DFMA Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University Of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Group Members Xiaofan Xie, Vamsi Uppalapati, Charan R. Sarjapur Naveen Huilgol, Clief Castleton
Submitted 7 April 2003 To Dr. A.K. Balaji
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables .iv Abstract .vi 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n . 1 1.1General Stapler Properties..1 2 DFMA Paradigms and Analyses . 8 2.1Material Selection Paradigms . 8 2.2 Material Selection of the Stapler.10 2.3 Recommended Changes.. 11 2.4 Manufacturing Methods of the Stapler.. . 11 2.4aSheet Metal Analyses ..13 2.4aiAnalysis for the Original Upper Staple Guide13 2.4aii Analysis for the Changed Upper Staple Guide ..18 2.4a iii Abbreviated Analyses Results for Other Parts 23 2.5 Assembly Paradigms .. . 2 5 2.5a Assembly Times and Efficiency.25 2.5b Guidelines for Manual Assembly...26 2.5c Effects of Weight and Dimension...26 2.5d C h a m f e r s 2 7 2.5e Miscellaneous Effects on Assembly Time..28 2.5f Further Gui d e l i n e s . . 2 8 2.5g A s s e m b l y L a y o u t . ..29 2.6 Assembly of the Stapler. .30 2.6a Efficiency . . . 3 1 2.6b C h a m f e r s ...31 2.7 Recommended Changes 3 1 3 D i s c u s s i o n .. .32 4 C o n c l u s i o n . . 33
Appendix A: Material Selection Analyses34 Appendix B: Manufacturing Process 49 Appendix C: ProE P a r t s D r a w i n g s .51
ii
List of Figures and Tables

Figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Rubber Pad . . 2 Release Clip . 3 Closed Stapler Function . . 3 Open Stapler Function . 3 Lower Leaf Spring ...3 Anvil 4 Pinning vs. Stapling . 4 Base . 4 Anvil Actuator . 4
10. Spacer . . 5 11. Spring . . 5 12. Pin 5 13. Staple Guide 5 14. Staple Slide . . 6 15. Upper Arm . . . 6 16. Upper Staple Guide . 6 17. End Cap . . . 7 18. Upper Leaf Spring . . . 7 19. Upper Cover 7 20. Plastic Cover 8 21. Stress-Strain Plots 9 22. General Trends 9 23. Bench Station 2 9 24. Multi-Station . 2 9 25. Modular Station . 2 9 26. Custom Layout . . 3 0 27. Flexible Layout . . 3 0
iv
28. B a s e . . .34 29. R e d e s i g n 34 Tables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Specifications of the Stapler 1 Stapler Components . 2 Brief Overview Data . . 11 Manufacturing Processes . . . 1 2 Insertion Parameters . . 2 7 Handling Times Data . 3 0 Insertion Parameters fo r the Pin 3 1
v v
ABSTRACT:
An analysis of the Swingline Classic 747 desktop stapler is presented with a focus on stapler components and their functions, materials, and other specifications. The methods and paradigms used for analysis of manufacture, assembly, materials selection, cost, times, and other factors follow those set forth by Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc. Design for Manufacture and Assembly as found in Product Design for s Manufacture and Assembly, 2nd edition by Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight.
vi
DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler
1 Introduction
As an introduction to DFMA paradigms and processes, the analysis of the Swingline Classic 747 stapler is presented. This full-strip desktop stapler has been on the market for over 30 years. The stapler design is classic and therefore any part of the stapler could be considered sufficient and require no change. However, the aim of this project was to perform DFMA analyses on the components to determine if changes were possible and, if needed, to have justified those changes. A materials selection analysis was run on all parts except one. Manufacturing analyses were run for sheet metal operations for four parts and the assembly sequence and time was derived based on certain plausible assumptions. The DFMA paradigms applied to this project will be discussed as they are used; viz. the paradigms for manufacturing are discussed prior to the presentation of manufacturing methods for the stapler, etc. We begin with the stapler specifications, functions, and capabilities.
1.1 General Stapler Properties

The basic specifications of the stapler are given in Table 1. It should be stated that there are various styles and capacities of staplers with various specifications. The 747, as with other models, meets the required performance capacities.
Table 1. Specifications of the Stapler [1] Stapling capability Staple type Staple number Jam-resistant Staple reload indicator Height Width Length Weight 20 sheet capacity S.F.4 standard staples 210 Yes Yes 60mm (2.36ins) 45mm (1.77ins) 200mm (7.88ins) 529g (1.167lbs)
The stapler is designed to be used in three ways. The first two are dependent upon the orientation of the anvil, which provides for stapling and pinning. The stapler can also be opened to be used in tacking sheets to the wall. Table 2 shows the 17 components, excluding fasteners, of the 747 and the material of which each is believed to be made. There was a level of uncertainty in some cases, so an educated guess was made. A brief description of each part and its function and properties follows with pictures of each part.
Table 2 Stapler Components Component Name Rubber Pad Release Clip Lower Leaf Spring Anvil Base Anvil Actuator Spacer Spring Pin Staple Slide Bottom Staple Guide Upper Arm Upper Staple Guide End Cap(747) Upper Leaf Spring Upper Cover Plastic Cover Actual Material Rubber Aluminum Alloy Spring Steel Alloy Steel Aluminum Alloy Aluminum Alloy Plastic Spring Steel (Alloy Steel) Alloy Steel Aluminum Alloy (Cu Coating) Aluminum Alloy Alloy Steel Aluminum Alloy Alloy Steel Spring Steel (Alloy Steel) Alloy Steel Plastic
1. Rubber Pad:
Fig 1 Rubber Pad
The function of the rubber pad was identified as providing a good grip on the working surface, protecting the surface, and covering the cavities on the bottom of the base. Due to its material, it also provides a damping of vibrations while in use, which leads to better ergonomic use of the stapler.
2. Release Clip
Fig 2 Release Clip
In order to facilitate tacking, when depressed the stapler base and cover assemblies can open to 180 degrees. The unlocking mechanism allows the use of staples without
bending the ends. The clip also provides a locking mechanism between the base and the upper arm when in desktop use. See figures 3 and 4. The release clip also provides a springing action to the upper arm by means of connecting it with the lower leaf spring.
Fig 3 [2] When the release clip is in the locked position we have the ends of the staple bent by the anvil.
Fig 4 [2] When the release clip is in the unlocked position we have the ends of the staple go through the paper without being bent by the anvil.
3. Lower Leaf Spring
Fig 5 Lower Leaf
The lower leaf provides springing action for the anvil actuator which helps in rotating the anvil and, along with the release clip , provides the restoring force to the upper arm, allowing the stapler to return to initial orientation.
4. Anvil
Fig 6 Anvil
The main function of the anvil is to provide a guiding mechanism for the staple ends. Figure 7 shows the two stapling methods which can be achieved by rotating the anvil. The left-hand figure shows that the anvil is set for conventional stapling, giving a more secure hold, while the right-side figure shows a configuration providing a looser pinning of the sheets that can easily be taken apart.
Staple Anvil
Fig 7 [2]
5. Base
Fig 8 Base
The base houses the rubber base, anvil, anvil actuator and lower leaf spring. Along with the pin, it also provides the necessary hinging action between the upper and the lower assemblies. 6. Anvil Actuator
Fig 9 Anvil Actuator
The anvil actuator holds the anvil in place and also helps in rotating the anvil. Connected to the lower leaf, it will automatically reset the anvil in its well when released.
4
7. Spacer
Fig 10 Spacer
The spacer supports the pin. It also holds the upper assembly and the lower assembly in place. It is also believed to aid in the assembly of the upper and lower parts. (See assembly section for further details.)
8. Spring
Fig 11 Spring
The spring along with the staple slide helps in pushing the staples forward, maintaining adequate forward force on the staples, and when reloading removes the staple slide to the rear.
9. Pin
Fig 12 Pin
It provides the necessary hinging action between the upper and the lower assemblies as well as keeps the stapler together.
10. Bottom Staple Guide
Fig 13 Bottom Staple Guide
The staple slide and staples rest on the bottom staple guide.
5
11. Staple Slide
Fig 14 Staple Slide
The staple slide along with the spring helps in the feeding of the staples. The staple slide moves along the staple guide. The copper coating helps in indicating the amount of staples left in the stapler when viewed through the opening in the upper arm.
12. Upper Arm
Fig 15 Upper Arm
The upper arm houses the staple guide sub-assembly. It is an important component of the upper assembly. Through a narrow opening at the distal end of the upper arm, the level of remaining staples is visually indicated. It also keeps the cover secure while in use. The upper leaf pushes out the staples through the gap in the front of the arm.
13. Upper Staple Guide
Fig 16 Upper Staple Guide
The upper staple guide keeps the staples from coming off the lower guide and provides a point of attachment for the spring as well as a turning point for the spring.
14. End Cap
Fig 17 End Cap
The end cap helps in preventing the spreading out of the upper arm. It also serves as a logo marquee.
15. Upper Leaf Spring
Fig 18 Upper Leaf Spring
The upper leaf spring provides the springing action between the upper arm and the upper staple guide. It also serves the vital function of pushing out the staples.
16. Upper Cover
Fig 19 Upper Cover
The main function of the upper cover is to hold the upper assembly. The main components held by the upper arm are the upper staple guide, upper leaf spring, and the plastic cover.
17. Plastic Cover
Fig 20 Plastic Cover
The plastic cover mainly serves as an advertising plate for Swingline . It also covers the holes in the upper cover.
2 DFMA Paradigms and Analyses What follows is the discussion of DFMA paradigms and their application to three areas; material selection, manufacturing, and assembly. In each area, the general
paradigms will be followed by their application to specific parts of the product.
2.1 Material Selection General Paradigms There are several factors which bear consideration while designing a product. Among these are weight, strength, cost, durability, environment, aesthetics, etc. Each one of these can affect the design both from the manufacture and assembly aspects. A part that is designed for optimum manufacturability with a specific material may give rise to assembly issues. The converse is also true. While still in the design phase, giving thought to these factors will help reduce problems in the subsequent stages. With respect to the mass of the material, and therefore the weight, some thoughts might go to whether the product needs to be portable, if it will be manufactured on-site, what loads will be placed on it, what are the costs involved, and so forth. Strength of the material selected is also important primarily to prevent failure of the design. Figure 21 shows the stressstrain plots for various materials. A DFMA analysis of a part might yield wood as the best possible choice when considering cost and ease of manufacturability, as was the case with one component of the stapler. However, functional analysis would identify that material to be inadequate as it would fail under normal operating conditions. Figure 22 describes several general trends in relation to strength of materials.
u y Woods Plastics Rubbers Metals
Fig 21 Stress Strain Plot for Various Materials [3]
n E (Young Modulus) is the slope of the stress-strain () curve. s n Metals are stronger than other materials n Woods are stronger than some plastics but may break before much elongation. n Plastics have odd behavior but can be useful. n Rubbers are soft but can deform a great deal before failure. n Some materials do not have well defined yield stresses. If not given, use T.
Figure 22 General Trends [3]
In order to achieve optimal overall costs, which is vital in a competitive market, the costs of manufacture and assembly of the product must be considered early. DFMA provides several methods which can be carried out by hand or computer that will analyze designs based on projected costs. The specifics not used in our analysis are available in the text by Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight or in the DFMA software. A final product which is too costly as a result of poor planning and inefficient methods will be priced out of the market. Other factors also should contribute in the initial design phases. The product should be durable and aesthetic, given toda y consumer-driven market. s Also,
environmental issues in manufacture, governed by political climates, must also be dealt with, as well as problems that may be caused by the environment in which the product
9
will be used. Weather, temperature, soil acidity, and a host of other factors may affect the lifetime of the product, which in turn can also affect the design. As was mentioned, the optimal design for one aspect might be the least desirable for another. One of the key material selection paradigms in DFMA is the derived parameter ranking. This enables the designers to rank each material depending on the desired property or ratios of related properties. According to the resulting data, proper selection of material can be better made.
2.2 Material Selection Stapler The full material selection data obtained by using DFMA equations is available in appendix A. Appendix B gives the selection criterion for DFMA. Table 3 gives a limited overview of the materials selection for each of the 17 primary parts of the 747 stapler. It is a brief presentation of what material DFMA suggests should be used for each part based on different criteria. Some parts were not analyzed due to their apparent adequacy, i.e. no materials change was deemed necessary. The column labeled analysis run
indicates the criteria desired. The three subsequent columns give the material best suited for those criteria under certain conditions. For example, the release clip analysis was run to obtain the strongest beam. The material yielding the maximum performance is alloy steel. The minimum weight is achieved with aluminum. The minimum cost material is cast iron. The variance of materials offered by the analysis is indicative of the subjective nature of DFMA; sometimes a decision must be made when the data present conflicting results. The last column of Table 3 indicates what is believed to be the actual material of which the part is made.
10
Table 3 - Brief overview data on material selection for 747 stapler parts. Note: The detailed results for the above analysis have been attached (Appendix A).
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Component Name Rubber Pad Release Clip Lower Leaf Spring Anvil Base Anvil Actuator Spacer Spring The Pin Staple Slide Bottom Staple Guide The Upper Arm Top Staple Guide End Cap(747) Upper Leaf Spring Upper Cover Plastic Cover
Analysis Run NA Strongest beam Best Diaphragm Spring Strongest plate Strongest plate Strongest Ten Member NA Best Coil Spring Strongest beam Strongest Comp Member Light Weight Strongest beam Light Weight Strongest Plate Best Diaphragm Spring Strongest beam NA
Maximum Performance NA Alloy steel Beryllium copper Beryllium copper Beryllium copper Alloy steel NA Beryllium copper Alloy steel Alloy steel NA Alloy steel NA Alloy steel Beryllium copper Alloy steel NA
Minimum Weight NA Aluminum Beryllium copper Aluminum Aluminum alloy Alloy steel NA Alloy steel Aluminum alloy Alloy steel NA Aluminum alloy NA Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Aluminum alloy NA
Minimum Cost NA Cast Iron Ductile iron Cast Iron Cast Iron Ductile iron NA Ductile iron Ductile iron Gray cast iron NA Ductile iron NA Ductile iron Ductile iron Ductile iron NA
Actual Material Rubber Aluminum Spring Steel Steel Aluminum Aluminum Plastic Spring Steel Alloy Steel Al (Cu Coating) Aluminum Steel Aluminum Steel Spring Steel Alloy Steel Plastic
2.3 Recommended Changes While an analysis was run on each of the parts that was believed to require change, the DFMA analysis revealed that the presumed actual materials already were properly chosen. Therefore, no recommended changes to the materials used in the Swingline 747 stapler can be made. While change was considered for the cover and base from metal to plastic, it was decided to leave them metal due to strength and durability issues.
2.4 Manufacturing Method of Stapler Table 4 shows the various parts of the stapler along with the various manufacturing processes along with the sub-operations. Thereafter is given the sheet metal analysis for several stapler components. Guidelines for design for manufacturing are given in Appendix C. The specific equations and numerical analysis is given in
11
whole for the upper staple guide. The analyses for the other parts, while completed fully, have been limited in t is paper to the presentation of the results. This was done for h brevity. The information in the last columns of Table 4 is not given in order of process sequence.
Table 4 Manufacturing Processes

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Component Name Rubber Pad Release Clip Lower Leaf Spring Anvil Base Anvil Actuator Spacer Spring Pin Staple Slide Bottom Staple Guide Upper Arm Upper Staple Guide End Cap(747) Upper Leaf Spring Upper Cover Plastic Cover Manufacturing Processes Molding Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Die casting Die casting Injection Molding Coiling Casting Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal working Sheet Metal Forming Injection Molding NA Part-off, Punching, Bending Part-off, Punching, Bending, Plating Blanking, Punching, Bending Painting Painting NA Coiling, Bending, Plating Turning, Knurling, Copper Coating Blanking, Punching, Bending Blanking, Punching, Bending Blanking, Punching, Bending, Plating, Embossing Blanking, Punching, Bending, Embossing Part-off, Bending, Embossing, Plating Part-off, Punching, Bending, Plating Drawing, Ironing Printing Operations
12
2.4a Sheet Metal Analyses Equations and tables used for the following calculations are from [4]. 2.4a.i Upper Staple Guide Material: - Aluminum Gauge Number: -20 Thickness: - 1.02 mm Ultimate tensile strength: - 90 MN/m2 Cost of blanking die: Taking 50 mm tolerances on four sides Usable area = Au = 25.5*14.6 = 372.3 cm2 Cost of die set = C ds = 120 +0.36*Au = $ 255. Profile complexity = X p = P 2 /LW L = 155 mm = 15.5 cm Therefore, X p = 26.23 Total die manufacturing points: Basic manufacturing points M po From Fig. 9.9 M po = 33 Plan area = 71.3 cm2 Plan area correction factor f 1w from Fig. 9.10 W = 46 mm = 4.6cm P = 432.5 mm = 43.25 cm
f 1w = 1.75
Assuming number of parts to be produced as 500,000 hd = 21.31 mm Now considering hd = 25 mm
13
from Equation (9.3)
Die plate thickness correction factor from Eq uation (9.5) is f d = 0.5 +0.02* hd =1 Thus, total die manufacturing points are therefore Mp = f d *f1w*Mpo = 1*1.75*33 = 57.75 The estimated blanking die cost, assuming $40/hr for die making, is = Cds + Mp *40 = 255 + 57.75*40 = $2565. Scrap percent: Area of each part is A p =19.5 + 6.875 + 4878 + 190 + 57.5 + 130 = 52.82 cm2 Area of sheet used for each part is A s = (15.5 + 0.204)*(4.6 + 0.204) = 75.44 cm2 Scrap % = (A s A p )/A s = .30 = 30 % Cost of piercing die: Cds = $255, L = 138.75 mm = 13.875 cm, W = 39.5 mm = 3.95 cm
The base manufacturing score from eq. (9.7) is Mpo = 23 + 0.03 LW = 24.64 The number of hours required to manufacture the custom-punching element for the non-standard aperture is, from eq. (9.8)
14
P p = 112 mm = 11.2 cm,
Np = 2
Mpc = 8 + 0.6 * P p + 3 N p = 20.72 The equipment manufacturing time for punches, die plate inserts is, from eq. (9.9) Round holes K = 2, Np = 4, Mps = K*N p + 0.4 Nd = 8.4 Rectangular holes K = 3.5, N p = 2, Mps = K*Np + 0.4 Nd = 7.8 Total Mps = 16.2 Nd = 2 Nd = 1
The estimated piercing die cost, assuming $40/h for die making, is = Cds + ( Mpo + Mpc + Mps )*40 = $2720 Cost of bending die: Cds = $255, L = 155 mm = 15.5 cm, W = 46 mm = 4.6 cm, D = 1.7 cm
Basic die manufacturing score for bending Mpo = (18 + 0.023LW)*(0.9 + 0.02 D) = 18.34 Additional point for bend length and multiple bends Lb = 28.525 cm, Nb = 7
Mpn = 0.68 Lb + 5.8 Nb = 60
15
The estimated bending die cost, assuming $40/h for die making, is = C ds + ( Mpo + Mpn) * 40 = $3390
Cost of embossing die: Cds = $255, L = 80 mm = 8 cm, W = 26 mm = 2.6 cm,
Mpx = 0.13 Nsp Mpo = 23 + 0.03 LW Mpc = 8 + 0.6 P p + 3 Np
Therefore, Mpo = 23.624 Rectangular embossing Mpx = 4 *(0.13*3) = 1.56 Circular embossing Mpx = 2 * (0.13 * 1) = 0.26 Total Mpx = 1.82 Mpc = 8 + 0.6 * 7.8 + 3 * 6 = 30.68 Cost of embossing die is, = Cds + ( Mpo + Mpc + Mpx ) * 40 = $2500 Cost of progressive die: C d = 2 C id
16
Where C id = 2565 + 2720 + 3390 + 2500 = $11175 Cd = $22350 Cycle time for each part: U = 90*10 3 KN/m 2 Force for Blanking: Fblanking = 0.5UhLs Where Fblanking = 19.85 KN Force for Punching: Fpunching = 0.5UhLs Where Ls = 260 mm = 0.26m Fpunching = 11.93 KN Force for Embossing: For one embossing Fembossing = UhLsSin = 5.06 Total Fembossing = 6 * 5.06 = 30.38 KN Force for Bending: Fbendung = 0.08UhL b Where Lb = Length of bend = 28.525 cm = .28525 m Ls = length to be sheared = 43.45 cm = 0.4325 m h = 1.02 mm = 1.02 * 10-3 m
since
Ls = 0.078m (As they are six embossing effects)
Fbendung = 2.094 KN
17
So, Total force required = F blanking + F punching + Fembossing + Fbendung = 64.25 KN = 65 KN From Table 9.3 The space required for 4 die stations is, 4*14.6 = 58.4 From Table 9.8 Appropriate press for 58.4 is 500 KN press force, $76/hr operating cost and speed of 90 strokes/min. The estimated cycle time per part is, t = 60/90 =0.67 sec Processing cost per part is C p = (0.67/3600)*76*100 = 1.4 cents. 2.4aii Sheet metal analysis for changed part: Cost of blanking die: Taking 50 mm tolerances on four sides Usable area = Au = 25.5*14.6 = 372.3 cm2 Cost of die set = C ds = 120 +0.36*Au = $ 255. Profile complexity = X p = P 2 /LW L = 155 mm = 15.5 cm Therefore, X p = 21.93 Total die manufacturing points Basic manufacturing points M po From Fig. 9.9 M po = 32
18
W = 46 mm = 4.6cm
P = 395.5 mm = 39.55 cm
Plan area = 71.3 cm2 Plan area correction factor f 1w from Fig. 9.10
f 1w = 1.75
Assuming number of parts to be produced as 500,000 hd = 21.31 mm Now considering hd = 25 mm from Equation (9.3)
Die plate thickness correction factor from Eq uation (9.5) is f d = 0.5 +0.02* hd = 1 Thus, total die manufacturing points are therefore Mp = f d *f1w*Mpo = 1*1.75*32 = 56 The estimated blanking die cost, assuming $40/hr for die making, is = Cds + Mp *40 = 255 + 56*40 = $2495. Scrap percent: Area of each part is A p = 51.52 cm2 Area of sheet used for each part is A s = (15.5 + 0.204)*(4.6 + 0.204) = 75.44 cm2 Scrap % = (A s A p )/A s = .32 = 32 %
19
Cost of piercing die: Cds = $255, L = 138.75 mm = 13.875 cm, W = 39.5 mm = 3.95 cm
The base manufacturing score from eq. (9.7) is Mpo = 23 + 0.03 LW = 24.64 The number of hours required to manufacture the custom-punching element for the nonstandard aperture is, from Eq. (9.8) P p = 150.5 mm = 15.05 cm, Np = 3
Mpc = 8 + 0.6 * P p + 3 N p = 26.03 The equipment manufacturing time for punches, die plate inserts is, from Eq. (9.9) Round holes K = 2, Np = 4, Mps = K*N p + 0.4 Nd = 8.4 The estimated piercing die cost, assuming $40/h for die making, is = Cds + ( Mpo + Mpc + Mps )*40 = $2617.8 = $2620 Cost of bending die: Cds = $255, L = 155 mm = 15.5 cm, W = 46 mm = 4.6 cm, D = 1.7 cm Nd = 1
Basic die manufacturing score for bending Mpo = (18 + 0.023LW)*(0.9 + 0.02 D) = 18.34 Additional point for bend length and multiple bends Lb = 26.225 cm, Nb = 3
Mpn = 0.68 Lb + 5.8 Nb

20
= 35.233 The estimated bending die cost, assuming $40/h for die making, is = C ds + ( Mpo + Mpn) * 40 = $2397.92 = $2400
Cost of embossing die: Cds = $255, L = 80 mm = 8 cm, W = 26 mm = 2.6 cm,
Mpx = 0.13 Nsp Mpo = 23 + 0.03 LW Mpc = 8 + 0.6 P p + 3 Np
Therefore, Mpo = 23.624 Rectangular embossing Mpx = 4 *(0.13*3) = 1.56 Circular embossing Mpx = 2 * (0.13 * 1) = 0.26 Total Mpx = 1.82 Mpc = 8 + 0.6 * 7.8 + 3 * 6 = 30.68 Cost of embossing die is, = Cds + ( Mpo + Mpc + Mpx ) * 40 = $2500
21
Cost of progressive die: C d = 2 C id Where C id = 2495 + 2620 + 2400 + 2500 = $10015 Cd = $20030 Cycle time for each part: U = 90*10 3 KN/m 2 Force for Blanking: Fblanking = 0.5UhLs Where Fblanking = 18.15 KN Force for Punching: Fpunching = 0.5UhLs Where Fpunching = 9.65 KN Force for Embossing: For one embossing Fembossing = UhLsSin = 5.06 Total F embossing = 6 * 5.06 = 30.38 KN Force for Bending: Fbendung = 0.08UhL b Where Lb = Length of bend = 26.225 cm = .26225 m Ls = 210 mm = 0.21m Ls = length to be sheared = 39.55 cm = 0.3955 m h = 1.02 mm = 1.02 * 10-3 m
since
Ls = 0.078m (As they are six embossing effects)
22
Fbendung = 1.92 KN So, Total force required = F blanking + F punching + Fembossing + Fbendung = 60 KN From Table 9.3 The space required for 4 die stations is, 4*14.6 = 58.4 From Table 9.8 Appropriate press for 58.4 is 500 KN press force, $76/hr operating cost and speed of 90 strokes/min. The estimated cycle time per part is, t = 60/90 =0.67 sec Processing cost per part is C p = (0.67/3600)*76*100 = 1.4 cents. 2.4aiii For the remaining parts, the analysis is abbreviated: Staple slide: Cost for progressive die = $9120 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents Redesigned staple slide: Cost for progressive die = $8500.00 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents Anvil: Cost for progressive die = $7590 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents
23
Redesigned Anvil: Cost for progressive die = $7050 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents Upper Arm: Cost for progressive die = $22,220 Cycle time = 0.67 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 1.4 cents Redesigned Upper Arm: Cost for progressive die = $22,060 Cycle time = 0.67 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 1.4 cents Unmodified parts: Upper leaf spring: Cost for progressive die = $9760.00 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents Bottom Staple Guide: Cost for progressive die = $9130.00 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents End Cap: Cost for progressive die = $5250.00 Cycle time = 0.6 sec Processing cost per part = C p = 0.91 cents
24
2.5 Assembly Paradigms When designing for assembly, there are many varied considerations. As has been the precedent, a brief discussion of the DFMA paradigms will be followed by application of relevant paradigms to the Swingline 747 classic stapler. The object of design for assembly is to provide the designers a tool for effective assembly considerations, to guide the designers to simplicity, to provide information from experienced engineers early in the process that will help less experienced designers, and to establish a database of assembly times and cost factors. Most of the following information is taken from Product DFMA, 2nd ed., hereafter referred to as PDFMA, by Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight. While there are tools and equations to be used for both manual and automated (robotic, high-speed) assembly, the focus will remain on manual assembly since it is most pertinent to the case at hand. Briefly, the main advantage for automation is the reduced errors in assembly that lead to quality issues. The authors state, it is becoming widely accepted that faulty assembly steps, rather than defective components, are more often the reason for production quality problems. For more information on automated assembly, the interested reader is referred to the text. For manual assembly, there are several issues to be considered.
2.5a Assembly Times and Efficiency Assembly efficiency, also known as the DFA index, is vital to proper assembly design. Two main factors that influence efficiency are the number of parts and the ease of handling, inserting, and fastening those parts. To calculate the efficiency, Ema , the following equation is given: Ema = Nmin ta/t ma where Nmin is the theoretical minimum number of parts, ta is the basic assembly time for one part, which is about 3 s, and t ma is the estimated time to complete the assembly of the entire product. There are three time systems that can be used to estimate assembly times. One of these, MOST, is used for very large parts which cannot be carried by workers. A lifting device must be employed. Since this is beyond the scope of the example, it is not discussed here. The other two systems, methods time measurement (MTM) and work
25
factor (WF) are useful. Both of these use part symmetry in their assessment of assembly times. The symmetry of a part can be regarded about two axes; the insertion axis and any axis perpendicular to insertion. The angle associated with the former is known as the beta angle, the angle around the latter is alpha. These both have reference to the maximum number of degrees by which a part that has been grasped needs to be rotated to repeat its orientation. The total symmetry of a part is given by adding these two angles. The MTM system uses the maximum possible orientation, given by 0.5. The WF uses a combination of both in the form /.
2.5b Guidelines for Manual Assembly Handling and insertion/fastening are the two main areas of assembly. Some design guidelines for handling and insertion/fastening are: Symmetrical design. Prevent jamming. Prevent tangling. Avoid hazardous parts (sharps, slippery, etc). Minimize resistance to insertion. Standardize. Employ pyramid assembly. Part location prior to release. Simplify fastening. Avoid repositioning.
When dealing with these guidelines, it is safe to assume that not all may be able to be incorporated simultaneously. The benefits and costs of each attribute must be weighed against the over-all picture.
2.5c Effects of Weight and Dimensions It is considered that a part whose thickness is less than 2mm will be difficult to grasp and require the use of tweezers or other implement, thus adding to the assembly time. The size of a part, which is the longest non-diagonal length, is also a factor. The weight of a part is also a consideration, not only for assembly, but also for ergonomic concerns. Generally, weight causes parts to be categorized as being able to be lifted with
26
one hand, two hands, two people, or by machine. Each of these has a different effect on assembly time.
2.5d Chamfers When dealing with insertion, chamfers will provide many benefits such as reduced assembly time and incidents of jamming. Several parameters used to describe attributes of both the pin and hole are listed in Table 5. Table 5 Insertion Parameters D d L w1 w2 1 2 Diameter of hole. Diameter of peg. Length of insertion. Width of peg chamfer. Width of hole chamfer. Angle of peg chamfer. Angle of hole chamfer.
The clearance c of the insertion is given by (D d)/D and is dimensionless. PDFMA presents the following conclusions regarding chamfer properties: For a given clearance, the insertion time for two different chamfer designs is constant. A chamfer on the peg is more effective than one on the hole. The maximum effective chamfer width w is 0.1D. The most effective conical chamfer design has chamfers on both hole and peg with the widths equal to 0.1D and angles less than 45. Manual insertion time is not sensitive to angle changes from 10 to 50. For small c, round or conical chamfers can be more effective.
As the clearance decreases, the insertion time increases at various rates, depending on whether there are chamfers on one or both parts involved or none. Another consideration is when parts to be inserted jam. This is caused by one or more points of contact during insertion. Different chamfer designs can alleviate this problem and reduce insertion time. Insertion time can be estimated by the following equations:
27
t i = 1.4L + 15 ms or ti = -70 ln c + f(chamfers) + 3.7L + 0.75d ms whiche ver is larger and where f(chamfers) = -100 (no chamfer) -220 (chamfer on hole) -250 (chamfer on peg) -370 (chamfer on both)
2.5e Miscellaneous Effects on Assembly Time When designing parts to be assembled, obstructed views and access should be considered. The effects of an obstructed view or obstructed access are that time for assembly is increased and there is also a risk of harm to the worker. The inability to see the parts can lead to fumbling, dropping or other time penalties, and obstruction may force the worker to slow down, cause repeated small motions in awkward positions (i.e. ulnar-deviated wrists while turning a wrench). The cost of time and ergonomics then becomes an issue. Manual clamping also has a deleterious effect on time and has
ergonomic considerations. There are many parameters, born both empirically and by experience, which bear consideration while designing for manual assembly. However, the data presented are averages and therefore should not be taken to be cumulative. In some cases, the times are overestimated, in others it is underestimated. Also, in the situation where the assembly requires various different parts, care should be taken not to accumulate times caused by different features. Only when large quantities of similar parts are used should these results be consulted. 2.5f Further Guidelines The minimum parts criteria also give the following guidelines: Avoid connections by placing parts to be connected at the same location. Design so that assembly access is not restricted. Avoid adjustments. Use kinematic design principles to avoid over-constrained designs.
Also, for large assemblies with large numbers of parts, the differences in assembly time generated by different parts will generally cancel each other out.
28
2.5g Assembly Layout
Figure 23 Bench Station [4]
Figure 24 Multi-Station [4]
Figure 25 Modular Station [4]
Depending on the size of the largest parts in an assembly, the layout of the assembly area will differ. For small parts that can be placed within easy reach of the worker, the bench or multi-station assembly methods are recommended (figs. 23 and 24). This layout eliminates major body motion of the worker, reducing part retrieval time and cumulative trauma disorders. For parts weighing more than 5 lbs but less than 30 lbs, or are longer than 12 in. but less than 35 in., the modular assembly center is recommended (fig. 25). There are three categories that determine which modular layout to use. These are based upon the largest part being less than 15 in., between 15 and 25 in., and between 25 and 35 in. Larger parts will best be assembled in a custom assembly layout or a flexible assembly layout (figs. 26 and 27). Other layouts do exist, such as on-site (i.e. for an elevator), in clean rooms (microprocessors), modular assembly for very large parts (automobiles), etc.
29
Figure 26 Custom Layout [4] Figure 27 Flexible Layout [4]
2.6 Assembly Methods Stapler Table 6 gives the alpha, beta, and handling times data for the various parts. This data is derived from Tables 3.15 to 3.17 in PDFMA. A bench station assembly layout is assumed. Table 6 Handling Times Data
Component or Operation Base Release Clip Lower Leaf Spring Anvil Actuator Reorientation Anvil Set Aside Top Staple Guide Spring Staple Slide Bottom Staple Guide Upper Arm Set Aside Upper Cover Upper Leaf Spring Reorientation Pin Add Subassembly Spacer Plastic Cover Rubber Pad Alpha Angle 360 360 360 360 360 360 180 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 Beta Angle 360 360 360 0 180 360 0 360 360 360 360 360 0 180 360 360 Symm. Angle ( 720 720 720 360 540 720 180 720 720 720 720 720 360 540 720 720 No. of Items RP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hand ling Time TH 1.95 3.34 2.25 1.13 2.36 3.06 2.25 2.73 3.06 1.95 1.95 2.51 1.8 2.36 2.51 1.95 Tool Acquire Time TA 0 0 2.9 2.9 2.9 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 2.9 2.9 0 0 0 Insertion Time TI 1.5 3.0 2.6 2.6 4.5 2.6 1.0 1.5 5.2 1.5 1.5 4.5 1.0 1.5 2.6 4.5 2.6 4.5 1.8 1.8 3.0 Time (s) TA+RP* (TH+TI) 2.45 6.34 7.75 6.63 4.5 7.86 1.0 4.56 7.45 4.23 4.56 9.35 1.0 3.45 8.01 4.5 7.3 4.5 4.16 4.31 4.95
No.
Steps Place on Worksurface Add Add Fasten Add Hold Reorient Rivet Special Place on Worksurface Add Add Add Add Special Place on Worksurface Add Fasten Special Add Special Add Add Add
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
30
The total assembly time can therefore be derived from Table 6 to be 108.86 seconds.
2.6a Efficiency Using N min = 19 (two fasteners), t a = 3 seconds, and tma = 108.86 seconds from Table 6, the efficiency for assembling t he stapler is then 53%. 2.6b Chamfers The insertion of the pin and the anvil actuator are subjects for chamfer analysis. We present the analysis for the pin only. Table 7 gives the chamfer dimensions for the pin. Table 7 Insertion Parameters for the Pin D d L w2 2 0.189 0.186 1.253 0 0
There is no chamfer around the insertion point. The pin has a rounded chamfer, therefore no angle or chamfer width is given. From these data, we can calculate the clearance c between the pin and the base to be 0.016 in. Since the clearance is so small, the pin uses a rounded chamfer. The insertion time is 44.2 ms using t i = -70 ln c + f(chamfers) + 3.7L + 0.75d where f(chamfers) is -250. Despite the fact that insertion into the base, cover, and subassemblies is progressive, we consider the diameters D to be the same and the length L to be the entire width of the base along the insertion axis. As the pin is inserted and parts through which it travels added, the stability of the pin increases. There is also the draft on the base to consider. Since the clearance is such that the pin is inserted rather easily, the draft need not be a concern.
2.7 Recommended Changes A few changes in the manufacturing process led directly to changes in assembly. For instance, if the spring is halved and the upper staple guide is redesigned, the spring
31
no longer has to be threaded through the guide, saving on handling time. The time to set the guide aside, insert the staple slide, and then later reacquire the guide is also reduced. These have the effect of cutting the total assembly time from 108.86 to 97.86 and increasing the efficiency from 53% to 58%. All other processes and methods were believed to be adequate and therefore left unchanged.
3 Discussions Due to numerical analyses performed on changes that were suggested, it was determined that the overall design of the 747 stapler is adequate. The manufacturing cost savings of $3650.00 for re-tooling, die costs, etc. and the assembly time savings of only 11 seconds do not justify implementation of those changes. For example, the time
savings only yields a 6-cent per unit saving. One such manufacturing change that DFM suggested was to change the anvil manufacture method from blanking to cut off. This would result in a savings in cost through die, reduced scrap, and cycle time. However, DFA showed that it should not be implemented due to the sharp corners that would be a safety issue both in the assembly and daily use of the product. Also, strength analysis revealed residual stresses at the corners. Another change implemented was to create a two-part foot pad. DFM recommended this change based on saving in time, cost and die manufacture and reduced cycle time. Again, DFA showed this change to be unwarranted. A basic principle of DFA was violated; reduce part numbers. Thought was given into changing the materials in the manufacture of the stapler. The DFM material selection analyses run according to Boothroyd-Dewhurst [4] revealed that the material selected w already DFM compliant. However, consideration was ere given to the use of plastics, particularly for the cover and the base. These changes were ultimately rejected due to durability factors, cyclic loads, and severe impact safety factors. Also, Swingline makes different models made with plastic. Had the recommendations to change the 747 to plastic been implemented, there would have been a reduction in the variety offered to the consumer.
32
4 Conclusions In general, a strict application of DFMA paradigms may give rise to contradictory recommended changes in the design of a project. For the Swingline 747 desktop stapler such contradictions were evident. Some recommendations can also be made which are wholly unsuitable for the task at hand. In any case, applying DFMA can and does reduce, at least in part, the costs associated with the bringing to market of a product. Those costs can be associated with manufacture, assembly, material selection, etc. or any combination of these. With regards to the stapler at hand, the overall results of our DFMA application yielded some worthwhile recommendations. Five parts were redesigned from a
manufacture point of view which reduced the time and cost of manufacture. An added bonus to those changes was a time and cost saving at the assembly stage. However, most of the components, from the point of view of both material selection and manufacture, and of assumed assembly methods of the stapler, proved to be very acceptable. It is, after all, the Swingline Classic stapler.
33
APPENDIX A
NOTE:
The best and the worst materials obtained after running the DFMA analysis for all the parts are represented by bold characters in the Tables.
Part 1. Rubber Base. No analysis was run. It could be recommended that the rubber base be
eliminated and instead have two foot pads at each one of the ends. This would in turn save money which otherwise would be needed for the molding of rubber base. This also reduces assembly time.
Fig A -1 Base
Fig A-2 Alternate
The figures seen above are the two different designs discussed previously. Part 2: Release Clip:
The release clip is made of aluminum alloy. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper 21 43 30 16 100 13 0 88
34
Copper, hard
24
Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Minimum Weight, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard 20 44 26 7 93 0 100 76 0
Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Minimum Cost, Their Respective Index Values:
Part 3: Lower Leaf Spring:
The lower leaf spring is made of alloy steel. Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel 23 39 26 0 95
35
Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
0 24 100 32
Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Minimum Weight , Their Respective Index Values:
Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Minimum Cost, Their Respective Index Values:
Part 4: Anvil: The anvi l is made of alloy steel. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron 21 43
36
Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
30 16 100 13 0 88 24
Part 5: Base: The Base is made of aluminum alloy.
37
Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
38
Part 6: Anvil Actuator:
The anvil actuator is made of aluminum alloy. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Duc tile iron Malleable iron Mild steel 94 100 88 58
39
Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
54 30 34 0 32
Part 7: Spacer: Remarks: Made of plastic. No analysis was run for the spacer. Part 8: Spring:
The spring is made of alloy steel (spring steel). Analysis Run for Best Coil Spring and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Analysis Run for Best Coil Spring and Minimum Weight, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel 24 43 28 2 100 0
40
Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
46 99 25
Analysis Run for Best Coil Spring and Minimum Cost, Their Respective Index Values:
Part 9: Pin:
The pin is made of alloy steel. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron 20 44
41
Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
26 7 93 0 100 76 0
Part 10: Staple Slide:
The staple slide is made of alloy steel. Analysis Run for Strongest Compression Member and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
42
Analysis Run for Strongest Compression Member and Minimum Weight, Their Respective Index Values:
Analysis Run for Strongest Compression Member and Minimum Cost, Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
100 96 94 62 57 32 36 0 34
Part 11: Bottom Staple Guide: The staple bottom guide is made of aluminum alloy. No analysis was carried out for the bottom s taple guide.
Part 12: Upper Arm: The upper arm is made of alloy steel.
43
Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
44
Part 13: Top Staple Guide:
The top staple guide is made of aluminum alloy. No analysis carried out for the top staple guide.
Part 14: The End Cap (747):
The end cap is made of alloy steel. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
45
Part 15: Upper Leaf Spring: The upper leaf spring is made of alloy steel.
Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Minimum Weight , Their Respective Index Values:
Gray cast iron Ductile iron Malleable iron Mild steel Alloy steel 28 44 29 2 97
46
Stainless steel Aluminum alloy Beryllium copper Copper, hard
0 65 100 28
Analysis Run for Best Diaphragm Spring and Minimum Cost, Their Respective Index Values:
Part 16: Upper Cover: The upper cover is made of aluminum alloy. Analysis Run for Strongest Beam and Max Performance, Their Respective Index Values:
47
Part 17. Plastic Cap. Remarks: Made of plastic. No analysis was run for the plastic cap.
48
APPENDIX B
Manufacturing Process The appendix C is meant to illustrate the various Manufacturing steps involved in the making of the Upper Arm. At attempt using Pro E to show the various steps has been made.
Step 1 The first step would be to blank the outline of the part and then pierce out the holes in the part. The assumption in making this part is to use a progressive die.
49
Step 2 The 2nd step as seen in the above figure is to bring in the initial bends to as indicated by the circles.
Step 3 Finally in step 3 we bring in the side bends which gives us the final shape of the part. We have similarly simulated the manufacturing processes of all the parts. However the Pro-E drawings were made only for a few parts.
50
APPENDIX C
The Pro-E part sketches of following parts have been attached. The parts being,
Sl No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Part Name Lower leaf Spring Base Spacer Staple Slide ( Old Design) Staple Slide ( New Design) Bottom Staple Guide Upper Arm ( Old Design) Upper Arm ( New Design) Upper Staple Guide (Old Design) Upper Staple Guide (New Design) End Cap Upper Leaf Spring Upper Cover Plastic Cap
Note: The Pro-E drawings for the parts mentioned in the above table have been attached.
51
References
1. www.swingline.com 2. www.page.sannet.ne.jp/ gaho1300/proe/ practical_guide /hd90013/index_hd90013.html 3. www.materials.eng.com.ac.uk/mpsite 4. Boothroyd, G., 1988, Dewhurst, P., Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. 5. http://www-ec.njit.edu/~das/1-1-2.html 6. http://www.tm.tue.nl/race/ce/dfma_2.html 7. A. U. Alvi and A. W. Labib, Selecting Next-generation Manufacturing Paradigms - A n Analytic Hierarchy Process-based Criticality A nalysis Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 215 Part B , 2001 Pg. 1773-1786 8. Tomiyama, T. A manufacturing paradigm towards the 21st century. Integrated Computer Aided Engg, 1997, 4, 159-178. 9. http://www.dfma.com/news/dfmcost_news.html 10. Stoll, H.W., 1986, Design for Manufacture: An overview 11. http://www.scs.unr.edu/mecheng/me151/dfm/sld005.htm

DFMA Stapler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DFMA Stapler

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DFMA Stapler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document analyzing?

What is the document analyzing?

What manufacturing paradigms are discussed?

What manufacturing paradigms are discussed?

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler.

Submitted 7 April 2003 To Dr. A.K. Balaji

List of Figures and Tables

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

1.1 General Stapler Properties

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Fig 1 Rubber Pad

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Fig 2 Release Clip

3. Lower Leaf Spring

Fig 5 Lower Leaf

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Fig 9 Anvil Actuator

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

10. Bottom Staple Guide

Fig 13 Bottom Staple Guide

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

11. Staple Slide

Fig 14 Staple Slide

12. Upper Arm

Fig 15 Upper Arm

13. Upper Staple Guide

Fig 16 Upper Staple Guide

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

14. End Cap

Fig 17 End Cap

15. Upper Leaf Spring

Fig 18 Upper Leaf Spring

16. Upper Cover

Fig 19 Upper Cover

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

17. Plastic Cover

Fig 20 Plastic Cover

paradigms will be followed by their application to specific parts of the product.

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

u y Woods Plastics Rubbers Metals

Fig 21 Stress Strain Plot for Various Materials [3]

Figure 22 General Trends [3]

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Table 4 Manufacturing Processes

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

from Equation (9.3)

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

P p = 112 mm = 11.2 cm,

Mpn = 0.68 Lb + 5.8 Nb = 60

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Cost of embossing die: Cds = $255, L = 80 mm = 8 cm, W = 26 mm = 2.6 cm,

Mpx = 0.13 Nsp Mpo = 23 + 0.03 LW Mpc = 8 + 0.6 P p + 3 Np

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

Ls = 0.078m (As they are six embossing effects)

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler

DFMA as Applied to the Swingline 747 Desktop Stapler