MSE 618

6-Sigma
DMAIC
Instructor: Prof. Vazan

Group Members:
e Tejas Kotian
Manav Patil
B Mayur Ahire
a
A Vikas Tone
Akash Patel
ive

ess
 MSE 618
6-Sigma
INTRODUCTION
DMAIC
Overview of the Problem and Solution ApproachA company that
manufactures shock absorbers is facing quality issues due to a high
Instructor: Prof. Vazan
rejection rate in painted damper outer tubes. To address this, a project
team is employing Six Sigma, a statistical tool, to analyze and reduce
defects to less than 3.4 per million opportunities. The goal is to enhance
Group Members:
manufacturing processes by minimizing variations through the DMAIC
phases - Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control. These phases
Tejas Kotian
B aim to improve efficiency and eliminate errors and waste in the
manufacturing operation.
Manav Patil
.
Mayur Ahire A
Vikas Tone
Akash Patel and Conclusion The integration of Six Sigma
Optimization
with statistical quality systems is helping identify improvement areas. To
optimize these areas, the Taguchi robust design is suggested, which
involves traditional experimentation with an OA (orthogonal array) and
ANOVA (analysis of variance) along with a new statistic called signal-
to-noise ratio (S/N ratio). The paper starts with a literature review on Six
Sigma and Taguchi robust design, followed by experimental work using
the DMAIC phases on the manufacturing process. The conclusion
highlights findings and outlines future areas for improvement.
 MSE 618
6-Sigma
INTRODUCTION
Shock absorber
DMAIC The automotive industry is highly
Instructor: Prof. Vazan
competitive, pushing companies to
Ionization constantly innovate and improve processes
Injection
O the Packaging Stock
Molding
parts
Group Members:
to reduce costs and enhance product
quality.
Tejas Kotian
Manav Patil B
Final Visual
Mayur Ahire
Fehst Componentes, Lda in Portugal, a
A
Packaging Inspection Vikas Tone
supplier for the automotive industry
Akash Patel
specializing in plastic interior decorative
components, faced a challenge. They opted
for DMAIC to increase organizational
Manufacture steps of the High
value,Gloss
reduce Blend parts parts, and
non-conforming
minimize process variability.
D M A I C
DEFIN MEASU ANALY IMPROV CONTRO
E RE ZE E L
DEFIN
 The define phase is the starting point of the
E
improvement journey. It involves identifying the critical
stage of pretreatment in the spray painting process for
shock absorbers, using tools like Pareto chart, voice of
business (VOB), and project charter.
 After careful analysis, we have identified the main
defects contributing to the high rejection rate: peel off
and blisters.

Use of Pareto-chart
The prolong analysis and discussions were carried out with
charter team members to shoot out the empirical problem
which impacts the rejection rate. The Pareto analysis shown
in Fig. 1 illustrates the list of defects occurring in the concern,
which clearly reveals that peel off and blisters are the two
vital defects that contribute nearly 81% of the total rejection
rate in shock absorber manufacturing concern. The successive
phases concentrate on identifying the major root causes that
decline the rejection rate and embarks the quality level.
 MEASUR
E
 In the "measure" phase of a project, the team assesses how well a
particular stage of the production process can handle unexpected
variations caused by uncontrollable factors. They use a method called
process capability analysis to measure this. The focus is on two issues,
peel-off and blisters, which significantly affect the product's quality. A
brainstorming session identified the pre-treatment process in the
painting operation as a critical factor contributing to these issues.

 Before making improvements, the team suggests using process

capability analysis to thoroughly measure the pre-treatment process.
They used statistical software called Minitab16 for this analysis. The
results show that the current process is not very robust, with a sigma
level of 3.31, indicating dissatisfaction with about 4410 value-added
operations during the process lifecycle. The analysis emphasizes the
need to improve the pre-treatment process to boost customer
satisfaction, product quality, and save money.
ANALYZ
E
 In the "analysis" phase, it became clear that the current process is not
performing well and needs improvement. To make the necessary
enhancements, the team aims to identify and analyze the root causes
that lead to issues like peel-off and blisters in the product.

 To identify these root causes, the team used a cause and effect diagram
(shown in Fig. 3). This diagram helps visualize various factors
contributing to the problems. By analyzing the diagram, the team
distinguishes between significant and insignificant causes.

 To understand the criticality of these factors, the team conducted a

Likert scale analysis. They surveyed 50 individuals, including paint line
operators, quality assurance team members, and internal and external
customers. Each participant was asked to rate the severity of each
identified cause on a scale from 1 to 5, ranging from "not at all
influential" to "extremely influential." This feedback helps prioritize
which factors have the most impact on paint line defects.
 IMPROV
E
 The "improve" phase focuses on making the production process better,
specifically by optimizing the cleaning temperature, phosphating pH, and
phosphating temperature to address issues like peel-off and blisters in the
product. To achieve this, the team conducts experiments using a designed
setup, and the results are analyzed using a statistical method called ANOVA.

 In the experiments, three factors—cleaning temperature, phosphating pH,

and phosphating temperature—are varied at different levels. The team chose
a setup with 27 trials based on recommendations. ANOVA is then used to
analyze the results and determine the significance of these factors.

 For peel-off defects, the analysis shows that cleaning temperature has the
highest influence, followed by phosphating pH and temperature. The optimal
conditions for minimizing peel-off involve setting the cleaning temperature at
70 ºC, phosphating pH at 3.5, and phosphating temperature at 60 ºC.

 Similarly, for blister defects, cleaning temperature is the most influential

factor, followed by phosphating pH and temperature. The best conditions to
control blisters are identified as a cleaning temperature of 70 ºC, phosphating
pH at 3.5, and phosphating temperature at 60 ºC.

 In simpler terms, by adjusting these factors to specific levels, the team can
effectively optimize the process, significantly reducing peel-off and blister
defects in the painted shock absorbers.
 Use of Anova
 Anova analysis is employed to identify the
significance of main effect and interaction factors
on multiple responses. Through this analysis, we
have discovered that cleaning temperature has the
highest influence on peel-off, followed by
phosphating pH and temperature. These factors
have a significant impact on the occurrence of
blisters in shock absorbers.

 The ANOVA with three factors and levels for peel

off and blisters have been given in Table 4 and
Table 5. The Table 4 transparently reveals that
cleaning temperature highly influence the peel-off
in the paint line followed by the phosphating pH
and temperature. The level of impacts for input
factors are made by calculating tabulated value
with 95% confidence manifested that all the three
factors are influencing the peel-off
Use of Anova for
peel-off
 The Fig. 5.(a), (b) and Fig. 6.(a), (b) reveals the
response table for peel-off and blister. The Fig. 5.(a)
reveals that cleaning temperature increases as the
magnitude of S/N gets increased. The S/N for
phosphating pH gets increased initially and
decreases gradually in later stages, similarly for
phosphating temperature.

 From response diagram of peel off, the optimal

factors and levels based on higher magnitude of
the S/N ratio is achievable by setting up cleaning
temperature at 70 ºC, phosphating pH at 3.5 and
phosphating temperature at 60 ºC. The Fig. 5.(b)
illustrates the residual plot, that clearly revels there
exists linearity among the actual and fitted values.
This improves the determination coefficient R2 by
83.6% for peel-off
 Use of Anova
for blister
 The Table 5 transparently reveals that cleaning
temperature highly influence the blisters defects in the
paint line followed by the phosphating pH and
temperature. Hence it is evident that all the three
control factors are influencing the blisters defect in the
shock absorber.

 The Fig.6 illustrates the response table for blisters if

cleaning temperature increases the magnitude of S/N
gradually increases. The S/N for phosphating gets
increased initially and decreases gradually in later
stages, similarly for phosphating temperature. From the
response diagram the best condition to control blisters
are chosen by setting up cleaning temperature at 70ºC,
phosphating pH at 3.5 and phosphating temperature at
60ºC in the paint line process. The Fig.6 illustrates that
R2 of blisters stands at 84.1% in paint line. From the
Fig.5.(a) and 6, we culminate that peel off and blister
responses can be optimized effectively by setting up
cleaning temperature at 70o C, phosphating pH at 3.5
and phosphating temperature at 60o C.
 Control Phase
 The Improve phase ends up by revealing the optimum factors and
levels for peel off and blisters in the shock absorber concern. A
trial run was conducted by taking the optimal sample size of 50
units and setting up cleaning temperature at 70ᵒC, phosphating
pH at 3.5 and phosphating temperature at 60ᵒC for optimizing the
multiple responses.

 The Fig.7 clearly illustrates that by performing experimental runs

at optimal factors and levels the sigma level gets enhanced from
3.3 to 4.5. These clearly illustrate that optimal factors and levels
chosen are proven to be effective.

 The enhanced sigma level gives an impetus performance in a pre-

treatment processing stage which has to be continuously pursued
to achieve the goal of 3.4 DPMO.

 The control plan with standard operating procedure had been

prepared for the pre-treatment process to eliminate the peel-off
and blister henceforth in shock absorber
 Finding
• AfterSolution
conducting extensive research and analysis,
we have determined the optimal levels for each
factor to control peel-off and blisters. Cleaning
temperature at 70°C, phosphating pH at 3.5, and
phosphating temperature at 60°C have proven to be
the most effective in reducing these defects. By
implementing these solutions, we expect to achieve
significant improvements in the quality of shock
absorbers.
Conclusio  This paper concentrates on deploying Six Sigma DMAIC methodology with Taguchi robust
design approach, to find out the root causes that eliminates the variations and embarks the

n
customer satisfaction, quality and market share of the shock absorber manufacturing
concern. The various phases of these papers identify peel off and blisters were the twofold
responses that impact the quality in the pre-treatment process. To obtain the condition of
optimality an L27 orthogonal array was constructed by taking three vital factors, namely
Phosphate pH, Cleaning Temp and Phosphate temp at 3 levels, the experimental run was
carried out with 27 various treatment combinations to monitor peel off and blister defects.

 The results obtained are analyzed using mini tab software version 16 that maps out ANOVA
and S/N ratio of the various experimental runs gives a path for generating response table
and diagram. From the response table and diagram the optimum level for each factor is
determined as cleaning temperature at 70o C, phosphating pH at 3.5 and phosphating
temperature at 60o C. The trial run was conducted with aforementioned setting, by taking
the sample size of 50 to monitor the peel off and blister defects in the pretreatment process.
The results obtained proved to be worthy that enhances sigma level from 3.31 to 4.5. These
enhanced sigma levels lead to high quality and less variations.

 The future work lies in improving the sigma level to reach 3.4 DPMO by continuously
improving on the optimal parametric combination that eliminate the peel off and blisters
defect and embodies the pre treatment stage by generating the process control plan in
shock absorber manufacturing concern.
Acknowledgments and References
References:
[1] Tushar N. Desai and Dr. R. L. Shrivastava, Six Sigma – A New Direction to Quality and Productivity Management, ISBN: 978-988-
98671-0- 2, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, San Francisco, USA October 2008, pp.22 -
24.
[2] Sushil Kumar, P.S. Satsangi and D.R. Prajapati, Six Sigma an Excellent Tool for Process Improvement – A Case Study,
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 2, Issue 9, September-2011, ISSN 2229-5518.
[3] Sahay C, Ghosh S, Bheemarthi PK, Process improvement of brake lever production using DMAIC, University of Hatford paper
No.IMECE2011-63813, ASME, New York, 2011, pp.801-826.
[4] Pfeifer, Wolf Reissiger, Claudia Canals, Integrating Six Sigma with quality management system, The TQM magazine, Emerald
group publishing limited, Volume.16, Issue: 4, 2004, pp.241-249.
[5] Hoerl, R.W, Six Sigma and the future of the quality profession, IEEE engineering Management Review, Fall, 1998, pp.87-94.
[6] Eckes G, Six Sigma Revolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000, NY.
[7] Ploytip Jirasukprasert, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Horacio Soriano-Meier, Luis Rocha-Lona, A Case Study of Defects Reduction in
a Rubber Gloves Manufacturing Process by Applying Six Sigma Principles and DMAIC Problem Solving Methodology, Proceedings
of the 2012 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Istanbul, Turkey, July 3 – 6, 2012,
pp.472-481.
[8] Jiju Antony and Ricardo Banuelas, Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma program, Emerald insight
special issue: Measuring business excellence, UK, 2002, pp.20-27.
[9] Arokiasamy Mariajayaprakash, Thiyagarajan Senthilvelan, Krishnapillai Ponnambal Vivekananthan, Optimization of shock
absorber process