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 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 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.
