Observations of Applying DFM(A) in MW Mechanics

and Sheet Metal Work

Mika Lohtander, Harri Eskelinen, Juha Varis
Lappeenranta University of Technology
LUT-Metal
Lappeenranta, Finland
mika.lohtander@lut.fi
harri.eskelinen@lut.fi
juha.varis@lut.fi

AbstractIn this paper, approaches to apply DFM(A) (Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly) in practice are reviewed based on
both the research results of the areas of MW mechanics and sheet
metal work achieved at Lappeenranta University of Technology.
These results are supported by a literature review. In this paper,
we present five view-points on how to apply DFM(A) in practise
in the previously mentioned research areas. The view-points are
as follows: applied DFM(A) rules for sheet metal work,
utilization of lists and forms to analyze MW constructions,
development of traditional design methodologies, development of
manufacturing technologies for easy production, integrated
DFM(A) approaches which aim to control and manage both the
product design process and its costs.
Integrated DFM(A) approaches aiming to control and
manage both the product design process and its costs
It is interesting to notice that behind the faade of the
development of DFM(A) approaches also two main question
have been presented: 1) how to design a product for easy
manufacturing and 2) how to develop manufacturing
technology for easy production. At LUT, scientific research
dealing with DFM(A) approaches in MW mechanics and sheet
metal work has been carried out to answer both of these
questions. The main observations supported by a literature
review are presented in the following sections.

Keywords- DFM(A); (CE )Concurrent Engineering;
manufacturability; sheet metal; design rules
I. RESEARCH
New challenges in aiming towards easy manufacturing and
assembly have emerged due to the fast development of new
materials, e.g. ceramics, composites, and nanomaterials and
also training in mechanical engineering and assembly [1]. Also
business-oriented aspects have been integrated with DFM(A)-
(Design For manufacturing and Assembly) aspects. This has
led to DFM(A) approaches which aim to control and manage
both the product design process and its costs simultaneously.
Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) has focused
on studying manufacturability and DFM(A) aspects for
decades, and results presented in this paper are derived from
that scientific background [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. Within
DFM(A) research, the engineering design and
manufacturability of sheet metal products has gained an
important role [8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. In this
paper, the main approaches to apply DFM(A) to practice are
divided into the following five groups based on the results
obtained in LUTs DFM(A) research projects:
Applied DFM(A) rules for sheet metal work
Utilization of lists and forms to analyze MW (Micro
Wave) constructions
Development of traditional design methodologies
Development of manufacturing technologies for easy
production
II. APPLIED DFM(A) RULES FOR SHEET METAL WORK
The following observations of LUT focus on sheet metal
work. When the viewpoints related to sheet metal work are
examined in general, we discover that there are a large number
of different individual design rules as well as actions aiming at
improving the manufacturability of individual products [16]. In
addition to this, it is widely known that significant investments
have been made to develop design methods to increase the
speed at which a product becomes ready to be manufactured.
As well as scientific literature, there are a large number of
commercial brochures and instructions available with the aim
of improving the productivity of sheet metal machinery.
Examples of them include Mate-tools, Finn-Power, Amada and
LVD.
If we continue to consider the study area from the point of
view of scientific research, we discover that there is an
abundance of mathematical methods for optimisation and
calculation related to it. No literature search has been
conducted in this field, nor is it otherwise discussed in this
study. It can be noted that mathematicians have made efforts to
create various optimisation algorithms and strive to develop
them further. Similarly, the use of computer-aided methods has
grown, making it possible to implement many different
measures related to production using various computer-aided
methods.
A. Problem Solving with CAE
Companies responsible for design make use of CAD
(Computer Aided Design), CAM (Computer Aided
Manufacturing) and CAE (Computer Aided Engineering)
systems that are extremely versatile and whose functionality is
top class. However, these systems together cannot take into
account various manufacturing technology viewpoints, and
thus it remains the task of the designer to estimate them.
Thereby, the key question invariably remains this: How can a
designer observe and know the manufacturers plant and
equipment for sheet metal parts, the tools and production
resources available, or how one product can be designed to be
easily adaptable to production by different device resources?
The engineering design of mechanical products, such as the
CAD-based design of sheet metal parts, is technically easy.
This technical ease of design, however, causes problems in the
manufacturability of sheet metal parts in deplorably many
cases. It is always important in the engineering design phase to
take into account the manufacturing techniques which will be
used to produce the product and to consider the consequences
the choice of a particular technique will have. For this reason,
engineering designers must have either a sufficient amount of
experience or assisting systems to make the product as
manufacture-friendly as possible. [13]
In the manufacturing metal industry, the classification of
production can be based, for example, on forms [17], [18] that
are analogous and consist of the same elements, i.e. features.
By making good use of this information, unnecessary and
multiple work can be avoided both in the design phase and in
production. Furthermore, according to [17] and some later
studies [18] [19], a systematic classification facilitates co-
operation between design and production because they then
share common factors. Lanz [20], van Holland [21] and van der
Net [22] have classified elements required in, for example,
assembly in manufacturing. Thus, the modelling tree familiar
from CAD software can be used as the basis of classification.
Furthermore, the designed shapes can be divided into
production-technical features [16], and deductions can be made
based on the forms [19] which allow us to use this information
in production planning.
For example, the shapes of sheet metal products can be
divided in several ways. One such means of classification to
divide bent and formed parts has been presented by Greska
[18]. This classification divides sheet metal bending and
moulding further into three subclasses by their main method.
The parts to be bent may have straight bendings which, placed
in a modern production environment, means forming them with
press brakes, automatic bending machines and automatic
TABLE I. ONE TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF AN EVALUATION TABLE FOR EASY ASSEMBLY. THE TITLES OF THE COLUMNS ARE JUST ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES AND
THE TOTAL LIST OF THE ITEMS TO BE CHECKED MAY INCLUDE MORE THAN 30 STEPS
List of parts 1N
Uncommon
Need leads,
Needs pilot
to be assembled
Spring or
Separate
Fastener
fastener
washer
guides
holes
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part N:
Sub-score (parts to be assembled)
Product
Maintenance
benders. The next category of bent sheet metal parts consists of
non-linear bends. These refer to parts in which the bending line
reproduces the arched shape of the parts bottom. The third
category in bent parts consists of spatial parts whose bending
lines are depicted as 3D arcs. According to the classification by
Greska et al. [18], deep drawn parts also have three different
categories, which include bent parts with straight bending axes,
bent parts with crooked bending axes and flat deep drawing
parts.
According to the reviewed literature in this section the
solution is to put together different kinds of shapes and
manufacturing process capabilities using for example design
and manufacturing features. At present, this is not possible
because there is no formal description of sheet metal
manufacturing processes or classification between design and
manufacturing features.
III. UTILIZATION OF LISTS AND RORMS TO ANALYZE MW
CONSTRUCTION
Probably the most traditional way to analyze the assembly
aspects of a construction is to measure and summarize time
intervals used for each manufacturing and assembly stage. By
writing the results into e.g. an Excel-based table it is
convenient way to find targets for further development of a
construction and suggest some improvements.
Another question is, how to evaluate if the DFM(A) design
rules were obeyed or not. The utilization of various types of
lists and forms to describe and analyze the properties of the
construction for easy assembly is basically an evaluation table.
Typically, manufacturability aspects are presented as items
either in rows or columns of this table, which aims to score
how many difficult parts of assembly stages the construction
includes. One shortened example of this type of evaluation
table made by the authors is presented in Table 1. The analysis
starts by listing parts in the order they are assembled. The
second step is to note and mark the design rules that are
violated in each step. Then the total number of boxes noted is
calculated and the result is filled in the score column. Also
some product maintenance design rules are checked at this
stage. The fourth step is to note product maintenance design
rules violated.
Tool required
subassembly
High joining
Insufficient
Multi-step
clearance
assembly
Separate
forces
Score
Access ports and test points not labeled
Difficult access to key maintenance areas
Cannot see display while adjusting
Overall score
 Finally, the overall score is calculated. One serious problem
with the use of these types of evaluation tables is that they do
evaluate the assembly aspects, but the feedback to design is not
guaranteed.
A practical example of LUTs MW research on how to
utilize forms or questionnaires to ease the manufacturing of
MW filter designs is presented by the authors [2] (Table 2).
The questionnaire helps to establish the tolerance and surface
roughness requirements of a microwave filter and to decide
what types of tools and production technology fit the
requirements. For example, the required Ra equals 0.8 m and
the dimensional tolerance grade is at least IT 5 if the operating
frequency of the MW filter is 500 GHz. However, the
manufacturability aspects of the filter construction described in
Table 2 would be difficult to achieve. The manufacturability
rules are over-ruled by the functional requirements of the filter.
However, according to the results achieved at LUT, the
appropriate manufacturing solutions and required tooling could
be collected in the columns of Table 2.
TABLE II. DFM(A) QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A MICROWAVE FILTER DESIGN.
construction
process proceeds, and it is difficult to execute many of its small
steps concurrently.
B. Shortcomings of Concurrent Engineering Design
Researchers have currently no common view of the most
important aspects within concurrent engineering (CE) design,
and this leads to different emphases in the treatment of the
topic. According to literature [23], process management is the
most important of the CE processes. According to Asiedu and
Gu [24], the point of view of the life cycle cost (LCC) is the
most important in concurrent engineering, and therefore,
designers need LCC analysis to support their decision-making.
Hoffman [25] points out the meaning of quality product-
oriented decision making during the CE process. Portioli and
Singh [26] claim that when using CE, too little attention has
been given to production management issues. According to
Portioli and Singh, the focus has been too much on process
design. Stahl [27] suggest that there is a lack of methods
supporting the planning of production systems when using CE.
Brookes and Backhouse [28] present that the most important
challenge in widening the use of CE is understanding how to
tailor the concept to suit different companies. Duffy and
Salvendy [29] suggest that the proximity of team members is

confirmed as a key to success in CE. According to Willaert

Production
technology
Frequency

roughness

Tolerance

[30], CE, in principal, is more a management and engineering

Tooling
Surface
(GHz)

philosophy to conquer the market pressure than a design tool.

grade
Filter

300-600 0.8 m IT 5 C. Suggested Improvements to Traditional Design

Perpendicular charts

150-300 1.6 m IT 6 Methodologies

precision casting
Milling or high

75-150 3.2 m IT 7
35-75 6.4 m IT 8
15-35 12.8 m IT 9-10
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITIONAL DESIGN
METHODOLOGIES
LUTs DFM(A) research has revealed a few aspects of
traditional design methodologies that require development. In
this section, we present a brief literature review which supports
the authors ideas on how to improve the most common design
methodologies to fit better with DFM(A). One interesting area
in the field of developing DFM(A) is the criticism against
some traditional design methodologies. Probably most of the
arguments were presented against VDIs systematic approach
during the 1980s and 1990s.
A. Shortcomints of Systematic Design Approach
In the systematic design approach, according to the VDI
2221 standard, the functional design of a product and its
modular construction are followed by the documentation for
manufacturing and assembly. Because these two stages are not
parallel, it is possible that the designer does not give enough
attention to manufacturing aspects during modularization.
According to Miller, VDI 2221 [23] is good for inexperienced
designers, and produces gradually improving designs. Miller
underlines that its primary disadvantages are that it tends to
have a result which comes from compromises occurring as the
To handle these problems which might take place if the
principles of the systematic design approach or CE are
followed to the word, several efforts have been made during
the past decades. At least the use of specialized tolerance
analysis, support from virtual prototyping or reversed
engineering, the utilization of integrated product teams and the
development of collaborative-concurrent design etc. have been
suggested.
Different studies support the use of tolerance analysis in
DFM by presenting various models for the designers to define
the rules to choose the appropriate tolerances [31]. Also the
principles for modular design as a part of DFM are dealt with
especially from the point of view of functional modules. The
authors suggest two solutions to solve this problem: either
stating design rules or using mathematical what-if models to
set tolerances concurrently, choose processes and take into
consideration capacity constraints.
One effective tool to improve the possibilities of DFM is
the use of integrated product teams (IPT). As an additional
aspect to IPT, from the point of view of process planning a
multi-disciplinary team work environment is presented by
Medhat and Rook [32] to be integrated with the strategy of CE.
Gavankar and Rao [33] have presented an outlined
framework based on fuzzy cognitive maps to couple design
features with manufacturing constraints. The framework will
make a design easier to manufacture.
The literature review presented in this section can be
summarized into the following solutions to improve the
methodological content of DFM(A): (1) variant-based
concurrent engineering would improve the utilization of VDI
2221, (2) an efficient CE process should include LCC analysis
and production management issues, and (3) such detailed
improvements as tolerance analysis and the use of IPTs would
make DFM(A) more effective.
At LUT, these solutions have proven to be accurate when
designing MW components.
V. DEVELOPMENT OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES
FOR EASY PRODUCTION
Traditionally, the manufacturing industry has attempted to
improve manufacturability by increasing and developing
automatic process control equipment [34]. In many cases,
however, increased automation leads to a kind of saturation
point where flexibility is lost. In many cases, increased
automation also denotes large investments whose profitability
is not always guaranteed. Consequently, many companies have
adapted a method that is called DFM(A). By means of this
method, a product can be altered and designed from the
beginning to be as manufacture-friendly as possible. In
principle, it allows designers to increase productivity without
further investments. The foundation of a DFM(A) project is to
avoid the known drawbacks of a product and its manufacture.
Instead, the manufacturing problems already known are set
aside with no attempts to solve them, and the product is
designed in such a way that these drawbacks are avoided [34].
By using the tools and key elements of a DFM(A) project,
the process can be accelerated from product design to finished
goods and on to be marketed. With these tools, designers can
collaborate with the rest of the organization and arrive at an
objective decision which strikes a balance between product
design and manufacturability [35].
DFM(A) is commonly used for three purposes: (1) as
instruments in concurrent engineering facilitating the
simplification of product structures and productivity and
establishing the necessary improvements, (2) as a
benchmarking tool facilitating the investigation of competitors
products and establishing the problems of manufacture and
assembly and (3) assisting in determining the products price,
making it possible to use the information in delivery price
negotiations.
In the 2000s, the interest in research on individual DFX
methods has abated from the 1990s. A probable reason for this
is that at this moment, interest is directed at finding solutions
for effectively describing and developing the functions of the
product life cycle. At present, terminology such as engineering
design knowledge, managing knowledge on manufacturing,
integrated design knowledge and product-service
environment are widely in use.
The solution to the problems and open questions described
in this section is, according to the authors of this paper, that an
overall picture and full understanding of the meaning of the
target, the product itself and the manufacturing process must be
correctly constructed.
VI. INTEGRATED DFM(A) APPROACHES WHICH AIM TO
CONTROL AND MANAGE BOTH THE PRODUCT DESIGN PROCESS
AND ITS COSTS
In this paper, the authors analyze the integrated DFM(A)
approaches based on a brief literature review.
CAD systems focus more on the management of geometric
data, whereas CAM systems concentrate on describing
production process-specific properties, such as those presented
by, for example, [36], [37] and [38]. On the other hand,
according to Lee [39], CAD models cannot be used directly in
FE analysis, for example, because they often require an
abstracted model, whereas CAD models are detailed solid
models.
The rule-based analyzing system concerning production is
the earliest method of treating manufacturing data [16]. Most
often these rules are IFTHEN clauses based on a certain
hierarchy. Ramanas [16] article also presents some
instructions on the design of sheet metal products. In addition,
the article introduces a system which is intended as a low-cost
assisting system that can be applied and developed according
to different needs.
According to Lutters [40], a simple integration of
manufacturing processes in connection with a life cycle model
is insufficient to attain true integration in product development.
For this reason, the main attention should be focused on the
information that is used and created in manufacturing
processes. If all of the information from separate processes
could be made visible throughout the development project, it
could be used to control entire manufacturing chains. In order
to gain the full benefit of the new, modified role of product
development, respect and the right attitude towards
manufacturing processes is required. The key starting point of
the [40] study is that the stages of the manufacturing process
function as instruments throughout the production chain. This
means that the manufacturing processes should be seen as
generically as possible.
If the descriptions of the common systems required in
manufacturing can be defined at an adequate level, each part
can be considered an independent module and each can
perform its own task without being tied to the sequence of the
system. Following this, each module must be able to develop at
its own pace, and this development should be independent of
the content of other modules. As a result, the interfaces and
data exchange of the modules should be arranged so that new
properties within each module can be brought into use
independently.
According to Ramana [16], the analyzing methods of
automated manufacture allow designers to analyze
manufacturability as part of the CAD system. There are two
types of systems: rule-based and plan-based. In the former,
rules are used to control processability with the help of direct
instructions. The purpose of the latter is to examine the whole
production chain. Evaluation systems can also be classified
into three systems: (1) manufacturing verification (2)
manufacturability quantification and (3) manufacturability
optimization. The first system tells us whether the form or
product is manufacturable in the first place. The inspection is
performed using attributes, which makes it possible to make Scientific research carried out at LUT has verified these
the necessary changes. In the second system, establishing observations [15].
manufacturability is usually based on quality, time and costs. Knowledge engineering

And in the third, the optimization of manufacturability often Knowledge setup interface (wiki)
involves the optimization of time and costs. Most of the
previously conducted research has focused on developing just
one evaluation system. Part
information
Mfg
resource
Mfg
Mfg time
and cost
Other
Material
data
data model
model process

Based on previous studies, Ramana [16] has listed some of

data Knowledge Base

the most important classification principles in sheet metal CAD

Process
pre-
Qualitative
analysis
Quantitative
analysis

design. The article provides instructions in support of design.

model selection
Possible
process

The traditional way to examine the manufacturability of a Feedback

Feedback

product has involved a great deal of manual calculations and User interface

decisions which have usually been made in accordance with

experience or practical situations without any software or
computers. Designers, production planners and mould
designers have also spent a great deal of time making various
calculations and decisions before achieving a functioning
model. Manual operations take a considerable amount of time
and very rarely guarantee an optimal result. For this reason,
Kumar [41] states that there should be a low-cost and easy to
use knowledge-based system with which to provide industrial
designers with intelligent instructions. This could be
implemented, for example, with AutoCAD using the AutoLISP
language. Kumar considers a system such as this user-friendly.
The feedback the system provides includes recommendations
which the manufacturing process requires. The system is
flexible and, according to [41], can be expanded to suit new
methods, or tailored factory-specifically.
According to Streppel [42], comprehensive integration
would also provide feedback for complementing the product
through the standpoints of the DFM process. In practice, this
would mean that a designer could provide descriptions of the
products functionality and use this information in eliminating
potential manufacturing methods. Finally, the system would
suggest a part that corresponds to the minimum requirements
based on the constraints of potential manufacturing methods. In
such a case, the system could, in principle, report the reason
why the opening is where it is.
Figure 1. Qualitative and quantitative analysis is needed for solving
manufacturing issues in a digital framework [43],[15].
VII. CONCLUSION
In the opinion of the authors of this paper, it seems that CE
in its traditional format could be seen more as a summary of
best practices in product development than the adoption of a
radically new set of ideas for improving DFM(A) aspects.
The main DFM(A) observations dealing with MW
mechanics are according to LUTs experts as follows:
Questionnaires are useful if they are tuned to fit the
specific operation frequency range.
Both the systematic design approach and concurrent
engineering design can be tuned better to fit an MW
mechanics design if tuned evaluation tables for easy
assembly are applied.
The main DFM(A) observation dealing with sheet metal
work are according to LUTs experts as follows:
To improve DFM(A), advanced feature based
modeling should be utilized.

Figure 1 presents a system adapted from Zhaos view [43],
where knowledge required in production is collected into
databases. By combining knowledge about the part with
resource data using a qualitative and quantitative analysis, it is
possible to present the necessary information for the
manufacture of products. Commonly, this information is
experience-based knowledge of skilled technological designers
[44].
From the literature review of this section, the following
solutions can be found:
One traditional solution is the utilization of the
AUTOLisp language.
The combination of qualitative and quantitative data
should be integrated.
Cost effectiveness requires a sufficient level of
knowledge about the overall manufacture and
production conditions.
The future challenge is how to construct a formal
description of sheet metal manufacturing processes; in other
words, how to classify design and manufacturing features
unambiguously.
REFERENCES
[1] Brough J. E., Schwartz, M., Gupta S. K., Anand D. K., Kavetsky R. and
Pettersen R. 2007. Towards the development of a virtual environment-
based training. System for Mechanical Assembly Operations. Virtual
reality. Vol. 11, pp. 189206
[2] Eskelinen, H. Tuning the design procedures for laser processed
microwave mechanics, LUT 1999. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis
87, Dissertation. 172 p. ISSN 1456-4491. ISBN 951-764-362-4.
[3] Eskelinen, H. Using manufacturability analysis for the efficient design
of microwave mechanics. Engineering Mechanics (Association for
Engineering Mechanics) 1999. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71-74. ISSN 1210-
2717.
[4] Eskelinen, H. Manufacturability analysis - A useful subset of systems
engineering. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, 1999.
Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 3335. ISSN 0885-8985.
[5] Eskelinen, H. Application of concurrent engineering in innovative
manufacturing and design of a milled microwave filter construction,
 Proc. of the Managing Innovative Manufacturing MIM2000-conference,
Birmingham 17.-19.7.2000, ISBN 0-86176-653-9
[6] Eskelinen, H., Developing design methodology and DFM(A)-approach
for passive microwave mechanics, Proc. of Nord Design 2000-
conference, Copenhagen 24.-25.8.2000, ISBN 87-90130-28-6
[7] Eskelinen, H., Improving the productivity of complex electronic systems
design by utilizing applied design methodologies, IEEE Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine, Vol. 16, no. 10, 2001, ISSN 0885-8985
[8] Eskelinen, H. and Eskelinen, P. Microwave Mechanics Components,
Artech House, New York / London, 3 / 2003, ISBN 1-58053-368-X.
[9] Lohtander, M., Lanz, M., Varis, J. and Ollikainen M. Breaking down the
manufacturing process of sheet metal products into features. The Journal
of Mechanics (MECHANIKA). 2007. No. 2(64), pp. 40-48. ISSN 1392-
1207.
[10] Lohtander, M. and Varis, J. Manufacturing features in cutting shapes
and punching holes in sheet metal. 19th International Conference on
Production Research ICPR-19. July 29August 2, 2007, Valpariso,
Chile. CD-proceedings.
[11] Lohtander, M., Salminen, T. and Varis J. Collecting manufacturing data
and questions related to data collection. World Journal of Engineering.
2007. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 19-24. ISSN 1708-5284.
[12] Lohtander, M. Development of forming tool for turret punch press.
Licenciate Thesis. 2007. Lappeenranta University of Technology. 62 p.
[13] Lohtander, M. and Varis, J. Manufacturability of large sheet metal part,
Proceedings of 13th International Conference. Mechanika. 2008. 13th
International Conference Kstuio str. 27, LT-44025 Kaunas-4,
Lithuania, 3. -4.4.2008.
[14] Lohtander, M. and Varis, J. Meaning of detailed manufacturing
information. Proceedings of 14th International Conference. Mechanika.
2009. 14th International Conference Kstuio str. 27, LT-44025 Kaunas-
4, Lithuania, 2. -3.4.2009.
[15] Lohtander, M. On the development of object functions and restrictions
for shapes made with a turret punch press. Lappeenranta University of
Technology. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis 410, Dissertation.
2010. 182 p. ISSN 1456-4491. ISBN 978-952-265-010-8 (PDF).
[16] Ramana, K. V. and Rao, P. V. M. Automated manufacturability
evaluation system for sheet metal components in mass production.
International Journal of Production Research. 2005. Vol. 43, no. 15, pp.
38893913.
[17] Kyprianou, L. K. Shape classification in computer-aided design.
University of Cambridge. 1980. Ph.D. 11597.
[18] Greska, W., Franke, V. and Geiger, M. Classification problems in
manufacturing of sheet metal parts. Computers in Industry. 1997. Vol.
33, pp. 17-30.
[19] Kannan, T. R. and Shunmugam, M. S. Processing of 3D sheet metal
components in STEP AP-203 format. Part I: feature recognition system.
International Journal of Production Research. Feb 2009, Vol. 47, Issue 4,
pp. 941-964. ISSN 0020-7543.
[20] Lanz, M., Velez, R. and Tuokko, R. Feature-based modelling and
analysis for knowledge-Intensive concurrent engineering in final
assembly. 2005. CAID&CD05, Delft, pp. 560-561.
[21] Van Holland, W. Assembly Features in modelling and planning. Delft
University of Technology, Holland. A Doctoral Dissertation. 1997.
ISBN 90-9011056-9. 165 p.
[22] Van der Net, A. J. Designing and manufacturing assemblies. Eindhoven
University of Technology. A Doctoral Dissertation. 1998 ISBN 90-386-
0780-6. 149 p.
[23] Miller, L. C. G. Concurrent engineering design, integrating the best
practices for process improvement. Michigan: Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, 1993.ISBN 0-87263-433-7.
[24] Asiedu, Y. & Gu, P. Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art
review. International Journal of Production Research, 1988. Vol. 36, no.
4, pp. 888-908.ISSN 0020-7543.
[25] Hoffman, D. R. Overview of concurrent engineering. Proceedings of the
Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, IEEE, 1998.
Piscataway 19. -22.1.1998. P. 1 7. ISSN 0149-144X.
[26] Portioli, A. & Singh, N. Framework for integration of production
management issues and concurrent engineering. International Journal of
Systems Science, 1997. Vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 877-881. ISSN 0020-7721.
[27] Stahl, J. & Luczak, H. & Langen, R. & Weck, M. & Klonaris, P. &
Pfeifer, T. Concurrent engineering of work and production systems.
European Journal of Operational Research, 1997. Vol. 100, no. 2, pp.
375398. ISSN 0377-2217.
[28] Brookes, N. & Backhouse, C. J. Variety and concurrent engineering.
Manufacturing Engineer, 1997. Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 72-75. ISSN 0956-
9944.
[29] Duffy, V. G. and Salvendy, G. Prediction of effectiveness of concurrent
engineering in electronics manufacturing. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 1997. Vol. 7, no. 4. pp. 351-373.
[30] Willaert, S. S. A & De Graaf, R. & Minderhoud, S. Collaborative
engineering: A case study of concurrent engineering in wider context.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management (JET-M), 1998.
Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 87-109.
[31] Driemeyer, D. E. & Cole, F. R. & Slattery, K. T. & Wille, G. W. ITER
prototype divertor cassette design, manufacturing and assembly plans.
Proceedings of the 1997 17th IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion
Engineering, Part 1 (of 2). San Diego, 6. -10.10.1997. Pp. 344-348.
[32] Medhat, S. S. & Rook, J. L. Concurrent engineering-processes and
techniques for agile manufacturing enterprise. Proceedings of the 1997
5th International Conference on Factory-2000 The Technology
Exploitation Process. Cambridge, 2. -4.4.1997. Pp. 914. ISSN 0537-
9989.
[33] Gavankar, P. S. & Rao, S. K. Manufacturability analysis using fuzzy
cognitive maps. Proceedings of the 1995 Database Symposium. Boston,
17. -20.9.1995. Pp. 1211-1222.
[34] Fabricius, F. A Seven Step Procedure for Design for Manufacture.
World Class Design Manufacture. 1994. Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 23-30.
[35] Miles, B. Design for manufacturing techniques help the team make early
decisions. Journal of Engineering Design. 1990 Vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 365
371.
[36] Liu, Z. and Wang, L. Sequencing of interacting prismatic machining
features for process planning. Computers in Industry. 2007. Vol. 58, pp.
295-303.
[37] Singh, D. K. J and Jebara, C. Feature-based design for process planning
of machining processes with optimisation using genetic algorithms.
International Journal of Production Research. 2005. Vol. 43, no. 18, pp.
3855-3887.
[38] Li, J. Y., Nee, A. Y. C. and Cheok, B. T. Integrated feature-based
modelling and process planning of bending operations in progressive die
design. International Journal on Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
2002.Vol. 20, pp. 883-895.
[39] Lee, S. H. (2005). A CAD-CAE integration approach using feature-
based multi-resolution and multi-abstraction modelling techniques.
Computer-Aided Design. Vol. 37, pp. 941-955.
[40] Lutters, D., ten Brinke, E., Streppel, A. H. and Kals H. J. J. Computer
aided process planning for sheet metal based on information
management. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2000. Vol.
103, pp. 120-127.
[41] Kumar, S., Singh, R. and Sekhon, G. S. CCKBS: a component check
knowlwdge-based system for assessing manufacturability of sheet metal
parts. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2006. Vol. 172, pp.
64-69.
[42] Streppel ,T., Lutters, E., ten Brinke, E. and Kals, H. Process planning for
sheet metal parts based on information management. International
Journal of Production Research. 2000. Vol. 38, no. 18, pp. 47014716
[43] Zhao, Z. and Shab, J. J. Domain independent shell for DFM and its
application to sheet metal forming and injection molding. Computer
Aided Design. 2005 Vol. 37, pp. 881-898.
[44] Cuirana, J., Ferrer, I. and Gao, J. X. Activity model and computer aided
system for defining sheet metal process planning. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology. 2006. Vol. 173, pp. 21322.