"It" is actually IMTS. That's as in the "International Manufacturing Technology Show." It is the U.S. processing equipment trade show par excellence, which is held in Chicago (a.k.a., the City That Works, which probably isn't exactly accurate if one takes "Works" to mean something other than having an appealing venue like McCormick Place, as well as a variety of appealing hotels and restaurants, although one mustn't lose sight of the fact that there are some notable operations in the area, such as Ford's Chicago Assembly campus, from whence the Taurus/Sable emerge) every two years. Including this one.
This year the show runs from September 8 to 13. And what you might take into account is the fact that in 2006 some 91,000 people (from 120 countries) attended the event, which was a six percent increase over the 2004 event, and that this year there are two fewer days than there were in 2006, which is to say that you might want to get there early to avoid the rush. In addition to which, regardless of when you go you ought to take footwear into account, as there are exhibits from more than 1,500 exhibitors covering 1.2-million ft2 of floor space.
If that's not enough, AMT-The Association for Manufacturing Technology (http://www.amtonline.org), which organizes the event, is working with the Center for Automotive Research, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, the American Society for Precision Engineering, MTConnect, Tooling U, and the National Tooling & Machining Association for a Business and Techno-logy Forum to be held during the expo's run.
All of which is to say that it-or IMTS-is the place to be during the second week of September.
Auto's Changing Manufacturing Technology
Chrysler's top manufacturing exec describes the future of auto manufacturing - which will arrive faster than you may think.
"We are in a really interesting transition right now; we're on the verge of a major change." So says Frank J. Ewasyshyn, executive vice president-Manufacturing, Chrysler LLC, a man who has been extensively involved in manufacturing technology for over 30 years at Chrysler, which he joined in 1976.
If there is a single word that sums up the driver of these changes, it's this: Sensors.
Ewasyshyn believes that sensors are going to be at the root of changes that "Will have as big an impact as robots did when they arrived on the industrial scene."
And while sensors have certainly been around for years in manufacturing, he cites an important different: "Sensors are now cheap and they work, as compared to in the past, when they were expensive and didn't work."
Action in assembly.
A lot of the changes are going to occur in assembly operations, where tactile feedback will have big effects on how the work is done: "In the next five years you're going to see the whole process change when it comes to how cars are put together."
According to Ewasyshyn, there are a variety of sensor functions at the heart of this change. He says that tactile feedback is an important capability, as is vision. Consider, he suggests, industrial variants of the types of prosthetic devices that are being applied today, such as hands. Given one of these hands and the feedback that sensors provide, "The sky's the limit with what you can do-it doesn't matter if you're assembling small components, plugging things in, holding things, or clamping things." Rather than having, say, clamping predicated on preset air pressure, it will be such that "the clamp can tell you how much it is pushing, or how much it needs to push."
He sees the development of task-specific devices, such as for the trim and final shop, where it has generally been necessary to have human workers and hard tooling. Instrument panel installation involves plugging things in, for example, something that is done manually. This may change. Ewasyshyn says that it is possible to have a hand-like device on the end of a robotic end effector that could not only find the plug, but plug it in and provide the feedback that it has accomplished the task.
It is conceivable-if not likely-that there could be a scenario wherein there is a device performing 15 to 20 assembly operations that is controlled by one person standing outside of the car on the line rather than having that person clamber into the vehicle to do the tasks. Not only will this provide an ergonomic improvement-"there's no such thing as a ‘blind operation' anymore," he says, speaking of those jobs where sight lines are essentially nonexistent-but also benefit quality and productivity, as well.
Seeing things.
Then there is the effect of vision on operations. He points out that stereoscopic vision would allow a robot to perform bin-picking tasks. One consequence of this would be the elimination of precision racking. Part-presentation costs are thereby minimized.
"Knowing" where it is in space will be beneficial for a robot performing tasks: "Think about painting. We spend a lot of time and energy making sure things don't bump into anything. If it can see, it can make adjustments on the fly." What's more, he says that if the robot is able to "see" what it is painting, it can make adjustments from vehicle to vehicle, panel to panel, thereby facilitating mixed-lot production.
Ewasyshyn says that they're working on portable induction hardening of dies at Chrysler. He says that the next step in their program would be to mount the induction hardener on a robot, then equip the robot with infrared (IR) sensors. This way, the IR sensor would be able to "see" whether the steel is hot enough, something that a human can't do unaided. Again, he suggests that this robot-sensor fusion improves quality and reduces cost.
Even machining might benefit. "If I can cut a part and know exactly what I got when I cut it, I can adjust for the next part if I choose to. I can maintain process control and stay closer and closer by looking at it in real time, without all of the problems that occur with today's LVDTs and linear scales."
Cutting less.
Also on the subject of machining, Ewasyshyn points out that whereas high-speed machining works well on aluminum, it wasn't as beneficial on other materials "because the tools couldn't survive." He says that there is on-going work on both tool coatings and substrates that will help with both life and speed. "Given the price of materials today, if you managed to find a coating that could do what you wanted it to, you could make a business case for it. We're not moving down-market when it comes to exotic cutting tools."
Actually, when it comes to machining, Ewasyshyn thinks that what needs to happen is that there is less of it. That is, he explains there needs to be near-net shape casting: "The less you cut, the less you have a problem with." Once again, more-precise casting is an area that he thinks sensors will facilitate: thermal imagining and simulation; embedding sensors in the die and using the feedback to control the process.
According to Ewasyshyn, weight is going to become an even more tremendous challenge in the auto industry: "We are going to have to get lighter with every-thing we do." He maintains that with the increased fuel economy standards that are coming, mass reduction is an important alternative: "If your choice is between an expensive powertrain or materials to make it lighter, things like carbon fiber and titanium begin to make more sense," he says, explaining, "The lighter the vehicle, the less energy it takes-and the less exotic the powertrain has to be." And he points out that even if a non-traditional power-train is used, reduced mass is still beneficial.
He thinks that adhesives are going to play a bigger role, and that carbon-fiber composites and other reinforced plastics will be used to create larger body components "that will replace a lot of sheet metal pieces." He even suggests that foamed metals may become an alternative for structural components, such as front rails (e.g., "It could be a foamed metal with a light, solid casing").
What of the equipment and tooling suppliers to the auto industry? "What's going to happen to them?," Ewasyshyn replies. "They're going to suffer the same pressures that we do. For the sake of argument, say that cars are glued together. Guess what? We're not going to be buying any more welding equipment. We'll be buying dispensing equipment."
A View from Metaldyne
Looking at some of the available equipment today, Christi Fogler, manager, Manufacturing Services, Metaldyne (www.metaldyne.com), says that one of the issues she would like to see addressed is in minimizing non-value-added time in metalcutting: “Metal removal still has too much non-valued-added time in the chip-to-chip time associated with tool changes and tool positioning times. This lost time is magnified on larger products that require many tools to produce a part. More choices in equipment with low chip-to-chip time would be advantageous.” As they look for that equipment, chances are it is going to be flexible, because as Fogler points out, “There is a large trend toward multiple flexible cells over dedicated, large transfer lines. This allows better product evolution in manufacturing for design changes and short lead times from design to manufacturing. It also allows companies to phase-in additonal equipment as the customer demand occurs.” She also points out that the flexible eqiupment is more readily deployed on new products.
A View from Robert Bosch
One of the things Larry Lautenschlager, senior vp-Technical, for the Robert Bosch (www.bosch.us) facility in Charleston, SC, is looking for is greater flexiblity as regards changeover. As he puts it, “For precision machining, this equipment is generally designed for large volume setups, and can be somewhat difficult to change over or make adjustments from type to type.” The same seems to be the case for assembly, where he says there are generally two types of equipment: “One has highly automated lines that are also set up for large production runs, and is not very flexible. It requires a high cost structure to run and maintain this equipment. The second type of equipment is very manual. This type of equipment is often set up with the assumption that there must be some quality risk as it is too dependent on the operator to ensure quality via quality checks, etc.” Clearly, this is not what he’s looking for. The bottom line from Lautenschlager seems to be this: “There is a need for better ‘Lean Line Designed’ equipment in both machining and assembly. This would allow high quality and better cost per piece produced due to the lower initial investment, the reduced structure to keep it running properly, and finally, the flexibility in type changeovers.”
