Manufacturing Technology (ME461)

Instructor: Shantanu Bhattacharya

Review of previous lecture

Type of control charts (variable control chart and attribute control chart). Benefits of control charts. Characteristics of data. Alternate methods for finding the mean in normal dataset as well as a frequency table. Plotting of control charts.

Checklist necessary for X and R charts

It is helpful to visualize the decisions and calculations that must be made and the actions that need to be taken for plotting a X and a R chart. They are the following: 1. Decisions preparatory to the control charts Some possible objectives of the charts. Choice of variables. Decisions on the basis of subgroups. Decisions on size and frequency of subgroups. Setting up the forms for recording the data. Determining the method of measurement. 2. Starting the Control Charts Making and recording measurements and recording other relevant data. Calculating the average X and range R of each subgroup. Plotting the X and R charts. 3. Determining the trial control limits Decision on required number of subgroups before control limits are calculated. Calculation of trial control limits. Plotting the central lines and limits on the charts. 4. Drawing preliminary conclusions from the charts Indication of control or lack of control. Interpretation of processes in control. Relationships between processes out of control and specification limits.

Setting up the forms for recording the data

Layout of data should be as per convenience of calculation and analysis. The forms should have a recording space for item of measurement, unit of measurement, and operator remarks about tool change, operator change, machine change etc.

Setting up the forms for recording the data

Layout of data should be as per convenience of calculation and analysis. The forms should have a recording space for item of measurement, unit of measurement, and operator remarks about tool change, operator change, machine change etc.

Starting the Control charts

Making and recording the measurements and recording other relevant data:
The actual work of the control charts start with the first measurements. Any method of measurement will have its own inherent variability; it is important that this is not increased by mistakes in reading measurement instruments or errors in recording data. Calculating the average and range for each subgroup:

Plotting both the charts:

Determining the trial control limits: 1. Decision is needed on the required number of subgroups before control limits are calculated. 2. The fewer the subgroups used the sooner the information thus obtained will provide a basis for action but the less the assurance that the action will be sound.

Calculation of trial control limits:

Drawing Preliminary Conclusions from the chart

Indication of control or lack of control: Lack of control is indicated by points falling outside the control limits on either of the charts. When the points fall outside the control limits, we say that a process is out of control, this is equivalent to saying that assignable causes of variation are present and this is not a constant cause system. In contrast if none of the points fall outside the control limits then No assignable causes are present.
Interpretation of processes in control: With the evidence from the control chart that a process is in control, we are in a position to judge what is necessary to permit the manufacture of product that meets the specifications for the quality characteristic charted. The control chart data gives us estimate of : 1. The centering of the process. 2. The dispersion of the process. Actions based on the relationship between the specifications and the centering and dispersion of a controlled process depend somewhat on whether there are two specification limits, a maximum or upper limit or a minimum or lower limit. This would again depend heavily on the parameter that we choose to plot.

Possible relationships of a process in control to upper and lower specification limits

Case I: The spread of the process 6 is appreciably less than the difference between the specification limits. Case II: The spread is approximately equal to the difference between the specification limits. Case III: The spread of the process is appreciably greater than the difference between the specification limits.

Case I: When the process 6 is appreciably less than difference between specification limits
Frequency curves A,B,C, D and E indicate various positions in which the process can be centered. With any of the position A, B and C practically all the products manufactured will meet the specifications as long as the process stays in control. In general when conditions A, B and C come it represents the ideal manufacturing situation. When the control chart shows that one of this control chart exists, many different possible actions may be considered depending on the relative economy.

For example it may be considered economically advisable to permit X to go out of control if it does not go too far, i.e., the distributions may be allowed to move between positions B and C. This may avoid the cost of frequent machine setup and of delays due to hunting of assignable causes of variation that will not be responsible for unsatisfactory product. Or where acceptance has been based on 100% inspection, it may be economical to substitute acceptance based on control charts. Or where there is an economic advantage to be gained by tightening the specification limits, such action may be considered. With the process in the position D some points will fall above the upper specification limit. Similarly with the process in position E some products will fall below the lower limit. In either case the obvious action is to bring the centering of the process towards that of A.

Case II: When the process 6 is equal to the difference between specification limits In this situation only the process
exactly centered between the specification limits, as in position A, will practically produce everything conforming to the specifications. If the distribution shifts away this exact centering as in B or C, it is apparent that some of the products will fall outside the specification limits.

Here the obvious action is to take all steps possible to maintain the centering of the process. This usually calls for continuous use of the control charts for X and R with subgroups at frequent intervals and immediate attention to points out of control. If fundamental changes can be made that reduce dispersion that eases the pressure. Consideration should also be given to changing of the tolerances.

Case III: When the process 6 is less than the difference between specification limits
The third type of situation arises when the specification limits are so tight that even with the process in control and perfectly centered some non conforming parts still get produced as in position A.

This primarily calls for a review of tolerances. It also calls for a fundamental change in the process that will reduce the process dispersion. It is still very important to maintain the centering of the process; the curves in position B and C show how a shift in process average will increase the non conformity.

Possible relationships of a process in control to a single specification

I: Low value of distribution ( ) is appreciably above LSL. II: Low value of distribution is at LSL. III: Low value of the distribution is appreciably below LSL.

Possible relationships of a process in control to a single specification

The first situation is one in which there is a margin of safety. The second is a one in which the specification is just barely met as long as the process stays in control. The third is one in which some non conforming products are produced unless there is a fundamental change in the process spread or increase in process average. All three distributions A,B and C have the same lower value. However, distribution B with a greater dispersion must have a greater process average than A for the low points to be at the same level. Similarly distribution C should have a greater process average than B. It is evident that the greater the distribution the higher the average must be for the entire distribution to fall above the lower specification limit. The relationship between average and cost is vital in many instances. For example in the filling of containers a reduction in dispersion may reduce cost by reducing the average overfill. On the other hand, the less the dispersion, the more important it is that the process average does not go out of control. This is illustrated by comparing distributions A and C in Case III. In Case III both process averages have shifted an equal amount below their position. However, the proportion of bad product, as indicated by the area of the distribution below the specification limit, is much greater in A than in C.

Use on control charts by a purchaser to help suppliers improve their processes.

Facts of the case: A manufacturer of electronic devices had trouble with the cracking of a certain small cross shaped ceramic insulator used in the device. The cracking generally took place after the manufacturing operations were nearly completed and did so in a way that made it impossible to salvage the unit. Hence the costs resulting from each cracked insulators during manufacturing operations suggested that others might be likely to crack under service conditions. In an effort to improve the situation, all incoming insulators of this type were given 100% inspection. This 100% inspection failed to decrease the percentage defective units. A simple testing was then constructed to measure the actual strength in flexure by testing insulators to destruction. From each incoming lot of insulators 25 were tested. As the insulators came from 2 suppliers, control charts (X and R) from both suppliers were separately maintained. The tests showed that both suppliers had approximately the same % defectives but the explanations for defectives were different. Supplier A had higher average strength but complete lack of anything resembling statistical control. Supplier B on the other hand had excellent statistical control but at a level such that an appreciable part of frequency distribution was below the required minimum strength. This diagnosis of the situation was brought to the attention of both suppliers and they were encouraged to exchange information about production methods. Finally product control could be achieved.

Milling a slot in an aircraft terminal block.

Decisions preparatory to the control chart: High percentages of rejections for many of the parts made in the machine shop of an aircraft company indicated the need for examination of the reasons for trouble. As most of the rejections were for failure to meet dimensional tolerances, it was decided to try to find the causes of trouble by the use of X and R charts. These charts which off-course required the measurements of dimensions, were to be used only for those dimensions that were causing numerous rejections. Among the many dimensions, the ones selected for control charts were those having high costs of spoilage and rework and those on which rejections were responsible for delays in assembly operations. This example deals with one such critical dimension, the width of a slot on the duralumin forging used as a terminal block at the end of the rear tail or an airplane. The final matching of the slot width was a milling operation. The width of the slot was specified as 0.8750 . The design engineers had specified this dimension with an unilateral tolerance because of the fit requirements of the terminal block; it was essential that the slot width be at least .8750 in and desirable that it is very close to this value.

Milling example continued

Due to the small no. of available inspection personnel it was decided that for each chart the sample would be inspected would be approximately 5% of the total production of the parts in question. It was decided that all measurements would be made at the place of production and it was decided that a part be measured every 20 parts produced. The subgroup size was thus fixed as 5. The figure on left shows all observations. The method to inspection to secure data for each of the charts was to measure two portions of the slot width using a micrometer screw gauge and average these measurements.

Milling example continued

Starting the control charts: The actual measurements of the first 16 subgroups are shown in the table. These numbers of subgroups correspond to a production order for 1600 of these terminal blocks. At the time of the 12th subgroup, before the completion of this production order and before the calculation of the central line or control limits, the quality control inspector noticed that the machine operator was occasionally checking performance on a terminal block that had just come off the machine and was still hot. After the 12th subgroup the operator was asked to do measurements after some time of cooling is allowed.

Determining the trial control limits: Calculations of the trial control limits was made after the first 16 subgroups which completed the production order. As shown in the figure on the right these were done by finding out the A2 and D4 factors for a subgroup size 5. Drawing preliminary conclusions from the graphs: Subgroup 1 is above the upper control limit on the R chart. Subgroup 10 is below the lower control limit on the X chart. Moreover the last 10- of the 6 points fall below the central line.

Milling example continued

Starting the control charts: The actual measurements of the first 16 subgroups are shown in the table. These numbers of subgroups correspond to a production order for 1600 of these terminal blocks. At the time of the 12th subgroup, before the completion of this production order and before the calculation of the central line or control limits, the quality control inspector noticed that the machine operator was occasionally checking performance on a terminal block that had just come off the machine and was still hot. After the 12th subgroup the operator was asked to do measurements after some time of cooling is allowed.

Determining the trial control limits: Calculations of the trial control limits was made after the first 16 subgroups which completed the production order. As shown in the figure on the right these were done by finding out the A2 and D4 factors for a subgroup size 5. Drawing preliminary conclusions from the graphs: Subgroup 1 is above the upper control limit on the R chart. Subgroup 10 is below the lower control limit on the X chart. Moreover the last 10- of the 6 points fall below the central line.

Milling Example Continued

It is obvious that the measurements made are not the result of a constant system of chance causes. If subgroup 1 is eliminated from consideration, R for the remaining 15 subgroups is 536/ 15 = 36. This gives us a revised upper control limit D4 (R) = 2.11 (36) = 76. Subgroup 5 falls exactly on the upper control limit in the X chart. Hence a second revision of R with subgroup 5 eliminated seems reasonable. Therefore R = 460/14 = 33. . An estimate may be made of from the R values. With a d2 value of 2.362 corresponding to the subgroup size 5 we get a = R/ d2 = 0.0014 in. The value of the natural tolerance or spread of the process is therefore 6= 6 (.0014) = .0084 in. This spread may be compared with tolerance spread: U-L = .0050in

It is evident from the process that the natural tolerance of the spread is substantially greater than the specified tolerance. Therefore, unless the process dispersion is reduced the process will keep producing non conforming components.

Milling Example Continued

It is obvious that the measurements made are not the result of a constant system of chance causes. If subgroup 1 is eliminated from consideration, R for the remaining 15 subgroups is 536/ 15 = 36. This gives us a revised upper control limit D4 (R) = 2.11 (36) = 76. Subgroup 5 falls exactly on the upper control limit in the X chart. Hence a second revision of R with subgroup 5 eliminated seems reasonable. Therefore R = 460/14 = 33. . An estimate may be made of from the R values. With a d2 value of 2.362 corresponding to the subgroup size 5 we get a = R/ d2 = 0.0014 in. The value of the natural tolerance or spread of the process is therefore 6= 6 (.0014) = .0084 in. This spread may be compared with tolerance spread: U-L = .0050in

It is evident from the process that the natural tolerance of the spread is substantially greater than the specified tolerance. Therefore, unless the process dispersion is reduced the process will keep producing non conforming components.

Revision of theory of Probability

Definition: Probability is concerned with the likelihood of an event occurring. The scale of probability of an event varies from 0 to1. If an event cannot occur on a trial, then the probability of its occurrence in 0. If another event is certain to occur then its probability of occurrence is 1. As an example suppose that a trial is drawing a piece at random from some production line, and that the event in question is that the piece drawn is a defective or non conforming one. Let us suppose that the probability of a defective is 0.05. This means that 5% of the time when we draw a random piece from the line, it is defective. The complementary event is that the piece drawn is a good one. Its probability is .95. P(good or defective) = 1 Occurrence ratio Suppose that we have a production process for which the probability of a piece containing at least one minor defect is constantly 0.08. We then say that the probability is 0.08 for a minor defective. Now what happens to the observed proportion of minor defectives as we continue to sample? This observed proportion of minor defectives is what we know as the occurrence ratio.

Theory of probability Let p = constant probability of a minor defective

Where the letter p means the probability and the prime means population probability. d = no. of defectives observed n = no. of pieces inspected or tested p = d/n = sample proportion of defectives. Let us see how p = d/n behave as we sample more and more, that is, increase n? Would we not expect that the observed occurrence ratio p= d/n would tend to approach p = 0.08. We start with five samples of 10, then samples of 50. The first 2 columns are for current sample of 10 or of 50. The 3rd and the 4th column are for the total sample size and the cumulative total no. of defectives. The 5th column is based on the 3rd and 4th columns and gives the current overall proportion defectives and the occurrence ratio (total defective/ total inspected).

Sample n 10 10 10 10 10 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 D 0 1 1 1 0 5 4 6 4 8 1 3 5 3 n 10 20 30 40 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Totals d 0 1 2 3 3 8 12 18 22 30 31 34 39 42

Occurrence ratio P = d/ n .0000 .0050 .0667 .0750 .0600 .0800 .0800 .0900 .0880 .1000 .0886 .0850 .0867 .0840

The proportion defective only tends to approach p =0.08. Sometimes it gets closer, sometimes it backs away from p. Before the total sample size was 100, the occurrence ratio was below .08. Between 100 and 150 it was 0.08 and thereafter above. Principle: We can say that the p= d/n is an estimate of the constant probability of population p. How close the estimate will be depends on sample size n, the value of p and also upon chance.

50
50 50 50 50

5
5 5 4 3

550
600 650 700 750

47
52 57 61 64

.0855
.0867 .0877 .0871 .0853

50
50 50 50 50

6
4 7 4 4

800
850 900 950 1000

70
74 81 85 89

.0875
.0871 .0900 .0895 .0890

Probability laws
Consider again the production line producing pieces with a constant probability .08 of the piece being a minor defective, and such that each piece is independent of the other produced.

This means that the probability of the next piece being a defective is 0.08 and the piece being good is .92 irrespective of the preceding piece.
Now let us suppose that we draw a sample of two pieces and inspect them. The outcomes are that the sample may contain 0, 1 or 2 defectives. Let us find the probabilities of this outcome or events. For the probability of the samples containing no defectives, we must have good pieces on both draws.

Probability Laws

Probability Laws
If 2 events A and B might occur on a trial or experiment, but the occurrence of either one prevents the occurrence of the other, then events A and B are called mutually exclusive. For two such events P(A) + P (B) = P( A or B, mutually exclusive events) We have seen this in the earlier example in the 1 good case P (1 Good) = .0736 +0.0736 If one of the two events A and A is certain to occur on a trial, but both cannot simultaneously occur, then A and A are called complementary events.

For any such pair of events

We have seen this in the example of a single draw where p was given as 0.08.

Laws of Probability
Two events A and B are independent if the occurrence or non occurrence of A does not affect the probability of B occuring. Whenever a process produces defectives independently, or at random, so that the probability of a defective on the next piece does not depend upon what the preceding pieces were like, then we have the case of independent events. Such a process is said to be in control, that is stable, even though some non conformity is produced. Not all processes do behave in this manner. For example: We consider the production of 3000 piston ring castings. The sample of 100 contain 25 defectives whereas the remaining 2900 only 4. This was because the defectives occur in bunches from a certain defect producing condition. Particularly in this case it was found that the castings were made from stacks of molds, and if the iron is not hot enough when poured into a stack, many castings may be defective. Under such conditions, whether a piece is good or defective does have an influence on the probability of the next one being defective. If two events A and B are independent, then we have : P(Both A and B occurring) = P(A). P(B)

As a second example of probability, let us consider drawing without replacement from a lot of N=6 speedometers, of which 1 is defective Let N = no. of pieces in one lot and D= no. of defective pieces in a lot Now consider the very simple case in which we just draw a random sample of 1 from a lot of 6. Random means that each of the six meters is equally likely to be chosen for the sample. Probability of each is 1/6. There are only two kind of meters good and defective with P(good) = 5/6 and P(defective) = 1/6. Now next consider drawing a sample of n= 2 from the lot having N =6, of which D=1 is defective. This may contain no. of defectives either d=0 or 1. This is a case of two consecutive drawings which are not independent. Take first the case of the sample yielding no defectives, that is, two good meters. We need P(2 good) = P(good, good) = P(good on first draw). P(good on 2nd draw given good on 1st draw) = 5/6. 4/5 = 2/3

Example of Dependence and Equal Likelihood

Counting samples (Permutations and combinations)

In combinations we consider for example we have n objects which we can distinguish between. Now how many distinct samples, each of one, can we draw from a lot of N=10? Obviously the answer is 10. So, we call this a combination of N objects taken 1 at a time, or in symbols : C(N,1) = N. Next consider samples of two, from say four good pieces (g1, g2, g3 and g4). Then the number of distinct unordered samples may be found from the number of distinct ordered samples. For example: for ordered samples g1g2, g2g1, g1g3, g3g1, g1g4, g4g1, g2g3, g3g2, g2g4, g4g2, g3g4, g4g3 The no. of unordered samples are only half as much , that is, six, because, for example, the one unordered pair g2g4 corresponds to two ordered pairs g2g4 and g4g2. Now let us consider lots of 10 distinct pieces. The number of possible ordered samples, each of two is 10.9, because there are 10 choices for the first piece and having made a choice their remain 9 choices for the second piece. So we have 90 ordered samples and exactly of this unordered. (45)

Counting samples (Permutations and combinations)

Now let us go to a sample of 3 from a lot of 10. The no. of distinct ordered samples is 10.9.8; 10 choices for the first, 9 choices for the second and 8 choices for the third. But now six of this ordered samples correspond to just one unordered sample. For example: g1g4g6, g1g6g4, g4g1g6, g4g6g1, g6g1g4, g6g4g1 all correspond to g1g4g6 unordered sample. Hence the number of distinct or unordered samples or combinations is 10.9.8/6 = 120 Ordered samples are also called permutations and they are calculated by the general formulae P(n,r) = n! / (n-r)! In the earlier case P(10,3) = 10!/ 7! = 10.9.8 = 720 We call the number of distinct unordered samples a combination and is given by the genera formulae C(n,r) = n!/ r! (n-r)! In earlier case this would be = 10!/ 3!. 7! = 10.9.8/ 3.2.1 = 120.

Counted data: Defects and defectives

Inspecting or testing n pieces , we may search for defects or non conformances in the n pieces and record the total number of such defects. This is measuring quality by a count of defects.
In inspecting or testing n pieces, we may consider whether each of n pieces does contain any defects. Each piece having one or more defects is called a defective. This measure is known as the count of defectives. We shall consistently use the following symbols here and in later discussions: n = number of units in a sample. d = number of defective units in the sample of n units. p = d/n= sample of fraction defective = proportion of defective units in the sample. q= 1-p = sample fraction good d= np = no. of defective units in the sample. Binomial distribution for defectives: Suppose we had a process with population fraction defective of p = .10. For a sample size of 4 there could be Either 0, 1,2, 3 or 4 defectives can exist.

Binomial distribution for defectives

First find the probability of drawing a sample with all pieces good.
So for P(d=0) = P(4 good) = [P(good)]4 = (0.9)4 = .6561 Thus about 2/3 of the time, we draw a sample of n=4 pieces from the process, all four will be good ones. Now next we seek P (3 good, 1 defective) . P (3 good, 1 defective) = P(g,g,g,d) + P(g,g,d,g) + P (g,d,g,g) + P (d,g,g,g) = (.9)(.9)(.9)(.1) + (.9) (.9)(.1)(.9) + (.9) (.1)(.9)(.9) + (.1) (.9)(.9)(.9) = 4(.9)^3 (.1) = .2916. Next consider samples with d=2; they have two defectives and two good ones. How many distinct orders are there for such samples? Six: ggdd. gdgd, gddg, dgdg, ddgg, dggd, the probability for each one of these sample outcomes is (0.9)2(0.1)2 . P(d=2) = 6 (0.9)2(0.1)2 = .0486

Similarly for d=3 there are only 4 orders of sampling results P(d=3) = 4 (0.9)2(0.1)2 =.0036
Finally for d =4, all four must be defective P(d=4) = .0001

Binomial distribution for Defectives

The sum of all the 4 outcomes are 1. We can also represent the various coefficients viz, 4,6,4 of the products of the powers of .9 and .1 as

C(4,1) =4, C(4,2) = 6, C(4,3)= 4 respectively.

This reasoning enables us to write all the four probabilities in 1 formulae P(d) = C(4,d) (0.9)4-d(0.1)d

This is also a representative of the dth term of a Binomial distribution of n =4 and the p =0.9 and q= 0.1. d P(d) P= d/n In general 0 .6561 .00 P(d) = C(n,d) (p)n-d(q)d 1 .2916 .25
2 3 4 Total .0486 .0036 .0001 1.0000 .50 .75 1.00