Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical Feasibility Analysis of Utilizing Special Purpose Machine Tools
Technical Feasibility Analysis of Utilizing Special Purpose Machine Tools
Technical Feasibility Analysis of Utilizing Special Purpose Machine Tools
net/publication/298806747
CITATIONS READS
18 3,871
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ana Vafadar on 08 May 2016.
Keywords Special purpose machines. Reconfigurable special purpose. Special purpose machine tool (SPM) as the
manufacturing systems. Drilling-related operations. major components of this type of manufacturing system can
Feasibility analysis. be applied to produce family parts for a specific range of
volumes over the production life time. Notably, customized
1. Introduction flexibility of SPMs makes them less expensive than GPMs
Increasing manufacturing competition market and rapidly [6].
changing consumer demand have led many industries to use These machines are designed based on current and future
flexible and responsiveness manufacturing systems. requirements of manufacturing systems and market
ElMaraghy [5] classified manufacturing systems into three demands [1, 8]. Their modularity allows them to
major categories: Dedicated Machining Systems (DMSs), manufacture various products by applying minor changes to
Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMSs) and the machine’s configuration by rearranging units and
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMSs) which have accessories [9, 10]. These economic and productive
different characteristics (Table 1). DMSs are designed to machines are often used for drilling-related operations such
produce a single part at a fixed volume over the life as drilling, reaming and tapping which are typical hole-
production time and involve dedicated machine tools which making operations and have large contribution to produce
cannot be changed cost effectively to accommodate new industrial parts [11]. Studies of modular machine tools have
requirements. FMSs are designed to machine a variety of mainly focused on milling machines [12-14], While those
undefined parts in changeable volumes and often involve performing drilling operations receiving less attention from
General Purpose Machines (GPMs) which are typically not researchers. The example of a SPM configuration performs
designed for a set defined of machining operations. drilling-related operations on the required part (Fig. 1). It
Therefore, the manufacturer has to pay for unrequired consists of three working stations incorporating three
capabilities and the cost of extensive efforts for meeting machining units, a control unit, assembly components and
machine requirements. RMSs are designed to meet a
specific range of machining production requirements. The
Table 1 A comparison of manufacturing systems [7]
capacity and functionality of RMSs, unlike DMSs and
FMSs, are not fixed and may have been designed for a DMS FMS RMS
* Corresponding author at: School of Engineering, Edith Cowan Volume Fixed Changeable Changeable
University (ECU), Perth, Australia.
E-mail: avafadar@our.ecu.edu.au
2
Fig. 1. SPM configuration and required working stations for producing parts with drilling-related operations [1, 2]
factors of part and SPM are determined and a feasibility selecting fixtures (Figs. 2 and 4). A surface which can be
analysis framework is defined. Based on the framework the used for locating a workpiece is a locatable surface and
relevant feasibility relations between the part and SPM clamping surface is one which can be used to clamp a
components are extracted and captured as rules and workpiece.
constraints in a knowledge-based intelligent system.
Holes per surface: Fig. 3 shows that holes are divided into
Applying the proposed method would be useful for decision
two main groups: identical and different holes. Each
making process at the preliminary stage of designing a
group may have simple, countersink and counterbore
SPM.
holes. All key variables such as number, diameter, depth
and tolerance of holes per machining surface should be
2. Problem formulation
analysed. Type of pattern and related information are
To achieve the objective, critical factors of part and SPM important items with identical holes. These items are
are identified and the importance of them for performing important for the selection of the cutting tool, spindle
feasibility analysis and selecting appropriate SPM head, machining units, and sliding units (Figs. 3 and 4).
components are explained. Figs. 2, 3, and 4 show the
framework for technical feasibility analysis for utilization of 2.2. SPM characteristics
SPM. These figures clearly represent the relation between
Considering the critical SPM characteristics greatly
part and SPM characteristics and the important steps of
influences on the proper technical feasibility analysis. SPM
technical feasibility analysis.
characteristics are listed as below:
2.1. Part characteristics Cutting tool: Proper feasibility analysis depends on
selecting appropriate drilling tools at the early stage of
Properties, shape, and dimensions of the workpiece,
feasibility analysis. Proper selection of drilling tools
surfaces and properties of holes in each machining surface
reduces tool changing time and cost, tool consumption
are effective factors in selecting feasible SPM components.
and loss of production. Therefore, to decrease time and
Part properties: Part properties should be extracted from cost and increase production quantities, long-lasting hard
the part’s design information. These items are weight, material tools such as HSS and carbide drills are
strength and machinability of the workpiece as they affect recommended for utilizing SPM [1, 8]. Selection of
drilling performance. Weight is effective factor in drilling tools depends on many factors such as material of
selecting or designing fixture and chassis (Figs. 2 and 4). the workpiece, hole diameter, hole depth, condition of
Strength is considered when selecting machining units drill press, required tolerance and thrust force (Figs. 2 and
and fixtures (Figs. 2 and 4). Since this factor is the ability 4).
of material to withstand an applied force without any
Multiple spindle head: Proper selection of multiple spindle
failure, inappropriate strength makes the drilling process
heads results in reduced machining time and production
more difficult to perform reliably. Machinability is the
cost. The most important factors in finding a feasible
ease with which the metal can be machined and depends
multiple spindle head are required thrust and drive power.
on many variables such as heat treatment, strength,
As shown in Eqs. (1) and (2) the required thrust and drive
hardness, microstructure and work hardening [28].
power for multiple drilling heads are the function of
Shapes and dimensions: In this research, the shape of the number of spindles, strength and hole diameter (Fig. 4)
workpiece has been divided into main four groups: round, [1].
prismatic, plane and odd-shaped. The shape of the
𝐹𝑓 = 𝑓(𝑁𝑠 , 𝑆, 𝐷) (1)
workpiece and its overall dimensions are basic
information of part which should be considered selection
𝑃 = 𝑓(𝑁𝑠 , 𝑆, 𝐷) (2)
or design of fixture (Figs. 2 and 4).
Where Ff is required thrust, P is required drive power,
Surfaces: Fig. 2 shows that numbers, features, dimensions
Ns is number of spindles, 𝑆 is strength and 𝐷 is hole
and accessibility of machining surfaces are effective
diameter. To have appropriate rigidity and reliability, the
items to identify whether all the holes can be drilled.
multiple spindle heads should always be selected with a
They also determine which SPM components are suitable
safety margin.
for performing this task. Furthermore, clamping and
locatable surfaces are key issues for designing or
4
Machining unit: The most important components of machining units should be considered for selecting other
SPMs are the machining units which should be selected feasible SPM components (Fig. 4):
after selecting the cutting tool and multiple spindle head
1. Weight: It is required to assist with designing and
(Fig. 4). Machining operation types, drilling size range,
selecting a feasible chassis and sliding units.
drive power, maximum feed, accuracy and maximum
thrust are relevant factors of machining units when 2. Dimensions: They are required for designing and
finding feasible machining units. Additional attributes of selecting feasible sliding units and a chassis.
Start
Y Verified
Y Verified
Y N
Verified
N 5
Verified
Further consideration is required. For example, the part 11 22
design may be changed or some holes can be ignored.
Selecting feasible
12 table and chassis 23
Not verified
13 24
Production of this part with SPM is not
recommended.
Verified
Next step k = k + 1, Pattern number
j = j + 1, Hole number
15
Verified
6
N
Further consideration is required for investigating the possibility of drilling this hole.
Is the pattern circle, linear or rectangular?
Y
Y 20
10 N
Dri1 ≤ Relevant Distances ≤ Dri2
N
Is the hole accessible for drilling?
21 Y
Not verified
Y N
Are the pattern accessible for drilling?
Y Y
Not verified
Is there any other different hole?
Y
Is there any other pattern?
N
N
This hole is not
This hole can be
recommended to be This hole is not
drilled with feasible This hole can be drilled
recommended SPM. drilled with a SPM. recommended to be
with feasible
recommended SPM. drilled with a SPM.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. Holes analysis framework. a Different holes analysis framework. b Identical holes analysis framework
An effective factor for selecting feasible machining units is 1. Set up: The utilizing of appropriate set up components
required machine power. It can be calculated as below [1] improves production quality and decreases production
time and costs. Accordingly, the finding and designing
𝑃 of feasible set up components have key roles in the
𝑃𝑀 = (3)
ƞ𝑚 technical feasibility analysis. One of the common set up
components in drilling operations is the rotary table.
Where 𝑃𝑀 is required machine power, 𝑃 is calculated Indexing accuracy, diameter and other dimensions of
power and ƞm < 1 is machine efficiency [1]. the indexing table and the type of required control
Sliding unit: Fig. 4 shows that sliding units can be selected system should be considered in selecting a rotary table.
after the machining unit. If the machining unit does not The other set up component is fixture. The following
provide enough feed, sliding units can be used. Selecting information is required to be identified in selecting or
feasible sliding units requires consideration of machining designing of a feasible fixture (Figs 2 and 4):
unit type and the maximum feed, accuracy, maximum - Part geometry such as shape and dimensions.
thrust and weight of the sliding unit, the last of which
influences chassis selection. - Operational information such as workpiece material
and required accuracy.
Accessories:
- Fixturing information such as machining surfaces,
locatable and clamping surfaces.
6
1 2 14
5 15 k = k + 1, Pattern number
Selection of feasible fixturing components
components
2 18 20
6 j = j + 1, Hole number
Selection of appropriate tool 17
2 8 10
21 16 18 19
2 18 19
9
11 Selection of feasible machining units
N Y
Is there any other pattern?
14
N
25
Fig. 4. SPM components’ selection framework
Various types of constraints and rules are used in this is applied for computations such as thrust and drive power
research as follows: calculations. An example of equation rules is given below
𝑃
a. Logical constraints: Logical constraints are yes/no [ 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑃𝑀 = ƞ ]
𝑚
expressions which can combine constraints by mean of
combination operators such as and, or and conditional rules. c. Domain rules: Domain rules require that the database
This allows the programmer/ analyser to combine different be used to check the conditions and provide conclusions.
constraints as one step and the user can input the data to Furthermore, it lets the programmer/ analyser define the
reach the next step. way that the database can be automatically searched. These
rules can be applied for finding feasible components (Fig. 4)
Conditional rules (if…, then…) are utilized for actions or
such as machining units, sliding units, cutting tools and etc.
computations which should be evaluated to be true or false
An example of domain rules is given below
(yes/no). An example of logical constraints and conditional
rules is given below (Fig.2) [Check (machining unit power is =< 0.37 kWh)
[Is the weight of workpiece in the defined limitation range? (YES and
or NO)]
Conclusion= BEM6 and BEM3 can drill this part and go to the
This constraint can be expressed by the following rule: next step]
Inference Engine
Technical feasibility analysis
Database
Database Management System
- Machining units
- Sliding units
- Cutting tools
- Control units
- Fixture components Model Management System
- Assembly components
- Materials
process and gives a comparative benefit over the have been checked with the relevant rules and constraints
competitors. and are within the lower and upper limits, the part is
A developed system uses the following items to perform a feasible to be manufactured with SPM.
feasibility analysis for producing a part with a SPM: 2. Infeasible parts: When one or several properties exceed
1. User interface: Firstly, the required properties of the part the lower and upper limits, it means that production of
should be entered into the system via a user interface. The this part poses risks such as increasing cutting forces,
feasible components are recommended based on the increasing chatter and reducing tool life or cannot be
properties of part and relevant rules and constraints. Then, machined by the available equipment. In this case,
the user can select the required feasible components for producing this part with SPM is not recommended. Two
designing a SPM configuration which is then verified in main subcategories have been defined for this category as
terms of some constraints such as geometrical interface, below:
components positioning and components matching due to
a. Close-to-feasible parts: These parts have one or several
their properties. If the configuration is not verified, it
must be modified with other feasible components. This properties which are close to the lower or upper limits.
process continues until all feasible components are The defining of close limits relies on the experience
identified. The user interface displays the recommended and engineering knowledge for each rule or constraint.
feasible SPM component lists as output for displaying the In this case, the part can be manufactured under new
recommended feasible and infeasible components. considerations and some revisions, for example, minor
revision of a part’s design.
2. Database: As presented in Fig. 5, the system contains a
database module which is comprised of SPM components b. Totally infeasible parts: Some properties of these parts
such as machining and sliding units, cutting tools, significantly exceed the feasible limits and are not in
assembly components, tables and chassis. Each database the close-to-feasible limits. Therefore, they cannot be
comprises the relevant properties which will be controlled manufactured by any set of SPM components in the
with the relevant rules and constraints by considering the database.
input data for the part.
6. Results and discussion
3. Database management system: Fig.5 shows this module
of the system stores, organizes and retrieves the required Fig. 6 presents case studies from automotive parts which
data for the feasibility analysis process. require drilling operations. In this study the required part
properties are extracted from the design of case studies
4. Model management system: For storage, organizational (Table 2) and are entered into the system. The feasibility
and retrieval activities, this system transfers data from the analysis method is applied to the case studies. Results show
database management system into the inference engine that all the required characteristics of part A for technical
(as shown in Fig.5). feasibility analysis are located in the feasible range (filled
5. Rule-based system: Fig.5 shows that the rule-based area). While, there are 3 characteristics of part B that are not
module includes rules for controlling part properties, in the feasible range (Fig.7). However, they are in the
holes properties, machining operations and machining infeasible range; but they are located in the close-to-feasible
surfaces (as discussed in Section 3). range. Therefore, they may be able to be drilled with SPM
under some revisions. For instance, part B may be drilled
6. Inference engine: As any other computer-based before heat treating. Furthermore, it has an odd shape which
information system, this is a key reasoning module. An requires analysis and designing a specific fixture.
inference engine of the proposed system derives the
required information from relevant database, follows the
required rules in the rule-base segment, and performs the
analysis by considering the relevant input data.
5. Case studies
Databases containing alternative SPM components products
and their important characteristics have been established.
Required rules and constraints for feasibility analysis have
been restored in the rule-base module in the intelligent
feasibility analysis system. In this paper, parts can be (a) (b)
contained within two main categories as below.
Fig. 6. Case studies for automotive parts. a. Brake disk. b. Engine
1. Feasible parts: As explained in the Section 3, each rule or mounting. Models downloaded from [3]
constraint has its own limits. If all required part properties
9
Part A Part B
Weight (kg) 8.1 1.2
Part Properties 250 760
Strength (𝑵⁄ )
𝒎𝒎𝟐
Machinability/Material Cast iron is machineable material. Heat treated carbon steel
Shapes - Round Odd-shaped
Diameter 235 -
Dimensions (mm) Length 44 110
Width - 81
Height - 125
Thickness - 5
Number of machining surfaces - 2 2
Number of possible clamping surfaces - 1 2
Number of possible locatable surfaces - 1 2
Holes per machining surface Surface 1 6 3
Surface 2 30 1
Number of different holes per Surface 1 0 3
machining surface 0 1
Surface 2
Hole 1: 11.5
Diameter Surface 1 - Hole 2: 12.5
Hole 3: 13
Surface 2 - 6.10
Properties of different holes (mm) - Hole 1: 3.54
Depth Surface 1 Hole 2: 3.54
Hole 3: 3.54
Surface 2 - 4.08
Tolerance Surface 1 - ± 0.02
Surface 2 ± 0.02
Number of pattern for identical holes Surface 1 2
per machining surface 0
Surface 2 3
Cc is capital cost of SPM components, C𝑜 is operational cost and Cm is maintenance cost of SPM components
Indexing table (RT 320) Chuck 3 jaw 250 mm Machining unit (BEM 28)
Fig. 8. Feasible SPM configuration for production part A. 3D models of individual parts downloaded from references [3, 4]
12
[4] Suhner. [Online]. Available: [19] N. Gwangwava, K. Mpofu, N. Tlale, and Y. Yu, "A
http://www.tracepartsonline.net/ methodology for design and reconfiguration of
reconfigurable bending press machines (RBPMs),"
[5] H. A. ElMaraghy, "Flexible and reconfigurable International Journal of Production Research, vol. 52,
manufacturing systems paradigms," International pp. 6019-6032, 2014.
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, vol. 17, pp.
261-276, 2006. [20] J. Liu, D. Zhang, L. Qin, and L. Yan, "Feasibility study
of the rotary ultrasonic elliptical machining of carbon
[6] M. Mehrabi, G. Ulsoy, and Y. Koren, "Reconfigurable fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP)," International Journal
Manufacturing Systems Key to Future Manufacturing," of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 53, pp. 141-
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 11, pp. 403- 150, 2012.
419, 2000.
[21] C.-C. Wang and Y. C. Lin, "Feasibility study of
[7] R. G. Landers, B.-K. Min, and Y. Koren, electrical discharge machining for W/Cu composite,"
"Reconfigurable machine tools," CIRP Annals- International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard
Manufacturing Technology, vol. 50, pp. 269-274, 2001. Materials, vol. 27, pp. 872-882, 2009.
[8] M. Tolouei-Rad and S. Zolfaghari, "Productivity [22] M. Tolouei-Rad, "An efficient algorithm for automatic
improvement using Special-Purpose Modular machine machining sequence planning in milling operations,"
tools," International Journal of Manufacturing International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41,
Research, vol. 4, pp. 219-235, 2009. pp. 4115-4131, 2003.
[9] M. R. Abdi and A. W. Labib "Feasibility study of the [23] G. Kou, D. Ergu, and Y. Shi, "An integrated expert
tactical design justification for reconfigurable system for fast disaster assessment," Computers &
manufacturing systems using the fuzzy analytical Operations Research, vol. 42, pp. 95-107, 2014.
hierarchical process," International Journal of
Production Research, vol. 42, pp. 3055-3076, 2004. [24] K. H. Tan, C. P. Lim, K. Platts, and H. Koay, "An
intelligent decision support system for manufacturing
[10] M. Tolouei-Rad, "Intelligent Analysis of Utilization of technology investments," International Journal of
Special Purposes Machines for Drilling Operations," P. Production Economics, vol. 104, pp. 179-190, 2006.
V. M. Koleshko, Ed., ed croatia: InTech, 2012, pp. 297-
320. [25] D. E. Culler and W. Burd, "A framework for extending
computer aided process planning to include business
[11] M. Tolouei-Rad, "An intelligent approach to high activities and computer aided design and manufacturing
quantity automated machining," Journal of (CAD/CAM) data retrieval," Robotics and Computer-
Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 23, pp. 339-350, 2007.
Engineering, vol. 47, pp. 195-204, 2011.
[26] O. Battaïa, A. Dolgui, N. Guschinsky, and G. Levin,
[12] H. Azulay, J. K. Mills, and B. Benhabib, "A Multi-Tier "Integrated configurable equipment selection and line
Design Methodology for Reconfigurable Milling balancing for mass production with serial–parallel
Machines," Journal of Manufacturing Science and machining systems," Engineering Optimization, vol. 46,
Engineering, vol. 136, 2014. pp. 1369-1388, 2013.
[13] J. Dulpia, B. Powalka, R. Katz, and A. Ulsay, [27] E. U. Guldogan, "An integrated approach to machine
"Dynamics of the arch-type reconfigurable machine selection and operation allocation problem," The
tool," International Journal of Machine Tools and International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Manufacture, vol. 47, pp. 326-334, February 2007. Technology, vol. 55, pp. 797-805, 2010.
[14] A. Aguilar, A. Roman-Flores, and J. C. Huegel, "Design, [28] M. P. Groover, Automation, production systems, and
refinement, implementation and prototype testing of a computer-integrated manufacturing, 4th ed.: Prentice
reconfigurable lathe-mill," Journal of Manufacturing Hall Press, 2014.
Systems, vol. 32, pp. 364-371, 2013.
[15] M. Dağdeviren, "Decision making in equipment
selection: an integrated approach with AHP and
PROMETHEE," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
vol. 19, pp. 397-406, 2008.