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

net/publication/280233762

Knowledge-based application to define aircraft final assembly lines at the

industrialisation conceptual design phase

Article in International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · July 2015

DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2015.1068453

CITATIONS READS

23 358

4 authors:

Fernando Mas José Ríos

CT The Engineering Group Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
80 PUBLICATIONS 969 CITATIONS 95 PUBLICATIONS 1,736 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alex Gomez Juan Carlos Hernandez-Matias

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
15 PUBLICATIONS 241 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 576 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by José Ríos on 28 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Fernando Mas]
On: 17 July 2015, At: 13:33
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

International Journal of Computer Integrated

Manufacturing
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

Knowledge-based application to define aircraft final

assembly lines at the industrialisation conceptual
design phase
a b b b
Fernando Mas , José Ríos , Alejandro Gómez & Juan Carlos Hernández
a
PLM Process & Tool Solutions Department, AIRBUS Group, Sevilla, Spain
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Published online: 17 Jul 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Fernando Mas, José Ríos, Alejandro Gómez & Juan Carlos Hernández (2015): Knowledge-based
application to define aircraft final assembly lines at the industrialisation conceptual design phase, International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, DOI: 10.1080/0951192X.2015.1068453

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2015.1068453

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2015.1068453

Knowledge-based application to define aircraft final assembly lines at the industrialisation

conceptual design phase
a b
Fernando Mas *, José Ríos , Alejandro Gómezb and Juan Carlos Hernándezb
a
PLM Process & Tool Solutions Department, AIRBUS Group, Sevilla, Spain; bMechanical Engineering Department, Polytechnic
University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
(Received 8 September 2014; accepted 29 June 2015)

The design of an aircraft Final Assembly Line (FAL) is part of the product industrialisation process. The FAL conceptual
design phase is characterised by being time-consuming and depending heavily on personnel knowledge and experience. The
need to develop methods and tools to enhance the design of aircraft assembly lines is acknowledged by academia and
industry. This work proposes a knowledge-based prototype application to assist and guide designers in the definition and
evaluation of conceptual FAL alternatives. A digital FAL is part of the industrial digital mock-up (iDMU) and comprises
three structures: product, processes and resources (PPR). The implementation of the proposed application was carried out in
a commercial software system supporting the PPR structures and the iDMU. The executed case studies show the feasibility
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015

of the proposed approach, which can be considered as a starting point contribution to the field.
Keywords: aircraft final assembly line conceptual design; aircraft assembly line modelling; knowledge-based application
development; iDMU

1. Introduction 2014). This statement might seem confined by the indus-

An aircraft Final Assembly Line (FAL) is a complex
industrial installation that involves assembly processes,
jigs, tools, machines, industrial means and skilled human
resources. The decisions taken along the product concep-
tual design phase are decisive in its final design and in its
industrialisation solution, and therefore they have a strong
influence on the design of the FAL.
At the conceptual design phase, several discipline-
related teams work on stakeholder requirements, prelimin-
ary product definition, commercial agreements, marketing
studies, functional capabilities, aerodynamic studies,
industrial capabilities and industrialisation solutions. A
Program Management Office (PMO) coordinates and
manages the conducted work, and proposes different busi-
ness cases to be evaluated with the aim of securing cost.
The manufacturing engineering group is in charge of the
product industrialisation and has to evaluate the different
business cases against possible industrial solutions for the
aerostructures and the FAL. The process of generating
FAL alternatives depends heavily on the personnel experi-
ence and knowledge, includes many design routine tasks
and is time-consuming. Industrialisation design engineers
use mainly CAD and office tools (CAD files, spreadsheets,
standards, PERT and Gantt charts, requirements docu-
ments, etc.) to evaluate a set of industrial solutions. Due
to the time-intensive nature of the routine tasks, the eval-
uated set of solutions is limited and in consequence, it
restricts a full exploration of feasible alternatives (Mas
trial environment, where the research has been conducted,
but literature shows that the conceptual design phase is
less supported by knowledge-based and predictive solu-
tions than other phases of the aircraft development
(Mavris and DeLaurentis 2000; La Rocca, Krakers, and
Van Tooren 2002; Choi, Kelly, and Raju 2007; Feng et al.
2011; Verhagen et al. 2012a, 2012b). In consequence, this
situation is an issue and raises the question: how the
process of conceptual design of aircraft FAL could be
improved.
Prior to provide an answer to that question, it is
important to show its relevance. Two cost-related facts
and literature show the significance of the product con-
ceptual design phase and the assembly line design. First,
up to 80% of the final aircraft cost is determined during
the conceptual design phase. Second, up to 30% of the
final cost is due to assembly operations performed on
conventional aircraft structures built up from parts (Raju
2003). Literature also shows that considering a top-level
approach, the conceptual design process of an assembly
line is considered similar to a product conceptual design
process (Chow 1990; De Lit and Delchambre 2003).
However, product characteristics, company-specific prac-
tices and industrial sector practices influence the design
process, as the analysis of industrial cases and the review
of lower level processes show (Wiktorsson, Andersson,
and Broman 2000). Because, specific knowledge is used
when conducting the assembly line conceptual design

*Corresponding author. Email: fernando.mas@airbus.com

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 F. Mas et al.
tasks, several authors have acknowledged the need to
develop specific methods, guidelines and software appli-
cations to support assembly line designers (Wiktorsson,
Andersson, and Broman 2000; Barnes 2000; Khan and
Day 2002; Swift, Booker, and Edmondson 2004;
Anselmetti and Fricero 2012). To avoid relying on
experience and rules of thumb, literature shows the
need to develop formal models that comprise industriali-
sation design and manufacturing knowledge (Fowler and
Rose 2004). At the same time, the rationalisation and
automation of design in the conceptual and preliminary
design phases is a strong argument in favour of creating
models to develop knowledge-based applications (KBAs)
(Verhagen et al. 2012b). Knowledge-based engineering
(KBE) comprises the use of software techniques to cap-
ture and reuse product and process knowledge in an
integrated way (Verhagen et al. 2012b).
In conclusion, the use of KBE is a possible answer to
the previously raised question: how to enhance the con-
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
ceptual design process of assembly lines. The proposed
solution is a software tool, based on conceptual assembly
line design knowledge and developed within a commer-
cially used software system, to assist and guide industria-
lisation engineers in generating and evaluating FAL
configurations.
This paper presents a proof of concept KBA, inte-
grated within a commercial software system widely used
in the aerospace sector, to help industrialisation design
engineers to generate feasible FAL design solutions at
the conceptual design phase. The proposed approach has
two main contributions. The first contribution is a model
for the conceptual design process of aircraft assembly
lines (Mas et al. 2013a). Such model is the basis for the
Figure 1. AIRBUS product lifecycle and development milestones (Mas et al. 2013a, 2013b).
development of the KBA. The second contribution is the
proof of concept KBA itself.
The paper is structured into five main sections. The
first section shows the context of the work within the
aircraft assembly line design phases. The second section
provides a literature review on modelling of aircraft
assembly line design. The third section shows the pro-
posed method. The fourth section presents briefly the
proposed model for the conceptual design of aircraft
assembly lines. The fifth section presents the developed
application and the results obtained when used in a case
study.
2. Context: the aircraft assembly line design phases
As it was previously mentioned, from a conceptual top-
level view, the design process of an aircraft assembly line
is similar to a product design process. It comprises three
main phases: concept, definition and development; and is
shifted from the product design process as is shown in
Figure 1. In Airbus, the design of a FAL starts with the
milestone M3 and ends in the milestone M9. The mile-
stone M8 marks the end of an aero structure assembly line
design, to allow the integration of aerostructures and
components into the FAL (Ríos, Mas, and Menéndez
2012; Mas 2014).
The first phase: concept; comprises the creation of the
conceptual assembly process or the assembly line defini-
tion. At this phase, the definition of the assembly line
includes: capacity of the line, number of stations, basic
technologies to be used, stations order, priority of each
station, the input product top-level structure and the output
top-level product structure at each station, human
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Figure 2. Example of FAL at the design concept phase.
resources policy, shared resources and the preliminary
layout. At this phase, there is concurrency with the pro-
duct conceptual design phase. At this phase, both the
distribution of the industrialisation work between the dif-
ferent assembly plants and the technologies to be used are
still under definition. The ‘as designed’ product structure
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
is used as input, and feasible ‘as planned’ and ‘as pre-
pared’ product structures are initially evaluated. Figure 2
shows a graphical example of a FAL design concept at this
phase.
The second phase: definition; comprises the definition
of the assembly tasks to be executed in each assembly
station or the assembly process definition. At this phase,
concurrency occurs between product functional design and
industrial design to harmonise the aircraft design solutions
and the manufacturing solutions for the aircraft industria-
lisation, as a result an ‘as designed – as planned’ product
structure is agreed. As a consequence, feasible ‘as pre-
pared’ product structures are derived from the agreed ‘as
planned’ product structure. In this phase, balancing of the
virtual workstations and FAL, together with 3D assembly
tasks simulations are carried out. Figure 3 shows a gra-
phical example of the FAL Workstation 70 definition at
this phase.
The third phase: development; comprises the definition
of the elementary assembly tasks or detailed assembly
Figure 3. Workstation 70 (Empennage Integration) at the design definition phase.
3
process development. The ordered set of elementary
assembly tasks constitutes a manufacturing solution.
Concurrency occurs with the aircraft functional design
development phase. The main tasks deal with document-
ing the elementary tasks in detail by creating work instruc-
tions. Information is extracted from the company manuals
of standard processes and times. Process times and per-
sonnel allocation are refined and returned to the prior
definition phase to carry out a more precise balancing of
the virtual FAL. Because of this phase the ‘as prepared’
product structure is finalised. Figure 4 shows a graphical
example of the FAL at this phase.
Using IDEF0 to define the context of this work, a
FAL conceptual design process model was created (Mas
et al. 2013a). The Concept Phase of the FAL design
process corresponds with the activity ‘Create
Conceptual Assembly Process’ (A221) (Figure 5). The
IDEF0 semantic difference between input elements (they
are transformed by the activity into output) and control
elements (they are required and used to produce the
correct output) allows the modelling of the A221 activity
with only control elements. It represents that functional
design owns the ‘as design’ product definition and points
out the concurrency with industrial design. The colla-
borative approach would imply to model such element
as an input. The control ‘program management and
 4 F. Mas et al.

Figure 4. Joint (Tail Cone and FS19) partial example at the design development phase.
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015

Figure 5. Activities of the industrialisation of a FAL and KBA context.

planning’ comprises the business case or scenario,
defined by the PMO, and used by the manufacturing
engineer in the definition of the FAL. The mechanisms
to perform this task are concurrent engineering tools
(PLM system, CAX and Digital Process Engineering
tools) and the proposed KBA. The A221 activity is in
its turn decomposed into three sub-activities: A2211
‘generate as planned proposal’, A2212 ‘generate assem-
bly lines’ and A2213 ‘evaluate assembly lines’ (Mas
et al. 2013a).
The outputs from the three activities, A221, A222 and
A223, comprise the industrial Digital Mock-Up (iDMU).
The information contained in the iDMU evolves and
increases from the Conceptual phase to the Detailed
Phase, and comprises information (requirements) related
to the Product (P), the manufacturing Processes (P) and
the Resources (R) used in the processes. That is named as
product, process and resource (PPR) structure. An aircraft
has different configurations to satisfy the specific require-
ments of each customer, the link between the 3D design
(aircraft Digital Mock-Up) and the aircraft configuration
management is the ‘Product Configured DMU’. The
cDMU provides the right design data for each aircraft
configuration or variant, and it has a single Product (P)
structure (Gabarde and Dolezal 2007; Dolezal 2008).
3. Review on aircraft assembly line design knowledge
modelling and related knowledge-based developments
The information modelling of aircraft assembly line
design and the KB development requires reviewing
works dealing with modelling of assembly information,
processes and lines. In this respect, and since it is not
usually performed at the conceptual design phase, it is
important to mention that Assembly Line Balancing
(ALB) and discrete event simulation are out of scope of
this work. However, the review of a selected set of rele-
vant references was conducted to identify the information
concepts involved and to avoid incompatibilities with any
further extension of the proposed model.
ALB is a distinctive research line that provides a
different view to the modelling of assembly information.
There is extensive literature dealing with models to sup-
port ALB, where given a process net with precedence
constraints, simulation aims evaluating cycle times,
assignment of resources or other characteristics. As a
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
relevant example, since combines KBA with ALB, Khan
and Day (2002) proposed an assembly system configura-
tion defined by the product (single product, multiproduct
or mixed product) and by the processing times (stochastic
or deterministic). The KBA proposed a cycle time and
executed the line balancing. The information used by the
KBA was: demand forecast, tasks, tasks duration, prece-
dence relationships, shifts per day and working days.
Focused on an aircraft assembly line, Heike et al. (2001)
formulated four models (linear and nonlinear) to evaluate
cycle time and worker allocation. The models considered
requirements related to: tasks, workstations and labour.
The information used in the models is included in the
ALB information vectors: α (precedence constraints) and
β (workstations and assembly line constraints); proposed
by Boysen, Fliedner, and Scholl (2007). Also focused on
aircraft assembly, Jin et al. (2008) proposed an activity
time and value-based metric for evaluating the potential of
improvement of an assembly workstation. Boysen,
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
Fliedner, and Scholl (2007) present a summary of the
type of information contained in ALB models, which
was reviewed and taken into consideration in this work.
Literature shows that when reviewing the modelling of
assembly information, the main approach takes a product
point of view, focused on the physical description of the
joints and intended for the definition of the lowest level of
assembly tasks and sequence planning. One of the earlier
works was proposed by Liu (1992), who used the
International Standard for Product Model Data
Representation and Exchange (ISO 10303 – STEP) to
create an assembly information model. The model was
structured into five schemas: nominal shape, form fea-
tures, tolerances, mechanical part and assembly. The
assembly schema contained concepts such as: assembly
model, joint, operational joint, fastener joint, primary part,
secondary part, connection, joint type and assembly opera-
tions; among others. The attributes to define an assembly
operation focused on the physical description of the joint
to be carried out: starting point, reference axis, direction,
distance, torque and degree. Based on the type of joint
definition: operational, fusion and fastener; basic rules
were derived to define if the assembly demanded only a
mating operation, both a mating and a fastener operation,
or both a mating and a welding operation. Based on Liu’s
model (Liu 1992), Zha and Du (2002) proposed an assem-
bly process planning tool that used information related to:
parts and connectors involved in the assembly, fit and
contact relationships between parts and fastening relation-
ships. With a similar approach and on the basis of the
Core Product Model developed by the National Institute of
Standard and Technology (Sudarsan et al. 2005), Rachuri
et al. (2006) proposed an assembly-related extension to
incorporate kinematics concepts and to model different
types of design constraints related to: tolerances, kine-
matics and part joints. Also with a product view approach,
5
Barnes, Jared, and Swift (2004) with a decision support
tool, Dong et al. (2007) with a KBA and Su (2009) with
an optimisation tool, considered geometric constraints,
mating joint constraints and precedence constraints to
generate feasible assembly sequences.
With a slightly wider perspective, Kim, Manley, and
Yang (2006) proposed an assembly model considering
assembly operations. In addition to product-related con-
cepts such as: assembly, assembly feature, mating feature,
mating bond, joint feature, mating pair, part and form
feature; the concept of joining process was defined for
three types of processes: adhesive bonding, riveting and
welding. The assembly relations were derived from the
relations defined between form features of different parts.
In addition to the product view, Lanz et al. (2008)
pointed out that a process-view approach was needed to
address the assembly process and the resources used for its
execution. Wang et al. (2009) also mentioned that process-
oriented modelling was considered the best approach to
develop decision tools for assembly planning in a concur-
rent environment. Lanz et al. (2008) proposed a high-level
product–process semantic network that included process-
related concepts: activity, operation, task, action, process,
sub-action, actor, skill, tool, human, device, resource, area,
station, line, factory, cell, machine and robot. Even
though, the concepts were not modelled further to specify
their attributes and methods, it constitutes an antecedent in
the process-view approach adopted in this work. Outside
of the assembly domain, Guerra-Zubiaga and Young
(2008) took also a process-view approach to design a
manufacturing knowledge model, comprising the follow-
ing main top-level concepts: facility, facility knowledge,
process and resource. The detail of the model focused on
machining processes (milling and turning) and resources
(machinery and cutting tools), and related knowledge,
mainly of the types explicit and implicit. In this case, the
model did not comprise concepts to support both the
functional and the industrial structure of a product, and
the process concept was mainly intended for descriptive
purposes and to allow having explicit and implicit knowl-
edge linked to it. The explicit knowledge concept was
used to define decision tables or procedures to document
the elementary tasks needed to execute a particular process
(i.e. drilling).
With a perspective different from the information
modelling and KBA domains, Anselmetti and Fricero
(2012) proposed an aid tool for the design of process
and aircraft assembly lines at the conceptual phase. They
proposed to use a graphical notation, based on the stan-
dard IEC 60848 (GRAFCET), to represent the aircraft
assembly process in a FAL and to develop a software
application to support such notation. The notation repre-
sents an operation as a step entity (rectangle), where the
input (product/s) is depicted in the upper side of the
rectangle and the output (product) is depicted in the
 6 F. Mas et al.
lower side of the rectangle. The step entity comprises four
attributes: description (string), activities (list of elementary
tasks), detailed definition (string) and CAD_model (link to
a file). This notation, although intended as a tool to
describe quickly a process and its associated production
facility, produces quite complex multi-level diagrams
when aiming to model a real industrial process.
As a conclusion from the literature review, it can be
stated that the semantic concepts involved in the concep-
tual design phase of an aircraft assembly line were not
fully considered in any of the identified models or works
with three main views: line balancing, product and pro-
cess. Therefore, the modelling of the FAL conceptual
phase demanded to integrate and to extend concepts
from the three views, particularly from the process view.
The next section presents the premises, inputs and tools
that characterise the context, where the conceptual design
of aircraft FAL is carried out, and points out the differ-
ences of the proposed approach in comparison with the
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
reviewed works.
4. Method: premises, inputs and software tools
Making explicit the premises, inputs and tools that char-
acterise the context of the aircraft FAL conceptual design
allows having a better understanding of the method
adopted in this work as an explicit starting point contribu-
tion to the field.
The join of large fuselage elements (aero structures)
using mainly screws and rivets characterises the assembly
process in a FAL. The elements to be jointed need to be
properly aligned prior to the execution of the union pro-
cess itself. In the alignment process, specific tooling and
jigs are used to support and locate the parts. The technical
solutions adopted in the design of the FAL are influenced
by the large dimension of the parts, the need to guarantee
the assembly tolerances and the automation trend in the
execution of the union process. In addition to the joining
processes of fuselage elements, i.e. nose, forward fuselage,
central fuselage, wings, aft; a FAL accommodates pro-
cesses dealing with installation of systems and equipment,
and tests. In general, the fuselage joining processes deter-
mine the configuration of the main part of the FAL into
several workstations. Each workstation has its own con-
figuration in terms of: jigs, tools, machines and industrial
means; suited to the processes to be executed in it. The
number of workstations of the FAL relates to technologi-
cal criteria rather than to a calculation aiming to minimise
the total number of workstations. The FAL is designed for
a single product with variants and the cycle time is a given
data and equal for all the stations (synchronous line).
Tasks are allocated to each workstation manually; the
total number of allocated tasks ranges from about 50 to
400, and more than 50% of the tasks have not precedence
constraints. Due to assembly technical constraints and the
need of using a specific tooling that is only available in a
particular workstation, certain tasks can only be executed
in a particular station. Task times ranges from several
minutes to several hours. Product variants may imply
that certain tasks have a duration time depending on the
variant. This situation is addressed by considering a mean
task time at the conceptual phase. Each task has human
resources allocated defined by their specialty and number.
Human resources are considered single specialty. The
joined elements remain in each workstation until all the
processes assigned to the station are completed (Ríos,
Mas, and Menéndez 2012; Mas 2014). These characteris-
tics of an aircraft FAL make that solutions, aiming to
enhance the conceptual design of the FAL, differ from
the solutions adopted, also for the conceptual definition,
in other industrial sectors, e.g. in the automotive sector
(Michalos, Makris, and Mourtzis 2012).
In addition to the scenario defined by the PMO (Mas,
Ríos, and Menéndez 2012), the ‘as designed’ product
structure is the main input to the FAL conceptual design
phase. Such product structure provides the product func-
tional design view. The allocation of the industrial work-
load to the different assembly plants is represented in the
‘as planned’ product structure. It provides the industrial
view and each node exists physically in the form of a real
aircraft sub-assembly. Both structures, although containing
different intermediate nodes, must point to the same con-
figuration layer where components, joints and CAD mod-
els are defined (Gabarde and Dolezal 2007). As part of the
scenario, different industrial workload distributions, i.e.
‘as planned’ structures, must be evaluated.
In order to carry out a pilot development and imple-
mentation, to prove the conceptual approach adopted in
the research, industrially used commercial software had to
be selected. The software had to provide an Application
Programming Interface (API) as development environ-
ment and support the concept of iDMU that comprises:
product, processes and resources (Mas, Ríos, and
Menéndez 2012; Mas et al. 2013b). The selected software
was the Dassault Systèmes’ solution: CATIA/
DELMIA v5.
In comparison with the approaches proposed by other
researchers, literature review shows no evidence of any
other company’s design process publicly available. Only
two works address the conceptual design of assembly
lines: Anselmetti and Fricero (2012) and Michalos,
Makris, and Mourtzis (2012). The former focuses on a
graphical notation to represent assembly processes, and its
application to a case study of an aircraft FAL. The later
focuses on the definition of automotive body in white
assembly line alternatives using robotic welding technol-
ogies. Regarding the assembly information modelling,
most of the works focus on the physical definition of the
joints aimed to define the lowest level of an assembly task
for sequence planning. Although, two works propose a
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
process view, and they can be partially considered as
antecedent works: Lanz et al. (2008) and Guerra-Zubiaga
and Young (2008). The former proposes a high-level
product–process semantic network that includes process-
related concepts, but which are not developed further. The
later proposes a model comprising processes and
resources, but the process concept is mainly intended for
descriptive purposes and to allow having explicit and
implicit knowledge linked to it.
As a conclusion, what makes this work different is the
proposal of an aircraft assembly line conceptual design
model supporting: Product, Processes and Resources;
which are the basis for the creation of the iDMU (Mas
et al. 2013b). The proposed model is briefly presented in
the next section, a full description can be found in Mas
et al. (2013a) and in Mas (2014).
5. Aircraft assembly line conceptual design model
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
The method to develop the model for the conceptual
design of aircraft assembly lines is based on the creation
of three main components: the ‘as is’ activity model using
IDEF0 notation, the ‘to be’ process model using IDEF0
notation and the knowledge model using unified modeling
language (UML) notation and knowledge tables (Mas
et al. 2013a). The proposed model is the basis for the
development of a KBA to support the activity ‘create
conceptual assembly process’ (A221) represented in the
Figure 5.
The creation of the ‘as is’ model started with two
main actions. First, the analysis of the product design
process described in textbooks on engineering design and
the analysis of the assembly line design process
described in textbooks on assembly line design. Most
textbooks on engineering design provide a similar gen-
eral structure for the design process with three main
phases: Conceptual Design, System level or
Embodiment Design and Detail Design (Pahl and Beitz
1996; Dieter 2000). Textbooks on assembly line design
rather than providing a systematic process provide a
general view of the elements involved in the assembly
line design and tend to focus on the ALB problem (Chow
1990; De Lit and Delchambre 2003).
Second, the analysis of the AIRBUS available indus-
trial practices from previous aircraft projects. Due to the
difficulty of finding other companies’ publicly available
assembly process references, a wider industrial context
analysis was not possible. The analysis of the ‘as is’
model allowed to identify two main elements: process
improvements actions and activities where KBE technol-
ogy could be used.
The ‘to be’ process model was defined with the focus
on the industrialise activity, and aiming to eliminate parti-
cularities, due to the confined industrial environment
where the research has been conducted (Figure 5). Mas
7
et al. (2013a) present a detailed description of such model,
which should be considered as a starting point in the field.
The knowledge model takes as a reference the con-
cepts comprised in the output elements: ‘conceptual indus-
trial requirements’, ‘conceptual jigs and tools
requirements’, ‘conceptual as planned requirements’ and
‘conceptual as prepared configuration’; and control ele-
ments: ‘program management and planning’ and ‘as
designed proposal’; of the activity ‘create conceptual
assembly process’ (Figure 5).
To support the creation of the iDMU, the knowledge
model was structured into three interrelated Knowledge
Units (KUs): Product, Processes and Resources. Relations
between classes model the interrelation between the three
KUs. Since the evaluation of the conceptual assembly line
alternatives relates to estimate: space requirements, trans-
portation requirements, cost and operation time; the dif-
ferent classes defined in each KU comprise the needed
attributes and methods for such estimations. Figure 6
shows the main classes of the created knowledge model
(white background boxes).
5.1. Product knowledge unit
The Product KU supports the definition of all the aircraft
components, both the functional (‘as designed’) and the
industrial (‘as planned’ and ‘as prepared’) views, and the
definition of all the joints to be assembled. The ‘as pre-
pared’ view derives from an ‘as planned’ view, comprises
an assembly sequence defining the order of execution of
the required joints, and shows a hierarchical precedence
structure with possible parallel branches. The product, at
its different levels and views, is considered as a ‘func-
tional node’ and as an ‘industrial node’. Ultimately, the
lowest level of the product tree is defined by elements of
the class ‘component’. The product views are made of a
tree of nodes, functional or industrial, ultimately based on
the same final layer of components. A ‘component’ (e.g.
front fuselage, centre fuselage) is conceptually invariant.
A lower level class named ‘cad model’ was defined to
accommodate the concept of product variant; for instance,
the same aircraft may have a variant with a standard centre
fuselage and another one with a stretched centre fuselage.
This implies that a ‘component’ may have associated more
than one ‘cad model’. The ‘cad model’ class has an
attribute named ‘range of aircrafts’ to define the range of
aircrafts where each ‘cad model’ will be used to build up
the DMU. A ‘joint’ class links two components and has
two attributes to define the joint type depending on the
type of material of the components to be joined: metal–
metal, metal–composite and composite–composite; and
the type of components to be joined: fuselage–fuselage,
fuselage–wing box and part–part-interchangeable. The
class ‘joint’ is linked to the process class ‘basic assembly
process’.
 Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015

8
F. Mas et al.

Figure 6. Main classes of the proposed model and mapping into CATIA/DELMIA v5.
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
5.2. Process knowledge unit
The Process KU supports the definition of the process to
execute joints, in terms of technology, sequencing and
resources. The assembly process is materialised in work-
stations and its corresponding assembly line. All the needs
related to technology, sequencing and resources are col-
lected in workstations. Workstations are grouped into the
assembly line to create a consistent assembly solution.
Rules and procedures are applied to compile all the infor-
mation. The ‘assembly line process’ produces the com-
plete aircraft using the ‘assembly line resource’, collects
and consolidates all the information coming upstream
from the workstation level. Industrial means, human
resources and cycle times are calculated from the work-
station level data. The ‘assembly station process’ collects
the individual basic assembly tasks. Basic assembly tasks
are grouped logically according to their characteristics or
their use of resources. An ‘assembly station process’
makes use of the ‘assembly station resource’ to create an
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
intermediate product node that is part of the ‘as prepared’
product structure. The ‘basic assembly process’ defines
the manufacturing solution to execute the assembly of
two components that constitute a joint. A ‘basic assembly
process’ can be of any of the following six standard types:
structure, electrical, furnishing, system installation, paint-
ing and sealing, and test. A ‘basic assembly process’ of
Figure 7. Example of process-related knowledge tables.
9
type: structure; has a set of tasks to be executed depending
on the value of the two attributes: ‘joint component type’
and ‘joint material type’; of the linked joint. The explicit
knowledge about the processes was represented by means
of knowledge tables (Figure 7).
5.3. Resources knowledge unit
The Resources KU supports the definition of three main
types of resources: ‘jigs & tools’, ‘industrial means’ and
‘human resources’. ‘Jigs & tools’-type relates to the
resources whose design is strongly linked to the product
design (e.g. a jig to assemble a horizontal tail plane or a
NC machine to mill the central wing box). ‘Industrial
means’-type relates to resources that can be purchased
from a supplier and are defined by standard or catalogue
characteristics (e.g. cranes, vehicles, manual riveting
machines). ‘Human resources’-type, the aeronautical
assembly is a labour-intensive process, is necessary to
estimate the personnel and skills requirements. In addition
to these main resource types, there are three container
classes to collect resources upstream: ‘assembly line
resource’, ‘assembly station resource’ and ‘basic assembly
resource’. The ‘assembly line resource’ collects stations
and resources that cannot be assigned to any specific
station (e.g. a hangar, a crane). The ‘assembly station
 10 F. Mas et al.
resource’ collects basic assembly resources and resources
that cannot be assigned to a particular basic assembly
process (e.g. an assembly stand). The ‘basic assembly
resource’ collects all the resources attached to each
‘basic assembly process’.
6. FAL conceptual design assistant tool prototype
Once the Aircraft assembly line conceptual design model
was created, the eventual aim was to implement it in a
proof of concept assistant tool, integrated within CATIA/
DELMIA v5, to help industrial designers to generate and
evaluate FAL alternatives by defining scenarios and using
knowledge rules. The visual integrated development envir-
onment comprises three main sections for the definition
of: modules, forms and classes. The modules structure the
application and contain the coding. The forms define the
interface with the user and the events triggered by the
user-interactive actions. The classes coding define the
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
data structure (attributes and methods) of the application.
The programming language is Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) and the software API. Prior to any
coding, the first implementation step was to map the
defined classes into commercial software elements and
classes.
6.1. Model mapping into commercial software concepts
The data structure of the proposed model, represented by
white background boxes in Figure 6, had to be mapped into
classes, defined in the commercial software, and into new
specifically defined classes. The shadowed boxes in Figure 6
represent some of the most relevant classes of the resulting
model. The implementation required the persistent storage of
instances in files (Figure 6). The container for the three basic
concepts of the model, that constitute the iDMU: product,
process and resource; is a process file (CATProcess) that
integrates three lists corresponding to each type of the PPR
structure. The API provides the classes: ‘ProductDocument’,
‘PartDocument’, ‘ProcessDocument’, ‘PPRDocument’,
‘Activity’, ‘Product’, ‘Resource’ and ‘Item’; with the inter-
faces to the functions needed to analyse and create elements
of the iDMU.
A ‘component’ is the lowest level node in a product
tree and is linked to the ‘cad model’ class. A ‘cad
model’ is defined in a file of type CATPart. A file of
type CATPart contains the 3D geometric representation
of a single component. There are three product trees to
represent the three product views: ‘as designed’, ‘as
planned’ and ‘as prepared’. Each product tree has its
corresponding nodes of type: ‘functional node’, ‘indus-
trial node’ and ‘as prepared node’. Conceptually, any
‘industrial node’ is an ‘as prepared node’ and the other
way around. However, when creating an ‘as prepared’
structure from an ‘as planned’ structure, new industrial
nodes appear, meaning that the ‘as planned’ view and
the ‘as prepared’ view are not exactly equal and so
neither the corresponding trees. The classes ‘as prepared
tree’, ‘link as prepared nodes’ and ‘as prepared node’
were defined to accommodate this situation. The classes
‘AsPlanned’ and ‘AsPrepared’ were defined to generate
the corresponding product structures. Each product
structure is defined in a tree and stored in a file of
type CATProduct. A CATProduct file contains the 3D
representation of multiple components by pointing to
the corresponding CATPart files. The nodes of a product
tree can point to a CATProduct file (intermediate nodes)
or to a CATPart file (lowest level nodes are components
that point to their corresponding 3D geometric repre-
sentation). The ‘joint’ class has a relation with the class
‘component’. Every joint has two components, and is
defined in a CATProduct file. The ‘joint’ class has a
link to the class ‘basic assembly process’. An object of
type ‘basic assembly process’ is defined in a
CATProcess file. Due to the hierarchical nature of the
process tree, where an assembly line process contains
assembly station processes and those contain the basic
assembly processes, a single CATProcess file contains
the definition of the whole assembly process. A
resource has its 3D geometric representation defined in
a file of type CATProduct.
6.2. Description of the assistant tool
After the mapping of concepts, the next step was to define
the flow of activities of the assistant tool. The developed
prototype tool provides a step-by-step guide to the engi-
neer when executing the top-level tasks comprised in the
conceptual design of the assembly process alternatives:
define ‘as planned’ structure, define ‘as prepared’ struc-
ture, create basic process structure, assign locations to
assembly stations, assign sub-processes to assembly sta-
tions, assign resources to assembly stations, compile
assembly line and evaluate alternatives. UML activity
diagrams were created to specified such flow; Figure 8
shows the top-level diagram.
Defining an assembly process alternative, as proposed
in the assistant application (Figure 8), requires using the
scenario information and involves fixing an assembly
sequence, establishing sub-assemblies associated to the
sub-stages of the process, locating them into real industrial
plants belonging to the set of available company’s facil-
ities, adding sub-processes depending on the type of joint
to be executed (e.g. component type: fuselage–fuselage;
and material type: composite–composite) and assigning
the resources to be used (e.g.: NC machine, overhead
crane). The use of a created process library, programmed
decision rules and expert technical staffs’ interaction with
the system are required along the process to define the
alternatives (Mas et al. 2013b).
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
Figure 8. Top-level activity diagram showing the assistant tool
user flow of tasks.
In addition to the user interface defined by forms, the
implementation required also the development of generic
algorithms. The main functions developed for the proto-
type application were: tree structure analyser, node
dimensions calculator and node properties calculator.
The first function analyses any product structure, defined
in a CATProduct file, to determine the nodes and hier-
archy of the product view structures. This function could
be adapted to analyse a resource structure. The second
function calculates for each node the required bounding
box and its geometric dimensions. It calculates the
bounding box of each lowest level individual component.
It analyses the relative position of the different elements
and determines the corresponding bounding box for each
product node. Dimensions of each component are calcu-
lated by defining parallel planes and checking if they cut
the part. If that condition is false, the distance between
planes is reduced. The loop is executed until precision
required is achieved. The dimensions information is rele-
vant to estimate the space allocation for the possible
transportation of elements, and to estimate the industrial
facilities space requirements for each assembly operation
(joint) to be executed in each node of the ‘as prepared’
structure. The third function allows finding a property in
11
the components or defining it if it is not found. It allows
defining numeric type properties, which are common to
all the product nodes (e.g. cost). It also calculates the
value of the property in all the nodes of the product tree
by using the utility to capture its structure and applying
an adding upward algorithm. For all the lowest level
individual nodes, the value of the property is input. For
an upper-level node, the value of the property is calcu-
lated as the accumulative value of the nodes under its
branch. This utility is used to calculate the cost and time
at each node of the product tree.
6.3. Case study
Two case studies were executed to test and validate the
assistant tool. Using simple 3D solids, a very simple
digital aircraft (DA08) was defined specially for the first
case study. It comprised seven basic components and six
joints (Mas et al. 2013a, 2013b). The case study com-
prised two different situations: one with a single level ‘as
planned’ structure, and another with an ‘as planned’ struc-
ture with two levels. Both cases allowed testing the com-
plete functionality of the developed tool. This case study
is explained by Gómez et al. (2013). The aim of the first
case study was to evaluate the first version of the user
interface and the basic functions of the assistant tool with-
out applying decision rules.
The second case study was an industrial approxima-
tion, with an ‘as designed’ product structure closer to a
real aircraft, in terms of major aerostructures. Using also
simple 3D solids, another digital aircraft (XDA10) was
defined for the second case study. It comprised sixty-two
intermediate ‘as designed’ nodes and fifty-four last level
components. The FAL must be designed to execute the
assembly of the following five major structures: fuselage,
wings, engines and pylons, empennage and undercarriage.
In addition to the FAL, each major structure has its own
assembly line where the corresponding joints must be
executed. The definition of the joints, and the product
structures: ‘as planned’ and ‘as prepared’; were carried
out with the developed tool. Figure 9 shows screen cap-
tures with both XDA10 structures. In this second case
study, the aim was to check the definition of the joints,
‘as planned’ and ‘as prepared’ structures with a more
complex product, to test the modified user interface, and
to validate the implemented decision rules.
The programmed decision rules require information
regarding the assembly plants, e.g. cost/day, surface, dis-
tances between them and availability of transportation
means; and the assembly time assigned to the tasks of
each joint type (Figure 7) under the column ‘Process’
shows an example of such tasks. Figure 10 shows, in the
form of tables, an example of the assembly plant informa-
tion used in the second case study; both cost/day and plant
surface are represented by approximate values.
 12 F. Mas et al.
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015

Figure 9. Screen captures of Aircraft XDA10 structures: ‘as planned’ and ‘as prepared’.

Figure 10. Example of assembly plant information used by the prototype application.

For the second case study, the defined industrial work-
load distribution for the five major components or ‘as
planned’ structure was: fuselage (Bremen), wings
(Filton), engines and pylons (Toulouse), empennage
(Saint-Nazaire) and undercarriage (Seville); the selected
location for the FAL was Seville. The transport of the
whole fuselage from the plant located in Bremen to the
FAL in Sevilla was not feasible. The dimensions of the
fuselage were larger than the cargo volume capacity of the
transport aircraft Airbus A300-600ST Beluga, larger than
any by-road available transport means, and there was no
alternative means. This was the situation to be reproduced
and evaluated with the decision rules of the assistant
application. Figure 11 shows the evaluation results of the
proposed ‘as planned’ alternative in terms of: dimensions
of each major component to be transported from its
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Figure 11. Results of the second case study.
assembly plant to the FAL, transport distance to the FAL,
transport means, assembly time and assembly cost.
The results show that the FAL assembly time deter-
mines the total assembly time, since all the assembly times
of the five major structures in their corresponding assem-
bly line are lower. The null solution for the transport of the
whole fuselage from Bremen to the FAL could be solved
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
by transporting the front fuselage separately. However, in
this case the FAL should be modified to accommodate the
execution of the joint between the front fuselage and the
centre fuselage; as a result, a new ‘as planned’ product
structure should be created an evaluated. The time model
did not include the transport time between the different
plants. If considered, then the transport time should com-
prise, among other concepts, the uploading and download-
ing of the aero structure into and from the transport mean
and the average speed of such transport mean. The time
showed in the table under the column ‘Assembly time (d)’
only takes into account pure assembly time calculated
from the time assigned to the tasks that conform each
type of joint. Similarly, for the cost model, transportation
cost is not considered. The assembly time and cost are
calculated even though the component cannot be
transported.
The execution of the case study confirmed the feasi-
bility of the approach, by making possible to evaluate
industrial workload distributions alternatives for the con-
cept design of a FAL, by influencing the product design
very early when conducting the industrialisation design
process, and by showing a potential time reduction in
the execution of some routine tasks. Since the work is a
proof-of-concept development, it was not tested under real
conditions, of a full conceptual design process, to make a
quantitative evaluation of the potential time reduction.
7. Conclusions
This paper presents a knowledge-based solution to
improve the process of conceptual design of aircraft
FALs. The proposed alternative is composed of an aircraft
FAL conceptual design process model and its implementa-
tion into a proof of concept assistant tool that guides the
industrial engineer to carry out such process. The
13
development is based on experts’ knowledge and on the
product–process–resource (PPR) to support the iDMU
concept. The assistant tool is integrated within a commer-
cial software system widely used in the aerospace sector.
The use cases executed with the developed application
confirmed the viability of the approach. The assistant tool
allows defining different scenarios and evaluating them in
terms of: dimensions, transport requirements, time and
cost. The evaluation of different alternatives allows creat-
ing estimates that help in the FAL conceptual design
decision-making process. As a prototype application, it
lacks desirable features dealing with check of errors, edit-
ing of defined joints and definition of joints from design
constraints.
Both the proposed model and its implementation into a
knowledge-based assistant tool provide a starting point
contribution to the field.
Future works aim completing the implementation of
knowledge rules dealing with resources allocation, imple-
menting a multi-criteria decision analysis for the alterna-
tives evaluation and an algorithm to implement automatic
process planning capabilities to create the ‘as prepared’
alternatives using the information defined in the ‘as
planned’ structure, the joints to execute and the explicit
process information and knowledge. Another work that
requires further investigation is the evolution of the
iDMU along time to support the integration of the infor-
mation generated during the three design phases: concept,
definition and development.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the AIRBUS Group colleagues
for their support and contribution during the development of this
work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Fernando MAS http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7230-9929
José ríos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2115-9945
 14 F. Mas et al.
References
Anselmetti, B., and B. Fricero. 2012. “Aid Tool for the Design of
Process and Aircraft Assembly Lines.” Aerospace Science
and Technology 23: 387–398. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2011.09.009.
Barnes, C. J. 2000. “A Methodology for the Concurrent Design
of Products and their Assembly Sequences.” PhD diss.,
Cranfield University, UK.
Barnes, C. J., G. E. M. Jared, and K. G. Swift. 2004. “Decision
Support for Sequence Generation in an Assembly Oriented
Design Environment.” Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing 20: 289–300. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2003.
10.013.
Boysen, N., M. Fliedner, and A. Scholl. 2007. “A Classification
of Assembly Line Balancing Problems.” European Journal
of Operational Research 183 (2): 674–693. doi:10.1016/j.
ejor.2006.10.010.
Choi, J.-W., D. Kelly, and J. Raju. 2007. “A Knowledge-Based
Engineering Tool to Estimate Cost and Weight of Composite
Aerospace Structures at the Conceptual Stage of the Design
Process.” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology
79 (5): 459–468. doi:10.1108/00022660710780588.
Chow, W. M. 1990. Assembly Line Design: Methodology and
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker.
De Lit, P., and A. Delchambre. 2003. Integrated Design of a
Product Family and Its Assembly System. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Dieter, G. E. 2000. Engineering Design: A Materials and
Processing Approach. 3rd ed. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Dolezal, W. R. 2008. “Success Factors for Digital Mock-ups
(DMU) in complex Aerospace Product Development.” PhD
diss., Technische Universität München, Germany.
Dong, T., R. Tong, L. Zhang, and J. Dong. 2007. “A Knowledge-
Based Approach to Assembly Sequence Planning.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 32: 1232–1244. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0438-1.
Feng, H., M. Luo, H. Liu, and Z. Wu. 2011. “A Knowledge-
based and Extensible Aircraft Conceptual Design
Environment.” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 24: 709–
719. doi:10.1016/S1000-9361(11)60083-6.
Fowler, J. W., and O. Rose. 2004. “Grand Challenges in Modeling
and Simulation of Complex Manufacturing Systems.”
Simulation 80: 469–476. doi:10.1177/0037549704044324.
Gabarde, R., and W. R. Dolezal. 2007. “Dmu@Airbus -
Evolution of the Digital Mock-Up (DMU) at Airbus to the
Centre of Aircraft Development.” In The Future of Product
Development. Proceedings of the 17th CIRP Design
Conference, 3–12. Berlin: Springer.
Gómez, A., F. Mas, J. L. Menéndez, and J. Ríos. 2013. “A
Knowledge-Based Application for Industrialization
Design.” Procedia Engineering 63: 318–326. doi:10.1016/j.
proeng.2013.08.178.
Guerra-Zubiaga, D. A., and R. I. M. Young. 2008. “Design of a
Manufacturing Knowledge Model.” International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing 21 (5): 526–539.
doi:10.1080/09511920701258040.
Heike, G., M. Ramulu, E. Sorenson, P. Shanahan, and K.
Moinzadeh. 2001. “Mixed Model Assembly Alternatives for
Low-Volume Manufacturing: The Case of the Aerospace
Industry.” International Journal of Production Economics
72: 103–120. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00089-X.
Jin, Y., R. Curran, J. Butterfield, and R. Burke. 2008. “A
Quantitative Metric for Workstation Design for Aircraft
Assembly.” In Collaborative Product and Service Life Cycle
Management for a Sustainable World. London: Springer.
Khan, A., and A. I. Day. 2002. “A Knowledge Based Design
Methodology for Manufacturing Assembly Lines.”
Computers & Industrial Engineering 41 (4): 441–467.
doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(01)00067-5.
Kim, K.-Y., D. G. Manley, and H. Yang. 2006. “Ontology-Based
Assembly Design and Information Sharing for Collaborative
Product Development.” Computer-Aided Design 38:
1233–1250. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2006.08.004.
La Rocca, G., L. Krakers, and M. J. L. Van Tooren. 2002.
“Development of an ICAD Generative Model for Blended
Wing Body Aircraft Design.” In Proceedings of the 9th
AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization, 4–6 September, Atlanta, USA. http://arc.aiaa.
org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2002-5447.
Lanz, M., F. Garcia, T. Kallela, and R. Tuokko. 2008. “Product-
Process Ontology for Managing Assembly Specific
Knowledge between Product Design and Assembly System
Simulation.” In IFIP International Federation for
Information Processing 260, Micro-assembly Technologies
and Applications, edited by S. Ratchev and S. Koelemeijer.
Boston: Springer.
Liu, T.-H. 1992. “An Object-Oriented Assembly Application
Methodology for PDES/STEP based Mechanical Systems.”
PhD diss., University of Iowa, USA.
Mas, F. 2014. “Desarrollo de un sistema basado en el conoci-
miento para la definición de líneas de montaje aeronáuticas
en la fase conceptual.” [Development of a Knowledge-based
System to Define Aeronautic Assembly Lines in the
Conceptual Phase]. PhD diss., Polytechnic University of
Madrid, Spain.
Mas, F., A. Gómez, J. L. Menéndez, and J. Ríos. 2013b.
“Proposal for the Conceptual Design of Aeronautical Final
Assembly Lines Based on the Industrial Digital Mock-Up
Concept.” In Product Lifecycle Management for Society –
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
Technology, 10–19. Vol. 409. Berlin: Springer.
Mas, F., J. Ríos, and J. L. Menéndez. 2012. “Conceptual Design
of an Aircraft Final Assembly Line: A Case Study.” Key
Engineering Materials 502: 49–54. doi:10.4028/www.scien-
tific.net/KEM.502.
Mas, F., J. Ríos, J. L. Menéndez, and A. Gómez. 2013a. “A
Process-Oriented Approach to Modeling the Conceptual
Design of Aircraft Assembly Lines.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 67 (1–4):
771–784. doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4521-5.
Mavris, D. N., and D. A. DeLaurentis. 2000. “A Probabilistic
Approach for Examining Aircraft Concept Feasibility and
Viability.” Aircraft Design 3 (2): 79–101. doi:10.1016/
S1369-8869(00)00008-2.
Michalos, G., S. Makris, and D. Mourtzis. 2012. “An Intelligent
Search Algorithm-Based Method to Derive Assembly Line
Design Alternatives.” International Journal of Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 25 (3): 211–229. doi:10.1080/
0951192X.2011.627949.
Pahl, G., and W. Beitz. 1996. Engineering Design: A Systematic
Approach. 2nd ed. London: Springer.
Rachuri, S., Y.-H. Han, S. Foufou, S. C. Feng, U. Roy, F. Wang,
R. D. Sriram, and K. W. Lyons. 2006. “A Model for
Capturing Product Assembly Information.” Journal of
Computer Information Science and Engineering 6: 11–21.
Raju, J. A. 2003. “Conceptual Design and Cost Optimisation
Methodology.” In Proceedings of the 44th AIAA/ASME/AHS
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,
April 7–10. Norfolk, USA. http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.
2514/6.2003-1505.
 International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing
Ríos, J., F. Mas, and J. L. Menéndez. 2012. “Aircraft Final
Assembly Line Balancing and Workload Smoothing: A
Methodological Analysis.” Key Engineering Materials 502:
19–24. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.502.
Su, Q. 2009. “A Hierarchical Approach on Assembly Sequence
Planning and Optimal Sequences Analyzing.” Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 25: 224–234.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2007.11.006.
Sudarsan, R., S. J. Fenves, R. D. Sriram, and F. Wang. 2005. “A
Product Information Modeling Framework for Product
Lifecycle Management.” Computer-Aided Design 37:
1399–1411. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2005.02.010.
Swift, K. G., J. D. Booker, and N. F. Edmondson. 2004.
“Strategies and Case Studies in Assembly System
Selection.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture
218 (7): 675–688. doi:10.1177/095440540421800701.
Verhagen, W. J. C., P. Bermell-Garcia, P. Mariot, J.-P. Cotton, D.
Ruiz, R. Redon, and R. Curran. 2012a. “Knowledge-Based
Cost Modelling of Composite Wing Structures.” International
Downloaded by [Fernando Mas] at 13:33 17 July 2015
View publication stats
15
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 25 (4–5): 368–
383. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2010.531292.
Verhagen, W. J. C., P. Bermell-Garcia, R. E. C. Van Dijk, and R.
Curran. 2012b. “A Critical Review of Knowledge-Based
Engineering: An Identification of Research Challenges.”
Advanced Engineering Informatics 26 (1): 5–15.
doi:10.1016/j.aei.2011.06.004.
Wang, L., S. Keshavarzmanesh, H.-Y. Feng, and R. O. Buchal.
2009. “Assembly Process Planning and Its Future in
Collaborative Manufacturing: A Review.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 41:
132–144. doi:10.1007/s00170-008-1458-9.
Wiktorsson, M., T. Andersson, and M. Broman. 2000. “A Note
on the Specification of Assembly Systems.” International
Journal of Production Research 38 (16): 3997–4002.
doi:10.1080/00207540050176120.
Zha, X. F., and H. Du. 2002. “A Pdes/Step-Based Model and
System for Concurrent Integrated Design and Assembly
Planning.” Computer-Aided Design 34: 1087–1110.
doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00186-5.