Solid State Technology

Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021

The Hybrid Pareto Chart and FMEA methodology to

Reduce Various Defects in Injection Molding Process
Naol Dessalegn Dejene1, Mahesh Gopal2*
1&2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Wollega University,
Post Box No. 395, Nekemte, Ethiopia

(*Corresponding author’s e-mail: doctorgmahesh@gmail.com)

Abstract— Over the last two decades, the increased in industrialization, a lot of innovations, variety
and volume leads to the improved standard of living associated with the number of advantages to the
peoples due to the development of new manufacturing techniques. The industrialists are struggling a lot
to increase the overall equipment Effectiveness (OEE) to reducing production time, unplanned stops due
to equipment failures and material shortages, Quality Loss due to defective pieces etc,. Dimensional and
quality changes are the most important troubles in production of PVC material using injection molding
process. The aim of this study is to identify the root cause of the defected items and to generate a solution
to reduce the percentage of defect by using quality control (QC) tools: Pareto Chart and Failure Mode
and Effects Analysis (FMEA) are used for the continuous improvement and to reduce defects while
manufacturing the PVS sole using injection molding process. Risk Priority Number (RPN) is obtained
from past record, so as to hit upon the exact problem and the necessary measures are suggested for the
future.
Keywords- Quality Loss; Defects, Pareto Chart; Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA); PVS
sole, Injection molding process; Risk Priority Number (RPN)

I. INTRODUCTION
Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) is used to evaluate the performance of the production process. It
indicates the progress of production and also aid to measure the production losses and used to take corrective
actions. It specifies the efficient exploitation of man power, machines, material and methods which tends to
increase productivity. OEE is the product of availability factor, performance factor and quality factor.
The author [1] introduced a new direction in production called Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
and new strategies introduced in the field of total productive maintenance to increase productivity and to
maximize overall equipment effectiveness, the author suggested 6 big losses that effect effectiveness: 1.
Equipment failure (Break down, setup and adjustments), 2. Speed losses (idling and minor stoppages, reduced
speed), 3. Defects (process defects, reduced yield). There are the three important components that influence
the effectiveness of the machine are availability, performance rate and quality rate. The Figure 1 shows the
OEE matrix (6 big losses).
The rate of equipment effectiveness is mainly performing on operating rate or availability. Availability
3541

rate calculation based on the data from the operating time and the time of loading.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
Availability = Operating time/Loading time

= (Loading time- Down time)/ Loading time

Performance rate calculation based on theoretical cycle time and actual cycle time.

Performance efficiency = theoretical cycle time / actual cycle time

= (idle cycle time/actual cycle time) x (actual cycle time x output/operating time)

Quality rate calculation based on output and defect product.

Quality rate = (output-defect)/output

Figure 1. OEE matrix (6 big losses)

The researcher [2] reported that nowadays the OEE concept progressively more popular and widely used as
a quantitative tool to measure the productivity in manufacturing process. The author [3] have developed an
improved OEE framework to measure the capability of the Six Sigma process using existing data
to measure the reliability, maintainability and effectiveness of plant asset management to enhance process
and plant performance. To measure OEE the author introduced a benchmarking key performance indicator
(KPI) focusing on three process efficiencies: availability, performance and quality to measure of the plant
[4]. Araujo and Castro The analysis of [5] the production line is to reduce downtime and introduced a
methodology to increase the operational efficiency in beverage bottling plant by the use of OEE technique.
The author suggests the method to reduce downtime in packing, inkjet printer and filler. The researcher [6]
explained that OEE is a metric indicates the performance of the equipment, effect caused by environment of
3542

the equipment while performing operation. The OEE is used to measure the operational activity to study the
improvement activities and the author also described the strategic business model. Secondly the OEE
measurement is done with operators and management in order to control activities, finally the concluded that
the prospective benefits of developing OEE [7]. The OEE concept is applied at the bottom line by the

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
researcher [8] to eliminate the bottlenecks and to reduce downtime losses in manufacturing process and also
suggested that the OEE is used to measure the overall efficiency of the production process. The assessment
is made using OEE methodology of the failure data in real working conditions of a manufacturing unit. The
losses of an automated production line and drop in production efficiency are due to downtime losses like
machine failure Tsarouhas [9].The OEE is a key performance indicator to measure the losses in two
production lines of an automobile industry. The author [10] suggest to reduce loading time, operating time
and to eliminate unplanned downtime in order to achieve and to increase overall efficiency.
In order to increase the quality of the component, there are seven basic quality tools used to find the
causes of defects, in sequence to reduce the defects and to assist the organization for problem solving and
process improvements [11]. Seven basic quality tools are Check sheets; Graphs (Trend Analysis);
Histograms; Pareto charts; Cause-and-effect diagrams; Scatter diagrams; Control charts.The7 quality tools
and its relationship is shown in Figure 2 is used to identify the problem and are used for analysis purpose.

Figure 2. The seven quality control tools

The [12] demonstration work was carried out in the manufacturing process; the potential failures are
identified in terms of failure modes. The failure mode effect analysis strategy is implemented to come across
the root cause of the failure in order to minimize the probability of failure and to minimize the scheduled
production time. The author [13] developed a control plan based on the potential ways of failure in
production process. The process is strictly monitored, to locate the cause of product or process failure. The
analysis report is prepared by linking between process FMEA and control plan in order to minimize and to
put right to the failure. Fundamental root cause analysis is conducted using six sigma methods to
determine the causes of product defects and the author suggested that the FTA method be used to find
out the causes of defects that become a benchmark of making improvements and the FMEA approach is
used to suggest enhancements based on the highest and lowest PNR values for causes of disability [14].
The author [15] used SQC approaches using Check Sheet tools, histograms, Pareto diagrams, and fishbone
charts. In the production of coffee, the high defect rate was identified in valves of the machine. The FMEA
and criticality of the failure modes (fms) statistical analysis tool was employed to minimize the defects. The
Normal distributions method is utilized to trace the mean value and standard deviation. A new strategy
approach was proposed to improve production quality [16].
II. INJECTION MOLDING PROCESS

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is the third widely used, produced synthetic plastic polymer for various
industrial applications in the world. The main types of plastic polymers are solid, synthetic, organic
polymer. Plastic materials are produced by using molding and forming production techniques and mainly
3543

divide into thermoplastics and thermoset plastics.

Thermoplastic materials can be heated, formed into different shapes and it can be re-melted repeatedly
for future use. It has the extensive range of physical properties like high strength, superior rigidity, color,

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
high hardiness and toughness, high ductility, heat resistant and excellent electrical conductivity, but
thermoset plastics, once heated and formed, cannot be remolded/ re-melted.
Injection molding is the most popular method used in industries to manufacture various complex shapes
with highly efficient technique and high productivity. The molding process [17] categorize into: 1. General
use injection molding - high-speed production cycles with simple working conditions, requires a low level of
quality control and low rejection rates; 2. Medium Injection Molding – Expensive equipment, but it imposes
higher demands on the mold with specific rates and production conditions, requires regular quality control,
high rejection rates; 3. High-precision injection molding - high production rate, mold accuracy, high
production control and continuous quality control are needed. The author also reveals the major problems
related to shrinkage and the factors influence the dimensional variation in the molding process as shown in
Figure 3 using the fish bone diagram. Defects are categorized into two types: dimensional variation, attribute
variation while molding the parts using molding machine. The dimensioning linked controlled by the
correction of the molding dimension, the attribute defects are checked by adjusting the process parameter
[18].

Figure 3. Influence factors in Molding Process

III. PVC SOLE INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE

Figure 4 shows the Injection molding machine consists of the fastening unit, the lamination unit and the
driving unit. The fastening unit holds the injection mold and it is carried out to close, tighten and to open the
mold. The drive unit is used to feed the lamination unit and tightening unit. The clamping force of
approximately 200 to 420 KN, due to the high internal pressure in the casting cavity, tends to open at the
time of operation. The two mold halves prevent opening during manufacturing. The flow chart diagram
shows the stage of the injection molding process for the manufacture of PVC outsole. An important
parameter for this study is percent regeneration, melting temperature, injection pressure, injection rate,
filling pressure, filling time and cooling time. The study was conducted in Kangaroo Shoe Factory, Addis
3544

Ababa, Ethiopia [19]. The defect data was collected for 3 months. The total number of defective pieces is
shown in Table 1. The flowchart for Injection molding process for PVC sole is shown in Figure 5.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
TABLE I. TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFECTIVE PIECES
Sl. Production data 1st month II nd month III rd month Total defectives
No particulars
1 Total molded parts 2341 2944 3096 8381

2 Defective molded parts 229 311 330 870

3 9.782144 % 10.56385 % 10.65891 % 10.38062 %

% of Defective parts

Figure 4. The Injection Molding Machine

IV. TOOL USED TO INVESTIGATIVE FAILURE ANALYSIS

A Pareto chart is a unique type of histogram of process problems that can be easily applied to locate and
prioritize quality problems, conditions and their causes of defects [20]. The Pareto diagram is a graphical

3545

Figure 5. Flowchart for Injection molding process for PVC sole

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
overview of process problems in ranking order from the most frequent, down to the least frequent and also
helpful for the quality improvement at different levels in an organization. It also used to narrow down which
causes of the problem to address first [21]. FMEA is an evaluation process and enhancement technique is
used to apply and to identify, to eliminate potential failures and also used to find the problems in a system,
design, process and service etc before defect occur and reach to customer [22]. The author [23] used
statistical process control (SPC) tools: fishbone diagram, Pareto chart and control chart (p-chart) in the
production line to identify defects, highest waste that occur and suggestion given to eliminate defects. The
optimization work is carried out by using simulation software MoldFlow software package to analyze the
defects; warpage and shrinkage defects in injection molding process using simplex method [24].
In this investigation work, the study was done to find the frequent defects caused during injection
molding process of PVC sole manufacturing for the period of 3 months duration. The defects are critically
analyzed. The name of the defects, number of defective pieces, Cumulative number of defective parts and
their cumulative percentage are tabulated in Table 2.
Figure 6 shows the Pareto analysis chart of defective products while manufacturing PVC Sole in
molding machine. From the Pareto chart it is clear that 80% of defects are due to overflows and under
weight (incomplete) and 20% is due to other defects. The Pareto principle solves very frequent faults by
considering that it will indirectly solve faults of the other type. However, it does not show the effects of each

TABLE II. DEFECTS QUANTITY, CUMULATIVE AMOUNT AND PERCENTAGE

Sl. Defect Category Total No. Cumulative No. of Cumulative No. of Defective
No Defective Pieces Defective Pieces Pieces in percentage
1 Overflows defect 271.130 271.130 31.16%
2 Underweight defect 226.200 497.330 57.16%
3 Weight Variation defect 192.130 689.460 79.25%
4 Swelling defect 029.320 718.780 82.62%
5 Warpage defect 024.810 743.590 85.47%
6 Brittle defect 022.110 765.700 88.01%
7 Black dot defect 020.660 786.360 90.39%
8 Voids defect 018.850 805.210 92.55%
9 Sticky to Mold defect 016.670 821.880 94.47%
10 Sink mark defect 016.300 838.180 96.34%
11 Scratchy defect 013.770 851.950 97.93%
12 Shrinkage defect 011.920 863.870 99.30%
13 Other defects 006.130 870.000 100%
Total 870

flaw in the final results of the products. Therefore, another quality control tool which focuses on the effect of
defects on the final product quality and profit is required. To address these issues, the hybrid use of the
Pareto principle and failure mode and effect analysis was used to reduce defects. In the FMEA, default
prioritization is determined using the Risk Priority Number (PNR).
3546

Risk Priority Number (RPN) = Occurrence x Severity x Detection

Where,

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
Severity of effect (S): A measure of the severity of the effects of a failure mode. Severity classes are
estimated using a range of 1 to 10.

The probability of Occurrence (O): The occurrence is associated with the probability of failure mode
and cause. The number of events should range between 1 and 10.

Detection (D): Assessment of the ability of “design controls” to identify a potential cause. Performance
detection is generated on the basis of the probability of detection through the review of the company's
design, test programmes or quality control measures. Detection was also estimated at between 1 and 10.

Figure 6. Pareto chart of defective products of PVC Sole

The researcher [22] explained that FMEA priority classification is determined using the Risk Priority
Number (RPN).is used to compute the severity of defective pieces, occurrence and detectability of defective
pieces. The purpose of FMEA is to improve quality, reliability, safety, durability, and reduce product life-
cycle costs; this methodology is used in composite manufacturing. A higher RPN indicates a larger risk to
the function of the product. The failure modes and effects are then analyzed is used to determine the most
detrimental failure modes and the corrective actions to prevent the occurrence of failure [25], [26].The
RPN is a measure of design risk and compute between “1” and “1000”. [27].

The FMEA analysis is mainly based on the steps presented below.

Step1. Review the process: For this study, first to determine potential failures and effects of defective
PVC soles are collected. The time period over a three-month period was considered as period for failure
collection as shown in Table 1.
Step2. Brainstorm potential failure modes: Review existing documentation and data to find clues to all
the ways in which each component may fail. It is expected that there will be several possible failures for
each component.
Step3. List potential effects of each failure: The effect is the impact of the failure on the final product or
later stages of the process.
Step4. Assign Severity rankings: Based on the seriousness of the failure. The impact of the failure is
3547

assigned to a severity number (S) from 1 (No noticeable effect / no danger) to 10 (Hazardous without
warning / critical). These numbers provide a hierarchy of failure modes and their effects. If the severity is
greater, the immediate measure is to modify the design to eliminate the failure. The criteria for severity
ranking are presented in Table 3.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
Step5. Assign Occurrence rankings: Assess each effect's severity using custom ranking scales. This step
requires an examination of the cause of a failure mode and its frequency. A failure mode has a rank in the
range of 1-10. It indicates the potential for defects or failures to occur. It is expressed on a percentage basis.
Assessment criteria of the occurrence are shown in Table 4.
TABLE III. CRITERIA FOR SEVERITY RANKING
Rank Effect Criteria
1 No noticeable Causes minor inconvenience to the operation or operator.
effect(or)None
2 Very minor The product may need reworking without scrap metal, on-line but in working
station.
3 Minor Part of the product may need to be reworked without scrap, in-line, but outside the
station.
4 Very low The product may need to be sorted without waste, but it reduces efficiency and
some is reworked.
5 Low Convenience items that can operate at a lower level of performance, safe use and
product may require rework.
6 Moderate Operable/inoperable item, the product may need to be scrapped without sorting, or
repaired in repair service with a repair time of less than half an hour.
7 High Item operable but at a reduced level of performance, the product may have to be
repaired in the repair department with a repair time between half an hour and an
hour
8 Very high Unusable item or 100% of the product may have to be discarded, or repaired item
in repair service with a repair time more than one hour.
9 Hazardous with warning A very high level of severity when a potential failure mode affects safe operation or
results in non-compliance with the warning.
10 Hazardous without warning Very high severity ranking with unpredictable with hazardous effect.

Step6. Assign Detection rankings: How likely is it that the failure will be detected before it happens.
PRN - computing and rankings are shown in Table 5.
Step7. Calculate the RPN.
Step8. Develop the action plan: Identify the deficiencies that will be worked on based on the
risk priority numbers. Concentrate on the highest RPN.
Step9. Take action: Implement the enhancements identified by your Process Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis.

TABLE 4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA OF THE OCCURRENCE

Sl. No Probability of Failure rate Possibility of failure rate Rank / Occurrence (O)
1 Always Occur ≥ 1 in2 10
2 Extremely high 1 in 3 9
3 Very high / Repeated failures 1 in 8 8
4 High 1 in 20 7
5 Moderate high 1 in 80 6
6 Moderate 1 in 400 5
7 Relatively low 1 in 2000 4
8 Low 1 in 15000 3
9
3548

Slightly / Remote 1in 150000 2

10 Never/ Negligible/ Nearly impossible ≤1 in 1500000 1
Step10. Calculate the resulting RPN: Once improvements have been made, look at each cause of
potential deficiencies to determine the impact of the improvements. In the FMEA analysis, the method of

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
classification differs from that given by the Pareto chart. The inadequacies to be overlooked in the case of
Pareto even take first place in the case of the FMEA. Risk Priority Number (RPN) Values and Rank is
shown in Table 6.
V. HYBRID PARETO CHART AND FMEA
The combined impacts of recurrence and impact-based prioritization provide the result which takes into
account both the Pareto diagram and the FMEA of defective parts on the final results concerning the
productivity and customer loyalty. The Comparison of Pareto and FMEA results is shown in Table 7.

TABLE 5 DETECTION EVALUATION CRITERIA

Sl. No Likelihood of Failure Criteria Detection

deduction Rank (D)
1 Almost certain Failure effect 1

2 Very high Design investigation – Highly associated 2

3 High Manufactured product justification- Degradation testing 3

4 Moderately high Manufactured product justification- Test to failure 4

5 Moderately Manufactured product justification - Pass/Fail testing 5

6 Low Manufactured product confirmation - Degradation testing 6

7 Very low Manufactured product confirmation - Test to failure 7

8 Remote Manufactured product confirmation - Pass/Fail testing 8

9 Very remote Design investigation – Not Correlated 9

10 Absolute uncertainty Cannot remove defect 10

TABLE 6 RISK PRIORITY NUMBER (RPN) VALUES AND RANK

Sl. No Defect Category Severity(S) Occurrence (O)Detection (D) RPN=S*O*D Rank

1 Other defects 5 2 4 40 10
2 Scratch defect 6 3 2 36 9
3 Swelling defect 6 3 2 36 9
4 Sticky to Mold defect 7 3 2 42 8
5 Sink mark defect 5 3 3 45 7
6 Shrinkage defect 6 3 2 36 6
7 Warpage defect 4 3 4 48 5
8 Underweight defect 6 4 2 48 4
9 Brittle defect 6 3 3 54 3
10 Black dot defect 3 3 7 63 3
3549

11 Weight Variation defect 6 4 2 48 2

12 Voids defect 6 3 3 54 1
13 Overflows defect 7 4 2 56 1

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
TABLE 7 THE COMPARISON OF PARETO AND FMEA RESULTS

Sl. No Defect Category PARETO Ranking FMEA Ranking Total Ranking

1 Other defects 13 7 13
2 Scratch defect 11 8 11
3 Swelling defect 4 8 8
4 Sticky to Mold defect 8 6 10
5 Sink mark defect 10 5 9
6 Shrinkage defect 12 8 12
7 Warpage defect 5 4 6
8 Underweight defect 2 4 2
9 Brittle defect 7 3 5
10 Black dot defect 6 1 4
11 Weight Variation defect 3 4 3
12 Voids defect 9 3 7
13 Overflows defect 1 2 1

Figure 7. The Combined Effect Graph of Pareto Chart and FMEA

The accompanying chart shows the joined consequences of both Pareto and FMEA. The Figure 7 shows
3550

the consolidated impact diagram of Pareto Chart and FMEA. The outcome of the ranking result is
a combination of Pareto and FMEA analysis; it is based on the frequency and effects of the finished product.
It is shown in table 5. Results from Pareto and FMEA show that overflow defects play a major role in the
reduction of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) in terms of defects, under-weighting plays the

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
next following category default. The reduction of overflow and under-weight defects leads to an increase in
OEE. The OEE has a direct effect on business performance at the bottom line. A better return on investment
is expected through improvements in the OEE. It is also an effective benchmarking tool within the plant to
increase the profit.
VI. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF REDUCE THE DEFECTS

The molding conditions and its parameters have a substantial influence on the final properties of the
material, independent of the pattern of the part. Overflow and underweight are the significant defects that are
raised during the molding process, it reduces OEE as well. To control defective parts from defects during the
molding, it is necessary to identify the root causes of these defects. Root cause analysis is performed using
one of the statistical tools known as the Cause and Effect Diagram (or) Fishbone chart.
The researcher [28] and [29] suggested improving the effectiveness of a plant or preventing the
phenomenon of failure of a product in the process, the root cause of the defective part is to analyze and
corrective action is to take to reduce the defects. The author proposed a methodology: structured Root Cause
Analyze (RCA) methodology using Brainstorming and 5-Why’s for the process improvement and to reduce
part defect. This analyze method is fit for very complex problems. The research method (questioning) that
leads to the identification of the root cause of a problem and to examining its root causes and a way of
preventing the default from happening again and again is called 5 - Why. After asking “Why” 5 times, the
root cause of the problem is identified.
In this study, overflow and underweight are the major deficiencies that reduce machine efficiency and
effectiveness. Overflow is the excessive material released from the two mold locations where the mold splits
into the separation line. A root cause analysis chart is designed to analyze process variability.
According to the Root Cause Analysis (RCA) methodology through a brainstorming discussion with
team members working in the molding section, the questionnaire was distributed to identify the root causes
of overflows. The 5-Why analysis is a method of questioning which makes it possible to identify the root
causes of a problem. 5- Why the results of the analysis: there are the four major factors that cause the
shortcomings. Those are man, machines, methods and materials. The team of members suggests that root
causes over flaws, which is more common, meaning that the amount of higher defects over flaws increases

3551

Figure 8. Root cause analyze diagram for Overflows

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
the amount of under-weight also increases in the process. Root cause analyze diagram for overflows is
shown in Figure 8 and Root cause analyze diagram for underweight is shown in Figure 9. Based on the root
cause analysis diagram, the outcome implies that one error is dependent on the other. As observed in the
study, underweight (incomplete) is dependent on overflows, because being underweight implies a
deficit. According to the analysis using the RCA methodology, the process parameters which affect injection
casting are: melting temperature, mold temperature, injection pressure, injection speed, packaging pressure,
packaging time, cooling time and percentage of regeneration. The brainstorming discussion with team
members: three process conditions that significantly affect the behavior of the PVC material are the melting
temperature, injection rate (speed) and injection pressure that causes a lot of flaws in the process. To reduce
faults, the following results are achieved by members of brainstorming.
A. Melting temperature
Melting temperature is a crucial procedure to control the parameters that must be carefully monitored
when set up the molding machine, continue assessing and to reduce troubleshooting at the time of process.
The temperature of the molds probably has a less obvious but often deeper effect on the final properties. The
heater transforms the heat to solid PVC granules into molten metal. This is the most significant parameter
which creates more flaws in the process. The viscosity of PVC are directly associated with the melting
temperature. Higher melting temperature will lead to lower the viscosity, lead to lower flow resistance in
the melt pipe and the lead to create a higher back-pressure rate. The reduction in viscosity leads to an

Figure 9. Root cause analyze diagram for Underweight

increase in the flow rate of the melted material. To monitor over flaws and underweight within the
process, the temperature of the molten material shall be kept in correct state of condition so as to reduce the
defects and also the low pressure rate shall be applied to reduce the defect. Temperature measurement
thermocouples must be appropriately positioned and designed to provide precise readings. The measurement
of the melting temperature inside the extruder cylinder is impractical as the turning screw shears a melting
3552

probe into the melting flux.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
B. Injection Speed

The injection rate is the rate at which the melting state of the PVC reaches the mold cavity. The
injection speed shall be selected taking into account the smallest channel through which the molten product
is to circulate. If the injection rate is high, the workpiece surface will become toughie at the same time the
injection rate is slow, the surface of the piece will be rumpled. The choice of injection rate should take into
account all other process variables, such as melting temperature, shot size and mould temperature, which
must be in good working order. Viscosity also plays a major role, the high velocity leads to a material
damage. Thus, the correct proportion of the injection rate should be maintained in order to minimize defects.

C. Injection Pressure
This is the primary pressure to inject the molten plastic into the sealed mold. The high pressure gives
the most rapid filling rate. However, high injection pressure causes leakage or damage to the mould cavity
and creates heavy stresses. This means that the high clamping or clamping pressures must be adjusted to
withstand high forces. Workers should be conscious of the high injection pressure during treatment as it
leads to dangerous. Whereas lower injection pressure results in an incomplete work and produces cavity in
the part. . The molding pressure is closely monitored using a transducer located in the hydraulic pipe.
CONCLUSION

The critical investigation of injection molding process is done to eliminate defects to improve the
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) in terms of reduction of defective pieces. The OEE tool is designed
to identify losses that increase the equipment effectiveness.
A critical study was conducted to examine the defects of the injection molding process.

The Pareto and FMEA methodology is allowed to study and to analyze the defects step by step to
improve the product quality. The improvements obtained by the implementation of the recommended
actions thus reduce the individual RPN and the risk level associated with each defect is reduced.

When molding the PVC sole, under-weight and overflow defects are considered as the main defects in
the whole process. Many process parameters involved in PVC sole process of injection molding process are:
melting temperature, injection rate and injection pressure were identified and selected as the well-known
influence parameters responsible for spillovers and underweight.

The Root Cause Analyze (RCA) methodology is implemented to find the root cause. In this way,
correct machine settings and control of process parameters at a defined value reduce defects.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to convey their sincere gratitude to the management of Kangaroo Shoe Factory,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and staff members at Adama Science and Technology University (ASTU) for their
contribution, support and facilities provided for the successful completion of this study.

REFERENCES
3553

[1] S. Nakajima, “Introduction to TPM-Total Productive Maintenance,” Productivity Press Inc,

Cambridge, MA, 1988.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
[2] H. S. Huang, J. P. Dismukes, Q. Shi, I. Su, M. A. Razzak, R. Bodhale, and D. E. Robinson,
“Manufacturing productivity improvement using effectiveness metrics and simulation
analysis,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41, no. 3, 2003, pp. 513-527.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020754021000042391.
[3] P. Gibbons, and S. Burgess, “Introducing OEE as a measure of Lean Six Sigma capability.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,” vol.1, no. 2, 2010, pp.134-156.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011049511.
[4] P. Jonsson, and M. Lesshammar, “Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing performance
measurement systems - the role of OEE,” International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 19, no. 1, 1999, pp. 55-78.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910244223.
[5] F. Araujo, and F. Castro, “Proposal for OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) indicator
deployment in a beverage plant,” Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 9,
no. 1, 2012, pp. 71-84. doi: https://bjopm.emnuvens.com.br/bjopm/article/view/V9N1A5.
[6] A. J. D. Ron, and J. E. Rooda, “OEE and equipment effectiveness: an evaluation,” International
Journal of Production Research, vol. 44, no. 23, pp. 4987-5003, 2006.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600573402.
[7] B. Dal, P. Tugwell, and R. Greatbanks, "Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of
operational improvement - A practical analysis," International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, vol. 20 no. 12, 2000, pp. 1488 – 1502. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010355750.
[8] V. Palanisamy and J. A.Vino, “Implementing overall equipment effectiveness in a process
industry,” Indian Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 6, 2013, 4789-4793.
doi: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2013/v6isp6.17.
[9] P. Tsarouhas, “Improving operation of the croissant production line through overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE),” International journal of Production and Performance Management, vol. 68
no. 1, 2016, pp. 88-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2018-0060.
[10] H. Soltanali, A. Rohani, M. Tabasizadeh, M. H. A-Fard, and A. Parida, “Improving the performance
measurement using overall equipment effectiveness in an automotive industry,” International
Journal of Automotive Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, 2018, pp. 2781-2791.
URL: http://www.iust.ac.ir/ijae/article-1-432-en.html.
[11] K. Ishikawa, “Guide to quality control,” Asian Productivity Organization, Toyko,1976.
[12] M. J. Juran, F. M. Gryna, and R. S. Bingham, “Quality control hand book,” No.658.562 Q-1q.
McGraw Hill, 5th ed., 1974.
[13] S. H. G. Teng, and S. Y. M. Ho, “Failure mode and effects analysis: An integrated approach for
product design and process control,” International journal of quality & reliability management,
vol.13, no. 5, 1996, pp. 8-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02656719610118151.
[14] Iriani, Yani, and Yeni Mulyani, "Proposed Product Quality Control by Using Six Sigma Method,
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA)," Solid State Technology,
3554

vol. 63, no. 3, 2020, 4443-4453.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 64 Issue: 2
Publication Year: 2021
[15] Dwiartono, Alviandri Indra, M. Dwiki Nugraha, M. Abdul Jabar Kara, and Yenny Maya Dora.
"Application of Statistical Quality Control (SQC) for Product 04G22 on PT. Maruichi
Indonesia," Solid State Technology,vol. 63, no. 4, 2020, 4966-4976.
[16] G. Olmi, “Statistical tools applied for the reduction of the defect rate of coffee degassing
valves,” Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 17-24.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csefa.2014.10.002
[17] S. Daniel, A. Tulcan, L. Tulcan, and T. Iclanzan, “Influence factors on the dimensional accuracy of
the plastic parts,” Materiale Plastice, vol.45, no.1, 1964, doi: https://doi.org/10.37358/Mat.Plast.
[18] D Mathivanan, M. Nouby, and R. Vidhya, “Minimization of sink mark defects in injection molding
process–Taguchi approach,” International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology,
vol. 2, no.2, 2010, pp. 13-22.
[19] N. Dessalegn, “Investigations and optimization of injection molding process of PVC Sole,” Msc
diss., ASTU, 2018.
[20] J. Juran, and A.B. Godfrey, “Quality handbook,” Graw-Hill, 5th ed., 173, 8, 1998.
[21] M. B. Daya, J. Knezevic, D. A. Kadi, and A. Raouf, “In hand book of Maintenance Management
and Engineering,” Springer, London, 2009. DOI 10.1007/978-1-84882-472-0.
[22] G. Ali, and K. Toker, “Quality Improvement in Manufacturing Processes to Defective Products
using Pareto Analysis and FMEA,” Beykent Univsity, Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 2,
2013.
[23] Y. M. Awaj, A. P. Singh, and W. Y. Amedie, “Quality improvement using statistical process
control tools in glass bottles manufacturing company,” Interational Journal for Quality Research,
vol. 7, no. 1, 2013.pp. 107- 126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.06.043.
[24] B. Farshi, S. Gheshmi, and E. Miandoabchi, “Optimization of injection molding process parameters
using sequential simplex algorithm,” Material and Design, vol. 32, no.1, 2011, pp. 414-423.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2010.06.043.
[25] E. Kames, R. Zaremba, and B. Morkos, “Analyzing Composite Material Manufacturing Methods
Using Failure Modes Effect Analysis,” International Design Engineering Technical Conference
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 58165, V004T05A006. American
Socirty of Mechanical Engineering, 2017, pp.1-11.
[26] M. Zasadzień, “Using the pareto diagram and FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) to
identify key defects in a product,” Management System in Production Engineering, vol.4, no.16,
2014, pp.153-156. doi: https://doi.org/10.12914/MSPE- 02 - 04 - 2014.
[27] K. M. Shivakumar, R. Hanumantharaya, U. M. Mahadev and P. A. Kiran, “Implementation of
FMEA in Injection molding process,” International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology,
vol. 22, no.5, 2015, pp. 230-235.
[28] R. J. Duphily, H. Harder, R. Morehead, J. Haman, J. H Gjerde, S. Dubois, T. Stout, D. Ward, T.
Reinsel, and J. Loman, “Root cause investigation best practices guide,” Aerospace Corp El Segundo
Ca, 2014.
[29] M. Kurt, O. S. Kamber, Y. Kaynak, G. Atakok, and O.Girit, “Experimental investigation of plastic
3555

injection molding: Assessment of the effects of cavity pressure and mold temperature on the quality
of the final products,” Materials and Design, vol. 30, no.8, 2009, pp. 3217–3224.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.01.004.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us