European J ournal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.30 No.2 (2009), pp.245-252

EuroJ ournals Publishing, Inc. 2009
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Concurrent Engineering Approach in Designing Pressure Vessel


A.R. Ismail
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia
E-mail: arasdan@gmail.com
Tel: +603-89216775; Fax: +603-89259659

A.H.A.A. Manap
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia

D.A. Wahab
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia

R. Zulkifli
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia

N.K. Makhtar
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia

K. Sopian
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Malaysia


Abstract

This case study shows how the effect of implementation of the Design for
Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) in product development process. Pressure vessel was
selected as the example in this case study. The pressure vessel design was obtained from
one of the oil and gas company in Malaysia. Information gathering and data collection were
conducted by interview and observation. Information such as design and component
development time was analyzed and modeled to ensure the effect of implementation of this
approach to product development cycle and design efficiencies. The method used for this
case study is the Boothroyd and Dewhurst method. Using this method, the existing design
of the pressure vessel was modified by incorporating the design for manufacture and
assembly requirements. The approach enables a shorter product development cycle time
through reduction in manufacturing and assembly time. Apart from that, the overall cost of
the pressure vessel was reduced. The implementation of this approach has improved the
companys performance and return of investment.


Concurrent Engineering Approach in Designing Pressure Vessel 246
Keywords: DFM, DFA, concurrent engineering, pressure vessel, product development
cycle

1. Introduction
The technology advancement and improvement in our industry, improve the demand to the product. To
fulfill this demand, the speed and capacity of production by a company must be enhanced. An analysis
of the world market has shown that the customer requirements regarding functions and quality of
products are continuously increasing but the customers are not willing to pay more for better products,
neither do they accept prolonged delivery terms. Customers are becoming more and more demanding
and their requirements are changing all the time. Customer is the king is becoming the motto of
today (Starbek and Grum, 2002).
The implementation of DFA and DFM led to enormous benefits including simplification of
products, reduction of assembly and manufacturing cost, improvement of quality and reduction of time
to market (Kuo, Huang and Zhang, 2001). Therefore, that is important to any company to improve
productivity and their ability to fulfill customer requirement without neglecting the quality of the
product that will be produced. DFM is a systematic methodology that will reduce the manufacturing
cost through reducing the overall parts of the product and redesign the product parts, so the product
will be easy to handle and assemble (Boothroyd and Dewhurst, 1991). DFM is a systematic procedure
to maximize the use of manufacturing processes in the design of components and DFA is a systematic
procedure to maximize the use of components in the design of a product. The aim of DFMA is to
maximise the use of manufacturing processes and minimise the number of components in an assembly
or product (Kulpakjian and Petronis, 2001).


2. Methodology
Data are obtained through interviewing and observation at selected pressure vessel manufacturers
company. Among of these data are the design of pressure vessel, manufacturing process,
manufacturing and assembly time and the information that related to the standard has been using to
construct the pressure vessel.
After that, the design analysis was conducted towards pressure vessel. Then, the modeling of
the pressure vessel will be conducted by Solid Works software. From that modeling, the DFM and
assembly analysis will be conducted towards that modeling, according to Boothroyd and Dewhurst
method. From the current design, alternative model will be suggested through inserting the design for
manufacturing and assembly elements to the pressure vessel. Analysis by using Boothroyd and
Dewhurst method are implemented to the existing and the new design.
The result from the existing and the modified design will be compared. This will be conducted
through comparing the design efficiency and the implementation of design for manufacture and
assembly that was proposed by Boothroyd and Dewhurst. From the obtained data, the conclusion is
carrying out to the existing and the new design of pressure vessel after the implementation of DFM and
assembly elements.


3. Results and Discussion
The case study result is based on the implementation of Boothroyd and Dewhurst method to the
pressure vessel that was constructed by AMB. AMB implement the project to produce pressure vessel
according to the client order. They apply the concurrent engineering method in order to complete the
project, where the department of designing and manufacturing are collaborate. If there any problem
regarding to design and manufacturing of pressure vessel, it will be settle down immediately before it
come to production stage.

247 A.R. Ismail, A.H.A.A. Manap, D.A. Wahab, R. Zulkifli, N.K. Makhtar and K. Sopian

3.1. Concurrent Project Implementation
In order to fulfill the clients order, AMB implementing them concurrently with the collaboration of all
personal that involve in the project, either they are in the design department, manufacturing
department, supplier, management or client. Planning and data sharing from any side of this group is
very important to avoid misunderstanding about the project.
The effect of this approach implementation is the pressure vessel development time was
reduced. This can be obtained by applying the design for manufacture and assembly since designing
stage. This implementation will reduce the rework if there are any problem in manufacturing and
assembly process. Assembly process can be conducted more easy and efficient.

3.2. Modeling Result
The pressure vessel design modeling by Solid Works software to built solid model to visualize the
actual picture and the layout drawing is to show the detail design. The components model is created
from the engineering design that was obtained from AMB.

3.3. Model without DFMA Element
Model of pressure vessel that was developed at AMB is the model without implementing design for
manufacture and assembly element. Thus, the number of components produced is without considering
the guideline of design for manufacture and assembly. Figure 1 is the pressure vessel model without
design for manufacture and assembly element. There are 33 different components with their respective
quantity to produce a complete pressure vessel.

Figure 1: Model of the pressure vessel


8. Nozzle 5
sub- assembly
11. Nozzle 2
sub- assembly
9. Ellipsoidal
Head A
10. Nozzle 4
sub- assembly
1. Nozzle 3
sub- assembly
2. Shell A
3. Nozzle 1
sub- assembly
6. Ellipsoidal
Head B
7. Skirt sub-
assembly
4. Shell B
5. Manway


3.4. Analysis to the Model without DFMA Approach
From the existing design of pressure vessel, manual design efficiency analysis will be conducted by
using Boothroyd and Dewhurst method. Through this method, the analysis is conducted by considering
a few factors such as component assembly and insertion time to complete the product. This method
Concurrent Engineering Approach in Designing Pressure Vessel 248
was applied through fulfilling the value on the Boothroyd and Dewhurst worksheet and the calculation
of assembly efficiency is conducted to this pressure vessel design. The measuring of welding time and
orientation time are conducted before, to obtained components handling time.

3.5. Comparison within Model with and without DFMA Element
3.5.1. Manual Assembly Efficiency
The number of component to produce a complete pressure vessel with DFMA approach and without
DFMA approach is reduce one component with the reduction of the skirt vent number from 3 to 2
component needed. But, a clear difference with the component quantity. For the existing pressure
vessel, component quantity is 127, and the new design just has 108 components. From Table 1 the
number of reduction is 19 components. The percentage of quantity reduction from the existing design
is 14.96%. Even though the reduction of component is small, but it still can give impact on assembly
time, material cost and material handling cost
The component reduction that can be conducted is very limited. Its because almost all the
component in the existing pressure vessel is very critical and if its eliminated, it will affect the
functionality of pressure vessel, apart from that, it will overrule the ASME standard.
From Table 2, we can get that orientation time, welding time and insertion time and the overall
assembly operation time of pressure vessel is reduce. With that, it can reduce component assembly
time and eventually can shorten the development time of pressure vessel. From Table 2, design
assembly efficiency is;
Existing manual assembly efficiency, E
ma
=3 x N
a
/ t
ma
x 100%
=3 x 35 / 520393.42 x 100%
=0.020 %

Table 1: The component that was eliminated after implementation of DFMA

Quantity
No Component
Existing Reduction
1 Skirt Gusset Plate 24 12
2 Skirt Vent 3 1
3 Anchor Bolts 12 6
Total Reduction 19

For the design assembly efficiency with DFMA elements is;
New manual assembly efficiency, E
ma
=3 x N
a
/ t
ma
x 100%
=3 x 35 / 471371.69 x 100%
=0.022 %
From the implementation of design for manufacture and assembly to the pressure vessel, we
can get the manual assembly design efficiency is improve. Besides that, the reduction of component
can reduce the material and component handling, without affecting the functionality of the pressure
vessel.

3.5.2. Design Changes
The existing design of pressure vessel was modified. The changes is with considering the design for
manufacture approach such as easy to machine, less finishing work, reduce rework, and all of that will
tend to improve the manufacturability. The chamfer preparation process can make the assembly work
of pressure vessel easier before it ready to be welded. Figure 2 shows the changes of existing pressure
vessel component with and without chamfer preparation.
249 A.R. Ismail, A.H.A.A. Manap, D.A. Wahab, R. Zulkifli, N.K. Makhtar and K. Sopian

Figure 2: The changes of Nozzle 4 Neck after the insertion of DFMA




Table 2: Comparison between orientation time, welding time, insertion time and total operation time for the
pressure vessel with and without DFMA approach

Design
Total Orientation
Time
Total Welding
Time
Total Manual
Handling Time
Total Insertion
Time
Total Operation
Time,t
ma

Without DFMA 6736 512434.42 519170.42 1223.00 520393.42
With DFMA 6328 463860.69 470188.69 1183.00 471371.69
% Reduction 6.06% 9.48% 9.43% 3.27% 9.42%

The compression ring also can be simplified with the reduction of anchor bolt hole. This can
reduce the machining time to produce the hole. Besides that, it can reduce the number of anchor bolt
that been using to retain the position of pressure vessel. Figure 3 shows the difference within the
compression ring that the design was simplified and the existing design.

Figure 3: The changes of compression ring model after insertion of DFMA



The existing compression rings consist of 12 holes to place the anchor bolt, compare to the
modified design that just has 6 holes. The difference can reduce the machining time and eventually can
shorten the pressure vessel development time. The design of base plate and gusset plate also been
modified as the compression ring design. The number of anchor bolt holes reduced from 12 to only 6
holes as shown in Figure 4. The reduction can give impact to the reduction of gusset plate. The number
of existing gusset plate is 24 and after the modification, the number is reducing to only 12 parts. The
reduction of gusset plate tends to reduce the component handling cost and will save the material cost.
Apart from that, the gusset plate assembly time to base plate also reduced.
Concurrent Engineering Approach in Designing Pressure Vessel 250
Figure 4: The changes of base plate and gusset plate model after the insertion of DFMA



The changes of design also been made to simplify the manufacturing process. For instance is by
preparing the base for washer. It will make the washer retain at their position before the nut tightening
process. It will reduce the component handling process.

Figure 5: The changes of Flange Nozzle 3 model after the insertion of DFMA



Figure 5 shows the changes of flange nozzle 1 design before and after the insertion of DFMA
element. The amount of changes in the component number can be viewed at the skirt vent design,
where the existing sub-component consists of 3 components to complete the skirt vent. But after the
modification of the design, the number of sub-component can be reduced to just 2 components. Figure
6 shows the changes of skirt vent design before and after modification.

Figure 6: The changes on skirt vent model after the insertion of DFMA



3.5.3. Manufacturing Process Changes
The changes of manufacturing process for pressure vessel can give a positive impact to the reduction of
manufacturing process. For example is, by replacing the manual welding method to semi automated
welding machine. By using this machine, welding process can be faster. For instance, the tungsten inert
gas semi automated welding machine can shorten the welding time to 30 minutes for 12 inch welding
length to just 8 minutes for the same length. Therefore, the welding process will be faster. Apart from
that, it can improve the welding quality, reducing scrap and labor cost.

251 A.R. Ismail, A.H.A.A. Manap, D.A. Wahab, R. Zulkifli, N.K. Makhtar and K. Sopian

3.6. Functional Study on the Eliminated Components
3.6.1. Skirt Gusset Plate
The changes to a gusset plate is reducing the total number of it component. Originally, the total number
is 24 units, but after the implementation of DFMA, the number was decreasing to just 12. The
reduction is about 50% of the existing number. The function of gusset plate as shown in Figure 7 is as
a base of skirt compression ring units. The reduction of its number will not influence the functionality
and reliability of pressure vessel.

Figure 7: The location of gusset plate in the pressure vessel skirt

Gusset Plate


3.6.2. Anchor Bolt
The changes to anchor bolt is the reduction of it numbers from 12 units to just 6 units. The function of
anchor bolt is to retain the pressure vessel position after installation. The reduction of anchor bolt will
not affect the functionality of pressure vessel. Its because, the pressure vessel will not exposed to
external forces that can move its location after installation. But, an environment forces such as the
wind must be considered especially when deciding the number of anchor bolt.

3.6.3. Skirt Vent
The changes to skirt vent is the reduction of its quantity. The existing design consists of 3 parts of skirt
vent. Skirt vent function is to put the pressure vessel on his position during the operation. Pressure
vessel will be stand on skirt vent. The analogy of it function is as a kitchen stove. After the changes
have been made, its number reduces to 2 parts. This reduction can reduce the component and material
handling. Apart from that, it will reduce welding time and welding material.


4. Conclusion
The DFMA approach is potential to reduce the cost of pressure vessel development. These costs are
development time, handling cost, material cost and labor cost. The implementation of this concurrent
engineering element will reduce rework of the component, because the manufacturing process was
considered during early of pressure vessel development. The objective to implement DFMA on
pressure vessel was achieved.
With the implementation pf DFMA, it was improve manual assembly efficiency compare to the
existing design. This improvement was trigger by the reduction of component handling time and the
design was simplified. The reduction of pressure vessel component was improving the assembly
efficiency. The number of reduction is 19 components and the percentage of reduction is 14.96% from
the existing component. The operation time was reduced 12.79% from existing operation time. This
approach also can simplify the manufacturing and assembly process of pressure vessel.
Concurrent Engineering Approach in Designing Pressure Vessel 252
From the manual assembly efficiency, the existing efficiency is 0.02% and after the DFMA
approach implemented, this number was increasing to 0.023%. Even though this improvement is very
small, but it also can give impact on overall assembly time.


References
[1] Boothroyd G., Dewhurst P., Product Design for Assembly, Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc., 1991.
[2] Kalpakjian C. A & Petronis S., Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 4
th
Ed. Prentice-
Hall, 2001.
[3] Kuo T.C., Huang S.H. & Zhang H.C., Design for Manufacture and Design for X: Concepts,
Application, and Perspective, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.41, 2001, pp. 241-260.
[4] Starbek M. & Grum J ., Concurrent Engineering in Small Companies, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol.42, 2002, pp. 417-426.