Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2000) 11, 311±331

Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by

neural networks based approach
X . G . M I N G * and K . L . M A K
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of Hong Kong,
Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Received February 2, 1998 and accepted December 7, 1998

Setup planning is considered the most signi®cant but also dif®cult activity in Computer Aided
Process Planning (CAPP), and has a strong impact on manufacturability, product quality and
production cost. Indeed, setup planning activity deserves much attention in CAPP. The setup
planning in manufacturing consists mainly of three steps, namely, setup generation, operation
sequence, and setup sequence. In this paper, the Kohonen self-organizing neural networks and
Hop®eld networks are adopted to solve such problems in setup planning ef®ciently. Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks are utilized, according to the nature of the different steps in setup
planning, to generate setups in terms of the constraints of ®xtures/jigs, approach directions, feature
precedence relationships, and tolerance relationships. The operation sequence problem and the setup
sequence problem are mapped onto the traveling salesman problem, and are solved by Hop®eld
neural networks. This paper actually provides a complete research basis to solve the setup planning
problem in CAPP, and also develops the most ef®cient neural networks based approaches to solve the
setup planning problem in manufacturing. Indeed, the results of the proposed approaches work
towards the optimal solution to the intelligent setup planning in manufacturing.

Keywords: Computer aided process planning (CAPP), setup planning, Kohonen self-organizing
neural networks, hop®eld neural networks, computer integrated manufacturing (CIM), intelligent
manufacturing.

1. Introduction Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRPII) is very

important for the effective implementation of the
Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) is gen- whole CIM system. Computer Aided Process
erally assumed to be an effective method to improve Planning (CAPP) takes a signi®cant role to bridge
manufacturing competitiveness, and for further the gaps among CAD, CAM, Scheduling and MRPII
enhancement of the factory automation strategy (Ming et al., 1997) in the CIM environment. In such a
(Elmaraghy, 1993). The integration of Computer manufacturing environment, CAPP is a function to
Aided Design (CAD), Computer Aided systematically determine the manufacture of a
Manufacturing (CAM), Scheduling and product, to ensure that the end product will be
functional, economical and of acceptable quality
(Zhang and Alting, 1994).
Modern manufacturing demands for enhanced
¯exibility, ef®ciency, and quality. These demands
*Corresponding author: Gintic Institute of Manufacturing
Technology, 71 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 638075, Republic of
have imposed a major change in manufacturing
Singapore industries, which make manufacturability, product
E-mail: xgming@gintic.gov.sg quality, and production cost become the much more
0956-5515 # 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers
312
important competitive factors, and these factors even
have a greater impact on manufacturing performance
and its future development. As the most signi®cant
and dif®cult activity in CAPP, setup planning takes its
crucial effect on the manufacturability, product
quality and production cost. In this connection, it
pays to devote greater attention to the setup planning
activity in CAPP.
Various efforts are documented in the literature on
developing methods for optimizing the setup planning
problem. Westhovven et al. (1992) used an episodic
associative memory to sequence interactive features
in process planning. Chen and LeClair (1994) utilized
an unsupervised-learning approach to solve setup
generation and the feature sequence problem.
Kamhaw, Leclair and Chen (1996) used genetic
algorithms to sequence the features in the rapid
design system. Zhang and Nee et al. (1995) developed
a hybrid approach for setup planning. However, the
above methods only dealt with the narrow aspects
emerged in the setup planning problem, and the
results are still far from satisfactory. The present study
therefore attempts to develop and apply Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks (Kohonen, 1995) and the
Hop®eld neural networks (Hop®eld, 1985) based
techniques to solve the setup planning problem in
manufacturing ef®ciently. Such a setup planning
problem is solved ef®ciently by taking into considera-
tion all the key factors in the setup planning problem,
e.g., ®xtures/jigs, approach directions of each feature,
feature precedence relationships, natural operation
orders, tolerance relationships, and cutting tools.
This paper begins with de®ning the setup planning
problem and presenting its details. The dif®culties in
solving the setup planning problem will also be
outlined. The algorithms, such as the Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks (also called Kohonen
networks) and Hop®eld neural networks, are mainly
adopted to solve the setup planning problem. In these
algorithms, the Kohonen self-organizing neural net-
works are used to generate setups automatically in
terms of the constraints of ®xtures/jigs, approach
directions of features, and feature precedence rela-
tionships as well as the tolerance relationships among
features. The Hop®eld neural networks are developed
to solve the operation sequence problem by taking
into the consideration the feature precedence relation-
ship, the natural operation order, the tolerance
relationship among features, and the cutting tools
used to machine features. Furthermore, the Hop®eld
Ming and Mak
neural networks are also constructed to sequence the
generated setups in terms of the constraints of the
feature precedence relationship, the natural operation
order, and the tolerance relationship among each
feature and ®xtures/jigs used in each setup. An
example is used to demonstrate the algorithms
developed in this paper. Finally, the conclusion is
made.
2. Setup planning problem
The setup planning problem can be represented as a
planning process containing three main steps, i.e.,
setup generation, operation sequence, and setup
sequence. The setup generation is a procedure to
group the manufacturing operations into setups in
terms of the manufacturing experience. Such manu-
facturing experience can be represented as the
manufacturing features, which are machined by
using the same ®xtures/jigs and have common
approach directions, and should be classi®ed into
the same setup. This classi®cation is performed by
satisfying as much as possible the constraints of the
feature precedence relationships and the tolerance
relationships among features. The operation sequence
arranges the operations in each generated setup into
the order, so that the constraints of the feature
precedence relationships in each setup and the
tolerance relationships among all features are highly
satis®ed. In addition, the cutting tool changes among
the operations are reduced to a minimum. The setup
sequence is to arrange the generated setups in order,
so that the constraints of feature precedence relation-
ships, the natural operation orders among different
setups, and the tolerance relationships among the
features from different setups are maximally satis®ed.
Furthermore, the changes of ®xtures/jigs among the
consecutive setups are minimized. The entire setup
planning activity is therefore composed of three steps,
i.e., setup generation, operation sequence, and setup
sequence (Fig. 1). The setup generation produces
setups, the operation sequence puts operations into
order, and the setup sequence ®nally arranges the
generated setups into sequences.
The above representation clearly indicates that the
objective of setup planning is to group operations into
setups, to put operations in each setup into order, and
to sequence the generated setups. In this way, the part
can be machined with good manufacturability, high
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach
Fig. 1. Schematic view of setup planning procedure.
quality, and low cost. The reason for good manu-
facturability is that the feature precedence
relationship and the natural operation order have
been considered. The part can also be machined with
high quality and low cost by meeting the requirement
of the tolerance relationship. Furthermore, changes
can be minimized in the cutting tools among
operations and the ®xtures/jigs among setups.
Ultimately, the objective of low production cost can
be achieved.
However, setup planning encounters dif®culties in
situations where many decisive factors exist. These
decisive factors include ®xtures/jigs, approach direc-
313
tions of manufacturing features, feature precedence
relationships, natural operation orders, tolerance
relationships, and cutting tools, etc. These decisive
factors have multiple and inter-connected relation-
ships with one another. They are often con¯icting and
non-commensurate. The con¯ict arises when there is
an improvement to the ®tting degree of one decisive
factor that is detrimental to that of others, and vice
versa. The non-commensuration is that these decisive
factors cannot be compared on the same scale or unit.
Furthermore, the relationships among such decisive
factors are usually nonlinear. The setup planning
problem is thus a NP complete problem (Lin, 1993).
314
In order to solve such a hard problem, ef®cient
approaches like neural networks are therefore strongly
recommended and adopted.
Among the different types of neural networks,
Kohonen self-organizing neural networks commonly
classify the inputs of neural networks into groups
automatically according to the natural attributes of
inputs by using pre-de®ned weight update rules. The
setup generation belongs to the problem of classifying
operations into setups according to the attributes of
each operation. These attributes include the ®xtures/
jigs used by operations, the approach directions of
features, feature precedence relationships, and the
tolerance relationships among features on which the
currently related operations are performed. It is
therefore reasonable to adopt the Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks to categorize operations
into groups (setups).
Hop®eld neural networks are well ®tted to solve the
NP complete problem, such as the traveling salesman
problem. Since the problem of the operation sequence
in each setup and the setup sequence among the
generated setups belong to the NP complete problem,
Hop®eld neural networks are therefore utilized
ef®ciently, to solve the operation sequence problem
and the setup sequence problem. Before moving
further to develop the neural networks based
approaches to solve the setup planning problems,
the next section introduces the basic information
about neural networks.
3. Neural networks based approach
3.1. Introduction to neural networks
Neural networks are the abstract simulations of a real
nervous system that contain a collection of neurons
interacting via axon connections. Neural networks are
de®ned as massively parallel interconnected networks
of simple (usually adaptive) elements, and their
hierarchical organizations which are intended to
interact with the objects of the real world in the
same way as the biological nervous systems do.
Neural networks attempt to achieve the best goal via a
dense mesh of computing nodes and connections.
Neural networks have some remarkable advan-
tages, such as high processing speed through massive
parallelism, error tolerance, and non-algorithmic
simulation. The high processing speed makes it well
Ming and Mak
suited to deal with real time control and improve
diagnostic system capabilities. The error tolerance
makes neural networks suitable to process noisy and
incomplete data, and the non-algorithmic simulation
makes it possible to model some complex systems,
where the only available are the system inputs and
outputs.
There are several types of neural network models
widely used currently. These can be classi®ed by the
supervised learning, such as back-propagation (BP)
networks, counter-propagation (CP) networks, asso-
ciative memory networks etc., and unsupervised
learning models, such as Kohonen self-organizing
neural networks, ART networks. The neural network
models can also be classi®ed in accordance with the
performing method of the networks, which are
feedforward model, e.g., back-propagation networks,
self-organizing neural networks, and recurrent model,
e.g., Hop®eld neural networks, ART neural networks
etc. Some of the above models are widely used to
solve the manufacturing problems (Huang and Zhang,
1994). In this paper, the Kohonen self-organizing
neural networks and the Hop®eld neural networks are
mainly adopted to solve the setup planning problem in
terms of the nature of neural network models and the
setup planning problem. More details about these two
models will follow.
3.2. Kohonen self-organizing neural networks
The Kohonen self-organizing neural networks belong
to the unsupervised neural network model (Kohonen,
1982, 1995). The networks utilize competitive
learning in such a way that, by comparing the value
of the output neurons, only the winner of the output
neuron is permitted to learn in each training
presentation. The weights of the winners are updated
by considering
 the new input pattern. For a new input
pattern xip ; i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; n (n is the length of the
input pattern vector), the output of each neuron yj for
input pattern p is calculated as
X
n
yj ˆ wij xip …1†
iˆ1
where wij is the weight between the input element i
and the output neuron j. The winner of the output
neuron is selected at the qth iteration according to the
maximal criterion as follows:
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach
yk ˆ max yj …2†
jˆ1;...;m
where m is the total number of the output neurons, and
k is the winner of output neurons. Consequently, the
weights wik connected to the winner neuron k are
updated at the qth iteration based on following
equation:
ÿ

wik …q† ˆ f xip ; wik …q ÿ 1† …3†
for i ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; n, where f …† is the weight update
function. For example, the updated function
can be ÿ wij
…q† ˆ Aj xip ‡ Bj wij …q ÿ 1†, where
Aj ˆ 1 mj ‡ 1 which attempts to average out the
input pattern p toÿall the existing

patterns in the cluster
j, and Bj ˆ mj mj ‡ 1 tries to average out the
existing weights, where mj is the number of patterns
that fall into the same cluster j. In the beginning of the
neural network running, mj ˆ 0, and therefore,
wi1 ˆ x1i .
By using the above unsupervised learning algo-
rithm, the input patterns of neural networks are
automatically categorized into clusters on the basis of
the similarity of attributes in the input patterns.
Hence, the objective to classify the input patterns into
groups could be easily reached.
3.3. Hop®eld neural networks
For many years, the primary method of neural network
optimization was the technique proposed by Hop®eld
and Tank (1985). This approach casts the optimization
problem in the form of a cost function that can be
implemented as a one-layer feedback associative
memory. The biases and weights of the associative
memory represent the constraints, and the node values
represent the solution. Each neuron i in this neural
network has two states represented by the output Vi of
the neuron having the values Vi0 …zero† or Vi1 …one†.
The total input to a neuron i consists of both external
inputs Ii , and inputs from other neurons. The total
input …Hi † to neuron i is then
X setup sequence problem have similar characteristics to
Hi ˆ Tij Vj ‡ Ii …4†
j=i
Where Tij represents the strength of the synaptic
connection between neurons Vi and Vj . The state of
the neuron i changes according to the following
neuron state update function:
315
Vi ˆ 0 if Hi ÿ Ui 50
…5†
Vi ˆ 1 if Hi ÿ Ui 40
where Ui describes the threshold of neuron i. By
introducing the Liapunov function (also called energy
function)
1XX X X
Eˆÿ Tij Vi Vj ÿ Ii Vi ‡ U i Vi …6†
2 i j=i i i
to the above neuron network system, the state of the
system moves towards the minimum of the quantity.
The change DE in E, due to the state of neuron i by
DVi , is
" #
X
DE ˆ ÿ Tij Vj ‡ Ii ÿ Ui DVi …7†
j=i
According to the state update function (5), when the
value in the bracket is positive, DVi is positive, and
similarly for the negative case. Therefore, any change
in E by using the algorithm (5) is negative. In the end,
the state update function must lead the network
system to the stable state that will not further change
with time. This means that the dynamic system moves
from an initial point in the state space in a direction
that decrease its energy (6), and converges to a stop at
a minimum of the energy function. When Hop®eld
neural networks reach their stable state, the output of
neurons can be read as the solution to the problem for
which the network is represented.
The above representation clearly indicates that the
Kohonen self-organizing neural network model is
well ®tted to the classi®cation of their inputs into
groups, and Hop®eld neural network model is mainly
employed to optimize hard problems. Since the setup
generation problem belongs to the problem that
classi®es the operations into groups (setups), it is
therefore reasonable to adopt Kohonen self-orga-
nizing neural networks to solve setup generation
problem. The operation sequence problem and the
those of the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), and
are thus mapped onto TSP. Since Hop®eld neural
networks have been demonstrated to be ef®cient to
solve TSP, it is thus suitable to adopt Hop®eld neural
networks to solve the operation sequence and the
setup sequence problems.
316
4. Setup generation
4.1. Setup generation factors
The ®rst step in setup planning is the setup generation.
The principle for generating setups is to organize the
manufacturing operations into groups, so that the part
can be machined with good manufacturability. At the
same time, the product quality can be greatly
improved, and the manufacturing cost and time can
be minimized. In order to reach such objectives, i.e.,
good manufacturability, high product quality, and
minimal cost and time, the following main factors
should be considered in generating setups, i.e.,
®xtures/jigs, approach directions, feature precedence
relationships, and tolerance relationships.
(1) Fixtures/jigs. The ®xtures/jigs are the auxiliary
tools, which are used to stabilize and clamp the part
onto the machine, so that the part can be successfully
machined to meet the design requirements. Different
types of ®xtures/jigs may be used for different kinds
of manufacturing operations. In some cases, one type
of manufacturing operation can be performed by
using several alternative ®xtures/jigs.
(2) Approach direction. The approach direction of
a manufacturing feature is a non-blocked path that a
tool can pass through to access the attachment face of
the feature in the work-piece. One feature should have
at least one approach direction in order to be
machined. Otherwise, it cannot be manufactured.
Some features may have more than one approach
direction.
(3) Feature precedence relationship. The feature
precedence relationship describes the machining
precedence of the manufacturing features in the
same part, in terms of manufacturing experiences,
and the manufacturability of the machining part. The
reason to consider the feature precedence relation-
ship factor in setup generation is that features having
quite different precedence relationships should be
classi®ed into different setups. The feature pre-
cedence relationship can be categorized into the
types of relationships among features, such as the
types of the feature attachment and the feature
intersection. The feature attachment relationship
indicates that one feature is attached to another
feature(s). The feature intersection relationship
shows that one feature intersects with other
feature(s). This intersection contains partial intersec-
tion and full intersection (nest). According to the
Ming and Mak
manufacturing experience, the following rules should
not be violated, in view of the feature precedence
relationship:
* When the feature attachment occurs among
features, machine the feature which is attached
by the others ®rst.
* When holes partially intersect with any other
types of features, machine the holes before the
others.
* When features partially intersect with each
other, machine the one with the smallest surface
®rst.
* When two features are nested inside one
another, machine the one with the largest
surface area or the topmost feature ®rst.
* When one of the intersected features is edge cut,
then the edge cut should always be machined
last.
(4) Tolerance relationship. The tolerance relation-
ship mainly refers to tolerance constraints among
features given by designers. These tolerance relation-
ships include dimensional tolerance and geometric
tolerance. Since the geometric tolerance strongly
affects the sequence of manufacturing operations,
the geometric tolerance is thus mainly considered in
generating setups. The geometric tolerance consists
of:
(i) Shape tolerance, which includes straightness,
¯atness, circularity, cylindricity, linear pro®le.
(ii) Position tolerance, which includes angularity,
concentricity, surface pro®le, position, sym-
metry, parallelism, runout, perpendicularity.
Among the 13 aforementioned geometric tolerances,
the ®rst 5 shape tolerances relate only with the feature
itself. The latter 8 position tolerances represent the
geometric tolerance relationships among the different
features that are highly associated with the setup
planning activity in process planning. As according to
the manufacturing experience, the features having the
position tolerance relationships should be grouped
into the same setup as far as possible. Such a purpose
is to improve the manufacturing precision by reducing
the re-setup changing tolerance. The position toler-
ance is therefore the dominant factor that affects the
setup generation among the 13 types of geometric
tolerances, and thus will be considered as one of the
main factors in setup generation.
After discussing the above factors in setup
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach
generation, the Kohonen self-organizing neural net-
works based approach designed to generate setups in
setup planning is developed in the following section.
4.2. Kohonen self-organizing neural networks
based approach to setup generation
The theory of the Kohonen self-organizing neural
networks (KSONN) based approach to setup genera-
tion consists mainly of the input representation, the
weight update constraint, and the detailed algorithm,
which are proposed in detail in the following sub-
sections.
4.2.1. Input representation for KSONN
In order to use Kohonen self-organizing neural
networks to categorize manufacturing operations
into setups taking the above factors into consideration,
the input to Kohonen self-organizing neural networks
is thus represented in the form of ng ‡ 6 ‡ nf digital
ordered pattern. Here, ng is the type of ®xture/jig used,
6 is the number of approach directions, and nf is the
number of features to be machined. This means that an
operation pattern Op is represented by the value of
h®xture type, approach direction, feature precedencei.
The sub-pattern h®xture typei can be represented
in greater detail as hgp1 . . . gpng i, where the super-
scription denotes the operation p. The sub-pattern
happroach directioni can be described as
h‡ x; ÿ x; ‡ y; ÿ y; ‡ z; ÿ zi. The sub-pattern hfeature
precedencei can be expressed as h f1p . . . fnpf i. The sub-
pattern hgp1 . . . gpng i represents the different types of
®xtures/jigs, which are used by the operation p. If the
value of gpi is 1, then the ®xture/jig i is used by
operation p. Otherwise, the value of gip is zero. The
sub-pattern h‡ x; ÿ x; ‡ y; ÿ y; ‡ z; ÿ zi describes the
approach directions of the feature machined by
operation p, and is represented by the digital value
between ÿ 1 and 1. For example, the pattern
h1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0i shows the approach directions of
‡ x, and ÿ y. The pattern h0.5, 0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0i
denotes the approach direction between ‡ x and ‡ y.
The sub-pattern h f1p . . . fnpf i expresses feature
precedence relationships between the feature f p of
the operation pattern p and all other features. The
value of fip is represented in the feature-to-feature
incident matrix. If the value of fip is positive, then
feature fep is machined before another feature fei .
Otherwise, the value of fip is negative.
After the detailed representation of the input pattern
317
to the Kohonen self-organizing neural networks, the
weight update constraint should be speci®ed to reach
the successful classi®cation of manufacturing opera-
tions into setups.
4.2.2. Weight update constraints for KSONN
There are mainly four factors, i.e., the ®xture/jig, the
approach direction, the feature precedence relation-
ship, and the position tolerance, which should be
seriously considered in the procedure of setup
generation. Among these four factors, ®rst, the
®xture/jig is the most important factor, because each
setup utilizes only one type (or set) of ®xture/jig.
Second, the approach direction is the more important
factor. Operations performed by using the same type
of ®xture/jig with common approach directions may
be grouped into the same setup. Third, the feature
precedence relationship should be considered, to
decide to which setups the new operation belongs.
Finally, the position tolerance requirement is met as
far as possible, by assigning a new operation to a
special setup. Such a special setup has the maximum
number of position tolerances between the feature of
the new operation and the features already grouped in
such a setup.
(1) Fixtures/jigs and approach direction con-
straints. The setups are generated by ®rst
considering the ®xture/jig constraints. A new setup
is generated when a new type of ®xture/jig should be
used to perform the new operation. Operations
requiring different types of ®xtures/jigs should be
classi®ed into different setups. In other words,
operations, which can be machined by using the
same type of ®xture/jig, can be grouped into the same
setup. Hence, the ®rst step is to select the setup with
the ®xtures/jigs common to the new operation from
the currently generated setups. If there is no such
setup to be generated, a new setup will be generated
for the new operation, and the next new operation will
be dealt with. Otherwise, the next approach direction
constraint should be considered. The following steps
illustrate the procedure:
1: Find the new feature to perform the new
operation.
2: Get the new approach direction of the new
feature.
3: Find the setups Si , which utilize the same type of
®xtures/jigs, and has the same approach
directions as the new feature.
318
If (no such setup Si exists)
then go to step 5;
Else
go to step 4.
End if
4: The new input operation can be categorized into
the setups Si .
5: Create a new setup for the new operation.
The above steps clearly indicate that two criterion are
®rst used to generate setups, which are the type of
®xture/jig, and the approach direction. In order to
utilize Kohonen self-organizing neural networks to
generate setups, it is therefore reasonable to adopt two
subsets of weights, which correspond to the types of
®xtures/jigs and approach directions. The ®rst subset
of weights, called ®xture-weights, are the weights
related to the inputs of the types of ®xtures/jigs. The
second subset is the weights associated with the
values of approach directions, and is therefore called
approach-direction-weights.
There is the possibility that one operation may be
machined by using several different ®xtures/jigs.
Hence, one operation may be clustered to several
setups. This contradicts the manufacturing experience
that only one operation can be assigned to one setup.
In order to prohibit the emergence of this problem, the
®xture-weights are updated by using the AND
operation. This updated method guarantees that only
new operations with common ®xtures/jigs are classi-
®ed into the one and the same setup. The same method
will be used to update the approach-direction-weights.
Since one feature may have several approach
directions, an operation that machines one feature
may have the opportunity to be assigned to several
setups. In this connection, the AND operation is also
employed to update the approach-direction-weights,
and to prevent one operation from being assigned to
several setups.
(2) Feature precedence relationship constraint.
After considering the ®xtures/jigs and the approach
direction constraints in the weight update of the
Kohonen self-organizing neural networks, the feature
precedence relationship constraint should also be
seriously considered. Similarly, the data of the feature
precedent relationship of the new operation should
also be added to the weights of the Kohonen self-
Ming and Mak
organizing neural networks. This is the third sub-set
called feature-precedence-weights. The reason is that
features with quite different feature precedence
relationships should be grouped into different setups
in terms of the manufacturing experiences. For
example, features A and C use the same types of
®xtures/jigs and have the common approach direc-
tions. As for the ®xtures/jigs and the approach
direction constraints, features A and C can be grouped
into the same setup. However, another feature
precedence relationship constraint exists. Such con-
straint mentions that feature A must be machined
before feature B, and feature C must be machined
after feature B. Furthermore, feature A with B, and
feature B with C use the quite different types of
®xtures/jigs. This means that features A and B, as well
as features B and C, cannot be grouped into the same
setups. Consequently, features A and C cannot be
grouped into the same setup in accordance with the
feature precedence relationship constraint. The
detailed procedure to solve the contradiction problem
arising from the feature precedence constraint is
therefore proposed, and described as follows:
1: Get the feature fea on which the current inputted
operation Oa is performed.
2: Find the setups fS1 ; . . . ; SK g (the outputs of
Kohonen self-organizing neural networks)
which use the common types of ®xtures/jigs,
and have the common approach directions as
that of feature fea , where K is the total number of
such setups.
If …K ˆ 0†
then go to step 5
Else
go to step 3.
End if
3: Find the feature-precedence-weights of setups
fS1 ; . . . ; SK g which are fwi1 g; fwi2 g; fwiK g for
i ˆ 1; . . . ; nf , where nf is the total number of
features machined. Select the setups in accord-
ance with the criterion as follows:
nf  
X
f
Nab ˆ Ffp xif ; wib 40
iˆ1
where
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach

1; if x1 40 and x2 50; or x1 50 and x2 40
Ffp …x1 ; x2 † ˆ
0; otherwise
and xi f is the feature precedence element in the
input pattern of the current operation Oa , for
b ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; K. Let L be the total number of
setups selected in this step.
If …L ˆ 0†
then go to step 6;
Else
go to step 4.
End if
4: Delete the setups selected in step 3 from the
setups selected in step 2. Let M be the number of
setups left, i.e., M ˆ K ÿ L.
If …M ˆ 0†
then go to step 5;
Else
go to step 6.
End if
5: Create a new setup for operation Oa , and go to
step 6.
6: Stop the algorithm.
In the above algorithm, the emergency of the
contradiction (non-manufacturability), where features
having contradictory feature precedence relationship
constraints are grouped into the same setup, is strictly
prohibited. In order to satisfy the feature precedence
relationship constraint successfully and completely,
the feature-precedence-weights in the Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks are updated by using the
OR operator.
(3) Position tolerance relationship constraints. In
the procedure of the weight update of the Kohonen
self-organizing neural networks, another constraint
should be considered, i.e., the position tolerance
relationship among the different features. According
to the manufacturing experience, if features having
the position tolerance relationships with one another
can be totally classi®ed into the same setup, then the
position tolerance can be easily achieved by
reducing the re-setup tolerance. Consequently, the
manufacturing cost can be diminished. However,
319
con¯icts may sometimes occur between the gener-
ated setups and the position tolerance relationship.
For example, two features have the position
tolerance, but can only be machined by different
types of ®xtures/jigs. Hence, the operations used to
machine these two features cannot be classi®ed into
one setup. Another more complex situation is that
the current feature has position tolerance relation-
ships with other features belonging to several
different setups. Under these circumstances, it is
dif®cult to judge to which setups the current feature
should be assigned, or whether a new setup should
be created for the current feature. Due to the
complexity of the position tolerance relationship
problem in the generation of setups, there is
relatively little published literature that focuses or
discusses such a problem, and even fewer optimal
approaches are available to solve such kinds of
problems. In this paper, a near optimal approach is
used to deal with the position tolerance constraints.
The algorithm is represented below:
1: Get the feature fei to perform the current
inputted operation Oi .
2: Find the setups S1 ; . . . ; Sj ; . . . ; SH with the
common types of ®xtures/jigs and the common
approach directions to those of the feature fei ,
as well as with no con¯icts with the feature fei
according to the feature precedence relation-
ship constraint. Here H is the total number of
such setups.
If …H ˆ 0†
then go to step 5;
Else
go to step 3.
End if
3: Calculate the number of the position tolerance
nptj between
 the feature fe i and the features in
setups S1 ; . . . ; Sj ; . . . ; SH for j [ f1; . . . ; H g.
If (nptj ˆ 0 for any j [ f1; . . . ; H g)
then go to step 4;
Else
nBpt ˆ max nptj , and
jˆ1;...;H
assign the operation Oi to the setup SB .
End if
320 Ming and Mak

4: Calculate the number of approach direction naj 2: Get a new operation p

ÿg p a p Of pand

the new input
p
between
 the feature fei and the features in setups pattern X ˆ X ; X ; X .
S1 ; . . . ; Sj ; . . . ; SH for j [ f1; . . . ; H g. 3: Select all the possibly generated setups (output
neurons) for which
If (naj ˆ 0 for any j [ f1; . . . ; H g)
then go to step 5; ng
X ÿ

g p
ym ˆ Fand g xip ; wim  1 …8†
Else iˆ1

nBa ˆ max naj , and where

jˆ1;...;H
assign the operation Oi to the setup SB . 
x1 ; if x1 ˆ x2
Fand …x1 ; x2 † ˆ
End if 0; otherwise
5: Create a new setup for the operation Oi , and go
for m ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; M, where M is the number of
to step 6.
setups which have been clustered. Let K be the
6: Stop the algorithm.
number of setups selected for this step.
After the input representation and the weight update If …K ˆ 0†
constraint have been proposed, the detailed algorithm
then go to step 9;
of using the Kohonen self-organizing neural networks
based approach to the setup generation problem can Else
be developed.
go to step 4.
End if
4.2.3. Algorithm of the KSONN based approach to
setup generation 4: Select all the appropriate setups for which
The derailed algorithm of adopting Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks to solve the setup X
na  
a p a p
generation problem in accordance with the nature of ym ˆ Fand xj ; wjm 1 …9†
the setup generation problem is developed as follows: jˆ1

1: Set the value of ng , which is the total number of for m ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; K. Let J be the number of
types of ®xtures/jigs used, and the value of nf setups selected in this step.
which is the total number of features machined. If …J ˆ 0†
Input the ®rst operation O1 , get the input then go to step 9;
pattern of the operation O1 , which is
hfg x1i g; fa x1j g; ff x1k gi, where 1  i  ng ; Else
1  j  6; 1  i  nf , or specially, hg11 ; . . . ; go to step 5.
g1ng ; x1 ; ÿ x1 ; y1 ; ÿ y1 ; z1 ; ÿ z1 ; f11 ;. . . ; fn1f i.
Initiate ®xture-weights g wi1 ˆ g wi1 …0† ˆ fg x1i g, End if
approach-direction-weights a wi1 ˆ a wi1 …0† ˆ
fa x1i g, and  feature-precedence-weights 5: Select all the appropriate setups for which
f

wi1 ˆ f wi1 …0† ˆ f x1i . Here g wij is the ®x-
nf
ture-weights between the input g xi (the types of X ÿ

®xtures/jigs) and the output (setup) j, a wij is the
f
ymp ˆ Ffp f xkp ; wkm 40 …10†
kˆ1
approach-direction-weights between the input
a where
xi (the approach directions) and the output
(setup) j, f wij is the feature-precedence-weights 
1; if x1 40 and x2 50; or x1 50 and x2 40
between the input f xi (the feature precedence Ffp …x1 ; x2 † ˆ
0; otherwise
relationships) and the output (setup) j. Set the
generated setup number l ˆ 1. Reset the pattern for m ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; J. Let I be the number of
number p/2, and the iteration number q/2. selected setups in this step.
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach 321

If …I ˆ 0† Else
then go to step 6; go to step 8.
Else End if
delete the setups selected in this step from the 8: Record the current pattern Xp to the setup
setups selected in step 4. (output neuron) j, and update the network
weights as follows:
End if
ÿ

Let H be the number of setups left, i.e., g
wij …q ‡ 1† ˆ Fand g xip ; g wij …q† …14†
H ˆ J ÿ I. ÿ

a
wij …q ‡ 1† ˆ Fand a xip ; a wij …q† and …15†
If …H ˆ 0†
ÿ

then go to step 9;
f
wij …q ‡ 1† ˆ For f xip ; f wij …q† …16†

Else where
(
go to step 6. x1 ; if x1 ˆ x2
For …x1 ; x2 † ˆ
End if x1 ‡ x2 ; otherwise
Go to step 10.
6: Calculate the number of position tolerances
between the current input feature fe… p† , and the 9: Create a new setup l and set l/l ‡ 1. Let
features ffem g in the setups selected in step 5 as: g 
g
wil …0† ˆ xip ; a wil …0† ˆ a xip
pt p
ym ˆ Fpt … fep ; f fem g† …11† and
for m ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; H, where Fpt …† is the function f
wil …0† ˆ ff xip g
to calculate the number of position tolerance. In
this step, the best setup j is selected according to Go to step 10.
the criteria of maximal position tolerance 10: If (all the input patterns have been classi®ed)
relationships as follows:
then go to step 11;
pt pt p
yj ˆ max ym …12† Else
mˆ1;...;H

If …pt yj ˆ 0† set p/p ‡ 1; q/q ‡ 1, and go to step 2.

then go to step 7; End if

Else 11: Stop the entire algorithm.

go to step 8. When the above Kohonen-self organizing neural

networks based approach has been adopted to group
End if the operations into setups, the next steps to solve the
setup planning problem are the operation sequence,
7: Select the best setup j according to the criteria and the setup sequence. These can be solved by the
of maximal common approach directions as Hop®eld neural networks based approach.
follows:
5. Operation sequence
a a p
yj ˆ max ym …13†
mˆ1;...;H
5.1. Operation sequence problem
If …a yj ˆ 0†
The operation in each setup should be sequenced after
then go to step 9; the setups have been generated. The objective of the
322
operation sequence in each setup is to put the
operations in order in such a way that the part can
be machined with good manufacturability, high
product quality, and low manufacturing cost. In
order to achieve such goals, four main constraints,
i.e., the feature precedence relationship constraint, the
natural operation order constraint, the position
tolerance constraint, and the cutting tool constraint,
should be considered in the operation sequence.
(1) Feature precedence relationship constraint. In
order to obtain good manufacturability, the same
feature precedence relationship constraint considered
in setup generation is also noted seriously, while the
operations in each generated setup are sequenced.
(2) Natural operation order constraint. The nat-
ural operation order describes the order of the
manufacturing operations to machine the same type
of features with different types of precision. One
operation can only be seamlessly followed by another
operation in order to reach the expected quality of the
machined part. For example, the operation of the
rough turning can only be followed by semi-®nish-
turning or ®nish turning. It is impossible to insert a
milling operation into the middle of the rough turning
and the ®nish turning in the same setup.
(3) Position tolerance relationship constraint. The
position tolerance relationship is considered during
the sequencing operations, in an attempt to improve
product quality without violating the feature pre-
cedence relationship constraint and the natural
operation order constraint. According to the manu-
facturing experience, the operations in each setup
must be sequenced in such a way that the operations of
the features, used as data to machine other features,
are sequenced in the precedent order. Alternatively,
such operations must have the ®rst priority to be
machined in each setup to meet the tolerance
requirement economically, and eventually to improve
the machining precision as well as product quality.
(4) Cutting tool constraint. The cutting tool
constraint should also be considered without
destroying the three previous constraints, i.e., the
feature precedence relationship constraint, the natural
operation order constraint, and the position tolerance
relationship constraint. By considering this constraint,
the changes of cutting tools among the operations will
be diminished, and thus the manufacturing cost and
time to change the cutting tools will be minimized.
The operations using the common cutting tools should
Ming and Mak
therefore be, as far as possible, sequenced in the
consecutive order, so that the time and cost for the
change of cutting tools among the operations are
minimized.
Among the above four operation sequence constraints,
the feature precedence relationship constraint is the
strongest constraint, which implies that it should be
met ®rst. The natural operation order constraint is the
stronger constraint that should be satis®ed without
destroying the former constraint. The position
tolerance constraint is the strong constraint that
should be met without violating the two former
constraints. Finally, the cutting tool constraint should
be ultimately ®tted without violating the former three
constraints. Alternatively, if the position tolerance
relationship constraint contradicts the feature pre-
cedence relationship constraint, then the feature
precedence relationship constraint must be met ®rst,
although there is the position tolerance relationship
constraint between two features. This ®rst satisfaction
to the feature precedence relationship constraint may
cause the probability of destroying the position
tolerance relationship constraint. For example, feature
1 … fe1 † machined by operation 1 …O1 † has the position
tolerance relationship constraint with feature 2 … fe2 †
machined by operation 2 …O2 †. The design require-
ment indicates that feature 2 is referred as the datum
by feature 1. According to the position tolerance
relationship constraint, feature 1 can only be
machined after feature 2 has been machined.
However, there is another stronger constraint, i.e.,
the feature precedence relationship constraint, which
exists between feature 1 and feature 2, and indicates
that feature 2 is attached to feature 1. In following the
feature precedence relationship constraint, feature 2
can be manufactured only after feature 1 is machined.
This will destroy the position tolerance relationship
constraint between feature 1 and feature 2, because
the feature precedence relationship constraint is the
strongest constraint that should be satis®ed ®rst.
Otherwise, feature 2 cannot be machined. The same
situation applies between the feature precedence
relationship constraint and the cutting tool constraint,
as well as the situation between the position tolerance
relationship constraint and the cutting tool constraint,
and so on.
The above situation seems to indicate that it is very
dif®cult to deal with such a situation, with the
uttermost satisfaction to the strongest, and then the
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach 323

stronger, and then the strong constraints. However, Else

the operation sequence problem in setup planning can
dab ˆ 0:
be mapped onto the traveling salesman problem
(TSP), and therefore can be ef®ciently solved by the End if
Hop®eld neural networks based approach (Hop®eld
3.2: If ( feature fea must be machined after
1985).
feature feb according to the natural
operation order constraint)
then dab /dab ‡ 100.
5.2. Hop®eld neural networks based approach to
operation sequence End if
3.3: If ( feature fea must be machined after
By using the distance dab to represent the relationships
feature feb according to the position
between operations a and b in each setup, the
tolerance relationship constraint)
operation sequence problem can be mapped onto the
traveling salesman problem. The distance dab is then dab /dab ‡ 10.
assigned with the value of 1000, if the manufacturing
End if
procedure from operation a to b destroys the feature
precedence relationship constraint. The distance dab is 3.4: If (the cutting tool used to perform
assigned with the value of 100, if the natural operation operation Oa is different from the
order constraint cannot be satis®ed. When the position cutting tool used to perform operation
tolerance relationship constraint is violated, the Ob )
distance dab is assigned with 10. If the cutting tool
then dab /dab ‡ 1.
constraint is destroyed, the distance dab is set to 1. By
using the Hop®eld neural networks with the energy End if
function that utilizes these distances as the penalty 4: If …b ˆ N o †
cost, the distance with the larger value will be ®rst
then go to step 5;
discarded. In this sense, the feature precedence
relationship constraint will be ®rst satis®ed. Then Else
attention will be given to the ®tting of the natural
set b/b ‡ 1, and go to step 2;
operation order constraint and the position tolerance
relationship constraint. Lastly, the cutting tool End if
constraint will be satis®ed if possible. The algorithm
where N o is the total number of operations in the
for calculating distances between the two operations
current setup.
to solve the operation sequence problem easily is
5: If …a ˆ N o †
represented as follows:
then go to step 6;
1: Set a ˆ 1; b ˆ 1. Get operation Oa and the
feature fea on which operation Oa is performed. Else
Get another operation Ob and its corresponding
Set a/a ‡ 1; b/1, and go to step 2.
feature feb .
2: If …a ˆ b† End if
then set b/b ‡ 1. 6: Stop the algorithm.
End if
3: Calculate distance dab between operation Oa
and Ob :
The above algorithm clear indicates that the value of
3.1: If ( feature fea must be machined after
dab is different among the four different constraints.
feature feb according to the feature
The distance value in the situation of violating the
precedence relationship constraint)
feature precedence relationship constraint is assigned
then dab ˆ 1000; with the biggest value of 1000. The distance value in
324
the situation of destroying the natural operation order
constraint is set to 100. The distance value in the
situation of not satisfying the position tolerance
relationship constraint is set to 10. The distance
value in the situation of destroying the cutting tool
constraint is assigned with 1. Thus, the value of the
distances ascend with the importance of the
constraints.
By considering each operation as a city, and the
constraints among the operations as the distances
among cities, the operation sequence problem can be
mapped onto the traveling salesman problem. The
Hop®eld neural networks based approach, a widely-
adopted approach in solving the traveling salesman
problem (Hop®eld, 1985), can thus be employed to
solve the operation sequence
ÿ
problem ef®ciently. By
using the variable Vai Vbj which indicates that
operation a…b† is sequenced in the order i… j†, the
energy function of the Hop®eld neural networks
specially designed to solve the operation sequence
problems in the setup planning can be formulated as
follows:
!2
AX No XNo
OSst ˆ V ÿ1
2 aˆ1 iˆ1 ai
!2
BX
No X
No
‡ Vai ÿ 1
2 iˆ1 aˆ1
CX N X o o
N
‡ V …1 ÿ Vai †
2 aˆ1 iˆ1 ai
No X
X No X
No ÿ

‡D dab Vai Vb;i‡1 ‡ Vb;iÿ1 …17†
aˆ1 bˆ1 iˆ1
The fourth term in the above formula describes the
costs of the implicit representation of the feature
precedence relationship constraint, the natural opera-
tion order constraint, the position tolerance
relationship constraint, and the cutting tool constraint,
in solving operation sequence problem. When
compared to the standard energy function (6) of
Hop®eld Neural networks, the synaptic connections of
the above Hop®eld neural networks to solve the
operation sequence problem in setup planning is
described as:
Tai;bj ˆ ÿ Ada;b ÿ Bdi; j ‡ Cdx;b di;j
  …
ÿ 2Ddab dj;i‡1 ‡ dj;iÿ1
Ming and Mak
and the external input to the neural networks is
I ˆ A ‡ B ÿ C=2 …19†
where

1; if x ˆ y
dx;y ˆ
0; otherwise
The energy function of Hop®eld neural networks to
solve the operation sequence problem in setup
planning is different from that of solving the traveling
salesman problem. In the traveling salesman problem,
the cities' distance is dab ˆ dba . However, in solving
the operation sequence problem, the constraint
distance dab =dba . The dynamic nature of the
Hop®eld neural networks allows the ®nal solution to
the operation sequence problem to be obtained by
reading the stable values of the outputs of neurons in
the Hop®eld neural networks. After sequencing the
operations in each setup, the setup sequence is the
next step in setup planning.
6. Setup sequence
6.1. Setup sequence problem
The purpose of the setup sequence is to sequence the
generated setups in order, so that the part can be
machined with good manufacturability, high quality,
minimal production cost and less manufacturing time.
These goals can be reached by maximally satisfying
the following four constraints: the feature precedence
relationship constraint, the natural operation order
constraint, the position tolerance relationship con-
straint, and the ®xtures/jigs constraint.
(1) Feature precedence relationship constraint.
The details of the feature precedence relationship
considered in the setup sequence are the same as what
have been discussed in sections 4 and 5. However, the
feature precedence relationship constraint considered
in setup sequence emphasizes on the relationships
among the features from different setups. While in
setup generation it is mainly used to generate setups
by considering the features with contradictory feature
precedent relationships. In operation sequence, it
focuses on the relationships among the features in
the same setup. The setups must be sequenced in such
18† an order that the feature precedence relationship
(feature attachment, feature interaction) constraints
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach
will be ®rst satis®ed. In other words, the setup,
including the features which must be machined before
the other features in accordance with feature
precedence relationship constraint, should be
sequenced in the prior order, and therefore has the
high priority to be machined.
(2) Natural operation order constraint. The nat-
ural operation order constraint considered in the setup
sequence is that the setups should be put in such an
order to prevent destroying the natural operation order
among the different setups. It takes the same role as it
did in the operation sequence in the Section 5.
(3) Position tolerance relationship constraint. By
considering the position tolerance relationship con-
straint, the product quality can be improved with low
cost. The details of the position tolerance relationship
constraint in the setup sequence are represented in this
paper. If the setups consist of the features that are used
as data (datum) to machine the other features, then the
setups should be sequenced in the preceding order of
the setup sequence. These should be done without
violating the feature precedence relationship con-
straint and the natural operation order constraint.
(4) Fixtures/jigs constraint. Without destroying the
previous three constraints, the ®xtures/jigs constraint
has to be considered. The setups that use the common
®xtures/jigs should, as far as possible, be sequenced in
the consecutive order so that the time and the cost for
the change of ®xtures/jigs among setups can be
minimized. By considering this constraint, the
changes of ®xtures/jigs among setups will be
diminished, and therefore the manufacturing cost
and the time to change the ®xtures/jigs will be
minimized.
The above discussion shows that the setups should
be sequenced in such an order that the feature
precedence relationship constraint among the features
should ®rst be satis®ed. The natural operation order
constraint should be satis®ed without violating the
former constraint. The position tolerance relationship
constraint must be met without destroying the two
former constraints. Finally, the ®xtures/jigs constraint
must be maximally satis®ed without destroying the
former three constraints.
The setup sequence problem can also be mapped
onto the traveling salesman problem by adopting the
strategy of the penalty distance to violate the
constraints among setups in the setup sequence. This
is done in a way similar to that of the operation
325
sequence discussed in the last section. The setup
sequence problem can therefore be ef®ciently solved
by the Hop®eld neural networks based approach. In
such a way, the cost of distance among setups will be
minimized. In other words, the feature precedence
relationship, the natural operation order, the position
tolerance relationship, and the ®xtures/jigs constraint
will be maximally satis®ed.
6.2. Hop®eld neural networks based approach to
setup sequence
In order to map the setup sequence problem into the
traveling salesman problem, the distance dab between
setup a and setup b is calculated by taking the above
setup sequence constraints into consideration. These
constraints are the feature precedence relationship, the
natural operation order, the position tolerance rela-
tionship, and the ®xtures/jigs constraint. The detailed
algorithm to calculate the distances among the
different setups in terms of the above four constraints
is developed as follows:
1: Set setup index a ˆ 1; b ˆ 1. Get setup Sa and
the total features set fea in setup Sa , get another
setup Sb and the features set feb in setup Sb ,
where a; b [ f1; 2; . . . ; N s g; N s is the total
number of setups.
2: If …a ˆ b†
then set b/b ‡ 1.
End if
3: Calculate distances dab among setups sta and
stb :
3.1: Set dab ˆ 0. Calculate distance dab
according to the feature precedence rela-
tionship, the natural operation order, and
the position tolerance relationship con-
straints:
3.1.1: Get feai form feature set fea , where
i [ f1; 2; . . . ; na g and na are the total
number of features in fea . Get febj form
feature
 set feb , where
j [ 1; 2; . . . ; n and nb are the total
b
number of features in feature set feb .
Set i ˆ 1; j ˆ 1.
3.1.2: If ( feature feai must be machined after
feature febj , according to the feature
precedence relationship constraint)
then dab /dab ‡ 1000.
326 Ming and Mak

End if End if
6: Stop the whole algorithm.
If ( feature feai must be machined after
feature febj , according to the natural ÿ

By utilizing the variable Vai Vbj that denotes the
operation order constraint) setup a…b† is sequenced in the order number i… j†, the
then dab /dab ‡ 100. energy function of Hop®eld neural networks can also
be constructed to solve the setup sequence problem.
End if This is similar to those for solving the operation
If ( feature feai must be machined after sequence problem discussed in Section 5. The
feature febj , according to the position Hop®eld neural networks based approach can also
tolerance relationship constraint) be adopted to solve the setup sequence problem
then dab /dab ‡ 10. ef®ciently that has been mapped onto the traveling
salesman problem. Finally, the optimal solution to the
End if
setup sequence problem is obtained.
3.1.3: If …j ˆ nb † In order to show the ef®ciency of the proposed
algorithms in solving the setup planning problem, an
then go to step 3.1.4; illustrative example is demonstrated as follows:
Else
set j/j ‡ 1, and go to step 3.1.2. 7. Illustrative example
End if
3.1.4: If …i ˆ na † In this section, an illustrative example is used to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
then go to step 3.1.5; algorithms to solve the setup planning problem. A
Else prismatic part shown in Fig. 2 is adopted (Chen et al,
1984). This prismatic part mainly contains seven
set i/i ‡ 1; j/1, and go to step 3.1.2.
manufacturing features (also called features), i.e., hole
End if 1, hole 2, hole 3, hole 4, pocket, slot, and edge cut.
The operations used to machine these features are
3.1.5: Go to step 3.2.
shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the approach
3.2: Calculate dab according to the ®xtures/jigs
directions of the features. Table 3 shows the feature
constraint.
precedence relationships among these features. The
If (setup sta and setup stb use different position tolerance relationships are expressed in Table
types of ®xtures/jigs) 4. The ®xtures/jigs and cutting tools used by
operations are shown in Table 5.
then set dab /dab ‡ 1, and go to step 4.
After the initial data have been prepared, the
End if detailed procedure by using the algorithms developed
in this paper to solve the setup planning problem in
4: If …b ˆ N s †
process planning is as follows:
then go to step 5;
(1) Setup generation. First, the input patterns of
Else operations to the Kohonen self-organizing neural
set b/b ‡ 1, and go to step 2. networks are represented as:

End if fixture/jig; approach direction; feature precedence

s
5: If …a ˆ N †
O1 ˆ f1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 2; 0; 0g;
then go to step 6;
O2 ˆ f0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 2; 0; 0g;
Else
set a/a ‡ 1; b/1, and go to step 2. O3 ˆ f1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; ÿ 4; ÿ 4; 0g;
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach 327

Fig. 2. An illustrative prismatic part with seven features.

O4 ˆ f0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; ÿ 4; ÿ 4; 0g; After running the proposed Kohonen self-organizing

neural network, the new setups are generated as
O5 ˆ f0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; ÿ 4; ÿ 4; 0g; follows:
O6 ˆ f1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 5g;
Setup 1: O1, O6, O8;
O7 ˆ f0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 5g; Setup 2: O2, O7, O9;
Setup 3: O3;
O8 ˆ f1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0g; Setup 4: O4;
O9 ˆ f0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0g; Setup 5: O5;
Setup 6: O10, O11, O12, O13;
O10 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; ÿ 2; 4; 0; 0; 0; 4; 0g; Setup 7: O14, O15.

O11 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; ÿ 2; 4; 0; 0; 0; 4; 0g;

O12 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 4; 0; 0; ÿ 4; 0; 0g;
O13 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 0; 4; 0; 0; ÿ 4; 0; 0g;
O14 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 1; 0; 0; 1; 1; 1; 0; 0; ÿ 5; 0; 0; 0; 0g;
(2) Operation sequence. After the setups are
generated, the operations in setups are sequenced by
using the Hop®eld neural networks based approach.
The results of the operation sequence is represented
below:

O15 ˆ f0; 0; 0; 0; 1; 1; 0; 0; 1; 1; 1; 0; 0; ÿ 5; 0; 0; 0; 0g: Setup 1: O8, O1, O6 ;

Setup 2: O9, O2, O7;
Setup 3: O3;
Setup 4: O4;

Table 1. Operations used to machine features in the prismatic part

Feature no. Feature name Manufacturing operations

1 Hole 1 (1) drilling; (2) boring

2 Hole 2 (3) drilling; (4) boring; (5) ®nish-boring
3 Hole 3 (6) drilling; (7) boring
4 Hole 4 (8) drilling; (9) boring
5 Pocket (10) rough-milling; (11) ®nish-milling
6 Slot (12) rough-milling; (13) ®nish-milling
7 Edge cut (14) rough-planning; (15) ®nish-planning
328 Ming and Mak

Table 2. Approach directions of features in the prismatic part

‡X ‡Y ‡Z ÿX ÿY ÿZ

Hole 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Hole 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
Hole 3 0 0 1 0 0 1
Hole 4 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 1
Slot 0 0 0 0 0 1
Edge cut 1 0 0 1 1 1

Setup 5: O5; 1 is O1-O6-O8. This means that the operation 1 is ®rst

Setup 6: O10, O11; O12, O13; performed, followed by operation 6, and, lastly, the
Setup 7: O14, O15. operation 8. However, this manufacturing order
contradicts with the position tolerance relationship
(3) Setup sequence. The setups are sequenced after
constraints among hole 1 (machined by O1), hole 3
the operations in each setup have been arranged into
(machined by O6), and hole 4 (machined by O8). This
order. The results are as follows:
is because the position tolerance relationship con-
Setup 1: O8, O1, O6; straint indicates that hole 1 and hole 4 are used as
Setup 2: O9, O2, O7; datum(s) to machine hole 3 (Table 4). Holes 1 and 4
Setup 3: O10, O11, O12, O13; should therefore be machined ®rst, and afterwards
Setup 4: O14, O15. hole 3 will be machined. Hence, the operation order
Setup 5: O3; should be O1-O8-O6, or O8-O1-O6. Furthermore, the
Setup 6: O4; setups are put in the order contradictory to the feature
Setup 7: O5. precedence relationship constraints, such as from
setups 3, 4, 5 to 6. The setups 3, 4, 5 are used to
The above example of setup planning procedure machine hole 2, and setup 6 is performed to
clearly shows that the setups are ®rst generated. At manufacture pocket and slot. However, hole 2
this stage, however, the operations in each setup and intersects completely with pocket and slot.
the setups are in random order. For example, in the Therefore, pocket and slot should be machined ®rst,
result of setup generation, the operation order in setup and then hole 2, in accordance with the feature

Table 3. Feature precedence relationships in the prismatic part

Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 4 Pocket Slot Edge Cut

Hole 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Hole 2 0 0 0 0 ÿ4 ÿ4 0
Hole 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Hole 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pocket ÿ2 4 0 0 0 4 0
Slot 0 4 0 0 ÿ4 0 0
Edge cut 0 0 ÿ5 0 0 0 0

0: no relationship; 1: Feature in row is attached by feature in column, ÿ 1 for vice versa; 2: Hole in row partial intersects
with feature in column, ÿ 2 for vice versa; 3: Small feature in row partial intersects with feature in column, ÿ 3 for vice
versa; 4: Big/top feature in row nested with feature in column, ÿ 4 for vice versa; 5: Feature intersects with edge cut in
row, ÿ 5 for vice versa.
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach 329

Table 4. Position tolerance relationships between features in the prismatic part

Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 4 Pocket Slot Edge cut

Hole 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Hole 2 ÿ1 0 0 ÿ1 0 0 0
Hole 3 ÿ1 0 0 ÿ1 0 0 0
Hole 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Pocket ÿ1 0 0 ÿ1 0 1 0
Slot 0 0 0 0 ÿ1 0 0
Edge cut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0: no relationship; 1: Feature in row is used as datum for feature in column, ÿ 1 for vice versa.

precedence relationship constraint. The correct setup
order should therefore be 6, 3, 4, 5. After the operation
sequence and setup sequence have been performed, all
the above unexpected operation orders and setup
orders will be reordered, and the changes of the
cutting tools and the ®xtures/jigs will be reduced.
These operation orders and setup orders are primarily
contradictory to the feature precedence relationship
constraint, the position tolerance relationship con-
straint, and the natural operation order constraint, but
now satisfy these constraints. The result of the setup
planning is thus generated, and is therefore performed
with better manufacturability, higher quality, lower
cost, and less time.
Chen et al. (1994) also used the Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks to generate setups.
However, there are three major differences between
the proposed algorithms in this paper and the
algorithm of Chen et al. (1994). First, the feature
precedence relationships and the position tolerance
relationships in the proposed algorithm are utilized as
the key factors to generate setups. The algorithm of
Chen et al. (1994) omitted such two important factors,
which will result in worse manufacturability for the
part. For example, by using the algorithm of Chen et
al. (1994) to solve the above example, holes 1, 2, 3, 4
will be grouped in the same setup. This is because
they use the same ®xture, cutting tool and have the
common approach directions. However, according to
the manufacturing experience (feature precedence
relationship), hole 1 should be machined before the
pocket and the slot, and hole 2 should be machined

Table 5. The ®xtures/jigs and cutting tools used by operations to machine the prismatic part

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13 O14 O15

G1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
G5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
T1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
T3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
T6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
T7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

O: Operation; G: Fixtures/jigs; T: Cutting tools; 0: No relationship; 1: Fixture/jig or cutting tool in row is used by the
operation in column.
330
after the pocket and the slot. Furthermore, the pocket
and slot use ®xtures that are different from those used
by holes 1, 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, holes 1 and 2 should
not be grouped into the same setup. The second aspect
is that the operations in each setup in the proposed
algorithm are sequenced according to the feature
precedence relationship. This is ignored in the
algorithm of Chen et al. (1994). Third, the setups
are arranged in the order, with consideration given to
the effect of the feature precedence relationship, the
natural operation order, the position tolerance rela-
tionship and the ®xtures/jigs used by setups.
Nevertheless, there is no special setup sequence step
in the algorithm of Chen et al. (1994), and the position
tolerance relationship and ®xtures/jigs are not taken
into account. Indeed, the proposed algorithms
possessed in this paper have the following distin-
guished advantages:
(1) Map the problems in setup planning creatively
onto the traveling salesman problem, so that the
problems are solved ef®ciently.
(2) Consider more factors and can generate more
feasible setup planning results, which align better with
the manufacturing experiences.
(3) Improve the product quality effectively and
ef®ciently, own good manufacturability, and also
minimize the production cost.
8. Conclusion and future perspectives
In this paper, the setup planning problem has been
represented. This setup planning problem consists of
three sub-steps, namely, the setup generation, the
operation sequence and the setup sequence. In order to
solve such problems in setup planning, the neural
networks based approaches, such as Kohonen self-
organizing neural networks and Hop®eld neural
networks, have been suggested to solve the setup
planning problem. The detailed algorithm of the
Kohonen self-organizing neural networks has been
specially developed to solve the setup generation
problem ef®ciently by considering the ®xtures/jigs
constraint, the approach direction constraint, the
feature precedence relationship constraint, and the
position tolerance relationship constraint. The
Hop®eld neural networks based approach has been
adopted to solve the operation sequence problem and
the setup sequence problem. These two problems are
Ming and Mak
NP-complete problems, and can be mapped onto the
traveling salesman problem by numerating the
constraints in the operation sequence and the setup
sequence into the distance among operations and
among setups. Finally, an illustrative example
demonstrates that the algorithms developed in this
paper are ef®cient and reliable. Indeed, the proposed
algorithms can work towards the optimal solution to
the setup planning problem, which is the most dif®cult
issue in process planning. Consequently, the accom-
plishments of the research in this paper can be clearly
represented as follows:
(1) The distinct classi®cation of the setup planning
problem into three sub-problems, i.e., the setup
generation problem, the operation sequence problem,
and the setup sequence problem.
(2) The development of the detailed algorithm of
Kohonen self-organizing neural networks specially
designed for the ef®cient generation of setups, by
considering the ®xtures/jigs constraint, the approach
direction constraint, the feature precedence constraint,
and the position tolerance constraint.
(3) The development of the detailed algorithm for
mapping the operation sequence problem onto the
traveling salesman problem, which therefore becomes
ef®ciently solvable by the Hop®eld neural networks
based approach. This is done by considering the
feature precedence relationship constraint, the natural
operation order constraint, the position tolerance
relationship constraint, and the cutting tool constraint.
The operation sequence problem has therefore been
ef®ciently solved.
(4) The development of the detailed algorithm for
mapping the setup sequence problem onto the
traveling salesman problem, which can be ef®ciently
solved by the Hop®eld neural networks based
approach. This is done by considering the feature
precedence relationship constraint, the natural opera-
tion order constraint, the position tolerance
relationship constraint, and the ®xtures/jigs con-
straint. The setup sequence problem has thus been
ef®ciently solved.
(5) The ef®cient approach to solve the tolerance
relationship problem in setup planning.
(6) The successful generation of ef®cient process
plans with good manufacturability, high product
quality, and reduced manufacturing cost, and ®nally,
the improved competitiveness of the manufacturing
industries.
Intelligent setup planning in manufacturing by neural networks based approach
Future research in this area will focus on:
(1) The complete implementation of the
approaches developed in this paper in the commercial
CAPP system for the purpose of good manufactur-
ability, high product quality and low cost.
(2) The generalization of the techniques developed
in this paper, to facilitate their implementation in
other manufacturing systems with similar character-
istics to those of CAPP system, such as assembly
planning.
References
Alting, L. and Zhang, H. C. (1989) Computer aided process
planning: the state-of-art survey. International Journal
of Production Research, 27, 553±585.
Chen, C. L. P. and Leclair, S. R. (1994) Integration of design
and manufacturing: solving setup generation and
feature sequencing using an unsupervised-learning
approach. Computer-Aided Design, 26(1), 59±75.
ELMaraghy, H. A. (1993) Evolution of future perspectives
of CAPP. Annals of the CIRP, 42, 739±751.
Hertz, J., Krogh, A. and PALMER, R. G. (1991)
Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York.
Huang, S. H. and Zhang, H.-C. (1994) Arti®cial neural
networks in manufacturing: concepts, applications, and
perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Components,
Packaging, and Manufacturing TechnologyÐart A,
17(2), 212±228.
331
Hop®eld, J. J. and Tank D. W. (1985) Neural computation of
decisions in optimization problems. Biological
Cybernetics, 52, 141±152.
Kamhawi, H. N., Leclair, S. R. and Chen, C. L. P. (1996)
Feature sequencing in the rapid design system using a
genetic algorithm. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 7, 55±67.
Kohonen, T. (1982) Self-organizing formation of topologi-
cally correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics, 43,
59±69.
Kohonen, T. (1995) Self-Organizing Maps, Springer-Verlag,
Germany.
Lin, C.-W. R. (1993) Computer-aided alternative process
planning in a dynamically changing manufacturing
environment. Ph.D. dissertation, the Pennsylvania State
University.
Ming, X. G., Mak, K. L., Yan, J. Q., Ma, D. Z. and Zhang, H.
Q. (1997) A hybrid-expert-neural based function model
for CAPP. International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, 10(1±4), 105±116.
Muller, B., Reinhardt, J. and Strickland, M. T. (1995) Neural
Networks, Springer-Verlag, Hong Kong.
Westhoven, T. E., Chen, C. L. P., Pao, Y.-H. and Leclair,
S. R. (1992) Sequencing interactive features in process
planning using episodal associative memory.
Proceedings of 1992 IEEE International Conference
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 699±705.
Zhang, H. C. and Alting, L. (1994) Computerized Manufac-
turing Process Planning Systems, Chapman & Hall,
London.
Zhang, Y. F., Nee, A. Y. C. and Ong, S. K. (1995) A hybrid
approach for set-up planning. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 10, 183±190.
 Special Issue Topic: CIM Work¯ow
The objective of this Special Issue is to explore recent and emerging developments in work¯ow concepts and
related techniques in the context of CIM, and their in¯uence on intelligent manufacturing in the age of the Internet/
Intranet. Modern manufacturing organizations are critically dependent on their information systems for planning,
design, and for daily operations. Given this dependency, an essential aspect of any information engineering effort
is the design of information and knowledge systems that enhance the manufacturing processes and enterprise.

Work¯ow would be an enabling technology for achieving this purpose. It is a next generation information
management and control technique that supports coordination and collaboration among complex data-centric tasks
autonomously, or with minimal human intervention. Thereby, work¯ow solutions can signi®cantly reduce the
time-to-market for products and improve the quality of service.

The impact of work¯ow concepts is rapidly changing the conventional information management architecture that
has concentrated on ef®cient management of distributed data. With work¯ow models and techniques, the shift is
towards automatic manufacturing and information process coordination. This conceptual shift also impacts on
computer-integrated manufacturing and logistics systems.

In this Special Issue, papers are welcome in any area concerning CIM work¯ow. Topics covered in this special
issue include:

 Theoretical foundation of CIM work¯ow
 Work¯ow modeling methodology for CIM
 CIM Work¯ow control protocols
 Economic analysis of work¯ow for CIM
 Web-based CIM work¯ow architecture
 Agent-based CIM work¯ow systems
 Formal CIM work¯ow de®nition languages
 Work¯ow models for virtual manufacturing
 CIM work¯ow as a tool for enterprise integration
 Work¯ow models for concurrent design and
manufacturing
 Work¯ow and service quality in CIM
 Role of CIM work¯ow in management of CIM
 Organizational learning and CIM work¯ow
 Implementation studies of work¯ow for CIM
 CIM work¯ow software and databases
 Other related areas

This Special Issue is co-sponsored by IFAC-TC MIM, Manufacturing Information, Modeling, Management and
Control. All submitted articles will be reviewed following the usual Journal requirements.

Important dates:

October 1, 2000ÐTarget date for submission of articles to be considered for this Special Issue
October, 2001ÐTarget publication date of this Special Issue

Editors of the Special Issue (submit to either one, following the usual submission requirements):

Dr. Chang-Ouk Kim, kimco@wh.myongji.ac.kr

Department of IE, Myongji University,
San 38-2 Namdong, Yongin, Kyunggido, Korea 449-728

Dr. Shimon Y. Nof, snof@purdue.edu

School of IE, 1287 Grissom Hall,
Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1287, USA