See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316455710

Design for Manufacturing and Assembly of Washing Machine

Article · February 2013

CITATIONS READS

3 15,686

1 author:

Gautam Yadav
Shri Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology and Science
15 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gautam Yadav on 25 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly of
Washing Machine
Amit Yadav1, Anuj Garg2, Gautam Yadav3, Rahul Chadhokar4, Swapnil Bhurat5
1, 3, 4
M. E. Student, S.G.S.I.T.S. Indore, Mechanical Engineer (Projects) Mathura Refinery, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd, 5Assistant Professor, CDGI Indore
1
am_ityadav@yahoo.com, 2anuj316@gmail.com, 3gautam_yadav888@yahoo.com,
4
rahulchadhokar@gmail.com, 5swapnilsbhurat@gmail.com
Abstract— The development of new methods for design for
manufacture and assembly, the need to incorporate quality
during the design phase and the recent focus on transparent
design work and communication have all created a need for a
more structured approach to design. The approach has been
addressed by the software DFMA. DFMA is a structured method
of analyzing a product and reducing the number of parts,
improving their manufacturability and ease of assembly, in order
to reduce product cost and manufacturing time. A washing
machine was modeled using the software SOLIDWORKS and then
a DFMA analysis was performed on it to compute the cost of
manufacturing and assembly taking into consideration the most
optimal processes. The final cost of the washing machine has
been found out to be Rs 16,530/‐. The suggestions for redesign
have been proposed along with the scope of future work.
Index Terms—Cabinet assembly, Cad Modeling, Concurrent
costing, DFA, DFM, Redesigning, Suspension assembly, Top cover
assembly
I. INTRODUCTION
The engineers’ main task is to apply his scientific
knowledge to the solution of technical problems and then
to optimise that solution within the given material,
technological and economic constraints. To this task the
designer makes a highly important contribution, his ideas,
knowledge and abilities have a fundamental effect on the
nature of manufactured products, their customer appeal
and their overall profitability. But according to Lance N.
Green & Elivio Bonollo, the development of new methods
for design for manufacture and assembly, the need to
incorporate quality during the design phase and the recent
focus on transparent design work and communication have
all created a need for a more structured approach to
design. However the number of design methods and tools
available to the designer in the process of design is
numerous and for many practicing designers it has become
unclear when and how to apply these. [4]
The solutions to these problems are given by DFMA.
DFM&A is a powerful tool in the design team’s repertoire.
DFMA is designed to give engineers a structured way to
evaluate ease assembly and the overall manufacturability
of a product. The DFMA process is composed of two major
components: design for assembly (DFA) and design for
manufacturing (DFM). Design for assembly requires the
user to assess whether each is necessary, and to consider
the time and cost of assembling the product. Design for
manufacture breaks the parts fabrication process down
into its simplest steps, such as the type of equipment used
to produce the part and fabrication cycle times to produce
the part, and calculates a cost for each functional step in
the process. It integrates information about manufacturing
1
processes allowing users to estimate manufacturing costs
and make informed decisions about materials. Because this
approach requires engineers to step back and think about
the basic design concept solution, it tends to encourage
focused brainstorming and collaboration among project
teams and with suppliers. [5]
According to G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst & W. Knight, if
used effectively, DFMA can yield tremendous results, the
least of which is that the product will be easy to assemble.
The most beneficial outcome of DFM&A is to reduce part
count in the assembly, which in turn will simplify the
assembly process, lower manufacturing overhead, reduce
assembly time, and increase quality by lessening the
opportunities for introducing a defect. Labour content is
also reduced because with fewer parts, there are fewer and
simpler assembly operations. Another benefit to reducing
parts count is a shortened product development cycle
because there are fewer parts to design. The philosophy
encourages simplifying the design and using standard,
off‐the‐shelf parts whenever possible. In using DFM&A,
renewed emphasis is placed on designing each part so it
can be economically produced by the selected
manufacturing process. [6]
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. DFMA versus Traditional Design
In the past, design and manufacture tasks have been
performed independently. In this scenario, the designer
designs a product and ‘‘tosses it over the wall’’ to the
manufacturer to produce. There is no interaction between
the designer and manufacturer and often what results is a
design that is difficult to produce using automation.
Traditionally a productive process has some basic steps.
First, the identification of customer needs and desires as a
input, last a output represented by product or service to
match as most as possible the needing expressed in the
input and between them a productive transformation
process fed by information, resources (as materials and
machinery) and a demand caused by a possible market as
shown in Fig.2.1. However, this kind of simple
interpretation seems do not consider the information flows
from the process to the input and output – information
which can show some limitations or can express the
necessity of change or improvement. Also, most of the
known players do stepped investments and some products
are just upgrades of their predecessors, not completely
new developments. Finally, it is necessary to maintain (at
east for some years) an
 Fig. 2.1 Model of a generic process or productive system

assembly line, method and machinery to ensure spare parts

to the working population of products. Those apparent
undesirable conditions may present a very good
opportunity to rethink the development process along with
the experience obtained from previous projects and the
knowledge of where are the weakest points can reveal a
path to start a DFMA.
Organizations learn in order to improve their adaptability
and efficiency during times of change. This idea can effort
the use of the experience of previously done mistakes to
speed up the development process and also accomplish
new technologies and philosophies to ensure that activities
which now must be faster and give more precise results can
really reach this target. In this way, DFMA offers a
substantial advantage that they permit to run activities
simultaneously in a parallel form, in opposition of the tasks
sequencing. [8]
B. DFMA Process
DFMA process (Fig. 2.2) requires the following steps:
1. Analyze the overall product or assembly for the number
of parts, functionality of each part, ease or speed of part
production, and ease or speed of assembly.
2. Redesign at the product or assembly levels i.e. simplify
the overall design, minimize the number of parts and
ensure overall ease of assembly (sequence, interference).
The designer checks the assembly, part by part, and
evaluates whether each can be eliminated, combined with
another part, or the function can be performed in another
way. To determine the theoretical minimum number of
parts, the designer can consider whether the part moves
relative to other parts, if it must be made of a different
material, or if disassembly is necessary.
Fig. 2.2 DFMA Process Flowchart
Assess the novel part and assembly designs and compare
their manufacturability and assembly performance with the
original product. Look for further improvement
opportunities. [9]
C. DFM Concurrent Costing
DFM Concurrent Costing contains process and material
information and calculations for quickly estimating the cost
of manufacturing and finishing a part. It is designed to
isolate the principal cost components, to allow you to
investigate design changes to reduce costs and to compare
alternative processes and materials for the part. [10]
D. DFA
In DFA we can develop product assembly times from
reliable, proprietary time standards. Along with detailed
cost information based on assembly time, we can include
item cost data. Redesign features in the software
encourage systematic design review, leading to reductions
in overall product cost. [11]
III. DFMA ANALYSIS OF THE TOP ASSEMBLY
3.1 Overview of the Top Assembly
The top assembly (Fig.3.1) of the washing machine contains
the following parts:

3. Redesign at the component level i.e. standardize

components, simplify component designs, select materials
and shapes which are straightforward to manufacture and
ensure component ease of assembly (compliance,
adjustments). Common parts result in lower inventories,
reduced costs and higher quality. Operator learning is
simplified and there is a greater opportunity for
automation as the result of higher production volumes and
operation standardization. Unnecessary part features
should be avoided because they involve extra processing
effort and/or more complex tooling.
Fig. 3.1 Solid Works Model of Top Assembly
1. Top cover:‐
The top cover (Fig. 3.2) forms the base for the Top
Assembly. It contains the PCB and the user interface
devices required for operating the washing machine. The d
is ABS plastic.

2
 Fig. 3.2 Top Cover Fig. 3.3 Lid Fig. 3.4 Glass Support

2. Lid:‐
The lid (Fig. 3.3) serves as an entry for the clothes to the
washing machine tub. This is made by blow moulding PCB
and the interface devices are taken from the electronics &
electrical companies on orders. This is made by injection Fig. 3.8 Cost Breakdown of the Top Assembly
moulding process and the material use process and the
material used is ABS plastic. It is fitted into the top cover IV. DFMA ANALYSIS OF THE CABINET ASSEMBLY
with the help of a spring lock. 4.1 Overview of the Cabinet Assembly
The Cabinet Assembly (Fig.4.1) forms the skeleton of the
3. Glass and Glass Support:‐ washing machine on which all the other parts rest. It
The glass is fixed on the lid with the help of a glass support. consists of the following parts:
The glass support (Fig. 3.4) is made by the thermoforming
process and the material used is Mild‐Steel.

4. Detergent Case:‐
It consists o three parts. The detergent feeder (Fig. 3.5) is
used to feed the detergent where it is taken automatically
by the washing machine. It is a movable part joined to the
detergent holder (Fig. 3.6) by the use of a connector (Fig.
3.7). All the parts are made by injection moulding and the
material used is ABS plastic.

Fig. 4.1 Solid Works Model of Cabinet Assembly

Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7
3.2 DFM of the Parts 1. Cabinet:‐
After the CAD models of all the parts were made, they were The cabinet (Fig. 4.2) is the main structure of the cabinet
imported into the Concurrent Costing module by use of assembly. It is made by the bending of sheet metal process
Solid View software. The DFM analysis* was performed on and the material used is Aluminium 1100.
the parts by taking into consideration their most optimal &
economic processes. The following results have been 2. Gussets:‐
obtained:‐ The gussets are attached at the corners of the cabinet top
Table 3.1 Results for Top Cover by means of riveting. They support the suspension
Table 3.2 Results for Lid assembly through the suspension springs. There are of two
Table 3.3 Results for Glass and Glass Support types: front gussets (Fig. 4.3) and back gussets (Fig. 4.4).
Table 3.4 Results for Detergent Case (A, B, C) The only difference is that the back gussets have the corner
faces at an angle 90° while for the front they are at 103°.
3.3 DFA of the Parts
After the DFM has been performed, the results are
imported in the DFA module* and assembly is done. The
directions for fixing the parts are given and the time taken
for assembly is noted. The assembly cost is also calculated
Fig. 4.3 Front Gusset
and any other standard procedures like painting, greasing,
visual inspection are mentioned. As the assembly unit
structure changes from company to company, all the parts
have been assumed to be within reach. Once the assembly
unit structure is known, the time & cost for moving the
parts can be added correspondingly. The results obtained Fig. 4.4 Back Gusset
from the DFA of the parts are given in table 3.5 & fig. 3.8 Fig. 4.2 Cabinet

3
3. Castor Wheels:‐ V. DFMA ANALYSIS OF THE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLY
They make the machine move and hence a lot depend on 5.1 Overview of the Suspension Assembly
their strength. They are made of three parts. The wheel The Suspension Assembly (Fig. 5.1) contains the purpose
base (Fig. 4.5) is attached to the cabinet by screws. The and the operating parts of the washing machine. It contains
wheel rod (Fig. 4.6) and the wheel (Fig. 4.7) are fitted by the following parts:
just pushing them into the wheel base through self locking
design. All accept the rod, are made by the injection
molding process and the material used is the ABS plastic.
The rod is cut/machined from the stock.

Fig. 4.5 Wheel Base Fig. 4.6 Wheel Rod Fig. 4.7 Wheel

4.2 DFM of the Parts

After the CAD models of all the parts were made, they were
imported into the Concurrent Costing module by use of
Solid View software. The DFM analysis** was performed on
the parts by taking into consideration their most optimal &
economic processes. The following results have been Fig. 5.1 Solid Works Model of the Suspension Assembly
obtained:‐
Table 4.1 Results for Cabinet 1. Tub:‐
Table 4.2 Results for Back Gusset The tub (Fig. 5.2) contains the basket (Fig. 5.3) which holds
Table 4.3 Results for Front Gusset a steel sheet (Fig. 5.4). The basket and the steel sheet
contain alternate holes to give way to the drained water.
4.3 DFA of the Parts Clothes are fed into the basket for wash.
After the DFM has been performed, the results are
imported in the DFA module** and assembly is done. The 2. Basket Cover:‐
directions for fixing the parts are given and the time taken The basket cover (Fig. 5.5) or balancing ring is fixed over the
for assembly is noted. The assembly cost is also calculated basket. The balance ring is a large weight that stabilizes the
and any other standard procedures like painting, greasing, washer. Its outside structure is plastic, with a ring of metal
visual inspection are mentioned. As the assembly unit melted into the plastic for strength. Cement is added and
structure changes from company to company, all the parts balanced precisely.
have been assumed to be within reach. Once the assembly
unit structure is known, the time & cost for moving the
parts can be added correspondingly. The results obtained
from the DFA of the parts are given in table 4.4 & fig. 4.8.

Fig. 5.2 Tub Fig. 5.3 Basket Fig. 5.4 Steel Sheet Fig. 5.5 Basket
Cover

3. Agitator Assembly:‐
The agitator (Fig. 5.6), the auger and the cap form the basic
components of the agitator assembly (Fig. 5.7). The agitator
is connected to the drive/transmission assembly which
makes the auger rotate and hence washes the clothes.

Fig. 5.6 Fig.5.7 Fig.5.8

Fig. 4.8 Cost Breakdown of the Cabinet Assembly

Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11

4
 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13 Fig. 5.14

5.2 DFM of the Parts

After the CAD models of all the parts were made, they were
imported into the Concurrent Costing module by use of
Solid View software. The DFM analysis*** was performed
on the parts by taking into consideration their most optimal
& economic processes. The following results have been
obtained:‐
Table 5.1 Results for Tub
Table 5.2 Results for Basket
Table 5.3 Results for Steel Sheet
Table 5.4 Results for Basket Support Fig. 6.1 Washing Machine Assembly
Table 5.5 Results for Tub Support
Table 5.6 Results for Pulley Plate
The cost analysis table is given below:‐
Table 5.7 Results for Support Bar
Table 5.8 Results for Suspension Support
Table 6.1 Cost Analysis of the Washing Machine
5.3 DFA of the Parts
After the DFM has been performed, the results are S. No. Part/Assembly Cost in Rs.
imported in the DFA module*** and assembly is done. The 1 Top Cover Assembly 1501
directions for fixing the parts are given and the time taken
2 Cabinet Assembly 3298
for assembly is noted. The assembly cost is also calculated
and any other standard procedures like painting, greasing, 3 Suspension Assembly 7031
visual inspection are mentioned. As the assembly unit 4 Motor 1000
structure changes from company to company, all the parts 5 Front Panel 200
have been assumed to be within reach. Once the assembly
unit structure is known, the time & cost for moving the 6 Printed Circuit Board 2000
parts can be added correspondingly. The results obtained 7 Ball Bearings (2) 600
from the DFA of the parts are given in table 5.9 & fig. 5.15. 8 Drive assembly 900
Total Rs. 16530/‐

The final cost has been found out to be Rs. 16,530/‐.

VII. REDESIGN SUGGESTIONS

1) Redesign Suggestion for the Top‐Assembly

Table 7.1 Redesign Suggestion for the Top‐Assembly

Fig. 5.15 Cost Break down of Suspension assembly

VI. ASSEMBLY COST ANALYSIS FINAL

2) Redesign Suggestion for the Cabinet‐Assembly
After the three sub‐assemblies of the washing machine (Fig.
6.1) were assembled, they were assembled to make the
final product. The cost of the washing has been calculated
by adding the three sub‐assembly costs and the cost of the
electronic parts like motor drive assembly etc.

5
Table 7.2(a) Redesign Suggestion for the Cabinet‐Assembly
Table 7.2(b) Redesign Suggestion for the
Cabinet‐Assembly
3) Redesign Suggestion for the Suspension‐Assembly
Table 7.3(a) Redesign Suggestion for the
Suspension‐Assembly
Table 7.3(b) Redesign Suggestion for the
Suspension‐Assembly
Table 7.3(c) Redesign Suggestion for the
Suspension‐Assembly
6
Reduce the number of items in the assembly by combining
with others or eliminating the following parts or
subassemblies. Combining an item with another may
eliminate further items such as fasteners or operations,
resulting in much larger time reductions.
7.4 Scope of future work
Washing Machine is becoming an important household
good. Further works need to be done on the product to
make it available to a larger population. Some of the things
have been listed below:‐
• Bending the Cabinet at some angle at the back so that
one type of gussets can be used for both front and
back end.
• Making castor wheels to rotate in all directions. The
current design contains wheels with two dimensional
only.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Sérgioa, J. Duartea, C. Relvasa, R. Moreiraa, R. Freireb, J. L.
Ferreirab and J. A. Simões, “The design of a washing machine
prototype” (2003), Materials & Design Volume 24, Issue 5,
August 2003, Pages 331‐338.
[2] “How Washing Machine is made‐Background, Raw Materials,
The Manufacturing
Process”, http://www.madehow.com/Volume‐1/Washing‐M
achine.html.
[3] Alan Lashbrook and Mark Curtis, “Boothroyd Dewhurst
Design for Manufacture & Assembly”, IEEE Seminar on Team
Based Techniques for Design to Manufacture, Loughborough,
April 1992, Pages 4/1 ‐ 4/9.
[4] Lance N. Green and Elivio Bonollo “The Development of a
Suite of Design Methods Appropriate for Teaching Product
Design”, Global Journal of Engineering Educ., Vol.6, No.1.
[5] Dr. Péter Horák, Imre Dr. Timár, Pál Horváth and István
Lisztes, “Environment friendly DFMA/QFD/FMEA laboratory
on the University of Pannonia”, Fascicle of Management and
Technological Engineering, Volume VII (XVII) 2008.
[6] Marcel Dekker, “G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst, and W. Knight,
Product Design for Manufacturing and Assembly”, New York,
1994.
[7] Eskelinen Harri, Ström Juha‐Pekka, “DFM(A)‐Aspects Of An
Advanced Cable Gland Design”, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Finland.
[8] João Pedro Buiarskey Kovalchuk, Osiris Canciglieri Junior ,
“DFMA Application On The Development Of Parts For The
White Goods Industry – A Case Study”, Third International
Conference on Production Research – Americas’ Region 2006
(ICPR‐AM06).
[9] M. C. Pritchard, “Design for manufacture and assembly of a
water flow valve”, SIMTech technical reports, Volume 7,
Number 2, Apr‐Jun 2006.
[10] S. Chen, B. Mulgrew, and P. M. Grant, “A clustering technique
for digital communications channel equalization using radial
basis function networks,” IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks,
vol. 4, pp. 570‐578, July 1993.
[11] J. U. Duncombe, “Infrared navigation—Part I: An assessment
of feasibility,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED‐11, pp.
34‐39, Jan. 1959.
[12] C. Y. Lin, M. Wu, J. A. Bloom, I. J. Cox, and M. Miller,
“Rotation, scale, and translation resilient public
watermarking for images,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol.
10, no. 5, pp. 767‐782, May 2001.
 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Table 3.1 Results for
Top Cover
Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial tooling
Size per investment
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total
part, s
ABS injection molding process 121.98 13 76.39 0.38 211.75 437.81 649.56 37.4 43,78,110
Injection molding process 1000 121.98 13 76.39 0.38 211.75 437.81 649.56 37.4 43,78,110

Cincinnati Milacron VL1000 121.98 13 76.39 0.38 211.75 437.81 649.56 37.4 43,78,110

Injection mold 121.98 13 76.39 211.75 437.81 649.56 37.4 43,78,110

Table 3.2 Results for Lid

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial tooling
Size per investment
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total part, s
ABS thermoformed part 5.56 8.85 31.56 0.34 46.3 7.86 54.16 41.4 78,634

Thermoforming process 1000 4.99 5.4 25.8 0.3 36.49 7.86 44.36 41.4 78,634

Thermoform 4.99 3.89 24.1 0.14 33.13 1.8 34.73 34.96 16,019

Trim/punch 1.51 1.7 0.15 3.33 6.26 9.63 3.44 62,615

Automatic paint, wet, smooth 0.56 3.45 5.75 0.04 9.81 9.63

Table 3.3 Results for Glass and Glass Support

Life volume Batch Cost per part, Rs Initial tooling investment
size Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total
10000 1000 53.27 4.11 178.76 1.13 237.27 47.46 284.73 474.61

Table 3.4 Results for Detergent Case (A) Detergent feeder

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial
Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total part, s investment
ABS injection molding part 34.23 4.5 22.05 0.11 60.89 259.61 320.5 24.53 25,96,068

Injection molding process 1000 34.23 4.5 22.05 0.11 60.89 259.61 320.5 24.53 25,96,068

Cincinnati Milacron VT220 34.23 4.5 22.05 0.11 60.89 259.61 320.5 24.53 25,96,068

Injection mold 34.23 4.5 22.05 60.78 259.61 320.38 24.53 25,96,068

(B) Detergent holder

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial
Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total part, s investment
ABS injection molding part 11.76 3.38 11.77 0.06 26.96 61.04 88.01 18.01 6,10,446

Injection molding process 1000 11.76 3.38 11.77 0.06 26.96 61.04 88.01 18.01 6,10,446

Battenfeld BA800/315 CDC 11.76 3.38 11.77 0.06 26.96 61.04 88.01 18.01 6,10,446

Injection mold 11.76 3.38 11.77 26.9 61.04 87.95 18.01 6,10,446

(C) Connector
Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial
Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece part Tooling Total part, s investment
ABS injection molding part 1.35 3 7.72 0.05 12.12 39.49 51.61 13.5 3,94,923

Injection molding process 1000 1.35 3 7.72 0.05 12.12 39.49 51.61 13.5 3,94,923

Battenfeld BA150/50 CDC 1.35 3 7.72 0.05 12.12 39.49 51.61 13.5 3,94,923

Injection mold 1.35 3 7.72 12.07 39.49 51.56 13.5 3,94,923

 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Table 3.5 DFA of the Top Assembly

Per Product data Enter (including repeats) Labor Time, s Labor Cost, Rs
Component parts 13 87.35 42.82
Subassemblies partially or fully analyzed 2 6.9 3.38
Subassemblies not to be analyzed (excluded) 0 0 0
Standard and library operation 0 0 0
Totals 15 94.25 46.2
Table 4.1 Results for Cabinet

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial

Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total
part, s investment
part
AL1100 aluminum, hard 1,853.25 17.32 854.23 41.57 2,766.37 522.6 3,288.97 499.81 52,25,984
sheet metal part
Compound die stamping 1000 1,759.15 13.86 134.61 26.04 1,933.67 522.6 2,456.26 185.21 52,25,984
process
Amada GPX630 Power 0.56 45.24 8.4 54.21 54.21 63.36
Shear
Load sheet and remove 0.56 35.96 36.53 36.53 50.36
scrap
Power shear operation 9.28 9.28 9.28 13
Minster E2‐300 6.65 53.16 8.71 68.52 404.17 472.69 62.93 40,41,690
Hevistamper (300 ton)
Load and advance strip 6.65 48.93 55.58 404.17 459.75 57.93 40,41,690
Compound die operation 4.22 4.22 4.22 5
Minster E2‐300 6.65 36.21 8.93 51.79 118.43 170.22 42.86 11,84,294
Hevistamoer (300 ton)
Load and unload part 6.65 31.98 38.63 118.43 157.06 37.86 11,84,294
Form bends 4.22 4.22 4.22 5
Cincinnati CL‐6 Laser
System
Acquire and set‐aside part 16.06
Form bends 16.06
Automatic paint, wet, 94.11 3.45 565.4 2.45 665.41 665.41
smooth
Inspect visually 154.22 13.08 167.3 167.3 314.6
Table 4.2 Results for Back Gussets

Process chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

size per tooling cost
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total
part, s
part
Generic medium carbon 3.23 2.43 7 0.1 12.76 29.78 42.53 10.3 5,95,587
steel metal part
Compound die stamping 2000 3.23 2.43 7 0.1 12.76 29.78 42.53 10.3 5,95,587
process
Amada GPX630 Power Shear 0.28 0.29 0.02 0.59 0.59 0.41
Load sheet and remove scrap 0.28 0.1 0.38 0.38 0.13
Power shear operation 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.28
Minster OBI#5F (45ton) 1.08 3.16 0.03 4.27 23.52 27.79 4.64 4,70,352
Load and advance strip 1.08 1.72 2.8 23.52 26.31 2.52 470352
Compound die operation 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.12
Minster OBI#4F(32ton) 1.07 3.54 0.05 4.66 6.26 10.93 5.25 1,25,235
Load and unload part 1.07 2.19 3.26 6.26 9.52 3.25 1,25,235
Form bends 1.35 1.35 1.35 2
 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Table 4.3 Results for Front Gussets

Process chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

size per tooling cost
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total
part, s
part
Generic medium carbon 3.78 4.87 7.28 0.11 16.03 30.54 46.57 10.71 6,10,851
steel metal part
Compound die stamping 1000 3.78 4.87 7.28 0.11 16.03 30.54 46.57 10.71 6,10,851
process
Amada GPX630 Power Shear 0.56 0.4 0.02 0.98 0.98 0.56

Load sheet and remove 0.56 0.14 0.7 0.7 0.19

scrap
Power shear operation 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.37

Minster OBI#5F (45ton) 2.16 3.34 0.04 5.53 23.91 29.44 4.89 4,78,252

Load and advance strip 2.16 1.89 4.05 23.91 27.96 2.78 4,78,252

Compound die operation 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.12

Minster OBI#4F(32ton) 2.14 3.54 0.05 5.74 6.63 12.37 5.25 1,32,598

Load and unload part 2.14 2.19 4.33 6.63 10.96 3.25 1,32,598

Form bends 1.35 1.35 1.35 2

Table 4.4 DFA of the Cabinet Assembly

Per Product data Entries (including repeats) Labour Time, s Labour Cost, Rs
Component 33 247.38 121.26
Subassemblies partially or fully analyzed 4 26.7 13.09
Subassemblies not to be analyzed (excluded) 0 0 0
Standard and library operations 0 0 0
Totals 37 274.08 134.35

Table 5.1 Results for Tub

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial

Size Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total per tooling

part part, s investment

Polypropylene (40% talc filled) 200.75 16.5 227.69 1.14 446.09 590.51 1,036.60 87.09 59,05,112
injection molded part
Injection molding Process 1000 200.75 16.5 227.69 1.14 446.09 590.51 1,036.60 87.09 59,05,112

Battenfeld BA‐T 12500/6300 200.75 16.5 227.69 1.14 446.09 590.51 1,036.60 87.09 59,05,112

Injection mold 200.75 16.5 227.69 444.94 590.51 1,035.45 87.09 59,05,112

Table 5.2 Results for Basket

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs Time Initial

Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s investment
part
Polypropylene (40% talc filled) 266.98 13 212.16 1.07 493.21 1,184.50 1,677.71 103.88 1,18,44,993
injection molded part
Injection molding Process 1000 266.98 13 212.16 1.07 493.21 1,184.50 1,677.71 103.88 1,18,44,993
 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Cincinnati Milacron VL1000 266.98 13 212.16 1.07 493.21 1,184.50 1,677.71 103.88 1,18,44,993

Injection mold 266.98 13 212.16 492.14 1,184.50 1,676.64 103.88 1,18,44,993

Table 5.3 Results for Steel Sheet

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s investment
part
Generic stainless steel metal part 1,449.23 0.61 71.04 14.74 1,535.62 63.35 1,598.97 88.94 63,35,056

Compound die stamping process 12500 1,449.23 0.61 71.04 14.74 1,535.62 63.35 1,598.97 88.94 63,35,056

Tennsmith LM510 Power Shear 0.04 29.88 7.25 37.17 37.17 43.64

Load sheet and remove scrap 0.04 22.34 22.39 22.39 32.64

Power shear operation 0.57 7.53 7.53 7.53 11

Minster E2‐400 Hevistamper 0.57 41.16 7.49 49.22 63.35 112.57 45.31 63,35,056
(400ton)
Load and advance strip 36.62 37.19 63.35 100.54 40.31 63,35,056

Compound die operation 4.54 4.54 4.54 5

Table 5.4 Results for Basket Support

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s investment
part
Generic low carbon steel hot 105.12 34.06 79.94 1.78 220.9 162.72 383.62 41.93 15,79,723
forged part
Hot torging process 1000 105.12 34.06 79.94 1.78 220.9 162.72 383.62 41.93 15,79,723

000 ton billet shearing press 15 4.2 19.2 19.2 1.71

Cold shear billet 15 4.2 19.2 19.2 1.71

3000 lb Power hammer 105.12 18.26 73.65 0.88 197.91 139.69 337.6 37.89 13,49,434

Hot forge 105.12 18.26 73.65 197.03 139.69 336.72 37.89 13,49,434

50 ton mechanical trim press 0.8 2.09 0.9 3.79 23.03 26.82 2.32 2,30,289

Trim 0.8 2.09 2.89 23.03 25.92 2.32 2,30,289

Table 5.5 Results for Tub Support

Process Chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

Size per tooling
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s investment
part
Generic stainless steel sheet metal 307.22 5.16 8.18 2.99 323.55 58.58 382.13 11.32 5,85,761
part
Compound die stamping process 1000 307.22 5.16 8.18 2.99 323.55 58.58 382.13 11.32 5,85,761

Amada GPX630 Power Shear 0.56 1.69 1.47 3.73 3.73 2.37

Load sheet and remove scrap 0.56 0.97 1.53 1.53 1.35

Power shear operation 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.02

Monster P2H‐100(112ton) 4.59 6.49 1.51 12.6 58.58 71.17 8.95 5,85,761
 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Load and advance strip 4.59 4.32 8.91 58.58 67.48 5.95 5,85,761

Compound die operation 2.18 2.18 2.18 3

Table 5.6 Results for Pulley Plate

Process chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

size per tooling cost
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s
part
Generic low carbon steel sheet 32.04 4.92 15.99 0.59 53.55 187.21 240.75 23.14 18,72,082
metal part
Compound die stamping process 1000 32.04 4.92 15.99 0.59 53.55 187.21 240.75 23.14 18,72,082

Amada GPX630 Power Shear 0.56 2.45 0.16 3.18 3.18 3.43

Load sheet and remove scrap 0.56 1.29 1.86 1.86 1.81

Power shear operation 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.63

Minster OBI#6F (60ton) 2.2 7.18 0.2 9.58 77.86 87.43 10.37 7,78,588

Load and advance strip 2.2 5.52 7.71 77.86 85.57 7.97 7,78,588

Compound die operation 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.4

Minster OBI#5F(45ton) 2.16 6.36 0.23 8.75 109.35 118.1 9.33 10,93,494

Load and unload part 2.16 4.92 7.08 109.35 116.43 7.22 10,93,494

Punch operation 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.12

Table 5.7 Results for Support Bar

Process chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

size per tooling cost
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s
part
Generic low carbon steel sheet 12.02 4.9 8.76 0.23 25.92 89.75 115.66 12.77 8,97,460
metal part
Compound die stamping process 1000 12.02 4.9 8.76 0.23 25.92 89.75 115.66 12.77 8,97,460

Tennsmith LM510 Power Shear 0.54 0.58 0.06 1.19 1.19 0.85

Load sheet and remove scrap 0.54 0.28 0.82 0.82 0.41

Power shear operation 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.4

Minster OBI#6F (60ton) 2.2 3.51 0.08 5.78 54.06 59.85 5.07 5,40,629

Load and advance strip 2.2 1.85 4.05 54.06 58.11 2.67 5,40,629

Compound die operation 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.4

Minster OBI#5F(45ton) 2.16 4.67 0.1 6.93 35.68 42.61 6.85 3,56,831

Load and unload part 2.16 3.22 5.38 35.68 41.07 4.73 3,56,831

Form bends 1.44 1.44 1.44 2.12

 List of Tables Obtained from DFM and DFA Analysis of Different Parts of
Washing Machine
Table 5.8 Results for Suspension Support

Process chart Batch Cost per part, Rs. Time Initial

size per tooling cost
Material Setup Process Rejects Piece Tooling Total part, s
part
Generic low carbon steel sheet 121.74 2 23.23 2.01 148.98 26.28 175.26 31.46 10,51,300
metal part
Compound die stamping process 5000 121.74 2 23.23 2.01 148.98 26.28 175.26 31.46 10,51,300

Tennsmith LM510 Power Shear 0.11 3.89 0.62 4.61 4.61 5.68

Load sheet and remove scrap 0.11 2.21 2.32 2.32 3.23

Power shear operation 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.44

Minster P2H‐160 (180ton) 0.97 11.04 0.67 12.68 19.94 32.63 14.34 7,97,758

Load and advance strip 0.97 7.57 8.55 19.94 28.49 9.84 7,97,758

Compound die operation 3.46 3.46 3.46 4.5

Minster P2H‐100(112ton) 0.92 8.3 0.72 9.94 6.34 16.28 11.44 2,53,542

Load and unload part 0.92 6.13 7.04 6.34 13.38 6.44 2,53,542

Form bends 2.18 2.18 2.18 3

Table 5.9 DFA of Suspension Assembly

Per Product data Entries (including repeats) Labor Time, s Labor Cost, Rs.

Component parts 38 260 127.45

Subassemblies partially or fully analyzed 6 20.7 10.15

Subassemblies not to be analyzed (excluded) 0 0 0

Standard and library operations 4 28 13.73

Totals 48 308.7 151.32

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s