Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8

48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015

A fuzzy logic based approach to explore manufacturing system

changeability level decisions
Emmanuel Francalanzaa,*, Jonathan C. Borga, Carmen Constantinescub
a
CERU, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Unviersity of Malta, Msida, MSD2080 Malta
b
Digital Engineering Group, Fraunhofer IAO, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +356-2340-2060; E-mail address: emmanuel.francalanza@um.edu.mt

Abstract

In order to meet customer requirements, manufacturing companies need to cope with the challenge of constantly evolving product ranges.
Breakthroughs in the analysis of big data will give us a better understanding of market trends and customer requirements, but there will always
be some degree of uncertainty when foreseeing product evolution. Manufacturing system designers have to therefore take decisions under
uncertainty, whilst considering other factors such as business, manufacturing and change strategies.
In order to address this problem the factories need to be designed with a level of changeability that will allow them to be flexible or reconfigurable
to produce future product platform evolutions. This paper thus contributes a novel fuzzy logic based approach to support manufacturing system
designers in exploring changeability level decisions. Using this approach, this paper presents the system architecture used for an experimental
implementation of an intelligent ICT tool for supporting the design of a changeable manufacturing system.
© 2015
2015 The
The Authors.
Authors.Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2015.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015
Keywords: Manufacturing system; Changeability; Fuzzy logic

1. Introduction products based on market scenario planning, product feature

As argued by Westkämper [1] factories are complex and
long life products. The inherent nature of these long life systems
means that they need to be capable of producing different
product ranges throughout their life cycle [2].
Changing manufacturing systems and product requirements
can trace their origin in customer behavior and evolving product
requirements. This dynamic nature of customer requirements
has been described as a constantly moving target [3], thus
presenting a significant challenge for several aspects of product
development. This means that when designing a new
manufacturing system (MS) the factory planner has to ideally
consider and analyze not only the current product range
requirements but also how the products may evolve over time.
In order to meet this challenge, methods and techniques have
been developed which allow us to get an insight, or derive some
knowledge, on how products and customer requirements will
evolve over time. One can for instance use Foresight exercises
[4] in order to construct improved planning models for new
analysis and technological development analysis. Whilst still in
its infancy big data analysis is also being explored for extracting
insights into discovering what products to develop and send to
production [5].
1.1. Uncertainty in Changeable MS Design
Breakthroughs in the analysis of big data and the use of
foresight exercises will give us a better understanding of market
trends and customer requirements. However, because of the
difficulty in forecasting customer requirements, there will
always be some degree of uncertainty when foreseeing product
evolution. Changeable MS designers have to therefore take
decisions under uncertainty, whilst considering other factors
such as business, manufacturing and change strategies.
One approach to address this dynamic problem is to employ
changeable manufacturing systems. An important requirement
for modern factories is the need to deal with product families
and their evolution over time. In order to deal with these

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of 48th CIRP Conference on MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS - CIRP CMS 2015
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.12.011
4 Emmanuel Francalanza et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8
challenges, MS designers have to resort to changeability.
Wiendahl et al [6] define changeability as “the characteristic to
accomplish early and foresighted adjustments of the factory’s
structures and processes on all levels to change impulses
economically”.
In order to develop and deploy changeability in industry, the
degree or extent of changeability needs to be established and
designed into the manufacturing system solution.
1.2. Motivation
As explained by Francalanza et al in [7] during the synthesis
decision making activity of changeable manufacturing systems,
factory planners do not only have to select machines, layouts
and services but they also need to select the changeability level
and change enablers to implement.
It can therefore be concluded that deciding this change level,
i.e. how changeable will the MS be, and what type of
changeability to adopt (Transformability, Flexibility,
Reconfigurability), is a critical aspect of designing changeable
manufacturing systems. The question therefore arises on how
to select the change level and enablers required especially
under uncertain conditions.
In this paper, we argue that such decisions are based on (i)
the change strategy adopted by the manufacturing company,
and (ii) on the uncertainty of product evolution. Thus MS
designers have to be effectively supported in selecting the
degree of changeability and the changeability enablers which
they are going to implement [8]. Therefore, the need arises to
develop tools that support the changeable MS design decision
making activity taking place under uncertainty due to evolving
customer requirements.
The design of changeable manufacturing systems poses
many challenges to the stakeholders involved. As part of the
Digital Factory [9] initiative this research aims to develop a
digital support tool aimed at supporting stakeholders during the
MS design activities.
2. Support for Changeable MS Design
This section presents a review of means developed to
support the MS design for evolving products and various
extents of changeability.
2.1. Product Evolution Forecasting
Kivi [10] develops an approach for planning and forecasting
technology product evolution and the diffusion of new product
features. The approach used by this research was to first isolate
the underlying phenomena that governs the evolution process,
and then formulate the process at the product category, product
feature, and product model levels. The data generated from this
analysis can be used in strategic and operational decision
making.
A framework for design of reconfigurable machine tools
based on directed evolution is presented in [11]. The approach
predetermines how the machine requirements will evolve and
then the morphology of the machine modules is determined
with upgradeability and adaptability in mind.
In [12] AlGeddawy investigates the co-evolution of both
product design and manufacturing capabilities. A co-evolution
model is formulated and interpreted using parsimony analysis
of cladograms, inspired by natural species co-evolution. The
model is then used as a base for future manufacturing planning.
2.2. Changeable MS Design
Azab et al [13] propose a change framework and control loop
that enables companies to systematically assess the need for
reconfiguration in light of market supply and demand for their
products. This approach allows them to determine the extent,
timing, economic viability and feasibility of contemplated
changes.
In [14], Taha and Rostam use a hybrid approach of fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process and preference ranking organization
method to select the most suitable machine from several
alternatives during flexible manufacturing cell design.
Similarly Abdi [15] proposes a fuzzy multi-criteria decision
model for evaluating reconfigurable machines. This research
investigates reconfigurable machining system characteristics in
order to identify the crucial factors influencing the machine
selection and the machine reconfiguration.
2.3. Evaluation of Changeability
Mourtzis et al [16] make use of the Penalty of Change
method to evaluate the flexibility in the design of
manufacturing systems. This method is used to evaluate the
capability of alternative system designs to expand and increase
their capacity and production range in order to meet the
demand. Zaeh [17] similarly proposes an approach for
evaluating capacity flexibilities in manufacturing systems. This
approach considers the implication of uncertainty in market
conditions and also proposes a demand forecasting method.
These methods are utilized to optimize the capacity planning of
a manufacturing system.
In [18], Xie et al propose a method for analysis of
reconfigurability in manufacturing systems using artificial
intelligence theory based on Rough Sets Theory (RST). RST
gives the benefit of data analysis and knowledge discovery from
imprecise and incomplete information. In Guan et al [19], and
Chuu [20], a similar approach is adopted to analyze the
flexibility of manufacturing systems but instead using Fuzzy
Set Theory (FST) and fuzzy linguistic terms.
2.4. Research Gap
The means reviewed show that there are several approaches
that can be employed to consider product evolution, provide
support during changeable MS design and also evaluate and
analyze the MS designs developed. That said, none of these
approaches provide proactive support in determining the
changeability level of a MS based on the uncertainty of product
evolution and the change strategy adopted by a company.
 Emmanuel Francalanza et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8
Fig. 1. Changeable manufacturing system synthesis
3. A Prescriptive Approach for Changeable MS Design
To develop a tool to support Changeable MS design, it was
first deemed critical to gain a deeper understanding of the
design activities which are involved in this process. This section
describes the activities which make up the design process of a
Changeable MS as illustrated in Fig. 1.
This approach is based on work carried out by [7] and is
founded on the basic design cycle proposed by Roozenburg et
al [21]. Roozenburg’s approach describes the transformation
from product requirements into the detailed description of the
desired product. Since we base our arguments on Westkämper’s
[1] paradigm that factories are complex and long life products,
we can apply Roozenburg’s product design approach to MS
design. The proposed approach emphasizes the changeable MS
synthesis design activity, as this is where commitments are
made on the changeability level and enablers to be
implemented.
3.1. Analysis of Requirements
In the first activity of the changeable MS design the designer
must review the parts to be produced. The designer must
analyze the range of features of the product family. This
includes those features which are the same across the range and
those features which are different, for example the product size.
3.2. MS Solution Synthesis
The next activity in the MS design cycle is Synthesis. As
explained by Andreasen [22], synthesis can be defined as the
combination of components or elements to form a connected
whole. It is in this activity of the design cycle that the MS
designer develops solutions for the MS problems. It is also
important to note that designers make commitment based on the
requirements defined in the analysis activity.
During synthesis of changeable manufacturing systems,
consciously or not, designers make commitments in the
following three domains: the changeability domain, the enabler
domain and in the design element domain. We argue that during
changeable MS synthesis, designers make provisional
commitments in these three domains.
5
Fig. 2. Changeability level domain
In order to make these decisions, the factory planner has to
know both the dynamic of the product evolution and the change
strategy adopted by the company. This commitment should also
be based on knowledge of changeable MS design, such as
knowledge of changeability enablers and changeability
strategies. The result of the synthesis from the different
domains of changeable MS design is a provisional design
solution, i.e. a Provisional Factory Model.
3.2.1. Changeability level domain
Within this domain, MS designers commit to the level of
changeability to implement. As illustrated in Fig. 2, MS
designers have to commit to either implementing
transformability on a factory level, to the generalized flexibility
paradigm of FMS or to the customized flexibility of RMS.
We argue, based on [6], that in order to make these
commitments the MS designers must take into consideration
the change strategy that has been adopted by the company and
the dynamic of the products evolution. If the MS is to be
designed to manufacture the current product requirements, than
it only needs to implement the necessary changeability [23].
On the other hand if the company wants to adopt an investment
strategy with the aim of gaining a superior competitive
advantage, then the required changeability must encompass
both current and future product requirements.
3.2.2. Changeability enablers domain
The range of change enabler options available to the
designer is dependent on the previously chosen changeability
level. If the designer commits to developing a RMS then the
designer has the option to commit to the six types of RMS
enablers.
3.2.3. MS elements domain
For the purpose of deriving clearly defined factory elements
that are elements of changeability, Nyhuis [24] uses the
classification of means, organization and space. Schuh et al.
[25] use the classification for factory elements of resources,
processes and organization.
Since this research is strictly focusing on the technical and
not on social aspects of changeability, MS elements are
classified as layout, machine, material handling, and services.
The range of options to be considered by the designer may also
6 Emmanuel Francalanza et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8

be constrained depending on the changeability enablers
previously committed.
3.3. MS Solution Simulation
The next activity of the design cycle involves the Simulation
of the provisional design solution. Simulation involves the
generation of an artificial history of a system and the
observation of that history to draw inferences concerning the
operating characteristics of the real system. The result of this
study is the expected properties of the provisional MS design
solution.
3.4. MS Evaluation
During Evaluation of the provisional MS design solution the
expected properties are compared to the design criteria
established during the analysis stage. A value is then given to
that design solution to quantify how well the provisional
solution meets the product and business requirements.
3.5. Final Decision and Implementation
The MS designer will then decide whether to continue
developing the solution. The design cycle may be repeated to
elaborate further the provisional design or to try a different type
of solution to generate a better design proposal. Once the
manufacturing system designer is satisfied that the provisional
design meets the criteria, then the status will be upgraded to
that of final design and the project can move on to
implementation planning.
sets on the universe X that can accommodate “degrees of
membership”. Equation 2 represents the “degree of
membership”ߤ஺෨ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ, of element ‫ݔ‬in fuzzy set ‫ܣ‬ሚ.
ߤ஺෨ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ‫ א‬ሾͲǡͳሿ (2)
This approach to define the “degree of membership” of an
object is particularly useful to the problem of selecting MS
changeability level. The reasoning employed is based on expert
knowledge which can be translated into rules. These rules
consist of terms such as necessary, sufficient and competitive,
that lead to linguistic uncertainty.
Fuzzy Logic hence allows us to handle the fuzziness
associated with the linguistic uncertainty in describing product
evolution, change strategy and changeability.
4.2. Fuzzy Sets
Fuzzification is the process by which we convert crisp data
into fuzzy sets. Triangular and Trapezoidal membership
functions were used in order to describe the fuzzy sets used by
the FLS.
In the case of our MS design approach the fuzzy terms used
to describe product evolution are None, Maybe and Certainly
as illustrated in Fig. 3. The fuzzy terms used to describe change
strategy are Necessary, Sufficient and Competitive and are
illustrated inFig. 4. The fuzzy terms used to describe
Changeability Level are Outsource, Flexible and
Reconfigurable and are illustrated in Fig. 5

4. Intelligent Support for Changeable MS Design

To address the identified gap, in this paper we contribute an

approach based on intelligent computing with the aim of
proactively supporting the MS designer in the selection of MS
changeability level. Such an approach will allow designers to Fig. 3. Product evolution fuzzy set
proactively foresee [26] and explore consequences of their
selection decisions. In order to meet this aim, we have
developed a solution based on a Fuzzy Logic System (FLS).
Fuzzy Logic provides a means to deal with vagueness resulting
from the utilization of natural language.

4.1. Membership Functions

When proposing the idea of Fuzzy Logic, Zadeh [27]

proposed that set membership is the key to decision making Fig. 4. Change strategy fuzzy set
when faced with uncertainty. Classical sets contain objects that
satisfy precise properties of membership. As illustrated in
equation 1, for crisp sets, an element x in the universe X is either
a member of some crisp set A or not.
ͳǡ‫ܣ א ݔ‬
ܺ஺ ሺ‫ݔ‬ሻ ՜ ቄ (1)
Ͳǡ‫ܣ ב ݔ‬
On the other hand fuzzy sets contain objects that satisfy
imprecise properties of membership. Zadeh extends the notion
of binary membership to accommodate various “degrees of Fig. 5. Changeability level fuzzy set
membership” on the real continuous interval [0,1], were 0 and
1 represent no and full membership accordingly. Fuzzy Sets are
 Emmanuel Francalanza et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8
Fig. 6. Fuzzy inference system (Adapted from Mendel [28])
4.3. A Fuzzy Inference System
As shown in Fig. 6, a rule based Fuzzy Logic System (FLS)
consists of four main components for mapping crisp inputs into
crisp outputs [28]. These components are the input fuzzifier,
inference system, fuzzy rules and defuzzifier. The main
component of the FLS is the inference system, or as sometimes
referred to the inference engine. The inference system is the
component that executes the reasoning in the FLS. In a FLS the
inference system reasoning is accomplished by carrying out
fuzzy set operations, such as fuzzy unions, fuzzy intersections
and fuzzy complements.
4.4. MS Design Fuzzy Rules
Core to the inference activity are the fuzzy rules. There are
various ways to represent knowledge in an artificial
intelligence system. One of the most common approaches it to
use rules that are expressed as a collection of IF-THEN
statements. These rules are expressions of natural language and
are formed by two parts. The IF (antecedent or premise) part
and then THEN (conclusion or consequent) part.
Rules may be extracted from numerical data or formulated
by experts. The following are the fuzzy rules developed during
this research and used by the inference engine:
x RULE 1: IF Product Evolution IS certainly OR Change
Strategy IS competitive THEN changeability IS
reconfigurability;
x RULE 2: IF Product Evolution IS maybe OR Change
Strategy IS sufficient THEN changeability IS
flexibility;
x RULE 3: IF Product Evolution IS none OR Change
Strategy IS necessary THEN changeability IS
outsource;
The reasoning behind these rules is derived from the
changeability and flexibility strategies proposed by [6], [23]. If
the planners are sure, i.e. product evolution uncertainty is low,
that that the products are going to evolve and that the change
strategy is competitive, then a Reconfigurable Manufacturing
System (RMS) should be designed. The MS designers would
then implement reconfigurability enablers during the MS
design process so that when product evolution occurs the MS
can be reconfigured accordingly.
On the other hand, if the planners are highly uncertain if the
product mix or volume over will evolve over time, and the
change strategy is to produce only the necessary product range,
then the MS designer should design a Dedicated
7
Manufacturing System (DMS). In the case of a DMS when
future products that fall outside of the capability of the MS,
then it makes strategic sense to outsource these products in the
remote case that they are implemented into the product range.
4.5. Defuzzification
Defuzzification is the process by which the FLS converts the
output of the inference system into a crisp variable. The center
of gravity (CoG) method, shown in equation 5, was employed
by the prototype system as it provides an accurate result based
on the weighted values of several output membership
functions.
೉
‫׬‬೉ ೘ೌೣ ఓಲ
෩ ሺ௫ሻ‫כ‬௫ௗ௫
‫ ܩ݋ܥ‬௑ ൌ ೘೔೙
೉ (3)
‫׬‬೉ ೘ೌೣ ఓಲ
෩ ሺ௫ሻௗ௫
೘೔೙
5. Prototype Support Tool Implementation
The intelligent approach described in Section 4 was
implemented into a prototype digital tool for testing and
evaluation purposes. In order to implement the FLS,
jFuzzyLogic [29] an open-source java library was used. The
user interacts with the system through an internet browser and
the Graphical User Interface (GUI) illustrated in Fig. 7, web
services were used in order to communicate between the GUI
and the backend which was running the FLS.
The user interacts with the system through the commands in
the GUI. The GUI allows the user to edit the fuzzy sets, to
customize the membership functions for the Product Evolution,
Change Strategy and Changeability. In order to receive
support, the user enters the crisp values for both product
evolution and Change Strategy. The FLS then returns the
defuzzified changeability extent value.
6. Evaluation
The graph illustrated in Fig. 8, represents the response of the
FLS to varying Product Evolution and Change Strategy inputs.
At the extreme cases the graph shows that when Product
Evolution and Change Strategy are low, then the Changeability
Extent will be low. Likewise when Product Evolution and
Change Strategy are high then the Changeability Extent is high.
Fig. 7. GUI for prototype support tool implementation
8 Emmanuel Francalanza et al. / Procedia CIRP 41 (2016) 3 – 8
Fig. 8. Fuzzy response surface
The graph clearly shows that as the certainty of product
evolution increases then the recommended change extent
increases.
7. Conclusion
This research has shown that whilst means exist to consider
product evolution, provide support during changeable MS
design and also evaluate and analyze the designs developed,
none of these support the MS designer in determining the
changeability level.
This research therefore contributes an approach based on
intelligent computing to guide the MS designer in selecting the
changeability level of a MS based on the uncertainty of product
evolution and the company’s change strategy.
A digital prototype tool was also implemented to evaluate if
this approach effectively supports MS designers. Future work
will involve more exhaustive evaluations of this digital tool
using industrial case-studies. This research will also further
develop the approach to not only provide guidance on the
changeability level to be employed, but to also proactively
provide MS designers with the changeability enablers that can
be used in order to implement the required changeability.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank the University of Malta
for the financial assistance provided for carrying out Ph.D.
research visits to the IAO Fraunhofer, Stuttgart and
acknowledge the financial support through the Research Grant
“Digital Planning and Simulation for the Factory of the Future”
(Vote No. IMERP 05-04).
References
[1] Westkämper E. Digital Manufacturing In The Global Era. Digital
Enterprise Technology, 2007, p. 3–14.
[2] Schenk M, Wirth S. Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden für
die wandlungsfähige und vernetzte Fabrik [Factory Planning and
Factory Management: Methods for Adaptable and Networked
Factory]. Springer; 2004.
[3] Chong YT, Chen C-H. Customer needs as moving targets of product
development: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2009;48:395–406.
[4] Benjamin J. C. Yuan CYL. An application of a foresight-based new
product planning model: A case study of a large household appliance
manufacturer in China. Chinese Management Studies 2012;6:444–61.
[5] Davenport TH. How strategists use “big data” to support internal
business decisions, discovery and production. Strategy and
Leadership 20140701;42:45–50.
[6] ElMaraghy HA, Wiendahl H-P. Changeability – An Introduction. In:
ElMaraghy HA, editor. Changeable and Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems, Springer London; 2009, p. 3–24.
[7] Francalanza E, Borg J, Constantinescu C. Deriving a Systematic
Approach to Changeable Manufacturing System Design. Procedia
CIRP 2014;17:166–71.
[8] Francalanza E, Borg JC, Constantinescu C. A Case for Assisting
“Product Family” Manufacturing System Designers. Procedia CIRP
2012;3:376–81.
[9] Constantinescu C, Lucke D, Westkämper E. Smart Factory - A Step
towards the Next Generation of Manufacturing. Manufacturing
Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier, 2008, p. 115–8.
[10] Kivi A, Smura T, Töyli J. Technology product evolution and the
diffusion of new product features. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change 2012;79:107–26.
[11] Ahuett H, Aca J, Molina A. A Directed Evolution Modularity
Framework for Design of Reconfigurable Machine Tools. In: Luo Y,
editor. Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg; 2005, p. 243–52.
[12] ElMaraghy HA, AlGeddawy T. Co-evolution of products and
manufacturing capabilities and application in auto-parts assembly.
Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 2012:1–29.
[13] Azab A, ElMaraghy H, Nyhuis P, Pachow-Frauenhofer J, Schmidt M.
Mechanics of change: A framework to reconfigure manufacturing
systems. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology
2013;6:110–9.
[14] Taha Z, Rostam S. A hybrid fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE decision
support system for machine tool selection in flexible manufacturing
cell. J Intell Manuf 2011;23:2137–49.
[15] Abdi MR. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for evaluating
reconfigurable machines. International Journal of Production
Economics 2009;117:1–15.
[16] Mourtzis D, Alexopoulos K, Chryssolouris G. Flexibility
Consideration in the Design of Manufacturing Systems: an industrial
case study. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology
2012;5:276–83.
[17] Zaeh MF, Mueller N. A modeling approach for evaluating capacity
flexibilities in uncertain markets. International Journal of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems 2007;19:151–72.
[18] Xiaowen X, Wei X, Beirong Z. Reconfigurability analysis of
manufacturing system based on rough sets. 2nd IEEE International
Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, 2009.
ICCSIT 2009, 2009, p. 513–7.
[19] Jun G. Measurement of manufacturing system flexibility with fuzzy
set theory. , International Conference on Management Science and
Engineering, 2008. ICMSE 2008. 15th Annual Conference
Proceedings, 2008, p. 713–8.
[20] Chuu S-J. Evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system using
fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making with multi-granularity
linguistic information. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2006;32:409–21.
[21] Roozenburg NFM, Eekels J. Product Design: Fundamentals and
Methods. John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
[22] Andreasen MM. Machine Design Methods Based on a Systemic
Approach, - a contribution to a design theory. Lund Institute of
Technology, 1980.
[23] Gerwin D. Manufacturing Flexibility: A Strategic Perspective.
Manage Sci 1993;39:395–410.
[24] Nyhuis P, Heinen T, Brieke M. Adequate and economic factory
transformability and the effects on logistical performance.
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems
2007;19:286–307.
[25] Schuh, G, Brussel, H Van, Boër, C, Valckenaers, P, Sacco, M,
Bergholz, M, et al. A Model Based Approach to Design Modular
Plant Architectures, Saarbruecken, Germany: 2003.
[26] Yan XT, Rehman F, Borg JC. FORESEEing design solution
consequences using design context information. Proceedings of the
Fifth IFP Workshop in Knowledge-Intensive Computer–Aided
Design, 2002, p. 18–33.
[27] Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965;8:338–53.
[28] Mendel JM. Fuzzy logic systems for engineering: a tutorial.
Proceedings of the IEEE 1995;83:345–77.
[29] Cingolani P, Alcalá-Fdez J. jFuzzyLogic: a Java Library to Design
Fuzzy Logic Controllers According to the Standard for Fuzzy Control
Programming. International Journal of Computational Intelligence
Systems 2013;6:61–75.