REASON FOR

IMPROVEMENT
WE DECIDED TO LOOK AT THE
REASONS FOR REJECTIONS IN 77 UNITS

THE TEAM REVIEWED THE REJECTION

RATE FOR EACH MONTH OF THE PAST
ONE YEAR

100%
DEFECTS 2014-2015

REJECTION RATE 2014-2015

7.00%
6.00%
5.00%

6.29%

6.09%

5.63%
5.43%

5.07%
4.51%

4.72%

4.55%

3.00%
REJEC
TION 2.45%
RATE
2.00%

4.69%

0.00%

4.46%
41913.0 41974.0
42036.0 42095.0 42156.0 42217.0
41883.0 41944.0 42005.0 42064.0 42125.0 42186.0

CUMMULATIVE REJECTION RATE OF

4.7% IS MORE THAN CUSTOMER
EXPECTATION OF .05%
4.7% EQUATES TO 47000 PPM
DEFECTIVE

THE CUMMULATIVE REJECTION

RATE 4.7% WAS CONVERTED INTO
NUMBER OF PIECES TO ASIST
ANALYSIS:

4.7%

REJECTI
77
ON
RATE

1639

UNITS
INSPECT
ED

100%

99%

95%

89%

80%

50

60%

40
QUANTITY
30

CUMMULATIVE
REJECTION
4.70%

1.00%

70
60

3.68%

4.00%

Goo
d

80

UNITS
REJECTE
D

C UMM%
40%

20

20%

10
0

Rib71
gap

Wrong Mtl
Deep3 CS K
DEFEC TS

S cratches
1

0%

OVER THE LAST ONE YEAR, 89% OF THE

REJECTIONS WERE DUE TO RIB GAP ISSUE
WE EVALUATED THE DEFECT RIB GAP
BY ASSEMBLY SECTION
70
60

83%

100%
100%
REJECTIONS
LE SECTIONS
97% BY
92%
100%

50
40
QUANTITY
30

20
10
0

64
LE-02

0
4

LE-03
LE-04
LE-05
ASSEMBLY SECTION

90%
80%
70%
60% CUMM%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

LE-01

83% OF THE DEFECTS ARE FOUND IN

LE-02 SECTION

REASON FOR
IMPROVEMENT
THE TEAM THEN REVIEWED THE
REJECTION DATA BY THE OPERATOR
MANUFACTURING THE ASSEMBLY TO
UNDERSTAND IF THE REJECTIONS ARE
CAUSED BY ANY PARTICULAR
OPERATOR. REJECTIONS BY OPERATOR
100%

WE ALSO DECIDED TO LOOK IF THERE

WAS ANY RELATION BETWEEN THE
REJECTIONS AND THE DAY OF THE
WEEK IT WAS CAUSED.
REJECTIONS BY DAY OF THE100%
WEEK
83%
64%
QUANTITY

43%

22%

17
FRI

16

16

15

MON
THU
WED
ASSEMBLY SEC TION

13
TUE

NO SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP WAS

NOTED FROM THE PARETO ANALYSIS.
THE REJECTIONS SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY
CONSTANT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DAY
OF THE WEEK.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
C umm%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

25
79%
20
55%

15
QUANTITY
10

29%

5
0

22

20

TOM

JIM

19

16

JOHN

ED

DEFEC TS

THE NUMBER OF REJECTION IS FAIRLY

CONSTANT REGARDLESS OF THE
OPERATOR
HENCE, THE TEAM COULD NOT
ATTRIBUTE THE NUMBER OF
REJECTIONS TO ANY PARTICULAR
OPERATOR.
THE TEAM NARROWED ITS FINDINGS
FROM THE PARETO ANALYSIS TO
DEVELOP THE THEME FOR
IMRPOVEMENT.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
C UMM%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

THEME AND INDICATOR

FINDINGS
OVER LAST ONE YEAR, 83% OF THE
RIB GAP ISSUES WERE FOUND IN THE
LE-02 SECTION

THEME
REDUCE THE RIB GAP ISSUE IN LE-02
SECTION

CURRENT SITUATION
THE TEAM REVIEWED THE REJECTION
DATA OF 64 LE-02 ASSEMBLIES
97%
NUMBER
OF REJECTIONS
BY RIB#
90% 94%
100%
99% 100%

70
60

80%

50
40
Quantity
30

47%

RIB#
1

60%
C umm%
40%

20
10

THE RIB HEIGHT DATA OF RIB#1 AND RIB#6

FROM REJECTED UNIT <AS ASSEMBLED
CONDITION> WAS ANALYZED

64

57

RIB 1

RIB 6

RIB
62

RIB
45
RIBS

RIB 4

RIB 3

20%
0%

RIB#
6

90% OF THE REJECTIONS IN LE-02 ARE

CAUSED DUE TO RIB HEIGHT ISSUES IN
RIB#1 AND RIB#6
Rib#6
Plenum

S/B:
S/B: 16.240
16.240
+0/-.005
+0/-.005
MAX:
MAX: 16.240
16.240
MIN:
MIN: 16.210
16.210
RANGE
RANGE OF
OF OOT:
OOT: ..
0030
0030

S/B:
S/B: 10.082
10.082
+0/-.005
+0/-.005
MAX:
MAX: 10.090
10.090
MIN:
MIN: 10.060
10.060
RANGE
RANGE OF
OF OOT:
OOT: ..
0030
0030

Rib#5
Rib#4

Rib#3
Rib#2

THE RIB HEIGHT DATA OF DETAILED RIB#1 AND

RIB#6 WAS ALSO ANALYZED AND FOUND TO BE
IN TOLERANCE

Skin

Rib
height

Rib#1

THIS ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT RIBS ARE

FOLLOWING OOT AFTER ASSEMBLY PROCESS

CURRENT SITUATION
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR REJECTION, THE TEAM REVIEWED THE ASSEMBLY
PROCESS OF LE-02 SECTION.
(2)
DRILL
HOLES C/T
MOUNTING
STRAPS
AND RIBS
USING DJ

(1)
LOAD SKIN
AND RIBS ON
TO AF

(3)
DEBURR,
CSK AND
ATTACH THE
RIBS TO THE
SKIN USING
HI-LOKS

(4)
LOCATE
PLENUMS
AND
TRANSFER
DRILL HOLES
TO THE SKIN

(5)
DEBURR,
CSK AND
ATTACH THE
PLENUMS TO
SKIN USING
RIVETS

(6)
FINAL FINISH
AND
INSPECTION

RIB HIEGHT MEASUREMENTS ON RIB #1 AND RIB# 6 WERE TAKEN AT EACH STEP OF THE BUILD
PROCESS FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE UNITS

LE02
S.NO 227
RIB # 1
RIB# 6

LE02 INBD
LE02 OUTBD

LE02
S.NO 228
RIB# 1
RIB# 6

LE02 INBD
LE02 OUTBD

NOMINAL
+0/-.005
16.24
10.082

NOMINAL
+0/-.005
16.24
10.082

16.236
10.080

Delta
(5)
Delta
(1)
from
(3)
Delta Installatio Delta
from Constrai nomina Installatio
from
n of
From
nominal nt in AF
l
n of Hiloks nominal Plenum Nominal
-0.004
16.24
0
16.226
-0.014
16.226
-0.014
-0.002
10.088 0.006
10.067
-0.015
10.069
-0.013

Detail
part
16.239
10.081

Delta
(5)
Delta
(1)
from
(3)
Delta Installatio Delta
from Constrai nomina Installatio
from
n of
From
nominal nt in AF
l
n of Hiloks nominal Plenum Nominal
-0.001
16.237 -0.003
16.216
-0.024
16.217
-0.023
-0.001
10.081 -0.001
10.067
-0.015
10.068
-0.014

Detail
part

MAJOR DEVIATION IN THE RIB HEIGHT IS OBSERVED AFTER THE INSTALLATION OF HILOKS WHICH
ARE USED TO SECURE THE RIB TO THE SKIN.

ANALYSIS
THE TEAM STUDIED THE PROCESS AND BRAINSTORMED POTENTIAL CAUSES FOR RIB CHORDAL
HEIGHT OOT CONDITION.

MAN

MATERI
AL

Different
Mechanics
Working on
Assembly

Design

Lack of
Training

Different shop
practices used
by different
individuals

Tool over
constraint
s the part

Tool
Maintenan
ce Cycle

Tool Design
Tool under
constraint
s the part

MACHINE

METHO
High fastenerD
count at

Inadequate
Skin to Rib
Contact

Fixturing

crown

Excess Drill
Pressure
Applied on
Holes

Type
of
Drill
Point

Fastener
Type and
Hole Size

Tool Improperly
locates Ribs
And Skin

Light
Weight Rib
Design

Skin and Ribs

not
Drilling
Constrained
Sequence

Tolerance
stack up
Ribs
OOT
Detail Parts
OOT
Plenu
m OOT

Skin
OOT

Fastener
Torque
Sequence
Assembly
Process
Pressure
used
during Drilling
or Fastener
install

Validation of Skin
Contour, And
Tolerance
Validation of
Detail parts
Temperature
Variation

Method Of
Measuring Rib
Deformation

MEASUREMEN
TS

Rib
Chord
Height
OOT

MOTHER
NATURE

THE TEAM REACHED FOLLOWING CONSENSUS ON THE PROBABLE ROOT CAUSES

1. DRILLING SEQUENCE AND FASTENER INSTALLATION PROCESS DURING THE ASSEMBLY PROCESS
2. THE DESIGN OF THE ASSEMBLY
A. NUMBER OF FASTENERS IN THE CROWN AREA AND THE FIT OF FASTENERS
B. THE LIGHT WEIGHT DESIGN OF THE RIB

ANALYSIS..CONTD
THE TEAM PROPOSED AND CONDUCTED TESTS TO VERIFY PROBABLE ROOT CAUSES.

SUMMARY OF TERMINOLOGY AND MEASUREMENTS:

IN THE FOLLOWING TESTS, CRITERIA WERE ESTABLISHED FOR RIB TERMINOLOGY AND STANDARD POINTS OF MEASURE
A STANDARD CHECK SHEET WAS DEVELOPED TO RECORD THE DATA AS SHOWN BELOW.
RIB# 1 WAS SELECTED FOR THESE TESTS.

UPPER

LOWER

MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN AT BOTH INBOARD AND OUTBOARD LOCATION OF THE RIB AS
SHOWN FOR ALL THE TESTS
WE ENSURED THAT ALL THE TESTS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SAME OPERATOR AND THAT ALL
THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE SAME INSPECTOR

ANALYSIS..CONTD
TEST 1
TEST WAS CONDUCTED TO MEASURE THE DEFELECTION DURING THE DRILLING AND FASTENER
INSTALLATION PROCESS FOR TWO DIFFERENT ASSEMBLIES. THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN AT
EACH PROCESS STEP OF DRILLING AND INSTALLING TWO FASTENERS. THE MEASUREMENTS WERE
RECORDED AT EACH STEP.
TEST1 : UNIT 1
DRILLING AND INSTALLATION OF FASTENER

TEST 1: UNIT 2
DRILLING AND INSTALLATION OF FASTENER

16.245

16.245

16.240

16.240

16.235

16.235
MEASUREMENT
16.230

MEASUREMENT
16.230

Crown

16.225

16.225 Crown

Beyond Crown

16.220
1

4
STEP

Outboar
d

Beyond Crown

16.220
1

4
STEP

8
9
Outboard
Inboard

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS NOTED

1) THE RIB BEGIN TO DEFLECT AS FASTENERS IN THE CROWN AREA WERE INSTALLED AND
TORQUED TO FINAL COLLAR BREAKOFF.
2) MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN INBOARD AND OUTBOARD POINTS OF MEASURE ON THE INTERFACE
PADS INDICATED THAT THE RIB LEGS TWISTED FROM THEIR FREE STATE CONDITION.
3) DEFLECTION OF .015 OUTBOARD AND .020 INBOARD WAS NOTED.

ANALYSIS..CONTD
TEST 2
TEST 2 WAS CONDUCTED ON AN ASSEMBLY TO INSTALL CLEARANCE FIT FASTENERS AT THE CROWN
AREA TO VALIDATE THE EFFECT OF FASTENER FIT IN THE HOLES.
TEST 2
INSTALLATION OF CLEARANCE FASTENERS
16.245

16.240

Tolerance Zone
Outboa
rd

MEASUREMENT
16.235

Crown

Beyond Crown

16.230
1

STEP

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS NOTED

1) THE RIB DIMENSIONS REMAINED STABLE AS FASTENERS OVER THE ENTIRE RIB WERE DRILLED,
INSTALLED AND TORQUED TO FINAL COLLAR BREAKOFF.
2) MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN INBOARD AND OUTBOARD POINTS OF MEASURE ON THE RIB
INTERFACE PADS INDICATED THAT THE RIB LEGS DID NOT TWIST FROM THEIR FREE STATE
CONDITION.

ANALYSIS..CONTD
TEST 3
TEST 3 WAS CONDUCTED ON AN ASSEMBLY TO RE-SEQUENCE THE DRILLING AND INSTALLATION OF
FASTENERS TO START FROM CROWN AND MOVE TOWARDS THE LEG AND ALTERNATING FROM UPPER
TO LOWER LEGS
TEST 3
RESEQUENCED INSTALLTION OF FASTENER
16.245

16.240
Outboa
rd

MEASUREMENTS
16.235

Crown
Beyond Crown

16.230
1

STEP

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS NOTED

1) THE RIB DIMENSIONS SHOWED DEFLECTION BUT WERE ONLY .003 BEYOND LOW LIMIT.
2) MEASUREMENTS BETWEEN INBOARD AND OUTBOARD POINTS OF MEASURE ON THE RIB
INTERFACE PADS INDICATED THAT THE RIB LEGS SHOWED TWISTING FROM THEIR FREE STATE
CONDITION.

ANALYSIS..CONTD
TEST 4
IN TEST 4, FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED TO DEMONSTRATE LOCATION OF STRESS
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE PRESENT RIB DESIGN USING A SIMPLE LOADING CONDITION. THE TEST WAS
CONDUSCTED TO VALIDATE THE LIGHT WEIGHT DESIGN OF THE RIB

D 0.030

Max Principal
Stress = 2710 psi

Min Principal
Stress 3560 psi

SIGNIFICANT RESULTS NOTED

LESS THAN 30 LB. IS REQUIRED TO CLOSE THE RIB 0.030 IN.

THE TEAM WAS NOW READY TO DEVELOP THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR THE ROOT CAUSES WHICH
WERE ESTABLISHED BY TEST 1, 2, 3 AND 4

COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE
MATRIX
PROBL
EM

ROOT
CAUSES

COUNTERMEA
USRE

RIB HEIGHT OUT OF

TOLERANCE

A
DRILLING SEQUENCE

C
RE-DESIGN FOR
CLEARANCE FIT OF
FASTENERS

D
LIGHT WEIGHT RIB
DESIGN

RE-DESIGN THE RIBS

FOR LESS DEFLECTION

LEGENDS

RE-SEQUENCE THE
DRILLING AND
INSTALLATION OF
FASTENERS

DESIGNED TRANSITION
FIT OF FASTENERS

EFF
.

FEA
S.

Y/N
?

REVISE THE OPERATION

WORK SHEET

15

TRAIN THE OPERATORS

WITH NEW SEQUENCE

20

DRILL THE HOLES TO

HIGH END OF
TOLERANCE

REQUEST CUSTOMER
TO UPDATE THE HOLE
TOLERANCE

20

REQUEST CUSTOMER
FOR STRENGTHENING
THE RIB LEGS

25

PRACTICAL
METHODS

PRACTICAL
METHODS

LOW

HIGH

FOUR (4) PRACTICAL METHODS WERE SELECTED FOR

IMPLEMENTATION

COUNTERMEASURES
CONTD

BARRIERS AND
AIDS
BARRIERS

AIDS

CUSTOMERS WILLINGNESS

REDUCED REJECTION

COST

INCREASED CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION

TIME

REDUCED LEAD TIME

ENGINEERING MANPOWER

REDUCED REWORK
IMPROVED FLOW
MEET SCHEDULE

RESULTS

TO BE
DETERMINED

THE COUNTERMEASURES WERE PROPOSED AND HAVE NOT BEEN

IMPLEMENTED YET.
.

STANDARDIZATION

TO BE
DETERMINED