MEMBERS

• ANTONIO ARENAS LEADER

• TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND EXECUTION SUPV.

• AREA (Production Floor) SUPPORT

MEMBERS

• ANTONIO ARENAS LEADER

• TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND EXECUTION SUPV.

• AREA (Production Floor) SUPPORT

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

Reduction Of Failure Risk of Heat Sink Type Components

2

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5Project Overview

• Reduce Reliability Risks (failures in Time ) of

HEAT SINK MOUNTED TYPE COMPONENTS by

securing a Stable and Controlled Process .

• Determine the Highest Failure Risk

Component and reduce its failure rate .

Heat Sink Type Component

Define

3

Major Field Heat Sink type of Component Problem is the Voltage regulator ICX3400 used on CA Chassis .

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

Define FIELD DATA

Year 2000 Claims

BY FAMILY BY Heat Sink Type Component TOTALPPM QTY 1 2 3 4 PPM

223-00028 ICX3400 224 84 39 8 355 612221-00992-01 IC2100 132 16 2 1 151 260221-00598-01 IC804 89 29 4 3 125 216

221-01165 ICX2200 25 32 14 6 77 133221-00213-09 20 10 1 2 33 57

121-01383 QX3203 9 12 5 26 45221-00992 14 1 15221-00213 5 2 5 1 13221-01127 3 4 7

CA 1168 677 221-01382 2 1 2 5

CH 135 78 221-01384-01 1 2 1 4LEADER 86 50 221-00598 2 2

CORE 48 28 221-00745-04 1 1 2CB 12 7 221-01384 1 1 2GA 3 2 221-01387-01 2 2CS 2 1 223-00061-01 1 1

GXC 2 1 221-01385-01 1 1224-00027 1 1221-01171 1 1221-01381 1 1

224-00027-A 1 1Total ALL 825

Total CA Heat Sink Type Components =========>734CA Heat sink % of Total ====================>89%Warranty Volume YR2000 ==================>579,792

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

PPM

CA

CH

LEA

DE

R

CO

RE CB

GA

CS

GXC

By Family Heat Sink Type Components Field Claims (Defects) Full YR2000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

PPM

ICX3400 IC2100 IC804 ICX2200 QX3203

By Component CA Heat Sink Type Components Field Claims (defects) Full YR2000

4

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

Define In Process Data

0

20

40

60

80

PPM

CA Family PPM level (in Final ) of Heat Sink Type Mounted Components

Series1 64 29 29 23 5

ICX3400 ICX2200 IC2100 QX3203 IC804

There is a direct CORROLATION between the FIELD Data (previous Page) and the In Process Data (above) showing that CA ICX3400 is the component that most fails .

Based On this the Team will Focus on Improving the In Process indexes for CA Chassis ICX3400 since by doing so we can Safely State that we will Improve the RELIABILITY RISK FACTOR IN THE FIELD of all Heat Sink Type Components regardless of Family .

The Improvement will come from a Stable Heat Sink Assy. Process and the required Control that this team will set .

0

50

100

150

200

PPM

YTW26 PPM Levels by Family of Heat Sink Type Components

Series1 190 166 110 38 35 19 18 18 6 5

CALEADE

RCH CL CS CORE FLAT LG

HD/HDS

CB

5

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

Define In Process Data

There is a direct CORROLATION between the FIELD Data (see Page 3) and the In Process Data (above) showing that CA ICX3400 is the component that most fails .

Based On this the Team will Focus on Improving the In Process indexes for CA Chassis ICX3400 since by doing so we can Safely State that we will Improve the RELIABILITY RISK FACTOR IN THE FIELD of all Heat Sink Type Components regardless of Family .

The Improvement will come from a Stable Heat Sink Assy. Process and the required Control that this team will set .

25 18 19 35 38110166190

4.2 3.0 3.2 5.8 6.318.327.631.6

100.0 95.8 92.8 89.7 83.9 77.5 59.2 31.6

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Defect

CountPercentCum %

Per

cent

Cou

nt

YTW26 Heat Sink Ty pe Def ects By Family (in PPM)

523292964

3.315.319.319.342.7

100.0 96.7 81.3 62.0 42.7

150

100

50

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Defect

CountPercentCum %

Per

cent

Cou

nt

YTW26 Heat Sink Ty pe Def ects By Componment (in PPM)

6

Chassis % of total defects Qty. Failed % Failure PPM Process Sigam Level GOAL CA 1.241% 150 0.0190% 190 5.05 5.23

LEADE 1.084% 131 0.0166% 166 5.09CH 0.720% 87 0.0110% 110 5.19CL 0.248% 30 0.0038% 38 5.46CS 0.232% 28 0.0035% 35 5.47

CORE 0.124% 15 0.0019% 19 5.62FLAT 0.116% 14 0.0018% 18 5.64

MC83A 0.091% 11 0.0014% 14 5.69MM1 0.041% 5 0.0006% 6 5.87CB 0.033% 4 0.0005% 5 5.91

MC999 0.025% 3 0.0004% 4 5.98

Total =====> 3.954% 478 0.0605% 605 4.74

Sigma Levels For CA Heat Sink Type Components

Current 5.05

Goal 5.23

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Sigma

Current Goal

Sigma Levels For CA Heat Sink Type Components In Final Lines (YTW26 Data)

GAP = 0.18

Goal = 50% defect reduction (in PPM)

X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

Define Project Goal

7

A

Family Defective

HD/HDS Transistor

6

Family core

19

Family ICX2200CL 29

38

Family IC2100CH 29

110

Heat Sink Type Components Family ICX3400 ProcessPPM Level CA

605 190 64

Family QX3203LEADER 23

166

Family IC804CS 5

35

Family FLAT Design

18 Problems

Family LG

18Defective

Family Silicone GreaseCB

Define Failure Logic Tree X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

8

A

Vendor Torque Gun

Quality CTQ Methode

Inappropriate Torque Inappropriate

Inapropiate Use Of Gun Surface Contact Operator

Training

Defective Vendor Clip Quality

Inappropriate Clip Pressure

Defective Preventive Equipment Maintenance

Operator Training

Insufficient Silicone Grease

ApplicationEquipment

Contaminated

(oil / Body Grease)

Heat Sink Bowed Vendor

Surface Quality

Fine Tuning Rough Surface Vendor

Quality

Vendor Quality FIFO Warehousing

ProceduresIn House

Storage Heat

Environment

Humidity

Define Failure Logic Tree X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

9

Supplier Input Process Outputs Client

• Silicone Grease • Metal Bracket • Facilities • Components • Warehouse

•Clip•Nut•Screw•Metal Brkt•Mica •Grease•Regulator

• Heat Sink Assy. • Chassis• Modules • Final • Field

Diagrama SIPOC Heat Sink Assembly Process

Place Clip on

Heat Sink

Apply Silicone to Heat Sink

Place Screw on

Fixture

ApplySilicone toRegulator

Place Regulator

on Jig

Place Micas(2) on

Regulator

Place Heat Sink On top Of Regulator

Add Nut to Screw

Apply Torque

CTQ

Pack Component

Define Process MappingX

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

10

Measure Gage R&R Analyze X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

The Short Term Method was used for Gage R&R since No Repetitions Can be Done on the Same Part (Torque) . And as can be seen our Gage R&R % Tolerance is 64.9 . NOT ACCETABLE

Gage R&R

Analyze

All Conditions being the same we have variance between Operator and Operator

The ROOT CAUSE of the Variance Needs to Be Found and Eliminated Before continuing with this project .

Gage R&R Short Study Method

CTQ Specification = 7 in.-Lbs. +- 1

Part Operator 1 Operator 2 Range (1-2)

1 6.5 6.7 0.2

2 6.3 6.9 0.6

3 6.3 6.2 0.1

4 6.5 6.3 0.2

5 6.5 6.1 0.4Range Sum 1.5

Average Range 0.3Gage Error 1.29831933

Gage R&R as a % of Tolerence 64.9159664

11

Measure Gage R&R #2 X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

After the first Gage R&R Study produced Unsatisfactory results the Process was Study Closely . Was was noticed that operator at times do the TORQUE operation and than they RE-Torque Same part Again and Again . At this time the operator was instructed in the proper Techniques doing the operation .

Basically torque until the clutch engages for the first time at this time do not re-torque (No double Clicks) Yielding the following Gage R&R .

This Gage R&R is now acceptable since it is <30% .

Gage R&R Short Study Method

CTQ Specification = 8 in.-Lbs. +- 1 (F-52563)

Part Operator 1 Operator 2 Range (1-2)

1 7.75 7.75 0

2 7.75 7.5 0.25

3 7.75 7.75 0

4 8 7.75 0.25

5 7.75 7.75 0Range Sum 0.5

Average Range 0.1Gage Error 0.43277311

Gage R&R as a % of Tolerence 21.6386555

12

Analyze X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5Process Capability Study Plan

GUN # & Operator

10 Samples

Start

Normal Distribution ?

YES

No Increase Sample

size

Graph Process

Capability

Process Capable

?

YES

No

Investigate &

Eliminate Variance

This is the Process Capability Plan for the Heat Sink Assy. Area . Each Gun/ Operator Combination used for Assembly of CA Heat Sinks sinks will be study . If any are found to be Not Capable of operating within its Specs. The Assignable Cause will be INVESTIGATED , ELIMINTAED and CONTROLLED .

This arrangement is required since this area is configured as a CELL Type work environment were each station does its complete Assy.

13

Analyze X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5Tools To Be used In The Study

11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0

LSL USL

Process Capability Analysis for Dig. T.Audit

USL

Target

LSL

Mean

Sample N

StDev (Within)

StDev (Overall)

Cp

CPU

CPL

Cpk

Cpm

Pp

PPU

PPL

Ppk

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

13.000

*

11.000

11.165

20

0.0886679

0.0886679

3.76

6.90

0.62

0.62

*

3.76

6.90

0.62

0.62

0.00

0.00

0.00

31380.83

0.00

31380.83

31380.83

0.00

31380.83

Process Data

Potential (Within) Capability

Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance

Within

Overall

Cal. Lab. Results for this Instrument.

OK to use for Gun Set-up

Torque Meter for gun Set-up Applied Torque Auditor

Cal. Lab. Results for this Instrument. Show well suited to

use for studying Applied Torque

11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0

LSL USL

Process Capability Analysis for Typical Anal

USL

Target

LSL

Mean

Sample N

StDev (Within)

StDev (Overall)

Cp

CPU

CPL

Cpk

Cpm

Pp

PPU

PPL

Ppk

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

PPM < LSL

PPM > USL

PPM Total

13.00

*

11.00

12.02

20

0.0415824

0.0415824

8.02

7.86

8.18

7.86

*

8.02

7.86

8.18

7.86

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Process Data

Potential (Within) Capability

Overall Capability Observed Performance Exp. "Within" Performance Exp. "Overall" Performance

Within

Overall

14

Analyze Current Process Capability X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

P-Value: 0.241A-Squared: 0.432

Anderson-Darling Normality Test

N: 10StDev: 0.707598Average: 8.575

9.58.57.5

.999

.99

.95

.80

.50

.20

.05

.01

.001

Pro

babi

lity

Gun 05 Proce

Gun # 5 10 Samples Normality test

The Normality test above tells us that our processhas a Normal distribution characteristics thus our 10 samples can be used to graph a process capability .

15

9.08.58.07.57.0

Target USLLSL

Applied Torque Process Capability for Gun #05 @ 92 PSI

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

PPM Total

PPM > USL

PPM < LSL

Ppk

PPL

PPU

Pp

Cpm

Cpk

CPL

CPU

Cp

StDev (Overall)

StDev (Within)

Sample N

Mean

LSL

Target

USL

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.06

2.06

3.44

2.75

1.15

2.06

2.06

3.44

2.75

0.121164

0.121164

10

7.75

7.00

8.00

9.00

Exp. "Overall" PerformanceExp. "Within" PerformanceObserved PerformanceOverall Capability

Potential (Within) Capability

Process Data

Within

Overall

Analyze Current Process Capability StudyX

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

The above shows that Gun 05 coupled with operator “ANA” are Capable of producing parts with Applied Torque within the specified Limits .

Combined with Operator “ANA”

CONCLUSION

16

Analyze Process Capability Control X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

1) At Start of Shift Take Data for the 1st. subgroup (= 5 readings) and Plot it in Graph . 2) Analyze Data and take Action to Correct Assignable Causes based on the following Criteria :

A) One point more than 3 sigma's from center line B) Nine points in a row on same side of center lineC) Six points in a row, all increasing or all decreasing

3) At Mid Shift Take Data for the 2nd. subgroup (= 5 readings ) and Plot it in Graph 4) Repeat Step #2 . 5) Towards the end of Shift take Data for the 3rd. subgroup (=5 readings ) and Plot it in Graph . 5) Repeat step # 2

2010Subgroup 0

9

8

7

Sam

ple

Mea

n

Mean=7.609

UCL=8.737

LCL=6.481

4

3

2

1

0

Sam

ple

Ran

ge

R=1.955

UCL=4.134

LCL=0

X-Bar Control Chart f or Gun 05Initial Plot For Each Gun

• Time Frame for Samples => 1 shift• # of subgroups ========> 20 • Each subgroup Size ====> 5 samples• Total Readings ========> 100• Frequency ============> 0.5 Hr.

Objective • Identify any Non Capable Process’s.• Find The Asignable Cause • Correct The Asignable Cause • Control on a Daily Basis .

InitialX-BARPlot

DAILY CONTROL PROCEDURE

17

December ‘ 01 January ‘ 02

Data Collection and Project definition

Equipment and Procedures to Measure CTQ

Gage R& R and Study Process and

Procedures

Data Analysis and Next activity planing

•Conduct Experiments (DOE)•Analyze results •Improvement implementation

Apply Control

51 52 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Define

Measure

Analyze

Improve

Control

Project Closure

Define Project Timing X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5

February ‘02 March’02

18

Analyze Current Process Capability X

LSL USL

- 6s +6s

Cp =2. 0 Cpk=1. 5