Airplane component assembly positive process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation method

Abstract

This application relates to the field of assembly process design, specifically to a method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly. The method includes: defining a three-tiered structure of stages, processes, and elements in process design using set theory; dividing the process design into four stages based on the V-model, and then constructing the process design process for each stage; defining direct dependencies between processes by constructing a structure matrix, and using reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies, making all direct and indirect dependencies explicit, thereby establishing traceability relationships between processes in the process design; constructing a process design integrity evaluation method to assess whether the stages, processes, and elements of the process design are complete; and then using fuzzy hierarchical analysis to construct a process design reliability evaluation method to assess the overall reliability of the process design. This invention shortens the process optimization cycle, reduces costs, and improves production efficiency.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of assembly process design, specifically to forward process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation methods for aircraft component assembly. Background Technology

[0002] With the global aviation manufacturing industry undergoing a profound transformation towards digitalization and intelligence, the research and development and manufacturing model of aircraft is undergoing fundamental changes. As a core and key link in the manufacturing of complete aircraft, the scientific, reliable and efficient process design of fuselage component assembly not only directly determines the core product quality indicators such as the assembly accuracy and connection strength of the fuselage structure, but also plays a decisive role in shortening the production cycle, controlling manufacturing costs and upgrading the flexibility of the production line.

[0003] The assembly of fuselage components involves the coordination of hundreds of processes and the precise docking of thousands of parts. Its process design must take into account multiple dimensions such as structural mechanics requirements, aerodynamic shape standards, and assembly tolerance constraints. It is a typical complex system engineering project with multiple objectives and constraints.

[0004] However, for a long time, the assembly process design of fuselage components in China's aviation manufacturing sector has generally adopted a "reverse feedback" model driven by the experience of process experts. The core logic of this model is to first produce and test assemble to find problems, then provide feedback to adjust the process, and finally conduct a second test assembly to verify and optimize it. This passive process iteration method has gradually exposed its shortcomings and defects under the general trend of digital transformation, which are specifically reflected in the following aspects: The lack of a systematic architecture in process design, the ambiguity of process dependencies, and the insufficient ability to accurately trace the entire process: In traditional design, the preconditions and data input-output relationships between processes lack clear definitions and identification. When quality problems such as dimensional deviations and connection failures occur during assembly, it is impossible to quickly locate the root cause of the problem, whether it is due to parameter deviations in upstream processes or operational errors in this process. It is also difficult to achieve full-link traceability of process plans, production data, and quality records, resulting in long process optimization cycles and high costs, which seriously restricts the improvement of production efficiency.

[0005] The lack of a complete quantitative evaluation system makes it difficult to scientifically compare and select the integrity and reliability of process design: the evaluation of existing process solutions mainly relies on qualitative expert review, and the evaluation indicators focus on subjective descriptions, which often leads to subjective bias in the selection of process solutions and cannot guarantee that the final process solution is the global optimal solution; at the same time, due to the lack of quantitative reliability evaluation indicators, it is difficult to predict the stability of process solutions in actual production.

[0006] The integration of digital tools with process design is not deep enough to support intelligent decision-making: Although some aerospace manufacturing companies have introduced digital tools such as computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing, they are only used for basic steps such as process drawing and tooling modeling, and have not been deeply integrated with the entire process design.

[0007] To address these issues, the industry has undertaken a series of explorations and attempts. For example, the ASIP development process proposed by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) has constructed a development stage division and process framework covering the entire life cycle of aviation products, providing directional guidance for the standardization of process design. The MBSE method emphasizes digital models as the core to achieve full-process correlation of system requirements, design, analysis, and verification, providing systematic methodological support for the process design of complex products.

[0008] However, in terms of practical application, the aforementioned existing technologies still have obvious limitations: On the one hand, both focus on building a process framework and lack quantitative control methods for the assembly process design of fuselage components. They have not established a quantitative correlation model between process parameters and quality, efficiency, and cost, making it difficult to achieve precise control of process design. On the other hand, the existing technologies have not formed a feasible implementation system adapted to the assembly scenario of fuselage components and lack a standardized transformation path from theoretical framework to workshop site. This makes it difficult for advanced process concepts to be effectively connected with actual production links and cannot fundamentally solve the inherent defects of the traditional model.

[0009] In summary, there is an urgent need for a forward process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation method for aircraft component assembly that can address issues such as systemic deficiencies, ambiguous process dependencies, and lack of quantitative assessment, in order to meet the manufacturing requirements of high-quality, high-efficiency, and low-cost aircraft manufacturing.

[0010] For example, a Chinese patent, publication number CN111599000A, publication date August 28, 2020, entitled "A Method and System for Generating Process Layouts," specifically relates to the field of digital process design for aircraft assembly, and more particularly to a method and system for generating process layouts. The method includes: establishing a 3D visualization model library for process layouts based on basic process layout data; completing the process layout in a 3D virtual environment using models from the model library according to the basic data and container scheme; importing and editing simulation parameters of the process layout; creating workstations for the process layout and associating them with equipment and process information based on the production line scheme; conducting simulation experiments on the process layout based on simulation parameters and process information to obtain simulation results; evaluating the process layout based on the simulation results; and saving the process layout after it passes the evaluation.

[0011] The aforementioned patents have improved the rationality of process layout and the ease of operation when generating process layout to a certain extent. However, the aforementioned patents still have problems such as vague process design boundaries, unclear process dependencies, and lack of complete quantitative evaluation of process design. Summary of the Invention

[0012] To address the problems existing in the prior art, this application provides a forward process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation method for aircraft component assembly that can establish a clear process dependency model and perform a complete quantitative evaluation of process design.

[0013] To achieve the above effects, the technical solution of this application is as follows: The method for forward process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly includes the following steps: Step S1: Use set theory to define the three-tiered structure of process design stages, processes, and elements; Step S2: Based on the V-model, the process design is divided into four stages, and then the process design flow is constructed in stages; the four stages are product definition, scheme design, bidding and tendering, and workstation adaptation. Step S3: By constructing a structure matrix, define the direct dependencies between processes, and use reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies, making all direct and indirect dependencies explicit, thereby establishing traceability relationships between processes in the process design; Step S4: Construct a completeness assessment method for process design to assess whether the stages, processes, and elements of the process design are complete. Then, by using fuzzy hierarchical analysis, construct a reliability assessment method for process design to assess the overall reliability of the process design.

[0014] Furthermore, in step S1, the stage set divides the forward process design of fuselage component assembly into... i Stages: ; In the formula, S i Indicates the first i stage.

[0015] Furthermore, in step S1, the process set of... i Phase includes n i This process is denoted as... P i,j , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The process is expressed as follows: , ; Furthermore, the process of the element set in step S1 P i,j Include x i,j Each element is denoted as [element name missing]. E i,j,k , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The first process k The elements are expressed as follows: , ; Furthermore, the specific method for constructing the structure matrix and defining the direct dependencies between processes in step S3 is as follows: construct a 45×45 dependency matrix. A Define direct dependencies between processes, if P i,j yes P i,k The pre-process, then A (i,j)(i,k) =1, otherwise 0. The matrix elements are defined as: .

[0016] Furthermore, using the aforementioned reachability matrix analysis, the transitive closure of dependencies is calculated, and all direct and indirect dependencies are made explicit. The specific steps for establishing traceability relationships between processes in the process design are as follows: Step a1: First, initialize the augmented matrix by logically ORing the identity matrix and the direct dependency matrix to obtain the augmented matrix, and merge the self-reachability and direct dependencies into the initial reachability relation; Step a2: Based on the initial reachability relationship described above, the indirect dependencies are added to the matrix through iteration. After the iteration is completed, the transitive closure matrix is ​​obtained. Step a3: Remove self-loops from the transitive closure matrix to obtain the final reachability matrix, thereby establishing the traceability relationship between the process design procedures.

[0017] Furthermore, the specific relation in step a1 is as follows: ; ; In the formula, M 0 represents an augmented matrix. I It is the identity matrix. A for n The order directly depends on the matrix. A (i,j)(k,l) =1 indicates the process. P i,j yes P i,kThe direct pre-process.

[0018] Furthermore, the specific relationship in step a2 is as follows: ; In the formula, ∧ represents logical AND, and ∨ represents logical OR; M k For the first k The reachability matrix after the next iteration is the transitive closure matrix; M k-1 For the first k-1 The reachability matrix after the next iteration.

[0019] Furthermore, the specific relational expression for the final reachable matrix in step a3 is as follows: ; like Re (i,j)(k,l) =1, then P i,j and P i,k There are direct or indirect dependencies; in the formula, n means the total number of processes, (i, j) means process j in stage i, and (k, l) represents process l in stage k.

[0020] Furthermore, the specific steps of constructing the process design integrity assessment method in step S4 are as follows: Step b1: First, determine the existence of features: Define an indicator function that takes the value 1 if the feature exists, and 0 otherwise; Step b2: Define process completeness, which represents the ratio of defined elements to total elements in process j of stage i; Step b3: Define stage completeness, which is the arithmetic mean of the completeness of all processes within stage i; Step b4: Define overall integrity and calculate the arithmetic mean of the four settlement integritys.

[0021] Furthermore, the specific relationship of step b1 is as follows: ; In the formula, For indicator functions; The specific relationship in step b2 is as follows: ; In the formula, For process completeness, x i,j For process P i,j The total number of elements; The specific relationship in step b3 is as follows: ; In the formula, For the completeness of the stage, n i Let be the number of processes in any one of these stages; The specific relationship in step b4 is as follows: ; In the formula, C For overall integrity.

[0022] Furthermore, the specific steps of constructing the reliability assessment method for process design in step S4 are as follows: Step c1: First, define the element satisfaction level. f i,j,k Quantitative measurement elements E i,j,k The quality of completion: For quantitative indicators, the calculation is performed directly by the ratio of the actual value to the standard value; for qualitative indicators, the clear value is obtained by combining expert scoring with triangular fuzzy quantitative fuzzy evaluation and then defuzzifying using the centroid method. Step c2: Define feature weights w i,j,k The relative importance of each element in the process evaluation is determined by ranking the importance of each element based on the fuzzy hierarchical analysis method. Step c3: Define process reliability R i,j Based on element satisfaction f i,j,k and factor weights w i,j,k Calculation stage i process j The weighted average of the satisfaction levels of all elements is used to evaluate the stage. i process j Process reliability R i,j ; Step c4: Define the reliability phase R i Introduce process weights w i,j , will be the stage i The reliability of all internal processes is weighted and averaged. Step c5: Define overall reliability Introducing stage weights w i The reliability of the four stages is weighted and averaged.

[0023] Furthermore, the specific relationship of step c1 is as follows: , f i,j,k ∈ [0,1].

[0024] Furthermore, the specific expression for step c3 is as follows:

[0025] in f i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The degree of element satisfaction, w i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The weight.

[0026] Furthermore, the specific expression for step c4 is as follows: ; In the formula, n i The number of processes within any one of these stages. w i,j For process P ij The weight.

[0027] Furthermore, the specific expression for step c5 is as follows:

[0028] In the formula, w i The weight is any one of the stages.

[0029] Furthermore, the inputs to the product definition stage are design specifications, customer requirements, and industry standards, and the outputs are a functional requirements matrix and a risk list; the inputs to the solution design stage are process specifications, a functional requirements matrix, and a risk list, and the outputs are assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle calculation solutions, and risk control solutions; the inputs to the bidding stage are bidding rules, assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle calculation solutions, and risk control solutions, and the outputs are the winning bid solution and team configuration; the inputs to the workstation adaptation stage are production plans, the winning bid solution, and team configuration, and the outputs are process procedures and AO documents.

[0030] Furthermore, the product definition phase of the process includes product design requirements analysis. P 1,1 Project Target Analysis P 1,2 Process testing and assembly risk analysis P1,3 Structural Analysis P 1,4 Separation surface division P 1,5 Principles for setting up openings P 1,6 Joint design P 1,7 Process review P 1,8 Technical document review P 1,9 Digital Model Release P 1,10 Overall assembly process construction P 1,11 Horse racing packaging unit construction P 1,12 Minimum assembly unit construction P 1,13 Part opening scheme design P 1,14 Special process identification P 1,15 Key process identification P 1,16 Identification of the Four New Technologies P 1,17 1. Formulation of control measures for the four new industries P 1,18 Unit assembly process simulation P 1,19 Detailed assembly process of the horse racing bag P 1,20 Tooling ordering requirements formulation P 1,21 and tool ordering requirements formulation P 1,22 .

[0031] Furthermore, the design phase of the solution includes assembly outline planning. P 2,1 Quality risk analysis and control measures formulation P 2,2 Human resource demand analysis and assembly cycle calculation P 2,3 The first version of the assembly technology solution was released. P 2,4 The first version of the assembly unit quality control plan has been released. P 2,5 The first version of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 2,6 and process specification design P 2,7 .

[0032] Furthermore, the bidding process includes horse racing tenders. P 3,1 Team bidding P 3,2 and horse racing judges P 3,3 .

[0033] Furthermore, the workstation adaptation phase includes adjusting the production plan accordingly. P 4,1 The second version of the assembly technology solution has been released. P 4,2 The second version of the assembly unit quality control scheme has been released. P 4,3 The second version of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 4,4 Process data organization P 4,5 MBOM Consumption Allocation P 4,6 Release of process hole-making model P 4,7 Tooling order release P 4,8 Compilation and Publication of Quotas for Non-Consumable Riveting Parts P 4,9 Material quota compilation and publication P 4,10 Tool order release P 4,11 Process specifications release P 4,12 and AO compilation P 4,13 .

[0034] Based on the above technical solution, the beneficial effects of this application are as follows: 1. The method of the present invention defines the process design as a three-layer structure and establishes the dependency relationship between processes through the workpiece matrix, making the process design traceable. By constructing a process design integrity assessment method and a process design reliability assessment method, a two-dimensional quantitative assessment is performed. Compared with the existing technology, which has vague process dependency relationship, insufficient full-process accurate traceability capability, and lack of a complete quantitative assessment system, the present invention shortens the process optimization cycle, reduces costs, and improves production efficiency.

[0035] 2. This invention solves the problems of ambiguous process design boundaries and unclear process dependencies in traditional methods by hierarchical modeling and making the dependencies between stages, processes and elements explicit. Furthermore, by using design structure matrix and reachability matrix theory, it constructs a full path dependency network to make the direct and indirect dependencies between processes explicit, which helps to identify critical paths and potential bottlenecks and optimize process design processes.

[0036] 3. This invention defines an integrity index C and calculates the integrity of the process, stages, and overall process design layer by layer, thereby achieving comprehensive coverage and accurate traceability of process design elements.

[0037] 4. This invention is based on fuzzy hierarchical analysis to construct a reliability index R, which quantifies the reliability of the completed process design and solves the problem that qualitative indicators are difficult to measure objectively in traditional methods. Attached Figure Description

[0038] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the process of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0039] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of this application clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are some embodiments of this application, but not all embodiments.

[0040] Example 1 like Figure 1 As shown, the forward process design and two-dimensional quantitative evaluation method for aircraft component assembly includes the following steps: Step S1: Use set theory to define the three-tiered structure of process design stages, processes, and elements; Step S2: Based on the V-model, the process design is divided into four stages, and then the process design flow is constructed in stages; the four stages are product definition, scheme design, bidding and tendering, and workstation adaptation. Step S3: By constructing a structure matrix, define the direct dependencies between processes, and use reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies, making all direct and indirect dependencies explicit, thereby establishing traceability relationships between processes in the process design; Step S4: Construct a completeness assessment method for process design to assess whether the stages, processes, and elements of the process design are complete. Then, by using fuzzy hierarchical analysis, construct a reliability assessment method for process design to assess the overall reliability of the process design.

[0041] In step S1, the stage set divides the forward process design of fuselage component assembly into... i Stages: ; In the formula, S i Indicates the first i stage.

[0042] The first step in step S1 of the process set i Phase includes n i This process is denoted as... P i,j , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The process is expressed as follows: , ; The process of the feature set in step S1 P i,j Include x i,j Each element is denoted as [element name missing]. E i,j,k , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The first process k The elements are expressed as follows: , ; The product definition phase takes design specifications, customer requirements, and industry standards as inputs and outputs a functional requirements matrix and a risk list to clarify functions, objectives, and risks. The solution design phase takes process specifications, a functional requirements matrix, and a risk list as inputs and outputs assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle time calculation solutions, and risk control solutions to develop assembly outlines and risk and resource plans. The bidding phase takes bidding rules, assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle time calculation solutions, and risk control solutions as inputs and outputs the winning bid and team configuration to select the optimal assembly solution. The workstation adaptation phase takes production plans, the winning bid and team configuration as inputs and outputs process specifications and AO documents to adapt to the production plan and release process data.

[0043] The product definition phase of the process includes product design requirements analysis. P 1,1 Project Target Analysis P 1,2 Process testing and assembly risk analysis P 1,3 Structural Analysis P 1,4 Separation surface division P 1,5 Principles for setting up openingsP 1,6 Joint design P 1,7 Process review P 1,8 Technical document review P 1,9 Digital Model Release P 1,10 Overall assembly process construction P 1,11 Horse racing packaging unit construction P 1,12 Minimum assembly unit construction P 1,13 Part opening scheme design P 1,14 Special process identification P 1,15 Key process identification P 1,16 Identification of the Four New Technologies P 1,17 1. Formulation of control measures for the four new industries P 1,18 Unit assembly process simulation P 1,19 Detailed assembly process of the horse racing bag P 1,20 Tooling ordering requirements formulation P 1,21 and tool ordering requirements formulation P 1,22 .

[0044] Among them, product design requirements analysis P 1,1 Based on the MBSE concept, design requirements are analyzed from dimensions such as function, reliability, and accuracy to establish an assembly requirement matrix.

[0045] Project Target Analysis P 1,2 The goal tree method is used to decompose quality, cycle, and cost goals, and three levels of control measures (strategic, tactical, and operational) are formulated.

[0046] Process testing and assembly risk analysis P 1,3 Using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), the system identifies potential failure modes that may occur during the assembly process, analyzes their impact on product functionality and reliability and their causes, and formulates targeted risk control measures. Structural Analysis P 1,4Using structured analysis methods, combined with 3D digital models and engineering drawings, the geometric dimensions, assembly connection types and material properties of the main fuselage structure are disassembled layer by layer to determine special requirement areas such as open compartments, fuel tank boundaries, and fatigue critical areas.

[0047] Separation surface division P 1,5 By applying modular design theory and combining it with rigidity analysis methods, we determine the names, drawings, and parts list of the separation surfaces. We verify the rigidity of the separation surfaces through mechanical analysis to ensure the rationality and maintainability of the assembly.

[0048] Opening principle formulation P 1,6 Based on geometric tolerances and machining process specifications, we formulate the principles and types of GX openings, clarify the principles and types of drilling jig ordering, and ensure that the opening positions and dimensions meet the assembly requirements.

[0049] Joint Design P 1,7 By utilizing a collaborative design platform, the design and process departments can jointly discuss and coordinate the compatibility of design and process through concurrent engineering methods, thereby reducing design changes and process challenges.

[0050] Process review P 1,8 Establish a process feasibility review checklist, review CI drawing numbers, problem descriptions, classifications, and modification status one by one, classify and record problems as Category A (affecting assembly quality), Category B (affecting production efficiency), and Category C (optimizable items), track the design modification status and verify the closed-loop status to ensure that the design scheme meets the process feasibility requirements.

[0051] Technical document review P 1,9 Establish a process feasibility review checklist, and review each CI drawing number, problem description, classification, and modification status to ensure that the design scheme meets the process feasibility requirements.

[0052] Digital Model Release P 1,10 Based on the product data management system, standardize the release of CI drawing numbers, names, levels, versions, validity ranges, and statuses to ensure the uniqueness and traceability of digital models.

[0053] Overall assembly process construction P 1,11 By using value stream mapping technology, we can identify key links and value-added activities in the assembly process, construct main and auxiliary assembly processes, and optimize assembly sequence and resource allocation.

[0054] Horse racing packaging unit construction P 1,12Based on the assembly unit division criteria and combined with the product structure and process characteristics, the relevant segments, assembly package numbers and names are determined, and the boundaries and tasks of each assembly unit are clarified. Among them, the assembly package refers to the modularly divided assembly unit, which includes independent assembly tasks, assembly processes, resource requirements and inspection requirements.

[0055] Minimum assembly unit construction P 1,13 Combining modular design and rigidity analysis methods, the name, drawings, and parts list of the smallest assembly unit are determined according to the principle of "indivisibility". The rigidity of the unit is verified through mechanical calculations to ensure the stability of the assembly unit.

[0056] Part opening scheme design P 1,14 Based on the assembly opening design specifications and assembly structure connection form, an assembly connection hole opening stacking scheme is designed according to hole diameter and hole position accuracy, taking into account processing technology and assembly efficiency, and optimizing the opening layout.

[0057] Special process identification P 1,15 Based on the special process control requirements, process capability analysis methods are used to identify the name of the special process, the race package in which it is located, and the CI involved, and to clarify the control requirements and key parameters of the special process.

[0058] Key process identification P 1,16 The Critical Path Method (CPM) is used to identify the names of critical processes, their respective race packages, and the CIs involved, thereby determining the impact of critical processes on project timeline and quality.

[0059] Four New Identifications P 1,17 The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment method is adopted, which combines technology research, industry analysis and expert evaluation to identify new technologies, new materials, new processes and new equipment and their types, classify them according to TRL levels (3-9), and clarify the application type (first application / improvement application).

[0060] Formulating control measures for the four new things P 1,18 For the identified "four new" issues, the risk matrix method is used to assess the risk level, and risk control measures including technology verification, process testing, and personnel training are formulated.

[0061] Unit assembly process simulation P 1,19 Using digital simulation tools such as DELMIA, we can perform virtual simulation of the unit assembly process, identify problems such as interference, operational accessibility, and process redundancy, and formulate solutions.

[0062] Detailed assembly process of the horse racing bag P 1,20 Based on the overall process framework, refine the process logic within the horse racing package, and clarify the content of each step, key points of operation, and testing requirements.

[0063] Tooling ordering requirements formulation P 1,21 Based on the assembly process and tooling division, and according to the assembly process and process requirements, establish a tooling requirement list, determine the tooling name, quantity and main tooling, and ensure the applicability and compatibility of the tooling.

[0064] Tool ordering requirements formulation P 1,22 Based on the operational requirements of each process, statistically analyze the tool requirements, determine the tool names, quantities, and supervisory packages, and ensure that the precision and reliability of the tools meet the assembly needs.

[0065] The design phase of the process includes assembly outline planning. P 2,1 Quality risk analysis and control measures formulation P 2,2 Human resource demand analysis and assembly cycle calculation P 2,3 The first version of the assembly technology solution was released. P 2,4 The first version of the assembly unit quality control plan has been released. P 2,5 The first version of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 2,6 and process specification design P 2,7 .

[0066] The process of the scheme design phase includes assembly outline planning. P 2,1 Using structured analysis, based on the product structure and assembly process, we determine the race car package number, AO number, and name, and establish the hierarchical structure and logical relationships of the assembly outline.

[0067] Quality risk analysis and control measure formulation P 2,2 We used FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) to conduct an in-depth analysis of the potential quality risks of each race car bag, established a risk matrix (probability of occurrence × degree of impact), and formulated a control plan that includes preventive measures, detection methods, and corrective measures.

[0068] Human resource demand analysis and assembly cycle calculation P 2,3Based on industrial engineering (IE) time study methods, standard working hours for each process are determined using stopwatch time measurement and the MOD (Model Time Determination) method, and an assembly cycle calculation model is established. ; The minimum personnel configuration is solved by using a linear programming algorithm based on workstation load balancing and skill qualification matching, thus clarifying the theoretical cycle and minimum personnel requirements for each race package.

[0069] The first version (V1.0) of the assembly technology solution has been released. P 2,4 Following the established content framework, we organized information such as structural analysis, technical documents, CI (Computer Integrated Systems) requirements, opening details, assembly process, risk identification and control, tooling / equipment / tool ​​requirements, new technology applications, and AO (Automatic Inspection) list, and officially released Assembly Technology Solution V1.0.

[0070] The first version (V1.0) of the assembly unit quality control scheme has been released. P 2,5 Summarize the results of quality risk analysis, publish risk item descriptions, occurrence levels, impact classifications and control measures, and establish a quality control system for assembly units.

[0071] The first version (V1.0) of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 2,6 Based on the analysis of human resource needs and the calculation of assembly cycle, we release the theoretical cycle, minimum personnel requirements, project plan cycle and actual personnel requirements to provide guidance for project schedule management and personnel allocation.

[0072] Process specification design P 2,7 Based on industry standards and enterprise process specifications, for the relevant horse racing bags, design new process procedure names, and clarify the process route, operation method and technical requirements.

[0073] The bidding process includes horse racing tenders. P 3,1 Team bidding P 3,2 and horse racing judges P 3,3 .

[0074] Horse racing tender P 3,1 The process involves open bidding, including issuing a bidding announcement that clarifies the scope of the bidding, technical requirements, evaluation criteria, and timeline, and releasing bidding information to attract qualified teams to participate in the bidding.

[0075] Team bidding P 3,2The bidding team prepared the bid documents according to the bidding requirements and submitted them on time.

[0076] Horse racing judges P 3,3 A cross-departmental review panel was formed, a multi-criteria evaluation model was constructed, and a weighted scoring method was used to review the horse racing package proposal and the bidding proposal, and the optimal proposal was selected.

[0077] The workstation adaptation phase of the process includes adjusting the plan to adapt to the production schedule. P 4,1 The second version (V2.0) of the assembly technology solution has been released. P 4,2 Assembly Unit Quality Control Scheme Version 2 (V2.0) Released P 4,3 The second version (V2.0) of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 4,4 Process data organization P 4,5 MBOM Consumption Allocation P 4,6 Release of process hole-making model P 4,7 Tooling order release P 4,8 Compilation and Publication of Quotas for Non-Consumable Riveting Parts P 4,9 Material quota compilation and publication P 4,10 Tool order release P 4,11 Process specifications release P 4,12 and AO compilation P 4,13 .

[0078] Among them, the adjustment of the production plan P 4,1 Based on the review issues and optimization items, and in conjunction with changes to the production plan, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) was used to identify bottleneck processes, improve and adjust solutions, and optimize resource allocation.

[0079] Assembly technology solution, version 2 (V2.0), released. P 4,2 Based on the adjustment results of the plan, update the structural analysis, technical documents, CI involved, opening situation, assembly process, risk identification and control, tooling / equipment / tool ​​requirements, new technology application and AO list, and release the assembly technology plan V2.0.

[0080] Assembly Unit Quality Control Solution Version 2 (V2.0) Released P4,3 Based on the adjustments to the plan and changes in quality risks, update the risk item descriptions, occurrence levels, impact classifications, and control measures, and release the Assembly Unit Quality Control Plan V2.0.

[0081] The second version (V2.0) of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 4,4 Based on production plan adjustments and actual personnel conditions, update the theoretical cycle, minimum personnel requirements, project plan cycle, and actual personnel requirements, and release Assembly Unit Manpower Requirements and Cycle Calculation Scheme V2.0. Process data processing P 4,5 In accordance with data management standards, process-related data are collected, organized, and verified to ensure data integrity and accuracy, providing reliable data support for subsequent production and change management. MBOM Consumption Allocation P 4,6 Based on the product structure and production plan, implement MBOM (Manufacturing Bill of Materials) consumption allocation to clarify the material requirements and consumption quotas for each workstation.

[0082] Process Hole Making Model Released P 4,7 Based on the part's hole-making plan and assembly process requirements, publish the process hole-making model.

[0083] Tooling order release P 4,8 Based on tooling ordering needs and production schedule, issue tooling order forms, specifying tooling names, quantities, and technical requirements.

[0084] Non-consumable standard riveting parts quota compilation and publication P 4,9 Statistics on the usage of non-consumable standard riveting parts, compilation of quota standards, and publication of quotas for non-consumable standard riveting parts. Material Quota Compilation and Publication P 4,10 Based on product design and process requirements, compile and publish material consumption quotas.

[0085] Tool order release P 4,11 Based on tool ordering needs and production arrangements, issue tool order forms, specifying the tool names, quantities, and specifications. Process specifications published P 4,12 After the process specifications are completed and reviewed, they are officially released as operational guidance documents for on-site production. AO compilation P 4,13In accordance with the assembly process requirements, prepare assembly operation instructions (AO) that describe in detail the operation steps, technical requirements, tools to be used and safety precautions for each process to ensure the standardization and normalization of assembly operations.

[0086] The specific content included in the above process constitutes the elements.

[0087] Example 2 Based on Example 1, the specific method for constructing the structure matrix and defining the direct dependencies between processes in step S3 is as follows: construct a 45×45 dependency matrix. A Define direct dependencies between processes, if P i,j yes P i,k The pre-process, then A (i,j)(i,k) =1, otherwise 0. The matrix elements are defined as: .

[0088] In the assembly process design of fuselage components, the dependencies between processes include not only direct sequential dependencies, such as from part machining to component assembly, but also indirect dependencies, such as from part machining to tooling debugging and then to component assembly. The Design Structure Matrix (DSM) can only represent direct dependencies (e.g., A→B), but cannot reflect indirect dependencies passed through intermediate processes (e.g., A→C, if B→C and A→B). Therefore, reachability matrix analysis is used here. By calculating the transitive closure of dependencies, all direct and indirect dependencies are made explicit, extending process relationships from direct dependencies to full path dependencies. This ensures the integrity and systematic nature of the process logic and establishes traceability relationships between process flows.

[0089] The specific steps for establishing traceability relationships between process design flows by using reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies and make all direct and indirect dependencies explicit are as follows: Step a1: First, initialize the augmented matrix by logically ORing the identity matrix and the direct dependency matrix to obtain the augmented matrix, and merge the self-reachability and direct dependencies into the initial reachability relation; Step a2: Based on the initial reachability relationship described above, the indirect dependencies are added to the matrix through iteration. After the iteration is completed, the transitive closure matrix is ​​obtained. Step a3: Remove self-loops from the transitive closure matrix to obtain the final reachability matrix, thereby establishing the traceability relationship between the process design procedures.

[0090] The specific relation in step a1 is as follows: ; ; In the formula, M 0 represents an augmented matrix. I It is an identity matrix (the diagonal elements of the matrix are 1, indicating that each process is reachable by itself). A for n The order directly depends on the matrix. A (i,j)(k,l) =1 indicates the process. P i,j yes P i,k The direct pre-process.

[0091] Then, the transitive closure is calculated iteratively. Based on the initial reachability relationship mentioned above, the indirect dependencies are added to the matrix iteratively. The specific operation rules are as follows: Let... M k For the first k The reachability matrix after the nth iteration is then represented by the following relationship in step a2: ; In the formula, ∧ represents logical AND: if M (i,j)(k,m) =1 and M (k,m)(k,l) =1, then a path exists. P i,j → P k,m → P k,l , recorded as M (i,j)(k,l) =1; ∨ is a logical OR: preserves the original reachability relationship (avoids overwriting existing paths); M k For the first k The reachability matrix after the next iteration is the transitive closure matrix; M k-1 For the first k-1 The reachable matrix after the nth iteration; when M k = M k The iteration ends when the matrix stops changing. M k This is the transitive closure matrix.

[0092] The specific relationship of the final reachable matrix in step a3 is as follows: ; like Re (i,j)(k,l) =1, then P i,j and P i,kThere are direct or indirect dependencies; in the formula, n means the total number of processes, (i, j) means process j in stage i, and (k, l) represents process l in stage k.

[0093] Example 3 Based on Example 2, the specific steps of constructing the process design integrity assessment method in step S4 are as follows: Step b1: First, determine the existence of features: Define an indicator function that takes the value 1 if the feature exists, and 0 otherwise; Step b2: Define process completeness, which represents the ratio of defined elements to total elements in process j of stage i; Step b3: Define stage completeness, which is the arithmetic mean of the completeness of all processes within stage i; Step b4: Define overall integrity and calculate the arithmetic mean of the four settlement integritys.

[0094] The specific relationship for step b1 is as follows: ; In the formula, For indicator functions; The specific relationship for step b2 is as follows: ; In the formula, For process completeness, x i,j For process P i,j The total number of elements; The specific relationship in step b3 is as follows: ; In the formula, For the completeness of the stage, n i Let be the number of processes in any one of these stages; The specific relation for step b4 is as follows: ; In the formula, C For overall integrity.

[0095] Example 4 Based on Example 3, a process design reliability assessment method is constructed, and a reliability index is defined. RThis approach quantifies the reliability of completed process design, addressing the challenge of objectively measuring qualitative indicators in traditional assessments. Through fuzzy hierarchical analysis, it transforms subjective expert judgments into calculable quantitative values, while integrating objective data from these quantitative indicators to achieve a multi-level, multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation of the process design. A logical path is constructed sequentially, encompassing assessment of underlying elements, process reliability, stage reliability, and overall reliability. Weighted aggregation is used to progressively refine the evaluation results from micro to macro levels, ensuring comprehensiveness and scientific rigor. Step S4 establishes a reliability assessment method for process design, the specific steps of which are as follows: Step c1: First, define the element satisfaction level. f i,j,k Quantitative measurement elements E i,j,k The quality of completion: For quantitative indicators, the calculation is performed directly by the ratio of the actual value to the standard value; for qualitative indicators, the clear value is obtained by combining expert scoring with triangular fuzzy quantitative fuzzy evaluation and then defuzzifying using the centroid method. For qualitative indicators, in order to unify the dimensions with quantitative indicators and enable horizontal comparison of different types of indicators, it is necessary to combine expert scoring with triangular fuzzy quantitative fuzzy evaluation, and then use the centroid method to defuzzify and obtain clear values.

[0096] The specific relation for step c1 is as follows: , f i,j,k ∈ [0,1].

[0097] For example, for the element "process rationality," three evaluation indicators are set, and the score is taken as a triangular fuzzy number (0.3, 0.5, 0.7). The clear value is obtained by using the centroid method to defuzzify the calculation. f = (0.3 + 0.5 + 0.7) / 3 = 0.5 (calculated with the three indicators having equal weights).

[0098] Step c2: Define feature weights w i,j,k The relative importance of each element in the process evaluation is determined by ranking the importance of the elements based on the fuzzy hierarchical analysis method, and the element weights are set. w i,j,k This addresses the issue of subjectivity in the allocation of weights for multiple indicators. First, experts conducted pairwise comparisons of element importance based on the triangular fuzzy scale shown in Table 1, forming a phase... i process j Fuzzy judgment matrix ,in The triangular fuzzy number represents the element. E i,j,k Relative to elements Ei,j,l Importance fuzzy numbers, have , Characteristic elements E i,j,l Relative to elements E i,j,k The importance of fuzzy numbers.

[0099] Table 1. Triangular Fuzzy Scale Table

[0100] Fuzzy judgment matrix The column elements represent the relative importance of all elements to a certain element, but the numerical range of different columns may vary greatly. Therefore, column normalization is performed on the fuzzy judgment matrix to compress the fuzzy number of each column to the [0,1] interval, eliminate the dimensional differences between the matrix columns, and make the importance of each element comparable horizontally.

[0101] Column normalized vector r k Calculate using the following formula:

[0102] Each row of the normalized matrix corresponds to the relative importance of a feature in each column. By averaging the importance of multiple rows, a fuzzy number is integrated to reflect the fuzzy weight of that feature in the whole. w k :

[0103] Then, the centroid method is used to compress the fuzzy number into a single value by calculating the "geometric center" of the fuzzy number, while retaining the core information of the fuzzy number and defuzzifying the weights.

[0104] For triangular fuzzy numbers w k = ( a, b, c First, its membership function needs to be calculated. :

[0105] In the formula, a is the triangular fuzzy number. w k The minimum value in, b is the triangular fuzzy number. w k The median of the value, where c is the triangular fuzzy number. w k The maximum value in the equation, x, represents the specific and clear score given by experts to the factor evaluation, and is the input variable of the membership function.

[0106] The formula for calculating the sharpness value based on the centroid method is as follows:

[0107] The process and stage weights are also obtained using an importance ranking method based on fuzzy hierarchical analysis. P ij weight w i,j ,stage S i weight w i ;when S i i = 1 is the product definition stage, when S i i = 2 is the stage of scheme design, when S i i = The bidding and tendering stage begins at 3 PM. S i i = 4 o'clock is the workstation adaptation stage.

[0108] Step c3: Define process reliability R i,j Based on element satisfaction f i,j,k and factor weights w i,j,k Calculation stage i process j The weighted average of the satisfaction levels of all elements is used to evaluate the stage. i process j Process reliability R i,j ; The specific expression for step c3 is as follows:

[0109] in f i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The degree of element satisfaction, w i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The weight.

[0110] Step c4: Define the reliability phase R i Introduce process weights w i,j , will be the stage i The reliability of all internal processes is weighted and averaged. The specific expression for step c4 is as follows: ; In the formula, n i The number of processes within any one of these stages. w i,j For process P ij The weight.

[0111] Step c5: Define overall reliability Introducing stage weights w i The reliability of the four stages is weighted and averaged.

[0112] For quantitative indicators, the ratio of the actual value to the standard value is directly calculated, with a maximum value of 1. For example, if the standard assembly gap is 0.2mm and the actual gap is 0.18mm... f =0.9.

[0113] The specific expression for step c5 is as follows:

[0114] In the formula, w i The weight is any one of the stages.

[0115] Example 5 Based on Example 4, this example provides a specific application: in the assembly of a certain type of fuselage component, in stage 1 process 14 ( P 1,14 )reliability R 1,14 =0.82, the element was located through the element traceability system. E 1,14,3 Assembly clearance compensation design not considered; supplementary elements E 1,14,3 The definition was revised, gap compensation design parameters were added, and the process specifications and AO documents were adjusted. After updating the dependency matrix and evaluation metrics, R 1,14 The reliability improved from 0.82 to 0.96, the optimized solution was stored in the process knowledge base, the reuse rate of subsequent projects reached 75%, and the assembly defect rate was reduced by 40%.

[0116] The above description is a detailed description of the preferred embodiments of this application. However, the embodiments are not intended to limit the scope of the patent application of this application. All equivalent changes or modifications made under the technical spirit of this application should fall within the patent scope covered by this application.

Claims

1. A method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly, characterized in that, Specifically, the methods and steps are as follows: Step S1: Use set theory to define the three-tiered structure of process design stages, processes, and elements; Step S2: Based on the V-model, the process design is divided into four stages, and then the process design flow is constructed in stages; the four stages are product definition, scheme design, bidding and tendering, and workstation adaptation. Step S3: By constructing a structure matrix, define the direct dependencies between processes, and use reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies, making all direct and indirect dependencies explicit, thereby establishing traceability relationships between processes in the process design; Step S4: Construct a completeness assessment method for process design to assess whether the stages, processes, and elements of the process design are complete. Then, by using fuzzy hierarchical analysis, construct a reliability assessment method for process design to assess the overall reliability of the process design.

2. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S1, the stage set divides the forward process design of fuselage component assembly into... i Stages: ； In the formula, S i Indicates the first i stage.

3. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 2, characterized in that: The first step in step S1 of the process set i Phase includes n i This process is denoted as... P i,j , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The process is expressed as follows: ， 。 4. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 3, characterized in that: The process of the element set in step S1 P i,j Include x i,j Each element is denoted as [element name missing]. E i,j,k , indicating the first i Phase 1 j The first process k The elements are expressed as follows: , 。 5. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 4, characterized in that: The specific method for constructing the structure matrix and defining the direct dependencies between processes in step S3 is as follows: construct a 45×45 dependency matrix. A Define direct dependencies between processes, if P i,j yes P i,k The pre-process, then A (i,j)(i,k) =1, otherwise 0, then the matrix elements are defined as: 。 6. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific steps for using the reachability matrix analysis to calculate the transitive closure of dependencies and make all direct and indirect dependencies explicit, thereby establishing the traceability relationships between processes in the process design, are as follows: Step a1: First, initialize the augmented matrix by logically ORing the identity matrix and the direct dependency matrix to obtain the augmented matrix, and merge the self-reachability and direct dependencies into the initial reachability relation; Step a2: Based on the initial reachability relationship described above, the indirect dependencies are added to the matrix through iteration. After the iteration is completed, the transitive closure matrix is ​​obtained. Step a3: Remove self-loops from the transitive closure matrix to obtain the final reachability matrix, thereby establishing the traceability relationship between the process design procedures.

7. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 6, characterized in that: The specific relation in step a1 is as follows: ； ； In the formula, M 0 represents an augmented matrix. I It is the identity matrix. A for n The order directly depends on the matrix. A (i,j)(k,l) =1 indicates the process. P i,j yes P i,k The direct pre-process.

8. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 7, characterized in that: The specific relational expression for step a2 is as follows: ； In the formula, ∧ represents logical AND, and ∨ represents logical OR; M k For the first k The reachability matrix after the next iteration is the transitive closure matrix; M k-1 For the first k-1 The reachability matrix after the next iteration.

9. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 8, characterized in that: The specific relation of the final reachable matrix in step a3 is as follows: ； like Re (i,j)(k,l) =1, then P i,j and P i,k There is a direct or indirect dependency relationship; In the formula, n represents the total number of processes, (i, j) represents process j in stage i, and (k, l) represents process l in stage k.

10. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific steps of constructing the integrity assessment method for process design in step S4 are as follows: Step b1: First, determine the existence of features: Define an indicator function that takes the value 1 if the feature exists, and 0 otherwise; Step b2: Define process completeness, which represents the ratio of defined elements to total elements in process j of stage i; Step b3: Define stage completeness, which is the arithmetic mean of the completeness of all processes within stage i; Step b4: Define overall integrity and calculate the arithmetic mean of the four settlement integritys.

11. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 10, characterized in that: The specific relationship in step b1 is as follows: ； In the formula, For indicator functions; The specific relationship in step b2 is as follows: ； In the formula, For process completeness, x i,j For process P i,j The total number of elements; The specific relationship in step b3 is as follows: ； In the formula, For the completeness of the stage, n i Let be the number of processes in any one of these stages; The specific relationship in step b4 is as follows: ； In the formula, C For overall integrity.

12. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 5, characterized in that: The specific steps of constructing the reliability assessment method for process design in step S4 are as follows: Step c1: First, define the element satisfaction level. f i,j,k Quantitative measurement elements E i,j,k The quality of completion: For quantitative indicators, the calculation is performed directly by the ratio of the actual value to the standard value; for qualitative indicators, the clear value is obtained by combining expert scoring with triangular fuzzy quantitative fuzzy evaluation and then defuzzifying using the centroid method. Step c2: Define feature weights w i,j,k The relative importance of each element in the process evaluation is determined by ranking the importance of each element based on the fuzzy hierarchical analysis method. Step c3: Define process reliability R i,j Based on element satisfaction f i,j,k and factor weights w i,j,k Calculation stage i process j The weighted average of the satisfaction levels of all elements is used to evaluate the stage. i process j Process reliability R i,j ; Step c4: Define the reliability phase R i Introduce process weights w i,j , will be the stage i The reliability of all internal processes is weighted and averaged. Step c5: Define overall reliability Introducing stage weights w i The reliability of the four stages is weighted and averaged.

13. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 12, characterized in that: The specific relationship in step c1 is as follows: ， f i,j,k ∈ [0,1]。 14. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 13, characterized in that: The specific expression for step c3 is as follows: in f i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The degree of element satisfaction, w i,j,k as elements E i,j,k The weight.

15. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 14, characterized in that: The specific expression for step c4 is as follows: ； In the formula, n i The number of processes within any one of these stages. w i,j For process P ij The weight.

16. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 15, characterized in that: The specific expression for step c5 is as follows: In the formula, w i The weight is any one of the stages.

17. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 5, characterized in that: The product definition phase takes design specifications, customer requirements, and industry standards as inputs, and outputs a functional requirements matrix and a risk list. The solution design phase takes process specifications, a functional requirements matrix, and a risk list as inputs, and outputs assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle time calculation solutions, and risk control solutions. The bidding phase takes bidding rules, assembly technology solutions, assembly unit quality control solutions, assembly unit manpower requirements and cycle time calculation solutions, and risk control solutions as inputs, and outputs the winning bid solution and team configuration. The workstation adaptation phase takes production plans, the winning bid solution, and team configuration as inputs, and outputs process procedures and AO documents.

18. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 17, characterized in that: The product definition phase process includes product design requirements analysis. P 1,1 Project Target Analysis P 1,2 Process testing and assembly risk analysis P 1,3 Structural Analysis P 1,4 Separation surface division P 1,5 Principles for setting up openings P 1,6 Joint design P 1,7 Process review P 1,8 Technical document review P 1,9 Digital Model Release P 1,10 Overall assembly process construction P 1,11 Horse racing packaging unit construction P 1,12 Minimum assembly unit construction P 1,13 Part opening scheme design P 1,14 Special process identification P 1,15 Key process identification P 1,16 Identification of the Four New Technologies P 1,17 1. Formulation of control measures for the four new industries P 1,18 Unit assembly process simulation P 1,19 Detailed assembly process of the horse racing bag P 1,20 Tooling ordering requirements formulation P 1,21 and tool ordering requirements formulation P 1,22 .

19. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 18, characterized in that: The process of the scheme design phase includes assembly outline planning. P 2,1 Quality risk analysis and control measures formulation P 2,2 Human resource demand analysis and assembly cycle calculation P 2,3 The first version of the assembly technology solution was released. P 2,4 The first version of the assembly unit quality control plan has been released. P 2,5 The first version of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 2,6 and process specification design P 2,7 .

20. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 19, characterized in that: The bidding process includes horse racing tenders. P 3,1 Team bidding P 3,2 and horse racing judges P 3,3 .

21. The method for forward process design and dual-dimensional quantitative evaluation of aircraft component assembly according to claim 20, characterized in that: The process for the workstation adaptation phase includes adjusting the production plan accordingly. P 4,1 The second version of the assembly technology solution has been released. P 4,2 The second version of the assembly unit quality control scheme has been released. P 4,3 The second version of the assembly unit manpower demand and cycle calculation scheme has been released. P 4,4 Process data organization P 4,5 MBOM Consumption Allocation P 4,6 Release of process hole-making model P 4,7 Tooling order release P 4,8 Compilation and Publication of Quotas for Non-Consumable Riveting Parts P 4,9 Material quota compilation and publication P 4,10 Tool order release P 4,11 Process specifications release P 4,12 and AO compilation P 4,13 .

Images