REVIEW ARTICLE 1367 Adaptable design: concepts, … design: concepts, methods, and applications...

Adaptable design: concepts, methods, and applicationsP Gu1, D Xue1, and A Y C Nee2*1Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada2Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore and Singapore-MIT Alliance, Singapore

The manuscript was received on 7 October 2008 and was accepted after revision for publication on 28 May 2009.

DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1387

Abstract: Increasing competition in the global marketplace demands products with betterfunctionality, higher quality, lower cost, shorter delivery lead time, and increased environ-mental friendliness. Although advanced manufacturing technologies can partially address thesechallenges, advanced design technologies are considered critical, since most design and manu-facturing properties of a product are influenced by the design decisions made in the earlydesign stages. This paper provides a comprehensive review on a new design paradigm –adaptable design – that aims at developing adaptable products to satisfy the various require-ments of customers. The topics discussed in this review include the fundamental concepts,objectives, methodologies, and applications. The paper also presents the differences betweenadaptable design and other design methods, such as modular design, platform design, andproduct customization. The focus is on mechanical product design; however, potential appli-cations of adaptable design in other disciplines are also briefly mentioned.

Keywords: adaptable design, adaptability, design functions, modular design, productplatform, mass customization, product life cycle

1 INTRODUCTION

Increasing global competition demands that pro-ducts have better functionality, higher quality, lowercost, shorter delivery lead time, and increased envir-onmental friendliness. In the past several decades,many advanced manufacturing technologies –including computer numerically controlled (CNC)machining, robotics, computer aided design andmanufacturing (CAD/CAM), flexible manufacturingsystems (FMSs), computer-integrated manufacturing(CIM), material requirement planning (MRP), andenterprise resource planning (ERP) – have beendeveloped and employed to improve product com-petitiveness [1]. Research has shown that about80per cent of product life cycle costs are determinedat the early design stages, while the design only takesabout 20 per cent of the whole product developmenteffort [2].

Research on advanced design technologies hasattracted much attention in the last several decades.One of the representative works is the systematicdesign approach by Pahl and Beitz [3]. Many designtheories and methodologies have been developedand are widely accepted and used in the design ofproducts, processes, and systems. They include:axiomatic design [4, 5]; function-based design [3];modular, product platform, and product family/portfolio design [6]; TRIZ-based design and innova-tion [7]; design for X, such as design for manu-facturing [8, 9], design for assembly [10], design formaintenance [11], and design for recycling/disposal[12, 13]; and concurrent engineering design [14–16].

‘Adaptable design’ [17] is a new design paradigmthat aims at creating designs and products that canbe easily adapted for different requirements. Adapt-ability of product and design has various advantagesover traditional designs. For manufacturers, anadaptable design can be reused for the developmentof new design to save product development timeand costs. When the functions of a product can notbe recovered through maintenance and repairoperations, or these functions no longer satisfynew requirements, the product can be adapted by

*Corresponding author: Mechanical and Production Engineer-

ing, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent,

Singapore 119620, Singapore.

email: [email protected]

JEM1387 � IMechE 2009 Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture

REVIEW ARTICLE 1367

changing or reconfiguring some of its componentsand modules to achieve the required new functions,instead of disposal or recycling of the product.Compared with the design for disposal and recycleapproaches, adaptable design can further reduce thewaste created in the disposal or recycle processes.Since design and manufacturing efforts to achievethe required functions are also reduced in adaptabledesign, this design approach can further improve thecompetitiveness of products in the marketplace.

Since the introduction of adaptable design, con-tinuous efforts have been made to improve thedesign method. This paper provides an overview onthe progress in this research area. The paper is orga-nized as follows: section 2 introduces the basic con-cepts, benefits, and key issues of adaptable design.The adaptable design method is provided in detail insection 3. Section 4 focuses on application examplesto illustrate how adaptable design can be used inindustry. Finally, section 5 concludes the paper.

2 ADAPTABLE DESIGN

2.1 Design and product adaptability

A product development process is usually composedof twomajor sub-processes: design and production, asillustrated in Fig. 1. Design is the process that achievesa design solution, usually modelled using a CAD sys-tem, based on the design requirements represented inengineering specifications, which originate with cus-tomer needs. A design is realized as a product throughproduction processes. The design or product is thenevaluated based upon the design requirements.

When design requirements are modified as a resultof changes in customer requirements or the operat-ing environment of products or owing to advances oftechnology (e.g. a computer requiring wireless com-munication in addition to an ethernet cable), themanufactured product may no longer satisfy the newrequirements. Either the existing design needs to beadapted to create a new design and its product; or,the existing product needs to be adapted directlyto satisfy the new requirements, as shown in Fig. 1.In order to reduce the efforts of design and product

adaptation, both design and product adaptabilityshould be considered at the design stage. ‘Adaptabledesign’ is, therefore, a design methodology for ease ofadaptation of design or product considering changesin requirements.

‘Design adaptability’ is the capability of an existingdesign to be adapted to create a new or modifieddesign based on the changed requirements. Inadaptable design for design adaptability, similardesigns are usually created by modifying the existingdesigns based on similar but different requirements.The producer can benefit from design adaptability byreusing most of the existing design solutions andproduction processes to shorten product develop-ment lead time and improve product quality. Adap-table design for design adaptability is effective in thedesign process when a population of designs andtheir realizations (products) exist. A mass customi-zation design based on the requirements of indivi-dual customers can be considered as a kind of designmethod for design adaptability [18].

‘Product adaptability’ is the capability of a physicalproduct to be adapted to satisfy the changed require-ments. Product adaptability is usually achieved bymodifying the existing product, such as adding newcomponents and/or modules, replacing or upgradingthe existing components/modules with new ones, andreconfiguring the existing components/modules. Theuser can benefit from product adaptability by reusingmost components/modules of the existing productrather than having to purchase a new product. Aproduct with many exchangeable components andmodules that allows the addition of new functions,such as a personal computer, is a typical product withproduct adaptability.

2.2 Benefits of adaptable design

The objective of adaptable design is to effectively andefficiently maintain, improve, or change the func-tionality of a product by enhancing its adaptability.Compared with the traditional design approach forbringing the functionality of products to a predefinedlevel through maintenance and repair, as illustratedin Fig. 2(a), adaptable design can increase the func-tionality through modification of the product, such as

Fig. 1 Design adaptation and product adaptation in adaptable design (modified from reference [17])

Proc. IMechE Vol. 223 Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture JEM1387 � IMechE 2009

1368 P Gu, D Xue, and A Y C Nee

upgrading, as shown in Fig. 2(b). When adaptabledesign is used to create new designs, existing designsare reused to save time and effort in the new productdevelopment process. The benefits of adaptabledesign are primarily in the economic and environ-mental aspects.

Economic benefit. By considering design adapt-ability, a new design and its product can be createdmore easily by modifying the existing design. Theprocess of adapting an existing design, compared withthe creation of a new design from scratch, can result insavings in product development lead time and costsfor the producer, thus making the product morecompetitive in the marketplace. Design adaptabilityalso provides the opportunity to design customizedproducts based on specific requirements of individualcustomers at reasonable costs. By considering productadaptability, the user can modify the existing productrather than buying a new one, thus reducing the costto achieve the required functions.

Environmental benefit. Presently the environmentalimpact of a product is primarily reduced throughcreating designs that require less effort in remanu-facturing and recycling, as shown in Fig. 3. When aproduct reaches the end of its life cycle, either somecomponents of the retired product are reused in theremanufacturing process or the materials of this pro-duct are recycled in the production of other products.

When components or materials of the retired productcan not be reused, disposal has to occur. Comparedwith these traditional methods, adaptable design thatconsiders product adaptability can further reduce thewaste created in the remanufacturing and recyclingprocesses by only modifying a small number of theexisting components/modules of a product to extendits life span with the required functions.

2.3 Key issues in adaptable design

In the last 30 years, many design theories andmethodologies have been developed to improvedesign efficiency by using design knowledge. Case-based reasoning was used to create a new designsolution based on the solutions to similar past designproblems [20, 21]. Knowledge-based design wasemployed to create a new design using the knowl-edge achieved from past design experience [22].Ontologies were utilized for formalizing domainknowledge in a way to make it accessible, shareable,and reusable in design [23]. Design histories andrationales were modelled to describe past experienceand to help future design [24]. Design repositorieswere developed for modelling product information,such that artifact data were gathered, archived, dis-tributed and used effectively in the design process [25].A detailed review on design reuse was provided bySivaloganathan and Shahin [26]. These design meth-ods can help designers consider design adaptability.

Fig. 2 Traditional design and adaptable design considering product functionality (modified fromreference [19])

Fig. 3 Various methods to reduce the environmental impact (modified from reference [17])


Adaptable design: concepts, methods, and applications 1369

Product adaptability has been considered andstudied less than design adaptability. A product isusually designed and manufactured according tothe engineering specifications, which are trans-formed from customer requirements. When thesespecifications can not be satisfied through main-tenance and repair, then a new product has to becontemplated.

This review focuses on the adaptable design issuesfor product adaptability. The key issues of productadaptability include function modelling, designmodelling, design evaluation, and design process.

Function modelling. Since adaptable design aims atextending the functionality of products, the model-ling of design functions that consider productadaptability should be studied. Compared with thetraditional methods of modelling design functions,the modelling of function changes, such as thepotential functions that may be used in the future,should also be conducted. Modelling of multiplefunctions to replace multiple products with a singleone is also required.

Design modelling. A design is, in fact, a solution thatsatisfies functional requirements. In adaptable design,a design should bemodelled in a way that can be easilychanged to deliver different functions. Since multipledesign candidates can be identified to deliver the samedesign functions, modelling of these design candi-dates, as well as the relationships between designfunctions and design solutions, should be carried out.

Design evaluation. Quantitative measures need tobe developed for evaluating the design for adapt-ability, in addition to other life cycle evaluationmeasures, such as functional performance and pro-duction costs. When multiple design candidates arecreated, the one with the best evaluation measure isselected for production. In this paper, only evaluationmeasures for product adaptability are discussed.

Design process. The process of adaptable designneeds to be studied due to its nature. Guidelines,rules, heuristics, etc. are required in the adaptabledesign process to improve product adaptability.

3 ADAPTABLE DESIGN METHODOLOGY

3.1 Function modelling

Modelling of design functions has been extensivelystudied in the last three decades [3, 27]. This paperfocuses on the requirements, methods, and applica-tions of function modelling in adaptable design.

3.1.1 Requirements

The major requirements for function modelling inadaptable design are as outlined below.

• When an adaptable design is used to design a pro-duct for delivering multiple functions that areusually provided by multiple products, the model-ling of multiple and/or alternative functions isrequired.

• Owing to the complexity and scale of adaptabledesign, modelling of functions at multiple levels isneeded. In addition, these functions may be asso-ciated by their relations. These relationships shouldalso be modelled.

• Since functions can be added, removed, and mod-ified in adaptable design, modularity and inde-pendence of functions have to be considered.

• In engineering design, qualitative customer needsare usually converted into quantitative engineeringmetrics. Therefore, both qualitative and quantita-tive requirements should be described in functionmodelling.

3.1.2 Methods of function modelling

The major methods that can be used for adapt-able design are tree-, network-, AND–OR graph-,and axiomatic design-based function modellingtechniques.

Tree-based function modelling. In this method, acomplex function is decomposed into sub-functions,as shown in Fig. 4(a) [28]. The overall function issatisfied by identifying the solutions to the decom-posed simpler sub-functions. This scheme allows thefunctions to be modelled at multiple levels.

Fig. 4 Some function modelling methods



Network-based function modelling. In this method,relations among functions form a network, as shownin Fig. 4(b). The relations can be modelled by differ-ent types of flows, including materials, energy, andinformation flows [3]. In the concurrent engineering-oriented design database representation model (CE-DDRM) developed by Xue and Yang [29], functionsare classified into four categories according to theirinput and output flows: atomic functions, withoutinput and output flows; source functions, with onlyoutput flows; destination functions, with onlyinput flows; and transfer functions, with both inputand output flows. The quantitative attributes offunction objects and flow objects in the CE-DDRMare associated by attribute relationships modelledby numerical equations.

AND–OR graph-based function modelling. In thisAND–OR graph scheme introduced by Xue [30], asshown in Fig. 4(c), if all its sub-functions have to besatisfied to achieve a parent function, these sub-functions are associated with an AND relation. If onlyone of its sub-functions needs to be satisfied toachieve a parent function, these sub-functions areassociated with an OR relation. This scheme allowsdesign requirements with multiple and/or alternativefunctions to be modelled.

Axiomatic design-based function modelling. In thismethod developed by Suh [4, 5], design functions aremodelled by a set of functional requirements (FRs).When a FR can not be achieved directly, this FRis then decomposed into a set of sub-FRs. In thiscase, all FRs are organized in a hierarchical datastructure. The FRs at each level should satisfy the‘independence axiom’ to maintain the independenceof the FRs.

3.1.3 Function modelling in adaptable design

In the adaptable design model developed by Gu et al.[17] and Hashemian [31], functions were modelledwith FRs based on the axiomatic design approach.Functions were classified into physical functions andnon-physical functions. Physical functions weremapped to physical structures in the design. Thefunctions were organized in a hierarchical datastructure representing design rationales. This hier-archical function modelling scheme was called therational functional structure of the design. Sincefunctions in this structure are relatively independent,these functions can be modified easily in adaptabledesign.

In the adaptable design method developed by Liet al. [32] and Li [33], functions were modelled byFRs and organized in a hierarchical data structure.The FRs were subsequently embodied as functionalelements, and relations among these functional

elements were modelled by material, energy, andinformation flows to form a functional network. Inthis work, the functions of a product were classifiedinto compulsory functions and optional functions.Optional functions were associated with probabilitiesfor making decisions on whether these optionalfunctions should be included in the basic product.When the optional functions are not included in thebasic product, but need to be satisfied, these func-tions can be achieved by adding additional acces-sories/modules, which are usually purchasedseparately, to the basic product.

In the adaptable design model developed byFletcher et al. [34] and Fletcher [35], a hierarchicaldata structure was used to model a product. Sinceeach element of the product usually provides a cer-tain function, this hierarchical data structure of pro-duct elements was then mapped to a hierarchicaldata structure of product functions. The relationsbetween two functions were modelled by interfaceand interaction. The interface describes the connec-tion between the two functional elements, while theinteraction models how the two functional modulesinteract across the interface. An interface is evaluatedby its interface factor: 1 represents a strong influenceof one functional module to the other, owing to aspecially designed interface; and 0 represents aweak influence owing to a standardized interface.An interaction is evaluated by its interaction factor,with 1 representing an extremely strong interactionand 0 representing no interaction at all. A productcan provide better adaptability when less interfaceand interaction relations are found in the functionmodelling of the product.

3.2 Design modelling

Research on design representation has been exten-sively carried out with the advances of CAD, knowl-edge-based design, and life cycle engineering design[3, 36–38]. This paper focuses on the requirements,methods, and applications of design modelling in thecontext of adaptable design.

3.2.1 Requirements

The major requirements for design modelling inadaptable design are listed below.

• Owing to the complexity of product structure inadaptable design, the design descriptions shouldbe grouped into elements and modelled at multiplelevels. Relations among these elements should alsobe defined.

• Since a design is a solution to achieve the requiredfunctions, relations between design solutions andfunctions should be described.



• Since both qualitative and quantitative descrip-tions are required in adaptable design, the designmodels should be able to handle these two types ofdesign descriptions.

• Since components/modules can be added,removed, and replaced in adaptable design, amechanism to reduce the modification effort ofproduct components/modules is required.

• In adaptable design, multiple products can poten-tially be replaced by single products. Some com-ponents/modules are used in all productconfigurations, while others are used in only spe-cific models of products. Therefore, modelling ofdesign using a common platform and add-onaccessories may be more suitable.

• Since the same functional requirements can beachieved by alternative designs, modelling of thealternative design solutions and identification ofthe optimal solution under constraints needs to beconsidered.

3.2.2 Methods of design modelling

The major methods that can be used for adaptabledesign are summarized as follows.

Tree-based design modelling. A tree structure is themost popular method to model the design of a pro-duct, as shown in Fig. 5(a). In a CAD system, such asSolidWorks, a product is modelled by a tree with leafnodes representing parts and others nodes repre-senting assemblies.

AND–OR graph-based design modelling. Thisscheme, as shown in Fig. 5(b), was developed from atree data structure to model multiple design candi-dates to satisfy the same design functions [29, 30,39–41]. When a product structure can be decom-posed into a number of sub-structures, these sub-structures are associated with an AND relation. Whena product structure can be satisfied by alternativesubstructures, these substructures are associatedwith an OR relation. A design candidate is createdfrom the AND–OR graph through state space search[42].

Qualitative information and quantitativeinformation in design modelling. In the schemedeveloped by Xue and Yang [29], design nodes aremodelled by artifacts. Each artifact, either a compo-nent or an assembly, is described by attributes, asshown in Fig. 5(c). In order to model the quantitativeinformation, an attribute is associated with a value.Numerical functions are used for modelling thequantitative relations among attributes. When thevalue of one attribute is modified, this change ispropagated to the other relevant attributes throughthe quantitative relations.

Modelling of relations between design solutionsand design functions in axiomatic design. In axio-matic design [4, 5], design functions and designsolutions are modelled by FRs and design parameters(DPs), which are associated by

FRf g ¼ A½ � DPf g ð1Þ

When the design matrix [A] is a diagonal one, thedesign is called an uncoupled design. The design iscalled a decoupled design when [A] is a triangularmatrix. A coupled design occurs when [A] is a fullmatrix. Both uncoupled and decoupled designssatisfy the independence axiom and are consideredacceptable in axiomatic design.

Modelling of relations between design solutionsand design functions through behaviours. Thisresearch was initiated by Gero [43] with the devel-opment of a function–behaviour–structure (FBS)scheme for design modelling. In this scheme, adesign solution is modelled by a structure thatincludes components and their relations. Behavioursof a design solution are achieved through reasoning,using physical/engineering principles to check whe-ther design functions can be satisfied.

Many FBS models have been developed. Umedaet al. [44] modelled the FBS based on qualitativeprocess theory. At the National Institute of Standardsand Technology (NIST), FBS was employed todevelop a design repository system [45, 46]. Xue andYang [29] further improved the NIST FBS model intoa computable model by introducing three types of

Fig. 5 Some design modelling methods



behaviours: continuous-time, discrete-time, andstate-transition behaviours.

Modular design. Modular design aims at developingproduct architecture by using relatively independentmodules [47–50] A module is defined as a componentor a group of components that can be disassemblednon-destructively from the product as a unit. Modulardesign is evaluated by modularity. Since the modulesin a modular product are relatively independent, thesemodules can be designed and manufactured sepa-rately. Each module can be attached, detached, mod-ified, relocated, and replaced easily for upgrading,repair, recycling, or reuse. Modular design serves asbasis for adaptable design.

In modular design, similar components aregrouped into modules according to their functions,technologies, or physical structures [51]. Function-based modular design in adaptable design is effectivein satisfying the requirements of different customergroups, each demanding certain functions. Whendifferent or new functions are expected, the moduleswith the required functions are then used to modifythe product. The function-based modular designallows one product to deliver multiple/alternativefunctions to satisfy the needs of different groups ofcustomers. For example, the CD-RW drive of a com-puter is a module with the function of external dataaccess/storage. When larger capacity of data access/storage is needed, this CD-RW drive can be upgradedwith a DVD-RW drive or a Blu-ray RW drive.

The modules of a product can also be identifiedbased on the similarity of technologies with similarlife spans. For example, since the central processingunit (CPU) and data communication bus in a com-puter are designed based on very-large-scale inte-gration (VLSI) technology, these two components aregrouped in the motherboard module of this compu-ter. When different components need to be groupedtogether because of their physical structures, thesecomponents can be designed and manufactured as amodule. For example, since a computer’s graphicsprocess unit (GPU) and its cooling fan have to belocated close to each other, these two units can begrouped as a module.

In the past decade, many methods have beendeveloped to organize components with similarfunctions, technologies, and structures into modules.Gersheson et al. [49] classified the modular designmethods into four main categories: checklist meth-ods, design rules, matrix manipulations, and step-by-step measure and redesign methods. Modulardesigns have also been achieved using advancedcomputing tools, including fuzzy mathematics [52],optimization [53], genetic algorithms [54], andsimulated annealing [55].

Platform design and product family design. In plat-form design, the common components for a numberof products are grouped as the platform to be sharedby these products [6, 50, 51]. The products sharingthe same platform usually form a family of products.Platform design is considered as the extension ofmodular design by using the platform – the mainmodule – in all the products of this family. Forexample, Honda Civic models DX, EX, and LX use thesame platform.

In adaptable design, the functions of differentproducts can be achieved using the platform designapproach. When certain functions are required, themodules with these functions are then attached tothe platform. For example, a hand vacuum cleanerwith various accessory attachments for dry dust andwet spills is a simple adaptable product developedusing the platform design approach.

Considerable effort has been devoted in the pastdecade to platform design and product family design[6, 50, 51, 56]. Product platforms can be classifiedinto two categories: modular and scalable platforms[6]. A modular platform is a collection of componentsthat are shared by all the products in a productfamily. Different functions in this family are achievedby reconfiguring different attachment modules tothe platform [57]. A scalable platform has scalablevariables to ‘stretch’ or ‘shrink’ the platform to satisfydifferent requirements [38]. A scalable platform canbe achieved through parametric design.

A methodology of proposing a platform differ-entiation plan (PDP) to provide a platform leveragestrategy across market niches was reported [56]. PDPis designed to provide a consistent balance betweenmutual differentiation and components sharing forthe leveraged platforms at the early product planningstage. Two indices – differentiation index (DI) andcommonality opportunity index (COI) – have beenpresented to represent the dimensions of productplatform differentiation and commonality respec-tively. Through a case study of electronic test equip-ment, the usefulness of PDP was demonstrated forthe platform leverage strategy across market niches.

Interface design. Since components and modulesin adaptable design need to be detached, attached,and upgraded, the interfaces have to be considered toensure interaction among these components/mod-ules and ease of their disassembly/assembly. Inaddition, interface design also plays an importantrole in modular and platform designs.

Ulrich and Tung [58] classified interfaces in mod-ular design into three categories: slots, buses, andsectionals. A slot interface is specifically designed fora certain module. The memory card port in a digitalcamera is a typical slot interface. A bus interface is astandard one to accept any different modules with



the same type of interface. Peripheral componentinterconnect (PCI) is a computer bus for attachingperipheral devices, such as video cards and networkcards.

When the interfaces among modules are of thesame type, these interfaces are called sectionalinterfaces. In this case, there is no single element inthe product to which all the other modules areattached. A product with sectional interfaces is builtup by connecting the modules to each other throughidentical interfaces. Each module may have morethan one sectional interface. The studs and tubes ineach LEGO� brick are sectional interfaces.

Design reuse. A product family design reuse (PFDR)methodology was described by Ong et al. [59, 60] andXu et al. [61, 62]. A three-stage process model wasused to consider the requirements of product familydesign, as well as other processes in design reuse.Compared with other product family design meth-odologies, the PFDR approach focuses on managingproduct family design holistically. It supports notonly product data collection, but also identifies pro-duct information for the generation of product plat-forms and the effective use of design knowledge.

The information content assessment (ICA) methodwas proposed for solution evaluation. This methoddefines logical procedures for computing the infor-mation content that is used as a uniform, dimen-sionless metric of product performances. The ICAmethod is an alternative way to ensure product per-formance. It can help the designers to better utilizeexisting product information and to generate pre-liminary product configurations for achieving costand performance advantages.

Mass customization design. Mass customization is anew manufacturing approach to produce customizedproducts based on the requirements of individualcustomers with near mass production efficiency [18].Since mass customized products are usually mod-elled by exchangeable modules, mass customizationdesign can be employed in adaptable design. Masscustomization is usually conducted by developingsophisticated software systems to manipulate variousproduct development activities, including acquisitionof customer requirements, modelling and identifica-tion of design results, planning and control of man-ufacturing processes, and so on [18]. Among thethree aspects of customer requirements, design, andmanufacturing, the design aspect has attracted theattention of researchers in recent years. Jiao andTseng [63] introduced the measure of design custo-mizability to evaluate designs and their impact oncustomers and manufacturers. Siddique and Boddu[64] implemented an information system to integratedesign and manufacturing modelling with customer

requirements. Mukhopadhyay and Setoputro [65]developed a modular design approach for customproduct design to address the return policy in inter-net-based sales.

Concurrent engineering approach was alsoemployed to solve mass customization problems byintegrating design, manufacturing, customer require-ments, service requirements, etc. into the sameenvironment [66, 67]. In addition, modular design,platform design, and product family design methodshave also been used in mass customization [6].

3.2.3 Design modelling in adaptable design

In the adaptable design model developed by Gu et al.[17] and Hashemian [31], hierarchical functions weremapped to hierarchical physical structures, in orderto model the design. Since modular and platformdesigns are employed in this adaptable design,modules of the developed product can be changedeasily to deliver different functions. In the adaptabledesign method developed by Gu and Slevinsky [68]and Slevinsky and Gu [69], a mechanical bus wasintroduced to model the flexible interfaces in mod-ular/platform design. Lock and release, safety, andself-alignment mechanisms were used to develop themechanical bus. This mechanical bus-based inter-face design approach can be used to improve theefficiency to attach/detach the modules to/from theproduct to deliver different functions.

The adaptable design method developed by Li et al.[70] and Li [33] describes design using multiple-levelDPs. At each level, relations between FRs and DPswere associated by a design matrix based on theaxiomatic design approach. An uncoupled or decou-pled design was considered acceptable according tothe independence axiom. The AND–OR graph wasused to model alternative design candidates to iden-tify the optimal one. Modular design, platformdesign, and interface design were also employed inthis research. Since design descriptions of compo-nents/modules with this approach are relativelyindependent, these components/modules can bechanged relatively easily for delivering differentfunctions.

The adaptable design model developed by Fletcheret al. [34] and Fletcher [35] used the same hier-archical data structure to describe both the physicaland functional parts. The relations between twophysical parts at the same level were modelled by aninterface and interaction, representing the connec-tion between the two physical parts and the interac-tion across the interface respectively. An interface isevaluated by its interface factor, and an interaction isevaluated by its interaction factor. When fewerinterface and interaction relations are found in the



product model, the components/modules of theproduct can be changed relatively easily.

3.3 Evaluation of adaptable design

Product adaptabilities are classified into specificproduct adaptabilities and general product adapt-abilities, depending on whether planned informationfor specific adaptations is available [17]. When cer-tain adaptabilities and their probabilities can bepredicted, the product can be designed to accom-modate the specific product adaptabilities. Forexample, when the PCI video cards were still pri-marily used as default video cards for most compu-ters, these computers provided accelerated graphicsport (AGP) slots in their motherboards for futureupgrading, as a result of the introduction of theadvanced AGP technology.

In order to accommodate some unpredictablerequirements and changes, the product can bedesigned to have some general product adaptabilitiesby its product architecture and interfaces. Forexample, many high-definition television (HDTV)terminal boxes provide universal serial bus (USB)interfaces, although no actual plans have been con-sidered on how these USB interfaces will be used inthe future.

3.3.1 Specific product adaptability

Gu et al. [17] and Hashemian [31] developed amethod to measure specific product adaptability bycomparing the relative efforts of product adaptationand new product creation. Suppose Tpi is the ithadaptation task, the effort for this task, according tothe information axiom in axiomatic design [4, 5], canbe modelled by its information content described byInf(Tpi). Cost is usually used for modelling the effort.When S1 is the current state of the existing product,AS2 is the state after adaptation, the effort for thisadaptation is then described by Inf(S1!AS2). In thesame way, the effort to develop a new product fromscratch is described by Inf(ZERO!IS2), where ‘ZERO’ isthe state to design a new product from scratch, andIS2 is the state with only the new requirements. Sinceless effort is usually required to adapt a product withadaptable design than to develop a new one, therelative saving of effort is modelled as adaptablefactor AF(Tpi).

AFðTpiÞ ¼InfðZERO!IS2Þ � InfðS1!AS2Þ

InfðZERO!IS2Þ

¼ 1� InfðS1!AS2ÞInfðZERO!IS2Þ

; 06AFðTpiÞ6 1

ð2Þ

When it takes more effort to adapt a product thanto develop a new product (i.e. Inf(S1!AS2) >Inf(ZERO!IS2)), product adaptation should not be

considered (AF(Tpi)¼ 0). When no additional effortis required for product adaptation (i.e. Inf(S1!AS2)

¼ 0), the product is a perfect adaptable product(AF(Tpi)¼ 1).

When n product adaptation tasks, Tpi (i¼ 1, 2, . . ., n),and their probabilities, Pr(Tpi), are considered, thespecific product adaptability is then modelled by

AðPÞ ¼Xni¼1

PrðTpiÞAFðTpiÞ½ � ð3Þ

Li et al. [71] and Li [33] extended this specific productadaptability evaluation method by considering threetypes of product adaptation tasks: extendibility offunctions, upgradeability of modules, and customiz-ability of components. Extendibility of functions isachieved by designing a product with the potentialfor extension of functions. The extendibility factor,EF(Tpi), and extendibility of functions for the pro-duct, E(P), are calculated by

EFðTpiÞ ¼ 1� InfðS1!AS2ÞInfðZERO!IS2Þ

; 06EFðTpiÞ6 1 ð4Þ

EðPÞ ¼Xni¼1

PrðTpiÞEFðTpiÞ½ � ð5Þ

where

S1¼ the current state of the existing productAS2¼ the modified state with the additional

adaptable functionZERO¼ the state to design a new product from

scratchIS2¼ the state with only the required adaptable

function

For example, considering a LCD computer monitorwith adaptable function of HDTVmonitor, Tp1. Whenthe cost to create a new HDTV monitor is $400, andthe cost to add the HDTV function to an existingLCD computer monitor is $250, the extendibilityfactor, EF(Tp1), is calculated as

EFðTp1Þ ¼ 1� InfðS1!AS2ÞInfðZERO!IS2Þ

¼ 1� $250

$400¼ 0:375

Since the extendibility factor is calculated as a valuebetween 0 and 1, it is cheaper to adapt the computermonitor with the HDTV function than to create a newHDTV monitor. In this case, adaptation of the exist-ing product should be considered.

When the cost to create a new HDTV monitor is$400, and the cost to add the HDTV function to anexisting LCD computer monitor is $500, the extend-ibility factor, EF(Tp1), is calculated as 0, representingthat it is more expensive to adapt the computermonitor with the HDTV function than to create a new



HDTV monitor. In this case, adaptation of the exist-ing product should not be considered.

When the cost to create a new HDTV monitor is$400, and no additional cost is needed to add theHDTV function to an existing LCD computer moni-tor, the extendibility factor, EF(Tp1), is calculated as1. In this case, design of the monitor with both thecomputer monitor function and the HDTV functionmust be considered.

Upgradeability is another kind of product adapt-ability that can achieve better performance or pro-vide advanced technologies to meet new needs. Theupgradeability factor, UF(Tpi), and upgradeability ofmodules for the product, U(P), are calculated by

UFðTpiÞ ¼ 1� InfðP1!UP1ÞInfðP1Þ

; 06UFðTpiÞ6 1 ð6Þ

UðPÞ ¼Xmi¼1

PrðTpiÞUFðTpiÞ½ � ð7Þ

where

P1¼ the state of the module without upgradingfunction

UP1¼ the state of the module with upgradingfunction

In this method, the costs are usually selected todescribe the efforts for providing the upgrading func-tion and for creating the part without the upgradingfunction. Generally, the cost for providing theupgrading function is calculated by the cost of theinterface that allows for the upgrading of newmodules.

Customizability of components is the ease of pro-duct adaptation based on requirements and pre-ferences of individual customers. Product designwith customizability can be easily reconfiguredto different product configurations by combiningstandard components and modules based on thecustomer requirements. The customizability factor,CF(Tpi), and customizability of components for theproduct, C(P), are calculated by

CFðTpiÞ ¼ 1� InfðP1!CP1ÞInfðP1Þ

; 06CFðTpiÞ6 1 ð8Þ

CðPÞ ¼Xl

i¼1

PrðTpiÞCFðTpiÞ½ � ð9Þ

where

P1¼ the state of the part without customizationfunction

CP1¼ the state of the part with customizationfunction

In order to define the specific product adaptabilityusing these three different evaluation measures, they

are first converted into dimensionless evaluationmeasures. The normalized measure for the extend-ibility of functions is calculated by

NEðPÞi ¼EðPÞi

EðPÞmax

ð10Þ

where

E(P)i¼ the extendibility of functions of the ithdesign candidate

E(P)max¼ the maximum value of extendibility offunctions considering all the compareddesign candidates

In the same way, the normalized measures forupgradeability of modules and customizability ofcomponents can be calculated by

NUðPÞi ¼UðPÞi

UðPÞmax

ð11Þ

NCðPÞi ¼CðPÞi

CðPÞmax

ð12Þ

These three values can then be combined into anoverall specific product adaptability index byassigning weighting factors. The specific productadaptability index of the ith design candidate is cal-culated by

AðPÞi ¼ IENEðPÞi þ IUNUðPÞi þ ICNCðPÞi ð13Þwhere IE, IU, and IC are the weighting factors. Thespecific product adaptability index, A(P)i, of eachdesign candidate ranges from 0 to 1. When A(P)i¼ 0,the design candidate does not provide any specificproduct adaptability. When A(P)i¼ 1, the designcandidate provides complete specific product adapt-ability.

3.3.2 General product adaptability

Fletcher et al. [34] and Fletcher [35] developed amethod to quantify general product adaptability. Inthis work, a product is modelled by a hierarchicaldata structure. When only parent nodes and theirsub-nodes are associated by relations, the archi-tecture is called ‘segregated product architecture’, asshown in Fig. 6(a). When other nodes are associatedby relations, the architecture is called ‘full productarchitecture’, as shown in Fig. 6(b).

The segregated product architecture is ideal foradaptable design, since modification to a node in thisarchitecture does not influence other nodes at thesame level. When an actual product is modelled bythe full product architecture, its general productadaptability is measured by comparing this actualfull product architecture with its ideal segregatedproduct architecture. The relations between two



nodes are classified as interface and interactionrelations. The interface describes the connectionbetween the two functional elements, while theinteraction models how the two functional modulesinteract across the interface. Both functional rela-tions and physical relations are considered. There-fore, the relations between two nodes are defined byfour parameters, as shown in Table 1. A parameter isdescribed by a value between 0 and 1, with 0 repre-senting that a change of the ith node has the mini-mum impact on the jth node, and 1 representing thatthe change of the ith node has the maximum impacton the jth node. A parameter for modelling the rela-tion between a parent node and its sub-node isassigned with 1. During the evaluation of impactbetween ith and jth nodes, both the relations andimportance of these nodes are considered. Theimportance of the ith node is defined by the percen-tage of design and manufacture effort for creatingthis node in the whole product. Cost is employed tomeasure the effort.

The impact between a parent node, i, and its sub-node, j, is modelled by

Ri;jðminfFi;FjgÞ ¼ minfFi;Fjg;Ri;j 2 fAi;j;Bi;j;Ci;j;Di;jg

ð14Þ

where Ri,j is an impact parameter with the value of 1,and Fi and Fj are the importance measures of the twonodes. The impact between two nodes that do nothave a parent–child relation is modelled by

Ri;jðFi þ FjÞ;Ri;j 2 fAi;j;Bi;j;Ci;j;Di;jg ð15Þ

where Ri,j is an impact parameter with a valuebetween 0 and 1.

For a segregated product architecture, the totalimpact considering physical interface is achieved by

kðSÞA ¼

XSegregatedarchitectureconnections

Ai;j minfFi;Fjg� � ¼ X

Segregatedarchitectureconnections

minfFi;Fjg� �

ð16ÞIn a full product architecture, the impact consideringthe extra relations is described by

kðExtraÞA ¼

XExtraconnections

Ai;j Fi þ Fj

� �� ð17Þ

The relative adaptability by comparing the full pro-duct architecture and its segregated architecture isachieved by

kA ¼ kðSÞA

kðSÞA þ k

ðExtraÞA

ð18Þ

The total relative adaptability considering the fourtypes of relations is calculated by:

k ¼ kA þ kB þ kC þ kD4

ð19Þ

3.3.3 Other evaluation methods

Since many existing design methods – includingmodular design, platform design, product familydesign, and mass customized product design – canalso be used in the context of adaptable design, eva-luation measures developed in these design methodscan be considered in adaptable design.

Modularity. Modularity is the measure used toevaluate modular design. Modularities are obtainedaccording to functions, technologies, and structuresof the modular designs [51]. Detailed reviews onmodularity were given in Gershenson et al. [48, 49]and Fixson [72].

Commonality. Commonality is used to measure thedegree of component/module sharing in platformdesign and product family design. Thevenot andSimpson [73] compared a number of commonalityindices based on their ease of data collection, con-sistency, sensitivity, and repeatability. A review oncommonality was also given by Fixson [72].

Fig. 6 Two types of product architecture (modified from reference [35])

Table 1 Interface and interaction parameters consideringphysical and functional relations between the ithnode and jth node (modified from reference [35])

Relation type Physical relation Functional relation

Interface parameter Ai,j Ci,j

Interaction parameter Bi,j Di,j



Customizability. Customizability is the measureused to evaluate effectiveness in mass customi-zation. Jiao and Tseng [63] classified customiz-abilities into design and process customizabilities.In this research, design customizability wasmeasured based on the information contentmetric, and the evaluation of process customiz-ability followed the general list of process cap-ability indices.

Other methods. In addition, Willems et al. [74]developed adaptability metrics to evaluate the levelof adaptation considering maintenance, repair,remanufacturing, and upgrading/downgrading. Sugiet al. [75] implemented a reconfigurable roboticassembly system to improve the reconfigurability.Xing et al. [76] introduced an upgradeability measureto evaluate design for remanu-facture.

3.4 Design process for adaptable design

Since the introduction of adaptable design, researchhas been conducted to formulate the process foradaptable design. In this paper, only the methodol-ogies related to product adaptability are reviewed.Hashemian [31] introduced guidelines for adaptabledesign for specific product adaptability and generalproduct adaptability.

3.4.1 Guidelines considering specific productadaptability

• Define the primary functional requirements (FRs)that have to be satisfied and the additional FRs(AFRs) that have potential to be required in theproduct design.

• Provide extra features and functionalities in adesign for possible future needs.

• Utilize the existing features and components toachieve extra functionalities.

• Identify a group of products that can be devel-oped from a shared adaptable design. Identifycommon or recurring elements, either functionalor structural, among products within the portfo-lio. Design these common elements as a sharedplatform.

• Identify the differentiating features among pro-ducts within a portfolio and design them as add-onmodules.

• Design the interfaces between platforms andmodules for easy attachment and detachment.

• Facilitate the replacement of components that arelikely to require upgrading.

• Identify customizable features and design a pro-duct for the easy alteration, replacement, or addi-tion of these features.

3.4.2 Guidelines considering general productadaptability

• An adaptable product should have a segregatedarchitecture, so that the required modificationsof an adaptation task can be localized withoutpropagating changes throughout the product.

• Sub-systems are functional modules that aredesigned to perform unambiguous and usefulfunctions.

• Sub-systems are autonomous and self-contained,so that they can perform their functions indepen-dently from their working environment.

3.4.3 Processes of adaptable design for productadaptability

Gu et al. [17] developed a design process for productadaptability. The steps of the method are as follows(iterations can occur at any step).

• Definition of adaptable design objectives: deter-mine the primary FRs and the AFRs. In addition,determine the life cycle objectives of importance tothe design problem.

• Design of the product/system (conceptual andconfiguration): develop the product architecture(configuration) based on both the primary FRs andthe AFRs.

• Design of the adaptable product: develop initialconfigurations of the overall adaptable product thatperforms the FRs and AFRs. This is the most crea-tive part of adaptable design.

• Life cycle considerations: cluster components forlife cycle objectives.

• Evaluation: evaluate designs and adaptability.

Li et al. [70] and Li [33] further detailed the designprocess for product adaptability into the followingsteps.

• Product planning. This step includes defining themission statement for the adaptable design, iden-tifying customer needs, determining the primaryFRs and the optional FRs, and establishing the treefor modelling the FRs and the tree of DPs to satisfythe FRs.

• Studying modularity. The components withdependent relations of design functions aregrouped into modules.

• Establishing product architecture. Develop theproduct architecture based on clusters of modules.Interactions among these modules are modelled bythe flows of material, energy and information.Create the rough geometric layout.

• Adaptable interface design. Develop the interfacesand connectors, so that functions can be trans-ferred between the platform and the modules andbetween modules.



• Conceptual design evaluation. Evaluate each designcandidate with the four main evaluation measures,including specific product adaptability of design,part cost, assembly cost, and operationability bycustomers. Prioritize the design candidates byusing the grey relational analysis approach [77].

• Detailed design. Once the best design candidatehas been identified, details of this design, includingparts and assemblies, are then modelled using aCAD system.

4 APPLICATIONS OF ADAPTABLE DESIGN

Presently, adaptable design focuses on the design ofadaptable products, primarily in mechanical engi-neering. This new design approach can be extendedto other engineering disciplines.

4.1 Research application examples

4.1.1 A reconfigurable transportation vehicle

A reconfigurable transportation vehicle was devel-oped to achieve the functions of five different vehi-cles, including short-distance shuttle buses with8 and 14 seats, inner city light duty trucks with box

and flat platforms, and a baggage mover [33, 70]. Inthis adaptable design, the FRs were modelled using ahierarchical data structure; and, these FRs weremapped to DPs, which were also organized in ahierarchical data structure. The axiomatic designapproach was employed to make the FRs indepen-dent. Modular design and platform design were thenused to identify the platform and add-on modules ofthis adaptable vehicle. Interfaces were also designedto reduce the effort of product adaptation. The finaldesign with different configurations was modelledusing a CAD system, as shown in Fig. 7(a). A 1:5 scaleprototype model has also been built, as shown inFig. 7(b) (FDM refers to fused deposition modelling).Since functions of the five different vehicles can beprovided by this single product, this adaptable designcan reduce the total costs to deliver the required fivefunctions considerably.

4.1.2 A food processor with the functions of a standmixer, a blender, and a meat grinder

In this design, the function of a stand mixer wasselected as the fundamental function of the product,and the functions of a blender and a meat grinderwere selected as adaptable (optional) functions [31,71]. The objective of this design was to create a

Fig. 7 Design of a reconfigurable vehicle [33, 70]



reconfigurable product with the functions of thesethree products. In this application, two designs wereidentified to fulfil the requirements of a stand mixerwith the potential to be adapted to blender and meatgrinder. Figure 8 shows the two designs, both ofwhich can be reconfigured into three products. Inthis application, the decision on what should beincluded in the product for sale and what should beincluded as add-on accessories to be sold separatelywas made based on evaluations of the different can-didates for this product.

For each of these two designs, four candidates wereconsidered as the commercial products: (a) a standmixer, (b) a stand mixer and meat grinder, (c) a standmixer and blender, and (d) a stand mixer, meatgrinder, and blender. A total of eight candidates werecreated; and each candidate was evaluated by pro-duct adaptability, total part cost, total assembly cost,and operationability. In this application, the prob-abilities of using a stand mixer, meat grinder, andblender were defined as 100, 20, and 95 per cent,respectively. Costs were used as the measure forevaluating product adaptability. For the designgiven in Fig. 8(a), the total part cost for the productwith the stand mixer the function was calculated as$56. The costs for achieving the adaptable functionsof meat grinder and blender were identified as $10and $8 respectively. Assume that the costs for creat-ing new meat grinder and blender productswere selected as $35 and $60 respectively, theextendibility of functions for the candidate with onlythe stand mixer function is then calculated usingequation (5).

EðP1Þ ¼ 100% · ð1� 0Þ þ 20% · 1� 10

35

� �

þ 95% · 1� 8

60

� �¼ 1:97

The upgradeability and customizability were alsocalculated; and equation (13) was then employedto calculate the specific adaptability index of thiscandidate.

In this work, total part cost, total assembly cost,and operationability for each of the eight candidateswere also determined. Grey relational analysis [77]was used to rank these eight candidates. Based on theevaluation, the candidate with the functions of standmixer and blender in the first design shown in Fig. 8(a) was selected as the best one. Compared with thecandidate with only the stand mixer function, theselected candidate can provide one more often-usedfunction (i.e. blender) with minor additional cost.The candidate with all three functions was notselected, because of the high adaptation cost for themeat grinder and low probability of using this func-tion. For the selected design, parts for the meatgrinder are sold separately as accessories.

4.1.3 Comparison between a computer andcalculator considering general productadaptability

In this application, the adaptabilities of a computerand a calculator were achieved by comparing theactual full product architectures and their ideal seg-regated product architectures [35]. Figure 9 showsthe full product architecture and the segregated

Fig. 8 Two designs with basic and extra functions [71]



product architecture of the computer. The costbreakdown by components is also given in this figure.The relations of two nodes in the product archi-tecture were modelled by four parameters consider-ing the physical/functional and interface/interactionrelations. A parameter for modelling a relationbetween a parent node and a child node was assignedthe value of 1. Other relations were assigned withvalues between 0 and 1, as shown in Table 2. Usingthe general product adaptability evaluation methodsdeveloped by [35], the four relative adaptabilities, kA,kB, kC, and kD, were calculated as 0.67, 0.72, 0.68, and0.65 respectively. The total relative adaptability wascalculated as 0.68. In the same way, the full productarchitecture and the segregated product architecturefor the calculator were also developed, and the rela-tions among the nodes in the product architectureswere modelled. The overall relative product adapt-ability of the calculator was calculated as 0.37.Therefore, the computer is better than the calculatorwhen considering general product adaptability basedon this quantitative evaluation method.

4.1.4 Comparison between an adaptable vehicleand a traditional vehicle consideringgeneral product adaptability

This work is similar to the evaluations for the com-puter and calculator considering general productadaptability [35]. The adaptable vehicle was devel-oped by Li et al. [70] and Li [33]. First, the full andsegregated product architectures were modelled forthe adaptable and traditional vehicles. Then, therelations between nodes in these product archi-tectures were described by four types of physical/functional, interface/interaction parameters. Theproduct adaptabilities for the adaptable and tradi-

tional vehicles were calculated as 0.55 and 0.43respectively.

4.2 Industrial application example – redesign ofmachine tool structure

An industrial application of adaptible design is theredesign of a machine tool structure. A spiral-bevel-gear cutting machine (YH603) was redesigned usingthe adaptable design method, in association withstructural analysis, to improve its dynamic perfor-mance. The structure of the machine follows theproven modular design of all computer numericalcontrolled (CNC) machines. Figure 10 shows thecolumn, bed, saddle, and workpiece suitcase mod-ules of a CNC spiral-bevel-gear cutting machine.

In order to improve the gear-machining perfor-mance and the quality of gears produced, the originalstructure of the machine needed improved stiffness,while its weight had to be reduced. This redesign wasperformed using adaptable design, and static and

Fig. 9 Product architectures for the computer (modified from reference [35])

Table 2 Relation parameters for the computer (modifiedfrom reference [35])

Relation

Physical Functional

InterfaceAi,j

InteractionBi,j

InterfaceCi,j

InteractionDi,j

F1 to F6 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10F2 to F6 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10F3 to F6 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20F4 to F6 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10F5 to F6 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10F7 to F6 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20F8 to F6 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30F9 to F6 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30F10 to F6 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.10



dynamic analyses. The machine structures weremodelled using finite element analysis with ANSYSsoftware. Static loading cases (cutting force on theframe) were considered. It was assumed that theseloading cases give access to the properties that thedesigner wishes to tailor and, therefore, are valid as abasis for the design. A variant of a product and/ormodule can be redefined and designed by changingthe functional requirements or modifying the geo-metry of the model.

Criteria for the redesign process. As for the machinetool structural design, the first order of the naturalfrequency, the maximum displacement, and theweight were used as the functional parameters. Dur-ing the layout design of the machine, these functionalparameters were calculated using finite elementmodels to determine mass, the first three naturalfrequencies, and the displacements to static loadingcases of the worktable, along with correspondingsensitivity information for all the design variables.Heuristic rules were developed for structural perfor-mance evaluation including criteria, such as lightweight, high stiffness (static and dynamic stiffnesses),and manufacturing. For adaptable design, threeadditional criteria were proposed: performanceimprovement, structure similarity, and adaptability[78].

Redesign of machine modules. The finite elementanalysis and quantitative evaluation were carried outon the machine bed, bed saddle, workpiece suitcase,and column modules. The redesigned modulesare shown in Table 3. In the table, S0 representsthe original design, Si represents the ith redesignedcandidate.

Improvement of the entire machine. The first step ofthe redesign process was to assemble the modules toobtain complete machines. The improved overallmachines can be obtained by combining the optimalmodules. Figure 11 shows the overall machine struc-ture and improvement solution during the designprocess. Based on the improved modules of the ori-ginal structure of machine YH603 (P1

0), a new struc-ture (P1

1) design was completed. Considering thecosts of manufacturing the newly redesignedmachine, a modified version of redesign (P1

2) wasadopted, in order to avoid reproduction of castingmoulds.

The next step of the redesign process was theanalyses of the performance improvement and theadaptability of the functional parameters. The resultsof the static and dynamic analyses of the machinestructures are shown in Table 4. The performanceimprovement of the entire machine compared withthe original machine was calculated and is shown inTable 5. The adaptability of the redesign was calcu-lated and is shown in Table 6. According to the cri-terion of adaptable design of machine tool structures,redesign P1

2 is the best choice. Without substantiallyincreasing the production costs, the actual adoptedredesign, P1

2, has enhanced the functionality. Basedon the existing casting models and mode analysis,ribs were added to strengthen the weak structurearea. The sharp corners were changed to round cor-ners. Other changes, such as changing the thicknessof casting walls, were not adopted, as these changeswould be costly. Based on the redesign of themachine tool, a new generation of machine tools has

Fig. 10 A YH603 CNC spiral-bevel-gear cutting machine

Table 3 Structures of redesigned modules [78]

Machinestructure

Column,M1

Bed,M2

Workpiecesuitcase,M3

Slideboard,M4

Bedsaddle,M5

Originalstructure, S0

Proposedstructure, S1








also been developed using the adaptable designmethod, a described given in Xu et al. [78].

4.3 Other applications

Xu et al. [79] used adaptable design for the design of ahydraulic press beam. Chen et al. [80] used theadaptable design approach in the design of a climb-ing robot. Modular, platform, and interface designmethods were employed to achieve this design. Chenet al. [81] applied the adaptable design approach inthe design of a family of hydraulic press framestructures, where the common parts were modelledusing a platform. Adaptability measures were devel-oped to evaluate the different designs. In addition,sensitivity analysis and similarity analysis were alsoconducted in this research.

Li et al. [32] developed an adaptable design forproduction (ADFP) method to extend adaptabledesign considering its impact on production. Quali-tative guidelines and quantitative evaluation mea-sures were introduced in this research to evaluate theimpact of adaptable design on production. Shao et al.[82] used the adaptable design approach in theirdesign of a product family that considered the cus-tomer requirements of different market segments.Optimization was employed in this product family-based adaptable design (PFBAD).

Su et al. [83] applied the adaptable designmethod inthe development of a biomedical device that improvedthe motion capability of knees. A CAD system wasused to model the geometry of the mechanism and itsmotion behaviours. Fletcher et al. [84] employedadaptable design to fault monitoring and recovery inreal-time distributed control systems, based on thesimilarity between the functional architecture of amodular mechanical design and the functional archi-tecture of distributed mechatronics systems.

Zhao et al. [85] developed an approach forobtaining adaptable product designs using the fuzzyclustering method. In this work, adaptable functionsand customer demands were used to evaluate adap-table designs. The developed approach was used inthe design of circular saws. Kasarda et al. [86]employed the adaptive control theory to explain theprocess of adaptable product design. Two examples,an engine mount with a self-tightening mechanism

Fig. 11 YH603 machine designs

Table 4 Performance of the YH603 machines for the ori-ginal and redesigns [78]

Designcandidates

First orderfrequency(Hz)

Staticrigidityof Y axis(N/mm)

Weight(kg)

Original designðP1

1Þ69.33 57.13 2890

Redesign ðP11Þ 99.03 145.82 2472

Redesign ðP12Þ 78.31 106.43 3037

Table 5 Performance improvement of the YH603machines between the original and redesigns [78]

Designcandidates

Change offirst orderfrequency

Change ofstatic rigidityof Y axis

Change ofweight

Redesign ðP11Þ �1.798 �1.552 �0.145

Redesign ðP12Þ �0.130 �0.863 0.051

Table 6 Adaptability of the YH603 machines [78]

Designcandidates

Structuralsimilarity(sp0)

Performanceimprovement(Ei)

Adaptability ofthe redesign(AF(Si))

RedesignðP1

1Þ0.637 2.323 6.400

RedesignðP1

2Þ0.930 1.268 18.110



and the front-end components of a vehicle (i.e. fen-ders, headlights, etc.), were used as case studyexamples. Li et al. [87] developed an adaptive plat-form for product mass customization. Genetic pro-gramming was used in design optimization.

4.4 Applications of adaptable design in otherengineering disciplines

Although adaptable design was initiated from amechanical engineering perspective – consideringupgrading, reconfiguration, customization, etc. ofproducts and systems – this new design approach canalso be applied to other engineering fields to designproducts, processes, and systems. Possible applica-tions of the adaptable design approach in these engi-neering areas are summarized briefly in this section.

Electrical engineering. When an electrical system,such as power generation, is designed using theadaptable design approach, the effort required toupgrade modules of this system can be reduced. Ifthere is a need to add new power generation capacity,it can be done by adding more power generationmodules.

Chemical engineering. When a chemical process isdecomposed into relatively independent sub-pro-cesses, modification to a sub-process does not stronglyimpact on other sub-processes. Associated chemicalplants can be designed using the adaptable approach,and facility upgrading and additional capacity can beachieved. In addition, a different process can beachieved through reconfiguring these processmodules.

Civil engineering. When a building is designedusing the adaptable design approach, the buildingcan be expanded with minimal effort. In addition,adaptable design also helps to reconfigure the layoutof rooms for different functions. An adaptable houseis a typical adaptable design in civil engineering [88].

Industrial engineering. Flexible manufacturing sys-tems [89] are typical systems that can be createdusing the adaptable design approach, allowing man-ufacturing cells to be easily added, removed, andreconfigured.

Software engineering. Using object-oriented pro-gramming techniques, relatively independent objectscan be reused easily in developing different applica-tion systems.

Computer engineering. Components of a computer,such as CPU, memory, internal/external data storagedevices, and input/output devices, are designed andmanufactured as relatively independent modules toallow easy configuration and upgrading.

5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1 Adaptable design versus other designapproaches

Many design theories and methodologies have beendeveloped since the 1970s, and many of theseapproaches have been used directly or indirectly fordesigning adaptable products. However, adaptabledesign is a fairly new concept in design research [17].This section provides a brief comparison betweenadaptable design and other major design approachesthat are relevant to adaptable design.

Adaptable design versus modular design. Althoughproducts developed using adaptable design havemodular architecture, products developed using themodular design approach are not necessarily adaptableand able to respond to changes in functional require-ments. Modular design is often used to reduce theeffort of design and manufacturing for the producers.

Adaptable design versus product platform/familydesign. Platform design is an extension of modulardesign through the sharing of a common module –the platform – in all the designs of a product family.Although product platform and family design canbetter satisfy customer needs with a variety of pro-ducts, customer needs in the form of changes infunctional requirements of the purchased productsare not addressed. Adaptable design, with platforms,can address these new functional changes effectively.

Adaptable design versus mass customization design.Mass customization design aims at developing pro-ducts based on the requirements of individual custo-mers with near mass production efficiency. Masscustomization is primarily achieved by sophisticatedcomputer-based design systems and productionplanning/control systems. However, products createdusing this approach are usually not adaptable.

Adaptable design versus reconfigurable design.Reconfigurable products, such as reconfigurablemachines, are considered adaptable products createdto replace multiple products with a single one[90–96]. However, other objectives of adaptabledesign, such as extension of additional functions,upgrade of modules, etc., are not considered inreconfigurable design. In addition, modular design,platform design, and product family design methodsmay or may not be used in reconfigurable design.

5.2 Concluding remarks

Adaptable design can be considered as a new designparadigm for the design of products and systems.Adaptable design emphasizes the adaptability of



products to allow products and systems to be mod-ified to satisfy changes in functional requirements. Inthis paper, concepts, methodologies, and applica-tions of adaptable design were provided. Throughthis review, it is hoped that understanding of thefollowing points has been accomplished.

• The benefits of adaptable design are primarilyrelated to economic and environmental aspects.The user can adapt an existing product, rather thanbuy a new one, to achieve the new functionalrequirements. Compared with remanufacturingand recycling, an adaptable product can furtherextend its life span and reduce environmentalwaste.

• Some key issues in adaptable design were dis-cussed, including functional modelling, designmodelling, design evaluation, and design processmodelling. Many existing design methods – such asmodular design, product platform design, productfamily design, and mass customization design – areeffective tools that can be used in adaptable design.In this context, adaptable design is more general,while modular and platform designs can be con-sidered as special applications of adaptable design.

• Not only is adaptable design effective in developingadaptable mechanical products, but it can also beused in other engineering areas to design adaptablesystems and processes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Financial support is partially provided by the NaturalSciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)of Canada.

REFERENCES

1 Singh, N. Systems approach to computer-integrateddesign and manufacturing., 1995 (John Wiley & Sons,New York).

2 O’Grady, P. and Young, R. E. Issues in concurrentengineering systems. J. Des. Mfg, 1991, 1, 27–34.

3 Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. Engineering design: a systematicapproach, 1988 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).

4 Suh, N. P. The principles of design, 1990, (Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford, UK).

5 Suh, N. P. Axiomatic design: advances and applications,2001 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).

6 Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z., and Jiao, J. (Eds), Productplatform and product family design, methods andapplications, 2007 (Springer, Berlin).

7 Fey, V. and Rivin, E. Innovation on demand: new pro-duct development using TRIZ, 2005 (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, UK).

8 Dong, Z. Design for automated manufacturing. In Con-current engineering: automation, tools, and techniques

(Ed. A. Kusiak), 1993, pp. 207–234 (Wiles, New York).9 Dixon, J. and Poli, C. Engineering design and design for

manufacture, 1995 (Field Stone, St Paul, Minnesota).10 Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P. Design for assembly: a

designer’s handbook, 1983 (Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc.,

Wakerfield, Rhode Island).11 Gershenson, J. and Ishii, K. Life cycle serviceability

design. In Concurrent engineering: automation, tools,

and techniques (Ed. A. Kusiak), 1993, pp. 363–384

(Wiley, New York).12 Alting, L. and Jorgensen, J. The life cycle concept as a

basis or sustainable industrial production. Ann. CIRP,

1993, 42(1), 163.13 Zhang, H. C., Kuo, T. C., Lu, H., and Huang, S. H.

Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing: a

state-of-the-art survey. J. Mfg Syst., 1997, 16(5), 352–371.14 Sohlenius, G. Concurrent engineering. Ann. CIRP, 1992,

41(2), 645.15 Gu, P. and Kusiak, A. (Eds) Concurrent engineering,

1993 (Elsevier, Oxford, UK).16 Kusiak, A. (Ed.) Concurrent engineering: automation,

tools, and techniques, 1993 (Wiley, New York).17 Gu, P., Hashemian, M., and Nee, A. Y. C. Adaptable

design. CIRP Ann. Mfg Technol., 2004, 53(2), 539–557.18 Tseng, M. M. and Piller, F. T. The customer centric

enterprise: advances in mass customization and perso-

nalization, 2003 (Springer, New York).19 Sand, J. C. and Gu, P. AdaptEx: extending product life

cycles through strategic product upgrades. In Advances

in design (Eds H. A. ElMaraghy and W. H. ElMaraghy),

2006, pp. 111–119 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).20 Maher, M. L., Balachandran, M. B., and Zhang, D. M.

Case-based reasoning in design, 1995 (Lawrence Erl-

baum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania).21 Hashemian, M. and Gu, P. A constraint-based system

for concurrent product design. Concurrent Engng, Res.

Applic., 1995, 3(3), 177–186.22 Sriram, D. and Adey, R. A. Knowledge based expert sys-

tems in engineering: planning and design, 1988, (Com-

putational Mechanics Publications, Southampten, UK).23 Darlington, M. J. and Culley, S. J. Investigating ontol-

ogy development for engineering design support. Adv.

Engng Informatics, 2008, 22(1), 112–134.24 Regli, W. C., Hu, X., Atwood, M., and Sun, W. A survey

of design rationale systems: approaches, representation,

capture and retrieval. Engng Comput., 2000, 16(3–4),209–235.

25 Bohm, M. R., Stone, R. B., and Szykman, S. Enhancingvirtual product representations for advanced design

repository systems. Trans. ASME, J. Comput. Inf. Sci.

Engng, 2005, 5(4), 360–372.26 Sivaloganathan, S. and Shahin, T. M. M. Design reuse:

an overview. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engineering

Manufacture, 1999, 213(B7), 641–654. DOI: 10.1243/

0954405991517092.27 Erden, M. S., Komoto, H., Van Beek, T. J., D’Amelio, V.,

Echavarria, E., and Tomiyama, T. A review of function

modelling: approaches and applications. Artifi. Intell.

Engng Des. Anal. Mfg, 2008, 22(2), 147–169.



28 Dieter, G. E. Engineering design: a materials and pro-cessing approach, 3rd edition, 2000 (McGraw-Hill, Mai-denhead, UK).

29 Xue, D. and Yang, H. A concurrent engineering-orien-ted design database representation model. Comput.Aided Des., 2004, 36(10), 947–965.

30 Xue, D. A multi-level optimization approach consider-ing product realization process alternatives and para-meters for improving manufacturability. J. Mfg Sys.,1997, 16(5), 337–351.

31 Hashemian, M. Design for adaptability. PhD Disserta-tion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Uni-versity of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, 2005.

32 Li, P., Cheng, Q., Shao, X., Zhang, G., andGu, P. ADFP: anovel method of adaptable design for production. InProceedings of the 16th CIRP International DesignSeminar, Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, 2006, pp. 462–466.

33 Li, Y. Design for product adaptability. MSc, Thesis,Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engi-neering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 2007.

34 Fletcher, C. D., Gu, P., and Brennan, R. Product anddesign adaptability quantification. In Proceedings of the16th CIRP International Design Seminar, Kananaskis,Alberta, Canada, 2006, 432–436.

35 Fletcher, C. D. Adaptable design quantification. PhDDissertation, Department of Mechanical and Manu-facturing Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary,Canada, 2007.

36 Shah, J. J. and Mantyla, M. Parametric and feature-based CAD/CAM: concepts, techniques, and applications,1995 (John Wiley & Sons, New York).

37 Otto, K. and Wood, K. Product design, 2000 (PrenticeHall, New Jersey).

38 Simpson, T. W., Maier, J. R. A., and Mistree, F. Productplatform design: method and application. Res. EngngDes., 2001, 13(1), 2–22.

39 Xue, D., Yadav, S., and Norrie, D. H. Knowledge baseand database representation for intelligent concurrentdesign. Comput. Aided Des., 1999, 31(2), 131–145.

40 Zhang, F. and Xue, D. Distributed database andknowledge base modelling for concurrent design.Comput. Aided Des., 2002, 34(1), 27–40.

41 Xue, D. and Xu, Y. Web-based distributed system anddatabase modelling for concurrent design. Comput.Aided Des, 2003, 35(5), 433–452.

42 Russell, S. and Norvig, P. Artificial intelligence: a mod-ern approach, 2002 (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,New Jersey).

43 Gero, J. S. Design prototypes: a knowledge representa-tion schema for design. AI Maga., 1990, 11(4), 26–36.

44 Umeda, Y., Takeda, H., and Tomiyama, T. Function,behaviour, and structure. In Applications of artificialintelligence in engineering V (Ed. J. S. Gero), 1990, pp.177–193 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).

45 Szykman, S., Bochenek, C., Racz, J. W., Senfaute, J., andSriram, R. D. Design repository: the next-generationengineering design databases. IEEE Intell. Syst., 2000, 15(3), 48–55.

46 Fenves, S. J. A core product model for representingdesign information, NISTIR 6736, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland,USA, 2001.

47 Ali, K. K. and Saed, M. S. Product design for modularity,2002 (Kluwer Academic, Norwell, Massachusetts).

48 Gershenson, J. K., Prasad, G. J., and Zhang, Y. Productmodularity: definitions and benefits. J. Engng Des., 2003,

14(3), 295–313.49 Gershenson, J. K., Prasad, G. J., and Zhang, Y. Product

modularity: measures and design methods. J. Engng

Des., 2004, 15(1), 33–51.50 Jose, A. and Tollenaere, M. Modular and platform

methods for product family design: literature analysis.

J. Intell. Mfg, 2005, 16(3), 371–390.51 Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., and Siddique, Z. Product

family design and platform-based product develop-

ment: a state-of-the-art review. J. Intell. Mfg, 2007,

18(1), 5–29.52 Tsai, Y. T. and Wang, K. S. The development of

modular-based design in considering technology com-

plexity. Eur. J. Operational Res., 1999, 119(3), 692–703.53 Gu, P. and Sosale, S. Product modularization for life

cycle engineering. Robotics Comput. Integrated Mfg,

1999, 15(5), 387–401.54 Kamrani, A. K. and Gonzalez, R. A. Genetic algorithm-

based solution methodology for modular design. J.

Intell. Mfg, 2003, 14(6), 599–616.55 da Cunha, C., Agard, B., and Kusiak, A. Design for cost:

module-based mass customization. IEEE Trans.

Automn. Sci. Engng, 2007, 4(3), 350–359.56 Cai, Y. L., Nee, A. Y. C., and Lu, W. F. Platform differ-

entiation plan for platform leverage across market

niches. CIRP Ann. Mfg Technol., 2008, 57(1), 141–144.57 Meyer, M. and Lehnerd, A. P. The power of product

platform – building value and cost leadership, 1997

(Free Press, New York).58 Ulrich, K. T. and Tung, K. Fundamentals of product

modularity. In Proceedings of ASME Winter Annual

Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1991, pp. 73–80.59 Ong, S. K., Xu, Q. L., and Nee, A. Y. C. Design reuse

methodology for product family design. CIRP Ann. Mfg

Technol., 2006, 55(1), 161–164.60 Ong, S. K., Xu, Q. L., and Nee, A. Y. C. Design reuse

in product development modelling, analysis and opti-

mization, 2008 (World Scientific, Hackensack, New

Jersey).61 Xu, Q. L., Ong, S. K., and Nee, A. Y. C. Function-based

design synthesis approach to design reuse. Res. Engng

Des. Theory Applic. Concurrent Engng, 2006, 17(1), 27–

44.62 Xu, Q. L., Ong, S. K., and Nee, A. Y. C. Evaluation of

product performance in product family design re-use.

Int. J. Prod. Res. – Special Issue on Sustainable Design

and Manufacture, 2007, 45(18–19), 4119–4141.63 Jiao, J. and Tseng, M. M. Customizability analysis in

design for mass customization. Comput. Aided Des.,

2004, 36(8), 745–757.64 Siddique, Z. and Boddu, K. R. A mass customization

information framework for integration of customer in

the configuration/design of a customized product. Artif.

Intell. Engng Des. Anal. Mfg, 2004, 18(1), 71–85.65 Mukhopadhyay, S. K. and Setoputro, R. Optimal return

policy and modular design for build-to-order products.

J. Ops Mgmt, 2005, 23(5), 496–506.



66 Brabazon, P. G. and MacCarthy, B. Virtual-build-to-order as a mass customization order fulfillment model.Concurrent Engng, Res. Applic., 2004, 12(2), 155–165.

67 Frutos, J. D., Santos, E. R., and Borenstein, D. Decisionsupport system for product configuration in mass cus-tomization environments. Concurrent Engng Res. App-lic., 2004, 12(2), 131–144.

68 Gu, P. and Slevinsky, M. Mechanical bus for modularproduct design. CIRP Ann. Mfg Technol., 2003, 52(1),113–116.

69 Slevinsky, M. and Gu, P.Modular platform design usingmechanical bus architecture. Int. J. Mass Customization,2005, 1(1), 65–82.

70 Li, Y., Gu, P., and Xue, D. Design process for productadaptability: method and application. In Proceedingsof the 16th CIRP International Design Seminar,Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, 2006, pp. 448–455.

71 Li, Y., Xue, D., and Gu, P. Prioritizing design candidatesin adaptable design using the grey relational analysisapproach. In Proceedings of the Third CDEN/RCCIInternational Design Conference, Toronto, Ontario,Canada, 2006, 93–101.

72 Fixson, S. K. Modularity and commonality research:past developments and future opportunities. Con-current Engng, Res. Applic., 2007, 15(2), 85–111.

73 Thevenot, H. J. and Simpson, T. W. Commonalityindices for product family design: a detailed compar-ison. J. Engng Des., 2006, 17(2), 99–119.

74 Willems, B., Seliger, G., Duflou, J., and Basdere, B.Contribution to design for adaptation: method to assessthe adaptability of products (MAAP). In Proceedings ofEcoDesign 2003: Third International Symposium onEnvironmentally conscious design and inverse manu-facturing, Tokyo, Japan, 2003, pp. 589–596.

75 Sugi, M., Maeda, Y., Aiyama, Y., Harada, T., andArai, T. A holonic architecture for easy reconfigura-tion of robotic assembly systems. IEEE Trans. Robot-ics Automn, 2003, 19(3), 457–464.

76 Xing, K., Belusko, M., Luong, L., and Abhary, K. Anevaluation model of product upgradeability for rema-nufacture. Int. J. Adv. Mfg Technol., 2007, 35(1–2), 1–14.

77 Sih, K. C. The theory of grey information relation, 1997(Chun-Hwa Publishing Co., Taipei).

78 Xu, Y. S., Chen, Y. L., Zhang, G. J., and Gu, P. Adaptabledesign of machine tool structures. Chin. J. Mech. Engng(English Edition), 2008, 21(3), 7–15.

79 Xu, Y. S., Chen, Y. L., Gu, P., and Wang, G. Adaptabledesign of products and manufacturing systems: meth-ods and applications. In Proceedings of the 16th CIRPInternational Design Seminar, Kananaskis, Alberta,Canada, 2006, pp. 437–447.

80 Chen, Y. L., Jiao, M., and Xu, Y. S. A framework ofdesign for mechatronic products. In Proceedings of the7th International Conference on Frontiers of design andmanufacturing, Guangzhou, China, 2006, pp. 75–80.

81 Chen, Y. L., Xu, Y. S., and Zhang, Q. Adaptable productplatform design through generalized modularization andapplication to hydraulic press frame structures. In Pro-ceedings of the 16th CIRP International Design Seminar,Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, 2006, pp. 369–376.

82 Shao, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, G., Li, P., and Gu, P.Adaptability measure for product family-based adap-

table design (PFBAD). In Proceedings of the 16th CIRPInternational Design Seminar, Kananaskis, Alberta,Canada, 2006, pp. 456–461.

83 Su, N., Zhao, Y., Guo, M., and Tang, H. Product adap-tive design based on extension co-transforming: a dif-ferential approach. In Proceedings of the 7thInternational Conference on Computer Aided IndustrialDesign and Conceptual Design, Hangzhou, People’sRepublic of China, 2006, pp. 1–6.

84 Fletcher, C. D., Brennan, R. W., and Gu, P. Usingadaptable design to classify interactions within a dis-tributed control architecture. In Holonic and multi-agent systems for manufacturing, Proceedings of the 3rdInternational Conference on Industrial applications ofholonic and multi-agent systems, Regensburg, Germany,2007, pp. 247–256.

85 Zhao, Y., Tang, H., Su, N., and Wang, W. Extension-based clustering method: an approach to supportadaptable design of the product. In Proceedings ofthe 2007 ASME International Manufacturing Scienceand Engineering Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA,2007, pp. 841–848.

86 Kasarda, M. E., Terpenny, J. P., Inman, D., Precoda,K. R., Jelesko, J., Sahin, A., and Park, J. Design foradaptability (DFAD) – a new concept for achievingsustainable design. Robotics Comput.-Integrated Mfg,2007, 23(6), 727–734.

87 Li, L., Huang, G. Q., and Newman, S. T. Interweavinggenetic programming and genetic algorithm for struc-tural and parametric optimization in adaptive platformproduct customization. Robotics Comput. IntegratedMfg, 2007, 23(6), 650–658.

88 Friedman, A. The adaptable house, 2002 (McGraw-Hill,Maidenhead, UK).

89 Raouf, A. and Ben-Daya, M. Flexible manufacturingsystems: recent developments, 2005 (Elsevier Science,Oxford, UK).

90 Landers, R. G., Min, B. K., and Koren, Y. Reconfigur-able machine tools. CIRP Ann. Mfg Technol., 2001, 50(1),269–274.

91 Spicer, R., Koren, Y., Shpitalni, M., and Yip-Hoi, D.Design principles for machining system configurations.CIRP Ann. Mfg Technol., 2002, 51(1), 275–280.

92 Setchi, R. and Lagos, N. Adaptive, responsive andreconfigurable product support for future manufactur-ing. Int. J. Innovative Comput. Inf. Control, 2008, 4(3),615–625.

93 Gu, P. Adaptable design with flexible interface systems.Trans. Soci. Des. Process Sci., 2004, 8(3), 61–74.

94 Li, Y., Xue, D., and Gu, P. Design for product adapt-ability. In Proceedings of the 2007 ASME InternationalDesign Engineering Technical Conferences and Com-puters and Information in Engineering Conference, LasVegas, Nevada, USA, 2007.

95 Sand, J. C. AdaptEx: adaptive design for the enhancementand extension of product life cycles. PhD Dissertation,Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engi-neering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, 2005.

96 Sand, J. C., Gu, P., and Watson, G. HOME: house ofmodular enhancement – a tool for modular productredesign. Concurrent Engng Res. Applic., 2002, 10(2),153–164.



REVIEW ARTICLE 1367 Adaptable design: concepts, … design: concepts, methods, and applications...

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW ARTICLE 1367 Adaptable design: concepts, … design: concepts, methods, and applications...