International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
116
PROCESS CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT – A CASE STUDY OF AN
ENGINE CONNECTING ROD MANUFACTURING PROCESS
G.V.S.S.Sharma1*
, Dr.P.S.Rao2, V.Jagadeesh
3, Amit Vishwakarma
4
1Assistant Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engg., GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, A.P.,India.
2Professor, Industrial Engineering Dept., GITAM University,Visakhapatnam, A.P., India.
3Assistant Professor, Dept. of Mechanical Engg., GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, A.P.,India.
4Manager, Manufacturing Engineering, Volvo Eicher Commercial Vehicles Limted,
Pithampur,M.P.,India
ABSTRACT
Statistical quality control forms an excellent Quality Assurance tool for improving the quality
of manufacture and ultimately scores on the end-customer satisfaction. SQC uses process monitoring
charts for recording the critical to quality (CTQ) characteristic of the component in manufacture.
This paper elaborates on bolt-holes center distance, which forms one such CTQ characteristic of the
connecting rod manufacturing of internal combustion engine. Here the journey for attainment of the
Cp and Cpk values greater than 1.33 is elaborated by identifying the root cause through the quality
control tools like the cause and effect diagram and examining each cause one after another. In this
paper the DMAIC approach is employed (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control). The
Definition phase starts with the process mapping and identifying the CTQ characteristic. The next
phase is the measurement phase comprising of the cause and effect diagram and data collection of
CTQ characteristic measurements. Then follows the Analysis phase where the process potential and
performance capability indices are calculated, followed by the analysis of variance of the mean
values (ANOVA). Finally the process monitoring charts are used for controlling the process and
prevent any deviations. By using this DMAIC approach, standard deviation is reduced from 0.017 to
0.009 and the Cp values from 0.97to 1.77 and Cpk values from 0.57 to 1.49 respectively.
Keywords: Critical to quality (CTQ) characteristic, cause and effect diagram, statistical quality
control (SQC), process monitoring charts (PMC), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the major manufacturing processes in engine manufacturing is that of connecting rod
manufacturing. This paper implements the DMAIC approach, i.e., Define-Measure-Analyze-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)
ISSN 0976 – 6340 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6359 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013), pp. 116-129
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.asp Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.7731 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
IJMET
© I A E M E
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
117
Improve-Control approach to improve the capability of connecting rod manufacturing process by
reducing the bolt-holes center distance variations from a nominal value.
Process mapping and identifying CTQ characteristic is carried out in “Define” phase, while estimates
of process capability indices is carried out in the “Measure phase”. One way ANOVA method of
investigation to test for the differences between the manufacturing data is employed in the “Analysis
phase”. Finally, the PMC (process monitoring chart) for the gudgeon-pin bore diameter is employed
in the “Improve and Control phase”.
Statistical Quality Control studies form the basic tool for obtaining the required process
capability confidence levels. The various process capability indices are defined as follows:-
P
P K U
U S L L S LC (1 )
6
U S LC
3
−=
σ
− µ=
σ
P K L
P K
(2 )
L S LC (3 )
3
U S L L S LC m in ,
3 3
µ −=
σ
− µ µ − =
σ σ
µ = p ro c e s s m e a n , σ = s ta n d a rd d e v ia t io n
(4 )
w h e re ,
U S L a n d L S L a re U p p e r a n d L o w e r s p e c if i c a t io n lim it s
The term Cp denotes for the process potential capability index and similarly the term Cpk
denotes for the process performance capability index. Cp gives an indication of the dispersion of the
product dimensional values within the specified tolerance zone during the manufacturing process.
Similarly the index Cpk denotes for the centering of the manufacturing process with respect to the
mean of the specified dimensional tolerance zone of the product. Cpk gives us an idea that whether the
manufacturing process is performing at the middle of the tolerance zone or nearer to the upper or
lower tolerance limits. If the manufacturing process is nearer to the lower limit then the process
performance capability index is given by Cpkl and if the manufacturing process is nearer to the upper
limit then the process performance capability index is given by Cpku. As a measure of perceptional
safety the minimum value amongst the two is taken as the value of Cpk.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In 1994, Schilling, E.G.[1], emphasized on how the process control is better than the
traditional sampling techniques. During the same era, Locke and John.W. [2],in their paper titled
“Statistical Measurement Control”, emphasized on the importance of process charts, cause and effect
considerations, and control charting. After primitive studies on statistical quality control, Hung-Chin
Lin [3] in 2004, had thrown some light on process capability indices for normal distribution.
J.P.C.Tong et al. [4] suggested that how a Define-Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control (DMAIC)
approach is useful for printed circuit board quality improvement. They also proved that how Design-
Of-Experiments is one of the core statistical tools for six-sigma improvement. Subsequently, Ming-
Hsien Caleb Li et al. [5] once again proved the importance of DMAIC approach to improve the
capability of surface mount technology in solder printing process. Yeong-Dong Hwang [6] in their
paper discussed the DMAIC phases in detail with application to manufacturing execution system.
Enzo Gentili et al. [7], applied the DMAIC process for a mechanical manufacturing process line,
which manufactures both professional and simple kitchen knives. Chittaranjan Sahey et al. [8], once
again brought the DMAIC approach into use for analyzing the manufacturing lines of a brake lever at
a Connecticut automotive components manufacturing company. Rupinder Singh [9], investigated the
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
118
process capability of polyjet printing for plastic components. In his observation, he voyaged the
improvement journey of the process of critical dimensions and their Cpk values attainment greater than
1.33, which is considered to be industrial benchmark. In recent studies conducted by S.J.Lin et al.
[10], they focused on turbine engine blade inspection, as it is a key aspect of engine quality. They
elaborated on the accurate yield assessment of the processes of multiple characteristics like the turbine
blades manufacturing process. A. Kumaravadivel and U. Natarajan [11] dealt with application of six-
sigma methodology of the flywheel casting process. The primary problem-solving tools used were the
process-map, cause and effect matrix and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA).
A careful study from the above literature reveals that the DMAIC approach is the best methodology
for problem solving tools for improving the manufacturing process capability levels. Hence, this paper
focuses on the application of DMAIC approach for process capability improvement of the crank-pin
bore honing operation of an engine connecting rod manufacturing process.
3.DEFINE PHASE
3.1 Process Mapping The define phase starts with the correct mapping of the machining process flow of the
connecting rod.
The process flow chart for machining line of the connecting rod machining cell consisted of
the following machining operations sequence, as shown in the Fig.1 below :-
Fig. 1: Process Flow chart
The Table 1 below depicts the description of the machining operations of connecting rod
manufacturing cell.
Table 1: Machining operations of connecting rod manufacturing cell.
Machining
Operation no. Description
10 Thrust face rough grinding
20 Gudgeon pin rough boring
30 Crank pin rough boring
40 Side face broaching
50 Finish grinding
60 Bolt hole drilling
70 Key way milling
80 Rod and cap assembly
90 Finish grinding of assembly
100 Finish boring of gudgeon pin bore
110 Finish boring of crank pin bore
120 Crank pin bore Honing
130 Magnetic crack detection
140 Final quality check, set making and dispatch to
engine assembly line.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
119
3.2 Identifying CTQ characteristic The bolt-holes center distance forms a very important dimensional characteristic as it is the
primary dimension responsible for fastening the connecting rod cap and the rod parts. Any out-of-
dimension of the bolt-holes center distance of the connecting rod leads to incorrect assembly of the
cap and rod. This paves way for unequal force distribution on the rod and cap parts and subsequently
leading to engine failures and costly rework. Hence for achieving the desired engine performance the
bolt-holes center distance of the connecting rod forms an important CTQ characteristic. In this
regard, this research aims at improving the connecting-rod manufacturing process by reducing the
bolt-holes center distance variations during the bolt-hole drilling and reaming operation so that these
variations are not carried to the subsequent machining operations down the manufacturing line.
The acceptable bolt-holes center distance tolerance zone variation for was limited to 1.000 mm. The
connecting rods which were out of these tolerance limits resulted in inaccurate assembly of the cap
and rod parts and subsequently got rejected. Even costly repair and rework could not restore the
dimension back. Hence bolt-holes center distance was of the main concern and identified as a CTQ
characteristic, whose value is equal to 0.050100.000 ±
mm. The figure 1 below depicts the
diagrammatic view of bolt-holes center distance.
Fig. 2 (a): Center distance ‘d’ of bolt holes shown on the connecting rod assembly view. Fig
2 (b): Center distance ‘d’ of bolt holes shown on the rod. Fig 2 (c): Center distance ‘d’ of bolt holes
shown on the cap.
4. MEASUREMENT PHASE
In this phase the data of bolt-holes center distance on cap and rod subassemblies for nominal
32 consecutive readings is collected and plotted on the process monitoring chart. This data collection
was performed in 3 iterations. In each iteration the data set of bolt-holes center distance measurement
readings is taken and analyzed for Cp, Cpk values and followed by suitable corrective action. After
the corrective action is implemented, the next iteration was performed. This procedure was continued
until the Cp and Cpk values are greater than or equal to 1.33, i.e., upto 4σ quality level as decided by
the management of the Engine manufacturing Plant.
Fig 2 (a)
Fig 2 (b)
Fig 2 (c)
d = Center distance between bolt holes
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
120
4.1 Cause and Effect diagram: The critical to quality characteristic identified was the bolt-holes center distance which is
equal to 0.050100.000 ± mm whose machining tolerance zone is equal to 1.000 mm. The Cp value, i.e.,
the process potential capability index, {Cp= (USL-LSL)/6σ}, nominally was equal to 0.97, which
was below the acceptance level limit of greater than 1.33 for the above CTQ characteristic. The first
part of the measurement phase investigation was to track down and differentiate the common causes
and special causes involved. For doing so, the cause and effect diagram, also known as the Fish-bone
diagram or Ishikawa diagram [2][6], was employed. , as show below in Fig3
Fig3: Cause and Effect diagram showing the variables affecting the bolt-holes center distance during
the engine connecting rod bolt hole drilling operation
One important aspect to be mention at this juncture is the description of bolt-hole drilling and
reaming operation set up. The machine employed was horizontal axis drilling machine of MICO
make. It consists of a gang drilling attachment with dual drill set up where both the drills act
simultaneously through the jig bushes. The machine platform was equipped with limit switch gauges
for accurate positioning of the component locating fixtures onto the gang drill bits. Below shown is
the machine snap shot of the horizontal axis bolt hole drilling and reaming machine employed for
bolt hole drilling and reaming of con-rod.
Fig 5: Horizontal axis bolt hole drilling machine
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
121
4.2 Process FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis)
FMEA sheet for bolt hole drilling is shown in following Fig 4. From the causes enumerated
in the cause and effect diagram, the Failure modes and effects analysis was performed and the
corresponding FMEA sheet is displayed in the Fig.2. It can be noticed that the highest RPN (Risk
Prority Number) is for the potential failure “bolt hole center distance more” and followed by the
potential failure “Bolt hole center distance less”. Hence the bolt-hole center distance variations are of
the prime concern and hence are liable for improvement action. The data collection was performed
and the measurements of the bolt-hole center distance variations were recorded for further analysis
and improvement of process capability.
Fig 4 FMEA sheet
4.3 Data collection: Data collection of the critical to quality characteristic was performed for 32 consecutive
machined cap and rod components. Data collection was performed in 3 iterations spanning for a
period of 3 weeks i.e., about 2500 consecutive components. The data is tabulated in the tabular form
in the Table 2 as follows:
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
122
Table 2 Measured dimensions of CTQ characteristic
S.No. Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 S.No. Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
01 99.980 100.000 100.005 17 100.01 100.010 100.020
02 99.970 99.990 99.995 18 99.980 100.000 100.005
03 99.985 100.005 99.995 19 99.955 99.970 99.995
04 100.000 100.020 100.015 20 99.990 100.010 100.015
05 99.965 99.985 100.000 21 99.960 99.980 99.995
06 99.995 100.015 100.020 22 99.980 100.000 100.005
07 99.980 100.000 100.005 23 99.995 100.015 100.020
08 99.960 99.980 100.020 24 99.965 99.985 100.005
09 100.000 100.020 100.020 25 99.995 100.015 100.020
10 99.950 99.970 100.010 26 99.990 100.010 100.015
11 99.995 100.015 100.000 27 99.955 99.975 99.995
12 99.960 99.980 100.010 28 100.000 100.020 100.020
13 99.980 100.000 100.000 29 99.960 99.980 100.005
14 100.010 100.015 100.020 30 99.990 100.010 100.015
15 99.980 100.000 100.005 31 99.965 99.985 99.995
16 99.960 99.970 100.000 32 99.990 100.010 100.015
The data in the Table 2 was plotted on the process monitoring chart with no. of components
in x-axis and the dimension on y-axis and is shown in Fig 6.
5. ANALYSIS PHASE
The analysis phase comprises of performing the calculations for the Cp and Cpk values across
each iteration. And testing the differences between the three iterations using one way ANOVA
method.
Fig 6 Process Monitoring chart
5.1 Calculations of Cp and Cpk
The calculations of Cp and Cpk are tabulated as below in Table 3
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
123
Table 3 Calculations of Cp and Cpk
Formula Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
USL 100.050 100.050 100.050
LSL 99.950 99.950 99.950
σ 0.017 0.016 0.009
( )6
USL LSL
CP
σ
−= 0.97 1.01 1.77
( )3
USL MEAN
CPKU
σ
−= 1.36 1.05 1.49
( )3
MEAN LSL
CPKL
σ
−= 0.57 0.97 2.06
CPK = min (CPKU , CPKL) 0.57 0.97 1.49
From the process monitoring charts and the calculations in Table 3, the following is the
analysis done for each iteration set of data:
5.1.1 Iteration no.1 The first set of the Statistical process capability study comprised of the raw data of the CTQ
characteristic, which depicted the transparent picture of the state of the existed problem.
Continuous set of readings of bolt hole center distances of both the connecting rod and cap
after the bolt hole drilling and reaming operations (operation no.60) were captured with the help of a
venire caliper set up.
Hence it is seen here in the 1st iteration of SPC studies that the process is not capable and the
Cp and Cpk values of the characteristic under study are 0.97 and 0.57, which
Is less than that for process to be capable, i.e., 1.33. Hence, next set of data is captured after
replacing the worn out jig bushes and tool, jig and fixture maintenance.
5.1.2 Iteration no. 2 In this Iteration, data is collected after the machine preventive maintenance schedule
completion and replacement of worn out jig bushes.
From the above set of data from Table 3 it is seen that there is a marginal increase of Cp from 0.97 to
1.01 and Cpk from 0.57 to 0.97. This marginal increase is a positive sign but still the process is not
capable as both Cp and Cpk are less than the desired value of 1.33. This calls for another iteration.
5.1.3 Iteration no.3 In this iteration the data is collected after performing the regular maintencance work for
proximity limit switches.
From the above set of data from Table 3 it is seen that there is a noticeable increase of Cp
from 0.97 to 1.77 and Cpk from 0.94 to 1.49. Now. Since both Cp and Cpk are greater than 1.33
hence the bolt hole drilling and reaming machining process is declared as a capable process.
5.2 One way ANOVA method The one way ANOVA method of investigation is adopted to test for the differences between
the three iterations of data collected and also to determine the extent of influence of the causes
responsible for low process capability.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
124
5.2.1 Procedure describing one way ANOVA: In general, one way ANOVA technique is used to study the effect of k(>2) levels of a single
factor. A factor is a characteristic under consideration, thought to influence the measured
observations and level is a value of the factor.
To determine if different levels of the factor affect measured observations differently, the following
hypotheses are to be tested:-
H0 : µ i = µ all i= 1,2,3,
H1: µ i ≠ µ for some i= 1, 2, 3, where,
µ i is the population mean for level i , and
µ is the overall grand mean of all levels.
Here we have 3 levels (i.e., 3 iterations) and each level consisting of 32 measurement
readings of crank-pin bore diameter of connecting rod. The sum, sum of squares, means and variance
for each iteration is tabulated in the table 4 below:-
Table 4: Mean and variance of all the three iterations
Formula Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3
Sample size 32 32 32
Sum 3199.350 3199.940 3200.260
Sum of squares 319870 319988 320052
Mean (µ i) 99.979 99.998 100.008
Variance (σ2) 0.00029 0.00027 0.000088
If xij denote the data from the ith level and jth observation, then overall or grand mean is given by :- 4 32
ij
i 1 j 1
x, (5)
N= =
µ =∑∑
Where N is the total sample size of all the three iterations i.e., 32x3=96
Hence, from equation (5), we get, µ = 99.995
The sum of squared deviations about the grand mean across all N observations is given by:
( )4 32
2
T ij
i 1 j 1
SST x (6)= =
= − µ∑∑
The sum of squared deviations for each level mean about the grand mean is given by:
( )4
2
L i
i 1
SST 4 (7)=
= × µ − µ∑
The sum of squared deviations for all observations within each level from that level mean, summed
across all levels is given by :-
( )4 32
2
E ij i
i 1 j 1
SST x (8)= =
= − µ∑∑
From equations (6), (7) and (8), the values of SSTT, SSTG and SSTE obtained are 0.0336,
0.01387 and 0.0204 respectively.
On dividing SSTT, SSTL and SSTE by their associated degrees of freedom (df), we get mean
of squared deviations respectively.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
125
Hence, mean of squared deviations between levels is given by:
( )L
L
L
SST 0.01387MST = = 0.006935 (9)
df 3 1=
−
Mean of squared deviations within levels is given by:
( )E
E
E
SST 0.0204MST = = 0.000219 (10)
df 96 3
=−
Finally, the F Statistic is given by the following formula:
LSTATISTIC
E
MST 0.006935F = 31.66 (11)
MST 0.000219= =
On summarizing all the above values in tabular form, the ANOVA table is obtained as shown
below in Table 5:
Table 5: ANOVA Table:
Source of
variation df
Sum of
squares
Mean of
squares F
Level 2 0.01387 0.006935 31.66
Within/error 93 0.0204 0.000219
Total 95 90x10-5
An α value of 0.05 is typically used, corresponding to 95% confidence levels. If α is defined
to be equal to 0.05, then, the critical value for rejection region is equalt to, F CRITICAL (α, K-1, N-K). and
is obtained to be 3.094. Thus,
CRITICALF 3.094 (12)=
From equations (11) and (12) it is seen that:
STATISTIC CRITICALF F (13)>
Therefore, the decision will be to reject the null hypothesis. If the decision from the one-way
analysis of variance is to reject the null hypothesis, then, it indicates that at least one of the means (
µ i) is different from the remaining other means. In order to figure out where this difference lie, a
post-hoc ANOVA test is required.
5.2.2 Post-hoc ANOVA test Since here the sample sizes are same, we go for the Tukey’s test for conducting the Post-hoc
ANOVA test.
In Tukey’s test, the Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) is calculated as:
EM S T 0 .0 0 0 2 1 9
H S D q 3 .3 8 0 .0 0 8 8 4 n 3 2
(1 4 )
= = =
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
126
Where q is the studentized range statistic which is equal to a value of 3.38, for a degree of
freedom of 93 and k=3.
The difference between the individual mean values of the three iteration levels can be
summarized in a tabular form as shown below in Table 6:
Table 6 Differences of means between any two iterations
Difference Computation Numerical value
1 2µ − µ = 30.002 – 30.006 -0.019
1 3µ − µ = 30.002 – 30.007 -0.029
2 3µ − µ = 30.006 – 30.007 -0.010
In the above table 6, the absolute difference is of the concern and so the negative signs are to
be ignored.
From the above Table 5, it is seen that the differences of 1 2
µ − µ , 1 3µ − µ ,
2 3µ − µ are greater
than that of the HSD in equation 14. So, the differences between the means are statistically
significant. Hence, it is concluded that among all the different causes enumerated in the cause and
effect diagram, the most influencing causes are the worn out drill jig bushes and non-maintencance
of the proximity limit switch leading to hunting of the measurements readings. The extent of
influence is given by eta-square (η2). It measures the proportion of the between factor variability to
the total variability and is given by:
2
2
sum of square between the levels
sum of squares across all the 96 observations
0.013870.4127 41.2% 41% (15)
0.0336
η =
⇒ η = = = =
Eta-square is just a ratio of treatment effect variability to total variability. One drawback with
eta-square is that it is a biased estimate and tends to overestimate the effect. A more accurate
measure of the effect is the omega-square (ω2) given by:
( )G E2
T E
2
SST k 1 MST
SST + MST
0.033819 0.3971 39.71% 40% (16)
− −ω =
⇒ ω = = = =
Hence, from above equation (16) it is deduced that 40% of variability is due to the worn out
drill jig bushes and non-maintenance of the proximity limit switch.
6. IMPROVE AND CONTROL PHASE
In this phase the process monitoring charts are regularly employed for monitoring the bolt-
hole center distance of the connecting rod. In addition to this the Design of Experiments (DOE)
methodology was employed to improve the process capability.
6.1 DOE procedure The DOE had been adopted in order to improve the capability levels (sigma levels). The
initial experiments were carried out to screen out the factors that might have influenced on the
drilling performance. The further experiments were used to determine the optimal settings of the
significant factors screened in initial experiments.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
127
6.1.1 Initial Experiments In this initial experiments stage four influencing factors thought to affect the boring process
were selected. A full factorial experiment was carried out and the whole experiment was completed
in about 9 consecutive shifts, i.e., 3 days. In total about 200 components in each shift were measured
for the bolt-hole center distance. The factors in the initial experiment are tabulated in Table 7. The
experimental conditions are as follows (1) Ambient temperature 25°C (2) Humidity 56% (3)
Machine operation no.60 (4) No. of operators :1 (5) bolt-holes center distance is equal to 0.050100.000 ±
mm
Table 7 the initial experiment with levels of each factor
Factor Level 1 Level 2
Worn out drill bush Before replacing the drill bush After replacing the drill bush
Calibration of venire
caliper Before calibration After calibration
limit switch malfunction Before repairing the limit
switch After repairing the limit switch
Set-up changeover
inaccurate Manual drill bit loading
Drill bit loading with a portable
v-block insert setting gauge
From the experimental results, the main effect of the proximity limit switch malfunction and
calibration of venire caliper showed significant influence on the bolt-holes center distance. The
interaction between worn out drill bush and the accuracy of set-up changeover were also significant.
These significant effects were supported by the normal probability plot of the standardized effects
shown in Fig. 7. Since there were significant differences due to spring back effect of the material
after the drilling operation, the toggle clamping force variations, inaccurate re-sharpening of drill bit
and reamer, hence these independent variables were taken into consideration in the further
experiments.
1 0 0 . 0 31 0 0 . 0 21 0 0 . 0 11 0 0 . 0 09 9 . 9 99 9 . 9 8
9 9
9 5
9 0
8 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
5
1
C 1
Percent
M e a n 1 0 0 . 0
S tD e v 0 . 0 0 9 3 9 7
N 3 2
A D 1 . 3 1 0
P - V a lu e < 0 . 0 0 5
P r o b a b i l i t y P l o t o f C 1N o r m a l
Fig 7 Normal Probability plot of the CTQ characteristic
6.1.2 Further Experiments
The further experiments were used to determine the optimal settings of the significant factors
screened.
In further experiments, apart from considering the previous factors (shown in Table 7) in
further experiments, spring back effect of the material after the drilling operation, the toggle
clamping force variations, inaccurate re-sharpening of drill bit and reamer were also taken into
consideration. A full factorial experiment was carried out and the whole experiment was completed
in about 12 consecutive shifts, i.e., 4 days. The levels of each factor in further experiments are given
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
128
in Table 8. The experimental conditions are as follows (1) Ambient temperature 24°C (2) Humidity
55% (3) Machine operation no.60 (4) No. of operators :1 (5) bolt-holes center distance is equal to 0.050100.000 ±
mm
Table 8 the further experiment with levels of each factor
Factor Level 1 Level 2
spring back effect of
the material after the
drilling operation
Low clamping force of
10kgf
Revised high clamping
force of 20 kgf
the toggle clamping
force variations
Before replacing the
toggle clamp bushes
After replacing the toggle
clamp bushes
inaccurate re-
sharpening of drill
bit and reamer
New drill bits and new
reamers
Drill bits and reamers
after resharpening
7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
It is seen from the design of experiments that proximity limit switch accuracy was the major
contributor followed by, calibration venire caliper, worn out drill bush, accuracy of set-up
changeover, and spring back effect of material after drilling operation, toggle-clamping force
variations and accuracy of resharpened drill-bits, in the said order.
As a part of standardizing the process, as per the results of ANOVA and DOE, the following
activities were carried out:
i. After every 10000 components being bored, the replacement of the drill bush needs to be done.
ii. Regular machine maintenance schedule were established and regular checks were included in the
check lists.
iii. After every 10 components bored, the accuracy of the limit switch was tested.
iv. The venire caliper calibration is done periodically as a part of measurement system analysis.
v. After every one month (about 12000 components) the drill-bit needs to be resharpened.
vi. Coolant recirculation pressure was set at a value of around 10 kgs.
vii. Drill-bit presetting on the drill tool holder was carried out by the help of a portable v-block insert
setting gauge on the horizontal drill mandrel.
viii. Component clamping force was raised to 20 kgf from 10 kgf in order to avoid any spring back
effects of the component material after the drilling and reaming operations.
SPC studies were found to be useful for eliminating the special cause for errors and
streamling the process and making the process to be a capable manufacturing process by improving
the Cp and Cpk values of the critical to quality characteristic under study. The cause and effect
diagram formed an important scientific tool for enlisting of the causes behind the poor performance
of the process.
On adapting the DMAIC approach, the estimated standard deviation “σ” of the crank-pin
bore diameter is reduced from 0.017 to 0.009, while the process performance capability index Cpk is
enhanced from 0.57 to 1.49.
The Cp/Cpk values after performing the three iterations of data collection were greater than 1.33 and
hence the process being declared as a capable process. After performing the root cause analysis, the
major root cause, confirmed by the one-way ANOVA technique, was the wearing of the cutting tool
inserts followed by improper pneumatic gage calibrations. Hence, the one-way ANOVA technique
was employed successfully for identification of the root cause and its magnitude liable for the low
process capability. This was further strengthened by the design of experiments results.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 5, September - October (2013) © IAEME
129
REFERENCES:
[1] “The transition from sampling to SPC”, by Schilling E.G.,Quality and Statistics ; Total Quality
Management, ASTM STP1209, Milton J.Kowalewski, Jr. Ed.,American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994.
[2] Locke, John W., “ Statistical Measurement Control” , Quality and Statistics: Total Quality
Management, ASTM STP 1209, Milton J. Kowalewski, Jr., Ed., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, 1994.
[3] Hung-Chin Lin, “The measurement of a process capability for folded normal process data”, Int
J Adv Manuf Technol (2004) 24: 223–228, DOI 10.1007/s00170-003-1615-0,Springer-Verlag
London Limited 2004
[4] J. P. C. Tong, F. Tsung, B. P. C. Yen, “A DMAIC approach to printed circuit board quality
improvement”, Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2004) 23: 523–531, DOI 10.1007/s00170-003-1721-
z, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004
[5] Ming-Hsien Caleb Li, Abbas Al-Refaie, and Cheng-Yu Yang, “DMAIC Approach to Improve
the Capability of SMT Solder Printing Process” IEEE transactions on electronics packaging
manufacturing, vol.. 31, NO. 2, April 2008, pg126
[6] Yeong-Dong Hwang, “The practices of integrating manufacturing execution system and six
sigma methodology”, Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2006) 30: 761–768, DOI 10.1007/s00170-005-
0090-1, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006
[7] Enzo Gentili, Francesco Aggogeri and Marco Mazzola “The Improvement of a Manufacturing
Stream Using the DMAIC Method” University of Brescia Paper No. IMECE2006-14469, pp.
127-133; 7 pages, doi : 10.1115/IMECE2006-14469,ASME
[8] Chittaranjan Sahay, Suhash Ghosh and Pradeep Kumar Bheemarthi “Procee Improvement of
Brake Lever Production Using DMAIC (+) “ University of HARTFORD, West Hartford, CT
Paper No. IMECE2011-63813, pp.801-826; 26 pages, doi:10.1115/IMECE2001-63813, ASME
2011
[9] Rupinder Singh, “Process capability study of polyjet printing for plastic components”, Journal
of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (4) (2011) 1011~1015
www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x, DOI 10.1007/s12206-011-0203-8
[10] Lin, S. J., Yang, D. L., Cheng, F. T., and Wu, M. F., “Aircraft Turbine Engine Manufacturing
with Multiple Specifications,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1–7,
doi:10.1520/JTE20120022. ISSN -0090-3973.
[11] A. Kumaravadivel & U. Natarajan, “Application of Six-Sigma DMAIC methodology to sand-
casting process with response surface methodology”, Int J Adv Manuf Technol DOI
10.1007/s00170-013-5119-2, Springer-Verlag London 2013
[12] U. D. Gulhane, C.A.Nalawade, K.P.Sohani , V.S.Shirodkar, “Six Sigma Implementation Model
For File Manufacturing Industry” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering &
Technology (IJMET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 59 - 66, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6340, ISSN
Online: 0976 – 6359, Published by IAEME
[13] Dr Z Mallick, Mr Shahzad Ahmad, Lalit Singh Bish, “Barriers And Enablers In
Implementation Of Lean Six Sigma In Indian Manufacturing Industries” International Journal
of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 11 - 19”. ISSN
Print: 0976 – 6324, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6332, Published by IAEME.