You are on page 1of 8

This article was downloaded by:[University at Buffalo (SUNY)] On: 15 February 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 784375719] Publisher

: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597292

Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques
E. V. Gijo a a SQC and OR Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore, India

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2005 To cite this Article: Gijo, E. V. (2005) 'Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques', Quality Engineering, 17:2, 309 315 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1081/QEN-200056494 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/QEN-200056494

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Pp and Ppk.in. Analysis of variance. As a result of the study.993 mm.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 Quality Engineering. The values of Pp and Ppk were found to be 0. The process capability of this grinding process was evaluated and found to be very low. The rejections in the shop floor of a company were studied through Pareto analysis for prioritizing the problems due to different sources. Signal to noise ratio. and it was found that the gauge repeatability 309 . a study was undertaken to identify the major causes related to rejection in the shop floor and taking remedial actions to eliminate the detected causes. INTRODUCTION An engineering organization was faced with a problem of high rejection in one of its machining shops. The specification limits of this component were 18. SQC and OR Unit. Bangalore 560 059. Gijo. Hence. The data regarding rejection were collected from the past records and a Pareto analysis was carried out for identifying the main causes of rejection.ac. 2005 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Inc. India. From the Pareto analysis. Address correspondence to E. 2.1081/QEN-200056494 Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process by Application of Statistical Techniques E. India This article describes the application of statistical techniques in solving a problem of high rejection and rework due to variation in the machining process. This shows that the process is highly incapable of meeting the specified requirements. A step by step method was adopted by the application of several statistical techniques such as design of experiments for solving this problem. The grinding process was found to be the most contributing among all the processes towards rejection and rework. ISSN: 0898-2112 print=1532-4222 online DOI: 10. V. Optimum combination. which were found not to have an effect on low process capability. V. E-mail: gijo@isibang. Bangalore. Gijo SQC and OR Unit. CAUSE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS A brainstorming session was carried out involving all the concerned people.983–18. Gauge repeatability and reproducibility studies were conducted for the measuring instrument (dial comparator). The data thus collected are given in Table 1.49. This has lead to reduction in the problems due to high rejection and rework in shop floor. 17:309–315. were removed. The process performance indices. Orthogonal array. Indian Statistical Institute. it is clear that almost 80 percent of the rejections are contributed by grinding and turning processes with grinding process alone contributing almost 60% of rejection. Figure 1 represents the Pareto diagram of the collected data. The output of the brainstorming was put in the form of the cause and effect diagram given in Fig. 8th Mile Mysore Road. All the causes listed in the cause and effect diagram were physically verified and the causes. the process capability has improved drastically. The company management was not in a position to identify where exactly the rejections were originating and the root causes of the rejection related problems. INITIAL DATA COLLECTION To understand the current status of process capability of the grinding process. Keywords Process capability. were calculated from this data. For all other causes the following actions were initiated: . a sample of 40 components was machined in the grinding machine and the data were collected. Gauge repeatability and reproducibility. it was decided to conduct a detailed study for improving the process capability of the grinding process. Based on this inference it was decided to undertake a study on grinding process capability.62 and 0. In this context. Indian Statistical Institute. Pareto analysis. Design of experiments.

984 18. PLAN AND DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT After having a detailed study on the machine parameters.989 18.989 18.99 Part no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dia.993 18. Therefore.987 18. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Dia. it was decided to select four parameters Table 1 Data on grinding process Part no. Pareto chart for rejection.993 18. .992 18.988 18.987 18. (mm) 18.989 18.989 18.989 18. Hence.982 18. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dia.993 18.989 18.989 18.989 18.989 Part no.99 .987 Part no.988 18.994 18. the different operating parameters of the machine were fixed by the trial and error method. (mm) 18. (mm) 18.986 18. (mm) 18.989 18.987 18. No scientific method has yet been adopted to establish the optimum level of operating process=machine parameters.995 18. it was decided to carry out a designed experiment for optimizing the process=machine parameters.992 18.991 18.991 18.992 18.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 310 Gijo Figure 1.988 18.99 18. it was decided to continue with the existing system of measurements.986 18.99 18.989 18. The entire machine was dismantled and the tailstock and the headstock were perfectly brought on the center of alignment line.988 18.99 18. Previously.985 18.99 18. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Dia. and reproducibility percentage was less than 10.

(factors) for experimentation. Wheel Speed.0008) 2200 250à A54 à Levels Div 2 (0. The physical layout prepared is given in Table 3. Linear graph. 3. In addition to the main effects. Table 2 Factors and levels for experimentation Factors Feed rate Wheel speed Work speed Wheel grade à Code A B C D Div 1 (0. with the current operating level one among them. 1989) in eight experiments. Two levels each were identified for these selected factors. Figure 3. Cause and effect diagram. interactions between Feed Rate and Wheel Speed (A  B) and Feed Rate and Work Speed (A  C) were also considered. (Phadke. Work Speed.0010) 2450à 360 A60à Unit Mm=Rev RPM RPM — Existing levels.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process 311 Figure 2. . Experimentation with four factors each at two levels and two interactions was conducted with the help of orthogonal array L8. The physical layout for experimentation was prepared by taking the assigned columns and factors from the linear graph. and Wheel Grade. The different factors and their respective levels identified are given in Table 2. In the linear graph. The selected factors were Feed Rate. and the line joining between two nodes represents the interaction between the factors. The response variable of the experiment was selected to be variation of the outer diameter of the machined components. The factors and interactions are allocated to the orthogonal array as shown in the linear graph given in Fig. the nodes represent factors.

From the average response curves of À10à log(s2) (see Fig.4692 50. Similarly. The data thus collected are given in Table 4.1079 46.988 18.0298 46. factor D (Wheel Grade) and interaction AC (Feed Rate  Work Speed) has significant effect on the response. the response metric was taken to be –10à log(s2) (Montgomery.991 18.0298 56.996 18. which have an effect on the variation of the outer diameter of the component. The data were collected for all the eight combinations replicated two times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table 5 À10à log(s2) values S=N value 53.9704 49.989 18. 1991). 7.9910 49. for interaction AC. Since the variability was the main reason for low process capability. and 8. 4).996 18. no. Exp. it is evident that level one of both factors A and D give better results.9483 ANALYSIS The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the significant factors.991 18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table 4 Data of the experiment Feed rate (mm=Rev) Div Div Div Div Div Div Div Div 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Wheel speed (RPM) 2200 2200 2450 2450 2200 2200 2450 2450 Work speed (RPM) 250 360 250 360 250 360 250 360 Response (mm) Wheel grade A54 A60 A60 A54 A54 A60 A60 A54 1 18. Similarly. The ANOVA table shows that factor A (Feed Rate) is significantly affecting the response.988 18.987 18.990 18.979 18. The response values were calculated for each experimental combination (see Table 5) and ANOVA was performed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EXPERIMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION The experiment was carried out for all the eight combinations given in Table 3 in a random order. level one for A and level two for .984 18.985 18.981 2 18. respectively.1079 44.986 18. The ANOVA table and average response tables [for – 10à log(s2)].985 18. are given in Tables 6.989 Trial no. no.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 312 Gijo Table 3 Physical layout for experimentation Feed rate (A) (mm=Rev) (1) Div Div Div Div Div Div Div Div 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Wheel speed (B) (RPM) (2) 2200 2200 2450 2450 2200 2200 2450 2450 Work speed (C) (RPM) (4) 250 360 250 360 250 360 250 360 Wheel grade (D) (6) A54 A60 A60 A54 A54 A60 A60 A54 Exp.

48431 118. using a systematic approach.14430 5.78144 4.38576 18.10958 48.00827 0.75440 D 51.23836 11.67308 3. Therefore. 1988). CONCLUSION Thus.54847 B 49.05400 Thus the expected diameter at the optimum combination is ¼ ð18:9873 À 18:9878Þ þ ð18:986 À 18:9873 À 18:9849 þ 18:9878Þ þ ð18:9885 À 18:9878Þ þ 18:9878 ¼ 18:9896 mm By similar method. PREDICTION OF THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE The expected performance for the process average. Table 8 Average response table for interaction AC C Level A 1 2 1 51. Both of these values indicate that the process is now capable of meeting specifications. the optimum level was identified based on operational convenience.78144 4. . the expected value of response [ À10Ã log (s2)] at the optimum combination was found to be 55.89433 49.32761 Rho% 59.26925 C 49.15677 6.15107 MS 73. Comparison of process performance indices before and after the study is given in Table 10. For the insignificant factor B. Forty components were machined under this optimum level.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process Table 6 ANOVA table Source of variation A B AB C AC D Error (Pooled) Total DF 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 7 SS 73.40917 49. The average and standard deviation for these 40 values (given in Table 9) were found to be 18.98070 45. the expected standard deviation at the optimum setting was estimated as 0. The optimal values of the factor level combination thus arrived at are given in Table 11.62108 F 20. Thus the optimal factor level combination arrived at is A1 B1 C2 D1 .67308 14.23836 11. under the optimal combination (Taguchi. was estimated as follows: ^opt ¼ ðA1 À T Þ þ ðA1 C2 À A1 À C2 þ T Þ l þ ðD 1 À T Þ þ T i is the ith level  is the overall average and A where T average of factor A (i ¼ 1.57 12.38576 18.60792 0.24 313 3.24950 47. 2).00171.9877 mm and 0.56885 2 53.33579.52810 CONFIRMATION TRIAL A confirmatory trial was conducted by setting the operating parameters at their respective optimum levels. the optimal levels of the various factors of the grinding process had been obtained so as to improve the process capability and there by reducing the process rejections.60792 0.00827 0.61510 46.00125. The process performance indices were calculated for this data and have shown substantial improvement.74 Table 7 Average response table for main effects: [À10Ã log (s2)] Factor Level 1 2 A 52. C were found to give better results.

987 18.988 18. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dia. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Dia.988 18.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 314 Gijo Figure 4.988 18. Average response curves.990 Part no.988 18. (mm) 18.989 18.989 18.988 18.988 18.985 18.987 18.989 Part no.988 18. (mm) 18.987 18. Table 9 Data of confirmatory trial Part no.988 .987 18.988 18.989 18.989 18.986 Part no. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Dia.987 18.988 18.988 18.989 18. (mm) 18.988 18.985 18.986 18.988 18.988 18.989 18.987 18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dia.988 18.984 18.988 18.986 18. (mm) 18.988 18.987 18.987 18.989 18.

Quality Management. Gijo is a specialist in the Statistical Quality Control and Operations Research Unit of Indian Statistical Institute. He is an active consultant in the fields of Six Sigma.Downloaded By: [University at Buffalo (SUNY)] At: 11:28 15 February 2008 Improving Process Capability of Manufacturing Process Table 10 Process performance indices before and after study Process performance index Pp Ppk Before 0.62 0. and a Master’s degree in Quality. India. Kottayam. Reliability. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Phadke. V. Table 11 Optimum factor level combination Factors Feed Wheel speed Work speed Wheel grade Code A B C D Levels Div. Taguchi Methods. D.0008) 2200 360 A54 Unit Mm=Rev RPM RPM — IMPLEMENTATION After observing the significant improvement in the process during confirmatory trial. He also teaches in the academic programs of the Institute. With the introduction of this optimal operating level. Volumes 1 and 2.1 (. S.24 315 ABOUT THE AUTHOR E. the optimum combination was implemented in the process with immediate effect.49 After 1. Reliability. and allied topics in a variety of industries. Quality Engineering Using Robust Design. Bangalore. Taguchi.33 1. the extent of rejection and rework has been reduced substantially. (1991). REFERENCES Montgomery. C. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley. G. New York: UNIPUB and American Supplier Institute. M. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Systems of Experimental Design. . and Operations Research from Indian Statistical Institute. (1988). He is a qualified assessor for ISO-9001 and ISO-14001 systems. (1989). He holds a Master’s degree in Statistics from Mahatma Gandhi University. Calcutta.