six sigma DMAIC approach for reducing quality defects of camshaft binding problem in engine assembly line

1

Project

“ Reducing Internal Customer Complaints Due to Camshaft Binding in H-Engine Assembly Using Lean Six Sigma ”

ByNiranjana B

USN – 1DS13MEM074TH sem, M-Tech (MEM)

DSCE, Bengaluru-78

Internal guide,DR.H. D. Ramakrishna

HOD Dept of IE&MDSCE, Bengaluru-78

External guide,Mahesh K.N.

Divisional Manager – IE and FP&P Ashok Leyland Ltd

Hosur, Unit -1

Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering Bangalore –78

2

Contents

Company Profile

Problem definition

Objectives of work

Baseline study of Problem

Research Methodology - DMAIC

Results and Discussion- Findings, Proposed Improvements and outcomes

Conclusion

Reference

3

• Company Name: Ashok Leyland Ltd

• Establishment: In the year of 1948• Headquarters: Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

• Parent: Hinduja Group Flagship

• Turn over : Revenue 133.59 billion (US$2.3 billion) (2012)• Net income: 56.5 billion (US$970 million) (2012)

• Facilities: Ennore (Chennai- Tamil Nadu) Hosur (Tamilnadu – Three plants) Bandara (Maharashtra) Alwar (Rajasthan) Pantnagar (Uttaranchal)• Products: Automobile Engines, Commercial Vehicles, LCV• Employees: 15,812 (2011)

Company Profile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_income

4

Problem definition

• Camshaft binding is between camshaft and the engine block, it is occurring at the 2nd stage of engine assembly when camshaft is fitted into the engine block.

5

objectivesTo study the assembly line losses and internal customer complaints To understand H Series Line- Cylinder Block & Camshaft Machining Process To study the methodology of Six Sigma in order to solve problem systematically. Target the all main causes that affect Binding. Use of statistical tools and technique to address the camshaft binding. Referring the main core quality issues that cause camshaft binding in the fitment stage, in the improvement phase. Solutions and suggestions to be found for eradication of camshaft binding problem. To implement solutions and study outcomes

6

Internal Customer complaints

26%

20%

11%

10%

8%

6%

6%

5%

4%4%

pie chart of Internal customer complaints (H-engine assembly)Apr 14 to Feb 15

Camshaft binding

Block-oil pump binding

Conrod bolt torque not ok

Conrod end play nil

Block-crankshaft binding

Conrod bolt not enter

Idler gear play nil

Block-Brg. Cap binding

Head bolt torque not ok / loosening

OPD gear mark not clear / wrong

7

Pareto For Project Selection

Quality loss 48 46292 228 127 120 88 68 66 54Percent 4.2 4.025.7 20.1 11.2 10.6 7.7 6.0 5.8 4.7Cum % 96.0 100.025.7 45.7 56.9 67.5 75.2 81.2 87.0 91.7

Engine Defects

1200

1000

800600

400200

0

100

80

60

40

20

0

Qua

lity

loss

Perc

ent

Pareto Chart of Engine Defects

8

•DEFINE - Project Charter, Teaming, Project Management

• Identify CTQ (Y), SIPOC

•MEASURE - Operational Definition of Y, Collect Data on Y

• Validate Measurement System (MSA)

• Baseline Y, Cpk, FMEA, VSM

•ANALYZE - Identify Causes Xs

• Validate Causes, cause and effect matrix

• ANOVAs, Regression, Hypothesis Testing

•IMPROVE - DOE, SMED, EVOP,

• Solution Selection and Implementation, New Capability

•CONTROL - SPC, Poke yoke, Control charts, 5S’s,

Lean six sigma Methodology:

9

1.DEFINE PHASE

10

# Aspect Weightage

Rating (1, 3, 9)

Score (Weight

X Rating)

Rating Guidelines

1 3 9

Impact

1 Impact on the Customer 0.3 3 0.9 No Effect or No

Direct Effect

Impacts the Internal Customers but only Indirect impact on the final customer.

Direct Effect on the Final Customer / Internal Customer

2 Money Saving Potential 0.3 3 0.9 Less Than 10

LakhsBetween 10 to 50 lakhs

More Than 50 lakhs

3 Frequency of the Problem 0.2 9 1.8 Less than 1000

PPMBetween 1000 to 5000 PPM

More than 5000 PPM

4 Linkage to the Business Goals 0.2 3 0.6 No Direct

LinkageVery Weak Linkage

Direct Linkage to Company's Business Goals

1 4.2 Impact Score 47

Complexity

1 Knowledge about the Solution 0.3 9 2.7

Solution is Known, requires only Implementation

Solution is known for a similar situation, but needs to be tried out for the current situation.

Solution is Not Known , to be found out.

2 Data Availability 0.3 3 0.9All Data is readily available

Requires Little effort

No data is available, we need to put up a process for data collection

3 Manpower Required 0.2 9 1.8

Concerned Executive is sufficient for Implementation

Requires help from one more function

Requires support from more than one function.

4 Time Required 0.2 9 1.8Can be implemented within a Month

Upto 3 months is required

Min 6 Months is required

1 7.2 Complexity Score 80.0

40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Com

plex

ity

Impact

Simple Kaizen Zone

8D Zone

8D Zone

Lean Six Sigma Zone

Green Belt Zone

Black Belt Zone

ConclusionProblem falls in LSS zone due to high Impact (47%) & high complexity (80%)

Problem Solving Methodology Selection Grid

PROJECT SELECTION MATRIX

11

Critical To Quality (CTQ)

13

14

Engine quality defects in metrics

PPM = (Defect) * 10, 00,000(Production)

PPM = 292 * 10, 00,000 = 1137425674

2.MEASUREMENT PHASE

2.1.Measurement System Analysis [MSA]

No. of Appraisers 3

No.of parts 10

No. of Trials 3

Equipment under MSA Study Snap dial Gauge

Tolerance 0.10mm

Least count 0.1 micron

15

16

Inference GR&R –8.1%

Gauge G&R study for journal 1

17

InferenceGR&R –7.4%


18

Inference GR&R – 8.6%


19

Inference G R&R – 8.8%


20


Gauge G&R study for Cam bore dia 1

21


Gauge G&R study for Cam bore dia 2 & 4

22

InferenceGR&R – 9.2%

Gauge G&R study for Cam bore dia 3

23

MSA

Journals <10% acceptable

(10%-30%) marginal

Cam bore <10% acceptable

(10%-30%) marginal

J 1 GR&R = 8.1% Dia 1 GR&R = 10.2%

J 2 GR&R = 7.4% Dia 2&4 GR&R = 10.5%

J 3 GR&R = 8.6% Dia 3 GR&R = 9.2%

J 4 GR&R= 8.8%

MSA of journals and cam bore are Acceptable

24

PROCESS CAPABILITY

Process capability study cam journals and cam bore dia- Gauge – snap dial gauge Sample size – 30

Sampling method – Random sampling

Acceptable minimum values for Cpk range from 1.33 to 2.0

25

Journals Dia Normality Test and Capability Analysis

Minitab file extract

26


27


28


29


30


31


32


33

Journals

J1

Normality test (p>0.05) 0.375 Follows normal distribution

Cpk (min 1.33) 1.69 Capable

J2



J3



J4



Cam bore

Dia 1



Dia 2



Dia 3



Dia 4



34

BindingCamshaft

Environment

Measurements

Methods

Material

Machines

Personnel

no fixed manpower

operator skill

Training

Supervisors

bush miss match

Performance

Maintaince

Metal - Metal Contact

Lubricants

Material stock for S/A

Suppliers

error in program

Camshaft inserting

Inspection

chat incorrectStandard work

Handling

Gauge capability not ok

error in measurment

Cleanliness

Visibility

cause and effect dia

35

Project name : Camshaft binding problem

Important Rating ---------- ( 1 – 10 ) ( 9 )

KPIVs KPOVs -------------- Camshaft binding

Total

X1 Operator skill 9 81

X2 Metal contact in S/A 9 81

X3 Metal contact in washing 9 81

X4 No fixed manpower 9 81

X5 Proper work instruction 3 27

X6 Bush missmatch 3 27

X7 Cambores dia size change 3 27

X8 Journals dia size change 3 27

X8 Runout on journals 3 27

X10 Gear mounting 1 9

X11 Error in measurment 1 9

X12 Proper lubrication 1 9

--- Rating 0,1,3, or 9

Cause and Effect Matrix

36

3.ANALYSIS PHASE Hypothesis test for comparing cam journal grinding between 2 machines in shop 5

Data in Worksheet OrderInvestigate any outliers (marked in red).

sizes of 10?What difference can you detect with your sample

0.0018855 60%0.0021559 70%0.0024728 80%0.0029129 90%

Difference Power

10987654321

56.97

56.96

56.95

10987654321

0.0029129 greater than M/C 2 J1, you would have a 90% chance.would have a 60% chance of detecting the difference. If M/C 1 J1 wereIf the true mean of M/C 1 J1 were 0.0018855 greater than M/C 2 J1, youFor α = 0.05 and sample sizes = 10:

Difference0.0018855 0.0029129

Power< 40% 60% 90% 100%

M/C 1 J1 M/C 2 J1

What is the chance of detecting a difference?

Observed difference = 0.0022

Power is a function of the sample sizes and the standard deviations. To detect smaller differences, consider increasing the sample sizes.

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of M/C 1 J1 and M/C 2 J1Diagnostic Report

Individual Samples

Sample size 10 10Mean 56.960 56.958 90% CI (56.96, 56.96) (56.956, 56.960)Standard deviation 0.00067495 0.0028460

Statistics M/C 1 J1 M/C 2 J1

Difference Between Samples

Difference 0.0022 90% CI (0.00052354, 0.0038765)

Statistics *Difference

56.96256.96056.95856.95656.954

M/C 1 J1

M/C 2 J1

M/C 2 J1 (p < 0.05).The mean of M/C 1 J1 is significantly greater than the mean of

Yes No

0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5

P = 0.019

0.0040.0030.0020.0010.000

Look for unusual data before interpreting the results of the test.• Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of samples.95% confident that it is greater than 0.00052354.that the true difference is between 0.00052354 and 0.0038765, anddifference in means from sample data. You can be 90% confident• CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating theM/C 2 J1 at the 0.05 level of significance.• Test: You can conclude that the mean of M/C 1 J1 is greater than

Distribution of DataCompare the data and means of the samples.

Mean TestIs M/C 1 J1 greater than M/C 2 J1?

90% CI for the DifferenceIs the entire interval above zero?

*Difference = M/C 1 J1 - M/C 2 J1

Comments

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of M/C 1 J1 and M/C 2 J1Summary Report

Mean of m/c 1 J1 > m/c 2 J1 so machine 1 is more efficient

37

Individual Samples


Statistics M/C 1 J2 M/C 2 J2


Difference 0.0015 90% CI (0.00027221, 0.0027278)


56.76256.76056.75856.756

M/C 1 J2

M/C 2 J2

M/C 2 J2 (p < 0.05).The mean of M/C 1 J2 is significantly greater than the mean of

Yes No

0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5

P = 0.026

0.0030.0020.0010.000

Look for unusual data before interpreting the results of the test.• Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of samples.95% confident that it is greater than 0.00027221.that the true difference is between 0.00027221 and 0.0027278, anddifference in means from sample data. You can be 90% confident• CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating theM/C 2 J2 at the 0.05 level of significance.• Test: You can conclude that the mean of M/C 1 J2 is greater than


Mean TestIs M/C 1 J2 greater than M/C 2 J2?


*Difference = M/C 1 J2 - M/C 2 J2

Comments

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of M/C 1 J2 and M/C 2 J2Summary Report



0.0013775 60%0.0015750 70%0.0018064 80%0.0021277 90%

Difference Power

10987654321

56.765

56.760

56.755

10987654321

0.0021277 greater than M/C 2 J2, you would have a 90% chance.would have a 60% chance of detecting the difference. If M/C 1 J2 wereIf the true mean of M/C 1 J2 were 0.0013775 greater than M/C 2 J2, youFor α = 0.05 and sample sizes = 10:

Difference0.0013775 0.0021277

Power< 40% 60% 90% 100%

M/C 1 J2 M/C 2 J2




2-Sample t Test for the Mean of M/C 1 J2 and M/C 2 J2Diagnostic Report


38

Individual Samples


Statistics m/c 1 J3 m/c 2 J3


Difference 0.0013000 90% CI (0.00014577, 0.0024542)


56.56256.56056.558

m/c 1 J3

m/c 2 J3

m/c 2 J3 (p < 0.05).The mean of m/c 1 J3 is significantly greater than the mean of

Yes No

0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5

P = 0.034

0.00240.00180.00120.00060.0000

Look for unusual data before interpreting the results of the test.• Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of samples.95% confident that it is greater than 0.00014577.that the true difference is between 0.00014577 and 0.0024542, anddifference in means from sample data. You can be 90% confident• CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating them/c 2 J3 at the 0.05 level of significance.• Test: You can conclude that the mean of m/c 1 J3 is greater than


Mean TestIs m/c 1 J3 greater than m/c 2 J3?


*Difference = m/c 1 J3 - m/c 2 J3

Comments

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of m/c 1 J3 and m/c 2 J3Summary Report



0.0012933 60%0.0014787 70%0.0016959 80%0.0019975 90%

Difference Power

10987654321

56.568

56.560

56.552

10987654321

0.0019975 greater than m/c 2 J3, you would have a 90% chance.would have a 60% chance of detecting the difference. If m/c 1 J3 wereIf the true mean of m/c 1 J3 were 0.0012933 greater than m/c 2 J3, youFor α = 0.05 and sample sizes = 10:

Difference0.0012933 0.0019975

Power< 40% 60% 90% 100%

m/c 1 J3 m/c 2 J3




2-Sample t Test for the Mean of m/c 1 J3 and m/c 2 J3Diagnostic Report


39

Individual Samples


Statistics m/c 1 J4 m/c 2 J4


Difference 0.0017000 90% CI (0.00012340, 0.0032766)


56.36256.36056.35856.35656.354

m/c 1 J4

m/c 2 J4

m/c 2 J4 (p < 0.05).The mean of m/c 1 J4 is significantly greater than the mean of

Yes No

0 0.05 0.1 > 0.5

P = 0.040

0.0030.0020.0010.000

Look for unusual data before interpreting the results of the test.• Distribution of Data: Compare the location and means of samples.95% confident that it is greater than 0.00012340.that the true difference is between 0.00012340 and 0.0032766, anddifference in means from sample data. You can be 90% confident• CI: Quantifies the uncertainty associated with estimating them/c 2 J4 at the 0.05 level of significance.• Test: You can conclude that the mean of m/c 1 J4 is greater than


Mean TestIs m/c 1 J4 greater than m/c 2 J4?


*Difference = m/c 1 J4 - m/c 2 J4

Comments

2-Sample t Test for the Mean of m/c 1 J4 and m/c 2 J4Summary Report



0.0017640 60%0.0020169 70%0.0023131 80%0.0027245 90%

Difference Power

10987654321

56.37

56.36

56.35

10987654321

0.0027245 greater than m/c 2 J4, you would have a 90% chance.would have a 60% chance of detecting the difference. If m/c 1 J4 wereIf the true mean of m/c 1 J4 were 0.0017640 greater than m/c 2 J4, youFor α = 0.05 and sample sizes = 10:

Difference0.0017640 0.0027245

Power< 40% 60% 90% 100%

m/c 1 J4 m/c 2 J4




2-Sample t Test for the Mean of m/c 1 J4 and m/c 2 J4Diagnostic Report


40

Hypothesis Test – 2 sample t test

Machines Journals mean P – values

(p < 0.05)

M/c 1& M/c 2

M/c 1 J1 mean > M/c 2 J1 P=0.019

M/c 1 J2 mean > M/c 2 J2 P=0.026

M/c 1 J3 mean > M/c 2 J3 P=0.034

M/c 1 J4 mean > M/c 2 J4 P=0.040

So Machine 1 is more efficient than Machine 2 hence machine 1 can be used more for the grinding operations

41

Before After

Components are touching & hitting on conveyor

No touching and hitting between components on conveyor

No -OPL

a) Awareness on handling imparted to the associates – OPL displayed at final stage for handling the camshafts

4. IMPROVEMENT PHASE

42

Improvement:

Camshaft fed with 2 layers and had metal contact

dedicated tray for camshaft

handling

Provision of brass material to avoid steel

metal contact with component

Before After

b) Handling of finished camshaft with modified trays to washing

43

Provision of plastic sleeve to avoid metal contact

Metal contact between rack and component

Before After

c) Handling of finished camshaft in modified storing racks

Improvement:

44

Actual Suggested Action

Components are touching & hitting on conveyor

No touching and hitting between components on conveyor

d) Handling of Finish camshaft with modifying transfer hook in machine shop.

45

Actual Suggested Action

45°

Inserting horizontal to the axis Inserting 45° angle to avoid damages on journals & easy assembly

e) By improving insertion method of camshaft in assembly, by tilting the crank case by 45°

46

Identified weak factors and suggested improve methods

Serial No.

Weak Factors Improvement Method

1. No Fixed men Fixed men system

2. No regular employer – employee meeting not

conducted

Regular meeting will convey the company objective clearly

3. Employee skills at assembly Regular training can be given

4. set of instruction for fitment of camshaft are not displayed

Display the set of instruction during fitment of camshaft

47

During control phase the implemented solutions were monitored with the help of various charts such as1. Visual charts2. daily, weekly and monthly reports3. process and product audit on sample basis4. providing training to the staff

5.CONTROL PHASE

P - Chart for camshaft binding problem before and after the improvements

AprMarFebJanDecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayApr

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

months

Propor

tion

_P=0.00474

UCL=0.00880

LCL=0.00068

Apr Mar

P Chart of camshaft binding by months

Tests are performed with unequal sample sizes.

48

Description 2014-15

(Apr-Feb)

Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Oct Sept Nov Dec

Total Quality passed

25674 2697 2558

Total camshaft binding

292 12 8

In PPM 11374 4450 3128

Six sigma implementation on engine assembly line results in reduced quality losses and

the material causes such as metal to metal contact is solved. Hence quality of engine

assembly line is improved.

RESULT AND CONCLUSION :

49

•REFERENCES1. Six Sigma practice for quality improvement – A case study of Indian auto ancillary unit -- Dr.

Rajeshkumar U. Sambhe [1]

2. Engine Assembly Process Quality Improvement using Six Sigma-Dr. R.L. Shrivastava, Khwaja

Izhar Ahmad and Tushar N. Desai [2]

3. Quality Improvement during Camshaft Keyway TighteningUsing Shainin Approach -

Nagaraja Reddy K M*, Dr. Y S Varadarajan**, Raghuveer Prasad

4. Six Sigma process improvements in automotive parts production-M. Soković a,*, D. Pavletić

b, E. Krulčić c,a Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,, Slovenia,b Faculty of Engineering, University

of Rijeka,Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia

5. Using Six Sigma to Improve Complaints-Handling - Patrícia Abreu, Sérgio Sousa, Member,

IAENG, and Isabel Lopes

50

Part Description

Cam shaft - H Series

Characteristic : 1st journal dia

Appraiser Trialparts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 56.954 56.954 56.958 56.960 56.963 56.963 56.965 56.966 56.968 56.968

2 56.954 56.954 56.958 56.960 56.963 56.963 56.965 56.967 56.967 56.968

3 56.954 56.955 56.958 56.960 56.962 56.963 56.965 56.967 56.968 56.968

2

1 56.954 56.954 56.959 56.960 56.963 56.964 56.965 56.967 56.968 56.968

2 56.954 56.954 56.958 56.960 56.962 56.963 56.965 56.967 56.968 56.968

3 56.954 56.955 56.958 56.960 56.962 56.964 56.965 56.966 56.967 56.969

3

1 56.955 56.954 56.958 56.960 56.962 56.963 56.965 56.967 56.968 56.968

2 56.954 56.954 56.958 56.960 56.963 56.964 56.964 56.967 56.968 56.968

3 56.954 56.954 56.958 56.961 56.962 56.964 56.964 56.967 56.968 56.968

ANNEXURE I

MSA of Cam journal and cam bore dia measurements (Source – data from m/c shop-5)

51

MSA :

Part Description Cam shaft - H Series

Characteristic : 2nd journal dia

Appraiser trial

PART

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.758 56.761 56.762 56.765 56.765 56.768 56.768

2 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.758 56.761 56.762 56.765 56.766 56.767 56.768

3 56.753 56.755 56.756 56.758 56.760 56.762 56.765 56.766 56.768 56.768

2

1 56.752 56.754 56.757 56.758 56.761 56.763 56.765 56.766 56.768 56.768

2 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.758 56.760 56.762 56.765 56.766 56.768 56.768

3 56.752 56.755 56.756 56.758 56.760 56.763 56.765 56.765 56.767 56.769

3

1 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.758 56.760 56.762 56.765 56.766 56.768 56.768

2 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.758 56.760 56.763 56.764 56.766 56.768 56.768

3 56.752 56.754 56.756 56.759 56.760 56.763 56.764 56.766 56.768 56.768

52

MSA :


Characteristic : 3 rd journal dia

Appraiser trial

PART

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 56.552 56.554 56.556 56.558 56.560 56.561 56.563 56.563 56.566 56.568

2 56.553 56.554 56.556 56.558 56.560 56.561 56.563 56.564 56.565 56.568

3 56.553 56.555 56.556 56.558 56.559 56.561 56.563 56.564 56.566 56.568

2

1 56.552 56.554 56.557 56.558 56.560 56.562 56.563 56.564 56.566 56.568

2 56.552 56.554 56.556 56.558 56.559 56.561 56.563 56.564 56.566 56.568

3 56.552 56.555 56.556 56.558 56.559 56.562 56.563 56.563 56.565 56.569

3

1 56.552 56.554 56.556 56.558 56.559 56.561 56.563 56.564 56.566 56.568

2 56.553 56.554 56.550 56.558 56.559 56.562 56.562 56.564 56.566 56.568

3 56.552 56.554 56.556 56.559 56.559 56.562 56.562 56.564 56.566 56.568

53

MSA :


Characteristic : 4th journal dia

appraiser trial

part

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 56.352 56.354 56.356 56.357 56.359 56.360 56.363 56.363 56.366 56.368

2 56.353 56.354 56.356 56.357 56.359 56.360 56.363 56.364 56.365 56.368

3 56.352 56.355 56.356 56.357 56.358 56.360 56.363 56.364 56.366 56.368

2

1 56.352 56.354 56.357 56.357 56.359 56.361 56.363 56.364 56.366 56.368

2 56.353 56.355 56.357 56.357 56.358 56.360 56.363 56.364 56.366 56.368

3 56.352 56.354 56.357 56.357 56.358 56.361 56.363 56.363 56.365 56.369

3

1 56.353 56.354 56.356 56.357 56.358 56.360 56.363 56.364 56.366 56.368

2 56.352 56.354 56.356 56.357 56.358 56.361 56.362 56.364 56.366 56.368

3 56.353 56.354 56.356 56.358 56.358 56.361 56.362 56.364 56.366 56.368

54

MSA :

Part Description Cylinder Block- H Series

Characteristic : Cam 1st bore diameter

appraiser trial

part

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 60.002 60.006 60.008 60.014 60.017 60.019 60.024 60.026 60.029 60.031

2 60.001 60.004 60.007 60.012 60.015 60.020 60.022 60.026 60.029 60.031

3 60.001 60.006 60.009 60.013 60.017 60.018 60.024 60.027 60.028 60.030

2

1 59.999 60.006 60.008 60.013 60.018 60.019 60.024 60.026 60.029 60.029

2 60.000 60.005 60.009 60.013 60.017 60.020 60.023 60.024 60.030 60.031

3 59.999 60.004 60.008 60.012 60.017 60.020 60.024 60.026 60.028 60.031

3

1 59.998 60.004 60.008 60.013 60.015 60.021 60.024 60.026 60.028 60.031

2 60.000 60.003 60.007 60.014 60.017 60.021 60.024 60.026 60.027 60.032

3 59.999 60.002 60.008 60.013 60.017 60.021 60.024 60.026 60.026 60.031

55

MSA :


Characteristic : Cam 2nd & 4th bore diameter

appraiser trial

part

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 59.802 59.808 59.813 59.818 59.820 59.822 59.825 59.828 59.830 59.831

2 59.801 59.806 59.812 59.816 59.818 59.823 59.823 59.828 59.830 59.831

3 59.801 59.808 59.814 59.817 59.820 59.821 59.825 59.829 59.829 59.830

2

1 59.799 59.808 59.813 59.817 59.821 59.822 59.825 59.828 59.830 59.829

2 59.800 59.807 59.814 59.817 59.820 59.823 59.824 59.826 59.831 59.831

3 59.799 59.806 59.813 59.816 59.820 59.823 59.825 59.828 59.829 59.831

3

1 59.798 59.806 59.813 59.817 59.818 59.824 59.825 59.828 59.829 59.831

2 59.800 59.805 59.812 59.818 59.820 59.824 59.825 59.828 59.828 59.832

3 59.799 59.804 59.813 59.817 59.820 59.824 59.825 59.828 59.827 59.831

56

MSA :


Characteristic : Cam 3rd bore diameter

appraiser trial

PART

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

1 59.602 59.608 59.610 59.615 59.618 59.621 59.624 59.626 59.629 59.631

2 59.601 59.606 59.609 59.613 59.616 59.622 59.622 59.626 59.629 59.631

3 59.601 59.608 59.611 59.614 59.618 59.621 59.624 59.627 59.628 59.630

2

1 59.599 59.608 59.610 59.614 59.619 59.621 59.624 59.626 59.629 59.629

2 59.600 59.607 59.611 59.614 59.618 59.622 59.623 59.624 59.629 59.631

3 59.599 59.606 59.610 59.613 59.618 59.622 59.624 59.626 59.628 59.631

3

1 59.601 59.606 59.610 59.614 59.616 59.623 59.624 59.626 59.628 59.631

2 59.600 59.605 59.609 59.613 59.618 59.622 59.624 59.626 59.627 59.632

3 59.599 59.607 59.610 59.614 59.618 59.623 59.624 59.626 59.626 59.631

57

ANNEXURE IIPROCESS CAPABILITY INDEX (CPK) FOR JOURNALS DIA IN MM USING - SNAP DIAL GAUGE

SL No J1 J2 J3 J41 56.958 56.760 56.559 56.3572 56.956 56.757 56.556 56.3563 56.955 56.759 56.557 56.3594 56.958 56.761 56.558 56.3595 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.3626 56.959 56.762 56.562 56.3637 56.957 56.757 56.559 56.3608 56.962 56.759 56.559 56.3619 56.959 56.758 56.558 56.35810 56.957 56.758 56.557 56.35811 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.36212 56.958 56.757 56.558 56.35913 56.959 56.756 56.557 56.36114 56.959 56.758 56.560 56.36215 56.957 56.758 56.556 56.35516 56.958 56.757 56.559 56.35717 56.955 56.756 56.556 56.35618 56.958 56.755 56.556 56.35619 56.959 56.759 56.560 56.36320 56.961 56.762 56.563 56.36221 56.963 56.761 56.562 56.36122 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.36023 56.961 56.762 56.561 56.36024 56.960 56.760 56.559 56.35925 56.959 56.759 56.561 56.35926 56.962 56.761 56.560 56.36027 56.960 56.758 56.558 56.35828 56.961 56.760 56.559 56.36029 56.958 56.759 56.558 56.35830 56.960 56.760 56.559 56.360

58

Sl no Cam dia 1 Cam dia 2 Cam dia 3 Cam dia 4123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

60.01760.01560.01960.01760.01960.01560.01760.02160.02360.02160.01760.01860.01360.01760.02060.02260.01860.02460.01860.01660.01960.02160.01960.02260.01760.01560.01960.01660.02260.018

59.81859.82259.82359.81359.81959.82059.81759.81559.81759.82059.81859.81959.81659.81659.82159.81859.81959.81959.81859.81659.81759.81659.82059.81759.81659.81759.81659.81859.81559.818

59.61459.61759.62059.61759.61959.61159.61759.61359.61859.61559.61759.61559.61659.61959.61459.61659.61759.61559.61659.61559.61759.61559.61659.61459.61659.61359.61959.61359.61659.613

59.81859.81759.81459.81359.82359.81559.81659.81759.82359.81959.81659.81659.81359.82059.81859.81559.81459.82059.81859.81759.81559.81959.82059.81859.82059.82159.82059.81359.81859.822

CAM BORE VALUES FOR CPK

59

ANNEXURE III HYPOTHESIS -TWO MACHINES MEAN COMPARISION

TWO-SAMPLE T-TEST

Sl no. Mahine 1 Machine 2

J1 J2 J3 J4 J1 J2 J3 J41 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.360 56.962 56.762 56.562 56.362

2 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.360 56.955 56.757 56.561 56.356

3 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.358 56.960 56.756 56.557 56.361

4 56.960 56.759 56.561 56.360 56.960 56.760 56.559 56.359

5 56.962 56.761 56.560 56.360 56.957 56.758 56.558 56.356

6 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.359 56.956 56.758 56.557 56.357

7 56.961 56.760 56.561 56.361 56.955 56.758 56.557 56.355

8 56.960 56.761 56.560 56.360 56.955 56.758 56.559 56.355

9 56.960 56.760 56.559 56.359 56.959 56.757 56.557 56.358

10 56.960 56.760 56.560 56.360 56.962 56.762 56.561 56.361

60

THANK YOU

Automotive

six sigma DMAIC approach for reducing quality defects of camshaft binding problem in engine assembly line