Length Variation-Surian Qcc-15.07.11

Rane (Madras) Limited
Rane (Madras) Ltd. 1 of 81

Team Details
QCC NAME : SURIAN

WORK AREA : RACK CELL
Team members Facilitator
 A.MOUROUGAN M. KAMALAVASAN
 S.PARASURAMAN
Co- ordinator
 K.SHANKAR
G.BOOPATHY

Company Profile
Deming Application
Prize Winner
TS 16949, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 is an endorsement of its focus on
quality monitoring systems and procedures

Manual Rack and Pinion steering gear
Steering
gear
Steering gear

Project
PROJECT - 11
ELIMINATE THE RACK LENGTH

REJECTION IN JOBBER
MACHINE

PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
RACK
MANUAL STEERING
GEAR

Problem selection criteria
As per RML A,B,C Ranking Methodology
A category - problems to be solved by QIT
B category - problems to be solved by QCC
C category - problems to be solved by Kaizen

STEP.1
1.PROBLEM
IDENTIFICATION

1.1 Problem Data Bank
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION DATA
MONTH
SL.NO PROBLEM
Oct '10 Nov '10 Dec '10
1 Rack length variation rejection 63 78 93
2 Rack thread rejection 39 38 41
3 Rack Over ball rejection 28 18 21
4 Rack center less finish not OK 18 16 19
5 Rack teeth milling rejection 16 11 13
6 Rack flat milling taper 12 10 9
7 Rack Buffing finish not OK 9 7 8

1.1.2 Rejection trend observation
Rack cell Rejection ( Oct '10 TO Dec '10)

QCC
100
97 100
93
2350 2176 87
90
2100 80
80
1850 72
70
Rejeciton in PPM
1600
56
60
1350
50
1100
850 40
605
600 344 30
350 272 20
205 159 123
100 10
Rack length Rack thread Rack Over ball Rack centerless Rack teeth milling Rack flat milling Rack Buffing finish
variation rejection rejection rejection finish not OK rejection taper not OK
Rej 2176 605 344 272 205 159 123
% 56.02 72 80 87 93 97 100
Rack length variation contributes 56% in rack line

1.1.3 Rejection trend month wise observation
Rejection Trend - Length Variation
2700
PPM
2300 2190 2240
1900 2058
1500
OCT'10 NOV'10 DEC'10
MONTH
Average Rejection- 2176 PPM / Month

1.1.4 Rejection Cost Month wise observation
Rejection Cost Trend - Length Variation
7200
7000
6970
6800
Cost
6800
6600
6400 6460
6200
Oct'10 Nov'10 Dec'10
MONTH
Average Rejection Cost due to Rack length variation = Rs. 6743 / Month

1.1.5 Customer wise Rejection PPM
CUSTOMER WISE LENGTH REJECTION PPM (OCT' 10 - DEC' 10)
500 100
450
400 80
350
309
300 281 60
PPM
257
239 241 234
250 227
201
187
200 40
150
100 20
50
0 0
YR9 X3 E0468 TELCO MUL ALTO O2 D40 POLARIS
customer
REJ ECTIO N TYP E
PPM

1.1.6 Problem Definition
WHAT Rack length Variation
WHERE
Rack Cell - (JOBBER M/C)
HOW MUCH 2176 PPM

1.2 Importance of the problem
Rack length variation leads to inadequate stroke length which
results in rework of the entire gear assembly.
Stroke Length
checking gauge
Correct Stroke Incorrect Stroke

Length Length
1.2.1 Consequence of the problem
 Rework of gear assembly leads to scrapping of
 Pinion Cover
 Oil Seal
 Two Inner Ball Joints
 Production gets affected due to length correction

work/setting in the CNC lathe
1.3 Undesirable Results
 High rejection – 2176 PPM.

 Inadequate stoke length will leads to malfunctioning of the
steering gear which ends up in fatal accident.
 Non valid activity in SGP assembly
 Operator fatigue is high
 Low operator morale
 High Rejection cost of Rs. 80808 per/annum

1.4 Theme and Target
To Eliminate rejection in Rack

Theme Length variation
2176 PPM To 0 PPM

Targeted ppm
Target
2500
2000
1500
ppm 2176
1000
500 0
0
Present Target
By When March ‘11

1.5 Action Plan
SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENT
Sl.No.
PERIOD Jan'11 Feb'11 Mar'11
Activities 1W 2W 3W 4W 1W 2W 3W 4W 1W 2W 3W 4W
P
1 Problem identification
A
P
2 Observation
A
P
3 Analysis
A
P
4 Counter measures
A
P
5 Check Result
A
P
6 Standardization
A
P
7 Conclusion
A

STEP.2
2. UNDERSTAND
CURRENT SITUATION

2.1 Understand current situation
Rack cell process flow
RACK LENGTH
CUTTING ROLLING TEMPERING
STRAIGHTENING BROACHING STRAIGHTENING
CENTERLESS WASHING CRACK DETECTION

GRINDING
DATE PUNCHING POLISHING

TURNING
INDUCTION
MILLING HARDENING
Problem Occurring in the Highlighted area

2.1.2 Problem Identification
Two types of rack
CNC Jobber M/C MALE RACK FEMALE RACK
Length gauge
2.1.3 Understand current situation
Operation Sequence
JOB TAKEN LOADING CLAMPING
LENGTH CHECKING
LENTH CHECKING MACHINING CYCLE START

2.2 Understand current situation
Male rack operation sequence
MALE RACK TURNING TOOL
Single operation will be carried out in male rack

Female rack sequence
FACING DRILLING BOARING THREAD CUTTING
FEMALE RACK
Four different operations will be carried out in female rack

Rack Length checking method
Dial gauge
SPEC : 562 ± 0.25 mm
RACK LENGTH CHECKING GAUGE IN

RACK LINE
2.2.2 Rack length checking method
RACK
HEIGHT GAUGE
RACK LENGTH CHECKING METHOD FOR FIRST-OFF

APPROVAL IN STANDARDS ROOM
Cpk study in CNC jobber
Rane (Madras) Ltd. OBSERVED Cpk – 0.7 in CNC jobber 28 of 83

STEP.3
3. ANALYSIS

3.1 Brainstorming
 Manual loading of job

 Parting length Variation
 End stopper
 Clamping pressure
 Collect type clamping
 Chuck type clamping
 Man to man variation

3.1 Brainstorming
 Material specification
 Tool condition
 Turret position repeatability
 Insert Condition
 Job to job variation
 Machine feed rate

3.1 Cause and Effect Analysis
MACHINE MAN
Clamping pressure
Loading
ool feed rate
Position repeatability
Rack Length
Under size
Clamping method
End stopper
Job length projection Rack material
Parting length
Insert condition 10 possible

causes identified
for Brainstorming
METHOD
MATERIAL
3.2 Validation of Possible causes
BY DATA OBTAINED IN STEP-2 / GEMBA /
SL. NO POSIBILE CAUSES CATEGORY INFERENCE
EXPERIENCE/ TECHNOLOGY
Clamping pressure observed 20 kg/cm2 against the
1 Clamping Pressure Method Insignificant
spec of 18 to 22 kg/cm2
Checked with different tool feed rate and found the

2 Tool feed rate Method Insignificant
same length variation issue
Checked backlash program with 10 trials and found
3 Position repeatability M/c Insignificant
length variation.
Found variation in manual loading , external force
Probable
4 Loading Man given by hand for rigid support, hence to be
cause
checked
Jaws and collate type clamping method taken for
5 Clamping method Method Insignificant
trial and observed the same length variation.
Checked End stopper and observed Holding screws
Probable
6 End stopper Method get loosened, hence end stopper design to be
cause
checked
After clamping the rack projection checked with
7 Job length projection Method different length and found the same length Insignificant
variation.
8 Parting length Material Checked parting length and found as per the spec Insignificant
EN8C Bar material checked and found 54 HRA

9 Rack material Material Insignificant
against the spec. of 50 to 54 HRA
10 Insert performance Method Tool life monitoring Checked. Found ok Insignificant

3.3 Validation of Probable causes
MATERIAL MACHINE
Rack length
Variation
End stopper variation Loading
2 probable cause
METHOD MAN

3.3 Root cause validations
Sl. Probable Causes Validation Result

No
1 Loading By Validation Root Cause
2 End stopper variation By Validation Root Cause

STEP.4
4. COUNTER MEASURE

4.1 Why-Why analysis
Length variation (undersize)
in rack turning
WHY ?
Jobs comes out from chuck

during clamping
WHY ?
Clamping jaws push out the

rack slightly while clamping
WHY ?
No stopper to stop the rack Counter

which comes out from the Measure
chuck (Front side)
Front end stopper to be
provided to hold the rack
against the rear stopper
4.1 Why-Why analysis
Length variation (over
size)during rack turning
WHY ?
Rack pushes the end
stopper outside during the
front plunger engagement
WHY ?
Rear end stopper could not
withstand the plunger
force
WHY ?
End stopper not tightened

properly
WHY ? Counter
Measure
End stopper tightened
with the side screws
WHY ? End stopper design to be
modified with the axial
Inadequate design
clamping
4.2 Implementation plan
S.no Root Cause Counter measures Cost In Selection

Rs. of CM
Loading 1200
1 Front end stopper to be provided Selected
problem
End stopper
variation End stopper design to be modified
2 8750 Selected
with the axial clamping
Rane (Madras) Ltd.

4.2.1 Action plan – 3W 1H
S.no WHAT WHO WHEN HOW
1 New plunger type front butting Mourougan 26.02.11 CNC Program

stopper Parasuram
2 New back stopper modification QCC Team 28.02.11 New end

stopper
changed

4.2.2 Regular implementation – plunger type
front butting stopper
BEFORE AFTER
LOADING
CLAMPING
Auto butting and clamping is introduced

4.2.2 Regular implementation – plunger type
front butting stopper
BEFORE AFTER

4.2.3 Implementation – Back stopper modification
BEFORE
OLD END STOPPER
AFTER
NEW END STOPPER

STEP.5
5. CHECK RESULTS

5.1 Confirmatory trial
DATE SHIFT OPERATOR PRO. REJ. MODEL REMARK
QTY. QTY
4.3.11 I MOUROUGAN 180 - MUL
4.3.11 II PARASURAM 178 1 E0468
YR9 LENGTH UNDER SIZE
4.3.11 III SARANYA 128 - ALTO -
5.3.11 I KUMAR 169 - MUL -
5.3.11 II SANKER 189 - ZEN -
5.3.11 III AKILAVATHY 131 1 TELCO LENGTH UNDER SIZE
6.3.11 I MOUROUGAN 181 - MUL
-
6.3.11 II SARANYA 175 -
ALTO
6.3.11 III MOUROUGAN 133 - -
O2
7.3.11 I SHANKAR 125 1 YR9 LENGTH UNDER SIZE
Result:
Daily production data observed and found that after implementing
the counter measure male rack rejections eliminated, but female rack rejection
still exists.
5.1 Project Revisit
MALE RACK FEMALE RACK
Burr inside rack bore
Result :
Burr accumulated in the female rack bore after first side operation, when
we load the second side rejection occurs.
Why-Why analysis – Project Revisit
Length under size during
rack turning
WHY ?
During second side
loading rack slightly
peeps out
WHY ?
Turning chips found on the

face of end stopper
WHY ?
During second side
loading first side bore
chips fallen in the end Counter
stopper bore Measure
WHY ?
Chips in the rack bore
Air gun setup to be
stick inside the bore
made to remove the
WHY ? chips from the bore
No arrangement to
remove
Rane (Madras) Ltd. the chips 47 of 81
5.1. Confirmatory trial
DATE SHIFT OPERATOR PRO. QTY. REJ. QTY REMARK

Type
Type
10.3.11 I MOUROUGAN 180 - FEMALE -

FEMALE
10.3.11 II SARANYA 178 - FEMALE
FEMALE -
10.3.11 III PARASURAM 128 - -

FEMALE
FEMALE
11.3.11 I KUMAR 169 - -

FEMALE
FEMALE
11.3.11 II SANKER 189 - FEMALE -

FEMALE
11.3.11 III KAVITHA 131 - FEMALE

FEMALE -
12.3.11 I MOUROUGAN 181 - FEMALE

FEMALE -
12.3.11 II SARANYA 175 - -

FEMALE
FEMALE
12.3.11 III SARANYA 133 - -

FEMALE
FEMALE
13.3.11 I MOUROUGAN 125 - FEMALE -

FEMALE
Results:
Rejections were eliminated after the implementation of the counter measure.
Check Result
Problem observed using air gun method :
 High Noise
 Burr injures the eye while spraying air
Spillage of coolant around the workplace while spraying air
 Possibility of missing the operation
 Cycle time increased
 Low operator morale
P Q C
D S M

Why-Why analysis – Project Revisit
Air gun is difficult to use in the

jobber machine
WHY ?
no safety ,cycle time increased

and low operator morale
Counter
Measure
Simple Automation Through

coolant set up to be
Introduced
Check Results
BEFORE AFTER
Since there were more drawbacks of using air gun, we
planned to use Automatic flush coolant to clean the burr.
P Q C
D S M
5.1 Before and after data Comparison
LENGTH VARIATION REJECTION TREND
End stopper
modification
3000
2500 2415 Flush coolant
2000 2390 2483
2460 implementatio
PPM
1500 n
1200
1000
500
0 0 0 0 0
Oct'10 Nov'10 Dec'10 Jan'11 Feb'11 Mar'11 Apl'11 May'11 Jun'11
MONTH
After implementation of the counter measures, Length under

size rejection comes to zero
TANGIBLE BENEFIT :
PRODUCTION :
P
Production improved From 500 Nos. to 520 Nos./day.
PRODUCTION
600
Production in nos
520
500
500
400
BEFORE AFTER

BEFORE AND AFTER DATA COMPARISON
TANGIBLE BENEFIT :
Q
QUALITY :
Rejection reduced From 2176 PPM to 0 PPM
Rejection PPM
2500
2176
Rejection in PPM
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
BEFORE AFTER

Cpk study in CNC jobber
AFTER
OBSERVED Cpk – 1.9, PROCESS IS EXCELLENT

COST : TANGIBLE BENEFIT :
c
Length under size problem eliminated From Rs. 6743
to 0 / Month
COST SAVINGS IN YR9 RACK

1200
6743
1000
800
Rs
600
400
200
0
0
BEFORE AFTER

SAFETY : TANGIBLE BENEFIT :
S
Length under size problem eliminated
Implemented Automatic Flush coolant system

instead of Air Gun method for Operator safety
Eliminate stroke length in assembly so accident avoided.

5.2 Benefits
TANGIBLE
C- COST
• Rejection / Month = 78 nos.
• Cost of Rack = Rs. 160
Cost saved/annum = Rs. 1,49,760
M MORALE
-
Work Satisfaction increased and operator fatigue reduces.

STEP.6
6. STANDARDIZATION

6. Standardization
WHAT
WHY WHEN WHERE WHO HOW
(Action)
End stopper To ensure End stopper G. Boopathy Revise the

22.03.11
modification proper length drawing, FMEA VP drawing
To avoid job
Revise the sop
Front plunger type front side G.Boopathy
23.03.11 SOP , FMEA display in the
butting stopper while VP
machine
clamping
Modify the
Low cost flush To clean and Autonomous
Autonomous
coolant burr 23.03.11 maintenance V.P.L
check sheet
arrangement accumulation check sheet
Revise the
Setting
End stopper setting change
change End stopper V.P.L
modification setting 25.03.11 procedure
procedure for procedure sheet
procedure display in the
operators
machine

STEP.7
7. CONCLUSION

7.1 Action Plan
SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENT
Sl.No.
PERIOD Jan'11 Feb'11 Mar'11
Activities 1W 2W 3W 4W 1W 2W 3W 4W 1W 2W 3W 4W
P
1 Problem identification
A
P
2 Observation
A
P
3 Analysis
A
P
4 Counter measures
A
P
5 Check Result
A
P
6 Standardization
A
P
7 Conclusion
A

7.2 Tools and Techniques
QC TOOLS :
Cause & Effect Diagram.

Check sheet
Pareto analysis
TECHNIQUES :
Brain Storming
 why why analysis
Gemba Audit
3W 1H

UNDISIARABLE RESULT
• High rejection – 2176 PPM.

• Stork length variation in SGP assembly
• It gives customer complaint
• Vehicle not fully turned
• Non valid activity in SGP assembly
• Operator fatigue high
• Low operator morale
• Rejection cost high Rs. 80808 per/annum

CONCLUSION
HORIZONTAL DEPLOYMENT
HORIZONTAL DEPLOYMENT
WHAT WHERE WHEN WHO HOW

(Action)
New auto By designing
clamping free
coolant flow in
All jobber machines 20.04.11 Team as per the
jobber m/c. dimension

7.3 Lesson Learnt
Stop not till the goal is reached.
Learnt experience in manual loading vs auto loading.
Started project for line rejection but resulted in

reduction in Setting rejection.

7.4 Team Details
Project Details
 Project Start Date : 02.01.2011

 Project Completion Date : 30.03.2011
 No of Meeting conducted : 9 times
 Meetings scheduled on : Tuesday
 Meeting time : 3.30 to 4.30 pm
 Methodology : QC Story
 No. Of. Projects : 11th Project

NEXT PROJECT

Clamping Method
Production Rejection
Chuck Remarks
Qty. Qty.
Jaws type Clamping 1200 2 Length Under size
Collet type clamping 1150 2 Length Under size
Result:
Jaws and collate type clamping method taken for trial and observed the
same length variation. Hence it is not significant
Clamping Pressure
Clamping pressure observed 20 kg/cm2 against the spec of 18 to 22

kg/cm2. Hence it is insignificant

Tool Feed
Rejection
Feed mm/ min Qty produced Remark
observed
700 50 1 Edge broken
600 550 1 Length Under size
500 560 1
Length Under size
500 1 Length u/s /Cycle

400 time more
(as per SOP 600 mm/min feed rate )Insert tool life is 300 no's per edge
Result :
Trial was conducted by varying Feed rate from 400 to 700mm/min. Length under size
observed. Hence Feed rate is Not Significant

Validation End Stopper Position
Length adjusting nut Old End Stopper
Rotary Cylinder
Drawback of the Old End Stopper

The End Stopper is fixed to the drawbar
of the Rotary cylinder with screws. So
the end stopper also moves back while
clamping.
This makes a gap between the stopper
and the component.
This may causes length variation while Rotary Cylinder Cover
turning
Rane (Madras) Ltd.

Hence it is significant 73 of 81
Machine repeatability
CNC PROGRAM
Result:
Checked backlash program with 10 trials and found no length
variation. Hence it is not significant

Loading Method
Result:
While loading the rack, a small external force is applied at the end to
ensure the rigid clamping. Hence it is significant

Parting length
Result:
Checked parting length – 500 no's and Sample taken for YR9, Length 568
mm against the spec of 567+1 mm. Hence it is not significant

Job Length Projection
Job Length Job Length 35mm Job Length

30mm 40mm
Date Shift Length MM Production Rejection Remark

QTY.
03.02.11 I 30 MM 175 2 LENGTH UNDER SIZE
03.02.11 II 35 MM 168 1 LENGTH UNDER SIZE
03.02.11 III 40 MM 150 1 LENGTH UNDER SIZE
Result:
Rack overhanging distance checked with various trials and found the same
length variation. Hence it is not significant

Rack Material
Result:
Rack material (EN 8C) checked and found that the composition was
found within the spec . Hence it is not significant
Insert performance
TYPE OF RADIUS PRODUCTION REJECTION

INSERT
TNMG 0.8 300 1
DNMG 0.8 289 1
TNMG 1.2 325 1
DNMG 1.2 300 1

Result:
A inbuilt software is with the CNC parameter to monitor the insert
performance. For every 300 no's alarm will indicate to change the insert.
Hence it is not significant
Loading
Result:
While loading the rack, a small external force is applied at the end to
ensure the rigid clamping. If the rack pressed forcedly rejections were reduced.
Hence it is significant cause.

End stopper variation
PRODUCTION LOSSES DUE TO CNC JOBBER END STOPPER B/D
DATE M/C NAME SHIFT MODEL END STOPPER STATUS PRODUCED QTY REJECTIONS
02.02.2011 JOBBER 3 I MUL Properly tightened 230 0
end stopper screws

JOBBER 3 YR9 1
02.02.2011 I Retightened 85
end stopper screws
JOBBER 3 ALTO 1
02.02.2011 II Retightened 268
end stopper screws
JOBBER 3 YR9 0
02.02.2011 III Retightened 241
Result:
Rejections occurring when the end stopper screws gets
loosened. Hence it is significant cause
FMEA
RPN
Reduced
from 80
to 40
Rane (Madras) Ltd.

SOP

Autonomous check sheet
•One point include in autonomous check sheet


Length Variation-Surian Qcc-15.07.11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Length Variation-Surian Qcc-15.07.11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rane (Madras) Limited

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 1 of 81

QCC NAME : SURIAN

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 2 of 81

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 3 of 81

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 4 of 81

ELIMINATE THE RACK LENGTH

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 5 of 81

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 6 of 81

As per RML A,B,C Ranking Methodology

A category - problems to be solved by QIT

B category - problems to be solved by QCC

C category - problems to be solved by Kaizen

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 7 of 81

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 8 of 81

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION DATA

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 9 of 81

Rack cell Rejection ( Oct '10 TO Dec '10)

Rack length variation contributes 56% in rack line

Rejection Trend - Length Variation

2300 2190 2240

Average Rejection- 2176 PPM / Month

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 11 of 81

Rejection Cost Trend - Length Variation

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 12 of 81

CUSTOMER WISE LENGTH REJECTION PPM (OCT' 10 - DEC' 10)

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 13 of 81

WHAT Rack length Variation

Rack Cell - (JOBBER M/C)

HOW MUCH 2176 PPM

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 14 of 81

Correct Stroke Incorrect Stroke

 Rework of gear assembly leads to scrapping of

 Two Inner Ball Joints

 Production gets affected due to length correction

 High rejection – 2176 PPM.

 Non valid activity in SGP assembly

 Operator fatigue is high

 Low operator morale

 High Rejection cost of Rs. 80808 per/annum

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 17 of 81

To Eliminate rejection in Rack

2176 PPM To 0 PPM

By When March ‘11

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 19 of 81

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 20 of 81

Rack cell process flow

STRAIGHTENING BROACHING STRAIGHTENING

CENTERLESS WASHING CRACK DETECTION

DATE PUNCHING POLISHING

Problem Occurring in the Highlighted area

Two types of rack

CNC Jobber M/C MALE RACK FEMALE RACK

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 23 of 81

Male rack operation sequence

MALE RACK TURNING TOOL

Single operation will be carried out in male rack

Rane (Madras) Ltd. 24 of 81

FACING DRILLING BOARING THREAD CUTTING

Four different operations will be carried out in female rack

SPEC : 562 ± 0.25 mm

RACK LENGTH CHECKING GAUGE IN

RACK LENGTH CHECKING METHOD FOR FIRST-OFF