DFA The Lucas Method

DFA: The Lucas Method
[ Home | Links ] Updated 2005-12-27

Vincent Chan and Filippo A. Salustri
Lucas Method
Although the Boothroyd-Dewhurst method is widely used, it is based on timing each of the handling and insertion
motions. Although tables of data are available, the most accurate numbers are compiled through time studies in
particular factories.
The Lucas DFA method was developed in the early 1980's by the Lucas Corp. in the U.K. Unlike the BoothroydDewhurst method, the Lucas method is based on a "point scale" which gives a relative measure of assembly
difficulty. The method is based on three separate and sequential analyses. These are best described as part of the
assembly sequence flowchart (ASF):
1. Specification
2. Design
3. Functional analysis (this is the first Lucas analysis)
Possibly loop back to step 2 if the analysis yields problems
4.
5.
6.
7.
Feeding analysis (this is the second Lucas analysis)

Fitting analysis (this is the third Lucas analysis)
Assessment
Possibly return to step 2 if the analyses identify problems
Functional Analysis
In this analysis, the components of the product are reviewed only for their function. The components are divided
into two groups. Parts that belong to Group A are those that are deemed to be essential to the product's function;
Group B parts are those that are not essential to the product's function. Group B functions include fastening,
locating, etc.
The functional efficiency of the design cal be calculated as:
E d = A/(A+B) x 100%
where A is the number of essential components, and B is the number of non-essential components.
Note that the design efficiency is used to pre-screen a design alternative before more time is spent on it. This is
different than the Boothroyd-Dewhurst method (which assumes a design is already available). This analysis is
intended to reduce the part count in the product.
Typically, a design efficiency of 60% is targetted for initial designs.
Feeding Analysis
Similar to the Boothroyd-Dewhurst analysis, both the part handling and insertion times are examined here. In the
feeding analysis, the problems associated with the handling of the part are scored using an appropriate table. For
each part, the individual feeding index is scored. Generally, the target index for a part is 1.5. If the index is greater
than 1.5, the part should be considered for redesign.
Overall, all of the product's components should meet a "feeding ratio" defined as:
Feeding Ratio = (Total Feeding Index) / (Number of Essential Components)
where the total feeding index is the sum of all the indices of all the parts. The number of essential components is
the value A from the functional analysis.
An ideal feeding ratio is generally taken to be 2.5.
Fitting Analysis
The fitting analysis is calculated similarly to the feeding analysis. Again, a fitting index of 1.5 is a goal value for
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/t/dfmlucas.html[11/9/2013 3:33:39 PM]
each assembly. However, it should be noted that there is usually greater variance in the fitting indices than in the
feeding indices. Again, an overall fitting ration of 2.5 is desired.
Fitting Ratio = (Total Fitting Index) / (Number of Essential Components)
Tables for the Lucas DFA Method

Lucas DFA method - Manual Handling Analysis
Handling Index = A+B+C+D
B. Handling difficulties
All that apply
A. Size & Weight of Part
Delicate
0.4
One of the following
0.6
Very small - requires
1.5 Flexible
tools
Sticky
0.5
Convenient - hands only
1 Tangible
0.8
Large and/or heavy
1.5 Severely nest
0.7
requires more than 1
Sharp/Abrasive
0.3
hand
Untouchable
0.5
3
Large and/or heavy
Gripping problem /
0.2
requires hoist or 2
slippery
people
No handling difficulties
0
C. Orientation of Part
One of the following:
Symmetrical, no
0
orientation req'd
End to end, easy to see 0.1
End to end, not visible 0.5
D. Rotational Orientation of
Part
Rotational Symmetry
0
Rotational Orientation,
0.2
easy to see
Rotational Orientation,
0.4
hard to see
Lucas DFA method - Manual Fitting Analysis

Fitting Index = A+B+C+D+E+F
D. Access and/or
A. Part Placing and
Vision
Fastening
0
Self-holding orientation 1.0 Direct
1.5
Requires holding
2.0 Restricted
Plus 1 of the following
Self-securing (i.e.
1.3
snaps)
Screwing
4.0
Riveting
4.0
Bending
4.0
E. Alignment
B. Process Direction
0
Straight line from above 0 Easy to align
0.7
Straight line not from
0.1 Difficult to align
above
Not a straight line
1.6
C. Insertion
Single
0
Multiple insertions
0.7
Simultaneous multiple 1.2
insertions
F. Insertion Force
No resistance to
0
insertion
Resistance to
0.6
insertion
Manufacturing Analysis
The last part of the Lucas method is to calculate the cost of manufacturing each component. This manufacturing
cost can influence the choice of material and the process by which the part is made. Although not a true "costing"
of the part, this method does help guide designers by giving a relative measure of manufacturing cost.
The part manufacturing cost index M i = R c Pc + M c where
R c = C c C mp C s (C t or C f) is the relative cost
C c = complexity factor
C mp = Material factor
C s = Minimum section
C t = tolerance factor or C f = finish factor (whichever is greater)
Pc = processing cost
M c = V C mt Wc is the material cost
V = volume (mm 3 )
C mt = material cost
Wc = waste coefficient
Values are derived from the following tables. The first step is to determine the envelope type. Then one uses that
type to look up various values.
Cylindrical Part Envelopes

A3
A1
A2
Basic rotational features

only
Regular secondary/repetitive
Internal
features
Rotational symmetry,
grooves, undercuts,
steps, chamfers, tapers
and holes along the
primaty axis or center
lines
Internal/external threads,
knurling and simple contours
through flats, splines,
keyways on or around the
primary axis or center line
B1
A4
A5
Internal or
Irregular or complex
external features forms
Holes, threads,
counterbores and
other internal
features not on
the primary axis
Projections,
complex
features, blind
flats, splines,
keyways on
secondary axes.
Prismatic Part Envelopes

B3
B2
B4
B5
Irregular or
contoured forms
Complex 3D
contoured surfaces,
geometries that
cannot be assigned
to previous
categories
Basic features only
Regular secondary/repetitive
features
Orthogonal or Straight line

based features
Simple
curved
features
on a
single
plane
Through steps,
camfers and
grooves, channels,
slots and holes,
threads on a single
axis
Regular through features, Tslots and racks, plain gear

sections, etc., repetitive
holes, threads, counterbores
on a single plane
Regular orthogonal or
straight line based pockets,
projections on one or more
axes, angled holes, threads,
and counterbores
Curves in
internal
or
external
surfaces
Flat or Thin-walled Section Envelopes

C3
C4
C1
C2
Basic features only
Uniform section Non-uniform section or

or wall thickness wall thickness
Blanks, washers, simple

bends, forms and
through features on or
parallel to primary axis
Plain cogs and

gears, multiple
or continuous
bends and forms
C5
Cup, cone, and Non-uniform or contoured

box-type parts parts
Components
Section changes not
may involve
made up of multiple
changes in
bends or forms, steps,
section
tapers, and blind features
thickness
Complexity Cc (blank = not feasible)
Impact Ext.
Sand Cast
Die Cast
Forge
A1
A2
1.2
1.1
A3
Press
Complex contoured
surfaces, or series of
features which are
not represented in
previous categories.
Complex or irregular
features or series of
features which are not
represented in previous
categories
Machine
Powder Net
Plastic Mould
2.1
1.2
2.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.3
2.9
2.3
1.3
A4
1.8
2.6
5.3
2.6
A5
3.2
3.8
6.1
3.8
B1
1.1
B2
1.2
2.2
2.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
B3
1.4
2.2
2.2
2.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.6
1.7
1.8
B4
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
3.5
C1
B5
1.5
2.1
2.1
C2
2.3
2.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
C3
3.5
2.8
2.3
1.6
1.5
3.1
1.4
1.8
C4
3.7
2.5
2.5
2.2
5.4
2.4
2.9
C5
3.6
3.4
2.5
6.5
4
Limiting Section C s (millimetres) (blank = not feasible)
Min Section
Impact Ext.
<= 0.4
Sand Cast
Die Cast
>0.4 - 0.6
1.5
>0.6 - 1.0
Forge
1.5
Powder Net
3.6
Press
Machine
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.2
Plastic Mould
>1.0 - 3.0
>3.0 - 5.0
1.2
>5.0
PROCESS
1
1
1.7
1
Basic Processing Cost/Quantity Pc
Impact Ext
Sand Cast
Die Cast Forge
10
20000
513
10000
50
4000
113
2000
Press Auto M/C
Manual M/C
Power Met
Plastic Mould
15000 8000 5000
505
50000
10000
3000
105
10000
3000
Per Annum
Quantity
1600 1000
100
2000
63
1000
1500
800
500
55
5000
1000
200
1000
38
500
750
400
250
30
2500
500
400
500
26
250
376
200
126
18
1250
250
600
330
21
168
251
134
85
14
836
167
800
250
19
126
189
100
64
11
628
126
1000
200
18
100
151
80
51
10
500
100
2000
100
16
51
76
40
26
7.7
253
51
4000
50
14.3
26
39
20
14
6.5
128
26
6000
35
13.8
17
26
14
9.6
86
17
8000
26
13.6
13
20
10
7.5
5.8
66
13
10000
21
13.5
11
16
6.2
5.7
53
11
20000
11
13.3
5.8
8.7
4.4
3.7
5.46
28
5.8
30000
7.3
13.2
4.1
6.2
3.1
2.9
5.38
19.7
4.1
40000
5.6
13.1
3.3
2.4
2.47
5.34
15.5
3.3
50000
4.6
13.1
2.8
4.2
2.22
5.31
13
2.8
60000
3.9
13.1
2.4
3.7
1.8
2.05
5.29
11.4
2.4
70000
3.5
13.1
2.2
3.4
1.6
1.93
5.28
10.2
2.2
80000
3.3
13.1
3.1
1.4
1.85
5.27
9.3
90000
2.8
13.1
1.9
2.9
1.3
1.78
5.26
8.6
1.9
100000
2.6
13.1
1.78
2.7
1.2
1.72
5.26
8.
1.8
200000
1.61
13
1.28
1.97
0.83
1.47
5.24
5.54
1.3
400000
1.11
13
1.59
0.63
1.35
5.22
4.29
600000
0.94
13
0.95
1.47
0.57
1.3
5.22
3.87
0.95
800000
0.86
13
0.91
1.47
0.53
1.28
5.21
3.67
0.91
1000000
0.81
13
0.88
1.37
0.51
1.27
5.21
3.54
0.88
1500000
0.74
13
0.85
1.32
0.49
1.25
5.21
3.37
0.85
2000000
0.71
13
0.83
1.3
0.47
1.24
5.21
3.29
0.83
0.82
1.28
0.47
1.24
5.21
2500000
0.69
13
3000000
0.67
13
0.81
1.27
0.46 1.24
5.21
Material Suitability C mp (blank = unfeasible)
Impact
Ext
PROCESS
Sand
Cast
Die
Cast
3.24
0.82
3.21
0.81
Forge Press Machine
Powder
Met
Plastic
Mould
MATERIAL
Cast Iron
1.2
1.6
Low-C Steel
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
Alloy Steel
1.3
1.5
2.5
1.1
Stainless Steel
1.5
1.5
1.1
Copper Alloys
1.1
Aluminum Alloys
1.5
Zinc Alloys
1.2
1.1
Thermoplastics (nylons, acrylics, etc)
1.1
Thermosets (epoxies, phenolics,

etc.)
1.2
Elastomers (rubbers)
1.1
1.5
PROCESS
Impact Ext
Waste Coefficient W c (blank = unfeasible)

Sand Cast
Dis Cast
Forge Press Machine
Powder Met
Plastic Mould
A1
1.1
1.1
1.6
A2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
A3
1.2
1.1
1.2
2.5
1.1
A4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
A5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.3
B1
1.1
1.1
1.7
B2
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.2
1.1
B3
1.2
1.1
1.2
2.8
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
B4
B5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
C1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.8
C2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
2.4
1.1
C3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.2
C4
C5
1.6
Material Cost Selection Cmt
MATERIAL
C mt (cents/mm 3 )
Cast Iron
0.00105
Low Carbon Steel
0.00068
Alloy Steel
0.00259
Stainless Steel
0.00341
Copper Alloy
0.00564
Aluminum Alloy
0.00243
Zinc Alloy
0.00369
Thermoplastics
Nylons, acrylics, etc.
Others
Thermosets
Elastomers
0.00107
0.00035
0.00058
0.00035
Tolerance Ct (Based on number of planes on which critical tolerances occur)
Press
Working
TOLERANCE
(mm)
<= 0.004
3.7 5.3 6.1 4.6 5.6 6.8 5.1 6.1 7
3.1 4.6 5.4 4.3 5.6 6.6 4.6 5.4 6.5 4.8 6.3 7.1 3.7 5.3
>0.004-0.01
2.8 3.1 4.3 3.5 3.8 4.9 3.5 4.2 5
1.4 1.7 2.1 3.2 3.5 4.6 3.2 3.8 4.5 3.6 3.9 5.2 2.8 3.1 4.3
>0.01-0.03
1.9 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
>0.03-0.05
1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8 1
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5 1.9 2.1 2.3 1.2 1.4 1.6
>0.05-0.08
2.2 2.4 2.5 1.5 2
2.2 2.3 2.4 1
1.4 1.6 1
1.1 1.2 1.4
>0.08-0.15
>0.15-0.3
1.9 2
>0.3
3+ 1
3+ 1
3+ 1
3.2 2.8 3
2.2 2.4 1
3.6 1
2.4 1
Forge
Plastic
Mould
Impact Ext Sand Cast

2
Die Cast
Powder
Met
PROCESS
3+ 1
3+ 1
1.1 1.4 2.6 2.8 3
3+ 1
Machine
3+ 1
3+
2.6 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.4 2.2 2.4 2.6
1.4 2
1.9 2.2 2.3 1
1.1 1.2
1.8 1.9 2.2 1
1.1
1 1 1 1.5 1.7 1.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1

1
1
1 1 1
1
Surface Finish Cf (Based on number of planes on which critical surface finishes occur)
2.2 1
PROCESS
Impact Ext Sand Cast
SURFACE
FINISH
(micrometre)
3+ 1
Die Cast
3+ 1
Powder
Met
3+ 1
Forge
3+ 1
Press
Working
3+ 1
Plastic
Mould
3+ 1
Machine
3+ 1
super
fine
ground
<=0.4 4.3 5.1 6.3 4.9 5.6 6.6 4.3 5.1 6.3 4.3 5.1 6.3 4.9 5.65 6.6 4.4 5.3 6.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.14 4.84
fine
ground
>0.42
0.6
2.5 2.9 3.9 4.2 4.6 1.2 1.5 1.7 2
2.5 2.9 3.2 3.4
3.8 1.3 1.5 1.8 1
1.2
1.5
3+
1.7
medium >0.61.1 1.2 1.4 3

ground 0.8
3.2 3.5 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.6 2.8
coarse
ground
>0.81
1.0
1.1 1.2 2.5 2.6 3
semi
fine
>1.01
3.0
mediium >3.01
fine
5.0
semi
rough
>5.01
10.0
very
rough
>10.0 1
1.1 1.2 1.5 1
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.1 1.3 1
1.1 1.3 2.3 2.4
2.6 1
1.2 1
1.3
2.3 2.4 2.6 1
1.9 2
2.2 1
1.4 1.5
1.7 1
1.9 2
2.1 1
1.1
1.3 1
1.1 1.3 1
2.1 2.3 1
This part manufacturing cost allows designers to calculate the effect of part complexity versus part reduction.
The problem with DFA is that it focuses on part reduction. This often results in multi-functional parts with very high
complexity, which increases manufacturing costs.
2003 Vincent Chan - (v7chan@ryerson.ca) and Filippo A. Salustri - (salustri@ryerson.ca)

DFA The Lucas Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

DFA The Lucas Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DFA: The Lucas Method

[ Home | Links ] Updated 2005-12-27