DFMPro for Aerospace Industry

A major aerospace and defense manufacturer wanted its products to be cost-competitive in the face of increasing competition and reduced defense budgets in the industry. But looking back to the design of its parts would be a complicated and expensive process. By implementing DFMPro, this manufacturer systematically reduced manufacturing complexity and component costs by automating the analysis, locking in savings by an estimated 10%.

Case Highlights

• The Client

  Leading aerospace and defense manufacturer

• Challenge

  To stay competitive, the client, a significant aerospace and defense OEM, needed to reduce costs for one of its programs. A multi-disciplinary product cost management team was given the target to reduce the total program cost by 15 percent over five years.

  Cost reduction efforts began with the manufacturing and supply chain, where the client identified the complexity of components as an area for improvement. It found that designs had focused primarily on the functional aspects and not on the bigger picture of manufacturing complexity. Thoughtful design and appropriate manufacturing choices early in the design phase can control or limit costs, but looking back to manually analyze every design for complexity and identifying areas of improvement would be a

  time-consuming and challenging process, requiring expertise in supplier manufacturing processes and tooling to identify additional cost reduction opportunities. It was clear that software that could perform detailed design and cost analysis would be a key component of the cost reduction team’s activities.

• Solution: Implement DFMPro to Reduce Manufacturing Complexity and Costs

  The client chose DFMPro, CAD-integrated design-for-manufacture (DFM) software that helps identify and correct downstream issues early in the design stage, leading to reduction of cycle time and resulting in high-quality products with lower product development costs.

  DFMPro thoroughly analyzed every aspect of design that accounts for cost and complexity, and several high-end cost drivers were quickly identified. These included lower material utilization, higher scrap, expensive tooling, and higher manufacturing costs and time. Most of these drivers could be tied in directly into design issues and attributes.

• Benefits

  DFMPro pointed the way to reducing manufacturing complexity and standardizing design parts, helping the client see a 10% savings in manufacturing costs. DFMPro also identified direct savings in material costs and additional intangible overhead costs in rework and engineering changes. Combined with the client’s other ongoing cost reduction initiatives, the cost reduction program is now on track to beat initial estimates.

  DFMPro helped investigate and identify the following areas for improvement:

  Reduced Setup Costs: DFMPro identified features that led to additional setups and therefore increased set-up costs.

  In this example, the setup cost was reduced by minor modifications to the design. In the existing design (A), the highlighted features lead to higher setup cost. Two setups were eliminated in the recommended design change (B), which reduced the total costs.

  Reduced Scrap: DFMPro identified several design improvements for effective material utilization and scrap reduction, such as higher buy-fly ratio, non-standard material selection, and higher material removal from standard stock.

  Reduced Tooling, Fixture, and Setup Costs: Non-standard design features were simplified or eliminated without sacrificing the quality or competitive advantage. Part features such as sharp internal corners and flat bottom holes, which had called for expensive and extra processing with 5-axis machining, could be eliminated. In this case, DFMPro compared 3-axis and 5-axis machining and found that 5-axis was not needed for the design.

  In this example, the tooling cost was reduced by changing the design. In the existing design (A), an inaccessible hole feature led to additional processing steps and need for an expensive fixture and setup. DFMPro suggested design modifications where the same functionality was achieved (B) but with lesser cost.

  High Manufacturing Time and Costs: Geometries of certain features and their positioning led to slower machining and extra material removal.

  Here, machining cost is reduced by improving the design. In the existing design (A), the side faces of the pocket make an angle less than 90 degrees with the bottom face. Machining these kinds of features requires extra time, increasing the cost. In the optimized design (B), side faces of the pocket are normal to base face, which simplifies machining and reduces machining cost.