IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY OF AXELS

THROUGH REDUCTION
OF DEFECTS AT AXEL PIN MANUFACTURING

SUBMITTED TO:

INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE, DELHI CENTER

FOR AWARD OF SIX SIGMA GREEN BELT

PREPARED BY:

SUMEET SAINI, CAD ENGINEER

UNIPARTS GROUP, NOIDA
Sumeet.saini88@gmail.com

SEPTEMBER 2014
 Executive Summary

Uniparts Group continuously strives to improve the quality of the processes and products to provide better
services to the customer and manufacturing the more precise parts. Management provided unyielding
commitment to get the initiative going and showing the continuous improvements.

Rejection in manufacturing process occurs mainly due to proper system not being in place. Rejection in
every process is a waste which adds up to company’s net loss in mass production.
Axel pins manufacturing travels through a series of manufacturing process to become an end product used in
Axels.

This Project involves the research on the factors causing the rejection of Axel pins using six sigma
methodologies for problem solving and control. More than 1700 pieces had been manufactured every month
and near about 285 to 300 pieces get rejected. It was observed that rejection rate is very high (15%).This
project was untaken in the distance piece fine grinding process, which has been done by centerless grinder
machine.

The goal statement was defined as reduction in rejection of pieces in grinding by 50% from existing level.
Customer complaints were considered as CTQ.SIPOC along with Flowchart was prepared for better
understanding of process. Measurement system analysis was carried out for gauge R&R study. The pareto
chart was geared up and sigma rating was calculated. Data was analyzed. Various analyses like Process
capability Analysis, PFMEA, Regression analysis & cause and effect analysis was carried out. For the
improvement of process, project aimed at identifying solution for all the root cause identified during analyze
phase. Finally solutions are standardized. Control chart is a statistical tool used to monitor the process over
time to determine whether special cause of variation occurs in process. Control plans are revised as per the
solution implemented and issued to related department. As a result of project, the rejection level of Axel
pins after grinding process has been reduced to 7% from 15%.

During the data analysis process, following, hidden problems are uncovered.
1. Centerless grinder machine is not capable to grind this type of piece.
2. After grinding, Micrometer was used for the inspection of outer diameters.
3. Grinding process variation.
4. Outer diameter was not uniform and variation in measurement points.
The following has been implemented in order to eliminate the problems.
1. Air ring gauges were introduced for outer diameter inspection after grinding.
2. Hangers and plastic net are used to protect pieces from dents and scratches.
3. Inspection plans were updated by adding special instructions.
4. Cylindrical grinder machine has been used for grinding outer diameter.
 Introduction

This paper presents the step by step application of six sigma (DMAIC) approaches to improve the
productivity through reduction of defects at axel pin manufacturing. This helped to reduce defects in the
grinding process and thereby improve productivity and on time delivery to customer.

More than 1700 pieces has been manufactured every month and near about 285 to 300 pieces get rejected. It
was observed that rejection rate is very high (15%).This project was untaken in the distance piece fine
grinding process, which has been done by centerless grinder machine. In the past many attempts were made
to solve the problem, which were unsuccessful. The six sigma problem solving methodology DAMIC was
recommend. Hence, it was decided to address the problem with six sigma DAMIC methodology.
Project Charter:

Project Charter
Project Name: Improved Productivity of Axels through reduction of defects at Axel pin
manufacturing.

● Improved productivity of Axels through reduction of

defects/defectives at axel pins manufacturing.
Business Case:

● High loss of production of axels assemblies due to short supply of axel pins

● Axel pin is an important component. Our line got down due to short supply of pins.

● Due to this we are losing business and our competitors are getting benefit of this.

● Hence management initiated a six sigma project at axle pin manufacturing.

Problem/Opportunity: Scope, Constraints, Assumptions:

● The rejection rate is near about 15%.
● customer wants to transfer business ● Product cost should minimum.
to other supplier

Team Members:
Goal: Sponsor GM Operations
● It was decided to achieve reduce the Leader Project Manager
rejection rate up to 3 sigma level Team Members: Sumeet Irfan
Trainer Mr. Ashish Tyagi
Preliminary Project Plan Target Date Actual Date
Define 5 Nov. 10 Nov.
Measure 11 Nov. 20 Nov.
Analyze 21 Nov. 30 Nov.
Improve 1 Dec. 20 Dec.
Control 21 Dec. 30 Dec.

Prepared by: SUMEET SAINI Approved by: GM Operations

Drawing:
Process Flow Chart:

Start

10 Raw Material 60 Milling

Procurement

Blanking 70 Stamping
20

30 Facing & Center Drilling 80 Plating

40 Facing & O.D Turning 90 O.D

Grinding
& Oiling
50 Turning, Chamfering 100 Final
& Threading Inspection

110 Packaging

Store
CTQ Tree Diagram:

Need Driver CTQ Metric

Defect free
Deburring Brushing
parts

100% visual
inspection

Dent & Rust Proper

free parts handeling

Oiling

Aesthetic Plating

cleaning
SIPOC:

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Output
Input requirements
Provider Start requirements Receiver
and measures
and measures
Fabrication Shop Raw Material (Bar) Cutting (Band saw) Bars Machine shop
Turning, Center
Machined
Machine shop Bars Drilling, Threading, Plating Shop
components
Milling & Stamping
Plating Shop Machined components Plating Plated Parts Machine shop
Machined
Machine shop Plated Parts Grinding Packing Department
components
Packing Department Finished Parts Packing Boxes Warehouse
High-Level Process
Description:

Axel Pins
manufacturing Process

End:

Packed Axle pins

Pareto Chart:

Pareto Chart
4000 100.0%
95.0%
3500 89.8% 90.0%
84.2%
80.0%
3000 75.5%
70.0%
2500 64.8%
60.0%
2000 52.4% 50.0%
No. Of Defects

1500 40.0%
30.0%
1000
20.0%
500 10.0%
0 0.0%
in
g ng ng ng ng rr ng
in
d adi r ni illi illi Bu lati
Gr re Tu M Dr cP
Th er Zin
O.
D & g& n t
ng cin Ce
rn
i Fa &
Tu g
cin
Fa
Oppertunities

Total No. of Pieces inspected: 3850

No. of defects: 4012
Gauge R&R:

0.005 APPRAISER A
0.004 R - OP1
UCL-R
0.003
LCL-R
0.002
RBARBAR
0.001
Repeatability Control Chart:
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

APPRAISER B
0.005
0.004 R - OP2
 0.002 LCL-R
RBARBAR
0.001
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

APPRAISER C
0.005
0.004 R - OP3
0.003 UCL-R

0.002 LCL-R
RBARBAR
0.001
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Part Appraiser Average Chart:

APPRAISER A
30.005 Xavg -
30.000 OP1
UCL-
29.995 XBAR
29.990 LCL-XBAR
XBARBAR
29.985
29.980
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

APPRAISER B
30.005 Xavg -
30.000 OP2
UCL-
29.995
XBAR
29.990 LCL-XBAR
29.985 XBARBAR

29.980
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

APPRAISER C
30.005
30.000 Xavg - OP3
 LCL-XBAR
29.990
XBARBAR
29.985
29.980
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Measurement System Variability:
DPMO & Sigma Level:

Opportunities 7 DPMO Sigma

Defects 4012 697000 0.98

Units 3850 697000 0.98

DPMO 148,868 308733 2.00

% Defects 14.89 66803 3.00

% Yield 85.11 6210 4.00

Sigma 2.54 233 5.00

Zst 1.04 3.4 6.00

DPMU 1,042,078

Cp 0.85
Fishbone Cause & Effect Diagram:
Process Failure Mode & Effect Analysis:

Page 1 of 2

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

Item Axel Pin Process Responsibility: Production Engineering PFMEA No.: 18SPL102-1
PREPARED BY: Sumeet Saini
Model Years: Axel Key Date: 12/11/2014 PROCESS FMEA Rev.No: 0
PFMEA DATE: 12/12/14
Core Team: Satyendra, Sumeet, Yogesh, Sunil, Ramesh Chand, Tejveer Singh

Process Step A ction Results

Potential Cause(s) / Responsibility &

Potential Effect(s) of Current Process Controls Recommended

R. P. N.
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Mechanism(s) of Current Process Controls Prevention Target Completion Actions Taken & R.
Failure Detection Action(s)

Occurrence

Occurrence
Detection

Detection
Failure Date Completion Date P.

Severity

Severity
Class
N.

List every potential Design actions to

Consequences on
cause and/or failure reduce severity, Name of
Name, Part Manner in which part other systems, parts, List detection activities to
mechanism: List prevention activities to assure occurrence and organization or
Number, or could fail: cracked, or people: noise, assure process adequacy Actions and actual
incorrect material, process adequacy and prevent or reduce 0 detection ratings. individual and 0
Class loosened, deformed, unstable, and prevent or reduce completion date
improper occurrence. Severity of 9 or 10 target completion
leaking, oxidized, etc. inoperative, occurrence.
maintenance, requires special date
impaired, etc.
fatigue, wear, etc. attention.

Non compliance with test Part failure & Wrong material Raw Material from Material test report of
6 - 2 5 60 0
certificate Material scraped supply authorized/approved supplier
manufacturer
Raw material receiving and

Wrong material
Bar dia. Die Wear 4 - 2 - Incoming inspection 4 32 0
supply
inspection

Part failure & Wrong material Raw Material from authorized/approved

Hardness 4 - 2 Incoming inspection 4 32 0
Material scraped supply manufacturer

Hydrogen Problem from

Rusty material 4 - 3 Process Stabilized at vender end Check at rec. inspection 5 60 0
embrittlement material supplier

Part failure & Machining setting

Blanking Dimensional variation 6 - 3 - Setup verification 5 90 0
Material scraped not ok

Change Thread
Customer dis- Cutting chips &
Burr 3 - 10 - Setup Verification 2 60 cutting insert after - - 3 5 2 30
satisfaction burrs in Threads
150 pieces
Turning, Chamfering &

Customer dis-
Dents 6 - Material Handling 7 - 100% inspection 2 84 0
satisfaction
Threading

Part failure &

6 - Unstable clamping 6 Check clamping methods Setup Verification 2 72 0
Material scraped
Chattering
Part failure & Excessive cutting
6 - 7 Re-examine process parameters Setup Verification 2 30 0
Material scraped conditions

Customer dis- Insert

Rough Finish 5 - Insert Wear 3 Setup Verification 2 30 0
satisfaction Checking
 Page 2 of 2

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

Item Axel Pin Process Responsibility: Production Engineering PFMEA No.: 18SPL102-1
Model Years: Axel Key Date: 12/11/2014 PREPARED BY: Sumeet Saini
PROCESS FMEA Rev.No: 0
Core Team: Satyendra, Sumeet, Yogesh, Sunil, Ramesh Chand, Tejveer Singh PFMEA DATE: 12/12/14

Process Step A ction Results

Potential Cause(s) / Responsibility &

R. P. N.
Potential Effect(s) of Current Process Controls Recommended Actions Taken &

Occurrence

Occurrence
Requirements Potential Failure Mode Mechanism(s) of Current Process Controls Prevention Target Completion R.

Detection

Detection
Severity

Severity
Failure Detection Action(s) P.

Class
Failure Date Completion Date
N.

Part failure & Machining setting

6 - 6 Re-examine process parameters Setup Verification 3 108 0
Material scraped not ok
Chattering
Part failure &
5 - Unstable clamping 3 Check clamping methods Setup verification 3 45 0
Material scraped
Milling & stamping

Customer dis- Change inserts

Burr 3 - Tool wear 9 - 100% inspection 2 54 0
satisfaction after 150 pieces

Excessive cutting
Silver streak marks Bad appearance 3 - 3 Re-examine process parameters 100% inspection 2 18 0
conditions

Part failure &

Stamping position 3 - Unstable clamping 2 Check clamping methods 100% inspection 2 12 0
Material scraped

Life cycle time Process parameter

Plating Thickness less 5 - 8 - Check at final inspection 2 80
less of key not ok
Problem in pin Process parameter
Plating Thickness more 7 sc 7 - Check at final inspection 2 98
insertion not ok
Plating

Process parameter
White patches, Black spot,
Appearance failure 4 - not ok/Problem with 8 - 100% visual inspection 2 64
scratch & dull surface
plating chemical

Part failure & inadequate filtering

scratches 4 - 10 Filter by magnet 100% visual inspection 3 120 Change filter - - 4 6 3 72
Material scraped of coolant

Part failure & Grinding wheel out

Dimensional variation 6 s 9 True wheel setting 100% inspection 3 162 Wheel setting - - 6 4 3 72
Material scraped of balance
c
Grinding

Part failure &

6 - Process Parameters 9 Stock Removal to heavy 100% inspection 3 162 Change settings - - 6 4 3 72
Material scraped
Run out
Part failure & Grinding pressure
6 - 9 Re-examine process parameters 100% inspection 3 162 Reduce pressure 6 4 3 72
Material scraped to high
8D Problem Solving:
FM/QA/44

8D Response Report
01.12.14
WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE PROBLEM? Date Open: 8D No.: 2

Customer
Company: Gripwel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Initial Response: Complaint 3
--
No.:
Address: 142A/30 T0 142A/51,NSEZ Target Close Date: 13.12.14

Location: NOIDA Revision Date(s): --

Part No./Code 18SPL102 8D Initiator: Tejveer SINGH

Product Name: Axel Pin 8D Initiator's Spvr: Ram Lakhan

Internal: External: Actual Close Date: 11.12.14

D1 TEAM MEMBER NAMES/TITLES: D2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/DESCRIPTION (quantify) (one defect per 8D)
Champion: Mr. Gaurav Goyal
Team Leader: Mr.Ramesh chand Variation the Outer diameter of pin.
Team Members: The rejection rate of pins is 14.9%.Which has created problem at customer end.
Ramsewak, Anil kumar, Sumeet Saini

% Target Actual
D3 CHOOSE AND VERIFY INTERIM CONTAINMENT ACTION(S) (ICA):
Effective: Date: Date:
GFPL Inventory has checked and found 1735 parts. All parts verified for outer diameter and 800 Pcs. Are found
defective.
02.12.14 22.12.14
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ICA?

100% Inspection

D4 DEFINE AND VERIFY ROOT CAUSE(S): % Contribution:

1. Grinding process variation: Centerless grinder is not suitable for this Grinding.
2. Micrometer is used for checking outer dia.
3. The defect was not detected during final inspection and part was cleared.
HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE ROOT CAUSE(S)?
1. Gauge R&R study.
2. Every part outer diameter checked at 4 different points.
D5 CHOOSE AND VERIFY PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA): % Effective:

1. Air ring gauges are introduced.

2. All parts are checked with air ring gauges.
3. Using cylindrical grinder for outer dia. Grinding.

HOW DID YOU VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PCA?

Process monitoring
 Target Actual
D6 IMPLEMENT AND VALIDATE PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION(S) (PCA):
Date: Date:
1. Air ring gauges are available for inspection of outer dia.
2. New vender developed.
09.12.14 09.12.14
HOW WILL YOU VALIDATE THE PCA?

100% Inspection
D7 SYSTEM PREVENTION ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: Target Actual
Mistake Proofing: How are you going to ensure it can't happen again? Date: Date:

100% inspection with Air ring gauges. 11.12.14 11.12.14

HAS CORRECTIVE ACTION/IMPLEMENTATION BEEN REVIEWED AGAINST DOCUMENTS?:
Check boxes that apply: Control Plan FMEA Flowchart Proc./Work Instr. Add to Internal Audit

D8 TEAM AND INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION: Recognize the collective efforts of the team.
congrats to team

Improvements:
Air Ring Gauges
Hanger to protect pieces from dents Plastic net to protect outer surfaces from scratch.
Improved Cp & Cpk:
Diameter

35 LSL 29.987 USL 30.000

Mean 29.994
Median 29.994
Mode 29.993
n 60 Cp 1.699
30
Cpk 1.625
Ppk 1.590
Skewness 0.323
Stdev 0.001
25 Min 29.992
Max 29.996
Range 0.004

20
Numb

15

10

5 Req. Cpk 1.33~1.67

0
29.985 29.986 29.987 29.988 29.989 29.99 29.991 29.992 29.993 29.994 29.995 29.996 29.997 29.998 29.999 30 30.001

Values
 Page 1 of 3

Control plan:

CONTROL PLAN F:ENG:09:02

Prototype Prelaunch Production: Y Key Contact/Phone: AYUSHMAN KACHRU:120-4581200 Date(Orig): 20.03.14 Date (Rev.):
Control Plan Number: CP18SPL102
Core Team:MUKESH SHARMA, SATYENDRA SINGH,
Part Number/Latest Change Level:45510036 YOGESH KUMAR, RAMESH CHAND, ASHISH Customer Eng. Approval/Date:

Part Name/Description: AXIS Organization/Plant Approval/Date: Customer Quality Approval/Date:

(if Req'd)

Organization/Plant: Gripwel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Supplier Code: Other Approval/Date (If Req'd): Other Approval/Date :
(If Req'd)

Characteristics Methods
Part/ Process Process Name/ Machine, Device, Special
Number Operation Jig, Tools, for Char. Product/Process Evaluation/ Measurement
No. Product Process Size Freq. Control Method Reaction Plan
Description Mfg. Class Specification/ Tolerance Technique

Metallurgical analysis
Raw Material 1 Material ST-523501-C2 1 Pc. Lot Supplier material test Reject
10 B/O +Supplier test report
Procurement report
2 Bar dia. ø42 Vernier caliper 1 Pc. Lot Receipt Insp.Report Do
Lab report/
1 Material ST-523501-C2 1 Pc. Lot Lab report Do
Supplier
2 Bar dia. ø42 certificate
Vernier caliper 1/20 Shift Insp. Report Do
Segregate &
3 Length 100+1/-0 Vernier caliper 1/20 Shift -
20 Blanking Band saw M/c. Rework
0.5 mm max (2x) Segregate &
4 Perpendicularity Height gauge 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
w.r.t O.D Rework
Segregate &
5 Straightness 0.5 max. Feeler Gauge 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
1 Length 98.5±0.5 Vernier caliper 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
Bridge gauge 100% Shift -
Facing and Rework
30 CNC Lathe M/c.
Chamfering Segregate &
2 Center Drill Ax4 IS:2473 Standard Tool 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
3 Position ø0.2 mm max w.r.t O.D Height gauge F,M,L Shift Insp. Report
Rework
Setup
Reset parameters
1 Outer dia. ø40±0.05 Micrometer 1 Pc. Setting approval
& recheck
report
Segregate &
Adj. snap gauge 100% Shift -
Rework
Facing and 2 O.D length 8mm min.
40 CNC Lathe M/c.
O.D
Turning O.D Segregate &
3 3.2 Ra. Max. Surface roughness tester 1/20 Shift Insp. Report
surface Rework
finish Segregate &
4 Total length 97±0.5 Vernier caliper 1/20 Shift Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
5 Corner Radius R2±0.4 Profile projectoe/Radius gauge 1/20 Shift Insp. Report
Rework
 Page 2 of 3

CONTROL PLAN F:ENG:09:02

Prototype Prelaunch Production: Y Key Contact/Phone: AYUSHMAN KACHRU:120-4581200
Control Plan Number: CP18SPL102 Date(Orig): 20.03.14 Date (Rev.):
Core Team: MUKESH SHARMA, SATYENDRA SINGH,
Part Number/Latest Change Level:45510036 YOGESH KUMAR, RAMESH CHAND, ASHISH Customer Eng. Approval/Date:

Part Name/Description: AXIS Organization/Plant Approval/Date: Customer Quality Approval/Date:

(if Req'd)
Organization/Plant: Gripwel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Supplier Code: Other Approval/Date (If Req'd): Other Approval/Date :
Setup
Reset parameters
1 Outer dia. ø30.2+0.1/0 Micrometer 1 Pc. Setting approval
& recheck
report
Segregate &
Adj. snap gauge 100% Shift -
Rework
Segregate &
2 Surface finish 3.2 Ra. Max. Surface roughness tester 1/20 Shift Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
3 O.D turning length 66±0.1 Vernier caliper 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
4 Corner Radius R0.5 max. Profile projector/Radius gauge 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
5 Chamfer 1.5±0.4x45 ± Vernier caliper & B.P 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
Turning, 6 Edge chamfer at ø30 1.2±0.2x30 ±1. Vernier caliper & B.P 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
50 CNC Lathe M/c. Rework
Chamfering and
Threading 7 Thread M24x3-6g (RH) 1 pc. Setting Segregate &
Thread plug gauge Insp. Report
100% Shift Rework
Segregate &
8 Edge chamfer 1.5±0.4x45 ± .5 Profile projector/Angle 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
protractor
Segregate &
9 Groove to groove dia ø21.7±0.20 Pin micrometer 1/20 Shift Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
10 Groove angle 45 ±1. Profile projector 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Segregate &
11 Groove radius R8±0.4 2x Profile projector 1 Pc. Setting Insp. Report
Rework
Setting/ Segregate &
12 Groove width 2.5±0.20 Profile projector/Vernier caliper 1/20 Shift
Process Rework
Length from inspection
Setting/ Segregate &
13 92±0.5 Vernier caliper 1/20 Shift
face to step Process Rework
end inspection
Setup
Reset parameters
1 Corner angle 45 ±1 Angle protractor 1/20 Shift approval
& recheck
report
Setup
Reset parameters
2 Distance from face 53.5±0.5 Vernier caliper 1 Pc. Setting approval
& recheck
60 Milling VMC M/c. report
Setup
Reset parameters
3 Groove depth 27+0/-0.1 Vernier caliper 1 Pc. Setting approval
& recheck
report
Reset parameters
100% Shift Process inspection
& recheck
R Symbol (Must
1 Symbol Visual 100% - - Rework/reject
be visible)
Segregate &
70 Stamping Stamping M/c. 2 Cleanliness Free from rust and dents Visual 100% - -
Rework
Segregate &
3 Surface Oiled Visual 100% - -
Rework
 Page 3 of 3

CONTROL PLAN F:ENG:09:02

Prototype: Prelaunch: Production: Y
Control Plan Number: CP18SPL102 Key Contact/Phone: AYUSHMAN KACHRU:120-4581200 Date(Orig): 20.03.14 Date (Rev.):
Core Team: MUKESH SHARMA, SATYENDRA SINGH,
Part Number/Latest Change Level:45510036 YOGESH KUMAR, RAMESH CHAND, ASHISH Customer Eng. Approval/Date:

Part Name/Description: AXIS Organization/Plant Approval/Date: Customer Quality Approval/Date:

(if Req'd)
Organization/Plant: Gripwel Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. Supplier Code: Other Approval/Date (If Req'd): Other Approval/Date :
Segregate &
1 Surface after plating Free from rust and pit Visual 100% Shift -
Rework
marks
Segregate &
2 Layer thickness 0.008 min. Layer thickness tester 5 Pcs. Lot Plating thickness report
Rework
Segregate &
3 Surface after passivation Clear chromate Visual 100% shift -
Zinc plating Rework
80 with trivalent Plating shop 4 Passivation Not to remove By rubbing 1 Pc. Lot Insp. Report Reject
clear passivation
72 Hrs. no white rust
5 Salt spray test & 96 Hrs. no red rust Visual 1 Pc. Lot SST Report Reject
(ASTM B117)

6 Surface Free from cracks Magnaflux 5 Pcs. Lot Insp. Report Reject
7 Thread M24x3-6g (RH) Thread plug gauge 5 Pcs. Lot Insp. Report Reject
Setup
Reset parameters
1 Outer dia. ø29.987-ø30.0 Micrometer 1 Pc. Setting approval
& recheck
report
Segregate &
2 Air ring gauge 100% Shift Process inspection
Rework
Setup
Segregate &
3 Surface roughness 0.8 Ra. Max. Surface roughness tester F,M,L Shift approval
Rework
report
Cylindrical Grinder Free from Setting Segregate &
90 O.D Grinding 4 Microstructure Microscope 1 Pc. Lab report
M/c. martensite & Day Rework
formation
Pre & post Segregate &
5 Surface Free from cracks Magnaflux 3 Pcs. Lab report
wheel Rework
dressing
Pre & post Segregate &
6 Surface Free from grinding burns Visual 3 Pcs. Lab report
wheel Rework
dressing
Segregate &
7 Surface Oiled (Anti rust) Visual 100% - -
Rework
Segregate &
100 Final Inspection Work bench 1 Final inspection Ref. Drawing no. 18spl102 Ref. quality plan QP18spl102 100% lot PDIR
Rework
Segregate &
110 Packaging Work bench 1 No. of pieces Counting As per Packaging Std. 100% lot PDIR
Rework/Reject
APPROVED BY:
REVIEW BY: Core Team DATE: 15.12.14 APPROVED BY: S. Singh DATE: 20.12.14 DATE:
(CUSTOMER)
Control Chart:

X DIAMETER
29.999UCL 29.9978
29.997 29.9938

29.995
CL
29.993
DIAMETER

29.991 LCL 29.9898

29.989
29.987
29.985
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
Period

Pareto Chart:
 600 120%

500 480 99% 100% 100%

90%
400 82% 80%
72%

300 62% 60%

51%
200 40%

103 102 90
100 80 80 20%

10
0 0%
O.D Grinding Turning & Milling Facing & Cen- Facing & Turn- Zinc Plating Burr
Threading ter Drilling ing

Series1 Percentage

Total No. of Pieces inspected: 2000

No. of defects: 945

DPMO & Sigma Level:

Opportunities 7 DPMO Sigma

Defects 945 697000 0.98

Units 2000 697000 0.98

DPMO 67,500 308733 2.00

% Defects 6.75 66803 3.00

% Yield 93.25 6210 4.00

Sigma 2.99 233 5.00

Zst 1.49 3.4 6.00

DPMU 472,500

Cp 1.00
Conclusion:

Six sigma is a project driven management approach based on theories and procedures to reduce defects for
specific process this report presents the step by step application to reduce the rejection level of fine grinding
process along with other process.

As a result of project, the rejection level has been reduced to 7% from 15%. This is note that centerless
grinder machine cause the rejection. The major causes of rejection are runout, Grinding burns, Deep lines,
Scratches, Dents & Shades. As solution, cylindrical grinder machine is used for grinding, better storage
methods are introduced and hangars are used to protect pieces from dents and scratches.
Appendices:

Severity Rating Scale

(Should be tailored to meet the needs of your company.)

Rating Description Definition (Severity of Effect)

10 Dangerously high Failure could injure the customer or an employee.

9 Extremely high Failure would create noncompliance with federal regulations.

8 Very high Failure renders the unit inoperable or unfit for use.

7 High Failure causes a high degree of customer dissatisfaction.

6 Moderate Failure results in a subsystem or partial malfunction of the

product.

5 Low Failure creates enough of a performance loss to cause the

customer to complain.

4 Very Low Failure can be overcome with modifications to the customer’s

process or product, but there is minor performance loss.

3 Minor Failure would create a minor nuisance to the customer, but the
customer can overcome it without performance loss.

2 Very Minor Failure may not be readily apparent to the customer, but would
have minor effects on the customer’s process or product.

1 None Failure would not be noticeable to the customer and would not
affect the customer’s process or product.
 Occurrence Rating Scale

(Should be tailored to meet the needs of your company.)

Rating Description Potential Failure Rate

10 Very High: Failure More than one occurrence per day or a probability of more than
is almost inevitable. three occurrences in 10 events (Cpk < 0.33).

One occurrence every three to four days or a probability of three

9 High: Failures occur
almost as often as occurrences in 10 events (Cpk ≈ 0.33).
not.

8 High: Repeated One occurrence per week or a probability of 5 occurrences in

failures. 100 events (Cpk ≈ 0.67).

7 High: Failures occur One occurrence every month or one occurrence in 100 events
often. (Cpk ≈ 0.83).

6 Moderately High: One occurrence every three months or three occurrences in 1,000
Frequent failures. events (Cpk ≈ 1.00).

5 Moderate: One occurrence every six months to one year or five occurrences
Occasional failures. in 10,000 events (Cpk ≈ 1.17).

4 Moderately Low: One occurrence per year or six occurrences in 100,000 events
Infrequent failures. (Cpk ≈ 1.33).

3 Low: Relatively few One occurrence every one to three years or six occurrences in
failures. ten million events (Cpk ≈ 1.67).

2 Low: Failures are One occurrence every three to five years or 2 occurrences in one
few and far between. billion events (Cpk ≈ 2.00).

1 Remote: Failure is One occurrence in greater than five years or less than two
unlikely. occurrences in one billion events (Cpk > 2.00).
 Detection Rating Scale

(Should be tailored to meet the needs of your company.)

Rating Description Definition

10 Absolute Uncertainty The product is not inspected or the defect caused by failure is not
detectable.

9 Very Remote Product is sampled, inspected, and released based on Acceptable

Quality Level (AQL) sampling plans.

8 Remote Product is accepted based on no defectives in a sample.

7 Very Low Product is 100% manually inspected in the process.

6 Low Product is 100% manually inspected using go/no-go or other

mistake-proofing gauges.

5 Moderate Some Statistical Process Control (SPC) is used in process and

product is final inspected off-line.

4 Moderately High SPC is used and there is immediate reaction to out-of-control

conditions.

3 High An effective SPC program is in place with process capabilities

(Cpk) greater than 1.33.

2 Very High All product is 100% automatically inspected.

1 Almost Certain The defect is obvious or there is 100% automatic inspection with
regular calibration and preventive maintenance of the inspection
equipment.