http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.

ca/irc

Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: the state of the art

IMTI-XP-530

Bi, Z.; Lang, S.; Shen, W.

May 2007

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:

International Journal of Production Research, 46, (4), pp. 967-992, May 17,
2007, DOI: 10.1080/00207540600905646

The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international
agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without
written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42

Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et
des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d'identifier la source de l'information et, dans certains cas, d'interdire la copie de
documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42
 Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: The State of The Art

Keywords: Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS),

system architecture, system configuration, Open Architecture Control (OAC),
reconfigurability, modularity

Z. M. Bi ♣
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute
National Research Council of Canada
London, ON, N6G 4X8, Canada
[email protected]

Sherman Y. T. Lang
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute
National Research Council of Canada
London, ON, N6G 4X8, Canada
[email protected]

W. Shen
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute
National Research Council of Canada
London, ON, N6G 4X8, Canada
[email protected]

L. Wang
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute
National Research Council of Canada
London, ON, N6G 4X8, Canada
[email protected]

♣
Corresponding Author

1
 Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: The State of The Art

Z. M. Bi, S. Y. T. Lang, W. Shen, and L. Wang

Integrated Manufacturing Technologies Institute
National Research Council
N6G 4X8, London, ON, Canada

Abstract: In this paper, general requirements of next generation manufacturing systems are
discussed, and the strategies to meet these requirements are considered. The production paradigms
which apply these strategies are also classified. Particular emphasis is put on the paradigm of
Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS). Some key issues of the RMS design are discussed,
and a critical review is presented concerning the developments of RMSs. Finally, suggestions of the
RMS research are made and future research directions are identified.

Keywords: Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems (RMS),

system architecture, system configuration, Open Architecture Control (OAC),
reconfigurability, modularity

1. Introduction

Due to excessive production capability and economic globalization, the manufacturing

environment becomes turbulent and uncertain. Manufacturing enterprises are forced to reassess their
production paradigms, so that a manufacturing system can be designed and operated efficiently in
the ever-changing environment. Many production paradigms have been proposed, but for the near
future, it is unlikely to be feasible for a manufacturing system to change its paradigm at will. The
confusions and controversies are often raised among the readers to understand and adopt new
production paradigms. For example, at the 3rd Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing held at
the University of Michigan during May 10-12, 2005, the attendees have had a controversy about the
definition of RMS. Some insist that an RMS is an intermediate paradigm between Mass Production
and Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS), some argue that an RMS is an advanced paradigm
whose flexibility must be higher than that of an FMS, and the others think it is not very meaningful
to distinguish RMSs from FMSs.
2
 In this paper, a critical review is conducted on the RMSs and relevant technologies. In section 2,
the characteristics of the current manufacturing environment are overviewed, and the key
requirements for new generation manufacturing systems are described. In section 3, general
strategies to meet these requirements are proposed. Popular production paradigms are reviewed and
classified. Taxonomy of these production paradigms is provided to illustrate their overlapping and
differences. In section 4, the paradigm of the RMS is put the emphasis on. The definition of an
RMS is discussed. Three critical issues, which are involved in design and control of the RMSs, are
revealed. In sections 5 to 7, the solutions to these issues are investigated. In section 8, a summary is
provided and the paper is concluded with some identified future research directions.

2. Requirements of Manufacturing Environment

A manufacturing system transforms raw materials into products. Its ultimate objective is to gain
value such as profit, reputation, and market share. An enterprise can survive only if this objective is
achieved appropriately. Manufacturing environment has a great impact on the performance of a
manufacturing system. Current environment has some critical requirements for a manufacturing
system (Ishii et al. 1995, NRC 1998, Stake 1999, and NRC 2000). These requirements are briefly
summarized as follows

(i) Short lead-time. Product lead-time affects the performance of a manufacturing system in
different ways (Smith and Reinertsen 1997): 1) if a product is introduced early, it is an advantage
over the competitors since their lag in matching or surpassing is larger; 2) early product introduction
increases peak sales. The earlier a product is made, the better its prospect is for obtaining and
retaining a large share of the market; 3) a new product brings a higher profit margin.

(ii) More variants. Products become versatile and customerized. Versatility implies a product
needs more components for additional functions and features. Customerization means a product has
options for individual tastes (Tseng and Du 1998, Fralix 2001). A manufacturing system is forced to
produce more product variants to meet fragmented, sophisticated and personalized needs.

(iii) Low and fluctuating volumes. The required volumes of many products are falling since: 1)
the limited market niches are shared by global competitors; 2) the life cycle of a new product
becomes shorter and the durability of the product becomes longer. Different-generation products
exist on the market at the same time; and 3) product customization has fragmented the entire market
demands into small portions.
3
 (iv) Low price. The product price is a primary feature to most of the customers. On the one
hand, the globalized market offers customers with more windows to purchase low-price products
with the same quality and service. On the other hand, the price is heavily time-dependent, and the
price margin can be reached its limit very soon after the product is introduced into the market.

Many other requirements, such as quality and durability, are not discussed here since the
customers tend to regard them as essential features of a product. The aforementioned requirements
have a significant impact on the best choice of production paradigms.

3. General Strategies to Meet Requirements

A good understanding of a manufacturing system can help to identify general strategies to meet
the requirements. A manufacturing system can be modeled from different perspectives (AMICE
1988, Kosanke et al. 1999, Krause and Jansen 1996). As shown in Figure 1, a manufacturing system
is modeled in terms of direct manufacturing activities. The meanings of shapes and abbreviations
have been explained in the figure. A manufacturing system is functioned to meet customers’
requirements (R) by producing required products (P). A final product will be an assembly of a set of
basic parts. Manufacturing activities include ‘design’, ‘manufacturing’, and ‘assembly’ (Boothroyd
et al. 1994). ‘Design’ is to define system components and their assemblies based on customers’
requirements, ‘manufacturing’ is to fabricate basic parts, and ‘assembly’ is to put all basic parts
together to create final products for customers. Both of the hardware and control resources are
required in accomplishing these activities. Hardware resources refer to the resources involved in
“process” flow and the control resources refer to the resources involved in “information” flow
(Williams 1998). A computer model of the manufacturing system is needed for design and
simulation of a hardware system. Efforts can be made at all of the domains of a manufacturing
system to meet the manufacturing requirements.

<Insert Figure 1 here>

3.1. Strategies to reduce lead-time

Product lead-time has been defined in different ways. Here, lead-time refers to the amount of
time required to meet a customer’s order. Product lead-time is the time spending in direct
production activities. As shown in Figure 2, three strategies can be applied to reduce lead-time. (1)
To reduce or eliminate indirect activities such as transferring and buffering. In particular, the
customer’s order needs to be processed as early as possible. (2) To reduce time for direct activities
by increasing system capacity and reducing system ramp-up time. (3) To operate the system
4
concurrently. Manufacturing activities are overlapped with each other, so that they can be finished
with a minimized delay.

<Insert Figure 2 here>

3.2. Strategies to increase variants

A product is normally assembled from a set of basic parts. A product can be varied by using
different types of parts and/or different assemblies. As shown in Figure 3, efforts can be made in
manufacturing and assembling basic parts. (1) To optimize a product platform. Manufacturing and
assembling activities can be well balanced, and the resources involved in manufacturing and
assembly processes are utilized efficiently. (2) To increase variants or versatility of manufacturing
resources. More variants of the parts can be manufactured. (3) To increase variants or versatility of
assembly resources. More variants of assemblies can be implemented.

<Insert Figure 3 here>

3.3. Strategies to deal with low and fluctuated volume

Product platform is a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which a

stream of related products can be efficiently developed and produced (McGrath 1995). A good

product platform may reduce system sensitivity to change on product volume; but the change of the

product volume has a great impact on the required manufacturing capability. As shown in Figure 4,

the following strategies could be applied in dealing with low and fluctuating volumes. (1) To

modularize the product platform. Basic parts are interchangeable in the same product family, so that

the demands of the products of the same family can be maintained even if the volumes of some

specific products are reduced. (2) To change manufacturing or assembly resources dynamically.

These resources could be reconfigured to adapt new products.

<Insert Figure 4 here>

3.4. Strategies to reduce the cost

The ways in which activities are organized and resources have an impact on the cost. As shown
in Figure 5, the strategies to reduce the cost include: (1) to reduce or eliminate the cost caused by
indirect activities; (2) to reduce the cost caused by direct activities; (3) to reduce the cost by system

5
integration. Moreover, the increase of the market return can alleviate the cost burden. The strategies
to increase the market return are also summarized in Figure 5.

<Insert Figure 5 here>

3.5. Taxonomy of production paradigms

Figure 6 provides taxonomy of production paradigms. It consists of four layers. At the first
layer, four key manufacturing requirements are listed. At the second layer, the strategies for meeting
these requirements, which have been discussed in sections 3.1-3.4, are shown. At the third layer, the
domains of a manufacturing system, where the strategies are applied, are illustrated. At the fourth
layer, various production paradigms are classified in terms of the applied strategies and domains.

<Insert Figure 6 here>

Taxonomy includes the production paradigms of Lean Production (Womack et al. 1991), Just In
Time (O’Grady 1988), Agile Manufacturing (Goldman and Preiss 1992, Dove 1995, Yusuf et al.
1999, Sanchez and Nagi 2001, Correa 2001), Virtual Enterprise (Camarinha-Matos et al. 1998,
Katzy and Dissel 2001), Global Manufacturing (Taylor 1997), Concurrent Engineering (Prasad
1996, Shen et al. 2001), Computer Integrated Manufacturing System (Warendorf and Merchant
1986, AMICE 1988, Gunasekaran 1997, Kosanke et al. 1999), Flexible Manufacturing System
(Babic 1999), Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (Aronson 1997, Koren et al. 1999), Mass
Customization (Tseng and Du 1998, Fralix 2001, Davis 1987, Pine II 1992, Mckinsey 2002, Boer
and Jobane 2002), Make-To-Stock (Gupta and Benjaafar 2004), Total Quality Management
(Oakland 1993), Make-To-Order, Engineer-To-Order, and Assembly-To-Order (Wortmann et al.
1997).

Some paradigms, such as Reconfigurable Manufacturing System and Lean Production, can meet
the requirements in different ways since their implementations fit in different strategies. Moreover,
it is very difficult to tell that one paradigm is better than another without the consideration of unique
situation of a specific enterprise. All of these production paradigms have their strategies to meet the
specific requirements in one way or another; while none of them apply all of the strategies
simultaneously to meet all requirements.

Some relevant terminologies, such as Holonic Manufacturing System (Brussel et al. 1999) and
Agent-Based Manufacturing System (Shen and Norrie 1999), are not included in the above
taxonomy. Although they are often used as a concept of ‘production paradigm’, they are dealt with
‘enabling technologies’, which will be discussed in Section 6.
6
4. Concept and Design Issues of RMS

4.1 RMS concept

Figure 6 has shown that the RMS paradigm is one of the most effective paradigms to meet the
manufacturing requirements. However, RMS concept has been defined in different ways. For
example, in Koren’s definition (Koren et al. 1999), an RMS is designed at the outset for rapid
change in structure, as well as in hardware and software components, in order to quickly adjust
production capacity and functionality within a part family in response to sudden changes in market
or in regulatory requirements. Although this definition can be generalized to entire manufacturing
system, the authors tried to limit its scope under the shop floor level, and they treated an RMS as an
intermediate paradigm between a Dedicated Manufacturing System (DMS) and a Flexible
Manufacturing System (FMS). There are other existing definitions of an RMS. Liles and Huff
(1990) has defined an RMS as a system capable of tailoring the configuration of a manufacturing
system to meet the production demands placed on it dynamically. The concept of an RMS is also
similar to the concept of “modular manufacturing” (Tsukune et al. 1993), “component-based
manufacturing systems” (Weston 1999, Harrison et al. 2001, Chirm and Mcfarland 2000), “modular
product system” (Rogers and Bottaci 1997), and “modular flexible manufacturing” (Kaula 1998).

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the RMS concept has been proposed to meet the changes
and uncertainties of manufacturing environment, and this objective would be achieved by
reconfiguring hardware and/or software resources. System reconfigurability can be classified in
terms of the levels where the reconfigurable actions are taken. As shown in Figure 7,
reconfigurability at lower levels is mainly achieved by changing hardware resources, and
reconfigurability at the higher levels is mainly achieved by changing software resources and/or by
choosing alternatives methods or organization structures by flexible people. However, they usually
work together so that system reconfiguribility can be maximized cost-effectively.

<Insert Figure 7 here>

Based on the aforementioned discussion, it is reasonable to extend Koren’s definition as

An RMS has an ability to reconfigure hardware and control resources at all of the functional
and organizational levels, in order to quickly adjust production capacity and functionality in
response to sudden changes in market or in regulatory requirements.

4.2 RMS design issues

7
 Similar critical issues will be involved for any type of RMSs. To discuss these critical issues
specifically and concretely, a reconfigurable robot system in Figure 8 is taken as an example. Its
critical issues include architecture design, configuration design, and control design.

<Insert Figure 8 here>

Architecture design determines system components and their interactions. System components
are encapsulated modules. Interactions are the options when the modules are assembled. RMS
architecture has to be designed to produce as many system variants as possible, so that the system
can deal with changes and uncertainties cost-effectively. Architecture design is involved at the
phase of system design.

Configuration design determines system configuration under given system architecture for a
specific task. A configuration is an assembly of the selected modules; a configuration can fulfill the
given task optimally. Configuration design is involved at the phase of system application.

Control design determines appropriate process variables (joint displacements and velocities etc.
of a joint module), so that a configuration can be operated to fulfill the task satisfactorily. Control
design is involved at the phase of system operation.

5. Architecture Design
5.1 Characteristics and requirements
As shown in Figure 9, RMS architecture is designed to possess a set of the key characteristics
(Mehrabi et al. 2000a,b, 2002). RMS characteristics include ‘modularity’, ‘scalability’,
‘integrability’, ‘convertibility’, and ‘diagnosability’. Modularity implies that both software and
hardware elements are modularized. Scalability means the system is scalable in terms of the product
volume. Integrability means the system and system components are designed for both ready
integration and future introduction of new technology. Convertibility allows quick changeover
between existing products and quick system adaptability for future products. Diagnosability is able
to identify quickly the sources of quality and reliability problems that occur in large systems. The
influences of these characteristics on system requirements have been discussed by Mehrabi et al.
(2000a,b).

8
5.2. Development of system hardware

A scenario of an RMS application is shown in Figure 9. The system consists of a reconfigurable

hardware system and a reconfigurable software system. The hardware system includes
reconfigurable machining systems, reconfigurable fixturing systems, reconfigurable assembly
systems and reconfigurable material-handling systems. The studies on the hardware system are
summarized in the following sections.

<Insert Figure 9 here>

5.2.1. Reconfigurable machining systems

Modular machine tools have been on the market over a decade. The international standards had
been established to standardize the design and fabrication of modular units in the seventies. The
project Modular Synthesis of Advanced Machine Tools (MOSYN) has been proposed to
customerize the configurations of modular machine tools (Thematic Network 2000). However,
modular machine tools are traditionally used to increase product variants by the machine-tool
producers, end-users often purchase machine tools with a specific configuration, and these machine
tools are rarely reconfigured after their installments. Parallel Kinematic Machines (PKMs) are
another type of reconfigurable machine tools (Cooke et al. 1995, Bostelman et al. 2000, Katz et al
2002, Fassi and Wiens 2000). Unfortunately, the theories and methodologies for developing
commercial PKMs have not been well established. Most of available PKMs are expensive machines
that provide less accuracy than conventional machines (Katz et al. 2002, Koren 1999). New class of
reconfigurable machine tools has been studied at the University of Michigan. It is designed to meet
the requirements of modularity, integrability, customization, convertibility, and diagnosiability, so
that the machines can reconfigure frequently in the fast-changing environment (Koren et al. 1999).

5.2.2. Reconfigurable fixturing systems

Research on reconfigurable fixturing systems can be traced back to the late 1960s, when
modular fixtures first came into prominence. A modular fixture is composed of many basic modules
including locators, clampers and connectors. Some reconfigurable fixturing systems have applied
industrial robots, since industrial robots are flexible to be programmed for different tasks
(Shirinzadeh 1993, Benhabib et al. 1991). Other reconfigurable fixturing systems are integral and
implemented by special materials or adjustable components (Haas et al. 2002, Valjavec and Hardt

9
1999). A critical review on the development of reconfigurable fixture systems has been provided
(Bi and Zhang 2001).

5.2.3. Reconfigurable assembly systems

Reconfigurable assembly systems are usually robotized (Giusti et al. 1994, Arai et al. 2001,
Heilala and Voho 2001, Sugi et al. 2001). The number and types of the assembly equipments can be
changed to meet the requirements of the products. System reconfigurability can be further improved
if a robot system itself has been modularized. In fact, modular robot design is one of the main
research threads in the robotics community (Hooper and Tesar 1994, Chen 1994, Pritschow and
Wurst 1996, Unsal et al. 1999). System ramp-up and dignosibility are other design issues. Arai et al.
(2002) used some robots to calibrate a reconfigurable assembly system automatically to reduce
ramp-up time. Mehrabi and Kannatey-Asibu (2001) have built a multi-sensor monitoring system to
increase system dignosibility.

5.2.4. Reconfigurable material handling systems

A few of reconfigurable material handling systems are under development. Fukuda and
Takagawa (2000) have designed a flexible transfer system for a large number of product variants.
The main system components are autonomous robots. Ho et al. (1997) have developed a
reconfigurable conveyor system; which allows to change the product volume in real-time.
Automation Tooling System (ATS) in Canada has developed a programmable conveyor, which
allows the conveyors to turn pallets from one section to another (Mellor 2002).

5.2.5. Higher level reconfigurable systems

The aforementioned systems are all at machine level or cell level. Some systems are at the
shopfloor or system levels. For example, the RMS at the Tri-Way in Canada, has five machine cells,
each cell includes two or three workstations devoted to a particular task (Mellor 2002, Degaspari
2002). The RMS developed by Chen et al. (2001) use various modular robots for system assembly.

5.3. Methodologies for architecture design

Architecture design takes consideration of the constraints derived from a particular application
where the RMS is supposed to operate. The design complexity depends on the system level and the
requirements of changes and uncertainties (Suh 1990). Numberless papers have been published on
architecture design of manufacturing systems, and a few of comprehensive reviews on modular
manufacturing have been provided (Tsukune et al. 1993, Rogers and Bottaci 1997, Benjaafar et al.

10
2002). The majority of the researchers employed some intuitive approaches, such as market studies
and discussion (Koren et al. 1999, Kaula 1998, Mehrabi et al. 2000a, b, Mehrabi et al. 2002, Asl et
al. 2000, Lee 1997, Zhao et al. 2000), classification (Ueda et al. 2001, Erixon et al. 1998), and
interviewing (Chick et al. 2000). The concerned systems are hieratical with a stable structure
(AMICE 1988, Kosanke et al. 1999, Kaula 1998, Deumeingts et al. 1992, Li and Williams 2002).
Some new methodologies are under investigation. For example, Chen et al. (2001) and Bi (2002)
used axiomatic designs to define general architecture of reconfigurable robot systems. Kuhnle
(2001) presented a state-time model to describe the relationship between design requirements and
organization changes. Asl et al. (2000) studied the stability of an RMS by analogizing it as a fluid
dynamic system. Adolfsson et al. (2002) applied simulation to design component-based
manufacturing systems. Tseng and Jiao (1997) and Kota and Chiou (1992) determined design
requirements by assessing a multi-attributes matrix. Lee (1997) applied integer programming to
determine the factory layout. Moriwaki and Numobiki (1994) proposed to use objected-oriented
method to design conceptual machines.

Ueda et al. (2001) have indicated that system design of the RMS belongs to the problems with
ill-defined specifications. Emergent synthesis methodologies, such as evolutionary computation,
self-organization, behavior-based methods, reinforcement learning, multi-agent systems, are
appropriate to obtain efficient, robust and adaptive solutions. However, their context of the design is
actually ‘configuration design’. The applied methodologies will be discussed in the next section.

<Insert Figure 10 here>

6. Configuration Design

As shown in Figure 10, system architecture determines available types and assembly options of
system components. Therefore, system architecture determines what configuration variants a system
can produce. Configuration design can be formulated as an optimization problem. In Figure 11,
design variables, including the selections of module types, the number of modules, and internal
adjustable parameters within a module, are used to represent a system configuration. Design
constraints and objectives are derived from task specifications and business strategies.
Configuration design involves design analysis and design synthesis. Design analysis establishes the
mappings from design variables to design constraints and from design variables to design
objectives. Design synthesis finds an optimal solution from all configuration candidates. For an

11
RMS, configuration design is repeatable within a life cycle of the system application. It will be
operated when the task requirements are changed (Turner et al. 2000).

The methodologies for configuration design depend on the complexity of a reconfigurable system.
In terms of the coupling nature of design variables to fulfill design requirements, a reconfigurable
system can also be classified as an uncoupled system, loosely-coupled system, or strongly-coupled
system. In an uncoupled system such as a computer system, each module corresponds to an
individual requirement. For example, a monitor is responsible for the requirement of displaying
quality and a keyboard is responsible for the requirement of typing input. A configuration is
determined when all of its components are selected. In a loosely-coupled system such as a fixturing
system, each component corresponds to one requirement (a clamping component is responsible for
the clamping requirement), but a few of system requirements, such as tolerance and deformation,
are fulfilled by all of the components. In a strongly-coupled system such as reconfigurable robot
system, the function of a module does not have a direct relation with system requirements. All
system modules have to be considered together to evaluate system’s capability to meet the
requirements.

6.1. Methodolgies for uncoupled and loosely-coupled Systems

For an uncoupled or loosely coupled system, a system component can be determined

individually based on their corresponding requirements. To meet a few of system requirements,
individual components need some adjustments. Configuration design of an uncoupled or loosely-
coupled system is similar to the determination of a modular product. Many methods, such as
feature-based methods (Perremans 1996), modular-based methods (Tsai and Wang 1999),
combinatorial synthesis method (Levin 2002), entity-based methods (Hong and Hong 1998), and
case-based methods (Watson 1999), can be applied. The researchers at the University of Michigan
have made considerable efforts in developing a methodology for reconfigurable machine tools. In
their methodology, task requirements of a machine tool are represented by matrices of motions, and
the screw theory is employed to identify appropriate components. Kinematics constraints, dynamic
stiffness, and accuracy, are taken into considerations in the design process (Koren et al. 1999, Moon
and Kota 2000, Landers 2000).

12
6.2. Methodolgies for strongly-coupled systems

For a strongly-coupled system, design variables should be considered together to justify whether
or not the configuration fulfill its requirements. Taking the reconfigurable robot system in Figure 11
as an example, design variables are the selections and assemblies of the modules, and design
requirements are kinematic and dynamic behaviors of the robot including trajectory, time and load.
There is no one-to-one relation between a design variable and a design requirement.

<Insert Figure 11 here>

6.3. Methodolgies for strongly-coupled Systems

Early works have applied a sequential design procedure and most of them have considered the
portion of system behaviours (Paredis and Khosla 1993, Fryer et al. 1997, Chen and Burdick 1995).
However, Due to the couplings of design variables, a concurrent consideration of design variables,
constraints, and objectives, is desirable to find a global optimal solution (Bi and Zhang 2000).
Paredis (1996) has used the concurrent design for a fault-tolerance modular robot. Leger (1999) has
considered kinematic and dynamic constraints, simultaneously in his automated synthesis.

Concurrent design can increase the problem dimension, and thus the computation is highly
demanding. Two approaches have been proposed to cope with this problem: parallel computation
(Paredis 1996, Sims 1994, Ramachandran and Chen 2000) and space reduction approach (Bi 2002).

6.4. Formulation of configuration design problem

In regard to the configuration design at a higher system level, people tend to employ system
simulation where an approximate solution is found in time-consuming iterative process (Adolfsson
et al. 2002, Banazak et al. 2003, Subbu et al. 1999). Mathematical formulation of a design problem
can be applied only in a specific sub-problem. Zhao et al. (2000) have developed a design
methodology based on a stochastic model. Spicer et al. (2002) have classified system configurations
into pure serial lines, pure parallel lines, short serial lines arranged in parallel, and crossover short
serial lines arranged in parallel. They have introduced a set of design principles for selecting
appropriate system configurations. Hon and Lopez-Jaquez (2002) have taken the time factor into
consideration in designing a dynamic manufacturing cell. Turner et al. (2000) have dealt with
configuration design through a case study. Smirnov (1999) has proposed a constraint-based model
for configuration management of a manufacturing system. Yigit et al. (2002) have applied nonlinear
programming in optimizing an RMS configuration.

13
7. Control Design

To explain the issues of the RMS control, a reconfigurable robot system is taken as an example.

7.1. Reconfigurable and process variables

As shown in Figure 12, the system has two classes of variables to be manipulated:
reconfigurable variables and process variables. Reconfigurable variables can change the robot
configuration. For example, a 6 Degrees of Freedom (DOFs) trajectory with a light load can be
fulfilled by a 6-DOF serial configuration, and a 3-DOF planer trajectory with a heavy payload can
be fulfilled by a 3-DOF planer parallel configuration. Process variables, including the joint motions,
can change the end-effector motion when the robot is operated to fulfill a task. Reconfigurable
variables are determined in the configuration design. The reason why a configuration design is also
regarded as a part of system control is that for a reconfigurable system, the system should be
reconfigured frequently to meet quick changes, and reconfigurable variables can be changed during
controlling process. Due to system reconfigurability, a new configuration has to be calibrated and
verified before it is applied. The control problem during the ramp-up period is also raised so that the
robot configurations can be shifted smoothly. Note that the system should also be able to identify
reconfigurable factors, such as the failure of joints and the change of a task, so that the system is
reconfigured at the right time.

<Insert Figure 12 here>

<Insert Figure 13 here>

7.2. Design requirements

Other types of RMSs have similar features with a reconfigurable robot system. RMS control can be
generalized and described in Figure 13. The design requirements of an RMS control are determined
as follows.

(i) The control system should be autonomous since a system level objective is decomposed into
module level objectives Each module needs an encapsulated controller to fulfill its objective;
the control system should be capable to integrate and coordinate the modules to implement
system-level objective;

14
(ii) The control system should be distributed and modularized, since system components are
decentralized and geographically distributed;

(iii) The control system should be open so that it can update controlling components. Controlling
components might be developed on heterogeneous operation systems, languages, networks,
databases, and protocols, and from different vendors;

(iv) The control system should be scalable and upgradeable because adding/removing/upgrading
hardware components are needed when the functionality, capability, or enabling technologies
have been changed;

(v) The control system should be self-reconfigured since the system configurations can be shifted
from one configuration to another frequently, and the corresponding control system should
also be self-reconfigured quickly;

(vi) The control system should be able to identify the changes of task specifications. These
changes can cause system reconfiguration.

7.3. Methodologies for control design

The concepts of the control paradigms, such as holonic manufacturing (Markus et al. 1996),
bionic manufacturing (Okino 1993), fractal companies (Sihn and Rist 1998), interactive
manufacturing (Ueda et al. 1998), and random manufacturing (Wata and Onosato 1994), are
proposed for the next-generation manufacturing systems. Bussmann and Mcfarlane (1999) analyzed
the rationales to apply the agent technology in manufacturing; it seems that agent-based
technologies are feasible to implement these concepts because of their capability to deal with
autonomy, distribution, scalability, and disturbance. Shen and Norrie (1999), Caplinskas (1998),
Tommila et al. (2001), Marik et al. (2002), Tian et al. (2002), and Kim (2002) reviewed the state of
the art of the agent-based technologies in manufacturing; Langer and Alting (2000), Zaremba and
Morel (2003), Bongaerts et al. (2000), Balasubramanian et al (2001), Heikkila et al (2001), and
Zhang et al. (2000), proposed various control architectures for manufacturing systems control,
Brussel et al. (1999) presented a fundamental work to identify various ‘holons’ for holonic
manufacturing systems.

However, efficient methodologies are still lacking to support the collaborations in a large-scale
multi-agent system. Most of the prototype systems are developed for a single machining system
(Shu et al. 2000, Wang and Shin 2002, Lucas et al. 1999, Tatra et al. 1997, Tilbury and Kota 1999),

15
or for a simplified reconfigurable system with a few of components (Bongaerts et al. 2000,
Balasubramanian et al. 2001, Zhang et al. 2000, Arbib and Rossi 2000, Ottaway and Burns 2000,
Zhang et al. 2002).

Open Architecture Control (OAC) provides the infrastructure to implement RMS control.
Advances in the OAC development have reviewed by Katz et al. (2002), Albus (1993), Faulkner et
al. (1999), Erol et al. (2000), and Pritschow et al. (2001). The hierarchical structures, which are used
widely in mass production and Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), could also be utilized
with the consideration of time and changes. Monfared and Weston (1997), Harrison et al (2001),
and Weston (1999) proposed model-driven approach based on CIM-OSA; Park et al. (2000)
developed a generic control framework for modular flexible manufacturing system; Kalita and
Khargonekar (2002) developed a logical controller for an RMS.

8. Summary and Furture Directions

The strategies to meet the requirements of a manufacturing system have been generalized, and
these strategies can be used to compare and distinguish various manufacturing paradigms and
enabling technologies. It is seen that the RMS paradigm is one of the most effective paradigms to
meet some key requirements such as changes and uncertainties. But it is not the complete solution
to meet all of manufacturing requirements. To our knowledge, no attempt has been made to
combine an RMS with other production paradigms. Many prototype systems have been developed.
Most of them are machine-level systems. These systems have been designed intuitively. A
systematic design methodology is still lacking.

RMS design includes architecture design, configuration design and control design. For
architecture design, most of the existing methodologies have been developed for integrated systems
with a hierarchical structure, and they have not taken consideration of RMS performances such as
reconfigurablility and convertibility. Little work has been conducted to quantify system
requirements such as reconfigurability, so that system architecture can be designed optimally. For
configuration design, due to the couplings of design variables to fulfill the objectives, design
variables have to be considered simultaneously. A few of researchers have applied concurrent
design methods for specific modular products and systems. These methodologies are not capable
and flexible enough to deal with the complexity and scalability of a general RMS. For control
design, the studies are towards two extreme applications: stable hierarchical systems and intelligent

16
autonomous systems. However, an RMS should be an intermediate system between the two. The
trade-off of control methodologies will be needed to control an RMS efficiently.

Based on our investigations and observations, some future directions can be identified:

(i) Since the RMS concept is not a complete solution for a manufacturing enterprise to meet all
of the challenges, it is promising to take advantages of other technologies in an RMS. For
example, the concept of Lean Production (LP) could be a supplement to an RMS, so that an
enterprise can apply an RMS to optimize the utilization of the portion of resources for
specific product families, and it can also reduce the waste caused by the portion of the idle
resources of an RMS. Further effort is worth dealing with the waste of idle resources of an
RMS.

(ii) RMS architecture is extremely important for an RMS to meet its expectation. A potential
approach to develop a systematic design methodology is to extend existing methodologies
such as the methodologies proposed for non-reconfigurable integrated manufacturing
systems. They can be improved and extended with the consideration of time and changes.
The other issue is the granularity of system modules. It is obvious that the finer the
granularity of system modules are, the higher the reconfigurability of a system is. However,
one has to make a trade-off among the cost, reconfigurability, and the complexity of the
software system. Another untouched issue is how to help an enterprise evolve from a non-
configurable system to a reconfigurable system. It is worth to note that system
reconfigurability can be achieved by manipulating a set of non-configurable systems at the
management level.

(iii) With respect to configuration design, further explorations will be needed to design a
configuration for a heterogeneous RMS (for example, an RMS consisting of reconfigurable
fixtures, robots, and conveyors) or an RMS with a highly-coupled nature (for example, a
reconfigurable robot system). These explorations include the decomposition of the
complexity and design synthesis when the number of reconfigurable variables is big.

(iv) With respect to control design, it combines the issues of configuration design and real-time
control. A control system should be autonomous, distributed, scalable and self-
reconfigurable. This increases the complexity of control design greatly. Open Architecture
Control provides the infrastructure to implement RMS control, and the agent-based

17
 technologies meet most of these requirements. Future works can focus on how to coordinate
modular components to achieve system objectives efficiently.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions on the
manuscript.

References
Adolfsson, Josef, Ng, Amos, Olofsgard, Petter, Moore, Philip, Pu, Junsheng and Wong, Chi-Biu,
Design and simulation of component-based manufacturing machine systems. Mechatronics,
2002, 12, 1239-1258.

Albus, James S., A Reference Model Architecture for Intelligent Systems Design,
http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/documents/albus/Ref_Model_Arch345.pdf, 1993.

AMICE Consortium, Open System Architecture for CIM, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.

Arai, T., Aiyama, Y., Sugi, M. and Ota, J., Holonic assembly system with plug and produce.
Computers in Industry, 2001, 46, 289-299.

Arai, T., Maeda, Y., Kikuchi, H. and Sugi, M., Automated calibration of robot coordinates for
reconfigurable assembly systems. Annals of the CIRP, 2002, 51(1), 5-8.

Arbib, Vlaudio, and Rossi, Fabrizio, Optimal resource assignment through negotiation in a multi-
agent manufacturing system. IIE Transactions, 2000, 32, 963-974.

Aronson, Robert B., Operation plug-and-play is on the way. Manufacturing Engineering, 1997,
108-112.

Asl, F.M., Ulsoy, A.G. and Koren, Y., Dynamic modeling and stability of the reconfiguration of
manufacturing systems. Proc. of the Japan-USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 2000.

Amtec-Robotics, http://www.amtec-robotics.com/, 2006.

Babic, B., Axiomatic design of flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production
Research, 1999, 37(5), 1159-1173.

18
Balasubramanian, Sivaram, Brennan, Robert W. and Norrie, Douglas, An architecture for
metamorphic control of holonic manufacturing systems. Computers in Industry, 2001, 46, 13-
31.

Banazak,Z. A., Skolud, B. and Zaremba, M. B., Computer-aided prototyping of production flows
for a virtual enterprise. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2003, 14, 83-106.

Benhabib, B., Chan, K.C. and Dai, M. Q., A modular programmable fixturing system. ASME
Journal of Engineering for Industry, 1991, 113, 93-99.

Benjaafar, Saif, Heragu, Sunderesh S. and Irani, Shahrukh, Next generation factory layouts:
research challenges and recent progress. Interfaces, 2002, 32(6), 58-76.

Bi, Z. M., On Adaptive Robot Systems for Manufacturing Applications, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Saskatchewan, Canada, 2002.

Bi, Z. M. and Zhang, W. J., Concurrent optimal design of modular robotic configuration. Journal of
Robotic Systems, 2000, 18(2), 77-87.

Bi, Z. M. and Zhang, W. J., Flexible fixture design and automation: review, issues, and future
directions. International Journal of Production Research, 2001, 39(13), 2867-2894.

Boer, Claudio and Jobane, Francesco, Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing automation for
mass customization. 15th Triennial World Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2002.

Bongaerts, Luc, Monostori, Laszlo, McFarlane, Duncan and Kadar, Botond, Hierarchy in
distributed shop floor control. Computers in Industry, 2000, 43, 123-137.

Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight W., Product Design for Manufacturing and Assembly,
Marcel Dekker Inc., 1994.

Bostelman, Roger, Jacoff, Adam, Proctor, Fred, Kramer, Tom and Wavering, Albert, Cable-based
reconfigurable machines for large scale manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2000 Japan-USA
Symposium on Flexible Automation, Michigan, July 23-26, 2000.

Brussel, Hendrik, Bongaerts, Luc, Wyns, Jo, Valckenaers, Paul and Gingerachter, Tony van, A
conceptual framework for holonic manufacturing: identification of manufacturing holons.
Journal of Manufacturing System, 1999, 18(1), 35-52.

19
Bussmann, Stefan and Mcfarlane, Duncan C., Rationales for holonic manufacturing control. Proc.
Of the 2nd International Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Leuven, Beigium,
1999. 177-184,

Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H., Garita, C. and Lima, C., Towards an architecture of
virtual enterprises. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1998, 9, 189-199.

Caplinskas, A., AI paradigms. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1998, 9, 493-502.

Chen, Li, Xi, Jeff F. and Wolf, Anthony, Modularization in reconfiguration design theory and
methodology. CIRP 1st International Conference on Reconfigurable Manufacturing, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 2001.

Chen, I.-Ming, Rapid response manufacturing through reconfigurable robotic workcells. Journal of
Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2001, 17(3), 199-213.

Chen, I-Ming, Theory and Applications of Modular Reconfigurable Robotic Systems, Ph.D. Thesis,
Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, U.S.A., 1994.

Chen, I-Ming and Burdick, Joel W., Determining task optimal modular robot assembly
configurations. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Nagoya, Aichi,
Japan, May 21-27, 1995, 132-137.

Chick, Stephen E., Olsen, Tava Lennon, Sethuraman, Kannan, Stecke, Kathryn E. and White III,
Chelsea C., A descriptive multi-attribute model for reconfigurable machining system selection
examining buyer-supplier relationship. International Journal of Agile Management Systems,
2000, 2(1), 33-48.

Chirm, Jin-Lung and Mcfarland, Duncan C., A holonic component-based approach to

reconfigurable manufacturing control architecture. Proceedings of HolonMas00, London,
September, 2000.

Cooke, Arthur, Shankar, Natarajan, Jones, Lori, Ewaldz, Dave, Haynes, Len, Martinez, David,
Wada, Ben and Zweben, Carl, Advanced reconfigurable machine for flexible fabrication. SPIR,
1995, 2447, 102-114.

Corrêa, Henrique Luiz, Agile manufacturing as a 21st Century strategy for improving
manufacturing competitiveness, http://www.correa.com.br/biblioteca/artigos/, 2001.

Davis, Stanley M., Future Perfect, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1987.

20
Degaspari, John, All in the family Mechanical Engineering, Feburary, 2002, 56-58.

Deumeingts, G., Vallespir, B., Zanettin, M. and Chen, D., GRAI-GIM Integrated Methodology, a
Methodology for Designing CIM Systems, Version 1.0 LAP/GRAI, University Bordeaux I,
France, 1992.

Dove, Rick, Agility engineering: Lego lessons. Production, March, 1995.

Erixon, Gunnar, Modular function deployment--a method for product modularisation, Doctoral
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1998.

Erol, N. Arda, Altintas, Yusuf and Ito, Mabo Robest, Open system architecture modular tool kit for
motion and machining process control. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2000, 5(3),
281-291.

Fassi, Irene and Wiens, Gloria J., Multiaxis machining: PKMs and traditional machining centers.
Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2000, 2(1), 1-13.

Faulkner,Dava, Levy,Ben, and Garner, Tim, Open-architecture platforms. Circuits Assembly,

January, http://www.cassembly.com, 1999.

Fralix, Michael T., From mass production to mass customization. Journal of Textile and Apparel,
Technology and Management, 2001, 1(2), 1-7.

Fryer, A. James, Mckee, Gerard T., and Schenker, Paul S., Configuring robots from modules: an
objected oriented approach. 8th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Monterey,
California, U.S.A., 1997, 907-912.

Fukuda,Toshio and Takagawa, Isao, Design and control of flexible transfer system. Proceedings of
the 3rd World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation, June 28-July 2, 2000, Heifei,
China, 17-22.

Giusti, F., Santochi, M. and Arioti, A., A reconfigurable assembly cell for mechanical products.
Annals of the CIRP, 1994, 43(1), 1-14.

Goldman, S. L. and Preiss, K., 21st Century Manufacturing Strategy, Iacocca Institute, Lehigh
University, report to US congress, 1992.

Gunasekaran, A., Implementation of computer-integrated manufacturing: a survey of integration

and adaptability issues. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 1997,
10(1-4), 266-280.

21
Gupta, Diwakar and Benjaafar, Saif, Make-to-order, make-to-stock, or delay product
differentiation” a common framework for modeling and analysis. IIE Transactions, June 2004,
529-546.

Haas, Edwin, Schwarz, Robert C. and Papazian, John M., Design and test of a reconfigurable
forming die. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 2002, 4(1), 77-85.

Harrison, R., Weston, R. H. and Monfared, R. P., Distributed engineering of manufacturing

machines. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 2001, 215(B), 217-231.

Heilala, Juhani and Voho, Paavo, Modular reconfigurable flexible final assembly systems. Assembly
Automation, 2001, 21(1), 20-28.

Heikkila, Tapio, Kollingbaum, Martin, Valckenaer, Paul and Bluemink, Geert-Jan, An agent
architecture for manufacturing control: ManAge. Computers in Industry, 2001, 46, 315-331.

Ho, John K. L. and Ranky, Paul G., Object oriented modeling and design of reconfigurable
conveyors in flexible assembly systems. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 1997, 10(5), 360-379.

Hon, K. K. B. and Lopez-Jaquez, F. J., Configuration of manufacturing cells for dynamic

manufacturing. Annals of the CIRP, 2002, 51(1), 391-394.

Hong, Namhee Kim and Hong, Sunggul, Entity-based models for computer-aided design systems.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 1998, 12(1), 30-41.

Hooper, R. and Tesar, D., Computer-aided configuration of modular robotics systems. Computing
& Control Engineering J., June, 1994, 137-142.

Ishii, Kosuke, Juengel, Cheryl, and Eubanks, C. Fritz, Design for product variety: key to product
line structuring. 1995 Design Engineering Technical Conference, ASME, 2(DE-83), 1995, 499-
506.

Kalita, Dhrubajyoti and Khargonekar, Pramod P., Formal verification for analysis and design of
logic controllers for reconfigurable machining systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation, 2002, 18( 4), 463-474.

Katz, Reuven, Li, Zhe and Pierrot, Francois, Engineering Research Center for Reconfigurable
Machining Systems: Conceptual Design of a High-Speed Drilling Machine (HSDM) Based on

22
 PKM Module, ERC/RMS Report #37, College of Engineering, The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, March, 2002.

Katzy, Bernhard R. and Dissel, Marcel, A toolset for building the virtual enterprise. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 2001, 12, 121-131.

Kaula, Rajeev, A modular approach toward flexible manufacturing. Integrated Manufacturing

System, 1998, 9(2), 77-86.

Kim, Byung, Intelligent Agent Based Planning, Scheduling, and Control: Warehouse Management
Application, PH.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, U.S.A, 2002.

Koren, Y., Will industry adopt PKMs? Manufacturing Engineering, 1999, 240.

Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Joveane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy, G. and Brussel, H. Van ,
Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Annals of the CIRP, 1999, 48(2).

Kosanke, K., Vernadat, F. and Zelm, M., CIMOSA: Enterprise engineering and integration.
Computers in Industry, 1999, 40, 83-97.

Kota, Sridhar and Chiou, Shean-Juinn, Conceptual design of mechanisms based on computational
synthesis and simulation of kinematic building blocks. Research in Engineering Design, 1992,
4, 75-87.

Krause, Frank-Lother and Jansen, Helmut (ed.), Life Cycle Modeling for Innovative Products and
Processes, Charman & Hall, 1996.

Kuhnle, Hermann, A state-time model to measure the reconfigurability of manufacturing areas –

key to performance. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2001, 12(7), 493-499.

Landers, Robert G., A new paradigm in machine tools: reconfigurable machine tools. 2000 Japan-
USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, July 23-26, 2000, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Langer, Gilad and Alting, Leo,An architecture for agile shop floor control systems. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 2000, 19(4), 267-280.

Lee, Gun Ho, Reconfigurability consideration design of components and manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, 1997, 13, 376-386.

Leger, Chris, Automated Synthesis and Optimization of Robot Configurations: An Evolutionary

Approach, Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 1999.

23
Levin, Mark Sh. Towards combinatorial analysis, adaptation, and planning of human-computer
systems. Applied Intelligence, 2002, 16(3), 235-247.

Li, Hong and Williams, T. J., Management of complexity in enterprise integration projects by the
PERA methodology. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2002, 13, 417-427.

Liles, Donald H. and Huff, Brain L., A computer based production scheduling architecture suitable
for driving a reconfigurable manufacturing system. Computers in Industry, 1990, 19(1-4), 1-5.

Lucas, M. R., Endsley, E. W. and Tilbury,D. M., Coordinate logic control for reconfigurable
machining systems. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Diego, Calfornia,
1999, 2107-213.

Marik, Vladimir, Fletcher, Martyn and Pechoucek, Michal, Holons & agents: recent developments
and mutual impacts. in: Marik, V., Stepankova, O., Krautwurmova, H., and Luck, M. (eds),
Multi-Agent Systems and Applications II, Springer, Germany, 2002, 233-267.

Markus, A., Vancza, T. K. and Monostori, L., A market approach to holonic manufacturing. Annals
of CIRP, 1996, 45(1), 433-436.

Mckinsey Quarterly, The False Promise of Mass Customization,

http://www.iceved.com/ICEVED3/Servicio.nsf/, 2002.

Mellor, Colleen, Quick-change artists: why techs must get ready for reconfigurable manufacturing.
The Ontario Technologies, 2002, 12-15, January/February.
McGrath, M. E. Product strategy for high-technology companies, Homewood IL: Irwin, 1995.
Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A.G. and Koren, Y. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems and their
enabling technologies. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management,
2000a, 1(1), 113-130.

Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A.G. and Koren, Yoram, Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: key to
future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2000b, 11, 403-419.

Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A.G., Koren Y. and Heytler, P., Trends and perspectives in flexible and
reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2002, 13, 135-146.

Mehrabi, M. G. and Kannatey-Asibu, E., Mapping theory: a new approach to design of multi-sensor
monitoring of reconfigurable machining system (RMS). Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
2001, 20(5), 297-303.

24
Monfared, R.P. and Weston, R. H., reconfiguration of manufacturing cell control systems and reuse
of their components. Proc Instn Mech Engrs, 1997, 211(B), 495-508.

Moon, Yong-Mo and Kota, Sridhar, Synthesis of reconfigurable machine tools with screw theory.
Proceedings of DETC’00, ASME 2000 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, September 10-
13, 2000, DETC2000/MECH-14066.

Moriwaki, Toshimichi and Nunobiki, Masayuki, Object-oriented design support system for machine
tools. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1994, 5, 47-54.

National Research Council, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Visionary

Manufacturing Challenges for 2020, National Academy Press, Washington, 1998.

National Research Council of Canada, Manufacturing Innovations: An Impact Strategy for 2000-
2005, NRC Manufacturing Technologies Group, http://web.mtg.nrc.ca, 2000.

Oakland, John S., 1993. Total Quality Management: The Route to Improving Performance, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.

O'Grady, J. (ed), Putting the Just-In-Time Philosophy into Practice, New York: Nichols Publishing
Company, 1988.

Okino, N., Bionic manufacturing system, flexible manufacturing systems past-present-future.

Annual of CIRP, 1993, 73-95.

Ottaway, T. A., and Burns, J. R., An adaptive production control system utilizing agent technology.
International Journal of Production Research, 2000, 38(4), 721-737.

Paredis, C. J. J. An Agent-Based Approach to the Design of Rapidly Deployable Fault Tolerant

Manipulators, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, 1996.

Paredis, C. J. J. and Khosla, P. K., Serial link manipulators from task specifications. International of
Robotics Research, 1993, 12(3), 274-287.

Park, Jonghun, Park, Jinwoo and Kim, Jongwon, A generic event control framework for modular
flexible manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2000, 38, 107-123.

25
Perremans, P., Feature-based description of modular fixturing elements: the key to an expert system
for the automatic design of the physical fixture. Advanced in Engineering software, 1996, 25(1),
19-27.

Pine II, B. Joseph, Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Australian
Journal of Management, 1992, 17(2), 273-284.

Prasad, B., Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Pritschow, G., Altintas, Y., Jovane, F., Koren, Y., Mitsuishi, M., Takata, S., Brussel, H. van, Weck,
M., and Yamazaki, K., Open controller architecture - past, present and future. Annals of the
International Institution for Production Engineering Research (CIRP Annals.), 2001 50(2), 463-
470.

Pritschow, G. and Wurst, K.-H., Modular robots for flexible assembly. Preceedings of the 28th
CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing System Advances in Manufacturing Technology
– Focus on Assembly System, South Africa, May 15-17, 1996, 153-158.

Ramachandran, S. and Chen, I.-M., Distributed agent based design of modular reconfigurable
robots. 5th International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Singapore, 2000,
447-458.

Rogers, G. G. and Bottaci, L., Modular production systems: a new manufacturing paradigm.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1997, 8, 147-156.

Sanchez, Luis M. and Nagi, Rakesh, A review of agile manufacturing system. International Journal
of Production Research, 2001, 39(16), 3561-3600.

Shen, Weiming and Norrie, Douglas H., Agent-based systems for intelligent manufacturing: a state
of the art survey. Knowledge and Information Systems, 1999, 1(2), 129-156.

Shen, Weiming, Norrie, Douglas H. and Batthes, Jean-Paul A., Multi-Agent Systems for Concurrent
Intelligent Design and Manufacturing, New York: Tayloy & Francis, 2001.

Shirinzadeh, Bijan, Issues in the design of the reconfigurable fixture modules for robotic assembly.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 1993, 12(1), 1-14.

Shu, Sudong, Wilkes, Mitch, and Kawamura, Kazuhiko, Development of reusable, configurable,
extensible holonic manufacturing system. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Piscataway, USA, 2000, 1679-1684.

26
Sihn, W. and Rist, T., Experiences with the fractal company value shift. CIRP – Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 1998, 27(1), 23-30.

Sims, K., Evolving virtual creatures. Computer Graphics (Siggraph’94 Proceedings), July 1994,
15-22.

Smirnov, Alexander,Constraint & Agent-Based environment for Configuration Management of

Manufacturing Systems. http://www.ici.ro/ici/revista/sic99_1/art02.html, 1999.

Smith, Preston G. and Reinertsen, Donald G., Developing Products in Half the Time: New Rules,
New Tools, 2nd Edition, 1997.

Spicer, P., Koren, Y., Shpitalni, M., and Yip-Hoi, D., Design principles for machining system
configurations. Annals of the CIRP, 2002, 51(1), 275-280.

Stake, Roger, B. A Hierarchical Classification of the Reasons for Dividing Products into Modules,
Licentiate Thesis, Department of Manufacturing Systems, Royal Institute of Technology,
Sweden, 1999.

Subbu, Raj, Sanderson, Arthur C., Hocaoglu, Gem and Graves, Robert J., Evolutionary decision
support for distributed virtual design in modular product manufacturing. Production Planning
and Control, 1999, 10(7), 627- 642.

Sugi, Masao, Maeda, Yusuke, Aiyama, Yascmich and Arai, Tamio, Holonic robot system: a flexible
assembly system with high reconfigurability. Prceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, Seoul, Korea, May 21-26, 2001, 799-805.

Suh, N. P., The Principle of Design. Oxford University Press, 1990.

Tatra, M., Soparkar, N., Yook, J., and Tilbury, D., Real-time data and coordination control for
reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Real Time Database and Information Systems, 1997, 23-
48.

Taylor, G. Don, Design for global manufacturing and assembly. IIE Transactions, 1997, 29(7), 585-
597.

Thematic Network, MOSYN: Modular Synthesis of Advanced Machine Tools,

http://www.cecimo.be/TEAMS/Projects/mosyn/TEAMSUpdate-MOSYN.pdf, 2000.

27
Tian, Guiyun, Yin, Guofu and Tayloy, David, Internet-based manufacturing: a review and a new
infrastructure for distributed intelligent manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
2002, 13, 323-338.

Tilbury D. M., and Kota, S., Integrated machine and control design for reconfigurable machine
tools. Proceedings of the 1999 ASME/IEEE International conference on Advanced Intelligent
Mechatronics, 1999, September 19-23, 629-633.

Tommila, Teemu, Venta, Olli and Koskinen, Kari, Next generation industrial automation – needs
and opportunities. Automation Technology Review, 2001, 34-41.

Tsai, Yue-Tern and Wang, Kuo-Shong, The development of modular-based design in considering
technology complexity. European Journal of Operational Research, 1999, 119, 692-703.

Tseng, M. M. and Du, X., Design by customers of mass customization products. CIRP Annals,
1998, 47(1), 103-106.

Tseng, M. M. and Jiao, Jianxin, A variant approach to product definition by recognizing functional
requirement patterns. Journal of Engineering Design, 1997, 18(4), 329-340.

Tsukune, H., Tsukamoto, M., Matsushita, T., Tomita, F., Okada, K., Ogasawara, T., Takase, K. and
Tuba, T., Modular manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1993, 4, 163-181.

Turner, Cameron J., Legault, Jacy M. and Cox, Dan J., Configuration management for modular
flexible small automation systems: a case study. Proceedings of DETC’00, ASME 2000 Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, September 10-13, 2000, DETC2000/MECH-14122.

Ueda, K., Markus, A., Monoston, L., Kals, H. J. J. and Arai, T., Emergent synthesis methodologies
for manufacturing. Annals of the CIRP, 2001, 50(2), 535-551.

Ueda, K., Vaario, J. and Fujii, N., Interactive manufacturing: human aspects for biological
manufacturing systems. Annals of CIRP, 1998, 47(1), 389-392.

Unsal, C., Kylyccote, H. and Khosla, P. K., I(CES)-cube: a Modular Self-Reconfigurable Bipartite
Robotic System. Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 3839: Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in
Robotic Systems II, 19-20 Sept., 1999, Boston, MA, 258-269.

28
Valjavec, Marko and Hardt, David E., Closed-loop shape control of the stretch forming process
over a reconfigurable tool: precision airframe skin fabrication. MED-Vol.10, Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, 1999, 909-919.

Wang, Shige, and Shin, Kang G., Constructing reconfigurable software for machine control
systems. IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, 2002, 18(4), 475-486.

Warendorf, P. and Merchant, M. E., Development and future trends in computer-integrated

manufacturing in USA. International Journal of Technology Management, 1986, 1, 161-178.

Wata, K. and Onosato, M., Random manufacturing system: a new concept of manufacturing
systems for production to order. Annals of CIRP, 1994, 43(1), 379-383.

Watson, I., Case-based reasoning is a methodology not a technology. Knowledge-Based Systems,

1999, 12, 303-308.

Weston, Richard, Model-driven, component-based approach to reconfiguring manufacturing

software systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1999, 19(8),
834-855.

Williams, Theodore J., “The Purdue Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology (PERA),”
Handbook of Life Cycle Engineering: Concepts, Tools and Techniques, Edited by A. Molina,
J.M. Sanchez, A. Kusiak, Published by Chapman & Hall, London, 1998.

Womack, James, Jones, Daniel and Roos, Daniel, The machine that changed the world. New York:
Harper-Collins, 1991.

Wortmann, J.C., Muntslag, D. R. and Timmermans, P. J. M., Customer-Driven Manufacturing,

Chapman & Hall, 1997.

Yigit, Ahmet S., Ulsoy, A. Galip and Allahverdi, Ali, Optimizing modular product design for
reconfigurable manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2002, 13, 309-316.

Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A., Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and
attributes. International Journal of Production Economics, 1999, 62, 33-43.

Zaremba, Marek B. and Morel, Gerard, Integration and control of intelligence in distributed
manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2003, 14, 25-42.

29
Zhang, Jie, Chan, Felix T. S., Li, Peigen, Lau, Henry C. W., and Samaranayak, P., Investigation of
the reconfigurable control system for an agile manufacturing cell. International Journal
Production Research, 2002, 40(15), 3709-3723.

Zhang, Xiaokun, Baiasubramanian, Sivaram, Brennan, Robert W. and Norrie, Douglas, Design and
implementation of a real-time holonic control system for manufacturing. Information Science,
2000, 127, 23-44.

Zhao, Xiaobo, Wang, Kiangcai and Luo, Zhenbi, A stochastic model of a reconfigurable
manufacturing system Part I, a framework. International Journal of Production Research, 2000,
38(10), 2273-2285.

30
List of Figures

Figure 1 Manufacturing system model

Figure 2 Strategies to reduce lead-time

Figure 3 Strategies to increase variants

Figure 4 Strategies to deal with low and fluctuating product volumes

Figure 5 Strategies to reduce the cost

Figure 6 Manufacturing requirements, strategies, domains and production paradigms

Figure 7 System organization and reconfigurable resources

Figure 8 Design issues of an RMS

Figure 9 An application scenario of an RMS

Figure 10 Configuration design in the lifecycle of an RMS

Figure 11 An example of a strongly-coupled system

Figure 12 Control of a reconfigurable robot system

Figure 13 Requirements of reconfigurable system control

31
 Manufacturing execution system digital model

Hardware
Hardware

Hardware
Control
Control

Control
R P R R P
P R P

Design Manufacturing Assembly

Manufacturing process

R : Requirement
P : Product

: Product structure
Hardware

Hardware
Hardware
Control

Control
Control

: Component
: Sub-component
: Basic part
: Assembly
Manufacturing execution system

Figure 1 Manufacturing system model

32
 CR’s identification (system)

L o n g le a d -tim e

Product delivery
D e s ig n
Customers’ Requirement’ (CR) Identification (business)

M a n u fa c tu rin g
A s s e m b ly
(1)
D e s ig n
M a n u fa c tu rin g
A s s e m b ly R e d u c tio n f r o m
e l im in a ti n g w a s t e s
(2)
D e s ig n
R e d u c ti o n f r o m
M a n u fa c tu rin g in c r e a s in g r e s o u r c e s
A s s e m b ly
(3)
R e d u c t io n f r o m
D e s ig n c o n c u r r e n t e n g in e e r i n g
M a n u fa c tu rin g
A s s e m b ly

S h o r t le a d -tim e

Figure 2 Strategies to reduce lead-time

33
 Manufacturing
Parts
Parts

Product variants
Design

Assemblies

Assemblies

Assembly
D e s ig n le s s
p a rt v a ria n ts
(1 )

Manufacturing
Parts

Parts
Product variants
(2 )
Design

(1 )
Assemblies

Assemblies

Assembly
D e s ig n m o re
a s s e m b ly o p tio n s

In c re a s e d p ro d u c t
v a ria n ts b y D e s ig n C a p a b le o f m a k in g
m o re p a rt v a ria n ts
(2 )

Manufacturing
Parts

Parts
Product variants
Design

(3 )
Assemblies

Assembly
Assemblies

C a p a b le o f m a k in g
(3 ) m o re a s s e m b ly v a ria n ts
In c re a s e d p ro d u c t v a ria n ts b y
M a n u fa c tu r in g a n d A s s e m b ly

Figure 3 Strategies to increase variants

34
 Manufacturing
Parts

Parts
Product volume
Design

Assemblies

Assemblies

Assembly
(1 ) C h a n g e o f p a rt
v a ria n ts v ia D e s ig n

Manufacturing
Parts

Parts
Product volume
(2 )
Design

Assemblies

(1 )
Assemblies

Assembly
C h an g e o f asse m b ly
v a ria n ts v ia D e s ig n

D y n a m ic c a p a b ility
R e d u c in g s e n s itiv ity to to m a k e p a rts
v o lu m e v ia a g o o d d e s ig n
(2 )
Manufacturing
Parts

Parts
Product volume
Design

(3 )
Assemblies
Assemblie

Assembly

In c re a s e d c a p a b ility to D y n a m ic c a p a b ility to
m e e t v o lu m e c h a n g e s
(3 )
a s s e m b ly p ro d u c ts

Figure 4 Strategies to deal with low and fluctuating product volumes

35
 In c re a s e d m a rk e t re tu rn s
B e t t e r s e r v ic e
H ig h e r q u a lit y
M o r e f u n c t io n s
M o r e v o lu m e
T h e in c re a s e o f M o r e v a r ia n t s
m a rk e t re tu rn b y S h o r t e r le a d - t im e
v a rio u s im p ro v e m e n ts
(2 )
S e r v ic e
Q u a lit y
F u n c t io n T h e e ffo rts to
V o lu m e in c re a s e m a rk e t
V a r ia n t s re tu rn s
L e a d - t im e

M a rk e t re tu rn s
C ost
D e s ig n
C o s t re d u c tio n b y
M a n u f a c t u r in g P r o f it b e f o r e
e lim in a tin g th e w a s te s
A s s e m b ly
im p r o v e m e n t s
D e s ig n
C o s t re d u c tio n b y M a n u f a c t u r in g
im p ro v in g e f fic ie n c y A s s e m b ly
D e s ig n
M a n u f a c t u r in g
C o s t re d u c tio n b y A s s e m b ly T h e e ffo rts to
c o n c u rr e n t e n g in e e rin g re d u c e c o st
(1 )
D e s ig n
M a n u f a c t u r in g
A s s e m b ly I n c r e a s e d p r o f it a f t e r
im p r o v e m e n t s
R educed cost

Figure 5 Strategies to reduce the cost

36
 Production Manufacturing
paradigms Domains Strategies environment

LP, ETO, MTO,

System organization
JIT, ETO, MTO Elimination
Execution system
AM, VE, GM
External resource
CIMS

A
Internal resource Capability
Mass production, MTS,
Efficiency

Short
lead-time
CE
Structure
RMS,
Ramp-up

Mass customization, MTS

Modularization
AM, VE, GM
External resource
CIMS

LP:
JIT:

VE:
Internal resource Capability

GM:
AM:
More

MTS:
TQM:
variants

Rapid prototype
Efficiency
FMS
Software
RMS Reconfigurability
Harwarre+Software

Just-in-Time

Make-To-Stock

37
Lean production
requirements
Manufacturing

Virtual Enterprise
Mass customization

Agile Manufacturing
Modularization

Global Manufacturing
AM, VE, GM
External resource

Total Quality Management

RMS, ETO, Manufacturing

C
Internal resource
volumes

MTO
AM, VE, GM
External resource
Low and fluctuating

Assembly

CE:
RMS, ATO

ETO:

FMS:
ATO:

RMS:
Internal resource

CIMS:

A , B, C:
LP, TQM, MTO,
Waste elimination
RMS, Mass customization
Productivity Cost
CIMS, MTS
Integration

Engineer-To-Order
Assembly-To-Order

the unites of the items

A

Lead-time

Concurrent Engineering
Low

Variants
B
Price

Flexible Manufacturing System

C

Volume
Rewards

Reconfigurable Manufacturing System

Innovation design
Function
Computer Integrated Manufacturing System

TQM, MTS
Quality
Supply chain integration
Servive

Figure 6 Manufacturing requirements, strategies, domains and production paradigms

 Enterprise allies

Reconfigurable control
Enterprises

System levels
Factories
Reconfigurable hardware

Shop floors

Cells

Machines

Figure 7 System organization and reconfigurable resources

38
 Add/remove/update models

Assembly z
Process variables
θ 1 , θ 2 ,θ 3 , θ 4 , θ 5 ,θ 6

Disassembly x
Robotic architecture

ARCHITECTURE DESIGN CONFIGURATION DESIGN CONTROL DESIGN

FRs FRs FRs
Reconfigurability, Motion, payloads, Stability, robustness,
Scalability, accuracy, ….. convergence, delay….
Diagosability……
DPs: DPs: DPs (example):
Mechanical/electric/ele Selection of module types Joint displacements,
ctronic/sensing… number of modules velicities,
elements assemblies of Modules accelerations…
selection of ports
robotic placement……

Figure 8 Design issues of an RMS

(Modular robot pictures are cited from Amtec Robotics (2006) and Chen (2001))

39
 Reconfigurable Reconfigurable
Fixturing System Assembly System
Raw Materials

Product
Reconfigurable Reconfigurable
Machining System Material-Handling System

Figure 9 An application scenario of an RMS

(Modular robot pictures are citied from Chen (2001) and Amtec-Robotics (2006),
Reconfigurable machine picture is cited from Koren et al. (1999))

40
 System architecture Design variables
Components Components
Design resources Type selections

Architecture Manufacturing resources

Numbers for modules
Configuration design
design Adjustable parameters
Assembly resources Design analysis Design synthesis
Function Decomposition
Interactions Interactions
Connection topologies Process Evaluation
Component swapping
Assembly selection Information Searching strategies
Component sharing
Resources Solving methodology
Fabricate-to-fit
Organization Solution verification
Design constraints
Specifications Resources

Changes Levels Human resources

Geometry Enterprise Regulations
Complexity Factory Configuration
Times
Operation
Volume Shopfloor Politics Planning
Process Cell Scheduling
Materials Machine Real-time control
Design objectives
Cost Monitoring

Profit Maintenance
Business strategies
Profits Quality

Market share Customer satisfaction

Reputation Efficiency Identification of

Capital return reconfigurable drivers
Task changes
Condition changes

Environment changes

Figure 10 Configuration design in the lifecycle of an RMS

41
A modular robot
system
A robot configuration

A robotic task

Design variables Requirements

Robot base Trajectory,
type of joint i time,
assembly of joint i load,
type of link i accuracy…
type of gripper

Figure 11 An example of a strongly-coupled system

(Modular robot picture is cited from Amtec Robotics (2006))

42
 Reconfigurable variables z
Process variables
Selection of module types
Number of modules Task A θ1,θ2,θ3,θ4,θ5,θ6
Assemblies of Modules
Selection of assembly ports y
Robotic placement

x
Add/remove/update models

Configuration A

Robotic architecture y
Process variables
Reconfigurable variables θ1,θ2,θ3
Selection of module types
Number of modules x
Assemblies of Modules Task B
Selection of assembly ports
Robotic placement

Configuration B

Figure 12 Control of a reconfigurable robot system

(Modular robot pictures are cited from Amtec Robotics (2006) and Chen (2001))

43
 Hardware
System architecture Configuration
Modularization Reconfiguration
Assemble
Distributed Plug-play
heterogeneous Cooperation
Scalability Disassemble
Disturbance handling
Upgradeability
Tasks and Tasks and
Changes Changes met

Reconfigurable variables Process variable

Autonomy Ramp-up control
Self-reconfiguration
Distributed support Plug-play
Platform/protocol Integration
Scalability Sensing/robustness
Upgradeability Control

Information flow Material flow

Figure 13 Requirements of reconfigurable system control

44