SEM2 W4 Literature review
A review of disassembly systems for circular product design
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652625008091
1. This article pointed out that current material recirculation rates are low ( only 7.2% globally), highlighting the need for improved disassembly strategies. Design for Disassembly (DfD) is a critical enabler for CE, facilitating reuse, remanufacturing, and recycling. Although this article doesn’t help me with my project directly but it indeed gives me an idea of how we can improve dismantling efficiency in a real workplace.
2. Based on other research, they structured Disassembly Systems Engineering (DSE) into five distinct, interacting levels to analyse the complexity of a disassembly process.
Five DSE levels:
1. System of Systems (SoS): Interactions between reverse logistics, industrial systems, and policy.
2. System: Disassembly processes (manual, automated, destructive/non-destructive).
3. Sub-System: Product family architecture and modularity.
4. Product: Individual product models and their disassembly sequences.
5. Component: Fasteners, materials, and geometric properties affecting disassembly.
3. Key Findings from DfD Literature Review
– Component Level:
Fastener design (e.g., reversible joints) and material selection significantly impact disassembly efficiency.
One-to-many disassembly techniques (e.g., heat-triggered snap-fits) reduce disassembly steps.
– Product Level:
CAD tools and disassembly sequence planning (DSP) optimise recycling and remanufacturing.
– Sub-System Level:
Modular product families enhance component reuse and standardization.
– System Level:
Automation potential (e.g., robotic disassembly) improves efficiency but requires standardization.
– SoS Level:
Stakeholder collaboration (manufacturers, recyclers, policymakers) is essential for effective CE implementation.
4. Critical DfD Parameters for Circularity
Five key parameters most influence disassembly performance:
1. Tool Requirements (SB7) – Affects accessibility and efficiency.
2. Joining Type (C4) – Reversible connections enhance repairability.
3. Operation Type(P2) – Manual vs. automated disassembly trade-offs.
4. Distribution Model (SS2) – Logistics for end-of-life product collection.
5. Disassembly Depth (SB5) – Number of steps to reach target components.
5. Gaps in Standards and Future Research
– Current standards (e.g., BS 8887, ISO 59000 series) focus on micro-level (component/product) but lack macro-level (system/SoS) guidelines.
– Future directions:
AI-driven disassembly planning.
Regional disassembly ecosystems and policy frameworks.
Development of a Digital Product Passport for data sharing across stakeholders.
6. Conclusion
– The DSE framework provides a holistic view of disassembly, linking design decisions to CE outcomes.
– Priority areas: Standardization, stakeholder collaboration, and integrating DfD early in product development.
1 replies to “SEM2 W4 Literature review”
Leave a reply
This is an interesting summary of this paper Ava. What is really helpful for lit reviews is to identify the concepts you think are helpful and then to try and build a map of where/how those concepts are used across the literature. We call it a literature review but I think a better description of the task is “identifying concepts and synthesising ideas” – a map can be so helpful in that.