modules. In that case, the module window of a combination of modules must
enclose the required process window.
However, drawing up the module window of a combination of modules out
of the separate module windows is a complex task. The result depends on the
type of attribute considered and the conguration of the modules. For example,
mounting two linear stepper motors on top of each other gives: accumulation of
the velocities but a stepwidth depending on the conguration and the separate
stepwidths. Drawing up the module window of a combination of modules is not
studied in this thesis.
Step II.4.b: workstation identication. In this step, technically feasible

workstation congurations must be identied. An important part of this is the
analysis of the possible integration of operations or processes into modules.
After this has been checked a possible workstation conguration can be drawn
up. These two parts will be explained in more detail.
104
Chapter 5
Module operation integration is the process of identifying modules capable

of executing multiple operations. Integration is possible if one type of module
qualies for dierent operations.
Integrating operations into one module places extra requirements on the operation or module. An example is: two translations can be integrated only if they
are (1) on one line and the module can cover the full range required or (2) if
the module has an extra degree of freedom and can thus reach the two translations that are not on one line. Another important example is the requirement
on execution in time. If for example a translation and a rotation have to be
executed simultaneously, the module must be capable of coordination between
the translation and rotation it executes.
If these requirements are met, three dierent operation integration possibilities
can be checked:
Similar operation, object in common: check for the possibility of executing both operations on the object in common in such a manner that
the change in the relative state between the objects remains the same.
Similar operation, dierent objects: check for a common reference object.
If, for example, two translations are executed on two dierent objects
but both translations are relative to a common object, integration is
possible as though the operations act upon a common object.
The second possibility is that there is no reference object in common.
In that case integration might be possible by (temporarily) joining the
two objects. The operation will act upon these two objects as if they
were one.
Non similar operations: check for the possibility of integrating the dierent
operations into one module. This is only possible with modules capable
of executing dierent operations.
These three integration rules are further explained in the example given in
Figure 5.11. The example is based on a sub batch of partial assemblies where one
part per assembly has to be joined via a translation and a rotation operation.
Row one in Figure 5.11 |a schematic layout from the assembly system given
above| identies the necessary operations. The main components are: a tray
on which the parts are fed into the robot, a tray on which the partial assemblies
are fed into the robot and a cartesian robot.
In each column of Figure 5.11 the following operations are executed:
105
Figure 5.11: Examples on integration of operations into modules
106
Chapter 5
y
x
Feed
Feed
parts assemblies
Move to
part
Move to
insertion point
Join part
& repeat
Retrieve Retrieve
part tray assemblies
e
f
Column:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Operations:
Feed part tray
Feed assembly tray
Move gripper to rst part (& grasp part)
Move gripper to the insertion point
Join part and assembly (& release part)
Repeat move, grasp, join, release for all parts
Retrieve part tray
Retrieve assembly tray
For reasons of simplicity, the processes of grasping and releasing a part are not
considered in this example.
The second row in Figure 5.11 summarises the operations per column. These
are integrated into Sub-gure 5.11-3a. In the third row the integration of the
operations is visualised. Each integration of operations is explained below:
Transition:
a !b
Operation integration:
1 2A 2B 3
- Feed part
X
- Retrieve part
- Feed assemblies
X
- Retrieve assemblies
- Move to part (Tx )
X
- Move to insertion point
- Repeat move (Tx )
- Move to part (Ty )
X
- Repeat move (Ty )
- Join part (Tz+ )
X
- Join part (Tz )
b !c
- Move parts (Ty )
X
- Move robot (Ty )
- Move assemblies (Ty )
X
- Move robot (Ty )
c !d
- Move parts (Ty )
X
- Move assemblies (Ty )
d !e
- Join parts (Tz )
X
- Join part rotate
1: Similar operations, object in common
2A: Similar operations, reference object in common
2B: Similar operations, dierent object
3: Dissimilar operations
107
For each integration of operations it is important to check to see if both

operations satisfy certain integration rules, such as:

Same work envelope

The need for and possibility of simultaneous execution
Non-con icting parameters
It should be noted that the capacity to execute both operations has already
been identied during the previous stage.
An example is given of each kind of integration:
Integrate: feed parts tray & retrieve parts tray. These are two similar
translations acting on the same object: a parts tray. Both show the same
work envelope, similar parameters and there is no need for simultaneous
execution. The only dierence is the direction of translation.
A suitable module capable of bi-directional translation can integrate
both operations.
Integrate: move parts (Ty ) & move robot (Ty ). These are two similar translations, with a reference object in common: both translations are concerned with the relative position between the parts and the robot. The
rst operation positions the parts relative to the robot, the second
operation positions the robot relative to the parts.
The work envelope of both does not match completely but there is no
need for simultaneous execution and there are no con icting parameters
in this example.
By using a module with a work envelope covering both the separate
work envelopes, these two operations can be integrated.
Integrate: move parts (Ty ) & move assemblies (Ty ). These are two similar translations both acting upon a dierent object, one acts upon the
part tray, the other upon the assembly tray.
The work envelope is dierent and there is a need for simultaneous execution. Furthermore, the process windows are very similar. The strategy
is to join the two objects and adjust the work envelopes.
The solution is to establish a linkage between the parts tray and the
assembly tray. This new component can then be handled as one, by
having one module execute a translation upon this component.
Integrate: join part (Tz ) & join part rotate. These are two dierent operations: a translation and a rotation. Both, however, act upon the same
object: a part.
A module that is capable of simultaneously executing a rotation as well
as a translation can be used for the integration of these operations.
108
Chapter 5
Sub-gure 5.11-3f depicts the assembly system resulting from all the integrations. It shows a combined parts and assembly tray that can move in the
y -direction, a robot that can only move in the x-direction and an attached
mounting device capable of executing a z -translation and a rotation.
Workstation congurations identication. Once the possible module selections for the operations have been identied, combinations should be identied
that lead to the execution of a complete process. For every operation a module
should be present.
Each combination of modules should be completed by having elements that x

the modules together in the right manner.
Next, the integration of workstations should be considered. If workstation congurations (partly) show the same modules then integration might be an option.
In such a case multiple processes are executed by one workstation, this decreases
the overall cost but also the production capacity since multiple processes have
to be executed.
For each workstation conguration the most important overall production
parameters should be determined: total cost and production capacity per
time-unit.
Step II.4.c: workstation combination selection. This results in the se-
lection of the economically best combination of workstations. The selection

is simply based on the production parameters and strategic considerations.
Once the requirements have been fullled the total cost becomes the selection
criterium.
5.6 Reflections
Chapter 4 has outlined two methods: (I) a module development method and
(II) a FAS conguration method. Both methods have been divided into four
steps.
Chapter 5 has further detailed the steps of both methods. In some cases, the
steps have been further divided into substeps. The result is given in two gures.
Figure 5.12 gives the details of the module development method, Figure 5.13
gives the details of the FAS conguration method.
109
I.1: Process focus identication

a. Identication of the subsequent
stages of a product in construction
b. Identication of the primary components of the assembly system
c. Analysis of the processes executed by
the system components
I.2: Assembly operations identication

a. Establish all the relevant beginning,
intermediate and end state parameters of the basic process object
b. Establish which parameters (a)
change their value or (b) might be
aected by external in uences
c. Establish which operation is the associated parameter modier or parameter stabalizer
I.3: Parameter identication

a. Attribute identication
b. Value assignment to the attributes
I.4: Module specication identication

Figure 5.12: The detailed module development method
110
Chapter 5
II.1: Process identication

a. Identication of subsequent stages of
a product in construction
b. Identication of the primary components of an assembly system
c. Analyse what processes are executed
by the system components (1) for the
product and (2) for the other system
components
II.2: Reproduce operations
II.3: Parameter identication

a. Reproduction of attributes
b. Identication of the parameters
II.4: Module selection
a. Module capability testing

b. Workstation identication
(i) Module operation integration
(ii) Workstation conguration identication
c. Workstation combination selection
Figure 5.13: The detailed FAS conguration method
111
Before carrying out the method described in Chapters 4 and 5, it is however

important to rst clearly draw up the requirements on the assembly system.
This is required for solid input information to the FAS conguration method.
Chapter 6 carries out this task. That chapter describes a method for the
systematic identication of requirements on a FAS.
112
Chapter 5
6
Method for the
identification of FAS
requirements
Chapters 4 and 5 present a way of developing a customised
assembly system. However, doing that requires having accurate
knowledge of the production situation for which the system has
to be developed. In this chapter, a method is described for the
analyses of the production situation and for the identication
of the requirements imposed by the production situation upon
the assembly system.
The content of this chapter is not necessary for a good understanding of the methods described in Chapters 4 and 5. Chapter 7 continues with these methods. If, however, the method
adopted is to be applied in industry, it is important to rstly
identify the requirements in the given situation. This chapter
provides a method for identifying the requirements.
113
6.1 Requirements identification as the basis for

the FAS-development method
The execution of Branch II of the FAS-development method as presented in
Chapters 4 and 5, requires input information. It requires information on the
product range and on the application-specic production parameters. This is
indicated in Figure 4.5.
The basis for this information, is the requirements to be placed on the FAS
for a specic application such as the required production volume, the required
degree and kinds of exibility etc. These requirements must be identied to
enable the straightforward application of the FAS-development method.
The requirements on assembly systems commonly found in literature are not
entirely suitable. They are (1) general requirements and (2) mainly focused
on the use phase. However, as with any product, production equipment must
meet (1) the situation-specic requirements and (2) the requirements for all
the life-cycle phases.
This chapter describes a way of identifying the requirements to be placed on
a FAS. In the next step, the order of importance |the rating| of the several requirements must be considered. This becomes especially dicult where
requirements of a more subjective nature are concerned. How these requirements are judged will relate to the company's market strategy. The rating of
the requirements is not described in this thesis.
This requirements identication method identies a set of requirements focussed on (1) a given application and (2) the incorporation of all major life-cycle
phases of the system. The method focuses on the identication of the requirements. The method provides no means for ranking the requirements according
to importance.
Some important terms used in this method are:
Environment: everything that is not part of the FAS

Element: a dened part of the environment
Life-cycle: the various phases a system passes through
Section 6.2 rst introduces the structure of the requirements identication
methods.
114
Chapter 6
6.2 Structure of the method for requirements

identification
This section will rst of all introduce the core technologies for requirements
identication and after that the two steps of the method will be explained in
detail.
6.2.1 Core technologies for requirements identification

The method must identify the major requirements to be placed on a FAS for
a given product range and production situation. The method must not only
consider the requirements in the use phase, other life-cycle phases must be
considered as well.
The overall requirements of a system are based on the relations between the
system and its environment (see Figure 6.1). Analyzing the relations thus reLife-cycle
phasen 1 :
Life-cycle
phasen :
Life-cycle
phasen+1 :
Environment
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
F
A
S
Figure 6.1: Background to the identication of requirements
veals the system's requirements. There is a relationship between the system

and each element of the environment. Some elements, however, create only
part of the environment in certain life-cycle phases. The full set of the major
system requirements can thus only be identied if all the major elements of the
environment in each life-cycle phase of the system are identied. This necessitates (1) the identication of the life-cycle phases of the system and (2) the
identication of the elements in the environment, per life-cycle phase.
Environment identication may be executed recursively. If the relation between
the system and an environmental element is too complex to be determined at
115
once then this element can in turn be analysed. The element is subsequently
analysed according to its life-cycle phases. For each element's life-cycle phase
the environment is identied. This therefore brings the complexity down to an
acceptable level.
The core technologies of the method are:

Life-cycle phase identication

Recursive environment identication
Figure 6.1 also reveals the two major steps of the method:
1. Identication of the environmental elements: identication of all
elements related to the FAS. Some elements are related to the FAS in
some FAS life-cycle phases only.
2. Identication of the requirements per element: identication of
the requirements to be placed on the FAS by each of the elements of
the FAS' environment.
Figure 6.2 summarises the structure of the method for the identication of the
requirements.
Identication of elements in the FAS' environment

1. Identication system border
2. Identication FAS life-cycle phases
3. Identication elements in FAS' environment
Identication of requirements per element

1. Recall life-cycle phases per element
2. Identify relations between element and FAS
3. Identify requirements per relation
Figure 6.2: The structure of the method for requirement identication
Both steps will be discussed next.

116
Chapter 6
6.2.2 Step 1: identification of the elements in the FAS

environment
Before the elements in the FAS' environment can be identied, FAS and the
environment must be separated. Dening the system implies having a system
border that separates the FAS from the environment. Next, the interaction
between these two aspects is studied. The interaction between the FAS and the
system is not, however, constant, but depends rather on the life-cycle phase of
the system. These phases have to be identied rst.
The considerations above reveal three sub-steps when identifying of the elements in the FAS' environment.
1.1 Identication of the system border: by dening the system and thus
also the environment and the system border.
1.2 Identication of the FAS life-cycle phases: identication of the lifecycle phases of the system that need to be considered.
1.3 Identication of the elements in the environment: identication of
the major elements in the environment per life-cycle phase. This substep combines the results from the previous sub-steps and adds the
identication of the elements.
The sub-steps are depicted in Figure 6.2.
6.2.3 Step 2: identification of the requirements per element

The requirements to be placed on the FAS are based on the relations between
the elements in the FAS' environment and the FAS itself. The relation between
an element and the FAS may, however, dier per life-cycle phase. Thus, for
each element, the life-cycle phases in which the element is related to the FAS
must rst be recalled from step 1. Next, the relation(s) between the element
and FAS must be separately identied for each life-cycle phase. The relations
must be nally analysed. This will reveal the requirements to be placed on the
FAS by the elements in the FAS' environment.
The considerations reveal three sub-steps for the identication of the elements
in the FAS' environment.
2.1 Recalling the relevant life-cycle phase(s) per element: since the relation between an element and the system can dier per life-cycle phase,
all the relevant life-cycle phases per element should be recalled.
117
2.2 Identify the relation(s) between the element and the system: basically
a relation exists for each element in each life-cycle phase. Only the relevant relations |which all depends on the level of detail desired| are
taken into account.
2.3 Identify the requirements per relation: studying each relation will
reveal the major system requirements for each element per life-cycle
phase .
Section 6.3 will give an example of the full requirements identication method.
6.3 An example on the requirement identification

method
Both steps of the requirements identication method are explained by means
of an example. Subsection 6.3.1 will elaborate on the rst step: identifying the
elements in the FAS'environment. Subsection 6.3.2 will elaborate on the second
step, that of identifying the requirements for each element.
6.3.1 Step 1: identification of the elements in the FAS

environment
This section describes an example for all three sub-steps: (1) denes the system
border, (2) identies the FAS life-cycle phases and (3) lists the elements outside
the system border in each FAS life-cycle phase.
Sub-step 1.1: defining the system border

The system border denes the system and the environment by separating them.
Consequently, the system border denition also identies the environment.
The environment of a FAS has been dened before as: everything that is not
part of the FAS. This is further limited to those parts that show a relationship
with the FAS in one of its life-cycle phases. This example is backed up by the
system border given in Figure 6.3.
118
Chapter 6
Environment
FAS:
An available set of
equipment, tuned to the
specied assembly tasks
System border
Figure 6.3: Denition of the system border
Sub-step 1.2: identification of the FAS life-cycle phases

The system border has separated the FAS and the environment. The second
step in the identication of the environment is the identication of all the
life-cycle phases of the system. Seven life-cycle phases are identied:
Specication phase is the phase of system design specication. This speci-
cation must comply to all the requirements placed on the system by

the next life-cycle phases.
Comparison phase is the phase in which several system designs are compared to the requirements of a given application. The choice for a system
is based on the result of the comparison.
Adjustment phase is the phase in which system design is adjusted to make
the general system design t for the given application dened by the
product range and the production parameters.
Installation phase is the phase in which all subsystems are put together and
ne-tuned to perform as specied.
Use phase is the phase in which the system assembles products
Reconguration phase is the phase in which the system is adjusted to assemble products from a dierent product family. The adjustment can
be a combination of software and equipment changes or substitutions.
Reuse phase ends the (sub)systems life phase for the FAS-user; the system
is taken apart for reuse or to dispose of the subsystems, the parts and
the materials.
119
Sub-step 1.3: elements outside the system border in each

FAS life-cycle phase
The third step in the environment identication process according to Section 6.2
is the identifying of elements in the environment of the FAS. The environment
of the system, as dened in Section 6.3.1, must be studied in all the life-cycle
phases as presented in Section 6.3.1. The result of this process is summarized
in Table 6.1.
Life-cycle Phase: In uencing elements:

Specication
Comparison
Adjustment
Installation
Use
System manufacturer
FAS-user: management
FAS-user: system engineer
Product range
FAS-user: system builder
-
Market (customers of the FAS-user)

Products
Operator
Assembly processes
FAS-user (operator)
Reconguration
FAS-user:
- System engineer
- System builder
Reuse
FAS-user:
- System builder
- Management
Table 6.1: In uencing elements in the environment of a FAS in each life-cycle phase
With most assembly systems, the elements to be identied can be categorized

into four groups:
Market: the group of |potential| buyers of the products made by the FAS:
the customers
Products: range, families, variants, partial assemblies and parts
Assembly processes a limited number of operations which together realise
a wide variety of assembly processes
FAS-user: management, system engineers, system builders, operators
120
Chapter 6
The categories and elements are depicted in Figure 6.4.
Market:
Products:
- Customers
Range
Families
Variants
Partial assemblies
Parts
FAS
FAS-user:
-
Management
System engineer
System builder
Operator
Assembly processes:
Figure 6.4: Various categories of elements in the environment of a FAS
6.3.2 Step 2: identification of the requirements according to

each element
Each category of elements is discussed in a separate section. The three substeps are carried out per category and are explained in separate paragraphs:
(1) recalls the relevant life-cycle phases, (2) identies the relations per life-cycle
phase and (3) identify the requirements per relation.
Requirements made by the market
Relevant life-cycle phases. As indicated in Table 6.1, the market shows a

direct relation with the FAS during the use phase only.
Relations with the FAS per life-cycle phase. The customers buy the
product that best satises their demands. They select from a group of products oered by various competing manufacturers. In this example, ve major
decision parameters are identied:
Necessity: the degree of need or desire for the product.
121
Functionality: the desired characteristics of the product. This includes active
|actions| as well as passive characteristics such as aesthetics.

Quality: the degree of excellence and trustworthiness of the actual product
compared to its specications.
It must be noted that the quality of a product is not just determined by
the assembly process. What is also of major importance is the quality
of both the product design and the fabrication process.
Price: the actual price paid for the product.
Delivery-time: the time between ordering a product and having it delivered.
Requirements per relation. The FAS has to assemble the products that
come closest to the customer's wishes |the values of the decision parameters|
this increases the competitiveness of the product. Since the customer wishes
are time and customer dependent, the FAS must adapt to them.
Changes in the customer wishes of individual customers has little impact on
the demands made of a FAS in the case of mid or high-volume production.
Instead, the average customer wishes of customers in a market segment |a
group of customers with similar customer wishes| must be considered.
If the FAS requirements are to be identied each decision parameter will have
to be analyzed to discover what its relationship is to the FAS:
Necessity: The need for a product is coupled to the number of products
bought by the customers. Changes in necessity thus require volume

exibility within the system.
Functionality: Changes in required product functionality lead to the assembly of a dierent product. This requires a semi-random production
ability or reconguration exibility.
Quality: In general, the FAS is required for the delivery of high quality products.
Price: In general, the FAS only determines the price of a product to a small
extent. Within this range the FAS must be cost-eective.
Delivery-time: In the case of new products it is important that they be put
on the market before competitors introduce their products. This results
in a need for a short time-to-market product cycle. During normal production, exibility in delivery-time must be pursued for customer-made
products.
Table 6.4 summarizes the requirements placed on the system by the market.
122
Chapter 6
Requirements of the products
Relevant life-cycle phases. As indicated in Table 6.1, the products show

a direct relation with the FAS during the adjustment and the use phase.
Relations with the FAS per life-cycle phase. In the adjustment phase,
the FAS specication has to be adapted to the assembly characteristics of the
given product range. In the use phase, the FAS has to cope with the dierent
assembly characteristics of the products within the product range.
Each product has its specic assembly characteristics such as: shape, mass and
number of parts. The most signicant characteristics are at the part and variant
level. The other levels dened in Section 4.1.2 are either an aggregation of the
assembly characteristics of the part and variant level or they are beyond the
scope of the FAS-user.
The assembly characteristics at part and product variant level have been
studied by several dierent people such as Willy and Scharf [Wil94, S+ 94].
These characteristics are summarized by Hop [Hop96]. The results are listed
in Table 6.2. Three characteristics |assembly direction, assembly path and
accessibility| are related to the relations between parts in a product. They do
not unambiguously qualify as for assembly characteristics according to part or
product.
Assembly characteristics
dened by parts
Shape
Dimensions
Weight
Vulnerability
Stability
Assembly characteristics
dened by products
Shape
Dimensions
Weight
Vulnerability
Stability
Stiness
Tolerance
Surface quality
Internal stability
Number of parts
Assembly direction
Assembly path
Accessibility
Table 6.2: Assembly characteristics of parts and products [Wil94, S+ 94, Hop96]
123
Variation in assembly characteristics occurs at three levels: (1) variation between product ranges (adjustment phase), (2) variation between product families (use phase) and (3) variation between product variants (use phase).
Requirements per relation. The FAS has to be able to easily cope with
the variation in the assembly characteristics at the three dierent levels.
Variation between product ranges: requires the ability to adapt to range

characteristics for example production volume, product mass range and
part dimension range.
Variation between product families: requires the adjustment of the FAS
to the assembly characteristics of the dierent product families. This

requires reconguration exibility. The frequency of these changes depends on the frequencies of change-overs between product families.
Variation between product variants: requires the adjustment of the FAS
to assembly characteristics of dierent product variants. This requires
semi random production ability. The frequency of these changes will
depend on the frequencies of changeovers between product variants.
Table 6.4 summarizes the requirements placed on the system by the products.
Requirements made by the processes
Relevant life-cycle phases. As indicated in Table 6.1, the assembly processes show a direct relationship with the FAS only during the use phase.
Relations with the FAS per life-cycle phase. For each FAS, the frequency of occurrence of processes, operations and parameter settings must be
determined. The higher the frequency, the more important the requirement on
the system to cope with the specic process or operation will be. In the case of
very low frequencies or dicult automating processes, manual solutions might
be preferred to automated processes.
Requirements per relation. There is a vast number of assembly processes
and process knowledge is not very advanced. Identifying requirements per
process is thus dicult especially since each process imposes its specic requirements on the system. The general issues to consider are such matters as
process stability, process reliability and process environment relations, such as
heat radiation during welding.
124
Chapter 6
In general, the requirement placed on the FAS which is imposed by the processes
is the ability to execute the required assembly processes within the settings of
the production parameters.
Requirements of the FAS-user
Relevant life-cycle phases. As indicated in Table 6.1, the FAS-user shows

a direct relation with the FAS during all its life-cycle phases, except for the
specication phase.
Relations with the FAS per life-cycle phase.

Comparison: The FAS-user investigates the suitability of several assembly
systems and chooses the best system for the given application.
Adjustment: The FAS-user specializes the FAS: he species the adjustment to

the FAS' specications to suit his application.
Installation: The FAS is established at the FAS-user's location. This is a nonproductive phase.
Use: The FAS-user species, executes and supports the assembly carried out
by the FAS of products within the product range.
Reconguration: The FAS-user recongures the FAS. This phase is partly
comparable to the adjustment and installation phase.
Reuse: The FAS-user prepares the system for reuse or disposal.
Requirements per relation. The FAS-user plays an important part when
it comes to determining the requirements placed on a FAS. Eventually, the

FAS-user denes whether the FAS is suitable for the situation and whether
the FAS will thus be used. Basically, the FAS-user is the main source for the
requirements.
Comparison: The main system requirement is to match the FAS-user specications as closely as possible. These specications can be divided into three
categories:
Fitness for the life-cycle phases: which is merely to check to what extent the requirements of the dierent life-cycle phases are met by the
capabilities of the system.
Fitness for the production prole: analyses the suitability of the system
for the product range and the FAS-user production strategy.
125
Fitness for economic justication: includes strategic considerations. These

considerations may dier depending on the production situation.
Adjustment: requires system specication adjustment possibilities. What is

needed is a system with specications adjustable to the given requirements.
Such systems are developed by using the FAS development method described
in Chapters 4 and 5. The specication adjustment possibilities are realised by
using variant or optional equipment and an easily to fathom system concept.
The use of variant or optional equipment is a strategy comparable to the

one employed in product structuring: the functionality and the realisation of
equipment is variable. This is further detailed in Table 6.3.
Function:
Basic
Variant
Optional
Special
Presence:
Always
Always
Choice
Not considered
Equipment:
Fixed
Choice
Fixed or Choice
Not prepared
Table 6.3: Using variant equipment in the FAS
Installation: Since installation is a non-productive phase, the required eort

and time must be minimized. This requires a system that is easy to install
and easy to ne-tune. These requirements are met by using easy to handle
sub-systems and by allowing for low alignment precision of the sub-systems.
Use: places the common production requirements on the system. This includes
realising: high eciency, high reliability, safe operation etc.
Reconguration: The same requirements apply to the adjustment and installation phase. Extra requirements include: easy removal and the replacement of
each single sub-system to enable easy and quick reconguration. From an economic point of view, it is important to minimize down-time during production.
Reuse: Reuse requires that the system be easy to take apart. Components that
are not recycled must be disposed of in environmentally friendly ways. All of
this should be done at low disposal costs
126
Chapter 6
These requirements are summarized in Table 6.4.

The requirements described are derived from an example but an industrial case
study has also been carried out. That case study is described in Section 6.4.
6.4 Conclusions from the case study

The method for requirements identication has been validated by a case study
in industry. This section describes the conclusions drawn from that case study
in relation to the requirement identication method. First the case will be
brie y described, then the major steps of the method involved in this case will
be discussed. The section ends with the method conclusions drawn from this
case.
The case focussed on a newly developed nal assembly line for electric shavers
at Philips DAP in the Netherlands. This was part of the development programme for a new shaver which is depicted in Figure 6.5.
A completely new assembly system had to be developed from scratch. One of

the rst things was to identify a full set of requirements of the system. For this
purpose the requirement identication method was applied.
The main steps of the identication requirements are presented in Chapter 6
and outlined in Figure 6.2. The system border has developed around the assembly processes in combination with the assembly system which is similar to
the example given in Section 6.3 as presented in Figure 6.3. For each identied
life-cycle phase the elements in the environment were identied and analysed
according to their relation to the system.
In this case study there were two life-cycle phases |installation and reuse|
which did not place any additional requirements on the system. These phases
showed low priority and were already well taken care of by the system manufacturer.
The results of this case study revealed the importance of the method. The
results obtained using the method have been compared to the situation where
the requirements were drawn up without making use of any prescribed method:
specialists from several elds extended the list of requirements in relation, in
each case, to their own elds of interest.
127
Market
Phase:
Use:
Relation:
Requirement
Necessity:
Functionality:
Quality:
Price:
Delivery-time:
- Volume exibility
- Semi-random production ability
- Reconguration exibility
- High quality products
- Cost eective
- Short time-to-market
- Flexibility in delivery-time
Products
Phase:
Adjustment:
Use:
Relation:
Assortment:
Families:
Variants:
Requirement
- Adapt to assortment characteristics

- Reconguration exibility
- Semi-random production ability
FAS-user
Phase:
Comparison:
Relation:
Suitability
Requirement
- Fitness for the life-cycle phases

- Fitness for the production prole
- Fitness for economic justication
Adjustment:
Specialization - Easy to adjust the design of the system
- Easily to fathom the system
Installation:
Establish
- Quick and easy to install and ne-tune
Use:
Assembly
- Common production requirements
Reconguration: Reconguration - Easy removal of sub-systems
- Minimization of down-time during
production
Reuse:
Reuse/disposal - Easy to take apart the system
- Environmentally friendly disposal
- Low disposal cost
Table 6.4: Requirements imposed on a FAS using the requirement identication method
128
Chapter 6
Figure 6.5: The Philips shaver which provided the basis for the case study
The main conclusions to be drawn from the results of the case study are:

The method helped to identify new requirements, this in turn increased

trust on the part of the project team in the completeness of the set of
requirements.
That the complexity and the time of the task were greatly reduced. The
method was experimented with by the author, after which the results
were checked and completed by the specialists in the company each
of whom checked the requirements laid down for the elements of their
specialist eld.
Insight was increased into the requirements. This insight derived from
the clarication on why certain requirements are placed on the system.
That is, which element imposes the requirement and during which lifecycle phase.
The evaluation of the requirements re ected increased anonymity and
took less time. Due to the insight into the relations between the system and the requirements, the importance of the latter becomes better
129
understood. This improved acceptance on the part of the specialist

requirements arising from other specialisms than their own.
Furthermore, the case-study revealed that the method can be used recursively.
If the relation between the system and an environmental element is too complex
to be determined at once, this element can in turn be analysed. The element is
subsequently analysed according to its life-cycle phases. For each element's lifecycle phase the environment is identied. This further reduces the complexity
to an acceptable level.
The identication of the requirements provided the basis for the remainder of
the innovation project: the designing of a new assembly system. The resulting
system is depicted in Figure 6.6.
6.5 Reflections
Chapters 4 and 5 present a method for developing a situation-specic assembly
system.
For a thorough use of that method, this chapter describes a way of analysing the
production situation and identifying the requirements to be imposed on the assembly system. This method should be used before the actual FAS development
method is used.
Chapter 7 continues with the the FAS development method by giving a further
example.
130
Chapter 6
Figure 6.6: Final assembly line developed for the shaver given in Figure 6.5.
131
132
Chapter 6
Part III
Results
7
Example of the FAS
development method
This chapter gives examples of the methods described in Chapters 4 and 5.
Section 7.1 gives a Branch I example: an example of the development of a set of modules. Section 7.2 gives a Branch II
example: an example of the method of FAS conguration.
7.1 A Branch I example: development of a set of

modules
This section will give an example of the way of developing a set of modules as
described in Chapters 4 and 5.
As indicated in Chapter 4, Figure 4.6, four steps are necessary when it comes
to developing a set of modules:
I.1.
I.2.
I.3.
I.4.
Process focus identication

Assembly operations identication
Parameter identication
Module specication identication
These steps will be applied to an example given in this section.

135
As will be seen as the example progresses, only some processes and operations are considered: (1) only the parts processes are considered, (2) these are
further restricted to the move, insertion and screwing process, (3) only the
translation and rotation operations are considered. Other processes and operations show a similar approach. However, including them would not further
clarify the method.
7.1.1 Step I.1: process focus identification

Since the process focus is based on a product spectrum aimed rst at the
considered product spectrum, this must be described in general terms. With
the example described in Chapter 7, an actual identication of the product
spectrum is not necessary since only a limited number of operations will be
studied (see Section 7.1).
Here, the product spectrum is given only in order to give an example of how a
product spectrum is dened. In this example, the characteristics are:

Electro-mechanical products
Product dimensions: 50{300 mm
Product complexity: 10{30 parts/product
Variants: 2{10 variants/family
Families: 1{3 families/range
Production volume:
{ Production volume per product family: 30.000{100.000 products/year
{ Total production volume: 50.000{100.000 products/year (assuming, 50 weeks/year, 40 hours/week, resulting in 25{50 products/hour)
To determine the process focus, three steps have to be executed during a spot
check of products (see Section 4.2.2):
I.1.a. Identication of the subsequent stages of a product in construction
I.1.b. Identication of the primary components of the assembly system
I.1.c. Analysis of the processes executed by the system components
This consists of processes executed by the system components (1) for
the product and (2) for the other system components
Since a spot check is not available in this example, the general process classes
presented in Section 5.1.2 are used instead.
To limit the amount of information included in this example, only the parts
processes will be detailed. The parts processes are given in Figure 7.1.
In this example, the processes are detailed as follows:
136
Chapter 7
Join
Retrieve
Grasp
Move
Release
Fixture
Figure 7.1: Parts process classes to be considered
Parts retrieved:
Part
Part
Part
Part
Part
Standard parts: Bulk-fed parts:

part size 3-100 mm, 25{200 parts/hour
Special parts: Tray-fed parts:
part size 3-100 mm, 10{50 parts/hour (not all variants have special
parts but sometimes production is almost exclusively of special
variants)
grasp: grasping is focussed on parts with a mass range of 10 g{200 g,
grasp dimension varies from 3 mm{100 mm.
move: the main consideration is the mass range of the parts.
join: as stated in Section 7.1, the joining processes are restricted to the
insertion and screwing process.
xture: the same product part may serve as a xture base for all members of a product family. The transition from a partial assembly stage
to a part stage is not accounted for in this process focus. Furthermore,
only low assembly forces apply.
release: no parts are used with complicating characteristics like sticky
or fragile parts.
Assembly operations must be identied within the process focus identied in

this section. This will be done in Section 7.1.2.
7.1.2 Step I.2: assembly operation identification

The operations within the process focus described in Section 7.1.1 must be
identied. However, as stated in Section 7.1, only the operations for the move,
insert and screw processes are considered. Operation identication involves
three steps (see Section 5.2.1):
I.2.a. Establish all the relevant beginning, intermediate and end-state parameters of the basic process object
I.2.b. Establish which parameters:
(a) change their value or
(b) might be aected by external in uences
137
Section 5.2.2 gave an example relating to the identication of operations involved in the combined move and insert process. Appendix A describes the
identication of the operations in the combined move and screw process. The
results for both combinations of processes are presented in Table 7.1.
Move and insert:
Translation
Eectuate a force
Eectuate a torque
Move and screw:

Translation
Rotation
Eectuate a force
Eectuate a torque
Table 7.1: Operations identied in the move, insert and screw process
The operations identied in Section 7.1.2 must be further detailed. This is done
in Section 7.1.3 where the parameters are identied per operation.
7.1.3 Step I.3: parameter identification

The parameter identication step was introduced in Section 4.2.2. In that
section, two sub-steps were dened:
I.3.a. Attribute identication
I.3.b. Assign value to the attributes
Section 5.3 detailed these substeps and identied the attributes for the translation operation (see Table 5.3). Since, in the example given in Chapter 7,
only the translation and rotation operations are considered, only the attributes
for the rotation operation still need to be identied. Table 7.2 identies the
attributes of the rotation operation.
State:
Point
Accuracy
Attribute:
1st derivative
2nd derivative
Angle
Angular velocity
Angular accelaration.
Angle accuracy
Velocity accuracy
Accelaration accuracy
In uence
resistance
Stiness
Stability
|
Table 7.2: The identication of attributes for the rotation operation
For full parameter identication, the attributes for the translation and rotation
operations have to be assigned value ranges. These value ranges are based on
138
Chapter 7
the process focus presented in Section 7.1.1. For the example presented in this
chapter, only the attributes of position, velocity and position accuracy are
considered. Assigning value ranges to the other attributes is a similar process.
Table 7.3 presents the parameters for the translation and rotation operation
for the process focus considered. These value ranges are estimations based
on considerations of product size, type of assembly (e.g. sub-batch assembly),
product complexity and production volume.
Translation
Parameter
Position
Velocity
Position accuracy
Requirement
15{750
20{1500
0.01{0.25
mm
mm
second
mm
Rotation
Parameter
Angle
Angular velocity
Angle accuracy
Requirement
0{3600 degrees
degrees
10{1125
sec
0.025{2 degrees
Table 7.3: The identication of a selection of the parameters for the operations considered.
The estimation of velocity as presented in the following equation deserves some

extra attention:
v
v
cv
Np
Vp
cs
s
ct
tp
= cv
Np

Vp
ct
cs
tp
(7.1)
Operation velocity
Velocity correction factor
Number of parts per product
Number of products to be assembled
Distance correction factor
Mean travel distance per part
Time correction factor
Production time
The velocity is derived by estimating the mean travel distance of all parts
puttogether and dividing this by the available time. This velocity is calculated
using three correction factors:
139
cv
: The velocity correction factor. This is based on the consideration that the
maximum velocity cannot be fully utilized due to limited acceleration

and limited travel ranges.
cs : The distance correction factor. This is based on the consideration that
usually other movements are necessary as well, e.g. a return movement.
ct : The time correction factor. This is based on the consideration that the time
fully available cannot be utilized, other time sequential processes |e.g.
grasping| use up part of the available time as well.
The process focus, operation identication and the parameter identication
fully dene the processes to be executed by the set of modules. Section 7.1.4
will identify the specications for those modules.
7.1.4 Step I.4: module specification identification

The parameters identied in Section 7.1.3 provide the basis for the module
specication. The identied parameters have to be fully covered by the modules
to be developed.
Alongside of this module basis specication, the six strategies on module specication |see Section 5.4| must be analysed. In that case there are three
strategies that provide interesting results:
Combine operations into one module. Modules must be developed that
can execute rotation as well as translation operations. These modules

would be suitable for moving and rotating parts to the specied position and orientation. Furthermore, a module must be developed which is
capable of translating a full range rotation around the direction of translation. This module is useful for screw operations of the type described
in the process focus.
Separate module windows. Rotation modules must be developed that will
each cover a dierent range. Rotations of exactly 90 and 180 degrees
will be frequently encountered in connection with the re-orientation
of parts. Modules with the full range are also required for the screw
process.
Integrate module windows: Translation modules must be developed that
combine large range and high accuracy. These modules can be used for
the integration of two process windows: (1) ne motion |small range
with a high accuracy| and (2) coarse motion |large range with a low
accuracy|.
The parameters identied in Section 7.1.3 together with the module specication considerations reveal the following categories of modules to be designed:
140
Chapter 7

Modules for coarse motion translation (large range with low accuracy)
Modules for ne motion translation (small range with high accuracy)
Modules for combined coarse and ne motion translation (large range
with high accuracy)
Modules for a rotation of 90 degrees
Modules for a rotation of 180 degrees
Modules for a rotation over the entire range
Modules with combined translation and rotation possibilities
Section 7.1.5 presents the set of modules that best covers the module specications presented in this section.
7.1.5 Presentation of the set of modules

The actual design of the modules is not part of Branch I (see Figure 4.5).
Therefore, the actual design of the modules is not described in this example.
Instead, commercially available modules are identied that best cover the module specications identied in Section 7.1.4. In line with Branch I, the modules
are categorised according to operations or processes. Table 7.4 summarises the
modules identied in this example as well as their costs. In this example, these
costs only include the price of the module, that is: the price of the module
without the conguration costs required for use in an assembly system conguration. These costs are not related to the costs of the modules in the real
world, they are only specied for this example. In that case, eight modules are
identied that are capable of performing single or multiple translation operations. Three modules are identied that are capable of performing translation
operations as well as rotation operations and six modules are identied that
are capable of performing single or multiple rotation operations.
The indications of the translations and rotations given in Table 7.4 are as
follows:
or Tz : One translational degree of freedom in a direction tted to the

right-hand rectangular coordinate system dened by Tx ; Ty ; Tz .
Rx ; Ry or Rz : One rotational degree of freedom in a direction around Tx ; Ty ; Tz .
Ti : One translational degree of freedom in a freely selectable direction.
Tj : One translational degree of freedom with a direction perpendicular to Ti .
selectable direction.
Ri : One rotational degree of freedom in a freely selectable direction.
Rj : One rotational degree of freedom with a direction perpendicular to Ri .
Tx ;
Ty
The modules are sorted out according to the operations they can execute. The
modules that can perform translation as well as rotation operations are thus
141
Table 7.4: The example set of modules
142
Chapter 7
No.
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M 10
M 11
M 12
M 13
M 14
M 15
M 16
M 17
Module type
Positec portal actuator LM-P408
Positec cantilever actuator LM-Z404
Powercube linear spindel 70
Powercube linear belt 70
Gimapick linear cylinder 25...
Janome desktoprobot JR500u
Janome desktoprobot JR750u
Gantry robot G365
Festo Lift'n turn DSL 16
Powercube Lift'n turn 70
Scara JSR 4404
Gimapick turning cylinder R63 90
Powercube rotary 70
Escap stepper motor 001 coils in series
Escap stepper motor 001 coils in parallel
Powercube wrist 70 (360/s)
Costs:
100
150
250
190
140
350
400
275
200
310
425
180
180
130
160
160
225
Translation(s)
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Tx Ty Tz
Tx Ty Tz
Tx Ty Tz
Ti
Ti
Tx Ty Tz
Ri
Ri
Ri
Ri
Ri
Ri
Ri
Ri
Rj
Rz
Rotation(s)
listed in both operation classes. The operation window is determined according

to the possible operation of a module. To clearly show the way in which the
method works, only three attributes of the operation window are considered.
With both the translation and the rotation operation only the attributes of
static accuracy, positions and velocity are considered. If more attributes are
included this will increase the window adding another dimension but it will
not alter the way of working with operation and module windows.
Two examples of the module operation windows are given in Table 7.5. A full
overview is given in Appendix B. Table B.1 species the operation windows
of the translation operations of the modules. Table B.2 species the operation
windows of the rotation operations of the modules.
2T :
]
[mm
ons
siti
Po
]
[mm
cy
ura
acc
c]
tic
/se
[mm
city
Sta
o
Vel
No.
1T :
Module type
Positec portal actuator LMP408
Positec cantilever actuator
LM-Z404
2000
0.20
0{5500
700
0.10
0{800
Table 7.5: Two examples of the module operation windows
The set of modules identied in Section 7.1.5 covers the considered part of the
process focus. This set of modules can be used as an input to the FAS conguration method. An example of the FAS conguration method is described in
Section 7.2.
7.2 A Branch II example: FAS configuration

This section will clarify the practical application of the FAS conguration
method as described in Chapters 4 and 5. The method is claried by describing
an extensive Branch II example of the method. A specic FAS conguration
will be developed for a sample product by executing the full FAS development
method. In this example no extensive identication of the system requirements
is carried out, since that does not contribute to the example of the Branch II
method.
143
Firstly, the example product will be introduced along with its production situation and relevant production parameters. Using the set of modules presented
in Section 7.1.5, a suitable FAS conguration will be developed for the example
in accordance with the FAS development method.
7.2.1 The example product and production situation

The product used in this example is a linear bearing system. The present section
describes this product. A partly transparent picture of such a product is given
in Figure 7.2. The product consists of a rail on which a carrier is mounted.
The carrier moves along the rail, other movement directions are blocked. This
is realised by having one or two pairs of bearings xed to the carrier in the way
shown in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Partly transparent picture of the linear bearing system
The nal assembly procedure of the product is depicted in Figure 7.3. First
one side-part of the carrier is slipped over the rail then the base-part of the
carrier is put around the rail, followed by the other side-part of the carrier. The
bearings of the base-part are then xed in position to ensure correct movement
between the carrier and the rail. Finally the side-parts are mounted onto the
base-part of the carrier.
The parts of the carrier are named in Figure 7.4.
Only the assembly of the linear bearing system carrier is studied. This includes
the insertion of the bearings in the house, the insertion of the pegs and the
144
Chapter 7
Figure 7.3: Picture of the main assembly steps of the sample product
P1 N1
B1 B2
P2
P3 N2
B3 B4
P4
Figure 7.4: Names of the parts of the carrier belonging to the linear bearing system
145
fastening of the two nuts, see Figure 7.5. Only the processes of inserting the
pegs and fastening the nuts is studied. The other processes show a similar
approach.
Figure 7.5: Assembly steps in the assembly of the carrier of the linear bearing system
The product is manufactured in several variants. The length of the rail is tailored to the situation but the other dimensions of the rail are also available in
several variants as are the dimensions of the carrier. Figure 7.6 displays three
variants of the carrier.
To show the ability of the method to cope with product exibility, several
product variants are considered. The variants depicted in Figure 7.6 are used:
carriers with two pegs and one nut and carriers with four pegs and two nuts.
Furthermore, dierent sizes of carriers are studied. This leads to dierent peg
and nut positions on the carrier.
146
Chapter 7
Figure 7.6: Three variants of the carrier of the example product
The product described in the present section is used as an example for the
application of the FAS conguration method. That example is described in
Sections 7.2.2, 7.2.3 and 7.2.4.
7.2.2 Step II.1: process identification

As described in Chapters 4 and 5, assembly process identication rst requires
identication of the subsequent stages of the product under assembly. Next, for
each phase, the standard process sequence (see Figure 5.4) has to be checked.
Since only the moving operations of the insertion of the pegs and the fastening
of the nuts are considered, tool processes will not be considered in this example.
The subsequent product under assembly stages are derived using Figure 5.1. All
parts start in a part stage. After xing the house (H) |the base part| evolves
to the partial assembly stage. Once the rst bearing (B1) has been assembled
in part H, parts H and B1 form together a dierent composition of parts in
the partial assembly stage. Each time a part is added, a new partial assembly
is created. The nal partial assembly including all parts is dextured which
is how the product stage evolves. The sequence of the assembly of the parts
can be changed. This has no in uence on the identication of the processes.
Figure 7.7 summarises the stages of the product taken as an example.
147
Part
Partial assembly
H (House)
!
H
B1 (Bearing 1) !
H+B1
B2 (Bearing 2) !
H+B1;2
B3 (Bearing 3) !
H+B1;2;3
B4 (Bearing 4) !
H+B1;2;3;4
P1 (Peg 1)
!
H+B1;2;3;4 +P1
P2 (Peg 2)
! H+B1;2;3;4 +P1;2
P3 (Peg 3)
! H+B1;2;3;4+P1;2;3
P4 (Peg 4)
! H+B1;2;3;4 +P1;2;3;4
N1 (Nut 1)
! H+B1;2;3;4 +P1;2;3;4+N1
N2 (Nut 2)
! H+B1;2;3;4+P1;2;3;4+N1;2
Product
! H+B1 2 3 4 +P1 2 3 4+N1 2

; ; ;
; ; ;
Figure 7.7: Subsequent stages of the example product under assembly
For each of the stages identied in the previous paragraph, the standard process
sequence presented in Section 5.1.2 can be used as a basis. This leads to the
processes identied in Figure 7.8. The processes of part H in Figure 7.8 are
physically the same processes as the partial assembly H retrieval processes.
This might also be the case with the store process of one partial assembly and
the retrieval process of the next partial assembly.
The actual occurrence of the processes depends on the nal FAS conguration.
For example, if the assembly of bearing 1 and bearing 2 is executed at one
position, no partial assembly H+B1 processes will be necessary. Such choices
related to the execution of these processes can be made beforehand on the basis
of the high level choices of other FAS design methods (see Section 2.4.3 ). It is,
however, better to make these choices after the identication of possible workstations at the end of Branch II has taken place. The identied workstations
will show the ease or diculty of integrating processes into one workstation.
As described above, only the move and join processes of the pegs and nuts will
be further considered. These processes will be further detailed in Section 7.2.3.
7.2.3 Steps II.2 and II.3: reproducing operations and

parameter identification
Step II.2 is the reproduction of the basic operations on which the process is
based. The joining processes are a wide class of processes that include all operations (see Table 5.2). The operations for the move, insertion and screw processes
have been further dened in Section 7.1.2. The operations are reproduced in
Table 7.6.
148
Chapter 7
Process part H
Grasp
Retrieve
Move
Fixture
Release
Processes parts B1, B2, B3, B4, P1, P2, P3, P4, N1 and N2
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Grasp
Retrieve
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Move
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Join
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Retrieve
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Release
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Store
Processes partial assemblies H, HB1{HB4, HBP1{HBP4, HBPN1

Processes partial assembly HBPN
Retrieve
De-xture
Processes product HBPN

Store
Figure 7.8: Identied assembly processes for the example product
Move and insert:

Translation
Eectuate a force
Eectuate a torque
Move and screw:

Translation
Rotation
Eectuate a force
Eectuate a torque
Table 7.6: Operations identied in the move, insert and screw process
149
Since in this example only the motion processes are taken into account (see
Section 7.1), the eectuating of a force or torque operations are not considered
any further.
The example focuses on the process of inserting pegs P1 and P2 and screwing
nut N1. The operation instances for these processes are given in Table 7.7.
Insert peg P1
Insert peg P2
1 1
TxP1
Tz2 P1
Screw nut N1
1 2
TxP2
Tz2 P2
Tz P
1 1
1
Tz2 N1
RzN1
Tz P
Tz N
TxN
Table 7.7: Operations in the considered processes
Step II.3 is the reproduction of the attributes and the identication of the
parameters dened by the production situation.
The attributes for the translate and rotate operations are reproduced from
Section 7.1.3. The result is given in Table 7.8.
Attributes Translation Attributes Rotation

Position(s)
Velocity
Acceleration
Static accuracy
Dynamic accuracy
Rigidity
Stability
Angle(s)
Angular velocity
Angular acceleration
Static accuracy
Dynamic accuracy
Rigidity
Stability
Table 7.8: Attributes for the translation and rotation operations
In this example only the attributes 'position(s)/angle(s)' and 'static accuracy'

are taken into account. Table 7.9 gives the values of the parameters for the
operations considered. These values are determined by analysing the product
data. In this example, only values |no value ranges| for the parameters are
used. It is also possible to use equations, for example for the translation TxP1
the position(s) could be dened as:
P ositions TxP
1 : (0; x)j30
mm
50
x
mm
This denes the distance between the feeder pick up point of part P1 and the
insertion point of P1 which is larger than 30 mm but smaller than 50 mm.
150
Chapter 7
Insert peg P1
Op.1 Pos.2 Acc.3
z1P1 0,30 0.15
xP1 -25,11 0.05
z2P1 30,0 0.10
T
T
T
1
2
3
4
Op.
Pos.
Acc.
Insert peg P2
Op.1 Pos.2 Acc.3
z1 P2 0,30 0.15
xP2 -25,34 0.05
z2 P2 30,0 0.10
T
T
T
Screw nut N1
Ang.2
Acc.3
0,30
0.15
z1 N 1
-75,11
0.03
xN1
30{0
0.03
z2 N 1
zN1 0{1.0004 0.10
Op.1
T
T
T
R
Operation
Position(s)
Static Accuracy
Position(s) are expressed in angle-position(s) [deg]
Table 7.9: Parameter valuation of the considered operations
In order to keep the structure of the method clear equations are not used in
the example presented in this chapter.
The example product introduced in Section 7.2.1 is now fully dened in the
required process windows. First the processes have been identied |see Section 7.2.2|, then the operations and parameters have been identied |see
Section 7.2.3|. Section 7.2.4 compares these required process windows to the
module windows. This will result in the selection of the most suitable modules
for the assembly of the product taken as an example.
7.2.4 Step II.4: module selection

The most suitable modules must be selected for execution of the already identied required processes. Section 5.5 pointed out the three sub-steps for module
selection (II.4.a) module capability testing, (II.4.b) workstation identication
and (II.4.c) workstation combination selection. Section 7.2.4 carries out these
substeps for the example product.
Step II.4.a: module capability testing

This is done by simply checking which module specications cover the operation requirements. The required operation parameters are checked against the
operation parameters of the modules. The rst translational degree of module 8 ( 8T 1 ), for example, can execute the 1 -translation of peg P1. However,
it can not execute the -translation of peg P1 since the accuracy of the moduleoperation (0.13 mm) is not sucient for the required accuracy (0.05 mm) of
the -translation.
151
For all operations, all modules must be checked to see if they cover the required
parameters. The result is given in Table 7.10. Every capability of a module to
execute a specic product operation, is marked with an 'x'.
Step II.4.b: workstation identification

To execute a full process, all process operations must be executed. This can
be done either by (1) selecting a module per operation and combining modules
for the operations, or (2) by selecting one or multiple modules all of which, or
some of which, are capable of executing multiple operations.
Table 7.10 indicates the possibilities for subsystem selection. The table indicates the possibility when it comes to executing multiple operations using one
module. In the table this is indicated with an x and a connection link between
the integration possibilities. This includes the execution of simultaneous as well
as sequential operations.
An example of the integration of operations possibility is the execution of Tz1 P1
as well as Tz2 P1 using module 2. This is possible since the combined operation
windows are covered in module 2. In this combined operation window it is
important to note that the x and y positions of the two operations are identical;
this enables both operations to be executed in one module. Furthermore, these
two operations have to be sequentially executed.
An example of the impossibility of integration of operations is the execution
of Tz1 P1 and TxP1 with module 3. The combined operation window cannot be
covered in a single module 3. This is due to the required dierent directions of
both operations, the z direction and the x direction.
The possibilities per subsystem are summarised in Table 7.11. This table
indicates that the insertion of peg P1 can be executed using the following
sub-systems:

Module M6: Janome desktoprobot JR500u

Module M7: Janome desktoprobot JR750u
Module M11: Scara JSR 4404
A single module of M2, M3, M4, M8 or M10, in combination with a
single module of M3, M4, M8 or M10
The possible workstations are determined per process. A combination of workstations per process makes up a complete FAS conguration. However, multipurpose workstations might also be identied: a single workstation capable of
executing multiple processes. The selection of the best workstation combination
is considered in Step II.4.c.
152
Chapter 7
M10
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
RzN
2 1
Tz N
x
x
x
TxN
TxP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1 1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tz N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tz P
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tz P
x
x
x
Tz P
1 1
Tz P
TxP
x
x
2 2
M9
x
x
x
1 2
M8
T
T
T
T
T
T1
T2
T3
T1
T2
T3
T1
T2
T3
T
R
T
R
T1
T2
T3
R
R
R
R
R
R
R1
R2
2 1
M7
Degree of freedom
Module number
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
x
x
x
x
x
Table 7.10: Module selection for the considered operations
153
Insert P1:
M
11
[M 2 _ M 3 _ M 4 _ M 8 _ M 10]
[M 3 _ M 4 _ M 8 _ M 10]
Insert P2:
M
11
[M 2 _ M 3 _ M 4 _ M 8 _ M 10]
[M 3 _ M 4 _ M 8 _ M 10]
Screw N1:
M
M
M
6 ^ [M 15 _ M 16 _ M 17]
7 ^ [M 15 _ M 16 _ M 17]
11 ^ [M 15 _ M 16 _ M 17]
[M 2 _ M 3 _ M 4 _ M 8 _ M 10]
[M 3 _ M 10]
[M 15 _ M 16 _ M 17]
Table 7.11: Possible subsystems per process
154
Chapter 7
Step II.4.c: workstation combination selection

Possible system congurations are determined by linking together separate
stand-alone workstations or by combining the processes of one or more multifunctional workstations. First an overview must be created of the possible
stand-alone workstations for each process. For each workstation two characteristics must be calculated: (1) the total costs of the module combination and
(2) the estimated process time for the entire process. Table 7.12 presents the
cheapest and fastest workstations per process. These workstations are not necessarily the best. The best choice will depend on the production situation. A
full overview of all workstations and their characteristics is given in Table B.3
of Appendix B.
Insert peg P1:
Module Module Cost:

TzP1: TxP1:
2
4
340
8
3
525
Insert peg P2:
Module Module Cost:

TzP2: TxP2:
2
4
340
8
3
525
Processtime:
0.230
0.128
Processtime:
0.322
0.171
Screw nut N1:
Module Module Module Cost:

TzN1: TxN1: RzN1:
6
15
510
6
16
510
8
3
15
685
8
3
16
685
Processtime:
1.028
1.028
0.778
0.778
Table 7.12: Examples of workstations dedicated to a process
The costs in Table 7.12 are simply calculated by adding up the costs of the
dierent modules. Research must be conducted into applying more extensive
calculations, e.g. including a cost for the conguration of modules.
The process time in Table 7.12 is simply calculated by adding up the process
time for the dierent operations. For more accurate calculations more extensive
equations must be used. With peg 1, for example, the z-translation is found
to be 30 mm, the x-translation 36 mm, these are divided by the velocity of
155
the module for those translations. For example, the process time of module
combinations 8 and 3 |the modules' characteristics are given in Table B.1|
is calculated as follows:
processtime
=
=
z 1P 1
vz
30
1000
= 0:128sec:
+
+
xP 1
x
36
530
+
+
z2P 1
vz
30
1000
S: translation distance
v: velocity
Combining the processes into multi-functional workstations involves integrating

the operations into the same equipment. The possibilities for this are indicated
by showing the occurrence of the same combination of modules for the dierent
processes. Furthermore checks must be made to see if the operations can be
integrated into this one combination of modules. It is also possible to add extra
equipment to extend the overall workstation window to cover the combination
of process windows.
In the example given below, all module combinations for the screwing process
of N1 can execute both peg insertion processes as well. The costs for these
workstations are the same as those presented in Table B.3 of Appendix B. A
rough indication of the process time for the execution of all three processes
is calculated by adding up the three separate process times per workstation.
The result for the cheapest and fastest multipurpose workstations is given in
Table 7.13. A full overview is given in Table B.4 of Appendix B.
TzN1: TxN1: RzN1:
6
15
510
6
16
510
8
3
15
685
8
3
16
685
Processtime:
1.818
1.818
1.077
1.077
Table 7.13: Examples of multipurpose workstations
The best nal solution depends on the production parameters. In this example,
only a required production volume is considered. The assembly system then
chosen is the cheapest one. Three dierent systems are considered for multiple
production volumes:

156
Three separate workstations, each dedicated to one process

Chapter 7

A combined workstation for the insertion process and a separate workstation for the screwing process
A workstation for the execution of all three processes.
Table 7.14 presents the results for dierent production volumes. This table gives
the production volume, the process time required to realise that production
volume and then, for the three dierent situations, the total costs of the system.
The lowest costs per production volume are highlighted.
Each column in Table 7.14 is explained below:
Production volume: is the number of products to be assembled per year.
Dierent volumes are given to represent dierent production environments. In this example, the production volumes are chosen in such a
way that the process times are given in round gures.
Process time: is the maximum allowable process time for the insertion and
screw processes required to enable the production volume.
P1; P2; N1: The total costs for a system based on three separate dedicated
process workstations. The left three items indicate how many workstations of what type are required |what combination of modules| is
required. The right column indicates the total costs |the sum of the
module price| of such a system.
P1+P2; N1: The total costs for a system based on the integration of the
insertion processes into one workstation and a separate workstation
dedicated to the screwing process. The left two items again indicate the
number and type of workstations. The right column indicates the costs.
P1+P2+N1: The total costs for a system based on the integration of all
three processes into one workstation. The left item again indicates the
number and type of workstations. The right column indicates the costs.
The process time per part is related to the production volume. The process
time is calculated using Equation 7.1:
Np

v
=
=
=
cv

Np
ct
cs
Vp
ct
cs
tp
tp
cv
Vp
P rocess time per part
157
Table 7.14: FAS selection depending on the required production volume
158
Chapter 7
0.200
0.300
0.400
1.200
540.000
360.000
270.000
90.000
Production Process
volume
time
1*[8,3]
3*[2,3,15]
1*[2,3]
2*[11,15]
1*[2,4]
1*[6,15]
2.420
1.850
1.190
850
1.570
2.205
3.140
2*[2,3]
4*[11,15]
3.140
1*[2,3]
1*[2,3]
4*[11,15]
1*[2,4]
1*[2,3]
3*[2,3,15]
1*[2,4]
1*[2,4]
2*[11,15]
1*[2,4]
1*[2,4]
1*[6,15]
P1+P2; N1
Stations: Costs:
P1; P2; N1
Stations: Costs:
1*[2,3,15]
3*[2,3,15]
4*[2,3,15]
6*[2,3,15]
560
1.680
2.240
3.360
P1+P2+N1
Stations: Costs:
In this equation, the operation time per year is assumed to be 1800 hours per
year on the basis of an 8 hour per day production level, 5 days a week and
45 weeks a year.
In the same equation, the combination of correction factors
1 in this example.
to be about 60
ct
s cv
is assumed
The selection of the best type of process workstation is based on both the cost
of the workstation and the process time. The process time of the workstation
must be equal to or less than the process time required by the production
volume. Afterwards the cheapest workstation within this maximum process
time is selected since that will be the best option.
Process time
The selection process is simple when using computer support for charts such as
those given in Figure 7.9. This gure shows that the process workstations can
execute the peg insertion of P1 as well as P2. The process time is simply the sum
total of the two separate process times given in Table B.3. The gure gives the
possible workstations |indicated with a closed dot| and the characteristics
attached to using two workstations of the same type |indicated with an open
dot|. In such cases, the costs for the solution are doubled and the process
time is divided by two.
1:0
b
0:8
0:6
(2;4)b
0:4
b
b
b
b
b
(2;3)
b
b b
0:2
0
200
400
b
b
b
b
c
b
c
b
b
c
c
b
(8;3) 2*(2;4)bc
c
b
2*(2;3)bc
600
800
c
b
b
c
c
b
c
b
b
c
c
b
2*(8;3)bc
b
c
c
b
c
b
c
b
1000
1200
Station costs
Figure 7.9: Process workstation type selection
Figure 7.9 also shows that the number of economically and technically suitable
process workstation solutions can be greatly reduced. Only the workstations
that limit the solutions given on the left and bottom side are suitable choices
159
in this case since they represent the best low price and low process time
combinations. These types are indicated in Figure 7.9.
The data relating to the best choices for the process workstations for the
insertion of pegs P1 and P2 is given in Table 7.15.
Module Module Cost:
Tz:
Tx:
2
4
340
2
3
400
8
3
525
Processtime:
0.551
0.351
0.299
Table 7.15: The best workstation types for integrated peg insertions
This information contains all the necessary information for the creation of Table 7.14. For example, in the case of a required production volume of 270.000 products
year
|thus a cycle time of 0.400 seconds|, Figure 7.9 shows that workstation [2;3]
provides the best solution: the cycle time of 0.351 is below the required 0.400
and the cheaper solution, workstation [2;4] has a cycle time of 0.551 which does
not satisfy the required 0.400 seconds.
In the nal selection of the best FAS other considerations must be taken into
account as well. These include strategic decisions on the required degree of
exibility.
160
Chapter 7
8
Conclusions and
recommendations
This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations
for future work. The research goals are reviewed and the research goals achieved are described. The method is validated
and recommendations for future research are given.
8.1 Reviewing the research goals

Present practice in the design and use of assembly (sub)systems is inappropriate for use in industry. Section 3.1.1 identies the drawbacks of the present
assembly (sub)system situation. These drawbacks are summarised as follows:

Inadequate degree of exibility

Not economically justiable
Processes not fully exibly automated
Low reliability
Low reusability
The drawbacks derive from the attitude of assembly system designers to focusing on (sub)systems related to (1) the use of universal machines |a general
system architecture adaptable to specic situations|, (2) a limited range of
161
products and (3) the use of product-based equipment. All this does not suit
the industrial needs.
The problems are mainly caused by the inadequate methods used in system
design, particularly in relation to the embodiment design. There is a lack of
technical insight when it comes to designing and selecting the best equipment
for a specic situation.
So, instead |as indicated in Chapter 3, Table 3.2| six issues are pursued
involving:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Enabling a fully customised assembly system to be created

Enabling a system with a process focus to be created
Enabling process based sub-systems to be created
Supporting system design in low level choices
Supporting system design for increased insight into the process integration possibilities
6. Supporting system design in a process-based manner
The methods developed will be reviewed in Section 8.2 on the basis of these
issues.
8.2 Research goals achieved

The drawbacks of the current practice in the design and building of (sub)systems
are described in Section 3.1 and reviewed in Section 8.1.
To overcome these drawbacks, an extensive process and product classication system was rst developed (see Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2). On the basis
of the classication, the method described in this thesis has been developed to
overcome the drawbacks of current practice. The method is divided into two
branches: (I) a method for the realisation of a set of standard modules and
(II) a FAS conguration method.
The method enables a system design to be evolved that is in line with the six
key issues complying with the desired state given in (sub)systems and in system
design |see Section 3.2.1, Table 3.2 and Section 8.1|. The method developed
and reviewed below, is based on the six key issues.
A fully customised system: A set of modules supports a range of possible

congurations while a product-range-based conguration ensures that
there is a specic solution for the assembly situation.
162
Chapter 8
The process focus of the system: The FAS conguration method is heav-
ily based on process classication. This results in system congurations
that are based on processes: those processes that are required for a given
process focus.
Process-based subsystems: The method for the development of a set of
modules is highly based on the process classication. This results in
process-based modules. Together with the process-based conguration
method, this results in process-based subsystems.
Low level choices in system design: The method identies the required
processes in the lower levels of operations and the accompanying parameters. The process and module windows that are thus being created,
enable low level choices to be made with processes and modules.
Insight into the process integration possibilities during system design:
The method supports an integration view by indicating which module

|based on the parameter ranges| is capable of executing combined
operations. These might be operations in the same process instance or
in dierent process instances. Furthermore, the modules might be able
to integrate operations of dierent categories like a SCARA capable of
translation(s) and rotation(s).
A process-based system design method: Both methods developed are highly
process based because of the strong link with assembly process classication.
The method has proved that it complies with the six key issues mentioned in
Section 3.2.1. Its use overcomes the drawbacks encountered in current practice
in (sub)systems and system design.
8.3 Key-technologies of the method

Chapter 7 has presented an example of both methods relating to the development of a set of modules and the FAS conguration. This example has validated
the methods very positively.
Furthermore, in the methods adopted to develop a set of modules and the FAS
conguration, ve key-technologies were used that assure a good result and
easy use of the method. The advantages of the use of these key-technologies
are given below:
Use of an assembly-process-based approach:
Modules are more generally applicable due to the general process

windows of the equipment rather than process windows based on
a specic product.
163

Product requirements and equipment capabilities can be compared

since both are dened in terms of processes.
An assembly system is easier to customise since dierences between
products in the product range are expressed in terms of dierences
between process windows. Modules can be selected that encompass
the combination of process windows.
Use of general methods:
The method for parameter identication of operations is independent of the operation or the object parameter it aects.
The identication of processes in Branch II is straightforward:
only standard sequences of process classes per elements need to
be checked in conjunction with process occurrence (see also section 5.1).
Use of logical relations:

It is easy to compare the process windows because of logical

relations allowing operations like encompassing, union etc.
Computer support, especially of Branch II is easily possible because of the use of logical relations and operations.
The method supports strategy decisions. These decisions are concerned with expectations relating to changes in production parameters and product design and this relates to the selection of
modules. The results of strategic system design decisions are made
more distinct.
Use of a classication-based approach:
Identication of a process in Branch II reveals all the associated

operations as identied in Branch I.
The user in Branch II is only concerned with the valuation of the
parameters of the operations since each operation has a xed set
of attributes as identied in Branch I.
Use of decision classes:
The proposed design of the system resulting from the method is

based on the most important decision classes, that is, technical
capabilities as well as economic considerations.
These key-technologies prove their value in the methods used to develop a set
of modules and in FAS conguration. They help to overcome the drawbacks of
current practice. More about that issue will be described in Section 8.2.
164
Chapter 8
8.4 Recommendations for future work

Though this research makes a relevant contribution to the area of assembly
system design, further work is required if the method is to be completed, both in
a scientic and a practical manner. This section describes the recommendations
for the future.
The scientic aspect: The details of the method must be completed. Firstly,
all the instances of all levels of process need to be identied Secondly, the
relations between the instances must be identied, e.g. which operations are
related to which processes. Thirdly, all the parameters at operation and higher
levels must be identied. Finally the relations between the production situation
|including the product range| and the parameters on all levels must be
established.
Such research would extend the possibilities for the utilisation of the method.
It would provide more details for the method outlined in this thesis.
The practical aspect: Although using the method in the example of the
linear bearing system showed good results, it has not yet proven fully suitable
for general industrial applicability. Additional research is needed if we are to
fully prove and evaluate the benets of the method.
Adequate computer support is needed if the FAS conguration method is to be
put to practical use. Without that, the handling of the method will become far
too complex if only because of the vast amount of data. Computer implementation will require the implementation of a database for the module specications
that go with the process classication.
Once a computer implementation has been developed, existing modules must
be classied and added to the computer database. Furthermore, additional
modules can be developed when necessary.
This research would make it possible for the methods presented in this thesis
to be used industrially.
165
166
Chapter 8
Appendixes
A
Identification of the
operations within the
screw process
Figure 5.5 is used to identify the operations in the combined move and screw
process. That gure is given once more in Figure A.1.
The procedure for operation identication is carried out below.
I.2.a. Establish all the relevant beginning, intermediate and end state parameters of the basic process object
Start state move: the screw grasped at the feeder pick up point
Sub state 1 move: the screw just above the feeder point
Sub state 2 move: the screw above the screw position
End state move & start state screwing: the screw at the screw
position, just in contact with the partial assembly
End state screwing: the screw fully screwed into the partial assembly but still in a grasped state.
I.2.b. Establish which parameters (a) change their value or (b) might be
aected by external in uences
169
z
y
B
. FB
. FC
A
Figure A.1: The example product of Figure 5.5
Start state to intermediate state 1 of the move process: only a

change in the position of the screw in the vertical direction is
relevant. No external in uences are identied.
Intermediate state 1 to intermediate state 2 of the move process:
only a change in position of the screw in horizontal direction is

relevant. No external in uences are identied.
Intermediate state 2 to end state of the move process: only a change
in position of the screw in vertical direction is relevant. No external
in uences are identied.
Start state to end state of the screw process: three in uenced object parameters are identied:
Change in position of the screw in vertical direction
Change of the rotation of the screw around the vertical axis
External in uence because of the contact between partial assembly and screw, this results in a change in force or torque
upon the screw
Translation (in along the vertical axis)
Translation (in the horizontal plane)
Translation (in along the vertical axis)
Rotation (around the vertical axis)
Eectuate a force
Eectuate a torque
170
Chapter A
B
Tables of Chapter 7
The tables given in this appendix belong to the example given in Chapter 7. The
rst two tables summarise specications of the modules used in the example.
The nal two tables summarise the possible FAS dedicated workstations and
FAS multipurpose workstations t for the given example.
171
No.
M 1T :
M 2T :
M 3T :
M 4T :
M 5T :
M 6T 1 :
M 7T 1 :
M 8T 1 :
M 6T 2 :
M 7T 2 :
M 8T 2 :
M 6T 3 :
M 7T 3 :
M 8T 3 :
M 9T :
M 10T :
M 11T 1 :
M 11T 2 :
M 11T 3 :
Module type
Positec portal actuator LM-P408
Positec cantilever actuator LM-Z404
Powercube linear spindel 70
Powercube linear belt 70
Gimapick linear cylinder 25...
Janome desktoprobot JR500u (Tx)
Janome desktoprobot JR750u (Tx)
Gantry robot G365 (Tx)
Janome desktoprobot JR500u (Ty)
Janome desktoprobot JR750u (Ty)
Gantry robot G365 (Ty)
Janome desktoprobot JR500u (Tz)
Janome desktoprobot JR750u (Tz)
Gantry robot G365 (Tz)
Scara JSR 4404 (Tx)
Scara JSR 4404 (Ty)
Scara JSR 4404 (Tz)
t
Sta
c
ic a
o
Vel
172
se
m/
m
[
city
m]
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.02
0.02
0.13
?
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
[m
cy
a
r
cu
c]
2000
700
530
250
?
100{500
100{750
1000
100{500
100{750
1000
10{200
10{300
1000
?
350
1500
1500
320
m]
0{5500
0{800
200{500
22-5900
(0; i)ji 2 (50; 100; 160; 200; 300; 400)
0{300
0{400
0{5500
0{300
0{400
0{3000
0{100
0{150
0{2000
(0; i)ji > 0 ^ i < 100
0{200
0{302
0{604
0{100
[m
ons
i
t
i
s
Po
Table B.1: The operation windows of the translation modules
Chapter B
No.
M 9R :
M 10R :
M 11R :
M 12R :
M 13R :
M 14R :
M 15R :
M 16R :
M 17R1 :
M 17R2 :
Module type
Scara JSR 4404
Powercube rotary 70
Escap stepper motor 001 coils in series
Escap stepper motor 001 coils in parallel
Powercube wrist 70 (360/s) (Ri)
Powercube wrist 70 (360/s) (Rj)
Tables of Chapter 7
g]
[de
y
rac
ccu
a
s]
tic
eg/
Sta
d
[
ty
oci
Vel
2.00
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.02
[de
1.080
9.000
1.000
450
600
216
1.800
1.800
360
216
ons
siti
o
P
(0; i)ji : 0 270

0{360
0{360
0,90
0,180
0{320
1 +1
1 +1
0{1080
0{100
g]
Table B.2: The operation windows of the rotation modules
173
Module Module Cost:

TzP1: TxP1:
6
350
7
400
11
425
2
3
400
2
4
340
2
10
460
3
3
500
3
4
440
3
10
560
4
3
440
4
4
380
4
10
500
8
3
525
8
4
465
8
10
585
10
3
560
10
4
500
10
10
620
Module Module Cost:
TzP2: TxP2:
6
350
7
400
11
425
2
3
400
2
4
340
2
10
460
3
3
500
3
4
440
3
10
560
4
3
440
4
4
380
4
10
500
8
3
525
8
4
465
8
10
585
10
3
560
10
4
500
10
10
620
Processtime:
0.372
0.248
0.212
0.154
0.230
0.189
0.181
0.257
0.216
0.308
0.384
0.343
0.128
0.204
0.163
0.239
0.315
0.274
Processtime:
0.418
0.279
0.227
0.197
0.322
0.254
0.225
0.349
0.282
0.351
0.476
0.409
0.171
0.296
0.229
0.283
0.407
0.340

TzN1: TxN1: RzN1:
6
15
510
6
16
510
6
17
575
7
15
560
7
16
560
7
17
625
11
15
585
11
16
585
11
17
650
2
3
15
560
2
3
16
560
2
3
17
625
2
10
15
620
2
10
16
620
2
10
17
685
3
3
15
660
3
3
16
660
3
3
17
725
3
10
15
720
3
10
16
720
3
10
17
785
4
3
15
600
4
3
16
600
4
3
17
665
4
10
15
660
4
10
16
660
4
10
17
725
8
3
15
685
8
3
16
685
8
3
17
750
8
10
15
745
8
10
16
745
8
10
17
810
10
3
15
720
10
3
16
720
10
3
17
785
10
10
15
780
10
10
16
780
10
10
17
845
Processtime:
1.028
1.028
3.250
0.870
0.870
3.092
0.800
0.800
3.023
0.804
0.804
3.026
0.887
0.887
3.109
0.831
0.831
3.053
0.914
0.914
3.137
0.958
0.958
3.180
1.041
1.041
3.263
0.778
0.778
Table B.3: FAS selection possibilities: dedicated workstations
174
Chapter B
3.000
0.861
0.861
3.083
0.889
0.889
3.111
0.973
0.973
3.195

TzN1: TxN1: RzN1:
6
15
510
6
16
510
6
17
575
7
15
560
7
16
560
7
17
625
11
15
585
11
16
585
11
17
650
2
3
15
560
2
3
16
560
2
3
17
625
2
10
15
620
2
10
16
620
2
10
17
685
3
3
15
660
3
3
16
660
3
3
17
725
3
10
15
720
3
10
16
720
3
10
17
785
4
3
15
600
4
3
16
600
4
3
17
665
4
10
15
660
4
10
16
660
4
10
17
725
8
3
15
685
8
3
16
685
8
3
17
750
8
10
15
745
8
10
16
745
8
10
17
810
10
3
15
720
10
3
16
720
10
3
17
785
10
10
15
780
10
10
16
780
10
10
17
845
Processtime:
1.818
1.818
4.040
1.397
1.397
3.619
1.239
1.239
3.461
1.154
1.154
3.376
1.330
1.330
3.552
1.237
1.237
3.459
1.412
1.412
3.635
1.617
1.617
3.839
1.793
1.793
4.015
1.077
1.077
3.299
1.253
1.253
3.475
1.411
1.411
3.634
1.587
1.587
3.809
Table B.4: FAS selection possibilities: multipurpose workstations
Tables of Chapter 7
175
176
Chapter B
Bibliography
[A+ 98]
R.L. Anderson et al. Idea cell: a case study in open software architecture for exible assembly. In H. Migliore, editor, Flexible automation and intelligent manufacturing, pages 287{297, Portland,
Oregon, USA, July 1998. Portland state university.
[AG88]
A. Arnstrom and P. Grondahl. Advantages of sub-batch principle
in exible automatic assembly as used in the IVF-KTH concept
mark ii. In Annals of the CIRP, volume 37, pages 9{12, 1988.
[AG96]
A. Arnstrom and P. Grondahl. Mark iii - a new approach to
highly exible assembly. In Z. Katz, editor, Proceedings of the
28th international seminar on manufacturing systems, pages 48{
54, Johannesburg, South Africa, May 1996.
[AGEO93] A. Anders, P. Grondahl, A. Eriksson, and M. Onori. MARK III,
a hybrid exible automatic assembly system for small batches. In
International conference on assembly, pages 137{146, 1993.
[AHLM95] S. Akella, W.H. Huang, K.M. Lynch, and M.T. Mason. Planar
manipulation on a conveyor with a one joint robot. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation 1995,
1995.
[Amt97]
Amtec, Automatisierungs- mess- und testtechnologien GMBH,
Pankstrae 8{10, 13127 Berlin, Germany. Product Range MoRSE,
November 1997. www.amtec-robotics.com.
[Ara93]
T Arai. Future assembly system in automobile industry, human
friendly line. In 1993 International conference on assembly, pages
9{17, Sydney, Australa, November 1993.
[Aro95]
R.B. Aronson. Trends in automated assembly. Manufacturing
engineering, 115(3):73{80, September 1995.
[Baa95]
J.P. Baartman. Automation of assembly operations on parts. PhD
thesis, TU Delft, 1995. ISBN 90-370-0119-X.
[BD91]
G. Boothroyd and P. Dewhurst. Product design for assembly.
Boothroyd Dewhurst inc., Wakeeld, USA, 1991.
Bibliography
177
[BDRZ94]
[Bej83]
[BG94]
[Bjo91]
[BL95]
[BN93]
[Bon93]
[Boo82]
[BPL82]
[BPM82]
[BR97]
[BS94]
[BSP96]
H. Bley, S. Dietz, N. Roth, and G. Zintl. Knowledge of selecting

assembly cell components and its distribution to cad and an expert system for processing. In CIRP annals 1994 Manufacturing,
volume 43 of Annals of the CIRP, pages 5{8. CIRP, 1994.
A.K. Bejczy. Smart hand-manipulator control through sesory feedback. Technical report, University of Arizona (&NASA), 1983.
JPL D-107.
R. Brost and K. Goldberg. A complete algorithm for synthesizing
modular xtures for polygonal parts. In Proceedings of the 1994
international conference on robotics and automation, San Diego,
CA, USA, May 1994. IEEE.
M. Bjorkman. Flexible assembly automation { motives and conditions. In B.S. Lim, editor, Proceedings of the internationald
conference on computer integrated manufacturing, pages 345{348,
October 1991.
M. Bellgran and E. Lahti. How do industry design assembly systems { a case study. In T.B. Sheridan, editor, Analysis, design and
evaluation of man-machine systems 1995, volume 2 of Proceedings from the 6th IFAC man-machine systems symposium, pages
667{672. Pergamon, June 1995. ISBN 0-08-042370-1.
N. Boubekri and S. Nagaraj. An integrated approach for the selection and design of assembly systems. Integrated manufacturing
systems, 4(1):11{17, 1993.
N. Boneschanscher. Plan generation for exible assembly systems.
PhD thesis, TU Delft, May 1993. ISBN 90-370-0081-9.
G. Boothroyd. Economics of assembly systems. Journal of manufacturing systems, 1(1):111{127, 1982. ISSN 0278-6125.
G. Boothroyd, C. Poli, and Murch. L.E. Automatic assembly. New
York: Dekker, 1982. ISBN 0-8247-1531-4.
G. Boothroyd, C.R. Poli, and L.E. Murch. Feeding and orienting
techniques for small parts. University of Massachusetts, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA,
1982.
N. Boubekri and R.H. Rambhia. Strategies for equipment design
and selection in robotic assembly. International journal of exible
automation and integrated manufacturing, 5(1&2):1{18, 1997.
J.P. Baartman and T. Storm. Flexible grippers for mechanical
assembly. Industrial robot, 21(1):23{27, 1994.
P. Butala, A. Sluga, and J. Peklenik. A systematic approach
to the development of an assembly system. In Z. Katz, editor,
Proceedings of the 28th CIRP international seminar on manufacturing systems{Advances in manufacturing technology, pages
178
Bibliography
41{47, Johannesburg, South-Africa, May 1996. Rand Afrikaans

University.
[Buc96]
R. Buckingham. Multi-arm robots. Industrial Robot, 23(1):16{20,
1996. ISSN 0143-991.
[BW87]
H. Brussel and D. de Winter. Flexible assembly systems. MB
Produktietechniek, (1), January 1987. (In Dutch: "Flexibele assemblagesystemen").
[C+ 97]
J.M.J. Cheng et al. Manufacturing system exibility: the "capability and capacity" approach. Integrated manufacruing systems,
8(3):147{158, August 1997.
[CGRW94] B. Carlisle, K. Goldberg, A. Rao, and J. Wiegley. Pivoting gripper
for feeding industrial parts. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1650{
1655, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1994. IEEE Service Center.
[Chr96]
G. Chryssolouris. Flexibility and its measurement. Annals of the
CIRP, 45(2):581{587, 1996.
[Coo94]
J. Coogan. They're just feeders, right? Assembly, pages 29{34,
February 1994.
[CPP94a] G. Cardarelli, M. Palumbo, and P.M. Pelagagge. Critical aspects
in multi-robot co-operation. Industrial robot, 21(5):31{35, 1994.
[CPP94b] G. Cardarelli, M. Palumbo, and P.M. Pelagagge. Some criteria
to help the experimental setup of assembly cells with cooperating robots. In 3rd IEEE international conference on systems
integration, S~ao Paulo, Brazil, August 1994.
[CQ97]
G.C. Causey and R.D. Quinn. Design of a exible parts feeding
system. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE international conceference on robotics and automation, 1997.
[CSD98]
F.F Chen, C. Saygin, and J.P. Dismukes. Concurrent product,
process and manufacturing system design: the imperative strategy
for the 21st century manufacturing. In H. Fujimoto and R.E.
De Vor, editors, Proceedings of the 1998 Japan-USA symposium
on exible automation, volume 2, pages 881{888, Kyoto, Japan,
July 1998. Institute of systems, control and information engineers.
ISBN 4-915740-98-FA.
[DI93]
G. Dodds and G.W. Irwin. Multi-arm robotics in a practical application under transputer based control. In International conference
on robotics and automation, volume 1, pages 505{510. Piscataway,
IEEE, 1993. ISSN 1050-4729.
[din67]
Fertigungsverfahren fugen, deutsche industrie normen, din8593,
1967.
[DNFSk97] J.R. Dai, A.Y.C. Nee, J.Y.H. Fuh, and A. Senthil kumar. A
cad-based approach to the design of xtures for prismatic parts.
Bibliography
179
[EH96]
Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, Part B:

journal of engineering manufacture, 211(B7):509{521, 1997.
H.C. Eversheim and T. Hack. Managing multiple product variants

in assembly control with a fuzzy petrinet approach. Annals of the
CIRP, 45(1):45{48, 1996. ISSN 0007-8506.
[EM88]
M.A. Erdmann and M.T. Mason. An exploration of sensorless
manipulation. IEEE Journal of robotics and automation, 4(4):369{
379, August 1988.
[Erd98]
M. Erdmann. Exploration of nonprehensile two-palm manipulation. International Journal of Robotics Research, 17(5):485{503,
May 1998.
+
[F 96]
K. Feldmann et al. Relevance of assembly in global manufacturing.
Annals of the CIRP, 45(2):545{552, 1996.
[F+ 98]
M. Fabian et al. A generic system architecture for exible production. In H. Fujimoto and R.E. De Vor, editors, Proceedings of
the 1998 Japan-USA symposium on exible automation, volume 3,
pages 1197{1204, Kyoto, Japan, July 1998. Institute of systems,
control and information engineers. ISBN 4-915740-98-FA.
[FNSkT95] J.Y.H. Fuh, A.Y.C. Nee, A. Senthil kumar, and J.C.S. Teo. Ifda: an
interactive xture design and assembly environment. International
journal of computer applications in technology, 8(1/2):30{40, 1995.
[For97]
Agility Forum. Next-generation manufacturing, a framework for
action. Technical report, Agility forum, Betlehem, PA, USA,
January 1997.
[G+ 93]
A.J. Graaf et al. MART: An overview of the mobile autonomous
robot twente project. Technical report, Department of Computer
Science, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 1993.
[Hee90]
C.J.M. Heemskerk. A concept for computer aided process planning
for exible assembly. PhD thesis, TU Delft, May 1990.
[HH92]
R.L. Hollis and R. Hammer. The ne positioner: a robotic tool for
precise planar motion. Industrial robot, 19(5):22{25, 1992.
[Hit88]
H. Hitakawa. Advanced parts orientation system has wide application. Assembly automation, 8(3):147{150, August 1988.
[HKM95] W.H. Huang, E.P. Krotkov, and M.T. Mason. Impulsive manipulation. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE international conference
on robotics and automation, part 1, volume 1, pages 120{125,
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1995. IEEE. ISSN 1050-4729.
[HKS95]
R.L. Hollis, M.H. Kryder, and M. Satyanarayanan. A distrubuted
architecture for rapidly recongurable assembly systems. NSF
Proposal addressing HPCC 1995, Multidisciplinary challenges,
June 1995.
180
Bibliography
[HM98]
[Hof96]
[Hol89]
[Hop96]
[HQ95]
[JG97]
[Kap86]
[KB88]
[KLM96]
[Klo94]
[Kra98]
[KTM96]
W.H. Huang and M.T. Mason. Experiments in impulsive manipulation. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE international conference
on robotics and automation, part 2, volume 2, pages 1077{1082,
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1998. IEEE.
E.G. Homan. Setup reduction through eective workholding.
Industrial press, New York, 1996. ISBN 0-8311-3067-9.
J. Hollingum. Consortium aims for multi-product assembly. Assembly automation, 9(3):137{141, August 1989.
H.G. Hop. Characteristics of assembly for products and parts.
Technical report, Faculty of mechanical engineering, TU Delft,
1996. Dutch.
R.L. Hollis and A. Quaid. An architecture for agile assembly. In
Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the american society for

precision engineering, October 1995. ISBN 1-887706-14-3.
Y.C. Jeng and K.F. Gill. A cad-based approach to the design

of xtures for prismatic parts. Proceedings of the institution of
mechanical engineers, Part B: journal of engineering manufacture,
211(B7):523{538, 1997.
R.S. Kaplan. Must cim be justied by faith alone? Harvard
business review, pages 87{95, March/April 1986.
A.J. Koivo and G.A. Bekey. Report of workshop on coordinated
multiple robot manipulators: planning, control and applications.
IEEE journal of robotics and automation, 4(1):91{93, February
1988.
H.J.J. Kals, C.A. Luttervelt, and K.A. Moulijn. Industrial pro-
duction, production of mechanical products (in Dutch: Industriele

productie, het voortbrengen van mechanische producten). De Vey
Mestdagh B.V., Middelburg, The Netherlands, 1996. ISBN 906376-0582.

C. Klomp. Sensor based ne motion control. PhD thesis, TU Delft,
June 1994. ISBN 90-9007126-8.
B.M. Kramer. Does our current knowledge extend to the next
generation of manufacturing? In H. Fujimoto and R.E. De Vor,
editors, Proceedings of the 1998 Japan-USA symposium on exible
automation, volume 3, pages 983{990, Kyoto, Japan, July 1998.
Institute of systems, control and information engineers. ISBN 4915740-98-FA.
S. Kanai, H. Takahashi, and H. Makino. Aspen: computer-aided
assembly sequence planning and evaluation system based on predetermined time standard. Annals of the CIRP, 45(1):35{39, 1996.
ISSN 0007-8506.
Bibliography
181
[L+ 98]
[Lar98]
[LBJ93]
[Lee94]
[Lee97]
[LL92]
[LLNL93]
[LNR95]
[LOB91]
[Lot86]
[Lou95]
182
D. Larso et al. An investigation of the relationships between manufacturing exibility and continous improvement: a case study.
In H. Migliore, editor, Flexible automation and intelligent manufacturing, pages 227{239, Portland, Oregon, USA, July 1998.
Portland state university.
C. Larman. Applying UML and patterns, an introduction to objectoriented analysis and design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle
River, NJ 07458, USA, 1998. ISBN 0-13-748880-7.
M. Lundstrom, M. Bjorkman, and C. Johansson. A method for
assembly system design including an integrated computerized design support. In A. Croisier, M. Israel, and F. Chavand, editors,
Computers in design, manufacturing, and production, CompEuro
proceedings, pages 52{61, Los Alamitos, California, USA, May
1993. IEEE Computer society press. ISBN 0-8186-4030-8.
S. Lee. Subassembly identication and evaluation for assembly
planning. IEEE transactions on systems, man and cybernetics,
24(3):493{503, March 1994. ISSN 0018-9472.
S. Lee, editor. 1997 IEEE international symposium on assembly
and task planning (ISATP'97), Marina del Rey, CA, USA, August
1997. Piscataway, IEEE. ISBN 0-7803-3820-0.
J.P. Lavelle and H.R. Liggett. Economic methods for evaulating
investments in advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic
and nancial justication of advanced manufacturing technologies,
pages 119{139, 1992.
S.S.G. Lee, Lim. L.E.N., B.K.A. Ngoi, and S.W. Lye. An outline
of the drop, landing and resting behaviour of small parts. In 1993
international conference on assembly, pages 147{152, Adelaide,
Australia, October 1993. The institution of engineers. ISBN 85825595-2.
T.C. Lurth, U.M. Nassal, and U. Rembold. Reliability and integration, capabilities of locomotion and manipulation for autonomous
robot assembly. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 14:185{198,
1995.
M. Lundstrom, C. Olofsson, and M. Bjorkman. An approach to
an expert system model for systematic design of exible assembly
systems. In B.S. Lim, editor, Proceedings of the internationald
conference on computer integrated manufacturing, pages 503{506,
October 1991.
B. Lotter. Automated assembly in the electrical industry. Automated assembly, pages 49{56, 1986.
C. Loughlin. INFACT not ction. Assembly automation, 15(1),
1995.
Bibliography
[Lun93]
M. Lundstrom. Assembly systsm - an approach to a system design

method. Technical report, Linkoping university, Department of
mechanical engineering, June 1993. ISBN 91-7871-132-0.
[Lun94]
M. Lundstrom. Designing assembly systems based on a sociotechnical view. In G.E. Bradley and H.W. Hendrick, editors,
Human factors in organizational design and mangagement IV,
pages 213{218. Elsevier Science B.V., 1994. ISBN 0-444-89952-9.
[LvW97]
R. de Leeuw van Weenen. Investment calculations and demands
from users of a exible assembly system. Technical report, Faculty
of mechanical engineering, TU Delft, 1997. Dutch.
[Lyn92]
K.M. Lynch. The mechanics of ne manipulation by pushing.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and
Automation 1992, pages 2269{2276, 1992.
[M+ 94]
H. Makino et al. New developments in assembly systems. Annals
of the CIRP, 43(2):501{511, 1994.
[Mil96]
D. Milutinovic. Micro scara robot as universal adaptive compliant
wrist. Annals of the CIRP, 45(1):31{34, 1996. ISSN 0007-8506.
[MKY90] R.S. Mattikalli, P.K. Khosla, and Xu Y. Subassembly identication and motion generation for assembly: A geometric approach.
In Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE International Conference on
Systems Engineering, pages 399{403, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1990.
[MUK98] M.G. Mehrabi, A.G. Ulsoy, and Y. Koren. Recongurable manufacturing systems: key to future manufacturing. In H. Fujimoto
and R.E. De Vor, editors, Proceedings of the 1998 Japan-USA symposium on exible automation, volume 2, pages 677{682, Kyoto,
Japan, July 1998. Institute of systems, control and information
engineers. ISBN 4-915740-98-FA.
[MVBSS95] L.A. Martin-Vega, H.K. Brown, W.H. Shaw, and T.J. Sanders.
Industrial perspective on research needs and opportunities in manufacturing assembly. Journal of manufacturing systems, 14(1):45{
58, 1995.
+
[N 97]
S.Y. Nof et al. Industrial assembly. Chapman & Hall, 1997.
ISBN 0-412-55770-3.
[NLE97]
B.K.A. Ngoi, L.E.N. Lim, and J.T. Ee. Analysis of natural resting
aspects of parts in a vibratory bowl feeder - validation of the 'drop
test'. Advanced manufacturing technology, 13:300{310, 1997.
[NTB93]
X. Ning, T.J. Tarn, and A.K. Bejczy. Event-based planning and
control for multi-robot coordination. In International conference
on robotics and automation, volume 1, pages 251{257. Piscataway,
IEEE, 1993. ISSN 1050-4729.
[NWSk95] A.Y.C. Nee, K. Whybrew, and A. Senthil kumar. Advanced xture
design for FMS. Springer-Verlag, 1995. ISBN 3-540-19908-X.
Bibliography
183
[OAB99]
[OJ92a]
[OJ92b]
[OMJ91]
[Par96]
[Pay93]
[Pre93]
[PW96]
[QH96]
[Ram93a]
[Ram93b]
184
M. Onori, M.Sc.H. Alsterman, and M.Sc.A. Bergdahl. Mark iv, a

hyper exible automatic assembly system solution. In Proceedings
of the 30th international symposium on robotics, Tokyo, Japan,
October 1999.
C. Olofsson and C. Johansson. A computerized decision support system for systematic design of exible assembly systems.
In A. Sydow, editor, Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on systems analysis and simulation, pages 135{140. Elsevier
science publishers B.V., August 1992.
C. Olofsson and C. Johansson. A computerized design support for
systematic design of exible assembly systems. In Proceedings of
the 23rd international symposium on industrial robots, pages 349{
354. Asociacion Espa~nola de Robotica, October 1992. ISBN 84604-3652-7.
O.F. Oodile, W.M. Marcy, and S.L. Johnson. Knowledge base
design for exible assembly robots. International journal of production research, 29(2):317{328, 1991.
C.J.J. Paredis. An agent-based approach to the design of rapidly
deployable fault tolerant manipulators. PhD thesis, Carnegiel mellon university, Department of elxctrical and computer engineering,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August 1996.
J. Payne. Robotworld - unrolled motors turn assembly on its head.
Industrial robot, 20(1):28{31, 1993.
J.C. Prelaz. Fast and precise cartesian robots satisfy demanding
assembly needs. Industrial robot, 20(1):16{17, 1993.
G. Pritschow and K.H. Wurst. Modular robots for exible assembly. In Z. Katz, editor, Proceedings of the 28th international
seminar on manufacturing systems, pages 153{158, Johannesburg,
South Africa, May 1996.
A.E. Quaid and R.L. Hollis. Cooperative 2-dof robots for precision assembly. In Proceedings IEEE international conference on
robotics and automation, volume 3, pages 2188{2193, Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 1996. IEEE. ISSN 1050-4729.
H.K. Rampersad. The design of robot assembly cells. PhD thesis,
TU Eindhoven, July 1993. ISBN 90-386-0281-2 (In Dutch: Het
ontwerpen van robotassemblagecellen).
H.K. Rampersad. Integration and simultaneous design: design
structures and tools for succesfull conceivement. Lemna, Utrecht,
The Netherlands, November 1993. ISBN 90-5189-281-0 (In
Dutch: Integraal en simultaan ontwerpen; ontwerpmodellen en
-gereedschappen voor het succescol concipieren.
Bibliography
[RD98]
[RG95]
[RH90]
[Ros94]
[S+ 94]
[San95]
[Saw94]
[SB92]
[SB93]
[Sch87]
[Sch92]
[Sch96]
[SD94]
[Shi96]
A.H. Redford and F. Dailami. Designing a generic exible assembly system. In H. Migliore, editor, Flexible automation and
intelligent manufacturing, pages 287{297, Portland, Oregon, USA,
July 1998. Portland state university.
A.S. Rao and K.Y. Goldberg. Manipulating algebraic parts in
the plane. In IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation,
volume 11, pages 598{602, August 1995.
L.N. Reijers and H.J.L.M. de Haas. Produktiesystemen. Number 2
in Flexibele produktie automatisering. De Vey Mestdagh B.V., 1s t
edition, 1990.
E.M. Ross. Flexible parts feeders for robotic assembly. Assembly,
pages 24{28, October 1994.
P. Scharf et al. Die automatisierte Montage mit Schrauben; Anforderungen, alternative Fugeverfahren. Expert-Verlag, Ehningen
bei Boblingen, Germany, 1994.
A.C. Sanderson, editor. Proceedings IEEE international symposium on assembly and task planning, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August
1995. Los Alamitos , IEEE Computer Society Press. ISBN 0-81866995-0.
Linear motor robots nding varied applications. Robotics world,
pages 14{16, Fall 1994.
R. Slagmulder and H. Bruggeman. Justication of strategic investments in exible manufacturing technology. Integrated manufacturing systems, 3(3):4{14, 1992.
T. Storm and N. Boneschanscher. Internal transport: A key
problem in exible assembly cells. In Proceedings of the 1993
international conference on assembly, pages 183{189, 1993.
V. Scheinman. Robotworld, a multiple robot vision guided assembly system. In International syposium on robotics research,
1987.
U. Schweigert. Precision assembly with industrial robots. Industrial Robot, 19(2):28{34, 1992.
M.J. Scheepbouwer. An evaluation of fas-concepts (dutch). Technical report, TU Delft, 1996.
M. Santochi and G. Dini. Automated design of xtures: the selection of locating and clamping surfaces. Manufacturing systems,
23(4), 1994.
B. Shirinzadeh. Strategies for planning and implementation of
exible xturing systems in a computer integrated manufacturing environment. Computers in industry, 30(3):175{183, 1996.
ISSN 0166-3615.
Bibliography
185
[SR96]
[SSG92]
[Sti94]
[Str98]
[SV91]
[SW97]
[TSV99]
[Ver91]
[VH91]
[VI90]
T. Storm and M.A. Rodenburg. An adjustable remote center compliant. In Z. Katz, editor, Proceedings of the 28th international
seminar on manufacturing systems, pages 136{139, Johannesburg,
South Africa, May 1996.
R.D. Schraft, M. Schweizer, and R. Grau. MAX: Modular assembly example. In International symposium on industrial robots,
pages 197{202, 1992.
J.O. Stigter. Error management or how a robot can bear Murphy's
law. PhD thesis, TU Delft, September 1994. ISBN 90-407-1032-5.
S. Stramigioli. From dierentiable manifolds to interactive robot
control. PhD thesis, TU Delft, December 1998. ISBN 90-90119744.
H.K. Scherrer and D. Vischer. Intelligent robot gripper for general
purposes. In The 2nd international symposium on experimental
robotics, Toulouse, France, June 25{27 1991. Springer, London.
ISBN 3-540-19851-2.
S.E. Sarma and P.K. Wright. Reference free part encapsulation: a new universal xturing concept. Journal of manufacturing
systems, 16(1), 1997.
M. Tichem, T. Storm, and J.A.W.M. Vos. How to achieve a breakthrough in the industrialisation of exible assembly automation?
In J. Ashayer, W.G. Sullivan, and M.M. Ahmad, editors, Proceedings of the ninth international FAIM conference, pages 327{336,
June 1999.
B.J.H. Verwer. Distance transforms; metrics, algorithms and applications. PhD thesis, TU Delft, June 1991. ISBN 90-6275-697-2.
P. Voho and J. Heilala. Modular production system for assembly automation. In B.S. Lim, editor, Proceedings of the inter-
national conference on Computer integrated manufacturing ICCIM'91, pages 357{360. World scientic, October 1991.
S.T. Venkataraman and T. Iberall. Dextrous robot hands. Springer,
New York, 1990. ISBN 0-387-97190-4.

[VNZC98] V.B. Velasco, W.S. Newman, Y. Zheng, and S. Choi. Computerassisted gripper and xture customization using rapid-prototyping
technology. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3658{3664, Leuven,
Belgium, 1998. IEEE.
[VS98]
J.A.W.M. Vos and T. Storm. Design of an industrial exible asembly system: high level choices. Journal of manufacturing systems,
27(4):363{367, 1998. ISSN 0176-3377.
[VS99]
J.A.W.M. Vos and T. Storm. State-of-the-art in exibly automated assembly systems. In M.T. Hillery and H.J. Lewis, editors,
186
Bibliography
Proceedings of the fteenth conference of the international foundation for production research, volume 1, pages 913{916, Limerick,
Ireland, August 1999. University of Limerick. ISBN 1-874653-56-9.

E. Westkamper. Intelligent manufacturing systems for the next
century. In 31st CIRP international seminar on manufacturing
systems, pages 87{92, Berkeley, California, USA, May 1998.
[Wil94]
A. Willy. Vorrichtungssysteme fur die exibel automatisierte Montage. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1994.
[Wil97]
M.A. Willemse. Interactive product design tools for automated
assembly. PhD thesis, TU Delft, September 1997. ISBN 90-3700126-9.
[WSTN92] H.J. Warnecke, M. Schweizer, K. Tamaki, and S.Y. Nof. Handbook
of industrial engineering. Wiley, New York, 2nd edition, 1992.
[WWW93] J.F. Wossner, T. Weisener, and A. Willy. MAX ein richtungsweisendes montagekonzept. Technische Rundschau, pages
26{28, 1993.
[WZG95] R. Wagner, Y. Zhuang, and K. Goldberg. Fixturing faceted parts
with seven modular struts. In Proceedings IEEE international
symposium on assembly and task planning, pages 133{139, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August 1995. IEEE.
[YYF98]
T. Yamaguchi, A. Yano, and K. Fujita. Eect of xture with passive compliant function in a peg-in-hole task. In H. Fujimoto and
R.E. De Vor, editors, Proceedings of the 1998 Japan-USA symposium on exible automation, volume 2, pages 677{682, Kyoto,
Japan, July 1998. Institute of systems, control and information
engineers. ISBN 4-915740-98-FA.
[ZC94]
Y.F. Zheng and M.Z. Chen. Trajectory planning for two manipulators to deform exible beams. Robotics and autonomous systems,
12(1-2):55{67, March 1994. ISSN 0921-8890.
[Wes98]
Bibliography
187
188
Bibliography
Index
AAA, see Minifactory
Adjustment phase, 119
Advanced parts orientation system,
see APOS
APOS, 37
Application eld, 65
Architecture for agile assembly, see
Minifactory
Assembly, 3, 5
costs, 10
developments in the eld, 18
economic motives, 6
indirect savings, 7
need, 4
operation, see Operation
process, see Process
relevance, 9
signicance, 11
technical motives, 7
Assembly automation, 6
degree, 11, 53
increasing importance, 11
obstructions, 19
relevance, 9
Assembly cell, 25
Assembly costs, 11
Assembly domain, 5
Assembly equipment, 22, see Equipment
Assembly industry growth, 9
Assembly process, see Process
Assembly sequence, 86
Assembly sequence planning, 47
Assembly sub system, 35
Assembly system, 7, 22, 23, 25, see

FAS
costs, 11, 155, 159
customization, 63
design, 50
bottom-up, 50
defective systematics, 58
method, 64
methods, 50
top-down, 50
design time, 63
development time, 66
element relation, 117
importance, 23, 59
manufacturing time, 63
prot, 58
realization time
reduction, 62
set-up time, 66
type, 25
workstations in line, 33
Assembly time
reduction, 7
Assembly worker shortage, 11
Assortment, see Product, assortment
Attribute, 71, 74
identication, 99
object, see Object, attribute
operation, 72
production, 72
reproduction, 84, 99
rotation, 138
value assignment, 99
Attribute inheritance, 71
189
Automation, see Assembly automation

Branch, 65, 75
Branch I, 75, 77, 78
example, 135
structure, 79
Branch II, 75, 77, 82
example, 143
Capacity exibility index, see Flexibility, capacity index
CFI, see Flexibility, capacity index
Check, 92
Classication-based, 164
Collission free path planning, 47
Comparison phase, 119
Compliance, 45
active mechanism, 46
passive mechanism, 46
Composed product, see Product, composed
Computer support, 164, 165
Conceptual desing, 59
Conclusions, 161
Conguration, 75, 82
eort, 81, 82
example, 143
method, 75, 83, 111
Conguration eort, 82
Control, 47
Cost-eective, 122
Customised system, 61, 162
De-xture, 91, 92
Decision class, 164
Delft intelligent assembly cell, see
DIAC
Deliverables, 64
Design for assembly, see DFA
Desired state, 61
Detailed design, 59
DFA, 21
190
interdependency with equipment,

24
lack of usage, 24
objectives, 21
penetration time, 24
DIAC, 25
Dispatching, 22
Distance correction, 140
Drawbacks present situation, 56
Economic justication, 56{58, 61,
62
bottleneck, 23
strategies, 7
Element, 114
environmental, 116
identication, 117
requirement identication, 117
requirements, 116
system relation, 117
Embodiment, 59
Environment, 114
identication, 115, 116
Equipment, 22
capabilities, 164
importance, 23
interdependency with DFA, 24
selection, 54
Error management, 47
FAAS, 8
Fabrication, 4
Fabrication process, 70, 71
Family, see Product, family
FAS, 8
strategies, 26
FAS conguration, see Conguration
FAS development, 87
FAS development method, 69
example, 135
industrial use, 165
key-technologies, 163
Index
structure, 75, 77
FAS requirements, 66
FAS-user, 120
requirements, 125
Fixture, 42, 91, 92
adaptable, 44
dedicated, 44
exible, 44
generic, 44
modular, 44
phase changing, 44, 45
recongurable, 44
Flexibility, 6, 15, 81, 82
adequate, 56, 57
capability and capacity, 20
capacity index, 20
degree, 25, 56, 57
delivery time, 122
diversity, 20
economic justication, 58
importance, 18
long-term, see Flexibility, strategic
medium-term, see Flexibility,
tactical
operational, 16, 17
penalty of change, 19
product, 16
pyramid, 16, 17
quantication method, 19
reconguration, 16, 63, 122
response, 20
semi random production, 16
semi-random production, 122
short-term, see Flexibility, operational
strategic, 16, 17
system life, 58
tactical, 16, 17
types, 16, 17
volume, 16, 20, 122
Flexible assembly, 5
Index
Flexible assembly system, see FAS

Flexible manufacturing, see Manufacturing, exible
Flexibly automated assembly, 6, 7,
15
core, 23
industrial applicability, 25
key-elements, 20
review, 25
Functionality selection, 101
Genasys, 28
General applicability, 65, 66
General methods, 164
Generic assembly system, see Genasys
Grasp, 39, 91, 92
Gripper, 39
234, 40
dextrous, 39
nger, 39
exibility, 41
exible, 39
palm, 42, 43
Utah-MIT, 39
versatile, see Gripper, dextrous
High level design choices, 50, 52, 53,
61
Impedance control, 47
Infact, see Genasys
Insert process, operations in, 138
Installation phase, 119
Integration rules, see Operation, integration, rules
Investment risk, 64
Join, 91, 92
KAMRO, 31
key-technologies, see FAS development method, key-technologies
191
Lean manufacturing, see Manufacturing, lean

Life-cycle, 114
phase, 115, 117, 119
identication, 116, 117
Logical relations, 164
Low level design choices, 61, 62, 163
Manipulation, 45
impulsive, 46
palm, see Gripper, palm
Manipulator, 89, 90
Manual assembly, 5, 6
Manufacturing
exible, 18
lean, 18
mass, 18
recongurable, 18
Manufacturing paradigms, 18
Manufacturing system
evolution, 48
Mark III, 31
Mark IV, 32
Market, 120
requirements, 121
MART, 31
Mass assembly, 5{7
Mass manufacturing, see Manufacturing, mass
Materials production, 4, see Production, materials
MAX, 29
Minifactory, 33
Mobile autonomous robot, see MART
Modular assembly example, see MAX
Modularity, 62
advantages, 62
requirements, 75
Module, 23
applicability, 81, 163
capability testing, 85, 103, 104,
151
combination, 104
192
development, 78
development method, 110
interface specication, 81
number of, 81
selection, 59, 83, 85, 103, 111,
151
specication, 81, 100
strategies, 101, 102
specication identication, 78{
80, 100, 110, 140
window, 72, 81, 83, 85, 100
increase, 101
integrate, 101, 140
separate, 101, 140
Move, 92
Move process, operations in, 138
Nest, 36, 37
Next generation manufacturing, 49
Object
attribute, 99
parameter, see Parameter, object
state, 94
Operation, 66, 70, 71, 95
attribute, see Attribute, operation
combine, 101, 140
identication, 78{80, 94, 110,
137
integration, 82, 101, 104{106,
108
rules, 108
joining process, 97
parameter, see Parameter, operation
process class, 98
reproduce, 83
reproduction, 84, 111, 148
separation, 82, 101
specication, 81
window, 72, 95
Index
Over-capability, 104
Over-functionality, 56
Parameter, 71, 74
determination, 100
identication, 78{80, 83, 84, 99,
110, 111, 138, 148
modier, 95
object, 94
operation, 95
part, 74, 84
part relation, 84
product, 84
production, 81, 84, 114
stabalizer, 95
Parent-child relation, 71, 72
Part, 3, 72{74, 89
assembly characteristics, 123
parameter, see Parameter, part
window, 74
Part feeder
controlled impact, 37
nest, 37
pushing, 37
random impact, 37
reel, 35
stack, 36
tape, 35
tray, 36
vibratory, 35
Part feeding, 35
Part stage, 89
Partial assembly, 3, 72, 73, 89
Partial assembly stage, 89
Planning, 22, 47
assembly sequence, see Assembly sequence planning
POC, see Flexibility, penalty of change
Primary process, 5, see Process, primary
Problem denition, 55
Problem domain, 5
Problem statement, 60
Index
Process, 5, 70, 71, 89, 120

associated, 57
class, 70, 71, 92
class identication, 88
classication, 70
example, 74, 76
identication, 83, 84, 88, 91,
93, 111, 147
integration, 61, 62, 163
requirements, 124
responsiveness, 47
window, 72, 85
comparison, 164
Process based, 53, 61, 62, 66, 77, 78,
163
Process focus, 61, 75, 77, 163
identication, 78{80, 110, 136
Process oriented approach, 66
Process planning, 21
Process time, 155, 157, 159
relation to production volume,
157
Process-based, 163
Product, 3, 72, 89, 120
assembly characteristics, 123
classication, 72, 73
example, 74, 76
composed, 72, 73
design, 21
family, 72, 73
range, 72, 73, 114, 115
requirements, 123, 164
single part, 72
subsequent stages, 88, 89, 148
variant, 72, 73, 77
window
decrease, 101
Product based, 52, 53, 57, 61, 77
drawbacks, 57
Product changes
system life, 58
Product complexity, 6
193
Product design, 84
Product exibility, see Flexibility,
product
Product focus, 57, 61
Product independent, 66, 77
Product spectrum, 65
Product stage, 89
Production, 5
attribute, see Attribute, production
computer integrated, 48
craft, 48
mass, 48
next generation system, 48
organization, 47
parameter, see Parameter, production
situation, 115
strategy, 47
Production process, 70, 71
Production situation, 59
Production volume, 6, 157
relation to process time, 157
Quality, 122
Range, see Product, range
Recommendations, 161, 165
Recongurable, 47
Recongurable manufacturing, see
Manufacturing, recongurable
Reconguration exibility, see Flexibility, reconguration
Reconguration phase, 119
Relation
requirements, 118
Release, 91, 92
Reliability, 58, 62, 63
Requirement
identication, 116
example, 118
identication method, 113
Research approach, 65, 66
194
Research goal, 60, 64, 161, 162

Research scope, 65
Retrieve, 91, 92
Return on investment, see ROI
Reusability, 57, 58, 61
Reuse phase, 119
Robot, 45
cooperative, 46
modular, 45
multi-arm control, 47
strategies, 46
Robot world, 30
ROI, 57
Scheduling, 22, 47
Screw process, operations in, 138
Secondary process, 5, see Process,
secondary
Semi random production, see Flexibility, semi random production
Set of modules, 75
method structure, 79
Small product focus, 52
Specication phase, 119
State characteristics, 99
State of the art, 51, 52, 61
sub system, 53
system, 53
system design, 53
Storage, 90
Store, 91, 92
Strategic decisions, 164
Sub-batch, 28, 94
System, see Assembly system
System border, 118, 119
identication, 117
System component, 88{90
process, 90
System design, see Assembly system, design
System development method, 69
Index
Terminology, 69
Time correction, 140
Time-to-market, 122
Tool, 89, 90
Tool-manipulator combination, 89,
90
UML, 71, 73
Unied modeling language, see UML
Universal machine, 52, 56, 61
Use phase, 119
Variant, see Product, variant
Velocity correction, 140
Volume exibility, see Flexibility,
volume
Window, 71
module, see Module, window
operation, see Operation, window
process, see Process, window
Workstation, 23
combination selection, 103, 109,
155
conguration identication, 109
identication, 85, 103, 104, 152
selection, 85
Index
195
196
Index
About the author

Jeroen Augustinus Wilhelmus Maria Vos was born on March 16th , 1972 in
Cadier en Keer, The Netherlands. After nishing his primary education at the
St. Maartenscollege in Maastricht in 1990, he started his study in Mechanical Engineering at the Delft University of Technology.
Under supervision of Prof. ir. L.N. Reijers, he specialised in Flexible Production Automation. He worked on assignments at NTN corporation (Iwata, Japan)
in 1994 on the adaptive control of a grinding machine and on a graduation assignment at The Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (Pittsburgh,
USA) in 1995 on the development of a exible part-feeder. He graduated in Delft
in 1996.
In the same year he started as a research assistant in the same laboratory, at
that time renamed to the laboratory for Production Engineering and Organisation. He conducted research in the area of exibly automated assembly systems
under supervision of Prof. dr. ir. H.J.J. Kals and dr. ir. T. Storm.
In 1997 and 1998 he was also attached as a consultant in assembly system
design to Philips DAP in Drachten, The Netherlands.
The research into exibly automated assembly systems resulted in this thesis.
About the author
197
198
About the author

Fleksibilni Montazni Sistem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fleksibilni Montazni Sistem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module and System Design in

Flexibly Automated Assembly

Module and System Design in

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:

Published and distributed by: DUP Science

design. Key-strategy in this additional support is an extensive modularity of

Module and System Design in

The research presented in this thesis represents a relevant contribution to the

Module and System Design in

Module and System Design in

kan uitvoeren. Extra ontwerpondersteuning is noodzakelijk: (a) ondersteuning

Module and System Design in

Module and System Design in

Module and System Design in

The assembly process

Flexibly Automated Assembly

Classi cation of the assembly processes and products

Detailing the FAS-development method

System development method

Step I.1 and II.1: Process (focus) identi cation

Method for the identi cation of FAS requirements

Requirements identi cation as the basis for the

Example of the FAS development method

Step II.4: Module selection

A Branch I example: development of a set of modules

Conclusions and recommendations

Reviewing the research goals

Recommendations for future work

Identi cation of the operations within the screw process 169

Position of assembly within the product creation process

The Utah-MIT gripper [VI90]

Economic justi cation of exibility

Subsequent stages of a product in construction

Background to the identi cation of requirements

Parts process classes to be considered

A.1 The example product of Figure 5.5

Main type of equipment used for each type of assembly

Overview of FAS strategies [VS99]

Drawbacks of the present situation

Operations identi ed in the joining processes

In uencing elements in the environment of a FAS in each

Operations identi ed in the move, insert and screw process 138

The example set of modules

The operation windows of the translation modules

Assembly equipment: a cluster of components that together execute assembly processes.

Assembly process: a distinct process out of a class of processes.

Attribute: a characteristic |e.g. velocity| of an operation or process.

Check: all processes that examine an object's state or supervise a process.

moved. After de- xturing the partial assembly comes to be classi ed

Parameter: the value or range of values of an attribute of an operation or

process instance. This value might be constant or speci ed by a function

Semi-random production ability: a type of exibility related to changeovers

1.1 The assembly process

Motion between parts

(assembly ). Since a product can be input as a part in a succeeding fabrication

Production denotes the area that includes fabrication (part-manufacturing),

1.2 Problem domain: flexibly automated assembly

Annual production volume

The assembly domain is a domain important to all composed products.

Figure 1.2: The three types of assembly [RH90]

feasible type of assembly for a given situation depends on several parameters.

Production volume: the number of products to be assembled per time unit

Main type of equipment:

Classication of the assembly processes and products

Step I.1 and II.1: Process (focus) identication

Method for the identication of FAS requirements

Requirements identication as the basis for the

Identication of the operations within the screw process 169

Economic justication of exibility

Background to the identication of requirements

Operations identied in the joining processes

Operations identied in the move, insert and screw process 138

moved. After de-xturing the partial assembly comes to be classied

process instance. This value might be constant or specied by a function

The dierence in relative costs between automated and manual operations

Stier and ercer market competition

of the equipment are dened as the processes to be executed by the

Module: is an equipment building block with a specic function: execution of