Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T14:58:54.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical component detection in assemblies: a graph centrality approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Robert Ballantyne ,
Adam McClenaghan ,
Oliver Schiffmann  and
Chris Snider
Robert Ballantyne*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Adam McClenaghan
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Oliver Schiffmann
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Chris Snider
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
*
[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study examines the use of graph centrality to identify critical components in assembly models, a method typically dominated by computationally intense analyses. By applying centrality measures to simulated assembly graphs, components were ranked to assess their criticality. These rankings were compared against Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis results. Preliminary findings indicate a promising correlation, suggesting graph centrality as a valuable tool in assembly analysis, enhancing efficiency and insight in critical component identification.

Keywords

network analysisdigital manufacturingmodellingtolerance representation and management
Type
Artificial Intelligence and Data-Driven Design
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 1929 - 1938
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

3DCS, B.R., 2017. URL https://blog.3dcs.com/run-tolerance-analysis-stacks-two-three-four-times-faster (accessed 11.24.23).Google Scholar
Akroyd, J., Mosbach, S., Bhave, A., Kraft, M., 2021. Universal Digital Twin - A Dynamic Knowledge Graph. Data-Centric Eng. 2, e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/dce.2021.10Google Scholar
Bakker, O.J., Popov, A.A., Ratchev, S.M., 2017. Variation Analysis of Automated Wing Box Assembly. Procedia CIRP 63, 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, R., Snider, C., McClenaghan, A., Nassehi, A., 2023. On Applying Network Theory to Assembly Analysis. Procedia CIRP 120, 1552–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.09.213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, K., Samanta, S., Pal, M., 2018. Study on centrality measures in social networks: a survey. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 8, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0493-2Google Scholar
Farahani, F.V., Karwowski, W., Lighthall, N.R., 2019. Application of Graph Theory for Identifying Connectivity Patterns in Human Brain Networks: A Systematic Review. Front. Neurosci. 13, 585. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunji, B.M., Sharma, D., Sathyajith, S., Patil, K., Mutra, R.R., 2022. Optimal assembly sequence generation for flexible and rigid parts product using stress information matrix. (ICCEM 2021), Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0103525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO 286 - Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) 2010. https://www.iso.org/standard/44784.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kosec, P., Skec, S., Miler, D., 2020. A comparison of the tolerance analysis methods in the open-loop assembly. Adv. Prod. Eng. Manag. 15, 44–56. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2020.1.348Google Scholar
Koutrouli, M., Karatzas, E., Paez-Espino, D., Pavlopoulos, G.A., 2020. A Guide to Conquer the Biological Network Era Using Graph Theory. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00034CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, C., Hou, W., 2021. Analysis of Assembly Tolerance Based on Assembly Constraint Information Model. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7438966Google Scholar
Majeed, A., Rauf, I., 2020. Graph Theory: A Comprehensive Survey about Graph Theory Applications in Computer Science and Social Networks. Inventions 5, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/inventions5010010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Networkx Documentation 2023.Google Scholar
Sarh, B., 1998. Wing Structural Assembly Methodology p. 982156. https://doi.org/10.4271/982156Google Scholar
Shen, Z., Ameta, G., Shah, J.J., Davidson, J.K., 2005. A Comparative Study Of Tolerance Analysis Methods. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 5, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1979509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, X., Bao, J., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Zhou, B., 2020. A digital twin-driven approach for the assembly-commissioning of high precision products. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 61, 101839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, J., Hermans, T., 2019. Assembly Planning by Subassembly Decomposition Using Blocking Reduction. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 4, 4054–4061. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2019.2929995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, T., et al 2022. Assembly Configuration Representation and Kinematic Modeling for Modular Reconfigurable Robots Based on Graph Theory. Symmetry 14, 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14030433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, B., Bao, J., Chen, Z., Liu, Y., 2022. KGAssembly: Knowledge graph-driven assembly process generation and evaluation for complex components. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 35, 1151–1171. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2021.1891572CrossRefGoogle Scholar