Proceedings of the
1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
STATE-OF-THE-ART REPORT ON DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING
J.W. van Vliet
Landbergstraat 3 2628 CE Delft
The Netherlands
Tel. (+31) 15 278 6670
J.W.vanVliet@WbMt.TUDelft.nl
Delft University of Technology
ABSTRACT
Often the designer has insufficient information and knowledge
to effectively consider manufacturability aspects of the product
design. To improve the efficiency of the product realisation
process, i.e. to save time and costs, Design for Manufacturing-
support must be offered in an effective way. Elements of DFM
that must be considered for DFM support are identified in this
literature study. The key towards effective computer based
DFM support is integration of these elements, for which an
architecture is proposed in this paper.
INTRODUCTION
This literature study is part of a research project that aims at
developing a DFM design support tool. The paper presents a
global overview of the state-of-the-art in DFM and identifies
elements that are essential in a DFM design support system. In
this study DFM is restricted to part manufacturing only.
Figure 1 provides a schematic (DFM view) of the product
realisation process, its processes (top), tools (middle),
information (bottom) and their relations.
Product
order
Design process Production
Production preparation
DFM CAD CAPP Simulation
Information- & knowledge base
Figure 1 DFM view on product realisation
The figure indicates that there are, or should be, flows of
information between the processes design, production
preparation and production, and vice versa. During these flows
the information is transformed. In practice there only seems to
September 12–15, 1999, Las Vegas, Nevada
DETC99/DFM-8970
C.A. van Luttervelt
C.A.vanLuttervelt@WbMt.TUDelft,nl
H.J.J. Kals
H.J.J.Kals@WbMt.TUDelft.nl
be a one-way transformation, because (Kals and Lutters 1998):
- the information is incomplete and insufficient;
- decisions are made unconsciously and implicitly;
- the information can be interpreted in more than one way;
- the available knowledge does not cover the needs;
- the transformations are not systematic and transparent.
To break down the imaginary walls that block the flows of
information, techniques like Concurrent Engineering, Design for
X and Enterprise Integration by Information Management are
developed. This paper focuses on Design for Manufacturing,
and especially on methods for manufacturability evaluation and
elements in DFM support tools.
1 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING
Up to now, DFM is not a ready to use method. Rather, it is an
approach that emphasises on the inclusion of process
information into the design process. A definition of the DFM
approach is the following (Venkatachalam et al. 1993): "Design
for Manufacturing implies optimisation of the product and
process concepts during the design phase of a product in order
to ensure ease of manufacture."
Product Most definitions of DFM do not include material- and
process selection, but it is believed that both must be included,
since geometry, material and manufacturing processes are
inextricably intertwined. Especially when looking at optimisation
of the design, altering geometry, material or processes may be
required. Case studies showed that material selection must be
part of DFM, since in practice the improvement of
manufacturability implies (Corbett et al. 1991): standardisation of
fasteners, eliminating awkward design features, minimising
process steps and substitution of new materials. Therefore, in
Figure 2, DFM consists of both material- and process selection
and manufacturability evaluation. The material- and process
1 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
selection is drawn as a single module, because often there is no
preferred order of selection.
1. Verification 2. Quantification 3. Optimisation
Material/Process
Manufacturability evaluation
selection
Design for Manufacturing
Figure 2 Schematic definition of DFM
1.1 The need of DFM
About 80% of manufacturing decisions are the direct result of
product design decisions. Consequently, once the design goes
into production, the possibilities of effective cost reduction are
limited. Modifying the design during production in order to
ensure an efficient manufacturing is extremely time- and cost
intensive. Therefore, during the design process optimisation for
manufacturing must be striven for. However, in practice
manufacturability is only considered superficially, due to the
high working pressure, the limited availability of experienced
employees, the continuous development of new manufacturing
techniques, and mainly because of the poor access to the
required knowledge (Corbett et al. 1991, Gupta et al. 1995). The
designer must be provided with up-to-date knowledge of
manufacturing processes, tools and fixtures, or rather, must get
DFM support, aimed at an increased efficiency of the product
realisation process and a better agreement with the targets of
manufacturing, which are often lowest costs. Benefits are
[Venkatachalam et al., 1993], [Boothroyd et al., 1994]:
- Improved manufacturability of product designs.
- Involvement of the designer in the downstream processes.
- Better communication between the departments.
- Shorter times-to-market of new products.
1.2 Implementing DFM
Since no formal DFM method exists, implementing DFM is not
straightforward. Approaches that can be used (Venkatachalam
et al. 1993) are: design for the available resources, design for a
specific process, apply computer supported DFM, implement
methods like CE, QFD, group technology, etc., or use (empirical)
guidelines. Typical examples of DFM guidelines and rules are
(Pighini et al. 1989, Corbett et al. 1991):
- Maximise standardisation (materials, design concepts,
components, tools, fixtures, modular design).
- Select solutions that simplify manufacturing (shape,
composition, tolerances, roughness etc.).
- Choose solutions that enhance uniformity, parallelism, etc.
- Choose correct tolerances and surface finishing.
- Choose appropriate materials regarding manufacturability.
- Strive for single set-up machining (reduced batch sizes,
higher flexibility, reduced labour, reduced floor-to-floor
times and reduced lead times to customer).
- Minimise the number of required resources.
- Investigate possibilities of new processes and materials.
Process specific guidelines can be derived from DFM
handbooks, like Bakerjian (1992).
1.3 Manufacturability evaluation
One of the main functions of DFM support is analysing the
manufacturability of the product design, i.e. to evaluate the
ability to produce the design within the specified requirements,
with low production costs and –time. To be able to analyse the
manufacturability, it is necessary that the design is decomposed
into elements with a manufacturing meaning, such as surfaces,
dimensions, tolerances and their relations, that non-
manufacturable objects can be identified and that a level of
manufacturability is assessed (Gupta et al. 1994). When these
statements are combined with the given definition of DFM, it
seems that manufacturability evaluation can be divided into the
three phases that are indicated in Figure 2:
1. Verification of the product manufacturability.
2. Assessing and quantifying the product manufacturability.
3. Assessing and optimising the product manufacturability.
These levels will be dealt with in more detail further on.
The required data to evaluate the manufacturability
includes aggregate data (overall description of the part),
feature data (parameter values of form features) and relational
data (relations between features and geometry). Aspects that
are to be considered when performing a manufacturability
evaluation include material, shape (-transformation), tolerances,
batch size, cycle time, costs, environment, robustness,
predictability, company experience/strategy/culture, life cycle,
process sequence and tool accessibility (Ishii and Miller 1992).
Tolerancing
One specific problem, when looking at the manufacturability of a
product, is the incorrect assignment of tolerances. This is partly
because manufacturing tolerances differ from functional- and
assembly tolerances that designers are used to deal with. Zhang
and Wang (1992) provide a method for simultaneous
optimisation of design- and manufacturing tolerances, which
considers the selected process. An additional reason why
tolerancing is difficult is that the visualisation and
implementation of tolerances in CAD systems is inadequate. Net
et al. (1996) use an envelope around the product surface to
model tolerance zones in CAD. It allows distribution of
tolerances over the product to improve manufacturability. The
required effort for obtaining the tolerances can be expressed in
quality numbers (Vries 1996). According to Koenig (1994), for
correct tolerancing the material properties must be understood,
setting tolerances should be avoided as much as possible and
the statistical approach should be used, which helps predicting
the effect of tolerance build-up. However, Ngoi and Ong (1998)
conclude from their state-of-the-art overview on tolerancing that
analyses based on statistics often do not give a realistic
representation. Another conclusion is that most tolerancing
2 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
methods do not consider economic manufacturing, besides
methods that are based on cost optimisation, and it is often
forgotten that the actual tolerances are built up via a sequence
of processes. In the overview a distinction is made between the
following methods:
- Tolerance assignment, based on an expert system, a rule
base, correlation with ISO tolerance grades, probability of
assembly success or assembly structures.
- Tolerance analysis, based on simulation, statistics,
automatic generation of geometric functional elements or
constrained-based assembly.
- Tolerance synthesis, based on cost- and risk optimisation, a
knowledge base or features and a rule base.
An important contribution to computer-based tolerancing is the
TTRS modelling by Clement et al. (1998), see also Houten and
Kals (1999).
1.4 Manufacturability evaluation step 1: verification
Verification of the manufacturability of a product design implies
checking the design for non-manufacturable elements, errors
and completeness. A checklist for determining if a product is
reasonable manufacturable or not, is given by Koenig (1994):
- Understand design intent and manufacturing capabilities.
- Review the design on a routine manufacturing plan, the
assignment of requirements and cost trade-offs, the amount
of specials and additional manufacturing requirements.
- Accept designs that cannot be manufactured with the
standard facilities, but are compatible with previous
designs, or require new tools that are generally available, or
which requirements overlap with the experiences, or that fit
in the learning process of the company.
- Reject designs where modification costs are too high, with
too many specials, that where not accepted in the last step.
1.5 Manufacturability evaluation step 2: quantification
Parameters that are suited for quantifying manufacturability are
costs, time, quality (e.g. number of defects per batch) and
environmental 'friendliness'. In the literature, cost estimation
procedures get the most attention.
The manufacturing cost is the sum of the material costs,
direct labour, machine- and tooling costs, cycle times, required
space and energy. To estimate costs at an early stage,
Boothroyd et al. (1994) propose to use the relation between the
amount of removed material and dissipated cutting energy. This
requires statistical data on the specific energy per volume
material removal, and only applies for material removal
processes.
Swift et al. (in Corbett 1991) use the following simple cost
estimating formula to quantify the product manufacturability:
Manufacturing costs ; V.C + R.P . Here V is the material volume
of the finished part, C the volumetric material costs, R the
relative cost coefficient, depending on complexity, tolerances
etc. and P the basic cost of producing the ideal design using a
chosen process. For machining processes, the formula will not
provide accurate estimates, since only the remaining material
volume is accounted for.
Venkatachalam et al. (1993) propose another formula, using
processing costs C for a production volume Q based on the set-
up time ts, the cycle time tc and costs of the machine and labour
per hour Cm: C = C m (ts + Q tc ). In this formula material cost are
not included, nor is accounted or the fact that generally a
sequence of processes is required.
Hundal (Parsaei and Sullivan 1993) gives some additional
formulas and design for costs (re-design) guidelines:
- Produce in large quantities (economy of scale, relatively
expensive manufacturing processes can be used).
- Reduce complexity (fewer parts and operations).
- Reduce size (material volume).
- Ask for only the minimum accuracy and tolerances.
Furthermore, 'quick cost estimators' are given based on weight,
material, physical relationships, or similarity principles.
Another method of cost estimation is using historic cases,
i.e. case-based. El-Mehalawi and Miller (1998) use this method
for cost estimation of near net-shape manufacturing.
Estimating costs can be done quite accurate, but then
formulas must be used that are process- (and material-) specific.
A generic set of specific formulas, based on a generic structure
is required, like the set of Esawi and Ashby (1997). Otherwise
comparison between various (sequences of) processes can not
take place unambiguously.
1.6 Manufacturability evaluation step 3: optimisation
Arimoto et al. (1993) state that optimisation can take place on
the categories: human (skills), means (machinery, tools and
software) and product (design). To this process must be added.
Burnell et al. (1991) present a theory to optimise
manufacturability during the conceptual design, by using the
decision theory and an expert system. Tasks that must be
carried out are: identification of cannot situations, identification
of technical risk, optimisation through design trade-off studies,
comparing alternatives and providing managerial information
(cost, schedule, risk, quality, etc.).
Grace and Billatos (1992) propose a re-design approach for
optimisation. In order to generate re-design suggestions for
optimisation, it is necessary to know the functionality of the
part. For this purpose, El Maraghy et al. (in Gupta et al. 1995)
use pre-defined functional features. Henderson et al. (in Gupta
et al. 1995) developed a method for representing functionality
semantically within a solid modelling system.
2 PROCESSES IN PRODUCT REALISATION
Although manufacturing is an important source for DFM, this
chapter focuses on the design and production preparation
2.1 The design process
Two types of design process models can be distinguished, the
3 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
phase model and the domain model. An example of the phase
model is the model of Pahl and Beitz (1993) in which four phases
are distinguished:
1. Clarification of the task/ product planning.
2. Conceptual design (generation of conceptual solutions by
means of function break-down, searching for working
principles and combining them to working structures).
3. Embodiment design (initial design, product structure).
4. Detailed design (drawings, process instructions).
Rangaraj et al. (1992) suggest a similar model after Asimow. The
phase models are characterised by the linear sequence of
actions; after finishing a phase, another is entered. Iteration
loops between the various phases are required when a previous
(tentative) decision seems to have been taken incorrect.
An example of the domain model is the model by Andreasen
(1992) which is built up of four domains:
1. The process domain: a product structure in terms of
(converting) processes that perform transformations on
material, energy or signals.
2. The function domain: a product structure in terms of
functions that realise an effect.
3. The organ domain: organs are carriers of functions:
materialised surfaces with mechanical relations.
4. The component domain: organs consist of components.
In the domain model a function-means tree is used, which is the
backbone of the product information structure; information can
be added at any stage. The model is not restricted to the top-
down approach of the phase model, but also allows the bottom-
up approach. It is possible to model products using the
function-means tree, but since every component fulfils one or
more functions, the tree rapidly grows out of proportion. In
practice, using the model is too complex. Function Block
Diagrams can be an alternative for functional information
structuring and storage, when these are combined with function
logic techniques and function-based reasoning (Reed and
Sturges 1993).
Rohatynski (1996) warns that no unique model of the
design process exists or ever will, because of human creativity.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to identify certain generic activities
in the design process and offer support for these 'sub-tasks' in a
flexible manner, without dictating their sequence.
The importance of DFM in conceptual design
Although DFM tools and methods tend to focus on the detailed
design phase, the conceptual design phase is the most
important, because of the large amount of decisions that are
made and information that is generated in this early stage of the
design process. Efficient storage of decisions and information at
this stage is essential to enable effective manufacturability
evaluation in the detailed design phase.
Rangaraj et al. (1992) claim that for computer-based design
support during the conceptual design phase, the following tools
are required: an organisation model for the design process, a set
of well-defined design tasks and a set of formalisms for
representing and processing the knowledge that is required.
During the conceptual design phase, the desired
functionality is transformed into design solutions. Hashim et al.
(1994) describe a methodology to represent this decision-based
transformation using conceptual graphs combined with
semantics. To store design decisions that contain the design
'intent' Colton and Pun (1994) have developed a generic
information model, based on IDEF1X. The following generic
decisions are distinguished: selection of design concepts and of
function-, form- and manufacturing attributes. The problem
statement (design task) is divided into functional requirements,
constraints that limit the design scope and evaluation criteria
that are used to assess the feasibility of alternatives.
Andersson et al. (1995) propose a product modelling
language to support conceptual design. The language called
CANDLE supports the design of mechanism and manipulators.
The language should help to store and organise non-
geometrical information that is generated during the early stages
of the design process. CANDLE supports the phases
clarification of the task and conceptual design. Engineering
terminology, derived from definitions from Pahl and Beitz (1993),
is expanded with physical- and solution principles. Vocabulary
and design principles are linked by entity relation graphs.
2.2 The production preparation process
Process planning can provide relevant information regarding
manufacturability. Typically, the manufacturability is verified
and a process plan is made, from which an accurate cost
estimation can be derived. CAPP-systems (Computer Aided
Process Planning) can carry out some, or all planning activities
semi-automatically. Gupta et al. (1995) notice that no fully
automated systems were available, because the sequence of
processes cause inter-dependencies, which require several
iteration steps to obtain a satisfactory planing.
The production preparation becomes complicated if
complete new production lines have to be developed. In that
case, the use of CAPP-systems is not beneficial.
3 TOOLS USED IN PRODUCT REALISATION
This section presents an overview of the types of DFM-related
tools developed thus far, illustrated by a number examples.
3.1 Conceptual design tools
Colton and Ouellette (1994) describe a computer support tool for
the conceptual design of an automobile, called VROOM. In this
work the parametric design system ICAD (Intelligent-CAD) is
used for a (limited) graphical product representation and a
Generic Blackboard (GBB) system for data storage and decision
support. Both systems support object-oriented modelling and
can be programmed by the Common LISP language. The system
is based on function-form mapping. When the designer adds
functions or forms, the system checks if the modification is valid
via specific automobile design rules. Effective use of ICAD is
4 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
typically limited to the design of complex product variants
within a specific family; it is possible to include DFM
knowledge, but it requires much programming.
3.2 Cost estimators
Molengraaf (1993) relates manufacturing processes to the basic
shapes the designer uses to construct new designs. The
designer is informed on the relation between manufacturing
costs and the parameters of the basic shapes. For each shape
graphs with cost factors, depending on tolerances, surface
roughness and material, are defined. An implementation is made
for rotational symmetric parts.
Maree and Basson (1996) describe a cost estimation tool for
small production welded assemblies. The product is virtually
taken through the manufacturing process, including aspects as
handling, logistics etc.
3.3 Material- and process selection
Material- and process selection must be combined, furthermore,
the sequence of processes and therefore logistics, must be
considered. Few systems meet these requirements.
Farris and Knight (1992) describe a system for material- and
process selection via fuzzy indications of size, shape,
tolerances, cross sections and features (holes, pockets etc.),
taking process sequences into account. The system analyses
which processes are able to manufacture the features,
considering tool accessibility, symmetry and the required
product orientations. Once the primary process has been
chosen, suitable follow-up processes are determined.
For simultaneous material- and process selection, Lenau
(1996) presents the designer with a multimedia, online database
in which a large amount of products, their materials and used
processes are stored (case-based reasoning).
Klocke and Fallbohmer (1999) are developing an integrated
material- and process selection system, called INNOTECH, that
aims at obtaining an optimal sequence of manufacturing
processes.
Wiendahl et al. (1999) are developing a logistic product
model, in which the logistics related to manufacturing is
included. The various processes of the manufacturing method
are modelled in a time scheme, versus total process costs.
Material selection
The major problem in performing material selections, is the
enormous quantity of available materials. Several material
selection tools have been developed, for instance:
- Mat. D B system (ASM 1990)
- Cambridge Material Selector (Ashby 1992)
- IDEmat system (Delft University of Technology 1999)
The use of such systems in conceptual design can be limited,
since detailed information regarding material properties is
required, and processes are often not considered. Steps to
select materials in early stages are (Boothroyd et al. (1994):
1. Grouping materials into process compatible classes (since
material and processes are related), to obtain a systematic
database structure, which makes the searching faster.
2. Material selection by 'membership function modification'.
Fuzzy Logic can be used, which uses membership functions
to determine how well a objects fit into a defined set.
Process selection
A system for determining the optimal process for producing
plastic components has been developed by Mehar et al. 1994.
The tool has been implemented in HyperQ/PP and uses the
criteria: material, dimensions, shape, mass, tolerances, wall
thickness, time-to-market, batch size and cycle time.
Esawi and Ashby (1997) have developed a more general
computer-based process selection system. The system uses a
generic database covering over 100 processes, which are
categorised using several process classes. Only generic process
attributes are used to make decisions. Per process ranges of
valid attribute values under normal and extreme conditions are
available. The system uses two stages to determine a suitable
process for a given material. Firstly, a selection based on
material, dimensions, roughnesses, tolerances, batch size,
production rate etc., and secondly ranking, based on estimated
production costs. The system aims at generic comparison
between processes only. For a more detailed selection, process
specific attributes should be used, in combination with detailed
graphs of possible correlations between these attributes. Since
1999 the system is commercially available (Cambridge Process
Selector). The system is combined with the material selector in
the Cambridge Engineering Selector by Granta Design Limited.
3.4 DFM tools resulting from academic research
Manufacturability verification tools
Lu and Subramanyan developed in 1991 a system for evaluating
the manufacturability of bearing cages, based on aspects as
fixturing, tooling and material handling (Gupta et al. 1995).
Cutkosky and Tenenbaum developed a CAD/CAM system
called NEXT-Cut in 1992. Machined parts are designed by
subtracting manufacturing features from a chosen stock; NC-
code is generated simultaneously (Gupta et al. 1995). This
system does not verify manufacturability, but tries to ensure
manufacturability throughout the design process. The same
applies for the knowledge-based SMAART-system (Sheet Metal
Advisor And Rule Tutor) by Sam Lazaro and Engquist (1992).
Net et al. (1996) describe a design method in which
manufacturability is ensured by adding manufacturable objects
(features) and verification after each alteration. An
implementation of the method was built for prismatic products
to be produced by NC milling (Vries 1996).
Manufacturability quantification tools
Priest and Sanchez developed in 1991 an empirical method for
5 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
quantifying manufacturability of machined parts, using
producibility factors depending on material availability,
machinability tooling, material- process combinations etc. Hsiao
et al. developed in that year a knowledge base for the same task,
based on design features, using constraint-face sets that
represent machining faces and neighbouring faces that restrict
accessibility (Gupta et al. 1995).
DieCast is a DFM tool by Liou and Miller (1991) which
combines Pro/Engineer with a knowledge-based system,
developed in Nexpert/Object (supplier Neuron Data). The tool
quantifies the suitability of the product design for die-casting
based upon size, envelop, weight and wall thickness.
Arimoto et al. (1993) developed a machining-producibility
evaluation method (MEM), to assess the quality of designs.
Processes that are included are turning, grinding, sheet metal
working, welding, moulding, casting and die-casting. The
manufacturability is measured by estimating the manufacturing
costs K and evaluating a machining-producibility evaluation
score E, based on design drawings. Costs are assessed using
the parameters processing time and shop rate. The MEM score
E, on a scale from 1..100, is determined using process specific
basic product shapes. Each shape contains a manufacturability
value, which can be converted to a cost factor. In a study, an
accuracy of 70% could be obtained.
IDAM (Integrated Design for Assembly and Manufacture),
a tool implemented in ProEngineer, is described by Kesteloot et
al. (1994). The system uses ONTOS as object oriented database
and the STEP product definition standard. Design by design-
features is combined with extraction of manufacturing-features,
to transform the design model into a manufacturing model.
Manufacturability is evaluated via manufacturing constraints,
costs and CAPP results.
Gupta et al. (1995) describe an implementation of a
methodology for analysing the manufacturability of prismatic
machined parts. The system determines all machining
operations for a given design, after which process plans are
generated with a time-based manufacturability rating.
Manufacturability optimisation tools
O'Donnell and Gomba (1992) use an extensive checklist to
optimise the design. During each phase of the design process
scores are awarded by hand to several aspects, like ergonomics,
machine set-up, process design etc. Each aspect has a maximum
achievable score. By iteratively going through the aspects
during all the design phases, improvements are visualised,
stimulating the designer to strive for optimum scores.
In their feature-based DF-Stamping tool, Mahajan et al.
(1992) optimise the design via generic design suggestions.
Nnaji et al. (1993) describe the ProMod system. This
product modeller for discrete components contains an automatic
dimensioning engine, a tolerance propagation engine and a
design- evaluator and advisor. The information hierarchy
consists of parts, faces, loops, edges and vertices. Information
is stored in frames. Features are used to combine shape and
function. A distinction is made between features for functional
specifications, machining, fixturing, handling and assembly.
Meerkamm (1995) developed a support system (called
MKF) based on a DXF (CAD file format) product model that
detects design violations concerning manufacturability of sheet
metal, rotational and casting parts, and generates advice to
correct the problem. Knowledge processing is done in four
phases: analysis, diagnosis, consultancy and correction. The
manufacturability is analysed by examining the possibilities to
produce the part according to the design, with the tools, fixtures
and machines that are included in the system database.
Furthermore, rules, e.g. for the minimal wall thickness, are
applied, support is offered for addressing tolerances and
production cost assessments can be carried out by the system.
Borg et al. (1995) describe an "injection moulding design
assistant" (IMDA), which integrates a feature-based CAD
system, an expert system and a hypermedia module for decision
support. AutoCAD was chosen to implement the tool, using the
AutoLISP programming language. The expert system reads
dimensions of product features and uses algorithms to evaluate
design rules regarding injection moulding. The hypermedia
module visualises found problems by animation.
Hayes and Gaines (1996) implemented a manufacturability
method for machined parts in a design tool (Mediator).
Recognised features are checked for non-manufacturable
elements. The evaluation is based on determining deviations
from predefined feature definitions. Redesign suggestions are
given with regard to the design, stock, tools, fixtures etc.
Medina et al. (1998) are developing a computer platform for
simulation-and-optimisation-based design of multiple-stage
manufacturing processes. As implementation, the process metal
forming has been chosen. The system embeds analytical models
in simplified design models that include geometry,
microstructure- and processing features. It is stated that
complex FEM analyses for simulation are not per definition
suited in the design practice, since very detailed information is
required and the analyses require a great amount of
computation capacity and time. Simple object-oriented models
(derived from Gunasekera et al. 1996) are used instead.
Optimisation is based on finding the optimum sequence from all
possible sequences, considering costs, using of-the-shelf
optimisation algorithms.
Fixturing
Defining fixtures and machine set-ups of both stock material and
semi-finished parts often retrieves insufficient attention in the
design. Both elements must be included in DFM support. Das et
al. developed in 1994 a methodology for generating re-design
suggestions to reduce the number of required machine set-ups
(Gupta et al. 1995). Roy and Liao (1998) describe an automated
fixturing design system, based on A.I. techniques. implemented
in ICAD. Some CAPP tools support fixturing, e.g. the ICEM-
PART system (Houten 1997).
6 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
 Design and decision support systems
Gopalakrishnan (1991) developed a DFM decision support
system based on an expert system. During the conceptual
design phase, global material and process selections are carried
out using information on expected shape, size, functionality and
production quantity. At first, processes are selected that can be
used to produce the geometry of the product as a whole, and
secondly the processes that can be used in sequence to
produce the part. Per process a set of suitable materials is
generated. Algorithms are used to assess the costs of the
generated combinations. Redesign advice is generated to
reduce costs, using knowledge and design rules. Suitability of
materials and processes is checked every time a new (design)
feature is added.
Venkatachalam (1993) describes a software tool (in
NEXPERT) that generates feedback during the various phases
of the design process (functional development, material/process
selection and process design). Decisions are evaluated with
respect to quality, cost and manufacturability. The tool is limited
to casting and forging (primary processes), and end-milling and
drilling (secondary processes). Included design features are
blind holes, through holes, pockets and slots. Availability of
manufacturing cost estimates is required.
Schiebeler and Ehrlenspiel (1993) describe a hybrid design
and to evaluate them.
The ability to add functionality to CAD systems, e.g. AutoCAD,
and SolidWorks, is improving via obtainable developer kits.
Gupta et al. (1994) propose an architecture of a decision
support tool in which the product design is checked for non-
manufacturable design attributes, cost and time. An overall
manufacturability rating is assessed by handling non-
manufacturable- and expensive product attributes.
FROOM is a system by Salomons (1995). The concurrent
engineering tool supports assembly modelling, tolerancing and
design history (reuse). Via abstraction and feature modelling
both bottom-up and top-down design approaches can be used.
The feature definition module provides a link to a CAPP system
to verify the manufacturability of product designs.
Figure 3 shows an architecture (Barton et al. 1996) of a
typical DFM support system. It contains a design rule database,
manufacturing database and manufacturability assessment- and
feedback system. The databases are based on the Enhanced
Entity-Relationship (EER) model, using super- and sub-classes.
Manufacuring
Database
Candidate
Design Final
Manufacturing
designs design
Design Evaluation
Subsystem
Database

advisory system, called ReKK. Material- and process selection,

Manufacuring
cost- and strength analyses can be carried out and a checklist- Design rule Design Database
Design change Updating
module is provided for design evaluation. Manufacturability is Rule Mechanism
Database
checked via a link to a knowledge base. The system is
integrated in the normal work environment of the designer. Design Manufacturability
Studies showed that otherwise knowledge-based systems are Database Design Alarm
Modelling
change Mechanism Problems
System
not accepted. After analysing the geometry, the system is able
Design Rule
to carry out geometric improvements automatically. The Updating Subsystem
geometry analysis module recognises frame- surface- and solid
Manufacturability
3D models. The elements of the model are interpreted as assessment and
Design Manufacturing
semantics, i.e. lines as letters, features as words and parts as feedback system

sentences. In this way, the functionality of word processors, like Figure 3 DFM system structure (Barton et al. 1996)
a dictionary and thesaurus, can be applied to the CAD model.
Both explicit information (shape, dimensions, tolerances, Molloy et al. (1998) describe the system DEFMAT. The system
materials, processing information) and implicit information can helps the designer during the concurrent engineering process
be retrieved from the model. Implicit information is related to the with the evaluation of the assemblability and manufacturability
choice of words and the sentence structure. It includes of a product design. Object-oriented programming has been
functional interdependencies of features, interdependencies combined with expert system techniques (NEXPERT language)
with company specific processes, tool accessibility, technical to implement an industrial prototype.
design conditions, ergonomics etc. The implementation handles
simple geometric elements, and the processes casting and 3.5 CAD systems with DFM functionality
welding. For continuous support, the integration with CAD is
Many CAD vendors introduce DFM functionality in their new
essential, which can be realised with a (A.I.-) shell, with the
releases. Using Pro/DEVELOP with Pro/ENGINEER, enables the
following capabilities (Tusveld 1991):
development of independent tools that can be fully integrated in
1. Constant access to the CAD component database.
the Pro/ENGINEER environment. Tools are available for
2. The ability to modify and intercept user transactions.
visualisation, design automation, FEM -analysis, mould flow
3. The ability to change and maintain knowledge bases of the
analysis, rapid prototyping, CAM processing, documenting and
functional parameters of the component.
assembly (Malkenhorst 1994). Pro/FEATURE can be used to
Kesteloot et al. (1994) add:
implement user defined features.
4. The ability to develop alternative designs (simultaneously)

7 Copyright © 1999 by ASME

 ICAD and Concept Modeller (Edwards and Murdoch 1993)
are rule-based shells that can be used to develop a rule-based
design support system. In ICAD processing of knowledge and
geometry is integrated, but every step needs to be programmed
using the AI-language lisp. Geometric modelling therefore, is
not straight forward, nor is it user-friendly. The same applies for
the Design++ system. This system can be used to add
intelligence to the AutoCad system, but the parametric
modelling capabilities of AutoCad can not be addressed via
Direct++, which implies that hard programming is required
(Begelinger 1998).
Imaginer and Horses are two tools by Pafec Ltd. The first
one is a solid modeller combined with a feature mapping
mechanism. The second one is an add-on module, which allows
the user to define own features, including relations between
features and tolerance information (Gao and Huang 1996).
3.6 Commercially available DFM oriented tools
Moldflow by Moldflow Australia (PTY) Ltd provides a
computer simulation of the injection moulding process. The
program does not generate suggestions for optimisation, hence
the designer will have to find a suitable parameter configuration
iteratively (Corbett et al. 1991).
VSAS (variation simulation analysis software) by Applied
Computer Solutions St Clair Shores MI, predicts assembly
tolerances and manufacturing variations. Via a Monte Carlo
simulation procedure tolerances and variations are determined
of the virtual product assembly. The designer must provide the
assembly structure and the tolerance definitions of each part
(Corbett et al. 1991).
The DFMA tool from Boothroyd is used to determine
production costs and is suitable for powder metallurgy,
machining, sheet metal work, casting and injection moulding
(Malkenhorst 1994). Used parameters include material,
man/hour-costs and tertiary processes (coating/heat treatment).
SheetAdvisor (CoCreate Software Inc.) is an add-on for a
solid modeller (SolidDesigner). The program guards the
manufacturability of sheet metal products, based on design
rules. The user is interrupted by the system if violations to the
design rules are detected. A similar system is the
DTM/SheetMetal system by Somatech, which is integrated with
the CAD/CAM system Radan. This system includes cost
etimation, process planning and NX-programming capabilities
(Zondervan 1996).
3.7 CAPP tools
The Technomatix-PART system for machining, converts 3D
solid CAD models into manufacturing data including NC code,
machine- and tool selection (Malkenhorst 1994). PART uses
feature recognition to interpret the product model. Programming
new feature characteristics can extent the recognition
capabilities. Some other commercially CAPP-systems are DTM
(Jasperse 1995), XCut, AMPS, SIPS, and NEXT-cut (Gupta et al.
1995). Most of these systems are specific for NC-machining.
PART-S is a CAPP system for sheet metal forming under
development (Houten 1997).
3.8 Concluding remarks
Many tools have been developed that can support one or some
processes of the product realisation. If the offered functionality
of these tools could be combined in an generic, integrated
system, effective DFM support can be realised.
4 DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE
Handling of data, information and knowledge is the main task of
computer support tools. Since data on itself is meaningless, it
must be interpreted to become information. Information
handling accounts for more than 90% of all the costs related to
human activities in manufacturing. Effective structuring and
representation of information is needed to improve the
transformation of information and the controlling of the design
and production process. To be able to deal with the complexity
involved in information transformation, it is needed to use all
relations that connect the information carrying elements (Kals
and Lutters 1998). Looking at DFM support, Helander et al.
(1992) distinguish three types of information:
1. Descriptive information, which presents the designer with
the possibilities and limitations of materials and processes.
2. Normative information, which introduces standardised
materials, processes and dimensions.
3. Procedural information, which co-ordinates the co-
operation between the design and production disciplines.
When information is placed in a specific context, and when it
applies in that context in general, knowledge is formed.
Knowledge can be recognised or unrecognised, codified or not
codified (Tomiyama et al. 1992). Unrecognised knowledge is
formed by skills and experience. Not codified knowledge is
typical knowledge that is recognised and used by humans, but
is very difficult to describe. Since unrecognised knowledge can
not be handled, systemisation of knowledge implies converting
the recognised but not codified knowledge into recognised and
codified knowledge. Tomiyama et al. describe the results of a
study to systematise design knowledge. The identified types of
design knowledge concern entities, functions, attributes,
topologies, relationships and manufacturing methods.
Especially the relationships between entity, function, attribute
and manufacturing method are important in the design process.
Twomey and Littell (1998) give a review of techniques that
are used when developing a large knowledge-based system for
manufacturing, with domain-specific problem solving
knowledge. Knowledge is stored algorithmically, heuristically,
declaritively (facts) or procedurally (courses of action). Used
forms of representation are rules, predicates, frames, associative
networks, model-based reasoning, case-based reasoning,
qualitative reasoning, temporal reasoning and artificial neural
networks. Tools that are available for knowledge acquisition are
8 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
EXCEPT, SALT, PROTÉGÉ, DIDS and SBF.
Looking at design knowledge specifically, Meerkamm (1995)
makes a distinction between knowledge related to geometry,
technology, function and organisation. Besides the
organisational or procedural information, these areas require
information on (Wong and Sriram 1993) physical and functional
product properties and the design description (decisions, intent
and modifications).
4.1 Data representation and management
Hamer and Lepoeter (1996) argue that five orthogonal
dimensions are required for effective design data management:
1. Versions, preferable represented in a numbered tree
structure; the number accounts for the version, the tree
structure for the relation between previous versions.
2. Views, required to represent the product in the different
phases of the design process, dependent on the user
group.
3. Hierarchy, in which product designs are decomposed.
4. Status, which indicates which aspects of the product
design have been fully developed/tested and which have
not.
5. Variants, to describe variant products.
Since all required data is related to the product, a product
structure or –model is typically suited for organising and
representing data and information. Krause et al. (1993) give a
definition of a product structure. It is the logical accumulation
of all relevant information concerning a given product during
the entire life cycle. A distinction is made between partial
product structures, based on certain aspects like structures,
geometrical representations, features and knowledge-based
systems, and integrated product structures that integrate these
aspects. Several examples of product structures are provided in
the following.
Lindeman and Wijaya (1992) have defined requirements for
a concurrent engineering data structure and implemented it. It
enables the monitoring of the progress, quality and maturity of
the product design and it automatically generates design
history information, by consistent storage of up-to-data
information.
LeBlanc and Fadel (1993) describe an implementation of
object-oriented product model (OOPM) that is based on
decomposition and supports multiple views. A relational
database was combined with an object-oriented structure.
Wong and Sriram (1993) describe an object-oriented
implementation of a product information model (MADED),
which represents data using multiple levels of abstractions,
constraints and a geometric representation via multiple views.
Kimura and Suzuki (1995) propose a framework for storing
background information (non-geometrical information) in the
product structure. Information is represented using engineering
ontologies, which describe engineering artefacts and processes
in a formal way. The foreground information of the product
structure (consisting of form features) is used to access the
background information, which is stored in a frame.
For systematic storage of the product requirements, as part
of the product structure, Wright (1998) uses a document called
product design specification (PDS). Aspects that appear in a
PDS are performance, environment, lifetime, quantity, size,
weight, ergonomics, safety, costs etc. The relative importance of
requirements can be indicated via a score or index. Since
requirements can change, the PDS is a dynamic document that
represents the current state.
Kals and Lutters (1998) add information to the product
structure. The product information structure (PRIS) manages all
information generated by any decision in the product realisation
process. The structure contains no references exclusively to the
geometry, since the elements can be related to any aspect.
Furthermore, the structure has no explicit hierarchy, since
relations other than part-of-relations (hierarchical) are of equal
importance. The aspects can be grouped into separate domains.
Although the domains are product dependent, generally the
following three domains can be distinguished:
1. The objective domain, including specifications,
requirements, functional structure, conceptual design etc.
2. The physical product definition domain, including the
assembly structure, BOM, process plans etc.
3. The control domain, describing the adaptable behaviour of
the product (software, controllers, etc.).
The different interpretations that exist within domains result in
the multiple (aspect) views. Per view, filters can be used to
select only the relevant information. In this way, the information
can be used on different levels of abstraction (see Figure 4).
Similar to the product information structure, a resource
information structure, which contains information on the
abilities, occupation and condition of all resources, can be
divided into three domains. These are the method- (the
resources can be used and/or combined), capability- (process
technology aspects) and capacity domain (logistic aspects). A
order information structure is used for communication with the
outside world and consists of a client-, material- and economic
domain. Use of the presented information structures should
enable two-way transformations of information between the
processes within the product realisation process (see Figure 1).
Control
domain
Core model Objective
domain
Physical
product def.
Multiple view
domain filters
Figure 4 Product information structure (Kals 1998)
9 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
5 CONCLUSIONS
DFM is: applying methods and tools to support the process of
choosing the best combination of materials and manufacturing
methods, and optimising the design for this combination.
Manufacturability evaluation aims at the verification,
quantification and optimisation of the manufacturability.
Verification tools typically check for inconsistencies in the
shape and geometry, accessibility of tools, and fixturing
possibilities, and are used to maintain manufacturability during
the design process. For quantification, the aspects of costs,
time, quality and environmental burden are important. Generic
estimators of the significance and influence of these aspects are
required. Support tools may support dimensioning, tolerancing,
simulation or decision making. Optimisation can be carried out
afterwards (redesign) or iteratively, but must preferably be
carried out continuously throughout the design process (DFM).
Effective acquisition, storage, retrieval and representation
of the many types of domain knowledge is the main task in
developing a support system. Semantics and natural language
are useful for the capturing, understanding, and the
computation of design data. Requirements for computer-based
DFM support are effective use of product information
structures, capturing of the design intent, possibilities for
evaluation of alternatives, and modelling of functionality and
relations. To ensure transparency, different aggregation levels
must be used, combined with multiple view filters.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
The literature supplies sufficient background for the
development of an integrated support system. However, due to
a missing generic information architecture for design support,
the existing tools can not be linked together, since individual
parameter definitions are used, interfaces are missing and no
control of the information exchange is possible. The main
challenge is to realise integration, to obtain an added value with
regard to the combination of individual tools, since only
integration enables proper evaluation and comparison of
materials, processes and design alternatives. For this, a generic
DFM methodology or platform must be developed on which
coming DFM support tools must be based.
ASPECTS
CAD
TIME
DFS
MONITORING
METHODS DFD
TOOLS
NAV. NAV.
DFA
TOOLS DFM NAV. DFM CONC.
FUNC. NAV.
CO-ORDINATION
PROD. STRUCT. REQ. REQ.
DATABASE
Figure 5 Integrated DFX design support architecture
Figure 5 shows a view on how to obtain integration. Since
effective design support can not be based on manufacturing
only, a more comprehensive architecture is proposed. The top
layer contains the design support tools. As the design evolves,
the tools can, both sequentially and parallel, provide support for
decision making and for the evaluation of the various product-
and life-cycle aspects. The CAD system is used as user
interface. The product information structure (Kals and Lutters
1998) in the third layer stores all product-related information.
The aspects of the structure, like requirements, functions,
(conceptual) designs etc., will all get defined in time, but since
the designer will use a mixed top-down and bottom-up
approach, no explicit working sequence is prescribed. To
integrate the tools and the product information structure, a co-
ordination module with co-ordination mechanisms is required
(Tichem 1997). The module constantly monitors (Lindeman and
Wijaya 1992) the design process and triggers the execution of
evaluation- and support tools, dependent on the status of the
design. The required knowledge for co-ordination is obtained
from the database, or is requested explicitly from the user. Based
on the results of the evaluation tools, the co-ordination module
provides the user, or (intelligent) optimisation tools, with
relevant information for decision making (navigation).
For DFM support, the DFM co-ordination mechanism in the
co-ordination module applies a filter (figure 4) to the product
information structure to obtain the current state of the design
from a DFM point of view. It integrates the different DFM tools
that are available in the system (e.g. tools for selection,
verification, quantification and optimisation).
REFERENCES
Andersson, K. Makkonen, P. Persson, J.G. 1995, A proposal
to a product modelling language to support conceptual
design, Annals of the CIRP Vol. 44/1/1995, p.p. 129-132
Andreasen, M.M. 1992, Design in a 'Designer's workbench'
(DWB), Proceedings of the 9th WDK Workshop, Rigi.
Arimoto, S. Ohashi, T. Ikeda, M. Miyakawa, S. 1993, jan. 15,
Development of Machining-producibility Evaluation
Method (MEM), Annals of the CIRP Vol. 42/1/1993, p.p.
119 - 122, Prod. Eng. Research Laboratory Hitachi, Japan
Ashby, M.F. 1992, Material selection in mechanical design,
Pergamon, Oxford 1992
ASM 1990, Mat .D B User’s Manual, American Society of
Metals International, Cleveland, Ohio
NAV.
Bakerjian, R. 1992, Tool and Manuf. Engineers handbook,
vol.6: Design for Manufacturability, ISBN 0-87263-402-7
Dearborn : Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1992
Barton, R. R. Joo, Y. Ham, I. 1996, Feedback of Manufacturing
Experience for DFM Rules, Annals of the CIRP Vol.
45/1/1996, pp. 115 - 119, The Pennsylvania State University,
USA
Begelinger, R. 1998, Computer support in the Design of Product
families, ISBN 90 365 11 976, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Twente
Boothroyd, G. Dewhurst, P. Knight, W. 1994, Product design
10 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
 for Manufacture and Assembly, ISBN 0-8247-9176-2,
Dekker, New-York 1994
Borg, J. MacCallum, K.J. 1995, A HyperCAD Expert System for
Plastic Product design, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference in Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, vol.1 ISBN 981-02-2973-9, p.p. 295 - 302
Burnell, L. J. Priest, J. W. Briggs, K. 1991, An intelligent
decision theoretic approach to producibility optimisation
in conceptual design, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
(1991) 2 pp. 189 - 196, University of Texas at Arlington
Colton, J.S. Ouellette, M.P. 1994, A form verification system for
the conceptual design of complex mechanical systems,
Engineering with Computers (1994)10, p.p. 33 - 44, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA
Colton, J.S. Pun, R. C. 1994, Information frameworks for
conceptual engineering design, Engineering with
Computers (1994) 10, p.p. 22 - 32, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Corbett, J. Dooner, M. et al. 1991, Design for Manufacture,
strategies, principles and techniques, ISBN 0-201-41694-8,
Wokingham : Addison-Wesley, 1991
Edwards, K. Murdoch, T. 1993, Modelling engineering design
principles, Proc. International conference on engineering
design ICED 1993 The Hague, p.p. 1676-1683
El-Mehalawi, M. Miller, R.A. 1998, A case-based approach for
cost estimating in net-shape manufacturing, Transactions
of the North American manufacturing research institution
of SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers), vol.XXVI
1998, p.p. 37-42, Ohio
Esawi, A. M. K. Ashby, M. F. 1997, Computer-based selection
of Manufacturing Processes, Cambridge University – Eng.
department, Report No. TR50, May 1997
Farris, J. Knight, W.A. 1992, Jan. 15, Design for Manufacture:
Expert Processing Sequence Selection for early Product
Design, Annals of the CIRP Vol 41/1/1992, p.p. 481-484
Gao, J.X. Huang, X.X. 1996, Product and manufacturing
capability modelling in an Integrated CAD/Process
planning environment, Int. Journal of advanced
manufacturing technology 1996; 11, p.p. 43-51
Gopalakrishnan, B. Pandiarajan, V. 1991, Materials and
Manufacturing Processes Selection Systems for Product
Designs in Concurrent Engineering, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 28 (1991), p.p. 93-103
Grace, D.R.; Billatos, S.B. 1992, Application of concurrent
engineering in the redesign process, Proc. of ASME 1992
Design for Manufacture DE Vol 51, p.p. 23-28
Gunasekera, J.S.; Fischer, C.E.; Malas, W.M et al. 1996, The
development of process models for use within global
optimisation of a manufacturing system, Proc. of ASME
international Engineering Congress, Atlanta GA Nov. 17th
Gupta, S.K. Regli, W.C. Nau, D.S. 1994, Integrating DFM with
CAD through Design Critiquing, Concurrent engineering:
research and applications 1994,2, p.p. 85-95, University of
Maryland, USA
Gupta, S. K. Regli, W. C. Das, D. Nau, D. S. 1995, Automated
manufacturability analysis: a survey, ISR-TR-95-14, NIST
IR 5713 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
Hamer, P. van den, Lepoeter, K. 1996, Managing design data:
the five dimensions of CAD frameworks, configuration
management, and product data management, Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 84 no.1 jan.96, p.p. 42-56
Hashim, F.M. Juster, N.P. Pennington, A. de 1994, A functional
appraoch to redesign, Engineering with computers 1994 10,
p.p. 125-139, University of Leeds, UK
Hayes, Caroline, C.; Gaines, D.M. 1996, Using near-misses from
feature recognition to generate redesign suggestions for
increased manufacturability, Proc. ASME 1996 Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly, DE vol 89, p.p. 67-77
Helander, M. Nagamachi, M. 1992, Design for
Manufacturability, A systems approach to Concurrent
Engineering and Ergonomics, ISBN 0-74840-009-5, Taylor
and Francis, London 1992
Houten, F.J.A.M. van 1997, Practische toepassingen van
feature-technologie (deel1), De Constructeur Dec
1997/12a, p.p. 36 - 52, Univ. Twente, The Netherlands
Houten, F.J.A.M. van; Kals, H.J.J. 1999, Global consistency of
Tolerances, proc. 6th CIRP seminar on Computer-Aided
Tolerancing, Enschede, 22-24 March 1999, Kluwer publ.
Ishii, K. Miller, R.A. 1992, Design representation for
manufacturability evaluation in CAD: beyond feature-
based design, Proc. of Computers in Engineering Vol.1
ASME 1992, p.p. 37 - 44, Ohio State University
Jasperse, H.B. 1995, A macro process planning system for
machining operations, ISBN 90 370 0121 1, Ph.D. thesis,
Delft University of Technology
Kals, H.J.J.; Lutters, D. 1998, The role of information
management in intelligent manufacturing, Proc. of CIRP
Int. Seminar on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing
Kesteloot, P. Tilley, S. Sleeckx, E. 1994, IDAM: an architecture
for an integrated DFM/DFA system, Proc. of conf. Flexible
Automation and Integrated Manufacturing 1994, p.p. 409 -
418, University Leuven, Belgium
Kimura, F. Suzuki, H. 1995, Representing background
information for product description to support product
development process, Annals of the CIRP Vol.44/1/1995,
p.p. 113 - 119, The University of Tokyo
Klocke, F.; Fallbohmer, M. 1999, INNOTECH – System for the
identification of manufacturing processes in early phases
of product development, Production Engineering Vol. VI/1
1999
Krause, F.L. Kimura, F. et al. 1993, Product modelling, Annals
of the CIRP Vol.42/2/1993, p.p. 695 - 706
Koenig, D. T. 1994, Manufacturing Engineering - principles for
optimisation, ISBN 1-56032-301-9 Taylor and Francis,
Washington, 1994
LeBlanc, A.R. Fadel, G.M. 1993, design data storage and
extraction using objects, Concurrent engineering: research
and applications 1993, 1, p.p. 31-38, Clemson University,
11 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
 South Carolina, USA
Lenau, T. 1996, The missing element in Design for
Manufacturing, Annals of the CIRP Vol. 45/1/1996 pp. 105 -
108, Technical University of Denmark
Lindeman, D. Wijaya, L. 1992, Managing design structure data
in a concurrent engineering design environment,
Engineering Data Management: key to integrated product
development Proc. of ASME 1992, p.p. 97-104,
Liou, S.Y. Miller, R.A. 1991, Design for Die Casting,
International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing
Mahajan, P.V.; Poli, C. et al. 1992, Design for stamping: a
feature-based approach, Proc. of ASME 1993 Design for
Manufacturability DE Vol 52, p.p. 29-49,
Malkenhorst G. van 1994, Technieuws Washington,
Technieuws, vol. 32 no.3 , p.p. 3 - 25, Ministerie van
Economische Zaken, The Netherlands
Maree, W.G. Basson, A.H. 1996, Design for Fabrication Early
Cost Estimation for Small Production Volume,
Proceedings of int. seminar on manufacturing systems, may
15-17, p.p. 76-81, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
Medina, E.A. Malas, J.C. 1998, Simulation and optimasation
sytsem for design of multi-stage material processes,
Transactions of the North American manufacturing
research institution of SME vol.XXVI 1998, p.p. 287-292
Meerkamm, H. 1995, Product Modelling: a prerequisite for
effective product development, Proceedings of
Productmodeller'95 Linkoping, april 25-26, ISBN91-7871-541-
5, p.p. 25-47, University of Erlangen, Germany
Merhar, C. Chong, C. Ishii, K. 1994, Simultaneous design for
manufacturing process selection of engineering plastics,
rules, Software tool, International Journal of material &
product technology, volume 9, p.p. 61 - 79, Ohio
Molloy, O. Tilley, S. Warman, E.A. 1998, Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly, concepts, architectures and
implementation, London : Chapman and Hall, 1998
Molengraaf, J.C.M. v/d et al. . 1993, Selection procedures for
manufacturing processes for design engineers, Robotics &
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Vol 10 No 1/2, p.p. 57-
64, University of Eindhoven
Net, A.J. van der Vries, W.A.H. 1996, A relation-based product
model suited for integrating design and manufacturing,
Annals of the CIRP vol.45/1, p.p. 161-164, Eindhoven
University of Technology
Ngoi, B.K.A.; Ong, C.T. 1998, Product and process
dimensioning and tolerancing techniques - a state-of-the-
art review, Int. J. Advanced Manuf. Technologies (1998)
14, p.p. 910-917
Nnaji, B.O. Liu, H.C. Rembold, U. 1993, A product modeller for
discrete components, International Journal of Production
Res. 1993 Vol.31 no.9, p.p. 2017 - 2044
O'Donnell, W.; Gomba, Karen M. 1992, Design for
manufacturability/ continuous flow manufacturing: an
operating procedure, Proc. of AMSE 1992 Design for
Manufacture, DE vol. 51, p.p. 1-5
Pahl, G. Beitz, W. 1988, Engineering Design - A systematic
approach, Springer-Verlag, London 1988
Parsaei, H.R. Sullivan, W.G. 1993, Concurrent engineering;
contemporary issues and modern design tools, ISBN 0 412
46510 8 London : Chapman and Hall, 1993
Pighini, U. Long, W. Todaro, F. 1989, Methodological design
for manufacture, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design 1989 Vol. 1, Italy
Rangaraj, B.S. Thompson, J.G. Krishnaswami, P. 1992, A
hybrid computational model for mechanical design,
Computers in Engineering, Vol. 1 Proc. ASME 1992, p.p. 75
- 81, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Reed, R. G. Sturges, R. H. 1993, A model for performance-
intelligent design advisors, DE-Vol.65-1, Advances in
Design Automation - vol.1 ASME 1993, p.p. 269 - 275
Rohatynski, R. 1996, Concurrent engineering and features: new
challenge for methodology of engineering design, The
Tools and Methods for Concurrent Engineering,
Proceedings of the Int. Symp. on TMCE 29-31 may, 1996,
Budapest, p.p. 157-175 , Poland
Roy, U.; Liao, J. 1998, Application of a blackboard framework
to a cooperative fixture design system, Computers in
Industry 37, p.p. 67-81, Syracuse University
Salomons, O.W. 1995, Computer support in the design of
mechanical products, ISBN 90-9007877-0, Ph.D. thesis ,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Clement A. et al. 1998, The TTRSs: 13 constraints for
dimensioning and tolerancing, in ElMaraghy, H.A.
Geometric Design Tolerancing, ISBN 0412 83000 0 London :
Chapman and Hall, 1998
Sam Lazaro, A. de; Engquist, D.T. 1992, A knowledge-based
advisor for the design of sheet metal parts, Proc. of ASME
1992 Design for Manufacture DE Vol 51, p.p. 35-41,
Schiebeler, R. Ehrlenspiel, K. 1993, REKK: A Knowledge based
system as an Integrated design-assistant, DE-Vol. 52,
Design for Manufacturability, ASME 1993, p.p. 69 - 74
Tichem, M. 1997, A Design Co-ordination Appraoch to Design
for X, Ph.D. thesis ISBN 90-370-0163-7, Delft University of
Technology,
Tomiyama, T. Xue, D. Umeda, Y. et al. 1992, Systematising
Design Knowledge for Intelligent CAD Systems in Olling
G.J.; Kimura, F. Human Aspects in Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, p.p. 237 - 248 Elsevier Science Publ.;
North-Holland, 1992
Tusveld, F. H. 1991, Design and Manufacturing: Integration
through Quality, Proc. 4th International Conference on
Industrial and Engineering Applications of AI & ES, HCS
Technology Industrial Automation, The Netherlands
Twomey, Janet. M. Littell, M.C. 1998, Development of large
knowledge-based systems for a manufacturing setting,
Technical papers of the North American manufacturing
research institution of SME1998, p.p. 95-100
Venkatachalam, A. R. et al. 1993, Automating design for
12 Copyright © 1999 by ASME
 manufacturability through expert systems approaches, in
Concurrent Engineering, contemporary issues and
modern design tools, in Parsaei and Sullivan (1993)
Vries, W.A.H. de 1996, Manufacturable Design Operations,
ISBN 90-386-0198-0, Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology
Eindhoven
Wiendahl, H.P.; Wahlers, T.; Mittendorf, M. 1999, Supporting
the Design of Logistically Friendly Products, Production
Engineering Vol. VI/1 1999
Wong, A. Sriram, D. 1993, SHARED: an information model for
cooperative product development, Research in Engineering
Design 1993, 5, p.p. 21-39
Wright, I. C. 1998, Design methods in engineering and product
design, ISBN 0 07 709376 3, London : McGraw-Hill, 1998
Zhang, C. Wang, H.P. 1992, Simultaneous Optimisation of
Design and Manufacturing - Tolerances with Process
Selection, Annals of the CIRP Vol. 41/1, p.p. 569-572
Zondervan, P.R.; Borsboom, J.N. 1996, DTM/Sheetmetal:
production technology integrated in CAD/CAM, Sheet
Metal 1996, proc. of the 4th int. conf. Enschede, 1-3 April
1996

13 Copyright © 1999 by ASME