Comparative Analysis of Machining Preparation Time of a Taper Tap: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches †
Technical Faculty “Mihajlo Pupin”, University of Novi Sad, Djure Djakovica bb, 23000 Zrenjanin, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 34th International Scientific Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance (OTO 2025), Osijek, Croatia, 12 December 2025.
Eng. Proc. 2026, 125(1), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026125016
Published: 2 February 2026
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of time parameters involved in the preparation phase of machining processes of the taper tap, contrasting traditional and modern approaches. The study examines the time required for the creation of a technological process sheet using traditional methods, and the time necessary for 3D modeling and CNC machine programming using modern CAD/CAM software Fusion 360 software (version v2.0.21286). Both approaches are based on the same workshop drawing so initial input data is consistent. The modern approach utilizes the Fusion 360 software (version v2.0.21286) for the creation of a 3D model and CNC machine programming. The traditional method relies on manual interpretation of the workshop drawing and handwritten technological process sheet that contains information about machining operations. Time consumption for each phase (technological planning in the traditional method and digital modeling and programming in the modern method) is measured and compared. The study aims to determine which approach demonstrates higher practical efficiency in specific production contexts and conditions. The scientific contribution of this work lies in providing quantifiable insights into the differences between traditional and modern production preparation methods, thereby supporting decision-making processes in the selection of optimal machining preparation strategies.
1. Introduction
In modern manufacturing, production efficiency is increasingly influenced by the methods used in the preparation phase of machining process. The determination of preparation strategy can significantly affect overall productivity, cost, and reliability [1,2]. Technology advances quickly, new manufacturing methods reshape industrial workflows and manufacturers are faced with the challenge of choosing between well-established manual practices and modern, computer-aided approaches [3].
Nowadays, the selection of an optimal machining preparation strategy constitutes the foundation of a successful manufacturing system [4]. As already said, choosing the right strategy can affect time-efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and overall productivity [2]. The transition from traditional, manual process planning to computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems has revolutionized the way manufacturing operations are prepared and executed [3,5]. Traditional methods that rely on manual technological process sheet creation are, in most cases, highly dependent on the engineer’s expertise. On the other hand, modern CAD/CAM approaches standardize and automate many aspects of process planning, reducing variability and minimizing human error, providing more consistent workflow execution [6].
This study aims to evaluate the time parameters involved in the preparation phase of machining processes for a taper tap, comparing traditional manual methods with modern CAD/CAM approaches using the Fusion 360 software (version v2.0.21286). By analyzing the time required for creating technological process sheets manually and the time needed for 3D modeling and CNC programming digitally, this research seeks to provide quantifiable insights into the efficiencies of each method. The results are expected to help improve production preparation strategies, especially in situations where time-efficiency is one of the most important parameters of the manufacturing process.
2. Traditional Method
Traditional machining process planning relies on the manual approach to preparing all the necessary documentation (technological process sheet) before the actual machining takes place [7]. This approach has been the backbone of manufacturing industries for decades and it is still in use, especially for prototyping and in environments where technological modernization is not possible nor profitable [4,6].
The process usually starts with the analysis of a workshop drawing. Based on the drawing, the engineer creates a technological process sheet. One of the key characteristics of the traditional approach is a high dependency on human knowledge [8]. There is no computer-aided or automated suggestion for optimal cutting parameters (except the ones written on a box of a cutting tool suggested by the manufacturer of a tool), optimal toolpaths, clamping methods, and expected time for each operation of material removal from a workpiece. All of this is performed without AI or ML assistance. The engineer relies only on technical standards, machining handbooks, and most importantly, personal experience. This makes the process more flexible, but prone to human error at the same time, especially when the final product is geometrically complex.
In terms of time-efficiency, in some cases, the traditional approach can be slower, especially when frequent design changes occur. Any modification of a workshop drawing requires revisiting the entire documentation (technological process sheet) and manual adaptation, which can be time-consuming and can provoke human errors [9].
Despite all of the potential limitations, traditional process planning still has some advantages. Direct control over each planning step is present. This can be crucial in custom production where flexibility and quick adjustments are required. Moreover, this type of preparation for manufacturing does not require access to any software, which makes it convenient for smaller workshops or low-volume production.
Taper Tap Machining Preparation Process—Traditional Method
As part of this study, a taper tap, an integral part of workover processes in the petroleum industry, was selected as the example for the analysis. In the traditional approach, the entire production preparation process is performed manually. The first step of this process is the interpretation of a 2D workshop drawing of a taper tap, provided by the client. The first step includes detailed analysis of the workshop drawing, emphasizing the importance of all the dimensions, tolerances, and surface finish requirements. Based on the 2D workshop drawing, a technological process sheet is created by hand. Table 1 represents the technological process sheet developed for the production of a taper tap using the traditional method (conventional lathe and milling machine).
As said, the entire technological process sheet is created manually, using tables of cutting parameters provided by the manufacturer of cutting tools mentioned in Table 1, which will be used in the process of production of a taper tap.
One of the most challenging tasks during the creation of this technological process sheet was customization of a milling cutting tool that will be used for four cuts on the surface of the taper tap. The engineer had to make sure that the milling cutting tool will be customized to achieve desired requirements.
Once the process sheet was complete, it was reviewed to ensure that each step contains all the necessary information and was logically ordered, since there were no computer-aided corrections. Feasibility was judged based on previous experience.
The entire process of creation of the technological process sheet from analyzing the drawing to completing the documentation was timed. For the creation of the technological process sheet presented in Table 1, 2 h and 8 min were spent. This data will be used for comparison with the modern CAD/CAM-based method in the Discussions section.
3. Modern Method
Nowadays, the advancement of new digital technologies in manufacturing is quicker than ever [11,12]. Automation has a huge impact on different fields of industries, especially time-efficiency and economy [13,14,15]. CAD/CAM softwares have become an essential part of modern industries in terms of production preparation. These softwares allow engineers to design a workpiece, program machining processes, and simulate them in a virtual environment before machining begins [16,17]. Such CAD softwares are used to create 3D models of the workpiece which serves as the foundation for CAM (in most of the modern softwares used in the manufacturing industries nowadays, CAD and CAM are integrated) [18]. In CAM section of a software, engineers determine the order of machining operations, build tool libraries, adjust generated toolpaths (if needed), etc., [19,20].
Autodesk Fusion 360 (v2.0.21286) was used for this study as a CAD/CAM software for both 3D modeling of a taper tap and programming of a CNC machine (HAAS st-40 (Haas Automation, Inc., Oxnard, CA, USA).
The modern approach also requires a certain level of technical knowledge and training as users have to be familiar with both the software and the machining processes in order to achieve the best results in terms of time-efficiency and precision. This section presents an overview of the digital machining preparation process for the same taper tap used in the traditional method, focusing on the time spent on 3D modeling and programming of a CNC machine.
Taper Tap Machining Preparation Process—Modern Method
The same taper tap used in the traditional manufacturing planning method was recreated using the Fusion 360 software. The process began with the analysis of the same workshop drawing used in the traditional approach and creation of a 3D model.Some of the elements were omitted from the 3D model (such as the conical thread) in order to save time, since it is not necessary for the machining preparation process. CNC machine is later programmed in CAM part to cut the conical thread, but the modeling of it in the CAM part was not necessary.
Once the model was complete, the next step was switching to the CAM environment of the software. Operations, such as setting up the stock material, defining the work coordinate system, creating the tool library, selecting appropriate tools, and fixing the toolpaths, were performed in this section.
Fusion 360 was used for real-time simulation of each turning and milling operation required. These simulations made it possible to visually inspect the tool movements and check for any collisions or imperfections during the machining process before even putting a workpiece in the CNC machine. After making sure that every step of the machining process is programmed well, the G-code was generated.
Although the overall process of 3D modeling was efficient, the most time-consuming part of the machining preparation process using the modern method was the creation of the tool library and material removal operations setup. Each of the 12 tools used in this project had to be defined with precise parameters such as diameter, length, cutting data (feeds and speeds), which required special attention. Moreover, the total of 21 machining operations required significant amount of time to be programmed.
The total time needed to create the 3D model and to program the CNC machine was also recorded. A total of 2 h and 43 min was spent for the machining preparation process using the modern approach.
4. Discussion
The comparative analysis between the traditional and modern approaches for the machining preparation process revealed that the traditional method required a total of 2 h and 8 min, while the modern CAD/CAM-based method took 2 h and 43 min to complete the same task. Although the modern approach integrates advanced digital tools and automation, it did not prove to be faster in this specific case.
The primary reason for the longer duration in the modern method was the initial setup of the tool library, which demanded considerable time for defining and configuring each cutting tool that needs to be used during the machining process of a taper tap. However, if a pre-configured tool library is available in the software, the total machining preparation time can be significantly reduced. Although the creation of the tool library needs to be performed only once for a specific tool, and it can be reused for the next projects, it still requires a significant amount of time in this study.
When engineers who create technological process sheets are experienced, the traditional method can lead to excellent practical results, especially when the strong internal standards and established production routines are present in the workshop. For these reasons, many companies still rely on traditional methods of production preparation processes, especially when it comes to production of a single piece of equipment or when quick intervention and machining is needed.
On the other hand, one of the main advantages of the modern approach over the traditional approach is the ability to visualize and simulate machining operations before production. Engineers can detect potential errors and prevent downtimes and material waste. Moreover, changes can be implemented quickly and updated G codes can be generated in minutes which can be very useful in mass production projects.
5. Conclusions
This paper presented a comparison between traditional and modern methods of machining preparation process based on time-efficiency, using a taper tap as the model. The results showed that, in this specific case, the traditional approach was more time-efficient. The modern approach required 35 min more than the traditional one for the machining preparation process.
The traditional method, which mostly depends on the engineer’s experience, proved to be significantly faster for the process of preparing the production of a taper tap. In contrast, the modern method offered a more flexible approach, but it required additional setup time (for tool library configuration). This suggests that the traditional machining preparation process still has practical value, especially in low-volume or custom production where setup time plays a pivotal role. However, modern technologies offer specific advantages in terms of manufacturing process when it comes to visualization and mass production. Overall, the comparison demonstrated that both of the methods have some bottlenecks. This highlights the importance of choosing a machining preparation strategy based on actual production requirements and environment.
To sum up, the choice between traditional and modern machining preparation processes should be based on the specific needs of the production process. Modern methods can offer greater flexibility and control, when it comes to the machining simulation process, but the traditional approach can still outperform them in terms of speed and simplicity in some cases. Future work may include comparing traditional and modern machining processes in terms of time-efficiency, error rate, or cost.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.B.; methodology, D.B., E.D. and M.Đ.; investigation, D.B., I.P. and L.Đ.; resources, D.B., E.D., M.Đ., L.Đ. and I.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B.; writing—review and editing, E.D., L.Đ. and M.Đ.; visualization, D.B.; supervision, E.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific Research, Republic of Serbia, Autonomous Province of Vojvodina; Project number 003101190 2024 09418 003 000 000 001.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported through the project “Creating laboratory conditions for research, development, and education in the field of the use of solar resources in the Internet of Things”.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Phung, L.X.; Van Tran, D.; Hoang, S.V. Development of assistance system for process planning in machining part. Sci. Technol. Dev. J. 2017, 20, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behandish, M.; Nelaturi, S.; Verma, C.S.; Allard, M. Automated process planning for turning: A feature-free approach. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2019, 7, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melkote, S.; Liang, S.; Ozel, T.; Jawahir, I.S.; Stephenson, D.A.; Wang, B. 100th Anniversary Issue of the Manufacturing Engineering Division Paper A Review of Advances in Modeling of Conventional Machining Processes: From Merchant to the Present. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2022, 144, 110801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trstenjak, M.; Opetuk, T.; Cajner, H.; Tosanovic, N. Process Planning in Industry 4.0—Current State, Potential and Management of Transformation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Liu, R.; Nassehi, A.; Newman, S.T. A STEP-compliant process planning system for CNC turning operations. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2011, 27, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarosz, K.; Chen, Y.-T.; Liu, R. Investigating the differences in human behavior between conventional machining and CNC machining for future workforce development: A case study. J. Manuf. Process. 2023, 96, 176–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Youssef, H.A.; Ahmed, M.H.; El-Hofy, H.A. Manufacturing Technology: Materials, Processes, and Equipment, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Areed, S.; Salloum, S.A.; Shaalan, K. The Role of Knowledge Management Processes for Enhancing and Supporting Innovative Organizations: A Systematic Review. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications; Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Hassanien, A.E., Eds.; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 295, pp. 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderberg, S.; Beno, T.; Pejryd, L. Energy and Cost Efficiency in CNC Machining from a Process Planning Perspective. In Sustainable Manufacturing; Seliger, G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- API Specification 5B; Threading, Gauging, and Inspection of Casing, Tubing, and Line Pipe Threads. American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Subramanian, G.; Patil, B.T.; Kokate, M. Review of Modern Technologies in Manufacturing Sector. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication and Control (ICAC3), Mumbai, India, 20–21 December 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, G.T. Direct Digital Manufacturing. In Clinical Applications of Digital Dental Technology, 1st ed.; Masri, R., Driscoll, C.F., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prettner, K.; Strulik, H. Innovation, automation, and inequality: Policy challenges in the race against the machine. J. Monetary Econ. 2020, 116, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukić, D.; Božić, D.; Milošević, M.; Ungureanu, N.; Borojević, S.; Antić, A. Development of the System for Cutting Tool Flows Management in a Small Manufacturing Company. Adv. Eng. Lett. 2022, 1, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simić, S.; Milošević, M.; Kosec, B.; Božić, D.; Lukić, D. Application of the Multicriteria Decision-Making for Selecting Optimal Maintenance Strategy. Adv. Eng. Lett. 2023, 2, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, Z.; Jan, H. Establishing simulation model for optimizing efficiency of CNC machine using reliability-centered maintenance approach. Int. J. Model. Simul. Sci. Comput. 2019, 10, 1950034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afteni, C.; Frumuşanu, G. A Review on Optimization of Manufacturing Process Performance. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2017, 7, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zivanovic, S.; Dimic, Z.; Rakic, A.; Slavkovic, N.; Kokotovic, B.; Manasijevic, S. Programming methodology for multi-axis CNC woodworking machining center for advanced manufacturing based on STEP-NC. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 18, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Jiang, Z.; Gu, Q.; Yan, W.; Wang, R. A novel approach to CNC machining center processing parameters optimization considering energy-saving and low-cost. J. Manuf. Syst. 2021, 59, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajaziti, A.; Tafilaj, O.; Gjelaj, A.; Berisha, B. Optimization of Toolpath Planning and CNC Machine Performance in Time-Efficient Machining. Machines 2025, 13, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Technological process sheet for traditional manufacturing of taper tap.
| First Clamping on a Conventional Lathe: |
|---|
|
| Second Clamping on a Conventional Lathe: |
|
| Third Clamping on a Conventional Lathe: |
|
| Milling Operation: |
|
| Machining has been completed. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bajić, D.; Desnica, E.; Đurđev, M.; Palinkaš, I.; Đorđević, L. Comparative Analysis of Machining Preparation Time of a Taper Tap: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches. Eng. Proc. 2026, 125, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026125016
AMA Style
Bajić D, Desnica E, Đurđev M, Palinkaš I, Đorđević L. Comparative Analysis of Machining Preparation Time of a Taper Tap: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches. Engineering Proceedings. 2026; 125(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026125016
Chicago/Turabian StyleBajić, Dejan, Eleonora Desnica, Mića Đurđev, Ivan Palinkaš, and Luka Đorđević. 2026. "Comparative Analysis of Machining Preparation Time of a Taper Tap: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches" Engineering Proceedings 125, no. 1: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026125016
APA StyleBajić, D., Desnica, E., Đurđev, M., Palinkaš, I., & Đorđević, L. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Machining Preparation Time of a Taper Tap: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches. Engineering Proceedings, 125(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026125016
Article Metrics
Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
