Process Selection for Product Design

This document discusses the integration of product design, process selection, and process planning in the early stages of manufacturing. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and provides insights into the Design for Manufacture (DFM) model. The document also highlights the importance of considering functional, geometrical, technical, and production constraints in the process planning phase.

Running head: PROCESS SELECTION 1
Mechanical Engineering
First Name Last Name
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION- COBA
Spring 2018-2019 MGT 300-3 Production Management
Product design-Process Selection-Process planning Integration based on
Modelling and Simulation

PROCESS SELECTION 2
Executive summary
As an answer for customary structure process having several shortcomings in the
assembling procedure, the mix of Product configuration Process choice Process
arranging is completed in the early plan stage. The mechanical, financial, and strategic
parameters are well-thought-out at the same time just as assembling requirements
being coordinated into the item structure. Consequently, two or three judicious process
plans are projected contingent on assembling forms being for starters selected in the
theoretical assembly phase. Virtual assembling is applied under CAM programming to
reenact creation method of the prospective process plans. Finally, the most realistic
procedure plan for manufacturing the part is recommended reliant on a multi-criteria
enquiry as a goal for basic leadership.

PROCESS SELECTION 3
Introduction
The invention Of Concurrent Engineering (CE) has been instrumental in solving global
issues that come along in the non-sequential processes of manufacturing and product
design ("Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications (CERA)– An international
Journal: Special issue on CloudIoT in Concurrent Engineering", 2017). Concurrent
Engineering offers a platform which merge the respective tasks in the aforementioned
processes hence offering candid solutions to issues such as unmet customer
expectations and satisfaction, speed of production, higher costs, lead times variation as
typical in most industries. The constraints of the manufacturing process and the
respective specifications of products are key considerations in Concurrent Engineering
(Albiñana & Vila, 2012).
Figure 1: Concurrent Engineering as expressed by Prime European Region.
Currently, geometric models as designed based on anticipated functional requirements
of the products as provided to the architecture basis the nature of the design process in
practice. This hardly incorporates manufacturing constraints (whenever any) in the
process. The optimal performances of such a process hence occasionally is

PROCESS SELECTION 4
outmatched by actual time of manufacturing as well as cost resulting in inefficiencies,
unmatched quality and production standards and implications of costs and time. Such
models in CAD emphasizes only on the geometry of the products while not considering
the planning and fabrication aspects.
To resolve such variations, Design for Manufacture (DFM) model is suitable. the DFM
incorporates the processes of manufacturing and design at a go thus considering
aspects of manufacturing details in the phase of product definition. Structuring and
formality of the knowledge manufacturing process capabilities with strictures and
guidelines allowing for identification of fabrication processes and definition of product’s
intermediate states basis the implementation of an Integrated engineering of Design for
Manufacture approach. The conceptual process planning has to be developed in such a
way that the design process parallels it hence capabilities of various conceptualized
process plans ("8. Product modeling and optimization", 2018). A comparison of the
estimated cost versus the target cost of the product is an initial step in Concurrent
Engineering approach.
A methodology that employs both DFM and concurrent engineering systems for use in
integrated design and process of manufacturing typical components such as disk and
tube components is conceivable. Such a methodology is fundamental to the creation
and operations of integrated tools of design including CAPP as well as CAD/CAM
(Fabricius, 2013). In such realizations, a number of constraints are synchronously
considered such as:
 Functional constraints, that is, elements of mechanical behavior, accuracy
requirements, weight ratios.
 Geometrical constraints, that is, autonomous concurrent manufacturing of the
components or separate manufacturing followed by assembly of the separate
components.

PROCESS SELECTION 5
 Technical constraints, that is, processes of casting, assembly, machining as well
as forging capacities.
 Production constraints, whether sole or link of parts.
Hence, process plans besides design for the respective parts are derived and evaluated
so that a choice a suitable design and process plan (functional model) can be adopted.
Methodology
After attaining a functional model of the product, a compatible process of manufacturing
founded on the necessities in addition to the features of the part is determined by use of
specialized software’s to validate the manufacturing knowledge (Behncke, Abele, &
Lindemann, 2011). The integrated design process is disintegrated to 4 main activities
(see figure 2.) as follows;
 A1: Analyze item's useful necessities. DFM entertainer must contemplate the
item's requests and recognize utilitarian surfaces fulfilling item's structure
prerequisites.
 A2: Model and describe item's useful surfaces. Displaying useful shells under the
type of utilization casing and use skeleton is acknowledged by CAD apparatuses.
Highlights' qualities are spoken to by UML programs. Item's options
arrangements are made as the yield of this action.
 A3: Explain fabricating imperatives. This action recommends producing
imperatives, for example, resilience interim (IT), surface unpleasantness (Ra)
being focused by manufacture strategy. Accordingly, these assembling
limitations will be as the imperatives to choose producing method.
 A4: Select procedures and distinguish fabricating strategies then their
requirements. This action makes sense of chosen fabricating forms dependent

PROCESS SELECTION 6
on the distinguished requirements. Relating to every requirement, forms which
are not qualified are killed by applying particular programming. As an outcome, a
rundown of creation forms is proposed just as quality benefits of assembling
interface model are coordinated to item structure.
Figure 2: Main activities of a product’s DFM.
This methodology employs a variety of modelling languages and tools, some of
which are as tabulated below:
Modelling languages and tools Function
1. IDEFO functional modelling
language
Modelling product design activities.

PROCESS SELECTION 7
2. UML language Modelling product features as per the
provided attributes
3. Finite Element Method Analysis of behavior of parts
4. CATIA and DELMIA software Producing product models and
manufacturing process simulation
5. Activity Based Costing and Cost
Entity methods
Estimation of industrial costs
6. Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP)
Decision making of manifold criteria
Table 1. modelling languages and tools for the design methodology.
In producing a steering part, for instance, it must fulfill requirements identified with
two tube shaped shells for trying the orientation, 3 openings for setting the part on
the supplement and 4 gaps for setting the halts on the turn de heading.
It is important to think about the weight imperative of the part. To be sure, the essential
test which should be fulfilled is that the vehicle ventures to every part of the uttermost
on minimal measure of vitality. The details of the part are based on imperatives, assets
and assembling process abilities. In view of the part's utilitarian and specialized
necessities, just as its imperatives with different segments in the framework,
demonstrating the part from starting substances depended on its capacities to strong
models is done under CATIA V5 programming (Riviere-Cazaux, Lucas, & Fitch, 2016).
All the more explicitly, the practical model is created under the underlying elements in
which surfaces are demonstrated from useful investigation as well as the exteriors for
mounting course besides opening shells for fitting jolts. From this utilitarian model, a few

PROCESS SELECTION 8
assembling forms are chosen to begin with imagined for creating the part. So as to
portray the topological substances, solids are added to indicate plainly the part's
geometrical shapes (Tietje & Ratche, 2009). These parts are exclusively confined the
useful imperatives, yet they are not mounted together. The part's totally geometric
model made by associating the practical solids is extracted. This model communicates
completely useful prerequisites of the part and fills in as a beginning stage for procedure
arranging.
Disadvantages this company might face by following their production process.
The following paragraphs explains some of the disadvantages of the adopted
production process; -
Adaptable assembling frameworks likewise require exceptionally talented
representatives to work the hardware. Compensations for these laborers can be costly.
Furthermore, on the grounds that these frameworks are so confounded, an alternate
arrangement of gifted laborers is required for upkeep and fixes. Pay for these
representatives can be very expensive too.
Most importantly, acquiring or adjusting hardware will be costly. All things considered,
adaptable assembling frameworks are for the most part accessible to bigger
organizations since they have enough income to put resources into the frameworks and
look after them.

PROCESS SELECTION 9
In spite of the fact that focusing on one piece can bring about making the best item in
the market at a viable expense for customers, it constrains the processing plant's
competence to endeavor into diverse markets. On the off chance that customers prompt
a longing for extra effects or a market occurs for a contemporary item with certain
adjustments, the industrial capacity is unfit to satisfy that need.
Conclusion
The design for manufacturing approach offers the best and an efficient approach
coupled with quality outcomes in record time at low production costs. Whenever
applicable, industries should be encouraged to implement such a methodology to reap
the full benefits.

PROCESS SELECTION 10
References
8. Product modeling and optimization. (2018). Product and Process Design, 160-194.
doi:10.1515/9783110467741-008
Albiñana, J., & Vila, C. (2012). A framework for concurrent material and process selection
during conceptual product design stages. Materials & Design, 41, 433-446.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2012.05.016
Behncke, F. G., Abele, K., & Lindemann, U. (2011). Impact of product design decisions
within product development on the supplier selection process at the automotive
industry. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management. doi:10.1109/ieem.2011.6117972
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications (CERA)– An international Journal:
Special issue on CloudIoT in Concurrent Engineering. (2017). Concurrent Engineering,
25(2), 190-191. doi:10.1177/1063293x17711325
Design For Manufacturability. (2018). Retrieved April 26, 2019, from
https://www.eastekinternational.com/design-for-manufacturability/
Design for Manufacturability: From Concept to Reality. (2018). Retrieved April 26, 2019,
from http://www.precipart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/DFM-Best-Practices.pdf
Fabricius, F. (2013). Design for manufacture, DFM: Guide for improving the
manufacturability of industrial products. Lyngby: Institute for Product Development,
Technical University of Denmark.
Raghvendra, S., & Hurat, P. (2017). DFM: Linking design and manufacturing. 18th
International Conference on VLSI Design Held Jointly with 4th International Conference
on Embedded Systems Design. doi:10.1109/icvd.2005.80

PROCESS SELECTION 11
Riviere-Cazaux, L., Lucas, K., & Fitch, J. (2016). Integration Of Design For
Manufacturability (DFM) Practices In Design Flows. Sixth International Symposium on
Quality of Electronic Design (ISQED05), 256. doi:10.1109/isqed.2005.66
Tietje, C., & Ratche, S. (2009). Design for Microassembly - A Methodology for Product
Design and Process Selection. 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and
Manufacturing. doi:10.1109/isam.2007.4288469

PROCESS SELECTION 12