Designing the Assembly Capability Assessment Model for Thai Wooden Furniture

Khanthamat Choodoungkiattikun; Uttapol Smutkupt

doi:10.56225/ijgoia.v1i4.104

Authors

Khanthamat Choodoungkiattikun Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Uttapol Smutkupt Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56225/ijgoia.v1i4.104

Keywords:

assembly criteria, assembly sequence, Analytic Hierarchy Process, assembly chart

Abstract

There are many aspects to consider the good assembly model for Thai wooden furniture. The main idea is the assembly can be made in difference ways. As a result, the easy to assemble means the efficiency to produce. The way how to make an assembly need to be considers. The assembly assessment model is evaluated from the assembly’s method, the assembly’s point, the assembly’s direction, the assembly’s difficulty and the assembly’s motion and time. All these assembly criteria needed to be set to make the assembly easier. Also, part’s size and weight and part’s direction can affect the result of the assembly. With these assembly criteria, Thai’s wooden furniture experts are choosing to select sub-criteria and compare all sub-criteria. Then, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to calculate the weight of each sub-criterion. With the weight of all sub-criteria when the assessors evaluate the way the assembly makes, the overall score is calculated. The higher overall score means a good assembly model. The second idea is because the assembly can be adjustable and changeable, therefore the assembly’s sequence needed to be considered. The sequence assessment model is developed to calculate the assembly time. The sequence assessment model will use assembly relationship chart and AND/OR graph to set up all the assembly sequence from the beginning to the finished furniture. The smaller assembly time shows the good assembly.

References

Alkan, B., Vera, D., Ahmad, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). A Method to Assess Assembly Complexity of Industrial Products in Early Design Phase. IEEE Access, 6, 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2777406

Beiter, K. A., Cheldelin, B., & Ishii, K. (2000). Assembly Quality Method: A Tool in Aid of Product Strategy, Design, and Process Improvements. Volume 3: 5th Design for Manufacturing Conference, 35135, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2000/DFM-14020

Boothroyd, G. (1994). Product design for manufacture and assembly. Computer-Aided Design, 26(7), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(94)90082-5

Decharat, S. (2014). Hippuric Acid Levels in Paint Workers at Steel Furniture Manufacturers in Thailand. Safety and Health at Work, 5(4), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2014.07.006

Falck, A.-C., Örtengren, R., Rosenqvist, M., & Söderberg, R. (2016). Criteria for Assessment of Basic Manual Assembly Complexity. Procedia CIRP, 44, 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.152

Leaney, P. G., & Wittenberg, G. (1992). Design for assembling: The evaluation methods of Hitachi, Boothroyd and Lucas. In Assembly Automation. MCB UP Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb004359

Purnomo Safaa, Y., Utomo Dwi Hatmoko, J., & Purwanggono, B. (2019). Evaluation of the use of prefabricated bridge elements with Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) criteria. MATEC Web of Conferences, 270, 05006. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201927005006

Supadarattanawong, S., & Rodkwan, S. (2006). An investigation of the optimal cutting conditions in Parawood (Heavea Brasiliensis) machining process on a CNC wood router. Agriculture and Natural Resources, 40(5), 311–319.

Wherry, F. F. (2006). The social sources of authenticity in global handicraft markets: Evidence from northern Thailand. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540506060867

Zakaria, M. N. Bin. (2009). Design for assembly and application using Hitachi assemblability evaluation method. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang.