CAPP Techniques

UNIT 4 CAPP TECHNIQUES

Structure
4.1 Introduction
Objectives

4.2 Variant Process Planning

4.2.1 The Preparatory Stage
4.2.2 The Production Stage
4.2.3 Problems Associated with the Variant Approach
4.2.4 Advantages of the Variant Approach

4.3 The Generative Approach

4.4 Knowledge-based Process Planning
4.5 Summary
4.6 Answers to SAQs

4.1 INTRODUCTION
“Fully Automated Factory” or in other words “unmanned factory” has been a major and
long-term goal of both industry and academia for a long time, although some authorities
claim that it is impossible to achieve. CAD and CAM are two of the most important
activities to be amalgamated in a typical automated environment. Due to developments in
computer technology, numerically controlled equipment, robots and computer controlled
automation in CAD and CAM systems, many manual skills have been automated, thus
resulting in reduction of lead times, improvements in productivity and increase in
manufacturing accuracy. However, the full integration of CAD and CAM systems in
industry has not yet been achieved. CAPP is one of the most important obstacles to be
overcome in the automation of process planning activities, it forms a bridge between
CAD and CAM. The CAPP was first proposed by Niebel. Schenck supported the CAPP
idea of Niebel by his Ph.D dissertation at Purdue University in 1996. Due to the
limitation of computer hardware and software, the CAPP had not been feasible until the
early 1980s. CAPP is very inclusive and basically consists of the determination of
processes and parameters required to convert a blank into a finished product. The key
elements of process planning include; material selection, operation selection, machine
tool selection, operation sequencing, cutting tool selection, set-up selection, etc.
Automated process planning brings about following advantages :
• reduction in process planning time
• reduction in the required skill of the process planner
• reduction in costs due to efficient use of resources
• increased productivity and process rationalisation
• production of accurate and consistent process plans
• maximisation of Just-In-Time performance
Today, it has been recognised that Computer Aided Process Planning is the key system
promoting the integration of CAD and CAM systems. It has been seen as the only tool
for removing the slash between CAD/CAM.
Process planning as the link between CAD and CAM, actually translates the design
language into the manufacturing language. There have been a great number of efforts and
studies to achieve the major goal via CAPP; to effectively integrate the design and
manufacturing, providing the automation and standardisation of the process planning
5
Elements of CAPP function. However, it is worth noticing that the industrial use and applications of the
developed systems are quite limited. One of the main reasons behind this lack of
industrial use is that the process planning is a complicated and divergent task including
many sub-activities from the interpretation of the product data to the tool path planning
and CNC part program generation, and between these sub-activities there are many
highly complex and ill-defined relationships. Another reason may be the difference
between the assumed conditions and actual conditions on the shop floor, or the presence
of unexpected disturbances, or continuously changing demand, or improved technology.
The performance and applicability of the CAPP systems can be improved by including a
higher number of the actual manufacturing variables and by providing a adaptive
structure to the system.
An ideal computer aided process planning system is shown in Figure 4.1. The system
consists of several modules ranging from Feature extraction module to intermediate
surface generation module. Each module may require execution several times in order to
generate optimum process plan. The components taken into considerations in computer
aided process planning are shown in Figure 4.2.

Display CAD Data

1. Surface Identification Base
Module
11. Classification
Module 2.
Material Selection Process
Module Capability Data
Base
3.
Process Selection
12.
Parameter Module
Selection Machine
Module Data Base
4. Machine Selection
Module

5. Tool Selection Module Tool Data

13.
Base
Machinability System
Data Base Maintenance
6. Fixture Selection Module
Material
Module
Data Base
7. End Effector Selection

Standard Time Fixture

Data Base 8. Process Sequencing Data Base
Module

9. Cutter Path Generation End Effector

Data Base

10. Intermediate Surface

Standard Cost
Data Base Generation Process
Plan File

Figure 4.1 : The Structure of a Computer Aided Process Planning System

The other data required for the generation of process plan are given below :
• Part list
• Annual demand
• Accuracy and surface requirements
• Shopfloor details – process capabilities
• Jigs, fixtures, gauges, etc.
• Machining data
6
 CAPP Techniques

Accessible machines and

Accessible technological
Resources of production

semi-finished products

their characteristics
plant in form of raw

features and their

characteristics
materials and
Formalised description
of machining part
Formalised description
Computer Aided Process Planning of planned process
Production size

Process engineer
Process engineer

programmer

Figure 4.2 : Activities in Process Planning

By comparison with manual experience-based process planning, the use of computers in
process planning also helps to achieve the following :
(a) It can systematically produce accurate and consistent process plans.
(b) It can reduce the cost and lead time of process planning.
(c) The skill requirements of process planners are reduced.
(d) It results in increased productivity of process planners.
(e) The application programs such as cost and manufacturing lead time
estimation and work standards can easily be interfaced.
Two major methods are used in computer-aided process planning: the variant CAPP
method and the generative CAPP method.
Objectives
After studying this unit, you should be able to
• know the concept of variant process planning system,
• elaborate the generative process planning system, and
• explain the knowledge-based process planning.

4.2 VARIANT PROCESS PLANNING

A variant process-planning system uses the similarity among components to retrieve
existing process plans. A process plan that can be used by a family of components is
called a standard plan. A standard plan is stored permanently in the database with a
family number as its key. There is no limitation to the detail that a standard plan can
contain. However, it must contain at least a sequence of fabrication steps or operations.
When a standard plan is retrieved, a certain degree of modification is usually necessary in
order to use the plan on a new component.
The retrieval method and the logic in variant systems are predicated on the grouping of
parts into families. Common manufacturing methods can then be identified for each
family. Such common manufacturing methods are represented by standard plans.
The mechanism of standard-plan retrieval is based on part families. A family is
represented by a family matrix that includes all possible members. The structure of this
family matrix is discussed later.
In general, variant process-planning systems have two operational stages: a preparatory
stage and a production stage.
7
Elements of CAPP 4.2.1 The Preparatory Stage
The preparatory work is required when a company first starts implementing a variant
system. During the preparatory stage, existing components are coded, classified, and
subsequently grouped into families. The first step is to chose an appropriate coding
system. The coding system must cover the entire spectrum of parts produced in the shop.
It must be unambiguous and easy to understand. The special features that exist on the
part must be clearly identified by the coding system. An existing coding system may be
adopted and then modifications can be made for the specific shop. The coding of existing
components can be a tedious task. Before it can be done, a thorough study of the
inventory of drawings and process plans has to be completed so that an orderly coding
task can be conducted. The personnel involved in coding must be trained. They must
have a precise understanding of the coding system. They must generate identical code for
the same component when they work independently. Inconsistent coding of components
results in redundant and erroneous data in the database. The variant system uses a
standard coding scheme like optiz, MICLASS, DCLASS or KK3, etc.
After coding is completed, part families can be formed. A family matrix is constructed
for each part family. Due to the large number of components involved, a computer should
be used to help construct family matrices. The next step is to prepare standard process
plans for part families. Normally, process plan of composite part of a typical part family
is prepared (standard plans) and then stored in a database and indexed by family
matrices. In many systems, individual process plans are also stored in the database.
However, in such systems only plans for frequently produced parts are stored. The
preparatory stage is a labour-intensive process. It requires a tremendous amount of effort.
Whatever is prepared for shop A can be used only for shop A. However, the system
structure and software can be used by other shops but the database must be prepared
uniquely as well for each shop.
4.2.2 The Production Stage
The production Stage occurs when the system is ready for use. New components now can
be planned. An incoming component is first coded. The code is then input to a part-
family search routine to find the family to which the component belongs. The family
number is then used to retrieve a standard plan. The human planner may modify the
standard plan to satisfy the particular component design. For a frequently produced part,
it might be desirable to perform the search by direct code matching. In this case, a
process plan (not a standard plan) for an existing part is retrieved. Figure 4.3 depicts
stages in the development or operation of a variant process planning system.
Variant process planning is quite similar to manual experience-based planning. However,
its information management capabilities are much superior because of the use of
computers. Advantages of the variant process planning approach include :
• Efficient processing and evaluation of complicated activities and decisions,
thus reducing the time and labour requirements.
• Standardized procedures by structuring manufacturing knowledge of the
process planners to company’s needs.
• Lower development and hardware costs and shorter development times. This
is especially important for small and medium-sized companies whose
product variety is not high, who have process planners and are interested in
establishing their own process planning research activities.
Therefore, variant systems can organize and store completed plans and manufacturing
knowledge from which process plans can be quickly evaluated.
The obvious disadvantages of the variant process planning approach include:
• Maintaining consistency in editing is difficult.
• Adequately accommodating various combinations of material, geometry,
size precision, quality, alternative processing sequences, and machine
loading among many other factors, is difficult.
8
 • The quality of the final process plan generated depends to a large extent on CAPP Techniques
the knowledge and experience of the process planners. This dependence on
the process planners is one of the major shortcomings of the variant process
planning approach.

xxx
xxx

Coding Standard
Plan
File
Process
Plan xxx-xx
xxx-xx
xxx-xx
Editing Standard Plan
Retrieval
Figure 4.3 : Part Search and Retrieval
A number of variant process planning system have been developed. One of the most
widely used systems is computer-aided process planning, developed by
McDonnell-Douglas Automation Company under the direction and sponsorship of
Computer-Aided Manufacturing-International (CAM-I). This system can be used to
generate process plans for rotational, prismatic, and sheet metal parts.
The other popular variant process planning system is MIPLAN, developed in conjunction
with the Organization for Industrial Research (OIR) and Genera Electric Company
(Hourzeel, 1976). The MIPLAN system accommodates both rotational and prismatic
parts and is based on the MICLASS coding and classification system for part description.
A very comprehensive group technology based system developed by OIR is called
MULTI-II. It consists of a number of task-oriented modules including :
• MultiClass II for group technology classification and retrieval
• Multigroup II for group technology analysis
• Multitrieve II for design retrieval
• MultiCats II for automated time standards
• MultiTrack II for tool tracking and inventory control
4.2.3 Problems Associated with the Variant Approach
(a) The components to be planned are limited to similar components previously
planned.
(b) Experienced process planners are still required to modify the standard plan
for the specific component.
(c) Details of the plan cannot be generated.
(d) Variant planning cannot be used in an entirely automated manufacturing
system, without additional process planning.
4.2.4 Advantages of the Variant Approach
(a) Once a standard plan has been written, a variety of components can be
planned.
(b) Comparatively simple programming and installation (compared with
generative systems) is required to implement a planning system.
(c) The system is understandable, and the planner has control of the final plan.
(d) It is easy to learn, and easy to use. Also, it is cost effective and suitable for
small/medium manufacturing organisations.
9
Elements of CAPP
4.3 THE GENERATIVE APPROACH
In the generative approach process plans are generated by means of decision logics,
formulae, technology algorithms, and geometry based data to undertake a large number
of processing decisions for converting a part from raw material to a finished state. The
rules of manufacturing and the equipment capabilities are stored in a computer system.
When using the system, a specific process plan for a specific part can be generated
without any involvement of a process planner. For generative systems, input can come
either as a text input where the user answers a number of questions in an English or
English-like dialogue (defined as interactive input), or as graphic input where the part
data is obtained from a CAD module (defined as interface input). So far, the former
procedure is more common in existing CAPP systems, while the later is still a fairly
undeveloped area due to its complexity. Neverthless, interface input is necessary to
enable an integrated manufacturing system. It has attracted much effort to interface
CAPP with CAD. The terms, feature recognition, feature extraction, feature refinement,
and geometry reasoning have been used to denote the study which will be discussed in
detail later in this unit. Tulkoff states that ‘Generative process planning systems today are
still somewhat elusive on the whole and can be considered as being in their early stages
of development and use (Tulkoff 1987). The generative approach is complex and a few
years back generative CAPP system is was too complex to ever be computerized.
However, with the rapid development of AI techniques, the success of applying AI
techniques in other areas has greatly encouraged the utilization of the AI techniques in
the process planning. This effort has given initial results which indicate that the
generative systems are desirable and promising.
4.3.1 Advantages of Generative Approach
(a) Generates consistent process plans.
(b) New components can be planned as easily as the existing components.
(c) It has potential for integrating with an automated manufacturing facility to
provide detailed control information.
There are essentially two major components of a generative process planning system : a
geometry-based coding scheme and process knowledge in the form of decision logic and
data.
Geometry-Based Coding Scheme
The objective of a geometry-based coding scheme is to define all geometric
features for all process-related surfaces together with feature dimensions,
locations, and tolerances and the surface finish desired on the feature. The level of
detail is much greater in a generative system than a variant system. For example,
such details as rough and finished states of the parts and process capability of
machine tools to transform these parts to the desired states are provided.
Process Knowledge in the Form of Decision Logic and Data
Basically, the matching of part geometry requirements with the manufacturing
capabilities is accomplished in this phase using process knowledge in the form of
decision logic and data. All the activities of process planning are performed
automatically. Examples include the selection of processes, machine tools, tools,
jigs or fixtures, inspection equipment, and sequencing of operations. Setup and
machining times are calculated. Operations instruction sheets are generated to help
the operators run the machines in case of manual operations. If the machines are
numerically controlled, the NC codes are automatically generated.
Manufacturing knowledge is the backbone of process planning. The process of
acquisition and documentation of manufacturing knowledge is not a one-time
activity but a recurring dynamic phenomenon. Furthermore, the sources of
manufacturing knowledge are many and diverse, such as the experience of
manufacturing personnel; handbooks; suppliers of major machine tools, tools, jigs
10
 or fixtures, materials, and inspection equipment; and customers. To use this wide CAPP Techniques
spectrum of knowledge ranging from qualitative and narrative to quantitative, it is
necessary to develop a good knowledge structure to help provide a common
denominator for understanding manufacturing information, ensuring its clarity, and
providing a framework for future modifications. Tools available for the purpose
include flowcharts, decision trees, decision tables, iterative algorithms, concepts of
unit-machined surfaces, pattern recognition techniques, and artificial intelligence
tools such as expert system shells.
Table 4.1 : Boolean Value-Type Entries

Length of bar > 180 mm T* F

Diameter of bar < 25 mm T

Diameter of bar > 25 mm T

Extra support T

* T : True; F : False; Blank : Do not care.

Decision Tables
Decision tables provide a convenient way to document manufacturing knowledge.
They are the principal elements of all decision table based process planning
systems. The elements of a decision table are conditions, actions, and rules. They
are organized in the form of an allocation matrix as shown in Figure 4.4, where the
conditions state the goal we want to achieve and the actions state the operations we
have to perform. The rules, formed by entry values according to the experience of
experts, establish the relationship between conditions and actions.

Rule 1 Rule 2

Condition Entry Entry

Action Entry Entry

Figure 4.4 : Format of a Decision Table

Entries can be either Boolean-type values (true, false, and do not care) or
continuous values. See Tables 4.1 and 4.2. The decision-making mechanism works
as follows: for a particular set of condition entries, look for its corresponding rule,
and from that rule determine the actions. For example, if the condition is to drill a
hole, then from the rules we look for the rule that can be applied, and from that
rule we get the solution (or action).
Table 4.2 : Continuous Value-Type Entries

Length of bar (mm) < 40 > 40 < 160 > 160

Diameter of bar (mm) < 20 > 20 1 > diameter > 20 > 10

Extra support T T T

* T : True; Blank : Do not care.

11
Elements of CAPP
4.4 KNOWLEDGE-BASED PROCESS PLANNING
We provide a brief discussion of knowledge-based process planning. A knowledge based
system refers to a computer program that can store knowledge of a particular domain and
use that knowledge to solve problems from that domain in an intelligent way
(Hayes-Ruth, 1983). In a knowledge-based process planning system we use a computer
to simulate the decision process of a human expert. Usually, human process planners
develop process planning based on their experience, knowledge, and inference. A
computer, to some extent, can also be used to perform these functions. By capturing this
process through the use of a knowledge-based system, the proper process plan may be
developed. In a knowledge-based system, two major problems need to be solved: the
knowledge representation and the inference mechanism. The knowledge representation is
a scheme by which a real-world problem can be represented in such a way that the
computer can manipulate the information. For example, to define a part, we need to
define whether there is a hole in it. Given that there is a hole, we next have to define the
attributes of the hole, such as the type of hole, the length, and the diameter.
The reason for this is that the computer is not capable of reading the design from
blueprints or databases as humans are. The inference mechanism is the way in which the
computer finds the solution. One approach is based on IF-THEN structured knowledge.
For example, IF there is a hole, THEN a drill may be used. Through this type of
knowledge, the computer can infer what operations are needed. Once the operations are
known, it is easy to calculate other details and the process plan can be developed. Other
aspects of a knowledge-based system include the interface, which contains the user
interface, the interface with the computer-aided design (CAD) database, and the inquiry
facility, which explains why a decision is made.
GARI is probably the first AI based CAPP system to be reported in the literature,
developed by Descotte and Latcombe (1981) at the University of Greonoble in France.
GARI consists of a knowledge base of about 50 rules and a general purpose problem
solver. Knowledge is represented by production rules dealing with conditions for the part
being manufactured and advises representing technological and economical preferences.
These preferences are weighted according to their importance and, where pieces of
advices conflict, the system refers to their weights. The manufacturing rules are of the
‘IF-THEN’ type and are parameterized by simple variables and set variables (see
Figure 4.5). GARI is implemented in MACLISP language and operates on
CH-Honeywell Bull HB-68 computer under the MULTICS operation system. Recently
GARI has been tested in the metal cutting industry with satisfactory results. A typical
GARI representation is shown in Figure 4.6.

Example : Stock and part P

STOCK
PART P

Rule 3
IF feature is a SLOT
AND tolerance = + 0.010 in
AND surface finish <= 94
THEN machining _Process is END_ MILLING
AND machining_direction is Z_Axis

Figure 4.5 : Rule Based System

12
 CAPP Techniques
φ 1.0 φ 3.0
F2

0.5
2
F1
F3

Y
3.0
X

(F1 (type face) (direction xp) (quality 120))

(F2 (type face) (direction yp) (quality 64))
(F3 (type face) (direction ym) (quality rough))
(H1 (type countersunk- hole) (diameter 1. 0)
(countersink- diameter 3.0)
(starting- from F2) (opening- into F3))
(distance H1 F1 3.0)
(countersink- depth F2 H1 0. 5)

gure 4.6 : A Typical GARI Representation

Knowledge Based System
Next, the knowledge-based system, EXPLAN, is briefly described. This system is
a subproject of the research project on the factory of the future, as part of the
European research initiative called EUREKA. To build a comprehensive system, it
is important that a proper model is established. This system models the process
planning world by three approaches: workpiece geometry, machining, and
planning.
The machining model encompasses various types of planning knowledge, such as
the operations and the sequence of operations needed to remove part of the
material. It represents the process plan schematically and includes knowledge of
how each sequence of operations, such as setup and clamping, is performed.
Rough and finish cutting is also associated with particular machining operations.
Figure 4.7 shows how a process plan is represented and its structure.
The planning model is the portion in which the clamping positions and other
factors are taken into account of the purpose of reducing cost. For example,
allocating different sets of BEs to a certain setup may affect the manufacturing
cost. Usually, we try to maximize the work content of each individual setup, which
helps to achieve the ultimate goal of reducing the total cost of a product.
The overall structure of the EXPLAN system is shown in Figure 4.7. Three basic
components of the system are knowledge base, dialogue, and inference engine.
The dialogue component connects the users and the system and defines how the
users can use the inference engine. Also, the link with external data files such as
material requirements planning (MRP) and CAD database is included in this
component.
The inference engine is used to apply rules for certain application and obtain the
result. For example, we apply the rules for interpreting geometry data when we try
to interpret the geometry data from the CAD database. When generating a detailed
process plan, the rules for detailed planning of processing are used by inference
engine to obtain a plan to achieve a certain goal.
The knowledge base contains the experience of experts, usually written in a certain
format for easy inference. Here the knowledge is in the form of rules. For example,
a rule for interpreting the geometry may be: If the angle between two external
surfaces of the workpiece is smaller (greater) than 180°, there is an internal
(external) edge. From a set of rules, the inference engine may produce some useful
new knowledge such as whether the edges form a particular processing element.
Processing Elements Semantic Presentation 13
 Graphics

Elements of CAPP Workpiece

HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6
Surface (F)
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Workpiece
HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 N1 F6
Groove (N)
Workpiece
HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 N1 F6 T1
Pocket (T)
Workpiece
HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 N1 F6 T1
Drill Hole (B) B1
Workpiece

HF1 HF2 HF3 HF4 HF5 HF6

Offset (A) F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 N1F6 T1
AB1 B1 AB2

Process Plan

Procedure
Specific
Machine Sequence 1 Sequence 2 Sequence 3 Sequence 4
Planning

Chucking

Operation
Operation Specific
Planning
Primary
Operation

Work
Cycle
WC 1 WC 2 WC 3 WC 4 WC 5 WC 6

Procedure-specific Planning Cycle oriented rough planning of the workpieces

and detailed planning of simple processing procedure
Operation-specific Planning Detail planning of the work operations in individual
chucking with help of processing elements
CAD
System User
Case-specific Inputs End and Intermediate Results

Geometry Data Parts Master Files

Dialogue Components MRP
Geometry Process Plan
Database
Inference Engine

Inference Mechanism Inference Mechanism

form Recognition Manufacturing Technology

Rules for Knowledge Base

Knowledge Base Rules for Rough &
Interpreting Procedure Planning
Memory Data Rules for Detailed Planning of Processing
Processing Machine Fixture Tool Raw Material Procedure Specific
Elements Data Data Data Data Knowledge

Figure 4.7 : (a) Processing Element Representation Scheme; (b) Schematic Representation of a Process
Plan; and (c) Overall Structure of the EXPLAN System

Several generative process planning systems have already been developed such as
14 APPAS (Wysk, 1977), CMPP (Waldman, 1983), EXCAP (Davies and Darbyshire,
 1984), XPLAN (Lenau and Alting, 1986), and so on. The biggest advantage of CAPP Techniques
generative approach is that the process plan is consistent and fully automated. This
kind of system is mostly oriented towards large companies and research
organizations since they can afford the investment on a long term project.
Especially for companies which has a number of products in small lot sizes the
generative approach is attractive. As a research field to enable the necessary
integration within the CIM concept, the generative approach is important. Five
alternative approaches to generative process planning are discussed in detail by
Allen (1987); decision tables; decision trees/decision tables; axiomatic; rule-based
decision tree; and constraint-based.
Table 4.3 depicts the differentiation of variant and generative CAPP systems with
respect to activity-task-parameter. Figure 4.8 shows the developments in CAPP
systems.
Several generative process planning systems have already been developed such as
APPAS (Wysk, 1977), CMPP (Waldman, 1983), EXCAP (Davies and Darbyshire,
1984), XPLAN (Lenau and Alting, 1986), and so on. The biggest advantage of
generative approach is that the process plan is consistent and fully automated. This
kind of system is mostly oriented towards large companies and research
organizations since they can afford the investment on a long term project.
Especially for companies which have a number of products in small lot sizes the
generative approach is attractive. As a research field to enable the necessary
integration within the CIM concept, the generative approach is important. Five
alternative approaches to generative process planning are discussed in detail by
Allen (1987); decision tables; decision trees/decision tables; axiomatic; rule-based
decision tree; and constraint-based.
Table 4.3 depicts the differentiation of variant and generative CAPP systems with
respect to activity-task-parameter. Figure 4.8 shows the developments in CAPP
systems.
Table 4.3 : Individual Activities for Two Different Methods in CAPP Systems

Activity-task-parameter Variant CAPP Generative CAPP

Description of part Unambiguous Ambiguous

Expression of manufacturing Implicit Explicit

knowledge

Location of manufacturing Process plans Individual databases

knowledge

Integration with CAD Partial Complete

Elaboration of CAD data Partial Complete

Type of process plan Textual pictographic NC code (textual)

Simulation No Yes

Optimisation of sequencing of No Yes

process operations

Optimisation of cutting conditions Yes Yes

Used programming languages Foxbase, Visual Fox Delphi, VB, C++

Intelligence of the System

15
Human
Expert

? Technology
Elements of CAPP

Figure 4.8 : Development in CAPP

4.4.1 The Semi-generative Approach

The semi-generative approach is an interim approach and it is still in its infancy.
Emerson and Ham (1982), when they presented a semi-generative system titled ACAPS,
stated that ‘It must be said at this point that the purely generative CAPP system has yet to
be developed. Until such time as a generative system emerges, much effort has gone into
“semi-generative” CAPP systems. These serve to reduce user interaction through such
features as standard operation sequences, decision tables and mathematical formulas.
These schemes are not completely generative, but they can be extremely useful in terms
of time and cost savings in the manufacturing environment’.
So far, under the assumption that no CA-generative process planning systems exist, the
semi-generative approach, as a stand-alone process planning approach, is understandable.
The term ‘semi-generative’ approach may be defined as combination of the generative
and the variant approach, where a pre-process plan is developed and modified before the
plan is utilized in a real production environment. It means that the decision logic,
formulae, and technological algorithms as well as the geometry based coding scheme for
translating physical features (such as features sizes and tolerances, locations and surface
roughness, etc.) are built into the systems. At a first sight, the system working steps are
the same as for the generative approach, but the final process plan has to be examined
and errors corrected if it does not fit to the real production environment. It may be a good
idea to break a generative system down in a generating planning stage and a modifying
stage to correct the plans which may be in conflict with the specific production
environment. Modifying is small compared with the variant approach. From a research
point of view the semi-generative system may not be the desired direction, but it
increases the system’s competitiveness on the market. Industrial application of such
current systems can
(a) speed up automatic production,
(b) reduce the process planners participation, and
(c) ensure the quality of process plan.
Since it is a practical oriented system for industry, the semi-generative approach may be
a good candidate during the transition period.
SAQ 1
(a) What do you understand by process planning?
(b) Discuss a variant process planning system.
(c) Discuss a generative process planning system.
(d) Briefly explain the guidelines for implementing group technology.
16 (e) Briefly explain the need for computer aided process planning.
 CAPP Techniques

SAQ 2
(a) What are the various approaches available for computer aided process
planning?
(b) Give a brief description of the retrieval type of computer aided process
planning method.
(c) What are the differences between retrieval and generative type of computer
aided process planning? Which is better? Explain your choice.
(d) What methods are available for taking decisions in the process of
developing a process plan?
(e) Briefly explain the methodology to be followed for developing retrieval type
of computer aided process planning system.

4.5 SUMMARY
This unit discusses the importance of CAPP in achieving a fully automated factory.
Process planning forms a link between CAD and CAM, which actually translates the
design language into the manufacturing language. There have been a great number of
efforts and studies to achieve the major goal via CAPP; to effectively integrate the design
and manufacturing, providing the automation and standardisation of the process planning
function.
The two major methods used in computer-aided process planning are the variant CAPP
method and the generative CAPP method. The concept, structure and complexity of
systems using these two approaches are very different. These two approaches have been
distinguished.
A brief discussion of knowledge-based process planning is also given. A
knowledge-based system refers to a computer program that can store knowledge of a
particular domain and use that knowledge to solve problems from that domain in an
intelligent way. The knowledge based systems like GARI, EXPLAN were briefly
discussed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kalpakjian (1989), Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 3rd Edition,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 17
Elements of CAPP P. Radhakrishnan, S. Subramanyam and V. Raju (1994), CAD/CAM/CIM, 2ND Edition,
New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.
Nanua Singh (1996), Systems Approach to Computer-Integrated Design and
Manufacturing, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
T. C. Chang and R. A. Wysk (1991), Computer-Aided Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
P. N. Rao, N. K. Tewari and T. K. Kundra (1993), Computer Aided Manufacturing, Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
E. Paul DeGarmo, J. T. Black and Ronald A. Kohser (1997), Materials and Process in
Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.
Kwei-Li, R. and Bedworth, D. D. (1988), A Framework for the Integration of Computer
Aided Design and Computer Aided Process Planning, Computers and Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 395-413.
Ham, I. and Lu, S. C. Y. (1988), Computer-Aided Process Planning : The Present and
the Future, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 591-601.
Maropoulos, P. G. (1995), Review of Research in Tooling Technology, Process
Modelling and Process Planning, Part II : Process Planning, Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol.8, No.1, pp.13-20.
Kusiak, A. (1991), Process Planning : A Knowledge-Based and Optimization
Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 257-266.
Alting, L., and Zhang, H. (1989), Computer Aided Process Planning, The State of the
Art Survey, International Journal of Production Research, 27(4) : pp. 553-585.
P. N. Rao (2002), CAD/CAM Principles and Applications, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Limited, New Delhi.

18