Design and Development of Grass Cutting Machine Using DFMA Methodology

UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKADesign and Development of Grass Cutting Machine using DFMA Methodology Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka for the Bachelor’s degree in Manufacturing Engineering (Manufacturing Design) with Honours By MOHD ISHAMMUDIN BIN MOHD YUNUS Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering April 2008 UTeM Library (Pind.1/2007) UNIVERSITI TEKNIKAL MALAYSIA MELAKA BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS* JUDUL: Design and Development of Grass Cutting Machine using DFMA Methodology _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ 2007/2008 SESI PENGAJIAN : _______________________ Saya MOHD ISHAMMUDIN BIN MOHD YUNUS _____________________________________________________________________ mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah) ini disimpan di Perpustakaan Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut: 1. Tesis adalah hak milik Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka. 2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan pengajian sahaja. 3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi. 4. **Sila tandakan (√) SULIT TERHAD TIDAK TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan Malaysia yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972) (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan) (TANDATANGAN PENULIS) Alamat Tetap: NO 453,Jln Hj Adnan, Kg Gching, 43900,Sepang, Selangor Darul Ehsan Tarikh: (TANDATANGAN PENYELIA) Cop Rasmi: Tarikh: _______________________ * Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi Ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan, atau Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM). ** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD. DECLARATION I hereby, declare this thesis entitled “Design and Development of Grass Cutting Machine using DFMA Methodology” is the results of my own research except as cited in the reference. Signature Author’s Name Date : ……..…………………………………………. MOHD ISHAMMUDIN BIN MOHD YUNUS : ……………………………………………… : ……………………………………………… APPROVAL This thesis submitted to the senate of UTeM and has been accepted as fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering Manufacturing (Design). The members of the supervisory committee are as follows: ………………………………………… Main supervisor Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering . it can be classified into several categories to be studied. Eventually. Result shown that the design efficiency for redesign grass cutting machine obtained better percentage rather than the existing design. The new proposed design of grass cutting machine drawn using SolidWorks software based on TeamSET result achieved. The tools that used is TeamSET software. handling ratio and fitting ratio to achieve. the improvement of redesign grass cutting machine finally will be able to meet user requirements and satisfactions. The method used for gaining the data is from the reassembled the existing grass cutting machine. Data will be analyzed by using Lucas Hull method to verify the design efficiency. The scope based on the existing grass cutting machine and the appropriate of DFMA methodology.ABSTRACT This project describes about the implementation of redesign the grass cutting machine by using the application of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. handling ratio fitting ratio and cost of existing design is reduced. i . the total part. From the data achieved. From the study. ii . Akhirnya. nisbah perhimpunan dan kos telah dikurangkan. bahagian terjumlah. Skop projek adalah memfokus kepada rekabentuk asal mesin pemotong rumput dan disertakan dengan aplikasi DFMA. nisbah pengendalian. Perkakasan yang terlibat adalah perisian TeamSET. nisbah pengendalian. Keputusan menunjukkan bahawa kecekapan reka bentuk untuk rekabentuk semula mesin pemotong rumput memperolehi peratusan lebih baik daripada rekabentuk yang asal. Hasil data yang diperolehi akan dikelaskan kepada beberapa kategori sebelum analisa dilakukan. nisbah perhimpunan sebagai pencapaian objektif projek. kesemua data tersebut akan dianalisa dengan menggunakan kaedah Lucas Hull untuk menentukan kecekapan rekabentuk. Kaedah yang digunakan untuk mendapatkan data adalah daripada memasang semula mesin pemotong rumput.ABSTRAK Kertas kerja ini menghuraikan tentant perlaksanaan dalam mereka bentuk semula mesin pemotong rumput dengan menggunakan aplikasi DFMA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly). Rekabentuk mesin pemotong rumput yang baru akan di lukis menggunakan perisian SolidWorks berdasrkan keputusan yang dicapai daripada perisian TeamSET. Kemudian. peningkatan rekabentuk semula mesin pemotong rumput akhirnya akan dapat bertemu keperluan dan kepuasan pengguna. Daripada kajian. DEDICATION For my beloved mother and father iii . I would like to state my appreciation to the staff – Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering. my friend and colleagues for supporting me and administration department for their help in the project . I would like to express my highest appreciation to my supportive academic supervisor. for their assistance. Saifudin. His never-ending supply of valuable advice and guidance has enlightens me and deeply engraved in my mind. Next. for his enthusiastic support and supervision of the thesis revision. I would like to convey thanks to FKP lecturers. who has been so warmth and kind to provide sincere assistance and good cooperation during the training period. iv . In addition. Last but not least. Marjom. FKP. Their co-operation is much indeed appreciated. which really spends their time to teach me a lots of knowledge regarding to the design development. I would like to dedicate my thankfulness to the helpful of Mr. Mr. I’m also happy to present my gratefully acknowledge to Machinery laboratory technicians. His supervision and support that gave me truly helps during the period of conducting my thesis.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost. Thank you.Zolkarnain B. .. INTRODUCTION……………………………...ix List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….....3 2..xi List of Sign and Symbol…………………………………………………………………xii 1.3 1.....4 2....12 2..................i Abstrak ……………………………………………………………………………………ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………........1 1..5.......14 v ....5 The Guidelines of DFA…………………………………………………...... LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………...13 2............4 The Lucas DFA method…………………………………………………………..10 2....5 2............4...........................3 Fitting Analysis……………………………………………………...4 2.....2 Problem statement…………………………………………………………………2 1........2 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA)………………………………...5........1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………….........TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….....4.....4....3 Objective…………………………………………………………………………..1 Functional Analysis………………………………………………………...iii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………............4 Scope of study……………………………………………………………………....1 1..2 Design Guidelines for Part Handling…………………………….....10 2..1 A DFA guideline…………………………………………………………..3 Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA method………………………………………………...13 2.iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...8 2...2 Handing Analysis…………………………………………………..v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….....7 2...........1 General Introduction……………………………...... ..2 Flow chart of existing product………………………………….26 3......1 Method of Study…………………………………………………………………27 3.3 Application of DFMA in medical instrument industry………………….21 2.....10..4..29 3.4....4.5 Detail drawing of existing product………………………………………37 3.2 Application of DFMA in automotive industry…………………………..4.36 3..17 2...34 3.34 3..9 TeamSET………………………………………………………………………....5... METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………27 3..3 Design Guidelines for Insertion and Fastening…………………………….4.7 DFA Process…………………………………………………………………….3 TeamSET database process…………………………………………………….8 Design for Manufacture Guidelines…………………………………………….8..10 Application of DFMA in industry……………………………………………...16 2.1 Application of DFMA in aerospace industry……………………………....6 TeamSET analysis for existing product………………………………….10.4 Flow chart of lower tunnel part…………………………………………..1 General Principles of manufacturability………………………………….37 vi .10....3 Flow chart of upper tunnel part………………………………………….1 3.14 2...17 2.19 2.4 DFA analysis for existing product………………………………………………...2 TeamSET process flow…………………………………………………………..4.24 2..6 Types of Assembly………………………………………………………………15 2.21 2....2.34 Flow chart of base part………………………………………….30 3.35 3. 4. RESULT AND ANALYSIS………………………………………………………...39 4.1 Introduction of analysis…………………………………………………………..39 4.2 Draw design using SolidWork software…………………………………………40 4.2.1 4.2.2 Detail drawing of first redesign………………………………………….40 Detail drawing of second redesign……………………………………….41 DFA analysis for first redesign…………………………………………..42 4.3.1.1 Flow chart of first redesign………………………………………44 4.3.1.2 Flow chart of upper tunnel part after first redesign……………...44 4.3.1.3 Flow chart of lower tunnel part after first redesign……………...45 4.3.1.4 Flow chart of base part after first redesign………………………46 4.3.1.5 TeamSET analysis for first redesign……………………………..47 4.3.2 DFA analysis for second redesign……………………………….............48 4.3.2.1 Flow chart of second redesign…………………………………...49 4.3.2.2 Flow chart of base structure part………………………………...49 4.3.2.3 Flow chart of cylinder blade part………………………………...50 4.3.2.4 Flow chart of tunnel part…………………………………………50 4.3.2.5 Flow chart of pulley system part…………………………………51 4.3.2.6 TeamSET analysis for second redesign………………………….51 4.4 Material and process selection………………………………………………….53 4.4.1 Shaft blade and shaft connector………………………………………….53 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 Cylinder blade……………………………………………………………54 Base structure…………………………………………………………….55 Tunnel……………………………………………………………………56 4.3 Analysis using TeamSET software………………………………………………42 4.3.1 vii 5. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………….57 5.1 Comparison of existing design with first and second redesign…………………..57 5.2 Safeguards for prevent from mechanical hazards………………………………..59 6. CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORKS …………………………………………...61 6.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….61 6.2 Future works……………………………………………………………………..62 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………63 APPENDIX A B Gantt chart for PSM 1 & 2 Detail drawing for redesign Grass Cutting Machine viii LIST OF FIGURE 1.1 The grass cutting machine Flow chart of Lucas Hull method Show DFA analysis Show view of Longbow Apache Helicopter Explode view of existing design of overhead luggage rack Explode view of new design of overhead luggage rack BagEasy III 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 9 20 23 24 25 26 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 Flow chart of Planning of the Study The process flow in developing TeamSET database The product maintaining projects, products and design scenarios Product Breakdown Structure Assembly Window DFA analysis for assembly parts A flow chart of existing product main part A flow chart of base part A flow chart of upper tunnel part A flow chart of lower tunnel part View of the existing product TeamSET analysis for existing product 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 37 38 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 View of first redesign View of second redesign A flow chart of first redesign main part A flow chart of upper tunnel part after redesign A flow chart of lower tunnel part after redesign 40 41 44 45 45 ix 4.10 4.1 Shows the comparison between existing product and second redesign 61 x .9 4.7 4.1 5.11 4.2 Part for accessories View of the second redesign after installation accessories 59 60 6.14 4.15 4.16 4.13 4.8 4.12 4.6 4.17 A flow chart of base part TeamSET analysis for improvement design A flow chart of final design main part A flow chart of base structure part A flow chart of cylinder blade part A flow chart of V-belt part TeamSET analysis for second redesign Drawing of shaft blade and shaft connector View of cylinder blade View of base structure Cross section view of tunnel Isometric view of tunnel 46 47 49 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 56 5. LIST OF TABLE 2.2 2.2 Comparison of existing design with fisrt redesign Comparison of existing design with second redesign 58 58 xi .1 5.1 4.1 2.3 Lucas DFA method .Manual Handling Analysis Lucas DFA method .Manual Fitting Analysis Pilot's Instrument Panel Estimate Summary 11 12 23 4.2 Quantity List of a first redesign Quantity List of a second redesign 43 48 5. LIST OF SIGN & SYMBOL DFMA DFA DFM PDS QFD MA FMEA DTC ASF IPD PEP IEFAB CAD PBS - Design for Manufacturing and Assembly Design for Assembly Design of Manufacturing Product Design Specification Quality Function Deployment Manufacturing Analysis Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Design to Target Cost Assembly Flowchart Integrated Product Development Engineering and Planning Improved Extended Avionics Bay Computer Aided Design Product Breakdown Structure - xii . The global marketplace is changing so rapidly that industrialist needs to adopt new strategies to respond customer’s requirement and in order to satisfy the market needs more efficiently and quickly. In this project. Most of the applied interested in implementing DFMA are hindered by lack of clear guidelines or procedures and no integration of isolated design and manufacturing teams. it fulfills customer’s requirement. The advantages of the integration are to decrease the number of part design and indirectly to reduce cost and time. The delay in time-to-market can be interpreted as a loss in profit (Alan F & Jan Chal. USA and Europe have already started to implement techniques and tools that would enable them to respond more quickly to consumer’s demand in delivering high quality product at reasonable costs. the implementation of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology are applied either manually or computer-aided. DFMA has been applied in design and development the grass cutting machine. Many companies especially in Japan.1 General Introduction Product lifecycle is being reduced drastically due to rapid changes in technology and customers requirements. 1 . Currently. 1994). At the same time. The design also must be concerned to the requirement of the DFMA methodology in order to achieve high rank of market selling.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. In identifying of grass cutting machine problems. Figure 1. Besides that.2 Problem statement In developing this project.1: The grass cutting machine 2 . Some of the part grass cutting machine are being designed quite complicated with accessories and need to be eliminated. with the application of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology is highly expected in solving these problems to suit the customer requirements and convenient. the most important aspects that need to be concerned is the design of the grass cutting machine. there are several parts had been recognized that difficult to handle. there are several problems that need to be concerned and the most suitable method that can be used to solve the problems is by applying the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology.1. So. in the same time reduced the manufacturing cost and assembly time. For this project. and etcetera.1. The tool selected for drawing the grass cutting machine is SolidWork. User can easily generate drawing from a model. total number of parts in a product. b) Design for Assembly (DFA) DFA is a systematic methodology that reduces manufacturing costs. c) to purpose grass cutting machine using DFMA method and TeamSET software. Beside that. 3 . d) to determine the optimum manufacturing and assembly method for low cost production with short production time. the software called TeamSET is used to analyze the design for existing product and redesign product. Photorealistic rendering and animation that allow communicating how future products will look and perform early in the development cycle.4 Scope of study a) Case study A grass cutting machine has been selected as a case study for this project and had the potential to be redesign by applying the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. other specific objectives include: a) to develop the grass cutting machine.3 Objective The main objective of this project is using DFMA methodology to design the new grass cutting machine and compare with the existing product. b) to design and analysis of original design. 1. There are certain important DFMA tools that have been applied such as Design for Assembly (DFA) and Design for Manufacture (DFM). the Lucas DFA method. 4 . This chapter described about the definition of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA). the case study is to apply the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA). These two important DFMA tools are very useful especially to the industry. the application of DFMA in industry and application of engineering software called TeamSET.1 Introduction To develop this project.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA method. The extra time spent in the early design stage is much less the time that will be spent in the repeatedly redesign. estimate the manufacturing time the product cost quantitatively and rapidly among the different schemes. When developing a product. the maximum potential cannot be achieved without considering all phases of the design and manufacturing cycle. It can be used in any environment regardless of how complex the part is or how technologically advanced this environment may be. different technologies. They compare all kinds of the design plans and technology plans. and the required assembly motions and processes (D-ESPAT. 2007). Of all the issues to consider. DFMA encourages concurrent engineering during product design so that the product qualities reside with both designers and the other members of the developing team (DESPAT. the practices now known as Design for Assembly (DFA). According to Geoffrey Boothroyd. the cost will be reduced. industry was most interested in Design for Assembly. DFM is that by considering the limitations related to the manufacturing at the early stage of the design. type. And meanwhile. 2007). The basic concept of it is that the design engineers apply the DFMA paradigm or software to analyze the manufacturing and assembly problems at the early design stage. and 5 . and Design for Manufacture (DFM) had their start in the late 1970's at the University of Massachusetts. These key factors are the product appearance. the number of parts required in the product. DFMA meets this demand by addressing key assembly factors before the product goes on to the prototype stage. By this means. all of considerations about the factors that affect the final outputs occur as early as possible in the design cycle. the design engineer can make selection among the deferent materials. or a simplification of subassemblies is desired.2 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) is a design philosophy used by designers when a reduction in part counts. The Term “DFMA” comes with the combination of DFA (Design for Assembly) and DFM (Design of Manufacturing).2. a reduction in assembly time. Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing at the University of Rhode Island. The second one is that collecting the knowledge and experience from the assembly experts and recording them as design guides. and meanwhile. manufacturing. including the cost of design. technical support. Shorten the developing cycle time. service and so on. The former usage is that at the time after the beginning of the product design. DFA is a kind of design method that can be used in two ways.then the design team will make revises as soon as possible at the early stage of the design period according this feedback information and determine the most satisfied design and technology plan. delivery. Decrease the cost. DFA is a kind of design paradigm with which. DFA is considering and resolving the possible problems in the assembly process at the early stage of the design which can make sure the part will be assembled with high speed. manufacturing. The ways is a tool for assembly analysis and a guide for assembly design. By the help of these guides. the engineer can choose the design plan and determine the product construction such as under the guidance of those experts. the engineer makes estimation of assembly possibility by analyzing all the factors that can affect the assembly process. revise the assembly constructions to satisfied the characteristics and functions of the final products. The three goals in DFM are: 1. including the time of design. manufacturing preparing. Increase the quality of new produces during the development period. low cost and productivity. technology. 3. estimating. 6 . including design. and give suggestions. and repeatedly calculation. technology. lower the cost as most as possible. the engineer use all kinds of methods such as analyze. and discarding. 2. planning and simulating to consider all the factors that will affect the assembly process during the whole design process. They also do a lot of work examining the economic justification of each design revision (G. In generally. They created and developed the DFMA concept which is used in developing the products of their company such as DFMA software system.3 Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA method In the history of DFMA. special-purpose transfer machine assembly and robot assembly. 1993). They also do a lot of work examining the economic justification of each design revision.2. Dr. 7 . 1999). and with machining. Currently these programs are used to help the design in almost all the industrial fields including circuit boards. with manual assembly.DFMA software system. with robotic assembly. Inc (BDI) in 1982 are the first persons doing the research job in this new technology at the beginning in the early 1970’s. Actually. This method also can ensure that the remaining parts are easy to assemble. They created and developed the DFMA concept which is used in developing the products of their company --. The methods of assembly are classified into three basic categories such as manual assembly. with manual assembly. Currently these programs are used to help the design in almost all the industrial fields including circuit boards (G. tanks and other military products. the “DFMA” is a trademark of their company. Geoffrey Boothroyd and Dr. Peter Dewhurst who founded the Boothroyd Dewhurst. Boothroyd & W. with robotic assembly. Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA method can determine the appropriate assembly method and reducing the number of individual parts to be assembled. Ford and Chrysler use the DFM philosophy in their design and manufacturing process of the weapons. Knight. Causey. and with machining. 2. HA (Handing Analysis) and FtA (Fitting Analysis). it is based on timing each of the handling and insertion motions. The basic construction of Lucas DFA is very similar to the DFA of BDI. Before the manufacturing and assembly process. it is the result of the cooperation of Lucas Organization and the University of Hull in U. Now. the PDS (Product Design Specification) occurs which change the requirements of the customs into engineering specifications.4 The Lucas DFA method Although the Boothroyd-Dewhurst method is widely used.K. This is a kind of process to change the engineering specifications into the real design and meanwhile. After that. the most accurate numbers are compiled through time studies in particular factories. the logic of Lucas DFA has been integrated in the engineering analysis software “TeamSet” which is the product of CCI Lucas DFA separates the product design process into three stages: FcA (Function Analysis). all the requirements should be satisfied. The relations of these three stages are shown in Figure 2. Although tables of data are available. 8 . the design engineers perform the design job according to this information.1. 1: Lucas Hull method 9 .Figure 2. If the index is greater than 1. For each part. The functional efficiency of the design can be calculated as (Vincent Chan & Filippo A. a design efficiency of 60% is targeted for initial designs. Generally. and etcetera. the components of the product are reviewed only for their function.5. This is different than the Boothroyd-Dewhurst method (which assumes a design is already available). The design efficiency is used to pre-screen a design alternative before more time is spent on it. Parts that belong to Group A are those that are deemed to be essential to the product's function. and B is the number of non-essential components.5.2 Handing Analysis Similar to the Boothroyd-Dewhurst analysis. 2.1 Functional Analysis In this analysis.4. In the feeding analysis. Salustri. all of the product's components should meet a "feeding ratio" defined as (Vincent Chan & Filippo A. 2005): Handling Ratio = (Total Feeding Index) / (Number of Essential Components) Total Handling Index = A+B+C+D 10 . the part should be considered for redesign. both the part handling and insertion times are examined here. Overall.2. Group B functions include fastening. Typically. This analysis is intended to reduce the part count in the product. The components are divided into two groups. the individual feeding index is scored. Salustri. Group B parts are those that are not essential to the product's function. the problems associated with the handling of the part are scored using an appropriate table.4. 2005): Ed = A/(A+B) x 100% Where A is the number of essential components. the target index for a part is 1. locating. hard to see 0 0. no orientation required End to end. Size & Weight of Part One of the following Very small .4 0.5 11 .7 0.5 0.2 0.requires tools 1. Handling difficulties All that apply Delicate Flexible Sticky Tangible Severely nest Sharp/Abrasive Untouchable Gripping problem / slippery No handling difficulties C. The number of essential components is the value A from the functional analysis.4 0.8 0. An ideal feeding ratio is generally taken to be 2. Orientation of Part One of the following Symmetrical.5 0.6 0.2 0 1.5 Table 2.5 3 0 0.5 Convenient .1: Lucas DFA method .Where the total feeding index is the sum of all the indices of all the parts. easy to see End to end.3 0.hands only 1 Large and/or heavy requires more than 1 hand Large and/or heavy requires hoist or 2 people B.Manual Handling Analysis A. easy to see Rotational Orientation. Rotational Orientation of Part One of the following Rotational Symmetry Rotational Orientation. not visible D.1 0. a fitting index of 1. Process Direction One of the following Straight line from above Straight line not from above Not a straight line C. snaps) Screwing Riveting Bending B.0 4.7 1. 2005). Salustri.6 12 .2 0 0.1 1.0 4.5 is desired (Vincent Chan & Filippo A.6 0 0. Again.0 Requires holding Plus 1 of the following Self-securing (i. Part Placing and Fastening One of the following Self-holding orientation 1. it should be noted that there is usually greater variance in the fitting indices than in the feeding indices.2.0 0 0. Insertion One of the following Single Multiple insertions Simultaneous multiple insertions E. However.e.3 4.7 0 0. an overall fitting ration of 2.5 is a goal value for each assembly. Again.2: Lucas DFA method . Insertion Force One of the following No resistance to insertion Resistance to insertion 2.Manual Fitting Analysis A.3 Fitting Analysis The fitting analysis is calculated similarly to the feeding analysis. Alignment One of the following Easy to align Difficult to align F. Fitting Ratio = (Total Fitting Index) / (Number of Essential Components) Total Fitting Index = A+B+C+D+E+F Table 2.4.0 1. components. components. part variety. simplify assembly sequences. reduced tooling. The secondly area is insertion and fastening assembly which means mating a part to another part group or group of part. The process of assembly can be divided naturally into two separate areas. handling assembly which means acquiring. Employ modularity to allow variety to be introduced late in the assembly sequence and simplify JIT production.5. and subassemblies throughout product families to increase economies of scale and reduce equipment and tooling costs. 13 . component handling and insertion. b) Standardize Standardize on material usage. c) Rationalize product design Standardize on materials.2. and aim for as much off-the-shelf component as possible to allow improved inventory management.1 A DFA guideline A DFA guideline is given below: a) Aim for simplicity Minimize part numbers. and the benefits of mass production even at low volumes. for faster and more reliable assembly. orienting and moving the part. 2. assembly surfaces.5 The Guidelines of DFA The general guidelines of DFA that attempt to consolidate manufacturing knowledge and present them to the designer in the form of simple rules to be followed when creating a design. are obviously asymmetric c) provide features that will prevent jamming of parts that tend to nest or stack when stored in bulk d) avoid features that will allow tangling of parts when stored in bulk e) Avoid parts that stick together or are slippery. very small or very large or that are hazardous to the handler. in those instances where the part cannot be made symmetric. e) Design so that a part is located before it is released. 2. 14 .5. flexible.2 Design Guidelines for Part Handling a) Design parts that have end-to-end symmetry and rotational symmetry about the axis of insertion.3 Design Guidelines for Insertion and Fastening a) Design with little or no resistance to insertion and provide chamfers to guide insertion of two mating parts to provide generous clearance but not resulted for parts to jam or hang-up during insertion b) Standardize by using common parts. b) Design parts that. delicate. f) Try to follow the sequence of the mechanical fasteners and listed in order of increasing manual assembly cost.5. If not try to design parts having the maximum possible symmetry.2. g) Avoid the need to reposition the partially completed assembly in the fixture. processes and methods across all models and product lines to permit the use of higher volume processes that normally result in lower product cost c) Use pyramid assembly to provide for progressive assembly about one axis of reference and it is best to assemble from above. d) Try to avoid the necessity for holding parts down to maintain their orientation during manipulation of the subassembly or during the placement of another part. Reduction in the number of parts can be achieved by eliminating of parts example replacing screws 15 . which in turn inserts the part.6 Types of Assembly There are three types of assembly. The cost of assembly is determined by the number of parts in the assembly and the ease with which the parts can be handled and inserted. c) Robotic assembly the handling and insertion of the part is done by a robot arm under computer control. and then moves. ii. Reduce the number of different component by considering Use self-aligning and self-locating features Avoid screws/bolts. iii. The design Guidelines for Manual Assembly are: i. often with a power tool. The operator then places the parts together and fastens them. iv. The design guidelines for Automatic Assembly: i.2. Minimize the number of different parts – use ‘standard’ parts. Avoid or minimize part orientation during assembly Prefer easily handled parts that do not tangle or nest within one another. Minimize the number of parts. like a vibratory bowl. classified by the level of automation. iii. Design can be have strong influence in both areas. ii. orients and prepositions the part for insertion. a) Manual assembly a human operator at a workstation reaches and grasps a part from a tray. b) Automatic assembly handling is accomplished with a parts feeder. Ease of handling and insertion is achieved by designing so that the parts cannot become tangled or nested in each other and by designing with symmetry in mind. 2001): a) Evaluate the assemblability of the individual parts whether they are easy to be assembled or not. The DFA is a two step process (Shih-Wen Hsiao. 2.and washers with snap or press fit and by combining several parts into a single component. b) Evaluate the theoretical minimum number pf parts that should be in the product. Insertability: To check if the part is easy to be inserted into the correct position or not when it is being assembled. In step 1 the designer uses some established rating system to evaluate each individual part with respect to it’s: Graspability: To check that the part is easy to be grasped or not during the period of assembly. handling followed by insertion. Orientability: To check if the part is easy to be oriented or not when it is being assembled Transferability: To check whether the part is easy to be transferred to the work position or not. Parts that do not require end-to-end orientation prior to insertion as a screw does should be used if possible. Parts with complete rotational symmetry around the axis of insertion like a washer are best. Secureability: To check whether the part or the product is secure or not after the part has been assembled. they need to be assembled into subassemblies and products. 16 . The assembly process consists of two operations.7 DFA Process Once parts are manufactured. Some 'manufacturability' software is available. 2. involves detail such as ensuring that where a pin is to be assembled into a hole that is only slightly larger in diameter. Eliminating the need for a separate housing or enclosure can be beneficial. 2003). design for manufacture (DFM) at a part level. To determine these optimal values will normally necessitate experimental work on a prototype. c) The assembly of products made up from 4 to 8 modules with 4 to 12 parts per module can usually be automated most readily.1 General Principles of manufacturability a) Reducing the number of parts frequently reduces the weight of the product which is advantageous. which may utilize many fasteners. product DFM tackles the more fundamental problem of deciding on the product structure and form. One method that has been successful in many cases is to replace a fabricated sub . This section starts with some simple but important principles of manufacturability (David Grieve. b) A robust design is one that has been optimised so that variations from the nominal specification cause a minimum loss of quality. This is a fine tuning process carried out once the product form has been decided. In some cases this has given weight savings as well as cost savings.8 Design for Manufacture Guidelines Design for manufacture or 'Manufacturability' concerns the cost and difficulty of making the product. 17 . At a simple level manufacturability.2. This applies whether the assembly is carried out manually or automatically. At a more complex level. It is also helpful to maintain a generic configuration as far as possible into the assembly process and install specialist modules as late as possible. then it is much easier if the end of the pin or the entry to the hole (or both) are chamfered or finished with a radius. Indeed automatic assembly would be very difficult / expensive if neither component of a close fitting pair was chamfered.8.assembly. relating both to manufacture and to assembly. with a single casting. Design for assembly (DFA) is an important part of this. This minimises the danger of the consumer incorrectly wiring a plug and suffering an electric shock. Generally assembling top down. e) Designing so only correct assembly is possible is useful where semi . detents. not points in space. The use of rigid or process applied gaskets. This will also reduce the cost of repairs and maintenance. forming etc. notches or spring mounted components. k) Using large radii is generally good practice for most processes.d) Assembly from 1 direction is beneficial whether manual or automated assembly is to be used. g) Fasteners can add significantly to costs.and stress concentration is reduced. is the best solution. However sharp corners are inevitable with some processes. casting. like making a sandwich. eg 2 intersecting machined surfaces and punch face .skilled labour is used and it is also desirable if there are safety considerations if the product were to be incorrectly assembled. If a designer understands why an adjustment has been recommended. h) Mechanical adjustments add to the cost of fabrication and cause assembly. Dimensions should also be measured from points or surfaces on a component. test and reliability problems. i) Wiring and other flexible components are difficult to handle during assembly. frequently the cost of installation will greatly exceed purchase cost.wall edge in a powdered metal component. as material flow is facilitated . The need for adjustments can often be negated by using dowel pins. There is no cost advantage in preventing these sharp corners. Manufacturers of mains powered consumer electrical appliances frequently supply them with a flex having a moulded on supply plug. j) Dimensioning from 1 datum simplifies gauging and minimizes errors in tolerances. 18 . If fasteners must be used then minimise the sizes and types. f) Using standard sizes will reduce costs directly and reduced delivery times will indirectly give savings. a way of eliminating or reducing the need can often be found. along the z axis. Small fasteners and parts should be avoided. circuit boards rather than electric wiring helps to minimize this problem. including manufacturing specialists. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to ensure the design is robust. personnel from functions other than design are involved in the design process. and develop the product specification.2 19 . 2008).9 TeamSET TeamSET is a PC based software package which helps designers produce better products at reduced cost and in shorter times. the rise in manufacturing costs is increasingly steep. DFA analysis is carried out on a graphical chart as shown in Figure 2. Design for Assembly (DFA) to simplify product structure and optimise component handling and assembly. This enables all aspects of a design to be considered at an early stage. 2. TeamSET is a PC based software package based integrated set of applications that support design team working and encourages a multidisciplinary culture. The TeamSET concurrent engineering software toolkit includes Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to help to understand the customers wants. The result from the tool kit will helps product design teams to produce better products at lower cost and in a shorter time (TeamSet. particularly for closer tolerance parts because as tolerances become tighter.l) In simultaneous or concurrent engineering. Manufacturing Analysis (MA) to select the most appropriate materials and processes for component manufacture. m) This can be critical. and Controlled Concept Convergence to select the best options. Design to Target Cost (DTC) to monitor product costs throughout the design process. c) Work from previous products. assemblies and part analysis can be re-used in later design activities negating the need to start from scratch each time. reliability and cost by ensuring that the design to which user are committing is simple to manufacture and assemble has a minimum of non-essential parts.2: DFA analysis 20 .The benefits of TeamSET are: a) The provision of such a focus allows design team to explore and compare design or re-design options quickly and with minimum effort. Figure 2. keeps tooling costs down and will meet customer needs. d) This will not only shorten analysis times but also enable user to capitalize on the benefits that accrue from standardization. b) Will allow user addressed such problems as time to market. quality. consistency and predictability. manufacturing. 2. This design is then brought into production in a short period of time without the budget and lengthy schedule usually encountered by other organizations 21 . MDHS redesigned and optimized one of the six Longbow prototype helicopters. The method involves the assigning and summing of penalty factors associated wih potential design problems. 1998). An Integrated Product Development (IPD) team was formed to conduct this redesign. procurement. Data were obtained through the Integrated Product Development (IPD) team for several redesigned areas of the Longbow prototype Helicopter Crew Station. Each elements of this structure can be associated with a particular assembly of parts for which detailed information is stored (Anonymous. manufacturing. and others. During the years of 1994 and 1995. 2007). similar to the Hotachi method but with the inclusion of handling as well as insertion. quality. suppliers. The TeamSet database contains a number of projects. quality. each of whichwill contain a number of associated products.1 Application of DFMA in aerospace industry This study examines the effectiveness of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology used by the design. It does not use cost analysis. and in this respect differs from the Hitachi and BoothroydDewhurst method. Each of these will have a number of different design scenarios. product support.10 Application of DFMA in industry 2.Teamset is a result of the collaboration between lucas and the university of Hull. The IPD team is a concurrent engineering team where representatives of several organizations such as engineering. work together to develop a product design. which in turn well be broken down in a hierarchy of elements – a product breakdown structure. and supporting engineers for the development of the Longbow Apache Helicopter.10. These are denoed in visual flow called an Assembly Flowchart (ASF). as indicated by a significant cost and weight savings (DESPAT. Results of the study show that DFMA can be an effective approach. 1a software.'s (BDI) DFA 7. The first assembly examined is the Pilot's Instrument Panel which is comprised of a combination of sheet metal angles and extruded stiffeners. the team studied it in order to reduce the part count. weight. 2007). were used to assess the impact of DFMA. Collected data were loaded into the Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc. 2007). Data were collected and summarized as they were made available by the IPD Team (D-ESPAT. tables and schedules were analyzed. This software analyzes the design. and the Improved Extended Avionics Bay (IEFAB) of the Longbow Apache Helicopter. assembly process. design concept descriptions and lists. function. cost estimates. Each DFMA case study was conducted by redesigning existing assemblies. Data were gathered and recorded by the IPD Team and compared to the baseline prototype helicopters which were designed without using DFMA (D-ESPAT. schedules based on the design and manufacturing plans. manufacturing. Design and Producibility Engineering and Planning (PEP). The IPD team met and analyzed its requirements. which was developed and implemented with the purpose of improving the previous prototype aircraft configuration used DFMA as an aid to accomplish that established objective. The fabrication time for this instrument panel is 305 hours. All data that could be found relating to DFMA applications on the Longbow Apache Program including: producibility analyses. 2007). This panel also 22 . and assembly time. It consists of 74 parts with a weight of 3.without a team concept in place. During this project. and detailed DFMA plans on at least four assemblies.00 Kilograms. and materials used. The panel itself is attached to an existing airframe structure with rivets. Six helicopters were completed in the prototype phase and the experience obtained from this phase was applied to the Longbow Initiatives Project. DFMA was applied to a limited number of parts within the crew station. including material. and location of parts. Their estimates. weight data analysis. Data was obtained from each IPD team member that was involved in the DFMA process. Once a preliminary design was done. It then summarizes and provides recommendations on how to improve the design using DFMA philosophy (D-ESPAT. 78 Kilograms 74% Reduction Figure 2. weight reduction would be to 2. The total manufacturing and assembly time would be reduced from 697 hours to 181 hours. Utilizing DFMA in conjunction with the IPD Team concept and availability of HSDM. into only 9 parts (DESPAT. The pilot's instrument panel DFMA concept is shown. and the total cost was reduced by 74%. Subsequent analysis yielded data indicating that the fabrication time could be reduced to 20 hours.74 Kilograms. 2007). 2007).3: Pilot's Instrument Panel Estimate Summary Presenet Instument DFMA Proposed Panels Instrument Panels Part Count Fabrication Time Assembly/Installation Time Total Time Weight Cost 74 pieces 305 Hours 149/153 Hour 697 Hours 3.00 Kilograms 9 pieces 20 Hours 8/153 Hour 181 Hours 2. resulted in the redesign of the pilot's instrument panel. Table 2.3: Show view of Longbow Apache Helicopter 23 .requires a final assembly tooling fixture in addition to tooling needed to form all brackets and angles. and Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated comparison for the Pilot's Instrument Panel (DESPAT. reduce assembly problems and improve function.2 Application of DFMA in automotive industry This study examines the effectiveness of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology used by the design. sheet material and numerous fasteners.4 show the explode view of existing design.2. and supporting engineers for the development of the overhead luggage rack. Subsequent replacement of the centre roof trim was not possible (TeamSet.4: Explode view of existing design of overhead luggage rack 24 . 2008b). The existing design consisted of cast ribs. manufacturing. quality. Figure 2. At 43ft long it is installed through the windscreen and then held in position while fasteners are inserted horizontally and vertically to secure it. Figure 2.10. The objective of this study examines are reduce product cost. 5: Explode view of new design of overhead luggage rack 25 . is now safely routed through a channel in one of the extrusions and retained by foam rubber blocks (TeamSet. 2008b).5 show the explode view of new design.The new design uses 3 full length interlocking extrusions and a minimum of fasteners. Figure 2. The result achieve from this study examines is part reduction from 4730 to 2210 and improvement installation time is 62 hours down to 17 hours. The centre roof trim can now be removed without disturbing the rack. A wiring harness previously held by ‘p’ clips and prone to damage by screws and screw drivers. During installation the lower edge is hooked onto the body side supporting the main weight of the assembly. it is then rotated upward into position and secured to the roof. Figure 2. of assembly cost is 74% (Xiaofan Xie. improve the manufacturability of the product. This resulted “breaking down the walls between functions” and achieving parallel design method which focused the team on the object. Figure 2. ambulances and other treatment locations. reviewed the part design and developed a better one. They communicated every day and the team meeting happened anytime as needed.6 show the picture of BagEasy III. Figure 2. the concept was turned into real-word models. Every member knew their product and what the product was going to be. After the concept design finished. 2003). A design team was founded and the goal of the team was to finish the design with a concept what would meet the product requirement and meanwhile. every member of the team shared the ideals with each other. The results of these efforts are that the new product is greatly simplified.6: BagEasy III 26 . The feedback comes so quickly instead of long time waiting as usual. models generated in CAD was used for analysis. The team members met the supplier at this time. As details of the design created.3 Application of DFMA in medical instrument industry The BagEasy III is a manual resuscitator designed for “single patient use” (to be used multiple times on a single patient) by medical personnel in emergency rooms.2. Throughout the whole design process. the improvement of assembly is 84%.10. Supplier took part in the team activities and answered the questions from the designer on how the parts could be produced. They used BoothroydDewhurst DFMA as the framework during the whole design process. Then from the result achieved. After that. Figure 3. parts included and etcetera. Solidwork software will be used in order to make a drawing of redesign the existing product. The purpose of this analysis is to verify the design efficiency of existing product including assembly process. the procedure goes on gaining the information from the existing product. The methodology of the project starts with the introduction of product to be studied and then some literature review on the design for manufacturing and assembly method.1 shows the flow chart of the planning of the study.CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3. the explanations is more on the project development which is based on the chart to ensure the procedure and the steps of the project will be done properly in the appropriate time which had been planed before. The data for literature review was founded from journals. The method used for collecting data was from the reassemble the existing product. 27 . DFA analysis will be applied to the existing product design. and also internet. the result will be analyzed in order to get the best design for redesign purposed. These data were used to apply analysis using TeamSET software.1 Method of Study In this section. related reference books from library. application of DFMA and techniques for case study. Start Understanding the Title.1: Flow chart of Planning of the Study 28 . Problem Statement & Objectives Do Literatures Journal/ Reports Existing Product Observation Problems Existing Product Specification Existing Product Analysis Redesign Process Technical Redesign Analysis Transfer the Redesign into SolidWork NO Satisfy? YES Discussion Conclusion & Future Work Final Report End Figure 3. 2 showed the process flow to develop the TeamSET database.3. each of which will contain a number of associated products.2: The process flow in developing TeamSET database 29 . which in turn will be broken down in a hierarchy of elements which is a product breakdown structure. Each element of this structure can be associated with a particular assembly of parts for which detailed information is stored. Figure 3. Each of these will have a number of different design scenarios. Database Projects Products Scenarios Product breakdown structure Assemblies Figure 3.2 TeamSET process flow The TeamSET database contains a number of projects. As comparison for electing best Figure 3.3: The product maintaining projects.3 TeamSET database process a) Step 1 The first process is creating and maintaining projects. A product represents the final deliverable item A project allows to group together products that might be part of an overall product line.3. products and design scenarios for product to be analyzed as show in Figure 3. products and design scenarios.3. A scenario represents alternative way of manufacturing product and is related to one PBS. 30 . 4. ii.b) Step 2 Creating the Product Breakdown Structure (PBS) for products as shown in figure 3. Figure 3.4: Product Breakdown Structure 31 . Specify the number of times (quantity) that a particular element occur. The PBS allows to: i. Associate each element with an assembly. 5: Assembly Window 32 .5.c) Step 3 An assembly may be formed exclusively from a collection of simple parts or many contain more complex parts as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Part list HA to determine the difficulty of handling and orientation Assembly flowchart the final deliverable item FA analysis to determine whether “A” part or “B” part Figure 3.d) Step 4 Create a main work window to perform a DFA analysis on assembly parts as shown in Figure 3.6: DFA analysis for assembly parts. 33 .6. 4 DFA analysis for existing product 3.4.1 Flow chart of existing product Existing product can be divided to three main parts as follow: a) base part b) Upper tunnel part c) Lower tunnel part Existing product Upper tunnel part Lower tunnel part Base part Figure 3.2 Flow chart of base part Base part had eleven sub-parts as follow: a) nut D12mm b) bolt 17x76 c) washer D22mm d) bearing e) bearing holder f) v-belt g) pulley h) motor i) plug j) cable k) screw 34 .7: A flow chart of existing product main part 3.3.4. 4.8: A flow chart of base part 3.Base part Bolt Washer V-belt Pulley Nut Screw Cable Bearing Motor Bearing holder Plug Figure 3.3 Flow chart of upper tunnel part Upper tunnel part had twelve sub-parts as follow: a) Nut D12mm b) Nut D10mm c) Bolt 17x36 d) Bolt 17x76 e) Washer D22mm f) Washer D13mm g) Safety guide h) Rod i) Blade j) Allenkey screw k) Bearing l) Bearing holder 35 . 4 Flow chart of lower tunnel part Lower tunnel part had three sub-parts as follow: a) nut D 12mm b) bolt 17x36 c) washer D22mm Lower tunnel part Nut D12mm Bolt 17x36 Washer D22mm Figure 3.9: A flow chart of upper tunnel part 3.4.Upper tunnel part Nut D10m m Bolt17x3 6 Bolt17x76 Washer D22mm Safety guide Nut D12mm Rod Blade Allenkey screw Bearing Bearing holder Figure 3.10: A flow chart of lower tunnel part 36 . 3.11: View of the existing product 3.6 and for assembly ratio is about 4. The result shows about 120 parts that contains in this design and for “A” part is about 21 parts.8. According to this result. The handling ratio is 7. The design efficiency for this design is 18%.12 shows the analysis of existing product using TeamSET software. 37 .6 TeamSET analysis for existing product Figure 3. this design needs to be redesigned because it does not achieve the criteria in Lucas Hull theory.5 Detail drawing of existing product TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW Figure 3. 1 1.1 1.1 2 2 4 1 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 - 1.6 1.C.1 2.2 8.0 13.1 2.0 Figure 3.1 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.3 1.2 Handling ratio : 7.0 13.7 14.1 14.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 1 2 2 4 1 A A A B 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 - 1.1 1.1 8 8 16 2 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 7 7 16 1 - 1.0 1.7 12.5 4.0 4.1 1.1 2.0 1.0 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Part Name G.0 41.1 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.1 41.0 2.1 2.TeamSET .7 4 4 8 1 A A B 1 1 0 3 3 8 - 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.M Qty.0 1.1 1.0 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 A A B A A 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 8 0 0 - 1.1 1.0 2. FA A's B's MA Hand.6 2 2 1 1 A 1 1 - 1.8 Assembly limit : 1.0 A 1 0 - 1.3 1.5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Assembly score: 100.0 2.1 2.6 4.C.0 2.6 Handling limit : 1.M upper tunnel nut washer bolt safety guard rod allenkey screw nut washer blade rod bearing bolt nut washer bearing holder bearing upper tunnel lower tunnel bolt nut washer lower tunnel base bearing bearing holder bolt nut washer bearing motor bolt nut washer plug cabel motor v-belt pulley screw pulley base G.0 1. Assembly Flow 7 14 7 1 A B A A 1 0 1 1 6 14 6 0 - 1.3 1.6 1.0 4.0 2.1 4.12: TeamSET analysis for existing product 38 .3 1.1 1.1 1.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly W rong W ay Round Secondary Op No.1 1.7 1.9:59 Company : UTEM Assembly : original Version : 1 W ork Holder Insertion Parts : 120 A Parts : 21 Design Efficiency: 18% Handling score: 160.1 2.0 Assembly ratio : 4.0 2.1 2.0 99.5 3.0 2.0 1.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 1-Jan-2008 .3 1.3 1.0 2.0 4. The analysis will be done by using the approach of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology.1 Introduction of analysis This chapter focused on the analysis based on product selected that is grass cutting machine. To fulfill this analysis. 39 . handling ratio and fitting ratio for existing product and also for redesign product. SolidWork is used for draw the detail drawing of design. The analysis will concentrate based on the design efficiency. TeamSET software had been selected by Lucas Hull approached.CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND ANALYSIS 4. DFMA is a systematic approach that reduced manufacturing costs by reducing the total number of individual parts in a product for ease of handling and insertion. 2 Draw design using SolidWork software SolidWork is the one of the 3D design software that can find in the market.1: View of first redesign 40 . all related drawings and models update automatically. And when a change in either a drawing or model occurs. in SolidWork 3D models and 2D drawings communicate. Users can easily generate drawings from a model. Photorealistic renderings and animations that allow communicating how future products will look and perform early in the development cycle.2. In addition. Working in SolidWorks went very quickly and gave a lot of satisfaction.4. 4.1 Detail drawing of first redesign TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW Figure 4. 2 Detail drawing of second redesign TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW Figure 4.2.2: View of second redesign 41 .4. 42 . fitting analysis and assembly analysis. Before start perform any analysis using this software. handling analysis.1 DFA analysis for first redesign The list below showed the part after redesign existing product. The list of the first redesign is illustrated in table 4. Five contents at this software that related to DFA analysis is such as functional analysis. Then the analysis can carried out by refer to the flow chart. 4. This method has been explained at chapter two.1.3.3 Analysis using TeamSET software TeamSET is PC based software that functionally to help designer to do redesign product and it base of Lucas Hull DFA method.4. three designs will be analyze such as existing design. A few parts from the existing product had been eliminate or combined with other parts. By using this software. manufacturing analysis. first redesign and second redesign. the first step need to taken is create the flow chart for each design. 1: Quantity List of a first redesign Ref No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Description Quantity Upper tunnel Lower tunnel Lock Safety guide Rod Bolt 17x76 Allenkey screw Nut D10mm Nut D 12mm Washer D22mm Washer D13mm Blade Bearing D80mm Bearing holder Base Motor Plug Cable v-belt pulley screw Total parts 1 1 2 1 1 8 4 4 12 12 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 69 43 .Table 4. 1.2 Flow chart of upper tunnel part after first redesign Upper tunnel part had eleven sub-parts as follow: a) Nut D10mm b) Nut D12mm c) Bolt 17x76mm d) Washer D13mm e) Washer D22mm f) lock g) Safety guide h) Rod i) Blade j) Allenkey screw k) Bearing l) Bearing holder 44 .3.3: A flow chart of first redesign main part 4.1Flow chart of first redesign First redesign can be divided to three main parts as follow: a) Upper tunnel part b) Lower tunnel part c) base part First redesign Upper tunnel part Lower tunnel part Base part Figure 4.1.4.3. 5: A flow chart of lower tunnel part after redesign 45 .1.4: A flow chart of upper tunnel part after redesign 4.3 Flow chart of lower tunnel part after first redesign Lower tunnel part had two sub-parts as follow: a) nut b) bolt 17x Lower tunnel part Nut Bolt Figure 4.Upper tunnel part Blade Allenkey screw Bolt 17x76 Lock Bearing holder Bearing Rod Nut D12mm Safety guide Nut D10mm Washer D13mm Washer D22mm Figure 4.3. 1.3.6: A flow chart of base part 46 .4.4 Flow chart of base part after first redesign Base part had eleven sub-parts as follow: a) Nut D12mm b) bolt 17x76mm c) washer D22mm d) bearing e) bearing holder f) v-belt g) pulley h) motor i) plug j) cable k) screw Base part Bolt 17x76mm Nut D12mm Washer D22mm V-belt Pulley Motor Screw Cable Bearing Bearing holder Plug Figure 4. 0 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 A A B A A 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 4 0 0 - 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.2 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Part Name G.0 4.3 1.5 TeamSET analysis for first redesign TeamSET .7 4 4 1 A A 1 1 3 3 - 1.0 1.0 2.C.0 1. Assembly Flow 2 1 A A 1 1 1 0 - 1.3 1.0 2.0 ? 1 2 2 4 1 A A A B 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 - 1.3 Assembly limit : 1.0 2.1 2.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly W rong W ay Round Secondary Op No.1 1.6 4.1 1.6 1.1 1.M upper tunnel lock safety guard rod allenkey screw nut D10mm washer D13mm blade rod bearing bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer D22mm bearing holder bearing upper tunnel lower tunnel bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm lower tunnel base bearing bearing holder bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer bearing motor bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer plug cabel motor v-belt pulley screw pulley base G.1 1.0 Figure 4.3.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.1 31.0 2.0 A 1 0 - 1.10:17 Company : UTEM Assembly: redesign Version : 1 W ork Holder Insertion Parts : 69 A Parts : 20 Design Efficiency: 29% Handling score: 92.0 2.1 2.3 1.3 1.C.1 2.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 1-Jan-2008 .1 1.5 4.1 1.M Qty.3 1.1 4 4 8 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 3 3 8 0 - 1.1 2.1 2.7 14.0 4.1 1.6 2 2 1 1 A 1 1 - 1.1 1.2 Handling ratio : 4.4.8 1.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1.0 13.1 2.5 3.7: TeamSET analysis for improvement design 47 .0 13.5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Assembly score: 85.0 1.1 14.1 1.0 84.0 1.7 1.0 2.1 1.1 2.1 2 2 4 1 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 - 1.1 1.1 1. FA A's B's MA Hand.0 2.6 1.0 41.1 1.6 1.7 8.6 Handling limit : 1.0 4.1 1.6 Assembly ratio : 4.0 2.1 1.1 1. 2: Quantity List of a second redesign Ref No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Motor Bolt 17x76 Bolt 17x25 Base structure Bearing D20mm Bearing D24mm Bush D83mm Bush D60mm Shaft blade Screw 8x12mm Screw 8x18mm Cylinder blade Tunnel Pulley D50mm Pulley D88mm Shaft connector Key V-belt Description Quantity 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total parts 24 48 . The handling ratio is 4.3.3. The list of the final design is illustrated in table 4.2 DFA analysis for second redesign The list below showed the part after redesign again. The result shows about 69 parts that contains in this design and for “A” part is about 20 parts.2: Table 4. this design needs to be redesigned because it does not achieve the criteria in Lucas Hull theory. According to this result.6 and for assembly ratio is about 4. A few parts from the improvement design had been eliminate or combined with other parts. 4. The design efficiency for this design is 29%.Figure 4.7 shows the analysis of first redesign using TeamSET software. 2.1 Flow chart of second redesign Second redesign can be divided to four main parts as follow: - a) Base structure part b) Cylinder blade part c) Tunnel part d) V-belt part Second redesign Base structure part Cylinder blade part Tunnel part Pulley system part Figure 4.2.3.3.2 Flow chart of base structure part Base structure part had two sub-parts as follow: a) Motor system b) Bolt 17x76mm Base structure part Motor system Bolt 17x76mm Figure 4.8: A flow chart of final design main part 4.4.9: A flow chart of base structure part 49 . 10: A flow chart of cylinder blade part 4. The sub-part is bolt 17x25mm. That mean. 50 .4 Flow chart of tunnel part Tunnel part only had one sub-part.3.3 Flow chart of cylinder blade part Cylinder blade part had six sub-parts as follow: a) Bearing D20mm b) Bearing D24mm c) Bush D83mm d) Bush D60mm e) Shaft blade f) Screw 8x12mm Cylinder blade part Bearing D20mm Shaft blade Bearing D24mm Bush D83mm Bush D60mm Screw 8x12mm Figure 4.4. The only main part that had more than one part needs to make flow chart.3.2. no need to make flow chart for this part.2. 5. The handling ratio is 2.5 and assembly ratio less than 2.4. handling ratio less than 2. this design no needs to be redesigned because it achieves the criteria in Lucas Hull theory.1 and for assembly ratio is about 2.2. The result shows about 24 parts that contains in this design and for “A” part is about 18 parts.3.5 Flow chart of pulley system part V-belt part had five sub-parts as follow: a) Pulley D50mm b) Pulley D88mm c) Shaft connector d) Screw 8x18mm e) Key V-belt part Shaft connector Pulley D50mm Pulley D88mm Key Screw 8x18mm Figure 4.11: A flow chart of V-belt part 4. A good design is considered when design efficiency over 60%. 51 .4.6 TeamSET analysis for second redesign Figure 4. According to this result. The design efficiency for this design is 75%.3.12 shows the analysis of second redesign using TeamSET software.2. 1 4.0 1.0 8. Assembly Flow 1 4 1 1 A A A 1 1 1 0 3 0 - 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 3.7 2.5 1.0 18 tunnel ass 19 V-belt ass 20 21 22 23 24 25 pulley D50mm pulley D88mm shaft connector screw 8x18mm key v-belt 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 A A A A A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1:09 Company : DEFAULT Assembly: final design Version : 1 Work Holder Insertion Parts : 24 A Parts : 18 Design Efficiency: 75% Handling score: 37.1 1.1 1.5 1.0 1. FA A's B's MA Hand.5 15.1 4.0 1.8 1.1 1.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly Wrong Way Round Secondary Op No.3 Handling ratio : 2.5 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.12: TeamSET analysis for second redesign 52 .5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Assembly score: 44.1 1.0 Assembly ratio : 2.7 1.0 10.TeamSET .0 1.1 1.4 Assembly limit : 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Part Name base ass motor bolt 17x75 base base ass cylinder blade ass bearing D20mm bearing D24mm bush D83mm bush D60mm shaft blade screw 8x12mm cylider blade Qty.5 5.0 1.0 14 cylinder blade ass 15 tunnel ass 16 17 tunnel bolt 17x25 1 2 1 A A 1 1 0 1 - 1.1 26 V-belt ass Figure 4.1 1.4 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 A A A A A A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 27-Mar-2008 .1 Handling limit : 1.8 1.0 3. 13: drawing of shaft blade and shaft connector \ 53 . manufacturing process that involved is turning process. Diameter of the mild steel cylinder is 35mm x 500mm.4. Shaft blade shaft connector Figure 4. Material that used for shaft blade and shaft connector is mild steel cylinder.1 Shaft blade and shaft connector A shaft blade is functionally to rotate the cylinder blade and shaft connector used to connect the shaft blade with pulley.4 Material and process selection Selection of materials for the part machine is very important.4. Only part that had been redesign need to identify such as follow:a) Shaft connector b) Shaft blade c) Cylinder blade d) Base structure e) Tunnel 4. 2 Cylinder blade A cylinder blade is a mechanical device for cut the grass. After cutting process complete and final step is to welding process by using metal inert gas welding machine (MIG). Material that used for cylinder blade is mild steel plate with thickness 3mm and cylinder hollow steel with diameter 34mm. FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW Figure 4.4. The first machining process involved in this fabrication is cutting material by using speed cutter machine and laser cutting machine. Its will assemble with shaft blade. Speed cutting machine used to cut the cylinder hollow steel and laser cutting machine is used to cut the mild steel plate.4.14: View of cylinder blade 54 . Two type of machines that involved in cutting process which are laser cutting machine and speed cutting machine. Mounting Figure 4.3 Base structure Base structure is purpose to support motor. Welding process is for joint all part together by using metal inert gas welding machine (MIG). milling process.Milling process is used to make counter bore at the mounting. Last process that involved is drilling process by using drilling machine.4. Material that used for mounting is mild steel plate with thickness 20mm and for structure used angle iron steel with thickness 3 mm.15: View of base structure 55 . Miling machine is a machine tool used for the complex shaping of metal and other solid materials. The processes that involved are cutting process. tunnel and cylinder blade. and a movable table to which the work piece is affixed. Its basic form is that of a rotating cutter or end mill which rotates about the spindle axis (similar to a drill). drilling process and welding process. Diameter of counter bore is 66mm for left side and 86mm for the right side. Base structure can be divided into two sections such as mounting and structure.4. 4. This process used bending machine to fabricate the part. Figure 4. The machine that involved in this process is laser cutting. The process that involved in producing this part is cutting process. welding process and drilling process.16: cross section view of tunnel Figure 4.4 Tunnel Tunnel is purpose to cover cylinder blade and mounting.17: isometric view of tunnel 56 .4. bending process. Cutting process is for cut material according to dimension specification. Material that used for fabricate tunnel is mild steel plate with thickness 3mm. After cutting process had been done the next process is the bending process. 37% and assembly ratio improvement for second redesign is 50%.2.1 Comparison of existing design with first and second redesign The TeamSET approached had been used thoroughly in this project. First redesign needs to redesign again until it’s achieve all criteria in Lucas hull theory. handling ratio for existing design not achieve the criteria in Lucas hull theory so its need to redesign. Beside. The part reduction for second redesign is 80% improvement. the handling ratio is 2. Handling ratio improvement for second redesign is 72. The handling ratio for existing design is 7.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.47%. the handling ratio still not achieves criteria in Lucas hull theory but the handling ratio reduction improves to 39. the second design more improve if compared with first design. 57 .1 and it’s less than 2.6. According to the table 5. the software also managed to detect the problem or unimportant part which can be eliminated.5. Handling ratio is the total handling score divided by the count of ‘A’ parts.1 and table 5. In the other hand. With TeamSET software analysis. After second redesign. Second redesign is considering as a good design. This mean part reduction for second redesign is higher than part reduction for first design. After first redesign. the result was very useful especially for manufacturer to study about their products. 8 2.Table 5.41% Design efficiency 18% 29% 11% Table 5. The design efficiency for second redesign is over than 60%.4 50% Design efficiency 18% 75% 57% According to the analysis that has been done. If the design not achieves one of these three criteria the design should be reconsidered before continuing the following analysis. The handling ratio and assembly ratio for second redesign is less than 2.37% Assembly ratio 4.6 39. 58 .3 10.6 4.5% Handling ratio 7.47% Assembly ratio 4.1 72.6 2.5. the analysis show that second redesign is the best design because this design achieve all the criteria in Lucas hull theory.2: Comparison of existing design with second redesign Existing design second redesign Improvement % Total parts 120 24 80% Handling ratio 7.8 4.1: Comparison of existing design with fisrt redesign Existing design First redesign Improvement % Total parts 120 69 42. severed fingers. In ideal case any mechanical motion that threatens a user’s safety should not remain unguarded. The safeguards for the redesign product are such as: a) Funnel b) Rubber protector c) Cover belting system.2 Safeguards for prevent from mechanical hazards The workplace with moving machine parts can be a very dangerous place for users. Various mechanical hazards need a good of machine safeguarding.5. FUNNEL RUBBER PROTECTOR COVER BELTING SYSTEM Figure 5. blindness are among the list of possible machineryrelated injuries. Safeguards are thus essential for protecting users from uncalled-for and preventable injuries. Crushed hands and arms.1: Part for accessories 59 . 2: View of the second redesign after installation accessories 60 .TOP VIEW ISOMETRIC VIEW FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW Figure 5. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION & FUTURE WORKS 6.1 Conclusion As a conclusion, this PSM project had been successfully implemented by fulfilling the requirement as being expend. Beside, the project also achieved the objective in order to redesign the product and achieved the better design efficiency, handling ratio, and fitting ratio compared both existing product and redesign. In addition, it was very useful to be exposed with the use and application of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology that might very useful to me while facing the real working field in future undertaking. Lastly, the application of DFMA methodology will be the best method or approach for nowadays industries to be applied in achieving the bright future. second redesign 24 parts Existing product 120 parts Figure 6.1: Shows the comparison between existing product and second redesign 61 6.2 Future works For this Projek Sarjana Muda, the study was focused more on implantation of DFMA methodology, and finally came out with a new design of grass cutting machine. Actually, there are many ways or phases that this project could be done. So, for future works, I recommended some methods that can be done as follows: a) Use Morphological Chart method to identify the alternative mechanism and operation system of the grass cutting machine to be developed. b) Study the overall costing for design grass cutting machine that had been developed. c) Concept Convergence method to analyze and select the best alternatives based on the quantitative assessment. d) For student who use DFMA methodology, they sould have collaboration with industry in order to gain more knowledge, information, and the technical requirements regarding DFMA implementation. With all this recommendations, hope that the further study will become more effective and lead to better result. 62 REFERENCES Alan F and Jan Chal(1994), “Design for Assembly, Principles and Practice”. McGraw HILL BOOK COMPANY, 1994 G. Boothroyd and W. Knight (1993), ‘‘Manufacturing À La Carte: Efficiency:Design for assembly,’’ IEEE Spectrum., pp. 51-53. G. Causey (1999), “Elements of agility in manufacturing”, Ph.D. Dissertation (Mechanical Engineering), CWRU, January 1999. Xiaofan Xie (2003) “Design for Manufacture and Assembly” Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah : PhD thesis. Vincent Chan and Filippo A. Salustri (2005). “Lucas Hull Method” [online]. Available : http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/t/dfmlucas.html [October 2007] D-ESPAT (2007). “Apache – Reengineering” [online] Available: http://www.despat.com/CS%20-%20Aerospace.html [ December 2007] TeamSet (2008) “TeamSet” [online] Available: http://www.softscout.com/software/Engineering/MechanicalEngineering/TeamSET.ht ml [January 2008] David Grieve (2003) “Design Manufacture” [online] Avaiable: for http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/TSOC302/desman1.htm [January 2008] TeamSet (2008b).“Motor Coach Overhead Luggage Rack” [online] Avaiable: http://www.teamset.com/frame2.html [January 2008] 63 S.Shih-Wen Hsiao (2001) “Concurrent design method for developing a new product”. 4th ed.” CSC Computer Sciences Ltd. 64 . (CSC) Serope Kalpakjian and Schmid. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Taiwan. PhD thesis. R. National Cheng Kung University. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology. Anonymous (1998) “TeamSet user guide version 3. Department of Industrial Design. (2001). APPENDIX A . articles) that related to research title. Report writing on Introduction Report writing on Literature Review Report writing on Methodology Checking and editing report Report submition W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 .Gant chart PSM 1 Activity Research title confirmation Understanding research scope and objectives Finding literatures (books. journals. Gant chat PSM 2 Activity Analysis data for existing product using TeamSet Draw the redesign of existing product using SolidWork Analysis data for redesign of existing product using TeamSet Best redesign concept Design for manufacture Report writing Checking and editing report Report submition W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 W13 W14 . APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . Hang Tuah Jaya. INTRODUCTION implementation of redesign the grass cutting machine by using the application of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. In this project. A. Problem statement In developing this project. Lucas Hull method Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. At the same time. Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka. TeamSET software. the implementation of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology are applied either manually or computer-aided. The scope based on the existing grass cutting machine and the appropriate of DFMA methodology. From the data achieved. with the application of Design for . the improvement of redesign grass cutting machine finally will be able to meet user requirements and satisfactions. the total part. there are several problems that need to be concerned and the most suitable method that can be used to solve the problems is by applying the Design for Keywords – Design for Manufacturing and Assembly. the most important aspects that need to be concerned is the design of the grass cutting machine. The method used for gaining the data is from the reassembled the existing grass cutting machine. In introduction the topic that will be discussed are generally introduction. The design also must be concerned to the requirement of the DFMA methodology in order to achieve high rank of market selling. handling ratio and fitting ratio to achieve. it fulfills customer’s requirement. Email: TZ_9351@yahoo. So. The new proposed design of grass cutting machine drawn using SolidWorks software based on TeamSET result achieved. Eventually. Result shown that the design efficiency for redesign grass cutting machine obtained better percentage rather than the existing design. Besides that. SolidWork software. In identifying of grass cutting machine problems.com Abstract-This ptoject describes about the I. B.Design and Development of Grass Cutting machine using DFMA Methodology Mohd Ishammudin Bin Mohd Yunus Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering. there are several parts had been recognized that difficult to handle. The tools that used is TeamSET software. The advantages of the integration are to decrease the number of part design and indirectly to reduce cost and time. it can be classified into several categories to be studied. project objective and scope of study. in the same time reduced the manufacturing cost and assembly time. problem statement. Generally Introduction Currently. DFMA has been applied in design and development the grass cutting machine. Melaka Phone: +6017-6369430. handling ratio fitting ratio and cost of existing design is reduced. From the study. Some of the part grass cutting machine are being designed quite complicated with accessories and need to be eliminated. Most of the applied interested in implementing DFMA are hindered by lack of clear guidelines or procedures and no integration of isolated design and manufacturing teams. Data will be analyzed by using Lucas Hull method to verify the design efficiency. Photorealistic rendering and animation that allow communicating how future products will look and perform early in the development cycle. A grass cutting machine has been selected as a case study for this project and had the potential to be redesign by applying the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. Do Literatures Understanding the Title. Flow chart of Planning of the Study . Project objective procedure goes on gaining the information from the existing product. After that. the software called TeamSET is used to analyze the design for existing product and redesign product. The tool selected for drawing the grass cutting machine is SolidWork. parts included and etcetera. the result will be analyzed in order to get the best design for redesign purposed. The method used for collecting data was from the The main objective of this project is using DFMA methodology to design the new grass cutting machine and compare with the existing product. Scope of study Journal/ Reports Existing Product Observation Problems The scope of this project involves the problem statement from the existing product. The methodology of the project starts with the introduction of product to be studied and then some literature review on the Conclusion & Future Work Final Report End Figure 1. Solidwork software will be used in order to make a drawing of redesign the existing product. design for manufacturing and assembly method. other specific objectives include: reassemble the existing product. Figure 3. and etcetera. the explanations is more on the project development which is based on the chart to ensure the procedure and the steps of the project will be done properly in the appropriate time which had been planed before. The purpose of this analysis is to verify the design efficiency of existing product including assembly process. Then a) b) to develop the grass cutting machine.1 shows the flow chart of the planning of the study. the C. to design and analysis of original design. total number of parts in a product. Start c) to purpose grass cutting machine using DFMA software. Discussion YES Redesign Process Technical Redesign Analysis Transfer the Redesign into SolidWork NO Satisfy? Existing Product Specification Existing Product Analysis II. The data for literature review was founded from journals. from the result achieved. DFA is a systematic methodology that reduces manufacturing costs. DFA analysis will be applied to the existing product design.Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology is highly expected in solving these problems to suit the customer requirements and convenient. For this project. Problem Statement & Objectives D. method and TeamSET d) to determine the optimum manufacturing and assembly method for low cost production with short production time. METHODOLOGY In this section. application of DFMA and techniques for case study. Beside that. These data were used to apply analysis using TeamSET software. User can easily generate drawing from a model. and also internet. related reference books from library. 1 2.1 2.0 4. Figure 2 showed the process flow to develop the TeamSET database. Each element of this structure can be associated with a particular assembly of parts for which detailed information is stored.7 14.2 Handling ratio : 7.5 3.1 4. TeamSET analysis for existing product Figure 3 shows the analysis of existing product using TeamSET software.0 1. According to this result.6 1.6 Handling limit : 1.1 1.0 2.0 A 1 0 - 1. Detail drawing of existing product Figure 4.0 2.1 1. C.7 1.0 13.6 and for assembly ratio is about 4.6 1.1 1.1 2.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly W rong W ay Round Secondary Op No.0 2. TeamSET analysis for existing product B.3 1. each of which will contain a number of associated products.8.0 1.0 13.0 2.M Qty.0 2.1 41.1 2.1 2. Each of these will have a number of different design scenarios. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Part Name G.0 1.3 1.0 2.1 14.1 1.0 2.0 2.5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Assembly score: 100.1 2.6 4. FA A's B's MA Hand.0 4.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.0 1.1 2. this design needs to be redesigned because it does not achieve the criteria in Lucas Hull theory.0 1.0 2.0 4.1 2.0 41.0 4.3 1. Company : UTEM Assembly : original Version : 1 W ork Holder Insertion TeamSET .1 1.0 1.M upper tunnel nut washer bolt safety guard rod allenkey screw nut washer blade rod bearing bolt nut washer bearing holder bearing upper tunnel lower tunnel bolt nut washer lower tunnel base bearing bearing holder bolt nut washer bearing motor bolt nut washer plug cabel motor v-belt pulley screw pulley base G.3 1.1 8 8 16 2 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 7 7 16 1 - 1.1 1.1 1.0 Assembly ratio : 4.C.1 1.0 2.0 1.2 Projects 18 19 20 21 22 1.1 2.0 2.0 Products 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 2 4 1 A A A B 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 - 1.0 1.0 99.1 1.2 8.9:59 Parts : 120 A Parts : 21 Design Efficiency: 18% Handling score: 160.1 1.0 2.1 1.C. which in turn will be broken down in a hierarchy of elements which is a product breakdown structure.1 1.8 Assembly limit : 1. The design efficiency for this design is 18%.1 Database 13 14 15 16 17 2 2 4 1 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 - 1.0 2.1 1.0 2. TeamSET process flow The TeamSET database contains a number of projects.0 2.0 Scenarios 29 30 31 32 Product breakdown structure 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 A A B A A 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 8 0 0 - 1.7 12.3 1. Assembly Flow 7 14 7 1 A B A A 1 0 1 1 6 14 6 0 - 1.6 Assemblie s 40 41 42 43 44 2 2 1 1 A 1 1 - 1. The handling ratio is 7.1 1.1 2. The result shows about 120 parts that contains in this design and for “A” part is about 21 parts.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 1-Jan-2008 . The process flow in developing TeamSET database Figure 3.3 1.5 4. Top view of the existing product .0 Figure 2.A.7 4 4 8 1 A A B 1 1 0 3 3 8 - 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.1 1. Analysis using TeamSET software TeamSET is PC based software that functionally to help Figure 5. The analysis will concentrate based on the design efficiency.1 and for assembly ratio is about 2. According to this result. Figure 8 shows the analysis of first redesign using TeamSET software. The handling ratio is 2.5 and Figure 7. handling ratio less than 2. The design efficiency for this design is 29%. According to this result. The result shows about 24 parts that contains in this design and for “A” part is about 18 parts. III. The handling ratio is 4. A. Then the analysis can carried out by refer to the flow chart. fitting analysis and assembly analysis. ANALYSIS & RESULT This section focused on the analysis based on product selected that is grass cutting machine. Before start perform any analysis using this software. this design needs to be redesigned because it does not achieve the criteria in Lucas Hull theory.6 and for assembly ratio is about 4. the first step need to taken is create the flow chart for each design. Figure 9 shows the analysis of second redesign using TeamSET software. The design efficiency for this design is 75%. SolidWork is used for draw the detail drawing of design. Side view of the existing product designer to do redesign product and it base of Lucas Hull DFA method. The analysis will be done by using the approach of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology. three designs will be analyze such as existing design.4.3. this design no needs to be redesigned because it achieves the criteria in Lucas Hull theory. Isometric view of the existing product assembly ratio less than 2. Five contents at this software that related to DFA analysis is such as functional analysis. manufacturing analysis. TeamSET . This method has been explained at chapter two. A good design is considered when design efficiency over 60%.software had been selected by Lucas Hull approached. handling analysis. handling ratio and fitting ratio for existing product and also for redesign product. first redesign and second redesign.5. By using this software.Front view of the existing product design and for “A” part is about 20 parts. DFMA is a systematic approach that reduced manufacturing costs by reducing the total number of individual parts in a product for ease of handling and insertion. The result shows about 69 parts that contains in this Figure 6. To fulfill this analysis. 6 1.1 1.7 2.6 4.Top view of the first redesign 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 2.3 1.7 14.0 1.3 1.7 3.1 3.1 1.1 2 2 4 1 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 - 1. FA A's B's MA Hand.1 2.0 10 bush D60mm 11 shaft blade 12 screw 8x12mm 13 cylider blade 14 cylinder blade ass 15 tunnel ass 16 tunnel 17 bolt 17x25 18 tunnel ass 19 V-belt ass 20 pulley D50mm 21 pulley D88mm 22 shaft connector 23 screw 8x18mm 24 key 25 v-belt 26 V-belt ass Figure 13.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 1-Jan-2008 .5 5.1 1.1 2.0 8.0 1.1 2.0 Assembly ratio : 2.0 1.5 1.5 41.C. TeamSET analysis for second redesign .M upper tunnel lock safety guard rod allenkey screw nut D10mm washer D13mm blade rod bearing bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer D22mm bearing holder bearing upper tunnel lower tunnel bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm lower tunnel base bearing bearing holder bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer bearing motor bolt 17x76mm nut D12mm washer plug cabel motor v-belt pulley screw pulley base G.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly W rong W ay Round Detail drawing of first redesign Parts : 69 A Parts : 20 Design Efficiency: 29% Handling score: 92. FA A's B's MA Hand.0 2.6 Assembly ratio : 4.1 2.0 1.0 4.0 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 A A B A A 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 4 0 0 - 1.3 Handling ratio : 2.0 2.8 Figure 10.1 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.6 1.5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Assembly score: 44.5 5 base ass 6 cylinder blade ass 7 8 9 bearing D20mm bearing D24mm bush D83mm 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 A A A A A A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 1.1 1.0 A 1 0 - 1.0 1.7 8.1 1.1 1.1 Figure 9.1 1.0 2 2 1 1 A 1 1 - 1.0 2.1 1. Assembly score: 85.0 13.6 Handling limit : 1.10:17 Company : UTEM Assembly: redesign Version : 1 W ork Holder Insertion B.5 15.4 2.5 Insert Tool / Reassembly Wrong Way Round Secondary Op No. Part Name Qty.0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 A A A A A A 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - 1.1 1.0 1. Assembly Flow 2 1 A A 1 1 1 0 - 1.1 31.1 1.3 Assembly limit : 1. Front view of the first redesign 1 base ass 2 3 4 motor bolt 17x75 base 1 4 1 1 A A A 1 1 1 0 3 0 1. Side view of the first redesign 1.0 2.0 2.1 1.1 1.1 4 4 8 1 1 A A B A 1 1 0 1 3 3 8 0 - 1.1 1.0 2.0 4.1 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.1:09 Company : DEFAULT Assembly: final design Version : 1 Work Holder Insertion Parts : 24 A Parts : 18 Design Efficiency: 75% Handling score: 37.1 1.0 2.2 8.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.M Qty. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Part Name G.5 1.1 4.8 1.1 1.5 1.7 4 4 1 A A 1 1 3 3 - 1.7 1.0 1.1 Handling limit : 1.0 10. TeamSET analysis for first redesign TeamSET .0 13.1 1. Assembly Flow Figure 12.0 2.5 4.0 4. Isometric view of the first redesign 1 2 1 A A 1 1 0 1 - 1.Assembly Report Grass Cutting Machine 27-Mar-2008 .0 1.6 Figure 11.1 1.0 1.C.0 4.5 1.0 84.0 1.1 2.0 Figure 8.TeamSET .1 4.4 1.0 1.7 1.1 2.0 4.2 Handling ratio : 4.1 2.1 14.0 2.3 1.0 3.1 1.5 Remove Tool / Disassembly Secondary Op No.1 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.4 Assembly limit : 1.0 ? 1 2 2 4 1 A A A B 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 - 1.0 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 2. Front view of the second redesign problem or unimportant part which can be eliminated. drilling process & welding process cutting process. Top view of the second redesign 2. the second design more improve if compared with first design. 4.47%. According to the Table 2 and Table 3. Cylinder blade plate & cylinder hollow steel mild steel Cutting process & welding process cutting process. Beside. Isometric view of the second redesign still not achieves criteria in Lucas hull theory but the handling ratio reduction improves to 39. Shaft blade mild steel cylinder mild steel turning process 3. After first redesign. the result was very useful especially for manufacturer to study about their products. the handling ratio is 2. Handling ratio is the total handling score divided by the count of ‘A’ parts. DISCUSSION The TeamSET approached had been used thoroughly in this project. The part reduction for second redesign is 80% improvement. welding process & drilling process Table 1. handling ratio for existing design not achieve the criteria in Lucas hull theory so its need to redesign. Side view of the second redesign Base structure plate & angle iron steel 5.C. In the other hand. Detail drawing of second redesign D. First redesign needs to redesign again until it’s achieve all criteria in Lucas hull theory. Tunnel mild steel plate bending process. With TeamSET software analysis. the handling ratio Figure 17. milling process. After second redesign. Only part that had been redesign need to identify such as follow:- No 1.1 . Material and process selection IV. Figure 15.6. Material and process selection Selection of materials for the part machine is very important. This mean part reduction for second redesign is higher than part reduction for first design. Part name Shaft connector Material mild steel cylinder Process turning process Figure 14. the software also managed to detect the Figure 16. The handling ratio for existing design is 7. like to convey thanks to FKP lecturers. Thank you. V. His never-ending supply of valuable advice and guidance has enlightens me and deeply engraved in my mind.1 2. this PSM project had been successfully implemented by fulfilling the requirement as being expend. Shows the comparison between existing product and second redesign Total parts Handling ratio Assembly ratio Design efficiency Existing design 120 7. FKP.5. .6 4. The handling ratio and assembly ratio for second redesign is less than 2.37% 50% 57% ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First and foremost. Their cooperation is much indeed appreciated. If the design not achieves one of these three criteria the design should be reconsidered before continuing the following analysis.6 4. CONCLUSION As a conclusion. Second redesign is considering as a good design. handling ratio. the analysis show that second redesign is the best design because this design achieve all the criteria in Lucas hull theory. In addition. Handling ratio improvement for second redesign is 72. His supervision and support that gave me truly helps during the period of conducting my According to the analysis that has been done. Saifudin. In addition. I would thesis.41% 11% Existing product 120 parts Second redesign 24 parts Table 2. for his enthusiastic support and supervision of the thesis revision. I’m also happy to present my gratefully acknowledge to Machinery laboratory technicians. Comparison of existing design with fisrt redesign Figure 18.37% and assembly ratio improvement for second redesign is 50%. Table 3.5% 39.and it’s less than 2. for their assistance. I would like to express my highest appreciation to my supportive academic supervisor. Figure 18 shows the comparison between existing products with second redesign.47% 10. The design efficiency for second redesign is over than 60%. Last but not least. it was very useful to be exposed with the use and application of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology that might very useful to me while facing the real working field in future undertaking. and fitting ratio compared both existing product and redesign. my friend and colleagues for supporting me and administration department for their help in the project .Zolkarnain B.6 4. the project also achieved the objective in order to redesign the product and achieved the better design efficiency.5. Comparison of existing design with second redesign Mr.8 18% First redesign 69 4.4 75% Improvement % 80% 72. Total parts Handling ratio Assembly ratio Design efficiency Existing design 120 7. Next. Beside. I would like to state my appreciation to the staff – Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering. which really spends their time to teach me a lots of knowledge regarding to the design development. who has been so warmth and kind to provide sincere assistance and good cooperation during the training period.8 18% second redesign 24 2. I would like to dedicate my thankfulness to the helpful of Mr. Marjom.3 29% Improvement % 42. G. University of Utah : PhD thesis. Dissertation (Mechanical Engineering). [3] [4] [5] Vincent Chan and Filippo A.html [ December 2007] TeamSet (2008) “TeamSet” [online] Available: http://www.uk/sme/TSOC302/desma n1. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Salustri (2005). 51-53. “Lucas Hull Method” [online]. Ph. R. Principles and Practice”. Department of Industrial Design.. Knight (1993). January 1999. Xiaofan Xie (2003) “Design for Manufacture and Assembly” Dept.teamset. pp. 1994 [11] Anonymous (1998) “TeamSet user guide version 3. “Apache – Reengineering” [online] Available: http://www.htm [January 2008] TeamSet Luggage (2008b). National Cheng Kung University.com/frame2.“Motor Rack” Coach Overhead Avaiable: [January [6] [7] [8] [9] [online] http://www.tech. Causey (1999).despat.softscout. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology.plym.com/software/Engineering/ MechanicalEngineering/TeamSET.REFERENCES [1] Alan F and Jan Chal(1994).’’ IEEE Spectrum. PhD thesis. 4th ed.html [January 2008] David Grieve (2003) “Design for Manufacture” [online] Avaiable: http://www. of Mechanical Engineering. ‘‘Manufacturing À La Carte: Efficiency:Design for assembly. Available : http://deed.html [October 2007] D-ESPAT (2007). [2] G. . S.” CSC Computer Sciences Ltd.D.ac. “Design for Assembly.ca/~fil/t/dfmlucas. McGraw HILL BOOK COMPANY.ryerson. Boothroyd and W. “Elements of agility in manufacturing”. (2001). Taiwan.html 2008] [10] Shih-Wen Hsiao (2001) “Concurrent design method for developing a new product”. CWRU. (CSC) [12] Serope Kalpakjian and Schmid.com/CS%20%20Aerospace.