You are on page 1of 49

2.

810 Quality and


Variation
Part Tolerance
Process Variation
Taguchi Quality Loss Function
Random Variables and how
variation grows with size and
complexity
Quality Control
2.810

T.Gutowski

References;
Kalpakjian pp 982-991 (Control Charts)
Robust Quality by Genichi Taguchi and
Don Clausing

A Brief Intro to Designed


Experiments
Taken from Quality Engineering using Robust
Design by Madhav S. Phadke, Prentice Hall, 1989

5 homeworks due Nov 13


2.810

T.Gutowski

Interchangeable Parts;
Go, No-Go; Part Tolerance

2.810

T.Gutowski

Product specifications are given as upper


and lower limits, for example the
dimensional tolerance +0.005 in.

Lower
Specificatio
n Limit

2.810

Target

T.Gutowski

Upper
Specificatio
n Limit

Process Variation
Process measurement reveals a distribution in
output values.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1

10

11

12

Discrete probability
distribution based
upon measurements

13

Continuous Normal
distribution

In general if the randomness is due to many different


factors,
the distribution will tend toward a normal distribution.
(Central Limit Theorem)
2.810
T.Gutowski
5

Tolerance is the specification


given on the part drawing,
and variation is the
variability in the
manufacturing process. This
figure confuses the two by
showing the process
capabilities in terms of
tolerance. Never the less, we
can see that the general
variability (expressed as
tolerance over part
dimension) one gets from
10
2
conventional
manufacturing
10
processes
1,000 is on the order of

.01
4
10
to
100

Homework problem; can you come up with examples of products


that have requirements that exceed these capabilities? If so then
what? 2.810
T.Gutowski
6

We can be much more specific about process


capability by measuring the process variability
and comparing it directly to the required
tolerance. Common measures are called Process
Capability Indices (PCIs), such as,

USL LSL
Cp
6

C pk

min(USL , LSL)

2.810

T.Gutowski

Case 1 In this case the out of


specification parts are 4.2% + 0.4% =
4.6%
What are the PCIs?

Lower
Specificatio
n Limit
2.810

Target

T.Gutowski

Upper
Specificatio
n Limit

Case 2 However, in general the mean


and the target do not have to line up.
What are the PCIs? How many parts are
out of spec?

Lower
Specificatio
n Limit
2.810

Target

T.Gutowski

Upper
Specificatio
n Limit

Comparison
Case 1
Cp = = 2/3

Case 2
Cp = = 2/3

Cpk =
Min()=2/
3

Cpk =
Min()=1/3
Out of Spec = 16.1%

Out
of Spec = 4.6%
Note; the out of Spec percentages are off slightly due to round off
errors

2.810

T.Gutowski

10

Why the two different


distributions at Sony?
20% Likelihood set
will be returned

2.810

T.Gutowski

11

Taguchi Quality Loss Function

Quality
Loss

QL = k 2
Goal Post
Quality
Deviation,

f (0) 2
QL( ) f (0) f (0)

2!
2.810

T.Gutowski

12

Homework Problem
Estimate a reasonable factory
tolerance if the Quality Loss ($) for
a failure in the field is 100 times
the cost of fixing a failure in the
factory. Say the observed field
tolerance level that leads to failure
is field.
2.810

T.Gutowski

13

Random variables and how


variation grows with size and
complexity
Random variable basics
Tolerance stack up
Product complexity
Mfg System complexity

2.810

T.Gutowski

14

IfthedimensionXisarandomvariable,themeanisgivenby

=E(X)
(1)
andthevariationisgivenby
Var(x)=E[(x)2]

(2)

bothofthesecanbeobtainedfromtheprobabilitydensityfunction
p(x).
Foradiscretepdf,theexpectationoperationis:

E( X) xi p( xi )
i

2.810

(3)

T.Gutowski

15

PropertiesoftheExpectation
1.IfY=aX+b;a,bareconstants,
E(Y)=aE(X)+b

(4)

2.IfX1,Xnarerandomvariables,
E(X1++Xn)=E(X1)++E(Xn)

2.810

T.Gutowski

(5)

16

PropertiesoftheVariance
1.

Foraandbconstants
Var(aX+b)=a2Var(X)

2.

(6)

IfX1,..Xnareindependentrandomvariables
Var(X1++Xn)=Var(X1)+Var(X2)++Var(Xn) (7)

2.810

T.Gutowski

17

IfX1andX2arerandomvariablesandnotnecessarily
independent,then
Var(X1+X2)=Var(X1)+Var(X2)+2Cov(X1Y) (8)
thiscanbewrittenusingthestandarddeviation,andthe
correlationas
2
L

2
1

2
2

21 2

(9)

whereL=X1+X2
2.810

T.Gutowski

18

IfX1andX2arecorrelated(=1),then

L2 12 22 21 2 ( 1 2 )2

(14)

forX1=X2=X0

4
2
L

2
0

(15)

forN

2
L

2
0

(16)

or

L N 0

(17)

2.810

T.Gutowski

19

Now,ifX1andX2areuncorrelated(=0)wegettheresultasin
eqn(7)or,
2
L

2
1

2
2

(10)


2
L

andforN

IfX1=X=Xo

2
L

i 1

2
i

2
N 0

L N 0

Or
2.810

T.Gutowski

(11)

(12)

(13)
20

Complexity and Variation


As the number of variables grow so
does the variation in the system;

L N 0

L N 0
This leads to; more complicated
systems may be more likely to fail
2.810

T.Gutowski

21

Homework; Consider the final


dimension and variation of a stack of
n blocks.
1, 2
n
If USL LSL = , and Cp = 1
a) How many parts are out of compliance?
b) Now USL-LSL=, what is Cp? How
many parts are out of spec?
c) Repeat a) with
Assume that target.
2.810

T.Gutowski

22

Homework Problem: Experience


shows that when composites are
cured by autoclave processing on one
sided tools the variation in thickness

is about 7%. After careful


measurements of the prepreg
thickness it is determined
that their

variation is about 7%. What can you


tell about the source of variation?

2.810

T.Gutowski

23

Complexity and Reliability


ref. Augustines Laws

2.810

T.Gutowski

24

Quality and System Design


Data from D. Cochran

2.810

T.Gutowski

25

Quality ControlDisturbances, d;
Inputs
I;
Matl,
Energy,
Info

2.810

temperature, humidity,
vibrations, dust, sunlight
Machine
M

Outputs
, X

Operator inputs,u; initial


settings, feedback, action?
T.Gutowski
26

Who controls what?


X = f (M, I, u, d)

Equipme
nt
Purchase
Q.C.,
Utilities,
etc
2.810

Physical
Plant, etc

Operator, Real
Time Control
So who is in charge
of quality?

T.Gutowski

27

How do you know there is


a quality problem?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Detection
Measurement
Source Identification
Action
Goal should be prevention

2.810

T.Gutowski

28

Detection
Make problems obvious

Poke yoke at the process level


Clear flow paths and responsibility
Andon board
Simplify the system

Stop operations to attend to quality problems

Stop line
Direct attention to problem
Involve Team

2.810

T.Gutowski

29

Measurement
Statistical Process Control
Average value x

Upper Control
Limit
Centerline

Lower Control
Limit

Sampling period

2.810

T.Gutowski

30

Statistical Process Control


Issues
Sampling Period
Establish Limits
Sensitivity to Change

2.810

T.Gutowski

31

Source Identification;
Ishikawa Cause and Effect
Man
Machine
Diagram
Effect
Material

Method

Finding the cause of a disturbance is the most


difficult part of quality control. There are only aids to
help you with this problem solving exercise like the
Ishikawa Diagrams which helps you cover all
categories, and the 5 Whys which helps you go to
the root cause.

2.810

T.Gutowski

32

Truck front
suspension
2.810
assembly

T.Gutowski

33

Setting the best initial


parameters
Tables and Handbooks

E.g. Feeds and speeds

Models

E.g. Moldflow for injection molding

Designed Experiments

E.g. Orthogonal Arrays

2.810

T.Gutowski

34

Designed Experiments
1.
2.
3.
4.

Temp T (3 settings)
Pressure P (3 settings)
Time t (3 values)
Cleaning Methods K (3 types)
How Many Experiments?
One at a time gives 34 = 81
2.810

T.Gutowski

35

But what if we varied all of the


factors at once?
Our strategy would be to measure
one of the factors, say
temperature, while randomizing
the other factors. For example
measure T2 with all combinations
of the other factors e.g. (P,t,K) =
(123), (231), (312).

Notice that all levels are obtained for each fa


2.810

T.Gutowski

36

Exp

temp

pressur time
e

clean

Orthogonal Array for 4 factors at 3


1
1
1 are
levels.1Only1 9 experiments
2
1
2
2
2
needed
3
4
5
6
7
8
2.810
9

1
2
2
2
3
3
3

3
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
1
3
3 T.Gutowski
2
1

37

Homework
Can you design an orthogonal array
for 3 factors at 2 levels?

2.810

T.Gutowski

38

Summary the best ways


to reduce variation
Simplify design
Simplify the manufacturing system
Plan on variation and put in place a
system to address it

2.810

T.Gutowski

39

Aircraft engine case study


Fan case

LPC
LPT
HPC

HPT

diffuser
gearbox

2.810

T.Gutowski

exhaust
case

40

Engine Data

Engine
complexit
y

engine
A1

engine
A2

engine
B1

engine
B2

engine
C1

engine
C2

number of
part numbers

~2,000

~2,000

~1,40
0

~1,30
0

4,465

3,485

total number
of parts

~15,00
0

~19,00
0

~7,00
0

~7,00
0

26,073

23,580

weight [lb]

2.3k3.5k

9k-10k

1.5k1.6k

1.5k1.6k

2.3k3.5k

1.5k1.6k

thrust [lb]
unless
otherwise
noted
by-pass ratio

14k21k

40k50k

4k-5k
hp

7k-9k

14k21k

7k-9k

0.36:1

4.9:1

5.15:1

0.34:1

6.2:1

engine
A1

engine
A2

engine
B1

engine
B2

engine
C1

engine
C2

150

150

110

150

150

286

15

20

10

23

21

7.30

7.30

6.64

4.87

4.87

2.55

annual
production
planned
throughput time
[days]
approx. takt
time
[shifts/engine]

2.810

T.Gutowski

41

Scheduled build times Vs part


count
25

C1
20

A2

y = 0.001x + 3.995

C2

days

Scheduled build
times

R = 0.968
15

A1
B2

10

B1
5

0
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

total number of parts

2.810

T.Gutowski

42

Engine Delivery Late


Times
60

average days late

50

40

30

20

10

0
A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

engines

2.810

T.Gutowski

43

Late times compared to


scheduled times
140
planned throughput time
120

avg. actual throughput time


shortest actual throughput time

100

days

longest actual throughput time


80

Linear (planned throughput time)

60

40

20

B2
A1

B1

A2

C2

C1

0
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

total number of parts

2.810

T.Gutowski

44

Reasons for delay at site A


50%

47%

45%

percentage of occurrence

40%

38%

35%
30%
25%
20%
13%

15%
10%
5%

2%

0%
People shortage

2.810

Quality Issues

Part S hortages

T.Gutowski

unknown

45

Reasons for delay at site B


(Guesses)
tools not available station not available
1%
4%
Quality problem
9%
build awaiting
inspec tion
7%

people shortage
9%

part lost at site


3%

2.810

part shortages
67%

T.Gutowski

46

Reasons for delay at site A


(data)
80%

percentage of occurrence

70%
60%
50%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
unknown

2.810

rework

paperwork

T.Gutowski

Quality

47

Engines shipped over a 3 month


period at aircraft engine factory
B
engines shipped per week

12

month 2

month 1

month 3

10

0
7-Jun

15-Jun

23-Jun

30-Jun

7-Jul

15-Jul

24-Jul

31-Jul

7-Aug

15-Aug

24-Aug

31-Aug

Weeks

2.810

T.Gutowski

48

Engines shipped over a 3 month


period at aircraft engine factory
C
7

engines shipped

0
may

2.810

june

weeks

july

T.Gutowski

august

49