T. Iyama, M. Mizuno, K.N. McKay, M. Ito, J.

Tamaki, Optimal matching for inline resource selection when errors exist in error measurement a relay
production system case study, Journal of Material Processing Technology 183 (23) (2007) 277283.

Title:
Optimal matching for inline resource selection when errors exist in error
measurement A relay production system case study



Corresponding author
T. Iyama
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Iwate University
Ueda 4-3-5, Morioka, 020-8551 Japan
TEL.: +81-196-621-6418, FAX.: +81-196-621-6418, e-mail: iyama@iwate-u.ac.jp


Co-authors
M. Mizuno
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Iwate University
Ueda 4-3-5 Morioka, 020-8551 Japan

K.N. Mckay
Department of Management Science, University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

M. Ito
SII Micro Parts Ltd.
Aza matsubara 45-1, kamiayashi Aoba-ku, Sendai, 989-3124 Japan

J. Tamaki
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kitami Institute of Technology
Koencho 165, Kitami, 090-8507 Japan





- 2 -



Optimal matching for inline resource selection when errors exist in error
measurement A relay production system case study







Abstract

In a number of industries, an amount of adjustment after a primary operation is
required and the choice of the resource for the second operation depends on the precision
of the first. For example, in the manufacturing of high-quality relays, an initial machining
operation might require further work at a secondary operation to bring the part into the
necessary tolerance before assembly. Depending on the degree of machining error,
different resources might be used for the second operation and the efficient and effective
running of the system relies on how the second resources are allocated. In the relay
example, any wrongly adjusted parts will produce low-quality relays with unsatisfactory
performance and will contribute to a lower yield. If the precise error and required
adjustment are known, then a perfect allocation can be achieved and yield improved.
Unfortunately, precise and accurate measurement is not always possible and errors can
arise in the error measurement itself. In this paper we investigate a dynamic matching
technique used to estimate the measurement error and to subsequently allocate the
appropriate resources in a real-time fashion. A case study of a high-quality relay
production system is used to illustrate the issues and potential results obtained when the
proposed strategy of dynamic matching is used. A computational experiment is used to
investigate the method and the two main results indicate: (1) The proposed method yields
the maximum production rate. (2) The effectiveness of the method depends on
measurement accuracy, but is low over a wide range of measurement accuracy.

Keywords: Rework and reprocessing; Machining error; Measurement error; Assembly
error
- 3 -
1. Introduction

In manufacturing, it is possible that errors in measurement can be introduced
when the actual errors are measured. There are situations where this is not critical, but
there are other situations where it is problematic. Consider an automatic production
system with testing, and adjustments or reprocessing incorporated. If production relies on
high precision and high quality, then adjustments and minor reprocessing can become a
significant part of the overall material flow. If different resources are used to correct
similar types of errors but which vary in degrees of error, the appropriate routing of the
part for reprocessing and adjustment is important. For example, in high-quality relay
production, the size of the gap after assembling the armature with the base represents a
possible type of error. Before assembly, it is possible to adjust or reprocess the armature
with special dies to match a specific base and thus reduce the likelihood of a low-quality
relay. In the relay production system studied as part of this research, the degree of
adjustment dictates the specific adjustment machine to be used. If the wrong adjustment
machine is selected, the adjustment will be wrong and the armature and base pair will
produce a low-quality relay with unsatisfactory performance. In an ideal situation, the
absolute or real error would be known with certainty, but in a real world situation, this is
not always possible and an error in measurement can be introduced. This becomes a
tradeoff decision for the manufacturer. If the number of mis-adjusted components is kept
low enough, then the associated cost may be below that of doing more precise
measurement. In reality, there will always be some error and incorrectly adjusted parts,
but the level might be acceptable. The key will reside in the routing of the machined parts
to the appropriate machine.
The research reported herein investigates this type of manufacturing problem
found in automated manufacturing. The critical structural components of the problem are:
primary operations, possible processing errors, inline secondary adjustment, adjustment
resources specialized for different magnitudes of error, and possible measurement errors.
The research involves a method for estimating the true or actual error based on the
observed error and an algorithm for making the appropriate resource selection. The
motivation for the research is first expanded upon, followed by a literature review and
method development. The computational experiment used to explore the performance of
the method is then presented and then discussed.

2. Motivation

High-quality relay production provided the initial inspiration and motivation
- 4 -
for this research. A relay is used to switch a load current on and off through a mechanical
connection and decoupling of electric contact points. As such, this is an important electric
device and requires high-quality assembly. Relays are generally produced by assembling
two main parts with electric contact points (i.e., an armature and a base). Therefore, a
relay requires assured connection and decoupling between the points, and the contact
condition between the points determines the performance of a relay.
The contact condition is usually determined by an assembly dimension
between the points; and therefore the performance of the relay is determined by the
assembly error, and the error must be strictly controlled during assembly. Strict control of
assembly error can usually be achieved by assembling high-accuracy armatures and bases.
However, high-accuracy parts are produced by precision machining, increasing
production costs and keeping production efficiency low. As a result, in order to realize
low-cost, high-efficiency production of high-quality relays, component parts are
mass-produced in numerous factories. In these factories, component parts are produced
by low-accuracy, high-efficiency machining instead of precision machining, and
machining errors arise in dimensions of machined parts. These errors can cause an
unacceptable assembly error, especially when component parts are assembled in a
production line, and low-quality relays with unsatisfactory performance are produced.
Therefore, in order to mass-produce low-cost, high-quality relays efficiently from
low-accuracy parts, the machining errors of all sets of components parts are measured to
estimate the assembly error, and the armature is adjusted in a second operation stage so
that the assembly error of the paired base and armature falls within a required assembly
tolerance.
As noted, the components are paired up - a base and armature - and the
assembly is synchronized so that the matching components come together. Each
component is measured at the primary machining center and the armature is then routed
to a secondary operation stage. If the estimated assembly error for the pair is outside of
the adjustment range, the individual components (base and armature) are rejected at the
first operation stage. At the secondary operation stage for the armature, the armature is
adjusted with a specific die matching the estimated error and a final operation is
performed on each armature before the armature goes to the assembly point.
Specifics of the actual production system cannot be made public, so a
relatively generic description of a relay assembly system will now be described. The final
assembly has a armature (part A) and base (part B). The final assembly has traveling and
fixed contact points, and a coil is built into the base.
As shown in Fig. 1, the relay production system consists of 4 stages, S
A
, S
B
, S
C,

and S
D
, and one buffer exists in the system after the stage that produces the base (S
B
).
- 5 -
Stages S
A
and S
B
are machining stages for parts A and B, and these stages incorporate
inspection devices for measuring the part dimensions. The assembly error of a relay is
estimated from the measured dimensions of a set of assembly parts A and B. We call this
error the estimated assembly error: when the estimated assembly error is larger than a
predetermined error, the set of parts are removed as NG (not good) parts at stages S
A
and
S
B
. Stage S
C
consists of NK machines M
i
(i=1,...,NK) equipped with different dies for the
adjustments. The Stage S
C
machines also perform a final operation on the armature before
the component is moved to S
D
for assembly. It is possible that a S
C
machine can introduce
an additional error, but this is considered to be very small. Stage S
D
is the operation stage
for assembling a relay set consisting of the armature and base. The assembly stage has
testing devices to check the performance of the relay.

3. Literature review

As a method for efficient production of high-quality assembly products from
low-accuracy parts with machining errors, a mating strategy is used in many industries.
This strategy is classified into two types (i.e.; selective assembly approach and corrective
assembly approach), and is often used to produce automobile parts, medical products, and
electric devices [1-7]. In selective assembly, assembly parts are classified and temporarily
stored in different buffers according to size of machining error, and a set of parts which
satisfies the assembly tolerance is selected for assembly. In corrective assembly, a set of
parts is selected in a production line and the parts are assembled after one part is
reprocessed in accordance with the assembly error so as to satisfy the assembly tolerance.
A number of papers have been published describing a mating strategy for
increasing production rate and for reducing surplus parts. For example, Fang and
Zhang[8] developed a predictive model for quantitatively estimating the degree of
matchability between mating parts for selective assembly by adopting the concepts of
intersection and union from set theory and incorporating the probability method to reduce
surplus parts and to predict the degree of matchability before assembly. This research and
other research in the literature focuses on countermeasures for the problem and does not
address possible measurement errors and the implication of such errors.
For instance, Kannan and Jayabalan [9] proposed a method for manufacturing
mating parts for selective assembly. In their method, the resulting population of
manufactured parts has a standard deviation equal to the standard deviation of mating
parts. In other work, Chang and Lin[10] developed a grouping method for selective
assembly of parts of dissimilar distribution. The grouping is made on the basis of the
cumulative probability of mating parts accommodating the clearance specification, to
- 6 -
thereby minimize surplus parts. None of these research efforts addressed the possible
measurement error. This lack of focus can be found in other research as well. For example,
Iyama et al.[11] proposed a size control method for mating parts with different machining
error distributions in order to improve production rate.
Radically different approaches have been proposed for the selective assembly
problem. For example, Kwon et al.[12] proposed an economic procedure of selective
assembly, incorporating a cost model based on a quadratic loss function and methods of
obtaining the optimal class limits, as well as the optimal number of classes. Alternatively,
Kannan and Jayabalan[13] considered a complex assembly having three parts, such as a
ball bearing, and proposed a method for partitioning the lots to form selective groups.
This method reduces the number of surplus parts in selective assembly. In contrast, David
et al.[14] described a statistical method for assembling components of each pair selected
from appropriate bins to meet the required specifications as closely as possible, and
developed optimal binning strategies under several loss functions and distribution
assumptions. Finally, Yamada et al.[6] proposed a method for corrective assembly to
increase production rate and to reduce surplus parts. Their method combines
micro-machining with the combinatorial optimization method, where a combination of
parts is optimized to maximize the assembly rate of high-quality assembled products in a
lot unit.
As noted, the aforementioned studies focus on countermeasures to problems
that result from assembly error caused by machining errors. However, estimating
assembly error requires measuring machining errors of assembly component parts, and
measuring usually involves a measurement error. This aspect was not explicitly dealt with
in the reviewed literature.
Some problems caused by measurement error in high-quality relay production
systems that have adopted corrective assembly approach were discussed by Iyama[7]. In
this initial study of the relay production system, assembly error is estimated from
machining errors of a set of assembly parts. An adjustment machine for reprocessing the
part, is selected in accordance with the estimated assembly error. However, the estimated
assembly error usually differs from the true assembly error, because of measurement
errors, and therefore a correct machine is not always selected. This incorrect selection of
machine yields a relay with unsatisfactory performance and this incorrect selection is the
focus of the research presented in this paper. Therefore, a desired feature of systems
similar to the high-quality relay production system noted in Iyama[7] is to estimate the
true assembly error and to select the correct machine under the condition that
measurement errors occur in measuring machining errors.
In summary, we will focus on situations similar to a high-quality relay
- 7 -
production system adopting corrective assembly approach. Specifically, where
machining errors occur when assembly parts are machined and measurement errors occur
when machining errors are measured. We propose an optimal machine matching method
for yielding the maximum production rate of a high-quality product. This method
maximizes the probability of selecting a correct machine, which reprocesses the part so as
to satisfy the assembly tolerance and to produce high-quality product. Moreover, the
machine can be selected on-line by direct reference to the assembly error estimated from
machining and measurement errors of a set of assembly parts.

4. Method development

4.1. Modeling assembly errors - True error Y
1
and estimated error Y
2

The assembly dimension Y, which determines the performance of the final
product, is given by (1),
A B
L L Y =
( 1)
where L
A
and L
B
are the dimensions being designed (e.g., height of traveling contact
points of part A and height of fixed contact points of part B, respectively).
When parts A and B are produced, machining errors occur in L
A
and L
B
, and
when the dimensions are measured after machining, measurement errors occur.
Consequently, the true assembly dimension Y
1
, which includes only machining errors, is
given by (2), and the estimated assembly dimension Y
2
, which includes both machining
and measurement errors, is given by (3),
) ( ) (
1
A A B B
W L W L Y A + A + =
(2)
) ( ) (
2
A A A B B B
M W L M W L Y A + A + A + A + =
(3)
where W
A
and W
B
are machining errors of L
A
and L
B,
respectively, and M
A
and M
B

are measurement errors of L
A
and L
B,
respectively. From (1), (2), and (3), true assembly
error Y
1
and estimated assembly error Y
2
are given by (4) and (5), respectively.
A B
W W Y Y Y A A = = A
1 1
(4)
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
2 2
A B A B
A A B B
M M W W
M W M W Y Y Y
A A + A A =
A + A A + A = = A
(5)
In order to adjust and reprocess L
A
and to satisfy the predetermined assembly
- 8 -
tolerance of Y, the adjustment machine should be selected in accordance with Y
1
.
However, Y
1
is unknown and the adjustment machine is selected in accordance with
Y
2
, which can be estimated but has measurement errors. As a result, a machine that
produces an unsatisfactory part may be selected, thereby lowering the production rate of
high-quality products.

4.2. Modeling adjustments - Range of error adjusted and assembly tolerance

The range of assembly error adjusted and reprocessed by machine
M
i
(i=1,2,,NK) is defined by Y
1
and is denoted by [I*
i
, J*
i
],
o
K I J
i i
+ =
* *
(i=1,2,,NK) (6)
where the width of range K

is given by 2T, when the predetermined assembly tolerance is

T. In this case, the adjusting dimension on L
A
by M
i
is given by (I*
i
+J*
i
)/2. As
mentioned above, we cannot use Y
1
to select the reprocessing machine and Y
2
is used
instead. The range of Y
2
selecting machine M
i
can be given independently of [I*
i
, J*
i
]
and is denoted by [I
i
, J
i
]. The relationship between [I*
i
, J*
i
] and [I
i
, J
i
] is shown in Fig. 2.

4.3. Optimal selection method

In a traditional situation, Y
2
is used instead of Y
1
to select the reprocessing
machine, and the incorrect machine selection occurs. Because the range [I
i
, J
i
] of Y
2

determines the selected machine, the range affects the frequency of incorrect machine
selection, and consequently the production rate of high-quality products. This means that
there exists an optimal range [I
i
, J
i
] which yields the maximum production rate of
high-quality products, and before the reprocessing machine is selected we must search the
optimal range [I
i
, J
i
] for each reprocessing machine in view of machining error
distributions and measurement error distributions of assembly parts A and B.
In this section we present an optimal reprocessing machine selection method,
which can be applied to a production system with arbitrary machining and measurement
error distributions. In this method, an optimal machine can be selected on-line by direct
reference to the assembly error estimated from machining and measurement errors of a
set of assembly parts without searching the optimal range [I
i
, J
i
] in advance. The optimal
machine is the machine that has the maximum probability of being the correct machine.
The probability density functions h
W
(t), h
M
(e) of the machining error
component W=W
B
-W
A
and the measurement error component M=M
B
-M
A
which
compose the estimated assembly error in (5) are given by (7) and (8), respectively
- 9 -
}

+ = dx x f x t f t h
WA WB W
) ( ) ( ) (
(7)
}

+ = dx x f x e f e h
MA MB M
) ( ) ( ) (
(8)
where f
WA
(x) and f
WB
(x) are the probability density functions of machining error
distributions for a set of assembly parts A and B, respectively, and f
MA
(x) and f
MB
(x) are
the probability density functions of measurement error distributions for a set of assembly
parts A and B, respectively.
When a set of assembly parts A and B has the estimated assembly error Y
2

=W+M=x and the measurement error component M=e, W=t=x-e, where t is the true
assembly error Y
1
. Consequently, if Y
2
=x and the reprocessing machine M
i
is selected,
the probability P
i
(x) that the true assembly error t falls within the range of true assembly
error of M
i
; i.e. I
i
*
s t(=xe) s J
i
*
, is given by (9) expressed in terms of (7) and (8).
}

=
*
*
) ( ) ( ) (
i
I x
i
J x
W M i
de e x h e h x P
(9)
In other words, if the estimated assembly error is x and the machine M
i
is selected, P
i
(x)
denotes the probability that the selected machine is correct and a high-quality product
will be produced. Therefore, by selecting the machine which maximizes the probability
P
i
(x) for any x, the probability of selecting the correct machine is maximized.
| | ) (
1
x P
i
NK i
Max
s s
(10)
As a result, if we select a machine using (10) for the estimated assembly error of every set
of assembly parts A and B, the production rate of high-quality products is maximized, and
the maximum production rate R
opt
is given by (11),
| |
}

s s
= dx x P R
i
NK i
opt Max
) (
1
(11)
where production rate denotes the average output probability of high-quality products.
The above production rate R
opt
is the rate for the system where all sets of
assembly parts falling within the range of estimated assembly error -x are
assembled. In contrast, in the model relay factory a set of assembly parts A and B is
removed from the production system as NG parts in the case where xI
1
and xJ
NK
.
Therefore, in section 5 we use (11) instead of (11) to investigate the effectiveness and
optimality of the proposed method.
| |
}
s s
=
NK
J
I
i
NK i
opt
dx x P R
Max
1
) (
1
(11)

5. Effectiveness and optimality of the proposed method
- 10 -

5.1. Effectiveness of the proposed method

In order to investigate the effectiveness of the proposed method, we compare
the production rate R of the system in the model relay factory in operation with the
production rate R
opt
of the system adopting the proposed method under the same system
parameters. The production rate of the system in the model factory is obtained by
simulation, and the production rate of the system adopting the method is calculated by
(11). In the simulation, true assembly error and estimated assembly error of a set of
assembly parts A and B are calculated by machining and measurement errors generated
by random numbers. The reprocessing machine is selected in accordance with the
estimated assembly error, and the correct reprocessing machine is selected in accordance
with the true assembly error. Whether or not the correct machine is selected is determined
by comparison between the above two machines. The production rate is calculated from
the ratio of the number of high-quality relays to the number of parts A produced during a
simulation period, where the simulation period is 50,000 part cycle times. The standard
system parameters are shown in Table 1, where m
WA
and m
WB
are the averages of
machining error distributions,
WA
and
WB
are the standard deviations of machining
error distributions, m
MA
and m
MB
are the averages of measurement error distributions,
and
MA
and
MB
are the standard deviations of measurement error distributions of parts
A and B, respectively.
Figure 3 shows R and R
opt
of the system with various averages and standard
deviations of machining error distributions of parts A and B, where m
WA
, m
WB
=-5.0, -2.5,
0, 2.5, and 5.0 [m], 3
WA
=30, 25, 20, and 15 [m], and 3
WB
=15, 12.5, 10, and 7.5
[m]. Figure 4 shows R and R
opt
of the system with various standard deviations of
measurement error distributions of parts A and B, where m
MA
=m
MB
=0 [m] and
3
MA
=3
MB
=10, 7.5, and 5 [m]. In these figures the horizontal axis denotes the
average of true assembly error m= m
WB
-m
WA
, and dotted and solid lines denote R and
R
opt,
respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 3, as the standard deviations of machining
error distributions decrease and the average of true assembly error approaches zero, the
proposed method yields a higher production rate and the difference between R and R
opt
is
increased. Therefore, the proposed method is effective when machining accuracy is high
and average true assembly error is near zero. Meanwhile, as can be seen from Fig.4, as the
standard deviations of measurement error distributions increase, the proposed method
yields a higher production rate but the difference between R and R
opt
is small. When the
standard deviations are small, the difference between R and R
opt
is almost nonexistent,
because the high measurement accuracy decreases the frequency of incorrect
- 11 -
reprocessing machine selection.

5.2. Optimality of the proposed method

In order to investigate whether or not the proposed method yields the
maximum production rate of the system, we compare the production rate R
opt
with the
maximum production rate R
sim
yielded in simulation of the system of the model factory,
where the maximum production rate R
sim
and the range [I
i
, J
i
] of Y
2
which yields the
maximum production rate are searched by varying j1 and j2 corresponding to J
1
=I
2
and
J
2
=I
3
in increments of 1 [m] as shown in Fig. 5. In this case the range [I
i
, J
i
] selecting M
i

is I
1
=-30, J
1
=I
2
=j1, J
2
=I
3
=j2 and J
3
=30 [m].
Figure 6 shows R
opt
and R
sim
, and Table 2 shows values of j1 and j2 which yield
R
sim
. The values of j1 and j2 of the system with m=-2,-4,-6, -8,-10 [m] are omitted in
Table 2, because j1 and j2 which yield the maximum production rate of the system with
m=-2, -4, -6, -8, -10 [m] are the same as -j2 and -j1 of the system with m=2, 4, 6, 8, 10
[m] respectively. As can be seen from Fig. 6, R
opt
is almost equal to R
sim
, demonstrating
that the proposed method yields the maximum production rate. The difference between
R
opt
and R
sim
lies in simulation error. As can be seen from Table 2, as the standard
deviations of machining error distributions of parts A and B decrease when m =0, the
optimal range of M
2
increases. The reason for this is supposed to be the following. When
the true assembly error distribution is a normal distribution, the probability of true
assembly error monotonically decreases as the error becomes larger, so that, when the
measurement error distribution is a normal distribution with average zero, the probability
that M
1
or M
3
is incorrectly selected instead of M
2
being correctly selected is higher than
the probability that M
2
is incorrectly selected instead of M
1
or M
3
being correctly selected
near the true assembly errors -10 and 10[m]. This tendency becomes more pronounced
as the standard deviations of machining error distributions decrease. As a result, the
values of -j1 and j2 become larger, and the optimal range of M
2
increases. Furthermore,
we can see that as average m increases, the optimal range of M
2
moves towards negative
assembly error. The supposed reason for this is that the above-mentioned tendency is
pronounced near the true assembly error -10[m] and is weakened near the true assembly
error 10[m] as m increases.

6. Conclusions

In high-quality production systems with inline adjustments (e.g. relay
production) and in which machining errors occur when assembly parts are machined and
- 12 -
measurement errors occur when machining errors are measured, an estimated assembly
error includes unknown measurement errors, and as a result an incorrect reprocessing
machine may be selected to adjust the assembly error. This causes deterioration in the
production rate of high-quality products. In this paper we propose an optimal machine
matching method for selecting the appropriate adjustment machine that yields the
maximum production rate of high-quality products in the system adopting corrective
assembly approach such as high-quality relay production. The method maximizes the
probability of selecting a correct machine for reprocessing the part (e.g., the armature) so
as to satisfy the assembly tolerance and to produce a high-quality product (e.g., the relay),
and the machine can be selected on-line by direct reference to the assembly error
estimated by machining and measurement errors of a set of assembly parts. This method
can be applied to production systems with arbitrary machining and measurement error
distributions. Furthermore, we investigate the effectiveness and optimality of the method
in the system of a model factory in operation. The main results are as follows:
- The proposed method yields the maximum production rate.
- The effectiveness and optimality of the method are demonstrated in the
high-quality relay production system of a model factory.
- The effectiveness of the method depends on the machining accuracies of
assembly parts, and is high when the machining accuracies are high and the
average of assembly error is near zero.
- The effectiveness of the method depends on the measurement accuracy, but is low
within a wide range of measurement accuracy.
The relay production system used in this paper to illustrate the proposed matching
method is a system that produces a high-quality assembly product. Other such systems
must also take into consideration effects of measurement error on product quality and
production efficiency. Furthermore, even if new technologies are developed and
high-quality assembly products are produced, higher quality assembly products will
continue to be requested. Therefore, as higher assembly accuracy will continue to be
expected, consideration of the effects of measurement error will continue to be important
and necessary. In future, we will focus on other systems adopting the mating strategy in
which a measurement error deteriorates product quality and production efficiency.
- 13 -
References

[1] T. Iyama, M. Mizuno, S. Goto, T. Koga, The behaviour of machining-assembly
automatic transfer line systems adapting a matching method, JSME, 58C(551)
(1992)243-248.

[2] T. Arai, K. Takeuchi, A simulation system on assembly accuracy, Annals. of the CIRP,
41(1) (1992)37-40.

[3] G. Allen, Selective assembly with components of dissimilar variance, Comput. and
Ind. Eng., 23(1) (1992)487-491.

[4] Y. Yamada, Combinatorial optimization of selective assembly in continuous
production, JSME, 60C(573) (1994)1877-1881.

[5] K.C. So, C.H. Scott, Optimal production sequence for a product with matching
components, Oper. Res. 42(4) (1994)694-708.

[6] Y. Yamada, Y. Komura, J. Mizutani, I. Tanabe, Combinatorial optimization method
for parts machining in a precision assembly system using selective assembly and
micro-machining, JSPE, 65(11) (1999)1579-1583.

[7] T. Iyama, M. Mizuno, S. Umeki, J. Tamaki, M. Hayashi, M. Sato, Behaviour of part
flow in high precision assembly production system considering machining error and
measuring error, JSME, 69C(680) (2003)1161-1168.

[8] X.D. Fang, A.Y. Zhang, New algorithm for minimizing the surplus parts in selective
assembly, Comput. and Ind. Eng., 28(2) (1995)341-350.

[9] Sm. Kannan, V. Jayabalan, Process design to control the mismatch in selective
assembly by shifting the process mean, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Quality Engineering and
Management, Coimbatore, South India,(1997)85-91.

[10] K.C. Chan, R.J. Lin, A grouping method for selective assembly of parts of dissimilar
distributions, Quality Eng., 11(2) (1998)221-234.

[11] T. Iyama, M. Mizuno, J. Tamaki, K. Takeda, A new size control policy for a matching
method in machining-assembly systems, JSME, 64C(627) (1998)4428-4433.

[12] H. Kwon, K.Kim, M. Chandra, An economic selective assembly procedure for two
mating components with equal variance, Naval Res. Log., 46 (1999)809-821.

- 14 -
[13] Sm. Kannan, V. Jayabalan, A new grouping method to minimize surplus parts in
selective assembly for complex assemblies, Int. J. Prod. Res., 39(9) (2001)1851-1863.

[14] M. David, S. Agus, N.N. Vijayan, Selective assembly in manufacturing: statistical
issues and optimal binning strategies, Technometrics, 46(2) (2004)165-175.
- 15 -
Figures

























Fig. 1 A layout of a high-quality relay production system.











Stage S
B

Stage S
D

Product
Stage S
A

M
1
M
2
M
3
M
NK

Armature
Base
NG
NG
Stage S
C

Buffer
- 16 -
















Fig. 2 Ranges of true assembly error and estimated assembly error
for selection of reprocessing machine(NK=3).



















Y
1

Y
2

Selection of reprocessing machine
M
1
M
2
M
3

J*3 I*1 J*1 I*2
J*2 I*3
M
1
M
2
M
3

I1 J1 I2 J2 I3 J3
2T 2T 2T
- 17 -






60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
m[m]
R
o
p
t

a
n
d

R
[
%
]
[30,15] R
[30,15] Ropt
[25,12.5] R
[25,12.5] Ropt
[20,10] R
[20,10] Ropt
[15,7.5] R
[15,7.5] Ropt
[3WA,3WB]


Fig.3 Effects of machining accuracies.











- 18 -







60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
m [ m ]
R
o
p
t

a
n
d

R

[
%
]
[ 1 0 , 1 0 ] R
[ 1 0 , 1 0 ] R o p t
[ 7 . 5 , 7 . 5 ] R
[ 7 . 5 , 7 . 5 ] R o p t
[ 5 , 5 ] R
[ 5 , 5 ] R o p t
[ 3 M A , 3 MB]


Fig.4 Effects of measurement accuracies.










- 19 -


















Fig. 5 Search method for the optimal range of estimated assembly error.


















Range of true assembly error
Range of estimated assembly error
M
1
M
2
M
3

M
1
M
2
M
3

+NG -NG
Assembly error
30[m] -30[m] -10[m] 10[m]
j1 j2
Reprocessing machine
- 20 -








60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
[30,15]Ropt
[30,15]Rsim
[25,12.5]Ropt
[25,12.5]Rsim
[20,10]Ropt
[20,10]Rsim
[15,7.5]Ropt
[15,7.5]Rsim
m [m]
R
o
p
t

a
n
d

R
s
i
m
[
%
]
[3WA, 3WB]


Fig.6 Comparison of R
opt
and R
sim.










- 21 -





Table 1 Standard system parameters.

parameters values
NK 3
T [m] 10
K

[m] 20
[I*
i
, J*
i
] [m]
I*
1
-30, J*
1
I*
2
-10,
J*
2
I*
3
10, J*
3
30
[I
i
, J
i
] [m]
I
1
-30, J
1
I
2
-10,
J
2
I
3
10, J
3
30
m
WA
, m
WB
[m] m
WA
m
WB
0

WA

WB
[m] 3
WA
=303
WB
=15
m
MA
, m
MB
[m] m
MA
=m
MB
=0

MA
,
MB
[m] 3
MA
=3
MB
=10
) ( ), ( t f t f
WB WA


(

=
(

=
A
A
A
A
A
A
WB
WB
WB
WB
WA
WA
WA
WA
m t
t f
m t
t f
2
2
2
2
2
) (
exp
2
1
) (
2
) (
exp
2
1
) (
o
o t
o
o t

) ( ), ( e f e f
MB MA

(

=
(

=
A
A
A
A
A
A
MB
MB
MB
MB
MA
MA
MA
MA
m e
e f
m e
e f
2
2
2
2
2
) (
exp
2
1
) (
2
) (
exp
2
1
) (
o
o t
o
o t











- 22 -





Table 2 j1 and j2.

(3
WA,
3
WB
) [m]

m [m]
0 2 4 6 8 10
(30,15)
1 -11 -12 -13 -13 -13 -13
2 12 11 11 11 10 10
(25,12.5)
1 -13 -13 -14 -15 -15 -16
2 13 12 11 11 11 10
(20,10)
1 -14 -16 -16 -16 -18 -19
2 14 13 12 11 11 10
(15,7.5)
1 -17 -19 -20 -24 -25 -25
2 17 16 14 13 11 10