Special Issue Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2016, Vol. 8(8) 1–12
Ó The Author(s) 2016
Research of the effectual action DOI: 10.1177/1687814016663805
aime.sagepub.com
unit–based inverse method for solving
the functional structure of design history

Shaofei Jiang and Jiquan Li

Abstract
The functional structure information of a design history is analyzed to capture product design intent information, which
is significantly important for the rapid and efficient solving of local demand-varying designs. Based on the intent capture
and reuse issues of the design histories of existing products, this study proposes the use of the effectual action unit–
based inverse method to solve the functional structure of design history. Effects are regarded as an intermediary
between functional requirements and principle solutions of design history. After the effectual action unit model is built,
function unit synthesis could be constructed by effect function between the input and output parameters. The functional
structure frame of design history is obtained by constructing the design history structure–principle–effect–function
inverse solving model. The prototype system of the inverse solving of the functional structure of the complex electrome-
chanical product-oriented design history is developed in this study. Moreover, the feasibility of the proposed method is
verified using a new laptop as an example. Overall, design intent of design history can be described by the proposed
method.

Keywords
Effectual action unit, functional structure, design history, design intent, inverse solving, effect, function unit, prototype
system

Date received: 15 September 2015; accepted: 19 July 2016

Academic Editor: Stephen D Prior

Introduction varying local demands need innovative design again.

Design is vital to the key competitive factors of a prod-
uct, such as performance, cost, quality, and reliability.1
With respect to product design alone, demand (or
design requirements) is the original driver and decisive
factor of design. Any slight demand change will change
the product functions as well as principles of function
implementation, thus forming a new original under-
standing. This article defined these designs as local
demand-varying designs. In the real world, local
demand-varying designs are more common than origi-
nal designs. For example, many famous automobiles
require both new design demands or local varying
demands and inherent features of the brand superiority
in historical designs in most of their new cars. The
Many complicated technical products adopt these local
demand-varying designs. Therefore, local demand-
varying designs require designers to apply innovation
on the variable part based on a good understanding of
referential design history. However, how to understand
the ‘‘design intent’’ in design history and extract charac-
teristics than can be transplanted or reused according
Key Laboratory of E&M, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University of
Technology, Hangzhou, China
Corresponding author:
Shaofei Jiang, Key Laboratory of E&M, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang
University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, Zhejiang Province, China.
Email: jsf75@zjut.edu.cn

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
to the functional demands of the new design? Although
these characteristics have been attached to the final
design, they can’t be applied in the new design directly
due to the ambiguous function carriers. This is espe-
cially correct to complicated technical products. Since
designers have no mature methods and tools to under-
stand the ‘‘intent’’ of the original designs or enterprises
didn’t record the design process of available referential
product design history, some functions or structures of
these products can’t be transplanted to the new design
directly. As a result, an inverse model of the design
principle and functions of available referential product
design history has to be established for the sake of
future similar new designs.
Local demand-varying designs, such as the generally
accepted adaptive design and the variant design,2
occupy an important position in the field of product
design. However, the variable part of the demands of a
local demand-varying design needs an innovative
design. Local demand-varying designs require designers
to apply innovation on the variable part based on a
good understanding of referential design history. In
other words, designers should solve some new problems
different from the completely innovative design or
adaptive design. Capturing the design intent of the
original product is the most important problem because
the part that will be used for the new design can only
be stripped from the complex product when the design
understands the intent of the original design.3 Most
enterprises have deficiencies in the information man-
agement of available referential product design history
and they lack correct and valid understanding of prod-
uct design history intent, which makes the application
of existing product design history in new demand-
varying design not difficult.
Existing pervasive design model based on design
demand-functional modeling-functional decomposition-
solution of functional principle-detailed structural design
focuses on the creation and integration of function-
oriented design with fixed demands, which is actually a
positive design solving process with fixed procedure and
fails to capture the intent of the original designs. Other
mainstream design theories and methods, such as axio-
matic design,4 Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
(TRIZ),5 and three-stage designs,6 can only provide
solutions and mapping method to functions or para-
meters, but can’t apply their design process to capture
the design intent.
Function is the core of product design, particularly
of early project design, and it is also the bond that con-
nects design demands and design results during the
entire process.7 Most previous studies skipped function
to directly construct a structure-level product model
associated with demands. These studies attempted to
model using the product family and the attributes of
the parts, and consequently resolve the demand-varying
response issue. However, the function of the product is
directly related to the demands, and thus, conducting
research on the function-level demand-varying response
is necessary to comply with the requirements of design
theory. An old design should conduct function varia-
tion by reusing the design history to enable the func-
tional structure of the design history after variation to
adapt to the changes in the demands of new design.
Therefore, research on obtaining the functional struc-
ture of the product by analyzing the information of the
original design history will play an essential role in new
demand-varying designs.
In the conceptual design with function as the core,
the functional structure modeling is a very crucial step
throughout the entire design process.8,9 Stone and
Wood10 proposed the abstract expression issues in
establishing the functional group model. The functional
group included eight functional units, namely, branch,
orientation, connection, control of size, conversion,
supply, signal, and support. The functional group also
included three types of energy flow, which included
material flow and signal flow, characterizing the func-
tion input and output, respectively. Zhang et al.11 and
Zou et al.12 applied the functional group model to the
product concept design to assist in the establishment of
the functional structure of a product. Nagel et al.13 rea-
lized the automatic generation of the product concept
based on functional group modeling. To better achieve
the design solving with function as the core, the
research on functional modeling focuses on the realiza-
tion process from the function of the product to the
principle program to the final structure, in which the
function–effect–principle solution model is one of the
hotspots. Cao et al.14 and Yan and Jiang15 constructed
the mapping model of the function, effect, and princi-
ple solution and then applied it to the concept design
phase. Shuai et al.16 and Feng and colleagues17,18 devel-
oped the knowledge base of related typical function
and principle solution, presented the character model
of the principle solution of the product, and proposed
the general process of the product function solution.
Feng et al.19 introduced a computer-aided concept
design process model with the product function, effect
intersected and circulated for solution, suitable for the
demands of the complex concept design solution pro-
cess. Function modeling is a typical forward solving
process that can only start from the function and then
gradually find the design solution. Function modeling
is suitable for a completely innovative design, but it
cannot solve the inverse solution of the functional
structure in local demand-varying designs.
Function structure mapping is a key link in the
design of the solution. Paul and Beitz8 proposed mor-
phological matrix, through which principles of all
sub-functions are combined. The two design theories
answer the question ‘‘function is realized through
Jiang and Li
structure.’’ Function behavior structure model2,20,21
considered behavior as expected structure dynamic
characteristics.
According to different sources, the design intent
can be divided into two types. The first type refers to a
designer’s purpose, decision, and design basis during
the design. The second type refers to the intent of the
designer implied in the design process. Most existing
design intent capture methods capture the design
intents at different stages through the design intent
modeling and then apply these design intents to the
new designs. Ishino and Yan22 defined the design
intent as the design standard and scale decided by the
designer during the design process to complete the
entire design, to construct the intent estimation model
of the design process, and to capture the design intent
by determining the weighting function of various per-
formances. Xu and Galloway23 defined design intent
as the constraints and goals defined by the designers
in computer-aided design (CAD) and the optimal
design solution obtained through behavioral modeling
to capture the design intent and to make repeated
comparisons on the design results in accordance with
the design intent. Kim et al.24 proposed the full con-
sideration of design intent elements, such as structure,
parameter, and characteristic, during data conversion
of the CAD model. Li et al.25 proposed a new method
for capturing the design intent using symmetry in the
approximated CAD model. Sun and Liu26 presented a
detailed description of design intent, proposed the
design thinking process model, and recorded the
designer’s design steps, decisions, and design bases
involved in the design process.
Most recent studies on design intent capture have
been conducted with the design process and design
intents that are formally expressed through modeling.
Such design intent capture cannot effectively support
the re-excavation of the design history intent of the
original products in the process of local demand-
varying design. The effectual action unit–based inverse
method of solving the functional structure of the design
history proposed in this study starts from the product
design history structure to obtain the functional struc-
ture of the product and mine its design intent, thus pro-
viding a better support for the innovative design of the
local variable demand.
Based on the above analysis, this study proposes the
concept of the effectual action unit. This concept will
be the basis of a design history structure–principle–
effect–function inverse solving method, which will be
used to obtain the structure of the product design his-
tory. Then, the functional structure of the product is
obtained through analysis, combination, and other
ways to provide important methods for the new local
demand-varying design of products.
3
Modeling for the inverse solution process
Effectual action unit model
Action unit, which can be uniquely identified, is an
entity unit that takes a part/material as the center,
expresses the mutual relations between actions, and
describes the conversion information of the energy,
material, and signal involved in the actions.
In this study, the input and output flows in the
action units are converted into specific input and out-
put parametric flows. The effect will be determined and
introduced to the action unit according to the input
and output parameters, as well as the mutual relation-
ship between action units to form the effectual action
units.
The effectual action unit includes five elements,
namely, M = {P, A, of R, C, e}, where P is the knowl-
edge set of the parts/materials of the action subject for
describing the unit part/material; A is the action knowl-
edge set for describing the unit action; R is the relation
knowledge set for expressing the functional relations
between the action units; C is the conversion knowledge
set for expressing the conversion information of the
energy, material, and signal parameters in the action
units; and e is the effect knowledge set for expressing
the effect information related to the energy, material,
and signal parameters in the action units. e describes a
single physical effect in a product, which is described by
a qualitative physical law. It is therefore possible to for-
mulate e as follows
e :¼ (Index, I, O)
Index is used to characterize a single effect element
type. I is an input parameter knowledge set, which is
used to describe the input parameters. O is the output
parameter knowledge set, which is used to describe the
output parameters.
In Figure 1, Aj represents the central action; A1, A2,
A3, and A4 represent each relevant action; Pi, P1, P2,
and P3 are the corresponding parts or materials of each
action; R1, R2, R3, and R4 are the functional relations
among units; e1, e2, e3, and e4 are the effects related to
the energy, material, and signal parameters in the action
units; M1 and M2 are the input and output material
parameters, respectively; S1, S2, and S3 are the input
and output signal parameters; and E1, E2, E3, and E4
are the energy parameters.
Design history structure–principle inverse solution
process
Figure 2 shows the specific steps of the overall solution
design idea of the design history structure–principle.
Construct the structure-based model of the design
history. First, search all parts of the design history (the
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

parts in large numbers can be decomposed into several

large modules) and then establish the design structure
matrix (DSM) models of energy, material, signal, and
space relations among parts. Table 1 shows the DSM,
where P represents the element identities of various
parts and 1 the correlation between two elements.
Second, construct the networks of the contacts of the
related energy, material, signal, and space according to
the relationship between parts created by the DSM.
Third, integrate all networks of the contacts according
to the mainstream relationship of the design history
itself to form the structure-based model. Finally, con-
duct size generalization (remove the details and extract
the skeleton), shape, quantity, position, range, and con-
nection conversions, as well as multi structures normal-
ization, and then obtain several structure bases.
Build the combined action unit. First, obtain each
action unit model according to the modeling method of
the action units. Second, determine the overall energy,
material, and signal conversion flows after analysis, as
Figure 1. Effectual action unit.
well as the structure-based mainstream (energy flow,

Figure 2. The overall solution ideal of design history structure–principle.

Jiang and Li
Table 1. Design structure unit matrix.
Element name
DSM P1 P2 P3 P4
P1 –
P2 1 –
P3 1 1 –
P4 –
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
material flow, and signal flow determined by the prod-
uct itself). Finally, combine and connect the action
units according to the energy, material, and signal flows
to form the combined action unit of each structure
base.
Build the structure-based conversion relationship
diagram based on the effectual action unit. First, con-
vert the input and output flows in the combined action
units of each structure base into the specific input and
output physical parameters. Second, determine the
effect and introduce it to the action unit according to
the relationship between the input and output physical
parameters, as well as the mutual relationships among
the action units. Finally, connect each effectual com-
bined action unit mutually according to the mainstream
of the structure base to obtain the structure-based con-
version relationship diagram based on the effectual
action unit. Figure 3 shows the solving process of the
structure-based conversion relationship diagram based
on the effectual action unit.
Construct the principle solution framework diagram.
First, construct the form of the principle solution
according to the internal action form of each action
unit, as well as the effectual relations between the input
and output parameters in the action unit. Second, com-
bine the forms of the principle solution of each effectual
action unit to form the combined principle solutions of
each structure base according to the functional relation-
ship between the action units in various combined
action units, as well as the relationships among the
parameters. Finally, connect the combined principle
solutions to obtain the overall flowchart of the princi-
ple solution of each structure base.
Design history principle–effect–function inverse
solution process
First, construct the effect transformation and the effect
synthesis. Then, take the effect as the middle transfor-
mation link between the principle program and the
5
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
–
–
–
–
1 1 –
1 1 –
function by constructing the function-based model.
Finally, solve the product functional structure with the
effect unit and the logical relation in the effect synthesis
as the constraints.
Figure 4 shows the steps of the overall solving idea.
Build the effect synthesis. First, extract the effects in
the effectual action unit–based conversion relationship
diagram and then cluster them to obtain different effect
chains according to the relationship between the input
and output flows. Finally, determine the main effect
chain for the effect synthesis.
Construct the principle solution unit. Construct the
principle solutions corresponding to the effect units.
The stored information includes effect information,
effect-related input and output parameters, effect-
related part structure information, and effect-related
action information.
Construct the function unit synthesis. First, deduce
the possible function units of the original link units cor-
responding to the information stored by each principle
solution unit, as well as the eight categories of function
base forms. Then, determine the logistic relationships
among the function units, as well as the main function
unit chain, according to the mainstream of the struc-
ture base. Finally, integrate various vice-function unit
chains into the main function unit chain according to
previously obtained function unit chain relationship.
Generate the functional structure framework.
Consider the aforementioned function units in three
aspects. First, merge the related function units to form
the sub-functions. Second, replace the generalized func-
tion expressions with more technical ones. Third, orga-
nize the relationships among functions to form the
function structure framework of the corresponding
structure bases.
Example validation
Based on the inverse solving the functional structure
theory discussed above and given the design history of
6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 3. The solving process of the effectual action unit–based conversion relationship diagram.
E is the energy flow, M is the material flow, S is the signal flow, A is the action unit, and e is the effect.

a new laptop as background, a prototype system of the
functional structure inverse solving of the design his-
tory of complex electromechanical products is realized.
Figure 5 shows the block diagram of the inverse solving
process of the new laptop. The prototype system is
implemented with Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 and
database of the system is developed by SQL Server
2000. Table 2 shows the database tables of the proto-
type system.
Step 1: Organize the design history information. Build
the three-dimensional model of the product and part
knowledge base, the action knowledge base, the
functional relationship knowledge base, and the
conversion relationship knowledge base as basic
information of the following inverse solving process.
Step 2: Build the design history structure base model.
Given the parts, functional relationship, and conver-
sion relationship knowledge bases as bases in the
design history information, construct the DSMs,
relationship network diagrams, and structure bases
of the laptop using the structure base construction
method. Finally, consider the related structures in
the structure base to obtain two structure base mod-
els, namely, the keyboard disassembly and assembly
and the host moving and locking. The following
steps will be explained with the structure base-
keyboard disassembly and assembly as the example.
Step 3: Build the effectual action unit model. First,
construct all effectual action units according to the
construction form of the effectual action unit to
form the corresponding knowledge base. Then, com-
bine the effectual action units into the combined
effectual action unit model through the conversion
relationships among the energy, material, and sig-
nal. Finally, form the conversion relationship model
diagram of the effectual action unit–based keyboard
disassembly and assembly base.
Step 4: Construct the principle solution framework
diagram. Formalize several effectual action units
Jiang and Li 7

Figure 4. Design history principle–effect–function inverse solution process.

E is the energy flow, M is the material flow, S is the signal flow, A is the action unit, P is the principle solution unit, e is the effect, and f is the function.

Table 2. Database tables of prototype system.

Table name Meaning

Action unit knowledge base
Part/material knowledge base
Relation knowledge base
Input/output flow knowledge base
Action unit information, including ID, action unit name, input/output parameter
Part/material information
Interaction information of two objects
Description of input/output flow, including ID, input/output flow information, associated
action unit

based on the structure-based conversion relationship
model diagram to form the necessary geometries
and material characteristics and to obtain the princi-
ple solutions. Then, combine various principle solu-
tions through the conversion relationships to form
the related combine principle solution. Finally, con-
struct the principle solution framework diagram of
the keyboard disassembly and assembly. Figure 6
shows the combined principle solution of the key-
board disassembly.
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 5. Inverse solving prototype system.

Table 3. Function unit list of the new laptop.

No. Name Input parameter Output parameter

f0112 Deliver torque M1, a1 M, a

f0218 Lock slider M, a f, s/F1, S1
f0221 Resolute force M, a f, s/F1, S1
f0415 Offset force f, s EHeat1
f0512 Deliver force F1, S1 F2, S2/F3, S3
f0615 Shorten distance F2, S2 Ep
f0625 Shorten distance F2, S2 Ep
. . . .

Step 5: Build the effect synthesis. Extract the effects
in the structure base-keyboard disassembly principle
solution framework diagram to obtain the effect
synthesis of the keyboard disassembly and assembly.
Step 6: Build the function unit synthesis. First, con-
struct the principle solution unit to which the effect
units in the effect synthesis correspond to. Second,
induce the possible function units to form several
function unit chains according to the effect and
geometric information stored by the principle solu-
tions and then determine the logic relationships
among the function units after analysis. For exam-
ple, the effect of Hooke’s Law in the spring compres-
sion action unit may correspond to the possible
function units of storing potential energy and
shortening distance, whereas the function units of
the positioning keyboard and locking slider have a
parent–child relationship. Table 3 shows the
Jiang and Li
Figure 6. Combined principle solution: keyboard disassembly.
p refers to the principle solution unit c.
Figure 7. Function unit synthesis diagram of the keyboard disassembly and assembly.
function unit list of the new laptop, where f0112 is
the number of the function units, the subscript 0112
indicates that the number of the principle solution is
01, and 1 is the function unit number of the corre-
sponding principle solution, which belongs to the
second category among the eight categories of func-
tion units. Finally, connect various function chains
through the logical relationships among various
function units to form the function unit synthesis
diagram corresponding to the structure base.
Figure 7 shows the function unit synthesis diagram
of the keyboard disassembly and assembly.
Step 7: Build the functional structure framework.
Acquire the various function unit synthesis diagrams
9
previously obtained from the functional structure
framework of each structure base using the inverse
solving model. Figure 8 shows the functional struc-
ture framework diagram of the keyboard disassem-
bly and assembly.
Figures 9 and 10 show the solving process of the pro-
totype system.
Discussion
This article proposes the effectual action unit–based
inverse method for solving the functional structure of
10
Figure 8. The functional structure framework of the keyboard
disassembly and assembly.
design history. Although it aims to understand and
reuse the design intent of historical designs, same as
typical structure–behavior–function (SBF) solving
methods like SBF programming language,27 the main
advantages of our modeling idea and design solving
process have the following superiorities in comparison
with SBF programming language.
Figure 9. Interface of action unit modeling.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
First, effectual action unit takes ‘‘effect’’ rather than
‘‘behavior’’ in SBF programming as the bridge between
product structure and function. Behavior reflects the
state change of the evolution from function to structure
and the function–structure property parameters. It repre-
sents the dynamics of design solving. However, it is diffi-
cult to capture the intent of available product designs
through behavior in SBF programming, especially com-
plicated products as it is a time-consuming task to recog-
nize each behavior of complicated structure and realized
functions. This depends more on designers’ experiences
with weak reproducibility. During the practical product
design, the input and output parameters of the ‘‘effect’’
of each function in the conceptual design are the premise
of gaining the rough structure of this function in subse-
quent detailed design. Therefore, this article uses ‘‘effect’’
to connect functions and structure of historical designs.
The structural parameters of historical designs can be
matched with the input and output of the corresponding
function through the effectual action unit, thus enabling
to get structure–effect–function inverse mapping rela-
tionship. This can help to recall and reuse function of
each historical structure design.
Second, when building the effectual action unit,
structural ties between parts are measured using the
DSM. DSM can reflect the structural ties between parts
objectively and avoid subjective processing results
caused using SBF programming language. The most
difficult thing in establishing the structure–principle–
effect–function inverse solving model of available
Jiang and Li
Figure 10. Interface of effectual action unit modeling.
designs is how to process the complicated structural ties
of available designs to deduce the initial design intent
of designers. However, SBF programming language
didn’t involve how to establish the structural ties
between parts. It focuses on establishing the SBF map-
ping relationship, but lacks detailed rules and regula-
tions for practical operation. The proposed effectual
action unit can analyze the energy, material, signal,
and spatial relationship between parts of historical
designs by building DSM and gain the basic structure
of these historical designs. Furthermore, based on the
basic structure and input–output matching of ‘‘effect,’’
the principle and function prototype of the structure
can be established preliminarily.
Third, the effectual action unit–based functional
structure model of design history not only can under-
stand their design intent better but also makes the his-
torical designs easy to be reused in new product
design. In fact, the proposed structure–principle–
effect–function inverse solving model of historical
designs establishes an inverse structure–principle–
effect–function relationship of mature historical
designs rather than follows the positive design process
11
from product function design-principle design-struc-
ture design. The initial conditions for modeling only
involve the structure of historical designs. Some or all
of input and output parameters, principles, and effects
added during the modeling can be reused in associated
new product design. The follow-up work will focus on
the reuse and mutation of functions in order to solve
the local demand-varying designs quickly and
effectively.
Conclusion
The effectual action unit can effectively and formally
express the relationship between the input and output
flows in the functional structure. Moreover, the effec-
tual action unit can be used to induce the principle solu-
tion and realize such structure from the design history
structure. The example shows that two inverse solution
processes of structure–principle solution and principle
solution–effect–function can effectively trace and cap-
ture the design intent of the historical products. These
results will be helpful for solving the local demand-
varying design. The follow-up work will focus again on
12
the obtained functional structure to find the inverse
solution process–based design intent capture strategy.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This research work was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51375451 and
51005211).
References
1. Chakrabarti A and Blessing LTM. An anthology of the-
ories and models of design. London: Springer-Verlag,
2014.
2. Cascini G, Fantoni G and Montagna F. Situating needs
and requirements in the FBS framework. Des Stud 2012;
34: 636–662.
3. Bracewell R, Wallace K, Moss M, et al. Capturing design
rationale. Comput Aided Design 2009; 41: 173–186.
4. Suh NP. The principles of design. London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1990.
5. Tan RH. Theory for TRIZ. Beijing, China: Science Press,
2004.
6. Taguchi G. Quality engineering through design optimiza-
tion. New York: Prentice Hall, 1986.
7. Chandrasekaran B. Representing function: relating func-
tional representation and functional modeling research
streams. AI EDAM 2005; 19: 65–74.
8. Pahl G and Beitz W. Engineering design: a systematic
approach. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
9. Torres VH, Rı́os J, Vizán A, et al. Approach to integrate
product conceptual design information into a computer-
aided design system. Concurrent Eng: Res A 2013; 21:
27–38.
10. Stone R and Wood K. Development of a functional basis
for design. J Mech Des: T ASME 2000; 122: 359–370.
11. Zhang JM, Wand JW and Wei XP. Product modeling for
conceptual design based on extended functional basis.
Trans Chin Soc Agric Mach 2008; 39: 129–133.
12. Zou GM, Hu YJ, Xiao WS, et al. Research on the model
of product conceptual design based on the functional
basis. Chin Mech Eng 2004; 15: 206–210.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
13. Nagel RL, Stone RB and Mcadams DA. A theory for
the development of conceptual functional models for
automation of manual processes. In: Proceedings of the
ASME international design engineering technical confer-
ences and computers and information in engineering confer-
ence, Las Vegas, NV, 4–7 September 2007, vol. 3,
pp.263–275. New York: ASME.
14. Cao GZ, Tan RH, Zhang RH, et al. Study on conceptual
design process model based on effects. China Mech Eng
2005; 16: 823–827.
15. Yan XT and Jiang PY. Functional design in the concep-
tion plan of micro-devices. J Mach Des 2009; 26: 9–12.
16. Shuai P, Feng PE and Xu GR. The development and
application of the principle conceptual design catalogues
for liquid separate function. J Eng Design 1996; 3: 11–15.
17. Feng PE, Zhang S, Chen Y, et al. Research on feature
modeling and solving process of complex function. China
Mech Eng 2002; 13: 306–311.
18. Feng PE and Xu GR. Feature modeling based on design
catalogues for search of principle solutions. Chin J Mech
Eng 1998; 34: 79–86.
19. Feng PE, Zhang S, Pan SX, et al. Cyclic solving process
and realization for conceptual design of complex function
product. Chin J Mech Eng 2005; 41: 135–141.
20. Qian L and Gero JS. Function–behavior–structure paths
and their role in analogy-based design. AI EDAM 1996;
10: 289–312.
21. Dinar M, Maclellan C, Danielescu A, et al. Beyond func-
tion–behavior–structure. In: Gero JS (ed.) Design comput-
ing and cognition. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp.511–527.
22. Ishino Y and Yan J. Estimate design intent: a multiple
genetic programming and multivariate analysis based
approach. Adv Eng Inform 2002; 16: 107–125.
23. Xu XW and Galloway R. Using behavioral modeling
technology to capture designer’s intent. Comput Hum
Behav 2005; 21: 395–405.
24. Kim J, Pratt MJ, Iyer RG, et al. Standardized data
exchange of CAD models with design intent. Comput
Aided Design 2008; 40: 760–777.
25. Li M, Langbein FC and Martin RR. Detecting design
intent in approximate CAD models using symmetry.
Comput Aided Design 2010; 42: 183–201.
26. Sun ZY and Liu JH. Representation of design intents in
design thinking process model. Chin J Mech Eng 2009;
45: 182–189.
27. Goel AK, Rugaber S and Vattam S. Structure, behavior,
and function of complex systems: the structure, behavior,
and function modeling language. AI EDAM 2009; 23:
23–35.