Objective - To Reduce Dimensional Variation in Deburring Process

PROJECT REPORT ON HIGH REJECTION RATE OF COVER DU (IFSS)
DURING DEBURRING OPERATION

OBJECTIVE -TO REDUCE DIMENSIONAL VARIATION IN DEBURRING PROCESS.
PROJECT SELECTION- DATA COLLECTION FOR HIGH REJECTION RATE
TIME DURATION 01 SEPTEMBER TO 12 SEPTEMBER DATA FROM (CPS QA

& SHOP PLANNING )
JOB
ALLOTED
OFFER QA ACCEPTED DEVIATI
REJ
R/W
Feedback
-ON
100 100 44
25 14 05
100 100 59
19 20 02
Rework 13%
&
COVER
DU
TOTAL
100 100 67
0 23 41
3
100 100 48
1 29 07
2
100 100 49
3 08
1
1
0
90
65
500
500
267
58
94
Rejection
18.8%
PROCESS MAP COVER (DU)

START (WITH DRG.
SHOPORDER)
GO TO PPC
O.K.
RAW MATERIAL DD
SHEET SHEARING
NOT OK
FINAL
INSPECTION
REJECTED
PUNCHING OPERATION
AS PER PROGRAMME
START PRODUCTION
NOT OK
SCRAPPED
O.K.
FIRST OF OK
INSPECTION
First Off
NOT OK
DEBURRING OPERATION
NOT OK
DEBURRINGG OPERATION
INSPECTION
First Off
O.K.
START PRODUCTION
IMPACT OF THE PROBLEM IT EFFECT THE SYSTEM IFSS.

--IFSS IS INTEGRATED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, WHICH IS USED IN
MBT TANK ,IF FIRE THREAT OCCUR THIS IFSS SYSTEM OPERATE IMMEDIATELY,
--THIS PART COVER (DU) DURING LEAKAGE TEST OPERATION, MAY HELP IN
LEAKAGE.
--QULAITY PROBLEM.
--INTERNAL CUSTOMER SATISFIED.
59
NUMERICAL CONTROL TURRET PUNCH PRESS
AMADA
PROGR
AMMIN
G
COMPU
TER
COMPUTE
R
PROGRAMME
TAPE
PUNCH
READER
SHEET
SCRAP TRAY
TURRET WITH 24
STATIONS
MEASURING SCALE
60
SHEET CLAMPING FINGER
FOOT PRESS FOR CLAMP
41
TREND FOR
R/W,DEVIATION,REJECTION
20
JOBS
41
10
07
05
02
RE WORK
31
JOBS
20
25
31
19
12
03
JOBS
DEVIATION
14
29
23
20
08
REJECTION
JOB
ALLOTED
REJ
R/W
Feedback
-ON
COVER
DU CCPT
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
44
59
67
48
49
267
25
19
0
61 3
1
2
3
90
14
20
23
29
08
94
05
0
42
10
7
1
65
rework 13%
&
Rejection
18.8%
WHY WHY ANALYSIS

DE-BURRING OF JOB NOT PROPER
Why
HAND PRESSURE APPLIEDAT BRIDGES SURFACE,NOT PROPER. (using Belt Sander M/C)
Why
DURING BREAKING OPERATION , BRIDGES FOUND UNEVEN SIZE
Why
THERE IS NO PROPER SYSTEM
Why
THIS IS A CONVENTIONAL METHOD
How
( MAKE A SYSTEM FOR BREAKING BRIDGES )
( In punching process bridge is provided for holding the job at a time ,after punching over ,this
bridges got broken as per process, without break we can not use this )
62
FLOW DIGRAM FOR OPERATION
SHEARING
PUNCHING
DEBURRING
INSPECTION
REJECTION
IN THIS PROCESS
1. METHOD APPLIED FOR GRINDING
Factor considered
2
ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION
MANUALLY /MACHINE
- Must be done with carefully by filing

one by one
MORE TIME CONSUMING PROCESS
DEBURR BY MACHINE & USE CUTTING SPECIAL CUTTING SHARPEN FIXTURE
DESIGNING OF SHARP CUTTER
3. NEXT IDEA IMPLEMENTATION IN --- PUNCHING PROCESS

DIE & PUNCH TO BE REPLACED BY ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE BIG SIZE PUNCH
& DIE
63
6
X DIRECTION 20X5
Y- DIRECTION
PUNCH 12 X 4 MM
64
DE-BURRING MACHINE
ABRASIVE BELT
OFF
R
DE
AN E
S
IN
LT
BE ACH
M
ON
PRESSURE PAD
60
4 HOLES DIA2.8&CSK TO DIA 4..5 AT 90 DEG.
3MM
40 MM
COVER DU CCPT
32MM
2.0MM
48MM
50MM
AFTER DEBURR, REJECTED JOBS
FIRST STEP
SECOND STEP
60
THIRD STEP
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM
MAN
DEBURRING
BY BELT SENDER
UN TRAINED
OPERATOR
FILING OF JOB NOT PROPER
SKILL NESS
OF
OPERATOR
HANDLING OF
JOBS
ATTITUDE
SEQUENCE OF
OPERATION IS
NOT PROPER
SOFT MATERIAL
BELT
SANDER
BELT
QUALITY
VARIATION
MACHINE
COLD SHUT IN
MATERIAL
DEBURRING
DEBURRING
DONE
MANUALLY
& BY
MACHINE
MATERIAL
PRESSURE
APPLIED
AT CERTAIN
POINT IN
DEBURRING
OPERATION
REJECTION
IN
DEBURRING
OPERATION
JOB HANDLING PROBLEM
METHOD
CHANCE CAUSE
(Which can not be solved
BRIDGES
IN PROGRAMMING
IS TAKEN MORE
CAUSE & EFFECT

DIAGRAM
ASSIGNABLE CAUSE
).
Bending quality of sheets

Cold shut material
Location of guide
job reference point
(Which can
be solved.)
Skill ness of operator (use only trained operator)

Handling of jobs
(can handle carefully)
Pressure applied
( USE CONTROLLED PRESSURE)
Die punch not proper (use proper die &punch as per standard)
Sequence of operation (as per process sheet
QUALITY OF DEBURR JOB ( ensure by inspection)
Attitude
(can be improve by training)
60
10
Solution for DEBURRING/FILING

Alternative Method
DESIGNING OF SHARP CUTTER
USE PUNCH
IDEA
REJECTED
60
11
X -DIRECTION
PUNCH 50 X4 MM
Y- DIRECTION
PUNCH45 X 8 MM
MODIFIED PUNCHING OPERATION
60
12
QTY IN NUMBERS
SAMPLE
(QUALITY ASSURANCE ANALYSIS)

JOB
COVER
ALLOTED
PROCESS
-ON
AFTER
IMPLEMENTING
NEW
REJ
R/W
Feedback
500 500 495 05 00 00

500 100 498 00 00 02
rework 0.2%
&
0 00 02
no Rejection
2
0 00 00
ORIGIN-CPS/QA
1
500 100 496

500 100 499
60
13
cutting
cuttingof
ofjobs
jobsin
in16
16
stroke
stroke
6
JOB
1
4
3
8
60
SCRAP
MATERIAL
PUNCHING
OPERATION
14
cutting
cuttingof
ofjobs
jobsin
in12
12
stroke
stroke
BRIDGE
8
4
NOTE -
TIME SAVING BY FOUR STROKE

INCREASES TOOL LIFE BECAUSE PUNCH HIT IS LESS
TWO CUT, SAVED BY ONE CUT. MATERIAL IS SAVED
60
15
COMPARISON
%
18.8% REJECTION
BEFORE
AFTER
13 % REWORK
BEFORE
AFTER
Rework Up to 0.2%
Rejection Upto - ZERO%
60
16
ACTIVITY CHART
Sr
activity
COMPLETION DATE & 04/07/09
no STARTING DATE & 04/07/09
DEFINATION OF PROBLEM
ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM
3
01
ANALYSIS DATA
SOLUTIONS
DATA COLLECTION
IMPLEMENTATION
FEED BACK
CONTINUE
60
17
SAVING CALCULATION
Standard time given by IED = SET UP
+ PER PIECE
0.001HRS + 0.1 HRS
Total job required = 1200 nos

TOTAL TIME TAKEN IN ONE PIECE =
0.1 HRS PER PIECE
Rejection rate of jobs (18.8%)

=1200X 18.8/100 = 226 NOS
ONE LOT FOR 250 QTY SHOWS 18.8% REJECTION OF MATERIAL.
1200/250=5 BATCHES APPROX
WASTAGE OF TOTAL STANDARD TIME = 168NOS OF JOBS
= SAVING FOR FIVE BATCHES 250 = 22.6 HRS
TIME SAVING I N MONEY TERMS =
= 22.6 X( LABOUR COST 375/-) = Rs 8475/Material
saving for 226 jobs = ( 35 KG) x RS120/-= Rs 7910/
Total saving = TIME SAVING IN MONEY TERMS

=8475 + MATERIAL SAVING 7910/= Rs 16,385INCREASES TOOL LIFE
BECAUSE PUNCH HIT IS LESS
60
18
I Sincerely thanks-
SRI B.P. Srivastava Sr DGM (Unit Quality) & BEL Management for
providing me an opportunity to learn these techniques .
&
Mr. Sunil Srivastava Mr. Jai Singh, Mr. A.K.Badola to their support to
complete this project
60
19

Objective - To Reduce Dimensional Variation in Deburring Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objective - To Reduce Dimensional Variation in Deburring Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objective - To Reduce Dimensional Variation in Deburring Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT REPORT ON HIGH REJECTION RATE OF COVER DU (IFSS)

DURING DEBURRING OPERATION

TIME DURATION 01 SEPTEMBER TO 12 SEPTEMBER DATA FROM (CPS QA

OFFER QA ACCEPTED DEVIATI

PROCESS MAP COVER (DU)

IMPACT OF THE PROBLEM IT EFFECT THE SYSTEM IFSS.

NUMERICAL CONTROL TURRET PUNCH PRESS

OFFER QA ACCEPTED DEVIATI

WHY WHY ANALYSIS

( MAKE A SYSTEM FOR BREAKING BRIDGES )

FLOW DIGRAM FOR OPERATION

1. METHOD APPLIED FOR GRINDING

- Must be done with carefully by filing

DEBURR BY MACHINE & USE CUTTING SPECIAL CUTTING SHARPEN FIXTURE

DESIGNING OF SHARP CUTTER

3. NEXT IDEA IMPLEMENTATION IN --- PUNCHING PROCESS

4 HOLES DIA2.8&CSK TO DIA 4..5 AT 90 DEG.

AFTER DEBURR, REJECTED JOBS

FILING OF JOB NOT PROPER

JOB HANDLING PROBLEM

CAUSE & EFFECT

Bending quality of sheets

Skill ness of operator (use only trained operator)

Solution for DEBURRING/FILING

DESIGNING OF SHARP CUTTER

MODIFIED PUNCHING OPERATION

(QUALITY ASSURANCE ANALYSIS)

OFFER QA ACCEPTED DEVIATI

500 500 495 05 00 00

500 100 496

TIME SAVING BY FOUR STROKE

Rejection Upto - ZERO%

no STARTING DATE & 04/07/09

0.001HRS + 0.1 HRS

Total job required = 1200 nos

0.1 HRS PER PIECE

Rejection rate of jobs (18.8%)

saving for 226 jobs = ( 35 KG) x RS120/-= Rs 7910/

Total saving = TIME SAVING IN MONEY TERMS

BECAUSE PUNCH HIT IS LESS

You might also like