0
Research Papers

Comparison of Graph Generation Methods for Structural Complexity Based Assembly Time Estimation

[+] Author and Article Information
Essam Z. Namouz

Research Assistant
CEDAR Group,
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921
e-mail: enamouz@clemson.edu

Joshua D. Summers

Professor
CEDAR Group,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921
e-mail: joshua.summers@ces.clemson.edu

http://www.dfma.com/ accessed 12/2017/2012

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF Computing AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received October 12, 2013; final manuscript received December 17, 2013; published online February 26, 2014. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 14(2), 021003 (Feb 26, 2014) (9 pages) Paper No: JCISE-13-1207; doi: 10.1115/1.4026293 History: Received October 12, 2013; Revised December 17, 2013

This paper compares two different methods of graph generation for input into the complexity connectivity method to estimate the assembly time of a product. The complexity connectivity method builds predictive models for assembly time based on 29 complexity metrics applied to the product graphs. Previously, the part connection graph was manually created, but recently the assembly mate method and the interference detection method have introduced new automated tools for creating the part connectivity graphs. These graph generation methods are compared on their ability to predict the assembly time of multiple products. For this research, eleven consumers products are used to train an artificial neural network and three products are reserved for testing. The results indicate that both the assembly mate method and the interference detection method can create connectivity graphs that predict the assembly time of a product to within 45% of the target time. The interference detection method showed less variability than the assembly mate method in the time estimations. The assembly mate method is limited to only solidworks assembly files, while the interference detection method is more flexible and can operate on different file formats including IGES, STEP, and Parasolid. Overall, both of the graph generation methods provide a suitable automated tool to form the connectivity graph, but the interference detection method provides less variance in predicting the assembly time and is more flexible in terms of file types that can be used.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Manufacturing
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Exploded view of ink pen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Block and pin detection tool result

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Interference detection tool

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

parent-child relationship

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Block and pin assembly

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Standard solidworks mates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

AMM bipartite graph of the ink pen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Mean percent error of test products

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Graph generation times for IDM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Graph generation times for AMM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Mean percent error comparison of AMM and IDM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

IDM bipartite graph of the ink pen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

AMM bipartite graph of fully defined ink pen

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In