Design for Manufacturing & Assembly Approach in Realisation of Cryogenic Thrust Chamber

2015 ◽  
Vol 830-831 ◽  
pp. 95-99
Author(s):  
Alok Singh ◽  
Ravi Ranjan Kumar ◽  
Ashish Kumar Pande ◽  
P.V. Venkitakrishnan
Keyword(s):  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Design For Manufacturing ◽  
Product Launch ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Thrust Chamber ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Full Production ◽  
Industrial Designers ◽  
Functional Teams ◽  
New Good

In the olden days the motto was "I designed it; you build it!" Design engineers worked alone and Designs were then thrown over the wall leaving manufacturing people with the dilemma how to manufacture. Often this delayed both the product launch and the time to ramp up to full production. In the new good days manufacturability can be assured by developing products in multi-functional teams with early and active participation from Manufacturing, Marketing (and even customers), Finance, Industrial Designers, Quality, Service, Purchasing, Vendors and factory works. The need for a holistic approach between design and manufacturing is required. The two concepts Design for Manufacturing & Design for Assembly has become the need of the hour. The heart of any design for manufacturing system is a group of design principles or guidelines that are structured to help the designer reduce the cost and difficulty of manufacturing an item.Realisation of Cryogenic thrust chamber includes various manufacturing processes like Forming, Welding, Machining and Brazing. During initial stages of Thrust chamber realisation problems like Forming of 1.7m long nozzle divergent from thin sheets, welding of various intricate geometries & assembly of critical parts were observed. Subsequently these problems were studied based on the holistic approach of Design for manufacturing & design for assembly. Improvements based on the above study were considered in design & critical processes modifications resulting in successful and timely realization of the thrust chamber.

Abstract and Concrete Data Type Optimizations at the UML and C/C++ Level for Dynamic Embedded Software

2010 ◽  
pp. 55-83
Author(s):  
Christos Baloukas ◽  
Marijn Temmerman ◽  
Anne Keller ◽  
Stylianos Mamagkakis ◽  
Francky Catthoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Embedded System ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Embedded Software ◽  
Data Types ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Implementation Level ◽  
Abstraction Levels

An embedded system is a special-purpose system that performs predefined tasks, usually with very specific requirements. Since the system is dedicated to a specific task, design engineers can optimize it by exploiting very specialized knowledge, deriving an optimally customized system. Low energy consumption and high performance are both valid optimization targets to increase the value and mobility of the final system. Traditionally, conceptual embedded software models are built irrespectively of the underlying hardware platform, whereas embedded-system specialists typically start their optimization crusade from the executable code. This practice results in suboptimal implementations on the embedded platform because at the source-code level not all the inefficiencies introduced at the modelling level can be removed. In this book chapter, we describe both novel UML transformations at the modelling level and C/C++ transformations at the software implementation level. The transformations at both design abstraction levels target the data types of dynamic embedded software applications and provide optimizations guided by the relevant cost factors. Using a real life case study, we show how our transformations result in significant improvement in memory footprint, performance and energy consumption with respect to the initial implementation. Moreover, thanks to our holistic approach, we are able to identify new and non-trivial solutions that could hardly be found with the traditional design methods.

Design for Assembly and Design for Manufacturing Study Case: Mid-Size Pickup-Box Reinforcement Application

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisson Sarmento ◽  
André Luiz J. Pereira ◽  
Lincoln Lima ◽  
Luciana Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
Design For Manufacturing ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Study Case

A new design tool for DFA/DFD based on rating factors

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devdas Shetty ◽  
Ahad Ali
Keyword(s):  
Design Tool ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Assembly Design ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Life Cycle Design ◽  
Score Method ◽  
Manufacturing Assembly

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a tool design for assembly and disassembly using rating factors. Design engineers need an automated tool to effectively analyze the ease of assembly and disassembly of the products or subassemblies. A good assembly design helps in easier disassembly and thus makes it easier to service, repair and maintain. Reuse and recycling aspects are given importance in the present days due to environmental regulations. Designers now use the life cycle design of the products. This creates an environment for the successful application of design for manufacturing, assembly and disassembly tools. This paper addresses some of those issues. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis of a product design for ease of assembly/disassembly depends largely on whether the product is to be assembled/disassembled manually, with automation or a combination of these. For example, the criteria for ease of automatic feeding and orienting are much more stringent than those for manual handling of parts. The new design for assembly/disassembly (DFA/DFD) evaluation tool explained here enables the designer to review the existing design. This paper examines the existing techniques in the area of DFA/DFD and suggests a new methodology based on rating factors. Excel is used to create the interface for the user. Other popular methods were examined such as Boothroyd-Dewhurst, Lucas. Access, reuse, removal, tool, task and time method and assembly score method (Poli) were used as a base for this study. Findings – The end result of this research is a new approach linked to assembly/disassembly rating score. Originality/value – The new DFA/DFD evaluation tool enables the designer to review the existing DFA and DFD difficulties.

Design Methodology for Assembly and Disassembly Based on Rating Factors

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devdas Shetty ◽  
Vishwesh Coimbatore ◽  
Claudio Campana
Keyword(s):  
Spare Parts ◽  
Evaluation Methodology ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Assembly Design ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Innovative Products ◽  
Product Recycling ◽  
Tools And Techniques ◽  
Automated Tool

Design engineers need an automated tool to effectively analyze the ease of assembly & disassembly of the subassemblies and the innovative products they create. A good assembly design makes it easier to service, easier to repair and maintain. Due to current environmental regulations the designers are forced to think about the life cycle of a product, recycling and reuse aspects of the products from the very beginning. This creates an environment for efficient implementation of design for manufacturing tools and techniques. A New Design for Assembly / Disassembly (DFA/DFD) Evaluation methodology explained here enables the designer to review the design for assembly and disassembly difficulties by considering several contributing factors and their importance to successful product creation. The technique is based on the criteria of “Rating Factors”. A spreadsheet format is used to create the front end interface for the user and to include all the influencing factors. The major parameters considered for the study are access, tool, task, re-use, removal, recyclability. Since the product maintenance is an important factor additional maintenance related issues such as spare parts, waiting time, priority and cost are considered as rating factors. The new methodology was compared with other existing techniques and found to be valid and useful to manufacturing industries.

scholarly journals A Focus On Use

2008 ◽  
Vol 130 (02) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Thilmany
Keyword(s):  
Product Development ◽  
Rapid Prototyping ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Cad Systems ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Industrial Designers ◽  
Aided Design

This article analyses the need and benefit of the working of industrial designers and product engineers together. According to engineers and others at the forefront of product development, to do the job right requires a collaboration involving design engineers, industrial designers, manufacturing engineers, and several other players, like marketing people, all of whom have important knowledge that needs to influence a design. Companies such as Trek Bicycle Corp. and Empire Level Manufacturing Corp. have developed practices that foster innovative, human-centered product development. Experts agree that computer-aided design (CAD) and rapid prototyping applications are the two most helpful systems, even though the two types of designers may use the tools in somewhat several ways. According to Rainer Gawlick, vice president of marketing at SolidWorks in Concord, Massachusetts, current CAD systems can help bridge the design-to-engineering-to-manufacturing gap.

A Coordinated Product and Process Development Environment for Design for Assembly

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Lee ◽  
H. Thomas Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Concurrent Engineering ◽  
Process Development ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Coordination Mechanism ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Assembly Process ◽  
Development Environment ◽  
Industrial Sectors ◽  
Assembly Operations

Abstract The development approach embodied in design for assembly (DFA) has been demonstrated effectively in different industrial sectors and through the design of a multitude of products. However, little effort has been applied to improving development methods for the assembly operations and processes used to fabricate these products. If the benefits of concurrent engineering are to be fully realized, a more holistic approach to unifying a product’s design with development of its assembly processes is needed. This paper provides a description of our approach to establishing an environment for coordinated product and assembly process development. The steps in a product’s development cycle are introduced and the concepts of design for assembly and concurrent engineering defined. Using DFA methods as a motivation, an approach to assembly process development is derived. Referred to as Systematic Assembly Process Development (S-APD), assembly processes are defined and analyzed by using standardized generic assembly operations. To address problems created by using concurrent engineering in product/process development, two mechanisms are described. Since the focus of developing a product (i.e. how well does it perform and cost) differs from developing its assembly processes (i.e. making products at the necessary volumes), the concept of an interface reference context is introduced as a coordination mechanism and applied to development of unmanned composite low-cost aircraft. Moreover, in identifying which elements of the design are to be assembled with a specific set of production technologies, a synchronous thread is instantiated to link product and assembly process development efforts in a temporal context. Different approaches are reviewed to resolve potential conflicts related to concurrency effects generated during simultaneous product and assembly process development.

Representations: Reconciling Design for Disassembly Rules With Design for Manufacturing Rules

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikrant C. Rayate ◽  
Joshua D. Summers
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Design For Manufacturing ◽  
Design Rule ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Assembly Rules ◽  
Design For Disassembly ◽  
Design Rules ◽  
Relationship Types ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario

The paper presents a tool for selecting appropriate Design for Manufacturing and Design for Assembly rules during product design while considering Design for Disassembly rules and end-of-life recovery conditions. This tool exposes the relations between the various types of design rules and end-of-life recovery parameters. Four different relationship types are developed in this research: recovery conditions and recovery options relationship, Design for Disassembly rules and recovery options relationship, Design for Disassembly rules and recovery conditions relationship, Design for Disassembly rules, and Design for Manufacturing and Design for Assembly rules relationship. The purpose of this research is to build these relations and transform these relationships into a database. The database serves as tool from which design rules can be retrieved by running queries. In addition to design rule retrieval, the tool also shows the relationships with various design rules, recovery options, and recovery conditions. This provides designers with information as to which rules are in conflict and which are complementary for the specific situation under consideration. To illustrate this tool, it is applied to motor-drive assembly and thermal gun sight, which are already design products. Additionally the application of the tool is demonstrated using a hypothetical scenario which involves products like coffee cup, cell phone and stapler.

Use of Injection Molding Simulation to Assess Critical Dimensions and Assign Tolerances

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc I. Zemel ◽  
Kevin N. Otto
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Injection Molding ◽  
Tolerance Analysis ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Design Stage ◽  
Injection Molding Process ◽  
Molding Process ◽  
Critical Dimensions ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Design And Manufacturing

Abstract When a product is certified for production and while its quality is being monitored, it is not economically feasible to watch every dimension of the part. Through the definition of critical dimensions, the amount of measurements necessary for quality control can be limited. However, in order to properly assign tolerances to the critical dimensions, the engineer needs to understand the capability of the process. Unfortunately, the subject of tolerances can be a great source of arguments between design and manufacturing engineers. Concurrent engineering has taken a holistic approach to the problem by forcing manufacturing engineers to get involved earlier in the development process. We propose a methodology that employs injection molding process simulation to track the development of critical dimensions from the design stage to production. This methodology provides a more quantitative approach to the tolerancing of injection molded parts. Furthermore, the application of this methodology will promote better communication between manufacturing and design engineers by giving them a common language, consisting of a software model and data. By gaining an understanding of process variation, the design and manufacturing team will be able to do four things: assess the process capability, determine if the part will function properly through tolerance analysis, assign critical dimensions, and set up a measurement scheme for quality control.

Unsettled Technology Areas in Deterministic Assembly Approaches for Industry 4.0

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Roye ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Industry 4.0 ◽  
Lead Time ◽  
Aircraft Design ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Design For Assembly ◽  
Measurement Feedback ◽  
End To End ◽  
Assembly Principles

Increased production rates and cost reduction are affecting manufacturing in all sectors of the mobility industry. One enabling methodology that could achieve these goals in the burgeoning “Industry 4.0” environment is the deterministic assembly (DA) approach. The DA approach is defined as an optimized assembly process; it always forms the same final structure and has a strong link to design-for-assembly and design-for-automation methodologies. It also looks at the whole supply chain, enabling drastic savings at the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) level by reducing recurring costs and lead time. Within Industry 4.0, DA will be required mainly for the aerospace and the space industry, but serves as an interesting approach for other industries assembling large and/or complex components. In its entirety, the DA approach connects an entire supply chain—from part manufacturing at an elementary level to an OEM’s final assembly line level. Addressing the whole process of aircraft design and manufacturing is necessary to develop further collaboration models between OEMs and the supply chain, including addressing the most pressing technology challenges. Since all parts aggregate at the OEM level, the OEM—as an integrator of all these single parts—needs special end-to-end methodologies to drastically decrease cost and lead time. This holistic approach can be considered in part design as well (in the design-for-automation and design-for-assembly philosophy). This allows for quicker assembly at the OEM level, such as “part-to-part” or “hole-to-hole” approaches, versus traditional, classical assembly methods like manual measurement or measurement-assisted assembly. In addition, it can increase flexibility regarding rate changes in production (such as those due to pandemic- or climate-related environmental challenges). The standardization and harmonization of these areas would help all industries and designers to have a deterministic approach with an end-to-end concept. Simulations can easily compare possible production and assembly steps with different impacts on local and global tolerances. Global measurement feedback needs high-accuracy turnkey solutions, which are very costly and inflexible. The goal of standardization would be to use Industry 4.0 feedback and features, as well as to define several building blocks of the DA approach as a one-way assembly (also known as one-up assembly, or “OUA”), false one-way assembly, “Jig-as-Master,” etc., up to the hole-to-hole assembly approach. The evolution of these assembly principles and the link to simulation approaches are undefined and unsolved domains; they are discussed in this report. They must be discussed in greater depth with aims of (first) clarifying the scope of the industry-wide alignment needs and (second) prioritizing the issues requiring standardization. NOTE: SAE EDGE™ Research Reports are intended to identify and illuminate key issues in emerging, but still unsettled, technologies of interest to the mobility industry. The goal of SAE EDGE™ Research Reports is to stimulate discussion and work in the hope of promoting and speeding resolution of identified issues. SAE EDGE™ Research Reports are not intended to resolve the challenges they identify or close any topic to further scrutiny.

Knowledge Sharing Differences Between Engineering Functional Teams: An Empirical Investigation

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (03) ◽  
pp. 1250021 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ching Lin ◽  
Rainer Seidel ◽  
Aruna Shekar ◽  
Mehdi Shahbazpour ◽  
David Howell
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Structure Design ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Team Culture ◽  
Km Strategy ◽  
Engineering Department ◽  
Tacit Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Functional Teams

Studies on organisations have indicated the significance of acknowledging subcultures across an organisation. It is therefore important to consider dedicated Knowledge Management (KM) strategies for different "entities" within each ontology level to suit their unique characteristics. However, a review of the literature indicates that this concept so far appears to have only been applied down to departmental level. There is little research exploring the next level down, to whether or not different "teams" require different KM strategies to remain competitive. In order to answer this question, this research explores what differences there are between teams in the context of KM by using a case study of a medium-sized high-tech manufacturer in New Zealand. Different KM practices between homogeneous teams of design engineers from different technical disciplines within the same department were investigated. The findings confirmed that in the context of KM, teams within a department do not always behave homogeneously. Four factors that caused different tacit knowledge sharing practices between the functional teams in the Engineering Department of the case company were identified: The nature of the technical discipline, team resources, departmental structure design and team culture. Based on these findings, a KM approach defining a specific KM strategy for each team was then proposed. This approach provides managers with an alternative perspective on KM implementation, which may help mitigate the high failure rate of KM among businesses reported in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document