Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEM SCIENCE and SIMULATION in ENGINEERING (ICOSSSE '08)

DFM and DFA Approach on Designing Pressure Vessel

1

A.R. ISMAIL, 2S.C. ABDULLAH, 1A.H. A. A. MANAP, 1K.SOPIAN, 1 M. M.

TAHIR, 1 I.M.S. USMAN, 1D.A.WAHAB
1
Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), National University of Malaysia,
43600 UKM Bangi, MALAYSIA
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Abstract: - This case study shows how the effect of implementation of the Design for Manufacture and
Assembly (DFMA) in product development process. Pressure vessel was selected as the example in this case
study. The pressure vessel design was obtained from one of the oil and gas company in Malaysia. Information
gathering and data collection were conducted by interview and observation. Information such as design and
component development time was analyzed and modeled to ensure the effect of implementation of this
approach to product development cycle and design efficiencies. The method used for this case study is the
Boothroyd and Dewhurst method. Using this method, the existing design of the pressure vessel was modified
by incorporating the design for manufacture and assembly requirements. The approach enables a shorter
product development cycle time through reduction in manufacturing and assembly time. Apart from that, the
overall cost of the pressure vessel was reduced. The implementation of this approach has improved the
companys performance and return of investment.
Key-Words: - DFM, DFA, concurrent engineering, pressure vessel, product development cycle
components and DFA is a systematic procedure to
maximize the use of components in the design of a
product. The aim of DFMA is to maximise the use
of manufacturing processes and minimise the
number of components in an assembly or product
[4].

1 Introduction
The technology advancement and improvement in
our industry, improve the demand to the product. To
fulfill this demand, the speed and capacity of
production by a company must be enhanced. An
analysis of the world market has shown that the
customer requirements regarding functions and
quality of products are continuously increasing but
the customers are not willing to pay more for better
products, neither do they accept prolonged delivery
terms. Customers are becoming more and more
demanding and their requirements are changing all
the time. Customer is the king is becoming the
motto of today [1].
The implementation of DFA and DFM led to
enormous benefits including simplification of
products, reduction of assembly and manufacturing
cost, improvement of quality and reduction of time
to market [2]. Therefore, that is important to any
company to improve productivity and their ability to
fulfill customer requirement without neglecting the
quality of the product that will be produced. DFM is
a systematic methodology that will reduce the
manufacturing cost through reducing the overall
parts of the product and redesign the product parts,
so the product will be easy to handle and assemble
[3]. DFM is a systematic procedure to maximize the
use of manufacturing processes in the design of

ISSN: 1790-2769

2 Methodology
Data are obtained through interviewing and
observation
at
selected
pressure
vessel
manufacturers company. Among of these data are
the design of pressure vessel, manufacturing process,
manufacturing and assembly time and the
information that related to the standard has been
using to construct the pressure vessel.
After that, the design analysis was conducted
towards pressure vessel. Then, the modeling of the
pressure vessel will be conducted by Solid Works
software. From that modeling, the DFM and
assembly analysis will be conducted towards that
modeling, according to Boothroyd and Dewhurst
method. From the current design, alternative model
will be suggested through inserting the design for
manufacturing and assembly elements to the
pressure vessel. Analysis by using Boothroyd and
Dewhurst method are implemented to the existing
and the new design.

147

ISBN: 978-960-474-027-7

Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEM SCIENCE and SIMULATION in ENGINEERING (ICOSSSE '08)

The result from the existing and the modified

design will be compared. This will be conducted
through comparing the design efficiency and the
implementation of design for manufacture and
assembly that was proposed by Boothroyd and
Dewhurst. From the obtained data, the conclusion is
carrying out to the existing and the new design of
pressure vessel after the implementation of DFM
and assembly elements.

3.3 Model without DFMA Element

Model of pressure vessel that was developed at
AMB is the model without implementing design for
manufacture and assembly element. Thus, the
number of components produced is without
considering the guideline of design for manufacture
and assembly. Fig.1 is the pressure vessel model
without design for manufacture and assembly
element. There are 33 different components with
their respective quantity to produce a complete
pressure vessel.

3 Results and Discussion

The case study result is based on the implementation
of Boothroyd and Dewhurst method to the pressure
vessel that was constructed by AMB. AMB
implement the project to produce pressure vessel
according to the client order. They apply the
concurrent engineering method in order to complete
the project, where the department of designing and
manufacturing are collaborate. If there any problem
regarding to design and manufacturing of pressure
vessel, it will be settle down immediately before it
come to production stage.

1. Nozzle 3
sub- assembly
2. Shell A
3. Nozzle 1
sub- assembly
4. Shell B

3.1 Concurrent Project Implementation

In order to fulfill the clients order, AMB
implementing them concurrently with the
collaboration of all personal that involve in the
project, either they are in the design department,
manufacturing department, supplier, management or
client. Planning and data sharing from any side of
this group is very important to avoid
misunderstanding about the project.
The effect of this approach implementation is the
pressure vessel development time was reduced. This
can be obtained by applying the design for
manufacture and assembly since designing stage.
This implementation will reduce the rework if there
are any problem in manufacturing and assembly
process. Assembly process can be conducted more
easy and efficient.

10. Nozzle 4
sub- assembly

9. Ellipsoidal
Head A

5. Manway
6. Ellipsoidal
Head B

8. Nozzle 5
sub- assembly

7. Skirt subassembly
Fig. 1 Model of the pressure vessel

3.4 Analysis to the Model without DFMA

Approach
From the existing design of pressure vessel, manual
design efficiency analysis will be conducted by
using Boothroyd and Dewhurst method. Through
this method, the analysis is conducted by
considering a few factors such as component
assembly and insertion time to complete the product.
This method was applied through fulfilling the value
on the Boothroyd and Dewhurst worksheet and the
calculation of assembly efficiency is conducted to
this pressure vessel design. The measuring of
welding time and orientation time are conducted
before, to obtained components handling time.

3.2 Modeling Result

The pressure vessel design modeling by Solid Works
software to built solid model to visualize the actual
picture and the layout drawing is to show the detail
design. The components model is created from the
engineering design that was obtained from AMB.

ISSN: 1790-2769

11. Nozzle 2
sub- assembly

148

ISBN: 978-960-474-027-7

Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEM SCIENCE and SIMULATION in ENGINEERING (ICOSSSE '08)

New manual assembly efficiency, Ema

= 3 x Na / tma x 100%
= 3 x 35 / 471371.69 x 100%
= 0.022 %

3.5 Comparison within Model with and

without DFMA Element
3.5.1 Manual Assembly Efficiency
The number of component to produce a complete
pressure vessel with DFMA approach and without
DFMA approach is reduce one component with the
reduction of the skirt vent number from 3 to 2
component needed. But, a clear difference with the
component quantity. For the existing pressure
vessel, component quantity is 127, and the new
design just has 108 components. From Table 1 the
number of reduction is 19 components. The
percentage of quantity reduction from the existing
design is 14.96%. Even though the reduction of
component is small, but it still can give impact on
assembly time, material cost and material handling
cost
The component reduction that can be conducted
is very limited. Its because almost all the
component in the existing pressure vessel is very
critical and if its eliminated, it will affect the
functionality of pressure vessel, apart from that, it
will overrule the ASME standard.
From Table 2, we can get that orientation time,
welding time and insertion time and the overall
assembly operation time of pressure vessel is reduce.
With that, it can reduce component assembly time
and eventually can shorten the development time of
pressure vessel. From Table 2, design assembly
efficiency is;

From the implementation of design for

manufacture and assembly to the pressure vessel, we
can get the manual assembly design efficiency is
improve. Besides that, the reduction of component
can reduce the material and component handling,
without affecting the functionality of the pressure
vessel.
3.5.2 Design Changes
The existing design of pressure vessel was modified.
The changes is with considering the design for
manufacture approach such as easy to machine, less
finishing work, reduce rework, and all of that will
tend to improve the manufacturability. The chamfer
preparation process can make the assembly work of
pressure vessel easier before it ready to be welded.
Fig.2 shows the changes of existing pressure vessel
component with and without chamfer preparation.

Fig.2 The changes of Nozzle 4 Neck after the

insertion of DFMA

Existing manual assembly efficiency, Ema

= 3 x Na / tma x 100%
= 3 x 35 / 520393.42 x 100%
= 0.020 %

Table 2 Comparison between orientation time,

welding time, insertion time and total operation time
for the pressure vessel with and without DFMA
approach

Table 1 The component that was eliminated after

implementation of DFMA
No
1
2
3

Component
Skirt
Gusset
Plate
Skirt Vent
Anchor Bolts
Total Reduction

Quantity
Existing Reduction
24
12
3
12

1
6
19

For the design assembly efficiency with DFMA

elements is;
The compression ring also can be simplified with
the reduction of anchor bolt hole. This can reduce
the machining time to produce the hole. Besides that,

ISSN: 1790-2769

149

ISBN: 978-960-474-027-7

Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEM SCIENCE and SIMULATION in ENGINEERING (ICOSSSE '08)

it can reduce the number of anchor bolt that been

using to retain the position of pressure vessel. Fig.3
shows the difference within the compression ring
that the design was simplified and the existing
design.
Fig.5 The changes of Flange Nozzle 3 model after
the insertion of DFMA
Fig. 5 shows the changes of flange nozzle 1
design before and after the insertion of DFMA
element. The amount of changes in the component
number can be viewed at the skirt vent design, where
the existing sub-component consists of 3
components to complete the skirt vent. But after the
modification of the design, the number of subcomponent can be reduced to just 2 components.
Fig.6 shows the changes of skirt vent design before
and after modification.

Fig.3 The changes of compression ring model after

insertion of DFMA
The existing compression rings consist of 12
holes to place the anchor bolt, compare to the
modified design that just has 6 holes. The difference
can reduce the machining time and eventually can
shorten the pressure vessel development time. The
design of base plate and gusset plate also been
modified as the compression ring design. The
number of anchor bolt holes reduced from 12 to only
6 holes as shown in Fig.4. The reduction can give
impact to the reduction of gusset plate. The number
of existing gusset plate is 24 and after the
modification, the number is reducing to only 12
parts. The reduction of gusset plate tends to reduce
the component handling cost and will save the
material cost. Apart from that, the gusset plate
assembly time to base plate also reduced.

Figure 6 The changes on skirt vent model after the

insertion of DFMA
3.5.3 Manufacturing Process Changes
The changes of manufacturing process for pressure
vessel can give a positive impact to the reduction of
manufacturing process. For example is, by replacing
the manual welding method to semi automated
welding machine. By using this machine, welding
process can be faster. For instance, the tungsten inert
gas semi automated welding machine can shorten
the welding time to 30 minutes for 12 inch welding
length to just 8 minutes for the same length.
Therefore, the welding process will be faster. Apart
from that, it can improve the welding quality,
reducing scrap and labor cost.

Fig.4 The changes of base plate and gusset plate

model after the insertion of DFMA

3.6 Functional Study on the Eliminated

Components

The changes of design also been made to simplify

the manufacturing process. For instance is by
preparing the base for washer. It will make the
washer retain at their position before the nut
tightening process. It will reduce the component
handling process.

ISSN: 1790-2769

3.6.1 Skirt Gusset Plate

The changes to a gusset plate is reducing the total
number of it component. Originally, the total
number is 24 units, but after the implementation of
DFMA, the number was decreasing to just 12. The
reduction is about 50% of the existing number. The
function of gusset plate as shown in Fig.7 is as a
base of skirt compression ring units. The reduction

150

ISBN: 978-960-474-027-7

Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on SYSTEM SCIENCE and SIMULATION in ENGINEERING (ICOSSSE '08)

components and the percentage of reduction is

14.96% from the existing component. The operation
time was reduced 12.79% from existing operation
time. This approach also can simplify the
manufacturing and assembly process of pressure
vessel.
From the manual assembly efficiency, the
existing efficiency is 0.02% and after the DFMA
approach implemented, this number was increasing
to 0.023%. Even though this improvement is very
small, but it also can give impact on overall
assembly time.

of its number will not influence the functionality and

reliability of pressure vessel.

Gusset Plate

Fig.7 The location of gusset plate in the pressure

vessel skirt
3.6.2 Anchor Bolt
The changes to anchor bolt is the reduction of it
numbers from 12 units to just 6 units. The function
of anchor bolt is to retain the pressure vessel
position after installation. The reduction of anchor
bolt will not affect the functionality of pressure
vessel. Its because, the pressure vessel will not
exposed to external forces that can move its location
after installation. But, an environment forces such as
the wind must be considered especially when
deciding the number of anchor bolt.

References:
[1] Starbek M. & Grum J., Concurrent Engineering
in Small Companies, International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol.42, 2002,
pp. 417-426.
[2] Kuo T.C., Huang S.H. & Zhang H.C., Design
for Manufacture and Design for X: Concepts,
Application, and Perspective, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol.41, 2001, pp. 241260.
[3] Boothroyd G., Dewhurst P., Product Design for
Assembly, Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc., 1991.
[4] Kalpakjian C. A & Petronis S., Manufacturing
Engineering and Technology, 4th Ed. PrenticeHall, 2001.

3.6.3 Skirt Vent

The changes to skirt vent is the reduction of its
quantity. The existing design consists of 3 parts of
skirt vent. Skirt vent function is to put the pressure
vessel on his position during the operation. Pressure
vessel will be stand on skirt vent. The analogy of it
function is as a kitchen stove. After the changes have
been made, its number reduces to 2 parts. This
reduction can reduce the component and material
handling. Apart from that, it will reduce welding
time and welding material.

4 Conclusion
The DFMA approach is potential to reduce the cost
of pressure vessel development. These costs are
development time, handling cost, material cost and
labor cost. The implementation of this concurrent
engineering element will reduce rework of the
component, because the manufacturing process was
considered during early of pressure vessel
development. The objective to implement DFMA on
pressure vessel was achieved.
With the implementation pf DFMA, it was
improve manual assembly efficiency compare to the
existing design. This improvement was trigger by
the reduction of component handling time and the
design was simplified. The reduction of pressure
vessel component was improving the assembly
efficiency. The number of reduction is 19

ISSN: 1790-2769

151

ISBN: 978-960-474-027-7