Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-2663-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Review: geometric and dimensional tolerance modeling

for sheet metal forming and integration with CAPP
Wang Rui & Georg Lothar Thimm & Ma Yongsheng

Received: 14 May 2008 / Accepted: 7 April 2010 / Published online: 25 April 2010
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Abstract The focus of this publication is a review of the processes, design and process tolerances play an important
state of the art in tolerance analysis, synthesis, and transfer role with respect to functionality and cost. However,
for geometric and dimensional tolerances in sheet metal mathematical methods for tolerance analysis, synthesis,
forming and the integration solutions with computer-aided and transfer used in non-sheet metal forming processes are
process planning systems. In this context, the general not readily applicable. Reasons are the differences between
tolerance methods are first described. Then, the mathemat- sheet metal forming and conventional material removal
ical models for sheet metal tolerance analysis and synthesis machining as summarized in Table 1.
are examined in detail. To address the CAPP modeling Great advances have been made in the field of sheet metal
concerns, the paper is then followed up with a brief review forming. New processes and working methods have been
of past research works related to feature-based process developed. Many tools for design, process simulation, and
planning. Finally, those imperative future research areas are control are available today [2, 4, 86, 101, 138, 148, 149, 159,
identified. 189, 190, 218, 238, 243, 257]. Since the 1990s, due to the
rapidly diminishing number of experienced process planners
Keywords GDT . Tolerance transfer . Geometric for SMF, the need for shorter product life cycles and the
tolerances . Sheet metal . Process planning importance of three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design
and manufacturing (CAD/CAM), the research on process
planning in this area attracted more attention. The research
1 Introduction areas cover topics such as raw material preparation technol-
ogies, process selection, tooling design, operation sequenc-
Sheet metal forming (SMF) is one of the most common ing, fixture definition, and collision detection [69, 170].
manufacturing methods for metal parts and is used widely Problems related to tolerances emerge in several stages
in industries [99]. As in assembly or metal removal of the life cycle of a sheet metal part. The problems are
characterized by the particular viewpoints and objectives of
the individual life cycle stages. For example, a process
W. Rui : G. L. Thimm
planner has to find the most economical processes and their
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, sequence as well as to fulfill the tolerance specification in
Singapore, Singapore product design. For machined parts, tolerance constraints
W. Rui play a significant role in process planning, and computer-
e-mail: [email protected] aided tolerancing (CAT) has been developed as a key
G. L. Thimm technology for determining machining sequences that can
e-mail: [email protected] result in the best accuracy on some special features of parts
[102, 125, 260]. However, in sheet metal forming, currently,
M. Yongsheng (*)
an effective approach of computer-aided tolerance analysis is
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB T6J 6S8, Canada still not fully developed, and hence, there is no comprehen-
e-mail: [email protected] sive method to integrate design and process planning.
872 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

Table 1 Comparison of SMF and conventional machining methods (modified from [95])

Sheet metal forming Conventional material removal machining process

The initial parts or blanks are cut out to form the required shape The initial raw work-piece is normally sawed, preformed,
from a large sheet metal layout. or prepared by casting or forging process.
They are less precise than sheet metal blanks.
The process is irreversible. Once formed incorrectly, parts are scrap. Work-piece can be machined again if the machined work piece
is not undersized (it usually is scrap otherwise).
Surface finish depends on the forming process. Surface finish largely depends on the final machining operation.
The deformation usually causes significant changes in shape, The cross-section in all orientations is potentially changed.
but not in cross-section (sheet thickness and surface characteristics)
of the sheet.

The organization of this review is that, at first, sheet neutral axis, whereas the compressive stress increases from
metal forming operations are surveyed, in which bending the neutral axis toward the inside of the bend.
and punching operations are emphasized; then, the past A typical sheet metal bending operation involves
research efforts on CAT are reviewed; and finally followed mounting a punch (punches) and mold (die) on a press,
by the discussion of its integration with computer-aided which controls relative motions between the punch and die,
process planning (CAPP) aspect. then, placing sheet metal on a die against a (auto-) stopper
block, or a gage, to position the part. Punch(-es) and the
mold (die) provide the necessary bending forces or
2 Sheet metal forming processes pressures. Sometimes, grippers are used to hold the part
during and between operations.
Common sheet metal fabrication techniques include a Bending processes fall into several categories: air
multitude of different operations. These operations can be bending, bottom bending, coining, U-bending, etc. Air
classified as in Table 2. Bending and punching are the most bending is a bending process in which the punch forces the
popular sheet metal forming processes. Some operations, work piece into a V-shaped die and the work piece does not
such as folding, flanging, and hemming, may be regarded touch the bottom of the die. Bottom bending is a bending
as bending-like operations because they have similar process where the punch and the work piece bottom on the
forming principles. die. Coining is a bending process in which the punch and
the work piece bottom on the die and compressive stress is
2.1 Bending operations applied to the bending region to increase the amount of
plastic deformation.
Bending is a prevalent type of forming operation, which
provides the required shape and further rigidity to sheet 2.1.1 Bend allowance
metal parts. In this process, usually, a plane sheet or a metal
strip is deformed in a circular arc around a straight axis If the bend radius is comparable to the thickness of the
lying perpendicular to the neutral axis as defined in [179]. sheet, the sheet tends to stretch during bending. This
Metal flow takes place in the plastic range of the metal so influences the accuracy of dimensions and tolerances of
that the bent part retains a permanent set after removal of final part and has to be reflected in the working dimensions.
the applied stress. The cross-section of the bend inward This change in length is compensated by the so-called bend
from the neutral axis is in compression, and the rest of the allowance (BA), which can be estimated as follows:
bend is in tension [181]. The tensile stress decreases toward a
the center of the sheet thickness and becomes zero at the BA ¼ 2p ðR þ Kba T Þ ð1Þ
360

Table 2 Common operations on sheet metal parts

Cutting operations Bending operations

Punching, notching, shearing, blanking, drilling, piercing, nibbling, Air bending, coining, bottoming, hemming, folding, and flanging
slitting, trimming, shaving, and stamping
Joining operations Other operations
Welding, soldering, bonding, riveting, screwing, and seaming Drawing, rolling, stretching, spinning, and flattening
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 873

where BA=bend allowance, in millimeters; α=bend angle, punching speeds, and material properties, such as sheet
in degrees; R=bend radius, in millimeters; T=material thickness, flow stress, texture, and grain size [26, 42, 114,
thickness, in millimeters; and Kba is factor of stretching 129].
effect. Kba is defined as t/T, where t is distance from the
inside face to the neutral axis. Clearly, Kba is a ratio that 2.2 Punching
gives the location of neutral axis with respect to the
thickness of the sheet metal part. The value of Kba is Punching is a very efficient, inexpensive, and flexible way
usually estimated by adopting some recommended design of producing cutouts from sheet metal. The term punching
values. Many CAD programs calculate the bend allowance describes a shearing process, in which a punching machine
by using Kba (or Y-factor in the case of Pro-E, where the Y- separates a sheet of metal by striking it, while supporting
factor is Kba2 p ) [85]. For air bending, bottom bending, and it by a die with a hole matching the cross-section of the
coining, [60] presented a method to determine K ba punch. In punching, the cut out part of sheet is scrap, and
reversely. Publications on bending allowances are numer- the remaining material is a desired part. Opposed to it, in
ous, and two recent ones are given in [116, 217]. blanking, the cut out section of the part is the required
part.
2.1.2 Springback Punching is usually utilized to create holes of various shapes
in sheet metal material. Traditional punching operations produce
When the bending pressure is removed, elastic energy in a single geometry with the same tool. numerically controlled
the bent part causes it to recover partially toward its original (NC) punching operations with multiple standard tools can
shape. This elastic recovery is called springback, defined as produce a wide range of geometries characterized by simple
the increase in included angle of the bent part relative to the geometrical elements like lines and circles [181].
included angle of the forming tool after the tool is removed.
This is expressed as: 2.3 The “other” forming operations

af  ai Rf  Ri The forming operations listed under “others” in Table 2 are

Springback ¼ ¼ : ð2Þ
ai Ri not addressed in detail in this report. In brief, they either
where αf is the bending angle after springback in degrees; produce
αi is the bending angle before springback in degrees; Rf is – plain, flat sheet metal, and only thickness tolerance
the final bend radius after springback; Ri is the bend radius matters, or
before springback. – free-form surfaces for which all tolerances are defined
Springback should be predicted in bending operations by the drawing process (and estimated by finite
and the punch position adjusted accordingly. As it causes element methods, for example)
changes in shape and dimensions, springback prediction is
an important issue. It is difficult for design engineers to
predict springback, as many variables influence it: material
variations in mechanical properties, tool geometry (includ- 3 Computer-aided tolerancing
ing die radius and the gap between the die and the punch),
sheet thickness, punch stroke, lubricant condition, etc. Tolerances and tolerance-related problems play a ubiquitous
Springback is often approximated using role in both product design and process planning. The
existing research can be classified into seven distinct


 categories as in Fig. 1. Selected tolerancing methods are
Ri Ri Y 3 Ri Y
¼4 3 þ 1; ð3Þ discussed later. In this figure, the dashed lines indicate that
Rf ET ET
tolerance transfer techniques are derived from tolerance
where Rf is the final bend radius after springback in analysis and tolerance synthesis, as explained later in
millimeters; Ri is the bend radius before springback in section 3.4.
millimeters; Y is the yield strength of the sheet metal
in megapascal; E is Young’s modulus of the sheet metal 3.1 Geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing
in gigapascal; and T is the thickness of the sheet material.
For air bending, the springback usually ranges from 5 to Two main types of tolerancing schemes are in use:
10°. Bottom bending and coining allow for a better control parametric and geometrical. Parametric tolerancing identi-
of the bending angle as springback is reduced. fies a set of design parameters and assigns limits or
Various investigations show the influence of process distributions to the parameters, such as maximal deviations
parameters on springback, such as bend radius, die gap, and (conventional ±) or statistical tolerances [175]. A recently
874 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

– Kinematic variations (small adjustments between mat-

ing parts in mechanical assemblies) [31]
Dimensional and geometrical variations are the result of
variations in component parts due to manufacturing
processes or raw materials used in production. Kinematic
variations occur at assembly time, whenever small adjust-
ments between mating parts are required to accommodate
dimensional or form variations.

3.2.1 Tolerance analysis models

Figure 3 gives an overview on mathematical models used in

tolerance analysis. Tolerance chain models, or dimensional
Fig. 1 Research on computer-aided tolerancing [98] tolerance chain models, fall into two categories:
1. Linear/linearized tolerance accumulation models. One
proposed tolerancing scheme called vectorial tolerancing of the most common models for the accumulation of
falls into this category [247]. component tolerances Ti into the predicted assembly
Defined in ISO 1101 and ANSI Y14.15M:1994, Geo- tolerance T are, according to [73], worst-case models
metrical Dimensioning and Tolerancing is a dimensioning with
system that benefits both design engineering and manufac-
turing engineering. It allows designers to set tolerance
limits, not just for the size of an object, but also for all of X
n
T¼ Ti
the critical characteristics of a part.
i¼1
Geometrical tolerances describe the acceptable range of
variation in geometry from a nominal or reference Another commonly linearized model type, root sum square
geometry. They designate values to certain characteristics models (RSS, the original theoretical model of this method
of features, such as form, orientation, location, and run-out. belongs to statistical category as discussed in the next
Detailed explanation and examples of current standards on section), has been used for tolerance estimation purpose as
geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing can be found in follows:
ANSI Y14.15M:1994 or ISO specifications such as ISO sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn
1101:2002, ISO 14660-1:1999, and ISO/TS 17450-1:2005. T¼ Ti 2
Orientation and position tolerances are often used in i¼1
sheet metal parts. Orientation tolerances include perpendic-
ularity, parallelism, and angularity tolerances, as shown in This approach is applied in [83, 84] to worst-case
Fig. 2. Discussions of geometrical error evaluation and tolerance and root sum square tolerance analysis. A similar
related research work can be found in [155, 179, 180, 193– analysis method for more complex mechanical assemblies
196, 232, 233]. The methods are mainly based on CMM,
computational geometrical techniques, and artificial intelli-
gence (AI).

3.2 Tolerance analysis

Tolerance analysis is used to estimate the accumulation of

process variations on assembly dimensions and features
and to verify the proper functionality of a design. This
topic has drawn considerable attention, and many papers
have been published on 1D, two-dimensional (2D), and
3D tolerancing.
The analysis methods can be classified based on the
types of analyzed variations:
– Dimensional (lengths and angles)
– Geometrical (flatness, roundness, angularity, etc.) Fig. 2 Orientation tolerances (from ISO 1101:2002 and [53])
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 875

Fig. 3 Main tolerance analysis

models

and kinematic linkages is based on the direct linearization Geometrical feature variations defined in ANSI Y14.5M-
method (DLM) [27, 28, 31, 77, 82, 248]. The role of 1994 are addressed statistically and propagated kinemati-
tolerance and assembly analysis in robust assembly design cally in a manner similar to the dimensional variations in
is discussed in [66] and applied to nesting forces for exactly assemblies [29].
constrained mechanical assemblies in [162]. A comprehen- Variational dimension models are a kind of special
sive system based on dimensional tolerance chain model variational geometry in which only the dimension (size)
has been developed [29, 77] which includes dimensional, can vary [184]. Recent research work focuses on tolerance
geometric, form, and kinematics sources; vector loops are sensitivity analysis in this area [63]. Variational solid
defined by homogeneous transformation matrices, similar models were developed to overcome the problems of
to robotics models. variational dimensional models with non-polygonal/poly-
hedral models and certain types of geometrical tolerances
2. Statistical analysis methods. In this category, two major [18]. They were shown to be appropriate for tolerance
approaches exist. The analytical analysis approach was analysis of assemblies of toleranced parts [3, 127].
developed from the tolerance chain technique, which
aims to determine the probability distribution of system
3.2.2 Three-dimensional tolerance analysis
response functions [182]. RSS method belongs to this
group. The DLM is applied to make the analysis model
With the advancement of 3D CAD and other engineering
more convenient to use with small variations about the
analysis technologies, the traditional dimensional tolerance
nominal dimensions [75, 82–84].
chain models need to be enhanced to meet the requirements
The second approach is simulation-based analysis. The of explicit 3D geometrical tolerance specifications. A 3D
most developed and commonly used method is Monte tolerance propagation scheme has to address two related
Carlo simulation which circumvents the difficulty in issues:
statistical tolerance analysis, which is to determine statisti-
– Representation of tolerance zones and
cal moments of accumulated tolerances in a closed form.
– Spatial tolerance propagation mechanism
Therefore, Monte Carlo simulation methods are frequently
used [32]. This method can be readily used for tolerance Categories of three-dimensional tolerance analysis meth-
analysis, but is rarely for tolerance synthesis due to the ods are shown in Fig. 4.
difficulty to obtain derivatives of design functions [200]. Preliminary work motivating the development of the
The results of the direct linearization method with those 3D tolerance propagation techniques is regarded as the
obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation are compared in spatial dimensional chain technique [163–165]. Other
[75]. New metrics for assessing the accuracy of the Monte methods are mostly a variation of the spatial dimensional
Carlo analysis method for assemblies are presented in [48]. chain technique. For example in [163], the propagation of
876 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

Tolerance Propagation Methods 3.3 Tolerance synthesis

Small Displacement Kinematic

Tolerance synthesis, or tolerance allocation, is the reverse
Torsor (SDT) [17, 235] Chain Model [117]
process of tolerance analysis. It provides a rational basis for
Spatial Dimensional Vectorial Tolerancing assigning tolerances to working dimensions. Tolerance
Chain [163] [17, 235] synthesis has enormous impact on cost and quality. It
affects the fit and function of the product, which can cause
Representation of Tolerance Zones poor performance and dissatisfied customers. With respect
Matrix Graphical to manufacturing, tolerance requirements determine the
Representation [164] Representation [11] selection of machines, tools, and fixtures; the operator skill
level and set-up costs; inspection and gage precision; etc.
Fig. 4 Main three-dimensional tolerance analysis methods
In conclusion, tolerance synthesis affects almost every
aspect of the product life cycle. Most tolerance synthesis
approaches are based on the optimization of a cost-
position errors is taken into account in terms of a kinematic tolerance function. These approaches try to get optimal
chain, where the individual error is represented as matrices tolerance values when the tolerance stacks are assumed to
with three-dimensional and three angular position errors. be fixed. Nevertheless, the utilization of these models in
For pairs of functional elements in a kinematic chain model industry is still limited. One major reason is that these
is associated with a set of six virtual joints, three for small models try to take advantage of the superficial knowledge
translations, and three for small rotations [117]. of processes, which is usually obtained from machinist
Three-dimensional tolerance propagation models based handbooks or company manuals. Process knowledge at this
on the concept of a small displacement torsor (SDT) are level cannot provide the designer with sufficiently precise
used to simulate three-dimensional fixturing and machining tolerance values.
errors and their impacts on the geometry of the finished Commonly used tolerance synthesis methods include
part. An SDT is a mathematical object that represents the [27]:
displacement of a rigid body using three rotations and three
– Allocation by proportional scaling: component toler-
translations. This approach models the influence of a
ances are linearly scaled by a common proportionality
process plan on functional tolerances as a chain of torsors.
factor.
Assuming that the displacements are small enough, linear-
– Allocation by constant precision factor: component
ization is used to derive a torsor T as:
0 1 tolerances are allocated by means of weight factors. In
a u this way, weight factors are assigned to each compo-
T ¼ @b v A ð4Þ nent tolerance in the accumulation model and the
g w system distributes a corresponding fraction of the
tolerance pool to each component. Larger weight
where α, β, and γ are the small rotations of the element; u,
factors and corresponding bigger tolerances can be
v, and w are the small translations [17, 57].
given to those dimensions that are the more costly or
The traditional tolerance chain models can be used for
difficult to manufacture, which improves the cost and
tolerance synthesis as shown in [30], but the related
manufacturability of the design.
methods are relatively difficult to be uniformly generalized
– Allocation by optimization techniques: the most pop-
from case to case. The SDT-based and three-dimensional
ular optimization technique of component tolerance
tolerance propagation overcomes such limitations. Based
allocation is to minimize the cost of production of an
on the SDT method, a detailed model of mechanical parts,
assembly. It is accomplished by defining a cost-
part-holders, and machining operations was developed
tolerance mathematical model for each component part
[235] and extended to tolerance synthesis [236].
in the assembly. An optimization algorithm assigns the
Vectorial tolerancing can be applied to geometrical
tolerance for each component and searches systemati-
tolerance analysis, see [231] for example. Form variations
cally for the combination of tolerances that minimize
(ANSI Y14.5:1994) [29] and coordinate transformations
the cost.
can be used to represent tolerance zones [57]. Alternatively,
a graphical representation of part features, process plans,
and functional requirements defined with an ISO standard 3.3.1 Tolerance synthesis models
can be employed to analyze three-dimensional tolerance
specifications and to generate manufacturing specifications Tolerance synthesis or tolerance allocation can be inter-
compatible with ISO standards [11]. preted as minimizing a cost function C(T) with respect to a
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 877

set of tolerances T. According to the nature of the target solves the statistical tolerance synthesis problems.
function C(·) (the cost is modeled to change linearly, The model is illustrated with an assembly example in
reciprocally, or exponentially with the tolerance), existing [259].
tolerance synthesis models can be classified as shown in – Process capability index applications in tolerance
Fig. 5. synthesis are another important research area [187].
Cost-tolerance models are typical analytical cost estima- – An optimization model, named reliability index model,
tion techniques [244]. The objective of these models is to with consideration of the required functional reliability,
estimate product cost considering design tolerances of a the minimum machining cost, and quality loss was
product as a function of the product cost. As an example, in established [104].
the minimum cost optimization method, a set of tolerances
In summary, tolerance synthesis is mainly used for
is initially selected. Then, an optimization algorithm is used
assembly tolerances. However, tolerance synthesis for parts,
to find the minimal cost. However, due to the number of
especially sheet metal parts, has its own, only partly
variables, the optimization can be rather involved, and a
addressed, characteristics.
global minimum is often not attained [27, 30].
Some recent optimization methods are based on AI
3.4 Tolerance transfer
techniques, such as genetic algorithms, artificial neural
networks, simulated annealing, neuro-fuzzy learning, and
Tolerance transfer, as tolerance analysis and synthesis in
ant colony algorithm [166, 167].
process planning, is a method to convert design tolerances
Taguchi et al. presented quality engineering as an
into a manufacturing plan.
approach to handling tolerancing issues [211]. Quality
engineering aims at an integrated production system with
3.4.1 Conventional tolerance transfer method
an overall quality control, in which every activity is controlled
in order to produce the products with minimal deviations from
Tolerance charting is the most popular conventional
target values. Details of various application methods of quality
tolerance transfer technique. A tolerance chart is a
engineering to tolerance analysis and synthesis can be found
graphical tool for process planners to determine the
in [46]; the application of parametric design and quality loss
manufacturing dimensions and tolerances of each ma-
functions is discussed in [39, 70, 71].
chining operation, based on the design dimensions and
Statistical tolerancing synthesis (and process capability
tolerances.
index applications) drew attention in recent years. It
The fundamental idea of tolerance charting is discussed
assumes that the final tolerance specifications and the
in [21, 22]. The two main fundamental tolerance charting
distributions of the process dimensions are known [230].
techniques, Wade’s and Bourde’s model, are compared in
This idea was further developed:
detail in [126]. The author concludes that Bourde’s model
– The distribution function zone approach was extend- appears more appropriate for the treatment of resultant
ed to an optimized cost-tolerance model, which dimensions obtained under a single setup.

Fig. 5 Main tolerance synthesis

methods
878 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

An overview of important tolerance charting-based or gradients with it. This changed, though, in recent years
approaches is given in [98]. Since then, the three referenced [59, 102, 118, 121, 122, 134, 203].
approaches were further developed:
– Angular tolerance charting [106, 107, 255, 256]
4 Applying feature-based tolerance analysis in CAPP
– Digraphic tolerance charts [1, 157]
– Rooted tree model and datum-hierarchy tree method
4.1 Current tendency
[20, 221, 222]
Although tolerance charting is applied widely in toler- The Society of Manufacturing Engineers defines process
ance transfer, it has a major shortcoming: it cannot deal planning as the systematic determination of methods by
with complex spatial tolerance transfer issues or geometri- which a product is to be manufactured, economically and
cal tolerances. competitively.
In other words, process planning is the transposition of
3.4.2 Three-dimensional tolerance transfer engineering design information into process steps and
instructions to efficiently and effectively manufacture
Most tolerance charting techniques can handle only the products. Process planning activities include the following
size-dimensional tolerances or a limited set of geometric [241]:
tolerances. Thus, it is necessary to develop new tolerance
– Interpretation of product design data
propagation techniques in process planning for 3D
– Determination of production tolerances
tolerance transfer, especially for geometric tolerances.
– Determination of setup requirements
Existing approaches to three-dimensional tolerance anal-
– Selection of tool sets
ysis that are suitable for tolerance transfer are listed in
– Selection of machine tools
Table 3.
– Sequencing of operations
– Tool path planning
3.5 Monte Carlo simulation
– Determination of machining conditions
– Generation of process route sheets
The Monte-Carlo, or random sampling, method numerically
– Selection of machining methods and processes
determines approximate solutions in mathematical physics
– Design of jigs and fixtures
and engineering [177]. This stochastic technique was
– Calculation of process times
utilized for centuries, but only from 1940s has it gained
– NC program generation
the status of a method capable to address complex
– Capacity planning
applications.
The Monte Carlo method has been used extensively for Although CAPP uses almost the same steps taken in
statistical tolerancing. Derivation of the statistical moments manual process planning, it requires less time compared
of a function of random variables is usually impossible in with manual process planning. Due to the rapid diminishing
closed form, especially when the functional form is number of experienced process planners in industry,
complicated or piecewise-defined. The Monte Carlo meth- compressed product life cycles, and the broad use of
od has the advantage of simplicity and flexibility. However, CAD/CAM, the research on CAPP has gained more
this method can be computationally expensive. With the attention than ever before. Approaches used in CAPP can
improvement of computational capacity of computers, the be categorized as two types [152]:
Monte Carlo method is adopted by many software pack-
ages, for example, variation simulation analysis, and then – Variant process planning follows the principle that
applied in some commercial software including CATIA, similar parts require similar plans. This technology is
Pro/Engineer, and UG [98, 178]. often used with group technology for coding and
The Monte Carlo method can be easily used for classification.
tolerance analysis [76, 98, 186, 200], but it was rarely used – Generative process planning utilizes decision logic,
in tolerance synthesis, as it is difficult to obtain derivatives formulae, manufacturing rules, and geometry-based

Table 3 Three-dimensional tolerance transfer methods

Small displacement torsor (SDT) and proportioned assembly clearance volume (PACV) [125, 215, 216, 235]
Technologically and topologically related surfaces model (TTRS) [56, 58]
Product data translator (PDT) approach [263]
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 879

data to develop a new plan for each part based on input can be modeled and captured in the detailed design stage.
about the part’s features and attributes. These features may involve a hierarchical relation tree to
associate the ideal functionality of a product to each
Beside the above classification, research can be catego-
individual assembly feature tolerance. Such an assembly
rized on the basis of their geometrical modeling (Fig. 6).
tolerance feature can be further broken down into a set of
Most research in this area is focused on optimization of
associated part GDT tolerance features that are required
process plans, although some other issues, such as
when specifying individual part tolerances. At both stages
knowledge and data management in CAPP, are important
of tolerance specification, tolerance propagation and syn-
topics [55]. Optimization techniques used in CAPP can be
thesis are to be involved and always part of the design task
categorized as:
for manufacturing aspect. The application of geometric and
– Knowledge-based reasoning [43, 250]. dimensional tolerance when a process plan is developed
– Graph theoretic approaches [19, 44, 105, 136, 223]. and the final inspection carried out requires the implemen-
– Heuristic algorithms [131, 132, 169]. tation and check of tolerance features with manufacturing
– Artificial intelligence, such as evolutionary or genetic tooling, processes, and measures.
algorithms, artificial neural network, fuzzy logic, expert Sheet metal feature definitions are as diverse as the
systems, and so on [6, 15, 44, 81, 119, 120, 130, 172]. general feature definitions discussed above. In order to
support design and process planning for sheet metal
4.1.1 The concept of features forming, sheet metal features highlight formability. Thus,
the following attributes define the sheet metal forming
The use of features originates in the reasoning processes to features of the part in design and process planning stage
associate domain knowledge with object representations by [modified from 214]: feature identifier, feature form,
natural means. Numerous feature definitions are used in material, dimensions associated with the feature, geometri-
CAD, computer-aided engineering (CAE), Computer-aided cal tolerance associated, primary working direction or die
process planning (CAPP), and CAM. At first, machining closure direction, positioning datum, and sheet metal
features were used to integrate CAPP and CAM packages forming method.
on a geometrical level. More recently, the feature concept
was expanded to relations between geometrical and non- 4.1.2 Associative features
geometrical entities. Historical definitions of features are
reviewed in Table 4. Associative features are a recently defined group of user-
Regardless of how features are defined, features can be defined, object-oriented, self-contained, and flexible seman-
considered as the smallest elements which possess explicit tic features [16]. They are proposed as classes to represent
engineering meaning. Therefore, features are suitable as a relations between different forms of non-geometrical and
link between life cycle stages. According to their applications geometrical entities depending on specific applications
in different stages, features can be classified for the following [143–147]. Based on object-oriented technology, those
engineering stages (modified from [33]): conceptual design, features that are difficult to be defined in a traditional
embodiment design, detailed design, assembly design, CAE, feature concept can be modeled parametrically and gener-
manufacturing, process planning, and inspection. ically. Associative features are consistent to model the
It can be envisaged that a new stream of feature evolvement of features in different stages of product life
technology is to be developed for geometric and dimen- cycle.
sional tolerance (GDT) applications. Such features are to be Figure 7 shows a sheet metal part that can be fully
identified and related to computer-aided tolerancing func- defined with some typical associative forming features.
tions. With them, systematic design tolerance specifications First, basic geometric features are defined as those primary
features or elemental plates which represent the overall
shape of a sheet metal part as the base for more detailed
shape definitions. In Fig. 7, the primary feature is the
S-plate. The primary features include plates, walls,
L-brackets, U-channels, curves, and boxes. Then, based
on the above primary features, subsidiary features can be
defined to represent those manufacturing-related feature
elements which represent localized characters of a sheet
metal part. Subsidiary features are modifications of the
basic features. Typical subsidiary features are bends,
Fig. 6 Research on process planning pierced holes, extruded holes, embosses, lancing forms,
880 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

Table 4 Definition of features

Definition of a feature Source

A region of interest in a part model [246]

Any geometric form or entity that is used in reasoning in one or more design or manufacturing activities [47]
Generic shapes associated to certain properties or attributes and knowledge useful in reasoning about the product [183, 185]
A partial form or a product characteristic that is considered as a unit and that has a semantic meaning in design, [245]
process planning, manufacture, cost estimation, or other engineering discipline
Regions of an object that are meaningful for a specific activity or application [229]
A representation of geometrical shape with a set of engineering attributes [25]
The representation of shape aspects of a physical product that are mappable to a generic shape and that have [184]
functional significance
A set of form elements with a functional meaning in a given application context that allows an association between shapes [153]
and functionality
A representation of shape aspects of a product that are mappable to a generic shape and functionally significant for some [16]
product life cycle phase

hems, beads, slots, bosses, ribs, and set-outs. In Fig. 7, the 4.1.3 Feature-based process planning
four bends and the hole are subsidiary features.
In addition, sheet metal forming resources, such as Feature-based process planning plays a crucial role in an
machining tools and fixtures, can be explicitly defined in integration effort of product life cycle. In feature-based
feature class as attributes or constraints. The associations process planning, machining features are recognized CAD
can be created by reasoning processes such as sequenc- model, and machining processes and their sequences are
ing, tool selection, gage selection, and fixture selection. A determined based on the features and other machining
potential feature-based sheet metal forming planning information.
system can be developed based on the relevant associa- With a feature-based hierarchical description of the part
tive feature theory and applications [33–36] because in design, process planning decisions are made based on
the above-listed references, associative concept design individual features or groups of features. A feature-based
features, detailed design features, and process planning approach allows one to automate or semi-automate the
features have been defined using a unified feature model. processes from design to manufacturing. A simple feature-
A prototype system was developed to demonstrate the based flexible process planning system is laid out in Fig. 8.
capability and feasibility of the proposed product model- A summary of recent research in this field is given in
ing scheme. Table 5.
Feature-based process planning was a hot research field
in recent years. Although many researchers focus on
developing CAPP systems [8, 9, 25, 37] or finding optimal
Bend 4
process planning procedures, more and more attention is
(Subsidiary feature) paid to the details of applying feature techniques on process
Bend 3 planning. For example, besides feature modeling and
(Subsidiary feature) recognition [5, 10], design by features approach is utilized
in feature conversion, composition, and de-composition [7,
12, 24, 47]. Association and integration of CAD/CAE/
CAM and CAPP [23, 25] are equally important topics, and
more attention is focused on optimization methods by AI
Bend 2
[13, 61, 108].
(Subsidiary feature)

4.2 Process planning in sheet metal forming

Hole
S-shaped Part (Subsidiary Feature) 4.2.1 Overview
(Primary feature)
Bend 1
(Subsidiary feature) In the 1990s, process planning for small batch part
manufacturing of sheet metal parts became a major research
Fig. 7 Examples of sheet metal part features area. Some researchers focus on computer-aided process
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 881

Fig. 8 Example of a simple

feature-based process planning
system

planning for sheet metal forming [136, 170, 227]. The sheet An integrated system presented in [239] for the design
metal manufacturing process comprises many complex and production of sheet metal parts identifies several bend
operations, which make it difficult to construct a compre- features: bend graph, internal tab, essential and optional
hensive CAPP system for all sheet metal parts. Being the collinear bend, outside/inside bend, taller flange, shorter/
most common operation of sheet metal forming, bending is longer bend, channel, corner, hemming bend, large-radius
one of the most researched topics in this field [72, 219]. bend, part overhang, louver, and dimple.
Other operations such as drawing or combined operations A fully automated experimental feature recognition
begin to gain more attention. Table 6 shows a survey of system for sheet metal forming process planning extracts
papers on CAPP of sheet metal forming. Only certain typical the sheet metal feature information from 2D orthographic
operations were selected for review, as too many sheet metal drawings to generate process plan without any user
forming methods exist to be listed comprehensively. interaction [197].
Other research is focused on the development of feature-
4.2.2 Feature-based process planning in sheet metal based process planning systems:
forming
– In the integrated modeling and process planning system
An early topic in this field is feature representation and developed by [40, 41, 45, 128] for planning bending
classification. In [49–54], a CAPP system is presented which operations of progressive dies, the geometrical bend
relies on a feature type referred to as connections. A mapping function for feature elements within individ-
connection is a design feature, typically a bend or a welded ual bends and the transformation matrix for connected
seam. A further division, the bend features in simple bends sub-bends are formulated.
and those with hemmed or curled edges, is discussed in [225]. – A prototype STEP-compliant process planning system
Basic sheet metal features are classified in [14] into walls, for sheet metal product development integrates soft-
bends, form features, cuts, punches, notches, and so on. ware modules for nesting optimization, path optimiza-

Table 5 Summary: features in process planning

Topic Source

Feature modeling and classification [8, 173, 226]

Roles of manufacturing features in process planning [228]
Feature recognition/extraction technique [5, 10, 24, 65, 94, 96, 109, 113, 115, 139, 154, 161, 174, 209, 252]
Feature-based CAPP system [9, 37, 38, 62, 64, 92, 111, 137, 140, 161, 242, 253, 258]
Integration of CAD/CAE/CAM and CAPP [33, 100, 224, 251]
Feature-based analysis of the manufacturability of machined parts [90]
Feature composition and decomposition [123, 124, 133, 210]
Feature-based process planning for environmentally conscious machining [205, 206]
Feature-based inspection process planning [13, 249, 261]
Optimization by AI and KBE techniques [61, 108, 141, 198, 199]
882 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

Table 6 Review on CAPP for sheet metal forming

All operations Bending Punching Drawing Blanking CAPP system Operation and tool selection Sequencing

[202] √ √ √
[97] √ √
[50] √ √ √
[207] √ √
[54] √ △ √
[168] √ √
[89] √ √ √ √
[40] √ √ √
[87] √ √
[191] √ √
[51] √ √ △
[142, 208] √ √
[219] √ √ √
[91] √ √
[112] √ √ √ △
[160] √ √
[103] √ √ √
[67] √ √
[201] √ √
[240] √ △ √ √
[45] √ △ √ √
[234] √ √ △ △
[44] √ √ √ √
[49] √ √
[204] √ √ △ △
[192] √ √
[74] √ √
[158] √ △ √
[52] √ √
[135] √ √ √
[68] √ √
[88] √ √ √
[41] √ √ √
[78] √ √
[7] √ √
[12] √ √ √
[110] √ √ △
[151] √ △ △
[220] √ √
[176] √ √
[156] √ √
[237] √ √ √ △
[23] √ △ √
[171] √ √ √
[81] √ √ √ √

Tick symbol discussed in detail, triangle touched on

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 883

tion and planning, simulation, and machining parame- – Statistical tolerancing approaches reflect actual part
ters set-up and CNC machining [254]. tolerances better than worst-case tolerancing. However,
– Another CAPP system based on feature technique they are utilized only for sheet metal assembly issues
addresses stamping processes for automobile panels [200] or size dimensions [79, 80, 93].
[262]. – Tolerance synthesis/allocation for sheet metal part
forming are seldom studied. Currently, research works
Feature-based sheet metal part stampability evaluation
are focused on sheet metal assembly [150, 188].
and stamping process planning approaches have been
studied in a two-part paper. The first part identifies the
aims and criteria of a stampability evaluation and formal-
izes the stampability evaluation knowledge [212]. The 6 Summary
second part presents a feature mapping system which
connects the stamping design feature space and the Even though process tolerances of individual sheet metal
stamping process feature space [213]. forming operations are well understood and the industry has
Opposed to traditional machining process planning, adopted geometric tolerances and dimensions via some
feature-based process planning for sheet metal forming is standards, the combinational theory and applications of
little represented in literature. Feature representation, tolerance stacks and the allocation of tolerances to individual
classification, recognition, and development of feature- operations are not mature. This discrepancy is mostly due to
based process planning systems are current research topics; insufficiencies of tolerance transfer methods—certain differ-
other characteristics of sheet metal forming processes are ences with assemblies and material removal methods make
unaddressed. the problem a unique challenge. Only a small number of
publications address geometric tolerances and, as compared
with metal removal processes or assemblies, they cover a
5 Tolerance transfer in sheet metal part forming limited scope and depth. We observed the following points:
– Insufficient coverage of operations. Although there
Tolerance transfer in process planning of sheet metal
have been numerous publications addressing CAPP for
part forming attracted only little attention in the past as
sheet metal, including systems, operation, tool selec-
shown in Table 7 according to available literature.
tion, and sequencing, more than half of the 46
Furthermore, all the references listed focus on bending
publications examined by the authors focus on bending
operations and raise or leave the following issues
operations only.
unaddressed:
– Limited integration to other computer solutions.
– Computer-aided tolerancing does not address processes Feature-based process planning considering sheet metal
including several operations of distinct nature, such as forming tolerancing, i.e., geometric tolerance feature
bending, punching, blanking, and deep-drawing. associations in the integrations of CAD, CAE, CAM,
– Machining errors and their causes and inter-dependencies and CAPP are only partially addressed.
are not characterized comprehensively as the sources of – More research work is required for tolerance transfer of
final error accumulation, although some of the errors are geometric dimensions. Only nine publications were
discussed in papers above. discovered by the authors.
– Only size-dimensional tolerances (using conventional – Geometric tolerance synthesis should be studied; no
worst-case models) are discussed in detail. publication has been found.

Table 7 Tolerance transfer in sheet metal part forming

Resource Size dimensional GD&T Tolerance Tolerance Worse Statistical Analytic Graphical
tolerance analysis synthesis case tolerancing

[52–54] √ △ √ √ √ △
[191] √ √ √ √ △
[79, 80, 93] √ √ √ √
[95] √ √ √ √
[12] √ √ √ √

Tick symbol discussed in detail, triangle touched on

884 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

References 23. Cattrysse D, Beullens P, Collin P et al (2006) Automatic

production planning of press brakes for sheet metal bending.
Int J Prod Res 44(20):4311–4327
1. Ahluwalia RS (2002) Tolerance analysis in process planning. Int 24. Chan AKW, Case K (1994) Process planning by recognizing and
J Ind Eng-Theory Appl Pract 9(4):334–342 learning machining features. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 7(2):77–
2. Ahmed M, Sekhon GS, Singh D (2005) Finite element 99
simulation of sheet metal forming processes. Def Sci J 55 25. Chan KC, Nhieu J (1993) A framework for feature-based
(4):389–401 applications. Comput Ind Eng 24(2):151–164
3. Akella S, Mason MT (2000) Orienting toleranced polygonal 26. Chan WM, Chew HI, Lee HP et al (2004) Finite element
parts. Int J Rob Res 19:1147–1170 analysis of spring-back of v-bending sheet metal forming
4. Alberti N, Fratini L (2004) Innovative sheet metal forming processes. J Mater Process Technol 148(1):15–24
processes: numerical simulations and experimental tests. J Mater 27. Chase KW (1999) Chapter 13—multi-dimensional tolerance
Process Technol 150(1–2):2–9 analysis, chapter 14—minimum-cost tolerance allocation. Dimen-
5. Aldakhilallah KA, Ramesh R (1997) Recognition of minimal sioning and tolerancing handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, In
feature covers of prismatic objects: a prelude to automated 28. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1995) General 2-D tolerance
process planning. Int J Prod Res 35(3):635–650 analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjust-
6. Allen RD, Harding JA, Newman ST (2005) The application of ments. J Des Manuf 5(4):263–274
STEP-NC using agent-based process planning. Int J Prod Res 43 29. Chase KW, Gao JS, Magleby SP et al (1996) Including
(4):655–670 geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical
7. Alva U, Gupta SK (2001) Automated design of sheet metal assemblies. IIE Transactions 28(10):795–807
punches for bending multiple parts in a single setup. Robot 30. Chase KW, Greenwood WH, Loosli BG et al (1989) Least cost
Comput Integr Manuf 17(1–2):33–47 tolerance allocation for mechanical assemblies with automated
8. Amaitik SM, Kilic SE (2005) STEP-based feature modeller for process selection. Manuf Rev, ASME 2(4):49–59
computer-aided process planning. Int J Prod Res 43(15):3087– 31. Chase KW, Magleby SP, Glancy CG (1997) A comprehensive
3101 system for computer-aided tolerance analysis of 2-D and 3-D
9. Amaitik SM, Kilic SE (2006) An intelligent process planning mechanical assemblies. In: Proceedings of the 5th CIRP Seminar
system for prismatic parts using STEP features. Int J Adv Manuf on Computer-Aided Tolerancing. Toronto, Ontario
Technol 31(9–10):978–993 32. Chase KW, Parkinson AR (1991) A survey of research in the
10. Ando K, Muljadi H, Ogawa M (2005) Manufacturing feature application of tolerance analysis to the design of mechanical
recognition method for the generation of multiple process plans. assemblies. Res Eng Des-Theory Appl Concurr Eng 3:23–
JSME Int J Series C-Mech Syst Mach Elem Manuf 48(2):269– 37
277 33. Chen G (2007) Unified feature model for the integration of CAD
11. Anselmetti B, Louati H (2005) Generation of manufacturing and CAx. PhD Thesis, Nanyang Technological University,
tolerancing with ISO standards. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 45 Singapore
(10):1124–1131 34. Chen G, Ma YS, Thimm G et al (2004) Unified feature modeling
12. Aomura S, Koguchi A (2002) Optimized bending sequences of scheme for the integration of CAD and CAx. Compr-Aided Des
sheet metal bending by robot. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 18 Appl 1(1–4):595–601
(1):29–39 35. Chen G, Ma YS, Thimm G et al (2005) Knowledge-based
13. Beg J, Shunmugam MS (2003) Application of fuzzy logic in the reasoning in a unified feature modeling scheme. Compr-Aided
selection of part orientation and probe orientation sequencing for Des Appl 2(1–4):173–182
prismatic parts. Int J Prod Res 41(12):2799–2815 36. Chen G, Ma YS, Thimm G et al (2006) Associations in a unified
14. Belarbia R, Belbehloul R, Marty C (1996) Hybrid feature feature modeling scheme. ASME Trans, J Comput Inf Sci Eng 6
recognition for sheet metal parts. In Proceedings of the 4th (2):114–126
International Conference on Sheet Metal. Enschede, pp 83–91 37. Chen YF, Huang ZD, Chen LP et al (2006) Parametric process
15. Berenji HR, Khoshnevis B (1986) Artificial intelligence in planning based on feature parameters of parts. Int J Adv Manuf
automated process planning. Comput Mech Eng 5(2):47–55 Technol 28(7–8):727–736
16. Bidarra R, Bronsvoort WF (2000) Semantic feature modeling. 38. Cherngm JG, Shao XY, Chen YB et al (1998) Feature-based part
Comput Aided Des 32(3):201–225 modeling and process planning for rapid response manufactur-
17. Bourdet P, Mathieu L, Lartigue C, Ballu A (1996) The concept ing. Comput Ind Eng 34(2):515–530
of the small displacement torsor in metrology. Adv Math Tools 39. Choi HGR, Park MH, Salisbury E (2000) Optimal tolerance
Metrol 40:110–122 allocation with loss functions. J Manuf Sci Eng: Trans ASME
18. Boyer M, Stewart NF (1991) Modelling spaces for toleranced 122(3):529–535
objects. Int J Rob Res 10:570–582 40. Choi JC, Kim BM, Kim C (1999) An automated progressive
19. Britton G, Thimm G, Beng TS et al (2002) A graph process planning and die design and working system for
representation scheme for process planning of machined parts. blanking or piercing and bending of a sheet metal product. Int
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20(6):429–438 J Adv Manuf Technol 15(7):485–497
20. Britton GA (2002) Datum-hierarchy tree method for tolerance 41. Choi JC, Kim C, Choi Y et al (2000) An integrated design and
analysis of plating and heat treatment operations. Int J Adv CAPP system for deep drawing or blanking products. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 20(6):442–447 Manuf Technol 16(11):803–813
21. Britton GA, Fok SC, Whybrew K (2001) A review of the 42. Choi SH, Chin KG (2006) Prediction of spring-back behavior in
evolution of a graph theoretic approach to computer aided high strength low carbon steel sheets. J Mater Process Technol
process planning. Int J Intell Autom Soft Comput 7(1):35–42 171(3):385–392
22. Britton GA, Whybrew K (1997) Chapter 17—CATCH: computer 43. Chu CCP, Gadh R (1996) Feature-based approach for set-up
aided tolerance charting. In: Advanced tolerancing techniques.. minimization of process design from product design. Comput-
Wiley, New York, pp 461–489 Aided Des 28:321–332
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 885

44. Chu CY, Tor SB, Britton GA (2007) Graph theoretic algorithm 65. Dong JJ, Parsaei HR, Gornet T (1993) Manufacturing features
for automatic operation sequencing for progressive die design. extraction and recognition in automated process planning.
Int J Prod Res 46(11):2965–2988 Comput Ind Eng 25(1–4):325–328
45. Ciurana J, Ferrer I, Gao JX (2006) Activity model and computer 66. Downey K, Parkinson AR, Chase KW (2003) An introduction to
aided system for defining sheet metal process planning. J Mater smart assemblies for robust design. Res Eng Des-Theory Appl
Process Technol 173(2):213–222 Concurr Eng 14(4):236–246
46. Creveling CM (1997) Tolerance design: a handbook for developing 67. Duou JR, Nguyen THM, Kruth JP et al (2005) Automated tool
optimal specifications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA selection for computer-aided process planning in sheet metal
47. Cunningham JJ, Dixon JR (1988) Designing with features: the bending. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol 54(1):451–454
origin of features. In: Proceedings of 1988 ASME International 68. Duou JR, Van Oudheusden D, Kruth JP et al (1999) Methods for
Computers in Engineering Conference. San Francisco, pp 237– the sequencing of sheet metal bending operations. Int J Prod Res
243 37(14):3185–3202
48. Cvetko R, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1998) New metrics for 69. Duou JR, Vancza J, Aerens R (2005) Computer aided process
evaluating Monte Carlo tolerance analysis of assemblies. In: planning for sheet metal bending: a state of the art. Comput Ind
Proceedings of the ASME International mechanical engineering 56(7):747–771
conference and exposition. Anaheim, CA 70. Feng CX, Kusiak A (2000) Robust tolerance synthesis with the
49. De Vin LJ, De Vries J, Streppel AH et al (1992) PART-S, a design of experiments approach. J Manuf Sci Eng: Trans ASME
CAPP system for small batch manufacturing of sheet metal 122(3):520–528
components. In: Proceedings of 24th CIRP Seminar on Manu- 71. Feng CX, Wang J, Wang JS (2001) An optimization model for
facturing Systems. Copenhagen, Denmark concurrent selection of tolerances and suppliers. Comput Ind Eng
50. De Vin LJ, De Vries J, Streppel AH et al (1994) The generation 40:15–33
of bending sequences in a CAPP system for sheet metal 72. Fleischer J (1992) Computer-aided process planning for the
components. J Mater Process Technol 41(3):331–339 flexible automated sheet metal bending. IFIP Trans B-Appl
51. De Vin LJ, De Vries J, Streppel T (2000) Process planning for Technol 1:417–428
small batch manufacturing of sheet metal parts. Int J Prod Res 38 73. Fortini ET (1967) Dimensioning for interchangeable manufac-
(17):4273–4283 ture. Industrial Press, New York
52. De Vin LJ, Streppel AH (1998) Tolerance reasoning and set-up 74. Franke V (1995) Automation of tool planning for bent
planning for brakeforming. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 14(5):336– components. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
342 on Sheet Metal, SHEMET 1995. Birmingham, UK, pp 35–44
53. De Vin LJ, Streppel AH, Kals HJJ (1994) Tolerancing and sheet 75. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1995) Comparison of
metal bending in small batch part manufacturing. Annals of the assembly tolerance analysis by the direct linearization and
CIRP 43(1):421–424 modified Monte Carlo simulation methods. In: Proceedings of
54. De Vin LJ, Streppel AH, Kals HJJ (1996) The accuracy aspect in the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences. Boston,
set-up determination for sheet bending. Int J Adv Manuf Technol MA, pp 353–360
11(3):179–185 76. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1996) A new Monte Carlo
55. Denkena B, Shpitalni M, Kowalski P et al (2007) Knowledge simulation method for tolerance analysis of kinematically con-
management in process planning. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol strained assemblies. Technical report, Mechanical Engineering
56(1):175–180 Department, Brigham Young University. Available at: http://
56. Desrochers A (2003) A CAD/CAM representation model adcats.et.byu.edu/Publication/doc4/paper4.html, accessed on
applied to tolerance transfer methods. J Mech Des 125(1):14– April 20, 2010.
22 77. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1998) Generalized 3-D
57. Desrochers A, Riviere A (1997) A matrix approach to the tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinemat-
representation of tolerance zones and clearances. Int J Adv ic adjustments. IIE Trans 30:367–377
Manuf Technol 13:630–636 78. Gao JX, Tang YS, Sharma R (2000) A feature model editor and
58. Desrochers A, Verheul S (1999) A three dimensional tolerance process planning system for sheet metal products. J Mater
transfer methodology. In: Global consistency of tolerances. Process Technol 107(1–3):88–95
Proceedings of the 6th CIRP International Seminar on 79. Geiger M, Hagenah H (1999) Evaluation of manufacturing plans
Computer-Aided Tolerancing, University of Twente. Enschede, in sheet metal bending with respect to the achievable workpiece
The Netherlands, pp 83–92 accuracy. Prod Eng VI(2):139–142
59. Di Stefano P (2006) Tolerances analysis and cost evaluation for 80. Geiger M, Hagenah H, Menzel T (2000) Simulation based
product life cycle. Int J Prod Res 44(10):1943–1961 optimisation of the accuracy of sheet metal bending parts caused
60. Diegel O (2002) The fine-art of sheet metal bending. Technical by the manufacturing plan. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CIRP
report, The Institute of Technology and Engineering, Massey International Seminar on Intelligent Computation in Manufac-
University. Available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/_odiegel/ turing Engineering (ICME 2000). Capri, Italy, pp 283–290
bendworks/bending.pdf 81. Giannakakis T, Vosniakos GC (2008) Sheet metal cutting and
61. Ding L, Yue Y, Ahmet K et al (2005) Global optimization of a piercing operations planning and tools configuration by an expert
feature-based process sequence using GA and ANN techniques. system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36(7–8):658–670
Int J Prod Res 43(15):3247–3272 82. Glancy CG, Chase KW (1999) A second-order method for
62. Dong J, Jo HH, Parsaei HR (1992) A feature-based dynamic asssembly tolerance analysis. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design
process planning and scheduling. Comput Ind Eng 23(1–4):141– Engineering Technical Conference. Las Vegas, NV, pp 12–15
144 83. Greenwood WH, Chase KW (1988) Worst case tolerance
63. Dong J, Shi Y (1997) Tolerance sensitivity analysis in a analysis with nonlinear problems. J Eng Ind: Trans ASME
variational design environment. Int J Veh Des 18(5):474–486 110:232–235
64. Dong JJ, Parsaei HR (1994) Design and implementation of a 84. Greenwood WH, Chase KW (1990) Root sum squares tolerance
feature-based automated process planning (FBAPP) system. analysis with nonlinear problems. J Eng Ind: Trans ASME
Comput Ind Eng 27(1–4):1–4 112:382–384
886 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

85. Groover MP (2001) Chapter 20: sheet metalworking, fundamen- 108. Joo J, Yi GR, Cho HB et al (2001) Dynamic planning model for
tals of modern manufacturing. In: Materials, processes, and determining cutting parameters using neural networks in feature-
systems, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York based process planning. J Intell Manuf 12(1):13–29
86. Guo YQ, Batoz JL, Naceur H et al (2000) Recent developments on 109. Joshi S, Chang TC (1990) Feature-extraction and feature based
the analysis and optimum design of sheet metal forming parts using design approaches in the development of design interface for
a simplified inverse approach. Comput Struct 78(1–3):133–148 process planning. J Intell Manuf 1(1):1–15
87. Gupta SK (1999) Sheet metal bending operation planning: using 110. Kang SS, Park DH (2002) Application of computer aided
virtual node generation to improve search efficiency. J Manuf process planning system for non-axisymmetric deep drawing
Syst 18(2):127–139 products. J Mater Process Technol 124(1–2):36–48
88. Gupta SK, Bourne DA (1999) Sheet metal bending: generating 111. Khoshnevis B, Sormaz DN, Park JY (1999) An integrated
shared setups. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME 121(4):689–694 process planning system using feature reasoning and space
89. Gupta SK, Bourne DA, Kim KH et al (1998) Automated process search-based optimization. IIE Trans 31(7):597–616
planning for sheet metal bending operations. J Manuf Syst 17 112. Kim C, Park YS, Kim JH et al (2002) A study on the
(5):338–360 development of computer-aided process planning system for
90. Gupta SK, Nau DS (1995) Systematic approach to analysing the electric product with bending and piercing operations. J Mater
manufacturability of machined parts. Comp Aided Des 27 Process Technol 130:626–631
(5):323–342 113. Kim IH, Cho KK (1994) Integration of feature recognition and
91. Gupta SK, Rajagopal D (2002) Sheet metal bending: forming process planning functions for turning operation. Comput Ind
part families for generating shared press-brake setups. J Manuf Eng 27(1–4):107–110
Syst 21(5):329–349 114. Kim SY, Choi WJ, Park SY (2007) Spring-back characteristics of
92. Gupta SK, Rao PN, Tewari NK (1992) Development of a CAPP fiber metal laminate (glare) in brake forming process. Int J Adv
system for prismatic parts using feature based design concepts. Manuf Technol 32(5–6):445–451
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 7:306–313 115. Kruth JP, VanZeir G, Detand J (1996) Extracting process
93. Hagenah H (2003) Simulation based evaluation of the accuracy planning information from various wire frame and feature based
for sheet metal bending caused by the bending stage plan. In: CAD systems. Comput Ind 30(2):145–162
Proceedings of the 36th CIRP Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, 116. Kurtaran H (2008) A novel approach for the prediction of bend
Progress in Virtual Manufacturing Systems. Saarbruecken, allowance in air bending and comparison with other methods. Int
Germany, pp 513–519 J Adv Manuf Technol 37(5–6):486–495
94. Han JW, Han IH, Lee E et al (2001) Manufacturing feature 117. Laperriere L, ElMaraghy HA (2000) Tolerance analysis and
recognition toward integration with process planning. IEEE synthesis using Jacobian transforms. Annals of the CIRP 49
Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 31(3):373–380 (1):359–362
95. Han TJ (2001) Tolerance analysis and charting of the sheet metal 118. Laperriere L, Kabore T (2001) Monte Carlo simulation of
punch and bending forming process. M.Sc. Thesis, Nanyang tolerance synthesis equations. Int J Prod Res 39(11):2395–2406
Technology University, Singapore 119. Lee DH, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2004) Iterative approach to
96. Herbert PJ, Hinde CJ, Bray AD et al (1990) Feature recognition operation selection and sequencing in process planning. Int J
within a truth maintained process planning system. Int J Comput Prod Res 42(22):4745–4766
Integr Manuf 3(2):121–132 120. Lee H, Kim SS (2001) Integration of process planning and
97. Homann M, Geissler U, Geiger M (1992) Computer aided scheduling using simulation based genetic algorithms. Int J Adv
generation of bending sequences for die-bending machines. J Manuf Technol 18(8):586–590
Mater Process Technol 30(1):1–12 121. Lee J, Johnson GE (1993) Optimal tolerance allotment using a
98. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of genetic algorithm and truncated Monte Carlo simulation.
tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):2425–2459 Comput-Aided Des 25(9):601–611
99. Hosford WF, Duncan JL (1999) Sheet metal forming: a review. 122. Lee J, Lee Y, Kim H (2005) Decision of error tolerance in array
JOM-J Miner, Met Mater Soc 51(11):39–44 element by the Monte Carlo method. IEEE Trans Antennas
100. Hou M, Faddis TN (2005) Automatic tool path generation of a Propag 53(4):1325–1331
feature-based CAD/CAPP/CAM integrated system. Int J Comput 123. Lee YS, Daftari D (1996) Feature-composition approach to
Integr Manuf 19(4):350–358 planning and machining of generic virtual pockets. Comput Ind
101. Hsu CW, Ulsoy AG, Demeri MY (2002) Development of 31(2):99–128
process control in sheet metal forming. J Mater Process Technol 124. Lee YS, Daftari D (1997) Process planning and machining of
127(3):361–368 generic virtual pockets by feature-composition approach. Com-
102. Huang SH, Liu Q, Musa R (2004) Tolerance-based process plan put Ind Eng 33(1–2):409–412
evaluation using Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Prod Res 42 125. Lego O, Villeneuve F, Bourdet P (1999) Geometrical tolerancing
(23):4871–4891 in process planning: a tri-dimensional approach. Proc Inst Mech
103. Huang SH, Automatic NXu (2003) Set-up planning for metal Eng: J Eng Manuf D Proc Part B 213:635–640
cutting: an integrated methodology. Int J Prod Res 41(18):4339– 126. Lehtihet EA, Ranade S, Dewan P (2000) Comparative evaluation of
4356 tolerance control chart models. Int J Prod Res 38(7):1539–1556
104. Huang YM, Shiau CS (2006) Optimal tolerance allocation for a 127. Li B, Roy U (2001) Relative positioning of toleranced
sliding vane compressor. J Mech Des 128(1):98–107 polyhedral parts in an assembly. IIE Trans 33(4):323–336
105. Irani SA, Koo HY, Raman S (1995) Feature-based operation 128. Li JY, Nee AYC, Cheok BT (2002) Integrated feature-based
sequence generation in CAPP. Int J Prod Res 33(1):17–39 modelling and process planning of bending operations in progres-
106. Ji P, Xue JB (2002) Extending the algebraic method to identify sive die design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20(12):883–895
dimensional chains for angular tolerance charting. Int J Prod Res 129. Li KP, Carden WP, Wagoner RH (2002) Simulation of spring-
40(7):1597–1612 back. Int J Mech Sci 44(1):103–122
107. Ji P, Xue JB (2006) CCATA—a computer-aided angular 130. Li W, Bai G, Zhang C et al (2000) Optimization of machining
tolerance charting system. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B-J Eng datum selection and machining tolerance allocation with genetic
Manuf 220(6):883–892 algorithm. Int J Prod Res 38(6):1407–1424
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 887

131. Li WD (2005) A web-based service for distributed process mediate modeler in a distributed object-oriented system environ-
planning optimization. Comput Ind 56(3):272–288 ment. Comput Aided Des 30(6):437–452
132. Li WD, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2002) Hybrid genetic algorithm and 154. McCormack AD, Ibrahim RN (2002) Process planning using
simulated annealing approach for the optimization of process adjacency-based feature extraction. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20
plans for prismatic parts. Int J Prod Res 40(8):1899–1922 (11):817–823
133. Lin AC, Lin SY (1998) A volume decomposition approach to 155. Namboothiri VNN, Shunmugam MS (1998) Function-oriented
process planning for prismatic parts with depression and protrusion form evaluation of engineering surfaces. Precis Eng 22(2):98–109
design features. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 11(6):548–563 156. Nguyen THM, Duou JR, Kruthc JP (2005) A framework for
134. Lin CY, Huang WH, Jeng MC et al (1997) Study of an assembly automatic tool selection in integrated CAPP for sheet metal
tolerance allocation model based Monte Carlo simulation. J bending. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Mater Process Technol 70(1–3):9–16 Sheet Metal, SHEMET 2005. Erlangen, Germany
135. Lin ZC, Chang YC (1998) Determination of sash bending 157. Oh SC, Kim IH, Cho KK (2003) A method for automatic
procedures and selection of bending tools. Int J Comput Integr tolerance charting in a process planning. Int J Ind Eng—Theory
Manuf 11(3):241–254 Appl Pract 10(4):400–406
136. Lin ZC, Horng JT (1998) Sheet metal products: database in 158. Ong SK, De Vin LJ, Nee AYC, Kals HJJ (1997) Fuzzy set theory
support of their process planning and surface development. Int J applied to bend sequencing for sheet metal bending. J Mater
Comput Integr Manuf 11(6):524–533 Process Technol 69(1–3):29–36
137. Liou FW, Suen DJ (1992) The development of a feature-based 159. Parente MPL, Valente RAF, Jorge RMN et al (2006) Sheet metal
fixture process planning system for flexible assembly. J Manuf forming simulation using EAS solidshell finite elements. Finite
Syst 11(2):102–113 Elem Anal Des 42(13):1137–1149
138. Lipson H, Shpitalni M (1998) On the topology of sheet metal 160. Park DH, Kang SS, Park SB (2002) A surface area calculation
parts. J Mech Des 120(1):10–16 and CAPP system for non-axisymmetric deep drawing products.
139. Liu SC, Gonzalez M, Chen JG (1996) Development of an Int J Adv Manuf Technol 20(1):31–38
automatic part feature extraction and classification system taking 161. Patil L, Pande SS (2002) An intelligent feature-based process
CAD data as input. Comput Ind 29(3):137–150 planning system for prismatic parts. Int J Prod Res 40(17):4431–
140. Liu XD (2000) CFACA: component framework for feature- 4447
based design and process planning. Comput Aided Des 32 162. Pearce E, Parkinson AR, Chase KW (2004) Tolerance analysis
(7):397–408 and design of nesting forces for exactly constrained mechanical
141. Liu ZK, Wang LH (2007) Sequencing of interacting prismatic assemblies. Res Eng Des-Theory Appl Concurr Eng 15(3):182–
machining features for process planning. Comput Ind 58(4):295– 191
303 163. Portman VT (1995) Modelling spatial dimensional chains for
142. Lutters D, ten Brinke E, Streppel AH et al (2000) Computer CAD/CAM applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Design
aided process planning for sheet metal based on information Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, pp 71–85
management. J Mater Process Technol 103(1):120–127 164. Portman VT (1995) Modelling spatial dimensional chains for CAD/
143. Ma YS, Britton GA, Tor SB et al (2004) Design of an feature- CAM applications. In: Proceedings of the 4th CIRP Design
object-based mechanical assembly library. Comput-Aided Des Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing. Tokyo, Japan, pp 71–85
Appl 1(1–4):397–403 165. Portman VT, Shuster VG (1987) Computerized synthesis of a
144. Ma YS, Tang SH, Chen G (2007) A fine-grain and feature- theoretical model of a three-plane dimension chain. Sov Eng Res
oriented product database for collaborative engineering. In: 7:57–60
Collaborative product design & manufacturing methodologies 166. Prabhaharan G, Asokan P, Rajendran S (2005) Sensitivity-based
and applications. Springer, England, pp 109–136 conceptual design and tolerance allocation using the continuous
145. Ma YS, Tong T (2003) Associative feature modeling for ants colony algorithm (CACO). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25(5–
concurrent engineering integration. Comput Ind 51(1):51–71 6):516–526
146. Ma YS, Tong T (2004) An object oriented design tool for 167. Prabhaharan G, Asokan P, Ramesh P (2004) Genetic algorithm-
associative cooling channels in plastic injection mold. Int J Adv based optimal tolerance allocation using a least-cost model. Int J
Manuf Technol 23:79–86 Adv Manuf Technol 24(9–10):647–660
147. Ma YS, Tor SB, Britton GA (2003) The development of a 168. Radin B, Shipitalni M, Hartman I (1997) Two-stage algorithm
standard component library for plastic injection mould design for determination of the bending sequence in sheet metal
using an object oriented approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 22 products. J Mech Des 119:259–266
(9–10):611–618 169. Raman R, Marefat MM (2004) Integrated process planning using
148. Mackerle J (2004) Finite element analyses and simulations of tool/process capabilities and heuristic search. J Intell Manuf 15
sheet metal forming processes. Eng Comput 21(7–8):891–940 (2):141–174
149. Makinouchi A (1996) Sheet metal forming simulation in 170. Ramana KV, Rao PVM (2004) Data and knowledge modeling
industry. J Mater Process Technol 60(1–4):19–26 for design-process planning integration of sheet metal compo-
150. Manarvi IA, Juster NP (2004) Framework of an integrated nents. J Intell Manuf 15(5):607–623
tolerance synthesis model and using FE simulation as a virtual 171. Rao YQ, Huang G, Li PG et al (2007) An integrated
tool for tolerance allocation in assembly design. J Mater Process manufacturing information system for mass sheet metal cutting.
Technol 150(1–2):182–193 Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(5–6):436–448
151. Markus A, Vancza J, Kovacs A (2002) Constraint-based process 172. Reddy SVB, Shunmugam MS, Narendran TT (1999) Operation
planning in sheet metal bending. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol sequencing in CAPP using genetic algorithms. Int J Prod Res 37
51(1):425–428 (5):1063–1074
152. Marri HB, Gunasekaran A, Grieve RJ (1998) Computer-aided 173. Regli WC, Gupta SK, Nau DS (1995) Extracting alternative
process planning: a state of art. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 14 machining features: an algorithmic approach. Res Eng Des-
(4):261–268 Theory Appl Concurr Eng 7(3):173–192
153. Martino TD, Falcidieno B, Hassinger S (1998) Design and 174. Regli WC, Gupta SK, Nau DS (1997) Towards multiprocessor
engineering process integration through a multiple view inter- feature recognition. Comput Aided Des 29(1):37–51
888 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889

175. Requicha AAG (1993) Mathematical definitions of tolerance 200. Singh PK, Jain SC, Jain PK (2003) Tolerance analysis of
specifications. Manuf Rev 6(4):269–274 mechanical assemblies using Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Ind
176. Rico JC, Gonzalez JM, Mateos S et al (2003) Automatic Eng - Appl Pract 10(2):188–196
determination of bending sequences for sheet metal parts with 201. Singh R, Sekhon GS (2005) PROPLAN: an expert system for
parallel bends. Int J Prod Res 41(14):3273–3299 optimal planning of sheet metal operations. J Mater Process
177. Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo statistical methods. Technol 166(2):307–312
Springer Verlag, New York 202. Sitaraman SK, Kinzel GL, Altan T (1991) A knowledge-based
178. Roy U, Liu CR, Woo TC (1991) Review of dimensioning and system for process sequence design in axisymmetrcal sheet metal
tolerancing: representation and processing. CAD-Comput-Aided forming. J Mater Process Technol 25(3):247–271
Des 23:466–483 203. Skowronski VJ, Turner JU (1997) Using Monte Carlo variance
179. Samuel GL, Shunmugam MS (1999) Evaluation of straightness reduction in statistical tolerance synthesis. CAD—Comput-
and flatness error using computational geometric techniques. Aided Des 29(1):63–69
CAD-Comput-Aided Des 31(13):829–843 204. Smith JS, Cohen PH, Davis JW et al (1992) Process plan
180. Samuel GL, Shunmugam MS (2003) Evaluation of circularity generation for sheet metal parts using an integrated feature-based
and sphericity from coordinate measurement data. J Mater expert system approach. Int J Prod Res 30(5):1175–1190
Process Technol 139(1–3):90–95 205. Srinivasan M, Sheng P (1999) Feature-based process planning
181. Schuler GmbH (1998) Metal forming handbook. Springer- for environmentally conscious machining—part 1. Microplan-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg ning. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 15(3):257–270
182. Seo HS, Kwak BM (2002) Efficient statistical tolerance analysis 206. Srinivasan M, Sheng P (1999) Feature-based process planning
for general distributions using three-point information. Int J Prod for environmentally conscious machining—part 2. Macroplan-
Res 40(4):931–944 ning. Robot Comput-Integr Manuf 15(3):271–281
183. Shah JJ (1991) Conceptual development of form features and 207. Streppel AH, Kals HJJ (1994) Planning of activities, resources
feature modelers. Res Eng Des 2(2):93–108 and technology for sheet metal components: PART-S. In:
184. Shah JJ, Maentylae M (1995) Parametric and feature based Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automation
CAD/CAM. Wiley, New York Technology (Automation 94), Taipei, pp 193–200
185. Shah JJ, Rogers MT (1988) Functional requirements and 208. Streppel T, Lutters E, ten Brinke E et al (2000) Process planning
conceptual design of the feature-based modeling system. J for sheet metal parts based on information management. Int J
Comput-Aided Eng 5(1):9–15 Prod Res 38(18):4701–4716
186. Shan A, Roth RN, Wilson RJ (1999) A new approach to 209. Subrahmanyam S, Wozny M (1995) An overview of automatic
statistical geometrical tolerance analysis. Int J Adv Manuf feature-recognition techniques for computer-aided process plan-
Technol 15(3):222–230 ning. Comput Ind 26(1):1–21
187. Shiu BW, Apley DW, Ceglarek D et al (2003) Tolerance 210. Sun GP, Sequin CH, Wright PK (2001) Operation decomposition
allocation for compliant beam structure assemblies. IIE Trans for free form surface features in process planning. Comput Aided
35(4):329–342 Des 33(9):621–636
188. Shiu BW, Li B, Fu XY et al (2002) Tolerance allocation of sheet 211. Taguchi G, Elsayed EA, Hsiang T (1989) Quality engineering in
metal assembly using a finite element model. JSME Int J Ser C— production systems. McGraw-Hill, New York
Mech Syst Mach Elem Manuf 45(1):258–266 212. Tang DB, Gao BH (2007) Feature-based metal stamping part and
189. Shpitalni M (1993) New concept for design of sheet metal process design. Part I: stampability evaluation. Int J Prod Res 45
products. CIRP Annals-Manuf Technol 42(1):123–126 (12):2673–2695
190. Shpitalni M, Lipson H (2000) 3D conceptual design of sheet 213. Tang DB, Gao BH (2007) Feature-based metal stamping part and
metal products by sketching. J Mater Process Technol 103 process design. Part II: stamping process planning. Int J Prod
(1):128–134 Res 45(13):2997–3015
191. Shpitalni M, Radin B (1999) Critical tolerance oriented 214. Tang DB, Zheng L, Li ZZ (2001) An intelligent feature based
process planning in sheet metal bending. J Mech Des 121 design for stamping system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:193–200
(1):136–144 215. Teissandier D, Couetard Y, Gerard A (1998) Three dimensional
192. Shpitalni M, Saddan D (1994) Automatic determination of functional tolerancing with proportioned assemblies clearance
bending sequence in sheet metal products. CIRP Annals-Manuf volume: application to setup planning. In: Geometric design
Technol 43(1):23–26 tolerancing: theories, standards and applications. Proceedings of
193. Shunmugam MS (1986) On assessment of geometric errors. Int J the 5th CIRP Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing. Toronto,
Prod Res 24(2):413–425 Canada, pp 171–182
194. Shunmugam MS (1987) New approach for evaluation form errors 216. Teissandier D, Couetard Y, Gerard A (1999) A computer aided
of engineering surfaces. Comput Aided Des 19(7):368–374 tolerancing model: proportioned assembly clearance volume.
195. Shunmugam MS (1988) Assessment of errors in geometrical Comput-aided Des 31(13):805–817
relations. Wear 128(2):179–188 217. Tekaslan O, Gerger N, Seker U (2008) Determination of spring-
196. Shunmugam MS (1991) Criteria for computer-aided form back of stainless steel sheet metal in “V" bending dies. Mater
evaluation. J Eng Ind, trans ASME 113(2):233–238 Des 29(2):1043–1050
197. Shunmugam MS, Kannan TR, Patel SV (2002) Feature recog- 218. Tekkaya AE (2000) State-of-the-art of simulation of sheet metal
nition from orthographic drawings for sheet metal components. forming. J Mater Process Technol 103(1):14–22
Int J Ind Eng - Appl Pract 9(4):408–417 219. Thanapandi CM, Walairacht A, Ohara S (2001) Multicomponent
198. Shunmugam MS, Mahesh P, Reddy SVB (2002) A method of genetic algorithm for generating best bending sequence and tool
preliminary planning for rotational components with c-axis selection in sheet metal parts. In: Proceedings of IEEE
features using genetic algorithm. Comput Ind 48(3):199–217 International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1, pp
199. Singh DKJ, Jebaraj C (2005) Feature-based design for process 830–835
planning of machining processes with optimization using genetic 220. Thanapandi CM, Walairacht A, Periasamy T et al (2002)
algorithms. Int J Prod Res 43(18):3855–3887 Preprocessor to improve performance of GA in determining
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2010) 51:871–889 889

bending process for sheet metal industry. In: Lecture notes in 241. Wang H-P, Li J-K (1991) Computer-aided process planning.
artificial intelligence, 2366. Springer, pp 362–373 Elsevier Science Publisher, The Netherlands
221. Thimm G, Britton GA, Fok SC (2004) A graph theoretic 242. Wang L, Jin W, Feng HY (2006) Embedding machining features
approach linking design dimensioning and process planning. in function blocks for distributed process planning. Int J Comput
Part 1: designing to process planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol Integr Manuf 19(5):443–452
24(3–4):261–271 243. Wang LF, Chen ZY, Li CX et al (2006) Numerical simulation of
222. Thimm G, Britton GA, Fok SC (2004) A graph theoretic the electromagnetic sheet metal bulging process. Int J Adv
approach linking design dimensioning and process planning. Manuf Technol 30(5–6):395–400
Part 2: design heuristics for rotational parts. Int J Adv Manuf 244. Wang Y, Zhai WJ, Yang LP et al (2007) Study on the tolerance
Technol 24(3–4):272–278 allocation optimization by fuzzy-set weight center evaluation
223. Thimm G, Britton GA, Whybrew K (2001) Optimal process method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(3–4):317–322
plans for manufacturing and tolerance charting. Proc Inst Mech 245. Wierda LS (1990) Design-oriented cost information: the need
Eng, Part B, J Eng Manuf 215(B8):1099–1105 and the possibilities. J Eng Des 1(2):147–167
224. Torvinen SJ, Salminen K, Vasek L (1991) Integration of a CIM 246. Wilson PR, Pratt PR (1988) A taxonomy of features for solid
tool management system to an intelligent feature-based process modeling. Geometric modeling for CAD applications. Elsevier
planning system. Comput ind 17(2–3):207–216 Science Publishers, The Netherlands, In
225. Trappey AJC, Lai CS (1995) A data representation scheme for 247. Wirtz A (1991) Vectorial tolerancing: a basic element for quality
sheet metal parts: expressing manufacturing features and control. In: Computer-aided tolerancing: Proceedings of CIRP
tolerance requirements. J Manuf Syst 14(6):393–405 Seminars. Penn State, USA, pp 115–127
226. Tsang JP, Brissaud D (1989) A feature-based approach to process 248. Wittwer JW, Chase KW, Howell LL (2004) The direct
planning. In: Proceedings of ASME Computers in Engineering linearization method applied to position error in kinematic
Conference 1, pp 419–430 linkages. Mech Mach Theory 39(7):681–693
227. Uzsoy R, Ramcharan DJ, Martinvega LA (1991) An experimen- 249. Wong FSY, Chuah KB, Venuvinod PK (2006) Automated
tal expert system for process planning of sheet metal parts. inspection process planning: algorithmic inspection feature
Comput Ind Eng 20(1):59–69 recognition, and inspection case representation for CB. Robot
228. Vancza J, Markus A (1993) Features and the principle of locality Comput-Integr Manuf 22(1):56–68
in process planning. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 6(1–2):126–136 250. Wong TN, Siu SL (1995) A knowledge-based approach to
229. Vandenbrande JH, Requicha AAG (1993) Spatial reasoning for automated machining process selection and sequencing. Int J
the automatic recognition of machinable features in solid models. Prod Res 33:3465–3484
IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 15(12):1269–1285 251. Wong TN, Wong KW (1995) A feature-based design system for
230. Varghese P, Braswell RN, Wang B et al (1996) Statistical computer aided process planning. J Mater Process Technol 52
tolerance analysis using FRPDF and numerical convolution. (1):122–132
Comput Aided Des 28(9):723–732 252. Woo Y, Wang E, Kim YS et al (2005) A hybrid feature
231. Varghese P, Zhang C, Wang HP (1996) Geometric tolerance recognizer for machining process planning systems. CIRP
analysis with vectorial tolerancing. Eng Des Autom 2:127–139 Annals - Manuf Technol 54(1):397–400
232. Venkaiah N, Shunmugam MS (2007) Evaluation of form data 253. Xiang W, Chuen CW, Wong CM et al (2002) A generative
using computational geometric techniques. Part I: circularity feature-based CAPP/CNC system for hydraulic manifold blocks.
error. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(7–8):1229–1236 Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19(11):805–811
233. Venkaiah N, Shunmugam MS (2007) Evaluation of form data 254. Xie SQ, Xu X (2006) A STEP-compliant process planning system
using computational geometric techniques. Part II: cylindricity for sheet metal parts. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 19(6):627–638
error. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 47(7–8):1237–1245 255. Xue JB, Ji P (2004) Process tolerance allocation in angular
234. Verlinden B, Cattrysse D, Van Oudheusden D (2007) Integrated tolerance charting. Int J Prod Res 42(18):3929–3945
sheet-metal production planning for laser cutting and bending. 256. Xue JB, Ji P (2005) Tolerance charting for components with both
Int J Prod Res 45(2):369–383 angular and square shoulder features. IIE Trans 37(9):815–825
235. Villeneuve F, Lego O, Landon Y (2001) Tolerancing for 257. Yamashita M, Hattori T, Nishimura N (2007) Numerical
manufacturing: a three-dimensional model. Int J Prod Res 39 simulation of sheet metal drawing by Maslennikov’s technique.
(8):1625–1648 J Mater Process Technol 187:192–196
236. Villeneuve F, Vignat F (2003) 3D synthesis of manufacturing 258. Yang YN, Parsaei HR, Leep HR (2001) A prototype of a feature-
tolerances using a sdt approach. In: The Eighth CIRP Interna- based multiple-alternative process planning system with sched-
tional Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing. Charlotte, North uling verification. Comput Ind Eng 39(1–2):109–124
Carolina, pp 279–290 259. Zhang C, Luo J, Wang B (1999) Statistical tolerance synthesis using
237. Vosniakos GC, Segredou I, Giannakakis T (2005) Logic distribution function zones. Int J Prod Res 37(17):3995–4006
programming for process planning in the domain of sheet metal 260. Zhang HC, Huang SH, Mei J (1996) Operational dimensioning
forming with progressive dies. J Intell Manuf 16(4–5):479–497 and tolerancing in process planning: setup planning. Int J Prod
238. Wagener HW (1997) New developments in sheet metal forming: Res 34(7):1841–1858
sheet materials, tools and machinery. J Mater Process Technol 72 261. Zhang SG, Ajmal A, Wootton J et al (2000) A feature-based
(3):342–357 inspection process planning system for coordinate measuring
239. Wang CH, Bourne DA (1997) Design and manufacturing of machine (CMM). J Mater Process Technol 107(1–3):111–118
sheet-metal parts: using features to add process planning and 262. Zheng JQ, Wang YL, Li ZG (2007) KBE-based stamping
resolve manufacturability problems. Robot Comput Integr Manuf process paths generated for automobile panels. Int J Adv Manuf
13(3):281–294 Technol 31(7–8):663–672
240. Wang GG, Xie SQ (2005) Optimal process planning for a 263. Zhou F, Kuo TC, Huang SH et al (2002) Form feature and
combined punch-and-laser cutting machine using ant colony tolerance transfer from a 3D model to a setup planning system.
optimization. Int J Prod Res 43(11):2195–2216 Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19(2):88–96