Analyzing Conflicts Between Product Assembly and Disassembly for Achieving Sustainability
Environmental performance of a product could be increased throughout its life cycle by incorporating design requirements which consider Design for Disassembly (DfD) from a life cycle perspective by aiding ease of disassembly of the product across its life cycle. These design requirements, including DfD for different life cycle phases, should be made compatible with Design for Assembly (DfA) requirements within an integrated framework. Using such an integrated framework should reduce various layers of complexity introduced into design and should help designers to develop products that are easy to both assemble and disassemble, without compromising the product’s functionality. Prerequisites to developing the integrated framework are to: understand the requirements for DfD and DfA, identify if they are in conflict with one another, understand the underlying causes, and develop means to resolve these. To determine whether DfD and DfA requirements conflict one another, various existing products are analyzed, for conflicts among their assembly and disassembly processes. Various conflicts are found to be present among these processes. These conflicts are outlined, and possible causes for these are identified.
Keyword:Disassembly DfD DfA Conflicts
I would like to acknowledge the research students of IDeaS Lab and Masters students of VDS Lab, CPDM, IISc for participating in the study conducted using the questionnaire.
- 1.Motevallian B, Abhary K, Luong L, Marian RM (2007) Integration and optimisation of product design for ease of disassembly. In: Dudas L (ed) Engineering the future, Sciyo, pp 317–340. ISBN 978-953-307-210-4. doi: 10.5772/291
- 3.Veerakamolmal P, Gupta SM (2000) Design for disassembly, reuse and recycling. Environmentally responsible engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 69–82Google Scholar
- 4.Gkeleri VP, Tourassis VD (2008) A concise framework for disassemblability metrics. In: IEEE, 2008Google Scholar
- 9.Boothroyd G, Alting L (1992) Design for assembly and disassembly. Annals of CIRP 41:625–636Google Scholar
- 13.Shu LH, Flowers WC (1995) Considering remanufacture and other end-of-life options in selection of fastening and joining methods. In: IEEE, 1995Google Scholar
- 15.Lee K, Gadh R (1996) Destructive disassembly to support virtual prototyping. IIE J Des Manuf 30:359–72Google Scholar
- 16.Srinivasan H, Gadh R (1997) Virtual selective disassembly: a geometric tool to achieve net positive environmental value. In: 30th ISATA, Florida, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- 17.Srinivasan H, Shyamsundar N, Gadh R (1997) A Virtual Disassembly Tool to support environmentally conscious product design. In: IEEE, 0-7803-808-1Google Scholar
- 20.AFS-640 (1998) Acceptable methods, techniques, and practices aircraft inspection and repair, Title 14 of the code of federal regulations (14 CFR) guidance material : Advisory Circular 43.13-1B /U S Department of Transportation; Federal Aviation Administration. pp 4–12Google Scholar
- 21.Ref 1: Retaining ring from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_ring
- 22.Ref 2: Induction shrink fitting from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_shrink_fitting
- 23.Giudice F, La Rosa G, Risitano A (2006) Product design for the environment: a life cycle approach. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, p 348Google Scholar