Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 28: 262271

DOI 10.1007/s00170-004-2179-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Z. Bouaziz J. Ben Younes A. Zghal

Cost estimation system of dies manufacturing

based on the complex machining features

Received: 13 December 2003 / Accepted: 13 March 2004 / Published online: 25 January 2006
Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
Abstract Part manufacturing estimation cost is a critical and
important task for industrial firms. Price evaluation helps the enterprise occupy a successful competitiveness in the market. In
fact there are three main approaches for the manufacturing cost
evaluation the analytic approach, the analogic approach and the
parametric approach.
This paper presents a cost estimation system of manufacturing dies based on a semi-analytic approach. The developed system uses a semi-analytic approach based on the principle of the
analogic approach and analytic approach. This principle has recourse to the analogic approach to search for analogies between
the shapes to be machined before grouping them into complex
machining features [1]. For each feature parameter the system
generates a process to be used as a sample and consequently
a model of machining time. In a second stage and by using the
analytic approach, the cutting time is determined either by removal rates of metal units for rough operation (cm3 /min) or from
the finishing operation surface (cm2 /min) or by both production
ways [1]. The after cutting return time is calculated through the
equations developed for each machining type [2].
Keywords Cost estimate Feature machining
Process planning Time

but risks taking a financial loss. On the other hand, an overestimate of costs will cause the company to lose orders. The
accuracy of cost estimates is therefore very essential to the survival of an organization. Good estimates are not only essential
for external use but also for internal use. The relationships between the over-and underestimates and the cost of products can
be represented by the Freiman curve shown in Fig. 1. The graph
shows that:
The greater the underestimate, the greater the actual
expenditure.
The greater the overestimate the greater the actual
expenditure.
The most realistic estimate results in the most economical
project cost.
When costs are underestimated, initial plans for staffing,
scheduling, machine processing, tooling, etc., are not achievable.
Though plans are established to realize the underestimated cost,
it becomes difficult for cost targets to be met as the project progresses. In response, there is reorganization, replanning and possibly the addition of personnel and equipment [4]. These tend to
incur costs that were not originally budgeted for, resulting eventually in an increase in costs. On the other hand, when costs are

1 Introduction
In a competitive situation if a companys estimate of its costs is
unrealistically low (underestimate) then it may obtain an order
Z. Bouaziz (u) J. Ben Younes A. Zghal
Laboratory of mechanics, solids, structures and technological development,
Ecole superieure des sciences et techniques,
BP 56 Beb Mnara, 1008 Tunis, Tunisia
E-mail: toubeir.bouaziz@enis.rnu.tn
Tel.: +216-74-274088
Fax: +216-74-275595
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Ecole Nationale dIngenieurs de Sfax,
route de Sokra Km 3, BP. W 3038 Sfax Tunisia

Fig. 1. The Freiman curve [3]

263

overestimated, rather than resulting in greater profits, the overestimate reflects a Parkinsons law application [3]: the money
is available, it must be spent. Unless there is firm management
control, there is a self-fulfilling prophesy and it will be virtually
impossible to reduce costs.
To resolve this problem several research works have developed a realistic estimation. Wei and Egbelu [5] elaborated
a framework to estimate the lowest product manufacturing cost
from the AND/OR tree representation of an alternative process.
A major drawback of their framework was that it focused only
on processing and material handling costs without considering
other direct product costs such as set-up, material, fixtures and
labour cost. Abdallah and Knight [6] developed an expert system for the concurrent product and process design of mechanical
parts. Their approach enabled designers to ensure that the product would be manufactured with existing manufacturing facilities
to provide high quality and the lowest cost.
Rehman and Guenov [7] described a methodology for modelling manufacturing costs at the design phase of the life cycle
of a product. In this system, the link between design knowledge
and manufacturing knowledge is achieved through an advanced
artificial intelligent architecture, i.e. a backboard framework, for
problem solving.
It is clear that this model cannot be used to generate an
accurate manufacturing cost as it estimates the manufacturing
costs without consideration of process planning. Luong and
Spedding [8] described the development and implementation of
a generic knowledge-based system for process planning and cost
estimation in the hole making process. A major feature of this system is that it unifies the process sequence, machinability and cost
estimates into an integrated system, which caters to the requirements of small to medium sized companies, involved in batch
production. Luong and Speddings system lacks an interface to
a CAD system, and the capability of process plan optimization.
Shehab and Abdallah [9] developed a system that has the capability of selecting a material, as well as machining process and
parameters based on a set of design and production parameters
and of estimating the product cost throughout the entire product
development cycle including assembly cost.
Jung [10] developed a feature-based cost estimating system
for machined parts. Cost estimate for all features in a category
is based on manufacturing activities. Early cost estimates did not
consider the manufacturing activity, hence they were not accurate. Machining cost is proportional to machining time, which
includes operational time and
non-operational time. Operation time includes the rough cutting time and finish cutting time. The tool approach time and
non-operation time are taken from past experience and approximated for modification into mathematical forms.
Ben-Arieh [11] presents a hybrid cost estimate system for rational parts that uses a combination of the variant approach and
explicit cost calculation. The variant approach is used to retrieve
machining parameters from a database of past parameters. The
explicit cost calculations are based on the part geometry, the cutting tools available and the machining parameters retrieved. The
system presented calculates the time that a part needs to stay

on the machine. This time, which includes processing, set-up as

well as tool changes, is used to find the machining cost.
In our research, we have worked with collaboration company
machining plastic injection moulds. The principle elements have
been identified to define the needs relative to the methods rapid
cost evaluation. Finally, we have elaborated a system of machining cost evaluation, and its principal purpose is to help experts
in machining mould factories to rapidly evaluate the machining
cost of moulds. The objective is to:
Decrease the time of machining cost estimation.
Improve the quality of cost figuring by diminishing the uncertainty of different cost calculations.
In the first part of this paper, we present the general principle
of the machining cost determination system. Later, we will explain the modelling by complex machining feature used in the
developed system as well as a method of generating the process
(used as a sample) and the models of machining time. Finally, we
will describe our approach for machining time calculation and
the developed information model.

2 The principle of the developed system

In order to estimate the machining cost, it is necessary to have
a representation in the form of a produced model and not only of
a CAD model [12]. This produced model enables us to give the
features a semantic organized in three categories of information :
geometric information, technologic information and information
concerning the materials.
In short, to give the geometric model features a semantic, and
to define the produced model, we have used parameterized features in our system. The principle consists of conceiving the die
modelling using the technological, dimensional and geometrical
characteristics.
In the system presented in Fig. 2 we have developed two different principles to determine the machining cost:
1. An algorithm generating a machining process. This process
is selected from the data-base of the process (used as a pattern) and from the criteria proposed by the user.
2. A selecting process methodology among numerous ones
from the data-base process.
Once the machining process is determined, the system generates the parameters of the machining time model. The cutting
parameters are determined from a data-base which contains all the
technological information. In the end, the system calculates the
time, and the total of machining cost. To determine this cost, we
multiply the total machining cost by the hourly production cost.

3 Machining cost estimate process

Based on the proposed structure, Fig. 3 shows the process organigram of machining cost analysis. This process can be presented
as follows:

264
Fig. 2. Structure of developed system

Stage 1 Instead of having a global die evaluation, the estimate

is done in a progressive way by searching for machining solutions of each part. It is then interesting to decompose the global problem into sub-problems [13]. In
this first stage, each die is then decomposed into several cavities..
Stage 2 The second stage consists of generating the features
for each cavity. For this, we have defined four feature
models. The purpose of this modelling is to formalize, on the one hand the industrial expertise, and on
the other hand the information linked to the realization
activities.
Stage 3 For each feature model and starting from a knowledge
base, we generate in this stage a machining process.
This generating takes into account the geometric and
the technological parameters and the machining mode.
Stage 4 In the first phase of this stage, the system generates the
machining time model associated to each machining
process. Then, we calculate the model parameters starting from the feature technological attributes. Finally,
the system can calculate the feature machining time.
Stage 5 In this stage, we can calculate the machining time of
each cavity through the following expression:
ti =

n

tj

(1)

j=1

With: ti : machining time of each cavity (min) t j : machining time of each feature (min).

Fig. 3. Algorithm of cost

analysis process

265

Stage 6 This stage enables us to calculate the machining time

of the die through the following expression:
tu =

m

ti

(2)

i=1

With: tu : the die machining time (min) ti : the machining time of each cavity (min).
Stage 7 In this last stage the machining cost is calculated with
the following expression:
C = tu .Ch

(3)

With: C: die machining cost ($) Ch : the hourly cost of

a machine ($/min).

4 Model of die definition

The model of die definition, which is of surface type, is based essentially on the notion of the machining feature. The approach
by feature consists of describing the die not only as a geometric object, but according to a certain number of characteristics.
A machining feature is described therefore from four kinds of
information [114]:
1. The geometric data: allows the shape of the complex feature to be represented. These data define the shape associated
with the complex feature [15].
2. The technological attributes: they consist of parameters that
describe the die model (for example: roughness, material,
etc.).
3. The shape attribute: it allows the specific kind of shape of
a complex feature related to the volume of material that defines the die to be realized. Two values of this attribute are
defined: hollow shape and in relief shape.
4. Processes especially adapted to machining the shape [16].
The evaluation of the die is established progressively instead
of a global evaluation. This is done by appreciating the solutions
for machining of each part.

Fig. 5. Machining pocket feature

Fig. 4. Hierarchical structure of the die definition model

So, it is interesting to divide the whole problem into a number

of subproblems. Every die is decomposed in cavities that represent a group of complex machining features, Fig. 4.
The definition of cavities is based on setting reference elements. For a simple cavity, the element of reference is a complex
feature whose attribute of shape is the hollow type. The volume
of material to remove in this case is related to the theoretical
volume permitting to define the attribute of shape. Establishing
the elements of reference for cavities consists of identifying basic complex features. A bijection is thus created between the
group of simple cavities and the other of basic features having
an attribute of shape. The identification of the reference elements
leads to the definition of the cavities.
The analysis of the shapes and the specification of the dies,
achieved in the course of our trial of the construction of the machining model, has lead us to settle four complex machining
features [17]: the pocket, the arms, the revolution surface and the
bump. Figure 5 defines the pocket feature with its attributes.

5 Generation of the process and the model of

machining time
For each group of complex machining features, a knowledgebase composed of production rules helps to generate machining
patterns process. The generating of the process, takes into account the technological and geometrical feature parameters and

266

the machining mode. A model of machining time calculation is

attributed to each pattern process [1].
The first stage in the construction of data knowledge, consists
of acquiring the expertise linked to the machining process [17].
This expertise is taken from die machining specialists of a collaborating enterprise. We have tried to define all the machining processes for a group of features. The selection of a process for a group of features is achieved according to the same
criteria.
We have preferred to represent this expertise in the form of
organigrams gathering in a global way, all of the possible processes taking into account the authorized values of all machining
features parameters.

Fig. 6. Extract from the collection the expertise

linked to the machining feature(pocket of Fig. 5)

The table in Fig. 6 is an extract from a collection of pocket

features from Fig. 5. Where r is the ray of a cutting tool.
The use of production rules in a knowledge data system
seems to be the most direct means to represent the collected expertise. Each machining feature is associated with a finished of
possible machining processes. In each, the applied rules generate
only a process that is already known.

6 Method of determining the machining time

The expression of the model of machining time, in its general
shape, includes the time of cut, the extra time of machining and

267

the time of machining correction. The latter can be expressed by

the following relation [18]:
ti = (1 + )( tc + tcor ) + tev

(4)

Where is an adjusting factor.

6.1 Calculation of cutting time
The proposed method searches quickly for the cutting time with
meaningful values, according to the drawing or size of the product and the cutting conditions.
The cutting time is determined from the drilling time t p ,
roughing time te , half-finishing time t f/2 and finishing time t f .
The expression of the time can be written as follows:
tc = t p + te + t f/2 + t f

(5)

The drilling time is determined from the hole depth L p and

the advance speed Vp . This time is expressed by the following
relation:
tp =

Lp
Vp

V
Qv
Q 0 = l.a.V f

(7)
(8)

where V is the volume of material to remove in cm3 , Q v is the

volume rate in cm3 /min, l is the length of cut in cm, a is the
depth of passes in cm and V f is the advance speed in cm/min.
In the same way, the cutting time in half-finishing and in finishing is researched from the produced surfaces and from the
surface rate. The expression of the time is therefore:
S
QS
Q S = p.V f

tf =

Fig. 7. Scallop height

Where r denotes the radius of a ball-end cutter and h denotes the

allowable scallop height.
In the case of a plane of inclination of an angle , Fig. 7b,
in proportion to the horizontal, the expression of the tool path
interval between cuts becomes:


P = 2 cos r 2 (r h)2 2 cos 2rh

(12)

(6)

In contrast, the cutting time in roughing is calculated with the

volume of material to remove and the volume rate. This one replaces the three cutting parameters utilized in the classic methods
for calculating cutting time. Then, the cutting time can be written
as:
te =

where S is the produced surface in cm2 , Q 1 is the surface rate in

cm2 /min, p is the tool-path interval in cm and V f is the advance
speed of the tool in cm/min.
The value of the step ( p) tool-path interval of the tool is estimated according to the scallop height, the geometric data and the
shape of the surface.
The calculation of the tool-path interval for milling flat
planes is relatively simple. When the milling operation is completed scallops remain on the finished surface as shown in
Fig. 7a. For a given allowable scallop height the tool-path interval can be obtained by using the Pythagoras theorem [19, 20].


P = 2 r2 (r h)2 2 2 r h
(11)

(9)
(10)

The calculation of the maximum allowable path interval for

a general convex surface is more complicated than for a flat surface. A convex surface machined by a ball-end cutter is shown
in Fig. 7c. The tool-path interval depends on the curvature of the
surface, the size of the cutter, and the allowable scallop height
remaining on the surface. The scallop height can be derived in
terms of the path interval, the cutter radius, and the local radius
of curvature of the convex surface [19, 20].



 2

P
(R + r) P 2
2
h = (R + r) 1
r
R
(13)
2R
2R
Where R is the local radius of curvature of the convex surface.
Since in practice R  h, Eq. 11, which yields the approximated solution of the tool-path interval:

8hr R
(14)
P
R+r
The tool-path interval in machining of a concave surface can
be derived in a way similar to the convex case. The scallop height

268

is given by:


P
h = (R + r) 1
2R

2

r 2

(R + r) P
2R

2
R

(15)

Since in practice R  h, Eq. 15, which yields the approximated solution of the tool-path interval:

8hr R
(16)
P
Rr
6.2 Determination of extra time of machining
The extra time of machining includes, times of return-length for
movement of the tool in roughing cycle tev1 , half-finishing cycle
tev2 and finishing cycle tev3 cycles. Then the time of extra machining is written as follows:
tev = tev1 + tev2 + tev3

(17)

The determination of extra machining time of each cycle is

made by the analytical method. This time is calculated from the
rapid speed Vr and the total distance L tr of rapid return of the
cutting tool.
tev =

Ltr
Vr

6.3 Determination of correction time

Sometimes, an excess of material may remain in the machining,
due on one hand to the weak local curvature of the surface (rc ),
and on the other hand, to the radius of the cutting tool r > rc ,
Fig. 8a. This phenomenon generates a machining constraint [1].
The excess of material left by the tool is equal to d. The value of
d is determined by the following equation:
(1 sin(/2))(r rc )
sin(/2)

(19)

After having finished the machining, it is necessary to cut

again the zone that contains the remaining material with a tool
whose radius is smaller than rc . The cycle used in this case is
called the cycle of correction [21]. In this study, we show that
the time of correction is not negligible and can reach 15% the of
finishing time.
The value of time depends on the machining type. We distinguish two cases:
1. Milling with the cutting tool extremity. The correction of surfaces is made by passes with a spherical top tool following several levels, Fig. 8b, the number of slices is determined by the
following relation:
n=

d

p

In the same way, the total surface generated by the tool of correction is equal to:

(18)

To do this, we have developed expressions of the length of

rapid return for roughing, half-finishing and finishing cycles [2].

d=

Fig. 8. Examples of remaining material

(20)

S=

(r + rc )
.
.L.n
2
360

(21)

where L represents the whole length of correction.

In this kind of work, the time is determined according to
surfaces calculated by Eq. 21 and expression 10 of the surface
rate.
2. Profile milling. The machining of the remaining material in
corners is made according to parallel trajectories, Fig. 8c, and
through several slices, Fig. 8d. The number of parallel trajectories is determined by the following relation:
n1 =

d
c

(22)

On the other hand, the number of slices is found out by using

this equation:
n2 =

L
p

(23)

Consequently, the total length generated by the tool of correction is determined by the following relation:
L T = (n 1 .n 2 )

(r + rc )
2
360

(24)

For the machining of corners, the time of correction is determined thanks to the length given by Eq. 24 and the advance
speed V f .

269

6.4 Considering of random errors

In the method of calculating the machining time proposed above,
it is evident that the theoretical time of machining is different from the real time. This is due mainly, on the one hand
to errors of different methods of calculation, and on the other
hand to the defaults of CNC machines. Among these errors, one
finds:
1. Errors in calculating the volume of material to remove,
2. Errors in calculating the surface to mill,
3. Errors due to the speed of displacement of the tool (accelerated speed, constant, decelerated).
To have more accurate values of machining time, we integrated
in the expression of the time a coefficient of adjustment as
shown:
= m + v + s

(25)

The value of the machines error coefficient m is established by the statistical method [22]. The experiments prove
that the cutting machines increase the cutting time by 2%.
This value is generally constant and depends on the machine
used.
On the other hand the values of errors coefficients v and s ,
vary according to the precision of the different calculations of
volumes and surfaces. The same statistical method applied to the
several shapes gives values of v in the case of volume and of s
in the case of surface [18].

7 Implementation
The developed system is to be used by experts in enterprise.
We have had to choose an implementation environment which
is largely diffused. So we have opted for the use of objectorientation languages, which are variables on compatible computers (PC). Our choice concerns the Visual Basic language
under windows exploitation systems.
A computer system has been developed in a first version with
the purpose to validate the model in the eyes of experts. We have
confined its field of application to the machining time estimate of
a plastic blowing mould.
We have developed our system thanks to the database management ACESS. It enables us to rapidly and efficiently define
important and strong data-bases.
The treatment of the die machining time requires a data-base
model which is homogenous from the point of view of the manipulated data of their binders. This modal is built from the two
following elementary models:
The technological model has recourse to the technological
attribute table of values, which characterize the die model
elements.
The geometric model shows the geometric data structures
which represent the base-elements (curve and surface).
The technological model tables are created and stored in the developed data-base. On the contrary, the files of geometric models

are built progressively in parallel with the treatment of the machining time by the developed system.

8 Example of machining die

Figure 8 shows the drawing of a die definition of a bottle made
of plastic. The shape shows that two different cavities exist. Cavity 1 is a pocket of length 220 mm and a width of 138 mm. On
the contrary cavity 2 is a hollow cylinder of 20 mm of ray. The
rough of the start is a prismatic part of 310 180 140 mm in
aluminium with a resistance 100-150 HBN.
In this example we only treat the study of the generation of
cavity 1 machining cost.
The first step consists of parametrizing the form of cavity 1.
The principal consists of introducing starting from an interface
utilizer Fig. 10, the technological and geometric information.
Then, we define the criteria of the choice of the machining process which are:
The plunge of the roughing tool.
The roughing cycle of the pocket is conducted in zig-zag.
The finishing tool ray is equal to the connecting ray.
Starting from these criteria, the system selects a machining process. Figure 11a, which generates the model of machining time
Fig. 11b.
In the roughing cycle, we utilize a two dimension countersink of a diameter of 8 mm and a number of teeth equal to four.
The cut depth is chosen at 2 mm, as well as the distance between
two cuts which is calculated by the relation p = 0.875 d giving
a value of 7 mm.
For the cycle 12 f and f we use a spheric end cutting tool of
a diameter of 8 mm. When we use Eq. 12, the tool path interval
between two cuts p is equal to 2.81 mm in half-finishing and of
0.89 mm in finishing.
Due to the cut conditions of the data-base and from the
technological information introduced by the utilizer, the system
generates the value of the volume rate for the roughing operations equal to 66.84 cm3 /min, the values of the surface rate
equation to 44.72 cm2 /min for the half-finishing operations and
7.08 cm2 /min for the finishing operations.
The volume and the surface of cavity 1 are calculated with
the precise method, which gives:
The volume V = 1487.64 cm3 .
The surface S = 645.49 cm2 .
The adjustment coefficient = 0.035.
The roughing time calculated by the system is equal to
22.25 min, on the contrary, the time of half-finishing is about
14.43 min. Finally, the finishing time calculated by the system is
equal to 128.12 min.
In order to calculate the evolution time for each machining
cycle (extra time), it is necessary to calculate the return-length
for each cycle, with expressions developed in [2]. The numeric
calculation gives a total return-length equal to 16 327.31 mm,
and a time of 3.26 min. The total machining time, Fig. 12, for the
cavity 1, is equal to 177.12 min equivalent to 2.95 h.

270
Fig. 9. Example of die

Fig. 10. Interface window of a pocket feature

Fig. 11. Machining process type and model of

machining time

271

Fig. 12. Calculation window of total time machining

9 Conclusion
The research study presented in this paper is part of a development scheme of a system to elaborate the cost of plastic blowing
moulds.
This paper is intended to:
1. Propose a structure to help the conceptor analyze the die machining cost during the phase of conception.
2. Propose a method for the cost evaluation, based on machining complex features.
3. Obtain, with the system structure, a better homogeneity of
results among the different conceptors.
With the structure of the developed approach, we have introduced some simplifications, namely at the level of cut parameters
in such a way that the method remains easy for the majority of
industries to apply.
The system uses a data-base which regroups the machining
parameters utilized by the manufacturers. This provides a better
evaluation of the parameters of the machining cost.

References
1. Bouaziz Z Younes BJ, Zghal A, Njeh M (2001) A methodology of evaluation machining costs in the purpose of elaborating estimate based on
the feature concept. Application to plastic blowing molds. Proc 34th
CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems, 1618 May
2001, pp 4955, Athens, Greece

2. Bouaziz Z, Younes BJ, Zghal A (2001) Un outil rapide et fiable pour

determiner le cot dusinage des moules de soufflage plastique. Journal
Travail et Methode 559:2738 (in French)
3. Asiedu Y, Gu P (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art
review. Int J Prod Res 36(4):883908
4. Daschbach JM, Apgar H (1988) Design analysis through techniques of
parametric cost estimation. Eng Costs Prod Econ 14:8793
5. Wie Y, Egbelu P (2000) A framework for estimating manufacturing cost
from geometric design data. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 36(1):5063
6. Abdalla HS, Knight JAG (1994) An expert system for concurrent product and process design of mechanical parts. J Eng Manuf 208(3):
167172
7. Rehman S, Guenov MD (1998) A methodology for modelling manufacturing costs at conceptual design. Comput Ind Eng 35(3-4):623626
8. Luong LHS, Spedding T (1995) An integred system for process planning and cost estimation in hole making. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
10:411415
9. Shehab E, Abdalla H (2002) An intelligent knowledge-based system for
product cost modelling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 19:4965
10. Jong-Hun J (2002) Manufacturing cost estimation for machined parts
based on manufacturing features, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
13:227238
11. Ben-Arieh D (2000) Cost estimation system for machined parts. Int J
Prod Res 38(17):44814494
12. Ou-Yang C, Lin TS (1997) Developing an integrated framework for
feature-based early manufacturing cost estimation. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 13:618629
13. Bouaziz Z, Younes BJ, Zghal A (1998) Computer aided process planning in turning by an semi-generative approach. Int J Mech Prod Syst
Eng 1:5770 (in French)
14. Bouaziz Z, Younes BJ, Zghal A (2001) A fast and reliable tool for estimates of pocket machining. In: Advances in manufacturing technology,
vol Xv. Professional Engineering Publishing, UK, pp 281286
15. Seddiki A, Moison A, Levaillant G (1995) Proposition dun Systme
dAssistance lElaboration de Devis dUsinage base sur le concept
dentite (Saedu). Journal Mecanique Industrielle et Materiaux, 48(5)227231 (in French)
16. Mawussi K, Bernard A, Bourdet P (1994) Feature modelling and machining of forming dies. Proc Ifip94 on Feature Modelling and Recognition in Advanced Cad/Cam Systems, Valenciennes, France, 2426 May
1994, pp 525539
17. Villeneuve F, Sqbourin L (1995) Entite dusinage, rgles de production
et propagation par contraintes: passeport pour un systme de generation
automatique de gamme. Proc International Conference on Industrial automation, 79 June 1995, Nancy, France 1:397404
18. Bouaziz Z, Younes BJ, Zghal A (2002) A fast and reliable tool of
estimate of the plastic blowing molds. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
20:545550
19. Lin R-S, Koren Y (1996) Efficient tool-path planning for machining
free-form surfaces transaction of Asme. J Eng Ind 118:2028
20. Loney GC, Ozsoy TM (1987) Nc machining of free form surfaces.
Comput Aided Des 19(2):8590
21. Tsai MD, Takata S, Lnui M, Kimura F, Sata T (1991) Operation planning based on cutting process models. Ann CIRP 40(1):9598
22. Bagard P (1997) Trolling and complex shapes: technical- economic
reports between high speed machining, conventional machining and
electroerosion. 1st French and German Conference on High Speed Machining, June 1997, pp 249262