Performance Assessment in Self-organising Mechatronic Systems: A First Step towards Understanding the Topology Influence in Complex Behaviours

  • Pedro Neves
  • Luis Ribeiro
  • Mauro Onori
  • José Barata
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 423)


The research and development of self-organising mechatronic systems has been a hot topic in the past 10 years which conducted to very promising results in the close past. The proof of concept attained in IDEAS project [1] that plug&produce can be achieved in these systems opens up new research horizons on the topics of system design, configuration and performance evaluation. These topics need to consider that the systems are no longer static prototypes but instead several distributed components that can be added and removed in runtime. The distribution of modules in the system and their inherent connections will then potentially affect the system’s global behaviour. Hence it is vital to understand the impact on performance as the system endures changes that affect its topology. This article presents an exploratory test case that shows that as a system evolves (and the nature of the network of its components changes) the performance of the system is necessarily affected in a specific direction. This performance landscape is necessarily complex and very likely nonlinear. Simulation plays therefore an important role in the study of these systems as a mean to generate data that can be later on used to generate macro level knowledge that may act as a guideline to improve both design and configuration.


Multi-Agent Systems Performance Assessment Evolvable Production Systems Self-Organizing Systems Simulation 


  1. 1.
    Onori, M., et al.: The IDEAS Project: Plug & Produce at Shop-Floor Level. Assembly Automation 32(2), 4–4 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., Scholl, A.: A classification of assembly line balancing problems. European Journal of Operational Research 183(2), 674–693 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maffei, A.: Characterisation of the Business Models for Innovative, Non-Mature Production Automation Technology, KTH (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu, S.J., et al.: Assembly system design and operations for product variety. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 60(2), 715–733 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onori, M., Barata, J.: Outlook report on the future of European assembly automation. Assembly Automation 30(1), 7–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ueda, K.: A concept for bionic manufacturing systems based on DNA-type information. In: 8th International PROLAMAT Conference on Human Aspects in Computer Integrated Manufacturing, North-Holland Publishing Co. (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koren, Y., et al.: Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 48(2), 527–540 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Onori, M., Barata, J.: Evolvable Production Systems: New domains within mechatronic production equipment. In: IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE). IEEE, Bari (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Valckenaers, P., et al.: Holonic manufacturing systems. Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering 4(3), 191–201 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wiendahl, H.P., et al.: Changeable manufacturing-classification, design and operation. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 56(2), 783–809 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ribeiro, L., et al.: MAS and SOA: A Case Study Exploring Principles and Technologies to Support Self-Properties in Assembly Systems. In: SARC 2008: Self-Adaptation for Robustness and Cooperation in Holonic Multi-Agent Systems, p. 43 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jovane, F., Westkamper, E., Williams, D.: The ManuFuture Road: Towards Competitive and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jammes, F., Smit, H.: Service-oriented paradigms in industrial automation. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 1(1), 62–70 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen, W., et al.: Applications of agent-based systems in intelligent manufacturing: An updated review. Advanced Engineering Informatics 20(4), 415–431 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marik, V., Lazansk, J.: Industrial applications of agent technologies. Control Engineering Practice 15(11), 1364–1380 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ribeiro, L., Barata, J.: Re-thinking diagnosis for future automation systems: An analysis of current diagnostic practices and their applicability in emerging IT based production paradigms. Computers in Industry 62(7), 639–659 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ribeiro, L., Rosa, R., Barata, J.: A structural analysis of emerging production systems. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN). IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farid, A.: An Axiomatic Design Approach to Non-Assembled Production Path Enumeration in Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC 2013), Manchester, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ribeiro, L., et al.: Self-organization in automation-the IDEAS pre-demonstrator. In: 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2011). IEEE, Melbourne (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harding, J.A., Shahbaz, M., Kusiak, A.: Data mining in manufacturing: a review. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 128, 969 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michalos, G., Makris, S., Mourtzis, D.: An intelligent search algorithm-based method to derive assembly line design alternatives. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25(3), 211–229 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boysen, N., Fliedner, M., Scholl, A.: Assembly line balancing: which model to use when? International Journal of Production Economics 111(2), 509–528 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarthy, I.P., Rakotobe-Joel, T., Frizelle, G.: Complex systems theory: implications and promises for manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 2(1), 559–579 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barabási, A.-L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ribeiro, L., et al.: Evolvable Production Systems: An Integrated View on Recent Developments. In: 6th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology. IEEE, Hong Kong (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Onori, M.: Evolvable Assembly Systems - A New Paradigm? In: 33rd International Symposium on Robotics Stockholm (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bellifemine, F.L., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. Wiley (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    FIPA, The foundation for intelligent physical agents (2008),
  29. 29.
    Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: ICWSM (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough set theory and its applications to data analysis. Cybernetics & Systems 29(7), 661–688 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kusiak, A.: Rough set theory: a data mining tool for semiconductor manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing 24(1), 44–50 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peng, J.-T., Chien, C.-F., Tseng, T.: Rough set theory for data mining for fault diagnosis on distribution feeder. In: IEE Proceedings- Generation, Transmission and Distribution, IET (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Neves
    • 1
  • Luis Ribeiro
    • 2
  • Mauro Onori
    • 1
  • José Barata
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Production EngineeringKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.CTS UNINOVA, Dep. de Eng. ElectrotecnicaF.C.T. Universidade Nova de LisboaMonte da CaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations