Está en la página 1de 21

88 Designing

capablcomponentlandassemblis

Example- determining the failure cos|6for produd design


We will now considercalculatingthe potenrialcoslsof failure in more detailfor the
sover support leg shownearlier.The processfor calculatingthe failure costsfor a
componentis as follows:
.
.
.
.

Determinethe valueof 4- or ./,


Obtain an FMEA SeverityRating ("9)
Estimatethe numberofcomponenlsto b produced(1v)
Estimatethe componentcost tPc),

For xample,the characteristic


dimension'A' on the covrsupportlgwascritical to
the successof the aDtomatedassemblyprocess,the potential failure mode being
a major disruption to the production line. An FMEA SeverityRating (S)- 8 is
allocated.See a ProcessFMEA SeverityRatings table as providd in Chrysler
Corporationer al. (1995)for guidanceon processorientatedfailures.The component
cost, P(= t5.93 and the numberplannedto be prcdrcedFr annum,N = 50000.
Tbe characteisticwasanalysedusingCA and gmwasfound to be 9, The valuesof
4. = 9 and S = 8 are found to intersecton the ConformabilityMap abovethe l0%
isocostline.(lftheyhad intersected
btwentwoisocostlines,thefinal isocostvaluers
found by interpolation.)Ifthere is more than one criticalcharacteristic
on the component,thenthe isocostsare addedto givea total isocostto be usedin equation2.15.
The total failurecost is determinedfrcml

Total failurecost=

isocost(%)
xffxPc

100

10x50000x5.93
= r29650
Totalfailurecost=
100

(2.rs)

Thisfrgureis ofcourseanestimate
oflostprofitandmayevenbeconservative,
but it
clearlyshowsthat the designer
hasa signincant
rolin reducingthe highcostsof
failurereportedby manymanufacturing
companies.
Theresultsarerepeated
in the
Conforrnability
Matdx in Figure2.33.

Figur
moulde
Potentia

Risk Pr
given (l
could ca
,:8
b
of Occu
256. Thr

further.
of the c
Some

The pos
neededt
position
on the t

mould p
The p,
angulal

4 + 0.0

thdep
trica)co
likelyon
The r
variabi
describ

mouldp

powerassisted
2,7,1Electronic
steering
hubdesign
Under this heading,a flexiblehub designfor an automotivesteeringunit is analysed.
The applicationof CA resultedfrom the requirmentto explainto a customff how
dimensionalcharactristics
on the product, idenlified as safetycritical, could be
producedcapably.A key componentin this respectis the hub. The componentis
madeby injectionmoulding,the materialbeingunfilled polyburyleneterephthalare
(PBT) plastic. The moulding processwas selectedfor its ability to integratea
number of functionalelementsinto a singlepiceand reduceassemblycosts.The
designoutline of the hub is showr in Figure 2.34(a)togetherwith an oprical plate
that is mountedon il.

Follo

out of tl
RiskAn
tbundin

li is e
tolr and

Severity
addition

Cas
studier 89
Figure 2.34(b)showsa line from the designFMEA relaredto rhe plastic
mouldedhub. lt givesthe componentfunction!the potentialfailuremode,the
potentialeffects
and polentialcauses
of failure.In addition.thecolumnsof current
controls,Occurrenc
(O), Severity(,t, Detectability(D) ntings and associated
Risk Priority Number(RPN) havebeencompleted.
A high severityratingwas
given(S = 8) sincefaulty posilionalrsdings due to out of tolerancevariation
couldcauselossof car controland driverinjury. The Detectability
wasratedat
D = 8 because
complexinspectionprocsses
would be required.The possibility
of Occurrence
was provisionallyestimatedat O = 4, giving an RPN equalto
256.The designFMEA specifies
compatible
dimensioning
as the currentcontrol
to avoidfailure,and it wasthis aspectof the designthat neededto be explored
further. A quotation ffom a supplier had been receivedfor volume production
of thecomponent,
Somedetailon theanalysis
ofthe hub designis givenbelow.Thehub performed
several
functionsin
thecontrollerand
therefore
carriedseveral
criticalcharacteristics,
Thepositionaltolennceof therecsses
to accommodate
a systemof locationpegs
neded
to bc clooe,Faceson thehub for mountingtheopticalplaterequiredpre{ise
positioning
to providethnecessary
spacing
between
twoopticalgrids(onemounted
on the hub and the othercarriedon a torsionshaft).The depthof the moulded
recesses
needed
to becontrolled
astheywerepartofa tolerance
chain.lt is important
to notethattherecesses
planes
andfaceswerein ditrerent
andthedepthwasacross
a
mouldpartingline.
Thepositional
tolerance
on a l0mm dimension
was+0.1mm(to\), providingan
angularpositionof0.6'. Additionally,
thewidthsof therecsses
necded
to beheldto
4 + 0.08mm(tolr),thedimensional
tolerance
on thefacesto I + 0.07mm(toll) and
thedepthto l0 + 0.12mm(tola).Also,thethin sections
of thehubgavetwo geometdcalconcerns
as thesevane6weron th limitsof plasticflow and distortionwas
likelyon cooling.
Theresultsof theanalyses
carriedout by thebusiness
on thehubaregivenin the
variabilityrisks table shownin Figlre 2.34(c).The four criticalcharacteristics
described
abovcwereexamind.
The positionaltolerance
(tolr) setacrossthe thin
vanesresulted
in highgeometry
to process
risk Gp) andgaveqm= 9. This equates
to an out of controlC , as doesthe {m valuefor the leessdepthacrossthe
mouldpartingline(tola)whichcameto 8. TheqDscores
for thechamcteristics
tolz
and tolr suggest
initiallythat the processwill be in controlgivingestimated
Cbk
values
of 1.33andl.?5respecrively.
Followingth completionof th variability risks table,a CoDformabilityMatrix
wasproducd.Tbis wasusedto relatetbe failure modesand their severitycoming
out ofthe d$ign FMEA to theresultsof tle Component
Manufacturing
Variability
RiskAnalysis.Theportionof th matrixconcerned
with the mouldedhub car be
foundin Figure2.34(d)andwascompleted
usingtheConfomabilityMap.
It is evidentthat thetwo characteristics
described
earlieras beingout of controt,
to\ and tol4,givecostsof failuregreaterthan l0%. Also, the characteristics
tol2
and to13whichmay havebeenrcgaded as havirg accptableCp! valuesare shown
to havecostsof failureof greaterthan l0% and0.2%respectively,
dueto thehigh
SeverityRating(S) = 8 for th potentialfailuremodsin question.
Notettlat two
additionalfailuremodesarealsoillushaied.

(a)HubDesign

Optical plat

Uouldd hub

"a'
s'-

:l

,,-T\

Jt

\J -/

o_

(b) DesignFMEA
Exi8ting conditione

o
tailu1

tailure

I
z
o
a

(c)Variabilitydsks

256

(c)Variabilityrisks
E

{
3 i !" '

ir

a
!

r3

!'T

3
3

!a

(d)Conformability
matrix
FJ|nbo!..!so|!dE4dydE{9

5B
3;

;;

6s

!c
e

a
Figure2.14Hlbanayss
resrts

I
t
P
I

*-k

:
I
g

92 Designing
capable(omponents
andassemblies
The analysisindicntedthat the confomranceproblcmsassociatedwith thc hub
dcsignhad a cost of failure of more than 3{l%. This would representat the annual
productionquartity requiredand largel sellingprice. lossto the businessofscverul
million pounds.As ir resultofthe siudy the businesshad lhther detaileddiscussbns
wilh their suppljersilnd nol suryrisinglyit turnedoul thal the supplierwould only bc
prep:rrcdb sland by its origiral quotarion provided thc bleranses on the hub.
discussed
abov.wcrc opcncdup considorably(morethan 50yo).Subsequently,
this
resull supporledthc adoptionol anolhernore coprbledsignschcme.

2.7.2Solenoidsecuritycover
This clsc studyconcernsthe inirirl designand redesignol ! securitycoverassembly
lbr:r solcnoid.The analysisonly foouseson thosecritical speclsofthe assemblyol'
thc prodnctthat mu!t1beaddressed
to neet the require cnr that theelectronics
insidc
the unil arc scrlcdliom the oulsideenvironlnenl.An FMEA ScvcrityR,lting(S) for
thc asscmblyw{s dctcrmined0s S = 5. a wilrranty return il fuilureis experienced.

Coverassemblyinitialdesign
Thc inilial dcsignol thc covcr$scmbly as$hownin figure 2.15uscsan O-ring to seol
the electronicsagninstany contaminlltion.Concernswereraiscdirbout thrcc mains
aspects
of thc sscmbly.
thcscbcing:
. Thc comprcssionol thc O-ring m.rywork agajnstthc nccdsol lln rdhesivecureon
lln,ilasscmbly
with an endunil.
. Thcrc is n risk thal thc O-ring will not maintainits piopcr oflcnhtion in lhe cover
recessduring subscqucnlasscmblyprocsses,
.rnd thercforcmny not be correctly
posilionedon linal asscmbly.Rcstriclcdvision of the insidc ol lhc cover is the
key problemhere.
. The wire cablemay presentproblens usingcithcr manurl or rutomalcd,tsscmbly.
The analysisin Figurc2.15showsthal lhcreis a high risk of non,conlblmancefor the
insertionoflhe liamc into thc cover,the processrelyingon thc positionof rheO-ring
beingmaintiincd bpcration ,i8). The situationis complicatcdby the restrictionof
vision during O-dng placcmcnl.and this is reflctedin rhe analysis.Using the
ConformabilityMap, it is possiblcb calculatethe porenrialf^ilurc co(s fiu this
designschemein meetingthe sealinginlegrity rcquirement,as docDnenLcdin rhc
Conlbrmability Matrix. The final failure cosr is calculaledro be 1805000.This
polentialfailure cost for rhis singlefailure mode is far too high. representing
ovcr
l0'% ol lhe totd product cost.A more reasonabletargcl vnlue would be lessthan
l%. An alternalivedsignschemeshould be devclopcd,lbcusingon reducingthc
risks of the final assemblyoperationto reducethe potcntial for non-conformrncc
as highlighlcdby lhe analysis.

Coverassembly redesign
Unforrunately.the designofthe wirc could not be chlngdto a more sirnplcarrangement.forexanrpleusingaspadeconnechf integratedwith a reccssfor lhe O-ring.The
wire is part of the customer'srequiremcnlsand will inevitablypresentproblcmsusing

Figure2

Casestudies 93
hub
r u jl
lral

Cover.3aembly

bl:
Ar3.mbly
aoquence
dlagnm

idc
for

!al
ins

'!
gr
EI

tl]
he

g'

lr
rg
rt

is

4e'd@re4
n$
1tu h v.tea xM tr) . ad !a5,D_ b.1
- alr]!14149r190...tuh

M6

Conformabttity
matrix
I

figure2.35Cover
assemby
desgnafayss

(apablecomponents
94 Designing
andassemblies
eilher mannal or automaticasscnrblyoperalions.Looking to rhe O-riDg.a beucr
designwould bc to eliminareit rllogether and inregraiethc sealwirh the wire as
shown in Figure 2.36. Thc wirc is then posilivety joc,trcd lvhh thc seal in rt,e
coverhol. Clcrrly. the risks associ,rred
wirh thc coverasscmbtyhavebccn reduced

assmbly
redosign

linlowin
Mrn. i()i

2.7.3Te

(,s)- 8. .
w i l h th c.

cllagram
!.l r i l l b i l i l '

n l l ysi s I

(rssemb
F8

The co
turtherlu

includin

failur.
Conformabititymatrix
Figure2.36Covr
assemby
redsrgn
analysu

involvctl

casstudies 95
E
E

followingthe eliminationofofle positionallyunstablecomponentand its intgration


with adother.Again, with an FMEA (S) = 5, and referringto the Conformability
Map, isocostsfor eachassembly
vadabilityrisk can bevaluatedand the total failurc
cost is calculatedto be 7000.
Comparingthis value with the initial design'shigh potentialcosl of failure, it is
evidentthat amajordesignfault in the coverhasbeeneliminatedalthoughthe assembly procssmust remainwithin specialcontrol. Subsequently,
the rcdesignsolution
was chosenfor further designdevelopment,

2.7.3Telescopic
leverassembly
Consider
the telescopic
leverassembly,
DesignA in Figure2.37,whichb parrof a
stretcher,
and hencesafetycritical.The assembly
hasan FMEA SeverityRating
(S) = 8, ana is usedin a producthavinga costof 150.lt is estimated
thar 5000
unitsareproduced
Theassembly
is subjected
to bendingin operation,
Z?/ dnr?4m.
withthemaximum
bendingstresses
occurring
ata pointonlhemaintubecorrespondingto thestopringress.ln
orderto provideadditional
support,areinforcing
tubeis
positioned
asshown.It is crucialthatthetubeis placedwhereit is.sincefractureof
thetelescopic
levermayresultin injuryto usersandthirdparties.Figl]re2.37shows
partof theresults
fromtheConformability
Matrixfor DesignA. At eachnodein the
matdx,consideration
hasbengivento the effectof the component
or assembly
variabilityrisk,represented
by 4h or {r. on thefailuremodein question
dercrmined
from an FMEA.
While the desigDis satisfactory
from a designfor strengthpoint of view,the
analysis
highlights
a numberof areaswherepotentialvariabilityandfailureseverity
combineto makethe risksunacceptably
high.For example,
thereare no design
featureswhichensurethe positioningof the reirforcment
tube in the assembly
(assembly
processa3 in Figure2.3?).Thereare alsoseveralcriticalcomponent
tolerances
whichneedto becontrolledif its positionis to bemaintsined
i[ service,
suchastheirtne!diameter
of themaintube,cl, theoutsidediameter
of thereinforcementlube,c2,andtheapplication
of theadhesive.
a2.
Theconclusion
frcm theanalysis
is thattle assembly
shouldberedesigned.
Thisis
furtherjustifiedby calculating
thepotentialcostsof failurefor theassembly.
lfthis
designof telescopic
leverassembly
fracturedi'l service,userinjury, high losses,
includitlglegalcosts,couldbeincurred.A costof failureof25?OO0
wascalculated
from the analysis,
whichis far too high reprcsenting
morethan 36% of annual
reveluefrom the product.This figurewascalculated
by summirgthe isocosts
lor
eachcharacteristic/assembly
prccesswhosevariabilityriskspotertiallycontribute
to achfailuremode,and thenmultiplyingthe total failuremodeisocost(%) by
the productcostand numberof itemsproduced.
Thecalculationof the costsfor
the second
failuremodetype(reinforcing
tubemovesour of position)on DesignA
is shownin detailin Figure2.3?.
Failureofthis designjn service
did in factresulrin userinjury.Highlosses
of the
orderofthosecalculated
abovefor theparticularfailuremode,includjnglegalcosts,
wereincured.A numberofaltemalivedesigns
arepossible,
andonewhichdoesnot
involvetheaboveproblems
isincluded
withits Confonnability
Matrixin Figure2.38.

andassmbliej
96 Designing
capablecomponents

r-

r1)-

{F
I-

OUTER
TIJBE

A88E[IBLY
SEOUET{CE
DlqcRAII

t=
t!
f.nunI|.d.D.*rlr{s.||dFrE &rllym|il{!J

ComponenV

E
3

de3cdpllon

,t

5 +u6 .

F i*

c 2l

|,e
c 5l

1.6

2.4

1,5

4,5
r5PLtfl

1.6

lfi
I tr

t!r
| 4i

l5l

*FB
a

ta 2

comm6nb

Eft:
i

MANTIJ'E
0
MANTI]DE

," 5

t;I
r-r

a
UNI'CCETAOLE

+
1 " 2r

tr

a
I]NICErlA'LE

l-E

Le

a)

ACCE4AAte

UNACCErIADLE

Flgure2.3

OIJTER
TLJ'E

?rcaudao6r(rc)= 50

amoull!.
The ab
manufac
imporlan
harm eli
Iossestha
of this ty
the prodr

lotaltailorc
naAai.aaa.r(\) = 2 + ta + a 05 = 12,a5
n.doa.wttrturc .obr- Zg:@:2
- rso37"
1AA

2.7.4S

tto
ToblF.lluE|tod. l!o@l (%)

12.6

,:b.bK

aiand It urcao6nl
'9anpLaalau
Nonb.tat o^tta= @AA

t257K

CONFOR AAI|TY TIATRXfOR OESIGNA


y ana]/sisfor Des9n A
tigure 2.37 Tees.opiceverassemb

for a sol

Casestudis 97

OIAGRAM
AASE BLYSEQUENCE

DESIGNB

Fdtr[N.odd|,{cnr'dflu..wiyMd(51

F
s
*E

6
g

:E

E'J

,58
ra
lu2

Toid F. u6 Mod !o@l

r9

o
o

(%)

B
FORDESION
MATRIX
COIIFORMABIUTY
B
anays
slor Design
lever
assemby
tigur2.38Telescopic
The costs ol failure for rhis Design B were subsequenllyreducedto a ngligible
thc useofCA in supportingthc identincationof
The abovcexamplcdemonstrates
problcms
before production comnences'but mor
manufactu ng and assembly
identifiedand rhe potential for
syslematicallv
problems
can
bc
inrporrantlys;fty
by
the cuslomer'Given th huge
product
is
in
use
lhe
harm eliminatedbefore
products
when ihcy fail, considerations
criticnl
safcly
with
losseslhat are associatd
spcciallywhen
companis,
all
manufrcturing
of
on
the
agnd,t
ofthis type musl be
user'
wirh
the
oI
interaction
product
high
degree
has a
tbe

endassembly
2.7.4Solenoid
variabilityrisks
themanufacturingand assembly
The followingcasestudydetermines
projects
the potential
lbr a solenoidend assemblydesign,shownin Figure2.39,and

andassmblies
capablecomponents
98 Designing

flgur2,39Soeiodendassembly
with th capabilityof an assmblytolerancestack The
costsof failute associated
a
solenoidis to operateas fuel cut"off devicein a vehicle,operatedwhen a signalis
repeivedfrom the ignition. The signalallows currenl to ffow to the inductor coil
which then withdrawsthe plunger seal and allows the fuel io ffow. The solenoid
assemblyis to b sorewedinto an engineblock at the fuel pott in a counterbored
hole. An importanl requirementis that the plungerdisplacementfrom the engine
block face through the solenoidtolerancesiack to the plunger seal face must be
wilhin a toleranceof +0.2mm, If this requirementis not met, fuel flow restriction
could occur,this beingthe main failure mode.The product will be in the warranty
rturn categoryas it has little effecton usersafetyif it fails in service,which relates
to an FMEA SeverityRating (S) = 5. The productcost is !7 66 and it is estimated
that on million units will be manufacturedin total.

solenoid end assemblyinitial design


Th inilial designis analysedusing CA st a componentlevel for their combined
abilily to achievethe important cusiomerrequirement.this being the ioleranceof
involved in the
Only thosecharactetistics
+0.2mm for the plunger displacement.
is used as
stack
model
case'
tolerance
The
'worsl
stack
are
an*lysed,
tolerance
tolerance
is
thai
each
component
assumes
This
model
by
the
customer,
direcld
tol'
equals
the
assmbly
that
the
sum
ofthese
minimum
linut
and
maximum
or
at its
eranc.givenby equation2.16(seChapter3 for a detaileddiscussionon tolerance
stackmodeh):

\- r ,< ,.

(2 . 1 6 )

/i : bilateraltolrancefor ith componcntcharacteristic


r* : bilateraltolerancefor assemblystack
Figure2.40shoqrstheinitial dctaileddesignincludingthe tolerancesrequiredor ench
componentin the stackto achievethe +0.2Ir]fi assemblytolerance,,a (not includedis
the dimensionaltoteranceon the fuel port block of 12+ 0 05 mm which is setbv the

Figure2.10

supplier).

backto I,i
latesthrol

Casestudies 99
Wo6t caaelolerancestack
2 1 0 .0 5 '
22+0,A35

@
28r0,05

0.210.025

I}rc
iis

ine
be
i)n
NUTPROFIIE

ted

INTERFERENCE
FIT
H7p6

i.qulr.d plung.|dlrpt.c.m.ntr 0.6r 0,2mm

oI
lbe
r is
DI

t 6)
' Tor.trno tu.c byruDl.r

tb.l{.d|ns..i.|v.|.'fu.,tnn

Figufe2.40Solnoid
endassemby
intatdesgn

Ch

lis
b

supplier).Also showr is a table describingthe processusedro manufacture


each
componentand^anassemhty
sequence
d,dgfamrr gi\en in trgufe 2.4t. Referring
bacl ro Figure2.40.lhe tolerance
qlackstarr.at faceA on rbefuelporrandaccumui
latesthroughthe individualcomponentsto faceB on the Dlunserseal.

SEQUENCE
KEYfO ASSEMBLY

ASSA'SLY SEdJENCE IIUiI|AER

PO6T MiI]UFACIURING PROCESSNlJIlsR

o
il
EI{D
ASSEMBLY

V\ORKlrcR,

c.t hcndrirs 9ad lo agdy

ASSMBLYPRoCESS. s rtitg, itsid

iDDtro{ uPosr AssEiGlY PRoCESS,


b d.,
as
'tn{,\85',lg.
INMANt'frcruRNG PROCESS
ASSII|EIY
.& is.*b h nnJfi!r'djig
PROCSS,
FOSr Hi TUFACTURTNC
..0 b!& d $fte n, t .f ialsrcurss

desiqn
endasembly
forthesolenoid
,equence
diagram
Figur2.41 tusembly

!IJ T

l- r j

ggE?;Y= rf9

5 ;i E g l ? E i g

Casestudies r01
The body is impact extrudedfrom a cold forming sreel.The characreristic
dimen,
sionto be analysedin rhetolerancesrackjs the basethicknessof3mm (on a
Z20rnm
bore)and this dimensionhasbeenassigneda tolcranceof I0.02mm.
Followingthe tolerancestackthrough the end assembly.the bobbin dimensionof
22mm from the oursidefaceto the back faceof the magneticpolc is analysednext.
This charactristic
dimensiondoesnot includethe toleranccon the imoaci cxtruded
pole.l he polei,lo be mouldedinlo lhe bohh,nand rhpoletacei, considered
lo be
part of a mould relateddimension.The bobbinis injctionmoulcledusins30%
filled
pobhurylene
rerephthalare
tPBTr.The rolerrncessigncd
ro rhebohhindimension
i,
I0.035mm.

lr
T'

{l

3r

33 I

I
I
I It ! I Ir I !
, I
i It I

lil

lr

'

'l

t.,

Figur2-42Varab
lityr6ksanalJ6is
forthesoteioid
endassemblv
nitialdeson

I I

c
!

102 Designing
capablecorhponents
andassemblies
The pol hasa characteristic
dimensionof8Inm from tle rear of thc bobbinto the
recessfaceand hasa toleranceassignedto it of +0.02mm. From the pole recessface,
the tube basetoleranceis the lasl componentto make up the tolerancestack,The
brasstube has been given a dimensionaltoleranceon its baseof 0.2 + 0.025mm.
Note, the dimensionaltoleranceon the plungeris 28 + 0.05mm, but the analysis
will concentrateon the siliconerubber seallcngth of 6mm becausethis is moulded
onto the plungerand againis a mould relateddimension.
Figure2.42showsthe variabilityrisksanalysisbasedon the tolerancesassignedto
meetthe l0.2mm tolerancefor the assembly.Given that an FMEA SeverityRating
(S) = 5 has beendetermined,which relatesto a 'definitereturn to manufaclurer',
both impact extrudedcomponentsare in the unacceptabledesignregion,as wll
as thc bobbin and plunger end seal as shown on the Con,brmability Matrix in
Figurc 2.43.The lolerancefor the brasstube basethicknesshas no risk and is an
acceptnble
design.

f.nuD rbd. D.lrrrd.n

FU
t{b

.id FNE .mdt

iiri.

The ass
f3 millior
This Iigu

{51

>=

SO

48
FI

I
.1

IHCKNEgg

gEALLENGTN

FOLELEN6TH

o
o
o
o

DE5I6N
DE96N

r)

Tor.rF6iruEModoboco6l(%)

E3.A1V
' Nrnb.r d rnttb = 1OAA Oaa
tuoauar co.r (Pc) = t7.66
lara la urc noa. i6oao6r('A)= 10+ 14+ a,O1+ 14+ 1a= 4a.o1
4pg::-@-@::.@.f..-lor..w
13064 7bb
'a1.-naa. -a -

Figure2.43Conformabiiiy
malrxforthesoenod endassembly
nitialdesign

Figufe2.4

Casestudies 103
Dthe
face.
The
mm.
tly"it
ided

The associated
costoffailure for the solenoidendassmblyis calculaiedto be over
!3 miUionfor a product cost of !7.66 and productionvolumeof one miuion units.
This fignre is for th tolerancestack failure mode alone as this is most important
to lhe customer.Although the assemblyvariability risks are analysed,they are not
takeninto accountin the final costsof failure.ln conclusion.the orocesscaDabilities

dto
tring

[ trn
ban

0.2r0.015

-)-r---JINTERFERENCE
FIT
flTpo
R.qulod plung.r.ll.pl.c.mnt.

0.8 r 0,2 hh

.]o|.fuc.nr.dby!UFl|.r
b. u..d In rh. rn.t.l.. nd 2t mm

tigur2.44Solenoid
endassemby
redesign

104 Designing
capablecomponen$andassmblies
ofseveralcharacteristics
in this tolerancestackare inadequateand will not meetthe
customer'srequirements
consistentiy.

Solenoidend assemblyredesign
Thbissimilarto theinilial design,butinvolving turningasa secondaryprocesson the
body to improvea key tolerancecapabilityas indicatedin Figure2.44.The body is
still impactextruded,but the facewhich mateswith the fuel port block is machined,
togetherwith a shoulderon the insidediameter.The front faceof the pole,now fully
machinedandassumingno componentcostincrease,
is assembled
up to themachined
shoulderon the body. Only the toleranceson the pole length,tube and plungerend
sealrmainin the stack,reducingthe numberofcomponentsto five,

Conforma

the *0.2n
The ass
3000.H(

involving
thesecriti(
the costol

As high

t!
tl
l;
3_

It

.;

l llli t FIII t
I ilf I tI i I
!!l

I
!

!
i
t
I

a
I

F sr
-dE

5E
f8

3A

t"
t .,

Figure2.45Varabilly
risks
analyesfor
thesolenoid
endassemblyrcdesign

Figure2.4

casastudis 105
The variability risks tabl for the redesignis shown in Figure 2.45 and the
ConformabilityMatrix in Figure 2.46.Clearly,machiningthe critical faceson the
impact extrudedcomponentshas rcducedthe risks associatedwith conformingro
the +0.2mm tolerancefor the plungerdisplacement.
potentialcost of failure has reducedsignificandyto a little over
The associated
f3000. However,there is an additional cost associatedwith the extra machinidg
processwhich addsto the overallproductcost.Sinceit is likely a secondaryprocess
involving machining *ill take place on the body thread an)'!vay, the casefor turning
thesecriticalfacesmay be furtherjustified.Although machiningthesefaceswill raise
the costof the componentslightly,this must be secondaryto satisfyingthe overriding
customerrequirementofmeetingthe plungerdisplacment
tolerance,
As highlightedby the diferencein the potentialfailurecosts,the redesignscheme
must be chosenfor fu her designdevelopfient,Of course.other designschemes

F.n!'r r!.. D.*in|d

FE
a6
5E

d FI.,EA
h'ny

tulne 6)

i6
assemuy
proc6ss

ftmmonls
(lncludlng

i;V

l:

5a

tor Bupplloru)

5
lftcKNE96

1,OS

r)
t

MAoIETIC
POTE
I.EN6TH

1U*

1.06

DESIGN

a)

oE6t9tl

ToiarFdlur. Mod. bo.osl

'Numberol unils= 1000000


Productcost (Pc)= e7.66
(%)= 0.01+0.01+0.01
Totallailur
modol8oco3l
+ 0.01= 0.04
x 7.60=
0.04
r
1000000
c30t4
Thorolor,torallalluro mod6cost =
100
Figure2.46Confornrabi
itymairxtorihesolenoid
endassembly
redesign

106 Designing
capable(omponents
andassemblies
could also be explored,bul the initial designshownhereis ofinhercntlypoor quality
and lherelbremust be rejected.

Decisionsmadeduringthedesignstageof thcprodlctdevelopmentprocess
accountfor
a largeproportionofthe problemsthat incur failurecostsin productionandservice.It
is possibleto relale thcsefailwe costs back to the original designintent whcre
variabilily,and the lsck of understanding
of variability,is a key failurecostsdriver.
The correctchoiceof toleranceon a dimensionalcharacteristic
can be ca cial for the
correctfunclioningof the productin serviceand toleranceselectioncan havea large
contributionto the overallcostsof the producl,both productionand quality loss.
Processcapabilityindicesarc not generallyspecificdby designers
and subsequently
lhe impact of designdecisionsmadeon the productiondepartmentcannot b fully
understoodbecause
tolerances
alonedo not containnoughinformfilion.Variability
in cornponentmanufacturehasproveddifrcult to predict in the early stagesof the
designprocessand there are many influencingfactors that the designermay not
neccssrrilybe abl to anticipnte.The materialand geometricalconfigurationof the
design,rnd the compatibilitywith rhe manufacturingprocessarethe main variability
drivcrs.Although designrulesand generalmanufacturingcapabilityinformationare
available,they are rarely presenledin a usefulor practicalform, especinllywhen
innovativedesignis required.Thereis a needto setrealislictolerances
and anticipate
the variability associatedwith the designto help reductailure costslatcr in the
products life-cyclc.
Th CA melhodologyis usefulin this respect.It is comprisedofthree sections:the
ComponentManufacturingVariability Risks Analysis.thc ComponentAssembly
Variability RisksAnalysisrnd the determinationofthe EFectsofNon-conformnnce
throughthe ConformabilityMap.
The ComponentManulncturingVariability RisksAnalysisprescnted.modelsthe
importsnt design/manufacture
inrerface issuswhich reflect the likely process
capabilitythat can be achieved.Includedis th assessment
of toleranoe,geometry,
malcrial and surfaceroughnessvariabilityin componertmanufacturc.euantitative
rnd qualitnlivemanufacturingknowledgeis usedto supportvariousaspctsof the
annlysisand is taken from a widc rangeof sources.Th conceptof an ideal design
allowsthe annlysisto generaterisk indices,whercvaluesgrrrerrhan unily havea
potentialfor increasedvariationin production.A simplecost tolerancerelationship
is usedin the ProccssCapabilityMaps.developedfor over60 manufacruringprocest
matrial combinations.The maps are subsequentlyemployed to determincthe
processcapability estimatesfor th componentcharacreristics
analysed.Through
empiricalstudies.a closcorrelationbetweenthe processcapabilitystimatesusing
the ComponentManufncturingVariability Risks Analysisand shop-floorprocess
capabilityhasbeenobserved.
Most literaturetendsonly to focusor tolerancestackanalysiswhen assessing
the
capabilityof assembliesThe variabiliryof the actualassemblyoperationsis rarely
considetedand doesnot rely solclyon th tolerancesaccumulatingthroughoutthe
asscmbly,but on the feasibilityand inherent technicalcapability of the assembly

DFA tech
quality Pr

tion. The
addressvi
of design
facilitatin
for th c
and. then
the produ
The Cc

quantifyi
analyslsI
Again, th
assemD
processri
tne asse
stagif 1
Curren
improve

typicauy
producll
FMEA d
failures I
quanry-(

critical a
of th pl

cost), an
likely pr
modelsI
they bec
quality l,
for char
of the pr
Throu
hisl ighr

which tc
the des
supplier

Summary101
!rqua1i1y

II .:::,
-:.::.
Eounlfor
rnicc. It
It where
B drivcr.
rl tor the
. a large
lloss.
Equenlly
I bc fully
Fabiliry
ts of the
la\ not
! of the
Liabilily
l|on are
b \r hen
|rrcrpate
f In the
bns: rhe
Fem bly
Fmance
ills thc

P'o:y.
lartahve
I of the
ldcsign
ihavea

lon,rrip
he rhe

froueh
r using

hg the
l rarely
lut the
Fnbly

performed,
operations
manuallyor automatically.
Develolrers
and practitioners
of
DFA techniques
reasonthat an assmbly
with a highasscmbly
efficiency
is a beder
qualityproduct.Thenaturaloutcomeof havinga highassembly
efficiency
leadsto
fewerpartsin theassembly
and,therefore,
fewerqualityproblems
to tackleinproduction.Theoutcome
is notdueto anyspecific
process
analysis
in theDFA technique
to
address
variability,andtherestillexistsa needfor analysing
theassembly
capability
of designs,
ratherthana productioncostdrivenapproach.
A usefultechnique
for
facilitatingan assembly
risksanalysis
is the declaration
of a sequence
of assemblv
for the components.
Throughsucha diagram.eachcomponentin the assembly
andjtherefore,
thepotentialareasfor assembly
riskcanblogicallymappedthrough
theproductdesign.
The Component
Assembly
VariabilityRisksAnalysishasthe purposeof better
unde^tandingthe effechof a componenCs
assembly
situationon variability,by
quantifyingthe risks that variousassemblyoperationsinherentlyexhibit.The
analysisprocesses
are supportedby expe knowledge
and presented
in charts.
Again,thc theoryis that an idealcomponent
assembly
situationexishwherthe
assembly
risk is unity. Usingthe chartsto reflctthe handlingprocess
risk,fitting
process
riskandthrisksassociated
with additionalassembly
andjoiningprocesses,
the assembly
situationof the component
is questioned,
accruingpenalties
at each
stageif thedesignhasincreased
potentialfor variability.
Currentquality-cost
modelsareusefulfor identifying
general
trendsin a long-trm
programme,
improvement
but areof limiteduseill theidentification
of the failure
costsa$ociatedwith actualdesigndecisions.
A link between
thecoststhat canbe
typicallyxpected
in practicedue to failureor non-conformance
of the productin
productionor service,and the probabilityof fault occurrence,
is madeusinc
FMEA rhroughrhcConformabiliry
Map. Theunderlying
conceptassumes
rhatai
failuresbcomemore svele,thy are going to cost more whnthey fail. The
quality costmodelembcdded
in the Conformability
Map allowsthe designer
to
assess
the levelof acceptability,
specialcontrolor unacceptability
for non-safety
criticalandsafetycriticalcomponent
charactedstics
in thedesignby determination
of the process
capabilitymeasures
from the previoustwo stagesof the analysis.
TheConformability
Map alsoallowsfailureisocosts
(percntages
of totalproduct
cost),and,therefore,
the total lailurecostto be estimated
wit! knowledse
of the
likely producrcost and productionvolume.The narureof rhe underliinccosr
modelslimitstheaccuracy
of the failurecon estimares
al an absolute
levelind so
theybecome
usefulin evaluating
andcomparing
designschemes
for theirpoteDtial
qualityloss.Themodelcanalternatively
be employed
in setiingcapabilitytargets
for characteristics
to incurallowable
failurecostsdependlton the failureseveritv
of theproduct.
Throughperforming
an analysis
usingCA, manymodesof applicatiolhaveben
highlightd.This hasresultedf.om thewaythat theCA designperformance
measures
allowa non-judgemental
'language'
to developbetween
thedesignteam.tt hasalso
beenfoundnot to inhibitthedesignprocess,
but providea structured
analysis
with
which to trace designdecisions.The knowledgembeddedwithin CA also allows
the designer
processcapablesolutionsand ope up discussion
to generate
with
suppliers.The analysisis currently facilitated thjough the use of a paper-based
assssment.
Thishasmanybenefits,
includingimprovedteamworking,andprovides

andassemblies
108 Designing
capablecomponents

610

15

20

2!

10

!5

ol btel Producllon
cGl)
/r0 fA

product
n$oduct
onploiecls
application
ofCAonsevera
Flgure
2,47nfoence
oltheteam.based
werecomputerbased,lt also
approachthanif the analysis
a moreunconstrained
to bereadilyvisibleandaviilableat anytimefor thdesigner
allowstheknowledge
iflhey choseto do so.
to scrutinize
andmanipulate
of theproductdevelopment
ofusingCA in theearlyslages
Thepotentialbenefits
process
havebeenfoundto b:
analysis
througha systematic
. Earlyawareness
ofpotentialdesignproblems
and
with regardto their manufacture
. Produces
more process
capabledesig:ns
assembly
. Reduces
failurecosts
internal/external
. Reduces
ladtimes
. Focused
with suppliers.
disaussions
pe ormanceis concrned
business
Finally,the mainbeneftas far as competitive
is the potentialfor reductionin failurecosh.StudiesusingCA veryearlyin the
process
that thepotentialfailure
ofa numbrofprojectshaveindicatd
development
Thisis shownin Figure2.47.wherethis
throughan analysis.
costswereall reduced
pfe-al andpocrpotentialfailurecostreduction
between
is showrasthedifference
theproductdesigns.
by theteamsanalysing
C,{ application

The analy
the design
to this wol
compone
tolerance
stack is t\\
designfun
It involve
critical clc
ments,Ne
the frnal a

l99l). Io,
lolerance
Toleran
phy bcca
rcqulred ?

assembl

knowled
philosop
Today

facturabi

También podría gustarte