可重构制造系统：原理、设计和未来趋势【中文12766字】
收藏
资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：(预览前20页/共38页)
编号：22638386
类型：共享资源
大小：2.72MB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2019-10-22
上传人：闰***
认证信息
个人认证
冯**（实名认证）
河南
IP属地：河南
18
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
中文12766字
可重构
制造
系统
原理
设计
以及
未来
趋势
中文
- 资源描述：
-
可重构制造系统：原理、设计和未来趋势【中文12766字】,中文12766字,可重构,制造,系统,原理,设计,以及,未来,趋势,中文
- 内容简介：
-
REVIEWARTICLEYoram KOREN, Xi GU, Weihong GUOReconfigurable manufacturing systems: Principles, design,and future trends The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at and AbstractReconfigurable manufacturing systems(RMSs), which possess the advantages of both dedicatedserial lines and flexible manufacturing systems, wereintroduced in the mid-1990s to address the challengesinitiated by globalization. The principal goal of an RMS isto enhance the responsiveness of manufacturing systems tounforeseen changes in product demand. RMSs are cost-effective because they boost productivity, and increase thelifetime of the manufacturing system. Because of the manystreams in which a product may be produced on an RMS,maintaining product precision in an RMS is a challenge.But the experience with RMS in the last 20 years indicatesthat product quality can be definitely maintained byinserting in-line inspection stations. In this paper, weformulate the design and operational principles for RMSs,and provide a state-of-the-art review of the design andoperations methodologies of RMSs according to theseprinciples. Finally, we propose future research directions,and deliberate on how recent intelligent manufacturingtechnologies may advance the design and operations ofRMSs.Keywordsreconfigurable manufacturing systems,responsiveness, intelligent manufacturing1IntroductionThe world of manufacturing has changed dramatically inthe last 100 years in response to economic and socialcircumstances. Driven by different requirements in variousperiods, manufacturing technologies and new paradigmshave been introduced to address economic challenges, andrespond to social needs. Facing the requirement of cost-effectiveness, Henry Ford invented the moving assemblyline in 1913, which began the mass production paradigm.In the 1970s, the Japanese manufacturing industry startedformulating lean manufacturing principles, and since thenconsistent product quality has been a major focal point. Inthe late 1970s, the development of computer numericalcontrol (CNC) machines facilitated the creation of flexiblemanufacturing systems (FMS), which enabled producing avariety of products on the same manufacturing system 1.Globalization that began in the 1990s transformed thecompetitive landscape. Manufacturing companies startedfacing unpredictable market changes, including rapidlyvarying product demand, and frequent introduction of newproducts. This made the design of manufacturing systemsfor new factories a major challenge, because it impacts thefactory performance for many years after the factorydesign. It became essential that new factories shouldpossess a new type of manufacturing systemA systemdesigned for rapid responsiveness to unforeseen marketsurges and unanticipated product changes.In response to this challenge, in 1995, Dr. Korenproposed designing factories with new system architecturethat he called “reconfigurable manufacturing system.” TheRMS has an open system architecture that enables addingmachines to existing operational systems very quickly, inorder to respond (1) rapidly, and (2) economically tounexpected surges in market demand 2. Utilizing RMSenables building a “live” factory that its structure changescost-effectively in response to markets and customersneeds, so it can keep supplying products at competitiveprice for many years after the factory design.In 1996, Dr. Korens proposal to form an “engineeringresearch center for reconfigurable manufacturing systems”(ERC-RMS) was approved by the U.S. National ScienceFoundation (NSF). The ERC-RMS was established at theUniversity of Michigan with a grant of 33 million USD for11 years from NSF. Matching funds of 14 million USDReceived March 10, 2017; accepted July 27, 2017Yoram KOREN (), Xi GUDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, AnnArbor, MI 48109, USAE-mail: ykorenWeihong GUODepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Rutgers, The StateUniversity of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USAFront. Mech. Eng./10.1007/s11465-018-0483-0were granted by industry and the State of Michigan. Thecenter created the RMS science base and invented RMStechnologies that wereimplemented in the U.S.automotiveand aerospace industries, enhancing thereby the industrycompetitiveness.It is worthwhile to note that the State of Michigan ishome to notable inventions in manufacturing. In 1913, thefirst moving assembly line, invented by Henry Ford, wasinstalled at the Ford Highland Park plant in Michigan. Thesecond breakthrough invention was numerical control thatwas invented by John Parsons 3 in his company inTraverse City, Michigan. The recent innovation is theRMS. RMS is a new type of manufacturing system that canchange its system structure and resources rapidly and cost-effectively, in order to possess “exactly the capacity andfunctionality needed, exactly when needed.” Figure 1illustrates how the inventions from Michigan havetransformed the landscape of manufacturing paradigms.The ERC-RMS has defined the key characteristics forRMS, and invented patents and software packages thathave provided the basis for developing new reconfigura-tion technologies. The developed technologies have beensuccessfully implemented in U.S. automotive companiesFord, General Motor, and Chryslerwhich haveincreased their system responsiveness 4 and createdsubstantial economic value for these firms 5. RMS is notonly an open-architecture manufacturing system that canrespond to the challenges of globalization 6, but also onethat boosts productivity, enhancing thereby the competi-tiveness of manufacturing enterprises. RMS can alsoachieve agility and sustainable manufacturing 7,8.In this paper, we formulate the principles that guide thedesign and operations of RMS. According to theseprinciples, we review and evaluate the state-of-the-artRMS design issues presented in the literatures. Possiblefuture developments of RMS are discussed as well.2RMS characteristics and principlesThe three main goals of all manufacturing systems are cost,product quality, and responsiveness to markets. Respon-siveness is achieved by designing manufacturing systemsfor upgradable capacity and modifiable functionality.Comparing RMS with other types of manufacturingsystems from the perspective of these goals, highlightsthe advantages of RMS.2.1RMS combines advantages of dedicated lines andflexible systemsIn the last decades of the 20th Century the manufacturingindustry utilized two types of common manufacturingsystems: Dedicated manufacturing lines (DMLs) andFMSs. DMLs are designed to enable mass production ofa specific product at a very low cost and very highthroughput. FMSs are designed to enable production ofany product (confined within a geometric envelope), butcompared with DMLs their throughput is very low.The DML is designed with fixed automation thatproduces the companys core product at a very high rate.During the production, many tools can operate simulta-Fig. 1Manufacturing inventions initiated in Michigan2Front. Mech. Eng.neously on every machine in the line, leading to extremelyhigh system throughput. The DML structure is fixed andcannot be changed neither to increase the throughput nor toproduce a different product. If the market requires higherthroughput, the DML cannot supply the full demand andthe firm loses saleopportunities andconsequentlymay losemarket share. If the market requires a different product, theDML is useless and must be scrapped.By contrast, FMSs possess general flexibility that canproduce a variety of products, but their production is by farmore expensive than producing on DMLs. The FMSconsists of general-purpose CNC machines and otherforms of programmable automation. By contrast to a DMLmachine on which many tools operate simultaneously,each CNC machine uses a single tool during its operation.Therefore, the throughput of FMS is by far lower than thatof DML (for the same investment cost). The maindrawbacks of FMS are the high investment cost (on bothmachines and tooling) and the relatively low throughput.Due to the high investment on CNC equipment, and thelarge number of cutting tools in the system, producing highvolumes on FMS becomes a significant economic issue.The main advantage of RMS is that its functionality andcapacity can be changed (1) rapidly and (2) cost-effectively. It is a feature that neither a DML nor anFMS possesses. The throughput of RMS is higher than theFMS throughput, but it is lower than that of a DML (for thesame investment cost). The RMS is designed aroundproducing a family of parts (e.g., cylinder heads, which aremanufactured in reconfigurable machining systems) orproducts (e.g., engines, which are assembled in reconfigur-able assembly systems), so its flexibility is by far higherthan that of a DML. A thorough comparison of these threetypes of manufacturing systems is presented in Ref. 9,and their comparison with adjustable manufacturingsystems is presented in Ref. 10.2.2Core characteristics and principles of RMSThe RMS is defined as follows: An RMS is designed at theoutset for rapid change in structure, as well as in hardwareand software components, in order to quickly adjust itsproduction capacity and functionality within a part familyin response to sudden changes in market or regulatoryrequirements.The RMS possesses six core characteristics that aresummarized in Table 1.The six core RMS characteristics reduce the time andcost of reconfiguration, thereby enhancing system respon-siveness. They are widely implemented today in theautomotive, aerospace, food and beverage industries in theU.S. Based on these RMS core characteristics, thefollowing RMS principles are formulated.RMS principles:1) Design manufacturing system capacity for cost-effective adaptation to future market demand (scalability);2) Design the manufacturing system for adaptation tocustomers new products (convertibility);3) Design optimally embedded product quality inspec-tion into manufacturing systems (diagnosability);4) Design the manufacturing system around a productfamily (customization);5) Maximize system productivity by reconfiguringoperations and reallocating tasks to machines;6) Perform effective maintenance that jointly maximizesthe machine reliability and the system throughput.The first four are system design principles that utilize thecharacteristics of “modularity” and “integrability” toenable cost-effective design. For example, at the systemlevel, every machine is a module and the integration isdone with material handling systems (e.g., a gantry or aconveyor). Principles 5 and 6 are system operationalprinciples that improve the system productivity andreliability. Based on Principle 5, the ERC-RMS createdsystem-balancing software that was implemented in 22factories of General Motors and Chrysler and generatedsubstantial savings. For example, Mr. Brian Harlow, VPChrysler reported: “By using the ERC-RMS line-balancingsoftware, Chrysler succeeded in saving 10% of theoperating costs on engine assembly lines in the MackTable 1Core characteristics of RMSCharacteristicInterpretationScalability(design for capacity changes)The capability of modifying production capacity by adding or removing resources and/or changing system componentsConvertibility(design for functionality changes)The capability of transforming the functionality of existing systems and machines to fit new production requirementsDiagnosability(design for easy diagnostics)The capability of real-time monitoring the product quality, and rapidly diagnosing the root-causes of product defectsCustomization(flexibility limited to part family)System or machine flexibility around a part family, obtaining thereby customized flexibility within the part familyModularity(modular components)The compartmentalization of operational functions into units that can be manipulated between alternative productionschemesIntegrability(interfaces for rapid integration)The capability of integrating modules rapidly and precisely by hardware and software interfacesYoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends3Avenue Engine Plant in Detroit, which is extremelysignificant.”Mathematical definitions have been proposed for theRMS key characteristics 11, especially for scalability12, convertibility 13, and an integrated multi-attributereconfigurability index 14. These characteristics andprinciples are applied to the design of different types ofreconfigurable manufacturing systems, including machin-ing systems, fixturing systems, assembly systems, andmaterial handling systems 15,16, by using variousmodels 1720 and methodologies 21,22.2.3Examples of reconfiguration technologiesIn order to illustrate the RMS core characteristics, threeexamples of reconfiguration technologiesmachine,inspection, and systemare presented below.2.3.1Reconfigurable machine toolsReconfigurable machine tools (RMTs) are designed for aspecific range of operational requirements, and can berapidly converted from one configuration to another. Thedesign of the RMT is usually focused on a specific partfamily, and should be rapidly adjustable to changes in itsstructure and/or operations to manufacture various parts ofthat part family. The world-first patent on RMTwas issuedin 1999 23.Figure 2(a) shows an arch-type RMT that was built bythe ERC-RMS and exhibited in 2002 at the InternationalManufacturing Show in Chicago. It was designed to drilland mill on inclined surfaces in such a way that the tool isperpendicular to the surface. This RMTis reconfigurable tofive angularpositions of the spindle axis ranging from 15to 45 at steps of 15, and the reconfiguration from oneangle to another takes less than 2 min. It was utilized tomill and drill engine blocks at angles of 30 or Reconfigurable inspection machineThe reconfigurable inspection machine (RIM) represents aclass of in-process inspection machines that can bereconfigured to fit the inspected part geometry. Theworld-first patent on RIM was issued in 2003 24.Figure 2(b) shows an example of an RIM that iscomposed of a precision conveyor moving the part alongone accurate axis of motion within an array of electro-optical devices, such as digital or line scanning cameras,and laser-based sensors. Depending on the part that isbeing measured, the location and number of sensors in theRIM can be reconfigured to fit the geometry of theinspected part. The RIM depicted in Fig. 2(b) wasconfigured to measure cylinder heads. On one side of thepart there are two laser sensors; on the other side there areadditional three laser sensors as well as an accuratecomputer-vision system.In 2006, General Motors installed an RIM that wasdeveloped by the ERC-RMS at its engine plant in Flint,Michigan. This RIM utilized machine vision to efficientlydetect small surface pores (1 mm) on engine blocks atthe line speed to inspect each part. Utilizing the RIM hassignificantly improved the quality of the product andgreatly reduced the number of recalls because of noisyengines.2.3.3Reconfigurable manufacturing systemA typical RMS integrates CNC machines and severalRMTs that are utilized to manufacture a family of products,as well as product quality inspection machines that inspectthe product during its manufacturing (i.e., not only at theend of the production line). The structure of an RMS iseasily changeable to enable adding more productionresources. The option of reconfiguration by addingproduction resources should be planned at all levels,Fig. 2Reconfiguration machine tool (RMT) and reconfigurable inspection machine (RIM) developed at the ERC-RMS. (a) RMT;(b) RIM4Front. Mech. Eng.hardware, software and controls, to enable addingmachines, in-line inspection stations, gantries, etc. Theworld-first patent on RMS was filled in 1998 25.The Ford Windsor Engine Plant that was designed andbuilt in 19982000 contains about 120 CNC machines thatare arranged in a reconfigurable system architecture thatconsists of 20 stages, with 6 machines per stage (as shownin Fig. 3) 26. Ford Motor Co. called this system:“Flexible, reconfigurable manufacturing system.” Flexiblebecause the CNC machines can produce multiple productvariants.Note that, at the system level, each CNC machine is amodule, and its function can be converted when a new typeof part is required to be manufactured by the system. Ateach stage of the system, there are multiple parallel CNCmachines that are integrated into the system by usinggantries to load and unload the CNCs. Furthermore, all thestages in the system are integrated into one large system byoverhead gantries that transport parts between the stages.This system possesses the characteristic of diagnosabilityby including in-line inspection stations that are locatednext to critical machining stations. This system is scalable,namely, it is easy to add machines to the system to increasethe system capacity. Actually, since 2000, the Ford plantwent through three reconfigurations in which capacity wasadded. Note that, if the CNCs in some stages were replacedby RMTs that can process a certain part family, then thecustomization characteristic would be implemented.The RMS principles are widely used in the design ofreconfigurable machines 27, machining systems 15,and assembly systems 16. Next, we review the relatedresearch problems in system-level design and operations.Different from other general reviews 11,15,16,22, thispaper reviews the design and operations of RMSsaccording to the principles that we have formulated inSection 2.2.3Design and operations of reconfigurablemanufacturing systemsThe designer of a manufacturing system has to determine:1) The system configurationthe way that machines arearranged and interconnected in the system; 2) theequipmentthe number and type of machines, thematerial handling system, and the in-line inspectionequipment; 3) the process planningassigning operationsto each machine in the system.3.1Selecting the system configurationThe performance (e.g., throughput) and characteristics(e.g., scalability) of the manufacturing systems signifi-cantly depend on the system configuration 28. Weelaborate here on three types of manufacturing systemconfigurations: Serial production lines, parallel systems,and reconfigurable manufacturing systems. The systemtype should be carefully determined at the system designstage because once determined, it cannot be changed in thefuture.Depending on the business goals of the manufacturingenterprise, four major performance metrics should beconsidered and prioritized when selecting the systemconfiguration:1) Investment cost;2) Throughput resilience to machine failures;3) Speed of responsiveness to markets (i.e., increasingthroughput to match future higher demand);4) Level of consistency in product quality in massproduction environment.Traditional configurations of manufacturing systems aremainly of two types: Pure serial lines that consist ofdedicated or flexible machines, and pure parallel systemsthat are composed of CNC machines. The drawbacks ofserial machining lines are the high sensitivity of theirthroughput to machine failures, and the lack of respon-siveness to changing markets. The parallel configurationsare not sensitive to machine failures, and can easilyincrease their throughput by adding more machines inparallel. However, parallel configurations are very expen-sive because: 1) Each machine must be capable ofperforming all the production tasks, which significantlyincreases the capability of each machine and consequentlyits cost, and 2) the total tooling cost in the system isexpensive (the tool magazine of each machine mustinclude all tools needed to produce the part). Because ofthese drawbacks, parallel systems are rarely found inpractice.For large machining systems, there are two types ofconfigurations that are commonly used in industry: 1) Aconfiguration that consists of several serial lines arrangedin parallel (SLP), and 2) RMS configuration that consistsof several stages, where each stage consists of multipleparallel identical machines (usually CNCs or reconfigur-able machines). The schematic layouts of the SLP andRMS configurations are shown in Fig. 4. Both systems inFig. 4 have the same number of machines.The principal difference between SLP and RMSFig. 3Ford Winsor Engine Plant with CNC machines 26Yoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends5configurations is that RMS has crossover connections thatenable operating the three machines in each stage in aparallel mode. In practice, a gantry that operates in eachstage enables these connections. The gantry loads andunloads parts to or from each machine in that stage. Thecost of these gantries makes the RMS more expensive thanthe SLP configuration. However, the two major advantagesof RMS are: 1) Resources (e.g., machines) can be addedvery quickly and cost-effectively, enabling thereby highspeed of response to changing markets; 2) if the gantriesavailability is higher than the machine availability, thethroughput dependency on machine failures in RMS issmaller than that in serial lines.Freiheit et al. 29 developed a model that compares thethroughput of SLPs and RMSs. It proves that the RMSconfiguration has a higher throughput for large systems(i.e., systems with more stages or more machines perstage). Gu 30 extended the analysis to systems withbuffers, and showed that RMS is advantageous when smallbuffers are added to the system. In addition to throughput,Koren et al. 31 compared the performance of SLP andRMS configurations from other perspectives, includingcost, responsiveness, and consistency in product quality.Moreover, in an RMS configuration, each stage may notnecessarily have an identical number of machines. There-fore, practically, for the same number of machines there aremore RMS configurations than SLP configurations.Various complex optimization problems have been for-mulated for selecting the optimal RMS configuration. Forexample, Youssef and ElMaraghy 32 proposed aprocedure for modeling and optimization of multiple-aspect, multi-part RMS configurations, with several futurereconfiguration plans considered. Dou et al. 33 built anoptimization program that determines the system configu-ration, the type of machines, as well as the operationsassigned to each stage. Goyal et al. 34 developedalgorithms to choose the optimal RMS configurationbased on the reconfigurability and operational capabilityof RMTs.Note that for reconfigurable assembly systems, deter-mining the optimal configuration is more complicated thanthat in reconfigurablemachining systems. Webbink andHu35 studied how the assembly system configuration can begenerated given the number of assembly stations. Benka-moun et al. 36 reviewed the main strategies dealing withthe variety and product change in assembly system design.3.2Utilizing the RMS principles to design and operate thesystemWe elaborate below on how the six RMS principles areutilized to optimize the system design and its operations.3.2.1Capacity planning by utilizing Principle 1Capacity means the maximum number of products that amanufacturing system canproduceannually.Designingthecapacity of a new system is a major challenge in anenvironment of future unpredictable market changes. If inthe future the market demand becomes lower than thesystem capacity, machines will stay idle, which conse-quently causes a huge capital loss. And if the futuredemand is higher than the capacity, the firm will lose saleopportunities, and consequently may lose market share.To build a factory with a large manufacturing systemmay take two to three years, and then it is operational for12 to 25 years. The designed capacity of the newmanufacturing system is critical to the factory futureprofitability, but the enterprise business unit provides itsforecasting for a projected demand for the next years (e.g.,up to 8 years) withstatistical data. How canthis forecastingbe utilized to design an optimal manufacturing system?The RMS provides an economical response to thischallenge. The RMS is built according to Principle 1:Design manufacturing system capacity for cost-effectiveadaptation to future market demand. Various models havebeen developed to determine the optimal capacity at thesystem design stage, as well as the potential capacityexpansion strategies in the future. For example, Narong-wanich et al. 37 investigated the optimal capacityFig. 4Schematic layout of (a) SLP configuration and (b) RMS configuration6Front. Mech. Eng.portfolio of a firm that utilizes two types of systemsadedicated manufacturing system (DMS) and an RMS. AsFord VP, Mr. Krygier, reported in Ref. 27, Ford utilizedtheir models in justifying purchasing an RMS for the newWindsor Engine Plant. Deif and ElMaraghy 38 con-sidered the capacity-planning problem for an RMS wherethe cost function incorporates the physical capacity-basedcost as well as the cost associated with the reconfigurationprocess. Gyulai et al. 39 studied the capacity-planningproblem for an assembly system in order to decide whethera certain product should be assembled on a dedicated or ona reconfigurable line, or it should be outsourced. Renne40 developed a genetic algorithm and Monte Carlosimulation based model to design a hybrid manufacturingsystem composed of dedicated, flexible and reconfigurablemachines. Asl and Ulsoy 41 developed the capacityinvestment and adjustment policy for a reconfigurablemanufacturing system by using stochastic optimal controland feedback control approaches, where the capacity canbe added to the system or removed from the system at acost. Spicer and Carlo 42,43 simultaneously consideredthe investment and operational costs for an RMS byconsidering system reconfiguration, and developed heuris-tic policies to determine the optimal system configurationsat the design stage.3.2.2Functionality planning by utilizing Principle 2In addition to the capacity, the system functionality isanother critical factor in developing system reconfigurationpolicies. The system functionality focuses on changing thesystem from manufacturing one product to another of thesame product family. It requires consequent changes in theprocess planning and the configuration.The RMS is designed according to Principle 2: Designmanufacturing systems for adaptation to customers newdesires. This principle requires designing systems with thecore characteristic of convertibility, which can effectivelytransform the RMS to produce a new product. Maier-Speredelozzi et al. 13 pioneered the mathematicaldefinition of the convertibility measure for manufacturingsystems.The RMS may contain both dedicated resources forspecific products, as well as flexible resources for multipleproducts. Van Mieghem 44 studied the optimal invest-ment ratio between dedicated and flexible capacities,where the “dedicated” and “flexible” capacity in thisresearch means the capacity that can be used to produceone specific product or multiple products, respectively;namely, this study is from the product viewpoint. Ceryanand Koren 45 extended the model to a multi-stageproblem and studied the optimal investment strategy for asystem that manufactures two products. Matta et al. 46formulated the reconfiguration problem of productionsystems by using a dynamic programming approach, andproposed the optimal reconfiguration policy to react toproduct changes. Bryan et al. 47 developed a mathema-tical model to study the co-evolution of product and themanufacturing system.Note that, in the capacity and functionality planningproblems of RMSs, ramp-up is an important considerationwhen developing system reconfiguration policies. It isdefined as “the time interval it takes a newly introduced orjust reconfigured production system to reach sustainable,long-term levels of production, in terms of throughput andpart quality, considering the impact of equipment and laboron productivity” 2. The RMS has unique characteristicsthat allow high-resolution scalability and rapid respon-siveness, which reduce the ramp-up period. Matta et al.48 investigate the impact of ramp-up period on thereconfigurable policy, by considering both capacityexpansion and reduction. Niroomand et al. 49 built amathematical programming model to discuss about howdifferent reconfiguration characteristics (e.g., the timeneeded for reconfiguration and the ramp-up period) impactthe design of manufacturing systems.3.2.3Maintaining product quality by utilizing Principle 3Maintaining product quality is a critical considerationwhen designing manufacturing systems. Each machine hasa tolerance, and the dimensional deviation from the normaccumulates as the part moves along the system. In a serialline there is only one production route, and therefore therange of the dimensional deviation is small. The number ofproduction routes in a serial-lines-in-parallel configurationis equal to the number of lines, which is small. However, inthe RMS, the number of possible production routes is verylarge. Assuming there are n stages, and m parallelmachines in each stage, there are mnproduction routes.The RMS built at Ford Windsor Engine plant has 6machines in a stage and about 20 stages, so that the numberof possible routes is huge (i.e., around 3.6 ? 1015). Thedesigner should be aware of the huge number of routesissue in RMS, and pay prime attention to the productquality issue.The large number of production routes causes twoproblems. First, it increases of the variation of the productdimensional quality. Second, if there is any abnormalmachine in the system, it is extremely difficult in the RMScase to trace that machine by just inspecting the quality ofthe final product. Therefore, the system designer shouldpay attention to the quality of the products in an RMS byimplementing Principle 3: Design optimally embeddedproduct quality inspection into manufacturing systems. Ifthere are any quality issues detected by in-line inspectionstations, the system should be able to locate the root-causequickly, and take suitable actions (e.g., preventivemaintenance).Stream-of-variation (SoV) 50,51, a method based onYoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends7the state-space model that is utilized in control system, hasbeen developed to systematically analyse the qualitypropagation in multi-stage manufacturing systems, inorder to identify the root-cause and reduce the productvariation. Monte Carlo simulation methods can also beused to analyze the product variation 52. Based on theSoV model, Kristianto et al. 53 developed a two-stageprogramming model to investigate the reconfigurationproblem of RMS. In addition to the SoV model, Abad et al.54 developed an algebraic expression to represent thequality stream in more complex configuration, such asmixed-model assembly systems.In order to measure the product quality in-line, it isrecommended to integrate RIMs into the RMS. Whendesigning the system configuration, experts should decideon the critical locations where RIMs should be installed.Moreover, a return conveyor can be added into the RMS toroute back parts that need to be reprocessed. Figure 5illustrates the design of an RMS with inspection stationsand a return conveyor. Optimizing the number and locationof the inspection stations is an important issue that shouldbe investigated in the future. On the one hand, reducing thefrequency of inspection decreases the system capital cost;on the other hand, increasing the number of in-lineinspection stations reduces the number of parts rejectedbecause of quality loss.3.2.4Formulating a product family by utilizing Principle 4In order to reduce the cost and improve the systemefficiency, RMSs are designed according to Principle 4:Design the manufacturing system around a product family.For utilizing RMSs, products are grouped into families,each of which requires its own system configuration. Thesystem is configured to produce one product family. Thesystem can produce every product within this productfamily with high efficiency, and it can be done withoutreconfiguring the system (or with simple alternation). Oncethe current product family is phasing out, the system isreconfigured to produce another product family, and soforth 55. Therefore, finding the similarity betweenproducts and forming the right product family improvethe system efficiency.A product family consists of products that sharesimilarities. In order to formulate the product family, asimilarity index could be established to measure thesimilarity between different products. Kimura and Nielsen56 developed a framework for the relationship betweenproduct functionality and manufacturing resources. Theirframework yields to a design method for product familystructure, which realizes the required product functionalvariety with efficient utilization of manufacturingresources. Abdi and Labib 57 proposed a novel“reconfiguration link” that incorporates the tasks ofdetermining the product families and selecting theappropriate family at each configuration stage. Ananalytical hierarchical process (AHP) model is usedwhile considering both market and manufacturing require-ments, which is illustrated by a case study in Ref. 58.Galan et al. 59 also used the AHP method to build thesimilarity matrix among different products, by consideringthe productrequirements suchasmodularity,commonality,compatibility, reusability, and demand. Based on thesimilarity matrix, the average linkage clustering algorithmwas applied to formulate the product families. In addition,an analytical network process (ANP) model is proposed byAbdi 60 to incorporate all the outlined decisive factorsand major criteria and elements influencing the productfamily formation and selection. Battaa et al. 61developed a combinatorial optimization problem for partfamily formation and configuration design in reconfigur-able machining systems.On the operational level, operation-scheduling problemsare studied that optimize the sequence of producingdifferent products, in order to improve the systemFig. 5A futuristic RMS configuration with RIMs and a return conveyor8Front. Mech. Eng.efficiency. The operational sequence should also beconsidered in analyzing the similarities of products anddetermining the product families. For example, Goyal et al.62 developed an operation sequence based BMIM(bypassing moves and idle machines) similarity coefficientthat utilizes several concepts in set theory, such as thelongest common subsequence (LCS), and the minimumnumber of bypassing moves and the quantity of idlemachines. Wang et al. 63 further combined LCS and therest of the operation to construct the shortest compositesuper-sequences. These similarity coefficients are used asthe basis for part clustering and family formation.In addition to machining systems, the concept of productfamily formation has been applied to assembly systems64 and disassembly systems Process planning and line balancing by utilizingPrinciple 5Process plan specifies the components and operations thatare needed to manufacture a workpiece into a part or aproduct. The process planning in an RMS requires theconsideration of multiple product families, or multipleproduct generations.Effective process planning can reduce the reconfigura-tion cost, improving thereby the system efficiency. Forexample, Azab and ElMaraghy 66 proposed the idea of“reconfigurable process planning,” and formulated it as aninteger-programming problem. Azab et al. 67 usedsimulated annealing method to sequence the machiningoperations in order to reduce the system idle time.Bensimaine et al. 68,69 investigated the process-planning problem in RMS by developing optimizationalgorithms for different objectives.Each time that the system has to manufacture a newproduct, a new process plan is needed. It includes thesequence of all operations needed to complete the product.The operations should be distributed among the machinesin the system in order to balance the system according toPrinciple 5: Maximize system productivity by reconfigur-ing operations and reallocating tasks to machines. A newprocess plan is needed each time that machines are addedto the system to increase the system capacity. The objectiveis to make as close as possible equal operation times oneach machine or stage in the system in order to balance thesystem, which maximizes the system throughput.Transfer line balancing problem has been extensivelystudied in the literature. In an RMS environment, variousmodels and methods have been developed to formulate andsolve the line-balancing problem. For example, Wang andKoren 12 developed an optimization algorithm based ongenetic algorithm (GA) that determines simultaneously atwhich stage to add machines, and how to rebalance themodified system (by shifting operations among stages) inorder to maximize throughput. This algorithm was adoptedby General Motors to be used in practice. In industrialutilizations several practical constraints were imposed,such as the tasks precedence relationship, and the productfacets on which a specific operation is needed. Borisovskiet al. 70 also used the GA method as well as a set-partitioning model 71, to solve the line-balancingproblem in RMS, with the objective of minimizing theset-up times. In addition, Essafiet al. 72 studied the line-balancing problem in an RMS consisting of mono-spindlehead CNC machines. Makssoud et al. 73 developed anoptimization problem in order to minimize the reconfi-guration cost of an RMS. Theyformulated the problem as amixed integer-programming problem in order to considerthe compromise between introducing new equipment andreusing old one. Delorme et al. 74 studied the line-balancing problem in RMS to deal with the trade-offsbetween the cost and productivity.Moreover, the control system needs to be developed forenabling task reallocation and system rebalancing. Forexample, da Silva et al. 75 proposed a controlarchitecture based on the Petri nets, service-orientedarchitecture, and holonic and multi-agent system techni-ques, in order to design the control system in an RMS thatconsiders reconfiguration in functionality and productioncapacity.3.2.6Optimizing maintenance operations by utilizingPrinciple 6In order to improve the system reliability and the productquality, maintenance needs to be performed. According toan ERC-RMS survey conducted at the U.S, and Europeanautomotive and machine tools industries 76, maintenanceis ranked second of all the cost factors. Hence, utilizing aneffective maintenance policy is a very important opera-tional decision.Although maintenance policies have been extensivelystudied in the literature, most of the studies focus on singlemachines. The literature on maintenance policies in largemanufacturing systems, especially in RMSs, is verylimited. On the system level, maintenance policies shouldbe developed according to Principle 6: Perform effectivemaintenance that jointly maximizes the machine reliabilityand the system throughput. System-level maintenancedecision-making is complex because of the followingreasons 77: 1) There are different types of maintenancepolicies (e.g., inspection, preventive maintenance, correc-tive maintenance), and all have to be addressed simulta-neously at the system level; 2) multiple sources ofinformation should be integrated, from machine level(e.g., health states of machines) to system level (e.g., buffercontents, throughput requirement, and the availability ofmaintenance personnel). The maintenance decision-mak-ing in large manufacturing systems addressed in theliterature includes maintenance resource allocation 78,Yoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends9maintenance opportunity identification 7981, and main-tenance scheduling 82.Note that in RMSs, although all the parallel machines inthe same stage perform the same operations, the healthcondition of each machine may be different. In addition,the maintenance policies in RMS should be consideredjointly with the reconfiguration process. These factorscause the maintenance decision-making problem to beeven more difficult.Due to the complexity of the problem, mostmaintenancepolicies in RMSs are developed by using simulation-basedapproaches. For example, Zhou et al. 82 developed anintegrated reconfiguration and age-based maintenance(IRABM) policy and applied it to an RMS. Xia et al.83 considered the RMS maintenance opportunities, andproposed a reconfigurable maintenance time window(RMTW) method to make real-time schedules forsystem-level opportunistic maintenance, which canrespond rapidly to various system-level reconfigurations.Considering the operation process rebuilding of manufac-turing/operation systems, Xia et al. 84 proposed adynamic interactive bi-level (i.e., machine and system)maintenance methodology to satisfy rapid market changes.These proposed policies are more cost-effective than theconventional preventive maintenance policies. However,compared to other RMS issues, the maintenance decision-making problem is insufficiently explored in RMSs.4Future research trendsIn the current age of intensified globalization, manufactur-ing enterprises are facing now more competitive pressurethan 20 years ago, when RMS was introduced. Thechallenges of unpredictable market demand, shorterproduct life cycles, greater product variety, lower produc-tion costs, and higher environmental regulations, have allintensified. To retain “sustainable competitiveness” 85,possessing reconfigurability becomes even more impor-tant: In addition to rapid responsiveness and lower cost, ahigher reconfigurability can lead to a better environmentalperformance 86. Moreover, based on the recent techno-logies in “Industry 4.0”, the development of RMS andmodern manufacturing systems is entering a new era. Inthis section, we propose several potential future researchtrends, and deliberate on how the advances in recenttechnologies can improve the design and operations ofRMS.4.1Concurrent design of product, manufacturing systems,and business strategiesThe product development process of a manufacturingenterprise involves the decision-making on the followingthree aspects 6: 1) The product characteristics subject tocost and engineering constraints; 2) the manufacturingsystems that produce the product, including the systemconfiguration, the selected machines (e.g., functionality,power, accuracy, ranges, and number of axes), and theprocess parameters (e.g., task precedence, task type, accessdirection, dimension, accuracy and power needed toperform the task); and 3) the business strategy, ormarketing strategy, such as the prediction of sales, thedetermination of the product price, and the decision onwhen to introduce a new product into the market. Theobjectives from these different aspects are usually coupled,but sometimes competing. For example, from manufactur-ing perspective, it is preferable to reduce the productcomplexity; however, such reduction may result in aproduct that is less desirable in the marketplace. Therefore,a joint consideration is needed to solve the trade-off, andconcurrent design methods should be developed. Most ofthe current literatures are focused on only one aspect of thedesign problem, and some studied the joint decision-making on the development of the product and manufac-turing system 46,62,63. However,new research is neededon integrating the business objectives into the engineeringdecision-making process. Michalek et al. 87 consideredthe concurrent design problem that balanced the marketingand manufacturing objectives in a production line. Thedesign problem was decomposed into various sub-problems. The optimal design solution should not onlydetermine the optimal manufacturing systems, but mustalso develop the product evolution strategy as well as thelong-term marketing strategy.Note that, the concurrent design problems are challen-ging because of the multiple factors that need to beconsidered simultaneously. Note that even if just themanufacturing system itself is considered, complexproblems, such as joint process planning and linebalancing 5,88, or joint process planning and scheduling69,89,90, must be developed. Such complicated designoptimization problems are usually formulated as mathe-matical programming problems where heuristics need to bedeveloped to find the solution. Renzi et al. 91 reviewednon-exact meta-heuristic and artificial intelligence meth-ods that were applied to solve such RMS design problems.In the future, more complex comprehensive designmethods that integrate the business objectives into theengineering should be formulated. Furthermore, a genericdesign method that synthesizes the different design aspectsis still in need 22.We elaborate below on two topics that requirecomprehensive studies in product-system-business designstrategies.1) The role of the cooperate culture in developingproduct-system-business strategies. Cooperate culturehave a profound impact on the system design; it is anemerging area that we call “social-engineering.” Theproduct-system-business design problem is very challen-ging when these factors are considered. For example, adilemma may rise between the marketing and the10Front. Mech. Eng.manufacturing departments of a manufacturing enterprise:The former requires products that are more desirable by themarket, while the latter prefers to manufacture lesscomplex products, which, in turn, will reduce their priceand make them affordable to buyers. To resolve thisdilemma, future research should be conducted on therelationship between the enterprise management structureand the firm working culture.Cooperate culture can affect the system design andoperation strategies. For example, Koren et al. 92investigated how the corporate culture (e.g., the reactiontime to urgent maintenance request) may affect theselection of the system configuration, and pointed outthat a different corporate culture may explain why the U.S.and Japan prefer different system configurations.2) The potential advancement of the equipment andoperations. RMSs can achieve high system sustainabilitydue to its capability of producing multiple generations ofproducts. However, in order to improve the systemefficiency during its entire lifecycle, one should considernot only the current state-of-the-art technology but alsohow technology may evolve in the future. For example,more reliable machines, innovative control technology,new sensors may impact the optimal system design (e.g.,system configuration). For example, as pointed out in Ref.29, with higher machine availability, an SLP configura-tion has a higher throughput than the RMS configuration.4.2Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of real-timeoperational decision-makingCompared to the production planning problem, the real-time operational decision-making for RMSs is limited inliterature. The main challenge is the complexity of thesystem, and the requirement of an efficiency of thedeveloped strategy/algorithm that can be used in real time.As mentioned above, maintenance decision-making isvery complicated; it is even more complicated when themaintenance and production scheduling problems arejointly considered. For example, based on the productrequirement and the health condition of machines, how tooptimally perform maintenance, and at the same time,choose the production routes by using the machines thatare not under maintenance? Such problems are verycomplicated, especially when the decision is needed inreal-time. Most of traditional analytical and decision-support tools are unable to deal with such a level ofcomplexity, or they can only deal with such complexityvery inefficiently.The effectiveness and efficiency of real-time decision-making can be improved by applying intelligent manu-facturing techniques, such as multi-agent systems 93,cloud manufacturing 94, digital manufacturing 95 andcyber physical systems 96. For example, He et al. 93developed a novel mechanism that enables manufacturingresources to be self-organized cost-efficiently withinstructural constraints of a make-to-order manufacturingsystem for fulfilling customer orders.Next, we discuss on how the big-data techniques andcyber physical manufacturing system techniques canimprove the design of RMSs. Based on the advancedmonitoring and analytics capabilities, more effective andintelligent maintenance and production-scheduling deci-sions can be made in real-time.1) The rapid development of sensor technologies anddata analytics methods has significantly improved theprognostics and diagnostics capabilities of manufacturingsystems, and thus driven the systems continuous improve-ment. In todays manufacturing systems, more data arecollected frommachinesandprocesses, whichare analysedand provide better knowledge of the system status,including both on-line status and offline characterization.Moreover, the computing capabilities that are aided by thecloud-based approaches are advancing rapidly. Suchcapabilities enable the development and deployment ofmore efficient prognostics and diagnostics techniques 94,including online monitoring 97,98, remote monitoring99, anomaly detection 100 and remaining useful lifeprediction 101, in manufacturing systems. Futureresearch is needed on developing of flexible or reconfigur-able condition monitoring systems 102, which canintegrate several decision-support tools such as datacollection, feature selection, and sensor allocation.2) The recent development of the cyber physicalmanufacturing systems has the potential to solve thesechallenges. Monostori et al. 96 reviewed the keytechniques in cyber physical systems (CPSs), andillustrated how it could be implemented in the manufactur-ing environment with several case studies. A CPS has twocomponents, physical and cyber, that are interconnected.The cyber system deploys a “digital twin” of the realsystem, whichcan beconsideredas a mirroredimage ofthereal machines and operations 103. While the real systemoperates in the physical world, the digital twin operates inthe cloud platform, simulates the health condition of eachindividual machine in the system, and continuouslyrecords and tracks machine conditions, energy consump-tion, product quality, and all kinds of information. Data-driven models and algorithms can be developed 104,which can be further integrated into the simulation model,together with physical knowledge. With ubiquitousconnectivity offered by cloud computing technology, thecyber system will be able to provide better accessibility ofmachine condition for factory managers. More impor-tantly, simulation on the digital twin will enable optimaldecision-making, such as evaluating alternative mainte-nance and production scheduling policies. Once optimal ornear-optimal solutions are found in the cyber system, theywill be executed in the physical system to improve itsoperation.Yoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends114.3From mass customization to mass individualizationToday, customers requirements become more versatileand personalized. Contributed to the development oftechnologies in additive manufacturing and 3D printing105, the personalized products can be manufactured cost-effectively, which transfers the manufacturing paradigmfrom mass customization to mass individualization. In thisnew paradigm, open-architecture products will be devel-oped 106. One key challenge for mass individualizationis the huge number of possible modules that need to beassembled into a complex product. Therefore, themanufacturing system (an assembly system in this case)should be able to produce a large number of differentmodels, and should be a reconfigurable assembly system(RAS).The characteristics and principles of RMS that areintroduced in Sections 2 and 3 can be implemented toimprove the design and operations of RAS. However, thedesign and operations of such RAS is more complicatedthan that of a traditional RMS for machining. For example,the RAS should be scalable to supply more variants ofdemand, and be convertible to accommodate variousvariations and new products. The design topics of an RASalso include modelling systems that couple complexinteraction among different machines, line balancing, andproduction scheduling, etc. 107. In addition, new metricsare needed to quantitatively measure the complexity of thesystem configuration and the products.New system layout for contemporary RAS should bedeveloped in order to improve the system efficiency andreduce the operational cost. For example, Fig. 6 shows ahexagon layout of conceptual RAS for the final assemblyof personalized auto interiors 106,108. Each small squarerepresents a station where a particular component isassembled. When the process proceeds via different routes,different combinations of components can be installed,making different product variants. Some stations in thesystems are shared by multiple product variants. Forexample, for the system in Fig. 6, station 1E is shared bythree product variants (I, II, and IV), and there are 13stations (i.e., 1D, 1F, 2C, 3A, 3D, 3F, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 5C,6C, and 6F) that are shared by two product variants. Tomeet the demand requirement, popular components willrequire more than one assembly station. Such configura-tion enables freely variable assembly routes to produce thepersonalized product quickly and at low cost.To make mass individualization a reality and to confrontwith the complexity brought by the huge variety offered bythis paradigm, a RAS should combine the advantages ofboth robots and humans. The recent development ofcollaborative robot systems 109111 may offer a way toimprove the efficiency and adaptiveness of RASs.The robot has a high precision and repeatability, whilethe human is more adaptive, and can deal better withcomplex tasks and unexpected situation. The cycle time ofthe robot is fixed, but the time needed for a person tocomplete the task is not fixed, especially when complextasks are involved. A serial assembly line is not a cost-effective solution for utilizing robot-human assembly tasksin large volumes. Therefore, for utilizing effectivelycollaborative man-robot tasks in high-volume assembly,an RAS with either the configuration depicted in Fig. 4(b)or the configuration in Fig. 6 should be designed anddeployed.5ConclusionsRMS is a new type of manufacturing system that focuseson enhancing the system responsiveness to fluctuatingmarkets and enabling rapid and cost-effective competitionin environment of volatile markets. In this paper, we haveintroduced the concept and architecture of RMS, andexplained how it differs from other manufacturing systemssuch as DML and FMS. We defined the RMS characteris-tics and its principles, and brought up examples to illustratethem. Based on the principles, the RMS-related research inthe literature is reviewed, which provides guidance for thedesign and operations of RMSs. We have also discussedFig. 6A conceptual layout of a reconfigurable assembly system12Front. Mech. Eng.the role of intelligent manufacturing technologies inenhancing RMS performance, and how recent develop-ment of advanced diagnostics and cyber physical manu-facturing systems can facilitate the design and operationsof RMS. Future research should be conducted on theconcurrent design of the product-system-business strate-gies utilizing the RMS concept and principles, as well asfor more effective methodologies for real-time RMSoperations, for both machining and assembly systems.We believe that RMS has already played a vital role inthe evolution of manufacturing systems, and, integratedwith other novel techniques, will continue to revolutionizethe future development of modern manufacturing systems.Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution 4.0 International License (/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduc-tion in any medium, provided the appropriate credit is given to the originalauthor(s) and the source, and a link is provided to the Creative Commonslicense, indicating if changes were made.References1. Koren Y. Computer Control of Manufacturing Systems. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 19832. Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturingsystems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 1999, 48(2):5275403. Parsons J T, Stulen F L. US Patent 2820187, 1958-01-144. Koren Y. The rapid responsiveness of RMS. International Journalof Production Research, 2013, 51(2324): 681768275. Koren Y, Wang W, Gu X. Value creation through design forscalability of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. InternationalJournal of Production Research, 2017, 55(5): 122712426. Koren Y. The Global Manufacturing Revolution: Product-Process-Business Integration and Reconfigurable Systems. Hoboken: JohnWiley & Sons, 20107. Garbie I H. DFSME: Design for sustainable manufacturingenterprises (an economic viewpoint). International Journal ofProduction Research, 2013, 51(2): 4795038. Garbie I H. An analytical technique to model and assesssustainable development index in manufacturing enterprises.International Journal of Production Research, 2014, 52(16):487649159. Koren Y, Shpitalni M. Design of reconfigurable manufacturingsystems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 2010, 29(4): 13014110. Zhang G, Liu R, Gong L, et al. An analytical comparison on costand performance among DMS, AMS, FMS and RMS. In:Dashchenko A I, ed. Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems andTransformable Factories. Berlin: Springer, 2006, 65967311. Singh A, Gupta S, Asjad M, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturingsystems: Journey and the road ahead. International Journal ofSystem Assurance Engineering and Management, 2017, 19 (inpress)12. Wang W, Koren Y. Scalability planning for reconfigurablemanufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,2012, 31(2): 839113. Maier-SperedelozziV,KorenY,HuSJ.Convertibilitymeasures for manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals-ManufacturingTechnology, 2003, 52(1): 36737014. Gumasta K, Gupta S K, Benyouce L, et al. Developing areconfigurability index using multi-attribute utility theory. Inter-national Journal of Production Research, 2011, 49(6): 1669168315. Bi Z M, Lang S Y T, Shen W, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturingsystems: The state of the art. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 2008, 46(4): 96799216. Bi Z M, Wang L, Lang S T Y. Current status of reconfigurableassembly systems. International Journal of ManufacturingResearch, 2007, 2(3): 30332817. Colledani M, Tolio T. A decomposition method to support thereconfiguration/reconfiguration of production systems. CIRPAnnals-Manufacturing Technology, 2005, 54 (1): 44144418. Li J, Dai X, Meng Z. Automatic reconfiguration of petri netcontrollers for reconfigurable manufacturing systems with animproved net rewriting system-based approach. IEEE Transactionson Automation Science and Engineering, 2009, 6(1): 15616719. Meng X. Modeling of reconfigurable manufacturing systems basedon colored timed object-oriented Petri nets. Journal of Manufactur-ing Systems, 2010, 29(23): 819020. Zhao X, Wang K, Luo Z. A stochastic model of a reconfigurablemanufacturing system Part I: A framework. International Journalof Production Research, 2000, 38(10): 2273228521. Rsi C, Sfsten K. Reconfigurable production system designTheoretical and practical challenges. Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management, 2013, 24(7): 998101822. Andersen A L, Brunoe T D, Nielsen K, et al. Towards a genericdesign method for reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Analysisand synthesis of current design methods and evaluation ofsupportive tools. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 2017, 42(1):17919523. Koren Y, Kota S. US Patent 5943750, 1999-08-3124. Koren Y, Katz R. US Patent 6567162, 2003-12-2425. Koren Y, Ulsoy G. US Patent 6349237, 2002-02-1926. Krygier R. The Integration of flexible, reconfigurable manufactur-ing with quality. In: Proceedings of CIRP 3rd Conference onReconfigurable Manufacturing. Ann Arbor, 200527. Gadalla M, Xue D. Recent advances in research on reconfigurablemachine tools: A literature review. International Journal ofProduction Research, 2017, 55(5): 1440145428. Koren Y, Hu S J, Weber T W. Impact of manufacturing systemconfiguration on performance. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Tech-nology, 1998, 47(1): 36937229. Freiheit T, Shpitalni M, Hu S J, et al. Designing productivemanufacturing systems without buffers. CIRP Annals-Manufactur-ing Technology, 2003, 52 (1): 105108.30. Gu X. The impact of maintainability on the manufacturing systemarchitecture. International Journal of Production Research, 2017,55(15): 4392441031. Koren Y, Gu X, Guo W. Choosing the system configuration forhigh-volume manufacturing. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 2017 (in press)Yoram KOREN et al. RMS: Principles, design, & trends1332. Youssef A M A, ElMaraghy H A. Availability consideration in theoptimal selection of multiple-aspect RMS configurations. Interna-tional Journal of Production Research, 2008, 46(21): 5849588233. Dou J, Dai X, Meng Z. Optimization for multipart flow-lineconfiguration of reconfigurable manufacturing system using GA.International Journal of Production Research, 2010, 48(14): 4071410034. Goyal K K, Jain P K, Jain M. Optimal configuration selection forreconfigurable manufacturing system using NSGA II and TOPSIS.International Journal of Production Research, 2012, 50(15): 4175419135. Webbink R F, Hu S J. Automated generation of assembly system-design solutions. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science andEngineering, 2005, 2(1): 323936. Benkamoun N, Huyet A L, Kouiss K. Reconfigurable assemblysystem configuration design approaches for product change. In:Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference onIndustrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM). Rabat:IEEE, 201337. Narongwanich W, Duenyas I, Birge J R. Optimal Portfolio ofReconfigurable and Dedicated Capacity Under Uncertainty.Technical Report, University of Michigan ERC-RMS, 200238. Deif A M, ElMaraghy W. Effect of reconfiguration costs onplanning for capacity scalability in reconfigurable manufacturingsystems. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems,2006, 18(3): 22523839. Gyulai D, Kdr B, Kovcs A, et al. Capacity management forassembly systems with dedicated and reconfigurable resources.CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2014, 63(1): 45746040. Renna P. A decision investment model to design manufacturingsystems based on a genetic algorithm and Monte-Carlo simulation.International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2017,30(6): 59060541. Asl F M, Ulsoy A G. Stochastic optimal capacity management inreconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals-Manufactur-ing Technology 2003, 52 (1): 37137442. Spicer P, Carlo H J. Integrating reconfiguration cost into the designof multi-period scalable reconfigurable manufacturing systems.Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 2007, 129(1):20221043. Carlo H J, Spicer J P, Rivera-Silva A. Simultaneous considerationof scalable-reconfigurable manufacturing system investment andoperating costs. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineer-ing, 2012, 134(1): 01100344. Van Mieghem J A. Investment strategies for flexible resources.Management Science, 1998, 44(8): 1071107845. Ceryan O, Koren Y. Manufacturing capacity planning strategies.CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2009, 58(1): 40340646. Matta A, Tomasella M, Clerici M, et al. Optimal reconfigurationpolicy to react to product changes. International Journal ofProduction Research, 2008, 46(10): 2651267347. Bryan A, Ko J, Hu S J, et al. Co-evolution of product families andassembly systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology,2007, 56(1): 414448. Matta A, Tomasella M, Valente A. Impact of ramp-up on theoptimal capacity-related reconfiguration policy. InternationalJournal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 2007, 19(3): 17319449. Niroomand I, Kuzgunkaya O, Bulgak A A. Impact of reconfigura-tion characteristics for capacity investment strategies in manufac-turing systems. International Journal of Production Economics,2012, 139(1): 28830150. Shi J. Stream of Variation Modeling and Analysis for MultistageManufacturing Processes. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 200651. Hu S J, Koren Y. Stream-of-variation theory for automotive bodyassembly. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 1997, 46(1):1652. Hu S J, Stecke K E. Analysis of automotive body assembly systemconfigurations for quality and productivity. International Journal ofManufacturing Research, 2009, 4(3): 28130553. Kristianto Y, Gunasekaran A, Jiao J. Logical reconfiguration ofreconfigurable manufacturing systems with stream of variationsmodelling: A stochastic two-stage programming and shortest pathmodel. International Journal of Production Research, 2014, 52(5):1401141854. Abad A, Guo W, Jin J. Algebraic expression of systemconfigurations and performance metrics for mixed model assemblysystems. IIE Transactions, 2014, 46(3): 23024855. Gupta A, Jain P K, Kumar D. A novel approach for part familyformation using K-means algorithm. Advances in Manufacturing,2013 1(3): 24125056. Kimura F, Nielsen J. A design for product family undermanufacturing resource constraints. CIRP Annals-ManufacturingTechnology, 2005, 54 (1): 13914257. Abdi M R, Labib A W. Grouping and selecting products: Thedesign key of reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs).International Journal of Production Research, 2004, 42(3): 52154658. Abdi M R, Labib A W. A design strategy for reconfigurablemanufacturing systems (RMSs) using analytical hierarchicalprocess (AHP): A case study. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 2003, 41(10): 2273229959. Galan R, Racero J, Eguia I, et al. A systematic approach forproduct families formation in reconfigurable manufacturingsystems. Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing,2007, 23(5): 48950260. Abdi M R. Product family formation and selection for reconfigur-ability using analytical network process. International Journal ofProduction Research, 2012, 50(17): 4908492161. Battaa O, Dolgui A, Guschinsky N. Decision support for design ofreconfigurable rotary machining systems for family part produc-tion. International Journal of Production Research, 2017, 55(5):1368138562. Goyal K K, Jain P K, Jain M. A comprehensive approach tooperation sequence similarity based part family formation in thereconfigurable manufacturing system. International Journal ofProduction Research, 2013, 51(6): 1762177663. Wang G, Huang S, Shang X, et al. Formation of part family forreconfigurable manufacturing systems considering bypassingmoves and idle machines. Journal of Manufacturing Systems,2016, 41: 12012964. Kashkoush M, ElMaraghy H. Product family formation forreconfigurable assembly systems. Procedia CIRP, 2014, 17: 30214Front. Mech. Eng.30765. Eguia I, Lozano S, Racero J, et al. A methodological approach fordesigning and sequencing product families in reconfigurabledisassembly systems. Journal of Industrial Engineering andManagement, 2011, 4(3): 41843566. Azab A, ElMaraghy H. Mathematical modeling for reconfigurableprocess planning. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2007,56(1): 46747267. Azab A, Perusi G, ElMaraghy H A, et al. Semi-generative macro-process planning for reconfigurable manufacturing. DigitalEnterprise Technology, 2007, 25125868. Bensmaine A, Dahane M, Benyoucef L. A simulation-basedgenetic algorithm approach for process plans selection in uncertainreconfigurable environment. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 2013, 46(9): 1961196669. Bensmaine A, Dahane M, Benyoucef L. A new
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号