US20020069045A1 - Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system - Google Patents
Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20020069045A1 US20020069045A1 US09/965,904 US96590401A US2002069045A1 US 20020069045 A1 US20020069045 A1 US 20020069045A1 US 96590401 A US96590401 A US 96590401A US 2002069045 A1 US2002069045 A1 US 2002069045A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- operator
- flowchart
- commands
- set forth
- logical
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
- G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
- G05B19/00—Programme-control systems
- G05B19/02—Programme-control systems electric
- G05B19/04—Programme control other than numerical control, i.e. in sequence controllers or logic controllers
- G05B19/05—Programmable logic controllers, e.g. simulating logic interconnections of signals according to ladder diagrams or function charts
- G05B19/056—Programming the PLC
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
- G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
- G05B2219/00—Program-control systems
- G05B2219/10—Plc systems
- G05B2219/13—Plc programming
- G05B2219/13176—Functionality of a complex controlled systems, composed of sub-systems
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G05—CONTROLLING; REGULATING
- G05B—CONTROL OR REGULATING SYSTEMS IN GENERAL; FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF SUCH SYSTEMS; MONITORING OR TESTING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUCH SYSTEMS OR ELEMENTS
- G05B2219/00—Program-control systems
- G05B2219/10—Plc systems
- G05B2219/14—Plc safety
- G05B2219/14071—Test of equipment, system without using actual system
Definitions
- the present invention relates generally to programmable logic controllers and, more specifically, to a method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system for manufacturing a motor vehicle.
- programmable logic controller code is written by controls engineers after assembly tooling designs are completed and a manufacturing process has been defined.
- the creation of the programmable logic controller code is mostly a manual programming task with any automation of the code generation limited to “cutting and pasting” previously written blocks of code that were applied to similar manufacturing tools.
- the programmable logic controller code is written, it is used by a programmable logic controller integrated on to hard tools in the manufacture of parts for motor vehicles.
- the programmable logic controller code is not validated (debugged) until the hard tools are built and tried. A significant portion of this tool tryout process is associated with the debugging of the programmable logic controller code at levels of detail from a tool-by-tool level, to a workcell level and finally at a tooling line level.
- a manufacturing line is typically made of three to twenty linked workcells.
- Each workcell consists of a fixture to position product (sheet metal) and associated automation (robots) that process the product (welding).
- the workcell typically consists of a fixture/tool surrounded by three or four robots.
- a human operator typically interacts with the product in the workcell for the manufacturing line.
- the present invention is a method of logical modeling operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system.
- the method includes the steps of constructing a flowchart of interaction of an operator in a workcell and testing whether logic of the flowchart is correct.
- the method also includes the step of using the flowchart to test PLC code to build the workcell if the logic of the flowchart is correct. It should be appreciated that the method may include the ability to force status of the desired operator behavior so that diagnostic conditions can be verified.
- One advantage of the present invention is that a method is provided for logical modeling of operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system. Another advantage of the present invention is that the method allows a user to verify that the PLC code being planned will work as intended, prior to physically building the tools/manufacturing line and locating equipment. Yet another advantage of the present invention is that the method allows verification of PLC code prior to vendor tool tryout (VTTO) and directly shortens the product development timing, resulting in substantial timing and cost savings.
- VTTO vendor tool tryout
- FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic view of a system, according to the present invention, for using a method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system illustrated in operational relationship with an operator.
- FIGS. 2 through 5 are flowcharts illustrating a method, according to the present invention, of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system using the system of FIG. 1.
- a user 12 using a computer 14 logically models operator interaction with a programmable logic controller (PLC) logical verification system 16 .
- the computer 14 sends and receives information with the PLC logical verification system 16 via an electronic link.
- the PLC logical verification system 16 verifies PLC logic for a workcell of a tooling line.
- the computer 14 also sends and receives information with an operator interaction design 18 via an electronic link.
- the operator interaction design 18 sends and receives information with the PLC logical verification system 16 to verify the PLC code.
- the PLC code is verified, it is exported by the computer 14 via an electronic link to at least one PLC 20 .
- the PLC 20 is then used at physical tool build to produce or build a workcell (not shown), which is used in a tooling line (not shown) for the manufacture of parts (not shown) for a motor vehicle (not shown).
- the computer 14 , electronic links, and PLC 20 are conventional and known in the art. It should also be appreciated that one variation that has been proposed it to substitute a computer based emulation of the PLC and having a PLC emulation does not materially affect the above description.
- a method, according to the present invention, for logical modeling of operator interaction with the PLC logical verification system 16 of the system 10 is shown.
- the user 12 models a human operator (not shown) in context of the part or product being developed, as a controller with a unique set of resources.
- a controller may be an operator, robot, PLC, or any programmable device.
- the resource assigned to the operator controller is a model of a physical manifestation of the operator in the workcell. For example, an operator resource for moving a part in a repetitive cycle might be an overhead crane that they directly control.
- the PLC code or controller program can be written using conventional logic.
- the method begins by writing a control model for an operator by the operator interaction design system 18 .
- the operator interaction design system 18 will create a control model definition that describes how an operator picks up a part, carries, and loads it into a fixture.
- FIG. 5 a flowchart of a method for a part flow in two stations or workcells is shown. The method begins in bubble 50 where an operator or pusher moves the part to Station 0 and on a transfer bar in block 52 . The part moves forward in block 54 , moves up in block 56 , until the part is at a top in block 58 . The part drops to the transfer bar in block 60 . The part is at workspace 1 in block 62 . The part moves forward to Station 1 in block 64 .
- control model is information that describes events, dependencies, and logical conditions. It should also be appreciated that the method uses flowcharts to represent the cyclic logical behavior of the operator. It should further be appreciated that the purpose of the model is to verify the PLC logic by providing input signals to the PLC at desired times or based on conditional events. It should also be appreciated that the focus is on the logical representation of the operator and not the visual or spatial representations.
- the method begins in bubble 100 and advances to block 102 .
- the method includes selecting “commands” from a resource's capability to cause an action.
- the commands available to the operator flowchart are determined by the collection of resources that have been bound to that controller.
- a resource may be “Carry” for an operator to carry a workpiece from a first location to a second location.
- the resource has at least one, preferably a plurality of capabilities.
- a capability for the resource “carry” may be “lift” such that the operator lifts the workpiece before carrying the workpiece from the first location to the second location.
- the method advances to diamond 104 and determines whether the user 12 is done. If so, the method advances to bubble 106 and ends. If not, the method advances to block 102 previously described. It should be appreciated that the operator controller has at least one resource and the at least one resource has at least one capability. It should also be appreciated that the method is carried out on the computer 14 by the user 12 .
- the method allows either the operator logic or PLC to test for status being returned from a resource through its input registers.
- the execution of the flowchart during simulation which might be more than one based on different starting conditions, then proceeds by successive “command, test status” loops.
- the method begins with initializing the test in bubble 200 . From bubble 200 , the method advances to block 202 and idles the operator. For example, in block 202 , the operator is set to idle where no work or motion is being performed. From block 202 , the method advances to block 204 and starts a timer. The timer may be set for a predetermined time period such as ten seconds to carry out the commands as illustrated in FIG. 4.
- the user 12 receives verification from the system 10 when the commands are completely performed.
- the user 12 determines whether the commands are completed within the predetermined time period.
- the method advances to bubble 206 and ends. It should be appreciated that branching opportunities, reflecting testing multiple possibilities based on various status conditions, is also implemented. It should also be appreciated that controllers test conditions from resources or locations. It should be appreciated that the user can force conditions in the operator logic that allows diagnostic conditions to be verified.
- the method executes the commands when the timer is started.
- the method begins in bubble 300 on the timer being started when called by block 204 of FIG. 3.
- the method advances to block 302 and the operator gets, for example, a woodblock, which is a part.
- the method advances to block 304 and the operator takes the woodblock from a part source.
- the method advances to block 306 and commands the operator to put the woodblock.
- the method advances to block 308 and the operator puts the woodblock at a first part location.
- the method advances to block 310 and commands the operator to push “cyclestart”.
- the method advances to bubble 312 and ends.
Abstract
Description
- The present application claims the priority date of co-pending U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/236,964, filed Sept. 29, 2000.
- 1. Field of the Invention
- The present invention relates generally to programmable logic controllers and, more specifically, to a method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system for manufacturing a motor vehicle.
- 2. Description of the Related Art
- It is known that programmable logic controller code is written by controls engineers after assembly tooling designs are completed and a manufacturing process has been defined. The creation of the programmable logic controller code is mostly a manual programming task with any automation of the code generation limited to “cutting and pasting” previously written blocks of code that were applied to similar manufacturing tools. Once the programmable logic controller code is written, it is used by a programmable logic controller integrated on to hard tools in the manufacture of parts for motor vehicles. The programmable logic controller code is not validated (debugged) until the hard tools are built and tried. A significant portion of this tool tryout process is associated with the debugging of the programmable logic controller code at levels of detail from a tool-by-tool level, to a workcell level and finally at a tooling line level.
- It is also known that a manufacturing line is typically made of three to twenty linked workcells. Each workcell consists of a fixture to position product (sheet metal) and associated automation (robots) that process the product (welding). The workcell typically consists of a fixture/tool surrounded by three or four robots. A human operator typically interacts with the product in the workcell for the manufacturing line.
- It is further known that the workcells for a manufacturing line can be modeled before the manufacturing line is implemented. The modeling techniques, such as Robcad from Tecnomatix and Igrip from Deneb, for the manufacturing process are limited in scope to a workcell level, due to how these type of technologies represent and manipulate three dimensional data and tool motions. It is still further known that RobcadMan from Tecnomatix and Transom Jack from Engineering Animation Inc. are two ergonomic modeling technologies. However, both of these products are focused on visualizing and resolving operator behavior as it applies to “reach” or load conditions and are not suited for modeling operator behavior as it applies to the overall PLC control system design and verification.
- To model the proper behavior of a workcell to enable programmable logic controller (PLC) programs to be verified prior to the actual build/launch of tooling, it is necessary to account for the interaction of the operator in the workcell. This interaction consists of two segments: sequential operation where the operator functions as an integral part of the sequential cycle of the workcell, thereby causing certain logic conditions to be set in the PLC logic (ex: loading/unloading a part each cycle); and interrupt or exception behavior where the operator responds to asynchronous requests for the workcell. The premise in building the workcell model for simulation is that a user of a PLC logic verification system can perform all the necessary asynchronous functions without undue burden (for example, placing the machine into auto cycle). However, it would be difficult to be able to run the workcell through multiple continuous cycles if the user had to interact with the simulation throughout each cycle as if they were the real operator.
- Therefore, it is desirable to provide a method for modeling an operator as a logical ingredient in a normal or expected behavior of a workcell. It is also desirable to provide a method for logical modeling of operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system. It is further desirable to provide a method of logical modeling of operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system for manufacturing a motor vehicle. Therefore, there is a need in the art to provide a method that meets these desires.
- Accordingly, the present invention is a method of logical modeling operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system. The method includes the steps of constructing a flowchart of interaction of an operator in a workcell and testing whether logic of the flowchart is correct. The method also includes the step of using the flowchart to test PLC code to build the workcell if the logic of the flowchart is correct. It should be appreciated that the method may include the ability to force status of the desired operator behavior so that diagnostic conditions can be verified.
- One advantage of the present invention is that a method is provided for logical modeling of operator interaction with a programmable logic controller logical verification system. Another advantage of the present invention is that the method allows a user to verify that the PLC code being planned will work as intended, prior to physically building the tools/manufacturing line and locating equipment. Yet another advantage of the present invention is that the method allows verification of PLC code prior to vendor tool tryout (VTTO) and directly shortens the product development timing, resulting in substantial timing and cost savings.
- Other features and advantages of the present invention will be readily appreciated, as the same becomes better understood, after reading the subsequent description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
- FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic view of a system, according to the present invention, for using a method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system illustrated in operational relationship with an operator.
- FIGS. 2 through 5 are flowcharts illustrating a method, according to the present invention, of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system using the system of FIG. 1.
- Referring to the drawings and in particular FIG. 1, one embodiment of a system10, according to the present invention, is illustrated. In the present invention, a
user 12 using acomputer 14 logically models operator interaction with a programmable logic controller (PLC)logical verification system 16. Thecomputer 14 sends and receives information with the PLClogical verification system 16 via an electronic link. The PLClogical verification system 16 verifies PLC logic for a workcell of a tooling line. Thecomputer 14 also sends and receives information with anoperator interaction design 18 via an electronic link. Theoperator interaction design 18 sends and receives information with the PLClogical verification system 16 to verify the PLC code. Once the PLC code is verified, it is exported by thecomputer 14 via an electronic link to at least onePLC 20. ThePLC 20 is then used at physical tool build to produce or build a workcell (not shown), which is used in a tooling line (not shown) for the manufacture of parts (not shown) for a motor vehicle (not shown). It should be appreciated that thecomputer 14, electronic links, andPLC 20 are conventional and known in the art. It should also be appreciated that one variation that has been proposed it to substitute a computer based emulation of the PLC and having a PLC emulation does not materially affect the above description. - Referring to FIGS. 2 through 5, a method, according to the present invention, for logical modeling of operator interaction with the PLC
logical verification system 16 of the system 10 is shown. In general, theuser 12 models a human operator (not shown) in context of the part or product being developed, as a controller with a unique set of resources. In the present invention, a controller may be an operator, robot, PLC, or any programmable device. The resource assigned to the operator controller is a model of a physical manifestation of the operator in the workcell. For example, an operator resource for moving a part in a repetitive cycle might be an overhead crane that they directly control. Once the resource is bound to the operator controller, the PLC code or controller program can be written using conventional logic. - The method begins by writing a control model for an operator by the operator
interaction design system 18. For example, the operatorinteraction design system 18 will create a control model definition that describes how an operator picks up a part, carries, and loads it into a fixture. As illustrated in FIG. 5, a flowchart of a method for a part flow in two stations or workcells is shown. The method begins inbubble 50 where an operator or pusher moves the part toStation 0 and on a transfer bar inblock 52. The part moves forward inblock 54, moves up in block 56, until the part is at a top inblock 58. The part drops to the transfer bar in block 60. The part is atworkspace 1 inblock 62. The part moves forward toStation 1 inblock 64. The part moves up inblock 66, until the part is at the top in block 68. The part drops to a second transfer bar in block 70. The part is atworkspace 2 in block 72. It should be appreciated that the control model is information that describes events, dependencies, and logical conditions. It should also be appreciated that the method uses flowcharts to represent the cyclic logical behavior of the operator. It should further be appreciated that the purpose of the model is to verify the PLC logic by providing input signals to the PLC at desired times or based on conditional events. It should also be appreciated that the focus is on the logical representation of the operator and not the visual or spatial representations. - Referring to FIG. 2, the method begins in bubble100 and advances to block 102. In block 102, the method includes selecting “commands” from a resource's capability to cause an action. The commands available to the operator flowchart (selected while the
user 12 is in the action block) are determined by the collection of resources that have been bound to that controller. For example, a resource may be “Carry” for an operator to carry a workpiece from a first location to a second location. The resource has at least one, preferably a plurality of capabilities. For example, a capability for the resource “carry” may be “lift” such that the operator lifts the workpiece before carrying the workpiece from the first location to the second location. From block 102, the method advances to diamond 104 and determines whether theuser 12 is done. If so, the method advances tobubble 106 and ends. If not, the method advances to block 102 previously described. It should be appreciated that the operator controller has at least one resource and the at least one resource has at least one capability. It should also be appreciated that the method is carried out on thecomputer 14 by theuser 12. - Referring to FIG. 3., the method allows either the operator logic or PLC to test for status being returned from a resource through its input registers. The execution of the flowchart during simulation, which might be more than one based on different starting conditions, then proceeds by successive “command, test status” loops. The method begins with initializing the test in
bubble 200. Frombubble 200, the method advances to block 202 and idles the operator. For example, inblock 202, the operator is set to idle where no work or motion is being performed. Fromblock 202, the method advances to block 204 and starts a timer. The timer may be set for a predetermined time period such as ten seconds to carry out the commands as illustrated in FIG. 4. Theuser 12 receives verification from the system 10 when the commands are completely performed. Theuser 12 determines whether the commands are completed within the predetermined time period. After block 204, the method advances to bubble 206 and ends. It should be appreciated that branching opportunities, reflecting testing multiple possibilities based on various status conditions, is also implemented. It should also be appreciated that controllers test conditions from resources or locations. It should be appreciated that the user can force conditions in the operator logic that allows diagnostic conditions to be verified. - Referring to FIG. 4, the method executes the commands when the timer is started. The method begins in
bubble 300 on the timer being started when called by block 204 of FIG. 3. Frombubble 300, the method advances to block 302 and the operator gets, for example, a woodblock, which is a part. The method advances to block 304 and the operator takes the woodblock from a part source. The method advances to block 306 and commands the operator to put the woodblock. The method advances to block 308 and the operator puts the woodblock at a first part location. The method advances to block 310 and commands the operator to push “cyclestart”. The method advances tobubble 312 and ends. It should be appreciated that the flowchart evokes resources and theuser 12 can test the flowchart as to what is being tested is a PLC program loaded to the controller. It should also be appreciated the specific sequence of commands in FIG. 4 is merely an example of the commands executed. - The present invention has been described in an illustrative manner. It is to be understood that the terminology, which has been used, is intended to be in the nature of words of description rather than of limitation.
- Many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in light of the above teachings. Therefore, within the scope of the appended claims, the present invention may be practiced other than as specifically described.
Claims (15)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US09/965,904 US20020069045A1 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US23696400P | 2000-09-29 | 2000-09-29 | |
US09/965,904 US20020069045A1 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20020069045A1 true US20020069045A1 (en) | 2002-06-06 |
Family
ID=26930270
Family Applications (3)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/965,905 Expired - Fee Related US7702491B2 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of part flow model for programmable logic controller logical verification system |
US09/966,121 Expired - Fee Related US8135567B2 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of emulating machine tool behavior for programmable logic controller logical verification system |
US09/965,904 Abandoned US20020069045A1 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system |
Family Applications Before (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US09/965,905 Expired - Fee Related US7702491B2 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of part flow model for programmable logic controller logical verification system |
US09/966,121 Expired - Fee Related US8135567B2 (en) | 2000-09-29 | 2001-09-28 | Method of emulating machine tool behavior for programmable logic controller logical verification system |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (3) | US7702491B2 (en) |
Families Citing this family (29)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7105769B2 (en) * | 1999-08-17 | 2006-09-12 | Milco Manufacturing Co. | Method of specifying and designing welding guns |
EP1756684B1 (en) * | 2004-06-15 | 2008-04-16 | Abb Ab | Method and system for off-line programming of multiple interacting robots |
US9390203B2 (en) | 2004-06-15 | 2016-07-12 | Abb Ab | Method and system for off-line programming of multiple interacting robots |
US20060080075A1 (en) * | 2004-10-08 | 2006-04-13 | Young Timothy H | Programmable logic controller simulator interface card |
JP2007265238A (en) * | 2006-03-29 | 2007-10-11 | Fujitsu Ltd | Simulation device and simulation method |
JP4271232B2 (en) * | 2006-12-20 | 2009-06-03 | ファナック株式会社 | Apparatus, method, program, and recording medium for executing offline programming of robot |
US9071436B2 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2015-06-30 | The Invention Science Fund I, Llc | Security-activated robotic system |
US9818071B2 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2017-11-14 | Invention Science Fund I, Llc | Authorization rights for operational components |
US9626487B2 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2017-04-18 | Invention Science Fund I, Llc | Security-activated production device |
US20090164379A1 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2009-06-25 | Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware | Conditional authorization for security-activated device |
US20110178619A1 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2011-07-21 | Searete Llc, A Limited Liability Corporation Of The State Of Delaware | Security-activated robotic tasks |
US9128476B2 (en) | 2007-12-21 | 2015-09-08 | The Invention Science Fund I, Llc | Secure robotic operational system |
US8752166B2 (en) * | 2007-12-21 | 2014-06-10 | The Invention Science Fund I, Llc | Security-activated operational components |
US20090182442A1 (en) * | 2008-01-14 | 2009-07-16 | Gm Global Technology Operations, Inc. | Framework for results interpretation and guided refinement of specifications for plc logic verification |
CA2838761A1 (en) * | 2010-07-22 | 2012-01-26 | Cogmation Robotics Inc. | A non-programmer method for creating simulation-enabled 3d robotic models for immediate robotic simulation, without programming intervention |
US9720393B2 (en) | 2012-08-31 | 2017-08-01 | P.C. Automax Inc. | Automation system and method of manufacturing product using automated equipment |
US10360316B2 (en) * | 2012-12-21 | 2019-07-23 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Integration of simulation of a machine for industrial automation |
US10127332B2 (en) * | 2013-12-23 | 2018-11-13 | Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation | Automatic motion of a computer-aided design model |
CN105068511A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-11-18 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | Plc industrial control system |
CN105116827A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-12-02 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | GPS communication type industrial automation control system |
CN105094042A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-11-25 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | Industrial automation control system |
CN105116826A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-12-02 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | Signal regulation type industrial automation control system |
CN105005263A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-10-28 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | PLC automatic control system |
CN105022338A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-11-04 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | Parameter collection type industrial automation control system |
CN105068498A (en) * | 2015-07-20 | 2015-11-18 | 成都广迈科技有限公司 | Industrial control system |
CN109643092B (en) * | 2016-08-24 | 2021-07-27 | 西门子股份公司 | System and method for threat impact determination |
US10414046B1 (en) | 2016-11-07 | 2019-09-17 | X Development Llc | Modular robot design |
CN107317811B (en) * | 2017-06-23 | 2020-07-07 | 北京威努特技术有限公司 | Method for realizing analog PLC |
CN109948251B (en) * | 2019-03-20 | 2023-12-19 | 荣智工企智能技术(昆山)有限公司 | CAD-based data processing method, device, equipment and storage medium |
Citations (28)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4510565A (en) * | 1982-09-20 | 1985-04-09 | Allen-Bradley Company | Programmable controller with intelligent positioning I/O modules |
US4831549A (en) * | 1987-07-28 | 1989-05-16 | Brigham Young University | Device and method for correction of robot inaccuracy |
US4928221A (en) * | 1988-04-11 | 1990-05-22 | Westinghouse Electric Corp. | Part program generating system |
US4931951A (en) * | 1987-05-08 | 1990-06-05 | Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha | Method for generating rules for an expert system for use in controlling a plant |
US4998206A (en) * | 1988-07-29 | 1991-03-05 | The Boeing Company | Automated method and apparatus for fabricating sheet metal parts and the like using multiple manufacturing stations |
US5050088A (en) * | 1989-03-29 | 1991-09-17 | Eastman Kodak Company | Production control system and method |
US5119318A (en) * | 1989-04-17 | 1992-06-02 | Del Partners L.P. | Expert control system for real time management of automated factory equipment |
US5249135A (en) * | 1988-07-04 | 1993-09-28 | Mitsubishi Denki K.K. | Automatic design processing system for creating design processes for machining of parts |
US5377116A (en) * | 1991-07-01 | 1994-12-27 | Valenite Inc. | Method and system for designing a cutting tool |
US5377315A (en) * | 1992-10-06 | 1994-12-27 | Leggett; Andrew G. | Regeneration of process control flow diagrams for programmable logic controllers |
US5388051A (en) * | 1991-11-25 | 1995-02-07 | Fanuc Ltd. | Direct numerical control (DNC) system including one high-speed data processing unit for each NC machine tool |
US5402349A (en) * | 1991-06-20 | 1995-03-28 | Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha | System for forming automatic production line control data |
US5574637A (en) * | 1993-04-08 | 1996-11-12 | Obata; Masatoshi | Control apparatus for an automated production system workcell |
US5644493A (en) * | 1991-08-30 | 1997-07-01 | Nsk Ltd. | Production information processing system |
US5758123A (en) * | 1994-04-12 | 1998-05-26 | Yokogawa Electric Corporation | Verification support system |
US5796618A (en) * | 1992-10-09 | 1998-08-18 | Omron Corporation | CAD system, method and medium for creating and encoding NC data based before and after workpiece models |
US5963447A (en) * | 1997-08-22 | 1999-10-05 | Hynomics Corporation | Multiple-agent hybrid control architecture for intelligent real-time control of distributed nonlinear processes |
US6167406A (en) * | 1998-05-08 | 2000-12-26 | Allen-Bradley Company, Llc | System, method and article of manufacture for building an enterprise-wide data model |
US6185469B1 (en) * | 1997-05-28 | 2001-02-06 | Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas System | Method and apparatus for testing and controlling a flexible manufacturing system |
US6223134B1 (en) * | 1998-03-20 | 2001-04-24 | National Instruments Corporation | Instrumentation system and method including an improved driver software architecture |
US6263487B1 (en) * | 1996-01-17 | 2001-07-17 | Siemens Ag | Programmable controller |
US6292715B1 (en) * | 1998-10-27 | 2001-09-18 | Perry Investments, Inc. | Robotic process planning method and apparatus using templates |
US6292707B1 (en) * | 1998-11-12 | 2001-09-18 | Trw Inc. | Integrated design and manufacturing system |
US6442441B1 (en) * | 1999-05-17 | 2002-08-27 | Ford Global Technologies, Inc. | Method of automatically generating and verifying programmable logic controller code |
US6470301B1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2002-10-22 | Dassault Systemes | Optimization tool for assembly workcell layout |
US6526373B1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2003-02-25 | Dassault Systemes | Optimization tool for robot placement |
US6618856B2 (en) * | 1998-05-08 | 2003-09-09 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Simulation method and apparatus for use in enterprise controls |
US6847922B1 (en) * | 2000-01-06 | 2005-01-25 | General Motors Corporation | Method for computer-aided layout of manufacturing cells |
Family Cites Families (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP0508308B1 (en) | 1991-04-04 | 1998-03-18 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Automatic manufacturability evaluation method and system |
US5691711A (en) * | 1995-02-24 | 1997-11-25 | Jorgensen; Adam A. | Digital electronic key and lock system |
US6308113B1 (en) * | 2000-06-09 | 2001-10-23 | The United States Of America As Represented By The United States National Aeronautics And Space Administration | Assembly for moving a robotic device along selected axes |
US20020193972A1 (en) * | 2001-06-14 | 2002-12-19 | Ntn Corporation | Workshop facility design and operation support system enabling verification of the entire workshop to be performed easily |
US20030045947A1 (en) | 2001-08-30 | 2003-03-06 | The Boeing Company | System, method and computer program product for controlling the operation of motion devices by directly implementing electronic simulation information |
JP2003117863A (en) | 2001-10-16 | 2003-04-23 | Fanuc Ltd | Robot simulation device |
US7308327B2 (en) * | 2006-05-12 | 2007-12-11 | Ford Motor Company | Method of application protocol monitoring for programmable logic controllers |
-
2001
- 2001-09-28 US US09/965,905 patent/US7702491B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2001-09-28 US US09/966,121 patent/US8135567B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2001-09-28 US US09/965,904 patent/US20020069045A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (28)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US4510565A (en) * | 1982-09-20 | 1985-04-09 | Allen-Bradley Company | Programmable controller with intelligent positioning I/O modules |
US4931951A (en) * | 1987-05-08 | 1990-06-05 | Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha | Method for generating rules for an expert system for use in controlling a plant |
US4831549A (en) * | 1987-07-28 | 1989-05-16 | Brigham Young University | Device and method for correction of robot inaccuracy |
US4928221A (en) * | 1988-04-11 | 1990-05-22 | Westinghouse Electric Corp. | Part program generating system |
US5249135A (en) * | 1988-07-04 | 1993-09-28 | Mitsubishi Denki K.K. | Automatic design processing system for creating design processes for machining of parts |
US4998206A (en) * | 1988-07-29 | 1991-03-05 | The Boeing Company | Automated method and apparatus for fabricating sheet metal parts and the like using multiple manufacturing stations |
US5050088A (en) * | 1989-03-29 | 1991-09-17 | Eastman Kodak Company | Production control system and method |
US5119318A (en) * | 1989-04-17 | 1992-06-02 | Del Partners L.P. | Expert control system for real time management of automated factory equipment |
US5402349A (en) * | 1991-06-20 | 1995-03-28 | Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha | System for forming automatic production line control data |
US5377116A (en) * | 1991-07-01 | 1994-12-27 | Valenite Inc. | Method and system for designing a cutting tool |
US5644493A (en) * | 1991-08-30 | 1997-07-01 | Nsk Ltd. | Production information processing system |
US5388051A (en) * | 1991-11-25 | 1995-02-07 | Fanuc Ltd. | Direct numerical control (DNC) system including one high-speed data processing unit for each NC machine tool |
US5377315A (en) * | 1992-10-06 | 1994-12-27 | Leggett; Andrew G. | Regeneration of process control flow diagrams for programmable logic controllers |
US5796618A (en) * | 1992-10-09 | 1998-08-18 | Omron Corporation | CAD system, method and medium for creating and encoding NC data based before and after workpiece models |
US5574637A (en) * | 1993-04-08 | 1996-11-12 | Obata; Masatoshi | Control apparatus for an automated production system workcell |
US5758123A (en) * | 1994-04-12 | 1998-05-26 | Yokogawa Electric Corporation | Verification support system |
US6263487B1 (en) * | 1996-01-17 | 2001-07-17 | Siemens Ag | Programmable controller |
US6185469B1 (en) * | 1997-05-28 | 2001-02-06 | Board Of Regents, The University Of Texas System | Method and apparatus for testing and controlling a flexible manufacturing system |
US5963447A (en) * | 1997-08-22 | 1999-10-05 | Hynomics Corporation | Multiple-agent hybrid control architecture for intelligent real-time control of distributed nonlinear processes |
US6223134B1 (en) * | 1998-03-20 | 2001-04-24 | National Instruments Corporation | Instrumentation system and method including an improved driver software architecture |
US6167406A (en) * | 1998-05-08 | 2000-12-26 | Allen-Bradley Company, Llc | System, method and article of manufacture for building an enterprise-wide data model |
US6618856B2 (en) * | 1998-05-08 | 2003-09-09 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Simulation method and apparatus for use in enterprise controls |
US6292715B1 (en) * | 1998-10-27 | 2001-09-18 | Perry Investments, Inc. | Robotic process planning method and apparatus using templates |
US6292707B1 (en) * | 1998-11-12 | 2001-09-18 | Trw Inc. | Integrated design and manufacturing system |
US6442441B1 (en) * | 1999-05-17 | 2002-08-27 | Ford Global Technologies, Inc. | Method of automatically generating and verifying programmable logic controller code |
US6470301B1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2002-10-22 | Dassault Systemes | Optimization tool for assembly workcell layout |
US6526373B1 (en) * | 1999-10-08 | 2003-02-25 | Dassault Systemes | Optimization tool for robot placement |
US6847922B1 (en) * | 2000-01-06 | 2005-01-25 | General Motors Corporation | Method for computer-aided layout of manufacturing cells |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20020040290A1 (en) | 2002-04-04 |
US7702491B2 (en) | 2010-04-20 |
US20020040291A1 (en) | 2002-04-04 |
US8135567B2 (en) | 2012-03-13 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20020069045A1 (en) | Method of logical modeling of operator interaction with programmable logic controller logical verification system | |
US6442441B1 (en) | Method of automatically generating and verifying programmable logic controller code | |
US7174225B2 (en) | Method and system for simulating processing of a workpiece with a machine tool | |
US5991533A (en) | Verification support system | |
US6167406A (en) | System, method and article of manufacture for building an enterprise-wide data model | |
US7266476B2 (en) | Simulation method and apparatus for use in enterprise controls | |
US6256598B1 (en) | Method and system for creating a control-flow structure which represents control logic, reconfigurable logic controller having the control logic, method for designing the controller and method for changing its control logic | |
US20020120921A1 (en) | Simulation method and apparatus for use in enterprise controls | |
US20050223295A1 (en) | Method for the creation of sequences for testing software | |
Endsley et al. | Modular finite state machines: Development and application to reconfigurable manufacturing cell controller generation | |
US7346478B2 (en) | Method of embedding tooling control data within mechanical fixture design to enable programmable logic control verification simulation | |
JP3018912B2 (en) | Verification support system | |
US6748283B2 (en) | Method of using neutral event specification file for manufacturing line analysis | |
Zimmermann et al. | Performance and dependability evaluation of manufacturing systems using Petri nets | |
US20020040257A1 (en) | Method of verifying programmable logic controller code for manufacturing lines | |
CN114690663A (en) | Simulation control platform based on model development and material loading handover test method | |
Bigou et al. | A methodology of specification and implementation of distributed discrete control systems | |
Grossman | Opportunities for research on numerical control machining | |
Ko et al. | Machine control level simulation of an AS/RS in the automotive industry | |
Krieger | Multiactivity paradigm for the design and coordination of FMSs | |
Liang et al. | Multi-level modeling for hybrid manufacturing systems using Arena and MATLAB | |
Carpanzano et al. | A structured methodology for the design and implementation of hybrid robot controllers | |
Erkkinen | Model style guidelines for production code generation | |
Zaeh et al. | Emerging virtual machine tools | |
US20230249347A1 (en) | Path planning during execution of robot control |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, MICHIGAN Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:WALACAVAGE, J.G.;REEL/FRAME:012225/0564 Effective date: 20010928 Owner name: FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MICHIGAN Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:FORD MOTOR COMPANY;REEL/FRAME:012225/0567 Effective date: 20010928 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, MICHIGAN Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;REEL/FRAME:013987/0838 Effective date: 20030301 Owner name: FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,MICHIGAN Free format text: MERGER;ASSIGNOR:FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;REEL/FRAME:013987/0838 Effective date: 20030301 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- AFTER EXAMINER'S ANSWER OR BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION |