ICoRD'13 pp 557-567 | Cite as

Analyzing Conflicts Between Product Assembly and Disassembly for Achieving Sustainability

  • S. Harivardhini
  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


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.


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. 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
  2. 2.
    Alting L, Legarth JB (1995) Life cycle engineering and design. Annals ClRP 44(2):569–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veerakamolmal P, Gupta SM (2000) Design for disassembly, reuse and recycling. Environmentally responsible engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 69–82Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gkeleri VP, Tourassis VD (2008) A concise framework for disassemblability metrics. In: IEEE, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu MC, Kremer GEO (2011) Investigation of the applicability of design for X tools during design concept evolution: a literature review. Int J Prod Develop 13(2):132–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan L, Gupta SM, Taleb KN (1994) Operations planning issues in an assembly/disassembly environment. Int J Oper Prod Manage 14(9):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desai A, Mital A (2003) Evaluation of disassemblability to enable design for disassembly in mass production. Int J Ind Ergon 32:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kroll E, Hanft TA (1998) Quantitative evaluation of product disassembly for recycling. Res Eng Des 10:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boothroyd G, Alting L (1992) Design for assembly and disassembly. Annals of CIRP 41:625–636Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jovane F, Alting L, Eversheim W, Feldmann K, Seliger G, Roth N (1993) A key issue in product life cycle: disassembly. Annals ClRP 42(2):651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Penev kD, De Ron AJ (1996) Determination of a disassembly strategy. Int J Prod Res 34(2):495–506MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta SM, McLean CR (1996) Disassembly of products. Comput Ind Eng 31:225–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Harjula T, Rapoza B, Knight WA, Boothroyd G (1996) Design for disassembly and the environment. Annals ClRP 45(7):109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee K, Gadh R (1996) Destructive disassembly to support virtual prototyping. IIE J Des Manuf 30:359–72Google Scholar
  16. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Westkamper E, Feldmann K, Reinhart G, Seliger G (1999) Integrated development of assembly and disassembly. Annals ClRP 48(2):557–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nof SY, Chen J (2003) Assembly and disassembly: an overview and framework for cooperation requirement planning with conflict resolution. J Intell Rob Syst 37:307–320MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 21.
    Ref 1: Retaining ring from Wiki -
  22. 22.
    Ref 2: Induction shrink fitting from Wiki -
  23. 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

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDeaS Lab, CPDMIndian Institute of ScienceBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations