design for six sigma certification presentation

2-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization

2-Groove I-Shaft Combination Gage

Optimization/Redesign

Design for Six Sigma Report

Date: March 21, 2013

Project File for

Reference

March 30, 20132-Groove I-Shaft Gage Optimization

Executive Summary

2

Project Name: 2-Groove I-Shaft Combination

Gage Optimization/Redesign

Issue: Technology readiness

Market Impact: Allows for ease of

manufacturing of new I-shaft technology

Project Leader Dan Simon

Team Troy Daenzer

Coach Bruce Collier

Local Sponsor Patrik Ryne

Executive Sponsor

The Opportunity as Seen by The ManagementThe optimization of the combination tube-and-wear-plate gage for the upcoming 2-groove I-shaft programs would allow for

faster and more accurate measurements of incoming part batches. This single measurement would let a ball bearing size to

be selected, as opposed to measuring individual components and inputting the data into a program to predict ball size.

Overall this will speed up set-up time and lower scrapped/re-worked part rates.

DFSS IDDOV Project Summary

– Identify and Initiate– Define Requirements– Develop Concept– Optimize Concept– Verify and Transfer


DFSS Framework- TMAP

(Tools Linkage)

3

DFSS Framework

Identify& Initiate

DFSS Thought Process Map DFSS Tools

DefineRequirements

DevelopDesign

OptimizeDesign

Verify& Control

1. Scope the Project

2. Translate Voice of the Customer

3. Generate Design Concepts

4. Choose Best Design Concepts

5. Understand the Physics

1. Spring Mechanism

2. Gage Mechanism

6. Determine Ideal Function

7. Optimize for Robustness

1. Develop S/N Strategy

2. Determine Control Factors

and Levels

8. Conduct Confirmation

9. Implement and Document

Results

Project Charter

Requirement Analysis

Creativity &

Innovation

Functional PMAP

P-Diagram

Robust Engineering

Gage R&R

DFSS Report Format


Scope the Project:

Project Charter

Identify

1


Scope of Project:

Establish Baseline

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

75

50

25

0

Pe

rce

nt

% Contribution

% Study Var

654321

-0.30

-0.35

-0.40

Sample

654321

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00

Part

Sa

mp

le R

an

ge

_R=0.062

UC L=0.1242

LC L=0

654321

-0.32

-0.34

-0.36

-0.38

Part

Sa

mp

le M

ea

n

__X=-0.34589

UC L=-0.31592

LC L=-0.37586

Gage name: 2 Groov e Underball Tube & Wear P lates

Date of study : 07MY12

Reported by : Troy Daenzer, Dan S imon, A ustin Harrison

Tolerance:

M isc:

Components of Variation

Underball by Sample

R Chart

XBar Chart

Gage R&R (ANOVA) 2 Groove Tube & Wear Plate Underball

Minimum Detectable

Difference: 120µm, FAIL

All Points Within R Chart:

Yes, PASS

50% Outside Xbar Chart:

No, FAIL# Detectable Categories: 1, FAIL


Translate Voice of the Customer:

Requirement Analysis

Define

2

Requirements Analysis

Project title: 2-Groove Combination Gage Optimization

Team names: Dan Simon, Troy Daenzer

ID

Raw Customer Wants and Needs (In the words of the customer)

Also called VOC (Voice of the Customer)

Type (Output, Constraint,

Operating Condition, Signal)

1 Accurately gage sub-assembly Output

2 Gage sub-assembly in loaded condition Operating Condition

3 Attain gage repeatability Output

4 Use existing gage stand Constraint

5 Finish project before 2013 Constraint

Outputs (what the customer wants)

1 Accurately gage sub-assembly

2 Attain gage repeatability

Constraints (limitations on inputs, design parameters or process

variables)

1 Use existing gage stand base

2 Finish project before 2013

Operating conditions, operating envelope, environment (specifications

about input noise factors)

1 Gage sub-assembly in loaded condition

Functional Requirements (outputs, measurable characteristics, the

"Hows" from HoQ 1)

1 Gage resolution less than 10 µm

2 Number of distinct categories greater than 4

3 Predicts loaded interference within 10 µm


Translate Voice of the Customer:

House of Quality

Develop

4

QFD HoQ 1

Project title: 2-Groove Combination Gage Optimization

Team names: Dan Simon, Troy Daenzer

CONSTRAINTS: Functional Requirements (FRs) (measurable)

Use existing gage stand base + + Gage resolution less than 10 µm

Finish project before 2013 + Number of distinct categories greater than 4

Predicts loaded interference within 10 µm

Maximize (+),

minimize (-), or target

(0)

- + -

Customer Needs (CNs) (raw)

Imp

ort

an

ce

Gage

resolu

tion less

than 1

0 µ

m

Num

ber

of

dis

tinct

cate

gori

es

gre

ate

r th

an 4

Pre

dic

ts

loaded

inte

rfere

nce

within

10 µ

m

Accurately gage sub-assembly 5 5 5 5

Attain gage repeatability 5 1 5 1

Absolute Importance 30 50 30

Relative Importance 3 5 3

Units µm # µm

Target 5 5 5

Lower spec limit - 5 -

Upper spec limit 10 - 10


Understand the Physics:

Spring Mechanism

FULL CROSS-SECTIONSPRING INTERACTION

Tube

Solid Shaft

Wear Plate

Ball Bearing

The wear plate is placed in tube in a free state with 2 contact

points. As ball bearing is placed between the solid shaft and the

wear plate, the wear plate acts like a spring, filling in the allowable

space between itself and the tube. This spring action takes place

while the part is assembled, and when the part is stroked.

CONTACT

CONTACT

ALLOWED MOTION

Optimize

5

Enventive File

for Reference



Gage Mechanism

ISOMETRIC VIEW

TOP VIEW FRONT VIEW

The “fingers” of the gage act in place of the solid shaft of the real assembly. The

“fingers” obtain their force from an air cylinder. The air cylinder is provided air

pressure (through a regulator) from an external air supply. There are currently 2

ball guides on the top “finger” and one ball guide on the bottom “finger”.

Solid Shaft

Optimize

5


Tube

• Residual Phos

• ----

• Part Bend

• Part Bow

• Part Twist

Wear Plates

• Residual Phos

• ----

• Part Bend

• Part Bow

• Part Twist

Sub Assembly Placed on Gage

• Residual Phos

• Centrality of Wear Plates

• ----

• Pre-Load

• Wear Plate Set

Air Source

• Humidity

• Temperature

• ----

• Air Pressure Max

Air Regulator

• Humidity

• Temperature

• ----

• Air Pressure Rate

• Air Pressure Max

Gage Switch

• Speed of Engagement

• ----

• # of Cycles

Air Cylinder

• Humidity

• Temperature

• Time Waited Before Reading

• ----

• Air Pressure Rate

• Regulator Position

Gage Fingers

• Temperature

• Humidity

• Internal Friction

• ----

• Orientation

• Grease

Wear Plate Spring

• Residual Phos

• Centrality to Fingers

• ----

• Orientation

• Grease

Force on Tube

• Residual Phos

• Centrality of Wear Plates

• ----

• Orientation

• Grease

Gage Calculator

• Temperature

• Humidity

• ----

• Calibration

• Program Algorithm

Gage Output

• User Time Delay

• ----

• Refresh Rate

• Calibration

• Connection Integrity


Functional PMAP

Optimize

5

Supply Power Regulate Power Allow Power to Gage Turn Energy to Mechanical Force Supply Mechanical Force Apply Force to Tube Set to Final Position Calculate Underball Measurement

Base Supplied for WPs Assembled Part

Submit Underball Measurement

Energy Instability Energy Loss Unknown Friction Unknown FrictionEnergy Flow Irregularity Unknown Friction Losses


Determine Ideal Function:

Ideal Function

Optimize

6

ΔB

etw

een M

easure

ments

(m

m)

# of Measurements

Minimization

Smaller the Better


Determine Ideal Function:

P-Diagram

Optimize

6

Control Factors1. Air Pressure Maximum/Minimum

2. Air Pressure Rate

3. Gage Finger Orientation

4. Applied Part Grease

5. Additional Air Pressure Regulator Position

6. Part Position on Gage Finger (Bottomed Out)

7. Twisting Force Applied to Part

8. Cantilever Force Applied to Part

9. Air Switch Engagement Frequency (# Times Cycled On/Off)

10.Part Stroke Count on Gage Finger (When Engaged)

Noise Factors1. Wear Plate Set

Gage

(Measure Assembly)No Input

(Non Dynamic)Underball Measurement

Unwanted Outputs

Underball VariabilityNote: Using “on/off” for noise factor because the wear

plate is either in position or not, we have no way of

knowing which wear plate position is worse, so we have

no way to indicate “high/low”.

ΔB

etw

een M

easure

ments

(m

m)

# of Measurements

Ideal Function

Minimization

Smaller the Better


Optimize for Robustness:

DOE 1 (L12) Setup

Air PressureAir Pressure

RateOrientation Grease

Regulator

PositionN1 N2

High Fast Vert Yes Bef 0.307 0.291

High Fast Vert Yes Bef 0.312 0.288

High Fast Horiz No Aft 0.286 0.285

High Slow Vert No Aft 0.321 0.316

High Slow Horiz Yes Aft 0.359 0.37

High Slow Horiz No Bef 0.363 0.366

Low Fast Horiz No Bef 0.287 0.345

Low Fast Horiz Yes Aft 0.314 0.325

Low Fast Vert No Aft 0.336 0.311

Low Slow Horiz Yes Bef 0.336 0.327

Low Slow Vert No Bef 0.296 0.317

Low Slow Vert Yes Aft 0.379 0.329

Optimize

7Note: When analyzing, used “Nominal is Best” so that ranking was

based on low variation levels, not low/high measurements in general.



DOE 1 (L12) S/N Plots

LowHigh

0.335

0.325

0.315

SlowFast HorizVert

NoYes

0.335

0.325

0.315

AftBef

Air Press

Me

an

of

Me

an

s

AP Rate Orient

Grease Reg Pos

LowHigh

40

35

30

SlowFast HorizVert

NoYes

40

35

30

AftBef

Air Press

Me

an

of

SN

ra

tio

s

AP Rate Orient

Grease Reg Pos

Main Effects Plot for Means (T1)Data Means

Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (T1)Data Means

Signal-to-noise: Nominal is best (10*Log10(Ybar**2/s**2))Optimize

7

= Significant S/N Ratio

= Initial Configuration

There was no additional

regulator in original setup.



DOE 1 (L12) Results

Taguchi Analysis: N1, N2 versus Air Press, AP Rate, Orient, Grease, Reg Pos

Predicted values for Original Settings

S/N Ratio Mean StDev Ln(StDev)

43.9804 0.324167 0.0037712 -6.19550

Factor levels for predictions

Air Press Orient Grease

High Horiz No

Taguchi Analysis: N1, N2 versus Air Press, AP Rate, Orient, Grease, Reg Pos

Predicted values for Optimal Settings

S/N Ratio Mean StDev Ln(StDev)

43.9804 0.324167 0.0037712 -6.19550

Factor levels for predictions

Air Press Orient Grease

High Horiz No

The optimal settings were identical to the original settings.

This led to the creation of a second DOE, using alternative factors.



DOE 2 (L12) Setup

Optimize

7

Air Pressure OrientationBottomed

Out

Twist Force

Applied

Cantilever

Force Applied

# of Times

Switch Activated

# Times Part Stroked

on FixtureN1 N2

10 Vert Yes Yes Yes 1 1 0.758 0.694

10 Vert Yes Yes Yes 5 5 0.704 0.76

10 Vert No No No 1 1 0.672 0.638

10 Horiz Yes No No 1 5 0.574 0.578

10 Horiz No Yes No 5 1 0.657 0.705

10 Horiz No No Yes 5 5 0.68 0.73

95 Vert No No Yes 1 5 0.515 0.53

95 Vert No Yes No 5 5 0.502 0.504

95 Vert Yes No No 5 1 0.542 0.543

95 Horiz No Yes Yes 1 1 0.555 0.521

95 Horiz Yes No Yes 5 1 0.559 0.572

95 Horiz Yes Yes No 1 5 0.492 0.53



DOE 2 (L12) S/N Plots

9510

403530

HorizVert NoYes

NoYes

403530

NoYes 51

51

403530

Air Press

Me

an

of

SN

ra

tio

s

Orient Bottom

Twist Cantil Switch

Stroke

9510

0.65

0.600.55

HorizVert NoYes

NoYes

0.650.60

0.55

NoYes 51

51

0.65

0.60

0.55

Air Press

Me

an

of

Me

an

s

Orient Bottom

Twist Cantil Switch

Stroke

Main Effects Plot for SN ratios (T2)Data Means

Signal-to-noise: Nominal is best (10*Log10(Ybar**2/s**2))

Main Effects Plot for Means (T2)Data Means

Optimize

7

= Significant S/N Ratio

= Initial Configuration

Does not make sense

with previous DOE

Does not make sense with previous

part assembly knowledge



Previous Part History

2520151050

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cycles

Av

g.

% C

ha

ng

e (

Ma

x)

15

5.858

5.868

5.878

5.890

(mm)

Ball Size

2-Groove (No Grease) - Avg. % Change (Max) vs Initial Cycles

Points on graph are a 3 part average

Optimize

7

In the actual part assembly, slip load is not leveled out

until approximately 25 strokes. This is the point at

which all components have settled into their correct

installed positions.



Part Stroke Optimization

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3 1.3

1.4

1.4 1.41.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

AVG

AVG

AVG

AVG

-0.64

-0.63

-0.62

-0.61

-0.6

-0.59

-0.58

-0.57

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Un

derb

all M

easu

rem

en

t Δ

No

min

al

(mm

)

Cycles

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

AVG

>30µm Variation

<10µm

Variation

Optimize

7



600

400

200

0

Pe

rce

nt

% Contribution

% Study Var

% Tolerance

4321

-0.57

-0.58

-0.59

-0.60

Part

4321

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

Part

Sa

mp

le R

an

ge

_R=0.00725

UC L=0.01533

LC L=0

4321

-0.57

-0.58

-0.59

Part

Sa

mp

le M

ea

n

__X=-0.5797

UC L=-0.57552

LC L=-0.58388

Gage name: C ombination WP/Tube

Date of study : 11MR13

Reported by : Dan S imon

Tolerance:

M isc:


Underball by Part

R Chart

XBar Chart

10 Stroke Optimization Confirmation


10 Stroke, Non-Worn Gage R&R

Verify

8

# Detectable Categories: 4, FAIL


Yes, PASS


Yes, PASS

Minimum Detectable

Difference: 15µm, FAIL

Non pre-worn parts are just below the acceptable requirements.



100

50

0

Pe

rce

nt

% Contribution

% Study Var

54321

-0.240

-0.255

-0.270

-0.285

Part

54321

0.0075

0.0050

0.0025

0.0000

Part

Sa

mp

le R

an

ge

_R=0.0032

UC L=0.008238

LC L=0

54321

-0.240

-0.255

-0.270

-0.285

Part

Sa

mp

le M

ea

n

__X=-0.27027UC L=-0.26699

LC L=-0.27354

Gage name: Tube-and-WP



Tolerance: 0.01

Misc: For DFSS Green Belt


Underball by Part

R Chart

XBar Chart

Pre-Worn 5 Stroke Gage R&R

# Detectable Categories: 13, PASS


Yes, PASS


Yes, PASS

Minimum Detectable

Difference: 8µm, PASS


5 Stroke, Pre-Worn Gage R&R

Verify

8 Pre-worn parts measured using a low (20 psi) air pressure in

a horizontal setting with no grease passes all requirements.



Gage Instructions



100

50

0

Perc

ent

% Contribution

% Study Var

543215432154321

0.004

0.002

0.000

Part

Sam

ple

Range

_R=0.001667

UCL=0.004290

LCL=0

Austin Dan Jason

543215432154321

-0.26

-0.27

-0.28

Part

Sam

ple

Mean

__X=-0.27231

UCL=-0.27061

LCL=-0.27402

Austin Dan Jason

54321

-0.26

-0.27

-0.28

Part

JasonDanAustin

-0.26

-0.27

-0.28

Operator

54321

-0.26

-0.27

-0.28

Part

Avera

ge

Austin

Dan

Jason

Operator

Gage name: C ombination Gage



Tolerance: 0.01

Misc: For DFSS C onfirmation


R Chart by Operator

Xbar Chart by Operator

Underball by Part

Underball by Operator

Part * Operator Interaction

Combination Gage R&R

Conduct Confirmation:

Gage R&R

# Detectable Categories: 12, PASS

50% Outside Xbar Chart: Yes, PASS

All Points Within R Chart: Yes, PASS

Minimum Detectable

Difference: 4µm, PASS


Conclusions and Recommendations

Project Benefits

The combination tube-and-wear-plate gage now has a viable

prototyping use and a path to full scale production use

Forward Actions

Optimize gage further so it is viable in a production setting

Lessons Learned

Technical Knowledge

Intricacies of the spring mechanism of the 2-groove I-shaft

Wear patterns for 2-groove I-shaft when in full production

Applying Robust Engineering Practices

Learned to use DOE’s and (Basic) Taguchi Arrays

Learned to use PMAPs and P-Diagrams to have a high logical

process laid out for a problem

Learned how to write a set of detailed production gage instructions


Financials:

DFSS Alternative

design for six sigma certification presentation

Documents