black belt project-6sigma-crank_noise

To Reduce the DPSA defects related to Functional parts problem at Road Test

- ADDC Noise

Six Sigma-Black Belt Project

Six Sigma Black Belt :- Pradip Kumar

Define Opportunities

Measure Performance

Analyze Opportunity

Improve Performance

Control Performance

DPSA –Road Test ( Feb - April,13)

Road Test- Defect Distribution

Functional 56%

Leakage 16%

Appearance 16%

Noise 8%

Fitment 3%

Handling 1%

DPSA Defects-Contribution Part Commodities No of defects % Contribution

Functional 160 55.6

Leakage 46 16.0

Appearance 46 16.0

Noise 24 8.3

Fitment 8 2.8

Handling 4 1.4

Total 288 100

Pareto Diagram of Parts problems DPSA –Road Test (Feb-Apr,13)

Project- Defects Pareto

54

46 46

24

8 4

30

%

55

%

80

%

93

%

98

%

10

0%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Functional Leakage Appearance Noise Fitment Handling

Pareto Diagram- Functional Problem

Project Scoping- Parts function problem

106

10 8 7 5 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

66

% 73

% 7

8%

82

%

85

%

88

%

89

%

91

%

92

%

93

%

94

%

95

%

96

%

96

%

97

%

98

%

98

%

99

%

99

%

10

0%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

AD

DC

No

ise

Engi

ne

Clu

tch

Alt

ern

ato

r

Star

ter

Mo

ter

GS

Leve

r

Fro

nt

Ligh

t

Bra

ke P

edal

Gea

r

Pro

cess

AD

DC

Bri

dge

CTF

Flyw

hee

l

Gea

r P

um

p

Inst

rum

ent

Clu

ster

Pre

ssu

re P

ipe

Shif

ter

Ro

d

Stee

rin

g V

alve

Tie

Ro

d

Project Title:- To Reduce the DPSA –Road test due to Bought out Parts related Functional –ADDC Noise problem.

Opportunity Customer Impact Business impact

For the period of Feb,13- April,13- ADDC Noise problem in Road Test -DPSA – 106 Defects

Average PPM-8074

•Customer Satisfaction

•Tractor Delivery on time

•Straight pass at PDI

•DPSA –Road test due to parts poor quality is high.

•Tractor -delivery on time

• Decrease rework Cost

•Minimize Warranty failure

• Increase Final Quality and Quality efficiency

Business Opportunity

Critical to Process Chart

Voice of business Business issues Critical business

requirement Critical for processes

To achieve 60 K for 2012-13

To increase the production/ Quality efficiency of Tractor -Straight Pass.

DPSA –Road Test due parts quality is high

DPSA –Road Test due parts poor Quality of functional problem to be reduce less then 5000PPM.

DPSA- Road Test due to parts poor Quality of ADDC Noise to be Eliminate 100%.

ADDC Noise -DPSA –Road Test ( Feb-April,2013)


3

57

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Feb,2013 March,2013 April,2013 May,2013

ADDC Noise

ADDC Noise -DPSA –Road Test ( Feb-April,2013)


60

32

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S/W 50Hp 241/242

ADDC Noise-Model Wise ( in Nos)

Team Charter

Project Title :To reduce DPSA PPM –Road Test related to Functional Quality problem ( ADDC Noise) on Tractor.

Business Case Opportunity Statement

Decrease the ROAD Test –PPM to support in to achieve the ETB's Mission 60K for FY 2012-13

Problem Statement / Opportunity Statement For the period of Feb-13to Apr-13- Average Tractor reworked for ADDC Noise– 106 tractors out of 13128 tractor produced- Leading to PPM of 8074 PPM. Financial Impact Annual: 424 Tractor/ Annual. Financial impact Annual: 1.80 Lacs Annually(approx).

Goal statement Project scope

Metric Current level

Goal / Target

Target date

Process under improvement: Starts with:Raw material receipt at supplier end Ends with : Final Inspection of Tractor at TMTL. Exclusions: Other then ADDC Noise. Inclusions : ADDC Noise.

DPSA PPM at Road Test due to Parts- ADDC NOISE (functional related problem) PPM:8074. ( 100 % Elimination)

8074 PPM

Zero PPM

31.07.13

Project plan Team Selection

Phase Start End Remarks

Define 25.12.2013 30.01.2013 35days Champion: Mr. R.K. Srivastava

Measure 01.02.2013 20.03.2013 48 Days GB / BB Pradip Kumar

Analyze 21.03.2013 10.05.2013 50 days Member :RQC-Naresh Gupta, Soumya Sahoo, Ravi Mishra, Rajesh Verma, Vijay Laad and J Ansari. LQC/ Prod- Mr Gaurav, Mr P K Nandi. PDD- Mr Malik.

Improve 11.05.2013 20.06.2013 35 Days

Control 21.06.2013 31.07.2013 40 days

SIPOC DIAGRAM . . . Process Name: Part manufacturing process ,Receipt Inspection & Tractor roll out Starting point: Raw material receipt at supplier end End point: Tractor Roll out

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Sub-Vendor Raw Material Major step 1- Receipt of Material

Filled GR document Finance Dept

Vendor Part

Major step -2-Manufacturing of part

Filled SAP Check Sheet Store /Logistic cell

Concern Buyer VPPAP

Major step -3

Dispatch of part to TMTL

Deviation form Production

Store Invoice

Major step 4- Receipt of Material

Rejection tag Farmer

Logistic Cell GR Major step 5 : Unloading material

Identification tag Line QC

Instruments /Gauges Major step 6 : GR handling over to RQC

Line Rejection Note Concern Buyer

Identification tag for location

Major step 7 : Down load of SAP check

Supplier

SAP check sheet/Drawing MS-8-Picking of sample as per the sampling plan &

Inspection of part

MS-9- GR clearance

MS-10- Assembly of Tractor

MS- 11- Tractor roll out

Flow Charts

Qualitative Analysis . . .

Sr. No.

Activity Customer

Value added

Operational

Value added

Non-value

Added

1 Receipt of raw Material Y

2 Part manufacturing Y

3 Dispatch to TMTL Y

4 Receipt of Material with GRN Y

5 Identification of non conformance by stores in case of quantity &Wrong Supply Issue.

Y

6 Receipt of GR from stores, with parts commodities work centres.

Y

7 Selection of each GR , download of SAP check sheet , selection of instruments/gauges & picking of at random sample from lot.

Y

8 Inspections at RQC, for critical parameters for every lot as per sampling plan and as per check sheet.

Y

9 If any Non conformance , defect entered & qty wise, Accordingly Usage decision is given, status wise :-

Y

a) Accepted (SAP CODE---10)

b) Accepted under deviations, (SAP CODE---11)

c) Accepted after Rework &Segregations, (SAP CODE—12),

d) Complete lot size rejection, (SAP CODE---13)

Project Title: To reduce DPSA-Road Test for Functional parts problem

Sr. No.

Activity Customer

Value added

Operational

Value added

Non-value

Added

10 Identification of the Non confirming parts with complete details specified on the SAP Rejection Tag BY RQC

Y

11 All rejected parts to be Identified with RED PAINTS CODIFICATIONS.

Y

12 SAP Rejection Tags generated and identified the defective parts and handed over to Stores, with Nature of defects and decision taken .

Y

13 Material GR is handover to stores, which includes all items under sap code—10/11/12/13

Y

14 Material Assembled at Tractor Assy Line or respective Sub assy. Y

15 Assembly of Tractor Y

17 Tractors Rollout Y

18 Final inspection of tractor at PDI as per defined parameter Y

19 If any Non conformance then send to Sick Area for disposition during inspection

Y

20 Rework disposition of Defective parts / Process at sick area and resend to Final inspection .

Y

21 Re –Inspection of corrected parts /process and send to yard for dispatch with identification of OK sticker.

Y

Qualitative Analysis . . .


Measure Performance

Analyze Opportunity

Improve Performance

Control Performance

ADDC Noise Model

50 HP-5150/5660/485 S/W-380/333 24HP-241/242

Measure part.

Measure part – Validation on Tractor ( ADDC Noisy)-S/W

Dismantled- ADDC Assembly of 333 hydromantic model

( Tractor no 920614113926) for analysis purposes & take

parts swapping of other supplier parts combination for

parts identification contributing in ADDC noise.- Due to multi

source of parts.

Measure – Part Assy in ADDC Hsg- S/W

ADDC Noise during Lift arm- lifted upward and

downward during load test on test jigs and PDI

ADDC test stage.

Measure – Part Assy in ADDC Hsg- S/W

SL.

No. Parts for testing Description of activities

Testing Observation

Change

Result as

per ADDC

Noise

Remarks

1 Test at PDI ADDC load testing carried out at PDI test

rig at 1500 RPM

ADDC noise while

lifting of load Rejected

2 Test on Test Rig at

ADDC Stage ADDC Assembly dismantled & testing

carried out test rig of ADDC stage No Change Rejected

3 Hydraulic shaft Hydraulic shaft Changed from Milestone

to Precise make No Change Rejected Not contribute

4 PRV Assy PRV assembly replaced with new one No Change Rejected Not contribute

5 Position cam &

crank Position cam & crank changed from

linkage assembly No Change Rejected Not contribute

6 DU bush DU bush changed both the side No Change Rejected Not contribute

7 Linkage assembly Linkage assembly replaced with new one No Change Rejected Not contribute

8 Crank with

connecting rod Crank with connecting rod assembly

replaced No noise OK Contribute to Noise

9 Defective crank assembly re-assembled

& tested No Change Rejected Contribute to Noise

10

Once again dawn make crank re-

assembled & tested at Test of ADDC

stage

No noise OK Contribute to Noise

Dismantled- ADDC Assembly of 333 hydromantic model ( Tractor no 920614113926) for analysis

purposes & carried out the following trails to identify the defective parts in ADDC Assy

Measure part –Trial for parts identification

Two numbers of Defective tractors of 380 hydromantic

( 920613113975 & 920613114030 ) dismantled

& defective crank assembly of Osho forge make replaced by

Dawn Motors make crank & tested the tractors at Hydraulic testing

( RPM -1500 )

at PDI stage Both the tractors found OK- No ADDC noise.

Measure part – Conclusion after Validation on Tractor

6 Sigma- Shenin Method

- Identify Good and Bad Tractor as per ADDC Noise .

- validate the tractor as per joint acceptance , weather OK as per noise acceptable OK

as per Final acceptance.(PDI)

- Dismantle both ADDC assy parts and swapping the parts to each other.

- Validate the results after assy for noise.

- Re assemble the Good parts to OK tractor and NG parts to Bad Tractor

for revalidation of results.

Model : 5660

Ok Noise Tractor - 920915124860

NG Noise Tractor - 920915123727

Measure part – Validation on Tractor ( ADDC Noisy)-50 HP


Ok Noise Tractor

- 920915124860 (1)

NG Noise Tractor

- 920915123727 (2)

OK NG

Tractor Status

1 2

Results:

OK Tractor got OK with OK Crank and

Rejected Tractor got Rejected

Results as per Crank Assy

OK NG

OK NG

OK NG

Tractor as per ADDC Noise

No change in Noise Change of Cylinder OK NG

No change in Noise Change of Hydraulic Shaft OK NG

No change in Noise Change of PRV assy OK NG

No change in Noise Change of Position cam

OK NG No change in Noise Change of Linkage assy

Change in Noise Change of Crank Assy

OK become OK and

NG become NG Reassemble of crank assy


- Make comparison report through the layout inspection for each identified critical parameter

for OK and Rejected Tractor Crank.

- Validate the results as per Drawing specification Vs results.

Observation:

NG Crank- Sphere depth found More Spec: 20 +0.15/- 0- Obs: 21.19.

Sphere Diameter 40 - found Over Size up to 41.74mm .

OK Crank- Sphere depth found Ok as per specification ,

Sphere depth found More Spec: 20 +0.15/- 0- Obs: 20.13.

Sphere Diameter 40 - found Over Size up to 40.10mm .

.

Measure – Part Drawing- 50 HP.

Position of Ø 8

wrto Ø40

Sphere

Measure – Part Drawing- S/W

Ishikawa Diagram –ADDC Noise

ADDC Noise during ADDC Testing at

PDI

METHOD MAN

MACHINE MATERIAL

Wrong model part assy.

Lack of skill of Operator

Wrong fitment

Operator unaware

Wrong assy. Crank location not aligned with Shaft Hole

Assy Process sequence not ok

M/c setting wrong

Tool worn out

Tool mark on Sphere

Dent/ damage on sphere

Inner Diameter of sphere having step Hole dia 8 position more then 0.3mm

Sphere dia undersize /over size

Crank- Sphere position Wrong

Split pin not inserted adequetly

Cone Sphere dia oversize Crank- Hole position not on centre line

Cone –hole dia 10 position wrong

Cause-Effect Matrix

SL No Causes Rating

1 Hole dia 8 position more then 0.3mm 9

2 Sphere dia undersize /Over size 9

3 Cone –hole dia 10 position wrong 3

4 Dent/ damage on sphere 1

5 Tool mark on Sphere 1

Scale: 0=None, 1=Low, 3=Moderate, 9=Strong

Gauge R&R for Dial Gauge Process :- Hole Position of Ø8.0 wrto Ø35 Sphere.

Planning

Operators 3 Nos

Dial Gauge LC- 0.01mm

Sample Size 10 Nos

Trials per Operators 30 Nos

Total Trials 90 Nos

MSA Requirement for Hole Position

Gauge R & R

Gauge R & R

Gage R&R

%Contribution

Source VarComp (of Var Comp)

Total Gage R&R 0.0000117 1.75

Repeatability 0.0000117 1.75

Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.00

Operators 0.0000000 0.00

Part-To-Part 0.0006550 98.25

Total Variation 0.0006667 100.00

Process tolerance = 0.15

Study Var %Study Var %Tolerance

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV) (SV/Toler)

Total Gage R&R 0.0034157 0.020494 13.23 13.66

Repeatability 0.0034157 0.020494 13.23 13.66

Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.000000 0.00 0.00

Operators 0.0000000 0.000000 0.00 0.00

Part-To-Part 0.0255930 0.153558 99.12 102.37

Total Variation 0.0258199 0.154919 100.00 103.28

Number of Distinct Categories = 10

Conclusion :

GRR 13.23 %

&

it is acceptable

Prioritized Causes & Measures

Cause Measure

Hole position of Ø 8.0 wrto sphere Ø 40.0- Variation

Hole Position in mm against specification

Crank- 50 Hp

Sl.

No. Y Measure Operational definition

Y1 ADDC should be abnormal Noise free No abnormal Noise through Load test at 1600 Kgf.

Sl.

No. X Measure Operational definition

X1 Crank –Hole Ø 8.0 position wrto Ø 40

sphere –More as per specification.

Hole position of Ø 8.0 hole wrto Sphere Ø40 to be

measured on Dial Height Gauge through defining the

variation between Max reading – min reading on dial

indicator

Operational Definitions . . .

SOP/ Work Instruction- WI- TMTL-RQC-02

Data Measurement Plan

Y Measure

Operation

al

definition

Frequency

of Data

Collection

Sample

size

Method

of Data

collection

When

will data

be

collected

Responsibil

ity for data

collection

Other data that

should be

collected at the

same time

ADDC Noise

during ADDC

load test

No

abnormal

Noise

through

Load test

at 1600

Kgf.

All Noisy

Tractor 30 Nos

ADDC

Load Test

/ History

Card

March,13

Pradip /

Naresh/

Soumya/

Ravi

N/A

X Measure

Operatio

nal

definition

Frequency

of Data

Collection

Sample

size

Method

of Data

collection

When

will data

be

collected

Responsibilit

y for data

collection

Other data that

should be

collected at

the same time

Crank –Hole

Ø 8.0

position wrto

Ø 40 sphere

–More as per

specification.

Hole

position of

Ø 8.0 hole

wrto

Sphere

Ø40 -0.30

Max

All rejected

parts 30 Nos

Inspection

report

March,13

Pradip /

Naresh/

Soumya/

Ravi

N/A

Validation of Xs

S.

No.

Xs identified as important from FMEA / CE

Matrix

Validate

d (Y/N)

Tool

Used

Remarks (attach Minitab

output in later slides & give

slide number reference)

1

Crank –Hole Ø 8.0 position wrto Ø 40


Y 2T test Minitab

Crank –Hole Ø 8.0 position wrto Ø 40 sphere More.

Conclusion : As per p value is close to 0.05, we suspect hole position

more then 0.15 is contributing to noise ,but we need to further investigate

H0 : There is no Abnormal Noise with position within limit.

HA : There is Noise if crank having position more then Specification.

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Hole position, Results

Two-sample T for Hole position

Results N Mean St Dev SE Mean

Noise 2 0.2300 0.0424 0.030

OK 28 0.0929 0.0292 0.0055

Difference = mu (Noise) - mu (OK)

Estimate for difference: 0.1371

95% lower bound for difference: -0.0554

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 4.50

P-Value = 0.070 DF = 1

2 P test for Action effectiveness validation- May,13

Conclusion :P value for two proportion indicate parts improvement ,but

need improvement to remaining cause.

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p

1 106 13000 0.008154

2 10 3000 0.003333

Difference = p (1) - p (2)


95% upper bound for difference: 0.00698367

Test for difference = 0 (vs < 0): Z = 3.67 P-Value = 1.000

Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.999

Validation of NOISE action

Prioritized Causes & Measures

Cause Measure

Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation Sphere Dia 40 mm against specification

Crank-50 HP

Sl.

No. Y Measure Operational definition

Y1 ADDC should be abnormal Noise free No abnormal Noise through Load test at 1600 Kgf.

Sl.

No. X Measure Operational definition

X1 Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation

–More as per specification.

Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation to be measured on Bore gauge

Operational Definitions . . .

Validation of Xs

S.

No.

Xs identified as important from FMEA / CE

Matrix

Validate

d (Y/N)

Tool

Used

Remarks (attach Minitab

output in later slides & give

slide number reference)

1

Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation


Y 2T test Minitab

Data Measurement Plan

Y Measure

Operation

al

definition

Frequency

of Data

Collection

Sample

size

Method

of Data

collection

When

will data

be

collected

Responsibil

ity for data

collection

Other data that

should be

collected at the

same time

ADDC Noise

during ADDC

load test

No

abnormal

Noise

through

Load test

at 1600

Kgf.

All Noisy

Tractor 30 Nos

ADDC

Load Test

/ History

Card

June,13 Pradip /

Naresh N/A

X Measure

Operatio

nal

definition

Frequency

of Data

Collection

Sample

size

Method

of Data

collection

When

will data

be

collected

Responsibilit

y for data

collection

Other data that

should be

collected at

the same time

Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation

–More as per

specification.

Sphere Dia 40 +0.3

mm

All rejected

parts 8 Nos

Inspection

report

June,13 Pradip /

Naresh N/A

Crank –Sphere Dia 40 +0.3 mm variation

H0 : There is no Abnormal Noise with position within limit.

HA : There is Noise if crank having position more then Specification.

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Noise, ok

Two-sample T for Noise vs ok

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Noise 3 40.3867 0.0115 0.0067

ok 27 40.2593 0.0320 0.0062

Difference = mu (Noise) - mu (ok)


95% CI for difference: (0.10521, 0.14961)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 14.04

P-Value = 0.000 DF = 6

Box plot of Noise, ok

Conclusion : Reject Null Hypothesis, there is significant difference in Spehre mean of

Noisy and OK crank , And it is higher with Noisy Crank based on box plot.

2 P test for Action effectiveness validation- May,13

Conclusion :P value for two proportion indicate parts improvement ,but

need improvement to remaining cause.


Sample X N Sample p

1 106 13000 0.008154

2 10 3000 0.003333



95% upper bound for difference: 0.00698367

Test for difference = 0 (vs < 0): Z = 3.67 P-Value = 1.000


Validation of NOISE action

Process capability –Before for Dia Ø 40.0


Measure Performance

Analyze Opportunity

Improve Performance

Control Performance

MSA-for Attribute Inspection(Ø40.0-Plug gauge)

All Appraisers vs Standard

Assessment Agreement

# Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with the known

standard.

Fleiss' Kappa Statistics

Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Not Ok 0.956427 0.105409 9.0735 0.0000

Not OK 0.883041 0.105409 8.3773 0.0000

Ok 0.970370 0.105409 9.2057 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 0.940359 0.079855 11.7759 0.0000

* When all sample standards and responses of a trial(s) equal the

value or none

of them equals the value, kappa cannot be computed.

MSA-for Attribute Inspection (Ø40.0-Plug gauge)

Attribute Agreement Analysis for Result

Within Appraisers


Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

Naresh 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)

RAVI 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)

Soumya 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00)

# Matched: Appraiser agrees with him/herself across trials.


Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Naresh Not Ok 0.71154 0.182574 3.89726 0.0000

Not OK 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Ok 0.81366 0.182574 4.45662 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 0.82659 0.139645 5.91924 0.0000

RAVI Not Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Not OK 0.46429 0.182574 2.54300 0.0055

Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

OK -0.03448 0.182574 -0.18887 0.5749

Overall 0.80645 0.128358 6.28281 0.0000

Soumya Not Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Not OK 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 1.00000 0.139616 7.16253 0.0000

* When no or all responses across trials equal the value, kappa cannot be

computed.


Each Appraiser vs Standard


Appraiser # Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

Naresh 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)

RAVI 10 9 90.00 (55.50, 99.75)

Soumya 10 10 100.00 (74.11, 100.00)

# Matched: Appraiser's assessment across trials agrees with the known standard.


Appraiser Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Naresh Not Ok 0.86928 0.182574 4.76125 0.0000

Not OK 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Ok 0.91111 0.182574 4.99036 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 0.91770 0.139763 6.56609 0.0000

RAVI Not Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Not OK 0.64912 0.182574 3.55539 0.0002

Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 0.90338 0.135518 6.66616 0.0000

Soumya Not Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Not OK 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

Ok 1.00000 0.182574 5.47723 0.0000

OK * * * *

Overall 1.00000 0.139616 7.16253 0.0000

* When all sample standards and responses of a trial(s) equal the value or none

of them equals the value, kappa cannot be computed.


Between Appraisers


# Inspected # Matched Percent 95% CI

10 8 80.00 (44.39, 97.48)

# Matched: All appraisers' assessments agree with each other.


Response Kappa SE Kappa Z P(vs > 0)

Not Ok 0.887500 0.0527046 16.8391 0.0000

Not OK 0.862805 0.0527046 16.3706 0.0000

Ok 0.933284 0.0527046 17.7078 0.0000

OK -0.011236 0.0527046 -0.2132 0.5844

Overall 0.875605 0.0389522 22.4789 0.0000

Why-Why Analysis for Causes

Dimensional Problem In Crank

Parameter Observation

Capability Performance Final Status at ADDC Test Manufacturing process

Dia 40+0.3 – Variation

39.8 -41.60 CP-0.25 Cpk-0.0 PPM-564364

Noise during Test PPM-

Profile Tool for Sphere making

Hole Ø 8.0 Position - 0.30 max variation

0.00 - 0.58 Cp-0.34 Cpk-0.07 PPM-594811

Noise during Test PPM-

Conventional Drilling control.

Probable Cause

Cause's Dia Ø40.0+0.3- variation ( 39.8-41.60)

WHY 1 Process Unstable as per capability standard

(CP-0.25, Cpk-0.0)

WHY 2 Sphere profile having variation ( Normal Cause)

WHY 3

Sphere Ø 40.0 manufacturing through sphere profile tools

and conventional Drilling Machine.

WHY 4

Adopted Manufacturing process for sphere making does not have

consistency

Why-Why Analysis for Causes-Dia 40+0.3 – Variation

Probable Cause

Cause's Hole Ø 8.0 Position wrto Ø 40 - variation ( 0.0-.38 mm)

WHY 1 Process Unstable as per capability standard

(Cp-0.34,Cpk-0.07)

WHY 2

Drill Ø8 having drift ( L/D ratio) and shank run out contribute

variation

as a Normal Cause

WHY 3 Drilling of Ø 8.0 made on conventional Drilling Machine.

WHY 4 Adopted Manufacturing process for Drilling does not have

consistency

Why-Why Analysis for Causes-Hole Ø 8.0 Position

List Possible Solutions

S. No. Xs validated Possible solutions

1 Sphere Depth wrto Hole Ø 8.0 ( spec:0.30 max)- Dim 20.±0.3

1.1- Hole Dia Ø 8.0 drilling –shifted to VMC

1.2

1.3

2 Sphere Diameter 40 2.1-Machining process for sphere profile - Shifted to

CNC.

2.2

2.3

2.4

3 Chamfer R17.5 – Less 3.1- Chamfer Fixture – Validated and replaced the

worn out bushes and standardized.

3.2

3.3

4 4.1

4.2

Pilot implementation planning (Optional)

Tasks Activities Responsible

person

Start Date Due Date Status and

Actions

Manufacturing

Process

Improvement

1- Hole Ø 8.0 Drilling shifted on VMC. Osho April,13 April,13 OK

Supplier shifted the Spherical dia Ø 40 on

CNC machine and parts identified with M

punch

Osho 03-07-13 03-07-13 OK

Inspection method- for sphere dia Ø40- Go/

NO Go – PPG started for process control and

started 100% inspection on the machine.

Osho 10-07-13 15-07-13 OK

Spherical gauge and pin Qualification started

to ensure Depth dim 20 Osho 03-07-13 05-07-13 OK

Spherical diameter Ø40.0+0.3 – expansion of

bore after induction hardening – Corrected the

CNC programme to compensate hole

expansion ( Induction hardening- expansion

up to 0.10-0.15mm).

Osho 03-07-13 10-07-13 OK

Lot monitoring at RQC and Test trial status on

ADDC Test. Pradip 10-07-13 10-07-13 OK

Process & Inspection Improvement

S. No

Conventional Process Photographs Modified process

1 Hole Ø 8.0 machining on Conventional drilling machine

Drilling Ø 8.0 –Process shifted to VMC process.

2 Sphere Ø40.0 machining through Profile tool

Spherical dia Ø 40 machining shifted

on CNC machine

S.No Conventional Process Photographs Modified process

3 For Chamfer

Through Chamfering Fixture

Chamfering Fixture Corrected with replaced guide bush.

4 Inspection method for Sphere Dia 40.0 at Final stage–

PPG implemented for Hole Ø 40.0- Go/NOGO .


S. No

Conventional Process Photographs Modified process

5 Inspection method for Sphere Position Dia at Final stage–

Gauge implemented for Hole Ø 8.0 position and Sphere depth 20

6


2P Test for Before and After improvement in Crank

Conclusion :After improvement Defect is significant less than before improvement

Proportions Defective After Improvement ≥ Proportions Defective before improvement

Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help.


Sample X N Sample p

Before 5 15 0.333333

After 0 15 0.000000



95% lower bound for difference: 0.133128

Test for difference = 0 (vs > 0): Z = 2.74 P-Value = 0.003

* NOTE * The normal approximation may be inaccurate for small

samples.


Pilot Lot-Validation after Process Improvement

ADDC Noise -DPSA –PPM Pre-modified Parts- Tractor reworked at

Sick Area till 15th July.

2843

1744

4880

17651

April,13 May,13 June,13 July,13-till 10th

Crank Noise ( 50 HP)-PPM

PPM


Pilot Results

Improvement cut off Date - 10-07-13

Cut off Chassis No: 921113134609

2843

1744

4880

17651

0

April,13 May,13 June,13 July,13-till 10th July,13-11th-30th

ADDC Noise Trend after Improvement


Measure Performance

Analyze Opportunity

Improve Performance

Control Performance

Measure Data Source Method of

Measurement

Sample

Size

Periodici

ty

Responsibility

for collection

Responsibilit

y for Review

Responsibili

ty for Action

Position of Hole dia

8.0 wrto sphere Check sheet Dial Gauge

02 nos

/Every

lot

YES

Naresh/

Soumya/

Ravi

Pradip Kumar Pradip Kumar

Process Control System . . .

Back

Full scale implementation plan

Tasks Activities Resp Start Date Due Date Status and Actions

Manufacturing

Process

Standardization

1- Hole Ø 8.0 Drilling shifted on VMC. Osho April,13 April,13 PFD, Control plan

corrected

Supplier shifted the Spherical dia Ø 40 on

CNC machine and parts identified with M

punch

Spherical diameter Ø40.0+0.3 – expansion of

bore after induction hardening

Osho 03-07-13 03-07-13 PPAP Done and

validated.

Inspection method- for sphere dia Ø40- Go/

NO Go – PPG started for process control and

started 100% inspection on the machine.

Osho 10-07-13 15-07-13 Validation Plan and

validation criteria

freezed with SOP.

Spherical gauge and pin Qualification started

to ensure Depth dim 20. Osho 03-07-13 05-07-13 Validation Plan and

validation criteria

freezed with SOP

TMTL Process

and

Standardization

Lot monitoring at RQC Pradip 10-07-13 10-07-13 Monitoring 3 lot till

PDI stage.-OK

Parts effectiveness at PDI- ADDC Test stage Pradip /RQC Team

11-07-13- Sep,2013 No any problem

reported

CTQ Trend after Improvement

2843 1744

4880

17651

258 0 0 0

Ap

ril,1

3

May

,13

Jun

e,1

3

July

,13

-till

10

th

July

,13

-11

th-3

0th

Au

g,1

3

Sep

,13

Oct

,13

ADDC Noise Trend after Improvement PPM

Improvement cut off

Date - 10-07-13

Improvement Done

P Chart – Before and After

Capability after Improvement- Dia Ø40.0+0.3

Part Monitoring after Process Improvement

Control Plan after Improvement

Flow Charts after Improvement

Process Sheet

Horizontal Deployment

Similar action has been implemented and standardized in

1- Crank model S/W

2- Crank- Model-241/242

Project Closure • Project Title:To reduce DPSA PPM –Road Test related to Functional Quality problem ( ADDC Noise) on

Tractor.

• Team Leader & Members: Pradip Kumar and

Naresh Gupta, Soumya Sahoo, Ravi Mishra, Rajesh Verma, Vijay Laad and J Ansari. Project Description: DPSA PPM at Road Test due to Parts- CRANK NOISE eliminate 100%

Team Leader Champion Finance Six Sigma-TQM

CTQ Description Baseline Goal Results

CTQ /CTP

Value Sigma Level Date

CTQ / CTP Value

Sigma Level Date

CTQ/ CTP Value

Sigma Level Date

DPSA PPM at Road Test due to Parts- CRANK NOISE eliminate 100%

8074 PPM 30-04-13 0 PPM Sep,13 0 PPM 01-08-13

Financial Savings Recurring One Time

Cash Savings 5 Lacs

Opportunity

Project Title To reduce DPSA PPM –Road Test related to Functional Quality problem ( ADDC Noise) on Tractor.

Project Type Black belt

Project Leader’s Name Pradip Kumar

Project Leader’s Email Id [email protected]

Business Units Eicher Tractor, Bhopal

Project Description To reduce DPSA PPM –Road Test related to Functional Quality problem ( ADDC Noise) on Tractor.

Major validated Causes In-consistency of parts Quality for Crank

For Sphere Φ 40+0.3 and HoleΦ 8.0 position wrto Sphere.

Major Actions Taken Improved manufacturing Process performance through Machining process

correction make process capable for dimensional consistency at Supplier end.

CTQ Value (Baseline) 8074 PPM Sigma Level ( Baseline)

CTQ Value (Result) 0 PPM Sigma Level (Result)

Benefits: Customer satisfaction and improved parts Quality without any rework.

Soft Benefits Customer satisfaction, Eliminate rework and improve tractor Quality.

Financial Benefits Cost saving for rework Rs 5 lacs.

Project Synopsis

black belt project-6sigma-crank_noise

Documents