Production Chain Reconfiguration for Changing Machine Conditions

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Cyber-Physical Production Systems (CPPS) lack the ability to automatically adapt production step assignments to machines when production conditions change, leading to suboptimal performance in terms of lead time and energy consumption due to decentralized decision-making and lack of complete system oversight.

Innovation Solution

A method using Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) techniques, specifically Answer Set Programming (ASP) or Constraint Programming (CP), to dynamically reconfigure production processes by detecting changes and recalculating optimal production chains for production machines, enabling central configuration and efficient reconfiguration.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If decentralized autonomous negotiation is used for machine assignment, then system flexibility and autonomy are improved, but complete system oversight and optimization capability deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem flexibilityVSAvoidsystem overview

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a central configuration device as an intermediary between decentralized production machines. This mediator collects capability information from all machines, receives change requests during production, and calculates optimal reconfiguration using KRR methods. The intermediary maintains both decentralized autonomy and centralized optimization by coordinating machine assignments without requiring constant direct negotiation between machines.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Loss of information

If traditional centralized production planning is used, then complete system oversight is maintained, but adaptability to changing production conditions deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem overviewVSAvoidadaptability to changes

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic reconfiguration capability where the production plan is not fixed but can be recalculated during production runs. When change requests are detected (e.g., machine failures, new orders), the system dynamically recalculates optimal assignments using KRR methods. This transforms the static centralized planning into a dynamic system that maintains oversight while adapting to changes in real-time.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system establishes a feedback loop where production machines report their state and capabilities to the central configuration device, which detects change requests and recalculates optimal assignments. This feedback mechanism enables the centralized system to respond to changing conditions by continuously monitoring machine states and adjusting production plans accordingly.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Device complexity

If manual reconfiguration is performed when production conditions change, then system complexity is reduced, but productivity and response time deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvesystem complexityVSAvoidproduction efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements automated self-service reconfiguration where the central configuration device automatically detects change requests, calculates optimal new assignments using KRR methods, and implements reconfiguration without human intervention. This self-service capability maintains low operational complexity while dramatically improving productivity by instantly responding to production changes and recalculating optimal plans.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Productivity

If KRR-based automated reconfiguration is implemented, then productivity and adaptability are improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveproduction efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces manual mechanical reconfiguration processes with automated computational systems using Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) methods. Instead of manual planning and assignment, the system uses formal knowledge representation, constraint programming, and automated solvers to calculate optimal production chains. This substitution increases initial system complexity but eliminates ongoing operational complexity while dramatically improving productivity and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentEP3961326B1Method and system for optimal manufacture of a product

Publication Date: 2023.12.27 SIEMENS AG OESTERR

Figure 1

AI summary

Method for the optimal manufacture of a product, wherein the manufacture of the product can be described by a first and a second process chain, each comprising a sequence of production steps (PC) and associated machines from a set of production machines (F), and the manufacture of the product is carried out according to the first process chain, and during the manufacture of the product according to the first process chain, a change request (CA) is detected by a configuration device, and the configuration device, using the KRR method as a solver and an encoding corresponding to the product and the change request (CA), determines the second process chain for the manufacture of the product, and accordingly the product is manufactured by the set of production machines (F).