Design for assembly (DFA)

Design for assembly (DFA) is a process by which products are designed with ease
of assembly in mind. If a product contains fewer parts it will take less time to assemble, thereby
reducing assembly costs. In addition, if the parts are provided with features which make it easier
to grasp, move, orient and insert them, this will also reduce assembly time and assembly costs.
The reduction of the number of parts in an assembly has the added benefit of generally reducing
the total cost of parts in the assembly. This is usually where the major cost benefits of the
application of design for assembly occur.

Contents

 1Approaches
 2Implementation
 3Notable examples
 4See also
 5Notes
 6Further information
 7External links

Approaches[edit]
Design for assembly can take different forms. In the 1960s and 1970s various rules and
recommendations were proposed in order to help designers consider assembly problems during
the design process. Many of these rules and recommendations were presented together with
practical examples showing how assembly difficulty could be improved. However, it was not until
the 1970s that numerical evaluation methods were developed to allow design for assembly
studies to be carried out on existing and proposed designs.
The first evaluation method was developed at Hitachi and was called the Assembly Evaluation
Method (AEM).[1] This method is based on the principle of "one motion for one part." For more
complicated motions, a point-loss standard is used and the ease of assembly of the whole
product is evaluated by subtracting points lost. The method was originally developed in order to
rate assemblies for ease of automatic assembly.
Starting in 1977, Geoff Boothroyd, supported by an NSF grant at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, developed the Design for Assembly method (DFA), which could be used to estimate
the time for manual assembly of a product and the cost of assembling the product on an
automatic assembly machine.[2] Recognizing that the most important factor in reducing assembly
costs was the minimization of the number of separate parts in a product, he introduced three
simple criteria which could be used to determine theoretically whether any of the parts in the
product could be eliminated or combined with other parts. These criteria, together with tables
relating assembly time to various design factors influencing part grasping, orientation and
insertion, could be used to estimate total assembly time and to rate the quality of a product
design from an assembly viewpoint. For automatic assembly, tables of factors could be used to
estimate the cost of automatic feeding and orienting and automatic insertion of the parts on an
assembly machine.
In the 1980s and 1990s, variations of the AEM and DFA methods have been proposed, namely:
the GE Hitachi method which is based on the AEM and DFA; the Lucas method,
the Westinghouse method and several others which were based on the original DFA method. All
methods are now referred to as design for assembly methods.

Implementation[edit]
 Most products are assembled manually and the original DFA method for manual assembly is the
most widely used method and has had the greatest industrial impact throughout the world.
The DFA method, like the AEM method, was originally made available in the form of a handbook
where the user would enter data on worksheets to obtain a rating for the ease of assembly of a
product. Starting in 1981, Geoffrey Boothroyd and Peter Dewhurst developed a computerized
version of the DFA method which allowed its implementation in a broad range of companies. For
this work they were presented with many awards including the National Medal of Technology.
There are many published examples of significant savings obtained through the application of
DFA. For example, in 1981, Sidney Liebson, manager of manufacturing engineering for Xerox,
estimated that his company would save hundreds of millions of dollars through the application of
DFA.[3] In 1988, Ford Motor Company credited the software with overall savings approaching $1
billion.[4] In many companies DFA is a corporate requirement and DFA software is continually
being adopted by companies attempting to obtain greater control over their manufacturing costs.
There are many key principles in design for assembly[5][6][7][8][9].

Notable examples[edit]
Two notable examples of good design for assembly are the Sony Walkman and
the Swatch watch. Both were designed for fully automated assembly. The Walkman line was
designed for "vertical assembly", in which parts are inserted in straight-down moves only. The
Sony SMART assembly system, used to assemble Walkman-type products, is a roboticsystem
for assembling small devices designed for vertical assembly.
The IBM Proprinter used design for automated assembly (DFAA) rules. These DFAA rules
help design a product that can be assembled automatically by robots, but they are useful even
with products assembled by manual assembly.[10]

Design for manufacturability (also sometimes known as design for manufacturing or DFM) is
the general engineering practice of designing products in such a way that they are easy to
manufacture. The concept exists in almost all engineering disciplines, but the implementation
differs widely depending on the manufacturing technology. DFM describes the process of
designing or engineering a product in order to facilitate the manufacturing process in order to
reduce its manufacturing costs. DFM will allow potential problems to be fixed in the design phase
which is the least expensive place to address them. Other factors may affect the
manufacturability such as the type of raw material, the form of the raw material, dimensional
tolerances, and secondary processing such as finishing.
Depending on various types of manufacturing processes there are set guidelines for DFM
practices. These DFM guidelines help to precisely define various tolerances, rules and common
manufacturing checks related to DFM.
While DFM is applicable to the design process, a similar concept called DFSS (Design for Six
Sigma) is also practiced in many organizations.

Contents

 1For printed circuit boards (PCB)

 2For integrated circuits (IC)
o 2.1Background
o 2.2Taxonomy of yield loss mechanisms
o 2.3Techniques
 3For CNC machining
o 3.1Objective
o 3.2Set-Up Time of Operations (Flip of the Part)
 o 3.3Material type
o 3.4Material form
o 3.5Tolerances
o 3.6Design and shape
 4Design for Inspection
 5Design for additive manufacturing
 6See also
 7References
 8Sources
 9External links

For printed circuit boards (PCB)[edit]

In the PCB design process, DFM leads to a set of design guidelines that attempt to ensure
manufacturability. By doing so, probable production problems may be addressed during the
design stage.
Ideally, DFM guidelines take into account the processes and capabilities of the manufacturing
industry. Therefore, DFM is constantly evolving.
As manufacturing companies evolve and automate more and more stages of the processes,
these processes tend to become cheaper. DFM is usually used to reduce these costs.[1]For
example, if a process may be done automatically by machines (i.e. SMT component placement
and soldering), such process is likely to be cheaper than doing so by hand.

For integrated circuits (IC)[edit]

Achieving high-yielding designs, in the state of the art VLSI technology has become an extremely
challenging task due to the miniaturization as well as the complexity of leading-edge products.
Here, the DFM methodology includes a set of techniques to modify the design of integrated
circuits (IC) in order to make them more manufacturable, i.e., to improve their functional yield,
parametric yield, or their reliability.

Background[edit]
Traditionally, in the prenanometer era, DFM consisted of a set of different methodologies trying
to enforce some soft (recommended) design rules regarding the shapes and polygons of
the physical layout of an integrated circuit. These DFM methodologies worked primarily at the full
chip level. Additionally, worst-case simulations at different levels of abstraction were applied to
minimize the impact of process variations on performance and other types of parametric yield
loss. All these different types of worst-case simulations were essentially based on a base set of
worst-case (or corner) SPICE device parameter files that were intended to represent the
variability of transistor performance over the full range of variation in a fabrication process.

Taxonomy of yield loss mechanisms[edit]

The most important yield loss models (YLMs) for VLSI ICs can be classified into several
categories based on their nature.

 Functional yield loss is still the dominant factor and is caused by mechanisms such as
misprocessing (e.g., equipment-related problems), systematic effects such as printability or
planarization problems, and purely random defects.
 High-performance products may exhibit parametric design marginalities caused by either
process fluctuations or environmental factors (such as supply voltage or temperature).
 The test-related yield losses, which are caused by incorrect testing, can also play a
significant role.
Techniques[edit]
After understanding the causes of yield loss, the next step is to make the design as resistant as
possible. Techniques used for this include:

 Substituting higher yield cells where permitted by timing, power, and routability.
 Changing the spacing and width of the interconnect wires, where possible
 Optimizing the amount of redundancy in internal memories.
 Substituting fault tolerant (redundant) vias in a design where possible
All of these require a detailed understanding of yield loss mechanisms, since these changes
trade off against one another. For example, introducing redundant vias will reduce the chance of
via problems, but increase the chance of unwanted shorts. Whether this is good idea, therefore,
depends on the details of the yield loss models and the characteristics of the particular design.

For CNC machining[edit]

Objective[edit]
The objective is to design for lower cost. The cost is driven by time, so the design must minimize
the time required to not just machine (remove the material), but also the set-up time of the CNC
machine, NC programming, fixturing and many other activities that are dependent on the
complexity and size of the part.

Set-Up Time of Operations (Flip of the Part)[edit]

Unless a 4th- &/or 5th-Axis is used, a CNC can only approach the part from a single direction.
One side must be machined at a time (called an operation or Op). Then the part must be flipped
from side to side to machine all of the features. The geometry of the features dictates whether
the part must be flipped over or not. The more Ops (flip of the part), the more expensive the part
because it incurs substantial "Set-up" and "Load/Unload" time.
Each operation (flip of the part) has set-up time, machine time, time to load/unload tools, time to
load/unload parts, and time to create the NC program for each operation. If a part has only 1
operation, then parts only have to be loaded/unloaded once. If it has 5 operations, then
load/unload time is significant.
The low hanging fruit is minimizing the number of operations (flip of the part) to create significant
savings. For example, it may take only 2 minutes to machine the face of a small part, but it will
take an hour to set the machine up to do it. Or, if there are 5 operations at 1.5 hours each, but
only 30 minutes total machine time, then 7.5 hours is charged for just 30 minutes of machining.[2]
Lastly, the volume (number of parts to machine) plays a critical role in amortizing the set-up time,
programming time and other activities into the cost of the part. In the example above, the part in
quantities of 10 could cost 7–10X the cost in quantities of 100.
Typically, the law of diminishing returns presents itself at volumes of 100–300 because set-up
times, custom tooling and fixturing can be amortized into the noise.[3]

Material type[edit]
The most easily machined types of metals include aluminum, brass, and softer metals. As
materials get harder, denser and stronger, such as steel, stainless steel, titanium, and exotic
alloys, they become much harder to machine and take much longer, thus being less
manufacturable. Most types of plastic are easy to machine, although additions of fiberglass or
carbon fiber can reduce the machinability. Plastics that are particularly soft and gummy may
have machinability problems of their own.
Material form[edit]
Metals come in all forms. In the case of aluminum as an example, bar stock and plate are the two
most common forms from which machined parts are made. The size and shape of the
component may determine which form of material must be used. It is common for engineering
drawings to specify one form over the other. Bar stock is generally close to 1/2 of the cost of
plate on a per pound basis. So although the material form isn't directly related to the geometry of
the component, cost can be removed at the design stage by specifying the least expensive form
of the material.

Tolerances[edit]
A significant contributing factor to the cost of a machined component is the geometric tolerance
to which the features must be made. The tighter the tolerance required, the more expensive the
component will be to machine. When designing, specify the loosest tolerance that will serve the
function of the component. Tolerances must be specified on a feature by feature basis. There are
creative ways to engineer components with lower tolerances that still perform as well as ones
with higher tolerances.

Design and shape[edit]

As machining is a subtractive process, the time to remove the material is a major factor in
determining the machining cost. The volume and shape of the material to be removed as well as
how fast the tools can be fed will determine the machining time. When using milling cutters, the
strength and stiffness of the tool which is determined in part by the length to diameter ratio of the
tool will play the largest role in determining that speed. The shorter the tool is relative to its
diameter the faster it can be fed through the material. A ratio of 3:1 (L:D) or under is optimum.[4] If
that ratio cannot be achieved, a solution like this depicted here can be used.[5] For holes, the
length to diameter ratio of the tools are less critical, but should still be kept under 10:1.
There are many other types of features which are more or less expensive to machine. Generally
chamfers cost less to machine than radii on outer horizontal edges. 3D interpolation is used to
create radii on edges that are not on the same plane which incur 10X the cost.[6] Undercuts are
more expensive to machine. Features that require smaller tools, regardless of L:D ratio, are more
expensive.

Design for Inspection[edit]

The concept of Design for Inspection (DFI) should complement and work in collaboration
with Design for Manufacturability (DFM) and Design for Assembly (DFA) to reduce product
manufacturing cost and increase manufacturing practicality. There are instances when this
method could cause calendar delays since it consumes many hours of additional work such as
the case of the need to prepare for design review presentations and documents. To address this,
it is proposed that instead of periodic inspections, organizations could adopt the framework of
empowerment, particularly at the stage of product development, wherein the senior management
empowers the project leader to evaluate manufacturing processes and outcomes against
expectations on product performance, cost, quality and development time.[7] Experts, however,
cite the necessity for the DFI because it is crucial in performance and quality control, determining
key factors such as product reliability, safety, and life cycles.[8] For an aerospace components
company, where inspection is mandatory, there is the requirement for the suitability of the
manufacturing process for inspection. Here, a mechanism is adopted such as an inspectability
index, which evaluates design proposals.[9] Another example of DFI is the concept of cumulative
count of conforming chart (CCC chart), which is applied in inspection and maintenance planning
for systems where different types of inspection and maintenance are available.[10]

Design for additive manufacturing[edit]

Main article: Design for additive manufacturing
Additive manufacturing broadens the ability of a designer to optimize the design of a product or
part (to save materials for example). Designs tailored for additive manufacturing are sometimes
very different from designs tailored for machining or forming manufacturing operations.
In addition, due to some size constraints of additive manufacturing machines, sometimes the
related bigger designs are split into smaller sections with self-assembly features or fasteners
locators.

Design for recycling targets the same features as design for

disassembly. It addresses more specifically the selection of
materials and sets their recycling rate. It further points out the need
to formrecycled materials into new products. Particularly, fewer
dissimilar materials in assemblies, or in subassemblies of products
designed for disassembly, will improve the possibilities of material
life extension. The German association “Verein Deutscher
Ingenieure” (VDI) has developed design for recycling guidelines,
classified into three distinct stages of recycling: recycling during
production, during use, and after use (Dowie and Simon, 1995; see
also the standard VDI2243, VDI, 1993). The “all-PP” (PP,
polypropylene) dashboard promoted by automotive tier-suppliers is
an innovative concept described by Braunmiller et al. (1999) to
develop a recycling friendly complex composite product. The
structure of the instrument panel comprises a PP foam, sandwiched
in between a glass-mat reinforced PP frame (GMT) and a TPO-
PP/EPDM decorative foil. This close-to monomaterial solution
contrasts with the classical dashboard structure, including a metallic
or GMT frame, a polyurethane foam, and an ABS/PVC or similar
vinyl foil. Designed for recycling, the PP-based structure does not
require costly separation of the three main layers. Great efforts are
nevertheless needed to develop efficient closed-loop recycling of
this class of materials, as will be dealt with in Section 2.33.4.