Quality characteristic decoupling planning of different meta-action units for computer numerical control machine tool

Abstract

Since computer numerical control machine tool is composed of multiple meta-action units to achieve one specific function, including the meta-action units' own quality, it still needs to control the coupling relationships among different meta-action units' quality characteristics to guarantee the whole machine's quality. In this article, a method of quality characteristic decoupling planning based on meta-action unit for computer numerical control machine tool was proposed. Firstly, the coupling constraint models based on meta-action unit were established. Secondly, the comprehensive coupling strengths of meta-action units were calculated and introduced into the design structure matrices. Thirdly, multidisciplinary design optimization method was adopted to obtain the optimized control sequence of different meta-action units' quality characteristics. What is more, automatic pallet changer rotary motion of computer numerical control machine tool was taken as an example to illustrate the rightness and effectiveness of this method.

Keywords

Meta-action unit decoupling planning quality characteristic computer numerical control machine tool coupling constraint model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fortunato

Ascari

. The virtual design of machining centers for HSM: towards new integrated tools. Mechatronics 2013; 23: 264–278.

Danilovic

Browning

. Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Int J Project Manage 2007; 25: 300–314.

Guo

Ren

Zhang

. Decoupling of multi-quality characteristics and robust design optimization. Chin Soc Agric Machinery 2009; 40: 203–205.

Zhang

Zeng

Wang

. Decoupling model of quality characteristics for complicated electromechanical products. J Chongqing Univ 2010; 33: 7–15. in Chinese).

Wei L, Shen G, Zhang Y, et al. Research on the availability model of NC machine tool. In: 2010 international conference on computer, mechatronics, control and electronic engineering. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 2010, vol. 2, pp.526–529.

Yang

Duan

. Developing a parameter linkage-based method for searching change propagation paths. Res Eng Des 2012; 23: 353–372.

Fast-Berglund

Fässberg

Hellman

, et al. Relations between complexity, quality and cognitive automation in mixed-model assembly. J Manuf Syst 2013; 32: 449–455.

Ouyang

Chen

Yang

. Using a QCAC-entropy-TOPSIS approach to measure quality characteristics and rank improvement priorities for all substandard quality characteristics. Int J Prod Res 2014; 52: 3110–3124.

Umeda

Tomiyama

. Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 1996; 10: 275–288.

10.

Hirtz

Stone

McAdams

. A functional basis for engineering design: reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Res Eng Des 2002; 13: 65–82.

11.

Yan

Zuo

. Evaluating the reliability of multi-body mechanisms: a method considering the uncertainties of dynamic performance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016; 149: 96–106.

12.

Ran

Zhang

. Quality characteristic association analysis of computer numerical control machine tool based on meta-action assembly unit. Adv Mech Eng 2016; 8: 1–10.

13.

Tang

Zhang

Dai

. Design as integration of axiomatic design and design structure matrix. Rob Comput Integr Manuf 2009; 25: 610–619.

14.

Forcina

Silvestri

Di Bona

. Critical flow method: a new reliability allocation approach for a thermonuclear system. Qual Reliabil Eng Int 2016; 32: 1677–1691.

15.

Cao

. Coupling learning of complex interactions. Inf Process Manage 2015; 51: 167–186.

16.

Yao

Chen

Luo

, et al. Review of uncertainty-based multidisciplinary design optimization methods for aerospace vehicles. Prog Aerosp Sci 2011; 47: 450–479.

17.

Batali

Yassine

. Information leaders in production development organization network analysis of the design structure matrix. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 2006; 53: 570–582.