Case Experience with Hitachi, Lucas and Boothroyd-Dewhurst DFA Methods

  • Paul G. Leaney

Abstract

This chapter presents a case for the importance of DFA and its relevance within a structured product development framework based on concurrent engineering, provides an insight into three DFA evaluation methods, namely Hitachi, Lucas and Boothroyd-Dewhurst, and provides advice on good practice.

Keywords

Shop Floor Design Efficiency Assembly Operation Concurrent Engineering Assembly Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., Knight, W. (1994) Product design for manufacture and assembly, Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
  2. D’Cruz, A. (1992) Optimum efficiency, Manufacturing Breakthrough, 1(2), 95–99.Google Scholar
  3. Dowlatshahi, S. (1994) A comparison of approaches to concurrent engineering, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 9, 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Holbrook, A.E.K, Sackett, P.J. (1988) Design for assembly — guidelines for product design, Assembly Automation, 210–212.Google Scholar
  5. Huthwaite, B. (1990) Checklist for DFM, Machine Design, January.Google Scholar
  6. Keys, L.K. (1992) Concurrent engineering for consumer, industrial products, and government systems, IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids and Manufacturing Technology, 15(3).Google Scholar
  7. Leaney, P., Wittenberg, G. (1992) Design for assembling: the evaluation methods of Hitachi, Boothroyd and Lucas, Assembly Automation, 12(2), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miles, B.L. (1989) Design for assembly — a key element within design for manufacture, Proceedings of IMechE, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 203, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miyakawa, S., Ohashi, T., Iwata, M. (1990) The Hitachi New Assemblability Evaluation Method, Transactions of the North American Manufacturing Research, Institution (NAMRI) of the SME, the NAMR Conference XVIII, May 23–25, 1990, Pennsylvania State University, Dearborn, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Shimada, J., Miyakawa, S., Ohashi, T. (1992) Design for manufacture, tools and methods: — the Assemblability Evaluation Method (AEM), FISITA’92 Congress, London, 7–11 June, Paper C389/460, FISITA, SAE No. 925142, IMechE, 53-59.Google Scholar
  11. Tibbetts, K. (1995) An introduction to TeamSET™, CSC Manufacturing, Computer Sciences Ltd, Dog Kennel Lane, Shirley, Birmingham, England.Google Scholar
  12. Winner, R.I., et al. (1988), The role of concurrent engineering in weapons systems acquisition, IDA Report R-338, Institute for Defence Analysis, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  13. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D. (1990) The machine that changed the world, Rawson Associates — Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul G. Leaney

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations