6

Six Sigma Project

Organization Name UCAL FUEL SYSTEMS LIMITED
Plant Location PONDICHERRY (PLANT 2)
Name of the Black Belt S J Vasudevan
Team Members S Nagarajan
E Sivakumar
K Subramanian
Kumar & Udhayakumar
Date of Start 20.09.2007

Slide number: 1
6

D
Define DEFINE
M&A
Measure &
MEASURE & ANALYSE
Analyse

I
Improve
IMPROVE

C
Control
CONTROL

Slide number: 2
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition

Problem Statement
2 Wheeler Carburetor Piston Valve Undersize/Variation in OD after Grinding operation

Part number selected for study

832-14025

Other similar part numbers having the problem

NIL

Process stages where the Problem is detected

After Grinding Final Inspection

Current average rejection for last 6 months

1.5%

Maximum and Minimum rejection in last 6 months

Maximum rejection in a month - 2.1% (Mar 2007)
Minimum rejection in a month - 1.52% (July 2007)

Slide number: 3
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Number of lines/machines used for processing
Lines 1 Machine Cylindrical Grinding M/c

Objective of the Project

To reduce OD undersize 2W Piston Valve by 80%
Annual Savings in Rs. Lakhs if the defect is made zero and
horizontally deployed to other part numbers

Rs 1.05 Lakhs / Annum

Response
Variable

Specification (if the response is variable)

13.918mm ~ 13.932mm After Grinding

Slide number: 4
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Process Mapping

Blank Pre-finished Cut-Away Operation

Slitting Operation - I Slitting Operation - II
from Stores

Final Inspection & Dispatch OD Grinding

to Anodising Number Marking Window Operation
Cylindrical

Slide number: 5
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
Project Planning
Sept07 Oct07 Nov07
Phase
W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
Define

Measure &
Analyze

Improve

Control

Planned Actual
Planned Start Actual start
Phases Completion completion Status
date date
date date

Define 20.09.2007 25.09.2007 20.09.2007 21.09.2007 Completed

Measure &
27.09.2007 15.10.2007 28.09.2007 20.10.2007 Completed
Analyze

Improve 16.10.2007 25.10.2007 22.10.2007 22.10.2007 Completed

Control 26.10.2007 10.11.2007 03.11.2007 On-Going

Slide number: 6
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition

Photograph of defect part

Slide number: 7
6
PROCESSING MACHINE

Slide number: 8
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition

Rejection Trend

Upto 20th Oct07

Slide number: 9
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation
Number of pieces rejected last month 320 Nos.
(for the part number identified for
study)
Number of pieces scrapped last month ----
Number of pieces reworked last month 320 Nos.
Scrap cost/piece ----
Rework cost/piece Rs 26.5 / Piece
Total scrap cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last -----
month
Total rework cost(Rs. Lakhs) for last Rs 8480
month
Total Rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last -----
month
Extrapolated Total rejection cost (Rs. Rs 1.01 Lakhs
Lakhs) for one year

Note: Rejection should include both rework and scrap

Slide number: 10
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition

Suspected Sources of Variation for the Problem statement (SSVs)

(Ist level SSV)

1. Input Material
(a) Overall Height
(b) Chamfer Angle ID Top
(c) Chamfer Angle ID Bottom
(d) ID Top
(e) ID Bottom

2. Machining process

(a) OD Grinding Process

Transfer the above SSVs to the next slide, write the tools you have used in the column and identify which tool has been used for which
cause. Also write the name of the tool in the Legend

Slide number: 11
6
Phase 1- Problem Definition
SSVs

1. Overall Height
2. Chamfer ID Top
3. Chamfer ID Bottom
4. ID Top
5. ID Bottom
6. Machining Process

Slide number: 12
6

D
Define DEFINE
M&A
Measure &
MEASURE & ANALYSE
Analyse

I
Improve
IMPROVE

C
Control
CONTROL

Slide number: 13
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

Analysis # 1

Objective:
To Reduce OD Variation and Under Size in 2-Wheeler Piston
Valve

Technique/Tool used:
- Paired Comparison
- Multi Vari Analysis

Slide number: 14
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze
PAIRED COMPARISON SSV#1

Total Length

Since TC > 6
This SSV is one of the Causes

Slide number: 15
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze
PAIRED COMPARISON SSV#2

ID Top Side

Since TC > 6
This SSV is one of the Causes

Slide number: 16
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze
PAIRED COMPARISON SSV#3

ID Bottom Side

Since TC > 6
This SSV is one of the Causes

Slide number: 17
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze
PAIRED COMPARISON SSV#4

ID Chamfer Angle Top Side

Since TC < 6
This SSV is not one of the Cause

Slide number: 18
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze
PAIRED COMPARISON SSV#1

ID Chamfer Angle Bottom Side

Since TC < 6
This SSV is not one of the Cause

Slide number: 19
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

Total Analysis summary

Cause(s) identified for the problem:

Total Length 27.5 mm
ID Top Side 3.15mm
ID Bottom Side 12.6mm

Hence Revised Spec. is arrived and taken as

Better Condition.

Slide number: 20
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

B Vs C

Sample Size : 6B , 6C

Slide number: 21
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

All the Total

Count was
Found to be < 6
And hence the
Causes are not
validated

Slide number: 22
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

In B Vs C , The Causes are not Validated.

and hence the Problem is further analyzed through
Multi Vari Analysis

Slide number: 23
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

MULTI VARI ANALYSIS

Type of Streams & No. of Streams

Mandrel I

Top Middle Bottom

Slide number: 24
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

Multi Vari Analysis

is done with
different time blocks

Slide number: 25
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

Variance Components

Bottom Variation Source Var Comp. % of Total StDev

Is High hence further Time 0.000 32.65 0.003

Analysis is done Position 0.000 39.21 0.003
On Why Bottom Variation is High. Part 0.000 28.14 0.003
Total 0.000 0.005
Slide number: 26
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

The Expansion
Was even of around
60 microns before & After
Grinding & Hence
Clamp force
To be further studied.

As per E-mail Interaction

-With Mr Ram , this
Was found out with the data.

Slide number: 27
6
Phase 2- Measure and Analyze

Head Stock mandrel Spring on the Tail Stock

Mandrel

Component

Expansion near the Head Stock

Mandrel due to load from Tail
Stock Mandrel

The Spring being assembled on the Tail Stock Mandrel

Exerts pressure and making the Piston to Bulge
On the bottom Side.

Hence Different configuration Spring is obtained from

Spring manufacturer and Trials were done.

Slide number: 28
6

D
Define DEFINE
M&A
Measure &
MEASURE & ANALYSE
Analyse

I
Improve
IMPROVE

C
Control
CONTROL

Slide number: 29
6
Phase 3 - Improve

Validation of the Root cause(s)

Tool used: B vs C
Data : Refer Next Slide

Conclusion: Clamping Force is

the Main Cause.

Slide number: 30
6
Phase 3 - Improve
Validation data for Root cause(s)

Tool Used : B Vs C

Better Current

With
With New
Details Existing
Spring
Spring
Sample Size 6B 6C

Slide number: 31
6
Phase 3 - Improve
Analysis of Data for Validation

Slide number: 32
6

Phase 3 Improve Actions Summary

No Root cause(s) Actions Planned Planned Resp Actual Status
Completion date completion
date
1 Machine Clamp Force Spring Change to Lower Force 26.10.2007 SJV/ 26.10.2007 Comp.
ES
Alignment Check Head Stock 26.10.2007 SJV/ 26.10.2007 Comp.
~ Tail Stock ES
Spindle Run-out Check 26.10.2007 SJV/ 26.10.2007 Comp.
ES

Slide number: 33
6

Phase 3 Improve
Photograph of actions

CURRENT BETTER
Wire Dia : 4.00 mm Wire Dia : 3.60 mm
Spring Constant : 1.02 Kg/mm Spring Constant: 0.65Kg/mm

Slide number: 34
6

D
Define DEFINE
M&A
Measure &
MEASURE & ANALYSE
Analyse

I
Improve
IMPROVE

C
Control
CONTROL

Slide number: 35
6
Phase 4 Control Phase

No Root cause Variation Type of control Status of implementation

analysis done method decided
1 Machine Clamp Design YES X-Bar & R Implemented
Chart

6 Sigma = 0.0083 < 75% Tolerance (14 Microns)

And Hence X-Bar & R-Chart is Decided.

Slide number: 36
6
Phase 4- Control

Project Summary

Number of drill downs (funneling) done to reach the root

cause(s): 3 Drill Downs
Number of predominant root cause(s) identified:
Machine Clamp Force
Time in months for completing the project:
1.5 Months
Tools/Techniques used:
Paired Comparison , B Vs C & Multi Vari Analysis
Slide number: 37
6
Phase 4 - Control

Tangible Benefits derived through the project

1. Overall scrap (Re-work) reduced from ~ 15000 ppm to 2.5 ppm

2. Estimated cost benefits is Rs. 1.05 Lakhs per year.

Intangible benefits derived through the project

Time Saving for Seggregation.

1 Man Power Saving
Total Processing Time Reduced

Slide number: 38
6

THANK YOU

Slide number: 39