Reconfigurable Manufacturing System A Review

10 III March 2022
https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2022.40594
International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538
Volume 10 Issue III Mar 2022- Available at www.ijraset.com
Reconfigurable Manufacturing System: A Review

Vipin Kumar1, Sreeraj Ramesan2, Vinay Kumar3, Dr. A. K Madan4
1, 2, 3
Research Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi
4
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi
Abstract: Manufacturing firms/companies in the twenty-first century might be compelled to manage unpredictably high-rate,
high-risk market changes energized by overall market competitiveness. To remain competitive in the market, these businesses
should put resources into flexible manufacturing solutions and new kinds of manufacturing systems that are both cost-effective
and touchy to market changes without forfeiting product and production quality. Re-configurability is a recent fad in designing
technology that spotlights cost-effective, fast responses to market changes. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMS) are
another manufacturing paradigm that accepts a framework that is more delicate to changing market demands, including
components like reconfigurable machines and reconfigurable controllers, as well as approaches for their deliberate plan and
fast increase. This paper gives a basic overview of reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMS) and the objectives that satisfy
this approach.
Keywords: RMS (Reconfigurable Manufacturing System) and FMS (Flexible Manufacturing System).
I. INTRODUCTION
Globalization of economies, fast progress in process technology, and the client-driven market have all contributed to extreme
competition and dynamic business climate during the most recent couple of decades. To remain competitive and profitable, the area
should adjust to a quickly changing environment wherein growing economies, new business concepts and philosophies,
technological breakthroughs, and consistently changing client requirements generally offer severe threats to its existence.
Designing and running a cost-effective manufacturing framework in an internationally competitive context is a critical competitive
issue. Manufacturing systems have changed over the course of time to satisfy the needs of a more dynamic and worldwide market
that demands greater flexibility and responsiveness. Fast technological advancements have prepared the way for another production
framework paradigm known as the reconfigurable manufacturing framework (RMS), which fulfills new manufacturing objectives
with high responsiveness. An RMS, as indicated by Liles and Huff, is a framework able to do dynamically adjust the plan of a
manufacturing framework to match the production request forced on it. Tsukune et al. characterize 'modular manufacturing,' which
is analogous to the reconfigurable manufacturing framework. Later in 1996, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, established the
designing research place for reconfigurable manufacturing systems (ERC-RMS) to plan and convey reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. The core of the reconfigurable manufacturing framework (RMS) is the reconfigurable machine tool (RMT), which gives
RMS its characterizing qualities, like customizable functionality and adjustable capacity, on account of its changeable structure.
Reconfigurable machine tools are modular machines comprised of a few basic and supplementary modules.
Different combinations of basic and auxiliary modules are utilized to configure the RMTs. The primary modules, like the base,
columns, and slideways, are structural; however, the auxiliary modules, for example, spindle heads, tool changers, spacers, indexing
units, adapter plates, and angle structure, are kinematical or motion supplying. In comparison to the core modules, the auxiliary
modules are smaller, lighter, and more affordable. As a result, they can be replaced more economically and rapidly with less
exertion. By preserving the basic modules and replacing the auxiliary modules, the RMTs might be immediately different into a
variety of different configurations with variable functionality and capacity.
By and large, RMTs can conduct a wide scope of operations in every one of their current configurations, which can be handled by
checking out the operational capability and the configurations into which an RMT might be further reconfigured by adjusting its
auxiliary modules, which add to its reconfigurability. The RMTs' responsiveness is portrayed by their working capability and
reconfigurability, which additionally influences the responsiveness of the reconfigurable manufacturing framework.
A. Why RMS?
Manufacturers are increasingly confronted with fast and unexpected market shifts as a result of worldwide competitiveness, for
example, the quick introduction of new products and continually changing product interest, a saturated market, and quick
advancements in process technology. Companies should plan production systems that not just create high-quality products at a
modest cost yet additionally consider the fast response to market changes and consumer needs, are effectively upgradeable, and can
undoubtedly integrate new advances and functions.
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved | SJ Impact Factor 7.538 | ISRA Journal Impact Factor 7.894 | 188
The speed with which a plant might respond to changing business objectives and generate new product models is referred to as
responsiveness. Manufacturing systems that are responsive may rapidly send off new goods on existing systems and respond rapidly
and cost-effectively to market changes, product modifications, for example, current product updates and new product introductions,
and framework faults.
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) can conform to product changes, yet they aren't intended to respond to structural changes. In
this way, they can't respond to market swings like shifting interest or catastrophic equipment breakdowns. It features fixed hardware
and fixed software that can be programmed. Changes to the framework structure are impractical with this architecture. As a result,
FMSs have restricted upgrade, add-on, and customization capabilities. FMS are additionally costly in light of the fact that they
regularly incorporate more functions than are required, utilize inadequate framework software since creating user-specified software
is restrictively expensive, are unreliable, and are dependent upon oldness because of technological advances and their fixed
framework software/hardware.
One of the most concerning issues for manufacturers is the high risk of expensive flexible production systems becoming old.
Computers, information, processing, controls, optics, high-speed motors, linear drives, and materials advance in six-month cycles,
so even the present most effective production framework may become wasteful before long.
Dedicated manufacturing systems, or DMSs, on the other hand, are intended to create a solitary product at a high rate for a minimal
price. Manufacturing another product with a similar framework is unimaginable, and changing the manufacturing volume in little
stages is unthinkable. Each new product or change in production volume requires the arrangement of another production line. As a
result, DMSs are not adequately versatile to market changes.
Future manufacturing systems technology should fulfill the accompanying objectives, which go beyond mass, lean, and flexible
manufacturing, to address difficulties, for example, reduced lead time for sending off new manufacturing systems and reconfiguring
existing ones and the fast upgrade of existing systems, and the speedy integration of new process technology and capabilities.
The Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS) has been highlighted as the main concern for future manufacturing, with capacity
and functionality that can be altered on a case-by-case basis. Since these systems take into consideration the simple replacement of
framework components and the inclusion of application-explicit software modules, they won't become outdated.
These systems won't become out of date since they will consider the quick replacement of framework components that can be
continuously improved by coordinating new technology, as well as the fast addition of application-explicit software and hardware
modules that can be reconfigured rather than rejected and replaced to oblige future products and changes in product interest.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Shabaka and Elmaraghy [1] proposed a technique for adjusting machine setups by adjusting the tool and workpiece axes' motion as
indicated by the desired component operations and characteristics. A kinematic chain structure is utilized to depict the machine tool.
The creators recommended that the framework be made more flexible by producing numerous potential configurations for every
action. Framework convertibility was described by Maier-Speredelozzi et al. [2] as a framework's capacity to adjust production
functionality. They recommended machine convertibility based on qualitative criteria like tool magazine capacity, fixturing
flexibility, programmed tool changer availability, and modular hardware/software component availability. Gumasta et al. [3]
proposed reconfigurability of the RMS on a framework level, considering the framework's basic properties like modularity,
scalability, convertibility, and diagnosability.
Abdi and Labib [4,5] concocted a conventional RMS model in which every configuration may not just produce a wide scope of
goods gathered into a family yet, in addition, respond emphatically to new products presented inside that family. They split the
planning stage into strategic and tactical levels, and while addressing the strategic level, they fostered a relationship among market
and manufacturing to arrange items into families. To sort out items into families based on operational similitudes and in this manner
relegate them to the proper manufacturing processes all through configuration stages, a reconfiguration connection among market
and production is offered.
Spicer and Carlo [6] utilized a dynamic programming method to represent different periods of RMS by considering cost and
reconfiguration as execution criteria. Notwithstanding, they only treated bases and spindles as two RMT modules in their research,
which is a long way from functional.
Son [7] depicted a hereditary algorithm procedure for delivering machining machine setups consequently. For homogenous
paralleling flow lines, Son presented a capacity scalability strategy. Son created a couple of framework configurations that satisfied
the need for all request times, and afterward, he created numerous other configuration courses involving single-period
configurations as seeds.
All of the proposed configuration pathways were surveyed based on the reconfiguration similarity metric and cost, and the best
configurations for all request times were chosen to reduce reconfiguration costs. This study addresses a solitary part request
situation, and that implies that variations in functionality are not considered.
Goyal et al. [8] gave ways of surveying the reconfigurable machine tool's working competence and reconfigurability (RMT).
Machine assignment was based on the created performance index as well as cost.
Reconfigurable manufacturing systems were separated by Makino and Trai [9] into two classifications: statically reconfigurable
manufacturing systems and dynamically reconfigurable manufacturing systems. In a static reconfigurable manufacturing
framework, the stations are intended to be effortlessly moved around, whereas, in a dynamically reconfigurable manufacturing
framework, reconfigurability is accomplished by utilizing progressed material handling systems like AGVs or voyaging robots
rather than traditional conveyor systems.
Xia et al. [10] explored a technique for generating a strategy for RMS reconfiguration and maintenance. By utilizing a
reconfigurable maintenance time window, they proposed an algorithm for constructing an arrangement that considers each
machine's dependability and failure, as well as the costs of replacement and failure (RMTW).
Kumar et al. [11] zeroed in on the RMS gathering framework reconfiguration and presented the production planning algorithm for
the get-together booked with minimal measure of reconfiguration cost and the greatest measure of reconfiguration gains. They
recommended an algorithm that considered the cost and postponed the ideal opportunity for reconfiguration, task balance, due date,
and different variables.
III. RMS (RECONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM)

Reconfigurable manufacturing systems are extremely dynamic and advancing systems that are intended to manage evolving
conditions unpredictably. Re-configurability is characterized in this context as the ability to change a framework's conduct by
changing its configuration. Hard reconfiguration is cultivated through hardware adjustments and alterations (e.g., evolving spindles),
while delicate reconfiguration is refined through software or organizational changes (e.g., additional movements). RMS's fast
adaptability in terms of hard-and software, as well as their structure, is one of their essential characteristics (e.g., adding, removing,
and modifying machine tools). These adjustments are put forth with minimal attempt in terms of both time and money. Their
functionality and capacity can be adjusted and reconfigured on a case-by-case basis to respond to changes in market conditions on
account of this principle property. Modularity, integrability, customization, convertibility, and diagnosis ability are significant
aspects of RMS. Modularity, integrability, and analytical ability are critical empowering agents for decreasing reconfiguration time
and costs. Customization and convertibility, on the other hand, permit these systems' operational costs to be reduced. A
reconfigurable manufacturing framework is another type of manufacturing framework that can undoubtedly and right away change
its capacity and functionality on a case-by-case basis.
Flexible manufacturing systems, on the other hand, are constructed with all suitable flexibility and functionality setups and can only
change inside their a priori specified flexibility with fluctuated adaptabilities (e.g., process and product flexibility). This
incorporates only creating a predetermined product spectrum and amount inside their flexibility range. Adaptations that go beyond
this flexibility require a lot of work.
To sum up, FMS has the capacity and functionality limitations. Adaptations inside their flexibility can be overseen rapidly and
cheaply. In any case, one negative is the huge initial capital expenditure required to exploit the inherent and sometimes underutilized
flexibility. The adaptability and scalability of systems, especially in terms of capacity and flexibility, are significant contrasts among
FMS and RMS. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems empower on-request redid flexibility through scalability to incrementally
realize additional capabilities and capacities, permitting them to fulfill market demands. Flexible manufacturing systems, on the
other hand, have an overall a priori-fixed flexibility and can modify inside their intrinsic flexibility. RMS is created for a particular
product portfolio (for instance, product A toward the start and B+C toward the finish of the expansion stage), whereas FMS can
manufacture numerous products at the hour of installation. The capacity and functionality of the reconfigurable manufacturing
framework (RMS) are actually required.
RMS can be basically altered with new process technology and can react to evolving demands. RMS is a crossover framework that
joins the advantages of dedicated and flexible systems. Dedicated manufacturing systems have formed into reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. The concept of reconfiguration originates from the concept of utilizing a modular machine. However, it isn't
restricted to modular machines. Reconfiguration utilizing material handling systems, relocation, reconfiguration process plan, and
different concepts have been proposed by a few researchers.
A. RMS Features
RMS, as a relatively new sort of manufacturing framework, have a flexible structure in both hardware and software architecture, and
they join the accompanying six basic features:
1) Modularity, which is the division of operational functions into units that might be moved around among different production
plans to accomplish the best results;
2) Integrability, the ability to rapidly and precisely link components utilizing a bunch of mechanical, informational, and control
interfaces that work with integration and communication;
3) Diagnosability, or the ability of a framework to self-read its current condition to distinguish and analyze the fundamental
reasons for product faults and repair them quickly;
4) Convertibility, or the capacity to rapidly adjust the functioning of current systems and machines to meet changing production
and market demands;
5) Customization, which limits framework and machine flexibility to a particular product family, resulting in modified flexibility;
6) Scalability refers to the ability to change the production capacity of a framework by adding or pulling out resources and
modifying framework components.
RMS' dynamic systems have the capacity and functionality to respond to market changes as a result of these features. Furthermore,
when compared to conventional manufacturing techniques, RMSs empower the creation of more extensive scope of redone goods.
Since the link between the features of the production framework and market expectations is basic, a wide definition of RMS,
enveloping and expanding such aspects, is required.
'RMS is a manufacturing framework created to satisfy the needs of a dynamic market that demands high-quality products in
differing amounts at a fair cost.
RMS has a flexible hardware and software structure that permits it to adjust production capacity and functionality to accomplish a
high throughput rate while keeping up with flexibility and a cell organization design.' The dynamism of RMSs, as well as their
connections to both the market and traditional industrial systems, are highlighted in this description. RMS research has detonated in
recent years, crossing a wide scope of themes. Most of the examinations distributed up to this point have zeroed in on ways for
fusing a portion of the new characteristics into current manufacturing systems, with less accentuation on approaches for effectively
designing new RMSs
IV. COMPARISON OF RECONFIGURATION AND RAMP-UP TIME

The time allotment it takes to take on a framework to another product is known as reconfiguration time. This time covers the time
spent redesigning the framework, assembling the machines, rearranging the equipment, etc. How much time it takes for a
manufacturing framework to ramp up to the suitable quality and production rate after it has been reconfigured is known as ramp-up
time.
Pre-manufacturing and change time are incorporated.
1) DMS: Since DMS is inflexible, when the workpiece changes, the entire framework should be redesigned, manufactured, and
implemented. This procedure can take anything from 18 to 30 months. The ramp-up of an ideal opportunity for a DMS is
roughly 2-4 weeks.
2) FMS: A FMS is intended to generate a wide number of different forms and sizes of workpieces. This requires a fast
reconfiguration and ramp-up period. The reconfiguration process requires 1-3 days, while the ramp-up process requires 1-2
days.
3) RMS: The framework and the machines ought to be rebuilt and rearranged at whatever point the workpiece is changed. As a
result, RMS might take longer than FMS; however, fundamentally less time than DMS. The reconfiguration procedure requires
1-2 weeks, while the ramp-up process requires 2-4 weeks.
We can deduce from the above focuses that FMS has the most limited reconfiguration and ramp-up time followed by RMS. The
time taken for something very similar by a DMS is a lot bigger than the other two.
A. Comparison of Life Cycle Cost

The costs of designing, implementing, reconfiguring, maintaining, ramping up, and disposing of a manufacturing system are
included in the system's life cycle cost.
1) DMS: In comparison to other systems, DMS is the simplest because it only deals with a single fixed part. However, because of
a lack of appropriate design methodologies, the special purpose machines employed are more challenging to develop. DMS has
cheap manufacturing costs due to its simple design, except for the SPMs. In this situation, reconfiguration involves the
construction of a new system, which is quite costly. Because ramp-up costs are proportional to ramp-up time, DMSs have a
relatively high ramp-up cost. Because there are no spare components to manage, a DMS requires the least amount of
maintenance. Almost none of the components and machines in a DMS can be reused after reconfiguration, resulting in
substantial disposal costs.
2) FMS: When compared to other types of production systems, FMS has the most complicated structure, resulting in the highest
design cost. Because of its complexity, this design has the highest manufacturing cost. FMS can produce a huge number of
different workpieces, and changing them is simple; therefore, the cost of reconfiguration is small. The lowest ramp-up cost is
due to the shortest ramp-up time. The administration and maintenance costs of maintaining an FMS are the highest due to the
need for highly qualified personnel. An FMS's CNC machines can be reused in a new system, resulting in a minimal disposal
cost.
3) RMS: Despite the fact that an RMS system is more sophisticated than a DMS, RMS design expenses are lower due to the good
design methods available to designers. Because of the modular design, manufacturing costs are lower than those of a DMS.
Because an RMS is designed to be quickly reconfigured, it has a cheap cost of reconfiguration. Due to the lengthier ramp-up
period, ramp-up expenses are lower than DMSs but higher than FMSs. RMS requires a large number of spare components to
ensure adjustability and reconfigurability, resulting in increased maintenance costs. An RMS's components and machines are all
built to be highly reconfigurable. That is, they can be reused multiple times, and the cost of remanufacturing must be below.
We can conclude that RMSs have the lowest lifecycle costs among all the three manufacturing systems, followed by DMS, while
FMS is the most expensive one.
The results from all the comparisons made point towards the fact that RMSs are the future of manufacturing.
V. COMPONENTS OF RECONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

The reconfigurable manufacturing systems have two important components:
1) Reconfigurable machine tool
2) Reconfigurable Controller
Reconfigurable Components
A. Reconfigurable Machine Tool

The upside of a reconfigurable manufacturing system is that the system's structure, as well as its machines and controls, might be
immediately adjusted in response to market changes. The reconfigurable machine tools are a significant part of RMS (RMT). In
contrast to customary CNC machines, which are general-purpose machines, RMT machines are produced for a specific range of
operations and might be cost-really changed over as the needs change. Machine tools can be reconfigured to make a specified set of
characteristics in a specific cycle time range. Some activity requirements will stay consistent all through the machining system's
lifetime. The primary objective of a reconfigurable machine tool is to adjust to changes in the products or parts being made. The
following possible modifications must be considered.
1) The size of the workpiece
2) The geometry and intricacy of the parts
3) Production volume and rates
4) Processes that must be followed
5) Geometrical accuracy and surface quality requirements
6) Material properties such as type of material, hardness, and so on
RMT controllers have various new issues as a result of the demand for reconfiguration. The first boundary is the controller
architecture's reconfigurability, which is necessary when physical machine tools are reconfigured, or new innovation is added.
Controlling RMT with numerous tools working autonomously, as well as RMT with axes in non-orthogonal configurations, is
another test. The combination of diverse software and equipment components is another issue. Machine design, machine tool
design, kinematics modeling, and dynamics analysis are totally expected for RMT design. There is no finished philosophy or design
method that can be applied directly to the RMT. Fixture design, assembly system design, and reconfigurable robotics are generally
disciplines where the idea of reconfiguration has been utilized. Coming up next are some examples of normal movement types.
B. RMT Tool Machining Motion (TMM)

All reconfigurable machine tool movements that are occupied with the same machining highlight (an opening, slot, and so on) are
assembled as RMT (Tool machining movement). All Tool point motions. have the same directions and execute the same machining
activity.
C. RMT Tool Machining Motion Family (TMMF):

An RMT TMMF is an assortment of machining motions shared by several work parts that may have the same movement
characteristics.
Tools for creating reconfigurable machine tool control systems comprise four primary parts, as indicated by reconfigurable
machines.
1) Automatic Part Transfer System module.
2) Automatic Part Clamping Rotating System module.
3) Automatic Part Lifting System module.
4) Automatic Tool Changing System module.
D. Reconfigurable Controller
The reconfigurable controller contains the machine-specific functions or classes that are expected to work a machine.
Reconfigurable Controller is ready to control both a 3-axis desktop factory and a 5-axis plant. Some improvements and adjustments
to the reconfigurable controller are expected to permit reconfiguration of the movement organizer and servo controller, which is
expected for controlling various mechanisms.
The configuration system is directly connected with the control interface, permitting it to acknowledge configuration commands
from it. The configuration system will do one of two processes based on these various configuration instructions. It will either
design a legitimate machine working boundary, such as joint machine restrictions, or it will not.
The Reconfigurable controller is progressively reconfigured for a specific mechanism when the configuration system completes
these configuration operations. The manufacturing process instructions may then be sent from CAD/CAM software to the
Reconfigurable controller for direct machining.
VI. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN RMSS

The advantages associated with RMS are numerous. However, some critical design decisions are required for all types of RMSs.
These are present in its architecture design, configuration design, and control design.
A. Architecture Design
A reconfigurable equipment system and a reconfigurable software system make up the system architecture. Reconfigurable
machining systems, reconfigurable fixturing systems, reconfigurable assembly systems, and reconfigurable material-handling
systems are all part of the equipment system.
B. Configuration Design
Configuration design determines system configuration under given system architecture for a specific task. A configuration is a
gathering of modules that have been chosen. A configuration can do the task to its maximum capacity: the various types and
assembly possibilities of the system are still up in the air by the system architecture. As a result, a system's architecture dictates
which configuration variants it can produce. A system configuration is represented by design variables, the number of modules, and
inner configurable parameters inside every module. Design analysis and design synthesis are both engaged with configuration
design.
1) Design Analysis: The mappings between design variables and design constraints, as well as between design variables and
design objectives, are established through design analysis.
2) Design Synthesis: From all of the possible configurations, design synthesis is used to select the best one.
C. Control Design
Control design identifies the process variables that must be used for a configuration to perform satisfactorily. Reconfigurable
variables and process variables are the two types of variables that can be changed in an RMS system.
1) Reconfigurable Variables: These modify the system's configuration. These are established in the configuration design phase.
2) Process Variables: The development and motions directed by the machines in accomplishing the task in a configuration are
controlled by process variables.
VII. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

RMS control systems must meet the following requisites:
1) The control system must be self-contained. Because a system objective is deconstructed into module goals, every one of these
modules has a singular controller to accomplish its objective. The control system must have the option to amalgamate and
synchronize components to accomplish system goals.
2) Since system components are decentralized and topographically scattered, the control system should be distributed and
modularized.
3) The control system should be modifiable and updatable so that controlling components can be refreshed. Controlling elements
can be made using an assortment of working systems, languages, networks, databases, and protocols, as well as by various
manufacturers.
4) Because of usefulness, ability, or empowering technologies being alterable, expansion, expulsion, and up-gradation of
equipment components is essential. Consequently, the control system should be scalable and upgradeable.
5) Considering system configurations might change frequently, the control system should be self-arranging, and the connected
control system should have the option to self-reconfigure rapidly as well.
VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH TRENDS

RMS provides devoted and versatile production solutions in a single bundle. To manage the issues of designing part families,
elective processing routes, planning product features with processing modules, creating part programs for operations designed.
Thus, for algorithms to rapidly make new machine configurations and their physical creations, it is necessary to foster a perspective
and new computer technologies. Reconfigurable machine tools are a reasonable choice for production scenarios where processing
needs change over the machine tool's lifetime. Notwithstanding, procedures for structural approval and diagnosability for quality
concerns must be created. To accomplish synergistic benefits, research activities must be multidisciplinary.
Manufacturing firms are under more aggressive pressure today than they were 20 years prior when RMS was sent off because of
increased globalization. Volatile market trends, short product life cycles, increased product diversity, lower production costs, and
stricter ecological restrictions have all become harder to survive. Re-configurability becomes substantially more basic to keep up
with "sustainable competitiveness." Higher reconfigurability can add to the better natural impact, notwithstanding faster response
and decreased costs. Besides, RMS and present-day manufacturing systems are approaching another age, based on late innovations
in "Industry 4.0." We offer numerous prospective future research trends in this section, as well as discuss how ongoing mechanical
improvements can work on the design and activity of RMS.
A. Concurrent Plan of Product, Manufacturing Systems, and Business Strategies

A manufacturing organization's product improvement process remembers decisions for the accompanying three aspects:
1) The product's features are constrained by cost and engineering constraints;
2) The product's manufacturing systems, including the framework configuration, picked machines (e.g., functionality, power,
accuracy, ranges, and number of axes), and process parameters (e.g., task precedence, task type, access direction, dimension,
accuracy, and power required to do the responsibility); and
3) The field-tested strategy or marketing strategy incorporates things like forecasting deals, deciding product valuing, and
choosing when to send off another product. The objectives of these many parts are typically in a state of harmony; however,
they can sometimes conflict. For instance, it is preferred to reduce product intricacy from a manufacturing point of view; yet,
this reduction might result in a product that is less desired in the marketplace.
To resolve the compromise, a shared consideration is required, and concurrent plan approaches ought to be laid out. Most of the
current literature centers around only one component of the planned issue, with a couple looking at cooperative decision-production
in the product and manufacturing framework improvement. In any case, more research on fusing commercial objectives into the
specialized decision-production process is required. Michale c z et al. took a gander at the concurrent plan issue, which included
adjusting marketing and manufacturing objectives in a production line. The planning challenge was separated into a few sub-issues.
Not exclusively should the best plan solution layout the best manufacturing systems, yet it ought to likewise foster a product
evolution strategy and a long-term marketing strategy.
Note that concurrent plan difficulties are hard to tackle since various components should be assessed simultaneously. Regardless of
whether only the production framework is considered, convoluted difficulties should be grown, for example, joint process planning
and line balance [5,88] or joint process planning and scheduling . Such troublesome plan optimization challenges are ordinarily
presented as numerical programming issues, which require the utilization of heuristics to track down a solution. Renzi et al.
analyzed non-careful meta-heuristic and artificial intelligence approaches to settling RMS plan challenges. More progressed
comprehensive plan approaches that join commercial objectives into engineering ought to be created in the future. An overall plan
process that synthesizes the different plan features is additionally still required.
Beneath, we go more than two subjects that require inside and out research in product-framework business plan strategies.
1) The significance of cooperation in the improvement of product-framework business strategies. Cooperate culture hugely affects
framework configuration; it's another field we're calling "social engineering." When these components are considered, the
product-framework business configuration challenge turns out to be extremely troublesome. For instance, a conflict might
emerge between a manufacturing company's marketing and manufacturing offices: the previous require items that are more
marketable, while the last option desires to assemble less refined products, which will bring down their cost and make them
more reasonable to purchasers. Future research on the relationship between the undertaking management structure and the
company's functioning culture ought to be performed to defeat this conundrum. The plan and operation procedures of a
framework can be impacted by the helpful culture. Koren et al., for instance, investigated how corporate culture (e.g., response
time to critical maintenance requests) may impact framework configuration selection and concluded that a different corporate
culture could clarify why the United States and Japan prefer different frameworks configurations.
2) The opportunities for equipment and operations to progress. Because of its ability to create a few generations of goods, RMSs
can reach high framework sustainability. Be that as it may, to increase the proficiency of a framework over its entire lifecycle, it
is important to analyze present cutting-edge technology as well as how technology might develop in the future. More reliable
machinery, novel control innovations, and new sensors, for instance, may affect the best framework plan (e.g., framework
configuration). An SLP setup offers a greater throughput than an RMS course of action because of higher machine availability.
B. Improving the Effectiveness and Proficiency of Real-time Operational Decision-Production.

In comparison to the production planning challenge, the literature on real-time operational decision-production for RMSs is scant.
The key issue is the framework's intricacy, as well as the requirement that the proposed strategy/algorithm be adequately proficient
to be sent in real-time. As previously expressed, maintenance decision-production is troublesome; it turns out to be considerably
more troublesome when maintenance and production scheduling issues are consolidated. For instance, how to ideally embrace
maintenance based on the product requirement and the health status of machines while likewise picking production courses utilizing
the machines that are not under repair? Such difficulties are extremely hard to address, particularly when a decision should be made
rapidly. Most standard analytical and decision support tools are either unequipped for managing such intricacy or can only arrange
with it wastefully. Wise manufacturing approaches, for example, multi-specialist systems cloud manufacturing, digital
manufacturing and cyber-physical systems, can increase the adequacy and effectiveness of real-time decision-production. He et al. ,
for instance, created an interesting procedure that permits manufacturing resources to self-coordinate cost-effectively inside the
structural restrictions of a specially made manufacturing framework for fulfilling client orders. Then, at that point, we'll discuss how
large information and cyber-physical manufacturing framework strategies can assist with the RMS plan. More effective and savvy
maintenance and production scheduling decisions might be made in real-time utilizing progressed monitoring and examination
capabilities.
1) Manufacturing systems' prognostics and diagnostics capabilities have been considerably increased as a result of the fast
advancement of sensor innovations and information investigation approaches, which has fuelled the systems' continual
improvement. More information is received from machines and processes in the present production systems, which is examined
to give further developed knowledge of the framework's condition, including both online and offline characterization.
Furthermore, the registering capabilities helped by cloud-based approaches are quickly moving along. Such capabilities
consider the turn of events and arrangement of more proficient prognostics and diagnostics approaches in industrial systems, for
example, online monitoring, remote monitoring , irregularity identification, and remaining valuable life prediction. Future
research should zero in on the advancement of flexible or reconfigurable condition monitoring systems, which can consolidate a
variety of decision-support tools, for example, information gathering, feature selection, and sensor allocation.
2) Cyber-physical manufacturing advances, which have recently been created, can address these issues. With different contextual
investigations, Monostori et al. assessed the vital approaches in cyber-physical systems (CPSs) and demonstrated how they
could be utilized in the manufacturing context. A CPS is comprised of two interrelated components: physical and cyber. A
"digital twin" of the real framework is sent by the cyber framework, which might be considered a mirrored version of the real
machinery and operations. While the real framework runs on a physical platform, the digital twin suddenly spikes in demand
for a cloud platform, mimicking the health of every individual machine in the framework and continuing recording and
following machine conditions, energy utilization, product quality, and a variety of different metrics and information.
Information-driven models and algorithms can be created, which can then be joined with physical knowledge and integrated
into the simulation model. The cyber framework will actually want to give further developed admittance to machine status for
plant management because of the universal connectivity given by cloud processing advancements. More essentially, utilizing
the digital twin to reproduce will take into consideration better decision-production, for example, contrasting different
maintenance and production scheduling strategies. Once the cyber framework has observed ideal or close ideal solutions, they
will be implemented in the physical framework to work on its operation.
C. From Mass Customization to Mass Individualization

Clients' needs are turning out to be more changed and individualized nowadays. Personalized products can be made cost-
productively as a result of advancements in additive manufacturing and 3D printing, which shift the manufacturing paradigm from
mass customization to mass individualization. Open-architecture goods will be created under this new paradigm. Countless different
modules that should be joined into a perplexing product are a significant issue for mass individualization. As a result, the
manufacturing framework (for this situation, an assembly framework) ought to have the option to manufacture an enormous number
of different models and be versatile (RAS). The plan and operation of a RAS like this are more troublesome than a normal RMS for
machining. Countless different modules that should be consolidated into an intricate product are a significant issue for mass
individualization. As a result, the manufacturing framework (for this situation, an assembly framework) ought to have the option to
manufacture an immense number of different models and be versatile (RAS). The RMS characteristics and thoughts examined in
Sections 2 and 3 can be utilized to work on the plan and operation of RAS. Nonetheless, the plan and operation of a RAS like this
are more troublesome than a commonplace RMS for machining.
The RAS, for example, ought to be expandable to fulfill more need variations and convertible to permit numerous variations and
new items. Among the plan topics of a RAS are displaying systems that wed modern relationships among changed machines, line
equilibrium, and production scheduling, among different things. New measures to gauge the intricacy of framework configurations
and products are likewise required. Another framework structure for the present RAS should be planned to further develop
framework effectiveness and limit operational costs.
IX. CONCLUSION
Manufacturing flexibility and reconfigurability are broadly acknowledged as fundamental components for acquiring a competitive
edge in the marketplace. For manufacturing businesses, these are the best properties. This record gathers a comprehensive appraisal
of the literature on manufacturing flexibility and reconfigurability. The objectives of an ideal manufacturing framework are talked
about in this study. This report likewise recognizes the concepts of flexible manufacturing systems and reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. Both flexibility and reconfigurability have been discovered to be significant. Notwithstanding, having a
little flexibility and reconfigurability is preferable to having a ton of flexibility. Flexibility and reconfigurability are both costly. As
a result, what should be the degree of flexibility and reconfigurability in a production framework turns into a research point.
REFERENCES
[1] Rheault M, Drolet JR, Abdulnour G. Physically reconfigurable virtual cells: a dynamic model for highly dynamic environment. Computers and Industrial
Engineering 1995;29(1–4):221–5.
[2] Koren Y, Hiesel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, et al. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Annals of the CIRP 1999;48(2):527–40.
[3] Galan R, Racero J, Eguia I, Canca D. A methodology for facilitating reconfiguration in manufacturing: the move towards reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2007;33(3/4):345–53.
[4] Galan R, Racero J, Eguia I, Garcia JM. A systematic approach for product families formation in reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2007;23(5):489–502.
[5] Koren Y, Shpitalni M. Design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 2010;29(4):130–41.
[6] Liles DH, Huff BL. A computer based computer scheduling architecture suitable for driving a reconfigurable manufacturing system. Computers and Industrial
Engineering 1990;19(1–4):1–5.
[7] Tsukune H, Tsukamoto M, Matsushita T, Tomita F, Okada K, Ogasawara T, et al. Modular manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 1993;4(2):163–
81.
[8] Landers RG. A new paradigm in machine tools: reconfigurable machine tools. In: Japan–USA Symposium on Flexible Automation. 2000.
[9] Moon YM, Kota S. Design of reconfigurable machine tools. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 2002;124(2):480–3.
[10] Pattanaik LN, Jain PK, Mehta NK. Cell formation in the presence of reconfigurable machines. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
2007;34(3/4):335–45.
[11] Landers RG, Min BK, Koren Y. Reconfigurable machine tools. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology 2001;50(1):269–74.
[12] Bi, Z. M., Lang, S. Y., Shen, W., & Wang, L. (2008). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: The state of the art. International Journal of Production Research,
46(4), 967–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600905646
[13] Koren, Y., Gu, X., & Guo, W. (2017). Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: Principles, design, and future trends. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering,
13(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-018-0483-0
[14] Kumar, G., Kumar Goyal, K., & Batra, N. K. (2019). Evolution, principles and recent trends in reconfigurable manufacturing system. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1240(1), 012161. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1240/1/012161
[15] Zhang, G., Liu, R., Gong, L., & Huang, Q. An analytical comparison on cost and performance among DMS, AMS, FMS and RMS. Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems and Transformable Factories, 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29397-3_33
[16] Koren, Y., & Shpitalni, M. (2010). Design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 29(4), 130–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2011.01.001
[17] Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A. G., & Koren, Y. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2000),
11, 403–419. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1023/A:1008930403506
[18] Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A. G., Koren, Y., & Heytler, P. (2002). Trends and perspectives in flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 13, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014536330551
[19] Lameche, K., Najid, N. M., Castagna, P., & Kouiss, K. (2017). Modularity in the design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1),
3511–3516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.939
[20] Singh, A., Kumar, P., & Singh, S. (2013). Vision, Principles and Impact of Reconfigurable Manufacturing System. International Journal of Engineering and
Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, 3(1).
[21] Galan, R., Racero, J., Eguia, I., & Canca, D. (2006). A methodology for facilitating reconfiguration in manufacturing: The move towards reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 33(3-4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0461-2
[22] Koren, Y. (2004). Reconfigurable machine tools. Autonome Produktion, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18523-6_36
[23] Prasad, D., & Jayswal, S. C. (2019). Assessment of a reconfigurable manufacturing system. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(5), 1558–1575.
https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-06-2018-0147
[24] Shabaka AI, Elmaraghy HA. Generation of machine configurations based on product features. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
2007;20(4):355–69.
[25] Maier-Speredelozzi V, Koren Y, Hu SJ. Convertibility measures for manufacturing systems. Annals of the CIRP 2003;52(1):367–70.
[26] Gumasta K, Gupta SK, Benyoucef L, Tiwari MK. Developing a reconfigurability index using multi-attribute utility theory. International Journal of Production
Research 2011;49(6):1669–83.
[27] Abdi MR, Labib AW. A design strategy for reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs) using analytical hierarchical process (AHP): a case study.
International Journal of Production Research 2003;41(10):2273–99.
[28] Abdi MR, Labib AW. Grouping and selecting products: the design key of reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs). International Journal of Production
Research 2004;42(3):521–46.
[29] Spicer P, Carlo HJ. Integrating reconfiguration cost into the design of multi-period scalable reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering 2007;129(1):202–10.
[30] Son SY. Design principles and methodologies for reconfigurable machining systems’. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 2000 [PhD thesis].
[31] Goyal KK, Jain P, Jain M (2012) Optimal configuration selection for reconfigurable manufacturing system using nsga ii and topsis. International Journal of
Production Research 50(15):4175–4191
[32] H. Makino and T. Arai, "New Developments in Assembly Systems," CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, vol. 43, no. 22, pp. 501-512, 1994.
[33] Xia, T.; Xi, L.; Pan, E.; Ni, J. Reconfiguration-oriented opportunistic maintenance policy for reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2017, 166, 87–98.
[34] Kumar, A.; Pattanaik, L.N.; Agrawal, R. Multi-objective Scheduling Model for Reconfigurable Assembly Systems. In Innovations in Soft Computing and
Information Technology; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 209–217.
[35] Prasad D, Jayswal SC (2017) Reconfigurability consideration and scheduling of products in a manufacturing industry. International Journal of Production
Research https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1334979
[36] Prasad D, Jayswal SC (2017) Scheduling of products for reconfiguration effort in reconfigurable manufacturing system. In: Singh SK (ed) 7th International
Conference of Materials Processing and Charac- terization (ICMPC 2017), GRIET Hyderabad, India.
[37] Goyal KK, Jain PK, Jain M (2013) A novel methodology to measure the responsiveness of RMTs in reconfigurable manufacturing system. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems
[38] Koren Y, Ulsoy A (1997) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems, engineering research center for reconfigurable machining systems (ERC/RMS) report# 1, the
university of michigan. Ann Arbor
[39] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, Van Brussel H. Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. Annals of the CIRP 1999;48: 527-
540.
[40] ElMaraghy HA. Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. International Journal of Manufacturing Systems 2006; 17: 261-276.
[41] Wiendahl H-H. Adaptive Production Planning and Control – Elements and Enablers of Changeability. In: ElMaraghy HA, editor. Changeable and
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 197-212.
[42] Schuh G, Westkaemper E, Wiendahl H-H. Liefertreue im Maschinen- und Anlagenbau. Stand - Potenziale - Trends. Aachen: 2006.
[43] Hu SJ. Paradigms of manufacturing – a panel discussion. 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing. Ann Arbor: 2005.
[44] Koren, Y. What are the differences between FMS & RMS. Paradigms of manufacturing – a panel discussion. 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable
Manufacturing. Ann Arbor: 2005.
[45] ElMaraghy HA. Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Paradigms of manufacturing – a panel discussion. 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable
Manufacturing. Ann Arbor: 2005.
[46] Tolio T, Valente A. An Approach to Design the Flexibility Degree in Flexible Manufacturing Systems. In: Proceedings of flexible automation and intelligent
manufacturing conference. Limerik: 2006. p. 1229-1236.
[47] Hitomi K. (1994) International Journal of Manufacturing System Design, 2(1), 1-7.
[48] Souza D.E., Williams F.P. (2000) Journal of Operational Analysis, 18(1), 577-593.
[49] Fujii S., Morita H., Kakino Y., Ihara Y.,Takata Y., Murakami D., Miki T., Tatsuta Y. (2000) Proceeding of Pacific Conference Manufacturing, 2(1),970– 980.
[50] Maraghy H.A, Kuzgunkaya O., Urbanic J. (2007) Annals of CIRP, 5(1),445-450.
[51] Brettel M, Klein M, Friederichsen N. The relevance of manufacturing flexibility in the context of Industrie 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 2016, 41: 105–110
[52] Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Helo P, et al. Explaining the impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems on environmental performance: The role of top
management and organizational culture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 141: 56–66
[53] Michalek J J, Ceryan O, Papalambros P Y, et al. Balancing marketing and manufacturing objectives in product line design. Journal of Mechanical Design,
2006, 128(6): 1196–1204
[54] Tang L, Yip-Hoi D M, Wang W, et al. Concurrent line-balancing, equipment selection and throughput analysis for multi-part optimal line design. Journal for
Manufacturing Science and Production, 2004, 6(1–2): 71–82
[55] Ausaf M F, Gao L, Li X. Optimization of multi-objective integrated process planning and scheduling problem using a priority based optimization algorithm.
Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2015, 10(4): 392–404
[56] Wang B, Guan Z, Chen Y, et al. An assemble-to-order production planning with the integration of order scheduling and mixed-model sequencing. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 8(2): 137–145
[57] Renzi C, Leali F, Cavazzuti M, et al. A review on artificial intelligence applications to the optimal design of dedicated and reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2014, 72(1–4): 403–418
[58] Koren Y, Gu X, Freiheit T. The impact of corporate culture on manufacturing system design. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2016, 65(1): 413–416
[59] He N, Zhang D Z, Li Q. Agent-based hierarchical production planning and scheduling in make-to-order manufacturing system. International Journal of
Production Economics, 2014, 149: 117– 130 94. Gao R, Wang L, Teti R, et al. Cloud-enabled prognosis for manufacturing. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2015, 64(2): 749–772
[60] Xiong Y, Yin Z. Digital manufacturing––The development direction of the manufacturing technology in the 21st century. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering
in China, 2006, 1(2): 125– 130 96. Monostori L, Kádár B, Bauernhansl T, et al. Cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 2016, 65(2): 621–641
[61] Guo W, Chen R, Jin J. On-line eccentricity monitoring of seamless tubes in cross-roll piercing mill. ASME Journal Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
2015, 137(2): 021007
[62] Guo W, Shao C, Kim T H, et al. Online process monitoring with near-zero misdetection for ultrasonic welding of Lithium-ion batteries. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 2016, 38(1): 141–150
[63] Wang S, Chen T, Sun J. Design and realization of a remote monitoring and diagnosis and prediction system for large rotating machinery. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering in China, 2010, 5 (2): 165–170
[64] Li X, Jiang J, Su H, et al. Identification of abnormal operating conditions and intelligent decision system. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China, 2011,
6(4): 456–462
[65] Xu X, Deng S. Trend prediction technology of condition maintenance for large water injection units. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2010, 5(2): 171–175
[66] Hu Y, Yang S, Du R. Distributed flexible reconfigurable condition monitoring and diagnosis technology. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China, 2006,
1(3): 276–281
[67] Lee J, Lapira E, Bagheri B, et al. Recent advances and trends in predictive manufacturing systems in big data environment. Manufacturing Letters, 2013, 1(1):
38–41
[68] Guo W, Guo S, Wang H, et al. A data-driven diagnostic system utilizing manufacturing data mining and analytics. SAE International Journal of Materials and
Manufacturing, 2017, 10(3): 01632923
[69] Guo N, Leu M C. Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications and research needs. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 8(3): 215–243
[70] Koren Y, Hu S J, Gu P, et al. Open architecture products. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2013, 62(2): 719–729
[71] Hu S J, Ko J, Weyand L, et al. Assembly system design and operations for product variety. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2011, 60(2): 715–733
[72] Koren Y, Hill R. US Patent 6920973, 2004-07-26
[73] Cherubini A, Passama R, Crosnier A, et al. Collaborative manufacturing with physical human-robot interaction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 2016, 40: 1–13
[74] Pellegrinelli S, Moro F L, Pedrocchi N, et al. A probabilistic approach to workspace sharing for human-robot cooperation in assembly tasks. CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology, 2016, 65(1): 57–60
[75] Wang X V, Kemény Z, Váncza J, et al. Human-robot collaborative assembly in cyber-physical production: Classification framework and implementation. CIRP
Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 2017, 66(1): 5.

Reconfigurable Manufacturing System A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reconfigurable Manufacturing System A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 III March 2022

Reconfigurable Manufacturing System: A Review

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

III. RMS (RECONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM)

IV. COMPARISON OF RECONFIGURATION AND RAMP-UP TIME

Pre-manufacturing and change time are incorporated.

A. Comparison of Life Cycle Cost

V. COMPONENTS OF RECONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

A. Reconfigurable Machine Tool

B. RMT Tool Machining Motion (TMM)

C. RMT Tool Machining Motion Family (TMMF):

VI. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS IN RMSS

VII. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH TRENDS

A. Concurrent Plan of Product, Manufacturing Systems, and Business Strategies

B. Improving the Effectiveness and Proficiency of Real-time Operational Decision-Production.

C. From Mass Customization to Mass Individualization

You might also like