USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Product design

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Product design a conceptual development of product remanufacturing index
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Dixit, Swapnil B
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Green design
Eco design
Recycling
Product life cycle
Design
Dissertations, Academic -- Industrial Engineering -- Masters -- USF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: In light of increasing pressure from environmental safety advocate groups and governments for eco-friendly manufacturing, safe after life product & waste disposal has had strong emphasizes in the past several years. Industrial manufacturers are becoming more and more responsive towards environment safety concerns. These efforts are being reflected by concepts such as green design or environmentally responsible design and manufacturing (ERDM). The key research areas in the 21st century for reducing the toll on the environment will be material recycling, controlled waste disposal (including fluids and gases) and remanufacturing. Remanufacturing offers a dual advantage over material recycling. First the geometrical form of the product and the functional capabilities are restored with fairly low costs.^ ^Second, it reduces the need for dumping or disposal, making it better for the environment Remanufacturing is also an avenue to enforce product take back which has become important for the integrating environmental considerations. Remanufacturing can be lucrative and thus a motivating factor for the profit oriented industrial community.The work in this research is based on making remanufacturing more distinctive in terms of product design. An approach that incorporates remanufacturing principles at the product design inception phase can be highly beneficial in the context of after life processing of product. The approach used in this research is one of determining a suitable method of calculating the remanufacturing index (RI). The remanufacturing index of a product serves as a beforehand indication of the degree of the efforts return a product to its original geometrical shape and functional capabilities.^ This index will provide an insight at the time of initial design of a particular product for understanding afterlife scenarios, which might help to reduce waste, save energy, virgin material, and other resources.The remanufacturing index formulation devised in this research considers all the major aspects of product after life, including disassembly, recycling and other damage correction efforts. This research offers modular analyses of a product for the purpose of remanufacturing. The index is a collection of interfacing elements such as inspection, damage correction and environmental impact. It considers all possible after life aspects of a product and combines them in a systematic manner to give a fair outlook of efforts to remanufacture.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.I.E. )--University of South Florida, 2006.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Swapnil B. Dixit.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 132 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001919688
oclc - 184954179
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001825
usfldc handle - e14.1825
System ID:
SFS0026143:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001919688
003 fts
005 20071220150256.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071220s2006 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001825
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)184954179
049
FHMM
090
T56 (ONLINE)
1 100
Dixit, Swapnil B.
0 245
Product design :
b a conceptual development of product remanufacturing index
h [electronic resource] /
by Swapnil B. Dixit.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2006.
3 520
ABSTRACT: In light of increasing pressure from environmental safety advocate groups and governments for eco-friendly manufacturing, safe after life product & waste disposal has had strong emphasizes in the past several years. Industrial manufacturers are becoming more and more responsive towards environment safety concerns. These efforts are being reflected by concepts such as green design or environmentally responsible design and manufacturing (ERDM). The key research areas in the 21st century for reducing the toll on the environment will be material recycling, controlled waste disposal (including fluids and gases) and remanufacturing. Remanufacturing offers a dual advantage over material recycling. First the geometrical form of the product and the functional capabilities are restored with fairly low costs.^ ^Second, it reduces the need for dumping or disposal, making it better for the environment Remanufacturing is also an avenue to enforce product take back which has become important for the integrating environmental considerations. Remanufacturing can be lucrative and thus a motivating factor for the profit oriented industrial community.The work in this research is based on making remanufacturing more distinctive in terms of product design. An approach that incorporates remanufacturing principles at the product design inception phase can be highly beneficial in the context of after life processing of product. The approach used in this research is one of determining a suitable method of calculating the remanufacturing index (RI). The remanufacturing index of a product serves as a beforehand indication of the degree of the efforts return a product to its original geometrical shape and functional capabilities.^ This index will provide an insight at the time of initial design of a particular product for understanding afterlife scenarios, which might help to reduce waste, save energy, virgin material, and other resources.The remanufacturing index formulation devised in this research considers all the major aspects of product after life, including disassembly, recycling and other damage correction efforts. This research offers modular analyses of a product for the purpose of remanufacturing. The index is a collection of interfacing elements such as inspection, damage correction and environmental impact. It considers all possible after life aspects of a product and combines them in a systematic manner to give a fair outlook of efforts to remanufacture.
502
Thesis (M.S.I.E. )--University of South Florida, 2006.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 132 pages.
590
Adviser: O. Geoffrey Okogbaa,Ph.D.
653
Green design.
Eco design.
Recycling.
Product life cycle.
Design.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Industrial Engineering
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1825



PAGE 1

Product Design: A Conceptual Development of Product Remanufacturing Index by Swapnil B. Dixit A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Industrial Engineering Department of Industrial Engineering College of Engineering University of South Florida Major Professor: O. Geoffrey Okogbaa, Ph.D. Tapas Das, Ph.D. Kingsley Reeves, Ph.D. Glen Besterfield, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 9, 2006 Keywords: green design, eco design, recycling, product life cycle, design Copyright 2006, Swapnil B. Dixit

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES iii LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Major Environmental Problems 1 1.2 Environment Protection Legislation in the United States 3 1.3 Eco-Design 4 1.4 Recycling 5 1.5 Remanufacturing 5 1.6 Economic Impact of Remanufacturing 7 1.7 Purpose of the Current Research 8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 9 2.1 Product Life Cycle 9 2.2 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) 11 2.2.1 LCA Advantages 11 2.2.2 LCA Limitations 12 2.3 Designs for Environment (DFE) 12 2.4 Product End of Life Strategies 15 2.4.2 Phillips Eco-scan System 16 2.6 Designs for Remanufacturing 18 2.7 Assessing Remanufacturability 19 2.7.1 Remanufacturing Index Calculation 20 2.8 Summary 22 CHAPTER 3 STATEMENT OF THE PROB LEM 23 CHAPTER 4 RI MODEL DEVELOPMEN T 24 4. 1 Approach to Problem 24 4. 1.1 Product Tree Approach to Decouple Product 25 4.2 Components of RI 29 4.2.1 Disassembly Index 29 4.2.2 Inspection and Cleaning Index 31 4.2.3 Recycling Index 32 4.2.4 Refurbishing Index 34 4.2.5 Reusability Index (RUI) 36 i

PAGE 3

4.2.6 Environment Index (EVI) 37 4.3 Component Index Weight Criteria 38 4.3.1 Other Resources 40 4.4 Disassembly Index Weight Criteria 41 4.5 Inspection Index Weight Criteria 44 4.6 Recycling Index Weight Criteria 46 4.7 Refurbishing Index Weight Criteria 49 4. 8 Reusability Index Weight Criteria 52 4.9 Environmental Index Weight Criteria 54 4.10 Component RI Calculation 56 4.10.1 Effective Index 57 4.10.2 Relative Weight Establishment for Components 57 4.10.3 Weight Determination Guidelines 58 4.11 Combining Individual Indices 59 4.12 Module RI Determination 60 4.13 RI of Product 60 4.14 Summary 61 CHAPTER 5 RI MODEL TESTING 62 5.1 Formulation Application to Case Study 62 5.2 Product Components 63 5.3 Product Tree Approach Application 65 5.4 Module Classification 68 5.5 Remanufacturing Index Calculations ETFX-50: Model 1 74 5.5.1 Model 1 Base and State Index 74 5.5.2 Module 1 Index Weight Computations 76 5.5.3 Module 1 Indices and Indices Wei ght Summary 86 5.6 Module Remanufacturing Costs 86 5.7 Module Weight Determination 86 5.8 RI of ETFX-5 87 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS INTERPRETATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH 88 6.1 Results and Interpretation of RI of ETFX-50 89 6.2 Benchmarking of ETFX-50 with Bras and Hammond Model 90 6.3 Result Interpretation of the Case Study 94 6.4 Future Research 94 REFERENCES 95 APPENDICES 99 Appendix A Remanufacturing I ndex Calculations ETFX-50: Model 2 100 Appendix B Remanufacturing I ndex Calculations ETFX-50: Model 3 113 Appendix C Remanufacturing I ndex Calculations ETFX-50: Model 4 126 ii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 DFE Approach 14 Table 2.2 Environmental Impact Results for Philips Product 18 Table 4.1 Component Index Weight 39 Table 4.2 Disassembly Index Weight 41 Table 4.3 Inspection Index Weight 44 Table 4.4 Recycling Index Weight 47 Table 4.5 Refurbishing Index Weight 49 Table 4.6 Weight Criteria Reusability Index 52 Table 4.7 Weight Criteria Environmenta l Index 54 Table 4.8 Weight Determination Guidelines 58 Table 4.9 Weights for Modules (I) 60 Table 4.10 Weight Determination for Modul es (II) 61 Table 5.1 ETFX-50 Parts Description 63 Table 5.2 Module 1 Analysis 69 Table 5.3 Module 2 Analysis 70 Table 5.4 Module 3 Analysis 72 Table 5.5 Module 4 Analysis 73 Table 5.6 Index Table for Module 1 74 Table 5.7 Module 1 Base Index Computation 74 Table 5.8 Component 1 State Index Computation (I) 75 Table 5.9 Module 1 State Index Computation (II) 75 Table 5.10 Disassembly Index Weight Plas tic Housing 76 Table 5.11 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight Plastic Housing 77 Table 5.12 Recycling Index Weight: Plas tic Housing 77 Table 5.13 Disassembly Index Weight: Black Grip 78 Table 5.14 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Black Grip 78 iii

PAGE 5

Table 5.15 Refurbishing Index Weight: Black Grip 79 Table 5.16 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger 79 Table 5.17 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Trigger 80 Table 5.18 Reusability Index Weight: Trigger 80 Table 5.19 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger Spring 81 Table 5.20 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weigh t: Trigger Spring 81 Table 5.21 Reusability Index Weight: Trigger Spring 82 Table 5.22 Disassembly Index Weight: Hous ing Screws 82 Table 5.23 Inspection and Cleaning Index Wei ght: Housing Screws 83 Table 5.24 Reusability Index: Housing Screws 83 Table 5.25 Disassembly Index Weight: Safety Clip 84 Table 5.26 Inspection and Cleaning Index Wei ght: Safety Clip 84 Table 5.27 Reusability Index: Safety Clip 85 Table 5.28 Module 1 Indices and Indices Weight 86 Table 5.29 Remanufacturing Cost of Modules 86 Table 5.30 Module Weight Determination 86 Table 6.1 RI Desirability 89 Table 6.2 ETFX-50 Remanufacturing Summary 89 Table 6.3 ETFX-50 Summary 90 Table 6.4 ETFX-50 Questionnaire 91 Table 6.5 ETFX-50 DFA Analysis 92 Table 6.6 ETFX-50 Matrices Values (I) 93 Table 6.7 ETFX-50 Matrices Values (II) 93 Table 6.7 RI of ETFX-50 93 Table A.1 Index Table Module 2 100 Table A.2 Component1 Base Index Co mputation 100 Table A.3 Module 2 State Index Computation (I) 100 Table A.4 Module 2 State Index Computation (II) 101 Table A.5 Module 2 State Index Computation (III 101 Table A.6 Disassembly Index Weight: Exterior Shell 102 Table A.7 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Exterior Shell 102 iv

PAGE 6

Table A.8 Refurbishing Index: Exterior Shell 103 Table A.9 Disassembly Index Weight: St aple Cartridge 103 Table A.10 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Staple Cartridge 104 Table A.11 Reusability Index: Staple Cartridge 105 Table A.12 Disassembly Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism 105 Table A.13 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Feeder Mechanism 105 Table A.14 Reusability Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism 106 Table A.15 Disassembly Index Weight: Bolts 106 Table A.16 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Bolts 107 Table A.17 Reusability Index Weight: Bolts 107 Table A.18 Disassembly Index Weight: Nuts 108 Table A.19 Inspection and Cleaning Inde x Weight: Nuts 108 Table A.20 Reusability Index: Nuts 109 Table A.21 Disassembly Index Weight: Prime Guard Screw 109 Table A.22 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Prime Guard Screw 110 Table A.23 Reusability Index: Prime Guard Screw 110 Table A.24 Disassembly Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) 111 Table A.25 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Nut (Nylock) 111 Table A.26 Recycling Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) 112 Table A.27 RI Computation Module 2 112 Table B.1 Module 3 Indices 113 Table B.2 Module 3 Base Index Computation Table 113 Table B.3 Module 3 State Index (I) 114 Table B.4 Module 3 State Index (II) 114 Table B.5 Module 3 State Index (III) 114 Table B.6 Disassembly Index Weight: Stop-Plate 115 Table B.7 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Stop-Plate 115 Table B.8 Refurbishing Index: Stop-Plate 116 Table B.9 Disassembly Index Weight: Padding 116 Table B.10 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Padding 117 Table B.11 Recycling Index Weight: Padding 117 v

PAGE 7

Table B.12 Disassembly Index Weight: Locating Pin 118 Table B.13 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Locating Pin 118 Table B.14 Refurbishing Index: Locating Pin 119 Table B.15 Disassembly Index Weight: Firing Plate 119 Table B.16 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Firing Plate 120 Table B.17 Refurbishing Index: Firing Plate 120 Table B.18 Disassembly Index Weight: Spring (1 diameter) 121 Table B.19 Inspection and Cleaning Index Wei ght: Spring (1 diameter) 121 Table B.20 Reusability Index: Spring (1 diameter) 122 Table B.21 Disassembly Index Weight: Hollow Rod 122 Table B.22 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Hollow Rod 123 Table B.23 Reusability Index Weight: Hollow Rod 123 Table B.24 Disassembly Index Weight: Coil 124 Table B.25 Inspection and Cleaning Inde x Weight: Coil 124 Table B.26 Reusability Index: Coil 125 Table B.27 RI Module 3 125 Table C.1 Base Indices Module 4 126 Table C.2 State Index Module 4 (I) 126 Table C.3 State Index Module 4 (II) 126 Table C.4 State Index Module 4 (III) 127 Table C.5 Disassembly Index Weight: Circuit Board 128 Table C.6 Inspection and Cleaning Index We ight: Circuit Board 128 Table C.7 Reusability Index Weight: Circuit Board 129 Table C.8 Disassembly Index Weight: Wiring 129 Table C.9 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Wiring 130 Table C.10 Reusability Index: Wiring 130 Table C.11 Disassembly Index Weight: Chord 131 Table C.12 Inspection and Cleaning Inde x Weight: Chord 131 Table C.13 Recycling Index: Chord 132 Table C.14 RI Module 4 132 vi

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Product Life Cycle 9 Figure 4.1 Product Tree 26 Figure 4.2 Product RI Flow Chart 28 Figure 5.1 ETFX-50 Electric Staple Gun 62 Figure 5.2 ETFX-50 Assembled 66 Figure 5.3 Product Assembly and Sub-Systems 67 Figure 5.4 Exploded View of Staple Housing S ub-Assembly (Module 1 & 2) 68 Figure 5.5 Exploded View of Electro Magnet Sub Assembly (Module 3) 71 Figure 5.6 Exploded View of Circuit and Cord Sub Assembly (Module 4) 73 vii

PAGE 9

PRODUCT DESIGN: A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCT REMANUFACTURING INDEX Swapnil B. Dixit ABSTRACT In light of increasing pre ssure from environmental safety advocate groups and governments for eco-friendly manufacturing, sa fe after life product & waste disposal has had strong emphasizes in the past several y ears. Industrial manufacturers are becoming more and more responsive towards environmen t safety concerns. These efforts are being reflected by concepts such as green design or environmentally responsible design and manufacturing (ERDM). The key research areas in the 21 st century for reducing the toll on the environment will be material recycling, controlled waste disposal (including fluids and gases) and remanufacturing. Remanufacturing offers a dual advantage over material recycling. First the geometrical form of the product and the functi onal capabilities are re stored with fairly low costs. Second, it reduces the need for dumping or disp osal, making it better for the environment Remanufacturing is also an ave nue to enforce product take back which has become important for the integrating envir onmental considerations. Remanufacturing can be lucrative and thus a motivating factor for the profit oriented industrial community. The work in this research is based on making remanufacturing more distinctive in terms of product design. An approach that in corporates remanufacturin g principles at the product design inception phase can be highly be neficial in the context of after life processing of product. The approach used in this research is one of determining a suitable method of calculating the remanufacturing i ndex (RI). The remanufacturing index of a product serves as a beforehand indication of the degree of the efforts return a product to viii

PAGE 10

its original geometrical shape and functiona l capabilities. This index will provide an insight at the time of initial design of a particular product for understanding afterlife scenarios, which might help to reduce waste, save energy, virgin material, and other resources. The remanufacturing index formulation devise d in this research considers all the major aspects of product after life, including disassembly, recycling and other damage correction efforts. This research offers modul ar analyses of a product for the purpose of remanufacturing. The index is a collection of interfacing elements such as inspection, damage correction and environmental impact. It considers all possible after life aspects of a product and combines them in a systematic manner to give a fair outlook of efforts to remanufacture. ix

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A key challenge for designers and process engineers is the impact of environmental pollution due to rapid industrializ ation. A lot of research is being focused on developing environmentally friendly technologies. Product designers and manufacturers are rigorously working toward s reducing environmental pollution. In most of the developed countries i ndustrial organizations specifically manuf acturers, are taking actions to prevent damage to the eco-syst em. Many countries are working on stricter legislation in order to prevent future damage to the eco-system brought about by negligence during designs, manufacturing and process development. Consumer awareness created by environmental protection a dvocates has also played a major role in putting pressure on manufacturing organizations to reduce pollution. In the wake of environmental concerns, consumer pref erences have shifted towards more environmentally friendly products and the co mpanies that design and manufacture them. Thus it is important that desi gners meet important parameters of product design such as cost effectiveness, reliability and environm ental safety. There is continued emphasis to examine the environmental impacts at both the product and process design stages by both designers and manufacturers. 1.1 Major Environmental Problems In the early 1980s the environment prot ection movement w on major support in the United States and the rest of the indus trialized world. Initially, problems such as high lead content due to automobile emissi ons, mercury levels in the air and water, were of major concern .Since that time st udies conducted by various environmental groups have discovered major pr oblems in the following areas; 1

PAGE 12

1) Landfill: By definition, a landfill is place wher e waste is disposed off. About 80% of Americas waste goes to landfills (E RDM, John Sutherland, 2000). In 1996 the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) reported that 17 states in the United States would reach their landfill capac ity in less than a decade. Five states including New York and Massachusetts have less than 5 years to reach capacity. Increasing demand of land for habitation along w ith increasing rate of waste generation has reduced land availability in the US. Problems with landf ill have become graver due to increased generation of methane gas from landfills, with the attendant hazard of explosion. (EPA, 2001) 2) Air and water contamination: Discharge of greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane and CFCs into the air is cons idered as one of the leading causes of global warming. These gases are believed to have damaging effect on the ozone layer resulting in a constant rise in earths temperature. This has contributed to melting of glaciers and increase in ocean water levels. The smog results from photochemical reaction under sunlight be tween nitrogen oxide (NO 2 ) and hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles and chemical plants lead to respiratory problems. At the same time industrial waste dumped in rivers and wate r reservoirs is belie ved to cause higher levels of lead and mercury in fish and other edible aquatic creatures. 3) Industrial mishaps: Accidents like Union Carbide in India and Chernobyl in the former U.S.S.R. resulted in casualties a nd grave environmental impact which served as a warning for serious side effects of unchecked rapid industrialization. Damage to the environment due to i ndustrial growth differs as per topography and level of development. Every region around the world has confro nted at least one environmentally related problem such as loss of bio-diversity, acid rain, mining discharge, crude petroleum spills, etc. Prudence on the part of pr ocess and product designers ha s the potential to prevent some of environmental pollution problems, if these problems are anticipated at the time of design inception. 2

PAGE 13

Nowadays progressive thinking about envir onmental safety is leading to efforts towards safe and less polluting product and processes design. Environmental safety has become one of the important competitive factors for global organizations. Some organizations are finding it difficult to accomm odate eco-design principles because of the huge investment necessary to achieve it. It is a difficult task to balance profit and investment cost for eco-design. The problem is more acute for small and medium scale industries in view of big investments in envi ronmental safety and the monetary returns. Government bodies and certification agenci es like International Organizations for Standardization (ISO) and Quality Syst ems Requirements (QS) are promoting responsible manufacturing pract ices that are encouraging companies to consider the benefits of eco-design. 1.2 Environment Protection Legisl ation in the United States Lobbying for environmental safety le gislation was started in the 1960s. Governments can help promote environmen tal safety through en forced regulations. Government regulations and mandates have considerable infl uence on operation of industries. Such lobbying has successfully encouraged gover nment and its branches to consider for the environment safety issues in its policies. The need to create awareness for environment at every level was well articulated. The biggest breakthrough achieved was the establishment of government agencies such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. EPA started working on the prin ciple of voluntary m easures which often achieves more environmental improvements at lesser cost than enforced regulation and mandates. The following are some prominent examples where major environmental issues were tackled with legislation: 1. Clean Air Act (CAA) (1990) 2. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide A nd Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (1996) 3. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (1976) 4. Occupational Safety And Health Hazard (OSHA) (1971) 5. Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (1990) 6. Resource Conservation and R ecovery Act. (RCRA) 3

PAGE 14

7. Clean Water Act (CWA) (1977) 8. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation And Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980) 9. Energy Policy Act (EPA) (1992) (ERDM, John Sutherland, 2001) 1.3 Eco-Design Eco-design focuses on the environmental aspects of all stages of the product development process in order to design a product that crea tes the lowest environmental impact throughout its life cycle. It combines ecological and economic goals for new product and process development. Eco-design has become a necessity rather than an option for industries. In 1993, former President Bill Clinton signed an executive order mandating federal preferential purchasing policies for products that benefits the environment. The EPA publishes a list of pref erred products on a regul ar basis, which are manufactured in conjunction with eco-des ign principles (BerkoBoateng, Azar, Jong, Yander 1993). The world business council for sustaina ble development (WBCSD) has pioneered the effort to assist industries to understand the principles of eco-d esign. It has produced with practical guidelines for incorporating eco-d esign principles into the designs in order to achieve maximum profit based on the fo llowing principles (WBCSD, 2002) 1. Reducing material intensity of goods and services 2. Reducing energy intensity of goods and services 3. Reducing toxic dispersion 4. Enhancing material recyclability 5. Maximizing the use of renewable sources 6. Extending durability of product 7. Increasing the service intens ity of goods and services Eco-design has different names in cluding Recycling, Remanufacturing, Environmentally Responsible Design & Manu facturing (ERDM), Eco-Efficiency and 4

PAGE 15

Green Design. All these term s imply reduced waste gene ration and savings on waste disposal costs as well as take-back oblig ations of products. Two major eco-design practices namely recycling a nd remanufacturing are discussed in next sections 1.4 and 1.5. 1.4. Recycling Recycling is a process of a ltering the physical form of a used product to make the same or different product and to achieve mi nimal waste dump. It is one of the best methods for reducing the consumption of fin ite natural resources, and it also prevents disposal or dumping to a sign ificant extent. The used product is collected, cl eaned, sorted and transformed into useful product. Products with homogenous material composition are best suited for recycling. Plastics, paper, aluminum cans, and automobile tires are few prominent examples of recyclable products Recycling has become a norm in plastic, paper, aluminum products, and vulcanized rubber industries. It has shown distinct advantages in terms of saving virgin materi als. For example recycling of paper saves trees used for paper manufacturing and recyc ling aluminum cans saves ore extraction and the costs associated with it.(Maxwell, Wenzel 2002) 1.5 Remanufacturing In simple terms, Remanufacturing can be described as an activity in which products that are known to be worn, de fective, or discarded are brought to a (re)manufacturing facility, where they are disa ssembled. All the components are cleaned and inspected. The components, which could be reused, are brought up to specification. Those are not usable are replaced with new or refurbished components. 5

PAGE 16

When the product is reassembled, inspected and tested, it is ready for a second life. Remanufacturing thus potentially reduces the costs of purchas ed parts and waste disposal. The cost of remanufactured product could be as much as 45% to 65 % of a new product. A study by Rolf Steinhilper (October 19 95), shows that disposal costs are 3% of direct production costs for cars, 12.5% fo r refrigerators and freezers, 2% for ink cartridges. According to Robert Lunds study in Remanufacturing (2003) remanufacturing should include following principles: 1. Technology to restore products 2. Interchangeability of parts 3. Technology is stable for more th an one life cycle of the product 4. Sufficient market to sustain enterprise The concept of remanufacturing starte d in the early 1980s and became quite popular as opposed to material recycling. So me industrial giants like Rank-Xerox, HP, and Arrow Automotive started a dopting the principles of rema nufacturing in the form of environmentally friendly designs for manufacturing products and processes. Remanufacturing yields two very distinct advant ages. The first is that it is eco-friendly, and the second is that it preserves much of th e value added to the product. It also saves significant time, energy, and res ources by reducing vi rgin material extr action rates. It reduces waste generated from raw material separation, processing, and energy usage associated with manufacturing. Copper is a goo d example that illustrates this fact. 1 ton of recycled copper can avoid mining of 200 tons of copper ore. This saves one ton of nitrate explosive used for removing the material from the ground, one ton of coke or other hydrocarbon fuel for smelting. Another adva ntage is that it results in a reduction of about two tons of sulfur diox ide and three tons of carbon monoxide be ing released into the atmosphere. (Argument, Lettice, Bhamara 1998) 6

PAGE 17

1.6 Economic Impact of Remanufacturing Remanufacturing requires facilities similar to a regular manufacturing facility. The input for the remanufacturing facility will be products whose intended life is over. The products which are brought to remanufactur ing facility after their life is over are called after life take back products. Remanufacturing is economically viable if high volume processes similar to new product manu facturing are availabl e. There are other factors like range of products, and degrees of wear and tear of the product components. Products with little change in shape and material over lo ng periods of time are best suitable for remanufacturing. This might result in products that we re manufactured in different years coming to the remanufactur ing facility. This makes the process of remanufacturing more complex. For ex ample in computer and cellular phone manufacturing it is di fficult to use remanufactured compone nt because of the rapid rate of product change. This makes the recovery of high value parts difficult as in some case when products become obsolete within three to four years. Rank-Xerox, which manufactures cartri dges and toners, has successfully connected itself to remanufactur ing through after life take back, resulting overwhelming profits for that company. Studi es performed by Rank Xerox have shown that eco-efficient product development policies combined with take back incentives have made returns increase up to 70%. Total material savi ngs was $64.9 millions in 1995 and demand for remanufactured copiers exceeded supply by 50%. The percentage of total manufacturing waste sent to landfills has been reduced from 41% in 1993 to 21% in 1995. This was achieved through redesigning of the products. The design e ngineers have reduced the different types of plastics used for cartridge s from 27 to only 6 types of recycle friendly plastics. This made the process of take b ack and recycles easy. This has made RankXerox program profitable without co mpromising quality.(Allocca, 2000) 7

PAGE 18

1.7 Purpose of the Current Research The focus of this research is to devel op a formulation that provides a systematic measure of remanufacturing at the time of design inception. The research proposes the development of a remanufactur ing index (RI). The remanufactur ing index is an effort to incorporate remanufacturing principles at the time of product design making it highly beneficial in the context of afte r life processing of the product. This research is directed towards a de veloping a suitable method of formulating the remanufacturing index (RI). The RI of a pr oduct serves as a be forehand indication of the degree of efforts required to bring that pr oduct back to its orig inal geometrical shape and functioning capabilities. The remanufacturing index formulation devised in this work would consider major aspects of product afte r life, such as disassembly and damage correction efforts. The remanufacturing inde x is a collection of interfacing, quality assurance, damage correction and toxicity indices that are combined in a systematic manner in order to provide a measure of the efforts required to remanufacture. The RI serves as a guide post at the time of the de sign of a particular product for understanding its after life scenario, that help s reduce waste, save energy, virgin material and other resources. The idea is to provide design engineers an investiture for consider design factors such as material selection and process selection, that yield environmentally friendly product in terms of take back and recycling while yielding economic benefits at the same time. The proposed formulation refl ects the remanufacturability of the product being designed. 8

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Environmental pollution can be cont rolled with prudent design practices. Foreseeing afterlife hazards of products can lead to safe en vironment. In developing the remanufacturing index (RI), considerable materials in environmental issues, environmental legislation, and safe eco-desi gn were reviewed. The main focus was on developing an understanding of product lifecycle, product end of life strategies, methods to quantify impact of produc t life phases on the environm ent and product and process design methods for remanufacturing. A deliberate effort was made to study and understand contemporary methods of assessing re manufacturability as well as the costs associated with it. 2.1 Product Life Cycle Product life cycle is an important aspect to be studied from remanufacturing and recycling perspective. Material, ener gy and manpower consumption along with environmental impact aspects were subjects of in terests. Product life cycle could be best summarized in the Figure 2.1 (ERDAM, John Sutherland, 2002). Remanufacturing Recycling Reuse Assembly Distribution Product Use Recovery Management Manufactur ing Material processing Figure 2.1 Product Life Cycle 9

PAGE 20

1. Material processing involves extracting ores and raw materials. Extraction is done from earths crust for ores and liquid pe troleum, from woods for paper and rubber based products. Material extraction consumes energy and creates wastes in processing and resulting in diminishing resources. Recycling is always preferable to avoid environmental disruption that virgin material extraction requires. Recycling takes less energy than extraction and reduces the amount of landfills. 2. Manufacturing involves proce ssing raw material into parts. These parts and processing techniques are quite diverse based on product performance characteristics. Manufacturing process consumes considerable amount of energy and manpower. In many cases toxic wa stes and harmful bi-products are generated. 3. The assembly process involves putting di fferent manufactured parts together manually or by automated means. The assembly process can be a very complex especially where large numbers of parts are involved e.g. automobile, computers. Assembly of the product consumes energy and manpower. 4. Product-use is putting product to its inte nded use which might involve energy consumption, wear and tear of product a nd its component. In some cases products use might result into generation of pollutant s e.g. automobiles, refrigeration units. 10

PAGE 21

2.2 Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) As per the definition by EPA (1993) Life-cycle analysis is an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or ac tivity by identifying and quantifying energy and material sage and environmental releases, to assess the impacts of those energy and materials uses and releases to the en vironment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to effect environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life-cycle of the product, process or activity, encompassing extracting and processing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, a nd distribution; use/re use/ maintenance; recycling; and final disposal. LCA is potentially identifying aspects su ch as energy, material consumption and waste generation during product li fe stages. LCA enables ma nufacturers and designers to quantify how much energy and material we re used and how much solid, liquid and gaseous waste were generated at each stage of products life. LCA is a major tool to investigate material and energy flow along th e product life cycle. LCA is potentially a powerful tool used by regulators for formula ting environmental legislation. (Senthil, Ong, Nee and Tan 2002). 2.2.1 LCA Advantages LCA is a broad scientific validation technique for assessing environmental impact. It enables the identification of ke y areas in product manufacturing to product usage to locate improvements through environmental perspective. Use of resources for product varies by degree of complexity of design; every produc t poses different environmental impact. LCA helps to identify t hose stages, which have material or energy demand, and stages, which have potential to cause pollution. LCA study is performed at a micro level. It helps to identify the use of scarce recourses, showing where a more sustainable product could be substituted. 11

PAGE 22

2.2.2 LCA Limitations The development of LCA requires extensive data collection and calculations. LCA though highly desirable cann ot be implemented for every product design. This is due to lack of standard databases of all kinds of environmental impacts. Results are voluminous and sometimes difficult to unders tand and interpret. Ideas generated from results go beyond the scope on influence of desi gners. Comparison of dissimilar products in most respect can only be made by judgm ents and assumptions. Reliable methods for aggregating figures generated by LCA and using them to compare the life cycle impact of the products have not been developed. LCA doe s not adequately describe product end of life issues because of difficulties in defining boundaries, embedded toxicity, emissions and environmental impact of end of life treatment systems. LCA refers to existing products, and do not offer guidelines for future product design or recommendations to do so. (Ulrich, 19995) 2.3 Designs for Environment (DFE) Design for Environment aims to bridge the gap between two traditionally separate functions: product development and environmental management. The goal of DFE is to bring these two functions into closer contac t and address product life -cycle issues that are often ignored. Implementing Design for Environment: A Primer Design is a set of decisions taken to solve a particular set of product requirements issues. Design is a crucial phase for product and its life, as 80% of the products life cycle costs are committed through design choices (Chandra1993). DFE is defined as the systematic way of incorporating environmenta l attributes and costs into the design of product. DFE is making suitable choices during design process, which will result in less environmental impact throughout product li fe cycle and after life. A products environmental impact ranges from release of toxic substances into the environment to consumption of material and energy resources. 12

PAGE 23

DFE occurs early in the design stage to ensure that environmental consequences are taken in to account before any manufacturing decisions are committed. Following are some examples of how choices made can make product design in line with DFE requirements. (EPA 1992) 1. Using alternative joining tec hnologies such as snaps, darts and screws instead of adhesives and welding. 2. Minimizing or eliminating embedde d metal threads in plastics. 3. Using screws of similar head technology. 4. Minimizing the variety of materials used (including fillers, colors and additives). 5. Marking plastics clearly with resin type identifiers. 6. Using components made of known materials. 7. Avoiding painting and putting labe ls on recyclable parts. 8. Using modular architecture, so that modul es can be replaced to upgrade or repair equipment. 9. Using ceramics instead of plastics with flame-retardants. 10. Leasing of products for take-back and reuse. 11. Using power down or sleep modes for el ectronic devices to cut energy use during inactivity. 2.3.1 DFE Approach Ideal product design approach as describe d, by Ulrich Nissen (1995) is shown in table 2.1 13

PAGE 24

Table 2.1 DFE Approach Primary Criteria the product should support Examples of sub criteria General effect (during waste management) Environmental effect Environmentally sound incineration / disposal 1. Centralizations of hazardous substances 2. Marking of hazardous substances 3. separable connections between hazardous and other substances Easy separation of hazardous substances Reduces the amount of hazardous waste and toxic emissions; no contamination of other substances Recycling reprocessing of the material 1. Low material variety 2. avoidance of compound material 3. material markings 4. low number of connections Easy separation of materials in to constituent fractions in order to approach horizontal recycling Reduces material consumption, reduces waste generation Remanufacturing reuse of the product 1. Connections to be separated non destructively 2. Easy to clean 3. simple design structure Increase longevity, long use of product 14

PAGE 25

2.4 Product End of Life Strategies Product end of life is defi ned as a stage when produc t no longer satisfies its intended basic work function to the expected degree for the first user (Allocca 2002). The other definition can be a point at which the product no longer performs the intended functions due to failure or wear out. Product end of life is an important aspect for designers through eco-design perspective. The ta ke back or disposal responsibility and its economic implications are much dependent on how product end of life takes place. Product end of life is the first stage for remanufacturing. For a product to be remanufactured it is important to have all know how of how to incorporate resources to rebuild the product. 2.4.1 Product End of Life Hierarchy Product end of life hierarchy in Allocca, (2002) is categorized in six broad categories. 1. Reuse: Reuse is the secondhand trading of the product for use as originally designed. Automobiles and its spare components are the best examples of reuse. The products those are build for longer life sp an like 10 to 20 years or mo re are feasible for reuse. Lengthened product life is one of the suitable alternatives to eco-design but it is not a solution. Rapid change in consumers tast e makes it more difficult to build such products. Rate of growth of technology consta ntly triggers feasib ility of obsolesce. Computers are examples of obsolescence due fa ster growth in model design changes. 2. Service: Servicing is increasing product life by replacing worn out parts or rebuilding some products part in order to make it f unctional for longer duration. Servicing is preferred for products those are huge in size and shape. Earthmovers and houses are the products where servicing is suitable through economic perspec tive and is widely used. It is profitable practice fo r both consumers and industries. 3. Recycling with disassembly: Recycling r eclaims material streams useful for applications in same or different products. Disassembly in to material fraction increases the value of the materials recycl ed by removing material contaminants, hazardous material or highly valuable comp onents. Recycling with disassembly is feasible for products with homogeneous ma terials as discussed in chapter one. Products designed for recycling with di sassembly are becoming widely popular. 15

PAGE 26

Paper and aluminum products are now fully recycled. This is economically feasible and profitable option. 4. Recycling without disassembly: This can be sated as shredding in simple terms. Products with composite material structure are suitable for this option. Automobile tires can be cited as an example for recycling without disa ssembly. The shredded material is separated with chemical pro cesses or simply using magnetic density or other properties of the materials 5. Remanufacturing: As stated in definition in chapter 1 it is a process in which reasonably large quantities of product ar e brought back in to facility and disassembled. Parts from a specific product ar e not kept with the product but instead they are collected by part type, cleaned a nd inspected for possible repair and reuse. Remanufactured products are then reas sembled on assembly line using those recovered parts and new part s wherever necessary. Rema nufacturing is feasible solution for complex assemblies. Produc ts designed through remanufacturing perspective will have much longer lives a nd will be giving economic advantage for manufacturers. 6. Disposal: This end of life strategy is transf erring product to landf ill or incinerating the product with out without much energy recovery. This is the last opt ion to be practiced for eco-design. To consistently perform an environmental impact analysis across all possible end of life strategies it is necessary to determin e a reference point. The reference point can be product in resalable condition or product requires recycling or product requires to be remanufactured. 2.4.2 Phillips Eco-scan System Lot of research has been done on quantifying impact of product end of life on environment. Phillips Environmental comp etence center has done pioneering work in assessing environmental impact with the t echnique called Eco-scan technique. Eco-scan technique is type of LCA, which examines entire life cycle of a product, and analysis 16

PAGE 27

from the Eco-scan gives valuable quantif ied information about environmental impact. This technique can be effectively used fo r feedback to designers. (Allocca 2000).Ecoscan from Phillips is one of the best met hods to quantify impact of product end of life which can be later become a substantial tool for design. Th is method study gives a wider picture of every state in product life with impact on environment. Eco-scan technique considers Environmental impact (EI) of manufa cturing, packaging, usage, disposal of the product. EI stands for environmental impact and LCA represents values directly derived from eco-scan values from Phillips Eco-indicator database. EI life cycle = EI manufacture + EI transportation +EI packaging + EI disposal + EB bonus (2.1) EI manufacture = (1+x) LCA manufacture (2.2) The value x in equation 2.2 is percentage of the product that must be manufactured for second life. The values range from 0% (for reuse), 10% (f or service) 40% (remanufacture), 100% (for recycle and disposal) In the similar fashion EI packaging EI transportation EI energy are calculated. Finally Environmental bonus is determined. EI packaging = LCA packaging (2.3) EI transport = (1.131 y) w (2.4) y = distance between end user and recycling facility w = weight of the products in kilograms (kg) Figure 1.131 is in unit milli-points per mile kg from Phillips database EI energy = LCA energy (1st life) + LCA energy (2nd life) (2.5) EI disposal = 2.1 (w electronics ) + 2.0 (w metals ) + 0.8 (w misc. glass ) + 0.1 (w wood ) (2.6) 17

PAGE 28

EB bonus = {0.8 (LCA electronics ) + 1.0 (LCA metals ) + 0.8 (LCA plastics ) +0.8 LCA misc. glass ) (2.7) Assumptions combined with LCA collected on Phillips products yields environmental impact estimates for end of lif e strategies. Phillips has performed analysis for its electronic goods like television, VCR, cell phone, CRT monitors, and CD players. Table 2.2 Environmental Impact Results for Philips Product PRODUCT REUSE SERVICE REMANUF ACTURE RECYCLE WITH DISASSEBMLY RECYCLE WITHOUT DISASSEMBLY DISPOSAL Cell phone 88 (63) 93(66) 95(68) 105(75) 122(87) 140(100) VCR 613(76) 631(78) 639(79) 666(82) 698(86) 812(100) CRT monitor 1877(70) 1950(73) 2035(76) 2186(82) 2463(92) 2679(100) LCD monitor 1942(57) 2083(62) 2473(73) 3223(95) 3260(96) 3384(100) CD player 2590(98) 2596(98) 2609(98) 2632(99) 2636(99) 2652(100) Audio product 3321(85) 3375(87) 3357(86) 3393(87) 3474(89) 3892(100) Mainstream television 3168(89) 3658(90) 3674(91) 3740(92) 3954(98) 4045(100) The units in the table are milli-points. Numbers in parenthesis are percentage of disposal. Cell phone has low environmental impact for e nd of life as compared monitors, which have high environmental impact. 2.6 Designs for Remanufacturing Decisions have to be made after products take back for economic viability of their use in a product to be remanuf actured. It is an important phase as it affects the entire remanufacturing operation to be performed. Th e main purpose of this section is to understand how design can affect recovery poten tial of the product to be remanufactured. Certain characteristics are vital for design for remanufacturing. (Ferrer 2000), (Ayers, Ferrer, Leynseele 1997) 18

PAGE 29

1. Serviceability: Modules subjected to wear should be easily disassembled. The parts should be easily repaired and substituted. 2. Infrequent design changes: High value a dded components and assemblies should have stable designs. Hence when product is back after its first life serve may not be obsolete. 3. Design flexibility: It fac ilitates interchanging of m odules. There is significant commonality of modules and part pr oduct lines across the generations. 4. Material recovery: It is process of recovering material value in the product. It could be a destructive process or pick ing out components after cleaning. 5. Value recovery: It is the process of r ecovering usable components or subassemblies from the product. The aim is to save materi al value and value added in the production or individual component. 6. Recyclability: It is the measure of effici ency with which material recycling is profitable. It is termed as ratio net gain from recycling to recycling cost. 7. Disassemblability: It is the measure of effectiveness of disassembling a component instead of recycling it. It is determined from comparison of marginal revenue if the component is recycled to if the component is disassembling costs. 8. Reusability: It is measure of how economically efficient is it to renovate a component for immediate reuse. 2.7 Assessing Remanufacturability Assessing remanufacturabiltiy is relati ve process. Assessment depends on the stage on which one prefers to do it. Many indust ries have started it after their products have established in market but the seri ous effort to esta blish remanufacturing characteristics in to design of product is basic c ontention this research stands for. The process of establishing remanufacturing metr ics as described by in Towards Design for Remanufacturing Metrics for Assessing Re manufacturability by Bras and Hammond 1996 is one of the basic cornerstones fo r establishing rema nufacturing index. 19

PAGE 30

The paper identifies eight basic re manufacturing processes assembly, disassembly, testing, repair, cleaning, inspection, refurbishing and replacement. The overlap between these proces ses is eliminated, such that each can be assessed independently of each other. The metric is developed after combining and partitioning independent criteria. Major four cate gories were identified and sets of metric were developed: 1. Cleaning 2. Damage correction, composed of repair, refurbishment and replacement metrics 3. Quality assurance, composed of testing and inspection metrics 4. Part interfacing, composed of disassembly and assembly metrics 2.7.1 Remanufacturing Index Calculation Remanufacturing index calculation begins with eight key criteria identification viz. replacement (key), disassembly, reassemb ly, testing, inspection, replacement (basic), refurbishing, cleaning. Four categories which are independent of each other are determined those are interfacing, quality a ssurance, damage correction and cleaning. Indices for metric are calculated using the formulas as given below. The formulas are based on Boothroyed and Dewhursts DF A metric. (Hammond & Bras 1996) D ydisassembltime tIdeal ))((# (2.8) A assemblytime tIdeal ))((# (2.9) The assembly and disassembly matrices are defined using the number of ideal parts times an ideal part (dis)assembly time score divided over the actual total time for (dis) assembly. 20

PAGE 31

plcement parts ction IdealinspeinspectionRe## (# (2.10) The inspection metrics is defined by number of inspections over theoretical minimum number of parts which do not need to be replaced during refurbishing. T Testingtime tTests ))((# (2.11) Metric for testing is defined by total idealized time for testing multiplying the total number of tests by time duration for the test divided by actual time required to perform all the tests. ore CleaningSc ore CleaningSc Idealcleaning) )(min (# (2.12) The metric for cleaning is comparison of to tal cleaning score of each parts and ideal number of parts multiplied by minimum clean ing score. Cleaning scores are to be determined by product design and prioritizi ng cleaning process which will differ product to product. )(# )Re(# 1Reparts furbishfurbish (2.13) Metric for refurbishing is calculated based on th e fact that number of parts which do not require refurbishing is equiva lent to the total number of parts less the number of parts which do require refurbishing. )(# )Re(# 1ReKey plced KeyplKey (2.14) )(# )Re#Re(# 1ReParts plceKeyplplce Basic (2.15) 21

PAGE 32

Replacement metrics are constructed in the same manner refurbishing metrics are constructed. Remanufacturing index is calcula ted by combining the matrices satisfying weighting criteria and inverse weighting criteri a. The weights have to be determined by designers as per the product characteristics. This resear ch by Bras and Hammond (1996) gives effective technique to formulate re manufacturing index. However this research does not give environmental impact in process of remanufacturing and do es not take in to account costs and probabilities of the product com ponents and its economic implications on remanufacturing. 2.8 Summary In this chapter considerable literature pertinent to the objectives of this research was reviewed. The components reviewed were product life cycle, life cycle analysis (LCA), design for environment (DFE), pr oduct end of life strategies, design for remanufacturing and assessing re manufacturability. The next chapter states and explains the research problem and assumptions made for developing remanufacturing index. 22

PAGE 33

CHAPTER 3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Remanufacturing is an effective method for prevention of environmental hazards, material wastage and excessive energy c onsumption. A sound method of measuring the remanufacturability of a product is by devel oping a reliable Remanufacturing Index (RI). As seen in chapter 2, several approaches have been used by researchers and industrial organizations to measure remanufacturability for specific product types. As yet there is no general method for measurement of remanuf acturability. In consideration of these limitations of existing methodologies, this re search addresses a method of developing a remanufacturing index for wide range of products. The RI developed considers product after life scenarios, recyclability, disassemblibility, damage correction, and environmental impact during product remanufacturing process. The RI would serve as a measure of e fficiency with whic h a product could be remanufactured. The RI of the product would also give a detailed insight of costs involved and its relation to design parameters of the product and its components considered for remanufacturing. The maximum value of the RI is 1 and denotes 100% remanufacturability of the product. Conversely the minimum value is 0, and indicates that the product can not be efficiently remanufactured. In this chapter the research problem was defined and the uniqueness of the research was explained. In chapter 4 the methodology for developing the RI, components or RI and expected results are explained in detail. 23

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 4 RI MODEL DEVELOPMENT In this chapter, method of formulating the Remanufacturing Index (RI) and its components are stated. All major assumpti ons made are discussed aw well as the objectives of the research are included. 4 .1 Approach to Problem As discussed in chapte r two, the major components of the product after life assessment and formulation of remanufacturing in terms of numeral are stated. The main objective of the research is to form guidelin es for designers to make the products more remanufacture friendly through an economic persp ective. In this research an effort has been made to introduce new methods to cal culate components of remanufacturing index, in order to give a balan ced outlook to examine remanuf acturing of wide range of products. This research takes into consider ation the economics of remanufacturing as a basis of remanufacturing a product. The two methods of formulation of remanufacturing index reviewed in chapter 2 are helpful in de vising the method in this research. The first method is by Bras and Hamm ond (1995), its approach to assess remanufacturability is based on Design for Assembly (DFA) Index by Boothroyd and Dewhurst (1991). This paper considers the basis of actual versus theoretical mi nimum parts needed and time parameters in the product to assess to goodness of remanufacturability. The second approach is by Ferrar (1991), which considers the limited ec onomic sustainability of a remanufacturing process and recove ry potential of assemblies. 24

PAGE 35

The method adopted in this research basi cally draws parallel with approaches by Bras and Hammond (1995) and Ferrar (2001). The approach used in this research tries to combine economic sustainability combined with DFA approach along with other economic factors in formulation of RI. This model proposed in the thesis is based on the costs of disassembly, inspection, cleaning, re furbishing, and dumping. The cost of the mentioned operations in remanufacturing reflect s all the recourses such as time required for particular operation, man hours and machin e hours invested etc. This would result into more realistic appr oach to calculate remanuf acturability of a product. 4 .1.1 Product Tree Approach to Decouple Product The approach considered in the effort is to break the produc t down to its basic components (Kulkarni 2005). This is referred as the product tree approach. In this approach the product is classified in to th ree levels. Product is examined from the high level which represents the produc t itself to the lowest level which is component the basic part. The intermediate level represents the module consists of one or more components. The product is defined as a set of modules which have different func tional applications. Modules are simply different sub-assemblies of the product. The modules are assembled from different components. The components are the basic elements of the product tree shown in fig 4.1. 25

PAGE 36

Product Module 2 Module 3 Module 1 Cm11 Cm12 Cm22 Cm21 Cm32 Cm31 Cm13 Cm23 Cm33 Level 1 Product Level 2 Module Level 3 Compo nent Figure 4.1 Product Tree Once the product has been identified, the next step is to develop the formulation structure for RI of the product. The formula tion begins with the formulations RI of components. The RI of the modules is form ulated as combination of the RI of its components. The RI of the product is combin ation of RI of its constituent modules. The process begins with disassembling the product. The product is disassembled into modules and subsequently into components. As stated in chapter 3, RI is collection of indices. The indices for the components ar e categorized in two categories first one being basic indices and second being state indi ces. Basic indices are necessary for every component. State indices are which denotes the state of the component as explained below. 26

PAGE 37

A. Base indices: 1. Disassembly index 2. Inspection index B. State indices: 1. Reusability index 2. Refurbishing index 3. Recycling index 4. Environmental index The components are disassembled, clean ed and inspected and their state is determined. The state of the components can be classified in to following categories. 1. Reusable: The components which can be re used as they are after disassembly. 2. Refurbishable: The components which can be used after minor rewo rk to restore their functional ability and aesthetics. 3. Recyclable: The components which are to be recycled 4. Scrap and dump: The components which cannot be recycled and need to be landfilled. 27

PAGE 38

Disassemble product into modules Disassemble modules into components Component Inspection Component Base Indices calculation (Disassembly and Ins p ection ) State Determination Component Environment Index calculation (For scrap) Component State Index calculation (Reusability / Refurbish/ Recycling) Component RI Component RI Figure 4.2 Product RI Flow Chart 28

PAGE 39

4.2 Components of RI 4.2.1 Disassembly Index The disassembling operation is the first step on the remanufacturing floor. There are two major types of disassembly operation. Re versible disassembling operation, in which module can be disassembled to recover the most of the components as against the irreversible disassembling operation or dest ructive disassembly. The disassembilibility of a component from its parent module is econom ical efficiency of disassembling it. The focus of the work will be the disassembly a component from its parent module at minimum cost. The cost assessment of the component after disassembly will provide a good feedback on the amount of the depreciation that has occurred over the period of time. The formulation of the disassembly index will provide an importa nt insight to the designers regarding the work product and comp onents. There are several considerations or the points of view associated with di sassembling of a product in a remanufacturing shop. An outlook to disassembling process through remanufacturing perspective will result in to faster disassembling methods. The fastening methods like snap fit design or threaded joints wherever possible over welding joints would result into faster disassembly with minimum damage to the m odule and its components. Development of non-destructive tools for disassembly woul d improve the economic efficiency of disassembly. Automated disassembly woul d result in to minimizing the cost. It is important to find a ba lance between the resources i nvested in the disassembly process and returns from it. The method this re search suggests is to consider the ratio of current estimated cost of the component and original cost of the component. 29

PAGE 40

Disassembly Index (DI) = OCC DCC = Component ofCost Original Component ofCosty Disassembl (4.1) Module M has components c 1 c 2 c 3 .c n C i = the cost of component c i of the module. D ci = Cost of disassembling the component OCC = Original cost of the component obt ained from previous bill of material. Number of components in the module = (4.2) n i icC1 Disassembly cost = (4.3) ciD OCC DIci D (4.4) From equation 4.3 it is evident that the value of DI will be always less than one. The DI of component is the best way to judge lo sses occurred due to usage of component over the period of time. Comparing cu rrent worth of the component with its original cost gives an idea of the depreciation occurred over the period of time. It also considers the costs involved in the process of disassembling. The assumptions in the formulating disassembly index as a part of RI are 1. A part in case is damaged during disassemb ly rendering it useless, is recycled or scraped and its recycling retu rn-revenue is calculated. 2. Wear rate of the components in assemblies are predictable For example an electric motor assembly is brought back to remanufacturing shop. The electric motor is as whol e considered as a product. Stator assembly, rotor assembly and power board are the modules. Rotor, sh aft and bearings are classified as the components. The factors in which designers will be interested is examining what is current monetary worth of the motor, the degree of wear and tear of the parts.(Bovea, Vidal, 2004) 30

PAGE 41

4.2.2 Inspection and Cleaning Index Inspection refers to the process of qua litatively examining the components for assessing their condition. The inspection method could be visual inspection or laboratory inspection performed after di sassembling operation. This is an important step in remanufacturing; the major consideration w ould be focused on cost of inspection and condition of the components of the module during the time of inspection processes. The next step is to segregate the components of module in order to dispatch them to respective future processes locations. The segregation is done to determine the future treatment needed by the compone nt of the module. The major categories of treatment of parts can be classified as part s needing refurbishing, parts those can be used as it is; parts those need to be scrapped or recycled. Inspection also helps to understand the dama ge which is as a result of misuse by the user, abusive environments and corrosion. In this phase consid eration of cleaning costs are inevitable. Sometimes a large portion of the recourses can be consumed in cleaning operations. The inspection index for component will pr ovide feedback on cost of inspection and cleaning of the components for example sometimes its not feasible to inspect a component coastwise compared to use a ne w one. The components with high intrinsic value are worth inspecting in monitory perspectiv e as compared to less valued parts. It is a major step in decision maki ng on fate of the components of the module. The inspection index could be formulated as shown below. Inspection index (ICI) = OCM TCIC = Component ofCost Original Componen t ofCleaning Inspection ofCostTotal & (4.5) 31

PAGE 42

TCIC= Total cost of inspection and cleaning TCI= Total cost of inspection Ic i = cost of inspection of component i TCI = (4.6) n i iIc1 TCL = Total cost of cleaning TCL i = cost of cleaning of component i TCI= (4.7) n i iCL1 Total cost of Inspection and cleani ng = TCIC = TCI+ TCL (4.8) TCIC = + (4.9) n i iIc1 n i iCL1 Cost of Component = OCC ICI= OCC TCIC = OCC CLIcn i n i i i11 (4.10) The IIN will be less than one. If the cost of inspection and cleaning exceeds cost of the component then is not in economic in terest to inspect and clean the components. Inspection index gives the comparison of insp ection and cleaning costs compared to the original cost of the component. 4.2.3 Recycling Index Recycling of a component refers to econom ic viability of a un it through material recovery perspective. Recycling is one of th e disposing alternatives for the components which are rendered unusable due to wear tear occurred duri ng previous usage or in the disassembly process. The recycling is in this research is always referred as material recovery. The material recovery refers to the recovering of material value from the component. The process involves destruction of component and loss of all functions. The value recovery is done by th e shredding and electromagnetic separation. The metallic components are perfect candidate for recycling operations. 32

PAGE 43

The facilities are already established for metal recycling as the value is retained and recovered purity from the smelting operations is equivalent of newly extract metals. The plastic component recycling is still in its infancy stage as desired quality, which is of the virgin material, of plastic fr action is not easily obtained. The best measure of recyclability of a co mponent is to compare recycling cost to net monetary recovery from recycling th e component. Recycling done for material recovery results in to destru ction of component and loss of all functions of module. If recycling index is less than one it means that recycling is a profitable operation. Recycling Index (RCI) = PRRCY TCY (4.11) RCI= Modulein Component cycling byObtained venue ojected Component ofcycling ofCostTotalRe Re Pr Re (4.12) TCY = Total cost of recycling PRRCY=Projected revenue obtained by r ecycling component in the module RY i = Revenue obtained by recycling component i TCY = (4.13) n i REiC1 PRRCY = (4.14) n i iRY1 C RYi = cost of recycling component i RCI= TCY PRRCY = n i RYi n i iC RY1 1 (4.15) The assumption in calculating the recy cling index is that if the component classified as recyclable then it can be recycled totally. Total recycling means the revenue obtained is deterministic. The recycling inde x is always desired to be less than one. The revenue obtained by recycling will be high wher e recycling yields more pure material. As described in previous pa rt of this section metals will yield high returns as compared to plastics and other non metal com ponents. (Nielsen, Wenzel 2002) 33

PAGE 44

In case of plastic it require s particle by particle by sorting in order to have enrichments leading to 99% purity, which in te rms is very costly process. The recycling of a component can be implemented through different perspective in case it can not be recycled to get virgin material. For example nickel cadmium batteries can be recycled to recover both nickel and cadmium used for di fferent purposes. Recycling of component is not necessarily done by th e remanufacturing unit. The co mponents which are to be recycled can be sold to specializing recyc ling agencies. The monitory returns can be summed up as revenue obtained by recycling the component. 4.2.4 Refurbishing Index Refurbishing refers to repair of dama ged parts and application of protective / aesthetic coating. It is unimportant that the dama ge inflicted to module was during products service life or during disassembly process. The important consideration while considering refurbishing would be whether th e damage inflicted to the component in its previous use can be undone easily. The eas e of the refurbishi ng will determine a significant portion of resources put on the component overhaul. The refurbishing could be one of the most important factors in co st reduction on remanuf acturing floor. It is more helpful when remanufacturing of one of the mass manufactured product component is done. Standardized component used in wide variety of designs helps to reduce the cost of the refurbishing operation. Refurbis hing operation becomes eco-friendly when component under consideration contains environm entally controlled substances as one of its constituent, for example electronic circuit boards. Electronic circuit boards are perfect candidate for refurbishing. Refurbishing th e boards when one or two elements are dysfunctional will save a considerable am ount of material and energy resources. 34

PAGE 45

The main assumption in formulating re furbishing index is the component is repairable and major part of the component has considerable value built in and little rework will yield a high savings. The probabi lities of survival are considered very high for refurbished modules. The refurbishing index would be comparison of cost of refurbishing to the expected performance of the module in future in case monetary terms. The other feedback it would give is on wear and tear tendencies of components of the module over the period of time. The simple design of parts against the complex will reduce the value lost over the period of time. The parts with bigger in size are certainly preferable over smaller size. The parts de signed with less mating contacts and relative stress levels are more lasting. Design change s incorporated to make the parts sturdier to withstand wear and tear or reduction of factors leading to wear and tear will be enormously helpful if stated in advance. Refurbishing Index RFI= RRF TCRF = furbishing bySavedvenue Total Component furbishing ofCostTotalRe Re Re (4.16) iCRF = Cost of refurbishing of component i CiC = Cost of component i of the module. Total current cost of the co mponents to be refurbished = (4.17) CiC Total cost of refurbishing of components = TCRF= (4.18) iCRF Total cost of Revenue saved by refurbis hing components in module = cost of new components cost refurbishing of the same component RRF= (4.19) CiC iCRF RFI = i i iCRFCc CRF (4.20) Refurbishing is very important factor in remanufacturing. Refurbishing cost of component is a major factor in refurbishing index. Less the cost of refurbishing higher the value of refurbishing index. The refu rbishing method used for the component should be less recourse consuming which will yi eld more productivity in refurbishing. 35

PAGE 46

4.2.5 Reusability Index (RUI) Reusability of a component refers to th e ability to use a component after minor cleaning operation. This would take into consideration that reusing a component should be less costly than manufacturing it from scratch. The reusability is can be termed as value recovery. Value recovery can be refe rred as recovering va lue embedded in the component and value added in the producti on of the component at the time of manufacturing (Roger 2003). One of the main goals in remanufacturing is to reuse as many parts as possible. (Czaplika 2003) The main assumptions are the probability of failure of a component is low. The reusability of component is also important because it is an indicator of economical feasibility of saving the virgin material a nd energy. The parts which can be used as it after their first use can be termed as rota tional parts. The mechanical components which are simple in design to reduce the stress i nduce are suppose to ha ve more rotational ability than parts with complex design and relatively high stress induction. For example parts used in automotive jacks are simpler in design as compared to cordless drill. This becomes evident from that fact that 80% part s from automotive jack are rotational against 60% in cordless drill. The reusability index is defined as ratio of worth of reusable component to original cost of the component. RUI= Component oft Original Components ofWorth Estimatedcos = OCC EWC (4.21) OCC = original cost of the component Estimated Worth of the component =EWC = CiC RUI = OCC EWC = OCC CCi (4.22) 36

PAGE 47

The reusability index is a strong indicat or of well design of component and its durability. It reflects that the component was designed to isolate wear and other anticipated service damage. The reusability index for hi gh intrinsic value components would have a considerable in terest on designers part. 4.2.6 Environment Index (EVI) Environmental impact of the product after its use is the main reason to implement remanufacturing. The environmental impact in some cases is more crucial for example products using Freon or certain types of pol ymers or components containing traces of environmentally controlled substances. The environment index is formulated in order to determine the economical impact of the co mponent disposal in case it needs to be dumped in the landfill. Environmental inde x is measure of the economic impact of component rendered unusable after onetime use and needs to be dumped. The environmental index is formulated by compar ing the dumping cost of the component to its original cost. The dumping costs may invol ve some of the regulatory fees paid to government. EVI = Component OrignalofCost Component UnusableanDumping forspent Amount Total = OCC CLF (4.23) iCLF = cost of land filling component i OCC = Original cost of component i EVI = OCC CLF = OCC CLFi (4.24) 37

PAGE 48

The environment index is critical th rough both designer and organizational management perspective. It is an indicat or of pollution created by the component and subsequently the product. The index would also reflect the environmental costs incurred to the organization. To reduce environmenta l impact designers can follow few guidelines while selecting the material (Michelini, Razzoli 2004) 1. Selecting natural material over synthetic material 2. Use of the same material for diffe rent component wherever possible 3. Avoiding complex material, surface coating, surface treatment 4. Use of recyclable material wherever possible It is desirable that environment index should be as low as possible. In case it exceeds one would reflect on the environmental characteristic s of the design. In th is case one should not consider the product involvi ng radioactive materials. 4.3 Component Index Weight Criteria In remanufacturing all the indices do not influence the RI with equal magnitude. Some indices carry relatively high importance compared to ot hers. The magnitude of the influence of the individual index needs to be determined. This can be accomplished by considering the influence of some important factors on indices. These factors are decided by the designer or other decision-maker on the remanufacturing floor. These factors are described in details in the next sections. The approach used to determine wei ght carried by indi vidual index is accomplished with metrics approach explained in coming sections. The first step in determining the individual weight is to identify the factors influencing the particular index. The second step is to c onvert the influence of the fact or into number. This can be accomplished by assessing the influence of factors and rating them on the number scale. There could be several methods to achieve numbering the weights. In this research following approach is considered. 38

PAGE 49

1. The three basic factors (BF) for every inde x were identified. Th ese factors are time, cost involved and other resources consumed by the proc ess. The other resources could be man hour or machine hour etc. The basic factors could be different for different products or different situations. 2. Each of the above factors is rated against the thr ee other set of infl uencing factors (IF) for the index. The influencing factors ar e again are defined by situation and design requirements for that particular product. 3. The basic factors (BF) are weighted against other index influencing factors (IF) and is accomplished with the help of questionnaire. 4. The number rating is assigned for standing of influencing factor ag ainst basic factor on the scale of 0 to 3. The value obtained af ter comparing basic f actor to influencing factor will be written in the matrix. The value could be decided with the help of questionnaires as explaine d in next sections. 5. The total in the bottom right corn er gives weight for the index. Table 4.1 Component Index Weight Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost(BF1) Time(BF2) Other Resources(BF3) Total IF1 A1 A2 A3 IF2 B1 B2 B3 IF3 C1 C2 C3 Total Weight 6. Each value from A1 to C3 will be put by assessing the IF against BF. The values are based on the assessing questionnaire described in the next section. 7. Add the scores in the each column and write the total in corres ponding cell in the total row. Add the scores in the each row and wr ite the total in the corresponding cell in the total column. 39

PAGE 50

The weight scheme described above enables the flexibility. This is done to accommodate the different industrial scenarios and product design conditions. The weight values are to be determined by designer depending upon obj ectives to be achieved for particular product. 4.3.1 Other Resources The basic factor other resources introduced in the weight criteria for components is for element of flexibility to different industrial scenarios for re manufacturing products. A designer has to determine the factors pertaini ng to certain situations which have to be considered for remanufacturing. This could be best explained in with the help of example of plastics. In the E.U. certain types of pl astics softeners like phthalates are banned for industrial application. In the US that is permitted for industrial use. This type of situation could be a problem in remanufacturing of specific components. The additional resources required to solve the problem could be incorporated. 40

PAGE 51

4.4 Disassembly Index Weight Criteria Disassembly of the component will have three influencing fact ors those are ease of disconnection, design complexity, and f unctional complexity of the component. These factors will be weighted against base factors. Table 4.2 Disassembly Index Weight Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Ease of Disconnection (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Design complexity (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Functional complexity (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total Comparing ease of disconnecti on compared against time, cost, and other resources. A1: Ease of disconnection, cost Disconnection of component cost low = 3 Disconnection of component cost moderate = 2 Disconnection of component cost high = 1 41

PAGE 52

A2: Ease of disconnection, Time Component disconnection consumes less time = 3 Component disconnection cons umes moderate time = 2 Component disconnection consumes lot of time = 1 A3: Ease of disconnection, other recourses Component disconnection cons umes less resources = 3 Component disconnection consum es moderate resources = 2 Component disconnection cons umes high resources = 1 Comparing design complexity against time, cost, and other resource consumption B1: Design complexity, cost Design complexity making disassembly less costly =3 Design complexity making disassembly moderately costly =2 Design complexity making disassembly more costly = 1 B2: Design complexity, time Design complexity making disassembly less time consuming =3 Design complexity making disassembly moderately time consuming =2 Design complexity making disassembly more time consuming = 1 B3: Design complexity, other resources Design complexity leading to le ss resource consumption =3 Design complexity leading to mode rate resource consumption =2 Design complexity leading to high resource consumption =1 42

PAGE 53

Comparing functional complexity against tim e, cost, and other resource consumption C1: Functional complexity, cost Functional complexity making disassembly less costly =3 Functional complexity making disa ssembly moderate ly costly =2 Functional complexity making disassembly more costly = 1 C2: Functional complexity, time Functional complexity making disassembly less time consuming =3 Functional complexity making disassem bly moderately time consuming =2 Functional complexity making disa ssembly more time consuming = 1 C3: Functional complexity, other resources Functional complexity leading to le ss resource consumption =3 Functional complexity leading to moderate resource consumption =2 Functional complexity leading to high resource consumption =1 43

PAGE 54

4.5 Inspection Index Weight Criteria Inspection index will have three influencing factors weighted against the basic factors. Inspection method, cleaning method, an estimate of lo ss in case inspected component fails. Table 4.3 Inspection Index Weight Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Inspection method (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Cleaning Method (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Loss in case inspected component fails (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total 44

PAGE 55

Comparing Inspection method with co ast, time, and other resources A1: Inspection method and cost Inspection method less costly =3 Inspection method moderately costly =2 Inspection method more costly = 1 A2: Inspection method and time Inspection method less time consuming =3 Inspection method moderately time consuming =2 Inspection method highly time consuming =1 A3: Inspection Method other resources Inspection method less resource consuming = 3 Inspection method moderately resource consuming = 2 Inspection method highly resource consuming = 1 Comparing cleaning method against time, cost, and other resources B1: Cleaning Method and cost Cleaning Method less costly =3 Cleaning Method moderately costly =2 Cleaning Method more costly = 1 B2: Cleaning Method and time Cleaning Method less time consuming =3 Cleaning Method moderately time consuming =2 Cleaning Method highly time consuming =1 45

PAGE 56

B3: Cleaning Method other resources Cleaning Method less resource consuming = 3 Cleaning Method moderately resource consuming = 2 Cleaning Method highly resource consuming = 1 Comparing Loss in case inspected component fa ils against time, cost, and other resources C1: Loss if component fails and cost Loss if component fails less costly =3 Loss if component fails moderately costly =2 Loss if component fails more costly = 1 C2: Loss if component fails and time Loss if component fails less time consuming =3 Loss if component fails mode rately time consuming =2 Loss if component fails hi ghly time consuming =1 C3: Loss if component fails and other resources Loss if component fails less resource consuming = 3 Loss if component fails modera tely resource consuming = 2 Loss if component fails highly resource consuming = 1 4.6 Recycling Index Weight Criteria Three influencing factors for recycling Index are recycling process, component material composition i.e. if the component is made from single material or composite material and Material recovery. 46

PAGE 57

Table 4.4 Recycling Index Weight Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Recycling process (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Material composition (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Material recovery (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total Comparing Recycling process against Cost, time, and other resources A1: Recycling process and cost Recycling process is less costly =3 Recycling process moderately costly =2 Recycling process highly costly = 1 A2: Recycling process and time Recycling process less time consuming =3 Recycling process moderately time consuming =2 Recycling process highly time consuming = 1 47

PAGE 58

A3: Recycling process and other resources Recycling process leading to less resource consuming =3 Recycling process leading to m oderate resource consuming =2 Recycling process leading to high resource consuming =1 Comparing Material composition with cost, time, and other resources B1: Material composition and cost Material composition leading affecting recycling is less costly =3 Material composition leading affecting recycling is moderately costly =2 Material composition leading affecti ng recycling is highly costly = 1 B2: Material composition and time Material composition affecting recy cling is less time consuming =3 Material composition affec ting recycling is moderately time consuming =2 Material composition aff ecting recycling is high ly time consuming = 1 B3: Material composition and other resource consumption Material composition affecting recy cling less resource consuming =3 Material composition affec ting recycling is moderate resource consuming =2 Material composition affecting recy cling high resource consuming =1 Comparing Material recovery with cost, time, and other resources C1: Material recovery and cost Material recovery affecting recycling is less costly =3 Material recovery affecting recycling is moderately costly =2 Material recovery affecting r ecycling is highly costly = 1 48

PAGE 59

C2: Material recovery and time Material recovery affecting recy cling is less time consuming =3 Material recovery affecting recycling is moderately time consuming =2 Material recovery affecting recyc ling is highly time consuming = 1 C3: Material recovery and other resource consumption Material recovery affecting recy cling less resource consuming =3 Material recovery affecting recycling is moderate resource consuming =2 Material recovery affecting recy cling high resource consuming =1 4.7 Refurbishing Index Weight Criteria Three influencing factors for refurbishi ng index are special set up required for refurbishing, design complexity, functional complexity. Table 4.5 Refurbishing Index Weight Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Special Set up required (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Design complexity (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Functional complexity (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total 49

PAGE 60

Comparing Special set up requirements ag ainst time, cost, and other resource consumption A1: Special set up requirements, cost Low cost for special set up for refurbishing =3 Moderate cost for special set up for refurbishing =2 High cost for special set up for refurbishing =1 A2: Special set up requirements, time Low time required for special set up =3 Moderate time required for special set up =2 High time required for special set up =1 A3: Special set up, other resources consumption Special set up requiring less other resources =3 Special set up requiring mode rate other resources =2 Special set up requiring high other resources =1 Comparing design complexity against time, cost, and other resource consumption B1: Design complexity, cost Design complexity making disassembly less costly =3 Design complexity making disassembly moderately costly =2 Design complexity making disassembly more costly = 1 B2: Design complexity, time Design complexity making disassembly less time consuming =3 Design complexity making disassembly moderately time consuming =2 Design complexity making disassembly more time consuming = 1 50

PAGE 61

B3: Design complexity, other resources Design complexity leading to le ss resource consumption =3 Design complexity leading to mode rate resource consumption =2 Design complexity leading to high resource consumption =1 Comparing functional complexity against tim e, cost, and other resource consumption C1: Functional complexity, cost Functional complexity making disassembly less costly =3 Functional complexity making disa ssembly moderate ly costly =2 Functional complexity making disassembly more costly = 1 C2: Functional complexity, time Functional complexity making disassembly less time consuming =3 Functional complexity making disassem bly moderately time consuming =2 Functional complexity making disa ssembly more time consuming = 1 C3: Functional complexity, other resources Functional complexity leading to le ss resource consumption =3 Functional complexity leading to moderate resource consumption =2 Functional complexity leading to high resource consumption =1 51

PAGE 62

4 .8 Reusability Index Weight Criteria Three influencing factors for reusability index are Technology cycle, Wear rate, and obsolescence factor. Table 4.6 Weight Criteria Reusability Index Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Technology Cycle (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Wear rate (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Obsolescence factor (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total Comparing Technology cycle against time, cost, and other resources A1: Technology cycle and cost Technology cycle influence is less costly =3 Technology cycle influence is moderately costly =2 Technology cycle influence is highly costly = 1 A2: Technology cycle and time Technology cycle influence is less time consuming =3 Technology cycle influence is moderately time consuming =2 Technology cycle influence is highly time consuming = 1 52

PAGE 63

A3: Technology cycle and other resources Technology cycle leading to less resource consuming =3 Technology cycle leading to mode rate resource consuming =2 Technology cycle leading to high resource consuming =1 Comparing Wear rate with cost time, and other resources B1: Wear rate and cost Wear rate leading affecting re usability is less costly =3 Wear rate leading affecting reusability is moderately costly =2 Wear rate leading affecting re usability is highly costly = 1 B2: Wear rate and time Wear rate affecting reusability is less time consuming =3 Wear rate affecting reusability is moderately time consuming =2 Wear rate affecting reusability is highly time consuming = 1 B3: Wear rate and other resource consumption Wear rate affecting reusability less resource consuming =3 Wear rate affecting reusability is moderate resource consuming =2 Wear rate affecting reusability high resource consuming =1 Comparing Obsolescence factor with cost, time, and other resources C1: Obsolescence factor and cost Obsolescence factor affecting reusability is less costly =3 Obsolescence factor affecting reusability is moderately costly =2 Obsolescence factor affecting reusability is highly costly = 1 53

PAGE 64

C2: Obsolescence factor and time Obsolescence factor affecting reus ability is less time consuming =3 Obsolescence factor affecting reusabili ty is moderately time consuming =2 Obsolescence factor affecting reus ability is highly time consuming = 1 C3: Obsolescence factor and other resource consumption Obsolescence factor affecting reus ability less resource consuming =3 Obsolescence factor affecting reusability is moderate resource consuming =2 Obsolescence factor affecting reus ability high resource consuming =1 4.9 Environmental Index Weight Criteria Three influencing factors for environment index are Technology cycle, Legal complexity, and material sensitivity Table 4.7 Weight Criteria Environmental Index Basic Factors(BF) Influence Factors(IF) Cost (BF1) Time (BF2) Other Resources (BF3) Total Technology cycle (IF1) A1 A2 A3 Legal complexity (IF2) B1 B2 B3 Material sensitivity (IF3) C1 C2 C3 Total 54

PAGE 65

Comparing Technology cycle against time, cost, and other resources A1: Technology cycle and cost Technology cycle is less costly =3 Technology cycle moderately costly =2 Technology cycle highly costly = 1 A2: Technology cycle and time Technology cycle less time consuming =3 Technology cycle moderately time consuming =2 Technology cycle highly time consuming = 1 A3: Technology cycle and other resources Technology cycle leading to less resource consuming =3 Technology cycle leading to mode rate resource consuming =2 Technology cycle leading to high resource consuming =1 Comparing Legal complexity with cost, time, and other resources B1: Legal complexity and cost Legal complexity leading affecti ng recycling is less costly =3 Legal complexity leading affecting r ecycling is moderately costly =2 Legal complexity leading affecting recycling is highly costly = 1 B2: Legal complexity and time Legal complexity affecting recycling is less time consuming =3 Legal complexity affecting recycling is moderately time consuming =2 Legal complexity affecting recyc ling is highly time consuming = 1 55

PAGE 66

B3: Legal complexity and other resource consumption Legal complexity affecting recycling less resource consuming =3 Legal complexity affecting recycling is moderate resource consuming =2 Legal complexity affecting recycling high resource consuming =1 Comparing Material sensitivity with cost, time, and other resources C1: Material sensitivity and cost Material sensitivity affecting recycling is less costly =3 Material sensitivity affecting recycling is moderately costly =2 Material sensitivity affecting recycling is highly costly = 1 C2: Material sensitivity and time Material sensitivity affecting recycling is less time consuming =3 Material sensitivity affecting recycling is moderately time consuming =2 Material sensitivity affecting recycling is highly time consuming = 1 C3: Material sensitivity and other resource consumption Material sensitivity affecting recycling less resource consuming =3 Material sensitivity affecting recycling is moderate resource consuming =2 Material sensitivity affecting recycling high resource consuming =1 4.10 Component RI Calculation This is the third step in formulation of remanufacturing index for a component. After calculating individual indices for the components and the weights the next step would be combining them in to remanufactur ing index for component. The component RI will have total three indices to be combined The disassembly and inspection indices are the basic indices of the equation. The third equation will be decided after the Recycling, 56

PAGE 67

Refurbishing, Reusability and Environmenta l Indices are calculated. The index which will have maximum value will be used to combine it with Disassembly and Inspection Index. 4.10.1 Effective Index The index equations as stated in the sections 4.2.1 to 4.2. 6 can not be used as they are for the purpose of computation of RI of the component. The valu es of equations like DI, ICI, RCI, RFI and EVI are desired low as far as possible and the value of RUI is always desired high as possible. In order to combine the equations with their respective weights, those need to be brought on the same level of desirability. This can be achieved by computing effective indices in case they n eed to be used. The effective indices DI, ICI, RCI, RFI and EVI can be simply calcu lated by subtracting the index from 1. 4.10.2 Relative Weight Establishment for Components The weights as established in the secti on 4.4 previously are transformed into relative weights. The concept of relative weight could be easily stated as relative standing of weights for DI, ICI and STI to each other. The relative index can be computed with following formula. WeightSTI ICIWeightDIWeight WeightDI DIWeight lative Re (4.25) WeightSTI ICIWeightDIWeight ICIWeight ICIWeight lative Re (4.26) WeightSTI ICIWeightDIWeight STIWeight STIWeight lative Re (4.27) 57

PAGE 68

4.10.3 Weight Determination Guidelines Table 4.8 Weight Determination Guidelines Index Weight Selection factors Disassembly 1. Special tools required 2. Special handling considerations required 3. Special instructions / supervision needed Inspection & Cleaning 1. Special testing equipment required 2. special material testing required 3. Type of testing and inspection required 4. Type of cleaning agent used 5. Safety of cleaning agents 6. Extra testing techniques required because of aging considerations Recycling 1. Type of material composition: homogenous, heterogeneous 2. Recycling techniques 3. Material recovery and quality of material recovered 4. Legal issues for recycling of particular materials Reusability 1. Deprecation cycle 2. Life of component in its existing stage 3. Material availability Refurbishing 1. Special set or processes required other than manufacturing 2. reliability of refurbishing process 3. Design complexity affecting refurbishing 4. Availability of refurbishing process Environmental 1. Hazard of dumping component 2. Degree of safety for surrounding people 3. Legal expenses for dumping components 4. Design requirements for the particular material 5. Life cycle of the material 58

PAGE 69

4.11 Combining Individual Indices Combining the module indices into RI can be accomplished in several ways. The combine index should satisfy four major criterions Hammond (1996). 1. The magnitude criterion which ensures th at resulting remanufacturing index should not be significantly larger or smaller than individual i ndices. The index should not be more than 1 and less than 0 2. The idealization criterion which stipulates th at in case all the indices are 1 then RI should come to 1 and index of the com ponent / module / product will be 1. 3. The Annihilation criterion which ensures that in case one index a pproaches to zero regardless of the performance of the other in dices. This will ensure that a significant problem which would make a product w ould not be overshadowed by out standing performances in other areas. 4. The weighting criterion which stipulates since every index dose not contributes equally to the total outcome each must be weighted according to its contribution. 5. Inverse weighted addition criterion is a non linear additive approach and is widely used. It satisfies all the above criterions. For the purpose of calculation of RI of the component the two base indices and one state index of component are combined using inverse weight addition method. Inverse weighted addition criter ion is a non linear additive appro ach and is widely used in electric circuit resistance calculations. The equation 4.24 will illustrate the concept. ) ( ) ( Re Re Re 1 IndexState Effective IndexState Weight lative ICI Effective ICIWeight lative DIEffective DIWeight lative COMPONENT RI (4.28) 59

PAGE 70

4.12 Module RI Determination The next step after the RI of the component has determined is to calculate RI of module. The RI of module will be obtained by combining RI of individual components. In this case RI of the module can be simply taken as average of the RI of the components of the module. Modulein Components ofNumber Total RI RI RI RIn Component Component Component MODULE... 2 1 (4.29) 4.13 RI of Product RI of the product is calculated by combin ing the RI of individual modules. All the modules dont carry the same importance in a product as a total. So a weighting scheme indicating relative importance of module; has been desi gned. The individual modules carry different magnitude of weights in the pr oduct. The magnitude of the weight carried by a module can be determined by comparing the remanufacturing cost of the module to each other. The comparative basis can be explained with the help of tables 4.8 and 4.9. The comparison weights can be chos en by designer with desecration. Table 4.9 Weights for Modules (I) Weight determination Values Row has more Remanufacturing cost than column 1.25 Row has same Remanufacturi ng cost than column 1 Row has less Remanufacturing cost than column 0.75 The values selected in s econd column of table 4.9 for weight determination for modules are based on based feedback from design department of the product ETFX-50. The major considerations are costs of individual modules. The values suggested were range of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75. The more th e difference between cost of modules higher would be the range selected. In this case range of 0.25 was selected based on the feedback. 60

PAGE 71

Table 4.10 Weight Determ ination for Modules (II) Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module...n Score Approximate Weight (%) Module 1 1 Module 2 1 Module 3 1 Modulen 1 Total The weights and RI of the individual modules are combined with inverse weight addition criteria to obtain the RI for the product. n MODULE n MODULE MODULE PRODUCTRI Module Weight RI Module Weight RI Module Weight RI.. 2 12 1 1 (4.30) 4.14 Summary In this chapter method of formulating the RI of a product was explained. The relevant parameters in each index formation were stated in details. The method of calculating remanufacturing index of co mponents, modules and the product was explained along with weighing scheme guidelines. In the next chapter 5 a case study is performed using the RI formulation explained in this chapter. 61

PAGE 72

CHAPTER 5 RI MODEL TESTING 5.1 Formulation Application to Case Study In this chapter the Remanufacturing I ndex (RI) formulation as stated in the chapter 4, was used to determ ine the RI of electric stapler, ETF X 50. The product is manufactured by Arrow Fasteners, a company based in Chicago Illinois as shown in the fig. 5.1. Figure 5.1 ETFX-50 El ectric Staple Gun (Source: Arrow Fasteners, Chicago IL) 62

PAGE 73

5.2 Product Components Table 5.1 below lists all the parts of the electric staple gun, For each part listed is its corresponding material, manufacturing method and the function each part performs in the overall function of the electric staple gun. Table 5.1 ETFX-50 Parts Description Part Number Part Name Materials Method of Manufacture Function 1 Plastic Housing Polypropylene Injection Molding Encases internal mechanisms Part of Handle built into housing Cools Coils 2 Black Grip Polypr opylene Injection Molding Comfortable Grip Non Slip Surface 3 Trigger Polypropylene Injection Molding Actuates Staple Gun by Pushing Switch on Control Circuit 4 Trigger Spring Aluminum Alloy Extrusion Provides resistance to trigger Resets trigger to original position 5 (5) 1 Housing Screws Steel Metal Stamping Holds plastic housing together 6 Safety Clip Polypropylene Injection Molding Disables or allows function of staple gun depending on position 63

PAGE 74

Table 5.1 (Continued) 7 Staple Housing (Sub-assembly) Houses and feeds staples 7.1 Exterior Shell Steel Stamped, Bent, Welded Houses staple feeder mechanism 7.2 Staple Cartridge Steel Stamped, Bent, Welded Houses staples 7.3 Feeder Mechanism (Spring, feeder, latch) Steel Stamped, Bent, Welded Pushes staples to position to be fired from staple gun Allows staples to be loaded 7.4 (3) 1 Bolts Aluminum Alloy Casting Fastens staple housing to plastic housing Provides grounding from plastic housing electrical circuit 7.5 (3) Nuts (Nylock) Aluminum Alloy Casting Fastens to the end of the bolts which hold staple housing to plastic housing 7.6 Prime guard Screw Aluminum Alloy Casting Fastens staple cartridge to exterior shell 7.7 Nut (Nylock) Aluminum Alloy Casting Fastens to the end of the bolt which holds staple cartridge to exterior shell 64

PAGE 75

Table 5.1 (Continued) 8 Electro Magnet (Sub-assembly) Fires staples when actuated by trigger and circuit sub-assembly 8.1 Stop-Plate Steel Stamping, Welding Keeps firing mechanism from damaging housing 8.2 Padding Reinforced fiber resin Fibers Dampens firing mechanism force and reduces sound produced by firing mechanism 8.3 Locating Pin Steel Extrus ion Keeps firing mechanism in proper position 8.4 Firing Plate Steel Stamping The part used to force staples out of staple gun 8.5 Spring (1 diameter) Steel Extrusion Resists firing mechanism Resets firing mechanism 8.6 Hollow rod Steel Extrusion Moved by the electromagnet and creates firing force Moves firing plate 9 Circuit and Cord (Sub-assembly) Provides power to staple gun The control for the firing mechanism 9.1 Circuit Board Several materials including tin Soldering Control mechanism for staple gun Contains a switch for activation 9.2 Wiring Copper alloy with plastic coating Drawn Transfers power to circuit and grounds staple gun 9.3 Cord Copper alloy with plastic coating Drawn Connects circuit board to power source 5.3 Product Tree Approach Application As stated in chapter 4, the product tree approach is applied to the Electrical staple and nail gun. The first level identified is the product as whole shown in fig. 5.2. The modules identified as se cond level items. Then the co mponents identified as third level. 65

PAGE 76

Figure 5.2 ETFX-50 Assembled (Source: Prof. Sridhar Kota, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) 66

PAGE 77

Figure 5.3 Product Assembly and Sub-Systems (Source: Arrow Fasteners, Chicago IL) 67

PAGE 78

5.4 Module Classification The product was classified in to three di fferent modules as lis ted in tables 5.15.3. Module 1: Casing and fastening accessories Figure 5.4 Exploded View of Staple Housing Sub-Assembly (Module 1 & 2) 68

PAGE 79

Table 5.2 Module 1 Analysis Part Part Name Function Material Cost Problem Action 1 Plastic Housing Encases internal mechanisms Part of Handle built into housing Cools Coils Polypropylene $2.50 Cracked Recycle 2 Black Grip Comfortable Grip Non Slip Surface Polypropylene $1.25 Reuse 3 Trigger Actuates Staple Gun by Pushing Switch on Control Circuit Polypropylene $0.50 Reuse 4 Trigger Spring Provides resistance to trigger Resets trigger to original position Aluminum Alloy $0.10 Reuse 5 (5) 1 Housing Screws Holds plastic housing together Steel $0.65 Reuse 6 Safety Clip Disables or allows function of staple gun depending on position Polypropylene $0.55 Reuse (Source: Prof. Sridhar Kota, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) 69

PAGE 80

Table 5.3 Module 2 Analysis Part Part Name Function Material Cost Problem Action 7 Staple Housing (Subassembly) Houses and feeds staples $4.50 7.1 Exterior Shell Houses staple feeder mechanism Steel $3.25 Needs coating Coating 7.2 Staple Cartridge Houses staples Steel $4.50 Reuse 7.3 Feeder Mechanis m (Spring, feeder, latch) Pushes staples to position to be fired from staple gun Allows staples to be loaded Steel $3.50 Spring broken Recycle spring 7.4 (3) 1 Bolts Fastens staple housing to plastic housing Provides grounding from plastic housing electrical circuit Aluminum Alloy $0.50 Reuse 7.5 (3) Nuts (Nylock) Fastens to the end of the bolts which hold staple housing to plastic housing Aluminum Alloy $0.30 Reuse 7.6 Prime guard Screw Fastens staple cartridge to exterior shell Aluminum Alloy $0.50 Reuse 7.7 Nut (Nylock) Fastens to the end of the bolt which holds staple cartridge to exterior shell Aluminum Alloy $0.30 Threads out Recycle 70

PAGE 81

Figure 5.5 Exploded View of Electro Magnet Sub Assembly (Module 3) (Source Prof. Sridhar Kota, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) 71

PAGE 82

Table 5.4 Module 3 Analysis Part Part Name Function Ma terial Cost Problem Action 8.0 Electro Magnet (Subassembly) Fires staples when actuated by trigger and circuit sub-assembly 8.1 Stop-Plate Keeps firing mechanism from damaging housing Steel $1.30 Bend Refurbish 8.2 Padding Dampens firing mechanism force and reduces sound produced by firing mechanism Reinforced fiber resin $0.65 Cracks Recycle 8.3 Locating Pin Keeps firing mechanism in proper position Steel $0.75 Bent Refurbish (straighte n out Pin) 8.4 Firing Plate The part used to force staples out of staple gun Steel $0.75 Needs coating Refurbish (Coating) 8.5 Spring (1 diameter) Resists firing mechanism Resets firing mechanism Steel $0.65 Reuse 8.6 Hollow rod Moved by the electromagnet and creates firing force Moves firing plate Steel $1.25 Reuse 8.7 Coil Induces electromagnetic induction Copper $4.50 Reuse 72

PAGE 83

Figure 5.6 Exploded View of Circuit a nd Cord Sub Assembly (Module 4) (Source: Prof. Sridhar Kota, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI) Table 5.5 Module 4 Analysis Part Part Name Function Ma terial Cost Problem Action 9.0 Circuit and Cord (Subassembly) Provides power to staple gun The control for the firing mechanism 9.1 Circuit Board Control mechanism for staple gun Contains a switch for activation Several materials including tin $1.15 Reuse 9.2 Wiring Transfers power to circuit and grounds staple gun Copper alloy with plastic coating $0.50 Reuse 9.3 Cord Connects circuit board to power source Copper alloy with plastic coating $3.00 Damaged (Cuts / burn marks) Recycle 73

PAGE 84

5.5 Remanufacturing Index Calculations ETFX-50: Model 1 5.5.1 Model 1 Base and State Index Table 5.6 Index Table for Module 1 No. Component Name Base Indices State Index 1 Plastic Housing Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Recycling 2 Black grip Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 3 Trigger Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 4 Trigger Spring Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 5 Housing Screws (5) Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 6 Safety clip Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability OCC = Original cost of the component DCC =Disassembly cost of the component DI = Disassembly index of the component EDI = Effective disassembly index of the component TCIC = Inspection and cleani ng cost of the component CLI = Cleaning Cost of the component INC = Inspection Cost of the component ICI =Inspection & Cleaning index of the component Table 5.7 Module 1 Base Index Computation TCIC No. Component Name OCC DCC DI EDI CLI INC ICI EICI 1 Plastic Housing $2.00 $0.20 0.10 0.90 $0.00 $0.01 0.01 0.99 2 Black grip $1.00 $0.06 0.06 0.94 $0.04 $0.01 0.05 0.95 3 Trigger $0.40 $0.01 0.03 0.98 $0.01 $0.01 0.05 0.95 4 Trigger Spring $0.08 $0.01 0.13 0.88 $0.00 $0.03 0.38 0.63 5 Housing Screws (5) $0.52 $0.04 0.08 0.92 $0.02 $0.02 0.08 0.92 6 Safety clip $0.44 $0.02 0.05 0.95 $0.02 $0.01 0.07 0.93 74

PAGE 85

OCC = Original cost of the component TCY = Recycling cost of the component PRRCY = Projected recycling revenue of the component RCI = Recycling index of the component ERCI = Effective recycling index of the component Table 5.8 Component 1 St ate Index Computation (I) No. Component Name Inde x OCC TCY PRRCY RCI ERCI 1 Plastic Housing Recycling $2.00 $0.40 $0.70 0.57 0.43 OCC = Original cost of the component EWC = Estimated worth of the component RUI = Reusability of the component ERUI = Effective reusability index of the component Table 5.9 Module 1 State Index Computation (II) No. Component Name Index OCC EWC RUI ERUI 2 Black grip Reusability $1.00 $0.80 0.80 0.80 3 Trigger Reusability $0.40 $0.32 0.80 0.80 4 Trigger spring Reusability $0.08 $0.06 0.75 0.75 5 Housing screws (5) Reusability $0.52 $0.42 0.81 0.81 6 Safety clip Reusability $0.44 $0.35 0.80 0.80 75

PAGE 86

5.5.2 Module 1 Index Weight Computations As described in chapter 4, the weight se lection for individual indices is based on degree of resources consumption as shown in the table 4.8. The weight was assigned on the scale of 1 to 3. These weights are particular to this case study. Disassembly Index Weight Module1 Component 1: Plastic Housing Comparing ease of disconnection compar ed against time, cost, and other resources for plastic housing. Other resources for plastic housing were identified as special tools requirement for disassembly, in spection and cleaning, extra handling of the components during course of disa ssembly, inspection and cleaning. Table 5.10 Disassembly Inde x Weight Plastic Housing Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 76

PAGE 87

Inspection and cleaning inde x weight computation Module1 Component 1: Plastic Housing Table 5.11 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight Plastic Housing Factor Value Comments A1 2 Needs Inspection critical due to high aesthetic requirements A2 2 Inspection for cracks in shell A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Recycling Index weight Module 1 Component 1: Plastic Housing Table 5.12 Recycling Index Weight: Plastic Housing Factor Value Comments A1 1 Recycling of polypropylene A2 1 Recycling A3 3 B1 1 Plastic resin B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 18 77

PAGE 88

Disassembly Index Weight: Black Grip Module 1 Component 2 Table 5.13 Disassembly Index Weight: Black Grip Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Black Grip Module 1 Component 2 Table 5.14 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Black Grip Factor Value Comments A1 2 Aesthetic requirements A2 2 Aesthetic requirements A3 3 B1 2 Aesthetic requirements B2 2 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 23 78

PAGE 89

Refurbishing Index Weight: Black Grip Module 1 Component 2 Table 5.15 Refurbishing Index Weight: Black Grip Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger Module 1 Component 3: Trigger Table 5.16 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 26 79

PAGE 90

Module 1 Component 3 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Trigger Table 5.17 Inspection and Clean ing Index Weight: Trigger Factor Value Comments A1 2 Aesthetic requirements A2 2 Aesthetic requirements A3 3 B1 2 Aesthetic requirements, Inspected for cracks B2 2 B3 2 Ridges cleaning/ dirt C1 2 Ridges C2 3 C3 3 Total 21 Module 1 Component 3 Reusability Index Weight: Trigger Table 5.18 Reusability Index Weight: Trigger Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 80

PAGE 91

Module 1 Component 4 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger Spring Table 5.19 Disassembly Index Weight: Trigger Spring Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Module 1 Component 4: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Trigger Spring Table 5.20 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Trigger Spring Factor Value Comments A1 2 Oil, dirt cleaned A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 Spring testing for fatigue cycles C3 3 Total 20 81

PAGE 92

Module 1 Component 4: Reusability Index Weigh: Trigger Spring Table 5.21 Reusability Index Weight: Trigger Spring Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 Simple design but life cycle is limited to two. B2 2 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Module 1 Component 5 Disassembly Index Weight: Housing Screws Table 5.22 Disassembly Inde x Weight: Housing Screws Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 82

PAGE 93

Module 1 Component 5 Inspection and Cleaning Inde x Weight: Housing Screws Table 5.23 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Housing Screws Factor Value Comments A1 2 Solvents used for cleaning A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 Solvents used for cleaning B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 1 Component 5 Reusability Index: Housing Screws Table 5.24 Reusability I ndex: Housing Screws Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 Deform due to stresses in use B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 83

PAGE 94

Module 1 Component 6 Disassembly Index Weight: Safety Clip Table 5.25 Disassembly Index Weight: Safety Clip Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 Module 1 Component 6 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Safety Clip 5.26 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Safety Clip Factor Value Comments A1 2 Aesthetic requirements A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 26 84

PAGE 95

Module 1 Component 6: Safety clip Reusability Index: Safety clip Table 5.27 Reusability Index: Safety Clip Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 2 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 26 85

PAGE 96

5.5.3 Module 1 Indices And Indices Weight Summary Table 5.28 Module 1 Indices and Indices Weight No. Name EDI ECI ESTI RWDI RWICI RWSTI RI 1 Plastic Housing 0.90 0.99 0.43 0.32 0.40 0.29 0.71 2 Black Grip 0.94 0.95 0.80 0.29 0.33 0.39 0.88 3 Trigger 0.98 0.95 0.80 0.35 0.28 0.36 0.90 4 Trigger Spring 0.88 0.63 0.75 0.36 0.29 0.36 0.75 5 Housing Screws 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.38 0.28 0.34 0.88 6 Safety Clip 0.95 0.93 0.80 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.89 0.83 Remanufacturing Index of module 1 = 0.830 The computations for module 2 to 4 ar e listed in appendices A, B and C. 5.6 Module Remanufacturing Costs Table 5.29 Remanufactur ing Cost of Modules Module no. Remanufacturing Cost Module 1 (M1) $2.22 Module 2 (M2) $1.84 Module 3 (M3) $1.05 Module 4 (M4) $2.83 5.7 Module Weight Determination Table 5.30 Module Weight Determination M1 M2 M3 M4 % Weight M1 1 1.25 1.25 0.75 4.25 0.27 M2 0.75 1 1.25 0.75 3.75 0.23 M3 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 3.25 0.20 M4 1.25 1.25 1.25 1 4.75 0.30 16 1.00 86

PAGE 97

5.8 RI of ETFX-50 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 ModuleofRI ModuleforWeight ModuleofRI ModuleforWeight ModuleofRI ModuleforWeight ModuleofRI ModuleforWeight 71.0 30.0 67.0 20.0 69.0 23.0 83.0 27.0 1 =0.72 87

PAGE 98

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS INTERPRETATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The RI computation model was constructed in this research with the motive of getting an insight of product after-life. The major goal was to study the conditions of the product and its components after its intended lifecycle is over. This research will give some valuable guidelines for material selec tion and physical part-des ign or change deign of physical part to make it la st longer in terms of life-cycle. The second important point in the model was inducing environmental considerations in RI computations. The environmental factors play a major role in case component is discarded and categorized as harmful for environment. The best way to understand the product RI is to get into details of individual component RI. The component RI would reflect the quality of design and impact of operating condition of the same. The value of Remanufacturing Index (RI) should fall within range of 0 to 1 as stated in the chapter 3. The ideal RI is 1, which is reflection of no costs for refurbishing, recycling are involved and rela tive weights are e qual for every index of components. In addition to that there is no de preciation of the components. Th is is a very ideal situation which can hardly be achieved. 88

PAGE 99

The second important thing to achieve is e qual relative weights, which can not be attained as not all the pr ocesses involved could have same weights. The goodness of remanufacturing process on basis of RI comput ed can be assessed with value of RI as shown in the table Table 6.1 RI Desirability RI Value Remanufacturing Desirability Between 1 to 0.75 High Between 0.75 to 0.60 Moderate Between 0.60 to 0.30 Low Between 0.30 to 0.0 Poor 6.1 Results and Interpretation of the RI of ETFX-50 The RI of the ETFX-50 came out to be 0. 72. The value indica tes that the product sample has good remanufacturability. This could be interpreted as the remanufacturability of specific sample studied was 72% in terms of costs. The index was on the higher side, which could be reasoned on the fact that small number of high cost parts were either refurbished or replaced. The costs of replacement and refurbishing were minimal. In this case study 21% components were recycled, 61% components were reused and 17% components were refurbishe d. The various costs of remanufacturing are listed in the table. Table 6.2 ETFX-50 Remanufacturing Summary Cost % Components Reusability Value $13.76 61.00 Recycling Revenue $1.49 Recycling Cost $0.69 21.00 Refurbishing cost $0.86 17.00 89

PAGE 100

The second important factor needs to be c onsidered is the weight scheme for both components and modules. The weight scheme de signed is the most important factor for flexibility. The model could be easily applied to wide range of produc ts with different set of conditions. The conditions for remanufactur ing for staple gun are very different than remanufacturing of automobile parts such as gear box or clutch. The focus is based on costs and availability of resources for remanufacturing. 6.2 Benchmarking of ETFX-50 wi th Bras and Hammond Model The RI of the ETFX-50 staple gun was computed with Bras and Hammond method of RI computing. The computation was carried as per the gui delines as given in the research paper. The RI index of the staple gun turns out to be 0.33. The computations are as shown in the table 6.3 -6.6 Table 6.3 ETFX-50 Summary # Parts 34 # Ideal Parts 19 #Refurbished Parts 4 # Replaced Parts 6 # Key Parts 11 # Key Replaced Parts 3 # Tests 4 # Ideal Inspection 18 Cleaning Score 99 Td 30.2 Ta 59.2 Tt 52.5 90

PAGE 101

Table 6.4 ETFX-50 Questionnaire Number of Parts Large Relative Motions Different Material Properties required Required to facilitate Assembly or disassembly Required to Isolate wear Significant intrinsic value (relative to Assembly) Does Part Fatigue Will parts require adjustment If coated can coating be reapplied If worn can worn surfaces be restored If damaged during assembly Can damaged part be refurbished Theoretical min Number of parts Total number of refurbished parts Total number of replaced parts Number of Ideal inspections Number of Key parts Number of Key parts Replaces Part # Part Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q 1 Plastic Housing 2 N N Y N Y N N N 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 Black grip 1 N N Y N Y N N N 1 0 0 1 1 3 Trigger 1 N N Y N N N N N 1 0 0 1 0 4 Trigger Spring 1 Y N N N N N N Y Y 1 0 0 1 0 5 Housing Screws (5) 5 N N N N N N N Y N 0 0 0 0 0 6 Safety Clip 1 N N Y N N N N N 1 0 0 1 0 7 Exterior Shell 1 N N Y N Y N N Y Y 1 1 0 1 0 8 Staple Cartridge 1 N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 0 0 1 1 9 Feeder Mechanis m 3 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3 0 1 2 1 1 10 (3) 1 Bolts 3 N N N N N N N Y N 0 0 0 0 3 11 (3) Nuts (Nylock) 3 N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 1 0 12 Prime guard Screw 1 N N N N N N N Y N 0 0 0 0 0 13 Nut (Nylock) 1 N N N N N N N Y 0 0 1 0 0 14 Stop-Plate 1 Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 1 0 0 1 1 15 Padding 1 N N N Y N Y N Y 1 0 1 1 0 16 Locating Pin 1 Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y 1 1 0 1 0 17 Firing Plate 1 Y N Y Y N N Y Y 1 1 0 1 0 18 Spring (1 diameter) 1 Y N N N N N N Y Y 1 1 0 1 0 19 Hollow rod 1 Y N Y N N N N Y Y N 1 0 0 1 0 20 Coil 1 N N Y N Y N N Y 1 0 0 1 0 21 Circuit Board 1 N Y Y N Y N N Y Y 0 0 0 1 1 22 Wiring 1 N Y Y N Y N N Y N 0 0 0 1 1 23 Cord 1 N Y Y N N N N N N 1 0 1 0 0 34 1 9 4 6 18 1 1 3 91

PAGE 102

Table 6.5 ETFX-50 DFA Analysis Number of Parts If part can corrode is part protectively coated Manual Removal time per part Manual Handling Time per part Disassembly Time (Seconds) Manual Handling time per part Manual Inspection Time Operating time Cleaning code Cleaning per part score Total cleaning score Part # Part Name A B C D E F G H I J K 1 Plastic Housing 2 N 5.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 10.0 2 Black grip 1 N 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 2.5 D 6 6 3 Trigger 1 N 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.5 3.0 D 6 6 4 Trigger Spring 1 Y 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.5 D 6 6 5 Housing Screws (5) 5 Y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 B 3 3 6 Safety Clip 1 N 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.4 D 6 6 7 Exterior Shell 1 Y 3.6 0.0 3.0 1.5 1.3 1.8 D 6 6 8 Staple Cartridge 1 Y 1.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 D 6 6 9 Feeder Mechanism 3 Y 1.7 2.5 2.4 1.0 1.4 1.1 D 6 6 10 (3) 1 Bolts 3 Y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C 6 6 11 (3) Nuts (Nylock) 3 Y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C 6 6 12 Prime guard Screw 1 Y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C 6 6 13 (3)Nut (Nylock) 1 Y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 C 6 6 14 Stop-Plate 1 Y 2.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.8 2.0 D 6 6 15 Padding 1 N 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.0 16 Locating Pin 1 Y 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 B 3 3 17 Firing Plate 1 Y 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.1 D 6 6 18 Spring (1 diameter) 1 Y 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 D 6 6 19 Hollow rod 1 Y 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 C 6 6 20 Coil 1 N 2.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 A 1 1 21 Circuit Board 1 N 3.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 12.0 A 1 1 22 Wiring 1 N 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 6.5 A 1 1 23 Cord 1 N 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 0.0 5.0 0 0 30.9 59.2 99 92

PAGE 103

Table 6.6 ETFX-50 Matrices Values (I) Metric Disassembly 0.943709 d Metric Assembly 0.962838 a Metric Inspection 0.642857 i Metric Testing 0.761905 t Metrics Cleaning 0.191919 C Metrics Refurbishing 0.882353 f Metrics Key Replaced 0.727273 k Metrics Basic Replaced 0.941176 r Table 6.7 ETFX-50 Matrices Values (II) I 0.957018 Q 0.734694 D 0.893522 Table 6.7 RI of ETFX-50 100aCdfikrt 5.158641 21Cdfirt 1.547049 25adfirt 9.239738 9aCfirt 0.676461 32aCdirt 2.572442 aCdfrt 0.110338 8aCdfrt 0.882701 4aCdfir 0.372389 15.40112 Remanufacturing Index 0.334952 The disparity between two indices can be easily explained with the help of differences between basic methodologies of research. The Bras and Hammond model is based on DFA (Design for Assembly) principle as explained in chapter 3. The major factors in DFA are time for assembly disa ssembly, inspection and cleaning and number of key parts replaced and refurbished. Th e case study of Kodak fun-saver camera in the same research yielded RI 0.83 as design was re latively simple. The products with simple designs tend to yield high remanufacturi ng indices. The products with complex design have low RI. 93

PAGE 104

The analysis made after computations indi cate that that cleaning score in case of ETFX-50 was high, which essentially made the RI sink to 0.33. This has an important revelation during this course of comparison. The different product of same make would give different cleaning score a nd hence the different index. 6.3 Result Interpretation of the Case Study The RI of ETFX-50 electric staple gun indica tes the even though all the indices are high the cleaning index pulls it down to low. The rational reasoning behind could be stated as the environment in which the staple gun is used The other indices were fairly high as the assembly and disassembly procedure for these products are standardized. 6.4 Future Research The future research for this model coul d be described in the following areas. 1. Incorporation of elements of manufacturability in te rms of time of assembly disassembly, inspection and cleaning into the equation of RI of individual components. 2. Comprehensive study of design patterns fo r different types of products, which will enable the weight schemes as per the goal for remanufacturing easier. 3. Linking of LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) to RI. This would require choosing the elements of RI and interpreting them in terms of LCA factors. 4. Finally studying the viability of this m odel to existing design practices of wide range of products in wide range of geographical scenarios. 94

PAGE 105

REFERENCES Bras B. & Hammond R. (1996). Towards Design for Remanuf acturing Metrics for Assessing Remanufacturability. Proceedings of the 1st Inte rnational Workshop on Reuse, Eindhoven, Netherlands (p. (1996) 5-22). Lund Robert T. (1984). Remanufacturing Industry: Remanufacturing Technology Review 87/2 (February-March): 19-29., Boston University. Lund Robert T. (May-2000). Boston: The remanufacturing industry: Hidden giant. (Presentation) Boston University. Allocca Camille. (2003). Eco efficiency and sustainable product development : MIT library, (p. 8-15). Ferrar Geraldo. (October 2000). On Widget of Remanufacturing operation, European Journal of Operation Research.(p 135 (2000) 373-393). Ulrich Nissen (1995). Methodology for cleaner products Journal of cleaner products (p. 3, 83-87). Rose C. M. (2000). Design for Environment: A Method for formulating product end of life strategies Ph.D. dissertation. Mechanical En gineering, Stanford University. November, 2000. Sutherland J. W. (2002). Course notes (MEEM 4685/5685) Environmentally Responsible Design & Manufacturing Michigan Tech. University, (Lecture notes 2-45). 95

PAGE 106

Kulkarni Anand (2005). The Impact of Networked RFI D on Product Remanufacturing, Cambridge Auto-ID Labs, Cambridge University, United Kingdom (Presentation October 10, 2005). R.C. Michelini, R.P. Razzoli (2004). Product-service eco-design: Knowledge-based infrastructures Journal of Cleaner Pr oduction (12 (2004) 415). Lisa Argument, Fiona Lettice, Tracy Bhamra (1998) Environmentally conscious design :matching industry requiremen ts with academic research Design Studies (p.19 (1998) 63-80). Maria D. Bovea, Rosario Vidal (2004). Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design, Materials and Design (p. 25 (2004) 111). D. Maxwell, R. van der Vorst (2003). Developing sustainable products and services Journal of Cleaner Produ ction (p.11 (2003) 883). Czaplicka Krystyna (2003). Eco-design of non-metallic layer composites with respect to conveyor belt, Materials and Design(p. 24 (2003) 111). P.H. Nielsen, H. Wenzel (2002) Integration of environm ental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure ba sed on quantitative life cycle assessment Journal of Cleaner Production (p.10 (2002) 247). Senthil Kumaran Durairaj, S.K. Ong, A.Y.C., Nee and R.B.H. Tan (2002). Evaluation of Life Cycle Cost A nalysis Methodologies International Journal of Corporate Sustainability, (p.9 (2002) 30-39). Oberweiser Roger L. (2003) Bearing Remanufacturing for the Steel Industry AISE Steel Technology, WWW.STEELTECHNOLOGY.ORG (p. 195-199). 96

PAGE 107

Rose, C. M., Stevels, A.(2000) Tools for Building Product End-of-Life Strategy Third International Symposium for Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, Delft, ISBN 90-407-1983-7. Berko-Boateng, V. J., Azar, J., De Jong, E. and Yander, G. A.,(1993). Asset Recycle Management A Total Approach to Product Design for the Environment, International Symposium on Electronics and the Envir onment, Arlington, VA, IEEE, (p. 19-31). Navin-Chandra, D., (1993), ReStar: A Design Tool for Environmental Recovery Analysis 9 th International Conference on Engineering Design, The Hague, Heurista, Zurich, Switzerland, (p.780-787). Ayers R.U. Ferrer G. Van Leynseel T. (1997). Eco-efficiency Asset Recovery and Remanufacturing, European Management Journal (p. 5-15 (1997) 557-574). The World Business Council for Sustaina ble Development Official Website: ( http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/Templ ateWBCSD1/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=NjE& doOpen=1&ClickMenu=LeftMenu ). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) Official Website ( WWW.EPA.GOV ). Erik Sundin. (2001). Product Design for Service Selling: The Remanufacturing Aspect, Proper Project Description March 2001, (p1-6). Goldstein James. (1999). Second Time Around: Remanufacturing and Inner-City Revitalization (The News letter of Risk Manage ment and Solid waste at Tellus Issue November 15 1999). Patroklos Georgiadis Dimitrios Vlachos. (2003). The effect of environmental parameters on product recovery, European Journal of Operational Research (p. 1-16). 97

PAGE 108

Bradley Guy.(2002). Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Publication 272, 2002, (http://www.cce.ufl.edu/ pdf/proceedings.pdf). 98

PAGE 109

APPENDICES 99

PAGE 110

Appendix A Remanufacturing Inde x Calculations ETFX-50: Model 2 Table A.1 Index Table Module 2 No. Component Name Ba se Index State Index 7.1 Exterior Shell Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Refurbishing 7.2 Staple Cartridge Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 7.3 Feeder Mechanism Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 7.4 Bolts Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 7.5 Nuts (Nylock) Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 7.6 Prime guard Screw Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 7.7 Nut (Nylock) Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Recyclablity OCC = Original cost of the component DCC =Disassembly cost of the component DI = Disassembly index of the component EDI = Effective disassembly index of the component TCIC = Inspection and cleani ng cost of the component CLI = Cleaning Cost of the component INC = Inspection Cost of the component ICI =Inspection & Cleaning index of the component Table A.2 Component1 Ba se Index Computation TCIC No. Component Name OCC DCC DI EDI CLI INC ICI EICI 7.1 Exterior Shell $2.60 $0.20 0.10 0.90 $0.00 $0.01 0.01 0.99 7.2 Staple Cartridge $3.60 $0.06 0.06 0.94 $0.04 $0.01 0.05 0.95 7.3 Feeder Mechanism $2.80 $0.01 0.03 0.98 $0.01 $0.01 0.05 0.95 7.4 Bolts $0.40 $0.01 0.13 0.88 $0.00 $0.03 0.38 0.63 7.5 Nuts (Nylock) $0.24 $0.04 0.08 0.92 $0.02 $0.02 0.08 0.92 7.6 Prime guard Screw $0.40 $0.02 0.05 0.95 $0.02 $0.01 0.07 0.93 7.7 Nut (Nylock) $0.24 $0.20 0.10 0.90 $0.00 $0.01 0.01 0.99 OCC = Original cost of the component TCRF = Refurbishing co st of the component RFI = Refurbishing index of the component ERFI = Effective Refurbishing index of the component Table A.3 Module 2 State Index Computation (I) No. Component Name Index OCC TCRF RFI ERFI 7.1 Exterior Shell Refurbishing $2.60 $0.35 0.87 0.13 100

PAGE 111

Appendix A (Continued) OCC = Original cost of the component EWC = Estimated worth of the component RUI = Reusability of the component ERUI = Effective reusability index of the component Table A.4 Module 2 State Index Computation (II) No. Component Name Index OCC EWC RUI ERUI 7.2 Staple Cartridge Reusability $3.60 $2.88 0.80 0.80 7.3 Feeder Mechanism Reusability $2.80 $2.24 0.80 0.80 7.4 Bolts Reusability $0.40 $0.32 0.80 0.80 7.5 Nuts (Nylock) Reusability $0.24 $0.96 0.80 0.80 7.6 Prime guard Screw Reusability $0.40 $0.32 0.80 0.80 OCC = Original cost of the component TCY = Recycling cost of the component PRRCY = Projected recycling revenue of the component RCI = Recycling index of the component ERCI = Effective recycling index of the component Table A.5 Module 2 State Index Computation (III) No. Component Name Inde x OCC TCY PRRCY RCI ERCI 7.7 Nut (Nylock) Recycling $0.24 $0.01 $0.19 0.95 0.05 101

PAGE 112

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.1: Disassembly Index Weight: Exterior Shell Table A.6 Disassembly Index Weight: Exterior Shell Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 Module 2 Component 7.1: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Exterior Shell Table A.7 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Exterior Shell Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 24 102

PAGE 113

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.1: Refurb ishing Index: Exterior Shell Table A.8 Refurbishing Index: Exterior Shell Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 Module 2 Component 7.2: Disassembly Index Weight: Staple Cartridge Table A.9 Disassembly Index Weight: Staple Cartridge Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 18 103

PAGE 114

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.2: Inspection and Cl eaning Index Weight: Staple Cartridge Table A.10 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Staple Cartridge Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 Module 2 Component 7.2: Reusability Index: Staple Cartridge Table A.11 Reusability I ndex: Staple Cartridge Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 104

PAGE 115

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.3: Disassembly Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Table A.12 Disassembly Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 Module 2 Component 7.3: Inspection and Cl eaning Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Table A.13 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 105

PAGE 116

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.3: Reusabilit y Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Table A.14 Reusability Index Weight: Feeder Mechanism Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 2 Component 7.4: Disasse mbly Index Weight: Bolts Table A.15 Disassembly Index Weight: Bolts Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 106

PAGE 117

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.4: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Bolts Table A.16 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Bolts Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Module 2 Component 7.4: Reusability Index Weight: Bolts Table A.17 Reusability Index Weight: Bolts Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 107

PAGE 118

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.5: Disasse mbly Index Weight: Nuts Table A.18 Disassembly Index Weight: Nuts Factor Value Comments A1 3 A2 3 A3 3 B1 3 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 27 Module 2 Component 7.5: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Nuts Table A.19 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Nuts Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 108

PAGE 119

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.5: Reusability Index: Nuts Table A.20 Reusability Index: Nuts Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 2 Component 7.6: Disassembly Index Weight: Prime Guard Screw Table A.21 Disassembly Index Weight: Prime Guard Screw Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 109

PAGE 120

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.6: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Prime guard screw Table A.22 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Prime Guard Screw Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 2 Component 7.6: Reusability Index: Prime Guard Screw Table A.23 Reusability Index: Prime Guard Screw Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 110

PAGE 121

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.7: Disassemb ly Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Table A.24 Disassembly Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 Module 2 Component 7.7: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Table A.25 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 111

PAGE 122

Appendix A (Continued) Module 2 Component 7.7: Recycling Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Table A.26 Recycling Index Weight: Nut (Nylock) Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 Table A.27 RI Computation Module 2 No. Name EDI ECI ESTI RWDI RWIC I RWS TI RI 7.1 Exterior Shell 0.92 0.96 0.87 0.41 0.36 0.23 0.39 7.2 Staple Cartridge 0.93 0.96 0.80 0.33 0.27 0.40 0.88 7.3 Feeder Mechanism 0.93 0.88 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.89 7.4 Bolts 0.93 0.95 0.80 0.35 0.35 0.31 0.75 7.5 Nuts (Nylock) 0.98 0.99 0.80 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.88 7.6 Prime guard Screw 0.98 0.93 0.80 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.89 7.7 Nut (Nylock) 0.88 0.96 0.95 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.18 0.69 112

PAGE 123

Appendix B Remanufacturing Index Calculations ETFX-50: Model 3 Table B.1 Module 3 Indices No Component Name Ba se Index State Index 8.1 Stop-Plate Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Refurbishing 8.2 Padding Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Recycling 8.3 Locating Pin Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Refurbishing 8.4 Firing Plate Disassembly Insp ection and Cleaning Refurbishing 8.5 Spring Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 8.6 Hollow rod Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 8.7 Coil Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability OCC = Original cost of the component DCC =Disassembly cost of the component DI = Disassembly index of the component EDI = Effective disassembly index of the component TCIC = Inspection and cleani ng cost of the component CLI = Cleaning Cost of the component INC = Inspection Cost of the component ICI =Inspection & Cleaning index of the component Base Index Computation Table Module 3 Table B.2 Module 3 Base Index Computation Table TCIC No. Component Name OCC DCC DI EDI CLI INC ICI EICI 8.1 Stop-Plate $1.04 $0.10 0.10 0.90 $0.00 $0.04 0.04 0.96 8.2 Padding $0.52 $0.10 0.19 0.81 $0.00 $0.02 0.04 0.96 8.3 Locating Pin $0.60 $0.05 0.08 0.92 $0.01 $0.02 0.05 0.95 8.4 Firing Plate $0.60 $0.06 0.10 0.90 $0.01 $0.02 0.05 0.95 8.5 Spring $0.52 $0.01 0.02 0.98 $0.00 $0.01 0.02 0.98 8.6 Hollow rod $1.00 $0.16 0.16 0.84 $0.00 $0.12 0.12 0.88 8.7 Coil $3.60 $0.30 0.08 0.92 $0.20 $0.15 0.10 0.90 113

PAGE 124

Appendix B (Continued) OCC = Original cost of the component TCRF = Refurbishing co st of the component RFI = Refurbishing index of the component ERFI = Effective Refurbishing index of the component Table B.3 Module 3 State Index (I) No. Component Name Index OCC TCRF RFI ERFI 8.1 Stop-Plate Refurbishing $1.04 $0.25 0.76 0.24 8.3 Locating Pin Refurbishing $0.60 $0.06 0.90 0.10 8.4 Firing Plate Refurbishing $0.60 $0.20 0.67 0.33 OCC = Original cost of the component TCY = Recycling cost of the component PRRCY = Projected recycling revenue of the component RCI = Recycling index of the component ERCI = Effective recycling index of the component Table B.4 Module 3 State Index (II) No. Component Name Index OCC EVI EEVI 8.2 Padding Dumping $0.52 $0.20 0.19 0.81 OCC = Original cost of the component EWC = Estimated worth of the component RUI = Reusability of the component ERUI = Effective reusability index of the component Table B.5 Module 3 State Index (III) No. Component Name Index OCC EWC RUI ERUI 8.5 Spring Reusability $0.52 $0.35 0.67 0.67 8.6 Hollow Rod Reusability $1.00 $0.80 0.80 0.80 8.7 Coil Reusability $3.60 $2.88 0.80 0.80 114

PAGE 125

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.1 Disassembly Index Weight: Stop-Plate Table B.6 Disassembly Index Weight: Stop-Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 3 Component 8.1: Inspection a nd Cleaning Index Weight: Stop-Plate Table B.7 Inspection and Clean ing Index Weight: Stop-Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 115

PAGE 126

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.1: Refurbishing Index: Stop-Plate Table B.8 Refurbishing Index: Stop-Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 3 Component 8.2: Disasse mbly Index Weight: Padding Table B.9 Disassembly Index Weight: Padding Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 116

PAGE 127

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.2: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Padding Table B.10 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Padding Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 3 Component 8.2: Recycling Index Weight: Padding Table B.11 Recycling Index Weight: Padding Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 19 117

PAGE 128

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.3: Disassemb ly Index Weight: Locating Pin Table B.12 Disassembly Index Weight: Locating Pin Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 3 Component 8.3: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Locating Pin Table B.13 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Locating Pin Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 19 118

PAGE 129

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.3: Refurb ishing Index: Locating Pin Table B.14 Refurbishing Index: Locating Pin Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 3 Component 8.4: Disassemb ly Index Weight: Firing Plate Table B.15 Disassembly Index Weight: Firing Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 2 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 21 119

PAGE 130

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.4: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Firing Plate Table B.16 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Firing Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 3 Component 8.4: Refu rbishing Index: Firing Plate Table B.17 Refurbishing Index: Firing Plate Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 120

PAGE 131

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.5: Disassembly Index Weight: Spring (1 diameter) Table B.18 Disassembly Index Weight: Spring (1 diameter) Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 3 Component 8.5 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Spring (1 diameter) Table B.19 Inspection and Cleaning I ndex Weight: Spring (1 diameter) Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 121

PAGE 132

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.5: Reusability Index: Spring (1 diameter) Table B.20 Reusability Index: Spring (1 diameter) Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 Module 3 Component 8.6: Disasse mbly Index Weight: Hollow Rod Table B.21 Disassembly Index Weight: Hollow Rod Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 3 A3 3 B1 2 B2 3 B3 3 C1 3 C2 3 C3 3 Total 25 122

PAGE 133

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.6: Inspection a nd Cleaning Index Weight: Hollow Rod Table B.22 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Hollow Rod Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 3 Component 8.6: Reusab ility Index Weight: Hollow Rod Table B.23 Reusability Index Weight: Hollow Rod Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 3 C3 3 Total 22 123

PAGE 134

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.7: Disasse mbly Index Weight: Coil Table B.24 Disassembly Index Weight: Coil Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 18 Module 3 Component 8.7: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Coil Table B.25 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Coil Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 124

PAGE 135

Appendix B (Continued) Module 3 Component 8.7: Reusability Index: Coil Table B.26 Reusability Index: Coil Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 23 Table B.27 RI Module 3 No. Name EDI ECI ESTI RWDI RWIC I RWS TI RI 8.1 Stop-Plate 0.90 0.96 0.76 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.47 8.2 Padding 0.81 0.96 0.81 0.38 0.42 0.31 0.88 8.3 Locating Pin 0.92 0.95 0.90 0.36 0.31 0.33 0.24 8.4 Firing Plate 0.90 0.95 0.67 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.57 8.5 Spring 0.98 0.98 0.67 0.34 0.31 0.34 0.85 8.6 Hollow rod 0.84 0.88 0.80 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.84 8.7 Coil 0.92 0.90 0.80 0.33 0.25 0.42 0.86 0.69 125

PAGE 136

Appendix C Remanufacturing Index Calculations ETFX-50: Model 4 Table C.1 Base Indices Module 4 No. Component Name Ba se Index State Index 9.1 Circuit Board Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 9.2 Wiring Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Reusability 9.3 Cord Disassembly Inspection and Cleaning Recycling OCC = Original cost of the component DCC =Disassembly cost of the component DI = Disassembly index of the component EDI = Effective disassembly index of the component TCIC = Inspection and cleani ng cost of the component CLI = Cleaning Cost of the component INC = Inspection Cost of the component ICI =Inspection & Cleaning index of the component Table C.2 State Index Module 4 (I) TCIC No. Component Name OCC DCC DI EDI CLI INC ICI EICI 9.1 Circuit Board $0.92 $0.18 0.20 0.80 $0.12 $0.30 0.46 0.54 9.2 Wiring $0.40 $0.03 0.08 0.93 $0.02 $0.10 0.30 0.70 9.3 Cord $2.40 $0.07 0.03 0.97 $0.00 $0.01 0.00 1.00 OCC = Original cost of the component EWC = Estimated worth of the component RUI = Reusability of the component ERUI = Effective reusability index of the component Table C.3 State Index Module 4 (II) No. Component Name Index OCC EWC RUI ERUI 9.1 Circuit Board Reusability $0.92 $0.74 0.80 0.80 9.2 Wiring Reusability $0.40 $0.32 0.80 0.80 126

PAGE 137

Appendix C (Continued) OCC = Original cost of the component TCY = Recycling cost of the component PRRCY = Projected recycling revenue of the component RCI = Recycling index of the component ERCI = Effective recycling index of the component Table C.4 State Index Module 4 (III) No. Component Name Inde x OCC TCY PRRCY RCI ERCI 9.3 Cord Recycling $2.40 $0.20 $0.60 0.67 0.33 127

PAGE 138

Appendix C (Continued) Module 4 Component 9.1: Disassemb ly Index Weight: Circuit Board Table C.5 Disassembly Index Weight: Circuit Board Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 Module 4 Component 9.1: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Circuit Board Table C.6 Inspection and Cleani ng Index Weight: Circuit Board Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 128

PAGE 139

Appendix C (Continued) Module 4 Component 9.1: Reusability Index Weight: Circuit Board Table C.7 Reusability Index Weight: Circuit Board Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 Module 4 Component 9.2: Disassembly Index Weight: Wiring Table C.8 Disassembly Index Weight: Wiring Factor Value Comments A1 2 A2 2 A3 2 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 2 C2 2 C3 3 Total 20 129

PAGE 140

Appendix C (Continued) Module 4 Component 9.2: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Wiring Table C.9 Inspection and Cl eaning Index Weight: Wiring Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 18 Module 4 Component 9.2: Reusability Index: Wiring Table C.10 Reusability Index: Wiring Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 2 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 19 130

PAGE 141

Appendix C (Continued) Module 4 Component 9.3: Disassembly Index Weight: Chord Table C.11 Disassembly Index Weight: Chord Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 2 C3 3 Total 17 Module 4 Component 9.3: Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Chord Table C.12 Inspection and Cleaning Index Weight: Chord Factor Value Comments A1 1 A2 1 A3 3 B1 1 B2 2 B3 3 C1 1 C2 3 C3 3 Total 18 131

PAGE 142

Appendix C (Continued) Module 4 Component 9.3: Recycling Index: Chord Table C.13 Recycling Index: Chord Factor Value Comments A1 1 Multiple material composition A2 1 Multiple material composition A3 3 B1 1 Multiple material composition B2 1 B3 3 C1 1 C2 1 C3 3 Total 15 RI Computation Module 4 Table C.14 RI Module 4 No. Name EDI ECI ESTI WDI WICI WSTI RI 9.1 Circuit Board 0.80 0.54 0.80 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.70 9.2 Wiring 0.93 0.70 0.80 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.80 9.3 Cord 0.97 1.00 0.67 0.34 0.36 0.30 0.62 0.71 132