University of Technology

School of Engineering

Name: Stephens Wright (1903583), Christopher Clarke (1903277), Johanna Noad (1903283)

Course: Design for Manufacturing

Faculty: Industrial Engineering

Lab Technologist: Anil Thompson

Lecturer: Hugh Cargill

 Objective

To understand how to apply and utilize DFA principles in engineering designs.

Theory

Regarding the Design for Assembly, the three types of assembly that can be classified

based on their level of automation are: Manual assembly occurs when a human worker is at

the workstation and the actions in which he/she has taken to reach, fasten, and orient the part

for assembly are observed, whether they are carried out by hand or power tools. Automatic

Assembly is another level of automation where the part insertion is done by an automatic

work head and the handling is done by a parts feeder. The final level of automation is a

robotic assembly, where everything is done by a robotic arm controlled by a computer. The

assembly guidelines can be divided into three categories: general, handling, and insertion.

This is usually done to reduce the number of parts. The acceptable range for efficiency after

DFA would be 20 to 30 percent.

Background

Once parts are manufactured, they need to be assembled into subassemblies and

products. The assembly process consists of two operations, handling, which involves

grasping, orienting, and positioning, followed by insertion, and fastening. The cost of

assembly is determined by the number of parts in the assembly and the ease with which

the parts can be handled, inserted, and fastened. Design can have a strong influence in

both areas. In DFA, it is ideal to minimize the total number of parts: A part that is not

required by the design is a part that does not need to be assembled. Assess the list of parts in

the assembly and identify those parts that are essential for the proper functioning of the

product. All others are candidates for elimination. A theoretical part is one that cannot be

eliminated from the design because it is needed for functionality. The criteria for an
essential part, also called a theoretical part, are as follows: The part must exhibit motion

relative to another part declared vital. There is a fundamental reason that the part is made

from a material different from all other parts. It would not be possible to assemble or

disassemble the other parts unless this part is separate that is, it is an essential connection

between parts.

Design assembly efficiency =

 Table showing the DFA of the Motor drive Initial Analysis

Parts # of Alpha Beta A+B Handling Handling Insertion Insertion Total

repeats code time code Time Time

Cover 1 360 360 720 (3,0) 1.95 (0,9) 7.5 9.45

Cover Screw 4 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (3,8) 6 34.2

Base 1 360 360 720 3,1 2.25 (0,0) 1.5 3.75

Bushing 2 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (0,2) 2.5 10.1

Motor 1 360 360 720 3,1 2.25 (1,6) 8 10.25

Subassembly

Motor Screw 2 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (3,8) 6 17.1

Sensor 1 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (0,0) 1.5 4.05

Subassembly

Set Screw 1 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (3,8) 6 8.55

Stand-Off 2 180 90 270 0,4 1.69 (1,3) 6 15.38

End Plate 1 360 360 720 3,1 2.25 (0,6) 5.5 7.75

End-Plate 2 360 0 360 1,4 2.55 (3,8) 6 17.1

Screw

Thread Leads — - - -

Reorient — - - -

Total 137.68

The theoretical Parts are: Base, Motor, Sensor and End Plate

Design Assembly Efficiency =3*4/137.68 *100 =8.7%

 Table Showing Second Analysis for Motor Drive

Parts Total Time Theoretical Part

Base 3.75 1

Motor 10.25 1

Sensor 4.05 1

Endplate 7.75 1

Cover 9.45 0

Set Screw 8.55 0

Motor screw (1) 7.31 0

Total 50.8

Design Assembly Efficiency=4*3/50.8 =23.6%

Redesign of the main parts

Figure 1 showing the Cover

Figure 2 showing the Base

Figure 3 showing the Motor

Discussion
 The rigid base was designed to slide up and down the steel guide rails in the initial

design of the motor-drive assembly. It also works with the linear motor and position sensor.

To provide appropriate friction and wear characteristics for sliding on the steel rails, two

brass bushings were pressed into the base. The end plate was fitted with a plastic grommet

through which the wires to the motor and sensor passed. The box-shaped cover is held in

place by four cover screws, two of which are attached to the base and two of which pass

through the end plate. There were also two stand-off rods that supported the end plate and

assorted screws, for a total of eight main parts and nine screws, for a total of 17 parts. The

motor and sensor were outsourced to subassemblies. The two guide rails were made from 0.5-

inch cold-drawn steel bar stock. They were not included in the analysis because they were

essential components of the design and there was no obvious substitute.

Using the DFA criteria to identify the theoretical parts, those that could not be

eliminated, and those that were candidates for replacement. The base was an essential part. It

had to move along the guide rails, which was an unavoidable requirement for any redesign.

However, changing the base material from aluminum to another material could result in a

reduction in part count. The combination of aluminum sliding on steel was not a good one.

The bushings were designed as part of the base to provide the function of low sliding friction.

Nylon, on the other hand, has a much lower sliding coefficient of friction against steel than

aluminum. The two brass bushings could be eliminated if the base was made of nylon. Stand-

off rods were candidates for elimination. However, if it were removed, the end plate would

have to be redesigned. The end plate protects the motor and sensor. Because this was a

critical function, the redesigned end plate served as a cover and was a theoretical part. It must

also be removable to allow for servicing. This suggests that the cover could be a plastic

molded part that snaps onto the base. This would eliminate the four cover screws. Because it

would be made of plastic, the grommet that was designed to prevent fraying of the electrical
leads entering the cover was no longer required. The motor and sensor were both excluded

from the part elimination process. They were clearly necessary components of the assembly.

Finally, the set screw that holds the sensor in place and the two screws that secure the motor

to the base were theoretically unnecessary. The assembly's design efficiency was quite low, at

8.7 percent, indicating that there should be plenty of room for part elimination. The part count

has been reduced from 19 to 7, and the assembly efficiency has increased from 8.7% to

23.6%.

Conclusion

The DFA technique that was utilized was the Boothroyd and Dewhurst method to

calculate the initial efficiency. The method uses a step-by-step application of the DFA

guidelines to reduce the cost of manual assembly. It was shown to be at 8.7%, which is not up

to the standard and would be more expensive to assemble. However, with the redesign, it has

an efficiency of 23.6%, which is acceptable with the reduction of repeating parts and only

keeping the essential parts for the motor drive to operate.