See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227198395

A review of research in mechanical engineering

design. Part II: Representations, analysis, and
design for the life cycle

Article in Research in Engineering Design January 1989

DOI: 10.1007/BF01580205

CITATIONS READS

193 1,220

2 authors, including:

Susan Finger
Carnegie Mellon University
100 PUBLICATIONS 1,533 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Susan Finger on 31 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Res Eng Des (1989) 1:121-137
A Review of Research in Mechanical Engineering Design.
Part II: Representations, Analysis, and Design for the Life Cycle
Susan Finger 1,* and J o h n R. Dixon 2
1Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; 2Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract. This is the second of a two-part paper summa-
rizing and reviewing research in mechanical engineering
design theory and methodology. Part I included 1) de-
scriptive models; 2) prescriptive models; and 3) com-
puter-based models of design processes. Part II includes:
4) languages, representations, and environments for de-
sign; 5) analysis in support of design; and 6) design for
manufacture and the life cycle. For each area, we discuss
the current topics of research and the state of the art,
emphasizing recent significant advances. A final section
is included that summarizes the six major areas and lists
open research issues.
Introduction
This two-part paper, the first in a series of reviews
to be published in Research in Engineering Design,
summarizes and reviews the state of research in
engineering design theory and methodology, con-
centrating on mechanical engineering design. Sub-
sequent reviews will concentrate on other areas of
engineering design or on special sub-topics. The
goal of the series is to inform the community at
large of advances in the developments in engineer-
ing design research. We also hope that it will enable
researchers to place their work in context and thus
guide continuing work. The series of papers is also
intended to be an efficient starting place for those
who wish to become familiar with the engineering
design literature relevant to their interests.
There are, of necessity, limits to the nature and
scope of this review. First, the review is not in-
tended to be a substitute for reading complete pa-
pers; it is intended only as a brief summary of, and
guide to, the literature. Although we have made
every reasonable effort to be complete, omissions
are inevitable. There can also be errors of commis-
sion caused by misinterpretation or lack of full un-
derstanding on our part of papers included in the
* Reprint requests: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Research in
Egsineedng
lgn
1989Springer-VerlagNew York Inc.
review. We apologize to both readers and research-
ers for these errors.
The scope is limited in several ways. We intend
only to include research in engineering design, and
then only that portion of engineering design broadly
called "mechanical," which includes products, ma-
chines, structures, and the like. Research in geo-
metric modeling, architectural design, manufactur-
ing, expert systems, and optimization are included
only when the research is directly relevant to design
of mechanical systems. We have also not attempted
to cover the many new, commercial computer-
aided design (CAD) systems which have begun to
incorporate the research ideas discussed in this re-
view.
The research discussed in this review paper has
been conducted primarily in the United States.
Work outside the U.S. has not been excluded, but is
not covered systematically. Finally, research on
mechanical design in very specific technical do-
mains (e.g., mechanisms and heat exchangers) is
not covered unless it is clearly extendible to other
mechanical design domains.
This review is organized into six sections based
on our current view of the active design theory and
methodology research areas. These six areas are:
1. Descriptive models of design processes
2. Prescriptive models for design
3. Computer-based models of design processes
4. Languages, representations, and environments
for design
5. Analysis to support design decisions
6. Design for manufacturing and other life cycle is-
sues such as reliability, serviceability, etc.
These six categories are certainly not mutually ex-
clusive, and some research overlaps two or more
areas. In such cases, we have done our best to in-
form readers where research projects have been
placed. In Part I, the first three of the above six
topics were reviewed. In Part II, we review the last
122 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
three, beginning with languages, representations,
and environment for design.
5 Languages, Representations, and
Env~onments
In some areas of engineering design, such as circuit
design, formal representations exist for the artifacts
being designed which capture their important physi-
cal, functional, and logical attributes. A fundamen-
tal concern in mechanical engineering design re-
search is that complete representations do not exist
for mechanical artifacts. Intensive effort over the
last fifteen years has resulted in the creation of
valid, robust computer-based models for the geome-
try of mechanical designs. However, except in lim-
ited domains such as kinematic linkage design, no
formal representation exists for the physical and
functional attributes of mechanical designs. This
section discusses research in mechanical engineer-
ing design that has begun to address this concern.
Another related topic is the environment within
which the designer works and within which the de-
sign evolves. Currently, many of the tools used to
create designs, whether computer- or paper-based,
are incompatible with one another, so a design may
be transformed from one representation to another
many times as it evolves. In addition, even if the
design tools all used a common representation, the
coordination and interaction of the tools with the
designer is still an open research issue.
5.1 Representation of Form
The representation of the geometric form of a me-
chanical design has received much attention,
largely through the emergence of computer-aided
design systems. We discuss two different, but con-
verging approaches to the representation of form.
The first approach is geometric modeling, either
boundary representation (b-rep) or constructive
solid geometry (CSG) in which the objective is to
create a valid, computer-based representation of a
solid object. The other approach is shape gram-
mars, and their extensions, in which the goal is to
create geometric rules (a grammar) by which a class
of objects can be generated or described.
5.1.1 Solid geometric models. Requicha and
Voelcker [112] cover the progression from the early
CAD systems, which merely duplicated the lines
that would have been drawn on a blueprint, through
wire-frame models, through to solid modetlers, in
which complete, valid solid objects are represented.
This progression is of interest to those in design
research, because the same need--that of increas-
ing the expressiveness of the representation--
drives much of the research in design representa-
tion. Voelcker [145] also discusses the limitations of
the current geometric models as design systems be-
cause their purpose is to represent the geometry of
a completed geometric object, rather than an evolv-
ing one. A discussion along similar lines can be
found in Nielsen [94].
One approach to creating geometric modeling
systems for design is to use variational geometry.
Gossard [50, 77, 81] combines CSG and boundary
models in an object graph so that changes in dimen-
sions result in changes in geometry and topology.
Variational geometry is most useful for redesign
and tolerance analysis and synthesis.
Recently, non-manifold geometric modeling sys-
tems have been created by Weiler [146, 147] and by
Prinz et al. [56]. These non-manifold systems are
promising as the underlying geometric modellers for
design systems because one-dimensional, two-di-
mensional, and three-dimensional geometric entit-
ies can be represented in a uniform fashion. In addi-
tion, these models contain topological information
that enables high-level descriptions of features.
(See Section 5.3.)
5.1.2 Shape grammars. In 1975, Stiny [126] cre-
ated shape grammars based on the formalisms of
computational linguistics [28]. Using a formal gram-
mar, instances of a class of objects can be generated
based on a sequence of production rules. Architects
in particular have been interested in shape gram-
mars, using them to generate a family of floor plans
or ornamentation. For example, Flemming [48] has
used a variant of shape grammars to generate fa-
cades and floor plans for new buildings so they
would blend into a historic district. Tutorials on
shape grammars can be found in both Earl [40] and
Stiny [127]. The textbook, An Introduction to For-
mal Language Theory [89], which unites formal
language theory with an introduction to computa-
tional linguistics, is a good starting point for design
researchers interested in formal languages.
Researchers from several different areas have
become interested in using the formalism of gram-
mars to describe, generate, and parse designs. For
example, Woodbury [156] has created a structure
grammar that extends shape grammars to structures
in space, and he is now working on a three-dimen-
sional grammar for solids [60]. Stiny [129] has writ-
ten about possible extensions to his work that
would use grammars to generate design attributes
other than simply shape.
Fitzhorn [47] shows the formal relationships be-
tween language theory and solid modeling systems.
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
He proves that a two-dimensional grammar that is a
variant of a graph grammar can produce three-di-
mensional solids. He creates three grammars, one
of which generates the constructive solid geometry
representation, the second of which generates the
boundary representation, and the third of which
generates plane models.
Based on Fitzhorn's work, Pinilla [102] has cre-
ated a grammar that can be used to parse the geo-
metric features of a design. He uses a non-manifold
topological representation of a design which en-
ables a general, but formal, representation of form
features. His work is discussed in greater detail in
Section 5.3.
5.2 Representation of Behavior
The formal representation of the function and be-
havior a of mechanical designs has been explored by,
among others, Pahl [95], Crossley [31, 32] and Lai
[76]. Each takes a distinctly different approach to
the problem. Crossley has developed a graphical
system for laying out the mechanical functions of a
design. In his system, functions such as "dump" or
"orient" are each assigned graphical icons. The
icons can then be arranged in a graph to represent
the overall function of the design. Crossley suggests
that each icon might have associated with it a list of
possible mechanisms that would provide the re-
quired function. Because the icons do not have any
deeper structure, the functionality of the design lay-
out cannot be checked. In addition, he does not
address the problem of integrating functions in the
physical components. In contrast to Crossley's
graphical system, Lai has created a formal, English
language-based system called FDL for representing
the function and structure of mechanical designs. In
FDL, nouns and verbs are used to create sentences
that represent the function of a design, and design
rules operate directly on the nouns and verbs in the
sentence. Allowable verbs (for example "fasten")
do not have physical or mathematical representa-
Mechanical engineers tend to use the words function and
behavior interchangeably. Qualitative physicists make a distinc-
tion between these words; that is, the design's function is what it
is used for, while its behavior is what it does. For example, two
bolts may each have been designed to function as fasteners, be
made o f the same material, and have the same geometry, but if
one is cast and the other machined, they will have different
behaviors. A n o t h e r example is that a motor may be designed to
function as a p o w e r transformer, but it can also function as a
door stop because it has additional behaviors due to its mass.
Because function and behavior are used interchangeably in me-
chanical engineering, we will not distinguish between them. Un-
less otherwise noted, function is used in the sense of the behav-
ior of the design.
123
tions and so their meaning is determined by the
rules that use them.
Ishida et al. [66] describe a system for detecting
unanticipated functions of machines, such as leak-
age or the impossibility of disassembly based on the
Takase's Feature Description language [136]. Their
goal is to create a computer simulation based on a
human designer's problem-solving activity.
Fenves and Baker [45] present a spatial and func-
tional representation language for structural de-
signs. They use operators that execute a grammar
(like the grammars described in Section 5.1.2) to
generate architectural layouts as well as structural
and functional configurations; however, they must
assume that the layout and structure are indepen-
dent if they are generated sequentially.
Ulrich and Seering [140] use a formal representa-
tion of function based on bond graphs [98]. Using a
strategy of design and debug, they transform each
component in the graph that represents the design
requirements directly to functionally independent
physical components. Reconfiguration for function
sharing is performed "after the components have
been selected. Ulrich and Seering have extended
the approach above to the conceptual design of dy-
namic systems [139, 141]. A system has been devel-
oped that prepares a schematic description of a sys-
tem of functional components to meet a given
behavioral specification. From the schematic, an
initial physical system is developed by substituting
devices for each function. Finally, iterative rede-
sign (they call it debugging in this case) is used to
improve on the initial design. Bond graphs are em-
ployed to represent the design. In [113, 114], Rind-
erie also uses a representation for function based on
bond graphs; however, his focus is on how the func-
tion graph can be transformed and then mapped into
different physical systems. Of primary concern is
that physical components always exhibit behavior
in addition to the behavior for which they were se-
lected. For example, in addition to providing power
reduction, a gear pair has a mass and a geometric
configuration.
Joskowicz [70, 71] presents a method for de-
signing kinematic mechanisms based on functional
specifications. Using configuration spaces, he has
created a method which enables explicit reasoning
about the relationship between the structure and the
function of the objects. While the domain is limited
to kinematic linkages, this system begins to address
one of the major open questions in design; that is,
the relationship between the desired functionality
for a design and it's final shape.
Green and Brown [51] present a qualitative
model for reasoning about the shape and fit during
the design process. They are concerned with how
124 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
surface features of a design are grouped, oriented,
and matched until the designer can attempt to con-
firm a fit. Bacon and Brown [11] present a top-down
approach to reasoning about the behavior of me-
chanical devices that uses analogy and knowledge
about the behavior of already understood devices.
Their goal is to model, using a computer, the pro-
cess by which a human engineer would discover the
behavior of a device given some formal description
of its structure.
5.3 Feature-Based Representations
While there is no consensus on a precise definition
of a.feature, most researchers working in the area
agree that a feature is an abstraction of lower-level
design information. Abstractions of design informa-
tion are becoming of greater importance as design
systems evolve. The research in feature-based de-
sign systems has been motivated by the realization
that geometric models represent the design in
greater detail than is useful for designers, process
planners, assembly planners, or for rule-based sys-
tems that emulate these activities. The concept of
features began with form features. Form features
are associated with the surface of parts, especially
machined parts and include holes, bosses, and ribs.
In recent work the concept has been made much
more comprehensive.
An early paper by Wesley et al. [148] discusses
the need for a higher-level language for describing
assemblies, tools, and assemblers. In another pa-
per, Pratt [109] discusses the role of solid modeling
as the interface between design and manufacturing.
In his paper he presents feature-based process plan-
ning systems in which form features are the bridge
between the geometry created by the designer and
the process plan. Pratt and Wilson [110] give a de-
tailed discussion of the requirements for a solid
modeling system to support form features. In a later
paper, Pratt [11 l] makes specific recommendations
for the attributes that a geometric modeller should
have to be feature-based.
Dixon [33] has defined a feature as "any geomet-
ric form or entity that is used in reasoning in one or
more design or manufacturing activities," and more
recently [38] as "an entity with both form and func-
tion." A similar definition emerged from a recent
workshop on Features in Design and Manufacturing
[128]. There, a feature was defined to be " a rela-
tionship among a set of elements of a design."
Thus, features are not limited to being geometric
entities nor are they limited only to design and man-
ufacturing, although most of the research to date
has been on geometric features for design and man-
ufacturing. Feature-based representation can be ob-
tained by feature extraction (see Section 5.3.2),
from an existing CSG or boundary representation,
or by designing with features from the outset.
5.3.1 Feature-based design systems. Dixon et
al. [38] have developed feature-based design sys-
tems in which the designer is provided with a set of
design-with features. These features arise from the
combination of activity and process, Ibr example
design (activity) of castings (process) gives rise to a
set of primitive features such as hollow box, slab,
corner, and boss or hole. The systems developed
are described in more detail in Section 7.5. A tenta-
tive taxonomy of design-with-features and a discus-
sion of the origin of features is described in [33], and
an architecture for a design-with-features system
for components is also presented in [37].
Cutkosky and Tenenbaum [34,351 have created a
system called FIRST-CUT in which a product and
its production process are designed simultaneously.
This system is a feature-based system, and the part
is created by applying machining operations that
create manufacturing features, such as slot or hole,
in the part. The process is essentially one of "de-
structive solid geometry" since the part is created
by removing material.
5.3.2 Feature extraction. Most of the research
in feature extraction has been for process planning,
although some research has been done on features
for other types of analysis such as the work by Woo
[151] for finite element analysis. In either case, the
focus of the work described in this section is on
extracting manufacturing form-features from a pre-
viously defined geometric model. Once the features
have been extracted, the design can be analyzed for
manufacturability, and previously compiled plans
can be retrieved to create the required features. A
review of current feature-based process planning
systems can be found in [142]. Among these fea-
ture-based process planners are Henderson, [61,
62], Choi, [27], Kumar et al. [75], and Hayes [59],
The Quick Turnaround Cell (QTC) at Purdue [23]
connects a feature-based design system, an auto-
matic process planner, and a manufacturing cell. In
this system, the features are manufacturing form-
features, and the emphasis is on rapid prototyping
of parts, rather than on the design process itself.
Roy and Liu [116] present a feature-based represen-
tation that is a hybrid CSG/B-Rep data structure to
represent dimensioning and tolerancing. Again, the
model is constructed from form-features.
Sakurai and Gossard [117] present a procedure
for recognizing shape features in 3D solid models~
They use a feature graph that is a b-rep subgraph
and what they call facts which possess characteris-
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
tic combinations of topology and geometry. They
use graph matching to find features; however, their
feature graphs are not given by a grammar, but by
instance enumeration.
The feature recognition system described by
Pinilla [102] is currently being extended to enable
feature-based designs to be generated, represented,
and parsed. This extension is possible because the
underlying representation of a feature is based on
elements of a well-defined grammar; however, com-
binatorial explosion in the generation and search
presents a major obstacle to practical applications.
In all the feature extraction models, feature inter-
action is a difficult problem; that is, even if the sys-
tem is capable of recognizing a hole and recognizing
a slot, it may not be capable of recognizing a hole in
a slot. Some of the work being done in graph-based
topological grammars may solve this problem in
theory, but practical solutions are not close at hand.
5.4 Product Models
In 1981, Eastman [41] pointed out that computers
were no longer just a vehicle for the analysis of
designs, but had become a medium for the represen-
tation of designs. He predicted that computers
would eventually replace traditional media such as
paper and pencil, and he discussed the superiority
of computers for geometric modeling, semantic in-
tegrity, and abstraction hierarchies. This paper was
among the first to discuss the idea of an integrated
product model, as opposed to a CAD database, for
mechanical designs.
Since the early eighties, researchers have
worked to create integrated models that combine
representations of geometry, semantic knowledge,
and engineering models in what have come to be
called engineering databases or product models.
Among those working in this area are Maryanski
[100], Shaw [120], Spooner [124], Su [131], and Su-
zuki et al. [135].
The Product Data Exchange Specification
(PDES/STEP) is a new international standard for
exchanging product information. PDES/STEP is a
major extension beyond IGES (Initial Graphic Ex-
change Specifications). Whereas the IGES standard
is concerned with exchange of information intended
for human interpretation (e.g., drawings and wire-
frame), the PDES/STEP standard is concerned with
exchange of a complete product model intended for
use by CAD/CAM systems (e.g., process planners,
NC path generators, and others). Because this stan-
dard is being coordinated with international stan-
dards groups and is likely to be adopted internation-
ally by industry, the PDES/STEP development is of
interest to designers and design researchers. Plan-
125
ning is well along for the standards for mechanical
product models and printed wiring board data. A
first version, including some consideration of form
features, will be available in 1989 [99].
5.5 Environments
The problem of creating an environment within
which designers can work is not limited to com-
puter-based systems. Much of the work on pre-
scriptive models of the design process, discussed in
Part I, Section 3, is directed toward organizing the
information available to designers as well as con-
trolling and coordinating the methods and tools
used by them. The environment becomes more im-
portant when the design system is computer-based.
Even if the design tools all use a common represen-
tation and data base, the coordination and interac-
tion of the tools with each other and with the de-
signer is still an open research issue.
Shah and Wilson [119] discuss the mismatch be-
tween current CAD tools and the needs of design-
ers. They state that designers need multiple levels
of abstraction, generalizations of geometry, product
definition models, and better visualization tools. In
a similar paper, Logan [82] cites the same types of
mismatches and requirements for architectural
CAD systems.
Habraken [57] has created a design environment
based on the analogy that design is like a game.
Using this analogy, Habraken creates a con-
strained, but rich, universe in which design con-
cepts can be explored. The idea of a game provides
a conceptual framework that can be used to study
how designers interact with the design problem,
with their environment, and with each other. In re-
lated work, Gross et al. [53-55] have created a Con-
straint Manager design environment that is based
on the model that design is search within a con-
straint space. The environment enables the designer
to navigate through the constraints on the design.
Arbab [4-7] is working towards an intelligent
CAD system in which a tool box of automated prob-
lem solving aids allow designers to conceive,
evolve, and document their designs. Arab has fo-
cused on the explicit representation and manipula-
tion of geometric knowledge. Papers and abstracts
from researchers working in the area of CAD envi-
ronments can be found in the proceedings from
meetings of IFIP Working Group 5.2, particularly
the series of workshops on Intelligent CAD [63-65].
Researchers from the field of artificial intelli-
gence, interested in the field of design research,
have begun to explore system architectures for de-
sign. For example, Fox [46] and Millington [86]
addressed the issue of integrating design represen-
126 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
tations and design tools in a unified architecture.
The environments associated with distributed de-
sign problems are discussed in Part l, Section 4.4.
5.6 Summary
The representation of the geometry of mechanical
designs is highly developed and systems are widely
available, although there are still questions of which
system or combination of systems are appropriate
for different design tasks [94]. However, if the de-
sign task requires more than low-level geometry of
an object; that is, if it requires knowledge of how
features are connected, or how the design was in-
tended to behave, or how it does behave, or how
material properties affect behavior, there are no
tools at hand to aid the designer.
Both Dixon's and Cutkosky's systems are true
design-with-features systems in that the designer
can compose and edit the design based on the fea-
ture representation. However, in both systems the
features are, for the most part, based on manufac-
turing processes. There are still open issues
whether designers can create designs using manu-
facturing features and whether designs composed
from manufacturing features can be used by other
models that address assembly, maintenance, and
other concerns.
The systems created by Fenves and Barker, Ul-
rich and Seering, and Rinderle each have a underly-
ing formal grammar, whether implicit or explicit,
that enables the designer to represent the behavior
of the design. However, many aspects of the behav-
ior of mechanical designs cannot be modeled except
in large analytical programs. In addition, the transi-
tion from desired behavior to design description can
be made in only a few domains such as mechanism
design.
The preliminary design-with-features systems
enable designers to compose designs from higher-
level entities; however, there are still many open
issues. For example, it is unclear whether a general
framework based on features will enable designs to
be interpreted from many different points of view,
or whether features can be used in design systems
to capture the behavioral attributes of a design.
6 Analysis in Support of Design
Analysis is an important element of design; without
analysis to provide accurate evaluations of ex-
pected design performance, designs would be based
on, at best, guesses and heuristics. Traditionally,
the distinction between design and analysis has
been blurred, and analysis often subsumes design.
To be sure, trial designs must be evaluated, and
engineering analysis procedures provide one of the
most important means for evaluation. Analysis
yields quantitative information about the perfor-
mance of a design that can guide design or redesign
decisions. However, it is now more widely recog-
nized that analysis supports design, and not the re-
verse.
Much attention is currently being focused on the
realization that design and redesign decisions must
take into account issues of manufacturability and
life cycles concerns such as reliability, maintainabil-
ity, disposability, and other so-called ,ilities." In
this paper, design for manufacturing and other life
cycle issues is reviewed in Section 7. Here in Sec-
tion 6 we consider research more specifically re-
lated to the design-analysis interface where "analy-
sis" means engineering analysis for predicting
results such as stresses, deflections, heat flow, mo-
tions, fatigue, efficiency, and the like. Interfaces
and access to optimization methods and finite ele-
ment programs are included here, while analysis
methods for assembly are included in Section 7.
6.1 Interfaces to Optimization Methods
As noted in Part i, Section 4.1 the development of
an appropriate criterion function is often an impedi-
ment to the use of optimization methods for design.
This has led to research that attempts to provide
more designer-oriented interfaces to existing opti-
mization procedures.
The research on design optimization interfaces at
Brigham Young University is embodied in a pro-
gram named OPTDES.BYU [13-16, 42, 96]. The
program provides a powerful knowledge-based in-
terface that assists designers in formulating optimi-
zation problems and interpreting the results. An-
other approach has been developed by Mistree et al.
[72, 87, 88, 90]. They have developed a deci-
sion support problem technique "that includes ex-
pert systems to assist students in formulating prob-
lems for their adaptive linear programming
methods." Many specific examples have been dem-
onstrated.
Research applying symbolic computation to re-
duce the complexity of optimal design problems has
been done by Agogino et al. [1, 2]. In a program
called SYMON [29], monotonicity analysis is used
to reason qualitatively about the nature of con-
straints and their influence on design solutions.
Results in effect reduce the size of the search space.
Output from SYMON can be used as in put to an-
other program, called SYMFUNE, that reasons
with the constraint equations to further confine the
search.
Chieng and Hoeltzel [25, 26] have designed and
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
implemented a design and analysis tool for mechan-
ical components and assemblies called OPTDEX
(Optimal Design Expert). Design cells are created
that support the design of various elements such as
bearings or speed reducers. The concept in this re-
search is to provide an environment that integrates
AI, mechanical design knowledge, and optimization
methods.
Another interface for mechanical designers to
optimization is described by Ishii and Barkan [67].
They propose a rule-based sensitivity analysis
methodology that uses a table of production rule
relationships between design variables and perfor-
mance parameters. The approach provides interac-
tive advice about critical constraints during the
parametric iterative redesign process and about for-
mulating problems for optimization.
Other work that provides assistance to designers
using optimization methods is found in Balachan-
dran and Gero [12]. In this work, knowledge-based
systems are described to assist formulation and se-
lection of optimization algorithms. Diaz [36] de-
scribes and illustrates an approach based on fuzzy
set theory that enables a richer, more flexible defini-
tion of the criterion function than traditional optimi-
zation methods. Additional references that provide
designer interfaces to optimization include [22, 85,
103, 115]. Haftka [58] gives a review of structural
shape optimization methods. Some possible dan-
gers of structural optimization techniques are dis-
cussed by Thompson [137]. A good review of opti-
mization methods for large-scale systems can be
found in [8].
Finally, methods for using optimization methods
in the presence of the complex concerns of design
such as cost and delivery time are discussed by Na-
kazawa [92] and by Mackenzie [84]. Nakazawa's
work is interesting because he uses as his objective
function the minimization of information required in
manufacturing [132].
6.2 Interfaces to Finite Element Analysis
Designers need convenient and timely access to ap-
propriate analytical procedures. For those proce-
dures that are too complex, sophisticated, or new
for designers to perform themselves, convenient or
even automated interfaces are required. In many
companies, this has been provided by creating a
group of analysis specialists, often called the Engi-
neering Department. The interface in this case is a
human one, and we do not know of research that
has studied designer-analyst interaction. There are,
however, efforts to develop computer-based inter-
faces to the more complex analysis computer pro-
127
grams. Success with these efforts can lead to new,
practical tools for designers that will make access to
reliable analytical results easier and hence more
readily usable for early design decisions.
Shephard [121] reviews the state of automatic
generation of finite element meshes in 1983. More
recently, Kela [73] describes an experimental sys-
tem to generate 2-D meshes from CAD data bases
and to redesign the mesh automatically until a satis-
factory analysis is obtainable. Both these papers re-
view the other literature related to automated finite
element mesh generation.
6.3 Analysis at Early Design Stages
Most engineering analysis procedures require a
complete description of the design to be analyzed.
This makes them applicable only during the para-
metric design phase. How, then, do we evaluate
designs at the earlier stages of design?
Wood and Antonsson [152-155] make use of
fuzzy set theory to aid preliminary design decisions
with analysis tools developed for computations on
imprecise parameters. Examples applying the ap-
proach to beam design and brake design are pre-
sented in [153]. Rinderle's work [113], see Part I,
Section 4.3, incorporates analysis integrally into the
configuration design process. Gelsey [49] describes
two programs related to automatic analysis of
mechanisms that recognize and simulate kinematic
parts automatically from a CAD data base.
Other papers have addressed the issue of prelimi-
nary design analysis. Libardi [80] describes the re-
quirements for a system to support analysis of in-
complete and abstract designers and analysis in
different functional domains. Cline [30] discusses a
system under construction that will support analy-
sis of in-progress designs by providing designers
with a number of convenient options for creating
and using analytical models. Dym [39] describe an
environment, currently being implemented, that as-
sists structural designers in choosing analysis pro-
cedures at various stages of the design process.
The development and maintenance of a symbolic
representation of the design is critical to this ap-
proach. Shephard [122] presents a discussion of the
issues involved in analysis for design at early stages
of the process. Jones [69] has developed a small
system that selects and applies analytical models,
such as cantilever beams, and thin plates, automati-
cally. The system uses a feature-based representa-
tion of the design and considers the accuracy and
purpose of the analysis in making a selection. How-
ever, this work is just a beginning to the research
required in this area.
128 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
6.4 Summary
Once a design has been carried to the detailed de-
sign stage, analysis procedures are available to pre-
dict or simulate the performance of the design along
many different dimensions. Better interfaces to
these procedures are necessary to make them more
accessible to designers and to enable them to be
used properly. However, a much greater need ex-
ists for better analytical tools in the early stages of
design when critical decisions are made based on
qualitative information. Tools and methods are
needed to enable designers to explore alternatives
fully and efficiently. Designs must be evaluated and
analyzed at every stage from conceptual to detailed
design. At the moment, little is known about how to
do this, although the work noted above is an en-
couraging beginning.
7 Design for Manufacturing and the Life-Cycle
Until recently, designers have been perceived to be
concerned primarily with function and fit. Other is-
sues were of lesser concern. In particular, the de-
sign implications of manufacturing, that is, ease of
manufacture, process planning, and inspectability
as well as other life-cycle issues such as serviceabil-
ity, disposability, were Considered only after impor-
tant design decisions and commitments were made.
This practice has led to many less than optimal de-
signs when the entire life of a product--from con-
ception to disposal--is considered. Awareness of
the economic cost associated with this practice has
now led to growing interest into what is variously
called "design for manufacture," "concurrent de-
sign," "simtdtaneous engineering," or "design-for-
X , " where X can stand for any or all of the life cycle
issues that are relevant to the total life cycle value
of an artifact.
7.1 Concurrent Design
Traditionally, the decisions that are made between
the time a new product is conceived until the time it
is shipped have been sequenced and compartmen-
talized. One reason for this is simply that so much
knowledge is required to design for all life-cycle
issues that no one person or small group can know
everything required. The traditional design se-
quence has now hardened into institutional struc-
tures, accompanied by all the organizational and
human inertia that this implies. Thus, research into
designing for the life cycle has the potential for pro-
ducing major changes in the practice of engineering
design. It is possible to view research in life-cycle
design from two, not totally independent, perspec-
tives: 1) studies related to knowledge, and 2) studies
related to process. The first perspective focuses on
acquiring, organizing, and utilizing knowledge of
life-cycle issues that relate to early design deci-
sions 2. The second perspective focuses on organiz-
ing and controlling the design processes to enable
early, concurrent consideration of life-cycle issues.
Finger et al. [46] describe a system called Design
Fusion which is based on three underlying con-
cepts: integrating life-cycle concerns through the
use of views from multiple perspectives, where
each perspective represents a different life-cycle
concern such as manufacture, distribution, mainte-
nance, etc.; representing the design space at differ-
ent levels of abstraction and granularity through the
use of features, where features are the attributes
that characterize a design from the viewpoint of any
perspective; and using constraints to guide the de-
sign.
A comprehensive view of concurrent design is
presented by Whitney et al. in "The Strategic Ap-
proach to Product Design" [149]. The authors pro-
pose a method of organizing the design process that
focuses on assembly as the integrating activity,
which can serve to bring all the various life cycle
issues into communication and interaction. Ex-
amples of cases are also presented in which the
manufacturing "process is the design" or in which
manufacturing process decisions precede many
functional design decisions.
One concept for concurrent design is to design
products (or parts) and their manufacturing pro-
cesses simultaneously. Pioneering work in this ap-
proach is reported by Cutkosky and Tenenbaum
[34, 35]. In the first of these papers, a system called
First-Cut is described that enables designers to
work in manufacturing modes in which manufactur-
ing operations are specified as a means to design the
desired part. In the second paper, the role of fea-
tures in concurrent design is explored, with the con-
clusion that "the combination of features and a pro-
cess representation is the right foundation upon
which to build a complete end-to-end design tool for
addressing [functional, geometric, and manufactur-
ing] constraints". Though the First-Cut implemen-
tation of these ideas is limited to machining, the
authors are also beginning to apply the concepts to
injection molding.
z K n o w l e d g e of h o w to modify an almost complete, detailed
design for s o m e life-cycle issue is not necessarily the s a m e as the
knowledge n e e d e d at the conceptual or configuration level.
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
One method of implementing life-cycle design
that combines these two perspectives is organiza-
tional change. All the various specialists, instead of
acting separately and sequentially, are from the out-
set brought together to perform the design. This
plan brings the knowledge possessed by all the life
cycle experts to the same place at the time design
decisions are being made. Research in organiza-
tional change and behavior is beyond the scope of
engineering design research, but several reports and
discussions have appeared in the engineering litera-
ture [20, 93]. Another smaller, less formal example
of concurrent design is reported in [118].
It should be noted that bringing together experts
on life-cycle issues does not insure that knowledge
about making design decisions and compromises
will also be available. We must distinguish between
the specialist's knowledge of a life cycle issue and
knowledge about creating and modifying early de-
sign concepts so that the life-cycle concerns are re-
solved. Whitney et al. [149] argue that, by relating
all decisions to assembly concerns, including the
function of the assembly, the needed focus will
emerge. However, it is not certain that a team of
specialists will have, for example, the knowledge to
set machined, molded, or cast tolerances to opti-
mize a part considering function, reliability, serv-
iceability, manufacturability, etc. Explicit knowl-
edge of the relationships of life-cycle issues to early
design decisions is needed to perform life-cycle de-
sign. Again, this relates directly to the question of
the evaluation and analysis of designs at the config-
uration and conceptual stages.
7.2 Design for Manufacturing
Boothroyd and Dewhurst [17-19] have performed
pioneering research on the accumulation and orga-
nization of knowledge of handling and assembly di-
rectly related to design. This work is based on the
hypothesis that a small number of abstract features
of the components in an assembly can be used to
predict, with useful accuracy, the time required for
assembly. Both manual and automatic assembly are
considered. The features include specified aspects
of part size and symmetry. The predictions of han-
dling and assembly times can be used to point to
needed design changes from the viewpoint of as-
sembly.
In other design for assembly research, Poli and
his colleagues [105-107] have developed a spread-
sheet approach to rating designs on the basis of
their ease of automatic assembly. The results point
to part and product features that tend to increase
assembly costs.
129
The systems described above require that the de-
signers compute and enter manually the required
data on size, symmetry, and other features. Myers
[91] describes an algorithm which, when an assem-
bly is designed in a geometric solid modeller, auto-
matically computes the manual handling times of
the various components using Boothroyd's theory
and data. In this work, the features needed are ex-
tracted from the solid modeller boundary represen-
tations. This automation of manual handling analy-
sis related to design has not yet been extended to
automatic handling or to insertion times.
In other design for manufacturing work, Poll
[74, 104] has compiled and organized knowledge
on design for forging. As with Boothroyd's work in
assembly, analyses of forging relative cost and diffi-
culty are based on identification of selected design
features, and the results point to potential design
problems or improvements from the viewpoint of
the forging process. Work by these researchers is in
progress on design for injection molding [108].
Heuristic information is available from firms and
industry associations related to design for manufac-
turability. For example, for casting there is [21], for
extrusion [3], tbr forging [104], and for injection
molding [108]. However, this type of knowledge is
not yet embedded in CAD and solid modeling sys-
tems in a way that makes it available to designers
using these systems.
In work that is similar in spirit to Suh's axiomatic
approach to design, Ayers [I0] discusses manufac-
turing as the concentration of information in matter.
While he does not discuss design per se, Ayers sees
the optimal design and manufacturing process as
the one that maximizes the economic value by mini-
mizing the information required to describe and
produce a product. An overview in design for man-
ufacture is given by Stoll in [130].
7.3 Tolerances
Although tolerances are critical to both functional
performance and manufacturing cost, tolerances
have received very little theoretical treatment.
There are three areas for research: 1) the relation-
ships between tolerances and cost, 2) the relation-
ships between tolerances and functional perfor-
mance, and 3) the representation of tolerances in
computer-based design systems.
Published data on the relationships between tol-
erances and costs are almost non-existent. Chase
[24] has fit cost-tolerance curves to data published
by Jamieson [68]. Work is in progress to analyze
and publish more data that can perhaps provide the
130 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
basis for theory or, at the least, some quantitative
generalizations.
A few researchers [78, 101, 123, 125, 134, 150]
have studied how to synthesize tolerances in order
to minimize manufacturing cost based on various
assumed models for the tolerance cost relationship.
These approaches employ optimization methods to
minimize an assumed cost function.
Research into the effects of tolerances on func-
tional performance is even more limited. Evans [43,
44] describes a possible theoretical approach to the
problem, but the theory is not developed.
The assignment of tolerances can be viewed as
one of assigning values to attributes; that is, as the
parametric design problem. As such, it is necessary
to be able to analyze the effects of tolerance stack-
up in complex assemblies. There are several meth-
ods for doing this analysis as described by Green-
wood [52] and also by Turner [138].
7.4 Design for Other Life Cycle Issues
Design for manufacturing (as well as for function, of
course) is the most active design-for-X research
field; research results for other X ' s are scarce. Suri
[133] has proposed and is working on Design for
Analysis, that is, designing products and manufac-
turing systems so that they can be easily analyzed.
His argument is that analysis is another process,
just like manufacturing or assembly, that a design
must undergo. Therefore, just as one designs for
manufacture or designs for assembly, one should
design for analysis.
A detailed architecture for a "unified life-cycle
engineering" (ULCE) environment is presented by
Brei et al. [20]. This report also recommends re-
search and development on the following life-cycle
issues: (a) human interactions in design, (b) theory,
methodology, and tools for design, (c) data-base
management for design, (d) user interfaces, and (e)
automatic management of detail design changes.
Research on design for other life-cycle concerns,
such as design for reliability, testability, maintain-
ability, is much further advanced in fields such as
electronics and software design than it is in mechan-
ical design. Ayers [9] in an interesting position pa-
per, discusses the relationships among complexity,
reliability, and manufacturing. His thesis is that the
manufacturing of mechanical products must evolve
toward creating integrated, multi-purpose mono-
liths, similar to integrated computer chips, if me-
chanical products are to reach the same levels of
reliability and reproducibility. Fiering and Villa-
marin [144] have studied designs that have failed in
surprising ways to uncover the factors that lead to
unreliable designs. Koen et al. [97] have investi-
gated techniques such as fault tree analysis to de-
velop tools to aid designers in designing large com-
plex systems.
7.5 CAD Advisors
CAD systems with embedded knowledge to provide
designers with early on-line advice about manufac-
turing and life-cycle issues have been proposed and
experimented with. All such advisory systems re-
quire a representation of the in-progress design in
terms of features, whether obtained by feature ex-
traction or by designing with features. Henderson
[62] describes a feature extraction system for ma-
chined parts that provides intbrmation relevant to
process planning.
Experimental designing with features systems
have been developed at the University of Massa-
chusetts by Dixon et al. In [143], rotationally sym-
metrical parts are designed from features like disks,
cones, and cylinders; the system provides auto-
matic print-review level manufacturabitity advice.
In [79], extruded parts are designed from wall and
intersection features; the system provides an auto-
matic interface to finite element beam analysis. In
[83], cast parts are designed from macro-features
like box, L-bracket, U-channel, and slab; the sys-
tem provides advice about manufacturing limits,
hot spots, and filling problems. Dixon [38] has pro-
posed a general architecture for design-with fea-
tures systems to provide manufacturing and life-cy-
cle advice and redesign suggestions to designers
during the design process. Many of the systems dis-
cussed in Section 7.1, such as the one by Finger et
at., use similar architectures to integrate feature-
based design and manufacturing advisors.
Turner and Anderson [138] have developed a fea-
ture-based design system for machined parts that
couples fixturing, process planning, NC code gener-
ation. The system is used to produce parts quickly
with very little operator intervention. An important
aspect of this work is the inclusion of tolerance in-
formation with the feature representation.
7.6 Summary
To date, design-for-X has meant primarily design
for manufacturing. Research in design for manufac-
turing is extensive, especially for assembly and ma-
chining. Research effort in knowledge acquisition
and organization is still needed, as well as in practi-
cal ways to get the information to designers in a
useful and timely fashion. In contrast, a fundamen-
tal understanding of tolerances is still lacking, al-
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
though research interest in this area is growing. One
common thread in all of the work in life-cycle de-
sign is the need for better underlying representa-
tions of mechanical designs. A clear dependence
exists between the research on features-based rep-
resentations and the research on life-cycle design.
8 Summary
A research review should not only point to what has
been done, but also to what remains undone. We
summarize here by listing the accomplishments and
the outstanding research issues, as we see them,
organized by the six topic areas of Parts I and II in
the review.
Descriptive M o d e l s
State o f the Art
1. Understanding of how mechanical designers
create designs has increased through the body
of data collected from protocol studies. The
results of these studies will enable new design
tools that to support designers. (Section 2.1).
2. Preliminary hypotheses on the strategies used
C o m p u t e r - B a s e d Models o f the Design Process
by designers have been generated, and from
these, cognitive models of some of the skills
used by designers have been created. (Section
2.2).
3. Understanding of how teams of designers work
and interact has increased. Research in com-
puter-supported cooperative work and on dis-
tributed problem solving complement the work
in this area. (Sections 2.3 and 4.4).
Outstanding R e s e a r c h Issues
1. Hypotheses concerning the strategies used in
design must be tested, validated, and inte-
grated into design systems.
2. Cognitive models of design strategies must
continue to be developed to increase our un-
derstanding of how designers design and as a
basis for tools in conceptual designs.
3. Most product designs are created by teams of
designers, and yet we know little about how
design teams work or how to decompose a de-
sign problem to be solved by a team.
Prescriptive Models f o r Design
State o f the Art
1. Prescriptive models of the design process are
used widely in teaching design and have been
131
successful in helping designers to organize the
stages of preliminary design. (Section 3.1).
2. Morphological analysis has been successfully
used for many years in configuration design.
(Section 3.2).
3. The prescriptive models of both Taguchi and
Suh are being applied in practice and have re-
sulted in less expensive and more robust de-
signs. (Section 3.3).
Outstanding R e s e a r c h Issues
1. The prescriptive models of the design process
make intuitive sense to many designers, but
more research is needed to validate the meth-
ods and to integrate them with computer-based
methods.
2. The mapping between the requirements of a
design and the attributes of the artifact is not
understood. Because the goal of designing is to
create artifacts that meet the functional re-
quirements, more fundamental research is
needed on relating the attributes of designs to
functional requirements, that is, on prescribing
the artifact.
State o f the A r t
1. Successful models for parametric design have
been demonstrated. Progress has been made in
understanding the crucial role for knowledge
about dependencies between design variables
and performance parameters. (Section 4.1).
2. Successful initial models for configuration de-
sign have been demonstrated pointing out the
key role of features at this level. (Section 4.2).
3. The foundation has been laid for tools to sup-
port computer-aided design of mechanical as-
semblies. (Section 4.2.1).
4. Preliminary successes have been reported in
some domains in designing from functional re-
quirements. (Section 4.3).
Outstanding R e s e a r c h Issues
1. The models and methods for parametric design
are highly domain dependent. Research on a
unifying parametric design paradigm, which
must include both numeric and non-numeric
methods, is needed.
2. Research is needed to enable evaluation and
redesign of configurations without the need for
instantiation at the parametric level.
3. The utility of strategies for distributed problem
solving in design must be explored.
132 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
4. The role of physical principles in relating form
and function is not yet fully understood.
Languages, Representations, and Environments
State o f the Art
1. Geometric modeling is well advanced; robust
constructive solid geometry and boundary-rep-
resentation models are widely available. (Sec-
tion 5.1.1).
2. New, geometric modeling paradigms based on
non-manifold topologies, more suitable for de-
signing, have been developed. (Section 5.1.1).
3. Formal representations of behavior for classes
of mechanical designs have been created. (Sec-
tion 5.2).
4. Research in feature-based representations has
advanced rapidly in the last few years, and sev-
eral feature-based design systems have been
developed. (Section 5.3L
5. Integrated product models have progressed to
the point where standards can be written for
exchanging product data as opposed to graphi-
cal representations of engineering drawings.
(Section 5.4).
Outstanding Research Issues
1. A major research area common to all design
problems is the representation of mechanical
designs. The research issues include: represen-
tation of incomplete designs; representation of
the evolution of a design, including design
changes and version and configuration control;
representation of non-geometric attributes of
designs such as behavior and design intent;
linkages and dependencies between represen-
tations of different attributes of designs; and
integration of features, or high level abstrac-
tions, into the design representation. The role
of formal grammars and languages in design
representation must be explored further.
2. Much research remains before feature-based
design systems can be used in practice.
3. An important area that has received little atten-
tion to date is the creation of design environ-
ments that integrate available tools into a con-
sistent system to support the designer.
Analysis in Support o f Design
State of the Art
1. Interfaces to optimization procedures have
been created to make these powerful methods
useful and tractable in design systems. (Sec-
tion 6.1).
2. Research in automatic finite element analysis
has reached a stage where it is now practical to
create interfaces between these powerful ana-
lytic tools and design systems. In addition,
studies are beginning to shed light on analysis
for early design stages. (Sections 6.2 and 6.3).
Outstanding Research Issues
1. A major research issue is the analysis and eval-
uation of designs at the early and intermediate
stages of design. Research is needed on the
generation and evaluation of alternatively con-
cepts, embodiments, and configurations to
complement the observed tendency of design-
ers to pursue a single-concept design.
2. Another open research question is how to pro-
vide designers with the ability to design and
analyze, not only at different levels of abstrac-
tion, but also from various functional view-
points, for example from a kinematic, struc-
tural, or thermal viewpoint.
3. Research is needed to create CAD systems
that support conceptual design stages by ena-
bling designers to design, modify, and analyze
at multiple levels of abstraction and in multiple
viewpoints.
4. More work is required to complete and dissem-
inate automated interfaces for parametric de-
sign and optimization as well as for detail de-
sign and finite element analyses.
Design for Manufacturing and the Life-Cycle
State o f the Art
1. Concurrent design is under investigation on a
number of fronts. Research is progressing on
enabling multiple players to view, criticize,
and modify a design, on enabling concurrent
product and process design through the para-
digm of process planning, and on enabling con-
current design through organizational change.
(Section 7.1).
2. Much of the knowledge required to support de-
sign for manufacturability has been organized
and is being disseminated. Design for assembly
is especially mature. (Section 7.2).
3. Experimental manufacturability advisory sys-
tems on feature representations, have been in-
tegrated into CAD systems. (Section 7.5).
Outstanding Research Issues
I. No theory or methodology exists to decom-
pose a design into manageable design problems
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
and then to recompose and assemble the re-
suiting designs into a product.
2. The organization and communication proto-
cols necessary for concurrent design are not
understood.
3. Continued acquisition and organization of
manufacturing knowledge in forms useful to
designers is needed.
4. Fundamental and applied work on tolerances,
especially relating cost to performance, is es-
sential.
5. More design-for-X studies are needed if con-
current design for life-cycle performance is to
become a reality.
6. CAD advisory system must be able to deal with
more complex geometry and with combina-
tions of features.
The mechanical engineering design research
community has made major advances over the last
few years. Preparing this review was a much longer
and harder task than we had anticipated. The re-
search community in mechanical engineering design
has made significant progress not only in advancing
our understanding of design, but also in clarifying
the research methods necessary to study design.
The progress being made toward a better under-
standing of design, and hence toward better design
tools, is remarkable.
References
1. Agogino, A.M. and Almgren, A.S., "Symbolic Computa-
tion in Computer-Aided Optimal Design," Expert Systems
in Computer-Aided Design, Gero, J.S., ed., North-Hol-
land, Amsterdam, t987, pp. 267-284
2. Agogino, A.M. and Almgren, A.S., "Techniques for Inte-
grating Qualitative Reasoning and Symbolic Computation
in Engineering Optimization," Engineering Optimization,
Vol. 12, No. 2, Sept/Oct 1987, pp. 117-135
3. A Guide to Aluminum Extrusions The Aluminum Associa-
tion, Washington, DC, 1976
4. Arbab, F., Cantor, D.G., Lichten, L. and Melkanoff,
M.A., "The MARS CAM-Oriented Modeling System,"
Proceedings of the Conference on CAD~CAM Technology
in Mechanical Engineering, IFIP, Cambridge, MA, 1982,
pp. 281-288
5. Arbab, F. and Wing, J., "Geometric Reasoning: A New
Paradigm for Processing Geometric Information," IEEE In-
ternational Symposium on New Directions in Computing,
August 1985
6. Arbab, F., "A Paradigm for Intelligent CAD," Intelligent
CAD Systems 1: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects,
Springer-Verlag, 1987
7. Arbab, F., "An Environment for Geometric Reasoning in
Intelligent CAD," 1FIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent
CAD Systems, Gosard, D., ed., IFIP, Cambridge, MA, Oc-
tober 1987
133
8. Arora, J.S. and Thandedar, P.B., "Computational Methods
for Optimum Design of Large Complex Systems," Compu-
tational Mechanics, Vol. 1, 1986, pp. 221-242
9. Ayers, R.U., 'Complexity, Reliability and Design: The
Coming Monolithic Revolution in Manufacturing," Work-
ing Paper WP-86-48, International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, 1986
10. Ayers, R.U., "Manufacturing and Human Labor as Infor-
mation Processes," Research Paper RR-87-19, Interna-
tional Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, November
1987
11. Bacon, S.D. and Brown, D.C., "Reasoning about Mechani-
cal Devices: A Top-Down Approach to Deriving Behavior
from Structure," Computers in Engineering, 1988, Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA,
August 1988, pp. 467---472
12. Balachandran, M. and Gero, J.S., "A Knowledge-Based
Approach to Mathematical Design Modeling and Optimiza-
tion," Engineering Optimization, Vol. 12, 1987, pp. 91-
115
13. Bailing, R.J., Parkinson, A.R. and Free, J.C., "OPTDES.
BYU: An Interactive Optimization Package with 2DI3D
Graphics," Technical report, Brigham Young University,
1982
14. Balling, R.J., Pister, K.S. and Polak, E., "DELIGHT-
STRUCT: An Optimization-Based Computer-Aided Design
Environmentfor Structural Engineering," Computer Meth-
ods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, No. 38, 1983,
pp. 237-251
15. Balling, R.J., Parkinson, A.R. and Free, J.C., "Methods
for Interfacing Analysis Software to Optimization Soft-
ware," Computers & Structures, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1986,
pp. 87-98
16. Bailing, R.J., Free, J.C. and Parkinson, A.R., "Consider-
ation of Worst-Case Manufacturing Tolerances in Design
Optimization," Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions and
Automation in Design, Vol. 108, December 1986
17. Boothroyd, G., Poll, C. and March L., "'Handbook of
Feeding and Orienting Techniques for Small Parts," Tech-
nical report, Mechanical Engineering Department, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, 1978
18. Boothroyd, G., Poll, C. and March, L., Automatic Assem-
bly, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1980
19. Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P., "Design for Assembly--
A Designers Handbook," Technical report, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts,
1983
20. Brei, M.L., Cralley, W.E. Dierolf, D , Owen, D.J., Rich-
ter, K.J. and Rogen, E., "Architecture and Integration Re-
quirements for an ULCE Design Environment," Paper
17-2063, Institute for Defense Analysis, April 1988
21. Casting Design Handbook, American Society for Metals,
Metals Park, OH, 1966
22. Cha, J.Z. and Mayne, R.W., "Optimization with Discrete
Variables via recursive Quadratic Programming," Ad-
vances in Design Automation--1987, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, September 1987
23. Chang, T.C., Anderson, D.C. and Mitchell, O.R., "QTC--
An Integrated Design/Manufacturing/Inspection System
for Prismatic Parts," Computers in Engineering 1988,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco,
CA, August 1988, pp. 417-426
24. Chase, K.W., "Design Issues in Mechanical Tolerance
Analysis," Manufacturing Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, March
1988, pp. 50-59
25. Chieng, W.-H. and Hoetzel, D.A., "An Interactive Hybrid
134 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
(Symbolic-Numeric) System Approach to Near Optimal
Design of Mechanical Components," Engineering Optimi-
zation, Grodon and Breach Science Publishers, Great Brit-
ain, 1987, pp. 369-383
26. Chieng, W.-H. and Hoetzel, D.A., "A Generic Planning
Model for Large Scale Engineering Design Optimization
with a Power Transmission Design Case Study," Proceed-
ings 1987 ASME Computers in Engineering Conference,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
August 1987, pp. 113-124
27. Choi, B.K,, Barash, M.M. and Anderson, D.C~ "Auto-
mated Recognition of Machined Surfaces from a 3-d Solid
Modeler," Computer Aided Design, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1984
28. Chomsky, N., Syntactic Structures, Humanities Press, At-
lantic Highlands, NJ, 1957
29. Choy, J.K. and Agogino, A.M., "SYMON: Automated
SYMbolic MONotonicity Analysis System for Qualitative
Design Optimization," Proceedings, ASME 1986 Interna-
tional Computers in Engineering Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago, IL, July 24-26,
1986, pp. 305-310
30. Cline, T., Abelson, H., Harris, W., Tou, I. and Fong, W.,
"Symbolic Computing in Engineering Design," Third AI in
Design Workshop, AAA1, Minneapolis, MN, May 13, 1988
31. Crossley, E., "Make Science a Partner," Machine Design,
April 24, 1980
32. Crossley, E., "A "Shorthand" Route to Design Creativ-
ity," Machine Design, April 1980, pp. 96-100
33. Cunningham, J.J. and Dixon, J.R., "Designing with Fea-
tures: The Origin of Features," Proceedings of the ASME
Computers in Engineering Conference, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA, July 3I-Au-
gust 3, 1988
34. Cutkosky, M.R. and Tenenbaum, J.M., "CAD/CAM Inte-
gration Through Concurrent Process and Product Design,"
Intelligent and Integrated Manufacturing Analysis and
Synthesis, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 1987, pp. 1-10
35. Cutkosky, M.R., Tenenbaum, J.M. and Muller, D., "Fea-
tures in Process-Based Design," Proceedings of the Inter-
national Computers in Engineering Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA, July
1988
36. Diaz, A.R., "A Fuzzy Set Based Environment for Design
Optimization," Design Theory "88:Proceedings of the t988
NSF Grantee Workshop on Design Theory and Methodol-
ogy, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989
37. Dixon, J.R., Cunningham, J.J. and Simmons, M.K., "Re-
search in Designing With Features," IF1P WG 5.2 Work-
shop on Intelligent CAD Systems, Gossard, D., ed., IFIP,
Cambridge, MA, October 6-7, 1987
38. Dixon, J.R., "Designing with Features: Building Manufac-
turing Knowledge into More Intelligent CAD Systems,"
Proceedings of ASME Manufacturing International-88, At-
lanta, Georgia, April 17-20, 1988
39. Dym, C.L and Salata, S.E., "Representation of Strategic
Choices in Structural Modeling," Proceedings of the 1989
ASCE Congress, American Society of Civil Engineering,
May 1989
40. Earl, C.F., "Shape Grammars and the Generation of De-
signs," Principles of Computer-Aided Design, Pitman Pub-
lishing, 1987
41. Eastman, C.M., "Recent Developments in Representation
in the Science of Design," Proceedings of the 18th Design
Automation Conference, ACM, tEEE, June 1981, pp 13-21
42. Ellsworth, R., Parkinson, A. and Cain, F., "The Comple-
mentary Roles of Symbolic Computing and Numerical Op-
timization in Engineering Design Software," Advances in
Design Automation--1987, Design Methods, Computer
Graphics and Expert Systems, vol. I, Design Technology
Conferences, Boston, MA, September 1987
43. Evans, D.H., "Statistical Tolerancing: The State of the
Art, Part 1," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1,
January 1975
44. Evans, D.H., "Statistical Tolerancing: The State of the
Art, Part 2," Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1,
January 1975
45. Fenves, S.J. and Baker, N.C., "Spatial and Functional
Representation Language for Structural Design," Expert
Systems in Computer-Aided Design, Elsevier Science
(North-Holland), IFIP 5.2 1987
46. Finger, S., Fox, M.S., Navinchandra, D., Prinz, F.B. and
Rinderle, J.R., "Design Fusion: A Product Life-Cycle
View for Engineering Designs," Second IFIP WG 5.2
Workshop on Intelligent CAD, IFIP, Cambridge, UK, 19-
22 September 1988
47. Fitzhorn, P., Formal Languages, PhD dissertation, Colo-
rado State University, 1985
48. Flemming, U., "The Role of Shape Grammars in the Anal-
ysis and Creation of Designs," 1986 SUNYBuffalo Sympo-
sium on CAD; The Computability of Design, SUNY Buf-
falo, NY, December 1986
49. Gelsey, A. and McDermott, D., "Spatial Reasoning About
Mechanisms," 7'0 appear in Advances in Spatial Reason-
ing, Ablex. 1989
50. Gossard, D.C., Zuffante, R.P. and Sakurai, H., "Repre-
senting Dimensions, Tolerances, and Features in MCAE
Systems," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications,
March 1988, pp. 51-59
51. Green, D.S. and Brown, D.C., "Qualitative Reasoning dur-
ing Design about Shape and Fit: A Preliminary Report,"
Expert Systems in Computer-Aided Design, Elsevier Sci-
ence (North-Holland), IFIP 5.2 1987, pp. 93-117
52. Greenwood, W.H. and Chase, K.W., "'A New Tolerance
Analysis Method for Designers and Manufacturers," Jour-
nal of Engineering for Industry, Transaetions of ASME,
Vol. 109, May 1987, pp. 112-116
53. Gross, M. and Fleisher, A., "Design as the Exploration of
Constraints," Design Studies, No. 3, 1984
54. Gross, M.D., Design as Exploring Constraints, PhD disser-
tation, M.I.T., 1986
55. Gross, M., Ervin, S., Anderson, J. and Fleisher, A., "Con-
straints: Knowledge Representation in Design," Design
Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 1988
56. Gursoz, E.L. and Prinz, F.B, "Corner-Based Representa-
tion of Non-manifold Surface Boundaries in Geometric
Modeling," Technical Report, Engineering Design Re-
search Center, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989
57. Habraken, N.J. and Gross, M.D., "Concept Design
Games: Games for Experimentation in Design Theory and
Methodology," Proceedings from the NSF Workshop on
the Design Process, Waldron, M.B., ed., Ohio State Uni-
versity, Oakland, CA, February 8-10, 1987, pp. 13-42
58. Haftka, R.T. and Grandhi, R.V., "Structural Shape Opti-
mization--A Survey," Computer Methods in Applied Me-
chanics and Engineering, Vol. 57, 1986, pp. 91-I06
59. Hayes, C.C. and Wright, P.K,, "Automating Process Plan-
ning: Using Feature Interactions to Guide Search," Tire
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, January
1989
60. Heisserman, J. and Woodbury, R., "'Solid Grammars for
Generative Geometric Design," Submitted to the NSF En-
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
gineering Design Research Conference, University of Mas-
sachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA, June 11-14, 1989
61. Henderson, M.R. and Anderson, D.C., "Computer Recog-
nition and Extraction of Form Features: A CAD/CAM
Link," Computers in Industry, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1984,
pp. 315-325
62. Henderson, M.R. and Chang, G.J., "FRAPP: Automated
Feature Recognition and Process Planning from Solid
Model Data," Computers in Engineering 1988, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA, Au-
gust 1988, pp. 529-536
63. IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent CAD Systems, Gos-
sard, D., ed. IFIP, Cambridge, MA, October, 1987
64. Second IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent CAD Sys-
tems, Yoshikawa, H. and Holden, T., ed., IFIP, Cam-
bridge, UK, September, 1988
65. Third IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelligent CAD Systems,
Yoshikawa, H., ed., IFIP, Osaka, Japan, to be held Sep-
tember, 1989
66. lshida, T., Minowa, H. and Nakajima, N., "Detection of
Unanticipated Functions of Machines," Design and Syn-
thesis, Elsevier Science (North-Holland), 1985, pp. 23-
28
67. lshii, K. and Barkan, P., "Rule Based Sensitivity Analy-
sis--A Framework for Expert Systems in Mechanical De-
sign--," Proceedings of the IFIP W.G. 5.2 Working Con-
ference on Expert Systems in Computer-Aided Design,
IFIP, Sydney, Australia, 16-20 February 1987
68. Jamieson, A., Introduction to Quality Control, Reston Pub-
lishing, 1982
69. Jones, J.C., "Continuous Design and Redesign," Design
Studies, No. 1, 1983
70. Joskowicz, L. and Addanki, S., "From Kinematics to
Shape: An Approach to Innovative Design" 7th National
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-88, Minneapo-
lis, MN, August 21-26, 1988
71. Joskowicz, L., "Reasoning about Shape and Kinematic
Function in Mechanical Devices," Robotics Research
Technical Report 402/173, New York University Courant
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, September 1988
72. Kamal, S.Z., Karandikar, H.M., Mistree, F. and Muster,
D., "Knowledge Representation for Discipline-Indepen-
dent Decision Making," IFIP 87, IFIP, Australia, 1987
73. Keta, A., Perruchio, R. and Voelcker, H., "Toward Auto-
matic Finite Element Analysis," Computers" in Mechanical
Engineering, July 1986
74. Knight, W.A. and Poli, C., "'A Systematic Approach to
Forging Design," Machine Design, January 24, 1985
75. Kumar, B., Anand, D.K. and Kirk, J.A., "Knowledge
Representation Scheme for an Intelligent Feature Extrac-
tor," Computers in Engineering 1988, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA, August 1988,
pp. 529-536
76. Lai, K. and Wilson, W.R.D., "FDL: A Language for Func-
tion Description and Rationalization in Mechanical De-
sign," Computers in Engineering, ASME, New York,
1987, pp. 87-94
77. Lee, K. and Gossard, D., "A Hierarchical Data Structure
for Representing Assemblies: Part 1," Computer-Aided De-
sign, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1986, pp. 16-19
78. Lee, W.J. and Woo, T.C., "Tolerancing: Its Distribution,
Analysis and Synthesis," Technical Report 86-30, Depart-
ment of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University
of Michigan, 1987
79. Libardi, E.C., Dixon, J.R. and Simmons, M.K., "Design-
ing with Features: Design and Analysis of Extrusions as an
135
Example," Spring National Design Engineering Confer-
ence, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago,
IL, March 24-27, 1986
80. Libardi, E.C., Dixon, J.R. and Simmons, M.K., "Com-
puter Environments for the Design of Mechanical Assem-
blies: A Research Review," Engineering with Computers,
1988, pp. 121-136
81. Light, R. and Gossard, D., "Modification of Geometric
Models Through Variational Geometry," CAD--Com-
puter-Aided Design, Vol. 14, No. 4, July 1982, pp. 209-
214
82. Logan, B.S., "Representing Design Problems: Formal and
Informal Models in Design," Second IF1P WG 5.2 Work-
shop on Intelligent CAD, IFIP, Cambridge, UK, 19-22
September 1988
83. Luby, S.C., Dixon, J.R. and Simmons, M.K., "Designing
with Features: Creating and Using a Features Data Base for
Evaluation of Manufacturability of Castings," Proceed-
ings, ASME 1986 International Computers in Engineering
Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Chicago, IL, July, t986, pp. 285-292
84. MacKenzie, C.A. and Gero, J.S., "Learning Design Rules
from Decisions and Performances," Artificial Intelligence,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 1987
85. Mehta, S.I. and Korde, U.P., "An Expert System to
Choose the Right Optimization Strategy," Computers' in
Engineering 1988, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, San Francisco, CA, July 31-August 4, 1988,
pp. 483-487
86. Millington, K., Robertson, A. and Smithers, T., "Architec-
ture for AI-Based Design: A Foundation Made Concrete,"
Preprints of the Second IFIP WG 5.2 Workshop on Intelli-
gent CAD, IFIP, Cambridge, UK, September 1988, pp.
299-311
87. Mistree, F., Hughes, O.F. and Phuoc, H.B., "An Optimi-
zation Method for the Design of Large, Highly Constrained
Complex Systems," Engineering Optimization, Vol. 5,
1981
88. Mistree, F. and Muster, D., "Design Harmonization: A
Computer-Based Approach for Design in the Systems
Age," Optimization in Computer-Aided Design, Elsevier
Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1985
89. Moll, R.N., Arbib, M.A. and Kfoury, A.J., An Introduc-
tion to Formal Language Theory, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1988
90. Muster, D. and Mistree, F., "A Philosophy, Approach and
Method for Negotiating Solutions to Design Problems Us-
ing the Decision Support Problem Technique," Technical
report, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Houston, 1988
91. Myers, W.L., Dixon, J.R. and Simmons, M.K., "Com-
puter Analysis of Mechanical Assembly from a CAD Data
Base: Manual Handling Times," Proceedings of the 1987
ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, August 9-13,
1987
92. Nakazawa, H., "Information Integration Method," Design
and Synthesis, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V (North-
Holland), 1985
93. Newman, J. and Kranowski, M., "Case Study--Matrix
Printer: No Pulleys, Belts, or Screws," IEEE Spectrum,
Vol. 24, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 50-51
94. Nielsen, E.H., Dixon, J.R. and Simmons, M.K., "How
Shall We Represent the Geometry of Designed Objects?,"
Technical Report 6-87, Mechanical Design Automation
Laboratory, University of Massachusetts, 1987
136 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
95. Pahl, G. and Beitz, W., Engineering Design, The Design
Council, Springer-Verlag, London, 1984
96. Parkinson, A.R., Bailing, R.J. and Free, J.C., "OPTDES.
BYU: A Software System for Optimal Engineering De-
sign," Proceedings, 1984ASME Computers in Engineering
Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Las Vegas, NV, August 12-16, 1984
97. Patterson-Hines, F.A. and Koen, B., "Direct Evaluation of
Fault Trees using Object-Oriented Programming Tech-
niques," IEEE Transactions on Retiabiticy, To appear in
1989
98. Paynter, H.M., Analysis and Design of Engineering Sys-
tems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1961
99. PDES/STEP Standard National Institute of Standards and
Technology, available through NTIS as no. NIST-IR-88-
4004, 1989
100. Peckham, J. and Maryanski, F., "Semantic Data Models,"
ACM Computer Surveys, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 1988,
pp. 153-189
101. Peters, J., "Tolerancing the Components of an Assembly
for Minimum Cost," Transactions of the ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, August 1980
102. Pinilla, J.M., Finger, S. and Prinz, F.B., "Shape Feature
Description and Recognition Using an Augmented Topol-
ogy Graph Grammar," Submitted to the 1989 NSF Engi-
neering Design Research ConJ~rence, University of Massa-
chusetts, Amherst, June 11-14, 1989
103. Polak, E., Siegel, P., Wau, T., Nye, W.T. and Mayne,
D.Q., "DELIGHT.MIMO: An Interactive Optimization
Based Multivariable Control System Design Package,'"
IEEE Control System Magazine, December 1987
104. Poli C. and Knight, W.A., "Design for Forging Hand-
book," Technical report, Mechanical Engineering Depart-
ment, University of Massachusetts, 1984
105. Poli, C., "A Design for Assembly Spreadsheet," Design
and Synthesis, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V (North-
Holland), 1985
106. Poli, C. and Knight, W.A., "Rating Products for Ease of
Assembly," Machine Design, August 21, 1986
107. Poli, C. and Fenoglio, F., "Designing Parts for Automatic
Assembly," Machine Design, December 10, 1987
108. Poli, C., Escudero, J. and Fernandez, R., "How Part De-
sign Affects Injection Molding Tool Costs," Machine De-
sign, November 24, 1988
109. Pratt, M.J., "Solid Modeling and the Interface between
Design and Manufacture," IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, July 1984, pp. 52-59
ll0. Pratt, M.J. and Wilson, P.H., "Requirements for Support
of Form Features in a Solid Modeling System," Report R-
85-ASPP-01, CAM-l, June 1985
111~ Pratt, M.L~ "Synthesis of an Optimal Approach to Form
Feature Modeling," Computers in Engineering 1988,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco,
CA, August 1988, pp. 263-274
112. Requicha, A.A.G. and Voelcker, H.B., "'Solid Modeling: A
Historical Summary and Contemporary Assessment,"
1EEE Computer Graphics & Applications, March t982,
pp. 9-24
1I3. Rindede, J.R., "Function and Form Relationships: A Basis
for Preliminary Design," Proceedings from the NSF Work-
shop on the Design Process, Waldron, M.B., ed., Ohio
State University, Oakland, CA, February 8-I0, 1987,
pp. 295-312
114. Rinderle, J.R., Colburn, E.R., Hoover, S.P., Paz-Soldan,
J.P. and Watton, J.D., "Form-Function Characteristics of
Electro-Mechanical Designs," Design Theory "88, Pro-
ceedings of the 1988 NSF Grantee Workshop on Design
Theory and Methodology, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1989
115. Rogers, J.L. and Barthelemy, J-F. M., "An Expert System
for Choosing the Best Combinations of Options in a Gen-
eral Purpose Program for Automated Design Synthesis,"
Proceedings, 1985 ASME Computers in Engineering Con-
ference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Bos-
ton, MA, August 4-8, 1985
116. Roy, U. and Liu, C.R,, "Feature-Based Representational
Scheme of a Solid Modeler for Providing Dimensioning and
Tolerancing Information," Robotics and Computer-Inte-
grated Manufacturing, Vol. 4, No. 3/4, 1988, pp. 335-345
117. Sakurai, H. and Gossard, D.C., "Recognizing Shape Fea-
tures in Solid Models," Submitted to IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, 1989
118. Seader, R. and Tobin, B., "Meeting the 'Impossible'
Schedule," Plastics Design Forum, November/December
1987
119. Shah, J.J. and Wilson, P.R., "Analysis of Knowledge Ab-
straction, Representation and Interaction Requirements for
Computer-Aided Engineering," Computers in Engineering
1988, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San
Francisco, CA, August 1988, pp. 17-24
120. Shaw, N.K., Bloor, M.S. and de Pennington, A., "Product
Data Models," Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 1,
No. 1, 1989
121. Shephard, M.S. and Yerry, M.A., "Approaching the Auto-
matic Generation of Finite Element Meshes," Computers
in Mechanical Engineering, April 1983
122. Shephard, M.S., Korngold, E.V. and Wentorf, R., "Ideal-
ized Models in Engineering Analysis," Technical report,
Rensselaer Design Research Center, RPI, 1988
123. Speckhart, F.H., "Calculation of Tolerance Based on a
Minimum Cost Approach," Journal of Engineering for In-
dustry, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 94, May 1972,
pp. 447-453
124. Spooner et al, "Modeling Mechanical CAD Data with Data
Abstraction and Object.Oriented Techniques," Proceed-
ings of the IEEE Data Engineering Conference, IEEE, Los
Angeles, 1986, pp. 416-424
125. Spotts, M.F., "Allocation of Tolerances to Minimize Cost
of Assembly," Journal of Engineering for Industry, Trans-
actions of the ASME, Vol. 95, August 1973, pp. 762-764
126. Stiny, G., Pictorial and Formal Aspects of Shape and
Shape Grammars, Birkhauser, Basel, 1975
127. Stiny, G., "Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars,"
Environment and Planning B, Vol. 7, July 1980, pp. 343-
351
128. Report on the Workshop on Features in Design and Manu-
facturing, Stiny, G., ed. University of California, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, February 26-28, 1988
129. Stiny, G., "'Formal Devices for Design," Design Theory
"88: Proceedings of the 1988 NSF Grantee Workshop on
Design Theory and Methodology, Springer-Vedag, New
York, 1989
t30. StoU, H.W., "Design for Manufacture: An Overview," Ap-
plied Mechanics Reviews, Vol. 39, No. 9, September 1986,
pp. 1356-1364
131. Su, S.Y.W., "Modeling Integrated Manufacturing Data
with SAM*," IEEE Computer, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1986,
pp. 34-39
132. Suh, N.P., Bell, A.C. and Gossard, D.C., "On an Axioma-
tric Approach to Manufacturing and Manufacturing Sys-
tems," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol.
100, No. 2, May 1978, pp. 127-130
 Finger & Dixon: Research in Mechanical Engineering Design
133. Suri, R., "A New Perspective on Manufacturing Systems
Analysis," Design and Analysis o f lntegrated Manufactur-
ing Systems, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
1988, pp. 118-133
134. Sutherland, G.H. and Roth, B., "Mechanism Design: Ac-
counting for Manufacturing Tolerances and Costs in Func-
tion Generating Problems," Transactions of the ASME
Journal of Engineering for Industry, February 1975
135. Suzuki, H., Inui, M., Kimura, F. and Sata, T., "A Product
Modeling System for Constructing Intelligent CAD and
CAM Systems," Robotics and Computer-Integrated Man-
ufacturing, Vol. 4, No. 3/4, 1988, pp. 483-489
136. Takase, H. and Nakajima, N., "A Language for Describing
Assembled Machines," Design and Synthesis, Elsevier
Science Publishers B. V (North-Holland), 1985, pp. 471-
476
137. Thompson, J.M.T. and Hunt, G.W., "Dangers of Struc-
tural Optimization," Engineering Optimization, Vol. t,
1974, pp. 99-110
138. Turner, G.P. and Anderson, D.C., "An Object-Oriented
Approach to Interactive Feature-Based Design for Quick
Turnaround Manufacturing," Proceedings of 1988 ASME
Computers in Engineering Conference, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CA, August
1988
139. Ulrich, K. and Seering, W.P., "Conceptual Design: Syn-
thesis of Systems Components," Intelligent and Integrated
Manufacturing Analysis and Synthesis, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1987, pp. 57-66
140. Ulrich, K.T. and Seering, W.P., "Function Sharing in Me-
chanical Design," 7th National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, AAAI-88, Minneapolis, MN, August 21-26,
1988
141. Ulrich, K.T. and Seering, W.P., "Synthesis of Schematic
Descriptions in Mechanical Design," Research in Engi-
neering Design, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1989
142. Unger, M.B. and Ray, S.R., "Feature-Based Process Plan-
ning at the AMRF," Computers in Engineering 1988,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco,
CA, August 1988, pp. 563-569
143. Vaghul, M., Dixon, J.R., Zinsmeister, G.E. and Simmons,
M.K., "Expert Systems in a CAD Environment: Injection
Molding Part Design as an Example," Proceedings, 1985
ASME Computers in Engineering Conference, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, MA, August 4-
8, 1985
144. Villamarin, B., Empirical Assessment of Propensity for
Surprising Failures, PhD dissertation, Harvard University,
1988
View publication stats
137
145. Voelcker, H.B., "Modeling in the Design Process," Design
and Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Na-
tional Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 167-199
146. Weiler, K.J., "Edge-Based Data Structures for Solid Mod-
eling in Curved Surface Environments," IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, January 1985
147. Weiler, K.J., Topological Structures fbr Geometric Model-
ing, PhD dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
1986
148. Wesley, M.A., Lozano-Perez, T., Lieberman, L.I., Lavin,
M.A. and Grossman, D.D., "A Geometric Modeling Sys-
tem for Automated Mechanical Assembly," IBM Journal
of Research and Development, VoL 24, No. 1, 1980,
pp. 64-74
149. Whitney, D.E., Nevins, J.L., DeFazio, T.L., Gustavson,
R.E., Metzinger, R.W., Rourke, J.M. and Seltzer, D.S.,
"The Strategic Approach to Product Design," Design and
Analysis of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 200-223
150. Wilde, DJ. and Prentice, E., "Minimum Exponential Cost
Allocation of Sure-Fit Tolerances," Transactions of the
ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, November
1975
151. Woo, T.C., "Interfacing Solid Modeling to CAD and CAM:
Data Structures and Algorithms for Decomposing a Solid,"
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, ASME, New York,
1983, pp. 39-45
152. Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K., "Engineering Design--
Computational Tools in the SYNTHESIS Domain," Pro-
ceedings from the NSF Workshop on the Design Process,
Waldron, M.B., ed., Ohio State University, Oakland, CA,
February 8-10, 1987, pp. 337-360
153. Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K., "Computations with
Imprecise Parameters in Engineering Design: Applications
and Examples," Engineering Design Research Laboratory
Report 88-02, California Institute of Technology, June 1988
154. Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K., "Modelling Impreci-
sion and Uncertainty in Preliminary Engineering Design,"
Engineering Design Research Laboratory Report 88e, Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology, October 1988
155. Wood, K.L. and Antonsson, E.K., "Computations with
Imprecise Parameters in Engineering Design: Background
and Theory," Engineering Design Research Laboratory
Report 88-01, California Institute of Technology, February
1988
156. Woodbury, R., Carlson, K. and Heisserman, J., "Geomet-
ric Design Spaces," Second 1F1P WG 5.2 Workshop on
Intelligent CAD, IFIP, Cambridge, UK, 19-22 September
1988