INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Reduction Of Hub Diameter Variation By Using Sqc Technique

SHASHIKUMAR S
Assistant professor
Dept. of Mechanical
Malla Reddy College of Engineering ,
Hyderabad, India.
Email ID: shashikumarsolur@gmail.com

SUDHAPALLAVI JONNALAGADDA
Assistant professor
Dept. of Mechanical
Malla Reddy College of Engineering ,
Hyderabad, India.
Email ID: Sudhapallavi24@gmail.com

Abstract— In this study, the control parameters for grinding process are improved for reduction in
diameter variation while keeping up quality standards in a cp1h high pressure pump’s cylinder head hub
diameter manufacturing company. The Statistical quality control technique which is a powerful tool to design
optimization for quality is used to find the optimal control parameters. The present paper deals with one of the
quality issues resolved by using SQC tools and methodology in diesel systems plant.

Keywords—statistical quality control; CNC Grinding machine;Diameter; Cause and effect diagram; gage R&R;

I. INTRODUCTION
Parts that require fine surface finishes and extremely close tolerance are candidates for precision grinding;
precision grinding is becoming increasingly important for automotive industries. High pressure pumps have to
produce 1600-1800bar pressure by eliminating all losses, these can to achieve by its components which are
used. Cylinder head is the one of the important part in the high pressure pump, It’s hub diameter play a very
important role, if diameter is higher cannot do assemble, if less then fuel leakage will happen and it’s diameter
tolerance is 36µm. Hub diameter is grind by using CNC machine these can be grind by skilled operator. The
CNC grinding machine is unstable process. Bahmuller CNC grinding machine Module have diameter variation,
it can’t to predictable nature for this reason operator can’t maintain diameter within specification, by this critical
condition 3% of parts rejection found. In this project reduce rejection rate to 0% by using effective steps by
using SQC tools and techniques.

II. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND FORMULATION

The important defects that occur during the production of cylinder head are Patch on hub diameter,
Patch on internal diameter, patch on face, internal diameter, Hub diameter low and Hub diameter high etc. when
the percentage of defects for various defects. Were drawn shown in the figure1. Hub diameter high and low was
found to be of major concern and was contributing 80% of the defects.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 170 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Pareto Chart of Rejection of Cylinder Head

9000
1 00
8000

No. of Rejection
7000 80
6000

Percent
5000 60

4000
40
3000
2000
20
1 000
0 0
Due to 7 .8 r r r
.74 21 pe et
e he
21 ø Ta am Ot
E
Sø OR Di
L ES M ub
er er nH
et et
am am ho
Di Di tc
b b Pa
Hu Hu
No. of Rejected 4036 3393 750 397 228
Percent 45.8 38.5 8.5 4.5 2.6
Cum % 45.8 84.4 92.9 97.4 1 00.0

Figure 1 Pareto diagram of part rejection

Pareto analysis shows that Hub diameter variation which constitutes 20% of the type of defects are hub
diameter is less than the 21.747mm and more than the 21.78mm are creating more than 80% the total
defectives. If we concentrate on Pareto causes then the rejection can be brought down by more than half,
which is actually the aim of the project then there will be a considerable decrease in the overall rejection.
The focus of project in the business point of perspective will be about 2.72% section created
will be dismisses because of hub diameter less than 21.747mm and hub diameter more 21.78mm, it has found
during 100% inspection of hub diameter. In the figure 2 shows monthly Rejection of Cylinder Head due to hub
dia. more and less.

Figure 2 :Bar chart for Monthly wise Rejection of Cylinder Head due to hub dia. more and less.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 171 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

III PROBLEM DISCRIPTION

In CP1H High pressure pump, the cylinder head and its hub diameter play a vital role. Its hub diameter
grinding operation is carried out in CNC Bahmuller grinding machine.

Figure 3 CP1H cylinder head

Above figure shows the CP1H pump Cylinder head with Hub diameter, its spec. 2.8 mm with tolerance
-0.020 and -0.053. More than specification limit, that part can be rework by grinding process. Less than the
specification limit, that part can’t be reworked, it leads to oil leakage problem in the pump and these parts are
rejected. The percentage rejection found in CP1H pump cylinder head part was 3% due to hub diameter out of
the specification. The variation of the Hub diameter treated as cause X.
The object of the project work is to reduce the variation of the hub diameter in the hub pump cylinder
head.

IV EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

4.1. Cause-Effect Diagram for Dimensional variation

Brainstorming:
Through brainstorming listed various causes (X) that contribute to problem (Y) Hub diameter variation are skill
of operator, hardness in material, gauge variation, master gauge, defective grinding wheel, spindle oil, chuck run
out, alignment, CNC program, wheel wear out, process capability, improper dressing, wrong correction and
coolant nozzle setting. All listed causes are consolidated to Fishbone diagram shown in the figure 4.

Figure 4: Cause effect Diagram

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 172 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Gage R&R (ANOVA) Report for hub diameter

Reported by: Shashikumar S
Gage name: Fixture No. F0026 05 1A 3 Diameter =21.8f8 sl. N Tolerance: .002
Date of study: Misc:

Components of Variation hub diameter by part

% Contribution 21.78
160
% Study Var
% Tolerance
Percent

21.76
80

21.74
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 26 2 7 28 29 30
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part
part
R Chart by operator
1 2 hub diameter by operator
Sample Range

UCL=0.004574 21.78
0.004

0.002 _
R=0.0014 21.76
0.000 LCL=0
1 23 4 56 78 9 0 1 23 45 678 90 1 23 45 6 7 890 1 2 345 6 7 890 1 2 345 67 89 01 2 3 4 567 8 9 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 22 222 22 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 222 22 22 223
21.74
part 1 2
operator
Xbar Chart by operator
1 2
21 .78 part * operator Interaction
Sample Mean

21 .78
operator
__ 1
UCL=21.76195
Average

21 .76 X=21.75932 2
LCL=21.75668
21 .76

21 .74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9202 12 22 32425262 72 82 930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 01 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 92 02122232 42 5262728293 0
21 .74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 26 2 7 2 8 2 9 30
part
part

Figure 5 :G R & R ANOVA report

Gage R& R Study for hub diameter

Summary Report

Can you adequately assess process performance? Study Information

0% 1 0% 30% 1 00%
Number of parts in study 30
Number of operators in study 2
Yes No Number of replicates 2
14.1%
(Replicates: Number of times each operator measured each part)
The measurement system variation equals 14.1% of the process
variation. The process variation is estimated from the parts in the
study.
Comments

Can you sort good parts from bad? General rules used to determine the capability of the system:
<10%: acceptable
0% 1 0% 30% 1 00%
10% - 30%: marginal
>30%: unacceptable
Yes No
24.2% Examine the bar chart showing the sources of variation. If the total
The measurement system variation equals 24.2% of the tolerance. gage variation is unacceptable, look at repeatability and
reproducibility to guide improvements:
• Test-Retest component (Repeatability): The variation that occurs
when the same person measures the same item multiple times. This
Variation by Source equals 100.0% of the measurement variation and is 14.1% of the
total variation in the process.
%Study Var
• Operator component (Reproducibility): The variation that occurs
%Tolerance
when different people measure the same item. This equals 0.0% of
45 the measurement variation and is 0.0% of the total variation in the
process.

30 30

15
10

0
Total Gage Repeat Reprod

Figure6: G R& R report

Analyzed all the factors mentioned in the cause and effect diagram , in that material, personal, environment,
methods are analyzed by Visual inspection, Measurement instrument are analyzed by calculating gauge R&R ,
After every thirtieth part dresses the grinding wheel, parts between dressing the grinding wheel as one grinding
cycle that 30parts are chosen for measurement. Two operators measure same parts twice at different periods.
Gauge R&R study Analyzed using ANOVA method. The value of total G R & R found 14.11%, within the
acceptable limit of 30% and hence the measurement system is acceptable. Fit for calibration. In machine
parameter Chuck has been replaced, Part Dia. run out fixed. Parts produce with random variation found after
dressing cycle and Cp = 1.07 and Cpk=0.80, this factor are suspect for produce diameter variation.

Process capability analysis:

To analyze process capability 400 parts are feed to machine for grinding process in that last five parts
before dressing and next five parts after dressing process and consider as subgroup size 10. We calculated Cp
and Cpk values for this data and was found to be 1.07, 0.80 respectively. The defect rate was 2.08%, which
estimates the percentage of parts from the process that are outside the spec limits.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 173 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Capability Analysis for intial pro.(

Process Performance Report

Capability Histogram Process Characterization

Are the data inside the limits?
Total N 141
LSL USL Subgroup size 10
Mean 21.759
Standard deviation (overall) 0.0060747
Standard deviation (within) 0.0051435

Capability Statistics
Actual (overall)
Pp 0.91
Ppk 0.68
Z.Bench 2.04
% Out of spec (observed) 2.84
% Out of spec (expected) 2.08
PPM (DPMO) (observed) 28369
PPM (DPMO) (expected) 20815
Potential (within)
Cp 1.07
Cpk 0.80
Z.Bench 2.41
% Out of spec (expected) 0.79
21.744 21.750 21.756 21.762 21.768 21.774 21 .780
PPM (DPMO) (expected) 7912

Actual (overall) capability is what the customer experiences.

Potential (within) capability is what could be achieved if

process shifts and drifts were eliminated.

Figure 7: process capability report

Parts are numbered according to robot pickup the part and feed to machine, grind the part without influence of
operator, measured five parts before dressing and five parts after dressing and plotted graph.

Dressing cycle Observation

21 .78 21 .78

21 .77
Hub diameter

21 .76

21 .75
21 .747

21 .74

1 40 80 1 20 1 60 200 240 280 320 360

Part number

Figure 8: Dressing cycle observation

Figure 8 shows that dressing cycle observation, grinding cycle to grinding cycle in a same batch had found that
higher contrast of maximum variation 23µm, by considering difference of before dressing part and after dressing
part, maximum variation found in same batch with different grinding cycle.

Figure 9: C-E Diagram

In cause and effect diagram shows that issues with machine, process capability was less than 1.33, after each
dressing unexpected variation observed in time series plot.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 174 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

V.EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
The part of Cp1H high pressure pump cylinder head import to plant having hub diameter of 21.79mm to
21.799 mm. Initially checked relation between before grinding and after grinding process, around 0.010 mm to
0.030 mm stack will be removed during grinding process in the Bahmuller machine.

Fitted Line Plot or Scatter plots

pre process Hub diameter = 21 .28 + 0.0279 post process Hub diameter
21 .91 0 S 0.0082570
R-Sq 0.1 %
21 .905 R-Sq(adj) 0.0%
pre process Hub diameter

21 .900

21 .895

21 .890

21 .885

21 .880

21 .875

21 .750 21 .755 21 .760 21 .765 21 .770 21 .775 21 .780

post process Hub diameter

Figure 9: scatter plot

Figure 9 shows the scatter plot, in the pre and post grinding process hub diameter found zero percent
contribution for regression, leading to a conclusion that there is no relationship between pre and post grind
diameter. It indicates that machine grinding process takes place as per program feed in the control system. And
axis of the grinding will actuate as mentioned in the program.
We observed most of the hub diameter at the final 100%inspection time, standard variation was found
up to 0.0088. In this CNC grinding machine dressing will take place after every 30 parts. At each dressing cycle
hub diameter pattern shows random nature in the graph so we mainly concentrate on dressing operation. We
change the existing feed rate during dressing from 500mm/min to 250 mm/min, after measured output of
grinding process we got standard deviation of 0.00685 and our next observation with changed dressing depth of
cut from existing 0.020 mm to 0.030mm we achieved a standard deviation of 0.00322. After our experiments,
with the original setting of .020mm depth of cut during dressing, the trials were conducted and standard
deviation as 0.0065 was observed.
Boxplot of Initial, Feed rate change, back to intial, Depth of cut cha
21 .78

21 .77
Hub diameter

21 .76

21 .75

21 .74

Initial Feed rate change @ DC back to intial Depth of cut change

Figure 10: Box Plot

In figure 10 shows that the changes in depth of cut value in the dressing cycle are minimized the process
variation than the other.

V. Test
Boxplot of BEFORE, AFTER PROCESS

BEFORE

AF TER

0.000 0.005 0.01 0 0.01 5 0.020

Variation

Figure 11 Box Plot

In figure 11, the box plot has drawn considering difference of average of five parts after dressing (that
is 1st part to 5th part ) and average of five parts before dressing (that is 26th to 30th ) in the same grinding cycle.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 175 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Test for Equal Variances: BEFORE, AFTER PROCESS

F Test
P-Value 0.000

BEFORE

AFTER

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.01 2

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Figure 12 Test for variances

The hub diameter variation is minimized by change setting in the dressing cycle depth of cut (After)
then the existing grinding process (Before) validated by using F – test.
Considering, Null hypothesis Ho: σ2 before = σ2 after
Alternative Hypothesis H1: σ2 before ≠ σ2 after
The test is performed at Significance level α = 0.05. F test as shown in the figure 5.2.4., we obtained P valve
lesser than 0.05 that is 0.0. Therefore Null hypothesis H0 is rejected. Hence, we can conclude from figure 12 that
there is a significant reduction in variability after the experiment.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 176 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Comparison of process capability before and after the study was performed. The details are provided in figure
13. The comparison of Cp and Cpk values before and after the study is provided in table 1

Before/After Capability Comparison for intial pro.( vs final Proces

Before: intial process Diagnostic Report
After: final Proces
Xbar-S Charts
Confirm that the Before and After process conditions are stable.
Before After

21 .77
Mean

21 .76

21 .75
0.01 0
StDev

0.005

0.000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37

Normality Plots
The points should be close to the line.
Before After
Normality Test
(Anderson-Darling)
Before After
Results Fail Fail
P-value < 0.005 < 0.005

Before/After Capability Comparison for intial process vs final Proces

Before: intial process Process Performance Report
After: final Proces

Capability Histogram Process Characterization

Are the data inside the limits? Before After Change
LSL USL Total N 140 140
Before Subgroup size 10 10
Mean 21.759 21.765 0.0054214
StDev(overall) 0.0060931 0.0046898 -1.40E-03
StDev(within) 0.0045591 0.0043904 -1.69E-04

Capability Statistics
Before After Change
Actual (overall)
After Pp 0.90 1.17 0.27
Ppk 0.68 1.08 0.40
Z.Bench 2.03 3.20 1.16
% Out of spec (obs) 2.86 0.00 -2.86
% Out of spec (exp) 2.10 0.07 -2.03
PPM (DPMO) (obs) 28571 0 -28571
PPM (DPMO) (exp) 20996 691 -20305
Potential (within)
Cp 1.21 1.25 0.05
Cpk 0.91 1.15 0.24
21.744 21.750 21.756 21.762 21.768 21.774 21.780 Z.Bench 2.73 3.43 0.70
% Out of spec (exp) 0.32 0.03 -0.29
PPM (DPMO) (exp) 3192 305 -2887
Actual (overall) capability is what the customer experiences.

Potential (within) capability is what could be achieved if

process shifts and drifts were eliminated.

Figure 13 Capability comparison report

Before After
Cp 1.21 1.25
Cpk 0.91 1.15
Table: 1 : Cp and Cpk values before and after the study

VI. LEVERAGE

After understanding the root causes of the problem, so as to eliminate the hub diameter variation
problems, following suggestions were made and the same were implemented.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 177 http://ijire.org/

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH EXPLORER ISSN NO: 2347-6060

Changing the dressing depth of cut from 0.020to 0.030 mm has resulted in minimise rejection of cylinder
head due to hub diameter variation.However, the study has focused only on the root causes in the cylinder head
hub diameter variation problem. Other probable sources of variation in the process of cylinder head hub
grinding have to be evaluated to completely leverage the problem. The other sources of variation that could
occur in the process of grinding hub diameter of cylinder head are to be identified.

Care has to be taken to avoid hub diameter variation occurring due to interruption. Effective utilization of
all 6 slots buffer storage slots, at exiting state only 4 slots are used to avoid warm up cycles in the Bahmuller
grinding machine during Kadia honing machine break down, increased buffer storage size from 4 to 6 slots at
the feeder section.

CONCLUSION

Based on the experimentations and analysis carried out following conclusions and suggestions are derived to
leverage the CP1H pump cylinder head hub diameter variation problem.The root cause was found to be
improper dressing of grinding wheel used to grind cylinder head hub diameter.Rejection of Cylinder head part
successfully Reduced from 3% to 0.2%.

REFERENCE

[1] Sunil sharma and anuradha r chetiya, Simplifying the six sigma toolbox through application of
shainin® doe techniques,vikalpa,vol. 34/01, jan-mar 2009, 13-19

[2] Application of six sigma methodology to reduce defects of a grinding process by E. V. Gijo, johny scaria
and jiju antony. (wileyonlinelibrary.com) doi: 10.1002/qre.1212

[3] Reduction of Hub Diameter Variation In High Pressure Pump Cylinder Head by using Shainin Problem
Solving Technique by Shashikumar s, IJRMEE, ISSN: 2349-7947 Volume: 2 Issue: 6,43-4

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 6, NOV/2017 178 http://ijire.org/