2.

DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY

THE BROOTHROYD & DEWHURST DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY METHODOLOGY

Design for Assembly is a method that was created by Boothroyd and Dewhurst in the ‘70s. Since
manual labor is the most expensive part of the production process, they tried to find a way to
reduce this cost. An efficient way to reduce the cost of labor in the process of assembly is to
reduce the number of parts that has to be assembled. They elaborated a method to determine
the theoretical minimum number of parts that are necessary in a product. The method is called
minimum part criteria. Different parts of a product must be integrated together, so that we can get
a lower number of parts. The second step is to estimate the actual assembly time (remember: the
method has to be quantitative). This is done using the DFA
database.
The steps of the Boothroyd and Dewhurst methodology
are:
 Determine the theoretical minimum part count by
applying minimum part criteria.
 Estimate actual assembly time (handling + insertion)
using DFA database.
 Determine DFA Index by comparing actual assembly
time with theoretical minimum assembly time.
 Identify assembly difficulties and candidates for
elimination which may lead to manufacturing and
quality problems.
To sum up, the solution given by the Design for Assembly approach is to decrease labor cost.
Key components of the DFMA process

MINIMUM PART CRITERIA

The best way to reduce the assembly cost is to design a product that has the minimum number of
parts possible.
Purpose:
 Examine each part for the possibility of elimination or combination with other parts in the
product;
 Begin from the base part (which is necessary by definition) and follow the assembly order.
While examining parts:
 Don’t consider technical or economic limitations;
 Evaluate with respect to all parts already assembled.
Part integration is not always possible for different reasons:
1. Parts cannot be of the same material, for physical reasons.
2. Relative movement between parts.
3. A part, like a cover, must be separate from all the other parts, it’s needed to be separate.
There are questions I must ask myself in order to reduce the number of pieces. These questions
must be asked considering every piece in the right order.
1
DIFFERENT MATERIAL OR PHYSICAL SEPARATION
Is there a physical reason that constrict me to build this part using a different material than the
previous part? Must the part be made of a different material or be isolated from all other parts
already assembled?
(Consider only fundamental material properties such as electrical conductivity or light
permeability)
If the answer is no, I must use the same material. Parts that are made with the same material are
easier to integrate. You should try your best to get to use the same material. Try hard to not having
to change material. Different material is used only if it is strictly necessary.

RELATIVE MOVEMENT
Must this part move with respect to all the parts already assembled?
(Consider only large movements that cannot be accommodated by integral elastic elements)

ASSEMBLY OF NECESSARY ITEMS

Must the part be separate from all other parts already assembled because necessary assembly or
disassembly would otherwise be impossible?
Combining cover with base would make assembly of necessary items impossible. Parts integration
is not possible when a cover that closes a box is needed, and in the box some other components
are assembled.
Fastening, Securing and Connecting
Fasteners, connectors, and screws are always candidates for elimination, because they only secure
other parts together and/or transfer material or signals.
Separate fasteners are always candidates for elimination. An integral fastening arrangement is
always theoretically possible.
Connectors are always candidates for elimination. The connected items could theoretically be
combined to eliminate the connector. Also, connectors can be eliminated by reducing the distance
between the two parts that have to be connected (easy to say, difficult to do).

The design process in this part is very creative. Ideas useful to solve these problems are often
reached using lateral thinking. There must not be people saying, “this is too expensive” or “that is

2
too difficult”. This process must be done in teams. This is the fundamental of concurrent
engineering.

ASSEMBLY TIME ESTIMATION

The main aim of Design for Assembly is to decrease the assembly cost. The cost driver is time.
Handling Time + InsertionTime= Assembly Time
Handling time is the time the operator needs to pick up the part, orient the part in the right
direction and place it close to the piece. A symmetric part is easy to handle, because it is easier to
be oriented. Small parts are of course easier to be handled, unless they are too thin; in this case
parts are difficult to pick up.
The handling time can be related to the shape, dimensions and symmetry of the piece but there
are other factor, subjective factor that contribute to the handling time.
Insertion time is the time it takes to connect the part to the piece.

Envelope Shape and Dimensions

Parts can be described in terms of shape and dimensions. They can have different envelopes,
cylindrical, rectangular, …. And the envelope has certain dimensions. Size is the largest dimension
while Thickness is the smallest dimension.

Alpha Symmetry Beta Symmetry

3
Handling and Insertion Difficulties
In order to determine the handling and insertion time many different characteristic and features
of the pieces and of the assembly process have to be considered. Here is a list of the possible
difficulties that could make the handling and insertion slower.
 Handling difficulties: Nest or Tangle, Nest or Tangle severely, Flexible, Stick together,
Fragile, Slippery, Sharp, Heavy or difficult to Handle or Control due to large size, Tweezers,
Other grasping tools, Two hands, Two persons, Fixed swing crane, Small mobile crane, Large
gantry crane.
 Insertion difficulties: Restricted view of mating location, Obstructed access (effect of
obstructions), Not easy to Align or Position, Resistance to insertion, Severe insertion
difficulties, Holding down required, Regrasping required prior to insertion, Supporting of
weight required during insertion, Large depth of insertion.
All the difficulties identified in the handling and insertion of a piece can be predicted. That’s why
every mating piece shape and geometry should be redesigned in order to make it easier for the
operators to perform their work. Of course, total accuracy of
the time is impossible to predict, but the main problems of
handling and insertion have to be flagged in order to design
the pieces in the best ways to be assembled for the operators.

Every one of the difficulties that a piece has, will add a penalty
to the standard handling time (1.5 seconds) and the estimated
time obtained will be used in the calculations. How can we
quantify these difficulties? Every difficulty existent is assigned
to a standard assembly time. Thanks to these standardized
times, given by the tables of handling estimated times, we can
assign an assembly time to each part just looking at his
physical characteristics, without even having a physical
prototype. At this point we should calculate handling time for
every part and do a similar process for insertion time. At the
end of this phase we obtain the assembly time for every part.
This process is long and boring.
Having a quantity relationship between time and difficulty that
can be found in the part, we can predict the time for a part to
be assembled, before actually assembling the part. This
permits to fix the problem before, during the design process.

When we integrate different parts into a single one, we obtain

a more complex part to be produced. Often this new part is a
plastic part. Starting from the 70s and 80s there was a shift

4
between metals parts and plastics parts, and this happened because plastic is easier to be
assembled and this factor reduced costs.

Design For Manual Assembly Worksheet

After having considered every part of the piece, we insert the results in the manual assembly
worksheet.
The worksheet permits to identify which parts
can be eliminated or commuted and which
parts take longer to assemble or, in other
words, have problems with handling or
insertion. These parts are the most time
consuming and so the most expensive of the
assembly process.
In this phase a traceback analysis can be
made, evaluating the reasons of the high time
of handling and insertion. Traceback is a
process in which the assembly process and the
pieces are reconsidered trying to eliminate
penalties that can increase the time needed in
the assembly process.

DFA Index or Efficiency Index

Finally, the DFA Index, an Efficiency Index, is calculated. It’s a ratio between the theoretical
minimum assembly time and the real assembly time (estimated using the tables, so this is not the
real time measured during the assembly process, but instead it is an estimation of the real time). It
expresses how good the considered part is for Design for Assembly.
Theoretical Minimum Time 3 · N min
DFA Index= =
Estimated Assembly Time T est
 N min =¿ theoretical minimum part count (it takes into account the ideal situation).
 T est=¿ estimated assembly time (taking into account all the parts, these values are found in
the tables, they are already calculated).
 Minimum time of assembly for each part ¿ 3 sec
- 1.5 for handling.
- 1.5 for insertion.
Its value varies between 0 and 1. An efficiency of 30% is okay. Usually from a beginning value of
0,19 for the original piece, a new efficiency value of 0,2/0,25 is reached after the DFA method is
applied.
During different estimations of a part, this changes the number of parts is made of and the
assembly tasks are different, optimized. So, the numerator of the index remains the same, while
the denominator changes, the value of the denominator decreases when the number of parts
decreases and the assembly tasks are optimized, and so the Index increases.

5
DESIGN FOR ASSEMBLY GUIDELINES
1. Minimize parts count.
2. Stack assemblies.
3. Eliminate adjustments.
4. Eliminate cables.
5. Use self-fastening parts.
6. Use self-locating parts.
7. Eliminate reorientation.
8. Facilitate parts handling.
For instance, here are some applications of a design for assembly approach:
 Kinematic Design Principles for Product Simplification,
 Design with Self-Locating Features,
 Include Chamfers and Avoid Simultaneous Mating Difficulties,
 Ensure that Parts Can Reach Mating Locations,
 Ensure Open Access for Assembly Processes,
 (Stack strategy because gravity helps).

The DFA method, but more in general all the methods, in order to be effective must be systematic
and quantitative.
Systematic method: steps must be followed in an ordinate order; if a method is systematic you will
succeed, if not "is up to you", and the chances that the product is improving is less.
Quantitate method: you must work with numbers, because they help to take better decisions; the
cost can be compared with other processes within the company and, in the end, money talks,
money must be used as a common evaluation method, because is "democratic", when a solution is
presented this must be economically evaluated in order to be compared with other possible
solutions.

6
EXAMPLE: Pneumatic Piston
Let’s now see an example of the Procedure for Manual Assembly applied at a Pneumatic Piston.
Pneumatic Piston Subassembly

Pneumatic Piston Subassembly (redesign)

7
For every part, starting from the base I have to ask myself the questions already seen: Can I make it
out of the same material of the base? Is it necessary a relative movement between this part and
the parts that are close? Must the part be separate from all other parts already assembled because
necessary assembly or disassembly would otherwise be impossible?
I should try to force myself to find solutions that would allow me to use the same material,
limiting relative movements and reduce the number of parts. Screw can always be integrated in
other parts, reducing the total number of parts of the product (for example here we have 4 parts
instead of 7). As we can see here from the images the stop has been integrated in the piston and
the screws have been integrated in the cover using a snap mechanism.
We want to have a quantification in terms of money about how much we saved using this
solution. Is it better? How much? In order to be quantitative, we need to assign to each part an
assembly time, using the tables of the manual handling estimated times.
Having the assembly time for every part we can complete the design for manual assembly
worksheet and finally calculate the DFA Index that gives an efficiency index of the piece in terms of
assembly. At the end of the process, we get an estimate time and a cost.
In the traditional piece, Screws are very time consuming in the process, therefore very expensive;
the reason is that the insertion is difficult.
By confronting the original piece with the redesigned pneumatic piston, we can see that the DFA
Index of the redesigned part is higher because the number of parts of the piston decreased and so
the estimated assembly time decreased. With a smaller number of parts also the manufacturing
cost of assembly decreases.
As we can see, this second solution is much better because it is very cheaper (5.32 cents against
16.90 cents). Another thing to consider is that the new piston and the new cover could be more
expensive than the previous one. On the other hand, there are less parts to be produced, so also
the production process is likely to be cheaper.

EXAMPLE: Tesla
Tesla model 3 is competitive in the market because of manufacturing factors. This is possible
thanks to the use of the giga press technology (invented by the Italian company Idra), which uses
die casting applied to a very big machine. This method allows to produce very big parts using one
single process. Nobody was able to substitute steel in cars since the beginning of car production.
When producing the body of a car you must create the different parts and then fuse them
together. A traditional car has a body produced by hundreds of parts, while the body of a tesla
model 3 is composed by 2 parts. Recently a new giga press was created big enough to create the
Cybertruck. Tesla basically performed a design for assembly analysis on the body of a car. People
working in this industry had never find this solution, while Elon Musk found it as soon as he
entered the industry.
The idea to use a Giga press to produce the body of Teslas is a perfect example of concurrent
engineering because they are reducing the number of parts to be assembled increasing quality
(because a lower number of parts means a lower possibility to get defects due to fabrication and
assembly processes) and reducing costs.

8
Benefits of DFA application
Until now we saw the features of Design for Assembly, from a technical, engineering point of view.
Let’s now we consider the benefits of design for assembly, from a managerial, business point of
view. The focus is different. In particular DFA:
 Identifies part consolidation opportunities, by forcing the "thinking process" and reducing
the number of parts.
 Exposes cost and quality problems early in the design process: it something has a lot of
parts, and they are difficult to be assembled, the assembly process is longer and therefore
more expensive. Also, it is more likely to have defects and a decrease in quality. The more a
product is difficult to be assembled, the more probable is it to find defects.
 Objectively assesses design simplification opportunities: doing it at early stages of the
design process is very convenient.
 Drives optimization of product costs.
 Allows setting of target costs; The price of a product can be set in two different ways:
- Adding a profit to the sum of the costs for production (Western approach)
- To set the price before the actual production by setting a target cost (Eastern approach).

As we can see from the data collected from case-

studies of different industries, the DFA applications
have benefit in different categories within the
company.

If it takes shorter for an assembly operation it means, it’s easier and if it’s easier the probability of
having a defect or a problem decreases.
DFA reduces the Work in Progress (WIP), by decreasing the parts of the product, there are less
parts on the manufacturing process. It also reduces the number of suppliers needed by the
company. For these reasons it is very useful when trying to apply a lean production.

DFA Reduces Overhead Costs

Fewer parts: Less material to inventory, Less work in process, Fewer assembly stations, Less
automatic assembly equipment, Less dedicated fabrication tooling, Less paperwork and drawings.

9
Fewer subassemblies (Subsystems of the products that are designed previously and treated as a
product during the assembly line) and operations: Fewer work holders, Fewer assembly tools and
fixtures. For instance, "set aside" and "refetch" are two operations always required for every
subassembly.
Redesign the product by minimizing the parts, is the best thing to do to reduce the cost of the
assembly line, it helps cutting the direct labor cost.

Percentages of Production Workers

In the industries where the majority of production
workers are involved in assembly and inspection, the
best opportunity for improving productivity is to
reduce assembly labor.
In most manufacturing companies, the largest share of
workers is involved in the assembly and inspection
processes, this happens because assembly is very
difficult to be automatized, and more important, very
expensive. In this field, the best opportunity for
improving productivity is to reduce the assembly
labor.

Proportion of Direct Labor Costs on

Production Cost
Assembly costs are the biggest contributor, it takes
the most of the direct labor cost. The majority of the
cost is for the assembly process.
How can we reduce the assembly cost? By reducing
the assembly labor and time… Let’s see how.

Potential Assembly Time Reduction by Various Rationalization Strategies

10
There are different rationalization strategies for time reduction:
 Use of new materials;
 Time study and alternation of time allowances;
 Alternation of work, process, organization and structure (changing the environment in
which the operators are working);
 Introduction of new manufacturing and joining techniques;
 Product development or/and product design;
 Mechanization/Automation.
The last two are the most effective ways to decrease the assembly time. By using both you'll
probably get the most by the assembly process, in terms of time reduction.
Automation vs. Product Design
 Automation holds the greatest potential for improvement when the product design is poor.
 With good product designs automation is unlikely to be economic.
Another problem of automated lines is that, if the product is out of the market, the line cannot be
used for other products.
By pushing the design for assembly method, in the end it could not be convenient to use
automation. By decreasing the number of parts, automation can be avoided. By exploiting a
technology that can deal with complexity of the geometry of the pieces, parts to deal with can be
much less.

As we can see a manual assembly process with 2

parts is much more convenient than an
automate assembly with 24 pieces. Also, we can
see that automatic production is slightly more
convenient than manual production when we
have 2 parts. But we must consider that an
automatic assembly line is a huge investment
and a fixed cost, while manual production is a
variable cost (we can hire more workers if we
need to increase the production). So, it is not
worth to automate the process in this situation,
because there is a high-risk investment for a
small gain.

11
Enhance Product Quality and Productivity by Reducing Parts Count
Fewer processing steps, Fewer adjustments, Fewer mating points, Fewer tolerance stack-up
problems, Fewer operator frustrations, Fewer material control problems, Fewer assembly fixtures
and Fewer chances to assemble the product in a wrong way.
Productivity increases a lot because of Design for Assembly. Increasing the speed in fabrication and
avoiding assembly of many parts, the productivity of the line increases significantly, investment of
the subsequent assembly line is no more necessary.
For applying this method many problems have to be considered and solved: material problem,
machines used, … but, in the end, the benefits highly overcome the initial cost and struggles faced
at the beginning of the process.
Quality is related to the number of parts, the more parts there are the more probability of
manufacturing problems.
Design for Assembly gives to the product less weight but at the same time better structural
performance: this is a real innovation, it's not a trade-off.

A study from Motorola found a relation between the DFA index and the quality of the product
(expressed in defects per million parts).

The higher the DFA Index the lower the number of defects: with less parts the probability to make
mistakes is less, and the remaining parts are easier to assemble.
12
The longer the time required to perform an operation the more likely the probability of making a
mistake for that operation.
If the assembly of a product takes longer because of penalties, then it will have more defects.

Why teamwork?
In order to apply the Design for Assembly method teamwork between the design part and
production processes is fundamental.
 Moves problem-solving periods to design’s concept stage;
 Empowers collective ownership of the design (democratic approach: everybody from the
company must have the possibility to speak up);
 Eliminates the resistance to change encountered with individual ownership;
 Facilitates effective responses to unexpected changes in product requirements (don't stick
to the status-quo, if product requirements changes then all the process have to be seen
again and eventually the product has to be redesigned).
Always remember: A successful product sell by itself, the success of a product starts from the
correct design and manufacturing of it.

Ugly baby syndrome

“Don’t stick to your idea just because you created it. Be open to objectively analyzing, changing,
and - if necessary - moving on from a bad idea”
TEST QUESTION
By applying the design for assembly method, are the assembly cost and the fabrication cost
decreased?
Is the effect of the design for assembly method only related to the decreasing of the assembly
cost?
No, also the fabrication cost is decreased, the number of parts decreases and the fabrication is
easier, even if the geometry of the single parts (or of the less parts) is more complicate, the
number of parts are less and fabrication is less expensive.

Video Tesla

13