Advertisement

Research in Engineering Design

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 168–190 | Cite as

Automated manufacturability analysis: A survey

  • Satyandra K. GuptaEmail author
  • William C. Regli
  • Diganta Das
  • Dana S. Nau
Article

Abstract

In the market-place of the 21st century, there is no place for traditional ‘over-the-wall’ communications between design and manufacturing. In order to ‘design it right the very first time’, designers must ensure that their products are both functional and easy to manufacture. Software tools have had some successes in reducing the barriers between design and manufacturing. Manufacturability analysis systems are emerging as one such tool — enabling identification of potential manufacturing problems during the design phase and providing suggestions to designers on how to eliminate them.

In this paper, we provide a survey of current state-of-the-art automated manufacturability analysis. We present the historical context in which this area has emerged and outline characteristics to compare and classify various systems. We describe the two dominant approaches to automated manufacturability analysis and overview representative systems based on their application domain. We describe support tools that enhance the effectiveness of manufacturability analysis systems. Finally, we attempt to expose some of the existing research challenges and future directions.

Keywords

CAD Concurrent engineering Design for manufacturing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adachi T, Kobyakawa S, Koh S, Inoue I. Bridging the gap between a product design sector and a production sector: Conceptualization and a support tool. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference of production research, 1985Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alder RE, Ishii K. DAISIE: Designer's aid for simultaneous engineering. In Proceedings of the ASME International Computers in Engineering Conference, Anaheim, CA, ASME 1989Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agapiou JS. The optimization of machining operations based on a combined criterion, part 1: the use of combined objectives in single-pass operations. J Engng Industry Trans ASME 1992; 114: 500–507Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agapiou JS. The optimization of machining operations based on a combined criterion, part 2: Multipass operations. J. Engng Industry, Trans ASME 1992; 114: 508–513Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alting L, Zhang H. Computer aided process planning: The state of the art survey. Int J Prod Res 1989; 27(4): 553–585Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ando K, Yoshikawa, H. Generation of manufacturing information in intelligent CAD. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anjanappa M, Kirk JA, Anand DK, Nau DS. Automated rapid prototyping with heuristics and intelligence: Part I — configuration. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(4): 219–231Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakerjian R. (Editor) Design for manufacturability. Tool and manufacturing engineers handbook. Vol. 6. Society of Manufacturing Engineers 1992Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bao H. An expert system for SMT printed board design for assembly. Manufacturing Review 1988; 1(4): 275–280, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bolz RW. Production processes: their influence on design. The Penton Publishing Company, Cleveland 1949Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P. Design for assembly — a designer's handbook. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 1983Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boothroyd G. Product design for manufacture and assembly.Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(9): 505–520Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boothroyd G, Radovanovic P. Estimating the cost of machined components during the conceptual design of a product. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1): 157Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bourne DA. Intelligent manufacturing workstations. In Winter annual meeting, ASME. November 1992Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bralla JG. (Editor) Handbook of product design for manufacturing. McGraw-Hill, New York 1986Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brooks SL, Wolf ML. Overview of Allied Signal's XCUT system. In Shah J, Mäntylä M, Nau D (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. Elsevier, North-Holland, 1994, pp. 399–422Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chandrasekharan B, Goel AK, Iwasaki Y. Functional representation as design rationale. Computer 1993; 26(1): 48–56Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tien-Chien Chang. Expert process planning for manufacturing. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA 1990Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baosheng Chen, Chia-Hsiang Menq. Initial attempts on the characterization of functional requirements of mechanical products. In Concurrent engineering, ASME winter annual meeting, ASME 1992Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chuang SH, Henderson MR. Three-dimensional shape pattern recognition using vertex classification and the vertex-edge graph. Computer Aided Design 1990; 22(6): 377–387Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chuang SH, Henderson MR. Compound feature recognition by web grammar parsing. Research in Engineering Design 1991; 2(3): 147–158Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Corney J, Clark DER. Method for finding holes and pockets that connect multiple faces in 2 1/2 D objects. Computer Aided Design 1991; 23(10): 658–668 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Corney J, Clark DER. Face based feature recognition: Generalizing special cases. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1993; 6(1 & 2): 39–50Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cutkosky MR, Tenenbaum JM. Toward a framework for concurrent design. International Journal of Systems Automation: Research and Applications 1992; 1(3): 239–261.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Das D, Gupta SK, Nau DS. Reducing setup cost by automated generation of redesign suggestions. In Ishii K. (ed.) Proceedings of the ASME international computers in Engineering conference. vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN, 1994. ASME pp 159–170Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Fazio TL, Whitney DE. Simplified generation of all mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation 1987; RA-3(6): 640–658Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Fazio TL, Whitney DE. Correction to ‘simplified generation of all mechanical assembly sequences’. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 1988; RA-4(6)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Floriani L. Feature extraction from boundary models of three-dimensional objects. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1989; 11(8): AugustGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Sam Lazaro A, Engquist DT, Edwards DB. An intelligent design for manufacturability system for sheet-metal parts. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 1993; 1(2): 117–123Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Dewhust P. Computer-aided assessment of injection molding cost — a tool for DFA analyses. Technical Report Report 23, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Rhode Island 1987Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Dewhurst P, Blum C. Supporting analyses for the economic assessment of diecasting in product design. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1): 161Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    Dighe R. Jakiela MJ. Computer automated functional design of injection molded product housings. In Taylor DL, Stauffer LA (eds). Proceedings of the design theory and methodology conference, ASME. 1992. pp 45–55Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    Dighe R, Jakiela MJ, Wallace DR. Structural synthesis under manufacturability constraints: A CAD system for the design of injection-molded product housings. Research in Engineering Design 1993; 5(3, 4): 185–201Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Dissinger TE, Magrab EB. A fully integrated design-for-manufacture system for powder metallurgy. In Gadh R (ed). Concurrent product design, ASME winter annual meeting, Design Engineering Division, ASME, New York. 1994. pp 47–58Google Scholar
  35. 34.
    Xin Dong. Geometric feature extraction for computer-aided process planning. PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 1988Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Xin Dong, Wozny M. FRAFES, a frame-based feature extraction system. In International conference on computer integrated manufacturing IEEE, May 23–25, Troy, New York, 1988. pp 296–305Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Xin Dong, Wozny M. A method for generating volumetric features from surface features. In Rossignac J, Turner J (eds). Symposium on solid modeling foundations and CAD/CAM applications New York, ACM SIGGRAPH ACM Press, Austin, TX June 1991. pp 161–169Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    Dong Z, Hu W. Optimal process sequence identification and optimal process tolerance assignment in computer-aided process planning. Computers in Industry 1991; 17: 19–32Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    El-Gizawy A Sherif, Hwang Jenq-Yih, Brewer DH. A strategy for integrating product and process design of aerospace components. Manufacturing Reviews 1990; 3(3): 178–186Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    ElMaraghy HA, Zhang KF, Chu H. A function-oriented modeler prototype. In Guichelaar PJ (ed). Design for Manufacturability, ASME 1993. pp 57–62Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Gadh R, Prinz FB. Recognition of geometric forms using the differential depth filter. Computer Aided Design 1992; 24(11): 583–598 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    Gadh R, Gursoz EL, Hall MA, Prinz FB, Sudhakar AM. Feature abstraction in a knowledge-based critique of designs. Manufacturing Review 1991; 4(2): 1–11 JuneGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    Gatenby DA, Foo G. Designing for X: key to competitive, profitable markets. AT&T Technical Journal 1990; 69(3): 2–13Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    Gavankar P, Henderson MR. Graph-based extraction of protrusions and depressions from boundary representations. Computer Aided Design 1990; 22(7): 442–450Google Scholar
  45. 44.
    General Electric. Manufacturing producibility handbook. Manufacturing Services, Schenectady, New York. 1960Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Grosse IR, Sahu K. Preliminary design of injection molded parts based on manufacturing and functional simulation. In Shah JJ, Mäntylä M, Nau DS (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. Chapter 13. Elsevier Science Publishers 1994. pp 289–313Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Jin-Kang Gui, Mäntylä M. Functional understanding of assembly modeling. Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(6): 435–451Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Gupta SK. Kramer TR, Nau DS, Regli WC, Zhang G. Building MRSEV models for CAM applications. Advances in Engineering Software 1994; 20(2/3): 121–139Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Gupta SK, Nau DS, Regli WC, Zhang G. A methodology for systematic generation and evaluation of alternative operation plans. In Shah JJ, Mäntylä M, Nau DS (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. chapter 8. Elsevier Science Publishers 1994. pp 161–184Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    Gupta SK, Regli WC, Nau DS. Integrating DFM with CAD through design critiquing. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 1994; 2(2):85–95Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Gupta SK, Rao PN, Tewari NK. Development of a CAPP system for prismatic parts using feature based design concepts. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technolgoy 1992; 7: 306–313Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Gupta SK, Nau DS. A systematic approach for analyzing the manufacturability of machined parts. Computer Aided Design 1995; 27(5) 343–342Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    JungHyun Han, Requicha AAG. Incremental recognition of machining features. In Ishii K (ed). ASME computers in engineering conference ASME, September 1994. pp 143–150Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Hargrove SK, Kusiak A. Computer-aided fixture design: A review. International Journal of Production Research 1994; 32(4): 733–754Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Harhalakis G, Kinsey A, Minis I, Rathbun H. Manufacturability evaluation of electronic products using group technology. In NSF design and manufacturing systems grantees conference, Charlotte, NC. 1993Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Hashizume S, Matsunaga M, Sugimoto N, Miyazawa S, Kishi M. Development of an automatic assembly system for tape-recorder mechanisms. Research and Development, Japan 1980Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    Hayes CC, Sun HC. Plan-based generation of design suggestions. In Gadh R (ed). Concurrent product design, ASME winter annual meeting Design Engineering Division, ASME. New York. 1994. pp 59–69Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    Hayes CC, Desa S, Wright PK. Using process planning knowledge to make design suggestions concurrently. in Chao NH, Lu SCY (eds). Concurrent product and process design, ASME winter annual meeting ASME, 1989. 87–92Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Henderson MR. Extraction of feature information from three-dimensional CAD data. PhD thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 1984Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Henderson MR. Representing functionality and design intent in product models. In Rossignac J, Turner J, Allen G (eds). Proceedings of the second symposium on solid modeling and applications ACM SIGGRAPH and IEEE Computer Society, 1993. pp 387–396Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Henderson MR, Taylor LE. A meta-model for mechanical products based upon the mechanical design process. Research in Engineering Design 1993; 5(4): 140–160Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Henderson MR, Srinath G, Stage R, Walker K, Regli W. Boundary representation based feature identification. In Shah J, Mäntylä M, Nau D (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. Elsevier/North-Holland. 1994Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    Hendler J, Wegner P. Viewing object-oriented programming as an enhancement of data abstraction methodology. In HICSS-89, 1989Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Hirschitick JK, Gossard DC. Geometric reasoning for design advisory system. In Proceedings of the ASME international computers in engineering conference ASM, Chicago, IL. 1986. pp 263–270Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    Holt DJ. Saturn: The manufacturing story. Automotive Engineering 1990; 98: NovemberGoogle Scholar
  66. 65.
    Hsiao D. Feature mapping and manufacturability evaluation with an open set feature modeler. PhD thesis, Mechanical Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. 1991Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    Hsu W, George Lee CS, Su SF. Feedback approach to design for assembly by evaluation of assembly plan. Computer Aided Design 1993; 25(7): 395–410 JulyGoogle Scholar
  68. 67.
    Yong-Jung Huh, Sang-Gook Kim. A knowledge-based CAD system for concurrent product design in injection molding. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(4): 209–218Google Scholar
  69. 68.
    Irani RK, Kim BH, Dixon JR. Integrating CAE, features, and iterative redesign to automate the design of injection molds. In Proceedings of the ASME international computers in engineering conference, Anaheim, CA 1989Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    Ishii K. Modelling of concurrent engineering design. In Kusiak A (ed). Concurrent engineering: automation, tools and techniques, ASME winter annual meeting, John Wiley, New York 1993. pp 19–39Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Ishii K. Life-cycle engineering design: Research overview. In Proceedings of the 1994 NSF design and manufacturing grantees conference. Cambridge, MA, January 1994. pp 41–42Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Ishii K, Miller RA. Design representation for manufacturability evaluation in CAD. In Proceedings of ASME computers in engineering conference San Fransisco, CA, August 1992Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    Ishii K, Nekkanti R. Compatibility representation of knowledge about design for net shape manufacturing. In ElMaraghy WH, Seering WP, Ullman DG (eds). ASME international conference on design theory and methodology. Montreal, Canada, September 1989. pp 65–72Google Scholar
  74. 73.
    Ishii K, Eubanks CF, Houser D. Evaluation methodology for post manufacturing issues in life-cycle design. International Journal of Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 1993; 1(1): 61–68Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Jakiela M, Papalambros P. Design and implementation of a prototype intelligent CAD system. ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmission, and Automation in Design, 1989; 111(2): JuneGoogle Scholar
  76. 75.
    Jakiela M, Papalambros P, Ulsoy A G. Programming optimal suggestions in the design concept phase: Application to the Boothroyd assembly charts. ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmission, and Automation in Design 1985; 107: 285–289Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Jansson DG, Shankar SR, Polisetty F. Generalized measures of manufacturability. In Proceedings of the ASME design theory and methodology conference, vol. DE-27, Chicago, IL, September 1990Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Jared GEM, Limage MG, Sherrin IJ, Swift KG. Geometric reasoning and design for manufacture. Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(9): 528–536Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Ping Ji. A tree approach for tolerance charting. International Journal of Production Research 1993; 31(5): 1023–1033Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Joshi S, Chang TC. Graph-based heuristics for recognition of machined features from a 3-D solid model. Computer-Aided Design 1988; 2(2): 58–66 MarchGoogle Scholar
  81. 80.
    Karinthi R, Nau D. An algebraic approach to feature interactions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1992; 14(4): 469–484, AprilGoogle Scholar
  82. 81.
    Kim YS. Recognition of form features using convex decomposition. Computer Aided Design 1992; 24(9): 461–476Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Yong Se Kim, Wilde DJ. A convergent convex decomposition of polyhedral objects. Transactions of the ASME 1992; 114: 468–476Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Kimura F, Suzuki H. A CAD system for efficient product design based on design intent. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1)Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    Kirk JA, Anand DK, Anjanappa M. Automated rapid prototyping with heuristics and intelligence: Part II-implementation. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(4): 232–240Google Scholar
  86. 85.
    Klein M. Capturing design rationale in concurrent engineering teams. IEEE Computer 1993; 26(1): 39–47Google Scholar
  87. 86.
    Kline, WA, DeVor RE, Shareef IA. The prediction of surface accuracy in end milling. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry 1982; 104: 272–278Google Scholar
  88. 87.
    Knight WA. Supporting analyses for the economic assessment of diecasting in product design. Annals of the CIRP 1991; 40(1): 131Google Scholar
  89. 88.
    Kramer TR. A parser that converts a boundary representation into a features representation. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1989; 2(3): 154–163Google Scholar
  90. 89.
    Kyprianou LK. Shape classification in computer aided design. PhD thesis, Christ College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 1980Google Scholar
  91. 90.
    Laakko, T. Mäntylä M. Feature modeling by incremental feature recognition. Computer Aided Design 1993; 25(8): 479–492Google Scholar
  92. 91.
    Lenau T, Alting L. Intelligent support system for product design. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1)Google Scholar
  93. 92.
    Lentz DH, Sowerby R. Feature extraction of concave and convex regions and their intersections. Computer Aided Design 1993; 25(7): 421–437Google Scholar
  94. 93.
    Rong-Kwei Li, Cheng-Long Hwang. A framework for automatic DFA system development. Computers in Industrial Engineering 1992; 22(4): 403–413Google Scholar
  95. 94.
    Luby SC, Dixon JR, Simmons MK, Designing with features: Creating and using a features data base of evaluation of manufacturability of castings. In proceedings of the ASME international computers in engineering conference, Chicago, IL, 1986Google Scholar
  96. 95.
    Mahajan PV, Poli MC, Rosen DW, Wozny MJ. Design for stamping: A feature-based approach. In Guichelaar PJ (ed). Design for manufacturability, ASME winter annual meeting ASME 1993. pp 29–49Google Scholar
  97. 96.
    Marefat M, Kashyap RL. Geometric reasoning for recognition of three-dimensional object features. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1990; 12(10): 949–965 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  98. 97.
    Marefat M, Kashyap RL. Automatic construction of process plans from solid model representations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1992; 22(5): 1097–1115 September/OctoberGoogle Scholar
  99. 98.
    Meeran S, Pratt MJ. Automated feature recognition from 2-D drawings. Computer Aided Design 1993; 25(1): 7–17 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  100. 99.
    Menon S, Yong Se Kim. Handling blending features in form feature recognition using convex decomposition. In Ishii K (ed). ASME computers in engineering conference, September 1994, pp. 79–92Google Scholar
  101. 100.
    Miles BL, Swift KG. Working together. Manufacturing Breakthrough 1992Google Scholar
  102. 101.
    Mill FG, Naish JC, Salmon JC. Design for machining with a simultaneous-engineering workstation. Computer Aided Design 1994; 29(9): 521–527Google Scholar
  103. 102.
    Mittal RO, Irani SA, Lehtihet EA. Tolerance control in the machining of discrete components. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1990; 9(3): 233–246Google Scholar
  104. 103.
    Miyakawa S. Simultaneous engineering and producibility evaluation method. In Proceedings of the SME international conference of application of manufacturing technologies, 1991Google Scholar
  105. 104.
    Miyakawa S, Ohashi T. The Hitachi assemblability evaluation method (AEM). In Proceedings of the international conference on product design for assembly, 1986Google Scholar
  106. 105.
    Miyakawa S, Ohashi T, Iwata M. The Hitachi new assemblability evaluation method (AEM). In Transactions of the North American Manufacturing Research Institute. SME 1990Google Scholar
  107. 106.
    Nau DS. Automated process planning using hierarchical abstraction. TI Technical Journal Winter 1987; 39–46Google Scholar
  108. 107.
    Nau DS, Zhang GM Gupta SK. Generation and evaluation of alternative operation sequences. In Quality assurance through integration of manufacturing processes and systems, ASME winter annual meeting, volPED-Vol. 56, Anaheim, CA, November 1992. pp 93–108Google Scholar
  109. 108.
    Nau DS, Zhang G, Gupta SK, Karinthi RR. Evaluating product machinability for concurrent engineering. In Sullivan WG, Parsaei HR (eds). Concurrent engineering: contemporary issues and modern design tools. Chapman and Hall, 1993. pp. 264–279Google Scholar
  110. 109.
    Nau D, Ball M, Gupta S, Minis I, Zhang G. Design for manufacture by multi-enterprise partnerships: Current status and future directions. In ASME winter annual meeting 1994Google Scholar
  111. 110.
    Nevins JL, Whitney DE. Concurrent design of products and processes: a strategy for the next generation in manufacturing. McGraw-Hill, New York 1989Google Scholar
  112. 111.
    Nielsen EH, Dixon JR, Zinsmeister GE. Capturing and using designer intent in a design-with-features system. In Stauffer LA (ed). Proceedings of the design theory and methodology conference ASME, 1991. pp 95–102Google Scholar
  113. 112.
    Nnaji BO, Hsu-Chang Liu, Rembold U. A product modeller for discrete components. International Journal of Production Research 1993; 31(9): 2017–2044Google Scholar
  114. 113.
    Nnaji BO, Hsu-Chang Liu, Rembold U. A product modeller for discrete components. International Journal of Production Research 1993; 31(9): 2017–2044Google Scholar
  115. 114.
    O'Grady P, Young RE, Greef A, Smith L. An advice system for concurrent engineering. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(2): 63–70Google Scholar
  116. 115.
    Padhy SK, Dwivedi SN. PWBMA — an object-oriented knowledge-based system for manufacturability of printed circuit boards. In Proceedings of the 1991 ASME computers in engineering conference, vol 1. Santa Clara, CA, August 1991. pp 85–93Google Scholar
  117. 116.
    Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design. Design Council, London. 1984Google Scholar
  118. 117.
    Peters TJ. Encoding mechanical design features for recognition via neural nets. Research in Engineering Design 1992; 4(2): 67–74Google Scholar
  119. 118.
    Peters TJ. Mechanical design heuristics to reduce the combinatorial complexity for feature recognition. Research in Engineering Design 1993; 4: 195–201Google Scholar
  120. 119.
    Petroski H. Failed promises. American Scientist 1994; 82: 6–9Google Scholar
  121. 120.
    Philip Chen CL, LeClair SR. Integration of design and manufacturing: solving setup generation and feature sequencing using an unsupervised-learning approach. Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(1): 59–75Google Scholar
  122. 121.
    Pinilla, JM, Finger S, Prinz FB. Shape feature description using an augmented topology graph grammar. In Proceedings NSF Engineering design research conference National Science Foundation. June 1989. pp 285–300Google Scholar
  123. 122.
    Prabhu P, Elhence S, Wang H, Wysk R. An operations network generator for computer aided process planning. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 9(4): 283–291Google Scholar
  124. 123.
    Prabhakar S, Henderson MR. Automatic form-feature recognition using neural-network-based techniques on boundary representations of solid models. Computer Aided Design 1992; 24(7): 381–393Google Scholar
  125. 124.
    Priest JW, Sanchez JM. An empirical methodology for measuring producibility early in product development. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(2): 114–120Google Scholar
  126. 125.
    Prinz FB, Choi Y. Feature extraction from solid model for manufacturability assessment. Technical Report EDRC 24-13-89, Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989Google Scholar
  127. 126.
    Regli WC, Nau DS. Building a general approach to feature recognition of material removal shape element volumes (MRSEVs). In Rossignac J, Turner J (eds). Second symposium on solid modeling foundations and CAD/CAM applications, New York, May 19–21, Montreal, Canada 1993. ACM SIGGRAPH. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  128. 127.
    Regli WC, Gupta SK, Nau DS. Extracting alternative machining features: An algorithmic approach. Research in Engineering Design 1995; 7(3): 173–192Google Scholar
  129. 128.
    Regli WC, Gupta SK, Nau DS Towards multiprocessor feature recognition. Computer Aided Design, 1997; 29(1): 37–51Google Scholar
  130. 129.
    Rosen DW, Dixon JR, Finger S. Conversions of feature-based representations via graph grammar parsing. In AMSE design theory methodology conference, 1992Google Scholar
  131. 130.
    Rosen DW, Dixon JR, Poli C, Xin Dong. Features and algorithms for tooling cost evaluation in injection molding and die casting. In Proceedings of the ASME international computers in engineering conference 1992. pp 1–8Google Scholar
  132. 131.
    Russel GA, von Turkovich, B. Design for manufacturability of printed circuit boards. Annals of the CIRP 1985; 34Google Scholar
  133. 134.
    Safier SA, Finger S. Parsing features in solid geometric models. In European conference on artificial intelligence, 1990Google Scholar
  134. 135.
    Sakurai H. Automatic setup planning and fixture design for machining. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1992; 11(1): 30–37Google Scholar
  135. 136.
    Sakurai H, Gossard, DC. Recognizing shape features in solid models. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, September 1990Google Scholar
  136. 137.
    Sakurai H, Chia-Wei Chin. Definition and recognition of volume features for process planning. In Shah J, Mäntylä M, Nau D (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing, chapter 4. Elsevier/North-Holland. 1994; pp 65–80Google Scholar
  137. 138.
    Sanchez JM, Priest JW, Piumsomboon P. An intelligent feature based approach for design for producibility. In Proceedings of the manufacturing international conference. ASME, 1992Google Scholar
  138. 139.
    Schemekel H. Functional models and design solutions. Annals of the CIRP 1989; 38(1):Google Scholar
  139. 140.
    Schiebeler R, Ehrlenspiel Reek K. A knowledge-based system as an integrated design-assistant. In Guichelaar PJ (ed), Design for manufacturability, ASME winter annual meeting, 1993. pp. 69–741Google Scholar
  140. 141.
    Schmitz JM, Desa S. The application of a design for producibility methodology to complex stamped products. In Chao NH, Lu SCY (eds). Concurrent product and process design. ASME. 1989. pp. 169–174Google Scholar
  141. 142.
    Schulte M, Weber C, Stark R. Functional features for design in mechanical engineering. Computers in Industry 1993; 23(1):15–24Google Scholar
  142. 143.
    Shah JJ, Rogers MT. A testbed for rapid prototyping of feature based applications. In Shah JJ, Mäntylä M, Nau DS (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. chapter 18. Elsevier Science Publishers 1994Google Scholar
  143. 144.
    Shah J, Hsiao D, Robinson R. A framework for manufacturability evaluation in a feature based CAD system. In Proceedings of the 1990 NSF design & manufacturing conference. January 1990Google Scholar
  144. 145.
    Shankar SR, Jansson DG. A generalized methodology for evaluating manufacturability. In Sullivan WG, Parsaei HR (eds). Concurrent engineering, contemporary issues and modern design tools. Chapman and Hall. 1993. pp. 248–263Google Scholar
  145. 146.
    Skaggs CW. Design for electronics assembly. In Proceedings of the first international conference on product design for assembly, Newport, RI. April 1986Google Scholar
  146. 147.
    Sodhi R, Turner JU. Towards modeling of assemblies for product design. Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(2): 85–97 FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  147. 148.
    Spatial Technology Inc., Boulder, CO. ACIS© Geometric modeler Version 1.4.1. 1993Google Scholar
  148. 149.
    Struttmann JD. Design for manufacturability, P.C. cards PERC, a post proccssor for Scicard. In Proceedings of the second international conference on product design for assembly, Orlando, FL, November 1988Google Scholar
  149. 150.
    Sturges RH, Kilani MI. Towards an integrated design for an assembly evaluation and reasoning system. Computer Aided Design 1992; 24(2): 67–79Google Scholar
  150. 151.
    Subramanyan S, Lu S. The impact of an AI-based design environment for simultaneous engineering on process planning. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1991; 4(2): 71–82Google Scholar
  151. 152.
    Subramaniam B, Ulrich KT. Producibility analysis using physical-model-based metrics. In Proceedings of the design theory and methodology conference. ASME 1994Google Scholar
  152. 153.
    Suh NP. Design axiom and quality control. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1992; 9(4/5): 367–376Google Scholar
  153. 154.
    Swift KG. Design for assembly handbook. Salford University Industrial Center, 1981Google Scholar
  154. 155.
    Takahashi A, Okamoto I, Hiramatsu T, Yamada N. Evaluation methods of press forming severity in CAD applications. In AIME symposium on computer modeling of sheet metal forming processes Toyota Motor Corporation 1985. pp 8.1–8.14Google Scholar
  155. 156.
    Takahashi K, Suzuki I, Sugoro T. Producibility evaluation method. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on assembly automationGoogle Scholar
  156. 157.
    Taylor LeRoy E. Meta-physical product modeling. PhD thesis, Arizona State University 1993Google Scholar
  157. 158.
    Thompson JB, Lu SC-Y. Representing and using design rationale in concurrent product and process design. In Chao NH, Lu SC-Y (eds). Concurrent product and process design, ASME winter annual meeting, ASME, 1989. pp 109–115Google Scholar
  158. 159.
    Trappey JC, Liu CR. A literature survey of fixture design automation. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 1990; 5(3): 240–255Google Scholar
  159. 160.
    Trika SN, Kashyap RL Geometric reasoning for extraction of manufacturing features in iso-oriented polyhedrons. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1994; 16(11): 1087–1100Google Scholar
  160. 161.
    Trucks HE. Designing for economic production. Society of Manufacturing Engineer. 1987Google Scholar
  161. 162.
    Ullman DG. The mechanical design process. McGraw-Hill, New York 1992Google Scholar
  162. 163.
    Vandenbrande JH, Requicha AAG. Spatial reasoning for the automatic recognition of machinable features in solid models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 1993; 15(12): 1269–1285Google Scholar
  163. 164.
    Waco DL, Yong Se Kim. Geometric reasoning for maching features using convex decomposition. Computer Aided Design 1994; 26(6): 477–489Google Scholar
  164. 165.
    Wang HP, Li JK. Computer aided process planning. Elsevier Science Publishers. 1991Google Scholar
  165. 166.
    Warnecke HJ, Bassler R. Design for assembly — part of the design process. Annals of the CIRP 1988; 37(1):Google Scholar
  166. 167.
    Welch RV, Dixon JR. Extending the iterative redesign model to configuration design: Sheet metal brackets as an example. In ElMaraghy WH, Seering WP, Ullman DG (eds). Proceedings of the design theory and methodology conference ASME 1989. pp 81–88Google Scholar
  167. 168.
    Whitney DE. Designing the design process. Research in Engineering Design 1990; 2:3–13Google Scholar
  168. 169.
    Winchell W. Realistic cost estimating for manufacturing. Society of Manufacturing Engineers. 1989.Google Scholar
  169. 170.
    Woo TC. Feature extraction by volume decomposition. In Conference on CAD/CAM technology in mechanical engineering. March 1982. pp 76–94Google Scholar
  170. 171.
    Wozny MJ, Turner JU, Dixon JR, Poli C, Graves R. A unified representation to support evaluation of designs for manufacturability: Phase I. In Proceedings of the 1992 National Science Foundation design and manufacturing systems conference, 1991Google Scholar
  171. 172.
    Wozny MJ, Turner JU, Graves R, Xin Dong, Ranjeet Sodhi, Dixon JR, Poli C, Rosen DW, Mahagan PV, Fathailall A. A unified representation to support evaluation of designs for manufacturability: Phase II. In Proceedings of the 1992 National Science Foundation design and manufacturing systems conference, 1992. pp 469–486Google Scholar
  172. 173.
    Wozny MJ, Turner JU, Graves R, Xin Dong, Ranjeet Sodhi, Dixon JR, Poli C, Rosen DW, Mahajan PV, Fathailall A. A unified representation to support evaluation of designs for manufacturability: Phase III. In Proceedings of the 1993 National Science Foundation design and manufacturing systems conference, 1993. pp 741–753Google Scholar
  173. 174.
    Electronics Division, Manufacturing Research, Xerox Corporation. A manufacturability index for PCB assemblies. Xerox Corporation, El Segundo, CA. 1979Google Scholar
  174. 175.
    Yannoulakis NJ, Joshi SB, Wysk RA. A manufacturability evaluation and improvement system. In Stauffer LA (ed). Proceedings of the design theory and methodology conference. ASME, 1991. pp 217–226Google Scholar
  175. 176.
    Yannoulakis NJ, Joshi SB, Wysk RA. Quantitative measures of manufacturability for rotational parts. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry 1994; 116(2): 189–198Google Scholar
  176. 177.
    Yong Yue, Murray JL. Validation, workpiece selection and clamping of complex 2.5D components. In Shah JJ, Mäntylä M, Nau DS (eds). Advances in feature based manufacturing. chapter 9. Elsevier Science Publishers 1994. pp 185–213Google Scholar
  177. 178.
    Zenger D, Dewhurst P. Early assessment of tooling costs in the design of sheet metal parts. Technical Report 29, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. University of Rhode Island. 1988.Google Scholar
  178. 179.
    Zhang GM, Hwang TW. Analysis and control of geometric tolerancing through surface topography generation. In Symposium on automation of manufacturing processes, 1990 ASME winter annual meeting, Dallas, Texas. 1990Google Scholar
  179. 180.
    Zhang GM, Kapoor SG. Dynamic generation of machined surface, part-I: mathematical description of the random excitation system. Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transactions of ASME May 1991Google Scholar
  180. 181.
    Zhang GM, Kapoor SG. Dynamic generation of machined surface, part-II: mathematical description of the tool vibratory motion and construction of surface topography. Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transactions of ASME May 1991Google Scholar
  181. 182.
    Zhang GM, Lu SC-Y. An expert system framework for economic evaluation of machining operation planning. Jounal of Operational Research Society 1990; 41(5): 391–404Google Scholar
  182. 183.
    Ziemke MC, Spann MS. Concurrent engineering's roots in the world war II era. In Sullivan WG, Parsaei HR (eds). Concurrent engineering, contemporary issues and modern design tools. Chapman and Hall. 1993. pp 24–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Satyandra K. Gupta
    • 1
    Email author
  • William C. Regli
    • 2
  • Diganta Das
    • 3
  • Dana S. Nau
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Integrated Manufacturing, The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyManufacturing Systems Integration DivisionGaithersburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MarylandUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and Institute for Systems ResearchUniversity of MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations