Lean Six Sigma Project

Monohydrate Plant
Capacity Utilisation

Project Leader/BB: Satyajit Roy

LSS Program Leader/MBB: Sridhar Rao

Class C
1
 • Improve the current
• Define problem • Collect data, • Investigate and • Sustain the new
process
• Measure current verify C&E improved
• Develop scope • Standardized work, performance
performance • Identify root
cause • Set up pilot runs
• Develop baseline

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Class C
2
Project Charter
Business Case Project Team
Savings:- Mr. Sridhar Rao Master Black Belt
A. Rs.7.5 .in crores by increasing the capacity by 20000 TPA. Mr. R A Vadgama Blue belt member.
Due to low capacity utilization of Mono hydrate Dense ash ,we Mr. Sandip Patil Blue belt member.
have not achieved our budgeted production of Dense ash till Mr. D Banerjee Blue belt member.
date. Also the coming year Dense Ash budget is increasing Mr. Narendra & Jaydeep Blue belt member.
Mr. M S S Rao Project Sponsor/Process Owner
because of huge market demand for glass industry (where
Mr. Hardik Bhavsar Blue belt member.
Dense Soda Ash is their major raw material) . So it is the right
Mr. Vishnu D Shah Blue belt member.
time to act upon.
Mr. Anand Sodha Deployment leader
B. Improvement in %age CSI score in terms of product &
Mr. Satyajit Roy Black Belt / Project Leader
packaging increasing customer satisfaction.
Problem and Scope Goal Statements
Problem: Goal:
Plant has not delivered to its design capacity till date
(operating on 60% of its design capacity). 1. Increase the Mono hydrate plant capacity by 30% from its
Scope: Light Soda Ash from STD outlet to Mono hydrate current state by Mar 2011..
packing.
2.Increase CSI score of soda ash in terms of product &
packaging from its current state of 76% by Mar.2011.

3
 Define Phase - SIPOC
SUPPLIER INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Light
Soda SCM
Light Soda Ash Ash Packing
STD
Hydr FBD
Steam & DA ation
ator D/C/
Power plant Dense Soda Sales &
Cooling water water C.
Compliance Ash Marketing
Marine Chem. +Soda
DA water Report
Sectional head
Instructions Customer
Relation officer.
Customer

INPUT Metrics PROCESS Metrics OUTPUT Metrics

Light Soda Ash:
Na2CO3:99.2-99.8%
Chloride :0.4 to 0.5 % wt..
Ca<40 ppm,BD:600 Kg/m3
Hydration :
Hydrator Cap:35 tph, load-35-40A ,temp. : 95-98'C ,moisture:-<4 wt.%, Specifications:-
Chloride:-<0.4 wt.%, %Availability : 97.8%
FBD Drying :- Na2CO3:-99.2-99.6 wt. %
Bed level :1035-350 mmwc,temp.:92-93'C ,Air flow:55000 kg/hr , Nacl :-0.4-0.5 wt.%
2 coils ,Cond. Flow308 kg.hr ,Area :6.4 m2 PSD :- < 150microns(3%max.)
Blower load :56 A ,400kw BD :-1050-1150 kg/m3

DA Water : FBD Calcination: Bed level :-850-900 mmwc,Bed Area :-14.3 m2,
Consumption:-0.33 T/TDA, 1.5 barg, temp.155-160’C ,7 COILS ,Steam flow :8000 kg/hr
temp. 35-40'C

120# Steam:-- Con.0.36 T/TDA FBD Cooling:-Bed level :-750-800 mmwc,temp. 65-70’C,,Air flow:-
Pr. 10-11 barg ,temp.185-190'c 12000kg/hr,Blower load:-120 A ,120hp, Bed area:-8.4 m2

4

Voice of the Customer
(Actual customer statements
and comments)
What does the customer want
from us?
Not able to meet customer
requirement as per agreed
production plan, Inconsistent
output from Mono hydrate Dense
ash
Most of the customer wants
Mono hydrate material due to its
Less fines than other Dense Ash
plants in TCL
Not able to make material as per
demand in terms of Quality and
Quantity
Voice of Customer (VOC)
Key Customer Issue(s)
(The real customer concerns,
values or expectations)
What does the customer want
from us? We need to identify the
issue(s) that prevent us from
satisfying our customers
Non Availability of Material.
PSD is not uniform as it varies
from plant to plant.
Critical Customer
Requirements
(The specific, precise and
measurable characteristic)
We should summarize key
issues and translate them into
specific and measurable
requirements
Compliance to Quantity
as per agreed plan.
Uniform Particle size
distribution
Project Y’s
Key Process Output
Variables
(List the metrics that measure
the characteristic)
List the Outputs or Parameters that
this project will improve
Mono hydrate Daily
production in TPD.
Customer complaint w.r.t
quality( PSD)
5
 Voice of Business (VOB)
Project Y’s
Voice of the Critical Business
Key Business Issue(s) Key Process Output
Requirements
Business Variables

For competing with domestic competitors

like GHCL & NIRMA ,running of Mono
hydrate plant with full capacity Unable to meet market
Mono hydrate production in
is now our necessary requirement. requirement of Dense Soda
TPD.
Also NIRMA is installing its second ash.
Monohydrate plant due to growth of glass
industry in the market . Mono hydrate
production in TPD.
As there is full demand for dense ash from
Inconsistency of Increase the %age availability of
glass industry , running of the mono hydrate
Mono hydrate plant. Mono hydrate plant.
plant is critical to the business.

For glass industry ,fines is one of the critical

parameter which majority customer does Fines is one of the critical Particle size
not want .Our DA-2 is producing 3% min. parameter for the customer Minimum fines in Dense ash
fines as compared to Mono hydrate where which majority customer does material. Distribution (-150
only maxn. 0.31% fines is only produced not want. microns < 1% max)
which has make our customer delighted

A. Glass industry in all three segments (float glass ,container glass,silicate industry)is expected to grow @ 12%
per annum.
B. Our capita consumption is less than European Standard ,So there is huge market for float glass in India.
6
 • Improve the current
• Define problem • Collect data, • Investigate and • Sustain the new
process
• Measure current verify C&E improved
• Develop scope • Standardized work, performance
performance • Identify root
cause • Set up pilot runs
• Develop baseline

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Class C
7
 VSM – High Level
EC 4502 Availability is Lump Crusher FBD Coil No.1 and 2 MSA Gage R&R
low and Capacity is 20 Availability is 93% frequent leakage and
tph while inputs to this with frequent jamming FBD Jamming once in
conveyor are 25-30tph affecting FBD. a month.
50 kg
packing
point

Mechanical conveying Fluidised Bed Drier Product

Hydration
Of light ash D/C/C Silo

I T Jumbo
packing
Availability:97% Availability:94% Availability:89% Availability:98.5%

Overall Avail. :75%

Detailed VSM is prepared but not shown due to Space Constraints

08/16/10
8
Operating Definition

Detailed operational definition (total 30 nos.)is made

08/16/10
9
 Y = F(x)
Y=Monohydrate Y1=
Y2 = Chloride Y4= Foreign
production as per Monohydrate Y3= Uniform PSD
content Material
compliance Production

X1 = SAMG X7
Y1 = Monohydrate X5 =STD Light X6 X4
Maint. Lump Crusher
Production ash availability. FBD Availability SCM
Availability. Availability

FBD coil Lump Crusher EC 4502 BE 4505 SC 4506

yX1
Maintenance. Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Feed Screw

yX5 Redler conveyor

STD no.1 Avail. STD-2 Avail. STD-3 Avail.
avail.

Temp. Diff.
yX7 Hydrator outlet Vacuum across between Hydrator Light Ash
Hydrator temp.
moisture Lump crusher outlet & dry bed bin temp.
temp.

120#steam FBD
yX6 Hot air flow Hot air temp. FBD bed level
pressure vacuum

More failed
yX4 Space limitation Fork lift NA material
produced
Detailed Y & X relationship has been
08/16/10 made for monohydrate plant.
10
 Factors affecting

Issue Tree availability

Factors affecting
performance

08/16/10 Issue Tree

11
 BASELINE DATA

08/16/10
12
 Special cause- When Monohydrate production is zero.

P a r e to C h a r t o f S p e cia l C a u se C a te g o r y
50
100
40
80

Perc en t
30 60
Cou nt

20 40

10 20

0 0
S pecial Cause Category IL nt 05 04 02 d er ob er
CO pl
a
45 45 45 an h J h
E- C- K m us er Ot
er B E de cr at
Po
w
No he
per
s u
De
Count 20 6 5 4 4 4 1 1 2
Percent 42.6 12.8 10.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 2.1 2.1 4.3
Cum % 42.6 55.3 66.0 74.5 83.0 91.5 93.6 95.7 100.0

13
 Common cause- When the monohydrate production is less than 250tpd
and more than 80tpd

P a r e to C h a r t o f C o mmo n ca u se v a r ia tio n (P < 2 5 0 T P D

90 100
80
70 80
60

Pe rcen t
50 60

40
40
30
20 20
10
0 0
m on cause variation(P< 250TPD T. er D NA g IL cl D nt D or er
N h FB M
CO Na IE l a EE co
l h
AI ru
s h
a& rp Ot
M C As C gh e ul
l
h t Hi w D
L Ig Po
Count 22 19 12 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4
Percent 25.0 21.6 13.6 6.8 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.4 2.3 4.5
Cum % 25.0 46.6 60.2 67. 0 71.6 76.1 80.7 85.2 89.8 93.2 95.5 100.0

14
 Pareto chart for the Downtime for the year (Aug.09 to Jul.10)

D o w n ti m e i n h o u r s f r o m A u g . 0 9 to J u l . 1 0
4000
100
3000
Downtime hours

80

Percent
2000 60

40
1000
20

0 0
Categor y_1

Dow ntim e hour s 1036 751 590 307 258 217 166 172
Pe r cent 29.6 21.5 16.9 8.8 7. 4 6.2 4.7 4.9
Cum % 29.6 51.1 68.0 76.8 84.1 90.3 95.1 100.0

15
Pareto chart for the Maintenance Downtime for the year(Aug.09 to Jul.10)

S A M G M a i n te n a n c e C o m p o n e n ts D o w n ti m e i n h o u r s f r o m A u g . 0 9 to J u l . 1 0
100
1000

80
Downtime hours_1

800

Percent
600 60

400 40

200 20

0 0
S AM G Com ponents

Dow ntim e hour s_1 203.0

179.5
1 15.088.084.078.058.045.0 35.030.029.024.021.048.0
Pe r cent 20 17 11 8 8 8 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 5
Cum % 20 37 48 56 65 72 78 82 85 88 91 93 95 100

16
Pareto analysis for the loss of production -Aug.10 before New Operational Definition.

L o s s o f p r o d u c ti o n i n to n n e s B e f o r e n e w O D -A u g . 2 0 1 0
9000
100
8000
Loss of prodn. before OD

7000
80
6000

Percent
5000 60
4000
40
3000
2000
20
1000
0 0
Categor y

Loss of pr odn. befor e O D 2260 1604 1530 988 670 404 320 180 356
Pe r cent 27. 2 19.3 18.4 11.9 8.1 4.9 3.8 2.2 4.3
Cum % 27. 2 46.5 64.9 76.8 84.8 89.7 93.6 95.7 100.0

17
Pareto analysis for the loss of production -Aug.10 after New Operational Definition.

L o s s o f p r o d u c ti o n i n to n n e s a f te r n e w O D -A u g . 2 0 1 0
9000
Loss of Production in Tonnes

100
8000
7000
80
6000

Percent
5000 60
4000
40
3000
2000
20
1000
0 0
Categor y

Loss of Pr oduction in To nnes 2220 1739 1072 930 681 675 533 260 196
Pe r cent 26.7 20.9 12.9 11.2 8.2 8.1 6.4 3.1 2.4
Cum % 26.7 47. 7 60.6 71.8 80.0 88.1 94.5 97. 6 100.0

18
 Gage R&R for Testers &
2 Sample t - test between tester
and operator perception

08/16/10
19
 Gage R&R among two testers (about Hydrator outlet moisture.)

Ga ge R & R (A NOV A ) for R e s pons e

R e p o rt e d b y :
G age nam e: T o le ra n c e :
D a te of study : M is c:

C o m p o n e n t s o f V a r ia t io n R e s p o n s e b y P a rts
80 % C o n t r ib u t io n 6
% S tu d y V a r
Percent

40 4

2
0
G a ge R&R Re pe a t Re pr o d Pa r t- to - Pa r t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
P art s
R C h a rt b y T e s te r
R e sp o n se b y T e ste r
1 2
Sample Range

6
2 U CL=1.9 91

1 _
4
R=0 .6 09
0 LCL=0

2
P art s 1 2
Tes t er
Xb a r C h a rt b y T e s te r
1 2 P a r t s * T e s t e r I n t e r a c t io n
5
Sample Mean

U CL=4.9 51 T e st e r
5
_
_ 1

Average
4 X=3 .8 05 2
4
3
LCL=2.6 59
3
P art s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
P art s

20
 Gage R&R among two testers

Gage R&R Study - ANOVA Method

Study Var %Study Var

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)
Total Gage R&R 0.586386 3.51832 80.05
Repeatability 0.586386 3.51832 80.05
Reproducibility 0.000000 0.00000 0.00
Tester 0.000000 0.00000 0.00
Part-To-Part 0.438985 2.63391 59.93
Total Variation 0.732500 4.39500 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 1

• The variance in repeatability is very high and above statistical 30% limit.

• Higher repeatability indicates problem with SOP(Steps in the Titration).

• Testers were given training as corrective actions.

• One tester is put in the morning shift for regular testing.

21
Comparing between good tester & DCS operator (NJ)

DATA COLLECTON\HYDRATOR OPERATOR1 VS TESTOR2.MPJ'

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Response1, Response2

Two-sample T for Response1 vs Response2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Response1 22 3.501 0.460 0.098
Response2 22 3.500 0.318 0.068

Difference = mu (Response1) - mu (Response2)

Estimate for difference: 0.001
95% CI for difference: (-0.241, 0.243)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.01 P-Value =
0.994 DF = 37
No Significant
Difference

22
 Comparing between good tester Vs Pradip D

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Response1, Response2

Two-sample T for Response1 vs Response2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Response1 10 3.450 0.497 0.16
Response2 10 4.390 0.394 0.12 Significant
Difference
Difference = mu (Response1) - mu (Response2)
Estimate for difference: -0.940
95% CI for difference: (-1.363, -0.517)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -4.68 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 17

Conclusion
• Hydrator outlet moisture is one of the critical parameter for running a
monohydrate plant.
• If there is a mismatch between the operator & the tester it is critical issue.
• To get rid of manual intervention ,it is suggested to buy electronic moisture
balance same as in Central laboratory which is giving the accurate and precise
result.

23
Measure Phase
Operating Definition
Issue Tree
50 kg
packing
High Level VSM point

Mechanical Fluidised Produ

conveying Hydration Bed Drier ct
Of light ash D/C/C Silo

I T Jumbo
packing
Availabili Availabili Availabili Availability:
ty:97% ty:94% ty:89% 98.5%

Process Capability Baseline Data Data Collection Plan

GA GE R& R STUDY - S ROY
P ro ce ss C a p a b ility o f D a ily p ro d n.o n mo nth ly b a sis R e porte d by : R oy
P a re to C h a rt o f D o w n time C o mp o n e n ts(A u g .1 0 ) G a ge na m e : We ight of M ono hy dra te ba gs- T o le ra nce :
D a te of study : 20. 09. 2010 M isc:
LSL Ta rg et USL 9000
100
P rocess D ata W ith in 8000
LS L 396 C o m p o n e n t s o f V a ria t io n R e s p o n s e b y P a rt s
O v e r a ll
Ta rget 500 7000 80
100 % C o n t rib u tio n 50.6
Do w n t im e h o u r s

USL 600 P otentia l (Within) C a pa bility % S tu d y V a r

6000

P ercent
S a m ple M ea n 314. 444 Cp 1. 08 50
50.4

Pe r c e n t
S a m ple N 18 C P L -0. 86 5000 60
S tD ev (Within) 31. 4456 CPU 3. 03 50.2

S tD ev (O v era ll) 41. 0441 C pk -0. 86 4000 0

Gage R&R Repeat Repr od Par t- to- Par t 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
40 Parts
O v era ll C apa bility 3000 R C h a rt b y O p e ra t o rs
Pp 0. 83 R e s p o n s e b y O p e ra t o rs
PPL -0. 66 2000 20
1 2

Sam ple Range

UCL=0.1125 50.6
0.10
PPU 2. 32 1000 _
P pk -0. 66 0.05 50.4
R=0.0344
C pm 0. 17 0 0 0.00 LCL=0
Dow ntim e Com ponents(Aug.10) 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50.2
Parts 1 2
Operators
X b a r C h a rt b y O p e ra t o rs
1 2 P a rt s * O p e ra t o rs I n t e ra c t io n
240 300 360 420 480 540 600 50.6

Sam ple Mean

Dow ntim e hours 2203 1399 1195 1043 1029 826 563 396 _
UCL=50.4687
_
50.6 O p e ra t o rs
1
O bserv ed P erform a nce E xp. Within P erform ance E xp. O v era ll P erform a nce Percent 25.5 16.2 13.8 12.1 11.9 9.5 6.5 4.6 50.4 X=50.4039

A verage
2
LCL=50.3391 50.4
P P M < LS L 944444. 44 P P M < LS L 995250. 43 P P M < LS L 976540. 18 Cum % 25.5 41.6 55.4 67. 5 79.4 88.9 95.4 100.0 50.2
PPM > USL 0. 00 PPM > USL 0. 00 PPM > USL 0. 00
10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 50.2
P P M To ta l 944444. 44 P P M To ta l 995250. 43 P P M To ta l 976540. 18 Parts 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Parts

Gage R & R

Quick wins, Benchmarking and Analyze Phase

24
 • Improve the current
• Define problem • Collect data, • Investigate and • Sustain the new
process
• Measure current verify C&E improved
• Develop scope • Standardized work, performance
performance • Identify root
cause • Set up pilot runs
• Develop baseline

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Class C
25
 Pareto chart for the Downtime for the year (Aug.09 to Jul.10)

Working on
Vital few factors
D o w n ti m e i n h o u r s f r o m A u g . 0 9 to J u l . 1 0
4000
100
3000
Downtime hours

80

Percent
2000 60

40
1000
20

0 0
Categor y_1

Dow ntim e hour s 1036 751 590 307 258 217 166 172
Pe r cent 29.6 21.5 16.9 8.8 7. 4 6.2 4.7 4.9
Cum % 29.6 51.1 68.0 76.8 84.1 90.3 95.1 100.0

26
Y=F(X) in terms of availability.
Monohydrate Production
Y = Function of
Out of
( SAMG Availability + Scope
EED Availability+
IED Availability +
Light ash availability +
SCM+
Steam & power availability

Total nos. of X’s measured = 22 nos.

27
Pareto chart for the Maintenance Downtime for the year(Aug.09 to Jul.10)

Working on around
80% of the components.

S A M G M a i n te n a n c e C o m p o n e n ts D o w n ti m e i n h o u r s f r o m A u g . 0 9 to J u l . 1 0
100
1000

80
Downtime hours_1

800

Percent
600 60

400 40

200 20

0 0
S A M G C om pone nts

Dow ntim e hour s _1 203.0

179.5
1 15.088.084. 078.058.045.0 35.030.029.024. 021.048.0
Pe r ce nt 20 17 11 8 8 8 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 5
C um % 20 37 48 56 65 72 78 82 85 88 91 93 95 100

28
FMEA – FBD COIL LEAKAGE

29
FMEA – Feed Screw Tripping ( SC- 4506)

30
FMEA – Feed Screw Tripping ( SC- 4506)

31
Regression ( for identifying critical X'S)
Regression equation regarding performance measure is as follows:-
The regression equation is
Monoproduction in TPD = 988 + 0.0635 Total steam flow + 145 120 Steam pr.
- 13.7 120team temp. + 0.430 Dry bed bottom bed level.
+ 0.058 Dry bed top bed level.
+ 0.191 Calcination bed level.
- 0.091 Cooling section bed level.
+ 23.3 FBD top vacuum. - 3.70 K-4501 load
- 0.497 Drying bed temp. - 17.6 Drying bed temp._1
+ 11.1 Cooling bed discharge temp.
- 0.180 Dryer outlet condensate flow
+ 0.0141 Cooling air flow - 1.69 Calcination bed temp.
Lesser the gap
+ 0.00096 I/L Steam Flow + 6.91 Light Ash Bin temp. Between two
+ 2.24 Hydrator temp. - 18.1 Feed screw RPM. R2 value ,better is
the fitness of the
+ 0.061 VA-4501 RPM - 0.00159 Hot air flow
model.
S = 54.0884 R-Sq = 79.8% R-Sq(adj) = 70.0% R-Sq(pred) = 56.37%

32
Regression ( for identifying insignifiant factors)
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 987.7 963.9 1.02 0.311
Total steam flow 0.06355 0.03862 1.65 0.107
120 Steam pr. 145.20 43.73 3.32 0.002
120team temp. -13.713 5.848 -2.34 0.024
Dry bed bottom bed level. 0.4300 0.4023 1.07 0.291
Dry bed top bed level. 0.0577 0.2201 0.26 0.794
Calcination bed level. 0.1911 0.3350 0.57 0.571
Cooling section bed level. -0.0911 0.3294 -0.28 0.784
FBD top vacuum. 23.349 8.177 2.86 0.007 As p-value
K-4501 load -3.700 7.026 -0.53 0.601 Is more than
Drying bed temp. -0.4971 0.7847 -0.63 0.530 0.05, indicates
Drying bed temp._1 -17.553 6.397 -2.74 0.009 Insignificant
Cooling bed discharge temp. 11.070 2.975 3.72 0.001 factors.
Dryer outlet condensate flow -0.1796 0.1529 -1.18 0.246
Cooling air flow 0.014085 0.004808 2.93 0.005
Calcination bed temp. -1.694 1.971 -0.86 0.395
I/L Steam Flow 0.000965 0.009117 0.11 0.916
Light Ash Bin temp. 6.907 1.660 4.16 0.000
Hydrator temp. 2.243 4.004 0.56 0.578
Feed screw RPM. -18.11 20.46 -0.89 0.381
VA-4501 RPM 0.0607 0.3630 0.17 0.868
Hot air flow -0.001586 0.005208 -0.30 0.762

33
Regression of performance measure( for identifying
critical X'S) – After removing insignificant factors.
The regression equation is
Monoproduction in TPD = - 774 + 0.0313 Total steam flow + 103 120 Steam pr.
Statiscally Significant
- 12.3 120team temp. + 23.9 FBD top vacuum.
as its P-value is less
+ 10.2 Cooling bed discharge temp. Than 0.05
+ 0.0168 Cooling air flow + 8.10 Light Ash Bin temp.
Predictor Coef SECoef T P VIF
Constant -773.6 599.4 -1.29 0.202
Total steam flow 0.03130 0.01336 2.34 0.023 2.396
120 Steam pr. 103.26 27.69 3.73 0.000 3.434
120team temp. -12.342 3.825 -3.23 0.002 3.259
FBD top vacuum. 23.852 5.672 4.21 0.000 2.740
Cooling bed discharge temp. 10.158 1.549 6.56 0.000 2.667
Cooling air flow 0.016771 0.003178 5.28 0.000 2.190
Measure of
Light Ash Bin temp. 8.103 1.188 6.82 0.000 1.645
goodness of
S = 50.6591 R-Sq = 76.7% R-Sq(adj) = 73.7% fit of the
model
PRESS = 184514 R-Sq(pred) = 68.97%
R2 : Percent of variance explained by your model. In general, the closer R 2 is to 1,
the better the fit of the model.

34
Regression of performance measure( for identifying
critical X'S).
By standardisation of the model,modified regression equation is
The regression equation is
Monoproduction in TPD_1 = 0.0000 + 0.238 Total steam flow_1+ 0.454 120 Steam pr._1 - 0.383 120team
temp._1 + 0.457 FBD top vacuum._1+ 0.704 Cooling bed discharge temp._1
+ 0.513 Cooling air flow_1+ 0.574 Light Ash Bin temp._1

Predictor Coef SE Coef T P VIF

Constant 0.00000 0.06516 0.00 1.000
Total steam flow_1 0.2382 0.1017 2.34 0.023 2.396
120 Steam pr._1 0.4541 0.1217 3.73 0.000 3.434
120team temp._1 -0.3827 0.1186 -3.23 0.002 3.259
FBD top vacuum._1 0.4573 0.1087 4.21 0.000 2.740
Cooling bed discharge temp._1 0.7036 0.1073 6.56 0.000 2.667
Cooling air flow_1 0.51299 0.09721 5.28 0.000 2.190
Light Ash Bin temp._1 0.57443 0.08425 6.82 0.000 1.645

S = 0.513097 R-Sq = 76.7% R-Sq(adj) = 73.7%

Variance Inflation factors less than 10
supports fitness of the model

35
 Relationship of Monohydrate production versus light ash bin temp.

B o x p l o t o f L i g h t A s h B i n te mp .

175

170
Graphs shows
Light A sh Bin t emp.

that more is
165
the light ash bin
temp.,more
160
Is the Mono
hydrate
155 production.

150

145

0-100 tpd 100-200 tpd 200-300 tpd 300-400 tpd 400-500 tpd
M ono Pr od Cat egory

36
CCause & Effect Diagram(FBD Jamming)
C a u s e & E f f e c t d i a g r a m o f th e F B D ja m m i n g
M e a su r e m e n ts M a t e r ia l P e r so n n el

H ig h C a & M g
F e e d s cre w Z S S
m a lf u n ct io n in g
H ig h ch lo rid e in lig h t H y d ra t o r m o is t u re
a sh m e a s u re m e n t (p e rce p t io
Z S S o f lu m p cru s h e r n)
m a lf u n ct io n in g Lo w s o d a a s h b u lk
d e n s it y
FBD
S t e a m t ra p J a m m in g
C o il le a k a g e
F B D S h e ll le a k a g e
S lid e g a t e f ro m co il n o . 2
F e e d w a t e r lo o p co n t ro l
Lo w F B D s u ct io n
M a t e ria l d iv e rt e d t o C o il
R e cy cle s y s t e m n o t
Lo w a ir f lo w t o d ry in g
F B D co il s e g m e n t ro lle r
Lo w 1 2 0 # s t e a m p re s s u re

E n v ir o n m e n t M e th o d s M a c h in e s

37
Cause & Effect Diagram- Benefit Vs Efforts identification.(FBD Jamming.)

38
CCause & Effect Diagram-Lump crusher jamming.
C a u s e & e f f e c t d i a g r a m o f l u m p c r u s h e r ja m m i n g
M e a su r e m e n ts M a t e r ia l P e r so n n el

H ig h C a & M g
F e e d s cre w Z S S co n t e n t in lig h t a s h
m a lf u n ct io n in g
H ig h ch lo rid e in lig h t H y d ra t o r m o is t u re
a sh m e a s u re m e n t
Z S S o f lu m p cru s h e r (p e rce p t io n )
m a lf u n ct io n in g Lo w s o d a a s h lig h t
b u lk d e n s it y
Lump
c r u sh er
C a p a cit y o f t h e cru sj h
a emrm in g

I n g ra ce o f s ca le d lu m p s

F o re ig n m a t e ria l g o t
Lo w F B D s u ct io n
F re q u e n t s t a rt u p o f t h e
T e m p . d if f e re n ce

F e e d s cre w t rip p in g

E n v ir o n m e n t M e th o d s M a c h in e s

39
Cause & Effect Diagram- Benefit Vs Efforts identification.(Lump crusher
Jamming.)

40
Prioritization of Critical Xs - Performance Factors
Effect (Y) Root Cause (X) Hypothesis for In/Out of Impact Score (Control Priority
Relationship Team’s Control x Impact) of Effort
FBD Jamming FBD Coil leakage Coil leakage will increase 9 9 81 1
the FBD jamming

Monohydrate Total steam flow Higher the steam 9 3 27 2

production flow ,better the output
Lump crusher Low capacity of Higher the capacity , No 3 9 27 3
jamming Lump crusher tripping of crusher.
Monohydrate FBD Top Vacuum Lesser the FBD 9 3 27 4
production vacuum ,more is the
output
Monohydrate Light ash bin temp. Higher the temp. ,better 3 3 9 5
production the output
Lump crusher Hydrator outlet Variation in moisture will 3 3 9 6
jamming moisture increase crusher jamming
Monohydrate High 120# steam Higher the 1 9 9 Not in
production pressure pressure ,better the Scope
output.
FBD Jamming High Ca & Mg in Ca & Mg above 80 ppm 1 9 9 Not in
the light ash will increase the Scope
jamming
1
In team’s Control = 9; In team’s sphere of influence = 3; Out of team’s control = 1
2
High impact = 9; Medium impact = 3; Low impact = 1

41
 Prioritization of Critical Xs - Availability Factors

In/Out of
Hypothesis Score (Control Priority of
Effect (Y) Root Cause(X) Team’s Impact
forRelationship x Impact) Effort
Control
FBD coil leakage results in
SAMG Downtime
FBD coil leakage high downtime of SAMG in 9 9 81 1
hours
hrs..
Higher the
SAMG SC-4506
breakdown ,more the 9 3 27 2
Downtime hours Breakdown.
downtime hours
SAMG Downtime Higher the breakdown ,more
BE-4505 Breakdown 9 3 27 3
hours the downtime hours
SAMG Downtime Higher the breakdown ,more
EC-4504 breakdown 9 3 27 4
hours. the downtime hours..
Higher the
SAMG EC-4502
breakdown ,more the 9 3 27 5
Downtime hours Breakdown
downtime hours
SAMG Downtime Higher the breakdown ,more
K-4502 Breakdown 9 3 27 6
hours the downtime hours.
SAMG Downtime CR-4502 Higher the breakdown ,more
9 3 27 7
hours Breakdown. the downtime hours.
1
In team’s Control = 9; In team’s sphere of influence = 3; Out of team’s control = 1
2
High impact = 9; Medium impact = 3; Low impact = 1

42
Analyze Phase

C a u s e & E ffe ct d i a g r a m o f th e F B D ja m m i n g I
M
M e a su r e m e n ts M a t e r ia l P er so n n el

H ig h C a & M g

R
F e e d scr e w Z S S m a lf u n ct io n in g

H ig h ch lo r id e in lig h t a sh H yd r a t o r m o ist u r e
m e a su r e m e n t (p e rce p t io n )

Z S S o f lu m p cr u sh e r m a lf u n ct io n in g

O
Lo w so d a a sh b u lk d e n sit y

FBD
S t e a m t r a p m a lf u n ct io n in g J a m m in g
C o il le a ka g e

V
F B D S h e ll le a ka g e

S lid e g a t e f r o m co il n o . 2 t o 3 m a lf u n ct io n in g

F e e d w a t e r lo o p co n t r o l & d e n sit y
Lo w F B D su ct io n
M a t e r ia l d ive r t e d t o C o il n o . 3

R e cycle syst e m n o t w o r kin g

E
Lo w a ir f lo w t o d r yin g se ct io n .

F B D co il se g m e n t r o lle r a lig n m e n t

Lo w 1 2 0 # st e a m p r e ssu re

E n v ir o n m e n t M e th o d s M a c h in e s

43
 • Improve the current
• Define problem • Collect data, • Investigate and • Sustain the new
process
• Measure current verify C&E improved
• Develop scope • Standardized work, performance
performance • Identify root
cause • Set up pilot runs
• Develop baseline

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Class C
44
Prioritized List of Solutions

45
Prioritized List of Solutions

46
 Improve Phase
Prioritized List of Solutions

C 60
M o n th w i s e T r i p p i n g o f F e e d s cr e w (B e fo r e & a fte r i mp r o v e )

O
No . of times tripp ing_1

50

N 40

30

T 20

R 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

O
Observat ion
N u m b e r o f r u n s a b o u t m e d ia n : 7 N u mb er o f ru n s u p o r d o w n : 8
E x p e c te d n u m b e r o f r u n s: 8.0 E x p e c te d n u m b e r o f r u n s: 9.0

L
L o n g e s t r u n a b o u t m e d ia n : 4 L o n g est r u n u p o r d o w n : 3
A p p r o x P - V a lu e f o r C lu s t e r in g : 0.289 A p p r o x P - V a lu e f o r T r e n d s : 0.248
A p p r o x P - V a lu e f o r M ix t u r e s : 0.711 A p p r o x P - V a lu e f o r O s c illa t io n : 0.752

47
Process Capability After Improve Phase
P r o c e s s C a p a b i l i ty o f D a i l y p r o d n . o n m o n th l y b a s i s

LSL Targ et USL

P ro c e s s D a t a W it h in
LS L 396 O v e r a ll
T a rg e t 500
USL 600 P o t e n t ia l (W it h in ) C a p a b ilit y
S a m p le M e a n 314.444 Cp 1.08
S a m p le N 18 CPL -0 . 8 6
CPU 3.03

BEFORE
S t D e v (W it h in ) 31.4456
S t D e v (O v e ra ll) 4 1 . 0 4 4 1 C pk -0 . 8 6
O v e ra ll C a p a b ilit y
Pp 0.83
PPL -0 . 6 6
PPU 2.32
P pk -0 . 6 6
C pm 0.17

240 300 360 420 480 540 600

Average Production O b s e rv e d P e rf o rm a n c e
P P M < LS L
PPM > USL
944444.44
0.00
E xp .
PPM
PPM
W it h in P e rf o rm a n c e
< LS L
> USL
995250.43
0.00
E xp .
PPM
PPM
O v e ra ll P e rf o rm a n c e
< LS L
> USL
976540.18
0.00
P P M To ta l 944444.44 PPM To ta l 995250.43 PPM To ta l 976540.18

• Before:- 319 tpd

M o n o p r o d u c ti o n o n d a i l y b a s i s
• After :- 382 tpd LSL Targ et USL
P ro ce s s D a ta W it h in
LS L 396 O v e r a ll

• % Change=20% T a rg e t
USL
S a m p le M e a n
S a m p le N
500
600
390.341
22
P o t e n t ia l (W it h in ) C a p a b ilit y
Cp
CPL
0.39
-0 . 0 2
S t D e v (W it h in ) 86.4573 CPU 0.81
S t D e v (O v e r a ll) 8 4 . 3 7 6 2 C pk -0 . 0 2
O v e r a ll C a p a b ilit y
Pp 0.40
PPL -0 . 0 2
PPU 0.83

AFTER
P pk -0 . 0 2
C pm 0.24

200 300 400 500 600

O b se rv e d P e rf o rm a nce E xp . W it h in P e r f o r m a n c e E xp . O v e r a ll P e r f o r m a n c e
P P M < LS L 318181.82 PPM < LS L 526094.27 PPM < LS L 526736.91
PPM > USL 0.00 PPM > USL 7654.15 PPM > USL 6480.97
P P M To tal 318181.82 PPM To tal 533748.42 PPM To tal 5 3 3 2 1 7. 8 9

48
T-test of Production
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Prodn, Impr 600
Boxplot of Prodn vs Impr

500
Two-sample T for Prodn
400

Impr N Mean StDev SE Mean

Prodn
300

After 22 389.0 82.6 18 200

Before 365 327 137 7.2 100

Difference = mu (After) - mu (Before) After Before

Impr
Estimate for difference: 61.9835
95% CI for difference: (3.8563, 120.1108)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 2.10 P-Value = 0.037 DF = 385
Both use Pooled StDev = 134.6687

As p value is less than 0.05, we reject null (reject “no diff”). The diff in mean is
statistically significant and it is not due to any common cause variation.

49
 Control Phase
M o no p ro d uctio n o n d a ily b a sis
I C ha rt o f L ump crushe r ja mming pe r mo nth
LSL Targ et USL
Before After
P rocess D ata W ith in 12
LS L 396 O v e r a ll 1
T a rget 500 11
USL 600 P otential (Within) C apability
S am ple M ean 390.341 Cp 0.39 10
S am ple N 22 C P L -0.02
C P U 0.81 9

In d iv id u a l V a lu e
S tD ev (Within) 86.4573
S tD ev (O v erall) 84.3762 C pk -0.02
O v erall C apability 8
Pp 0.40
PPL -0.02
7
PPU 0.83
6
P pk -0.02 UCL=5.663
C pm 0.24 5 _
X=4.333
4
3 LCL=3.004
200 300 400 500 600
O bserv ed P erform ance E xp. Within P erform ance E xp. O v erall P erform ance
P P M < LS L 318181.82 PPM < LS L 526094.27 P P M < LS L 526736.91
PPM > USL 0.00 PPM > USL 7654.15 PPM > USL 6480.97
Months
P P M T o tal 318181.82 PPM T o tal 533748.42 P P M T o tal 533217. 89

Process capability Chart. Control Charts Control Action Plan

Handing
Over
Documents
To
PROCESS
OWNER

SOP'S RACI Chart

50
Sustenance
 Y Metric performance & financial savings:
− Project Y : Monohydrate plant capacity utilisation by 30% from baseline
− Baseline performance : 347 tpd (highest production over last 3 years)
− Current performance : 454 tpd (May 2011 )
− Saving(Type-2 ) till date : Rs. 233.6 lacs

33.eam Building - Team launch , Bringing everyone to meet the dept Objective

51
 Sustenance

GOOD

Peak
Production
achieved.

Avg. monthly production was 394 MT in the month of April 2011 while last 12 days
avg. production is 490 MT
Avg. daily production is 454 MT in the month of May 2011

52
Sustenance

GOOD

Plant was
Stopped
As per
Steam
Non
availability

Increasing Monohydrate production trend seen after improve phase.

53
Quick wins

54
Quick wins

55
 Before improvement :Gage R&R for 50kg weighing scale in Monohydrate plant.

GA GE R& R STUDY - S ROY

Reported by : Roy
G age name: Weight of M ono hy drate bags- To lerance:
D ate of study : 20.09.2010 M isc: Gage R&R

C o m p o n e n ts o f Va ria tio n R e s p o n s e b y P a rts %Contribution

100 9 1 .3 8 9 6 % C o n trib u tio n 50.6 Source VarComp (of VarComp)
8 3 .5 2 0 6
% S tu d y V a r Total Gage R&R 0.0026262 16.48
P e r ce n t

50.4
Repeatability 0.0026262 16.48
50 4 0 .5 9 4 8 4 0 .5 9 4 8 Reproducibility 0.0000000 0.00
1 6 .4 7 9 4 1 6 .4 7 9 4 Operators 0.0000000 0.00
50.2
0
0 0 Part-To-Part 0.0133101 83.52
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Variation 0.0159363 100.00
Parts
R C h a rt b y O p e ra to rs
R e s p o n s e b y O p e ra to rs
1 2 Study Var %Study Var
0.2 50.6
S a m p le R a n ge

UCL=0.1568 Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)

0.1 Total Gage R&R 0.051247 0.307479 40.59
_ 50.4
R=0.048 Repeatability 0.051247 0.307479 40.59
0.0 LCL=0 Reproducibility 0.000000 0.000000 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50.2 Operators 0.000000 0.000000 0.00
Parts 1 2 Part-To-Part 0.115369 0.692217 91.39
Operators Total Variation 0.126239 0.757435 100.00
Xb a r C h a rt b y O p e ra to rs
1 2 P a rts * O p e ra to rs I n te ra ctio n
50.6
50.6
Sa m p le M ea n

UCL=50.4853
O p e ra to rs Number of Distinct Categories = 3
__ 1
50.4 X=50.395
A ve r ag e

2
50.4

50.2
LCL=50.3047
Actual data taken on 10nos. of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Parts
50.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bags by 2 operators twice.
Parts

56
 After improvement :Gage R&R for 50kg weighing scale in Monohydrate plant.

GA GE R& R STUDY - S ROY

Reported by : S RO Y
G age name: Weight of M ono hy drate bags-50 k g (w eighing scale)
To lerance: Gage R&R
D ate of study : 03.12.2010 M isc:
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
C o m p o n e n ts o f V a ria tio n R e s p o n s e _ 2 b y P a rts _ 2
Total Gage R&R 0.0001271 4.36
100 % C o n trib u tio n 50.32
% S tu d y V a r
Repeatability 0.0000857 2.94
Reproducibility 0.0000414 1.42
P e r ce n t

50 50.24 Operators_2 0.0000414 1.42

Part-To-Part 0.0027861 95.64
50.16 Total Variation 0.0029132 100.00
0
Gage R&R Repeat Repr od Par t-to-Par t 1 2 3 4 5
Parts_2
R C h a rt b y O p e ra to rs _ 2 Study Var %Study Var
R e s p o n s e _ 2 b y O p e ra to rs _ 2
1 2 Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)
UCL=0.03267 50.32
Sa m p le Ra n g e

0.030
Total Gage R&R 0.0112758 0.067655 20.89
0.015 _ Repeatability 0.0092582 0.055549 17.15
R=0.01 50.24
Reproducibility 0.0064365 0.038619 11.93
0.000 LCL=0 Operators_2 0.0064365 0.038619 11.93
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 50.16 Part-To-Part 0.0527832 0.316699 97.79
Parts_2 1 2
Total Variation 0.0539742 0.323845 100.00
Operators_2
Xb a r C h a rt b y O p e ra to rs _ 2
1 2 P a rts _ 2 * O p e ra to rs _ 2 I n te ra c tio n
Number of Distinct Categories = 6
S am pl e M e an

50.30 O p e ra to rs_ 2
50.30
50.25 __
1
Standard weights got rectified(as
A ve r ag e

UCL=50.2418 2
X=50.223 50.25
50.20 LCL=50.2042
50.20
it was 300g less than actual) ,
1 2 3 4 5 1
Parts_2
2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Air is blown by opening the
Parts_2
Weighing scale basement.
Recallibration done

57
 • Improve the current
• Define problem • Collect data, • Investigate and • Sustain the new
process
• Measure current verify C&E improved
• Develop scope • Standardized work, performance
performance • Identify root
cause • Set up pilot runs
• Develop baseline

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Class C
58
Evaluation of Potential Solutions:
Risk Assessment: FMEA (Availability part)

59
Evaluation of Potential Solutions:
Risk Assessment: FMEA (Performance part)

60
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

GOOD

Lots of
improvement
seen after
changing
the operational
Philosophy
after coming
from Nirma
Plant visit.

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

61
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

GOOD

Improvement
seen after
changing its
sprocket teeth in
EC-4502 at the
end of Dec.2010

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

62
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

GOOD

Improvement seen
from the month of
Oct.10 after doing
Modification in
Slide gate.

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

63
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

N o . o f C o il le a k a g e p e r mo nth GOOD
Before After
6

4 Improvement
3
done in the
FBD coil
2 UCL=2.023
like steam
no s.

1 shading at the
_
0
X=0.25 welded portion
results in
-1
improvement.
LCL=-1.523
-2

-3
Aug.09 O ct.09 Dec.09 Feb.10 Apr. 10 Jun.10 O ct.10 Dec.10
Months

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

64
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

K -4 5 0 2 D o w n time h o u rs p e r mo n th GOOD
Before After

50

40
Improvement
30 seen in the
20 reduction in
n o . o f ho ur s

10
breakdown
_ hours by
0 LCL=0
UCL=0
X=0
Strenghthening
-10 its foundation &
-20 baseplate.
-30

-40
Aug.09 O ct.09 Dec.09 Feb.10 Apr. 10 Jun.10 O ct.10 Dec.10
Months

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

65
 Control Charts for tracking for process owner.

GOOD

Improvement
will be seen on
jan.11, after
changing its
sprocket teeth in
EC-4502 at the
end of Dec.2010

Chart to be displaced in Mono Control Room every month by Mr. Brijesh N

66
Thank You

67