Optimal disassembly sequencing strategy using constraint programming approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework to identify all the feasible disassembly sequences for a multi‐component product and to find an optimal disassembly sequence, according to specific criteria such as cost, duration, profit, etc. Design/methodology/approach Taking into account topological and geometrical constraints of a product structure, an AND/OR disassembly graph is built. Each graph node represents a feasible subassembly. Two nodes i and j are connected by an arc (i, j), called a transition, if the subassembly j can be obtained from the subassembly i by removing one or several connectors. Constraint programming approach is used to generate the feasible subassemblies and related transitions. Findings If a cost zij is incurred to perform a transition (i, j), an optimal disassembly sequence can be generated for a given subassembly, using the shortest path algorithm or a linear programming model. Research limitations/implications The proposed approach performs very well compared to other approaches published in the literature, even when applied to products requiring parallel disassembly and including a large number of parts. Practical implications This approach has been successfully applied to assess the wheelchair maintainability at the design stage and will be implemented in CAD systems. One other application, regarding the disassembly process and total revenue maximization for product recycling, is now under consideration. Originality/value Applying constraint programming to efficiently generate the set of the feasible subassemblies constitutes the main contribution in this paper. This process is the hardest step in the disassembly sequencing problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".