Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)

Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Improving the Gear Box fork Quality by using Six Sigma

Tools
Mageshwaran. G1, Jeya Jeevahan2, Ramkumar Raja SK3
1,2,3 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama University,
Chennai- Tamil Nadu, 600 119, India.
+91 7708007184, mageshwaran.mechanical@gmail.com

Abstract— The aim of this work is to Improve the Gear Box Fork Quality by using Six sigma tool. The fork
component coupled in fork shifting rail and the fork pan located inside the gear by using the coupler. In Fork
component the following problems as arrived while assembly & shifting the gear, Fork perpendicularity issue,
Thickness taper issue, Positional dimensional deviation issue. Rectification of the problem to improve the fork
quality using the mythology of six sigma and take ting the corrective action & preventive action.

Keywords - UCL-upper critical limit, LCL-lower critical limit, QTY-Quantity, CP-Process capability, CPk-Process
capability index

I. INTRODUCTION
A Vision and Philosophical commitment to our consumers to offer the highest quality, lowest cost products. A
Metric that demonstrates quality levels at 99.9997% performance for products and process's. A Benchmark of our
product and process capability for comparison to ‘best in class’. A practical application of statistical Tools and
Methods to help us measure, analyze, improve, and control our process
B. Comparison of 3 sigma & 6 sigma.
TABLE: 1.1: 3 Sigma Vs. 6 Sigma
The 3 sigma Company The 6 sigma Company
Spends 15~25% of sales dollars on cost of failure Spends 5% of sales dollars on cost of failure
Relies on inspection to find defects Relies on capable process that don’t produce defects
Does not have a disciplined approach to gather and Use Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control and Measure,
analyze data Analyze, Design
Benchmarks themselves against their competition Benchmarks themselves against the best in the world
Believes 99% is good enough Believes 99% is unacceptably
Define CTQs internally Defines CTQs externally
II. DEFENCE PHASE
In Fork component the following problems as arrived while assembly & shifting the gear, Fork perpendicularity
issue, Thickness taper issue, Positional dimensional deviation issue. Our aim is to improve the fork quality by
finding the root cause by using the six sigma tool & take the corrective action tool.
TABLE: 1: Customer Complaint
MDU
Sl.No Part No Part Name Supplier REJ QTY Problem details
/DBR
Fork Planetary M/s. Accurate Steel Dimensional Deviation (Bend, Pad twist
1 0180443M01 MDU 220nos
shifter Forging Limited and perpendicularity deviation)
III. MEASURE PHASE
A. Prioritized Parts For Project Scoping
TABLE: 2 Prioritized parts for project scoping
Part No : 0180443M01 (TA01) Part Name Fork planetary Shifter
Parameters Specification Checking method
Thickness 7.00 +0.07/ - 0 Digital micrometer
Perpendicularity 0.3 maximum DVhg with lever dial gauge
Thread position to pad position 18.59 ± 0.05 Position gauge

29
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Fig: .1: Photo View of component 0180443M01

B. Cause & Effect Diagram

Fig. 2 Cause & Effect Diagram

C. Cause and Effect Matrix
TABLE: 3.2: Cause & Effect Matrix
Selva Ganapathi Thiyagarajan srinivasan Output Indicators
Input/ Process indicators Correlation of input to output Total
Unaware / Unskilled operator. 3 3 3 9
Training not provided 3 1 3 7
Fixture setting problem 3 1 1 5
Poor material handling 9 3 9 21
Skip the block setting operation 3 3 3 9
R.P. Oil not apply 1 1 1 3
Repeatability error occurs 1 1 1 3
Spindle run-out 0 0 3 3
coolant flow problem 0 0 3 3
Fixture design wrong 9 3 9 21
clamping method problem 3 3 1 7
Wrong machine selection 1 1 0 2
Wrong sequence of operation 0 0 0 0
Tool life not fixed 3 3 3 9
Fixture pins worn out 3 3 1 7
Wrong tool selection 9 9 3 21
Selva Ganapathi Thiyagarajan srinivasan Output Indicators
Not machining capability material 0 0 0 0
Forging Part hardness Variation 3 3 3 9
Forging component dimension
3 3 3 9
variation

30
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Gauge not deduct the problem 3 3 9 15

Uncelebrated instrument used 0 0 0 0
Gauge Worn-out 0 0 0 0
Gauge Design problem 3 3 3 9
method of inspection wrong 1 0 1 2
Wrong instrument selection 0 1 1 2
Rust formation 9 3 9 21
Bins located in wet area 3 3 3 9
Component in open condition 3 3 3 9

Fig: 3: List of prioritized causes-top 5 causes

E. Operational Definitions
TABLE: 3: List of Operational definitions
Sl. No. Y Measure Operational definition
Y1 Fork bend problem Both two Forks are perpendicular to the bore axis
Sl. No. X Measure Operational definition
X1 Wrong tool selection Single disk milling cutter changed to double disk milling cutter
In vertical milling fixture design modified & introduces Horizontal pad milling
X2 Fixture design wrong
fixture
F Data Measurement Plan
TABLE: 3.3: List of Operational definitions
Frequency of Method of When will data Responsibility for
Y Measure Operational definition Sample Size
Data Collection Data collection be collected data collection
Fork bend Both two Forks are
Hourly 50nos Patrol report Every shift Selva Ganapathi
problem perpendicular to the bore axis
TABLE: 3.4: Data measurement plan
Responsibility
Frequency of Data Method of Data
X Measure Operational definition Sample Size for data
Collection collection
collection
Wrong tool Single disk milling cutter changed to Selva
One time 50 nos SPC & 100%
selection double disk milling cutter ganapathi
Fixture In vertical milling fixture design
Selva
design modified & introduces Horizontal One time 50 nos SPC & 100%
ganapathi
wrong pad milling fixture
Gauge not
Gauge modified & slip will be
deduct the One time 20 nos Attribute type Thiyagaragan
provided for pad distance
problem

IV. ANALYSIS PHASE

Analyzing the problems by applying the statistical process control chart & verifying the outcome of the product result by
dimensionally.
A. Process Capability Study
Specification: Thickness 7.70 + 0.07/ -0 UCL = 7.77mm LCL = 7.70mm Total tolerance = 0.07mm. Instrument used for
measuring: Digital micro meter Least count: 0.001mm

31
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Fig 4.1 Histogram for Thickness

TABLE 4.1 thickness observations - Thickness observations (X values)

Formula Used:
Ẋ = Avg. subgroup value of X and Ẍ = Avg. value of the total Ẋ
Ϭ = Ṝ / D2 D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33
Cp = Total tolerance / 6 Ϭ and Cpk = Minimum of (CPU & CPL) and CPU= USL - Ẍ / 3Ϭ, CPL= Ẍ - LSL / 3Ϭ
Calculations:
Ẋ = 7.729 + 7.739 + 7.745 + 7.733 + 7.729 + 7.725 + 7.729 + 7.739 + 7.745+7.733 and Ẍ = 7.735
Ϭ = 0.069/ 2.33 = 0.0181 and D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33
Cp = 0.07 / 6 x 0.0181 = 0.65 and Cpk = Minimum of (0.64 & 0.65) = 0.64
CPU= 7.77 – 7.735 / 3 x 0.0181 = 0.644 and CPL= 7.735 – 7.70 / 3 x 0.0181 = 0.650
Result : Standard Value : Cp = more than 1.67 Cpk = More than 1.33 Observations: Cp = 0.65
Cpk = 0.64
RESULT: Process not capable
B. Process Capability Study
Specification: Perpendicularity 0.3 max UCL = 0.3mm LCL = 0.001mm Total tolerance = 0.3mm,
Instrument used for measuring : Digital height gauge with dial Least count : 0.001mm

Fig 4.2 Histogram for perpendicularity

TABLE 4.2 Perpendicularity observations - Thickness observations (X values)
1-5 6 – 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 -50
0.310 0.210 0.210 0.280 0.250 0.230 0.320 0.250 0.310 0.240
0.250 0.320 0.240 0.290 0.290 0.260 0.310 0.230 0.320 0.250
0.290 0.250 0.250 0.310 0.240 0.280 0.250 0.260 0.310 0.230
0.310 0.290 0.230 0.320 0.240 0.290 0.290 0.280 0.250 0.260
0.240 0.260 0.260 0.310 0.250 0.310 0.240 0.290 0.290 0.280
Formula Used:
Ẋ = Avg. subgroup value of X, Ẍ = Avg. value of the total Ẋ

32
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Ϭ = Ṝ / D2, D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33 and Cp = Total tolerance / 6 Ϭ

Cpk = Minimum of (CPU & CPL), and CPU= USL - Ẍ / 3Ϭ and CPL= Ẍ - LSL / 3Ϭ
Calculations:
Ẋ = 0.28 + 0.266 0.238 + 0.302 + 0.254 + 0.274 + 0.282 + 0.262 + 0.296 + 0.252
Ẍ = 0.271 Ϭ = 0.11/ 2.33 = 0.0318 D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33
Cp = 0.3 / 6 x 0.0318 = 1.57 & Cpk = Minimum of (0.31 & 2.83) = 0.31
CPU= 0.3 – 0.271 / 3 x 0.0318 = 0.31 AND CPL=0.271-0.001 / 3 x 0.0318 = 2.83
Result:
Standard Value: Cp = more then 1.67 Cpk = More then 1.33 Observations: Cp = 1.57 Cpk = 0.31
RESULT: Process not capable
C. Process Capability Study
Specification: Thread position to pad position UCL = 18.54mm LCL = 18.64mm Total tolerance = 0.1mm. Instrument used for
measuring: Digital height gauge with dial least count: 0.001mm

Fig 4.3 Histogram for perpendicularity

TABLE: Thickness observations (X values)
1-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 -50
18.560 18.610 18.590 18.590 18.560 18.560 18.590 18.570 18.610 18.590
18.590 18.600 18.560 18.610 18.590 18.590 18.560 18.560 18.590 18.570
18.570 18.610 18.590 18.600 18.560 18.610 18.590 18.590 18.560 18.560
18.560 18.590 18.570 18.610 18.590 18.600 18.560 18.610 18.590 18.590
18.590 18.560 18.560 18.590 18.570 18.610 18.590 18.600 18.560 18.610
Formula Used:
Ẋ = Avg. subgroup value of X , Ẍ = Avg. value of the total Ẋ AND Ϭ = Ṝ / D2
D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33, Cp = Total tolerance / 6 Ϭ, Cpk = Minimum of (CPU & CPL)
CPU= USL - Ẍ / 3Ϭ AND CPL= Ẍ - LSL / 3Ϭ
Calculations:
Ẋ = 18.574 + 18.592 + 18.574 + 18.600 + 18.574 + 18.587 + 18.578 + 18.586 + 18.582 + 18.584
Ẍ = 18.584 Ϭ = 0.05/ 2.33 = 0.0185 D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33
Cp = 0.31/ 6 x 0.0185 = 0.9 , Cpk = Minimum of (1.81 & 0.79) = 0.79
CPU= 18.64– 18.584 / 3 x 0.0185 = 1.81 AND CPL= 18.584 -18.54/ 3 x 0.0185 = 0.79
Result: Standard Value : Cp = more then 1.67 Cpk = More then 1.33
Observations: Cp = 0.90 Cpk = 0.79
RESULT: Process not capable:
Root cause result verified in the particular process in the machine:
 conformed & identified the failure area
 Root cause result proved by the analyzing result
Analyzing result : Implement improvement action against the root cause failures
V. IMPROVEMENT PHASE
Improvement action taken against the outcome of the root cause result by modifying the fixture design & tool design.

33
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Fig: 5.1: Vertical Drawing and Horizontal Drawing

A. Before and After Improvement: vertricle mullimg

Fig: 5.3: VMC Fixture

Fig 5.4: Disc Milling Tool

B. Improvement Verification
Improvement verified after improving the root cause result by applying the statistical process control chart & to check
the CP & CPK value achieve more then CP value 1.67 &CPK value 1.33 7 to check the cycle time of the component to complete
the process

34
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Fig: 5.5: Milling cutter Vs component

Specification : Thickness 7.70 + 0.07/ -0 UCL = 7.77mm LCL = 7.70mm Total tolerance = 0.07mm Instrument used
for measuring : Digital micrometer Least count : 0.001mm

Fig 3. 5 Milling cutter Vs component

TABLE 1: Thickness observations (X values)
1-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 -50
7.730 7.740 7.740 7.732 7.739 7.744 7.740 7.732 7.745 7.744
7.735 7.731 7.730 7.738 7.741 7.733 7.741 7.735 7.733 7.728
7.734 7.736 7.732 7.733 7.729 7.738 7.742 7.734 7.736 7.730
7.736 7.741 7.736 7.732 7.726 7.732 7.736 7.736 7.736 7.726
7.738 7.742 7.731 7.736 7.738 7.730 7.738 7.741 7.731 7.735
Formula Used:
Ẋ = Avg. subgroup value of X, Ẍ = Avg. value of the total Ẋ
Ϭ = Ṝ / D2 and D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33, Cp = Total tolerance / 6 Ϭ, Cpk = Minimum of (CPU &
CPL) and CPU= USL - Ẍ / 3Ϭ and CPL= Ẍ - LSL / 3Ϭ
Calculations:
Ẋ = 7.735 + 7.738 7.734 + 7.734 + 7.735 + 7.735 + 7.739 + 7.736 + 7.736 + 7.733 and Ẍ = 7.735
Ϭ = 0.011/ 2.33 = 0.0047 and D2 is the standard subgroup value 2.33
Cp = 0.07 / 6 x 0.0047 = 2.47, Cpk = Minimum of (2.48 & 2.44) = 2.44
CPU= 7.77 – 7.7345 / 3 x 0.0047 = 2.482, CPL= 7.7345 – 7.7 / 3 x 0.0047 = 2.446
Result :
Standard Value: Cp = more then 1.67 Cpk = More then 1.33
Observations: Cp = 2.47 Cpk = 2.44
RESULT: Process capable
VI. IMPROVEMENT RESULTS
The statistical process control applied after introducing the double disk tool
 Cpk achieved more then 1.33 observed 2.44
 Process cycle time reduced from 92sec to 40sec
 Cost saving by implementing the double disk milling cutter
92-40= 52sec (1sec = Rs.0.133) , Rs.7.049saved per component
total 8000Nos for monthly schedule, 8000 X 7.049 = Rs.56,392 saved per month
 Pad Thickness consistency achieved
 Thickness taper problem reduced
 Pad distraction problem reduced

35
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
 Journal of Research in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management (JoRSTEM)
Voulume-1 and Issue -1, September 2015

Fig 5.3: Operation Charted

VII. CONCLUSIONS
The component Quality issues was analyzed by using the six sigma methodology Improved the quality of the
gear shifting FORK by introducing the Double disk cutter Reduced the manufacturing the cost by reducing the
machining cycle time from 92sec to 40sec Yearly cost saving Rs.56,392 by cycle time reduction Customer end PPM
reduced from 1600PPM to 20PPM for this component
REFERENCES
[1] Pardeep Rattan, Dr. Pyare Lal.,"Pros and Cons of Six Sigma:A Library Perspective", International Journal of Digital Library
Services, Vol 2, Issue 4, Oct – Dec 2012.
[2] Ahmad Ali Al-Zubi, Imtiaz Basha,"Six Sigma In Libraries: A Management Perspective, Canadian Journal on Computing in
Mathematics Natural Sciences, Engineering & Medicine Vol. 1, No. 3, April 2010.
[3] Chitra Koushik, Et al.,"Six sigma application for library services, DESIDOC Bulletin of information technology, Vol. 27, No.
5 September 2007.
[4] Coronado, R.B., Antony, J.,“Critical success factors for the successful implementation of six sigma projects in organizations”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 92 – 99, 2002.
[5] Dong-Suk Kim,“Eliciting success factors of applying Six Sigma in an academic library: A case study”, Performance Management and
Metrics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 25-38, 2010.
[6] El-Haik, B., Roy, D.M.,"Service design for six sigma: a roadmap for excellence, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken: New Jersey, 2005.
[7] Harry M., Schroeder, R.,"Six sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations, 1st ed., Random
House Inc., New York, 2000.
[8] Sarah Anne Murphy,“Leveraging Lean Six Sigma to Culture, Nurture, and Sustain Assessment and Change in the Academic Library
Environment”, College and research Libraries, May 2009.
[9] Suresh N.,"Application of Six sigma concept to effective academic library management and users satisfaction", National conference on future
academic libraries challenges and opportunities 2011, Madurai Kamaraj university.
[10] Susan Kumi, John Morrow,“Improving self service the six sigma way at Newcastle University Library”, Program: Electronic library and
Information systems, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 123-136, 2006.
[11] Yong Kim et al.,"A Six Sigma-based method to renovate information services Focusing on information acquisition process. Library Hi Tech,
Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 632-647,2010.
[12] Snee, R. D. “Focus on Improvement, Not Training”, (2001) Quality Management Forum, Spring 2001, 7,8,16.
[13] Snee, R. D. and R. W. Hoerl “Integrating Lean and Six Sigma – A Holistic Approach”, (2007) Six Sigma Forum Magazine, May 2007, 15-
21.
[14] Snee, R. D. and R. W. Hoerl Leading Six Sigma – A Step-by-Step Guide Based on Experience with GE and Other Six Sigma Companies,
(2003) Chapters 3-4.

36
Copy Write © Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)