VMEA, A Practical Tool For Robust Design

Seminar Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of ME (Industrial Engineering) by Kiran Harichandra Naik (Roll No. 099211001) Guide: Prof. Mahesh Dhawlikar

Department of Mechanical Engineering College of Engineering, Goa

Approval Sheet
This is to certify that Shri Kiran Harichandra Naik, bearing Roll no. 09921001, has been admitted to the candidacy of ME (Industrial Engineering) in August 09 and he has undertaken the project entitled VMEA:A Practical Tool For Robust Design which is approved for the degree of ME (Industrial Engineering). under Goa University as it is found satisfactory.

Examiners

__________________ __________________

Head of Department

Guide(s)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

Date:_____________ Place:_____________

Dedication Sheet

This seminar is dedicated to my teachers, parents.

Abstract
Variation Mode and Effect Analysis (VMEA) developed to systematically look for noise factors and assess their effects on key product characteristics (KPCs). While FMEA is a failure-oriented approach, VMEA places a stronger emphasis on assessing risks related to excessive variation. Conducted on a systematic basis, the goal of VMEA is to identify and prioritize noise factors that significantly contribute to the variability of KPCs and might yield unwanted consequences with respect to safety, compliance with governmental regulations, and functional requirements. As a result of the analysis, a Variation Risk Priority Number (VRPN) is calculated which directs attention to areas where reasonably anticipated variation might be detrimental. Based on the results obtained from VMEA, an improved noise strategy can be formulated, facilitating the subsequent efforts to attain robust and reliable products.

This seminar lets us know that Cost of a product extends well beyond development & manufacturing cost. Warranty, life cycle and cost to others can be major contributors due to varying product performance. Our quality improvement efforts have been moved upstream to the design stages of products and processes. In line with this trend there has been a particular emphasis on the development of statistical techniques to create products and processes insensitive to sources of variation or noise factors, respectively. One of the effective ways to reduce variation in performance that potentially results in reduced rework and rejects downstream, is to use the standardized version the Design of Experiment (DOE) technique proposed by Dr. Genechi Taguchi. 4

Contents Title
List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations References Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Chapter 4 4.1 Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 Chapter 6 Introduction Background VMEA- A Design Methodology Robustness Strategy Literature Review Variation Mode and Effect Analysis KPCs causal breakdown Sensitivity assessment Variation size assessment Variation risk assessment and prioritization Design of experiment Experimental Design Process Steps in the process Case Study An industrial application KPC breakdown and variation assessment Analyses of Surface Finish variation in drilling process using design of experiment Conclusion and Future scope Page No. 5 5 5 31 69 6 7 9 10 11 17 11 13 14 15 17 18 -20 18 21 -30 21 22 22

List of figures
Fig 1.1 Factors and levels Fig 3.1 KPC selection process Fig 3.2 KPC Breakdown into sub-KPC and NFs. Fig 4.1 Flow chart Fig 5.1 Turning Process Fig 5.2 Fishbone diagram

List of tables
Table 3.1. Sub KPC Sensitivity assessment criteria Table 3.2. NF variation assesment criteria Table 5.1 VMEA analysis Table 5.2 Factors and Levels Table 5.3 Factors and Interactions Table 5.4 Data sheet Table 5.5 Experimental Data table 1 Table 5.6 Experimental Data table 2 Table 5.7 S/N ratio calculation Table 5.8 ANOVA Calculation Table 5.9 Pooled ANOVA Table 5.10 Confirmation calculation

List of Abbreviation
6

DOE Design of Experiment OA KPC NF Orthogonal experiment Key Product Characteristics Noise factors Analysis of variance

ANOVA

VRPN Variation risk priority number VMEA Variation mode and effect analysis

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Background

Mankind had always had a fascination with quality. Todays technology bears testimony to mankinds incessant desire to provide a higher level of quality in product and services to increase market share and profits. Sometimes quality is essential. A pacemaker that controls heart actions must operate continuously and efficiently. An erratic pacemaker is valueless, useless and dangerous.

Driven by the need to compete on price and performance and to maintain profitability, Quality conscious manufacturer are increasingly aware of the need to optimize product and processes. Quality is achieved by means of design optimization is found by many manufacturers to be cost effective in gaining and maintaining a competitive position in the world market.

1.2

VMEA- A Design Methodology

An important goal of engineering design is to get a reliable system, structure or component. One such well-established method is FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), where the aim is to identify possible failure modes and evaluate their effect. A general design philosophy, within robust design, is to make designs that avoid failure modes as much as possible. Further, it is important that the design is robust against different sources of unavoidable variation. 8

A general methodology called VMEA (Variation Mode and Effect Analysis) has been developed in order to deal with this problem. The VMEA is split into three different levels; 1) basic VMEA, in the early design stage, when we only have vague knowledge about the variation, and the goal is to compare different design concepts, 2) advanced VMEA, further in the design process when we can better judge the sources of variation, and 3) probabilistic VMEA, in the later design stages where we have more detailed information about the structure and the sources of variation, and the goal is to be able to asses the reliability.

1.3 Robustness Strategy.

Variation reduction is universally recognized as a key to reliability and productivity improvement. There are many approaches to reducing the variability, each one having its place in the product development cycle. By addressing variation reduction at a particular stage in a product's life cycle, one can prevent failures in the downstream stages. The Six Sigma approach has made tremendous gains in cost reduction by finding problems that occur in manufacturing or white-collar operations and fixing the immediate causes. The robustness strategy is to prevent problems through optimizing product designs and manufacturing process designs. Robust Design method is central to improving engineering productivity. Pioneered by Dr. Genichi Taguchi after the end of the Second World War, the method has evolved over the last five decades. Many companies around the world have saved hundreds of millions of dollars by using the method in diverse industries: automobiles, xerography, telecommunications, electronics, software, etc.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

1. Design and analysis of experiment by Montomery Douglas C. 2. Quality engineering and Robust Design by Phadke Madhav S. 3. Taguchi techniques for quality engineering, by Ross Philip j. 4. Taguchi methods for Robust Design by Yuin Wu, Alan Wu. 5. DOE-I Basic Design of Experiments Presented By Nutek, Inc. 6. Making full use of Taguchis orthogonal array by Dennis Lin. 7. VMEA: Tool for Quality Improvement by Alexander Chakhunashvili. 8. VMEA* in Practice by Par Johannesson

Chapter 3

Variation Mode and Effect Analysis

10

3.1 KPCS CAUSAL BREAKDOWN The VMEA is a statistically based engineering method aimed at guiding engineers to find critical areas in terms of the effects of unwanted variation. Before making a VMEA, it is necessary to define a set of product characteristics (PCs) and select the one (or ones) that are of particular interest from variation standpoint.

Once a KPC is selected, it can usually be decomposed into a number of sub-elements called Sub-KPCs. The Sub-KPCs are characteristics of either the product or product components or the manufacturing process whose values affect the KPC. They are generally known and controllable. Furthermore, each Sub-KPC might be affected by one or a number of NFs.

Fig 3.1 KPC selection process.

11

Fig 3.2 KPC Breakdown into sub-KPC and NFs.

The KPC causal breakdown is the first step in facilitating an understanding of variation. It is graphically presented in Figure 3.3 in a cause-and-effect diagram. In fact, there can be different levels of SubKPCs (e.g. Sub-Sub-KPCs).

3.2 SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT In the second step of the procedure, engineers assess the sensitivity of the KPC to the influence of each Sub-KPC and the sensitivity of each Sub-KPC to the influence of NFs. To assess sensitivities, engineers can use objective measures or subjective assessments based on their experience and theoretical knowledge. Since it is not always possible to obtain objective measures, especially in the early phases of development, we propose utilizing subjective assessment criteria for capturing engineers knowledge about sensitivities. The assessment is 12

based on a scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 corresponds to very low sensitivity and 10 corresponds to very high sensitivity.

Sensitiv ity Very Low

Criteria for assessing sensitivity

Score

The variation of NF (alternatively of Sub-KPC) is not (almost) at all transmitted to Sub-KPC (alternatively to KPC)

1-2

Low

The variation of NF (alternatively of Sub-KPC) is transmitted to Sub-KPC (alternatively to KPC) to small degrees

3-4

Moderat e

The variation of NF (alternatively of Sub-KPC) is transmitted to Sub-KPC (alternatively to KPC) to moderate degrees

5-6

High

The variation of NF (alternatively of Sub-KPC) is transmitted to Sub-KPC (alternatively to KPC) to high degrees

7-8

Very

The variation of NF (alternatively of Sub-KPC) is transmitted to Sub-KPC (alternatively to KPC) to 13

9-10

High

very high degrees

Table 3.1. Sub KPC Sensitivity assessment criteria

3.3 VARIATION SIZE ASSESSMENT In the third step, engineers examine NFs and assess the magnitude of their variation in operating conditions. In Table we propose subjective assessment criteria for capturing engineers knowledge about the magnitude of an NF variation. The assessment is based on a scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 corresponds to very low variation and 10 corresponds to very high variation.

Variation of NF Very Low

Criteria for assessing the variation of NF

Score

NF is considered to be almost constant in all possible 1-2 conditions

Low

NF exhibits small fluctuations or lies within a small interval in 3-4 all possible conditions

Moderate

NF exhibits visible but moderate fluctuations in all conditions

5-6

14

High

NF exhibits visible and high fluctuations in all conditions

7-8

Very High

NF exhibits very high fluctuations in all conditions

9-10

Table 3.2. NF variation assesment criteria

3.4

VARIATION RISK ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION

On the basis of the assessment described in the previous three steps, a variation risk priority number (VRPN) is calculated for NFs with regard to each Sub-KPC.

Here S1 is the sensitivity of the KPC to the influence of the Sub-KPC affected by the NF (assessed in step 2), S2 is the sensitivity of the Sub-KPC to the influence of the NF (assessed in step 2) and V is the size of variation of the NF (assessed in step 3).

If one and the same Sub-KPC is influenced by several NFs, it is possible to calculate a VRPN for that Sub-KPC by summing the VRPNNF calculated with regard to that SubKPC.

3.5 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT 15

After calculation of VRPN of the different sub KPCs , the sub KPC bearing the largest VRPN number is responsible for the variation in the main KPC. Further design of experiment is suggested to reduce the variation in the said sub-KPC, the team can further suggest investigating the sub KPC and after conducting a similar VMEA, they identify a number of specific variables (noise factors) that were then used in a design of experiment for the purpose of increasing the robustness of the system whose main KPC is monitored. This method is discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter 4 Experimental Design Process

4.1 Steps in the process

Step 1: State the problems or areas of concern. Locate the problem source not just the symptom, address the real problem.clearly and concisely describe the problem. Step 2: State the objectives of the experiment. Here we state the required performance and competitive bench marks. Step 3: Select the Quality Characteristics and Measurement Systems. The selection of the quality characteristics to measure as experimental outputs greatly influences the number of the tests that will have to be done to be sttaiscally significant. Step 4: Select the factors that may influence the quality characteristics. The purpose is to identify critical variables for the quality of the product or service in question. Step 5: Identify control and Noise factors.

16

Control factors variables under management control, Signal factors uncontrollable variation Step 6: Select levels for factors. Step 7: Select the appropriate Orthogonal Arrays OAs. Step 8: Select interactions that may influence the selected quality characteristics; Step 9: Assign factors to OAs and locate interaction. Selected factors and interaction at indentified levels are assigned to appropriate columns. Step 10: Conduct tests described by trials in OAs. Step 11: Analyse results of the experimental trials. Step 12: Conduct confirmation experiments.

Experimental Design Process

1) Define Problem(s) 5) Conduct Experiment & Collect Data

2) Determine Objectives

6) Analyze Data

3) Brainstorm

7) Interpret Results

4) Design Experiment

8) Verify Predicted Results

Fig 4.1 Flow chart

17

Chapter 5

Case Study

5.1 AN INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION The VMEA is a newly developed tool, but it has already invoked interest in industry because of its simplicity and straightforwardness of use. A application of VMEA is on a industrial part, made of fiber board.

Figure 5.1 Industrial part A quality improvement project related to managing unwanted variation. The project concerned is used in an industrial refrigeration system. Since this component plays a critical role in the refrigeration system, the customer places great demands on it in terms of quality and reliability. In particular, the customer indicated some critical dimensions on which rigorous tolerances were set. For one of them, the diameter of the inner hole which further decides the flow velocity, we need to make sure that the manufacturing process is robust. Figure 6.1 is a schematic drawing of the component. The diameter of the inner hole is the most critical dimension. If it deviates from its nominal value, the performance of the refrigeration system will drop substantially. Hence, this dimension was chosen as a KPC for the VMEA application. 5.2 KPC BREAKDOWN AND VARIATION ASSESSMENT 18

Five Sub-KPCs were identified as having a potential effect and transferring variation to the chosen KPC. Their description is given in Table 6.1.In addition to selecting SubKPCs, we identify a number of NFs influencing each Sub-KPC. As shown in the final Ishikawa diagram of this case study is shown in Figure 6.2. It can be understood the illustration addresses the problem of managing unwanted variation in manufacturing, when the variations caused by wear and ageing are not present. Furthermore, we need to assess the sensitivities of KPC to Sub-KPCs, and of Sub-KPCs to NFs, as well as the size of variation of each NF. The data generated facilitates the calculation and presentation of the results. The final result of the VMEA application is summarized in Table 6..

Figure 5.2 Fishbone diagram

19

KPC

Sub KPC

KPC sensitivity to Sub KPC

NF

Sub-KPC NF sensitivity variation to NF size

VRPN (NF)

VRPN (Sub KPC)

20

8 Roughing cutter flow diameter velocity/ inner diameter Surface finish

10

Roughing cutter depth

machine setting machine wear supplier variability tool damage tool wear machine setting Coolant machine wear hole depth material variation machine setting machine wear supplier variability tool damage tool wear Electricity machine setting machine wear Electricity machine setting machine wear

2 8 2 10 2 2 8 8 10 10 4 1 1 10 1 3 2 2 3 2 2

2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 2 2

1024 16384 1024 25600 9216 1600 25600 25600 40000 360000 3136 196 196 19600 1764 225 3600 3600 225 3600 3600

53248

452800

24892

Finishing cutter speed Finishing cutter feed

7425

7425

Table 5.1 VMEA analysis As a result of the VMEA session, we show the relative contribution of each Sub-KPC and of each NF by means of bar charts (Figures 6.3). This graphical representation makes it evident that surface finish (Sub-KPC) and material variation (NF) are the major contributors to an increase in variation in the inner hole diameter and hence the flow velocity; thus the quality improvement efforts should be targeted to these areas. Furthermore, we can see the contribution to variability and relative degree of importance of other Sub-KPCs and NFs.

21

Figure 5.3 VRPN of sub KPC and NF The application of the VMEA is a valuable experience because it presents an opportunity to examine sources of variation that adversely affected the quality of their product. Although on several occasions, an agreement on various assessments is not immediately reached and required detailed technical discussions and exchanges of experience, overall the engineers seemed to be content with the application of VMEA.

22

5.3 ANALYSES OF SURFACE FINISH VARIATION IN DRILLING PROCESS USING DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT Drilling is very important machining process in which a twist drill tool removes unwanted material from the surface of a stationary work piece.

Drilling is carried on a CNC drilling machine that provides the power to turn the work drill bit at a given rotational speed and to feed to the work piece at specified rate ,depth of cut, making use of coolant . Therefore four cutting parameters namely rotating speed, feed, depth of hole and use of coolant need to be determined in a drilling operation.

The purpose of drilling operation case study is to produce least variation in the surface roughness of the drilled hole. Surface roughness is another important factor to evaluate cutting performance.

23

Fig 5.4 Drilling Process

5.3.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION It was found that in a engineering workshop during the operation the surface finish of the drilled hole component was varying. It was decided to study the process and to find the setting for cutting parameters namely rotating speed, feed, depth of hole and use of coolant to reduce the variation in the surface finish against the noise factor being the change in material property. .

5.3.2 STEPS IN PARAMETER DESIGN METHOLOGY 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT In the case of a drilling operation, the surface finish of the hole drilled is found to vary to vary considerably hence the material variation. The surface roughness variation will lead to variation in the internal diameter of the hole.

2. OBJECTIVE OF EXPERIMENT The objective of the experiment was to control the process parameter to reduce the roundness of the 80 mm rod to within 5 micrometer roughness. 3. Selection of Quality Characteristics and measurement system. The quality characteristics of interest is the surface finish of the drilled hole. This is measured with the help of roughness tester. The unit of measurement is microns 4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF FACTORS.

24

VMEA analysis of the process resulted in number of factors identified as probable for surface roughness variation. Out of the number of factors identified the following were found important and easy to control, and selected as control factors 1. Speed of rotation 2. Feed 3. Depth of hole 4. Coolant flow

The fibre board available for drilling varies in hardness and chemical composition and hence was considered as noise factor,

5. SELECTION OF LEVELS FOR FACTORS Sr no 1 2 3 4 5 Factors Cutting rpm Feed Hole depth Coolant supply Material Level1 500 rpm 150 mm/rpm 10 mm On Hard Level2 800 rpm 300 mm/rpm 18 mm Off Soft

Table 5.2 Factors and levels

6. SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE ORTHOGONAL ARRAY In this case we have selected 4 factors at two levels each. The available options for 2 level orthogonal arrays are L4, L8, L12 & L16 arrays. L4 array provides for only 3 columns and hence four factors cannot be studied. L8 array provides 7 column and with four factors under consideration, two factors interactions can be conveniently studied. The number of experiments required is 8. 25

L12 array requires 12 experiments and any column assignment provides a resolution 1 experiment. L16 array provides resolution 4 experiments. This is a high resolution experiment and all interactions can be studied conveniently. However the size of the experiments required is big (sixteen experiments). Keeping in mind the practical convenience, L8 array was thought suitable to begin with and was selected for the experiments.

7. ASSIGNING FACTORS AND INTERACTION TO COLUMNS The assignment of factors and interactions was made in the light of the guideline tables provided for this purpose. The resulting column assignments are shown below. 1 A 2 B 3 AXB 4 C 5 CXA 6 CXB 7 D

Table 5.3 Factors and Interactions

8. PLANNING THE EXPERIMENT. The experimental layout consists of the inner array for control factors and outer array for noise factors. These experiments consisted of only one factor in the outer array; hence it consisted of two trials (full factorial experiment). Here each pin was tested at two places (front end and rear end) to account for the outer array.

Data sheets were designed and 8 data sheets (one for each experiments) were kept ready. Code numbers generally used in OAs were avoided in the data sheets to minimize any confusion during the experiment. Each data sheet very clearly gave the parameters to

26

be set with their appropriate levels and made provision for the observations to be entered. The format of a data sheet is shown in fig

Data sheet Expt no. 1 (A2 B1C1 D2) Control Factor A: cutting rpm B: Feed C: Hole depth D: Coolant Surface finish in micrometer 1 2 Row 5 Level 800 rpm 300 mm/rpm 10 mm Off

Job no. Remarks

Table 5.4 Data sheet 10. CONDUCTING THE EXPERIMENT This involves deciding the randomization strategies and the sample size. Complete randomization is the done by selecting lots. The quality characteristic chosen is of variable type. A sample size of 6 was chosen to ensure high sensitivity. This gives about one standard deviation sensitivity at 95 % confidence level. The experiments were conducted accordingly and observations were taken in the data sheets.

11. ANALYSIS OF DATA 27

The observations from the datasheets were arranged systematically in primary, secondary and tertiary tables. The column effects reflected the influential factors and interactions. However ANOVA was carried out for raw data to find the factors that influence the variation. These are summarized in table 5.10.

11. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS From the ANOVA we see that there are significant control factors A and B. Interaction AXC is found to have a strong influence on variation of surface finish of drilled hole. The most influential factor is factor A with level 2 being a better one. Hence the rpm has to be set high. Better level for factor B is level 1. This indicates that lower feed per speed improves the control over surface roughness and variation. Coolant application is found to have an not to have any significant effect on the surface finish variation of the object. Hence can be set at the nominal value to save on the cost. The interaction between A and C i.e. AXC is found to have an effect on the surface finish. The level of D can be set at any level at any level so setting at 1 will save on coolant. So the optimum combination is A2B1(AxC)1 to reduce the variation in the surface finish, also will make the operation robust against material variation.

12. CONFIRMATION EXPERIMENT As stated above it is estimated that the best setting combination is A2B1(AxC)1 with the estimated mean of s/n ratio with mean -0.3648 microns at 99% confidence interval. This particular combination test was already conducted and is the same as trial no. 6 in table 5.5 The observations of this trial perfectly agrees with the estimated results.

Confirmation therefore is directly available. Further confirmation was obtained by observing the performance over longer runs of the machine. 28

L8OA(Inner array) COLUMN NAME 1 2 3 4 5 6 A* C* C* A B B C A B 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

A-speed 7 D 0.9 1 1.3 2 1.6 1.0 3 1.6 8 1.0 1 1.1 8 0.6 8 N1 0.7 5 1.3 8 1.0 9 1.0 5 1.2 3 1.6 7 1.0 8 1.1 2

B-feed

C-depth Tertiary Table Noise 0.8 1 1.2 4 1.0 6 1.0 2 1.5 9 0.8 1.0 7 1.1 1 1.3 9 1.4 9 1.4 7 1.6 4 0.7 0.7 3 1.3 6 1.1 8

D-coolant

1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2

2 1

7 2 2 8 2 2

(material 0.8 0.9 4 5 1.3 1.3 6 1 1.4 1.0 4 1 1.3 2.5 9 6 2.0 1.6 2 1 1.8 1.0 4 6 1.6 1.3 9 3 1.6 1.2 6 8

1) 0.8 8 1.2 9 1.3 6 3.8 1 1.8 1 0.7 1 1.1 5 1.3 8

N2(material 1.5 1.8 1.6 8 7 1.4 1.4 1.5 1 7 8 1.3 1.7 1.4 8 6 7 1.7 1.7 1.4 5 3 6 0.7 0.9 4 0.4 1 0.7 0.9 4 0.4 1 1.4 1.4 1.4 6 8 5 1.3 1.2 1.3 2 9 5

2) 1.7 1 1.5 1 1.5 8 1.5 8 0.5 7 0.5 7 1.6 6 1.4 2

1.5 1 1.5 1 1.4 1.4 8 1.1 0.7 2 1.8 2 1.2 5

Table 5.5 Experimental data table1

Noise N1 (material 1) 0.9 1 0.7 5 0.8 4 0.9 5 0.8 8 0.8 1 1.3 9 N2(material 2) 1.6 1.5 8 1.8 7 1.7 1 1.5 1

S/N ratio 2.2442 1

29

1.3 2 1.6 1.0 3 1.6 8 1.0 1 1.1 8 0.6 8

1.3 8 1.0 9 1.0 5 1.2 3 1.6 7 1.0 8 1.1 2

1.3 6 1.4 4 1.3 9 2.0 2 1.8 4 1.6 9 1.6 6

1.3 1 1.0 1 2.5 6 1.6 1 1.0 6 1.3 3 1.2 8

1.2 9 1.3 6 3.8 1 1.8 1 0.7 1 1.1 5 1.3 8

1.2 4 1.0 6 1.0 2 1.5 9 0.8 1.0 7 1.1 1

1.4 9 1.4 7 1.6 4 0.7 0.7 3 1.3 6 1.1 8

1.4 1 1.3 8 1.7 5 0.7 4 0.7 4 1.4 6 1.3 2

1.4 7 1.7 6 1.7 3 0.4 0.4 1.4 8 1.2 9

1.5 8 1.4 7 1.4 6 0.9 1 0.9 1 1.4 5 1.3 5

1.5 1 1.5 8 1.5 8 0.5 7 0.5 7 1.6 6 1.4 2

1.5 1 1.4 1.4 8 1.1 0.7 2 1.8 2 1.2 5

2.9812 3 2.9364 2 5.4167 3 2.2986 5 0.1333 6 3.0090 9 2.0968 5

Table 5.6 Experimental data table2

Trial no, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

yi ^2 S/N 20.11 88 -2.24421 23.83 99 -2.98123 23.59 52 -2.93642 41.76 9 -5.41673 20.37 26 -2.29865 12.37 42 -0.13336 23.99 -3.00909

30

33 19.44 76

-2.09685

Table 5.7 S/N ratio calculation

Sourc e A B C D AXB AXC CXB T VARIAN SS DOF CE 4.5611 4.56117 76 1 6 4.2073 4.20737 73 1 3 0.0024 0.00244 43 1 3 0.0300 4 1 0.03004 0.0257 4 1 0.02574 4.9531 4.95315 59 1 9 1.1222 1.12225 52 1 2 14.902 18 7

Table 5.8 ANOVA calculation

Sourc e A B AXC E T

VARIAN F Limit SS DOF CE F ratio for CI 4.5611 4.56117 15.484 76 1 6 03 4.06 4.2073 4.20737 14.282 73 1 3 96 6.61 4.9531 4.95315 16.814 59 1 9 71 1.1782 0.29457 92 4 3 14.9 7

0.9 0.95

Table 5.9 Pooled up ANOVA table

31

FACTOR Average PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION MEAN

A2 -1.88

B1 -1.914

AXC1 -1.85

T 2.6395 7

F 0.01,1, 4 21.2

CONFIDENCE INTERVAL for sample group confidence interval for population

-0.364865345 - 2.275 1.545 - 1.807 0.357

Table 5.10 Confirmation calculation

32

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Future scope

Despite our efforts to address the problems related to variation early in product development, we are not always successful. Therefore, we need to compensate for the shortcomings in later phases. There are many reasons for this; one is that we do not have practical methods for managing variation over the entire development process. At initial phases of development, we often face situations where the transfer function, i.e. the relationship between the KPC and the factors affecting it, is unknown. Thus, it is not possible to apply quantitative methods in order to model this relationship. Nevertheless, it is important for us to know the critical areas from a variation viewpoint. In other words, we want to know which product characteristics transmit the greatest part of the variation and what are the sources of variation affecting them. VMEA, especially in its basic form, can be a useful tool for extracting and quantifying information from engineering knowledge and experience. Although assessments made in the basic VMEA are subjective, the outcome in terms of VRPNs provides a basis for managing variation and hence improving robustness.

While the basic VMEA is designed to be simple and easy to apply without a great deal of previous knowledge and experience of using the method, we propose in the enhanced VMEA a number of enhancements that ensure a more accurate outcome. One such 33

enhancement concerns the assessment method, i.e. the assessment of sensitivities and the assessment of NF variation. While the basic and enhanced VMEAs can be carried and with limited information, completing the probabilistic VMEA requires that either analytical or numerical relationships between KPC, sub-KPCs and NFs are known. The probabilistic VMEA, expanding on the theoretical basis of the VMEA method, provides a near perfect approximation of sensitivities and variation size. Furthermore, the enhanced and probabilistic VMEAs provide better estimates of the portion of variation transmitted from the sub characteristics to the response. However, we should bear in mind that they might require more quantitative data for sensitivity and variation size calculations. Study can be directed in understanding and application of enhanced and probabilistic VMEAs to an industrial application.

In developing the VMEA procedure it has been assumed that sub-KPCs are independent. This assumption is reasonable if engineers have made a good choice of sub-KPCs and NFs. In fact, if there is a correlation or any other functional relationship between, for example, two sub-KPCs, one of them can obviously be excluded from the model. The second assumption made in the VMEA method is the negligibility of interaction effects of factors on the response of interest, KPC. This assumption gives rise to a simple and manageable formulation and applicability of the VMEA method. While addressing problems related to unwanted variation in products, processes or services is important, the greatest source of variation is often found to lie with the customer. Customer variation can be seen both when studying and assessing customer wants and when analyzing a large number of possible ways in which the customers might use the product.

34

Consequently, further development of VMEA should focus on incorporating support for analyzing and assessing variation of the customer.

REFERENCES Montogomery Douglas C. Design and Analysis of Experiment John Wiley and Sons, New York. Phadke Madhav S. Quality Engineering and Robust Design. Prentice Hall Eaglewood Chiffs New Jersey. Ross Philip J. Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering. McGraw Hill International Edition. Ranjit Roy. A Primer on the Taguchi Method/ Competitive Manufacturing Series.

35