six sigma project on reducing rejection rate of grinding mark on piston
DESCRIPTION
This Six Sigma Project submitted by Advance Innovation Group student intended for the reduction in rejection rate of grinding mark on piston and increase customer satisfaction level. The objective to reduce overall rejection rate from 2.8% to 0,5%. Mark observed on piston during grinding process which affects customer satisfaction. After improvement variation found less than 75% tolerance as per new specifications, Overall scrap reduced from 14000 ppm to 8000 ppm. Defect grinding mark reduced from 10000ppm to 1000ppm Additionally, it is advisable that you also visit and subscribe Advance Innovation Group Blog (http://advanceinnovationgroup.com/blog) for more Lean Six Sigma Projects, Case Studies on Lean Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma Videos, Lean Six Sigma Discussions, Lean Six Sigma Jobs etc.TRANSCRIPT
2
Customer CommentsCritical to Quality-
CTQ’s
ABC Ltd(Automotive Airconditioning System
Company)
Product Quality is a major concern for us in order to plan further
business planning and to continue our existing business.
Grinding mark on Piston
Finished Goods storeProduct Quality is being a key factor
to retain our existing business.Grinding mark on Piston
D M A I C
Business caseXYZ Ltd is a sister concern of ABC Ltd. It is ISO/TS-16949 certified company. It manufactures Automotive component for Automotive
Airconditioning systems. It is a TTT group company, XYZ Ltd. is situated at Gr Noida .By considering the last four months data we
observed that rejection of grinding mark on piston is @ 2.8% against the target 0..5%. This may result customer dissatisfaction, revenue generation and majorly contributing to customer penalty
against process performance for last 4 months. This may also impact our long term business planning and new business
generation from existing Customer
TeamVice President: Pushpinder• Plant Head:- Shishir• Process Owner : Dipti Nayak• Black Belt :- Ramsaran• Project Leader :- Pradeep• Team Member :- Naveen, Kiran Kumar
Problem StatementLast 4 months data shows that the Max rate of rejection is 3.8 % and Min rate of rejection is 2.8 % . So average rate of rejection is 2.8 % for part no 10s11 By reducing rate of rejection from 2.8% to 0.5 % saving in rupees will be 12 Lac par annum & It might impact our long term business planning with the existing client
and can contribute to reduce process penalty,
:In Scope : Only the of Business Engagement Deppt. of Production, npd, XYZ Ltd
Company
Out Scope : Any other Purchase, maintenance or business engagement. Any other lob or business engagement.
Goal StatementTo Reduce rejection rate from 2.8 % to 0.5 % Milestones
Target Date
Actual date
D Aug 1st, 2012 Aug 15th, 2012
M Aug 16th, 2012 Aug 30th , 2012
A Sep 1st , 2012 Sep 30th , 2012
I Oct 1st , 2012 Oct 31st , 2012
C Nov 1st ,2012 Nov 31st , 2012
Project ChartervD M A I C
Distribution plan (ARMI)
Key StakeholdersARMI Worksheet
Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
V.P I I I I I
Plant Head I I I I I
Black Belt I & A I & A I & A I & A I & A
Process Owner A & I A & I A & I A & I A & I
Project Leader I & R I & R I & R I & R I & R
Team Member I & M I & M I & M I & M I & M
A – Approval of team decisions I.e., sponsor, business leader, MBB.R – Resource to the team, one whose expertise, skills, may be needed on an ad-hoc basis.M – Member of team – whose expertise will be needed on a regular basis.I – Interested party, one who will need to be kept informed on direction, findings.
Communication PlanInformation Or
ActivityTarget Audience Information
ChannelWho When
Project Status Leadership E-mails
Ramsaran
BI-Weekly
Tollgate ReviewBB,LBB,MBB &
ChampionE-mails or Meetings
As per Project Plan
Project Deliverables or Activities
Members Emails, Meetings Weekly
D M A I C
GRINDING MARK
D M A I CPhotograph of defect Part
Number of pieces rejected last month (for the part number identified for study)
478
Number of pieces scrapped last month 478
Number of pieces reworked last month 1500
Scrap cost/piece 62
Rework cost/piece 20
Total scrap cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last month
29636
Total rework cost(Rs. Lakhs) for last month
30000
Total Rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last month
59636
Extrapolated Total rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for one year
120000
Note: Rejection should include both rework and scrap
D M A I C
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation
Reduce Rate of Rejection of grinding Mark on Piston
CTQs*
Mark observed on Piston during grinding process which dissatisfied the customer
To reduce rate of Rejection from 2.8% to 0.5% of Grinding markIn visual inspection Grinding mark should not observed on Piston
Grinding mark Observed on piston is defective
* CTQ- Critical To Quality
CTQ Tree
D M A I C
Supplier
SSIIInput
(Use nouns)
PPProcess
(Use verbs)
OOOutput
(Use nouns)
CCCustomer
1
2
3
4
5
XYZ LtdForging of Piston
Teflon, m/c, Manpower.
Grinding Wheel, Electricity
Centering Facing
OD Turning
Center Less Grinding
Washing
Teflon Coating
Piston1 10SL08
ABC Ltd
COPIS
D M A I C
Sintering
Ball Milling
End Milling
Finish Center Less Grinding
Washing
Tin Coating
Final Inspection & Packing
Tin Coating
Grinding Wheel
Regulating Wheel
Piston
D M A I C
Photograph of Centerless Grinding M/c
KPI Operational Definition Defect Def Performance StdSpecification Limit
OpportunityLSL USL
To Reduce Rate of Rejection of
grinding Mark
Mark observed on Piston during grinding process which dissatisfied the customer
Grinding mark
Observed on piston is defective
In visual inspection
Grinding mark should not
observed on Piston
99.5 100
To reduce the Rate of rejection from 2.8% to desired level 0.5%
KPI Data TypeData Items
Needed Formula to
be usedUnit
Plan to collect DataPlan to sample
What Database or Container
will be used to record this
data?
Is this an
existing databas
e or new?
If new, When will
the database be
ready for use?
When is the
planned start date for data
collection?
To Reduce Rate of
Rejection of grinding
Mark
Discrete
Total produce parts &
Total reject parts
Total reject Parts
*100/Total produce Parts
Rejection % Excel sheet Existing N/A N.RMonitor the
monthly Rejection Rate
Data Collection Plan
D M A I C
MSA (Attribute)D M A I C
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T31 OK OK REJECT OK OK OK OK REJECT OK OK2 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT3 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT4 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT5 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK6 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT7 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT8 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT OK REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT9 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT10 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK11 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK12 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK13 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK14 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK15 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK16 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK17 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK18 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK19 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK20 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
S. No. ACTUAL RESULT
OMPRAKASH ANANNAND PAWAN
MSA (Attribute)D M A I C
112+63180
5117
163
DECISION :ParameterAcceptable
E > 0.90Pfa < 0.05Pm < 0.02 0.0158 OK
Result0.972 OK
0.0427 OK
Pmiss (Pm) = Total miss
= = 0.016Total opportunity for miss
Probability false alarm (Pfa) = Total false alarm
= = 0.043Total opportunity false alarm
Effectiveness (E) = Total correct
= = 0.972Total decision
Process Capability
Z Score of the process is really poor, there is immediate need to improve the process capability
Denominator Values
Mean 2.8 %
Std Dev 0.63
Target 0.5.00%
DPMO 28000
D M A I C
D M A I C
Defect wise Pareto Analysis(Based on 4 months data)
Process parameter Standard Observed Conclusion Correction Permanent action
RPM of Grinding Wheel 1399 1399 OK
RPM of Regulating Wheel 35~45 39 OK
RPM of conveyor 2 2 OK
Coolant Temperature 20~25 DEGREE 22 OK
Machine Selected: Center Less Grinder
D M A I C
Process Parameter Audit Findings
Machine /Tool Condition Standard Observed Conclusion Actions taken
Grinding Wheel Spindle runout 0.005 max
0.002 OK
Regulating Wheel Spindle runout 0.005 max
0.003 OK
Regulating Wheel & Work Rest blade parallelism
Blue contact
OK OK
Regulating Wheel & Dresser movement Parallelism
Blue contact
OK OK
Grinding Wheel & Dresser movement Parallelism 0.002
max0.001 OK
Machine Selected: Centerless grinder
D M A I C
Machine and Tool condition Audit findings
Inspection conditions Standard Observed Conclusion Actions taken
Visual before loading 100% 100% OK
Visual after loading 100% 100% OK
OD dim. inspection according to control plan
5 pistons after every ½ hr
5 pistons after every ½ hr
OK
Machine Selected: Centerless Grinder
D M A I C
Inspection Plan and Audit findings
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
MARCH'12 APRIL'12 MAY'12 JUNE'12 JULY'12 AUG'12
Rej %
D M A I C
Monthly rejection trend for last 6 months
Abnormal month
Possible reasons Actions taken
MAY’09 Teflon coating resin problem due to hot weather.
Insulation has been applied Teflon coating tank.
Bubble generated at OD of piston due to resin was not freezing due to freezer not OK.
Freezer OK.
Bubble generated at OD due to high viscosity of Teflon coating resin.
NMP Chemical mixed in high viscous resin.
D M A I C
Reasons for Abnormal rejection in monthly Analysis
Month:
D M A I C
Daily rejection trend for last month of August
MANMAN MACHINEMACHINE
METHODMETHODMATERIALMATERIAL
Material Composition Material Composition Not OK Not OK Rigid Tapping Rigid Tapping
ApplicationApplication
Shift Engineer Shift Engineer or Shiftor Shift
Total LengthTotal Length
GRINDING MARK
One End LengthOne End Length
Part not Part not checkedchecked
Set-up not doneSet-up not done
Fixture Clamping Fixture Clamping
Process Parameters Process Parameters overrideoverride
Cause & Effect Diagram (Potential Causes)
Coolant Flow Coolant Flow PressurePressure
CoolantCoolant
Coolant FilterationCoolant Filteration
Process ParametersProcess Parameters
Feed not OKFeed not OK
Depth of cut not OKDepth of cut not OK
Hardness of PistonHardness of Piston
ToolingTooling
Tool Without CoatingTool Without Coating
Geometry TapGeometry TapCoated ToolCoated Tool
CoolantCoolant
Water HardnessWater Hardness
Coolant ConcentrationCoolant Concentration
D M A I C
Coating Coating ThicknessThickness
Taper AngleTaper Angle
Grinding contact Grinding contact AreaArea
Run out of Run out of ODOD
Cause & Effect Diagram (Vital Causes)D M A I C
S No.
Potential Cause
Operational DefinitionData Type
Test to be performed
1 Total Length Total length of Piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
2 One end length One side length Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
3 Shift EngineerThe process owner, who is responsible for managing the
performance of a set of associates in a given shift Discrete Chi-square Test
4Hardness of
pistonMaterial hardness of Piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
5 Shift 8 hour Working time is called Shift Discrete Chi-square test
6 Coating Thickness Black colour coating Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
7 Run out of OD Deflection in dial when touch on circular rotating surface DiscreteBinary Logistic
Regression
8 Grinding contact area Area on which grinding is required DiscreteBinary Logistic
Regression
9 Taper angle Angle of taper face Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
Vital X’s that are impacting the Thread damage D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Total Length
Link Function: Logit
Response Information
Variable Value CountResponse Good 13 (Event) Bad 3 Total 16Logistic Regression Table
95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower UpperConstant -2102.23 2776.53 -0.76 0.449Total Length 31.6118 41.7237 0.76 0.449 5.35611E+13 0.00 1.75429E+49
Log-Likelihood = -7.430Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.583, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.445
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Total length on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between Grinding mark & Total length
D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus One end Length
Link Function: LogitResponse Information
Variable Value CountResponse Good 12 (Event) Bad 4 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant -72.9931 204.433 -0.36 0.721One end Length 3.15223 8.69889 0.36 0.717 23.39 0.00 5.93618E+08
Log-Likelihood = -8.931Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.133, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.715
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is no significant impact of One end length on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between One End length&Grinding mark
D M A I C
The Chi –Square test shows that since the P-Value is 0.981, Shift Engineer(X)
has no significant impact on thread damage (Y).
Chi-Square Test between Grinding Mark & Shift Engineer
D M A I C
Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test for Observed Counts in Variable: Shift Engineer
Using category names in Shift Engineer Test ContributionCategory Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-SqAvinash 25.99 0.333333 26.53 0.0109913Ghanshya 26.27 0.333333 26.53 0.0025481Jagdish 27.33 0.333333 26.53 0.0241236
N DF Chi-Sq P-Value79.59 2 0.0376630 0.981
Binary Logistic Regression: Resonse versus Hardness
Link Function: Logit
Response Information
Variable Value CountResonse Good 10 (Event) Bad 6 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 36.4338 30.6255 1.19 0.234Hardness -0.450961 0.383340 -1.18 0.239 0.64 0.30 1.35
Log-Likelihood = -9.718Test that all slopes are zero: G = 1.733, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.188
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Hardness on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between Hardness &Grinding mark
D M A I C
Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test for Observed Counts in Variable: Shift wise Rej
Using category names in SHIFT Test ContributionCategory Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-SqA 27.47 0.333333 28.5033 0.037462B 27.82 0.333333 28.5033 0.016382C 30.22 0.333333 28.5033 0.103389
N DF Chi-Sq P-Value85.51 2 0.157233 0.924
The Chi –Square test shows that since the P-Value is 0.924, Shift (X)
has no impact on Thread damage(Y).
Chi-Square Test between thread damage & shift
D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Coating thickness
Link Function: Logit
Response Information
Variable Value CountResponse Good 8 (Event) Bad 8 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant -0.562253 2.09376 -0.27 0.788Coating thickness 0.0057374 0.0207713 0.28 0.782 1.01 0.97 1.05
Log-Likelihood = -11.052Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.077, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.781
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Coating thickness on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between Coating thickness&Grinding mark
D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus OD Run out
Link Function: Logit
Response Information
Variable Value CountResponse Good 8 (Event) Bad 8 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 0.760110 1.37445 0.55 0.580OD Runout -0.0063347 0.0106416 -0.60 0.552 0.99 0.97 1.01
Log-Likelihood = -10.909Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.362, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.548
BLR shows that there is no significant impact of OD Run out on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between Run out of OD &Grinding mark
D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Grinding Contact Area
Link Function: Logit
Response InformationVariable Value CountResponse Good 8 (Event) Bad 8 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 17.6054 10.1840 1.73 0.084Grinding Contact Area -0.0138581 0.0078709 -1.76 0.078 0.99 0.97 1.00
Log-Likelihood = -7.954Test that all slopes are zero: G = 6.272, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.012
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is a significant impact of grinding contact Area on Grinding mark
BLR between Grinding Contact Area &Grinding mark
D M A I C
Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Taper Angle
Link Function: LogitResponse Information
Variable Value CountResponse Good 8 (Event) Bad 8 Total 16
Logistic Regression Table
95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower UpperConstant -39.0918 28.6931 -1.36 0.173Taper Angle 19.3711 14.2431 1.36 0.174 2.58680E+08 0.00 3.43948E+20
Log-Likelihood = -3.963Test that all slopes are zero: G = 14.255, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000
Goodness-of-Fit Tests
BLR shows that there is a significant impact of taper angle on Grinding mark
Binary Logistic Regression between Taper angle& Grinding mark
D M A I C
(SSV : Taper Angle )(Spec: 4 Degree max)
S. No.
Potential Cause
Data TypeTest to be performed
P Value
1 Total Length DiscreteBinary Logistic
RegressionP=0.445
2 One end length Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
P=0.715
3 Shift Engineer Discrete Chi-square Test P=0.981
4 Hardness of piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
P=0.188
5 Shift Discrete Cross Tabulation P=0.924
6 Coating Thickness Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
P=0.781
7 Run out of OD Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
P=0.548
8 Grinding contact area Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
9 Taper angle Continuous Binary Logistic Regression
Evaluation for X’s that are impacting the Thread damage
D M A I C
P=0.0.12
P=0.000
D M A I C
Action Plan D M A I C
Actionable Items Responsibility Start Date Close Date
Grinding Contact Area Cross Functional Team Oct 1ST 31 Oct
Taper Angle Cross Functional Team 1ST Oct Oct31
PFMEA ReviewD M A I C
Tolerance : 4-2 = 2 deg. Variation : 2.89-1.54 = 1.35 deg.
Conclusion:-Variation is less than 75% of tolerance as per new spec., So the cause is root cause and can be controlled
D M A I C
Analysis of Taper Angle
Root causes identified for the problem
Technique/ Tool used for pinpointing
Department responsible for controlling
Process owner responsible for controlling
Taper Angle
Paired Comparison & Product/Process Search
Production DD
D M A I C
Root Cause analysis Summary
Y = GRINDING MARK ON PISTON OD
F(x) ~ Total lengthNot a cause
F(x) ~ One end lengthNot a cause
F(x) ~ HardnessNot a cause PC
F(x) ~ F(F(x) ~ Run Out of ODNot a cause
F(x) ~ Coating thicknessNot a cause
F(x) ~ Grinding Contact Area cause
PPS
Y=Grinding Contact Area(CONTACT LENGTH X COATING THICKNESS)
F(x) ~ RUN OUT OF PIATON OD Not a cause
F(x) ~ TAPER ANGLE Root cause PPS
B Vs C
D M A I C
Funneling Summary
41
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 Product Process Search.
Hence the “B” condition are those corresponding to Good category and
The “C” condition are those corresponding to Bad condition.
D M A I C
Tool for Validation Root cause
* 3 good & 3 bad batches (1500 pistons in one batch) are selected alternate as sample for validation.* Data collected (Rej.%) as given below :
Batch Better Current
1 0.20% 1.94%
2 0.13% 1.15%
3 0.15% 1.98%
* Root cause is leading to distinct seperation between Bad & Good batches with no overlap.* There is no overlap in rej.% data so Root cause is validated.
D M A I C
Validation data for Root cause
Number of samples used for doing B vs C 3,3
Validation done with Batches
If the Validation was done with Batches what was the batch quantity 1500 Pistons
Historic rejection level 2.8 %
Average of B condition 0.16
Average of C condition 1.69
Amount of Improvement 1.53
Sigma of B condition data 0.09
K value 4.2
K* Sigma of B condition data 0.38
D M A I C
Analysis of data for Validation
Taper Angle 2°~4°
Taper Angle of Piston OD which contact is not required for grinding has been fixed 2°~4°.
D M A I C
Action With Photograph
D M A I C
Rejn %1 4.32 2.53 3.54 4.55 2.56 27 28 3.59 0
10 111 312 413 514 115 1.216 3.217 218 1.219 1.220 0.4
Month: August’12
Double click on the graph to update the graph for your project
2 0.13 0.24 0.115 0.086 0.097 0.18 0.129 0.07
10 0.0811 0.112 0.1313 0.0614 0.0415 0.116 0.0617 0.0718 0.119 0.1220 0.0121 0.0722 0.1523 0.124 0.0425 0.09
Month: December’12
D M A I C
Data collection and Analysis
Z Score of the process is really good, there is no immediate need to improve the process capability
Graphical Summary After ImprovementD M A I C
Process Capability After Improvement
Z Score of the process is really good, there is no immediate need to improve the process capability
Denominator Values
Mean 0.094 %
Std Dev 0.04
Target Meet
DPMO 940
D M A I C
Defect Pareto after for month
Double click on the graph to update the graph for your project
Defect Pareto before for month
D M A I C
Pareto analysis before & after Improvement
Projected annual savings before the start of the project is Rs. 12 Lakhs.Actual savings realized now isRs. 10.8 Lakhs.
If other model Piston 10S13 also included then actual saving now 15 lakhs.
D M A I C
Control(Result Verification)
Tangible Benefits derived through the project
1. Overall scrap reduced from 14000 ppm to 8000 ppm
2. Defect Grinding Mark scrap reduced from 10000 ppm to 1000 ppm
Intangible benefits derived through the project
1. Rework- time saving.2. Rework -Power consumption saving.3. Rework – Man power saving.4. Same problem has been removed from other
model .
D M A I C
Tangible & Intangible benefits
Current control plan
#20 O.D. Turning CNC Lathe
1 O.D Ø28.50+0.05 Micrometer
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
2 Total length 73.1 ± 0.10Comparotor stand, dial &
Master blockPS-GSPL-MB-011
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
3 Chamfer 1.1-0.2 X 7°±1° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
4 Chamfer 1.5 ±0.3 X 30° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
5 Length (both sides) 16.2 ± 0.5 Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
6 Length 22.55±0.1 Profile Projector
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
#20 O.D. Turning CNC Lathe
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
7 Center Height 31.1±0.05Special GaugePS-GSPL-015
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 OInform Shift
Incharge
1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
8 OD runout wrt center 0.1Bench center & Height
gauge
1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI
9 FEED 0.15 ~ 0.35 mm / rev. Monitor display 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Restting
10 Cutting oil Concentration 3%~5% Refractrometer 1 Per shift 1 Per shift Check Sheet 50FM004 O Top Up
11 Tool life 5000 pcs
Change over inspection request (45 IP 003)
5 Change over 5 Change over
Tool Set Up Format 20FM505
E Resetting
Tool Life Monitoring Sheet-80FM059
_ _ E Change Tool
D M A I CControl Plan Review
Proposed Control plan
#20 O.D. Turning
CNC Lathe
1 O.D Ø28.50+0.05 Micrometer5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
2 Total length 73.1 ± 0.10Comparotor stand, dial &
Master blockPS-GSPL-MB-011
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
3 Chamfer 1.1-0.2 X 7°±1° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
4 Chamfer 1.5 ±0.3 X 30° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
5 Taper 6±0.3 X 3°±1° Profile Projector 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
6 Length (both sides) 16.2 ± 0.5 Profile Projector
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
7 Length 22.55±0.1 Profile Projector
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting
#20 O.D. Turning
1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
8 Center Height 31.1±0.05Special GaugePS-GSPL-015
5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 OInform Shift
Incharge
1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting
2Start of Shift/ every hour
2Start of Shift/ every hour
Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift
Incharge
9 OD runout wrt center 0.1Bench center & Height
gauge
1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting
1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI
10 FEED 0.15 ~ 0.35 mm / rev. Monitor display 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Restting
11 Cutting oil Concentration 3%~5% Refractrometer 1 Per shift 1 Per shift Check Sheet 50FM004 O Top Up
12 Tool life 5000 pcs
Change over inspection request (45 IP 003)
5 Change over 5 Change over
Tool Set Up Format 20FM505
E Resetting
Tool Life Monitoring Sheet-80FM059
_ _ E Change Tool
D M A I C
Control Plan Review
Ongoing monitoring by Black Belt for 6 months for sustenance of results
Black Belt :-Mr. Ramsaran Kumar
Problem Statement :-Grinding Mark on
Piston OD during grinding operation.
Part name / number :-Piston 10S11
Grinding Contact Area
Funneling # 1
Funneling Summary
BLR
Funneling # 2
Funneling # 3
Cause(s)
Coating Length X Coating Thickness
Taper AnglePiston Taper Angle < 2 deg.
D M A I C
Thank you.THANK YOU
D M A I C