Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ceglarek*
Sensor Optimization for Fault Diagnosis in Single Fixture Systems: A Methodology
Fixture fault diagnosis is a critical component of currently evolving techniques aimed at manufacturing variation reduction. The impact of sensor location on the effectiveness of faulttype discrimination in ?;uch diagnostic procedures is signijcant. This paper proposes a methodology for achieving optimal faulttype discrimination through an optimized conjguration of dejned "sensor locales. " The optimization is presented in the context of autobody fucturinga predominant cause of process variability in automobile assembly. The evaluation criterion for optimization is an improvement in the ability to provide consistency of best match, in a pattern recognition sense, of any fucture error to a classijied, anticipated error set. The proposed analytical methodology is novel in addressing optimization by incorporating fucture design specijications in sensor locale planningconstituting a Design for Fault Detectability approach. Examples of the locale planning for a single fucture sensor layout and an application to an industrial fucture conjguration are presented to illustrate the proposed methodology.
J. Shi
T. C. Woo
S. M. Wu Manufacturing Research Center, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 481092136 email: DarekQengin.umich.edu
1 Introduction
An automobile is a complex piece of machinery, particularly when considered in the assembly context. The structural frame of the automobile, the BodyInWhite (BIW), is made up of up to 800 distinct oriented surfaces. This requires a complement of 150250 different fixtures with multiple tooling elements to assemble. A complexity consideration such as this coupled with a statistical likelihood of 150 assembly flaws per average production day (or in one of six cars) due to body discrepancies alone, makes it apparent that overall design intent needs to encompass detection and localization of such errors. (Similar complexity in a broader manufacturing context are brought up in Ayres, 1988.) The largest identifiable chunk of all assembly defects, expressed as problems per 100 vehicles, is attributable to process variability in the BIW (J. D. Power, 1994). These account for in excess of 30 percent of all utility vehicle defects. Flaws or error manifestations in cases involving process variability take the form of dimensional variation in the product. A study on the autobody assembly involved in utility vehicle assembly (Ceglarek and Shi, 1995), reveals that as much as 72 percent of all defect root causes are attributable to failures of the assembly fixtures. Such fixture failure modes, present predictable means of assigningfailure types to specificpart/tooling element failures in the fixture. This characteristic is of significant help in diagnosis. While recent advances in fixture design (Asada and By, 1985; Menassa and DeVries, 1989) have resulted in improved fixtures in terms of general design objectives, fixture related dimensional faults continue to be the dominant root cause of flaws directly influencing process variability. This is in spite of concurrent advances in Optical Coordinate Measuring Machine (OCMM) gaging technology for the BIW, which now provides exhaustive per part measurement for 100 percent of parts in critical autobody assembly areas in many plants. Analysis of variability content in the BIW does not require imposition of constraints on the actual positioning of the OCMM laser sensor to accomodate practical considerations such as assembly task requirements etc.
Consequently, for purposes of discussion a sensor location is not distinguished from an assigned measurement point location in a sensor locale. The wealth of dimensional information generated (frequently as many as 100 sensor locations in an OCMM set up for the BIW) presents a challenge on two fronts: 1. Meaningfulness of Sensor Data: While exhaustive per part sensor measurement is useful, the information can be put to meaningful use in diagnosis only if it conforms to a diagnostic framework designed to: (a) exhaustively identify all fault types occurring due to tooling element failures; (b) obtain a representation of the signature of each fault type, as registered by a candidate sensor set; (c) obtain a sensor set "locale" which highlights the fault causing the largest measure of error; and (d) to optimize consistency in obtaining a resulting best match. 2. Root Cause Localization: The need is to synthesize a sensor pattern of "effect" data and map the result onto the space of "causes" as identified from the geometry and location of tooling elements on the fixture. The requirement of such a comprehensive root cause isolation and diagnosis methodology is to identify the failure of a single functionality from the set of fixture element functionalities. This is achieved through a sensor reading interpretation in the light of variation patternscombining 1 and 2 above (Fig. 1).
* Corresponding Author. Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division for publication in the JOURNAL MANUFACTURING OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 1996; revised Oct. 1997. Associate Technical Editor: J. Sutherland.

1.1 Optimal Sensor Layout. Efficient fault isolation hinges on an effective sensor layout. The configuration of the sensor layout becomes relevant when multiple sensors are used to provide a comprehensive problem description. Multiple sensor usage usually requires a strategy on sensor data fusion/ integration. This has been taken to mean a combination of available state variable estimates used to provide an estimate of a variable (Chryssolouris et al., 1992), or simply the systematic use of such data to assist in a single task (Luo and Lin, 1988). Sensor position optimization has been performed (Tarabanis et al., 1991) to integrate and satisfy vision task requirements with specific depthoffield or fieldofview type constraints, and, through use of Gaussian maps, to resolve issues of object occlusion.
FEBRUARY 1999, Vol. 121 1 109
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering copyright O 1999 by ASME
Most current implementations utilize an approach which corresponds loosely to one proposed by Shekhar et al. Instances of the former include poor clamp designlmanufacture. as shown in Fig. A fixture under evaluation may be deemed "correct" if these conditions 110 / Vol. which include locating pins ( P ) and block locators with clamps (C). 1. Fixture faults can be defined in terms of the influence exerted by CTEs on part location in the event of a TE failure.'s object localization addresses (that of localizing an object as in a manipulator endeffector. Cowan and Kovesi. 1 Root cause isolation: methodology outline Sensor planning has traditionally taken the form of a search method. Such TE fault conditions are in turn a direct cause of part mislocation in assembly. we characterize the fixture through defining a layout of Tooling Elements (TE). deterministic part location. TEs may offer redundant control along certain axes..1 Fixture Faults. While a method of describing the location of an assembled part is still required. However. the layout used is based on the 321 principle. locating pin P. as dimensional variation. through the (twoway constraint providing) pin P2in the primary plane. 1988). To estimate the extent of realization of these desirable characteristics. M 3 : Candidata SenPoriMeasurement Locale Note: Doned lines represent Control Axes. This is immediately obvious from the observation that when a TE controlling a certain axis on a rigid part fails. force fitting this method to fixture fault localization is not feasible. A partcontrol axis for a TE defines a critical direction for that TE. 121. Location of measurement points cannot. 1994. for practical reasons. and total restraint. but as the range of positions which. 2.This is the subset of TEs constraining motion along B. An analysis of fault types (Ceglarek and Shi. C2. 3. a unidirectional (Z) constraint. be artificially constrained to comer points.. The totality of Ps and Cs are responsible for "correct" fixture function and thus for dimensional repeatability of parts in assembly operations. The approach outlined here combines elements of all of these approaches in that object and sensor descriptions are used as the basis. often not amenable to quadrangle form representations. The approach proposed here provides an effective solution when few simplifying assumptions can be made regarding either partlfixture geometry or fault naturelcomplexity. In this context Complementary Tooling Elements (CTE) may be defined as the set of constraint providing complements to a given Tooling Element (TE) for a specified axis 8. Failures of the latter form may occur from locator wear.Geometric l Dimensional r l DlmenslonalVariation Hypothesized Fault Type Locator Classification  0 Synthesis Fault Type Enumeratlon are met. not necessarily a single rotation of the component. as has been seen (in the case of the Z axis above). rr While their conclusions remain valid for object localization. 2. which may then be deemed an optimal configuration. sensor synthesis for diagnosis has certain unique requirements.. block locatorclamp mating mismatches and offdimension locating pins. The problem which Shekhar et al. 2 321 fixture layout Transactions of the ASME . The approach in the synthesis method is to utilize a set of specified constraints on the task to analytically arrive at a constraintfulfilling solution. . and degradation in applied clamp pressure levels due to part fatigue over time. 3. 2. C 3 :Block Locators constraining Y direction part motion 6 : Pin Locator constraining X 6 Z dlrectlon part motbn :Pin Locator const'ainlng Z direakn part ro!h p 2 M. C2. Failure patterns can be arbitrary combinations of translations or rotations in 3D space. a simulation method. utilizing sensory information). 1996) leads to the following generalized fault induced resultant motion: C1. inclusions on and pitting of mating surfaces. C3) on the secondary (Y Z ) plane. as has been shown in Asada and By (1985). (1988) for object localization. or a synthesis approach (Zussman et al. then the extent of the dimensional mislocation is determined by all other TEs controlling that axis.with excludes the TE under consideration. Tooling faults are directly attributable to one or a combination of failure conditions associated with each of the TEs. These serve to achieve 1. a combination of X and Z direction constraints in the primary (XZ) plane. Succinctly put. M.2 Problem Generality Considerations. diverges from partfixturing in certain crucial aspects: 1. BIW components have arbitrary shapes. a Y direction constraint. accompanied by tests for the satisfaction of a task related need. and there is the option of heuristic use to limit locales through a constriction of the optimization space. Fig. represents a specific fault type. through a fixed diameter or conical (fourway constraint providing). For the rigid part. FEBRUARY 1999 Fig. 2. The simulation approach utilizes a set of sensor and object scenario descriptions to converge on a satisfactory sensor distribution. constraints on sensor locations are introduced to avoid "blackedout" areas (ineligible as a sensor locale due to manufacturingldesign constraints). through the set of block locators ( C. coupled with the use of engineering judgement to determine feasibility. M3(M3D MB h ) 2 Problem Setting: Autobody Part Fixturing A part fixture serves to ensure locational and clamping stability.. location is no longer viewed as a unique or optimal position. The first involves a heuristicbased search for (a) sensor location(s). The principle provides for part motion constraint through the use of three groups of locators laid out in two orthogonal planes. part mislocation due to a TE fault is defined by the CTEs of a TE in the axis. TE faults have been found to be of both the inherentindesign and the developedthroughprocesslife forms.
nonnominal. the measurement vector x based on all sensors M i(i = 1. 2. C3 failure in the Y control axis. resultant translation along the E axisif the complementary tooling elements to TE (n. 6 in the second subscript of the matrix elements in Eq. Ma: Cendidele SenrorrMea?lunmrentLocale Nole: M2 is a nowmllocaled sensor Fig.. . . are measures of deviation from nominal on each of the t bodiesan inherent measure of fault trends in the fixturing. is the standard deviation of variable . . ~ ) has n entries (where n is the number of sensor variable measures) describing a variation pattern caused by a type i fault. resultant rotation along the axis defined by two complementary tooling elementsif the complementary tooling elements to TE (n.. Vol. Elements d. 4 Framing assembly process schematic Three axis measurements at each of three sensor locations. (e.. The index taking values 1.2 Fault Classification and Diagnosis. C2 failure in the Y control axis.g. C l failure in the Y control axis. . x 2 . . takes the form: Fig.) is 2. and 3. These fault manifestations are summarized in Figure 3. A fault signature may be defined for each fault type in terms of a particular TE layout and a sensor locale. The set of diagnostic vectors can be represented as a single diagnostic matrix D . . n) represent a ratio of the standard deviation in a component direction to the overall sensor standard deviation associated with the fault type. . P2 failure in the Z control axis. then: 1 : Pln laator constrainingX & Z direction pan mollon (x. 2. 2. which for the generic 321 fixture of Fig. resultant rotation along the axis defined by one complementary tooling elementif the complementary tooling elements to TE (n.z) P2: Pln laator constrainingZ dredbn pan motion MI.. The dimensional extent of the fault as captured by a sensor layout is a function of fault severity as well as the geometry of the layout of the sensors and TEs on the fixture. . P I failure in the X control axis. A diagnostic vector (Ceglarek and Shi. 3 321 fault manifestations 1. failure in the Z control axis.. t represents the number of measured automowhere tive bodies. ( j = 1.. A "sensor locale" is defined as the complete set of XYZ coordinate descriptions of sensors associated with the fixture constituting a candidate layout. . These are provided here without derivation. n sensor variable measures. x.. ( 4 ) corresponds to the six fault types. provides nine sensor variable measures. and the first subscript indexes the i = 1. represents the measured variable. . xnII.. The generalized fixture of Fig. (2) with the component direction dimensional motions and the corresponding resultant component direction stan 2. 3) may be expressed as: Vectors d ( i ) can be obtained in terms of the dimensional measures of the tooling layout and the sensor locale. 2 provides the basis for a generic fault type categorization: Type 1 Fault: Type 2 Fault: Type 3 Fault: Type 4 Fault: Type 5 Fault: Type 6 Fault: LHApenum OCMM Roof Bows Front Header Panel P . If X. and a = d . For the n = 9 sensor variable measures (for three sensors each with three axis measurements) in the generalized fixture configuration. x .. . x.. arrows indicating the direction of resultant part motion. faults involving repeatability about some.) is 0. 5 LH aperture pin and sensor layout Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 1999. A set of diagnostic vectors can now be defined as the set of (sensor) vectors associated with each of these faults for a given tooling configuration and sensor locale. Rear Header Panel Subassembly Unes Fig. . Ma.) is 1. . x2. . .where a. mean).. reflecting dimensional behavior of the BIW assembly. but can be obtained through relating Eq. 1996) M3 ( ~ . 121 / 111 . . . m OCMM measurements. are described by measurement vectors [x.
elements of covariance matrix Q to hi . If x E R n represents N measurements from the n sensors distance between failure patterns represented by the diagnostic with matrix Q .) (Ceglarek and Shi.xb)' + (y.. with the distance measure between points a and b being computed as d ( ~ .. they can be expressed in the form: [XiIQ]ai=O i = 1 .. as in Eq. Data synthesis to obtain a set of points which have high fault magnitude.is maximized for different sensor locale sets. For data pairs. then we can define f E RPforp. etc. is the ith eigen vector of Q . The associated CAD system layout and the corresponding candidate sensor for a sample of size N. d(i) . The first eigen vector points in the direction of the greatest variability in the data. 2 (Ceglarek and Shi.. and ai is the ith eigen vector corresponding 2. it is possible to obtain a descriptively complete matrix representation of all associated tooling faults. say xi and .. the optimal set may be obtained through a procedure involving constrained iterative maximization. (5). A Geometric (positionsetting) station is utilized for each of the subassemblies involved. represent the shortest (perpendicular) distance from MI..zb)'. x(P2. obtained as: (13)l. 4).. may be carried out through a pointbypoint estimate of data variation for each sensor variable in the form of a 6sigma value. r 112 I Vol. M2 to the axis joining C1 and C2. The aim of the diagnostic procedure is to first identify the over the N samples.(12). Each fault is manifest as a variation pattern based on where z(P2. etc. modeled based on sensor MI. as a transforma. . = N (13) completed welds and deterministic part location in other fixtures in assembly which locate its subcomponents. (7) . as it is characteristic of the generalized class of n21 fixture layouts. represent component distances from P2 to MI along axes Z and X respectively. b) = J(x. and where d(C12.1).yb)' + (z. This tion of x such that 2 = xA.. a. A. and the orthogonal projection of the data onto this eigen vector is the first eigen value. The problem and the solution method are best illustrated in the context of industrial fixturing.. LH aperture fixturing assumes i= 1 cov. a. The standard deviation components of the d ( i ) being proportional to distance measures.MI).dard deviations for the generic case of Fig.]T . is described by a first eigen valueeigen vector pair (al. The LH aperture fixture was utilized as a test fixture for ongoing analysis and optimization. . 5. A second requirement is to group measurements based on a single root cause from within the sensor data set. = d1Z1 x) '/(N . The cause. FEBRUARY 1999 Transactions of the ASME . The rationale is that strong failure patterns and then utilize these to isolate a fault root covariances are indicative of variations linked to a single root cause. 121. d(CI2. I is the identity matrix. and where X.3 A Case In Point: An Industrial Fixturing Configuration. M2. such as those utilized as part of the framing operation in automobile assembly. (Xi ci . MI). with and representing data means locale set is shown in Fig. . for a set of tooling layouts and sensor locales. 1996) functions of d ( i ) . n (14) where Xi is the eigen value of the ith principal component. . The predominant fault. respectively. represented as ai = [ a i l computed for the measurement data as Eq. is the ith measurekent from a sensor and X the mean of the sample size N values. The major assembly task in autobody framing assembly is performed at a framing station where the vehicle underbody is welded to the RH and LH apertures (the Right and Left aperture assembly lines) and the Roof Bows (Fig.M2). Also. M I ) . obtained in Eqs. the relatively large N part size and weight of the fixtured sheet metal increases sensi2 (xi . 1996).C) tivity to TEinduced errors. . where A = [aiiInx.X)(Ci . All distance measures are computed in a Euclidean distance sense. . M3 measures. . with x defined diagnostic vector is equivalent to the dominant eigen vector . The ith column of A . including the LH aperture. Measurements exhibiting a high covariance measure may be grouped together. Mathematically. (14) from Q [Eq. Thus.vector. This is based on a covariance analysis.
( 14)]. The discriminant may be viewed in a transformation setting. 6 ) has the effect of maximizing the overall dispersion of diagnostic vectors d ( i ) .. where 1 170 depends on the variability of the fault.12 Qfunc2 i I Estimate the betweenfault Euclidean Dlstance Measure d(i) dU) Estimate 3. The desirability criteria can now be formulated in terms of a search in dimensional space for a sensor locale. initial Sensor Locatbn Coordinates 3 Optimization An optimal sensor location can be obtained by maxim'izing the distance between each dominant eigen vector. a design for a specific noiseinsensitivity is frequently required to best isolate a specijic fault vector. By utilizing the J. using the designed TE locations to guarantee the best level of fault type detection and isolation. The problem may be succinctly formulated as a constrained optimization. where: for the specific d ( i ) . requiring a faithful manifestation of d ( i ) by the sensor set for fault identification. may be defined as a function of the minimum distance between pairs of diagnostic vectors.2 Sensor Noise Considerations. noise levels increasingly drive up the probability of a misinterpretation of a fault manifestation as a FEBRUARY 1999. 6. the spread and location of the d ( i ) are optimized to obtain such a locale. Constraints can be formulated from CAD data to directly reflect positions on the fixture which for one reason or another may be infeasible as a candidate sensor locale. (Opfunc4 in Fig. where the objective function is sought to be maximized subject to inequality constraints: problems of consistency as due to local minima in the multidimensional space not being encountered. are introduced to provide fixturespecific control on the relevance of specific tooling faults to the fixture under consideration. y . This represents a search for the "maximal spread" referred to earlier. 121 1 113 . to represent the relative importance of the detection of a certain fault type.) (Fukunaga. The { d ( i ) .. The diagnosability or fault isolation index J . with Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 3. d ( i ) i = 1. index is implemented using a set of functions from the Matlab (Matlab. 1994) toolbox.. A diagnosibility index is proposed which quantifies the ability of the system. varies during the iterative search procedure. A discriminant function for identification of a fault type with sensors subject to noise. corresponding to a theoretical maximum robustness. . The connotation of the maximization premise is to increase the power. has been proposed in Ceglarek ( 1996) : to estimate if identification of a type i fault (for a specific d ( i ) ) is robust to the sensor noise. . Optimization to achieve a maximization on J. 1972)... A block diagram of the optimization implementation is shown in Fig. G(x. Vol. d ( j ) } pair. As q0 approaches 50 percent. weights W. and described by eigen vector al . 16 Optimal Sensor Locale Coordinate Set Fig. in the face of sensor noise. over all such pairs: Optimize on J subject to Dimenslonai Constraints Eqn. index. corresponding to smallest Euclidean distance. results in the maximization of J . of the discriminant.(12)].d(i)O1I2 which is equivalent to maximizing the discriminant function g(a. as an estimator of the fault type class membership of an observed or hypothesized fault type identified in dimensional space. For example. An 170 value of 0 percent would correspond to zero noise robustness.measurement from all sensors in a locale set. accomplished through conventional TE selection. (7) . constituting a Design for Detectability. 7. to ensure a stable part location. 0 funcl 9 4 I FixtureTooling Element Coordinates +I Obtain the Diagnostic Vector Set for all faults Eqns. Efficient fault discrimination is thus possible if the sensor locale provides a maximal spread of fault type classes in space. 6 321 optimization implementation: outline v The index J is thus an estimate of the closest pairing of fault type manifestations (in fault space) for a candidate sensor locale. The optimization performance of the functions is seen to be robust to changes in the starting set in terms of convergence. The optimization as proposed is generic to 321 fixtures. Optimization on the J. If al is the eigen vector corresponding to the first eigen value of the covariance matrix Q [Eq. 6 [Eqs. an optimal sensor locale plan is incorporated into the design. to isolate faults.1 The Diagnosability Index. for all i . implementing a Sequential Quadratic Programming method (the code running in a Solaris Unix environment on a Sun SPARC 20). which when mapped into fault space. z) represents the constraint set on sensor locations corresponding to "blackedout" areas on the fixture alluded to earlier. as a mapping from the dimensional pattern space to the fault type attribute space. This design approach complements design for the fundamental function of part positioning. 7 . or real values. or the degree of reliability. Here the discriminant serves in a pattern recognition sense.. Robustness levels are considered adequate if the attained discriminant ( 7 ) satisfies 1 5 70. then the objective is to ensure high fault match efficiency of the specific d(i)' with unknown fault eigen vector al: min llal . d(i)'. with sensors at a candidate sensor locale. These may take on binary (110) values. obtained for each of the tooling faults. In the event of sensor noise or multiple fault type coexistence. To provide an optimal level of detectability. the primary fault type associated with the prominent eigen vector can be readily distinguished. . to reflect the absence of a certain fault type in a configuration. The fundamental premise of optimization on the discrimination function is that the mapping of the predominant sensorbased fault (obtained as the first eigen valueeigen vector pair of the covariance matrix Q ) on the appropriate d ( i ) be made as invariant as possible to noise in the set X .
consider the case of a Type 3 fault involving the failure of locating pin P2 in the generic fixture configuration.y.z).0 50. informed choice of sensor positions. In this example a set of TEs consisting of 3 block locators. instead of as d(i).. and starting from a prior experiencebased.. should both faults represented by the vector pair exist on the fixture. 6 ) ..0 850.76 204. The optimized sensor locale is seen to be in the area of the informed guess location for sensors M. M3.. and M2. shown in Fig.0 0..(x. and one twoway locator are chosen. FEBRUARY 1999 Transactions of the ASME ..46 ‘%= MZZ Msr M3z Computergraphics Aided Threedimensional Interactive Applicationa design environment developed by Dussault Systems. The second example involves the implementation of the algorithm to the LH aperture framing station fixture in a utility vehicle assembly line. d ( j) } eigen vector pairing. France..y. on Euclidean distance for a fixed i. 7 ( b )... the level of worstcase isolation achieved (J. index reflects the pessimistic (worstcase) scenario..0 550. the corresponding Jinit . 1978).: . An estimate can be obtained of increase in the threshold level q. The extent of this improvement in fault detection capability can be explained using an analysis in terms of the noise robustness consideration. This is performed as a suboptimization (as Opfunc2 in Fig.+ Coordinate Initial Sensor Locale Table 1 Generic fixture (A) optimization results O~iirnal Sensor Locale The measure of the fault isolation (diagnosability) index for the informed guess candidate sensor locale (minimum distance of fault type pairings) was first obtained as: The optimization procedure was camed out utilizing the Matlab function sets for constrained multivariables (Nelder and Mead. MIX 50. The J.. 8) provide additional insights into the influence of fixture design on fault isolation performance. 121. This may be considered an enhancement of discriminant g(d(i)O): g(d(i)') corresponds to an approximately 25 percent improvement in the overall fault isolation. Geometrical data corresponding to the critical features on the fixture are as represented in a CATIASolid Modeler' design environment.g(d(i)O) Vj # (20) i where d ( i ) ' is a vector obtained as: min Ild(j) . given i . 1965.0 850. 114 1 Vol.d(i)'ll (21) and J.. with a corresponding estimate of Table 2 Generic fixture ( 6 )optimization results Coordznate In~tzalSeneor Locale Optimal Sensor Locale MI. This causes variation in the entire component part. The initial sensor layout with this TE configuration is shown in Fig. diagnostic vector the closest to fault type 3 is found to be fault type 1.y. as a consequence of optimization. in terms of isolating the closest ( d ( i ) . We aim to obtain the coordinate measures M~. A significant performance difference is registered between results corresponding to J. (results in Table 2). a single oneway locator.77 51 1.0 50...but not for M3.z). The new J : Fig. For all fault pairings.(x.(x. Corresponding to Jinit. 7(a).76 204 07 873.07 873.1 An Example of Sensor Planning in the Generic 321 Case. Powell. and J.. M2. These results (Fig. for d (i). An example of the implication of optimization for a threshold level increase in fault detection is provided in the next section. r+ 4. Additional runs were performed with a change in TE positions to correspond to an alternative partholding scheme providing the same partholding functionality. This candidate sensor locale was chosen to correspond loosely to the locations chosen for sensor positioning in industrial fixtures of this configuration. For this configuration.z) corresponding to the optimal sensor locale. As an example.) is lower than that for the original. 7 (a) Candidate fixture geometry ( b ) an alternative geometry neighboring fault type. Results of optimization are in Table 1. 4 Scenarios Two example scenarios are presented here to illustrate the outlined procedure. The original TE configuration performs approximately 53 percent better when compared to the unmodified alternative configuration.. and supported by IBM. The first involves an implementation of the sensor locale selection approach on the familiar 321 configuration with assigned positions of TEs.
in the worst case. measure of 1.Fig. in Euclidean distance terms. but also for efficient design for detectability. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering Fig. giving unidirectional X and Z measures.2402 or 14. Unidirectional sensor usage is usually a solution to a manufacturing (especially fixturespecific) constraint on sensor locations at certain measurement points. a conservative estimate on the 50 percent exact bisector of the fault types in space. Ceglarek ( 1996) derives a relation linking qoand the 6sigma of allowable sensor noise. we obtain: 4. It is also apparent that particular configurations of TEs offer better fault isolation properties in conjunction with an optimal sensor locale than others. Vol.. 10 Optima for the LH aperture fixture ( a ) noncollocated sensor optimization ( b ) collocated sensor optimization FEBRUARY 1999. experiencebased choice of qo is 40 percent. noise levels which cause the vectors to push the bisecting envelope by approaching 50 percent on either side would lead to frequent misidentification of fault types. A new boundedness estimate can now be placed on the threshold of q. Unlike the generic cases where all sensors provided a complete (three coordinate) measurement set. After optimization on sensor locale. It follows that the enhanced 76 raises allowable design noise to 1.917 mm. where physically noncollocated measures are provided at sensor locations M2(x) and M2(z).2 Sensor Locale Optimization for the LH Aperture.8515. Under normal circumstances.. As noted. of 0.I Fig.9 percent (Eqs. Conventional multidirectional sensors may still be used in areas other than those "blackedout" for such measurement. 9.734 mm for the generic fixture configuration. This underscores the importance of fixturing design. An optimized sensor locale now allows for identical fault discriminatory capabilities as before and correct fault classification to up to 46 percent... allowable design noise for the component sensors is 1. an increase of 11 percent. The "realworld" LH Aperture fixturing can be similarly optimized. The graphical study reveals that at the 40 percent upper limit. as. respectively. 121 1 115 . Two independent optimizations were carried out. The new qo is thus: The implication is that an enhanced level of noise insensitivity to Type 3 faults is now achievable. The configuration of an initial candidate sensor locale with the CATIA TE configurations (corresponding to Fig. not merely to achieve efficient part holding. 23. the worstcase effect of noise on the sensors is the identification of the closest pairing of Type 1 fault in lieu of Type 3. 8 Optima for the ( a ) candidate fixture geometry ( b ) alternative geometry This can be intuitively appreciated as Type 1 and Type 3 faults both cause rotations in the Z axis. accommodating requirements peculiar to the configuration. Sensor M2 is an instance of this.. 27). corresponding to an overall J. The first involved a rearrangement of such existing unidirectional measurement sensors to obtain an optimal locale. 9 Geometry and sensor location for the LH aperture fixture L  Ka (b) J .. A common. 5) for two approaches to optimization is shown in Fig. OCMM sensors often provide unidirectional measurements at certain locations. the increase in qo now tolerable due to J. The second optimi This corresponds to an enhancement.
optimizing on the basis that it is equally important to our purpose. and Design: Manufacturing Implications.in resultant diagnosability over the trialanderror based intuitive sensor distribution. and Shi. 1992. only repositioning sensors around the original locale to better distribute the fault vectors in space. This suggests that further diagnosability improvements can be anticipated by suitably weighting the fault types in the optimization as needed.. zation approach provides an optimal sensor locale utilizing a complement of such multidirectional sensors. "Sensor Synthesis for Control of Manufacturing Processes. utilized to diagnose dimensional faults.. Though differing in implementation detail. The results obtained from the optimization (Fig. 407416. that some faults are immediately obvious from a fixture study without resorting to sensorbased data. ( 7 ) . K. to improve the information content of data available from the emerging trend towards 100 percent measurement of sheet metal assembly.e. which along with M2.." Manufacturing Review.. "Complexity. Ceglarek.0 128. as it offers an efficient means of addressing the sensor locale problem for a complete list of error types for the fixture. D. C. P. An optimal sensor locale methodology has been defined through estimating a maximal Euclidean distance spread of fault types in space. 1988).. but balanced with a spatial spread in the Z direction to ensure that Type 1 and 2 faults are effectively distinguishable. while M2(x) in combination with the other sensors.05 191. This example addresses a widely felt need in current auto assembly measurement practice. 4. Even at this level of generality. The example optimizations were 116 1 Vol.. and Ni. 2635. and By. it is usually true that some fault types are more likely to occur than others. but with the imposition of location constraints) provided a higher Joptwith a 30 percent diagnosability improvementfor sensors configured at its optimal locale (Table 3 ) : r+ 5. 8. Vol.. describes an X direction constraint failure. "Fixture Failure Diagnosis for Autobody Assembly Using Pattern Recognition. Ceglarek. "Dimensional Variation Reduction for Automotive Body Assembly. 1995. A new formalized means of configuring dimensional sensors for efficient and optimal fault type diagnosis in part fixturing has been proposed here. Vo1. 1988. In practice. M j and M4 bears out in large part the designer's experiencebased decision on sensor location. In addition. D. J.." Proceedings of the 2nd S. K. 1985. No. i. and Beaulieu. "Automatic Sensor Placement for Vision Task Requirements. D. or alternatively. H. 1972.. as can be seen from the X values in Table 3.93 MIS MIS performed with equal weight placed on all error types.. 158174. The corresponding J. The classification is based on an exhaustive fault type set proposed for the fixture in the form of a Diagnostic Matrix.. 2. The examules demonstrate the utility of the technicwe in sensor planning: both for conventional sensor1fixt. and Kovesi. pp. Cowan.( 12) to reflect for a unidirectional measure from each of two sensors.53 Optimal Senaor Locale 2 50. NO. FEBRUARY 1999 Transactions of the ASME . G.. to provide a systematic means of distributing the OCMM laser sensors without resorting to tedious iterations on sensor placement to distinguish between a few testsampleerrortypes for the fixture. to distinguish between errors of all different class types. though accomodating M2(z) as an additional member of the sensor locale set (identified as M. 139154." IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. from the use of the optimal sensor locale configuration. U. The second optimization approach utilizing a set of three multidirectional sensors (closer to the generic implementation of the previous section. As can be seen from Table 3.. M. subject to constraints on the optimization reflecting explicitly the existence of such blackedout areas. While the constraints on sensor position alter the optimal sensor layout.Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. 5566. 1. is: This corresponds to an 11 percent improvement .. the first optimization can be camed out in conceptually identical fashion to the generic case. P. Ceglarek. has assumed critical importance in modern assembly. such as the automobile BIW. Academic Press. 1998." ASME JOURNAL ENGINEERING OF FOR INDUSTRY. No.65 Opiimal Sensor Locale 1 127. 118. "Sensor Location Optimization for Fault Diagnosis in MultiFixture Assembly Systems.." Manufacturing Review. pp.re types. M. Vol. Khan. converging to repeatable optima (insensitive to the starting parameter set choice). pp. and in OCMMbased sensing. J." ASME JOURNAL ENGINEERING OF FOR INDUSTRY. J. Fukunaga. 121. this configuration retains the characteristic of a small x for Ml . monitors X direction failures.. pp. Ceglarek. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of National Science Foundation IndustryKJniversity Cooperative Research Center at the University of Michigan and access to manufacturing facilities and sensor data provided by our automobile industry sponsors. 1..." IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation. The optimization function used in the approach displays a useful resiliency to initial value assumptions. The method is even more attractive in this context. to provide an efficient classification of a manifest fault. The Jini. A.. Reliability. "Kinematic Analysis of Workpart fixturing for Flexible Assembly with Automatically Reconfigurable Fixtures. 1996. A smaller x coordinate value allows for an increased detectability of an inadequate Z constraint imposed by P1. pp. Domroese. Ayres. This approach also addresses the developing need to provide a rapid layout plan in an assembly system. "Fixture Failure Diagnosis for Sheet Metal Assembly with Consideration of Measurement Noise. The optimal layout for M2. 8694. D.1 Acknowledgments. This allows for systematic planning without taking recourse in the prevalent trial and error or judgmentbased approaches.) and changing the diagnostic vector representation of Eqs.. pp. the optimized locale differs significantly from the existing configuration in the x positioning assigned to M I . 1996. 1988. The efficiency of fixture diagnosis techniques. R. and Shi. requiring that sensors be placed at part extremities.Table 3 LH aperture fixture optimization results Coordinaie Initial Sensor Locale 50. References Asada..05 423. A. Vol. is contingent on appropriate and precise sensorbased measurement. D." ASME JOURNAL MANUOF FACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. M3 positioning serves the identical function for the P2 failure type. Wu Symposium. 781792. Vol. Vol. it is apparent that significant improvements can be made in fault diagnosis and in implementing root cause solutions with the procedure. pp. The M2(z). were shown. 114. 10) reveal a correspondence to the original intuitive layout (as suggested in Shekhar et al. Vol. Chryssolouris. I. 120. 10. this configuration was obtained as: 5 Summary and Conclusions Ensuring the dimensional integrity of complex assembled parts. significant improvements in diagnosability over existing fixture configurations.
. and Shimojo.. pp. Zussman." Annals of the CIRP. 1994.Luo. 1989. Menassa. 7. D." The International Journal of Robotics Research. Vol. 1. 5664. SpringerVerlag. Vol. Shekhar. Schuler.. "Automatic Sensor Planning for Robotic Vision Tasks. 308313. pp. 7682. R. 630. 1988. Powerand Associates. M. H. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Tarabanis. pp.. 1991. pp. PowerEarly Buyer Initial Quality Study. 1994.. Y. "A Simplex Method for Function Minimizauon. Vol. Khatib. Nelder." International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. H.. 9. 121 1 117 . K. 165169. 7 . 38. "Object Localization with Multiple Sensors. C. "Analysis of the Geometrical Features Detectability Constraints for LaserScanner Sensor Planning. 2. A." Numerical Analysis.. and Seliger. R. P. E.. 1978. D.. M. 3444. "Robot MultiSensor Fusion and Integration: Optimum Estimation of Fused Sensor Data. Matlab: Optimization Toolbox User's Guide.. Vol. Powell. Tsai. G. "A Fast Algorithm for Nonlinearly Constrained 0*timization Calculations... J. D. O. R. 1965. "Locating Point Synthesis in Fixture Design." IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation." Computer Journal. M. and DeVries. Vol. pp. J. K. I." IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation. and Allen. Vol. The Mathworks. R.. J. and Mead. W. and Lin. R. 1. Vol. pp. 1994.. S. FEBRUARY 1999. Vol. 10761081.. Inc..
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.