Transcript Designing Products for Extended Life Spans and Multiple

Designing Products for Extended Life
Spans and Multiple Profit Cycles
–
Remanufacture and Reuse
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
A Product’s Life Cycle – From Cradle
• Basic questions you need to ask and keep in mind when
designing: What do we want to do, why, and how?
Manufacture
Material
processing
Mining
Environment:
air, sea, land
4
Product
manufacture
3
2
Distribution
1
Demanufacture
Disposal
Material demanufacture
Product
demanufacture
Use
+
Service
Product
take-back
1 = Direct recycling / reuse
Energy
recovery with
incineration
Clean fuel
production
via pyrolysis
2 = Remanufacture of reusab le components
3 = Reprocessing of recycled material
4 = Monomer / raw material regeneration
The phrase “demanufacture” is used to characterize the process opposite to
manufacturing involved in recycling materials and products.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Recycle and Re-Use – AAMA Definitions
• Recycle:
– A series of activities, including collection, separation, and processing, by which
products or other materials are recovered from or otherwise diverted from the
solid waste stream for use in the form of raw materials in the manufacture of
new products.
» Materials which are diverted for use as an energy source should be
documented separately under the category of energy recovery
• Re-Use:
– The series of activities, including collection, separation, and in some cases
processing, by which products are recovered from the waste stream for use in
their original intended manner.
» Remanufactured components fall under the classification of re-use.
» (Germans refer to this as “product recycling”.)
• Note: Both definitions include collection as a first step.
• Reverse logistics and reverse logistics management (RLM) are a
(design) concern.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Reverse Logistics Management
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
What is the Objective of RLM?
• What is the RLM for?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Product service for customer/owner?
Product reuse “as-is” for new customer?
Product remanufacture for new customer(s)?
Recycling of product’s material?
Disposal of product?
Or all of the above for selected sub-assemblies of the product?
Other?
• The RLM intent will drive to a large extent the “design for
RLM” effort.
– Material recycling allows for destruction of the product. The issue of
transport damage is almost irrelevant. Design for Disassembly requirements
for mechanical separation are different that for manual separation.
– Product reuse/remanufacture relies on a high residual value. Transport
damage is to be avoided or limited by proper logistics product and logistics
design.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Who is doing the RLM and Life Extension?
• Who is driving/controlling the RLM?
– The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)?
– A third party contracted by the OEM?
– An independent friendly or “hostile” entrepreneur
• Associated big issue: who “controls” the product design and
what influence do life-cycle participants have over the
design?
• One of the most critical issues for independent
remanufacturer is how and where to get the replacement
parts.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Automotive Cores at Independent Remanufacturer
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Delta Airlines
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Designing Products for Remanufacture & Re-Use
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Product Life Extension
• Products become obsolete because of
– technical obsolescence
– fashion obsolescence
– degrade performance or structural fatigue caused ny normal wear over
repeated uses
– environmental or chemical degradation
– damage caused by accident or inappropriate use
• To achieve life-extension and multiple profit cycles, these
issues have to be countered.
• Critical Issue: The “openness” of the product design strongly
affects RLM and associated life extension processes
– Upgradable products allow for a larger percentage to be salvaged
– Use of technology that is proprietary or difficult to reverse engineer will
block/limit the number of independent entrepreneurs
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Characteristics of Flexible Product Platforms
Flexibility of product platforms can be enhanced by improving any
of the following core characteristics:
• Modularity:
– relationship between a product’s functional and physical structures such that there
is (1) a one-to-one correspondence between functional and physical structures, and
(2) a minimization of unintended interactions between modules
• Robustness:
Change in Form
100%
Mutability
– capability of system to function properly despite
small environmental changes or noise
• Mutability:
– capability of system to be contorted or reshaped
in response to changing requirements or
environmental conditions
Robustness
M
o
d
u
l
a
r
i
t
y
0%
0%
Change in Function
100%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design Parameters
• Assumptions:
– We want to increase and not block product reuse/remanufacture/recycling.
– We are open to others becoming involved.
• “Big” issues (organizational design):
– Infuse life-cycle thinking in the design and product realization teams. “Traditional”
designs were at best designed with serviceability in mind.
– Get (if possible) life-cycle partners about the quality of your product and how to
improve his/her life.
– Make sure your suppliers participate as well.
• “Small” issues (hardware design)
–
–
–
–
–
Life-time extension through durable design.
Life-time extension of product “core” through modular and open design.
Recyclability improvements through proper material selection.
Remanufacturability improvements through proper fastener selection.
Etc. (see common available literature)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Do Not Forget UNCERTAINTY!
• In remanufacture, recycling, etc., the number and range of
uncertainties are higher than for “regular” manufacture and
logistics because many of the concerns are out of the control of
the OEM and the designers.
• Product uncertainties:
–
–
–
–
How long is its life?
What is its state after its life?
What changes have been made during its life?
Etc.
• This affects organizational uncertainties such as:
– How many will be available for take-back?
– How long will it take to reprocess the product?
– Etc.
• Designers and product realization teams should at least be aware
of uncertainties, but also try to manage the uncertainties by
smart product and process design.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design Guideline Examples – Optimization of Initial Life-Time
• Reliability and durability
– If something breaks, it can become waste immediately
• Easy maintenance and repair
– Especially for energy and material intensive products this should be pursued
• Modular product structure
– Allow for upgrading of function.
– Open systems.
– Modern computers are a good example.
• Classic design
– Porsche 911s and MGBs are being restored and well kept. A Yugo is not.
– Aesthetically appealing and “time-less” designs are usually better maintained
• User taking care of product
– Proper care and maintenance by user can significantly extend a product’s lifetime.
– User typically does take care of capital intensive products (e.g., a car), but
what about a relatively cheap product (e.g., a $10 alarm clock).
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Know Your Life-Cycle Processes!
• Know what process you are designing for!
– E.g., there is a clear distinction between manual vs mechanical separation design
guidelines when it comes to fastener selection.
• Manual Separation:
– Reduce number of fasteners, commonize fastener types, use fasteners made of same
or compatible materials, consider snap-fits (two-way, if necessary), etc.
– Consider destructive fastener removal (possible inclusion of break points)
• Mechanical separation (destructive): Fasteners will not be
unfastened and fastener disassembly time is irrelevant!
– Material properties are key issue!
– In order of preference, use
1) Molded-in fasteners (same material)
2) Separate fasteners of same or compatible material
3) Metal fasteners (easy to remove due to magnetic properties)
– Plastics should have at least 0.03 density difference for sink-float separation)
Integrated Product and Process Design should be pursued.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Remanufacture Process and Issues
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Basic Processes
• Disassembly is not the only process in remanufacture or
recycling.
• For remanufacture and re-use, the following processes are
typically considered:
–
–
–
–
–
disassembly (non-destructive),
cleaning,
inspection and sorting,
part upgrading or renewal,
re-assembly.
• For material recycling:
– material separation (disassembly),
– sorting,
– reprocessing.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Listen to Practitioners !
W h at M akes A Prod u ct M ore Dif f icu lt T o Rem an u f actu re
P e r c e ntage of R e sponse s
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Pa rts A va ila bility
35%
40%
45%
43%
A sse m bly/disa sse m bly
25%
D e sign simplic ity
21%
Re c ove ra bility of c ore s
18%
14%
Core A va ila bility
7%
T e c hnic a l Spe c ific a tions
M a rke t D e ma nd
30%
4%
Pe rma ne nt Fa ste ne rs
4%
Siz e of Produc t
4%
T e sting Re quire d
4%
Pric e of pa rts
4%
Hammond, R., Amezquita, T. and Bras, B., 1997, “Issues in the Automotive Parts Remanufacturing Industry – A
Discussion of Results from Surveys Performed Among Remanufacturers,” Journal of Engineering Design and
Automation, Special Issue on Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, (in press).
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Most Costly Operations
W h i ch O pe ra ti o n s A re M o s t C o s tl y
Percenta g e O f R es po ns es
0%
10%
20%
30%
P art R ep l acemen t
40%
50%
43%
C l ean i n g
29%
21%
P art R efu rb i s h i n g
R eas s emb l y
11%
7%
In s p ecti o n
So rt i n g
4%
4%
Fi n d i n g P art So u rces
D i s as s emb l y
0%
P ack ag i n g
0%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Disassembly Difficulties
W h a t M a k e s D i s a s s e m bl y M o s t D i ffi cu l t
Percenta g e O f R es po ns es
0%
5%
10%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
39%
C o rro s i o n / R u s
t
D i rt / O i l / D eb ri s / et c...
.
P erman en t Fas t en i n g
14%
14%
R ed u ce C o re D amag e
7%
C o mp l exi t y
7%
O .E . M fg . Tech n i q u es
4%
Ti g h t To l eran ces
4%
Si ze
4%
R eq . Sp eci al To o l i n g
4%
W o rn Fas t en er H ead s
4%
D i s as s emb l y
P ro ces s
15%
4%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Cleaning Difficulties
W hat Mak es Cleaning Mos t Difficult
Percen tage of Resp on ses
15%
10%
5%
0%
20%
30%
25%
36%
EP A Issues
25%
Excess Debris
14%
S ize of part/orifices
11%
M aterials Used
7%
C orrosion/R ust
4%
Low Volum e
F ragility of P arts
40%
35%
0%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Inspection Difficulties
What Mak es Inspection Most Difficult
Pe rce n tage of Res pon ses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Inspector's knowledge
29%
Defining Specifications
21%
21%
Identifying Defect s
11%
Product Diversit y
T olera nce s for Wear
30%
4%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Refurbishing Difficulties
What Mak es Refurbishing Most Difficult
Pe rce n tage O f Re sponse s
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
18%
Skill of Em ployees
Pr oduct Diver sit y
11%
Downsiz ing P art s
11%
Pa rt D esign
11%
Spec's and Pr ocesses
7%
Pa rt handling
4%
Cost of P rocesse s
4%
Cor rosion
4%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Reassembly Difficulties
W h at M akes R eassem b ly M ost D if f icu lt
P e r c e nt age O f R e sponse s
0%
5%
10%
15%
14%
Skill of E m ploye e
Pr oduc t D ive r sity
11%
Com ple xity of D e sign
11%
Re pla c e m e nt D e f e c ts
7%
V a r ia tions in Cor e s
7%
Pe r m a ne nt Fa ste ning
7%
L ighte r D uty M a te r ia ls
7%
T hr e a de d H ole s
7%
T ole r a nc e s
7%
Re stoc king W or ksta tions
Spe c ia l T ooling
4%
4%
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Key Decision Criteria
Q ue st io n 3:
H o w D o Y o u Go A b o ut D e cid ing W he t he r O r N o t To R e manufact ure A
Giv e n P ro d uct
47.1%
C ustom er /M ar ket D em and
41.2%
Availability of Par ts
35.3%
Pr ofit Potential
29.4%
Investm ent into R epair
17.6%
C om petition ( R em an or N ew )
11.8%
Availability of C or es
Star t- up C osts
5.9%
W ar r anty R atio
5.9%
0
0.1
0.3
0.2
Percen t ag e o f R esp o n ses
0.4
0.5
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design Issues
Question 9:
What Design Issues Affect Remanufa cturing The Most?
Lighter Duty Materials
26%
High Output Devices
22%
Not Designed For Servicability
13%
OEM Quality
9%
9%
Close Fits / Tolerances
9%
Smaller Parts
Destructive Disassembly Req'd
9%
4%
Computerization Req'd
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Pe rcen tage of Res pon se s
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Changes in the Remanufacturing Industry
Question 10:
What Major Changes Have Taken Place In The Remanufacturing Industry Over The Past
Several Years?
Gover nment Regulations
16%
Parts Pr olif fer ation
12%
Foreign Replacement Par ts
12%
Design For Disposal
12%
Increased Perf or mance
8%
Low Quality Parts
8%
Competition Incr eased
8%
Focus on Quality
8%
More Eff icient Machinery
4%
Mass Mer chandizing
4%
Longer W ar ranty
4%
Increased Sales to End-User
4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Pe rcen tage of Res pon se s
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Some Observations
• Availability and cost of replacement parts are dominating
factors. The increasing product diversity and part proliferation
are adversely affecting this.
• Light-weighting was also identified as a negative (OEM) design
change. So are the increase Design for Assembly efforts which
emphasize part integration and one-way fastener connections.
• Cleaning and associated regulatory issues was identified as one
of the highest cost contributors.
• Corrosion was ranked highest in complicating the disassembly
process.
• Employee skill is an issue predominant in three categories.
• The margin of profitability needed to consider a product for
remanufacture ranges between 30 - 100 %. However, key (and
blocking) issues are part proliferation and lack of replacement
parts.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Typical Process Problems
• Facility level:
–
–
–
–
–
Core pipeline is too long
Large core and finished good warehouses
Inadequate supply of replacement parts & cores
Finished goods warehouse has priority over production
Mass production mindset
• Process and Operations level:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Setups are too long
Cycle times of batch operations are too long
Batching generated delays - long lead times
Job shop layout
Craft production practices
Cores & component parts are damaged during processing
Parts are cannibalized
• Clearly, one should not forget PROCESS DESIGN!
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Craft and Mass Production Examples
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed
to see this and
picture.
QuickTime™
a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed
to see this and
picture.
QuickTime™
a
Controls
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Wheelabrator
Finished pressure plates
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed
to see this and
picture.
QuickTime™
a
Photo - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
• Enough cores have to be
collected before the machine
can (economicaly) operate
• Human errors can ruin cores.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Typical Material Flow for Current Remanufacture Operations
ci : core i
Accumul ation in
rc j : rem anufactured core j
mixe d batches
repla cement comp onent parts
c1
c5
c2
c3
c4
c5
c1
c4
c1
c5
c2
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
c2
c1
remanufacturing
rc3
rc2
rc1
rc2
rc1
c4
w areho us e
c4
rc1
a s se m b ly
c3
ordered b atches
d is a s se m b l y
c2
Accumul ation in
c3
s o rting
c1
c2
Core Storage
c5
recy cli ng of n onreusab le compo nent
parts after proces sing
Use
custom ers
cores
remanu factured c ores
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Lean Remanufacture Material Flow
r eplacement of
non- essential
component parts
c i : core i
rc j : remanufactured core j
c ore s torage
c5
c4
c3
c2
c1
remfg.
r c5
r c4
r c3
r c2
r c1
Y
r ecycle entir e
core be fo re
processing
N
r ecycling of
non- essential
component parts
sorting:
is cor e
r emanufactur able?
customers
cores
•
•
r emanufactur ed cores
Amezquita, T., 1996, "Lean Remanufacturing in the Automotive Industry," Master of Science Thesis,
G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Amezquita, T. and Bras, B. A., 1996, "Lean Remanufacture of an Automobile Clutch," First International
Workshop on Reuse, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 35-52.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Moving to Lean Remanufacture
• Obtaining Economies of Scale and the Ability to Handle
Large Varieties of Products
• Eliminating non-value added resources and activities
• Integration of production system elements and work
functions
Lean Producers Non-Value Added Wastes and Countermeasures
Non-Value Added Wastes
Countermeasures
waste of overproduction
make only what has been ordered
already
waste of waiting
keep product flowing and batches of
size = 1
waste of transporting
place operations next to each other
and store assembly parts at the point
of use
waste of inventories
make only what has been ordered
already
waste of moving
change working conditions to
eliminate unnecessary moving
waste of defective parts and products
prevent errors from becoming
defects by using source inspections
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design for Remanufacturing Guidelines
–
Attention to Details
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Disassembly, Cleaning, and Inspection
• Ease of disassembly: If disassembly cannot be bypassed, make
it easier so that less time can be spent during this non-valueadded phase.
– Permanent fastening such as welding or crimping should not be used if the
product is intended for remanufacture.
– Also, it is important that no part be damaged by the removal of another.
• Ease of cleaning: Parts which have seen use inevitably need to
be cleaned. In order to design parts such that they may easily
be cleaned, the designer must know what cleaning methods may
be used, and design the parts such that the surfaces to be
cleaned are accessible, and will not collect residue from cleaning
(detergents, abrasives, ash, etc...).
• Ease of inspection: As with disassembly, inspection is an
important, yet a non-value-added phase. The time which must
be spent on this phase should be minimized.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Sorting and Inspection
Inspectability:
• Make failures easy to detect.
Sorting:
• Make parts easy to detect and facilitate standard and automated
handling procedure.
• Reduce amount of sorting by reducing component count.
Geometrically very
alike studs
standardize,
either on lenght
or thickness
Standardize
fasteners on either
length or thickness
Variety of studs with
only small differences
diameter
Variety of studs
length
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Cleanability
• Minimize geometric features that trap contaminants.
– A sharp concave corner is an example of a geometric feature which traps
contaminants
– If a rib or plate is expected to trap dirt or grease, consider making it
removable (see figure).
• Reduce contamination through wear.
• Reduce corrosion and wear if part is to be re-usable.
Oil deposits behind
riveted plate
Make difficult to
clean spots,
corners, and traps
removable
Difficult to clean
Contaminated
"dead" corners
Hexagonal bolts
secured through
plate welding
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Component Replacement, Reassembly, and Reuse
• Ease of part replacement: It is important that parts that
wear are capable of being replaced easily, not just to
minimize the time required to reassemble the product, but to
prevent damage during part insertion.
• Ease of reassembly: As with the previous criteria, time spent
on reassembly should be minimized using Design For
Assembly guidelines.
– Where remanufactured product is assembled more than once, this is very
important.
– Tolerances also relate to reassembly issues
• Reusable components: As more parts in a product can be
reused, it becomes more cost effective to remanufacture the
product (especially if these parts are costly to replace).
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Modularization and Standardization
• Modular components: By making designs modular, the
assembly and disassembly times can be reduced which
enhances remanufacturing.
• Standardization: Standardization always supports
remanufacture. Pay special attention to the following:
– Components: Use as much as possible standard, commonly and easily available
components. Use of specialty components may render remanufacture of
assemblies impossible if these specialty components cannot be ontained any
more.
– Fasteners: By standardizing the fasteners to be used in parts, the number of
different fasteners can be reduced, thus reducing the complexity of assembly
and disassembly, as well as the material handling processes.
– Interfaces: By standardizing the interfaces of components, a fewer of parts are
needed to produce a large variety of similar products. This helps to build
economies of scale which also improves remanufacturability.
– Tools: Ensure that the part can be remanufactured using commonly available
tools. The use of specialty tools can also degrade serviceability.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Upgrade / Renewal and Re-assembly
Cast air filter
bracket
Satisfactory
wall thic kness
for milling
grooves for
repla cement
bracket
Deformation and tear
through frequent
overtightening
Build in (material)
redundancy for
refurbishing/upgrading/
partial replacement
Replacement
bracket (pressed
metal part)
Damage to
cast parts
Allow for replacement
of studs and other
fasteners
Resistance welded
studs
use
repla cable
fastening
mechanisms
Difficult
sheared studs
repla cement
Allow for easy re-assembly.
Resistance welded
threaded fasteners
Follow Design for Servicability guidelines.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
A Case Study Example
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Investigative Case Study: Automobile Door
• Let’s investigate a product which is not currently remanufactured.
• Purpose:
– Identify characteristics which would facilitate cost-effective remanufacture of the
product.
– Exercise existing design for recycling and remanufacture guidelines
– Identify potential design changes to enhance remanufacturability
• Specific tasks:
–
–
–
–
–
Assess current design and the
repair process - look at costs.
Develop design criteria which
would make the door more
remanufacturable.
Develop alternative designs for
door components.
Develop a remanufacture
process.
See if there is an economic
viability.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Current Door Design and Repair Process
• Designing for Remanufacturability
– Part of the trade-off process in design
» Had been sacrificed in favor of higher priority goals
» Remanufacturing is becoming more important
• Economics
– New door cost between $1,000 and $2,000.
– Salvaged door (before remanufacture) cost between $100 and $400
• Repairing Damaged Doors
– Comparison:
Major Cost Driver
Door Skin Replacement
~ 10 Hours Per Door!
Chrysler $430
Buick
$388
Saturn
$143
– Why are Saturn’s doors so much less expensive?
Door skin is easily removed - requires less time and
simplifies removal of interior components of door
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design for Remanufacture Criteria
(Demands and Wishes)
1. Materials
W
W
D
D
D
W
W
D
W
D
D
W
All materials must be recyclable
No substantial increase in cost of materials
Must be corrosion resistant
Must be durable
Easily refurbishable
Light weight
Environmentally benign processing methods
Robust enough to reuse without replacement
Use recycled materials
Avoid toxic materials
Use secondary finishes such as painting, coating, etc.
Keep secondary finishes clear
2. Assembly methods
W
W
W
D
W
Less complex than existing methods
Faster than existing methods
Common method for diverse styles
Use Design for Assembly methods
Reduce number of components
3. Fasteners
D
D
D
D
W
D
Must be corrosion resistant
Must be durable
Must be reusable
Do not use screw heads which are easily damaged
(e.g., Torx, Phillips, etc.)
Do not combine metric and standard screws
Use standard fasteners
4. Design for Separability
D
D
W
W
W
disassembly
D
D
Choose joints that are easy to disassemble
Simplify and standardize component fits
Identify separation joints
Make adhesives safely soluble
Layout plastic parts close to top level of
path
Provide "easy to see access" for disassembly
Provide access for power tool operation
5. Cleaning
D
W
Easy to handle and clean components
Do not use grooves or cavities that are hard to clean
6. Parts Replacing
D
W
Make parts susceptible to breakage easy to replace
Make parts susceptible to breakage separate from
other parts
7. Modular components
D
D
Standard interfaces
Commonization/standardization of parts
8. Design for Recovery
D
W
Parts must be high quality and durable
Parts must be easy to remove but not to steal
(See Amezquita, T., Hammond, R. and Bras, B., 1995,
"Characterizing the Remanufacturability of
Engineering Systems," 1995 ASME Advances in
Design Automation Conference, DE-Vol. 82, Boston,
Massachusetts, ASME, pp. 271-278)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Current Design
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design Concepts for Enhanced Remanufacturability
Door Skin Attachment Method
Window Trim Moldings
Cor ne r
Window
Do or Shell
One Window Only
Do or Skin
Spot Welds
Crimpin g
Groo ve
Screws
Tong ue
From Crimped to a Tonge &
Groove/Screw Assembly
Window Frame Plastic Trim
Remove Molding - Single Window
Opening
Window Mechanism Fasteners
Tounge & Groove + Crimp
Crimp on and Screws
Replace screws with Tongue and
Groove Assembly
Change Fasteners From Screws to
Rivets
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Hypothetical Automobile Door Remanufacturing Facility
• An investigation of the economic
feasibility of large scale
automobile door remanufacture
was also undertaken. Approach:
– design an actual business, and
– perform subsequent economic analyses.
Receiving and
Pack aging
• Economic base line:
– Actual prices for a specific car door were
taken from Mitchell’s 1994 Collision
Estimating Guide, Domestic. The price
for a totally new door is $1,177 before
labor costs
– According to Lund & Skeels (1983), the
price at which remanufactured
automotive components can
competitively sell for is 57% of the new
item price
– Thus, the estimated price the market will
bear is $671 for this particular door.
Work station
Work station
Work station
Paint
Dry ing
Room
Glass
Washing
Room
Co2
Blasting
Room
Elctro-painting
Room
WaterJet
Cleaning
Room
- Work er
Potential physical layout of specialized
door remanufacture facility.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Process Assumptions
The following assumptions were made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Test Market: Metropolitan Atlanta with 429 body shops in test area.
Half of the body shops will want remanufactured doors. This is based on the fact that new cars (<2 years
old) might receive new doors, whereas the older cars won’t.
Each shop will require one door per week. Assumed volume: 215 doors per week.
Cores will be available and subsequently purchased through salvage yard network.
Process will be Just In Time (i.e. doors will be purchased and processed as orders are received).
The end product is a primed door casing (shell and skin) with associated components packaged and
delivered with the shell. No other assemblies attached.
Parts which are remanufacturable (from a standard list) will be, and they will accompany the door to the
purchaser.
The purchaser will be responsible for obtaining nonremanufacturable parts (from a standard list) and
final painting/assembly of the door. The justification for this is that each door will require a specific
color more readily matched on site. Further, painting an entire door (like new) requires parts to be off
during painting. Currently body shops receive parts independently and are able to paint the door frame
(shell + skin) without the parts attached. Therefore, this proposed procedure is consistent with current
operations. This practice assures like-new condition of the car door. Shortcoming: this is a labor
intensive process for the body shop in reassembly.
Based on a 32 minute disassembly time (based on experimental time studies on donated doors), and 7
hours of labor time during a day, only 14 cars may be disassembled by a person per day. This means at
least 4 people are required to disassemble the required doors. However, improvements in production (e.g.
training, experience) reduce the labor force to 3 for disassembly.
Capital Investment is not considered - only steady state operational costs.
Warranty returns: 1-2%. Ex: door shell, parts don’t fit, etc.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Economic Assessment
• An Activity-Based Costing model was developed and
implemented in MS Excel to obtain an economic assessment.
• Uncertainties in the assumptions, cost drivers, and
consumption intensities were included using the Crystal Ball
software, resulting in the cost distribution below.
• Approx. 80% of the forecasted situations is less than $671, the
maximum allowable cost to make remanufacture an option.
Forecast: Total Cost Assesment
Cell F66
Frequency Chart
1,000 Trials
.035
35
.02
26.2
.01
17.5
.00
8.75
.00
0
300.00
437.50
575.00
712.50
850.00
Certainty Range is from -•to 671.00 Dollars
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
The Human Factor – Overloading the Designer
Common “complaint” :
“I have to satisfy my customer demands, my boss, get the
product out on time, meet all the deadlines, do DFMA, TQM,
etc., and now I also have to worry about DESIGN FOR
REMANUFACTURE?”
(a.k.a. the swamped engineer syndrome
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Design Tools – General Characteristics
• Design Tools can be split into those which focus on
– specific part of product life-cycle, e.g.,
» USCAR recyclability assessment
» Various Design for Disassemblability assessments
» GT Remanufacturability assessment
– entire product life cycle, e.g.,
» Life-Cycle Analysis
» Life Cycle Costing
» System dynamics models
• Metrics, models, and tools should used be simple to use,
easily obtainable, precisely definable, objective, valid, robust,
and enhance understanding & prediction of users.
• Tools for facilitating reverse logistics should become more of
an integrative rather than stand-alone nature.
– Information management is a key issue
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Remanufacturability Guideline Checklist
• Advantage: very simple to
use
• Disadvantage: cannot add
numbers to one meaningful
number. Trade-off
assessment (thus) difficult
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Product Example – Motorola Display/Keypad Microphone
1
2
22
3
I TEM NO.
1
2
3
4
5
26
4
17
7
5
18
6
19
6
8
20
9
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
25
21
9
27
14
11
15
16
24
12
13
23
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DESCRI PTI O N
SCREW
W ASH ER (2 req ’d )
SCREW
L ABEL
L EVER, P TT (part o f
it em 6)
ASSEMB LY, H ousi ng
( includ es ite m 5)
STR AI N REL I EF
CL AM P
SCREW ( 2 req’d)
CO RD, C oil
H OU SI NG, H eader
W I RE, R ecept acle
W I RE, R ecept acle
PRI NTED C I RCU I T
BO ARD, PTT
CO NTACT, Snap
SEAL , Dome
F RAME
M I CRO PHO NE
BO OT, M icrophone
W I RE, R ecept acle
W I RE, R ecept acle
PAD
ASSEMB LY, Displ ay
Co ver
L ABEL , Name plat e
O-RI NG
W ASH ER, I ns ulat or
I NSU LATO R
10
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Remanufacturability Assessment
RESULTS WORKSHEET
Design
Metric Data
Assy/Part Name
NMN6150A Microphone
Part Number
Weight [kg]
# Parts
39
# Ideal
11
# Refurbis hed
3
# Replac e
2
# Key Parts
9
# Key Repl
2
# Tests
0.2215
# Ideal Insp
Qty
Cln Sc ore
1
Removal Time
1
Product:
Model:
MY:
3
10
43
(=Total cleaning score)
TD
526
(=Total disassembly t ime)
TA
623
(=Total reassembly t ime)
TT
200
(=Total t est ing t ime)
Level 1
Metric
Weighting
Replacement (Key)
Index
Index
0.778
0.778
Disas sembly
30.0%
0.031
Reman
Reas sembly
70.0%
0.053
Index
Testing
80.0%
0.150
Ins pection
20.0%
0.270
Interfacing
Replacement (Basic )
20.0%
1.000
Refurbis hing
80.0%
0.923
0.256
Cleaning
Category
Weighting
Index
Level 2
30.0%
0.044
Index
Quality Ass urance
5.0%
0.165
0.117
Damage Correc tion
40.0%
0.938
Cleaning
25.0%
0.256
0.091
ATTACH REMANUFACTURABIL ITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS 1 AND 2
• The data for this assessment comes from two spreadsheet based worksheets.
• Much of the information can be shared with recyclability, disassemblability, and
even assemblability assessments, limiting the burden on the designer.
• Integration with CAD systems is relatively easy.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Kodak Funsaver Results – Much Better!
RESULTS WORKSHEET
Design
Metric Data
Assy/Part Name
# Parts
21
Kodak Funsaver Camera
# Ideal
18
Part Number
Weight [kg]
# Refurbis hed
1
# Replac e
1
# Key Parts
3
# Key Repl
0
# Tests
# Ideal Insp
Qty
Cln Sc ore
Removal Time
Product:
Model:
MY:
3
17
25.00
(=Total cleaning score)
TD
35.60
(=Total disassembly t ime)
TA
64.90
(=Total reassembly t ime)
TT
40.00
(=Total t est ing t ime)
Level 1
Metric
Weighting
Replacement (Key)
Index
Index
1.000
1.000
Disas sembly
30.0%
0.758
Reas sembly
70.0%
0.832
Testing
80.0%
0.750
Ins pection
20.0%
0.850
Interfacing
Replacement (Basic )
20.0%
0.952
Quality Ass urance
Refurbis hing
80.0%
0.952
0.720
Cleaning
Reman
Index
Category
Weighting
Index
Level 2
30.0%
0.809
Index
5.0%
0.768
0.831
Damage Correc tion
40.0%
0.952
Cleaning
25.0%
0.720
0.831
ATTACH REMANUFACTURABIL ITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS 1 AND 2
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Kodak Funsaver Worksheet 1
Work sheet1 Results
D ifferen t M ate rial Pro perti es R equ ired?
R equi red To Faci litate A ssem bly Or
D isas sem bly?
R equi red to Isol ate W ea r?
D oes P a rt Fatig ue?
W ill Pa rts R equ ire A dju stm e nt?
If C oate d - C an C oati ng B e R eap pli ed?
If W orn - C an W orn Su rface s B e
R estore d?
If D am a ged D uri ng D isa ssem bly
D am ag e B e R efurb ishe d?
The oreti cal M ini m um N um ber o f Pa rts
N um be r of R efurb ishe d P arts
Tota l Nu m be r of R epla ced Pa rts
N um be r of Ide al In spec tion s
N um be r of K ey Pa rts
N um be r of K ey Pa rts R epla ced
Part Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
1
Camera Body
1
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
Internal Aperature
1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Firing Lever
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
Spring - Firing Lever
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
Cam Follower
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
6
Trigger Catch
1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
Film Advanc e Wheel
1
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
8
Film Advanc e Cam
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
9
Film Winding W heel
1
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
10
Film Pos ition W heel
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
11
Top Cover
1
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
12
Flas h As sembly
1
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
1
1
0
1
1
0
13
Shutter
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
14
Shutter Spring
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
15
External Apeture
1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Lens
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
1
0
0
0
17
Front Cover
1
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
18
Film Spool
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
19
Film
1
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
1
0
0
1
1
0
20
Back Cover
1
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
21
AA Battery
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
1
0
0
1
0
0
Assy/Part Name and Number
Part #
TOTALS
21
S ign ifica nt Intri nsi c V alu e (Re lati ve to
A sse m bl y)?
La rge R ela tive M otio ns?
- C an
Pleas e Answer "Y", " N", or "N/A" To The Following:
N um be r of P arts
WORKSHEET 1
N
Georgia Institute of Technology
1
1
17
3
0
Systems18Realization
Laboratory
Kodak Funsaver Worksheet 2
T ota l C lean ing Sc ore
(A * J )
N um be r of T im es T e s t P erfo rm ed
H andl ing T im e R eq uire d
T es ting T im e R eq uire d
E
G
H
I
J
L
Tests In Assembly
A
B
C
D
1.0
1.0
1.0
D
6
6
Shutter Snap & Wind
1
5
5.0
2
Internal Aperature
1
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
A
1
1
Flash Assembly
1
15
15.0
3
Firing Lever
1
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.2
A
1
1
Battery Check
1
20
20.0
4
Spring - Firing Lever
1
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.8
A
1
1
0.0
5
Cam Follower
1
1.3
1.3
2.5
2.5
A
1
1
0.0
6
Trigger Catch
1
0.8
0.8
2.7
2.7
A
1
1
0.0
7
Film Advance Wheel
1
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.4
A
1
1
0.0
8
Film Advance Cam
1
1.2
1.2
3.0
3.0
A
1
1
F
Assy/Part Name
T ota l T im e R e qui red fo r T es ti ng
( A * ( B + C) )
C lean ing Sc ore P er P a rt
( f(I) )
D
1.0
O perati ng T i m e (s ec o nds )
(A * [F + G])
C
M a nual Ins e rtion T im e
P er P art
B
1
M a nual H a ndli ng T i m e
P er P art
A
Camera Body
Part #
D is as s em bly T im e (s ec o nds )
(A * [C + D ]) or (A *2*[C + D ])
Part Name
1
Assy/Part Name and Number
M a nual H a ndli ng T i m e P er P a rt
C lean ing C od e
Cleaning
M a nual R e m ov al T im e P er P art
Reassembly
If P art C an C orro de - Is Pa rt P rotec tiv el y
C oated ?
Disassembly
N um be r Of P a rts
WORKSHEET 2
9
Film Winding W heel
1
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.2
A
1
1
10
Film Position W heel
1
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
A
1
1
3
40.0
11
Top Cover
1
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.7
A
1
1
# Tests
TT
12
Flash Assembly
1
2.5
2.5
6.2
6.2
A
1
1
13
Shutter
1
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.0
A
1
1
14
Shutter Spring
1
2.1
2.1
4.5
4.5
A
1
1
15
External Apeture
1
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
A
1
1
16
Lens
1
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0
0
17
Front Cover
1
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
A
1
1
18
Film Spool
1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
A
1
1
19
Film
1
1.0
1.0
15.0
15.0
A
1
1
Loose - Powder/Dust
20
Back Cover
1
5.6
5.6
4.2
4.2
A
1
1
Stuck - Paint/Corrosion
21
AA Battery
1
2.0
2.0
3.8
3.8
A
1
1
Wet - Oil/Dirt/Debris
0
0
0
Wet - Oil/Dirt/Debris
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
Cleaning Sco re Table
Debris Type
Code
Scor
e
Blown/Brushed
A
1
Abraided/Buffed
B
3
Baked
C
6
Wash & Dry
D
6
Process
0
21
35.6
64.9
25.0
TD
TA
Cln Scr
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Life-Cycle Assessment
NMN6150A
Microphone
Eco
Indicator
Units
Quantities
Eco Impact
Production
Steel
Stainless Steel
Aluminum
Plastic ABS
Plastic PP
Plastic HDPE
Cu/Au/Al
Rubber
Foam
Brass
4.1
17
18
9.3
3.3
2.9
60
15
13
75
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
0.0004000
0.0314230
0.0012000
0.0680770
0.0000300
0.0026500
0.00164
0.534191
0.0216
0.6331161
0.000099
0.007685
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
Subtotals
0.1021400
0.0120500
0.0000001
0.0010000
0.2189701
6.1284
0.18075
0.0000013
0.075
7.5824824
Trans port
Truck
Manufacturing
Injection Molding
Bending Steel
Machining
Pressing/deep drawing
Cutting
0.34 per ton km
0.53
0.0021
0.42
0.58
0.0015
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
millip oints/kg
Subtotals
0.2189701
7.44498E-05
0.0707570
0.0004000
0.0324230
0.1033400
0.0120501
0.2189701
0.03750121
0.00000084
0.01361766
0.0599372
1.80752E-05
0.111074985
Recycling
Steel and metals
Plastics
Engineering Plastics
-2.9 millip oints/kg
-0.46 millip oints/kg
-2.75 millip oints/kg
Subtotals
0.1361630000
0.0000300000
0.0707270000
0.2069200000
• This assessment was
done using the Dutch
Eco-Indicator approach.
• LCAs may become a
standard practice in
future years.
• A remanufacturable
product may not always
be the most
environmentally friendly
from a life-cycle point of
view!
-0.39487 27
-0.00001 38
-0.19449 925
-0.58938 575
Incineration
Rubber/Foam
1.8 millip oints/kg
0.0120501
Tota l Eco Indicator for
NMN6150A Microphone
0.02169018
7.125936265
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory
Closure
• There is no unique solution, but a company should ask itself (at
least) the following questions:
1. What are the organizational motivation and targets for extending our product’s
life-spans?
2. What are the (current) organizational capabilities and state?
3. What new practices, tools, and organizational structures are needed?
4. What is the best way of implementing the necessary changes?
5. What are mechanisms for continuous assessment, feedback, and improvement?
• From a product design point of view
– Know the processes and associated technologies you are designing for.
– Establish an open product structure/platform. This may require some more
upfront investment.
– Adhere to commonly known design guidelines.
– Educate designers, customers, and others if needed.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Systems Realization Laboratory