QUALITY TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES PROJECT

TO ATTAIN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, IMPROVE THE CREASE STIFNESS OF CIGARETTE HINGLED (HLs)

Page 1

Nazish Laraib

Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIX SIGMA TOOLS

Define phase Project charter Deployment Map SIPOC Diagram KPIVs KPOVs Measure Phase Cause & Effect Diagram Sigma Level Box & Whisker Plot Process Capability Measurement System Analysis Testing Hypothesis Design Experiment Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

SIX SIGMA TOOLS FOR THE PROCESS OF FLAT CARTON CREASE STIFFNESS VALUES
Page 3

CREASE STIFFNESS: Crease stiffness is a part of Flat cartons units product called Cigarette Hingled (HLs) used to store cigarettes, it is measured by sensor/transducer equipment by sensing crease bending force. There are many ups of die for paper creasing here they tested only 6 to 7 creases, Stiffness causes runnability problem on customer end. Lemanic Machine produces this problem chronically. After passing six different unit of printing, embossing, cutting and creasing units. It produce crease stiffness problem at C&C unit due to paper quality, die setting and humidity factors. DIE SETTING: They have three plates for different HLs product requirements counter plates, alternate counter plates and cito. Channel makes creases depth and grave, it also includes cutting and die ballades. A normal die setting can produce 25 million average HLs. They manually adjust the die as per instructions. Die Crease pressure, machine speed, sheet displacement contributing elements of producing problem. According to operator, machine can produce 500 HLs per minute. BOARD TYPE: Usually they use three types of board but for HLs right now they are using white coated bleech paper. Board Grammage and thickness affects paper stiffness.

DEFINE PHASE
PROJECT CHARTER DEPLOYMENT MAP SIPOC DIAGRAM KPIVS & KPOVS

PROJECT CHARTER

Page 4

Project Title:
To attain customer satisfaction, improve the crease stiffness of cigarette cartons, HLs.

Business Case
Folding Carton line of Packages company produces Cigarette HLs through rotogravure process by Lemanic and Riviera machines. It is being observed that Lemanic Machine produces beyond specification products that results customer objection due to runnability problem. Therefore it is required by ABC customer to improve crease stiffness specification. A single HL has seven creases, from 1 to 6 these are specified 11 Ncm/m to 18 Ncm/m and only 7th crease has 8 Ncm/m to 14 Ncm/m.

Problem Statement:
Problem arises due to the component of paper board like grammage & thickness, and moisture of the production hall. It has to be improved that process should be lie within specification to achieve desired customer satisfaction.
Crease Values F1-F6
MARCH 19 20

Crease Values F1-F6

April

18
Crease Values

19
Crease values

17 16

18

17

15 16 14 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days 21 24 27 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days 21 24 27 30

Specification ( 11- 18) Ncm/m

Specification ( 11- 18) Ncm/m

Page 5

Crease Values F1-F6

MAY 19

18
Crease values

17

16

15 3 6 9 12 15 Days 18 21 24 27 30

Specification ( 11- 18) Ncm/m

It is observed that values crossed the customers specification limits also indicate Process is not stable.

Object
To improve crease stiffness up to 14Ncm/m to 18 Ncm/m.

Metrics:
Primary Metric: Measure 6 to 7 creases of Hingled (HLs) by using equipment of sensor or transducer unit of measure is Ncm/m.
Crease Stiffness: Grammage: Thickness:

By using grammage balance with g/m2 unit

Moisture %=( (A-B)/A)*100 degree centigrade.

Project Scope: Business Unit Folding Carton (BU-FC).

Page 6

DEPLOYMENT PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

Folding Carton line

QUALITY SALES AND CUSTOMER ASSURANCE MARKETING

Customer order

Order specification

Deliver to Customer

No

Check order Specification

Yes

Verification

Check customer specification

Prepare Documentation

PRODUCTION

Lemanic Machine

Paper reel

Unit-1-6 Ink Printing

Embossing , Cutting and creasing Process

Stripping

Separate

Bundling (224 HLs)

QUALITY CONTROL

Inspection
Yes

in specification

NO

Rework

Reinspection

Meet acceptance level

No

Review Comti.

DISPATCH

Finished Product

Yes

Page 7

SIPOC DIAGRAM:
Supplier
BSPPL Century

Input
Wheat Straw& Waste Paper Water Temperature

Process

Output
Paper board

Customer
Folding Carton Unit of Packages.

Pulping Process

Operator & Machine

Paper board Ink Solvent Varnish

Ink Printing Unit 1-6

Printing Sheet

Embossing Unit- 7

Operator & Machine

Pressure

Unit 7 Embossing

Embossing of requires image

Creasing& Cutting U-8

Operator & Machine

Board Creasing Pressure Blade Cutter

Cutting & creasing process By setting die

HLs

XYZ Company

Page 8

KPIs and KPOs:

KPIs
Board Grammage Board Thickness Moisture %age Machine Speed Operator Shifts

X
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6

KPOs
Crease Stiffness

Y
Y

MEASURE PHASE
Cause & Effect diagram Sigma Level Box Plot Process Capability Measurement System Analysis

Page 9

CAUSE & EFFECT DIAGRAM

Machine
Operator Lemanic Machine with 6 units Training

Personnel

Measurements
Crease stiffness Values Board Grammage Board Thickness

Crease Stiffness
Coated white Bleach Board Ink Water Manually Die setting Die Pressure Channel Setting Speed Moisture

Material

Method

Environment

Page 10

MEASURE SIGMA LEVEL METRIC

2013 Total Production Defects Opportunities DPU DPO DPOM Sigma Level MARCH 95996397 8877180 23 0.092474096 2.1269042 2126904.2 0 APRIL 100239720 2721600 23 0.027150914 0.624471018 624471.0181 1 MAY 40498500 1209600 23 0.029867773 0.686958776 686958.7763 1.1

Flat carton(Lemanic) required improvement to reduce product variation and cost.

BOX WHISKERS PLOT

Boxplot of Y1, Y2 vs Shifts

19 18 17
Crease Ranges
Shifts 1 2 3

16 15 14

16.085

16.16 15.59

13.64

13 12 Shifts 1 2 Y1 3 1

13.21

12.955

2 Y2

Remarks: For crease values F1 to F6 shifts 3 controlled die setting accurately as compare to others. (Considered only Y1)

Page 11

Boxplot of Y1, Y2 vs Operator

19 18 17
O perator Israr Jawad Zahid

Crease Values

16 15 14 13 12 Operator

16.1

16.25 15.845

13.16

13.4

13.305

Israr

Jawad Y1

Zahid

Israr

Jawad Y2

Zahid

Remark: Jawad and performs consistently as compare to others operator Zahid need to

improvement . (Considered only Y1)

Boxplot of Y vs Paper Thickness1

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 233 283 284 285 286 288 Paper Thickness1 289 290 291
Paper Thick ness1 233 283 284 285 286 288 289 290 291

Remarks: Paper thickness at 283 and 288 cm affect the specification of crease values that are skewed.
Page 12

Boxplot of Y vs Board Grammage

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 200 202 204 206 Board Grammage 208 211
Board Grammage 200 202 204 206 208 211

Remarks: Variation is observed in values, that are less than 203 g/m squares for crease
stiffness value

MACHINE SPEED (hl/ h)

Summary for Machine Speed
A nderson-D arling N ormality T est A -S quared P -V alue < M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness K urtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 289330 315000 7.40 0.005 300869 75068 5635154651 -1.26773 1.48407 165 53760 258949 325500 350350 483000 312409 338565 84174

75000

150000

225000

300000

375000

450000

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 67748

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean Median 290000 300000 310000 320000 330000 340000

Remarks: According to standard design speed of machine has to produce 382923 hl/hr. Average value tell that the speed is 300669 hl/hr. Even shape of the distribution is skewed.

Page 13

PROCESS CAPABILITY OF CREASE STIFFNESS VALUES F1 T0 F6

Summary for Y
A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 16.363 16.281 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7

0.45 0.277 16.541 1.108 1.227 0.088925 0.483635 150 13.240 15.888 16.425 17.250 19.580 16.720 16.668 1.249

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 0.995

AFTER APPLYING BOX COX TRANSFORMATION:

Page 14

Box-Cox Plot of Y
1.20
Lower CL Upper CL Lambda (using 95.0% confidence) Estimate 0.68 -1.02 2.37 0.50

1.15

Lower CL Upper CL Rounded Value

StDev

1.10

1.05

Limit -5.0 -2.5 0.0 Lambda 2.5 5.0

Summary for C11

A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 4.0428 4.0349 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09

0.40 0.362 4.0648 0.1363 0.0186 -0.035624 0.532963 150 3.6387 3.9859 4.0528 4.1533 4.4249 4.0868 4.0827 0.1537

3.75

3.90

4.05

4.20

4.35

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev 0.1224

Page 15

Using Box-Cox Transformation With Lambda = 0.5 (using 95.0% confidence)

LS L* P rocess D ata LS L 14 Target * USL 18 S ample M ean 16.5412 S ample N 150 S tD ev (Within) 1.03034 S tD ev (O v erall) 1.10758 A fter Transformation LS L* Target* U S L* S ample M ean* S tD ev (Within)* S tD ev (O v erall)* 3.74166 * 4.24264 4.06482 0.126774 0.136273 U S L*

Process Capability of Y

transformed data

Within O v erall P otential (Within) C apability Cp 0.66 Low er C L 0.58 U pper C L 0.74 C PL 0.85 C PU 0.47 C pk 0.47 Low er C L 0.39 U pper C L 0.54 O v erall C apability Pp Low er U pper PPL PPU P pk Low er U pper C pm Low er 0.61 C L 0.54 C L 0.68 0.79 0.43 0.43 C L 0.36 C L 0.51 * CL *

3.7
O bserv ed P erformance P P M < LS L 13333.33 P P M > U S L 93333.33 P P M Total 106666.67

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

E xp. Within P erformance P P M < LS L* 5399.95 P P M > U S L* 80358.76 P P M Total 85758.71

E xp. O v erall P erformance P P M < LS L* 8859.92 P P M > U S L* 95965.26 P P M Total 104825.17

Comments: There is variation in paper crease stiffness values. Thus process is not capable according to the value of Cpk and Cp.

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

MINITAB offers several commands to help you determine how much of your process variation arises from variation in your measurement system
May-13

Part Reference Value 1 1 1 1 1 1

13 13 13 13 13 13

Crease Value 16.74 16.753 17.649 17.525 19.017 16.647

Page 16

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5

13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17

18.034 16.068 18.225 16.437 16.401 15.532 16.842 17.216 16.78 15.606 17.752 15.947 17.127 15.157 16.195 15.431 16.686 16.26 18.21 15.695 17.036 16.109 16.974 15.273 17.381 16.533 17.378 17.994 18.344 16.534 18.269 17.06 18.19 17.267 17.116 15.721 17.214 17.47 17.818

Page 17

5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18

16.336 18.132 16.576 17.832 16.461 18.46 16.074 17.36 18.412 16.989 16.685 19.138 16.787 18.301 16.413

Page 18

Gage Linearity and Bias Study for Crease value

G age name: D ate of study : transducer equipment M ay 2013 Reported by : Tolerance: M isc: N azish Laraib 11-18

Regression 95% CI Data Avg Bias

P redictor C onstant S lope S Linearity

G age Linearity C oef S E C oef 15.359 1.106 -0.89243 0.07090 0.9380 16.5100 R-S q % Linearity

P 0.000 0.000 73.2% 89.2

Reference A v erage 13 14 15 16 17 18

G age Bias Bias % Bias 1.52615 8.2 4.30950 23.3 2.43600 13.2 1.38690 7.5 1.49500 8.1 0.06760 0.4 -0.53810 2.9

P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.785 0.117

Bias

Percent of Process Variation

100 -2 13 14 15 16 Reference Value 17 18

Percent

50 0

Linearity

Bias

Gage Linearity and Bias examines gage linearity and accuracy In Gage bias section reference averages from 13 to 16 shows bias because values are less than 0.05.In Gage Linearity, slope value also less than 0.05 that shows gage is producing non linear results. (for good gage it should be linear).

GAUGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY

Method for assessing repeatability and reproducibility
One-Way ANOVA Table
Source Part Repeatability Total DF 5 54 59 SS 12.4862 40.5664 53.0527 MS 2.49724 0.75123 F 3.32420 P 0.011

Alpha to remove interaction term = 0.25

Page 19

Gage R&R
Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Part-To-Part Total Variation Process tolerance = 7 Study Var (6 * SD) 5.20041 5.20041 2.50712 5.77321 %Study Var (%SV) 90.08 90.08 43.43 100.00 %Tolerance (SV/Toler) 74.29 74.29 35.82 82.47 VarComp 0.751230 0.751230 0.174601 0.925832 %Contribution (of VarComp) 81.14 81.14 18.86 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Part-To-Part Total Variation

StdDev (SD) 0.866736 0.866736 0.417853 0.962201

is not acceptable and according to action group definition for gage acceptance it is considered poor.

according to action group definition for gage acceptance it is considered poor.

Page 20

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Crease value

G age name: D ate of study : Transducer equipment M ay 2013 Reported by : Tolerance: M isc: N azish Laraib

Components of Variation
75

S Chart
Sample StDev
% Contribution % Study Var % Tolerance

1.5 1.0 0.5

U C L=1.475 _ S =0.859

P er cent

50 25 0

LC L=0.244 1 2 3 P ar t 4 5 6

G age R&R

P art-to-P art

C15 by Part
19.5

XBar Chart
U C L=17.864

Sample M ean

18.0 16.5 15.0

17.5 17.0 16.5 16.0

_ _ X=17.026

LC L=16.188 1 2 3 P ar t 4 5 6

3 P ar t

The percent contribution from Gage R&R ia larger than that of part to part, telling you that much of the variation is due to difference between gage R&R.

ANALYZE PHASE:
Testing Hypothesis Correlation & Regression Analysis

Page 21

TESTING HYPOTHESIS

Crease values Vs Operator:

Test for Equal Variances for Y
Bartlett's Test Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 3.18 0.204 0.26 0.770

Israr

Lev ene's Test

Operator

Jawad

Zahid

0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Comment: Less variation in Jawad performance. Test for Equal Variances: Y versus Operator
95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations Operator Israr Jawad Zahid N 31 63 56 Lower 0.87415 0.80205 1.00041 StDev 1.14684 0.97581 1.23059 Upper 1.64223 1.23806 1.58710

Bartlett's Test (Normal Distribution) Test statistic = 3.18, p-value = 0.204 Levene's Test (Any Continuous Distribution) Test statistic = 0.26, p value = 0.770

Page 22

One-way ANOVA: Y versus Operator

Null Hypothesis: H (zahid)= (jawad) = (Israr) Alternate Hypothesis: Ha (zahid)(jawad) (Israr)
One-way ANOVA: Y versus Operator
Source Operator Error Total S = 1.112 DF 2 147 149 SS 1.00 181.78 182.78 MS 0.50 1.24 F 0.41 P 0.668

R-Sq = 0.55%

R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev --+---------+---------+---------+------(---------------*---------------) (----------*----------) (-----------*----------) --+---------+---------+---------+------16.25 16.50 16.75 17.00

Level Israr Jawad Zahid

N 31 63 56

Mean 16.701 16.505 16.493

StDev 1.147 0.976 1.231

Pooled StDev = 1.112

Inferential statistics results tell us that operators performance are almost equal because p-value is 0.668 that is greater than 0.05.

Page 23

Residual Plots for Y

Normal Probability Plot
99.9 99

Versus Fits
4 2
Residual

Percent

90 50 10 1 0.1

0 -2 -4

-4

-2

0 Residual

16.50

16.55

16.60 Fitted Value

16.65

16.70

Histogram
4 30
Frequency Residual

Versus Order

2 0 -2 -4
1 1 0 20 30 40 5 0 6 0 7 0 80 90 00 1 0 2 0 3 0 40 50 1 1 1 1 1 1

20 10 0

-3

-2

-1 0 Residual

Observation Order

Boxplot of Y
20 19 18 17

Y
16 15 14 13 Israr Jawad Operator Zahid

Here histogram makes a bell shape curve pattern and residual follow a straight line thus normality assumption fulfilled.

Page 24

Test for Equal Variances: Y versus SHIFT

Test for Equal Variances for Y

Bartlett's Test Test Statistic P-Value Test Statistic P-Value 2.73 0.255 0.53 0.589

Shift1

Lev ene's Test

SHIFT

Shift2

Shift3

0.7

0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations SHIFT Shift1 Shift2 Shift3 N 52 55 43 Lower 0.79187 1.00179 0.86764 StDev 0.98111 1.23441 1.09622 Upper 1.27930 1.59621 1.47390

Bartlett's Test (Normal Distribution) Test statistic = 2.73, p-value = 0.255 Levene's Test (Any Continuous Distribution) Test statistic = 0.53, p-value = 0.589

Page 25

One-way ANOVA: Y versus SHIFT

Residual Plots for Y

Normal Probability Plot
99.9 99

Versus Fits
4 2

Residual
-4 -2 0 Residual 2 4

Percent

90 50 10 1 0.1

0 -2 -4 16.40

16.45

16.50 Fitted Value

16.55

16.60

Histogram
30 4

Versus Order

Frequency

20 10 0

Residual
-3 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2 3

2 0 -2 -4
1 1 0 2 0 3 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Observation Order

In Shift analysis, histogram makes a bell shape curve pattern and residual follow a straight line

thus normality assumption fulfilled.

Page 26

Boxplot of Y
20 19 18 17

Y
16 15 14 13 Shift1 Shift2 SHIFT Shift3

Null Hypothesis: H (shift 1)= (shift 2) = (shift 2) Alternate Hypothesis: Ha (shift 1)(shift 2) (shift 2)
One-way ANOVA: Y versus SHIFT
Source SHIFT Error Total DF 2 147 149 SS MS F 0.94 0.47 0.38 181.85 1.24 182.78 R-Sq = 0.51% P 0.685

S = 1.112

R-Sq(adj) = 0.00% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev -------+---------+---------+---------+-(------------*-----------) (-----------*-----------) (-------------*------------) -------+---------+---------+---------+-16.25 16.50 16.75 17.00

Level Shift1 Shift2 Shift3

N 52 55 43

Mean 16.590 16.592 16.417

StDev 0.981 1.234 1.096

Page 27

Pooled StDev = 1.112

Accept Null hypothesis There isnt any difference between shifts.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS
To find out the relationship between variables we apply multiple regression analysis technique and observe that which variable part huge effect on response value.
Y = Response variable (dependent variable) crease value X1 =Independent variable Moisture X2 = Board Grammage X3 = Paper thickness

Regression Analysis: Y versus Moisture, Board Grammage, Paper Thickness1

The regression equation is Y = 35.3 - 0.533 Moisture - 0.0564 Board Grammage - 0.0135 Paper Thickness1 Predictor Constant Moisture Board Grammage Paper Thickness1 S = 1.09139 Coef 35.324 -0.5331 -0.05635 -0.01345 SE Coef 7.073 0.5400 0.02503 0.01468 T 4.99 -0.99 -2.25 -0.92 P 0.000 0.325 0.026 0.361

R-Sq = 4.9%

R-Sq(adj) = 2.9%

Analysis of Variance Source Regression Residual Error Total Source Moisture Board Grammage Paper Thickness1 DF 3 146 149 DF 1 1 1 SS 8.881 173.904 182.784 Seq SS 1.553 6.327 1.001 MS 2.960 1.191 F 2.49 P 0.063

Unusual Observations

Page 28

Obs 28 55 56 58 75 84 95 100 102 103 105 120 134 141

Moisture 6.25 6.10 6.14 6.40 6.32 6.21 5.70 5.70 6.06 5.68 5.65 6.79 6.31 6.40

Y 18.6800 19.5800 19.5800 19.0700 16.9000 14.7200 16.2700 16.6400 18.8100 16.6400 15.0100 15.5800 13.2400 13.6100

Fit 16.3965 16.9273 16.9060 16.7674 16.9300 16.9359 16.5072 16.8697 16.4094 16.8265 16.8745 16.0145 16.0744 16.2762

SE Fit 0.1094 0.1781 0.1707 0.1870 0.8389 0.1773 0.3384 0.3089 0.2131 0.3145 0.3445 0.3221 0.2050 0.1413

Residual 2.2835 2.6527 2.6740 2.3026 -0.0300 -2.2159 -0.2372 -0.2297 2.4006 -0.1865 -1.8645 -0.4345 -2.8344 -2.6662

St Resid 2.10R 2.46R 2.48R 2.14R -0.04 X -2.06R -0.23 X -0.22 X 2.24R -0.18 X -1.80 X -0.42 X -2.64R -2.46R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual. X denotes an observation whose X value gives it large leverage.

Regression equation shows that there is relation between board grammage and crease value. Thus board grammage affects crease value.

Residual Plots for Y

Normal Probability Plot
99.9 99

Versus Fits
3.0 1.5

Residual
-4 -2 0 Residual 2 4

Percent

90 50 10 1 0.1

0.0 -1.5 -3.0 16.00 16.25 16.50 16.75 Fitted Value 17.00

Histogram
30 3.0

Versus Order

Frequency

20 10 0

Residual
-3 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2

1.5 0.0 -1.5 -3.0

1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Observation Order

Page 29

IMPROVE PHASE:
Design of Experiment. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT
DOE tell us that which input(variable) has effect on the crease values Factors: Levels
1. Board Grammage: 204, 210 gram 2. Paper Thickness: 285, 291 3. Moisture: 6%-7% Factors setting values.

Replicate=3 Response: Crease value

Full Factorial Design
Factors: Runs: Blocks: 3 24 1 Base Design: Replicates: Center pts (total): 3, 8 3 0

Generated data in minitab:

StdOrder RunOrder CenterPt

10 18 11 1 2 3 1 1 1

Blocks
1 1 1

Board Paper Crease Grammage Thickness Moisture value

210 210 204 284 284 291 6 6 6 17.00 17.45 16.45

Page 30

4 23 7 21 20 14 12 8 3 5 2 24 19 13 6 17 1 15 22 16 9

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

210 204 204 204 210 210 210 210 204 204 210 210 204 204 210 204 204 204 210 210 204

291 291 291 284 291 284 291 291 291 284 284 291 291 284 284 284 284 291 284 291 284

6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 6 7 7 7 6

15.54 17.45 15.87 18.00 16.00 15.00 14.54 14.00 16.00 18.00 16.21 15.00 14.25 15.35 17.95 16.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 14.33

Factorial Fit: Crease value versus Board Gramma, Paper Thickness,Moisture

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for Crease value (coded units) Term Constant Board Grammage Paper Thickness Moisture Board Grammage*Paper Thickness Board Grammage*Moisture Paper Thickness*Moisture Board Grammage*Paper Thickness* Moisture S = 1.10714 -0.5008 -0.5992 0.4875 -0.8225 -1.2858 -0.0642 0.1692 Effect Coef 15.9746 -0.2504 -0.2996 0.2438 -0.4113 -0.6429 -0.0321 0.0846 SE Coef 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 0.2260 T 70.69 -1.11 -1.33 1.08 -1.82 -2.84 -0.14 0.37 P 0.000 0.284 0.204 0.297 0.088 0.012 0.889 0.713 R-Sq(adj) = 27.48%

PRESS = 44.127 R-Sq = 49.55%

R-Sq(pred) = 0.00%

Page 31

It is being observed that paper grammage and moisture have impact on crease value of HLs

Main effect plot for crease value

Main Effects Plot for Crease value

Data Means
Board Grammage 16.20 16.05 15.90 15.75 Paper Thickness

Mean

15.60 204 Moisture 16.20 16.05 15.90 15.75 15.60 6 7 210 284 291

Paper grammage and thickness have negative relation with crease value as both values increases crease values decreases. While moisture value increase crease value also increases.

Page 32

Interaction plot for crease value

Interaction Plot for Crease value

Data Means
291 284 6 7 17

Boar d Gr ammage

16

Board Grammage 204 210

15 17

P aper T hickness

16

Paper Thick ness 284 291

15

M oistur e

Main effect plot for crease values shows interaction between paper grammage &paper thickness and Board grammage and moisture on the other side paper thickness and moisture are independent.

Page 33

Cube Plot (data means) for Crease value

17.1067 14.6667

15.5667 291

15.3600

Paper Thickness

17.1167

15.9833 7 Moisture 6

15.1100 284 204 Board Grammage

16.8867 210

Normal Plot of the Standardized Effects

(response is Crease value, Alpha = 0.05)
99 Effect Ty pe Not Significant Significant
F actor A B C N ame Board G rammage P aper Thickness M oisture

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 AC

-3

-2

-1 0 1 Standardized Effect

Page 34

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects

(response is Crease value, Alpha = 0.05) 2.120 AC AB B
F actor A B C N ame B oard G rammage P aper T hickness M oisture

Term

A C ABC BC 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Standardized Effect 2.5 3.0

Pareto chart shows that the main effect on the curl values is being caused by Paper grammage and moisture combination .
Residual Plots for Crease value
Normal Probabilit y Plot
99 90 50 10 1 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2 2

Versus Fit s

Residual

Percent

1 0 -1 -2 15.0 15.5 16.0 Fitted Value 16.5 17.0

Hist ogram
6.0 2 1 0 -1 -2

Versus Order

Frequency

3.0 1.5 0.0 -2 -1 0 Residual 1 2

Residual

4.5

8 10 12 14 16 18 Observation Order

20

22

24

Page 35

FALIURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS

Please adjust the excel layout.

Page 36

References: Packages Limited company (Quality control department)

Page 37

Page 38