In what ways can DFE help to

improve the quality of a product, in

terms of its functionality, reliability,
durability, and reparability?
• Functionality: The constraints of DFE may force designers/engineers to think "out of the box", which

could yield new functions to the product. For example, a DFE strategy could try to reduce the impact of

product packaging by making the package something that can be reused, for example as a container. The

ability to use the packaging for something useful adds functionality.

Reliability: One of the DFE goals is to "extend the useful product life". Thus DFE products should be

engineered to last longer, which in turn means they must be more reliable. For example, one way to do

this is to make sure that each part of the product lasts about the same amount of time, so one doesn't fail

prematurely and cause the user to throw it away.

Durability: A guideline for DFE is to avoid materials that require additional coatings. For example, if

materials are chosen that do not require paint/coatings, then chipping will not occur and thus it could be

considered more durable.

Reparability: Another goal of DFE is to facilitate product disassembly for recycling. This will also make

the product more easily serviceable if part of the product needs repaired. For example, I have an idea for

a recyclable pizza box. One way to make it recyclable is to have the bottom of the box be removable -

since the greases (which are mostly at the bottom of the box) prevent the box from being recycled. Thus

the bottom can be thrown away while the rest is recycled.

Design Frameworks
 Bottom–Up Design

• Bottom–up design (CAD-centric) occurs where the definition of

3D models of a product starts with the construction of individual
components.
• These are then virtually brought together in sub-assemblies of
more than one level until the full product is digitally defined.
• It contains all of the physical (solid) components; it may contain
other items required for the final product such as paint, glue and
oil etc.
Bottom–up design tends to focus on the capabilities of available
real-world physical technology, implementing those solutions
which this technology is most suited to.
Bottom–Up Design
Bottom–Up Design
 Bottom–Up Design

• When these bottom–up solutions have real-world value,

bottom–up design can be much more efficient than top–down
design.
• The risk of bottom–up design is that it very efficiently provides
solutions to low-value problems.
• The focus of bottom–up design is "what can we most efficiently
do with this technology?" rather than the focus of top–down
which is "What is the most valuable thing to do?"
 Top–Down Design
• Top–down design is focused on high-level functional requirements,
with relatively less focus on existing implementation technology.
• A top level spec is decomposed into lower and lower level
structures and specifications, until the physical implementation
layer is reached.
• The risk of a top–down design is that it may not take advantage of
the most efficient applications of current physical technology,
especially with respect to hardware implementation.

The positive value of top–down design is that it preserves a focus on

the optimum solution requirements.
Top Down Design
Top Down Design
 Both-Ends-Against-the-Middle Design

• Both-ends-against-the-middle (BEATM) design is a design

process that combine the best features of top– down design and
bottom–up design into one process.
• A BEATM design process flow may begin with an emergent
technology which suggests solutions which may have value, or it
may begin with a top–down view of an important problem
which needs a solution.
• In either case the key attribute of BEATM design methodology
is to immediately focus at both ends of the design process
flow:
– a top–down view of the solution requirements, and
– a bottom–up view of the available technology which may
offer promise of an efficient solution.
 Both-Ends-Against-the-Middle Design

• The BEATM design process proceeds from both ends in search

of an optimum merging somewhere between the top–down
requirements, and bottom–up efficient implementation.
Design for X
 Gathering DFM Information
• Sketches, drawings, product specifications,
and design alternatives.
• A detailed understanding of production and
assembly processes
• Estimates of manufacturing costs,
production volumes, and ramp-up timing.
 DFM Method
Proposed Design

Estimate the Manufacutring

Costs

Reduce the Costs of Reduce the Costs of Reduce the Costs of

Components Assembly Supporting Production

Consider the Impact of DFM

Decisions on Other Factors

Recompute the
Manufacturing Costs

Good
N
enough
?
Y

Acceptable Design
 Major DFM objectives
• Reduce component costs
• Reduce assembly cost
• Reduce production support costs

9/1/2021 17
 The DFM Process (5 steps)
1) Estimate the mfg. costs
2) Reduce the costs of components
3) Reduce the costs of assembly
4) Reduce the costs of supporting production
5) Consider the impact of DFM decisions on
other factors.

9/1/2021 18
 Estimate the Manufacturing Costs
Equipment Information Tooling

Raw Materials

Labor
Manufacturing System Finished Goods
Purchased
Components

Energy Supplies Services Waste

 Manufacturing Costs Defined
• Sum of all the expenditures for the inputs of
the system (i.e. purchased components,
energy, raw materials, etc.) and for disposal
of the wastes produced by the system
 Elements of the Manufacturing Cost
of a Product
Manufacturing Cost

Components Assembly Overhead

Equipment Indirect
Standard Custom Labor Support
and Tooling Allocation

Raw
Processing Tooling
Material
Manufacturing Cost of a Product
• Component Costs (parts of the product)
– Parts purchased from supplier
– Custom parts made in the manufacturer’s own plant or by
suppliers according to the manufacturer’s design
specifications
• Assembly Costs (labor, equipment, & tooling)
• Overhead Costs (all other costs)
– Support Costs (material handling, quality assurance,
purchasing, shipping, receiving, facilities, etc.)
– Indirect Allocations (not directly linked to a particular
product but must be paid for to be in business)
 Fixed Costs vs. Variable Costs
• Fixed Costs – incurred in a predetermined
amount, regardless of number of units
produced (i.e. setting up the factory work
area or cost of an injection mold)
• Variable Costs – incurred in direct
proportion to the number of units produced
(i.e. cost of raw materials)
 Reduce the Cost of Components
• Understand the Process Constraints and
Cost Drivers
• Redesign Components to Eliminate
Processing Steps
• Choose the Appropriate Economic Scale for
the Part Process
• Standardize Components and Processes
Understand the Process Constraints
and Cost Drivers
Redesign costly parts with the same
performance while avoiding high
manufacturing costs.

Work closely with design engineers—raise

awareness of difficult operations and high
costs.
 Redesign Components to Eliminate
Processing Steps
• Reduce the number of steps of the
production process
– Will usually result in reduce costs
• Eliminate unnecessary steps.
• Use substitution steps, where applicable.
• Analysis Tool – Process Flow Chart and
Bain Map.
 Choose the Appropriate Economic
Scale for the Part Process
Economies of Scale – As production volume
increases, manufacturing costs usually
decrease.
• Fixed costs divided among more units.
• Variable costs are lower since the firm can
use more efficient processes and equipment.
 Standardize Components and
Processes
• Economies of Scale – The unit cost of a
component decreases as the production
volume increases.
• Standard Components—common to more
than one product
• Analysis tools – group technology and mass
customization
 Reduce the Costs of Assembly
• Design for Assembly (DFA)
• Integrated Parts (Advantages and
Disadvantages)
• Maximize Ease of Assembly
• Consider Customer Assembly
Differences
• Design for Assembly (DFA) :
concerned only with reducing product assembly
cost – minimizes number of assembly
operations – individual parts tend to be more
complex in design
• Design for Manufacturing (DFM) :
concerned with reducing overall part production
cost – minimizes complexity of manufacturing
operations
DFMA: Design for manufacture and assembly
is a combination of DFA and DFM
 Three main activities of
DFMA
• Provide guidance to the design team in
simplifying the product structure to reduce
manufacturing and assembly costs, and to
quantify the improvements.
• As a benchmarking tool to study competitors
products and quantify manufacturing and
assembly difficulties.
• As a cost tool to help control costs and to help
negotiate suppliers contracts.
 Advantages of Integrated Parts
• Do not have to be assembled
• Often less expensive to fabricate rather than
the sum of each individual part
• Allows critical geometric features to be
controlled by the part fabrication process
versus a similar assembly process
 Disadvantages of Integrated Parts

• Conflict with other sound approaches to

minimize costs
• Not always a wise strategy
 Minimize Ease of Assembly
• Part is inserted from the top of the assembly
• Part is self-aligning
• Part does not need to be oriented
• Part requires only one hand for assembly
• Part requires no tools
• Part is assembled in a single, linear motion
• Part is secured immediately upon insertion
 Consider Customer Assembly
• Design product so that customers can easily
and assemble correctly
• Customers will likely ignore directions
 Reduce the Costs of Supporting
Production
• Minimize Systemic Complexity (inputs, outputs,
and transforming processes)
– Use smart design decisions
• Error Proofing
– Anticipate possible failure modes
– Take appropriate corrective actions in the early
stages
– Use color coding to easily identify similar
looking, but different parts
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Part shape strategies:
– adhere to specific process design guidelines
– if part symmetry is not possible, make parts very
asymmetrical
– design "paired" parts instead of right and left hand parts.
– design parts with symmetry.
– use chamfers and tapers to help parts engage.
– provide fixturing locations.
– avoid overuse of tolerances.

9/1/2021 38
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Standardization strategy
– use standard parts
– standardize design features
– minimize the number of part types
– minimize number of total parts.
– standardize types and length of materials and code them.
– consider pre-finished material (pre-painted, pre-plated).
– combine parts and functions into a single part.

9/1/2021 39
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Assembly strategies 1
– design product so that the subsequent parts can be added to
a foundation part.
– design foundation part so that it has features that allow it to
be quickly and accurately positioned.
– Design product so parts are assembled from above or from
the minimum number of directions.
– provide unobstructed access for parts and tools
– make parts independently replaceable.
– order assembly so the most reliable goes in first; the most
likely to fail last.
9/1/2021 40
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Assembly strategies 2
– make sure options can be added easily
– ensure the product's life can be extended with
future upgrades.
– use sub-assemblies, especially if processes are
different from the main assembly.
– purchase sub-assemblies which are assembled and
tested.

9/1/2021 41
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Fastening strategies 1
– use the minimum number of total fasteners
– use fewer large fasteners rather than many small fasteners
– use the minimum number of types of fasteners
– make sure screws should have the correct geometry so that
auto-feed screwdrivers can be used.
– design screw assembly for downward motion
– minimize use of separate nuts (use threaded holes).
– consider captive fasteners when applicable (including
captive nuts if threaded holes are not available).

9/1/2021 42
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Fastening strategies 2
– avoid separate washers and lockwashers (make it be
captivated on the bolt or nut so it can still spin with respect
to the fastener)
– use self-tapping screws when applicable.
– eliminate fasteners by combining parts.
– minimize use of fasteners with snap-together features.
– consider fasteners that push or snap on.
– specify proper tolerances for press fits.

9/1/2021 43
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Assembly motion strategies
– fastened parts are located before fastener is applied.
– assembly motions are simple.
– Assembly motions can be done with one hand or robot.
– assembly motions should not require skill or judgment.
– products should not need any mechanical or electrical
adjustments unless required for customer use.
– minimize electrical cables; plug electrical sub-assemblies
directly together.
– minimize the number of types of cable.

9/1/2021 44
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Automation handling strategies 1
– design parts to easily maintain orientation
– use parts that will not tangle when handled in bulk.
– use parts that not adhere to each other or the track.
– specify tolerances tight enough for automatic handling.
– avoid flexible parts which are hard for automation to
handle.

9/1/2021 45
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Maintenance strategies
– use modular design to allow replacement of modules.
– ensure modules can be tested, diagnosed, and adjusted
while in the product.
– sensitive adjustment should be protected from accidental
change.
– the product should be protected from repair damage.
– provide part removal aids for speed and damage
prevention.
– protect parts with fuses and overloads

9/1/2021 46
 Design for X
– Design principles
• Maintenance strategies
– ensure any sub-assembly can be accessed through one door
or panel.
– access over which are not removable should be self-
supporting in the open position.
– connections to sub-assemblies should be accessible and
easy to disconnect.
– make sure repair, service or maintenance tasks pose no
safety hazards.
– make sure sub-assembly orientation is obvious or clearly
marked.

9/1/2021 47
To Compute Assembly Time

Handling Time
+ Insertion Time

Assembly Time
 Design for Assembly Principles
❑Minimize part count
❑Design parts with self-locating features
❑Design parts with self-fastening features
❑Minimize reorientation of parts during assembly
❑ Design parts for retrieval, handling, & insertion
❑ Emphasize ‘Top-Down’ assemblies
❑ Standardize parts…minimum use of fasteners.
❑Encourage modular design
❑ Design for a base part to locate other components
❑ Design for component symmetry for insertion
• DFM and DFA Design Guidelines
❑Minimize part count by incorporating multiple
functions into single parts
❑Several parts could be fabricated by using
different manufacturing Processes (sheet metal
forming, injection molding).
❑Ask yourself if a part function can be preformed
by a neighboring part
Use standardized products and standardized parts to Reduce variety
of operations, choices and inventory burden
Example: having similar looking screws that are different Sizes is
confusing.
Productivity Guidelines
 Ease of handling

Specify components
that can’t get
tangled together
when they’re mixed
together in a box or
a bin
Ease of handling (continued)
Specify
components that
can’t nest tightly
together
Mistake-proofing

Use physical
obstructions to
stop components
being fitted in the
wrong place, or
the wrong way
round
 Maximize part symmetry

Make components
fit either way
round whenever
you can
Ideally, parts will
have rotational and
end-to-end
symmetry.
 Make asymmetry obvious

These irregularly-sized
and spaced holes force
the worker to figure
out which way it fits
The addition of a flat
side or similar feature
helps to achieve
correct orientation
during manual
assembly (but
symmetry would
probably be better)
Design for Assembly
Guidelines
Enlist 10 DFMA guidelines to manufacture a
computer.
 Example set of DFA guidelines
from a computer manufacturer.
1. Minimize parts count.
2. Encourage modular assembly.
3. Stack assemblies.
4. Eliminate adjustments.
5. Eliminate cables.
6. Use self-fastening parts.
7. Use self-locating parts.
8. Eliminate reorientation.
9. Facilitate parts handling.
10. Specify standard parts.
Design Efficiency
Design Efficiency is the number of
essential parts divided by the total
number of parts, expressed as a
percentage.
A
x 100%
A+B

Maybe use Design Efficiency

in a decision gate, by
specifying a target
efficiency percentage.
UUppper bbooddyy
moullddiinng:
FFiivvee sccrrewwss (of
ttwwo ddiifffferent
ssiizzees) holldd tthhe
uppper annd lowwer bboody
ttoogetthheer
LLoowweerrbbooddyyssuubbaassseemmbblyly
MMoottoorr/f/afannssuubbaassseemmbblyly
BBaatteerryyccoommppaarrttmmeennttccoovveerr
Cappttiivvee ssccrrew
on bbaatttteery
ccoompartmennt
ccoover:

A ssccrrew ffiixxing is
requiired on batttteery
compartmenttss ffoor
Otthher bits annd pieccees
iinncclluuddee a
“cceeiliinng mount kit”

MMoounnt plate, swivveel,

cabble, hhoook, and three
more screws
Materials
Bill ofMaterials analysed
Only parts need
to be identified
as essential or
non- essential –
not
subassemblies
Results of Analysis
Eleven essential parts
Thirty parts or bought-in elements in total

Formula: A
x 100%
A+B

11
x 100%
30
… design efficiency is 36.7%
 Making use of design efficiency
• Some companies use design efficiency as a decision gate
(for example, proceed with the design if efficiency is over
45%)
• Use design efficiency to compare two or more alternative
design concepts, and go with the best one Examine each ‘B’
part in turn, and state how it might
• be designed out (if reasons such as manufacturing
complexity prevent its elimination, record the reasons)

• …but consider ease of assembly as well

Figure 1.7: motor drive assembly that is required to sense
& control its position on two steel guide rails.
• Motor must be fully enclosed for set of
principle/concepts
• Have a removable cover to provide access to
adjustment of the position sensor.
• Principal requirements:
– A rigid base designed to slide up and down with
guide rails that will both support the motor and
locate the sensor.
– The motor and sensor have wires connecting to a
power supply and control unit.
Original
design
1.Base: 1st part to be assembled, it is a theoretically necessary part.
2.Bushings (2): Base and bushings could be of same material.
3.Motor:standard subassembly of parts.
4.Motor screws (2): separate fasteners do not meet the criteria
because an integral fastening arrangement is always theoretically
possible.
5.Sensor: Standard subassembly.
6.Set screw: Theoretically not necessary.
7.Standoffs (2): They could be incorporated into the base.
8.End plate: Must be separate for reasons of assembly of necessary
items.
9.End plate screws (2): Theoretically not necessary.
10.Plastic bushing: Could be of the same material as the end plate.
11.Cover: Could be combined with the end plate.
12.Cover screws (4): Theoretically not necessary.
 Design Efficiency

(Theoretical minimum number of parts) x (3 seconds)

DEindex =
DFA
Estimated total assembly time
DE
DE
 Re
design
• Motor and sensor subassemblies could be arranged to snap or
screw into the base and a plastic cover designed to snap on.
• Only four separate items would be needed instead of 19.
• These four items represent the theoretical min number
needed to satisfy the requirements of the product design
without considering practical limitations.
• Two screws are needed to secure the motor.
• One set screw is needed to hold the sensor.
• The design of these screws could be improved by providing
them with pilot points to facilitate assembly.
• The two powder metal bushings are unnecessary.
• It is difficult to justify the separate standoffs, end plate, cover,
plastic bushing, and six screws.
DE
Is it practical to design a product with 100 percent assembly efficiency
(DE= 1.0)? What conditions would have to be met? Can you think of
any products with very high (greater than 75 percent) assembly
efficiency?
It might seem theoretically practical to produce a product with 100%
assembly efficiency. However, because DFA has implications on other parts
of a design and manufacturing process (that is, there is coupling between
these issues), a 100% assembly efficient product can be counterproductive
in several respects.

For example, imagine a product that requires occasional cleaning as a

maintenance procedure. If the product is highly integrated there is a
possibility that dust or dirt will accumulate in sections that can't be pulled
apart or that require special tooling to separate.

Spray bottles (like those used in household cleaners) also have high
assembly efficiency; two or three injection-molded parts and no fasteners
comprise the entire product.
 List of questions to evaluate the proposed design.
In order to justify the changes proposed in the redesign, following set of questions
would evaluate the redesign to assess the suitability and viability of the redesigned
door bell;
1. Are the tolerances of the redesigned parts such as to allow ease of alignment
and insertion?
2. Can all of the parts be manufactured?
3. How much cost would increase (if any) for the redesign?
4. Is the quality of the finished product better or similar to the original design?
5. Has the complexity of the parts increased significantly?
6. Is the redesign manageable to disassembly in such a way that parts can be
reused / recycled at the end of life?
7. Have the material selection been made to reduce the environmental footprint of
the original design?
 Customer Satisfaction
Overall, one has to keep in mind that the redesigned door bell has to meet or exceed the
customer satisfaction as expected through the original design. In order to ensure this
happens, one needs to address the following areas in the redesign;

The snap fits need to be designed far stronger than the screws and nuts as snap fits or not as
easy to find as the screw and nuts are (available everywhere in small and big hardware
shops).

This also highlights the importance of extending the customer support to provide help with
the special features of the redesign.

The snap fits should be made from material and processes that would allow minimal
replacement cost to the user.
 Reasons for not implementing
DFMA
• 1. No time:
Designers are constrained to minimize their “design to
manufacture time” for a new product.
• 2. Not invented here:
Very often designers provide enough resistance to adopt new
techniques.
• 3. Ego
Designer ego crashes if there is some suggestion for design
change.
• 4. Low assembly cost:
Since assembly cost of a particular product is less as compared
to the total material and manufacturing cost, DFA analysis is
not required.
• 5. Low volume:
Often it is expressed that DFMA is applicable for large
quantity production.
• 6.Database doesn't apply to our product:
Since DFMA is applied at the early stages of design
before the detail design has taken place;
there is a need for a generalized database.
• 7. We have been doing it for years:
Sometimes industry uses the design for producibility
concept to fine-tune the design. There is a
misconception that they are doing the similar
practice of DFMA.
• 8. It is only value analysis:
The objective of DFMA and value analysis are same,
however DFMA is used at the early stages of design
and can be used in every stages of design.
• 9. DFMA is only one among many techniques.
• 10. DFMA leads to products that are more difficult
to service.
• 11. Prefer design rules:
Sometimes design rules guide the designer in the
wrong direction.
• 12. Refuse to use DFMA:
Individual doesn't have the incentive to
adopt the new technology and use the tools
available.