A configuration design based method for platform commonization for product families

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 21-39

  Corbett, Brian ^a   Rosen, David W ^b  

^a BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Configuration Design; Discrete Mathematics; Platform Commonization; Product Family Design

Indexed keywords

COMMONIZATION; CONFIGURATION DESIGN; DISCRETE MATHEMATICS; PLATFORM; PRODUCT FAMILY DESIGN;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; INVESTMENTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBLEM SOLVING; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 14344260344     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S089006040404003X     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Agarwal, M., & Cagan, J. (1998). A blend of different tastes: The language of coffeemakers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25(2), 205-226.
2. Agarwal, M., Cagan, J., & Constantine, K.G. (1999). Influencing generative design through continuous evaluation: Associating cost with the coffeemaker shape grammar. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 13(4), 253-275.
3. Corbett, B. (2003). Configuration design methods and mathematics for product families. MS thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology.
4. Dixon, J.R., Duffey, M.R., Irani, R.K., Meunier, K.L., & Orelup, M.F. (1988). A proposed taxonomy of mechanical design problems. Proc. ASME Computers in Engineering Conf., San Francisco, pp. 41-46.
5. Finger, S., & Dixon, J.R. (1989). A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I: Descriptive, prescriptive, and computer based models of design processes. Research in Engineering Design 1, 51-67.
6. Gero, J.S., Kazakov, V., & Schnier, T. (1997). Genetic engineering and design problems. In Evolutionary Algorithms in Engineering Applications (Dasgupta, D., & Michalewicz, Z., Eds.), pp. 47-68. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
7. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K.N., & Baker, J. D. (1998). A method for architecting product platforms with an application to interplanetary mission design. Proc. ASME Design Automation Conf., Atlanta, GA, Paper No. DETC98/DAC-5608.
8. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., Otto, K.N., & Baker, J.D. (1999). Assessing value for product family and selection. Proc. ASME Design Automation Conf., Las Vegas, NV, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8613.
9. Heinrich, M., & Jungst, E. (1991). A resource-based paradigm for the configuring of technical systems from modular components. Proc. Seventh IEEE Conf. on AI Applications, pp. 257-264.
10. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
11. Kota, S., & Sethuraman, K. (1998). Managing variety in product families through design for commonality. Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Atlanta, GA. Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5651.
12. Kota, S., & Ward, A.C. (1990). Functions, structures, and constraints in conceptual design. Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Chicago, DE-Vol. 27, pp. 239-250.
13. Kreher, D.L., & Stinson, D.R. (1999). Combinatorial Algorithms-Generation, Enumeration, and Search. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
14. Lomnicki, Z.A. (1972). Two-terminal series-parallel networks. Advances in Applied Probability 4, 109-150.
15. MacMahon, P.A. (1891). Yoke-chains and multipartite compositions in connexion with the analytical forms called "trees." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 22, 330-346.
16. Martin, M.V., & Ishii, K. (1997). Design for variety: development of complexity indices and design charts. Proc. ASME Design for Manufacturing Conf., Paper No. DETC97/DFM-4359. Sacramento, CA.
17. Mittal, S., & Falkenheiner, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. Proc. AAAI-90 Eighth National Conf. on AI, pp. 25-32.
18. Munkres, J.R. (1975). Topology, a First Course. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. Newcomb, P.J., Bras, B.A., & Rosen, D.W. (1998). Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 120(3), 483-490.
20. Nugen, F. (1999). Enumerating with constraints on the hierarchy space. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia Institute of Technology.
21. Reddy, G., & Cagan, J. (1995). An improved shape annealing algorithm for truss topology generation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 117, 315-321.
22. Rosen, D.W., & Dixon, J.R. (1992). Languages for feature-based design and manufacturability evaluation. International Journal of Systems Automation: Research and Applications 2(4), 353-373.
23. Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1999). Evolving designs by generating useful complex gene structures. In Evolutionary Design by Computers (Bently, P.J., Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
24. Sacerdoti, E.D. (1974). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence 5, 115-135.
25. Siddique, Z., & Rosen, D.W. (1999). Product platform design: A graph grammar approach. Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Las Vegas, NV, Paper No. DETC99/DTM-8762.
26. Siddique, Z., & Rosen, D.W. (2001). On combinatorial design spaces for the configuration design of product families. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 15(2), 91-108.
27. Soininen, T., Tiihonen, J., Mannisto, T., & Sulonen, R. (1998). Towards a general ontology of configuration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 12(4), 357-372.
28. Steward, D.V. (1981). Systems Analysis and Management: Structure, Strategy, and Design. New York: Petrocelli Books.
29. Stone, R.B., Wood, K.L., & Crawford, R.H. (1998). A heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. Proc. ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conf., Atlanta, GA, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5642.
30. Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2000). Product Design and Development, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.