Research Papers: Design for Manufacture and the Life Cycle

Functional Synthesis of Manufacturing Systems Using Co-Platforming to Minimize Cost of Machines and System Changes

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohamed Abbas

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Center,
Industrial and Manufacturing
Systems Engineering,
University of Windsor,
401 Sunset Avenue,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
e-mail: abbasl@uwindsor.ca

Hoda ElMaraghy

Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Center,
Industrial and Manufacturing
Systems Engineering,
University of Windsor,
401 Sunset Avenue,
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada
e-mail: hae@uwindsor.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design for Manufacturing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 2, 2016; final manuscript received September 11, 2017; published online November 10, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Gary Wang.

J. Mech. Des 140(2), 021701 (Nov 10, 2017) (15 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1616; doi: 10.1115/1.4038069 History: Received September 02, 2016; Revised September 11, 2017

Manufacturing systems need to be designed to cope with products’ variety and frequent changes in market requirements. Switching between product families in different production periods often requires reconfiguration of the manufacturing system with associated additional cost and interruption of production. A mixed integer linear programing (MILP) model is proposed to synthesize manufacturing systems based on the co-platforming methodology taking into consideration machine level changes including addition or removal of machine axes and changing setup as well as system level changes such as addition or removal of machines. The objective is to minimize the cost of change needed for transition between product families and production periods. An illustrative numerical example and an industrial case study from tier I automotive supplier are used for verification. Finally, the effect of maintaining a common core of machines in the manufacturing system on the total capital and change cost is investigated. It has been demonstrated that synthesizing manufacturing systems designed using the co-platforming strategy reduces the total investment cost including initial cost of machines and cost of reconfiguration.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Simpson, T. W. , Jiao, J. R. , Siddique, Z. , and Hölttä-Otto, K. , 2014, Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design, Springer, New York. [CrossRef]
ElMaraghy, H. , and Abbas, M. , 2015, “ Products-Manufacturing Systems Co-Platforming,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 64(1), pp. 407–410. [CrossRef]
Abbas, M. , and ElMaraghy, H. , 2016, “ Functional Synthesis of Manufacturing Systems Using Co-Platforming,” Procedia CIRP, 52, pp. 102–107. [CrossRef]
ASME, 2004, “ Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing Principles,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. Y14.5.1M-1994. https://www.asme.org/products/codes-standards/y1451m-1994-mathematical-definition-dimensioning
Shah, J. J. , and Rogers, M. T. , 1988, “ Functional Requirements and Conceptual Design of the Feature-Based Modelling System,” Comput. Aided Eng. J., 5(1), pp. 9–15. [CrossRef]
ElMaraghy, H. , 1991, Intelligent Product Design and Manufacture, Artificial Intelligence in Design, Springer, Berlin, pp. 147–168.
Bernardi, A. , Legleitner, R. , and Klauck, C. , 1993, “ PIM—Skeletal Plan-Based CAPP,” Comput. Ind., 23(1), pp. 87–97. [CrossRef]
Han, J. , 1996, “ Survey of Feature Research,” University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Technical Report No. IRIS-96-346. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=
Abbas, M. , and ElMaraghy, H. , 2016, “ Design Synthesis of Machining Systems Using Co‐Platforming,” J. Manuf. Syst., 41, pp. 299–313. [CrossRef]
ElMaraghy, H. , and Kashkoush, M. , 2015, “ Assembly System Synthesis Using Association Rule Discovery,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 81(9–12), pp. 1705–1722. [CrossRef]
Hanafy, M. , and ElMaraghy, H. , 2017, “ Modular Product Platform Configuration and Co-Planning of Assembly Lines Using Assembly and Disassembly,” J. Manuf. Syst., 42, pp. 289–305. [CrossRef]
Bryan, A. , Wang, H. , and Abell, J. , 2013, “ Concurrent Design of Product Families and Reconfigurable Assembly Systems,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(5), p. 051001. [CrossRef]
Bryan, A. , Hu, S. J. , and Koren, Y. , 2013, “ Assembly System Reconfiguration Planning,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(4), p. 041005. [CrossRef]
Saxena, L. K. , and Jain, P. K. , 2012, “ A Model and Optimisation Approach for Reconfigurable Manufacturing System Configuration Design,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 50(12), pp. 3359–3381. [CrossRef]
AlGeddawy, T. , and ElMaraghy, H. , 2011, “ Manufacturing Systems Synthesis Using Knowledge Discovery,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol., 60(1), pp. 437–440. [CrossRef]
AlGeddawy, T. , and ElMaraghy, H. , 2010, “ Design of Single Assembly Line for the Delayed Differentiation of Product Variants,” Flexible Serv. Manuf. J., 22(3–4), pp. 163–182. [CrossRef]
Ko, J. , and Hu, S. J. , 2009, “ Manufacturing System Design Considering Stochastic Product Evolution and Task Recurrence,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 131(5), p. 051012. [CrossRef]
Youssef, A. M. A. , and ElMaraghy, H. A. , 2006, “ Modelling and Optimization of Multiple-Aspect RMS Configurations,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 44(22), pp. 4929–4958. [CrossRef]
Michalek, J. J. , Ceryan, O. , Papalambros, P. Y. , and Koren, Y. , 2005, “Manufacturing Investment and Allocation in Product Line Design Decision-Making,” ASME Paper No. DETC2005-84812.
Li, S. , Wang, H. , Hu, S. J. , Lin, Y.-T. , and Abell, J. A. , 2011, “ Automatic Generation of Assembly System Configuration With Equipment Selection for Automotive Battery Manufacturing,” J. Manuf. Syst., 30(4), pp. 188–195. [CrossRef]
Wang, H. , Zhu, X. , Wang, H. , Hu, S. J. , Lin, Z. , and Chen, G. , 2011, “ Multi-Objective Optimization of Product Variety and Manufacturing Complexity in Mixed-Model Assembly Systems,” J. Manuf. Syst., 30(1), pp. 16–27. [CrossRef]
Shabaka, A. I. , and ElMaraghy, H. A. , 2007, “ Generation of Machine Configurations Based on Product Features,” Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 20(4), pp. 355–369. [CrossRef]
Chen, L. , Xi, F. J. , and Macwan, A. , 2005, “ Optimal Module Selection for Preliminary Design of Reconfigurable Machine Tools,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 127(1), pp. 104–115. [CrossRef]
Mesa, J. , Maury, H. , Turizo, J. , and Bula, A. , 2014, “ A Methodology to Define a Reconfigurable System Architecture for a Compact Heat Exchanger Assembly Machine,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 70(9–12), pp. 2199–2210. [CrossRef]
FICO, 2009, MIP Formulations and Linearization: A Quick Reference, Fair Issac Corporation, San Jose, CA, pp. 1–19.
Kalpakjian, S. , Schmid, S. , and Vijay Sekar, K. S. , 2014, Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 7th ed., Pearson Publications, Singapore. [PubMed] [PubMed]
Noritaka, F. , Tanaka, Y. , and Sugano, T. , 2006, Ultra-Flexible Manufacturing Line with a Finishing Machining Center for Cylinder Blocks, Vol. 43, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Gropp, W. , and More, J. J. , 1997, “ Optimization Environments and the NEOS Server,” Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, Report No. ANL/MCS-P654-0397. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/563264
Czyzyk, J. , Mesnier, M. P. , and More, J. J. , 1998, “ The NEOS Server,” IEEE J. Comput. Sci. Eng., 5(3), pp. 68–75. [CrossRef]
Dolan, E. , 2001, “The NEOS Server 4.0 Administrative Guide,” Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, Technical Memorandum No. ANL/MCS-TM-250. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/papers/TM-250.pdf


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Illustration of co-platforming [3]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Illustration of machined features (adapted from Ref. [8])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Illustration of machine operation matrix

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Illustration of the different decision variables in the mathematical model: (a) no change, (b) no change, (c) removal of axis form nonplatform m/c, (d) removal of axis form platform m/c, (e) addition of axis to nonplatform m/c, (f) addition of axis to platform m/c, (g) removal of m/c and axis, (h) addition of m/c and axis, (i) addition of m/c, and (j) removal of m/c

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The different product variants for the numerical example and their features

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Machine type in each production period for the numerical example

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Standard parts (a) ANC-90 and (b) ANC-101 adapted from Ref. [18]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Product features for the I-4 and V-8 cylinder blocks

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Illustration of Mathematical model results showing the different machine types in each production period as well as the added/removed machining axes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of maintaining a common platform machines on the cost within system level and machine level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Results obtained by solving the case study presented in this paper using the mathematical model presented in Ref. [3]



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In