Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/262253877
CITATION READS
1 2,475
7 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
This item belong to use liquid desiccant dehumidification technology with conventional air conditioning systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kamaruzzaman Bin Sopian on 17 May 2015.
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
company’s performance and return of investment.
Key-Words: - DFM, DFA, concurrent engineering, pressure vessel, product development cycle
The result from the existing and the modified 3.3 Model without DFMA Element
design will be compared. This will be conducted Model of pressure vessel that was developed at
through comparing the design efficiency and the AMB is the model without implementing design for
implementation of design for manufacture and manufacture and assembly element. Thus, the
assembly that was proposed by Boothroyd and number of components produced is without
Dewhurst. From the obtained data, the conclusion is considering the guideline of design for manufacture
carrying out to the existing and the new design of and assembly. Fig.1 is the pressure vessel model
pressure vessel after the implementation of DFM without design for manufacture and assembly
and assembly elements. element. There are 33 different components with
their respective quantity to produce a complete
pressure vessel.
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 1. Nozzle 3
according to the client order. They apply the sub- assembly 11. Nozzle 2
concurrent engineering method in order to complete sub- assembly
the project, where the department of designing and 2. Shell A
manufacturing are collaborate. If there any problem
regarding to design and manufacturing of pressure 10. Nozzle 4
vessel, it will be settle down immediately before it 3. Nozzle 1 sub- assembly
come to production stage. sub- assembly
3.5 Comparison within Model with and New manual assembly efficiency, Ema
without DFMA Element = 3 x Na / tma x 100%
= 3 x 35 / 471371.69 x 100%
3.5.1 Manual Assembly Efficiency = 0.022 %
The number of component to produce a complete
pressure vessel with DFMA approach and without From the implementation of design for
DFMA approach is reduce one component with the manufacture and assembly to the pressure vessel, we
reduction of the skirt vent number from 3 to 2 can get the manual assembly design efficiency is
component needed. But, a clear difference with the improve. Besides that, the reduction of component
component quantity. For the existing pressure can reduce the material and component handling,
vessel, component quantity is 127, and the new without affecting the functionality of the pressure
design just has 108 components. From Table 1 the vessel.
number of reduction is 19 components. The
percentage of quantity reduction from the existing 3.5.2 Design Changes
design is 14.96%. Even though the reduction of The existing design of pressure vessel was modified.
component is small, but it still can give impact on The changes is with considering the design for
assembly time, material cost and material handling manufacture approach such as easy to machine, less
cost finishing work, reduce rework, and all of that will
The component reduction that can be conducted tend to improve the manufacturability. The chamfer
is very limited. It’s because almost all the preparation process can make the assembly work of
component in the existing pressure vessel is very pressure vessel easier before it ready to be welded.
critical and if it’s eliminated, it will affect the Fig.2 shows the changes of existing pressure vessel
functionality of pressure vessel, apart from that, it component with and without chamfer preparation.
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, Ema Fig.2 The changes of Nozzle 4 Neck after the
= 3 x Na / tma x 100% insertion of DFMA
= 3 x 35 / 520393.42 x 100%
= 0.020 %
Table 2 Comparison between orientation time,
Table 1 The component that was eliminated after welding time, insertion time and total operation time
implementation of DFMA for the pressure vessel with and without DFMA
approach
Quantity
No Component
Existing Reduction
1 Skirt Gusset 24 12
Plate
2 Skirt Vent 3 1
3 Anchor Bolts 12 6
Total Reduction 19
of its number will not influence the functionality and components and the percentage of reduction is
reliability of pressure vessel. 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
Gusset Plate vessel.
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
Fig.7 The location of gusset plate in the pressure small, but it also can give impact on overall
vessel skirt assembly time.
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