Assembly Features Utilization to Support Production System Adaptation

  • Baha Hasan
  • Mauro Onori
  • Jan Wikander
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 423)


The purpose of this paper is to introduce a proposed methodology to extend the evolvable assembly system (EAS) paradigm for product design by utilizing assembly features in a product. In this paper, assembly features are used to bridge the gap between product design and assembly process by matching features of a part in an assembly to operations of a process in the EAS ontology. This can be achieved by defining and extracting a new set of assembly features called process features, which are features significant to specific and well- defined assembly operations. The extracted assembly features are represented in a proposed model based on product topology. A case-study example is conducted to illustrate the new methodology. A process-feature ontology is proposed as well in order to match the assembly requirements represented by process features with the available processes and skills in the EAS ontology so that adaptation of the production system can be achieved.


Adaptation Evolvable Assembly Features EAS Process Skill Ontology 


  1. 1.
    ElMaraghy, H.A.: Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. J. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 17(4), 261–276 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koren, Y.: General RMS Characteristics, Comparison with Dedicated and Flexible Systems. In: Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories, pp. 27–46. Springer, Dashchenko (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nylund, H., Salminen, K., Andersson, P.: Digital Virtual Holons – An Approach to Digital Manufacturing Systems. In: Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier, pp. 103–106. Springer, Mitsuishi (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onori, M., Semere, D.T., Lindberg, B.: Evolvable systems: An approach to self-X production. In: Huang, G.Q., Mak, K.L., Maropoulos, P.G. (eds.) DET2009 Proceedings. AISC, vol. 66, pp. 789–802. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onori, M.: A re-engineering perspective to assembly system development. J. Industrial Robot 32(5) (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Onori, M., Neves, P., Akillioglu, H., Maffei, A.: Dealing with the unpredictable: An Evolvable Robotic Assembly Cell. In: Int. Conf. on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and Virtual Production (CARV 2011), Montreal, Canada, pp. 160–165 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Semere, D., Onori, M., Maffei, A., Adamietz, R.: Evolvable assembly systems: coping with variations through evolution. J. Assembly Automation 28(2), 126–133 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akillioglu, H., Neves, P., Onori, M.: Evolvable assembly systems: Mechatronic Architecture Implications and Future Research. In: 3rd CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Holland, W.: Assembly Features in Modelling and Planning. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Holland (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, H., Nnaji, B.: Design with spatial relationships. J. Manufacture Systems 10(6) (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shah, J.J., Rogers, M.T.: Feature Based Modeling Shell: Design and Implementation. In: Proceedings of the ASME Conference on Computers in Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 343–354 (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sung, R.: Automatic Assembly Feature Recognition and Disassembly Sequence Generation. Ph.D. Thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfrommer, J., Schleipen, M., Beyerer, J.: PPRS: Production skills and their relation to product, process, and resource. In: 2013 18th IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 1–4 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lanz, M.: Logical and Semantic Foundations of Knowledge Representation for Assembly and Manufacturing Processes. Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere Univ of Technology, Finland (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evolvable Ultra- Precision Assembly Systems (EUPASS): Assembling Process Ontology Specification. Technical report, EUPASS std0007 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smale, D., Ratchev, S.: A Capability Model and Taxonomy for Multiple Assembly System Reconfigurations. In: 13th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing, Moscow, pp. 1923–1928 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, K.: Assembly operation tools for e product design and realization. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neches, R., Fikes, R., Finin, T., Gruber, T., Senator, T., Swartout, W.: Enabling technology for knowledge sharing. J. Al Magazine 12, 36–56 (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim, K.-Y., Manley, D.G., Yang, H.: Ontology-based assembly design and information sharing for collaborative product development. J. Computer-Aided Design 38(12), 1233–1250 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baha Hasan
    • 1
  • Mauro Onori
    • 2
  • Jan Wikander
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Machine DesignThe Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Production EngineeringThe Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations