See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292144743

Reducing variability in micro-milling process

using six sigma methodology

Conference Paper December 2015

DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2015.7385822

CITATIONS READS

0 69

3 authors:

Hector R. Siller Erika Garca

Tecnolgico de Monterrey Massachusetts Institute of Technology
66 PUBLICATIONS 207 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ciro A Rodriguez
Tecnolgico de Monterrey
76 PUBLICATIONS 774 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of micro-arrayers for passive mass transfer in microfluidic devices View project

Scanning near-field optical microscopy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hector R. Siller on 28 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Reducing Variability in Micro-Milling Process Using Six Sigma Methodology
E. Garca-Lpez, H. R. Siller, C. A. Rodrguez
Escuela de Ingenier y Ciencias, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey Mxico
(garcia.erika@itesm.mx, hector.siller@itesm.mx, ciro.rodrguez@itesm.mx )
Abstract Micro-milling is a manufacturing process used as
an alternative for the fabrication of Lab-on-a-Chip
components among other medical applications. In the work
presented here, the six sigma methodology was used for
evaluating micro-milling process parameters and their
impact on the generation of geometrical errors such as tool
wear, vibrations and burr formations. These critical
variables affect surface quality and geometrical features for
Lab-On-a-Chip microfluidic performance. This paper
presents the application of DMAIC (Define, Measure,
Analyze, Improve and Control) methodology in micro-
milling process in order to study cutting parameters and
their influence on surface quality. Finally, improvements are
implemented to enhance process capability as related to
surface roughness.
Keywords Micro-milling process, Six Sigma
methodology, geometrical accuracy, surface roughness
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, the manufacturing of medical devices and
Lab-on-a-Chip components requires advanced processing
technologies, such as photolithographic micro fabrication,
micro-milling and laser microcutting, among others.
Micro-milling is a mechanical cutting process that
generates product features in dimensions of 1 mm or less
[1]. This process is flexible and has low implementation
cost. The study of various process factors can improve
surface finish, geometrical errors and tolerances.
The main sources of geometrical errors for micro-milling
process are tool deflection, tool wear, vibrations and burr
formations[2]. Tool deflection occurs when tool bends
due to the action of cutting forces[3]meanwhile tool wear
and vibrations are inherent characteristics for milling
process. Aramcharoen et al. explained three basic
mechanisms for burr formations in micro-milling
process[4], based on the concept minimum chip thickness
necessary for an adequate chip mechanics. In case, the
process is operated below the necessary chip thickness,
the cutting tool compresses the material, resulting in
burrs[4].The appropriate minimum chip thickness is
influenced by friction, among other process factors[5].
These sources of geometrical errors can be quantified in
terms of average surface roughness, tool wear and tool
life and all of them affect the surface finish, which is
critical to Lab-on-a Chip components that require
microfluidics.
Due to the complexity of cutting mechanisms, some
results have been reported on the estimations of minimum
chip thickness from analytical and fuzzy models[6, 7].
These studies focus on cutting forces in order to analyze
978-1-4673-8066-9/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE
minimum chip thickness effect and its influence on
surface topography and burr formations. Although these
models explain the cutting phenomenon, few papers have
been developed to reduce process variability adjusting
operational settings.
Six Sigma methodology improves the process quality
analyzing data statistically to find the root cause of quality
problems and to implement controls[8].This paper
presents the use of DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve and Control) methodology for micro-milling
process in order to study cutting mechanisms and its
implications on surface finish.
II. DMAIC METHODOLOGY
The Six sigma projects can be classified as: Customer
satisfaction, productivity improvement, waste
minimization, cost reduction, quality improvement,
process improvement, reliability improvement, health,
safety and environment improvement and employee
satisfaction [9, 10].
The process improvement projects involve the use of tools
and techniques used to discover and to execute process.
Six Sigma methodologies are implemented by a team with
specific objectives. The organizational structure of Six
Sigma implementation is based on precisely specified
roles (e.g. Green Belts, Black Belts). In fact, black belts
lead project teams; they are trained for collecting,
combining and synthesizing the knowledge of team[11].
A key driver of success for Six Sigma projects is the
possibility to recruit the best resources in the company to
contribute to the project development[12].
Micro-milling operations involve a large number of
process factors, where the Six Sigma methodology can
beneficial. A Six Sigma project was implemented for
micro-milling operations focused on well-defined
measurable goals in order to reduce variability, with
financial benefits compared with other micro-fabrication
alternatives.
III. APPLICATION MODEL
The DMAIC procedure was implemented for micro-
milling process and it is discussed in the following
sections.
Define
The first phase of DMAIC is to define and to identify key
issues and problems through the voice of customer and
the voice of business in micro-milling process.
1117
 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM

Basically, thee deliverables in this phase are: identificaation IV. CAS

SE STUDY: M
MICRO-MILL
LING
of primary metrics,
m time series plot from
f the prim mary
metric and thhe opportunitty window, problem
p definnition Projject Backgrouund
statement, sccope definitiion, objective statement and Thiss case studyy was implem mented at thhe Center foor
forecasted saaving (includding hard, potential and soft Innoovation in Deesign and Tecchnology of Tecnolgico
T dee
savings)[13]. Mon nterrey with the
t interest off developing Lab-on-a-Chip
L p
Are view off literature [1-4] shows thhe main issuees to com
mponents. Thee micro-millinng process waas evaluated inn
analyze. The micro-millinng defects deppend basicallyy on ordeer to analyze its implicationns on geomettrical precisionn
the followingg factors: tool deflection, toool wear, vibraation of microfluidic
m deevices.
and burr form mation. Thereefore, in ordeer to increasee the All manufacturinng processes have an inheerent variancee
sigma capabiility of the process,
p a wiindow of proocess ociated with their critical metrics and responsee
asso
parameters shhould be identtified. variiables. Althouugh this variaance cannot be eliminatedd
entirely from the process, it caan be minimizzed in order too
Measure impprove product quality. In tthis case, thee product is a
This stage implies the recognition of the proocess micrro-channel where
w some physiologicall or chemicaal
parameters and
a its influence on the critical
c to quuality subsstances can be separatedd in order to t perform a
(CTQ)by finaal product (Laab-on-a-Chip components)..This chemmical analysiss. A Six Sigm ma project wass developed inn
stage is decisiive for micro--milling proceess in order too find ordeer to identifyy the critical factors involvved in cuttingg
the effects on surface roughness and a the proocess proccess and their implications oon miniaturizaation.
productivity. The deliverabbles for this phase are proocess Figuure 1shows the micro-m milling process, utilizing a
flow diagramm, cause and efffect tools, meeasurement syystem minniature cuttinng tool (4000 m in diameter) too
analysis (M MSA) and process cappability anaalysis mannufacture micro-channels as the bassic geometricc
(PCA)[13]. featuure in the miicrofluidics neecessary for Lab-on-a-Chip
L p
com
mponents. Onee of the key sspecifications is the surfacee
Analysis
A rougghness at the bottom
b of the micro-channeel.
This stage iddentifies the critical proceess parameterrs in
order to inncrease systtem robustnness, to reeduce
experimental costs and to improve produuct quality[14].
A valid relatiionship betweeen the process parameterss and
their correspoonding responnse variables are establisheed to
identify the critical paarameters wiith a signifficant
contribution and
a influence on the responnse functions. The
deliverables for
f this phasee are: failure mode and effecte
analysis, explloratory analyysis and statisstical analysis[13].
In this stage, the micro-millling parameteers (feed per toooth,
spindle speedd and axial deepth) must be analyzed in ordero
to find the optimal cutting conditions.
c Figure 1.Micro--milling process uused for the experrimentation.

I
Improvement Projject definitionn
The purposee of the improvementt phase is the From m previous studies, miicro-milling process waas
implementatioon of new chaanges so that the micro-miilling com
mpared with WEDM M, sandblasting andd
process perfoormance can be enhanced and the com mmon photolithographicc process [14]]. Hence, it was
w found thaat
variation cauuses are deetected. In this t stage, some
s sanddblasting proccess is econommically feasibble however it i
experiments are
a performedd in order to finnd out the opttimal prodduces in apppropriate surrface quality y. Meanwhilee,
cutting conditions. The deliverables forr the improvem ment photolithographicc process was the most expeensive process
phase are: thee optimizationn tools and thhe identificatioon of withh an excellennt surface quuality, while micro-millingg
operational coonditions[13].. proccess was econnomically feaasible with an n intermediatee
surfface quality.
Control A high number of defects in w workpieces and d variability inn
The purpose of this phase is to sustain the
t benefits ofo the micrro-milling process
p was registered according too
new process and to ensuree that previouss problems doo not histoorical data. Therefore,
T the goal was to reduce
r averagee
resurface[14]. Critical process parameters are surfface roughnesss in order too get values less
l than 0.500
continuously monitored and a documentted to updatee the m.. Hard savingss involve a diffference betw
ween photolithoo
information. The deliverabbles for the control
c phase are: grapphic vs. microo-milling proccesses (300 vs.
v 60 USD inn
control technniques, controol plan and project
p status[13]. unitt cost) [15].Therefore, m micro-milling cost is jusst
For the coomplete succcess of Sixx Sigma, prroper 20%%percent, com mpared to phottolithographicc process. Sofft
documentatioon of the proceess is recomm
mended. saviings are associated with cusstomer satisfaction, who haas
a prroduct at low wer price andd accessible to biomedicaal
marrket.

1118
 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM

Measure stage
The steps for micro-milling operations include a fixture
system to hold the workpiece, and the referencing the
workpiece position relative to the machine coordinate
system. Then, cutting parameters are adjusted and a CNC
program is developed according to final microfluidic
design. Figure 2 illustrates a complete process flow
diagram for micro-milling process. In order to prioritize
input variables for micro-milling process, a cause and
effect matrix (Table 1) and an Ishikawa diagram (Figure
3) were developed. The cause and effect matrix was
performed including key output customer requirements
and their importance was rated from 1 to 10. Then, input
variables were related with key requirements and scored
by 9 (strong correlation), 3 (moderate correlation), 1
(remote correlation) and 0 (no correlation).These values
were multiplied by the weights assigned to customer
requirements and added for each input variables. The
results suggest that average surface roughness is the most
indicated to evaluate micro-milling process.
Also, process mapping was used to understand the micro-
milling process. Identification of input variables (Xs),
Output variables (Ys) and all value added and non-value
added process steps [16]. Table 2 presents a process
mapping of micro-milling process. The Ishikawa diagram
illustrates the current process in order to narrow down the
and statistical model for surface roughness response. The
determination coefficient R-sq (adj) was 90.8%. After this
stage, optimal cutting conditions are found.
A process capability analysis (PCA) was performed with
the optimal cutting parameters (11,000 RPM in spindle
speed, 0.08 mm in axial depth and 0.005 mm/tooth in feed
per tooth). Process capability results (see Figure 5)
indicate that Z bench level was improved from -0.4 to
2.48 (room temperature) and from -1.1 to 3.8 applying a
precooling on the workpiece(-65C).
Improvement actions and Control stage
Cause and effect matrix, as well as the Ishikawa diagram
show the factors to be considered to carry out actions
implemented through Six Sigma methodology. The
improvement proposal involves implementation of a
displacement sensor in order to quantify the distance
between workpiece and cutting tool or to develop a new
fixture in order to identify the distance between material
and cutting tool. The project team needs to evaluate if
these modifications contribute to reduce variability.
Table 1. Cause and effect matrix of Micro-milling process
Key output customer
requirements (Ys)

material percent

Burr formation
problem into its main factors or root causes that affect the

Distance tool-
Adjustment

Machining
percentage

percentage
cutting process. The following stages analyze the

workpiece

roughness
Average
influence of cutting parameters on average surface
roughness as main indicator of surface quality.
An initial experimentation was performed in order to Input variables (Xs) 8 9 6 10 7 Total
evaluate process capability. Two cutting temperatures Precision tool holder 1 1 3 47
were evaluated: a) room temperature (25 C) and b) pre- Spindle accuracy 1 1 3 47
Maximum Width workpiece 3 18
cooling on workpiece using solid carbon dioxide (-65 C),
Maximum Height workpiece 3 18
with cutting parameters fixed at 8,000 RPM spindle Axial depth 3 9 9 171
speed, 0.12 mm axial depth and 0.010 mm/ tooth feed Spindle speed 3 30
rate. Figure 4 illustrates initial PCA in order to analyze Z- Feed per tooth 9 9 153
bench level. In both graphs, it is observed a negative level Workpiece Temperature 3 1 37
of Z-bench. Therefore, the cutting process is not capable Processing time 1 6
to produce Lab-on-a-Chip components. Evaluation of Raw material percentage 1 6
cutting parameters is necessary. Fixture distance 9 3 111
Work offset distance X 9 3 102
Work offset distance Y 9 3 102
Analysis stage Work offset distance Z 9 3 102
A Design of experiments 24 was performed to evaluate Cycle time 1 6
cutting parameters (see Table 3) in a vertical machining 16 261 72 390 217 956
center. Table 4 illustrates p-values, analysis of variance

Adjusting tool
in holder

Selecting Machine Y Measuring

Adjusting Getting zero Running machine Removing
workpiece program Surface End
workpiece workoffset program workpiece
fixture finished? quality
Start
Programming N
cutting
parameters

Programming
CAM design

Figure 2. Process flow diagram (PFD)

1119
 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM

Table 2. Process mapping of micro-milling process

Add

Input/ Output
Value Input/Output variables
How this variable How this variable
From Process Flow Diagram or from Specific Std (if exists)
is measured is controlled
not add this process step
value
AV/
Process Step Variables Specification Measurement System Control
NAV
Precision tool holder I 0.001 m Micrometer Uncontrolled
Adjusting tool in tool holder AV
Spindle accuracy I 0.0001 m Micrometer Uncontrolled
Max. Width workpiece I 500 mm Caliper Process plan
Selecting workpiece fixture AV
Max. Height workpiece I 400 mm Caliper Process plan
AV Axial depth I 0.015 m-0.6 m Micrometer Automated control
AV Spindle speed I 10- 30000 RPM Tachometer Automated control
Programming cutting parameters
AV Feed per tooth I 0.001- 0.015 mm/tooth Micrometer Automated control
AV Workpiece Temperature I -63 - 25 C Thermocouple Process plan
Programming CAM design AV Processing time I Not specified Timer Process plan
AV Raw material percentage I Not specified Caliper Process plan
Adjusting workpiece AV Fixture distance I Not specified Micrometer Process plan
AV Adjustment percentage O Not specified Micrometer Uncontrolled
Work offset distance X I 0 m Micrometer Automated control
Work offset distance Y I 0 m Micrometer Automated control
Getting zero work offset AV
Work offset distance Z I 0 m Micrometer Automated control
Distance tool-workpiece O 0 m Micrometer Uncontrolled
Running machine program AV Cycle time I Not specified Timer Process plan
Raw material percentage I Not specified Caliper Process plan
Machining material perc. O Not specified Caliper Process plan
Removing workpiece AV
Average roughness O 0 m- 0.2 m Roughness tester Inspection
Burr formation percentage O 0-10% Go/ No go Inspection

Labor Methods Cutting parameters

Preventive Temperature
maintenance
Lack of staff Spindle speed
commitment Non inspection
Poor
trainning Feed per tooth
Lack of
Standardization Axial depth
Mising procedures
manual

Surface
quality
Burr formation
Non homogeneous Runout
microstructure material
Tool deflection
Fixture
Vibrations
Cutting forces

Vibrations Coating material

Ploughing
No frequent inspection
Zero workpiece

Cutting process Cutting Tools

Figure 3. Ishikawa diagram for micro-milling process

1120
 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM

LEI LES
P rocess data Within
LE I 0.05 Ov erall
Target *
LE S 0.5 P otential capability (O v erall)
S ample mean 0.552714 Z.Bench -0.40
S ample number 7 Z.LE I 3.78
S t. D ev . (Within) 0.13289 Z.LE S -0.40
S t. D ev . (O v erall) 0.127491 C pk -0.13
O v erall capability
P otential capability (Within)
Z.Bench -0.41
Cp 0.56
Z.LE I 3.94
C PL 1.26
Z.LE S -0.41
C P U -0.13
P pk -0.14
C pk -0.13
C pm *
G eneral capability
Pp 0.59
PPL 1.31
PPU -0.14 Workpiece
P pk -0.14 Temperature: 25 oC
C pm * 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
LEI LES
P rocess data Within
LE I 0.05 Overall
Target *
LE S 0.5 P otential capability (O v erall)
S ample mean 0.563429 Z.Bench -1.17
S ample number 7 Z.LE I 9.44
S t. D ev . (Within) 0.0543886 Z.LE S -1.17
S t. D ev . (G eneral) 0.0521787 C pk -0.39
G eneral C apability
P otential capability (Within)
Z.Bench -1.22
Cp 1.38
Z.LE I 9.84
C PL 3.15
Z.LE S -1.22
C PU -0.39
P pk -0.41
C pk -0.39
C pm *
G eneral capability
Pp 1.44
PPL 3.28
PPU -0.41
P pk -0.41 Workpiece
C pm *
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Temperature: 65 oC
Figure 4.Initial process capability analysis (PCA)for average surface roughness
LEI LES
P rocess data W ithin
LE I 0.05 O v erall
Target *
LE S 0.5 P otencial capability (O v erall)
S ample mean 0.196286 Z.Bench 2.48
S ample number 7 Z.LE I 2.48
S t. D ev . (Within) 0.0590923 Z.LE S 5.14
S t. D ev . (O v erall) 0.0566913 C pk 0.83
O v erall capability
P otential capability (Within)
Z.Bench 2.58
Cp 1.27
Z.LE I 2.58
C PL 0.83
C PU 1.71
Z.LE S 5.36
C pk 0.83 P pk 0.86
C pm *
G eneral capability
Pp 1.32
PPL 0.86
PPU 1.79
P pk 0.86
Workpiece
C pm * Temperature: 25 oC
0.2 0.4 0.6
LEI LES
P rocess data W ithin
LEI 0.05 General
Target *
LES 0.5 P otential capability (O v erall)
S ample mean 0.192714 Z.Bench 3.89
S ample number 7 Z.LE I 3.89
S t. Dev . (Within) 0.0366542 Z.LE S 8.38
S t. Dev . (O v erall) 0.0351649 C pk 1.30
O v erall capability
P otential capability (Within)
Z.Bench 4.06
Cp 2.05
C P L 1.30 Z.LE I 4.06
C P U 2.79 Z.LE S 8.74
C pk 1.30 P pk 1.35
C pm *
G eneral capability
Pp 2.13
PPL 1.35
PPU 2.91
P pk 1.35 Workpiece
C pm * 0.2 0.4 0.6 Temperature: 65 oC
Figure 5. Final process capability analysis (PCA) for average surface roughness

1121
 Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE IEEM

Table 3. Design of experiments 24 REFERENCES

Factor Low level/High level Unit
[1] D. Dornfeld, S. Min, Y. Takeuchi, "Recent Advances in
X1 Spindle speed 5000/ 11000 RPM
Mechanical Micromachining", Annals of the CIRP, vol. 55,
X2 Feed per tooth 0.005/0.015 mm/tooth
pp. 745-768, 2006.
X3 Axial depth 0.08/0.16 mm
[2] L. Uriarte, A. Herrero, M. Zatarain, G. Santiso, L.N. Lopz
X4 Temperature -65/25 C
de Lacalle, A. Lamikiz, J. Albizuri, "Error budget and
stiffness chain assessment in a micro-milling machine
Table 4. Analysis of variance and model proposed
equipped with tools less than 0.3 mm in diameter",
Precision engineering, vol. 31, pp. 112, 2007.
Ra= 0.50-0.11* X1 +0.04* X2+0.19* X3 0.07* X1 X2-0.05* X1 X3+0.06*
X3 X4 [3] N. L. de Lacalle, A.L. Mentxaka, Machine Tools for High
Source DF SS MS F P Performance Machining, Springer Science and business,
X1 1 0.400 0.400 61.85 0.000 2008.
X2 1 0.059 0.059 9.23 0.006 [4] A. Aramcharoen, P. Mativenga, "Size effect and tool
X3 1 1.167 1.167 180.08 0.000 geometry in micro-milling of tool steel", Precision
X4 1 0.231 0.023 3.57 0.072 Engineering, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 402407, 2009.
X1 X2 1 0.174 0.174 26.94 0.000 [5] S.M. Son, H.S. Lim, J.H. Ahn, "Effects of the friction
X1 X3 1 0.082 0.082 12.64 0.002 coefficient on the minimum cutting thickness in micro
X2 X3 1 0.009 0.009 1.5 0.233 cutting", International Journal of Machine Tools and
X2 X4 1 0.016 0.016 2.60 0.121 Manufacture, vol. 45, pp. 529-535, 2005
X3 X4 1 0.128 0.128 19.86 0.000 [6] H. Taek Yun, S. Heo, M. Kyu Lee, B. K. Min, y S. Jo Lee,
Residual error 22 0.142 0.006 "Ploughing detection in micro-milling processes using the
Lack of fit 6 0.116 0.019 1.78 0.2 cutting force signal", International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture, 2011.
[7] Q. Ren, M. Balazinski, K., Jemielniak, L. Baron, S.
Achiche, "Experimental and fuzzy modelling analysis
V. CONCLUSIONS on dynamic cutting force in micro milling", Soft comput,
vol. 17, 2013.
Micro-milling is a manufacturing process appropriate for [8] J. Markarian, "Six Sigma: quality processing through
production of microfluidic systems. The Six Sigma statistical analysis", Plastics, Additives and Compounding,
methodology was implemented in order to study cutting vol. 6, pp. 2831, 2004.
parameters and to reduce process variability. A design of [9] W.D. Lin, X. Jin, S.Y. Chia, "Simulation based lean six
experiments was performed and a statistical model was sigma approach to reduce patients waiting time in an
adjusted for average surface roughness at R-sq (adj)= outpatient eye clinic", 2014 in Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management (IEEM),pp. 394-398, 2014.
90.8%. Also, the use of DMAIC tools was demonstrated
[10] R. Padhy, S. Sahu, "A Real Option based Six Sigma
in each stage in order to reduce average surface roughness project evaluation and selection model", International
(< 0.5 m) and to find critical parameters that promote Journal of Project Management, 2011.
process variability. Process capability analysis (PCA) was [11] G. Anand, P. T. Ward, y M. V. Tatikonda, "Role of explicit
applied after optimal conditions were obtained. A Z bench and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma projects: An empirical
level increased from -0.4 to 2.48 for room temperature examination of differential project success", Journal of
(25C) and from -1.1 to 3.8 applying a pre-cooling to the Operations Management, vol. 28, pp. 303315, 2010.
workpiece (-65C). [12] A. Brun, "Critical success factors of Six Sigma
implementations in Italian companies", International
Journal of Production Economics, 2010.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[13] M. del C. Temblador, Mario G. Beruvides, "Systems
Approach to Problem Solving using Six Sigma". American
The work was possible due to the financial support of Society for Engineering Management Conference Proc.,
Tecnologico de Monterrey, through its Centro de 2009.
Innovacin en Diseo y Tecnologa and its research group [14] S. Kumar, P. Satsangi, y D. Prajapati, "Six Sigma an
in Advanced Manufacturing. Additional support was Excellent Tool for Process Improvement".International
provided by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Journal of Scientific and Engineering research, 2011.
Tecnologa in Mexico. [15] A. L. Juregui, H. R. Siller, C. A. Rodrguez, A. Elas-
Ziga, "Evaluation of micromechanical manufacturing
processes for microfluidic devices", The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 48,
2009.
[16] T. Pyzdek, P. Keller, "The Six Sigma Handbook, Chapter
10-Analyze Phase". McGraw-Hill Professional, 2009.

1122
View publication stats