Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects

This article was downloaded by:[EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium]
[EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium]

On: 1 May 2007
Access Details: [subscription number 777703943]
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Quality Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597292
Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma

Methods: A Case Study
a
Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay ; Soumik Ray

a
SQC and OR Unit, Indian Statistical Institute. Kolkata. India
To cite this Article: Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay and Soumik Ray , 'Reduction of
Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods: A Case Study', Quality
Engineering, 18:2, 189 - 206
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/08982110600567533
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08982110600567533
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
Taylor and Francis 2007
Downloaded By: [EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium] At: 14:12
Quality Engineering, 18:189206, 2006

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0898-2112 print=1532-4222 online
DOI: 10.1080/08982110600567533
Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods: A Case Study
Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay and Soumik Ray
SQC and OR Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
This article originated when an Indian textile company

identified packing rejection of yarn cones as its major quality
problem and decided to use Six Sigma methods to correct the
problem. At the end of its manufacturing process, yarn is
wound into conical-shaped packages called cones, and it is
shipped to customers in this format. Customers were rejecting
cones due to unacceptable weight variation. Pareto charts
revealed the major counts (a measure of yarn fineness) that
were experiencing this problem. Technological deliberations
led to identifying variation in yarn length, yarn count, empty
yarn container weight, and moisture content of yarn as the critical parameters for this rejection. Statistical hypothesis testing
established that the observed weight was significantly more
than the set weight of yarn at the assembly winding stage. In
addition, a significant difference in gross yarn weight between
left and right sides of a machine was found at this stage. This
occured despite the attachment of electronic length measuring
devices (LMDs) on all assembly winding machines. The gage
capability analysis of LMDs, performed on the yarn length
at two assembly winding machines, revealed inadequate capability. In addition, for the polyester yarn of count 4=12s, a
relation was found between gross yarn weight and length of
yarn through regression analysis. This relationship was used
to arrive at the optimum parameter level.
Keywords
Six sigma case study; Textile industry; Length

measuring device (LMD); Two-for-one twister
(TFO); Count of yarn; Pareto chart; Defects
per unit (DPU); Test of hypothesis; Gage
capability; Repeatability; Regression analysis;
Prediction interval.
manufacturing process, yarn is wound into conicalshaped packages called cones, and it is shipped to
customers in this format. Cones were being rejected
by customers due to unacceptable weight variation.
The work of the textile company to correct this
problem is presented here in accordance with the standard Six Sigma DMAIC (Define-Measure-AnalyzeImprove-Control) model (Pande, 2001).
DEFINE PHASE
Objective
This project reduces rejection during packing of
finished yarn cones through measuring the current performance level and initiating proper remedial action
thereafter.
Process
In this textile company, the final product is synthetic yarn. The company produces single and multifold synthetic white yarns from blends of manmade
fibers for apparel and industrial applications. The process to produce yarn consists of 10 sequential steps:
INTRODUCTION
This article originated when an Indian textile company identified packing rejection of yarn cones as its
major quality problem and decided to use Six Sigma
methods to correct the problem. At the end of its
Address correspondence to Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay,
SQC and OR Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, New
Academic Building, 203 B.T. Road, Kolkata 277 108, India.
E-mail: armukherjee@yahoo.co.in
189
1. Mixing and conditioning: The synthetic fibers are

homogeneously mixed and conditioned with temperature and humidity.
2. Lap formation: The fibers are further mixed,
opened, cleaned, and converted into a form that
is known as lap.
3. Carding: The fibers from the lap are separated into
their individual elements, thereby removing short
fibers. The strand of fibers is then converted into
a convenient form known as sliver.
4. Drawing: The fibers are straightened and parallelized to the sliver axis by means of drafting and,
at the same time, doubled to achieve slivers of
better regularity.
5. Simplex: This step reduces the weight per unit
length of the sliver to a suitable size for spinning.
190
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray
The roving, the output of this step, is a continuous, slightly twisted strand of synthetic fibers.
Ringframe=spinning: The roving is attenuated to
the required size of single yarn; a suitable amount
of twist is inserted to the strand of fibers, and the
yarn is wound onto a bobbin for further use.
Savio winding: Ring frame bobbins are inputs, and
yarn cheeses formed after winding are outputs.
Through this winding under tension, any weak
places, fluffs, snarls, and bad knots in the yarn
are removed. This step is named Savio after the
make of the machine that performs the operation.
Assembly=doubler winding with length measuring
device (LMD): Two cheeses are fed and wound
in parallel under tension to form another cheese.
While winding, weak places, fluffs, snarls, and
bad knots in the yarn are further removed.
Two-for-one twister (TFO): Final cones or cheeses
are formed by twisting and winding, under
tension, the parallel yarns formed by the
assembly=doubler winding step.
Packing: Cones=cheeses are weighed, packed in
suitable containers, and dispatched to customers.
Steps 1 to 5 are preparatory stages, whereas steps 7 to 10

are called post spinning stages. Step 6 is meant for spinning. The quality inspection functions, including weighing of cones=cheeses, are done after steps 8 and 9.
The terminology from the textile industry that is
used in this article is as follows:
. Cone: A completely wound yarn package with a
conical shape.
. Cheese: A completely wound yarn package with a
cylindrical shape.
Figure 1.
. Drum: The part of a winding machine that rotates

the cones or cheeses while yarn is being wound onto
these packages. Typical winding machines have 60
drums installed on each side, and these drums turn
the cones by friction force.
. Count: The linear density of yarn, denoted in the
textile industry by Ne. Specifically, count is the number of 840-yard-long segments of yarn per pound. A
specialized nomenclature has been developed in the
textile industry, where Ne 2=42sP means a two-ply
polyester yarn of fineness 42s-, implying that
42 840 yards of this yarn weigh 1 lb.
After deciding on the project and the objective, data
were collected on packing rejection from December
2002 to May 2003. Based on these data, Pareto charts
were drawn for defectives to give more insight to the
problem.
From the Pareto chart, in Figure 1, it was evident
that almost 65% of rejections were due to weight variation of cones (i.e., either over- or underweight).
Because a wide range of counts was being produced
and marketed by the company, a countwise Pareto
chart of yarn for over- and underweight was drawn
on the basis of 6 months packing data.
From the Pareto charts in Figures 2 and 3, it was
found that the major counts in terms of packing rejection due to over- and underweight were Ne 2=42sP, Ne
4=12sP, Ne 2=20sP, Ne 1=30sV, Ne 3=20sP, Ne 3=12sP.
Data was then collected from the marketing
department on monthly production of yarn, as well
as on the market price per kg for both the export
and domestic markets. Using this information, another
Pareto chart was drawn to find major counts of yarn in
terms of sales volume (Figure 4).
Pareto analysis of overall defectives.
Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Pareto analysis of defectives due to underweight.
Pareto analysis of defectives due to overweight.
Figure 4.
Pareto analysis of sales volume.
191
192
From Figure 4, it was found that the major counts

in terms of sales volume were Ne 2=42sP, Ne 4=12sP,
Ne 2=20sP, Ne 3=12sP, and Ne 3=20sP. These counts
accounted for more than 75% of the revenue.
Because the Pareto charts of overweight and
underweight and those of sales turnover converged to
the same vital few counts, the analysis was narrowed
to those counts.
MEASUREPHASE I
Technical discussions concluded that the potential
factors, which have a bearing on yarn weight, were as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Count
Empty cheese weight
Moisture content % (M.C.%)
Length of yarn wound onto cone=cheese
Data were collected from the final two steps of post

spinning (i.e., at the assembly=doubler winding step
and the two-for-one twister (TFO) step). The actual
count, gross cheese weight, and moisture contents
were measured. The collected data are given in
Appendix A.
Calculation of Current Sigma Level

From the collected data, the existing sigma level
was calculated. For this calculation, the defect definitions were as follows:
1. Defect: A cone or cheese is defective if its gross
weight (yarn weight plus empty container weight)
is outside the specification limits.
2. DPU (defect per unit): In DPU calculations, each
drum within a machine is considered to be a unit.
The lower and upper specification limits for gross
weight at the assembly winding step and those at the
TFO step are given in Tables 1 and 2. The prevalent
practice in the textile industry to estimate over and
under weights of cones=cheeses was extended, using
data in Appendix A for calculating sigma levels.
Stage I: Assembly Winding with LMD
Twenty eight drums were off-specification out of
120 that were inspected, giving a DPU 28=120 0.2333
Table 1
Specifications for gross cheese weight (kg) at the assembly
winding stage
Count
s
2=10 P
2=12sP
3=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
LSL
Target
USL
1.489
0.966
1.489
1.489
4.470
0.990
0.966
1.564
1.041
1.564
1.564
4.620
1.065
1.041
1.639
1.116
1.639
1.639
4.770
1.140
1.116
and a yield for this step of YieldAW eDPU

0.7919 (Table 3).
Stage II: TFO

At this step, 72 drums were off-specification out of
200 inspected, giving a DPU 72=200 0.36 and a
yield of YieldTFO e-DPU 0.6977 (Table 4).
Combining, we calculated the rolled throughput
yield YRT YieldAW YieldTFO 0.7919 0.6977
0.5525 and the overall defective parts per million
(PPM) ln (YRT) 106 593301.8456 593302.
The current sigma level, ZST 1.3, was obtained
from the usual Six Sigma conversion table.
YNORM
p
YieldAW YieldTFO 0:7433
and the corresponding PPM would be ln (YNORM)

296655.5473.
Therefore, the target sigma level, 2.017, was
obtained from
0:8406
p
29:37 2:221 lnPPM Breyfogle; 1999
Table 2
Specifications for gross weight (kg) at TFO stage
Count
s
2=10 P
2=12sP
3=12sP
4=12sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
LSL
Target
USL
4.350
4.350
4.350
4.350
2.050
0.925
2.050
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
2.100
1.000
2.100
4.650
4.650
4.650
4.650
2.200
1.075
2.200
193

Table 3
Summary of out-of-specifications drums at assembly winding operation
Count
Overweight
drums
Underweight
drums
Total
out-of-specs
2=42sP
2=42sP, 2=57sLY
3=20sP
4=12sP, 2=10sP
4=12sP
3=12sP, 3=20sP, 2=12sP
7
7
0
2
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
2
4
8
28
28
Machine no.
1
5
9
10
11
17
Total
Total
drums
120
104
120
60
56
120
(20)
(20)
(20)
(20)
(20)
(20)
580 (120)
The figures in parentheses represent the number of drums that were inspected. Selection of the drums was random.
Table 4
Summary of out-of-specifications drums at TFO operation
Machine no.
Count
Overweight drums
Underweight drums
Total out-of-spec drums
2=42 P
2=42sP, 2=57sLY
3=20sP
4=12sP, 2=10sP
4=12sP
3=12sP, 3=20sP, 2=12sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
7
7
0
2
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
10
8
7
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
2
4
8
3
0
2
0
1
2
11
10
8
7
8
7
59
13
72
2
5
7
8
11
22
25
27
33
34
51
60
64
65
66
70
71
72
Total
Total drums
120
104
120
60
56
120
132
120
132
144
144
132
120
120
132
144
120
132
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(20)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
2,172 (200)
The figures in parentheses represent the number of drums that were inspected. Selection of drums was random.
After the existing sigma level was calculated, analysis

was initiated to investigate the cause of weight variation on the basis of the collected data.
ANALYSISPHASE I
Testing for Mean and Variance
Statistical hypothesis tests were performed for the
gross cheese weight from assembly winding machines
with attached LMDs. These tests were done in three
steps:
1. The mean gross weight of cheese from each

machine and each count was compared with the
set target value. The results are shown in Table 5.
2. The variance of gross weight of cheese from each
side of each machine for all counts was compared
with the variance of gross weight of cheese from
the other side of the same machine having the same
count. The results are shown in Table 6.
3. The mean gross weights of cheese from the
two sides of each machine having a particular
count were compared. The results are shown in
Table 7.
194
Testing for Equality of Mean

Table 5
Testing for mean at the assembly winding stage
Yarn
count
Machine no.
Target
weight (kg)
Mean
weight
Standard
deviation
Samples
tCALC
p value
1.041
1.041
1.065
4.620
1.1091
1.1042
1.0960
4.6861
0.0157
0.0430
0.0315
0.0895
20
10
20
20
19.398
4.637
4.398
3.302
0.0000
0.0006
0.0000
0.0020
2=42 P
2=42sP
3=20sP
4=12sP
1
5
9
11
Conclusion
Process
Process
Process
Process
not
not
not
not
running
running
running
running
on
on
on
on
target.
target.
target.
target.
Testing for Equality of Variances

Table 6
Comparison of variances of the two sides of assembly winding machines
Machine no.
Yarn count
s
2=42 P
3=20sP
4=12sP
1
9
11
nL
nR
SL2
SR2
FCALC S12 =S22
p value
Conclusion
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.0002
0.0015
0.0043
0.0002
0.0006
0.0053
1.0000
2.5000
1.2326
0.5000
0.0823
0.3736
Sides appear to have same variance.

Note: Because the other assembly winding machines were producing different counts at the two sides during the study
period, their variances were not compared.
Testing for Equality of Means (Comparison of Two Sides)

Table 7
Comparison of means of the two sides of assembly winding machines
Machine no.
Yarn count
s
2=42 P
3=20sP
4=12sP
1
9
11
XL
XR
nL
nR
tCALC
p value
Conclusion
1.116
1.095
4.628
1.103
1.097
4.742
10
10
10
10
10
10
1.964
0.138
3.672
0.0250
0.4000
0.0009
Sides appear to have different means.

Sides appear to have same mean.
Sides appear to have different means.
Note: Because the other assembly winding machines were producing different counts at the two sides during the study
period, their means were not compared. They were designed to be different.
Empty Cheese Weight Variation

To examine the variability of empty cheese
weight, 50 observations were taken for each color of
empty cheese. The findings are given in Table 8.
From the last two columns of Table 8, it is quite

clear that the contribution of empty cheese weight
variation is negligible toward the variation in gross
cheese weight.
Table 8
Comparison of variation of empty cheese weight (in kg) with gross cheese weight (in kg)
Target
Color of cheese
Deep blue
Yellow
Lemon yellow
Deep blue
Count
s
4=12 P
4=12sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
Average
SD
C.V. %
No. of obs.
Empty
Gross
Empty
Gross
Empty
Gross
Empty
Gross
50
50
50
50
0.064
0.218
0.064
0.064
4.620
4.620
1.065
1.041
0.0642
0.2176
0.0613
0.0636
4.6861
4.6861
1.0960
1.1042
0.0014
0.0021
0.0010
0.0014
0.0895
0.0895
0.0315
0.0276
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.14
1.94
1.94
2.96
2.65
Note: The denominator in CV% computation is target gross cheese weight.
195
Relationship between Gross Weight, Count, and

Moisture Content of Yarn
To investigate the relationship between gross
weight vis-a`-vis count and moisture content, regression
analysis was performed. Unfortunately, the analysis
failed to establish count and moisture content as significant contributory factors.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PHASE I ANALYSIS
1. Mean gross weights of cheeses are higher than the
respective target values (Table 5).
2. Variances of gross weights of cheeses at the two
sides of the machines are not statistically different
from each other (Table 6).
3. At machine number 11, there exists significant
difference in gross weight between two sides of
the machine for polyester yarn with count 4=12s
(Table 7).
4. The contribution of empty cheese weight variation
is negligible toward the gross cheese weight variation (Table 8).
5. The contribution of count and moisture content
variation is negligible toward the gross cheese
weight variation.
6. Variation in the length of yarn wound on to cheese
appears to be the potential cause for variation in
gross cheese weight.
count, moisture content percentage, empty cheese

weight, and gross cheese weight. One-to-one correspondence was maintained between these parameters
while collecting these data. Because the process of
rewinding hampers productivity, it was decided to
focus on two counts for the studya finer variety
(2=42sP) and a coarser variety (4=12sP). The corresponding data are given in Appendix B. Note that no
obvious deficiency on repeatability was found for the
electronic weighing balances that measure the weights
of the cones=cheeses.
ANALYSISPHASE II
Repeatability of Set Length and Rewound Length
at the Assembly Winding
From the collected data provided in Appendix B,
range charts were drawn corresponding to set length
and actual length for both counts (2=42sP and
4=12sP) (Figures 5 and 6). The corresponding calculations and the range charts are provided.
For 4/12s P,
CL R 350:2
UCL D4 R 1144:103
for n 2; D4 3:267
LCL D3 R 0
For 2/42s P,
CL R 455:6
MEASUREPHASE II
To validate the previous findings, data were collected further from assembly winding machines with
LMD attachments. This time the actual length of the
yarn on the cheese, as measured by rewinding, was
recorded along with set length, nominal count, actual
Figure 5.
UCL D4 R 1488:445
LCL D3 R 0
The gage capability and repeatability of LMD were
calculated to check its sensitivity on measuring yarn
length for both counts. The relevant calculations are
shown as follows.
R-chart for repeat measurements of yarn length measured by LMD-10 (count 4=12sP).
196
Figure 6.
R-chart for repeat measurement of yarn length by LMD-5 (count 2=42sP).
Gage Capability of LMD at the Assembly

Winding Stage
The gage capability was calculated using precisionto-tolerance (P=T) percentages, where P=T 6b
rgage =
USL LSL (Table 9). Values of P=T of 10% or less
generally imply adequate gage capability.
The USL and LSL for length were calculated from
those of gross weight using the relation, length (in
meters) 1.693 count (Ne) specified weight (in
grams).
Regression Analysis for 4/12sP Yarn
Gage Repeatability of LMD at the Assembly

Winding Stage
The data for gage capability were used to estimate
the variance components associated with total
observed variability. The relation is as follows:
b
r2total b
r2product b
r2gage
b
r2product b
r2repeatability
r2total b
Montogomery; 2003
Table 9
Results of gage capability analysis
Count
s
4=12 P
2=42sP
b2reproducability ,
b
r2repeatability; r
and
(Because
r2gage b
2
b
rreproducability is nonexistent here as data are taken by
a single operator.)
Here, b
r2total is calculated for each count from the
rewound lengths (Table 10).
Therefore, inconsistent measurement of yarn
length by the LMDs attached with the assembly winding machines alone contributed about 44% to 49%
toward the product variability. This can be considered
as quite a significant amount of variation.
rgage
b
P=T %
310.4610 m
403.9007 m
122.30
45.44
Using the collected data given in Appendix B,

stepwise regression analysis was carried out for
4=12sP and for 2=42sP yarn to explore the relationship between gross weight vis-a`-vis count, moisture
content, actual yarn length, and empty cheese weight.
The SPSS package was used for this purpose.
Although for 2=42sP yarn no worthy relation
emerged, a reasonably good relation was obtained
for 4=12sP yarn. The summarized results of such
regression analysis follow (Tables 11 and 12).
Table 11
ANOVA for significance of regression
Table 10
Results of gage repeatability analysis
Variability
b
rtotal
b
rrepeatability
b
rproduct
b
rrepeatability =b
rproduct
4=12sP count
2=42sP count
700.7281 m
310.4610 m
628.1989 m
49.42%
997.9898 m
403.9007 m
912.6050 m
44.26%
Sum of
squares
Degrees of
freedom
Mean
square
Regression
Residual
0.117
0.039
1
28
0.117
0.001
Total
0.156
29
Source
81.985
0.000
197

Table 12
Correlation matrix
Gross cheese weight
Empty cheese weight
Moisture content
Count
Length
1.000
0.101
1.000
0.027
0.224
1.000
0.233
0.060
0.132
1.000
0.863
0.112
0.180
0.149
1.000
Gross cheese weight

Empty cheese weight
Moisture content
Count
Length
The regression equation is

Gross cheese weight 0:902 0:00009046
Yarn length
Correlation coefficient r 0:863
Coefficient of determination 0:745
Standard error of the estimate 0:0377
This implies that about 74.5% of the variability in
gross cheese weight can be explained with the variability in yarn length.
The descriptive statistics of the data for the previous regression equation are given in Table 13. Model
adequacy checks were performed, and no problems
were found (Montogomery, 2004).
IMPROVEMENTS ACHIEVED
1. Rejection of cones due to being overweight (i.e.,
weight more than USL) lead to internal loss to the
company in tangible monetary terms. This was
attributed to two factors:
. Weights of the cheeses produced by assembly
winding machines with LMDs were, in most
cases, on the higher side compared with the pertinent set weight.
. Sensitivity of the LMDs attached to the
machines was inadequate, as shown using gage
capability analysis through P=T percentage and
b
r2repeatability calculations.
Increasing the sensitivity of the performance of
LMDs was achieved by implementing proper
calibration procedures in some machines and by

the replacement of LMDs in other machines. These
corrective measures reduced cone weight variation
rproduct
substantially. The new P=T and b
rrepeatability =b
percentages were found to be 9.7% and 11.3%,
respectively.
2. Rejection of cones due to being underweight lead to
customer dissatisfaction and hence may lead to less
customer retention. This was attributed to the lack
of sensitivity of the LMDs attached to the machines
and was evidenced by the gage capability analysis
(using P=T ratio) and the b
r2repeatability calculation.
The corrective measures enhanced the LMD sensitivity, and reduced its variability in length and
weight measurement of yarn. Note that there
existed annual maintenance contract with the
suppliers of LMDs. Those suppliers were called in
by the factory management to take the required corrective measures for these electronic
attachments.
3. The bottom line benefit in monetary terms was
estimated to be about Rs. 87000 per month. This
was calculated as the product of the monthly production, the reduction in rework, and the cost of
rework.
CONTROL
It may be recalled from Table 1 that for 4=12s
polyester yarn, the specification in kg for gross weight
of yarn cheeses at the assembly winding stage is
LSL 1.489, Target 1.564, USL 1.639. To meet
the target value of 1.564 kg, the length should be set
Table 13
Descriptive statistics for 4=12s polyester yarn
Gross cheese weight

Empty cheese weight
Moisture content
Count
Length
Samples
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
30
30
30
30
30
1.555
64.533
0.473
3.033
7223.600
0.073
1.279
0.045
0.072
700.728
1.298
62.000
0.400
2.912
4576.000
1.654
66.000
0.500
3.184
7966.000
198
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Figure 7.
Fitted model and the 95% prediction interval.
at 7295.566 m, which was obtained from the X (yarn

length) on Y (gross cheese weight) regression equation:
Yarn length 5592:399 8240:387
Gross cheese weight
The 95% prediction interval for Y (gross cheese
weight) on X (yarn length) regression equation at the
assembly winding step was obtained as 1.486 to
1.642 kg. Note that before this study, it ranged between
1.298 and 1.654 kg. The graph showing 95% prediction
interval is given in Figure 7.
Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay is working as a

faculty (associate professor grade) in the SQC and
OR Division of the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. He has been working at ISI since January 1990.
His job encompasses applied research, teaching, training, and consultancy in the field of quality management and operations research. He is a Certified Lead
Assessor for ISO 9000 Quality Management System
implementation. He has a B.Tech. from Calcutta
University and a postgraduate diploma in SQC and
OR and Specialist Development Fellowship Program
from ISI.
Soumik Ray has a B.E. in production engineering
from Jadavpur University. Currently, he is studying at
the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, in the second
year of the M.Tech. (QR and OR) course.
REFERENCES
Breyfogle, F. W. (1999). Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter
Solutions Using Statistical Methods. New York: WileyInterscience.
Montgomery, D. C. (2003). Statistical Quality Control. John
Wiley & Sons.
Montgomery, D. C. (2004). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
Pande, P. S. (2001). The Six Sigma Way. McGraw-Hill.
199

Appendix A
Sl. no. Machine no. Nominal count (Ne) Actual count (Ne) Nominal weight (kg) Gross cheese weight (kg) M.C.%
Data collected from assembly=doubler winding with LMD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
2=12sP
3=12sP
2=12sP
2=12sP
3=12sP
2=12sP
3=12sP
2=12sP
2=12sP
2=12sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=12sP
3=20sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
3.128
3.163
2.922
3.000
2.908
2.993
2.929
2.994
2.977
2.973
5.762
3.917
5.953
5.646
3.924
6.036
3.889
5.853
5.658
5.952
6.881
6.783
6.728
6.981
4.108
6.975
3.514
3.901
6.942
6.756
3.298
3.030
2.931
2.980
2.881
2.987
2.846
2.959
2.993
3.165
2.849
2.958
2.885
2.880
2.960
2.955
2.938
2.927
3.006
3.049
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
1.041
1.564
1.041
1.041
1.564
1.041
1.564
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.564
1.065
1.564
1.564
1.065
1.065
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
4.620
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
4.696
4.566
4.568
4.652
4.746
4.526
4.608
4.662
4.638
4.620
1.485
1.870
1.510
1.391
1.502
1.501
1.557
1.492
1.481
1.451
1.110
1.102
1.111
1.105
1.564
1.091
1.557
1.582
1.102
1.112
4.862
4.678
4.772
4.718
4.700
4.850
4.700
4.790
4.700
4.650
1.584
1.600
1.662
1.582
1.568
1.626
1.590
1.632
1.654
1.606
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
(Continued)
200

Appendix A
Continued
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
01
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
2=10sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=57sLY
2=42sP
4.962
5.005
4.877
5.127
5.035
5.068
5.137
5.008
4.977
4.986
6.552
6.702
6.747
6.542
7.155
6.482
7.271
6.780
7.134
7.176
6.576
6.589
6.898
6.742
6.812
7.001
6.415
6.813
7.019
6.810
21.658
21.080
21.281
21.464
21.723
20.591
21.478
21.586
20.256
20.483
27.645
28.711
28.736
27.847
28.211
28.409
27.931
28.864
28.993
27.967
21.450
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.564
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.065
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
1.041
1.564
1.560
1.552
1.546
1.560
1.538
1.562
1.608
1.566
1.540
1.120
1.090
1.110
1.000
1.140
1.100
1.120
1.100
1.070
1.100
1.060
1.110
1.130
1.090
1.120
1.080
1.120
1.090
1.060
1.110
1.124
1.118
1.028
1.022
1.106
1.136
1.118
1.146
1.124
1.120
0.656
0.662
0.656
0.658
0.664
0.666
0.662
0.660
0.666
0.666
1.140
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
9.3
9.6
9.6
9.3
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
0.5
(Continued)
201

Appendix A
Continued
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
21.107
21.478
21.025
21.365
21.485
20.964
21.114
21.330
20.709
21.073
22.291
21.135
21.679
21.571
21.665
21.358
21.274
21.848
21.372
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.041
1.080
1.040
1.134
1.092
1.108
1.128
1.124
1.102
1.116
1.118
1.100
1.122
1.102
1.102
1.090
1.086
1.120
1.102
1.084
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
19.963
20.604
21.309
20.923
21.239
21.156
20.212
20.087
20.703
21.365
20.617
20.870
21.136
21.730
20.856
21.578
20.250
21.803
21.709
21.372
20.352
20.506
20.461
21.114
21.593
20.789
20.480
21.053
19.951
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2.18
2.16
2.10
2.02
2.12
2.10
2.16
2.02
2.08
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.14
2.10
2.14
2.06
2.10
2.10
1.08
1.14
1.10
1.08
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.06
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
Data Collected from TFO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
(Continued)
202

Appendix A
Continued
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
20.910
21.436
21.840
21.246
21.032
20.105
21.066
20.212
21.855
21.351
21.557
20.657
20.870
20.552
20.836
20.930
20.294
21.163
21.309
21.046
20.896
20.558
20.769
21.344
21.379
21.756
21.012
20.736
21.005
21.039
21.884
6.520
6.467
5.221
7.041
6.785
6.658
6.316
6.930
6.806
6.430
6.272
6.452
6.727
6.644
7.025
6.280
6.689
6.339
6.159
6.459
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
0.98
1.10
1.06
1.04
1.06
1.10
1.02
1.06
1.02
1.08
1.08
1.12
1.10
1.10
1.12
1.02
1.10
1.08
1.12
1.02
1.02
2.08
2.16
2.10
2.14
2.14
2.04
2.12
2.06
2.12
2.24
2.14
2.14
2.12
2.10
2.08
2.14
2.14
2.10
2.08
2.12
2.14
2.14
2.16
2.14
2.08
2.14
2.14
2.08
2.18
2.16
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
(Continued)
203

Appendix A
Continued
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
66
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
34
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
3=20sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
21.135
21.344
22.531
21.260
20.716
21.059
20.513
20.591
20.843
20.663
20.591
20.263
21.443
20.896
20.442
21.302
20.749
20.716
20.250
20.657
20.422
20.571
21.288
21.478
21.032
20.856
21.436
21.032
21.796
21.478
6.136
6.216
6.666
6.496
6.116
6.387
6.257
6.624
6.343
6.787
21.156
21.094
21.745
20.591
20.062
21.493
21.818
21.101
21.295
21.309
21.344
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
2.100
1.10
1.08
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.08
1.10
1.04
1.04
1.10
2.04
2.16
2.16
2.12
2.08
2.14
2.08
2.10
2.16
1.82
1.08
1.18
1.12
1.08
1.18
1.06
1.04
1.08
1.08
1.08
2.18
2.14
2.12
1.82
2.18
2.10
2.08
1.52
2.14
1.54
1.10
1.08
1.10
1.14
1.16
1.10
1.08
1.12
1.08
1.08
2.18
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
(Continued)
204

Appendix A
Continued
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
05
05
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
3=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
21.281
22.146
21.500
22.222
20.957
21.877
20.676
20.598
21.302
21.344
21.622
20.487
20.736
21.478
21.012
21.218
20.545
21.414
20.883
21.066
21.826
20.910
21.528
21.907
21.204
21.211
21.204
21.571
20.282
2.903
2.922
3.000
2.949
2.923
2.967
3.005
2.894
2.993
3.010
3.951
3.860
3.820
4.061
3.668
3.775
4.042
3.857
3.718
3.834
2.887
2.960
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2.100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
2.18
2.06
2.16
2.06
2.10
2.08
2.18
2.10
2.08
2.10
2.16
2.16
2.14
2.04
2.18
2.14
2.20
2.14
2.20
1.08
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.10
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.06
1.08
4.75
4.55
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.70
4.65
4.60
4.60
4.70
4.70
4.65
4.70
4.65
4.60
4.55
4.65
4.60
4.70
4.55
4.50
4.55
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
(Continued)
205

Appendix A
Continued
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Serial no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
2.952
3.077
2.888
3.092
3.077
3.082
2.997
2.972
3.178
3.025
2.990
2.997
3.003
3.061
3.088
2.993
2.916
2.890
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.500
4.75
4.65
4.65
4.45
4.55
4.45
4.50
4.45
4.15
1.05
4.30
4.40
4.30
4.60
4.50
4.45
4.60
4.55
Appendix B
Data on cheese weight at the assembly winding stage after rewinding
Nominal
Actual
Set
Actual
Gross
count (Ne)
count (Ne)
length (m)
length (m)
M.C.%
weight (kg)
1.098
1.084
1.096
1.092
1.102
1.112
1.106
1.056
1.104
1.118
1.104
1.084
1.082
1.136
1.134
1.122
1.200
1.112
1.118
1.100
1.400
1.134
1.174
1.122
1.072
1.086
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
21.855
21.344
21.267
21.840
21.803
21.636
21.774
21.687
21.450
21.988
21.789
21.636
21.716
21.281
20.611
21.018
21.302
21.884
21.302
21.730
21.101
20.162
20.763
22.003
21.066
20.624
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,418
36,417
36,360
31,724
36,667
37,134
36,425
36,714
36,778
36,583
36,724
35,793
36,613
37,224
36,594
37,234
38,213
36,793
36,405
36,614
36,584
36,640
36,500
36,594
36,574
36,965
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
Empty cheese
weight (g)
64
60
64
64
62
62
64
64
62
64
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
64
64
64
64
62
64
66
64
64
(Continued)
206

Appendix B
Continued
Serial no.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Gross
weight (kg)
Nominal
count (Ne)
Actual
count (Ne)
Set
length (m)
Actual
length (m)
M.C.%
Empty cheese
weight (g)
1.130
1.112
1.102
1.106
1.618
1.568
1.550
1.572
1.548
1.614
1.654
1.572
1.584
1.640
1.570
1.514
1.570
1.558
1.614
1.614
1.448
1.588
1.568
1.584
1.582
1.524
1.298
1.570
1.552
1.544
1.568
1.572
1.358
1.542
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
2=42sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
4=12sP
21.855
22.268
21.386
22.071
3.018
2.936
3.054
2.944
2.965
2.912
3.078
3.000
3.184
2.929
3.093
3.011
3.082
2.972
2.972
2.974
3.089
3.165
2.945
3.083
3.081
3.045
3.040
3.137
2.997
3.065
3.066
3.006
3.129
3.024
36,500
36,500
36,500
36,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
36,795
36,974
36,074
36,773
7,400
7,432
7,966
7,386
7,336
7,402
7,832
7,393
7,377
7,406
7,610
6,531
6,559
7,533
7,500
7,413
7,034
7,581
7,581
7,788
7,457
7,289
4,576
7,322
7,296
7,334
7,400
7,231
5,227
7,516
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
64
62
64
64
66
64
64
66
66
64
64
66
66
64
64
66
62
64
64
66
64
64
62
64
66
64
66
66
64
64
64
62
64
66

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This article was downloaded by:[EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium]

[EPSCoR Science Information Group (ESIG) Dekker Titles only Consortium]

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma

Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay ; Soumik Ray

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Quality Engineering, 18:189206, 2006

This article originated when an Indian textile company

Six sigma case study; Textile industry; Length

1. Mixing and conditioning: The synthetic fibers are

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

Steps 1 to 5 are preparatory stages, whereas steps 7 to 10

. Drum: The part of a winding machine that rotates

Pareto analysis of overall defectives.

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

Pareto analysis of defectives due to underweight.

Pareto analysis of defectives due to overweight.

Pareto analysis of sales volume.

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

From Figure 4, it was found that the major counts

Data were collected from the final two steps of post

Calculation of Current Sigma Level

and a yield for this step of YieldAW eDPU

Stage II: TFO

and the corresponding PPM would be ln (YNORM)

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

Total out-of-spec drums

After the existing sigma level was calculated, analysis

1. The mean gross weight of cheese from each

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

Testing for Equality of Mean

Testing for Equality of Variances

FCALC S12 =S22

Sides appear to have same variance.

Testing for Equality of Means (Comparison of Two Sides)

Sides appear to have different means.

Empty Cheese Weight Variation

From the last two columns of Table 8, it is quite

Note: The denominator in CV% computation is target gross cheese weight.

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

Relationship between Gross Weight, Count, and

count, moisture content percentage, empty cheese

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

R-chart for repeat measurement of yarn length by LMD-5 (count 2=42sP).

Gage Capability of LMD at the Assembly

Regression Analysis for 4/12sP Yarn

Gage Repeatability of LMD at the Assembly

Using the collected data given in Appendix B,

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

Empty cheese weight

Gross cheese weight

The regression equation is

calibration procedures in some machines and by

Gross cheese weight

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Fitted model and the 95% prediction interval.

at 7295.566 m, which was obtained from the X (yarn

Arup Ranjan Mukhopadhyay is working as a

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

A. R. Mukhopadhyay and S. Ray

Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods

Data Collected from TFO