Production Process Control Evaluation Using Quality Parameter Simulation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing manufacturing processes face challenges in determining whether to implement closed-loop control effectively, as incorrectly set loop controllers can lead to system deviations and fluctuations, potentially damaging components and failing to improve the manufacturing process.

Innovation Solution

A method is proposed where individual processes without closed-loop control are analyzed by capturing measured variables, determining quality parameters, and comparing them to simulated values from a closed-loop control scenario, allowing for a cost-benefit analysis to decide on implementing closed-loop control, which can be done in real-time without additional costs or complex modeling.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If closed-loop control is implemented in individual processes, then manufacturing precision and quality parameters are improved, but device complexity and system stability may worsen due to incorrectly set loop controllers causing system deviations and fluctuations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality parameterVSAvoidcontrol loop complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary simulation of closed-loop control effects before actual implementation. A simulation model replicates the individual process dynamics and tests various controller settings virtually, allowing optimization of control parameters without risking actual process stability. This preliminary virtual testing resolves the contradiction by enabling precise controller configuration before deployment, improving manufacturing precision while avoiding the complexity risks of trial-and-error commissioning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The invention creates a virtual copy (simulation model) of the individual process to test closed-loop control settings. The simulation model replicates process dynamics, sensor responses, and actuator behaviors, allowing safe experimentation with controller parameters. This copying approach resolves the technical contradiction by enabling thorough control system design and validation in the virtual domain before implementing in the physical system, thus improving precision while minimizing complexity risks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

2Manufacturing precision

If closed-loop control is implemented to improve quality parameters, then manufacturing precision is improved, but loss of time occurs due to adjustment time required for the control loop to reach settled state

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality parameterVSAvoidadjustment time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The simulation model is configured with the same dynamic characteristics as the actual process, including adjustment time and settling behavior. By testing controller settings in the simulation environment beforehand, the system identifies optimal parameters that minimize adjustment time while achieving target quality parameters. This preliminary optimization resolves the contradiction by pre-determining fast-response controller settings, reducing the actual adjustment time when closed-loop control is implemented in production.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The simulation allows dynamic testing of various controller configurations and their transient responses. Different control strategies (PID, fuzzy logic, model predictive control) and parameter settings can be evaluated to find the optimal balance between response speed and stability. This dynamic optimization in the virtual environment resolves the contradiction by identifying controller settings that achieve quick settling while maintaining manufacturing precision, minimizing adjustment time penalties.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

3Manufacturing precision

If closed-loop control is implemented, then quality parameters are improved, but harmful factors increase due to undamped fluctuations that may destroy components of the control loop

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality parameterVSAvoidsystem fluctuations
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The simulation model serves as a cushioning environment where potentially harmful controller settings can be tested without affecting the actual process. unstable control configurations that would cause undamped fluctuations and component damage in the real system can be identified and corrected in the virtual model first. This beforehand cushioning resolves the contradiction by filtering out harmful control settings before they reach the physical system, enabling implementation of robust controllers that improve precision without causing damaging fluctuations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #11Beforehand cushioning (Prior cushioning)

Solution Approach 2:

The invention converts the potential harm of testing inappropriate controller settings into a benefit by performing these tests in the simulation environment. The simulation absorbs the harmful effects of trial-and-error commissioning, allowing aggressive testing of control parameters that would be dangerous in the actual process. This converts the harmful factor of controller misconfiguration into a beneficial virtual testing process, enabling optimization of control settings that improve manufacturing precision while guaranteeing system safety.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #22Blessing in disguise (Convert harm into benefit)

Data Source

PatentUS20240219891A1Method, apparatus and system for adapting a production process
Publication Date: 2024.07.04 SIEMENS AG
  • US20240219891A1 patent drawing
  • US20240219891A1 patent drawing
  • US20240219891A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for modifying a production process for a product wherein the production process can be qualified by means of at least one quality parameter for the product and includes a plurality of individual processes, in at least some of which no control is used. The method includes the following steps: a) capturing at least one measurement quantity of at least one individual process without control; b) determining a quality parameter corresponding to the at least one measurement quantity; c) comparing the determined quality parameter with a desired value, which results from the measurement-quantity-associated individual process with control; d) evaluating, on the basis of the comparison, whether the use of control for the at least one individual process leads to an improvement in the quality parameter.