Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2001) 17:819–824
 2001 Springer-Verlag London Limited
Efficiency Measures of Process Plans for Machined Parts
G. A. Britton, G. Thimm, S. C. Fok and F. Jiang
School of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798
This paper presents an overview of the authors’ rooted tree
technique for process planning. The overview provides the
foundation for the main part of the paper, which explains how
the rooted tree can be used to develop efficiency measures of
process plans. The efficiency measures are determined by
comparing an actual tree and its subgraphs with an “ideal”
tree. The “ideal tree” is one that minimises the number of
manufacturing operations. The paper proves that the “ideal
tree” is a directed design dimension graph plus one operation.
Three measures of efficiency are presented: finishing efficiency,
pre-forming efficiency, and overall efficiency. The practical
value of the efficiency measures is demonstrated by presenting
measures of plans for four industrial parts. It is also argued
that the efficiency measures provide a quantitative assessment
of process plans that can be used to improve them and
manufacturing technology.
Keywords: Ideal tree; Machining; Process planning; Rooted
tree
1. Introduction
The rooted tree technique for process planning, developed by
Whybrew and Britton [1–4], has proved its usefulness in
industry. Ngoi and Ong [5] have used our technique extensively
in their work. Unfortunately, our work has been incorrectly
criticised and some researchers are using several graphs for
planning (e.g. Ji [6] uses three trees) when this is not necessary
because the rooted tree contains all the information in one
graph.
The purpose of this paper is:
1. To explain our technique.
2. To present some special properties of the rooted trees.
3. To show how to measure the efficiency of process plans
using rooted trees.
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Associate Professor Graeme
Britton, School of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Nanyang
Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798.
E-mail: mgabritton얀ntu.edu.sg
The first two aims provide the foundation for the last one.
The paper concludes by discussing the usefulness of the
efficiency measures.
2. Overview of the Rooted (Datum
Hierarchy) Tree Technique
The rooted tree technique is based on, and augments, the
traditional tolerance chart. An example of a traditional tolerance
chart is shown in Fig. 1. The chart shows a sketch of the
finished dimensions of a part. Vertical lines (shown dashed in
Fig. 1) are drawn from points, lines or surfaces of the part
sketch. The lines can be numbered from left to right as shown,
although this is not normally done for manual charting. Britton
and Whybrew [2, 3] developed the line numbering technique
and reference coordinate system (bottom lefthand corner of the
part sketch/model) as part of the rooted tree technique.
The vertical lines are used as guides for the design dimen-
sions and the process plan. A line may represent more than
one surface. For example, line number 3 has three arrowheads
attached to it, which indicates that it represents three different
surfaces. The surfaces represented by each line form a stock
removal set (referred to as a “cut set” in our previous
publications). Each consecutive pair of surfaces in a stock
removal set is related through the stock removal, i.e. the
difference in position between two consecutive surfaces is the
stock removal allowance for the second surface in the pair.
Design dimensions are entered at the bottom of the chart.
The process plan is shown as an ordered sequence of operations
from top to bottom, drawn above the design dimensions. An
arrow represents each operation. The tail of the arrow indicates
the datum surface for the operation and the head indicates the
machined surface. The columns are used to enter process
planning data and the results of calculations.
Three types of calculation are performed using the toler-
ance chart:
1. Calculation of tolerance stackups on design dimensions.
These calculations ensure the machining tolerance stackups
do not exceed the design specifications. This is a design
feasibility check. The nominal values of the final dimensions
and their tolerance stackups are entered as resultant dimen-
820 G. A. Britton et al.
Fig. 1. Traditional tolerance chart [4].
sions at the bottom righthand side of the chart. (Note: a
tolerance stack is a set of operations that contribute to the
tolerance of a dimension, in this case a design dimension;
a tolerance stackup is the sum of the tolerances of the
operations in a tolerance stack).
2. Calculation of tolerance stackups on stock removal allow-
ances. These calculations ensure that the machining toler-
ance stackups between consecutive pairs of surfaces in stock
removal sets do not exceed the stock removal allowances.
This is a machining feasibility check. The tolerance stackups
are entered on the chart (far righthand column) adjacent to
the stock removal allowances, so that the two values can
be compared.
3. Calculation of working dimensions. The working dimensions
are intermediate dimensions to be obtained by the machining
processes in the process sequence. They are entered in the
third column from the left in our example.
A tolerance chaining technique developed by Wade [7, 8] is
normally used to identify the operations contributing to toler-
ance stackups (steps 1 and 2 above). The working dimensions
are normally calculated by working backwards from the design
dimensions and adding or subtracting the stock removal allow-
ances as appropriate.
The major disadvantages of the tolerance chart are:
1. Individual machined surfaces are not clearly indicated (one
vertical line can represent more than one surface).
2. The datum sequence is not obvious.
3. The chaining technique for identifying operations contribu-
ting to tolerance stackups is tedious and error-prone.
The rooted tree technique overcomes these problems. A key
feature of the technique is our surface representation scheme.
Each individual surface is uniquely identified with a label
consisting of four digits, e.g. 0103. The first two digits indicate
the stock removal set to which the surface belongs. These
numbers are used to label the vertical lines on the tolerance
chart. The label “0103” indicates the first stock removal set.
The second pair of digits indicates the number of cuts made
from the original surface. “01” indicates that it is the first cut,
“02” the second, and so on. The label “0103” indicates the third
cut. The first datum surface in a process plan is individuated by
setting the last two digits to 00 (this is the tree root). (Note
that in our original work we used a two digit code for labels
[1], e.g. A1, B2, etc.).
The labelling scheme is essential to the rest of our technique
because it allows us to construct an acyclic, directed, datum
hierarchy graph, i.e. a rooted tree (Fig. 2). The tree consists
Fig. 2. Rooted tree for chart shown in Fig. 1 [4].

of nodes that are datum and/or finished surfaces. The edges
represent machining operations. The node at the tail of the
arrow represents the datum surface for an operation and the
node at the head is the machined surface. In practice, arrows
are not shown; by convention the graph is read from top to
bottom or left to right, indicating the direction of the arrows.
The distance between any two surfaces (nodes) on the tree
gives a dimension, either a working dimension or a design
dimension. The sum of the tolerances of the operations (edges)
on the path between any two surfaces (nodes) gives the toler-
ance stackup on that dimension. If the nodes are finished
surfaces, then the tolerance stackup is on a design dimension
(resultant tolerance). Finished surfaces are easily identified;
they are the last surfaces in the stock removal sets. If the
nodes are consecutive surfaces in a stock removal set then the
tolerance stackup is on stock removal. Both cases will now
be illustrated.
Let us calculate the tolerance stackup on the first design
dimension in Fig. 1, which is represented by lines 01 and 03.
The last (final) surfaces in stock removal sets 01 and 03 are
0102 and 0303, respectively. The path between these nodes is
0102–0503–0303, the stack contains operations 12 and 14
(Fig. 1), and the stackup is 0.050 + 0025 = 0.075. This is
entered in the far righthand column for the resultant dimension.
Now consider stock removal set 05 and let us calculate the
tolerance stackup for the stock removal for surface 0503. The
pair of nodes is 0503 and 0502. The path between these nodes
is 0502–0101–0503, the stack contains operations 5 and 9, and
the stackup is 0.130 + 0.025 = 0.155. This number is entered
at line 9 in the far righthand column (Fig. 1).
Dimensions are obtained by first calculating the positions of
the surfaces in each stock removal set relative to a common
reference point, which is the bottom lefthand end of the part
sketch/model. This is achieved by working backwards from
the last surfaces in each stock removal set and adding or
subtracting the stock removal allowances as appropriate. Work-
ing dimensions are calculated by taking the absolute difference
in positions between the relevant surfaces.
There are two very important points to note from the dis-
cussion so far. First, all the surfaces defining the design
dimensions and intermediate processing dimensions are con-
tained in (are nodes of) the rooted tree. There is no need to
construct separate graphs to represent the design dimensions
and/or the stock removal sets, although some researchers do
this. All tolerance and dimension calculations can be executed
by traversing the tree.
Secondly, some researchers set the stock removal allowances
to the same values as the tolerance stackups on stock removal.
We have been criticised because we do not do this. The reason
why we do not is simple; it is wrong. The stock removal
allowance does not depend on the tolerance stackups. The
allowance for a surface is a function of the condition of the
previous surface in the stock removal set and the process
characteristics of the operation producing the surface. The
allowances are normally determined by experience or calculated
using standard formulae. Techniques that set allowances equal
to their stackups have no practical value.
Sufficient information about our technique has been provided
to enable the reader to understand the next two sections, which
Efficiency Measures of Process Plans 821
form the main part of this paper. For further details about our
technique can be found in [1–4].
3. Subgraphs of Rooted Trees
It is possible to divide a rooted tree into two graphs: a
preforming subgraph and a finishing subgraph. The finishing
subgraph contains all the operations (arcs in the tree) that
contribute to the tolerance stackups of the design dimensions.
In general, this subgraph contains fewer arcs and nodes than
the full tree. The preforming subgraph is obtained by sub-
tracting the finishing subgraph from the full rooted tree. It
contains the operations needed to convert an initial blank of
material to the required shape for the finishing operations in
the finishing subgraph.
Subgraphs for the example are shown in Fig. 3. The top
graph is the preforming graph and the bottom one is the
finishing subgraph. There are 9 preforming operations and 5
finishing operations. Figure 4 shows a rooted tree for an indus-
trial, rotational part (part A). Figures 5 and 6 show the
subgraphs for this tree. There are 11 preforming operations
and 22 finishing operations.
4. Measures of Efficiency
The efficiency measures are based on the assumption that all
finished surfaces of the part must be machined. This assumption
excludes the use of net shape forming techniques to produce
some or all of the finished dimensions, without requiring
further machining operations.
The criterion proposed for optimality is the “minimum num-
ber of manufacturing operations”. That is, the criterion meas-
ures technical efficiency which is the best a process planner
can achieve given the available technology, personnel,
machines, and tools. In terms of this criterion, the optimal
process plan for machined, rotational parts is the design dimen-
sion graph plus one additional operation.
The design dimension graph is the graph formed by mapping
the surfaces of design dimensions as nodes and the specified
Fig. 3. Preforming and finishing sub-graphs for tree shown in Fig. 2.
822 G. A. Britton et al.
Fig. 4. Rooted tree for industrial Part A.
Fig. 5. Preforming subgraph for industrial Part A.
distances between the surfaces as edges. It is always a connec-
ted, undirected, acyclic graph. The reasons for this are straight-
forward. If the graph is disconnected, it means the design is
under-constrained, the design specification is incomplete. The
design is over-constrained if
Fig. 6. Finishing sub-graph for industrial Part A.
1. There is more than one edge between nodes.
2. It is cyclic.
In either case, it may be impossible to make the part.
The design dimension graph minimises the number of oper-
ations because each finished surface requires only one machin-
ing operation to make it. By choosing one node of the design
dimension graph as the parent node (tree root) of the others,
it is possible to convert the undirected graph into a directed
graph (rooted tree). The direction is from parent node to child
node (datum surface to cut surface). The resulting tree contains
machining operations for all surfaces except the first one, the
root. So one additional operation is needed to machine this
surface. One of the other nodes is chosen as the datum for
this operation and becomes the new root in the tree. Hence,
the optimal tree is a directed design dimension graph plus one
additional operation.
The concept is illustrated in Figs 7 and 8 for the example
part and industrial part A, respectively. Both parts are rotational
parts. For a rotational part, the ends of the part are normally
used as starting points in process planning, thus two optimal
process plans are possible for one given design specification.

Fig. 7. Design dimension graph and optimal trees for example.
Fig. 8. Design dimension graph and optimal trees for industrial Part A.
The top graph in each figure is the design dimension graph
and the lower two graphs are the possible optimal trees. The
dashed lines indicate the additional operation. The nodes in
the design dimension graph have two digit labels because the
number of cuts is not defined.
The optimal tree may be optimal but, in general, it will not
be feasible. In practice, a real process tree will contain more
operations (edges) and nodes than the optimal one. By compar-
ing a real tree with the optimal one it is possible to develop
three measures of efficiency. These are defined below.
1. Finishing Efficiency (FE)
FE = Number of edges in design dimension graph
+ 1/Number of edges in finishing subgraph + 1
Efficiency Measures of Process Plans 823
This measure indicates the extent to which a process planner
can minimise the number of finishing operations. Note that
the “number of edges + 1” in the design dimension graph
equals the number of nodes (finished surfaces). Hence, it is
not necessary to draw the dimension graph in order to
perform this calculation. The number can be obtained by
counting the number of design dimensions and adding one
to the total.
2. Preforming efficiency (PE)
PE = Number of edges in finishing sub-graph (2)
+ 1/Number of edges in full rooted tree
The actual finishing subgraph is usually smaller than the
full rooted tree. This means that preforming operations are
required to shape the starting blank for the finishing oper-
ations. Thus, this measure is a measure of inefficiency
arising from a process planner’s choice of shape for the
starting blank. Ideally, the material should be preformed to
the exact shape needed to complete the finishing operations
in the finishing subgraph. In practice, the cost of doing this
may be too high and so a process planner may choose a
simpler blank shape, e.g. bar stock, and then machine this
to the required shape. The PE is equal to one if there are
no preform operations and less than one if there are.
It is now possible to combine the two measures to obtain
an overall measure of efficiency for a process plan.
3. Overall Efficiency (OE)
OE = Number of edges in design dimension graph (3)
+ 1/Number of edges in full rooted tree = FE × PE
The overall efficiency of a process plan is a combination
of the finishing efficiency and the preforming efficiency. In
the ideal case, the starting blank would be shaped so that
it requires only one finishing operation for each surface,
and, thus, the minimum number of operations to make the
part. It also gives a minimum total tolerance stackup on
the design dimensions.
The efficiency values for our example part and four industrial
parts are shown in Table 1. Part A in the table is the industrial
part referred to previously (Figs 4–6 and 8). Not surprisingly,
all parts have high FE values. A major aim of tolerance
charting is to ensure that the process sequence meets the design
tolerances and this means that planners try to minimise the
resultant tolerances. There is more variation in the PE. Again
this is not surprising. The parts are rotational parts machined
from bar stock. The different PE values reflect the different
shapes of the finished parts. The OE values vary the most
owing to the compounding effect of the FE and PE values.
The OE value is the main measure for process plans. In
practice, a minimum OE threshold value can be set. Plans with
OE values below this threshold are either not accepted or
become candidates for improvement. For example, if the thres-
hold value is 0.50 then one industrial part (part C) fails to
meet this value and becomes a candidate for improvement or
rejection. Once a plan has been selected as a candidate for
(1) improvement, the other efficiency measures can be used to
indicate where improvement should best be carried out.
824 G. A. Britton et al.

Table 1. Efficiency measures of process plans for rotational parts. 6. Conclusion

Number of Number of Number of FE PE OE
edges in edges in full edges in This paper has shown the “power” of using the rooted tree
finishing rooted tree design technique for process planning. The rooted tree and its two
subgraph dimension subgraphs can be used to measure the efficiency of a process
graph plan by comparing them with an ideal tree. The ideal tree is
a directed design dimension graph plus one operation.
Example 4 14 4 1.00 0.36 0.36 The efficiency measures are based on the assumption that
Part A 22 33 17 0.78 0.70 0.55
Part B 28 44 24 0.86 0.66 0.57 surfaces specified by design dimensions must be machined.
Part C 18 31 14 0.79 0.61 0.48 Three measures were presented:
Part D 32 36 24 0.76 0.92 0.69
1. Finishing efficiency, which measures the efficiency in plan-
ning of finishing operations.
2. Preforming efficiency, which measures the efficiency in
selecting the appropriate shape of blank for the process
sequence.
Finally, note that the efficiency measures can be extended
3. Overall efficiency, which measures the efficiency of the
to prismatic parts. Normally, three tolerance charts are
complete plan.
developed for prismatic parts, with each chart being inde-
pendent of the others. In this case, there will be three optimal The practical value of the efficiency measures was demon-
trees (one for each direction) and the measures of efficiency strated by presenting measures of process plans for four indus-
can be obtained by summing over the three trees, instead of trial parts. It is also argued that the efficiency measures provide
one tree. a quantitative assessment of process plans that can be used to
improve them and manufacturing technology.

5. Practical Application References

1. K. Whybrew, G. A. Britton, D. F. Robinson and Y. Sermsuti-

The optimal tree is an ideal process plan that process planners
can aim for. The measures of efficiency reflect the “inef-
ficiencies” induced by limitations in technology, people, and
machine tools. The measures can be used to improve process
planning in two ways. First, process plans can be ranked in
terms of their efficiency measures, from lowest to highest. The
plans with the lowest values offer the greatest prospects for
improvement and attempts can be made to replan the process
sequences to improve the efficiencies. This short-term approach
accepts the limitations imposed by technology and simply
aims to develop the best plans within the existing constraints.
Secondly, in the longer term, the efficiency measures can be
used as a guide to develop technology and to measure progress
as manufacturing constraints are overcome.
In short, the optimal tree for process planning is similar to
the ideal Carnot cycle for thermodynamics. Both ideals act as
“targets” to be approached asymptotically, by developing and
improving technology.
Anuwat, “A graph theoretic approach to tolerance charting”, Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 5,
pp. 175–183, 1990.
2. G. A. Britton, K. Whybrew and S. B. Tor, “An industrial
implementation of computer-aided tolerance charting”, Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 12,
pp. 122–131, 1996.
3. G. A. Britton and K. Whybrew, “CATCH: computer-aided toler-
ance charting”, in Hong-Chao Zhang (ed.), Advanced Tolerancing
Techniques, John Wiley, pp. 461–489, 1997.
4. K. Whybrew and G. A. Britton, “Tolerance analysis in manufactur-
ing and tolerance charting”, in Hong-Chao Zhang (ed.), Advanced
Tolerancing Techniques, John Wiley, pp. 13–41, 1997.
5. B. K. A. Ngoi and C. T. Ong, “A complete tolerance charting
system”, International Journal of Production Research, 31(2),
pp. 453–469, 1993.
6. P. Ji, “A tree approach for tolerance charting”, International
Journal of Production Research, 31(5). pp. 1023–1033, 1993.
7. O. R. Wade, Tolerance Control in Design and Manufacturing,
Industrial Press, New York, 1967.
8. O. R. Wade, “Tolerance control”, in T. J. Drozda & C. Wicks
(ed.), Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 1, Society
of Manufacturing Engineers, Michigan, 1983.