PU: - Date:-

QC Story Reporting Format --- TQM 21

Step QC Story Steps Guidelines

No.
1 PROBLEM - Identification & Definition
1.1 Problem Selected: Field Failure of control valve.

1.2 Project Title i.e. Problem Definition

Field Failure of Control valve assembly (Avg. 16/month) causing high customer
dissatisfaction & COPQ app. Rs.181440/annum. (Rs. 945/ Pc.)

1
1.3 Organization

Team:

Facilitator : Mr. Jatinder Rajpal

a) Project Leader : M C Gupta (QE)

b) Project Members: 1. Mr. J S Sohal (R & D)

2 Mr. Sunny Walia (Field Quality)

3 Mr. D S Bhalla (QE)

4 Mr AJAY THAKUR

1.4 Duration of the Project

a) Date of Commencement: 18th Nov. ’09

b) Date of closure: 31st Mar,10

1.5 Mission statement: To eliminate the field Failure of Control valve resulting improvement
in customer satisfaction and reduction in COPQ.

2
1.6 History of the Problem: warranty data for six months analyzed is shown below:-

Total field failures

30 26
25 23

20 18
14 14
Qty

15 11 Total
10
5
0
June,09 July,09 Aug,09 Sep,09 Oct,09 Nov,09
Month

Inference: An average of 16 control valves fails every month.

R/100 Trend chart from Mar-09 to Nov-09

R/100 trend of control valve failures

0.2

0.15
R/100

0.1

0.05

0
Mar,09

June,09
May,09

July,09

Sep,09

Nov,09
Aug,09

Oct,09
Apr,09

Production Month

1.7 Redefined Problem and Project with NA.

Target

(if required)
1.8 History of the Redefined Problem

NA

2 OBSERVATION – Recognition of Features of the Problem

2.1 Observation of the Process
3
2.2 Observation of Symptoms:-

N.A

2.3 Observation of Variation

Na
2.4 Redefined Problem & Project with Target

Na

3 ANALYSIS – Discovery of Main Root Causes

3.1 Possible Causes

Analysis of control valves failed in field

4
 A n a ly s is o f fa ile d p c s . in fie ld

30

25
7 2
20 1
S lo w L iftin g
Quantity

15 4 0 N o t w o rk ing
2
21 D ro p p ing
10 19 3
13 12 14
5 8
0
J une ,0 9 J uly,0 9 A u g ,0 9 S e p ,0 9 O c t,0 9 N o v,0 9
M o n th

P a r e t o A n a ly s is

100 87
80
60
Qty

40
18
20
1
0
D ro p p in g N o t w o rk in g S lo w L ift in g
D e f e c ts

(Y)

Failure of Control Valve

Assembly

(X1) (X2) (X3)

Lift not working Lift dropping Slow lifting
5
3.2 Cause and Effect Diagram:-

Dropping Problem:-

Spoo
bush
Taper & Ovality in
bush & spool NOT OK

Cause Effect diagram:-

Not working problem:-

Linear dimension of bush

spool valve NOT OK 6
 Spoo
bush
Taper & Ovality in
bush & spool NOT OK

3.4 Probable Causes

Sn Defects Causes
o
Dropping 1. Taper & Ovality in bush & spool excess
1 2. Clearance between spool and bush excess.
3. Interference between bush & housing NOT
OK

Linear dimension of bu
4. Change of oil viscosity due to variation in
temp.
5. Operator not trained
6. Measurement system not ok
7. Reproducibility error

spool valve NOT OK

8. Repeatability error

2. Not Working 1. Less clearance between bush & poppet valve

2. Distortion in clearance due to temp.

7
3.5 Testing of Hypothesis:-

S.No Defects Probable Causes Testing Of Hypothesis

Hypothesis Validation
1. Dropping 1. Taper & Ovality in 25 pieces In-Valid
bush & spool checked
excess And found
within
drawing
spec.

25 pieces In-valid
2. Clearance between checked
spool and bush And found
excess. within
drawing
spec.

25 pieces
3. Interference checked In-valid
between bush & And found
housing NOT OK within
drawing
spec.

4. Change of oil DOE valid

viscosity due to conducted
variation in temp. (Earlier
case study
available
from Relief
valve
assembly
field failure
project)

5. Operator not
Personnel
trained
discussion Valid
with
operator
(Questionn
aire)
6. Measurement
system not ok Only visual Valid
check
(attribute
data
available)

7. Reproducibility
error
10 pieces Valid

8
 checked at
supplier
end , 4
found
rejected at
swaraj end

2. Not 1. Less clearance 25 pieces Invalid

Working between bush & checked
poppet valve and found
within drg.
Spec..

2. Distortion in Experiment Valid

clearance due to temp. conducted.

Quick win Control Valve not working problem

Case :
Rejections Produced (not working problem) at Assembly test rig and

at roller testing stage analyzed at quality test rig found working ok.

When tightening of nut was done with torque wrench (even torquing) defective control
valve converted into ok condition.( earlier those were defective on test rig).

Analysis:

Trial : Behaviour of 6 control valves (Field failure) at different torque level was analysed and
results are as under

Torque Value (Lbs) CV1 CV2 CV3 CV4 CV5 CV6

55 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
60 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
65 Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
70 Ok Not Ok Ok Ok Ok Ok
75 Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok
80 Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok
85 Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok Not Ok

Conclusion: From the above experiment it is clear that beyond 65 Lbs torque ok pcs converted
into Not ok.

Root Cause: Wrapage effect of mounting face area due to less thickness thus variation in
clearence between Bush and spool contributing to not working of control valve.

9
 Remedial action:
1. Thickness of mounting face from centre of bush was 18 mm now
change to 20 mm to reduce the warpage effect .
2. Torquing value added in SOP at supplier test rig.
3. Torquing value added in SOP at Rear cover test rig at Swaraj .
4. Torque wrench introduced at supplier end for proper torquing at testing.

Piloting
This experiment was conducted on 20 control valves.

Manual torquing – (ok -17) (Not ok – 3)

Torquing with torque wrench (ok-20)

Improvement steps taken:

1. Thickness of mounting face from centre of bush was 18 mm now

change to 20 mm to reduce the warpage effect .

2. Torquing of mounting bolts at of 65 Lbs introduced at supplier end

During testing at rig . (earlier there was no torquing process at

supplier end during testing at rig ).

3. SOP for torquing displayed on respective stages and training to operators. (at swaraj as

well as at supplier end).

Results :
No control valve found having not working problem in

field after preventive actions taken.

3.6 Root Causes identified:

Sn Defects Causes
o
10
 1 Dropping 1. Change of oil viscosity due to variation in
temp.
2. Operator not trained
3. Measurement system not ok
4. Reproducibility error

Root Cause / Improvement Matrix

S. no. Root cause Improvement steps

1. Change of oil viscosity due to variation in Oil grade changed on test
temp. rig from EP 80 to VG 46.

2. Operator not trained Training to operators.

3. Measurement system not ok New measurement system

to be introduced introduced
4. Reproducibility error Training given to operators
at swaraj end as well as
supplier end.

Homogeneous
measurement system
introduced at swaraj end as
well as supplier end.

SOP displayed on respective

stages.

4 ACTION – To eliminate each Root Cause

4.1 Development of Remedies

a) Dropping

 Test rig oil changed from EP-80 to VG-46 at supplier end for early defect detection

 SOP for testing displayed on rear cover as well as on roller testing.

 Awareness training program conducted on hydraulics for plant operators.

 Dropping parameters are added in PDI reports submitted by supplier for cross
checking.

 Measurement system introduced to check dropping at supplier and at Swaraj (on

rear cover stage and on roller testing stage) earlier it was attribute data & now it is
in variable form.

b) Not working:

11
• Wall thickness increased from 18 to 20mm to avoid the sticky of unloading valve
during tightening of mounting bolts at 65 pounds. To avoid the deformation in the bore
(bush) during Torquing to accommodate the variations in flatness of rear cover and
valve body. R&D alteration.

12
 Measurement system at rear cover stage.

Measurement system at roller testing.

4.2 RESULT AFTER IMPROVEMENT:

13
 R /100 tren d o f co n tro l valve failu res
Project
0.2
closed
R/100 0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Mar,09

Jan,10

Feb,10

Mar,10
May,09

July,09

Sep,09

Nov,09

Dec,09

May,10
June,09

Oct,09
Aug,09
Apr,09

Apr,10
Pro d u ctio n M o n th

5 CHECK – Confirmation of Effectiveness of actions

5.1 After Project Results (For at least 3 Still in monitoring phase.
months)
5.2 Return on Investment

• Total Saving / Additional Revenue

generated (Recurring / One Time)

• Total Investment

• ROI
5.3 Intangible Benefits • Customer satisfaction increased.
5.4 Adverse Effects (If any)
6 STANDARDIZATION – Sop made and displayed at respective
manufacturing stages/Testing stages.
Permanent Elimination of
Problem
6.1 List of Documents changed Drawing alteration for wall thickness
change introduced (a/5 18.10.2009)

SOP Assy.T1/RCS/70/05 introduced at

respective testing stages.
6.2 Training given to concerned people Training given to manufacturing operators.

Training given to inspection people.

6.3 Additional audit checks introduced for Weekly audit by SQI team planned.

a. Ensuring adherence to SOPs Submission of detailed PDI report made

14
 and Standards mendatory including dropping rate results

b. Monitoring results (100% inspection)

achieved
7 CONCLUSION -
7.1 Lessons Learnt Out of box thinking is the best way to
come out of problems.

7.2 Horizontal Deployment Other two suppliers manufacturing control

a) Areas identified valve.

b) Implementation Plan

7.3 Critiquing : What went right and what

went wrong during the improvement
journey for this project)

15