A sustainable modular product design approach with key components and uncertain end-of-life strategy consideration | The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

A sustainable modular product design approach with key components and uncertain end-of-life strategy consideration

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, sustainability emphasis is imperative for modern design and manufacturing enterprises; therefore, sustainability assessment has attracted increasing attention. In this study, we use cost, environmental impact, and labor time as indicators to measure a comprehensive set of sustainability dimensions: economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Similarly, modular product design (MPD), due to its benefits to design and manufacturing, has been widely accepted as a useful strategy. The need for customizing MPD for various sustainability purposes across a product’s life cycle motivates this study. Our research goal is to develop a MPD approach to improve the product life cycle performance for dimensions of sustainability. We also concentrate on two current product design focused research gaps: (1) how to best handle key components and (2) taking into account life cycle uncertainty at the component or product end-of-life (EOL) stage. Key components represent core techniques and can have the highest sustainability impact. We specify key components and then develop three sustainable clustering algorithms to generate component modules based on the identified key components. For EOL uncertainty, we adopt fuzzy logic to assess 14 EOL characteristics and use modified transfer equations to convert fuzzy evaluations to designer’s perception toward sustainability. Left-right defuzzification method is employed to estimate the probability of each EOL strategy and calculate the expected EOL sustainability values for each component. The Module Structure Sustainability Index (MSSI) advances toward optimizing sustainability in order to determine the best component modules. A coffee maker case study is used to illustrate the proposed methodology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Appelqvist P, Lehtonen JM, Kokkonen J (2004) Modeling in product and supply chain design: literature survey and case study. J Manuf Technol Manag 15(7):675–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dowlatshahi S (1992) Purchasing’s role in a concurrent engineering environment. Int J Purch Mater Manag 28(1):21–25

    Google Scholar 

  3. Steward DV (1965) Partition and testing systems of equations. J Soc Ind Appl Math Ser B Num Anal 2(2):345–365

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Ulrich K, Eppinger SD (2000) Product design and development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Okudan Kremer GE, Ma J, Chiu MC, Lin TK (2013) Product modularity and implications for the reverse supply chain. Suppl Chain Forum Int J 14(3):54–69

    Google Scholar 

  6. Feitzinger E, Lee HL (1997). Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of postponement. Harvard Business Review, (Jan-Feb), pp. 116–121

  7. Kamrani AK, Salhieh SEM (2008) Modular design. In: Kamrani AK, Nasr EA (eds) Collaborative engineering: theory and practice. Springer, New York, NY, pp 207–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ernst R, Kamrad B (2000) Theory and methodology: evaluation of supply chain structures through modularization and postponement. Eur J Oper Res 124:495–510

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2004) Product modularity: measures and design methods. J Eng Des 15(1):33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuo TC (2013) Mass customization and personalization software development: a case study eco-design product service system. J Intell Manuf 24:1019–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith S, Smith GC, Jiao R, Chu CH (2013) Mass customization in the product life cycle. J Intell Manuf 24:877–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. World Commission on Environment and Development Report (1987) From one earth to one world: an overview. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Development of a pollution prevention factors methodology based on life-cycle assessment: lithographic printing case study. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sandborn P, Myers J (2008). Designing engineering systems for sustainability. Handbook of performability engineering (Misra KB, ed., Chapter 7, 81–104). London: Springer

  15. Rodriguez SI, Roman MS, Sturhahn SC, Terry EH (2002). Sustainability assessment and reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus (joint Master’s Thesis). Report No. CSS02-04. Accessible online at http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS02-04.pdf

  16. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinee JB, Huppes G, Heijungs R, Van Der Voet E, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2009) D20 Blue Paper on Life cycle sustainability analysis. Accessible online at http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d20.pdf

  17. Li JZ, Zhang HC, Gonzalez MA, Yu S (2008) A multi-objective fuzzy graph approach for modular formulation considering end of life issues. Int J Prod Res 46(14):4011–4033

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Chung WS, Okudan GE, Wysk RA (2011) Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference: a modular design approach to improve the life cycle performance derived from optimized closed-loop supply chain, Washington, DC

  19. Tseng HE, Chang CC, Cheng CJ (2010) Disassembly-oriented assessment methodology for product modularity. Int J Prod Res 48(14):4297–4320

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Yan JH, Feng CH, Cheng K (2012) Sustainability-oriented product modular design using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and genetic algorithm. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 226(10):1635–1647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang Y, Gershenson JK (2003) An initial study of direct relationships between life-cycle modularity and life-cycle cost. Concurr Eng 11:121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kusiak A, Wang J (1993) Efficient organizing of design activities. Int J Prod Res 31(4):753–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Newcomb PJ, Bras B, Rosen DW (1998) Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. ASME J Mech Design 120(3):483–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ishii K, Juengel C, Eubanks C (1995) Proceedings of the 1995 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, 7th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology: Design for product variety: key to product line structuring. Boston, MA

  25. Stone RB, Wood KL, Crawford RH (1998) Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Technical Conferences—11th International Conference on Design Theory and Automation: a heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. Las Vegas, NV

  26. Kusiak A, Chow WS (1987) Efficient solving of the group technology problem. J Manuf Syst 6(2):117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—6th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology: integration analysis of product decompositions. Minneapolis, MN

  28. Huang CC, Kusiak A (1998) Modularity in design of products and systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 28(1):66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gu P, Hashemian M, Sosale S (1997) An integrated modular design methodology for life cycle engineering. Annals CIRP 46(1):71–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marshall R, Leaney PG, Botterell P (1998) Enhanced product realisation through modular design: an example of product/process integration. J Int Design Process Technol 3(4):143–150

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jose A, Tollenaere M (2005) Modular and platform methods for product family design: Literature analysis. J Intell Manuf 16:371–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design rules: the power of modularity design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chung, WH, Okudan, GE and Wysk, RA (2013) A modular design approach to improve product life cycle performance based on the optimization of a closed-loop supply chain, ASME J Mech Design 136(2), MD-12-1278, 021001–21, DOI: 10.1115/1.4025022.

  34. Kumar CS, Chandrasekharan MP (1990) Group efficacy: a quantitative criterion of goodness of block diagonal forms of binary matrices in group technology. Int J Prod Res 28:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang WY, Tor SY, Britton GA (2006) Managing product modularity in product family design with functional modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kreng VB, Lee TP (2004) Modular product design with grouping genetic algorithm: a case study. Comput Ind Eng 46(3):443–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ma J, Kremer GEO (2015) Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computer and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2015): a modular product design method to improve product social sustainability performance. Aug. 2–5, Boston, MA.

  38. Lau AKW, Yam RCM, Tang E (2007) The impacts of product modularity on competitive capabilities and performance: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 105(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Das K, Chowdhury AH (2012) Designing a reverse logistics network for optimal collection, recovery and quality-based product-mix planning. Int J Prod Econ 135:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mukhopadhyay SK, Setoputro R (2005) Optimal return policy and modular design for build-to-order products. J Oper Manag 23:496–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marco P, Eubanks CF, Ishii K (1994) Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Computers in Engineering Conference: compatibility analysis of product design for recyclability and reuse

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stevels, ALN (1997) Optimization of the end-of-life system, appears in Ecodesign: a promising approach, Brezet, J.C. and van Hemel,C. (eds.), Paris, France, UNEP Working Group on Sustainable Product Development, 346

  43. Ijomah W, Bennett JP, Pearce J, (1999) Remanufacturing evidence of environmental conscious business practice in UK. EcoDesign '99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, Published by IEEE Computer Society Piscataway NJ, Tokyo, Japan, pp.192-196.

  44. Rose CM (2001) Design for environment: a method for formulating product end-of-life strategies, Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University

  45. Remery M, Mascle C, Agard B (2012) A new method for evaluating the best product end-of-life strategy during the early design phase. J Eng Des 23(6):419–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Center for Remanufacturing and Reuse (2013) A description of the design for end-of-life process, http://www.remanufacturing.org.uk/pdf/story/1p295.pdf?session=RemanSession:807618970f36920117UiJ20B9285

  47. Lee SG, Lye SW, Khoo MK (2001) A multi-objective methodology for evaluating product end-of-life options and disassembly. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:148–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bras B, Hammond R (1996) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Reuse: towards design for remanufacturing—metrics for assessing remanufacturability. Eindhoven, 11–13 November, 5–22.

  49. Muller A (1999) Proceedings of the 1999 7th IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, ISEE-1999: using end-of-life cost estimates to perform design for environment investment analysis: a Hewlett-Packard case study. 11–13 May 1999, Danvers, MA, USA, pp. 320–324

  50. Ijomah WL, McMahon CA, Hammond GP, Newman ST (2007) Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable development. Int J Prod Res 45(18):4513–4536

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Cheung WM, Marsh R, Griffin PW, Newnes LB, Mileham AR, Lanham JD (2015) Towards cleaner production: a roadmap for predicting product end-of-life costs at early design concept. J Clean Prod 87:431–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rose CM, Stevels A (2001) Metrics for End-of-life Strategies (ELSEIM). IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 7–9 May 2001, Denver, CA, pp. 100–105

  53. Lye SW, Aw HS, Lee SG (2002) Adhesives for bead fusion of recycled expandable polystyrene. J Appl Polym Sci 86(2):456–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Gehin A, Zwolinski P, Brissaud D (2005) Proceedings of the 10th ESCP Conference: imaging a tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. Antwerp, 5–7 October.

  55. Sundin E, Bras B (2005) Making functional sales environmentally and economically beneficial through product remanufacturing. J Clean Prod 13(9):913–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Micheletti GF (1985) Application of new technologies for fully integrated robotized automobile engine production. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 4(12):141–148

    Google Scholar 

  57. Umeda Y, Nonomura A, Tomiyama T (2000) Study on life-cycle design for the post mass production paradigm. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 14(2), pp. 149–161

  58. Erdos G, Kis T, Xirouchakis P (2001) Modelling and evaluating product end-of-life options. Int J Prod Res 39(6):1203–1220

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Yang SL, Li TF (2002) Agility evaluation of mass customization product manufacturing. J Mater Process Technol 129(1–3):640–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Beach R, Muhlemann AP, Price DHR, Paterson A, Sharp JA (2000) A review of manufacturing flexibility. Eur J Oper Res 122(1):41–57

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Vila V (1993) Linguistic decision making models. Int J Intell Syst 7(5):479–492

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Singh RK, Kumar S, Choudhury AK, Tiwari MK (2006) Lean tool selection in a die casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision support heuristic. Int J Prod Res 44(7):1399–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bufardi A, Gheorghe R, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2004) Multicriteria decision-aid approach for product end-of-life alternative selection. Int J Prod Res 42(16):3139–3157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1995) Decisions making in fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):144–164

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 338-352

  66. Delgado M, Verdegay JL, Vila V (1993) Linguistic decision making models. Int J Intell Syst 7(5):479–492

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Shehab EM, Abdalla HS (2001) Manufacturing cost modeling for product development. Robot Comp Integ Manuf 17:341–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yadav OP, Singh N, Chinnam RB, Goel PS (2002) A fuzzy logic based approach to reliability improvement estimation during product development. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 80:63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ma J, Kremer GEO (2015) A fuzzy logic-based approach to determine product component End-of-Life option from the views of sustainability and designer’s perception.doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.029.

  70. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and application. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  71. Ulrich KT, Pearson S (1998) Assessing the importance of design through product archaeology. Manag Sci 44:352–369

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Hula A, Jalali K, Hamza K, Skerlos SJ, Saitou K (2003) Multi-criteria decision-making for optimization of product disassembly under multiple situations. Environ Sci Technol 37:5303–5313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Ereplacementparts,(2014).http://www.ereplacementparts.com

  74. Thepartsbiz, (2014).http://www.thepartsbiz.com

  75. Dartmouth (2014)http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/courses/IE-at-UNG/NG-coffeemaker.pdf

  76. CoffeeMaker (2014)http://coffeemakersusa.com/warranty/

  77. Madehow (2014)http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Automatic-Drip-Coffee-Maker.html

  78. Statista (2014) http://www.statista.com/statistics/220433/life-expectancy-of-coffee-machines/

  79. Greengatemetals (2014) Scrap Metal Prices 2014 Scrap Yard, http://www.greengatemetals.co.uk/scrapmetal/prices/

  80. WilkesCounty, (2014). Landfill Services & Prices, http://wilkescounty.net/landfill-services-and-prices/

  81. Tellus Institute with Sound Resource Management, (2010). More Jobs, Less Pollution: Growing the Recycling Economy in the U.S. http://docs.nrdc.org/globalwarming/files/glo_11111401a.pdf

  82. Lockton D, Harrison D, Stanton NA, (2007). Design with intent: using design to influence behavior. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neville_Stanton/publication/26887990_The_Design_with_Intent_Method_a_design_tool_for_influencing_user_behaviour/links/09e4150655cd8b8863000000.pdf .

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, 16802, USA

    Junfeng Ma

  2. School of Engineering Design, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, 16802, USA

    Gül E. Okudan Kremer

Authors
  1. Junfeng Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gül E. Okudan Kremer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junfeng Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, J., Kremer, G.E.O. A sustainable modular product design approach with key components and uncertain end-of-life strategy consideration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 85, 741–763 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7979-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7979-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation