Selection and evaluation of joint types and joining processes for concurrent assembly/disassembly-based design

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorChang, Piyenen
dc.contributor.committeechairShewchuk, John P.en
dc.contributor.committeememberSullivan, William G.en
dc.contributor.committeememberKobza, John E.en
dc.contributor.departmentIndustrial and Systems Engineeringen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T21:45:54Zen
dc.date.adate2008-09-18en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T21:45:54Zen
dc.date.issued1996-11-17en
dc.date.rdate2008-09-18en
dc.date.sdate2008-09-18en
dc.description.abstractIn designing products, Design-for-Assembly (DFA) has been successfully used for several decades to reduce lead times, processing times, and equipment overhead. Though the DFA approach results in products which are easy and efficient to assemble, such products may be difficult to disassemble and/or may adversely affect the environment. These environmental concerns resulted in the Design-for-Disassembly (DFD) approach, which stresses ease-of-disassembly and environmental compatibility. However, when applied independently of DFA, DFD underestimates the importance of assembly, and consequently can result in increased assembly time and cost. Design-for-Assembly may thus have negative repercussions on disassembly, and vice-versa. Consequently, in order to minimize assembly/disassembly time and cost and maximize component reusability, designers must implement DFA and DFD simultaneously when designing products. In this research, such an approach is developed. The approach, called Concurrent Assembly/Disassembly-Based Design (CAD²), consists of simultaneously selecting joint types and joining processes for products, based upon both assembly and disassembly requirements. Two objectives are considered: the minimization of total assembly/disassembly time or cost. In addition, a ‘penalty score’ measure is developed to quantify the environmental impact (recyclability) associated with any solution. Total enumeration is used to solve these minimization problems. The CAD² approach is demonstrated and evaluated by comparing it with both DFA and DFD for a limited number of cases. The results indicate that the CAD² approach can give better solutions (total time and total cost) than either DFA or DFD.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.format.extentviii, 101 leavesen
dc.format.mediumBTDen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.otheretd-09182008-063034en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09182008-063034/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/44789en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartLD5655.V855_1996.C4357.pdfen
dc.relation.isformatofOCLC# 36516367en
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectdesign-for-assemblyen
dc.subjectdisassemblyen
dc.subjectassemblyen
dc.subjectjoiningen
dc.subjectdesign-for-disassemblyen
dc.subject.lccLD5655.V855 1996.C4357en
dc.titleSelection and evaluation of joint types and joining processes for concurrent assembly/disassembly-based designen
dc.typeThesisen
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
thesis.degree.disciplineIndustrial and Systems Engineeringen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
LD5655.V855_1996.C4357.pdf
Size:
3.95 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Masters Theses