Design for Assembly (DFA)

Manufacturing Systems Engineering & Management

Postgraduate Program
Departemen Teknik dan Sistem Industri
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
 Introduction

What is Assembly Processes ?

Please watch these link on Assembly Operations:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVLlHqoboh
M
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6_QIASba
g
 OBJECTIVES OF
DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY (DFA)

• The aim of DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY (DFA) is to simplify

the product so that the assembly cost is reduced.
• However, consequences of applying DFA usually include
improved quality and reliability and reduced production
equipment and part inventory.
• These secondary benefits often outweigh the cost
reductions in assembly.
4
 DFA recognizes the need to analyze both the
part design and the whole product for any
assembly problems early in the design process.

We may define DFA as "a process for improving

product design for easy and low-cost assembly,
focusing on functionality and on assembly -
ability concurrently."
5
 THE PENALTY OF LATE IMPLEMENTATION OF DFA

7
 THE PENALTY OF LATE IMPLEMENTATION OF DFA

8
• Design for Manual • DFMA Q&A - Design
Assembly - for Assembly -
DragonInnovation.co Boothroyd Dewhurst,
m Inc.

https://www.youtube.co • https://www.youtube.c
m/watch?v=sheZ6bffiW om/watch?v=F-
U 7WvVHp7SA
• https://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=tJz0Hse
RHVA
 Ford vs. GM
(Boothrotd & Dewhurst, 1999)

• Front Bumper of Taurus (after DFA)

– 10 parts
• Front Bumper of Grand Prix
– 100 parts
• 41% productivity gap – due to ease of
assembly
• Ford’s parts fit together easier
 SELECTION OF ASSEMBLY METHOD

Manual assembly
Automatic assembly
Robotic assembly

11
 Types of Assembly

Manual
Most flexible & Most expensive
Skill of workers effects assembly times

Hard Automation
Custom tooling – only make one product

Soft Automation
Robots
More dexterity BUT dumb
 SELECTION OF ASSEMBLY METHOD

Relative costs per unit of different assembly methods by type and

13
production volume.
 SELECTION OF ASSEMBLY METHOD

14
Typical production volumes for each type of assembly method
Boothroyd and Dewhurst look at this as follows:

From the BDI website

Boothroyd & Dewhurst Institute website
 DFA Guidelines
1. Reduce number of parts
2. Reduce number of different parts - Standardize
parts
3. Simplification of assembly
4. Reduction number of processes
5. Less fasteners especially screws & bolts
6. Reduce tangling
7. Orientation
1. Critical orientation – obvious – see & fit
2. Non-critical orientation – fit in any direction
8. Ensure access & visibility
9. Easy part handling
10. Assemble from top
11. Reduce locating/alignment operations –
manual/time consuming
 Rule 1 : REDUCING PART NUMBER

ELIMINATED PARTS ARE NEVER

17
 INFLUENCE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARTS
ON THE PRODUCT QUALITY

18
 INFLUENCE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARTS
ON THE PRODUCT QUALITY

19
 Justification of Part
The three criteria against which a part must be examined, as it is
added to the product assembly, are:
1. during operation of the product, does the part move relative to
all other parts already assembled?
Only gross motion should be considered; small motions can be
accommodated by other means such as integral elastic elements.
2. must the part be of a different material than or be isolated from
all other parts already assembled?
Only fundamental physical needs for material differences are
acceptable.
3. must the part be separate from all other parts already
assembled?
The only reason to have it separate would be that assembly or
disassembly (for maintenance reasons ONLY) of other separate
parts would be impossible.
The best way to look at this is with an example.
Consider a motor drive assembly that is required to sense and
control its position on two guide rails, as shown schematically:
Proposed design of a motor drive assembly
Application of the three criteria gives:
✓

✓
From the foregoing analysis it can be seen that:
❖ if the motor and sensor subassemblies could be arranged to
snap or screw into the base and
❖ if a plastic cover could be designed to snap on,
in theory, there would be only four parts needed instead of
nineteen.

The foregoing was done without considering any practical

limitations
Advantage in the Design Process:

The Designer and/or design team is now placed in a position

of having to justify the existence of the parts that did not
satisfy the DFA criteria.
Justification comes from practical, technical or economic
considerations.
For example: it could be argued that two screws are needed
to secure the the motor and one screw is needed to position
the sensor because any alternatives are impractical for a low
volume operation such as this.
However the design of the screws could be improved by
providing them with “pilot points” to facilitate assembly.
Based upon the foregoing some design rules can already be
established.
 Some Design Rules – logical

A common theme throughout DFA, is the need to

✓ reduce the number of fastening devices, with screws
being the main culprit
✓ if screws are used, one standard size should be used
✓ all screw heads should be the same;
a common screw driver can then be used
✓ all screws should have pilot points to facilitate easier
assembly
The following change could easily be made:
➢ the powder metal bushings are unnecessary because the part can
be machined from an alternative material with the right frictional
characteristics, such as Nylon
The following are difficult to justify:
➢ separate stand-offs
➢ end plate
➢ cover
➢ the six screws

We started with this.

Before going further it is necessary to have estimates of
❖ assembly times
❖ costs
Techniques are available to make these estimates but will not be dealt
with here.
Suffice it to say we can estimate the times and costs shown in the next
table.
Boothroyd and Dewhurst do one thing at this point that is particular to
their DFMA analysis.

They calculate the “Manual Assembly Efficiency, Ema”

ta
This is done with the equation: E ma = N min
t ma
Where Nmin = the theoretical part minimum
ta = the theoretical, lowest assembly time.
this is an ideal minimum
tma = the estimated assembly time to complete assembly of
the actual product
It should be noted these criteria are applied without taking general
design considerations into account.
 As an example:
ta
the design efficiency for the motor drive is, E ma = N min
t ma
where
Nmin = 4 parts,
tma = 160 sec,
ta = 3.5 sec

3.5
Then E ma = 4• and Ema = 8.8%
160
 It can be seen that those parts that didn’t meet the criteria for the
minimum part count involved a total assembly time of 120.6 seconds
Table 1
theoretical assembly assembly
no. part count time, sec cost (cents)
base 1 1 3.5 2.9 The assembly cost is for a
bushing 2 0 12.3 10.2 labour rate of $30 per hour
motor sub 1 1 9.5 7.9
motor screw 2 0 21 17.5
sensor sub 1 1 8.5 7.1
set screw 1 0 10.6 8.8
stand-off 2 0 16 13.3
end plate 1 1 8.4 7 Design Efficiency = 8.8%
end plate screw 2 0 16.6 13.8
plastic bus 1 0 3.5 2.9 Time for parts deleted = 120.6
thread leads 5 4.2 in ideal situation, sec
reorient 4.5 3.8
cover 1 0 9.4 7.9 Time for parts deleted = 99.2
cover screw 4 0 31.2 26 for redesign, sec
Redesigned motor after analysis;
two motor mount screws have been kept
 Results for DFA analysis for redesign of Motor drive assembly

base 1 1 3.5 2.9

motor sub 1 1 4.5 3.8
motor screw 2 0 12 10
sensor sub 1 1 8.5 7.1
set screw 1 0 8.5 7.1
thread leads 5 4.2
plastic cover 1 1 4 3.3
Totals 7 4 46 38.4

Design efficiency = 26% This percentage approaches the range found,

from experience, for electro-mechanical devices

Savings in assembly cost = $ 0.95

Increase in design efficiency = 348%
At the end of the changes
due to DFMA are:
 DFA Guidelines
1. Reduce number of parts
2. Reduce number of different parts - Standardize parts
3. Simplification of assembly
4. Reduction number of processes
5. Less fasteners especially screws & bolts
6. Reduce tangling
7. Orientation
1. Critical orientation – obvious – see & fit
2. Non-critical orientation – fit in any direction
8. Ensure access & visibility
9. Easy part handling
10. Assemble from top
11. Reduce locating/alignment operations – manual/time
consuming
 Rule 2: Reduce number of different
parts - Standardize parts
• One Time Costs
– Tooling
– Design/Development
– Contacting / Vendor Selection
– Product Testing
• Continuous Costs
– Material
– Assembly
– Inventory
– Inspection
 Rule 3: Simplification of
Assembly

• Easier = faster
• Less opportunity for mistakes
• Easier to automate
 Rule 4: Reduction Number of
Processes

• Less steps = faster

• Less material handling = less damage
• Less operations = less opportunity for
defects
• Value Added processes in ~ remove Non-
Valued Added steps
 Rule 5: Less Fasteners
especially screws & bolts

Left to right: simplest, low cost to most parts hardest to assembly

Boothroyd & Dewhurst Inc, 1999

 Rule 6: Reduce Tangling / Nesting

• Takes time to
separate
• Requires people
• Hard to automate

Hugh Jack, 2001

 Rule 7: Orientation

1. Critical orientation – obvious – see & fit

2. Non-critical orientation – fit in any direction

 Rule 8: Ensure Access &
Visibility

www.detnews.com/2004/project/0405/04/901-134795.htm www.uniontire.ca/tireassfr.htm
 Rule 9: Easy part
handling
• Size
• Weight
• Shape
• Sharp edges
• Sticky
• Tangled & Nested
• etc.
Rule 11: Reduce locating/alignment
operations – manual/time consuming

Assemble from
Top

http://www.hfmgv.org/rouge/tour.asp#
 Manual Assembly

Corrado Poli
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
UMass Amherst
©Fall 2001
Two Phases of Assembly

Can be done
• Handling • Manually
•Automatically

• Insertion
 Manual Handling
(Affected primarily by geometry)

Bins
Workstation

Fixture

Operator
Operator
• Reaches into the bin
• Grasps the part
• Transports and orients the part
• Pre-positions it
 Manual Insertion
(Affected by both the part geometry AND the
part/parts to which it is placed/fastened/mated
Bin to.)
s Workstatio
n
Fixture

Operator

• Operator - places/fastens part onto a

partially completed
assembly/subassembly
 Automatic Assembly
(free transfer/non-synchronous system)
Bowl Gravity Feed Track
Workhead
Feeder Assembly
Machine -

Workcarrier Buffe Buffer Partially completed

r Space assembly transferring to
Stock next station
Workstation
s into a bowl feeder which contain orienting
• Parts emptied
devices.
• Parts exit feeder go down track in preparation for insertion.
 Four Station Automatic Assembly
System for Irrigation Mini-Drippers
(Rotary Indexing Machine)

Schematic of
Mini-dripper has a base, assembly system
body, regulator and
 Automatic Handling
(From “Handbook of Feeding and Orienting Techniques for Small
Parts,” by Boothroyd, Poli and Murch)

Bowl Feeder Orienting system for cup

shaped parts
 Cost of An Assembly
• Number of parts

• Ease with which the parts can be

> Handled
> Inserted
 Rule #1 - Eliminate Parts
• Outright elimination of parts.
(screws, nuts, washers, etc.- use snap fits)
• Combining 2 or more distinct parts into
a single molded, cast or stamped part.

9 parts 2 parts
 Eliminate Fasteners
• If not possible, reduce the number or
variety
• Incorporate the fastening function with
another feature 1 screw
4
screws

Snap

• Screws aren’t expensive - driving them is!

 Can Parts Be Combined?
• Since there is no
relative motion between
the parts - and
• Since these parts can
be made of the same
material
•Why not combine them?
 Rule #2 -Design Parts
• So they can be easily handled and
Bins
Workstation

Fixture

Operator
• Inserted
 Factors Affecting Manual
Handling Time (Cost)*
Part
• Symmetry
> End-to-end
> Rotational
• Size
• Thickness
• Mass

* Reference: G. Boothroyd, “Assembly Automation and Product Design,” Marcel Dekker, NY,
1992
 And

If the part is Easy to Grasp

and Manipulate with One
Hand and No Tools
 Examples of Symmetry
• Parts with end-to-end symmetry
Dowel pin washe pin
r

• Parts with no end-to-end symmetry

nail bulb key

scre disk
w
 Examples of Rotational
Symmetry
• Parts with rotational symmetry.

washe pin
r bulb
scre
w
• Parts with no rotational symmetry.

Kollmorgen
key
disk
Illustrations of Size and Thickness

size
Illustrations of Light and Heavy
Mass

Light Heavy
 Parts are Difficult to Grasp and
Manipulate

•Nest or tangle Flexible - two hands to keep

Do not nest or tangle orientation prior to insertion
(and degree of severity)
(belts, chains, gaskets)

Slippery
(ball bearings with oil)
 Parts are Difficult to Grasp and
Manipulate - continued
•Need Grasping Tools
(tweezers, magnets, snap
rings, )
• Two hands
Due to part
Due to obscured
size/thickness
view/access
Heavy Large

• Fragile
Computer
Expansion board
chip
 Parts are Difficult to Grasp and
Manipulate - continued
•Sharp/hot/
undesirable to
touch

• Sticky

Grease on
ball bearing Part with
adhesive
 Factors Affecting Manual
Insertion*
•Ease of alignment
(provide feature to ease insertion)

No chamfers Chamfers
•Ease of insertion Dog point
(affected by clearance, jamming, wedging, pushing against a force)
chamfer
s

Negative clearance (press fit) Part jams on Same clearance, no

Push against a force corners jamming

* Reference: G. Boothroyd, “Assembly Automation and Product Design,” Marcel Dekker, NY, 1992
 Factors Affecting Manual
Insertion - continued
•Obstructed view and/or obstructed access

Task: Place battery in shaver.

View clear? Need to rely on
tactile sensing?
Access clear? Is there a
feature that restricts access to
the operator?

•Self-locating, no need to hold

 Additional Considerations
• Insert vertically from above (i.e. don’t
fight gravity)

No Yes

•Provide features/obstructions to prevent

incorrect
assembly of the part.
 Additional Considerations

• Eliminate difficult to control operations -

- welding, brazing, gluing, etc
• Eliminate extra operations such as special
adjustments, torque adjustments etc.
 Additional Considerations
• Design products into sub-assemblies
that can be assembled and tested
separately.
• ‘De-couple’ manual and machine
operations.
• Group manual assembly operations to
optimize line balancing.
 Assembly Analysis
Three choices to analyze an assembly:

• Precise quantitative method - such as the Precision

Boothroyd approach*. needed if you
need to do
process
• Use an approximate approach during configuration planning.
stage of design?

Assembly Advisor Allow 7-9 sec/part

(Compromise (Fails to focus attention on

approach) characteristics that make
assembly difficult)

* Reference: G. Boothroyd, “Assembly Automation and Product Design,” Marcel Dekker, NY,
1992
Assembly Advisor
 Combining Parts

If Cdcx<5:
yes!

Question: Is the design on the right, which contains fewer parts, less
costly?
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

76
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
MECHANICAL FASTENERS - BOLTS

BOLT STUD CAPSCREW MACHINE THREAD

SCREW FORMING
SCREW

77
Common terminology
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
MECHANICAL FASTENERS - BOLTS

78
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

MECHANICAL FASTENERS - RIVETS

79
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

MECHANICAL FASTENERS – SHEET METAL JOINTS

Strap seam

Single lock seam Pittsburgh lock seam

80
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

81
Reduce the number of fasteners
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

Deep channels should be sufficiently wide to provide access to fastening tools.

Eliminate channel if possible
82
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

83
Design proper spacing for easy access of a fastening tool
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

84
Place fasteners away from obstructions
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO
impossible

85
Provide flats for fastener faces
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

Snap-fits are great

for plastic parts

86 Minimize part count by incorporating multiple functions into single parts

 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
DON’T DO

Design open enclosures to permit assembly in open space,

not in a confined spaces.
87
Do not burry important components
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
DON’T DO

Standardize to reduce part variety

88
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
DON’T DO

89
Modularize multiple parts into sub-assemblies
 JOINING DESIGN GUIDELINES
DON’T DO

90 Parts should easily indicate orientation for insertion

 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

91
 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

Maximize part symmetry

92
 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

93 Eliminate “tangly” parts

 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

94 Prevent nesting of parts

 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

Added
weight

95 For automated assembly, add weight across non-symmetries

 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

10 mm 10 mm

8 mm 8 mm

96 Color code parts that are different but shaped similarly

 HANDLING DESIGN GUIDELINES

97 Provide features for orienting small features

 INSERTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

98
 INSERTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

99
Design the mating faces for easy insertion
 INSERTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

100
Insert new parts into assembly from above
 INSERTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

Stud for easy

alignment

Stud for easy

alignment

101
Provide alignment features
 INSERTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

DON’T DO

102
Insert for the same direction. Do not require assembly to be turned over
 WHAT IS WRONG?

pot.sldasm
103
 WHAT IS WRONG?

clamp.sldasmt
104
 WHAT IS WRONG?

two plates.sldasmt
105
 WHAT IS WRONG?

angle.sldprt
106
 WHAT IS WRONG?

box 01.sldasm
107
 DFMA software
Introduction to DFMA software
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6XtXCvhae
c
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00dEjmZlIDY

DFA
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJz0HseRHV
A
DFM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQuzqjdAzN
o