A systematic literature review of modular product design (MPD) from the perspective of sustainability | The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A systematic literature review of modular product design (MPD) from the perspective of sustainability

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modular product design (MPD), as its name implies, subdivides complicated products and systems into components and considers them individually instead of as an amalgamated whole. Because of its merit in reducing complexity, MPD is widely used in engineering fields, especially in design engineering. Over the last decade, increasing concerns about environmental impact have driven manufacturers to reconsider their product design processes from the view of sustainability. The blending of these concepts—modularity and sustainability—has attracted significant attention from both academia and industry. The ways in which sustainability influences MPD are not fully understood, evidencing a gap that needs to be further researched. This review examines more than 100 studies addressing ways MPD is associated with sustainability factors and classifies these studies based on major sustainability themes. The initial review and analysis were conducted using literature summarization tables and a maturity index. Our search emphasized not only the performance of MPD methodologies with respect to sustainability factors but also the relationship between MPD and sustainability categories. Our review results indicate that from an academic perspective, research over the last 15 years has seen a significant increase in studies involving MPD and product life cycles, MPD and product innovation, and MPD and environmental management. Secondarily, our findings reveal that from an industry perspective, the literature shows that modularity has a positive impact on sustainability and identifies several social sustainability-related areas in MPD that could benefit from further investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ulrich K, Eppinger SD (2000) Product design and development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Okudan GE, Lin TK, Chiu MC (2012) Carbon footprint implications of modularity and projections for the reverse logistics. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Green Supply Chain, Arras, France

  3. Okudan GE, Ma JF, Chiu MC, Lin TK (2013) Product modularity and implications for the reverse supply chain. Supply Chain Forum Int J 14(2):54–69

  4. Chiu MC, Okudan GE (2014) An investigation of the impact of product modularity level on supply chain performance metrics: an industrial case study. J Intell Manuf 25:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ernst R, Kamrad B (2000) Theory and methodology: evaluation of supply chain structures through modularization and postponement. Eur J Oper Res 124:495–510

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Feitzinger E, Lee HL (1997) Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of postponement. Harvard Business Review (Jan–Feb), 116–121

  7. Kamrani AK, Salhieh SEM (2008) Modular design. In: Kamrani AK, Nasr EA (eds) Collaborative engineering: theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 207–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Lavigne BB, Bassetto S, Agard B (2014) A method for a robust optimization of joint product and supply chain design. J Intell Manuf 1–9

  9. Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2003) Product modularity: definitions and benefits. J Eng Des 14(3):295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2004) Product modularity: measures and design methods. J Eng Des 15(1):33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jiao J, Tseng MM, Ma Q, Zou Y (2000) Genetic bill of materials and operations for high-variety production management. Concurr Eng Res Appl 8(4):297–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jiao RJ, Huang GGQ, Tseng MM (2004) Concurrent enterprising for mass customization. Concurr Eng Res Appl 12(2):83–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuo TC (2013) Mass customization and personalization software development: a case study eco-design product service system. J Intell Manuf 24:1019–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith S, Smith GC, Jiao R, Chu C-H (2013) Mass customization in the product life cycle. J Intell Manuf 24:877–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang Y, Tseng MM (2013) A naïve Bayes approach to map customer requirements to product variants. J Intell Manuf 1–9

  16. Zhang Y, Gershenson JK (2003) An initial study of direct relationships between life-cycle modularity and life-cycle cost. Concurr Eng 11:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gu P, Hashemian M, Sosale S (1997) An integrated modular design methodology for life cycle engineering. Ann CIRP 46(1):71–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang CC, Kusiak A (1998) Modularity in design of products and systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 28(1):66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ji YJ, Jiao RJ, Chen L, Wu C (2013) Green modular design for material efficiency: a leader–follower joint optimization model. J Clean Prod 41:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kusiak A, Chow WS (1987) Efficient solving of the group technology problem. J Manuf Syst 6(2):117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kusiak A, Wang J (1993) Efficient organizing of design activities. Int J Prod Res 31(4):753–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Newcomb PJ, Bras B, Rosen DW (1996) Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—8th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology: implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. Irvine, CA

  23. Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—6th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology: integration analysis of product decompositions. Minneapolis, MN

  24. Ishii K, Juengel C, Eubanks CF (1995) Proceedings of the 1995 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 7th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology: design for product variety: key to product line structuring. Boston, MA

  25. Marshall R, Leaney PG, Botterell P (1998) Enhanced product realisation through modular design: an example of product/process integration. J Integr Des Process Technol 3(4):143–150

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stone RB, Wood KL, Crawford RH (1998) Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Technical Conferences—11th International Conference on Design Theory and Automation: a heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. Las Vegas, NV

  27. Jose A, Tollenaere M (2005) Modular and platform methods for product family design: literature analysis. J Intell Manuf 16:371–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design rules: the power of modularity design. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar CS, Chandrasekharan MP (1990) Group efficacy: a quantitative criterion of goodness of block diagonal forms of binary matrices in group technology. Int J Prod Res 28:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fan BB, Qi GN, Hu XM, Yu T (2013) A network methodology for structure-oriented modular product platform planning. J Intell Manuf 1–18

  31. Zhang WY, Tor SY, Britton GA (2006) Managing product modularity in product family design with functional modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kreng VB, Lee TP (2004) MPD with grouping genetic algorithm: a case study. Comput Ind Eng 46(3):443–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kreng VB, Lee TP (2004) QFD-based MPD with linear integer programming—a case study. J Eng Des 15(3):261–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yu S, Yang Q, Tao J, Tian X, Yin F (2011) Product modular design incorporating life cycle issues—group genetic algorithm (GGA) based method. J Clean Prod 19:1016–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fujita K, Amaya H, Akai R (2014) Mathematical model for simultaneous design of module communalization and supply chain configuration toward global product family. J Intell Manuf 24:991–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. World Commission on Environment and Development Report (1987) From one earth to one world: an overview. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  37. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Development of a pollution prevention factors methodology based on life-cycle assessment: lithographic printing case study. Office of Research and Development, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sandborn P, Myers J (2008) Designing engineering systems for sustainability. In: Misra KB (ed) Handbook of performability engineering, chapter 7. Springer, London, pp 81–104

  39. Rodriguez SI, Roman MS, Sturhahn SC, Terry EH (2002) Sustainability assessment and reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus (joint Masters thesis). Report No. CSS02-04. Accessible online at http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS02-04.pdf

  40. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinee JB, Huppes G, Heijungs R, Van Der Voet E, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2009) D20 Blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis. Accessible online at http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d20.pdf

  41. Gungor A, Gupta SM (1999) Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Comput Ind Eng 36:811–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ilgin MA, Gupta SM (2010) Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO), a review of the state of the art. J Environ Manag 91:563–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design technical in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pigosso DCA, Zanette ET, Ometto AR (2010) Ecodesign methods focused on remanufacturing. J Clean Prod 18:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jiao JX, Simpson TW, Siddique Z (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 18:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ljungberg LY (2007) Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater Des 28(2):466–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Danneels E, Kleinschmidt EJ (2001) Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. J Prod Innov Manag 18(6):357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Garcia R, Calantone R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J Prod Innov Manag 19(2):110–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lau AKW (2009) Proceeding of PICMET 2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: managing MPD: critical factors and a managerial guide. Portland, OR

  50. Lau AKW, Yam RCM, Tang E (2009) The complementarity of internal integration and product modularity: an empirical study of their interaction effect on competitive capabilities. J Eng Technol Manag 26:305–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lau AKW, Yam RCM, Tang E (2011) The impacts of product modularity on new product performance: mediation by product innovativeness. J Prod Innov Manag 18(11):270–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Yen CC, Smith S (2009) Proceedings of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: product modular design using atomic theory, San Diego, CA

  53. Rantanen K, Domb E (2002) Simplified TRIZ. CRC, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Regazzoni D, Rizzi C (2008) Proceedings of the ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: enhancing modular design with creativity tools. Brooklyn, NY

  55. Ericsson A, Erixon G (1999) Controlling design variants-modular product platform. ASME Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Davis MLT, McAdams DA, Wadia AP (2011) Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium: Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Design: better resource usage through biomimetic symbiotic principles for host and derivative products synthesis, 2011

  57. Tsai MP, Shieh PI, Chuang CH (2012) Computer-supported innovation for modularized product design. Adv Mater Res 341:586–590

    Google Scholar 

  58. Fixson SK, Park JK (2008) The power of integrality: linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Res Policy 37:1296–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Krishnan V, Ramachandran K (2011) Integrated product architecture and pricing for managing sequential innovation. Manag Sci 57(11):2040–2053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mikkola JH, Gassmann O (2003) Managing modularity of product architectures: toward an integrated theory. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(2)

  61. Ramachandran K, Krishnan V (2008) Design architecture and introduction timing for rapidly improving industrial products. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 10(1):149–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Simon P, Hillson D, Newland K (1997) Project risk analysis and management guide. The Association for Project Management

  63. Smith PG, Merritt GM (2002) Proactive risk management. Productivity Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Keizer JA, Halman JIM, Song M (2002) From experience: applying the risk diagnosing methodology. J Prod Innov Manag 19:213–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang Q, Chai KH, Brombacher AC, Halman JIM (2004). Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Engineering Management Conference (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37574): Managing risks in modular product development, vol. 2, pp. 815–819

  66. Lee HL, Billingtong C (1994) Designing products and processes for postponement. In: Dasu S, Eastman C (eds) Management of design. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 105–122

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  67. Kahoo LP, Situmdrang TD (2003) Solving the assembly configuration problem for modular products using immune algorithm approach. Int J Prod Res 41(15):3419–3434

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Kim K, Chhajed D (1999) Commonality in product design: cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization. Eur J Oper Res 125:602–621

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Lau AKW, Yam RCM (2005) A case study of product modularization of supply chain design and coordination in Hong Kong and China. J Manuf Technol Manag16(4):432–446

  70. Sand JC, Gu P, Watson G (2002) HOME: House of Modular Enhancement a tool type for modular product redesign. Concurr Eng Res Appl 10(2):153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ulrich K, Pearson S (1998) Assessing the importance of design through product archeology. Manag Sci 44(3):352–369

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Ulrich K, Sartorius D, Pearson S, Jakiela M (1993) Including the value of time in design for manufacturing decision making. Manag Sci 39(4):429–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Fisher M, Ramdas K, Ulrich K (1999) Component sharing in the management of product variety: a study of automotive braking systems. Manag Sci 45(3):297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ulrich K, Ellison D (1999) Holistic customer requirements and the design select decision. Manag Sci 45(5):641–658

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  75. Collier D (1981) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decis Sci 12(1):85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Collier D (1982) Aggregate safety stock levels and component part commonality. Manag Sci 28(11):1296–1303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Garud R, Kumaraswamy A (1995) Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strateg Manag J 16:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Schilling M (2000) Toward a general modular system theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad Manag Rev 25(2):312–334

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ray S, Ray PK (2011) Product innovation for the people’s car in an emerging economy. Technovation 31:216–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Hopp WJ, Xu XW (2005) Product line selection and pricing with modularity in design. Manuf Serv Oper Manag 7(3):172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Fujita K, Yosshida H (2004) Product variety optimization simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes. Concurr Eng Res Appl 12(2):105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lau AKW, Yam RCM, Tang E (2007) The impacts of product modularity on competitive capabilities and performance: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 105(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Lau AKW (2011) Supplier and customer involvement on new product performance: contextual factors and an empirical test from manufacturer perspective. Ind Manag Data Syst 111(6):910–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Das K, Chowdhury AH (2012) Designing a reverse logistics network for optimal collection, recovery and quality-based product-mix planning. Int J Prod Econ 135:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Mukhopadhyay SK, Setoputro R (2005) Optimal return policy and modular design for build-to-order products. J Oper Manag 23:496–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Konstantaras I, Skouri K, Papachristos S (2011) Optimal pricing, return and modular design policy for build-to-order (BTO) products in a two parties supply chain system. IMA J Manag Math 22:1–12

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  87. Ulku S, Dimofte CV, Schmidt GM (2012) Consumer valuation of modularity upgradeable products. Manag Sci 58(9):1761–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wu LF, De Matta R, Lowe TJ (2009) Updating a modular product: how to set time to market and component quality. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(2):298–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Dong M, Shao X, Xiong S (2011) Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture: flexible optimization decision for product design agility with embedded real options, July, 2011

  90. Kumar D, Chen W, Simpson TW (2009) A market driven approach to product family design. Int J Prod Res 47(1):71–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press

  92. Asan U, Polat S, Sanchez R (2008) Scenario driven modular design in managing market uncertainty. Int J Technol Manag 42(4):459–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tseng HE, Chang CC, Li JD (2008) Modular design to support green life-cycle engineering. Expert Syst Appl 34:2524–2537

  94. Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Tonoike K, Kondoh S (2008) Product modularity for life cycle design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57(1):13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Li JZ, Zhang HC, Gonzalez MA, Yu S (2008) A multi-objective fuzzy graph approach for modular formulation considering end of life issues. Int J Prod Res 46(14):4011–4033

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  96. Bryant CR, Sivaramakrishnan KL, Wie MV, Stone RB, McAdams DA (2004) Proceedings of DETC’04 ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering conference: a modular design approach to support sustainable design, Salt Lake City, Utah

  97. Gu P, Sosale S (1999) Product modularization for life cycle engineering. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15:387–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Ji YJ, Chen XB, Qi GN, Song LW (2012) Modular design involving effectiveness of multiple phases for product life cycle. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 1–14

  99. Tseng HE, Chang CC, Li JD (2008) Modular design to support green life-cycle engineering. Expert Syst Appl 34:2524–2537

  100. Newcomb PJ, Bras B, Rosen DW (1998) Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. J Mech Des 120:483–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Seliger G, Zettl M (2008) Modularization as an enabler for cycle economy. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:133–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lai XX, Gershenson JK (2009) Proceeding of the ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: DSM-based product representation for retirement process-based modularity. San Diego, CA

  103. Tseng HE, Chang CC, Cheng CJ (2010) Disassembly-oriented assessment methodology for product modularity. Int J Prod Res 48(14):4297–4320

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  104. Yan JH, Feng CH, Cheng K (2012) Sustainability-oriented product modular design using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and genetic algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 226(10):1635–1647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Gonzalez B, Adenso-Diaz B (2005) A bill of material-based approach for end-of-life decision making in design for the environment. Int J Prod Res 43(10):2071–2099

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  106. Gao J, Xiang D, Duan G (2008) Subassembly identification based on grey clustering. Int J Prod Res 46(4):1137–1161

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  107. Falkenaur E (1998) Genetic algorithms for grouping problem. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  108. Meehan JS, Duffy AHB, Whitfield RI (2007) Supporting “design for re-use” with modular design. Concurr Eng 15(2):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Umeda Y, Fukushige S, Tonoike K (2009) Evaluation of scenario based modularization for life cycle design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Smith S, Yen CC (2010) Green product design through product modularization using atomic theory. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 26:790–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Koga T, Aoyama K (2008) Proceeding of ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: modular design method for sustainable life-cycle of product family considering future market changes. Brooklyn, New York

  112. Cebon P, Hauptman O, Shekhar C (2008) Product modularity and the product life cycle: new dynamics in the interactions of product and process technologies. Int J Technol Manag 42(4):365–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Chung WS, Okudan GE, Wysk RA (2011) Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering conference: a modular design approach to improve the life cycle performance derived from optimized closed-loop supply chain, Washington, DC

  114. Shin JH, Jun HB, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2011) A decision support method for product conceptual design considering product lifecycle factors and resource constraints. Int J Manuf Technol 52:865–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Dai HJ, Cheng H, Cai SH, Guo JZ (2009) Proceedings of International Conference on Management and Service Science: green design of the power plant based on modular optimization, Wuhan, China

  116. Luh YP, Chu CH, Pan CC (2010) Data management of green product development with generic modularized product architecture. Comput Ind 61:223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Wang CS, Lin PY, Chang TR (2010) Proceeding of 2010 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design. Green quality function development and modular design structure matrix in product development, Apr. 14–16, Shanghai, China

  118. Qian X, Zhang HC (2003) Design for environment: an environmental analysis model for the modular design of products. IEEE International Electronics and the Environment, 114–119

  119. Fitzpatric C, Walsh J, Grout I (2006) Proceedings of the 2006 I.E. International Symposium on Electronic and the Environment. Environmentally superior implementation of electronic hardware through modular programmable logic devices & eco design, May 8–11, Scottsdale, AZ

  120. Chiu MC, Okudan GE (2011) Investigation of the applicability of design for X tools during design concept evolution: a literature review. Int J Prod Dev 13(2):132–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Junfeng Ma

  2. School of Engineering Design, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Gül E. Okudan Kremer

Authors
  1. Junfeng Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gül E. Okudan Kremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junfeng Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, J., Kremer, G.E.O. A systematic literature review of modular product design (MPD) from the perspective of sustainability. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 86, 1509–1539 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8290-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-8290-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation