Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design, Systems, and Manufacturing
Online ISSN : 1881-3054
ISSN-L : 1881-3054
Papers(Special Issue)
Disassembly parts selection and analysis for recycling rate and cost by goal programming
Yuki KINOSHITATetsuo YAMADASurendra M. GUPTAAya ISHIGAKIMasato INOUE
Author information
JOURNALS FREE ACCESS

2016 Volume 10 Issue 3 Pages JAMDSM0052

Details
Abstract

For green supply chains, it is essential to disassemble and recycle end-of-life (EOL) assembled products for material circulation. In order to establish disassembly plants environmentally friendly and economical manner, a disassembly parts selection is often carried out. Each part has a different recycling rate and cost, and all parts have precedence relationships among disassembly tasks. Igarashi et al. (2014) [International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, Vol.13, No.1, pp.52-66] proposed a disassembly parts selection method that is carried out in an environmentally friendly and economical manner with non-destructive or destructive disassembly with integer programming with ε constraint. However, calculated efforts are required to achieve optimum solutions for the ε constraint method. On the other hand, goal programming is well known as an effective way to solve multi-criteria decision-making problems. This study proposes a bi-objective disassembly parts selection with recycling rate and cost using goal programming, and analyzes multiple types of EOL assembled products and disassembly parts selection. First, an environmentally friendly and economical disassembly parts selection is addressed using a 3D-CAD and Recyclability Evaluation Method (REM) developed by Hitachi Ltd. Next, the environmentally friendly and economical disassembly parts selection is formulated with goal programming. Finally, a case study is quantitatively discussed by comparing different types of assembled products and goal programming parameters. It is demonstrated that the proposal method by goal programming in this study finds the same solutions with the lower number of numerical experiments as that with the ε constraint method.

Information related to the author
© 2016 by The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers
Previous article Next article
feedback
Top