Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
--> Unit Manufacturing Processes Issues and Opportunities in Research Unit Manufacturing Process Research Committee Manufacturing Studies Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1995
OCR for page R2
--> NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is President of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. The study was supported by Grant No. DDM-9022041 between the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 94-69235 International Standard Book Number 0-309-05192-4 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
--> UNIT MANUFACTURING PROCESS RESEARCH COMMITTEE IAIN FINNIE, Chair, James Fife Professor Emeritus, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley TAYLAN ALTAN, Professor and Director, Engineering, Research Center for Net Shape Manufacturing, Ohio State University, Columbus DAVID A. DORNFELD, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, and Director, Engineering Systems Research Center, University of California, Berkeley THOMAS W. EAGAR, POSCO Professor of Materials Engineering and Co-Director of the Leaders for Manufacturing Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RANDALL M. GERMAN, Brush Chair Professor in Materials, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park MARSHALL G. JONES, Senior Research Engineer and Project Leader, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York RICHARD L. KEGG, Director, Technology and Manufacturing Development, Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio HOWARD A. KUHN, Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Johnstown, Pennsylvania RICHARD P. LINDSAY, Senior Research Associate, Norton Company, Worcester, Massachusetts (Retired) CAROLYN W. MEYERS, Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Interdisciplinary Programs, College of Engineering, The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta ROBERT D. PEHLKE, Professor, Materials Science and Engineering Department, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor S. RAMALINGAM, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Director of The Productivity Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis OWEN RICHMOND, Corporate Fellow, Director of Fundamental Research Program, ALCOA Technical Center, Alcoa Center, Pennsylvania KUO K. WANG, Sibley Professor of Mechanical Engineering Emeritus, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
OCR for page R4
--> Manufacturing Studies Board Liaisons to the Committee HERBERT B. VOELCKER, Charles Lake Professor of Engineering, Sibley School of Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York PAUL K. WRIGHT, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Staff VERNA J. BOWEN, Staff Assistant JANICE PRISCO, Senior Project Assistant THOMAS C. MAHONEY, Director (to April 1994) ROBERT E. SCHAFRIK, Director (from April 1994) Consultant CAROLETTA POWELL, Editorial Concepts, Inc.
OCR for page R5
--> ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The committee expresses its gratitude to all those individuals whose time and effort were generously offered. So many people have put forth their energy toward this report, the committee cannot help but feel deeply indebted. Every contribution, whether large or small, is greatly appreciated. In particular, the committee thanks the following individuals for the very helpful presentations and information they provided to the committee during the course of the study: Michael Cima of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard E. De Vor of the University of Illinois, Champagne Hari Dharan of the University of California, Berkeley Anthony G. Evans of Harvard University Marco Gremaud of Calcom SA, Lausanne, Switzerland Walter Griffith of the Materials Directorate, Air Force Wright Laboratories Tim Gutowski of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Hardt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Don Kash of George Mason University Michael Koczak of Drexel University Erwin Loewen of Milton Roy, Inc., Rochester, New York David Olson of Colorado School of Mines Nuno Rebelo of HKS, Fremont, California Masaru Sakata of Takushoku University, Japan Paul Sheng of the University of California, Berkeley Masayoshi (Tomi) Tomizuka of the University of California, Berkeley Herb Voelcker of Cornell University James Voytko of the Technology Transfer Program, Department of Energy Paul Wright of the University of California, Berkeley
OCR for page R6
--> In addition, the committee appreciates the interest in the study shown by Branimir von Turkovich, Bruce Kramer, Thom Hodgson, Huseyin Sehitoglu, and Cheena Srinivasan from the Engineering Directorate of the National Science Foundation and Charles Kimzey from DoD's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Programs. Their very valuable guidance and support were key ingredients to the success of the study. The chair acknowledges the enthusiasm and dedication of the committee members throughout the conduct of the study. The committee extends its thanks to the staff of the Manufacturing Studies Board and the National Materials Advisory Board for their assistance during the committee's deliberations and report preparation. The committee appreciated the efforts of Larry Otto of Concurrent Technologies Corporation for his efforts in the support of this study. The committee is particularly indebted to Dr. Robert Schafrik for the vital role he played in bringing this report to completion. Finally, the committee wishes to recognize the contributions made by Dr. Robert Katt and Ms. Lynn Kasper of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems to ensure that this report conformed to the Academy's editorial standards. The timely and professional work by Ms. Caroletta Powell of Editorial Concepts, Inc., in preparing the final copy of the report is also gratefully acknowledged.
OCR for page R7
--> PREFACE "Why another study of manufacturing processes?" given the host of recent studies concerning manufacturing productivity and national competitiveness. The answer lies in the observation that these previous studies have sought primarily to raise national awareness of problems related to manufacturing and to identify key industries, sectors, or technologies in which the United States has lost, is losing, or may lose its share of the international market. These studies have devoted relatively little attention to the leveraging technologies through which the U.S. industry may regain, maintain, or strengthen its global competitiveness. The need to identify these technologies led the Division of Design and Manufacturing Systems of the National Science Foundation (NSF) to request the Manufacturing Studies Board of the National Research Council to form a committee to conduct the present study. The overall charge to the committee was to "conduct analyses of key unit processes and determine program areas that NSF, other federal agencies, and members of the industrial base should address." The committee undertook three primary tasks: select a taxonomy for classifying unit processes; develop criteria for determining what makes a unit process technology critical; and conduct an in-depth analysis of specific critical unit processes and provide a prioritized recommendation of future research initiatives. A committee of fifteen experts was constituted by the National Research Council to conduct the study. The committee met from May 1991 to July 1993. During the process of determining the criteria for selecting critical processes, the committee identified the essential technical components that comprise all unit processes. Consideration of the taxonomy, the essential components, and the various materials handled by unit processes led to the identification of certain key enabling technologies which influence all unit processes. The committee's primary finding is that these enabling technologies are critical to the understanding and advancement of all unit processes and hence provide the technical underpinning of manufacturing competitiveness. Thus, this report emphasizes the enabling technologies and the research agenda which must be implemented to advance the unit processes.
OCR for page R8
--> For a subject as broad as manufacturing processes it was necessary to set certain limits on the study content. After discussions with the sponsors, the committee excluded from consideration those processes that dealt with the production of raw materials, alloy development, chemical processing of materials, and fabrication of electronic materials. These topics are very important, but lie outside the scope for the present study. Similar considerations apply to automation and assembly processes that are also important topics in manufacturing but were judged to fall outside the charge to the committee. This report discusses the crucial and central position which unit processes occupy in the broad areas of manufacturing and industrial competitiveness. It provides specific prioritized recommendations for research on certain enabling technologies. In addition, general recommendations for improving the present level of R&D by government, industry, and university action are presented. The committee is convinced that the United States can maintain its position as a leading manufacturing nation; and through this, can provide a high standard of living for all of its citizens. However, to do so we must be willing to invest appropriately in the future. Investment in manufacturing is usually measured by the amount of capital equipment purchased in a given period. Two additional key investments must be made for the long range strength of U.S. manufacturing. The first is improvement in the quality of education of the manufacturing workforce that ranges from the professional staff to the production staff. The second is the effective use of existing and new knowledge related to unit processes. Much of our decline in relative productivity growth can be traced to our failure to invest in people, in manufacturing research, and in implementation of research results. More than anything else we do to improve manufacturing productivity, this investment in people, in research, and implementation when coupled with reasonable capital investment, will provide the greatest long-term dividends to our standard of living. Unless, we as a nation consider manufacturing as important as fundamental science, health, social programs, and national security, we will not be able to generate the resources necessary to pay for our investments in these factors which contribute to our standard of living. Comments or suggestions that readers of this report wish to make can be sent via Internet electronic mail to firstname.lastname@example.org or by FAX to the Manufacturing Studies Board (202)334-3718. IAIN FINNIE, CHAIR UNIT MANUFACTURING PROCESS RESEARCH COMMITTEE
OCR for page R9
--> CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Fundamentals of Unit Manufacturing Processes 1 Setting Priorities for Unit Manufacturing Processes 3 Enabling Technologies 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 7 Report Organization 10 Part I: Fundamentals of Unit Manufacturing Processes 11 Introduction 11 Recommendations 12 References 13 1 Why Manufacturing Matters 15 Overview 15 Unit Manufacturing Processes: The Cogs That Drive Manufacturing Productivity 16 References 18 2 What are Unit Manufacturing Processes? 19 Components of a Unit Process 21 Taxonomy of Unit Manufacturing Processes 24 Identifying Priority Opportunities for Unit Process Research 25 Enabling Technologies 26 Process Streams and Integrated Processes 29 References 30 Part II: Research Opportunities in Illustrative Unit Manufacturing Processes 31 Introduction 31 Why Conduct R&D on Unit Processes? 33
OCR for page R10
--> 3 Mass-Change Processes 35 Traditional Chip-Making Processes 36 Traditional Grinding and Finishing Operations 37 Nontraditional Mass-Change Processes 38 Research Opportunities 41 References 49 4 Phase-Change Processes 51 Metals 51 Polymers 54 Metal-Matrix Composites 58 Research Opportunities 60 References 64 5 Structure-Change Processes 67 Materials 67 Surface Treatment 69 Laser Processing 70 Research Opportunities 73 References 77 6 Deformation Processes 79 Classification and Characteristics of Processes 79 Significant Process Variables 83 Research Opportunities 89 References 91 7 Consolidation Processes 93 Powder Processing 94 Polymeric Composites 99 Welding and Joining Processes 102 Research Opportunities 106 References 110 8 Integrated Processes 111 Research Opportunities 115 References 117
OCR for page R11
--> Part III: Unit Manufacturing Process Enabling Technologies 119 Introduction 119 Key Recommendations 121 9 Behavior of Materials 123 Overview 123 Research Opportunities 125 10 Simulation and Modeling 127 Overview 127 Research Opportunities 133 References 134 11 Sensor Technology 135 Overview 135 Research Opportunities 139 References 141 12 Process Control 143 Architectures for a Self-Sustaining Work Environment 144 Controllers 147 Open Systems for Control and Communication 149 Research Opportunities 149 References 151 13 Process Precision and Metrology 153 Research Status and Needs 154 Dimensional Scale and Precision in Manufacturing 156 Dimensional Tolerances and Metrology 157 Process Planning 161 Process Modeling 165 Research Opportunities 169 References 171 14 Process Equipment Design 173 Research Opportunities 174 References 177
OCR for page R12
--> Part IV: Policy Dimensions 179 Introduction 179 Key Conclusions 180 Key Recommendations 180 15 Technical and Economic Contexts 181 References 186 16 Resources in Unit Process Research and Education 187 Resources for Research 187 Industrial Research 188 Role of Higher Education in Unit Manufacturing Processes 194 Key Recommendations 196 References 198 17 International Experience 199 R&D in German Manufacturing 202 R&D in Japanese Manufacturing 204 R&D in European Manufacturing 205 Conclusions 206 References 208 Biographical Information 209
OCR for page R13
--> LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 2-1 Unit process information and materials flow 20 2-2 Unit manufacturing process model 21 2-3 Unit manufacturing process families, components, and material classes 27 2-4 Unit process components and enabling technologies 28 6-1 Basic components of process modeling 80 6-2 Minimum total manufacturing cost arising from a compromise between forming and finish machining costs 82 6-3 An example forming sequence retrieved from the Forming Sequence Database 85 6-4 An example of manufacturing cost reduction by combining net-shape forming and partial machining for a precision gear 87 7-1 Production costs for commercial welding processes 105 10-1 Schematic illustration of steps involved in manufacturing discrete parts via a unit manufacturing process 131 13-1 Tolerance as a function of components metalworking processes 154 13-2 Three relatively distinct manufacturing regimes 159 13-3 An illustration of (a) vectoring tolerancing and (b) its potential convenience 162 13-4 Example bracket 163 13-5 Planning the machining of the holes of the bracket in Figure 13-4 164 13-6 Tolerance versus dimension data for various machining processes 168 13-7 Precision machining domains 169
OCR for page R14
--> 17-1 International comparison of percentage of gross domestic product 200 17-2 International comparison of governmental R&D budget priorities 201 17-3 International comparison of university R&D priorities 202 Tables 2-1 Examples of Unit Process Components 23 4-1 Objectives of the American Foundrymen's Society Research and Technology Plan 55 4-2 Recommended Metal-Casting Research Priorities 56 4-3 Polymer Phase-Change Processes 57 6-1 Significant Variables in a Deformation Process 84 8-1 Comparison of Processes to Produce Precision Gears 113 11-1 Results of Mercedes-Benz Manufacturing Sensor Implementation 137 13-1 Dimensional Scale and Precision for a Range of Manufactured Items (Swyt, 1992) 158 13-2 Forms Produced by Selected Classical Unit Machining Processes 167 15-1 Engineering and production technologies 184
OCR for page R15
Unit Manufacturing Processes Issues and Opportunities in Research
OCR for page R16
This page in the original is blank.