Tool replacement for production with a low fraction of defectives

In manufacturing industry, the tool replacement cost is, in many cases, a significant portion of the production cost. Early tool replacement increases the production cost. Overdue tool replacement, however, results in poor production quality. Accordingly, improving production quality while maintaining a low production cost is essential. The index Cpk is regarded as a yield-based index. For a fixed Cpk value, the production yield and fraction of defectives can be calculated. In this paper, we present an analytical approach using Cpk to determine the optimal tool replacement time. An accurate process capability must be calculated, particularly when the data contain assignable cause variation. Tool wear is a dominant and inseparable component in many machining processes (a systematic assignable cause), and ordinary capability measures become inaccurate because process data are contaminated by the assignable cause variation. Considering process capability changes dynamically, an estimator of Cpk is investigated. The closed form of the exact sampling distribution is derived. An effective tool management procedure for determining the optimal tool replacement time is presented for processes with a low fraction of defectives. For illustrative purposes, an application example involving tool wear is presented.

[1]  Fred Spiring,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Quality Control , 2007, Technometrics.

[2]  Irving Wingate Burr,et al.  Elementary statistical quality control , 1979 .

[3]  Mark A. McComb Measuring Process Capability , 1998 .

[4]  Robert H. Kushler,et al.  Confidence Bounds for Capability Indices , 1992 .

[5]  Kwok-Leung Tsui,et al.  A review and interpretations of process capability indices , 1999, Ann. Oper. Res..

[6]  A. Vasilopoulos,et al.  Modification of Control Chart Limits in the Presence of Data Correlation , 1978 .

[7]  Neil S Barnett Measuring process capability , 1990 .

[8]  Layth C. Alwan,et al.  Time-Series Modeling for Statistical Process Control , 1988 .

[9]  Fred A. Spiring,et al.  A New Measure of Process Capability: Cpm , 1988 .

[10]  Fred A. Spiring Assessing Process Capability in the Presence of Systematic Assignable Cause , 1991 .

[11]  Kerstin Vännman,et al.  A uniformed approach to capability indices , 1995 .

[12]  John S. Oakland,et al.  Process capability indices―an overview of theory and practice , 1991 .

[13]  Robert N. Rodriguez Recent Developments in Process Capability Analysis , 1992 .

[14]  Samuel Kotz,et al.  Process Capability Indices—A Review, 1992–2000 , 2002 .

[15]  Walton M. Hancock,et al.  Statistical quality control for correlated samples , 1990 .

[16]  Samuel Kotz,et al.  Process Capability Indices , 1993 .

[17]  Samuel Kotz,et al.  A superstructure of capability indices : distributional properties and implications , 1995 .

[18]  Erik Wallgren Properties of the Taguchi capability index for Markov dependent quality characteristics , 1998 .

[19]  Charles P. Quesenberry,et al.  An SPC Approach to Compensating a Tool-Wear Process , 1988 .

[20]  Wen Lea Pearn,et al.  Lower confidence bounds with sample size information for Cpm applied to production yield assurance , 2003 .

[21]  Kerstin Vännman,et al.  Distributional properties of estimated capability indices based on subsamples , 2003 .

[22]  Russell A. Boyles,et al.  The Taguchi capability index , 1991 .

[23]  Roger M. Sauter,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Quality Control (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[24]  Fred A. Spiring,et al.  A Bibliography of Process Capability Papers , 2003 .

[25]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Distributional and Inferential Properties of Process Capability Indices , 1992 .

[26]  Lora S. Zimmer,et al.  Process Capability Indices in Theory and Practice , 2000, Technometrics.

[27]  Fred A. Spiring,et al.  A Unifying Approach to Process Capability Indices , 1997 .