HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Comments
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
Page 1/2  >  >>
GlennA
User Rank
Gold
Re: Only half the automation was completed...
GlennA   8/3/2012 4:50:03 PM
NO RATINGS
Tool_maker;  I'm guessing you mean a tag applied to the part.  For most of the parts, the part itself was not individually identified by a tag or code.  Only the bin or box containing the parts had an identifying code.

There were several cross rails, and it could be a case of two cross rails in the wrong sequence - the parts were correct, but in swapped locations.  In other cases it could be an extra, unnecessary part added.

When the operator at the station where the frame was mated to the floor identified an actual build vs. build data mismatch, an electrician could edit the PLC bit data to correct the build data in the PLC.

Tool_maker
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Only half the automation was completed...
Tool_maker   8/3/2012 6:32:19 AM
NO RATINGS
@kfqd: I have never worked in the sort of environment described so this question may be silly. If the operator can manually select the wrong part, is it not possible that another operator could apply the wrong tag/code?

Ralphy Boy
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Data
Ralphy Boy   8/3/2012 12:33:09 AM
NO RATINGS
"The cross rails were different according to the gasoline tank size. If the cross rails installed did not match the build data, the selected robot path could crash the spot welding gun into the cross rails."

Actually when I said crash I was thinking of this. I'm not sure about the robots on the GM line but ours don't always do well recovering from a crash...

We do that assembly line sharing stuff at times too... When a multiple use line is running, maintaining a clean separation between the small stuff, like optionals can be tough. I am not saying we do it perfectly, but we do strive to learn and improve. ; )

And I get what you're saying about quality. Robots are amazing at repeating the same process over and over in a very precise way (fast too the little buggers).

GlennA
User Rank
Gold
Re: Data
GlennA   8/2/2012 10:43:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Ralphy Boy;  The part tracking was not changed.  The 'G' van was phased out about 2 years later, so no significant process improvements were planned or implemented.

One of the reasons that robotic automation improves quality, is robots will not work with 'junk'.  A human welder can adjust the fit of a bad part and then weld the assembly.  The robot welds where the part was supposed to be, and the assembly then fails.

Ralphy Boy
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Data
Ralphy Boy   8/2/2012 7:06:28 PM
NO RATINGS
"The engineer presented the numbers to me, and wanted to know what was wrong with the robots that they had so many servo errors, and what needed to be done to fix the problem."

The numbers the engineer presented should have included the number of times the crash was related to an incorrect bracket having been present... Ya think? At which point that becomes the issue.

And my experience with robots has given me this as a starting point as to their 'intelligence'... they are as dumb as a box of rocks.

Where a human would side-step the inconsistent configuration 99% of the time; the robot will crash into it 100% of the time.

So when a human puts on the wrong bracket and the robot trips over it... no surprise.

As much as possible sensors/identifiers could help. Idiot proofing applies to robotic assembly lines just as it does to human assembly lines. It depends how much you want to spend to achieve zero-error production.  

We do a lot of fixturing that restricts against incorrect assembly, and some of our assemblies lines have vision, bar code scans, or checklists to keep both the robots and the humans on track... i.e. if they had scanned the brackets as they were applied, and that info when into that frames live tracking info...

So the process "allow" human error to create robot error.

The lesson learned, but the fix is not discussed. Can we assume a better computer tracking regimen was implemented?  

warren@fourward.com
User Rank
Platinum
Re: Data
warren@fourward.com   8/2/2012 5:48:42 PM
NO RATINGS
I am sure the robot is at fault most of the time, because my vast experience tells me tha humins don'g maik mistooks.

GlennA
User Rank
Gold
Re: Only half the automation was completed...
GlennA   8/1/2012 7:18:00 PM
NO RATINGS
kf2qd;  The Scarborough Van Plant built the 'G' van until 1993.  Then the equipment was dismantled and moved to Flint Michigan.  I think the 'G' van was discontinued entirely in 1995.  The Scarborough plant had painting robots in the Paint Shop, and welding robots in the Body Shop - CarTrac.  The rest of the plant was primarily manual assembly operations.

Every part had a part number, but that number was on the box or bin of many individual unlabeled parts.  The parts were manually selected and positioned for assembly, and initially manually welded.  The robots then welded the assembled frame to the assembled floor.  The build information was in the PLC and was shifted to the welding stations as the carrier advanced into the station.  There was no inspection capability to automatically identify the assembly to verify the manually selected parts.

GlennA
User Rank
Gold
Re: Data
GlennA   8/1/2012 7:02:26 PM
NO RATINGS
Tim;  My experience with robots is that the robot is usually blamed first for any problem.  Since I was usually the robot tech, I had to find the real problem, which usually was not the robot.  It was not unusual for a problem investigation to be cursory, and stop at blaming the robot.

kf2qd
User Rank
Platinum
Only half the automation was completed...
kf2qd   8/1/2012 9:34:58 AM
NO RATINGS
Sounds like this plant needed to tag/code every sub-part as it was made so that the next station could read that tag and confirm tha the correct pieces were in place before beginning the next step in the welding process. A bar code tag in a known spot on every piece that would have to be read before the welding operation could be started. Could easil be done as the assembly was being moved into the first welding station. Make sure the correct parts are in place before slamming the robot into things and slowing down the process.

 

Hopefully thy did something like that on the next version of the line. Would really speed things up because there would be a record of the wrong parts being placed on the line, and the corresponding effort to ruduce the human errors and improve quality.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Engineering communication
Rob Spiegel   7/31/2012 11:13:12 PM
NO RATINGS
Systems like this are very literal. We human beings are not always literal. 

Page 1/2  >  >>


Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
New manufacturing is changing more than just the plant floor. It's changing how manufacturers do business.
Made By Monkeys highlights products that somehow slipped by the QC cops.
Venture capital guru Steve Vassallo looks for companies that think about design, not just technology for technology's sake.
A German 3D printing company has released a large-volume 3D printer based on open-source RepRap technology and aimed at providing an affordable high-capacity plastic-filament printer for industrial users.
Factory floor engineers may soon be able to operate machinery and monitor equipment status simply by tapping their eyeglasses.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
9/10/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/23/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
7/17/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
6/25/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Sep 22 - 26, MCU Software Development A Step-by-Step Guide (Using a Real Eval Board)
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Class: September 30 - October 2
Sponsored by Altera
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service