Selective Alarm Control for Packaging Machine Actuator Interference
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing automatic packaging machines for consumer articles, such as cigarettes, face inefficiencies in managing alarms, leading to unnecessary general stops, waste of raw materials, and prolonged recovery times due to undefined actuator positions and discarded semi-finished articles.
Innovation Solution
A procedure for selective alarm management in automatic machines, utilizing an interference matrix to identify actuators at risk of interference, allowing for targeted warnings and modified movements to prevent collisions and minimize downtime.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If a general stop is carried out to avoid mechanical interference when an actuator enters alarm state, then safety is improved, but productivity deteriorates due to prolonged shutdown and recovery time
Solution Approach 1:
The alarm management system is segmented into multiple levels: individual actuator alarms, group alarms for actuators at risk of interference, and general alarms for critical situations. This segmentation allows selective stopping of only affected actuators rather than shutting down the entire machine, thereby maintaining productivity while ensuring safety through targeted intervention.
Solution Approach 2:
Different alarm management strategies are applied to different actuators based on their specific interference risks. The system identifies and applies modified movements locally to actuators at risk of interference, while allowing other actuators to continue normal operation. This localized approach minimizes productivity impact while maintaining safety where needed.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If a general stop is carried out to prevent actuator collision, then mechanical damage is prevented, but loss of time increases due to restoration procedures
Solution Approach 1:
The system pre-calculates and stores modified movements for actuators at risk of interference before alarms occur. When an alarm is detected, the system immediately applies the pre-prepared modified movement, eliminating the need for time-consuming restoration procedures. This preliminary preparation significantly reduces recovery time while still preventing mechanical damage.
3Reliability
If a general stop is implemented upon alarm, then actuator safety is ensured, but loss of substance increases due to discarding semi-finished articles
Solution Approach 1:
The system applies alarm management locally to specific actuators rather than globally to all actuators. When an alarm occurs, only actuators at risk of interference are stopped or have modified movements applied, while other actuators continue processing articles normally. This selective approach allows semi-finished articles to complete their processing cycles without being discarded, significantly reducing raw material waste while maintaining actuator safety.
4Object-affected harmful factors
If general stop is used to manage alarms, then interference prevention is achieved, but device complexity increases due to restoration procedures
Solution Approach 1:
The system pre-calculates and stores modified movements for all possible alarm scenarios before they occur. When an alarm is detected, the system simply retrieves and applies the pre-prepared modified movement, eliminating the need for complex real-time calculations and restoration procedures. This approach simplifies the alarm response process while effectively preventing interference.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
A procedure for the selective management of the alarms of at least one part (2) of an automatic machine (1) for manufacturing or packing consumer articles comprising a plurality of actuators (4, 5), each of which moves during the manufacturing, with a nominal movement (NM) of its own. The procedure comprises the steps of determining, only once, an interference matrix (11), which indicates, for each position of an actuator (4, 5), the presence or absence of interference relative to the possible positions of the other actuators (5, 4); and checking, upon occurrence of an alarm of said actuator (AM) and by the interference matrix (11), for the presence or absence of actuators (RM) at risk, which, during their own nominal movement (NM), risk interfering with the actuator (AM) subjected to the alarm.