Top > IJAT > Component Influence-Driven Fastener Reduction for Robotic Disa ...

single-au.php

IJAT Vol.20 No.6 pp. 511-519
(2026)
doi: 10.20965/ijat.2026.p0511

Research Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 38

Component Influence-Driven Fastener Reduction for Robotic Disassemblability-Aware Design Simplification

Takuya Kiyokawa*,† ORCID Icon, Tomoki Ishikura** ORCID Icon, Shingo Hamada**, Genichiro Matsuda** ORCID Icon, and Kensuke Harada* ORCID Icon

*Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering Science, The University of Osaka
1-3 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-8531, Japan

†Corresponding author

**Manufacturing Innovation Division, Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Kadoma, Japan

Received:
May 17, 2026
Accepted:
September 7, 2026
Published:
November 5, 2026
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
robotic disassembly, component influence, design for disassembly, fastener reduction, CCC graph
Abstract

Robotic disassembly must be considered during the product design phase to accelerate automated remanufacturing. However, designers currently lack quantitative feedback for identifying the structural elements that hinder robotic operations. To address this, this study proposes an analytical framework that provides actionable redesign guidance focused on fastener reduction, because fasteners are numerous and ubiquitous components found in almost all manufactured products. Using a computer-aided design (CAD) model and its automatically generated contact-connection-constraint (CCC) graph, the framework translates the robotic disassembly sequence planning outcomes into component influence scores. These scores reflect the frequency with which a component causes structural constraint violations or evaluation objective deteriorations in a robotic disassembly sequence. To visually highlight structural hindrances, the framework projects these scores onto the CAD geometry as 3D heatmaps. The system then analytically simulates the removal of highly influential fasteners. It reports the expected reductions in structural constraints, tool changes, and robot travel distances while preventing structurally unsafe modifications by evaluating geometric stability metrics. Experiments on seven household appliances demonstrated that the framework successfully targeted redundant fasteners. Removing the recommended fasteners simplified the structural dependencies by eliminating 8–132 structural constraints on the graph depending on the structural configuration of each product. Furthermore, it improved the robotic operational efficiency by eliminating unnecessary tool change operations and shortening travel distances by 165–1675 mm wherever it was structurally permissible.

Full text
Cite this article as:
T. Kiyokawa, T. Ishikura, S. Hamada, G. Matsuda, and K. Harada, “Component Influence-Driven Fastener Reduction for Robotic Disassemblability-Aware Design Simplification,” Int. J. Automation Technol., Vol.20 No.6, pp. 511-519, 2026.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] H. Poschmann, H. Brüggemann, and D. Goldmann, “Disassembly 4.0: A review on using robotics in disassembly tasks as a way of automation,” Chem. Ing. Tech., Vol.92, No.4, pp. 341-359, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201900107
  2. [2] A. Ranjan Das and M. Koskinopoulou, “Toward sustainable manufacturing: A review on innovations in robotic assembly and disassembly,” IEEE Access, Vol.13, pp. 100149-100166, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3576441
  3. [3] E. Sundin et al., “Automation potential in the remanufacturing of electric and electronic equipment (EEE),” Adv. Transdiscipl. Eng., Vol.13, pp. 285-296, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE200166
  4. [4] M. Hochwallner, E. Sundin, and K. Johansen, “Automation in remanufacturing: Applying sealant on a car component,” Adv. Transdiscipl. Eng., Vol.21, pp. 147-158, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE220134
  5. [5] J. Xu et al., “A method for deriving remanufacturing design guidelines based on product information and life cycle scenarios,” T. Nonaka et al. (Eds.), “EcoDesign Accelerating Social Transformation: Vol. I,” pp. 83-102, Springer, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-9272-2_6
  6. [6] N. Khendry, C. Margadji, and S. W. Pattinson, “IDfRA: Self-verification for iterative design in robotic assembly,” 2026 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 1831-1838, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA57385.2026.11697014
  7. [7] Y. Shiraishi, N. Miyaji, S. Fukushige, and Y. Umeda, “Proposal of a design method for dismantling products with split-lines,” Procedia CIRP, Vol.29, pp. 114-119, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.182
  8. [8] S. Fukushige, Y. Shiraishi, and Y. Umeda, “Computer-aided design for semi-destructive disassembly,” M. Matsumoto, K. Masui, S. Fukushige, and S. Kondoh (Eds.), “Sustainability Through Innovation in Product Life Cycle Design,” pp. 47-59, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0471-1_4
  9. [9] E. Sundin, K. Elo, and H. M. Lee, “Design for automatic end-of-life processes,” Assem. Autom., Vol.32, No.4, pp. 389-398, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151211262447
  10. [10] S. Shahbazi, K. Johansen, and E. Sundin, “Product design for automated remanufacturing—A case study of electric and electronic equipment in Sweden,” Sustainability, Vol.13, No.16, Article No.9039, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169039
  11. [11] W. Vega-Brown and N. Roy, “Task and motion planning is PSPACE-complete,” Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., Vol.34, No.6, pp. 10385-10392, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6607
  12. [12] T. Kiyokawa et al., “Difficulty and complexity definitions for assembly task allocation and assignment in human–robot collaborations: A review,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf., Vol.84, Article No.102598, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102598
  13. [13] T. Kiyokawa, T. Ishikura, S. Hamada, G. Matsuda, and K. Harada, “Hierarchical planning and scheduling for reconfigurable multi-robot disassembly systems under structural constraints,” 2026 IEEE/SICE Int. Symp. Syst. Integr. (SII), pp. 233-238, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1109/SII64115.2026.11404535
  14. [14] R. Wu, C. Xiao, and C. Zheng, “DeepCAD: A deep generative network for computer-aided design models,” 2021 IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pp. 6752-6762, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00670
  15. [15] L. Regenwetter, A. H. Nobari, and F. Ahmed, “Deep generative models in engineering design: A review,” J. Mech. Des., Vol.144, No.7, Article No.071704, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4053859
  16. [16] K. Ma, D. Grandi, C. McComb, and K. Goucher-Lambert, “Conceptual design generation using large language models,” Proc. ASME 2023 Int. Des. Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inf. Eng. Conf., Article No.V006T06A021, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2023-116838
  17. [17] X. Li, Y. Sun, and Z. Sha, “LLM4CAD: Multimodal large language models for three-dimensional computer-aided design generation,” J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., Vol.25, No.2, Article No.021005, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4067085
  18. [18] R. Wang, Y. Yuan, S. Sun, and J. Bian, “Text-to-CAD generation through infusing visual feedback in large language models,” Proc. 42nd Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML), pp. 65326-65345, 2025.
  19. [19] S. Kim, C. Lee, and J. Park, “A novel LLM-assisted approach for automated mechanical design of regularized geometries in CAD system,” IEEE Access, Vol.14, pp. 28840-28851, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3666652
  20. [20] L. Zhang, B. Le, N. Akhtar, S.-K. Lam, and D. Ngo, “Large language models for computer-aided design: A survey,” ACM Comput. Surv., Vol.58, No.9, Article No.225, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1145/3787499
  21. [21] O. Okorie, Y. Singh, J. Russell, C. Turner, and K. Oturu, “More than 10 years on: Does a state-of-the-art review and synthesis offer new frameworks to guide future design for remanufacturing research?,” Bus. Strateg. Environ., Vol.35, No.4, pp. 5194-5235, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70416
  22. [22] S. Kernbaum, C. Franke, and G. Seliger, “Flat screen monitor disassembly and testing for remanufacturing,” Int. J. Sustain. Manuf., Vol.1, No.3, pp. 347-360, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSM.2009.023979
  23. [23] K. Elo and E. Sundin, “Process concepts for semi-automatic dismantling of LCD televisions,” Procedia CIRP, Vol.23, pp. 270-275, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.104
  24. [24] L. M. Ricard et al., “Design for robotic disassembly,” Proc. Des. Soc., Vol.4, pp. 2715-2724, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2024.274
  25. [25] M. Akkawi et al., “Consumer electronic redesign for automated disassembly using general-purpose robots,” Proc. Des. Soc., Vol.5, pp. 1031-1040, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2025.10117
  26. [26] Y. Laili, X. Li, Y. Wang, L. Ren, and X. Wang, “Robotic disassembly sequence planning with backup actions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., Vol.19, No.3, pp. 2095-2107, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2021.3072663
  27. [27] K. Wang, L. Gao, X. Li, and P. Li, “Energy-efficient robotic parallel disassembly sequence planning for end-of-life products,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., Vol.19, No.2, pp. 1277-1285, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2021.3061506
  28. [28] X. Cui et al., “Discrete whale optimization algorithm for disassembly line balancing with carbon emission constraint,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., Vol.8, No.5, pp. 3055-3061, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2023.3241752
  29. [29] T. Kiyokawa et al., “Many-objective-optimized semi-automated robotic disassembly sequences,” Robot. Auton. Syst., Vol.197, Article No.105301, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2025.105301
  30. [30] G. Boothroyd and L. Alting, “Design for assembly and disassembly,” CIRP Ann., Vol.41, No.2, pp. 625-636, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)63249-1

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Nov. 04, 2026