Journal of Applied Sciences ISSN 1872-5654 science alertJoumal of Applied Sciences 12 (10): 985-991, 2012 ISSN 1812-5654 / DOE: 10.3923/jas.2012,985.991 © 2012 Asian Network for Scientific Information Quality Improvement through First Pass Yield using Statistical Process Control Approach 'R.Raj Mohan, 'K. Thiruppathi, “R. Venkatraman and 'S. Raghuraman 'School of Mechanical Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, 613401, India *Director, Shanmuga Precision Forging, Thanjavur, 613401, India Abstract: The objective of this study was to improve First Pass Yield (FPY) and reduce the defect rate of a product. Nowadays, the competitive mamufacturing background illustrates that the customers always demanding higher quality in product. Thetefore, suppliers strive to satisfy the customer needs beside they are trying to rectuce the operating cost and to stay profitable. To survive ina spirited market, improving quality of product is must for any company. In this study, data regarding quantity output of good parts and defective parts has been collected from daily check sheet, critical issues related to defective parts were identified using Pareto analysis chart and its root causes were identified using fishbone diagram. Finally, improvement action plan for critical issues were suggested for quality improvement. After the accomplishment of the action plan, the existing first pass yield is compared with the preliminary first pass yield and substantial improvement in first pass yield attained indicates that defect rate decline with improvement in quality. Key words: First pass yield, Pareto anal is, fishbone diagram, improvement action plan INTRODUCTION ‘To meet up the high shifting market demands along, with high quality at similar prices, one shall have to recognize quickly the root causes of quality related problems by reviewing an occurrence, with the goals of determining what happened, why it happened and what can be prepared to reduce the possibility of recurrence. ‘The inerease in the rejection means more time to be depleted on rework and an increase in the total man-hours and eycle time and inventory carrying cost. Hence, it is, necessary to find out the reason for the rejection of the components and also the remedy to reduce the same Statistical quality control tools: Traditionally, the term Statistical Process Control (SPC) was used to address the use of control charts (Wadsworth et al, 1986; Grant and Leavensworth, 1988), Other authors, (Montgomery, 1996), use the term SPC to address a set of tools known as the seven tools (Histogram, check sheet, Pareto chart, cause and effect diagram, defect concentration diagram, scatter diagram and control Charts), that includes control charts but also non- statistical tools. Montgomery uses the term Statistical Quality Control (SQC) to address various other statistical tools directed at quality, including SPC, acceptance sampling and design of experiments, Some authors (Wetherill and Brown, 191) also inchide these techniques, in the definition of SPC. Others, such as Vasilash (1993) use an even broader definition of SPC that equals Total Quality Management (TQM), thus referring to @ concept that includes a wide range of tools. When an out of control situation occurs, it is not always directly clear what the special cause of this out of contol situation is and how the process should be adjusted. Therefore, the black box of the process has to be opened to look for disturbing process factors such as machines, materials, tools and so on. For this purpose, SPC techniques were extended with problem solving tools such as Pareto analyses and fishbone diagrams. Although not all of these tools are of a statistical nature, they are often seen as part of the SPC toolkit. Another improvement towards prevention was to leam from errors in the past. This means that an out of control situation should not only ead to solving this specific occurence of the problem, ‘but also to more structural improvements that can prevent this kind of problem in the future (Schippers, 2000) Statistical tools like cause and effect diagram and Pareto diagram are hereby used for problem solving and quality improvement (Chandna and Chandra, 2008). Pareto analysis: Pareto chart shows the significance of various factors in declining order in colurmns along with cumulative significance in a line. Pareto charts are frequently used in quality control to exhibit most common causes for failure, customer objections or product. defects Corresponding Author: R. Raj Mohan, School of Mechanical Engineering, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, 613401, India 985J Applied Sci, 12 (10): 983-991, 2012 The principle behind Pareto charts is called as Pareto 80- 20 principle. The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the most significant effects come from 20% of the reasons (Rohani and Teng, 2001). Cause and effect diagram: To identify the potential or actual causes for a performance problem, Fishbone diagrams provide structure for a group’s discussion around the potential causes of the problem. It is constructed to identify and organize the possible causes, for a particular single effect (Mahto and Kumar, 2008). FIRST PASS YIELD ‘The FPY is defined as the number of products coming, out of a process divided by the number of products going into that process over a specified phase of time. Only good units with no rework are counted as coming out of an individual process. FPY, also known as Throughput Yield (TPY), ‘The calculation of FPY, first pass yield, shows how good the overall set of processes is at producing good overall output without having to rework units. Let “X° be the total number of new components produced and *Y” be the total number of new components rejected (Vijaykumar and Mantha, 2007), PRELIMINARY FIRST PASS YIELD Data regarding quantity output of good parts and defective parts has been collected from daily check sheet Total No. of aluminium, brass and copper products produced and rejected for the month of March, April, May and June 2011 as follows in Fig, 1-3. 5000-4 664 6500 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 $00 ot 1 Produced Rejected 330 27 ae Total No, of Aluminium components m 2 os Mart] Apel Jone ‘Month Mayet Fi ig. 1: Chart for aluminium components FPY is calculated based on the values provided in the charts above for aluminium, brass and copper components, The calculated FPY for the month of March, April, May and June 2011 as shown below in consolidated format Fig, 4 PARETO CHARTS ‘A Pareto chart or Pareto graph shows the significance of various factors in lessening order in columns along with cumulative significance in a line oss = 7000 oes BPraduces ¢ 588s Rejected : 6000 s Eso 392 2 4000 i E 3000 2 2000 3 491 2 1000) | fr20 02 57 ° Macit "pet "Mayet Janet Month Fig. 2: Chart for brass components 6367 me 035 Produces $ 000 5832 a Rejected zg 4966 & 000 3 4000 E 3000 320m én pos “4 36. 31 o+t Marl Apel Mayet Sunt Month Fig. 3: Chart for copper components 9801 96: Marit" Apel” Mey” Junelt "Average Month Fig. 4: Consolidated chart for preliminary first pass yield 986J Applied Sci, 12 (10) 983-991, 2012 sy Frequency aCumnve san 96% 98% 94% 99% 100% yap 8 “75g Bo 85% 89% 3 48% soy 100 es sm © § B20 o£ é ao b we ° “ oe PPP OFS tems ceed in inn Fig. 5: Pareto chart for aluminium components. oFrequeny Cumulative 167 as, NTemeney BCumulat were 90m 9% 9% OOM 7 139 i" 81% 4 oom 1 noo B10 wg be we be we s é ; 20 of ° > ro Se ES ESSE SF FP SF Fk 3 < woe ve * sw Problem oud in ass Fig. 6: Pareto chart for brass components 7 8 ‘Frequency aCumulativel 120 : 100 7 6 gsm 10% sos > Bs om 85% 2 ‘ 4% : Be | ( cm 0% i Tl | ; ; Problems occured in copper Fig. 7: Pareto chart for copper components Pareto charts are frequently used in quality control to exhibit most common causes for failure, customer grievances or product faults, Pareto charts can be used when you want to focus your resources on few important items from a large list of possible. The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the significant effects come from 20% of the sourees. 987 The critical issues related to defective part for aluminium, brass and copper components were identified using Pareto analysis chart. Pareto. chart. for Aluminium, brass and copper components and its corresponding critical issues with cumulative percentage ofits contribution from overall defects are mentioned in Fig. 57J Applied Sci, 12 (10): 983-991, 2012 Machines Methods Tool overhang ool sow tis isnot proper New inser is potavailale No (SOP) for Inmproper checking ‘Tools and jaw Frequent changes inpocess Section Little positive feedback Dil hi Inppropriate 7 \se Seting problem operating loading and [Nom availabilty of toot layout diagram foreach ofiniistandin unloading component preessscup tring in setop Measurement Man power Procedures Fig. 8: Fishbone diagram for setting problem CAUSE AND EFFECT DIAGRAM This diagram, also called Ishikawa or fishbone diagram, is used to associate multiple possible causes witha single effect, The diagram is constructed to identify and organize the possible causes for a particular single effect. Causes in cause and effect diagram are frequently arranged in four major categories. For manufacturing, cases it is manpower, methods, materials and machinery. For administration and service sectors, it is equipment, policies, procedures and people. To identify root reasons or input drivers contributing to some consequence or measurable result. Used in these conduct, the fishbone diagram will assist to create ideas about the possible causes of problems and identify the components in the practice that are accountable for the existing troubles. It can also be used to plan new processes to meet quality expansion proposal or new business opportunities Here, fishbone diagram is generated for major general critical problems associated with defect rate arising from aluminium, brass and copper components. The critical problems setting, no-go entry, damage/dent problems that can be identified through Pareto chart analysis. For setting problem, causes are categorized by machines, methods, measurement, manpower and procedure. The fishibone diagram for setting problem is, shown below in Fig, 8. For no-go entry problem also the are 9R8, causes are categorized by same procedure adopted in setting problem. The fishbone diagram for no-go problem is shown below in Fig. 9. Similarly, for damage’ dent entry problem causes are categorized and analysed The fishbone diagram for damage/dent problem is shown below in Fig, 10, ACTION PLAN FOR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. Another improvement towards prevention was to eam from errors in the past. This means that an out of control situation should not only lead to solving this specific occurrence of the problem, but also to more structural improvements that can prevents this kind of problem in the future. Especially when certain out of control situation that occur frequently, one has to search for root causes and take actions to prevent this situation in the future, After finding the causes for critical issues through Pareto chart and fishbone diagram, suggestions are provided for avoidance of these major issues of setting problem, no-go entry and damage/dent. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The consolidated data regarding quantity output of g00d parts and defective parts has been collected from daily check sheets for the total No, of aluminium, brass, copper products produced and rejected for theJ Applied Sci, 12 (10): 983-991, 2012 Matsils Machines Methods ool wom out Improerarining tito sar materia Not Me Misundrsanding the proces and removing a pase yosterilpropers theburs Pre Nog enty Usage non Inslfcient caltrates tng Carsloss expen Improper checking off process EL Improper - of use inspeton Measirement Man power Fig. 9 Fishbone diagram for no-go entry problem Masrils Machines Methods Inappropriate speed, head ange inte \ tet pho \— protien tmnoner \ power Ne tae \rallorcot pend Tating fom \ tng” ope ei cto Clamping plow Damapelert Capeiyot orertt",/suaen snot och ee Improper poner ON I emai eo cos ma fe cats [ Uiting cing / gion Iain ower Mearuenent Man poner Prosties Fig. 10: Fishbone diagram for damage/dent problem, period of three months are considered for validating the first pass yield. After the implementation of action Plan, the first pass yield is calculated and compared with preliminary first pass yield and the results ate shown through bar chart in Fig, 11-13. Consolidated existing first ‘pass yield is charted below in Fig. 14 989 For aluminium components, first pass yield is increased fiom 95.75-95.9% after the implementation of action plan is mentioned in Fig. 15. For brass components, first pass yield is increased from 96 58-97.19% after the implementation of action plan is mentioned in Fig. 16Total No.of aluminum components Fig ofbrass components re Fig Total No. of comer components Fig J Applied Sci, 12 (10): 983-991, 2012 3500-70 Produced 3s fe Rejected 30004 2750 2s00 2000: in6 1300 1000 00 133 a 7 suki ‘Avg-2011 Sep-201 Month 11: Chart for existing total number of aluminium ‘components 120009 Produced Rejected 10189 10000 000 000 40004 2996 37s 2000 ai 22s 13 ° sui2ont Aug-2011 Sep-2011 Month 12 Chart for existing total number of brass ‘components 9000 75 Produced ia s000 fu Rejected 7000 coo} som 3000 3970 000 3000 2000 1000 @ ° es o sut2011 ‘Aug-2011 sep2011 Month 13: Chart for existing total number of copper components 194 @Aluminim (6) Brass (6) Copper (4) 00 6 » 98 7 ey Jule Sepil Average Month Z 14: Consolidated existing first pass yield 96.10 96.00 95.90 95.80 95.70 9560-1 95.99% 95.05% is pase yield (8) PY (befor) FPY (after Z 15: Comparison of existing and preliminary FPY for aluminium — 97.19% BE58% 970 97.00 1 ass yield (6) 96.50 FPY (before) FPY (ater) Fig, 16 Comparison of existing and preliminary FPY for brass 99.00 = ont g & aso 9800 & Shorr 9750 FPY (before) PY (ate Fig. 17: Comparison of existing and preliminary FPY for brass For Copper components, first pass yield is ineteased from 98.01 to 98.77% after the implementation of action plan is mentioned in Fig. 17. 990J Applied Sci, 12 (10): 983-991, 2012 98.77% 99.00.90 vey (Before) Im FY (ater) 98.01% 8.00 97.19% 7.00 95.58% 95.09% 96.00 i ‘i 96.00 “Aluminio Brass Copper Components Fig. 18: Consolidated comparison chart for existing and preliminary FPY CONCLUSION Finally, itis concluded that statistical process control approach is an effective means for controlling and improving the process quality and noted that simple QC tools can make substantial improvement in first pass yield is mentioned in Fig, 18, ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Authors with gratitude thank the Vice- Chancellor, SASTRA University for permitting us to pursue the work at Shanmuga Precision Forging (SPF), ‘Thanjavur, India REFERENCES, Chandna, P. and A, Chandra, 2009, Quality tools to reduce crankshaft forging defects: An industrial case study J Ind, Sys. Eng., 3: 27-37, 91 Grant, EL, and RS. Leavensworth, 1988, Statistical Quality Control, MeGraw-Hill, London, UK. Malhto, D. and A. Kumar, 2008, Application of root cause analysis in improvement of product quality and productivity. J. Indust. Eng. Manage., 1: 16-53, Monigomery, D.C., 1996, Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 3rd Edn, Joun Wiley Publication, New York, pp: 487 Rohani, IM. and C.K. Teng, 2001. Improving quality with basic statistical process control (SPC) tools: A case study, Jurnal Teknologi, 35: 21-34 Schippers, W.A.J., 2000, Structure and Applicability of Quality Tools, PhD. Thesis, University of ‘Technology. Eindhoven. Vasilash, G.S., 1993. TQMISPC: Get a buy-in or watch them bug-out. Procluction, 105: 54-57 ‘jaykumar, N. and $.S. Mantha, 2007. Rejection analysis ‘based on first pass yield. Ind. Eng, J, 11: 31-36. Wadsworth, H.M., K.S. Stevens and A.B. Godfrey, 1986, Modem Methods for Quality Control and Improvement, Wiley, New York, USA,, ISBN-13 9780471876953, Pages: 690. Wetherill, G-B. and D.W, Brown, 1991, Statistical Process Control: Theory and Practice. Chapman and Hall, London, UK., ISBN-13: 9780412357008, Pages: 400.