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



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 nmab@nas.edu or by FAX to the Manufacturing Studies Board (202)334-3718. IAIN FINNIE, CHAIR UNIT MANUFACTURING PROCESS RESEARCH COMMITTEE

OCR for page R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
--> 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 R1
Unit Manufacturing Processes Issues and Opportunities in Research

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.