Design for Manufacturability (DFM) 1) two takes: Bralla & Anderson 2) DFM process guidelines (review)

Design for Assembly (DFA) 1) major guidelines 2) insertion time analysis

TEC 316 Dr. Lou Reifschneider
1

Reverse Engineering Findings

(crate full of partshow things are made)
Number of parts to make product? Types of fastening (assembly) methods? Variety of materials used
Metal Plastic Other

Processes used to make the majority of parts in products?

Injection molding or die casting? Extrusion (plastics or metal)? Forming: forging or rolling? Machined components?

DFM & DFA Defined

DFM, Design for Manufacturability
Design to minimize part count (save $$, improve reliability, and improve quality). Design to ease manufacturing by applying process specific rules later discussion.

DFA, Design for Assembly

Simplify methods of joining components and make more error proof and less costly:
Minimize parts count, Maximize the ease of handling parts, Maximize the ease of inserting parts.
3

WHY Product Design is Important: 70% of Cost committed BEFORE Detailed Product Design
Percent of Product Costs 100
Committed Cost 85% 85% 95%

100%

75 50 25 0
40%

70%

Incurred Cost

DFM & DFA

15% Preliminary System Design Detailed Product Design

25%

Concept Development

Process & Production Tool Design

Product Support

Product life-cycle phases / Time

DFMA Methodology

Proposed Design Estimate the Manufacturing Costs

Inventory, suppliers

Reduce Costs of Components

Reduce Costs of Assembly Impact of DFM on other factors? Recompute the Manufacturing Costs No

Reduce Costs of Supporting Production

Development time/cost, product quality

Good Enough?

Yes

Acceptable Design

General Design Principles for Manufacturability The 10 Rules. (DFMH, 2nd Ed, Bralla G.) (1/2)
1) Simplicity. (fewest parts, simple shape, few precision adjustments) = (easiest to make and least costly & reliable) 2) Standard materials and components. (simplify purchasing and inventory) 3) Standardized design of product. (group technology) 4) Liberal tolerances. (tighter tolerance = more $$) 5) Use the most processable materials. (mild steel vs. stainless steel), (ultimate tradeoff: matl cost vs. cost to manufacture)
6

General Design Principles for Manufacturability The 10 Rules. (DFMH, 2nd Ed, Bralla G.) (2/2)
6) Teamwork with manufacturing personnel. (collaboration yields success) (value of ISU degree) 7) Avoid secondary operations. (adds $$) 8) Design appropriate to level of production. (<1,000 machine; >1,000 cast) (tooling vs. high volume) 9) Utilize special process characteristics. (injection molding achieves color and texture during molding, can mold living hinges) 10) Avoid spec.machining process. (only spec final dimensions & surface finish, allow machining 7 expert to find best method)

Rearrange connected items to improve assembly efficiency and reduce costs

Increased Efficiency
8

Approximate Relative Cost of Progressively Tighter Dimensional Tolerances

Rough machining, +/- 0.030 Standard machining, +/- 0.005 Fine machining, +/- 0.001 Very fine machining, +/- 0.0005 Fine grinding, +/- 0.0002 Very fine grinding, +/- 0.0001 Lapping, polishing, +/- 0.00005 100 1000 Approximate Relative Cost, % 101 200 440 720 1400 2400 4500 10000

N.E.Woldman, Machinability and Machining of Metals

Surface Finish

Lap

Approximate Relative Cost of Progressively Tighter Dimensional Tolerances & Finer Surface Finish
Dimensional Tolerance (in) +/- 0.030 +/- 0.005 +/- 0.001 +/- 0.0005 +/- 0.0002 +/- 0.0001 +/- 0.00005 Surface Approx. Finish Relative (micro-in) Cost 250 100 125 200 63 440 32 720 16 1400 8 2400 2 4500
10

Machining Process Rough machining Standard machining Fine machining Very fine machining Fine grinding Very fine grinding Lapping, polishing

Optimal Tolerance: Balance

Quality Safety Manufacturability
Avoid Tolerance Block (all dims +/-.005) .XXX = +/-.005; .XX=+/-.01, Critical dimensions tight tolerance. Low demand dimension looser tolerance (and cheaper parts)
10 rules
11

Manufacturing Options:

Machine from Brass or

Injection Mold Glass Reinforced PET

$/lb GR-PET > $/lb Brass BUT, Injection Molding Permits

>> Less material usage >> Faster production times But tooling costs of IM is high.
12

Figure 8.03 Designing With Plastic by Hoechst Celanese

Product Design & Process Selection is Driven by Order Size

Machining
$10/unit matl & processing

Total Cost $

Injection Molding

$1/unit matl & processing

Mold Cost $10,000 Fixture Cost $1,000 1,000 units

Number of Units Produced

13

Part consolidation with alternative manufacturing method: injection molding

Figure 6.2.2 Design for Manufacturability Handbook by Bralla, Ed.

14

Injection Molding Permits: >> Consolidation of pieces into one molded part >> Reduction of assembly cost

1st

2nd

15

Figure 8.02 Designing With Plastic by Hoechst Celanese

Anderson on DFX (DFM, DFA,)

ANDERSONS LAW
NEVER MAKE A PART THAT CAN BE PURCHASED

FROM A CATALOG
Design for Manufacturability & Concurrent Engineering Dr. David M. Anderson
16

Anderson on DFX (1/4)

A1) Understand manufacturing problems/issues of current/past products. (learn from your mistakes and successes) A2) Design for easy fabrication, processing, and assembly. (easy repair, too)
17

Anderson on DFX (2/4)

P1) Adhere to specific process design guidelines: molding, forging, machining. P2) Avoid right/left hand parts consolidate similar parts (suit case). P3) Design parts with symmetry ease of assembly P4) If part symmetry is not possible, make parts very asymmetrical allow for low-tech automated orientation.
18

Anderson on DFX (3/4)

P5) Design for fixturing part registration for machining and assembly (tooling pins on parts) P6) Make part differences very obvious. (color, markings, packaging) P7) Specify (liberal) optimal tolerances for a Robust Design. (but product still reliable) P8) Specify quality parts from reliable sources. See Rule of 10
19

Anderson on DFX (4/4)

The Rule of 10: (cost to fix problem)
part X; sub-assm 10X; final assm 100X; dealer 1,000X; customer 10,000 X

P9) Minimize Setups: machining key dimensions on same setup (fixture) P10) Design to Minimize No. of Different Cutting Tools (tool changes & more inventory) (use standard tool sizes) P11) Understand tolerance step functions and specify tolerances wisely. 20

Injection Molded Part Guidelines

Minimize wall thickness (less material, less cooling time, less warpage) Stiffness gained with ribs, not mass. Draft angle for mold release. Avoid sharp corners (stress) Rout = Rin +t Rib root = 60% wall (minimize sink) Core thick sections, gradual thickness change. Gate into thick area, not thin.
21

Machined Part Guidelines (1/2) Design holes to shape of tool. Tapped hole: allow for space. Use standard dimensions: Dont: =.627 Do: =.625 Do not design impossible to machine: hollows, overhangs, Internal pockets have radii: Dont: square inside or R=.125, Do: R=.25++ Avoid thin walls Avoid drilling inclines faces.
22

Machined Part Guidelines (2/2) Place hole away from corners (assembly) Provide access for tools (drill chuck) Avoid vibration:
work piece: mill at end of thin section, tool: mill deep pocket with narrow mill.

Holes cannot change direction. Design for fixturing: flats on cylinders. Avoid outside round corners: need CNC vs. chamfer. (chamfer blocks going into blind pockets)
23

Major DFM Themes: Simplify and Standardize

Group Technology (GT)
new products similar in design to existing (allow use of same fabrication or assembly machinery and methods),

Supply Chain Management

database of approved suppliers, easy access to acceptable component data

Reduce complexity (and No. of Parts)

reduce cost & improve quality achieved w/ modular block assembly
24

Why Reduce Part Count?

Parts

Operations Errors

Machines Labor Wages & Benefits

Inventory Warehouse Transport

All this adds to CO$T!

25

Design for Assembly

Assembly costs: two components.

Handling Time + Insertion Time Assembly Time

Two Key Points: Reduce number of discrete parts in the assembly. Design remaining parts so they are easy 26 to make and assemble.

The Four Aspects of DFA

(Refer to handouts for images)
System design (Fig. 14.3, Otto & Wood)
modularize multiple parts into subassemblies, open access, parts should indicate orientation, standardized components.

Handling components (Fig. 14.4, Otto & Wood)

max. symmetry=min. handling, avoid tangling & nesting, color code similar geometry parts, orientation features.

Insertion (Fig. 14.5, Otto & Wood)

mating features (chamfers), alignment features, from above, from same direction.

Joining (Fig. 14.6, Otto & Wood)

fewer fasteners, no obstruction, access to tools, fasten 27 on flats.

DFA Guidelines

(PDD, Otto & Wood) (1 of 2)

1. Minimize part count. 2. Modularize multiple parts. 3. & 14. & 15. Assemble in open space, preferably vertically, and minimize change of orientation (set-ups). 4. & 11. Place orientation features on components. 5. Standardize to reduce part variety. 6. Maximize part symmetry (eases assembly).
28

DFA Guidelines

(PDD, Otto & Wood) (2 of 2)

8. &10. Eliminate parts that tangle or nest. 9. Color code parts of same geometry. 12. Design mating features for easy insertion. 13. Provide alignment features (chamfers). 16. Eliminate fasteners. 17, 18, 19, 20. Design for fastening tool access and ease of use.
29

Restricted access for assembly of screws:

Design A Design B

Poor Design for Assembly

Better Design for Assembly

30

Maximize Ease of Assembly

Insert part from top of assembly. Part self-aligns. Part needs no orientation. One-hand operation. No tools needed. Single linear motion achieves assembly. Part is secure immediately upon insertion.
31

To Eliminate Parts, Ask 3 Questions

1) Does part move with respect to mating parts? 2) Must adjacent parts be made of different materials for fundamental physical reasons? 3) If parts were combined, would assembly of other parts or field service be more difficult or unfeasible? If answer to all three is NO, then part in question could be eliminated by putting its function into some other part of assembly.
32

Major Benefits of Part Reduction

minimize defective part or assembly error, decrease total cost of fabrication & assembly, improve chance to automate assembly

33

Boothroyd & Dewhurst Analysis of Manual Assembly Methods

Establish theoretical minimum handling times based upon shapes and sizes of components being assembled. (graphs) Assembly product record all steps. Define: Design Efficiency 3 Ideal Assembly Time
Actual Assembly Time
Decision Redesign Design could be better. Acceptable for production Very good results 34 Hard to achieve D.E. 5-10% 10-20% 20-35% 25-50% >50%

Decision matrix:

Ease Assembly: Chamfer Geometries on Peg and Hole

Fig. 3.23 Design for Manufacturability Handbook, Bralla

35

Effect of clearance on insertion time

Fig. 3.24 Design for Manufacturability Handbook, Bralla

36

Effect of part size on handling time

Fig. 3.20 Design for Manufacturability Handbook, Bralla

37

Effect of part shape on handling time

Handling time

Figs. 3.17 & 3.18 Design for Manufacturability Handbook, Bralla

38

CASE STUDY: John Deere & Co. (Moline, IL) set a company goal to reduce the cost of parts purchased by its major equipment divisions.

There were two ways to meet that goal: buy less expensive parts or buy fewer parts. The first way required legwork and shrewd bargaining. The second required better product designs. And for that, Deeres engineers were helped by Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) software from Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc. (Wakefield, RI).
We have two mandates for the cost management group at John Deere: reduce part costs and increase product reliability, says Rich Norton, manager of cost management. The process and materials cost-estimating capabilities of DFMA software has assisted in achieving both goals. DFMA software combines two complementary toolsdesign for assembly (DFA) and design for manufacture (DFM). Engineers use DFA software to reduce the assembly cost of a product by consolidating parts into multifunctional designs. DFM software then allows the design engineer to quickly judge the cost of producing the new design and to compare it with the cost of producing the original assembly. An extensive library in the software enables product developers to investigate alternative materials and processes for producing parts. The cost management group at John Deere works with cross-disciplinary teams that include members of the supply chain. The teams review a bill of materials for a part to establish a benchmark. They then perform DFM analyses of materials and manufacturing processes to redesign the part and provide the supplier with a should-cost estimate based on the new design.
http://www.assemblymag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,6493,130583,00.html

39

DFA In-Class Assessment Activity

Design A Design B

Power Component

40