CATAPULT PROJECT

Group Members:• Abdullah Amini • Kia Vakili • Pedram Karam Beigi• Ramit Shrivastav • Riyanka Daga• Roozbeh Zad

Professor: Jay Hamade May 8th, 2012

D M A I C

DEFINE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL

Problem statement

Problem objective

sipoc

metrics

PROBLEM STATEMENT

• 35% of our Middle East customers that are currently using

the latest Catapult-Forza, are returning the product

launched in January 2012 for their military training

purposes because the distance travelled by the ball doesn’t

meet their requested specification range of 200 +- 2

inches. Resulting in a negative profit impact of $10M and

reducing market share around 20%.

PROJECT OBJECTIVE

• Reducing the product returns from our middle east

customers from 35% to 15% by the end of May 2012 to

save $5.7M, by modifying and revising the hardware and

functionality of the Catapult-Forza , such that it can meet

customers shooting specification range (200 +- 2 inches) in

every attempt.

S-I-P-O-CPROCESSSUPPLIER INPUT

Ohio Willow Wood

Wood

Hercules Rubbers Rubber Bands

Bolt Depot Screws & Bolts

Woodcraft Blueprints

Archbold Co Labor

Dewalt Tools

1. Cut The Wood As Per Dimensions

2. Drill Holes In The Wood As Per Dimensions

3. Join The Sides and The Arm To The Base

4. Punch In The Screws and The Bolts

5. Fit The Rubber Bands

6. Fix The Ball Holding Shell

OUTPUT CUSTOMER

Catapult with Desired

Specifications

Military Training

Academy

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY METRICS

• Primary Metric is used to measure process performance

and is the gage used to measure success.

• In this case distance travelled by the ball is our primary

metric

• Secondary Metrics is the vertical distance from the location

of our catapult to the floor

MEASURE PHASE

DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL

Gage R&R

Normality test

Capability test

metrics

GAUGE R&R ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

5 Different Parts (Shoot by Catapult)

1. Black Stone

2. Marble Ball

3. White Stone

4. Paper Clip

5. Gray Stone

3 Different Operators (Measuring the Distance)

Randomized Reading

GAGE R&R GRAPHICAL OUTPUT The following charts are the result of running Gage R&R study for the collected data

(measurements) by operators.

Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R

100

50

0

Per

cent

% Contribution

% Study Var

10

5

0

Sam

ple

Ran

ge

_R=4.74

UCL=12.20

LCL=0

Zad Abdulla Pedram

240

220

200Sam

ple

Mea

n

__X=210.68

UCL=215.53

LCL=205.83

Zad Abdulla Pedram

marble-ballgrey-stonewhite-stonepaper-clipBlack-stone

240

220

200

Parts

PedramAbdullaZad

240

220

200

Operators

marble-ballgrey-stonewhite-stonepaper-clipBlack-stone

240

220

200

Parts

Ave

rage

AbdullaPedram

Zad

Operators

Gage name: Date of study: 03/06/12

Reported by: Tolerance: Misc:

Components of Variation

R Chart by Operators

Xbar Chart by Operators

Results by Parts

Results by Operators

Operators * Parts Interaction

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Results

GAGE R&R ANALYSIS

Components of Variation

“Part-to-Part“ variation is 98.32% .

Repeatability and Reproducibility together have a total of 1.67% of variation.

This is an ideal result which shows the accuracy and consistency of operators’ measurements.

R-Chart by Operators

It shows all the measurements performed by different operators.

Most measurements that were recorded were very close to the average.

X-Bar Chart by Operators

The above X-Bar chart shows that some points are inside the control limits. This means these parts

variations (third and fourth parts) are not easy to detect. This chart shows our measurement system is

making it difficult to measure part to part differences for part three and four for operator one and two but

for operator three just part three is inside the limit and difficult to measure .

GAGE R&R ANALYSIS

Results by Parts

The measurements that were taken should vary little from each other.

Most measurements that were recorded were very close to the average.

The Marble ball readings were the most accurate measurements recorded compared to other parts.

Results by Operators

The above chart shows the measurement of each part by each operator. In this case the total number of

measurement is 15 (5 Parts x 3 Times).

The variations between the measurements of each operator is different. The averages are varying for all 3

Operators. Ideally, the variation in measurement of each operator must be the Same.

Reasons are Human Errors, Reduction in Elasticity Of The Rubber Band, Instrument Related Errors, Setup

For Measurements

Operators / Parts Interaction

Average measurement taken by each operator on each part

The variation in the measurement is very low

NORMALITY TEST

Select one part for the Normality Test – Marble Ball

Shoot the ball 30 times from the catapult

244242240238236234232

99

95

90

80

70

605040

30

20

10

5

1

Result

Perc

ent

Mean 237.7StDev 2.150N 30AD 0.958P-Value 0.013

Probability Plot of ResultNormal

PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS

240234228222216210204198

LSL USL

LSL 198Target *USL 202Sample Mean 237.677Sample N 30Shape 117.598Scale 238.751

Process DataPp 0.24PPL 3.25PPU -7.82Ppk -7.82

Overall Capability

PPM < LSL 0.00PPM > USL 1000000.00PPM Total 1000000.00

Observed Performance

PPM < LSL 0.00PPM > USL 1000000.00PPM Total 1000000.00

Exp. Overall Performance

Process Capability of ResultCalculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model

METRICS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 300

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Results LSL USL

ANALYZE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL

Process Map

Fishbone diagram

C&E Analysis

FMEA

DETAILED PROCESS MAP

Cut the Wood as per

DimensionDrill Holes

Fix the Rubber band & Install

Angel Measurement

Assembly of Arms and Base

• Wood C

• Tools C

• Blue Prints S

• Operator N

• Supplier S

• Base C

• Arms C

• Arm Holder C

• Object

Holder C

• Tools C

• Blue Prints S

• Operator N

• Arms C• Base C• Arm Holder C • Position of

Pin on Fixed Arm C

• Position of Pin on Moving Arm C

• Tools C• Blue Prints S

• Assembly of Catapult C

• Rubber band N

• Nuts S• Bolts S• Operator N• Angel of

moving Arm C

Arm HolderBaseArms

Object Holder

Arm HolderBaseArms

Partially Assembled

Catapult

Input Input Input Input

Catapult-Forza

FISHBONE DIAGRAM

TOP 3 CAUSES

1. Angel of Moving Arm

2. Position of Pin on Fixed Arm

3. Position of Pin on Moving Arm

C & E MATRIX

Rating of Importance to Customer 1 1 1 10

Process Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

unassembled arm,base,shell

Arms base and sides with holes

partially assembled catapult

catapult Total

Process Step Process Input

1 cut the wood as per dimension wood 1 1 1 5 532 tools 1 1 1 1 133 blueprint 5 5 1 1 214 operators 10 5 1 1 265 suppliers 10 1 1 1 226 Drill holes Base 1 10 1 1 227 arm 10 1 1 5 628 arm holder 5 5 1 1 219 tools 5 5 1 1 21

10 operators 5 1 1 1 1711 blueprint 5 1 5 1 2112 shell 5 1 1 1 1713 assemble arms and base arm 1 1 5 5 5714 base 1 1 5 1 1715 arm holder 1 1 5 1 1716 operators 1 1 5 5 57

17 position of pin in stationary arm 1 10 5 10 116

18 position of pin on moving arm

1 10 10 10 121

19 blueprint 1 1 5 5 5720 tools 1 1 5 1 17

21 Fix rubberband and angular measurmentpartially assembled catapult

1 1 10 5 62

22 rubber band 1 1 5 5 5723 angle of moving arm 1 1 10 10 11224 nuts and bolts 1 1 10 1 2225 operators 1 1 5 5 57

Total 71 63 61 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lower Spec

Target

Upper Spec

FMEA ANALYSIS

Page 1 of 1

Responsible Actions Taken SEV OCC DET RPNWho is responsible for the recommended

action?What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? Be sure to

include completion month/year.

Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed position of the pin is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 1 1 10Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed position of the pin is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 1 1 10Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed angle of operation is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 5 1 50

Process or Product Name: CATAPULT Prepared by: GROUP 3

Responsible: GROUP 3 FMEA Date: (Orig.) 04/06/2012 (Rev.)

Process Step/Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEV Potential Causes OCC

Current Controls

DET RPN Actions RecommendedPrevent DetectWhat is the process step/input under

investigation?In what ways does the input

go wrong?What is the impact on the

Output Variables (Customer Requirements) or internal requirements?

How sever is the effect to the customer?

What causes the input to go wrong?

How often does cause of FM occur?

What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that prevent/detect either the Cause or Failure Mode?

Should include an SOP number.

How well can you

detect cause

or FM?

What are the actions for reducing the occurrence of the Cause, or improving

detection? Should have actions only on high RPN’s or easy fixes.

Position of the pin on stationary armInappropriate Position of the

pinDistance wanted not

achieved 10Wrong hole selected for the

pin 5Inspecting to avoid errors in

specificationsTest and find the location of the

pin 3 150 Testing and Finding appropriate pin position

Position of the pin on moving armInappropriate Position of the

pinDistance wanted not

achieved 10Wrong hole selected for the

pin 10Inspecting to avoid errors in

specificationsTest and find the location of the

pin 3 300 Testing and Finding appropriate pin position

Angle of the moving arm Improper selection of angleDistance wanted not

achieved 10 Wrong angle selected 10Inspecting to determine the angle of

operationTest and find the appropriate

angle 5 500 Testing and Finding appropriate angle

IMPROVE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL

DOE

Interaction Plot

Pareto Chart

Equation

PARETO CHART OF THE EFFECTS

• Minitab displays the absolute value of the Effects on the Pareto Chart• The Chart shows which Effects are active meaning which effects are affecting the distance• The plot shows that Position of the Pin on Stationary Arm is active• Chart also shows the interaction between other factors

INTERACTION PLOT FOR RESULTS• This Graph helps us look at the

Significant Interaction between the 3 sources of error

• It tells us how big each effect is• Here, In order to get highest yield from

our experiment, angle should be set to point 4, position of the stationary pin should be set to 3 and position of the pin on the moving arm to 3

NORMAL PLOT OF THE EFFECTS

• The Normal Plot and Pareto Chart shows which effects influence the yield• The graphs shows all the points are outside the fitted line hence active

MAIN EFFECTS PLOT FOR RESULTS• The Plot shows the effects of changing angle

and the positions of the pins on the stationary and moving arm

• Here we can see that the Positions of the Pins on the Stationary Arm has the major effect on achieving the target spec and then the Position of the Pin on Moving Arm

Factors Size Of Effect

Interpretation

Angle +15.17 Runs at 4 had better yields than runs at 2

Pin Stationary

+57.29 Runs at 3 had better yields than runs at 1

Pin Moving

+33.45 Runs at 3 had better yields than runs at 1

CUBE PLOT FOR RESULT• From The Cube Plot, In order To Get The

Desired Specification Of The Distance i.e. 78.74 inches,

The Angle should be set to point 4

The Position of the Pin on the Fixed Arm should be between 1 & 3

The Position of the Pin on the Stationary Arm should also be between 1 & 3

OPTIMIZATION PLOT

• As the name suggest, the plot gives the combination of effects for optimum efficiency, i.e. to meet the desired specifications

• In our case, The Angles should be set to point 4

The Position of the Pin on the Fixed Arm should be at point 1.7822

The Position of the Pin on the Stationary Arm should be at point 1.4021

FORMULA

Y = F(X)

Target Value = F (Position of Pin On Stationary Arm) + F (Position of Pin On Moving Arm) +

F (Angle Of Moving Arm)

78.74 = F(1.7822) + F(1.4021) + F(4.0)

CONTROL PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL

IMR Chart

X Bar – R chart

Normality Plot

Conclusion

BLUE PRINT WITH MODIFICATIONS

1.7822

4

1.4021

I-MR CHART

PROCESS NORMALITY PLOTThe Normality plot shows a scatter plot of the measurements and the line of best fit. More points are on and closer to the line of best fit comparatively. The P-Value is 0.703 which proves our distribution is normal.

PROCESS CAPABILITY PLOTThe Process Capability test shows that the Cpk is 0.51 which is better than our previous Cpk value. However the process is still not capable.

Xbar-R CHART• The X bar chart shows

The points are the average of each subgroup

The red control limits which shows the process in under control as none of the points are outside the UCL and LCL

The green line is the overall average which is the mean X bar which is 78.537

• The R bar chart shows The points as difference in the

largest and the smallest measurement within each sub group

The green line is the grand average of each points which is the mean R bar which is 0.753

The red lines are the upper and lower control limits and here none of the points are outside the UCL and LCL

CURRENT SIGMA LEVEL

• Sigma Level = Cpk x 3

• Current Cpk = 0.51

• Current Sigma Level = 0.51 x 3 = 1.53

CONCLUSION

• All the Data points in the Xbar and R chart are within the UCL and LCL hence the process is in control.

• The Cpk of the process has increased from -7.82 to 0.51.

• Further Analysis is required to increase the Cpk and Sigma level.

THANK YOU!!