Recycling Guidelines

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Design for Recycling Guidelines Most recycling guidelines are divided into three categories:

Component design Material selection Fastener selection

Most people agree that these issues, plus the choice of which processes are employed for recycling, have the largest impact on recyclability. Mechanical and manual separation techniques can be suggested for each of the above areas. Some also emphasize packaging.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Fundamental Lessons Learned As part of ongoing efforts in improving vehicle recyclability, a number of fundamental lessons have been learned from the disassembly of vehicles and studies by the Vehicle Recycling Partnership:
The limiting factor in economic recycling of complex, integrated assemblies (such as instrument panels) is the separation into pure material streams. Both manual and mechanical separation have their advantages and disadvantages. Significant value must be retained in a part for manual separation to be economically feasible. Different design techniques should be employed depending on whether one wants to facilitate manual separation or mechanical separation.

These fundamental lessons should be kept in mind when generating design alternatives.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Process Selection Guidelines

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Metric for Selecting Separation Technique

How do you know which process to design for?

The following flowchart provides a relatively simple metric for design decision support.
can did ate desig n

Hig h material remo val rate (MRR )? (ap pro x. 10 lb s /min for plastics) No Yes Manu al S ep aration Techn iqu es ap p lied Mid -v alu e b ut imp ro vab le MR R? (ap pro x. 5 lbs /min fo r p las tics ) Yes No Mechanical Sep aratio n Techn iqu es ap p lied Rep eat fo r compo n en ts of ass emb ly

Material Removal Rate = Material [kg] / time [min]

From: Coulter, S. L., Bras, B. A., Winslow, G. and Yester, S., 1996, Designing for Material Separation: Lessons from the Automotive Recycling, 1996 ASME Design for Manufacturing Symposium, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference, Irvine, California, August 18-22, ASME, Paper no. 96-DETC/DFM-1270.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Detached Weight for Cost Neutral Recyling (g/min) The amount of material (in grams) that has to be detached per minute if recycling is to be cost neutral for manual disassembly:
Precious metals: gold palladium sliver Metals: copper aluminium iron Plastics: PEE PC, PM ABS PS PVC Glass 0.05 0.14 5.1 300 700 50,000

Based on West-European hourly rates and material prices in Sept. 1995 (Philips Center for Manufacturing Technology)

250 350 800 1000 4000 6000

Estimated total industrial labor rate: US$0.6/min

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

End-of-Life Destination Flowchart (from TNO Industry Delft, The Netherlands) General guidelines to determine end-of-life destinations
YES NO

Will the material cycles be closed?

Is product disassembly part of the policy? YES

NO

Is the product (or parts of it) fit for mechanical processing?

rest fractions

Which parts can be incinerated, dumped or treated as chemical waste?

rest fractions

Which parts can be recycled or reused?

Which parts will be suitable for high and low quality recycling?

Reuse

High quality recycling

Low quality recycling

Incineration

Landfill

Chemical waste

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Material Selection Guidelines

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Recycling Two or More Materials (from GE Plastics)

Rule of Thumb:

You want to take the shortest path for material recycling

NOTE: Ideally,

you just want to have ONE material!

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Material Compatibility

Compatibility matrices (or tables) list whether two materials are compatible, that is, they can be processed together. Most tables are for plastics, but some also exist for metal alloys. Most use a (rough) scale of 1-4 or 1-3. Typically, the information regarding compatibility (and especially detailed information) is buried in chemical handbooks.

Additive Important plastics

In case of doubt, see your material expert.

Question: Are regular and galvanized steel compatible?

Matrix material
compatible compatible with limitations compatible only in small amounts not compatible

The table shown here is translated from VDI 2243.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Glass and Ceramics Compatibility

bottle glass bottle glass window glass drinking glass drinking glass(crystal) TV (screen) TV (cone) TV (neck) LCD (screen) ceramics + + +

window glass drinking glass + 0 + + -

drinking glass TV (screen) (crystal) + 0 0 + 0 -

TV (cone) 0 0 + -

TV (neck) 0 + + -

LCD (screen) ceramics + -/0

0 0 -

0 0 -

+ = good, 0 = moderate, - = poor/nil

The table shown here is from Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption, UNEP/IE, United Nations.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Compatibility of Metals In general, metal parts are easily recycled, but the following rules and guidelines apply:
Unplated metals are more recyclable than plated ones. Low alloy metals are more recyclable than high alloy ones. Most cast irons are easily recycled. Aluminum alloys, steel, and magnesium alloys are readily separated and recycled from automotive shredder output. Contamination of iron or steel with copper, tin, zinc, lead, or aluminum reduces recyclability. Contamination of aluminum with iron, steel, chromium, zinc, lead, copper or magnesium reduces recyclability. Contamination of zinc with iron, steel, lead, tin, or cadmium reduces recyclability.
Metal (proce sse d by way of s melting proces s) Copper (Cu) Aluminum (Al) Iron (Fe) Knock -out elements (decre ases value of the fraction to ze ro) Hg, Be, PCB (polychlorobezene) Cu, Fe, polymers Cu Penalty e lements (s eriously decreas e valu e of th e fraction) As, Sb, Ni, Bi, Al Si Sn, Zn

The table shown here is from Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption, UNEP/IE, United Nations.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

A Well Known Laminate Example

Look around and you will see a lot of room for improvement.

From:

Green Products by Design Choices for a Cleaner Environment, Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Oct. 1992.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Material Selection

At the onset of a new program, the Design Office, Platform Engineering, Purchasing and Supply, and the component supplier should discuss recycling issues associated with a concept and determine the best fit materials and processes for specific applications.

Suppliers should be encouraged to demonstrate recyclability and to take materials back for recycling at the end of the vehicles useful life to be recycled in automotive and other applications.
The use of materials which have been recycled, including from old vehicles, is desirable where it is economically viable. (from Chrysler Vehicle Recycling Design Guidelines)
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Diversity of Plastics There is an incredible variety of plastics in modern vehicles. However, the top 7 used plastics are (in N-America)
Urethane; 1990 - 454 mill. lbs, 1995 - 493 mill. lbs. Polypropylene (PP); 1990 - 437 mill. lbs, 1995 - 522 mill. lbs. Acrylonitrile/Butadiene/Styrene (ABS); 1990 - 281 mill, 1995 - 289 mill. lbs. Polyvinylchloride (PVC); 1990 - 264 mill. lbs, 1995 - 288 mill. lbs. Nylon; 1990 - 208 mill. lbs, 1995 - 246 mill. lbs. Polyethylene (PE); 1990 - 191 mill. lbs, 1995 - 248 mill. lbs. Polyester composite (SMC); 1990 - 173 mill. lbs, 1995 - 261 mill. lbs.

Thus, if you have to choose a plastic, try picking one which is widely used. Minimizing material diversity is beneficial for acquisition, storage, manufacturing, recycling, etc.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Main Material Concerns Meet environment, health, and occupational safety requirements for regulated or restricted substances or processes of concern.
Do not, or limit, the use of materials which pose human or environmental risk.

Mark materials according to standards. Generate minimal home and pre-consumer scrap during manufacturing. Make components of different recyclable materials easily separable, or use materials which can be recycled as a mixture. Standardize material types.

Reduce painting.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Cathode Ray Tubes - Problem

Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) pose a major difficulty for recycling. The phosphor-based coating used to provide the necessary luminescence contains heavy metals and other toxins, while the glass itself is loaded with lead and barium. Recycling a specific design of CRT with known constituents is relatively straightforward, but finding a process that will handle very large quantities of CRTs of varying age and specification is not so easy.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Marking of Plastics

SAE J1344 April 1993 contains the standards on marking of plastic parts. Based on standard symbols as published by ISO 1043. Allows for expansion and inclusion of new symbols for new material. (complete appropriate forms). See SAE J1344 for examples and specifics. European legislation will require the marking of all plastic parts with a weight greater than 100 grams.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Positions and Life of Markings No position of marking is prescribed, but:

Field service people should be informed regarding the material. If practicable, marking should be located where it may be observed while it is in use. May consider multiple markings. Marking on the outside is preferred for field service people.

Also, markings should last:

Markings applied with inks, dyes, paints should not bleed, run, smudge, or stain materials in contact with the marking. Markings should be designed to remain legible during the entire life of the part. Markings which are molded into the part are preferred since they are permanent and do not require additional manufacturing operations. BUT,

molded parts should not create a stress concentration.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Material Selection Summarizing

General:
Avoid regulated and/or restricted materials
These often MUST be recycled, whatever the monetary cost of removal is.

Use recyclable materials

Both technically as well as economically

Use recycled materials, where possible

This increases recycled content

Standardize material types

May involve corporate decision

Reduce number of material types

Can be done at engineering level

Use compatible materials, if different materials are needed.

Single material is preferred, however.

Eliminate incompatible laminated/non-separable materials.

These are a major hassle.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Material Selection (cont.)

Manual Separation:
Avoid painting parts with incompatible paint
Especially plastics can be contaminated by paint.

Eliminate incompatible laminated/non-separable materials

Mechanical Separation:
Reduce number of materials as much as possible
Probably two materials can be economically recovered

Choose materials with different properties (e.g., magnetic vs non-magnetic; heavy vs light), thus enabling easy separation. Allow for density separation
Maintain at least 0.03 specific gravity difference between polymers Isolate polymers with largest mass by density

Eliminate incompatible laminated/non-separable materials

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Component Design Guidelines

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Component Design Apply Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) and Serviceability Guidelines as appropriate in component design.
Facilitate ease of assembly removal and material separation. (There is a close correspondence between DFA, DFD, and Design for Service)

Route wiring to facilitate removal.

Pay attention to detail and reduce the amount of frustration and special equipment. Label dangerous operations.
Pressed alignment pins Complete holes

Difficult to remove

Pins are easy to tap out Pressed bolts and s tuds

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Minimize Part and Material Count

To facilitate separation and collection:

Minimize the number of components within an assembly. Minimize material types within an assembly. Build in planes of easy separation where this does not affect part function.
Look under a hood for good and bad examples.

(By the way, think also about modularity)

Question: What other (non-DFR) reasons exist for minimizing part and material count?
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Classical Component Integration Example

a)

b)

a) Traditional design of springs in a doorlock: different materials, e.g., steel, aluminum b) Injection molded s pring sys tem made from POM (single material product)

Springs and their support systems are always classical examples of component integration. Note the reduction in part and material count.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Laminates and Paints

Avoid laminates which require separation prior to reuse.

Even though unique separation techniques exists, it increases the cost of the recyclable material. When laminates are used, design them from compatible materials and adhesives.

Examples:
Dashboard cover: Old design: PVC top foil, PUR foam core, steel support plate New design: PP top foil, PP foam core, support layer of PP Bumper: Old design: PC skin, PUR foam core, steel support New design: Integral foam of PC, PP, support frame of PC, PP

Avoid painting parts wherever possible.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Problems with Paints In general, paints contaminate plastics to be recycled.

Compatible paints exists, but the majority is non-compatible. One percent (!) of contamination can be enough to ruin a plastic batch for recycling.

Many painting processes are subject to regulations.

For example, in case a city-wide smog alarm goes off, certain painting processes (or other processes with volatile compounds) need to be stopped.

Stripping paint is also a very nasty process.

Environmentally benign stripping processes exists, but the paint chips still have to be disposed off.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Component Design - Summarizing

General:
Integrate parts
Reduce disassembly time

Minimize scrap during production

Mechanical separation:
Avoid using incompatible materials
E.g., stiffen sections rather than adding foam for noise-vibration-heat areas

Manual:
Use Design for Manufacturability/Assembly and Serviceability guidelines Reduce number of steps to remove a recyclable part Reduce chance of contamination Route wiring to facilitate removal
Separate at bulkheads/interface areas
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Fasteners Guidelines

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

What about fasteners ?

In VDI 2243, an example is given on the remanufacture of a four cylinder internal combustion engine.

About 32.5% of all activities in the disassembly process consist of the loosening of screws. These activities consume 54% of the entire disassembly process time.
According to VDI 2243, this is a typical example. The separation of staple, glue, press joints or joints made by deformation not only require more specialized equipment, but also embody a higher risk of damaging the component, if it is to be reused.

Additional problems occur when contaminations such as oil, dirt and corrosion are present.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Assembly and Disassembly Adhere to Design for Assembly guidelines

Good designs take ease of assembly as well as service and recycling into account.

Facilitate disassembly (Design for Disassembly)

Select fasteners which facilitate disassembly by any method including destruction (by shredding) after a vehicles useful life.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Reduce and Commonize Fasteners

Reduce the number and types of fasteners used.

Select fasteners that do not require post-dismantling material separation for recycling.
When practical, use fasteners of the same (or compatible) material as the attaching part. If this is not possible for plastic fasteners, use ferrous fasteners or inserts to allow for magnetic separation after shredding.

Commonize fasteners
Try to design with minimum screw head types and sizes. (remember the Volkswagen Bugs 13 mm wrench standardization)

DO NOT JEOPARDIZE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OR FUNCTION !!

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Select Proper Coatings Corroded fasteners cause severe problems for fast removal of parts Select coatings which minimize corrosion.
This may drive up the cost. Phospate & oil coatings have low corrosion resistance Better (but more costly) coatings may be warranted for recyclability (and servicability).

Cadmium coatings should not be used because of potential health and environmental hazard.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Snap fits

Use snap fits wherever possible to reduce the use of additional fasteners.

Molded clips should be removable without breaking off.

IMPORTANT: Do not jeopardize product integrity. Also, consider long term effects (hardening of plastic, fatigue failure, frustration of broken snaps).

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Adhesives Joining or bonding materials of the same type with compatible adhesives enhances recycling. But, non-compatible adhesives may cause contaminants to enter the material waste stream. Therefore, adhesive selection and the effect on part recyclability should be discussed with Materials Engineering as part of the development process at the onset of a program.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

VDI 2243s Fastener Selection Table

principle of connection

Material Connection

Frictional Connection

Positive Connection

characteristics of connection Static Strength Fatigue Strength Joining Expenditure Guidance Expenditure Detaching Expenditure Destructive Detaching Expenditure Product Recycling Material Recycling

plastic/metal adhesive bonding

welding

magnetic connection

Velcro fastener

bolt/ bolt/ nut nut

plastic

spring connection

snap joint

bent-lever connection

1/4-turn fastener

press-turn press-press band with fastener fastener lock

Recyclability

Detaching Behaviour

Joining Behaviour

Carrying Capacity

good

average

bad

This table gives an overview of a German rating of fasteners. It will give you an idea of how different fasteners compare against each other.

Caution: By no means is this a definite table!

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Fastener Selection Summarizing

Clear distinction between manual vs mechanical separation guidelines Manual Separation:

Reduce number of fasteners Commonize fastener types Use fasteners made of compatible materials Consider snap-fits (two-way, if necessary) Consider destructive fastener removal
Possible inclusion of break points in material

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Fastener Selection: Mechanical Separation IMPORTANT:

Fasteners will not be unfastened!

Disassembly time is irrelevant!

Material properties are (again) key issue

In order of preference, use 1) Molded-in fasteners (same material) 2) Separate fasteners of same or compatible material 3) Ferrous metal fasteners (easy to remove due to magnetic properties) 4) Non-ferrous metal fasteners (can be removed using, e.g., Eddy-current)
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Trade-offs Design for Recycling can negatively affect performance and cost issues.
For example, required material substitution is not always possible or will cost more.

However, in most cases, the trade-offs can be resolved and often converted in win-win situations. Often cited and studied and questioned are the trade-offs between design for disassembly and design for assembly. Take a look at the DFA guidelines and compare them not just with DFD, but also with DFR in general.
Remember, a shredder does not care much about geometry and fasteners
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Product Design for Assembly Guidelines

Product Design for Assembly
1) Overall Component count should be minimized. 2) Minimum use of fasteners. 3) Design the product with a base for locating other components. 4) Do not require the base to be repositioned during assembly. 5) Design components to mate through straight-line assembly, all from the same direction. 6) Maximize component accessibility. 7) Make the assembly sequence efficient.

- Assembly with the fewest steps.

- Avoids risks of damaging components. - Avoids awkward and unstable component, equipment, and personnel positions. - Avoid creating many disconnected subassemblies to be joined later.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Component Design for Assembly Guidelines

Component Design for Assembly 8) 9) Avoid component characteristics that complicate retrieval

(Tangling, nesting, and flexibility)

Design components for a specific type of retrieval, handling, and insertion.

10) Design components for end-to-end symmetry when possible. 11) Design components for symmetry about their axes of insertion. 12) Design components that are not symmetric about their axes of insertion to be clearly asymmetric. 13) Make use of chamfers, leads, and compliance to facilitate insertion.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

DFR Special Issues

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Limiting Factors Identify the limiting factors and address these first! Look at a combination of the following component aspects:
Weight If recyclability and recycled content are defined by weight, it makes sense to look at the heaviest components first. Improving a 10 pound components recyclability rating from 4 to 3 has a larger impact on the overall system recyclability than improving a 1 pound component. Distance from target ratings Components with recyclability ratings of 4 and lower should be improved. Pay special attention to components with a recyclability rating of 4 because they can often relatively easily be changed to obtain a (good) rating of 3. The same applies for material separation ratings, i.e., first focus on those components with a separability rating of 4. Risk Those components with a high risk are also prime candidates for improvement. Violation of Design for Recycling guidelines A component which clearly violates some of the Design for Recycling guidelines may also be a limiting factor and a prime candidate for improvement. Pay special attention to WHY one or more guidelines have been violated; it may have been done intentionally to, say, increase functionality or manufacturability.

Often, upon careful inspection, the material or combination of materials is the limiting factor in most parts.
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Risk Assessments Some basic simple risk assessments with respect to achieving targets can be done
Risk
Recyclabilit y

Low
% Recyclability identified an d meets in it ial t arget s. P lanned ch anges will n ot degrade it .

Medium
% Recyclability do es n ot meet initial target s, but plan ned changes provide impro vement s.

High
1) % Recy clabilit y do es n ot meet initial target s an d/or p lanned ch anges do no t provide impro vement s. 2) % Recy clabilit y meets in it ial t arget s, but plan ned changes degrade it below t arget level. 1) % Recy cled co nt ent does no t meet initial target s an d/or p lanned ch anges do no t provide impro vement s. 2) % Recy cled co nt ent meet s initial target s, but plan ned changes degrade it below t arget level.

Recycled Co ntent

Recycled co nt ent identified an d meets in it ial t arget s. P lanned ch anges will n ot degrade it .

Recycled co nt ent do es n ot meet initial target s, but plan ned changes provide impro vement s.

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Management Issue: Recyclability Target Setting Goal of designer: Improve vehicle recyclability
85% (by weight) required recyclability in 15 years

Current recyclability (first revision) 75% Four (yearly) revisions of vehicle expected Data available on:
expected production for each year estimated reliability of vehicles

Aim: Aid designer in setting appropriate targets for the recyclability of each revision of the vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Target Setting: Parameters Production Uncertainty: Normal, = 5,000 Recyclability: Triangular, 3% Reliability, Weibull distribution Monte Carlo simulation used to explore effects of a given set of targets
Iteration 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Estimated Production 100,000 95,000 95,000 90,000 90,000 Mean Estimated Recyclability 75% TBD TBD TBD TBD Estimated Reliability =7, =11 =7, =11 =7, =11 =7, =11 =7, =11

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Target Setting: Constant Improvement

Iteration Recyclability Target 1 75% 2 78% 3 81% 4 84% 5 87%

Trend Chart Recyclability of Vehicles Retired in a Given Year

0.900

0.850

90%

0.800

0.750

5%

0.700

Certainties Centered on Medians

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Target Setting: Achieving 85% Recyclability

Iteration 1 2 3 4 Recyclability Target 75% 80% 84% 87%

5 89%

Trend Chart Recyclability of Vehicles Retired in a Given Year

0.900

0.850

90%

0.800

0.750

5%

0.700

Certainties Centered on Medians

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Inclusion of Uncertainty How will changes in technology and legislation affect the target definition and prioritization of limiting factors?
Y Iteration 5 legislative mean Range of Expected Regulatory Limits at Iteration 5 (one-sided distribution) Iteration 4 Reduction of m ean environm ental im pact and variance over several iterations Iteration 3 Iteration 2 productsmean environmental impact

Initial Product

compliance

legislative limit

Environmental Impact

high

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Computer-Based Tools

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Computer-Aided Design for the Life Cycle System Architecture

Designer

Design System
Assembly Mo deling CAD Features Parametrics Geo metry Ro b ustn ess Graph ics Man ufacturin g Serv ice

Produ ct Mo deling

Pro blem Formu lation

Process Mo deling
Pr ocess Synthesis & Selection Imp rov emen t Mo dels Co mp arison Mo dels

Synthesis & S election

Imp rov emen t Mo dels

Co mp arison Mo dels

Ev aluation Modules
Disassembly

Recyclin g Ev aluation Modules Simulatio n

Facilities DB Features, Components, & Mating Relationships DB Database of P roduct Representations Geo metry Parametric Assemb ly Mo del Life-Cycle Info rmatio n Materials DB

Process DB

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Automotive Center Console

Assembly Model Center Console Base Armrest Cupholder Ashtray & Lighter

Given are the geometric (solid) and assembly models of a center console design generated using a modern CAD package.
Solid Model

Bin Bezel Leftbase Rightbase Endcap

Leftbase

Bezel

Ashtray

Latch

Armrest

Coverplate Hinge

Endcap

Rightbase

Front bracket

Bin

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Virtual Disassembly Disassembly in a Virtual Reality environment facilitates design for recycling as well as design for serviceability.
Other assessments are also being added (e.g., demanufacture process cost assessments)

The key is to use the existing product models and add functionality in existing and (for a designer) familiar software systems.
NSF grants: Virtual Design Studio for Servicing and Demanufacture (Rosen, Bras, Mistree, Goel, Baker) DMI9420405 CAD for De- and Remanufacturing (Bras and Rosen) DMI9414715 Enhancing Reusability by Design (Bras) DMI9410005 Integrated Product and De- and Remanufacture Process Design (Bras) DMI9624787 Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

Kodak Funsaver Virtual Disassmbly

Hand int erface

Virtual disassembly allows tracking of basic disassembly path based on user/designer experience. This path can be finetuned using other tools.

Camera component s

Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory

IGRIP Robotic Disassembly Simulation

Disassembly cycle times are calculated.

Disassembly paths are simulated and tested. Different robots can be simulated and programmed Detailed information about the kinematic and dynamic behavior of the robot can be obtained
Georgia Institute of Technology Systems Realization Laboratory