Non-standard Automation Equipment: 15 Key Technical Risk Points in Design Scheme Review

The review of the design scheme is the first line of defense for the landing of non-standard equipment, which directly determines whether the equipment can operate stably, meet the production capacity requirements, and have maintainability. The 15 key technical risk points cover three dimensions: “scheme feasibility, mechanism rationality, and risk control effectiveness”, all of which are indispensable. The details are as follows:

• Demand Landing Risk: Failure to fully decompose customer requirements (such as product tolerance, production capacity fluctuation, and environmental adaptability) leads to the disconnection between the scheme and the actual production scenario, resulting in the problem that “thedrawings meet the requirements but cannot be adapted on site”. For example, the impact of workshop dust, temperature and humidity on precision mechanisms is not considered.

• Risk of Mismatch Between Cycle Time and Production Capacity: When calculating thecycle time, only the time-consuming of a single action is considered, and no time is reserved for material transmission, fault redundancy, and model change, resulting in the actualproduction capacity failing to meet the customer’s requirements and no room for optimization.

• Mechanism Selection Risk: The selection of core mechanisms (such ascams, synchronous belts, and lead screws) is not verified in combination with load, speed, and precision requirements, leading to the problem that “over-selection wastes costs and under-selection causes mechanism damage”.

• Positioning Accuracy Risk: The flexible positioning scheme does not consider the fluctuation of workpiece tolerance and does not design a compensation mechanism, resulting in the failure of repeated positioning accuracy to meet the standard and affecting the product processing/assembly quality.

• Multi-station Linkage Risk: Failure to conduct a comprehensive interference check, chaotic timing logic, and lack of interlocking mechanism lead to multi-station action conflicts, equipment shutdown, and even damage toworkpieces or mechanisms.

• Material Transmission Risk: The design of the material transmission path is unreasonable, resulting in problems such as material jamming, blocking, and wear. Especially, no special protection is provided for the transmission of special-shaped parts and fragile parts.

• Electrical Control Risk: PLC program logic loopholes and improper sensor selection (such as insufficient response speed and poor anti-interference ability) lead to equipment misoperation and signal loss, affecting equipment stability.

• Pneumatic/Hydraulic System Risk: The selection of cylinders and hydraulic cylinders does not verify the load andstroke, and the layout of air pipes/oil pipes is unreasonable, resulting in air leakage, oil leakage, action lag and other problems.

• Maintainability Risk: Core mechanisms and wearing parts are arranged in hidden positions without maintenance space, resulting in high maintenance difficulty and long time consumption, which affects production efficiency.

• Cost and Cycle Risk: The scheme design is too complex and rare accessories are selected, leading to prolonged procurement cycle, cost overrun, and difficulty in subsequent accessory replacement.

• Compatibility Risk: Failure to consider the product model change demand, insufficient equipment flexibility, and inability to adapt to similar products of different specifications in the future increase the customer’s secondary investment.

• Safety Risk: Lack of safety protection devices (such as emergency stop buttons, protective covers, and photoelectric protection), or unreasonable protection design, resulting in potential safety hazards for operators.

• Environmental Adaptability Risk: Failure to design in combination with on-site environmental factors such as workshop voltage fluctuation, dust, and vibration leads to high failure rate of equipment in the actual scenario.

• Ambiguous Acceptance Standard Risk: The acceptance indicators such as precision, production capacity, and stability are not clearly defined in the scheme, leading to disputes in subsequent acceptance and failure to deliver smoothly.

• Technology Iteration Risk: The scheme adopts outdated technology or obsolete accessories, which cannot be upgraded and optimized in the future, resulting in short equipment service lif