Process planning formalization in an AI framework

Sanjay Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu

School of Industrial Engineerin#, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

This paper discusses the process planning problem with a view to automate its solution methods.
The problem is formulated using AI techniques. The basic issues involved in modelling the process
planning problem are discussed. A hierarchical planning structure is proposed, in which the
highest level is a simplification or abstraction of the plan and the lowest is a detailed plan, sufficient
to solve the problem.
States in the problem can be modelled using the CAD representation schemes, such as
Constructive Solid Geometry and Boundary Representation. The advantages and disadvantages
of these schemes are discussed. Operators which correspond physically to material removal are
also modelled using the same representation scheme. The design of a control strategy is discussed.

Key Words: process planning, artificial intelligence, CAD, CAM, solid modelling, hierarchical
planning

1. INTRODUCTION This paper is divided into six sections. Section two

introduces the problem solving techniques in AI. Section
In the area of manufacturing, process planning involves
three gives an overview of Process Planning problem.
the act of preparing a detailed plan for production of a
Existing Computer-Aided Processing Planning (CAPP)
piece part or assembly. The detailed plan contains the
systems are reviewed in Section four. Section five
route, process, process parameters, machines and tools
discusses the proposed AI framework for process
required for production. Process Planning is important in
planning; issues in representations and control strategy
two aspects 1. First it is essential for production; and
are discussed. In the last section a brief summary is given.
second, it determines the efficiency of production.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods and principles
provide problem solving techniques which can be used 2. PROBLEM SOLVING IN AI
over a broad spectrum of problem types. Some of these AI
Most of the AI systems show a separation between the
methods exploit knowledge about the problem domain,
standard computational components of data, operations,
and provide some degree of independence between
and control. A production system involves a clean
problem and problem solving techniques2; these AI
separation of these computational components. In
methods are commonly referred to as strong problem
general, the problems in a production system formalism
solvers or knowledge-based systems.
can be represented by the following:
The process of preparing a process plan is mostly
experience based. For example, it is not apparent to 1. an initial state;
everyone what is involved in manufacturing a turbine 2. a goal state;
blade. The interpretation of the engineering drawing, the 3. a set of operators; and
selection of appropriate tools, fixtures and machining 4. a control structure.
parameters, etc., can not be easily modelled mathe-
Transforming the problem statement into components
matically. Many of the decision making rules are based on
of a production system is called the representation
long term experience in manufacturing. Such properties
problem. Usually there are several ways to represent the
make process planning a natural problem for using AI
problem. Virtually any kind of data structure can be used
techniques.
to describe the states. These include symbol strings
This paper discusses some of the available techniques j,n
vectors, sets, arrays, trees, frames and lists. Sometimes the
AI which can be used to model the Process Planning
form of data structure bears close resemblance to some
problem formally. The basic issues involved are discussed
physical property of the problem being solved.
and the proposed framework is explained. An analogy is
One of the frequently used methods used to solve
made between the AI planning systems and the Process
problems in AI is the theorem proving technique 3. Using
Planning system and the similarities discussed.
this technique, we can proceed from the initial state to the
goal state. Proving that the goal state can be reached from
This work was supported,in part by the NationalScienceFoundation the initial state will involve application of operators,
under an EngineeringResearch Center grant #CDR8500022, and a thereby providing a solution to the problem. The
Purdue UniversityDavid RossGrant. application of operators moves the problem from one
AcceptedJanuary 1986.DiscussionclosesSeptember 1986. state to another finally the terminating state. It can either

0267-9264/86/010045-0952_00
© 1986Computational MechanicsPublications Artificial Intelligence, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1 45
Process planning formalization." S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
move from the initial state to the goal state (forward
chaining) or from the goal state to the initial state
(backward chaining).
Several planning systems have been developed by AI
researchers. For example, in STRIPS 4 a robot problem
solver, the concern is to generate a sequence of moves for
the robot to perform a task, given the task, initial
conditions, etc. Most planning systems [STRIPS, etc.]
divide the problems that need to be solved into smaller
pieces and solve these pieces separately. The separate
pieces must then be combined to form a single consistent
solution to the original problem. This is known as the
decomposition approach. Decomposition can make
solution of hard problems easier by division of a single
problem into several, hopefully easier, subproblems. If
this is not possible then the problem should be divided
into subproblems that have only a small amount of
interaction.
For example, consider moving the furniture out of a
room 2. The problem can be decomposed into a set of
smaller easier problems, each involving removing one
piece of furniture out of the room. Within each of these
subproblems, considerations such as removing drawers
can be added separately for each furniture. But if there is a
bookcase behind a couch, then we must move the couch
before we can move the bookcase. These problems are
called nearly decomposable problems.
Many robot planning systems use the GPS
(Generalized Problem Solver) method to generate plans 4.
This process attempts to calculate a difference between
the initial state and final state. The difference obtaining
process is performed by a function that is specific for each
domain of application. The next step in the process
involves selection of an operator so as to reduce the
difference. GPS works recursively on the preconditions
for the operators and when these are satisfied, the
operator is applied to the current state description and the
process continued. Means end analysis is the process of
identifying the differences and selecting operators to
reduce them.
Recursively this can be represented as:
generate plan for part ( );
until Si = St
do
generate difference between Si and Sr
select an operator to reduce the difference
check if operator preconditions are satisfied
generate plan for subproblem ( )
update the sate
end.
where
Si = initial state; and St= final state.
Several AI techniques which are applicable to planning
problems are briefly introduced in this section. Their
application to process planning will be discussed irr
section five. Before the details are discussed, we will first
review current process planning approaches.
3. OVERVIEW OF PROCESS PLANNING
In developing the factory of the future, automated
planning has a vital role to play. The two approaches
traditionally used for process planning are the variant
approach and the generative approach.
d~ Arti6ri~! l.tolllnpnra !0~6 Vnl I Na ./
3.1 Variant process planning
The variant approach to process planning is based
upon the concept of group technology. The parts are
grouped into families and a coding system used to
distinguish each part family. Standard process plans are
created and stored permanently in the database with the
family number as the key. The process planner's job is
then to code each part, classify it into a family, retrieve the
standard plan, and modify it for a particular part. The
computer assists by providing an efficient system for data
management retrieval, editing and high speed printing
process plans.
Variant process planning systems are best for a
moderate number of families each possessing many family
members. In most batch manufacturing systems where
similar components are produced, variant systems can
improve planning. Other advantages of variant systems
are that a variety ofcomponents can be planned using the
standard plan once it has been created. Simple
programming is required to create a variant system and
implementation is easy. However, the variant approach is
not without its limitations and disadvantages.
Experienced process planners are required to construct,
maintain, modify, and constantly edit standard process
plan for specific components. It cannot be used in an
entirely automated manufacturing system where
decisions have to be made on line when routings are
interrupted.
3.2 Generative process planning
Generative process planning can be defined as a system
which synthesizes a process plan for new components
automatically. It envisions creating a process plan from
the information available in a manufacturing database
without human intervention. It utilizes a computerized
system consisting of decision logic, formulae, algorithms
and geometry based data to uniquely determine the
processing decision for converting a part from rough to
finished state. Unlike the variant approach, no standard
plans are predefined or stored.
A generative process planning system has two major
components. The first component is a geometry based
input scheme for translating the parts physical features
and specifications into computer interpretable format.
Most existing systems use a coding scheme or part
description languages. The second component is the
software comprised of decision logic to imitate a process
planner, and compare the part geometry to
manufacturing capabilities and availabilities of tools and
machines. Decisions on process selection, machine
selection, cut planning, and calculating set up and cycle
times for each operation are performed automatically. By
making use of decision logic, the process planning
decision making process can be imitated. Decisions on
process selection, sequencing, etc., are made by the system
automatically. The difficulty is transferring component
data and decision rules into computer readable format.
Generative process planning systems have several
advantages. It can generate consistent plans rapidly, new
components can be easily planned and it has the potential
to be interfaced with an automated manufacturing system.
Most of the current systems are not truly generative.
They need some form of human input, especially to
describe the part and obtain feature information to drive
the decision based process planning system. The decision
 Process planning formalization." S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
logic is limited to the ability to check some conditional
requirements and select processes.
4. EXISTING PROCESS P L A N N I N G SYSTEMS
Many process planning systems have been developed. A
typical example of a variant process planning system is the
CAPP (CAM-I's Automated Process Planning) system
developed by CAM-I 5. Other systems are M I P L A N 6,
M I T U R N 7. There are also several prototype systems
developed in academia.
There are several generative process planning systems
used in the industry. For example, A U T O P L A N s,
AUTAP 9, GENPLAN*°, XPSII, CPpp12, etc.
Generative process planning systems need a lot more
research effort to make them truly generative. Several
research systems can also be found, such as APPAS 13,
TIPPS 14, GAR115, P R O P L A N 16, T O M t7, P R P P Is. A
more complete discussion of existing process planning
systems can be found in reference 1.
Both these approaches leave much to be desired in
achieving the goal of total automation. We may add
another classification of process planning - automated
process planning. An automated process planning system
can take the design information directly from the designer
then generate a complete and usuable plan automatically.
In order to achieve this goal, AI seems to be a promising
tool. Although several existing generative systems do use
AI approach, none of them is qualified to be called an
automated process planning system. To help in attaining
this goal, a new framework using AI techniques is
proposed to formulate the problem.
5. PROCESS P L A N N I N G AND AI F R A M E W O R K
In order to provide a formal description of the process
planning problem it is necessary to
1. Define a state space that contains the possible
configurations of the relevant objects.
2. Specify one or more states within that space that
describe possible situations from which the problem
solving process may start. These states are the initial
3.
states.
Define goal states, which are one or more states
acceptable as solutions to the problem.
4. Specify the set of operators or actions available.
5. Develop an appropriate control strategy, which will
determine the order in which to apply the operators.
In the part manufacturing problem in which process
planning is to solve, the initial state is the raw material or
workpiece from which the part is to be produced, and the
goal state is the final part. The set of operators comprises
the available machine tools and cutters. The process of
producing the part involves proceeding from the raw
workpiece (initial state) to the final part (goal state).
Application of the operators (the machine tools) moves
the problem from one state to another. The various stages
represent the workpiec¢ in 'work in progress' condition.
S,i,~, --, Sl --' $2 - , . . . ---, Sr,,i
The states are non-reversible, i.e., the application of an
operator cannot return to a previous state, this is because
the material once removed cannot be added back.
However, in the case of process planning, the actual
material removal has not been done, alternative process
sequences can be generated from the initial state. Yet a
single sequence should be chosen for the final execution.
This final sequence is called a process plan. During the
planning stage, instead of using physical machine tools
and cutters as operators, a more abstract operator -
machining process type is used. Machine tools are
selected later to perform the processes.
In process planning we are concerned mainly with the
problem of synthesizing a sequence of machining
operations that will achieve the stated goal of producing
the part to required specifications. This is similar to those
planning problems (e.g., robot problem solving in
STRIPS) dealt with by AI researchers.
5.1 Hierarchical process planning structure
In this paper we propose a hierarchical planning
structure for the process planning problem (Fig. 1). A
hierarchy of plans can be generated in which the highest is
a simplification, or an abstraction, of the plan and the
lowest is a detailed plan, sufficient enough to solve the
problem. The main advantage of the hierarchical
planning structure stems from the fact that it leads to
distinguishing problem solving techniques critical to the
success of the plan and those that are simple details. The
method is to first sketch a rough plan that is complete and
then to refine rough parts of the plan into detailed sub
plans until finally the plan has been refined to a complete
sequence with the required detail to solve the problem.
Fig. 1 shows a hierarchical structure for process
planning. At level 1, the design model is decomposed into
volumes for machining. The volume decomposition can
be obtained by feature recognition using seman-
tics 19"20"21'22 o r by algorithmic decomposition 2a'24.
Level 2 involves planning the machining of each volume
by determining the sequence of machining operations. At
Part Design
t
Level 0
develop plan for part
I
Rough Plan (general
operation categories
Level 1 decompose into volumes 1
for machining
l
Decomposed Volumes
½
Level 2 plan the machining of each
volume by determining
which machine operation or
set of machining operation
will be used
l
Process Sequence
1
Level 3 for each machining operation
determine specific machine
and cutting parameters, feed,
speed, etc.
Fig. I. Hierarchical structure for process planning
Artificial lntelliaence, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1 47
Process planning formali:atiott" S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu

knowledgebase
(theoremand rules)
interactive
interface
program _1 p obl m I
1 J interpretation l
and
w i t h geometric
"-[ descriptionJ -I I -I implementation I
7--

mode.tiers
T
Fig. 2. Division of the process planning problem (taken from Ref. 30)

I
DRILL ~

Fig. 4a. Effect of operator DRILL

Fig. 3. Slotted hole to be manufactured

this stage more details are taken into account, such as the
desired surface characteristics. Some expert systems have
been developed to assist in planning machining, for
example GARI15, TOM17, EXCAp25, Nau and
Chang 26"27. Level 3 deals with determining the cutting
feed, speeds, depth of cut etc. Systems using expert
j BORE ~ t

knowledge have been developed to assist at this level.
Examples are CUTTECH 2s, XCUT 29. In this paper,
several issues in problem representation and control at
these levels are discussed. However, our current work is
focussed mainly on level 1, since it is at this level that the
CAD and CAM are interface and currently this is the part
which needs to be automated.
5.2 Problem decomposition
The decomposition approach discussed in Section 2
can also be applied in solving process planning problems.
This can be illustrated by Fig. 2 30. The process planning
problem is nearly decomposable, similar to the furniture
removal problem. For example, to produce the slotted
hole shown in Fig. 3, it can be decomposed into two
subproblems. One to machine the hole and the other to
machine the slot. The problem is not completely
decomposable, since there is a constraint between the two
divisions. The hole has to be made before the slot. An
approach similar to GPS can be used to assist in the
development of process plans for manufacturing.
Consider the example shown in Fig. 3. The initial state
is a raw material blank, and the final state is the blank with
the slotted hole. The operators are
(i) Operator: DRILL
precondition:
raw material exists
the surface to be made is a hole
I
Fig. 4b. Effect of operator BORE
The effect of the operator can be represented as shown in
Fig. 4a.
(ii) Operator: BORE
precondition:
hole exists
the surface to be made is hole or a slot
The effect of this operator can be represented as shown in
Fig. 4b.
An approach similar to GPS can be used to assist in the
development of process plans. Applying the GPS
procedure (Fig. 53, the difference between So and Sr is A 1.
To reduce the difference, it can be seen that the operator
BORE can be selected, but since the precondition and So
has difference A 2, between them, so bore cannot be
applied directly. Checking to see if the difference A2 can be
reduced, operator DRILL can be applied, since there is no
difference between So and the precondition for DRILL.
Applying operator D R I L L implies updating the state
from So to $I. Now again going through the procedure,
we can apply the operator BORE to obtain the final part.
Thus the reverse sequence in which the operators are
applied gives the process plan.
This example is an abstraction of the real problem, and
provides a way of separating important problem features

48 Artificial Intelliaence. 1986, Vol. 1, No.-1

 Process planning formalization." S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu

I The CSG method uses Boolean combination (union,

S0 ~ ~ S! intersection, or difference) of simple solids called
primitives to build a part. The construction procedure is
stored internally as a tree structure, with nodes
I
|
representing regularized set operators and the leaves are
primitive solids. CSG schemes are not unique. There are
many possible representations for a single object. CSG
trees are concise and easy to create, and their validity can
Difference ZXI~ be easily checked.
BREP is a method of representing a solid object using
its boundary surfaces. The faces of the solid are
represented by its boundary edges, and vertices. BREP
schemes are unambiguous, and generally unique. To
I establish validity of BREP schemes both geometry and
topology have to be verified. In a BREP model the
information between the faces, edges, and vertices and
Difference A2 between preconditionof B O R E a, So their relationships is easily available.
The choice of a representation scheme for the purpose
of developing an automated process planning system to
link CAD and CAM makes part representation a major
consideration.

5.4 CSG vs BREP in mant(acturing applications

I CSG schemes based on simply solids as primitives seem
T h e sequence to obtaln the final state Is
DRILL
BCRE
Fig. 5. Application of the GPS procedure
from others that will overwhelm the process. It serves to
illustrate the idea, and opens up various issues needed to
achieve the desired goal. In the forth coming sections the
issues are highlighted and discussed.
5.3 Representation of states for process planning
One of the foremost issues is 'How should we represent
the various states?'. A good system for representation of
complete structural knowledge in a particular domain
should possess four properties 2. It should adequately
represent all kinds of knowledge needed in the domain.
The representation should allow manipulation of
structures in such a way as to derive new structures
corresponding to new knowledge inferred from old. It
should be efficient in its ability to incorporate into the
knowledge structure additional information that can be
used to focus the attention of the inference mechanism.
Finally, it should have the ability to acquire new
information easily. There are several ways to represent a
problem.
For the purpose of automating process planning, the
best representation of the states would be the one used in
geometric modelling systems. This would enable
automatic generation of plans from the CAD data. The
most commonly used representations used in geometric
solid modelling systems are 31.
1. Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG)
2. Boundary Representation (BREP)
to be most suited for manufacturing applications.
Features of the parts such as holes, slots, and so forth may
actually be present explicitly in the tree. An example of
explicit representation of a feature, is that the subtracting
of a cylinder can create a hole. The definition of the hole
can be obtained from the definition of the cylinder. Thus
the information can be used directly for generating
manufacturing process plans, since the subtraction of the
cylinder can be associated with the drilling operation.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
A CSG scheme is not unique, and a part constructed by
subtraction operations may also be created using the
union operations. The union operator has no
corresponding material removal operation. In such cases
the features to be machined cannot be obtained directly
from the tree, but by evaluating it.
CSG trees may also contain irrelevant and redundant
information. Design iterations during the design phase
introduces elements into the CSG tree which may not
even exist in the final part. Algorithms for application
programs using such models must discover and discard
irrelevant information by evaluating the tree. This can be
a costly and time consuming operation especially if the
tree is large.
In a BREP, the model is represented explicitly and the
features are represented implicitly. The faces, edges and
vertices are represented explicitly as they are in the final
part; since boundary surfaces are what one sees when
looking at an object it seems as a reasonable approach to
object definition. For a planar object there is no problem
when decomposing into constituting faces. However, for an
object shown in Fig. 6, it is difficult to visualize the faces
bounding the object. Several different ways can be used to
decompose the object face into smaller faces for clarity.
BREP seems directly usuable for CAM. Many
manufacturing processes deal with surfaces, e.g., machining
operations cut surfaces. Edges and vertices emerge as a
consequence of meeting of surfaces and cannot be
manufactured independently. The information required
for manufacturing, such as the calculations of tool paths,
can be extracted easily from an explicit surface definition.

Artificial lntelliaence, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1 49

Process planning formalization: S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
Fig. 6. Object with difficulty in visualizing bounding faces
(taken from Ref. 31)
The necessity for identifying surfaces in a final model of
design objects for CAM applications forces systems based
on other solid modelling schemes to perform a conversion
of BREP at some time before they can be used for CAM
purposes.
In the modelling of manufacturing process the material
removal can be looked upon as removal of volumes to
create new surfaces a2. Hence, it would need the ability to
convert from CSG to BREP and vice versa. Converting
fromCSG to BREP is not difficult, but converting from
BREP to CSG is non trivial 31. Nau et al. 33 discuss a
conversion method for converting from BREP to CSG.
The proposed system will select BREP as the
representation. Algorithms will be developed to
decompose the part to be machined. Combined with the
knowledge on manufacturing practice, machinable
surfaces can be identified.
5.5 Other representations for process planning
applications
With a view to achieving a CAD representation of an
object suitable for CAM operations Arbab 34 proposed
using a Deforming Solid Geometry (DSG). DSG is a
'methodology for describing mechanical parts and
assemblies through a sequence of operations resembling
those of manufacturing'. DSG's approach to the
modelling of material removal operations is in principle
not far from that in CSG. The starting point in DSG is the
initial workpiece. Material removal operations are
characterized by the fact that they can be associated with
predetermined geometric shapes. A 'tool' in DSG is a
specification of material removal operation. Using the
operator 'apply' and the 'tool' yields another workpiece
by removal of material. Subsequent applications yield the
final workpiece.
The major problem with such an approach stems from
the fact that the designer will have to build in th~
manufacturing logic, during the design phase, forcing the
designer to be an expert at manufacturing also. It imposes
an operational structure and discipline which can restrict
creativity of the designer and also imposes unnecessary
restriction on the flexibility of the CAD system. It is not
clear how the DSG will solve the problems arising due to
design iterations. Usually another approach associated
with the approach is the use of macro process plans and
part programs for each 'tool' (feature). Macros do not
always generate a feasible final plan especially when there
50 Artificial Intelligence, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1
are compound features. Some systems have been built
using this approach, for example, X C U T 29 and the NBS
system35.
The method would be suitable if the DSG tree can be
constructed from a design CSG tree. Using the AI
approach of selecting operators and applying these
operators, a DSG can be constructed. It corresponds to
creating a volume decomposition of the part to be
manufactured.
5.6 Inadequacies of solid modellers
Tolerancing and surface finish which is an integral part
of the specification of mechanical parts is lacking in
current solid modellers. This is a serious deficiency 36. For
fully automated process planning tolerancing infor-
mation is needed. Current generation solid modellers
contain complete representation of nominal parts. The
tolerancing information is added on latter for process
planning.
5.7 Representation of operators
The operators in the process planning problem are the
machining or metal removal operations. A sufficient
collection of operators is needed so as to be able to
convert the initial state through many intermediate states
to the goal state.
Since the operators will result in change of state, the
representation of the operators should be such so as to
allow easy modification of the states. The states are
represented in the geometric solid modellers, so the
operators should also be represented in the solid modeller.
The operators physically correspond to material
removal operations and imparts certain surface
characteristics to the new surfaces generated. The
complete modelling of the operators must take into
account several factors such as:
1. type of the machine tool used;
2. any preconditions needed for the application of the
machine tool;
3. type of relative motion between the tool and the
workpiece;
4. tool geometry;
5. generated surface characteristics; and
6. range of motion.
The above mentioned factors can be used to determine
the configuration of the next state. The details required for
modelling of the operators depends on the level of planning
in the hierarchy. For example, at level 2, the operator can
be written using shape codes or descriptions.
IF
the volume to be removed has a X-shape
and surface finish greater than Y,
THEN
chose Process-Z.
However, at level 1, both I F and T H E N portion of the rule
are represented in geometric modeller. A simplified
operator can be written as:
IF
F o is an entrance surface
and four adjacent surfaces F 1, F 2, F 3 and F 4 are wall
surfaces
and a bottom surface F 5 exists
THEN
remove the volume enclosed by the surfaces
and call it a pocket.
 Process planning formalization: S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
Entrance surface, adjacent surface, wall surface and
bottom surface will have to be defined.
Sugimura et al. 37 in a paper discuss the formulation of
shape generation process of machine tools. The model is
described by the relative motion between the workpiece
and the cutting edge with a specified geometry. The
different types of cutting motion are linear and rotary
cutting motion. The relative motion of the cutting edge
and workpiece is obtained by the feed motion of the
workpiece and/or tool motion.
At the level of abstraction being considered at this stage
(level 1), the volume of material removed can be obtained
by considering the direction of feed and type of cutting
motion. This can be obtained in a geometric modeller by
the sweeping action. Sweep is of two types, translational
and rotational 31. It is a technique for forming a solid
object by moving a 2-D shape along a trajectory.
Translational sweeping involves a trajectory along a line
segment, where as in rotational sweeping the trajectory is
a circular arc (Fig. 7). The concept of sweep can be
extended to sweep of 3-D objects. Shape modifying effects
Z obtained.
SWEEP~ A
,X
Z classified according to the kinds of difference they reduce.
A--_J ~SWEEP
X T
Y
B Two operators, drilling and milling are applicable.
Fig. 7. Translational and rotational sweep (taken from
Ref. 31)
of machining process can be modelled in geometric
modellers 38.
At this level we only look at the geometry of different
operations. For example a turning operation will produce
a cylindrical surface, or a tapered cylindrical surface, a
drill will produce an internal cylindrical surface, a milling
and shaping operation will generate a plane surface, etc.
This information can be used along with the existing
condition of the workpiece state to assist the
decomposition and solving the subgoals obtained, in an
effort to reach the final goal.
5.8 Control strategy
The extent to which an operator is applied and the
logical structure to decide in which order to try the
operators is called control strategy.
At any instant, the order of trying and applying the
operators itself is dependent on the then current state of
the problem. During the control structure design, an
evaluation function, which may represent a weighted cost
solution path can be used to evaluate the solutions
The problem with process planning is that the subgoals
are not independent, but are conjunctive, i.e., they
interact. They cannot be achieved in an arbitrary order.
The problem of constructing an efficient plan for
achieving conjunctive goals that are not independent can
be approached by the methods described below.
1. Formulate plans that have interactions between
subgoals and then fix them by re-ordering the
problem solving operators in the plan. This method is
used by H A C K E R 39 and INTERPLAN 4°.
2. Another method used by Waldinger 4t is more
constructive. It does not re-order operators in a
flawed path, but develops a plan by inserting
operations one by one, checking each for potential
interference with established operations.
3. A useful constraint handling technique to effectively
manage interactions between subproblems in a
hierarchial planner is described in 4z.
The use of means end analysis reduces the amount of
search done by the problem solver. It recognizes only one
type of goal, namely, to reduce the difference between the
two states. The problem solving operators can be
Consequently, only a fraction of the available operators
will be applicable to any given goal, and search among the
operators for an applicable one will be reduced.
There may be several applicable operators and an a
priori basis for selecting one. Also, it may not be possible
to know whether the subgoals of an operator will be
satisfied or if the evaluation will lead to a dead end. The
control strategy then has to back track to find an
alternative path. In a complicated problem, there may be
several alternate paths, and a substantial amount of back
tracking may be needed to solve the problem.
In the process planning problem, several operators may
be applicable, but the choice may be restricted by several
factors which are considered good manufacturing
practices. For example, consider reducing the difference
shown in Fig. 8.
Using the drilling operator before the milling operator
results in the difference shown in Fig. 9 and the milling
Artificial Intelliaence. 1986. Vol. 1. No. 1 51
 / /
Process planning formalization." S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
Fig. 8. Difference to be reduced
,, Fig. 9. Effect o f using D R I L L b e f o r e M I L L I N G
operaror has to applied to a volume with a hole in it,
which is not considered good manufacturing practice.
Applying the drilling operation after the milling is better
practice. This induces an ordering of the operator for this
particular case.
Further, there may be several ways to reduce the
difference using the same operator in different ways; for
example, to reduce the difference described above, the
milling operator can be applied twice as shown in Fig. 10.
Different methods may be suitable for different
situations or cases. The choice of the method to use should
be determined by the control strategy. Since the
application of the operators in a process planning system
is governed by good manufacturing practices, these can be
incorporated in a rule based system to assist in selecting
an operator.
It is also worthwhile to note that the evaluation
function is used to assist in the selecting of operators. By
appropriately selecting the cost factors desirable
processes will be considered over other processes. For
example, a twist drilling process will be selected instead of
an end milling process for producing a round hole because
in general, the former costs much less. There is no
intention of finding an 'optimal' process plan, since a plan
exists only after the final schedule is set. A goal is to find a
'good' process plan.
6. D I S C U S S I O N
O u r previous experiences with building process planning
systems indicates that for the success of a completely
a u t o m a t e d system a unified approach is necessary.
Several systems have been built - GARI, T O M ,
P R O P L A N , T I P P S , SIPP, C U T T E C H , X C U T etc. - but
these are limited to process selection and planning the
machining operations. Part interpretation, a major issue,
is performed manually by converting the part description
into some specialized input format for these systems. Part
interpretation techniques developed are not suitable
52 Artificial Intelligence, 1986, Vol. 1, No. 1
Difference to be reduced
I I
j Ist Application
2rid Application
2rid Application
ot MILLING NN
Ist, Application
of MILLIN(3
Fig. I0. Different ways of applying the M I L L I N G
operator
directly for process planning, since the domain is too
limited. An integration of the two is necessary.
This paper presented a formalization of the process
planning problem in an AI framework. Several issues
involved in representation, control strategy and
modelling of the operators have been discussed, with
reference to various levels of the planning hierarchy
described in Fig. 1. The problem of generating process
plans automatically needs a lot more research and
detailed implementation needs to be looked at. An
important issue that was not addressed is the integration
of several existing knowledge-based systems and
algorithmic programs to provide an unified framework
for a fully automated process planning system. The
Blackboard architecture described in (Ref. 43) seems to
have potentials for such an integration.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to express their appreciation to the
reviewers and the editm' for their valuable suggestions.
REFERENCES
f Chang,T. C. and Wysk, R. A. An Introduction to Automated
Process Planning Systems, Pren/ice Hall, Englewood, New
Jersey. 1985
2 Rich, E. Artificial Intelligence, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983
3 Green, C. Application of Therom Proving to Problem Solving,
IJCAI l, 1969, 219-239
4 Nilsson,N. Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1971
5 Link, C. H. CAPP - CAM-I Automated Process Planning
System, Proceedin#s of 13th Numerical Control Society Annual
Meeting and Technical Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976
6 Schaffer,G. GT via Automated Process Planning, American
Machinist, May 1980, 119-122
7 TNO, Introduction to MIPLAN, Organization for Industrial
Rsearch, Inc., Waltham, Mass., 1981
8 Tempelhof,K. H. A Systemof Computer Aided ProcessPlanning
fo~'Machine Parts, SME Technical Paper, Series MS79-154, 1979
 Process planning formalizatiotu S. Joshi, T. C. Chang and C. Richard Liu
9 Evershiem, W. and Esch, H. Automated Generation of Process
Plans for Prismatic Parts, Annals of CIRP, 1983, 32/1/83, 361-
364
10 Tulkoff, J. Lockheed's GENPLAN, Proceedings of 18th
Numerical Control Society Annual Meeting and Technical
Conference, Dallas, Texas, 198 I, 417--421
11 CAM-I, Functional Specification for an Experimental Planning
System XPS-I, Computer Aided Manufacturing - International,
Arlington, Texas, 1979
12 Dunn, M. S. and Mann, S. Computerized Production Process
Planning, Proceedings of 15th Numerical Control Society Annual
Meeting and Technical Conference, Chicago, 1978
13 Wysk, R. A. An Automated Process Planning and Selection
Program: APPAS, PhD Thesis, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, 1977
14 Chang, T. C. and Wysk, R. A. Integrating CAD and CAM
Through Automated Process Planning, International Journal of
Production Research, 1984, 2, 5, 877-894
15 Descotte, Y. and Latombe, J. C. GARI: An Expert System for
Process Planning. In Solid Modeling by Computers, edited by M.
S. Pickett and J. W. Boyse, Plenum Press, New York, 1985
16 Mouleeswaran, C. B. PROPLAN: A Knowledge Based Expert
System for Manufacturing Process Planning, Master's Thesis,
University of Illinois at Chicago, 1984
17 Matsushima, K., Okada, N. and Sata, T. The integration of CAD
and CAM by Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques,
Annals of CIRP, 1982, 31/1/82
18 Liu, C. R. and Srinivasan, R. Generative Process Planning - A
Syntactic Pattern Recognition Approach, Computers in
Mechanical Engineering, 1984, 2, 5, 63--66
19 Choi, B. K., Barash, M. M. and Anderson, D. C. Automatic
Recognition of Machined Surface from a 3-D Solid Model,
Computer aided Design, 1984, 16, 2, 81-86
20 Henderson, M. R. Extraction of Feature Information from Three
Dimensional CAD Data, PhD Thesis, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, 1984
21 Wolfe, P. M. and Kung, H. K. Automating Process Planning
Using Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings of Annual lnternation
Industrial Engineering Conference, Institute of Industrial
Engineers, 1984, 387-395
22 Kyprianou, L. K. Shape Classification in Computer Aided
Design, PhD Thesis, Christ College, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK, 1983
23 Grayer, A. R. The Automatic Production of Machined
Components Starting from a Stored Geometric Description. In
Advances in Computer Aided Manufacturing, edited by D.'
McPherson, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1977,
137-151
24 Woo, T. C. Interfacing Solid Modelling to CAD and CAM: Data
Structures and Algorithms for Decomposing a Solid, Technical
Report 83-6, Department of Industrial and Operations
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983
25 Davies, B. J. and Darbyshire, I. L. The Use of Expert Systems in
Process Planning, Annals of CIRP, 1984, 33/1/84, 303-306
26 Nau, D. S. and Chang, T. C. Prospects for Process Selection
Using AI, Computers in Industry, 1983, 4, 3. 253-263
27 Nau, D. S. and Chang, T. C. Hierarchial Representation of
Problem Solving Knowledge in a Frame Based Process Planning
System, Journal of Intelligent Systems, to appear
28 Barkocy, B. E. and Zdeblick, W. J. A Knowledge Based System
for Machining Operation Planning. Proceedings of
AUTOFACT 6, pp. 2.11-2.25, 1984
29 King, M. S., Brooks, S. L. and Schaefer, R. M. Knowledge Base
Systems: How will They Affect Manufacturing in the 80"s?,
Technical Report BDX-613-3185, Bendix Kansas City Division,
1985
30 Liu, C. R. and Liang, G. R. Logic Approach to Automatic NC
Program Generation, Lecture Notes, Intelligent Manufacturing
Systems, International Summer Seminar, Yugoslav Committee
for Electronics and Automation, Dubrovinik, Yugoslavia,
September 1985
31 Requicha, A. A. G. Representations for Rigid Solids: Theory,
Methods, and Systems, Computing Surveys. 1980, 12, 4, 437--464
32 Joshi, S. Volume Deeompostion Algorithms for Process
Planning, PhD Thesis Proposal, 1985
33 Nau, D. S., Jones, D. and Masai, K. Converting Boundary
Surface Representations into Constructive Solid Geometry
Representation, IEEE Transactions Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 1985, to appear
34 Arbab, F. Requirements and Architecture of a CAM Oriented
CAD System for Design and Manufacture of Mechanical Parts,
PhD Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982
35 Brown, P. F., Mclean, C. R. and Whitt, N. M. Data Preparation:
Process Planning, Technical Briefing Notes, National Bureau of
Standards, 1985
36 Requicha, A. A. G. Representation of Tolerances in Solid
Modelling: Issues and Alternative Approaches. In Solid Modeling
by Computers, edited by M. S. Pickett and J. W. Boyse, Plenum
Press, New York, 1985
37 Sugimura, N., lwata, K. and Fuminori, O. Formulation of Shape
Generation Process of Machine Tools, Proceedings of the
IFAC'81, Kyoto, Japan, 1981, XIV, 158-163
38 Hunt, W. A. and Voelcker, H. B. An Exploratory Study of
Automatic Verification of Programs for Numerically Controlled
Machine Tools, Technical Report TM-34, University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY, 1980
39 Sussman, G. J. A Computational Model of Skill Acquisition, AI
Technical Report, Rep. 297, AI Lab., MIT, 1973
40 Tate, A. InteractingGoalsandtheirUse, IJCAl4, 1975,215-218
41 Waldinger, R. Acheving Several Goals Simultaneously. In
Machine Intelligence 8, edited by E. W. Elcock and D. Mitche,
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977
42 Stefik, M. Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN 1), Artificial
Intelligence, 1981, 6, 11-140
43 Hayes-Roth, B. A Blackboard Model of Control, HPP 83-38,
Dept. Computer Science, Stanford University, August 1984
Artincial lntelliaance_ IgR6_ l,"nl. I No. I 53