SHIVA INGOLE501

Page 1

(402045B) PRODUCT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

(ELECTIVE II)

UNIT 5: DESIGN FOR X

1.1

Design for Manufacturing;

Design for Manufacturing (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) are the integration of product design
And process planning into one common activity. The goal is to design a product that is easily and economically
Manufactured. The importance of designing for manufacturing is underlined by the fact that about 70% of
Manufacturing costs of a product (cost of materials, processing, and assembly) are determined by design
Decisions, with production decisions (such as process planning or machine tool selection) responsible for only
20%. The heart of any design for manufacturing system is a group of design principles or guidelines that are
Structured to help the designer reduce the cost and difficulty of manufacturing an item. The following is a listing
Of these rules.
1. Reduce the total number of parts.
The reduction of the number of parts in a product is probably the best opportunity for reducing
manufacturing costs. Less parts implies less purchases, inventory, handling, processing time, development
time, equipment, engineering time, assembly difficulty, service inspection, testing, etc. In general, it
reduces the level of intensity of all activities related to the product during its entire life. A part that does
not need to have relative motion with respect to other parts, does not have to be made of a different
material, or that would make the assembly or service of other parts extremely difficult or impossible, is
an excellent target for elimination. Some approaches to part-count reduction are based on the use of onepiece structures and selection of manufacturing processes such as injection molding, extrusion, precision
castings, and powder metallurgy, among others.
2. Develop a modular design.
The use of modules in product design simplifies manufacturing activities such as inspection, testing,
assembly, purchasing, redesign, maintenance, service, and so on. One reason is that modules add versatility to
product update in the redesign process, help run tests before the final assembly is put together, and allow the use
of standard components to minimize product variations. However, the connection can be a limiting factor when
applying this rule.
3. Use of standard components.
Standard components are less expensive than custom-made items. The high availability of these
components reduces product lead times. Also, their reliability factors are well ascertained. Furthermore, the use
of standard components refers to the production pressure to the supplier, relieving in part the manufactures
concern of meeting production schedules.
4. Design parts to be multi-functional.

SHIVA INGOLE502
Page 2

Multi-functional parts reduce the total number of parts in a design, thus, obtaining the benefits given in
rule 1. Some examples are a part to act as both an electric conductor and as a structural member, or as a heat
dissipating element and as a structural member. Also, there can be elements that besides their principal function
have guiding, aligning, or self-fixturing features to facilitate assembly, and/or reflective surfaces to facilitate
inspection, etc.
5. Design parts for multi-use.
In a manufacturing firm, different products can share parts that have been designed for multi-use. These
parts can have the same or different functions when used in different products. In order to do this, it is necessary
to identify the parts that are suitable for multi-use. For example, all the parts used in the firm (purchased or made)
can be sorted into two groups: the first containing all the parts that are used commonly in all products. Then, part
families are created by defining categories of similar parts in each group. The goal is to minimize the number of
categories, the variations within the categories, and the number of design features within each variation. The result
is a set of standard part families from which multi-use parts are created. After organizing all the parts into part
Families, the manufacturing processes are standardized for each part family. The production of a specific
Part belonging to a given part family would follow the manufacturing routing that has been setup for its
Family, skipping the operations that are not required for it. Furthermore, in design changes to existing
Products and especially in new product designs, the standard multi-use components should be used.
6. Design for ease of fabrication.
Select the optimum combination between the material and fabrication process to minimize the overall
manufacturing cost. In general, final operations such as painting, polishing, finish machining, etc. should be
avoided. Excessive tolerance, surface-finish requirement, and so on are commonly found problems that result in
higher than necessary production cost.
7. Avoid separate fasteners.
The use of fasteners increases the cost of manufacturing a part due to the handling and feeding operations
that have to be performed. Besides the high cost of the equipment required for them, these operations are not
100% successful, so they contribute to reducing the overall manufacturing efficiency. In general, fasteners should
be avoided and replaced, for example, by using tabs or snap fits. If fasteners have to be used, then some guides
should be followed for selecting them. Minimize the number, size, and variation used; also, utilize standard
components whenever possible. Avoid screws that are too long, or too short, separate washers, tapped holes, and
round heads and flatheads (not good for vacuum pickup). Self-tapping and chamfered screws are preferred
because they improve placement success. Screws with vertical side heads should be selected vacuum pickup.
8. Minimize assembly directions.
All parts should be assembled from one direction. If possible, the best way to add parts is from above, in
a vertical direction, parallel to the gravitational direction (downward). In this way, the effects of gravity help the
assembly process, contrary to having to compensate for its effect
when other directions are chosen.

SHIVA INGOLE503
Page 3

9. Maximize compliance.
Errors can occur during insertion operations due to variations in part dimensions or on the accuracy of the
positioning device used. This faulty behavior can cause damage to the part and/or to the equipment. For this
reason, it is necessary to include compliance in the part design and in the assembly process. Examples of part
built-in compliance features include tapers or chamfers and moderate radius sizes to facilitate insertion, and
nonfunctional external elements to help detect hidden features. For the assembly process, selection of a rigid-base
part, tactile sensing capabilities, and vision systems are example of compliance. A simple solution is to use highquality parts with designed-in-compliance, a rigid-base part, and selective compliance in the assembly tool.
10. Minimize handling.
Handling consists of positioning, orienting, and fixing a part or component. To facilitate orientation,
symmetrical parts should be used when ever possible. If it is not possible, then the asymmetry must be exaggerated
to avoid failures. Use external guiding features to help the orientation of a part. The subsequent operations should
be designed so that the orientation of the part is maintained. Also, magazines, tube feeders, part strips, and so on,
should be used to keep this orientation between operations. Avoid using flexible parts - use slave circuit boards
instead. If cables have to be used, then include a dummy connector to plug the cable (robotic assembly) so that it
can be located easily. When designing the product, try to minimize the flow of material waste, parts, and so on,
in the manufacturing operation; also, take packaging into account, select appropriate and safe packaging for the
product.

SHIVA INGOLE504
Page 4

1.2

Design for Assembly;

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.

Definition and Purpose

1.
a.
b.
c.
2.

Design for Assembly is a method of analyzing components and sub-assemblies in order to:
Optimize the assembly process steps
Identify part relevance
Estimate the cost of assembly
The purpose of DFA is to minimize assembly cost by optimizing the assembly process and reducing the
number of parts.

SHIVA INGOLE505
Page 5

Design for Robustness;

SHIVA INGOLE506
Page 6

History

SHIVA INGOLE507
Page 7

SHIVA INGOLE508
Page 8

SHIVA INGOLE509
Page 9

SHIVA INGOLE510
Page 10

In todays automotive industry where simulation and virtual prototyping are increasingly
used to reduce time to market, the design process has changed considerably since Taguchi
invented the quality planning concept [1]. He found that it is often more costly to control the
causes of manufacturing variation than making a process insensitive to these variations. By
using simple experimental designs and loss functions, he often succeeded in greatly improving
product performance by building in quality, in other words, implementing the quality-by-design
idea.
Robustness analysis aims at providing an accurate estimation of the sensitivity of
outputs to the variability on the inputs, described in terms of random variables characterized
with probabilistic distributions. In general, standard deviation is used as a measure for the
robustness of the outputs: the smaller the output standard deviation, the more robust the output.
The core ideas Taguchi elaborated on are still
valid, although in a different design context. Today,
product designers increasingly experiment using
computer models instead of physical prototypes. These
experiments typically involved Monte Carlo
simulation, although robustness is suitable as a
criterion for evaluating discrete-event simulation
systems as well. Using simulation instead of
experimenting with physical prototypes yields system
performance improvements and cost savings, only
when design robustness is evaluated properly. As a
robust design optimization software solution, Optimus
incorporates the Taguchi method for robust design to
deliver designs that are more robust with respect to
manufacturing and geometric tolerances. In reality, robust design is rarely applied. In particular
in the automotive industry, where time to market and cost control are crucial competitive aspects,
calls for design methods that integrate design quality and safety in the design process. This
process should be based on simulation-driven robustness assessment techniques that trained
engineers can leverage to gain a deeper insight into the influence of real-world conditions and
uncertainties on the functional performance characteristics of a vehicle. This is extremely
important for critical vehicle design aspects, such as dynamics and safety. In fact, vehicle
dynamics impact all aspects of vehicle drivability and performance, ranging from fuel emissions
to comfort and NVH and to ageing and durability, whereas safety aspects represents an extremely
sensitive attribute, for which crash simulations serves as the most effective design and analysis
tool.
Robust Design and Reliability in Optimus
The robustness and the reliability of a design represent two different customers requirements. The
use of Robust Design or Design Reliability heavily depends on the type and frequency of the
events that you want to assess and control. Clearly not all the events are controllable or worth the
effort of controlling. The latter is the case when rare or extreme events result in a slight

SHIVA INGOLE511
Page 11

performance loss. Robust Design clearly aims at assessing and controlling frequent events
that yield a small performance loss, whereas reliability aims at assessing and controlling
rare or extreme events that yield catastrophic consequences. For obvious reasons, the
automotive industry is more concerned with Robust Design, and the Aerospace industry focuses
more on Reliability.
To be able to perform robustness and
reliability analysis in Optimus, the
distribution of the inputs needs to be
known. The distribution of an input is
described by a probability distribution
function. In Optimus, there are eleven
types of built-in distributions that can be
assigned to an input variable, including
Normal,
Lognormal,
Uniform,
Exponential, Triangle, Gamma, Beta, Rayleigh, Erlang, Gumbel and Weibull distributions.
Furthermore, you can define your own probability distribution function, in case it cannot be
covered by any of the built-in distribution functions.
Robustness
Robustness analysis in Optimus robust design optimization software aims at
providing an accurate estimation of design output sensitivity to variability on the input
values. The software uses standard deviation as a measure for the robustness of the design
outputs. The smaller the standard deviation of an output, the more robust the output. Based on
predictions of the output sensitivities, optimization methods can be performed to improve the
robustness of the outputs.
OPTIMUS supports two types of methods to
calculate the standard deviation of an
output:sampling methods and approximation
methods. The Monte-Carlo sampling method is
available as well as two approximation methods,
namely the First Order Second Moment (FOSM)
method and the Monte-Carlo on Linear Model
method.

SHIVA INGOLE512
Page 12

1.3
1.4

Design for Safety;

Design for Reliability;

It means reducing safety and health risks through good design.

The design phase is the earliest opportunity to incorporate safety into the project. Just as
productivity can be increased with early planning, so is the greatest impact for safety. Designing
for safety starts at the conceptual and planning phases of a project with collective and conscious
decisions by stakeholders about the design, methods of construction and materials used to
enhance
the
safety
of
the
building
or
structure.

SHIVA INGOLE513
Page 13

SHIVA INGOLE514
Page 14

SHIVA INGOLE515
Page 15

SHIVA INGOLE516
Page 16

1.5

Design for Environment;

SHIVA INGOLE517
Page 17

SHIVA INGOLE518
Page 18

SHIVA INGOLE519
Page 19

SHIVA INGOLE520
Page 20

SHIVA INGOLE521
Page 21

SHIVA INGOLE522
Page 22

SHIVA INGOLE523
Page 23

SHIVA INGOLE524
Page 24

SHIVA INGOLE525
Page 25

1.6

Design for Piece part Production;

1.7

Manufacturing cost Analysis

SHIVA INGOLE526
Page 26

SHIVA INGOLE527
Page 27

SHIVA INGOLE528
Page 28

SHIVA INGOLE529
Page 29

SHIVA INGOLE530
Page 30

SHIVA INGOLE531
Page 31

EXAMPLE OF MANUFACTURING COST

SHIVA INGOLE532
Page 32

1.8

Local, Regional & Global Issues;

SHIVA INGOLE533
Page 33

1.9

Basic Life Assessment;

SHIVA INGOLE534
Page 34

Why do life-cycle assessment?

minimize the magnitude of pollution
conserve non-renewable resources
conserve ecological systems
develop and utilize cleaner technologies
maximize recycling of materials and waste
apply the most appropriate pollution prevention and/or abatement techniques

SHIVA INGOLE535
Page 35

How is life-cycle assessment used?

By manufacturers:
product development
product improvement
product comparison

Life cycle assessment has been applied in many ways in both the public and private sectors.
This is a list of some of the uses manufacturers have for LCA. Product comparisons have
received the most attention from the press but according to the Swedish survey the most
important uses for manufacturers are;
1) to identify processes, ingredients, and systems that are major contributors to environmental
impacts,
2) to compare different options within a particular process with the objective of minimizing
environmental impacts, and
3) to provide guidance in long-term strategic planning concerning trends in product design and
materials.

SHIVA INGOLE536
Page 36

SHIVA INGOLE537
Page 37

SHIVA INGOLE538
Page 38

1.10 Weighted Sum Assessment Method;

In decision theory, the weighted sum model (WSM)[1][2] is the best known and simplest multi-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) / multi-criteria decision making method for evaluating a number of alternatives
in terms of a number of decision criteria. It is very important to state here that it is applicable only when all
the data are expressed in exactly the same unit. If this is not the case, then the final result is equivalent to
"adding apples and oranges."
In general, suppose that a given MCDA problem is defined on m alternatives and n decision criteria.
Furthermore, let us assume that all the criteria are benefit criteria, that is, the higher the values are, the
better it is. Next suppose that wj denotes the relative weight of importance of the criterion Cj and aij is the
performance value of alternative Ai when it is evaluated in terms of criterion Cj. Then, the total (i.e., when
all the criteria are considered simultaneously) importance of alternative Ai, denoted as AiWSM-score, is
defined as follows:

For the maximization case, the best alternative is the one that yields the maximum total performance value.
Example
For a simple numerical example suppose that a decision problem of this type is defined on three
alternatives A1, A2, A3 each described in terms of four criteria C1, C2, C3 and C4. Furthermore, let the
numerical data for this problem be as in the following decision matrix:
C1 C2 C3 C4
Alts. 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.25
A1

25

20

15

30

A2

10

30

20

30

A3

30

10

30

10

For instance, the relative weight of the first criterion is equal to 0.20, the relative weight for the second
criterion is 0.15 and so on. Similarly, the value of the first alternative (i.e., A1) in terms of the first criterion
is equal to 25, the value of the same alternative in terms of the second criterion is equal to 20 and so
on.When the previous formula is applied on these numerical data the WSM scores for the three alternatives
are:

Similarly, one gets:

Thus, the best alternative (in the maximization case) is alternative A2 (because it has the maximum WSM
score which is equal to 22.00). Furthermore, these numerical results imply the following ranking of these
three alternatives: A2 = A3 > A1 (where the symbol ">" stands for "better than").