Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US7031893?dq=6,977,809
Timestamp: 2017-03-23 13:30:39
Document Index: 653921142

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 60', 'art 170', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3']

Patent US7031893 - Apparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending ... - Google PatentsSearch Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »Sign inPatentsA setup planning technique is provided in which a family of parts to be manufactured is identified, and the setup constraints imposed by the various bending operations in the part family are determined. The setup constraints may define or describe spatial constraints on the sizes and locations of various...http://www.google.com/patents/US7031893?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US7031893 - Apparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operationsAdvanced Patent SearchTry the new Google Patents, with machine-classified Google Scholar results, and Japanese and South Korean patents.Publication numberUS7031893 B2Publication typeGrantApplication numberUS 09/818,505Publication dateApr 18, 2006Filing dateMar 28, 2001Priority dateSep 11, 1997Fee statusPaidAlso published asDE69838336D1, DE69838336T2, EP1015946A1, EP1015946B1, US6233538, US20010016805, WO1999013387A1Publication number09818505, 818505, US 7031893 B2, US 7031893B2, US-B2-7031893, US7031893 B2, US7031893B2InventorsSatyandra Kumar Gupta, David Alan BourneOriginal AssigneeAmada Company, Ltd., Amada America, Inc.Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefManPatent Citations (34), Non-Patent Citations (23), Referenced by (20), Classifications (16), Legal Events (3) External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, EspacenetApparatus and method for multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operations
US 7031893 B2Abstract
A setup planning technique is provided in which a family of parts to be manufactured is identified, and the setup constraints imposed by the various bending operations in the part family are determined. The setup constraints may define or describe spatial constraints on the sizes and locations of various tooling stages in the setup. After identifying setup constraints, setup plans are generated that satisfy all setup constraints. Any setup plan that satisfies all setup constraints may then be utilized to accommodate every part in the part family. Constraint propagation techniques may be utilized to identify compatible setup constraints and create setup plans. According to the various features and aspects of the invention, dissimilar sheet metal parts can share setups, and the need for extra tooling and fixturing may be minimized. Further, the present invention provides potential savings over state-of-the-art systems, and increases production capability and overall through-put of manufacturing facilities.
1. A method for multi-part setup planning for operations to be performed by a bending workstation on a plurality of sheet metal parts in accordance with a composite setup plan, said method comprising:
identifying setup constraints for operations to be performed on each of said plurality of parts;
determining, in accordance with the setup constraints that are identified, operations to be performed on said parts that have compatible setup constraints; and
assigning operations that are determined to have compatible constraints to corresponding tooling stages of the bending workstation to develop a composite setup plan for said plurality of parts;
wherein each of the setup constraints comprises a set of setup constraint parameters, said setup constraint parameters defining setup constraints relating to the positioning of the parts in the workstation to perform said operations.
2. A method for multi-part setup planning according to claim 1, wherein said determining includes identifying a set of said operations that have compatible setup constraints by locating tooling stages that can accommodate each operation within said set of operations.
L−tolerance,
where “L” is a length of a bend line of the part, and “tolerance” is a predetermined tolerance amount.
4. A method for multi-part setup planning according to claim 1, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a maximum allowed tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
Gr+Gl+L−clearance,
where “Gr” is a gap length on a right side of a bend position of the part, “Gl” is a gap length on a left side of the bend position of the part, “L” is a length of a bend line at the bend position the part, and “clearance” is a predetermined clearance amount.
5. A method for multi-part setup planning according to claim 1, wherein said setup constraints are identified in accordance with the following:
(Gr+Gl+L−clearance)≧S≧(L−tolerance),
Gl−0.5(clearance)≧P, Gr−0.5(clearance)≧(S−P−L),
Sr≦(S−P−L+Dr), and
Sl≦(P+Dl),
where “Dl” is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, “Dr” is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right adjacent tooling stage, “L” is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, “S” is a length of the present tooling stage, and “P” is a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
6. A method for multi-part setup planning according to claim 1, wherein said identifying includes determining each of the setup constraints based on an intermediate shape of the part and a configuration of the tooling of the bending workstation for each operation.
a constraint identifier that identifies setup constraints for operations to be performed on each of said plurality of parts;
a judgement apparatus that determines, in accordance with the setup constraints that are identified by said identifier, operations to be performed on said parts that have compatible setup constraints; and
an operations assignor that assigns operations that are determined to have compatible constraints to corresponding tooling stages of the bending workstation to thereby develop a composite setup plan for said plurality of parts;
wherein each of the setup constraints comprise a set of setup constraint parameters, said setup constraint parameters defining setup constraints relating to the positioning of the parts in the workstation to perform said operations.
9. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 8, wherein said judgement apparatus comprises an operations identifier that identifies a set of said operations that have compatible setup constraints by locating tooling stages that can accommodate each operation within said set of operations.
11. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 8, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a maximum allowed tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
12. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 8, wherein said setup constraints are identified by said constraint identifier in accordance with the following:
where “Dl” is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, “Dr” is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right tooling stage, “L” is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, “S” is a length of the present tooling stage, and “P” is a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
13. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 8, wherein said constraint identifier comprises a determination apparatus that determines each of the setup constraints based on an intermediate shape of the part and a configuration of the tooling of the bending workstation for each operation.
14. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 13, wherein said determination apparatus that determining each of the setup constraints comprises a distributor that provides a geometric model of the intermediate shape of the part and the configuration of the tooling, and a calculator that calculates part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters for each operation.
15. A multi-part setup planning system according to claim 8, further comprising a determination apparatus that determines a tooling stage arrangement for said bending workstation, said stage arrangement judgement apparatus comprising an identification apparatus that identifies required tooling stages of the composite setup plan and a generator that generates an arrangement of the required tooling stages in the bending workstation to minimize a transfer frequency of said parts between the tooling stages.
defining a family of parts;
identifying setup constraints imposed by operations to be performed on each part of said family of parts; and
generating a shared setup plan that satisfies all of the setup constraints that are identified for said family of parts;
wherein each of the setup constraints comprises a set of setup constraint parameters, said setup constraint parameters defining setup constraints relating to the positioning of each part in the workstation to perform said operations.
17. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said generating comprises:
assigning operations that are determined to have compatible constraints to corresponding tooling stages of the workstation to develop the shared setup plan for said family of parts.
18. A method for setup planning according to claim 17, wherein said determining includes identifying a set of said operations that have compatible setup constraints by locating tooling stages that can accommodate each operation within said set of operations.
19. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a minimum tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
20. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a maximum allowed tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
21. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part comprise: a gap length “Gr” on a right side of a bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the right side of the bend position; a gap length “Gl” on a left side of the bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the left side of the bend; an obstruction length “Or” on the right side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the right side of the bend position; an obstruction length “Ol” on the left side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which no tooling is allowed on the left side of the bend position; a safety distance “Sr” on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the right side of the bend position; and a safety distance “Sl” on the left side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the left side of the bend position.
22. A method for setup planning according to claim 21, wherein said setup constraints are identified in accordance with the following:
where “Dl” is a distance between a present tooling stage and a left adjacent tooling stage, “Dr” is a distance between the present tooling stage and a right adjacent tooling stage, “L” is the length of a bend line at the bend position of the part, “S” is a length of the present tooling stage, and “P” s a relative position of the bend line with respect to a left edge of the present tooling stage.
23. A method for setup planning according to claim 16, wherein said identifying includes determining each of the setup constraints based on an intermediate shape of the part and a configuration of the tooling of the workstation for each operation.
24. A method for setup planning according to claim 23, wherein said determining includes providing a geometric model of the intermediate shape of the part and the configuration of the tooling, and calculating part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters for each operation.
25. A setup planning system for generating a shared setup plan for operations to be performed by a workstation, said system comprising:
a definition apparatus that defines a family of parts;
an identification apparatus that identifies setup constraints imposed by operations to be performed on each part of said family of parts; and
a generator that generates a shared setup plan that satisfies all of the setup constraints that are identified for said family of parts;
26. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said generator comprises:
a judgement apparatus that determines, in accordance with the setup constraints that are identified, operations to be performed on said parts that have compatible setup constraints; and
a control apparatus that assigns operations that are determined to have compatible constraints to corresponding tooling stages of the workstation to develop the shared setup plan for said family of parts.
27. A setup planning system according to claim 26, wherein said judgement apparatus includes an identifier that identifies a set of said operations that have compatible setup constraints by locating tooling stages that can accommodate each operation within said set of operations.
28. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part comprise: a gap length “Gr” on a right side of a bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the right side of the bend position; a gap length “Gl” on a left side of the bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the left side of the bend; a obstruction length “Or” on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the right side of the end position; an obstruction length “Ol” on the left side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which not tooling is allowed on the left side of the bend position; a safety distance “Sr” on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the right side of the bend position; and a safety distance “Sl” on the left side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the left side of the bend position.
29. A setup planning system according to claim 28, wherein said setup constraints are identified by said identifier in accordance with the following:
30. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a minimum tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
31. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said setup constraint parameters for each part include tooling parameters, at least one of said tooling parameters being defined according to a maximum allowed tooling stage length for each operation that is given by:
32. A setup planning system according to claim 25, wherein said identification apparatus includes a judgement apparatus that determines each of the setup constraints based on an intermediate shape of the part and a configuration of the tooling of the workstation for each operation.
33. A setup planning system according to claim 32, wherein said judgement apparatus includes a distributor that provides a geometric model of the intermediate shape of the part and the configuration of the tooling, and a calculator that calculates part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters for each operation.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/927,291, filed Sep. 11, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,233,538 the contents of which are expressly incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.
In recent years, there have been developments and attempts to improve the conventional sheet metal manufacturing process and to improve efficiency of the overall process. For example, computer-based systems and robotic manipulators and controllers have been developed to provide a greater level of automation in the production process of sheet metal components. Further, research and development has taken place in the field of intelligent/expert systems for automatically generating and/or providing bending plan and other manufacturing information required to produce sheet metal components. For instance, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/386,369, entitled “Intelligent System For Generating And Executing A Sheet Metal Bending Plan”, filed on Feb. 9, 1995, in the names of David A. BOURNE et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,969,973, the contents of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses an intelligent, automated bending system which generates a bending plan and then executes the generated bending plan to produce a bend sheet metal component. The system disclosed therein includes one or more expert modules or subsystems for providing expert information, including tooling information, to a bend sequence planner, which determines and generates a final bending plan. A sequencer is also provided for executing the final generated plan, and for formulating and transmitting the appropriate commands to the various components within the bending workstation in order to produce the bend sheet metal components. In addition, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/338,115, entitled “Method For Planning/Controlling Robot Motion”, filed on Nov. 9, 1994, in the names of David A. BOURNE et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,835,684, the contents of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses an expert system for planning controlling the motion of a robot in order to facilitate the production of sheet metal components.
In view of the foregoing, the present invention, through one or more of its various aspects, embodiments and/or specific features or sub-components thereof, is provided to bring about one or more objects and advantages, such as those specifically noted below.
where “L” is a length of a bend line of the part, and “tolerance” is a predetermined tolerance amount. The minimum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the bend length, with a predetermined tolerance (e.g., 2 mm). Reducing the tooling stage length by more than the predetermined tolerance may result in poor bend quality.
where “Gr” is a gap length on a right side of a bend position of the part, “Gl” is a gap length on a left side of the bend position of the part, “L” is a length of a bend line at the bend position the part, and “clearance” is a predetermined clearance amount. The maximum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the overall gap around the bend, with a predetermined clearance (e.g., 2 mm). The actual setting of the clearance amount may depend upon the accuracy of the part placement with respect to the tools of the press brake.
By way of non-limiting example, the setup constraint parameters of each part may comprise the following: a gap length “Gr” on a right side of a bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the right side of the bend position; a gap length “Gl” on a left side of the bend position of the part, which denotes the distance by which a tooling stage can be extended towards the left side of the bend; an obstruction length “Or” on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a space in which no tooling is allowed on the right side of the bend position; an obstruction length “Ol” on the left side of the bend position; which denotes a space in which no tooling is allowed on the left side of the bend position; a safety distance “Sr” on the right side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the right side of the bend position; and a safety distance “Sl” on the left side of the bend position, which denotes a minimum distance between the bend position and a next tooling stage towards the left side of the bend position.
Gl−0.5(clearance)≧P,
Gr−0.5(clearance)≧(S−P−L),
Sr≦(S−P−L+Dr),and
In addition, the act of identifying compatible constraints may include determining setup constraints for each operation in the list O of operations. Each of the setup constraints may comprise a set of setup constraint parameters that define setup constraints relating to the positioning of a part in the workstation to perform the bending operations. Further, operations with compatible constraints may be identified by locating tooling stages that can accommodate each of the operations.
XL j,i ≦X j −X i ≦XR j,i
where “Xi” is a reference position of operation i, “Xj” is a reference position of operation j, “XLj,i” is a leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation i, and “XRj,i” is a rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation i. Further, the act of identifying operations with compatible constraints may comprise determining that a plurality of operations n are compatible when there exists a vector {X1, X2, . . . ,Xn} which satisfies the following for every pair of operations i,j (where i does not equal j) of the plurality of bending operations n:
X j −X i ≦XR j,l,
X i −X j ≦−XL j,i
where “X,” is a reference position of operation i, “Xj” is a reference position of operation j, “YLj,i” is a leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation i, and “XRj, l” is a rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation i.
According to an aspect of the invention, an apparatus and method are provided for single or multi-part setup planning to facilitate the production of parts, such as sheet metal parts, and to increase the overall through-put of a manufacturing or production facility. The various features and aspects of the present invention may be utilized in a wide variety of environments and settings. For example, the invention may be implemented in manufacturing facilities which include bending workstations that perform sheet metal bending operations to produce sheet metal parts. Such workstations may include press brake equipment that is controlled manually or include robotic or automated machinery to facilitate handling and bending of sheet metal workpieces by the press brake equipment. The present invention may also be implemented as part of an integrated or stand-alone expert planning system. Such a system may be provided at a bending workstation of the manufacturing facility, or may be integrated with a CAD or CAD/CAM system. The features of the invention may also be fully automated to provide expert planning information, including machine setup information for performing operations on each part, or may be implemented as part of an interactive system that permits manual input from an operator to generate expert planning information.
In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, an expert sheet metal planning and bending system (not shown in FIG. 1A) may be provided and implemented at a server module 32 of the facility 38. Such as expert system may include one or more expert modules or planners for generating and executing a bending plan for producing, for example, bent sheet metal components. These expert modules may include expert systems or subsystems for determining an optimum bend sequence and tooling requirements (including tool selection and tool stage layout) for the bending plan. In addition, for robot-based workstations, robot handling and motion experts or planners may be provided for determining the robot motion paths and holding steps for executing the bending plan. A repositioning expert may also be provided for determining the sequences and operations associated with controlling a repositioning gripper and repositioning operations of the robot. Such an expert system may incorporate, for example, the various features and aspects described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,969,973 and 5,835,684. A more detailed discussion of an exemplary expert planning system that may be provided according to the various aspects of the present invention is provided below.
In addition to the provisioning of an expert system in the server module 32, an intelligent manufacturing system (not shown in FIG. 1A) may also be integrated or provided with the expert sheet metal planning and bending system of the present invention. Such an intelligent manufacturing system may be implemented at server module 32 and may be adapted to manage and distribute design and manufacturing information throughout the facility or factory 38. Various features may be provided with the intelligent manufacturing system, including the ability to search and retrieve previous job information from a central database, such as database 30, so that previous job information (which may include design and manufacturing information of previously produced parts) may be used when generating a plan for developing a new part that has the same or similar features to that of a previously produced part. Further, the intelligent manufacturing system may also provide various graphical user interfaces in order to facilitate analysis of the bending plan by a machine or bending operator. By way of a non-limiting example, the various features disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/690,084, filed on Jul. 31, 1996, entitled “Apparatus And Method For Managing And Distributing Design And Manufacturing Information Throughout A Sheet Metal Production Facility,” in the names of K. HAZAIVIA et al., and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/016,958, filed on May 6, 1996, entitled “Apparatus And Method For Managing And Distributing Design And Manufacturing Information Throughout A Sheet Metal Production Facility,” in the names of K. HAZAMA et al., both corresponding to U.S. Pat. No. 5,864,482, the contents of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference in their entireties, may be used and implemented in the intelligent manufacturing system.
The various features and applications of server module 32, including, for example, the features of an expert sheet metal planning and bending system and the features of an intelligent manufacturing system, may be accessed from any station 10, 12, 14 . . . 20 within the facility 38. By sending query requests or messages and information to server module 32, stations 10, 12, 14 . . . 20 may access the various expert modules to receive bending plan information, including, for example, bend sequence and tooling information for producing a particular part.
As noted above, server module 32 may include various software-based applications for implementing an expert planning system (see, e.g., expert planning system 70 in FIG. 1B) and other systems, such as an intelligent manufacturing system (intelligent manufacturing system 60 in FIG. 1B). An interface module or application (not shown) may be provided at server module 32 for facilitating the transfer of messages and information between the various applications, and between the station modules and the server module. The interface application may be a separate module/application, or may be integrated (e.g., as one or more submodules) within the applications of the server module 32. In this regard, it is noted that the various features and aspects disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/706,830, filed on Sep. 3, 1996, entitled “Apparatus And Method For Integrating Intelligent Manufacturing System With Expert Sheet Metal Planning And Bending System,” in the names of K. HAZAMA et al., issued as U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,207, the content of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, may be implemented to facilitate such integration and utilization of each application of server module 32.
FIGS. 3A–3D illustrate in greater detail the various operations that may be performed when bending a sheet metal workpiece 170 with the punch and die tools 200, 220 of a press brake. As discussed above, when performing a sheet metal bending operation, a flat sheet metal workpiece is bent using a set of complimentary punch and die tools. These tools are mounted on a press brake, such as that shown in FIG. 2, which controls the relative motion between the punch and die, and provides the necessary bending pressure to bend the workpiece. FIGS. 3A–3D illustrate the basic steps of a sheet-metal bending operation. Typically, a flat workpiece 170 is to be bent along a bend line 190 (illustrated by the dashed line in FIG. 3A) to form the appropriate intermediate or final part. Initially, the flat sheet metal workpiece 170 is positioned on the die 220, as illustrated in FIG. 3A. Such positioning of the workpiece 170 may be performed manually by a bending operator or through the assistance of a robotic manipulator, such as that illustrated in FIG. 2. Further, back gauge mechanisms, such as mechanisms 240 in FIG. 2, may be provided to facilitate positioning of the workpiece 170 between the space formed between the die 220 and punch 200. Thereafter, the punch 200 may be positioned on the sheet metal part 170, as illustrated in FIG. 3B, by bringing the punch 200 and die 220 toward each other. Bending of the workpiece 170 may then be performed, as shown in FIG. 3C, by applying the appropriate bending pressure and further bringing the complementary surfaces of the punch 200 and the die 220 toward each other. After the bend along the bend line 190 has been performed, the workpiece 170 may be removed from the press brake by separating the punch 200 and the die 220 from one another, as illustrated in FIG. 3D.
FIGS. 4A–4C illustrate exemplary sheet metal parts (referred hereinafter to as Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, respectively), including their respective starting flat part and final bent part. In each of the examples of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, the bend lines bl–bn are indicated by dash lines in the starting flat part and, for purposes of illustration, the various dimensions of each of the parts is also represented. When performing a bending operation on any of the bend lines of the part, it is possible to perform such an operation in one of two different ways. That is, each bend line connects two faces, and any one of these two faces can be kept outside of the press brake, resulting in two different possibilities for orienting the part in the press brake. For example, a bend line may define two sides of a workpiece, as illustrated in FIG. 5A, which results in two different possibilities for orienting and performing the bending operation, as illustrated in FIGS. 5B and 5C, respectively. Many times the intermediate workpiece geometry is such that only one of these choices will work without interfering with the components of the press brake. Therefore, when specifying a bending operation, both the bend line and the part orientation should be specified.
When considering setup planning, many factors and constraints should be considered. For example, the bending or operation sequence, the tooling stages, the setup constraints, the existence of collinear bends, the press brake setups and the setup plans should be considered and determined. A bending or operation sequence generally relates to the order in which the bend lines of a part are to be bent. An ordered set of bending operations may be defined for each workpiece part. The bending sequence may be designated or determined by a bending operator, or may be generated automatically by, for example, an expert planning system. For example, for the exemplary Part 1 of FIG. 4A, the operation sequence for the part could be as follows: [(b7)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b1)(b6)]. That is, bend line b7 is bent in the first bending step, then bend lines b2, b3, then bend lines b4, b5, then bend line b1, and then finally bend line b6. As indicated by the operation sequence for Part 1 of FIG. 4A, a bending step can include more than one bend line. Further, whenever a bending step includes more than one bend line, all bend lines in that operation can be created simultaneously.
When performing operations planning, setup plans should be generated and defined. A setup plan describes the press-brake setup and the assignment of various bend lines to tooling stages in the setup. According to an aspect of the present invention, each assignment may be a triple designation in accordance with the following format: (B, T, P), where “B” is a bend line, “T” is a tooling stage, and “P” is the relative position of the bend line B with respect to the left edge of the tooling stage T. For purposes of illustration, Table 1 below represents a setup plan for the exemplary Part 1 of FIG. 4A and the press brake setup shown in FIG. 8.
According to an aspect of the present invention, an expert planning system is provided which is capable of performing all of the above-noted tasks in operations planning. The expert planning system may include a tooling planner that solves this problem at two different levels. At the first level, the tooling planner selects tools for various bending operations and finds the tooling-imposed ordering constraints on various bending operations. This may be performed by determining the most likely shape of the workpiece for various bending operations and selecting the minimal tool set (i.e., a tool set having the minimum number of tool types) that works for these intermediate workpiece shapes. At the second level, a state space search is performed. During this search, various operation sequences are analyzed and the tooling planner favors the one which requires the least amount of setup efforts. This may be performed by conducting setup planning for partial operation sequences. Partial operation sequences that result in better setups and appear most promising may be examined first, resulting in improved computation efficiency. Among all of the operation sequences examined during this state space search, the operation sequence resulting in the least setup effort may be favored and selected by the tooling planner.
Design or CAD system 74 and expert planning system 70 may be provided in a networked environment, such as that illustrated in FIGS. 1A and/or 1B, or may be located on a stand-alone workstation. For example, bend sequence planner 72, experts 80, 82 and 84, and CAD or design system 74 may be implemented within a UNIX compatible environment on a workstation computer, such as a SPARC 10 Sun OS V.4.1.3. Sequencer 76 may be implemented, for example, within an additional CPU coupled to the Sun workstation via a bus adaptor. The bus adaptor may comprise a Bit 3 VME-to-VME bus adaptor which extends between the Sun workstation and a remote VME bus passive back-plane. The passive back-plane may hold several interface mechanisms such as VME (Virtual Memory Extension) boards, which together form part of interface 77, as illustrated in FIG. 9A. Further, sequencer 76 may be implemented within a real time UNIX-compatible multi-processor operating system, such as CHIMERA, and may be run by an additional CPU which is provided in the computer workstations back-plane. Further, the various features and aspects of CAD system 74, bend sequence planner 72, experts 80, 82, 84 (and/or 85) and sequencer 76 may be implemented through any suitable combination of hardware, software and/or firmware. A high level programming language, such as C++, may be utilized to implement these various components and the control of the operations of the computer workstation. For more information on CHIMERA, see, for example, STEWART et al., Robotics Institute Technical Report, entitled “CHIMERA II: A Real-Time UNIX-Compatible Multiprocessor Operating System For Sensor Based Control Applications”, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), CMU-RI-TR-89-24 (1989), the disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Bend sequence planner 72 may operate in cooperation with tooling expert or planner 80, holding expert or planner 82, motion expert or planner 84 and any other experts (e.g., sensing expert 85) to produce a plan for complete part production by, for example, a bending workstation of the manufacturing facility. The production of the part may be based on the part designed with the use of the CAD or design system 74. The various features and aspects disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,969,973 may be utilized for implementing the various planners and expert modules of the expert planning system 70 illustrated in FIG. 9A. For example, bend sequence planner 72 may perform functions such as proposing a particular bend in a hypothetical bend sequence, and determining what initial steps must be performed by the system in order to execute such a bend having a position within the hypothetical bend sequence. In determining the consequences of the proposed bend, bend sequence planner 72 may query tooling expert or planner 80 as to what tooling would be needed to execute the proposed bend, query holding expert or planner 82 as to how the workpiece can be held while performing the proposed bend, and query the motion expert or planner 84 as to whether and to what extent the robot, which is holding the workpiece, can be manipulated to assist the making of the bend. If a sensing expert 85 is provided, bending sequence planner 72 might query sensing expert 85 as to whether a particular sensor-based control strategy is needed in order to facilitate the execution of the proposed bend by the workstation and the costs associated with a particular sensor-based control strategy. Bend sequence planner 72 may be configured to continually propose bends from a first bend consecutively to a last bend in a complete bend sequence, thus resulting in a complete set of bends to perform the final workpiece. Once the successful final bend sequence has been generated in this manner, bend sequence planner 72 may be configured to generate a final plan (which includes a general list of steps and accompanying information needed to control execution of the various hardware elements of the bending workstation), and forward the plan to sequencer 76.
Motion expert 84 may be provided for generating a motion plan, i.e., the manner in which the robot should be maneuvered, in order to move the workpiece through various spaces and along various routes as needed to execute the bends. As noted above, bend sequence planner 72 and the respective experts may be modular to communicate with each other in a query-based manner. All message passing among planners may be accomplished by Feature Exchange Language (FEL), which is a query-based language that was developed by David Boume at the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon University. Further information concerning FEL may be found in, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,969,973. Messages may be sent between the various planners to facilitate development of the bending plan and setup plan. For example, before deciding to include a particular bend as part of the bend sequence, bend sequence planner 72 may query tooling expert 80 as to whether there is sufficient tools to handle the bend. Bend sequence planner 72 will then await a response from tooling expert 80. Tooling expert 80 will recognize the query from bend sequence planner 72, and will return with a response, e.g., indicating that there are sufficient tools to handle that particular bend noted by bend sequence planner 72. By way of a non-limiting example, bend sequence planner 72 may also ask holding expert 82 if a robot arm gripper 14 can remain holding onto the workpiece during a particular bend operation without repositioning its grasp of the workpiece. Holding expert 82 will then respond to the query made by the bend sequence planner 72, and bend sequence planner 72 will then utilize the information to perform its next determination.
Each of the modules of the expert planning system 70 may utilize one or more functions provided by a geometric modeling library (not shown) in order to model the relative interactions and positions of each part and the hardware components of the system, as may be needed in making their determinations. For geometric modeling and reasoning, a NOODLES geometric kernel may be utilized. For further information on the NOODLES modeler, see, for example, GURSOZ et al., “Boolean Set Operations On Non-Manifold Boundary Representation Objects,” Computer Aided Design, Butterworth-Heinenmann, Ltd., Vol. 23, No. 1, January 1991, the disclosure of which is expressly incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In FIG. 9B, the logic of an exemplary multi-part planning process is provided. According to an aspect of the present invention, multi-part setup planning for sheet metal bending operations may be performed on a variety of parts (Part 1–Part N). Rather than matching part features to existing manufacturing resources (i.e., tools and fixtures), the present invention uses an approach that allows process planning for multiple parts by first identifying the constraints imposed by a part feature on the tooling and setups that will be used to create that feature. That is, for each part (which may be represented by a geometric model), resource constraints are identified before a setup plan is determined that will satisfy multiple parts. The resource constraints may include, for example, a tool length or height constraint for performing the operation on the part. For example, if a part requires bending a 50 mm flange, the tooling planner will generate a resource or setup constraint which indicates that this operation can be performed by a tool segment of size 50 mm or greater. Similar setup constraints will also be determined for the other parts and bending operations to be performed. After gathering all of the resource or setup constraints, defined by the various features of the parts, setup planning will be performed to determine and identify a setup plan that works for multiple parts based on the defined resource constraints and the resources that are available (e.g., the tools that are available). For example, suppose it is determined that another part requires the bending of a 100 mm flange. This part would lead to a setup constraint indicating that this operation can be performed by a tool segment of size 100 mm or greater. In this case, the invention can setup a process plan using a tool segment of size 100 mm (as indicated from the available resources) which would work for both the part requiring a 50 mm flange and the part requiring a 100 mm flange.
After selecting and determining the bending tools (from the available tooling resources) for each bending operation, the expert planning system may then determine the best possible bending sequence at step S.4. The bend sequence or operation sequence for each part may be determined at step S.4 by using various techniques, such as state space search methods, and analyzing each cost. By way of a non-limiting example, the state space search method and techniques disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,969,973 may be utilized to determine the bend sequence at step S.4. The determination of the bend sequence may be performed independently by the tooling planner of the expert planning system, or in cooperation with other planners/expert modules of the expert planning system, such as the bend sequence planner. Alternatively, the bend sequence may be designated by a machine tool operator or in accordance with a customer's requirements, and set in a data file read by the expert planning system.
As further shown in FIG. 10, after the tooling and bending operation sequence is determined, the tooling planner then may perform setup planning at steps S.8–S.24. In accordance with an aspect of the invention, setup planning may be performed through two main stages. That is, in the first stage, the setup constraints are generated for each operation (see, e.g., steps S.8–S.12 in FIG. 10), and then in the second main stage, these constraints are solved to create a setup plan that satisfies all the constraints generated in the previous step (see, e.g., steps S.16–S.24 in FIG. 10). This approach allows setup planning to be solved for multiple-part problems. For multi-part problems, setup constraints may be generated and tracked (i.e., which bending operation and which part leads to what setup constraint). For every bending operation, the intermediate workpiece geometry and the tool geometry impose constraints on the tooling stages that will be used to perform the bending operation. These constraints restrict the maximum tool stage length and require certain minimum gaps between tooling stages. Further, these constraints determine if more than one operation can be done on the same tooling stage. Every feasible press brake setup should, therefore, respect these constraints. The intermediate workpiece shape is determined by the bending sequence. As a result, the type of tools and the bending sequence will have a strong influence on the setup constraints.
Therefore, as shown in FIG. 10, at step S.8, the setup constraints are identified by the tooling planner for every bending operation in the given set of operation sequences. Setup constraints may be generated by analyzing any potential interference problems between geometric models of the tool and the intermediate workpiece. Such setup constraints describe the length restrictions on tooling stages and also identify the required gaps between tooling stages, as noted above. Various techniques and methods may be utilized for generating setup constraints. For example, in accordance with an aspect of the present invention, setup constraints may be generated by constructing geometric models of the sheet metal part at each bending stage and analyzing part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters. In particular, the tooling planner may first construct a geometric model of the workpiece for each bending operation (i.e., an intermediate part model may be constructed of the part at the time of each bending operation), and then a geometric intersection may be determined of the intermediate part model with the model of a tooling stage spanning the entire press brake tooling space. Thereafter, the tooling planner may analyze the part-tool intersection regions to determine setup constraint parameters. An exemplary process for generating setup constraints is provided below (see, e.g., FIGS. 11A–11C and 12), in accordance with the aspects and features of the invention.
As shown in FIG. 10, step S.8 may be repeated for each bending operation. Therefore, at step S.12, logic flow will return to step S.8 as long as it is determined that setup constraints have not been defined for each of the defined bending operations of each part (No at step S.12). After all of the setup constraints have been defined (Yes at step S.12), the tooling planner may then generate a setup plan according to steps S.16–S.24. That is, at step S.16, the tooling planner may identify bending operations within compatible setup constraints, and then assign the operations with compatible constraints to the same stages at step S.20. The setup plan may then be stored and/or provided as output at step S.24 by the tooling planner. Thereafter, the operations planning routine may terminate, as illustrated in FIG. 10.
Referring now to FIGS. 11A–11C and 12, a detailed discussion of the manner in which setup constraints may be generated will be provided, in accordance with an aspect of the invention. In addition, a concrete example of setup constraints that may be generated for an exemplary part will be provided. As noted above, the tooling planner will identify setup constraints for each bending operation after the bending tools and operation sequence have been determined (see, for example, step S.8 in FIG. 10). Since the various bending operations will impose constraints on tooling stage lengths, the tooling planner may compute setup constraints resulting from the various bending operations. Setup constraints may be generated by analyzing any potential interference problems between the geometric models of the tool and the intermediate workpiece or part. These constraints will describe the length restrictions on tooling stages and identify the required gaps between tooling stages. Setup constraints may be generated by first constructing a geometric model of the workpiece at the time of each bending operation. This model is referred to herein as the intermediate part model. After constructing the intermediate part model, a geometric intersection of the intermediate part model and the model of the tooling stage spanning the entire press brake tooling space may be performed. By performing the geometric intersection, the part tool intersection regions may be analyzed to determine the setup constraint parameters.
FIGS. 11A–11C illustrate an exemplary setup constraint generation for an exemplary part. In FIG. 11A, an exemplary sheet metal part is illustrated (in its initial flat stage), in which a bend line 190 is defined at a middle tab 170 b of the sheet metal workpiece 170. In this example, the workpiece 170 includes tabs 170 a, 170 c on both sides of the proposed bend intersection with the die 220 (see, for example, FIG. 11B), as determined by a geometric intersection test performed by the tooling planner. Therefore, this bend cannot be performed on an infinitely long tooling stage. The minimum tooling stage length for this operation therefore given by the following:
L−tolerance
where “L” is the length of the bend line (see, for example, FIG. 11C) and “tolerance” is a predetermined tolerance. That is, the minimum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the bend length, with a predetermined tolerance (e.g., 2 mm). Reducing the tooling stage length by more than the predetermined tolerance may result in poor bend quality.
Gr+Gl+L−clearance
where “Gr” is the gap length on the right side of the bend, “Gl” is the gap length on the left side of the bend (see, for example, FIG. 11C), “L” is the length of the bend line, and “clearance” is a predetermined clearance. That is, the maximum allowed tooling stage length should be slightly smaller than the overall gap around the bend, with a predetermined clearance (e.g., 2 mm). The actual setting of the clearance amount will, of course, depend upon the accuracy of the part placement with respect to the tools of the press brake. Further, in view of the tolerance and clearance restrictions, adjacent stages should also clear any recommended or required safety margins.
Gr+Gl+L−clearance≧S≧L−tolerance Gl−0.5(clearance)≧P Gr−0.5(clearance)≧S−P−L Sr≦S−P−L+Dr Sl≦P+Dl In the above-noted setup constraints, “Dl” is the distance between the present stage and the left adjacent stage, “Dr” is the distance between the present stage and the right adjacent stage, “L” is the length of the bend line, “S” is the length of the tooling stage, and “P” is the relative position of the bend line with respect to the left edge of the tooling stage.
Once all of the setup constraints for a partial or complete bend sequence have been computed, the tooling planner may then proceed with setup planning, as discussed above with reference to FIG. 10 (see, e.g., steps S.16–S.24). When performing setup planning, the tooling planner may create setups that involve the minimum number of tooling stages and that fits on the die rail of the press brake. As discussed above, the tooling planner first identifies bending operations with compatible setup constraints (see, for example, step S.16 in FIG. 10) and then generates setup plans by assigning bending operations with compatible setup constraints to the same stages (see, for example, step S.20 in FIG. 10). A more detailed description of these steps, and the various functions and operations which may be performed by the tooling stage when performing setup planning, will now be provided below, in accordance with an aspect of the present invention.
where “XLj,i” is the leftmost position of operation j with respect to operation I, and “XRj,i” is the rightmost position of operation j with respect to operation I. FIG. 13 illustrates this concept graphically.
X j −X i ≦XR j,i
If there exists a vector {X1, X2, . . . , Xn} which satisfies the above inequalities, then n operations may be considered compatible. Standard linear programming techniques may be utilized to determine if such a vector exists. For example, iterative constraint propagation methods may be utilized to identify the relative position range of every operation in the pool. That is, an iterative constraint propagation method may be used to solve the linear programming problem. Generally, a constraint-network may be instantiated to keep track of the range of the possible positions of various bending operations with respect to each other. Initially, a randomly selected pair of operations from the set of operations may be selected and then added to the constraint-network. After adding these operations to the constraint-network, the position range for these two operations may be calculated. Thereafter, additional operations may be added to the constraint-network one at a time. Each time an operation is added to the constraint-network, the position ranges of all the operations in the network may be updated to account for the new operation. When all of the bending operations have been added to the network, feasible positions of various operations with respect to each other may be selected from the possible position ranges.
By way of a non-limiting example, FIG. 14 illustrates exemplary processes and operations that may be performed by the tooling planner when performing setup planning (i.e., the steps of S.16–S.24 in FIG. 10). As illustrated in FIG. 14, after the setup planning routine is initialized, the tooling planner may set O to the list of all possible bending operations to be performed on the family of parts at step S.110. Thereafter, at step S.120, the most constraining bending operation o in the list O may be determined. That is, for the operations contained in the list O, the most constraining bending operation may be determined. This may be performed based on various processes and techniques. For example, the collinear bend operation with the maximum interruption index in the list O may be located and identified as the most constraining bending operation at step S.120. If there are no collinear operations, then the bending operation in the list O with the maximum length (e.g., based on the length of the bend line) may be located and identified as the most constraining bending operation.
At step S.130, the tooling planner will find the set of operations c(o) in the list O which have compatible stage constraints with the most constraining bending operation o. The various methods and techniques described above may be utilized to determine the compatible stage constraints. After the compatible stage constraints are determined, at step S.140, a stage or set of stages s may be built which satisfy the stage constraints for o and c(o). Thereafter, at step S.150, o and c(o) may be assigned to the stages or stage s by computing relative locations of o and c(o) with respect to the stages or stage s. Thereafter, at step S.160, o and c(o) may be removed from the list O and then processing may proceed to step S.170. At step S.170, it is determined whether the list of operations O is empty. If it is determined that O is not empty (No at step S.170), then logic flow proceeds back to step S.120. Otherwise, the setup planning routine terminates (Yes at step S.170), as shown in FIG. 14.
For purposes of illustration, and to provide a further example of the benefits of the invention, FIGS. 16A–16C and FIG. 17 illustrate various setup planning examples based on the exemplary sheet metal parts of FIGS. 4A–4C. In particular, FIGS. 16A, 16B and 16C illustrate independent press brake setup for the exemplary parts in FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, respectively. Further, FIG. 17 illustrates a composite setup plan for the exemplary parts of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, using the multi-part setup planning features of the invention.
W1: Part 1 (shown in FIG. 4A)
Ow1: [(b7)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b1)]
Further, the single-part setup planning problems for Part 2 of FIG. 4B and Part 3 of FIG. 4C may be stated as follows:
W2: Part 2 (shown in FIG. 4B), OW2: [(b1)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b7)]
W3: Part 3 (shown in FIG. 4C), OW3: [(b1)(b2)(b3)(b4)(b5)]
As noted above, the object is to determine the most efficient setup plan for the single-part setup planning problem. By applying the various operations and setup planning techniques of the invention to each of the exemplary parts of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C (i.e., Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), individual setup plans may be generated for each part. FIGS. 16A, 16B and 16C illustrate exemplary, independent press brake setup solutions for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C, respectively. further, the setup plan data for each of these individual setup solutions is provided below in Table 2 in (B, T, P) format.
Z: {Part 1, Part 2, Part 3} (shown in FIGS. 4A–4C)
Oz: [(b7)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b1)(b6)],[(b1)(b2,b3)(b4,b5)(b6)(b7)], [(b1)(b2)(b3)(b4)(b5)]}
Based on the features of the invention, FIG. 17 illustrates an exemplary, composite setup plan solution for the three exemplary parts of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C. In addition, the various data for the composite setup plan solution of FIG. 17 is provided below in Table 3 in (B, T, P) format. In the exemplary composite setup plan solution, all collinear bends have been assigned to the same group of stages. Further, in the data in Table 3, the lengths of the collinear stages (i.e., stage 1 and stage 2) are not equal to lengths of any collinear bends. Instead, lengths of collinear stages have been derived from composite constraints and are suitable in accommodating all collinear bends.
While the invention has been described with reference to several exemplary embodiments, it is understood that the words which have been used herein are words of description and illustration, rather than words of limitation. Changes may be made, within the purview of the appended claims, as presently stated and as amended, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention and its aspects. Although the invention has been described herein with reference to particular means, materials and embodiments, the invention is not intended to be limited to the particulars disclosed herein; rather, the invention extends to all functionally equivalent structures, methods and uses, such as or within the scope of the appended claims.
Patent CitationsCited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS4888692Nov 10, 1988Dec 19, 1989Texas Instruments IncorporatedReal-time scheduling systemUS4912644Jun 1, 1989Mar 27, 1990Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.Method of and apparatus for unfolding a sheet metal part employing a CAD apparatusUS5005394Dec 14, 1988Apr 9, 1991Amada Company, LimitedProgramming system for the single arm bending robotUS5029462Aug 4, 1989Jul 9, 1991Amada Company, LimitedMethod of bending a workpiece including setting a bending process, and preparing bending dataUS5047916Mar 24, 1989Sep 10, 1991Kabushiki Kaisha ToshibaMethod and apparatus of free space enumeration for collision avoidanceUS5083256Oct 17, 1989Jan 21, 1992North American Philips CorporationPath planning with transition changesUS5089970Oct 5, 1989Feb 18, 1992Combustion Engineering, Inc.Integrated manufacturing systemUS5115400Mar 30, 1990May 19, 1992Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki KaishaCad/cam apparatusUS5187958Aug 28, 1991Feb 23, 1993Amada Company, LimitedMethod of positioning a metal sheet for a sheetmetal working machineUS5287433Dec 18, 1990Feb 15, 1994Amada Company LimitedDevice for control of a robot manipulator for a metal sheet bending installationUS5297054Apr 3, 1992Mar 22, 1994General Motors CorporationExpert system for automically generating gear designsUS5307282Nov 6, 1989Apr 26, 1994Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod of computer-aided prediction of collisions between objects including fabrication tools and parts to be fabricatedUS5315522Nov 6, 1992May 24, 1994Kenneth A. KauffmanTable bender controllerUS5396265Sep 17, 1990Mar 7, 1995Massachusetts Institute Of TechnologyThree-dimensional tactile computer input deviceUS5432887Mar 16, 1993Jul 11, 1995Singapore Computer SystemsNeural network system and method for factory floor schedulingUS5434791Jun 29, 1993Jul 18, 1995Electronic Data Systems CorporationProduct structure managementUS5453933Sep 8, 1993Sep 26, 1995Hurco Companies, Inc.CNC control systemUS5485390Nov 30, 1993Jan 16, 1996The United States Of America As Represented By The Secrectary Of The Air ForceInductive-deductive process design for machined partsUS5587914Mar 17, 1995Dec 24, 1996Hewlett-Packard CompanyApparatus and method for computer-aided design of sheet metal fabricated partsUS5642291Dec 26, 1995Jun 24, 1997Amada Company, Limited Of JapanSystem for creating command and control signals for a complete operating cycle of a robot manipulator device of a sheet metal bending installation by simulating the operating environmentUS5659478Feb 21, 1995Aug 19, 1997Motorola, Inc.Rapid product realization processUS5822207Sep 3, 1996Oct 13, 1998Amadasoft America, Inc.Apparatus and method for integrating intelligent manufacturing system with expert sheet metal planning and bending systemUS5828575Jul 31, 1996Oct 27, 1998Amadasoft America, Inc.Apparatus and method for managing and distributing design and manufacturing information throughout a sheet metal production facilityUS5835684Nov 9, 1994Nov 10, 1998Amada Company, Ltd.Method for planning/controlling robot motionUS5864482Jul 31, 1996Jan 26, 1999Amadasoft America, Inc.Apparatus and method for managing distributing design and manufacturing information throughout a sheet metal production facilityUS5969973Feb 9, 1995Oct 19, 1999Amada Company, Ltd.Intelligent system for generating and executing a sheet metal bending planUS5971585Sep 9, 1997Oct 26, 1999International Business Machines CorporationBest can do matching of assets with demand in microelectronics manufacturingUS6233538 *Sep 11, 1997May 15, 2001Amada America, Inc.Apparatus and method for multi-purpose setup planning for sheet metal bending operationsEP0335314A2Mar 28, 1989Oct 4, 1989Kabushiki Kaisha ToshibaMethod and apparatus of free space enumeration for collision avoidanceEP0355454A2Jul 26, 1989Feb 28, 1990The Boeing CompanyMethod of fabricating sheet metal parts and the likeEP0397904A1May 19, 1989Nov 22, 1990Hewlett-Packard GmbHMethod for generating graphical models and computer aided design systemEP0402475A1Dec 8, 1989Dec 19, 1990Fanuc Ltd.Method of determining expanded shape of a product in a cad systemEP0419013A2Jul 27, 1990Mar 27, 1991Hewlett-Packard CompanyApparatus and method for computer-aided design of sheet metal fabricated partsWO1996015481A2Nov 9, 1995May 23, 1996Amada Company, LimitedIntelligent system for generating and executing a sheet metal bending plan* Cited by examinerNon-Patent CitationsReference1"Bending Soft", Literature on the AMACOM AP40, No. 9112-01, Amada Company Ltd., Japan (Publication Date Unknown), no page numbers.2"Inferenzmaschine Fuer Ein Biegestadienplanungssystem" to M. Geiger et al., published May 1, 1992, vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 261-264, XP000271,922 of ZWF Zeitschrift Fur Wirtschaftliche Fertigung Und Automatisierung, only abstract is translated.3AMACOM: AP200 Literature, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.4AMACOM: AP40 Literature, Version 4, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.5AMACOM: AP60 Literature, Amada Company, Ltd. Japan (Jul. 1996), no page numbers.6Amada Windows Unfold: Manual for Cadkey. Table of Contents, pp. 1-35, and Index, U.S. Amada, Ltd., Buena Park, CA (Nov. 1995).7Arbon et al., "Auto-MPS: an automated master production scheduling system for large volume manufacturing", IEEE 10th Conf. Art. Intell. Applicat., pp. 26-32, no date.8Bourne et al., David A., "Feature Exchange Language Programmer's Guide", Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Jan. 1994), no page numbers.9Bourne et al., David A., "The Operational Feature Exchange Language", Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-90-06, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Mar. 1990), no page numbers.10Bourne et al., David A., "Using The Feature Exchange Language In The Next Generation Controller", Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-90-19. The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (Aug. 1990), no page numbers.11Bourne, David A., "Intelligent Manufacturing Workstations", which appeared in Knowledge-Based Automation of Processes, Session at the 1992 ASME Winter Annual Meeting (Nov. 1992).12Gopalakrishnan et al., "Product design for manufacturing: the use of knowledge based systems in concurrent engineering", IEEE Int. Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 566-568, no date.13Jain et al., "Expert Simulation for on-line scheduling", IEEE 1989 Winter Sim. Conf. pp. 930-935.14Levner et al., "A tandern expert system for batch scheduling in a CIM System based on group technology concepts", 95 INRIA/IEEE Symp. Emerg, Tech. And Factory Autosnat., pp. 667-674.15Niew et al., "Knowledge based master productions scheduler", IEEE 1st Conf. Expert Planning Sys., pp. 88-93, no date.16Nomura et al., "A hcuristics guided scheduling framework for domains with complex conditions", IEEE 6th Int. Conf. Tools Art, Intell., pp. 752-755, no date.17Numao et al., "Scheplan-a scheduling expert for stcel-making process", IEEE AI '88, pp. 467-472.18Ohkura et al., "Semiconductor process line scheduling expert system", IEEE/UCS/SEMI Int. Symp. Semi. Manufact., pp. 89-92, no dates.19Readdie, "A Prototype AI-based tool for production scheduling", IEEE Coll. Art. Intell. in Planning for Product Control, pp. 2/1-2/4, no dates.20Tomastik et al., "Optimization-based scheduling of flexible manufacturing system for apparel production", 34th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, pp. 3152-3157, no dates.21Uckun et al., "Managing genetic search in job shop scheduling", IEEE Expert, pp. 15-24, no date.22Wang, Cheng-Hua, "A Parallel Design System For Sheet Metal Parts ", Mechanical Engineering Report, presented at the Mechanical Engineering Department Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (May 1992).23Wysong Literature, The Perfect Forming Touch; New PH PLUS Series, DNC Press Brakes, Cat. PHP-1, Wysong and Miles Company, Greensboro, NC (1993), no page numbers.Referenced byCiting PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitleUS7398129 *Oct 7, 2004Jul 8, 2008Amada Company, LimitedRepresentation of sheet metal part modelsUS7617015 *Dec 21, 2006Nov 10, 2009Sap AgGenerating planning-level time and capacity requirement formulas for manufacturing processesUS7894922Dec 21, 2006Feb 22, 2011Sap AgStructural transformation of execution-level manufacturing process routings into planning-level routingsUS7894930Feb 7, 2008Feb 22, 2011Dp Technology, Corp.Method and device for composite machining based on tool-path pattern types with tool axis orientation rulesUS8027857Mar 14, 2006Sep 27, 2011Sap AgRough-cut manufacturing operations for use in planningUS8140306 *Apr 22, 2005Mar 20, 2012Autoform Engineering GmbhDetermination of process operations in order to describe forming processes on a forming partUS8239362Jun 11, 2010Aug 7, 2012The Boeing CompanyUsing metadata fragments as authoritative manufacturing work instructionsUS8428768Jan 26, 2011Apr 23, 2013Dp Technology Corp.Method and device for composite machining based on tool-path pattern types with tool axis orientation rulesUS20060052892 *Jul 25, 2005Mar 9, 2006Hideyuki MatsushimaProduct design method, product design apparatus, product design system, and product design programUS20060079989 *Oct 7, 2004Apr 13, 2006Amada Corporation, LimitedRepresentation of sheet metal part modelsUS20070150254 *Oct 31, 2006Jun 28, 2007Choi Cathy YSimulation engine for a performance validation systemUS20070219929 *Mar 14, 2006Sep 20, 2007Jochen SteinbachPlanning granularity in manufacturing computing systemsUS20080103734 *Aug 27, 2007May 1, 2008Fujitsu LimitedSupporting apparatus, design suporting method, and cad systemUS20080154412 *Dec 21, 2006Jun 26, 2008Jochen SteinbachStructural transformation of execution-level manufacturing process routings into planning-level routingsUS20080154660 *Dec 21, 2006Jun 26, 2008Jochen SteinbachGenerating Planning-Level Time and Capacity Requirement Formulas for Manufacturing ProcessesUS20080243442 *Apr 22, 2005Oct 2, 2008Autoform Engineering GmbhDetermination of Process Operations in Order to Describe Forming Processes on a Forming PartUS20090030661 *Jul 25, 2007Jan 29, 2009The Boeing CompanyThree-Dimensional Process PlanningUS20090090155 *May 19, 2006Apr 9, 2009Robosoft, Naamloze VennootschapSheet-Metal Working Machine and Method for Machining SheetsUS20090204253 *Feb 7, 2008Aug 13, 2009Francesco BandiniMethod and Device for Composite MachiningUS20110118866 *Jan 26, 2011May 19, 2011Francesco BandiniMethod and Device for Composite Machining* Cited by examinerClassifications U.S. Classification703/6, 703/2, 703/1International ClassificationG06G7/48, G06F17/50, B21D5/01, G05B19/4097, B25J9/16Cooperative ClassificationG05B2219/40054, G05B2219/40628, G05B2219/40517, G05B2219/40476, G05B19/4097, B25J9/1666European ClassificationG05B19/4097, B25J9/16P3CLegal EventsDateCodeEventDescriptionDec 18, 2007CCCertificate of correctionOct 12, 2009FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 4Oct 10, 2013FPAYFee paymentYear of fee payment: 8RotateOriginal ImageGoogle Home - Sitemap - USPTO Bulk Downloads - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - About Google Patents - Send FeedbackData provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services