Technical Paper
Department of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) Centre, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON, Canada N9B 3P4
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 May 2013
Received in revised form 17 June 2014
Accepted 18 June 2014
Available online 15 July 2014
Keywords:
Platform development
Functional modeling
Axiomatic Design
Theory of Domains
Function-Means Modeling
Domain mapping
a b s t r a c t
Manufacturing companies face increasingly tougher individual customer requirements that force them to
revise conceptual solutions for the redesigning of products. This situation limits the reuse of ready-made
components and requires physical changes to the manufacturing system. In these settings, platforms
must be prepared with greater exibility to allow development over time. The corresponding platform
models need to include conceptual considerations for products and manufacturing systems. The literature advocates functional modeling to capture these considerations but applies it separately to either
the product domain or to the manufacturing domain. Further, its relationship to manufacturing processes is not expounded. Thus, functional modeling falls short of its potential to facilitate the integrated
development of products and manufacturing systems.
This paper puts forth an integrated platform model using functional modeling to capture the conceptual
considerations for products and manufacturing systems together with the manufacturing processes. The
model is tested for consistency and then illustrated by studying a real case example from the automotive industry modeled according to the approach suggested. The example shows that the model
facilitates an understanding of the design of products and their manufacturing systems, including functions shared across domains and across lifecycle phases. Thus, the model is proposed for the conceptual
phase of designing, aimed at reusing and redesigning components, machinery, manufacturing processes
and design solutions.
2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Companies in the manufacturing industry are faced with numerous challenges related to change and variation. These challenges
include [1]:
-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.012
0278-6125/ 2014 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
204
205
Documents
FR1
isb
C1a
icb
DS1
ipmb
ipmb
rf
FR
Functional requirement
DS
Design solution
Attribute lists
External models
rf
Constraint
isb: An FR is_solved_by a DS
rf: A DS requires_function FR
FR11
isb
FR12
C11a
C12a
isb icb
icb
iib
DS11a
DS12a
icb: A DS is_constrained_by a C
ipmb: A C is_partly_met-by a DS
iib: Fulfillment of an FR is_influenced_by a DS
iw: A DS interacts_with a DS
iw
Fig. 1. Enhanced Function-Means tree with linked information items [17].
a single function, there are three different cardinalities in the relationship between parts and functions:
- One-to-one: A part accomplishes a single function and is congruent with the design solution.
- One-to-many: Several parts that are spatially conned accomplish a single function (e.g., neighboring parts in a labyrinth seal).
- Many-to-one: One part accomplishes several functions (e.g., the
two ends of a claw hammer). This last case of cardinality is also
called function sharing [24].
As part of the Theory of Domains [25], this distinction is directly
implemented in the Chromosome Model. From a product perspective, it differentiates between a process domain, a function domain,
an organ domain and a part domain. Further, it proposes a production domain with process elements. Thus, the Theory of Domains
proposes a relationship model that connects elements from one
domain to the elements from another domain. An example of such
a relationship would be an organ that is realized by a component
produced by a manufacturing process.
The Theory of Domains also frames the concept of function more
broadly to express purpose in general rather than understanding it
as a transformation of an operand [26]. A bookshelf supporting the
weight of a book can thus also be regarded as accomplishing a function. This kind of purpose function can express a type of functionality
not connected to a process and corresponds to how functions are
understood in Function-Means Modeling.
2.3. Modeling for changing requirements
The desire to capture and manage the variety in products and
manufacturing systems is a driver for related work on integrated
models of products and their manufacture. Ahmad et al. [27]
devised a model that can be used to assess the impact of changes
introduced to products, including requirements, functions, components and a detailed design process. The Extended Product Family
Master Plan by Kvist [28] and the object-oriented manufacturing
process modeling by Zhang [29] connect manufacturing processes
to product platform structures. However, these methods do not
explicitly address the design of a manufacturing system.
In contrast to the above, the co-evolution model of products and
their manufacturing systems by AlGeddawy and ElMaraghy [30]
allows tracing their historical co-development to predict and synthesize future congurations of both. It was inspired by the eld of
biology and focuses on the distinguishing features of products and
206
CC1
CC12
icu
CC11
CC12
I/F
CI
VP(VPV1i)
IA
icb
icu
CC111
icu
Configurable component
DR
Design rationale
I/F
Interface
IA
Interaction
CI
Control interface
CS
Composition set
DS
CC121
iaio
iaio
CS
CEn(VPV2i), CEn+1(VPV3 i)
CC122
CI
VP(VPV2 i)
FR
FR
FR
DS
DS
DS
icu
icu
CC121
CC
FR
CC122
CC113
CC112
DR
Ca, Cb, Cn
I/F
I/F
Fig. 2. Composition of congurable components with encapsulated elements and relationship types. Adapted from [31].
3. Research approach
The industrial challenges presented above provide the general
problem basis for the research in this paper. As proposed in the literature, the modeling of products and manufacturing systems into an
integrated model can contribute to alleviating some of these challenges. Therefore, the research presented investigates the notion
of an integrated model for development in the concept phase by
using available modeling methods whenever possible and amending them where required.
Specically, the Function-Means formalism [16,18] and the congurable component framework [31] have been selected for their
ability to capture the results of the concept phase of development,
including the design rationale. The focus was set on the modeling elements function and design solution. Further, ideas from the
Theory of Domains [25] have been selected as modeling elements,
including parts, assemblies, and manufacturing processes. Together,
the proposed modeling elements capture conceptual considerations or existing components and machinery in technical systems,
such as manufactured products and manufacturing systems. The
idea is to capture the design of both systems into an integrated
model as opposed to creating two independent models. For the purpose of advancing this idea, the following question was formulated:
How can products and manufacturing systems be represented in an
integrated platform model, including functions, design solutions,
physical components and manufacturing operations, in order to
support development during the concept phase?
Addressing this question, an integrated model was developed
through an iterative process by trying to connect modeling elements in different ways and by testing these approaches for
consistency using simple examples. Following this, a specic manufacturing system and its respective product were studied and then
modeled according to the proposed model.
The selection of the case example was guided by a suggestion from the company where the study was conducted and by
the twofold function of the case example. First, the case example
provided empirical data to test whether a consistent model of a
real manufacturing system and product could be built based on
the approach. Second, the case is used in this paper to illustrate
details of the modeling approach. However, its purpose was not to
further analyze the industrial challenge or to demonstrate the usefulness of the model in a full-scale development project. The case
example will be presented and discussed in the second half of this
paper.
The data sources for this case included the physical products
and production facilities, product and production documentation,
in addition to informal interviews with engineers from the Engineering Design Department and engineers and operators from the
Production Department at the company manufacturing the product.
Visits to the factory were accompanied by manufacturing engineers in charge of operation and maintenance of the manufacturing
systems. The systems were observed in operation and operators
and engineers were interviewed about the functionality of the
systems to gain an understanding of the function of each subsystem and component of the manufacturing system and how these
elements contribute to handling and transforming parts of the
product.
The integrated platform model uses the Function-Means formalism to connect the functions and design solutions of the product
in the same way as for the manufacturing system. Two kinds of
Function-Means trees result: one for the product and another for
the manufacturing system. These trees connect functional domains
to solution domains, thus describing the product and the manufacturing system in terms of two domains. Consequently, the model
makes no compromises by simultaneously focusing on the product and the manufacturing system. Moreover, the Function-Means
formalism includes transformation functions as well as purpose
functions. In other words, it is possible to model functions and
design solutions that are not aimed at describing transformations.
Further, the two kinds of Function-Means trees are each connected to their respective component treesone for the product
and another for the manufacturing systemserving as bills of material and bills of equipment, respectively. The model indicates in
which component a certain design solution is realized, thus capturing the architecture of the product and manufacturing system.
For manufactured products, the components are typically
assemblies and parts, such as hydraulic cylinders and camshafts.
For manufacturing systems viewed from a high hierarchical level,
components typically include manufacturing cells, stations, assembly lines, xtures, robots, and machine tools. The assemblies and
parts of these manufacturing systems populate the lower levels in
the component structure of the manufacturing system, for example
xtures or welding electrodes.
Depending on the level of detail required, the component trees
can also include form features, i.e., form elements with a characteristic form, related to a traditional production process [25, p. 26],
such as the draft angle of a cast component. Alternatively, form features can be dened in relation to the functionality of the product
or manufacturing system. An example is the shape of a stamping
die, which refers to the functionality of the manufacturing system.
Linking the product and manufacturing system, the manufacturing operations are included in the platform model. According to the
sequence in which they are performed, the model presents these
operations starting on the left and progressing to the right. The
operations show how the functions of the manufacturing system
are executed when producing the product, which is a perspective
that the Function-Means trees do not provide.
The focus is on the operations directly connected to the making
of the product, i.e., transformations of the product, its components
or form features. In order to reect the typical mode of production
Product
Function-Means Tree
207
Manufacturing System
CO Tree
Function-Means Tree
isb
CO Tree
isb
Functional requirement FR
rf
rf
rf
rf
Design solution DS
Component CO
iri
iri
iri
Operation O
iri
iw
iw
iw
iri
iw
iw
iw
iw
isb: An FR is_solved_by a DS
rf: A DS requires_function FR
iw: A DS interacts_with an O
Operations
Feature Integration!
iri: A DS is_realized_in a CO
Part Integration!
Fig. 3. Schematic overview of the proposed model including modeling elements and relationship types.
208
CC Product
I/F
CC Manufacturing System
I/F
FR
FR
CC
Configurable component
FR
Functional requirement
DS
Design solution
DS
DS
CC Operation
I/F
I/F
Operation
Interface
IA
O
IA
Interaction
Fig. 4. Connecting design solutions and operations with the interaction-modeling concept.
in the manufacturing industry, operations are divided into two different types:
- Feature integration operations create parts or add form features to
existing parts in manufacturing processes, such as forming and
machining.
- Part integration operations create parts and assemblies through
manufacturing processes, such as joining and assembly.
All other process steps are auxiliary, such as transport and
loading for instance. They enable the overall working of the manufacturing system. It is generally desirable to gain an understanding
of the overall working in the concept phase of development, including these auxiliary process steps in design. Therefore, they can be
added to the model to the extent that they are known.
The design solutions are connected to the operations of
the model by adopting the interaction-modeling concept of the
congurable component framework, illustrated as interacts with
relationship type in Fig. 4. To this end, the branches of the FunctionMeans trees and operations are encapsulated into congurable
components. Fig. 4 shows schematically how the interacts with
relationship is implemented in the model. An interaction element
contains information about which interfaces interact, thus connecting the design solutions to operations.
This approach allows the model to be implemented through
using the Congurable Component Modeler (CCM), an IT-tool
developed for the purpose of supporting development work for
extension of originally required functionality and for ordered conguration of variants based on a platform. Implementation using
the IT tool allows for more effective management of the complexity
emerging in a large model with many interactions.
5. Industrial example
roof of the car, on the inside of the car by the head lining, and to
the rear by the rear door when closed.
The panel is an assembly of ve die-stamped sheet metal parts.
Their names are indicated in Fig. 5 together with some form features
that are explained below. The parts are rst pressed, delivered to
a welding station, loaded by a human operator, and automatically
spot-welded using two robots. Robot 1 is equipped with a welding electrode. Robot 2 uses a gripper to transport the semi-nished
assembly from the xture to a stationary electrode for further welding and then unloads the nished panel from the station.
Because of its shape, the Gutter is pressed in a transfer press,
including deep impressions and an undercut along its length. In
this type of press, individual sheets are blanked from a coil and
the semi-nished parts are transported as single entities between
dies. All other parts in the panel assembly are pressed in a progressive die press. Here, the form features are pressed into the sheet
metal conveyed continuously through the press. In the last die, the
nished panel is cut from the coil.
Fig. 7 is a montage of several photographs of the sheet metal
parts in the xture of the welding station. Using image-processing
Fig. 6. Photograph of the Rear Header Roof Panel as part of the cars rear door
opening.
209
Fig. 7. Rear Header Roof Panel in welding xture (1) Outer Panel, (2) Inner Panel, (3) Gutter, (4) Hinge Reinforcement 1, (5) Positioning Cone 1, (6) Positioning Cone 2, and
(7) support features.
210
Transfer Press
Figure 9
Welding Station
Figure 10
Figure 11
Product Function
Product Component
211
Rear Header
Roof Panel
Rear Header
Roof Panel
Outer Panel
Support roof
Enable
mounting of
rear door
Enable
mounting of
roof lining
Gutter
Outer Panel
Rear panel
system
Inner Panel
Hinge
Reinforcement 1
Establish
door
interface
Reinforce
panel
structure
Hinge
Reinforcement 2
Gutter
Hinge
Reinforcement
Inner Panel
Provide
space for
hinges
Enable
positioning
in fixture
Enable interaction w/
Hinge Reinf.
Provide
space for
hinges
Enable
positioning
in fixture
Enable interaction w/
Rear Panel
Rectangular
hole
Holes for
positioning
Surface
interface
Rectangular
hole
Holes for
positioning
Surface
interface
Fig. 9. Rear Header Roof Panel described with Function-Means tree and component tree.
use. The model highlights this function sharing across domains and
lifecycle phases. Considerations of other phases are conceivable but
have not been included because this paper has been focused on the
integrated development of products and manufacturing systems.
Assemble
Rear Header Roof P.
Welding
Station
Assembly
system
Operator
Fixture
Load parts
Hold parts
Join parts
Operator
Fixture
Spot welding
system
Support
Feature 1
Sense
presence of
parts
Position
parts
Clamp parts
Apply weld
spots while
in fixture
Transport
assembly
Apply weld
spots when
not in fixture
Support
Feature 8
Sensor system
Positioning
system
Clamping
system
Spot welding
robot
Gripper robot
Stationary
Welding
Electrode
Positioning
Cone 1
Lock 3 DOF
Lock 2 DOF
Lock 1 DOF
Reference
plane
Four-flanked
cone
Two-flanked
cone
Positioning
Cone 2
Robot 1
Welding
Electrode
Robot 2
Gripper
Stationary
Welding
Electrode
Fig. 10. Welding Station described with Function-Means tree and component tree.
212
Transfer Press
Welding Station
Apply weld
spots while
in fixture
Load parts
Hinge
Reinforcement
Gutter
Embossing
die system
Positioning
system
Operator
Spot welding
robot
Provide
space for
hinges
Enable
positioning
in fixture
Enable interaction w/
Hinge Reinf.
Provide
space for
hinges
Enable
positioning
in fixture
Enable interaction w/
Rear Panel
Apply force
to sheet
metal
Support
sheet
metal
Lock 3
DOF
Lock 2
DOF
Lock 1
DOF
Rectangular
hole
Holes for
positioning
Surface
interface
Rectangular
hole
Holes for
positioning
Surface
interface
Upper die
Lower die
Reference
plane
Four-flanked
cone
Two-flanked
cone
Punch
holes
Emboss
surfaces
Trimm
edges
Flange
edges
Position
parts
Hold
parts
Feature Integration
Operations
Part Integration
Operations
Apply
weld spots
solutions in the Function-Means trees to the component trees connect the solution domains to their respective component domain,
thus capturing the architecture of the product and manufacturing system. In Fig. 11, the lines connecting the product design
solutions to the manufacturing operations indicate which operations realize the respective design solution. Thus, the model maps
operations to design solutions rather than operations to components.
Fig. 12. The example modeled in CCM with focus on the interaction between the DSs in the Gutter, the embossing system and the embossing operation.
Hinge
Reinforcement
Gutter
Embossing
die system
213
Spot welding
robot
Enable interaction w/
Hinge Reinf.
Enable interaction w/
Rear Panel
Apply force
to sheet
metal
Support
sheet
metal
Surface
interface
Surface
interface
Upper die
Lower die
Robot 1
Welding
Electrode 1
2
7
3
Emboss
surfaces
Welding
Electrode 2
Apply
weld spots
Functional Domain
Product
Solution Domain
Product
Component Domain
Product
FRP
DSP
COP
FRP1
DSP1
FRP11 FRP12
DSP11 DSP12
COP1
COP11
COP12
O & AP
O1
AP1
O2
O3
FRM
DSM
FRM1
DSM1
FRM11 FRM12
DSM11 DSM12
Functional Domain
Manufacturing System
COM
Manufacturing
Process Domain
Solution Domain
Manufacturing System
Fig. 14. Mapping between domains in the model.
COM1
COM11 COM12
Component Domain
Manufacturing System
214
exclusively manual processes. Thus, further studies must investigate the generalizability of the proposed model with regard to other
product and manufacturing system types and industries.
The use example of the model points at further potential for
its integration with other methods. Specically, it may prove to
be a rst step toward understanding change propagation. For this
purpose, it can be combined with existing methods for analyzing change propagation and the redesigning process, as proposed
by Ahmad et al. [27] and Clarkson et al. [38]. Their methods use
a product model as the basis for analysis but do not include the
design of the manufacturing system. They may prot from an integrated model such as the model presented that already includes
information about subsystem interdependencies.
Finally, the theoretical basis available has not been fully utilized
in the model, which provides opportunities for further renement.
Functions-Means trees can be enhanced with constraints [18], indicating capability limits. For example, functions that machinery is
generally capable of achieving but does not exploit in a given design
can thus be added to the trees to provide a more comprehensive picture. Moreover, with the Function-Means formalism, engineers can
model alternative solutions to required functions (see Fig. 1). This
may prove useful in conceptual design to keep track of available
design concepts and is promoted in Set-Based Concurrent Engineering [39,40]. Lastly, product and manufacturing system variety
can be expressed by alternative solutions and components. On
reection, this opens the door to integrating platform thinking in
the product domain with similar mindsets in the manufacturing
domain [41], thus enabling integrated development of congurable
product and manufacturing system platforms.
7. Conclusions
This paper proposes an integrated platform model for product
and manufacturing systems. It complements an existing modeling framework with manufacturing process models and aims at
supporting platform-based development of products and manufacturing systems during the conceptual design phase. The model
was synthesized in three steps:
- The established Function-Means formalism is used to represent products and manufacturing systems with their functions
and solutions, thus capturing the functional decomposition and
design rationale of both systems.
- A component structure is introduced for both products and manufacturing systems, including form features, parts, and assemblies.
Mapping component structures to Function-Means structures
allows capturing the architecture of both systems.
- The manufacturing processes directly connected to the making
of the products and the operations are modeled. They elicit the
interdependency of product and manufacturing system designs.
Interesting ndings emerged by interviewing engineers as well
as studying a product and its manufacturing system to model them
according to the proposed model. One nding is that the model
can capture information on how the two systems individually
and together accomplish functionality. Another nding is that the
model follows a consistent approach to an integrated product and
manufacturing system platform.
The paper proposes the model for possible implementation in
industry where product engineers and manufacturing engineers
can share this information and use it for the development in the
concept phase. Further research will aim at enhancing the model to
include information about manufacturing capabilities, alternative
design concepts, and product and manufacturing system variety.
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out at the Intelligent Manufacturing
Systems Centre at the University of Windsor, Canada, and at the
Wingquist Laboratory VINN Excellence Centre within the Area
of Advance Production at Chalmers University of Technology in
Gothenburg, Sweden. It has received support by the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), the Swedish
Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) via the ProViking Graduate School, the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg
(KVVS), and the Chalmers University Research Fund (Chalmersska
forskningsfonden). All sources of support are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, et al. Recongurable
manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 1999;48(2):52740.
[2] Jiao RJ, Simpson T, Siddique Z. Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 2007;18(1):529.
[3] Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The power of product platforms: building value and
cost leadership. New York, NY, USA: Free Press; 1997.
[4] Berglund F, Bergsj D, Hgman U, Khadke K. Platform strategies for a supplier
in the aircraft engine industry. In: Proceedings of ASME IDETC. 2008. p. 5566.
[5] Johannesson H. Emphasizing reuse of generic assets through integrated product
and production system development platforms. In: Simpson TW, et al., editors. Advances in product family and product platform design methods and
applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer; 2013.
[6] Pahl G, Beitz W. Engineering design a systematic approach. 1st ed. Berlin,
Germany: Springer; 1988.
[7] Gu P, Rao HA, Tseng MM. Systematic design of manufacturing systems based on
axiomatic design approach. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 2001;50(1):299304.
[8] Lee J. Design rationale systems: understanding the issues. IEEE Expert
1997;12(3):7885.
[9] ElMaraghy HA. Changing and evolving products and systems models and
enablers. In: ElMaraghy HA, editor. Changeable and recongurable manufacturing systems. London, UK: Springer; 2009. p. 2545.
[10] Scallan P. Process planning the design/manufacture interface. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann; 2003.
[11] Ulrich K. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing rm. Res Policy
1995;24(3):41940.
[12] Gedell S, Michaelis MT, Johannesson H. Integrated model for co-development
of products and production systems a systems theory approach. Concurr Eng
Res Appl 2011;19(2):13956.
[13] Pedersen R [Doctoral thesis] Product platform modelling contributions to the
discipline of visual product platform modelling. Lyngby, Denmark: Department
of Management Engineering, Technical University of Demark; 2009.
[14] Hubka V, Eder WE. Theory of technical systems a total concept theory for
engineering design. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1988.
[15] Tjalve E. Systematisk udformning af industriprodukter Vrktjer for konstruktren [Systematic design of industrial products tools for the designer].
Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk Forlag; 1976 [in Danish].
[16] Malmqvist J. Improved function-means trees by inclusion of design history
information. J Eng Des 1997;8(2):10717.
[17] Johannesson H, Claesson A. Systematic product platform design: a combined function means and parametric modeling approach. J Eng Des
2005;16(1):2543.
215