Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103

The 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Evaluation of design alternatives of sensor embedded end-of-life products

in multiple periods
Aditi D. Joshia, Surendra M. Guptaa*, Aya Ishigakib
a
Northeastern University, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A.
b
Tokyo University of ScienceDepartment of Industrial Administration, Tokyo University of Science,2641, Yamazaki, Noda-shi, Chiba, 278-8510, Japan

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-617-373-4846 ;. E-mail address: s.gupta@northeastern.edu

Abstract

This paper considers an Advanced-Remanufacturing-To-Order-Disassembly-To-Order system which receives End-Of-Life (EOL) Sensor
Embedded Products. Different design alternatives of a sensor-embedded EOL product are considered here. The objective of the proposed
model is to evaluate these design alternatives for the ease of disassembly of components and also to determine which of the EOL products
should be disassembled, remanufactured, recycled and left untouched to meet the components, products and materials demands. The model
provides an approach for evaluating the design alternatives for Design for Disassembly and Design for Remanufacturing. The model uses
mathematical programming to solve the problem.
©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published B.V. This
by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Keywords: End-of-life products; Sensor embedded products; Remanufacturing

1. Introduction conditions of the removed components: destructive (items

Technological advancements have energized the growth
in the production of products, providing customers with
good quality and less expensive consumer goods. As the
number of products introduced in the market has increased,
used products are routinely discarded even if they are in a
good working condition. Disposal of products is harmful to
the environment and thus, governments impose strict rules
and regulations on Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs). In order to comply with the rules and regulations
and to earn profits, OEMs implement product recovery
techniques such as remanufacturing, recycling and disposal.
The advantages of product recovery include reduction in the
use of virgin resources, decrease in the use of landfills and
cost savings coming from the reuse of End-of-Life (EOL)
products, disassembled components and recycled materials.
All product recovery techniques involve disassembly
operations up to a certain level. Disassembly is a systematic
separation of an assembly into its components,
subassemblies or other groupings. There are two types of
disassembly processes depending upon the final use and
are allowed to be damaged) and non-destructive (items are
not allowed to be damaged). Non-destructive disassembly
costs more than destructive disassembly and also requires
more processing time. Therefore components which are
recycled or disposed of are disassembled destructively and
components which are reused are disassembled non-
destructively. Disassembly can also be partial or complete.
In partial disassembly, only the required components are
disassembled while in complete disassembly all the
components are disassembled.
A product recovery facility receives EOL Sensor
Embedded Products (SEPs). A sensor is a device that
detects the value or change in the value of various
parameters such as temperature, and pressure and converts
that in to a signal to have it recorded. Sensors embedded in
the products monitor the product during its life cycle and
record the life-cycle data. This enables the estimation of
remaining useful life of components which helps to
eliminate the uncertainties related to the quality and
quantity of EOL products. Once this data is obtained, the

2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.204
 Aditi D. Joshi et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103
optimal recovery decisions can be made without actual
disassembly or inspection operations.
EOL products do not show uniform qualities since they
originate from various sources where they are subjected to
different working conditions. As a result, it is highly likely
that each EOL product has its own quality condition
exhibiting unique remanufacturing needs. Hence, finding
the EOL products with minimal recovery costs becomes a
crucial problem.
2. Literature Review
Environmental conscious manufacturing, product
recovery, and disassembly have been the areas of interests
of many researchers. Some of the relevant research related
to the area of interest of this paper are reviewed here.
Disassembly is one of the most widely studied research
area. Scholars have categorized the disassembly processes
as: scheduling [1, 2], sequencing [3], disassembly line
balancing [4], disassembly-to-order [5, 6], and automated
disassembly [7].
Another important process here is remanufacturing. It is
an industrial process which converts the worn-out products
into like-new conditions [8, 9]. Ilgin and Gupta [10]
explained the details of remanufacturing in their book
‘Remanufacturing modeling and analysis’. Andrew-Munot
et al. [11] examined the key motivating factors for
companies to engage in remanufacturing program, and the
major sources for acquiring used-products and subsequent
markets for selling remanufactured products.
The EOL products considered here have sensors
embedded in them. Many research papers, literature reviews
and books have been published on the use of sensors and
RFID tags within the supply chain management area. For
example, Blecker [12], Dolgui and Proth [13] and Sarac,
Absi, and Dauzère-Pérès [14] Fang et al. [15] examined use
of sensor embedded products to facilitate remanufacturing.
These SEPs are available in different design alternatives.
Evaluation of these alternatives in their design phase can
help OEMs estimate the cost of their recovery. Aguiar et al.
[16] proposed a diagnostic tool to evaluate product
recyclability to be applied during the product design phase
for designer decision making. The procedure allows to
simulate the product redesign to improve its EOL
performance. Cheung et al. [17] proposed and developed a
roadmap to facilitate the prediction of disposal costs and to
determine a solution of whether the EOL parts are viable to
be remanufactured, refurbished, or recycled from an early
stage of a design concept. Kim and Moon [18] introduced a
design methodology to develop eco-modular product
architecture and access its modularity for product recovery.
They proposed a modularity assessment metrics to identify
independent interactions between modules and the degrees
of similarity within each module.
3. Advanced-Remanufacturing-To-Order-Disassembly-
To-Order System (ARTODTO System)
This paper deals with an ARTODTO system which
receives sensors embedded EOL products. Once the EOL
products are received, all the data captured by the sensors is
99
stored in a database. The extra information such as
remaining lives of components is determined by means of
this life cycle data and data retrieval mechanisms. Based on
the remaining lives of components, they are divided into
different bins known as life bins. For example, life bin 1
may contain components of remaining lives of at least one
year, life bin 2 may contain components of remaining lives
between one and three years and life bin 3 may contain
components of remaining lives of at least three years. Based
on the remaining lives of components, the ARTODTO
system remanufactures the products to meet the products
demands, disassembles the components to meet the
components demands and recycles the materials to meet the
materials demands. The ARTODTO system is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Figure. 1. ARTODTO System
Design alternatives are made available to customers to
customize their demands according to their preferred
manufacturer, model, version, use etc. All the design
alternatives have the same function, and they share the
same components but the specifications and arrangement of
these components can be different in the alternatives. For
example, split AC, packaged AC, windows AC and central
AC are all design alternatives of an air conditioner.
Evaluation of these design alternatives becomes crucial for
selecting the optimum alternative. The various factors that
may differ depending on the design alternative are:
1. Size and shape of the product – The size and shape of
the alternatives can be different.
2. Location of use – An alternative can be specific to the
location or function of the use.
3. Ease of disassembly – The assembly or arrangement of
components in different alternatives can be different
affecting the retrieval of components from the
products.
4. Time for disassembly – The time for disassembly can
differ depending on the design alternative.
5. Labor skills and costs – The alternative which is
difficult to disassemble may require more skilled labor
than the alternative which is easy to disassemble, in
which case the labor cost will also be different.
To account for these factors, a disassembly factor is
introduced which is defined as follows:
number of assemblies to disassemble
f (1)
total number of assemblies
100 Aditi D. Joshi et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103

An assembly will be disassembled if it contains one or more I Set of EOL products on hand;
target components or if it contains lower level assemblies B Set of remaining-life-bins (for components);
that contain target components [17]. J Set of components dealt with;
M Alias for B (for products);
Nomenclature K Set of material types dealt with;
MV Material value; b, i, j, k,m Running numbers;
Q Quality level; D Destructive disassembly cost factor;
QDIS Total number of components disposed of; aij 1 if component j of EOL product i is
TC Total cost; functional;
TDC Total disassembly cost; ȕij The highest life-bin that component j of EOL
TRMC Total remanufacturing cost; product i can be placed in;
TOPC Total outside procurement cost; fij 1 if component j of EOL product i is
TDIC Total disposal cost; nonfunctional;
TRC Total recycling cost; cjb Outside procurement cost of a component j
THC Total holding cost; for life-bin b;
cdisjb Number of components js in remaining-life- caj Assembly cost of a component j;
bin b that are disposed of; cdj Disassembly cost of a component j;
Positive/Negative deviation from the sth range cdsj Disposal cost of a component j;
d u,,s
limit of objective u; chj Holding cost of a component j;
defijb 1 if components j in EOL product i is crcj Recycling cost of component j;
disassembled because of remaining life dcjb Demand for component j in remaining-life-bin
deficiency and placed in remaining-life- b;
bin b during remanufacturing, zero dpm Demand for product in remaining-life-bin m;
otherwise; dmk Demand for material k;
ljb Number of components js purchased for dfcimj 1 if component j of EOL product i is
remaining-life-bin b; remaining-life-deficient for life bin m;
lrj Labor rate for disassembly of component j; h Unit EOL product holding cost;
repimjb 1 if a component j from life-bin b needs to be mhk Unit holding cost for material k;
used to remanufacture EOL product i in misij Binary parameter taking 1 if component j is
order to make a product for life-bin m, missing in EOL product i, zero otherwise;
zero otherwise; prck Unit sales price of material k
faij Disassembly factor of component j in product t u,,s Positive/Negative limit to the sth range of
i; objective u;
fdj Number of non-functional components js that Y u,,s Positive/Negative deviation weight of the sth
are disposed of; range of objective u;
frj Number of non-functional components js that
are recycled; 4. Problem Formulation
rjb Number of components js in remaining-life-
bin b that are recyled; 4.1 Linear Physical Programming
rpij 1 if component j in EOL product i is
disassembled during remanfuacturing, Messac, Gupta and Akbulut [19] proposed a new
zero otherwise; optimization technique known as Linear Physical
si 1 if EOL product i is stored, zero otherwise; Programming (LPP). It addresses issues related to multiple
scjb Number of components js in remaining-life- objective optimization such as problem formulation, nature
bin b that are stored; of the obtainable solutions and the algorithm. Many models
smk Amount of material k stored; have been developed using LPP (See, for example [20]).
tdj Disassembly time for component j; In LPP, there are four hard classes viz. “Must be
I The model objective to be minimized; smaller” (Class 1-H), “Must-be-larger” (Class 2-H), “Must
wi 1 if EOL product i is recycled, zero otherwise; be equal” (Class 3-H) and “Must be in the range” (Class 4-
xi 1 if EOL product i is disassembled for H) and four soft classes viz. “Smaller is better” (Class 1-S),
components, zero otherwise; “Larger is better” (Class 2-S), “value is better” (Class 3-S)
xijb 1 if component j in EOL product i is and ”Range is better” (Class 4-S). For more details about
disassembled and placed in remaining- LPP, please refer to [19].
life-bin b, zero otherwise;
yi 1 if EOL product i is remanufactured, zero 4.2 System Criteria
otherwise;
yim 1 if EOL product i is remanufactured to make Class 1-S: Smaller is better
a product for remaining-life-bin m , zero The first criterion of the system is related to the total
otherwise; cost (TC). The mathematical expression is written as
zi 1 if EOL product i is disposed of, zero follows:
otherwise; TC  d1,s d t1,s , s 2,...,5 (2)
 Aditi D. Joshi et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103 101

TC d t1,5 (3) Q1 ¦ xijb ( E ij

iI , jJ ,bB
 b) (20)
The second criterion of the system is related to the
number of disposed items (QDIS). The mathematical
expression is written as follows:
Q2 ¦ rep
iI , jJ ,bB
imjb (b  m) 
(21)
QDIS  d 2, s d t 2, s , s 2,...,5 (4)
¦ (a ij yim  ¦ rep imjb )( E ij  m)
QDIS d t 2,5 (5) iI ,mM , jJ bB

Class 2-S: Larger is better

The third criterion is related to the material value (MV). 4.4 Assumptions
The mathematical expression is written as follows:
MV  d 3, s t t3, s , s 2,...,5 (6) 4.4.1 Once a product reached the product recovery
facility, it is either disassembled, remanfuactured,
MV t t3,5 (7) disposed of, recycled or stored.
The fourth criterion of the system is related to the 4.4.2 Complete disassembly is considered.
quality level. The mathematical expression is written as 4.4.3 A component can be placed in only one bin after
follows: disassembly.
Q  d 4, s t t 4, s , s 2,...,5 (8) 4.4.4 A product can be remanufactured to produce one
product for one life bin.
Q t t 4,5 (9) 4.4.5 Product demand is met only by using the
remanufactured products.
4.3 Cost Functions 4.4.6 Component demand is met only by using
disassembled components.
ARTODTO system involves disassembly,
remanufacturing, outside procurement, disposal, recycling, 4.5 Constraints
and storage. Therefore, Total Cost (TC) is the sum of total
disassembly cost (TDC), total remanufacturing cost All constraints of the system belong to hard classes.
(TRMC), total outside procurement cost (TOPC), total An EOL product is disassembled, remanufactured, disposed
disposal cost (TDIC), total recycling cost (TRC) and total of, recycled or left untouched (stored). Therefore,
holding cost (THC). Thus, the total cost function can be
written as follows: xi  yi  zi  wi  si 1, i (22)
TC g1 TDC  TRMC  TOPC  TDIC  TRC  THC (10)
Complete disassembly implies that all the components of a
TDC ¦ xi ( faij lr j td j )
iI , jJ
(11)
product are disassembled if that product is to be
(12) disassembled and a component can be placed in only one
TRMC ¦ [rp
iI , jJ
ij ( a ij (cd j  ca j )  f ij (D cd j  ca j )  mis ij ca j )
bin after disassembly.
Therefore,
TOPC ¦c
jJ ,bB
jb l jb (13)
¦ xijb xi aij ,i, j (23)
bB
TDIC ¦ cds (¦ cdis  ¦ z (a
j jb i ij  f ij )  fd j ) (14) EOL product is remanufactured to produce only one
jJ bB iI product for only one life-bin. Therefore,
TRC ¦
jJ
crc j ( ¦
bB
r jb  ¦iI
wi (aij  f ij )  fr j ) (15)
¦y im yi , i (24)
mM
THC h ¦ s  ¦ ch ¦ sc  ¦ mh sm
iI
i
jJ
j
bB
jb
kK
k k (16)
Product demand is met by remanufacturing EOL products.
Number of disposed items (QDIS) is mathematically The number of products produced by remanufacturing EOL
expressed as follows: products in product life-bin m should at least be equal to the
QDIS g 2 ¦¦
( cdis jb  zi (aij  f ij )  fd j )
jJ bB
¦
iI
(17) product demand.

Material value (MV) is mathematically expressed as ¦y

iI
im dp m , m (25)
follows:
MV g 3 ¦
prck (dmk  smk )
kK
(18) Component demand is satisfied by recovered and procured
operable components. Recovered components are obtained
Quality level (Q) is defined as the difference between the from the disassembled and remanufactured EOL products.
highest life bin a component can be placed in, and the life For each life bin b and component j, the number of
bin it is actually placed in. It is divided into two terms, Q1 recovered and procured components must be at least equal
and Q2. They are mathematically expressed as follows: to the components demand after components used in
Q Q1  Q 2 (19) remanufacturing, recycling, storage, and disposal are taken
out. Therefore,
102 Aditi D. Joshi et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103

¦ (xiI
ijb  def ijb )  ¦ (rep
ii ,mM
imjb )
(26)
Table 3 Components demands for periods 1, 2 and 3

 l jb  r jb  sc jb  cdis jb dc jb , b, j Components Remaining Life Bins

(j) Bin1 Bin 2 Bin 3
Period 1/2/3 Period 1/2/3 Period 1/2/3
Non-functional, missing and remaining-life-time deficient Evaporator 15/20/10 12/9/12 15/10/8
components must be replaced with components having Control Box 10/10/15 11/9/10 13/8/8
Blower 14/10/12 0/5/9 10/10/10
remaining life time that is sufficient for producing a product
Air Guide 9/12/15 4/5/5 3/5/8
for product-life-bin m. Therefore, Motor 13/12/13 15/15/15 7/8/9
Condenser 15/10/10 8/9/11 16/12/15

¦
repimjb
{bB , mM |b t m}
yim ( f ij  misij  dfcimj ),
(27)
Fan
Compressor
10/12/16
15/14/10
5/8/12
13/11/12
12/12/15
15/10/13

i, j , m Table 4: Material yields and demands for Periods 1, 2 and 3

5. Numerical Example Components (j) Plastic Steel

Evaporator - 15.00
Control Box 5.00 -
In order to illustrate the formulated model, an example is
Blower - -

Yield (lbs.)
presented in this section. The ARTODTO system receives Air Guide - -
200 EOL Air Conditioners (ACs) for each period. There are Motor - 12.00
four types of air conditioners with their own unique Condenser - 20.00
features, but they all have the same function of providing Fan - 4.00
cool air and they all share the following eight components: Compressor - 16.00
Compressor, Condenser, Evaporator, Control Box, Blower, Demand for period 1 (lbs) 100.00 300.00
Demand for period 2 (lbs) 150.00 200.00
Air Guide, Motor, and Fan. Demand for period 3 (lbs) 100.00 250.00
The different types of air conditioners are:
1. Window Air Conditioner The desirability ranges provided by the decision maker
2. Split Air Conditioner for Period 1 are in Table 5.
3. Packaged Air Conditioner
4. Central Air Conditioner Table 5: Desirability ranges for criteria for period 1
The input data is given in Tables 1 through 4. Total Cost Number of Material Quality
($) disposed Value Level
Table 1. Disassembly factors (f) for various ACs items ($)
Windows Split Packaged Central Ideal ” 10000 ”0 • 7000 •2500
AC AC AC AC
Evaporator 0.17 0.2 0.17 0.17 Desirable (10000,11000] (0, 80] [5200,7000) [1500,2500)
Control Box 0.17 0.2 0.17 0.17 Tolerable (11000,12000] (80, 110] [4200,5200) [1000,1500)
Blower 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5
Air Guide 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 Undesirable (12000,13000] (110, 150] [2700,4200) [500, 1000)
Motor 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Condenser 0.17 0.5 0.17 0.17 Highly (13000,14000] (150, 200] [2100,2700) [0, 500)
Fan 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 Undesirable
Compressor 0.17 0.5 0.17 0.17 Unacceptable > 15000 > 200 < 2100 <0

Table 2: Recycling, holding, outside procurement, disposal costs

Component Recycling Holding Outside Disposal

Similar desirability ranges are provided for period 2 and 3.
Cost (crcj) Cost (chj) Procurement Cost
($) ($) Cost (copj) (cdsj) 6. Results
($) ($)
Evaporator 16 10 175 50
The model was solved using LINGO 13.0. Tables 6, 7 and 8
Control Box 10 2 50 10
Blower 8 3 100 22
display the values of the performance measures. In LPP, the
Air Guide 4 1 40 20 worst candidate will always be helped first, i.e., it will try
Motor 10 3 80 28 to improve a single criterion over the tolerable range than
Condenser 16 10 500 46 to improve others over the desirable range. As you can
Fan 8 2 230 11 see in Table 6, total cost fell under desirable range,
Compressor 16 10 370 42 number of disposed items fell under tolerable range,
material value fell under tolerable range and quality level
fell under undesirable range for period 1.
In period 1, 92 EOL products are disassembled (25
The labor rate is $15/hr. and disassembly time is 0.3
hr./component. The product demands for period 1 are 10, Window ACs, 40 Split ACs, 10 Packaged ACs, and 17
12, 10 for bin1, bin 2 and bin 3 respectively, for period 2 Central ACs), 50 EOL products are remanufactured (20
are 15, 10, 10 for bin1, bin 2 and bin 3 respectively, and for Window ACs, 12 Split ACs and 18 Packaged ACs), 35
period 3 are 15, 15, 12 for bin1, bin 2 and bin 3 EOL products are recycled (5 Window ACs, 18 Packaged
respectively. ACs, and 12 Central ACs) and 10 EOL products are
disposed of (7 Packaged ACs and 3 Central ACs) and 13
EOL products (7 Split ACs and 6 Central ACs) are stored.
 Aditi D. Joshi et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 (2017) 98 – 103 103

Table 6: Values of performance measures in Period 1 here, the model preferred split air conditioner over
Description Aspiration Levels Value windows, packaged and central air conditioners.
Total cost ($) Desirable 10056.48
Acknowledgement
Number of disposed items Tolerable 104
This research was partially supported by the Japan Society
Material value ($) Tolerable 4538.65
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), KAKENHI, Grant-in-
Quality level Undesirable 750 Aid for Scientific Research (C) & (B): JP16K01262 in 2016
& JP26282082, from 2014 to 2016.
Table 7: Values of performance measures in Period 2
Description Aspiration Levels Value
References
[1] Barba-gutiérrez, Y., Adenso-diaz, B., & Gupta, S. M. (2008). Lot
Total cost ($) Desirable 7239.03
sizing in reverse mrp for scheduling disassembly. International
Number of disposed items Undesirable 134 Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 741-751.
[2] Gupta, S. M., & Taleb, K. N. (1994). Scheduling disassembly. The
Material value ($) Tolerable 4642.58 International Journal of Production Research, 32(8), 1857-1866.
Quality level Highly undesirable 482 [3] Moore, K. E., Güngör, A., & Gupta, S. M. (2001). Petri net approach
to disassembly process planning for products with complex AND/OR
precedence relationships. European Journal of Operational Research,
135(2), 428-449.
In period 2, 85 EOL products are disassembled (30 Window [4] Mcgovern, S., & Gupta, S. M. (2011). The disassembly line:
ACs, 35 Split ACs, 15 Packaged ACs, and 5 Central ACs), Balancing and modeling. New York City: mcgraw-Hill.
70 EOL products are remanufactured (25 Window ACs, 40 [5] Inderfurth, K., & Langella, I. M. (2006). Heuristics for solving
Split ACs and 5 Central ACs), 20 EOL products are disassemble-to-order problems with stochastic yields. OR Spectrum,
28(1), 73-99.
recycled (5 Split ACs, 10 Packaged ACs, and 5 Central [6] Kongar, E., & Gupta, S. M. (2009). Solving the disassembly-to-order
ACs) and 5 EOL products are disposed of (5 Central ACs) problem using linear physical programming. International Journal of
and 20 EOL products (10 Window ACs and 10 Central Mathematics in Operational Research, 1(4), 504-531.
ACs) are stored. [7] Elsayed, A., Kongar, E., Gupta, S. M., & Sobh, T. (2012). A
Robotic-driven disassembly sequence generator for end-of-life
electronic products. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 68(1),
Table 8: Values of performance measures in Period 3 43-52.
Description Aspiration Levels Value [8] Aksoy, H. K., & Gupta, S. M. (2005). Buffer allocation plan for a
Total cost($) Desirable 8123.48 remanufacturing cell. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 48(3),
657-677.
Number of disposed items Tolerable 86 [9] Kim, K., Song, I., Kim, J., & Jeong, B. (2006). Supply planning
model for remanufacturing system in reverse logistics environment.
Material value($) Undesirable 8717.53 Computers & Industrial Engineering, 51(2), 279-287.
Quality level Undesirable 840 [10] Ilgin, M. A., & Gupta, S. M. (2012). Remanufacturing modeling and
analysis. CRC Press.
[11] Andrew-Munot, M., Ibrahim, R. N., & Junaidi, E. (2015). An
In period 3, 100 EOL products are disassembled (40 Overview of Used-Products Remanufacturing. Mechanical
Window ACs, 30 Split ACs, 10 Packaged ACs, and 20 Engineering Research, 5(1), p12.
Central ACs), 60 EOL products are remanufactured (20 [12] Blecker, T. (Ed.). (2008). RFID in operations and supply chain
management: research and applications (Vol. 6). Erich Schmidt
Window ACs, 20 Split ACs and 20 Packaged ACs), 20 Verlag gmbh & Co KG.
EOL products are recycled (14 Packaged ACs, and 6 [13] Dolgui, A., & Proth, J. M. (2008). RFID technology in supply chain
Central ACs) and 10 EOL products are disposed of (6 Split management: state of the art and perspectives. In Proceedings of the
ACs and 4 Packaged ACs) and 10 EOL products (10 17th World Congress The International Federation of Automatic
Control Seoul, Korea (pp. 4465-4475).
Central ACs) are stored. [14] Sarac, A., Absi, N., & Dauzère-Pérès, S. (2010). A literature review
For all the three periods, split AC was the most on the impact of RFID technologies on supply chain
preferred design alternative for fulfilling all the demands management. International Journal of Production
while satisfying all the constraints. In total, 105 split ACs Economics, 128(1), 77-95.
[15] Fang, H. C., Ong, S. K., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2015). Use of Embedded
were disassembled, 72 were remanufactured, 5 were Smart Sensors in Products to Facilitate Remanufacturing, In Andrew
recycled, none was disposed of and 17 were stored for the Y.C. Nee (Eds.) Handbook of Manufacturing Engineering And
future. Technology, chapter 90, Springer-Verlag London, 3265-3290.
[16] de Aguiar, J., de Oliveira, L., da Silva, J. O., Bond, D., Scalice, R.
K., & Becker, D. (2017). A design tool to diagnose product
7. Conclusions recyclability during product design phase. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 141, 219-229.
The proposed model evaluated the design alternatives of air [17] Cheung, W. M., Marsh, R., Griffin, P. W., Newnes, L. B., Mileham,
conditioner for ease of disassembly in order to meet the A. R., & Lanham, J. D. (2015). Towards cleaner production: a
roadmap for predicting product end-of-life costs at early design
products, components and materials demands while concept. Journal of cleaner production, 87, 431-441.
satisfying physical, financial and environmental constraints. [18] Kim, S., & Moon, S. K. (2016). Eco-modular product architecture
The model used a disassembly factor to take into account identification and assessment for product recovery. Journal of
various factors affected by the design alternatives. Intelligent Manufacturing, 1-21.
[19] Messac, A., Gupta, S. M., & Akbulut, B. (1996). Linear physical
Consideration of these factors during the design phase of programming: a new approach to multiple objective optimization.
the alternatives will lead to products which are easier to Transactions on operational research, 8(2), 39-59.
process at their EOLs. The proposed model is flexible to [20] Ilgin, M. A., & Gupta, S. M. (2012). Physical programming: A
various costs and deals with the uncertainty of conditions of review of the state of the art. Studies in Informatics and Control,
21(4), 349-366.
received EOL products’ using sensors. In the example given