Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
By
Team
1
Introduction & Statement of Problem
Introduction: Sonalika group of companies that is the one of leading company
in India in tractors, MUV, and agricultural accessories. Lay shaft is the component
of our MUVs. The lay shaft is given transmission to the gears and meshed with
gear located with second shaft named main shaft. The PCD runout in this
component is very critical. More PCD create noise problem during running and
create problem in gear shifting. To tackle this problem a classification toolkit has
been designed using some statistical and soft computing based approaches to
cluster the data, to predict the possible class of incoming data, to generate some
rules in the term of confidence parameter. The data may be given in image form
or some tabular form having all numeric or categorized attributes.
1.2 Statement of problem: The %age of rejection in Lay Shaft 3.5% per annum.
2
Process route of Lay Shaft
Forging is the process in which we make the shape of component with the
Forging
help of dies. It also increase the strength of steel and reformation of grains
Turning is the process in which remove unwanted material from forging and
Turning make components as per specification.
Shaping is also used to make splines on the shaft where hob does work due
Shaping to space constraints.
Shaving Shaving is the process that gives smooth finishing to the tooth of gear and
makes their dimensions precisely.
Heat Heat treatment is the process in which we carburised the component to gives
Treatment desired hardness to prevent it from wear and tear.
Shot Shot blasting process used to remove the carbon sooting developed on
component during heat treatment process
Blasting
Straightening It is the process used to straight the shafts that have distort after heat
treatment
Grinding is the process used to make the bearing dia on the shaft with very
Grinding close tolerances.
3
Photograph of the component
Methodology Use
Our team has decided to use following methodology to identify the proper root
cause.
1. Stratification
2. Brainstorming
3. Cause and effect diagrams
4
Stratification
Rejection of Lay Shaft Month wise
20 19
18
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
REJECTION
8
6
4
2
0
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
5
Stratification Cont.
Rejection of Lay Shaft section wise
15 13 4
3.1
22
REJECTION
3.8 11
2.49 3
%AGE
10 2.6
2
5 3
1 2 0 1
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0
March April May June
Month
TURNING H.T. GRINDING TEETH CUTTING %AGE
Graph: 2
We have observed from above stratification is that the major rejection occurred in
hobbing section instead of other sections. So, now we have focused on the
hobbing section to find out the reason of rejection.
12 11
10 9 9
8 8
4
2 2 2
2 1
0 0 1
0 0
March April May June
It is clear with above stratification that the major rejection is due to PCD runout.
6
Brainstorming
Improper normalizing Improper normalizing also related with the surface hardness
and microstructure after normalizing. As per specification, distribution of ferrite and
pearlite grains should distribute properly, no banding is required.
Bending of shaft during loading and unloading This statement is related with
the banding due to over staging and improper method of loading and unloading of
components from trucks.
Geometrical test of hobbing machine As per our norms, machine should have
geometrical test that shows the capability of machine. in geometrical teat, all parameters
related with bed, jig fixture, play and error in the machine.
Wear and tear in jigs and fixture used during hobbing, shaping - By using jig
and fixture for long time, it may be wear and tear and shows error.
Heavy cut during hobbing Cut during hobbing should be controlled, the RPM of
hobbing is in controlled. As the feed and RPM increased, it will create more stress on the
component.
7
Cause and affect diagram
Machine
Jig & fixture not
Loose foundation
calibrat0ed Negligence
Vibration
Over time
Misalignment of fixture Lack of training
Misalignment of centers
Fatigue skill
Heavy work
PCD
Centers of Component not
Improper
shaft not manufactured
normalizing Tool Quality
clean with one
reference not good
Material Method
Formulation of Theories- I
We have observed with stratification that the major rejection is generated on
hobbing section that components having PCD run out more than 0.06mm. the
acceptance norms of PCD runout is up to 0.06mm. Our team decided to take trial
with 25 pcs. Of Lay shaft to identify the basic root cause. . All 25 pcs. Of lay shaft
were checked physically. The inspection parameters of blanks are as under
8
Data of PCD runout at blank stage:
S.no Surface Hardness R/oDia 22 R/o dia 45 R/o Dia 39 R/o Dia
mm mm mm 35mm
1 162 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
2 159 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
5 169 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02
6 141 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02
7 162 0.02 .0.2 0.02 0.02
8 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
9 162 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
10 169 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02
11 159 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02
12 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
13 147 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
14 162 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
15 169 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02
16 162 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
17 162 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
18 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
19 169 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
20 162 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
21 172 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
22 144 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03
23 179 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
24 169 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
25 169 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
10
Observation: - The all parameter that are necessary to ensure are
within control limit. The acceptance limit for runout of above
parameters is less than 0.020mm. These parameters were checked
on every component (25 nos.) that we were manufactured.
11
S.no R/o dia R/o dia R/o dia R/o dia
22mm 45mm 39mm 35mm
12
observation: - We have observed those components that
have surface hardness less than 150 BHN having PCD
runout.
Formulation of Theories II
1. We have taken another trial with components (10
nos.) having surface hardness less than 150BHN
to proven our hypothesis.
13
Comp. Surface R/o dia R/o dia R/o dia R/o dia
No. hardness 22mm 45mm 39mm 35mm
15
Remedial Journey
First of all, we need to find out the reason of low surface hardness on
components, for this we were decided to collect data at vendor end
and their supplies in last two years
Tray: 1
Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Surface 162 164 162 168 164 162 164 164 162
hardness
Tray: 2
Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Surface 164 164 164 162 164 162 162 164 162
hardness
Tray: 3
Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Surface 165 167 162 164 167 164 165 167 164
hardness
16
Improvement after modification
14 13 4
3.8 12
12 3.5
11
3.2
3
10 9
2.6 2.5
8 2.4
%age
Nos.
2
6
1.5
0.8
4 3 1
2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5
0 0
0 0
March April May June July
Month
TURNING GRINDING TEETH CUTTING H.T %AGE
17
18