AMPS is a fully automated process planning system for milling of 2.5D parts. It consists of different modules, each of which performs specific tasks like identification of removal volumes, setup and fixture planning, tool selection and tool path planning. This article focuses on the architecture of the planning system, the integration of the different modules and the interfaces needed for smooth flow of information between these modules. Current computer aided process planning (CAPP) practices were considered while defining interfaces so that these modules can be easily integrated into a commercial CAPP system.

1.
Surfware Inc., 2002, “SurfCam,” http://www.surfcam.com.
2.
CNC Software Inc., 2002, “MasterCam,” http://www.mastercam.com.
3.
Pathtrace Engineering Systems, 2003, “EdgeCAM Strategy Manager,” http://www.pathtrace.com.
4.
Shah, J. J., and Mantyla, M., 1995, Parametric and Feature-Based CAD/CAM: Concepts, Techniques and Applications, John-Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
5.
Van Houte, F., and Van it Erve, A., 1992, “Feature Based Manufacturing with PART,” Proc. of International Conference on Manufacturing Automation, Hong Kong, pp. 464–475.
6.
Das, D., Gupta, S. K., and Nau, D. S., 1995, “Estimation of Setup Time for Machined Parts: Accounting for Work Holding Constraints Using a Vise,” Proc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, Boston, MA, pp. 619–631.
7.
Shirur
,
A.
,
Shah
,
J. J.
, and
Hirode
,
K.
,
1998
, “
Machining Algebra for Mapping Volumes of Machining Operations for Developing Extensible Generative CAPP
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
17
(
3
), pp.
159
166
.
8.
Hirode, K., and Shah, J. J., 1999, “Metrics for Evaluating Machining Process Plans,” DETC99-DFM-8931, Proc. of the 1999 Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
9.
Hayes, C. C., Gaines, D., and Faheem, W., 1997, “MAPP: A Matrix Architecture for Process Planning,” IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning (ISATP), Marina del Ray.
10.
Sundararajan, V., and Wright, P. K., 1998, “Identification of Multiple Feature Representations by Volume Decomposition for 2.5D Components,” Proceedings of the ASME Manufacturing Science and Engineering Division, pp. 511–519.
11.
Kannan
,
B.
, and
Wright
,
P. K.
,
2004
, “
Efficient Algorithms for Automated Process Planning of 2.5D Machined Parts Considering Fixturing Constraints
,”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
,
17
(
1
), pp.
16
28
.
12.
Sakurai
,
H.
,
1992
, “
Automatic Setup Planning and Fixture Design for Machining
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
11
(
1
), pp.
30
39
.
13.
Sarma
,
S. E.
, and
Wright
,
P. K.
,
1995
, “
Algorithms for the Minimization of Setups and Tool Changes in Simply Fixturable Components in Milling
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
15
(
2
), pp.
95
112
.
14.
D’Souza
,
R.
,
Wright
,
P. K.
, and
Sequin
,
C. H.
,
2001
, “
Automated Microplanning for 2.5D Pocket Machining
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
20
(
4
), pp.
288
296
.
15.
Lim, T., Corney, J., Ritchie, J., and Clark, D., 2000, “Optimizing Automatic Tool Selection for 2.5D Components,” DETC 2000/DFM-14032, ASME 2000—DETC and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Baltimore, MD.
16.
Yao, Z., Gupta, S. K., and Nau, D. S., 2001, “A Geometric Algorithm for Selecting Optimal Set of Cutters for Multi-Part Milling,” ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 130–139.
17.
Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., and Rivest, L. R., 1997, Introduction to Algorithms, McGraw-Hill Book, New York.
18.
D’Souza, R., Wright, P. K., and Sequin, C. H., 2002, “Handling Tool Holder Collision in Optimal Tool Sequence Selection for 2.5-D Pocket Machining,” 22nd Int’nl. Computers in Engineering Conference, Montreal.
19.
Castelino
,
K.
,
D’Souza
,
R.
, and
Wright
,
P. K.
,
2003
, “
Tool-path Optimization for Minimizing Airtime During Machining
,”
J. Manuf. Syst.
,
22
(
33
),
173
180
.
20.
Helsgaun, K., 2000, “An Effective Implementation of the Lin-Kernighan Traveling Salesman Heuristic,” European Journal of Operational Research, 126, pp. 106–130.
21.
Ascheuer, N., Ju¨nger, M., and Reinelt, G., 1998, “Heuristic Algorithms for the Asymmetric Traveling Salesman Problem with Precedence Constraints—A Computational Comparison,” Technical Report, ZIB, Berlin.
You do not currently have access to this content.