Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Improve Control
1
6
2
Caliper Housing
Mounting hole less wall thickness
Approved Rejected
Component Component
3
Define Phase
4
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Number of lines/presses/machines used for processing
One Machine
Objective of the Project
To Reduce this defect to Zero
Annual Savings in Rs. Lakhs if the defect is made zero and horizontally
deployed to other part numbers
Rs.1,21,584
Response
Variable / Attribute
Specification (if the response is variable)
PCD Dimension : 159.0 0.075 , Wall thickness: 4.8 mm to 5.8 mm
Is R&R study required
Yes / No
If R&R study is required, % R&R to tolerance
10%
5
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Problem Statement
Pin hole less wall thickness (Up to 4.2 mm as against 4.8mm to 5.8mm)
Part number selected for study
29320155/56
Other similar part numbers having the problem
Nil
Process stages where the Problem is detected
Opn No : 30
Pin hole drilling.
Current average rejection for last 6 months
27 Nos/month 0.11%
Maximum and Minimum rejection in last 6 months
Maximum rejection in a month - 34 Nos - June06
Minimum rejection in a month - 23 Nos - Mar06
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Process Mapping Rejection occurring
stage
Opn. 40 - Feed & Bleed Opn. 50 - Banjo Milling Opn. 60 - Rough Bore Opn. 70 - Finish Bore
M/C : Stama M/C : Cincinnati Milling M/C : Column Drill M/C :1SC & LMW
7
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Project Planning
Month Month Month
Phase
W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
Define
Measure &
Analyze
Improve
Control
Planned Completed
Planned
Planned Actual start Actual
Phases Completion Status
Start date date completion date
date
Define 03.07.2006 08.07.2006 03.07.2006 07.07.2006 Completed
Measure & Analyze 10.07.2006 05.08.2006 15.07.2006 08.08.2006 Completed
8
Photograph of defect part
`
Pin hole drilling
Casting (Problem operation) Finished component
Min 4.8mm
9
Process flow
10
Process flow diagram
Sq. Incoming source of
Process step Symbol Desired outcomes Type Process characteristics
no variation
5.TABLE MOVEMENT
OPERATOR
3.DIMN 24.20 / 23.80 MM FROM "V" FACE BP 3.SPINDLE AXIAL AND RADIAL
PLAY
2.RADIUD DEPTH
RESP : INSPECTOR
2.RADIUS DEPTH
OVERSIZE
INSPECTION
SAMPLING PLAN
( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
LIST
13
Process FMEA
PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS
FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL CAUSES OCC DET RPN
STEP CONTROL (TYPE - B) CONTROL (TYPE - C) CONTROL (TYPE - A)
LUG FLANGE 1.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1 PROCESS CONTROL NIL ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
SAMPLING PLAN
( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
INSPECTOR
14
Process FMEA
PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS
FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL CAUSES OCC DET RPN
STEP CONTROL (TYPE - B) CONTROL (TYPE - C) CONTROL (TYPE - A)
BOSS DIAMETER )
INSPECTION
15
Calibration
16
Variation due to
Instrument
17
Data Collection
18
Bias Estimation
Following are the readings obtained during calibration of Vernier Caliper
Master Value = 20 mm
Error = 0.00001 mm
S.No Reading
1 20.01
2 20.00
3 20.00
4 20.01
5 20.02
= 0.008 / Sqrt 5
= 0.008 / 2.236
= 0.0036
= 0.009995
20
Bias Estimation
System Uncertainty
Total Uncertainty = Sqrt( (RU)2 + (SU)2 )
= 0.0099
Calculating Upper and Lower Boundary
UL = Error + TU
UL = 0.008 + 0.0099
UL = 0.0179
LL = Error - TU
LL = 0.008 - 0.0099
LL = - 0.0019
= 0.99 %
Bias is 0
Uncertainty percentage is < 25%
22
Linearity Estimation
Method-2 : Graphical Method
Following is the data collected after calibration
All dimensions in mm
23
Graphical Method
0.015
0.010
0.005
Error 0.000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
- 0.005
- 0.010
Master Value
- 0.015
25
Appraiser Trial Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
T1 12.99 13.08 12.96 12.99 12.98
S.Doraisamy
T2 13.07 13.06 12.96 12.96 12.99
R= 0.037
26
To check the Consistency of the range
UCL = D4*R
UCL = 3.267*0.037
UCL = 0.121
LCL = 0
27
Estimating Repeatability ( Variation with in person )
Estimating Standard Deviation
m=5
s = R
d2 g=1
0.037
s = d2 = 2.48
2.48
s = 0.015
Estimating Variation
5.15s = 5.15*0.015
= 0.077 At 99% Confidence level
Actual Estimation
With in person 0.09 0.077
Person to Person Variation + With in person variation
Person to Person Variation only
Total R&R
28
Estimating Person to Person and With in person Variation
Finding out the Range
Mean
S.Doraisamy 13.030 13.070 12.960 12.975 12.985 13.004
S.Ganesh Kumar 12.940 12.985 12.940 12.965 12.930 12.952
Range = 0.052
R= 0.052
Estimating Standard deviation
0.052 m=5
s =
2.48 g=1
s = 0.021 d2 = 2.48
29
Estimate Variation
5.15s = 5.15*0.021
= 0.108 At 99% Confidence level
Actual Estimation
With in person 0.090 0.077
30
Estimating Reproducibility
Person to Person Variation
= Sqrt((AV)2 ((EV)2/(n*r)))
= Sqrt((0.052)2 ((0.090)2/(2*5)))
= 0.044
Estimating Person to Person Variation
= Sqrt((AV)2 ((EV)2/(n*r)))
= Sqrt((0.108)2 ((0.077)2/(2*5)))
= 0.105
Actual Estimation
With in person 0.090 0.077
= 0.100
Estimating R&R
= Sqrt((Repeatability)2 + (Reproducibility)2)
= Sqrt((0.077)2 + (0.105)2)
= 0.130
Actual Estimation
With in person 0.090 0.077
CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE
160 94%
90% 100%
140 85%
80%
75%
120 70% 80%
65%
REJECT QTY
100 59%
77 53%
67 47% 60%
80 40% 58
60 31% 40%
47 45 44 42 41 40 37
21% 36 33
40 29 28
20%
20
0 0%
UT
IFT
P
/S
RK
O/S
P
O/S
/S
GE
GE
SS
GE
STE
ITIO
STE
AG
IA O
IA O
HO
MA
SH
NE
MA
MA
MA
DIA
DIA
AM
OS
CK
NG
RE
AT.
ED
ED
RT
DA
AS
DA
DA
DD
FP
FER
VE
THI
BO
I
O
CH
DW
L
R
OR
NG
E
RE
MIL
DP
BO
OO
AC
EA
TO
ALL
AM
BO
TC
ATI
CE
EA
HR
TF
EE
GR
LUG
OU
CH
.FA
OR
SE
HR
SW
0T
F
PO
AL
RT
0T
TS
DP
LE
RT
M1
TS
LES
SE
PO
HO
M1
PO
OR
FEE
OR
ED
LE
DP
PIN
ED
DP
HO
BLE
BLE
FEE
FEE
PIN
DEFECTS
21% of the Total rejection is due to pin hole less wall Qty produced - 140782 nos.
thickness. Total scrap Qty - 787 nos.
Scrap Percentage - 0.55 %
As per Pareto Pin Hole Less Wall thickness is the Pin hole out of pos. scrap 163nos.
highest rejection. Hence this defect was taken for the Pin hole less wall thickness % - 0.11 %
project.
34
Phase 1- Problem Definition
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation
35
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Listing Down Suspected Sources of Variations
36
Listing Down all SSVs
SSVs
1.Incoming Material 1.Cavity to Cavity Variation
2.Boss diameter
3.Symmetricity of Boss
4.Radius depth in SPM Milling
5.Center shift of radius
37
The following SSVs are Constant and Hence are not considered for
further study for the Y at this Stage
2.Clamping - Constant
3.Spindle Runout in Systec machine - Constant
38
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Suspected Sources of Variation (SSVs) for the Problem statement
1. Input Material
Casting Related
1.Cavity to Cavity Variation
2.Boss diameter
3.Symmetricity of Boss
39
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Current
SSVs
Specification
40
Problem Statement
47.5 / 48.5
133.7 +0.3
Boss - A Boss - B
B with respect to A
Y = Wall thickness
X = Symmetricity,Boss diameter,Cavity to Cavity Variation,Radius depth and center
shift of radius 41
Six Sigma Tools used
Phase Tools
Define 1. Process Mapping
2. Process FMEA
3. Pareto
4. Calibration
5. Gauge R&R Studies
42
Measure and
Analyze Phase
43
Machines
SPM Milling Systec
Y= f(x)
X = SSVs
Y = Response Input Material Parameters
= Wall Thickness 1.Cavity to Cavity
2.Boss
3.Symmetricity of Boss
4.Radius Depth
5.Center Shift in Radius
45
Measurement
46
Data Collection
47
Data Collection
Earlier Process Related
Input Material SSVs (Casting Related) Specification
(Machining Related)
49
Analysis Step1
To find out the root causes among the chosen SSVs
Parameter - 1 Parameter - 2
S.No Response Cavity no S.No Response Boss A Boss B
1 GOOD 7 1 GOOD 20.88 20.80
2 GOOD 8 2 GOOD 20.80 20.80
3 GOOD 9 3 GOOD 20.80 20.88
4 GOOD 9 4 GOOD 20.90 20.90
5 GOOD 10 5 GOOD 20.97 21.00
6 GOOD 10 6 GOOD 20.98 21.10
7 GOOD 8 7 GOOD 21.10 21.17
8 GOOD 9 8 GOOD 21.12 21.38
1 BAD 7 1 BAD 20.80 20.80
2 BAD 7 2 BAD 20.80 20..90
3 BAD 7 3 BAD 20.84 21..90
4 BAD 7 4 BAD 20.85 21.00
5 BAD 8 5 BAD 20.88 21.33
6 BAD 10 6 BAD 21.30 21.33
7 BAD 7 7 BAD 21.37 21.40
8 BAD 7 8 BAD 21.37 22.40
All Cavity numbers are both in good In both Boss s both Max. and Min. sizes are
and bad components. Hence Cavity in Bad Components. Hence these dias are
Variation is not the cause for not the reason for Variation in Y
Variation in Y 50
Analysis Step1
Parameter - 3 Parameter - 4 Parameter - 5
S.No Response Symmetricity Radius S.No Response Center
S.No Response
Depth Shift
1 GOOD 0.50
1 GOOD 133.55 1 GOOD 47.80
2 GOOD 0.50
2 GOOD 133.62 2 GOOD 47.82
3 GOOD 0.55
3 GOOD 133.66 3 GOOD 48.00
4 GOOD 0.60
4 GOOD 133.67 4 GOOD 48.10
5 GOOD 0.60
5 GOOD 133.70 5 GOOD 48.20
6 GOOD 0.70
6 GOOD 133.72 6 GOOD 48.20
7 GOOD 0.80
7 GOOD 133.75 7 GOOD 48.32
8 GOOD 0.80
8 GOOD 133.80 8 GOOD 48.37
1 BAD 0.70
1 BAD 133.70 1 BAD 47.45
2 BAD 0.70
2 BAD 133.90 2 BAD 47.50
3 BAD 0.78
3 BAD 133.95 3 BAD 47.70
4 BAD 0.80
4 BAD 134.02 4 BAD 47.75
5 BAD 1.10 5 BAD 134.07 5 BAD 47.80
6 BAD 1.12 6 BAD 134.13 6 BAD 47.88
7 BAD 1.35 7 BAD 134.15 7 BAD 48.17
8 BAD 1.50 8 BAD 134.21 8 BAD 47.95
Symmetricity Min & Max do not Radius Depth Min & Max do not Center Shift Min & Max are not in
belong to the same category. Nor belong to the same category. Nor the same category. Nor Min or
Min or Max are in both the Min or Max are in both the Max are in both the categories.
categories. Hence this is one of categories. Hence this is one of Hence this is one of the cause.
the causes. the causes.
51
1ST level funneling
CONCLUSION: 1st level funneling Tool
DOE-Paired Comparison
From the above, Cavity to Cavity and
Boss Parameter are not the causes for the 1.Cavity to
response. Cavity
2.Boss diameter
That leaves with Symmetricity,Radius 3.Symmetricity
4.Radius Depth
Depth and Centre shift of Radius are potential 5.Center Shift
causes for the rejection.
1.Symmetricity
2.Radius Depth
1.Symmetricity
3.Center Shift 2.Radius Depth
3.Center Shift
SSV1 = Symmetricity
SSV2 = Radius Depth
SSV3 = Center shift of Radius
Are the root causes for the Wall thickness Variation (Response Y)
56
Fixing Specification
Since all the three parameter have count more than 6,New specifications are
arrived at
57
Proceeding Further
Can we control the new specification to with in the limits arrived at?
Radius depth and Radius shift are set dimension in the Machine. Hence can be
controlled.
Symmetricity is created at Foundry and they have agreed study to restrict
Symmetricity in 0.60 Max.
58
Analysis
Full Factorial
for checking the contribution.
59
Stage 0: Factorial Analysis
Identification of (+) Setting and (-) Setting
These are the parameters identified as root causes. (+) Settings are those which
produced Good components and (-) Settings are those which produced Bad
components.
60
Stage 1: Making of Factorial Table
We have 3 Parameters
A B C
Center Shift Response A*B B*C A*C A*B*C
Symmetricity Radius Depth
of Radius
- - - + + + -
+ - - - + - +
- + - - - + +
+ + - + - - -
- - + + - - +
+ - + - - + -
- + + - + - -
+ + + + + + +
61
Stage 1: Data Collection
Specification for Factorial Analysis Second Run
+ - Good Response Bad Response
G1 5.54 B1 4.84
Symmetricity < 0.60 > 1.00
G2 5.43 B2 4.84
Radius Shift 133.50 134.05
G3 5.32 B3 4.61
62
- - - + - - - + - + + -
- - + + - + - + + + + +
64
To Check Contribution of each Parameter
Response from Collected Data
A B C
Radius Center Shift Response AxB BxC AxC AxBxC
Symmetricity
Depth of Radius
- - - 4.60 + + + -
+ - - 4.94 - + - +
- + - 4.84 - - + +
+ + - 4.61 + - - -
- - + 5.30 + - - +
+ - + 5.30 - - + -
- + + 5.03 - + - -
+ + + 5.56 + + + +
+ - + - + + +
Total
0.64 0.10 2.20 0.04 0.08 0.420 1.10
Contribution + - + - + + +
of parameters 0.16 0.025 0.55 0.01 0.02 0.105 0.275
65
Conclusion
Based on the Factorial Analysis done for the data the Conclusions are given in
the table below
A 0.160 Increases
B 0.025 Decreases
C 0.550 Increases
66
Using Minitab
67
Using Minitab
68
Using Minitab
69
Six Sigma Tools used
Phase Tools
Measure and 1.Paired Comparison
Analyze 2.Full Factorial
70
Improvement
Phase
71
Validating the
Root Causes
72
Selection of DOE Tool
Since Good and Bad parts Can be created alternately,We selected B Vs C Tool
to Validate the root cause(s)
73
Deciding Sample Size
Symmetricity Radius Depth Center shift of Radius
S. No Symmetricity Response S. No Radius Depth Response S. No Center Shift Response
Better condition
Characteristic Current condition
(New specification)
76
Data Collection
Response Y by Response Y by
Example No
B Condition C Condition
1 5.88 4.24
2 5.35 4.46
3 5.48 5.20
4 5.58 4.38
5 5.48 4.78
6 5.63 4.56
Y = 4.80mm to 5.80mm
Note :
1. During drilling operation the B Condition & C Condition were alternated for each piece
2. Since there is no overlap, the root causes are correct
77
Analysis for 6B and 6C
Finding Whether the cause is correct (Another Way)
78
Analysis
Quantifying the amount of Improvement
The Average of B = Xb = 5.57 mm
The Average of C = Xc = 4.60 mm
The Difference between Xb & Xc = Xb-Xc = 0.97 mm
Sigma value of B Values = Sigma B = 0.1813
K Value at 95% CL for 6,6 = 2.96
K * Sigma = 2.96 * 0.1813 = 0.537
( Xb Xc ) >= K * Sigma
0.97 > 0.537
Since Xb Xc is greater K * Sigma.
Improvement has taken place at the assumed C.L of 95%
The Amount of Improvement = Xb - Xc
= 0.97 mm
79
Of the 3 root causes
Symmetricity is Foundry related dimension
During the middle of the Project stage we discussed with Foundry for
maintaining to new specification of Symmetricity to 0.60 max. They said they
need a tolerance of 1.2 mm max. for their process and they will keep trying to
bring it to 0.60 max.
6 Nos were produced with Symmetricity 1.00 to 1.20 mm and the other two
dimensions to New specification.The response is as follows.
80
BOB and WOW Parts specification
81
Data Collection
Response Y by Response Y by C Condition with B
Example No
B Condition Condition data except Symmetricity
1 5.88 4.97
2 5.35 5.23
3 5.48 4.99
4 5.58 5.00
5 5.48 5.04
6 5.63 4.99
Y = 4.80mm to 5.80mm
Note :
1. Since there is no overlap, the root causes are correct
82
Quantifying the amount of Improvement
The Average of B = Xb = 5.57 mm
The Average of C = Xc = 5.04 mm
The Difference between Xb & Xc = Xb-Xc = 0.53 mm
Sigma value of B Values = Sigma B = 0.1813
K Value at 95% CL for 6,6 = 2.96
K * Sigma = 2.96 * 0.1813 = 0.54
( Xb Xc ) >= K * Sigma
0.53 < 0.54
Since Xb Xc is Less than K * Sigma.
Improvement has not taken place at the assumed C.L of 95%
83
Quantifying the amount of Improvement
The Average of B = Xb = 5.57 mm
The Average of C = Xc = 5.04 mm
The Difference between Xb & Xc = Xb-Xc = 0.53 mm
Sigma value of B Values = Sigma B = 0.1813
K Value at 90% CL for 6,6 = 2.61
K * Sigma = 2.61 * 0.1813 = 0.473
( Xb Xc ) >= K * Sigma
0.53 > 0.473
Since Xb Xc is More than K * Sigma.
Improvement has taken place at the assumed C.L of 90%
The Amount of Improvement = Xb - Xc
= 0.53 mm
84
Animation
85
86
Six Sigma Tools used
Phase Tools
Improve 1. B Vs C
87
Control Phase
88
We have Introduced the following Controls for
the SSVs
SSV 1 Symmetricity : Foundry has agreed to study the process and reduce
the variation in Symmetricity to < 0.60. Till then they
will supply castings up to 1.20mm Symmetricity.
However,to ensure the coming castings whether they
are received with in 1.20mm Symmetricity the
following check has been introduced.
89
Symmetricity Variation
Symmetricity Symmetricity Incoming material
S.No S.No
in mm in mm checked on : 27.09.06
1 0.25 16 0.10
2 0.30 17 0.30
3 0.20 18 0.15
4 0.25 19 0.18
5 0.10 20 0.43
6 0.05 21 0.45
7 0.15 22 0.40
8 0.20 23 0.45
9 0.20 24 0.40
10 0.24 25 0.10
11 0.25 26 0.20
12 0.25 27 0.50
s = 0.1364
13 0.05 28 0.52 6s = 0.8181
14 0.45 29 0.30
15 0.20 30 0.10
time when setting takes place or tool is changed, the setting will
the system and operator cannot change. This can vary only due to
92
Radius checking Gauge with Master
Gauge No : S GV 7018
93
Q Parts in the Fixture
94
Check List for Q parts in fixtures
Cell Name : Housing Checked on : 17.08.06
Machine : SPM
Operation : Milling
Spring load
Working 1kg on
1kg on
Q1 R.H Side Sliding block Condition of 44mm 3 OK ---
44/46mm
retainer spring length
length
95
Check List for Q parts in Machine
Cell Name : Housing Checked on : 04.06.06
Machine : SPM
Operation : Milling
X Axis
4 0 - 0.02 mm 0.017 mm 12 OK ---
Repeatability
Z Axis
5 0 - 0.02 mm 0.010 mm 12 OK ---
Repeatability
96
Variation Analysis for Root
Cause and Response
97
Step 1: Identifying Parameters
Radius Depth and Center Shift of Radius are the two root cause
parameters identified for Variation Analysis as they are
100
Variation Analysis for Root Cause (X)
Part Details
Radius
Characteristic Part Number 29320155/6 Gauge Number S GV 7018
Depth
Unit of Part Housing Gauge Radius
MM
Measurement Description Machining Description Gauge
Gauge Least
Target Value Date 08.02.06 0.01 mm
Count
Tolerance 0.20 mm
Gauge R&R
7.98
Study Dates 06.07.06 Value
USL 133.600
& Shift 1st Shift
Any other
LSL 133.400 ----
details
Data Grouping and Sample details
Number of Groups (Number of Time blocks
26
x number of Streams)
Number of Samples in each group (It is
preferable to collect 5 samples continuously
3
from the process so that the inherent
variations are captured)
101
Study taken to check the variation in the Process at randomized time blocks in SPM
Milling for Radius Depth and Center Shift
Actual time=1:30 Actual time=1:35 Actual time=1:44 Actual time=2:00 Actual time=2:10 Actual time=2:20 Actual time=2:28 Actual time=2:36
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
1 0.00 4 -0.01 7 0.00 10 -0.01 13 -0.02 16 -0.01 19 0.01 22 -0.03
2 -0.01 5 0.03 8 0.01 11 0.01 14 0.01 17 -0.03 20 0.00 23 0.00
3 0.00 6 -0.01 9 0.01 12 -0.01 15 -0.01 18 0.00 21 0.01 24 -0.02
Actual time=2:45 Actual time=3:05 Actual time=4:02 Actual time=4:11 Actual time=4:25 Actual time=4:38 Actual time=4:50 Actual time=4:55
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
25 -0.02 28 -0.02 31 0.00 34 0.03 37 -0.03 40 -0.03 43 -0.01 46 -0.04
26 -0.02 29 0.00 32 0.00 35 -0.04 38 0.00 41 0.00 44 -0.03 47 -0.05
27 0.02 30 0.00 33 0.02 36 0.02 39 -0.01 42 -0.01 45 -0.02 48 -0.02
Actual time=5:13 Actual time=5:20 Actual time=5:28 Actual time=5:48 Actual time=5:54 Actual time=6:00 Actual time=6:07 Actual time=6:17
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
49 0.00 52 -0.01 55 -0.01 58 -0.08 61 -0.03 64 -0.04 67 0 70 -0.04
50 0.01 53 0.00 56 0.00 59 -0.03 62 -0.03 65 -0.07 68 -0.04 71 -0.06
51 -0.01 54 -0.02 57 -0.06 60 -0.03 63 -0.03 66 -0.04 69 -0.03 72 -0.04
1) 5 9) 20 17) 7 25) 6
2) 9 10) 57 18) 22
3) 16 11) 9 19) 6
4) 10 12) 14 20) 6
5) 10 13) 13 21) 10
6) 8 14) 12 22) 3
7) 8 15) 5 23) 10
8) 9 16) 19 24) 7
102
Study taken to check the variation in the Process at randomized time blocks in SPM
Milling for Radius Depth and Center Shift
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
S.NoResponse S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
1 0.00 4 -0.01 7 0.00 10 -0.01 13 -0.02 16 -0.01 19 0.01 22 -0.03
2 -0.01 5 0.03 8 0.01 11 0.01 14 0.01 17 -0.03 20 0.00 23 0.00
3 0.00 6 -0.01 9 0.01 12 -0.01 15 -0.01 18 0.00 21 0.01 24 -0.02
Ave -0.003 Ave 0.003 Ave 0.007 Ave -0.003 Ave -0.007 Ave -0.013 Ave 0.007 Ave -0.017
R 0.01 R 0.04 R 0.01 R 0.02 R 0.03 R 0.03 R 0.01 R 0.03
T25 T26
S.NoResponse S.No Response # Part to Part Variation = Max. Value of R = 0.07 mm
73 -0.01 76 0.00
74 0.00 77 -0.02 # Time to Time Variation = Max. Value of Ave. Min. Value of Ave. = 0.057 mm
75 0.00 78 -0.02
Ave -0.003 Ave -0.013
R 0.01 R 0.02
The tolerance is 0.20 mm. Variation 0.07 mm is with in 75% of the Tolerance
103
Calculating Upper Control Limit
R (Average of all Ranges) = 0.027 mm
(Rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
UCL = D4 x R
= 2.575 x 0.027 (D4 Value taken from table for 3 Sample Size)
= 0.0695 mm
104
Step 7: Checking the Consistency of Part to Part Variation
0.07 UCL=0.07030
0.06
Sample Range
0.05
0.04
0.03
R=0.02731
0.02
0.01
0.00 LCL=0
0 10 20
Sample Number
105
Checking the Consistency of Part to Part
Variation
106
Consistency of Part to Part Variation
Checking the Consistency of Part to Part Variation (Step 7)
Average range (R-Bar) (Round off to one Samples D3 D4
0.027
decimal more than the data) 2 0 3.267
3 0 2.575
Upper control limit (UCL) = D4*R-Bar
0.07 4 0 2.282
(Round off to the same decimals as data)
5 0 2.115
Lower control limit (LCL) = D3*R-Bar 0 6 0 2.004
If the Part to Part variation is consistent, STOP, do not proceed further. Plan for
DOE
Is the range chart plotted YES / NO
If the stratification level<=3, Then the Part to Part Variation is very less and
parameter does not require any monitoring. STOP. Do not proceed further
= 0.027 / 1.693
= 0.0159 (To be rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
= 0.016
6s = 0.096
108
Step 10 : Normality Check
20
Frequency
10
109
Step 11 : Estimating Rejection Percentage
Estimated Rejection
6s 0.096
above USL
0
Estimated Rejection
USL 0.100 0
above LSL
110
Variation Analysis for
Response to arrive at Control
method for Y
111
Variation Analysis for
Response (Y)
112
Variation Analysis for Response (Y)
Part Details
Wall
Characteristic Part Number 29320155/6 Gauge Number SM 200
thickness
Unit of Part Housing Gauge Vernier
MM
Measurement Description Machining Description Caliper
Gauge Least
Target Value Date 07.07.06 0.01 mm
Count
Tolerance 1.00 mm
Gauge R&R
13%
Study Dates 07.07.06 Value
USL 5.80 mm
& Shift 1st Shift
Any other
LSL 4.80 mm ----
details
Data Grouping and Sample details
Number of Groups (Number of Time blocks
26
x number of Streams)
Number of Samples in each group (It is
preferable to collect 5 samples continuously
3
from the process so that the inherent
variations are captured)
113
Study taken on Response at randomized time blocks
Actual time=3:05 Actual time=3:17 Actual time=3:26 Actual time=3:38 Actual time=3:48 Actual time=4:04 Actual time=4:11 Actual time=4:21
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
1 5.10 4 5.03 7 5.14 10 5.24 13 5.21 16 5.14 19 5.11 22 5.14
2 5.10 5 5.24 8 5.22 11 5.31 14 5.19 17 5.14 20 5.19 23 5.17
3 5.16 6 5.15 9 5.22 12 5.24 15 5.18 18 5.19 21 5.20 24 5.16
Actual time=4:28 Actual time=4:35 Actual time=4:45 Actual time=4:51 Actual time=5:00 Actual time=5:08 Actual time=5:20 Actual time=5:33
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
25 5.30 28 5.25 31 5.06 34 5.10 37 5.23 40 5.14 43 5.18 46 5.28
26 5.23 29 5.13 32 5.21 35 5.23 38 5.14 41 5.19 44 5.12 47 5.40
27 5.02 30 5.05 33 5.18 36 5.14 39 5.08 42 5.10 45 5.28 48 5.06
Actual time=5:43 Actual time=5:56 Actual time=6:10 Actual time=6:20 Actual time=6:31 Actual time=6:38 Actual time=6:48 Actual time=6:56
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
49 5.21 52 5.17 55 5.03 58 4.97 61 5.03 64 5.08 67 5.24 70 5.04
50 4.92 53 5.15 56 5.00 59 5.03 62 5.10 65 5.17 68 5.11 71 5.09
51 5.18 54 4.93 57 5.09 60 5.09 63 5.35 66 5.10 69 5.21 72 5.02
Time between Time blocks in Minutes
Actual time=7:02 Actual time=7:12 1) 12 8) 5 15) 13 22) 10
T25 T26 2) 9 9) 9 16) 10 23) 8
S.No Response S.No Response 3) 12 10) 10 17) 13 24) 6
73 5.07 76 5.10 4) 10 11) 6 18) 14 25) 10
74 5.04 77 5.11
5) 16 12) 9 19) 10
75 5.08 78 5.01
6) 7 13) 8 20) 11 Total = 247 mins = 4Hrs 7Mins
7) 10 14) 12 21) 7 114
Randomised time block
5.5
5.4
5.3
Response "Y"
5.2
5.1
5.0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
4.9
Event
Just before Time Just after
4.8 event event
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
115
Step 6: Checking whether the Part to Part is highest
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response
1 5.10 4 5.03 7 5.14 10 5.24 13 5.21 16 5.14 19 5.11 22 5.14
2 5.10 5 5.24 8 5.22 11 5.31 14 5.19 17 5.14 20 5.19 23 5.17
3 5.16 6 5.15 9 5.22 12 5.24 15 5.18 18 5.19 21 5.20 24 5.16
Ave 5.12 Ave 5.14 Ave 5.19 Ave 5.26 Ave 5.19 Ave 5.16 Ave 5.17 Ave 5.16
R 0.06 R 0.21 R 0.08 R 0.07 R 0.03 R 0.05 R 0.09 R 0.03
T25 T26
S.No Response S.No Response # Part to Part Variation = Max. Value of R = 0.34
73 5.07 76 5.1
74 5.04 77 5.11
# Time to Time Variation = Max. Value of Ave. Min. Value of Ave. = 0.23
75 5.08 78 5.01
Ave 5.06 Ave 5.07
R 0.04 R 0.10
UCL = D4 x R
= 2.575 x 0.139 (D4 Value taken from table for 3 Sample Size)
= 0.3579
117
Step 7: Checking the Consistency of Part to Part
Variation
0.3
Sample Range
0.2
R=0.1388
0.1
0.0 LCL=0
0 10 20
Sample Number
118
Checking the Consistency of Part to Part Variation
119
Consistency of Part to Part Variation
Checking the Consistency of Part to Part Variation (Step 7)
Average range (R-Bar) (Round off to one Samples D3 D4
0.139
decimal more than the data) 2 0 3.267
3 0 2.575
Upper control limit (UCL) = D4*R-Bar
0.36 4 0 2.282
(Round off to the same decimals as data)
5 0 2.115
Lower control limit (LCL) = D3*R-Bar 0 6 0 2.004
If the Part to Part variation is consistent, STOP, do not proceed further. Plan for
DOE
Is the range chart plotted YES / NO
If the stratification level<=3, Then the Part to Part Variation is very less and
parameter does not require any monitoring. STOP. Do not proceed further
= 0.139 / 1.693
= 0.0821 (To be rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
= 0.082
6s = 0.492
121
Step 10 : Normality Check
15
Frequency
10
4.90 4.95 5.00 5.05 5.10 5.15 5.20 5.25 5.30 5.35 5.40
response
122
Step 11 : Estimating Rejection Percentage
Estimated Rejection
6s 0.492
above USL
0
Estimated Rejection
USL 5.800 0
above LSL
123
Step 12 : Decision on the type of Monitoring
6s Analysis
In our case Tolerance = 1.00 mm
6s = 0.492
6s < Tolerance
124
Step 14 : On line Monitoring
Pre control limit for On job
2 5.41 5.61
3 5.28 5.39
4 5.14 5.26
5 5.09 5.06
6 5.45 5.51
7 5.12 5.25
8 5.47 5.21
125
Step 14 : On line Monitoring
Pre control limit for On job
USL
5.80
5.75
5.70
5.65
5.60
UCL
5.55
5.50
Wall Thickness (Response) in mm
5.45
5.40
5.35
3 4 7
5.30
5.25 1 2 5 6 8
Time interval
5.20
5.15
5.10
LCL
5.05
5.000
4.95
4.90
4.85
LSL
4.80
126
Controls
1. Drawing updated for new specification
3. FMEA updated
127
Control plan
128
Control Plan
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
DISC 1.RADIUS DEPTH 133.7 0.30 MM CMM 1 PER DAY IN SPECTIONIN SPECTOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
MILLIN G
2.CEN TER SHIFT OF 47.50 / 48.50 MM CMM 1 PER AY IN SPECTIONIN SPECTOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
RADIUS
( TOOLING
LOCATION W.R.TO
CENTER OF
CASTING )
INSTRUMENT SINGLE
SAMPLING
PLAN
COMPONENT KEEP
129
Control Plan
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
LUG 1.FLANGE 13.15 / 12.85 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
HOLE CENTER
3.LUG FACE TO 24.20 / 23.80 MM HEIGHT GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
4.CENTER SHIFT OF 47.50 / 48.50 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
RADIUS
130
Control Plan
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
THICKNESS
RADIUS
( SYMMENTRICITY )
131
Control plan &
Process FMEA
after 6 Sigma
132
Process FMEA after 6 Sigma
PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS
FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL CAUSES OCC DET RPN
STEP CONTROL (TYPE - B) CONTROL (TYPE - C) CONTROL (TYPE - A)
RESP : INSPECTOR
2.RADIUS DEPTH
OVERSIZE
INSPECTION
SAMPLING PLAN
( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
LIST
133
Process FMEA after 6 Sigma
PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS
FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL CAUSES OCC DET RPN
STEP CONTROL (TYPE - B) CONTROL (TYPE - C) CONTROL (TYPE - A)
LUG FLANGE 1.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1 PROCESS CONTROL NIL ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
SAMPLING PLAN
( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
INSPECTOR
134
Process FMEA after 6 Sigma
PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS CURRENT PROCESS
FAILURE MODE POTENTIAL CAUSES OCC DET RPN
STEP CONTROL (TYPE - B) CONTROL (TYPE - C) CONTROL (TYPE - A)
RESP : INSPECTOR
SAMPLING PLAN
CHECK 1 NO/HOUR
RESP : INSPECTOR
135
Control Plan after 6 Sigma
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
DISC 1.RADIUS DEPTH 133.55 / 133.67 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR IN SPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
MILLIN G (PROCESS)
2.CEN TER SHIFT OF 48.17 / 48.37 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR IN SPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
RADIUS (PROCESS)
( TOOLING
LOCATION W.R.TO
CENTER OF
CASTING )
INSTRUMENT SINGLE
SAMPLING
PLAN
136
Control Plan after 6 Sigma
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
LUG 1.FLANGE 13.15 / 12.85 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
HOLE CENTER
3.LUG FACE TO 24.20 / 23.80 MM HEIGHT GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
4.CENTER SHIFT OF 48.17 / 48.37 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
RADIUS (PROCESS)
137
Control Plan after 6 Sigma
Characteristics M ethods
Special
Character Product/Process Evaluation/ Reaction Plan
Sample Control
Product Process istic class Specification M easurement Resp. Recording (Y/N)
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
WALL 4.80 / 5.80 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
THICKNESS S GG 7167
1.RADIUS DEPTH S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
2.CENTER SHIFT OF S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REIN SPECT
RADIUS
( SYMMENTRICITY )
138
Six Sigma Tools used
Phase Tools
Control 1. Variation Analysis
2. Pre-Control chart
3. Control plan
139
Benefits
Rejection reduced to Zero
Estimated Cost Saving by Rejection reduction is Rs. 1,21,589 / Annum
8 7 Improvement
7 6 through 6s
Qty in Nos
6
5
5
4 Qty Produced from week 39 week 45
= 39785 Nos
3
2
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
k
k
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
W
W
140
141