Towards a Knowledge-Intensive Framework for Top-Down Design Context Definition

  • Nicolas Petrazoller
  • Frédéric Demoly
  • Samuel Deniaud
  • Samuel Gomes
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 414)


This paper presents a skeleton-based modeling approach enabling the definition of a knowledge-intensive design context at the beginning of the embodiment design stage. The research introduces an analogy to the incubator concept by creating a suitable support along the design phase including CAD modeling. The main objective of the proposed approach is to integrate engineering information and knowledge in the early phases of the product development process in a top-down and seamless manner so as to provide a knowledge-based design context for designers. The fact of including a design context in the embodiment design phase will assist designers to make better-informed decisions and therefore linking what (technical entities and engineering data), why (rationale) and how (processes and functions). The concept of design incubator will be defined according to its function, behavior and structure (i.e. skeleton entities, functional surfaces, design spaces, parameters, knowledge and design requirements). The proposed design incubator ensures the knowledge delivery and engineering support at the right time. A case study has been carried out to demonstrate the developed method.


Assembly modeling Skeleton-based modeling Top-down assembly design Proactive engineering Design context definition Knowledge-intensive design 


  1. 1.
    Andreasen, M.M., Kahler, S., Lund, T.: Design for assembly. IFS Publications Ltd., Springer, Verlag, UK (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bai, Y.W., Chen, Z.N., Bin, H.Z., Hu, J.: Collaborative design in product development based on product layout model. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 21, 55–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, X., Gao, S., Yang, Y., Zhang, S.: Multi-level assembly model for top-down design of mechanical products. Computer-Aided Design 44, 1033–1048 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csabai, A., Stroud, I., Xirouchakis, P.C.: Container spaces and functional features for top-down 3D layout design. Computer-Aided Design 34, 1011–1035 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demoly, F., Gomes, S., Eynard, B., Sagot, J.C.: Towards a design for assembly approach based on SysML paradigm and PLM systems. In: Proc. Second CIRP Int. Conf. Assem. Technol. Syst. (CATS), Toronto, Canada, September 21-23, pp. 100–113 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Demoly, F., Gomes, S., Eynard, B., Rivest, L., Sagot, J.C.: Assembly-oriented product structure based on preliminary assembly process engineering. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des., ICED 2009, Stanford, CA, USA, August 24-27 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Demoly, F., Monticolo, D., Eynard, B., Rivest, L., Gomes, S.: Multiple viewpoint modelling framework enabling integrated product process design. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing 4, 269–280 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demoly, F., Yan, X.-T., Eynard, B., Rivest, L., Gomes, S.: An Assembly oriented design framework for product structure engineering and assembly sequence planning. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 27, 33–46 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demoly, F., Toussaint, L., Eynard, B., Kiritsis, D., Gomes, S.: Geometric skeleton computation enabling concurrent product engineering and assembly sequence planning. Computer-Aided Design 43, 1654–1673 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demoly, F., Yan, X.-T., Eynard, B., Kiritsis, D., Gomes, S.: Integrated product relationships management: a model to enable concurrent product design and assembly sequence planning. Journal of Engineering Design 23, 544–561 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gane, V., Haymaker, J.: Design Scenarios: Enabling transparent parametric design spaces 6, 618–640 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, K.J., Sacks, E., Joskowicz, L.: Kinematic analysis of spatial fixed-axis higher pairs using configuration space 6, 279–291 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, C.G., Li, C.L., Liu, Y., Huang, Y.: A new C-space method to automate the layout design of injection mould cooling system 6, 811–823 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miyakawa, S., Shigemura, T.: The Hitachi assemblability evaluation method (AREM). In: Proc. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng., Conf. Manuf. Syst. Environlooking Toward 21st Century, pp. 277–282 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pahl, G., Beitz, W.: Engineering design, a systematic approach, 2nd edn., p. 544. Springer, London (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Redford, A., Chal, J.: Design for assembly principles and practice. McGraw-Hill Inc., England (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stone, R., McAdams, D., Kayyalethekkel, V.J.: A product architecture-based conceptual DFA technique. Design Studies 25, 301–325 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Theodosiou, G., Sapidis, N.S.: Information of layout constraints for product life-cycle management: a solid-modelling approach 6, 549–564 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamagiwa, Y.: An assembly ease evaluation method for product engineers: DAC. Tech. Jpn. 21 (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Petrazoller
    • 1
  • Frédéric Demoly
    • 1
  • Samuel Deniaud
    • 1
  • Samuel Gomes
    • 1
  1. 1.IRTES-M3MUniversité de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard (UTBM)Belfort CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations