Automated Generation of

Manufacturing Process Plans

from Product Models
A White Paper

30 September 2002

Prepared in Support of the

Modeling & Simulation for Affordable Manufacturing
Technology Roadmapping Initiative

IMTI, Inc.
P.O. Box 5296 • Oak Ridge, TN 37831
www.imti21.org
MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

CONTRIBUTORS

Eddy Bass, Intel Corp.

Andrew DeBiccari, Pratt & Whitney
William Brosey, BWXT Y-12
Robert Brown, Delmia Co.
John Kohls, TechSolve, Inc.
Kong Ma, Rolls-Royce
Douglas Marks, IMTI, Inc.
John Maynor, Vought Aircraft
Bill Simons, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies
Joe Walacavage, Ford Motor Company
Raymond M. Walker, IMTI, Inc.
Johnny West, Anteon Corp.

Copyright ©2002
IMTI, Inc.

ii Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

Automated Generation of
Manufacturing Process Plans from Product Models

1.0 THE OPPORTUNITY

Process planning for product manufacturing is largely a manual, highly subjective, error-prone process.
Plans are often generated based on past practice and not based on best knowledge. By developing the
capability to automatically generate process plans directly from product design models, manufacturing
enterprises can drastically reduce time-to-market, make far more efficient use of assets available in-house
and throughout the supply chain, and respond quickly and surely to changes in product requirements and
manufacturing capacity/capability.

2.0 THE PROBLEM

Process planning represents the weakest link in the product realization process1 and is a major source of
worker inefficiency, errors, duplicative steps, and loss of opportunity to optimize product manufacture for
low cost and short cycle time.2 On large, complex engineered systems such as aircraft, the cumulative
process planning effort that produces every part is huge, and the opportunity for errors and inefficiencies
is commensurately large. Recent emphasis on schedule and workflow management and enterprise re-
source planning has tended to downplay the importance of process planning and, as a result, progress over
the past decade has been limited.
Increasing fragmentation of the product realization process further amplifies this problem. Design of
product by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) is increasingly being done at “arms length” to the
manufacturing base that produces the product. Global sourcing of manufacturing and assembly dictates
that product definitions include clear and precise manufacturing instructions and specifications. How-
ever, business trends are driving in the opposite direction. Customers (both end users and OEMs) are in-
creasingly relying on performance-based specifications where the supplier assumes all responsibility and
risk for delivering to spec, on time and within the quoted price. Although this frees buyers from the com-
plexity of managing process, it limits opportunities for meaningful improvement in the way that products
are designed and built. The implications for commodity products (e.g., nuts, bolts, connectors, and mate-
rial stock) are minimal, but the implications for complex “system” products are huge.
Process planning is the primary link between the product definition output of the design process and the
manufacturing shop floor. Effective process planning is vital, driving the cost, speed, accuracy, and effi-
ciency of product manufacture by generating clear and unambiguous instructions that make the best use
of internal and external resources. The generation of these instructions is the result of an engineering
process that is far less sophisticated than the process that generated the product design – which benefits
from sophisticated analysis tools, design aids and advisors, and geometric models.
Process planning has evolved over the past 20 years in a series of capability steps.3 Initially, computer-
ized functions were created to maintain manually generated process plans. Computer-aided process plan-
ning (CAPP) tools based on group technology rules and codes emerged. These tools were best suited for
similar product and processes, where decisions generally reflected extensions of existing process plans.
These “variant” CAPP tools are slow, manually intensive, and prone to error, and typically are used in
production shops with limited product diversity.

1
“Product realization” encompasses all activities required to design, develop, and manufacture a product; i.e., to translate it from
concept to delivered article.
2
J. Vancza and A. Markus, Solving Conditional and Conflicting Constraints in Process Planning, Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, 2001.
3
K. Crow, Computer-Aided Process Planning, DRM Associates, Product Development Management Society, 2001.

1 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

Generative CAPP tools represent a step toward knowledge-based process planning, using rules, algo-
rithms, and, in limited cases, structured knowledge of geometry and features as an alternative and an
augmentation of group technology principles. Continuing advances in generative CAPP are moving to-
ward integration with computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) environments and CAD geometry (Fig-
ure 1). Other examples of CAD integration and knowledge systems applications can be found at aero-
space companies such as Northrop Grumman and the DOE national laboratories and production facilities.
The ability for CAPP tools to interact real time with multiple systems that span from basic geometry to
enterprise capacity in a knowledge-rich environment, is the next challenging step.
True automation of process planning does not exist today; multiple planning documents have to be manu-
ally generated for the manufacture of a part or assembly. Airframe wing assembly plans at Vought Air-
craft, for example, involve two separate planning documents – one for the manufacturing process and one
for the inspection plan. The planning systems of the future must generate integrated multi-function plans
to simplify and reduce the cost and errors associated with multiple documents.
Fundamental challenges must be addressed to realize the advanced level of process planning desired by
industry. These challenges include:
• There is no effective ability to extract useful data from CAD models to aid in process planning.
Even in leading-edge applications, feature details must be manually extracted from CAD models
for entry into the process planning system. Methods are needed for extracting feature data from the
CAD boundary representation of a part and for interpreting the attributes of a feature and for con-
sidering interactions or relationships
with other features.
• Standards for representing data from dif-
ferent sources in process models do not
exist. This contributes to interpretation
errors, transcription errors, and signifi-
cant manual effort.
• The full scope of decisions that a process
planner makes, and the breadth and
depth of information needed in devel-
opment of a process plan, are not well
understood. Many decisions require
functional models to describe critical
elements of the planning process, such as
tool and fixture selection. This basic
understanding and ability to model assets
to support decision processes – with
well-defined bounds of uncertainty and
risk – is critical for automated plan gen- Figure 1. Generative process planning tools such as LSC
eration. Group’s LOCAM are moving toward integration with
CIM environments and CAD geometry.
• Current process planning tools cannot
recognize geometry and features in the representation of a part. Feature-oriented data captured in
CAD must be capable of driving CAPP systems.
• The process planning function draws from a large array of information sources in development of
the plan. Common methods are needed for acquiring information such as geometry, tolerances,
materials and properties, processes, fixtures, machine tools, and other equipment such that the in-
formation is incorporated smoothly into the plan.

2 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

• No comprehensive natural-language ontology

or common lexicon exists for manufacturing
process definitions. This is essential to ena-
bling different software applications to accu-
rately use and exchange information about a
material or part and process.4
• Only limited capabilities exist for developing
and evaluating alternative plans based on
competing processes, alternate sources, or dif-
ferent asset utilization options.5
• While integrated product/process design
(IPPD) methodologies are increasing the up-
front involvement of process designers in
product engineering, process planning is not
yet adequately considered in optimization of
product/process designs.
• Current planning tools cannot dynamically
adapt to changes in the capability, capacity, or
availability of manufacturing equipment.
This level of dynamic interaction requires in-
tegration with ERP systems and enterprise
models.
• Advanced visualization to support process
http://www_ivri.me.uic.edu/ivri/index.html
planning and factory optimization is early in
the experimental phase of technology devel-
opment, and tremendous strides must be made to make real-time 3-D factory visualization com-
mercially viable.
VRML Developments Moving to
Support Immersive Process Modeling
Advances in virtual reality modeling language (VRML)
present intriguing possibilities for process planning.
Efforts at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
and the National Center for Supercomputing Applica-
tions are focusing on increasing VRML capabilities to
enable viewing and retrieving of information from a
virtual parts catalog and manufacturing process rep-
resentations.
A gear factory model is currently being developed
using IRIS Performer and SoftImage libraries on Im-
mersaDesk and CAVE platforms developed by the
UIC Electronic Visualization Laboratory. The intent of
the gear factory model database is to make it com-
patible with equipment simulation and control soft-
ware developed at NIST and with factory layout deci-
sion software. The goal is to allow manufacturing en-
gineers to manipulate 3-D objects in a 3-D environ-
ment to enable more intuitive analysis of the complex
processes involved in a manufacturing environment.

3.0 THE GOAL

In May 2002, more than 60 representatives of the nation’s technology community convened in Orlando,
Florida to define a common vision for development and application of modeling and simulation (M&S)
technologies for affordable manufacturing. Co-sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the workshop
brought together representatives from more than 40 organizations representing a broad cross-section of
the nation’s manufacturing community. Their goal: to identify M&S technology advances that will radi-
cally reform the manufacturing phase of the product acquisition cycle – reducing the time and cost re-
quired to move from idea to delivered product, and improving all aspects of life-cycle support while re-
ducing total cost of ownership.
In August 2002, a subset of the participants met in Cincinnati, Ohio to develop the “path forward” for
implementation of key recommendations arising from the Orlando workshop. This white paper addresses
one of those areas – automated model-based generation of manufacturing process plans from prod-
uct models.

4
C. Schlenoff, R. Ivester, and A. Knutilla, A Robust Ontology for Manufacturing Systems Integration, NIST, 2000.
5
U. Bopse, A Cooperative Problem Solving Framework for Computer-Aided Process Planning, IEEE Proceedings of the 32nd
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999.

3 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

The Manufacturing Processes group at the Orlando workshop identified 18 high-level goals and 70 sup-
porting requirements for development and application of M&S technologies to improve various aspects of
product manufacturing. Subsequent processing by the project participants distilled these needs down into
one over-arching requirement:

Provide the capability to automatically generate manufacturing process plans

based on product, process, and enterprise models, with integrated tools
to evaluate producibility of features, resources, and repeatability.
This goal is driven by the vision that all manufacturing activity will be optimized using product-driven
enterprise modeling and control based on business demands and performance metrics. Process plans will
be automatically generated and integrated with capacity models and enterprise resource and business
process models – as part of the master product simulation model – to enable effective resource planning
and decision-making early in the product development cycle. Advisory tools will guide the decisions and
optimization of capacity during early process planning and throughout production stages. Dynamic proc-
ess replanning capability will enable the enterprise to rapidly adjust its capability, capacity, or specific
process schemes in response to changing requirements or opportunities.
Automated model-based process planning will significantly reduce the time and cost to generate process
plans; reduce cost and time in production; eliminate errors associated with data handling and entry; im-
prove product quality; provide clear, well-defined visibility of risks and uncertainty factors; and enable
rapid and efficient integration of engineering and manufacturing changes.

4.0 SOLUTION APPROACH

Development of an automated, model-based process planning system requires structured advances in the
ability to handle and apply information from many sources. The industry experts participating in the
M&S workshop identified several key requirements to achieve the goal and recommended a series of key
actions to accelerate development of these tools in the vendor community. In general, industry users want
tools for generative process planning that are template/model-based and provide an intelligent user inter-
face. Further, these tools must provide plans that are accessible to, and useable by, all of the functional
groups responsible for, or affected, by, their inputs and outputs.
Achieving this functionality requires feature-recognition capability and automated extraction of feature
data from CAD models. The tools must support the needs and information requirements of different
manufacturing processes and perspectives – assembly line, machining, etc. (Figure 2). The framework
must support tailored algorithms, rules, and functional decision models that can be easily populated into
the shell. Integration with scheduling, product data management (PDM), enterprise resource planning
(ERP), and other systems of the integrated manufacturing environment is critical.
Generation of process plans will launch from and interact with process models and simulations to assess
process capability vs. requirements and provide predictive, risk-quantified output by which the optimum
process can be planned. The planning tools will minimize human involvement in plan genera-
tion/regeneration and eliminate redundant data entry, thus freeing up planners to focus their attention on
innovative ways to best exploit available assets for an optimized process. Process planning tools must be
linked with cost models – enabling visibility of progress towards cost targets, of the results of alternative
analyses, and of metrics for selecting various sourcing options.
The M&S workshop team defined specific actions that should be initiated for development of the desired
process planning capability. Since many software providers are developing improved process planning
tools to expand knowledge access and management capability, the first recommendation is to focus in-
dustry attention on accelerating and guiding these software developments. The second recommendation
is to convene an industry forum to clearly articulate common industry desires for the next generation of
process planning tools. The strategy is to organize a forum around a major weapon system, specifically

4 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

Figure 2. The automated process planning function must support the complex and widely varying
requirements of diverse products and manufacturing applications.

the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and develop a contractor and supplier consensus on requirements for auto-
mated generation of process plans. This forum would develop a requirements document and briefing
package to align a phased series of steps leading to an accelerated plan to develop and deploy tools timed
to benefit F-35 production.

5.0 PROJECT PLAN

The near-term plan is to sponsor a forum, desirably in the fourth quarter 2002, by which the F-35 prime
contractor and key suppliers could convene to accomplish three objectives:
1. Benchmark state-of-the-art and emerging process planning capabilities by having selected soft-
ware companies present to the industry users.
2. Have the industry users bring to the forum specific business-case examples and documentation to
solidify the case for a focused and accelerated initiative on automatic process planning.
3. Develop a high-level requirements document that defines the scope and focus for the initiative
and provides the basis for aligned development and deployment of the needed software.
The results of this forum will provide the basis for an accelerated development initiative for Automatic
Generation of Process Plans. A proposal will be developed to secure funding for the definition of a de-
tailed requirements and specifications document and a phased implementation plan that is coordinated
and linked with the airframe and engine development and build plans. This linking of the initiatives
would align the major milestones for the process planning tools to specific JSF engine and airframe build
blocks.
The accelerated initiative would have a phased structure leading to the development of tools as listed be-
low and shown in Figure 3:
• Phase I: Develop Specifications (6-8 Months)
• Phase II: Develop Phased Implementation Plan (1 Month)
• Phase III: Vendor Selection (3 Months)
• Phase IV: Accelerated Process Planning Tool Development, Validation, & Deployment
(34 Months).

5 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models
 MODELING & SIMULATION FOR AFFORDABLE MANUFACTURING

Figure 3. Project Plan for Model-Based Process Planning Initiative.

6.0 BENEFITS & BUSINESS CASE

Interviews with aerospace technology managers from Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and Vought Aircraft
project that the ability to automatically generate optimized process plans for complex products will yield
productivity improvements of 30% or better for the planning function as well as improve the cost and
quality of the product and its manufacturing operations and processes. In major airframe assembly proc-
esses, 60% of the cost for developing process plans is expended on gathering and extracting information.
Automating these functions would eliminate 50% to 90% of the up-front data gathering workload, reduc-
ing cost as well as time. The ability to automatically extract feature data from CAD models will signifi-
cantly reduce the effort required to capture critical information in the plans. Reentry of data – a non-
value-add step which is the largest source of errors that are not caught until parts are being produced –
will be eliminated, providing benefits in cost and time as well as quality.
Other key benefits of the ability to automatically generate process plans from product models include:
• Eliminates repetitive planning tasks through automation of functions.
• Reduces recurring and nonrecurring manufacturing costs as a result of better evaluation of options
and alternatives.
• Shortens time to market through fast generation of better-optimized plans and faster response to
engineering changes.
• Reduces the “cost of quality” by eliminating errors in manufacturing planning and execution.
• Increases utilization of industry best practices as a result of the improved ability to assess and com-
pare process alternatives.
• Improves consistency in generation of process plans.
• Reduces operator error by assuring that process plans are optimized and validated prior to start of
manufacturing operations.
• Expands flexibility and creativity in process planning as a result of access to a broader and deeper
base of information related to capacity, capability, and process alternatives.
• Accelerates incorporation of new and improved manufacturing processes.

6 Automated Generation of Manufacturing

Process Plans from Product Models