Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual assembly planning and assembly-oriented quantitative evaluation of product assemblability

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assembly motion navigation and assemblability evaluation play key roles in assembly design, assembly operation analysis, and assembly planning. The accurate positioning of parts and realistic simulation of the assembly process are the premise of the evaluation and optimization of product design. The product assemblability evaluation is needed during the initial design stage in order to identify potential assembly problems. This paper presents a motion navigation method based on force guidance, which achieves a realistic simulation of the assembly process. A novel approach to assemblability and assembly sequence analysis and evaluation is developed. The calculation methods of assembly force, contact force, and assembly torque under the influences of part properties, visual, and human factors etc. are given. Quantitative evaluation of component assemblability (CA) according to the assembly time and assembly trial times is developed. Then, from an overall perspective, a product assemblability (PA) evaluation system is established on the basis of assemblability of each component and the assembly sequence is optimized according to the PA evaluation results. This algorithm has been applied to a self-developed desktop virtual assembly prototype system. An example is illustrated, and the results prove that this algorithm provides a realistic and accurate assembly motion navigation in virtual space and gives a correct and appropriate quantitative evaluation of the product assemblability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abhishek S, Judy MV, James HO (2011) Virtual reality for assembly methods prototyping: a review. Virtual Reality 15(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jayaram S, Jayaram U, Wang Y, Tirumali H, Lyons K, Hart P (1999) VADE: a virtual assembly design environment. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19(6):44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marcelino L, Murray N, Fernando T (2003) A constraint manager to support virtual maintainability. Comput Graph-UK 27(1):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gomes de Sá A, Zachmann G (1999) Virtual reality as a tool for verification of assembly and maintenance processes. Comput Graph-UK 23(3):389–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chryssolouris G, Mavrikios D, Fragos D (2000) A virtual reality-based experimentation environment for the verification of human related factor in assembly processes. Robotics Comput-Integrated Manufacturing 16(4):267–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu HM (2010) Assembly semantics modeling for assembling process planning in virtual environment. Assem Autom 30(3):257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhu HM, Wu DL, Fan XM (2010) Interactive assembly tool planning based on assembly semantics in virtual environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(5–8):739–755

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tan JR, Liu ZY, Zhang SY (2002) Intelligent assembly modeling based on semantics knowledge in virtual environment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, London, England, pp 568–571

  9. Coutee AS, Bras B (2004) An experiment on weight sensation in real and virtual environments. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (DETC2004-57674), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

  10. Lim T, Ritchie JM, Corney JR, Dewar RG, Schmidt K, Bergsteiner K (2007) Assessment of a Haptic Virtual Assembly System that uses Physics-based Interactions. Proceedings of the 2007 I.E. International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, pp.147-153

  11. Liu ZY, Tan JR (2007) Constrained behavior manipulation for interactive assembly in a virtual environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 32:797–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang RD, Fan XM, Wu DL, Yan JQ (2007) Virtual assembly technologies based on constraint and DOF analysis. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 23(4):447–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhong YM, Mueller-Wittig W, Ma W (2002) Incorporating constraints into a virtual reality environment for intuitive and precise solid modeling. Proceedings of the sixth international conference on information visualization (IV’02), London, England

  14. Sui A, Wu J (2006) Distributed virtual assembly-oriented semantic modeling technology. Sixth International Symposium on Instrumentation and Control Technology: Sensors, Automatic Measurement, Control, and Computer Simulation, Beijing, China, pp.6358-6358G

  15. Wang H, Xiang D, Duan G, Zhang L (2007) Assembly planning based on semantic modeling approach. Comput Ind 58(3):227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight W (2002) Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sturges RH, Kilani MI (1992) Towards an integrated design for an assembly evaluation and reasoning system. Comput Aided Des 24(2):67–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boothroyd G, Alting L (1992) Design for assembly and disassembly. Annals of the CIRP 41(2):625–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Samy SN, ElMaraghy HA (2010) A model for measuring products assembly complexity. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 23(11):1015–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Samy SN, ElMaraghy KH (2008) Assessment of complexity measures suitable for mechanical assemblies. In: Proceedings on 2nd CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada

  21. Maropoulos PG, Vichare P, Martin O, Muelaner J, Summers MD, Kayani A (2011) Early design verification of complex assembly variability using a hybrid—model based and physical testing methodology. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60:207–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zha XF, Sebti FF, Rachuri S, Ram DS (2005) Analysis and evaluation for STEP-based electromechanical assemblies. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 6(3):276–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zha XF (2006) Integration of the STEP-based assembly model and XML schema with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for muti-agent based assembly evaluation. J Intell Manuf 17(5):527–544

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Claudio F, Michele G (2012) A method to optimize assemblability of industrial product in early design phase: from product architecture to assembly sequence. Int J Interact Des Manuf 6(3):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hung-Yao H, Grier CIL (2002) Quantitative measurement of component accessibility and product assemblability for design for assembly application. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 18(1):13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Azman Y, Nurnasran P, Ruslizam D, Mazni O, Syed-Abdullah SL (2010) Product assembly sequence optimization based on genetic algorithm. Int J Comput Sci Eng 2(9):3065–3070

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zha XF (2001) Neuro-fuzzy comprehensive assemblability and assembly sequence evaluation. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 5(15):367–384

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lu C, Fuh JYH, Wong YS (2006) Evaluation of product assemblability in different assembly sequences using the tolerancing approach. Int J Prod Res 44(23):5037–5063

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Sukhan L, Chunsik Y (1998) Statistical representation and computation of tolerance and clearance for assemblability evaluation. ROBOTICA 16(3):251–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Armesto N (2005) Review of Monte Carlo methods for particle multiplicity evaluation. J Phys Conf Ser 5(1):219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Li Y (2010) Simulation and Optimization Analysis of Crash between Truck and Curb on the Highway Based on ADAMS. Chang’an University, pp 21-22

  32. Toshijiro O, Minoru I, Shoji A, Seii M (2002) Extended assemblability evaluation method (AEM) (extended quantitative assembly producibility evaluation for assembled parts and products). JSME Int J 45(2):567–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ho C, Boothroyd G (1979) Design of chamfers for ease of assembly. In: Proceedings of the 7th Manuf Eng Trans. North AME Metalwork Res. Conf, pp. 345-354

  34. Barnes CJ, Jared GEM, Swift KG (2003) A pragmatic approach to interactive assembly sequence evaluation. Proc IME B Eng Manufact 217(4):541–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Electronic Equipment Structure Design, Ministry of Education, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710071, China

    Wei Gao, Xiaodong Shao & Huanling Liu

Authors
  1. Wei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaodong Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Huanling Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaodong Shao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, W., Shao, X. & Liu, H. Virtual assembly planning and assembly-oriented quantitative evaluation of product assemblability. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71, 483–496 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5514-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5514-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation