Production engineering

1. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
2212-8271 © 201 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.105
Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
ScienceDirect
25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference, 30 April ± 2 May 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
A Technical Assessment of Product/Component Re-manufacturability for
Additive Remanufacturing.
Yahya Lahroura
*, Daniel Brissauda
a
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 476 575 082. E-mail address: yahya.lahrour@grenoble-inp.fr
Abstract
Products/Components received after being used are of a significant uncertainty and variability when it comes to their quantity and
quality levels. A technology with a flexible production, in terms of free processing, able to cope with the challenges of uncertainty
in remanufacturing processes is needed. By adding material layer by layer, additive manufacturing (AM) represents a new
technology that might have a positive impact on the circular economy strategies. Previous studies reviewed the implications of
additive remanufacturing from its technical feasibility and the sustainable viability of such processes. These works did not take
into account the characterization and selection of Products/Components able to be remanufactured by additive remanufacturing
process. This work will focus on the products/components with characteristics that are adequate with additive remanufacturing. It
will also present a framework of additive remanufacturing and the key steps in order to allow the remanufacturer to decide on the
re-manufacturability of the products using additive manufacturing technologies. This assessment feedback might improve the
design and the manufacturing processes for additive remanufacturing.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
Keywords: Remanufacturing; Additive manufacturing; Assessment method.
1. Introduction
In the last years, the environmental issues related to
resources scarcity, population growth and climate change
impacts, urged companies and organizations to enhance the
manufacturing sustainability, by reducing material, energy
consumption and decreasing the environmental footprint. On
the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), from 2015-
2030, the impact of production on sustainability has been an
important part of the 17 goals listed. By 2030, It aims at
achieving a responsible consumption and production, as well as
a sustainable management, efficient use of natural resources
and reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction,
recycling and reuse.[1].
Due to the raise of goods consumption and products demand,
the volume of end-of-life (EoL) products increases and has a
significantly important impact on the environment. As a result,
many paradigms emerge to respond to the necessity to reduce
waste and limit the consumption of natural resources. Circular
economy is one of these concepts. It stipulates to ditch the
current LQGXVWULDOPRGHO³0DNH-Use-'LVSRVH´DQGPRYHWRD
generative and restorative model. The circular model seeks to
keep products and components at their highest utility and value
along their lifecycle [2].
One of the main focuses of the circular economy is to realize
a resource-efficient manufacturing industry that takes into
consideration the EoL product and the value recovery [3].
Circular economy encompasses several recovery strategies,
such as repairing, reconditioning, remanufacturing, and
© 201 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference

2. 143
Yahya Lahrour and Daniel Brissaud / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
subsequently, recovering the initial value of the product when
first manufactured.
Remanufacturing is considered as the best recovery strategy
in terms of environmental benefit and economic viability [4],
even if more energy and material are needed compared to the
other strategies, this comparison takes into account the barrier
of consumer behavior and the culture fashion obsolescence that
made remanufactured products more appreciable by
consumers. Remanufacturing is defined as the rebuilding of a
product to specifications of the original manufactured product
using a combination of reused, repaired and new parts [5]. The
remanufacturing process is composed of disassembling,
cleaning, inspecting, repairing, replacing, and reassembling the
components of a product to bring it to its ³DVQHZ´FRQGLWLRQ
[6].
Otherwise, the remanufacturing process is considered as a
complex process. One of the major challenges
of remanufacturing is the uncertainty of the products returned
quantity, their dispersed quality level and a long lead time
parts [7]. Our research objective is to create flexible
remanufacturing process to deal with those uncertainties and
variations. Our main focus is an additive manufacturing
technologies that are said to be agile, rapid, flexible and cost
effective technologies [8]. This technology can help in
recovering components from specific wears by
adding materials or replacing the scrapped ones by producing
new ones.
The present work will focus on presenting the framework of
the remanufacturing process while tackling additive
manufacturing. We will point out the steps where additive
manufacturing is implicated in the process and the
modifications that brings in the process of remanufacturing. By
formulating the framework, we will extract information from
the main steps to identify the characteristics and the preferable
product properties for each step that contribute to the ease of
remanufacturing by additive technologies.
2. Background
2.1. Additive manufacturing
The term additive manufacturing refers to a board of many
categories of manufacturing technologies. It encompasses all
technologies that produce 3D objects layer by layer from a
CAD model. According to ASTM F42, the technical committee
responsible for the development of additive manufacturing
standards, additive manufacturing is a process of joining
materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer
upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing
methodologies[9]. ISO/ASTM52900-15 defines seven types
of additive manufacturing processes: 1) Binder jetting, 2)
Direct energy deposition, 3) Material extrusion, 4) Material
jetting, 5) Powder bed fusion, 6) Sheet lamination, 7) Vat
Photo-polymerization. The differences that exist between those
varieties of additive manufacturing processes are the basic
materials, their initial form and the technique of making a layer
as well as the method of joining two layers [10].
2.2. Additive manufacturing in remanufacturing process
Of all the additive manufacturing processes, only two
processes are mainly used in remanufacturing process, namely,
direct energy deposition and powder bed fusion. The number
of studies done on the implication of the latest process of
remanufacturing remain limited. Hinojos et al. [11] studied
the possibility of realizing a multi-material part by Electron
Beam Manufacturing (Ebm), a technology of powder bed
fusion process and one of the application of this study is to
repair existing parts by adding new materials. Mandil et al. [12]
demonstrated the technical feasibility of adding material on a
substrate of Ti-6Al-4V by Ebm by evaluating its mechanical
properties and microstructure. This process may have an
interesting application in remanufacturing by reproducing
components similar to the rejected EoL components. Thus,
thanks to the advantages of direct energy deposition, this
process is perfectly appropriate for remanufacturing. Zhang et
al. [13] remanufacture defected components of a turbine blade
by using reverse engineering techniques. From an economical
and an environmental point of view, repairing turbines by
additive operations is more advantageous than producing new
ones [14]. Jhavar et al. [15] remanufactured molds and dies and
showed the advantage of remanufacturing in saving time
compared to making new products from scratch. In these
studies, the technical feasibility of both, direct energy
deposition and powder bed fusion, processes was proved by
assessing the mechanical properties and the microstructure of
the remanufactured product.
2.3. Remanufacturing process planning
In remanufacturing, the processing phase where components
are effectively restored is considered the most important phase.
Jiang et al. [16] specified the three main phases of the
remanufacturing system that require making decisions, namely,
restoration planning, process planning and technology
planning. On the restoration phase, the types of damaged
components are identified. On the second one, the conditions
and the order of the specific operations are described. The
technology processing relies on selecting the equipment that
will perform the operations to restore the components. The
success of processing phase depends strongly on the
manufacturing operation used and also on
the equipment and technologies used to accomplish the
operations. They propose a tool based on a multi-decision
criteria to select the machining and additive operations suitable
with the damages identified. The chosen criteria are the
economic viability and the environmental impact.
Yin et al. [17] proposed an intelligent remanufacturing
system based on robotic arc welding. The system composed of
WKUHHOHYHOVQDPHG³PRGHOOLQJ-slicing-VWDFN´7KHILUVWSKDVH
is creating the 3D model by a light scanner, and then
obtaining the layers information by direct STL slicing, at the
end it is selecting the optimal tool path. They focused mainly
on the reconstruction of the model from 2D to 3D and the
pathway layer generation without addressing the inspection

3. 144 Yahya Lahrour and Daniel Brissaud / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
phase of the EoL core and the decisions made to evaluate, at
early stage, the feasibility to recover the EoL core.
On another work, Rickli et al. [18] developed a specific
system framework of additive remanufacturing. Based on
literature, the framework is composed of three steps, namely,
condition assessment and digitization, material deposition via
additive processes and finally, reprocessing and inspection.
The first step consists on evaluating EoL cores to determine the
condition of the EoL core and subsequently to evaluate the
remain value and compare it to the remanufacturing cost. This
stage also contains the digitization phase in order to construct
the CAD Model of the EoL core as it is. The second step is to
add material and reconstruct the EoL core. The final stage is
about the post-processing and the finishing steps, it also
includes the test phase.
The previous works proposed the additive remanufacturing
process. The different processes contain similar stages
specifically the phases about model CAD reconstruction and
pathway generation. However, these frameworks are oriented
to particular products and consider from the beginning that
these products have to be remanufactured by additive
manufacturing or scrapped. Our framework tries at first to
position the additive manufacturing in the
general remanufacturing process and shows other implication
of additive manufacturing in the process. Second, these works
do not address the question of characterization of products that
can undergo the additive remanufacturing procedure.
2.4. Characterization of additive remanufactured products
The question of the characterization of remanufactured
products, not specifically by additive manufacturing, has been
treated in literature. Bras and Hammond [19] developed a set
of metrics to evaluate the remanufacturability of products. The
metrics were matched to the main steps of remanufacturing
process and helped to assess the ease to do each phase, namely,
the ease to disassemble, to clean, to control, to replace and to
assemble.
With the same approach, Sundin [20] proposed a matrix
named the RemPro-matrix that shows the properties of the
product that are preferable for the different steps of the generic
remanufacturing process. The RemPro-matrix matches
between the product properties and remanufacturing steps to
assess the remanufacturability of the product. These study
affirms that the matrix can be used also as a design tool.
In regards to the general characteristics of products
remanufactured by additive operations, as mentioned on the
section 2.2, these products/components have special properties
and requirements because they are used in severe work
conditions. Also, these products/components are generally
expensive and vital, which makes more profitable and
reasonable to remanufacture them instead of replace them [14].
In general, studies on the characterization of
remanufacturable products are dependent on the information of
remanufacturing processes [21]. In this work we will apply the
same approach. We will start by defining the global framework
of additive remanufacturing and we will make a focus on the
phases where decisions are made to remanufacture products by
additive manufacturing. We will acquire the main criteria that
have to be taken in consideration to assess the
remanufacturability of the product/component for each key
step.
2.5. Conclusion
The background section presented some applications, from
literature, of additive manufacturing to remanufacture EoL
products. The examples showed the technical feasibility by
assessing the structure and the mechanical properties. The
cases shown in literature stay limited and concentrated on
specific products. The main characteristic of products treated
by additive technologies is that these products endure severe
work conditions and present specific wear modes. The idea of
our work is to extract information from the additive
remanufacturing process to specify the main preferable product
properties for additive remanufacturing. This, to generalize
more the use of additive technologies in remanufacturing to
different typologies of products.
Our approach in this study is based on process definition of
additive remanufacturing. We will observe the main steps that
could define the characteristics of products that fit with such
process.
3. Additive remanufacturing framework
In order to define the main characteristics of remanufactured
products by additive technologies we will follow the present
steps:
x Determining steps of the remanufacturing process in
which additive manufacturing is involved.
x Proposing the framework of additive remanufacturing.
x Identifying the key steps and the characteristics of
products that might be remanufactured by additive
remanufacturing process.
From all the steps of remanufacturing cited before in section
1, additive manufacturing has a direct implication on the two
main phases, Inspection of components and the phase of repair
of components or replacement by new components. The
products that can be remanufactured by additive operations are
generally subject to specific wears and defaults [22]. The
condition assessment of product has to be addressed in a
specific manner to capture those defects. The inspection is also
a major phase to assess completely the product. The process of
remanufacturing with the main steps where additive
manufacturing intervenes is presented in Figure 1.
3.1. Additive remanufacturing framework
We propose a global framework, based on literature, of
additive manufacturing in remanufacturing process. The two
steps where additive technologies intervene directly in the
process of remanufacturing are inspection of components and
processing of the product. The process is summarized in Figure
2.
The Figure 2 describes the steps of the general process to
obtain a remanufactured product while making an emphasis on
the steps where additive technologies are used.
Once the product is received, it must be cleaned of dirt

4. 145
Yahya Lahrour and Daniel Brissaud / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
and impurities. In the phase of inspection, the internal and
external conditions of the EoL core are assessed. From the
results of the inspection, it is decided if the EoL core can
be remanufactured or scrapped and if it has defects feasible to
be treated by additive technologies. In the case of scrapped
EoL core-component, three options are possible to replace it.
Buying the component from the original equipment
manufacturer and manufacturing the product locally by
conventional or additive technologies. To add material on the
EoL core a selection of additive technologies is demanded. The
selection is based on the material, the form and the volume of
the EoL core. If it is not possible to remanufacture for
technological constraints a replacement of
the component should be processed. Then, a digitization of the
EoL core has to be done in order to obtain the 3D CAD model
and execute the material deposition trajectory. Once an EoL
core obtained, tests of the characteristics has to be made.
Fig. 1. Key steps of remanufacturing process to use additive manufacturing.
3.2. Product failures and Inspection
By adding material, additive operations are mostly used in
remanufacturing to correct volume and dimensional loss of
EoL cores. Thus, the wear modes usually treated by additive
manufacturing are categorized in a variety of modes, namely,
abrasive, seizure, fretting, erosion, cavitation and fracture
spalling [22]. Therefore, products with high probability to have
these wear modes are candidate to be remanufactured by
additive manufacturing at their End of Life.
One of the tools that can be used to define an exhaustive
failure modes that might arise on the product is FMEA, Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis. FMEA will allow to identify the
components that are subject to the specific wear modes cited
above and be focused on.
The target of inspection and product assessment is to
identify the different defects, to define the reprocessing
planning, and to deliver the CAD model as it is of the EoL core.
The inspection phase is divided to two types of assessment,
external and internal condition assessments. The main
technologies enabling to capture surface defects by contact and
non-contact approaches to assess the external condition and
reconstruct the EoL core model are trigger probe, line laser and
charged coupled device cameras CCD. The internal defect
inspection is not used to build the 3D model but it is generally
used to assess the mechanical internal properties to decide if
the EoL core is in good condition and worth to be
remanufactured. It is necessary to use non-destructive
technologies in order not to degrade the cores. The main
technologies used to assess internal defects are x-ray micro-
computed tomography scan, ultrasonic, liquid penetrant and
eddy current.
Fig. 2. Additive remanufacturing framework.
Inspection is a critical phase in the remanufacturing process,
it is the step were decisions are taken about the cost effective
of remanufacturing the EoL core. The main criteria to take such
decision is the EoL core condition if it is in good internal

5. 146 Yahya Lahrour and Daniel Brissaud / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
conditions and had mode wears that can be tackled by additive
technologies.
3.3. Processing phase
Generally, products remanufactured by additive
remanufacturing present specific wears and defects at the end
of life. This observation is one of the most characteristic of
remanufacturable products by additive remanufacturing.
Another important phase is the processing phase. Actual
additive processes present some limits for remanufacturing
related to range material, product volume, form of the EoL core
and the necessity of post-processing phase. The table 1 shows
a comparison, based on those criteria, between the most
additive manufacturing processes used in remanufacturing. The
EoL core must respect those characteristics to be
remanufactured by additive operations. This table can be also
used as a decision tool to select the adequate additive process.
Of all the additive manufacturing processes, only two
processes are mainly used in remanufacturing process, namely,
direct energy deposition and powder bed fusion.
Table 1: Selection of additive process for remanufacturing
Process criteria Powder bed
fusion
Direct energy
deposition
Materials
Plastic
Ceramic
Metal
Multi-materials by one
manufacturing
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Substrate (core) form Flat surface Complex form
Maximal manufacturing volume
XYZ (mm3
)
Maximal manufacturing speed
(lh)
Post-processing
550x550x750
5
-Elimination of
powder
- Improvement
of surface
condition
-Elimination of
burrs
1200x1500x2000
0,2
-Improvement of
surface condition
Additive manufacturing impacts the process of
remanufacturing not only to add material on EoL core but also
in remanufacturing to produce components that were scrapped.
The use of additive manufacturing in this stage can be cost
effective thanks to the advantage to manufacture without the
need of special tools allowing remanufacturing system to be
more flexible.
3.4. Preferable additive remanufactured product properties
The characteristics of remanufacturable products are
dependent on the information that come out of the
remanufacturing process. Since we are interested to show up
the preferable product properties dependent on the additive
remanufacturing, we will extract products properties that will
make the additive remanufacturing more feasible. The two
phases in which additive manufacturing is mainly present are
inspection and processing phase. The Table 2, shows the
product properties that ease remanufacturing by additive
technologies.
Table 2: Preferable characteristics of additive remanufacturing products
Inspection phase Processing phase
Characteristics of products - High
probability of
specific wear
modes: abrasive,
seizure, fretting,
erosion,
cavitation and
fracture spalling.
-Facility to be
assessed by non-
contact and
contact
techniques
-Facility to
access the region
that have to be
processed
-Suitable form
for the additive
technology of the
region that have
to be
remanufactured
-Suitable
material with the
additive
technology
4. Conclusion
In this paper, a global overview of a conceptual additive
remanufacturing framework was presented. This
remanufacturing framework make an emphasis on the
implication of additive manufacturing. The goal was to identify
the main steps and extract the information that can help to
characterize products/components that can be remanufactured
by additive operations at the End of Life. EoL cores with a
specific wear modes, namely, abrasive, seizure, fretting,
erosion, cavitation and fracture spalling, are more compatible
with this process. Thus, inspection phase is a central phase to
evaluate exhaustively the defects. Technological constraints
narrow the selection of products suitable with the additive
remanufacturing. A table decision on the main additive
processes used in remanufacturing is presented. The products
has to fit with the technological constraints of those processes.
The remanufacturability of the EoL core by additive operations
is a function of the type of defects and the characteristics
enabling the technology feasibility. The information extracted
from this framework could further be used as a design
information to design products for additive remanufacturing in
order to benefit fully from organizational and technical
advantages of additive technology. Our future work will focus
on a case study based on a multi-components product that will
illustrate the present conceptual framework, also, we will show
the characteristics of EoL cores that can fit with additive
remanufacturing process and we will propose future prospects
on additive technologies that can be fully accomplished with
additive remanufacturing process.

6. 147
Yahya Lahrour and Daniel Brissaud / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 142 – 147
References
[1] United Nation. Sustainable development goals, 2015, consulted 01
october 2017. Available on:
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabl e-development-
goals/
[2] T. Tolio et DOµ'HVLJQPDQDJHPHQWDQGFRQWURORIGHPDQXIDFWXULQJ
DQGUHPDQXIDFWXULQJVVWHPV¶,53$QQ- Manuf. Technol., vol. 66,
no. 2, pp. 585±609, 2017.
[3] 0$,OJLQDQG60*XSWDµenvironmentally conscious
manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the
VWDWHRIWKHDUW¶-(QYLURQ0DQDJHYROQRSS±591, Jan.
2010.
[4] A. M. King, S. C. Burgess, W. Ijomah, and C. A. McMahon,
µ5HGXFLQJZDVWHUHSDLUUHFRQGLWLRQUHPDQXIDFWXUHRUUHFFOH¶
Sustain. Dev., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 257±267, Oct. 2006.
[5] 05-RKQVRQDQG,30FDUWKµ3URGXFWUHFRYHUGHFLVLRQV
ZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[WRI([WHQGHG3URGXFHU5HVSRQVLELOLW¶-(QJ
Technol. Manag., vol. 34, pp. 9±28, Oct. 2014.
[6] M. Matsumoto, S. Yang, K. Martinsen, and Y. Kainuma, µ7UHQGV
DQGUHVHDUFKFKDOOHQJHVLQUHPDQXIDFWXULQJ¶,QW-3UHFLV(QJ
Manuf.-Green Technol., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 129±142, Jan. 2016.
[7] 0/-XQLRUDQG0*)LOKRµ3URGXFWLRQSODQQLQJDQGFRQWUROIRU
UHPDQXIDFWXULQJOLWHUDWXUHUHYLHZDQGDQDOVLV¶, Prod. Plan. Control,
vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 419±435, Jun. 2012
[8] 0+HGJHVDQG1DOGHUµ1HDU1HW6KDSH5DSLG0anufacture
5HSDLUE/(16¶neotech services mtp nuremberg (germany), May
2006.
[9] $670µ$670)HD6WDQGDUG7HUPLQRORJIRU$GGLWLve
0DQXIDFWXULQJ7HFKQRORJLHV¶
[10] A.-F. Obaton, A. Bernard, G. Taillandier, and J.-M. Moschietta,
µ$GGLWLYHPDQXIDFWXULQJVWDWHRIWKHDUWDQGJHQHUDWHGPHWURORJLFDO
QHHGV¶ Rev. Fr. Métrologie, vol. 2015±1, no. 37, pp. 21±36, 2015.
[11] A. Hinojos et DOµ-RLQLQJRI,QFRQHODQG6WDLQOHVV6WHHO
XVLQJHOHFWURQEHDPPHOWLQJDGGLWLYHPDQXIDFWXULQJWHFKQRORJ¶
Mater. Des., vol. 94, pp. 17±27, Mar. 2016.
[12] *0DQGLO97/H+3DULVDQG06XDUGµ%XLOGLQJQHZHQWLWLHV
from existing titanium part by electron beam melting: microstructures
DQGPHFKDQLFDOSURSHUWLHV¶Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 85, no.
5±8, pp. 1835±1846, Jul. 2016.
[13] =KDQJ=DQJ*+H4LQDQG+=KDQJµ5HPDQXIDFWXULQJ-
Oriented Geometric Modelling for the Damaged Region of
RPSRQHQWV¶Procedia CIRP, vol. 29, pp. 798±803, 2015.
[14] M. Leino, J. Pekkarinen, and R. Soukka, µ7KHUROHRIODVHUDGGLWLYH
manufacturing methods of metals in repair, refurbishment and
remanufacturing - HQDEOLQJFLUFXODUHFRQRP¶LQLaser Assisted Net
Shape Engineering 9 International Conference on Photonic
Technologies Proceedings of the Lane 2016, vol. 83, M. Schmidt, F.
Vollertsen, and C. B. Arnold, Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Bv,
2016, pp. 752±760.
[15] 6-KDYDU33DXODQG1.-DLQµDXVHVRIIDLOXUHDQGUHSDLULQJ
RSWLRQVIRUGLHVDQGPROGV$UHYLHZ¶Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 34, pp.
519±535, Dec. 2013.
[16] =-LDQJ+=KDQJDQG-:6XWKHUODQGµ'HYHORSPHQWRIPXOWL-
criteria decision making model for remanufacturing technology
SRUWIROLRVHOHFWLRQ¶J. Clean. Prod., vol. 19, no. 17±18, pp. 1939±
1945, Nov. 2011.
[17] T.-J. Tarn, S.-B. Chen, and G. Fang, Eds., Robotic Welding,
Intelligence and Automation, vol. 88. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
[18] -/5LFNOL$.'DVJXSWDDQG*3'LQGDµ$GHVFULSWLYH
IUDPHZRUNIRUDGGLWLYHUHPDQXIDFWXULQJVVWHPV¶Int. J. Rapid
Manuf., vol. 4, no. 2/3/4, p. 199, 2014.
[19] %%UDVDQG5+DPPRQGµ7RZDUGV'HVLJQIRU5HPDQXIDFWXULQJ
0HWULFVIRU$VVHVVLQJ5HPDQXIDFWXULQJ¶SUHVHQWHGDWWKH
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Reuse, in: S.D.
Flapper, A.J. de Ron (Eds, 1996.
[20] (6XQGLQµ3URGXFWDQG3URFHVV'HVLJQIRU6XFFHVVIXO
5HPDQXIDFWXULQJ¶
[21] P. Zwolinski, M.-A. Lopez-2QWLYHURVDQG'%ULVVDXGµ,QWHJUDWHG
GHVLJQRIUHPDQXIDFWXUDEOHSURGXFWVEDVHGRQSURGXFWSURILOHV¶J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 14, no. 15±16, pp. 1333±1345, Jan. 2006.
[22] $..DPUDQLµ'LUHFWODVHUGHSRVLWLRQIRUUH-manufacturing of
FRPSRQHQWV¶SS±5.