Design for Assembly

Vincent Chan and Filippo A. Salustri

Introduction
The aim of design for assembly (DFA) is to simplify the product so
that the cost of assembly is reduced. However, consequences of
applying DFA usually include improved quality and reliability, and a
reduction in production equipment and part inventory. These
secondary benefits often outweigh the cost reductions in assembly.
DFA recognises the need to analyse both the part design and the
whole product for any assembly problems early in the design
process. We may define DFA as "a process for improving product
design for easy and low-cost assembly, focusing on functionality
and on assemblability concurrently."
The practice of DFA as a distinct feature of designing is a relatively
recent development, but many companies have been essentially
doing DFA for a long time. For example, General Electric published
an internal manufacturing producibility handbook in the 1960's as a
set of guidelines and manufacturing data for designers to follow.
These guidelines embedded many of the principles of DFA without
ever actually calling it that or distinguishing it from the rest of the
product development process.
It wasn't until the 1970's that papers and books on the topic began
to appear. Most important among these were the publications of G.
Boothroyd that promoted the use of DFA in industry.

Comparison of Assembly Methods

Figure 1: Relative costs of different assembly methods by type

and production volume.

Figure 2: Production ranges for each type of assembly method

Assembly methods can be divided into three major groups.
In manual assembly, parts are transferred to workbenches where
workers manually assemble the product or components of a
product. Hand tools are generally used to aid the workers. Although

this is the most flexible and adaptable of assembly methods, there

is usually an upper limit to the production volume, and labour costs
(including benefits, cases of workers compensation due to injury,
overhead for maintaining a clean, healthy environment, etc.) are
higher.
Fixed or hard automation is characterised by custom-built machiner
that assembles one and only one specific product. Obviously, this
type of machinery requires a large capital investment. As production
volume increases, the fraction of the capital investment compared
to the total manufacturing cost decreases. Indexing tables, parts
feeders, and automatic controls typify this inherently rigid assembly
method. Sometimes, this kind of assembly is called "Detroit-type"
assembly.
Soft automation or robotic assembly incorporates the use of robotic
assembly systems. This can take the form of a single robot, or a
multi-station robotic assembly cell with all activities simultaneously
controlled and coordinated by a PLC or computer. Although this type
of assembly method can also have large capital costs, its flexbility
often helps offset the expense across many different products.
Graphically, the cost of different assembly methods can be
displayed as in Figure 1. The non-linear cost for robotic assembly
reflects the non-linear costs of robots (even small ones cost alot).
The appropriate ranges for each type of assembly method are
shown (approximately) in Figure 2.
Assembly methods should be chosen to prevent bottlenecks in the
process, as well as lower costs.

Design Guidelines for Manual Assembly

Obviously, the following guidelines depend on the skill of the
worker:

eliminate the need for workers

adjustments.
ensure accessibility and visibility.

to

make

decisions

or

eliminate the need for assembly tools and gauges (i.e. prefer
self-locating parts).
minimise the number of different parts - use "standard" parts.
minimise the number of parts.
avoid or minimise part orientation during assembly (i.e. prefer
symmetrical parts).
prefer easily handled parts that do not tangle or nest within
one another.

Note that many products do not lend themselves to these

guidelines. Many such products are sold as "ready-to-assemble" kits
or require that assembly be shifted to cheaper labour markets.

Design Guidelines for Hard Automation

The main different here is that assembly is performed by machines
instead of by humans.

reduce the number of different components by considering

1. does the part move relative to other parts?
2. must the part be isolated from other parts (electrical,
vibration, etc.)?
3. must the part be separate to allow assembly (cover
plates, etc.)?
use self-aligning and self-locating features
avoid screws/bolts
use the largest and most rigid part as the assembly base and
fixture. Assembly should be performed in a layered, bottom-up
manner.
use standard components and materials.
avoid tangling or nesting parts.
avoid flexible and fragile parts.
avoid parts that require orientation.
use parts that can be fed automatically.
design parts with a low centre of gravity.

Sometimes it is too difficult to make parts symmetrical, often nonfunctional features are added to a part to facilitate part feeding,
grasping, and orientation.

Design Guidelines for Soft Automation /

Robotic Assembly
Compared to humans, robots are extremely inflexible and stupid.
However, they can be programmed to do one thing over and over
again with high speed and accuracy compared to humans.

design the part so that it is compatible with the robot's end

effector.
design the part so that it can be fed in the proper orientation.

Evaluation Methods for DFA

It is important to quantify the improvements and goals of DFA. Two
methods for DFA quantification considered here are the boothroyddewhurst method and the Lucas method.
Boothroyd-Dewhurst Method
This method is based on two principles:

the application of criteria to each part to determine if it should

be separate from all other parts.
estimation of the handling and assembly costs for each part
using the appropriate assembly process.

This method relies on an existing design which is iteratively

evaluated and improved. Generally, the process follows these steps:
1. Select an assembly method for each part
2. Analyse the parts for the given assembly methods
3. Refine the design in response to shortcomings identified by the
analysis
4. Loop to step 2 until the analysis yields a sufficient design
The analysis is generally performed using some kind of workshee
(example shown below)t. Tables and charts are used to estimate
the part handling and part insertion time. These "lookup tables" are

based on a two-digit code that is in turn based on a part's size,

weight, and geometric characteristics.
Non-assembly operations are also included in the worksheet. For
example, extra time is allocated for each time the assembly is reoriented.
Next, parts are evaluated as to whether it is really necessary (in the
assembly) by asking three questions:
1. does the part move relative to another part?
2. are the material properties of the part necessary?
3. does the part need to be a separate entity for the sake of
assembly?
The list of all parts is then evaluated to obtain the minimum number
of theoretically needed parts, denoted by Nm.
Sample Boothroyd-Dewhurst DFA worksheet
a

# of
Pa consecut
rt ive
ID identical
# operatio
ns

i*

Name
of
assem
bly

Manual
Manual
2-digit
2-digit
handlin
insertio Operati
Essent
handli
inserti
Operati
g
n
on time
ial
ng
on
on cost
time/p
time/p (bd+f)
part?
code
code
art
art

Totals go here -> Tm=

Cm=

Nm=

* - in column "i", use "1" to represent that a part is essential, and

"0" to represent that a part is not essential.
The method then assumes that the assembly time for a part is 3
seconds. With that assumption, the design efficiency can be
calculated as:

Design efficiency = (3s x Nm) / Tm.

The charts for this process can be purchased from a company set up
by Boothroyd and Dewhurst. As well, they hold workshops and
seminars across North America. As this process can be very timeconsuming, software is available to help the design engineer. Refer
to http://www.dfma.com for further information. A nice screenshoot
of the Boothroyd and Dewhurst software is available here.
Lucas Method
The Lucas method is quite detailed, and is described separately.

Basic DFA Guidelines

Here are some basic guidelines for DFA. Generally, you want to
start with a concept design and then go through each of these
guidelines, decide whether or not it is applicable, and the modify the
concept to satisfy the guideline. There is no guarantee that a given
guideline will apply to a particular design problem. Many of these
guidelines are similar or the same as rules of concurrent
engineering.

Minimise part count by incorporating multiple functions into

single parts
Modularise multiple parts into single subassemblies
Assemble in open space, not in confined spaces; never bury
important components
Make parts such that it is easy to identify how they should be
oriented for insertion
Prefer self-locating parts
Standardise to reduce part variety
Maximise part symmetry
Design in geometric or weight polar properties if nonsymmetric
Eliminate tangly parts
Color code parts that are different but shaped similarly
Prevent nesting of parts; prefer stacked assemblies
Provide orienting features on nonsymmetries
Design the mating features for easy insertion
Provide alignment features

Insert new parts into an assembly from above

Eliminate re-orientation of both parts and assemblies
Eliminate fasteners
Place fasteners away from obstructions; design in fastener
access
Deep channels should be sufficiently wide to provide access to
fastening tools; eliminate channels if possible
Provide flats for uniform fastening and fastening ease
Ensure sufficient space between fasteners and other features
for a fastening tool
Prefer easily handled parts