MODELING OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES FOR INTELLIGENT INFORMATION

INTEGRATION

Dusan Sormaz, Assistant Professor

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering
Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701-2979
e-mail: sormaz@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu

ABSTRACT: Process planning is one of the key activities for product design and manufacturing.
Impact of process plans on all phases of product design and manufacture requires high level of
interaction of different activities and tight integration of them into coherent system. In this paper we
describe a model for manufacturing activities that allows such integration. The framework for
integration is briefly described and the manufacturing process model that considers three dimensions
of planning is explained. Some implementation issues of model are also discussed. Benefits of
integrated consideration are described for several possible scenarios, such as product/process design,
process planning/layout planning, process planning/scheduling. Manufacturing process model is
described as three-dimensional model with the following dimensions: time/order,
variability/alternatives, and aggregation. All dimensions are defined and explained as they are related
to overall manufacturing planning. The nature of these dimensions is illustrated with several
examples. Process plan network is described as a part of manufacturing process model that allows
integration by means of representing alternative process plans. This hierarchical network is
embedded into manufacturing process model for process planning tasks. Dimensions of the model
are identified within the network. Extension of the model for other activities is also discussed. The
use of the model in dynamic process planning and methods for the model visualization are described.

INTRODUCTION

Developments in Computer Integrated Manufacturing have focused for a long period of time in
linking various automated activities within the enterprise. However, the complexity of manufacturing
process itself and extended application of computer supported equipment has led toward identifying
three main phases in manufacturing integration [Conkol, 1997]: (1) hardware and software
integration, (2) application integration, and (3) process and people integration. After several years in
focusing on CAD/CAM integration, the research has moved toward the third phase, process
integration. One of most important links for implementation of integrated manufacturing is process
planning, the link between product design (CAD) and production planning and execution (CAM,
MES).
There are numerous papers devoted to various process planning systems which achieve certain level
of manufacturing planning integration. Early major CAD/CAPP integration works are Nextcut at
Stanford [Brown and Cutkosky, 1990] and QTC at Purdue [Chang, 1990]. These systems provide the
integration between CAD and CAPP systems and, in some cases, provide the actual machining on
NC machine connected to the system (as in QTC). However, these concern a one-way integration
from CAD to CAPP, and further to NC code generation and actual machining. Recent research
efforts are devoted to generation and evaluation of alternative process plans and to enlargement of
manufacturing knowledge base. The system described in [Hayes, 1995] performs process planning
and manufacturability analysis for machining operations in order to satisfy position tolerances. The
system considers several alternatives and selects as optimal the plan with minimum number of
setups. IMACS, the system that evaluates alternative process plans by analyzing alternative feature
volumes to be removed is reported in [Gupta, 1994] and [Gupta et al., 1994]. PART [ICEM, 1994], a
process planning system developed at University of Twente and built into commercial product
combines feature recognition and process planning into an integrated system and performs process
and tool selection, selects cutting parameters, and generates tool paths which can be post-processed
for generation of NC code. PART uses a relational database for permanent storage of features and
process plan.
Integration with other manufacturing planning functions is reported in several papers. Research
reports [Chen and Khoshnevis, 1993] [Schmidt and Kreutzfeldt, 1992] aim at integration of process
planning and scheduling functions. Another research project was reported in [Lee et al., 1994] with
the goal of integrating of process planning and shop-floor control. The authors provide the process
plan representation to be used in shop-floor control that carries hierarchical representation of process
plans and alternative process plans. Paper [Han, Sormaz and Parks, 1998] gives an example that
considers alternative process plans in manufacturing cell design.
The issues of data and knowledge representation and integration framework have also received
significant interest. From an early work on ALPS [Catron and Ray, 1991], there have been several
reports devoted to these issues. Some papers address knowledge representation, using hierarchical
abstraction [Nau, 1987] or object-oriented data model [Sormaz and Khoshnevis, 1997]. Recent
results are in generation of the Process Specification Language (PSL) as a neutral format for
interchange of process representation. Major issues being addressed in this project are transfer of
both syntactic and semantic information between application that deal with various facets of process
design and decision making procedures. Details about the PSL project may be found on NIST web
site (www.nist.gov).
This paper addresses an issue of generating and viewing process information within the integration
framework. The paper is organized as follows. The next section describes interactions between
manufacturing planning functions and identifies the need for integration. The following section
explains manufacturing process model and its major component, process plan network. The paper
ends with concluding remarks.

MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY INTERACTIONS

The product development and manufacture involves several production management activities with a
series of individual tasks that are to be completed in order to design and manufacture a product of a
required quality. These tasks are usually carried out in a linear sequence, but very often the feedback
is necessary from the subsequent task to the previous one. Many of these feedback loops are requests
to modify the previous task's solution in order to generate a better solution in the subsequent one.
This interlinking is what has become known as concurrent or simultaneous engineering.
In this section we will provide a model of these activities and tasks and identify how these tasks
connect high-level activities. We identify need for integration from the whole product development
cycle perspective, and, after that we describe an extensive set of manufacturing planning tasks which
are components of manufacturing activity model.
Need for integration

Product development cycle may be seen as a set of answers to a series of simple questions [Ham and
Lu, 1988]: WHY? WHAT? HOW? WHERE? WHO? WHEN? to produce. When we find answers to
these questions we will actually identify what functions a necessary in the cycle from developing an
idea to the realization of the final product. Answers to these simple questions may be given by
connecting them with particular manufacturing functions (Figure 1). Answer to the question WHY
organize manufacturing at all is given by marketing function. WHAT to produce in a company is the
result of design function. Detailed instructions on HOW to make product are generated in a function
called process or production planning. This function actually represents technological knowledge and
defines competitiveness of the manufacturing company. The answers to questions WHERE and
WHO are obtained from resource (or facility) planning function, which is responsible for facility,
machines, equipment and workforce. Finally, the decision regarding WHEN to manufacture is made
by a production control function. From sparking an idea to realize mental creativity of an individual,
all way to the realizing a final product it is necessary to go through all of these functions. However,
we are not saying that getting answers to these questions is easy. Behind each of those functions
there is smaller or larger set of engineering tasks which have to be completely performed in order to
make the function successful in the product development cycle. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out
that this basic model allows us to capture the very nature of manufacturing. This figure also shows
that product development cycle is not a linear path without obstacles. Usually, the product
development follows some zigzag pattern between functions with frequent needs to feedback
information form a function to its predecessor.

WHY? HOW? WHEN?

PROCESS PRODUCTION
MARKETING
PLANNING CONTROL

IDEA PRODUCT

WHAT? WHERE?
RESOURCE
DESIGN
PLANNING

Figure 1. Basic product development planning functions

Further analysis of these functions reveals that while they are being performed there are numerous
feedback loops and some of tasks within the functions can not be easily assigned to one or another.
In that case we have an overlapping of these functions. For example, in metalworking industry it is
possible to identify the following functions: design, feature recognition, process planning, resource
planning, and scheduling (Figure 2). These functions are not independent and they can not be
performed independently. For example, machine selection for a particular part in process planning
depends on machine load from other parts, which is usually determined by scheduling function.
Therefore, we can identify some production planning tasks that can not easily be classified into
particular function. These tasks belong to intersections between functions and necessarily lead
toward integration between these functions.

Manufacturing Activity Model

Starting from the above discussion and analyzing set of tasks of process planning and other activities
it is possible to develop the model that shows interactions between process planning and them. The
model of these interactions is shown in Figure 2. As it may be seen from the figure, each activity
consists of a set of tasks that are to be done in the product development. All of these activities are
identified in manufacturing planning literature as activities necessary or required during the product
development and manufacture. The classification shown in Figure 2 is the result of author’s research
work and represents a starting point for the use of this method in each individual factory. For
example, creation of the solid model of the part is done in design, while manufacturing resource
planning is done within resource management. However, there are numerous tasks that require
interactions between two or more activities. They are shown within overlapping circles of activities
and represent integration links. For example, setup planning is part of process planning, but also
needs information about scheduling for efficient setups, or feature modeling belongs between design,
feature recognition, and process planning.
Let us consider another example, in the interaction of design and process planning functions. One of
tasks in the product development is stock selection (material and shape), as a part of product design.
However, by defining the part material we may reduce alternative manufacturing processes, for
example by selecting cast iron as material, we decide that casting process is required and later
machining processes involve only needed finishing of small number of part faces. In another case, if
we define a sheet metal as stock shape, some pressing or deforming operations are necessary.

Stock definition Process selection Setup planning

Geometry based design
Material selection Machine an dttol selection NC programming
Feature base design
Manufacturign Operation sequencing Shop floor plan
Solid modeling
strategy Part orientation release

Job sequencing
Shop floor order release
Feature modeling
DESIGN PROCESS SCHEDULING
PLANNING

Shop floor capacity

verification
FEATURE RESOURCE Capacity planning
Tolerance relations RECOGNITION PLANNING (add shift,
Feature precedence overhead,
constraints
Feature alternatives

Layout planning
Feature extraction Production planning
Manufacturing Cell design
Feature accessibility Master production schedule
knowledge base Cost evaluation
Feature interactions MRP I and MRP II
MRP adjustment

Figure 2. Product development tasks

Another example is related to resources and manufacturing features. The set of manufacturing
features that can be machined by various manufacturing processes is completely defined and
constrained by the kind of machines and equipment within factory. For example, if we have lathes
and mills in our shop floor, it is obvious that our technology is constrained on machining processes.
If a company owns plastics presses, the technological knowledge of the company is in plastics
manufacturing. Therefore, the part of resource planning function is also development of
manufacturing technology (in machining that is extension of manufacturing feature taxonomy within
a factory)
It is important to understand above explained interactions in order to completely utilize engineering
knowledge and expertise. Each of these activities needs specialists in its domain, while intersections
need group work and they are suitable for applying concurrent engineering principles. The most
important intersections from process planning perspective are: between design and process planning
related to part family formation, between process planning and resource management related to
manufacturing cell design, and between process planning and scheduling related to production
control of cells.
After we understand the above interactions, the next question is how to utilize them in order to
achieve integration. There are numerous methods that serve the purpose of manufacturing integration
(e.g., DFM, DFA, group technology, cellular manufacturing, production flow analysis, simulation,
etc.) We propose that one important ingredient is needed: generation and consideration of
alternatives between individual manufacturing planning functions. In the next section we propose
manufacturing process model that incorporates generation of alternative process plans and allows
dynamic integration of process planning and other planning functions.

MANUFACTURING PROCESS MODEL

In this section we describe the manufacturing process model, which is a graphical model for
representing planning functions and tasks for manufacturing processes. First, we explain the model
dimensions: variety, time and aggregation. Then we explain the generation of process plan network
as part of the described model. Model integration through dynamic process planning is explained
after that. The last part of the section contains possible implementation of a model.

Model Dimensions

The basic entity of the manufacturing process model is a process, intuitively understood as an
activity, usually planned in advance, with all necessary attributes. All manufacturing planning
functions generate various planned tasks or activities (e.g., cutting with turning cutter, deforming
with a press, machining on a single machine, processing job order, etc.). Each of these tasks
(manufacturing execution tasks) has numerous attributes, that have to be defined before the task can
be undertaken (e.g., for cutting with turning cutter, one has to define part, tool, cutting parameters,
space orientation of part and tool on a lathe, starting time, ending time…). As we have explained
earlier, these attributes are usually defined by different manufacturing planning functions. In this
section we identify the dimensions of a model that are independent of planning function, require
transfer or translation from one function to another and facilitate manufacturing integration.
The manufacturing process model consists of three dimensions (Figure 3): time, variety and
aggregation. Each manufacturing process is related to other processes with respect to these three
dimensions. The time dimension describes relative temporal relation between several processes of
the same type. This relation has several levels of certainty. The lowest level is when we specify that
some (planned) process has to be performed before or after another process (this relation is known as
precedence constraint). Example of this relation is the existence of the constraint that one
manufacturing feature has to be machined before or after another (e.g., the hole has to be drilled after
the surface has been milled, if that surface was cast earlier). The time relation may be refined until
final determination that these two processes have specified starting and ending times such that
t1end ≤ t2 start . An example of this relation is the case of the manufacture of two parts on the same
machine, or consideration of two operations (on different machines) on the same part. The very
important property of this relation is its transitivity. The transitivity holds between processes on the
same level (this corresponds to the definition of an order relation in mathematics), as well as between
the processes on different levels (in this case the relation is inherited or transferred from one level to
another). However, due to the variety dimension of the model this relation does not impose total
order. The relation orders various manufacturing processes only partially, that is to say, between
some processes relation is true, while some processes are not ordered. In the latter case, therefore, the
processes may be performed in any order, or in some cases in parallel.
The variety dimension describes sets of different processes that are generated within a certain level.
Usually it is necessary to define a set of different processes in order to complete the manufacturing
task. For example, when we define the process plan for a given part, there is a set of features that
require a set of cutting processes. Also, one feature may require more than one process, for example,
a hole may require drilling and reaming. Another way for generation of different processes is
generation of alternatives. For example, in selection of cutting processes, there are usually several
alternative cutting methods to machine the same feature, a slot may be machined by end milling or
side milling, and so on. The variety dimension in the manufacturing process model is present also
when we consider manufacturing of different parts or products, and when we use different machines
to manufacture the whole product range.

Figure 3. Manufacturing process model dimensions

The aggregation dimension relates to various scopes of planned processes. Processes are defined
with different levels of details, time frame (duration). Also, usually a set of manufacturing processes,
planned in one function, may be considered as a whole in another planning function. For example, in
process selection the cutting process for each feature is considered separately, in setup planning these
processes are combined for the same machine, while in scheduling the whole process plan for the
part is considered as a unit. Therefore, this dimension explains that some process is a part of another
process with the same part, machine, tool or some other attribute. This is necessary in order to
distribute planning tasks among different functions. In the above examples, different levels of
aggregation allow different planning tasks (process selection, setup planning, and scheduling in the
example) to focus only on attributes relevant for the task. For example, in the process selection task
of process planning function, someone is concerned only with the quality of the part, while during
scheduling the main concern are delivery dates for the products. Therefore, aggregation is performed
when we combine processes of lower level that have some attribute in common in order to perform
planning on that level.
Three explained dimensions are not independent. The relations that hold between processes in one
dimension impact other dimensions as well. For example, the precedence order on the feature level
has to be replicated on all other levels when process planning is performed on the machine level.
Scheduling and machine load constraints may have an impact on process plans in terms of selecting
an alternative plan which may balance the machine load. Generation of alternative cutting processes
and selection of alternative machines or tools for individual features requires generation of
alternative operations on the machine level and provides choice of the most suitable alternative at
scheduling level.
Overall manufacturing planning activity creates such a model in a distributed fashion (i.e., several
specialists with different knowledge are involved), and the model is subject to change as
manufacturing planning and/or execution progresses.
Process Planning Network

The basis of the above-described manufacturing process model is the process plan network. This
network is result of process planning that enable manufacturing integration. The process planning
network consists of four interconnected layers: feature layer, process layer, tool orientation layer, and
machine layer (Figure 3).
The lowest layer, feature layer, represents a network of machining features - called feature
precedence network (FPN). Nodes of the layer are individual features, while arcs correspond to
precedence constraints, that is to say, an existence of an arc from feature f1 to feature f2 denotes that
in any process plan feature f1 should be machined before feature f2.
The next layer is the process layer, which contains process candidate instances for individual
features. In this layer it is possible and necessary to show alternative machining processes for the
same features in order to allow for later selection of the most suitable processes for given conditions.
The next layer is tool orientation layer. Its nodes represent sets of cutting process instances that can
be performed using the same tool orientation and the same machine type (e.g., several pockets and
slots can be machined using a single tool orientation). In this layer consideration of alternatives is
further extended because, one machining processes may be performed with several different
orientations between the part and the tool.
The final layer of process plan network is the machine layer. It is similar to the tool orientation layer
in that its nodes are also sets, but here sets of process activities from tool orientation layer.
Alternatives form previous layers are here combined in such way that the alternative flow paths of
parts between machines are generated. All constraints from feature level are propagated through all
levels and have to be satisfied in that part flow.
F1
F1 F2
F2

F4 F3 S E

F3 F4

Figure 4. Simple part and its feature precedence network

As an illustration of the process plan network generation, we will show one small example. Sample
part and its FPN are shown in Figure 4. Both features and FPN are created within the feature
recognition procedure from the part geometry. The part has four machining features (two slabs - F1
and F3, a hole F2, and a slot F4). Applying process planning procedure as explained in [Sormaz and
Khoshnevis, 1996] the process plan network is generated (Figure 5). Layers are shown with different
shapes of nodes, and higher layers are shown toward the center of the network. We may see that for
four features, eight process candidates are generated. These candidates are clustered into six tool
direction, which are further combined into four machine operation, two of which are alternatives to
each other.
Details of process plan generation by the system 3I-PP are explained in [Sormaz and Khoshnevis,
1996] and [Sormaz and Khoshnevis, 1999]. The 3I-PP system has been applied on several examples.
These examples had between 10 and 20 features, and during process plan generation sets of up to
100 hundred alternatives have been generated. The process plan network have been stored inside the
system and further used for process plan optimization. Two modes of the operation of the system
have been implemented. The first mode has two phases: 1) the generation of the complete process
plan network, and 2) the selection of the optimal process plan from the network. However, for very
complex parts in this mode large portion of the network is unnecessary. In the second mode the
network generation and the final plan selection are performed simultaneously. Only the necessary
portion of the network is generated. The result of hierarchical process plan representation for one of
examples is shown in Figure 6. These examples show several opportunities for integration of process
planning function with other functions. Once this representation is stored as process plan network, as
in process planning system 3I-PP, it is possible to implement dynamic process planning as explained
in the next section.

F1 F2

F2-D-D
F1-EM-M

Y-POS-D F2-D-M
F1-SM-M

Drill Y-POS-M

S Start Mill Mill End E

Mill
X-POS-M X-POS-M

Y-POS-M

Y-POS-M

F3-EM-M
F4-EM-M
F3-SM-M
F4-SM-M

F3 F4

Figure 5. An example of generated process plan network

Figure 6. Process plan tree generated from the network

Dynamic process planning

Dynamic process planning refers to the notion that the whole process plan network has been
generated and that planning functions are performed simultaneously, A change in any of the
functions would require modifications in the process plan network. That change triggers action in a
related function and modification is performed as necessary. There are three types of changes that
require changes in the process planning system: changes in the part design, changes in the machine
and tool data bases, and in machining knowledge base. Each change modifies at least one component
present in the process plan for the part. The responses of the process planning system to these
changes are described in this section.
Changes in the part design. Design changes are the most frequent reason for modification of the
existing process plans. In the concurrent engineering environment, with the aim being to shorten the
product development cycle, a need exists for a rapid feedback from the process planner to the
designer regarding cost evaluation of the design. As a result, the product and its process plan become
finalized after several iterations. From a process planning perspective, depending on their
consequences on the process plan, there are several types of design changes: changes that require
new process candidate selections, changes that require new machine and tool selection, and changes
that require a new process sequence. Below we explain the process planning system reactions to all
of these changes.
Changes that require new process candidate selection may be specified as the following. Introduction
of a new feature in design requires the selection of process candidates for the new feature. Changes
in feature tolerances, surface finish, and/or dimensions may require new process candidates. As a
result of these actions there may be changes in the feature precedence network. In these cases the
process planner should perform a process selection procedure for the affected feature. The planner
should then perform partial process sequencing. By looking at the location of the affected feature in
the feature precedence network, the process sequencing module may decide which part of the process
sequence should be examined and executed again. For example, if the affected feature is near the end
side of the feature precedence network, it may be possible to just attach a new process at the end of
the current process sequence. If there is a process cluster to which the affected feature (with its
process) may belong, it suffices to just add the new process to this cluster. Generally, after the
selection of new process candidates it might be necessary to run a process sequencing module, but
that should be done only as necessary.
Changes that require new machine and/or tool selection are changes on existing features. They
usually happen when the designer modifies feature dimensions. In these cases machine and/or tool
constraints may require changes (e.g., change in the hole diameter requires change in the tool
diameter for the hole, or an increase in the feature dimensions may require more power from the
machine, etc.). The process planning system should perform new computations of machine and tool
constraints for the process candidates of the affected feature. In the process sequencing module it is
necessary only to update the machine assignment to process clusters. However, if the existing
process plan ends up with unavailable machines, it may be necessary to perform process sequencing
from the affected downstream activity.
Changes that require a new process sequence are basically caused by changes in the feature
precedence network. For example, deletion of a feature makes changes in the feature precedence
network. This case is dealt with in a way similar to that mentioned above. Since in incremental mode
we assume that a single feature is modified at a time, it is necessary to look at its location and to
perform necessary process sequencing downstream from this point. As we mentioned above, changes
from two previous cases may also require a new process sequence.
Changes in machine and tool databases and shop floor status. Changes in the machine and tool
data bases occur when a new machine is acquired by the factory, an old machine is salvaged,
machine shop (layout) and material flow are rearranged, a new tool supplier with different tool
nomenclature is selected, or when there is a dynamic change in the status of machines (e.g., break-
down, repair, etc.). The changes in shop-floor equipment influence the existing process plans with
respect to the new equipment to select from, with probably different capabilities. Since the decision
about individual machines and tools is postponed in our system, no modification to existing process
plans is necessary. Only further postprocessing of the process plans is affected. However, changes in
parameters may influence the cost evaluation of the process plan (e.g., a new and more expensive
machine may cause an increase in average machine unit cost for a given machine type). For such
cases it is necessary to recompute manufacturing cost and to possibly perform a new process
sequencing procedure.
Facility layout planning procedures and introduction of manufacturing cells may lead to a need to
modify process plans. The result of these procedures may be permanent or temporary (i.e., a part
may be assigned to the manufacturing cell only for a given planning horizon, as in a case of dynamic
cells, or on a permanent basis). The consequences of these decisions on process plans are in reducing
(for permanent cell assignment) or changing (for dynamic cells) a set of machine candidates for
machining processes. Therefore, in these cases it is necessary to establish new process sequence for
the process plan based on a reduced set of process candidates on features, and consequently smaller
process plan network.
In the case of dynamic change in the status of machines it would be necessary to perform the process
sequencing procedure again. However, in this case the system may benefit from the shop-floor status
feedback so that a reduced set of process candidates corresponding to actually available machines
could be presented to the process sequencing module. One scenario in which this procedure may be
utilized is capacity planning for the shop floor for a given planning period for all part of the
production plan. As machine loading requirements are built for each machine by accumulating
machine time for parts in the production plan it is very likely that the machine capacity will be
exhausted. In such a case, for the rest of parts in the production plan this machine can be excluded
from consideration. Process candidates for features that use this machine will be marked as invalid
and the process plan selection will consider only available machines.

Model implementation and visualization

The process plan network as a part of the manufacturing process model has been implemented within
3I-PP system as shown in the previous section. The problem of the network traversal by the user is
currently under the implementation. This task has two goals: to enable the user to generate only the
desired portion of the network, and to allow the user to visualize planning procedure.
The partial generation of the network is needed to reduce planning workload. For example, it may
not be necessary to generate alternative processes for all features, but only for those that are critical
for the part quality. In another case, it may be assumed that machines with much higher costs would
be omitted from consideration for individual features. The partial network may be generated, and
later expanded if dynamic changes require an expansion. The network representation of the process
plan allows users to apply different criteria for process (i.e., the nodes in the network) inclusion
and/or exclusion in various manufacturing planning activities.
Another problem with described manufacturing process model is its manageability. The model has to
be viewed with two perspectives: global and local. Global perspective is the view of the whole model
as shown in Figure 3 in order to manage its development and change. This perspective is needed to
evaluate the completeness of product development. The global perspective also allows the user to
view partial network and possible expansions. Local perspective is the view within each planning
function and view of each node of the model with all its attributes. This perspective is necessary
during actual manufacturing in order to carry out various manufacturing tasks. Related issue is
distribution of the model among different manufacturing planning functions as pointed out earlier in
the paper.
 Figure 7. Distributed representation of the model
We propose dual view of the model as shown in Figure 7. Global view that shows three-dimensional
view of the whole model (with possible animation of its development) is shown in the top frame.
Details of each node are shown in the central portion, while links of this node with other nodes in the
same layer and with nodes in other layers are shown as browser links and allow easy traversal of the
model. This is topic of current work of the author in terms of verifying this model and extending the
experimental system.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have described manufacturing process model as a basis for intelligent information
integration. The model is based on analysis of interactions between various planning functions. The
very important role of process planning function, as the function which defines manufacturing
processes has been emphasized.
Manufacturing process model consists of three dimensions: time, variety, and aggregation. The
transfer of relations from one dimension to two others further connects these dimensions. The central
role of the process plan network within manufacturing process model is identified and shown by the
example. This model enables dynamic process planning by introducing changes in design, machine
status, etc… and propagating them through the network.
The current implementation of the model, which includes the process plan network generation, has
been shown and possible extensions, for dynamic planning and model visualization, have been
discussed. Generation of the complete or partial network in some planning cases has been explained.

REFERENCES

[1] D. R. Brown and M. R. Cutkosky, Next-Cut: A Computational Framework for Concurrent

Engineering. In Proceedings of Second International Symposium on Concurrent Engineering,
Morgantown, WV, February 1990.
[2] J. Browne, J. Harhen, J. Shivnan, Production Management Systems: An Integrated Perspective,
2nd ed., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA, 1996.
[3] B. A. Catron, and S. R. Ray, ALPS: A Language for Process Specification. International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 4, 105-113. 1991.
[4] T.-C. Chang, Expert Process Planning for Manufacturing. Addison-Wesley, Inc., Menlo Park,
CA., 1990
[5] Q. Chen and B. Khoshnevis, Scheduling with flexible process plans. Production Planning &
Control, 4 (4), 333 -343. 1993.
[6] G. K. Conkol, ed. The CAD/CAM Roundtable, CASA/SME Blue Book Series, 1997.
[7] S. K. Gupta, Automated Manufacturability Analysis of Machined Parts, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 1994.
[8] S. K. Gupta, D. Nau, W. Regli, and G. Zhang, A methodology for systematic generation and
evaluation of alternative process plans, In Shah, J. J., Mantyla, M., and Nau, D. S. eds,
Advances in Feature Based Manufacturing, Manufacturing Research and Technology, 20, pages
161-184, Elsevier, Amsterdam. 1994.
[9] I. Ham, S. C.-Y. Lu, Computer-Aided Process Planning: The Present and the Future, Annals of
CIRP, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 591-601, 1988.
[10] J.-H. Han, D. N. Sormaz, D. A. Koonce, and C. M. Parks, Formation of Machine and Part Cells
Using Alternative Process Plans, Proceedings of Engineering Design and Automation
Conference, Maui, August 1998.
[11] C. Hayes, A Manufacturing Process Planner for a Concurrent Engineering Environment,
Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning, p.113-119,
Pittsburgh, August 10-11, 1995.
[12] ICEM Technologies, PART Reference Manual, Ardan Hills, MN. 1994.
[13] B. Khoshnevis, D. N. Sormaz, J. Park, An Integrated Process Planning System using Feature
Reasoning and Space Search-Based Optimization, submitted to IIE Transactions, 1998.
[14] S. Lee, R. A. Wysk, and J. S Smith,. Process planning interface for a shop floor control
architecture for computer integrated manufacturing, International Journal of Production
Research, 33 (9), 2415-2435. 1994.
[15] D. S. Nau, Automated process planning using hierarchical abstraction. Texas Instruments call
for papers on AI for Industrial Automation, July 1987.
[16] B. C. Schmidt, and J. Kreutzfeldt, Increasing flexibility in workshop control by using non-linear
process plans, CAM-I Product Modeling/Process Planning European Program Meeting,
Minutes, Appendix C, July 1992.
[17] D. Sormaz and B. Khoshnevis, Process Sequencing and Process Clustering in Process Planning
Using State Space Search, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 7 (3), 189-200. 1996.
[18] D. N. Sormaz and B. Khoshnevis, Process Planning Knowledge Representation using an Object-
oriented Data Model, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 10,
No. 1-4, p. 92-104, 1997.
[19] D. N. Sormaz, B. Khoshnevis, Intelligent Manufacturing Based on Generation of Alternative
Process Plans, Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Flexible Automation and
Intelligent Manufacturing (FAIM’99), Tilburg, June 23-25, 1999.