The Contact and Channel Approach (C&C2-A): Relating a System’s Physical Structure to Its Functionality

  • Albert AlbersEmail author
  • Eike Wintergerst


Research on theories and models of design is often motivated from observations in designing, i.e. they address a specific purpose and are intended to describe, explain or predict certain phenomena that pose an unsolved challenge both for the research community and for design practitioners. This chapter is dedicated to one of these present challenges in engineering design: to explain and to provide efficient means to describe how the quality of a product’s technical functions and properties depend on the design of its physical characteristics.


Design Characteristic Physical Structure Product Model Design Practice Solution Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Kim KM, Lee KP (2010) Two types of design approaches; regarding Industrial design and engineering design in product design. In: Proceedings of DESIGN 2010, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albers A, Ebel B, Lohmeyer Q (2012) System of objectives in complex product development. In: Proceedings of TMCE2012, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hacker W (1997) Improving engineering design—contributions of cognitive ergonomics, Ergonomics, 40(10):1088–1096Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Israel JH (2009) Hybride Interaktionstechniken des immersiven Skizzierens in frühen Phasen der Produktentwicklung, PhD Thesis, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckert C, Alink T, Albers A (2010) Issue driven analysis of an existing product at different levels of abstraction. In: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2010, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hacker W (2002) Denken in der Produktentwicklung VDF Hochschulverlag ZürichGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hannah R, Joshi S, Summers JD (2012) A user study of interpretability of engineering design representations. J Eng Des 23(6):443–468Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote KH (2007) Konstruktionslehre—Grundlagen erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthiesen S (2011) Seven years of product development in industry—experiences and requirements for supporting engineering design with ‘thinking tools’. In: Proceedings of ICED2011, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber C (2008) How to derive application-specific design methodologies. In: Proceedings of the design 2008, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suh NP (1998) Axiomatic design theory for systems. Res Eng Design 10:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindemann U, Deubzer F (2009) Networked modelling—use and interaction of product models and methods during analysis and synthesis. In: Proceedings of the ICED 2009, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koller, R (1994) Konstruktionslehre für den Maschinenbau: Grundlagen zur Neu- und Weiterentwicklung technischer Produkte mit Bespielen. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roth KH (1994) Konstruieren mit Konstruktionskatalogen, vol 1. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grabowski H, Geiger K (1997) Neue Wege zur Produktentwicklung. Raabe, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindemann U, Pulm U (2001) Enhanced systematics for functional product structuring. In: Proceedings of ICED2001, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eckert C, Alink T, Ruckpaul A, Albers A (2011) Different notions of function: results from an experiment on the analysis of an existing product. J Eng Des. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2011.603297 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erden M, Komoto H, van Beek T, D’Amelio V, Echavarria E, Tomiyama T (2008) A review of function modelling: approaches and applications. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 22(2):147–169Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vermaas P (2010) Technical Functions: towards accepting different engineering meanings with one overall account. In: Proceedings of TMCE2010, AnconaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Albers A, Braun A (2011) A generalised framework to compass and to support complex product engineering processes. Int J Prod Dev (IJPD). doi: 10.1504/IJPD.2011.043659
  21. 21.
    Lemburg JP (2009) Methodik der stufenweisen Gestaltsynthese, PhD Thesis, AachenGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Araujo CS (2001) Acquisition of product development tools in industry, PhD Thesis, 2001, Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eckert C, Albers A, Ohmer M (2004) Engineering in a different way: a cognitive perspective on the contact and channel model approach. In: Third international Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design. MIT Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Geis C, Bierhals R, Schuster I, Badke-Schaub P, Birkhofer H (2008). Methods in practice—a study on transfer of design methods. In: Proceedings of the Design 2008, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Albers A, Braun A, Sadowski E, Wyatt D, Wynn D, Clarkson J (2011) System architecture modelling in a software tool based on the contact and channel approach (C&C-A). J Mech Des. doi: 10.1115/1.4004971
  26. 26.
    Albers A, Alink T, Thau S, Matthiesen S (2008) Support of system analyses and improvement in industrial design trough the contact and channel model. In: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2008, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wyatt D, Eckert CM and Clarkson PJ (2009) Design of product architectures in incrementally developed complex products. In: ICED’09, Stanford, CA, USA, 2009, vol 4, pp 167–178Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hubka V (1984) Theorie technischer Systme. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodenacker WG, Claussen U (1973) Regeln des Methodischen Konstruierens; MainzGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albers A, Schwarz, A, Behrendt M, Hettel, R (2012) Time-efficient method for test-based optimization of technical systems using physical models. In: Proceedings of TMCE2012, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matthiesen S (2002) A contribution to the basis definition of the element model “Working Surface Pairs & Channel and Support Structures” about the correlation between layout and function of technical systems, PhD Thesis, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Albers A, Bernhardt J, Ott S (2011) Development and validation of lubricated multi-disc clutch systems with advanced ceramics. Proc IMechE Part J J Eng Tribol. doi: 10.1002/9780470944127.ch29
  33. 33.
    Albers A, Börsting P (2011) A functions catalogue to support distributed and hybrid micro systems development. In: Proceedings of HARMST 2011, HimejiGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matthiesen S, Ruckpaul A (2012) New insights on the contact and channel approach—modelling of systems with several logical states. In: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Albers A, Oerding J, Alink T (2010) Abstract objectives can become more tangible with the contact and channel model (C&CM). In: Proceedings of CIRP 2010, NantesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zingel C, Albers A, Matthiesen S, Maletz M (2012) Experiences and advancements from one year of explorative application of an integrated model-based development technique using C&C2-A in SysML. IAENG Int J Comput Sci 39(2):165–181Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IPEK—Institute of Product EngineeringKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations