Presented in this paper is a feature-based method for selecting an optimal (minimum yet sufficient) set of modules necessary to form a reconfigurable machine tool for producing a part family. This method consists of two parts. In the first part, a feature-module database is created to form a selection space, where the machinable geometric features identified in STEP are defined as functional requirements (FR’s) and the structural component modules derived from the conventional machine tools as design parameters (DP’s). An inner FR-to-DP mapping mechanism within the database is based on the “Membership Grade Matrix,” which defines metrics to quantify the degree of association between a FR and a DP. Within the confines of the selection space built upon this FR-DP database, the second part of the method involves a two-step procedure for module selection. The first step is to select the modules from this space to construct all the required individual configurations of the reconfigurable machine tool. The second step is to maximize the number of common modules among the originally selected modules through re-selection. A case study on designing a reconfigurable machine tool dedicated to a given family of die molds is conducted and discussed.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
Module Selection, Reconfiguration, Machine Tools, Design, Machinable Features, mechanical engineering computing, intelligent manufacturing systems, machine tools, product design, engineering information systems
Topics:
Databases, Design, Machine tools, Machinery, Machining
1.
Koren
,
Y.
,
Heisel
,
U.
,
Jovane
,
F.
,
Morivaki
,
T.
,
Pritschow
,
G.
,
Ulsoy
,
G.
, and
Van Brussel
,
H.
,
1999
, “
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
,”
CIRP Ann.
,
48
, pp.
1
–
14
.
2.
Moon, Y.-M., and Kota, S., 2000, “Synthesis of Reconfigurable Machine Tool With Screw Theory,” CD-ROM Proc. of ASME/DETC 2000, MECH-14066, Baltimore, MD, pp. 10–13.
3.
Tilbury, D. M., and Kota, S., 1999, “Integrated Machine and Control Design for Reconfigurable Machine Tools,” Proc. of the 1999 IEEE/ASME, International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Atlanta, GA, pp. 19–23.
4.
Moon
,
Y. M.
, and
Kota
,
S.
,
2002
, “
Generalized Kinematic Modeling of Reconfigurable Machine Tools
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
124
, pp.
47
–
51
.
5.
Moon
,
Y. M.
, and
Kota
,
S.
,
2002
, “
Design of Reconfigurable Machine Tools
,”
ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
,
124
, pp.
480
–
483
.
6.
Gopalakrishnan
,
V.
,
Fedewa
,
D.
,
Mehrabi
,
M. G.
,
Kota
,
S.
, and
Orlandea
,
N.
,
2002
, “
Parallel Structures and Their Application in Reconfigurable Machining Systems
,”
ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
,
124
, pp.
483
–
485
.
7.
Son
,
S.-Y.
,
Olsen
,
T. L.
, and
Yip-Hoi
,
D.
,
2001
, “
An Approach to Scalability and Line Balancing for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
,”
J. Integ. Manuf. Sys.
,
12
, pp.
500
–
511
.
8.
Marcotte, S., Montreuil, B., and Olivier, C., 2002, “Factory Design Fitness for Dealing With Uncertainty,” Proc. 5th International Conference on Managing Innovations in Manufacturing (MIM 2002), Milwaukee, WI, pp. 9–12.
9.
Chen, L., Xi, F., and Wolf, A., 2001, “Modularization in Reconfiguration Design Theory and Methodology,” CD-ROM Proc. CIRP 1st International Conference on Agile, Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 21–22.
10.
Suh, N. P., 1990, The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
11.
ISO Technical Committee 184, Sub-Committee 4, 1998, STEP—ISO 10303.
12.
Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
13.
Chen
,
L.
, and
Ramani
,
K.
,
2000
, “
A Subjective Design Framework for Conceptual Design of Polymeric Processes With Multiple Parameters
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
12
, pp.
220
–
234
.
14.
Chen
,
L.
,
2001
, “
Multiobjective Design Optimization Based on Satisfaction Metrics
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
,
33
, pp.
601
–
617
.
Copyright © 2005
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.