Concurrent process and facility prototyping for

formation of virtual manufacturing cells

Svetan M. Ratchev
School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering and Management,
The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Introduction
In today's competitive market environment
the success in manufacturing increasingly
depends on the ability of a company to
transform itself into an open dynamic system
capable of accepting unpredictable changes
and adapting its internal structures and
practices. One way of achieving higher
responsiveness is by creating ``virtual''
(``extended'') manufacturing cells in which
manufacturing resources are dynamically
configured and re-configured according to
the changes in product demand and variety
usually without physically re-arranging the
facility layout (McLean et al., 1982; Drolet et
al., 1989; Montreuil et al., 1992). Virtual cells
are created for manufacturing ``virtual''
component families that reflect the
variations of the component mix in terms of
processing requirements over the short to
medium term. There are well defined
advantages of using GT principles, such as
reduced set-up times, optimised tool and
fixture management, improved CNC
programme maintenance, improved
transport routeings, etc., which in a virtual
cellular environment can be achieved
without the inherent restrictions of the
traditional rigidly defined manufacturing
cells (Montreuil et al., 1992).
The majority of the studies on virtual
manufacturing cells have so far focused
mainly on two fundamental issues: virtual
cell design and virtual cell planning and
scheduling. Drolet et al. (1989, 1990) reported
algorithms for virtual cell creation and
scheduling based on resource availability
and job priority, using linear programming
to optimise the total distance travelled by all
jobs under specific capacity constraints. An
algorithmic approach for cell formation was
also proposed by Chatterjee (1992), using a
simulation model to demonstrate the
superior performance of virtual cells
compared with conventional GT cells in
terms of machine tool utilisation. Drolet et al.
(1990) further outlined the advantages of the
virtual cellular concept compared with
conventional machining cells in terms of
machine utilisation, number of parts
produced, average makespan, etc. An
extension to the virtual cellular concept has
been reported based on physically re-
configurable systems using the GT principles
(Rheault et al., 1995; 1996), which could be
dynamically configured to address changes
in the product mix.
The success in formation of virtual and re-
configurable cells increasingly depends on
the level of understanding of the available
production resources and in particular the
specific ``core'' capabilities of the
manufacturing facilities. The specification of
resource models to support enterprise
engineering has evolved as an active
research area during the last decade and a
variety of resource models and support
architectures have been proposed (Aguiar et
al., 1996; Chatterjee, 1992). A virtual
manufacturing workbench of an integrated
set of tools was proposed as support
environment for facility analysis and design
(Mills et al., 1993). The ``modular production
systems'' concept has been introduced as a
means of enabling concurrent product and
production system design (Rogers and
Bottaci, 1997).
Despite the advances in resource
modelling, however, there is still a lack of
practical approaches that would allow
manufacturing resource capabilities to be
generically represented and the models
applied in forming virtual manufacturing
cells. Hence, decisions on selecting a
particular set of workstations for different
virtual cells are usually made by
representing component processing
requirements, using either sets of required
machine tools or sequences of required
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
[ 306]
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0957-6061]
Keywords
Cellular manufacturing, Modelling,
Machining cell
Abstract
Reports on a new methodology for
formation of virtual (``extended'')
machining cells using generic
capability patterns termed
``resource elements''. Resource
elements are used to uniquely
describe the processing
requirements of the component
mix and dynamically match them
to the processing capabilities of
the machining shop. The virtual
cell formation methodology is
based on four steps: component
requirement analysis and
generation of processing
alternatives; definition of virtual
cell capability boundaries;
machine tool selection; and
system evaluation. The proposed
methodology facilitates the
dynamic formation of virtual
manufacturing structures by
providing accurate assessment of
the component processing
requirements and their matching
with the available capabilities of
the existing manufacturing
facilities.
machining operations. Such representations
do not adequately reflect the correlation
between similar component requirements in
virtual families (in case of using machine
tool based representation), or the physical
distribution of the machining operations
between different machine tools (in case of
decision making based on machining
operations). As a result the existing
methodologies for formation of virtual cells
are often restrictive and in many cases lead
to insufficient utilisation of the available
capabilities in the manufacturing facilities.
The reported research aims to improve the
process of formation of virtual cells by
introducing a new methodology for
concurrent process and virtual cell
prototyping based on using a generic
representation of the form-generating
capabilities of the machine tools. The
decision making is based on iterative
matching of component requirements to
facility capabilities, using common
representation based on generic capability
patterns termed ``resource elements'' (RE).
The methodology has the following steps:
component requirement analysis and process
selection, definition of RE based capability
boundaries of the virtual cells, allocation of
machine tools and process and virtual cell
validation. The cell formation is supported
by a fuzzy clustering approach with a cell
validation procedure for selecting the most
appropriate structure of the virtual cells.
Capability based machining shop
model
Virtual cells are formed by dynamically
partitioning machining facilities into cells
dedicated to specific virtual families of
components over different periods of time.
One of the factors for success in defining
virtual cells is the balance between the level
of separation between cell capabilities and
the level of similarity of parts allocated to
each cell. Achieving both close similarity
between the components within the virtual
families and a close match between the
component family requirements and the
machining resources allocated to each
virtual cell requires a more precise definition
of the component processing requirements
and the capabilities of the manufacturing
facilities than that usually adopted in such
cases of part-machine incidence matrices.
The reported methodology is based on a two-
level process capability model applied for
representing the part requirements and
facility processing capabilities (Gindy et al.,
1996). A key requirement for the process
capability model is that it has to provide both
generic and facility specific representation to
allow different processing capabilities and
part requirements to be represented using a
common set of attributes.
Process capability model
Processing capabilities are first described
using form generating schemata and
machining operations (Gindy and Ratchev,
1997). Form-generating schema (FGS) is a
technologically meaningful combination of
tool-specific geometry, set of relative motions
between a part and the tool, and nominal
levels of technological output that can be
associated with using that combination of
tool and relative motions. Machining
operations describe how a form-generating
schema is executed on different machine
tools (Gindy et al., 1996). Form-generating
schemata, therefore, act as generic capability
patterns that can be used for describing a
single or group of machining operations
having the same processing context but
performed on different machines (e.g.
drilling on a lathe against drilling on a
drilling machine).
Form-generating schemata are not related
to specific machine tools, but can be used to
provide a generalised description of the
capabilities of a particular machine tool and
relate them to component processing
requirements. Form-generating schemata
provide a basis for capture and comparison of
form-generating capabilities of different
machine tools at a more precise ``sub-
machine'' level of representation.
In the formation of virtual cells it is
essential to assess the unique distribution of
processing capabilities among different
machine tools in terms of shared and
exclusive sets of form-generating schemata
by defining higher level, facility specific and
machine tool independent process capability
patterns. This is achieved by using REs. REs
are collections of form-generating schemata
that define uniquely the exclusive and shared
capability boundaries between the machine
tools in a machining facility (see Figure 1).
Resource elements are machining shop
specific and capture information relating to
the distribution (commonality and
uniqueness) of form-generating schemata
among the machine tools included in the
machining facility.
Although an RE may be attached to several
machine tools, a form-generating schema can
belong to only one RE and a machine tool is
capable of carrying out all the form-
generating schemata of the REs associated
with it. Resource elements R
i
are formally
defined as
[ 307]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
1: R
i
R
j
= ; \R
i
; R
j
1
2: f
k
R
i
= f
k
= R
j
; R
i
; R
j
1
(1)
where 1 is the overall capability of the
machining facility and f
k
is a form-
generating schema, part of the capability of
the machining facility.
Not only are REs used as a common
medium to describe the capabilities of the
machining shop, but they also provide a
description of the component processing
requirements. Each component is
represented as unique set of resource
elements linking its requirements to the
capabilities of a set of available machine
tools without explicitly selecting any of them.
Facility capability representation
The overall form-generating capabilities
contained in a machining facility are defined
as:
F = f
1
; f
2
; . . . ; f
n
(2)
where f
i
(i = 1,2,. . .n) are individual form-
generating schemata, and F is the full set of
FGS performed within the machining
facility.
A machine tool is represented by the set of
form-generating schemata, as generalised
patterns of the machining operations the
machine can perform. The capability of an
individual machine tool M
k
in a machining
facility M can, therefore, be represented by a
vector:
M
k
= m
1k
; m
2k
; . . . ; m
nk
; M
k
M (3)
where
m
ik
=
1; if FGS f
i
belongs to machine k;
0; if FGS f
i
does not belong to
machine k
8
>
<
>
:
The resource elements which describe the
capability of a machining facility are defined
using an iterative clustering procedure
(Gindy et al., 1996). Each resource element is
considered as a group of form-generating
schemata which appear together, with the
same level of membership in each machine.
Therefore, for each couple of form-generating
schemata f
i
, f
j
F:
IF \M
k
M : m
pk
= m
qk
;
THEN cluster f
p
f
q
together
(4)
Either form-generating schemata appear
always together in each machine tool or
neither of them is present. The procedure
starts by clustering of each two form-
generating schemata in F, satisfying
Equation (4). The size of clusters is then
incrementally increased until all possible
combinations of form-generating schemata
are considered. The result is a finite set of
resource elements (as groups of form-
generating schemata) describing uniquely
the machining facility.
Process and virtual cellular facility
prototyping
The process and virtual cell prototyping
methodology is based on iterative matching
of the component requirements to the
manufacturing capabilities, available for
selection in the extended facility
environment (see Figure 2). The methodology
is based on four steps:
1 component requirement analysis and
process selection,
2 definition of RE based capability
boundaries of the virtual cells,
3 allocation of machine tools and process,
and
4 virtual cell validation.
The decision-making process is supported by
a process capability and facility resource
models, planning module for generation of
processing alternatives, and performance
measures for evaluation of the proposed
process and virtual cell prototypes.
To illustrate the key steps of the approach a
simplified example of the virtual cell
formation algorithm is provided in the
Appendix for a set of seven components and a
facility of five machine tools.
Component requirements analysis and
process selection
The facility formation process starts with
analysis of the component mix to establish a
set of processing requirements and their
interdependencies. The proposed
methodology concentrates only on
Figure 1
Machining facility capability model
[ 308]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
machining, but the approach can easily be
extended to other processes such as
fabrication and assembly. The component
processing requirements are specified in
terms of their constituting features that need
to be machined and their topological
relationships. Each component feature is
represented by its geometric attributes
(dimensions, shape, access directions, etc.)
and its technological information (surface
finish, dimensional tolerances, etc.).
Component form features are first
translated into sets of processing solutions
using feature routeing planning module
based on feature transition diagrams (FTD)
(Gindy and Ratchev, 1997). Each component
form feature is mapped to a feature transition
diagram pointing to a set of company specific
process sequences, which could be used for
producing the feature. As a result a set of
alternative process plans is attached to each
feature from all feasible machining
directions for all components in the product
set. As an output of the process selection the
component processing alternatives are
described as sequences of form-generating
schemata representing the required
machining operations in a generalised
format.
Using the facility capability model each
form-generating schema is substituted by the
corresponding resource element to which it
belongs. An optimisation algorithm is used to
select the best processing alternatives for
each component, with regard to the overall
processing requirements of the component
set. The routine is based on iterative
discarding of the least favourable processing
alternatives for each component until an
overall set of resource elements that
encompasses single processing solutions for
each component is identified. The selection is
guided by company specific performance
measures such as selection of a minimum set
of REs, or priority selection of REs linked to
particular machining resources or human
skills in the extended (virtual)
manufacturing facility.
As a result each component is formally
represented as a vector describing its
processing requirements in terms of REs:
C
i
= c
1
i
; c
2
i
; c
3
i
; . . . ; c
n
i

(5)
where
c
j
i
=
1; if component C
i
requires machining
on resource element RE
j
0; if it does not require machining
on RE
j
8
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
:
Definition of virtual cell boundaries
Virtual cell capability boundaries are defined
using the component clustering approach
based on extended fuzzy C-mean clustering
algorithm with validity measure (Bezdek,
1980). The boundaries of each virtual cell are
represented by RE based centroids
describing the processing requirements of
the corresponding component families. The
objective of the clustering procedure is to
find an optimum set of virtual component
families with maximum similarity between
the processing requirements of the
components in each family and minimum
overlapping between the collective
processing requirements of different
families.
The component family centroids G
i
are
defined by clustering the components in the
component mix based on the similarity of
their processing requirements. The most
distant components which require the largest
number of resource elements are selected as
initial family centroids, which are then
iteratively updated with regard to the newly
clustered components to each family.
Family centroids G
j
are described by
vectors
G
i
= [g
i1
; g
i2
; . . . ; g
in
[ (7)
and reflect the frequency of appearance of
different resource elements as processing
requirements of the components belonging to
each family. The coordinates g
i
in equation
(7) are defined as fuzzy membership
functions, indicating the affinity of the
resource elements to each virtual cell:
Figure 2
Process and virtual cell prototyping methodology an overview
[ 309]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
g
ij
[0; 1[;
X
m
i=1
g
ij
= 1
(8)
The distribution of components around
family centroids is defined on the basis of a
fuzzy membership function
ij
, representing
the degree of lineage of component C
i
to
family centroid G
j
(Bezdek, 1980; Gindy et al.,
1996):

ij
=
1
e
2
(C
j
; G
i
)
1
(f 1)
P
m
i=1
1
e
2
(C
j
; G
i
)
1
(f 1)
X
m
i=1

ij
= 1
(9)
where e
2
(C
j
,G
i
) is a Euclidean norm of
component vectors C
j
and group centroids G
i
and f > 1 is the fuzziness index (Bezdek, 1980).
The coordinates of each group g
ij
are
defined as membership functions of the
resource elements, indicating their affinity to
different groups:
g
ik
=

ik
P
m
j=1

jk
(10)
where
ik
is defined as the weighted sum of
the component coordinates representing RE
k and belonging to group i:

ik
=
P
n
i
j=1
(
ij
)
f
c
jk
P
n1
j=1
(
ij
)
f
(11)
Cell capability boundaries are created by
iteratively updating the family centroids in
Equation (7) and the component membership
functions Equation (9) until a stable partition
is achieved. A compactness and repetition
validity measure R is implemented to
determine the ``optimum'' partition of the
component mix (Ratchev and Gindy, 1996).
The best partition is reached when a
combination of maximum compactness of the
component families and minimum
overlapping between cell boundaries is
achieved (see Figure 3). It is indicated by the
minimum of the validity measure R
r
defined
as the ratio of the average family
compactness to the repetition r of resource
elements in different families:
R
r
=

r
=
P
m
j=1
1
n
j
1
q
j
P
n
j
i=1

ij
e
2
(C
i
; G
j
)
P
m
i=1
1
q
i
(G
i
)
2
(12)
where m is the number of virtual cells, n
j
is
the number of components belonging to
virtual family with centroid G
j
, e
2
(C
i
,G
j
) is
the Euclidean distance between component
C
i
and cell centroid G
j
, and q
j
is the number
of resource elements clustered to G
j
.
The output of the RE based clustering
procedure is an optimum partition of the
component mix into families with their
processing requirements defining the
boundaries of the virtual cells.
Allocation of machine tools to virtual cell
boundaries
The next step in the iterative cell formation
process is to transform the virtual cell
boundaries represented by sets of resources
elements into physical machine tools. The
transformation is based on iterative
substitution of the resource elements with
corresponding machine tools to which they
may belong. Each machine tool is evaluated
in terms of the number of resource elements
it has in common with each cell capability
boundary within the available machine
capacity.
Machines are selected using a wide range
of criteria including minimum variety of
machines in the cells; minimum transport
movements in the cell; maximum utilisation;
optimum level of concentration of the
operations (e.g. machining centre against
dedicated machines), etc. The machine
allocation procedure is completed once all
resource elements in the component
partition are substituted by machine tools.
In the simplified illustrative example (see
Appendix) a strategy emphasising minimum
variety of machines and transport
movements is considered as an illustration of
the approach. Accordingly, machines are
selected on the basis of maximum capability,
i.e. preference is given to machines
encompassing the maximum number of
resource elements required by the cell.
Each machine tool is assessed in terms of
the maximum number of common resource
elements to the resource view of each virtual
cell. The machine tools selection procedure is
based on iterative matching of the closest
pair of machine tool/virtual cell vector using
the machine tool membership function.
'
i;j
=
1
e
2
(M
j
; G
i
)
1
(f 1)
P
m
i=1
1
e
2
(M
j
; G
i
)
1
(f 1)
(13)
At each step the machine tool with the
minimum '
ij
is distributed to the
corresponding virtual cell. The machine
allocation procedure is completed, once all
resource elements in the component
[ 310]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
partition are substituted by machine tools.
By analogy with the RE based validity
measure R
r
(Equation (12)) a machine tool
based validity measure R
m
is used to assess
the compactness and separation of the virtual
cells in terms of allocated machine tools.
Processes and facility evaluation
At each iterative step the process and cell
prototypes are evaluated in terms of virtual
cell compactness and expected performance.
At the evaluation stage the planners have the
option of changing the optimisation criteria
for selection of processing alternatives or
modifying the key factors for selection of
machine tools. The approach also allows
different ``what-if'' scenarios to be modelled
and iteratively evaluated in order to find the
best solution. A variety of system constraints
is used in selecting the ``best'' processing
solution among the process planning
alternatives returned by the planning
module. The selection constraints are defined
with regard to the targeted type of production
(e.g. minimum set-ups assume a larger
concentration of operations leading to
selection of a limited number of machines
with higher capabilities; maximising the
number of set-ups allows selection of a wider
variety of machines with limited individual
capabilities). Component level constraints
are also considered, so that requirements like
``machine in the same set-up'' and ``machine
parallel from the same direction'' are taken
into account in deciding the most
appropriate processing and resource
alternatives.
The machine tool allocation is guided by
sets of company specific performance
indicators such as facility utilisation,
resource capacity, reduction of lead times,
minimum inventory, minimum transport
costs, etc. Depending on the selected strategy
for structuring the virtual cellular system
different factors can be combined in defining
the procedures for machine allocation and
validation of the virtual cellular partitions.
Experimental results
The methodology has been experimentally
tested using examples based on production
data from a large industrial company with
virtual cells formed in order to better reflect
the changes which occur in the component
mix. The machining facility is described
through the set of machine tools and their
constituting resource elements (see Table I).
The results of the iterative virtual cell
formation for a sample set of 50 components
are shown in Table II. It can be observed that
the best compactness and separation between
the cells are achieved in the case of two cells
(R
m
= 0.61). Although there are shared
capabilities in terms of required resource
elements (e.g. REs 1, 5, 6, 9), the boundaries of
the virtual cells are clearly defined in terms
of machine tools without any overlapping
Figure 3
Compactness and separation measure for validation of virtual cell
boundaries
Table I
Machine tool capabilities represented by REs
Machine
Id. Type
Resource
elements
1 Turret drill RE4 RE5
2 Slotting machine RE4 RE9
3 Turning lathe RE1
4 Shaper RE7
5 Turning lathe RE1 RE3
6 Horizontal milling machine RE6 RE5 RE3
7 Drill RE5
8 Turning lathe RE1, RE3
9 Turning lathe RE1
10 Bridge mill RE6 RE5 RE4
11 Turning lathe RE1
12 Slotting machine RE9
13 Shaper RE7
14 Radial drill RE4 RE5
15 Grinder RE8
16 Drill RE4
17 Grinder RE8
18 Turning lathe RE2
19 Drill RE4 RE5
20 Milling machine RE6
21 Grinder RE8
22 Grinder RE8
23 Turning lathe RE1 RE2
24 Borer RE4 RE5 RE3
25 Turning lathe RE2
Notes: RE1 turning (1); RE2 turning (2); RE3
boring; RE4 drilling; RE5 drilling/reaming; RE6
milling; RE7 shaping; RE8 grinding; RE9 slotting
(vertical shaping)
[ 311]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
between the cells. The case of two cells also
provides the best balance between the
number of parts distributed to each cell
compared with the cases with three and four
cells.
The flexibility which the use of resource
elements provides for configuration and re-
configuration of virtual cells is further
demonstrated in Figure 4. After the first step
of the algorithm is completed (refer to Table
II) the boundaries of two virtual cells are
defined using eight resource elements (the
membership of the resource elements to each
of the cells is shown in brackets, e.g. RE2
belongs only to virtual cell 1 with = 1, while
RE1 belongs to cell 1 with = 0.47 and to cell 2
with = 0.53). Two different cases of machine
allocation could be considered. In the first
case (refer to the partition with two groups,
as described in Table II) the machine tools
are selected on the basis of cells with
maximum compactness (i.e. maximum
Table II
Virtual cell formation results for a sample set of 50 components
Number
of cells Cell
Number
of parts Resource elements
a
Machine tools
a
Validity
measure R
m
2 1 26 1 (047), 2(1), 3(1), 5(062), 6(053),
9(056)
10(1), 3(1), 14(1), 2(1),
4(1)
0.61
2 24 1 (053), 4(1), 5(038), 6(047), 8(1),
9(044)
22(1), 23(1), 6(1), 12(1)
3 1 9 2(0.35) 5(0.55), 3(0.69), 7(1) 23(0.78), 17(1), 4(1) 0.65
2 19 6(0.60), 4(0.38), 8(1), 1(0.32),
9(0.36)
10(1), 3(1), 14(1), 2(1)
3 22 2(0.65), 4(0.62), 5(0.45), 1(0.68),
9(0.64), 6(0.40), 3(0.31)
22(1), 13(1), 6(1), 12(1),
23(0.22)
4 1 13 2(0.52), 5(0.62), 3(0.83), 9(0.49),
1(0.15)
23(0.87), 22(1), 2(1) 0.68
2 9 4(0.51), 1(0.48), 9(0.51), 8(0.34) 3(1), 7(1), 12(1), 14(1)
3 15 2(0.35), 4(0.49), 5(0.16), 1(0.37),
6(1), 3(0.17)
5(1), 10(1), 17(1),
23(0.13)
4 13 8(0.66), 5(0.22), 7(1), 2(0.13) 16(1), 1(1), 4(1), 24(1)
Note:
a
The membership coefficients of the resource elements and the machine tools are shown in parentheses
Figure 4
Flexible virtual cell prototyping using REs
[ 312]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
similarity between the components in each
family in terms of processing requirements)
and minimum overlapping (minimum shared
machine tools). If resource sharing between
two or more cells is the preferred option due
to capacity considerations, it can be easily
accommodated by relaxing the constraints on
cell overlapping at the machine allocation
stage. This is illustrated by the second case
(partition 2), where the same cellular
boundaries are transformed into a smaller
number of machine tools (seven compared
with nine in the first case) with a limited
sharing of resources being allowed (a turning
lathe and a slotting machine are shared by
the two cells for processes described by
resource elements S2 and T1).
The methodology has been further tested
using four sample sets of components
sequenced for production over different
periods of time. The component sets were
specifically selected to demonstrate the
effects of the fluctuations in the component
variety on the structure of the virtual
cellular facility. In order to validate the use
of resource elements the virtual cell
formation was repeated using the traditional
machine tool based description of the
component processing requirements and the
shop capabilities. The results of the
experimental tests are summarised in
Figure 5. It could be observed that, due to the
improved assessment of the component
similarity at sub-machine level and more
precise definition of cell capability
boundaries, the virtual cells created using
REs were consistently more compact
(improvement of 38 per cent on average in
terms of compactness and repetition
measure). The advantages of the approach
are also evident from the lower number of
repeated (shared) machine tools for the
majority of the partitions (average reduction
of 41 per cent). Although sharing of resources
is one of the features of the virtual
manufacturing concept, there are always
advantages of defining well separated virtual
cells with limited or no overlapping, which is
easier to achieve when using REs.
The superior quality of formation of
virtual cells using resource elements is
further underlined by the consistently more
compact solutions in terms of number of cells
when using resource elements (refer to
Figure 5). A comparison of the overall
number of machine tools selected for the
``optimum'' partitions also shows the
superior performance of the RE based
formation methodology. The distinctively
lower number of machine tools selected
using REs is due again to the fact that by
describing the capabilities of the
manufacturing facility at sub-machine level
the overall form-generating capabilities of
the individual machine tools can be captured,
assessed and better utilised.
Conclusions
The proposed methodology supports the
general trend for shortening of the product
life cycle by allowing manufacturing systems
to be easily and more often renewed and re-
configured in order to maximise the
utilisation of the available resources in
manufacturing new products. The reported
conceptual framework contributes to the
development of unified approach for product
requirement assessment and flexible re-
configuration of machining facilities. It can
be extended to allow existing facilities in
workshops with small to medium production
volumes of production to be ``re-used'' by re-
configuring them in accordance with the
changes of the market environment and
product demand.
The concurrent process and virtual cell
prototype methodology can also facilitate
planners in obtaining more realistic and
timely manufacturing information and
feedback at different planning stages. A
fundamental requirement in virtual cell
formation is the availability of choices in
terms of routeing alternatives for each
component. Using resource elements
different routes can be generated by
translating the virtual cell boundaries into
different sets of machine tools. This allows
multiple choices in configuration and re-
configuration of the virtual cells in order to
select for each component mix the most
Figure 5
Virtual cell formation results for four sample component sets using RE
and machine tool based decision making
[ 313]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
efficient combination of workstations in
terms of machine tool capability and capacity
utilisation.
The reported product, process and facility
capability models provide a new generic
representation of the production knowledge
required for decision making in a virtual
cellular environment. The form-generating
schemata and resource elements describe
uniquely the distribution of processing
capabilities among different machine tools
by capturing the ``exclusive'' and ``shared''
facility capability boundaries. The model
facilitates the decision-making process by
providing greater flexibility in allocating
production resources and higher
responsiveness to changes in the component
mix and production priorities in dynamic
facility reconfiguration.
The concurrent process and virtual cell
prototyping methodology facilitates the
decision-making process at early planning
stages by allowing assessment of the
implications of the component designs on the
required machining processes and the
virtual cells that need to be configured in
order to efficiently manufacture the product.
The proposed prototyping algorithms and
implementation strategy provide an
integrated decision-making environment for
deciding the most appropriate combination
of machine tools for specific component
requirements.
References and further reading
Aguiar, M.W.C., Murgatroyd, I.S. and Edwards,
J.M. (1996), ``Object-oriented resource models
their role in specifying components of
integrated manufacturing systems'',
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 9, pp. 33-48.
Bezdek, J. (1980), ``A convergence theorem for the
fuzzy ISODATA clustering algorithms'', IEEE
Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Chatterjee, S. (1992), ``Resourcing in dynamic
manufacturing'', Proceedings of ASME, PED,
Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 59, pp. 361-74.
Drolet, J., Moodie, C.L. and Montreuil, B. (1989),
``Scheduling factories of the future'', Journal
of Mechanical Working Technology, Vol. 20,
pp. 183-94.
Drolet, J., Moodie, C.L. and Montreuil, B. (1990),
``Virtual manufacturing layout planning'',
International Industrial Engineering
Conference Proceedings, IEE, San Francisco,
CA, pp. 236-41.
Gindy, N.N.Z. and Ratchev, S.M. (1997),
``Component grouping for cellular
decomposition of manufacturing facilities
using resource elements'', Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8 No. 3 & 4,
pp. 215-22.
Gindy, N.N.Z., Ratchev, S.M. and Case, K. (1996),
``Component grouping for cell formation
using resource elements'', International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 729-54.
McLean, C.R., Bloom, H.M. and Hopp, T.H. (1982),
``The virtual manufacturing cell'', Proceedings
of the 4th IFAC/IFIP Conference on
Information Control Problems in
Manufacturing Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, pp. 1-9.
Mills, J.J., Graham, J.K., Elmasri, R.A. and
Weems, B.P. (1993), ``The virtual
manufacturing workbench representation
and interface issues'', IFIP Transactions B
Application in Technology, Vol. 10, pp. 231-44.
Montreuil, B., Drolet, J. and Lefrancois, P. (1992),
``Design and management of virtual cellular
manufacturing systems'', Annual
International Conference Proceedings,
American Production and Inventory Control
Society, pp. 410-14.
Ratchev, S.M. and Gindy, N.N.Z. (1996),
``Formation of virtual cells using generic
capability patterns'', Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Flexible
Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing,
Atlanta, GA, 12-15 May, pp. 508-18.
Rheault, M., Drolet, J. and Abdulnour, G. (1995),
``Physically re-configurable virtual cells: a
dynamic model for a highly dynamic
environment'', Computer and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 221-5.
Rheault, M., Drolet, J. and Abdulnour, G. (1996),
``Dynamic cellular manufacturing system
(DCMS)'', Computers & Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 1-2, pp. 143-6.
Rogers, G.G. and Bottaci, L. (1997), ``Modular
production systems: a new manufacturing
paradigm'', Journal of Intelligent Systems,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 147-56.
Rolstadas, A. (1995), ``Enterprise modelling for
competitive manufacturing'', Control
Engineering Practice, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 43-50.
Xie, X.L. and Beni, G. (1991), ``A validity measure
for fuzzy clustering'', IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 841-7.
Appendix. Virtual cell formation algorithm
an illustrative example
Step 1. Component processing
requirements
For details of the component processing
requirements, see Tables AI and AII.
Step 2. Define virtual cell boundaries using
REs
For details of steps 2.1-2.3, see Tables AIII-AV.
Step 2.4. Calculation of RE based validity
measure R
r
= 0.40. (Repetition of steps 2.1- 2.4
until a stable partition is achieved)
[ 314]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315
Step 2.5. Definition of RE based cell
boundaries: G
1
(Comp: 1, 4 , 6; REs: 1, 4); G
2
(Comp.: 2, 3, 5, 7; REs:1, 2, 5)
Step 3. Allocation of machine tools to
virtual cell boundaries
Step 3.1. Definition of cell boundaries: G
1
(Machine tool: 4); G
2
(Machine tools: 1, 5)
Step 3.2. Calculation of machine tool based
validity measure R
m
= 0.13
Step 4. Process and virtual cell evaluation
Step 4.1 Process and virtual cell evaluation.
(Repetition of steps 1 - 3.2 applying different
clustering criteria).
Step 4.2. Increase the number of cells: m =
m + 1. (Repetition of steps 1 - 4.1 for the
increased numbers of cells).
Step 4.3. Selection of the best partition:
partition with two groups/cells
Table AI
Components Resource elements
1 RE1
2 RE1, RE2
3 RE2
4 RE1
5 RE1, RE2, RE5
6 RE1, RE4
7 RE2, RE5
Table AII
Machine tools Resource elements
1 RE1, RE2
2 RE1
3 RE1, RE2, RE3
4 RE2, RE4
5 RE1, RE5
Table AIII
Step 2.1 Number of cells m = 2; definition of
initial group centroids (G
1
, G
2
)
Group centroids RE1 RE2 RE3 RE4 RE5
G
1
(Component 6) 1 0 0 1 0
G
2
(Component 7) 0 1 0 0 1
Table AIV
Step 2.2 Definition of component membership
functions
ij
and component clustering
Group/
Comp. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.75 0.25 1 0
2 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.25 0.75 0 1
Table AV
Step 2.3 Recalculation of group centroids
(G
1
, G
2
)
Group RE1 RE2 RE3 RE4 RE5
G
1
0.67 0 0 1 0
G
2
0.33 1 0 0 1
[ 315]
Svetan M. Ratchev
Concurrent process and
facility prototyping for
formation of virtual
manufacturing cells
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
12/4 [2001] 306315