six sigma project on reducing rejection rate of grinding mark on piston

2

Customer CommentsCritical to Quality-

CTQ’s

ABC Ltd(Automotive Airconditioning System

Company)

Product Quality is a major concern for us in order to plan further

business planning and to continue our existing business.

Grinding mark on Piston

Finished Goods storeProduct Quality is being a key factor

to retain our existing business.Grinding mark on Piston

D M A I C

Business caseXYZ Ltd is a sister concern of ABC Ltd. It is ISO/TS-16949 certified company. It manufactures Automotive component for Automotive

Airconditioning systems. It is a TTT group company, XYZ Ltd. is situated at Gr Noida .By considering the last four months data we

observed that rejection of grinding mark on piston is @ 2.8% against the target 0..5%. This may result customer dissatisfaction, revenue generation and majorly contributing to customer penalty

against process performance for last 4 months. This may also impact our long term business planning and new business

generation from existing Customer

TeamVice President: Pushpinder• Plant Head:- Shishir• Process Owner : Dipti Nayak• Black Belt :- Ramsaran• Project Leader :- Pradeep• Team Member :- Naveen, Kiran Kumar

Problem StatementLast 4 months data shows that the Max rate of rejection is 3.8 % and Min rate of rejection is 2.8 % . So average rate of rejection is 2.8 % for part no 10s11 By reducing rate of rejection from 2.8% to 0.5 % saving in rupees will be 12 Lac par annum & It might impact our long term business planning with the existing client

and can contribute to reduce process penalty,

:In Scope : Only the of Business Engagement Deppt. of Production, npd, XYZ Ltd

Company

Out Scope : Any other Purchase, maintenance or business engagement. Any other lob or business engagement.

Goal StatementTo Reduce rejection rate from 2.8 % to 0.5 % Milestones

Target Date

Actual date

D Aug 1st, 2012 Aug 15th, 2012

M Aug 16th, 2012 Aug 30th , 2012

A Sep 1st , 2012 Sep 30th , 2012

I Oct 1st , 2012 Oct 31st , 2012

C Nov 1st ,2012 Nov 31st , 2012

Project ChartervD M A I C

Distribution plan (ARMI)

Key StakeholdersARMI Worksheet

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

V.P I I I I I

Plant Head I I I I I

Black Belt I & A I & A I & A I & A I & A

Process Owner A & I A & I A & I A & I A & I

Project Leader I & R I & R I & R I & R I & R

Team Member I & M I & M I & M I & M I & M

A – Approval of team decisions I.e., sponsor, business leader, MBB.R – Resource to the team, one whose expertise, skills, may be needed on an ad-hoc basis.M – Member of team – whose expertise will be needed on a regular basis.I – Interested party, one who will need to be kept informed on direction, findings.

Communication PlanInformation Or

ActivityTarget Audience Information

ChannelWho When

Project Status Leadership E-mails

Ramsaran

BI-Weekly

Tollgate ReviewBB,LBB,MBB &

ChampionE-mails or Meetings

As per Project Plan

Project Deliverables or Activities

Members Emails, Meetings Weekly

D M A I C

GRINDING MARK

D M A I CPhotograph of defect Part

Number of pieces rejected last month (for the part number identified for study)

478

Number of pieces scrapped last month 478

Number of pieces reworked last month 1500

Scrap cost/piece 62

Rework cost/piece 20

Total scrap cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last month

29636

Total rework cost(Rs. Lakhs) for last month

30000

Total Rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for last month

59636

Extrapolated Total rejection cost (Rs. Lakhs) for one year

120000

Note: Rejection should include both rework and scrap

D M A I C

COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality) Calculation

Reduce Rate of Rejection of grinding Mark on Piston

CTQs*

Mark observed on Piston during grinding process which dissatisfied the customer

To reduce rate of Rejection from 2.8% to 0.5% of Grinding markIn visual inspection Grinding mark should not observed on Piston

Grinding mark Observed on piston is defective

* CTQ- Critical To Quality

CTQ Tree

D M A I C

Supplier

SSIIInput

(Use nouns)

PPProcess

(Use verbs)

OOOutput

(Use nouns)

CCCustomer

1

2

3

4

5

XYZ LtdForging of Piston

Teflon, m/c, Manpower.

Grinding Wheel, Electricity

Centering Facing

OD Turning

Center Less Grinding

Washing

Teflon Coating

Piston1 10SL08

ABC Ltd

COPIS

D M A I C

Sintering

Ball Milling

End Milling

Finish Center Less Grinding

Washing

Tin Coating

Final Inspection & Packing

Tin Coating

Grinding Wheel

Regulating Wheel

Piston

D M A I C

Photograph of Centerless Grinding M/c

KPI Operational Definition Defect Def Performance StdSpecification Limit

OpportunityLSL USL

To Reduce Rate of Rejection of

grinding Mark

Mark observed on Piston during grinding process which dissatisfied the customer

Grinding mark

Observed on piston is defective

In visual inspection

Grinding mark should not

observed on Piston

99.5 100

To reduce the Rate of rejection from 2.8% to desired level 0.5%

KPI Data TypeData Items

Needed Formula to

be usedUnit

Plan to collect DataPlan to sample

What Database or Container

will be used to record this

data?

Is this an

existing databas

e or new?

If new, When will

the database be

ready for use?

When is the

planned start date for data

collection?

To Reduce Rate of

Rejection of grinding

Mark

Discrete

Total produce parts &

Total reject parts

Total reject Parts

*100/Total produce Parts

Rejection % Excel sheet Existing N/A N.RMonitor the

monthly Rejection Rate

Data Collection Plan

D M A I C

MSA (Attribute)D M A I C

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T31 OK OK REJECT OK OK OK OK REJECT OK OK2 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT3 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT4 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT5 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK6 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT7 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT8 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT OK REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT9 REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT REJECT10 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK11 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK12 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK13 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK14 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK15 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK16 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK17 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK18 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK REJECT OK19 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK20 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

S. No. ACTUAL RESULT

OMPRAKASH ANANNAND PAWAN

MSA (Attribute)D M A I C

112+63180

5117

163

DECISION :ParameterAcceptable

E > 0.90Pfa < 0.05Pm < 0.02 0.0158 OK

Result0.972 OK

0.0427 OK

Pmiss (Pm) = Total miss

= = 0.016Total opportunity for miss

Probability false alarm (Pfa) = Total false alarm

= = 0.043Total opportunity false alarm

Effectiveness (E) = Total correct

= = 0.972Total decision

Process Capability

Z Score of the process is really poor, there is immediate need to improve the process capability

Denominator Values

Mean 2.8 %

Std Dev 0.63

Target 0.5.00%

DPMO 28000

D M A I C

D M A I C

Defect wise Pareto Analysis(Based on 4 months data)

Process parameter Standard Observed Conclusion Correction Permanent action

RPM of Grinding Wheel 1399 1399 OK

RPM of Regulating Wheel 35~45 39 OK

RPM of conveyor 2 2 OK

Coolant Temperature 20~25 DEGREE 22 OK

Machine Selected: Center Less Grinder

D M A I C

Process Parameter Audit Findings

Machine /Tool Condition Standard Observed Conclusion Actions taken

Grinding Wheel Spindle runout 0.005 max

0.002 OK

Regulating Wheel Spindle runout 0.005 max

0.003 OK

Regulating Wheel & Work Rest blade parallelism

Blue contact

OK OK

Regulating Wheel & Dresser movement Parallelism

Blue contact

OK OK

Grinding Wheel & Dresser movement Parallelism 0.002

max0.001 OK

Machine Selected: Centerless grinder

D M A I C

Machine and Tool condition Audit findings

Inspection conditions Standard Observed Conclusion Actions taken

Visual before loading 100% 100% OK

Visual after loading 100% 100% OK

OD dim. inspection according to control plan

5 pistons after every ½ hr

5 pistons after every ½ hr

OK

Machine Selected: Centerless Grinder

D M A I C

Inspection Plan and Audit findings

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

MARCH'12 APRIL'12 MAY'12 JUNE'12 JULY'12 AUG'12

Rej %

D M A I C

Monthly rejection trend for last 6 months

Abnormal month

Possible reasons Actions taken

MAY’09 Teflon coating resin problem due to hot weather.

Insulation has been applied Teflon coating tank.

Bubble generated at OD of piston due to resin was not freezing due to freezer not OK.

Freezer OK.

Bubble generated at OD due to high viscosity of Teflon coating resin.

NMP Chemical mixed in high viscous resin.

D M A I C

Reasons for Abnormal rejection in monthly Analysis

Month:

D M A I C

Daily rejection trend for last month of August

MANMAN MACHINEMACHINE

METHODMETHODMATERIALMATERIAL

Material Composition Material Composition Not OK Not OK Rigid Tapping Rigid Tapping

ApplicationApplication

Shift Engineer Shift Engineer or Shiftor Shift

Total LengthTotal Length

GRINDING MARK

One End LengthOne End Length

Part not Part not checkedchecked

Set-up not doneSet-up not done

Fixture Clamping Fixture Clamping

Process Parameters Process Parameters overrideoverride

Cause & Effect Diagram (Potential Causes)

Coolant Flow Coolant Flow PressurePressure

CoolantCoolant

Coolant FilterationCoolant Filteration

Process ParametersProcess Parameters

Feed not OKFeed not OK

Depth of cut not OKDepth of cut not OK

Hardness of PistonHardness of Piston

ToolingTooling

Tool Without CoatingTool Without Coating

Geometry TapGeometry TapCoated ToolCoated Tool

CoolantCoolant

Water HardnessWater Hardness

Coolant ConcentrationCoolant Concentration

D M A I C

Coating Coating ThicknessThickness

Taper AngleTaper Angle

Grinding contact Grinding contact AreaArea

Run out of Run out of ODOD

Cause & Effect Diagram (Vital Causes)D M A I C

S No.

Potential Cause

Operational DefinitionData Type

Test to be performed

1 Total Length Total length of Piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

2 One end length One side length Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

3 Shift EngineerThe process owner, who is responsible for managing the

performance of a set of associates in a given shift Discrete Chi-square Test

4Hardness of

pistonMaterial hardness of Piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

5 Shift 8 hour Working time is called Shift Discrete Chi-square test

6 Coating Thickness Black colour coating Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

7 Run out of OD Deflection in dial when touch on circular rotating surface DiscreteBinary Logistic

Regression

8 Grinding contact area Area on which grinding is required DiscreteBinary Logistic

Regression

9 Taper angle Angle of taper face Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

Vital X’s that are impacting the Thread damage D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Total Length

Link Function: Logit

Response Information

Variable Value CountResponse Good 13 (Event) Bad 3 Total 16Logistic Regression Table

95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower UpperConstant -2102.23 2776.53 -0.76 0.449Total Length 31.6118 41.7237 0.76 0.449 5.35611E+13 0.00 1.75429E+49

Log-Likelihood = -7.430Test that all slopes are zero: G = 0.583, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.445

Goodness-of-Fit Tests

BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Total length on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between Grinding mark & Total length

D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus One end Length

Link Function: LogitResponse Information

Variable Value CountResponse Good 12 (Event) Bad 4 Total 16

Logistic Regression Table

Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant -72.9931 204.433 -0.36 0.721One end Length 3.15223 8.69889 0.36 0.717 23.39 0.00 5.93618E+08



BLR shows that there is no significant impact of One end length on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between One End length&Grinding mark

D M A I C

The Chi –Square test shows that since the P-Value is 0.981, Shift Engineer(X)

has no significant impact on thread damage (Y).

Chi-Square Test between Grinding Mark & Shift Engineer

D M A I C

Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test for Observed Counts in Variable: Shift Engineer

Using category names in Shift Engineer Test ContributionCategory Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-SqAvinash 25.99 0.333333 26.53 0.0109913Ghanshya 26.27 0.333333 26.53 0.0025481Jagdish 27.33 0.333333 26.53 0.0241236

N DF Chi-Sq P-Value79.59 2 0.0376630 0.981

Binary Logistic Regression: Resonse versus Hardness



Variable Value CountResonse Good 10 (Event) Bad 6 Total 16


Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 36.4338 30.6255 1.19 0.234Hardness -0.450961 0.383340 -1.18 0.239 0.64 0.30 1.35



BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Hardness on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between Hardness &Grinding mark

D M A I C

Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit Test for Observed Counts in Variable: Shift wise Rej

Using category names in SHIFT Test ContributionCategory Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-SqA 27.47 0.333333 28.5033 0.037462B 27.82 0.333333 28.5033 0.016382C 30.22 0.333333 28.5033 0.103389

N DF Chi-Sq P-Value85.51 2 0.157233 0.924

The Chi –Square test shows that since the P-Value is 0.924, Shift (X)

has no impact on Thread damage(Y).

Chi-Square Test between thread damage & shift

D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Coating thickness





Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant -0.562253 2.09376 -0.27 0.788Coating thickness 0.0057374 0.0207713 0.28 0.782 1.01 0.97 1.05



BLR shows that there is no significant impact of Coating thickness on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between Coating thickness&Grinding mark

D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus OD Run out





Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 0.760110 1.37445 0.55 0.580OD Runout -0.0063347 0.0106416 -0.60 0.552 0.99 0.97 1.01


BLR shows that there is no significant impact of OD Run out on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between Run out of OD &Grinding mark

D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Grinding Contact Area


Response InformationVariable Value CountResponse Good 8 (Event) Bad 8 Total 16


Odds 95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Ratio Lower UpperConstant 17.6054 10.1840 1.73 0.084Grinding Contact Area -0.0138581 0.0078709 -1.76 0.078 0.99 0.97 1.00



BLR shows that there is a significant impact of grinding contact Area on Grinding mark

BLR between Grinding Contact Area &Grinding mark

D M A I C

Binary Logistic Regression: Response versus Taper Angle

Link Function: LogitResponse Information



95% CIPredictor Coef SE Coef Z P Odds Ratio Lower UpperConstant -39.0918 28.6931 -1.36 0.173Taper Angle 19.3711 14.2431 1.36 0.174 2.58680E+08 0.00 3.43948E+20



BLR shows that there is a significant impact of taper angle on Grinding mark

Binary Logistic Regression between Taper angle& Grinding mark

D M A I C

(SSV : Taper Angle )(Spec: 4 Degree max)

S. No.

Potential Cause

Data TypeTest to be performed

P Value

1 Total Length DiscreteBinary Logistic

RegressionP=0.445

2 One end length Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

P=0.715

3 Shift Engineer Discrete Chi-square Test P=0.981

4 Hardness of piston Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

P=0.188

5 Shift Discrete Cross Tabulation P=0.924

6 Coating Thickness Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

P=0.781

7 Run out of OD Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

P=0.548

8 Grinding contact area Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

9 Taper angle Continuous Binary Logistic Regression

Evaluation for X’s that are impacting the Thread damage

D M A I C

P=0.0.12

P=0.000

D M A I C

Action Plan D M A I C

Actionable Items Responsibility Start Date Close Date

Grinding Contact Area Cross Functional Team Oct 1ST 31 Oct

Taper Angle Cross Functional Team 1ST Oct Oct31

PFMEA ReviewD M A I C

Tolerance : 4-2 = 2 deg. Variation : 2.89-1.54 = 1.35 deg.

Conclusion:-Variation is less than 75% of tolerance as per new spec., So the cause is root cause and can be controlled

D M A I C

Analysis of Taper Angle

Root causes identified for the problem

Technique/ Tool used for pinpointing

Department responsible for controlling

Process owner responsible for controlling

Taper Angle

Paired Comparison & Product/Process Search

Production DD

D M A I C

Root Cause analysis Summary

Y = GRINDING MARK ON PISTON OD

F(x) ~ Total lengthNot a cause

F(x) ~ One end lengthNot a cause

F(x) ~ HardnessNot a cause PC

F(x) ~ F(F(x) ~ Run Out of ODNot a cause

F(x) ~ Coating thicknessNot a cause

F(x) ~ Grinding Contact Area cause

PPS

Y=Grinding Contact Area(CONTACT LENGTH X COATING THICKNESS)

F(x) ~ RUN OUT OF PIATON OD Not a cause

F(x) ~ TAPER ANGLE Root cause PPS

B Vs C

D M A I C

Funneling Summary

41

Selection of DOE Tool

Since Good and Bad parts Can be created alternately,We selected B Vs C Tool to Validate the root cause(s)

Deciding B and C Condition for the Project

The Tool used for finding out the root cause is Product Process Search.

Hence the “B” condition are those corresponding to Good category and

The “C” condition are those corresponding to Bad condition.

D M A I C

Tool for Validation Root cause

* 3 good & 3 bad batches (1500 pistons in one batch) are selected alternate as sample for validation.* Data collected (Rej.%) as given below :

Batch Better Current

1 0.20% 1.94%

2 0.13% 1.15%

3 0.15% 1.98%

* Root cause is leading to distinct seperation between Bad & Good batches with no overlap.* There is no overlap in rej.% data so Root cause is validated.

D M A I C

Validation data for Root cause

Number of samples used for doing B vs C 3,3

Validation done with Batches

If the Validation was done with Batches what was the batch quantity 1500 Pistons

Historic rejection level 2.8 %

Average of B condition 0.16

Average of C condition 1.69

Amount of Improvement 1.53

Sigma of B condition data 0.09

K value 4.2

K* Sigma of B condition data 0.38

D M A I C

Analysis of data for Validation

Taper Angle 2°~4°

Taper Angle of Piston OD which contact is not required for grinding has been fixed 2°~4°.

D M A I C

Action With Photograph

D M A I C

Rejn %1 4.32 2.53 3.54 4.55 2.56 27 28 3.59 0

10 111 312 413 514 115 1.216 3.217 218 1.219 1.220 0.4

Month: August’12

Double click on the graph to update the graph for your project

2 0.13 0.24 0.115 0.086 0.097 0.18 0.129 0.07

10 0.0811 0.112 0.1313 0.0614 0.0415 0.116 0.0617 0.0718 0.119 0.1220 0.0121 0.0722 0.1523 0.124 0.0425 0.09

Month: December’12

D M A I C

Data collection and Analysis

Z Score of the process is really good, there is no immediate need to improve the process capability

Graphical Summary After ImprovementD M A I C

Process Capability After Improvement

Z Score of the process is really good, there is no immediate need to improve the process capability

Denominator Values

Mean 0.094 %

Std Dev 0.04

Target Meet

DPMO 940

D M A I C

Defect Pareto after for month

Double click on the graph to update the graph for your project

Defect Pareto before for month

D M A I C

Pareto analysis before & after Improvement

Projected annual savings before the start of the project is Rs. 12 Lakhs.Actual savings realized now isRs. 10.8 Lakhs.

If other model Piston 10S13 also included then actual saving now 15 lakhs.

D M A I C

Control(Result Verification)

Tangible Benefits derived through the project

1. Overall scrap reduced from 14000 ppm to 8000 ppm

2. Defect Grinding Mark scrap reduced from 10000 ppm to 1000 ppm

Intangible benefits derived through the project

1. Rework- time saving.2. Rework -Power consumption saving.3. Rework – Man power saving.4. Same problem has been removed from other

model .

D M A I C

Tangible & Intangible benefits

Current control plan

#20 O.D. Turning CNC Lathe

1 O.D Ø28.50+0.05 Micrometer

5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting

2Start of Shift/ every hour


Run Chart 20FM012 OInform Shift

Incharge

2 Total length 73.1 ± 0.10Comparotor stand, dial &

Master blockPS-GSPL-MB-011





Incharge

3 Chamfer 1.1-0.2 X 7°±1° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting

1 Every 4 hr/ shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting

4 Chamfer 1.5 ±0.3 X 30° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting


5 Length (both sides) 16.2 ± 0.5 Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting


6 Length 22.55±0.1 Profile Projector

5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting

#20 O.D. Turning CNC Lathe


7 Center Height 31.1±0.05Special GaugePS-GSPL-015

5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 OInform Shift

Incharge

1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting




Incharge

8 OD runout wrt center 0.1Bench center & Height

gauge


1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI

9 FEED 0.15 ~ 0.35 mm / rev. Monitor display 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Restting

10 Cutting oil Concentration 3%~5% Refractrometer 1 Per shift 1 Per shift Check Sheet 50FM004 O Top Up

11 Tool life 5000 pcs

Change over inspection request (45 IP 003)

5 Change over 5 Change over

Tool Set Up Format 20FM505

E Resetting

Tool Life Monitoring Sheet-80FM059

_ _ E Change Tool

D M A I CControl Plan Review

Proposed Control plan

#20 O.D. Turning

CNC Lathe

1 O.D Ø28.50+0.05 Micrometer5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting




Incharge

2 Total length 73.1 ± 0.10Comparotor stand, dial &

Master blockPS-GSPL-MB-011





Incharge

3 Chamfer 1.1-0.2 X 7°±1° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting


4 Chamfer 1.5 ±0.3 X 30° Profile Projector5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 QI Resetting


5 Taper 6±0.3 X 3°±1° Profile Projector 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Resetting

6 Length (both sides) 16.2 ± 0.5 Profile Projector



7 Length 22.55±0.1 Profile Projector


#20 O.D. Turning


8 Center Height 31.1±0.05Special GaugePS-GSPL-015

5 Job Set up 5 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 OInform Shift

Incharge

1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI Resetting




Incharge

9 OD runout wrt center 0.1Bench center & Height

gauge


1 Per shift 1 Per shift PIR 20FM502 Rev.:01 S/QI

10 FEED 0.15 ~ 0.35 mm / rev. Monitor display 1 Job Set up 1 Job Set up Set up 20FM501 E Restting

11 Cutting oil Concentration 3%~5% Refractrometer 1 Per shift 1 Per shift Check Sheet 50FM004 O Top Up

12 Tool life 5000 pcs

Change over inspection request (45 IP 003)

5 Change over 5 Change over

Tool Set Up Format 20FM505

E Resetting

Tool Life Monitoring Sheet-80FM059

_ _ E Change Tool

D M A I C

Control Plan Review

Ongoing monitoring by Black Belt for 6 months for sustenance of results

Black Belt :-Mr. Ramsaran Kumar

Problem Statement :-Grinding Mark on

Piston OD during grinding operation.

Part name / number :-Piston 10S11

Grinding Contact Area

Funneling # 1

Funneling Summary

BLR

Funneling # 2

Funneling # 3

Cause(s)

Coating Length X Coating Thickness

Taper AnglePiston Taper Angle < 2 deg.

D M A I C

Thank you.THANK YOU

D M A I C

six sigma project on reducing rejection rate of grinding mark on piston

Education