See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303446640

A New Design for Environment Tool: Key

Component-Based Modular Product Design
Approach

Conference Paper · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 92

2 authors:

Junfeng ma Gül Kremer

Mississippi State University Iowa State University
12 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS 272 PUBLICATIONS 1,317 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Collaborative Research: Teaching to Learn - Peer Learning Using Smart Devices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Junfeng ma on 23 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2016 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference
MD. Sarder, H. Yang and Z. Kong, eds.

A New Design for Environment Tool: Key Component-Based

Modular Product Design Approach

Junfeng Ma1 and Gül E. Kremer2,1

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering1
School of Engineering Design2
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA

Abstract
Design for environment has become an increasingly significant agenda for many manufacturing companies due to
awareness on adverse environmental impact and relevant regulatory requirements. Modular product design (MPD)
has been widely used in both academia and industry, due to its benefits to design engineering. Product modularization
can have positive implications on environmental performance improvement; therefore, exploring MPD and design for
environment jointly is needed. Key components carry the most significant characteristic(s), or the highest market
values in a product. Mostly, product competitiveness strongly relies on such few key components; thus, emphasis
should be on key components during product development. However, only scant research addresses key components.
Developing a MPD method, which incorporates key components specification and aims to improve products’
environmental performance, motivates our research. In this paper, environmental impact from Eco-99 tool is adopted
as an environment indicator. A heuristic clustering algorithm with environmental impact optimization and key
component specification consideration is offered to generate module structures. A coffee maker case study is used to
illustrate the proposed methodology.

Key Words: Design for Environment, Key Component, Modular Product Design, Heuristic

1. Introduction
Public policy and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent with respect to the adverse environmental impacts
of modern products. As a response, product designers have to reduce the environmental footprints of their design
concepts [1]. Therefore, environmental factors are receiving heightened attention in product development activities.
Design for Environment (DfE) is a product design approach that includes tools, methods and principles to reduce
product environmental impacts from cradle to grave. Over the past decade, many DfE tools were developed to assist
people to make more environment friendly decisions. Modular product design (MPD) presents an opportunity to
improve DfE.

The MPD involves clustering simple and small relevant product parts into more complex and larger subassemblies (or
modules), and then combining these subassemblies to create a complete product. The fundamental idea of MPD is
rooted in the decomposition approach that splits a larger system into smaller subsystems. Decomposition approach
was introduced by Steward [2], and it has become one of the most widely used approaches to reduce complexity in
the past two decades. MPD applications and their advantages have been explored. MPD is able to increase
manufacturing efficiency and effectiveness [3,4]; it can also benefit supply chain operations through reducing
inventory cost and savings in distribution time [5-7]; it is also helpful to satisfy the requirements of mass customization
[8-10].

Key components play significant roles in product development. They might carry core product technologies [4, 16,
25], such as Intel’s CPU. They might also have the largest sustainability impacts relative to other components within
the product, including most cost, largest environmental influences or highest social effects [4, 16, 25], such as an
emission component of an automobile engine. Key components expose key competencies of product; and
consequently, they can directly determine the entire performance of the product. Key components can also represent
bottlenecks when their shortages affect the product market performance.
 Ma & Kremer
The integration of MPD as well as DfE principles and strategic key components usage can impact the product design
stage performance positively. However, current product design methods do not involve all these critical issues
simultaneously. Thus, developing an MPD method that incorporates key components specification and DfE
consideration is the primary motivation of this research. In the next section, we present a summary of the pertinent
research that informed the development of our method.

2. Prior Relevant Work

Increasing awareness of environment and growing interest in eco-design and environmental impact assessment have
led to DfE research and development. Many of DfE tools are developed to guide designers towards making more
environmentally sound decisions [1]. Telenko et al. classified DfE tools into two categories: life cycle assessments,
and principles and guidelines for DfE [1].
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is used to analyze the environmental impacts of product throughout its life cycle. A
quantitative LCA tool was introduced by ISO 14014 series [11]. LCA tools need to account for input and output for
each life cycle stage. However, when all life cycle stages are evaluated in this way, it is easy to inadvertently transfer
harmful environmental impacts from one stage to another; due to this potential drawback, LCA cannot be utilized
until design is fully completed [1]. DfE principles and guidelines are better than LCA in terms of this drawback. Many
DfE principles emphasize on a single life cycle stage in the form of Design for X strategies, such as Design for
Disassembly [12], Design for Recycling [13] and Design for Energy Efficiency [14]. However, these principles only
consider a few simple strategies and lose the holistic and systematic understanding. Therefore, to fill this research gap,
Telenko et al. [1] provided a comprehensive framework to capture and reflect all strategies from a life cycle
perspective. The framework covers six principles: 1. ensuring sustainability of resources, 2. ensuring healthy inputs
and outputs, 3. ensuring minimal use of resources in production and transportation phases, 4. ensuring minimal use of
resources during use, 5. ensuring appropriate durability of the product and components, and 6. enabling disassembly,
separation and purification. In this study, we only consider DfE principles in the form of Design for
Assembly/Disassembly in manufacturing stage.
MPD is a widely used tool to reduce complexity, and is able to incorporate with DfE principles in terms of Design for
Assembly/Disassembly. There are many MPD approaches that are developed to support product design in various
ways. Jose and Tollenaere [15] classified MPD methods into five groups: (1) clustering methods, (2) graph and matrix
partitioning methods, (3) mathematical programming methods, (4) artificial intelligence methods, and (5) genetic
algorithms and heuristics. Herein, we refer to this categorization as CGMAG, using the first letter of each group.
Clustering methods require component interactions, which can be either physical or functional relationship; and
modules are generated by categorizing individual components into several groups according to similarities and
differences based on various design criteria [4,16,17]. For example, Kusiak and Chow developed a clustering
algorithm considering product decomposition to group components [17]. Graph and matrix partitioning methods
logically implement graph and matrix-based analysis, respectively, to sort components [18]. Mathematical
programming methods are used to form component groups by identifying intrinsic relationships and connections.
Kusiak and Wang proposed a linear programming algorithm to generate modules [19]. Artificial intelligence, a branch
of computer science, is also a frequently used approach for clustering components. Zhang et al. [20] used this
methodology to discuss an evolving artificial intelligence technique for the modularization of components. Genetic
algorithms and heuristics are widely used methods for solving optimization problems. Kreng and Lee proposed an
MPD method that uses nonlinear programming to construct an objective function subject to certain constraints in
which a grouping genetic algorithm heuristic was applied to search an optimal or near-optimal solution for modular
design [21].
Beyond CGMAG classification approach, Ma and Kremer [22] analyzed MPD approaches according to their potential
impacts on sustainability. They defined 17 sustainability themes, and categorized MPD approaches based on the
emphasis of each theme. For example, Kusiak and Chows’ methodology [17] can be clustered into the cost saving
group as it has been shown to reduce product design/manufacturing cost; while Kreng and Lee’s approach [21] is
categorized to life cycle management group due to its applicability in the product life cycle environmental impact
management. Table 1 presents 17 sustainability themes from Ma and Kremer’s categorization.
 Ma & Kremer
Table 1: Sustainability Indicators & Major Themes [22]
Sustainability Eco- Social- Social-
Economic Environmental Social
Indictors Environmental Environmental Economic
Risk Emissions Reduction;
Management; Environnent Management ; Safety and Health; Human
Energy Efficiency;
Major Profit; Environmental Global Climate Diversity; Customer
Life-Cycle
Themes Cost Saving; Assessment; Change; Human Rights; Ethics;
Management
Product Natural Resource Labor Relations Security
Innovation; Management;

A key component may represent a core technology and thus affect the product function performance, such as the
turbocharger in an automobile engine [23]; or such key components may be most expensive or complicated to
manufacture and consequently influence product market performance (e.g., the cabinet of a refrigerator [24]).
However, only few papers available today address the issue of key components except our work, with one other paper
partially alluding to the idea of emphasizing them during product design. Specifically, Huang and Kusiak [18]
provided a decomposition approach to cluster product components. In addition to physical interactions among
components, they took designer’s preferences into account during module formation. Key components could then be
identified and handled as designer’s preferences. Therefore, we propose a new MPD with considerations of DfE as
well as key components specification to fill this gap in the literature.
3. Proposed Approach
The proposed approach is a MPD methodology with consideration of key components, and is developed to improve
product environmental performance. In this study, we employed environmental impact indicator assessment from Eco-
99 software. Environmental impact is used to measure how an activity influences environment; its unit is mPt. The
smaller environmental impact means less influence to environment. We evaluate how assembly steps affect the
environment using this software. Key components play significant roles in design stage; using the approach we have
formerly developed [see 4, 16, 25], we separate key components into different modules. Figure 1, below, shows the
flow of the methodology.

Figure 1: Methodology Flow Chart

According to proposed methodology, the quantity of key components will be pre-determined, and they should be
allocated into different modules. These initial modules are called key component modules. The non-key components
then will be distributed into key component modules based on an algorithm. This algorithm will assign non-key
components with consideration of minimizing overall environmental impact.
Key component quantity is determined by the manufacturer (the client) according to company policy or individual
perception. In this paper, we select the market value as criterion; therefore, key components will be identified by
sorting component market value based on given key component quantity. The top market value components are chosen
as key components. When key components are finalized, key component modules will also be generated by separating
key components into different modules.
 Ma & Kremer
When the key components and their corresponding modules are determined, allocating the non-key components will
generate the product module structure. However, the final module structure depends on the order of the non-key
components’ entry into the algorithm. Therefore, the order must be determined before running the algorithm. In our
previous work [i.e., 4, 16, 25], the order determination considers part-to-part interfaces, component weight, and
component material. The part-to-part interfaces has the highest priority to be considered, then component weight, and
component material are least important. Consequently, to determine the order of non-key components, quantity of
part-to-part interfaces should be considered first. If two non-key components share the same number of part-to-part
interfaces, a second determination criterion is used; herein, this second criterion is the component weight, which
requires a higher weight component to be allocated first. If two non-key components still have the same weights, then
we need to consider their materials; metal alloys have allocation priority over other materials.
The key component based MPD algorithm is the last step in generating a module structure. The sorted non-key
components are entered into the MPD algorithm according to the component order as discussed above. For each
entered component, the interaction relationships with all key component modules are checked. If all interact, the
current environmental impacts are compared; this non-key component will be grouped into the smallest environmental
impact generating key component module. If no interactions exist, that component will be returned to the sorted non-
key component list, and the next component will enter into the algorithm. If only one interaction exists, this component
will be grouped within the interacting module; if more than one interaction exists, the component will be assigned to
the module where the smallest environmental impact is used/generated. After allocating the current non-key
component, the next component on the list will enter into algorithm. The process will continue until all non-key
components are allocated. The final module structure will be stored as the optimal module structure, which
incorporates the lowest environmental impact. Figure 2 presents the logic flow of this algorithm.

Figure 2: Key Component based MPD Algorithm Logic Flow Chart

 Ma & Kremer

4. Illustrative Case Study

We use coffee maker as a case study to illustrate the implementation of this proposed methodology. The case study is
adopted from Chung [26], and the coffee maker product model is Mr. Coffee PR 15. The coffee maker components
only include the main parts; small connectors, such as fasteners and screw bolts, are excluded from this case study.
The data set for the coffee maker is primarily based on product dissection. Table 2 provides coffee maker component
attributes, including names, material, market price, and manufacturing environmental impact. The physical connection
relationships among components are presented in Figure 3’s DSM matrix, where “0” means two corresponding
components are not physically connected, and “1” means connected. Figure 4 includes the corresponding assembly
environmental impact between components. For example, “1.23” in row one and column two means assembling
component 1 and component 2 generates 1.23 mPt to outside environment.
Table 2: The Components' Attributes of Coffee Maker [26]
No. Component Material Weight (g) Price ($) Mfg. Environmental
Impact (mPt)
1 Filter Basket Plastic 90.8 3 35.41
2 Filter Basket Holder Plastic 101.696 3 39.66
3 Lid Plastic 52.664 2 20.54
4 Warming Plate Steel 63.56 5 5.47
5 Main Housing Plastic 1273.016 4 496.48
6 Heating Pipe Steel 227 8 19.52
7 Carafe Glass 348.672 10 20.22
8 Carafe Handle Plastic/Steel 84.444 3 27.8
9 Bottom Plate Steel 214.288 3 18.43
10 Power Cord Copper/Plastic 60.836 2 24.34
11 Switch Plastic/Metal 7.264 5 2.39

Table 4 The Com

No. Component Material

1 Filter Basket Plastic
2 Filter Basket Holder Plastic
3 Lid Plastic
Figure 3: Connection Relations DSM [26] 4 Warming Plate Steel
5 Main Housing Plastic
6 Heating Pipe Steel
7 Carafe Glass
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
8 Carafe Handle Plastic/Steel
1 0.00 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 Bottom Plate Steel
2 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 Power Cord Copper/Plastic
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 Switch Plastic/Metal
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.09 6.68 21.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 8.80 8.48 24.09 0.00 27.03 0.00 0.00 26.80 59.46 23.07
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.68 27.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.22
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.93 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.07 4.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00

Figure 4: Assembly Environmental Impact DSM

 Ma & Kremer
In our proposed methodology, clients and/or manufacturers determine the quantity of key components. In this case
study, we pre-determine four key components as the top four components with the highest market values: component
4 (Warming Plate), component 6 (Heating Pipe), component 7 (Carafe) and component 11 (Switch). These four key
components are assigned to four individual key component modules.
We sort non-key components according to the number of physical interfaces as shown in Figure 3. For those non-key
components that have the same number of interfaces, the component weight is used to provide a unique order, given
the consideration that the higher weight a component has, the more difficult it is to assemble. Consequently, a specific
assembly priority is given to heavier components. After considering both the interface quantity and component weight
for the coffee maker components, the sorted non-key components are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Non-Key Component Order
Component Main Filter Basket Power Cord Bottom Filter Carafe Lid
Name Housing (5) Holder (2) (10) Plate (9) Basket (1) Handle (8) (3)
Interface # 7 2 2 1 1 1 1
Weight (g) 1273.02 101.70 60.84 214.29 90.8 84.44 52.66
Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Applying the key-component based MPD algorithm to this case study, and given the order of non-key components,
we can then assign non-key components into key component modules. The module structure is [4]; [1,2,3,5,6,9,10];
[7,8]; [11]. Non-key components 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 are grouped into key component 6’s module; non-key component
8 is grouped into key component 7’s module; and key component 4 and 11’s modules are single component modules.
The assembly environmental impact within the module for this module structure is 83.32mPt.
5. Comparison Between Proposed Approach and Decomposition Approach
Decomposition approach (DA) is another MPD method that can be used to handle key components and generate the
module structure [18]. Using this method, the key components are separated into different modules according to
subjective judgements. DA involves two relevant matrices: the interaction matrix and suitability matrix. The
interaction matrix exposes components’ physical connection relationship, and the suitability matrix is used to show
judgements. Four types of judgements are included: strongly desired (a), desired (e), undesired (o) and strongly
undesired (u). DA initializes the module structure based on information from the interaction matrix according to a
triangulation algorithm [18]. The current module structure is modified by suitability judgements presented in the
suitability matrix. If two components are strongly undesired in the suitability matrix, they cannot be placed in the
same module. Therefore, when using DA, key components should be set as “strongly undesired” to guarantee that key
components are not in the same module. The original interaction matrix and suitability matrix are shown in Figure 5,
and the module structure formed by DA is shown in Figure 6. Since we only need to separate key components into
distinct modules, only “strongly undesired” (O) judgement is needed to make a head-to-head comparison.

Figure 5: Coffee Maker Interaction and Suitability Matrix

 Ma & Kremer

Figure 6: Coffee Maker DA Approach

Using the DA approach, the key components 4, 6, 7 and 11 are set as mutually “strongly undesired”. Therefore, no
matter how the triangulation algorithm forms the module structure, these four key components cannot be in the same
module. The DA approach generates five modules: [1;2], [3;5;9;10;11], [7;8], [4] and [6]. One obvious difference
between the DA approach results and the proposed method’s is that the key component 6 is a single component module
in the DA solution whereas it is associated with components 1,2,3,5,9 and 10 to form a module in the proposed method.
The differences between DA and the proposed methodology are listed in Table 4.
The proposed method identifies key components by separating them into same number of individual modules, while
DA treats key components as “strongly undesired”. This difference might impact the module quantities. In the coffee
maker case study, the proposed approach generates four modules, while DA forms five modules. The proposed method
generates a structure with less estimated environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed method outperforms DA with
respect to environmental sustainability.
Table 4: Case Study Results Comparison
New Approach Decomposition Approach
Set suitability matrix relationship
Key Component Assign key components into different
between key components as
Identification modules
“strongly undesired”
Clustering Algorithm Key-component based heuristic algorithm Triangulation algorithm
Module Structure [1,2,3,5,6,9,10]; [4]; [7,8]; [11] [1,2]; [3,5,9,10,11]; [7,8]; [4];[6]
Module Environmental
83.32 mPt -- 92.57 mPt 9.9% Higher
Impact

6. Conclusion
In this paper, we presented our newly developed key component-based MPD algorithm to improve product
environmental sustainability in terms of reducing assembly environmental impact. The proposed method requires pre-
determination of key component quantity; these key components are then allocated to the same number of modules.
Therefore, the module quantity is also pre-determined. All non-key components are sorted by ease of assembly
considering part-to-part interface counts, component weights and material types. The non-key components are entered
into the MPD algorithm according to an established order. A key component-based MPD algorithm is developed by
minimizing environmental impact during assembly within module, and the optimal module structure is generated
accordingly.
Although this method can increase environmental sustainability performance from the perspective of product design,
it has some limitations. First and foremost, the quantity of key components is determined by the manufacturer, and
this decision depends on a subjective judgment, which may lead to non-optimality. In addition, the selection of key
components depends on the component market value. In some cases, multiple components can share the same market
value, which can make this methodology work in a more complicated way. Therefore, more selection criteria need to
be developed to allow the methodology to be applicable for more complicated conditions.
Reference
1. Telenko, C., Seepersad, C.C., and Webber, M.E., 2008. “A Compilation of Design for Environment Principles
and Guidelines,” Proceedings of the ASME 2008 International Design Engineering Technical Conference &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2008), Aug. 3-6, Brooklyn, New York.
 Ma & Kremer
2. Steward, D., 1965. “Partitioning and Tearing Systems of Equations,” Journal of the Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics Series B Numerical Analysis, 2(2), 345–365.
3. Okudan, G.E, Ma, J., Chiu, M.C., and Lin, T-K., 2013, “Product Modularity and Implications for the Reverse
Supply Chain,” Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 14(2), pp. 54-69.
4. Ma, J., and Kremer, G.E.O., 2015, “A sustainable modular product design approach with key components and
uncertain end-of-life strategy consideration,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
1–23. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7979-0.
5. Feitzinger, E. and Lee, H. L., 1997, “Mass Customization at Hewlett-Packard: The Power of Postponement,”
Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb), pp. 116-121.
6. Ernst, R. and Kamrad, B., 2000, “Theory and Methodology: Evaluation of Supply Chain Structures through
Modularization and Postponement,” European Journal of Operational Research, 124, pp. 495-510.
7. Kamrani, A.K. and Salhieh, S. E. M., 2008, Modular Design, in Kamrani, A. K. and Nasr, E.A. (eds.),
Collaborative Engineering: Theory and Practice (207-227), Springer, New York, NY.
8. Pandremenos, J. and Chryssolouris, G., 2009, “Modular Product Design and Customization,” Proceedings of the
19th CIRP Design Conference-Competitive Design, Cranfield University, Mar. 30-31.
9. Zha, X.F., Sriram, R.D., and Lu, W.F., 2004, “Evaluation and Selection in Product Design for Mass
Customization: A Knowledge Decision Support Approach,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing, 18, pp. 87-109.
10. Lau, A. K. W., Yam, R. C. M. and Tang, E., 2007, “The Impacts of Product Modularity on Competitive
Capabilities and Performance: An Empirical Study,” International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), pp.
1–20.
11. http://www.iso.org/, ISO 14040 Series. Date Accessed: Dec. 20, 2015.
12. Lewis, H., and Gertsakis, J., 2001, Design + Environment: A Global Guide to Designing Greener Goods,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
13. Fiksel, J., 1996, Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
14. Crul, M., and Diehl, J., 2006, Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach for Developing Economics, United
Nations Environmental Program (UNEP).
15. Jose, A. and Tollenaere, M., 2005, “Modular and Platform Methods for Product Family Design: Literature
Analysis,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16, pp. 371–390.
16. Ma, J., and Kremer, G.E.O., 2014, “A Modular Product Design Approach with Key Components Consideration
to Improve Sustainability,” Proceedings of ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conference
& Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2014, Aug. 17-20, Buffalo, New York.
17. Kusiak, A. and Chow, W. S., 1987, “Efficient Solving of the Group Technology Problem,” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 6(2), pp. 117–124.
18. Huang, C. C. and Kusiak, A., 1998, “Modularity in Design of Products and Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 28(1), pp. 66–77.
19. Kusiak, A. and Wang, J., 1993, “Efficient Organizing of Design Activities,” International Journal of Production
Research, 31(4), pp. 753-769.
20. Zhang, W.Y, Tor, S.Y. and Britton, G. A., 2006, “Managing product modularity in product family design with
functional modeling,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 30, pp. 579–588.
21. Kreng, V. B. and Lee, T. P., 2004, “QFD-Based modular product design with linear integer programming—A
case study,” Journal of Engineering Design, 15(3), pp. 261-284.
22. Ma, J., and Kremer, G.E.O., 2015, “A Systematic Literature Review of Modular Product Design (MPD) from the
Perspective of Sustainability,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, DOI:
10.1007/s00170-015-8290-9.
23. Micheletti, G. F., 1988, “Special Issue Manufacturing Science, Technology and Systems of the Future Application
of new technologies for fully integrated robotized automobile engine production,” Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 4(1), 141–148.
24. Umeda, Y., Nonomura, A., and Tomiyama, T., 2000, “Study on life-cycle design for the post mass production
paradigm,” AI EDAM, 14(02), 149–161.
25. Ma, J., and Kremer, G.E.O., 2015, “A Modular Product Design Method to Improve Product Social Sustainability
Performance,” Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conference &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2015, Aug. 2-5, Boston, Massachusetts.
26. Chung, W.S., 2012, “A Modular Design Approach to Improve Product Life Cycle Performance Based on
Optimized Closed-Loop Supply Chains,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Penn State University

View publication stats