Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EOL strategy planning for components of returned products

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

Abstract

Remanufacturability assessment studies have been focused on analysing the feasibility whether a product can be remanufactured. However, not all components in a product are suitable for remanufacturing, e.g. some components may have to be disposed of due to wear and corrosion. This paper proposes a decision support tool to evaluate remanufacturability at the component level, to facilitate component end-of-life (EOL) strategy planning. The EOL strategies that maximize the expected savings under quality uncertainty are determined through comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analyses. A new approach is introduced to quantify and integrate environmental considerations into the decision-making process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Umeda Y, Takata S, Kimura F, Tomiyama T, Sutherland JW, Kara S, Herrmann C, Duflou R (2012) Toward integrated product and process life cycle planning—an environmental perspective. Ann CIRP 61(2):681–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Du YB, Cao HJ, Liu F, Li CB, Chen X (2012) An integrated method for evaluating the remanufacturability of used machine tool. J Clean Prod 20(1):82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vanessa MS, Gregory AK (2004) The value of remanufactured engines: life-cycle environmental and economic perspectives. J Ind Ecol 8(1–2):193–221

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson MR (2002) Evaluating remanufacturing and demanufacturing for extended producer responsibility and sustainable product management. PhD. Dissertation, University of Windsor

  5. Ziout A, Azab A, Atwan M (2014) A holistic approach for decision on selection of end-of-life products recovery options. J Clean Prod 65:497–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee HB, Cho NW, Hong YS (2010) A hierarchical end-of-life decision model for determining the economic levels of remanufacturing and disassembly under environmental regulations. J Clean Prod 18(13):1276–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Iakovou E, Moussiopoulos N, Xanthopoulos A, Achillas C, Michailidis N, Chatzipanagioti M, Kikis V (2009) A methodological framework for end-of-life management of electronic products. Resour Conserv Recycl 53(6):329–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan JWK (2008) Product end-of-life options selection: grey relational analysis approach. Int J Prod Res 46(11):2889–2912

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Staikos T, Rahimifard S (2007) A decision model for waste management in the footwear industry. Int J Prod Res 45(18–19):4403–4422

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bufardi A, Sakara D, Gheorghe R, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2003) Multiple criteria decision aid for selecting the best product end of life scenario. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 16(7–8):526–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodall P, Rosamond E, Harding J (2014) A review of the state of the art in tools and techniques used to evaluate remanufacturing feasibility. J Clean Prod 81:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. King A, Barker S (2007) Using the Delphi Technique to establish a robust research agenda for remanufacturing. Proceedings of 14th CIRP conference on life cycle engineering, 219–24

  13. Thorn BK, Rogerson P (2002) Take it back, IIE Solutions. Retrieved 1st Oct, 2014 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85407252.html

  14. Ijomah W (2009) Addressing decision making for remanufacturing operations and design for-remanufacture. Int J Sustain Eng 2(2):91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Subramonian R, Donald H, Ratna BC (2010) Aftermarket remanufacturing strategic planning decision-making framework: theory and practice. J Clean Prod 18(16–17):1575–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yuksel H (2010) Design of automobile engines for remanufacture with quality function deployment. Int J Sustain Eng 3(3):170–180

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Lund R (1998) Remanufacturing: an American resource. Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, 1–10

  18. Amezquita T, Hammond R, Salazar M, Bras B (1995) Characterizing the remanufacturability of engineering systems. Proceedings ASME Advances in Design Automation Conference, 271–278

  19. Lee SG, Lye SW, Khoo MK (2001) A multi-objective methodology for evaluating product end-of-life options and disassembly. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18(2):148–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kongar E, Gupta SM (2006) Disassembly sequencing using genetic algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30(5–6):497–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang XG, Zhang H, Jiang ZG, Wang YH (2013) A decision-making approach for end-of-life strategies selection of used parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-5234-0

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jun HB, Cusin M, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2007) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for EOL product recovery optimization: turbocharger case study. Int J Prod Res 45(18):4573–4594

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gonzalez B, Adenso-Diaz B (2005) A bill of materials-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 

  24. Ghazalli Z, Murata A (2011) Development of an AHP-CBR evaluation system for remanufacturing: end-of-life selection strategy. Int J Sustain Eng 4(1):2–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seo KK, Park JH, Jang DS (2001) Optimal disassembly sequence using genetic algorithms considering economic and environmental aspects. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18(5):371–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jin XN, Ni J, Koren Y (2011) Optimal control of reassembly with variable quality returns in a product remanufacturing system. Ann CIRP 60(1):25–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krikke HR, van Harten A, Schuur PC (1998) On a medium term product recovery and disposal strategy for durable assembly products. Int J Prod Res 36(1):111–140

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Dong T, Zhang L, Tong R, Dong J (2006) A hierarchical approach to disassembly sequence planning for mechanical product. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30(5):507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferguson M, Guide VD, Koca E, Souza GC (2009) The value of quality grading in remanufacturing. Prod Oper Manag 18(3):300–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith VM, Keoleian AG (2003) The value of remanufactured engines: life cycle environmental and economic perspectives. J Ind Ecol 8(1–2):193–221

    Google Scholar 

  31. The automotive Parts Remanufacturer Association, retrieved on 1st Oct 2014, from http://www.apra.org

  32. Kim HJ, Raichur V, Skerlos SJ (2008) Economic and environmental assessment of automotive remanufacturing: alternator case study. Proceedings of the 2008 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, 33–40

  33. Schau EM, Traverso M, Finkbeiner M (2010) Life cycle approach to sustainability assessment: a case study of remanufactured alternators. J Remanufact 2(5):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  34. Atasu A, Guide VDR, Van Wassenhove LN (2010) So what if remanufacturing cannibalizes my new product sales? Calif Manag Rev 52(2):56–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 28 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117456, Singapore

    S. S. Yang, S. K. Ong & A. Y. C. Nee

  2. Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore, 9 Engineering Drive 1, Singapore, 117576, Singapore

    S. K. Ong & A. Y. C. Nee

Authors
  1. S. S. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. K. Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Y. C. Nee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. K. Ong.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 Economic index for different EOL options (alternator)
Full size table
Table 2 Environmental index for different EOL options (alternator)
Full size table
Table 3 Conditional probability of quality level for subassemblies and components (alternator)
Full size table
Table 4 Disassembly cost for different disassembly strategies (alternator)
Full size table
Table 5 Economic index for different EOL options (hedge trimmer)
Full size table
Table 6 Environmental index for different EOL options (hedge trimmer)
Full size table
Table 7 Conditional probability of quality level for subassemblies and components (hedge trimmer)
Full size table
Table 8 Disassembly cost for different disassembly strategies (hedge trimmer)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S.S., Ong, S.K. & Nee, A.Y.C. EOL strategy planning for components of returned products. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 77, 991–1003 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6505-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-6505-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation