Advertisement

Journal of Remanufacturing

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 89–107 | Cite as

A data-driven modeling approach for integrated disassembly planning and scheduling

  • Franz EhmEmail author
Research
  • 100 Downloads

Abstract

Over the past three decades, practitioners and researchers in engineering and operations sciences have focused on disassembly planning as a way to increase profitability of re-manufacturing, recycling and disposal processes for end-of-life products. An important task in disassembly planning is the representation of feasible operations sequences for the products. Precedence constraints can be derived from geometrical and technical relations among a product’s parts and joints and used to narrow down the set of possible sequences. There are several studies which address the problem of finding minimal process trees or AND/OR graphs as a prerequisite to disassembly sequence planning. However, since most of the existing approaches focus on specific product examples or industrial case studies there is still a lack of generic data sets for the academic purpose of model testing and evaluation. In this study, a systematic approach is presented to establish feasible AND/OR graphs from scratch based on general product design assumptions. Artificial process data as generated using the proposed methodology can be applied to various problems in disassembly decision making. In this study, it is used to analyze the combined problem of operations sequence planning and machine scheduling for the disassembly of multiple heterogeneous products. For this matter, disassembly sequences for each product and the order of operations at the stations have to be determined simultaneously with the objective of minimizing makespan. In contrast to existing problem formulations, the presented model explicitly considers divergence of the product structure during disassembly by allowing for parallel processing of separate sub-assemblies that have been extracted from the same product. A mixed-integer-program is developed based on disassembly process graphs which are derived for each product to represent alternative and parallel operations. Model performance is evaluated using 360 random instances created by the proposed process data generator. In addition, an industrial case study is presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed MIP model in a real-world disassembly context.

Keywords

Reverse logistics Disassembly Scheduling Data modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Benedikt Zipfel who contributed to the case study as part of his diploma thesis as well as the executive staff at Gebrauchtgerätezentrum Dresden GmbH & Co. KG who kindly provided the industrial data. Also the author is grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewers who helped to improve the quality of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdeljaouad MA, Bahroun Z, Omrane A, Fondrevelle J (2015) Job-shop production scheduling with reverse flows. Eur J Oper Res 244(1):117–128MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agrawal S, Tiwari MK (2008) A collaborative ant colony algorithm to stochastic mixed-model U-shaped disassembly line balancing and sequencing problem. Int J Prod Res 46(6):1405–1429CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amin-Naseri MR, Afshari AJ (2012) A hybrid genetic algorithm for integrated process planning and scheduling problem with precedence constraints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59(1):273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrés C, Lozano S, Adenso-Diaz B (2007) Disassembly sequence planning in a disassembly cell context. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 23(6):690–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourjault A (1984) Contribution à une approche méthodologique de l'assemblage automatisé: élaboration automatique des séquences opératoires (Doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheng TCE, Lin BMT, Tian Y (2013) A scheduling model for the refurbishing process in recycling management. Int J Prod Res 51(23–24):7120–7139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Fazio T, Whitney D (1987) Simplified generation of all mechanical assembly sequences. IEEE J Robot Autom 3(6):640–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Mello LH, Sanderson AC (1990) AND/OR graph representation of assembly plans. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 6(2):188–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehm F (2017) Process data generation for integrated disassembly sequencing and machine scheduling. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on remanufacturing (ICoR-17), 161–174Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehm F (2018) Machine scheduling for multi-product disassembly. In: Operations research proceedings, vol 2016. Springer, Cham, pp 507–513Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fattahi P, Mehrabad MS, Jolai F (2007) Mathematical modeling and heuristic approaches to flexible job shop scheduling problems. J Intell Manuf 18(3):331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gaudreault J, Frayret JM, Rousseau A, D’Amours S (2011) Combined planning and scheduling in a divergent production system with co-production: a case study in the lumber industry. Comput Oper Res 38(9):1238–1250CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalaycılar EG, Azizoğlu M, Yeralan S (2016) A disassembly line balancing problem with fixed number of workstations. Eur J Oper Res 249(2):592–604MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang CM, Kwak MJ, Cho NW, Hong YS (2010) Automatic derivation of transition matrix for end-of-life decision making. Int J Prod Res 48(11):3269–3298CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kang JG, Lee DH, Xirouchakis P, Persson JG (2001) Parallel disassembly sequencing with sequence-dependent operation times. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 50(1):343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim HW, Lee DH (2017) An optimal algorithm for selective disassembly sequencing with sequence-dependent set-ups in parallel disassembly environment. Int J Prod Res:1–17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolisch R, Sprecher A (1996) PSPLIB-a project scheduling problem library: OR software-ORSEP operations research software exchange program. Eur J Oper Res 96(1):205–216CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambert AJ (2002) Determining optimum disassembly sequences in electronic equipment. Comput Ind Eng 43(3):553–575MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lambert AJD, Gupta SM (2005) Disassembly Modelling for maintenance, reuse, recycling. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambert AJD (2006) Exact methods in optimum disassembly sequence search for problems subject to sequence dependent costs. Omega 34(6):538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lambert AJD, Gupta SM (2005) Determining optimum and suboptimum disassembly sequences with an application to a cell phone. The 6th IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Task Planning: From Nano to Macro Assembly and Manufacturing, 2005. (ISATP 2005):260–265Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo H, Huang GQ, Shi Y, Qu T (2012) Divergent production scheduling with multi-process routes and common inventory. Int J Prod Res 50(20):5762–5782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma YS, Jun HB, Kim HW, Lee DH (2011) Disassembly process planning algorithms for end-of-life product recovery and environmentally conscious disposal. Int J Prod Res 49(23):7007–7027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Özgüven C, Özbakır L, Yavuz Y (2010) Mathematical models for job-shop scheduling problems with routing and process plan flexibility. Appl Math Model 34(6):1539–1548MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith S, Smith G, Chen WH (2012) Disassembly sequence structure graphs: an optimal approach for multiple-target selective disassembly sequence planning. Adv Eng Inform 26(2):306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Toffolo TA, Santos HG, Carvalho MA, Soares JA (2016) An integer programming approach to the multimode resource-constrained multiproject scheduling problem. J Sched 19(3):295–307MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tripathi M, Agrawal S, Pandey MK, Shankar R, Tiwari MK (2009) Real world disassembly modeling and sequencing problem: optimization by algorithm of self-guided ants (ASGA). Robot Comput Integr Manuf 25(3):483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wauters T, Kinable J, Smet P, Vancroonenburg W, Berghe GV, Verstichel J (2016) The multi-mode resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problem. J Sched 19(3):271–283MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial ManagementTU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations