Fastening method selection with simultaneous consideration of product assembly and disassembly from a remanufacturing perspective

  • M. W. Geda
  • C. K. KwongEmail author
  • Huimin Jiang


In recent years, remanufacturing has received increased attention as a sustainable and profitable product recovery strategy. To facilitate the remanufacturing of used product returns, factors which affect remanufacturability should be considered during the product design stage. The selection of fastening method during the product design stage is one of the critical decisions which affects the remanufacturability as well as the total cost of disassembly and re-assembly of used products. Hence, both product assembly and disassembly issues should be considered in the product design stage for the selection of fastening methods. Simultaneous consideration of product assembly and disassembly in the product design stage for the fastening method selection has not been properly addressed in previous studies. In this paper, a methodology for selecting appropriate fastening method from a remanufacturing perspective is proposed in which both product assembly and disassembly are addressed. In the proposed methodology, an optimization model is formulated with the objective of minimizing the total cost of product assembly and disassembly. The genetic algorithm is employed to solve the model. A case study on the selection of fastening method for a laptop computer is conducted to illustrate the proposed methodology and to evaluate its effectiveness. The effect of the degree of product disassembly and the demand size for remanufactured products on the total cost of product assembly and disassembly was also investigated. The results showed the proposed methodology provide significant cost savings in the total product assembly and disassembly cost.


Design for disassembly Design for assembly Fastener selection End-of-life products Genetic algorithm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The work described in this paper was supported by a PhD studentship (Project account code: RUNJ) from The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.


  1. 1.
    Directive 2000/53/EC (2000). European Parliament and the Council on end-of-life vehicles (ELV). Off J Eur Union, Article, p 7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Directive 2002/95/EC (2003). European Parliament and the Council on restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS). Off J Eur Union 46:19–23Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Umeda Y, Ishizuka K, Matsumoto M, Kishita Y (2017) Modeling competitive market of remanufactured products. CIRP Ann 66(1):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ijomah W (2002) A model-based definition of the generic remanufacturing business process. Doctoral thesis, University of PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ismail NH, Mandil G, Zwolinski P (2014) A remanufacturing process library for environmental impact simulations. J Remanuf 4(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Östlin J, Sundin E, Björkman M (2008) Importance of closed-loop supply chain relationships for product remanufacturing. Int J Prod Econ 115(2):336–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitra S (2007) Revenue management for remanufactured products. Omega 35(5):553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mukherjee K, Mondal S (2009) Analysis of issues relating to remanufacturing technology – a case of an Indian company. Tech Anal Strat Manag 21(5):639–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matsumoto M, Yang S, Martinsen K, Kainuma Y (2016) Trends and research challenges in remanufacturing. Int J Precis Eng Manuf-Green Technol 3(1):129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mashhadi A, Esmaeilian B, Behdad S (2015) Uncertainty management in remanufacturing decisions: a consideration of uncertainties in market demand, quantity, and quality of returns. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part B. Mech Eng 1(2):021007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robert B (2012) Design for manufacture and assembly: background, capabilities and applications. Assem Autom 32(2):112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hatcher GD, Ijomah WL, Windmill JFC (2011) Design for remanufacture: a literature review and future research needs. J Clean Prod 19(17–18):2004–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bras B, Hammond R (1996) Towards design for remanufacturing—Metrics for assessing remanufacturability. In: Book Towards design for remanufacturing—Metrics for assessing remanufacturability. Citeseer, p 5–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sundin E (2004) Product and process design for successful remanufacturing. Linköping University Electronic PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zwolinski P, Brissaud D (2008) Remanufacturing strategies to support product design and redesign. J Eng Des 19(4):321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Du Y, Cao H, Liu F, Li C, Chen X (2012) An integrated method for evaluating the remanufacturability of used machine tool. J Clean Prod 20(1):82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fang HC, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2014) Product remanufacturability assessment based on design information. Proced CIRP 15:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA (2010) Product design for manufacture and assembly. Third Edition (Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mašín I (2014) A comparison of DFA methods for manual assembly. In: Ševĉik L, Lepšík P, Petrů M, Mašín I, Martonka R (eds) Modern methods of construction design. Springer Cham, pp 265–271Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leaney PG (1996) Case experience with Hitachi, Lucas and Boothroyd-Dewhurst DFA methods. In: Huang GQ (ed) Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Springer, Netherlands, pp 41–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Das SK, Yedlarajiah P, Narendra R (2000) An approach for estimating the end-of-life product disassembly effort and cost. Int J Prod Res 38(3):657–673CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroll E, Hanft TA (1998) Quantitative evaluation of product disassembly for recycling. Res Eng Des 10(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai A, Mital A (2005) Incorporating work factors in design for disassembly in product design. J Manuf Technol Manag 16(7):712–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rampersad HK (1994) Integrated and simultaneous design for robotic assembly: product development, planning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sabaghi M, Mascle C, Baptiste P (2016) Evaluation of products at design phase for an efficient disassembly at end-of-life. J Clean Prod 116:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soh SL, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2016) Design for assembly and disassembly for remanufacturing. Assem Autom 36(1):12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vanegas P, Peeters JR, Cattrysse D, Tecchio P, Ardente F, Mathieux F, Dewulf W, Duflou JR (2017) Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy strategies. Resour Conserv RecyclGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yi HC, Park YC, Lee KS (2003) A study on the method of disassembly time evaluation of a product using work factor method. In: Book A study on the method of disassembly time evaluation of a product using work factor method. p 1753–1759Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shu LH, Flowers WC (1999) Application of a design-for-remanufacture framework to the selection of product life-cycle fastening and joining methods. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15(3):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sodhi R, Sonnenberg M, Das S (2004) Evaluating the unfastening effort in design for disassembly and serviceability. J Eng Des 15(1):69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Güngör A (2006) Evaluation of connection types in design for disassembly (DFD) using analytic network process. Comput Ind Eng 50(1–2):35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ghazilla RAR, Taha Z, Yusoff S, Rashid SHA, Sakundarini N (2014) Development of decision support system for fastener selection in product recovery oriented design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 70(5):1403–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kobayashi M, Horiuchi H, Higashi M (2015) Optimal design of component layout and fastening methods for the facilitation of reuse and recycle. Comput-Aided Des Applic 12(5):537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sabbaghi M, Behdad S (2017) Optimal positioning of product components to facilitate ease-of-repair. In: Book optimal positioning of product components to facilitate ease-of-repair. Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE), p 1000–1005Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kroll E, Carver BS (1999) Disassembly analysis through time estimation and other metrics. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 15(3):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zandin KB (2002) MOST work measurement systems, 3rd edn. Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoseini P, Shayesteh MG (2010) Hybrid ant colony optimization, genetic algorithm, and simulated annealing for image contrast enhancement. In: Book hybrid ant colony optimization, genetic algorithm, and simulated annealing for image contrast enhancement. pp 1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina
  2. 2.College of ManagementShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations