dfm oil pump project stanford
DESCRIPTION
Design for Manufacturing project applied to an Automatic Transmission Oil Pump SystemTRANSCRIPT
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
1
Improved Oil Pump System for the 4L60-E Transmission
Final Presentation - ME217B
Paulino Rivera Carlos B. Ramirez Fernando J. Valdes
The Pumpkins
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
2
Project Advertisement
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
3
Market & Competition
• GM’s transmissions have a rich tradition of excellence
• GM Powertrain dominates the Automatic Transmisison business, with 43% share, Ford 29%, DC 28%
• 4L60-E Automatic Transmission Produced in Ramos Arizpe since 1999
• Applications: Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, C/K (domestic and export)
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
4
Problem Statement
• The oil pump system is critical for the performance of the transmission
• A large number of transmission failures are associated with the oil pump
• Goal of this project:
Improve the Reliability of the 4L60-E Oil Pump System, while reducing its cost
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
5
Product Definition - ME217A
• Edith Wilson’s Checklist Improved• 4L60-E Pump Benchmarked vs. Ford and DaimlerChrysler Transmissions
• CVCA showed multiple customers
Background
Product Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
35 4 2
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
6
Key Relationships• Value Graph: showed importance of two key internal components: Rotor and Slide
• QFD Phase I: showed DPTV’s and End Clearance as highest relative E.M.’s
• QFD Phase II: Rotor, Pump Body & Slide most important
• Cost-Worth identified candidates for:• Cost Reduction: Cover & Shaft, Pump
Body• Enhancement: Rotor, Slide, Slide
Springs
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
7
Function-Structure Tree• Revealed Product Complexity: functions
not related to the Pump Oil main function
1. Displace fluid 2. Regulate fluid 3. Provide structure
• Seal• Support
• Most Important Discovery in ME217A
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
8
Pareto was right...
• Fishbone Diagram and DFA showed redundancy in Rotor/Slide selection process
• FMEA revealed Rotor/Slide Stucked as main cause of oil
pump failure
• SMA: easier to replace entire oil pump than to service
0
125
250
375
500
Rot
or/S
lide
Stu
cked
Def
ectiv
e P
arts
Pum
p B
ody
Dis
torti
on
No
Acc
esib
ility
Ext
erna
l Lea
ks
Mis
sing
Par
ts
Impr
oper
Ass
embl
y
Pum
p C
over
Con
vex
Hig
h Te
mpe
ratu
re
Eng
ine
Inpu
t Spe
ed H
igh
0
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
CAUSE
70%
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
9
Concept Development
• Design Criteria expanded from QFD:
• Morphological Analysis generated 3 concepts: Single Slide/Rotor, Pump-in-a Box and Three-in-One Pump
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
10
Three-In-One Pump• Pugh Analysis revealed as better concept
• Improved: Reliability, FTY, DPTV, Robust Design, Performance
• Use of a Single Slide/Rotor (5 to 1)
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
COVER & SHAFT
PUMPSUPPORT
CASE COVER
SUPPORT COMPONENTS
PUMP OIL
SEAL TRANSMISSION
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
11
Current vs Proposed
CURRENT
COVER & SHAFT
PUMP BODY
3 in 1 Concept
COVER & SHAFT
PUMPSUPPORT
CASE COVER
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
12
Product Specification• Same size than current oil pump• Weight assumed unchanged • Case Cover error proofed for alignment• Case Cover made of Aluminum SAE 390
Process Specification• Sub-Assembly: one machine less (Rotor/Slide),
one worker reduced, fixtures error proofed• Machining: Pump Support line from existing
PumpBody cell, addition of Case Cover cell, lean manufacturing, error proofing devices, no impact in labor
Design Recommendation
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
13
Competitive Analysis
• Business Case• Payback: 1 Year• ROI: 94.6%• Investment: $ 2.12 MUSD• NPV: $ 2.22 MUDS
• Development Time• 18 months from project approval
• Risks• Envisioning: limited product life• Design: packaging within envelope, same weight• Execution: material cost increase, validation fails
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
14
Quality Scorecarding
• Project Objective (Biggest Y)Improve the Net Present Value (NPV)
• Objective Measures (Y)Improve the Reliability measured in Defects per Thousand Vehicles (DPTV’s) and First Time Yield (FTY) in the assembly line.
• Control Factors (vital X’s)End clearance between the Rotor/Slide and Pump Support face, Pump Main Line Pressure.
• Noise Factors (V’s)Oil Pump Support distortion, manufacturing variation of Slide/Rotor/Pump Face.
• Transfer FunctionCashflow Analysis Spreadsheet
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
15
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions • Robust Product Definition• Strong Business Case• Higher Risk: limited product life• Still profitable! (trucks)
Recommendations• Obtain management commitment• Form project team• Enhance communication• Keep focus on customer• Revisit dfM tools to measure results
BackgroundProduct Definition
Design Recommendation
Competitive Analysis
Concept Development
Introduction
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
03/13/2012previous next
GM of MexicoRamos Arizpe Complex
June 2000
ME217 Design for Manufacturability
Stanford University
16
QUESTIONS&
ANSWERS
Paulino Rivera Carlos B. Ramirez Fernando J. Valdes
The Pumpkins
Tuesday, March 13, 2012