Design for Six Sigma Certification Presentation
description
Transcript of Design for Six Sigma Certification Presentation
2-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
2-Groove I-Shaft Combination Gage
Optimization/Redesign
Design for Six Sigma Report
Date: March 21, 2013
Project File for
Reference
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Executive Summary
2
Project Name: 2-Groove I-Shaft Combination
Gage Optimization/Redesign
Issue: Technology readiness
Market Impact: Allows for ease of
manufacturing of new I-shaft technology
Project Leader Dan Simon
Team Troy Daenzer
Coach Bruce Collier
Local Sponsor Patrik Ryne
Executive Sponsor
The Opportunity as Seen by The ManagementThe optimization of the combination tube-and-wear-plate gage for the upcoming 2-groove I-shaft programs would allow for
faster and more accurate measurements of incoming part batches. This single measurement would let a ball bearing size to
be selected, as opposed to measuring individual components and inputting the data into a program to predict ball size.
Overall this will speed up set-up time and lower scrapped/re-worked part rates.
DFSS IDDOV Project Summary
– Identify and Initiate– Define Requirements– Develop Concept– Optimize Concept– Verify and Transfer
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
DFSS Framework- TMAP
(Tools Linkage)
3
DFSS Framework
Identify& Initiate
DFSS Thought Process Map DFSS Tools
DefineRequirements
DevelopDesign
OptimizeDesign
Verify& Control
1. Scope the Project
2. Translate Voice of the Customer
3. Generate Design Concepts
4. Choose Best Design Concepts
5. Understand the Physics
1. Spring Mechanism
2. Gage Mechanism
6. Determine Ideal Function
7. Optimize for Robustness
1. Develop S/N Strategy
2. Determine Control Factors
and Levels
8. Conduct Confirmation
9. Implement and Document
Results
Project Charter
Requirement Analysis
Creativity &
Innovation
Functional PMAP
P-Diagram
Robust Engineering
Gage R&R
DFSS Report Format
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Scope the Project:
Project Charter
Identify
1
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Scope of Project:
Establish Baseline
Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R
75
50
25
0
Pe
rce
nt
% Contribution
% Study Var
654321
-0.30
-0.35
-0.40
Sample
654321
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
Part
Sa
mp
le R
an
ge
_R=0.062
UC L=0.1242
LC L=0
654321
-0.32
-0.34
-0.36
-0.38
Part
Sa
mp
le M
ea
n
__X=-0.34589
UC L=-0.31592
LC L=-0.37586
Gage name: 2 Groov e Underball Tube & Wear P lates
Date of study : 07MY12
Reported by : Troy Daenzer, Dan S imon, A ustin Harrison
Tolerance:
M isc:
Components of Variation
Underball by Sample
R Chart
XBar Chart
Gage R&R (ANOVA) 2 Groove Tube & Wear Plate Underball
Minimum Detectable
Difference: 120µm, FAIL
All Points Within R Chart:
Yes, PASS
50% Outside Xbar Chart:
No, FAIL# Detectable Categories: 1, FAIL
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Translate Voice of the Customer:
Requirement Analysis
Define
2
Requirements Analysis
Project title: 2-Groove Combination Gage Optimization
Team names: Dan Simon, Troy Daenzer
ID
Raw Customer Wants and Needs (In the words of the customer)
Also called VOC (Voice of the Customer)
Type (Output, Constraint,
Operating Condition, Signal)
1 Accurately gage sub-assembly Output
2 Gage sub-assembly in loaded condition Operating Condition
3 Attain gage repeatability Output
4 Use existing gage stand Constraint
5 Finish project before 2013 Constraint
Outputs (what the customer wants)
1 Accurately gage sub-assembly
2 Attain gage repeatability
Constraints (limitations on inputs, design parameters or process
variables)
1 Use existing gage stand base
2 Finish project before 2013
Operating conditions, operating envelope, environment (specifications
about input noise factors)
1 Gage sub-assembly in loaded condition
Functional Requirements (outputs, measurable characteristics, the
"Hows" from HoQ 1)
1 Gage resolution less than 10 µm
2 Number of distinct categories greater than 4
3 Predicts loaded interference within 10 µm
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Translate Voice of the Customer:
House of Quality
Develop
4
QFD HoQ 1
Project title: 2-Groove Combination Gage Optimization
Team names: Dan Simon, Troy Daenzer
CONSTRAINTS: Functional Requirements (FRs) (measurable)
Use existing gage stand base + + Gage resolution less than 10 µm
Finish project before 2013 + Number of distinct categories greater than 4
Predicts loaded interference within 10 µm
Maximize (+),
minimize (-), or target
(0)
- + -
Customer Needs (CNs) (raw)
Imp
ort
an
ce
Gage
resolu
tion less
than 1
0 µ
m
Num
ber
of
dis
tinct
cate
gori
es
gre
ate
r th
an 4
Pre
dic
ts
loaded
inte
rfere
nce
within
10 µ
m
Accurately gage sub-assembly 5 5 5 5
Attain gage repeatability 5 1 5 1
Absolute Importance 30 50 30
Relative Importance 3 5 3
Units µm # µm
Target 5 5 5
Lower spec limit - 5 -
Upper spec limit 10 - 10
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Understand the Physics:
Spring Mechanism
FULL CROSS-SECTIONSPRING INTERACTION
Tube
Solid Shaft
Wear Plate
Ball Bearing
The wear plate is placed in tube in a free state with 2 contact
points. As ball bearing is placed between the solid shaft and the
wear plate, the wear plate acts like a spring, filling in the allowable
space between itself and the tube. This spring action takes place
while the part is assembled, and when the part is stroked.
CONTACT
CONTACT
ALLOWED MOTION
Optimize
5
Enventive File
for Reference
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Understand the Physics:
Gage Mechanism
ISOMETRIC VIEW
TOP VIEW FRONT VIEW
The “fingers” of the gage act in place of the solid shaft of the real assembly. The
“fingers” obtain their force from an air cylinder. The air cylinder is provided air
pressure (through a regulator) from an external air supply. There are currently 2
ball guides on the top “finger” and one ball guide on the bottom “finger”.
Solid Shaft
Optimize
5
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Tube
• Residual Phos
• ----
• Part Bend
• Part Bow
• Part Twist
Wear Plates
• Residual Phos
• ----
• Part Bend
• Part Bow
• Part Twist
Sub Assembly Placed on Gage
• Residual Phos
• Centrality of Wear Plates
• ----
• Pre-Load
• Wear Plate Set
Air Source
• Humidity
• Temperature
• ----
• Air Pressure Max
Air Regulator
• Humidity
• Temperature
• ----
• Air Pressure Rate
• Air Pressure Max
Gage Switch
• Speed of Engagement
• ----
• # of Cycles
Air Cylinder
• Humidity
• Temperature
• Time Waited Before Reading
• ----
• Air Pressure Rate
• Regulator Position
Gage Fingers
• Temperature
• Humidity
• Internal Friction
• ----
• Orientation
• Grease
Wear Plate Spring
• Residual Phos
• Centrality to Fingers
• ----
• Orientation
• Grease
Force on Tube
• Residual Phos
• Centrality of Wear Plates
• ----
• Orientation
• Grease
Gage Calculator
• Temperature
• Humidity
• ----
• Calibration
• Program Algorithm
Gage Output
• User Time Delay
• ----
• Refresh Rate
• Calibration
• Connection Integrity
Understand the Physics:
Functional PMAP
Optimize
5
Supply Power Regulate Power Allow Power to Gage Turn Energy to Mechanical Force Supply Mechanical Force Apply Force to Tube Set to Final Position Calculate Underball Measurement
Base Supplied for WPs Assembled Part
Submit Underball Measurement
Energy Instability Energy Loss Unknown Friction Unknown FrictionEnergy Flow Irregularity Unknown Friction Losses
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Determine Ideal Function:
Ideal Function
Optimize
6
ΔB
etw
een M
easure
ments
(m
m)
# of Measurements
Minimization
Smaller the Better
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Determine Ideal Function:
P-Diagram
Optimize
6
Control Factors1. Air Pressure Maximum/Minimum
2. Air Pressure Rate
3. Gage Finger Orientation
4. Applied Part Grease
5. Additional Air Pressure Regulator Position
6. Part Position on Gage Finger (Bottomed Out)
7. Twisting Force Applied to Part
8. Cantilever Force Applied to Part
9. Air Switch Engagement Frequency (# Times Cycled On/Off)
10.Part Stroke Count on Gage Finger (When Engaged)
Noise Factors1. Wear Plate Set
Gage
(Measure Assembly)No Input
(Non Dynamic)Underball Measurement
Unwanted Outputs
Underball VariabilityNote: Using “on/off” for noise factor because the wear
plate is either in position or not, we have no way of
knowing which wear plate position is worse, so we have
no way to indicate “high/low”.
ΔB
etw
een M
easure
ments
(m
m)
# of Measurements
Ideal Function
Minimization
Smaller the Better
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
DOE 1 (L12) Setup
Air PressureAir Pressure
RateOrientation Grease
Regulator
PositionN1 N2
High Fast Vert Yes Bef 0.307 0.291
High Fast Vert Yes Bef 0.312 0.288
High Fast Horiz No Aft 0.286 0.285
High Slow Vert No Aft 0.321 0.316
High Slow Horiz Yes Aft 0.359 0.37
High Slow Horiz No Bef 0.363 0.366
Low Fast Horiz No Bef 0.287 0.345
Low Fast Horiz Yes Aft 0.314 0.325
Low Fast Vert No Aft 0.336 0.311
Low Slow Horiz Yes Bef 0.336 0.327
Low Slow Vert No Bef 0.296 0.317
Low Slow Vert Yes Aft 0.379 0.329
Optimize
7Note: When analyzing, used “Nominal is Best” so that ranking was
based on low variation levels, not low/high measurements in general.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
DOE 1 (L12) S/N Plots
LowHigh
0.335
0.325
0.315
SlowFast HorizVert
NoYes
0.335
0.325
0.315
AftBef
Air Press
Me
an
of
Me
an
s
AP Rate Orient
Grease Reg Pos
LowHigh
40
35
30
SlowFast HorizVert
NoYes
40
35
30
AftBef
Air Press
Me
an
of
SN
ra
tio
s
AP Rate Orient
Grease Reg Pos
Main Effects Plot for Means (T1)Data Means
Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (T1)Data Means
Signal-to-noise: Nominal is best (10*Log10(Ybar**2/s**2))Optimize
7
= Significant S/N Ratio
= Initial Configuration
There was no additional
regulator in original setup.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
DOE 1 (L12) Results
Taguchi Analysis: N1, N2 versus Air Press, AP Rate, Orient, Grease, Reg Pos
Predicted values for Original Settings
S/N Ratio Mean StDev Ln(StDev)
43.9804 0.324167 0.0037712 -6.19550
Factor levels for predictions
Air Press Orient Grease
High Horiz No
Taguchi Analysis: N1, N2 versus Air Press, AP Rate, Orient, Grease, Reg Pos
Predicted values for Optimal Settings
S/N Ratio Mean StDev Ln(StDev)
43.9804 0.324167 0.0037712 -6.19550
Factor levels for predictions
Air Press Orient Grease
High Horiz No
The optimal settings were identical to the original settings.
This led to the creation of a second DOE, using alternative factors.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
DOE 2 (L12) Setup
Optimize
7
Air Pressure OrientationBottomed
Out
Twist Force
Applied
Cantilever
Force Applied
# of Times
Switch Activated
# Times Part Stroked
on FixtureN1 N2
10 Vert Yes Yes Yes 1 1 0.758 0.694
10 Vert Yes Yes Yes 5 5 0.704 0.76
10 Vert No No No 1 1 0.672 0.638
10 Horiz Yes No No 1 5 0.574 0.578
10 Horiz No Yes No 5 1 0.657 0.705
10 Horiz No No Yes 5 5 0.68 0.73
95 Vert No No Yes 1 5 0.515 0.53
95 Vert No Yes No 5 5 0.502 0.504
95 Vert Yes No No 5 1 0.542 0.543
95 Horiz No Yes Yes 1 1 0.555 0.521
95 Horiz Yes No Yes 5 1 0.559 0.572
95 Horiz Yes Yes No 1 5 0.492 0.53
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
DOE 2 (L12) S/N Plots
9510
403530
HorizVert NoYes
NoYes
403530
NoYes 51
51
403530
Air Press
Me
an
of
SN
ra
tio
s
Orient Bottom
Twist Cantil Switch
Stroke
9510
0.65
0.600.55
HorizVert NoYes
NoYes
0.650.60
0.55
NoYes 51
51
0.65
0.60
0.55
Air Press
Me
an
of
Me
an
s
Orient Bottom
Twist Cantil Switch
Stroke
Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (T2)Data Means
Signal-to-noise: Nominal is best (10*Log10(Ybar**2/s**2))
Main Effects Plot for Means (T2)Data Means
Optimize
7
= Significant S/N Ratio
= Initial Configuration
Does not make sense
with previous DOE
Does not make sense with previous
part assembly knowledge
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
Previous Part History
2520151050
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cycles
Av
g.
% C
ha
ng
e (
Ma
x)
15
5.858
5.868
5.878
5.890
(mm)
Ball Size
2-Groove (No Grease) - Avg. % Change (Max) vs Initial Cycles
Points on graph are a 3 part average
Optimize
7
In the actual part assembly, slip load is not leveled out
until approximately 25 strokes. This is the point at
which all components have settled into their correct
installed positions.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
Part Stroke Optimization
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3 1.3
1.4
1.4 1.41.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
AVG
AVG
AVG
AVG
-0.64
-0.63
-0.62
-0.61
-0.6
-0.59
-0.58
-0.57
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Un
derb
all M
easu
rem
en
t Δ
No
min
al
(mm
)
Cycles
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
AVG
>30µm Variation
<10µm
Variation
Optimize
7
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R
600
400
200
0
Pe
rce
nt
% Contribution
% Study Var
% Tolerance
4321
-0.57
-0.58
-0.59
-0.60
Part
4321
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
Part
Sa
mp
le R
an
ge
_R=0.00725
UC L=0.01533
LC L=0
4321
-0.57
-0.58
-0.59
Part
Sa
mp
le M
ea
n
__X=-0.5797
UC L=-0.57552
LC L=-0.58388
Gage name: C ombination WP/Tube
Date of study : 11MR13
Reported by : Dan S imon
Tolerance:
M isc:
Components of Variation
Underball by Part
R Chart
XBar Chart
10 Stroke Optimization Confirmation
Optimize for Robustness:
10 Stroke, Non-Worn Gage R&R
Verify
8
# Detectable Categories: 4, FAIL
50% Outside Xbar Chart:
Yes, PASS
All Points Within R Chart:
Yes, PASS
Minimum Detectable
Difference: 15µm, FAIL
Non pre-worn parts are just below the acceptable requirements.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R
100
50
0
Pe
rce
nt
% Contribution
% Study Var
54321
-0.240
-0.255
-0.270
-0.285
Part
54321
0.0075
0.0050
0.0025
0.0000
Part
Sa
mp
le R
an
ge
_R=0.0032
UC L=0.008238
LC L=0
54321
-0.240
-0.255
-0.270
-0.285
Part
Sa
mp
le M
ea
n
__X=-0.27027UC L=-0.26699
LC L=-0.27354
Gage name: Tube-and-WP
Date of study : 19MR13
Reported by : Dan S imon
Tolerance: 0.01
Misc: For DFSS Green Belt
Components of Variation
Underball by Part
R Chart
XBar Chart
Pre-Worn 5 Stroke Gage R&R
# Detectable Categories: 13, PASS
50% Outside Xbar Chart:
Yes, PASS
All Points Within R Chart:
Yes, PASS
Minimum Detectable
Difference: 8µm, PASS
Optimize for Robustness:
5 Stroke, Pre-Worn Gage R&R
Verify
8 Pre-worn parts measured using a low (20 psi) air pressure in
a horizontal setting with no grease passes all requirements.
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Optimize for Robustness:
Gage Instructions
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R
100
50
0
Perc
ent
% Contribution
% Study Var
543215432154321
0.004
0.002
0.000
Part
Sam
ple
Range
_R=0.001667
UCL=0.004290
LCL=0
Austin Dan Jason
543215432154321
-0.26
-0.27
-0.28
Part
Sam
ple
Mean
__X=-0.27231
UCL=-0.27061
LCL=-0.27402
Austin Dan Jason
54321
-0.26
-0.27
-0.28
Part
JasonDanAustin
-0.26
-0.27
-0.28
Operator
54321
-0.26
-0.27
-0.28
Part
Avera
ge
Austin
Dan
Jason
Operator
Gage name: C ombination Gage
Date of study : 25MR13
Reported by : Dan S imon
Tolerance: 0.01
Misc: For DFSS C onfirmation
Components of Variation
R Chart by Operator
Xbar Chart by Operator
Underball by Part
Underball by Operator
Part * Operator Interaction
Combination Gage R&R
Conduct Confirmation:
Gage R&R
# Detectable Categories: 12, PASS
50% Outside Xbar Chart: Yes, PASS
All Points Within R Chart: Yes, PASS
Minimum Detectable
Difference: 4µm, PASS
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Conclusions and Recommendations
Project Benefits
The combination tube-and-wear-plate gage now has a viable
prototyping use and a path to full scale production use
Forward Actions
Optimize gage further so it is viable in a production setting
Lessons Learned
Technical Knowledge
Intricacies of the spring mechanism of the 2-groove I-shaft
Wear patterns for 2-groove I-shaft when in full production
Applying Robust Engineering Practices
Learned to use DOE’s and (Basic) Taguchi Arrays
Learned to use PMAPs and P-Diagrams to have a high logical
process laid out for a problem
Learned how to write a set of detailed production gage instructions
March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization
Financials:
DFSS Alternative