Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 Sigma Case Study
6 Sigma Case Study
Andy Sleeper
Successful Statistics LLC
970-420-0243
andy@OQPD.com
1. Abstract
Step 1:
Define tolerance for Y
Step 5:
Optimize system
Step 2: Step 4:
Develop transfer function Predict variation of Y
Step 3:
Compile variation data on X
Figure 2 illustrates an effective process for tolerance design, using these five
steps. More details on these steps will be explained later, using the case study
as an example.
2. Develop transfer function: Derive the transfer function for the initial design
of the system. Set up an Excel worksheet with formulas to calculate the
transfer function.
3. Case Study
R1 R4
4.99k R3 10K
±1% 499k ±1% ±1%
+
–
VR1 U1
R2 LM2903
AD780
5.36k Voffset = 0 ±15 mV
2.5V
±1%
±0.2%
First, what is Y? What characteristics of this circuit are we interested in? Here
are three:
• VTRIP-DOWN – This is the voltage of the +5V bus when the comparator
changes state, when the +5V is going down, for instance, when the power
supply is shutting off.
• VTRIP-UP – This is the voltage of the +5V bus when the comparator changes
state, when the +5V is going up, for instance, when the power supply
starts up.
• VHYST = VTRIP-UP – VTRIP-DOWN For stability, the comparator circuit requires
a certain amount of hysteresis.
For simplicity in this article, we will only analyze VTRIP-DOWN. If you wish to practice
using these techniques, try analyzing the other two Ys as an exercise!
So what are the customer requirements for VTRIP-DOWN? This circuit is buried
inside a product, and appears to be far away from the customer. No customer is
ever aware of this circuit, unless it fails to work properly. This circuit is a safety
device, intended to prevent undesired malfunction of the digital circuitry. So the
customer requirement for VTRIP-DOWN is to shut down the processor before its
supply voltage goes out of range at 4.75V. Therefore, 4.75V is the lower
tolerance limit.
The upper tolerance limit is set by the variation of the +5V output itself. If VTRIP-
DOWN is above 4.85V, and the +5V voltage is low because of load conditions or its
inherent variation, the system will not work correctly.
For many problems, this step can be the most difficult. But a few simple
guidelines help make this easier:
For the undervoltage comparator, there are many inputs I choose to ignore. This
is risky, and requires some engineering judgment. There is a risk of ignoring an
input that is actually significant. So when in doubt, either leave it in, or use some
other method (such as circuit simulation) to determine if the input is significant or
not.
Likewise, the input bias current of the comparator and the load impedance of the
circuit following the comparator have effects, but these are extremely small, and I
ignore them.
What follows is one way to derive the transfer function. In this derivation:
VTRIP-DOWN is the +5V bus voltage at the point where the comparator
changes state
V+ is the voltage at the + input to the comparator
V- is the voltage at the – input to the comparator
V+ = V− + VOFFSET at the trip point
V- = VR1
Since we are analyzing VTRIP-DOWN , the output of the comparator before it
changes state is high, so the open-collector output of the LM2903 is floating.
R2
V+ = VTRIP −DOWN
R1 (R3 + R4 ) + R2
R2
V+ = VR1 + VOFFSET = VTRIP −DOWN
R1(R3 + R4 )
+ R2
R1 + R3 + R4
R1(R3 + R4 )
VTRIP −DOWN = [VR1 + VOFFSET ] + 1
R2(R1 + R3 + R4 )
This last equation is the transfer function to be analyzed.
In the ideal world, engineers would have access to vast databases with actual
measured values from samples of all these parts. From this data, we could
select the most appropriate probability distribution and use that distribution for
the Monte Carlo simulation.
For the first simulation in data-poor real life, I recommend assuming that each
component is uniformly distributed between its specification limits. This is a
conservative assumption, because it is usually (but not always) worse than real
data will be.
A handy way to implement this assumption with Crystal Ball is to define the
tolerance limits in worksheet cells. For each X, define a uniform distribution and
enter references to the cells where the tolerance limits are located. This is
illustrated in Figure 5.
Select the cell containing the calculated value for VTRIP-DOWN and define that as a
Crystal Ball forecast cell, so that Crystal Ball will keep track of the randomly
generated values. At this point, the spreadsheet looks like Figure 6.
Next, we must decide how many trials to run. We could pick a number out of the
air, but Crystal Ball provides a better approach, called precision control. Using
this feature, the simulation runs until we have “enough” information.
In this case, I asked Crystal Ball to run until the mean and standard deviation of
VTRIP-DOWN are known to within 1%, with 95% confidence. For this model, this
precision was achieved after 15,500 trials, which were completed in 10 seconds
on my computer.
I also selected “Latin Hypercube Sampling”, which tends to converge faster than
the default simple random sampling used by Crystal Ball.
For more complicated models which require more calculation time, relaxing the
precision control to 5% or more may be needed to finish the simulation in a
practical time.
.018 278.2
.012 185.5
.006 92.75
.000 0
4.7286 4.7666 4.8046 4.8426 4.8806
Certainty is 94.63% from 4.7500 to 4.8500
Figure 7 displays the frequency chart for the forecast VTRIP-DOWN. The certainty
grabbers are set at the tolerance limits, 4.75 and 4.85.
Clearly, this design has a problem. Based on this simulation, only 94.63% of
these circuits would meet their tolerance requirements.
In a Six Sigma environment, we must calculate other metrics, such as CP, CPK
and DPMLT. To do this, we need the mean and standard deviation of VTRIP-DOWN
which Crystal Ball predicts are 4.8049 and 0.02568, respectively. I plug these
values into another spreadsheet to make the capability calculations. (This
worksheet, CapMet16.xls, is available on my web site, www.OQPD.com)
Normal probability
function
Specification limits
Target
Shifted up
Shifted down
Clearly improvement is needed. We can revisit the tolerance VTRIP-DOWN, but for
the reasons explained above, no changes to the tolerance are possible.
So what is causing most of the variation in this system? The Crystal Ball
sensitivity chart, shown in Figure 9, has the answer.
to the system
should be to
improve VOFFSET.
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Comparator
Figure 9 - Sensitivity Chart
For a modest
increase in parts cost, the
LM 2903 comparator can be
replaced with a LM293,
which controls offset voltage
to 0 ± 9 mV over
temperature.
convenient. By
changing the Sensitivity Chart
tolerance in cell C5 Target Forecast: Vtrip-down
to .009, the R2 -.60
parameters of the R1 .59
The sensitivity chart in Figure 11 shows that R1 and R2 are now the big culprits.
Further improvement to the comparator would not be cost-effective.
It is possible (at high cost) to purchase 0.1% resistors. What if these were used
in place of R1 and R2? It’s easy to find out. Change the values in cells C6 and
C7 to 0.1% and repeat the simulation.
Forecast: Vtrip-down
12,350 Trials Frequency Chart 12,350 Displayed
.033 403
.024 302.2
.016 201.5
.008 100.7
.000 0
4.7500 4.7750 4.8000 4.8250 4.8500
But there are still two big problems with this design:
First, the odd-value 0.1% resistors are expensive, and using them creates costly
problems for procurement and inventory. If these are not part of the standard
parts stocked for assembly, additional equipment and setup will be necessary.
Second, this quality level is still not good enough for Six Sigma. To meet Design
For Six Sigma (DFSS) standards, CPK must be 2 or greater. After a product goes
into production, shifts and drifts caused by components, processes and
uncontrolled environmental factors may shift the average by 1.5 standard
deviations or more, without being detected. A DFSS product must be designed
so that quality is good even after the average values are shifted by 1.5 standard
deviations.
What is good enough? For a normally distributed process, if CPK = 2.00, then the
long term defect rate (DPMLT) is 3.4 Defects Per Million Units. That’s world-class
quality for this type of product.
So what can we do if the system is already too costly and still does not meet
quality requirements? Redesign it.
There are resistor networks containing two resistors with tightly controlled ratio.
Because the resistors are manufactured on a single die, these parts are
reasonably priced. One such part contains two 10,000 Ohm resistors with 0.1%
absolute tolerance, while the ratio is controlled to 1 ± 0.025%. This part is less
expensive than even one 0.1% resistor.
The drawing below shows a revision of the design, using this component
+5
R4
R3 10K
499k ±1% ±1%
+
–
U1
VR1
R1-2 LM293
AD780
10k ±0.1% Voffset = 0 ± 9 mV
2.49V
ratio ±.025%
±0.2%
R5
634 ±1%
So far, the system models we have used assume that all components are
independent of each other. Here, we have intentionally introduced a dependency
between R1 and R2. How do we set up the Monte Carlo model so Crystal Ball
will simulate this dependency?
R1 R3 + R4
VTRIP −DOWN = [VR1 + VOFFSET ] + 1
R1 + R2A + R5 R1 + R3 + R4
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Measured by Rank Correlation
So, a sample of 50 LM293 parts are drawn from stock, including samples from
different date codes. The offset voltage is measured on all these parts. The
figure below shows a histogram of this data.
Histogram of Sample 1
In the spreadsheet model of the transfer function, we change the assumption for
VOFFSET to a normal distribution with the parameters listed above, and repeat the
simulation.
.039 549
.026 366
.013 183
.000 0
4.7500 4.7750 4.8000 4.8250 4.8500
4. Summary
In this article, an analog circuit design is used to illustrate the power of Tolerance
Design techniques and Monte Carlo simulation. The initial design proved to be
unsatisfactory, and through a series of revisions, we generated a new design of
extremely high quality at reasonable cost. Here are the steps we followed:
1. We analyzed the initial design using Crystal Ball Monte Carlo simulation,
assuming that each component is uniformly distributed between its
tolerance limits. The results showed unacceptably high variation.
2. The sensitivity chart identified the biggest cause of variation, so we
replaced it with a tighter tolerance part. This reduced variation, but not
enough.
3. We tried 0.1% resistors, which further improved quality, but at
unacceptable parts cost.
4. We recognized that the transfer function depends heavily on the ratio
R1/R2. Instead of discrete 0.1% resistors, we used a resistor network with
controlled ratio. This reduced parts cost to acceptable levels, but variation
was still too high.
5. Again, the sensitivity chart identified the biggest cause of variation. We
gathered a sample of parts and measured them, using actual data instead
of the default assumption. This change brought the predicted quality to an
acceptable level.
Tolerance Design and Monte Carlo simulation are the keys to a safe, robust and
successful new product.
Andy Sleeper is a DFSS Master Black Belt and General Manager of Successful
Statistics LLC. Andy provides training and consulting services to engineers in
new product development. Andy holds a BS degree in Electrical Engineering
and a MS degree in Statistics. For more information, please e-mail
andy@OQPD.com or call 970-420-0243.