This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Solving Problems with Labor and Maintenance Costs
the other main contributors. were eliminated.000 per year savings potential.000 annually. A cross-section of both qualitative and quantitative tools was used. This was highlighted by a change in strategy to focus on oil weight. as our response variable. In other words. run charts. Oil Fill Level Project DR 2 . Problem Solving Approach Utilized The DMAIC process was utilized throughout this project. And more importantly. Pp and Ppk values were the primary indicators of performance. This expense is $130. This amounts to $65. Some key methods were ishikawa diagrams. This “bleed off circuit” was the safety mechanism used to relieve pressure in the oil delivery system during maintenance activity.000 savings by redeploying two team members. hypothesis testing. In response to these reports. Major Project Results and Recommendations After review of the current state data. The oil circuit had a “bleed off circuit” that provided an internal leak path. such as location of the oil and component variation. The removal of OP400 inspection resulted in a (3) second reduction in work time. management implemented two inspection points to protect the customer. As you can see in the main body of the report. Control mechanisms were implemented to maintain the current condition. And because inspection is not 100% effective. A design flaw within the oil delivery circuit was the primary issue responsible for the variation. As a result of this project and the changes mentioned above and in the body of the report.Executive Summary Problem Statement Reports of incorrect oil level at assembly plants and dealers have been reported as a significant issue. the 100% inspection was eliminated at packout and OP400. This data will be used to provide real-time feedback about the oil delivery system health. this meant that oil counted as entering the engine was being returned to the storage tank. The key contributor was the cold test stands. a reduction in DPM will directly improve quality to the customer. Another potential benefit was realized during this project. the focus of this project was oil level variation. The focus and business need of this project is to eliminate hard cost associated with packout inspection. and distribution analysis. It was found that all engines are being filled above nominal by approximately 230ml per engine. Secondary benefits include the opportunity to rebalance operation OP400 and reduce internal repair costs. the housekeeping and safety issues associated with oil on the floor at OP400 are no longer a concern. To correct this issue a normally open solenoid valve was installed. The packout inspection removal resulted in a $130. instead of oil level. An audit process was implemented to provide ongoing variable data.
a graduated hand gage is used for measurement. One inspection point was added to the final assembly operation at OP400. In other words. Differences in engine conditions (angle and temperature) and measurement technique exist between the engine plant and the vehicle assembly plant. In response to these reports. See the diagram below labeled as “CSA Audit Range”. See below for details. See the diagram below. Mapping was completed to align the measurement values between the two sources. A second inspection point was added in “packout” located after the engines are racked for shipment. A follow-up hypothesis test yielded a high p-value. At the engine plant. Specification limits at the assembly plant are clearly defined as 10-24mm above the bottom of the “safe zone”. management implemented two inspection points to protect the customer. Oil Fill Level Project DR 3 . At vehicle assembly a production dipstick is used. “Packout” Inspection Area OP400 Line End 3 2 1 Cold Test (Oil Fill Equipment) = Inspection Point OP10 Line Start Shipping The measurement method used by assembly plants and dealers is based on a visual inspection of the dipstick after warming the engine and allowing five minutes for oil to drain back into the oil pan. we could now take measurements using the engine plant’s gage at time of fill and predict the assembly plant measurements. This indicated no significant difference exists between the values obtained using the two measurement methods. 1 Discussion of the process being examined and problem addressed Reports of incorrect oil level at assembly plants and dealers have been reported as a significant issue.1.0 Improvement Opportunity: Define Phase 1.
and top off.CSA Audit Range 10 S A F E 0 SAFE zone 24 19 20 20mm on EP dipstick 20mm on GEMA dipstick = 20mm on production dipstick 20 1mm=66ml Gage Correlation 3 Test for Equal Variance by location F-Test stable oil lev el adj Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 0. Oil Fill Level Project DR 4 .0 3.5 4. oil is delivered into the engine.0 Data 27 1. Engine oil is stored in bulk tanks and delivered to the engine by a series of pipes and valves. A basic drawing of the circuit is shown below. testing. A counting pump called a “totalizer” is mounted in series and keeps track of oil delivered during all three segments.73 0.0 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs 23 22 21 stable oil lev el adj oil lev el 200F @ 5min 20 20 21 22 23 Data 24 25 26 stable oil level adj oil level 200F @ 5min The engine oil fill process at the engine plant is completed at one of three cold test stands. Oil delivery is broken into three segments: initial fill.01 0.905 Gage Correlation 3 Line Plot by location 27 26 25 24 Row 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lev ene's Test oil lev el 200F @ 5min 1. During the cold test process operation (OP390).5 3.5 2.0 2.683 0.
Removal of operation OP400 inspection needs for 1st time-pass engines. Removal of packout inspection and the associated expense.5 quarts) Oil Test & Running Torque (~ . a reduction in DPM will directly improve quality to the customer. The quantity and condition of nonconforming engines sent to the customer were unknown. and stable.Stand 3 Stand 2 Stand 1 Step Fill Pt Initial Fill (~ 3.3 o o o Key measurements defining project success Reduction in common cause variation and achievement of 1.7 quarts) Top Off (~ 1. Oil Fill Level Project DR 5 . Project scope The focus and business need of this project is to eliminate hard cost associated with packout inspection.2 1. there was no objective data available to assess the current state. packout. engines found at the internal inspection points were not being recorded. In addition. Historical records related to out-of-specification claims were not available.1 Current performance level As mentioned above. Secondary benefits include the opportunity to rebalance OP400 and reduce internal repair costs. Additionally.5 quarts) Totalizer 1 Fill pt 2 Fill pt 1 1/2 Orifice Oil Supply 2 2 Engine 3 1 1.000 annually. The DMAIC process was followed. turbo engines have different specifications and will not be included in the study. Data from the stable condition was used as the current state and provided a baseline for the project. Reworked engines are viewed as special cause situations due to the human interface and are removed from the data analysis. The vehicle assembly plant is referred to as the customer for this project. This required initial data is gathered to facilitate problem definition. 2. And because inspection is not 100% effective.44 Ppk. Measurements were taken at three inspection locations. We had little more than subjective opinions about the current status at the beginning of this project. OP400. Lessons learned from this project will be applied to these cases. This project will focus on 1st time pass engines only. This expense is $130.0 Current State of the Process: Measure Phase 2.
25 2. -cf Bartlett's Test Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 8.15 1.10 P P M Total 4773.86 C pk 0. -cf AA BA CA CE CG Bartlett's Test Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 4. Baseline TEV.46 P P M Total 13818.75 2.50 1. Focus was placed on this stand for testing and improvements. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L 1.91 P P M Total 11627.73 * 10 O bserv ed P erformance P P M < LS L 0. cold test stand 2 had the highest standard deviation.65 The current state data was stratified to analyze stand-to-stand and model-to-model differences (see below). Below are results.0 2.5 2. -turbo.0 1.0 Oil Fill Level Project DR 6 .545 0.85 C P U 0. Within P erformance P P M < LS L 0.01 P P M > U S L 4773. But from a practical standpoint. -rework.03 0.012 3.35 0.00 1.5 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs 3.50 2.557 1 Lev ene's Test Lev ene's Test cold test stand 2 3 model CH 1.36 C P L 1. In addition. -cf LSL P rocess D ata LS L 10 Target * USL 24 S ample M ean 19.02296 USL Within Ov erall P otential (Within) C apability Cp 1.00 P P M > U S L 11627. -turbo.5446 S ample N 258 S tD ev (Within) 1.79 0.73 0. all stands.037 Baseline Test for Equal Variance for stable by model. Lessons learned would be shared to the other two cold test stands.87 0. -rework.86 O v erall C apability Pp PPL PPU P pk C pm 1. Hypothesis testing confirmed that not one stand or model was significantly different than the others.Baseline PCA for stable.19 P P M > U S L 13817. -rework.57 0. the three locations were analyzed to understand the impact of time on the oil level readings.75 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs 3.00 2.91 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 E xp.71902 S tD ev (O v erall) 2. stable.11 E xp.
p-value . o Analysis method – paired measurement scatter plot o Conclusion – this method can be used to measure oil level throughout the project Difference between the engine plant’s readings (stable) and assembly plant readings are insignificant.Baseline Histogram for all locations w/ updated specs. 7 - - - Oil Fill Level Project DR .56 2.) o Analysis method – hypothesis testing f-test.683 t-test.10 0. From a practical standpoint stand 2 is worse than the others. Some of the supporting evidence is shown in the appendix. o Analysis method – distribution analysis & square root of sum of squares 1° = 2mm Estimated s impact of .00 10 12 14 16 18 oil level adj 20 22 24 Below is a bulleted list that summarizes the project findings before progressing to the analyze phase. p-value .05 0.1 pack out stable Mean StDev N 16.112 201 19.20 24 oil lev el measure location OP400.69 2. o Analysis method – hypothesis testing o Conclusion – any model can be used for analysis Oil level readings change significantly from the time of fill to the time of shipment. The analysis tool and conclusion is listed for each.023 258 0. (This is true because the engine plant’s gage was adjusted to correlate properly. o Analysis method – hypothesis testing o Conclusion – testing will be completed on stand 2 and read across to the other stands No model is significantly different than all the others.15 Density 0. -cf Normal 10 0.25mm o Conclusion – oil level measurements will be taken while engine is mounted on pallet prior to being placed in engine rack No cold test stand is significantly different than the other two stands. The Engine Plant’s hand gage measurement technique is acceptable.262 258 18.418 o Conclusion – The Engine Plant can use the same specification limits as the assembly plant 10-24mm Engine rack angle has an impact on the oil level readings.54 2. -rework. -turbo.
Location of Oil Oil Supply Oil Level Variation @ Dipstick Components Measurement 2. this project is primarily focused on variation reduction. the total change in oil level between fill and shipment is approximately 3mm Identification of key variables The diagram below was developed to break the potential causes into (4) distinct categories. A look at this data in time series highlighted drastic changes in oil level between consecutive engines. variation differences are not significant o Conclusion – target oil levels must account for change based on measurement location.000 (t-test) OP400 (~5 min after fill) = 0 (baseline) Packout (~1 hr after fill) = +2mm Stable (~24 hrs after fill) = +3mm Mean differences are significant. hypothesis testing p-value 0. o o o 1.5s mean shift) < 10 DPM 3.2 Analysis method – run chart. distribution analysis.0 Analysis and Findings: Analyze Phase In the measure phase above we realized stand-to-stand and model-to-model differences were insignificant. The project goal is to identify the primary sources of variation affecting oil level and therefore eliminate the need for costly inspection.o 2.94 Pp (s = 1.44 Ppk (accounts for 1. The quantifiable targets are shown below. Oil Fill Level Project DR 8 .2mm) 1. A fishbone shown in the appendix lists individual potential causes along with the rationale for elimination throughout the project.3 Identification of target performance levels or project goals Based on the current state data.
(4) categories of variance are shown. Below illustrates the rationale. CA. This change provided an opportunity to split the potential causes.05 0.5 2. A quick test of this system was performed. stand 2.2. The results showed this function was insignificant to oil level. -cf 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 12/1/08 11:04 PM 12/1/08 11:15 PM 12/1/08 11:36 PM 12/1/08 11:53 PM 12/1/08 11:56 PM 12/2/08 12:01 AM 12/2/08 12:03 AM 12/2/08 12:04 AM 12/2/08 12:10 AM 12/2/08 12:12 AM 12/2/08 12:26 AM 12/2/08 12:43 AM 12/2/08 12:45 AM 12/3/08 12:46 PM 12/5/08 2:37 PM 0.954 oil level adj 6mm change in (20) minute time period cold test date/time The oil delivery cycle includes an air purge just before the coupler disconnects from the engine.0 2.5 3. -rework.0 1.Baseline Time Series Plot for stable.05 0. The response being measured was changed from oil level to oil weight.978 0. Blow Down Test for Equal Variances at stable Bartlett's Test Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 0 Lev ene's Test blow down time 10 20 0. A strategy change was made at this point in the project.0 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs In the diagram at the beginning of section 2.0 0. Oil Fill Level Project DR 9 12/5/08 3:35 PM 14 .5 1.
Location of Oil Dictionary split can be made between these by using oil weight.08 qt -0. This focused our attention to the oil supply. In other words.09 qt -0. location of oil and components can not influence oil weight within the engine and therefore the variation must be caused by the cold test stands (oil delivery system).2 . No segment showed separation. Individual Plot of actual-recorded by segment 0. This indicated the issue was not segment dependent. In other words.22 qt . Similar to the original baseline data. all segments contributed relatively equally to the overall variation.061 qts (accounts for 51% of entire process) 2 23 segment 23a 3a -0. each segment was analyzed individually and the variation reviewed. In effort to make another strategy split.14 qt . As mentioned in section 1. Measurement Consecutive engines were weighed before and after oil addition.14 qt Square root of sum of squares = .1.1 . oil delivery can be broken down into three segments.3 1a Oil Fill Level Project DR 10 .0 actual-recorded Points indicate the amount of “error” between actual volume delivered & volume the stand believes is present .1 0. Oil Supply Oil Level Variation @ Dipstick Components Addressed in measure phase. this test resulted in consecutive engines having drastic differences.
0 Recommendations: Improve Phase Based on the analysis above.1 10. See the summary graphs shown in the improve phase for the overall impact.9 10. When the cold test stands are E-stopped prior to maintenance.53mm) reduction in standard deviation was calculated.004 14.4 segment_1 123 123b 9. Testing of a blocked bleed off circuit was completed and this had a significant impact as seen in the f-test below.1 0. a 25% (.7 9.002 segment_1 Lev ene's Test 123b 0. A normally open solenoid valve was installed.2 10.27 0. 4.27 0. See below.8 9. This meant that oil counted as entering the engine could be redirected. Upon inspection of the circuit it was realized a “bleed off circuit” offered a potential internal leak. In the control phase are the steps we took to address it. See below and in the appendix for details. As mentioned above. improvement was made to the cold test stands to address the “bleed off circuit”.Next we reviewed the oil delivery circuit and it’s components with the OEM of the cold test stands.0 0.3 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs 0. the solenoid valve will open and relieve pressure and the associated safety concern. This valve remains closed during oil delivery to close off the circuit and eliminate the internal leak possibility. The “bleed off circuit” was in place to depressurize the circuit during maintenance and eliminate safety concerns. By using the square root of sum of squares.2 0.3 The “totalizer” was the last potential cause evaluated. Test for Equal Variance of bleed off circuit affect F-Test 123 Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 8. this is the device that pumps and counts oil as it enters the engine.0 oil wt_1 10. Oil Fill Level Project DR 11 . After inspection and testing it was found that this unit had no significant impact but it did have some practical impact.
Histogram of seq 0 vs 6.92 1.9759 7 0.6 0. It can be seen by the hypothesis testing and distribution analysis that all three cold test stands have made the required improvement. Each of them is achieving a standard deviation of 1. A summary of final results for model CG are shown below.5 0.1 0.8660 11 0.4 0 Histogram of seq 0 vs 6. std 1 Normal cold test stand = 1 0.6 0. the “totalizer” for cold test stand 2 was replaced after finding an insufficient seal between the piston rings and bores.1 0.8148 31 0. CG. CG.3 0. Adjustments can easily be made to achieve the required Ppk.428 12 20.43 19.0 Density 21 0.Added Valve Totalizer Solenoid Valve Orifice Oil Supply Engine “Bleed Off Loop” In addition. std 2 sequence Normal cold test stand = 2 Mean 6 Density Histogram of seq 0 vs 6.3 0.069 35 Density sequence 0 6 Mean 21 18.6 0.4 Mean StDev N 18. std 3 Normal cold test stand = 3 18. CG.13 StDev N 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 22 23 16 17 0.6734 43 sequence 0 6 0.2mm or less.2 0. This standard deviation results in the required Pp.2 16 17 18 19 20 0.16 1.27 StDev N 0.1 oil level adj 0.0 18 19 20 oil level adj 21 22 23 16 17 18 19 20 oil level adj 21 22 23 Oil Fill Level Project DR 12 .3 0.
Improved the OP400 oil removal process by adding a coupler that locates on the dipstick boss and removes a predetermined amount of oil. the following items were completed. Preventative maintenance activity was added to monitor the condition of the “totalizer”. Improved the OP400 oil addition process by adding a graduated beaker with associated millimeter markings.0 Monitoring and Control: Control Phase As control mechanisms. on a frequency basis.Baseline Original valve install Totalizer swap Encoder swap Valve swap Impact of Changes The final step was to remove the inspection points at packout and OP400. Information about the oil delivery circuit modification was shared with The Engine Plant’s new product launch team. In both cases these values are sent to the corporate server and can be accessed at any time to monitor the process. Oil Fill Level Project DR 13 . As a result you will notice 100% inspection remains on all repair engines. for 1st time pass engines and input values into the HMI. This was completed on 3/1/10 and control mechanisms were implemented. An audit process was implemented requiring the OP400 team member to inspect oil level. this project was targeted at 1st time pass engines. These are discussed in the control phase. This is used for repair engines. This accounts for approximately 1% of the engines. This is used for repair engines. Equipment drawings were updated to reflect the newly installed solenoid valve. As mentioned in the define phase. Repair engines remain at 100%. 5.
It was found that all engines are being filled above nominal by approximately 230ml per engine. All model types will be adjusted to nominal over the next several months to attain these savings. the 100% inspection was eliminated at packout and OP400. the housekeeping and safety issues associated with oil on the floor at OP400 are no longer a concern.0 Conclusion As a result of this project and the changes mentioned above. Oil Fill Level Project DR 14 . This amounts to $65.000 per year savings potential.000 savings by redeploying two team members.6. The packout inspection removal resulted in a $130. The removal of OP400 inspection resulted in a (3) second reduction in work time. Another potential benefit was realized during this project. And more importantly.
Appendices Oil Fill Level Project DR 15 .
Rationale Material E Oil passages on block Method D Incorrect gage design E E Oil pan volume A Incorrect oil type F E D Blow down Oil drainback Correction factor Recycle Valve sequencing logic A: checked against standard B: completed MSA C: inspected oil lines D: would not cause variation E: would not impact oil weight F: test completed. some impact Crank oil hole volume Rear seal E Engine angle during check Oil weight variation - Accumulator H C A I Oil circuit internal leak Oil circuit external leak Parameter settings Oil heater A B Incorrect gage used Totalizer (oil meter) Gage read incorrectly Man Machine Oil Fill Level Project DR 16 .53mm sigma I: test completed. no impact H: test confirmed “bleed off circuit” impact of .
Oil Fill Level Project DR 17 .