Design Of Experiment 2.

1 Introduction: - Laxmi Oil Pumps & Systems Pvt Ltd is manufacturing organizations, producing lube oil pumps for diesel engine application. Machining of different components of pumps is one of the major activities. Cycle time on high cost machines like VMC, CNC are vital important to monitor the productivity. N14 lop bodys relief valve operation which is done on VMC machining is chosen for study of optimization. The photo of component mounted in the fixture for the operation is given in the fig 2.1 and operation drawing is given in Fig 2.2. A crossfunctional team was set to conduct this experiment and target was set to complete the same within months period 2.2 Details of the process and its parameters: relief valve boar machining consist of different operations like rough boring with end mill for axis correction, pre-reamed boring followed by reaming. Mounting hole drilling and tapping are allied operations. The details break up of operations and its timing are given in the table 2.1
N-14 Body Relief Valve Process Details Present Sr.No . Tool Speed 600 2000 1000 550 500 60 /25 400 10 Feed MM/min 60 150 120 70 160 25 100 30 200 240 Sec

1 Dia.20 SC Endmill 2 Dia.6.5 SC drill 3 Dia.20 SC Drill 135mm depth 4 15 Chamfer tool Boring Tool ( 22.00 mm) 135 5 depth 6 T slot Cutter

7 6.5 Ex. Long drill 8 22.250 C/T reamer 135 depth 9 45 Chamfer Tool 10 5/16" X 18 UNC tap

700 300 600 400

60 50 60 564

72 240 10 20 1097

Present Cycle time = 18.50 min.

18.2833 3

Present cycle time works out to 18.5 min. In order to reduce the cycle time we need to check possibility of optimizing the parameters used (speed and feed) for all the tools. But consequently, change in the parameters of tools will result in changes of following factors also, which we need to monitor. a) Size consistency of boar b) Change in the Surface finish of the boar c) Change in the Ovality & straightness (geometry) of the boar. d) Change in the life of the tools. Considering the operation of the relief valve surface finish is most important, we will monitor this as response (Y) in our experiment and all other factors can be confirmed for effect of changes during the validation process. Specification for surface finish is 1.6 Ra max. And for ovality & tapper it is 20-micron max. 2.3 First trials with Parameter setting: - We used Shainin DOE technique. As suggested in Variable search technique we started experiment with setting all parameters at - as shown in column 3 of Table 2.2 and noted the response as shown n Table

2.3. Now all the parameter setting changed to + settings and noted the response. Such a iteration did for obtaining 3 sets of reading of each setting. Test of significance was conducted as shown in Table 2.3. As the ratio D/d is less than 3, there is no significant change in the response. Hence we need to conduct trials further with changing the parameter settings. Now earlier + setting become - setting and new parameters are added at + settings. This has shown in Table 2.4
Table 2.2 Parameters setting for First Trial No A B C D E F G H I Parameter Speed of 22 boring tool Feed of 22 boring tool Speed of 22.25 Reamer Feed of 22.25 Reamer Depth of cut for reamer Speed of 20 SC Drill Feed of 20 SC Drill Speed of 20.00 End mill Feed of 20.00 End Mill (-) Setting 600 70/35 400 70 0.1 1100 110 700 70 (+) Setting 750 90/40 450 90 0.2 1200 120 800 80

Table 2.3 Response for First Trials Test 1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run Median Range - Setting 0.8 0.72 0.93 0.8 0.21 + Setting 0.98 1.15 0.85 0.98 0.3

D ( Difference Between Two Medians ) d = Average of Two Ranges D/d

0.18 0.255 0.705

Three runs of each setting with taking readings alternatively response were noted in The Table 2.5. Table 2.4 Parameters setting for Second Trial
N o A B C D E F G H I Parameter Speed of 22 boring tool Feed of 22 boring tool Speed of 22.25 Reamer Feed of 22.25 Reamer Depth of cut for reamer Speed of 20 SC Drill Feed of 20 SC Drill Speed of 20.00 End mill Feed of 20.00 End Mill (-) Setting 500 60/25 300 50 0.5 1000 100 600 60 (+) Setting 600 70/35 400 70 0.1 1100 110 700 70

Table 2.5 Response for Second Trials

Test 1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run Median Average of median - Setting 0.85 0.89 0.99 0.89 + Setting 1.6 1.42 1.5 1.5 1.195

Range D (Difference Between Two Medians) d = Average of Two Ranges D/d

0.14 0.61 0.16 3.8125

0.18

After conducting the test of significance the ratio of D/d turns out to 3.812, which indicate that the parameters changed has significant effect on response Y 2.3.1 Separation of Important and non important factors having effect of response Y: - In this stage trials were conducted as stated below a) Number all the factors with alphabets starting from A b) Run a pair of test with setting A factor at - and remaining all at + (A-R+) Than a mirror image test with A factor at + and remaining at - setting. (A+R-) c) On the graph decision limits are drawn as shown in The Fig 2.3 These decision limits are based on the formula as Decision limits = median (of all the + setting response or setting response) t0.95 / 2 Where t is value corresponding to 0.95 or 95% confidence level & / 2 is an estimate of sigma With three sets of each response for + and settings we have the two degree of freedom for each of them or four degree of freedom in total.

From T table for 4 degree of freedom for two- tailed T test at 95 % confidence level value is 2.776 and statistical constant is 1.91. Factor thus arrives 2.776/ 1.91 = 1.45 is used for determining the decision limits. Now after plotting the result of two tests on the graph, possible results are a) If both the pair of test i.e. A-R+ and A+Rshows the result inside the low side and high side decision limits, factor A, along with all of its associate interaction effect, is unimportant and can be eliminated from further studies b) If there is complete reversal then A is only important factor and rest of all are unimportant and can be eliminated. c) If either or both the pairs of the test shows result out side the limits but not complete reversal then factor A along with its associated interaction effect can not be eliminated. A plus some other factor or factors must be considered along with their interaction.
- Setting First run Second run 3rd run A B C D C&D E C&D&E 0.85 0.89 0.99 0.7 0.79 0.8 0.88 0.95 0.9 1.47 + Setting 1.6 1.42 1.5 1.38 1.4 0.95 0.97 1.2 0.87 0.92 Average 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 1.195 UDL (+) 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 LDL(+) 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 UDL (-) 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 LDL(-) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66

Table 2.6 Response of the entire test with limits.

Fig 2.3 Graph showing decision limits and points plotted. From the graph we can conclude that parameters C, D & E are only important and having significant effect on the response. All other factors can be eliminated from further study. 2.3.2 Full Factorial for important three factors: - In order to get the optimum setting for factors, we need to concentrate only on three factors as mentioned above and settings for all other factors can be decided, whichever is favorable for us. Hence to reduce the cycle time all these factors can be set at + settings. Full factorial design for three factors along with its interaction is shown in Table 2.7
Table 2.6 Full Factorial design Speed Sr no 1 2 3 4 5 C + + Feed D + + Depth of cut E + C*D + + + C*E + + Interaction D*E + + C*D*E + + + Response

0.85,0.89, 0.99 0.95 0.97 0.9 0.87

6 7 8

+ +

+ +

+ + +

+ +

+ +

0.88 0.8 1.6, 1.42, 1,5

+ Difference Magnitude

1.0575 0.8825 0.175 0.0875

1.0425 0.8975 0.145 0.0725

1.0125 0.9275 0.085 0.0425

1.04 0.9 0.14 0.07

1.06 0.88 0.18 0.09

1.035 0.905 0.13 0.065

1.0725 0.8675 0.205 0.1025

Grand Avg

Regression equation works out as

Y=(Avg of median)+/- ((1/2* C's contribution)*C) +/- ((1/2*D's contribution)*D) +/- ((1/2* CDE's contribution)*ABC)

Table 2.7 shows the effect of each factor on Y and its coefficient in the regression equation
Table 2.7 Effect & Coefficient of each factor _Term Constant Speed Feed Depth of cut Speed*Feed Speed*Depth of cut Feed*Depth of cut Speed*Feed*Depth of cut 0.175 0.145 0.085 0.14 0.18 0.13 0.205 Effect Coef 0.97 0.0875 0.0725 0.0425 0.07 0.09 0.065 0.1025

Analysis of variance and residual error are worked out using Minitab software and output is shown in Table 2.8
Table 2.8 Analysis of Variance For response (coded unites) Source D F Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Main Effects Speed Feed Depth of cut 2-Way Interactions Speed*Feed Speed*Depth of cut Feed*Depth of cut 3-Way Interactions Speed*Feed*Depth o Residual Error Total f cu t

3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

0.117 75 0.061 25 0.042 05 0.014 45 0.137 8 0.039 2 0.064 8 0.033 8 0.084 05 0.084 05 * 0.339 6

0.117 75 0.061 25 0.042 05 0.014 45 0.137 8 0.039 2 0.064 8 0.033 8 0.084 05 0.084 05

0.0392 5 * 0.0612 5 * 0.0420 5 * 0.0144 5 * 0.0459 3 * 0.0392 * 0.0648 * 0.0338 * 0.0840 5 * 0.0840 5 * *

* * * * * * * * *

1 0 * 7

2.3.3 Response optimization: - Using the Minitab software response counter is plotted Fig 2.4 As white area is appeared in counter graph
Counter plote 2
90
Responce 1.15 1.23 Hold Values Depth of cut 0.2

85

Feed

80

75

70 400

410

420 430 Speed

440

450

optimization is possible.

Fig 2.4 Counter plot from Minitab software Results of optimizer are as shown in Table 2.10. and graphical representation is shown in Fig 2.5
Table 2.9 Response optimizer Goal Response Target Global Solution Speed Feed Depth of cut Predicted Response Desirability Composite Desirability 450 90 0.14 8 1.19 1 1 Lower 1.15 Target 1.19 Upper 1.23 Weight 1 Import 1

Optimal High D Cur 1.0000 Low

Speed 450.0 [450.0000] 400.0

Feed 90.0 [90.0000] 70.0

Depth of 0.20 [0.1483] 0.10

Composite Desirability 1.0000

Responce Targ: 1.1900 y = 1.190 d = 1.0000

Fig 2.5 Optimized parameter out put from Minitab 2.4 Results & savings:- All three parameters sets as per the result obtained in table 2.9 and rest all parameters at + settings. Results are validated for 100 components. Responses are well within accepted range. Total cycle time is now reduced to 14.30 min from original of 18.50 min. Reduction of 4.2 min per components resulted in the saving of Rs 38500/- per month ( 1000 components per month with m/c hr rate of Rs 550/-)i.e. Rs 4,62,000 per annum. 2.5 Conclusion:- with the help of DOE we can optimize the parameters without compromising quality and cost per component can be saved to great extend.