DfX Project 1 Group 7 Madeleine Ruiz Høyer Charlie Wickham

1st part - DFA

Securing mechanisms
Consolidation Candidate Removal Candidate Consolidation Removal Candidate

Part Function Redesign/ Minimum Part

Consolidation? Criteria and other
comments

Bottom Housing Structure The collar’s function With a change in

will be integrated geometry, look into
into the bottom if the current
housing leading to a material is rigid
minor geometrical enough
redesign

Shock Mount Protection of bottom Eliminating this part Consider eliminating

mount. Absorbs from the current this if the motor
shocks and design will lead to gasket and motor
vibrations in the suboptimal bottom gasket are
vacuum cleaner performance. If the believed to dampen
enhancing the motor assembly is sufficiently after the
overall performance. integrated to the redesign of the part.
bottom housing,
then elimination can
be considered.

Wire Coil Ratcheting system Critical for the -

vacuum cleaner
functioning

Collar Grommet for power The part can be Integrate the

cord incorporated into the function into the rest
design for other of the assembly in
No specific function components the bottom housing.
for improved
vacuuming
performance, it’s
mostly for
aesthetics.

-Keeps the cord in

place when
assembling the
whole vacuum
cleaner
 - Makes sure that
the cord does not
get tangled during
this process

Motor Housing Structure for Motor Integrating bottom -

and Castor housing with motor
housing to simplify
motor assembly

Castor Table Allows Rotation of - -

castor

Castor Axel Snaps into Table Can be incorporated Function can be

and slides into if an appropriate served by features
wheel material is selected integrated into other
parts and minimise
the number of parts

Castor Bushing Medium between Can be removed if -

axle and tough axel material
wheel changed

Castor Hard material, to be Consolidated

worn on ground

Wire 2 Wires to Motor Extend motor cables No fundamental

with connectors and attach directly reason
to power cord

Snapping gasket Rubber Gasket - -

inserted on wires
before connectors
are added

Switch asb On/Off switch, Necessary

attaches to
connectors

Isolation Dampening foam Critical function

Motor bottom gasket Dampening and Enhances

aligning Rubber performances and
remains unchanged.

Motor Drives the final Provided from a Necessary

assembly, has supplier so it’s more component: The
cables complicated for motor is a
Dyson to change it. purchased assembly
and is excluded
Either way, the from the analysis.
 motor satisfies its
function so redesign
is not necessary.

Motor Gasket Dampening Rubber Enhances

that allows for performances and
ventilation remains unchanged.

Motor cover Offset motor intake Consolidation with

for donut shaped the rest of the
filter motor assembly
allows the
integration of the
bottom housing with
motor housing

Dustbin ASB Pressure Vessel, 2 - The dustbin is a

gasket connections separate assembly
and is excluded
from the analysis.

Improvements and changes for the optimization of the subset

After having analysed the list of candidates for elimination or potentially integration and
considered the «Minimum Part Criteria», we have decided to focus on optimising three
particular areas of the design.

The first major change will be redesigning the motor assembly as we believe that there must
be a simpler solution when assembling the vacuum cleaner. We have several possible ideas
in mind and our suggestions will be discussed in the following section.

The other two improvements are not as drastic, however they will lead to significant ease
during assembly. While attempting to assemble the vacuum cleaner we discovered that it
was relatively challenging to both fix the collar to the rest of the body and to assemble the
three components that make up the wheel assembly. Therefore, the collar will be eliminated
and the wheel assembly shall include fewer parts. As a consequence, when either
completely eliminating parts from the design or reducing the number of components, these
functions will have to be integrated in the design through different solutions.
Description of our suggested solutions

1. Redesign of motor assembly: integrating bottom housing with motor housing

The new name: Consolidated motor assembly

As a result the design is reduced from four major parts to two parts. In addition, we can also
eliminate the two shock mounts. At first we were concerned to remove these two mounts as
we would continue having just as much vibration as before. However, after further analysis it
was decided that this would not cause major problems as we still have both the motor gasket
and the motor bottom gasket that absorb the shocks. Besides, the motor is never in direct
contact with the sides of the assembly reducing the possible vibrations throughout the
vacuum cleaner.

With the motor housing already integrated into the bottom housing, the original assembly
direction for the motor is now obstructed. Also for that reason, the motor cover will have to
be consolidated. To allow for assembly of the motor, the current motor housing design will
be split into two parts along a circular cross section.
The first section will now hold the motor top gasket.
The second section will be consolidated into the top housing and includes the mounting pins
and alignment for the bottom motor gasket, the wheel holder mount, and the HEPA filter
housing, along with all functions of the top housing.
The seam itself is fitted with a gasket. The wire grommet sits in the seam rather than fitting in
a separate hole. At the bottom of the seam is a new clip, and the top is held indirectly by the
screws between the top and bottom housings. The screw holes are reoriented at an angle
such that all of the components, with the exception of the bottom motor gasket, which is
assembled first to the top housing, and the electrical cord, are assembled along the same
axis.

When changing the design the current wires from the motor can be extended. This replaces
the need for the additional 2 wires that pass through the motor housing.

The new assembly procedure goes as follows:

1) Place Motor Gasket in new Bottom Housing
2) Place Protective Foam pieces in Bottom Housing
3) Place Motor in Bottom Housing, leading Wires, grommeted, to cross the seam at its
designated spot.
4) Place Electrical Cord, ensure placement with new slit geometry (Discussed later).
5) Insert Power switch and connect cords between Motor and Electrical Cord
6) Place Bottom Motor Gasket on its alignment pins in the Top Housing
7) Align Hinge between Top and Bottom Housings, and Bottom Motor Gasket with
Motor
8) Fasten with screws
The bottom housing and the motor housing are made of two different materials. One is made
of polypropylene and the other is ABS. Consolidating the designs would mean that only one
material would be selected. PP is a more flexible material, allowing for the implementation
on live-in snaps and clips such as between the motor housing and the motor cover, however
with the consolidation of these parts, that material property is no longer needed. As a result,
the new part will be manufactured out from ABS as its will provide extra rigidity ensuring the
optimal tolerances, and allowing for a quality gloss finish.

2. Collar: Eliminate the part and integrate the function into the rest of the assembly to
ease mounting.

New name: The slit

The collar’s function is to keep the cord in place. Currently, there is an asymmetric disc that
completes this function and the collar is clipped into the rest of the whole body. Due to the
asymmetry of the disc it can be challenging to know exactly how to fit this in with the rest of
the design. Since the vacuum cleaner does not benefit greatly from this additional
component it is concluded that the collar is redundant. Instead, the function is integrated into
the rest of the assembly. In addition to simplifying the design, we would also reduce the
amount of required material and hence the overall material costs would be reduced. Due to
the more intuitive design assembly, costs would also be reduced as the operators would
spend less time on mounting.

The collar has two major functions and care must be taken when redesigning as we need to
make sure that both functions are present in the optimised design. The main function is to
keep the cord in place when assembling the whole vacuum cleaner and making sure that it
does not get tangled during this process. The collar is also present to ease the process
during vacuum cleaning and to improve the action when pulling and retracting the cord.

The solution will involve altering the design of the bottom housing by creating an
approximately right angled dent where you can insert the cord and lock it in place. A way to
visualise this is a shape resembling a cashew nut or a ripcurl. You would insert the cord in a
downward position and you would guide it horizontally into the end and it would rest in the
pit. At the moment there is quite a large gap on the side of the bottom housing that is
intended for sliding in the current collar. This gap corresponds to approximately a one franc
coin, while in reality the cord itself is half a five cent coin. In conclusion, the dent definitely
does not need to be that large. The added advantage of reducing the size is that there would
be less dust that would come into vacuum cleaner that could otherwise over time lead to
suboptimal performance.

Furthermore, in terms of assembly it is easy to make the mistake of threading the cord into
the collar in the wrong direction as the two sides look very similar but are yet significantly
different. Clearly, we would avoid risking extra mistakes during assembly when eliminating
this part.

Since this solution is integrated in the bottom housing, the material used will be ABS. As
mentioned above, this is because we require the added rigidity. In the case of the slit this is
particularly important because due to the asymmetrical design the bottom housing may
experience some form of flimsiness and weakening around this area. Furthermore, it will be
exposed to strong forces of tugging while vacuum cleaning and this could lead to breakage.

Below is a sketch of how this new solution will be and how it will work. A more accurate
representation can be found further down in the CAD models.

3. Wheel assembly: Integrating wheel and axle

New name: Pinned wheel

Currently, the assembly is composed of a wheel, a cover and an axle that fastens the wheel
to the wheel cover. The wheel cover is then attached to the rest of the body. While
attempting to put together the subassembly we experienced some difficulty in sliding the pin
into the wheel as it kept on sliding completely through the wheel and falling to the ground.

The conclusion is to integrate the axle into the wheel such that this sliding obstacle can be
avoided. Therefore, the wheel itself will become larger and will take on the same dimensions
as the original length of the axle. Since the only difference is the extension of the wheel it will
still be made of the same material as before and the fastening mechanism between the
original wheel subassembly and wheel cover will also remain identical to the original
solution. Because of this, the fastening mechanism between the wheel assembly and the
wheel cover is still the same. The result is going from three components and reducing it to
two. Therefore, assembling the wheel will be simpler and a swifter process leading to less
wasted time. From a company perspective it means that the efficiency increases and more
vacuum cleaners can be produced.
Final design including all the new modifications

New bottom housing

New top housing

4. ​Observed improvements:

After having redesigned and completed a new version of the Dyson vacuum cleaner we can
observe a couple improvements in the product summary:

Product Summary : DFA

Original design Improved redesign

Parts & unanalysed subs 31 24

Separate operations 7 7

Theoretical minimum items 18 14

DFA index 36.69 33.47

Process time (seconds) 317.27 270.03

Process cost (​$​) 6.13 5.22

Assembly tool or fixture costs (​$​) 0.00 0.00

Item cost (​$​) 87.03 83.02

The product summary table represents all the values for the whole Dyson vacuum cleaner
and it can be noticed that seven parts or subassemblies have been eliminated. Details for
specific components will be presented later in the report.

The most interesting improvement can be observed in the product summary is the drastic
improvement in process time. This has been reduced by 47 seconds, which corresponds to
a 14.8% reduction in time. Lowering process time leads to greater cost savings. In fact, the
process cost is brought down from ​$​6.13 to ​$​5.22. This corresponds to a 91 cent reduction
for each part. These costs come from labour costs, such as salary, production costs and
installation costs required for keeping the factory fully functional. As a result, Dyson can
either increase their profit margins or bring the vacuum cleaner’s selling price down such
that they become more competitive on the market.

Finally, a slight improvement in the Design for Assembly Index (​DFA-index)​ can be seen as
well. This suggests that it has become easier to assemble the vacuum cleaner. As a result,
the assembly process will be faster and the parts are less prone to being assembled
incorrectly. This will be particularly the case for components that are assembled by operators
where human error can be a significant factor.
5​. ​Comparison of the final costs of the 2 designs (manufacturing + assembly) with the
software’s graphs.

Old version Improved version

With fewer parts to assemble, the total assembly time drops from 317 to 270 seconds.

With fewer parts, tooling costs drop significantly. Bringing total production life cost from
130 M to 124M (~4%)
Assembly costs and Manufacturing costs both drop slightly.

We can see that Other candidates for elimination is reduced as well as Necessary Items.

The cost of Necessary Items drops slightly and Candidates for elimination are removed.
The assembly cost for Necessary Items drops, while other costs show no sign of change.
2nd part - DFM

Consolidated wheel: The pinned wheel

The new wheel assembly has integrated the function of the axle into the wheel itself. To
analyse the improvements a comparison can be made between the values for the two
separate parts and the integrated solution. The wheel continues to have the same diameter
(22mm) as before but with the elimination of the axle the wheel has taken the length of the
axle, increasing the length from 15mm to 30mm. The maximum thickness is 15mm. Clearly,
the overall weight will increase as a consequence of the added material.

The number of surface patches, hence the complexity, remain the same as the wheel has
simply been extended and has not undergone any geometrical changes.

Prior to the improvements, the wheel’s total cost was ​$0.38 and the axis was $0.34 ​making
the wheel assembly cost ​$​0.72. Now the total piece per part is $ ​ 0.53 and the total initial
tooling investment is $14 853 resulting in​ the total cost per part being brought down to ​$​0.54.
This is a 25% reduction in the cost. Finally, an added benefit of the design is that assembly
time can be reduced and this will also lead to cost savings during assembly.

It has been estimated that the number of surfaces equals 20 and that there are no number of
prints nor number of drawers.

Consolidated bottom housing

The redesigned bottom housing fulfills more functions
since several components have been eliminated. The new
housing includes the original bottom housing, half of the
motor housing and the whole motor cover. As a
consequence, the dimensions have increased from
361.28 cm​³​ to 380 cm​³​ and hence the overall weight has
increased too from 0.38kg to 0.5kg.

The maximum thickness equals 3mm and remains the same. The original thickness was
kept because there was no need to make it any flimsier or reinforcing it further as the current
quality was satisfactory.

The number of surface patches, a number related to complexity, has increased from 374 to
556. As it has been pointed out, the redesign has become more complex after the
elimination of various parts and the integration of their respective functions. This complexity
is used to determine the number of hours required to manufacture the die or mold. This is
reflected in the increased total initial tooling investment. It will take longer to create this
specific part, however this will still lead to an overall improvement for the final design since
the total number of required parts for the vacuum cleaner is reduced.
Due to both the increased complexity of the mold and the additional material used the total
cost per part has increased from ​$​1.85 to ​$​2.53. Nonetheless, this price is still lower than the
sum of the individual parts which is ​$​2.93 (​$​1.84+0.5*​$​1.25+​$​0.46). This calculation
assumes half of the cost of the motor housing since half has been incorporated in the top
housing and bottom housing.

The separation line follows the top edge of the housing as oriented in the above photo. The
side pulls of the original bottom housing are kept, and additional front and back pulls are
added to allow for the hollow nature of the newly consolidated motor cover and housing.

Consolidated top housing

The consolidated housing combines the top housing and
half of the motor housing. To be able to assemble the
consolidated bottom housing with the consolidated
bottom housing, the dimensions need to be the same.
Hence the consolidated top housing is 380 cm​³​ and
weighs 0.5kg. Since half of the motor housing has been
incorporated into the design, the new design is both
larger and heavier than before. Just like the
consolidated bottom housing, and for the same reasons previously mentioned, the maximum
thickness remains the same and is equal to 3mm. The chosen maximum thickness is based
on achieving the adequate structural integrity while also giving an appearance of high quality
and robustness.

The consolidated housing has 515 surfaces making it a more complex design than before.
Again, this number has increased but the total number of surfaces when combining the
surfaces from the original motor housing and the top housing is still greater. This level of
complexity is coherent with the complexity of the consolidated bottom housing. The latter
has increased to 556 but this is because it combines the functions from three parts rather
two.

The separation line follows the profile ridge such that the two halves of the mold separate
vertically as oriented in the above photo. Due to the added complexity of the consolidation,
a single back pull must be added to ensure the correct contact surface where the former
motor housing components meet, and also ensure the air passage from the motor cylinder to
the HEPA filter drawer.

Finally, a comparison of the costs can be made. The new part has a total piece part cost
equal to ​$​2.41 and a total initial tooling investment equal to ​$​98 267, giving a total cost per
part of ​$​2.51.

To make an accurate comparison the costs from the original top housing are combined with
half of the motor housing. The top housing had a total cost of ​$​3.07 and the motor housing
was ​$​1.81 (so in this case half would be ​$​0.905), resulting to a final cost of ​$​3.98 which is a
36.9% reduction. Clearly, this drastic reduction may appear unrealistic. However, the new
design for the top housing is based on information provided for the bottom housing. This
occurred because no specific information was given for the top housing. Therefore, if the top
housing is reanalysed in the future, and a more accurate picture of the improvements are
required, a specific analysis should be done for surface patches and the number of prints
and draws .

6. The comparison and the arguments for the manufacturing costs between the original parts
and modified ones using the graphs «cost vs life volume» and «bar cost breakdown».

Cost vs life volume

The graph below illustrates how the cost per component changes as a result of varying life
volumes. Until a certain threshold, the economy of scales leads to a total cost reduction. This
threshold occurs in the vicinity of 1 500 000 components. Passed this point the costs
stabilise and they appear to be tending towards this specific value. Therefore, for the
purposes of the following analysis the life volume is taken to being equal to 1 500 000 units.

From the graph we can see the difference is costs between, for example, the original bottom
housing and the consolidated bottom housing. The consolidated bottom housing appears to
being more expensive, $3.26 versus $2.55. At first it seem counterintuitive that the redesign
would be pricier, however this is caused due to a simple explanation. When reducing the
number of parts in the assembly, the remaining components need to fulfill more functions
and will most probably also include more material than previously, and this increases the
prices. But since several components have been eliminated the overall costs will still be
lower compared to the original design. The costs arising from the process costs may also
decrease since less parts are assembled which means that the assembly time is sped up
too.
Bar cost breakdown: Original parts versus New parts

Columns 1 to 3 correspond to the original design whereas columns 4 through to 6 illustrate

the improved designs.

Three changes have occurred: consolidation of the wheel, consolidation and redesign of the
bottom housing and the consolidation of the top housing.

With a life volume of 1500000, the new wheel costs $0.54 and the main cost contributor
arises from the process costs.

Clearly, the greatest change in the vacuum cleaner’s design comes from the consolidation of
both the bottom and the top housing. This leads to higher material costs than before. Both
have similar characteristics. Firstly, both parts have nearly equal total costs, approximately
$2.50 each when the life volume is 1500000. Secondly, the cost breakdown for each part
appears to being equivalent when comparing the five cost contributors: tooling, rejects,
process, setup and material. There are in particular three contributors that are predominant.
The first is material costs and it equals $1.6, or 64% of the total costs. The following cost
corresponds to process cost and this is $ 0.8, or 32%. Finally tooling costs are $0.1, or 4%.

The number of parts in the vacuum cleaner has been reduced by a considerable amount. As
a consequence, with fewer parts to handle and to assemble the assembly process of the
entire Dyson vacuum cleaner is swifter and cheaper.