Six Sigma Project

6s Project
Measure & Analyze

Define
Improve Control
1
6
Six Sigma Project

Project Number SEL/QA/2006-001
Plant SHOWA ENGG.LTD
Name of the Black Belt Mr.S.DORAISWAMY
Team Members Mr.C.SUKUMAR
Mr.D.PONNUVEL
Mr.V.VADIVELU
Mr.A.NANDHAKUMAR
Date of Start 03.07.2006
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
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
Process Mapping Rejection occurring
stage
Opn. 30 - Pin Hole

Input Material Opn. 10 - Disc Milling Opn. 20 - Lug Milling
Casting M/C : SPM Milling M/C : Cincinnati
Drilling
Milling M/C : Systec
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
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
Improve 07.08.2006 26.08.2006 10.08.2006 05.09.2006 Completed
Control 28.08.2006 09.09.2006 08.09.2006 06.10.2006 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
10 DISC MILLING 1.HARDNESS 1.DISC MILLING RADIUS BP 1.SPEED
LOADING 2.CASTING DIMENSION 2.RADIUS DEPTH BP 2.FEED
( TOOLING LOCATION W.R.TO 3.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS BP 3.COOLANT FLOW
CENTER OF CASTING ) 4.CLAMPING PRESSURE
5.TABLE MOVEMENT
6.LOCATING PIN IN FIXTURE
7.BUTTING THE CASTING BY
OPERATOR
8.SETTING DIMENSION FOR RADIUS
MILLING,RADIUS DEPTH AND
CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS
20 LUG MILLING CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1.FLANGE THICK NESS BP 1.SPEED
LOADING 2.DIMN. 11.5 MIN. FROM HOLE CENTER BP 2.FEED
3.DIMN 24.20 / 23.80 MM FROM "V" FACE BP 3.SPINDLE AXIAL AND RADIAL
PLAY
30 PIN HOLE 1.CASTING DIMENSION 1.PIN HOLE DIAMETER BP 1.SPEED
DRILLING ( SYMMETRICITY,CAVITY TO 2.PIN HOLE POSITION BP 2.FEED
LOADING CAVITY,CENTER SHIFT OF 3.WALL THICKNESS BP 3.COMPONENT BUTTING LOCATION
RADIUS ) 4.CLAMPING PRESSURE
2.RADIUD DEPTH
3.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS

11
Process
FMEA
12
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)
DISC MILLING 1.DISC MILLING 1.HARDNESS 1 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL
RADIUS AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
OVERSIZE SAMPLING PLAN
UNDERSIZE ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
2.RADIUS DEPTH
OVERSIZE 2.CASTING DIMENSION NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL
UNDERSIZE ( TOOLING LOCATION W.R AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
TO CENTER OF CASTING ) SAMPLING PLAN
3.CENTER SHIFT ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
OF RADIUS RESP : INSPECTOR
OVERSIZE
UNDERSIZE 3.BUTTING THE CASTING NIL POKA - YOKE ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
BY OPERATOR PROVIDED PRE-DESPATCH
INSPECTION
AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
SAMPLING PLAN
( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
4.TABLE MOVEMENT NIL IT IS IN PM CHECK NIL
LIST
13
Process FMEA
LUG FLANGE 1.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1 PROCESS CONTROL NIL ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
MILLING THICKNESS CHART PRE-DESPATCH
VARIATION CHECK 1 NO/HOUR INSPECTION
RESP: OPERATOR AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
SAMPLING PLAN
INSPECTOR
2.SPINDLE AXIAL AND NIL ADDEED IN THE
RADIAL PLAY PM CHECK LIST
14
Process FMEA
PIN HOLE WALL 1.CASTING DIMENSION 4 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL 6

DRILLING THICKNESS ( SYMMETRICITY,
UNDERSIZE CAVITY TO CAVITY &
BOSS DIAMETER )
2.RADIUS DEPTH PROCESS CONTROL NIL 100% IN FINAL AREA 5 20

CHART USING GAUGE
CHECK 1 NO/HOUR ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA
RESP : INSPECTOR PRE-DESPATCH
INSPECTION
3.CENTER SHIFT OF PROCESS CONTROL NIL AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
RADIUS CHART SAMPLING PLAN
CHECK 1 NO/HOUR ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR RESP : INSPECTOR
15
Calibration
16
Variation due to
Instrument
17
Data Collection
1. Instrument Selected : Vernier Caliper

2. Instrument Number : SM 0200
3. Least Count : 0.01 mm
4. No. of Samples : 5 Nos
5. No. of Appraiser :3
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
Master Error = 0.01 microns = 0.00001 mm

Average = 20.008
Error = Actual Value Master Value
Error = 20.008 20.000
Error = 0.008
19
Bias Estimation
Standard Deviation ( s ) = 0.008
Standard Deviation of Averages ( s (X bar) ) = s / Sqrt n
= 0.008 / Sqrt 5
= 0.008 / 2.236
= 0.0036
t value for 5 data = 2.7764
Random Uncertainty = t * (s (X bar))

= 2.7764 * 0.0036
= 0.009995
20
Bias Estimation
System Uncertainty
Total Uncertainty = Sqrt( (RU)2 + (SU)2 )
= Sqrt( (0.009995)2 + (0.00001)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 lies between the 2 limits. Hence the Error is 0.

21
Conclusion for Uncertainty
Calculate TU/Tolerance % = 0.0099 / 1 * 100
= 0.99 %
0.99 % is < 25%

So the Uncertainty is Acceptable
Bias is 0
Uncertainty percentage is < 25%
Hence this Instrument can be used for our

project.
22
Linearity Estimation
Method-2 : Graphical Method
Following is the data collected after calibration
Master Slip Gauge Instrument Vernier Caliper

Master value 20 60 90 120 140
Error 0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00004 0.00003
1 20.01 60.02 89.99 120.02 140.00
2 20.00 59.99 90.01 120.00 140.00
3 20.00 60.02 90.02 120.01 139.98
4 20.01 60.01 90.01 120.00 139.99
5 20.02 60.02 90.00 120.00 139.99
Average 20.008 60.012 90.006 120.006 139.992
Error 0.008 0.012 0.006 0.006 - 0.008
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
0 lies between the highest and lowest point. So it is Linear

24
Gauge R&R
Study
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
S.Ganesh T1 12.98 12.94 12.92 12.94 12.94

Kumar T2 12.90 13.03 12.96 12.99 12.92
T1 12.97 13.00 12.96 12.99 12.97
V.Vadivelu
T2 12.99 13.02 13.02 12.98 12.99
S.Doraisamy 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01
S.Ganesh Kumar 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.02
V.Vadivelu 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02
Maximum Range = 0.09

0.55
R =
15
R= 0.037
26
To check the Consistency of the range
UCL = D4*R
UCL = 3.267*0.037
UCL = 0.121
LCL = 0
With in person Variation = 0.09
UCL is > With in person Variation

So It is Consistent
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
V.Vadivelu 12.980 13.010 12.990 12.985 12.980 12.989
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
Person to Person Variation + With in person variation 0.052 0.108

Person to Person Variation only
Total R&R
To find Reproducibility (Person to Person Variation) we have to

remove Variation with in person from this
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

Person to Person Variation only 0.044 0.105
Total R&R
31
Actual R&R
= Sqrt((Repeatability)2 + (Reproducibility)2)
= Sqrt((0.090)2 + (0.044)2)
= 0.100
Estimating R&R
= Sqrt((Repeatability)2 + (Reproducibility)2)
= Sqrt((0.077)2 + (0.105)2)
= 0.130
Actual Estimation

Person to Person Variation only 0.044 0.105
Total R&R 0.100 0.130
At 99% Confidence level 32
Calculating R&R / Tolerance%
Calculated R&R/Tolerance * 100 = 0.130 / 1*100
= 13 %
Calculating R&R / Part to Part Variation%
Taking s from my project

s = 0.082
5.15s = 5.15*0.082
= 0.4223
R&R/Part to Part Variation = 0.130 / 0.4223

= 30.8 %
Since R&R/Part to Part Variation is > 30%. We cannot use this
Instrument for Data Collection in our Project.
We allowed a deviation to our self to use this for data collection
since the deviation is too small.
33
Pareto (Based on last 6 months data)
HOUSING PARETO CHART FOR
THE MONTH OF JAN'06 TO JUNE'06 ( SIX MONTHS)
180 163 120%

98% 100%
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
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation
Number of pieces rejected last month

34 ( June06)
(for the part number identified for study)
Number of pieces scrapped last month 34
Number of pieces reworked last month _
Scrap cost/piece 298
Rework cost/piece _
Total scrap cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last
Rs 10,132
month
Total rework cost(Rs. Lakhs) for last
_
month
Total Rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last
Rs 10,132
month
Extrapolated Total rejection cost (Rs.
Rs : 1,21,584
Lakhs) for one year
Horizontal Deployment N.A
35
Listing Down Suspected Sources of Variations
Cavity to cavity variation

Dia. of the bosses
Symmetricity of the bosses
Radius depth in SPM
Milling
Man Input Material
Loading variation in Center Shift of Radius
pin hole operation
Pin hole less wall

thickness
Process (Pin hole drilling) Machine Radial play in Milling &

Systec machines
Clamping variation in Pin hoe operation
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
2.Operator 6.Loading Variation in pin hole operation
3.Process 7.Clamping in Pin hole operation
4.Machine 8.Spindle Runout in Milling and Systec Machine
37
The following SSVs are Constant and Hence are not considered for
further study for the Y at this Stage
1.Loading - Mistake Proof Arrangement

(Both in previous operation & in problem generated operation)
2.Clamping - Constant
3.Spindle Runout in Systec machine - Constant
38
Suspected Sources of Variation (SSVs) for the Problem statement
1st level SSVs
1. Input Material
Casting Related
1.Cavity to Cavity Variation
2.Boss diameter
Previous (Earlier) operation Related

1.Radius Milling depth
2.Center shift of radius
2. SSVs are Nil in the Process (Drilling Operation) at which Y is created
ALL THE ABOVE SSVs ARE VARIABLES
39
Current
SSVs
Specification
Boss diameter 20.0 + 0.60
Input Material Cavity number 7,8,9 & 10
Symmetricity 26.50 + 0.60
Radius depth 133.70 + 0.30

Previous Operation
related
Center shift of radius 48.50 / 47.50
Response (Hole ) Y = Wall thickness 4.80 mm to 5.80 mm
40
Problem Statement
20+0.6 (Boss dia)

Cavity Number
4.8 mm to 5.8 mm.

(Wall thickness)
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
Root Cause = X Response = Y

Suspected Source Machine Generating Machine
44
DOE Tool Selection
The identified SSVs are Measurable on both Good and Bad
components and are Input related.
Hence DOE Tool PAIRED COMPARISON was selected.
Y= f(x)
X = SSVs
Y = Response Input Material Parameters
= Wall Thickness 1.Cavity to Cavity
2.Boss
4.Radius Depth
5.Center Shift in Radius
45
Measurement
46
Data Collection
8 Good parts (Best of Best) and 8 Bad parts (Worst of Worst)

based on Wall thickness (Response) were selected for study.
WOW parts were collected from already rejected lot as the

current rejection rate for this defect is 0.11% and need to
wait 8 to 9 thousand numbers (Which is 10 days
production) to get 8 Bad components. BOB parts were
collected from a shifts production Quantity.
The parts were marked as B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6B7 & B8

W1,W2,W3,W4,W5,W6,W7& W8
47
Data Collection
Earlier Process Related
Input Material SSVs (Casting Related) Specification
(Machining Related)
S.No Boss Boss

Cavity Radius Depth Center shift of
Response Dia - A Dia - B Symmetricity Response
No 133.70.3mm Radius
200.6mm 200.6 mm
B1 GOOD 7 21.12 21.38 0.70 133.67 47.82 5.57

B2 GOOD 8 21.00 20.88 0.55 133.75 48.32 5.58
B3 GOOD 9 20.98 21.17 0.60 133.62 48.10 6.00
B4 GOOD 9 20.80 20.80 0.80 133.80 48.00 5.57
B5 GOOD 10 21.90 21.00 0.60 133.72 47.80 5.90
B6 GOOD 10 20.97 20.90 0.50 133.55 48.20 5.80
B7 GOOD 8 21.80 21.00 0.80 133.66 48.37 5.70
B8 GOOD 9 20.80 20.80 0.50 133.70 48.20 6.00
W1 BAD 7 21.37 22.00 1.50 133.90 47.88 4.78
W2 BAD 7 21.37 21.33 1.35 134.13 47.70 4.70
W3 BAD 7 20.84 20.90 0.78 133.70 48.17 4.70
W4 BAD 7 21.30 21.33 1.10 134.21 47.95 4.75
W5 BAD 8 20.85 20.80 0.70 134.15 47.45 4.79
W6 BAD 10 20.80 20.80 1.12 134.02 47.80 4.78
W7 BAD 7 20.80 21.00 0.80 133.95 47.50 4.57
W8 BAD 7 20.88 21.40 0.70 134.07 47.75 4.76
48
Analysis
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.
2nd level SSVs

SSVs remains after 1st level funneling
1.Symmetricity
2.Radius Depth
1.Symmetricity
3.Center Shift 2.Radius Depth
3.Center Shift
Proceeding further to find whether they are the root causes

52
Analysis Step2
SSV1 : Symmetricity
Arranging values in Ascending order
Sl. No Symmetricity Response
1 0.50 G
2 0.50 G
3 0.55 G
4 0.60 G
5 0.60 G
6 0.70 G Top Line
7 0.70 B
8 0.70 B
9 0.78 B Top count = 51/2
10 0.80 B Bottom Count = 4
11 0.80 G
12 0.80 G Bottom Line Total Count = 91/2
13 1.10 B
14 1.12 B Total Count is > 6.Hence this SSV is one
15 1.35 B of the root causes for the response at 95%
16 1.50 B confidence level
53
Analysis Step2
SSV2 : Radius Depth
Sl. No Radius depth Response
1 133.55 G
2 133.62 G
3 133.66 G
4 133.67 G
5 133.70 G Top Line
6 133.70 B
7 133.72 G
8 133.75 G
9 133.80 G Bottom Line
Top count = 41/2
10 133.90 B
11 133.95 B Bottom Count = 7
12 134.02 B Total Count = 111/2
13 134.07 B
14 134.13 B Total Count is > 6.Hence this SSV is one
15 134.15 B of the root causes for the response at 95%
16 134.21 B Confidence level
54
Analysis Step2
SSV3 : Center shift of radius
Sl. No Radius centre Response
1 47.45 B
2 47.45 B
3 47.50 B
4 47.70 B
5 47.75 B Top Line
6 47.80 G
7 47.80 G
8 47.82 B
9 47.88 G Top count =5
10 47.90 B
Bottom Count = 4
11 48.00 G
12 48.10 B Bottom Line Total Count =9
13 48.17 G
14 48.20 G Total Count is > 6.Hence this SSV is one
15 48.32 G of the root causes for the response at 95%
16 48.37 G Confidence level 55
Conclusion
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
Parameter Total Count New Specification
Symmetricity 91/2 < 0.60
Radius Depth 111/2 133.55 / 133.67
Center Shift of Radius 9 48.17 / 48.37
New specifications are based on the sizes from good components.
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
Checking the Contribution of Each Root Cause

for the Response
Since there are 3 Parameters which affect the

Response, I have selected DOE tool
Full Factorial
for checking the contribution.
59
Stage 0: Factorial Analysis
Identification of (+) Setting and (-) Setting
Parameter Unit of (+) (-)

Actual Parameter
Identified As Measurement Setting Setting
A Symmetricity In mm < 0.60 > 1.00
B Radius Depth In mm 133.50 134.05
C Center Shift In mm 48.30 47.60
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
Hence No. of Rows = 2n = 2x2x2 = 8

No. of Columns = n-1 = 8-1 = 7
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
Center Shift 48.30 47.60 G4 5.32 B4 4.75

G5 5.28 B5 4.37
G6 5.28 B6 4.40
Mean 5.36 Mean 4.64
Range 0.26 Range 0.47
First Run Third Run

Good Response Bad Response Good Response Bad Response
G1 5.88 B1 4.24 G1 5.24 B1 4.82
G2 5.35 B2 4.46 G2 5.17 B2 4.72
G3 5.48 B3 5.20 G3 5.18 B3 4.63
G4 5.58 B4 4.38 G4 5.48 B4 4.79
G5 5.48 B5 4.78 G5 5.38 B5 4.93
G6 5.63 B6 4.56 G6 5.50 B6 4.63
Mean 5.56 Mean 4.60 Mean 5.33 Mean 4.75
Range 0.53 Range 0.96 Range 0.33 Range 0.30
62
- - - + - - - + - + + -
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response

1 4.24 1 4.92 1 4.79 1 4.70
2 4.46 2 4.89 2 4.94 2 4.71
3 5.20 3 5.26 3 4.76 3 4.70

4 4.38 4 4.75 4 4.78 4 4.69
5 4.78 5 5.11 5 5.06 5 4.14
6 4.56 6 4.71 6 4.68 6 4.71
- - + + - + - + + + + +
S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response S.No Response

1 5.21 1 5.17 1 4.97 1 5.88
2 5.38 2 5.50 2 5.23 2 5.35
3 5.50 3 5.11 3 4.99 3 5.48
4 5.17 4 5.30 4 5.00 4 5.58
5 5.28 5 5.27 5 5.04 5 5.48
6 5.24 6 5.45 6 4.99 6 5.63

63
Factorial Analysis
A B C Response
Average wall
Symmetricity Radius Depth Center Shift of Radius thickness
- - - 4.60
+ - - 4.94
- + - 4.84
+ + - 4.61
- - + 5.30
+ - + 5.30
- + + 5.03
+ + + 5.56
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
When the Parameter is moved from- to

Parameter Contribution
+,Response Increases or Decreases
A 0.160 Increases
B 0.025 Decreases
C 0.550 Increases
66
Using Minitab
67
Using Minitab
68
Using Minitab
69
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)
Deciding B and C Condition for the Project

The Tool used for finding out the root cause is Paired Comparison.
Hence the B condition are those corresponding to Good category and
The C condition are those corresponding to Bad condition.
Symmentricity Radius Depth Centre shift of Radius
B Condition < 0.60 133.55 / 133.67 48.17 / 48.37
C Condition > 1.00 133.90 / 134.10 47.50 / 47.70
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
1 0.50 G 1 133.55 G 1 47.45 B

2 0.50 G 2 133.62 G 2 47.45 B
3 0.55 G 3 133.66 G 3 47.50 B
4 0.60 G 4 133.67 G 4 47.70 B
5 0.60 G 5 133.70 G Top 5 47.75 B Top
line
6 0.70 G Top 6 133.70 B 6 47.80 G line
line
7 0.70 B 7 133.72 G 7 47.80 G
8 0.70 B 8 133.75 G 8 47.82 B
9 0.78 B 9 133.80 G Bottom 9 47.88 G
line
10 0.80 B 10 133.90 B 10 47.90 B
11 0.80 G 11 133.95 B 11 48.00 G
12 0.80 G Bottom 12 134.02 B 12 48.10 B
line Bottom
13 1.10 B 13 134.07 B 13 48.17 G
line
14 1.12 B 14 134.13 B 14 48.20 G

15 1.35 B 15 134.15 B 15 48.32 G
16 1.50 B 16 134.21 B 16 48.37 G
Top count=51/2 Top count=41/2 Top count=5
Bottom count=4 Bottom count=7 Bottom count=4
Total count=91/2 Total count=111/2 Total count=9
# Since Total Count is less than 16,We need to Machine 6B & 6C 74

Data Collection
Deciding Sample Size
Assumption: There could be some overlap in the responses between
B & C condition as while establishing the root
causes the Total counts were less then 12 for all the 3
SSVs. Hence 6B & 6C were selected
Deciding whether 6B & 6C are to be in Nos. or in Batches

Since the response (Wall thickness) is Variable 6B & 6C will be in Nos.
Deciding what big Y will be Monitored

The big Y is Wall thickness (Response) and is Variable.
This will be Monitored in Actual Values

Deciding Data collection Methodology
Decided to machine 6B and 6C by creating B and C condition alternatively
75
Specifications for Current & Better
condition
Better condition
Characteristic Current condition
(New specification)
Symmentricity < 0.60 > 1.00
Radius Depth 133.55/ 133.67 133.90 / 134.10
Centre shift of Radius 48.17 / 48.37 47.50 / 47.70
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)
S.No Condition Response Y

1 C 4.24
2 C 4.38
3 C 4.46
4 C 4.56
5 C 4.78
6 C 5.20
7 B 5.35
8 B 5.48
9 B 5.48
Top Count =6
10 B 5.58
11 B 5.63 Bottom Count = 6
12 B 5.88 Total Count =12
Since Total Count is >6,the root causes are correct.
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
Radius Depth and Center shift of radius are machining related

dimension. They are set and locked.
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.
Hence we proceeded with the project with Symmetricity up to 1.20 mm.
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
Characteristic Better condition Current condition
Symmentricity A < 0.60 1.00 to 1.20
Radius Depth B 133.55 133.55
Centre shift of Radius - C 48.30 48.30
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
K * Sigma = 2.96 * 0.1813 = 0.54
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
K * Sigma = 2.61 * 0.1813 = 0.473
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
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.
For every batch 30nos are taken at random and

Symmetricity is measured and the lot is accepted if
6s level is < = 75% of Tolerance.
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
Casting Tolerance = 1.20 mm

6s level is lesser than 75% of the Tolerance
Therefore the lot is Accepted

90
Symmetricity Variation
Symmetricity Symmetricity Incoming material
S.No S.No
in mm in mm checked on : 29.09.06
1 0.70 16 0.07
2 0.95 17 0.08
3 0.45 18 0.25
4 0.80 19 0.70
5 0.30 20 0.80
6 0.60 21 0.91
7 1.42 22 0.76
8 0.40 23 0.53
9 0.15 24 0.57
10 0.83 25 0.53
11 0.65 26 0.95
12 0.60 27 0.05
s = 0.3221
13 0.65 28 0.37 6s = 1.9327
14 0.40 29 0.07
15 0.25 30 0.80
Casting Tolerance = 1.20 mm

6s level is greater than 75% of the Tolerance
Therefore the lot is Rejected

91
SSV 2 & 3 Radius Depth and Center Shift of Radius :
These are Setting dimensions in Milling Machine.Hence every
time when setting takes place or tool is changed, the setting will
be controlled based on response . The parameters are locked in
the system and operator cannot change. This can vary only due to
Wear in the Machine parts and Fixture parts. Periodical
Inspection and change of Wear parts have been introduced.
Further a Checking gauge which can give measured value for
SSVs has been provided to check the parameter at periodical
intervals.Currently the parameters are checked once in a day and
whenever fresh setting is done and cutter changed.
92
Radius checking Gauge with Master
Gauge No : S GV 7018
This Gauge is added in the

Control plan no 29320155/6
Page no: 3 of 52
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
Specification Actual Frequency Action

S.No Part Name Characteristics Results
In mm Dimensions in Months Taken
Spring load
Working 1kg on
1kg on
Q1 R.H Side Sliding block Condition of 44mm 3 OK ---
44/46mm
retainer spring length
length
Q2 L.H Side butting pin 1 Height 26.50 0.01 26.505 3 OK ---
Q3 L.H Side butting pin 1 Height 25.50 0.01 25.504 3 OK ---
Q4 Bottom butting pin 1 Height 17.00 0.01 17.005 3 OK ---
95
Check List for Q parts in Machine
Cell Name : Housing Checked on : 04.06.06
Machine : SPM
Operation : Milling
Specification Actual Frequency Action

S.No Part Name Results
In mm Dimensions in Months Taken
1 Bearing Worn-out --- 12 OK ---
2 Spindle axial play 0.02 0.03 mm 0.022 mm 12 OK ---
3 Spindle Radial play 0.02 0.03 mm 0.027mm 12 OK ---
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
1. Measurable and Variable

2. These root causes are generated from the milling process and
not functional parameters.
3. These are generated from discrete production process and not
from a batch process.
4. Can be measured with Non-destructive method.
5. We can detect the parameter immediately if something goes
wrong immediately after generation.
6. Apart from the root causes,Variation Analysis for Response (Y)
I.e., Wall thickness was also decided to be done to find out
whether the estimated Variation is < = 50% i.e.,6s level
Step 2: Identifying Product / Process Stream

In this case only one Stream is there.
98
Step 3: Deciding Sample Size
The following were decided and followed
1. Sample size - 3 Nos
2. Time block chosen - 25
3. Period of Coverage - 4 Hrs
4. Planned events between the Time blocks were captured.
5. Randomized Time intervals were followed.
6. Time blocks were closer because Cycle time is < 3 mins
(Actual is 56 Secs)
Step 4: Collection of Data

Instrument and Dial Gauge with Accuracy which is less than 10%
of Tolerance is used.
Step 5: Multi Vari Analysis

Not done as products are not produced from different Streams
99
Variation Analysis for
Root Causes (X)
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
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16
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
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24
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
Actual time=6:24 Actual time=6:30

T25 T26
S.No Response S.No Response
73 -0.01 76 0.00
74 0.00 77 -0.02 Time between Time blocks in Minutes
75 0.00 78 -0.02
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
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

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
Ave -0.007 Ave -0.007 Ave 0.007 Ave 0.003 Ave -0.013 Ave -0.013 Ave -0.020 Ave -0.037
R 0.04 R 0.02 R 0.02 R 0.07 R 0.03 R 0.03 R 0.02 R 0.03
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24

49 0.00 52 -0.01 55 -0.01 58 -0.08 61 -0.03 64 -0.04 67 0.00 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
Ave 0.000 Ave -0.010 Ave -0.023 Ave -0.047 Ave -0.030 Ave -0.050 Ave -0.023 Ave -0.047
R 0.02 R 0.02 R 0.06 R 0.05 R 0.00 R 0.03 R 0.04 R 0.02
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
Rounding off to the same decimal of data = 0.07 mm
104
Step 7: Checking the Consistency of Part to Part Variation
R Chart for Response

0.08
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
1. All points lie with in the Limits
2. The Stratification level is > 3
3. There are no 7 points continuously increasing
4. There are no 7 points continuously decreasing
5. There are no 7 points in any of the 2 zones
Therefore Part to Part Variation is Consistent
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
Is the Part to Part Variation Consistent YES / NO
If the Part to Part variation is consistent, STOP, do not proceed further. Plan for
DOE
Is the range chart plotted YES / NO
Are the stratification level more than 3 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
Are there 7 consecutive points If yes write causes

Increasing, Decreasing and one side YES / NO ---
of mean range (If possible)
107
Step 9: Estimating Part to Part Variation
s = Estimated Part to Part Variation

s = R/d 2 (d2 is a Constant and depends on Sample size.d2 for 3
samples is 1.693)
= 0.027 / 1.693
= 0.0159 (To be rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
= 0.016
6s = 0.096
Estimated Part to Part Variation Confidential level = 99.73%
108
Step 10 : Normality Check
20
Frequency
10
-0.10 -0.05 0.00

Response
109
Step 11 : Estimating Rejection Percentage
Average 0.027 Z (usl) 4.563
s 0.016 Z (lsl) 7.938
Estimated Rejection
6s 0.096
above USL
0
Estimated Rejection
USL 0.100 0
above LSL
LSL -0.100 Cpk (usl) 1.521
Cpk (lsl) 2.646
110
Response to arrive at Control
method for Y
111
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
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
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
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16
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
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24
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
Time interval in mins
115
Step 6: Checking whether the Part to Part is highest
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
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
T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

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
R 0.28 R 0.20 R 0.15 R 0.13 R 0.15 R 0.09 R 0.16 R 0.34
T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24

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
R 0.29 R 0.24 R 0.09 R 0.12 R 0.32 R 0.09 R 0.13 R 0.07
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
Part to Part variation is highest and hence we proceeded further

116
Calculating Upper Control Limit
R (Average of all Ranges) = 0.139 mm
(Rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
UCL = D4 x R
= 2.575 x 0.139 (D4 Value taken from table for 3 Sample Size)
= 0.3579
Rounding off to the same decimal of data = 0.36 mm
117
Step 7: Checking the Consistency of Part to Part
Variation
R Chart for response

0.4
UCL=0.3574
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
1. All points lie with in the Limits
2. The Stratification level is > 3
3. There are no 7 points continuously increasing
4. There are no 7 points continuously decreasing
5. There are no 7 points in any of the 2 zones
Therefore Part to Part Variation is Consistent
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
Is the Part to Part Variation Consistent YES / NO
If the Part to Part variation is consistent, STOP, do not proceed further. Plan for
DOE
Is the range chart plotted YES / NO
Are the stratification level more than 3 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
Are there 7 consecutive points If yes write causes

Increasing, Decreasing and one side YES / NO ---
of mean range (If possible)
120
Step 9: Estimating Part to Part Variation
s = Estimated Part to Part Variation

s = R/d 2 (d2 is a Constant and depends on Sample size.d2 for 3
samples is 1.693)
= 0.139 / 1.693
= 0.0821 (To be rounded off to one decimal more than the data)
= 0.082
6s = 0.492
Estimated Part to Part Variation Confidential level = 99.73%
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
Average 5.141 Z (usl) 8.037
s 0.082 Z (lsl) 4.159
Estimated Rejection
6s 0.492
above USL
0
Estimated Rejection
USL 5.800 0
above LSL
LSL 4.800 Cpk (usl) 2.679
Cpk (lsl) 1.390
123
Step 12 : Decision on the type of Monitoring
6s Analysis
In our case Tolerance = 1.00 mm
6s = 0.492
6s < Tolerance
Actual Part to Part Variation = 0.34 mm
This is less than 50% of the Tolerance
Hence we decided to use Pre control Limit chart
124
Step 14 : On line Monitoring
Pre control limit for On job
Wall thickness (Response)

Hour
1st Job 2nd Job
1 5.33 5.11
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
2. Control plan updated
3. FMEA updated
4. The new parameters have been programmed and

locked in the system
5. A Setting Gauge has been introduced in milling

operation to check the new parameter settings at
periodical intervals.This has been incorporated in
Control plan and FMEA
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
3.CASTING LEVER DIAL 100% - INSPECTION QA NO SEGREGATE AND
DIMENSION AND FIXTURE KEEP
( TOOLING
LOCATION W.R.TO
CENTER OF
CASTING )
4.HARDNESS 165 - 250 BHN HARDNESS AS PER - INSPECTION QA NO SEGREGATE AND
MEASURING SHOWA KEEP
INSTRUMENT SINGLE
SAMPLING
PLAN
4.BUTTING OF VISUAL 100% - INSPECTION OPERATOR NO SEGREGATE AND
COMPONENT KEEP
5.CLAMPING PRESSURE ONCE PER DAY CHECKING OPERATOR YES INFORM
PRESSURE GAUGE MAINTENANCE
129
Control Plan
Special
Sample Control
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
LUG 1.FLANGE 13.15 / 12.85 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
MILLING THICKNESS 11 GG 5092
2.POSITION FROM 11.5 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
"V" FACE S GD 7091 KEEP
4.CENTER SHIFT OF 47.50 / 48.50 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
RADIUS
130
Control Plan
Special
Sample Control
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
WALL 4.80 / 5.80 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
THICKNESS
1.RADIUS DEPTH CMM 1 PER DA INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
2.CENTER SHIFT OF CMM 1 PER DAY INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
RADIUS
( SYMMENTRICITY )
5.CLAMPING PRESSURE ONCE PER DAY CHECKING OPERATOR YES INFORM
PRESSURE GAUGE MAINTENANCE
131
Control plan &
Process FMEA
after 6 Sigma
132
Process FMEA after 6 Sigma
DISC MILLING 1.DISC MILLING 1.HARDNESS 1 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL
RADIUS AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
OVERSIZE SAMPLING PLAN
UNDERSIZE ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
2.RADIUS DEPTH
OVERSIZE 2.CASTING DIMENSION NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL
UNDERSIZE ( TOOLING LOCATION W.R AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
TO CENTER OF CASTING ) SAMPLING PLAN
3.CENTER SHIFT ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
OF RADIUS RESP : INSPECTOR
OVERSIZE
UNDERSIZE 3.BUTTING THE CASTING NIL POKA - YOKE ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
BY OPERATOR PROVIDED PRE-DESPATCH
INSPECTION
AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
SAMPLING PLAN
RESP : INSPECTOR
4.TABLE MOVEMENT NIL IT IS IN PM CHECK NIL
LIST
133
LUG FLANGE 1.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1 PROCESS CONTROL NIL ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6
MILLING THICKNESS CHART PRE-DESPATCH
VARIATION CHECK 1 NO/HOUR INSPECTION
RESP: OPERATOR AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
SAMPLING PLAN
INSPECTOR
2.SPINDLE AXIAL AND NIL ADDEED IN THE
RADIAL PLAY PM CHECK LIST
134
PIN HOLE WALL 1.CASTING DIMENSION 1 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL 6

DRILLING THICKNESS ( SYMMETRICITY, AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
UNDERSIZE CAVITY TO CAVITY & SAMPLING PLAN
BOSS DIAMETER ) ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RESP : INSPECTOR
2.RADIUS DEPTH PROCESS CONTROL NIL ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 5 5

CHART PRE-DESPATCH
CHECK 1 NO/HOUR INSPECTION
RESP : INSPECTOR AS PER SHOWA SINGLE
SAMPLING PLAN
3.CENTER SHIFT OF PROCESS CONTROL NIL ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )
RADIUS CHART RESP : INSPECTOR
CHECK 1 NO/HOUR
RESP : INSPECTOR
135
Control Plan after 6 Sigma
Special
Sample Control
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 )
4.HARDNESS 165 - 250 BHN HARDNESS AS PER - INSPECTION QA NO SEGREGATE AND
MEASURING SHOWA KEEP
INSTRUMENT SINGLE
SAMPLING
PLAN
136
Special
Sample Control
method
Tolerance Technique
Size Frequency
LUG 1.FLANGE 13.15 / 12.85 MM VERNIER 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
MILLING THICKNESS 11 GG 5092
2.POSITION FROM 11.5 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
"V" FACE S GD 7091 KEEP
4.CENTER SHIFT OF 48.17 / 48.37 MM S GV 7018 GAUGE 1 PER HOUR INSPECTIONOPERATOR YES HOLD,REINSPECT
RADIUS (PROCESS)
137
Special
Sample Control
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
3.CASTING LEVER DIAL AS PER - INSPECTION QA NO SEGREGATE AND
DIMENSION AND FIXTURE SAMPLING KEEP
( SYMMENTRICITY )
138
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
Rejection due to M/H Less Wall thickness
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

Six Sigma Project - Brakes India - Wall Thickness Variation

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Six Sigma Project - Brakes India - Wall Thickness Variation

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

6s Project

Measure & Analyze

Date of Start 03.07.2006

Opn. 30 - Pin Hole

Improve 07.08.2006 26.08.2006 10.08.2006 05.09.2006 Completed

Control 28.08.2006 09.09.2006 08.09.2006 06.10.2006 Completed

10 DISC MILLING 1.HARDNESS 1.DISC MILLING RADIUS BP 1.SPEED

LOADING 2.CASTING DIMENSION 2.RADIUS DEPTH BP 2.FEED

( TOOLING LOCATION W.R.TO 3.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS BP 3.COOLANT FLOW

CENTER OF CASTING ) 4.CLAMPING PRESSURE

6.LOCATING PIN IN FIXTURE

7.BUTTING THE CASTING BY

8.SETTING DIMENSION FOR RADIUS

MILLING,RADIUS DEPTH AND

CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS

20 LUG MILLING CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS 1.FLANGE THICK NESS BP 1.SPEED

LOADING 2.DIMN. 11.5 MIN. FROM HOLE CENTER BP 2.FEED

30 PIN HOLE 1.CASTING DIMENSION 1.PIN HOLE DIAMETER BP 1.SPEED

DRILLING ( SYMMETRICITY,CAVITY TO 2.PIN HOLE POSITION BP 2.FEED

LOADING CAVITY,CENTER SHIFT OF 3.WALL THICKNESS BP 3.COMPONENT BUTTING LOCATION

RADIUS ) 4.CLAMPING PRESSURE

3.CENTER SHIFT OF RADIUS

DISC MILLING 1.DISC MILLING 1.HARDNESS 1 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL

RADIUS AS PER SHOWA SINGLE

OVERSIZE SAMPLING PLAN

UNDERSIZE ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )

OVERSIZE 2.CASTING DIMENSION NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL

UNDERSIZE ( TOOLING LOCATION W.R AS PER SHOWA SINGLE

TO CENTER OF CASTING ) SAMPLING PLAN

3.CENTER SHIFT ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )

OF RADIUS RESP : INSPECTOR

UNDERSIZE 3.BUTTING THE CASTING NIL POKA - YOKE ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA 6 6

BY OPERATOR PROVIDED PRE-DESPATCH

AS PER SHOWA SINGLE

4.TABLE MOVEMENT NIL IT IS IN PM CHECK NIL

MILLING THICKNESS CHART PRE-DESPATCH

VARIATION CHECK 1 NO/HOUR INSPECTION

RESP: OPERATOR AS PER SHOWA SINGLE

2.SPINDLE AXIAL AND NIL ADDEED IN THE

RADIAL PLAY PM CHECK LIST

PIN HOLE WALL 1.CASTING DIMENSION 4 NIL RECEIVING INSPECTION NIL 6

UNDERSIZE CAVITY TO CAVITY &

2.RADIUS DEPTH PROCESS CONTROL NIL 100% IN FINAL AREA 5 20

CHECK 1 NO/HOUR ONCE IN 2 HRS BY QA

RESP : INSPECTOR PRE-DESPATCH

3.CENTER SHIFT OF PROCESS CONTROL NIL AS PER SHOWA SINGLE

RADIUS CHART SAMPLING PLAN

CHECK 1 NO/HOUR ( ACCEPTANCE LEVEL 0 )

RESP : INSPECTOR RESP : INSPECTOR

1. Instrument Selected : Vernier Caliper

Master Error = 0.01 microns = 0.00001 mm

t value for 5 data = 2.7764

Random Uncertainty = t * (s (X bar))

= Sqrt( (0.009995)2 + (0.00001)2 )

0 lies between the 2 limits. Hence the Error is 0.

0.99 % is < 25%

Hence this Instrument can be used for our

Master Slip Gauge Instrument Vernier Caliper

Error 0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00004 0.00003

1 20.01 60.02 89.99 120.02 140.00

2 20.00 59.99 90.01 120.00 140.00

3 20.00 60.02 90.02 120.01 139.98

4 20.01 60.01 90.01 120.00 139.99