ELIMINATION OF FLAT THREAD REJECTION IN

RACK LINE IN RANE (MADRAS) LIMITED

Project work submitted by

1. JASIM AHMED.S (11TB0016)

2. KARTHIK.G (11TB0018)
3. THAMIZHARASAN.R (11TB0061)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

[Link]
PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

CO-GUIDE
[Link]
ASSISTANT MANAGER (SGP PLANT)
RANE (MADRAS) LIMITED
 Steering gear- Definition

Mechanism of Manual Rack and pinion steering gear

TYRE TYRE
Manual Rack and pinion steering gear

 Rack & Pinion converts rotary

motion to linear motion of
steering wheel for turn the
vehicle
Function of Rack

 Rack is one of the major part of

steering gear. It engages with
pinion to drive the gear HOUSING PINION RACK
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Results

[Link] Measure

APPROACH
[Link]

[Link] the
current situation

[Link] Identification
 1. Problem Identification

Conclusion

Philosophy : 20% of defects will contribute for 80% of problem

Interpretation : First 3 defects are contributing for 80% of total defects
Based on this concept we have taken Rack cell rejection for further studying
 1. Problem Identification
Rack cell problem data bank

As per ranking ‘A’ type category as ‘Rack flat thread rejection’ is high priority problem and also its
contributing high rejection as 1208 PPM. So Flat Thread Rejection is taken as a QC Project

ELIMINATE FLAT THREAD REJECTION IN CNC

Project selection JOBBER MACHINE
 1.1 Problem Definition

What is rack Flat thread rejection?

In threading operation crest formation in ‘Flat shape’ instead of ‘Sharp shape’ is called as
flat thread.

OK RACK NOT OK RACK

Flat
Ok thread thread

Crest formation Crest formation

sharp flat
 1.2 Importance of the problem

Impact on functional aspects – End user

Rack – IBJ
IBJ
connecting area

RACK
ORIGINAL
RUNNING
PATH

ACTUAL PATH

4.0 m
3.5 m

3.5 m
3.5 3.5 m
m
m 4 .5
ROAD CAR CAR
Accident
THREAD OK RACK FLAT THREAD REJ RACK

THREAD OK RACK – IMPACT - PROPER STREEING FLAT THREAD RACK – IMPACT - LEADS TO FATAL
CONTROL ACCIDENT
 1.3 Undesirable Results

 Improper flat thread result to steering out of control and it may leads to fatal
accident

 High rejection – 1208 PPM

 Rework of rack at final assembly is non value added activity.

 Operator fatigue is high

 Low operator morale

 Scraping of bought of parts at the time of rework at assembly leads to increase in

cost of quality
Rework of gear assy. leads to scrapping of
2 Inner ball joints Pinion cover Oil seal Yoke cover
 1.4 Theme and Target

Eliminate Flat Thread Rejection in

Theme CNC Jobber machine

1208 PPM To 0 PPM

Eliminate flat thread rejection

Target
1400
1200 1208

Rej in PPM
1000
800
600
400
0
200
0
Present Target

When March’15
 1.5 Action Plan

Plan Plan

Derived a road map for eliminating flat thread rejection in CNC machines
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Results

APPROACH
[Link] Measures

[Link]

[Link] the current

situation

[Link] Identification
 1.5 Problem Identification

WHAT Flat thread rejection

WHERE CNC Jobber m/c - Rack

HOW MUCH 1208 PPM

 2.1 Understand current situation

Rack cell process flow

RACK LENGTH BROACHING STRAIGHTENING
CUTTING

PRE WASHING CRACK DETECTION

STRAIGHTENING

CENTERLESS DATE PUNCHING POLISHING

GRINDING

INDUCTION
TURNING HARDENING

FLAT MILLING TEMPERING

Problem Occurring in the Highlighted area

 2.1 Understand current situation
Rack turning operation sequence

FACING

CNC Jobber m/c

DRILLING & BORING Rack thread inspection method

Rack Gauge

(12.45/12.55)
GAUGE
PLUG

THREAD CUTTING

Rack Gauge
THREAD GAUGE
(M14*1.5)

THROUGH COOLANT
 2.2 Problem investigation
Data collection-1

Three types of rack using for turning operation. So model wise trial to
be taken for rejection identification

Conclusion

 Some time this flat thread rejection happened 50 no’s once after re boring.
some times happened 150 no’s once after re boring
 All models occurred the same type of rejection
 2.2 Problem investigation

Corrective action at the time of rejection occurred

• Whenever the job got rejected, we will check the spindle and job run out .
• At the time of rejection we observed job run out
By experience we have re bored the jaws
Job

Job Corrective action

Spindle

Dial gauge
Dial gauge
All 3 jaws to be re bored and
Spec – 0.02 mm true the original condition
Actual run out – 0.5 mm

So team will decide to taking job run out issue for further study
through Gemba
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Results

APPROACH
[Link] measure

[Link]

[Link] the current

situation

[Link] Identification
 3.0 Analysis of funneling approach

Problem

Brainstorming possible causes

By experience
/Gemba

Probable causes

Validation through Data

/ Experimentation

Why Why Counter

Root Causes
Analysis Measures
 3.1 Brainstorming points

Rack flat thread

Identify Problem rejection

By brainstorming the possible causes were identified

[Link] length projection 12.M/c vibro mount condition

[Link] indexing position [Link] butting face
[Link] teeth location [Link] bore concentricity
[Link] run out at parting [Link] Position repeatability
[Link] material spec [Link] stopper tightening condition
[Link] ovality [Link] run out
[Link] and insert [Link] condition
[Link] rpm [Link] contact area with jaws
[Link] properties [Link] edge condition
[Link] pressure [Link] operation program
[Link] offset [Link] operation insert

We have eliminate some possible causes By experience/Gemba. Now we are

going to apply in cause and effect diagram
 3.2 Probable causes applied in Cause and Effect
diagram

MACHINE MAN
Tool offset

Boring operation insert Chuck condition

Clamping pressure
Jaws edge condition
Spindle rpm
Thread operation program Spindle run out

Thread bore concentricity Tool and insert

Turret position repeatability Turret indexing position RACK FLAT

THREAD
REJECTION
Jaw teeth location Job ovality

Job length projection

Job contact area with jaws
Job run out at parting Job material spec

METHOD MATERIAL
 3.2 Validation of probable causes

SL. NO PROBALE CAUSES CATEGORY BY DATA OBTAINED IN STEP-2 / GEMBA / EXPERIENCE/ TECHNOLOGY INFERENCE

1 Job length Method Rack projection checked and found 60 mm against the as per Insignificant
projection derived the projection of 60 mm
Mismatching of teeth during jaws setting will lead to uneven
2 Jaw teeth location Method clamping .Visually we checked and found all 3 jaws are fixed correct Insignificant
distance.

3 Job run out at Method Checked incoming material run out and found 0.03 mm against the Insignificant
parting stage spec of 0.05 mm (Pre straightening operation done at parting cell)

4 Job material spec Material EN8C Bar material checked and found 54 HRA against the spec. of Insignificant
50 to 54 HRA

5 Chuck condition Machine Checked chuck lubrication points and jaw play and found no Insignificant
abnormalities-Every 6 month chuck PM done by tool room

Thread tool holder Machine Thread tool holder spec M14 X 1.5 pitch, thread depth 16 mm
6 and insert checked and found [Link] life monitoring system checked and Insignificant
Found [Link] tool tightening and edges found no abnormalities

7 Spindle rpm Machine Spec of spindle rpm is 1800 – 2000 [Link] with digital tahco Insignificant
meter reading is 2000 rpm against of spec

8 Clamping pressure Machine During validation we found no variation of clamping pressure Insignificant
observed 20 kg/cm2 against the spec of 18 to 22 kg/cm2

9 Tool offset Machine Checked and found program standardization done for all models. Insignificant
Using 8 separate offset for each model
 3.2 Validation of probable causes

SL. NO POSIBILE CAUSES CATEGORY BY DATA OBTAINED IN STEP-2 / GEMBA / EXPERIENCE/ INFERENCE
TECHNOLOGY

10 Thread bore Machine We checked concentricity of between the inner bore dia and Insignificant
concentricity outer [Link] is - 0.02 mm and found 0.01 mm against of spec
Back lash variation checked and found 0 micron against
11 Turret position Machine component tolerance of ± 20 micron and machine tolerance 8 Insignificant
repeatability micron. Checked backlash program with 10 trials and found no
variation.

12 Spindle run out Machine Checked spindle run out by dial gauge. spec is – 0.02 mm and Insignificant
found 0.01 mm against of the spec

13 Turret indexing Machine Checked turret on X axis and Y axis position. Found 0.02 mm Insignificant
position against the spec of 0.03 mm

14 Job Ovality Material We checked across diameter on the job and found ± 5 micron
against the spec of tolerance ± 10 micron Insignificant
Observed jaw edges condition. If any damages/wear will lead
15 Jaws edge condition Machine improper engage with m/c spindle. Checked and found one jaw Significant
getting damages.
Job contact area with Method We checked with all 3 diameter. During setting change at one
16 the jaws model to another model the jaw adjustment properly done by Insignificant
operators.
17 Thread operation Machine Program defined as 10 passes for M14 X 1.5 pitch threading Insignificant
program operation. We checked and found the same.

18 Boring operation Machine Boring holder ,Insert and clamping screw combination tool set Insignificant
insert up verified and found ok
 3.3 Identify the root causes

So we have identify the root causes of rack flat thread

rejection by validation through data
ROOT CAUSE :
PROBLEM : PROBABLE CAUSE : Job run out due to Jaws
Rack flat thread Jaws edge condition edge damage while loading
the job

MATERIAL MACHINE

Jaws edge condition

Rack flat thread

rejection

METHOD MAN
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Results

[Link] Measures

APPROACH
[Link]

[Link] the current

Situation

[Link] Identification
 4.1 C Why Why Analysis
RC-1
ROOT CAUSE :
PROBLEM : PROBABLE CAUSE : Job run out due to Jaws
Rack flat thread Jaws edge condition edge damage while loading
the job
Jobs continually hitting the jaws during loading
WHY ?

Jaws clearance gap is 3 mm only. More possibility

of jaws edge damages during job loading
WHY ?

Soft jaws not withstand the job loading force

given by operator
WHY ?

Inadequate design

Counter Jaw type clamping method to be

Measure modified
 4.4 Counter measure

CNC Turning machine – Clamping method

Jaw

Draw bar
Job
End stopper
Chuck

PROBLEM : ROOT CAUSE : COUNTER MEASURE :

Rack flat thread Job run out due to Jaws Jaw type clamping
edge damage while method to be modified
loading the job
Conclusion

New idea to be generated for jaw type clamping modification

 4.4 Counter measure

Machine scope
 Separate jaw set up for each diameter (21ф ,23ф,25ф)
 Quick setting/adjustment training for operators
 Collect type chuck

Fundamental study

Decision
We have to consider collet type chuck idea for further analysis
 4.4 Counter measure

Chuck - Deep analysis for collet modification

Machine part
Chuck

o In machine part, six M12 holes provided for chuck mounting

o In chuck having six M12 holes provision for mounting
o But standard collet mounting holes are different
 4.4 Counter measure

Deep analysis – Collet type

Standard model collet

available in market

o M10 holes only provided where is standard collet available in market

o Three holes provision in collet but six holes available in machine part
o So directly collet can not mounting in the machine part
 4.4 Counter measure

What will do further?

Team has decided that one intermediate flange to provide
between machine part and collet

o The intermediate flange have designed for connecting of machine part with collet
o As per design the Qc team have made the flange by internal sources
 4.4 Counter measure

Additionally we have added one intermediate flange for collet mounting.

So draw bar length also increased for intermediate flange width

Draw bar length increased

from 500 mm to 550 mm
Due to intermediate
flange extension

Successfully we implemented the collet type clamping method instead of chuck

type clamping method
 4.4 Counter measure

 Intermediate flange application

 Draw bar modification

Draw bar length increased

from 500 mm to 550 mm
Due to intermediate
flange extension

Successfully we implemented the collet type clamping method instead of chuck

type clamping method
 4.4 Improvements of collet type clamping
in CNC turning machine

Before After

Chuck – Front side Intermediate flanges

Chuck – Back side Collet chuck

Collet with modified

Chuck with old
draw bar
drawbar

Collet

Chuck type clamping Collet type clamping

method - parts method - parts
 4.4 Improvements of collet type clamping
in CNC turning machine

Before After

Collet type
Chuck type

Chuck type clamping method in CNC Collet type clamping method in CNC
turning machine – German broach line turning machine – German broach line

Conclusion

Chuck type clamping method modified by collet type clamping method

 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Result

APPROACH
[Link] measure

[Link]

[Link] the current

situation

[Link] Identification
 5. Check Result

Confirmatory trials

Result

After implementation of counter measure, we found no rack flat thread

rejection
 5.1 Check Result

Result

Rack flat thread rejection eliminated from 1208 PPM to 0

 5.1 Check Result

Verification of corrective action side effects

Corrective
P Q C D S Remarks
action

Flat thread rej eliminated, But

[Link] butting
length u/s rej comes
stopper provided
frequently

After side effects verification found rack flat thread rejection

eliminated .But rack overall length rejection obtained frequently
 5.1 Check Result

Trial taken for length under size rejection confirmation

Findings

Based on this trial we conformed overall length under size rejection

comes frequently by after implementation of collet type chuck counter
measure
 Project revisit

Why length under size rejection came after collet type

clamping modification?
Before After
Chuck Collet Chuck

Draw bar Draw bar

Chucking cylinder Jaw Collet

Chucking cylinder

Findings
Draw bar bush the collet during clamping – So
Draw bar pull the jaws during clamping- so job job slightly comes out while clamping, so that
can not comes out while clamping job u/s rejection comes
 Project revisit

Then why length under size rejection comes frequently?

Trial taken for length under size frequent rejection

Findings

Trial contacted with various operator and various models. In that trial, Length
u/s rejection not occurred at particular operators to ran the machine.
 Project revisit

Verified clamping method with various operators

Required external
support while clamping

Findings

Job slightly comes out during collet type clamping. Some operators always given external
support manually at the time of clamping. If to give external support properly during
clamping the rejection will be eliminated.
 Counter measure through Why Why
Analysis – Project revisit

NATURE OF ISSUE : ROOT CAUSE :

Rack length u/s Job comes out while clamping

While clamping collet push the job out side

WHY ?

Draw bar push the collet during clamping

WHY ?

By design

Counter Measure

To ensure job not move along

with draw bar while clamping
 Counter measure

Ideas generation
Auto support butting stopper to be provided for rack clamping

Machine scope Decision

 We having 8 station in turret  We can utilize the turret station for
 4 station only using for current operation auto butting stopper

Selection and Designing of butting stopper

 Counter measure

Verification of idea

IDEA P Q C D S M REMARKS

Not Feasible,
[Link] push with rubber Because poor life of
stem nylon push and high
replacement time

[Link] type front support Feasible

butting stopper

Conclusion

Plunger type butting stopper have selected

 Counter measure

Require the following characteristics of plunger type butting stopper

Quick movement
To Easley setting to machine Based on this study we made a
Low cost
drawing
Long life
Simple design

Drawing given to external supplier for further implementation

 Regular implementation – plunger type front
butting stopper

BEFORE AFTER

External support given during Auto front support butting

clamping during clamping

Plunger type auto butting stopper provided

 Check result

Confirmatory trial

Side effects

• Cycle time increased from 63 sec to 69 sec (6 sec for auto front butting)
• Setting adjustment time reduced from 35 min to 10 min
• Productivity increased from 180 no’s to 210 no’s
 5.1 Check Result

Conclusion
• Flat thread rejection completely eliminated
• Length under size rejection due to collet clamping modification were eliminated
 5.1 Check result

Turning cycle time - Result

Total available time – 7.33*3600*0.8 = 21110 Sec (352 Mints) Total available time – 7.33*3600*0.8 = 21110 Sec (352 Mints)
Machine cycle time – 63 secs Machine cycle time – 69 secs
Available time – setting time -17390 sec Available time – setting time -17390 sec
Out put per shift – 276 No’s Out put per shift – 253 No’s

Conclusion
Machine cycle time increased due to additionally front butting stopper operation added
 5.1 Check result

Set up time reduction - Result

No of setup changes per day - 2 No of setup changes per day - 2

Total available time – 7.33*3600*0.8 = 21110 Sec (352 Mints) Total available time – 7.33*3600*0.8 = 21110 Sec (352 Mints)
Cell setup time per day – 62 Mints Cell setup time per day – 28 Mints
Availability time for production – 290 Mints (17391 secs) Availability time for production – 324 Mints (19440 secs)
Out put per shift – 276 No’s Out put per shift – 308 No’s
 Tangible Benefit

P Q

308

276

Production improved From Rejection reduced From 1208 PPM to

276 Nos. to 308 Nos./shift. 0 PPM

C M

Work satisfaction increased and

operator morale reduced

Flat thread rej eliminated

From Rs. 13500 to 0 / Annum
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Result

APPROACH
[Link] measure

[Link]

[Link] the current

situation

[Link] Identification
 6. Book of learning

14.03.13
 [Link]

[Link]

[Link] Result

APPROACH
[Link] measure

[Link]

[Link] the current

situation

[Link] Identification
 7. 1 Summary of the project

Problem Root cause CM Result

Job run out due to uneven Collet type clamping

contact of jaws method instread of chuck
type clamping method

1208 PPM to 0
Rack flat thread rejection
Length variation due to rack Auto front support butting PPM
during collet type clamping stopper provided
rack push out slightly

So we have eliminated rack flat rejection from 1208 PPM

to 0 PPM
 7.2 Used tools and techniques for this project

Tools used Techniques used

o Cause & effect diagram o Brain storming

o Control charts and Graphs o Genba Audit
o Pareto diagram o Why Why analysis
o Histogram o Bar charts
o Stratification o Pie charts
o 3W 1H
o 5W 1H
 7.2 Undesirable result - Verification

 Improper flat thread result to steering out of control and it may leads to fatal accident

 High rejection – 1208 PPM

 Rework of rack at final assembly is non value added activity.

 Operator fatigue is high

 Low operator morale

 Scraping of bought of parts at the time of rework at assembly leads to increase in cost
of quality
 7.2. Horizontal deployment

HORIZONTAL DEPLOYMENT

WHAT (Action) WHERE WHEN WHO HOW

Collet type clamping method, All 6 jobber By designing as per

Auto front support butting machines 2.03.15 Team the dimension
stopper,
 7.3 Lesson Learnt

Stop not till the goal is reached.

Learnt experience in CNC machine clamping method

Started project for flat thread rejection but rack length under size rejection
also addressed.
 NEXT PROJECT

Imagination is more important than knowledge

- Albert Einstein