INTRODUCTION

In the past, products have been designed that could not be produced. Products
have been released for production that could only be made to work in the model shop
when prototypes were built and adjusted by highly skilled technicians.
Effective product development must go beyond the traditional steps of acquiring
and implementing product and process design technology as the solution. It must address
management practices to consider customer needs, designing those requirements into the
product, and then ensuring that both the factory and the virtual factory (the company's
suppliers) have the capability to effectively produce the product.
Products are initially conceptualized to provide a particular capability and meet
identified performance objectives and specifications. Given these specifications, a
product can be designed in many different ways. The designer's objective must be to
optimize the product design with the production system.
A company's production system includes its suppliers, material handling systems,
manufacturing processes, labor force capabilities and distribution systems.
Generally, the designer works within the context of an existing production system
that can only be minimally modified. However in some cases, the production system will
be designed or redesigned in conjunction with the design of the product. When design
engineers and manufacturing engineers work together to design and rationalize both the
product and production and support processes, it is known as integrated product and
process design.
The designer's consideration of design for manufacturability, cost, reliability and
maintainability is the starting point for integrated product development.
A designer's primary objective is to design a functioning product within given
economic and schedule constraints. However, research has shown that decisions made
during the design period determine 70% of the product's costs while decisions made
during production only account for 20% of the product's costs.
Further, decisions made in the first 5% of product design could determine the vast
majority of the product's cost, quality and manufacturability characteristics. This
indicates the great leverage that DFM can have on a company's success and profitability.
However, the application of DFM must consider the overall design economics.
It must balance the effort and cost associated with development and refinement of
the design to the cost and quality leverage that can be achieved.
In other words, greater effort to optimize a products design can be justified with
higher value or higher volume products.
Design effectiveness is improved and integration facilitated when:
9 Fewer active parts are utilized through standardization, simplification and group
technology retrieval of information related to existing or preferred products and
processes.
9 Producibility is improved through incorporation of DFM practices.
9 Design alternatives are evaluated and design tools are used to develop a more
mature and producible design before release for production.
9 Product and process design includes a framework to balance product quality with
design effort and product robustness.

SIMPLIFICATION AND STANDARDIZATION

As a design is being developed from the conceptual level to the detailed level, a
physical and functional requirement envelope is defined in which a part must fit and
perform. Within the constraints of this envelope, a designer must design or select a part
or assembly for use. A designer may have many alternative ways to design a part to meet
requirements within this envelope.
While the design of a custom part or selection of a new part may be the most
optimal approach to meet product requirements from the designer's point of view, it may
not be the best overall approach for the company. Product cost and quality may be
negatively affected by the proliferation of specialized items that require specialized
capabilities or prevent efficient manufacture and procurement.
Minimizing the number of active or approved parts through standardization not
only simplifies product design, but can also result in operational efficiencies and lower
inventories. A formal policy of parts standardization and emphasis on use of parts from
an approved parts list (APL) for certain commodities provides management direction to
the designer.
Group technology (GT) and Component Supplier Management (CSM) systems
can facilitate standardization through retrieval of a similar part's design to consider for
use or as a basis for developing a new design.
Obs.:
Group technology (GT) is a manufacturing
Clasification and coding
philosophy that seeks to improve productivity by
scheme as a sieve
grouping parts and products with similar
characteristics into families and forming production
cells with a group of dissimilar machines and
processes.
Group technology is the realization that
many problems are similar, and that by grouping
similar problems, a single solution can be found to a
set of problems thus saving time and effort"
Purpose of Group Technology:
9 similar parts will have similar drawings reduce drawing time by editing an existing
(or family base) drawing;
9 similar parts (perhaps similar on a different
basis than above) will have similar
manufacturing processes - this "production
family" can be produced together with
minimal job setup
Coding and Classification
Coding - establishing symbols to
meaningfully communicate features
Classification - separate items into groups (and assign them a code) based on the existence or
absence of characteristic attributes (features)
Three types of code structures:
Three types of code structures:
9 Hierarchical (monocode) - the meaning of each code character depends upon all existing
characters to the left

Digit 2
Main shape

7
8
Nonrotational

Special

A/B 3
A/C < 4

A/B >3

A/B 3
A/C 4

2
3
Rotational

Special

With deviation
L/D 2

L/D0.5

Part Class

L/D 3

Digit 1

With deviation
L/D>2

Chain (attribute, matrix, polycode) - each code character represents a distinct piece of
information, regardless of values in other code positions

0.5 < L/D< 3

External shape
element

Main
shape

Main
shape

Digit 3
Rotational
machining

Internal shape
element

Rotational
machining

Main bore and

rotational
machining

Digit 4
Plane surface
machining

Machining of
plane surface

Machining of
plane surface

Machining of
plane surface

Other holes teeth

and forming

Other holes teeth

and forming

Digit 5
Additional holes
Teeth and forming

Digit 6
Digit 7
Digit 8
Digit 9

Other holes
and teeth

Dimensions
Material
Original shape of raw materials
Accuracy
Basic Structure of Polycode (Opitz Code)

Form
Code

Special
Code

External shape, external

shape element

Internal shape, internal

shape element

Smooth no shape
element

0.5 < L/D < 3

No shape
element

L/D 3

Smooth thread

Smooth
functional
groove
No shape
element

Thread

Functional
groove

3
4

Stepped to both end

No
hole,
breakthrough
Smooth or stepped to one
end

Stepped to one end

L/D 0.5

Rotational parts

Steppe to both end

Part class

Table 7.2 : Form Code (digits 1-5) for Rotational parts in the Opitz system. Part Classes 0, 1, and 2.
Digit 2
Digit 3
Digit 4

no

Digit 5

Plane surface machining

Auxiliary holes
and gear teeth

No surface machining

No auxiliary hole

No shape
element

Surface plane and/or

curved in one direction

Axial, not on pitch

circle diameter

Thread

External plane surface

related by graduation
around a circle

Axial on pitch circle

diameter

Functional
groove

External groove and/or

slot

Radial, not on pitch

circle diameter

No
shape
element

External spline
( polygon)

Thread

External plane surface

and/or slot, external
spline

Axial and/or radial on

pitch circle diameter
and/or other direction

Functional
groove

Internal plane surface

and/or slot

Spur gear teeth

no gear teeth

Digit 1

Axial and/or radial

and/or other direction

Functional cone

Functional cone

Internal spline
( polygon )

Bevel gear teeth

Operating thread

Operating thread

Other gear teeth

All others

All others

Internal and external

polygon, groove and/or
slot
All others

8
9

With gear teeth

Nonrotational parts

All others

Table 1 (continued)
Digit 1

Digit 2

Digit 3

Overall Shape

Digit 4

Rotational Machining

Hexagonal bar

Square or other regular

polygonal section

Symmetrical cross section

producing no unbalance

Cross section other than 0 to

2

No rotational machining

Digit 5

Plane Surface Machining

Auxiliary holes, gear teeth, and forming

No surface machining

No auxiliary hole, gear teeth and forming

Machined

External plane and/or

curved in one direction

Axial hole(s) not related by

drilling pattern

With screw
threads

External plane surface

related by graduation
around a circle

Holes, axial and/or radial

and/or in other directions, not
related

Smooth

External groove and/or slot

Stepped toward on
or both ends
(Multiple
increases)

External spline
and/or polygon

With screwed
threads

External plane surface

and/or slot, and/or spline
groove

machined

Internal plane surface

and/or groove

Screw
threads

Internal spline
and/or polygon

Gear teeth, no auxiliary hole

Internal and external spline

and/or slot and/or groove
Others

Gear teeth with auxiliary hole(s)

Others

L/D > 2
With deviation

External shape

Segments before rotational

machining
6
7

8
9

Rotational components
with curved axis

Rotational components
with two or more parallel
axis

Rotational components
with intersecting axes
Others

External shape element

Other shape element

Related by a
drilling pattern

Segments after rotational

machining

No forming, no gear teeth

Axial holes

Holes axial and/or

radial and/or in other
directions

Formed no auxiliary hole

Forming, no
gear teeth

L/D 2
With Deviation

External and
internal
shape

Around more than

one axis

Rotational component

Internal shape

Around one axis, no segments

Component class

Formed with auxiliary hole(s)

Digit 1

Digit 2

Diameter D or edge length A

mm

Inches

20

0.8

Digit 3
Material

Digit 4
Initial form

Accuracy in coded digits

Cast iron

Round bar, black

No accuracy specified

> 20 50

> 0.8 2.0

Modular graphitic cast iron and malleable

cast iron

Round bar, bright drawn

> 50 100

> 2.0 4.0

Mild steel 26.5 tonf/in.2

Not heat treated

Bar: triangular, square, hexagonal,

others

> 100 160

> 4.0 6.5

Tubing

> 160 250

> 6.5 10.0

Hard steel > 26.5 tonf/ in.2 heat treatable

low-carbon and case-hardening steel, not
heat treated
Steel 2 and 3
heat treated

Angle, U-, T- , and similar

sections.

> 250 400

>10.0 16.0

Alloy steel
(not heat treaded)

Sheet

2 and 3

> 400 600

>16.0 25.0

Alloy steel
heat treated

Plate and slab

2 and 4

> 600 1000

>25.0 40.0

Nonferrous metal

Cast and forge

Component

2 and 5

>1000 2000

>40.0 80.0

Light alloy

Welded assembly

3 and 4

>80.0

Other materials

Premachined components

2+3+4+5

8
> 2000
9

Exp: A cylindrical part , with a flange a 4 holes on 35 mm diameter:

Code:
Part class: A cylindrical part with
a rotational motion, having the
ratio L/D (0,5; 3)
For external surface: there are
symetrically shapes and a
threaded surface for one end
For internal surfaces: there are
nor internal surfaces
Planar surfaces/chanels: a key
chanel is machined on the 35
mm diameter
Additional holes:

CODE system, refers to also the cylindrical parts. For this system 8 digits are
used, each of digit coresponding to the table 2 clasification.
In fig.1, a biconvex cylindrical part with axial holes, longitudinal chanels (one
for key and other for a cylindrical pin), a planar surface and a threadedsurface for one
end.

Figure 1. CODE System

Part code:
1st digit: 1- The part is rotational one;
2nd digit: 3 The part is a multiconvex one ;
3rd digit: 1 Are not axial holes;
4th digit: 8 There are more thar two holes;
5th digit: 8 A threaded surface;
6th digit : C The planar surface;
7th digit : 7 The outside diameter: 30<D<50;
8th digit: 5 The lenght part: L, 100<L 200.
The code will be:

Hybrid (mixed) - a mixture of hierarchical and chain - most frequently used

For this moment, over 100 coding systems are in use today.

By providing a classification structure to store and retrieve design information, an

engineer can avoid "re-inventing the wheel" and the design function can evolve toward the
use of standards. CSM systems maintain information about approved parts and suppliers and
provide easy access and cross reference to this information.
The engineer would determine the characteristics of the item that is needed and
identify similar parts that are available through retrieval. One of these parts may function
equally as well or there may be a non-critical specification (e.g., tolerance, finish, dimension,
etc.) on an existing part that could be changed to suit both needs. If the existing designs were
not satisfactory, the design data could be used to facilitate the design of a new part,
particularly with computer-aided design tools. This approach can be extended to identify
existing tooling and fixtures which also might be used, avoiding additional re-design.
In addition to standardization, simplification of part and product designs also offers
significant opportunities to reduce costs and improve quality. Designers need to evaluate if
there is an easier way to accomplish the part function. DFM tools and principles provide a
structured approach to seeking simplified designs. Product complexity can be further reduced
by utilizing a modular building block approach to assembling products. Through standard
product modules, a wide variety of products can be assembled from a more limited number of
modules, thereby simplifying the design and manufacturing process. By simplifying and
standardizing designs, establishing design retrieval mechanisms, and embedding preferred
manufacturing processes in the preferred part list, design and production efficiencies are
enhanced.
PRODUCT DESIGN GUIDELINES
A number of general design guidelines have been established to achieve higher quality,
lower cost, improved application of automation and better maintainability.
Examples of these DFM guidelines are as follows:
9 Reduce the number of parts to minimize the opportunity for a defective part or an
assembly error, to decrease the total cost of fabricating and assembling the product,
and to improve the chance to automate the process
9 Foolproof the assembly design (poka-yoke) so that the assembly process is
unambiguous
9 Design verifiability into the product and its components to provide a natural test or
inspection of the item
9 Avoid tight tolerances beyond the natural capability of the manufacturing processes
and design in the middle of a part's tolerance range
9 Design "robustness" into products to compensate for uncertainty in the product's
manufacturing, testing and use

Design for parts orientation and handling to minimize non-value-added manual effort,
to avoid ambiguity in orienting and merging parts, and to facilitate automation
9 Design for ease of assembly by utilizing simple patterns of movement and minimizing
fastening steps
9 Utilize common parts and materials to facilitate design activities, to minimize the
amount of inventory in the system and to standardize handling and assembly
operations
9 Design modular products to facilitate assembly with building block components and
sub-assemblies
9 Design for ease of servicing the product
In addition to these guidelines, designers need to understand more about their own
company's production system, i.e., its capabilities and limitations, in order to establish
company-specific design rules to further guide and optimize their product design to the
company's production system. For example, they need to understand the tolerance limitations
of certain manufacturing processes.
9

EVALUATION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

With the traditional approach, the designer would develop an initial concept and
translate that into a product design, making minor modifications as required to meet the
specification. DFM requires that the designer start the process by considering various design
concept alternatives early in the process. At this point, little has been invested in a design
alternative and much can be gained if a more effective design approach can be developed.
Only through consideration of more than one alternative is there any assurance of moving
toward an optimum design. Using some of the previous design rules as a framework, the
designer needs to creatively develop design alternatives. Then alternatives are evaluated
against DFM objectives.
Design automation tools can assist in the economic development of multiple design
alternatives as well as the evaluation of these alternatives. These design tools include
computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering (CAE), solids modeling, finite
element analysis, group technology (GT) and computer-aided process planning (CAPP).
CAD/CAE system tools aid the designer in cost effectively developing and analyzing
design alternatives. CAD/CAE and expert system tools can utilize manufacturing guidelines
to develop producible designs. Solids modeling helps the designer visualize the individual
part; understand part relationships, orientation and clearances during assembly; and detect
errors and assembly difficulties. Finite element analysis and other design analysis tools can be
used to assess the ability of the design to meet functional requirements prior to manufacture as
well as assess a part's or product's robustness.
Computer-aided process planning can be used during the development of the product
design to help the designer assess the manufacturability of a design. Without CAPP, this level
of manufacturing assessment would not usually be performed until after the design was
released for production. However, the use of these design productivity tools must be managed
because they may create a temptation for the designer to exercise too much creativity and
design a slightly improved part rather than opt for part standardization.
In addition to these design productivity tools, there are a variety of DFM analysis tools
to evaluate designs and suggest opportunities for improvement. These can be used to analyze
design symmetry; ease of part handling, feeding and orientation; and the number of parts.
They can also analyze assembly operations, evaluate designs against design practices
and analyze tolerancing requirements.
Once the designer acquires a basic DFM background, the designer must learn to work
more closely with manufacturing engineers and others who can provide him with feedback on

DFM design issues. In summary, this design approach and the supporting engineering tools
should:
9 Identify design alternatives and develop these alternatives economically
9 Evaluate these alternatives against DFM objectives
9 Establish standardized designs based on DFM principles which can be readily
retrieved for new products
9 Utilize design reviews and include participation of Manufacturing in the design
process to evolve the producibility guidelines